ISSN(Online): 2319-8753

ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

A Review on the Comparative Study of Steel,

RCC and Composite Building
Bhavin H. Zaveri 1, Jasmin A. Gadhiya 2, Hitesh K. Dhameliya 3
U.G. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, CGPIT, Uka Tarsadia University, Bardoli, Gujarat, India1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, CGPIT, Uka Tarsadia University, Bardoli, Gujarat, India2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, CGPIT, Uka Tarsadia University, Bardoli, Gujarat, India3
ABSTRACT: In India concrete is very popular material of construction especially in case of medium and low rise
buildings. And in case of high rise buildings steel is generally used and the composite construction is not such popular
but it is possible that composite construction can be more beneficial in case of medium and high rise buildings. Steelconcrete composite construction can be built in place of RCC structures to get maximum advantage of steel and
concrete and to produce efficient and economic structures. It is the decision of contractor or owner that which type of
properties they require in the field and according to those properties the type of material can be chosen. This paper
shows comparison of various aspects of building construction for steel, RCC as well as composite buildings
considering various researches acted on this topic.
KEYWORDS: Comparative Study, Composite, Comparison Aspects, Storey Drift, Lateral Acceleration, Base shear,
Mass irregularity, Overturning Moment
I. INTRODUCTION
Low rise buildings were generally selected in India as common option but now a days in India population is rapidly
increasing and due to that the requirement of construction of medium and high rise buildings is also increasing.
Reinforced concrete members are mostly used in framing system because this system is most convenient and
economical for low rise buildings.
But for medium and high rise buildings this type of structures are no longer economical because of hazardous form
work, less stiffness, span restriction, and increased dead load. Composite structure can be suitable in that case.
Composite construction is having wide range of scope. It is very necessary to select suitable type of building as per
requirement of owner as well as construction site. [3]
As compared to other developing countries the use of steel for construction purpose is very less in India. Steel
structural members are prone to local and lateral buckling. Concrete structural members are generally thick and less
likely to buckle but they are subjected to creep and shrinkage with time. Steel is more ductile material and so it can
absorb more shocks and impact loadings. Thus composite structure is made to take the benefit of both of the materials.
It is shown that the performance of building during an earthquake depends upon several factors like stiffness, ductility,
lateral strength and simple and regular configuration. So to come on a final decision of comparison all three types of
[1]
buildings should be compared by displacement, base shear, storey drift and lateral force.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
There is a considerable research work has been done in the direction of comparative study of steel, RCC and composite
structures.
It can be seen from the studied research work that to judge the suitability of construction material, it is very necessary
to compare the steel, RCC, and composite buildings for the following aspects.

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

354

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

After this comparison, one can be able to come to a decision that which structure should be constructed under various
respective conditions.
[1] Seismic Performance
A large amount of the research work has been done in the direction of Seismic behaviour under dynamic performance.
Critical issues related with seismic behaviour are storey drift, Base shear and Mass irregularity. Structural engineer
have to deal will all these critical issues for making the structure safe under the seismic effect.
Following Research work has been done in the direction of making the structure safe under seismic action.
[a] Storey Drift
Rahul Pandey has submitted his thesis Comparative seismic analysis of RCC, Steel and Steel-concrete composite
frame [10] in which he had compared the performance of a (G+7) storey RCC, Steel, and Composite building frame
situated in earthquake zone 5 using SAP2000 software. And the results were compared and the conclusion about the
storey drift was made that storey drift in X-direction was more for steel frame as compared to composite and RCC
frame.
And RCC frame has the lowest value of storey drift because of its high stiffness, which indicates that as the value of
stiffness increases, storey drift values decreases with it.

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

355

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

The following graph was made for the results. The graph show us that RCC frame is having the less value of storey
drift and up till the 7th storey, storey drift is less for composite frame and maximum storey drift is of steel frame. So
here RCC frame is better than rest of two frames in case of storey drift.

[6]

In research paper Comparative study of analysis and design of R.C. and steel structures
a 3-D model was prepared for the frame analysis of building in ETABS for the earthquake zone 5 and the results were
indicating the same thing that the storey drifts of steel structures are comparatively more than RC structures within the
permissible limit.
And the following graphs were made for (G+6) and (G+10) stories. From the graphs it can be clearly observed that
RCC frame is having lesser values of storey drift than steel frame due to its greater weight. And if bare frame and infill
frame are compared then bare frames are having greater values of storey drift due to their lesser weights.

[b] Base Shear

Copyright to IJIRSET

(G+6)

(G+10)

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

356

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

Base shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral force that will occur due to seismic ground motion at
the base of a structure, which is shown in the figure.

