International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Comparative Structural Performance Analysis of G+12 Residential Building Under Seismic and Non-Seismic Loads Using STAAD.Pro Saurabh Sharma1, Prof. Gaurav Shrivastava2 1M.Tech Student - Department of Civil Engineering, Vikrant Institute of Technology and Management, Gwalior (M.P.),
India
2Professer - Department of Civil Engineering, Vikrant Institute of Technology and Management, Gwalior (M.P.), India
------------------------------------------------------------------------***------------------------------------------------------------------------Abstract: The increasing demand for high-rise residential buildings in seismic-prone urban regions necessitates
robust structural design practices that account for both gravity and dynamic loads. This study presents a comparative analysis of a G+12 reinforced concrete (RC) building subjected to seismic and non-seismic load conditions using STAAD.Pro software. The structural model, compliant with Indian Standard codes (IS 456:2000, IS 875:1987, IS 1893:2016), is analyzed under static and dynamic (Response Spectrum Method) load scenarios for Zone IV with soft soil conditions. Key performance parameters—displacement, axial force, shear force, bending moment, and slab plate stress—are evaluated. Results show that seismic design increases lateral displacement by 180%, axial forces by up to 25.6%, and demands 56% more steel and 15.5% more concrete than non-seismic design, with an overall 33% increase in material cost. The findings underscore the critical role of seismic considerations in improving safety and structural resilience, advocating for performance-based design even in moderately seismic zones.
Keywords: Seismic analysis , Non-seismic analysis , STAAD. Pro , Response spectrum method, High rise building and Dynamic analysis etc.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The rapid pace of urbanization and population growth in India and across the globe has resulted in an increased demand for high-rise buildings, especially in metropolitan and tier-II cities. Vertical expansion has become a preferred solution over horizontal sprawl due to the scarcity and premium cost of urban land. Consequently, the construction of multistory reinforced concrete (RC) buildings has emerged as a critical aspect of urban infrastructure development. These buildings are required not only to be functionally efficient and aesthetically pleasing but also to ensure the safety and stability of the occupants against both static and dynamic forces. Among these, seismic forces present the most challenging threat due to their unpredictable nature and potential for catastrophic damage. The need for comprehensive structural analysis and robust design methodologies to mitigate earthquake-induced risks has never been more urgent (Paulay & Priestley, 1992; Chopra, 2012).In seismic-prone regions, buildings are often subjected to horizontal ground motions which generate inertial forces, leading to structural deformations, stress concentrations, and even collapse if not designed properly. The structural response to such forces is complex and demands precise evaluation through dynamic analysis techniques that account for time-dependent behavior and load path distribution (IS 1893:2016; Clough & Penzien, 2003). On the other hand, in areas considered non-seismic or low-risk zones, buildings are primarily designed considering static loads such as dead loads (self-weight), live loads (occupancy and usage), and environmental loads (wind, snow, etc.). However, in the absence of adequate dynamic analysis, even structures in moderate zones may exhibit significant vulnerability during seismic events, as demonstrated in several past earthquakes like Bhuj (2001), Latur (1993), and Nepal-Gorkha (2015).
II.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted to evaluate and compare the structural performance of a G+12 reinforced concrete residential building under seismic and non-seismic loading conditions. The approach includes modelling, analysis, and interpretation using STAAD.Pro, adhering strictly to Indian Standard codes such as IS 456:2000, IS 875 (Part 1 & 2):1987, and IS 1893 (Part 1):2016. The methodology is designed to offer a uniform platform for comparing structural behavior using identical geometry, material properties, and boundary conditions under both loading scenarios. The methodology also involves load combination analysis as per IS code recommendations, allowing for a holistic understanding of worst-case stress and deformation outcomes. After structural analysis, the model is evaluated for material usage—specifically steel and concrete quantities—and corresponding cost implications are derived. The final stage involves side-by-side comparison of key performance metrics under both seismic and non-seismic conditions.
© 2025, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 8.315
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 199