Objectives: Reinforced concrete structures are the extremely useconvenience in construction and economical forhigh rise buildings these R.C.C structures are no more convenient and economical due to variation in parameters such as decrease indirections and complicatedformwork. Thus for the designers, it has producing optimized and economical design for highrisebuildings. In addition inclusion of wind and seismic parameters is necessary for designing of high rise buildings. Use of steel in rise buildings helps in overcoming the above problems due to its enhanced performance by neglecting the difficulties in manufacturing of steel. But many designerstructural system due to its complexity in analysis and design. From the past studies adoption ofsteel structural system gives highly durable, economical and improved seismic performance characteristics to the buildings. The accounsymmetrical (Trapezoidal) molded G+12, R.C.C. andsteelworking under the impact of windand seismic conditions utilizing ETABS time period than R.C.C. It shows steel building are flexible and R.C.C is a rigid building. Deflection of the beams in R.C.C. is very much lesser than steel. The deflection of the beam andsteel is an average of 5.5times higher than R.C.C. In all the analysis cases, dein the relevant codes has not been exceeded. Whencomparing the support reactions, the reaction of the base of the steel is very less and compared to R.C.C. The size of the footing for R.C.C will behigher than the footing for steel

1. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017, pp.
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976
© IAEME Publication Scopus
COMPARISON OF THE EF
TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPED S
PG Student,
K L University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
Professor, Civil Engineering Department,
K L University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Reinforced concrete structures are the extremely use
convenience in construction and economical for
high rise buildings these R.C.C structures are no more convenient and economical due to variation
in parameters such as decrease in
directions and complicated formwork. Thus for the designers, it has
producing optimized and economical design for high rise buildings. In addition inclusion of
wind and seismic parameters is necessary for designing of high rise buildings. Use of steel in
rise buildings helps in overcoming the above problems due to its enhanced performance by
neglecting the difficulties in manufacturing of steel. But many designer
structural system due to its complexity in analysis and design. From the past studies adoption of
steel structural system gives highly durable, economical and improved seismic performance
characteristics to the buildings. The acco
unsymmetrical (Trapezoidal) molded G+12, R.C.C. and steel working under the impact of wind
and seismic conditions utilizing ETABS
time period than R.C.C. It shows steel building are flexible and R.C.C is a rigid building.
Deflection of the beams in R.C.C. is very much lesser than steel. The deflection of the beam and
steel is an average of 5.5 times higher than R.C.C. In all the analysis cases, de
in the relevant codes has not been exceeded. When comparing the support reactions, the reaction of
the base of the steel is very less and compared to R.C.C. The size of the footing for R.C.C will be
higher than the footing for steel
Key words: Earthquake effect, wind effect, R.C.C
Cite this Article: Lalapeta Sudha and V. Ranga Rao
Trapezoidal Shaped Steel and R.C.C Structure
Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 662
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
IJCIET/index.asp 662
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
, pp. 662–669, Article ID: IJCIET_08_01_077
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=
6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
Scopus Indexed
COMPARISON OF THE EFFICIENCY OF A
TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPED STEEL AND R.C.C
STRUCTURE
Lalapeta Sudha
PG Student, Civil Engineering Department,
K L University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
V. Ranga Rao
Professor, Civil Engineering Department,
K L University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
Reinforced concrete structures are the extremely used structures in India for its
convenience in construction and economical for low-rise buildings but coming to the medium and
high rise buildings these R.C.C structures are no more convenient and economical due to variation
in parameters such as decrease in stiffness, increase of dead loads, restriction of span in both
directions and complicated formwork. Thus for the designers, it has bec
producing optimized and economical design for high rise buildings. In addition inclusion of
and seismic parameters is necessary for designing of high rise buildings. Use of steel in
buildings helps in overcoming the above problems due to its enhanced performance by
neglecting the difficulties in manufacturing of steel. But many designers do not accept the steel
structural system due to its complexity in analysis and design. From the past studies adoption of
steel structural system gives highly durable, economical and improved seismic performance
characteristics to the buildings. The accompanying study talks about correlation of execution of
unsymmetrical (Trapezoidal) molded G+12, R.C.C. and steel working under the impact of wind
and seismic conditions utilizing ETABS. Findings: comparing the both building, steel has higher
an R.C.C. It shows steel building are flexible and R.C.C is a rigid building.
Deflection of the beams in R.C.C. is very much lesser than steel. The deflection of the beam and
steel is an average of 5.5 times higher than R.C.C. In all the analysis cases, de
in the relevant codes has not been exceeded. When comparing the support reactions, the reaction of
the base of the steel is very less and compared to R.C.C. The size of the footing for R.C.C will be
higher than the footing for steel.
Earthquake effect, wind effect, R.C.C, and steel structure, ETABS
Lalapeta Sudha and V. Ranga Rao, Comparison of the Efficiency of a
Trapezoidal Shaped Steel and R.C.C Structure. International Journal of Civil Engineering
, 8(1), 2017, pp. 662–669.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
editor@iaeme.com
&IType=1
FICIENCY OF A
TEEL AND R.C.C
K L University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
K L University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
d structures in India for its
buildings but coming to the medium and
high rise buildings these R.C.C structures are no more convenient and economical due to variation
stiffness, increase of dead loads, restriction of span in both
become a challenge for
producing optimized and economical design for high rise buildings. In addition inclusion of the
and seismic parameters is necessary for designing of high rise buildings. Use of steel in high-
buildings helps in overcoming the above problems due to its enhanced performance by
s do not accept the steel
structural system due to its complexity in analysis and design. From the past studies adoption of
steel structural system gives highly durable, economical and improved seismic performance
mpanying study talks about correlation of execution of
unsymmetrical (Trapezoidal) molded G+12, R.C.C. and steel working under the impact of wind
comparing the both building, steel has higher
an R.C.C. It shows steel building are flexible and R.C.C is a rigid building.
Deflection of the beams in R.C.C. is very much lesser than steel. The deflection of the beam and
steel is an average of 5.5 times higher than R.C.C. In all the analysis cases, deflection limits specify
in the relevant codes has not been exceeded. When comparing the support reactions, the reaction of
the base of the steel is very less and compared to R.C.C. The size of the footing for R.C.C will be
steel structure, ETABS.
Comparison of the Efficiency of a
International Journal of Civil Engineering and
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1

