ISSN: 0974-5823 Vol. 6 No.

3 December, 2021
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC AND

WIND LOADS OF RESIDENTAL BUILDING
WITH MATERIAL VARIATION
Mohannad Abdoa,*, Prof. D. Annapurnab
a University college of engineering, Osmania university, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
b
University college of engineering, Osmania university,Hyderabad,Telangana,India

ABSTRACT: the equal dimensions. In this research, the type of behavior of

In general, design of high structures requires horizontal loads different materials of the same values of wind and seismic loads
is gathered and analyzed with consideration of the equal
such as wind and seismic loads in addition to dead and live
dimensions o In addition to the structure's materials such as
loads. Consideration of horizontal loads divided to design of
concrete, steel or composite concrete and steel, were existed to
loads which will cause long term effects on structures like wind
design buildings, however, in this research the behavior of
forces that can cause torsion and creep. This effects can be
noticed on structural elements like columns, slabs, beams of different materials under simulation of the same values of wind
high and non-symmetrical buildings causing cracks, creep, and and seismic loads is analyzed and studied The study also
considered the use of a basic construction approach for each
shear failure. Careful design is needed in case of seismic and
type of material.
wind loads due to their sudden and fast effects on structures
showing within seconds.The overall goal is to design structures Under the modification in height of the designed buildings, the
to have more resistance to seismic and wind loads. Studying study demonstrates different values of Displacements, Drifts,
and analyzing seismic and wind effects on structures show Shear Forces, and Overturning Moment, Story stiffness
variation with respect to a height, materials and seismic zones. between RCC, STEEL, and COMPOSITE.
However, in this research the behavior of different materials When comparing the differences of various heights of one
under simulation of same values of wind and seismic loads is structure using Indian standard Code IS, however,
analyzed and studied by considering the equal dimensions of consideration of type of materials should be taken when
RCC, STEEL, and COMPOSITE buildings. The study also comparing heights of structure, followed by the effect of lateral
considered using basic system of construction for each type of loads, and at last, any surprises which may be realized while
material which are column, beams, and shear walls. The current making these comparisons.
research focus on the impact of seismic and wind loads on The answers to these questions can aid in determining which
reinforced concrete RCC, steel, and composite structures.
aspects require more research work and which do not.
Furthermore, the effect of building height varies from the
outcomes of this research, which includes a comprehensive The objective of this review is to provide some background
G+15, G+25, and G+35 height fluctuations. As a result, after information on how to use various materials in construction
analyzing and modeling the residential building with different and, in particular, how to deal for changes in building height.
materials and variation of height, Wind forces as a lateral effect When comparing RCC, STEEL, and Composite, there are
for Displacement, Drift, Shear Forces, Overturning Moment, several interacting aspects to consider. Simple comparisons of
and Story Stiffness is stronger than Seismic load on tall inter-story drift limitations and strength needs in different
buildings. The effect of both Wind and Seismic loads is decades, for example, can result in inaccurate predictions
increasing highly and severely with increase in the height of unless other values are taken into account.
building. Comparison of RCC,STEEL& COMPOSITE 1.1 Defining structure analyzing and designing:
buildings with the different parameters shows that the
Composite buildings is the best option for most of the tall In the pre-study will be G+15, G+25, and G+35 floors of
building considerations to resist Seismic and Wind loads. residential Building with material variation such as RCC,
STEEL, and COMPOSITE are chosen. Analysis is done by
Keywords: lateral loads Tall Buildings,various height and Response Spectrum method by using IS Code 1893 2016.
materials,Response Spectrum Method,Displacement.
Storydrift. Shear Forces, Overturning Moment, Story Stiffness 1.2 Seismic and Wind Design for RCC building;
Many assumptions must be addressed when building RCC
structures for seismic and wind resistance. Earthquakes create
1.Introduction impulsive ground motions that are complicated and irregular in
The study goal in this research is to create structures that are nature. Earthquakes are unlikely to happen at the same time as
