1.1 General: Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems For High Rise Building Analysis

STUDY OF LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEMS FOR HIGH RISE BUILDING
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
In the recent days, major cities are experiencing the shortage of land due to growing
population which leads to increase in construction of tall buildings and in the other hand in
view of economic power there is competitiveness in mankind to have the tallest building
which make the way of opportunities in the building profession. As these tall building are
critical to resist lateral loads structural engineer has been challenged to meet drift requirement
and to minimize the effect. Due to limited area and the increasing expansion of urbanization
it is feasible to expand in vertical direction than in horizontal direction. And due to increasing
vertical urbanization it is important to adopt to more stable structure. Here, tubular structure
is one such structure, where the columns are placed at the periphery of the structure. Also
here tube in tube structure is used. Compared to conventional structure the tube in tube
structure is more stable lateral loads, allows more interior space and helps save around 30%
steel. Using an appropriate structural system is critical to good seismic performance of
buildings. While moment-frame is the most commonly used lateral load resisting structural
system, other structural systems also are commonly used like structural walls, frame-wall
system, and braced-frame system. Sometimes, even more redundant structural systems are
necessary, e.g., Tube, Tube-in-Tube and Bundled Tube systems are required in many
buildings to improve their earthquake behavior. These structural systems are used depending
on the size, loading, and other design requirements of the building. One structural system
commonly used poses special challenges in ensuring good seismic performance of buildings;
this is the Flat slab-column system. The system makes the building flexible in the lateral
direction and hence the building deforms significantly even under small levels of shaking.
Further, it has relatively low lateral strength, and therefore ductility demand during strong
earthquake shaking tends to be large; many times, such levels of ductility cannot be
incorporated in buildings with flat slab-column system. This structural system should not be
used without introducing in the building stiff and strong lateral force resisting elements, like
structural walls and braces.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 1 | 92
ANALYSIS
1.1.a WHAT IS HIGH RISE BUILDING ?

A building is an enclosed structure that has walls , floors, a roof and usually windows.
“ A tall building is a multi-storey structure in which most occupants depend on elevators to
reach their destinations.” The most prominent buildings are called as ‘ high rise buildings’ in
most countries. However a high rise building can be defined as follows
 “Any structure where the height of the building have a serious impact on evacuation”
 A high rise building is a building where the highest occupied floor is over 75 feet
above the lowest level of fire fighting department vehicular acess.
TYPES
1.2 TUBE SYSTEM
Tube System For tall buildings, use of braced frames and structural walls alone (even
though of reasonably sized members) may be insufficient to control their overall lateral
displacement as well as the force demands on various structural members. In such cases,
more rigid structural systems are required, like Tube, Tube-in-Tube and Bundled Tube
systems, depending on the size and loads on the building. Closely-spaced heavy columns
forming a closed loop inter-connected with beams, together called the tube, forms the first
part of the lateral load resisting system. Heavy reinforced concrete structural walls together
creating a closed shaft, called as the core, form the other part. The Tube System consists of
one perimeter tube with a central core. The inter-connection is important between the
perimeter tube and the central core. A system of grid beams is used for this purpose,
consisting of primary beams (those running between the perimeter columns and central core),
secondary beams (those running between columns such that no column is left without being
connected to the rest of the system), and tertiary beams (those running between beams and
not connected to any column). For smooth and uniform transition of forces to the peripheral
frame, a grid of stiff and strong beams and columns is required. Perimeter tubes in buildings
that have primary, secondary and tertiary beams carry more lateral force than perimeter tubes
of buildings that either have primary beams only or have primary and secondary beams;
denser grid of beams helps carry lateral forces away from the central core to the perimeter
frame.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 2 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 1.1 Structural Elements in a Tube System: Some columns (called Gravity Columns) are
not necessarily connected with beams to either the Core or the Tube.
Fig 1.2 Possible systems of beams in a Tube system: Connection between the core and tube
through. (a) only primary grid of beams, (b) primary and secondary grid of beams, and (c)
primary, secondary and tertiary grid of beams.
This aspect of the Tube System that the perimeter draws most of the lateral force
induced in the building during earthquake shaking, is in contrast to the normal building frame
with a central core, wherein the perimeter frame (with columns separated far apart) carries
small loads (Figure 3.1). In the traditional frame building with the central core, most of the
lateral forces are carried by the central reinforced concrete core. The load transfer path carries
the forces to the concrete core. As the lateral force travels down towards the base of the
M.E2019-20 P a g e 3 | 92
ANALYSIS
building, the force flows towards the more stiffened corners of the core in the form of axial
tension and compression (Figure 3.2). Thus, the corners of the core at the base of the building
carry larger axial force than the mid sides of the core. By introducing a perimeter tube
consisting of closely spaced columns interconnected with beams, this concentration of the
force in the core is relieved but the same behavior is shifted to the perimeter tube. Since the
lever arm between the perimeter column pairs (located on two parallel faces of the tube) is
large, the axial stresses induced in the columns are smaller than those induced in the core of
the traditional frame building.
Fig 1.3 Comparison of Structural Systems: (a) Traditional Frame System with a
central core, and (b) Tube System.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 4 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 1.4 Concrete Core in Tube Systems: Bernoulli action absent near the base of the
core.
1.2.1 Tube-in-Tube and Bundled Tube Systems

When the plan size of the building increases, additional columns may be required to
support the gravity loads between the outer tube and inner core, and prevent the slab from
bending too much. These columns are not part of the main lateral load resisting system, and
therefore are not intended to carry any lateral loads; they are called gravity columns. When
the building plan is large, sometimes, many columns may be required to support the gravity
loads. Then, it may be beneficial to create a second tube of columns interconnected with
beams inside the perimeter tube of columns interconnected with beams. This system is called
the Tube-in-Tube System . In the Tube-in-Tube system, the tubes should be tied together with
a stiff and strong grid of beams. Depending on the total load to be transferred, the spacing of
the gravity as well as main frame columns need to be adjusted – closely spaced columns with
center- to-center spacing even up to 2m are used. This also helps in uniform distribution of
forces to the perimeter tube columns. If the distance between the two tubes is large,
intermediate secondary beams, along with additional gravity columns, may become necessary
for effectively transferring lateral forces to the tubes ; the additional gravity columns keep the
intermediate beams from deflecting too much and thereby make them capable of transferring
axial compression without much out-of-plane deformation. More uniform distribution of
gravity forces is achieved with closely spaced beam grids between the tubes.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 5 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 1.5 Structural Elements in a Tube-in-Tube System: Perimeter and inner tubes are
connected with beams in line with the sides of the core and inner tube.
Fig 1.6 Beams in Tube-in-Tube Systems: Secondary beams help in transferring the gravity
loads to the two tubes and the core.
In large plan area buildings, when even the Tube-in-Tube system fails to control the
lateral deformation of the building, an even stiffer lateral force resisting system is required.
One system that can offer this is the Bundled-Tubes System; as the name goes, here a set of
Tube Systems are stacked together to form the overall lateral load resisting system . The
closely-spaced columns of the different tubes are placed in line to form an overall tube
system. The RC cores of the tubes are connected to each other with beams that span directly
between these stiff vertical elements; these beams are called primary beams. As in Tube and
Tube-in-Tube Systems, additional gravity columns, secondary beams and tertiary beams may
be employed when the span between the tubes and the cores are large, to improve the
M.E2019-20 P a g e 6 | 92
ANALYSIS
distribution of gravity loads to the tubes. In the Bundled-Tube System, two major actions
improve the lateral stiffness of the building and even reduce the demand on the closely
spaced columns. These actions are: (1) Multiple tubes with many planes of large depths (in
plan) of the closely spaced columns (almost making them act like walls of the full length);
and (2) RC cores connected with stiff horizontal sub-systems at distinct levels along the
height of the building. The second action especially is absent in the Tube and Tube-in-Tube
Systems. In Tube- and Tube-in Tube Systems, connecting the inner and perimeter tubes with
beams helps only marginally, because these beams are connecting both inner and perimeter
tubes in their weak directions. Also, connecting the core with a perimeter or inner tube is
helpful only marginally; again, this is because the tube is connected in its weak direction. The
shear lag effect is much smaller in Tube-in-Tube System compared to that in Tube System.
Fig 1.7 Structural Elements in a Bundled-Tubes System: Inner cores are connected with
primary beams in line with the sides of the core.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 7 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 1.8 Connection between RC Cores in a Bundled-Tubes System: Gravity columns and
interconnecting primary beams form the link between the stiff and strong RC cores inside the
tubes.
1.3 OUTRIGGERS
The outriggers serve to reduce the overturning moments in shear wall otherwise it will
act as a pure cantilever. Outriggers were proved in history with respect to structural style and
efficiency. The outriggers are integrated into high rise buildings since last 35 years but they
have much longer history. To resist the wind forces in sailing ships then and even now
outriggers are being served. These days, almost all the high rise buildings for the elevator
purpose central core wall had been included and there will be free floor space between the
exterior columns and core wall. These two plays a prominent role in resisting overturning
forces present in high rise buildings but they are separated, by including outriggers in high
rise buildings it is possible to connect these two structures elements and increases the
resistance to lateral load and over turning forces. For the building with height 35-40 stories
core wall alone can effectively serve as resisting system but in case of seismic regions and
wind dominant areas, the variation of wind load is not linear as the height of building
increases however, the resistance the core system provide to the overturning component of
drift decreases approximately cube of the height. The outriggers are connected from central
core wall to exterior columns the core wall may be centrally located or at the side of the
building. The direct connection between central core wall to exterior columns by connecting
strong stiff outriggers is called conventional outrigger system and if the floor diaphragms are
used to connect exterior columns to central core wall, using outrigger around the exterior of
building then it is called virtual outrigger system.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 8 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 1.9 Conventional outrigger system Fig 1.10 Virtual outrigger system
When the building is subjected to lateral loads outriggers resist the rotation of core
wall by creating the tension in windward columns and compression in leeward columns. As
these outriggers are connected from both sides of shear wall to exterior columns it will create
a restoring couple in wall which reduces the bending moment in shear wall and hence
building drift.
1.4 SHEAR WALL

Shear walls are vertically oriented members in addition to slabs, beams and columns,
capable of resisting the lateral loads. They start at the foundation and run throughout the
height of the building. The thickness of the shear walls vary from 150mm to 400mm
depending on the height of the building. RCC shear wall has high in plane stiffness, at the
same time resist massive horizontal masses and support gravity masses in the direction of
orientation of the walls, thereby serving advantageous in many Structural Engineering
applications and reducing the risk of damage in structure. Shear walls additionally give lateral
stiffness to prevent the roof or floor on top of from excessive side-sway. Shear walls are of
varied cross sections such as rectangular shaped, irregular cores like channel, T, L, barbell
shape, box etc. are being used. Usually they form the core for elevator or used as reinforced
walls with openings in it. Positioning of shear wall in a building influences the behavior of
the building. For effective and economic performance of building it is essential to position
M.E2019-20 P a g e 9 | 92
ANALYSIS
shear walls in a proper location so that they are symmetrical and torsional effect on the
building is avoided. In this study, a reinforced concrete structure with shear walls at various
locations is analyzed and the optimum position of the shear walls has been studied
Fig 1.11 Building with Shear wall
M.E2019-20 P a g e 10 | 92
ANALYSIS
1.5 AIM
To find global moments, base shear, time period, drift and displacement for different
lateral load resisting systems in high rise building
1.6 OBJECTIVES
 Comparative analysis of multistoried OMRF and RCC building tube in tube
structure and moment resisting structure with static and dynamic loads in high
seismic zones.
 To study behavior of tubular structure for different column spacing.
 Results are compared in terms of Base shear, Displacement, Drift, Time period &
global moments.
 To decide suitable lateral load resisting system for optimum results
1.7 COMPARISON BETWEEN OUTRIGGER, SHEAR WALL AND TUBE IN TUBE
This also helps in uniform distribution of forces to the perimeter tube columns. The
shear lag effect is much smaller in Tube-in-Tube System compared to that in Tube System.
The Tube System consists of one perimeter tube with a central core. Connection between the
core and tube through. In the Tube-in-Tube system, the tubes should be tied together with a
stiff and strong grid of beams. In such cases, more rigid structural systems are required, like
Tube, Tube-in-Tube and Bundled Tube systems, depending on the size and loads on the
building. The inter-connection is important between the perimeter tube and the central core.
This system is called the Tube-in-Tube System. The outriggers are connected from central
core wall to exterior columns the core wall may be centrally located or at the side of the
building. The second action especially is absent in the Tube and Tube-in-Tube Systems. The
closely-spaced columns of the different tubes are placed in line to form an overall tube
system. Then, it may be beneficial to create a second tube of columns interconnected with
beams inside the perimeter tube of columns interconnected with beams. Some columns
(called Gravity Columns) are not necessarily connected with beams to either the Core or the
Tube. Shear walls are vertically oriented members in addition to slabs, beams and columns,
capable of resisting the lateral loads. These days, almost all the high-rise buildings for the
elevator purpose central core wall had been included and there will be free floor space
between the exterior columns and core wall.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 11 | 92
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Shubham P. Dhoke “Comparative Analysis of Different Lateral Load Resisting

