Emporis standards define a high rise building as “A multi-storey structure between 35-100 meters tall”. When buildings become taller and taller, the effect of lateral load on the structure comes into existence. The lateral action on the structure is majorly induced by the wind and seismic force. They needs a lateral load resisting system to maintain the structure stable when lateral loads are applied to them. The different lateral load resisting systems in the high rise building are Moment Resisting Frame(MRF), Shear wall system, Bracing system

1. ANALYSIS AND COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF LATERAL LOAD RESISTING
SYSTEMS IN HIGH RISE BUILDING
1
Presented by – DP NITHIN
M tech (Structures)
Published journal :
https://ijsrem.com/download/analysis-and-comparative-study-of-lateral-load-resisting-system-in-high-rise-building/

2. CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
GAP STUDY
OBJECTIVES
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
2

3. INTRODUCTION
Emporis standards define a high rise building as “A multi-storey structure between 35-100
meters tall”. When buildings become taller and taller, the effect of lateral load on the
structure comes into existence. The lateral action on the structure is majorly induced by the
wind and seismic force.
They needs a lateral load resisting system to maintain the structure stable when lateral loads
are applied to them.
The different lateral load resisting systems in the high rise building are
1.Moment Resisting Frame (MRF)
2.Shear wall system
3.Bracing system
1.Moment Resisting Frames- MRF are kind of structure comprising of beams and
columns. The resistance to horizontal forces is primarily by the rigid frame action by the
development of moment and shear.
There are two types of MRF they are
1. Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames
2. Special Moment Resisting Frames
3

4. 2.Shear wall system:
Shear wall is the structural element used to resist lateral forces parallel to the plane of the
wall by cantilever action.
For the building over 20 stories, the shear wall may be imperative from view of economy
and to reduce the lateral deflection.
The advantages of RC Shear wall are:
• They reduces internal story drifts due to seismic effects.
• They reduces damage to Non structural elements.
• It reduces the column moments due to lateral loads and second order effects.
4
Fig Different shapes of shear wall

5. • The strength and stiffness of the building depends on the shape and position of shear
wall.
• A Shear wall with opening is also known as Coupled Shear wall. In this case shear
wall acts as an individual wall section and slabs above and below the openings i.e
spandrels acts as tie beam to distribute the load.
5
Fig. Position of Shear wall system

6. 3.Braced frame system
Bracing system are used along with the MRF to resist lateral forces. The diagonal
bracing forms triangular configuration which helps in reducing lateral forces in high
rise buildings.
The advantages of bracing systems are:
• The bracing members in the building eliminate bending in the beams and columns
• This system is efficient and economical for enhancing the lateral stiffness
• This system permits the use of slender members in the building
• The major drawback is that it obstruct internal planning.
6
Fig.Types of Bracing systems

7. TYPES OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS IN TALL BUILDING
1.Linear Static Method
2.Linear Dynamic Method
3.Non-Linear Static Method
4.Non-Linear Dynamic Method
 In Dynamic analysis, we have linear dynamic analysis called as Response Spectrum
Analysis. This method in which force and deformation characteristics are linear
with each other and another type is non linear dynamic method called as time
history analysis, in which time history data (displacement, velocity and acceleration
vs time) of previous earthquake to be known to evaluate the building.
 Here Response Spectrum method is considered for the analysis of the models
because with the help of equivalent static method, the buildings of higher seismic
zones and having higher modes of vibration cannot be analysed.
7

8. TERMS
• Storey drift (d): It is the displacement of one story with respect to other story
Story drift in any story shall not exceed 0.04 times the Storey height
(as per IS 1893 Part1:2016)
• Storey displacement (D): It is defined as the displacement of story with respect to
base of the structure.
• Base shear : The maximum lateral force that will occur due to seismic ground
motion at base of the structure
Base shear=Ah
W
8