2. Comparison of the Efficiency of a Trapezoidal Shaped Steel and R.C.C Structure
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 663 editor@iaeme.com
1. INTRODUCTION
The auxiliary edge is, for the most part, installed with a fortified segment of all most all structures in India
since it is conservative and helpful for low raised structures1
. In any case, for medium to tall structures, this
kind of encircled structure is no more in spring viewpoints due to less solidness, the increment in dead
load, traverse confinement, and risky formwork2
. Yet, now day's steel-solid frameworks have turned out to
be very well known lately as a result of their favorable circumstances against customary development3
.
The Thesis included near investigation of the sporadic state of R.C.C., STEEL building4
. The similar study
incorporates redirections, size and material utilization of individuals to R.C.C and steel segments, seismic
powers and conduct of the working under seismic conditions as for R.C.C and steel5
.
• Principle target of this anticipate is to an examination of the unsymmetrical state of R.C.C and steel
structure ought to be outline and investigation of a multi-storied building utilizing ETABS.
• To analyze the systematic after effects of every one of the two building models, for example, story
dislodging, nodal uprooting, most extreme hub power, and greatest shear compel and bowing minutes and
so on.
2. METHODOLOGY
In this paper, a 3D model in ETABS has been created to examine the conduct of fortified solid tall building
and steel structure working under the wind and seismic tremor loads. This paper explains briefly also the
effect of wind or earthquake loads on the structure for the comparative study of wind and earthquake
effects on R.C.C framed building and steel framed building. Importance factor of the building and their
impacts on the execution of tall structures were examined. Our motivation is to analyze and design both
structures. The model has been designed for 12 storied building and this comparison will guide us in
choosing the type of structure for a 52-meter height of the building.
2.1. Building Details
In this building consider is a commercial building. The plan dimension base b1=30 meter and b2=18 meter
and height h=16 meter, total area =384m2
. The details building and models are shown in Table 1-4. and
Figure 1-4.
Table 1 Information for Analysis of R.C.C. Structure
Building height 52m
each storey height 4m
Beam size 350 x 650
Secondary beam size 300 x 450
outer column size 450 x 850
internal column size 650 x 950
Slab thickness 140 mm
internal, external wall thickness 230 mm
Zone factor IV
Wind speed 50 m/s
Type of soil Rock soil
Floor finish 1 kN/m2
Live load at all floors 4 KN/m2
grade of concrete (fck ) M 30
grade of steel (fy ) Fe 415
Damping ratio 5%

