Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to urbanization, we need to serve more population in the same area, tall buildings are the suitable technique for providing residence, office and commercial purposes in the same location.

1.1.General

Tall building defined as per criteria for structural safety of tall buildings ced 38 “It is a

building of height greater than 45 m, but less than 250 m, normally intended for use as residential, office and other commercial buildings”.

Tall buildings are highly sophisticated engineering projects, due to the complexity of designing a tall structure engineers requires advanced design techniques. The process of designing tall buildings has changed over the past years. However, In order to design better tall buildings information must be collected on the performance of existing structures. For the design of tall structure an engineer need to know the performance of the building designed through code, so that he can improve the performance by using some other literature work. Currently, project is about the performance assessment of the tall building designed as per the draft code recommended by CED 38 Committee. The design of tall buildings mainly involves a conceptual design, analysis, preliminary design and optimization, to safely carry gravity and lateral loads. The design criteria are strength, serviceability and stability. The strength is satisfied by limit stresses, while serviceability is satisfied by drift limits. Stability is satisfied by factor of safety against buckling and p - Δ effects. The aim of the structural engineer is to arrive at suitable structural schemes, to satisfy these criteria. The wind load study is required because, for a tall structures wind is also the one of the main governing design load criteria. Tall buildings are called as “Vertical Cities”

1.2. About “CED 38”

CED 38 is a technical committee for “Special Structures Sectional Commithe ttee”. Working under chairman ship of Devdas Menon (IIT Madras Professor). Present code CED 38 (10639): CRITERIA FOR STRUCTURAL SAFETY OF TALL BUILDINGS” is deals with design provisions of tall structures.

1

1.3.Need of Tall Structures Study

As per the recent studies the population increased rapidly in last few decades however, in-spite of limited land resources the commercial and residential requirements are satisfied by using Tall structures. Therefore, wind and seismic performance assessment of tall building is required to improve the understanding of the behaviour of the structure.

1.4.Criteria of Tall Structure

There are no absolute criteria that are accepted internationally to differentiate the tall buildings. However, there are various height criteria’s for tall buildings as follows

i) As per Council on Tall Building and Urban Habitat, 2017

Tall Buildings:

Super Tall Buildings: 300 m to 600 m Mega Tall Buildings: >600 m

45 m to 300 m

ii) As per High-Rise security & Fire Life safety, 3 rd edition, 2009 Height at which the evacuation is difficult during an accident it is called as High-Rise / Tall Building. Generally they started from 7 to 10 stories.

iii) As per NFPA, 2016 Tall Buildings: > 75 feet’s

iv) As per IS 875: Part 3, 2015 Low Rise Buildings: < 20 m High Rise Buildings: ≥ 50 m

v) As per Draft code on Criteria For Structural Safety of Tall Building, 2016 Tall Buildings: 45 m to 250 m Super Tall Buildings: > 250 m

vi) As per “Hazus - MH MR5” Low - rise Building: < 3 storey High rise Building: > 8 storey

2. LITRATURE REVIEW

Literature work was carried out mainly on three areas. They are

1. Classification of Structural System for the tall structures

2. p - Δ and Higher mode Effect on the Tall Structures

3. Seismic performance of buildings with various structural systems.

2

2.1 Classification of Structural System for the tall structures

For designing any tall building we should know the various systems that are using in

the field and know about the advantages and drawbacks of the each system.

Falconer (1981) author in this thesis discusses about the classified of the various

structural systems based on Loading-Oriented Schemes, Material-Oriented Schemes

and Framing-Oriented Schemes. Proposed a classified system mainly based on frame

and working utility. Discussed various advantages and disadvantages of various

structural classification systems.

Gunel and Ilgin (2006) discussed about the classification of structural systems for

tall buildings specifies various structural systems that can be used for the lateral

resistance of tall buildings based on the basic reaction mechanism/structural

behaviour for resisting the lateral loads. Nowadays, reinforced concrete and

composite structures are in serious competition with the steel structures, and by the

advancements in concrete technology, such as manufacturing ultra-high-strength

concrete, all the structural systems classified above can be applied in reinforced

concrete. In the near future, it is thought that, the preference of composite and

concrete tall building structures will increase. Furthermore, tall buildings with new

structural classification which can be called as ‘mixed systems’ and ‘bundled

systems’ will be introduced. ‘Mixed systems’ use the combination of two or more of

the above different systems. On the other hand, ‘bundled systems’ utilize the bundled

form of structural systems as in the case of Burj Dubai where the structure utilizes

bundled shear wall system, which is also named as ‘buttressed core system’.

