# Study of the Effect of a Seismic Zone to the Construction Cost of a Five-Story Reinforced Concrete Building

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Analytical Research

#### 2.1. Construction Details

^{2}(Figure 1). Two structural walls existed in the Y direction at the building perimeter, whereas at the center of the building, an elevator and a staircase existed closed off on all sides by eight walls that formed two symmetrical cores. It is noteworthy that the shear walls and central core have been placed having in mind that they are the structural elements that mainly resist the horizontal actions, such as seismic actions. Figure 1 displays the floor plan of the building. The ground floor height was 4.5 m, whereas the rest of the floors had a height of 3.0 m. Therefore, the total height of the building was h

_{tot}= 16.5 m. Rigid supports were used, and the effect of the soil was neglected [55,56]. The column sections reduced throughout the height of the building and their section reduction was equal to 5 cm for both section sides per each floor. The wall thickness remained the same for all five floors and was 25 cm. The geometrical specifications for the load-bearing elements are given in Table 1 for all five floors.

#### 2.2. Materials

_{cm}= 32 GPa. The Poisson ratio was considered to be zero (ν = 0) for cracked sections. The B500C steel has a characteristic strength of f

_{yk}= 500 Mpa.

#### 2.3. Analysis Method

_{2}Q ± Ε. The dynamic spectral method was used for the dynamic analysis of the building. The building was analyzed and examined in three different seismic hazard zones. In zone I, with a maximum seismic horizontal ground acceleration a

_{g}= 0.16 g, in zone II, with a

_{g}= 0.24 g, and in zone III, with a

_{g}= 0.36 g (where g is the acceleration of gravity and is 9.81 m/sec

^{2}). Additionally, the design spectrum of Eurocode 8 was used [20] for soil category B and spectrum type 1. Spectrum data used according to EC8 are displayed in Table 2.

#### 2.4. Energy Aspect

#### 2.5. Gravity Loads

^{2}. The permanent load for the masonry structures was 1.00 kN/m

^{2}for the internal brick structures used as partitions, and 8.00 kN/m for the masonry structures at the perimeter of the slab of the building. The roofing was considered to have a load of 3.50 kN/m

^{2}, and the load for the parapet at the perimeter of the roof was assumed to be 3.60 kN/m

^{2}. Live loads, representing the loads from humans, furniture, etc., were considered to be 2.00 kN/m

^{2}at every floor slab (i.e., the ground floor, the other typical floors and the roof). The permanent and live loads are shown in Table 3. Eventually, permanent and live loads affect the design of the building both for vertical load combination (1.35G + 1.50Q) and seismic combination (G + 0.3Q ± Ε). For the vertical load combination, loads distributed on slabs (e.g., flooring) affect the design of slabs and of all structural elements underneath the slabs, e.g., beams, columns, etc., whereas loads distributed on perimeter beams (e.g., parapet, perimeter brick structure, etc.) do not affect the design of the slabs, but rather affect the design of the perimeter beams and all structural elements underneath the perimeter beams, e.g., columns, etc.

#### 2.6. Modelling

#### 2.7. Model Inputs and Sources

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Measurements of the Materials

#### 3.2. Analysis of Material Measurements

#### 3.3. Analysis of CO_{2} Emissions

_{2}emissions are approximately 35.2 kg CO

_{2}per 100 kg of reinforcing steel production [59]. In other words, 352 kg CO

_{2}are produced for every ton of reinforcing steel produced. Figure 6 shows the CO

_{2}emissions for each seismic zone and their percentage change when designing for a zone with a higher seismicity compared to zone I.

#### 3.4. Discussion

_{2}emissions and, moreover, the percentage increase in steel quantities follows the percentage increase in CO

_{2}emissions.

## 4. Conclusions

- Moving from Zone I to Zone II, the earthquake acceleration increased by about 50%, whereas the steel demand for the entire building increment was much smaller and equal to 2.11%;
- Moving from Zone II to Zone III, the earthquake acceleration increased by about 50%, whereas the steel demand for the entire building increment was much smaller and equal to 2.41%;
- Moving from Zone I to Zone III, the earthquake acceleration increased by about 125%, whereas the steel demand for the entire building increment was much smaller and equal to 4.51%.

