Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Analysis on the diagrid structure with the conventional building frame

using ETABS
Neha Tirkey 1, G.B. Ramesh Kumar 2
Department of Civil Engineering, Saveetha School of Engineering, Chennai, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article outlines the case study on diagonal perimeter often known as the diagrid structure using soft-
Received 9 July 2019 ware ETABS (Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building System). The diagrid structure has
Received in revised form 31 July 2019 emerged into an innovative method in the recent construction field and has led to the advancement of
Accepted 6 August 2019
tall buildings and high rise structures not only in the engineering field but also in the architectural field.
Available online xxxx
It has also made the structure stiffer and lighter when compared to the normal conventional buildings.
The diagrid structure is designed, analyzed and is compared with the conventional building using
Keywords:
ETABS software mainly focusing on seismic and wind analysis parameters. As per IS 456:2000 and the
ETABS
Diagrid structure
Linear Static Method all the structural members of the diagrid model are designed and IS 1893 (PART
Storey displacement 1): 2002 is considered for load combination of seismic analysis.
Seismic analysis Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Wind analysis Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Materials Engineering and Characterization 2019.

1. Introduction Amruta K. Podar [1] emphasized in comparison of the diagrid

The advancement in technology has made our life simpler and
comfortable when compared to earlier times and has also led to
the need for space for living for the growing population. According
to the records, if we analyze our world population, it right now
exceeds 7.2 billion, which mandates the need to fulfil the growing
demands of the population. Due to the limited space and the need
for environmental conservation, it has become important for a civil
engineer to focus on stiffer, lighter and new technology savvy
methods for the construction. The diagrid structure is one such
method in which the vertical columns are eliminated, the frame
carries the gravity load, as well as the lateral load and the usage
of steel is also minimized when compared with the conventional
building. The IBM building in Pittsburgh is an example of the first
diagrid structure made up of 13 storey height. Other examples are
Shukhov tower in Polibino, Russia built-in 1896, Hearst tower in
New York, USA, Aldar headquarters in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emi-
rates and CCTV Headquarters in Beijing China which has used the
Diagrid method.
1
M.E. Scholar, II Year.
2
Associate Professor.
structure with the conventional building of G+20 storey and floor
height of 3 m concerning storey drift, lateral displacement and,
diagrid angle. Columns of different angels of 45°, 63°, 71°, 75° were
considered in the diagrid model and conventional building vertical
column of 90° was taken. The model was analyzed and compared
using ETABS software. The design parameters and load combina-
tion were assigned the same for both the building frames and
the paper concluded that the diagrid angle of 63° gave optimum
results for the G+20 storey building. The lateral displacement,
storey drift, axial force and the shear force gradually reduced in
the case of the diagrid structure. Hence it was conclude that the
diagrid structure is more beneficial than the conventional building
frame. The drawback of this paper is the availability of space and
the design structure of the diagrid frame. We cannot consider
one type of angle in every structure as it will vary.
Fig. 1 indicates the lateral displacement of the structure
decreased in diagrid structure for a different angle. The displace-
ment in conventional is maximum when compared to the diagrid
structure. It is caused due to lateral forces acting on the structure.
Abhay Guleria [2] experimented on buildings with Rectangular
shape, I shape, C shape and L shape using ETABS software. G+15
storey of floor height 3 m is designed and seismic analysis is calcu-
lated for each shape. This paper was analyzed to obtain the storey

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.107
2214-7853/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Materials Engineering and Characterization 2019.

Please cite this article as: N. Tirkey and G. B. Ramesh Kumar, Analysis on the diagrid structure with the conventional building frame using ETABS, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.107
2 N. Tirkey, G.B. Ramesh Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

