Authors : Anik Mahamud; Raisa Tabassum Ira; Mokter Ahmed; Bashir Hossen

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3b6mee67

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5y9say8m

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24AUG1342

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : The study analyzes a G+4 residential building subjected to seismic loads, comparing vertical base shears, material strengths, and foundation design requirements. The results reveal that RCC structures generate significantly higher vertical base shears due to their heavier loads, necessitating larger foundation areas, especially at critical points, and leading to increased construction costs. In contrast, Steel structures, with lower base shears, require smaller foundation areas, reducing both material use and environmental impact. The findings emphasize that Steel structures offer superior seismic performance, cost efficiency, and sustainability by minimizing foundation requirements and associated environmental burdens. This research highlights the importance of material choice in achieving resilient and sustainable construction, particularly in seismic zones, where Steel structures provide a more efficient and environmentally friendly solution compared to RCC structures.

References :

1. E. Worrell, L. Price, N. Martin, C. Hendriks, and L. O. Meida, “CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM THE GLOBAL CEMENT INDUSTRY,” Carbon N. Y., vol. 26, pp. 303–329, 2001, [Online]. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303.
2. W. Peng and L. Sui Pheng, “Managing the Embodied Carbon of Precast Concrete Columns,” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1192–1199, 2011, doi: 10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000287.
3. A. Ruuska and T. Häkkinen, “Material efficiency of building construction,” Buildings, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 266–294, 2014, doi: 10.3390/buildings4030266.
4. V. Weghmann, “Waste Management in Europe,” MRS Bull., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 29–31, 2023, doi: 10.1557/S0883769400068731.
5. R. T. Ira, “Effect of Construction on the Environment,” 2020.
6. B. D. Solomon, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2023.
7. K. Gerasimova, “World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future (The bruntland report),” Our Common Futur., pp. 1–89, 1987, doi: 10.4324/9781912281220.
8. S. G. Maxineasa, D. N. Isopescu, I. R. Baciu, and M. L. Lupu, “Environmental performances of a cubic modular steel structure: A solution for a sustainable development in the construction sector,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 21, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132112062.
9. Meg Calkins, Materials for Sustainable Sites, vol. 24, no. 1. 2009.
10. Dr. Md Abdullah Al Mamun, Anik Mahamud, “Resilience of Steel Framing Structures over Reinforced Concrete (RC) Structures for Seismic Safety Using ETABS” (IJLTEMAS), Volume XIII, Issue IV, April 2024
11. Xu Zhang, Xing Su, Zhijua Huang, “Comparison of LCA on Steel and Concrete Construction Office Buildings”