Performance Evaluation of Composite High-Rise Structures Subjected to Wind and Seismic Loads Using ETABS

Abstract

The paper introduces a complete performance analysis of the conventional Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) and Concrete-Filled Steel Tube (CFST) composite high-rise building frames under combined wind and seismic lateral loadings. ETABs modelling of non-linear dynamic time-history analysis of a symmetric building of G+10 storeys (5×5 bays at 7.0 m spacing, total height 38 m) was considered in Seismic Zone V (IS 1893:2016, medium soil type II, I = 1.2, R = 5.0). Based on the structural similarity, two models were compared, one with the RCC column (Model A) and the other with the CFST column (Model B) 450×450 mm, Fe-345 steel tube + M-25 concrete core. The following structural performance parameters were examined: Maximum storey displacement, Storey shear, Overturning moment, Storey stiffness, Storey drift, Modal period/frequency. Results show that the CFST composite frame with same section (65×65 cm) has been able to reduce storey displacement by 49%-55%, increase lateral stiffness by 61%-62% and reduce storey drift by 30%-39% as compared to the RCC frame. The optimised composite section (45×45 cm) reduces storey shear by 17% – 19%, provides 66 m² more usable floor space per building, and provides 4% saving in direct construction costs. The study results are found to be consistent with IS 1893:2016 and IS 11384:2022, and confirms that CFST composite framing can be economically viable and structurally superior for high-rise buildings in high seismic zones.

Introduction

This study evaluates the seismic and structural performance of Concrete-Filled Steel Tube (CFST) composite columns compared with conventional Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) columns in a G+10 high-rise building located in Seismic Zone V of India. With increasing urbanization and the growing demand for taller buildings, structures must safely resist gravity, earthquake, and wind loads as specified in IS 1893:2016 and IS 875 (Part 3):2015. Conventional RCC frames are limited by their high self-weight, large column sizes, and lower ductility, making them less suitable for high-seismic regions. CFST composite construction overcomes these limitations by combining the compressive strength of concrete with the tensile strength and ductility of steel. The steel tube confines the concrete core, preventing brittle failure and local buckling, thereby improving load-carrying capacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation.

A review of previous studies shows that CFST structures consistently outperform RCC buildings under seismic loading. Earlier research reported reductions in inter-storey drift, improved energy dissipation, lower earthquake-induced losses, enhanced wind resistance, and greater seismic resilience. However, existing studies mainly focus on Seismic Zones II–IV and often rely on response spectrum analysis rather than more accurate nonlinear dynamic analysis. Few studies simultaneously consider wind and seismic loading or evaluate the hybrid CFST column–RCC beam system commonly adopted in India. These research gaps motivated the present investigation.

The objectives of the study were to develop detailed 3D ETABS models of RCC and CFST buildings, perform nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis under all prescribed load combinations, compare structural performance using six key parameters, optimize CFST column dimensions for economy and efficiency, and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of composite construction.

Two structural models were developed for comparison. Model A consisted of conventional 650 × 650 mm RCC columns, while Model B used 450 × 450 mm CFST composite columns filled with M25 concrete. Both models had identical RCC beams, slabs, and masonry infill walls, ensuring that only the column system influenced the results. The building was a symmetrical G+10 frame with a 28 m × 28 m footprint, designed for Seismic Zone V, medium soil conditions, an importance factor of 1.2, and a response reduction factor of 5.0. The optimized CFST columns reduced the gross column cross-sectional area by 52%, increasing usable floor space.

Structural modelling and analysis were performed using ETABS v21. The study employed nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis with the Hilber–Hughes–Taylor (HHT) integration method under all 13 load combinations specified in IS 1893:2016. Members were designed according to IS 456:2000, IS 11384:2022, and IS 800:2007, with all structural components satisfying design requirements.

The results demonstrated clear advantages of CFST composite construction. In terms of maximum storey displacement, the standard CFST frame reduced lateral displacement by approximately 50% compared with the RCC frame, indicating significantly greater stiffness. Even the optimized 450 × 450 mm CFST columns, despite their much smaller size, produced 6–12% lower displacement than RCC columns.

For storey shear, the larger CFST frame experienced 13–14% higher base shear because its increased stiffness attracted greater seismic forces. However, the optimized CFST frame reduced dead load sufficiently to achieve 17–19% lower storey shear than the RCC frame while maintaining structural performance.

Regarding overturning moment, the optimized CFST model recorded a 2.6% lower foundation overturning moment than the RCC structure due to its reduced self-weight, resulting in lighter and more economical foundation requirements.

The storey stiffness analysis showed that the standard CFST frame was 61% stiffer than the RCC frame throughout the building because of the confinement provided by the steel tube. Although the optimized CFST frame exhibited a slight reduction in stiffness, it remained within code requirements while achieving substantial reductions in column size.

