See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301649348

Comparative Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings and Concrete Filled

Steel Tube Buildings in Nepal

Conference Paper · May 2016

CITATIONS READS

8 1,211

4 authors:

Raghabendra Yadav Bao-Chun Chen

Fuzhou University Fuzhou University
19 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS    135 PUBLICATIONS   638 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Huihui Yuan Rabindra Adhikari

Fuzhou University Cosmos College of Management and Technology
21 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   69 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Damage reconnaissance and vulnerability assessment after Storm Parvana in central Nepal View project

Multi-hazard risk assessment along Bhotekoshi River Corridor (Sino-Nepal border region) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raghabendra Yadav on 26 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Post Disastor Reconstruction Planning
24 – 26 April, 2016, Bhaktapur, Nepal

Comparative Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings and

Concrete Filled Steel Tube Buildings in Nepal
Raghabendra Yadav1, Baochun Chen2,Yuan Huihui3 and Rabindra Adhikari4

Abstract
In Nepal, most of the buildings are constructed only by using traditional reinforced cement concrete
(RCC) framed structures. However such structures are considered more suitable for low rise buildings
but not suitable for high-rise buildings because of its higher dead load, restrictions to maximum span,
requirement of formwork that is more hazardous and other reasons. It was observed that most of the
high-rise buildings in Nepal were highly affected by the 25th April earthquake. For new construction
of high-rise buildings, steel-concrete composite can be used to replace the traditional RCC sections
because of their excellent strength, ductility, better economy, better energy absorption capacity and
performance during earthquake. Concrete filled steel tube (CFST) is widely used in the construction
of buildings, bridges, offshore structure, transmission line and other structures worldwide, however it
is new concept for the construction industry in Nepal. A CFST column is built by filling either normal
or high strength concrete into a normal or high strength hollow steel tube. This paper presents the
comparative study of performance of building with RCC and CFST structural system. It has been
found that, CFST structures will be relatively lighter, flexible with higher time periods and attracts
considerably lesser horizontal seismic forces. Hence construction with CFST was found to be useful
for the location with high seismicity like Nepal.

Keywords: Concrete Filled Steel Tube; Reinforced Cement Concrete; Composite Structures; Structural
Performance of CFST

1. Introduction
Moment resisting RCC structures are very common in Nepal for building construction. With time, the
requirements for construction of high-rise buildings have increased with a challenge to resist high
seismic loads. Hence an economical construction technology with better structural performance has
been investigated.
Construction with concrete filled steel tubes is not a new technology. However design of structures
is dependent on local environment, foundation soils, seismicity of the area and available tools and
workmanship. The principal objective of this study is to investigate the performance of CFST building
structure with the commonly built moment resisting RCC structures. Comparison of structural
properties like modal time periods and seismic demands has been done for RCC and CFST structures.
Also deflection characteristics have been compared for these two types of the structure.
The CFST structural system is based on filling steel tubes with concrete. It is one of the
modifications to composite steel-concrete structures used presently in civil engineering and consists of
steel on the surface and concrete core inside it. Combining the advantages of both hollow structural
steel (HSS) and concrete, they demonstrate excellent static and earthquake resistant properties, such as

1
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China, raghabendrayadav@gmail.com
2
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China, baochunchen@fzu.edu.cn
3
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China, macarians@gmail.com
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Cosmos College of Management and Technology, Lalitpur, Nepal,
rabindraadhi@gmail.com

70
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Post Disastor Reconstruction Planning
24 – 26 April, 2016, Bhaktapur, Nepal

high strength, high ductility and large energy absorption capacity. Hence, CFST are also used
extensively in modern civil engineering applications.
When they are used as structural columns, especially in bridge and high-rise buildings, the
composite members may be subjected to high shearing force as well as moments under vehicular,
wind or seismic actions. The outside steel tube in the column section adds confinement to the concrete
core while the inside concrete provides stability to the outer steel delaying the local buckling, which
causes an increase in both strength and ductility for the concrete. Also, as the circular section can
provide higher hoop stresses, it can provide a higher confinement than rectangular CFST.
The confinement of concrete is influenced by the diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/t) of the tubes. Han
et al. (2014) has demonstrated that the ultimate strength for a concrete-filled steel tube is even larger
than the summation of the individual strength of the steel tube and the RC column, which is described
as “1(steel tube) + 1(concrete core) greater than 2 (simple summation of the two materials)” as
illustrated inFig. 2-1.

Fig. 0-1: Properties of CFST in Reference to Concrete and Steel Tube

Hence, use of CFST can be efficient for the building construction. It has not only better
performance; but being smaller in section size it also provides more space in the building. For the
considered building in this analysis, it has been observed that there is reduction in area of column by
60% that accounts for overall increase in carpet area by 1.6% as illustrated in Fig. 0-2. The number in
chart shows the area in sq. m. used for particular purpose.