System for RCC Structure” ISSN Vol. 6, Issue 4, April 2017
Due to development in construction technology and structural systems growth of high
rise building increases. Now-a-days in modern tall buildings, lateral loads induced by
earthquake or wind are often resisted by a various lateral load resisting system (viz., Beam
Column System, Frame Tube System, Shear Wall & Frame System and Diagrid System,
etc.). This paper contains comparative analysis of various lateral load resisting system (i.e.,
Beam Column System, Frame Tube System and Diagrid System). Modeling and analysis of
different lateral load resisting system done in ETABS-2015 software. This paper gives
information about various lateral load resisting system and which of them is more beneficial.
Lateral load plays an important role while designing any multi-storey building, so study &
analyze the lateral load resisting system. The comparison of lateral load resisting systems is
done by using Response Spectrum Method on the basis of various parameters such as storey
displacement, storey drift, storey forces and modal time period.
2.2 Tej Parkar “Review on Behavior of Lateral Load Resisting System for High-Rise
Building” ISSN NO: 2249-7455 Volume IX, Issue I, JANUARY/2019
As the population is increasing tremendously with every passing year and the land
available for use of habitation is the same as it was a decade ago. Due to this, metro cities are
getting densely populated day by day. So, the only solution to the problem is vertical growth.
Now this need for the increase in the vertical height of the buildings has made the buildings
tall and slender. Since buildings are getting taller and slender the primary concern of design
engineers is shifting from gravity loads to lateral loads. The effect of lateral forces becomes
more and more dominant as the building becomes taller and taller. Hence, traditional simple
framed structures have now been replaced by complex but yet more effective structural
systems that perform better in case of lateral load. The lateral load resisting system
effectively controls the excessive drift due to either wind or earthquake and thus minimizes
the risk of damage to building. The objective of this paper is to study, performance of lateral
load resisting system in high-rise building subjected to seismic and wind load. Study of the
M.E2019-20 P a g e 12 | 92
ANALYSIS
literature is reviewed in this paper on various aspects of lateral load resisting system as;
Behavior of lateral load resisting system in High-Rise RC building, Behavior of lateral load
resisting system in High-Rise steel and composite structure, Effect of seismic and wind load
on High-Rise structures
2.3 Khuzaim J. Sheikh “A Review on Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems In Tall
Structures” (SJIF): 4.72 Volume 4, Issue 11, November -2017
In the early structures at the beginning of the 20th century, structural members were
assumed to carry primarily the gravity loads. Today, however, by the advances in structural
design and high-strength materials, building weight is reduced, and slenderness is increased,
which necessitates taking into consideration mainly the lateral loads such as wind and
earthquake. Understandably, especially for the tall buildings, as the slenderness, and so the
flexibility increases, buildings suffer from the lateral loads resulting from wind and
earthquake more and more. As a general rule, when other things being equal, the taller the
building, the more necessary it is to identify the proper structural system for resisting the
lateral loads. The objective of this papers to study, the performance of structural system in
high-rise building subjected to seismic and wind load. Study of the literature is reviewed in
this paper on various aspects of structural system as; behaviour of high- rise structure was
assessed by overall building drift, story drift, displacement, base shear.
2.4 Arafa Elhelloty “Effect of Lateral Loads Resisting Systems on Response of Buildings
Subjected to Dynamic Loads” ISSN: 2319-6491 Volume 6, Issue 10 [October. 2017]
Structures can be subjected to dynamic loads that it are due to wind, waves, traffic,
earthquake, and blasts and dynamic analysis is used to find dynamic displacements, time
history, natural frequencies and mode shapes. Lateral forces on buildings such as wind,
earthquake and blast forces can be produced critical stresses in the buildings that it cause
excessive lateral sway of the buildings and undesirable stresses and vibrations in the
buildings. Design and structural evaluation of the building systems subjected to lateral loads
form the important task of the present generation and the designers are faced with problems
of providing adequate strength and stability of buildings against lateral loads. Different lateral
loads resisting systems are used in high-rise building as the lateral loads due to earthquakes
are a matter of concern. Steel plate shear walls system and steel bracings system are used in
steel structures buildings and their effect shows unequal variations and behavior against
M.E2019-20 P a g e 13 | 92
ANALYSIS
seismic loads. Recently, laminated composite plate shear walls are used as a lateral loads
resisting system where the laminated composite plates are used as infill plate in shear walls.
The laminated composite plates are created by constructing plates of two or more thin bonded
layers of materials and it can be either cross-ply laminates or angle-ply laminates. In this
paper, the modal and transient analysis are carried out to study the effect of lateral loads
resisting systems on response of buildings subjected to dynamic loads. Three and five stories
steel frame buildings without and with three lateral loads resisting systems which are steel
plate shear walls, steel bracings and laminated composite plate shear walls subjected to
dynamic loads are investigated with respect to natural frequencies, mode shapes and time
history graphs for total displacement and equivalent stresses. Comparative study is conducted
to evaluate the effect of lateral loads resisting systems on the performance of buildings
subjected to dynamic loads using the finite element system ANSYS16.
2.5 S .Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy “Study of Lateral Structural Systems in Tall Buildings”
ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 13, Number 15 (2018)
Lateral load effects on high rise buildings are quite significant and increase rapidly
with increase in height. In high rise structures, the building of the structure is greatly
influenced by the type of lateral system provided and the selection of appropriate lateral
structural system plays an important role in the response of the structure. The selection is
dependent on many aspects such as structural building of the system, economic, feasibility
and availability of materials. Few of the lateral structural systems are shear wall system,
Framed tube system, Tube in tube system, Bundled tube system. The lateral structural
systems give the structure the stiffness, which would considerably decrease the lateral
displacements. In the present work a Plain frame system, a Shear wall system and framed
tube system are considered for 30,40,50,60 storey structures. The analysis has been carried
out using software STAAD Pro-2005. The roof displacements, internal forces (Support
Reaction, Bending Moments and Shear Forces) of members and joint displacements are
studied and compared. It is seen that the Shear wall system is very much effective in resisting
lateral loads for the structures up to 30 stories and for structures beyond 30 stories the Framed
tube system is very much effective than Shear wall system in resisting lateral loads.
2.6 Janakkumar M. Mehta “Comparative Study on Lateral Load Resisting System in

High-Rise Building using ETABS” (IJETT) – Volume 47 Number 2 May 2017
M.E2019-20 P a g e 14 | 92
ANALYSIS
Nowadays, the building height is observed more and more slender, and more
susceptible to sway and hence dangerous in the earthquake. Such type of the building can be
strengthening by providing an appropriate lateral load resisting system. In the seismic design
of the buildings, reinforced concrete structural walls or shear-wall, act as major earthquake
resisting members. Structural walls provide an efficient bracing system and offer great
potential for lateral load resistance. The properties of these seismic shear-walls dominate the
response of the buildings and therefore, it was important to evaluate the seismic response of
the walls appropriately. In this study the (G+17) storey building was analyze with different
shear-wall configuration. The modeling is done to examine the effect of different cases on
seismic parameters like base shear, lateral displacements, lateral drifts and model time period
for the zone-V in medium soil as specified in IS: 1893-2000
2.7 Abhijeet Baikerikar “Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems of Variable Heights
in All Soil Types of High Seismic Zone” eISSN: 2319-1163 Volume: 03 Issue: 10 | Oct-
2014
From the ancient time we know earthquake is a disaster causing event. Recent days
structures are becoming more and more slender and more susceptible to sway and hence
dangerous in the earthquake. Researchers and engineers have worked out in the past to make
the structures as earthquake resistant. After many practical studies it has shown that use of
lateral load resisting systems in the building configuration has tremendously improved the
performance of the structure in earthquake. In present research we have used square grid of
20m in each direction of 5m bay in each direction, software used is ETABS 9.7.0, the work
has been carried out for the different cases using shear wall and bracings for the different
heights, maximum height considered for the present study is 75m. The modeling is done to
examine the effect of different cases along with different heights on seismic parameters like
base shear, lateral displacements and lateral drifts. The study has been carried out for the
Zone V and all types of soils as specified in IS 1893-2002.
2.8 Borkan Moatasem Mutashar “A Study on Optimisation of Lateral Load Resisting

Systems (Outrigger, Diagrid, and Tube-In-Tube) by SAP 2000” ISSN 2319-8885
Vol.05,Issue.10, May-2016
Tall building development has been rapidly increasing worldwide introducing new
challenges that need to be met through engineering judgment. In modern tall buildings, lateral
M.E2019-20 P a g e 15 | 92
ANALYSIS
loads induced by wind or earthquake are often resisted by a system of coupled shear walls.
But when the building increases in height, the stiffness of the structure becomes more
important and introduction of outrigger or Diagrid or tube frame systems is often used to
provide sufficient lateral stiffness to the structure. These systems commonly used as one of
the structural systems to effectively control the excessive drift due to lateral load, so that,
during small or medium lateral load due to either wind or earthquake load, the risk of
structural and non-structural damage can be minimized. The aim of this study is to obtain the
optimum structural system among (tube in tube system, outrigger system and Diagrid system)
to resist both lateral and gravity loads for concrete tall buildings by comparing the parameters
like (story drift, inter-story drift, base shear, acceleration, bending moment ,etc.) for each one
of the three systems. For outrigger system there will be an investigation on the behavior of
outrigger and, outrigger location optimization and the efficiency of each outrigger buildings
when two outriggers are used in the structure. three dimensional models of outrigger and belt
truss system are subjected to earthquake load, analyzed and compared to find the lateral
displacement reduction related to the outrigger and belt truss system location .for Diagrid
system there will be an investigation for Diagrid angle 66.19 and 79.99°to determine the
optimal uniform angle for structure by comparing the analysis results for each angle. After
obtaining the optimum outrigger location and Diagrid angle for the buildings we will
compare these two systems with the tube in tube system to obtain the optimum structural
system. By considering 36m*36m, 60 stories of symmetrical shaped buildings, height of each
story is 3.6 m, modeling of the buildings is done in SAP 2000 using Time History Analysis
method and Response Spectrum Analysis method at zone V.
2.9 Divya C. Bhuta “Comparative Study on Lateral Load Resisting System in Tall Building”
IJSTE Volume 2 | Issue 11 | May 2016
In this enchanting world of structure design, building with new innovative ideas most
of the time it is with the sky touching height. As these structures are extended vertically they
are going to with stand the lateral loads in an enormous intensity. In this paper an
investigation has been carried out over a 40 storey RCC structural space frame using different
lateral load resisting system used in tall buildings. These structural systems used in the study
are “shear wall”, “outrigger” and “dia-grid”. Analysis has been carried out using different
method of analysis for static earthquake forces, dynamic earthquake forces (response
spectrum analysis and time history analysis performed under the guidelines of IS: 1893-2002
M.E2019-20 P a g e 16 | 92
ANALYSIS
and IS: 800-2000 respectively) and static wind forces. This will help to understand the
behaviour of the mentioned lateral load resisting systems under dynamic load effect. The
basic modelling technique and assumption are made by using ETABS 15.2.0 and other
consideration is made according to the Indian Standard. A comparison of the top storey
displacement, storey drift of the frame and the time period of the whole structure is done for
different configuration of lateral load resisting systems. At the completion of the study the
conclusion will be arrived and stated regarding to the effect of seismic load application.
2.10 Shrinivas. M R “To Study The Performance Of High-Rise Building Under Lateral
Load With Bare Frame And Shear Wall With Openings” (IRJET) Volume: 05 Issue: 05
| May-2018
The usefulness of shear walls in the structural planning of multi-storey buildings has
long been recognized. When walls are situated in advantageous positions in a building, they
can be very efficient in resisting lateral loads originating from wind or earthquakes.
Incorporation of shear wall has become inevitable in multi-storey building to resist lateral
forces. In the present study, 15 storey building (45m) have been modeled using software
package ETABS 2015 for earthquake Zone V in India based on the soil type III(Soft) and
Reduction factor (R)=5 (special RC moment resisting frame) is considered. The analysis of
the building is carried for most suited location of shear walls then the best and effective
location of shear wall is provided with different sizes of openings. To evaluate above using
equivalent static method and response spectrum method of analysis carried out for different
load combination as per IS: 1893:2002. Estimation of structural response such as storey
displacements, Base shear and storey drift is considered.
2.11 Dr.H.M. Somasekharaiah “A Comparative Study on Lateral Force Resisting