_{2}emissions follows the percentage increase in the reinforcing steel when designing for higher seismic zones to zone I. Future studies should emphasize that the minimization of construction material quantities (concrete and steel rebars) minimizes the construction cost and decreases emissions. Thus, the environment is positively affected.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Elwood, K.J.; Eberhard, M.O. Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns. ACI Struct. J.
**2009**, 106, 476–484. [Google Scholar] - Watson, S.; Zahn, F.A.; Park, R. Confining Reinforcement for Concrete Columns. J. Struct. Eng.
**2006**, 120, 1798–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Devi, G.N.; Subramanian, K.; Santhakumar, A.R. Experimental Investigations on Reinforced Concrete Lateral Load Resisting Systems under Lateral Loads. Exp. Tech.
**2011**, 35, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bechtoula, H.; Sakashita, M.; Kono, S.; Watanabe, F.; Eberhard, M.O. Cyclic Performance of Lower Stories of Mid-Rise Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings. ACI Struct. J.
**2006**, 103, 513–521. [Google Scholar] - Francisco, S. Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete C-Bent Columns. Spring
**2006**, 23, 33–48. [Google Scholar] - Barron, J.M.; Hueste, M.B.D. Diaphragm Effects in Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Buildings. ACI Struct. J.
**2004**, 101, 615–624. [Google Scholar] - Tavio; Teng, S. Effective Torsional Rigidity of Reinforced Concrete Members. ACI Struct. J.
**2004**, 101, 252–260. [Google Scholar] - Mansour, M.; Hsu, T.T.C. Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Elements under Cyclic Shear. II: Theoretical Model. J. Struct. Eng.
**2004**, 131, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Harasimowicz, A.P.; Goel, R.K. Seismic Code Analysis of Multi-Storey Asymmetric Buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
**1998**, 27, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chrysanidis, T.; Panoskaltsis, V.; Tegos, I. Preliminary Design and Analysis of Cost Parameters of a High-Rise Building: Braced Shear Wall Core System. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol.
**2016**, 7, 137–152. [Google Scholar] - Chrysanidis, T.; Panoskaltsis, V.; Tegos, I. Parametrical Cost Analysis of an Ultra High-Rise Building: Detailed Design. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res.
**2016**, 11, 9644–9650. [Google Scholar] - Chrysanidis, T.; Tegos, I. Cost Comparison and Parametrical Investigation of the R/C Shear Wall Core of a Tall Building. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol.
**2016**, 5, 592–595. [Google Scholar] - Tegos, I.; Giannakas, N.; Chrysanidis, T. Serviceability Cracking Check of Circular Section Piers. Bridg. Struct.
**2011**, 7, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tegos, I.; Giannakas, N.; Chrysanidis, T. Cross-Correlation of Stresses in the Transverse Reinforcement under Shear Load and Confinement. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Van Earthquake Symposium, Van, Turkey, 23–27 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Parapanisiou, A.; Argyropoulou, D.; Andreadou, E.; Demertzi, X.; Chrysanidis, T.; Tegos, I. A Suggestion of a Quick and Economic Method of Strengthening Bridge Piers. In Proceedings of the International Conference: Innovations on Bridges and Soil-Bridge Interaction (IBSBI 2011), Athens, Greece, 13–15 October 2011; pp. 419–426. [Google Scholar]
- Tegos, I.; Giannakas, N.; Chrysanidis, T. Seismic Design of Circular Section Piers under Axial Load and Biaxial Bending Belonging to Low Ductility Bridges: Analytical and Experimental Investigation of Bending Resistance. In Proceedings of the International Conference: Innovations on Bridges and Soil-Bridge Interaction (IBSBI 2011), Athens, Greece, 13–15 October 2011; pp. 141–148. [Google Scholar]
- Tegos, I.; Kifokeris, D.; Chrysanidis, T. Seismic Design of R/C Piers of Hollow Circular Cross Sections. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Van Earthquake Symposium, Van, Turkey, 23–27 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Penelis, G.; Stylianidis, K.; Kappos, A.; Ignatakis, C. Reinforced Concrete Structures; A.U.Th. Press: Thessaloniki, Greece, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Penelis, G.G.; Kappos, A.J. Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures; E & F N SPON (Chapman & Hall): London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- European Committee for Standardization BS EN 1998-1:2004; Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. BSI Standards: London, UK, 2013.
