International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research (IJETR)

ISSN: 2321-0869, Volume-2, Issue-6, June 2014

Optimum Angle of Diagrid Structural System

Nishith B. Panchal, Dr. V. R. Patel, Dr. I. I. Pandya

So, when the diagrid structural system is provided in

Abstract The evolution of tall building structural systems tall building, there is a very much important of angle of
based on new structural concepts with newly adopted high diagrid. , the questions are arises in our mind that, (1) what
strength materials and construction methods have been should be the optimum angle of diagrid? , (2) what is the
towards stiffness and lightness. Recently diagrid economic angle of diagrid? , (3) what should be economy
structural system is adopted in tall buildings due to its
when the no. of storey is increased? So, to evaluate these
structural efficiency and flexibility in architectural planning.
The use of diagrid structural systems for tall building design
problems, the present work is carried out.
has continued to increase. The design methodology is applied to
a set of diagrid structures which consist of 24, 36, 48 and 60 In the present work, four different models are
stories. The diagrid structure of each storey height is designed considered which consist of 24 storey, 36 storey, 48 storey
with diagonals placed at various uniform angles as well as and 60 storey with the provision of different angle of diagrid
gradually changing angles along the building height in order to that is 50.2 (2-storey module), 67.4 (4-storey module),
determine the optimal uniform angle for each structure with a 74.5 (6-storey module) and 82.1 (12-storey module) for
different height and to investigate the structural potential of each models. So, total 16 (sixteen) models are analysed and
diagrids with changing angles. Based on these design studies, design to overcome the problems.
design guidelines are provided for the optimum configuration
of the diagrid structure grid geometry within a certain height
range. In this paper, the comparison study of 24-storey,
II. BUILDING CONFIGURATION
36-storey, 48-storey and 60-storey of diagrid structural system
with a diagrid angle 50.2, 67.4, 74.5 and 82.1 is presented
A. Types of Models
here. The comparison of analysis of results in terms of top
storey displacement, storey drift, time period, angle of diagrid Here, mathematical models are modelled which consist of
and steel and concrete consumption is presented here. different storey that is 24 storey, 36 storey, 48 storey and 60
storey with the provision of different angle of diagrid that is
Index TermsAngle of diagrid, Diagrid structural system, 50.2 (2-storey module), 67.4 (4-storey module), 74.5
Displacement, Storey Drift, Time period (6-storey module) and 82.1 (12-storey module). The
notations of models are as: (1) A-1, (2) A-2, (3) A-3, (4) A-4;
(5) B-1, (6) B-2, (7) B-3, (8) B-4; (9) C-1, (10) C-2, (11) C-3,
I. INTRODUCTION (12) C-4; (13) D-1, (14) D-2, (15) D-3, (16) D-4;
The rapid growth of urban population and limitation Where, A = 24-storey (height = 86.4m), 1 = 50.2; B =
of available land, the taller structures are preferable now a 36-storey (height = 129.6m), 2 = 67.4; C = 48-storey (height
day. So when the height of structure increases then the = 172.8m), 3 = 74.5; D = 60-storey (height = 216m), 4 =
consideration of lateral load is very much important. For that 82.1.
the lateral load resisting system becomes more important The plan view of all the models is as shown in Figure 1.
than the structural system that resists the gravitational loads.
The lateral load resisting systems that are widely used are
rigid frame, shear wall, wall frame, braced tube system,
outrigger system and tubular system. Recently the diagrid
diagonal grid structural system is widely used for tall
buildings due to its structural efficiency and aesthetic
potential provided by the unique geometric configuration of
the system. Hence the diagrid, for structural effectiveness and
aesthetics has generated renewed interest from architectural
and structural designers of tall buildings.

Manuscript received June 20, 2014.

