Dynamic Analysis of High-Rise Structures with Combined Shear Wall, Bracing, and Damper Systems under Lateral Loading Using ETABS

Abstract

One of the most critical design issues for a high-rise building in high seismic zones is the control over its lateral response. This paper compares the performance of two different lateral-load-resisting systems of a 19-storey (G+18) reinforced-concrete building in seismic Zone V: Model A is a shear-wall core with steel bracing, and Model B is a shear-wall core with steel bracing and fluid viscous dampers. Both models were created in ETABS and analysed using the response-spectrum method as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 including 2nd order (P-Delta) effect. Storey-by-storey comparisons have been made for the bending moment, storey shear, axial force, lateral displacement, inter-storey drift, fundamental period, and material cost for each model, respectively. The results indicate that the bending moment is reduced at each storey, with an average reduction of approximately 20 % at the base, and an average reduction of approximately 18 % in the storey shear, with a reduction of greater than 34 % in the storey shear at the base, in the damped Model B, while reducing the roof displacement by approximately 13 % and the maximum inter-storey drift by approximately 17 % in the damped Model B. The axial force is almost the same (0.2 %), which is an indication that the gravity-load path is maintained. The damped Model B has better drift and member force control while the braced Model A is the stiffer system, having a fundamental period approximately 7 % shorter. The damped model is slightly more economical on a material cost basis, but does not consider the cost of the damper hardware. The study finds that the shear-wall–damper combination is a well balanced and helpful system in seismic design of high-rise structures.

Introduction

The paper investigates the seismic performance of two combined lateral-load-resisting systems for a G+18 reinforced concrete high-rise building located in Seismic Zone V. As urbanization drives the construction of taller buildings, resistance to earthquake- and wind-induced lateral loads becomes increasingly important. The study compares two structural systems: Model A, consisting of a shear-wall core with steel bracing, and Model B, consisting of a shear-wall core with fluid viscous dampers (FVDs). The objective is to determine which system provides superior seismic performance and cost-effectiveness.

The study is based on response spectrum analysis in accordance with IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016, with structural design following IS 456: 2000 and loading provisions from IS 875. The dynamic behavior of the building is represented using the standard multi-degree-of-freedom equation of motion, incorporating mass, damping, stiffness, and ground acceleration. The inclusion of P-Delta effects ensures accurate assessment of second-order structural behavior in slender high-rise buildings.

The literature review shows that shear walls, steel bracing, and fluid viscous dampers are all effective in improving seismic performance. Previous studies report reductions in storey drift, bending moments, and structural damage through these systems. Recent developments have also explored hybrid systems, machine-learning-based seismic assessment, and adaptive damping technologies. However, existing research rarely compares shear wall–bracing and shear wall–damper systems on the same building under identical loading and analysis conditions. Furthermore, detailed storey-by-storey comparisons and material cost evaluations are limited.

To address these gaps, the study sets three objectives: (1) model and analyze both structural systems using ETABS; (2) compare seismic responses in terms of bending moment, storey shear, axial force, lateral displacement, inter-storey drift, and fundamental period; and (3) evaluate the material cost of both systems to identify the more economical solution.

The reference structure is a 19-storey (G+18) reinforced concrete building with a height of 57 m, a 500 m² floor plan, M25 concrete, and Fe500 reinforcement. ETABS is used to create detailed three-dimensional finite element models. Beams and columns are modeled using frame elements, shear walls and slabs with shell elements, steel bracing with axial frame elements, and fluid viscous dampers with nonlinear link elements that dissipate seismic energy based on relative velocity.

Seismic loading is applied according to IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 for Zone V with medium soil, a 5% damping ratio, and response spectrum analysis. The study computes design base shear, horizontal seismic coefficients, damper forces, and inter-storey drift using established mathematical formulations. Modal responses are combined using the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) method while ensuring that at least 90% of the seismic mass participates in the analysis.

Preliminary results indicate that Model B (shear wall with fluid viscous dampers) outperforms Model A (shear wall with steel bracing) in reducing seismic demand. Bending moments increase from the roof to the base in both models due to overturning effects; however, the damped system consistently experiences lower bending moments. At the roof, Model B reduces bending moments by approximately 15%, while near the base the reduction reaches approximately 34%, resulting in an average reduction of about 20% throughout the building height. These findings suggest that integrating fluid viscous dampers with shear walls provides more effective seismic energy dissipation and structural response control than combining shear walls with steel bracing, making it a promising solution for earthquake-resistant high-rise buildings.

