In the seismic design of regular buildings, two primary assumptions are commonly adopted. Firstly, lateral loads are presumed to vary linearly along the height of the building, serving as a conservative representation of the actual response to ground motion during an earthquake. Secondly, seismic force-resisting elements are assumed to experience uniform cyclic inelastic deformation demands. While these assumptions hold reasonably well for regular structures, they often prove inadequate when structural irregularities are introduced into the design. A key irregularity that disrupts seismic performance is the floating column, which introduces vertical discontinuities in mass and stiffness distribution. This type of irregularity adversely affects the overall structural response under seismic loading and can result in severe damage or collapse, particularly in high-rise buildings. To address such vulnerabilities, it becomes necessary to adopt corrective design factors and updated analysis procedures. Effective preventive measures, such as incorporating shear walls and modifying structural layouts, must be considered early in the design process to ensure safety and stability. To evaluate these measures, advanced analytical tools such as the Pushover Analysis Method are used. This method assesses the building’s capacity by observing its behavior under increasing lateral loads and identifying its performance point. Another critical factor is material nonlinearity, which plays a vital role in achieving the ductility needed for a structure to withstand seismic events without catastrophic failure. Thus, finding an optimal balance between adequate seismic force resistance and sufficient ductility is essential for designing earthquake-resilient buildings. This project explores these seismic design concerns through the analysis of four G+9 symmetrical RCC building models using ETABS Ultimate v20.0.0. The first model is a regular structure without floating columns, serving as a control. The second model includes floating columns to assess their effect. The third and fourth models also include floating columns but incorporate shear walls as a countermeasure - at four corners in the third model and at intermediate exterior columns in the fourth. The location of shear walls is shown to significantly influence structural performance. Each model is analyzed using two methods: the Linear Dynamic Analysis (Response Spectrum Method) per IS 1893:2016, and the Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover Method) as per ATC 40, FEMA 356, and Euro code 8 guidelines.