system, which is also named as ‘buttressed core system’. Fig 1. Different structural form for different

Fig 1. Different structural form for different heights of structure (Ref. Unknown source)

3

2.2 p - Δ and higher mode effect on the tall structures

p - Δ effect is the important parameter in tall building because it creates additional moment needed to be resisted by the structure which is higher in tall buildings. Higher modes changes the behaviour of the structure during lateral loads

Sullivan, Priestley and Calvi (2013) discussed about estimating the higher-mode

response of ductile structures through the examination of the fully dynamic behaviour of a reinforced concrete frame-wall structures. Author put-forward the concept of transitory inelastic modes which is similar method of Eigen-value analysis of the structure. The plastic hinge locations are assigned by yield tangent stiffness. By super position approach of transitory inelastic mode shows better prediction of base shear values. By using transitory inelastic modal characteristics instead of elastic modal characteristics for the capacity design of structures it is benefit.

Konapure and Dhanshetti (2015) discussed about the effect of p - Δ on multi-story building. Generally, p - Δ effect is negligible up to 7 storey buildings where only gravity loads are governing load combinations. As it is iterative method, three iterations are required for convergence of the results. As number of stories increases means (height of building increases) the p - Δ effect becomes more and more predominant from respective parameters like displacement, storey drifts, column & beam moments column & beam shear forces. Author analysed the building with P- Δ (structure deformation) and P- Δ (with structure & member deformation) does not differ for displacement, storey drifts, and column & beam moments, beam shear except column shear. In case of column shear P- Δ (structure deformation) gives maximum column shear than P- Δ (with structure & member deformation). Column shear reduces when member deformations are also considered.

Dhawale and Narule (2016) discussed about the analysis result of the p - Δ effect on high-rise building as number of storey increases p - Δ effect becomes more important. p - Δ effect was only observed in some of the beams and columns (exterior columns and their adjacent beams) in some load cases. If these load cases are prevailing load cases for design of member, then only we can say that it is considerable. This condition is observed in 25 and 30 storey buildings and mostly in 30 storey building. So we can say that, at least it is necessary to check the results of analysis with and

4

without considering p - Δ effect for the buildings with 25 stories. Building is analysed by iteration method author done it for 10 times but it’s observed that the results are converging after 2 iterations. So there is no change in the results by increasing the number of iterations. Author advise to perform P- Δ analysis for a structure more than 25 storey, up to 25 stories the designed by using linear analysis. The result are valid for regular R.C.C residential building

Manasa and Manjularani (2017) discussed the effect of wind load on the tall building on tall building by p - Δ effect. The drift ratio is found out for wind loading, considering with and without p - Δ effect for different number of stories such as 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 in design software. Drift ratio is very small in lower stories and reaches maximum at the story level increases. The effect of p - Δ increases as the height of the building increases and it high for slender members.

2.3 Seismic performance of buildings with various structural systems.

In this we study the performance of the existing structures during earthquakes and performance of the structures of the various configurations.

Nilupa and Nicholas (2010) seismic performance of super tall buildings is a general concepts and there are various methods. In this author done performance analysis by using model analysis, DDBD, capacity spectrum method, N2 method. It is shown that these methods may not be directly applicable to super tall buildings due to the higher mode effects. The phenomenon of higher-mode period increasing has been illustrated through the non-linear dynamic analysis of a 300m tall building.

Burak and Hakki (2013) effect of shear wall to floor area ratio on the seismic performance of the building As the shear wall ratio increases, the observed drift decreases; however, when this ratio exceeds 1.5%, the reduction in the values maximum interstory drift values becomes less pronounced compared with the reduction in drift levels for a change of the shear wall ratio beyond 0.5%. For a 5- story buildings indicated that at least 1.0% of the shear wall ratio should be provided during design to control the drift of a shear wall-frame structure. By increasing the shear wall percentages total number of member yielding was reduced. By shear wall ratio 1.5% yielding members are reduced even in strong ground motion. The drift values are decreases by increasing the shear wall ratio, but when the fundamental

5

period of building and earthquake period is closer the drift amplification was taken place in the direction of motion. Base shear carried by shear wall increases rapidly from 0.5% to 1.0 %, the increase is moderate in 1.0 % to 2.0%. Ground floor shear walls carry about 80% of the base shear. The base shear force carried by the walls is observed to be more than 90% for shear wall ratios of 1.5 and 2.0%.

