Comparative Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Varied Geometry of Structural Members

Abstract

Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are nowadays commonly used in earthquake regions. However, their seismic performance can vary depending on the geometry and arrangement of structural elements. In this study, the effects of beam, column, slab and shear wall designs on the seismic behavior were examined. The analysis of eight RC building models was done according to the 2018 Turkish Seismic Code by using SAP2000. The dynamic analyses were conducted in order to evaluate: shear forces, inter-story drift, natural vibration periods and required displacements. The results show that even slight geometric modification can have a significant impact on the stiffness, ductility and seismic response of the structure. These analyses helped us to highlight how crucial it is to select the appropriate element geometry in order to increase seismic resilience and design buildings that are more compliant with current standards.

Keywords

• Reinforced concrete
• SAP2000
• Turkish Seismic code
• base shear
• inter-story drift
• structural geometry
• seismic analysis

References

1. [1] Suliman, M., and Lu, L. (2024).A Comparative Study of Seismic Performance Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Using Chinese and African Seismic Codes. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024(1), 5588833.
2. [2] Santos, s., giarlelis, c., traykova, m., lima, s., bucur, c., and orrala, w. comparative study of some Seismic codes for building design regarding criteria for non-linear methods of analysis.
3. [3] Rajeev, A., Meena, N. K., and Pallav, K. (2019). Comparative study of seismic design and performance of OMRF building using Indian, British, and European codes. Infrastructures, 4(4), 71.
4. [4] Kunwar, S., Thapa, D., Paudel, A., and Shrestha, A. (2024). Discover Civil Engineering. Discover, 1, 117.
5. [5] Bhavsar, M. J., Choksi, K. N., Bhatt, S. K., and Shah, S. K. (2014). Comparative study of typical RCC building using Indian standards and Euro standards under seismic forces. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(12), 1-4.
6. [6] Landingin, J., Rodrigues, H., Varum, H., Arêde, A., and Costa, A. (2013). Comparative analysis of RC irregular buildings designed according to different seismic design codes.
7. [7] Ergün, A., Kıraç, N., and Başaran, V. (2015). The evaluation of structural properties of reinforced concrete building designed according to pre-modern code considering seismic performance. Engineering Failure Analysis, 58, 184-191.
8. [8] Hassan, A., and Pal, S. (2018). Effect of soil condition on seismic response of isolated base buildings. International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 10(3), 249-261.