100%
Percentage of Total Area

80%

60% Carpet Area

590.3 599.7
Column Area
40%
Wall Area
20%
15.7 6.3
67.3 67.3
0%
RCC CFST
Fig. 0-2: Utilization of Space on Building

2. The Analysis Model and Procedure

The current study has been carried out for a 19-storey apartment building identical to Arcadia-
apartment built at Kathmandu, Nepal. It was an RCC moment-resisting-framed structure constructed
with the common technology being used in the city. Similar structure has been replicated for the

71
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Post Disastor Reconstruction Planning
24 – 26 April, 2016, Bhaktapur, Nepal

current study with CFST as an alternate structural element for the building. The plan of the structure is
as shown in Fig. 2-1.

Fig. 2-1: Plan of the Selected Building for Analysis

The material properties for the building are taken as follows:

Table 2-1: Material specifications for the analysis model

S.N. Material Specification Remarks
1 Concrete M35 For all concrete works
2. Reinforcements Fe500 For RCC members
Fe345 For CFST tubes
3. Steel
Fe250 For standard steel sections

The design is based on Indian Standards codes that are prevailing in the country. The specific codes
used for different purposes of analysis and designs are as follows:
IS875:1987 (part1) – For calculation of dead loads in the structure
IS875:1987 (part2) – For calculation of live loads in the structure
IS1893:2002 (part1) – For calculation of earthquake loads and design load combinations
IS13920:1993 – For ductile detailing of the structure
IS456:2000 – For design of concrete sections
IS800:2007 – For design of steel-sections
AISC360-10 – For design of CFST sections

3. Results and Discussion

Two similar structures, one with common RC moment resisting frames and the other with CFST
columns and standard steel I –sections as beams were analysed. The prevailing code as explained in
section 2was used for the analysis and design of the structural elements for the same level of
utilization of the structural elements. The major findings of the study are summarized and discussed on
the following sections.

72
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Post Disastor Reconstruction Planning
24 – 26 April, 2016, Bhaktapur, Nepal

3.1 Self-weight and Seismic-weight of the Structure

CFST constructions are lighter compared to RCC structures. In current study, it has been found that,
with CFST, there is 32% reduction on self-weight of the structure. This reduction has an overall effect
of reducing 19% of the seismic weight of the structure as shown in Fig. 3-1. It has direct impact on
the seismic design of the structure reducing the design lateral loads on the structure. Also, due to
reduction in weight of the building, the foundation size will be considerably reduced.

35% 32%
30%

25%
19%
20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Self Weight Seismic Weight
Fig. 3-1: Reduction on weight of CFST structure in comparison to RCC structure

3.2 Period of the Structures

The estimate for fundamental natural period of vibration (T a) of moment-resisting frame buildings
without brick-infill panels as per IS:1893-part 1 (2002) is as explained in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)
respectively.

for RC framed buildings:

T = 0.075 h (1)

for steel framed buildings:

T = 0.085 h (2)

And the comparison shows that the fundamental natural period for steel structure is expected to be
13% higher than for RCC framed structure for the considered structure as shown in Fig. 3-2.
From the current analysis, as expected, the modal-periods for CFST structure are higher than that
for RCC structures as shown in Fig. 3-3 that shows comparison of first three modal time-periods for
RCC and CFST structures. However, it shows that the 1st Mode period for CFST is 18% higher than
that for RCC structure as shown in Fig. 3-4 which is much higher than the expected value.

73
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Post Disastor Reconstruction Planning
24 – 26 April, 2016, Bhaktapur, Nepal

2.00 1.79
1.58
1.50

Period (Sec)
1.00

0.50

0.00
RCC MRF STEEL MRF

Fig. 3-2: Comparison of Fundamental Natural Time-period as per IS:1893-part 1 (2002)

CFST RCC 20%

18%
18%
3.0
2.6 16% 14%
2.4
2.5 2.2 2.2 14%
2.1
2.0 12%
2.0 10%
Period (Sec.)

10%
1.5 8%
1.0 6%
4%
0.5
2%
0.0 0%
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Fig. 3-3: Comparison of Modal Time Periods for CFST Fig. 3-4: Increase in Modal Time Periods for
and RCC Structures CFST Structure compared to RCC Structure

3.3 Base Reactions

As it has been observed that, with CFST construction, the weight of the structure gets reduced in one
hand, while the fundamental-period of the structure increase in the other hand, reducing the horizontal
seismic coefficient.Fig. 3-5 shows the comparison of base shears for RCC and CFST structures and
Fig. 3-6 shows the comparison of base shears in CFST structure compared to equivalent RCC
structure. Hence, on overall, there is higher reduction on the base shears in the structure with CFST
construction than RCC construction. From the current analysis, it has been observed that, the design
base shear for the CFST structure is only 76% of the RCC structure.

