Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete Composite Building under Seismic Effect using ETABs

Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete Composite Building under Seismic Effect using ETABs | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete Composite Building under Seismic Effect using ETABs Vedika Patil, Savita Patil This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831065/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This research paper investigates the analysis of multi-storey buildings under seismic loading is a critical aspect of structural engineering, especially in regions prone to seismic activity. This study explores the seismic performance of two distinct building typologies conventional Reinforced Concrete (RCC) and Steel-Concrete Composite buildings using ETABS software. The research involves the analysis of a G + 20 storey building with irregular geometries, specifically C and L-shaped configurations, to simulate the complexity encountered in real-world scenarios. Both RCC and steel-concrete composite structures are designed for different seismic zones (II, III, IV, and V) as per Indian Standard codes, representing regions with varying levels of seismic hazard. In addition, the study incorporates multiple soil conditions, including soft, medium, and hard soil profiles, to assess the impact of ground conditions on the seismic performance of the buildings. ETABS software, a widely used tool in structural design and analysis, is employed for the modeling and evaluation of the buildings' dynamic behavior under seismic loads. The analysis includes the assessment of seismic parameters such as base shear, lateral displacement, and story drift for both building types across different seismic zones and soil conditions. The study aims to validate the results with available literature to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the findings. Through this comparative analysis, the study provides insights into the structural efficiency and performance of steel-concrete composite G + 20 storey irregular shape buildings versus traditional RCC G + 20 storey irregular shape buildings, offering valuable data for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions in diverse conditions. RCC building Steel-Concrete Composite building Seismic analysis Lateral displacement Base shear Story drift Seismic zones Soil condition Figures Figure 1 INTRODUCTION The analysis of buildings under seismic effects is fundamental aspects of structural engineering, particularly in earthquake-prone regions. The resilience and safety of structures during seismic events depend on their ability to withstand dynamic loads and deformations caused by ground motion. In recent years, advanced software tools, such as ETABS, have become instrumental in the structural analysis and design of buildings, enabling engineers to accurately model complex structures under various loading conditions, including seismic forces. Among the different types of structural systems, Reinforced Concrete (RCC) and Steel-Concrete Composite (SCC) buildings are widely used due to their adaptability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. RCC buildings, made primarily of concrete and reinforced with steel, are known for their durability and high strength in compression. Integrating steel and concrete results in enhanced load-bearing capacity improved ductility, and better performance under seismic loading. ETABS enables the modeling of building systems, including RCC and composite structures, under static and dynamic loading conditions. With its advanced features, it offers solutions for calculating internal forces, displacements, and member designs while considering the seismic forces imposed on the building. It is observed that composite buildings had significantly smaller time periods and storey displacements compared to RCC buildings, indicating a stiffer response to seismic forces (Mahajan, Kalurkar 2016 ). This project aims to explore the analysis of RCC G + 20 storey irregular shape and steel-concrete composite G + 20 storey irregular shape buildings under seismic loading, with a particular focus on the use of ETABS software. It delves into the methods and techniques employed to assess seismic behavior, the advantages of using composite structures over conventional RCC systems. In high-rise structure RCC members are no longer suitable because of their increased dead load, limitation of span length and less stiffness. To overcome such defects structural engineers are using different materials to their best utilization. There is a great potential for increasing volume of steel in construction, steel can be used as an alternative construction material. The composite section using steel encased with concrete is effective solution in major civil structures. Concept Composite Structure Composite structure can be defined as the structures in which composite sections made up of two different types of materials such as steel and concrete are used for beams and columns. Composite construction combines the better properties in both, concrete in compression and steel in tension, they have almost the same thermal expansion and results in speedy construction. Two different materials are tied together by the use of shear studs at their interface having lesser depth in composite construction. Structural components use in composite construction consists of the following elements. (Mahajan, Kalurkar 2016 ) a) Composite column A steel concrete composite column is a compressive element that consists of both concrete encased hot rolled steel section and a concrete filled hollow section of hot rolled steel. These columns are widely employed as load-resisting components in composite framework systems where they mainly resist compressive and bending forces. In these columns, the steel and concrete collaborate to withstand external loads, with their combined action depending on bonding and friction. (Dahal, Suwal 2019 , Anargha, Mithulraj 2019 ) b) Composite beam In conventional composite construction, concrete slabs rest over steel beams and are supported by them. Under load these two components act independently and a relative slip occurs at the interface if there is no connection between them. With the help of a deliberate and appropriate connection provided between them can be eliminated. In this case the steel beam and the slab act as a “composite beam" and their action is similar to that of a monolithic Tee beam. Also we can use concrete encased steel section as composite beam. (Dahal, Suwal 2019 , Anargha, Mithulraj 2019 ) c) Composite slab Composite slabs comprise reinforced concrete cast on top of profiled steel decking, which acts as formwork during construction and external reinforcement at the final stage. A composite floor system produces a ridged horizontal diagram that provides stability to the overall building system while at the same time, distributing wind and seismic shears to the lateral load resisting systems. Composite action increases the load carry capacity and stiffness. LITERATURE REVIEW Madan, Samrutwar (2023), “Seismic Evaluation of Building having Steel Concrete Composite Columns and RC Beams”. This study is conducted on a G+9 storey regular building located in Zone V, featuring concrete-encased steel column sections and RC beams. The building selected for the study has a rectangular plan, an elevation of 30 meters, and exhibits no plan or vertical irregularities. The results from the analysis of both buildings are presented through tables and graphs, allowing for a comparative study of the observed differences. The design and analysis are carried out using ETABS, finite element modeling-based software, employing the nonlinear analysis method. Shirsath, Rathi (2022), “Analysis and Design of Steel Concrete Composite Structure and Its Comparison with RCC Structure” This study examines a comparative analysis of G+ 15 RCC and composite column multistory commercial buildings located in earthquake Zone IV is conducted using the static equivalent analysis. Both structures are modeled using ETABS 2018 software. Various parameters are considered for comparison, and the results indicate that the composite structure demonstrates superior performance in all aspects. Patil, Pujari (2024), “Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced cement concrete building and steel concrete composite building”. This paper evaluates the relative dynamic behavior of RCC and steel-concrete composite moment-resisting frames when subjected to earthquake-induced forces. The study considers two G+15 story buildings located in Zone III, with both the equivalent static and response spectrum analyses were carried out using the ETABS software. This study focuses on comparing critical aspects like time and seismic response of steel-concrete composite frames with those of typical reinforced concrete and steel frames in building construction. Dahal, Suwal (2019), “Seismic Behavior Analysis of Composite Buildings with Respect to RCC Buildings” This study analyzes the Earthquake responseof both fully and partially steel-concrete composite structures, as well as RCC alternatives, through a comparative approach. The focus is on ten multi-story commercial buildings situated in Earthquake Zone V, with varying heights. Key parameters, including story drift, axial load, and displacement, are evaluated using the Equivalent Static Method. Analytical representation is conducted using SAP2000 software. A comparison is made across different structural configurations full composite (both beam and column composite), half composite (column composite), and RCC structures. Mahajan, Kalurkar (2016), “Performance analysis of RCC and steel