Nishith B. Panchal, PG student, Applied Mechanics & Structural Figure 1 plan view for all models
Engineering Department, Faculty of Technology & Engineering, The M. S.
University of Baroda, (M): +91-9925001837.
Dr. V. R. Patel, Assistant Professor, Applied Mechanics & Structural B. Geometry Data
Engineering Department, Faculty of Technology & Engineering, The M. S.
University of Baroda, (M):+91-9825027338.
Here, the general geometry data for all the models are as
Dr. I. I. Pandya, Associate Professor, Head of the Applied Mechanics & follows.
Structural engineering Department, Faculty of Technology & Engineering, The i. Plan dimension : 36m x 36m
M. S. University of Baroda

150 [Link]
 Optimum Angle of Diagrid Structural System

ii. Storey height : 3.6m

iii. Slab thickness : 0.120m
iv. Characteristic strength of concrete : 40 N/mm2
v. Characteristic strength of steel : 415 N/mm2
The angle of diagrid is decided on the basis of the storey
module. Here, four different storey module is considered, that
is 2-storey module, 4-storey module, 6-storey module and
12-storey module as shown in Figure 2.

(a) = 50.2 2-storey module (b) = 67.4 4-storey module

Figure 3 structural plan

The member sizes for all the models are preliminary

decided same but after analysis results and designing results,
the sizes are modified to prevent the failure and excessive top
storey displacement. TABLE 1, TABLE 2, TABLE 3 and
TABLE 4 is showing the member sizes for model-A,
model-B, model-C and model-D.

TABLE 1 Member sizes for model-A

(c) = 74.5 6-storey module (d) = 82.1 12-storey module Model-A

Member No
A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4
Figure 2 Different storey module
B1 300x600 300x600 300x600 300x600
The angle is obtained from the height of the storey module Beam B2 300x1050 300x1050 300x1050 300x1050
to the base width of diagrid, that is,
For example: 2-storey module then, B3 300x600 300x600 300x600 300x600
Angle () = tan-1 (height of module / base width) Column C1
1400x140 1400x140 1400x140 1400x140
0 0 0 0
Angle () = tan-1 (7/6)
Angle () = 50.2 Diagrid D 500x500 450x450 450x450 500x500
The design dead load and live load on terrace level are
5kN/m2 and 1.5kN/m2 respectively and for typical floor slab
is 4kN/m2 and 2kN/m2. The design earthquake load is TABLE 2 Member sizes for model-B
computed based on the zone factor 0.16, soil type II,
Importance factor 1, Response Reduction 5 as per Model-B
IS-1893-2002. The design wind load is computed based on Member No
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4
location Vadodara, Wind speed 44 m/s, Terrain category 2,
Structure class B, Risk Coefficient 1, Topography factor 1. B1 300x600 300x600 300x600 300x600
Modelling, analysis and design of diagrid structure are Beam B2 300x1050 300x1050 300x1050 300x1050
carried out using ETABS 9.7.4 software. The end condition
for diagrid is assumed as hinged. The support conditions are B3 300x600 300x600 300x600 300x600
assumed as fixed. The design of member is carried out on the Column C1 1700x1700 1700x1700 1700x1700 1700x1700
basis of IS-456-2000. Diagrid D 650x650 590x590 600x600 640x640
C. Structural Plan
Here, Figure 3 is showing the structural plan view of all
the models in which the beam notations B1, B2, B3 and
column notations C1 are shown.

151 [Link]
 International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research (IJETR)
ISSN: 2321-0869, Volume-2, Issue-6, June 2014
TABLE 3 Member sizes for model-C Storey vs Displa cement

Model-C 24
Member No 22
C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 20
18
B1 300x600 300x600 300x600 300x600 16
14 A-1

Storey
Beam B2 300x1050 300x1050 300x1050 300x1050
12
B3 300x600 300x600 300x600 300x600 10 A-2
8
Column C1 2020x2020 2020x2020 2020x2020 2020x2020 6 A-3
Diagrid D 830x830 740x740 740x740 800x800 4
2 A-4
0
0 0.05 0.1
TABLE 4 Member sizes for model-D
Displa cement (m)
Model-D
Member No
D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
B1 300x600 300x600 300x600 300x600
Figure 5 Displacement results for model-A
Beam B2 300x1050 300x1050 300x1050 300x1050
B3 300x600 300x600 300x600 300x600 Storey vs Displacement
Column C1 2330x2330 2330x2330 2330x2330 2330x2330 36
Diagrid D 1020x1020 890x890 890x890 940x940 32
28
24

