See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344887219

Lateral Load Resisting Systems in High-Rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Article  in  European Journal of Science and Technology · December 2020

DOI: 10.31590/ejosat.808269

CITATIONS READS

0 2,691

2 authors, including:

Dia Eddin Nassani

Hasan Kalyoncu University
23 PUBLICATIONS   164 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rice Husk Powder View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dia Eddin Nassani on 26 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi European Journal of Science and Technology
Sayı 20, S. 397-403, Aralık 2020 No. 20, pp. 397-403, December 2020
© Telif hakkı EJOSAT’a aittir Copyright © 2020 EJOSAT
Araştırma Makalesi www.ejosat.com ISSN:2148-2683 Research Article

Lateral Load Resisting Systems in High-Rise Reinforced Concrete

Buildings
Dia Eddin Nassani1,*, Kamiran Ali1

1
Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Inşaat Mühendislik Bölümü, Gaziantep, Türkiye, ORCID: 0000-0002-4196-8822
*Corresponding Author: Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Inşaat Mühendislik Bölümü, Gaziantep, Türkiye, ORCID: 0000-0002-4196-8822,
[email protected]

(İlk Geliş Tarihi 12 Eylül 2020 ve Kabul Tarihi 24 Ekim 2020)

(DOI: 10.31590/ejosat.808269)

ATIF/REFERENCE: Nassani, D. E. & Ali, K. (2020). Lateral Load Resisting Systems in High-Rise Reinforced Concrete
Buildings. European Journal of Science and Technology, (20), 397-403.

Abstract
An efficient and economical tall building cannot be designed without a thorough understanding of the significant factors affecting the
selection of the structural system and knowledge of how the structural system will interrelate with architectural, mechanical and other
aspects. In this study, structural analyses were performed to compare the structural response of different types of lateral load resisting
systems (moment-resisting frame system, shear wall system, dual system and framed tube system) under effect of seismic and wind
loads using the structural program ETABS. The building consists of 28 stories with area of 625m² (25m x 25m). Storey displacements
were evaluated for all lateral load resisting systems. Among the types of lateral load resisting systems, dual system showed a very
suitable structural response for this height and did not exceed the limitation values.

Keywords: lateral load resisting system, high rise buildings, earthquake load, wind load, displacements.

Yüksek Katlı Betonarme Binalarda Yanal Yük Dayanım Sistemleri

Özet
Verimli ve ekonomik bir yüksek bina, yapısal sistemin seçimini etkileyen önemli faktörler tam olarak anlaşılmadan ve bu sistemin
mimari, mekanik ve diğer yönlerle nasıl bir ilişki içinde olacağı bilgisi olmadan tasarlanamaz. Bu çalışmada, farklı tipteki yanal yük
dirençli sistemlerin (moment çerçeve sistem, perde duvarlı sistem, perdeli-çerçeveli sistem ve tüplü çerçeve sistemler) sismik yükler
ve rüzgâr yükleri altında yapısal tepkilerini karşılaştırmak için bir yapısal analiz programı olan ETABS kullanılarak yapısal analizler
yapılmıştır. Bina 625m² (25m x 25m) alana sahip 28 kattan oluşmaktadır. Tüm yanal yük dirençli sistemler için kat deplasmanları
hesaplanmıştır. Yanal yük dirençli sistem tipleri arasında perdeli-çerçeveli sistem, bu yükseklik için çok uygun bir yapısal tepki
göstermiş ve sınır değerlerini aşmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: yanal yük dirençli sistem, yüksek binalar, deprem yükü, rüzgâr yükü, deplasmanlar.

