DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF TALL BUILDING LOCATED IN DIFFERENT SEISMIC ZONES WITH CENTRAL SHEAR WALL AND DIAGONAL BRACINGS BY USING E-TABS SOFTWARE

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 236
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF TALL BUILDING LOCATED IN DIFFERENT
SEISMIC ZONES WITH CENTRAL SHEAR WALL AND DIAGONAL
BRACINGS BY USING E-TABS SOFTWARE
MANJULA1, VEERESHAIAH H M2, PAVAN KUMAR M 3 BASAVALINGAPPA 4
1PG Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, RYMEC, Ballari
2,3,4Assistant Professors, Department of Civil Engineering, RYMEC, Ballari
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Since land prices are rising quickly and
there is a shortage of available land, tall buildings are
preferred in order to preserve agricultural land inruralareas.
The main factors influencing tall building designarewindand
seismic loads. In the current study, tall buildings were
examined in all seismic zones using ETABS 2017 software
under the influence of seismic loads with a central shear wall
and diagonal bracings, andtheresultswereanalysedusingthe
response spectrum method. In addition, the configurations'
story displacement, story drift, and base shear at foundations
were compared to the seismic parameters derived from the
analysis.
1. INTRODUCTION
Tall buildingsvarydependingonthe environmentin
question. It will be simple to say that a four story building in
a neighborhood of bungalows isa tall building,andthisclaim
will be uncontested. It's comparable to a one-eyed man
ruling a land of the blind.
The construction boom in metro areasoverthepast
20 years has significantly altered the skyline of Indian cities.
The fanciest skyscrapers, home to some of the wealthiest
people in the nation, are now dotted throughout areas that
were previously dominated by low-rise residential
compounds. An approximate count places Kolkata second
with 12 skyscrapers, followed by Mumbai with over 50. The
tallest buildings in India that are currently operational and
livable are listed below, despite the fact that many
skyscrapers are still being built.
1.1 Tube Structure
The tube system is one of thefrequentlyusedlateral
stability systems in tall building designs. It is intended to
function as a hollow cylinder with a vertical cantilever. This
enables the constructionofanendlessstiff"shell" around the
outside of the building
1.2 Types of Tubular Systems
Framed Tube Structures: Closelyspacedcolumnswith2
to 4 m between their centres make up frames, which are
joined by deep girders. The idea is to create a tube-like
structure that functions as a continuous perforated stack or
chimney. Stiff moment resisting frames that form a tube
around the building's perimeter provide the lateral
resistance for this structure.
Braced Tube Structures: By cross-bracing the frame
with X-bracings throughout the entire building, the tubular
structure is further strengthened. Shear lag effects in flange
and web frames combined are essentially eliminated by the
braced tube diagonals because they are connected to the
column at every intersection. Because of the reduced
bending in the frame members, the structure responds to
lateral loads like a braced frame.
Tube- in -Tube Structures: Another type offramedtube,
this one featuring an inner elevator and service core in
addition to an outer-framed tube. The braced frames that
make up the inner tube. In steel-framed buildings, the outer
and inner tubes work together to resist lateral loads as well
as gravity. However, because of its deeper structural depth,
the outer tube always has a significant impact. Hull and core
structures are other names for this class of buildings. The
typical Tube-in-Tube structure consists of an inner tube to
support vertical transportation demand and an outer tube
made up of substantial columns and beams.
Bundled Tube: A bundled tube system can be thought of
as an amalgamation of separate tubes that produces a
multiple cell tube. Large floor areas and great heights are
possible with this system. If internal webs are added to this
system, the shear lag in the flange beams will besignificantly
reduced.
2.LITERATURE SURVEY
S Bhavanishankar, Vinod are carried outwork on
‘Comparative Analysis of Tubular Structures with
Conventional Tall RC Structure’ ETABS V17 program is used
to model and analyse the data in the study. To analyse the
time period, base shear, lateral storey displacement, and
storey drift, a tall RC building with a 21-story 3D model is
taken into consideration, together with simulationsofa tube
framed structure in earthquake zones II and V. As
comparison to a Tall RC Moment - resistant Structural
Frame, the Period Of time of TubeStructurewassignificantly
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 12 | Dec 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