Storey
20 B-1
III. ANALYSIS RESULTS 16 B-2
Here, the dynamic analysis results for all the models are 12
B-3
presented here in terms of reaction, Top storey displacement, 8
storey drift storey shear and time period. 4 B-4
0
A. Reaction Results 0 0.1 0.2
The summary of reaction of gravity load (DL + LL), lateral Displa cement (m)
loads due to earthquake load and wind load for Model-A,
Model-B, Model-C and Model-D is as shown in Figure 4. Figure 6 Displacement results for model-B

Reactions of all Models Storey vs Displacement

48
20000 42
36
15000 30
Reaction (KN)

Storey

C-1
24
18 C-2
10000 C-3
12
6 C-4
5000 0
0 0.1 0.2

0 Displa cement (m)

A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
Figure 7 Displacement results for model-C
Models

Gravity Load (DL + LL) (x10^2) EQ load in X-dir Storey vs Displacement

EQ load in Y-dir WIND load in X-dir 60
54
48
Figure 4 Summary of Reaction 42
36
Storey

D-1
30
24 D-2
B. Displacement Results 18 D-3
12
Here, the displacement results for Model-A, Model-B, 6 D-4
Model-C and Model-D is as shown in Figure 5, Figure 6, 0
Figure 7, and Figure 8. For all the models, wind load is 0 0.2 0.4
govern the design. So the results are displaced for the wind
Displacement (m)
load cases only.
Figure 8 Displacement results for model-D

152 [Link]
 Optimum Angle of Diagrid Structural System

As per code IS: 456-2000, clause: 20.5, page no. 33, the
maximum top storey displacement due to wind load should Storey vs Storey Drift
not exceed H/500, where H = total height of the building. The
48
displacement results for all the models are within the 44
permissible limit. It can been seen that when the height of the 40
building is increasing, the top storey displacement is also 36
increased but for the case of Model-A, displacement value is 32
smaller for model A-2 and A-3. This effect is similar for the 28 C-1

Storey
case of Model-B, Model-C and Model-D as shown in Figure 24
20 C-2
9.
16 C-3
Displacement
12
8 C-4
0.3
4
Top Storey Displacement (m)

0.25
0
0.2
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008
0.15

0.1 Storey Drift (m)

0.05

0 Figure 12 Storey drift results for Model-C

A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
Models
DISPLACEMENT (m)
Storey vs Storey Drift
60
Figure 9 Top Storey displacement for all models
54
48
C. Storey Drift Results 42
Here, the storey drift results for Model-A, Model-B, 36 D-1
Storey

Model-C and Model-D is as shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, 30

Figure 12 and Figure 13. Results are shown for the D-2
24
earthquake load in both the direction here. D-3
18
Storey vs Storey Drift 12 D-4
24 6
22
20 0
18 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008
16
14 Storey Drift (m)
Storey

A-1
12
10 A-2
8 A-3 Figure 13 Storey drift results for model-D
6
4 A-4
2 For earthquake load, as per code IS: 1893-2002,
0
clause: 7.11.1, page no: 27, the storey drift in any storey due
0 0.0005 0.001
to minimum specified lateral force with partial load factor of
Storey Drift (m) 1.0 should not exceed 0.004 times storey height that is H/250,
where H = storey height in meter. The storey drift value is
Figure 10 Storey drift results for model-A
within the permissible limit. It can be seen that the excessive
Storey vs Storey Drift drift for the model A-4, B-4, C-4 and D-4. Model A-2, B-2,
36 C-2 and D-2 is giving the better results as compared to other
32 models as shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and
28 Figure 13.
24
Storey

20 B-1
16 B-2 D. Storey Shear Results
12 B-3 Here, the storey shear results are presented in Figure 14,
8 B-4 Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 for all the models
4
respectively for the lateral load earthquake EQX/EQY and
0
0 0.0005 0.001
wind load WLX/WLY.
Storey Drift (m)

Figure 11 Storey drift results for model-B

153 [Link]
 International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research (IJETR)
ISSN: 2321-0869, Volume-2, Issue-6, June 2014

