© 2016 IJEDR | Volume 4, Issue 2 | ISSN: 2321-9939

A Comparative Study of Seismic behaviour on

Multistoreyed RC Buildings by the Provisions Made
in Indian and other International Building Codes
1
Sajid Ali Khan, 2 Prof. R.V.R.K. Prasad
1
M.tech scholar: Structural Engineering, 2Associate Professor,
1
Department of Civil Engineering,
1
NK.D.K.Collge of Engineering, Nagpur, India
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract - In this paper a comparative study of the seismic provisions of Indian, American and Australian code has
presented. The structure being a residential Regular RCC framed building with Ground and Five Floors. Various seismic
parameters has been considered for analysis. The Equivalent Static Method Analysis has performed using STAAD PRO
software. The building frame is an Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF). The values of Base Shear, Column’s
moments & axial forces, Beam’s moments Lateral displacements and Storey drifts coming out from the analysis are
compared for IS1893-2002, IBC-2006 & AS 1170-2007. Comparing the results the IBC code is found to be more
conservative than the IS 1893 & AS 1170

Index Terms - IS1893 2002, IBC, AS1170, Base Shear

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
All over the world , earthquakes are occurring at an interval of time. People are understanding the severity of earthquakes. Thus the
proper use of methods for earthquake resistant design and construction is important for countries that are at high risk of being
subjected to earthquake. earthquake is a phononmenon due to tectonic activity. It is very important to investigate and understand
the reasons for earthquake disasters and to take necessary steps to eliminate the catastrophic consequences Most of the human and
other losses resulting due to earthquake are due to failure of human made facilities such as buildings and other structures.
The severity or the earthauake disaster depends on four factors. Firstly the magnitude of the earthquake is a major factor. The more
the magnitude of the earthquake more will be the groundshaking. The distance between the earthquake origin and the region of
population is the second factor. The more the distance lesser will be the intensity of ground motion. The third factor is the
population and the development in the particular region. The fouth one is the quality of the construction of the structures or the
methods of design and construction. Many buildings may be able to resist the moderate groundshaking though they are not as per
the requirements of the design for seismic conditions. This is because of the masonary infilled walls. However for a building to
resist a severe earthquake it has to be designed considering all the aspects of earthquake resistant design. Mostly the design and
construction of seismic resistant structure follows the provisions of the seismic codes. Though the effects of the earthquake
groundshaking and the basic concepts in the design of earthquake resistant structures are same everywhere, the seismic codal
provisions in different countries are different. This difference in the seismic codes is due to the application of basic concepts as per
the seismic activity of that particular country, the design methodology, the experiences of the professionals and their educations.

The scope of this paper is to apply the seismic codal provisions and compare the results using three different codes for the RCC
building of same specifications for OMR frame. In this paper following codes are compared 1. Indian Standard i.e, IS 1893 2002,
American i.e., IBC 2006 & Australian code i.e.,AS 1170 2007
II. ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY

An RCC building with Gound + 5 floors is considerd for analysis and comparision. The building is a residential builing. The live
load value is taken as 2 Kn/sq.m. The dimension of the building are 25.76 m X 16.63 m in Plan and height is 18m. The RCC
frame is a OMRF. The column sizes are 300X450 mm and beams are 230X450mm. The time period values for each of the three
codes is calculated then the base shear values are calculated. The storey forces are calculated for each floor level for each of the
three codes and apllied in the software. The analysis is done using Eqivalent Static Method of analysis(ESM) in STAAD PRO
software. The ESM is the very basic method of analysis.

Building geometry
Building Plan

IJEDR1602346 International Journal of Engineering Development and Research (www.ijedr.org) 1967

 © 2016 IJEDR | Volume 4, Issue 2 | ISSN: 2321-9939

Building Dimensions

III. SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS

IS 1893 IBC 2006 AS 1170
For Low Inensity Zone For Low Inensity Zone For Low Inensity Zone
Z = 0.1 Ss = 0.25 Z = 0.1
Sa/g= 2.5 Fa = 1.600 Probability factor kp = 0.5
SMS = Fa . Ss = 0.400 Sp = Structural Performance
S DS = 2/3 SMS
0.267 μ = Structural Ductility factor
=
I = 1.00 I = 1.00
R= 3 for OMRF R= 3 for OMRF Sp/μ = 0.38 for OMRF
Ah = Z/2 . Sa/g . I/R Cs = S DS . I/R Cd(T1) = kp. Z . Ch (T1) . Sp/μ

IJEDR1602346 International Journal of Engineering Development and Research (www.ijedr.org) 1968

