Comparison of the performance of high-rise building based on various design code

Abstract

The main purpose to conduct this research is to compare the performance of high-rise building based on design code BS 8110, EC 2 and the combination EC 2 and EC 8. 10-storey high-rise building was designed based on the 3 types of design codes. The design and analyses were used software method and manual calculation to define the detail of the structure. The software that was used to design is ETABS. The 3 main components that used to compare the structural and costs performance were beams, columns and slabs. As the results, the area of tension reinforcement provided for a column using the combination EC 2 and EC 8 design was required more rebar compared to another two codes. For the cost performance, BS 8110 required higher costs compared to Eurocode. This is because of the safety factor for the load analysis. For Eurocode, design with considers seismic effect had higher costs compared to design without considering the seismic effect but the cost difference between this two is about +1.46%. Therefore, by referring the result had been done, it can conclude that including of seismic effect did not affect too much on the cost performance.

Full text

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Comparison of the performance of high-rise building based on various
design code
To cite this article: J X Lim and N Z N Azizan 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 682 012001
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 185.158.100.63 on 28/02/2021 at 18:02

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
4th National Conference on Wind & Earthquake Engineering
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 682 (2021) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/682/1/012001
1
Comparison of the performance of high-rise building
based on various design code
J X Lim
and N Z N Azizan
School of Environmental Engineering
, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Arau, 02600, Malaysia
Abstract.
The main purpose to conduct this research is to compare the performance of
high-rise building based on design code BS 8110, EC 2 and the combination EC 2
and EC 8. 10-storey high-rise building was designed based on the 3 types of design
codes. The design and analyses were used software method and manual calculation
to define the detail of the structure. The software that was used to design is ETABS.
The 3 main components that used to compare the structural and costs performance
were beams, columns and slabs. As the results, the area of tension reinforcement
provided for a column using the combination EC 2 and EC 8 design was required
more rebar compared to another two codes. For the cost performance, BS 8110
required higher costs compared to Eurocode. This is because of the safety factor for
the load analysis. For Eurocode, design with considers seismic effect had higher costs
compared to design without considering the seismic effect but the cost difference
between this two is about +1.46%. Therefore, by referring the result had been done, it
can conclude that including of seismic effect did not affect too much on the cost
performance
.
1.
Introduction
In this modern era, the development of a country is the most concern issue. As a country with a high
population, the number of high-rise building increasing as much as possible to cover the factor of
population increment. Most of the high-rise structures in Malaysia was design based on British Standard
Code which is BS8110 [1,2]. The reinforced concrete design was not including the seismic design
because Malaysia is not at the active fault area. But, in these few years, the earthquake occurred
frequently. It brings some consequences to the building in that area which like building crack and others.
But, due to the incrementation of cost, most of the companies in Malaysia are not ready to apply EC8 in
designing structural for building [3]. The main thing that industries worry is the cost after applying the
Eurocode 8 (EC8) will increases. Due to this event, the performance of high-rise building were studied
in this research and comparison of the estimated cost of the high-rise building based on two building
codes which are BS8110 [1] and Eurocodes are Eurocode 2 (EC2) [4] and Eurocode 8 (EC8) [5].
Existing knowledge based on British Standards was examined, as was the ability of Eurocodes to transfer
technology in codes of practice and materials standards indirectly from one country to another [6].
Seismic forces were one of the major natural forces causing huge damage to lives and economy. So that
it can understand the difference and can appropriate for the best guidelines for safety to lives and
economy [7]. Therefore, seismic analysis and design is important and should be considered in Malaysia
for the safety of structures. Most of Malaysia’s buildings w ere designed accordin g to BS8110 [1] wit hout
any consideration of seismic effects. But, some of the buildings had been started to designed by
European code for seismic design nowadays [8].