3. Lalapeta Sudha and V. Ranga Rao
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 664 editor@iaeme.com
Table 2 Information for analysis of steel structure
height of building 52m
height of each storey 4m
Beam size ISWB600
Secondary beam size ISWB450
Outer column size ISWB600
Internal column size ISWB450
Slab thickness 140mm
Zone factor IV
Wind speed 50m/s
Type of soil Rock soil
Floor finish 1.0KN/m2
Live load 4 KN/m2
Grade of concrete M 30
Table 3 Comparisons of R.C.C. and Steel building
Factor R.C.C building Steel building
Self weight 120618.64 KN 50724.18 KN
Time period 1.1(X-dir) mm
0.85(Z-dir) mm
1.35(X-dir) mm
0.89(Z-dir) mm
Maximum storey
displacement
X-dir =0.441 mm
Z-dir =2.194 mm
X-dir =0.503 mm
Z- dir =4.884 mm
Maximum axial force 7259.27 KN 3246.20 KN
Deflection Z-dir =0.1834 mm Z- dir =0.8848 mm
Support reaction P 17 =5712.75 KN P 17 =2440.768 KN
Table 4 Quantities of various materials
Concrete Reinforcement Structural
R.C.C 2096.3 m3
146.9 Ton -
Steel 889.7 m3
56.88 Ton 795 Ton
Figure 1 The plan of the Trapezoidal building using Auto-CAD

4. Comparison of the Efficiency of a Trapezoidal Shaped Steel and R.C.C Structure
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 665 editor@iaeme.com
Figure 2 Beam and column layout of building
Figure 3 Model of R.C.C structure

5. Lalapeta Sudha and V. Ranga Rao
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 666 editor@iaeme.com
Figure 4 Model of steel structure
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
Analysis of all two type structures is done and the result is shown in Figure 5-9.
• As a dead load of the steel structure is less contrasted with r.c.c. structure is subjected to less measure of
forces affected because of the earthquake.
• The story displacement of one level relative to the other level above or below is twice in steel building than
that of RCC building.
• The axial forces in R.C.C. sections are most extreme contrast with steel segments. This is on account of,
R.C.C segments are massive in size in this way their self-weight when contrasted with dainty steel segments
are more. This outcome in the higher pivotal power on the segments if there should arise an occurrence of
R.C.C casing structure.
• The most extreme shear power and greatest boring minute in steel pillar are less contrasted with R.C.C shaft.
This on the grounds that, the dead heap of steel segment is less when contrasted with R.C.C areas.
Additionally the firmness of the steel segments is less when contrasted with R.C.C areas, a subsequently less
twisting minute is exchanged to the shaft from the pillar segment joint.
• Compared to RCC, Steel structure has more pliability which is most appropriate in the actuality of parallel
powers.

6. Comparison of the Efficiency of a Trapezoidal Shaped Steel and R.C.C Structure
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
Figure 6
Comparison of the Efficiency of a Trapezoidal Shaped Steel and R.C.C Structure
IJCIET/index.asp 667
Figure 5 Comparison of time period
Figure 6 Comparison of maximum storey displacement
Figure 7 Comparison of deflection
Comparison of the Efficiency of a Trapezoidal Shaped Steel and R.C.C Structure
editor@iaeme.com
Comparison of maximum storey displacement

7. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Comparing self-weight of both building. The
Though, higher weights of the building, higher earthquake loads are attracted. So, with re
weight of steel to be efficient. While comparing the both building, steel has higher time period than R.C.C.
It shows steel building are flexible and R.C.C is a rigid building
much lesser than steel. The deflection of the beam and steel is an average of 5.5 times higher than R.C.C.
When comparing the support reactions, the reaction of the base of the steel is very less and compared to
R.C.C. It shows that the size of the footing for R.C.C will be
holistic view after results steel buildings are found to be structural efficient as well as results in maximum
material economy. Compared to RCC, Steel structure has more ductility which is most appropriate in
effect of lateral forces.
REFERENCES
[1] Bimala Pillai, Priyabrata Guha. Comparison between RCC and steel structure with wind and earthquake
effect using Staad pro. Internatonal
[2] Panchal R,Marathe P, Comparative
International Conference on Current Trends in Technology. Institute of Technology, Ahamdabad, India,
December 2011.
Lalapeta Sudha and V. Ranga Rao
IJCIET/index.asp 668
Figure 8 Comparison of bending moment
Figure 9 Comparison of shear force
of both building. The self-weight of R.C.C. is 2.3 times higher than that of steel.
Though, higher weights of the building, higher earthquake loads are attracted. So, with re
While comparing the both building, steel has higher time period than R.C.C.
It shows steel building are flexible and R.C.C is a rigid building. Deflection of the beams in R.C.C. is very
The deflection of the beam and steel is an average of 5.5 times higher than R.C.C.
When comparing the support reactions, the reaction of the base of the steel is very less and compared to
It shows that the size of the footing for R.C.C will be higher than the footing for steel.
holistic view after results steel buildings are found to be structural efficient as well as results in maximum
material economy. Compared to RCC, Steel structure has more ductility which is most appropriate in
Bimala Pillai, Priyabrata Guha. Comparison between RCC and steel structure with wind and earthquake
Internatonal journal of applied research. 2015 May;1(6), 28
Panchal R,Marathe P, Comparative study of R.C.C, steel and composite (G+30
International Conference on Current Trends in Technology. Institute of Technology, Ahamdabad, India,
editor@iaeme.com
of R.C.C. is 2.3 times higher than that of steel.
Though, higher weights of the building, higher earthquake loads are attracted. So, with regards to the self
While comparing the both building, steel has higher time period than R.C.C.
Deflection of the beams in R.C.C. is very
The deflection of the beam and steel is an average of 5.5 times higher than R.C.C.
When comparing the support reactions, the reaction of the base of the steel is very less and compared to
higher than the footing for steel. Taking a
holistic view after results steel buildings are found to be structural efficient as well as results in maximum
material economy. Compared to RCC, Steel structure has more ductility which is most appropriate in
Bimala Pillai, Priyabrata Guha. Comparison between RCC and steel structure with wind and earthquake
journal of applied research. 2015 May;1(6), 28-303.
study of R.C.C, steel and composite (G+30 storey) building.
International Conference on Current Trends in Technology. Institute of Technology, Ahamdabad, India,

8. Comparison of the Efficiency of a Trapezoidal Shaped Steel and R.C.C Structure
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 669 editor@iaeme.com
[3] Syed Rehan, Mahure S Study of Seismic and Wind Effect on Multi Storey R.C.C. Steel and Composite
Building.2014 June; 3(12), 78-83.
[4] Riya Dey, Sagnik Sen Sarma and Abhirup Bhattacharjee. Wind and Earthquake Effect on R.C.C & Steel
Structure. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 6 (8), 2015, pp 43-52.
[5] Sarita S, Taranjeet K, Megha K, Sanket S. Behaviour of R.C.C. Tall Buildings Having Different Shapes
Subjected to Wind Load. Proc. of Int. Conf. on Advances in Civil Engineering, 156-160, 2012.
[6] Kiran Kumar, Papa Rao G. Comparison of Percentage Steel and Concrete Quantities Of A R.C
Building In Different Seismic Zones. International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology. 2013 July; 2(7),
[7] Pradeepa. S, Gokul Raj. D and Divya M.R, A Review On Cost Assessment of Conventional
Steel Structure and Square Tubular Sections Using Force Co-Efficient Method. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 2016, pp.242–245.