The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1726-0531.htm

Seismic
Performance assessment of resistant
various seismic resistant systems systems

for a multistory structure in

different seismic zones
of Bangladesh Received 6 December 2021
Revised 19 January 2022
Accepted 19 January 2022
Md. Habibur Rahman Sobuz, Md. Montaseer Meraz and Ayan Saha
Department of Building Engineering and Construction Management, Khulna
University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh
Abu Sayed Mohammad Akid
Department of Building Engineering and Construction Management, Khulna
University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh and Department
of Civil Engineering, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, Arkansas, USA
Noor Md. Sadiqul Hasan
Department of Civil Engineering, International University of Business Agriculture
and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mizanoor Rahman
Department of Building Engineering and Construction Management, Khulna
University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh and Department
of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University,
Montreal, Canada, and
Md. Abu Safayet
Department of Building Engineering and Construction Management, Khulna
University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to present the variations of optimal seismic control of reinforced cement concrete
(RCC) structure using different structural systems. Different third-dimensional mathematical models are used to
examine the responses of multistory flexibly connected frames subjected to earthquake excitations.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper examined a G þ 50 multi-storied high-rise structure, which
is analyzed using different combinations of moment resistant frames, shear walls, seismic outrigger systems and

The overall analysis of the paper was carried out with the high-speed computer in BIM laboratory in
the Department of Building Engineering and Construction Management, Khulna University of
Engineering and Technology, Khulna – 9203, Bangladesh.
The authors would like to show gratitude to the laboratory assistant of the BIM laboratory and
Journal of Engineering, Design
other associates for supporting during modeling and simulation. and Technology
Conflict of interest: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no © Emerald Publishing Limited
1726-0531
conflict of interest. DOI 10.1108/JEDT-11-2021-0656
JEDT seismic dampers to observe the effectiveness during ground motion against soft soil conditions. The damping
coefficients of added dampers, providing both upper and lower levels are taken into consideration. A finite
element modeling and analysis is generated. Then the nature of the structure exposed to ground motion is
captured with response spectrum analysis, using BNBC-2020 for four different seismic zones in Bangladesh.
Findings – The response of the structure is investigated according to the amplitude of the displacements,
drifts, base shear, stiffness and torsion. The numerical results indicate that adding dampers at the base level
can be the most effective against seismic control. However, placing an outrigger bracing system at the middle
and top end with shear wall can be the most effective for controlling displacements and drifts.
Originality/value – The response of high-rise structures to seismic forces in Bangladesh’s soft soil
conditions is examined at various levels in this study. This study is an original research which contributes to
the knowledge to build earthquake resisting high-rises in Bangladesh.
Keywords Moment resistant frame (MRF), Fluid viscous dampers (FVD), Response spectrum,
Displacement, Story drift, Base shear
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Earthquakes are among the most damaging natural disasters, and the damages of civil engineering
structures in previous tremors have underscored the demand for structural control schemes for
seismic hazard qualification, especially in high seismic areas (Rahman et al., 2018; Alvan, 2011). To
decrease its damage at a large scale, various research institutes worldwide have already conducted
a study on the accurate prediction of seismically induced deformation, and high costs have been
paid (Liu et al., 2018b; Liu et al., 2018a; Liu and Kuang, 2017; Kreslin and Fajfar, 2012; Kuang and
Huang, 2011; Sucuog lu and Günay, 2011; Brozovic and Dolšek, 2014; Poursha et al., 2009). Still, the
need for further studies on the effects resulting from the earthquake is felt both in the theoretical
and laboratory scales (Arefi and Sciences, 2014). Due to the rapid construction of tall building
structures and the increasing frequency of ground motion, proper structural design and analysis
must be considered to ensure sufficient structural strength and ductility (Ji et al., 2009).
In earthquake engineering, the prediction of collapse has always been a crucial
aspect under earthquake loads. For this reason, to design a new structural system and
evaluate existing structures seismic performance, this collapse potential acts as a
critical decision parameter (Shafei et al., 2011). As a result, seismic design aims to
increase the structural systems’ capacity during ground motion by incorporating
various structural combinations such as moment frames (Rahnavard et al., 2018;
Naghavi et al., 2019; Rahnavard et al., 2018), shear walls (Rahnavard et al., 2018) and
braced frames, although these systems compromise the modularity (Ashcroft et al.,
2019). Previous studies also found that the upper sections of the structures are the most
crucial as they are affected by both the soil stiffness, probable ground liquefaction
characteristics (Wang et al., 2019) and structural motions (Rahnavard et al., 2018;
Radkia et al., 2020; Etedali et al., 2020; Lanzi and Luco, 2018; Tsai et al., 2019). So, to
predict these damage due to ground motion, various analytical approaches are adopted,
such as a simplified single-degree-of-freedom system (Adam et al., 2004; Miranda and
Akkar, 2003; Williamson, 2003; Takizawa et al., 1980), use of finite-element analysis to
measure the structural response (Williamson, 2003; Takizawa et al., 1980; Bhaurkar and
Thakur, 2019) and recently emerged incremental dynamic analysis (Zareian et al., 2010;
Medina et al., 2006; Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002; Zareian et al., 2007; Moradipour
et al., 2013). Dynamic analysis should have been carried out to determine the structure’s
nature and complete response against base excitation (Ahamad and Pratap, 2020).
Shafei et al. (2011) evaluated that moment resistant frames (MRFs) have the adequate
capacity to prevent the collapse of RCC high-rise structures exposed to ground motion. But
lack of structural shear wall on a MRF may generate considerable tension and compression Seismic
force to the columns (Hassan, 2017), resulting in cracking and catastrophic failures when the resistant
members are required to resist enormous bending moments, especially during ground
motion. Ahamad and Pratap (2020) evaluated the practical location of placing shear wall on
systems
a MRF to counter this bending moment and control on an RCC structure in terms of
deflection and drifts. On the other hand, the effectiveness of seismic outrigger systems on
RCC structures is evaluated by several researchers (Lu et al., 2018; Sharifi and Aviz, 2016;
Jiang et al., 2017), as it minimizes the drift as well as roof displacement significantly during
ground motion. The structural form of the seismic outrigger system consists of a central
core, encompassing either shear walls or braced frames, with horizontal cantilever outrigger
trusses or girders connecting the core to the outer columns. The number of levels and
stiffness of the outriggers are the primary determinants of how the system interacts with the
perimeter columns of a structure (Stafford Smith and Coull, 1991). According to Tavakoli
et al. (2020b, 2020a), the seismic outrigger system should be located between 0.45 h and 0.8 h
of the structure’s overall height to maximize seismic performance.
Extensive studies have been carried out to determine the performance of seismic
dampers on high-rise structural systems during ground motion. The studies of Zhai et al.
(2021), MacKay-Lyons et al. (2018) and Singh et al. (2020) also indicated a considerable
reduction in roof displacement, inter-story drift, plastic deformation and story shear. De
Domenico et al. (2020) reported a decrease in structure acceleration and story displacement.
For this reason, the combined effect of the damping coefficients of added dampers,
providing both upper and lower levels are taken into consideration with various structural
combinations, was also included in this study.
Bangladesh is positioned at the juncture of several active tectonic plate boundaries (Islam
et al., 2016). The large portion of Bangladesh’s soil conditions is primarily soft, and with the
lack of major earthquakes from the previous century, a massive amount of energy is being
stored. It can be released at any time near the fault line. As a result, the code has a different
restriction for high-rise structures as well as skyscrapers. For this reason, this study aims to
analyze different levels of the response of high-rise structures against seismic forces
exposed to soft soil conditions of Bangladesh. This paper aims to study the usage of
structural system such as MRF, core shear wall system, seismic outrigger system and the
combination of fluid viscous dampers (FVD) in a G þ 50 multi-storied residential building.
The nature of these structures exposed to ground motion by adopting structural response
spectrum method is analyzed in this study. For all structural systems, third-dimensional
finite element analysis models were built and dynamic analysis was performed. The best
performing mathematical model was evaluated for all seismic zones in Bangladesh in terms
of seismic forces, deflection, inter-story drifts, stiffness, torsion and overturning moment.