Nitin M. Warade and P.J. Salunke submitted a research paper Comparative Study of Analysis and Design of
Composite Structure. [11]
In which five models (G+6,G+7,G+8,G+9,G+10) were modelled and analysed using ETABS software. And in the
results they have noticed that base shear of composite building was decreased than normal RCC building and increased
than steel building, which indicates that with increase in the stiffness base shear also increases.
In research paper Comparative Study of Analysis and Design of R.C. and Steel Structures [6] it is concluded that
base shear in steel structure is less than the R.C. structure because of the less seismic weight which gives better seismic
response during earthquake. In this paper for the frame analysis a 3-D model was prepared in ETABS for the
earthquake zone 5.
The graphs for that are given below which show us that steel frame is having lesser values of base shear than RC frame
due to its lesser weight. And bare frame is having lesser values of base shear than masonry infill frame due to its lesser
weight.

G+6

G+10

Rahul Pandey has described in his thesis [10] that, Base shear for RCC frame is maximum because the weight of RCC
frame is more than steel and composite frame. So, Base shear gets reduced for composite frame and for the steel frame
as compared to RCC frame.
The graph for that is given below which show us that steel frame is having lesser values of base shear, concrete frame
is having higher value of base shear, and base shear of composite frame is lesser than concrete frame and greater than
steel frame. Which indicates that greater value of weight indicates greater value of base shear.

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

357

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

[c] Mass Irregularity

Prof. Swapnil B. Cholekar and Basavalingappa S.M. had described that the Mass Irregularity can affect all the
parameters of storey drift, base shear, dead weight, shear force and joint displacement during earthquake. They were
compared for RCC and composite structures in this paper.
For the stability of the structure and less damage of the structure it is very important to have uniform mass, stiffness,
simple-regular configuration. [1]
Mass irregularity is given in the figure. Mass irregularity is an important factor which is to be considered while
designing multistorey building. It is formed due to uneven distribution of mass, strength, and stiffness. Seismic

performances of this type of irregular structures become very important. Mass irregularity should be considered to exist
where the seismic weight of storey is more than 200% of that of its adjacent storey. With increase in the difference of
mass between two stories ,mass irregularity also increases.
Mass irregularity results from this research paper can be summarized as below [1]
Under mass irregularity composite structure shows reduction of storey drift values in both X- and Y- direction.
Under mass irregularity composite structure shows reduction of base shear.
Under mass irregularity dead weight of composite structure is less.
Under mass irregularity shear force in composite structure is also less.
Under mass irregularity joint displacement values are less in composite structure.
Following are the graphical comparisons of their results, which show us that under mass irregularity due to greater
weight of RCC frame its base shear will also be more as compared to composite frame and that result will be same for
both X and Y direction earthquakes.

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

358

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

Following graphs show us that, under mass irregularity RCC frame is having higher values of storey drifts as compared
to composite frame.
Storey
Drift

Storey
Drift

[2] Displacements
Under the application of various loads the displacement of nodes can occur. Less nodal displacement indicates safe
structure.
Shashikala Koppad and Dr. S.V. Itti had published Comparative study of RCC and Composite Multi Storeyed
Buildings [3] in which they took a 3-D model in seismic zone 3 and analysed it in STAAD.Pro V8i software. In this
research paper they had concluded that node displacement in composite structure is more as compared to RCC structure.
This is because the composite structure is more flexible as compared to RCC structure.

The results are shown in graph and the table. It is shown that values of nodal displacements of composite frame are
higher than RCC frame. The observations are the same for plinth, 3rd, 7th, 11th and 15th floors and graph is also plotted
according to these results.

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

359

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

Type of floor
Plinth
3rd
7th
11th
15th

Composite
structures (mm)
1.2
37.821
76.2
110.15
156.177

RCC structures
(mm)
1.1
24.475
52.571
76.989
93.937

[3] Resultant Forces and Moments

D.R. Panchal and P.M. Marathe had published Comparative study of R.C.C, Steel and Composite (G+30 storey)
building [5]
Shear forces in the secondary beams are increased in steel structure and reduced in composite structure as
compared to RCC.
In main beams, shear forces are increased in steel structure and reduced in composite structure upto large
extent as compared to RCC framed structure.
This result can be observed from the table given below which show us the comparison of RCC, Steel and
Composite frames for three categories which are ground floor to 10 th floor, 10th floor to 20th floor and 20th
floor to 30th floor. Here the results of Steel and Composite are compared with respect to the results of RCC.
And all the tables are given in the same pattern.
SHEAR FORCE IN SECONDARY BEAM IN KN
STEEL
COMPOSITE
276.31
165.88

Ground floor to 10th floor

RCC
159.16

10th floor to 20th floor

190.44

73% increase
338.18

4% reduction
165.88

20th floor to 30th floor

186.07

77.5% increase
372.42

12.8% reduction
165.88

100% increase

11% reduction

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

360

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

Ground floor to 10th floor

RCC
390.35

10th floor to 20th floor

332.7

200% increase
557.63

COMPOSITE
554.96
42% increase
631.19

67% increase
89% increase
534.73
634.88
128% increase
171% increase
Bending moments in secondary beams are increased in steel structure and reduced in composite structure as
compared to RCC structures.
In main beams bending moments are increased in steel and composite both of the structures upto large extent
as compared to RCC structure.

