This study evaluates the lateral-load performance of a highly slender, 90-storey reinforced-concrete high-rise building under three structural configurations, focusing on serviceability, global stiffness and force demand. The building has a nominal height of 310.50 m, a plan width of 24 m and a height-to-width ratio of 12.9375. Case 1 is a reference multiple-tube structure without outriggers. Case 2 incorporates outriggers at the 30th and 60th floors. Case 3 retains the outriggers and revises the beam dimensions from 400 × 600 mm to 600 × 600 mm and column dimensions from 600 × 600 mm to 900 × 1200 mm. The configurations were analysed using ETABS, with wind and seismic actions considered in accordance with IS 875 (Part 3) and IS 1893 (Part 1), respectively. Performance was compared using maximum storey displacement, drift ratio, upper-level acceleration, modal periods, earthquake and wind base shear, overturning moment and modal response. Maximum displacement decreased from 1039.431 mm in Case 1 to 900.385 mm in Case 2 (13.38% reduction) and 615.833 mm in Case 3 (40.75% reduction). Maximum drift ratios were 0.001057, 0.000957 and 0.000784, respectively; the Case 3 reduction relative to Case 1 was 25.83%. Story 90 accelerations decreased from 0.210 m/s2 to 0.193 m/s2 and 0.151 m/s2, respectively. The fundamental period declined from 12.093 s to 11.315 s and 10.301 s, indicating increased global stiffness. Under EQX loading, base shear increased from 23,232.83 kN to 23,467.89 kN and 27,797.57 kN, while wind base shear decreased from 35,064 kN to 34,552 kN and 33,865 kN. Base overturning moment increased from 5.431 × 106 kN·m in Case 1 to 5.477 × 106 kN·m and 6.487 × 106 kN·m. Case 3 provided the greatest reductions in displacement, drift and acceleration, but its higher seismic base shear and overturning demand require careful verification of member and foundation capacities.
| Published in | American Journal of Civil Engineering (Volume 14, Issue 5) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18 |
| Page(s) | 382-395 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group |
High-rise Building, Outrigger System, ETABS, Storey Displacement, Storey Drift, Acceleration, Base Shear, Overturning Moment
| [1] | R. J. Smith and M. R. Willford, “The damped outrigger concept for tall buildings,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 501-517, 2007, |
| [2] | Y. Chen, D. M. McFarland, Z. Wang, B. F. Spencer, Jr., and L. A. Bergman, “Analysis of tall buildings with damped outriggers,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 136, no. 11, pp. 1435-1443, 2010, |
| [3] | Y.-M. Kim, K.-P. You, and H.-Y. Kim, “Wind-induced excitation control of a tall building with tuned mass dampers,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, vol. 17, pp. 669-682, 2008, |
| [4] | A. Giaralis and F. Petrini, “Wind-induced vibration mitigation in tall buildings using the tuned mass-damper-inerter,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 143, no. 9, Art. no. 04017127, 2017, |
| [5] | A. Habrah, M. Batikha, and G. Vasdravellis, “An analytical optimization study on the core-outrigger system for efficient design of tall buildings under static lateral loads,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 46, Art. no. 103762, 2022, |
| [6] | M. Wang, S. Nagarajaiah, and F.-F. Sun, “Dynamic characteristics and responses of damped outrigger tall buildings using negative stiffness,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 146, no. 12, Art. no. 04020273, 2020, |
| [7] | M. Wang, S. Nagarajaiah, and L. Chen, “Adaptive passive negative stiffness and damping for retrofit of existing tall buildings with tuned mass damper: -NSD,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 148, no. 11, Art. no. 04022180, 2022, |
| [8] | S. Sarkar and B. Fitzgerald, “Design of tuned mass damper fluid inerter for wind-induced vibration control of a tall building,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 150, no. 3, Art. no. 04023242, 2024, |
| [9] | S. Shirgir, A. Shamsaddinlou, and D. De Domenico, “Reliability-based design optimization of tuned mass damper for tall buildings considering uncertainty of soil-structure interaction,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, vol. 34, no. 14, Art. no. e70075, 2025, |
| [10] | Y. Abrass and O. Lavan, “Optimal seismic design of high-rise buildings with outrigger tuned inertial mass damper,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 176-198, 2026, |
| [11] | X.-H. Liu, Y. Zhang, L. Chen, and T. Wang, “Development and seismic validation of a negative stiffness damped outrigger system with damping amplification for tall buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 151, no. 4, Art. no. 04025012, 2025, |
| [12] | M. Calayir, R. J. Giaralis, and A. Giaralis, “Experimental and numerical assessment of tuned mass damper inerter systems for wind and seismic vibration mitigation in high-rise buildings,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 345-367, 2026, |
| [13] | D. Hope, S. Rao, and A. Kulkarni, “Seismic enhancement of high-rise RC buildings using fluid viscous dampers integrated with outrigger systems,” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 289-312, 2025, |
| [14] | Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 456:2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete—Code of Practice, New Delhi, India, 2000. |
| [15] | Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 875 (Part 1):1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures—Dead Loads, New Delhi, India, 1987. |
| [16] | Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 875 (Part 2):1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures—Imposed Loads, New Delhi, India, 1987. |
| [17] | Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 875 (Part 3):2015, Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures—Wind Loads, New Delhi, India, 2015. |
| [18] | Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 1893 (Part 1):2016, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures—General Provisions and Buildings, New Delhi, India, 2016. |
| [19] | Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 1786:2008, High Strength Deformed Steel Bars and Wires for Concrete Reinforcement—Specification, New Delhi, India, 2008. |
