20320140503002 2

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME
15
PERFORMANCE OF LATERAL SYSTEMS IN TALL BUILDINGS FOR
VARYING SOIL TYPES
*Mohamed Fadil Kholo Mokin1
, R.K.Pandey1
, Prabhat Kumar Sinha2
1
Department of Civil Engineering,
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences
(Formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute), Allahabad, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences
(Formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute), Allahabad, India
ABSTRACT
Efficient lateral systems, decreases the lateral deformations caused by the seismic forces in
the buildings. In this work, it is proposed to carry out an analytical study, on multistory buildings of
10, 20 and 30 stories, was carried out accounting for different seismic zones and soil types. The
suitability and efficiency of different lateral bracing systems that are commonly used and also that of
concrete in fills are investigated. The different bracing systems viz., X-brace, V-brace, inverted V or
Chevron brace, Outriggers and in fills, are introduced in the buildings through analytical models.
These building models were analyzed, using ETABS software, for the action of lateral forces
employing linear static and linear dynamic methods as per IS 1893 (Part I): 2002. The results of the
analyses, in terms of lateral deformations and base shears, were obtained for all the different
conditions discussed above The suitability of the types of lateral system for the buildings is
suggested based on the soil type.
Keywords: Tall buildings, Bracings, Type of Soils, Seismic coefficient method, Response spectrum
method, Time History Method.
1. INTRODUCTION
Mankind has always had a fascination for height and throughout our history; we have
constantly sought to metaphorically reach for the stars. The design of skyscrapers is usually
governed by the lateral loads imposed on the structure. As buildings have taller and narrower, the
structural engineer has been increasingly challenged to meet the imposed drift requirements while
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCIET
©IAEME

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp.
minimizing the architectural impact of the structure. In response to this challenge, the profession has
proposed a multitude of lateral schemes that are now spoken in tall buildings across the globe.
This study seeks to understand the evolution of the dif
emerged and its associated structural behavior
bracings are introduced in RCC building model at the same location to understand the suitability of
the systems with respect to the seismic motions.
the building is remain constants such as the size of the columns, beams, bracings and thickness of
slabs. This study is done under considering the IS code for different soil
done in ETABS. The major goal is to appraise the lateral deformations occurs by considering the
above parameters.
The seismic motion that reaches a structure on the surface of the earth is influenced by the local soil
conditions. Greater structural distress is likely to occur when the period of the underlying soil is
close to the fundamental period of the structure. Tall buildings tend to experience greater structural
damage when they are located on soils having a long period of m
effect that develops between the structure and the underlying soils. If a building resonates in
response to ground motion, its acceleration is amplified. It is possible that a number of underlying
soils layers can have a period similar to period of vibration of the structure. As per IS 1893 (Part I)
2002, soils classification can be taken as Type
mixtures with or without clay binder and clayey sands poorly graded or sand
(standard penetration value) should be above 30. Type
10 and 30, and poorly- graded sands or gravelly sands with little or no fines. Type
All soils other than whose N is less than 10.
2. ANALYTICAL MODELLING
A plan of 36mx36m is taken into consideration having 6mx6m bays on both the sides. The
different types of Bracings (X,V, Inverted V), Outriggers, Infills are introduced in the system at
center in 2 bays . The floor height is taken as 3m for all the models. The plan and elevation is shown.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 15-22 © IAEME
16
inimizing the architectural impact of the structure. In response to this challenge, the profession has
This study seeks to understand the evolution of the different lateral systems that have
emerged and its associated structural behavior for different types of soil types. The different type of
espect to the seismic motions. While other properties of the structural members in
This study is done under considering the IS code for different soils. Analyt
. The major goal is to appraise the lateral deformations occurs by considering the
Greater structural distress is likely to occur when the period of the underlying soil is
damage when they are located on soils having a long period of motion because of the resonance
riod similar to period of vibration of the structure. As per IS 1893 (Part I)
2002, soils classification can be taken as Type – I, Rock or Hard soil: Well graded gravel and sand
mixtures with or without clay binder and clayey sands poorly graded or sand clay mixtures, whose N
(standard penetration value) should be above 30. Type – II, Medium soils: All soils with N between
graded sands or gravelly sands with little or no fines. Type
is less than 10.
2. ANALYTICAL MODELLING
floor height is taken as 3m for all the models. The plan and elevation is shown.
PLAN
inimizing the architectural impact of the structure. In response to this challenge, the profession has
ferent lateral systems that have
he different type of
While other properties of the structural members in
s. Analytical modeling is
. The major goal is to appraise the lateral deformations occurs by considering the
Greater structural distress is likely to occur when the period of the underlying soil is
otion because of the resonance
riod similar to period of vibration of the structure. As per IS 1893 (Part I) –
I, Rock or Hard soil: Well graded gravel and sand
clay mixtures, whose N
II, Medium soils: All soils with N between
graded sands or gravelly sands with little or no fines. Type – III, Soft Soils:
floor height is taken as 3m for all the models. The plan and elevation is shown.

