IRJET- Seismic Analysis of a Tall Structure Considering X Type Bracings at the Corner Edges using Analysis Tool

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 01 | Jan 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 988
“Seismic Analysis of a Tall Structure Considering X Type Bracings at the
Corner Edges using Analysis Tool”
Priyanka Suryawanshi1, Vikrant Dubey2, Kapil Soni3
1P.G. Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, R.N.T.U. Bhopal
2Asst. Prof, Department of Civil Engineering, R.N.T.U. Bhopal
3Asst. Prof & H.O.D., Department of Civil Engineering, R.N.T.U. Bhopal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------***------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: As India is remarked as most rapidly developing country in the world with its economic and infrastructure growth,
settlement of large population over small area needs construction of tall structures.To designsuchstructuresneedtoconsider
lateral loads to prevent failure due to act of god. To oppose horizontal seismic tremor loads, shear dividers are usuallyutilized
as a part of RC encircled structures, while, steel supporting is the frequentlyutilizedasa partofsteel structures.Intheprevious
two decades, various reports have likewise shown the compelling utilization of steel supporting in RC outlines.Steel propping
of RC structures began as a retrofitting measure to fortify seismic tremor harmed structures or to expand the heap opposing
limit of existing structures.
In this examination work we are preparing comparative analysis of RC bareframeand steel bracedRCframe,andthestudyhas
focused on four different seismic zones with soft soil, considering X-bracingsystemAssessingtheseismicpotential ofRCframe
by these steel bracing and have the better bracing systems has the primary goal of their study.
Introduction:
Seismic investigation of a large portion of the structures is still done based on horizontal power thought to be identical to the
genuine stacking. The base shear which is the aggregate flat power on the structureisascertainedbasedonstructuremassand
essential time of Vibration and relating mode shape. The base shear is circulated along the stature of the structure as far as
parallel powers as indicated by code recipe. This strategy is typically traditionalist forlowtomediumstaturestructureswitha
customary conﬁguration. Linear static analysis or equivalent static analysis can only be utilized for normal structure with
constrained tallness. Straight unique investigation can be performed in two different ways either by mode superposition
strategy or reaction range technique and flexible time history technique. This examination will deliver the impact of higher
methods of vibration and genuine appropriation of powers in flexible range in better way. Theyrepresenta changeoverdirect
static analysis. The signiﬁcant difference between linear static and dynamic analysis is the level of force and their distribution
along the height of the structure. Nonlinear static examination is a changeoverthestraightstaticordynamicinvestigation asin
it permits the inelastic conduct of structure. The technique likewise expect the arrangementofstaticincremental loadoverthe
stature of the structure.
Fig 1: Building collapse due to lateral forces