4th National Conference on Wind & Earthquake Engineering
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 682 (2021) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/682/1/012001
2
The shear performance that been showed stated that EC2 [4] design will have lower shear stress compare
to BS8110 [1] design. Nevertheless, the EC2 [4] design also provided the lower punching shear stress
than BS8110 [1] design [9]. The results show that the design of the columns of the building using BS
8110 [1] will require more area of reinforcement for both axial and un-axial load cases considered
compared to EC2 [4] design. The reason was the partial safety factor for designing the strength for
concrete. BS8110 [1] will use the lesser partial safety factor (0.67) compared to EC2 which is 0.85 at
ultimate limit state for concrete [10].
From the previous research, it was conducted similar research to estimate construction cost for building
with non-seismic design and seismic design with different ductility classes meanwhile focused on the
cost impact on low ductility class building when they were subjected to different peak ground
acceleration and behaviour factor. The results obtained were quite different even though a similar basis
of design was used which using EC8 [5,11].
2.
Materials and methods
Loading can be classified as many types which are self-weight of the structure, permanent load (Gk),
variable load (Qk), wind load (Wk) and seismic action (AE) and others. In this research, the loads that
was considered are self-weight, permanent load (Gk), variable load (Qk), wind load (Wk) and seismic
action (AE). Different codes will have different safety factor for the calculation of the ultimate load (n).
After calculate out the ultimate load, then manual calculation and software modelling and designing
have been making. In the manual calculation, three main elements are taking to design which is the
beam, column and slab. For the software, ETABS software is using to model and design for the building
structure. When the calculation and modelling are done, the comparison of different type of code has
been making to see the structural performance and the cost performance. Figure 1 shows the flow chart
of this research.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of research
EC 2 + EC 8
Architecture Drawing
BS 8110 Eurocode 2
Define loading
Performance
Manual calculation
Analysis (ETABS)

4th National Conference on Wind & Earthquake Engineering
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 682 (2021) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/682/1/012001
3
2.1
Wind loads
When the wind blows towards the building, the lateral load acting on the elevation is called "wind load".
The structural design of the building must absorb the wind load safely and effectively and pass it to the
foundation to avoid the collapse of the structure. According to the MS 1553 [12], the Analytical
procedure (for the height of the building is lesser than 200 m) was used to calculate the wind pressure on
the reinforced concrete building. Equation (1) shows the equation for designing wind pressure. Below is
the step for calculating the wind pressure:
Design wind pressure, P = 0.613 [V
des
]
2
C
fig
C
dyn
(1)
Where,
V
des
= Design wind speed = V
sit
l
l = Importance factor
V
sit
= wind speed at Site = V
s
M
d
M
z,cat
M
s
M
h
V
s
= Basic wind speed
M
d
= multiplier for Wind direction
M
z,cat
= multiplier for terrain height
M
s
= Shielding multiplier
M
h
= Hill shape multiplier
C
fig
= shape factor for Aerodynamic = C
p,e
K
a
K
c
K
l
K
p
C
p,e
= External pressure coefficient
K
a
= Area reduction factor
K
c
= Combination factor
K
l
= Local pressure factor
K
p
= Porous cladding reduction factor
C
dyn
= Dynamic response factor
2.2
Seismic action
Seismic action can be called as earthquake load which need to consider when earthquake event has
occurred and also the seismic action is represented by the elastic response spectrum [13]. Calculate the
total dead load and imposed load for the whole building first. Then, calculate the seismic mass by using
the load combination which is G +

E,i
Q. After finish the calculation for seismic mass, seismic base
shear is calculated by using the equation F
b
= λmS
d
. Then, the seismic load was divided by behaviour
factor q to get the actual seismic load acting on the building. To get the seismic load for each floor, F
k
= seismic load multiple with z
k
m
k
and divided by the total of z
k
m
k
. z
k
has represented the height of
building level and m
k
is represent the mass [14].
2.3.
ETABS
ETABS software [15] was used in the analysis and design stage. Three conditions that was used for
comparison which are design based on BS8110 [1], EC2 [4], and the combination EC2 [4] and EC8
[5]. ETABS [15] can handle the largest and most complex building models, including a wide range of
nonlinear behaviours, making it the tool of choice for structural engineers in the building industry. In
this project, the 10-storey high-rise building had been designed. Figure 2 shows the structural model in
the 3D view using ETABS software [15].