concrete composite structure under seismic effect” This paper examines Assessment of the performance of a G+20 storey special moment frame with fully encased composite components, comparing different structural systems under seismic analysis. Parameters are determined using both linear static and nonlinear static analysis. Seismic analysis and design of the building are carried out using ETABS software. Key parameters are compared between the two structural systems, with notable differences observed in the natural period and storey displacement results due to the higher lateral stiffness of the composite structure. Divya, Murali (2021), “Comparative study on design of steel structures and RCC frame structures based on column span” This paper presents a comparative study of a G+8 storey RCC structure and a steel composite structure, focusing on variations in column spans. It also examines differences in analysis, design and cost of construction between RCC and steel structures for both long and short column spans. In this comparison, the columns were arranged in a grid system, ensuring consistent building size and height. The structural design and analysis were performed under full loading conditions using both linear static and response spectrum analysis methods in ETABS software. Nethravathi, Thouseef (2017), “Performance Analysis of Regular and Irregular Structure Under Seismic Effect for RCC and Steel Composite Column Using Response Spectrum” This paper includes performance analysis of regular & irregular structure under seismic effect for RCC & composite column. The shape of the regular building is rectangular and irregular building is Z shape was analyzed. The compression efficiency of concrete & high ductile properties of steel together contributes to the structure for its perfect durability. Anargha, Mithulraj (2019), “Comparative Study on Behavior of R.C.C and Composite Multistoried Building Using ETABS” This paper aims to examine the Dynamic performance of concrete, steel, and composite frames during seismic events. This paper explores to assess the impact of lateral loads on RCC and composite buildings by utilizing structural elements with varying I-sections but the same weight per meter, with the analysis conducted using ETABS software. Javaid, Verma (2023), “Seismic performance of irregular composite buildings: A comparative study of the effectiveness of buckling restrained braces and viscous dampers” This research aimed to assess the impact of Restrained Buckling Braces (BRBs) and Viscous Dampers (VDs) on the seismic performance of asymmetrical 15-story steel–concrete composite moment resisting frames. A comprehensive response spectrum analysis was carried out to evaluate the seismic performance of the frames. The results indicated that both BRBs and VDs effectively reduced seismic response in these buildings, with VDs being more efficient in reducing the time period and base shear by 65–73% and 80–90% respectively and BRBs demonstrating better performance in reducing the maximum overturning moment in irregular building configurations. The study found that VDs are more effective seismic control devices for composite buildings. Mohite, Joshi (2015), “Comparative Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete Composite (B+G+ 11 Storey) Building” In the present work, options of construction of (B+G+11storey) commercial building, situated in Kolhapur, with steel-concrete-composite and RCC are studied and compared with each other. Equivalent linear Static Method of Analysis explained in ETABS version 15 software is used and results are compared for different parameters. Comparative parameter includes roof deflections, base shear, storey drifts, for the building and axial forces and bending moments for columns and beams at different level. It is observed that steel-concrete composite building is found to be safer and more economical and better option. Wagh, Waghe (2014), “Comparative Study of R.C.C and Steel Concrete Composite Structures” In this paper study of four various multistoried commercial buildings comparative study of R.C.C. with Steel Concrete Composite (G+12, G+16, G+20, G+24) story buildings which situated in Nagpur earthquake zone II and wind speed 44m/s. Equivalent Static Method of Analysis is used. For modeling of Composite & R.C.C. structures, STAAD-Pro software is used and the results are compared. Comparative study includes deflection, axial force and shear force, bending moment in column and beam, cost. Wagh, Kadlag (2019), “Comparative study on analysis and design of RCC and composite structure” This paper presents a seismic assessment is performed on a multi-storey residential building utilizing different construction materials such as reinforced concrete, structural steel, and composite steel-concrete. A G+21 story building located in seismic zone III is chosen for the comparison, focusing on RCC and steel-concrete composite structures. RESEARCH GAP Following are the research gaps identified through the rigorous literature review: Previously most of the research was carried out on analysis of regular building and steel-concrete composite building for one seismic zone.There is significant gap in understanding how irregular high-rise RCC building, and steel composite building respond to seismic responses. There is lack study that investigates the analysis of steel-concrete composite irregular shape building with various soil conditions. Therefore , in the present work, it is proposed to carry out seismic analysis of RCC & steel composite irregular building for different seismic zones considering varying soil conditions. OBJECTIVES The objectives of research are as follows: To validate the results of steel-concrete composite building and RCC building with the literature results. To analyze conventional G+20 storey irregular shape building(C and L shape) using ETAB software for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions. To analyze steel-concrete composite G+20 storey irregular shape building (C and L shape) using ETAB software for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions. To compare seismic responses such as lateral displacement, base shear, and story drift. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY Collection of relevant research data from national and international journals, web source, textbooks, reference books to get acquainted with past research. Studied the concept of steel concrete composite structure and different material use for it in various high-rise building. Validation of the results of steel-concrete composite building and RCC building with the literature results. Modelling and analysis of conventional steel-concrete G+20 storey irregular shape building(C and L shape) using ETAB software for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions. Result discussions will be prepared based on results. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS 1) For validation of the results of steel-concrete composite building and RCC building with the literature results. Details of model are given below: Type of Building to analyze – G+15 Storied steel-concrete composite building The grade of concrete - M30 Grade of steel – FE 345 and Rebar – HYSD 415 Zones to be used – III Beam and Column Size – 300 X 500 mm Composite Column Section – ISMB 45 0 Parameters to analyze – Base Shear, Storey displacement and Storey drift 2) Analysis of conventional and steel-concrete composite G+20 storey irregular shape building(C and L shape) using ETAB software for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions. Details of model are given below: Type of Building to analyze – G+ 20 Storied RCC building The grade of concrete - M30 Grade of steel – FE 345 and Rebar – HYSD 415 Zones to be used – II, III, IV and V Beam Dimension – 350mm X 500mm Column Dimension - 600mm X 600mm Composite Column Section – ISMB 500 Soil Condition – Soft Soil, Medium Soil and Hard soil Parameters to analyze – Base Shear, Storey displacement and Storey drift RESULTS a. The first model was validation of literature results of G+15 RCC building and second model was G+15 steel-concrete composite building with the literature results is studied. Following results are obtained after analysis by using ETABs. Table No. 1 Result shows the comparison of Literature Results with ETABS Literature Results ETABS RCC Composite RCC Composite Base Shear (VB) (KN) 564.24 468.52 484.91 493.65 Storey Displacement (mm) 17.33 13.56 20.84 20. 