The zone considered for this experiment was Zone III and for ana-
lyzing wind and seismic of modular structure, the Linear Static
method was followed. The tabular column represents the results
of an earthquake and wind analysis. The storey displacement, drift
and shear forces in X and Y direction were calculated and is repre-
sented. Hence it was concluded that the square and circular plans
showed lesser drift and displacement.
Table 2 represents that the rectangular plan shows a higher dis-
placement than the circular and square plan when the seismic load
was analyzed. The rectangular plan shows more displacement in
the Y direction and the structure is more vulnerable and likely to
affect more in the Y direction. The drift value is more in a rectan-
gular plan both in the X and Y direction. The shear force was more
for the circular plan in the X direction, wherein the Y direction
square plan showed higher shear force. The graph represents the
variation of displacement, storeys drift and shear force in X and
Fig. 1. Represents the lateral displacement of Diagrid Structures with the different
angles and the diagrid structure of angle more than 700 showed more Y direction of the various plans in Figs. 2–4.
displacement. Fig. 2 represents the lateral displacement of the different struc-
tural plans. The Lateral displacement is the total displacement of
the floor to the ground. The lateral displacement for all the building
drift, displacement, and maximum bending and shear force dia- plans considered for study the storey displacement must be within
gram. It was concluded that I and L shape provides more or less
similar results when compared to the other two shapes, whereas
in the case of the rectangular shape the overturning moment was
high. The Rectangular and C shape model being asymmetrical
showed more deformation when compared to I shape. The draw-
back of the paper is the asymmetrical structure looks more aes-
thetic from outside and requires less amount of steel when
compared with symmetrical ones. Hence the asymmetrical struc-
ture must be analyzed by assigning different properties and mate-
rials referring to Indian Standard code books. An example is the
Capital Gate of Abu Dhabi is an asymmetrical Diagrid Structure.
Table 1 represents that for I shape the bending moment in Y
direction was more compared to the other modular structures.
The Rectangular shaped modular structure showed a higher shear
force followed by the C and L shape. The Rectangular and C shape
model being asymmetrical shows more deformation when com-
pared to I shape. The overturning moment varies inversely with
storey height. In the case of a rectangular plan, a moment produced Fig. 2. Shows the lateral displacement in X and Y direction and in the rectangular
plan the displacement exceeds.
is higher than other shapes. Storey overturning moment decreases
with an increase in storey height in all the cases.
Shubhangi V [3] analyzed the Circular, Square and Rectangular
plan of G+60 using ETABS software for wind and seismic parame-
ters. Each plan has its dimension, but the floor height remains
the same 3 m for every plan. The load combination, seismic and
wind data were kept the same for every plan for the analysis.

Table 1
Shows the data of B.M. and shear force of various shapes.

Max B.M. and shear force of beam

Forces B.M. My B.M. M z Shear Force Fy
Rectangular 92.99 0.11 161.09
L-Shape 97.38 1.56 159.18
I-Shape 101.54 0.64 158.18
Fig. 3. Represents the storey drift higher in a circular plan when compared to
C-Shape 99.74 1.12 159.27
square and rectangular plan.

Table 2
Shows storey displacement, drift and shear values of circular, square and rectangular plans in X and Y direction.

Displacement X Displacement Y Drift X Drift Y Shear X Shear Y

Circular Plan 46.6 45.8 0.000671 0.000656 18724.3 10654.97
Square Plan 43.9 43.9 0.000471 0.000472 13242.7 13242.7
Rectangular Plan 32.1 58.9 0.000785 0.000748 1425.54 10170.22

Please cite this article as: N. Tirkey and G. B. Ramesh Kumar, Analysis on the diagrid structure with the conventional building frame using ETABS, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.107
 N. Tirkey, G.B. Ramesh Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Fig. 4. Represents the shear force higher in the circular plan both in the X-Y Fig. 5. Represents the displacement in the diagrid structure and the conventional
direction; the rectangular and square plan shows the same variation in the X- building for the wind and seismic loads.
direction.

the permissible limit. Square and Circular plans had a lower max-
imum storey displacement.
Fig. 3 represents that the square and circular exhibits lesser
storey drift than rectangular one but the drift values unlike storey
displacement value is within the permissible limit. The drift means
the relative displacement of the floor to the lower one.
Fig. 4 represents the base shear of the three structural plans.
Due to the lateral load, the base shear in the circular plan is more
than the square and rectangular plan and the square diagrid build-
ing shown better performance than the circular and rectangular
diagrid building.
Table 3 represents the displacement and drift values in X and Y
direction. When X direction is considered, the circular plan shows
more displacement and in Y direction the displacement is higher in
Fig. 6. Represents the storey drift and the displacement, higher in the conventional
the rectangular plan. The circular plan showed higher drift inten-
building than the diagrid structure.
sity compared to the other two plans.
Nishith B. Panchal [4] analyzed on G+20 building. The G+20
building was considered for designing of diagrid and exterior frame
structure using ETABS software. The experiment was conducted to and diagrid structure, the wind and seismic loads were assigned.
analyze the storey drift and top storey displacement of the struc- The diagrid structure shows a more appropriate result than braced
ture. The load combination and the seismic and wind parameters frame structure. The drift and displacement are higher in braced
were referred from the Indian Standard codebook. The simple structure.
frame structure showed displacement of 30% more than the diagrid Table 4 represents the summary reaction of gravity loads, lat-
structure when the combination of live and dead loads was applied eral loads due to wind and seismic. The diagrid structure in com-
and for seismic load, the frame structure was more vulnerable to parison with simple frame structure shows more displacement
earthquake than diagrid structure. It was concluded that in diagrid when the lateral load was applied in EQX, EQY, WLX and WLY case.
structure the lateral load and the gravity load were balanced and Fig. 5 represents the gravity load and earthquake load of 20
vertical columns were eliminated, whereas in an exterior braced storeys simple frame structure which shows more displacement.
column only lateral load was taken. On the exterior frame structure The displacement is higher in the above floor section of the simple