 © 2016 IJEDR | Volume 4, Issue 2 | ISSN: 2321-9939

Comparision of Base Shear

IS 1893 IBC 2006 AS 1170
1. Total Weight W 1. Total Weight W 1. Total Weight W
( Dead Load + 25% Live Load) ( Dead Load + 0 Live Load) ( Dead Load + 30% Live Load)
W= 29804 KN W= 28734 KN W= 30019 KN
Base Shear = Ah . W Base Shear = Cs . W Base Shear = Cd(T1) . W
Ah = Z/2 . Sa/g . I/R Cs = SDS . I/R Cd(T1) = kp. Z . Ch (T1) . Sp/μ
2/3 SMS I/R
= 0.1/2 x 2.5 x I/R 2/3 (Fa x Ss) I/R 0.5 x 0.1 x Ch(T1) . Sp/μ
= 0.125 x I/R 2/3 (1.600 x 0.25) I/R 0.05 x 1.49 x 0.38
2/3 x 0.400 x I/R
= 0.125 x 1.0/3 0.267 x 1.0/3 0.075 x 0.38
= 0.042 0.089 0.029
Base Shear = Ah . W Base Shear = Cs . W Base Shear = Cd(T1) . W
0.042 x 29804 0.089 x 28734 0.029 x 30019
1242 KN 2554 KN 871 KN

Earthquake Load in X-direction

Earthquake Load in Z-direction

IJEDR1602346 International Journal of Engineering Development and Research (www.ijedr.org) 1969

 © 2016 IJEDR | Volume 4, Issue 2 | ISSN: 2321-9939

IV. RESULTS
1. Comparision of Storey Shear & Base Shear

IS 1893 IBC AZ 1170

Floor Lvl
2007 2006 2007
S.no. Lateral Lateral Lateral
Seismic Storey Shear
Floor Height Force Force Force 20
Q (KN) Fx (KN) Fx (KN)
1 Plinth 0 0.1 3 1 15 IS 1893

Height
1st 2007
2 3 15 91 32 10
FL.
IBC 2006
2nd 5
3 6 67 245 84
FL.
3rd 0 AZ 1170
4 9 141 379 131
FL. 0.0 500.0 1000.0 2007
4th Lateral Force
6 12 244 521 180
FL.
5th
7 15 373 669 231
FL.
8 TERR. 18 401 648 212
TOTAL 1242 2557 871

2. Colunns Moments & Axial Loads

column's IS 1893 column's IBC 2006 column's AS 1170

moment & moment axial load moment & moment axial load moment & moment axial load
axial load knm kn axial load knm kn axial load knm kn
columns below plinth columns below plinth columns below plinth
corner 100 100 corner 154 96 corner 84 79
41.6 914 64.1 874 34.8 722
columns % % columns % % columns % %
pheripheral 100 100 pheripheral 162 97 pheripheral 86 81
40.1 1100 65.1 1071 34.5 894
columns % % columns % % columns % %
central 100 100 central 149 96 central 80 80
51.23 1198 76.17 1147 41.00 958
columns % % columns % % columns % %
columns gr. floor columns gr. floor columns gr. floor
corner 100 100 corner 144 94 corner 80 80
50.7 837 73.0 785 40.8 673
columns % % columns % % columns % %
pheripheral 100 100 pheripheral 156 96 pheripheral 83 85
47.3 1050 73.8 1008 39.0 892
columns % % columns % % columns % %
central 100 100 central 146 96 central 80 86
69.8 1075 101.9 1029 55.9 927
columns % % columns % % columns % %
columns 2nd floor columns 2nd floor columns 2nd floor
corner 100 100 corner 124 91 corner 77 80
52.2 521 65.0 474 40.2 419
columns % % columns % % columns % %
pheripheral 100 100 pheripheral 137 95 pheripheral 84 85
44.6 664 61.3 628 37.4 563
columns % % columns % % columns % %
central 100 100 central 133 96 central 76 86
70.3 693 93.5 663 53.7 597
columns % % columns % % columns % %
columns 5th floor columns 5th floor columns 5th floor
corner 100 100 corner 99 93 corner 73 83
28.7 81 28.5 75 20.9 67
columns % % columns % % columns % %
pheripheral 100 100 pheripheral 119 95 pheripheral 82 86
24.7 111 29.4 106 20.3 95
columns % % columns % % columns % %
central 100 100 central 113 95 central 67 86
30.2 114 34.3 109 20.1 98
columns % % columns % % columns % %

3. Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift

IJEDR1602346 International Journal of Engineering Development and Research (www.ijedr.org) 1970

