Structural Behaviour of Tall Buildings Employing Ferroconcrete and Steel-Timber Hybrid Systems under Dynamic Loading Using ETABS

Abstract

In India, where seismic zone V has been identified, the conventional reinforced concrete (RCC) moment-resisting frame structures can definitely be found to be vulnerable to large lateral displacements and inter-storey drifts beyond the permissible limit in IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 under strong-motion dynamic excitation. This paper introduces a comparative nonlinear time-history analysis, conducted using the ETABS v17 software, of two G+7 tall building configurations - (i) a conventional bare RCC frame and (ii) a steel–timber hybrid frame that comprises ferroconcrete (wire-mesh mortar composite) columns and timber–steel composite peripheral wall panels - to the El Centro (1940) ground motion record in the knowledge of Seismic Zone V, soft soil conditions and an importance factor of 1.5. Storey-by-storey evaluation occurs for 5 dynamic response parameters: maximum storey displacement, inter-storey drift, peak bending moment, peak shear force and peak axial force. All parameters of the hybrid frame have been found to satisfy IS 1893 limits throughout the entire building height with decrease in peak storey displacement, inter-storey drift, shear force, bending moment and axial force of 96.4 % (343 mm to 12.59 mm), 95.6 % (285 mm to 12.49 mm), 16.9 % (325 mm to 288 mm), 9.4 % (235 mm to 219 mm) and 5.9 % (117 mm to 112 mm) from RCC frame respectively. The direct material cost analysis validates the indicative saving of around 4.0 % (?5.04 lakh) in the material cost of column elements with further indirect savings expected due to the schedule compression achieved by prefabrication and reduction in foundation load. The results indicate that Ferroconcrete and Steel-Timber hybrid system is a structurally better and code compliant design solution for seismically active zones of India and can be a cost-effective solution for such zones.

Introduction

This study addresses the challenge of improving the seismic performance of multi-storey buildings in India, where a large portion of the country lies in moderate to high earthquake hazard zones. Conventional Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames (RCMRFs), although widely used, suffer from high self-weight, limited ductility, and stiffness degradation under strong seismic loading, leading to increased displacement and structural vulnerability.

To overcome these limitations, the research proposes an innovative hybrid structural system that combines:

• Structural steel frames as the primary moment-resisting system,
• Steel–timber composite wall panels as secondary lateral load-resisting elements, and
• Ferroconcrete (FC) columns made of wire-mesh reinforced mortar to improve crack resistance and post-cracking stiffness.

While previous studies have investigated steel–timber hybrid systems and ferroconcrete columns separately, no research had combined both technologies in a single tall-building seismic analysis. This study fills that gap by conducting a nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) of a G+7 building subjected to El Centro 1940 earthquake excitation in accordance with IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 Zone V requirements.

Literature Review Findings

Recent research (2020–2025) has shown that:

• Steel–timber hybrid systems improve lateral load capacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation.
• Timber–steel composite walls and dampers can significantly reduce inter-storey drift and floor acceleration.
• Composite floor systems enhance stiffness and vibration performance.
• Advanced timber wall connections provide self-centering behavior and minimal residual drift after earthquakes.
• Nonlinear time-history analysis is the most accurate method for capturing higher-mode effects and material nonlinearities.

Research Gap

No previous study has:

• Integrated both ferroconcrete columns and steel–timber hybrid wall panels in one building system.
• Evaluated their combined seismic performance against a conventional RCC building.
• Quantified critical response parameters such as displacement, drift, bending moment, shear force, and axial force.
• Assessed the economic feasibility of such a hybrid system under Indian conditions.

Objectives

The study aims to:

1. Develop ETABS models of conventional RCC and hybrid G+7 buildings.
2. Perform nonlinear time-history analysis using Zone V earthquake data.
3. Compare storey displacement, inter-storey drift, bending moment, shear force, and axial force.
4. Evaluate the contribution of ferroconcrete columns to seismic performance.
5. Assess the economic viability of the hybrid system.
6. Compare results with recent international research.