4th National Conference on Wind & Earthquake Engineering
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 682 (2021) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/682/1/012001
4
Figure 2.
The structural model in 3D view
2.4.
Manual design calculation using Microsoft excel
The manual calculation also is done for countercheck the data from the ETABS [15] to ensure that all
the data is correct. There was three sets of calculation which are using BS8110 [2], EC2 [4] and
another set using EC2 [4] design inclusive of EC8 [5]. The calculation was made through the Microsoft
Excel. In the design phase, there was few elements taken to be designed which are beam, column and
slab. Each element has a different equation, different factors used and others. In the design phase, there
was few elements taken to be designed which are beam, column and slab.
3.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1.
Seismic load analysis
The seismic load is analysing out and the value for the seismic load that acting to the whole building
was shown in table form. Table 1 shows the detail of the seismic load, A
E
.
Table 1.
The detail of seismic load, A
E
Level k
Height, z
k
(m)
Mass, m
k
(t)
z
k
*m
k
(m.t)
Force A
E
(kN)
Moment = A
E
z
k
(kNm)
10
35.0
277.1
9699.6
102.1
3573.1
9
31.5
1014.3
31950.1
336.3
10592.7
8
28.0
1014.3
28400.1
298.9
8369.5
7
24.5
1014.3
24850.1
261.5
6407.9
6
21.0
1014.3
21300.1
224.2
4707.8
5
17.5
1014.3
17750.1
186.8
3269.3
4
14.0
1014.3
14200.1
149.5
2092.4
3
10.5
1014.3
10650.0
112.1
1177.0
2
7.0
1014.3
7100.0
74.7
523.1
1
3.5
1014.3
3550.0
37.4
130.8
Totals
-
169450.2
1783.46
40843.5
Based on Table 1, the seismic load that acting on the building is increasing with the height of the
building except for the roof floor. The maximum seismic load is 336.3 kN which is acting on the
second-highest storey. From the first floor, the seismic load acting on that storey is 37.4 kN which is
the lowest seismic

4th National Conference on Wind & Earthquake Engineering
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 682 (2021) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/682/1/012001
5
load act to the building. Then, for the second storey, the seismic load increase from 37.4 kN to 74.7 kN
which increase about 37.3 kN. For the third storey, the seismic load continue increases from 74.7 kN to
112.1 kN. After that, the seismic load increases from 112.1 kN to 149.5 kN at the fourth storey. For the
fifth storey, the wind load keep increases from 149.5 kN to 186.8 kN. Then, for the sixth storey, the
seismic load increase from 186.8 kN to 224.2 kN. For the seventh storey, the wind load keep increases
from 224.2 kN to 261.5 kN. For the eighth storey, the wind load keep increases from 261.5 kN to 298.9
kN. For the ninth storey, the wind load increases from 298.9 kN to 336.3 kN which is the highest seismic
load compare to others storey. Then, it occurs a sudden decrease from 336.3 kN to 102.1 kN on the top
floor. Hence, can conclude that the seismic load depends on the mass of each floor. The higher the
building height, the stronger the wind load acting horizontally on the building structure. But, for the top
storey, the seismic load occurs a sudden drop because of the mass for the top floor is lesser compare
with other storeys.
3.2.
Cost performance
In this section, the cost performance is made for comparing between 3 types of codes. In this comparison,
the price for steel and concrete [16] was used. For beam, column and slab that use how many
quantities of reinforcement bar, how much volume for concrete used in this project. All was
calculating and show in a table form. Table 2 shows the cost performance for the beam, column and
slab.
Table 2.
Cost performance for the beam, column and slab [16]
Component
Material
Price (RM)
BS 8110
[1]
EC 2
[4]
EC 2
[4]
+ EC 8
[5]
Beam (300 x 300 mm)
Steel
93,740.00
69,760.00
69,760.00
Concrete
86,757.42
86,757.42
86,757.42
Column (600 x 600 mm)
Steel
52,320.00
52,320.00
69,760.00
Concrete
129,118.32
129,118.32
129,118.32
Slab (thickness =150 mm)
Steel
676,880.32
676,880.32
676,880.32
Concrete
175,968.12
175,968.12
175,968.12
Total Price =
1,214,784.18
1,190,804.18
1,208,244.18
Based on Table 2, by comparing the cost performance for the 3 components with 3 different design
codes, BS 8110 is the most expensive cost in this project. It uses RM 1,214,784.18 for the beam, column
and slab of the whole building. The second highest cost is using EC 2 + EC 8 for designing. By
comparing the EC 2 and EC 2 + EC 8, when seismic action is included in the design, the cost for the
project is increased in just RM 17,440 extra (+1.46%). The lowest cost performance is using EC 2 which
is RM 1,190,804.18. In the beam section, it shows that the cost for rebar used in BS 8110 has a huge
difference compared to other 2 design codes. The difference is about +34.375%. For the column section,
EC 2 + EC 8 also has more costs for rebar used compared to BS 8110 and EC 2. It is due to the seismic
load acting on the building and need to make the column to be stronger to resist the seismic load.
Therefore, the EC 2 + EC 8 design need to increase the number of rebars to resist the load.
4.
Conclusion
The cost performance was developed and showed that BS 8110 required the highest cost compared to
another 2 design codes because of the safety factor for British Standard which is using 1.4 G
k
+ 1.6 Q
k
but for Eurocode is using 1.35 G
k
+ 1.5 Q
k
. The second highest cost is EC 2 inclusive of EC 8 which is
higher than EC 2. It is due to the seismic load and needs to make the column to be stronger to resist the
seismic load. Although EC 2 + EC 8 has a higher cost than EC 2, the difference between this two is just
around RM 17,440 (about +1.46%). Therefore, the incrementation of cost is not so much by comparing
the cost performance for both cases. So, consider the seismic load into the structure design does not cost
too much compared to the design code without considering the seismic load.