Table 3
Representation of displacement and drift of different structural plans.

Displacement (X) Displacement (Y) Drift (X) Drift (Y)

Circular Plan 30.3 44.9 0.000606 0.000673
Square Plan 19 28.9 0.000408 0.000447
Rectangular Plan 10.2 70.9 0.00046 0.000627

Table 4
Shows the data of the combination of loads.

Loading (KN) Gravity Load (DL+LL) EQ Load (X) EQ Load (Y) Wind Load (X) Wind Load (Y)
Displacement of Diagrid Structure 84144.02 905.13 905.13 2310.11 2310.11
Displacement of Simple Frame Structure 87600.17 931.07 931.07 2310.11 2310.11

Please cite this article as: N. Tirkey and G. B. Ramesh Kumar, Analysis on the diagrid structure with the conventional building frame using ETABS, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.107
4 N. Tirkey, G.B. Ramesh Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

frame structure and the risk of collapsing is also higher due to lat-
eral loads when compared to the diagrid structure.
Fig. 6 represents the inter storey drift in a simple frame building
which is higher compared to the diagrid frame building EQX, EQY,
WLX, WLY case. The distribution of storey shear along the height of
20 storeys simple frame building is higher in EQX, EQY, WLX, WLY
case.
2. Proposed work
The structural dimension of the G+30 storey building is
25 m  25 m and the floor height is kept as 3 m. The Diaphragm
walls are created on all four sides of the building and the mass
source of the building is taken as 0.25%. The ETABS is advanced
software used for analyzing high rise structure, the skyscraper
and, tall buildings have been used for the analysis of shear, drift
and displacement result. Seismic and wind analysis parameters
are also examined. The angle of the diagrid structure taken is
600. The space between the columns is 4 m. The Chennai region
is considered for this proposed data. The load combination taken
for wind [7] and seismic parameters are referred from the IS
456:2000 [5] and IS 1893 (PART-1): 2002 [6]. Since the structure
is G+30, therefore, the Response Spectrum method is analyzed
[11].
The damping factor is kept at 5% [9] and the importance factor (I) is
kept at 1. Analysis Result (Shear, Displacement and, Drift)
Table 6 exhibits the response spectrum for both conventional
and diagrid structures for three stories in X and Y direction. The
diagrid structure shows less displacement than the conventional
building frame, hence diagrid structures are more economical
and beneficial [8].
Table 7 exhibits the wind displacement for both conventional
and diagrid structures for three stories in X and Y direction. At
the storey 30, the conventional building showed higher displace-
ment compared to the 10 and 20 storey heights. The rate of dis-
placement was more in X direction compared to the Y direction
in the conventional building frame.
Fig. 7 represents the mode shape of a conventional building at
4.264 s. The mode shape is the displacement of the structure at dif-
ferent frequencies occurring during the time of the earthquake.

3. Structural data

Table 5 exhibits the details of structure input data have been

mentioned to analyze the diagrid and conventional building frame.

Table 5
Shows the dimensional data of the proposed work.

Storey G+9 G+20 G+30

Beam size 0.3 m  0.3 m 0.3 m  0.3 m 0.3 m  0.3 m
Column size 0.3 m  0.3 m 0.3 m  0.3 m 0.3 m  0.3 m
Floor Height 3m 3m 3m
Zone Factor 0.16 0.16 0.16
Type of Soil Medium Medium Medium
Wind Speed 50 m/s 50 m/s 50 m/s
Live Load 3 KN/m2 3 KN/m2 3 KN/m2
Wall Load 12.65 KN/m2 12.65 KN/m2 12.65 KN/m2
Floor Finish 1 KN/m2 1 KN/m2 1 KN/m2
Parapet Wall Load 4.6 KN/m 4.6 KN/m 4.6 KN/m
Fig. 7. Shows the displacement of a conventional building at 4.264 s.