2. Methodology
2.1 Structural models
The analysis is carried out for a residential building using ETABS. A 50-story high-rise
building with a rectangular plan was considered for analysis. A total of six third-
dimensional finite element analysis models were created, including RCC MRF model
[Figure 1(a)], MRF with core shear wall model [Figure 1(b)], MRF with core shear wall and
outriggers model [Figure 1(c)], MRF with core shear wall and FVD model [Figure 2(a)],
MRF with core shear wall, seismic outriggers and FVD model [Figure 2(b)] and MRF with
core shear wall and FVD on top model [Figure 2(c)].
The seismic outrigger system was incorporated at the middle, and the top of the
structural models and the FVD were put up to one-fourth of the total stories. RCC MRF is the
JEDT

Figure 1.
Floor plan of G þ 50
building models
 Seismic
resistant
systems

Figure 2.
Elevation view of the
building models

control model and identified as Model 1, and the detailed description of the models is given
in Table 1.

2.2 Material properties

For column and shear wall of all the mathematical models, C55 grade concrete was used, and
for the beams, slabs and outrigger systems, C45 grade concrete was used in this analysis. The
material characteristics for the concrete and steel reinforcement are given in Table 2. For all
models, the slab thickness was set at 300 mm and the column size was set at 2,100  2,100 mm.
In addition, the beam depth was considered at 350 mm in the shorter direction and 550 mm in
the long direction. The thickness of shear wall was considered at 600 mm and the thickness of
the outrigger system was taken 400 mm. The detailed property of FVD is given in Table 3.

2.3 Loading and boundary conditions

In this study, the models are subjected to dynamic analysis as specified by code BNBC-2020
(Bangladesh National Building Code, 2020). For each model, the service dead load was 3.5
kN per square meter and the live load was 4.0 kN per square meter in this analysis. The
BNBC-2020 provision was followed for the seismic load. Some provision for earthquake load
in BNBC-2020 are as follows:
JEDT Identification Name Structural composition

Model 1 MRF model G þ 50 story RCC moment-resisting frame

structure
Model 2 MRF with core shear wall model G þ 50 story RCC moment-resisting frame
structure þ RCC shear wall at core
Model 3 MRF with core shear wall and G þ 50 story RCC moment-resisting frame
outriggers model structure þ RCC shear wall at core þ RCC seismic
outriggers at 24th–25th and 49th–50th floor
Model 4 MRF with core shear wall and FVD G þ 50 story RCC moment-resisting frame
model structure þ RCC shear wall at core þ FVD in both
directions up to 14th floor from the ground
Model 5 MRF with core shear wall, outriggers G þ 50 story RCC moment-resisting frame
and FVD model structure þ RCC shear wall at core þ RCC seismic
outriggers at 24th–25th and 49th–50th floor þ
FVD in both directions up to 14th floor from the
Table 1. ground
Structural summary Model 6 MRF with core shear wall and FVD G þ 50 story RCC moment-resisting frame
of each finite element on top model structure þ RCC shear wall at core þ FVD in both
model directions to the top 14 floors

