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 aim to this work is to determine to most effective RC frame of 32-storyed and 64-storyed 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 by comparing Base shear, maximum storey drift, top storey displacement, top drift, time period as per IS1893-2016 (Part-1). The building is modelled and analysed using software ETABS 21.

Introduction

With the global population rising, urban expansion has led to the increased construction of high-rise buildings to accommodate people in limited land areas. These tall structures face critical structural and safety challenges, particularly during earthquakes, which generate significant lateral forces. To ensure stability, engineers employ various lateral force-resisting systems, such as:

• Rigid Frame

• Braced Frame

• Shear Wall-Frame

• Diagrid

• Frame Tube

• Tube-in-Tube

• Outrigger System

Objective of the Study:

To model and analyze the seismic performance of 32-storey and 64-storey reinforced concrete (RC) buildings using different lateral load-resisting systems. The key parameters studied are:

• Base Shear

• Maximum Storey Drift

• Top Storey Displacement

• Top Drift

• Time Period

The modeling and analysis were carried out in ETABS 21 using non-linear dynamic (Time History) analysis.

Building Specifications:

• Plan Area: 900 m²

• Storey Height: 3 m

• Materials: M30 grade concrete, HYSD-500 steel

• Structural elements: Columns (1000x1000 mm), Beams (300x600 mm), Shear Walls (300 mm), Slabs (200 mm), etc.

• Joint Type: Rigid (beam-column), Pinned (beam-diagrid)

• Foundation: Fixed

Loads Considered:

• Dead Load (self-weight)

• Live Load: 3 kN/m²

• Earthquake Load: As per IS 1893 (Part 1:2016)

• Time History Data: Bhuj Earthquake

• Seismic Zone: Zone 2

• Soil Type: Soft

• Damping Ratio: 5%

• Response Reduction Factor: 5

Analysis Method:

Time History Analysis was used to simulate the dynamic behavior of buildings during earthquake ground motions and to compute response parameters over time.

Results Overview:

The analysis compared the performance of various structural systems for 32-storey and 64-storey buildings.

Key Findings:

• Base Shear: Higher in buildings with shear walls and braced tubes due to increased stiffness.

• Storey Drift: Diagrid and outrigger systems showed lower drift values, improving overall seismic performance.

• Top Storey Displacement & Top Drift: Reduced in tube-in-tube and outrigger systems compared to conventional frames.

• Time Period: Diagrid and braced tube systems had shorter time periods, indicating higher stiffness and better dynamic performance.

Conclusion

1) Outrigger and Braced Systems exhibit very high flexibility in some cases, which might not be ideal unless well-controlled through damping or other seismic measures. They are effective in limiting drift but may need careful detailing to avoid excessive displacements or resonances. 2) Diagrid and Tube-in-Tube Systems show shorter time periods, suggesting high stiffness and better control over lateral displacements-suitable for tall buildings in high seismic zones. 3) Shear Wall Frame and Frame Tube Systems provide a balanced seismic response, making them reliable for medium- to high-rise buildings with moderate-to-high seismic demand. 4) The presence of multiple entries with widely varying time periods for the same system indicates that design variations (geometry, material properties, damping ratios) significantly influence seismic behavior.

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.