Conclusion

Two lateral-load-resisting systems were compared in this study: G+18 shear-wall core with steel bracings (Model A); G+18 shear-wall core with fluid viscous dampers (Model B). Both systems have been modelled and analysed in ETABS, using the P-Delta effect and the response-spectrum method in seismic Zone V. The following are the main findings: 1) Bending moment. The damped Model B decreases the bending moment at each storey, on average by around 20 % and at the base by more than 34 % compared to the braced Model A, where the flexural reinforcement is most critical. 2) Storey shear. The damped model reduces the storey shear at each storey, which is on average about 18 % and at the base about 38 %, easing the demand on the lower storeys and on the foundation. 3) Axial force. The choice of lateral system does not affect the gravity load path as the axial force between the two models is within 0.2 %. 4) Displacement and drift. The damped model reduces the roof displacement by approximately 13 % and the peak inter-storey drift by approximately 17 %; both models meet the code drift limit with the damped model having the greater margin. 5) Stiffness and cost. The damped model is slightly stiffer materially (excluding damper hardware) about 4.8 % more economical than the braced model, which is the stiffer model. For the high-rise building considered, the shear-wall–damper system (Model B) has a more balanced and resilient seismic response than the shear-wall–bracing system (Model A) while retaining comparable level of member forces and drift control for a comparable material cost, and is desirable when a high level of stiffness is desired. The findings agree with the use of combined shear-wall and fluid-viscous-damper systems for seismic design of high-rise structures in severe seismicity zones.

References

[1] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 — Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings. New Delhi: BIS, 2016. [2] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 456: 2000 — Plain and Reinforced Concrete — Code of Practice. New Delhi: BIS, 2000. [3] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 875 (Parts 1–3): 1987 — Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures. New Delhi: BIS, 1987. [4] N. Vishal, M. R. Kannan, and L. Keerthika, “Seismic analysis of a multi-storey irregular building with different structural systems,” International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1–7, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.F7512.038620. [5] J. Kent, C. Zhong, and C. Christopoulos, “Steel flexure and shear yielding base-mechanism for enhanced seismic resilience of RC core wall high-rise structures,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 1051–1078, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221132862. [6] N. Z. Ahmed, M. Osama, and W. Attia, “Prediction of the fundamental period of vibration of braced-frame systems in irregular steel buildings,” Cogent Engineering, vol. 9, no. 1, art. 2122183, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2122183. [7] S. R. Sabbagh-Yazdi et al., “Comparing numerical results for seismic performance of portal steel frames braced with steel, glulam timber and timber–steel BRB,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2022, art. 2705691, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2705691. [8] M. Alborzi, H. Tahghighi, and A. Azarbakht, “Numerical comparison on the efficiency of conventional and hybrid buckling-restrained braces for seismic protection of short-to-mid-rise steel buildings,” International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 439–454, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-019-00244-8. [9] R. D. Riaz, U. J. Malik, M. U. Shah, M. Usman, and F. A. Najam, “Enhancing seismic resilience of existing reinforced concrete building using non-linear viscous dampers: A comparative study,” Actuators, vol. 12, no. 4, art. 175, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/act12040175. [10] K. V. Sharma, V. Parmar, L. Gautam, S. Choudhary, and J. Gohil, “A comprehensive study of viscous damper configurations and vertical damping-coefficient distributions for enhanced performance in reinforced-concrete structures,” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 3517–3534, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00831-x. [11] R. Esfandiyari, S. M. Nejad, J. A. Marnani, S. A. Mousavi, and S. M. Zahrai, “Seismic behaviour of structural and non-structural elements in an RC building with bypass viscous dampers,” Steel and Composite Structures, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 487–497, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2020.34.4.487. [12] Y. Zhang et al., “Seismic retrofitting of RC frames using viscous dampers: Numerical simulation and non-linear response analysis,” Infrastructures, vol. 10, no. 9, art. 235, 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10090235. [13] A. Kumar and R. Kumar, “Seismic analysis of an irregular-diaphragm reinforced-concrete building with fluid viscous dampers,” International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, vol. 11, no. 7, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.55029. [14] L. Qi, J. Xue, Y. Sui, and Z. Wu, “Smart retrofitting of irregular steel joints in traditional Chinese buildings by viscous dampers,” Engineering Structures, vol. 228, art. 111526, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111526. [15] D.-P. N. Kontoni and A. A. Farghaly, “Enhancing the earthquake resistance of RC and steel high-rise buildings by bracings, shear walls and TMDs considering SSI,” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 2595–2614, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00666-6. [16] D. De Domenico, G. Ricciardi, and I. Takewaki, “Design strategies of viscous dampers for seismic protection of building structures: A review,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 118, pp. 144–165, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.12.024. [17] L. Zoccolini, E. Bruschi, S. Cattaneo, and V. Quaglini, “Current trends in fluid viscous dampers with semi-active and adaptive behavior,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 18, art. 10358, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app131810358. [18] F. Kazemi, N. Asgarkhani, and R. Jankowski, “Machine-learning-based seismic response and performance assessment of reinforced-concrete buildings,” Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, vol. 23, art. 94, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-023-00631-9.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Alok Bhoyar, Dr. Rahul Kumar Satbhaiya. 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.