Compressive
E Density strength Fy Fu
Material (MPa)
(kg/m3) eu (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Table 2.
Mechanical C45 31,529 0.18 2,400 0.002 45 – –
properties of the C55 34,857 0.18 2,400 0.002 55 – –
materials Rebar 210,000 0.2 7,850 0.3 250 420

Mid-
Spherical stroke Clevis Maximum Clevis Bearing Maximum
Force bearing bore length Stroke thickness clevis width depth thickness cylinder Weight
Table 3. (kN) diameter (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) diameter (mm) (kg)
Specifications
of FVD 500 50.8 997 6100 55 127 102 44 150 98

BNBC seismic provisions (Bangladesh National Building Code, 2020):

 the country has divided into four zones (1, 2, 3 and 4);
 each zone is assigned a coefficient (Z) and occupancy category II is assigned to
residential structures since there are four occupancy categories: I, II, III and IV
(BNBC-2020);
 site classification SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, S1 and S2 as defined in section 6.2.13.
Such classification is according to on-site profile and evaluated soil properties;
 the response deflection amplification factor is taken 5.5 (table 6.2.19 BNBC-2020);
and
  design lateral force calculated from the static analysis is: Seismic
V ¼ Sa W resistant
systems
where Sa = lateral seismic force coefficient and W = the seismic weight of the building:
 response spectrum.

The following equation gives the spectral acceleration for the design earthquake:

Sa ¼ ð2ZICs Þ=ð3RÞ:

Sa = design spectral acceleration (in units of g, which shall not be less than 0.67 b ZIS).
Z = seismic zone coefficient.
I = structure importance factor.
Cs = normalized acceleration response spectrum.
 
T
CS ¼ S 1 þ ð2:5 h  1Þ for 0 # T # TB
TB

CS ¼ 2:5S h for TB # T # TC

 
TC
CS ¼ 2:5S h for TC # T # TD
T

 
TC TD
CS ¼ 2:5S h For TD # T # 4 sec
T2

Cs depend on S and values of TB, TC and TD, which are all functions of the site class.
Constant Cs value between periods TB and TC represents constant spectral acceleration.
S = soil factor, which depends on on-site class.
T = structure (building) period as defined in Sec.
TB = lower limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration.
TC = upper limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration.
TD = lower limit of the period of the constant spectral displacement.
h = damping correction factor.

2.4 Analysis methods

In the response spectrum method, the maximum response value in each structure mode from
a spectrum curve is calculated, then combined with model superposition. Typically, a
building response combines many modes, which was combined with the square root sum of
the square method. After defining the modal load case, the spectral acceleration data was
created, according to BNBC-2020 code (Bangladesh National Building Code, 2020) (Figure 3);
after that, the data were transformed into ETABS software as text format. The data were
created based on soft soil condition “SD” for all the seismic zones listed in the BNBC-2020
code. A response spectrum load case was defined after performing a linear static analysis.
The initial scale factor was chosen as Ig/R, where “g” represents gravity’s acceleration, “I”
represents the importance factor and “R” represents the response modification coefficient for
JEDT 0.9
Target Spectrum

Zone-1
0.8
Zone-2
Zone-3
0.7
Zone-4
Spectral accleration coefficient

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Figure 3.
0.0
Period vs spectral
acceleration curve for
-0.1
different seismic 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
zones
Period, T (s)

the various frame categories provided in the code (sec 6.2.19). All of the models were
subjected to a modal analysis based on data from various earthquake zones. After
performing the analysis, the scale factor was updated again as the code allows a minimum
of 85% of the static base shear. The mode number was also revised because of the code
requirement, as it allows a minimum 90% modal mass participation ratio. After the
revisions, the mathematical models were reanalyzed using the BNBC-2020 code for different
seismic zones of Bangladesh. The acceleration response for a site is plotted in Figure 3
according to BNBC-2020. This is the acceleration value, which is measured based on the
direction and distance of the site relative to the nearest fault. The buildings will respond at
their natural frequencies, but the magnitude of displacement, acceleration and velocity
depend on these peak ground accelerations.

2.5 Validation
To assess the structural models from both static and dynamic perspectives, some
assumptions were addressed. The materials of the structure and structural components
were considered linearly elastic. The base shear of Models 1 and 2 (MRF model and MRF
with core shear wall model) was determined by hand calculation for structural model
validation, and the result was validated by software after executing an equivalent static
analysis.

3. Results and discussion

Each model’s performance was measured in terms of displacements, inter-story drift, base
shear, story stiffness, torsional irregularity and maximum overturning moments. All the
mathematical models were analyzed according to BNBC-2020 (Bangladesh National
Building Code, 2020) seismic zone 1, and then the best performing model was evaluated for Seismic
all the four seismic zones. resistant
systems
3.1 Story displacement
As the dynamic analysis was carried out, the model consisting of an outrigger system with
FVD and core wall performed better; the displacement was the lowest for this Model 5 in
both global-X and global-Y direction. However, Model 1, consisting of only MRF, showed an
average of 400% higher displacement than the best-performing Model 5 because of the
absence of a stiffer system for resisting seismic forces. The results of story displacement for
all the developed models are illustrated in Figure 4. The highest roof displacement shown by
Model 1 is 244 mm and 185 mm, and the lowest roof displaced one was Model 5, with 59 mm
and 53 mm in global-X and global-Y direction, respectively. Adding a core shear wall in the
MRF model will reduce the displacements by at least 250%. Placing an outrigger system in
the middle and top of a high-rise building (Model 3) can be effective as it reduces the
displacement significantly minimum of 275% from Model 1. But the best resistance to
displacement was provided by incorporating core shear wall, outriggers and FVD together
with a reduction of displacement maximum of 400% from MRF model. The resilient effect of
shear wall was also observed by Ahamad and Pratap (2020). The study of Aydin et al. (2007)
and Bharti et al. (2010) suggests the effectiveness of added damper against story
displacement. As a result, the combined effect of shear wall and added damper on Model 5
exhibited the best performance against seismic forces.