4th National Conference on Wind & Earthquake Engineering
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 682 (2021) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/682/1/012001
6
References
[1]
British Standard Institution. BS8110: 1997 Part 1: Code of practice for design and construction. London:
BSI (1997).
[2]
The Institution of Engineers 2008 Position Paper for Concrete Codes of Practice in Local Construction
Industry After 2008 vol 24 pp 1-23.
[3]
Zaleha Awaludin S & Adnan A 2016 Structure and Materials, 1. Retrieved from http://civil.utm.my/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/10.
[4]
British Standard Institution. EC2: 2004 Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules
for Buildings. London: BSI (2004).
[5]
British Standard Institution. EC8: 2004 Design of Concrete for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General
Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. London: BSI (2004).
[6]
Safii F Omar W Mohammad S & Makhtar A M 2001 Journal Technology vol 34(1) pp 21–30.
[7]
Izhar T Bano S & Mumtaz N 2019 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development
vol 3(4) pp 536–551.
[8]
Adiyanto M I & Majid T A 2014 Journal of Engineering Science and Technology vol 9(1) (2014) pp 27–
46.
[9]
Panjehpour M & Putra V K 2018 INTI JOURNAL vol 1(13) pp 1–8.
[10]
Nwofor T C & Sule S 2017 International Journal of Civil Engineering vol 4(7) pp 21–28.
[11]
Ramli M Z Adnan A Kadir M A A, & Alel M N A 2017 International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Geo-Environmental, vol 2 pp 39–42.
[12]
Department of Standards Malaysia. MS 1553: 2002 Malaysian Standard Code of Practice for Building
Structure. Putrajaya, Malaysia: MS (2002).
[13]
Leslie R 2017 The Approaches to Seismic Analysis of Buildings. Retrieved October 22, 2018, from
https://www.masterbuilder.co.in/approaches-seismic-analysis- buildings/
[14]
Williams M S 2016 Chapter 3 Structural Analysis. In Seismic Design Of Buildings To Eurocode 8.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315368221-4
[15]
CSI 2016 ETABS: Linear and Nonlinear, Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Building Systems,
Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.
[16]
Quantity Surveyor Online 2020 Retrieved from http://quantitysurveyoronline.com.my/index.html.