A Literature Review on Comparative Study of the Seismic Performance of Multi-storey Buildings with Different Structural Systems

Abstract

As per the previous records of earthquakes, there is an increase in the demand of earthquake resistance structures. So it is necessary to design and analyse the structure by considering seismic effect. To resist the seismic forces different structural systems are commonly used in multi-storey buildings. The present paper gives an overview of different research work to be done regarding the study of RC frame multi-story structure with lateral load resisting system such as Frame, Frame Tube, Braced Tube, Diagrid, Tube-in-tube, and Shear Wall-frame, Outrigger Structures. The behaviour of RC frame with different structural systems has been studied and conclusions are made.

Introduction

As urban expansion continues due to population growth, high-rise buildings are essential to efficiently utilize land. However, ensuring their stability and safety under seismic and lateral loads is a critical engineering challenge. To address this, various lateral force-resisting systems—such as shear walls, diagrids, outriggers, braced frames, and tubular systems—are used in the structural design of tall buildings.

Research Focus

This review paper evaluates the effectiveness of different structural systems in improving earthquake resistance. Through simulation-based analysis using tools like ETABS and STAAD.pro, multiple studies have compared parameters such as displacement, drift, base shear, stiffness, and time period for buildings of varying heights.

Key Findings from Literature Review

• Diagrid systems consistently showed superior seismic performance with minimal displacement, high stiffness, and aesthetic advantages.

• Shear walls proved highly effective in reducing lateral displacement and enhancing base shear, especially in medium-rise buildings and when placed at optimal positions (e.g., building corners or core).

• Outrigger systems, particularly those with belt trusses or double outriggers, significantly improve lateral stability and reduce displacement and drift.

• Flat slab systems are architecturally beneficial but typically less seismically robust than conventional slabs unless supplemented with shear walls.

• Hybrid systems (e.g., diagrid with shear wall) and advanced systems (e.g., tube-in-tube, bundled tubes) demonstrated improved performance over single structural systems.

• Angle optimization in diagrids (e.g., 45° or variable-angle designs) can influence both cost efficiency and seismic behavior.

Identified Research Gaps

1. Seismic Zone Variation: Most studies focus on a single seismic zone; comparative studies across multiple zones are limited.

2. Hybrid System Integration: There's minimal research on the combined effect of using multiple lateral resisting systems in a single building.

3. Structural Optimization: Few studies explore optimal sizing and placement of components like shear walls or diagrid modules.

4. Soil Profile Consideration: Analyses rarely account for different soil conditions, which significantly affect seismic behavior.

5. Life Cycle Cost: Economic evaluations including maintenance costs and lifecycle performance are seldom discussed.

6. Experimental Validation: There is a lack of real-world experimental data to validate software-based simulations.

Conclusion

No single structural system is universally optimal. The choice depends on building height, seismic zone, architectural constraints, and performance objectives. For high-rise buildings in high seismic zones, diagrids, bundled tubes, and outrigger-belt truss systems emerge as the most effective. For mid-rise structures, shear wall and hybrid configurations offer the best balance of performance, cost, and construction practicality.