3.2 Story drift

BNBC-2020 provisions regarding drift evaluation aim to ensure the acceptable performance
of structures by limiting drift. The result leads to a better understanding of the structural
performance of member inelastic strain, system stability and vulnerability of nonstructural
elements. The acceptable limit was set at 0.20 hx based on the structural moment category
and significance factor, where hx is the total height of the building. According to the above-
mentioned code, the acceptable permissible limit of the maximum drift for the proposed
building was determined about 68. During dynamic analysis, the inter-story drift in the
global X direction was also determined for each model, and the findings are shown in
Figure 5 for Models 1 to 6, respectively.
From Figure 5, it was established that the story drift was within the drift limit value for
all the mathematical models. The MRF model’s greatest drift was 44.25 at the 4th story, as
its displacement was higher than any other model (Figure 4). It was evaluated that the shear
wall and outrigger system had a substantial impact in keeping story drift low against
seismic forces. Models 2, 3 and 5, consisting of these systems, reflect the lower drift value
compared with other models in Figures 5(b), 5(d) and 5(f), respectively. The core shear wall
model has the smallest inter-story drift (Model 2), which is in the range of 3.15 to 10.65
because of regular stiffness uniformity. Figure 9 shows that the drift at the floors where
outriggers are placed is less than average 300% to 400% from other stories in Models 3 and
5, respectively. Models 4 and 5, which contain FVD at the bottom, displayed an almost zero
drift in their corresponding floors.

3.3 Base shear

From Figure 6, the lowest base shear values were obtained for Model 5, 6,927 kN and
8,003 kN, respectively, in the global-X and Y direction. The highest base shear value was
obtained for Model 1 with MFR frame, 28,067 kN and 30,563 kN in the global X and Y
direction, respectively. In terms of base shear, it was evaluated that core shear wall and FVD
JEDT Story Displacements in Global-X
MODEL-1 (MRF model) MODEL-2 (Core Shear Wall)
270 MODEL-3 (Core Shear Wall and Outriggers) MODEL-4 (Core Shear Wall and FVD)
MODEL-5 (Core Shear Wall,Outriggers and FVD) MODEL-6 (Core Shear Wall and FVD on top)
240

210
Displacements (mm)

180

150

120

90

60

30

-30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Elevation (m)
(a)
Story Displacements in Global-Y
MODEL-1 (MRF model) MODEL-2 (Core Shear Wall)
210 MODEL-3 (Core Shear Wall and Outriggers) MODEL-4 (Core Shear Wall and FVD)
MODEL-5 (Core Shear Wall,Outriggers and FVD) MODEL-6 (Core Shear Wall and FVD on top)

180

150
Displacements (mm)

120

90

60

30

-30
Figure 4. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Story displacements Elevation (m)
for all the models
(b)
 Story Drift in Global-X Seismic
MODEL 1 MODEL 2
70 90 25 90 resistant
MRF model Core Shear Wall
systems

Drift Limit

Drift Limit
60 Allowable Limit 80 Allowable Limit 80
20
70 70
50
60 15 60
40
50 50
10
30 40 40
20 30 5 30
Story Drift

Story Drift
10 20 20
0
10 10
0
0 -5 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Elevation (m) Elevation (m)
(a) (b)
MODEL 3 MODEL 4
30 90 60 90
Core Shear Wall and Outriggers Core Shear Wall and FVD

Drift Limit
Drift Limit

Allowable Limit 80 Allowable Limit 80

24 50
70 70
40 60
18 60

50 30 50
12
40 40
20
6 30 30
Story Drift
Story Drift

20 10 20
0 10
10 0
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Elevation (m) Elevation (m)
(c) (d)
MODEL 5 MODEL 6
30 90 30 90
Core Shear Wall,Outriggers and FVD Core Shear Wall and FVD on top
Drift Limit

Allowable Limit 80 Allowable Limit 80

Drift Limit

24 24
70 70

18 60 18 60

50 50
12 12
40 40

6 30 6 30
Story Drift

Story Drift

20 20
0 0
10 10 Figure 5.
0 0 Story drift for all the
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
models in global-X
Elevation (m) Elevation (m)
direction
(e) (f)
at the bottom have a significant influence on minimizing the shear value. Models 4 and 5
containing core shear wall and FVD at the bottom obtained 200% and 300% less shear than
the MRF model for X direction and Y direction, respectively. The rest of the model’s base
shear values are not considerably better than Model 1, as seen in Figure 6.
JEDT 50000 2.75
Base Shear in Global-X
45000 Base Shear in Global-Y 2.50
Roof Displacement in Global-X
Roof Displacement in Global-Y
40000 2.25

35000 2.00

Roof Displacements (m)

Base Shear (kN)

30000 1.75

25000 1.50

20000 1.25

15000 1.00

10000 0.75

Figure 6.
5000 0.50
Base shear and roof
displacements for all
the models 0 0.25
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4 MODEL 5 MODEL 6

The roof displacement values of each model are also displayed in the secondary axes of
Figure 6. The models that contain core shear walls and outriggers together performed best
in terms of roof displacement. The lowest value was obtained for Model 5, 0.59 m and
0.526 m in the global X and Y direction, respectively. FVD at the bottom has no significant
contribution in minimizing roof displacement but is most effective for base shear control.
However, placing FVD on top stories have the tendency to keep the roof displacement less,
but it has no impact on controlling base shear. The peak value occurred for the MRF model
in both X and Y directions, which are 2.43 m and 1.847 m, respectively, as well as the base
shear. Aydin et al. (2019) and Sonmez et al. (2013) both found a reduction in base shear with
the addition of a damper.