- Ministry of Environment Planning and Public Works Greek Earthquake Resistant Design Code; O.A.S.P.: Athens, Greece, 2003. (In Greek)
- Papageorgiou, G.; Papadimitriou, E.; Alamanis, N.; Xafoulis, N.; Chouliaras, I.; Lazogiannis, K. Construction Cost Comparative Analysis of Highways in Greece. PRIME Int. J. Pract. Res. Innov. Manag. Entrep.
**2019**, 12, 68–85. [Google Scholar] - Srivastava, M.; Kumar, V. The Methods of Using Low Cost Housing Techniques in India. J. Build. Eng.
**2018**, 15, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jasvi, A.; Bera, D. Sustainable Use of Low Cost Building Materials in the Rural India. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol.
**2015**, 4, 534–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chrysanidis, T. The Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the Lateral Buckling Behavior of R/C Walls Modelled Using Prism Elements. J. Build. Eng.
**2021**, 42, 102456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chrysanidis, T. Evaluation of Out-of-Plane Response of R/C Structural Wall Boundary Edges Detailed with Maximum Code-Prescribed Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater.
**2020**, 14, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chrysanidis, T. Influence of Elongation Degree on Transverse Buckling of Confined Boundary Regions of R/C Seismic Walls. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2019**, 211, 703–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Haro, A.; Kowalsky, M.; Chai, Y.; Lucier, G. Boundary Elements of Special Reinforced Concrete Walls Tested under Different Loading Paths. Earthq. Spectra
**2018**, 34, 1267–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Welt, T.; Massone, L.; LaFave, J.; Lehman, D.; McCabe, S.; Polanco, P. Confinement Behavior of Rectangular RC Prisms Simulating Wall Boundary Elements. J. Struct. Eng.
**2017**, 143, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Terzioglu, T.; Orakcal, K.; Massone, L.M. Cyclic Lateral Load Behavior of Squat Reinforced Concrete Walls. Eng. Struct.
**2018**, 160, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ho, N.M.; Doh, J.H.; Fragomeni, S. Instability Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Walls with Various Support Conditions. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build.
**2017**, 26, e1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lim, J.-J.; Park, H.-G.; Eom, T.-S. Cyclic Load Tests of Reinforced Concrete Columns with High-Strength Bundled Bars. ACI Struct. J.
**2017**, 114, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chrysanidis, T.; Panoskaltsis, V. Experimental Investigation on Cracking Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Tension Ties. Case Stud. Constr. Mater.
**2022**, 16, e00810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Raza, S.; Khan, M.; Menegon, S.; Tsang, H.-H.; Wilson, J. Strengthening and Repair of Reinforced Concrete Columns by Jacketing: State-of-the-Art Review. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chrysanidis, T.; Tegos, I. Axial and Transverse Strengthening of R/C Circular Columns: Conventional and New Type of Steel and Hybrid Jackets Using High-Strength Mortar. J. Build. Eng.
**2020**, 30, 101236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tegos, I.; Chrysanidis, T.; Tsitotas, M. Seismic Behaviour of R/C Columns and Beams with Interlocking Spirals. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.
**2014**, 5, 310–319. [Google Scholar] - Tegos, I.; Chrysanidis, T. Spare Additional Confinement in Spiral Arrangements. Int. J. Sci. Res.
**2014**, 3, 110–113. [Google Scholar] - Tegos, I.; Chrysanidis, T. Columns With Spiral Reinforcement Under Concentric Compression. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol.
**2014**, 3, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Minafò, G.; Papia, M. Concrete Softening Effects on the Axial Capacity of RC Jacketed Circular Columns. Eng. Struct.
**2016**, 128, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Minafò, G. A Practical Approach for the Strength Evaluation of RC Columns Reinforced with RC Jackets. Eng. Struct.
**2015**, 85, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Takeuti, A.; de Hanai, J.; Mirmiran, A. Preloaded RC Columns Strengthened with High-Strength Concrete Jackets under Uniaxial Compression. Mater. Struct.