References

[1] Ali, S. M., Raju, V. D., & Raza, M. N. (2024). Comparative study on Full outrigger system and Half outrigger system in tall building with varying configuration. ZKG International, IX(I), 4049–4063. [2] Anil.K.Chopra (2007),“Text book on Dynamics of Structures -Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering”. [3] B. S. Taranath, “Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings”. [4] Babhulkar, S., Dabhekar, K. R., Sanghai, S. S., & Khedikar, I. P. (2021). Comparative study of seismic behavior of diagrid structure with conventional structure. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 1197, No. 1, p. 012049). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012049 [5] Bhale, S. A., & Shimpale, P. M. (2022). Analytical Study on Seismic Performance of Diagrid Structural System. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), 9(10), 2210202. Available at: [JETIR](https://www.jetir.org). [6] Bhat, A. F., & Kumar, V. (2022). Comparative study on deflection of a multistoried building with shear wall and core wall. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology, 10(V), 3743–3758. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.43212 [7] Bhuta, D. C., & Pareekh, U. (2016). Comparative study on lateral load resisting system in tall building. International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering, 2(11), 320-327. Retrieved from https://www.ijste.org/ [8] Borkar, S., Dabhekar, K., Khedikar, I., & Vaidya, N. (2021). Comparative study of flat slab structure and conventional slab structure. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1197, 012072. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012072 [9] Dharanya, A., Gayathri, S., & Deepika, M. (2017). Comparison study of shear wall and bracings under seismic loading in multi-storey residential building. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 10(8), 417–424. [10] Dudhe, Y., & Ambadkar, S. (2020). Comparative analysis of different lateral load resisting system for high rise building. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2020.6255 [11] George, A. R., & Umamaheswari, R. (2021). Comparative Study on RCC Framed Structures with and Without Shear Wall at Seismic Zones II and V. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET),8(7), 2822–2826. Retrieved from [IRJET](https://www.irjet.net). [12] Hasrat, H. A. (2021). Comparative Study of Various High Rise Building Lateral Load Resisting Systems for Seismic Load & Wind Load: A Review. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume 08, Issue 01, Pages 291–297. [13] IS: 456 (2000), ‘Code of practice for Plan and Reinforced Concrete (fourth revision)’, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi. [14] IS: 875 Part 1,2 and 5 (1987), ‘Code of practice for Design Load (other than earthquake) for Buildings and Structures’, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi. [15] IS: 1893 Part I (2016), ‘Code of practice for Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design of Structure: General provisions and Building’, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi. [16] IS: 4326 (1993), ‘Code of practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings (Second Revision)’, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi. [17] IS: 13920 (1993), ‘Code of practice for Ductile detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces’, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi. [18] Jaiswal, R., & Mahajan, A. (2023). Comparative analysis of building with shear wall and diagrid structure.IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1110, 012033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1110/1/012033 [19] Kurey, A., Hanjage, S., Chause, M., Gawande, S., & Kondekar, A. R. (2021). Comparative Study of Tube in Tube System and Bundled Tube System for High Rise Building. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), Volume 9, Issue 6, ISSN: 2320-2882. Available at: [IJCRT](https://www.ijcrt.org). [20] Mayuri Borah and S Choudhury,\"Seismic Performance of Tall Buildings with Different Structural Systems\" 2022, International Conference on Advances in Structural Mechanics and Applications (ASMA-2021), National Institute of Technology Silchar, India. from [ResearchGate](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363662695) [21] Mohammed Mudabbir Ahmed and Khaja Musab Manzoor, A Comparative Study on the Seismic Performance of Multi-storey Buildings with Different Structural Systems IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1026(1), 012020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1026/1/012020 [22] Oduor, G., Abuodha, S., & Mumenya, S. (2023). A Comparative Study of the Dynamic Earthquake Behavior of Braced Tube, Diagrid, Tube-in-tube, and Shear Wall-frame Structures. Andalasian International Journal of Applied Science, Engineering, and Technology, Volume 03, Issue 01, Pages 67-79. DOI: [10.25077/aijaset.v3i01.72](https://doi.org/10.25077/aijaset.v3i01.72) [23] Pradhana, R. A., Pratama, M. M. A., Santoso, E., & Karjanto, A. (2019). Structural performance of multi-storey building using flat slab and conventional slab to seismic loads (Case study: Faculty building of Sport Science in Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia). IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 669(1), 012053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/669/1/012053 [24] Raut, R., & Dahake, H. (2020). Comparison of outrigger system in tall buildings. JES Journal of Engineering Sciences, 11(7), 332-336. Retrieved from https://www.jespublication.com [25] Sandeep, G. S., & Patil, G. (2017). Comparative Study of Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab Structures in Different Seismic Zones. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 567–580. Retrieved from http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7 [26] Shah, A. G., Patel, V. B., & Patel, S. B. (2020). Parametric Study of Tall Structures with Diagrid. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), Volume X, Issue X, ISSN: 2349-5162. Available at: [ResearchGate](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342550519) [27] Shah, M. I., Mevada, S. V., & Patel, V. B. (2016). Comparative study of diagrid structures with conventional frame structures. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 6(5, Part 2), 22–29. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302928668 [28] Thapa, A., & Sarkar, S. (2017). Comparative study of multi-storied RCC building with and without shear wall. International Journal of Civil Engineering,6(2), 11-20. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316619653 [29] Thejas H K, Laxmi S, & Abhilash D T. (2020). Comprehensive Analysis of Outrigger Building System. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET),11(1), 25-31. Available at: [IAEME](http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=11&IType=1) [30] Vadagave, P., & Sawant, P. (2023). Comparative Study of High Rise Building with Outrigger and Shear Wall. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science (IRJMETS), Volume 05, Issue 09, Pages 1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.56726/IRJMETS44690 [31] Vanshaj, K., Singh, H. K., & Mishra, A. (2022). Comparative Study of High Rise Steel Structure with and without Bracing System. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science,4(3), 1781-1786. Available at: [IRJMETS](https://www.irjmets.com). [32] Wani, S. S., Kokate, P. G., Londhe, A. S., Malge, S. B., & Potdar, A. N. (2022). Comparative analysis of diagrid structural system. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture Engineering, 3(1), 33–40. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361323665

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Dhruv Kumar Biswas, Dr. Savita Maru, Prof. Rakesh Patwa. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.