more resistant to earthquakes and wind. The behavior of wind.
different materials under simulation of the same values of wind The following expression is used to calculate the horizontal
and seismic loads is analyzed and studied with consideration of seismic coefficient Ah for a structure:
Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 6 No. 3(December, 2021)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2545
Ah=Z*I*Sa/ (2*R*g) IS.1893.1.2002 clause 6.4.1 Story Shear forces is represented as:
The overall design seismic force received at each floor level
will be transferred to individual lateral load resisting elements.
Along each design will require, the total model lateral force or
design seismic base shear (VB) shall be computed by:
VB= Ah*W IS.1893.1.2002 clause 7.5.3
The empirical expression can be used to estimate the IS.1893.1.2002 clause 7.8.4.5.d
approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (T,), in The wind speeds recorded at any location are quite changeable,
seconds, of a moment-resisting frame building without brick and there are effects of gusts that can persist for a few seconds
infill panels: in addition to steady wind at any moment. These gusts raise air
Ta=0.075*h^0.75 for RCC IS.1893.1.2002 clause 7.6.1 pressure, but their impact on building stability may be minor;
generally, gusts affect only a portion of the structure, and the
The Vertical Distribution of Base Shear to Different Floor
higher local pressures may be more than offset by a brief drop
Levels and the design base shear (V) estimated in 7.5.3 shall be
in pressure elsewhere. To achieve design wind velocity at any
spread along the building's height as follows:
height (Vz) for the specified construction, the fundamental
wind speed (Vb) at any site must be changed to reflect the
following effects:
Vz =Vb* K1*K2*K3 IS.875.3.1987 clause 5.3
1.3 Seismic and Wind Design for STEEL building;
IS.1893.1.2002 clause 7.7.1
Steel frames must be constructed and detailed in such a way
Modal combination is Complete quadratic combination (CQC)
that they have the strength, stability, and ductility to shown
approach is used to combine peak response values (for
earthquakes in all IS 1893 (Part 1) zones without failing.
example, member forces, displacements, store forces, store
Frames that are part of a gravity load resisting system but are
shears, and base reactions).
not made to resist lateral seismic loads do not need to meet the
standards of this section if they can accept the consequent
deformation.
Notional horizontal forces should be given to a frame subjected
to gravity loads in order to determine the frame's sway stability.
IS.1893.1.2002 clause 7.8.4.4
These virtual horizontal forces should be taken at each level as
0.5 percent of factored dead load plus vertical imposed loads
The building with a regular or irregular plan configuration as a applied at that level to account for practical limitations. In the
system of messes lumped at the floor levels, each mass having analysis, the notional load should not be combined with other
one degree of freedom, lateral displacement in the direction of lateral loads like as wind and seismic loads.
interest. In this scenario, the following equations must be used The effects of design activities on a structure and its members
to compute the various numbers. and connections shall be determined by structural analysis with
The modal mass (Mk) is used to represent as: the assumptions in order to comply with the requirements of the
defined limit states of stability, strength, and serviceability.
 Elastic Analysis is when the Individual members are
considered to stay elastic under the action of the calculated
design loads for all limit states in elastic analysis.The influence
of hunching or any variation in the cross section along a
member's axis must be examined and, if substantial, taken into
IS.1893.1.2002 clause 7.8.4.5.a consideration when determining the stiffness of the member.
Modal Participation Factors (Pk) is represented as:  Plastic analysis is unless enough ductility of the
structure and plastic rotation capacity of its members and
connections are established under the design loading conditions
by other ways of evaluation, all of the following conditions
must be met when a plastic technique of analysis is used.
 Dynamic analysis in accordance with IS 1893 (Part 1).
IS.1893.1.2002 clause 7.8.4.5.bDesign Lateral Forces (Qik) is IS.800.2007 clause 4.1.d
The response reduction factors listed in Table 23 can be
combined with the IS 1893 provision for determining design
as follow: earthquake forces.
The story drift limitations must be in accordance with IS 1893.
IS 1893 further requires that members not designed to resist
seismic lateral load will be deformation safe (Part 1).
I.1893.1.2002 clause 7.8.4.5.c

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 6 No. 3(December, 2021)