Table 6
Shows the displacement of both the structures in X and Y directions w.r.t. Response spectrum.

Response spectrum
Storey Conventional frame Diagrid structure
5 5 6 6
X (10 ) Y (10 ) X (10 ) Y (10 )
Storey 10 4 2 1 1
Storey 20 2 2 1 1
Storey 30 3 1 1 1

Table 7
Shows the displacement of both the structures in X and Y direction w.r.t wind.

Wind Displacement
Conventional frame Diagrid Structure
Storey X Y X Y
Storey 10 705.72 6.832 61.581 2.317
Storey 20 1040.499 10.499 116.464 3.817
Storey 30 1242.135 12.135 181.043 4.331

Please cite this article as: N. Tirkey and G. B. Ramesh Kumar, Analysis on the diagrid structure with the conventional building frame using ETABS, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.107
 N. Tirkey, G.B. Ramesh Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 8. Shows the displacement of the diagrid structure at 1.197 s.
Fig. 9. Represents the Shear, Displacement and Drift of the structure.
Fig. 8 represents the displacement of the diagrid structure at a
period of 1.197 s [10]. The mode shape was taken 5 for both the
structure and the conventional building showed more displace-
ment than the diagrid structure.
Fig. 9 represents the drift value was lesser on the top floor of the
diagrid structure and the storey drift, displacement and, base shear
showed lesser results compared to the conventional building.
The diagrid structure showed better performance than the
Please cite this article as: N. Tirkey and G. B. Ramesh Kumar, Analysis on the diagrid structure with the conventional building frame using ETABS, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.107
5
conventional building and it is more capable of withstanding the
lateral loads.
4. Conclusion
The comparative study has been successfully executed for dif-
ferent diagrid structures using ETABS software to find the stiffness
and flexibility of the high raised structures and also for an asym-
metrical structure through simple framework. The lateral load
resisting system is better in resisting the gravity loads than the
structural system when the structure height gets increased. The
configuration and efficiency of the diagrid system has reduced
the number of structural elements. The ETABS software is used
to design and analyze the results such as axial, shear and bending
moment. The possibility of failure is much lesser for diagrid struc-
ture when compared to the conventional structure by heavy vibra-
tions during an earthquake.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to my guide Dr. G.B. Ramesh Kumar for his guid-
ance and support for this paper. I am also thankful to the civil
department faculties for their cooperation in completion of my
work. I am sincerely obliged to each and everyone right from my
CADD class faculty Mr. G Shekharan and all the people associated
with the background work.
References
[1] Amruta K. Potdar, G.R. Patil. Optimum design of concrete diagrid building and
its comparison with conventional frame building.
[2] Abhay Guleria, Structural Analysis of a Multi Storeyed Building using ETABS for
different Plan Configurations, published in May 2015.
[3] Shubhangi V. Pawar, M.S. Kakamare, Earthquake and Wind Analysis of Diagrid
Structure, published in IJRASET, July 2017.
[4] Nishith B. Panchal, Vinubhai R. Patel, Diagrid structural system: strategies to
reduce lateral forces on high rise buildings, published in IJRET.
[5] IS 456-2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian
Standard, New Delhi.
[6] IS 1893 (PART-I) 2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,
Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
[7] IS 875 (PART-I, II, III) 1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads for Building and
Structures, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
[8] Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou, Berk Ekici, Sevil Sariyildiz, Bask Kundakci
Koyunbaba, Multi-Objective Diagrid FAÇADE Optimization using Differential
Evolution.
[9] Khusbhu Jani, Paresh V. Patel, Analysis and design of diagrid structural system
for high rise steel building.
[10] Han Xiaolei, Huang Chao, Jl Jing, W.U. Jainying, Experimental and Numerical
Investigation of the axial behavior in connection with CFST Diagrid Structures.
[13] Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Praveen Kumar, Amrit Singh, Shivam Verma, Yatendra
Baghel, Design and Analysis of a Residential Building using ETABS integrated
with Green Building Concept.
Further reading
[11] Giulia Milana, Konstantinos Gkoumas and Franco Bontempi, Sustainability
Concepts in the design of high rise buildings: the case of Diagrid Systems.
[12] Terri Meyer Boake, Diagrids, the new stability system: Combining
architecture with engineering.