Bracing frameworks are utilized to oppose level powers (seismicactivity,windstack)andtotransmittotheestablishment.The
supporting individuals are orchestratedinnumerousstructures,whichconvey exclusivelypressure,orontheotherhandstrain
and pressure. Such frameworks diminish bowing moment and shear drivein thesections.Bracingsholdthestructurestable by
exchanging the heaps sideways (not gravity, but rather quake or twist loads) down to the ground and are utilized to oppose
horizontal burdens, along these lines counteracting influence of the structure. Corner to corner supports are proficient
components for creating solidness and protection from horizontal load. There are distinctive kinds of supportingframeworks
in like manner utilize, for example, single slanting propping, X supporting,Vbracing,K bracing,transformedV bracing.Existing
RC surrounded structures outlined without seismic criteria and malleable enumerating can speak to a significant peril amid
quake ground movements. The non-malleableconductofthesecasingsgetsfromthelackingtransversefortification insections,
shafts and joints, from bond slip of pillar base support at the joint, from the poor imprisonment of the segments. Within the
sight of these insufficiencies the overhauling of seismic execution might be acknowledged with two distinct methodologies,
The main objective are:
1. To determine the effect of X type of Bracing system over a tall structure.
2. To determine the lateral stability of the structure under seismic loading as per Indian Provision I.S. 1893-I:2002.
3. To determine the utilization of analysis tool staad.pro for modelling and analysis of a tall structure.
Aim of the Study
1. Comparative study for various kinds of concentrically put horizontal loadopposingframeworks(steel bracingsystem)
at corners.
2. To ponder the seismic conduct of RC working by performing straight static analysis with different bracing systems.
3. To compare various parametric results such as lateral story displacement, Story float and Story powers for various
sorts of supporting frameworks of braced RC frames in order that suitable types may be proposedfordifferentseismic
design and retrofit needs
4. To know the better seismic load resisting steel bracing system with respect to practical use.
Literature Review:
Rana and Verma (2019) [9] the research paper carried out the evaluation of different kinds of curved bracing system out for
steel framed structure while performing dynamic seismic analysis as per IS:1893:2016. The behavior and performance of
various shaped of curved bracing was analyzed in software staad.pro and resultswere collectedandrepresentedin theformof
tables, graphs and figures. For this purpose, 14 storey regular building was chosen and different geometric and design
parameters were considered as per the codal provisions. The height of each floor wasconsideredas3.6m.Whereas,theplanof
the building entails 6 x 6 bays in both the direction and the size of each panel was taken as 5 x 5m. Afterscrutinizingthe results
gathered, it was concluded that ‘AV Arc’ bracing system was the most effective bracing system and it could be used effectively
to resist lateral loads such as earthquake loads.
Farhat Aziz et. al. (2019) [5] the paper exhibited the similar investigationofbreaking downvarioussupportingframeworksin
a sporadic steel structure of G+7 celebrated by static and reaction range strategy. , supporting was one of the most vital
components to structure sidelong load opposing casing. Parameters, for example, segment properties, sidelongloads,vertical
burdens, plan parameters, bolster conditions, load blends were steady and BNBC arrangements were followed in the
examination. Distinctive sort of bracings like cross supporting, single corner to corner propping, knee supporting, V propping
and chevron propping were utilized to watch the effects on various sidelong relocations, story floats and propping loads.
Weakling investigation was done to discover seismic reaction for various structure in the nonlinear zone and perception
expressed that cross and chevron propping were better contrasting with different kinds of bracings inside the constraints of
this examination.
Anusha K and Raghu K (2018) [2] the examination paper surveyed the seismic reactionofsteel structurewithvariousedgeof
supporting framework. A 15 story steel minute opposing casing was dissected for zone II of soil type-II (medium). The
examinations was completed to survey the basic execution under quake ground movements. These models were additionally
looked at in changed viewpoints, for example, story float, story dislodging and story shear.
The outcomes presumed that maximum parallel dislodging of the strcuture was diminished after the utilization of supporting
strategy. Story Displacement and Story Drift was more in 60 degree modular and less in 45 degree modular from seismic
tremor loads or wind loads. Story share was practically same in all modals with the exception of 45 degree modular from

tremor loads. Story share was more in 45 degree modular and practically sameindifferentsortsofmodalsfromreactionrange
investigation.
Sudheer et. al. (2018) [15] the creators explore work depended on seismic investigation of RC building outlines with V type
supporting, transformed V type propping and X type supporting frameworks considering a nine story building thought to be
arranged at seismic zone 3 according to the seismic zone guide of India. steel ISMB300 was used as propping individuals by
thinking about same cross-sectional territory and to display and investigation work PC application E-tab was utilized. The
outcomes showed that X Bracing framework adequately lessenthebothrelocationandstoryfloat,andexpandsthe solidnessof
the structure contrasted with the inlet outline and staying supporting frameworks. After X Bracing reversed V Bracing
decreased both relocation and story float, and expanded the solidness of the structure contrasted with the sound edge and V
Bracing. Propping frameworks were discoveredhelpful tolessentherelocation,storyfloatandexpandingthestory firmness. At
last reasoned that X supporting successfully decrease the removal and story float, and incrementthefirmnessofthe structure.
Outcome of the literature review:
The researchers have tried to find the variation in forces which occurs due to bracing system and shear link, following are the
outcomes of literature review:
1. Frame with bracings results in less lateral forces in beam and columns.
2. Structure with links become more stable.
3. Bracings in tall structures reduces the effect of storey drift.
Methodology:
This study is attempted in following steps:
Step-1 selection of building geometry symmetric shape (28 X 40 m) G+20 storey of 3-D frame. Fig. 2.
Fig 2: 3d Structure

Step-2 Applying steel section angle shape X bracings inclined in the models. Creating 8 different cases to compare.
Fig 3: X Bracings
Step-3 Selection of Seismic zones (Zone II & IV) and soft & medium type soil as per IS- 1893 (part I) -2002.
Step-4 Different combinations of load
Step-5 Finite Element Analysis of the structure
Step-6 Generating reactions, forces and moment of both the cases.
Step-7 Preparing comparative graphs
Step-8 Analyzing output data and discussion