20th floor to 30th floor

SHEAR FORCE IN MAIN BEAM IN KN

STEEL
1169.86

233.86

Ground floor to 10th floor

BENDING MOMENTS IN SECONDARY BEAM IN KN M

RCC
STEEL
COMPOSITE
393.2
978.4
236.38

10th floor to 20th floor

498.7

73% increase
1345.3

40% reduction
236.38

20th floor to 30th floor

506.7

77.5% increase
1538.46

52.6% reduction
236.38

Ground floor to 10th floor

100% increase
53.3% reduction
BENDING MOMENTS IN MAIN BEAM IN KN M
RCC
STEEL
COMPOSITE
704.3
1839.8
1322.9

10th floor to 20th floor

585.5

161% increase
2127.1

87% increase
1217.0

20th floor to 30th floor

474.5

263% increase
2119.0

108% increase
1227.2

346% increase

158% increase

Axial forces in column have been reduced in steel as well as composite structure as compared to RCC structure.
COLUMN AXIAL FORCES IN KN

Ground floor to 10th floor

RCC
22051.9

STEEL
11668.3

COMPOSITE
17365.0

10th floor to 20th floor

14061.1

47% reduction
7665.2

21.5% reduction
17360.0

45.4% reduction

23% increase

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

361

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

20th floor to 30th floor

6970.7

3850.7

5625.0

44.8% reduction

20% reduction

[4] Cost
Cost is a major aspect of comparison of steel, RCC and composite buildings. Because costly structures are generally
neglected in construction if another cheaper option is available in front of it.
Research work in case of cost comparison of buildings has been done in the direction of RCC and Composite buildings.
Cost results from various research papers can be summarized as below.
For multistorey buildings,
Cost of composite beams is less than RCC beams because composite beams do not require any formwork. [3]
As axial forces and reactions are less in composite columns as compared to RCC columns, so cost of
composite columns is less. [3]
These both results are shown in the graphs.

Composite buildings are more economical than RCC.[3]

For low rise buildings,

Cost of composite buildings is more than RCC and less than steel [11], which is shown in the graph.

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

362

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

[5] Weight
Weight of various types of structures is very important to know because it will affect the cost of foundation as well as
the cost of ground improvement.
Weight results from various research papers can be summarized as below.
Weight of the composite structure is quite low as compared to RCC structure, which helps in reducing
foundation cost. [3]
Dead load of composite is less than RCC and more than steel, which is shown in graph given below. [11]
These results are shown in the graph given below.

[6] Fire performance

Fire performance of the building is considered more seriously when building is Industrial. In case of an industrial
building to construct a steel structure can be risky. So in place of steel structure, composite or RCC structure is
preferred. Fire performance is the ability of a particular structural element (as opposed to any particular building
material) to fulfil its designed function for a period of time in the event of a fire.
Because of concretes inherent material properties, it can be used to minimize fire risk for the lowest initial cost while
requiring the least in terms of ongoing maintenance. In most cases, concrete does not require any additional fireprotection because of its built-in resistance to fire. It is a non-combustible material (i.e. it does not burn), and has a
slow rate of heat transfer. Concrete ensures that structural integrity remains, fire compartmentation is not compromised
and shielding from heat can be relied upon.
In case of composite structures numerous studies have been conducted on the fire performance of CFST columns. In
CFST the filled concrete can significantly increase the fire resistance. Because the heat is absorbed by the core concrete
the temperature of the steel tube will increase more slowly. The outer tube provides a confinement to the core concrete
during the fire exposure, the spalling of the core concrete thus can be prevented. Confinement to the steel casing can
also be provided by providing concrete cover around it. [12]
III. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Following general points can be discussed from the study of various research papers.
Following factors should be considered to decide structural suitability.
Seismic performance of the structure

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

363

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

Deformations
Resultant Forces and Moments
Cost
Weight
Fire performance
Overall response of composite structure is better than RCC structure
i.e. composite structure produces less displacement and resists more structural forces.
Composite structures are best solution for high rise buildings and they are resulted in speedy construction.
Steel option is better than RCC but the composite option for high rise building is best.
Steel has excellent resistance to tensile loading but prone to buckling and concrete gives more resistance to
compressive force. Steel can be used to induce ductility and concrete can be used for corrosion and fire
protection.
Composite structures are resulted into lighter construction than traditional concrete construction as well as
speedy construction. So completion period of composite building is less than RCC building.