205 Storey Drift 0.000599 0.000503 0.000615 0.000602 b. Results of Conventional G+ 20 Storey Irregular L and C Shape Building Table No. 2 Results of conventional G+20 storey irregular L shape building results for various seismic zones (II, III, IV and V) with varying soil conditions. Soil Conditions Soft Soil Medium Soil Hard Soil Seismic Zones II III IV V II III IV V II III IV V Base Shear (VB) (KN) 528.687 830.794 1208.43 1812.640 554.855 887.769 1331.653 1997.481 681.762 1090.128 1635.192 2452.788 Storey Displacement (mm) 13.007 20.439 29.73 44.595 13.651 21.841 32.762 49.142 16.762 26.819 40.229 60.343 Storey Drift 0.000267 0.000419 0.000610 0.000915 0.00028 0.000448 0.000672 0.00101 0.000344 0.000550 0.000826 0.00123 Table No. 3 Results of conventional G+ 20 storey irregular C shape building results for various seismic zones (II, III, IV and V) with varying soil conditions. Soil Conditions Soft Soil Medium Soil Hard Soil Seismic Zones II III IV V II III IV V II III IV V Base Shear (VB) (KN) 685.448 1077.164 1566.785 2350.177 762.685 1220.296 1830.443 2745.665 936.532 1498.451 2247.677 3371.515 Storey Displacement (mm) 10.285 16.163 23.509 35.264 11.444 18.310 227.465 41.198 14.053 22.484 33.726 50.589 Storey Drift 0.000219 0.000344 0.000501 0.000751 0.00024 0.000390 0.000585 0.00878 0.000299 0.000479 0.000719 0.00108 C. Results of Steel Concrete Composite G+ 20 Storey Irregular C and L Shape Building Table No. 4 Results of Steel Concrete Composite G+20 storey irregular C shape building results for various seismic zones (II, III, IV and V) with varying soil conditions. Soil Conditions Soft Soil Medium Soil Hard Soil Seismic Zones II III IV V II III IV V II III IV V Base Shear (VB) (KN) 702.237 1003.515 1605.113 2407.669 730.165 1168.265 1752.397 2628.596 896.600 1434.561 2151.841 3227.762 Storey Displacement (mm) 11.139 17.504 25.460 38.191 11.582 18.531 27.796 41.694 14.22 22.755 34.132 51.198 Storey Drift 0.00033 0.000518 0.000753 0.000113 0.000343 0.000548 0.000822 0.00123 0.000421 0.000673 0.00101 0.00151 Table No. 5 Results of Steel Concrete Composite G+20 storey irregular L shape building results for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions. Soil Conditions Soft Soil Medium Soil Hard Soil Seismic Zones II III IV V II III IV V II III IV V Base Shear (VB) (KN) 541.729 851.794 1238.237 1857.356 541.729 854.133 1281.199 1921.799 655.516 1048.825 1573.237 2359.856 Storey Displacement (mm) 13.810 21.702 31.566 47.349 13.810 21.774 32.661 48.992 16.711 26.737 40.106 60.159 Storey Drift 0.00036 0.000565 0.000822 0.000123 0.00036 0.000567 0.000851 0.00128 0.000435 0.000696 0.000104 0.00157 CONCLUSION The validation of G + 15 model results shows that for RCC building story shear is 14.06% less than literature results & for composite column building it is 5.16% greater than literature results, storey displacement of RCC building & composite column building in ETABs is 20.25%, 49% greater than literature results & storey drift of RCC building & composite column building in ETABs is 2.67%, 19.68% greater than literature results. For a conventional G + 20 storey irregular C & L shaped building in seismic zones II, III, IV & V, the story shear is 29.9% for soft soil, 37.4% for medium soil & 37.5% for hard soil. The percentage of base shear increases as soil condition changes. For the same type of building story displacement is 24.4% for soft soil, 19.29% for medium soil & 19.28% for hard soil, story displacement decreases as soil conditions change & story drift is 21.9% for soft soil, 14.8% for medium soil & 14.8% for hard soil, story drift decreases as soil conditions change. Results of steel-concrete composite G + 20 storey irregular C & L shape building in seismic zones II, III, IV, and V, the story shear for soft soil is 29.6%, while for medium & hard soil it is 36.7%. The percentage of base shear increases as soil condition changes, story displacement for soft soil is 23.9%, while for medium & hard soil it is 17.5%, story displacement decreases as soil condition changes & story drift for soft soil is 9%, medium soil is 4% & hard soil is 3.4%. The percentage of story drift decreases as soil condition changes. FUTURE SCOPE In this paper provides valuable insights into the seismic behavior of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) and steel-concrete composite (SCC) buildings under dynamic loads, specifically focusing on their performance using ETABS software. However, there are several avenues for future research and development that could further enhance the understanding of seismic performance, as well as the practical application of these construction systems. Some future research includes: While ETABS provides detailed simulations, experimental validation through full-scale shaking table tests and field measurements would offer a more empirical understanding of the seismic response of both RCC and SCC buildings. Future research could involve setting up real-world experiments to validate and refine the computational models used in the analysis. Use different column sections for analysis of composite column building. Various irregular shapes of building with RCC and steel concrete composite building. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for Publication: This manuscript is hereby declared to contain no personal data, identifiable information, images, or videos of any individual. Funding: It is hereby stated that no financial support, including funds, grants, or any other forms of assistance, was received from any organizations, institutions, or sponsors during the preparation and development of this manuscript. The review data collection and writing of this work were carried out without the aid of any external financial resources. Availability of data and materials: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors' contributions: S. P. provided valuable guidance in sourcing relevant literature and explained the importance and advantages of RCC and steel–concrete composite buildings. This insight helped V.P. choose steel–concrete composite structures as the research topic. While V. P. gathered existing resources on the subject, S. P. identified recent papers and guided V. P. in recognizing gaps within the literature. Throughout the research process, S. P. offered continuous instruction and support, enabling V. P. to complete the study. Together, they analyzed the literature to pinpoint research gaps. S. P. also advised V. P. on how to write a research paper, and through mutual collaboration, they successfully prepared this manuscript. This research process deepened their understanding of existing gaps in the field and contributed to the overall effectiveness of their work. References Anargha, S., & Mithulraj, M. (2019). Comparative study on behavior of R.C.C and composite multistoried building using ETABS. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research , 14, e-ISSN: 2395-0056, p-ISSN: 2395–0072. Dahal, S., & Suwal, R. (2019). Seismic behavior analysis of composite buildings with respect to RCC buildings. Journal of the Institute of Engineering , 15 , 54–61. https://doi.org/10.3126/jie.v15i1.27705 Javaid, K., & Verma, N. (2023). Seismic performance of irregular composite buildings: A comparative study of the effectiveness of buckling restrained braces and viscous dampers. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.02.3 Madan, Y., & Samrutwar, S. (2023). Seismic evaluation of building having steel concrete composite columns and RC beams. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology , 11 , 2321–9653. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.54484 Mahajan, A., & Kalurkar, L. (2016). Performance analysis of RCC and steel concrete composite structure under seismic effect. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology , 5 , 2321–7308. Mohite, N., & Joshi, P. (2015). Comparative analysis of RCC and steel–concrete composite (B + G + 11 storey) building. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications , 5 (10), 2250–3153. Nethravathi, S., & Thouseef, T. (2017). Performance analysis of regular and irregular structure under seismic effect for RCC and steel composite column using response spectrum. International Journal of Engineering Research & Science , 3(8), ISSN: 2395–6992. Patil, S., & Pujari, A. (2024). Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced cement concrete building and steel concrete composite building. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering , 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-024-01036-6 Rachakonda, D., & Murali, K. (2021). Comparative study on design of steel structures and RCC frame structures based on column span. Materials Today: Proceedings , 3rd International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing and Modelling , 2214–7853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.391 Rathi, V., & Shirsath, S. (2022). Analysis and design of steel concrete composite structure and its comparison with RCC structure. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology , 10, ISSN: 2321–9653. Wagh, P., & Kadlag, V. (2019). Comparative study on analysis and design of RCC and composite structure. International Journal of Advance Research Ideas and Innovations in Technology , 5 , 2454–132X. Wagh, S., Waghe, U., & New Delhi. (2014). Comparative study of R.C.C and steel concrete composite structures. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications , 4(4), 369–376. ISSN: 2248–9622. IS CODES 1.Bureau of Indian Standards. (1985). IS 11384: Code of practice for composite construction in structural steel and concrete . BIS,. 2.Bureau of Indian Standards. (2015). IS 875 (Part 1, 2 & 3): Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures – Dead loads, live loads, and wind loads . BIS, New Delhi. 3.Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016). IS 1893 (Part 1): Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures . BIS, New Delhi. 4.Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). IS 456: Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete . BIS, New Delhi. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6831065","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":469211740,"identity":"78968df1-4f5f-4024-8273-d68e32425fc5","order_by":0,"name":"Vedika Patil","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rajarambapu Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vedika","middleName":"","lastName":"Patil","suffix":""},{"id":469211741,"identity":"413c23df-846e-4c64-8375-071bb0242ab8","order_by":1,"name":"Savita Patil","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rajarambapu Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Savita","middleName":"","lastName":"Patil","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-05 16:53:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831065/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831065/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84386369,"identity":"9f2dd126-038b-41b3-a3a1-1bf9b975a31f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-11 10:12:18","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":254577,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComposite column (\u003ca href=\"https://www.civilengineermag.com/wp\"\u003ehttps://www.civilengineermag.com/wp\u003c/a\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.1Compositecolumn.