Analysing the Effect of Structural Configuration on Earthquake-Induced Response Parameters

Abstract

The seismic performance of high-rise buildings is significantly influenced by their plan geometry. This study evaluates and compares the structural behaviour of buildings with different plan configurations—Rectangular, L-shaped, H-shaped, and C-shaped—using ETABS software, as per IS 1893:2016 guidelines. Response Spectrum Analysis is conducted to assess the performance under seismic loading conditions. Key parameters such as lateral displacement, story drift, story stiffness, are used for comparison. The results highlight the impact of plan geometry on overall seismic response and identify configurations that demonstrate better structural performance. This research offers useful insights for structural engineers during the conceptual planning and design phase of high-rise buildings in seismic-prone areas.

Introduction

Rapid urbanization has increased demand for high-rise buildings, especially in seismic zones where building safety during earthquakes is critical. This study evaluates how different building plan geometries—Rectangular, L-shaped, H-shaped, and C-shaped—affect seismic performance. Using ETABS software and Response Spectrum Analysis per IS 1893:2016, key parameters like lateral displacement and story drift were analyzed to identify which shapes inherently perform better during earthquakes.

Results showed that:

• The C-shaped buildings had the lowest lateral displacement, indicating better stiffness and lateral control.

• The L-shaped buildings exhibited the highest displacement, showing more flexibility but less seismic resistance.

• The Rectangular shape had the lowest story drift, reflecting superior structural stability.

• The C-shaped buildings, despite low displacement, showed the highest story drift, indicating some vulnerability.

• The H-shaped buildings showed moderate performance in both displacement and drift.

Overall, plan geometry significantly influences seismic response, and the findings aim to guide engineers and architects in designing safer, more efficient high-rise buildings in earthquake-prone areas.

Conclusion

Based on the Response Spectrum Analysis performed in ETABS for different plan configurations, the following conclusions are drawn: 1) Rectangular-shaped structures demonstrated the lowest storey drift across all floors, indicating superior performance in terms of lateral stability and seismic resistance. 2) L-shaped structures experienced the highest displacement, highlighting their greater flexibility and lower stiffness, while C-shaped structures showed the least displacement, suggesting better control of lateral movements. 3) Structural irregularities in the L, H, and C-shaped plans led to increased lateral deformation, which may cause stress concentration and reduced seismic resilience. 4) Overall, plan geometry significantly affects the seismic behavior of high-rise buildings.

References

[1] Chaudhary, K. P., & Mahajan, A. (2021, November). Response spectrum analysis of irregular shaped high-rise buildings under combined effect of plan and vertical irregularity using csi etabs. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 889, No. 1, p. 012055). IOP Publishing. [2] Guleria, A. (2014). Structural analysis of a multi-storeyed building using ETABS for different plan configurations. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol, 3(5), 1481-1485. [3] Habte, D. (2021). Structural analysis of high-rise building using ETABS and RSA software. [4] Intekhab, M. S., Das, S., Jajnery, M. A., Akhtar, S., Sahoo, D., & Saha, P. (2023). Analysis methods of irregular high-rise buildings subjected to seismic loads. Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies, 11(3), 1359-1382. [5] jadhav, m. d., & shelar, s. v. (2021). analysis of dumbbell shaped shear wall in high rise building in etab software. international journal, 6(7). [6] Karrar, W., Shyama, A., & Jassim, M. (2020). High-rise building wind analysis using computational fluid dynamics and dynamic analysis using etabs program. Int. J, 8(7). [7] Kumawat, A., Pahwa, S., & Safdari, M. (2023). Comparative Analysis of High-Rise Building on Sloping Ground With Steel And RCC Bracing. Eghbali, M., Amiri, G. G., & Dehkordi, M. R. (2015). Evaluation of modified nonlinear dynamic and static analyses for seismic behavior of steel moment-resisting frames. Journal of Vibroengineering, 17(8), 4313-4324. [8] Pavani, M., Kumar, G. N., & Pingale, D. S. (2015). Shear Wall Analysis and Design Optimization in Case of High-Rise Buildings Using Etabs. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research ISSN, 2229-5518. [9] Ruggieri, S., & Uva, G. (2024). Extending the concepts of response spectrum analysis to nonlinear static analysis,Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 9(7), 1-34. [10] .Shohag, J. R. I., & Mozumder, K. (2022). Performance Assessment of Residential Building for Different Plan Configurations in Different Seismic Zones of Bangladesh Using ETABS. Journal of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, 7(5), 93-101 [11] Shukla, K., & Nallasivam, K. (2023). Dynamic response of high-rise buildings with shear walls due to seismic forces. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(7), 2645-2657. [12] Wakchaure, M. R., Shirish, A., & Nikam, R. (2012). Study of plan irregularity on high-rise structures. international journal of innovative research & development, 269-281. [13] Yusuf, A. Y., & SE, M. static & dynamic analysis of high-rise building (B+G+35) by using Response spectrum, Time History & Push over analysis International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science (IRJMETS), 5(5). [14] Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures – Part 1: Dead Loads – Unit Weights of Building Materials and Stored Materials, IS 875 (Part 1), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1987 [15] Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures – Part 2: Imposed Loads, IS 875 (Part 2), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1987. [16] Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures – Part 5: Special Loads and Combinations, IS 875 (Part 5), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1987. [17] Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures – Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings, IS 1893 (Part 1), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 2002. [18] Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces – Code of Practice, IS 13920, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1993

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Ajinkya S. Dixit, Rajshree C. Gogande, Rutuja K. Kadam, Riteshkumar B. Koli, Shubham B. Biskite. 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.