3.4 Drifts

As expected, it has been observed that, CFST structures are relatively flexible than RCC structures
with higher periods and higher lateral displacements as well. The current analysis shows that, the
increased in lateral displacements is higher in upper floors compared to lower one. The increase was
found to be 13% at first storey and 126% for the top storey with an average of 121% in x-direction as
illustrated in Fig. 3-7. Similarly, the increase was found to be 33% at first storey and 22% for the top
storey with an average of 24% in y-direction as illustrated in Fig. 3-9. Accordingly, the inter-storey
drifts in CFST were also found more in CFST system than in RCC system. The increase in IS-drift
was found to be 39% at top and 13% at the first storey for x-direction with an average of 26% while
the increase was only 15% for the top storey and 33% for the first storey with an average of 22% for

74
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Post Disastor Reconstruction Planning
24 – 26 April, 2016, Bhaktapur, Nepal

y-direction as illustrated in Fig. 3-8 and Fig. 3-10. However, the maximum drift was only 0.19% of
storey height which is well within codal limitation of 0.4% as per IS:1893-part 1 (2002).

5000 100% 100%

4,587
4500 90%
4000 80% 76%
3,474
3500 70%
Base Shear (KN)

3000 60%
2500 50%
2000 40%
1500 30%
1000 20%
500 10%
0 0%
RCC CFST RCC CFST
Fig. 3-5: Base Shears in RCC and CFST Structures Fig. 3-6: Base Shear Comparison on RCC and CFST
Structures

RCC CFST RCC CFST

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14
Storey Number

Storey Number

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3-7:StoreyDisplacementComparison in X- Fig. 3-8:Inter-storeyDisplacementComparison in X-

direction direction

75
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Post Disastor Reconstruction Planning
24 – 26 April, 2016, Bhaktapur, Nepal

RCC CFST RCC CFST

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14
Storey Number

Storey Number
12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3-9: Storey Displacement Comparison in Y- Fig. 3-10: Inter-storey Displacement Comparison in
direction Y-direction

4. Conclusions
Hence an apartment building was analysed with two alternative structural systems of RCC and
CFST moment resisting frame system. As a common practice, RCC shear walls are provided in lift
core for both the system. The major findings of the study can be summarised as follows:
With CFST, more carpet area can be achieved by reduction of column sizes. For the
selected building, the decrease in column area was 60% with overall 1.6% benefit in carpet
area.
There is considerable decrease in weight of the structure for CFST system compared to
RCC structure. The self-weight of structure was reduced by 32% which contributes to
reduction of seismic weight of building by 19% in the current study.
The CFST structural systems are more flexible with higher modal time periods compared
to RCC structures. The increase in time period was highest for the first mode which was
18% for the selected building.
There is high reduction in seismic design base shear for CFST compared to RCC structure.
For the selected building, the reduction in base shear was observed to be 24%.
The lateral deflections in seismic loading are more in CFST than in RCC structure. In
current study, there is average increase in lateral deflection of CFST structure by 24%
compared to that for RCC structure in direction of higher deflection i.e. y-direction for the
current analysis.
The inter-storey drifts in seismic loading are also more in CFST than in RCC structure. In
current study, there is average increase in inter-storey drift of CFST structure by 22%
compared to that for RCC structure in direction of higher deflection i.e. y-direction for the
current analysis. However, these drifts are well within codal-limits.

76
 International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Post Disastor Reconstruction Planning
24 – 26 April, 2016, Bhaktapur, Nepal

5. Acknowledgements
The work was supported by College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University and the Sustainable and
Innovative Bridges Engineering Research Center, Fujian Province University (SIBERC) and is
gratefully acknowledged. We are also greatly thankful to Er. Subin Desar for his valuable suggestion.

References
AISC 360-10, Specification of Structural Steel Building, An American National standard, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Inc., 2005.
Han L.H., Li W. and Bjorhovde R., (2014), Developments and advanced applications of concrete-filled steel
tubular (CFST) structures: Members, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 100, 211-228.
IS: 11384, Code of practice for composite construction in structural steel and concrete, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 1985.
IS: 1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures - general provisions for buildings, Part 1, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.
IS: 456, Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, 2000.
IS: 800, Code of practice for general construction in steel, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2007.
IS: 875, Code of practice for design load (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 2002.
IS: 13920-1993-Ductile Detailing of Reinforced of Concrete Structure Subjected to Seismic Forces Code of
Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.

77

View publication stats