lowered. As comparison to High RC Moment - resistant
Structural Frame, High Tubular Buildings' base shear
improved under earthquake loads. When contrastedtoHigh
RC Braced Frames Structures, Tubular Structures' stories
displacement and top storey have decreased, and their top
story displacement and storey drift values are well inside
acceptable ranges. When compared to the Tall RC Moment -
resistant Structure, storey amplitudes for tubular
constructions increased.
Mrunal P Kawade1, Vivek S Bangde, G H Sawai
are carried out work on ‘Seismic Analysis of Tall Building
with Central Core as Tube Structure’ With in study,a seismic
load comparison between a 25-story high rise building with
such a core shear as well as a similarly sized Framed
structure was made. The identical building plan's 8
configurations—rigid frame, flexible framework with core
shear wall, tubes in tube structure, tube mega frame
structure, suspending structure, trussed tube, tube in tube
with outriggers & frame with central core, and outriggers &
belt truss—are compared to one another. Shear walls have
long been recognised as being helpful in the structural
design of multi-story buildings. Shear walls must now be
included in multi-story buildings in order to withstand
lateral stresses. ETABS software was used to simulate the
structures for India's seismic zones V. The study looks at
lateral storey displacement, story drift, base shear, story
shear, and time periods for rigid frames, frame shear walls,
braced frames, suspending structures, tube-in-tube
structures, and tubed mega framed structures in order to
estimate the impact of seismic stresses.Dynamic behavior to
zone V earthquakes were tested according to IS 1893 (part
1): 2016. Frequency Response technique is employed in
nonlinear dynamic.
Sindhu Nachiar S, Anandh S, Sai Pavithra S,
Lakhan Kumar Saini, Elina Thomas, Boojith C S are
carried out work on ‘Comparative Seismic Analysis of
Conventional and RCC Tube in Tube Structure with
Pentagonal and Hexagonal Geometry Subjected To Lateral
Loads in Different Zones’ whereintheylearnedThisproblem
is successfully solved by the tube in tube framed structure,
also called as hulls and core, which comprises of an external
framed tube and a centre core tube that are connected by
floor slabs. In order to achieve higher resilience to
earthquake loading, an RCC polygonal and hexagon tube in
tube construction is contrasted with a traditional polygonal
and hexagon structure. STAAD.Pro is used to do the analysis
methodically. The analysis is done for several earthquake
zones (Zone II to Zone V). The analysis's findings determine
how traditional structures and tube-in-tube interactions
react to earthquakes. From in this analysis, we can also
determine which tube in a tube configuration is more
susceptible to its traditional complement.
Gurudath C, Ganesh Bahadur Khadka, HafizFaiz
Karim are carried out work on ‘Analysis of Multi-Storey
Building with and without Diagrid SystemUsingETABS’Asa
result of its effectiveness and higher standards, the diagrid
structural system that they researchedhasbeen widelyused
for modern tall structures. This is because of the system's
distinctive geometric configuration. For the purpose of
estimating the initial component sizes of R.C.C. diagrid
structures for a G+14 story building using ETABS 2015, this
project proposes a stiffness-based design technique. To
establish the best grid configurationforthediagridstructure
and to further compare it to a traditional R.C.C.structure,the
technique is used to the diagrid. By using the equivalent
static method, a G+14-story building with a 630,660,690-
square-foot perimeter is analysed. In terms of top story
displacement, story drift, story stiffness, and tale
overturning moment, a comparison of results analysis is
offered.
3. OBJECTIVES
1. To ascertain how lateral loads affect symmetrical
tall buildings with rigid frames, tube in tubeframes,
and trussed tube frame structures.
2. To examine how seismicloadsaffectstructureswith
rigid frames, tube-in-tube frames, and trussed tube
frames in relation to RC special moment resisting
frame structures throughout all seismic zones.
3. Using ETABS, compare tall RC special moment
resisting frame constructions with rigidframe,tube
in tube frame, and trussed tube frame buildings.
4. To investigate the horizontal as well as vertical
storey displacement, storey drift,andbaseshearfor
rigid frame, tube in tube frame, and trussed tube
frame structures.
5. To fix the building that is most susceptible tolateral
load among the models that were taken into
consideration.
4. METHODOLOGY
Table -1: Material Properties
Density of RCC 25 KN/m3
Density of Masonry 18 KN/m3
Compressive Strength, fck 40 N/mm2(Beam)
40 N/mm2(Column)
Steel, fy 500 N/mm2&
415 N/mm2
Modulus of Elasticity, Ec 5000*( fck)0.5

Table -2: Data / Parameters for the Analysis
Storey Height 3m
Wall &Shear wall Thickness 300mm and 400mm
Slab 150mm
Beam 300 x 750mm
Column 500 x 800mm
Frame System Special RC Moment
Resisting Frame
Parapet 750mm
Support Fixed
Buildings 24m x 24m
Spacings 3m
Number of Storey 30
Bracings ISMC 350
Damping 5%
4.1 Layout of Buildings
Fig -1: Plan and 3D Model of Rigid Frame Building
Fig -2: Plan and 3D Model of Tube in Tube Frame Building