Flow chart diagram
Flow chart of proposed method of analysis is appeared in the Figure 4
Fig 4: flow chart of the Study
START
SELECTION OF
RECTANGULAR GEOMETRY
GEOMERY
ss soilsSTRUCTURAL FRAMES
MODELING
STRUCTURE WITH AND
WITHOUT STEEL
DIAGRIDS AT OUTER
PERIPHERY
SEISMIC ZONE II &
IV .
SOFT & MEDIUM
TYPE SOIL
CONDITION
ANALYSING
CHECKING LOAD
CONDITIONS
IF ALL FRAMES ARE
CONSIDERED
COMPARATIVE STUDY AND
RESULTS
STOP

Table 2: Geometrical data of the structure
Analysis Results:
Fig 5: Bending Moment kN-m
Fig 6: Axial Force
Description Values
Number of storey Twenty
Number of bays in X direction Seven
Number of bays in Z direction Ten
Height of each storey 3.50 m
Bay width in X direction 4 m
Bay width in Z direction 4 m
Size of beam 250 x 350 mm
Size of column 350 x 350 mm
Thickness of R.C.C. slab 125 mm
Steel Bracings Angel section 150 x 150 x 15

Fig 7: Shear Force kN
Fig 8: Displacement

Fig: 9: Storey Displacement in Zone II

Fig: 10: Storey Displacement in Zone III

Fig: 11: Storey Displacement in Zone IV

Fig: 12: Storey Displacement in Zone V
Conclusion:
The steel bracing system has not only improveddisplacementcapacity ofreinforcedconcretestructures,butalsothehorizontal
solidness and quality limit of the structures by increasing its shear capacity.
1. X-type brace system of steel supporting sorts has found in the most capable withrespecttostory evacuatingandstory
deflection decrease when provided at the four edges of the structure.

2. Story displacement ought to be restricted on the grounds thatdiversionmust beconstrainedduringtheearthshudder
to ensure the harm of basic components, particularly nonstructural components, and thus the arrangements of steel
propping for the RC structure give satisfactory solidness for the structure and among the pre-owned supporting X-
supporting sorts have been given better outcome in decrease of story float.
3. The base shear capacity of steel propped outline is expanded when contrasted with bare frame (without bracing)
building which shows that the solidness of building has expanded.
4. X-bracing type is found most efficient in increasing the shear limit of RC outline building which indicates X-bracesort
of steel supporting fundamentally adds to the basic stiffness.
5. The Bending Moment of structure considering X type bracing is comparatively low than bare frame structure which
shows that structure with bracings is more economical.
Summary:
Finally we can conclude that both X-bracing system may be used to new design or retrofit for damage level earthquake,
however, X-bracing system is more suitable to use The corner bracing configuration is better lateral displacement reduction
arrangement from the other bay wise arrangement of steel propped fortified solid structures.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are suggested by us after the analysisoftheresultsarisingfromtheinvestigationwasdoneon
introduction of X type bracing for lateral load resisting structure:
1. It is recommended to use X type Bracings which make structure rigid and stable to resist lateral forces without
deformation or failure.
2. For Tall structures where intensity of forces are comparatively more are recommended to assign X type bracings to
keep the structure within permissible limit.
3. It is recommended to use analysis tool staad.pro which is more precise and performing analysis in a shortduration as
compared to manual analysis and design.
4. Results reveal that damage to the structure due to seismic forces are minimized by utilizing bracings at the outer
periphery of the structure.
Future Scope
1. In this study G+20 structure is considered whereas in future it can be extend to more tall structure.
2. In this study seismic analysis is performed whereas in future wind load can be consider.
3. In this study Staad.pro analysis tool is utilized whereas in future other analysis tool can be preferred.
References
[1] A. Moein Amini, M. Majd and M. Hosseini, [A Study on the Effect of Bracing Arrangement in the Seismic Behavior
Buildings with Various Concentric Bracings by Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analyses], 15 WCEE LISBOA 2012.
[2] A. Gayatri thakre and m.m. murudi, [Parametric analysis of steel bracing in steel structure subjected to wind load],
international journal of mechanical and production engineering, issn: 2320-2092, volume- 4, issue-11, nov.-2016.
[3] Anant Sudheer and Shyam chamberlin. K, [Response simulaton of rc frame with different bracing systems],
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Volume 9, Issue 6, June 2018, pp. 93–98.
[4] A. U. Kulkarni, P. G. Chandak, M. K. Devtale, S.S. Sayyed, [Analysis of Various Steel BracingSystemsusingSteel Sections
for High Rise Structures], International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences, June 2016,
Volume 4, Issue 6, ISSN 2349-4476.
[5] Anusha K and Raghu K, [Analysis of Braced Frame Multi Storied Structure with Different Angles as Per Indian
Standards], International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018.
[6] Beiranvand, M. Hosseini, M. R. Dadgar , M.Zarei, [The Effect of Column LocationandBracingonProgressiveCollapseof
Steel Structures], Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering 16(1) 2016.