Storey vs Storey Shear Storey vs Storey Shear

24 60
22
20 54
A-1
18 EQ 48 D-1 EQ
16 A-1
42
STOREY

14 WL D-1 WL
A-2

STOREY
12 36
EQ D-2 EQ
10 A-2 30
8 WL
24 D-2 WL
6 A-3
4 EQ 18 D-3 EQ
A-3
2 WL 12 D-3 WL
0
6 D-4 EQ
0 5000 10000 0
STOREY SHEAR (KN) D-4 WL
0.0 10000.0 20000.0
STOREY SHEAR (KN)
Figure 17 Storey shear results for Model-D
Figure 14 Storey shear results for Model-A
Form the analysis results, it can been seen that the storey
shear for model A-4, B-4, C-4 and D-4 is more as compared
Storey vs Storey Shear to the others. From the Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16 and
36 Figure 17, the gradual variation is noticed for the model A-2,
32 B-2, C-2 and D-2.
28 B-1 EQ
E. Time Period Results
24 B-1 WL
STOREY

By performing the dynamic analysis, time period is found

20 B-2 EQ
out by considering 12 mode shape for all models, is presented
16 B-2 WL here. Figure 18, Figure 19, Figure 20 and Figure 21 shows
12 B-3 EQ the results of modal analysis for Model-A, Model-B,
8
B-3 WL Model-C and Model-D respectively.
4
B-4 EQ
0 Time period vs Modes
B-4 WL 4.00
0 5000 10000
3.50
Time period (sec)

STOREY SHEAR (KN) 3.00

2.50 A-1
Figure 15 Storey shear results for Model-B 2.00
1.50 A-2
1.00 A-3
0.50 A-4
Storey vs Storey Shear 0.00
1 3 5 7 9 11
48
44 Modes
40
36 C-1 EQ Figure 18 Time period for Model-A
32 C-1 WL
Time period vs Modes
STOREY

28 C-2 EQ
5.00
24 C-2 WL
20
Time period (sec)

C-3 EQ 4.00
16
C-3 WL 3.00 B-1
12
8 C-4 EQ 2.00 B-2
4 C-4 WL B-3
1.00
0
B-4
0.0 10000.0 20000.0 0.00
STOREY SHEAR (KN)
1 3 5 7 9 11
Modes
Figure 16 Storey shear results for Model-C
Figure 19 Time period for Model-B

154 [Link]
 Optimum Angle of Diagrid Structural System

shown in TABLE 1, TABLE 2, TABLE 3 and TABLE 4

Time period vs Modes respectively.
6.00 A. Material Consumption and Structural Cost
5.00 Here, the consumption of material that is concrete and
Time period (sec)

4.00 steel is calculated for all the models is presented here. The
C-1 consumption of material for the beam, column and diagonal
3.00
C-2 members (diagrid) are as shown Figure 21.
2.00 20000
C-3 concrete (m3)
1.00
C-4 steel x10^2( Kg)
15000
0.00
1 3 5 7 9 11

QUANTITY
10000
Modes
5000

Figure 20 Time period for Model-C

0
A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
MODELS
Time period vs Modes
7.00
Figure 22 Material quantity for all models
6.00
Time period (sec)

5.00 For evaluating the cost of the material consumption,

4.00 D-1 the approximate cost of concrete is taken as 4500 Rs/m3 and
3.00 D-2 cost of steel is taken as 55 Rs/m3. Figure 22 shows the graph
D-3 of total quantitys cost.
2.00
1.00 D-4
0.00 Total Quantity's Cost (Rs. in Lakhs)
1200.0
Concrete (m3)
1 3 5 7 9 11 1000.0
Cost (Rs. in Lakhs)

Steel x 10^2 (Kg)

Modes 800.0
600.0
Figure 21 Time period for Model-D 400.0
200.0
The buildings natural time period is obtained from
0.0
the equation, A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
Models