Fig -3: Plan and 3D Model of Trussed Tube Frame Building
(Bracing-630)
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Comparison of Rigid Frame, TubeinTubeFrame and
Trussed Tube Frame Buildings in Different Seismic
Zones of India
5.1.1 Rigid Frame Building
Chart -1: Displacement for EQX
The displacement increases along with the seismic
zone intensity, as seen in the above figure, and the highest
displacement was recorded in seismic zone5.Incomparison
to seismic zone 2, displacement has increased by 37.5%,
58.33%, and 72.22% in seismic zones 3, 4, and 5. The top
story's displacement is taken into account.
Chart -2: Displacement for EQY
Chart 1 and 2 above show that there is a 21.9%
increase in displacements for all zones when compared to
the EQX and EQY loads. The topstory'sdisplacementistaken
into account.
Chart -3: Drift for EQX

As can be observed from the preceding image, drift
increases along with seismic zonestrength,reachingitspeak
in seismic zone 5. In comparison to seismic zone 2, the
seismic zones 3, 4, and 5 had drift increases of 59.86%,
33.36%, and 33.33%, respectively. The drift is taken into
account for tale 1. When compared to the otherstoriesofthe
rigid frame tall building, story 1 is experiencing the greatest
tale drift.
Chart -4: Drift for EQY
seismic zones 3, 4, and 5 had drift increasesof37.53percent,
58.33 percent, and 72.22 percent, respectively. The drift is
taken into account for tale 1. When compared to the other
stories of the rigid frame tall building,story1isexperiencing
the greatest tale drift.
increase in drift for all zones when compared to the EQXand
EQY loads. For tale 1, the displacement is taken intoaccount.
Chart -5: Base Shear for EQX
As can be observed from theabovechart, baseshear
increases along with the seismic zone intensity, withseismic
zone 5 experiencing the highestbaseshear.Incomparisonto
seismic zone 2, seismic zones 3, 4, and 5 see increases in
base shear of 37.59%, 58.39%, and 72.26%. For narrative 1,
the base shear is taken into account.
Chart -6: Base Shear for EQY
As can be observed from the above chart, base shear
According to the chart 5 and 6 above, thebaseshear
has increased by 1.2% for all zones when compared to the
EQX and EQY loads. For tale 1, the displacement istakeninto
account.
5.1.2 Tube in Tube Frame Building

into account.
account for narrative 15. When compared to the other
stories of the tall tube-in-tube construction, story 15
experiences the greatest tale drift.
seismic zones 3, 4, and 5 had drift increasesof37.52percent,
58.32 percent, and 72.22 percent, respectively. The drift is
taken into account for narrative 15. When compared to the
other stories of the rigid frame tall skyscraper, story 15 will
experience the greatest tale drift.
EQY loads. For tale 1, the displacement is taken intoaccount.

Chart 11 and 12 above show that the base shearhas
increased by 0.31% for all zones when compared to the EQX
and EQY loads. For tale 1, the displacement is taken into
account.
5.1.3 Trussed Tube Frame Building
displacement was recorded in seismic zone 5. Seismic zones
3, 4, and 5 show displacement increases of 37.49%, 58.33%,
and 72.22% in relation to seismic zone 2. The top story's
displacement is taken into account.
The displacement increases along with the seismic zone
intensity, as seen in the above figure, and the highest
into account.

stories of the rigid frame tall skyscraper, story 15 will
stories of the rigid frame tall skyscraper, story 15 will
EQY loads. For narrative 15, the displacement is taken into
account.
Chart 17 and 18 above show that the base shearhas
increased by 0.28% for all zones when compared to the EQX
and EQY loads. For tale 1, the displacement is taken into
account.
5.2 ComparisonofDifferentSeismicZonesforRigid
Frame, Tube in Tube Frame and Trussed Tube
Frame Building for EQY Load
The EQY load values have been used in this
comparison because, as shown in clauses 5.1.1 to 5.1.3, the
EQY load produces the highest levels of displacement, drift,
and base shear when compared to the EQX load. As a result,
the comparison below is conducted for EQY load.