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2546
Ordinary moment frames (OMF) should be verified to sustain Type of building: Residential Building
inelastic deformation corresponding to a joint rotation of 0.02 •Plinth area: 35 x 20 m
radians with no loss of strength or stiffness below the entire
yield value (MP). Ordinary moment frames that meet the •Number of Story’s: G+ 15, 25, 35 Floors
requirements of this section are judged to satisfy the inelastic •Floor height: 3.5m
deformation requirement.
•Dead load: Self Weight
The individual thickness of the column webs and doubler
plates, as follow: •SDL loads: 2 KN/m2
T ≥ (dp + bp)/90 IS.800.2007 clause 12.11.2.4 •Live load: 2 kN/m2
The empirical expression can be used to estimate the •Wall weight on beams = 2.87*1*0.2*3.5= 2 Kn/m2
approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (T), in •Slab depth: 150 mm
seconds, of a moment-resisting frame building without brick
infill panels: •Unit weight of masonry: 20 kn/m3

Ta=0.085*h^0.75 for STEEL IS.1893.1.2002 clause 7.6.1 •Unit weight of R.C.C: 25 kn/m3

1.4 Seismic and Wind Design for composite building •Unit weight of steel: 79 kn/m3

The compression strength of concrete is complemented by the •Grade of concrete: M30, M40, and M50 for R.C.C, Steel and
tension strength of steel, resulting in an efficient section. Composite model
Concrete and steel are used in a well-organized manner by the •Grade of steel: HYSD bars for reinforcement Fe 415
notion of this composite part. Steel concrete composite columns
•Fe 250 for Steel and Composite model
are compression members formed of both steel and concrete
parts. Composite columns are divided into two categories,
shown in Figure 1. 2.2 RCC Cross Sectional Details of Tall Building:
1. A concrete piece having a steel component inserted in it The cross sectional details of beams and columns of RCC
2. A concrete-filled hollow steel section. buildings considered in the design are prescribed in Table 1.
Table 1 cross sectional elements of RCC building

Figure 1 Composite columns

1.4.1 Structural Steel
All structural steels used shall, before fabrication conform to
IS: 1977-1975, IS: 2062-
1992, and IS: 8500-1977 as appropriate. Some of the structural 2.3 Steel Cross Sectional Details of Tall Building
steel grade commonly used in construction are as per IS: 961- A Special Plate Shear Wall (SPSW) is a structural system in
1975 and IS: 1977-1975. which the vertical elements of some SLRS are steel frames
1.4.2 Structural Concrete which are often restrained by thin steel plate walls. Inelastic
deformation of the structure is driven by the development of
The typical cube strengths (fck), fcu of concrete are measured
diagonal tension-field action in the web of the steel plate.
at 28 days and are used to specify its strength. The properties of
various concrete grades, as well as their EC4 values are SPSW are very ductile and may give an attractive design
considered according to IS: 456-2000 solution for buildings if the location of structural walls around
elevator, stairwell, and utility chase service cores may provide
IS: 11384-1985 Code for composite construction has prescribed
acceptable earthquake protection. Shear walls, like braced
µm =1.15 for structural Steel.
frames; exert significant overturning forces on foundations.
There is currently no Indian Standard code that covers the Furthermore, the massive field welding that this method
Seismic and wind analysis of Composite buildings. The requires result in rather high construction costs. Special Wall
proposed design method in this research is based on AISC 360- Shear Plate thickness is considered as 50 mm. The cross
16, which incorporates the recent composite building. The sectional details of beams and columns of steel building are
design method used in ETABS 2018 is mixed with both IS 875- given in Table 2.
2015 and AISC 360-16 for proposed composite structure.
Table 2 cross sectional elements of steel building

2 PROJECT DETAILS
The scope of study consists of one residential building;
dimensions are 35 m x 20 m, 35 m height and building consists
of G+15, 25, or 35 floors
2.1 Project Brief

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 6 No. 3(December, 2021)

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2547
 h3= G+35= 3.5+3.5*35= 126 m
T1 = 0.075 * h1^0.75 = 1.53
T2 = 0.075 * h2^0.75 =2.21
T3 = 0.075 * h3^0.75 =2.82

For Steel and Composite Frame:

