Tall building development has been rapidly increasing worldwide introducing new challenges that need to be met through engineering judgment. In modern tall buildings, lateral 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 beams between the shear walls and external columns is often used to provide sufficient lateral stiffness to the structure. In general, earthquake ground motion can occur anywhere in the world and the risk associated with tall buildings, especially under severe earthquakes, should be given particular attention, since tall buildings often accommodate thousands of occupants.

1. 8
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
RESPONSE OF LATERAL SYSTEM IN HIGH RISE BUILD-
ING UNDER SEISMIC LOADS
Ahsan Mohammed Khan1
, K. Mythili2
, Shaik Subhani Shareef3
1 Research Scholar, Department Of Civil Engineering, Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy, Hyderabad, India
2 Associate professor , Department Of Civil Engineering, Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy, Hyderabad, India
3 professor , Department Of Civil Engineering, Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy, Hyderabad, India
*Corresponding Author:
Ahsan Mohammed Khan,
Research Scholar, Department Of Civil Engineering,
Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy,
Hyderabad, India
Published: October 25, 2014
Review Type: peer reviewed
Volume: I, Issue : II
Citation: Ahsan Mohammed KhanScholar (2014) RESPONSE
OF LATERAL SYSTEM IN HIGH RISE BUILDING UNDER SEIS-
MIC LOADS
INTRODUCTION
General
High rise building is defined as a building 35 meters
or more in height, which is divided at regular inter-
vals in to occupiable levels. To be considered a high
rise building a structure must be based on solid
ground and fabricated along its full height through
deliberate process. Cut off between high rise and
low rise building is 35 meters. This height chosen
based on an original 12 floor cut-off.
There is no absolute definition of what constitutes
a “tall building.” It is a building that exhibits some
element of “tallness” in one or more of the following
categories:
a. Height relative to context: It is not just about
height, but about the context in which it exists.
Thus whereas a 14-storey building may not be con-
sidered a tall building in a high-rise city such as
Chicago or Hong Kong, in a provincial European city
or a suburb this may be distinctly taller than the
urban norm.
b. Proportion: Again, a tall building is not just about
height but also about proportion. There are numer-
ous buildings which are not particularly high, but
are slender enough to give the appearance of a tall
building, especially against low urban backgrounds.
Conversely, there are numerous big/large footprint
buildings which are quite tall but their size/floor
area rules them out as being classed as a tall build-
ing.
c.Tall Building Technologies: Number of floors is
a poor indicator of defining a tall building due to
the changing floor to floor height between differing
buildings and functions (e.g. office versus residen-
tial usage), a building of perhaps 14 or more stories
(or over 50 meters/165 feet in height) could per-
haps be used as a threshold for considering it a “tall
building.”
Abstract
Tall building development has been rapidly increasing worldwide introducing new challenges that need to be met through
engineering judgment. In modern tall buildings, lateral 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 beams between the shear walls and external columns is often used to provide
sufficient lateral stiffness to the structure. In general, earthquake ground motion can occur anywhere in the world and
the risk associated with tall buildings, especially under severe earthquakes, should be given particular attention, since
tall buildings often accommodate thousands of occupants.
However, there is an absence of scientific research or case studies dealing with optimum outrigger location under earth-
quake loads. This study aims to identify the optimum outrigger location in tall buildings under earthquake loads. A 50
storey building was investigated and three different peak ground acceleration to peak ground velocity ratios in each cat-
egory of earthquake records were incorporated in this research study to provide a consistent level of approach. Response
spectrum analysis was conducted and the behaviour of the building was determined considering response parameters
such as lateral displacement and inter storey drift. It has been shown from this study that the structure is optimized
when the outrigger is placed between 22-24 levels. Therefore it can be concluded that the optimum location of the struc-
ture is between 0.44 - 0.48 times its height (taken from the bottom of the building).The demands of taller structures are
becoming imperative almost everywhere in the world in addition to the challenges of material and labor cost, project time
line etc. The design of high-rise building is more often dictated by its serviceability rather than strength. Structural En-
gineers are always striving to overcome challenge of controlling lateral deflection and storey drifts as well as self-weight
of structure imposed on foundation. One of the most effective techniques is the use of outrigger and belt truss system
in composite structures that can astutely solve the above issues in High-rise constructions.