[7] B. Sachin Metre, Shivanand C ghule and Ravi kiran, [comparative study ofdifferenttypesofbracingsystemsbyplacing
at different locations], International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume: 04Issue:08 |Aug-
2017.
[8] D. Doshi, Jagadish J. S and Tejas, [A Study On Bracing Systems On High Rise Steel Structures], International Journal of
Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278-0181, Vol. 2 Issue 7, July – 2013.
[9] Islam Nazrul and Nauman Mohammed, [BehaviourofMultistoreyRCCStructurewithDifferentTypeofBracingSystem
(A Software Approach)], International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering andTechnology,Vol.2,Issue
12, December 2013.
[10] Darshan SK, Narasimha Murthy K, Karthik AS, Santosh R, Shiva Kumar KS, [ Effective Study of Bracing Systems for
Irregular Tall Steel Structures], International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016.
[11] K. K. Pathak And Shalaka Dhokane, [A Study on the Effectiveness of Bracing Systems in Soft Storey Steel Buildings],
Journal of Today’s Ideas – Tomorrow’s Technologies, Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2016 pp. 77–88.
[12] Keyvan Ramin, [Seismic Behavior ofSteel Off-Diagonal BracingSystem(ODBS)UtilizedinReinforcedConcreteFrame],
Journal of Structures Volume 2014, Article ID 403916, 20 pages.
[13] K. Tanaji Bhosle Ashwini and Shaikh A. N, [Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Building with Different Arrangement of
Concrete and Steel Bracing system], IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering(IOSR-JMCE),Volume12,Issue5Ver.
V (Sep. - Oct. 2015), PP 08-12.
[14] N H Akhila Lekshmi and Aswathy S. Kumar, [Dynamic Analysis of an Irregular RC Building with Different Bracing
Systems], International Journal of Science and Research(IJSR),IndexCopernicusValue(2013):6.14|ImpactFactor(2015):
6.391.
[15] Nitin Verma and Madhav Rana, [Dynamic Analysis of Steel Frame Structure (Regular in Plan) using Curved Bracing
Systems], International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), ISSN:2278-3075,Volume-8
Issue-10, August 2019.
[16] Md. Monjur Hossain, Farhat Aziz Sheen, Asma Ferdous and Arifur Rahman, [Comparative Study for Different Bracing
Systems of an Irregular Steel Structure], Proc. 2nd International Conference on Structural Engineering Research
(iCSER2019), 19-22 Jan 2019, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Indian Standard Provisions:
1. Indian Standard, I.S., 2000. 456: 2000. Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice.
2. Indian Standard, I.S., 1987. 875: 1987 (Part-I). Dead Loads - Unit Weights of Building Materials and Stored
Materials
3. Indian Standard, I.S., 1987. 875: 1987 (Part-II). Imposed Load.
4. Indian Standard, I.S., 2002. 1893: 2002 (Part-I). Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure.
AUTHOR:
Priyanka Suryawanshi
P.G. Scholar Department of Civil Engineering, R.N.T.U. Bhopal

IRJET- Seismic Analysis of a Tall Structure Considering X Type Bracings at the Corner Edges using Analysis Tool

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET- Seismic Analysis of a Tall Structure Considering X Type Bracings at the Corner Edges using Analysis Tool

Similar to IRJET- Seismic Analysis of a Tall Structure Considering X Type Bracings at the Corner Edges using Analysis Tool (20)

More from IRJET Journal

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- Seismic Analysis of a Tall Structure Considering X Type Bracings at the Corner Edges using Analysis Tool