Deger, Yang, Wallace and Jack (2014) Seismic performance of 2 RC core wall buildings with and without moment resisting frames and analysed at various hazard levels to assess seismic performance. Building 1 was a reinforced concrete core wall only building, whereas Building 2 was a similar core wall building with perimeter moment resisting frame. Designed by using US code and PEER guidelines. The performance wise the building with dual system designed as per PEER performed well. The cost analysis was done only core wall system was economical than dual system even after the earthquake and retrofitting charges.

Sanjay and Umesh (2016) discussed about effect of aspect ratio in the multi-storey

building. The analysis was performed for 2 bay, 8 bay, 12 bay & 16 bay for 4 th , 16 th ,

24 th & 32 nd storey Buildings. The Base shear increases gradually with increase in

number of bay and up to 16th storey but for all the cases of 2 bay, 8 bay, 12 bay & 16 bay the base shear is randomly decreases with increase of bays in 24 th and 32 nd story.

The Base Shear is obtained lower for 2 bay buildings and higher for 16 bay buildings. Lowest value is obtained in case of 2 bay-32nd storey building, whereas highest in case of 16 bay-16th storey. The Storey overturning moment increases gradually with increase in number of bay and storeys for all the cases of 2 bay,8 bay,12 bay & 16 bay buildings for each 4th, 16th, 24th & 32nd storey buildings. The Storey overturning moment is obtained lower for 2 bay buildings and higher for 16 bay buildings. Lowest value is obtained in case of 2 bay-4th storey building, whereas highest in case of 16 bay-32nd storey. The Storey Drift increases gradually with increase in number of bays and storeys, for 4th, 16th, 24th & 32nd storey buildings for all the cases of 2 bay, 8 bay,12 bay & 16 bay buildings except the case of 2 bay-32nd storey, in which there is obtained some little decrease. The Storey Drift is obtained lower for 2 bay buildings and higher for 16 bay buildings.

6

2.4. Salient Features of the Literature Review

The various classification of the structural systems available for the tall building.

Structural system’s main advantages and drawbacks.

The suitable structural system for a various height’s of the building.

For better performance of the building by considering P - Δ effect, new design concept by using transitory inelastic modal.

P – Δ effect is significant after 7 storeys.

P – Δ effect on the interior and exterior columns with different height of the building.

Wind load on building by P – Δ effect was analysed.

For analysing a tall building normal method are accurate because of the higher mode effect.

Performance of building with different shear wall to floor area ratio, it is effective from 1.0% to 1.5%.

Performance analysis of building designed as per U.S code and PEER of core wall and core wall with MRF system. Performance is better in PEER design on core wall with MRF but the cost analysis core wall is economical.

Importance of aspect ratio & number of bays is calculated, base shear and storey drift increases as bays increases up to 16 th storey but base shear it is reduced after 16 th storey.

3. CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

The various structural systems available for design of tall buildings. Some of the structural configuration developed by mixing two or more system (Dual System). They are:

1. Moment Frame System

2. Structural Wall System

3. Frame Tube System

4. Tube-in-Tube System

5. Bundled Tube System

6. Structural Wall + Moment Frame System

7. Structural Wall + Tube Frame System

7

8.

Structural Wall + Flat Slab System with perimeter Moment Frame

9. Outrigger System

3.1.Moment Frame System

It is a structural system comprising of beam-column frames and resisting the vertical and lateral loads. In buildings up to 30 stories, frame action usually takes care of lateral resistance except for very slender buildings. For buildings with over 30 stories, the rigidity of the frame system remains mostly insufficient for lateral sway resulting from wind and earthquake actions

3.2.Structural Wall System

It is a structural system comprising of inter-connected structural walls, wherein the vertical and lateral loads are resisted by the wall through axial load, in-plane bending moment and shear force. The wall element form the primary lateral load resisting structural system for the building, and resist the loads imposed on them through axial, shear and flexural actions, and through coupling actions offered by the connecting link element. Shear walls may be described as vertical cantilevered beams, which resist lateral wind and seismic loads acting on a building and transmitted to them by the floor diaphragms. Shear walls are generally parts of the elevator and service cores, and frames to create a stiffer and stronger structure. This system structurally behaves like a concrete building with shear walls resisting all the lateral loads. The construction of the structure through structural wall is about up to 90 story. If we use structural wall above 90 m, its economical go to dual systems discussed later.

