Comparative Study on Static and Dynamic Analysis of a G5 RCC Building as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 on Force Distribution Criteria

Earthquake-resistant design requires accurate estimation of seismic forces and structural response. IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 permits both Equivalent Static Analysis (ESA) and Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) for regular medium-rise buildings; however, their predicted responses often differ significantly. This study presents a comparative seismic analysis of a G+5 reinforced concrete (RCC) building located in Seismic Zone III with medium soil conditions and 5% damping. The building is modelled and analysed using ETABS software following IS 1893 provisions. Force distribution due to static and dynamic analysis are evaluated in both X and Y directions. The equivalent static base shear is found to be higher than the unscaled dynamic base shear; therefore, response spectrum results are scaled to match static base shear as per code requirements. Numerical results indicate that static analysis equivalent static method produces conservative estimates of forces, while response spectrum analysis provides a more realistic distribution of seismic demand along the height. The study concludes that although both methods are applicable for G+5 buildings, dynamic analysis is preferred for reliable seismic performance evaluation.