http://dergipark.gov.tr/ejosat 397
 European Journal of Science and Technology

1. Introduction many different framed tube models like tube-in-tube, partially

braced tube-tube, and bundled tube models which provide an
High-rise structure is defined as a structure of thirty-five economical high-rise structure designs with different height-
meters’ height or greater that is divided at regular intervals into width ratios [7-10].
occupiable levels [1]. The main aim of all types of structural
models used in structures is to support gravity loads. Dead load, Development of high strength and light concrete materials,
live load, rain load, and snow load are the most used loads good connecting and construction techniques, and accurate
resulted from the gravity effects. Additional to vertical loads, methods to predict the structural performance of buildings due to
structures are exposed to lateral forces due to winds and loads, and practical applications of those innovations. Jinghai
earthquakes. Lateral forces cause very high stresses and and Xinhua [11] conducted a study about latticed shell tube–
deflections. So that, structures should have the adequate strength reinforced concrete core wall structures. Authors used two types
to resist vertical forces together with required stiffness against of structures systems in same building, one of them was located
horizontal loads [2]. in the interior which is RC core wall and the other was located in
the exterior faces of building, and concluded that arranging a
Increasing in population in most countries raises land area number of diagonal braces reasonably can enhance the lateral
prices, so tall building has been growth and number of stories resisting capability of latticed shell tube effectively.
increases and reaches 100 to 200 stories and will increase to
more for high rise towers. Structures in seismic zones could be Massumi and Absalan [12] conducted a study about
exposed to high stresses and deflections. Along with vertical interaction between bracing system and moment resisting frame
loads, structures have to resist the lateral loads which could in braced RC frames. The authors investigated the results of two
develop a severe damage. The earthquake and wind loads can experimental models of reinforced concrete frames and
develop a lot of results like (ground shaking, ground developed a new numerical model. They concluded that the
displacement, fire, and flood); therefore, it is very important to interactions between RC frames and bracing systems have a
prevent the negative results which are coming from earthquake. significant and good effect on developing the performance of
The main purpose of seismic design is to resist the lateral forces dual model. The result of numerical analysis indicates a raise of
during the earthquake thus reducing the possibilty of death or 18% in the ultimate strengths of the dual model, which results
injuries to people in the earthquake zone. Because severe from the interactions between the two models.
earthquake is rare, engineers expect that structure damage is Sadjadia et al., [13] conducted a study about seismic
possible and acceptable but collapse should be prevented [3]. performance of reinforced concrete RC moment resisting
In seismic design of reinforced concrete (RC) multistoried frames. He conducted four structural cases which are (ductile,
structures, determination of the lateral load-resisting model is a nominally ductile, gravity loaded design- and retrofitted gravity
very important issue. Specific structural members are designed loaded design), In the study, a typical 5-story frame is designed
to resist the lateral loads that raised during strong earthquake and for all cases and presents an analytical study for the earthquake
wind loading. Stiffnesses and configuration of these identified effect on reinforced concrete structures using time history
members have a major role to determine the design load level in analyses and push-over analyses. It is figured out that the ductile
the members. Buildings are identified as rigid or flexible and nominally ductile structures performed perfectly under the
structures. High-rise buildings are more flexible and exposed to studied earthquakes, while performances of the gravity loaded
vibration due to earthquake and wind loads [4]. design frames were not good. After the damaged gravity loaded
design frames were strengthened, the earthquake resistances
William Jenney’s Home Insurance Building of 1879 is were developed.
considered the first extensive application of the internal skeleton
and curtain wall to a high office building. The Chicago School Patil et al., [1] studied the structural behavior high-rise
of Architecture refined the use of beams and columns in steel structures using the equivalent static analysis method. The
and subsequently frame construction became widespread. Also authors evaluated different horizontal load resisting models. The
at this time concrete slabs and columns were develop [5]. The different horizontal load resisting models are: moment frames,
architect Perret designed the Rue Franklin Apartment Buildings braced frames, and shear wall frames. The effect of horizontal
in 1903 which was the first use of a reinforced concrete skeleton load resisting models is evaluated under the seismic loadings.
structural system [6]. The major factors considered in this research are: storey drifts,
base shear, story deflections, time period, shear forces, bending
Shear walls in the connection with concrete slabs were first moments, and axial forces. Design results showed obvious
utilized on the Lake Meadows Housing Project in Chicago 1949. improvements in all parameters particularly in the braced and
The structure became very common for residential constructions shear wall frames.
due to the reason that walls can be utilized to separate rooms.
Architectural communities encouraged the designers to develop The main purpose of the present study is to show the
the design ingenuity. Later, shear wall-frame connections were structural response of moment-resisting frame system, shear wall
the development of using shear walls with simply supported system, dual system and frame tube system due to seismic and
exterior framing. The thirty-eight floor Brunswick Building wind loads by evaluating storey displacements of each system
(1962) is considered as first structure using the shear wall-frame using structural program ETABS [14].
system.
2. Types of Structural Systems
During the structural design innovation period, many lateral
The selection of the lateral load resisting system (LLRS) for
load resisting models have been developed like the outrigger
s specific building is clearly a design decision of fundamental
braced structures in connection with surrounding belt truss and
importance, yet there is no system that is best for all buildings
e-ISSN: 2148-2683 398
 European Journal of Science and Technology