3.3.Frame Tube System

Framed tube systems, are proper for steel, reinforced concrete and composite construction, and represent a logical evolution of the conventional frame structure. Since frame and shear-walled frame systems become inefficient in very tall buildings, framed tube becomes an alternative of these systems. The primary characteristic of a tube is the employment of closely spaced perimeter columns interconnected by deep spandrels, so that the whole building works as a huge vertical cantilever to resist overturning moments. It is an efficient system to provide lateral resistance with or without interior columns. The efficiency of this system is due to great number of rigid joints acting along the periphery, creating a large tube. Exterior tube carries all the lateral loading. The gravity loading is shared between the tube and the interior

8

columns or walls, if they exist. The framed tube building leave free space in the interior floor area besides free from the bracing and heavy columns, the lateral loads are resisted by the frame provides in the perimeter. The method of achieving the tubular behaviour by using columns on close centres connected by a deep spandrel is the most common system because of the rectangular windows arrangement. There are two popular versions used currently for this system for construction: one system utilizes composite columns and concrete spandrels while the other utilizes structural steel spandrels instead of concrete ones. As the columns are closely spaced for creating a tube action, for the ground floor there be a problem for using lobby space it can be overcome by using transfer girders or inclined columns. Height-to-width ratio, plan dimensions, spacing, and size of columns and spandrels of the buildings, directly affect the efficiency of the system. Even though the tube form was developed originally for rectangular or square buildings, and probably it’s most efficient use in those shapes, circular, triangular, and trapezoidal forms could be employed as well. When lateral sway is critical and starts controlling the design, the ‘‘framed tube’’ can be used, if we need to improve by tube in the core to create ‘‘tube-in-tube’’ system, which can be constructed over 100 stories height. The 110-storey-high World Trade Centre Twin Towers (1972) with its tube-in-tube steel structure and the DeWitt- Chestnut Apartment Building (1965) with its reinforced concrete structure are good examples of the frame tube system.

3.4.Tube-in-Tube System

It is a structural system, which is an extension of the Tube Structure, where there is an internal tube, often a core element, supplementing the external perimeter described as the Tube Structure above, to enhance the overall lateral global stiffness. Just as the Tube Structure, typically, even this system is reserved for very tall buildings.

3.5.Bundled Tube System

It is a structural system, which is an extension of the Tube Structure and/or the Tube- in-Tube Structure, where the architectural plan of the tower allows to facilitate multiple tubes connected together, to enhance the lateral stiffness of the structure. Just as the Tube Structure and the Tube-in-Tube Structure, typically, even this system is reserved for very tall buildings. Bundled tube systems are proper for steel, reinforced concrete, and composite construction. A single framed tube does not have an adequate structural efficiency, if

9

the building dimensions increase in both height and width. Namely, the wider the structure is in plan, the less effective is the tube. In such cases, the bundled tube, also known as modular tube, with larger spaced columns is preferred. This concept, being created by the need for vertical modulation in a logical fashion, can be defined as a cluster of tubes interconnected with common interior panels to generate a perforated multi cell tube. Since this system is originated from the arrangement of individual tubes, a variety of floor configurations could be achieved by simply terminating a tube at any desired height without sacrificing structural stiffness. This feature makes the setbacks with different shapes and sizes possible. It has advantages in structuring unsymmetrical shapes. Since the ‘‘bundled-tube’’ design is derived from the layout of individual tubes, the cells can be in different shapes such as triangular, hexagonal, or semi-circular units. The disadvantage, however, is that the floors are divided into tight cells by a series of columns that run across the building width. Since spaced columns are large, and thinner spandrels, this system allows wider window spaces and free passage into lobby for the ground floor user while compared to the single-tube structure. Moreover, this system also makes the architectural planning of the building more flexible since any tube module can be dropped out whenever required by the planning of the interior spaces. Two versions are possible using either framed or diagonally braced tubes. The 57-storey-high One Magnificent Mile Building (1983) in Chicago is a good example of a concrete bundled-tube design. The best example of a steel bundled tube concept is the 108-storey-high Sears Tower (1974) in Chicago. In this building, the advantage of the bundled form was taken into consideration and some of the tubes are made disconnected, and the plan of the building was reduced at stages along the height. Bundled-tube concept has a broad application because of its modular quality. The tubes or cells can be organized in a variety of ways to create different massing; it can be utilized for a 30-storey-high building as well as for ultra- tall structures with over 100 stories.