T = 0.085 * h^0.75
Where, h = Height of building in meter
2.4 Composite Cross Sectional Details of Tall Building T1 = 0.085*56^0.75= 1.74
The cross sectional details of beams and columns of composite T2 = 0.085*91^0.75= 2.5
building are specified in Table 3. T3 = 0.085*126^0.75= 3.2
Table 3 cross sectional elements of composite building 3.2 Define Wind Load Cases: (Equivalent Static Method):
Static load applications with Exposure and Pressure
Coefficients, Wind Exposure Parameters, Exposure Height,
and Wind Coefficients, Wind Speed, Terrain Category,
Structure Class, and Risk Coefficient Factor are used to define
lateral loads.
Coefficients between Exposure and Pressure: The object's
exposure,
Wind Exposure Parameters:Use X&Y-Direction area forces
Wind Speed (Vb m/s): 44 m/s for Hyderabad City
Terrain Category: 2
Structure Class: C
Plan view and ETABS models of RCC, Steel and Composite
buildings are given in Figure 2,3. Risk Coefficient Factor (K1): 1.07
3.1 Define Earthquake Load Cases: Topography Factor (K2): 1 for slope < 3 degree
Definition Menu > Define > Static Load cases is where Where:
earthquake load scenarios are defined. EQX stands for Vb =44 m/s, basic wind speed for Hyderabad city (as per IS
earthquake load in the X direction, whereas EQY refers for 875-part-3, p-53, appendix A, fig-1 p-9).
earthquake load as in Y direction. For seismic analyses, three
main factors are crucial and must be considered. K1= 1.07, Probability factor (risk coefficient) (clause 5.3.1) (as
per IS 875-part-3, p-11, table-1.
Define direction of the force: X / Y with no eccentricity
K2= 1.1, 1.16, 1.19 Terrain, Height and Structure size factor
Define time period: 2.407 for R.C.C. model, 2.728 for Steel (as per IS 875-part-3, p-12, table-2) (Clause =5.3.2.2) (terrain
and Composite model category -2, class – c, height – 56, 91, 126 m).
Seismic zone, Z: 0.24 for ZONE IV, 0.16 for ZONE III K3 = 1 Topography Factor for slope < 3 degree.
Soil type: Hard soil
Importance factor, I: 1
Response reduction factor, R: 5 for R.C.C model
: 3 for Steel model
4 for Composite model
For R.C.C. Frame: without infill wall
T = Time periodIS 1893(Part 1): 2002, 7.6.2
(Time of oscillation)
T = 0.075 * h^0.75 RCC Plan View
Where, h = Height of building in meter ETABS Model
h1= G+15= 3.5+15*3.5= 56 m
h2= G+25= 3.5+3.5+25 = 91 m

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 6 No. 3(December, 2021)

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2548
 Displacements and Drift analysis is crucial for all types of
structures. Displacements occurs under horizontal forces such
as seismic and wind forces which may cause a strong effect to
the structure, the effect of displacement may led to collapse of
structure’s elements if the displacement was not considered
during the design step, the high value of Displacement can also
destroy the structure when the structure suffers from high value
of seismic and wind loads alternatively.
Allowed Drift or displacement values depends of the Response
factor which is related to the type of structure like residential,
commercial industrial buildings (Importance Factor clause
Steel Plan View 7.2.3). In addition to the height of structure itself.
ETABS Model  Maximum Displacement Value for Concrete
frame:
Figure 2 plan view and model of buildings
The max value for the concrete building as IS 456-2000 Clause
20.5 P.33 is:
∆wl≤ H/500
H : the total hight of the building.
For G+15, H= 56m
56m/500= 112mm
For G+25, H= 91m
91m/500= 182mm
Plan view of Composite building For G+35, H= 126m
126m/500= 252mm
 Maximum Displacement Value for Steel&
ETABS Model
Composite frame:
Figure 3 Plan view and model of composite building
The max value for the concrete building as per IS.800.2007
clause 4.1.2 is:
3.4 Levels of Analysis: ∆wl≤ H/2000
Levels of Analysis is divided into 9 models of Designing for H : the total hight of the building.
one Residential Building which has same Dimensions at the
For G+15, H= 56m
base, the differences will be with the heights and materials as
follows: 56m/2000= 28mm
For G+25, H= 91m
91m/2000= 45.5mm
For G+35, H= 126m
126m/2000= 63mm
 Maximum Drift value For Concrete Frame:
According to IS 1893-2002, the storey drift in any storey
generated by the minimum specified design lateral force, with
a partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed 0.004 times the
storey height, for the purposes of displacement requirements
only.
 Maximum Drift value For Steel and composite
frame:
IS.800.2007.12.6 Storey Drift: The storey drift restrictions
must comply with IS 1893. IS 1893 further requires that
3.5 Analyzing Process through ETABS: members not designed to withstand seismic lateral load be
After making checking for the module for any overlaps or any deformation compatible (Part 1). For RCC, Steel, and
Errors might be happen during the design phase, we run the Composite buildings, the maximum drift values are:
analyzing to get the results of the structure. For G+15, G+25, G+35, H= 3.5m
3.5.1 Drift and Displacements Analysis: 0.004 * 3.5m= 14mm