17
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
3. BUILDING DIMENSIONS
The building is 36m x 36m in plan with columns spaced at 6m from center to center. A floor
to floor height of 3.0m is assumed. The variation is considered in different types of soils.
Structural systems of the Building:
Slab thickness 115 mm
Beam dimensions 350 mm x 450 mm
Column dimensions 600mm x 600mm
Brace Members size 230mm x 230 mm
Infills Wall Thickness 250 mm
Grade of Concete and
Steel
M20 concrete, Tor steel
Table: Design Variable for analysis
Design variable Value Reference
Dead loads
(a)Masonry
(b) Concrete
20 kN/m3
25 kN/m3
IS 875:1987(part 1)
Live loads
(a) Floor load
(b) Roof load
(c) Floor Finishes
4kN/m2
2.0kN/m2
1.0kN/m2
IS 875:1987(part 2)
Importance factor 1.0 IS 1893:2002
Response Reduction
Factor
5 IS 1893:2002

18
The Static load case, viz., seismic coefficient method, and the Dynamic load case, viz.,
Response spectrum method is adopted along with different loading combinations discussed.
3.1 Equivalent lateral force
Seismic analyses of most of the structures are still carried out on the basis of lateral
(horizontal force assumed to be equivalent to the actual (dynamic) loading. The base shear which is
the total horizontal force on the structure is calculated on the basis of structure mass and fundamental
period of vibration and corresponding mode shape. The base shear is distributed along the height of
structures in terms of lateral forces according to code formula.
3.2 Response Spectrum Analysis
This method is applicable for those structures where modes other than the fundamental one
significantly the response of the structure. In this method the response of Multi-Degree-of –Freedom
(MDOF) system is expressed as the superposition of modal response, each modal response being
determined from the spectral analysis of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, which is then
combined to compute the total response. Modal analysis leads to the response history of the
structure to a specified ground motion; however, the method is usually used in conjunction with a
response spectrum.
4. OPTIMUM LOCATION OF BRACES IN BUILDING MODEL
To obtain the optimum location of braces in building model, braces are introduce in the
different bays in the elevation of the building model in all the direction symmetrically, i.e., the braces
are introduced in bays of the building model in outer periphery symmetrically. As the plan of size
36m x 36m is taken having 6 bays of 6m length in each direction. The outer frame is taken and
braces are introduce in 1st
bay in both sides from center of the frame, then in 2nd
bay in both sides
from center of the frame and then in the 3rd
bay in both sides from the center. The results of the
deflection are shown in below table.
From the above table it is found that by introducing the brace in the centre position shows the
minimum value for displacement as compared with other locations. Hence the braces will be
introduces in the center location in all building frame in all direction in elevation to have minimum
displacements, then these models are analyzed for the objective
Location of Brace
(bay–bay from center)
Max.
Displacement
(lateral) mm
Bay (1-1 from center) 168.4