1401-1402

2. 9
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
Structural Systems
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/systems 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 increas-
es, 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 re-
sisting the lateral loads. Currently, there are many
structural systems that can be used for the lateral
resistance of tall buildings. In this context, authors
classify these systems based on the basic reaction
mechanism/structural behaviour for resisting the
lateral loads.
Structural systems for tall buildings
a. Rigid frame systems
b. Braced frame and shear-walled frame systems
c. Braced frame systems
d. Shear-walled frame systems
e. Outrigger systems
f. Framed-tube systems
g. Braced-tube systems
h. Bundled-tube systems
Introduction to Outriggers
Mankind had always fascinated for height and
throughout our history, we have constantly sought
to metaphorically reach for the stars. Today, the
symbol of economic power and leadership is the
skyscraper. There has been a demonstrated com-
petitiveness that exists in mankind to proclaim to
have the tallest building in the world. This undying
quest for height has laid out incredible opportuni-
ties for the building profession. From the early mo-
ment frames to today’s ultra-efficient mega braced
structures, the structural engineering profession
has come a long way. The recent development of
structural analysis and design software couples
with advances in the finite element method has al-
lowed the creation of many structural and architec-
turally innovative forms
Problems with Outriggers
There are several problems associated with the use
of outriggers, problems that limit the applicability
concept in the real world.
a. The space occupied by the outrigger trusses
places constraints on the use of the floors at which
the outriggers are located. Even in the mechanical
equipment floors, the presence of outrigger truss
members can be a major problem.
b. Architectural and functional constraints may
prevent placement of large outrigger columns where
they could most conveniently be engaged by outrig-
ger trusses extending out from the core.
Benefits of an Outrigger System
Outriggers are rigid horizontal structures designed
to improve building overturning stiffness and
strength by connecting the building core or spine to
distant columns. Outriggers have been used in tall
buildings acts as stiff arms engaging outer columns
when a central core tries to tilt, its rotation at the
outrigger level induces a tension-compression cou-
ple in the outer columns acting in opposition to the
movement. The result is a type of restoring moment
acting on the core at that level. The design depends
on the relative stiffness.
Need for Present Study
Outriggers are a common method of stiffening and
strengthening tall buildings. They work by connect-
ing the inner core to the outer perimeter columns,
much as a skier uses his arms and shoulders to
hold onto ski-poles, providing extra stability. The
method is very effective, and favored by many struc-
tural engineers.
The method of analysis of the above mentioned sys-
tem is based up on the assumptions that the outrig-
gers are rigidly attached to the core:
a. The core is rigidly attached to the foundation
b. The sectional properties of the core, beams and
columns are uniform throughout the height Ten-
sional effects are not considered
c. Material behavior is in linear elastic range
d. The Outrigger Beams are flexurally rigid and in-
duce only axial forces in the columns
e. The lateral resistance is provided only by the
bending resistance of the core and the tie down ac-
tion of the exterior columns connected to the outrig-
ger
f. The rotation of the core due to the shear deforma-
tion is negligible.
Aims and Objectives
a. The objective of the present work is to study the
use of outrigger and belt truss placed at different
locations subjected to wind or earthquake load.
b. The design of wind load was calculated based on
IS 875 (Part-3) and the earthquake load obtained
using IS 1893 (Part-1):2002.
c. The location of outrigger and belt truss for reduc-
ing lateral displacement, building drift and core mo-
ments can be obtained.

3. 10
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
SHEAR WALLS
General
Shear wall is, concrete wall made to resist lateral
forces acting on tall buildings. It is provided, when
the centre of gravity of building area & loads acted
on it differs by more than 30%. In order to bring the
center of gravity in range of 30% concrete wall is
provided.
The Shear Wall sections are classified as six types.
a. Box Section
b. L – Section
c. U - Section
d. W – Section
e. H - Section
f. T – Section
Structural Behaviour
The multistorey building systems analyzed in this
study are considered to be rigid frame structures. In
such systems, all structural elements of the system
are assumed to have infinitely rigid moment resist-
ant connections at both ends.