| [20] | Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI), ETABS: Integrated Building Design Software, Berkeley, CA, USA, software documentation. |
APA Style
Ahmad, A., Nagarajan, K., Narwade, R., Pathak, G. (2026). Comparative Lateral Loads Performance Evaluation of a Highly Slender High-rise Building Under Different Structural Configurations. American Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(5), 382-395. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18
ACS Style
Ahmad, A.; Nagarajan, K.; Narwade, R.; Pathak, G. Comparative Lateral Loads Performance Evaluation of a Highly Slender High-rise Building Under Different Structural Configurations. Am. J. Civ. Eng. 2026, 14(5), 382-395. doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18,
author = {Adeel Ahmad and Karthik Nagarajan and Raju Narwade and Gayatri Pathak},
title = {Comparative Lateral Loads Performance Evaluation of a Highly Slender High-rise Building Under Different Structural Configurations},
journal = {American Journal of Civil Engineering},
volume = {14},
number = {5},
pages = {382-395},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajce.20261405.18},
abstract = {This study evaluates the lateral-load performance of a highly slender, 90-storey reinforced-concrete high-rise building under three structural configurations, focusing on serviceability, global stiffness and force demand. The building has a nominal height of 310.50 m, a plan width of 24 m and a height-to-width ratio of 12.9375. Case 1 is a reference multiple-tube structure without outriggers. Case 2 incorporates outriggers at the 30th and 60th floors. Case 3 retains the outriggers and revises the beam dimensions from 400 × 600 mm to 600 × 600 mm and column dimensions from 600 × 600 mm to 900 × 1200 mm. The configurations were analysed using ETABS, with wind and seismic actions considered in accordance with IS 875 (Part 3) and IS 1893 (Part 1), respectively. Performance was compared using maximum storey displacement, drift ratio, upper-level acceleration, modal periods, earthquake and wind base shear, overturning moment and modal response. Maximum displacement decreased from 1039.431 mm in Case 1 to 900.385 mm in Case 2 (13.38% reduction) and 615.833 mm in Case 3 (40.75% reduction). Maximum drift ratios were 0.001057, 0.000957 and 0.000784, respectively; the Case 3 reduction relative to Case 1 was 25.83%. Story 90 accelerations decreased from 0.210 m/s2 to 0.193 m/s2 and 0.151 m/s2, respectively. The fundamental period declined from 12.093 s to 11.315 s and 10.301 s, indicating increased global stiffness. Under EQX loading, base shear increased from 23,232.83 kN to 23,467.89 kN and 27,797.57 kN, while wind base shear decreased from 35,064 kN to 34,552 kN and 33,865 kN. Base overturning moment increased from 5.431 × 106 kN·m in Case 1 to 5.477 × 106 kN·m and 6.487 × 106 kN·m. Case 3 provided the greatest reductions in displacement, drift and acceleration, but its higher seismic base shear and overturning demand require careful verification of member and foundation capacities.},
year = {2026}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparative Lateral Loads Performance Evaluation of a Highly Slender High-rise Building Under Different Structural Configurations AU - Adeel Ahmad AU - Karthik Nagarajan AU - Raju Narwade AU - Gayatri Pathak Y1 - 2026/10/28 PY - 2026 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18 DO - 10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18 T2 - American Journal of Civil Engineering JF - American Journal of Civil Engineering JO - American Journal of Civil Engineering SP - 382 EP - 395 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-8737 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20261405.18 AB - This study evaluates the lateral-load performance of a highly slender, 90-storey reinforced-concrete high-rise building under three structural configurations, focusing on serviceability, global stiffness and force demand. The building has a nominal height of 310.50 m, a plan width of 24 m and a height-to-width ratio of 12.9375. Case 1 is a reference multiple-tube structure without outriggers. Case 2 incorporates outriggers at the 30th and 60th floors. Case 3 retains the outriggers and revises the beam dimensions from 400 × 600 mm to 600 × 600 mm and column dimensions from 600 × 600 mm to 900 × 1200 mm. The configurations were analysed using ETABS, with wind and seismic actions considered in accordance with IS 875 (Part 3) and IS 1893 (Part 1), respectively. Performance was compared using maximum storey displacement, drift ratio, upper-level acceleration, modal periods, earthquake and wind base shear, overturning moment and modal response. Maximum displacement decreased from 1039.431 mm in Case 1 to 900.385 mm in Case 2 (13.38% reduction) and 615.833 mm in Case 3 (40.75% reduction). Maximum drift ratios were 0.001057, 0.000957 and 0.000784, respectively; the Case 3 reduction relative to Case 1 was 25.83%. Story 90 accelerations decreased from 0.210 m/s2 to 0.193 m/s2 and 0.151 m/s2, respectively. The fundamental period declined from 12.093 s to 11.315 s and 10.301 s, indicating increased global stiffness. Under EQX loading, base shear increased from 23,232.83 kN to 23,467.89 kN and 27,797.57 kN, while wind base shear decreased from 35,064 kN to 34,552 kN and 33,865 kN. Base overturning moment increased from 5.431 × 106 kN·m in Case 1 to 5.477 × 106 kN·m and 6.487 × 106 kN·m. Case 3 provided the greatest reductions in displacement, drift and acceleration, but its higher seismic base shear and overturning demand require careful verification of member and foundation capacities. VL - 14 IS - 5 ER -
Department of Civil Engineering, Pillai HOC College of Engineering and Technology affiliated to University of Mumbai, Rasayani, India
Department of Civil Engineering, Pillai HOC College of Engineering and Technology affiliated to University of Mumbai, Rasayani, India
Department of Civil Engineering, Pillai HOC College of Engineering and Technology affiliated to University of Mumbai, Rasayani, India
Department of Civil Engineering, Pillai HOC College of Engineering and Technology affiliated to University of Mumbai, Rasayani, India
Information