[15]. Factors to consider when selecting a seismic force resisting The structure considered in this study was reinforced
system include: performance, architectural and nonstructural concrete building with 28 storeys. The building area is 625m²
coordination, construction cost, and design budget. Acceptable (25 x 25 m) and consist of five bays in both directions. The floor
earthquake performance is a function of more than the selected plans for the different types of lateral load resisting systems are
structural system [15]. Configuration of the LLRS within the shown in Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.3 and Fig.4. The storey height of the
building is fundamental to good design, concerning such issues building is 3.4 m for all floors except the first floor in which the
as structural irregularities, torsion, redundancy, and the storey height is 4.4 m and thickness of slab is 0.2 m.
combination of systems.
Regarding the moment-resisting frame system, the beam
The most commonly used structural systems have been cross section B is 0.65 x 0.75m and the column section C is 0.65
classified by Khan [16]. They are broadly defined as follows: x 0.65m. Regarding the shear wall system, the thickness of shear
moment resisting frames, shear wall system, dual system, shear wall is 0.4 m. Regarding the dual system, the beam cross section
truss-outrigger braced systems, framed-tubes, Tube-in-tube B is 0.40 x 0.50m, the column section C is 0.40 x 0.40m and the
systems with interior columns, and bundled tubes and modular thickness of shear wall is 0.4 m. Regarding the tube system, the
tubes. beam cross section B1 is 0.40 x 0.50 m, B2 is 0.40 x 1.20 m, the
column section C1 is 0.40 x 0.40 m, C2 is 0.4 x 120 m and the
A brief explanation to the types of lateral load resisting
thickness of shear wall is 0.4 m. In the design of the buildings, a
systems used in this research are presented.
uniform mass distribution over the height of the structure was
2.1 Moment resisting frames assumed. The design of the structures was performed according
to the lateral load distribution specified in International Building
Moment resisting frames are normal frame with beams, Code IBC [19] and American Society of Civil Engineering
columns and fixed or semi-rigid connections. The stiffness and ASCE [17].
strength are proportional to the height of story and column
spacing. Moment resisting frames could also be built with In order to investigate the effect of the different types of
columns connected to flat slab or flat plate. This type is without lateral load resisting systems, equivalent static analysis was
shear walls so the number of stories are limited depending on the performed to compare the structural response of moment-
bay spans between columns and story height [16]. resisting frame system, shear wall system, dual system and
frame tube system under effect of earthquake and wind loads.
2.2 Shear wall system
The modulus of elasticity of concrete is E = 26000 MPa, the
A shear wall system is defined by ASCE 7-05 [17] as “a compressive strength is F’c = 30 MPa and Poisson’s Ratio = 0.2.
structural system with shear walls providing support for all or
major portions of the vertical loads. Shear walls provide seismic
resistance”. Shear walls will be added due to the structural type,
size, loads and number of stories. And depend on property of
material, geometry, stiffness, symmetry and center of rigidity.
2.3 Dual system
A dual system is defined by ASCE 7-05 [17] as “a structural
system with a complete space frame providing support for
vertical loads and capable of resisting at least 25% of prescribed
seismic forces.
2.4 Framed tubes
The framed tube structural system is the most modern type
developments in high-rise structural buildings. The framed tube
system consists of very closely spaced (between 2-3 meters)
exterior columns are joined in each floor level with deep edge Figure 1. Typical floor plan of moment-resisting frame system
beams (with depth usually 0.5-1.5meters). Like other structure of (units in meter).
this form, the exterior tube or columns is designed to resist the
entire lateral loading. Vertical gravitational forces are resisted
partly by the exterior frames and partly by some inner structure
such as interior columns or an interior core. Sometimes the
closely spaced column arrangement makes access difficult to the
public area at the base. It can be avoided by using a large
transfer girder to collect the vertical loads from the closely
spaced columns and distribute them to a smaller number of
larger more widely spaced columns at the base [18]. The framed
tube allows the core framing to be constructed independently
therefore the exterior can be constructed while the interior layout
is being finalized [16].