Methodology

Two ETABS models were created:

• Case I: Conventional RCC moment-resisting frame.
• Case II: Hybrid structure with ferroconcrete columns and steel–timber composite wall panels.

Both models had identical geometry, loading conditions, and boundary conditions, ensuring that differences in performance resulted solely from material and structural system changes.

Key features include:

• G+7 building with dimensions 30 m × 20 m and total height 25.6 m.
• M25 concrete and Fe415 steel for the RCC model.
• Ferroconcrete columns with distributed wire-mesh reinforcement in the hybrid model.
• Timber–steel composite wall panels modeled as orthotropic elements.
• Seismic loading based on the El Centro 1940 earthquake record and Indian Zone V design parameters.

Conclusion

This paper has compared the nonlinear time-history response of a G+7 tall building with the ferroconcrete columns and steel-timber hybrid wall panels with a conventional RCC baseline building under El Centro seismic excitation at IS 1893 Zone V condition. The major conclusions achieved are: 1) The hybrid frame has reduced the peak dynamic storey displacement by 96.4 % (343 mm ? 12.59 mm) and it has been achieved at all storey levels corresponding to the permissible limit given in IS 1893 (H/250 = 102.4 mm), whereas the RCC frame is found to be 3.35 times greater than the permissible limit in IS 1893. 2) The inter-storey drift is reduced by 95.6 % with a near-uniform drift (2.25 mm to 12.49 mm) as compared to RCC frame drifts which reach 13–22 times the permissible value in upper storeys as per IS 1893 limit of 12.8 mm at each storey. 3) The direct reduction of tensile reinforcement demand at critical sections is 9.4 % (289.03 vs. 318.98 kN•m) with hybrid frame peak bending moment. 4) This 16.9 % improvement in the peak dynamic shear force (877.05 kN compared to 1056.00 kN) significantly decreases the likelihood of brittle joint shear failure and the need for transverse reinforcement. 5) The peak column axial force is reduced by 5.9 % (6390.76 vs. 6792.45 kN), which reduces the P-? amplification and allows for a lighter design of the foundation. 6) The document provides an indicative saving of material on the column elements of ?5.04 Lakh or 4.0 % along with other indirect saving on the project due to prefabrication, reduced formwork, and lighter foundations. 7) The Ferroconcrete and steel-timber hybrid structural system is the first documented in published literature, which fulfills all IS 1893 dynamic performance limits for a G+7 tall building in Seismic Zone V, making it a structurally better, economically superior and code compliant alternative to the conventional RCC structural system for high seismicity zones of India.