3.4 Story stiffness

A soft-story, also known as a weak story, is a story in a building with significantly reduced
resistance or stiffness or insufficient ductility (energy absorption capacity) to resist
earthquake-induced construction stresses (Hejazi et al., 2011). It can result in local collapse;
the building code permits a minimum of 70% stiffness of a story compared to the story
above. Less than 70% stiffness will cause a soft-story effect and less than 60% will be
treated as an extreme soft-story effect. The story stiffness outcomes for each mathematical
model with soft-story limit and extreme soft-story limit are displayed in Figure 7.
From analysis, it is observed that for Model 6, placing FVD on the top stories shows the
soft-story and extreme soft-story effect due to a stiffer lateral force resisting system on top
stories. In Model 4, the FVD system without an outrigger also causes the soft-story effect as
the stories’ stiffness are irregular. Apart from these two mathematical models, the rest did
not show any soft-story and extreme soft-story effect. Models 1 and 2, the MRF model and
model including the core shear wall at the center of the structure, showed the consistent
 Story Stiffness in Global-X Seismic
MODEL 1
3.4 3.4
MODEL 2 resistant
MRF model Core Shear Wall
3.2 Soft story limit 3.2 Soft story limit systems
3.0 Extreme soft story limit 3.0 Extreme soft story limit
2.8 2.8
2.6 2.6
2.4 2.4
2.2 2.2
Stiffness

Stiffness
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Elevation (m) Elevation (m)
(a) (b)
MODEL 3 MODEL 4
4.5
3.4 Core Shear Wall and Outriggers Core Shear Wall and FVD
4.2
3.2 Soft story limit Soft story limit
3.0 3.9
Extreme soft story limit Extreme soft story limit
2.8 3.6
2.6 3.3
2.4 3.0
2.2
Stiffness

Stiffness

2.7
2.0
2.4
1.8
2.1
1.6
1.4 1.8
1.2 1.5
1.0 1.2
0.8 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Elevation (m) Elevation (m)
(c) (d)
MODEL 5 MODEL 6
2.8 2.4
Core Shear Wall,Outriggers and FVD Core Shear Wall and FVD on top
2.6 2.2
Soft story limit Soft story limit
2.4 Extreme soft story limit Extreme soft story limit
2.0
2.2
1.8
2.0
1.8 1.6
Stiffness

Stiffness

1.6 1.4
1.4 1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6 Figure 7.
0.4 0.4 Story Stiffness for all
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
the models in global-
Elevation (m) Elevation (m)
X direction
(e) (f)
JEDT stiffness distribution [Figures 7(a) and 7(b)]. The models consisting of outriggers did not
show any considerable soft-story effect; however, the stiffness throughout the system is
inconsistence for adding more stiffer lateral force resisting system at the middle and top.

3.5 Torsional irregularity

Torsional problems take place when the mass center and center of rigidity are not located at
the same place. As the distance increases between the center of mass and center of rigidity,
the building is forced to twist around the rigid structural section (rigid core) and subjected to
great torsional moments (Gokdemir et al., 2013). Excessive torsion causes columns and
concrete walls to fail or be heavily damaged; this damage pattern is called “Knife Cut”
(Gokdemir et al., 2013). In Izmit and Duzce earthquakes at 1999, many reinforced concrete
buildings are damaged because of torsional irregularity, and knife cut damage pattern is
seen on most of the buildings (Kaplan et al., 2004; Doǧangün, 2004; Sezen et al., 2003). If the
maximum story drift at one end of the structure transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times
the average of the story drifts at the two ends of the structure, it is called torsional
irregularity; if the value is 1.4 times the average of the story drifts, it is called extreme
torsional irregularity. The outcomes regarding torsional irregularity for global X and Y
direction obtained from dynamic analysis for each model with the acceptable limit range are
displayed in Figure 8. From analysis and Figure 8, it is observed that there is a torsional
irregularity for placing FVD on top stories (Model 6) and FVD without an outrigger system
(Model 4). In addition, an extreme torsional irregularity exists that generates a huge
overturning moment due to its mass and center of rigidity are not in the exact location. The
torsional irregularity lines for the rest of the models fall below the limit range and showed
similar and consistent behavior in both X and Y directions.

3.6 Overturning moment

As the structural systems undergo lateral deflections, it generates sway due to this effect;
overturning moment can result in catastrophic disasters during ground motion. Model 3
with core shear wall and outrigger system obtained the lowest overturning moment of
2,596 kN-m in the X direction, where Model 4 obtained the highest overturning moment of
7,532 kN-m. It is also observed that the core shear wall and outrigger system influenced
overturning moment similar to displacement and drift. The model without an outrigger
system showed an average of 200% more overturning moments than the model consisting
of an outrigger system because of the high lateral deflection. The outcomes depict that
unlike base shear and story displacement, the FVD has little significant contribution for
controlling overturning moment because it was positioned only one-fourth of the total story.
From the above discussion, it can be observed that Model 5, which is the MRF model
with core shear wall, seismic outrigger system and FVD, performed optimally in terms of
displacement, drift and base shear. The story stiffness and torsional irregularity behavior
for this model lie within acceptable limits. In addition, the overturning moment outcomes are
better than maximum models. As a result, Model 5 was selected the best performing among
the models analyzed in this study and desired to further analysis for all the seismic zones in
Bangladesh discussed below.