3. Description of the Analytical Models

e-ISSN: 2148-2683 398

 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi

Figure 2. Typical floor plan of shear wall system (units in - S1 = 0.869

meter). - Long- period transition period = 8
- Site class = B
- SDs = 1.5267
- SD1 = 0.5793
4. 2 Wind load coefficients and factors:
- Wind speed (mph) = 110
- Exposure type = C
- Importance factor = 1
- Topographical Factor, Kzt = 1
- Gust Factor = 0.85
- Directionally Factor, Kd = 0.85
- Windward Coeff. =0.8
- Leeward Coeff. = 0.5
- Exposure height from base to story 28

5. Results and Discussion

Figure 3. Typical floor plan of dual system (units in meter). The four models are analyzed in the same situations and the
same properties, either the material properties or the factors
which have relations with lateral loads (quake and wind).
Meanwhile, they were analyzed in the same (seismic zone, type
class, wind speed, exposure type,…etc). They were analyzed in
so symmetrical plane, homogeneous vertical height, and there is
no weak floor from the base floor up to upper floor, it means the
models have been analyzed in an ideal case.
The results of this study showed that the displacements in
all structural systems are in the permitted limitation according to
the international codes except moment resisting that the results
show that it is not possible for this level (28 floors).
In all models, there are not any problems with the rotation
displacements because the symmetric is available in all models.
The outputs of these models are too much because the structure
is high-rise building and contains many points in every floor,
Figure 4. Typical floor plan of frame tube system (units in
therefore, there is no need to show all of these outputs. For
meter).
instance, in every floor, point number one was selected for
comparison when dealing with displacement, but for story drift,
the researcher showed the maximum value in each floor.
4. Analysis Method
5. 1 Moment Resisting System
The latest National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Table 1 and Figure 5 show the displacements versus the storey
(NEHRP) guidelines such as FEMA 273 [20] and FEMA 356 number due to Earthquake (Qx) in moment resisting system.
[21] show that, for a specific earthquake, the building should
have adequate capacity to resist a specified roof displacement
which is called as target displacement.
In the current study, equivalent static analysis was
performed to determine the structural behavior of 28-storey
building with moment-resisting frame system, shear wall system,
dual system and frame tube system due to seismic and wind
loads. The analyses of the frames were carried out through a
well-known computer program ETABS.
4.1 Seismic load coefficients and factors:
- Time period = 0. 028, 0.8
- Ecc. Ratio = 0.5
- Response modification, R;
- For moment resisting system = 3
- For shear wall system = 4.5
- For dual system = 6
- For frame tube system = 6
- Occupancy importance, I =1
- Ss =2.29

e-ISSN: 2148-2683 399

 European Journal of Science and Technology

Table 2. Displacements versus the storey number due to wınd

load (Wx).
Table 1. Displacements versus the storey number due to Story number point Displacement
Earthquake (Qx). Ux (mm)
Story number point Displacement Ux Story 28 1 61.6
(mm) Story 27 1 60.5
Story 28 1 840.2
Story 26 1 59.4
Story 27 1 821.8
Story 25 1 58.1
Story 26 1 801.4
Story 24 1 56.7
Story 25 1 779
Story 23 1 55.2
Story 24 1 754.7
Story 22 1 53.6
Story 23 1 728.7
Story 21 1 51.9
Story 22 1 701.1
Story 20 1 50.2
Story 21 1 672.1
Story 19 1 48.3
Story 20 1 641.9
Story 18 1 46.3
Story 19 1 610.6
Story 17 1 44.3
Story 18 1 578.4
Story 16 1 42.1
Story 17 1 545.4
Story 15 1 39.9
Story 16 1 511.9
Story 14 1 37.6
Story 15 1 477.8
Story 13 1 35.2
Story 14 1 443.5
Story 12 1 32.8
Story 13 1 409
Story 11 1 30.3
Story 12 1 374.5
Story 10 1 27.7
Story 11 1 340.1
Story 9 1 25.1
Story 10 1 306.1
Story 8 1 22.5
Story 9 1 272.4
Story 7 1 19.8
Story 8 1 239.3
Story 6 1 17.1
Story 7 1 206.9
Story 5 1 14.4
Story 6 1 175.2
Story 4 1 11.7
Story 5 1 144.5
Story 3 1 9
Story 4 1 114.9
Story 2 1 6.3
Story 3 1 86.5
Story 1 1 3.6
Story 2 1 59.3
Story 1 1 33.2