19
5. RESULTS
CASE 2: THE ROOF DISPLACEMENT WITH RESPECT TO SOIL TYPES
ROOF DISPLACEMENTS
STRY.
SOIL
TYPE
WITHOUT
BRACE X-BRACE V-BRACE INV V-BRACE OUTRIGGERS INFILLS
STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN. STAT. DYN.
10 I 31.4 22.2 22.7 16.3 23.3 16.7 22.7 16.3 19.8 14.5 16.7 12.1
II 42.7 30.2 30.9 22.1 31.7 22.7 30.9 22.1 26.9 19.7 16.6 16.6
III 52.4 37 37.9 27.1 38.9 27.8 37.9 27.1 33.1 24.2 27.9 20.2
20 I 65.5 44.9 53.2 36.8 53.8 37.2 52.9 36.6 47.9 33.9 46.7 31.3
II 89.1 89.1 72.3 50.1 73.2 50.7 71.9 49.9 65.2 46.1 63.6 42.5
III 109.5 77.2 88.8 61.5 90 62.2 88.3 61.2 80.1 56.7 78.1 52.1
30 I 126.8 88.3 86.9 59.3 87.5 59.8 86.5 59 80.6 55.6 80.8 53.5
II 172.5 120.1 118.3 80.6 119.1 81.4 117.7 80.3 109.8 75.8 110 72.7
III 211.9 147.5 145.3 99 146.3 100 144.6 98.7 134.9 93.1 135.1 89.3
NOTE : ALL UNITS ARE IN MM ; I = HARD SOIL ; II = MEDIUM SOIL ; III = SOFT SOIL AS PER IS CODE .
The deflection in the soft soil is higher when compared to all other soils types i.e. hard rock
and medium soil, while the height of the buildings has a impact on the deflection to be higher. As
discussed in the previous case the roof displacement obtained in the static method is greater than the
displacements obtained in the response spectrum method.
CASE 3: THE ROOF DISPLACEMENT VS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
STOREY
LATERAL DISPLACEMENTS
WITHOUT BRACE X-BRACE OUTRIGGERS INFILLS
STATIC DYNAMIC STATIC DYNAMIC STATIC DYNAMIC STATIC DYNAMIC
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.7 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.0
2 11.1 9.6 7.0 6.4 7.3 6.6 5.6 5.2
3 19.6 16.7 11.2 9.9 11.6 10.3 8.0 7.0
4 28.4 24.1 15.7 13.6 16.2 14.1 10.9 9.1
5 37.4 31.4 20.4 17.4 21.0 18.0 14.1 11.5
6 46.4 38.6 25.4 21.3 26.1 21.9 17.8 14.0
7 55.5 45.7 30.7 25.2 31.4 25.9 21.7 16.8
8 64.6 52.6 36.1 29.1 36.8 29.9 25.9 19.6
9 73.7 59.4 41.7 33.1 42.4 33.9 30.4 22.6
10 82.8 66.0 47.4 37.0 48.0 37.8 35.1 25.7
11 91.8 72.5 53.2 40.9 53.7 41.7 39.9 28.9
12 100.7 78.7 59.0 44.8 59.3 45.6 44.9 32.1
13 109.5 84.8 64.9 48.6 65.0 49.4 50.0 35.4
14 118.2 90.7 70.7 52.4 70.5 53.1 55.3 38.7
15 126.7 96.3 76.6 56.2 72.3 54.1 60.5 42.0
16 135.1 101.7 82.4 59.8 77.5 57.5 65.8 45.3
17 143.2 106.9 88.1 63.4 83.0 60.9 71.2 48.6
18 151.1 111.9 93.7 66.9 88.3 64.3 76.5 51.9
19 158.7 116.5 99.2 70.3 93.6 67.5 81.8 55.2
20 166.0 121.0 104.6 73.6 98.7 70.7 87.0 58.5
21 172.9 125.1 109.8 76.8 103.7 73.5 92.2 61.7
22 179.4 128.9 114.8 79.9 108.5 76.7 97.4 65.0
23 185.5 132.5 119.5 82.8 113.0 79.5 102.4 68.2
24 191.1 135.7 124.1 85.6 117.3 82.1 107.4 71.3
25 196.1 138.6 128.4 88.3 121.4 84.7 112.3 74.5
26 200.6 141.1 132.4 90.8 125.1 87.0 117.1 77.6
27 204.4 143.3 136.1 93.2 128.6 89.2 121.8 80.6
28 207.6 145.1 139.6 95.4 131.8 91.2 126.4 83.7
29 210.1 146.6 142.8 97.5 134.6 93.2 131.0 86.7
30 211.9 147.5 145.3 99.0 134.9 93.1 135.1 89.3