9. LITERATURE REVIEW:
1.Rasool Owais and etal (2013)“Comparative Analysis between different commonly used
lateral load resisting systems in RC Building”.
 In this paper, comparison is done for different type of lateral load resisting system like shear
wall and bracing system in RC Building. The RC building of grid dimension 12 m. The length
of each bay is 4m considered in seismic zone V. The placing of structural system is taken at
corner of the building.
 From the analysis results, its shown that bracing system are effective than shear wall system in
term of relative displacement, bending moments and shear force.
2.KV Pratap and etal (2013) “Dynamic analysis of G + 20 multi storied building by using
shear walls in various locations for different seismic zones”
 In this paper, study is conducted on usage of shear wall at different positions for G+20 building
using response spectrum analysis.
 From study it is concluded that shear wall placed symmetrically on both sides will show better
results compared to shear wall on one side model and bare frame.
 From results its concluded that lateral displacement, storey drift and base shear are higher in
zone IV and V. Torsional irregularity is observed in Global X-direction with load case EQ+X
for structure with shear wall on both ends, which indicates that building considered for present
study needs further stiffness in order to reduce displacements in all seismic zone.
9

10. 3. V. Naresh Kumar Varma etal (2020) “Seismic response on multi-storied building having
shear walls with and without openings”
 In this study, G+10 Residential building model is analyzed by dynamic method. The Model with
shear wall at corners and center, with and without openings are considered. In this study shear wall
with the openings is considered to know the effect of storey drift, storey stiffness, shear and
moments and also stresses on the shear wall. This study covers effect of size and location of the
opening in the wall.
 From this study, storey stiffness for model 1.1 and Model 1.2 (Shear wall at corners with opening) is
50-55% about higher than model 2.1 and model 2.2 (Shear wall at center with opening). The storey
drift is about 20-25% more in case of shear wall at center with opening. The storey displacement is
about 40-45% more in case of shear wall at center with opening. The width of openings plays
important role than the height. By this study as opening increases to 40%, the stresses increase
proportionally with the increase in opening sizes.
4. Viswanath KG and etal (2010) “Seismic analysis of Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames
with different heights”
 In this paper, the building of various heights i.e. 4 ,8,12,16 storied building in zone IV is considered
for the seismic analysis .In this study bare frame and different configuration of bracings i.e. X
bracing, single diagonal bracing ,K bracing is considered and analysis is done by response spectrum
method.
 From the study, it is found that building with bracing configurations effective in reducing the lateral
displacement. At the 16-story height, lateral displacement is reduced up to 62.12% when compared
to frame model in case X bracing. X bracing serves better in reduction of shear force and bending
moment on column and K bracings reduces axial force on the column by 5% compared to X
configuration.
10

11. 5. Sanisha Santhosh and etal (2017) “Seismic Analysis of Multi Storied Building with Shear
Walls of Different Shapes”
 In this study, multi storey building with the different shapes of shear wall is taken in two
seismic zone (Zone III and Zone IV). In this paper the multi storey building with G+14 and
G+29 storey is considered and analysed by using linear dynamic analysis i.e. response
spectrum method to check parameters like storey drift and base shear using Etabs software.
 From the study, In case of higher seismic zones like Zone V, W and H shaped shear wall serves
better and in the moderate zones like Zone III T shaped shear wall serves better in terms of
base shear and story drift.
6. Prof. S.S. Patil and etal (2013) “Equivalent Static Analysis of High-Rise Building with
Different Lateral Load Resisting Systems”
 This paper explains the equivalent static analysis of high-rise building with different
conditions of lateral stiffness system in seismic zone II. The building dimension is 16 x 9m is
considered. The bay size is 4m in X direction and each bay size 3m in Z direction. Here three
types of models bare frame, brace frame and shear wall with frame for different conditions are
prepared as per IS 1893(Part 1)
 When bracing is centrally located at the exterior frame in X direction, it reduces storey drift by
41.79%, and when it is centrally located at the exterior frame in both X and Z direction, it
decreases storey drift by 41.65%. When a shear wall is centrally located at the exterior frame in
X direction and centrally located at the exterior frame in both X and Z directions, the story
drift is reduced by 49.15% and 50% respectively. The frame with shear wall placed on exterior
frame on X and Z direction throughout height serves better in reducing lateral displacement.
11

