Seismic performance of lateral load resisting systems

  • Subramanian, K. (Department of Civil Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology) ;
  • Velayutham, M. (Anna University)
  • Received : 2013.04.29
  • Accepted : 2014.05.18
  • Published : 2014.08.10


In buildings structures, the flexural stiffness reduction of beams and columns due to concrete cracking plays an important role in the nonlinear load-deformation response of reinforced concrete structures under service loads. Most Seismic Design Codes do not precise effective stiffness to be used in seismic analysis for structures of reinforced concrete elements, therefore uncracked section properties are usually considered in computing structural stiffness. But, uncracked stiffness will never be fully recovered during or after seismic response. In the present study, the effect of concrete cracking on the lateral response of structure has been taken into account. Totally 120 cases of 3 Dimensional Dynamic Analysis which considers the real and accidental torsional effects are performed using ETABS to determine the effective structural system across the height, which ensures the performance and the economic dimensions that achieve the saving in concrete and steel amounts thus achieve lower cost. The result findings exhibits that the dual system was the most efficient lateral load resisting system based on deflection criterion, as they yielded the least values of lateral displacements and inter-storey drifts. The shear wall system was the most economical lateral load resisting compared to moment resisting frame and dual system but they yielded the large values of lateral displacements in top storeys. Wall systems executes tremendous stiffness at the lower levels of the building, while moment frames typically restrain considerable deformations and provide significant energy dissipation under inelastic deformations at the upper levels. Cracking found to be more impact over moment resisting frames compared to the Shear wall systems. The behavior of various lateral load resisting systems with respect to time period, mode shapes, storey drift etc. are discussed in detail.


  1. ACI 318M (2008), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute, U.S.A.
  2. Chandler, A.M. and Mendis, P.A. (2000), "Performance of reinforced concrete frames using force and displacement based seismic assessment methods", Eng. Struct., 22(4), 352-363.
  3. Duan, H.J. and Hueste, M.B.D. (2012), "Seismic performance of a reinforced concrete frame buildings in China", Eng. Struct., 41, 77-89.
  4. IS 1893 - Part 1 (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General provisions and building, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
  5. IS 456 (2000), Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
  6. Kim, H.S., Lee, D.G. and Kim, C.K. (2005), "Efficient three-dimensional seismic analysis of a high-rise building structure with shear walls", Eng. Struct., 27(6), 963-976.
  7. Lu, Y., Hao, H., Carydis, P.G. and Mouzakis, H. (2001), "Seismic performance of RC frames designed for three different ductility levels", Eng. Struct., 23(5), 537-547.
  8. Paulay, T. (1983), "Deterministic seismic design procedures for reinforced concrete buildings" Eng. Struct., 5(1), 79-86.
  9. Zaregarizi, S. (2008), "Comparative investigation on using shear wall and infill to improve seismic performance of existing buildings", 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, China, October.

Cited by

  1. Stiffness Effects of Structural Elements on the Seismic Response of RC High-Rise Buildings vol.64, pp.1, 2018,