System for Seismic Loads” p-ISSN: 2395-0072, Volume: 03 Issue: 08 | August -2016
From olden days we know that earthquake is disaster causing event, to overcome land
crisis in cities it is essential to make earthquake resistant multi storied buildings. Any
structure, to be durable and reliable, should be designed to withstand gravity loads,
earthquake loads and wind loads, and able to resist all kind of temperatures, also to assimilate
vibrations and absorb noises. This brought more challenges for the engineers to cater both
gravities load as well as lateral loads. Construction of multi storied buildings is more
complex without using any lateral force resisting system. Provision of lateral force resisting
M.E2019-20 P a g e 17 | 92
ANALYSIS
system makes the structure earthquake resistant. The main aim of this study is to analyze the
behavior of commonly used lateral force resisting systems. Here lateral force resisting
systems like Shear wall, steel bracing System, masonry infill, outrigger is applied to a 20
storey symmetrical RC building, analyzed as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 and performances are
compared. On comparing the results obtained, shear wall shows the good resistance for
earthquake load compared to the other systems which is consider for the analysis.
2.12 Piyush Gupta “Analysis of Various RCC Lateral Force Resisting Systems and their
Comparison using ETABS” (IJLTET) Vol. 6 Issue 4 March 2016
The tumor of population with a quicker frequency has imposed an unadorned effect
on land which is resulting in its shortage and thereby swelling the land cost making it
unaffordable for an average person. Due to this, the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) in big cities is
increasing. This has enforced mankind to go for high rise structures. But, as the height of a
structure increases, the effect of lateral forces increases with it. Lateral force resisting system
plays an important role in the multistoried buildings which are situated in high seismic zones.
Lateral force resisting system reduces the lateral forces acting during the earthquake and
increases the stiffness of the structure. To make the structure earthquake resistant, the
provision of lateral force resisting system is essential. There are various types of lateral force
resisting systems like shear wall, braced core, shear core, outrigger with belt system, coupled
shear wall, bracings etc. The scope of this paper is confined to RCC structures only. In this
paper, the emphasis is given on the structures having lateral force resisting system. This study
pointed to compare these systems and ranking all in terms of their efficiency. Static and
dynamic analysis has been carried out and results have been compared. Cost evaluation has
also been carried out. Several books and IS codes has been referred to obtain the results up to
maximum accuracy.
2.13 Suraj Sangtiani “Performance of Tall Buildings Under Lateral Loads with
Different Type of Structural Systems” (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2017
It is acceptable that construction industry is reaching to new bench marks by
constructing certain Tall Buildings, includes of significant engineering. Construction of Tall
buildings may be a complicated affair with the lateral loads playing a dominant role in design
of the certain structures, where buildings need certain lateral load resisting structural system.
With the evolution of technology numerous structural systems came out such as Shear Wall
System, Tube in Tube, Core Out-trigger System etc. Considering the Building G+53 story’s
M.E2019-20 P a g e 18 | 92
ANALYSIS
concrete Structure which is analyzed in ETABS V16.0.0 software package with different
Earthquake Zones and using different Structural Systems such as Conventional System, Shear
wall System, Core Out-trigger System and Wind forces exerted from IS-875-2015 (Gust
Analysis), an attempt is made to compare the Performance of the three Structural Systems in
all four earthquake zones Base shear, time period, top story displacement, story Drift, seismic
weight of structure, and results are compared to arrive the foremost economical structure in a
specific Earthquake Zone for a particular plan.
2.14 Mohamed A.M.K. Salem “Concepts in the Design of Lateral-Load Systems in High
Rise Buildings to Reduce Operational Energy Consumption” (CCEE-2015) June 5-6,
2015
The location of the main lateral‐load resisting system in high-rise buildings may have
positive impacts on sustainability through a reduction in operational energy consumption, and
this paper describes an assessment of the accompanying effects on structural performance. It
is found that there is a strong influence of design for environmental performance on the
structural performance the building, and that systems selected primarily with an eye towards
energy use reduction may require substantial additional structural stiffening to meet safety
and serviceability limits under lateral load cases. We present a framework for incorporating
the environmental costs of meeting structural design requirements through the embodied
energy of the core structural materials and also address the issue of economic cost brought on
by incorporation of environmental concerns into the selection of the structural system. We
address these issues through four case study high-rise buildings with differing structural
morphologies (floor plan and core arrangement) and assess each of these building models for
cost when the base structural system, which has been suggested by architect Kenneth Yeang
based on environmental concerns, is augmented to meet lateral drift requirements under the
wind loads prescribed by ASCE 7-10.
2.15 Hemavathi S “The Structural Behaviour of Lateral Load Resisting System induced
in Tall Buildings - A Comparative Study” ISSN: 0974-2115 JCHPS Special Issue 3:
February 2017
Conceptual in current circumstance, worldwide the need and need of tall building
improvement has been quickly expanding. It makes the engineers to meet new challenges in
order to make an judgment. The major cause for the lateral movement of tall building are
caused due to the lateral loads for all modern tall building. Seismic load cause diminish in
M.E2019-20 P a g e 19 | 92
ANALYSIS
solidness of the building, in this way examination did to inspect the most widely recognized
auxiliary frameworks that are utilized for tall structures under the activity of gravity and wind
loads. These frameworks incorporate; i) Rigid frame ii) Shear wall with opening iii) Framed
tube system. This relative examination pointed on investigation of conduct of auxiliary
frameworks for different stories subjected to sidelong loads. This comparative analysis aimed
on study of behaviour of structural systems for various stories subjected to lateral loads. The
parameter of the systems is measured by storey displacement, drift, stiffness by using ETABS
Software.
2.16 Vinay Agrawal “A Study on Seismic Analysis of High-Rise Irregular Floor Plan
Building with Different Position of Shear Walls” ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-6 Issue-6,
August 2017
The primary objective of any structural system is to support various types of loads
acting either vertically or Horizontal or acting jointly with adequate safety. Any structural
system should be designed in such a way that each and every element of the system should
have ample rigidity, stiffness and strength against the anticipated loads. Any structural frame
system with a provision of RC shear wall shows a desirable safety and stability up to 30
stories building height in lateral loads resistance. A RC framed shear wall is a combination of
beams, columns interacting with reinforced concrete shear wall. Shear wall provide lateral
stiffness to the building by cantilever action. In this study a G+19 story unsymmetrical [Floor
plans] commercial building [L>3.6 least lateral dimension of building], H> 3.3 least lateral
dimension of building and is modeled with different position of shear walls and analysis
conducted for joint displacement, Storey drift, Storey stiffness and Base shear force. These
models are modeled with ETABS for static analysis as per IS 1893 -2002. The analysis
results for different models are plotted to compare and to know the behavior of RCC frame
structure with different position of shear walls.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 20 | 92
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL CONTENT
3.1 BASE SHEAR IN HIGH RISE BUILDING
Base shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral force that will occur due to
seismic ground motion at the base of a structure. Calculations of base shear (V) depend on:
 soil conditions at the site
 proximity to potential sources of seismic activity (such as geological faults)
 probability of significant seismic ground motion
 the level of ductility and over strength associated with various structural
configurations and the total weight of the structure
 the fundamental (natural) period of vibration of the structure when subjected to
dynamic loading
3.2 DRIFT IN HIGH RISE BUILDING

Drift of a building in simple terms can be defined as the horizontal displacement
undergone by the building with respect to its base when subjected to horizontal forces such as
wind and earthquake loads. Thus, story drift can be defined as the displacement of one floor
level of the building with respect to its adjacent level above or below the considered floor
level. The above figure (Fig 1) shows the displacement undergone by the structure with
respect to its base due to the horizontal load Ex. In Fig 2, drifts at each floor level such as
ground, first, second and third floor are denoted as D1, D2, D3 and D4 respectively and d1,
d2, d3, d4 are the story drifts of each floor of the building.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 21 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 3.1
In Fig 3.1, plan of the building is shown where the columns with same sizes are
aligned in same direction and the spacing between them is equal in both x and y directions.
So here the lateral stiffness on grids A, B, C, D, 1, 2 and 3 are same. So when Base shear or
seismic load is applied to the building as Ex or Ey in x and y directions, load is distributed
equally along the grid lines, thus resulting in equal drift values along each grid line. For
Example, if the base shear ( Ey,i.e along y direction ) calculated is 1000 KN, the load carried
by columns along each grid line will be 250 KN as the lateral stiffness along each grid line
are equal. But this scenario is quite rare or can be referred to as an “ideal condition”. In most
of the cases, buildings are designed with different column sizes and with irregular column
spacing which results in variation in lateral stiffness along each column line as shown in Fig
3.2.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 22 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 3.2 lateral stiffness along each column
Since the number of columns and its size are less along the grid line 3, it is quite
evident that lateral stiffness along grid line 3 is quite less compared to grid line 1.This
difference in lateral stiffness will give rise to twisting or torsion in building when subjected to
horizontal loads. The drift along a column grid line can be calculated by
Drift = Lateral Load/Lateral stiffness
3.3 DISPLACEMENT IN HIGH RISE BUILDINGS
A change of frame of reference of deformation facilitates converting the moving base
problem of earthquake shaking of buildings into a fixed base problem. The latter is easy to
handle, since design practice is conversant with analysis and design of structures subjected to
forces, and not subjected to displacements or accelerations. Therefore, now the acceleration
response spectrum allows quick, back- of-the-envelope type calculations by senior engineers
to check the ball park values of force generated in a building during earthquake shaking. In
early days of designing buildings to resist earthquakes, an earthquake-induced lateral force
was thought to be the root cause of the earthquake problem. Designers observed that
buildings performed well, if they were designed for lateral forces; mostly, this lateral force
was due to wind effects. Hence, as a first measure of consciously designing for earthquake
effects, designers took 10% of the weight of the building and applied it as a lateral force on
the building (distributed along the height). But, the 10% force was too penalizing for taller
buildings. Around that time, understanding grew on the ground motions, and it was learnt that
M.E2019-20 P a g e 23 | 92
ANALYSIS
different buildings respond differently to the same ground shaking. Thus, the design lateral
force was now taken as a function of the fundamental natural period of the building. This was
not sufficient either. Many buildings showed brittle performance, i.e., collapsed suddenly in
low seismic regions. This was the beginning of understanding the importance of introducing
ductility in buildings. But, the method of introducing ductility was prescriptive; it was based
on limited laboratory tests performed on structural elements and sub-assemblages. The above
also was found insufficient, when buildings did not collapse, but were rendered not-usable
after many strong earthquakes.
Performance of buildings during and after the earthquake came into focus. And, this
was the beginning of a new direction of designing buildings to resist earthquake effects.
Fresh thinking began towards displacement-based design of buildings. Then, it was clear that
imposed lateral displacement was the root cause of the earthquake problem and not any
lateral force. Thus, the present effort in the research community is to arrive at a displacement-
based design with capability to quantitatively assess the ultimate deformation capacity of
buildings at the design stage itself. In the following chapters, earthquake DEMAND on the
building and earthquake CAPACITY of the building are discussed. While doing so, the
associated basic concepts are elaborated and demonstrated with appropriate numerical work.
Acceleration time history at the base of a building: Converted to a force time history at the
mass of the building with the base fixed … ag (t) Mass m – mag
3.4 DEFLECTION IN HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

Serviceability criteria in the form of lateral deflection and acceleration limits under
wind loading are often the governing structural issues for tall buildings. Whilst the basis for
acceleration criteria has been the subject of research, rational refinement and consensus over
recent years, deflection limits are still rather arbitrary. Current guidance on deflection limits
in international design codes is very limited and is based primarily on experience with typical
low and medium -rise buildings. The issues with lateral deflection in very tall buildings are
different to those of low-rise buildings, and depend on structural form. Rational choice of
deflection criteria for tall buildings therefore requires further consideration of the nature of
the deformations and the effects they have on the functional aspects of the building.
Lateral loading effects from wind and seismic sources usually dominates the
structural design of tall buildings. As well as strength considerations, stiffness and its’ effect
on deflection is usually the governing criteria which determines structural element size and
M.E2019-20 P a g e 24 | 92
ANALYSIS
cost. Structural design codes are generally written with conventional types of low-rise and
medium-rise buildings in mind. High-rise buildings often have different structural forms such
as outrigger systems, bundled tubes, mega bracing etc. The nature of the deflection with these
structural types often differs to that in low-rise buildings. At the time of writing there are a
large number of buildings around the world being designed above 300m in height, with a few
significantly higher than that. In order to justify the performance of these buildings, it is
essential to understand the nature of lateral deflections.
3.5 TIME PERIOD OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING
Natural Period Tn of a building is the time taken by it to undergo one complete cycle
of oscillation. It is an inherent property of a building controlled by its mass m and stiffness k.
These three quantities are related by
k m2T n π = ; (2.3) its units are seconds (s). Thus, buildings that are heavy (with
larger mass m) and flexible (with smaller stiffness k) have larger natural period than light and
stiff buildings. Buildings oscillate by translating along X, Y or Z directions, or by rotating
about X, Y or Z axes, or by a combination of the above (Figure 2.3). When a building
oscillates, there is an associated shape of oscillation.
Fig 3.3: Cartesian coordinates of a regular building: Buildings oscillate by translating along
X, Y or Z directions or/and by rotating about X, Y or Z axes
The reciprocal (1/Tn) of natural period of a building is called the Natural Frequency
fn; its unit is Hertz (Hz). The building offers least resistance when shaken at its natural
M.E2019-20 P a g e 25 | 92
ANALYSIS
frequency (or natural period). Hence, it undergoes larger oscillation when shaken at its
natural frequency than at other frequencies (Figure 2.4). Usually, natural periods (Tn) of 1 to
20 storey normal reinforced concrete and steel buildings are in the range of 0.05 - 2.00s. In
building design practice, engineers usually work with Tn and not fn. Resonance will occur in
a building, only if frequency at which ground shakes is steady at or near any of the natural
frequencies of building and applied over an extended period of time. But, earthquake ground
motion has departures from these two conditions. First, the ground motion contains a basket
of frequencies that are continually and randomly changing at each instant of time. There is no
guarantee that the ground shaking contains the same frequency (and that too close to fn of the
building) throughout or even for a sustained duration. Second, the small duration for which
the ground shaking occurs at frequencies close to fn of the building, is insufficient to build
resonant conditions in most cases of the usual ground motions. Hence, usually, increased
response occurs, but not resonance, when earthquake shaking carries energy in frequencies
close to fn of the building that is randomly fed to the building during earthquake shaking.
One of few cases of resonance during earthquake shaking was noticed during the 1985
Mexico City earthquake, where buildings having natural periods in a small range alone
collapsed, while those with natural periods outside the range performed normally. This is
attributed to the almost uniform thickness of the underlying soil portion of the city built in the
valley (i.e., in a bowl between mountains), which acted like a filter for all other frequencies in
the earthquake shaking.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 26 | 92
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
STUDY OF LATERAL LOAD RESISTING

SYSTEMS
DATA COLLECTION
STUDY OF LITERATURE
DESIGN OF G + 50 STOREY BUILDING

WITH ETABS SOFTWARE
ANALYSIS FOR A G+ 50 STOREY

BUILDING IN ETABS USING
EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
4.1.a SOFTWARE INFORMATION (ETABS)
ETABS is a sophisticated, yet easy to use, special purpose analysis and design
program developed specifically for building systems. ETABS 2016 features an intuitive and
powerful graphical interface coupled with unmatched modeling, analytical, design, and
detailing procedures, all integrated using a common database. Although quick and easy for
simple structures, ETABS can also handle the largest and most complex building models,
including a wide range of nonlinear behaviors necessary for performance based design,
making it the tool of choice for structural engineers in the building industry.
Dating back more than 40 years to the original development of TABS, the predecessor
of ETABS, it was clearly recognized that buildings constituted a very special class of
M.E2019-20 P a g e 27 | 92
ANALYSIS
structures. Early releases of ETABS provided input, output and numerical solution techniques
that took into consideration the characteristics unique to building type structures, providing a
tool that offered significant savings in time and increased accuracy over general purpose
programs. As computers and computer interfaces evolved, ETABS added computationally
complex analytical options such as dynamic nonlinear behavior, and powerful CAD-like
drawing tools in a graphical and object-based interface. Although ETABS 2016 looks
radically different from its predecessors of 40 years ago, its mission remains the same: to
provide the profession with the most efficient and comprehensive software for the analysis
and design of buildings. To that end, the current release follows the same philosophical
approach put forward by the original programs, namely Most buildings are of straightforward
geometry with horizontal beams and vertical columns. Although any building configuration is
possible with ETABS, in most cases, a simple grid system defined by horizontal floors and
vertical column lines can establish building geometry with minimal effort.
 Many of the floor levels in buildings are similar. This commonality can be used to
dramatically reduce modeling and design time.
 The input and output conventions used correspond to common building terminology.
With ETABS, the models are defined logically floor-by-floor, column-by-column,
bay-by-bay and wall by-wall and not as a stream of non-descript nodes and elements
as in general purpose programs. Thus the structural definition is simple, concise and
meaningful.
 In most buildings, the dimensions of the members are large in relation to the bay
widths and story heights. Those dimensions have a significant effect on the stiffness
of the frame. ETABS corrects for such effects in the formulation of the member
stiffness, unlike most general-purpose programs that work on centerline-to-centerline
dimensions.
 The results produced by the programs should be in a form directly usable by the
engineer. General-purpose computer programs produce results in a general form that
may need additional processing before they are usable in structural design.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 28 | 92
ANALYSIS
4.1.b METHOD OF ANALYSIS

EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD -The design lateral force due to earthquake is
calculated as follow : (as per IS 1983 :2002)
Design horizontal seismic coefficient :
The design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for a structure shall be determined
by the following expressions:-
Z I S
Ah = × × a
2 R g
Z
Provided that for any structure with T ≤ 0.1 s, the value of A h will not be less than
2
I
whatever the value of .
R
Where,
Z= Zone factor
I = Importance factor depending upon the functional use of the structure.
R=Response reduction factor, depending upon the perceived seismic damage
performance of the structure .
Sa
= Average response acceleration coefficient
g
Design Seismic Base Shear :
The total design lateral force or seismic base shear (Vh) along any principal
direction is determined by the following expression:-
Vb = Ah × W
Where, W is the seismic weight of the building.
Distribution of design force :

The design base shear (V b) computed is distributed along the height of the
building as below:
W i h 2i
Qi = Vb ×
( )
i=1
∑ W i h2i
n=1
Where,
Qi = Design lateral force at each floor level i
Wi = Seismic weight of floor i.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 29 | 92
ANALYSIS
hi = Height of floor i measured from the base.
4.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Table 4.1 Problem Statement
Number of Stories 50
Total Height Of building 150 m
Height of Each Building 3m

Primary- B300X7500mm,
Secondary- B300X600mm (Out Trigger System And
Size of Beam
Tube in tube system)
ISMB600 (Bracing System)
Size Of Column C300X850 mm
Slab Thickness S175 mm
Shear Wall Thickness W250 mm
Location Pune
Response Reduction Factor 5.0
Importance Factor 1
Grade Of Concrete M45
Grade Of Reinforcing Steel F500
Density Of Concrete 45 kN/m2
Supports at base Fixed
Diaphragm Rigid
M.E2019-20 P a g e 30 | 92
ANALYSIS
LOAD COMBINATIONS
1. 1.5DL+1.5SDL
2. 1.5DL+1.5LL+1.5SDL
3. 1.2DL+1.2LL+1.2SDL+1.2EQX
4. 1.2DL+1.2LL+1.2SDL-1.2EQX
5. 1.2DL+1.2LL+1.2SDL+1.2EQY
6. 1.2DL+1.2LL+1.2SDL-1.2EQY
7. 1.5DL+1.5SDL+1.5EQX
8. 1.5DL+1.5SDL-1.5EQX
9. 1.5DL+1.5SDL+1.5EQY
10. 1.5DL+1.5SDL-1.5EQY
11. 0.9DL+0.9SDL+1.5EQX
12. 0.9DL+0.9SDL-1.5EQX
13. 0.9DL+0.9SDL+1.5EQY
14. 0.9DL+0.9SDL-1.5EQY
M.E2019-20 P a g e 31 | 92
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 BUILDING WITH SHEAR WALL
Fig 5.1 Modeling in ETABS With shear wall
Fig 5.2 3D renders view of with shear wall
M.E2019-20 P a g e 32 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.1.1 Storey Displacement in X and Y
Fig 5.3 Displacement in X
Fig 5.4 Displacement in Y

Table No. 5.1 Storey Displacement in X and Y with shear wall
STOREY ELEVATION DISPLACEMENT X DISPLACEMENT Y
STORY51 162 43.75 37.83
STORY50 158.8 43.63 37.50
STORY49 155.6 43.25 36.85
STORY48 152.4 43.13 36.42
STORY47 149.2 42.52 35.55
M.E2019-20 P a g e 33 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY46 146 41.88 35.33

STORY45 142.8 41.01 34.79
STORY44 139.6 40.51 34.25
STORY43 136.4 40.01 33.49
STORY42 133.2 39.39 32.95
STORY41 130 38.64 32.19
STORY40 126.8 37.89 31.43
STORY39 123.6 37.39 30.67
STORY38 120.4 36.27 30.12
STORY37 117.2 35.27 29.26
STORY36 114 34.52 28.60
STORY35 110.8 33.64 27.74
STORY34 107.6 32.90 26.87
STORY33 104.4 32.15 26.22
STORY32 101.2 31.27 25.35
STORY31 98 28.53 24.37
STORY30 94.8 27.65 23.5
STORY29 91.6 27.40 22.63
STORY28 88.4 25.66 25.66
STORY27 85.2 25.28 21.01
STORY26 82 24.53 20.14
STORY25 78.8 24.03 20.14
STORY24 75.6 22.91 19.05
STORY23 72.4 22.04 18.51
STORY22 69.2 21.41 17.64
STORY21 66 20.41 16.77
STORY20 62.8 20.16 16.01
STORY19 59.6 19.29 15.04
STORY18 56.4 18.29 14.17
STORY17 53.2 16.92 13.30
STORY16 50 16.17 12.32
STORY15 46.8 14.92 11.46
STORY14 43.6 14.05 10.80
STORY13 40.4 13.30 10.04
STORY12 37.2 11.80 9.39
STORY11 34 10.80 8.42
STORY10 30.8 9.81 7.66
STORY9 27.6 8.68 6.90
STORY8 24.4 7.18 6.25
STORY7 21.2 6.31 5.27
STORY6 18 6.19 4.62
STORY5 14.8 5.44 3.32
STORY4 11.6 4.31 2.56
STORY3 8.4 3.57 1.90
STORY2 5.2 2.94 1.25
M.E2019-20 P a g e 34 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY1 2 2.19 0.60

BASE 0 2 0.45
Storey Displacement
50
45
40
35
Displacement in mm
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
51 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 Y9 Y7 Y5 Y3 Y1
O R OR Y ORY ORY OR Y OR Y ORY ORY OR Y OR Y ORY ORY OR Y ORY ORY OR Y OR Y ORY ORY OR Y OR Y TOR TOR TOR TOR TOR
Y
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST S S S S S
Storey
DISPLACEMENT X DISPLACEMENT Y
Graph 5.1 Storey Displacement in X and Y with shear wall
The above graph represents the Storey Displacement. In X direction have number of
stories and in Y direction displacement in mm. Storey displacement at top maximum as
compare to at bottom. In X direction displacement is maximum to the Y direction
displacement. In X direction maximum displacement is 43.75 mm and in Y direction
maximum displacement is 37.83 mm.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 35 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.1.2 Storey drift
Fig 5.5 Storey drift in X
Fig 5.6 Storey drift in Y

Table No. 5.2 Storey Drift in X and Y with shear wall
STOREY ELEVATION STOREY DRIFT X STOREY DRIFT Y
STORY51 162 4.211667 4.082738
STORY50 158.8 4.225717 4.09628
STORY49 155.6 4.235185 4.103693
STORY48 152.4 4.253163 4.119213
STORY47 149.2 4.276795 4.135547
STORY46 146 4.300258 4.151877
STORY45 142.8 4.323381 4.16736
M.E2019-20 P a g e 36 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY44 139.6 4.34559 4.182151

STORY43 136.4 4.366397 4.195228
STORY42 133.2 4.384823 4.205959
STORY41 130 4.400591 4.214021
STORY40 126.8 4.413399 4.219156
STORY39 123.6 4.422969 4.22112
STORY38 120.4 4.429036 4.219681
STORY37 117.2 4.431336 4.214615
STORY36 114 4.429614 4.205709
STORY35 110.8 4.423623 4.192757
STORY34 107.6 4.413439 4.175561
STORY33 104.4 4.398588 4.153931
STORY32 101.2 4.378763 4.127685
STORY31 98 4.353745 4.096648
STORY30 94.8 4.323327 4.060983
STORY29 91.6 4.287307 4.020205
STORY28 88.4 4.245496 3.974147
STORY27 85.2 4.19771 3.922661
STORY26 82 4.143774 3.865609
STORY25 78.8 4.08352 3.802856
STORY24 75.6 4.016785 3.734275
STORY23 72.4 3.943414 3.659744
STORY22 69.2 3.863255 3.579146
STORY21 66 3.776159 3.492367
STORY20 62.8 3.681983 3.399297
STORY19 59.6 3.580583 3.299828
STORY18 56.4 3.471815 3.193853
STORY17 53.2 3.355536 3.081262
STORY16 50 3.231594 2.961943
STORY15 46.8 3.099836 2.83578
STORY14 43.6 2.960093 2.702646
STORY13 40.4 2.812184 2.562404
STORY12 37.2 2.655909 2.415898
STORY11 34 2.491039 2.262132
STORY10 30.8 2.317311 2.100859
STORY9 27.6 2.135302 1.931766
STORY8 24.4 1.944364 1.75447
STORY7 21.2 1.743502 1.568405
STORY6 18 1.531885 1.373028
STORY5 14.8 1.308002 1.1671
STORY4 11.6 1.072455 0.95027
STORY3 8.4 0.842995 0.725786
STORY2 5.2 0.634442 0.537999
STORY1 2 0.457862 0.419181
BASE 0 0 0
M.E2019-20 P a g e 37 | 92
ANALYSIS
STOREY DRIFT
5
4.5
4
3.5
STOREY DRIFT in mm
3
2.5
STOREY DRIFT X
2
STOREY DRIFT Y
1.5
1
0.5
0
1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 E
RY5 RY4 RY4 RY4 RY3 RY3 RY3 RY3 RY2 RY2 RY2 RY1 RY1 RY1 ORY ORY ORY BAS
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T T T
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST S S S
Storey
Graph 5.2 Storey Drift in X and Y with shear wall

The above graph represents the Storey Drift. In X direction have number of stories
and in Y direction storey drift in mm. Storey drift at storey 39 is maximum in X 4.422969 as
well as in Y direction 4.22112.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 38 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.1.3 Base Shear:
Fig 5.7 Storey 48 Column No 1 Base Shear

Table No. 5.3 Base Shear with shear wall
STOREY ELEVATION BASE SHEAR
STORY51 162 159.953
STORY50 158.8 190.466
STORY49 155.6 254.89
STORY48 152.4 424.18
STORY47 149.2 681.81
STORY46 146 949.26
STORY45 142.8 1210.42
STORY44 139.6 1461.54
STORY43 136.4 1700.96
STORY42 133.2 1929.57
STORY41 130 2148.77
STORY40 126.8 2360.2
STORY39 123.6 2565.32
STORY38 120.4 2765.37
STORY37 117.2 2961.33
STORY36 114 3153.91
STORY35 110.8 3343.63
STORY34 107.6 3530.86
STORY33 104.4 3715.82
STORY32 101.2 3898.64
STORY31 98 4079.4
STORY30 94.8 4258.1
STORY29 91.6 4434.75
STORY28 88.4 4609.29
STORY27 85.2 4781.67
STORY26 82 4951.82
M.E2019-20 P a g e 39 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY25 78.8 5119.66

STORY24 75.6 5285.11
STORY23 72.4 5448.08
STORY22 69.2 5608.47
STORY21 66 5766.16
STORY20 62.8 5921.03
STORY19 59.6 6072.94
STORY18 56.4 6221.71
STORY17 53.2 6367.15
STORY16 50 6508.98
STORY15 46.8 6646.91
STORY14 43.6 6780.54
STORY13 40.4 6909.36
STORY12 37.2 7032.76
STORY11 34 7149.95
STORY10 30.8 7259.98
STORY9 27.6 7361.67
STORY8 24.4 7453.68
STORY7 21.2 7534.19
STORY6 18 7601.9
STORY5 14.8 7654.38
STORY4 11.6 7697.9
STORY3 8.4 7743.62
STORY2 5.2 7908.87
STORY1 2 8195.22
BASE 0 8924.455
BASE SHEAR
10000
8000
6000
BASE SHEAR
4000
2000
0
1 7 3 9 5 1 7 3 9 5 1 7 3
RY5 RY4 RY4 RY3 RY3 RY3 RY2 RY2 RY1 RY1 RY1 ORY ORY
O O O O O O O O O O O T T
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST S S
Graph 5.3 Base shear with shear wall

The above graph represents the Base Shear. In X direction have number of stories and
in Y direction base shear. Base shear at bottom is maximum as compare with base shear at
top. Base shear value at bottom is 8924.455 and base shear at top 159.953.
5.1.4 Global Moment
M.E2019-20 P a g e 40 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.8 Global Moments With shear wall

Table No. 5.4 Global Moments with shear wall
STOREY ELEVATION Global Moment
STORY51 162 70.79
STORY50 158.8 77.446
STORY49 155.6 75.679
STORY48 152.4 76.238
STORY47 149.2 76.38
STORY46 146 76.609
STORY45 142.8 76.799
STORY44 139.6 76.958
STORY43 136.4 77.078
STORY42 133.2 77.156
STORY41 130 77.186
STORY40 126.8 77.165
STORY39 123.6 77.087
STORY38 120.4 76.951
STORY37 117.2 76.75
STORY36 114 76.483
STORY35 110.8 76.145
STORY34 107.6 75.734
STORY33 104.4 75.245
STORY32 101.2 74.677
STORY31 98 74.025
STORY30 94.8 73.288
STORY29 91.6 72.463
STORY28 88.4 71.547
STORY27 85.2 70.538
STORY26 82 69.433
STORY25 78.8 68.231
M.E2019-20 P a g e 41 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY24 75.6 66.93