Chart -19: Displacement
According to chart 19, the trussed frame building
experiences the greatest reduction in displacement across
the whole seismic zone when compared to rigidandtube-in-
tube frame buildings. For all seismic zones, the reduction
from a rigid frame building to a trussed frame building is
consistent at 33.18%. There is a constant decrease of 3.2%
for tube in tube framed structures and trussed tube framed
buildings, and a constant percentage decrease of 30.94%
from rigid frame buildings to tube in tube framed buildings.
Chart -20: Drift
experiences the greatest reduction in drift across the whole
seismic zone when comparedtorigidandtube-in-tubeframe
buildings. For all seismic zones, there is a continuous
reduction of 62.56% from rigid frame to trussed frame
construction. There is a continuous percentage decrease of
62.56% from the rigid frame building to the tube in tube
framed building, and there is a constant decrease of 2.87%
for tube in tube framed buildings and trussed tube framed
structures.
Chart -21: Base Shear
experiences the greatest reduction in drift across the whole
seismic zone when comparedtorigidandtube-in-tubeframe
buildings. When comparing rigid frame buildings to trussed
frame buildings, there is a continuous drop of 5.2% for all
seismic zones. There is a constantpercentagegainof0.034%
for tube in tube framed buildings and trussed tube framed
buildings, and a constant percentage drop of 5.53% for rigid
frame buildings to tube in tube framed buildings.
6. CONCLUSION
Finding the stabilisation system that is most successful is a
difficult undertaking because it seems there is no single
solution that can satisfy all potential criteria. While certain
systems have advantages over others, they are best suited
for some criteria. The findings below can be drawn based on
the analysis covered in chapter 5.
1. As seismic intensity or zones grow, displacement,
drift, and base shear for rigid frame, tube in tube
framed, and trussed framed buildings all rise.
2. For all rigid frame, tube in tube framed, and trussed
framed buildings, there is a continuous increase in
the displacement for both earthquake load in x-
direction and y-direction. When compared to the
other zones, zone 2 has the least displacement.
When compared to zone 2, there is a consistent rise
in displacement of 37.5% (zone 3), 58.33% (zone
4), and 72.22% (zone 5).
3. Compared to zone 2, rigid frame buildings' drift for
earthquake loads in the x-direction increased by
59.86% (zone 3), 33.36% (zone 4), and 33.33%
(zone 5). And when compared to zone 2, the rigid
frame building's earthquake load in the y-direction
increased by 37.53% (zone3),58.33%(zone4),and
72.22% (zone 5).

The drift for tube in tube framed and
trussed framed buildings is continuouslyincreasing
for both seismic load in x-direction and y-direction.
When compared to the other zones, zone 2 has the
least displacement. Whencomparedtozone2,there
is a consistent rise in displacement of 37.5% (zone
3), 58.33% (zone 4), and 72.22% (zone 5).
4. For all rigid frame, tube in tube framed, and trussed
framed buildings, there is a continuous increase in
the drift for both seismic load in x-direction and y-
direction. When compared to the other zones, zone
2 has the least displacement. When compared to
zone 2, there is a consistent rise in displacement of
37.5% (zone 3), 58.33% (zone4),and72.22%(zone
5).
5. The maximum values obtained for the earthquake
load in the y-direction as compared to the x-
direction are described in Chapter 5
 Throughout the seismic zone, the trussed
frame building experiences the greatest
reduction in displacement as compared to
rigid and tube in tube frame buildings. For
all seismic zones, the reductionfroma rigid
frame building to a trussed frame building
is consistent at 33.18%. There is a constant
decrease of 3.2% for tube in tube framed
structures and trussed tube framed
buildings, and a constant percentage
decrease of 30.94% from rigid frame
buildings to tube in tube framed buildings.
frame building exhibits the greatest
reduction in drift when compared to rigid
and tube in tube frame buildings. For all
seismic zones, there is a continuous
reduction of 62.56% from rigid frame to
trussed frame construction. There is a
continuous percentage decreaseof62.56%
from the rigid frame building to the tube in
tube framed building, and there is a
constant decrease of 2.87%fortubeintube
framed buildings and trussed tube framed
structures.
frame building exhibits the greatest
reduction in drift when compared to rigid
and tube in tube frame buildings. When
comparing rigid frame buildings totrussed
frame buildings, there is a continuousdrop
of 5.2% for all seismic zones. There is a
constant percentage gain of 0.034% for
tube in tube framed buildings and trussed
tube framed buildings, and a constant
percentage drop of 5.53% for rigid frame
buildings to tube in tube framed buildings.
6. Taking into account the aforementioned details,the
trussed tube frame buildings experienced the
greatest reduction relative to the others. But as
compared to the tube in tube frame buildings, there
is a minor increase in the base shear of 0.034%.
7. The findings show thattrussedtubeframe buildings
are among the most effective lateral load resisting
methods employed in tall buildings across all
seismic zones.
7.REFERENCES
1. S Bhavanishankar, Vinod, “Comparative Analysis of
Tubular Structures with Conventional Tall RC
Structure”, International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 08
Issue: 03 | Mar 2021.
2. Mrunal P Kawade , Vivek S Bangde , G H Sawai,
“Seismic Analysis of Tall Building with Central Core
as Tube Structure”, International Journal of
Progressive Research in Science and Engineering
Volume-1, Issue-6, September-2020.
3. Sindhu Nachiar S, Anandh S, Sai Pavithra S, Lakhan
Kumar Saini, Elina Thomas, Boojith C S,
“Comparative Seismic Analysis of Conventional and
RCC Tube in Tube Structure with Pentagonal and
Hexagonal Geometry Subjected To Lateral Loads in
Different Zones”, International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)
ISSN: 2249-8958, Volume-8 Issue-4, April 2019.
4. E.H.Ghoniem, Nihal M.Ayyash, Ahmed Essam,
“Seismic Response of High-rise Buildings with
Different Structural Systems”, International Journal
of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 8, Issue 9, November 2018.
5. Pavithra S E, Dr. S Vijaya, Kavya H K, “Dynamic
Analysis of Hybrid Tall Tube Structural system”,
NOVYI MIR Research Journal, ISSN No: 0130-7673,
Volume 5, Issue 12, 2020.
6. Mr. Dhruvil Y Patel, Mr. Piyush Jain, Dr. V. R. Patel,
“Analysis and Design of RCC Tall-Building with
different structural systems”, International Journal
of Innovative and Emerging Research in
Engineering Volume 4, Issue 5, 2017.
7. Wuit Yi Win Htut, “A Simplified Approach for
Optimization of Tube System in Tall Buildings”,
International Journal for Innovative Research in