Figure 5 Point drifts due to Qx

Figure 6. Point drifts due to Wx
Table 2 and Figure 6 show the displacements in (mm) versus the
storey number due to wind load (Wx). It has been noted that the displacements values for both loads
(Qx and Wx) were decreased from the moment resisting system
to the shear wall system, and the dual frame has less values than
moment resisting and shear wall. It was also shown that the tube

e-ISSN: 2148-2683 400

 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi

system has the least values from the other systems. From the
mentioned results, the researcher found out these points:
- The first system, which is (moment resisting system), is not
possible for this height (28 floors) because the values of all
floors that were obtained were very high and exceed the
limitation values which were in the (UBC 97) code.
- The results of the two systems (shear wall system and dual
system) showed that they were very suitable for this height and
did not exceed the limitation values which were in the (UBC 97)
code.
- The results of the fourth system (tube system) showed that
they were very low and were in the limitations but it is not
recommended to be used in this height because it is too costly.
5. 2 Shear Wall System
Figure 7 shows the displacements in (mm) versus the storey
number due to Earthquake (Qx) in shear wall system. Figure 9 Point drifts due to Qx

Figure 10 shows the displacements in (mm) versus the storey

number due to wind load (Wx).

Figure 7 Point drifts due to Qx

Figure 8 shows the displacements in (mm) versus the storey

number due to wind load (Wx). Figure 10. Point drifts due to Wx

From figures 9 and 10 above, it showed that there is no problem

due to earthquake and wind load to construct a building with this
height and with these factors and situations. The stiffness of this
structure has been improved due to the use of this system with
ratio about 48% for earthquake load and about 35% for wind
load if it compared with the shear wall system.

5. 4 Tube System
Figure 11 show the displacements in (mm) versus the storey
number due to Earthquake (Qx).

Figure 8. Point drifts due to Wx

From figures 7 and 8 above, the displacements due to earthquake

did not exceed the limited values according to the international
codes except two upper floors were critical and these floors
needed to be braced just due to earthquake and it is safe due to
wind load Wx.
5. 3 Dual System
Figure 9 shows the displacements in (mm) versus the storey
number due to Earthquake (Qx) in dual system.
Figure 11 Point drifts due to Qx
Figure 12 show the displacements in (mm) versus the storey
number due to wind load (Wx).