STORY23 72.4 65.528
STORY22 69.2 64.023
STORY21 66 62.414
STORY20 62.8 60.699
STORY19 59.6 58.877
STORY18 56.4 56.946
STORY17 53.2 54.906
STORY16 50 52.755
STORY15 46.8 50.493
STORY14 43.6 48.118
STORY13 40.4 45.629
STORY12 37.2 43.024
STORY11 34 40.304
STORY10 30.8 37.464
STORY9 27.6 34.505
STORY8 24.4 31.422
STORY7 21.2 28.212
STORY6 18 24.876
STORY5 14.8 21.389
STORY4 11.6 17.81
STORY3 8.4 14.018
STORY2 5.2 10.627
STORY1 2 7.671
BASE 0 0
Global Moment
90
80
70
60
50
40 Globle Moment
30
20
10
0
Graph 5.4 Global Moments with shear wall

The above graph represents the Global Moments. Global moments at storey 50 are
77.446. Moments are increase with increase number of stories.
5.2 BUILDING WITH TUBE SYSTEM
M.E2019-20 P a g e 42 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.9 Modeling in ETABS with Tube System
Fig 5.10 (a) 3D render view of with Tube System
M.E2019-20 P a g e 43 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.10 (b) 3D render view of with Tube System
M.E2019-20 P a g e 44 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.2.1 Storey Displacement
Fig 5.12 Displacement in Y

Table No. 5.5 Storey Displacement in X and Y with tube system
STOREY ELEVATION DISPLACMENT X DISPLACMENT Y
STORY51 162 293.28 393.79
STORY50 158.8 290.08 389.48
STORY49 155.6 284.46 384.10
STORY48 152.4 278.04 372.25
STORY47 149.2 270.02 365.79
STORY46 146 260.80 357.17
STORY45 142.8 257.98 343.17
STORY44 139.6 250.76 353.63
STORY43 136.4 245.15 327.02
STORY42 133.2 237.93 316.25
STORY41 130 232.31 305.48
STORY40 126.8 227.50 290.40
M.E2019-20 P a g e 45 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY39 123.6 217.07 282.86

STORY38 120.4 207.44 265.63
STORY37 117.2 200.22 260.40
STORY36 114 193.00 252.70
STORY35 110.8 186.58 245.17
STORY34 107.6 179.36 234.40
STORY33 104.4 171.33 222.55
STORY32 101.2 164.11 212.86
STORY31 98 158.50 204.24
STORY30 94.8 152.08 194.55
STORY29 91.6 144.06 183.78
STORY28 88.4 134.43 174.09
STORY27 85.2 124.00 166.55
STORY26 82 121.59 160.08
STORY25 78.8 115.17 146.08
STORY24 75.6 107.15 134.24
STORY23 72.4 100.73 128.85
STORY22 69.2 95.92 118.08
STORY21 66 88.70 111.62
STORY20 62.8 82.28 100.85
STORY19 59.6 76.66 90.08
STORY18 56.4 68.64 82.54
STORY17 53.2 62.22 75.00
STORY16 50 55.80 67.46
STORY15 46.8 48.58 59.93
STORY14 43.6 45.37 53.46
STORY13 40.4 41.36 44.85
STORY12 37.2 35.75 42.69
STORY11 34 32.54 36.23
STORY10 30.8 27.72 31.92
STORY9 27.6 23.71 26.54
STORY8 24.4 18.90 22.23
STORY7 21.2 15.69 15.77
STORY6 18 12.48 12.54
STORY5 14.8 10.07 8.23
STORY4 11.6 7.67 7.15
STORY3 8.4 5.26 6.08
STORY2 5.2 3.65 5.00
STORY1 2 1.25 2.85
BASE 0 0.75 1.75
M.E2019-20 P a g e 46 | 92
ANALYSIS
Stor ey Dis placem ent

450
400 DISPLACMENT X DISPLACMENT Y
350
300
Displacement in mm
250
200
150
100
50
0
51 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 Y9 Y7 Y5 Y3 Y1
OR ORY ORY OR Y OR Y OR Y ORY ORY ORY OR Y OR Y ORY ORY OR Y OR Y ORY ORY ORY OR Y OR Y OR Y TOR TOR TOR TOR TOR
Y
Storey
Graph 5.5 Storey Displacement in X and Y with tube system
stories and in Y direction displacement in mm. In X direction displacement is below as
compared to the Y direction displacement. In X direction maximum displacement is 293mm
and in Y direction maximum displacement is 393.79mm.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 47 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.2.2 Storey Drift
Fig 5.13 Storey Drift X
Fig 5.14 Storey Drift Y
Table No. 5.6 Storey Drift in X and Y with tube system

STORY51 162 2.22012 3.14665
STORY50 158.8 2.219722 3.145729
STORY49 155.6 2.21825 3.145173
STORY48 152.4 2.21695 3.142603
STORY47 149.2 2.214225 3.141109
STORY46 146 2.211705 3.137471
STORY45 142.8 2.208163 3.134278
STORY44 139.6 2.203892 3.130531
STORY43 136.4 2.200189 3.124507
M.E2019-20 P a g e 48 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY42 133.2 2.193421 3.121983

STORY41 130 2.190435 3.112008
STORY40 126.8 2.180206 3.111632
STORY39 123.6 2.179042 3.100754
STORY38 120.4 2.166158 3.095496
STORY37 117.2 2.164168 3.088481
STORY36 114 2.151944 3.075948
STORY35 110.8 2.14523 3.075321
STORY34 107.6 2.136566 3.060816
STORY33 104.4 2.12332 3.052849
STORY32 101.2 2.120175 3.041227
STORY31 98 2.102911 3.026061
STORY30 94.8 2.09837 2.995458
STORY29 91.6 2.086115 2.960918
STORY28 88.4 2.0749 2.922323
STORY27 85.2 2.070313 2.879564
STORY26 82 2.040853 2.832536
STORY25 78.8 2.039088 2.831508
STORY24 75.6 2.004635 2.781136
STORY23 72.4 1.966899 2.725269
STORY22 69.2 1.925824 2.7190
STORY21 66 1.88053 2.599765
STORY20 62.8 1.833872 2.529955
STORY19 59.6 1.833449 2.455326
STORY18 56.4 1.782049 2.3758
STORY17 53.2 1.72711 2.2913
STORY16 50 1.668584 2.201749
STORY15 46.8 1.606423 2.107077
STORY14 43.6 1.540581 2.007214
STORY13 40.4 1.471007 1.902095
STORY12 37.2 1.397653 1.791662
STORY11 34 1.320463 1.675864
STORY10 30.8 1.239379 1.55466
STORY9 27.6 1.15433 1.428022
STORY8 24.4 1.065237 1.295941
STORY7 21.2 0.971988 1.15841
STORY6 18 0.87437 1.015432
STORY5 14.8 0.771742 0.866697
STORY4 11.6 0.665258 0.713124
STORY3 8.4 0.570296 0.549179
STORY2 5.2 0.492834 0.407618
STORY1 2 0.253095 0.220664
BASE 0 0 0
M.E2019-20 P a g e 49 | 92
ANALYSIS
STOREY DRIFT
3.5
2.5
2
Drift in mm
STOREY DRIFT X
1.5
STOREY DRIFT Y
1
0.5
0
1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 E
Storey
Graph 5.6 Storey Drift with tube system

and in Y direction storey drift in mm. Storey drift at storey 39 is maximum in X 2.22012as
well as in Y direction 3.14665.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 50 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.2.3 Base Shear
Fig 5.15 Base Shear

Table No. 5.7 Base Shear with tube system
STORY51 162 900.06
STORY50 158.8 1952.01
STORY49 155.6 2470.51
STORY48 152.4 4005.84
STORY47 149.2 5031.42
STORY46 146 6055.52
STORY45 142.8 7077.93
STORY44 139.6 8098.44
STORY43 136.4 9116.81
STORY42 133.2 10132.79
STORY41 130 11146.13
STORY40 126.8 12156.56
STORY39 123.6 13163.81
STORY38 120.4 14167.61
STORY37 117.2 15167.69
STORY36 114 16163.75
STORY35 110.8 17155.49
STORY34 107.6 18142.6
STORY33 104.4 19124.78
STORY32 101.2 20101.7
STORY31 98 21073.01
STORY30 94.8 22038.36
STORY29 91.6 22997.41
STORY28 88.4 23949.76
STORY27 85.2 24895.03
STORY26 82 25832.81
M.E2019-20 P a g e 51 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY25 78.8 26762.69

STORY24 75.6 27684.23
STORY23 72.4 28596.97
STORY22 69.2 29500.43
STORY21 66 30394.13
STORY20 62.8 31277.56
STORY19 59.6 32150.17
STORY18 56.4 33011.42
STORY17 53.2 33860.71
STORY16 50 34697.45
STORY15 46.8 35521
STORY14 43.6 36330.71
STORY13 40.4 37125.88
STORY12 37.2 37905.8
STORY11 34 38669.72
STORY10 30.8 39416.86
STORY9 27.6 40146.39
STORY8 24.4 40857.48
STORY7 21.2 41549.24
STORY6 18 42220.75
STORY5 14.8 42871.06
STORY4 11.6 43499.28
STORY3 8.4 44104.4
STORY2 5.2 44686.25
STORY1 2 45236.42
BASE 0 45882.597
BASE SHEAR
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000 BASE SHEAR
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 E
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ST ST ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
Graph 5.7 Base shear with tube system

in Y direction base shear. Base shear at bottom is minimum as compare with base shear at
M.E2019-20 P a g e 52 | 92
ANALYSIS
top. Base shear value at bottom is 45882.597 and base shear at top 1952.01.
5.2.4 Global Moment
M.E2019-20 P a g e 53 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.16 Global Moments with tube system

Table No. 5.9 Global Momentwith tube system
STORY51 162 88.49
STORY50 158.8 140.755
STORY49 155.6 149.496
STORY48 152.4 149.271
STORY47 149.2 149.549
STORY46 146 149.441
STORY45 142.8 149.236
STORY44 139.6 148.903
STORY43 136.4 148.483
STORY42 133.2 147.965
STORY41 130 147.348
STORY40 126.8 146.629
STORY39 123.6 145.804
STORY38 120.4 144.871
STORY37 117.2 143.826
STORY36 114 142.668
STORY35 110.8 141.395
STORY34 107.6 140.004
STORY33 104.4 138.495
STORY32 101.2 136.866
STORY31 98 135.115
STORY30 94.8 133.241
STORY29 91.6 131.243
STORY28 88.4 129.119
STORY27 85.2 126.869
STORY26 82 124.492
STORY25 78.8 121.987
STORY24 75.6 119.353
M.E2019-20 P a g e 54 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY23 72.4 116.59

STORY22 69.2 113.697
STORY21 66 110.674
STORY20 62.8 107.52
STORY19 59.6 104.235
STORY18 56.4 100.818
STORY17 53.2 97.269
STORY16 50 93.589
STORY15 46.8 89.776
STORY14 43.6 85.831
STORY13 40.4 81.752
STORY12 37.2 77.541
STORY11 34 73.196
STORY10 30.8 68.715
STORY9 27.6 64.098
STORY8 24.4 59.341
STORY7 21.2 54.44
STORY6 18 49.371
STORY5 14.8 44.106
STORY4 11.6 38.518
STORY3 8.4 32.577
STORY2 5.2 25.512
STORY1 2 14.589
BASE 0 0
Global Moment
160
140
120
100
80 Globle Moment
60
40
20
0
SE
ST Y51
ST Y48
ST Y45
ST Y42
ST Y39
ST Y36
ST Y33
ST Y30
ST Y27
ST Y24
ST Y21
ST Y18
ST Y15
ST 12
ST Y9
ST Y6
Y3
BA
OR
OR
OR
Y
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
ST
Graph 5.8 Global Moments with tube system

The above graph represents the Global Moments. Global moments at storey 50
is140.755. Moments are increase with increase number of stories.
5.3 BUILDING WITH OUT TRIGGER
M.E2019-20 P a g e 55 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.17 Modeling in ETABS With Out trigger System
Fig 5.18 3D rendering view of With Out trigger System
5.3.1 Storey Displacement in X and Y
M.E2019-20 P a g e 56 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.20Displacement in Y
Table No. 5.10 Storey Displacement in X and Y with Out trigger
STOREY ELEVATION DISPLACMENT X DISPLACMENT Y
STORY51 162 230.10 250.94
STORY50 158.8 229.47 250.26
STORY49 155.6 227.59 249.57
STORY48 152.4 226.53 248.89
STORY47 149.2 223.82 247.52
STORY46 146 221.94 245.47
STORY45 142.8 218.8 242.74
STORY44 139.6 217.55 240
STORY43 136.4 215.04 238.63
STORY42 133.2 211.27 235.22
STORY41 130 208.76 231.80
STORY40 126.8 206.88 230.43
M.E2019-20 P a g e 57 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY39 123.6 202.86 227.69

