Are stronger, stiffer buildings indeed costlier? Case study of RC frame buildings

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorAninthaneni P
dc.contributor.authorDhakal, Rajesh
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-02T01:38:50Z
dc.date.available2021-11-02T01:38:50Z
dc.date.issued2021en
dc.date.updated2021-06-15T05:19:40Z
dc.description.abstractReinforced concrete (RC) buildings designed as per current seismic codes/standards are expected to satisfy “life safety” in a design level earthquake, but modern buildings have suffered significant damage in recent earthquakes, which were either irreparable or required lengthy and costly repair. Seismic codes/standards allow buildings to be designed for different lateral strength as long as the associated ductility and drift demands are catered for. The design seismic force is primarily controlled by a force reduction factor; a higher reduction factor leads to weaker/softer building but requires stringent confinement detailing to achieve a higher ductility. Buildings designed for higher reduction factor are more likely to suffer structural damage in moderate earthquakes. It is intuitively believed that stronger buildings, which respond elastically in a design level earthquake, are prohibitively costlier. However, cost of building skeleton, which governs its strength, is only a minor contributor to the total project cost. This paper conducts cost analysis on RC frame buildings designed with different reduction factors to investigate their effect on the construction cost. Based on the cost breakdown, it is found that the structural material cost of low-medium rise RC frame buildings is normally 25-30% of the total project cost, which varies within ±10% for the full range of force reduction factors allowed by modern building standards. The additional initial cost required to design RC frame buildings (with ductile detailing) that respond elastically in design-level shakings is insignificant when compared against the cumulative reduction in damage repair costs and financial losses due to business interruption over their lifetime. Hence, to achieve low-damage design through traditional measures, engineers should be encouraged to design stronger and stiffer buildings so that they remain in “operational” state after a DBE.en
dc.identifier.citationDhakal R, Aninthaneni P (2021). Are stronger, stiffer buildings indeed costlier? Case study of RC frame buildings. Christchurch, NZ: Annual Conference of NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE21). 14/04/2021-16/04/2021.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10092/102814
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherNZSEEen
dc.rightsAll rights reserved unless otherwise stateden
dc.rights.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10092/17651en
dc.subject.anzsrcFields of Research::40 - Engineering::4005 - Civil engineering::400504 - Construction engineeringen
dc.subject.anzsrcFields of Research::40 - Engineering::4005 - Civil engineering::400506 - Earthquake engineeringen
dc.titleAre stronger, stiffer buildings indeed costlier? Case study of RC frame buildingsen
dc.typeConference Contributions - Publisheden
uc.collegeFaculty of Engineering
uc.departmentCivil and Natural Resources Engineering
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
NZSEE2021_Dhakal and Aninthaneni_Ductility vs cost.pdf
Size:
832.93 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download
Collections
Engineering: Conference Contributions