Another assumption about the structural system
is the linear elastic structural system behavior,
in which the deformations are proportional to the
loads. It is widely used in structural analysis and
leads to a very important simplification called su-
perposition.
Analytical Models And Solution
Procedures
Introduction
The model considered for this study is L shaped con-
crete building frame. The building represents a 25
storied office building. The Plan area of the Struc-
ture is 40 m x 40 m with columns spaced at 5.5m
from center to center. The height of each storey is
3.00 m and all the floors are considered as Typical
Floors. The location of the building is assumed to
be at Hyderabad. An elevation and plan view of a
typical structure is shown in fig. 5.5.5 and fig 5.5.6.
All wall piers are identical with a uniform wall thick-
ness of 300mm over the entire height. The Bracing
beams (outriggers) and all other beams are 300mm
wide and 300mm deep, Grade 40 (Mix – M40) con-
crete is considered (Compressive strength 40 N/
mm²) throughout the height of the building. And
number of stories considered for all the cases are
15, 20 and 25 stories and storey to storey height is
3.0 M. And the outer and inner columns sizes are
considered as 800 x 800 mm and shear wall thick-
ness is considered as 300 mm.
Load Calculations
Dead Load Calculations
Sizes:
Length of Building, L1 = 40.00 m
Breadth of Building, L2 = 40.00 m
Shear Core walls = 2. No’s
Thick ness = 300 mm
Size = 5000 x 5000 mm
Column sizes for 15storey building = 800 x 800 mm
Column sizes for 20storey building = 1000 x 1000
mm
Column sizes for 25storey building = 1200 x 1200
mm
Drop Size= 2500 x 2500 x 100 mm
Outrigger Beams= 300 x 300 mm
Flat Slab Thickness= 200 mm
Self-Weight of Slab = 0.2 x 25 = 5.00 kN/m2
Floor Finish Loads = 1.00 kN/ m2
Live Load Calculations
Live load for all floors = 2.00 kN/ m2
Wall Load Calculations
Floor Height = 3.00 m
Grade of concrete = M 40
Grade of steel = Fe 500
Plan of structures 1 & 2 at Basement level.: Plan of structures
3 & 4 at Basement level.
3D view of Structures 1 & 2 : 3D view of Structures 3 & 4

4. 11
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
Test Results And Discussions
Introduction
The analysis is carried out for study of rigid core and
floor rigidity of 15, 20 & 25 storey L-shape Building
for the following structures of different locations of
outrigger beams and belt truss as shown in fig.
Structure 1: Building frame outrigger beam loca-
tions as shown in fig
Structure 2: Building frame same as structure-
1with belttruss.
Structure 3: Building frame outrigger beam loca-
tions as shown in fig
Structure 4: Building frame same as structure-3
with belttruss.
Structure 5: Building frame without any outrigger
beams as well as belttruss.
The analysis is carried with all the load combina-
tions. But the wind load is governing, out of that,
the load case (0.9 DL + 1.5 WL Y) is giving maximum
values. Hence the above load case is considered for
taking the values of forces, moments and the load
case (D.L+0.8(LL+WLX) considered for taking the
values of displacement and drift.
Columns considered for comparison of analysis are
C21, C23, C30, C38, C40, C43, C53 & C57.
Plan of structure 1 and structure 3
Graphs for 15- Storey Building
Graph Storey Level (No’s) vs. Storey Axial Force (kN)
Graph Storey Level (No’s) vs. Shear Force (kN)
Graph Storey Level (No’s) vs. CM displacement, Ux (m) for load
case
Graph Storey Level (No’s) vs. Storey Drift, Dx (m) for load case
(D.L +EQXTP)
Graph Storey Level (No’s) vs. Storey Drift, Dx (m) for load case
(D.L+LL +EQXTP)

5. 12
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
Graph Storey Level (No’s) vs. Storey Drift, Dx (m) for load case
(D.L+LL +WLX)
Graph Storey Level (No’s) vs. Storey Drift, Dx (m) for load case
(D.L+LL +WLY)
Graph Mode vs. Time period, T k
Results & Discussions
Maximum Column Axial Forces Considerations
a.C25 lies in 1st row 7th column, C2 and C34 are
lies in 2nd row end columns, C31 lies in 3rd row
8th column and C4 and C12 are lies in 4th row 1st
and 3rd columns.