3.7 Zonal analysis

In each zone, the structural system demonstrated excellent stability against seismic forces.
The outcomes of dynamic analysis such as story displacement, story drift and base shear for
Model 5 in every seismic area of Bangladesh are presented in Figures 9, 10, 11, respectively.
From Zone 1 to Zone 4, the model’s story displacement in both the global-X and global-Y
 Torsional Irregularity in Global-X Seismic
1.8 resistant
MODEL-1 (MRF model)
MODEL-2 (Core Shear Wall) systems
MODEL-3 (Core Shear Wall and Outriggers)
MODEL-4 (Core Shear Wall and FVD)
1.6 MODEL-5 (Core Shear Wall,Outriggers and FVD)
MODEL-6 (Core Shear Wall and FVD on top)
Torsional Irregularity Limit
Extreme torsional Irregularity Limit
(δmax / δavg)

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8
0 40 80 120 160 200

Elevation (m)
(a)
Torsional Irregularity in Global-Y
1.8
MODEL-1 (MRF model)
MODEL-2 (Core Shear Wall)
MODEL-3 (Core Shear Wall and Outriggers)
MODEL-4 (Core Shear Wall and FVD)
1.6 MODEL-5 (Core Shear Wall,Outriggers and FVD)
MODEL-6 (Core Shear Wall and FVD on top)
Torsional Irregularity Limit
Extreme torsional Irregularity Limit
(δmax / δavg)

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8
0 40 80 120 160 200 Figure 8.
Elevation (m) Torsional irregularity
for all the models
(b)
JEDT 220
Story Displacements in Global-X

200 Zone-1
Zone-2
180
Zone-3
160 Zone-4
Displacements (mm)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Elevation (m)
(a)
Story Displacements in Global-Y
220

200
Zone-1
Zone-2
180
Zone-3
160 Zone-4
Displacements (mm)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Figure 9.
-20
Story displacements
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
for all the seismic
Elevation (m)
zones
(b)

directions gradually increased in each zone (Figure 9). The displacements of stories in Zones
2, 3 and 4 increased by 66%, 33% and 200%, respectively, compared to Zone 1.
Similar behaviors were shown by Model 5 for each parameter, which is increasing from
Zone 1 to Zone 4. This phenomenon can be justified by the zonal definition of the BNBC-2020
 Story Drift In Global X Direction Seismic
80 90
Zone-1 resistant
Zone-2 systems
70 Zone-3 80
Zone-4
Allowable Limit
60 70

60
50

Drift Limit
Story drift

50
40

40
30

30
20

20
10
10
0
0 Figure 10.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Story drift for all the
seismic zones
Elevation (m)

code, as the country classified low to the high seismic area as Zone 1 to Zone 4. In terms of
story drift, the values increased from Zone 1 to Zone 4, as previously indicated; however,
the values were all within the BNBC limit (Bangladesh National Building Code, 2020)
(Figure 10).
Figure 11 depicts the increasing base shear value and roof displacement values. The base
shear values in Zone 2, 3 and 4 are greater than 50%, 80% and 120%, respectively, than
Zone 1. The maximum roof displacement value is 1.74 m and 1.57 m, respectively, in the
global X and Y direction in Zone 4. The maximum overturning moment was also calculated
and increased from 4,255.40 to 12,747.60 from Zone 1 to Zone 4. In Zone 4, the maximum
overturning moment value was more than 200% higher compared to zone 1.
From the above discussion, it is found that all the seismic properties of Model 5, such as
displacement, drift, base shear as well as overturning moment increased gradually from
Zone 1 to Zone 4, which indicates the seismic resisting capacity of the model decreasing
from Zone 1 to Zone 4. It demonstrates that the model performed inferior in Zone 4 due to the
ground fault line near this zone. The analysis findings and the graph show that the model’s
seismic behavior is acceptable in all zones of Bangladesh, as the results met BNBC code
criteria and limits. Rather than its current structural combination is more suitable for the
first three zones, further improvements in the structural system are feasible to make it more
suitable for seismic Zone 4.

4. Conclusions
In this paper, the comparison of different high-rise RCC structural systems is presented and
analyzed against seismic forces in Bangladesh:
JEDT Base Shear and Roof Displacements

Base Shear in Global-X 1.8

25000 Base Shear in Global-Y
Roof Displacements in Global-X
Roof Displacements in Global-Y
1.6

Roof Displacements (m)

20000
1.4
Base Shear (KN)

15000 1.2

1.0
10000

0.8

5000
0.6
Figure 11.
Base shear and roof
displacement for all
0 0.4
the seismic zones
Zone-1 Zone-2 Zone-3 Zone-4

 It was revealed that, even though the soil condition in the country’s is most
likely soft, making the high-rise structure stiffer by adopting a structural
model, the displacement and story drift during ground motion can be kept within
the limit.
 The mathematical model using only MRF that is more common in Bangladesh
showed maximum displacement, inter-story drift and base shear when exposed to
ground motion for the lack of proper stiffer elements.
 Using shear wall at the core has a significant impact on control structure
displacement, drift and overturning moment over MRF model. To control the
stiffness irregularity of the structural system, core shear wall is the most suitable
solution for the building structures.
 Placing a seismic outrigger system in the middle and top with core shear wall can
most efficiently control displacements, drifts and other seismic irregularities for all
the seismic zones.
 The use of FVD has a significant response against seismic force, but it is limited to
the stories that are associated with it. FVD caused a problem with stiffness
irregularity. Stiffness distribution must be considered when using FVD in a
structural system.
 The best economic distribution of seismic dampers can be up to one-fourth of the
total stories. FVD with core shear wall and seismic outrigger system showed
the best possible performance against seismic forces. However, using FVD on the
top one-fourth level has no effect against seismic irregularities.
  Because the model with FVD with core shear wall and seismic outrigger Seismic
performed the best, it was analyzed for all of Bangladesh’s seismic zones and found resistant
that, despite having a higher base shear and overturning moment value at Zone 4,
the model was still able to keep seismic displacement and drift within allowable
systems
limits.