3.6.Structural Wall + Moment Frame System

It is a structural system comprising of (beam-column) frames and structural walls resisting the vertical and lateral loads. The relative share of the lateral load resisted between these systems is dependent on their relative lateral stiffness’s. This system is used for the structures up to 50 stories.

10

3.7. Structural Wall + Tube Frame System

It is a structural system comprising closely spaced columns and deep beams in the perimeter frame for an efficient tube action. The internal vertical elements comprising of core or columns is primarily utilized resist gravity loads only. Effective utilization of the perimeter of the building maximizes the overall stiffness for a given building plan shape; this system is effective for very tall buildings.

3.8. Structural Wall + Flab Slab System with Perimeter Moment Frame

It is a structural system comprising of structural walls, a beam-less floor system, and columns resisting the vertical and lateral loads. The relative share of the lateral load resisted between these systems is dependent on their relative lateral stiffness’s.

3.9.Outrigger System

It is a structural system comprising of a core element and perimeter columns, resisting the vertical and lateral loads. The outrigger system is similar to structural wall and moment frame system but there is a difference is the structural wall is provided inside as a core and the outside peripheral part is the moment frame system. Essentially, the perimeter columns are for resisting gravity loads only. The core element is connected to select perimeter column element by deep beam elements, known as outriggers.

4. COMPARISION OF CED 38 WITH VARIOUS INDIAN DESIGN CODES

There are various design codes for the general guidelines for the design of the structure, however the few clause are different for the tall buildings. IS 456 is an code of practise for the plain and reinforced concrete for general building construction, however the tall structure requires some changes are here. IS 1893: (Part 1) 2016 is the earthquake resistant design the requirement for the tall structures are different. IS 13920: 2016 is the ductile detailing of members as the structure is more flexible and slender than normal buildings clauses are altered. IS 875: (Part 3) 2015 is code for wind load on the structure but there is very small changes in the return period for few type of structures. IS 1892: 1979 is code for sub-soil study, the tall building has higher loads so requires more soil investigation than normal buildings. IS 1904: 1986

11

is code of practise for foundation design, where the loads are high in tall building so there is change in permissible limits and foundation design . Table 1. CED 38 vs IS 456

CED 38

IS 456

Minimum Grade of Concrete is M30

Minimum Grade of Concrete is M20

Table 2. CED 38 vs IS 1893: (part1) 2016

CED 38

IS 1893: (part1) 2016

Damping Ratio Concrete is 2%, 1.5% for

Composite and 1% for steel Buildings

Minimum Base shear coefficient as per building

height

5% damping irrespective of the material type.

Uniform base shear coefficients

Table 3. CED 38 vs IS 1892: 1979

CED 38

IS 1892: 1979

For bore holes

For bore holes

i. 30 m spacing b/w them

i. 5 pits for 0.4 H = 4000 m 2

ii. Minimum 2 boreholes per Tower

ii. 50 m for Cone penetration test

Table 4. CED 38 vs IS 875: (Part 3) 2015

CED 38

IS 875 (Part 3): 2015

For Wind tunnel Studies return period is 10

years

Generally we use 50 years return period

Table 5. CED 38 vs IS 13920: 2016

CED 38

IS 13920: 2016

Minimum dimension of the Column

i) 15 X diameter of largest longitudinal bar

ii)

300 mm

Structural wall thickness not less than 160 mm

and H w /20 (Larger)

Base Shear coefficients as per Height

Special requirement for Zone IV and V

Minimum thickness 200 mm

R/F : 0.4% in each direction

Minimum dimension of the Column

i) 20 X diameter of largest longitudinal bar

ii)

300 mm

In structural wall

i)