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 6 No. 3(December, 2021)

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2549
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results of G+15, G+25, G+35 Analysis:
For each variation of height and materials, ETABS model has
been designed and analyzed for everyone. As a result, nine
models are the total number for this research. The results which
have been made, are collected and presented as tables, graphs,
and charts.
4.2 Comparison Values of Analysis
Comparing ETABS design models after showing previously
above will be by choosing the highest values between Seismic
and Wind Forces for each variation of height G+15, G+25, and
G+35. Every height has comparison simultaneously for RCC,
STEEL, and COMPOSITE.

4.2.1 Comparison Displacement Values for RCC, STEEL,

and Composite:
The maximum values of Displacements is selected through
comparing values of Seismic and Wind forces for each type of
materials. The result is shown by following Table 4:
Table 4 Comparison of displacement values 4.2.3 Comparison Shear Forces Values for RCC, STEEL,
and Composite:
The maximum values of Shear Forces is selected through
comparing values of Seismic and Wind forces for each type of
materials. The results are shown by Table 6:
Table 6 Comparison of Shear force values

4.2.2 Comparison Drift Values for RCC, STEEL, and

Composite:
The maximum values of Drifts is selected through comparing
values of Seismic and Wind forces for each type of materials.
The results is shown by following Table 5:

4.2.4 Comparison Overturning Moment Values for RCC,

STEEL, and Composite:
The maximum values of Overturning Moment is selected
through comparing values of Seismic and Wind forces for each
Table 5 Comparison of drift values type of materials. The result is shown by following table 7:
Table 7 Comparison of overturning moment

Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 6 No. 3(December, 2021)

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2550
 Figure 4 Comparison Displacement Highest Values for RCC,
STEEL, and Composite

Figure 5 Comparison Drift Highest Values for RCC, STEEL,

and Composite

4.2.5 Comparison Story Stiffness Values for RCC, STEEL,

and Composite:
The maximum values of Story Stiffness is selected through
comparing values of Seismic and Wind forces for each type of
materials. The results is shown by Table 8: Figure 6 Comparison Shear Forces Highest Values for RCC,
STEEL, and Composite
Table 8 Comparison of story stiffness

