Structural Performance Evaluation of Twisted G+50 High-Rise Buildings

Abstract

The rapid growth of urbanization has increased the demand for innovative tall building configurations that combine structural efficiency with architectural aesthetics. Twisted buildings have emerged as an attractive solution due to their improved aerodynamic performance and distinctive appearance. This research investigates the structural behaviour of a G+50 reinforced concrete building with three different configurations: Regular Building (0° Twist), 4° Twisted Building, and 6° Twisted Building using ETABS. All models were analysed under identical loading conditions in accordance with relevant Indian Standard codes. The structural performance was evaluated based on storey drift, storey displacement, fundamental time period, and torsional response. The analytical results indicate that the 4° twisted building provides the best balance between structural stability and architectural innovation, while the 6° twisted building exhibits improved aerodynamic performance, reduced storey drift, lower torsional response, and better structural economy due to reduced lateral demand. However, the increased twist angle also results in greater structural flexibility, reflected by a higher fundamental time period. The study concludes that moderate twisting can significantly enhance the performance of tall buildings and offers valuable guidance for the design of future sustainable and architecturally efficient high-rise structures.

Introduction

Rapid urbanization has increased the demand for tall buildings that combine architectural appeal with structural efficiency. Twisted tall buildings, created by rotating each floor around the vertical axis, have become popular because they improve aesthetics and reduce wind effects through better aerodynamic performance. However, their irregular geometry influences structural behavior, including lateral displacement, storey drift, torsional effects, and dynamic response, making detailed analysis essential.

This study analyzes a G+50 reinforced concrete building using ETABS to evaluate the effect of geometric twisting on structural performance. Three models were considered: a regular building (0° twist), a 4° twisted building, and a 6° twisted building, all subjected to identical loading conditions according to Indian Standard codes. Key parameters examined include storey displacement, storey drift, natural time period, and torsional response.

The research identifies three main challenges: understanding how twisting affects structural response, evaluating increased dynamic and torsional effects, and determining the optimum twist angle that balances structural safety, economy, and architectural appeal. Previous studies indicate that moderate twisting improves wind resistance and load distribution, while excessive twisting increases flexibility and the natural time period.

The methodology involves three-dimensional modelling in ETABS, application of dead, live, and seismic loads, and seismic analysis using the Response Spectrum Method as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016. Modal analysis is performed to evaluate the dynamic characteristics of the structures.

Conclusion

This study presented a comparative structural analysis of a G+50 reinforced concrete building with three different configurations: Regular Building (0° Twist), 4° Twisted Building, and 6° Twisted Building, using ETABS software. The structural performance was evaluated under identical loading conditions based on storey drift, storey displacement, fundamental time period, and torsional response. The analytical results showed that the regular building exhibited the highest lateral stiffness with the lowest displacement and shortest time period. The 4° twisted building recorded the highest roof displacement but provided a balanced combination of structural stability and architectural aesthetics. The 6° twisted building demonstrated reduced storey drift, lower torsional response, and improved aerodynamic behaviour, although it exhibited a significantly higher fundamental time period, indicating greater structural flexibility. The comparison revealed that increasing the twist angle influences the dynamic characteristics and lateral response of tall buildings. Among the three configurations, the 4° twisted building offers the most suitable balance between safety, structural efficiency, and modern architectural design. However, the 6° twisted building provides better aerodynamic performance and can be considered a more economical solution due to its reduced lateral demand and improved wind resistance. Overall, the study concludes that appropriately designed twisted buildings can achieve safe, efficient, and sustainable performance while satisfying both structural and architectural requirements for future high-rise construction.

References

[1] Zhang, Y., Li, H., & Wang, J. (2024). Structural Performance Assessment of Twisted High-Rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings under Seismic Loading. Engineering Structures, 312, 118765. [2] Kim, S. H., Lee, J. H., & Park, D. H. (2023). Wind-Induced Behaviour of Twisted Tall Buildings Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 238, 105441. [3] Ahmed, M., Hassan, A., & Ibrahim, K. (2024). Comparative Seismic Analysis of Regular and Twisted High-Rise Buildings Using ETABS. Structures, 61, 105789. [4] Chen, X., Liu, Q., & Zhao, L. (2025). Dynamic Behaviour of Twisted Tall Buildings under Earthquake and Wind Loads. Journal of Building Engineering, 92, 110642. [5] Patel, R., Sharma, V., & Singh, P. (2024). Performance Evaluation of Twisted Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Different Twist Angles. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(6), 2143–2158. [6] Yan, B., Li, Y., Li, X., Zhou, X., Wei, M., Yang, Q., & Zhou, X. (2022). Wind Tunnel Investigation of Twisted Wind Effect on a Typical Super-Tall Building. Buildings, 12(12), 2260. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122260 [7] A. Kaveh and S. M. Talatahari, “Optimal Design of Tall Buildings with Irregular Geometry,” Engineering Structures, vol. 243, pp. 112–125, 2021. [8] T. Kijewski-Correa, “Performance-Based Wind Engineering for Tall Buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 147, no. 6, 2021. [9] H. G. Kwok, “Behavior of Twisted Structures under Lateral Loads,” Engineering Structures, vol. 230, pp. 111–123, 2021. [10] Terzi, V. G., & Athanatopoulou, A. (2021). Optimum Torsion Axis in Multistory Buildings Under Earthquake Excitation: A New Criterion Based on Axis of Twist. Engineering Structures, 249, 113356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113356 [11] K. A. A. Al-Jabri, “Seismic Performance of Irregular High-Rise Buildings,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 134, pp. 106–115, 2020. [12] T. Ayhan and M. M. Saka, “Structural Systems for Twisted Tall Buildings,” Structures, vol. 28, pp. 456–470, 2020. [13] S. D. Rajan, “Advanced Structural Analysis with STAAD.Pro,” International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 67–75, 2020. [14] S. Rajasekaran, “Analysis of Multi-Storey Buildings using STAAD.Pro,” International Journal of Engineering Research, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 45–50, 2020. [15] P. Agarwal and M. Shrikhande, Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. New Delhi, India: PHI Learning, 2019. [16] T. Kijewski-Correa, “Wind Engineering of Tall Buildings,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 188, pp. 1–15, 2019. [17] K. S. Moon, “Diagrid Structures for Complex Tall Buildings,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. e1585, 2019. [18] Srinivasulu, E., Subrahmanyam, K. S., Manikanta, L., Satish, Ch., & Naidu, D. A. (2019). Analysis and Design of Twisted Building by Using STAAD.Pro V8i. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), Volume 6, Issue 4, ISSN: 2349-5162. [19] M. H. F. Wilkinson, “Comparative Study of Regular and Irregular Buildings,” International Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 89–102, 2019. [20] J. B. Burland, “Foundation Design for Tall Buildings,” Geotechnique, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 3–15, 2018.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Sanyogita K. Shinde, Priti Rana. 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.