Where, m = mass of the structure and k = stiffness of Figure 23 Total quantitys cost
the building,
From the above equation, it can been observed that, It can been noticed that the material consumption is
time period depends upon the mass and stiffness of the minimum for the models A-2, A-3, B-2, B-3, C-2, C-3, D-2
structure. If the time period is more, the modal mass is more and D-3 which is directly affected the structural cost of the
but the stiffness of the building is less vice-versa. It can been building. It can also noticed that there is not so much
noticed that the time period is minimum for the model A-2, difference in the steel material for the beam because the sizes
B-2, C-2 and D-2, so the stiffness of that models is more as of the beam for all the models is similar.
compare to others. The time period for the models A-4, B-4,
C-4 and D-4 is very much more as shown in Figure 18,
Figure 19, Figure 20 and Figure 21. V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
For the diagrid structural system, angle of diagrid is
the most considerable point because it is directly affected to
IV. DESIGN RESULTS the stiffness, displacement, storey drift, storey shear, time
The design of all the model is carried out using ETABS period and material consumption of the structure. These
v9.7.4 software. All the load combinations of gravity load, factors are directly affected the structural cost if the proper
earthquake load and wind load are assigned to both the angle is not provided. So, by considering above factors,
models. From the analysis results, design of beam, column economical and optimum angle is evaluated.
and diagonal members are carried out as per IS: 456-2000.
The characteristic strength of concrete is 40 N/mm2 and A. Top Storey Displacement
characteristic strength of steel is 415 N/mm2 is considered. As we have consider four angle of diagrid and also for
The final optimum sizes of members for all the models are as the four types of no. of storey, we can get the results as shown
in Figure 24.

155 [Link]
 International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research (IJETR)
ISSN: 2321-0869, Volume-2, Issue-6, June 2014
E. Material Consumption
Angle vs Displacement
0.3 From the results, it is observed that there is not so much
difference in the steel quantity but more difference is
0.25
observed when the angle of diagrid changed and increased
Displacement (m)

0.2 the no of storey of the structure in concrete quantity as shown

0.15
Model-A in Figure 26.
Model-B
0.1 Model-C
Material consumption vs. Angle of diagrid
Model-D 4500
0.05
4000

Concrete consumption (m3)

0 3500
= 50.2 = 67.4 = 74.5 = 82.1 3000
Angle of Diagrid 2500
2000
1500
1000
Figure 24 Graph of angle of diagrid vs. displacement
500
0
From above graph, it is clearly seen that the = 50.2 = 67.4 = 74.5 = 82.1
Angle of diagrid
displacement is less for the diagrid angle 50.2 for model-A Model-A Model-B Model-C Model-D

24 storey building. But from the results of model-B, model-C Figure 26 Material consumption vs. angle of diagrid
and Model-D, the displacement results is less for the angle
67.4 and 74.5 as compared to others. So the angle of From above graph, it can been seen that the consumption is
diagrid is optimum in the region of angle 65 to 75 and also in the region 65 to 75 angle of diagrid but when the no of
for the more no of storey. storey increased, there is minimum consumption in concrete
is observed. This observation is also directly affected to the
B. Storey Drift structural cost of the building. So the optimum angle is in the
region of 65 to 75.
From the results of storey drift, it is clearly noticed that the
model A-2, B-2, C-2 and D-2 gives better results, which is
clearly indicating that the angle region 65 to 75 is VI. CONCLUSION
optimum.
The current study is carried out by considering the different
angles of diagrid and also different storeys of the building.
C. Storey Shear The plan of 36m x 36m is considered with four different types
From the results of storey shear, it is clearly noticed that the of angles of diagrid that is 50.2, 67.4, 74.5 and 82.1 and
model A-2, B-2, C-2 and D-2 gives better results, which is also by considering 24-storey, 36-storey, 48-storey and
clearly indicating that the angle region 65 to 75 is 60-storey building, a comparative study is carried out.
optimum.
We conclude from the study that,

D. Time Period Diagrid angle in the region of 65 to 75 provides more

By considering the only first mode time period, as shown in stiffness to the diagrid structural system which reflects the
Figure 25, less top storey displacement.

The storey drift and storey shear results are very much
Time period vs Angle of diagrid lesser in the region of diagrid angle 65 to 75.
7.00
6.00 As time period is less, lesser is mass of structure and
5.00 more is the stiffness, the time period is observed less in the
Time period

4.00 Model-A region of diagrid angle 65 to 75 which reflects more

3.00 Model-B stiffness of the structure and lesser mass of structure.
2.00 Model-C
1.00 Model-D It should be noticed that the results for the angle of
0.00 diagrid 82.1 is quite random for the storey drift, storey shear
= 50.2 = 67.4 = 74.5 = 82.1 and time period.
Angle of diagrid
Diagrid angle in the region 65 to 75 provides more
Figure 25 Graph of time period vs. angle of diagrid economy in terms of consumption of steel and concrete as
compared to different angles of diagrid.
It can been observed that the first mode time period is
minimum for angle region 65 to 75 and also when the no of When number of storey increases means height of
storey is increased, the time period is decreased. So the building increases, diagrid angle in the region 65 to 75
optimum angle is in the region of 65 to 75. gives better results in terms of top storey displacement, storey
drift, storey shear, time period and material consumptions.