Figure 7 Comparison Overturning Moment Highest Values for

RCC, STEEL, and Composite

Figure 8 Comparison Story Stiffness Highest Values for RCC,

STEEL, and Composite

5. CONCLUSION
4.3 Comparison Highest Values for RCC, STEEL, and
Composite: 1. Wind forces as a lateral effect for displacement is
stronger than Seismic load on tall buildings. Wind Load is 70%
The maximum values of Displacements, Drifts, Shear Forces,
stronger for RCC, 89% is stronger for Steel, 63% is stronger for
Overturning Moment, and Story Stiffness is selected through
Composite
comparing values of Seismic and Wind forces for each type of
materials. All the results are shown through Figures 4,5,6,7,8 2. Wind forces on tall building is sever on Steel structure
than RCC, and Composite structure i.e. 64% higher than RCC,
89% higher than Composite.
Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 6 No. 3(December, 2021)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2551
3. The highest values of lateral forces of Wind and 2 Anargha (2019). Comparative Study on Behaviour of R .C .
Seismic loads is higher on the longest dimension of the building C and Composite Multistoreyed Building Using ETABS.
which needs to add extra supports such as shear walls and 3 "A Comparative Study on High Rise Building for various
Bracing System to avoid the collapse under Wind and Seismic
Geometrical Shapes Subjected to Wind Load of RCC and
loads.
Composite Structure using ETABS", International Journal of
4. Displacement on different variation of building shows Science & Engineering Development Research (www.ijrti.org),
that the highest Displacement is under Wind load for steel ISSN:2455-2631, Vol.5, Issue 1, page no.17 - 23, January-
structure. For G+15, Steel Displacement is higher 56% RCC 2020.
and 90 % Composite. For G+25, Steel Displacement is higher
4Vedha, M., & Pasha, U. (2019). Study of Seismic and Wind
66% RCC and 90% Composite. For G+35, Steel Displacement
Effects on Multistorey R.C.C, Steel and Composite Materials
is higher 70% RCC and 89% Composite.
Buildings using ETABS. International journal of engineering
5. Drift on different variation of building shows that the research and technology, 7.
highest Drift is under Wind load for steel structure Drift for
5 Limbare, P.P., &Dode, P. (2018). Comparative study of
steel is higher 70% RCC and 91% Composite.
Reinforced Concrete frame structure Steel-Concrete composite
6. Shear Forces on different variation of building shows structure subjected to static and dynamic loading. International
that all material of building hold slightly same values of each Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5.
one for each variation of height. The values show that RCC
6 Cholekar, S.B., &BasavalingappaS., M. (2015). Comparative
structure under wind load has a slight value bigger than Steel,
Analysis of multistoried RCC and Composite building due to
And Composite. RCC is higher 2% for Steel And 5% for
mass irregularity.
Composite.
7 Muhammad, Ashiru& Gupta, Chhavi& Mahmoud, Ibrahim.
7. Overturning Moments on different variation of
(2015). Comparative analysis of Seismic Behaviour of Multi-
building shows that all material of building have slightly same
storey Composite Steel and Conventional Reinforced Concrete
values of each one for each variation of height. The values show Framed Structures.
that RCC structure under wind load has a slight value bigger
than STEEL, And Composite. RCC is higher 0.5% for Steel 8 Mohite, N.A., Joshi, M.P., &Deulkar, D.W. (2015).
And 5% for Composite. Comparative Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete-Composite
( B + G + 11 Storey ) Building Mr .
8. Story Stiffness on different variation of building
shows that the Composite structure has three or four times 9 Charantimath, S., Cholekar, S.B., &Birje, M.M. (2014).
higher values than RCC and Steel Structures for story Stiffness. Comparative Study on Structural Parameter of R.C.C and
Composite is higher 77% for RCC And 88% for Steel. Composite Building. Civil and environmental research, 6, 98-
109.
9. Comparison of all above materials with the different
parameters shows that the Composite building is the best option 10 Prajapati, B.D., & Panchal, D.R. (2013). study of seismic
for most of the tall building considerations to resist Seismic and and wind effect on multi storey R.C.C., Steel and Composite
Wind loads. building.
10. Comparison of all above materials with the different
parameters shows that the RCC building can be an option for
tall building, if the parameters values can be reduced by adding
mixtures to the concrete and use high resisted reinforcement
steel bar to the tension and buckling.
11. Comparison of all above materials with the different
parameters shows that the STEEL building must to be
supported with various type of systems such as bracing system
to be considered to use for tall building, this will make the
STEEL building more difficult to construct and less trusted.
References:
 Indian Standard code IS 1893 Part 1 – 2016
 Indian Standard code IS.875.2.1987
 Indian Standard code tall buildings_is16700-2017
 Indian Standard code is.1893.1.2002
 Indian Standard code is.875.3.1987
 Indian Standard code is.800.2007
 Indian Standard code Is 456 .2000

1
Hasrat, H.A. (2021). Comparative Study of Various High Rise
Building Lateral Load Resisting Systems for Seismic Load &
Wind Load: A Review.
Copyrights @Kalahari Journals Vol. 6 No. 3(December, 2021)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2552