12. GAPANALYSIS
 In the most of the study ,analysis is carried through linear static method, further
study can be done using other seismic analysis like response spectrum method and
pushover analysis.
 Moreover for the research shear wall without opening is considered ,Limited
research is made on the shear wall with openings
12

13. OBJECTIVES:
 To analyze the building with different lateral load resisting systems like shear wall and
bracing at high seismic zones like Zone V.
 To study the response of structure due to lateral loads by placing shear wall in different
positions (centre and corner)
 To study the response (i.e. parameters like story drift, displacement, and stiffness
characteristics) of shear wall with and without opening.
 To give conclusion about the effective type of bracing system in term of the
performance.
13

14. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• In this work, regular building of G+20 story, considered to be located in Imphal, Manipur
state which comes under seismic zone V and analyzed under the effect of lateral loads by
using response spectrum method.
• In this work, models with and without LLRS is analysed and compared. In this study LLRS
like shear wall and bracing systems are considered.
• The shear wall with and without opening are taken and also different positioning of shear wall
and bracing (centre and corner) are considered in this study.
• Usually shear walls are classified as squat walls ,intermediate walls and slender walls based
on height of wall (hw) to length of wall (Lw).
a. Squat walls – (hw/Lw) < 1
b. Intermediate walls – 1 < (hw/Lw) <2
c. Slender walls - (hw/Lw) > 2
In this study, squat type of shear wall is considered for the study. i.e. hw/Lw =(3.5/5) = 0.70
14

15. 15
Description Details
1 Building Plan 30 x 30 m
a. Length in X-direction 30 (6 Bays)
a. Length in Z-direction 30 (6 Bays)
2 Storey G+20
3 Height of the building 72.0m
4 Floor to Floor height 3.50m
5 Base to Plinth 2.0m
6 Column size 1200 x 1200mm (bottom 5 stories)
900 x 900mm (6-12 storey)
600 x 600mm (13-20 storey)
7 Beam size 450 x 650mm
8 Thickness of RCC Slab 150mm
9 Shear wall thickness 400mm
10 Bracing System ISMB 350 @ 52.4 kg/m

16. For Tall buildings specifications as per IS 16700-2017
 Grade of concrete
• Min grade of concrete – M 30
• Max grade of concrete – M 70
 Grade of steel
• Fe 500 and Fe 550 HYSD bars produced by the TMT process and elongation more than
14.5%
Table 2: Grades used for the structural components
16
Structural Components Grade Used
1 Beam M 30
2 Slab M 30
3 Column M 35
4 Shear wall M 35
5 Rebars Fe 550
6 Bracing- ISMB 350 Fe 345

17. Table 3: Details of Loads and parameters considered
17
Sl. No Parameters Values
1 Live Load 3.0 kN/m2
2 Wall Load 13.90 kN/m
3 Floor Finish 1.5 kN/m2
Seismic Load parameters as per IS 1893:2016
4 Seismic Zone V
5 Seismic Zone Factor 0.36
6 Response Reduction Factor(R) 5.0
7 Importance Factor 1.20
Wind Load as per IS 875(Part 3):2015
8 Wind Speed (Vb) 47 m/s
9 Risk Coefficient 1.00
10 Terrain Coefficient 1.20
11 Topography Coefficient 1.00
12 Windward Coefficient 0.80
13 Leeward Coefficient 0.25
14 Soil Type II (Medium)
15 Terrain Category 2
16 Class C
17 Damping 5%

18. SEISMIC LOAD CALCULATIONS:
For the models, the time period is calculated from the code IS 1893-Part1:2016, mainly it depends
on the height of the structure and base dimension of plinth along the direction of earthquake
shaking.
Considering for the bare frame models, below data are obtained. As the structure is located in
seismic zone V, it has to be designed as Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF).
Zone = V
Soil Type = II (Medium)
Zone Factor, Z = 0.36 (Table 3, IS 1893-part 1:2016)
Importance Factor, I = 1.2 (Table 8, IS 1893-part 1:2016)
Response reduction Factor = 5 (Table 9, IS 1893-part 1:2016)
Time Period (Cl. 7.6.1, IS 1893-part 1:2016)
a.) For RC MRF Building
h= Height of the Building
As the building is of same regular configuration, Time period along X-direction and Y-directions
are same.
X-direction and Y-direction
h = 72 m
d = 30 m Base Dimension taken into consideration in the X-direction of Earthquake Shaking
Ta = 0.09x72/ 30
= 1.183 sec
18