References
Adam, C., Ibarra, L.F. and Krawinkler, H. (2004), “Evaluation of P-Delta effects in non-deteriorating
MDOF structures from equivalent SDOF systems”.
Ahamad, S.A. and Pratap, K.J.M.T.P. (2020), “Dynamic analysis of Gþ 20 multi storied building by
using shear walls in various locations for different seismic zones by using etabs”.
Alvan, H.V. (2011), “Overview of remote sensing techniques in earthquake prediction”, Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 1.
Arefi, M.R.J.E.O.J.O.N. and Sciences, S. (2014), A Study on the Damping Ratio of the Viscous Fluid
Dampers in the Braced Frames, Vol. 3, pp. 1223-1235.
Ashcroft, D., Egbelakin, T., Jing, J. and Rasheed, E.O. (2019), “Cost comparison of seismic damage
resisting systems for modules in multi-storey buildings”, Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology, Vol. 17 No. 2.
Aydin, E., Boduroglu, M.H. and Guney, D. (2007), “Optimal damper distribution for seismic
rehabilitation of planar building structures”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 176-185.
Aydin, E., Noroozinejad Farsangi, E., Öztürk, B., Bogdanovic, A. and Dutkiewicz, M. (2019),“
Improvement of building resilience by viscous dampers”, Resilient Structures and Infrastructure,
Vol. 1.
BANGLADESH NATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2020), “Earth quake loads part 6 chap. 2.
Housing and building research institute and Bangladesh standard and testing institute,
Bangladesh”.
Bharti, S.D., Dumne, S.M. and Shrimali, M.K. (2010), “Seismic response analysis of adjacent buildings
connected with MR dampers”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 2122-2133.
Bhaurkar, V.P. and Thakur, A.G. (2019), “Investigation of crack in beams using anti-resonance
technique and FEA approach”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 1266-1284.
Brozovic, M. and Dolšek, M. (2014), “Envelope-based pushover analysis procedure for the approximate
seismic response analysis of buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 77-96.
DE Domenico, D., Qiao, H., Wang, Q., Zhu, Z. and Marano, G. (2020), “Optimal design and seismic
performance of multi-tuned mass damper inerter (MTMDI) applied to adjacent high-rise
buildings”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Vol. 29.
Doǧangün, A. (2004), “Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 bingöl
earthquake in Turkey”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 841-856.
Etedali, S., Hasankhoie, K. and Sohrabi, M.R.J.J.O.B.E. (2020), “Seismic responses and energy
dissipation of pure-friction and resilient-friction base-isolated structures: a parametric study”,
Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 29.
Gokdemir, H., Ozbasaran, H., Dogan, M., Unluoglu, E. and Albayrak, U. (2013), “Effects of torsional
irregularity to structures during earthquakes”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 35,
pp. 713-717.
Hassan, O.A. (2017), “Practical expressions to calculate the main vertical actions on load-bearing
columns/walls to Eurocode”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 15 No. 4.
JEDT Hejazi, F., Jilani, S., Noorzaei, J., Chieng, C.Y., Jaafar, M.S. and Ali, A.A.A. (2011), “Effect of soft story on
structural response of high rise buildings”, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, Vol. 17.
Islam, R., Islam, M.N. and Islam, M.N. (2016), “Earthquake risks in Bangladesh: causes, vulnerability,
preparedness and strategies for mitigation”, Arpn J Earth Sci, Vol. 5, pp. 75-90.
Ji, J., Elnashai, A.S., Kuchma, D.A.J.T.S.D.O.T. and Buildings, S. (2009), “Seismic fragility relationships
of reinforced concrete high-rise buildings”, Vol. 18, pp. 259-277.
Jiang, H., Li, S. and Zhu, Y.J.J.O.C.S.R. (2017), “Seismic performance of high-rise buildings with energy-
dissipation outriggers”, Vol. 134, pp. 80-91.
Kaplan, H., Yilmaz, S., Binici, H., Yazar, E. and Çetinkaya, N. (2004), “Turkey – bingöl earthquake: damage in
reinforced concrete structures”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 279-291.
Kreslin, M. and Fajfar, P. (2012), “The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both
plan and elevation”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 695-715.
Kuang, J.S. and Huang, K. (2011), “Simplified multi-degree-of-freedom model for estimation of seismic
response of regular wall-frame structures”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 418-432.
Lanzi, A. and Luco, J.E.J.J.O.S.E. (2018), “Elastic velocity damping model for inelastic structures”, p. 144.
Liu, Y. and Kuang, J. (2017), “Spectrum-based pushover analysis for estimating seismic demand of tall
buildings”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 4193-4214.
Liu, Y., Kuang, J. and Huang, Q. (2018a), “Extended spectrum-based pushover analysis for predicting
earthquake-induced forces in tall buildings”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 167, pp. 351-362.
Liu, Y., Kuang, J.S. and Huang, Q. (2018b), “Modified spectrum-based pushover analysis for estimating
seismic demand of dual wall-frame systems”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 165, pp. 302-314.
Lu, Z., He, X., Zhou, Y.J.S.C. and Monitoring, H. (2018), “Performance-based seismic analysis on a super
high-rise building with improved viscously damped outrigger system”, p. 25.