b.Considering the Structure 4: Double Core + Out-
rigger Beam + Increased stiffness of diaphragm at
regular intervals with Load case (0.9 DL + 1.5WL Y).
c.For Structure 4, Axial Forces in Column, C25
is -39,124 KN which is appreciably decreased by
30.08%, 73.29%, 73.92%, 39.55% and 30.08% over
C2, C4, C12, C31 and C34 Columns respectively.
Due to symmetry the forces of C2 and C34 are equal
as per table 6.2.1.
Maximum Column Shear Forces V2 & V3 Consid-
erations
a.For Structure 4, Shear Forces, V2 in Column,
C25 is 150 KN which is appreciably increased by
-126.66%,-34.0%, 65.33%,-232.66% and 126.66%
over C2, C4, C12, C31 and C34 Columns respec-
tively. Due to symmetry the forces of C2 and C34
are equal as per table 6.2.2.
b.For Structure 4, Shear Forces, V3 in Column,
C25 is -1402 kN which is appreciably increased by
6.63%, decreased by 55.42%, 46.0%, increased by
11.05% and 6.63% over C2, C4, C12, C31 and C34
Columns respectively. Due to symmetry the forces
of C2 and C34 are equal as per table 6.2.3.
Maximum Column Moments, M2 & M3 Consid-
erations
a.Moment (M2) depends on the shear force (V3) and
effective length of the column, in addition with beam
moments. The shear force (V3) act centre of column,
as the column fixed on either ends. As the shear
force varies from structure to structure correspond-
ing moment also varies.
b.For Structure 4, Moment (M2) in Column, C25
is -2785 KN-m which is appreciably increased by
10.89%, decreased by 17.88%, 17.09%, and 5.35%
and increased by 10.89 % over C2, C4, C12, C31
and C34 Columns respectively. Due to symmetry
the forces of C2 and C34 are equal as per table 6.2.4.
c.For Structure 4, Moment (M3) in Column, C25
is 280 KN-m which is appreciably increased
by -123.21%, -28.55%, 60.35%, -229.28% and
123.21% over C2, C4, C12, C31 and C34 Columns
respectively. Due to symmetry the forces of C2 and
C34 are equal as per table 6.2.5.
d.For structure 3, moments in corner columns C4
and C33 are less compared to the middle columns
moments C2 and C29 by 26% and 0.8% respectively
as per table 6.2.4.
e.For structure 3, moments in outer periphery col-
umns C12 and C20 are less compared to the mo-
ments in interior columns C6 and C18 by 21% and
16% respectively as per table 6.2.4.
As per Clause 7.8.4.2 of IS 1893 ( Part I):2000, “The
number of modes to be used in the analysis should
be such that the sum total of modal masses of all
modes considered is at least 90 percent of the total
seismic mass and missing mass correction beyond
33Hz are to be considered. If modes with natural
frequency beyond 33 Hz are to be considered, modal
combination shall be carried out only for modes up
to 33 Hz.

6. 13
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
As per Tables 6.2.15 & 6.2.16, the total sum of mod-
al masses of all modes considered is more than 90
percent of the total seismic mass for all Structures.