156 [Link]
 Optimum Angle of Diagrid Structural System

Diagrid structural system provides more economy and

more benefits when no of storey is more than 40 with the
diagrid angle in the region of 65 to 75.

Optimum angle of diagrid is observed in the region of

65 to 75.
I am Nishith B. Panchal. I am pursuing my Master Of
Diagrid structural system provides more flexibility in Engineering study in Structural engineering branch from The M. S. University
planning interior space and faade of the building. of Baroda. I am doing my dissertation work under the guidance of Dr. V. R.
Patel sir. I have completed my Bachelor of Engineering (civil engineering)
study also from The M. S. University of Baroda.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am very much thankful to my guide Dr. Vinubhai R. Patel
and Dr. I. I. Pandya for their guidance and also very much
thankful to Applied Mechanics Department & Structural
Engineering Department, Faculty of Technology &
Engineering, The M. S. University Of Baroda for giving such He is Dr. Vinubhai R. Patel, Assistant Professor, Applied
a good facilities and platform to complete the dissertation Mechanics and Structure Engineering Department, Faculty Of Technology &
Engineering, The M. S. University of Baroda. He is also a structure designed
work and also my dear friends who have supported me to consultant and approved valuer. He has more than 15 years of experience in the
complete this work. field of structural and civil engineering. He had designed more than 2500
projects which includes industrial, factory buildings and high-rise buildings.
REFERENCES
[1] Nishith B. Panchal, Vinubhai R. Patel, Diagrid Structural System:
Strategies to Reduce Lateral Forces on High-Rise Buildings,
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology,
Volume: 03, Issue: 03, April-2014. pp. 374-378
[2] Kyoung S. Moon, Jerome J. Connor and John E. Fernandez, Diagrid
Structural Systems for Tall Building: Characteristics and Methodology
for Preliminary Design, Willey Interscience Publication.
[3] Khushbu Jani and Paresh V. Patel, Analysis and Design of Diagrid He is Dr. I. I. Pandya, Associate Professor, Head of Applied Mechanics and
Structural System for High Rise Steel Buildings, Published by Elesevier Structure Engineering Department, Faculty of Technology & Engineering, The
Ltd. M. S. University of Baroda. He has a very wide experience of teaching and in
[4] Mir M. Ali and Kyoung S. Moon, Structural Developments in Tall research in the field of Structural engineering. He is also a structure designed
Buildings: Current Trends and Future Prospects, Architectural Science consultant.
Review Vol 50.3, pp 205-223.
[5] Kyoung S. Moon, Diagrid Structures for Complex-Shaped Tall
Building, Published by Elesevier Ltd.
[6] Charnish B. and McDonnell T. The Bow: Unique Diagrid Structural
System for a Sustainable Tall Building, CTBUH 8th World Congress,
Dubai.
[7] Khushbu Jani and Paresh V. Patel, Diagrid Structural System For High
Rise Buildings, 26th Indian Engineering Congress (IEC 2011),
Bangalore, 15-18 December 2011.
[8] Khushbu Jani and Paresh V. Patel, Design of Diagrid Structural System
for High Rise Buildings as Per Indian Standards, Structures Congress
2013, ASCE 2013.
[9] Chonghou Zhang, Zhao and Yansheng Liu, Diagrid Tube Structures
Composed Of Straight Diagonals With Gradually Varying Angles The
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 21, 283295 (2012).
[10] IS: 456-2000. Plain and Reinforced Concrete- Code of Practice (Fourth
Revision), Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
[11] IS: 1893(Part-I)-2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
[12] IS: 875(Part-I, II, III)-1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (other
than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Bureau of Indian
Standard, New Delhi.

157 [Link]