Multidisciplinary Field ISSN – 2455-0620 Volume -
2, Issue - 9, Sept – 2016.
8. Akshay S. Patil, Roshni John, “Performance
Evaluation of Unsymmetrical HighRise Building
with Different Types of Structural Techniques for
Critical Load Condition”, International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue
4, April-2020.
9. Neelam.Sathyanarayana, G.Srinath, E.Giriprasad
Goud, “Seismic Comparison Between the Use of
Framed Shear Wall System and Framed Tube
System in Tall Buildings”IndianJ.Sci.Res.17(2):429
- 433, 2018.
10. Deepak Suthar, H.S.Chore, P.A. Dode, “High Rise
Structure Subjected To Seismic Forces And Its
Behavior”, Proceedings of 12 th IRF International
Conference, 29th June-2014.
11. Patil. Kiran Kumar, Chandan Kumar. Patnaikuni,
Balaji .K.V.G.D, B. Santhosh Kumar, “Seismic
Performance of Bundled Tube StructuresinSeismic
Zone IV & Zone V of India”, International Journal of
Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology
(IJARET) Volume 11, Issue 6, June 2020.
12. Jignesha Patel, Roshni J John, “Seismic Analysis of
Frame Tube Structure”, International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue
12, December-2015.
13. Nimmy Dileep, Renjith R, “Analytical Investigation
on the Performance of Tube-In-Tube Structures
Subjected to Lateral Loads”, International Journal of
Technical Research and Applications, Volume 3,
Issue4 July-August 2015.
14. Moreteza Deiranlou, “Evaluation of Seismic
Behavior in Building Tube Structures System with
Respect to Dense Soil-Structure Interaction Effect”,
Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 2015.
15. Shruthi L, S. Vijaya, “Seismic Analysis of Latticed
Shell Tube RC Framed Building”, International
Journal of Engineering Research & Technology
(IJERT) IJERT ISSN: 2278-0181 www.ijert.orgVol.3
Issue 7, July – 2014.
16. Gurudath C, Ganesh Bahadur Khadka, Hafiz Faiz
Karim, “Analysis of Multi-Storey Building with and
without DiagridSystemUsingETABS”,International
Journal Of Innovative Research In Technology,
Volume 5 Issue 12, ISSN: 2349-6002, May 2019.

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF TALL BUILDING LOCATED IN DIFFERENT SEISMIC ZONES WITH CENTRAL SHEAR WALL AND DIAGONAL BRACINGS BY USING E-TABS SOFTWARE

More Related Content

Similar to DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF TALL BUILDING LOCATED IN DIFFERENT SEISMIC ZONES WITH CENTRAL SHEAR WALL AND DIAGONAL BRACINGS BY USING E-TABS SOFTWARE (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF TALL BUILDING LOCATED IN DIFFERENT SEISMIC ZONES WITH CENTRAL SHEAR WALL AND DIAGONAL BRACINGS BY USING E-TABS SOFTWARE