19. Time Period
b. For Building with RC structural walls
h= Height of the Building
As the building is of same regular configuration, Time period along X-direction and Y-directions
are same.
Case 1 : X-direction and Y-direction
Ta =( 0.075x 72^0.75)/ 3.58
Ta = 0.97 sec
Case 2: X-direction and Y-direction
h = 72 m
d = 30 m Base Dimension taken into consideration in the X-direction of Earthquake Shaking
Ta = (0.09x72)/ 30
= 1.183 sec
19

20. WIND LOAD CALCULATIONS:
Wind load for design of structures shall be based on the design wind speed as per IS 875 (Part 3):2015
Basic Wind speed, Vb = 47 m/s
Terrain Category = 2
Risk Coefficient, k1 = 1
Co-efficient based on the terrain height, k2 = 1.20
k2 value is taken from the Table 2, Clause 6.3.2.2 IS 875 (Part 3):2015
Topography Factor, k3 =1
Cyclonic factor, k4 = 1
Design wind velocity = Vz = Vb x k1 x k2 x k3 x k4
= 47 x 1 x 1.2 x 1 x 1
= 56.4 m/s
Design wind pressure = Pz = 0.6 Vz
2
= 0.60 x (56.40)2
Pz= 1.91 kN/m2
Where, Pz =Design Wind Pressure at height z in N/m2
Vz =Design Wind Velocity in m/s 20

21. Wind Pressure Coefficients: (Table 5, IS 875-part 3:2015)
Greater horizontal dimension of building, l = 30 m
Lesser horizontal dimension of building, w = 30 m
Height of the building exposed to wind, h = 70 m
h / w = 70/30 = 2.33
l / w = 30/30 = 1.00
Based on the height, width of the building along the both directions, External Wind pressure
coefficients are determined from the Table 5, Clause 7.3.3.1 IS 875-Part 3:2015.The building lies in
range
3
2
<
ℎ
𝑤
< 6 , 1 <
𝑙
𝑤
≤
3
2
Coefficient along X direction (00):
• Windward = 0.80
• Leeward = 0.25
Coefficient along Y direction (900):
• Windward = 0.80
• Leeward = 0.25
21

22. MODEL CONFIGURATIONS:
Table 4: Models considered for the study
22
SL
No
Model Description
1. Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) / Bare Frame
2. MRF with SW at periphery
3. MRF with SW at centre
4. MRF having SW with opening at periphery
5. MRF having SW with opening at centre
6. MRF with X bracing at periphery
7. MRF with inverted V bracing at periphery
8. MRF with X bracing at centre
9. MRF with inverted V bracing at centre

23. METHODOLOGY
23

24. 24
Bare Frame
MRF with SW at corner MRF with SW at centre
MRF with SW with
opening at corner
MRF with SW with
opening at centre

25. 25
Bare Frame
X bracing at corner Inverted V bracing at corner
X bracing at centre Inverted V bracing at centre

26. 26
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1.TOP STORY DISPLACEMENT:
Table 5: Comparison of max storey displacement among models
SL .No Models
Top Story displacement
(mm)
1 Bare Frame 334.66
2 SW Centre 135.91
3 SW Corner 169.86
4 SW Centre (with opening) 139.78
5 SW Corner (with opening) 171.76
6 X bracing centre 147.53
7 X bracing corner 196.95
8 Inverted V bracing centre 159.45
9 Inverted V bracing corner 192.35

