Review of Diagrid and Conventional Frame Systems for Modern Building Design

[{“box”:0,”content”:”n[if 992 equals=”Open Access”]n

n

n

n

Open Access

nn

n

n[/if 992]n[if 2704 equals=”Yes”]n

n

Notice

nThis is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.n

n[/if 2704]n

n

Year : 2025 [if 2224 equals=””]09/09/2025 at 3:50 PM[/if 2224] | [if 1553 equals=””] Volume : 12 [else] Volume : 12[/if 1553] | [if 424 equals=”Regular Issue”]Issue : [/if 424][if 424 equals=”Special Issue”]Special Issue[/if 424] [if 424 equals=”Conference”][/if 424] 03 | Page : 47 53

n

n

nn

n

n

n

    By

    n

    [foreach 286]n

    n

    Yugandhara R. Sonawane, Rahul S. Patil, Geeta R. Surashe,

    n t

  • n

    n[/foreach]

    n

n[if 2099 not_equal=”Yes”]n

    [foreach 286] [if 1175 not_equal=””]n t

  1. , , ,

    2. n[/if 1175][/foreach]

n[/if 2099][if 2099 equals=”Yes”][/if 2099]n

n

Abstract

n

n

nThe demand for high-rise buildings in modern cities has accelerated the development of structural systems that balance safety, efficiency, and architectural innovation. Conventional moment-resisting frames, though widely adopted, often become inefficient in tall structures due to higher material consumption and greater lateral displacements under seismic and wind loading. Diagrid systems, defined by their diagonally inclined members forming triangulated grids, provide an alternative approach with enhanced lateral stiffness, reduced drift, and material efficiency. This review consolidates thirty studies published between 2016 and 2024 that compare diagrid and conventional structural systems, with most analyses conducted through ETABS. Findings indicate that diagrid systems consistently reduce roof displacement by 20–35%, inter-storey drift by 15–25%, and base shear by up to 18% compared to conventional frames. Additionally, material use is reduced by 10–20%, improving both sustainability and cost-effectiveness. However, challenges remain in the constructability of complex joints, optimization of diagrid angles, and connection detailing. The review emphasizes the potential of diagrid systems for sustainable high-rise construction while identifying gaps that require further exploration through experimental studies, performance-based seismic design, and advanced optimization algorithms. This paper contributes to the growing body of literature on diagrids by providing a comprehensive synthesis of research, thereby serving as a reference for engineers and architects seeking efficient structural solutions for tall buildings in seismic and wind-prone regions.nn

n

n

n

Keywords: Diagrid structure, conventional frame, High-rise buildings, seismic performance, ETABS, structural efficiency

n[if 424 equals=”Regular Issue”][This article belongs to Journal of Structural Engineering and Management ]

n

[/if 424][if 424 equals=”Special Issue”][This article belongs to Special Issue under section in Journal of Structural Engineering and Management (josem)][/if 424][if 424 equals=”Conference”]This article belongs to Conference [/if 424]

n

n

n

How to cite this article:
nYugandhara R. Sonawane, Rahul S. Patil, Geeta R. Surashe. [if 2584 equals=”][226 wpautop=0 striphtml=1][else]Review of Diagrid and Conventional Frame Systems for Modern Building Design[/if 2584]. Journal of Structural Engineering and Management. 08/09/2025; 12(03):47-53.

n

How to cite this URL:
nYugandhara R. Sonawane, Rahul S. Patil, Geeta R. Surashe. [if 2584 equals=”][226 striphtml=1][else]Review of Diagrid and Conventional Frame Systems for Modern Building Design[/if 2584]. Journal of Structural Engineering and Management. 08/09/2025; 12(03):47-53. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/josem/article=08/09/2025/view=0

nn

n

n[if 992 equals=”Open Access”]Full Text PDF[/if 992]n

n

n[if 992 not_equal=”Open Access”]n

n

n[/if 992]n

nn

nnn

n[if 379 not_equal=””]nn

Browse Figures

n

n

n[foreach 379]

figures

[/foreach]n

n

n

n[/if 379]