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831065/v1/a8ae562281c483af139851c1.png"},{"id":84387672,"identity":"5216487e-aac8-457d-96c8-5b0536051799","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-11 10:36:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1726926,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831065/v1/f4b6184e-86bb-4356-abed-2721c5514181.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete Composite Building under Seismic Effect using ETABs","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of buildings under seismic effects is fundamental aspects of structural engineering, particularly in earthquake-prone regions. The resilience and safety of structures during seismic events depend on their ability to withstand dynamic loads and deformations caused by ground motion. In recent years, advanced software tools, such as ETABS, have become instrumental in the structural analysis and design of buildings, enabling engineers to accurately model complex structures under various loading conditions, including seismic forces. Among the different types of structural systems, Reinforced Concrete (RCC) and Steel-Concrete Composite (SCC) buildings are widely used due to their adaptability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. RCC buildings, made primarily of concrete and reinforced with steel, are known for their durability and high strength in compression. Integrating steel and concrete results in enhanced load-bearing capacity improved ductility, and better performance under seismic loading. ETABS enables the modeling of building systems, including RCC and composite structures, under static and dynamic loading conditions. With its advanced features, it offers solutions for calculating internal forces, displacements, and member designs while considering the seismic forces imposed on the building. It is observed that composite buildings had significantly smaller time periods and storey displacements compared to RCC buildings, indicating a stiffer response to seismic forces (Mahajan, Kalurkar \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This project aims to explore the analysis of RCC G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20 storey irregular shape and steel-concrete composite G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20 storey irregular shape buildings under seismic loading, with a particular focus on the use of ETABS software. It delves into the methods and techniques employed to assess seismic behavior, the advantages of using composite structures over conventional RCC systems. In high-rise structure RCC members are no longer suitable because of their increased dead load, limitation of span length and less stiffness. To overcome such defects structural engineers are using different materials to their best utilization. There is a great potential for increasing volume of steel in construction, steel can be used as an alternative construction material. The composite section using steel encased with concrete is effective solution in major civil structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eConcept Composite Structure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComposite structure can be defined as the structures in which composite sections made up of two different types of materials such as steel and concrete are used for beams and columns. Composite construction combines the better properties in both, concrete in compression and steel in tension, they have almost the same thermal expansion and results in speedy construction. Two different materials are tied together by the use of shear studs at their interface having lesser depth in composite construction. Structural components use in composite construction consists of the following elements. (Mahajan, Kalurkar \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ea) Composite column\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA steel concrete composite column is a compressive element that consists of both concrete encased hot rolled steel section and a concrete filled hollow section of hot rolled steel. These columns are widely employed as load-resisting components in composite framework systems where they mainly resist compressive and bending forces. In these columns, the steel and concrete collaborate to withstand external loads, with their combined action depending on bonding and friction. (Dahal, Suwal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, Anargha, Mithulraj \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eb) Composite beam\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conventional composite construction, concrete slabs rest over steel beams and are supported by them. Under load these two components act independently and a relative slip occurs at the interface if there is no connection between them. With the help of a deliberate and appropriate connection provided between them can be eliminated. In this case the steel beam and the slab act as a \u0026ldquo;composite beam\" and their action is similar to that of a monolithic Tee beam. Also we can use concrete encased steel section as composite beam. (Dahal, Suwal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, Anargha, Mithulraj \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ec) Composite slab\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComposite slabs comprise reinforced concrete cast on top of profiled steel decking, which acts as formwork during construction and external reinforcement at the final stage. A composite floor system produces a ridged horizontal diagram that provides stability to the overall building system while at the same time, distributing wind and seismic shears to the lateral load resisting systems. Composite action increases the load carry capacity and stiffness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMadan, Samrutwar\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(2023), \u0026ldquo;Seismic Evaluation of Building having Steel Concrete Composite Columns and RC Beams\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is conducted on a G+9 storey regular building located in Zone V, featuring concrete-encased steel column sections and RC beams. The building selected for the study has a rectangular plan, an elevation of 30 meters, and exhibits no plan or vertical irregularities. The results from the analysis of both buildings are presented through tables and graphs, allowing for a comparative study of the observed differences. The design and analysis are carried out using ETABS, finite element modeling-based software, employing the nonlinear analysis method.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eShirsath, Rathi (2022), \u0026ldquo;Analysis and Design of Steel Concrete Composite Structure and Its Comparison with RCC Structure\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study examines a comparative analysis of G+ 15 RCC and composite column multistory commercial buildings located in earthquake Zone IV is conducted using the static equivalent analysis. Both structures are modeled using ETABS 2018 software. Various parameters are considered for comparison, and the results indicate that the composite structure demonstrates superior performance in all aspects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatil,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePujari\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(2024), \u0026ldquo;Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced cement concrete building and steel concrete composite building\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper evaluates the relative dynamic behavior of RCC and steel-concrete composite moment-resisting frames when subjected to earthquake-induced forces.\u0026nbsp;The study considers two G+15 story buildings located in Zone III, with both the equivalent static and response spectrum analyses were carried out using the ETABS software. This study focuses on comparing critical aspects like time and seismic response of steel-concrete composite frames with those of typical reinforced concrete and steel frames in building construction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDahal, Suwal (2019), \u0026ldquo;Seismic Behavior Analysis of Composite Buildings with Respect to RCC Buildings\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis study analyzes the\u0026nbsp;Earthquake responseof both fully and partially steel-concrete composite structures, as well as RCC alternatives, through a comparative approach. The focus is on ten multi-story commercial buildings situated in Earthquake Zone V, with varying heights. Key parameters, including story drift, axial load, and displacement, are evaluated using the Equivalent Static Method. Analytical representation is conducted using SAP2000 software. A comparison is made across different structural configurations full composite (both beam and column composite), half composite (column composite), and RCC structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMahajan, Kalurkar (2016), \u0026ldquo;Performance analysis of RCC and steel concrete composite structure under seismic effect\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper examines Assessment of the performance of a G+20 storey special moment frame with fully encased composite components, comparing different structural systems under seismic analysis. Parameters are determined using both linear static and nonlinear static analysis. Seismic analysis and design of the building are carried out using ETABS software. Key parameters are compared between the two structural systems, with notable differences observed in the natural period and storey displacement results due to the higher lateral stiffness of the composite structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDivya, Murali (2021), \u0026ldquo;Comparative study on design of steel structures and RCC frame structures based on column span\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper presents a comparative study of a G+8 storey RCC structure and a steel composite structure, focusing on variations in column spans. It also examines differences in analysis, design and cost of construction between RCC and steel structures for both long and short column spans. In this comparison, the columns were arranged in a grid system, ensuring consistent building size and height. The structural design and analysis were performed under full loading conditions using both linear static and response spectrum analysis methods in ETABS software.