 © 2016 IJEDR | Volume 4, Issue 2 | ISSN: 2321-9939

IS 1893 IBC 2006 AS 1170

latereal displ. storey drift latereal displ. storey drift latereal displ. storey drift
ht.
floor
(m) x z x x z
x direc z direc x direc z direc z direc x direc z direc
direc direc direc direc direc
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
footing lvl -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
plinth lvl 0 1.572 2.031 1.572 2.031 2.002 3.043 2.002 3.043 1.113 1.664 1.113 1.664
1st fl lvl 3 6.819 8.811 5.247 6.78 8.684 13.191 6.682 10.148 4.762 7.194 3.649 5.53
2nd fl lvl 6 12.464 15.936 5.645 7.125 15.843 23.681 7.159 10.49 8.625 12.893 3.863 5.699
3rd fl lvl 9 17.899 22.76 5.435 6.824 22.429 33.277 6.586 9.596 12.204 18.106 3.579 5.213
4th fl lvl 12 22.686 28.803 4.787 6.043 27.926 41.324 5.497 8.047 15.179 22.463 2.975 4.357
5th fl lvl 15 26.359 33.453 3.673 4.65 31.921 47.21 3.995 5.886 17.328 25.629 2.149 3.166
terrace lvl 18 28.607 36.089 2.248 2.636 34.358 50.514 2.437 3.304 18.686 27.396 1.358 1.767

Lateral Displacement in X- Lateral Displacement in Z-

Direction Direction
20 20

15 15

10 IS 1893 10 IS 1893
Height

Height

5 IBC 2006 5 IBC 2006

AS 1170 AS 1170
0 0
0 20 40 0 50 100
-5 -5
Lateral Displacement Lateral Displacement

Storey Drift in X-direction Storey Drift in Z-direction

20 20

15 15
Height in m
Height in m

10 IS 1893 10 IS 1893

5 IBC 2006 5 IBC 2006

AS 1170 AS 1170
0 0
0 5 10 0 10 20
-5 -5
Storey drift Storey drift

4. Beams Moments & Shear Forces

plinth IS 1893 plinth IBC 2006 plinth AS 1170
beam beam beam
moment shear force moment shear force moment shear force
nos. nos. nos.
b 1 68 100 % 43 100 % b 1 84 125 % 52 119 % b 1 44 66 % 26 59 %
b 2 63 100 % 46 100 % b 2 80 127 % 57 122 % b 2 42 66 % 29 63 %
b 3 57 100 % 46 100 % b 3 80 140 % 53 117 % b 3 35 61 % 18 40 %
b 4 61 100 % 48 100 % b 4 92 152 % 64 132 % b 4 44 72 % 25 53 %

IJEDR1602346 International Journal of Engineering Development and Research (www.ijedr.org) 1971

 © 2016 IJEDR | Volume 4, Issue 2 | ISSN: 2321-9939

b 5 59 100 % 48 100 % b 5 83 140 % 63 131 % b 5 41 69 % 27 57 %

b 6 62 100 % 55 100 % b 6 90 144 % 76 139 % b 6 46 74 % 38 69 %
b 7 73 100 % 44 100 % b 7 84 114 % 49 110 % b 7 39 53 % 21 48 %
b 8 73 100 % 44 100 % b 8 84 114 % 49 110 % b 8 39 53 % 21 48 %
1st fl IS 1893 1st fl IBC 2006 1st fl AS 1170
beam beam beam
moment shear force moment shear force moment shear force
nos. nos. nos.
b 1 107 100 % 87 100 % b 1 125 117 % 91 104 % b 1 81 75 % 70 80 %
b 2 97 100 % 86 100 % b 2 115 119 % 94 108 % b 2 72 74 % 67 77 %
b 3 70 100 % 49 100 % b 3 101 145 % 60 123 % b 3 62 89 % 43 88 %
b 4 82 100 % 72 100 % b 4 125 151 % 89 123 % b 4 77 94 % 65 91 %
b 5 86 100 % 89 100 % b 5 113 131 % 100 113 % b 5 71 82 % 75 85 %
b 6 80 100 % 65 100 % b 6 112 140 % 90 139 % b 6 66 82 % 54 83 %
b 7 128 100 % 95 100 % b 7 129 101 % 91 95 % b 7 92 72 % 75 79 %
b 8 128 100 % 95 100 % b 8 129 101 % 91 95 % b 8 92 72 % 75 79 %
3rd fl IS 1893 3rd fl IBC 2006 3rd fl AS 1170
beam beam beam
moment shear force moment shear force moment shear force
nos. nos. nos.
b 1 102 100 % 85 100 % b 1 111 109 % 84 100 % b 1 75 73 % 67 78 %
b 2 89 100 % 81 100 % b 2 99 111 % 83 102 % b 2 63 71 % 61 75 %
b 3 66 100 % 48 100 % b 3 89 136 % 56 117 % b 3 56 85 % 41 86 %
b 4 78 100 % 69 100 % b 4 110 140 % 81 117 % b 4 70 89 % 60 87 %
b 5 85 100 % 86 100 % b 5 103 121 % 92 107 % b 5 66 78 % 71 82 %
b 6 71 100 % 58 100 % b 6 91 128 % 74 127 % b 6 54 76 % 45 77 %
b 7 121 100 % 93 100 % b 7 118 97 % 86 93 % b 7 85 70 % 73 78 %
b 8 121 100 % 93 100 % b 8 118 97 % 86 93 % b 8 85 70 % 73 78 %
ter. IS 1893 ter. IBC 2006 ter. AS 1170
beam beam beam
moment shear force moment shear force moment shear force
nos. nos. nos.
b 1 37 100 % 39 100 % b 1 35 96 % 35 91 % b 1 27 74 % 31 80 %
b 2 27 100 % 33 100 % b 2 26 96 % 29 90 % b 2 19 71 % 25 78 %
b 3 26 100 % 33 100 % b 3 33 130 % 33 100 % b 3 24 92 % 30 89 %
b 4 26 100 % 34 100 % b 4 34 133 % 34 100 % b 4 24 94 % 29 85 %
b 5 31 100 % 31 100 % b 5 35 110 % 32 104 % b 5 24 76 % 26 82 %
b 6 17 100 % 19 100 % b 6 18 102 % 19 98 % b 6 13 74 % 15 78 %
b 7 53 100 % 48 100 % b 7 46 88 % 43 89 % b 7 39 73 % 39 81 %
b 8 53 100 % 48 100 % b 8 46 88 % 43 89 % b 8 39 73 % 39 81 %