n

n

n

n

n

References n

n[if 1104 equals=””]n

1. M. Tirkey and R. Kumar, “Comparative Analysis of Diagrid and Conventional Building Frames using ETABS,” Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 2345–2352, 2020.
2. I. W. Sukrawa, I. G. A. Gunawan, and N. A. Wardana, “Performance of Diagrid Structures under Lateral Loads,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 419, 2019.
3. J. A. Shah, S. Mevada, and R. Patel, “Diagrid Structural System for High Rise Buildings,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Dev., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 41–48, 2016.
4. P. K. Kumar and R. Sabarinathan, “Study of High Rise Steel Diagrid Buildings,” Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1234–1241, 2018.
5. M. Kanthi and K. Pavitra, “Comparative Study of Diagrid Structures and Conventional Structures,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1011–1015, 2020.
6. M. Varsani and V. Patel, “Comparative Study of Hexagrid, Diagrid and Conventional Structures,” Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 245–250, 2017.
7. F. Ersania and I. Arindya, “Seismic Performance of Diagrid Structures,” J. Civil Eng. Forum, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 153–164, 2019.
8. P. Choudhary, R. Kumar, and P. Sharma, “Comparative Seismic Analysis of High-Rise Diagrid and Conventional Frame Structures,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 2033–2038, 2022.
9. B. Gunashree and N. Nagarjuna, “Seismic Analysis of High Rise Diagrid Structure,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1142–1147, 2022.
10. S. Rajmane and A. Awate, “Seismic Performance of RCC Diagrid and Conventional Buildings,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 342–348, 2024.
11. D. Shukla, A. Sharma, and R. Patel, “Comparative Analysis of Diagrid and Conventional Building under Wind and Earthquake,” Int. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. Technol., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 512–519, 2023.
12. M. Trishna, K. Rajesh, and V. Gopi, “Study on Seismic Performance of Diagrid Structures,” Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 98–104, 2022.
13. V. Navasare and S. Choudhary, “Comparative Study on Diagrid Structural System and Conventional Frame,” Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 555–562, 2020.
14. A. Senthilkumar and R. Umamaheswari, “Study on Diagrid and Conventional Structures,” Int. J. Civil Eng. Technol., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 550–557, 2017.
15. S. Mizwa and M. Ilyas, “Comparison of Diagrid and Conventional Building using ETABS,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1230–1236, 2020.
16. S. Divya and R. Saraswathy, “A Study on Diagrid Structural System,” Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. Technol., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 399–405, 2016.
17. P. Patel and P. Chandarana, “Review on Diagrid Structural System,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 48–53, 2019.
18. R. Gayatri and R. Dagad, “Comparative Analysis of Diagrid and Conventional Frame,” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res., vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1623–1627, 2017.
19. S. Tagade, K. Rathi, and A. Patil, “Comparative Study of Diagrid Structure with Conventional Structure,” Int. J. Innov. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 225–231, 2021.
20. A. Behera, S. Patel, and D. Patil, “Comparative Analysis of Diagrid, Outrigger and Shear Wall Structures,” Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Eng., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 401–406, 2018.
21. J. Jose, “Comparative Analysis of Diagrid and Conventional Structures with Different Plan Geometry,” Int. J. Res. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 56–61, 2017.
22. V. Vinutha and G. Vinay, “Comparative Study of RCC Diagrid and Conventional Buildings,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 321–326, 2019.
23. S. Rafey and M. Azeem, “Comparison of Diagrid and Braced Frame Structures,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 92–97, 2018.
24. P. Sahitya, P. Murthy, C. Murty, and S. Krishna, “Optimization of Diagrid Structures for High-Rise Buildings,” Int. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 133–137, 2018.
25. M. Jewuła and M. Kozłowski, “Structural Analysis of Diagrid Systems,” MATEC Web Conf., vol. 219, pp. 02014, 2018.
26. R. Komala and A. Pitaloka, “Study on Diagrid Structural System for Tall Buildings,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 364, 2019.
27. M. Vijay, R. Shinde, and A. Kulkarni, “Analysis of Diagrid Structures with Different Diagrid Angles,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 74–80, 2018.
28. P. Premdas and S. Sirajuddin, “Study on Optimum Angle for Diagrid Structures,” Int. J. Innov. Eng. Technol., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 31–36, 2019.

nn[/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

    [foreach 1102]n t

  1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/if 1106]

    2. n[/foreach]

n[/if 1104]

n

nn[if 1114 equals=”Yes”]n

n[/if 1114]

n

n

[if 424 not_equal=””]Regular Issue[else]Published[/if 424] Subscription Review Article

n

n

[if 2146 equals=”Yes”][/if 2146][if 2146 not_equal=”Yes”][/if 2146]n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n[if 1748 not_equal=””]

[else]

[/if 1748]n

n[if 1746 equals=”Retracted”]n

n

n

n

[/if 1746]n[if 4734 not_equal=””]

n

n

n

[/if 4734]n

n

Volume 12
[if 424 equals=”Regular Issue”]Issue[/if 424][if 424 equals=”Special Issue”]Special Issue[/if 424] [if 424 equals=”Conference”][/if 424] 03
Received 26/08/2025
Accepted 03/09/2025
Published 08/09/2025
Retracted
Publication Time 13 Days

n

n

138

nn

n

Login

n
My IP
n

PlumX Metrics

nn

n

n

n[if 1746 equals=”Retracted”]n

[/if 1746]nnn

nnn”}]