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNethravathi, Thouseef\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(2017), \u0026ldquo;Performance Analysis of Regular and Irregular Structure Under Seismic Effect for RCC and Steel Composite Column Using Response Spectrum\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper includes performance analysis of regular \u0026amp; irregular structure under seismic effect for RCC \u0026amp; composite column. The shape of the regular building is rectangular and irregular building is Z shape was analyzed. The compression efficiency of concrete \u0026amp; high ductile properties of steel together contributes to the structure for its perfect durability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnargha, Mithulraj\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(2019), \u0026ldquo;Comparative Study on Behavior of R.C.C and Composite Multistoried Building Using ETABS\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper aims to examine the Dynamic performance of concrete, steel, and composite frames during seismic events. This paper explores to assess the impact of lateral loads on RCC and composite buildings by utilizing structural elements with varying I-sections but the same weight per meter, with the analysis conducted using ETABS software.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJavaid, Verma (2023), \u0026ldquo;Seismic performance of irregular composite buildings: A comparative study of the effectiveness of buckling restrained braces and viscous dampers\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research aimed to assess the impact of Restrained Buckling Braces (BRBs) and Viscous Dampers (VDs) on the seismic performance of asymmetrical 15-story steel\u0026ndash;concrete composite moment resisting frames. A comprehensive response spectrum analysis was carried out to evaluate the seismic performance of the frames. The results indicated that both BRBs and VDs effectively reduced seismic response in these buildings, with VDs being more efficient in reducing the time period and base shear by 65\u0026ndash;73% and 80\u0026ndash;90% respectively and BRBs demonstrating better performance in reducing the maximum overturning moment in irregular building configurations. The study found that VDs are more effective seismic control devices for composite buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMohite, Joshi (2015), \u0026ldquo;Comparative Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete Composite (B+G+ 11 Storey) Building\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the present work, options of construction of (B+G+11storey) commercial building, situated in Kolhapur, with steel-concrete-composite and RCC are studied and compared with each other. Equivalent linear Static Method of Analysis explained in ETABS version 15 software is used and results are compared for different parameters. Comparative parameter includes roof deflections, base shear, storey drifts, for the building and axial forces and bending moments for columns and beams at different level. \u0026nbsp;It is observed that steel-concrete composite building is found to be safer and more economical and better option.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWagh, Waghe (2014), \u0026ldquo;Comparative Study of R.C.C and Steel Concrete Composite Structures\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this paper study of four various multistoried commercial buildings comparative study of R.C.C. with Steel Concrete Composite (G+12, G+16, G+20, G+24) story buildings which situated in Nagpur earthquake zone II and wind speed 44m/s. \u0026nbsp;Equivalent Static Method of Analysis is used. For modeling of Composite \u0026amp; R.C.C. structures, STAAD-Pro software is used and the results are compared. Comparative study includes deflection, axial force and shear force, bending moment in column and beam, cost.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWagh, Kadlag\u0026nbsp;(2019), \u0026ldquo;Comparative study on analysis and design of RCC and composite structure\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper presents a seismic assessment is performed on a multi-storey residential building utilizing different construction materials such as reinforced concrete, structural steel, and composite steel-concrete. A G+21 story building located in seismic zone III is chosen for the comparison, focusing on RCC and steel-concrete composite structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRESEARCH GAP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Following are the research gaps identified through the rigorous literature review:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously most of the research was carried out on analysis of regular building and steel-concrete composite building for one seismic zone.There is significant gap in understanding how irregular high-rise RCC building, and steel composite building respond to seismic responses. There is lack study that investigates the analysis of steel-concrete composite irregular shape building with various soil conditions. Therefore\u003cstrong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the present work, it is proposed to carry out seismic analysis of RCC \u0026amp; steel composite irregular building for different seismic zones considering varying soil conditions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOBJECTIVES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe objectives of research are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo validate the results of steel-concrete composite building and RCC building with the literature results.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo analyze conventional G+20 storey irregular shape building(C and L shape) using ETAB software for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo analyze steel-concrete composite G+20 storey irregular shape building (C and L shape) using ETAB software for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo compare seismic responses such as lateral displacement, base shear, and story drift.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePROPOSED METHODOLOGY\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCollection of relevant research data from national and international journals, web source, textbooks, reference books to get acquainted with past research.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStudied the concept of steel concrete composite structure\u0026nbsp;and different material use for it in various high-rise building.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eValidation of the results of steel-concrete composite building and RCC building with the literature results.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eModelling and analysis of conventional\u0026nbsp;steel-concrete\u0026nbsp;G+20 storey irregular shape building(C and L shape) using ETAB software for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResult discussions will be prepared based on results.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMODELLING AND ANALYSIS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1)\u0026nbsp; For validation of the results of steel-concrete composite building and RCC building with the literature results.