e-ISSN: 2148-2683 401

 European Journal of Science and Technology

Figure 13. Comparison between four systems of Qx in X

direction
Figure 12. Point drifts due to Wx Table 4 comparison between four systems of Wx in X direction
Story Moment Shear Shear Tube
Charts 11 and 12 showed that the displacement due to lateral number Resisting Wall Frame System
loads (earthquake and wind) was decreased if they compare to
the displacements of dual system. it has been a good Story 28 61.6 51.8 33.7 23.1
improvement in the value of displacements, this due to exterior Story 27 60.5 49.8 32.6 22.5
columns which located in the perimeter of the building and the Story 26 59.4 47.8 31.5 22
ratio of decrease is about 62% for earthquake load and about 38
Story 25 58.1 45.8 30.4 21.4
% for the wind load if it compared with dual system.
Story 24 56.7 43.7 29.2 20.7
The following tables (table 3 and 4) and figures (figure 13 and
14) show the results of the earthquake Qx and wind Wx loadings Story 23 55.2 41.7 28 20.1
of all the structure systems: Story 22 53.6 39.6 26.8 19.4
Table 3. Comparison between four systems of Qx in X direction Story 21 51.9 37.4 25.5 18.7
Story Point Moment Shear Shear Tube Story 20 50.2 35.3 24.2 17.9
number Resisting Wall Frame System
Story 19 48.3 33.1 22.9 17.1
Story 28 1 840.2 509.7 262.4 109.2 Story 18 46.3 30.9 21.5 16.3
Story 27 1 821.8 488.4 252.8 106.2 Story 17 44.3 28.7 20.1 15.5
Story 26 1 801.4 466.9 242.9 103 Story 16 42.1 26.4 18.7 14.6
Story 25 1 779 445.3 232.9 99.8 Story 15 39.9 24.2 17.2 13.6
Story 24 1 754.7 423.4 222.7 96.3 Story 14 37.6 22 15.8 12.7
Story 23 1 728.7 401.3 212.3 92.7 Story 13 35.2 19.8 14.3 11.7
Story 22 1 701.1 379 201.6 88.9 Story 12 32.8 17.6 12.8 10.7
Story 21 1 672.1 356.6 190.8 85 Story 11 30.3 15.4 11.3 9.7
Story 20 1 641.9 333.9 179.7 80.8 Story 10 27.7 13.4 9.9 8.7
Story 19 1 610.6 311.2 168.5 76.6 Story 9 25.1 11.3 8.5 7.7
Story 18 1 578.4 288.5 157.1 72.2 Story 8 22.5 9.4 7.1 6.6
Story 17 1 545.4 265.9 145.6 67.8 Story 7 19.8 7.6 5.8 5.6
Story 16 1 511.9 243.3 134.1 63.2 Story 6 17.1 5.9 4.5 4.6
Story 15 1 477.8 221 122.5 58.5 Story 5 14.4 4.4 3.4 3.6
Story 14 1 443.5 199 111 53.9 Story 4 11.7 3 2.4 2.7
Story 13 1 409 177.5 99.6 49.2 Story 3 9 1.9 1.5 1.8
Story 12 1 374.5 156.5 88.4 44.4 Story 2 6.3 1 0.8 1.1
Story 11 1 340.1 136.2 77.4 39.7 Story 1 3.6 0.4 0.3 0.4
Story 10 1 306.1 116.7 66.8 35.1
Story 9 1 272.4 98.1 56.6 30.5
Story 8 1 239.3 80.7 46.9 26
Story 7 1 206.9 64.5 37.7 21.7
Story 6 1 175.2 49.6 29.3 17.5
Story 5 1 144.5 36.4 21.7 13.5
Story 4 1 114.9 24.9 15 9.9
Story 3 1 86.5 15.3 9.3 6.6
Story 2 1 59.3 7.9 4.9 3.7
Figure 14. Comparison between four systems of Wx in X
Story 1 1 33.2 2.7 1.7 1.5
e-ISSN: 2148-2683 402
 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi

direction [4] Suresh P, Panduranga Rao B, Kalyana Rama J.S, (2013). Influence
of diagonal braces in RCC multi-storied frames under wind loads:
A case study, international journal of civil and structural
It has been noted that the displacements values for both engineering, 3(1), 2012 pp.214-226.
loads (Qx and Wx) were decreased from the moment resisting [5] Khan F R, "The Bearing Wall Comes of Age", Architectural and
system to the shear wall system, and the dual system has less Engineering News, 10(10), 1968, pp.78-85.
values than moment resisting and shear wall. It was also shown [6] Fitzsimmons, N., "History and Philosophy of Tall Buildings",
that the tube system has the least values from the other systems. Proceedings, International Conference on Planning and Design of
Tall Buildings, Vol.1, Lehigh Univ., 1972, pp.41-52.
[7] Güneyisi E.M., Muhyaddin, G.F., “Comparative Response
The first system, which is (moment resisting system), is not Assessment of Different Frames with Diagonal Bracings under
possible for this height (28 floors) because the values of all Lateral Loading”, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering,
floors that were obtained were very high and exceed the Vol. 39, pp. 3545–3558, 2014.
limitation values which were in the (UBC 97) code. The results [8] Güneyisi E.M., Ameen, N., “Structural Behavior of Conventional
of the two systems (shear wall system and dual system) showed and Buckling Restrained Braced Frames Subjected to Near-Field
that they were very suitable for this height and did not exceed Ground Motions”, Earthquakes and Structures, Vol. 7, pp. 553-
the limitation values which were in the (UBC 97) code. 570, 2014.
[9] Lu Xinzheng , Lu Xiao , Guan H., Zhang W., Ye L., “Earthquake-
6. Conclusion induced collapse simulation of a super-tall mega-braced frame-core
tube building”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 82, 2013,
The building for all types of structures has been analyzed in pp. 59–71.
the same situations and the plan is symmetric. Therefore, the [10] Kamgar R , Saadatpour M.M., “A simple mathematical model for
study showed that the effect of earthquake on the structure was free vibration analysis of combined system consisting of framed
greater than the effect of wind on the building. tube, shear core, belt truss and outrigger system with geometrical
discontinuities”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(10), 2012,
From the second type (shear wall system), the study noted pp. 4918–4930.
that the maximum drift story due to earthquake load (Qx) in the [11] Jinghai G., Xinhua L., (2007). Design method research into latticed
X-direction for the two upper floors was critical, so there was shell tube– reinforced concrete (RC) core wall structures,
more than one solution for this problem. This can change all the ScienceDirect Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007)
949–960: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr.
systems to another one or this can increase the stiffness of
[12] Massumin A., Absalan M., (2012). Interaction between bracing
structure by increasing the compressive strength of concrete, but system and moment resisting frame in braced RC frames ,
these two mentioned solutions were somehow costly, so the best ScienceDirect: www.elsevier.com/locate/acme .
solution is to make bracing only for weak two floors. [13] Sadjadia R., Kianousha M.R., Talebib S., (2006). Seismic
performance of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames,
The study noted that the results of displacements from the ScienceDirect Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2365–2380:
type 4 (frame tube system) for all lateral loads (earthquake and www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct.
wind) were decreased very much if it compared to the other [14] ETABS: Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of
structure systems because there were stiff columns with deep Structures, Version 15.0.0, Integrated building design software,
beams (spandrels) on the exterior of the building work as rigid Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley (2015).
members and connections and give the building a high stiffness [15] SEAOC (2009), Seismic design recommendations, Structural
against lateral loads, but this system is expensive (costly) for this Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
heights and it is recommended to be used in higher buildings, for [16] Khan; F.R. (1974). “New structural systems for tall buildings and
example more than 60 stories. their scale effects on cities”, Proceedings of Symposium held at
Vanderbilt University, 67 Nashville, Tennessee, November 14-15,
The main purpose of this study was to prove that the 99-129.
changing in the type of structural system from the moment [17] ASCE.7-05. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
resisting system to the tube system had positive results in the Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, USA 2005.
[18] Paulino M.R., (2010). “Preliminary Design of Tall Buildings”,
performance of the structure behavior, and this purpose is
M.Sc thesis, Worcester Polytchnic Institute, USA.
satisfied in this study as it was shown in tables (3 and 4) and [19] IBC. International building code. International Code Council, Inc.
charts (13 and 14). The researcher took the samples from these USA 2006.
two tables randomly which were Qx and Wx in X-direction and [20] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency): NEHRP
the results showed that the deflections were decreased with guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-
changing the type of structure from the first system (moment 273.Washington, DC (1997).
resisting) to the fourth system (tube). [21] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency): Prestandard
and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of building, FEMA-
References 356, Washington, DC (2000).

[1] Patil S.S., Konapure C.G., Ghadge S.A., (2013). Equivalent Static
Analysis of High-Rise Building with Different Lateral Load
Resisting Systems, International Journal of Engineering Research
& Technology, 2(1), pp.1-9.
[2] Kevadkar M.D., Kodag P.B. (2013). Lateral Load Analysis of
R.C.C. Building, International Journal of Modern Engineering
Research, 3(3), pp.1428-1434.
[3] Halis M. Gunel, H. Emre Ilgin, (2007). A proposal for the
classification of structural systems of tall buildings, ScienceDirect
Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2667–267.

e-ISSN: 2148-2683 403

View publication stats