The storey drift results indicated that all three structural models satisfied the IS 1893:2016 drift limit of 14 mm. The standard CFST frame produced the smallest drift values (3.9–4.4 mm), representing a 30–39% reduction compared with RCC. The optimized CFST frame recorded drift values of 5.4–5.9 mm, only slightly higher than RCC but still well within permissible limits. Higher drift at the stilt and first-floor levels suggested the need for shear walls to improve soft-storey performance.

Conclusion

1) Section Optimisation: 52% reduction of gross cross section area of 450x450 mm in 4 CFST vs 650x650 mm in RCC, resulting in about 66 m2 of extra net usable floor area per building over 12 floors. 2) Lateral Displacement: RCC frame storey displacement is 49%-55% greater than Composite 65×65 cm; and 6%-12% higher than optimised Composite 45×45 cm. This ratio is the same, 50%, and suggests that a uniform composite engagement was occurred throughout each floor. 3) Storey Stiffness: The composite 65×65 cm is 61%-62% stiffer than the RCC frame (stiffness ratio = 1.61) due to the high elastic modulus and confinement contribution provided by the Fe-345 steel tube surrounding the M-25 concrete at all standard floors. 4) Optimised Composite 45×45 cm with its light self-weight reduces base shear by 17%–19% compared to RCC 65×65 cm, providing at the same time a structural efficiency and a reduction of seismic inertial demand. 5) All three models meet IS 1893:2016 limit for standard floors – 8. Storey Drift. The drift of the composite of 65×65 cm is 30% - 39% less than RCC. Optimised Composite 45×45 cm drift is ~3.5% higher than RCC and still within the permissible limit of 14.0 mm. 6) Modal Analysis: The fundamental period of the composite structure (65×65 cm) is 0.467 sec which is 23% less than that of RCC structure (0.608 sec). An increase in natural frequencies for the composite frame translates into a shift of structural response to lower regions of the seismic spectra, thereby offering extra seismic benefit in Zone V. 7) Cost: Saving of direct column construction is 4% (?5.04 lakh) for CFST system. The economic benefit is significantly magnified with indirect savings from reduced foundation loads and increased saleable floor area. CFST composite framing is conclusively proven as structurally superior, economically viable and code compliant with IS 1893:2016 and IS 11384:2022 for the construction of high rise buildings in Seismic Zone V. The comparative evidence-based data presented forms a strong foundation for the design guidance in structural engineering in India.

References

[1] B. S. Taranath, Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings: Steel and Composite Construction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b12299 [2] L. H. Han, W. Li, and R. Bjorhovde, \"Developments and advanced applications of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) structures: Members,\" J. Constr. Steel Res., vol. 100, pp. 211–228, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.04.016 [3] A. N. Shah and P. S. Pajgade, \"Comparison of RCC and composite multistoried buildings,\" IJERA, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 534–539, 2013. [4] X. Qin, C. Chen, and Y. Wang, \"Performance of composite frame–shear wall hybrid systems under multi-hazard loading,\" J. Build. Eng., vol. 35, p. 101990, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101990 [5] H. Zhang, Y. Liu, and J. Li, \"Comparative seismic performance of circular and rectangular CFST column frames,\" Structures, vol. 28, pp. 920–932, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.052 [6] Y. Wang, Q. Wu, and J. Li, \"Seismic resilience assessment of high-rise composite buildings using CFST columns,\" J. Build. Eng., vol. 42, p. 102540, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102540 [7] H. Asl, D. Nweke, and F. McKenna, \"Performance-based seismic assessment of composite frames using FEMA P-58,\" Earthq. Spectra, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1423–1449, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019898715 [8] C. Dong, H. Li, and S. Cao, \"Coupled wind-seismic interaction analysis of composite high-rise structures,\" Wind Struct., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 305–318, 2019. [9] S. Li, Z. Kou, and D. Wang, \"Seismic performance of composite frames with CFST columns under near-fault ground motions,\" Eng. Struct., vol. 199, p. 109671, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109671 [10] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 – Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. New Delhi: BIS, 2016. [11] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 875 (Part 3): 2015 – Design Loads for Buildings and Structures – Wind Loads. New Delhi: BIS, 2015. [12] [12] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 11384: 2022 – Composite Construction – Code of Practice. New Delhi: BIS, 2022. [13] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI), ETABS v21 User Manual and Technical Reference. Berkeley, CA: CSI, 2023. Available: https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs [14] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 456: 2000 – Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice. New Delhi: BIS, 2000. [15] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 800: 2007 – General Construction in Steel – Code of Practice. New Delhi: BIS, 2007.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Sakesh ., Murlidhar Chourasia, 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.