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDetails of model are given below:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eType of Building to analyze \u0026ndash; \u003cstrong\u003eG+15 Storied steel-concrete composite building\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe grade of concrete - \u003cstrong\u003eM30\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGrade of steel \u0026ndash; \u003cstrong\u003eFE 345 and Rebar \u0026ndash; HYSD 415\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZones to be used \u0026ndash; \u003cstrong\u003eIII\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeam and Column Size \u0026ndash; \u003cstrong\u003e300 X 500 mm \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eComposite Column Section \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ISMB\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e45\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParameters to analyze \u0026ndash; \u003cstrong\u003eBase Shear, Storey displacement and Storey drift\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Analysis of conventional and steel-concrete composite G+20 storey irregular shape building(C and L shape) using ETAB software for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions. Details of model are given below:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eType of Building to analyze \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;G+\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStoried RCC building\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe grade of concrete -\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;M30\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGrade of steel \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;FE 345 and Rebar \u0026ndash; HYSD 415\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZones to be used \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003eII, III, IV and V\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeam Dimension \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;350mm X 500mm \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eColumn Dimension -\u003cstrong\u003e600mm X 600mm\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eComposite Column Section \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ISMB 500\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSoil Condition \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Soft Soil, Medium Soil and Hard soil\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParameters to analyze \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Base Shear, Storey displacement and Storey drift\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003ea. The first model was validation of literature results of G+15 RCC building and second model was G+15 steel-concrete composite building with the literature results is studied. Following results are obtained after analysis by using ETABs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable No. 1\u003c/strong\u003e Result shows the comparison of Literature Results with ETABS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"709\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLiterature\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eETABS\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRCC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComposite\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRCC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComposite\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBase Shear (VB) (KN)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e564.24\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e468.52\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e484.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e493.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStorey Displacement (mm)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.33\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.56\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.84\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20. 205\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStorey Drift\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000599\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000503\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000615\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000602\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eb. Results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eof\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConventional\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eG+ 20 Storey\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Irregular\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eL and C\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Shape Building\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable No. 2\u003c/strong\u003e Results of conventional G+20 storey irregular L shape building results for various seismic zones (II, III, IV and V) with varying soil conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"714\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConditions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSoft Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedium Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHard Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeismic Zones\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBase Shear (VB) (KN)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e528.687\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e830.794\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1208.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1812.640\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e554.855\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e887.769\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1331.653\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1997.481\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e681.762\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1090.128\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1635.192\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2452.788\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStorey Displacement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;(mm)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.007\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.439\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.595\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.651\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.841\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.762\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.142\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.762\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.819\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.229\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;60.343\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStorey Drift\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000267\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000419\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000610\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000915\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00028\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000448\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000672\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000344\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000550\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000826\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00123\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable No. 3\u003c/strong\u003e Results of conventional G+ 20 storey irregular C shape building results for various seismic zones (II, III, IV and V) with varying soil conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"714\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConditions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSoft Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedium Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHard Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeismic Zones\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBase Shear (VB) (KN)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e685.448\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1077.164\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1566.785\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2350.177\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e762.685\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1220.296\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1830.443\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2745.665\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e936.532\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1498.451\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2247.677\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3371.515\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStorey Displacement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;(mm)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.285\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.163\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.509\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.264\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.444\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.310\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e227.465\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.198\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.053\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.484\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.726\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;50.589\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStorey Drift\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000219\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000344\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000501\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000751\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00024\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000390\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000585\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00878\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000299\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000479\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000719\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00108\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC. Results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eof\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSteel Concrete Composite\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eG+ 20 Storey\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Irregular\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC and L\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eShape Building\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable No. 4\u003c/strong\u003e Results of Steel Concrete Composite G+20 storey irregular C shape building results for various seismic zones (II, III, IV and V) with varying soil conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"714\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConditions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSoft Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedium Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHard Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeismic Zones\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBase Shear (VB) (KN)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e702.237\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1003.515\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1605.113\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2407.669\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e730.165\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1168.265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1752.397\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2628.596\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e896.600\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1434.561\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2151.841\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3227.762\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStorey Displacement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;(mm)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.139\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.504\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.460\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.191\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.582\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.531\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.796\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.694\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.22\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.755\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.132\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.198\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStorey Drift\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00033\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000518\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000753\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000113\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000343\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000548\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000822\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00123\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000421\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000673\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00101\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00151\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable No. 5\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eResults of\u0026nbsp;Steel Concrete Composite G+20 storey irregular L shape building results for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"714\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConditions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSoft Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedium Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHard Soil\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeismic Zones\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eV\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBase Shear (VB) (KN)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e541.729\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e851.794\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1238.237\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1857.356\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e541.729\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e854.133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1281.199\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1921.799\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e655.516\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1048.825\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1573.237\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2359.856\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStorey Displacement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;(mm)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.810\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.702\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.566\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.349\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.810\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.774\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.661\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.992\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.711\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.737\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.106\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.159\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStorey Drift\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00036\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000565\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000822\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000123\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00036\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000567\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000851\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00128\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000435\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000696\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000104\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00157\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe validation of G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;15 model results shows that for RCC building story shear is 14.06% less than literature results \u0026amp; for composite column building it is 5.16% greater than literature results, storey displacement of RCC building \u0026amp; composite column building in ETABs is 20.25%, 49% greater than literature results \u0026amp; storey drift of RCC building \u0026amp; composite column building in ETABs is 2.67%, 19.68% greater than literature results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor a conventional G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20 storey irregular C \u0026amp; L shaped building in seismic zones II, III, IV \u0026amp; V, the story shear is 29.9% for soft soil, 37.4% for medium soil \u0026amp; 37.5% for hard soil. The percentage of base shear increases as soil condition changes. For the same type of building story displacement is 24.4% for soft soil, 19.29% for medium soil \u0026amp; 19.28% for hard soil, story displacement decreases as soil conditions change \u0026amp; story drift is 21.9% for soft soil, 14.8% for medium soil \u0026amp; 14.8% for hard soil, story drift decreases as soil conditions change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults of steel-concrete composite G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20 storey irregular C \u0026amp; L shape building in seismic zones II, III, IV, and V, the story shear for soft soil is 29.6%, while for medium \u0026amp; hard soil it is 36.7%. The percentage of base shear increases as soil condition changes, story displacement for soft soil is 23.9%, while for medium \u0026amp; hard soil it is 17.5%, story displacement decreases as soil condition changes \u0026amp; story drift for soft soil is 9%, medium soil is 4% \u0026amp; hard soil is 3.4%. The percentage of story drift decreases as soil condition changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFUTURE SCOPE\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper provides valuable insights into the seismic behavior of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) and steel-concrete composite (SCC) buildings under dynamic loads, specifically focusing on their performance using ETABS software. However, there are several avenues for future research and development that could further enhance the understanding of seismic performance, as well as the practical application of these construction systems. Some future research includes:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile ETABS provides detailed simulations, experimental validation through full-scale shaking table tests and field measurements would offer a more empirical understanding of the seismic response of both RCC and SCC buildings. Future research could involve setting up real-world experiments to validate and refine the computational models used in the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eUse different column sections for analysis of composite column building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eVarious irregular shapes of building with RCC and steel concrete composite building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis manuscript is hereby declared to contain no personal data, identifiable information, images, or videos of any individual.