References

[1] S. R. Sable and S. Banerjee, \"Multi-storey hybrid buildings using timber-steel,\" Int. J. Innovations Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 1–9, Nov. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.26662/ijiert.v5i11 [2] N. S. Khan and Y. P. Pawar, \"Timber-steel composite beams for framed structures,\" Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. (IJERT), vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1–6, Jun. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV8IS060371 [3] M. He, J. Luo, and Z. Li, \"Key technologies for prefabricated timber buildings,\" in Proc. Modular Offsite Construction Summit, Shanghai, China, Nov. 2017, pp. 1–8. [4] C. Lossa, T. Tannert, and S. Tesfamariam, \"State-of-the-art review of displacement-based seismic design of timber buildings,\" Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 191, pp. 481–497, Dec. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.208 [5] T. Vogiatzis, T. Tsalkatidis, and A. Avdelas, \"Steel framed structures with cross-laminated timber infill shear walls,\" Int. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 433–443, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v8i4.29481 [6] K. Tavoussi, W. Winter, T. Pixner, and M. Kist, \"Steel reinforced timber structures for multi-storey buildings,\" in Proc. World Conf. Timber Eng. (WCTE), Riva del Garda, Italy, Jun. 2010, pp. 1–8. [7] R. Scotta, D. Trutalli, L. Fiorin, L. Pozza, L. Marchi, and L. de Stefani, \"Light steel-timber frame with composite and plaster bracing panels,\" Materials, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 7354–7370, Nov. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8115386 [8] S. Stiemer, S. Tesfamariam, E. Karacabeyli, and M. Popovski, \"Development of steel-wood hybrid systems for buildings under dynamic loads,\" Univ. British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, Tech. Rep., Jan. 2012. [9] M. Fairhurst, X. Zhang, and T. Tannert, \"Nonlinear dynamic analyses of novel timber-steel hybrid system,\" in Proc. World Conf. Timber Eng. (WCTE), Quebec City, Canada, Aug. 2014, pp. 1–8. [10] Z. Li, M. He, X. Wang, and M. Li, \"Seismic performance assessment of steel frame infilled with prefabricated wood shear walls,\" J. Constr. Steel Res., vol. 140, pp. 62–73, Jan. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.10.026 [11] P. Jain and R. Satbhaiya, \"Analysis of a tall structure considering composite steel section columns using ETABS,\" Int. J. Sci. Res. Civil Eng., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–6, 2019. [12] B. A. Danawade, R. R. Malagi, and A. I. Mulla, \"Study of effect of tolerance on flexural strength of wood reinforced steel tube,\" Int. J. Eng. Innovative Technol. (IJEIT), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–6, Jul. 2012. [13] H. Dong, C. Christopoulos, Z. Li, and M. He, \"Damage-free seismic response of multi-story timber-steel hybrid structures,\" in Proc. 16th World Conf. Earthquake Eng. (16WCEE), Santiago, Chile, Jan. 2017. [14] M. Kazi and R. John, \"Performance of wood-steel hybrid multi-storey buildings,\" Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. (IJRASET), vol. 6, no. V, pp. 1–9, May 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.5101 [15] A. O. Akotuah et al., \"Fire performance of hybrid steel-timber connections,\" in Proc. Int. Conf. Fire Safety Eng. Performance-Based Codes, Dubrovnik, Croatia, Oct. 2015. [16] D. Ahmed and A. Asiz, \"Structural performance of hybrid multi-storey buildings with massive timber-based floors under lateral loads,\" Int. J. Comput. Meth. Exp. Meas., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 905–916, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2495/CMEM-V5-N6-905-916 [17] K. Poologanathan, H. Ye, S. Thamboo, and J. Navaratnam, \"Structural performance of sustainable hybrid structural insulated panels,\" Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 304, Art. no. 124608, Oct. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124608 [18] A. Aloisio, R. Alaggio, J. Kohler, and M. Fragiacomo, \"Extension of generalised Bouc-Wen hysteresis modelling of wood joints,\" ASCE J. Eng. Mech., vol. 147, no. 2, Art. no. 04020139, Feb. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001854 [19] B. Zhang, A. Dodd, and A. Kermani, \"Experimental study of CLT-concrete composite floor system with notched shear connectors,\" Eng. Struct., vol. 266, Art. no. 114560, Sep. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114560 [20] A. Hashemi, P. Quenneville, and R. Masoudnia, \"Seismic performance of hybrid rocking wall with resilient slip friction joints,\" Eng. Struct., vol. 258, Art. no. 114114, May 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114114 [21] H. Dong, M. He, C. Wang, Z. Li, and C. Christopoulos, \"Timber-steel hybrid system for taller buildings: dynamic characteristics and wind-induced response,\" Eng. Struct., vol. 239, Art. no. 112367, Jul. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112367 [22] A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315374871 [23] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 875 (Part 1): Code of Practice for Design Loads for Buildings – Dead Loads. New Delhi, India: BIS, 1987. [24] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 875 (Part 2): Code of Practice for Design Loads for Buildings – Imposed Loads. New Delhi, India: BIS, 1987. [25] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 1893 (Part 1): Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. New Delhi, India: BIS, 2016. [26] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI), ETABS Version 17 Integrated Building Design Software – User Manual. Berkeley, CA, USA: CSI, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Ankit Ahirwar , 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.