STORY38 120.4 198.10 222.22
STORY37 117.2 195.59 218.12
STORY36 114 192.45 214.02
STORY35 110.8 186.17 216.10
STORY34 107.6 183.17 205.13
STORY33 104.4 181.16 198.98
STORY32 101.2 176.14 195.56
STORY31 98 171.74 190.09
STORY30 94.8 167.98 185.30
STORY29 91.6 162.33 181.88
STORY28 88.4 157.94 177.10
STORY27 85.2 154.18 172.31
STORY26 82 149.16 166.16
STORY25 78.8 144.76 160
STORY24 75.6 138.49 153.85
STORY23 72.4 134.10 149.06
STORY22 69.2 129.08 140.86
STORY21 66 124.06 134.02
STORY20 62.8 119.04 129.23
STORY19 59.6 112.14 123.08
STORY18 56.4 105.86 118.98
STORY17 53.2 99.59 116.24
STORY16 50 96.45 109.40
STORY15 46.8 91.43 101.20
STORY14 43.6 84.53 96.42
STORY13 40.4 78.88 90.26
STORY12 37.2 71.35 84.79
STORY11 34 65.08 78.63
STORY10 30.8 60.69 72.48
STORY9 27.6 56.30 66.33
STORY8 24.4 48.14 58.80
STORY7 21.2 42.49 53.33
STORY6 18 38.10 44.44
STORY5 14.8 32.45 40.34
STORY4 11.6 23.67 32.82
STORY3 8.4 18.65 28.03
STORY2 5.2 13 19.15
STORY1 2 7.98 10.94
BASE 0 5.24 7.23
M.E2019-20 P a g e 58 | 92
ANALYSIS
Storey Displacement
300
250
Displacement in mm
200
150
100
50
0
1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1
R Y5 R Y4 RY4 RY4 RY4 R Y4 RY3 RY3 RY3 R Y3 R Y3 RY2 R Y2 R Y2 R Y2 RY2 R Y1 R Y1 RY1 RY1 RY1 RY RY R Y R Y R Y
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O TO TO TO TO TO
Storey
DISPLACMENT X DISPLACMENT Y
Graph 5.9 Storey Displacement in X and Y with out trigger system
stories and in Y direction displacement in mm. In X direction displacement is below as
compared to the Y direction displacement. In X direction maximum displacement is 230mm
and in Y direction maximum displacement is 250mm.
5.3.2 Storey Drift
M.E2019-20 P a g e 59 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.21 Storey Drift at X
Fig 5.22 Storey Drift at Y

Table No. 5.11 Storey Drift in X and Y with Out trigger
STORY51 162 7.067566 8.512004
STORY50 158.8 6.993631 8.477377
STORY49 155.6 6.848983 8.37391
STORY48 152.4 6.823473 8.199369
STORY47 149.2 6.818238 7.563472
STORY46 146 6.796329 7.491092
STORY45 142.8 6.746012 7.486817
STORY44 139.6 6.695554 7.452636
STORY43 136.4 6.676963 7.451432
STORY42 133.2 6.643317 7.442916
STORY41 130 6.570086 7.38283
M.E2019-20 P a g e 60 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY40 126.8 6.552917 7.367367

STORY39 123.6 6.546312 7.166286
STORY38 120.4 6.475618 7.155382
STORY37 117.2 6.464075 7.126532
STORY36 114 6.393668 7.117022
STORY35 110.8 6.37498 7.011241
STORY34 107.6 6.336232 7.008823
STORY33 104.4 6.175343 6.884636
STORY32 101.2 6.126285 6.870887
STORY31 98 6.018579 6.82527
STORY30 94.8 5.897545 6.816541
STORY29 91.6 5.754265 6.702989
STORY28 88.4 5.738024 6.683062
STORY27 85.2 5.684831 6.67792
STORY26 82 5.637484 6.605458
STORY25 78.8 5.594991 6.566418
STORY24 75.6 5.467882 6.390034
STORY23 72.4 5.241792 6.35933
STORY22 69.2 5.238471 5.888791
STORY21 66 4.996852 5.712146
STORY20 62.8 4.940455 5.68605
STORY19 59.6 4.895023 5.387735
STORY18 56.4 4.720689 5.326765
STORY17 53.2 4.557796 5.243933
STORY16 50 4.401817 5.070961
STORY15 46.8 4.38508 5.061241
STORY14 43.6 4.206665 4.99595
STORY13 40.4 4.054286 4.888277
STORY12 37.2 4.019038 4.736132
STORY11 34 3.827031 4.685091
STORY10 30.8 3.778338 4.598016
STORY9 27.6 3.770084 4.368869
STORY8 24.4 3.569841 3.955214
STORY7 21.2 3.48811 3.719267
STORY6 18 2.038883 3.477038
STORY5 14.8 1.722494 1.160774
STORY4 11.6 1.721184 1.043089
STORY3 8.4 1.469088 0.948671
STORY2 5.2 1.451716 0.823245
STORY1 2 0.4550 0.1705
BASE 0 0 0
M.E2019-20 P a g e 61 | 92
ANALYSIS
STOREY DRIFT
9
8
7
6
5
4 STOREY DRIFT X
Drift
3 STOREY DRIFT Y
2
1
0
1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 E
Storey
Graph 5.10 Storey Drift with out trigger system

and in Y direction storey drift in mm. Storey drift at storey 39 is maximum in X 7.067566as
well as in Y direction 8.512004. Due to out trigger system storey drift increase with increase
number of stories. Storey Drift in X direction is higher than in Y direction.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 62 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.3.3 Base Shear
Fig 5.23 Base Shear

Table No. 5.12 Base Shear with out trigger
STORY51 162 2256.98
STORY50 158.8 4829.59
STORY49 155.6 5487.16
STORY48 152.4 6130.27
STORY47 149.2 6776.54
STORY46 146 7424.04
STORY45 142.8 8072.07
STORY44 139.6 8719.92
STORY43 136.4 9365.85
STORY42 133.2 10026.33
STORY41 130 12314.96
STORY40 126.8 15590.31
STORY39 123.6 16254.25
STORY38 120.4 16899.79
STORY37 117.2 17547.68
STORY36 114 18195.73
STORY35 110.8 18843.28
STORY34 107.6 19489.62
STORY33 104.4 20133.32
STORY32 101.2 20787.73
STORY31 98 22549.75
STORY30 94.8 26148.32
STORY29 91.6 26806.29
STORY28 88.4 27444.32
STORY27 85.2 28083.83
STORY26 82 28722.52
STORY25 78.8 29359.79
M.E2019-20 P a g e 63 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY24 75.6 29994.91

STORY23 72.4 30626.9
STORY22 69.2 31264.2
STORY21 66 32312.25
STORY20 62.8 36013.11
STORY19 59.6 36653.54
STORY18 56.4 37273.93
STORY17 53.2 37894.4
STORY16 50 38512.7
STORY15 46.8 39128.28
STORY14 43.6 39740.43
STORY13 40.4 40348.76
STORY12 37.2 40954.42
STORY11 34 41031.19
STORY10 30.8 44514.34
STORY9 27.6 45120.26
STORY8 24.4 45707.29
STORY7 21.2 46291.66
STORY6 18 46871.35
STORY5 14.8 47445.85
STORY4 11.6 48014.54
STORY3 8.4 48576.89
STORY2 5.2 49132.91
STORY1 2 49673.75
BASE 0 53116.297
BASE SHEAR
60000
50000
40000
30000 BASE SHEAR
20000
10000
0
1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 E
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ST ST ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
Graph 5.11 Base Shear with out trigger system

in Y direction base shear. Base shear at bottom is minimum as compare with base shear at
top. Base shear value at bottom is 49673.75 and base shear at top 2256.98. The base shear at cross
beams trigger are present that floor base shear is decrees as other floor base shear decreases with
increase number of storey.
5.3.4 Global Moment
M.E2019-20 P a g e 64 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.24 Global Moments with tube system

Table No. 5.13 Global Moment with Out trigger
STORY51 162 87.26
STORY50 158.8 65.83
STORY49 155.6 32.731
STORY48 152.4 46.026
STORY47 149.2 45.103
STORY46 146 44.807
STORY45 142.8 44.817
STORY44 139.6 45.105
STORY43 136.4 45.995
STORY42 133.2 32.198
STORY41 130 66.213
STORY40 126.8 66.286
STORY39 123.6 33.368
STORY38 120.4 48.113
STORY37 117.2 47.975
STORY36 114 48.264
STORY35 110.8 48.838
STORY34 107.6 49.644
STORY33 104.4 50.989
STORY32 101.2 39.175
STORY31 98 70.826
STORY30 94.8 71.13
STORY29 91.6 41.993
STORY28 88.4 56.077
STORY27 85.2 56.609
STORY26 82 57.395
STORY25 78.8 58.473
STORY24 75.6 59.754
M.E2019-20 P a g e 65 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY23 72.4 61.489

STORY22 69.2 53.023
STORY21 66 79.191
STORY20 62.8 79.756
STORY19 59.6 57.579
STORY18 56.4 69.709
STORY17 53.2 71.018
STORY16 50 72.38
STORY15 46.8 74.03
STORY14 43.6 75.831
STORY13 40.4 77.994
STORY12 37.2 74.516
STORY11 34 91.623
STORY10 30.8 92.53
STORY9 27.6 81.054
STORY8 24.4 89.766
STORY7 21.2 91.978
STORY6 18 94.034
STORY5 14.8 96.347
STORY4 11.6 98.813
STORY3 8.4 101.404
STORY2 5.2 102.309
STORY1 2 102.328
BASE 0 0
Global Moment
120
100
80
60 Globle Moment
40
20
0
SE
ST Y51
ST Y48
ST Y39
ST Y30
ST Y27
ST Y21
ST Y18
ST 12
ST Y45
ST Y42
ST Y36
ST Y33
ST Y24
ST Y15
ST Y9
ST Y6
Y3
BA
OR
OR
OR
Y
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
ST
Graph 5.12 Global Moments with out trigger system

The above graph represents the Global Moments. Global moments graphs for out
trigger are varies with where cross beam are provided that floor moments are varies shown in
graphs.
5.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN BUILDING WITH SHEAR WALL, WITH TUBE

SYSTEM AND WITH OUT TRIGGER
M.E2019-20 P a g e 66 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.4.1 Displacement
Displacement X
Table No. 5.14 Comparison Storey Displacement in X
WITH SHEAR WITH TUBE OUT
STOREY ELEVATION WALL SYSTEM TRIGGER
STORY5
1 162 43.75 293.28 230.10
STORY5
0 158.8 43.63 290.08 229.47
STORY4
9 155.6 43.25 284.46 227.59
STORY4
8 152.4 43.13 278.04 226.53
STORY4
7 149.2 42.52 270.02 223.82
STORY4
6 146 41.88 260.80 221.94
STORY4
5 142.8 41.01 257.98 218.8
STORY4
4 139.6 40.51 250.76 217.55
STORY4
3 136.4 40.01 245.15 215.04
STORY4
2 133.2 39.39 237.93 211.27
STORY4
1 130 38.64 232.31 208.76
STORY4
0 126.8 37.89 227.50 206.88
STORY3
9 123.6 37.39 217.07 202.86
STORY3
8 120.4 36.27 207.44 198.10
STORY3
7 117.2 35.27 200.22 195.59
STORY3
6 114 34.52 193.00 192.45
STORY3
5 110.8 33.64 186.58 186.17
STORY3
4 107.6 32.90 179.36 183.17
STORY3
3 104.4 32.15 171.33 181.16
STORY3
2 101.2 31.27 164.11 176.14
STORY3
1 98 28.53 158.50 171.74
STORY3
0 94.8 27.65 152.08 167.98
STORY2
9 91.6 27.40 144.06 162.33
STORY2 88.4 25.66 134.43 157.94
M.E2019-20 P a g e 67 | 92
ANALYSIS
8
STORY2
7 85.2 25.28 124.00 154.18
STORY2
6 82 24.53 121.59 149.16
STORY2
5 78.8 24.03 115.17 144.76
STORY2
4 75.6 22.91 107.15 138.49
STORY2
3 72.4 22.04 100.73 134.10
STORY2
2 69.2 21.41 95.92 129.08
STORY2
1 66 20.41 88.70 124.06
STORY2
0 62.8 20.16 82.28 119.04
STORY1
9 59.6 19.29 76.66 112.14
STORY1
8 56.4 18.29 68.64 105.86
STORY1
7 53.2 16.92 62.22 99.59
STORY1
6 50 16.17 55.80 96.45
STORY1
5 46.8 14.92 48.58 91.43
STORY1
4 43.6 14.05 45.37 84.53
STORY1
3 40.4 13.30 41.36 78.88
STORY1
2 37.2 11.80 35.75 71.35
STORY1
1 34 10.80 32.54 65.08
STORY1
0 30.8 9.81 27.72 60.69
STORY9 27.6 8.68 23.71 56.30
STORY8 24.4 7.18 18.90 48.14
STORY7 21.2 6.31 15.69 42.49
STORY6 18 6.19 12.48 38.10
STORY5 14.8 5.44 10.07 32.45
STORY4 11.6 4.31 7.67 23.67
STORY3 8.4 3.57 5.26 18.65
STORY2 5.2 2.94 3.65 13
STORY1 2 2.19 1.25 7.98
BASE 0 2 0.75 5.24
M.E2019-20 P a g e 68 | 92
ANALYSIS
Storey Displacement in X
350
300
250
Displacement in mm
200
150
100
50
0
1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1
R Y5 RY4 R Y4 R Y4 RY4 RY4 RY3 RY3 R Y3 R Y3 RY3 RY2 R Y2 R Y2 R Y2 R Y2 RY1 RY1 RY1 R Y1 RY1 R Y R Y RY RY R Y
Storey
WITH SHEAR WALL WITH TUBE SYSTEM OUT TRIGGER
Graph5.13 Comparison Storey Displacements in X
The above graph represents the Storey Displacement in X direction with three cases.
Displacements with Tube system are 293.28 at top. And with shear wall 43.75 and with Out
trigger system displacement is 230.10. As compare to shear wall , tube system is increased by
50-60% and as compare to tube system, out trigger is increased by 35-40 %
M.E2019-20 P a g e 69 | 92
ANALYSIS
Displacement Y
Table No. 5.15 Comparison Storey Displacement in Y
STORY51 162 37.83 393.79 250.94
STORY50 158.8 37.50 389.48 250.26
STORY49 155.6 36.85 384.10 249.57
STORY48 152.4 36.42 372.25 248.89
STORY47 149.2 35.55 365.79 247.52
STORY46 146 35.33 357.17 245.47
STORY45 142.8 34.79 343.17 242.74
STORY44 139.6 34.25 353.63 240
STORY43 136.4 33.49 327.02 238.63
STORY42 133.2 32.95 316.25 235.22
STORY41 130 32.19 305.48 231.80
STORY40 126.8 31.43 290.40 230.43
STORY39 123.6 30.67 282.86 227.69
STORY38 120.4 30.12 265.63 222.22
STORY37 117.2 29.26 260.40 218.12
STORY36 114 28.60 252.70 214.02
STORY35 110.8 27.74 245.17 216.10
STORY34 107.6 26.87 234.40 205.13
STORY33 104.4 26.22 222.55 198.98
STORY32 101.2 25.35 212.86 195.56
STORY31 98 24.37 204.24 190.09
STORY30 94.8 23.5 194.55 185.30
STORY29 91.6 22.63 183.78 181.88
STORY28 88.4 25.66 174.09 177.10
STORY27 85.2 21.01 166.55 172.31
STORY26 82 20.14 160.08 166.16
STORY25 78.8 20.14 146.08 160
STORY24 75.6 19.05 134.24 153.85
STORY23 72.4 18.51 128.85 149.06
STORY22 69.2 17.64 118.08 140.86
STORY21 66 16.77 111.62 134.02
STORY20 62.8 16.01 100.85 129.23
STORY19 59.6 15.04 90.08 123.08
STORY18 56.4 14.17 82.54 118.98
STORY17 53.2 13.30 75.00 116.24
STORY16 50 12.32 67.46 109.40
STORY15 46.8 11.46 59.93 101.20
STORY14 43.6 10.80 53.46 96.42
STORY13 40.4 10.04 44.85 90.26
STORY12 37.2 9.39 42.69 84.79
STORY11 34 8.42 36.23 78.63
STORY10 30.8 7.66 31.92 72.48
M.E2019-20 P a g e 70 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY9 27.6 6.90 26.54 66.33

