Investigation of different structural systems in terms of structural and cost for low-storey housing

In addition to the functionality, efficiency, and performance of the building as well as criteria such as safety, environmental impact, recycling, building materials, climate, acceptability and socio-cultural compatibility, cost are an important criterion. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the cost in the building assessment. It can be said that the construction's cost is one of the main objectives for any project. Economy reduces the cost of the resources used to achieve the planned results or outputs of the designed building, considering the appropriate level of quality. In other words, it is to provide the most appropriate input at the lowest cost. The construction cost consists of various stages during the building process. In this study, a comparative study was made in terms of the structural design and initial construction cost of a building assumed to be located in an earthquake zone according to different regulations. A Building which belongs to a reference building of two floors, detached (not surrounded by any building in any side), total area of 566 square meters, without basement. According to this project, which considered as a reference, three different structural alternatives to the building were created. The first two alternatives are of the masonry building type (besieged masonry building). The supporting walls of these structures are made of cut basalt stone and are surrounded by horizontal and vertical reinforced concrete beams. In the first of them, a solid concrete slab system with a thickness of 12 cm was used. In the second, 25 cm round wooden beams like the roof system were used in traditional Diyarbakir houses with a wooden covering. The third is made of reinforced concrete and has the same architectural features as the first two structures. Based on TBYD 2018, these three alternatives are taken as the ZB floor class. For the seismic and dynamic load calculations, the equivalent seismic force method was used in the first two alternatives. In reinforced concrete, the method of modal combinations method was used. Then, for each alternative, the quantity cost-based calculation and the material-based calculation were calculated separately. As a result of structural and parametric analyses, it was determined that these alternatives are close to each other in terms of mass, but the wooden slab construction is the least and the reinforced concrete structure the most. In terms of mass participation in modal number one, the highest alternative was the 95% which is reinforced concrete slab construction. The cost of a structure with reinforced concrete floors is the lowest and less than half the cost of each of the other two structures. The cost of construction with wooden floors is the highest, and more than half of this cost is due to the price of the wooden material.