**2008**, 41, 1251–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taghavi, S.; Miranda, E. Approximate Floor Acceleration Demands in Multistory Buildings. II: Applications. J. Struct. Eng.
**2005**, 131, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Otani, S.; Kabeyasawa, T.; Shlohara, H.; Aoyama, H. Analysis of the Full Scale Seven Story Reinforced Concrete Test Structure. Symp. Pap.
**1984**, 84, 203–239. [Google Scholar] - Kilkiş, B.; Kilkiş, Ş. Hydrogen Economy Model for Nearly Net-Zero Cities with Exergy Rationale and Energy-Water Nexus. Energies
**2018**, 11, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, J.L.; Kong, L.S.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X. A Water-Energy Nexus Review from the Perspective of Urban Metabolism. Ecol. Modell.
**2019**, 392, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ferrara, M.; Sirombo, E.; Fabrizio, E. Automated Optimization for the Integrated Design Process: The Energy, Thermal and Visual Comfort Nexus. Energy Build.
**2018**, 168, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Erdogan, S. Dynamic Nexus between Technological Innovation and Buildings Sector’s Carbon Emission in BRICS Countries. J. Environ. Manag.
**2021**, 293, 112780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xu, X.; González, J.E.; Shen, S.; Miao, S.; Dou, J. Impacts of Urbanization and Air Pollution on Building Energy Demands—Beijing Case Study. Appl. Energy
**2018**, 225, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, Y.; Deng, L.; Pan, S.-Y.; Chiang, P.-C.; Sable, S.S.; Shah, K.J. Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructures for Sponge City: Water and Energy Nexus. Water Energy Nexus
**2020**, 3, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, K.; Specian, M.; Hong, T. Nexus of Thermal Resilience and Energy Efficiency in Buildings: A Case Study of a Nursing Home. Build. Environ.
**2020**, 177, 106842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Purwanto, A.; Sušnik, J.; Suryadi, F.X.; de Fraiture, C. Using Group Model Building to Develop a Causal Loop Mapping of the Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus in Karawang Regency, Indonesia. J. Clean. Prod.
**2019**, 240, 118170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mehrjerdi, H.; Saad, M.; Lefebvre, S. Efficiency-Resilience Nexus in Building Energy Management Under Disruptions and Events. IEEE Syst. J.
**2022**, 16, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heidari, A.; Khovalyg, D. Exploring Water-Energy Nexus at the Building Level. ASHRAE Trans.
**2020**, 126, 308–314. [Google Scholar] - European Committee for Standardization BS EN 1992-1-1:2004; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. BSI Standards: London, UK, 2008.
- Alamanis, N.; Dakoulas, P. Investigation on the Effect of Spatial Variability of Soil Properties on Permanent Seismic Displacements of Slopes in Load. In Proceedings of the 14th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference 2020, Helsinki, Finland, 25–27 May 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Alamanis, N.; Dakoulas, P. Vulnerability of Soil Slopes against Seismic Damage Based on the Effect of Spatial Variability of Soil Properties on the Development of Permanent Seismic Displacements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Research in Engineering, Technology and Science, Lisbon, Portugal, 3–7 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Teja, P.; Shahab, S.J. Dynamic Analysis Using Response Spectrum Seismic Loading. Int. J. Magazone Eng. Technol. Manag. Res.
**2017**, 4, 802–808. [Google Scholar] - Alcorn, A. Embodied Energy and CO
_{2}Coefficients for NZ Building Materials; Centre for Building Supporting Research: Wellington, New Zealand, 2003. [Google Scholar] - Yeo, D.; Gabbai, R.D. Sustainable Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures through Embodied Energy Optimization. Energy Build.
**2011**, 43, 2028–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Computers and Structures Inc. SAP2000 Basic Analysis Reference Manual, Version 19; Berkley, CA, USA; 2006. Available online: https://docs.csiamerica.com/manuals/sap2000/CSiRefer.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2022).
- Standardization, E.C. for BS EN 1991-1-1:2002; Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures—Part 1-1: General Actions—Densities, Self-Weight, Imposed Loads for Buildings. BSI Standards: London, UK, 2004.