V. CONCLUSION
‒ The value of base shear for IBC code is more than IS 1893 and AS 1170. Its value for IBC code is nearly double than
that of IS 1893 and its value for AS 1170 is 70% than that of IS 1893
‒ The values of Column moments for IBC code are nearly 150% for below plinth & Gr. Floor, 130% for 2 nd floor and
110% for top floor than that of IS 1893 and for AS 1170 its values are nearly 80 - 85% than that of IS 1893
‒ The values of Axial Loads on Columns for IBC code are nearly 95% than that of IS 1893 and for AS 1170 its values are
nearly 83% than that of IS 1893
‒ The values of Beam moments for IBC code are nearly 125% than that of IS 1893 and for AS 1170 its values are nearly
80% than that of IS 1893
‒ The values of Beam shear forces for IBC code are nearly 120% than that of IS 1893 and for AS 1170 its values are
nearly 80% than that of IS 1893
‒ The Lateral displacement and storey drift values are more in IBC code

IJEDR1602346 International Journal of Engineering Development and Research (www.ijedr.org) 1972

 © 2016 IJEDR | Volume 4, Issue 2 | ISSN: 2321-9939

‒ The building design using IBC code would be more conservative than that of IS 1893 and AS 1170 codes
‒ The area of steel required for the RCC members for IBC code would be more than that of IS 1893 and AS 1170 codes

VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks to the department of Civil Engineering of K.D.K. College of Engineering and the guide Mr. RVRK Prasad to have
cooperation and guidance in publishing this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions Made in Indian and International Building Codes for RC Buildings, Dr. S.V.
Itti, Prof. Abhishek Pathade and Ramesh B. Karadi Dept. of Civil Engg., KLESCET, Belgaum – 590008 (Karnataka)
[2] A Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) with Other Building Codes, Md.
S. Bari • T. Das
[3] Comparative Analysis of RC Irregular Buildings Designed According to Different Seismic Design Codes, Jaime Landingin,
Hugo Rodrigues, Humberto Varum, Antonio Arede and Anibal Costa
[4] Comparative Study of the European and American Seismic Safety Assessment Procedures for Existing Steel Buildings, M.
Araújo, J. M. Castro, X. Romão & R. Delgado
[5] Comparision of codal provision sujjested by various countries, P.R. Bose, R. Dubey & M.A. Yazdi, Earthquake Engineering
department, University of Roorkee, India
[6] Comparision of Recent U.S. Seismic codes, R.D. McIntosh and S. Pezeshk, Members. ASCE
[7] Comparison of Seismic Performance of D-region of Existing RC Structures Designed with Different Recommendations,
Balthasar Novak, K.Ramanjaneyulu, Constanze Roehm and Saptarshi Sasmal
[8] “I.S: 1893-2002”, “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistance design of structures, Part-I General provision and
buildings, (Fifth Revision)”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, June 2002.
[9] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures (ASCE 7-05), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
[10] International Building Code IBC 2006, International Code Council
[11] AS 1170.4-Structural design Action Part 4: Earthquke Actions in Astralia 2007, Aistralian Standard

IJEDR1602346 International Journal of Engineering Development and Research (www.ijedr.org) 1973