Analysis of G+30 high-rise buildings by using ETABS for various frame sections in Zone IV and Zone V

The present study focused on the seismic analysis and comparative evaluation of a G+30 reinforced concrete (RCC) high-rise building using ETABS software under Seismic Zone IV and Zone V conditions according to IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 provisions. Different frame section configurations namely rectangular, square, and flanged sections were analyzed to investigate their influence on the seismic behavior and structural performance of the building. Linear static analysis and dynamic response spectrum analysis were carried out to evaluate important seismic response parameters such as storey displacement, storey drift, base shear, bending moment, and natural time period. From the analysis results, it was observed that seismic intensity significantly influences the lateral response of high-rise RCC buildings. Buildings analyzed under Zone V experienced considerably higher storey displacement, inter-storey drift, base shear, and bending moment compared to Zone IV because of increased seismic excitation and higher seismic zone factors. The increase in lateral force demand under severe seismic conditions resulted in greater structural deformation and dynamic response. The study also revealed that frame section geometry plays a major role in controlling seismic behavior and improving structural stability. Among the analyzed frame configurations, the square section exhibited comparatively larger displacement, higher drift, and greater flexibility because of lower stiffness characteristics. The rectangular section demonstrated moderate seismic performance with balanced stiffness and strength behavior. In contrast, the flanged section showed superior seismic performance due to its higher moment of inertia and enhanced lateral stiffness. The flanged frame configuration effectively reduced lateral displacement and storey drift by improving the overall rigidity of the structure. Although the flanged section attracted comparatively higher base shear because of increased stiffness, it provided better resistance against seismic deformation and improved overall structural stability. The reduced natural time period observed in the flanged configuration further confirmed its improved stiffness characteristics and dynamic performance. The obtained results indicate that increasing structural stiffness significantly enhances the seismic resistance of high-rise buildings and reduces excessive deformation during earthquake excitation. Proper selection of frame section geometry is therefore essential for achieving safe, stable, and economical earthquake-resistant structural systems in high seismic regions. The study further confirms that ETABS software provides an efficient and reliable platform for seismic analysis and performance evaluation of multi-storey RCC buildings. The software effectively models structural behavior under dynamic loading conditions and enables accurate assessment of important response parameters required for earthquake-resistant design. Overall, the research concludes that flanged frame sections provide better seismic performance compared to rectangular and square sections for G+30 RCC high-rise buildings located in Seismic Zone IV and Zone V. The enhanced stiffness and flexural resistance of flanged sections significantly improve lateral stability, reduce storey drift, and enhance structural safety under earthquake loading. Therefore, optimized frame geometry should be considered an important design parameter in the seismic design of tall RCC structures located in earthquake-prone regions. The findings of the present study can assist structural engineers and designers in selecting suitable frame configurations for safer and more efficient high-rise construction. The study also contributes to the understanding of how frame geometry and seismic intensity influence the dynamic behavior of RCC tall buildings under earthquake loading conditions.

[1] Mahesh, N., Rao, P., and Kumar, S. (2015). “Comparative Seismic Analysis of Multi-Storey Building Using ETABS and Manual Method.” International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT), Vol. 4, Issue 5, pp. 234–239. [2] Viswanathan, R., Kumar, S., and Pradeep, M. (2017). “Seismic Behaviour of Multi-Storey Structures with Different Slab Systems Using ETABS.” International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Vol. 8, Issue 3, pp. 112–120. [3] Babu, R., and Srinivas, K. (2017). “Seismic Response of RCC Building Frames under Different Support Conditions.” International Journal of Structural Engineering and Analysis, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 65–72. [4] Lavanya, P., and Kumar, V. (2017). “Analysis and Design of Multi-Storey Residential Building Using ETABS under Seismic Loading.” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science and Engineering, Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 145–151. [5] Lingeshwaran, M., and Rajesh, T. (2017). “Seismic Analysis of RC Framed Structures Supported on Raft Foundation.” International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 98–104. [6] Gopal, R., and Prakash, A. (2017). “Analysis and Design of G+5 Residential Building Using ETABS Software.” International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, Vol. 7, Issue 6, pp. 12634–12639. [7] Raja, S., and Kumar, P. (2019). “Earthquake Resistant Design of Multi-Storey Buildings Using ETABS.” International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research, Vol. 8, Issue 1, pp. 44–51. [8] Naveen, K., and Reddy, M. (2019). “Seismic Analysis of Buildings with Irregular Configurations Using ETABS.” International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology (IJRET), Vol. 6, Issue 3, pp. 211–218. [9] Shwetha, R., and Patil, S. (2019). “Analysis and Design of Multi-Storey Building under Seismic Conditions Using ETABS.” International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), Vol. 8, Issue 7, pp. 1587–1593. [10] Pratap, K., and Ahmad, S. (2020). “Dynamic Analysis of G+20 Multi-Storey Building with Shear Walls Using ETABS.” International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR), Vol. 5, Issue 9, pp. 322–329.