IV. SCOPE OF WORK

In this review paper it is shown that Steel, RCC and Composite structures can be compared in various aspects under
various conditions. But soil conditions can be changed other than hard soil and can be compared for worst conditions.
And in India generally these aspects are not considered fully. But practical applications of these comparison can make
structure more safe and more economical. And more accurate comparison processes and aspects can be developed.
V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to thank Asst. Prof. Jasmin A. Gadhiya and Asst. Prof. Hitesh K. Dhameliya for providing the
continuous guidance. The author is also indebted to them. He record thankfulness to them for their motivational support
and valuable suggestions for presenting this study work.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

Prof. Swapnil B. Cholekar, Basavalingappa S. M., Comparative Analysis of Multistoried RCC and Composite Building due to Mass
Irregularity, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056 , Volume: 02 Issue: 04, p- 603608,| July-2015
Mr. Nitish A. Mohite, Mr. P.K.Joshi, Dr. W. N. Deulkar, Comparative Analysis of RCC and Steel Concrete composite (B+G+11 storey)
Building, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, ISSN 2250-3153 , Volume 5, Issue 10, p- 1-6, October 2015
Shashikala. Koppad, Dr. S.V.Itti, Comparative study of RCC and composite multistoreyed Buildings, International Journal of Engineering
and Innovative Technology (IJEIT), ISSN: 2277-3754 ,p- 341-345, Volume 3, Issue 5, November 2013
Sattainathan.A, Nagarajan.N, Comparative study on the behavior of R.C.C., Steel and composite structure, International Journal on
Applications in Civil and Enviornmental Engineering, ISSN (Online) : 2395 3837 Volume 1: Issue 3, , pp 21-26, March 2015
D. R. Panchal and P. M. Marathe, Comparative Study of R.C.C., Steel and Composite (G+30) storey building, Institute of Technology,
Nirma University, Ahmedabad 382 481 , pp- 1-6, December, 2011
Prof. Prakarsh Sangave, Mr. Nikhil Madur, Mr. Sagar Waghmare, Mr. Rakesh Shete, Mr. Vinayak Mankondi, Mr. Vinayak Gundla,
Comparative study of Analysis and design of R.C. and Steel Structures, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, ISSN
2229-5518, Volume 6, Issue 2,pp- 256-267, February-2015
Prasad Kolhe, Prof. Rakesh Shinde, Time History Analysis Of Steel And Composite Frame Structure, IJREAT International Journal of
Research in Engineering & Advanced Technology, ISSN: 2320 8791, Volume 3, Issue 2, April-May, 2015.
Ketan Patel, Sonal Thakkar, Analysis of CFT, RCC and Steel Building Subjected to Lateral Loading, Chemical, Civil and Mechanical
Engineering Tracks of the 3rd Nirma University International conference on engineering, Elsevier, pp- 259 265, year 2013
Varsha Patil, Shilpa kewate, Comparative Study on Dynamic Analysis of Composite, RCC and Steel structure, International Journal of
Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences, ISSN 2349-4476, Volume 3, Issue 8,pp- 135-142, August 2015
Rahul Pandey, Comparative Seismic Analysis of RCC, Steel & Steel-Concrete Composite Frame, Department of Civil engineering National
Institute of technology Rourkela ,2014
Nitin m. Warade, P. J. Salunke, Comparative study on Analysis and Design of Composite Structure, International Journal Of Advance
Research In Science And Engineering IJARSE, ISSN-2319-8354(E), Vol. No.2, Issue No.12, pp- 41-50, December, 2013
Lin-Hai Han , Wei Li , Reidar Bjorhovde , Developments and advanced applications of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST)
Structures:Members ,Elsevier, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 , pp- 211228, 2014

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

364

ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(A High Impact Factor, Monthly Peer Reviewed Journal)

Vol. 5, Issue 1, Januray 2016

BIOGRAPHY
Mr. Bhavin H. Zaveri is an under graduation Student at CGPIT, Uka Tarsadia University, Bardoli, and
his field of interest is in Structural analysis, Construction management and Estimation & Costing.

Mr. Jasmin A. Gadhiya is an Asst. Professor, in CGPIT, Uka Tarsadia University, Bardoli, and his
field of interest is in Structural Analysis, Concrete Technology, Structural Design.

Mr. Hitesh K. Dhameliya is an Asst. Professor, in CGPIT, Uka Tarsadia University, Bardoli, and his
field of interest is in Structural Analysis, Concrete Technology, Structural Design.

Copyright to IJIRSET

DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501045

365