9. [9] Resatoglu, R., and Hamed, M. (2019). Comparative study of Different Seismic Codes for Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Northern Cyprus Using Static and Dynamic Methods. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,14(3), 1314-1329.
10. [10] Tabsh, S. W. (2013). Comparison between reinforced concrete designs based on the ACI 318 and BS 8110 codes. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 48(4), 467-477.
11. [11] Izhar, T., and Dagar, R. (2018). Comparison of reinforced concrete member design methods of various countries. International Journal of Civil Engineeringand Technology (IJCIET), 9(4), 637-646.
12. [12] Bashir, S. (2014). Design of Short Columns According to ACI 318-11 and BS 8110-97: A Comparative Study Based on Conditions in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, Near East University).
13. [13] Kurç, Ö., Kayışoğlu, B., Lüleç, A., and Özcebe, G. (2011). A comparative study on structural wall design approach of 2007 Turkish earthquake code. Teknik Dergi, 22(110), 1477-1497.
14. [14] Gullu, M. F., and Mohammed, F. S. (2021). Investigating the reliability of shear strength equations in TS500 and ACI318-19. Journal of Structural Engineering, 4(2), 057-067.
15. [15] Amulu, C. P., and Ezeagu, C. A. (2017). Experimental and analytical comparison of torsion, bending moment and shear forces in reinforced concrete beams using BS 8110, euro code 2 and ACI 318 provisions. Nigerian Journal of Technology, 36(3), 705-711.
16. [16] Uzel, A. (2019). Evaluation of TS500-2000 Shear Strength Provisions for Deep Beams. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(2), 338-342.
17. [17] Gowrishankar, P. (2018). Critical Review of Reinforced Concrete Design Codes and Their Relevance to the United Arab Emirates (Master's thesis, The British University in Dubai).
18. [18] Nwoji, C. U., and Ugwu, A. I. (2017). Comparative Study of BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 in structural design and analysis. Nigerian Journal of Technology, 36(3), 758-766.
19. [19] Zhang, L., Hu, H., Fang, Y., and Qiang, Z. (2021). Code compliance in reinforce concrete design: A comparative study of USA code (ACI) and Chinese code (GB). Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021(1) 5517332.
20. [20] Algott, I. H., and Kafri, G. M. A. (2023). Comparative Study of Reinforced Concrete Design of Short Columns between BS 8110 and ACI 318-11 (Codes). Sirte University Scientific Journal, 13(1), 46-54.
21. [21] Adhav, A., Gawande, G., Vishwakarma, S., Dhapekar, K., and Moon, N. (2019). Comparative study of analysis and design of building using indian standards (IS), European norms (EN) and American concrete institute (ACI). Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol, 7, 1436-1442.
22. [22] Nwofor, T., Sule, S., and Eme, D. B. (2015). A comparative study of Bs8110 and Eurocode 2 standards for design of a continuous reinforced concrete beam. International journal of civil engineering and technology, 6(5), 76-84.
23. [23] Oussadou, S. E. (2021). Comparison of the Provisions of ACI318-19 Code and Eurocode on the Structural Design and Cost Analysis, of a High-Rise Concrete Building Subjected to Seismic and Wind Forces (Master's thesis, The British University in Dubai).
24. [24] Jayasinghe, T., Gunawardena, T., and Mendis, P. (2021). A comparative study on minimum shear reinforcement provisions in codes of practice for reinforced concrete beams. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 15, e00617.
25. [25] Ahmad, M. M., Elahi, A., and Barbhuiya, S. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour: Conventional Model vs. Artificial Neural Network Predictions. Materials, 16(24), 7642.
26. [26] Araújo, D. L., Silva Neto, A. P., Lobo, F. A., and El Debs, M. K. (2016). Comparative analysis of design models for concrete corbels. Revista IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais, 9, 435-470.
27. [27] Caterino, N., Di Cristo, V., and Ceroni, F. (2024). Strength capacity of RC beams without shear reinforcement: Numerical analysis and comparisons with code provisions. Engineering Structures, 317, 118634.
28. [28] Hamrat, M., Boulekbache, B., Tahenni, T., Chemrouk, M., and Amziane, S. (2022). Experimental study of deflection of steel fibre reinforced concrete beams: comparison of different design codes. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 26(6), 2057-2073
29. [29] Lee, Y. H., Kim, M. S., Lee, J., and Scanlon, A. (2013). Comparison of minimum thickness provisions for concrete beams in building codes and standards. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 40(7), 595-602.
30. [30] Kiani, A., Yang, T. Y., KheyroDdin, A., Kafi, M. A., and Naderpour, H. (2024, March). Quantification of seismic performance factors of mixed concrete/steel buildings using the FEMA P695 methodology. In Structures (Vol.61, p. 06144). Elsevier.
31. [31] Yang, K. H., and Ashour, A. F. (2008). Code modelling of reinforced-concrete deep beams. Magazine of Concrete Research, 60(6), 441-454.
32. [32] Bernard, E. S., Amin, A., and Gilbert, R. I. (2020). Assessment of MC2010 and AS3600 models for estimating instantaneous flexural crack widths in fibre reinforced concrete members. Engineering Structures, 208, 110271.
33. [33] Pacheco, J., De Brito, J., Chastre, C., and Evangelista, L. (2019). Uncertainty models of reinforced concrete beams in bending: Code comparison and recycled aggregate incorporation. Journal of StructuralEngineering, 145(4), 04019013.
34. [34] Kabashi, N., Avdyli, B., Krasniqi, E., and Këpuska, A. (2020). Comparative approach to flexural behavior of reinforced beams with GFRP, CFRP, and steel bars. Civil Engineering Journal, 6(1), 50-59.
35. [35] Li, H., Pan, Z., Yang, Y., Wang, X., Tang, H., Ma, F., and Zheng, L. (2024). Predicting Residual Flexural Strength of Corroded Prestressed Concrete Beams: Comparison of Chinese Code, Eurocode and ACI Standard. Buildings, 14(7), 2047.
36. [36] Izhar, T., Bano, S., & Mumtaz, N. (2019). Comparative study on analysis and design of reinforced concrete building under seismic forces for different codal guidelines. Int J Trend Sci Res Dev, 3(4), 536-551.
37. [37] Sezen, H., Whittaker, A. S., Elwood, K. J., and Mosalam, K. M. (2003). Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Engineering Structures, 25(1), 103-114.
38. [38] Fragomeni, S., & Loo, Y. C. (2003). Asian concrete model code (ACMC) and Australian concrete structures standard (AS3600) compared. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 4(3), 177-185
39. [39] Workeluel, N., Saha, P., Matiyas, S., and Mohanty, T. (2023). A comparative study on analysis and design of RC C elevated water tank using different country codes. Materials Today: Proceedings.