150mm

ii) 300 mm for building with coupled shear walls

Uniform base shear coefficients

Calculation of R/f based Type of wall with few

equations

Minimum R/f in any type of wall: 0.25%

Table 6. CED 38 vs IS 1904: 1986

CED 38

IS 1904: 1986

FOS for overturning and sliding is 1.5

Depth of foundation:

1. 1/15 of H for Raft

2. 1/12 of H for Pile and Pile raft

Permissible settlement:

Raft: 50 mm(Soil & Rock) Isolated : 25 mm & 12 mm (Soil & Rock)

Overturning : 1.5 & 2 Sliding : 1.5 & 1.75 NO values are specified but said minimum of 50 cm is required

Permissible settlement:

Raft: 100 mm & 75 mm(Soil) Isolated: 75 mm & 60 mm (Soil)

In the draft code of design of tall buildings, there are various clauses that are newly available are:

1. For a particular location there is no height restriction as per structural system, but as per the draft code there are clear specification of the height of the building for every system and in every zone.

2. There are permissible limits for the vertical floor accerlations. So we need to maintain certain additional mass if the floor accerlation its crossing the limits.

3. Using of the special moment resisting frame system in the Zone III, IV, V than using moment resisting frame.

4. Procedure and limits are specified for the design of Frame Tube and Tube Tube System.

5. Objectives

Following are the objectives of the study

To compare the draft code of design tall buildings with various Indian design codes.

To compare the draft code of design tall buildings with various national codes viz. American, European and New Zealand codes.

To write commentary for the draft code CED 38 (10639) “Criteria for Structural safety of Tall building”.

To study the efficacy of the various structural systems for designing a 30 storey (100 m) tall building.

To analytically evaluate the performance of the building designed as per draft code by using non-linear analysis.

13

6.

Scope of Work

Currently, the study will be on the behaviour of the RC buildings (designed as per draft code). The study was carried out on the building with structural systems are moment frame system, structural wall system and dual system (structural wall + moment frame). The building for analysis are with following limitations

Simple regular plan building

Set backs are not considered

Maximum height of the structure is 100 m

7. REFERENCES

Burak, B., and Hakki, G. C., (2013), “Effect of shear wall area to floor area ratio on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(11), 1928-1937. Deger, Z. T., Yang, T. Y., Wallace, J. W., and Jack, M., (2014), “Seismic performance of reinforced concrete core wall buildings with and without moment resisting frame”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 24(7), 477-

490.

Dhawale, P. J., and Narule, G. N., (2016), “Analysis of P-Delta effect on high rise buildings”, International Journal of Engineering Research and general sciences, 4(4), 90-103. Gunel, M. H., and Ilgin, H. E., (2007), “A proposal for the classification of structural systems of tall buildings”, Journal of Building and Environment, Elsevier, Science Direct 42: 2667-2675.

IS 1892:1979, Subsurface Investigation for Foundation Code of Practice (first revision), BIS, New Delhi, India. IS 1904:1986, Design and Construction of Foundations in Soils Code of Practice (third revision), BIS, New Delhi, India. IS 456:2000, Plan and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice (fourth revision), BIS, New Delhi, India. IS 875(Part 3):2015, Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and Structure- Code of Practice (third revision), BIS, New Delhi, India.

14

IS 1893(Part 1):2016, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, part 1 general provision and building (sixth revision), BIS, New Delhi, India. IS 13920:2016, Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected to Seismic Forces Code of Practice (first revision), BIS, New Delhi, India. Konapure, C. G., and Dhanshetti, P.V., (2015), “Effect of P-Delta action on multi- storey buildings”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 4(1), 668-672. Manasa, C. K., Manjularani, P., (2017), “Effect of wind load on tall RC buildings by P-Delta analysis”, Int. conf. on current trends in Eng. Science and Technology. Nilupa, H., Priyan, M., Tuan, N., and Nicholas, H., (2010), “Seismic performance of super tall buildings”, International Conference on sustainable built environment,

160-168.

Sanjay, K. S., and Umesh, P., (2016), “Effect of aspect ratio & plan configuration on seismic performance of multi-storeyed regular R.C.C. building: An evaluation by static analysis”, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 6(1), 192-197. Sullivan, T. J., Priestley, M. J. N., and Calvi, G. M., (2008), “Estimating the higher- mode response of ductile structures." Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(3),

456-472.

15