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is hereby stated that no financial support, including funds, grants, or any other forms of assistance, was received from any organizations, institutions, or sponsors during the preparation and development of this manuscript. The review data collection and writing of this work were carried out without the aid of any external financial resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors' contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eS. P. provided valuable guidance in sourcing relevant literature and explained the importance and advantages of RCC and steel–concrete composite buildings. This insight helped V.P. choose steel–concrete composite structures as the research topic. While V. P. gathered existing resources on the subject, S. P. identified recent papers and guided V. P. in recognizing gaps within the literature. Throughout the research process, S. P. offered continuous instruction and support, enabling V. P. to complete the study. Together, they analyzed the literature to pinpoint research gaps. S. P. also advised V. P. on how to write a research paper, and through mutual collaboration, they successfully prepared this manuscript. This research process deepened their understanding of existing gaps in the field and contributed to the overall effectiveness of their work.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnargha, S., \u0026amp; Mithulraj, M. (2019). Comparative study on behavior of R.C.C and composite multistoried building using ETABS. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Applied Engineering Research\u003c/em\u003e, 14, e-ISSN: 2395-0056, p-ISSN: 2395\u0026ndash;0072.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDahal, S., \u0026amp; Suwal, R. (2019). Seismic behavior analysis of composite buildings with respect to RCC buildings. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Institute of Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e, 54\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3126/jie.v15i1.27705\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3126/jie.v15i1.27705\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJavaid, K., \u0026amp; Verma, N. (2023). Seismic performance of irregular composite buildings: A comparative study of the effectiveness of buckling restrained braces and viscous dampers. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Civil Engineering\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.02.3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.matpr.2023.02.3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMadan, Y., \u0026amp; Samrutwar, S. (2023). Seismic evaluation of building having steel concrete composite columns and RC beams. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science \u0026amp; Engineering Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 2321\u0026ndash;9653. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.54484\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22214/ijraset.2023.54484\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahajan, A., \u0026amp; Kalurkar, L. (2016). Performance analysis of RCC and steel concrete composite structure under seismic effect. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 2321\u0026ndash;7308.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohite, N., \u0026amp; Joshi, P. (2015). Comparative analysis of RCC and steel\u0026ndash;concrete composite (B\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;11 storey) building. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Scientific and Research Publications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2250\u0026ndash;3153.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNethravathi, S., \u0026amp; Thouseef, T. (2017). Performance analysis of regular and irregular structure under seismic effect for RCC and steel composite column using response spectrum. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Engineering Research \u0026amp; Science\u003c/em\u003e, 3(8), ISSN: 2395\u0026ndash;6992.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatil, S., \u0026amp; Pujari, A. (2024). Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced cement concrete building and steel concrete composite building. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Civil Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, 25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-024-01036-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s42107-024-01036-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRachakonda, D., \u0026amp; Murali, K. (2021). Comparative study on design of steel structures and RCC frame structures based on column span. \u003cem\u003eMaterials Today: Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3rd International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing and Modelling\u003c/em\u003e, 2214\u0026ndash;7853. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.391\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.391\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRathi, V., \u0026amp; Shirsath, S. (2022). Analysis and design of steel concrete composite structure and its comparison with RCC structure. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science \u0026amp; Engineering Technology\u003c/em\u003e, 10, ISSN: 2321\u0026ndash;9653.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWagh, P., \u0026amp; Kadlag, V. (2019). Comparative study on analysis and design of RCC and composite structure. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Advance Research Ideas and Innovations in Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 2454\u0026ndash;132X.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWagh, S., Waghe, U., \u0026amp; New Delhi. (2014). Comparative study of R.C.C and steel concrete composite structures. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Engineering Research and Applications\u003c/em\u003e, 4(4), 369\u0026ndash;376. ISSN: 2248\u0026ndash;9622. IS CODES 1.Bureau of Indian Standards. (1985). IS \u003cem\u003e11384: Code of practice for composite construction in structural steel and concrete\u003c/em\u003e. BIS,. 2.Bureau of Indian Standards. (2015). IS \u003cem\u003e875 (Part 1, 2 \u0026amp; 3): Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures \u0026ndash; Dead loads, live loads, and wind loads\u003c/em\u003e. BIS, New Delhi. 3.Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016). IS \u003cem\u003e1893 (Part 1): Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures\u003c/em\u003e. BIS, New Delhi. 4.Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). IS \u003cem\u003e456: Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete\u003c/em\u003e. BIS, New Delhi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"RCC building, Steel-Concrete Composite building, Seismic analysis, Lateral displacement, Base shear, Story drift, Seismic zones, Soil condition","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831065/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831065/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis research paper investigates the analysis of multi-storey buildings under seismic loading is a critical aspect of structural engineering, especially in regions prone to seismic activity. This study explores the seismic performance of two distinct building typologies conventional Reinforced Concrete (RCC) and Steel-Concrete Composite buildings using ETABS software. The research involves the analysis of a G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20 storey building with irregular geometries, specifically C and L-shaped configurations, to simulate the complexity encountered in real-world scenarios. Both RCC and steel-concrete composite structures are designed for different seismic zones (II, III, IV, and V) as per Indian Standard codes, representing regions with varying levels of seismic hazard. In addition, the study incorporates multiple soil conditions, including soft, medium, and hard soil profiles, to assess the impact of ground conditions on the seismic performance of the buildings. ETABS software, a widely used tool in structural design and analysis, is employed for the modeling and evaluation of the buildings' dynamic behavior under seismic loads. The analysis includes the assessment of seismic parameters such as base shear, lateral displacement, and story drift for both building types across different seismic zones and soil conditions. The study aims to validate the results with available literature to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the findings. Through this comparative analysis, the study provides insights into the structural efficiency and performance of steel-concrete composite G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20 storey irregular shape buildings versus traditional RCC G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20 storey irregular shape buildings, offering valuable data for various seismic zones (II, III, IV, V) with varying soil conditions in diverse conditions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete Composite Building under Seismic Effect using ETABs","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-11 10:12:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831065/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8c2b2fa1-00c2-467f-9efd-f03e322974a3","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-11T10:12:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-11 10:12:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6831065","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6831065","identity":"rs-6831065","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}