Results of Comparison of Structure: 4 (Double Core
+ Outrigger Beam + Increased stiffness of diaphragm
at regular intervals) with Structure: 3 (Double Core
+ Outrigger Beam) & structure: 2 (Without Core +
Outrigger Beam + Increased stiffness of diaphragm
at regular intervals) as per table 6.1.18.
a.The Maximum CM Displacement, Uy in Structure:
4 is 0.27 m which is appreciably less by
14.95% and 69.21% compared to Structure 3 and
Structure 2 respectively. The limiting displacement
is H / 500 i.e. =0.32 m. The maximum displace-
ments of the structures 1 & 2 are 0.53m & 0.46m
respectively and for structures 3 & 4 are 0.31m
& 0.27m respectively as per Table 6.2.18. Hence
structures 1 & 2 are not safe and structures 3 & 4
are safe.
b.The Maximum Storey drift, Dy in Structure: 4 is
2.37 mm which is appreciably less by 2.90% and
97.35% for Structure 3 and Structure 2 respective-
ly than structure: 4 (As per IS 1893 (Part1):2002
clause 7.11.1) limiting storey drift is 0.004 times
storey height, i.e. 0.004 x 4.0 m = 0.016m or 16mm.
The Maximum Storey Drift for all the structures is
less than the limiting value as per table 6.2.18 i.e.
(2.37, 2.44 & 4.68 < 16 mm). Hence safe.
c.Storey Axial Force, P in Structure 4 is 972248 kN
which is appreciably increased by 8.06% and 7.94%
for Structure 3 and Structure 2 respectively than
structure: 4 as per table 6.2.5 & 6.2.18.
d.Maximum Storey Moment, Mx in Structure: 4 is
9349749 kN-m, which is appreciably increased by
11.32% and 11.14% for Structure 3 and Structure
2 respectively than structure: 4 as per table 6.2.9
& 6.2.18.
e.Maximum Storey Moment, My in Structure: 4 is (-)
35000942 kN-m, which is appreciably increased by
8.06% and 7.94% for Structure 3 and Structure 2
respectively than structure: 4 as per table 6.2.10&
6.2.18.
f.Concrete take off in the structure:4 is 960112 m3
, which is appreciably more by 8.07% and 9.12%
compared to structure 3 and structure 2 respective-
ly as per table 6.2.18.
Conclusions
The analysis is carried out for study of rigid core and
floor rigidity of 15, 20 & 25 storey L-shape Building
for the following structures of different locations of
outrigger beams and belt truss as shown in fig.
Structure 1: Building frame outrigger beam loca-
tions as shown in fig
Structure 2: Building frame same as structure-
1with belttruss.
Structure 3: Building frame outrigger beam loca-
tions as shown in fig
Structure 4: Building frame same as structure-3
with belttruss.
Structure 5: Building frame without any outrigger
beams as well as belttruss
From the analysis of the Data the following conclu-
sions have been made
• Due to presence of the belttruss in Structure
2 and Structure 4, they are Stiffer Structures
when compared to other three types. This is re-
flected in reduction of storey displacement and
storey drift Values.
• Column forces and moments are minimum in
case of Structure 2 and Structure 3 for which
drift and displacement are also comparatively
less. Hence this is an optimum structural fram-
ing system.
• Moments in Corner column are less compared
to the middle column moments for all structures
and moments in outer periphery columns are
less compared to the moments in interior col-
umns for all structures.
• Outrigger beams help transfer lateral forces to
core shear wall in Structure 1 and Structure 3.
Hence the moments in columns nearer to core
are reduced as compared to model without out-
rigger beam i.e. Structure 5.
• The location of the outrigger beam has a critical
influence on the lateral behaviour of the struc-
ture under earthquake load and the optimum
outrigger locations of the building have to be
carefully selected in the building design.
• The use of outrigger and belt truss system in
high-rise buildings increase the stiffness and
makes the structural form efficient under lat-
eral load.
Scope of Further Study
• Further study can be made by providing Shear
Walls for further height of building.
• It can be studied by providing Shear Walls at
other different locations and combinations of
these.
• The use of outrigger structural systems in high-
rise buildings increases the stiffness and makes
the structural form efficient under lateral load.
Based on the analysis results obtained following
conclusions made.
• When the criterion considered is lateral dis-
placement then the optimum position of the
outriggers is at mid height for both static and
dynamic behaviour for the structure considered.
• The outrigger placed at the top of the building
is about less efficient, however in many situa-
tions it may be more permissible to locate the
outrigger at building top, therefore although not
as efficient as when at mid height, the benefits
of placing it at top are quite impressive resulting
up to 50% reduction in drift.