27. 27
 From these results, its shown that model with lateral load resisting system have shown good results in
terms of reducing displacement than bare frame.
 By these values, its seen that storey displacement values for the bare frame (334.66mm) exceeding codal
limits (h/250) i.e., 288mm for the case considering earthquake effects.
 Among shear wall models, shear wall placed at centre performs well and in case of bracing system bracing
system at centre effective in reducing story displacement
Fig 2. Storey displacement v/s Models

28. 28
2. STORY DRIFT
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0 5 10 15 20 25
Bare Frame
SW Centre
SW Corner
SW Centre with
opening
SW Corner with
opening
X bracing Centre
X bracing Corner
Inverted V bracing
Centre
Inverted V-
bracing Corner
Number of Stories
Storey
drift
Fig 3. Storey drift vs No of stories
• By these results, the maximum drift is observed in case of bare frame i.e., 0.068. The value
obtained as the drift in this case exceeds the codal provisions. The maximum storey drift as per
code is 0.004.
• By using structural systems like shear wall and bracing system had significantly reduced the
storey drift.

29. 29
3. STORY SHEAR
Table 6 : Comparison of storey shear among models
Sl.No Models
Storey Shear (KN)
1 Bare Frame
23492
2 SW Centre
17832
3 SW Corner
18230
4 SW Centre (with opening)
16634
5 SW Corner (with opening)
17371
6 X bracing centre
24619
7 X bracing corner
24083
8 Inverted V bracing centre
24095
9 Inverted V bracing corner
24228

30. 30
• From analysis results, It is found that storey shear values are lesser in case shear wall
frame model compared to frame with bracing systems.
• Among Shear wall and bracing system, Bracing system have more storey shear about
38.06% than shear wall.

31. 31
4. STORY STIFFNESS:
Table 7: Comparison of storey stiffness among models
Sl.No Models
Story stiffness (kN/m)
1 Bare Frame
11704208.19
2 SW Centre
26880292.47
3 SW Corner
21445935.52
4 SW Centre (with opening)
24874653.77
5 SW Corner (with opening)
20991939.97
6 X bracing centre
29715590.29
7 X bracing corner
22015429.9
8 Inverted V bracing centre
26678274.6
9 Inverted V bracing corner
23712581

32. 32
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
Bare Frame SW Centre SW Corner SW Centre
(with
opening)
SW Corner
(with
opening)
X bracing
centre
X bracing
corner
Inverted V
bracing
centre
Inverted V
bracing
corner
STOREY STIFFNESS
Storey
stiffness
(kN/m)
Models
Fig 5. Storey Stiffness v/s Models
• By the analysis results, we found that storey stiffness for the Bare frame model is
minimum among different models.
• Among Shear wall and bracing system, the bracing system (X-Bracing) has more
storey stiffness about 10.54% than shear wall system.

33. 33
5.TIME PERIOD:
Table 8 : Comparison of time period among the models
Sl.No Models
Time period (secs)
1 Bare Frame
3.089
2 SW Centre
2.732
3 SW Corner
3.647
4 SW Centre (with opening)
2.832
5 SW Corner (with opening)
3.146
6 X bracing centre
2.362
7 X bracing corner
2.784
8 Inverted V bracing centre
2.455
9 Inverted V bracing corner
2.712

34. 34
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Bare Frame SW Centre SW Corner SW Centre
(with
opening)
SW Corner
(with
opening)
X bracing
centre
X bracing
corner
Inverted V
bracing
centre
Inverted V
bracing
corner
Time Period
Time
period
(secs)
Models
Fig 6. Time period v/s Models
 By these results, we can see that shear walls placed at corners have more time period 3.467sec and
3.146 sec with the openings which is observed to be more than bare frame model.
 Compared to bare frame which has time period of 3.089 sec, X bracings at centre and corner have
less time period 2.36 and 2.72sec respectively. Inverted V bracings at centre and corner have less
time period 2.45 and 2.71sec respectively than bare frame.
 Among the Shear wall and bracings, Bracing System (X-bracing at centre) has less time period.