20
For 10 storey building model, it is found as the Infills are most effective against the lateral
displacement then comes Outrigger system then come Braced system, when compared with normal
bare frame model. The velocity and the acceleration values are found to be increasing in infills,
outriggers, bracing systems respectively.
For 30 storey building model, it is found as the Infills system and Brace system are most
effective to withstand the time history function against displacements. The difference of
displacements in normal bare frame model and the lateral system building models are found to be
less. This indicates that the effect of lateral systems are not much effective with the increase in the
height of the buiding model for this time history loading. This is due to the infills are predominant
upto certain height and after this it reacts in a negative way while attractive the inertia forces hence
increasing the lateral displacements.
CASE 5: LATERAL STOREY DRIFT WITH RESPECT TO HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
STORE
Y
LATERAL DRIFTS
WITHOUT BRACE X-BRACE OUTRIGGERS INFILLS
STATIC
DYNAMI
C
STATI
C
DYNAMI
C STATIC
DYNAMI
C STATIC
DYNAMI
C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.7 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.0
2 7.3 6.3 4.1 3.7 4.2 3.8 2.6 2.2
3 8.5 7.1 4.2 3.5 4.3 3.7 2.4 1.8
4 8.8 7.4 4.5 3.7 4.6 3.8 2.9 2.1
5 9.0 7.3 4.7 3.8 4.8 3.9 3.2 2.4
6 9.0 7.2 5.0 3.9 5.1 3.9 3.7 2.5
7 9.1 7.1 5.3 3.9 5.3 4.0 3.9 2.8
8 9.1 6.9 5.4 3.9 5.4 4.0 4.2 2.8
9 9.1 6.8 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.0 4.5 3.0
10 9.1 6.6 5.7 3.9 5.6 3.9 4.7 3.1
11 9.0 6.5 5.8 3.9 5.7 3.9 4.8 3.2
12 8.9 6.2 5.8 3.9 5.6 3.9 5.0 3.2
13 8.8 6.1 5.9 3.8 5.7 3.8 5.1 3.3
14 8.7 5.9 5.8 3.8 5.5 3.7 5.3 3.3
15 8.5 5.6 5.9 3.8 1.8 1.0 5.2 3.3
16 8.4 5.4 5.8 3.6 5.2 3.4 5.3 3.3
17 8.1 5.2 5.7 3.6 5.5 3.4 5.4 3.3
18 7.9 5 5.6 3.5 5.3 3.4 5.3 3.3
19 7.6 4.6 5.5 3.4 5.3 3.2 5.3 3.3
20 7.3 4.5 5.4 3.3 5.1 3.2 5.2 3.3
21 6.9 4.1 5.2 3.2 5.0 2.8 5.2 3.2
22 6.5 3.8 5 3.1 4.8 3.2 5.2 3.3
23 6.1 3.6 4.7 2.9 4.5 2.8 5.0 3.2
24 5.6 3.2 4.6 2.8 4.3 2.6 5 3.1
25 5 2.9 4.3 2.7 4.1 2.6 4.9 3.2
26 4.5 2.5 4 2.5 3.7 2.3 4.8 3.1
27 3.8 2.2 3.7 2.4 3.5 2.2 4.7 3
28 3.2 1.8 3.5 2.2 3.2 2 4.6 3.1
29 2.5 1.5 3.2 2.1 2.8 2 4.6 3
30 1.8 0.9 2.5 1.5 0.3 0 4.1 2.6
NOTE: ALL UNITS ARE IN 'mm'.