• When the criterion for design is peak accelera-

7. 14
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
tion the optimum position of outrigger is at top
where it is reduced up to 30%.
• There is substantial reduction in forces in core,
bending moment in particular when outrigger
system is added to the structure.
• The outrigger structural systems not only pro-
ficient in controlling the top displacements but
also play substantial role in reducing the inter
store drifts.
References
[1] IS-1893 (part 1), “Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures” Bu-
reau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.
[2] IS: 456 - 2000 - Code of practice for plain
and Rein forced concrete
[3] IS: 875(part 1)–1987: Code of practice for
design loads (Other than earthquake) for buildings
and structures - Dead loads.
[4] IS: 875 (part 2)–1987: Code of practice for
design loads (Other than earthquake)
for buildings and structures – Imposed loads.
[5] IS: 875(part 3) - 1987: Code of practice for
design loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings
and structures - Wind loads.
[6] Taranath, B. S, Steel concrete and compos-
ite design of tall buildings (Second Edition, McGraw
– Hill Publications, 2001) Chopra A.K. (2005):”-Dy-
namics of structures Theory and applications to
Earthquake Engineering”, Second edition.
[7] Zhang, Zhang, Zhao, Zhu and Zhou, “Safety
Analysis of Optimal Outrigger Location in High-rise
Building Structures, Journal of Zhejiang University
Science A, Volume 8 (2), Page no. 264-269, 2007.
[8] Minsik Bang and Jaehong Lee “An Analytical
model for high-rise wall frame building structures”,
Page No.1003-1009, for CTBUH 2004, October 10-
13, Seoul, Korea.
[9] Shankar Nair, R , Belt Trusses and Base-
ments as Virtual Outriggers for Tall Buildings, Engi-
neering Journal , Fourth Quarter, Amercian journal
of steel construction, 1998.
[10] Moudarres, F.R, Outrigger Braced Coupled
Shear Walls, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 12, 1984.
[11] Alex Coull and Otto Lau.W.H, Multi Outrig-
ger Braced Structures, Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 7, 1989.
[12] Hoenderkamp and Snijder, “Preliminary
Analysis of High-rise Braced Frames with Facade
Riggers”, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE,
May 2003.
[13] Gerasimidis S. Efthymiou E. and Banioto-
poulos C. C, Optimum outrigger locations for high
rise steel buildings for wind loading, EACWE 5 Flor-
ence, Italy, 19th – 23rd July 2009.
[14] Kenneth Arnott Shear wall analysis – New
modelling, same answers”, CSC (UK) Ltd.
[15] Computer programming by Ali Lame.
[16] Herath, N., Haritos, N., Ngo, T., and Men-
dis, P. (2009), Behavior of Outrigger Beams in High
Rise Buildings under Earthquake Loads, Australian
Earthquake Engineering Society Conference, 2009.
[17] Wu and Li, “Structural Performance of Mul-
ti-Outrigger Braced Tall Buildings”, The Structural
Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Volume 12,
Page no. 155-176, 2003.
[18] P.Jayachandran, “Design of tall buildings
preliminary design and optimization” for National
work shop on High rise & Tall buildings, University
of Hyderabad, India, May, 2009, Keynote Lecture.
[19] Tolga Aki, S, “Lateral load analysis of shear
wall frame structures”, this is submitted to the
Graduate school of Natural and Applied Sciences of
the Middle East technical University, Janaury’2004.
[20] Y. Chen, D. M. McFarland, Z. Wang, B. F.
Spencer, J. R. L. A. Bergman “Analysis of tall build-
ings with damped outriggers, Journal of structural
engineering, ASCE, 136(11), 1435-1443.
Author
Ahsan Mohammed Khan,
Research Scholar, Department Of Civil Engineering,
Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy,
Hyderabad, India
K. Mythili,
Associate professor,Department Of Civil Engineering,
Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy,
Hyderabad, India
Shaik Subhani Shareef,
professor , Department Of Civil Engineering,
Aurora's Scientific Technological & Research Academy,
Hyderabad, India