Mackay-Lyons, R., Christopoulos, C. and Montgomery, M. (2018), “Viscoelastic coupling dampers for
enhanced multiple seismic hazard level performance of High-Rise buildings”, Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 1847-1867.
Medina, R.A., Sankaranarayanan, R. and Kingston, K.M.J.E.S. (2006), “Floor response spectra for light
components mounted on regular moment-resisting frame structures”, Vol. 28, pp. 1927-1940.
Miranda, E. and Akkar, S.D.J.J.O.S.E. (2003), “Dynamic instability of simple structural systems”, pp. 1722-1726.
Moradipour, P., Noorzaei, J., J., M.S. and Aziz, F.N.A.A. (2013), “An improved computational method in
structural dynamics”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 11 No. 3.
Naghavi, M., Rahnavard, R., Thomas, R.J. and Malekinejad, M. (2019), “Numerical evaluation of the
hysteretic behavior of concentrically braced frames and buckling restrained brace frame
systems”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 22, pp. 415-428.
Poursha, M., Khoshnoudian, F. and Moghadam, A. (2009), “A consecutive modal pushover procedure for
estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 591-599.
Radkia, S., Rahnavard, R., Tuwair, H., Gandomkar, F.A. and Napolitano, R. (2020), “Investigating the
effects of seismic isolators on steel asymmetric structures considering soil-structure interaction”,
Structures, Vol. 27, pp. 1029-1040.
Rahman, M.M., Jadhav, S.M. and Shahrooz, B.M.J.E.S. (2018), “Seismic performance of reinforce
concrete buildings designed according to codes in Bangladesh, India and US”, pp. 111-120.
Rahnavard, R., Naghavi, M., Aboudi, M. and Suleiman, M.J.C.S.I.C.M. (2018), “Investigating modeling
approaches of buckling-restrained braces under cyclic loads”, pp. 476-488.
Sezen, H., Whittaker, A.S., Elwood, K.J. and Mosalam, K.M. (2003), “Performance of reinforced concrete
buildings during the 17 August, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and
construction practise in Turkey”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 103-114.
Shafei, B., Zareian, F. and Lignos, D.G.J.E.S. (2011), “A simplified method for collapse capacity Seismic
assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural systems”, pp. 1107-1116.
resistant
Sharifi, Y. and Aviz, H. (2016), “Effect of outrigger-belt truss location on the dynamic response of high-rise
building subjected to blast loading”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 14 No. 1. systems
Singh, T., Kalra, M. and Misra, A.K. (2020), “Simplified probabilistic seismic assessment of dampers in tall
and braced structures in buildings”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 18 No. 5.
Sonmez, M., Aydin, E. and Karabork, T. (2013), “Using an artificial bee colony algorithm for the optimal
placement of viscous dampers in planar building frames”, Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 395-409.
Stafford Smith, B. and Coull, A. (1991), Tall Building Structures: Aanalysis and Design, Wiley-
Interscience. New York, NY.
Sucuoglu, H. and Günay, M.S. (2011), “Generalized force vectors for multi-mode pushover analysis”,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Takizawa, H., Jennings, P.C.J.E.E. and Dynamics, S. (1980), “Collapse of a model for ductile reinforced
concrete frames under extreme earthquake motions”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-144.
Tavakoli, R., Kamgar, R. and Rahgozar, R. (2020a), “Optimal location of energy dissipation outrigger in
high-rise building considering nonlinear soil-structure interaction effects”, Periodica
Polytechnica Civil Engineering, Vol. 64, pp. 887-903.
Tavakoli, R., Kamgar, R. and Rahgozar, R. (2020b), “Seismic performance of outrigger-braced system
based on finite element and component-mode synthesis methods”, Iranian Journal of Science and
Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 1125-1133.
Tsai, C.-S. Wang, Y.-M. and Su, H.-C.J.I.J.O.O. (2019), “Soil-structure interaction, damping and higher
mode effects on the response of a mid-story-isolated structure founded on multiple soil layers”.
Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), “The incremental dynamic analysis and its application to
performance-based earthquake engineering”, Proceedings of the 12th European conference on
earthquake engineering, Citeseer.
Wang, H., Shen, J. and Gao, D. (2019), “Seismic damage of gravity abutment in liquefied ground”,
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 17 No. 1.
Williamson, E.B.J.J.O.S.E. (2003), “Evaluation of damage and P-D effects for systems under earthquake
excitation”, Vol. 129, pp. 1036-1046.
Zareian, F. Krawinkler, H.J.E.E. and Dynamics, S. (2007), “Assessment of probability of collapse and
design for collapse safety”, pp. 1901-1914.
Zareian, F., Krawinkler, H., Ibarra, L., Lignos, D.J.T.S.D.O.T. and Buildings, S. (2010), “Basic concepts
and performance measures in prediction of collapse of buildings under earthquake ground
motions”, pp. 167-181.
Zhai, Z., Guo, W., Yu, Z. and Hu, Y.M.A., C. (2021), “Seismic performance assessment of steel strip
dampers equipped in high-rise steel frame”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 177.

Corresponding author
Md. Habibur Rahman Sobuz can be contacted at: habib@becm.kuet.ac.bd

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com