**Figure 3.**Percentage of concrete material measured: (

**a**) per story; (

**b**) per type of structural element.

**Figure 4.**Percentage change of rebar material measured for each earthquake zone and for each type of structural element.

**Figure 5.**Percentage change of wall rebar steel measured for each earthquake zone and steel percentages per type of element.

Floor | Height (m) | Beam Dimensions (cm) | Wall Thickness (cm) | Columns (cm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Perimeter | Internal | ||||

1st (Ground) | 4.5 | 25 × 70 | 25 × 60 | 25 | 50 × 50 |

2nd | 3.0 | 25 × 70 | 25 × 60 | 25 | 50 × 50 |

3rd | 3.0 | 25 × 70 | 25 × 60 | 25 | 45 × 45 |

4th | 3.0 | 25 × 70 | 25 × 60 | 25 | 40 × 40 |

5th | 3.0 | 25 × 70 | 25 × 60 | 25 | 35 × 35 |

Spectrum Data EC8 | ||
---|---|---|

N/A | Type | Data |

1 | Spectrum type | Horizontal design spectrum type 1 |

2 | Soil category | Β |

3 | Factor β ^{1} | 0.20 |

4 | Seismic acceleration factor α | For the three categories: α = 0.16, 0.24, 0.36 |

5 | Gravity acceleration g | 9.81 m/s^{2} |

6 | Damping ratio | 5% |

7 | Coefficient behavior q | Calculation based on EC8 |

^{1}β is the lower bound factor for the horizontal design spectrum. NOTE: The value to be ascribed to β for use in a country can be found in its National Annex. The recommended value for β is 0.2 [20].

Permanent Loads | ||

N/A | Type | Value |

1 | Flooring | 1.40 kN/m^{2} |

2 | Partition brick structures | 1.00 kN/m^{2} |

3 | Perimeter brick structures | 8.00 kN/m |

4 | Roofing | 3.50 kN/m^{2} |

5 | Parapet roof load | 3.60 kN/m^{2} |

Live Loads | ||

N/A | Type | Value |

1 | Ground floor | 2.00 kN/m^{2} |

2 | Typical floors | 2.00 kN/m^{2} |

3 | Roof | 2.00 kN/m^{2} |

Model Inputs and Their Sources | ||
---|---|---|

N/A | Model Input | Source |

1 | Dimensions | Typical for construction practice followed in Greece |

2 | Materials’ characteristics | Eurocode 2 [54] |

3 | Analysis method | Eurocode 8 [20] |

4 | Spectrum data | Eurocode 8/National Annex for Greece [20] |

5 | Loads | Eurocode 1/National Annex for Greece [61] |

6 | Modelling assumptions, e.g., stiffness | Eurocode 8/National Annex for Greece [20] |

Concrete Measurements | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Floor | Slabs (m^{3}) | Beams (m ^{3}) | Columns (m ^{3}) | Walls (m ^{3}) | Total (m ^{3}) |

1st | 89.95 | 35.78 | 27.00 | 36.00 | 188.73 |

2nd | 89.95 | 35.78 | 18.00 | 24.00 | 167.73 |

3rd | 89.95 | 35.78 | 14.58 | 24.00 | 164.31 |

4th | 89.95 | 35.78 | 11.52 | 24.00 | 161.25 |

5th | 89.95 | 35.78 | 8.82 | 24.00 | 158.55 |

840.57 |

Reinforcement Steel Measurements | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Zone | Slabs (kg) | Beams (kg) | Columns (kg) | Walls (kg) | Total (kg) |

Ι | 9066 | 4682 | 2119 | 3109 | 18,977 |

ΙΙ | 9066 | 4687 | 2119 | 3507 | 19,380 |

ΙΙΙ | 9066 | 4689 | 2119 | 3992 | 19,866 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Chrysanidis, T.; Mousama, D.; Tzatzo, E.; Alamanis, N.; Zachos, D.
Study of the Effect of a Seismic Zone to the Construction Cost of a Five-Story Reinforced Concrete Building. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 10076.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610076

**AMA Style**

Chrysanidis T, Mousama D, Tzatzo E, Alamanis N, Zachos D.
Study of the Effect of a Seismic Zone to the Construction Cost of a Five-Story Reinforced Concrete Building. *Sustainability*. 2022; 14(16):10076.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610076

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Chrysanidis, Theodoros, Dimitra Mousama, Eleni Tzatzo, Nikolaos Alamanis, and Dimos Zachos.
2022. "Study of the Effect of a Seismic Zone to the Construction Cost of a Five-Story Reinforced Concrete Building" *Sustainability* 14, no. 16: 10076.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610076