STORY8 24.4 6.25 22.23 58.80
STORY7 21.2 5.27 15.77 53.33
STORY6 18 4.62 12.54 44.44
STORY5 14.8 3.32 8.23 40.34
STORY4 11.6 2.56 7.15 32.82
STORY3 8.4 1.90 6.08 28.03
STORY2 5.2 1.25 5.00 19.15
STORY1 2 0.60 2.85 10.94
BASE 0 0.45 1.75 7.23
Storey Displacement in Y
450
400
350
Displacement in mm
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1
R Y5 RY4 RY4 RY4 RY4 RY4 R Y3 R Y3 R Y3 R Y3 R Y3 R Y2 RY2 RY2 RY2 RY2 RY1 R Y1 R Y1 R Y1 R Y1 RY RY R Y R Y R Y
Storey
WITH SHEAR WALL WITH TUBE SYSTEM OUT TRIGGER

Graph 5.114 Comparison Storey Displacements in Y
The above graph represents the Storey Displacement in Y direction with three cases.
Displacements with out trigger are 250.94. And other with shear wall 37.83 and with tube
system displacement is 393.79. As compare to Shear wall system, Tube system is increased
by 50-60%, And As compare to shear wall, out trigger is increased by 40-45 %
5.4.2 Storey Drift
M.E2019-20 P a g e 71 | 92
ANALYSIS
Story Drift X
Table No. 5.15 Comparison Storey Drift in X
STORY51 162 4.211667 2.22012 7.067566
STORY50 158.8 4.225717 2.219722 6.993631
STORY49 155.6 4.235185 2.21825 6.848983
STORY48 152.4 4.253163 2.21695 6.823473
STORY47 149.2 4.276795 2.214225 6.818238
STORY46 146 4.300258 2.211705 6.796329
STORY45 142.8 4.323381 2.208163 6.746012
STORY44 139.6 4.34559 2.203892 6.695554
STORY43 136.4 4.366397 2.200189 6.676963
STORY42 133.2 4.384823 2.193421 6.643317
STORY41 130 4.400591 2.190435 6.570086
STORY40 126.8 4.413399 2.180206 6.552917
STORY39 123.6 4.422969 2.179042 6.546312
STORY38 120.4 4.429036 2.166158 6.475618
STORY37 117.2 4.431336 2.164168 6.464075
STORY36 114 4.429614 2.151944 6.393668
STORY35 110.8 4.423623 2.14523 6.37498
STORY34 107.6 4.413439 2.136566 6.336232
STORY33 104.4 4.398588 2.12332 6.175343
STORY32 101.2 4.378763 2.120175 6.126285
STORY31 98 4.353745 2.102911 6.018579
STORY30 94.8 4.323327 2.09837 5.897545
STORY29 91.6 4.287307 2.086115 5.754265
STORY28 88.4 4.245496 2.0749 5.738024
STORY27 85.2 4.19771 2.070313 5.684831
STORY26 82 4.143774 2.040853 5.637484
STORY25 78.8 4.08352 2.039088 5.594991
STORY24 75.6 4.016785 2.004635 5.467882
STORY23 72.4 3.943414 1.966899 5.241792
STORY22 69.2 3.863255 1.925824 5.238471
STORY21 66 3.776159 1.881357 4.996852
STORY20 62.8 3.681983 1.833872 4.940455
STORY19 59.6 3.580583 1.833449 4.895023
STORY18 56.4 3.471815 1.782049 4.720689
STORY17 53.2 3.355536 1.72711 4.557796
STORY16 50 3.231594 1.668584 4.401817
STORY15 46.8 3.099836 1.606423 4.38508
STORY14 43.6 2.960093 1.540581 4.206665
STORY13 40.4 2.812184 1.471007 4.054286
STORY12 37.2 2.655909 1.397653 4.019038
STORY11 34 2.491039 1.320463 3.827031
STORY10 30.8 2.317311 1.239379 3.778338
M.E2019-20 P a g e 72 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY9 27.6 2.135302 1.15433 3.770084

STORY8 24.4 1.944364 1.065237 3.569841
STORY7 21.2 1.743502 0.971988 3.48811
STORY6 18 1.531885 0.87437 2.038883
STORY5 14.8 1.308002 0.771742 1.722494
STORY4 11.6 1.072455 0.665258 1.721184
STORY3 8.4 0.842995 0.570296 1.469088
STORY2 5.2 0.634442 0.492834 1.451716
STORY1 2 0.457862 0.253095 0.455
BASE 0 0 0 0
STOREY DRIFT X
8
7
6
5
WITH SHEAR WALL
4 WITH TUBE SYSTEM
Drift in mm
3 OUT TRIGGER
2
1
0
51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 Y9 Y6 Y3 SE
O RY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY ORY TOR TOR TOR BA
Graph 5.15 Comparison Storey Drift in X

The above graph represents the Storey Drift in X direction with three cases. Out
trigger system storey drift is 7.06 and tube system is 2.22 and with shear wall is 4.21. As
compare to tube system, shear wall is increased by 45-48% and As compare to shear wall, out
trigger is increased by 40-45 %
Story Drift Y
Table No. 5.16 Comparison Storey Drift in Y
M.E2019-20 P a g e 73 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY51 162 4.082738 3.14665 8.512004

STORY50 158.8 4.09628 3.145729 8.477377
STORY49 155.6 4.103693 3.145173 8.37391
STORY48 152.4 4.119213 3.142603 8.199369
STORY47 149.2 4.135547 3.141109 7.563472
STORY46 146 4.151877 3.137471 7.491092
STORY45 142.8 4.16736 3.134278 7.486817
STORY44 139.6 4.182151 3.130531 7.452636
STORY43 136.4 4.195228 3.124507 7.451432
STORY42 133.2 4.205959 3.121983 7.442916
STORY41 130 4.214021 3.112008 7.38283
STORY40 126.8 4.219156 3.111632 7.367367
STORY39 123.6 4.22112 3.100754 7.166286
STORY38 120.4 4.219681 3.095496 7.155382
STORY37 117.2 4.214615 3.088481 7.126532
STORY36 114 4.205709 3.075948 7.117022
STORY35 110.8 4.192757 3.075321 7.011241
STORY34 107.6 4.175561 3.060816 7.008823
STORY33 104.4 4.153931 3.052849 6.884636
STORY32 101.2 4.127685 3.041227 6.870887
STORY31 98 4.096648 3.026061 6.82527
STORY30 94.8 4.060983 2.995458 6.816541
STORY29 91.6 4.020205 2.960918 6.702989
STORY28 88.4 3.974147 2.922323 6.683062
STORY27 85.2 3.922661 2.879564 6.67792
STORY26 82 3.865609 2.832536 6.605458
STORY25 78.8 3.802856 2.831508 6.566418
STORY24 75.6 3.734275 2.781136 6.390034
STORY23 72.4 3.659744 2.725269 6.35933
STORY22 69.2 3.579146 2.664842 5.888791
STORY21 66 3.492367 2.599765 5.712146
STORY20 62.8 3.399297 2.529955 5.68605
STORY19 59.6 3.299828 2.455326 5.387735
STORY18 56.4 3.193853 2.3758 5.326765
STORY17 53.2 3.081262 2.2913 5.243933
STORY16 50 2.961943 2.201749 5.070961
STORY15 46.8 2.83578 2.107077 5.061241
STORY14 43.6 2.702646 2.007214 4.99595
STORY13 40.4 2.562404 1.902095 4.888277
STORY12 37.2 2.415898 1.791662 4.736132
STORY11 34 2.262132 1.675864 4.685091
STORY10 30.8 2.100859 1.55466 4.598016
STORY9 27.6 1.931766 1.428022 4.368869
STORY8 24.4 1.75447 1.295941 3.955214
STORY7 21.2 1.568405 1.15841 3.719267
M.E2019-20 P a g e 74 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY6 18 1.373028 1.015432 3.477038

STORY5 14.8 1.1671 0.866697 1.160774
STORY4 11.6 0.95027 0.713124 1.043089
STORY3 8.4 0.725786 0.549179 0.948671
STORY2 5.2 0.537999 0.407618 0.823245
STORY1 2 0.419181 0.220664 0.1705
BASE 0 0 0 0
STOREY DRIFT Y
9
8
7
6
5 WITH SHEAR WALL
WITH TUBE SYSTEM
Drift in mm
4
OUT TRIGGER
3
2
1
0
1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 E
Graph 5.16 Comparison Storey Drift in Y

The above graph represents the Storey Drift in Y direction with three cases. Out
trigger system storey drift is 8.51 and tube system is 3.14 and with shear wall is 4.8. As
compare to tube system, shear wall is increased by 45-50 % and as compare shear wall, out
trigger is increased by 50-55 %
5.4.3 BASE SHEAR

Table No. 5.17 Comparison Base Shear
STORY51 162 159.953 900.06 2256.98
M.E2019-20 P a g e 75 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY50 158.8 190.466 1952.01 4829.59

STORY49 155.6 254.89 2978.79 5487.16
STORY48 152.4 424.18 4005.84 6130.27
STORY47 149.2 681.81 5031.42 6776.54
STORY46 146 949.26 6055.52 7424.04
STORY45 142.8 1210.42 7077.93 8072.07
STORY44 139.6 1461.54 8098.44 8719.92
STORY43 136.4 1700.96 9116.81 9365.85
STORY42 133.2 1929.57 10132.79 10026.33
STORY41 130 2148.77 11146.13 12314.96
STORY40 126.8 2360.2 12156.56 15590.31
STORY39 123.6 2565.32 13163.81 16254.25
STORY38 120.4 2765.37 14167.61 16899.79
STORY37 117.2 2961.33 15167.69 17547.68
STORY36 114 3153.91 16163.75 18195.73
STORY35 110.8 3343.63 17155.49 18843.28
STORY34 107.6 3530.86 18142.6 19489.62
STORY33 104.4 3715.82 19124.78 20133.32
STORY32 101.2 3898.64 20101.7 20787.73
STORY31 98 4079.4 21073.01 22549.75
STORY30 94.8 4258.1 22038.36 26148.32
STORY29 91.6 4434.75 22997.41 26806.29
STORY28 88.4 4609.29 23949.76 27444.32
STORY27 85.2 4781.67 24895.03 28083.83
STORY26 82 4951.82 25832.81 28722.52
STORY25 78.8 5119.66 26762.69 29359.79
STORY24 75.6 5285.11 27684.23 29994.91
STORY23 72.4 5448.08 28596.97 30626.9
STORY22 69.2 5608.47 29500.43 31264.2
STORY21 66 5766.16 30394.13 32312.25
STORY20 62.8 5921.03 31277.56 36013.11
STORY19 59.6 6072.94 32150.17 36653.54
STORY18 56.4 6221.71 33011.42 37273.93
STORY17 53.2 6367.15 33860.71 37894.4
STORY16 50 6508.98 34697.45 38512.7
STORY15 46.8 6646.91 35521 39128.28
STORY14 43.6 6780.54 36330.71 39740.43
STORY13 40.4 6909.36 37125.88 40348.76
STORY12 37.2 7032.76 37905.8 40954.42
STORY11 34 7149.95 38669.72 41031.19
STORY10 30.8 7259.98 39416.86 44514.34
STORY9 27.6 7361.67 40146.39 45120.26
STORY8 24.4 7453.68 40857.48 45707.29
STORY7 21.2 7534.19 41549.24 46291.66
STORY6 18 7601.9 42220.75 46871.35
M.E2019-20 P a g e 76 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY5 14.8 7654.38 42871.06 47445.85

STORY4 11.6 7697.9 43499.28 48014.54
STORY3 8.4 7743.62 44104.4 48576.89
STORY2 5.2 7908.87 44686.25 49132.91
STORY1 2 8195.22 45236.42 49673.75
BASE 0 8924.455 45882.597 53116.297
BASE SHEAR
60000
50000
40000
WITH SHEAR WALL
Base Shear in kn
30000 WITH TUBE SYSTEM

OUT TRIGGER
20000
10000
0
1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 E
Graph 5.17 Comparison Base Shear

