Authors: Rahul Kumar Satbhaiya, Jitendra
Abstract: High-rise buildings are particularly susceptible to lateral forces in seismically active regions. The primary consideration in their design is ensuring adequate resistance to these lateral stresses, as insufficient stability may lead to excessive displacement, structural instability, or even collapse. To mitigate such risks, buildings must be designed with effective lateral load–resisting mechanisms that enhance overall stability and serviceability. Among the commonly employed methods, steel bracing and masonry infill within reinforced concrete (RC) frames are recognized for their efficiency in resisting lateral loads. Steel bracing systems are advantageous due to their ease of installation, minimal space requirements, and ability to provide significant stiffness and strength with considerable design flexibility. Similarly, masonry infill can be executed efficiently with skilled labor and contributes to the overall lateral resistance of the structure. This study investigates the seismic performance of a reinforced concrete high-rise building of configuration R+12 (13 stories in total). Three structural configurations are evaluated: (i) bare frame, (ii) in filled frame with solid masonry, and (iii) frame with X-braced corner supports. The building model was developed and analyzed using CSI ETABS software, considering a three-dimensional asymmetric layout with a floor height of 3 m. Dynamic analysis was carried out using the response spectrum method for seismic Zone V under soft soil conditions, as specified by Indian seismic design guidelines. The results demonstrate that external steel bracing provides superior stability and reduced displacement compared to masonry infill and bare frames. In terms of both resistance and moment capacity, the steel bracing system proved to be the most effective lateral load–resisting system. Furthermore, from a cost-performance perspective, the steel tie system was found to be the most economical, followed by solid masonry infill, while the bare frame exhibited the least efficiency.
DOI: http://doi.org/