35. 35
CONCLUSION:
The significant conclusions drawn from the results which are obtained from the
analysis are listed below
• For Bare Frame model (G+20 Building) in seismic zone V, the story drift and story
displacement value are exceeding their limits as per code. hence it is recommendable to
use structural systems like shear wall and bracing system.
• Among models, LLRS placed at centre has significant in reducing story drift and story
displacement.
• Shear wall placed at centre has reduced story displacement about 8.54% than bracing
system. Shear wall placed at centre has reduced story drift about 16.67% than bracing
system.
• In terms of Storey shear, Model with shear walls are efficient in reducing story shear
about 38% compared to bracing.
• In terms of time period, the bracing system (X Bracing at centre) has less time period
compared to all models, indicates more stiffness.

36. 36
CONTINUED
• With the 11.05 percent of opening (size-1.67x1.16m), Shear wall performs suitably
without much difference compared to shear wall without voids.
• With limitation to this study, providing LLRS at for plan regular building at centre
is more effective than providing at corners because placing of LLRS near to CG of
the structure results in increasing stiffness.

37. 37
SCOPE FOR FUTURE STUDY:
1. For Further studies, analysis can be done by considering different irregularities (i.e
Plan and vertical irregularities).
2. Study can be further continued on different material and different shapes of the Shear
wall.
3. Study can be continued for the different size and location of openings in shear wall.
4. Analysis can be done by considering eccentric bracing system (EBS).

38. REFERENCES
• [1]. Rasool Owais, Manzoor Ahmad, “Comparative Analysis between different commonly used
lateral load resisting systems in RC Building”, Global Journal of Research in Engineering, (2013)
• [2]. Shaik Akhil Ahamad, KV Pratap, “Dynamic analysis of G + 20 multi storied building by using
shear walls in various locations for different seismic zones”, American Society of Civil Engineers
(2016)
• [3]. Vishal B Sherkhane, Dr. G.S Manjunath, “Parametric analysis of multistory RC buildings with
columns replaced by the shear walls”, Science Direct (2014)
• [4]. Naresh Kumar Varma, Uppuluri Praveen Kumar, “Seismic response on multi-storied building
having shear walls with and without openings”, Material Proceeding, Elsevier Journal (2020)
• [5]. Dhara Panchal, Sharad Purohit, “Dynamic Response Control of a Building Model using
Bracings”, Science Direct Procedia Engineering, (2013)
• [6]. Mallikarjun B.N, Ranjith A, “Stability Analysis of steel frame structure: P Delta Analysis”,
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume 3, Issue 8, (2014)
• [7]. Sanisha Santhosh, Linda Ann Mathew, “Seismic Analysis of Multi Storied Building with
Shear Walls of Different Shapes”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology
(2017)
• [8]. Prof. S.S. Patil, Prof. C.G. Konapure, Miss. S.A. Ghadge, “Equivalent Static Analysis of High-
Rise Building with Different Lateral Load Resisting Systems”, International Journal of
Engineering Research & Technology (2013)
38

39. 39
• [9]. Anas Abou Lteaf, Prof. Ivica Guljas, “Comparative study of moment resisting frame
system and dual shear wall frame system”, Conference paper, Research gate (2019).
• [10]. Viswanath K.G, Prakash K.B, Anant Desai, “Seismic analysis of Braced Reinforced
Concrete Frames”, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Volume No 1
(2010).
• [11]. Shachindra Kumar Chadhar, Dr Abhay Sharma, “Comparative study of RC Moment
Resisting Frame of variable heights with steel bracing and shear wall, International Journal of
Civil and Structural Engineering Research, Volume 3, Issue 1 (2015).
• [12]. IS 875(Part 1):1987-Dead Load -Unit weights of building material and stored materials
• [13]. IS 875(Part 2):1987-Code of Practice for Design Loads for Building and structures:
Imposed loads
• [14]. IS 875(Part 3):2015-Design Loads for building and structures (Wind Loads)
• [15]. IS 1893:2016-Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures.
• [16]. IS 13920:2016-Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic
force.
• [17]. IS 16700:2017-Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall Concrete Buildings.

40. THANK YOU
40