21
5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the study of analysis of results the following conclusions are drawn
(a) The structural performance among three bracing systems (X-brace, V-brace, Inverted V-
brace), one outrigger system (introduced at Top and Middle levels), one infill system
(introduced at the place of braces), the variation of displacement is smaller in infill system.
This statement is true in all the zones for all the soil conditions and for different loading
conditions.
(b) The values of displacements and base shears obtained in X-Brace, V-Brace and Chevron
Brace structure models, does not shows much variations, these values are found to be almost
identical, this statement is true in all types of soils, for different heights and for all loading
conditions.
(c) The sudden variation in the storey drift is seen at the location of the outriggers in the building
models. At the storey where outrigger placed observed to be more stiff than other stories.
(d) With the provisions of Infills and Bracings in the analytical models, Time Period of the
structures are found to be lesser in these models when compared to Bare frame system.
6. REFERENCES
1. Zhixin Wang, Haitao Fan and Haungjuan Zhao, “Analysis of the seismic performance of
RC frame structures with different types of bracings” Applied Mechanics and Material Vols.
166-169 , pp 2209-2215, May 2012.
2. Huanjun Jiang, Bo Fu and Laoer Liu, “Seismic Perfromance Evaluation of a Steel-
Concrete Hybrid Frame-tube High-rise Building Structure” Applied Mechanics and Materials
Vol. 137, pp 149-153, Oct 2011.
3. Behruz Bagheri Azar, Mohammad Reza Bagerzadeh Karimi, “Study the Effect of using
Different Kind of Bracing System in Tall Steel Structure” American Journal of Scientific
Research, ISSN 1450-223X Issue 53, pp 24-34, 2012.
4. Shi Qun Guo, “Analysis on Seismic Behavior of Irregular High-rise RC structure Using
Eccentrically Braces” Advance Materials Research Vols. 243-249, pp 4001-4004, May 2011.
5. Paul Richards W., P.E., M.ASCE, “Seismic Column Demands in Ductile Braced Frames”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No.1, ISSN 0733-9445/2009/1-33-41,
January 2009.
6. Mir Ali M. and Kyoung Sun Moon, “Structural Developments in Tall Buildings; Current
Trends and Future Prospects”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 50.3, pp 205-223,
June 2007.
7. Jinkoo Kim, Hyunhoon Choi, “Response modification factors of Chevron-braced frames”,
Engineering Structures, Vol-27, pp 285-300, October 2004.
8. Mahmoud R. Maheri, Akbarik R., “Seismic behavior factor, R, for steel X-braced and
knee-braced RC buildings” Engineering Structures, Vol.25, pp 1505-1513, May 2003.
9. Hoenderkamp J.C.D. and Bakker M.C.M., “Analysis of High-Rise Braced Frames with
Outriggers” The structural design of tall and special buildings, Vol. 12, , pp 335-350,
July 2003.
10. Wu J.R. and LI Q.S., “Structural performance of multi-outrigger-braced Tall Buildings”.
The structural design of tall and special buildings, Vol.12, pp 155-176, October 2003.
11. Kapur V. and Ashok Jain K., “Seismic response of shear wall frame versus braced concrete
frames” University of Roorkee, Roorkee, 247 672, April 1983.

22
12. IS -1893, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures – Part I, General provisions
and buildings (Fifth Revision)”. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.
13. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande, “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”
PHI Learning Private Limited, New Delhi, 2010.
14. Taranath B.S., “Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings” McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1988.
15. Taranath B.S., “Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings Structural Analysis and Design”
Marcel Dekker, New York, 2005.
16. SAP 2000 Version 15, “Documentation and Training Manuals”.
17. ETABS 9.5, “Documentation and Training Manuals.
18. Abusalah Mohamed Alakhdar Abdlaziz, R.K. Pandey, Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Ashok Tripathi
and Anshuman, “Time and Schedule Management by using Primavera”, International Journal
of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 5, 2013, pp. 78 - 87,
ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
19. Mohammed Hashim Ameen and Dr. R. K. Pandey, “Delineation of Irrigation Infrastructural,
Potential and Land Use/ Land Cover of Muzaffarnagar by using Remote Sensing and GIS”,
International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 3, 2013,
pp. 1 - 11, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

20320140503002 2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to 20320140503002 2

Similar to 20320140503002 2 (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

20320140503002 2