The above graph represents the Base Shear of three cases. Out trigger system Base
Shear is 159.95 and tube system is 900.06 and with shear wall is 2256.9. As compare to Out
trigger, tube system is increased by 60-70% and As compare to tube system , shear wall is
increased by 70-75%
5.4.4 Global Moment

Table No. 5.18 Comparison Global Moments
STORY51 162 70.79 88.87 87.26
STORY50 158.8 77.446 140.755 65.83
STORY49 155.6 75.679 149.496 32.731
M.E2019-20 P a g e 77 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY48 152.4 76.238 149.271 46.026

STORY47 149.2 76.38 149.549 45.103
STORY46 146 76.609 149.441 44.807
STORY45 142.8 76.799 149.236 44.817
STORY44 139.6 76.958 148.903 45.105
STORY43 136.4 77.078 148.483 45.995
STORY42 133.2 77.156 147.965 32.198
STORY41 130 77.186 147.348 66.213
STORY40 126.8 77.165 146.629 66.286
STORY39 123.6 77.087 145.804 33.368
STORY38 120.4 76.951 144.871 48.113
STORY37 117.2 76.75 143.826 47.975
STORY36 114 76.483 142.668 48.264
STORY35 110.8 76.145 141.395 48.838
STORY34 107.6 75.734 140.004 49.644
STORY33 104.4 75.245 138.495 50.989
STORY32 101.2 74.677 136.866 39.175
STORY31 98 74.025 135.115 70.826
STORY30 94.8 73.288 133.241 71.13
STORY29 91.6 72.463 131.243 41.993
STORY28 88.4 71.547 129.119 56.077
STORY27 85.2 70.538 126.869 56.609
STORY26 82 69.433 124.492 57.395
STORY25 78.8 68.231 121.987 58.473
STORY24 75.6 66.93 119.353 59.754
STORY23 72.4 65.528 116.59 61.489
STORY22 69.2 64.023 113.697 53.023
STORY21 66 62.414 110.674 79.191
STORY20 62.8 60.699 107.52 79.756
STORY19 59.6 58.877 104.235 57.579
STORY18 56.4 56.946 100.818 69.709
STORY17 53.2 54.906 97.269 71.018
STORY16 50 52.755 93.589 72.38
STORY15 46.8 50.493 89.776 74.03
STORY14 43.6 48.118 85.831 75.831
STORY13 40.4 45.629 81.752 77.994
STORY12 37.2 43.024 77.541 74.516
STORY11 34 40.304 73.196 91.623
STORY10 30.8 37.464 68.715 92.53
STORY9 27.6 34.505 64.098 81.054
STORY8 24.4 31.422 59.341 89.766
STORY7 21.2 28.212 54.44 91.978
STORY6 18 24.876 49.371 94.034
STORY5 14.8 21.389 44.106 96.347
STORY4 11.6 17.81 38.518 98.813
M.E2019-20 P a g e 78 | 92
ANALYSIS
STORY3 8.4 14.018 32.577 101.404

STORY2 5.2 10.627 25.512 102.309
STORY1 2 7.671 14.589 102.328
BASE 0 0 0 0
GLOBAL MOMENT
160
140
120
100
WITH SHEAR WALL
Moment in mm
80 WITH TUBE SYSTEM

60 OUT TRIGGER
40
20
0
1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 E
Graph 5.18 Comparison Global Moments

The above graph represents the Global Moments of three cases. Out trigger system
Global Moment is 87.26 and tube system is 88.87 and with shear wall is 70.79. As compare
to shear wall, out trigger is increased by 10-15%, And As compare to out trigger, tube system
is increased by 9-13 %
5.5 TIME PERIOD

5.5.1 Building with Shear Wall
M.E2019-20 P a g e 79 | 92
ANALYSIS
Fig 5.25 Time Period for Mode 1
M.E2019-20 P a g e 80 | 92
ANALYSIS
M.E2019-20 P a g e 81 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.5.2 with Tube System
M.E2019-20 P a g e 82 | 92
ANALYSIS
M.E2019-20 P a g e 83 | 92
ANALYSIS
M.E2019-20 P a g e 84 | 92
ANALYSIS
5.5.3 Out Trigger System
M.E2019-20 P a g e 85 | 92
ANALYSIS
M.E2019-20 P a g e 86 | 92
ANALYSIS
Table No. 5.19 Comparison Time Period

MODE WITH SHEAR WALL WITH TUBE SYSTEM OUT TRIGGER
1 170.85 142.45 246.09
2 159.86 108.02 213.14
3 92.1 90.06 147.32
4 36.21 30.98 73.82
5 35.28 30.2 65.28
6 18.89 26.94 44.87
TIME PERIOD
300
250
Time Period in mm
200
WITH SHEAR WALL
150 WITH TUBE SYSTEM
OUT TRIGGER
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mode
Graph 5.19 Comparison Time Period

The above graph represents the Time Period of three cases. Out trigger system Time
Period is 246.09 and tube system is 142.45 and with shear wall is 170.85. As compare to tube
system, shear wall is increased by 30-35% and as compare to shear wall, out trigger is
increased by 35-40%
M.E2019-20 P a g e 87 | 92
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 6
COMPARATIVE RESULTS
STOREY DISPLACEMENT:
 It is observed through the analysis that maximum displacement is recorded in X
direction. In X direction maximum displacement is 43.75 mm and in Y direction
maximum displacement is 37.72 mm in shear wall.
 It is observed that - In X direction maximum displacement is 292 mm and in Y
direction maximum displacement is 397 mm.
 In X direction maximum displacement is 230 mm and in Y direction maximum
displacement is 250mm.
STOREY DRIFT:
 In X direction have number of stories and in Y direction storey drift in mm. Storey
drift at storey 39 is maximum in X 4.422969 while in Y direction 4.22112 in shear wall
system.
 In X direction have number of stories and in Y direction storey drift in mm. Storey
drift at storey 51 is maximum in X 2.22012 while in Y direction 3.14665 in tube
system.
 Storey drift at storey 51 is maximum in X 7.067566 as well as in Y direction 8.512004.
Due to out trigger system storey drift increase with increase number of stories. Storey
Drift in Y direction is higher than in X direction in out trigger system.
BASE SHEAR:
 Base shear at bottom is maximum as compare with base shear at top. Base shear value
at bottom is 8924.455 and base shear at top 159.953 in shear wall system.
 Base shear at bottom is minimum as compare with base shear at top. Base shear value
at bottom is 45882.597 and base shear at top 1952.01 in tube system.
 Base shear at bottom is minimum as compare with base shear at top. Base shear value
at bottom is 49673.75 and base shear at top 2256.98. The base shear at cross beams
trigger are present that floor base shear is decrees as other floor base shear decreases
with increased number of storey in out trigger system.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 88 | 92
ANALYSIS
GLOBAL MOMENTS:
 Global moments at storey 50 are 77.446. Moments increase with increased number of
stories in shear wall system.
 Global moments at storey 50 are140.755. Moments increase with increased number of
stories in tube system.
 Global moments graphs for out trigger are varies with where cross beam is provided
that floor moments are varies shown in graphs in out trigger system.
M.E2019-20 P a g e 89 | 92
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
.
 Through the overall analysis we came to know that with present technology and
materials , it is possible to build more higher buildings.
 Shear wall is continuous vertical wall constructed from RCC which withstands both
gravity and lateral loads and acts as narrow deep cantilever beam
 Shear wall commonly constructed as a core of building can be economical upto 35
stories building structure.
 Tube in tube consists of exterior column and beams that create rigid frame, and
interior part of the system which is simple frame design to support lateral loads.
 The building behaves like a equivalent hollow tubeand is substaintially economic as
compared to ordinary framed buildings. It can be used for the construction of
buildings upto 60 stories.
 Out trigger are rigid horizontal structures design to improve building overturning
stiffness and strength by connection of core to closely spaced outer column
 Not only does the outrigger system decline building deformations resulting from the
overturning moments but also greater efficiency is achieved in resisting forces . it can
be used for buildings upto 70 stories. Nonetheless outrigger is best as compared to
shear wall , tube in tube system for higher buildings
M.E2019-20 P a g e 90 | 92
ANALYSIS
REFERENCES
1) Abhijeet Baikerikar “Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems of Variable Heights in
All Soil Types of High Seismic Zone” eISSN: 2319-1163 Volume: 03 Issue: 10 | Oct-
2014
2) Arafa Elhelloty “Effect of Lateral Loads Resisting Systems on Response of Buildings
Subjected to Dynamic Loads” ISSN: 2319-6491 Volume 6, Issue 10 [October. 2017]
3) Borkan Moatasem Mutashar “A Study on Optimisation of Lateral Load Resisting
Systems (Outrigger, Diagrid, and Tube-In-Tube) by SAP 2000” ISSN 2319-8885
Vol.05,Issue.10, May-2016
4) Divya C. Bhuta “Comparative Study on Lateral Load Resisting System in Tall
Building” IJSTE Volume 2 | Issue 11 | May 2016
5) Dr. H.M. Somasekharaiah “A Comparative Study on Lateral Force Resisting System
for Seismic Loads” p-ISSN: 2395-0072, Volume: 03 Issue: 08 | August -2016
6) Hemavathi S “The Structural Behaviour of Lateral Load Resisting System induced in
Tall Buildings - A Comparative Study” ISSN: 0974-2115 JCHPS Special Issue 3:
February 2017
7) Janakkumar M. Mehta “Comparative Study on Lateral Load Resisting System in
High-Rise Building using ETABS” (IJETT) – Volume 47 Number 2 May 2017
8) Khuzaim J. Sheikh “A Review on Study Of Lateral Load Resisting Systems In Tall
Structures” (SJIF): 4.72 Volume 4, Issue 11, November -2017
9) Mohamed A.M.K. Salem “Concepts in the Design of Lateral-Load Systems in High
Rise Buildings to Reduce Operational Energy Consumption” (CCEE-2015) June 5-6,
2015
10) Piyush Gupta “Analysis of Various RCC Lateral Force Resisting Systems and their
Comparison using ETABS” (IJLTET) Vol. 6 Issue 4 March 2016
11) S .Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy “Study of Lateral Structural Systems in Tall Buildings”
ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 13, Number 15 (2018)
12) Shubham P. Dhoke “Comparative Analysis of Different Lateral Load Resisting
System for RCC Structure” ISSN Vol. 6, Issue 4, April 2017
13) Shrinivas. M R “To Study The Performance Of High-Rise Building Under Lateral
M.E2019-20 P a g e 91 | 92
ANALYSIS
Load With Bare Frame And Shear Wall With Openings” (IRJET) Volume: 05 Issue:
05 | May-2018
14) Suraj Sangtiani “Performance of Tall Buildings Under Lateral Loads with Different
Type of Structural Systems” (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2017
15) Tej Parkar “Review on Behavior of Lateral Load Resisting System for High-Rise
Building” ISSN NO: 2249-7455 Volume IX, Issue I, JANUARY/2019
16) Vinay Agrawal “A Study on Seismic Analysis of High-Rise Irregular Floor Plan
Building with Different Position of Shear Walls” ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-6
Issue-6, August 2017
M.E2019-20 P a g e 92 | 92

1.1 General: Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems For High Rise Building Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.1 General: Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems For High Rise Building Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDY OF LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEMS FOR HIGH RISE BUILDING

1.1.a WHAT IS HIGH RISE BUILDING ?

1.2.1 Tube-in-Tube and Bundled Tube Systems

1.4 SHEAR WALL

Fig 1.11 Building with Shear wall

2.1 Shubham P. Dhoke “Comparative Analysis of Different Lateral Load Resisting

2.6 Janakkumar M. Mehta “Comparative Study on Lateral Load Resisting System in

2.8 Borkan Moatasem Mutashar “A Study on Optimisation of Lateral Load Resisting

2.11 Dr.H.M. Somasekharaiah “A Comparative Study on Lateral Force Resisting

3.2 DRIFT IN HIGH RISE BUILDING

Fig 3.2 lateral stiffness along each column

3.4 DEFLECTION IN HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

3.5 TIME PERIOD OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING

STUDY OF LATERAL LOAD RESISTING

DESIGN OF G + 50 STOREY BUILDING

ANALYSIS FOR A G+ 50 STOREY

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

4.1.a SOFTWARE INFORMATION (ETABS)

4.1.b METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Distribution of design force :

hi = Height of floor i measured from the base.

4.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Table 4.1 Problem Statement

Total Height Of building 150 m

Height of Each Building 3m

Slab Thickness S175 mm

Shear Wall Thickness W250 mm

Response Reduction Factor 5.0

Grade Of Concrete M45

Grade Of Reinforcing Steel F500

Density Of Concrete 45 kN/m2

Supports at base Fixed

Fig 5.1 Modeling in ETABS With shear wall

Fig 5.2 3D renders view of with shear wall

5.1.1 Storey Displacement in X and Y

Fig 5.3 Displacement in X

Fig 5.4 Displacement in Y

STORY46 146 41.88 35.33

STORY1 2 2.19 0.60

Graph 5.1 Storey Displacement in X and Y with shear wall

5.1.2 Storey drift

Fig 5.5 Storey drift in X

Fig 5.6 Storey drift in Y

STORY44 139.6 4.34559 4.182151

Graph 5.2 Storey Drift in X and Y with shear wall

5.1.3 Base Shear:

Fig 5.7 Storey 48 Column No 1 Base Shear

STORY25 78.8 5119.66

Graph 5.3 Base shear with shear wall

Fig 5.8 Global Moments With shear wall

STORY24 75.6 66.93

Graph 5.4 Global Moments with shear wall

5.2 BUILDING WITH TUBE SYSTEM

Fig 5.9 Modeling in ETABS with Tube System

Fig 5.10 (a) 3D render view of with Tube System

Fig 5.10 (b) 3D render view of with Tube System

5.2.1 Storey Displacement

Fig 5.11 Displacement in X

Fig 5.12 Displacement in Y

STORY39 123.6 217.07 282.86

Stor ey Dis placem ent

Graph 5.5 Storey Displacement in X and Y with tube system

5.2.2 Storey Drift