Progress report

A progress report
on

“Experimental and analytical

investigation on seismic
behaviour of
of steel structure”
structure”

By
Jaykumar J. Bavarva
000RDNMC141501
M.Tech Civil engg.
IRD, GFSU.

Supervised By
Prof. Merool Vakil
IRD,GFSU

1
Page

2015-2016

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Institute of Research & Development

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University
Gandhinagar

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr./Miss Bavarva Jaykumar Jayantilal Enrollment no.
000RDNMC1415 01 of M. Tech Civil Engineering (Forensic Structural
Engineering)of Semester – IV has submitted Progress Report for the subject
Seminar as a part of T.A. Examination during academic term 2015.

Date:-21-01-2016

Signature of Examiner

_____________________
_____________________
2
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Content
1.0 Abstract 3
2.0 Need of the study 5
3.0 Literature review 9
(1) Dynamic Behavior of Flexible, Semirigid and Rigid Steel Frames 9
(2) Experimental and analytical investigations on seismic behavior of 12
ductile steel knee braced frames
(3) Experimental behavior of low steel building with flexible roof 13
diaphragms
(4) Investigation of the seismic response of three-story special 15
concentrically braced frames
(5) Seismic analysis of framed steel structures with semi rigid joints 17
(6) Seismic analysis of high rise steel buildings with and without 19
bracings
(7) Seismic behaviour of moment resisting steel frames: Analytical 22
study
(8) Seismic behaviour of mixed steel structure 23
(9) Shaking table tests of a two-story unbraced steel frame 24
(10) A Comparative Study of Seismic Strengthening of RC Buildings 26
by Steel Bracings and Concrete Shear walls

4.0 Work progress 28

5.0 References 35

3
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Chapter-1
Abstract

Among all the natural hazard, earthquake is one of the most dangerous. For safety
of the buildings, it is essential that structures should have adequate lateral
stability, strength, and sufficient ductility. There are various types of lateral load
resistance structural systems for reducing the effect of earthquake forces for
buildings. Steel braced frame is one of the structural systems used to resist
earthquake loads in multi-storeyed buildings. Many existing buildings need
retrofit to overcome deficiencies to resist seismic loads. The use of steel bracing
systems for strengthening or retrofitting seismically inadequate building is a
viable solution for enhancing earthquake resistance. Steel bracing is economical,
easy to erect, occupies less space and has flexibility to design for meeting the
required strength and stiffness. The pattern of the bracing can extensively modify
the global seismic behavior of the framed steel building. In this paper response
spectrum study is carried out on high rise, medium rise and low rise steel building
with different pattern of bracing system for earthquake zone-V(Z=0.36) and soil
type II according to IS:1893-2002 .Now a days we often seen that one building
have many purpose like residential building, shop, cinema hall, parking garage
etc. So, in that type of building there are not same story height for entire building.
For that purpose I also compare result for vertical vary story height and same story
height over building. Joint displacement at particular node is calculated with
different pattern of bracing system. All these studies are carried out in ETABS
15.0 software program. After these all analytical study, I compare all result with
experimental work. In experimental study I make small scale prototype model of
steel frame building and taste on shake table. From shake table study I get some
result and give conclusion on it.

Keywords: Response spectrum, high rise steel building, medium rise steel building, low rise steel building,
bracing pattern, ETABS, vertical vary story height, joint displacement, Experimental, Shake table test,
Prototype model
4
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Chapter – 2
Need of the study

In this chapter we analyse why we need to conduct this seismic analysis of steel
structure because we all know steel structure have ductile nature and it is good for
resistance to failure during earthquake. But, in past lot of steel structure is fail due
to local failure of structural member. So, we all have to study following case study
“Performance of steel structure during 1994 Northridge earthquake”.

(1) Performance of steel structures during the 1994 Northridge earthquake

By Robert Tremblay, Peter Timler, Michel Bruneau, and Andre Filiatrault

The performance of concentrically braced steel frames and moment resisting steel
frames during the January 17, 1994, Northridge, California, earthquake is
examined. Most of the observations made during the reconnaissance visits
confirmed the current knowledge on the inelastic response of these structural
systems. This permits the anticipation of proper seismic behavior for buildings
designed according to the seismic provisions that have been recently introduced in
the Canadian building code and standard for steel structures. In some cases,
however, the observed damage raised concerns that should be addressed in future
investigations or next editions of these codes. Preventing potentially hazardous
nonstructural damage, avoiding premature non ductile failures anywhere along the
lateral load paths, limiting structural and nonstructural damage due to brace
buckling, and accounting for the vertical ground motion are among those issues.

A total of 14 cases are presented, among which 12 are building structures. The
received by the Editor until August 31, 1995 (address inside structures were either
concentrically braced frames, moment front cover). resisting frames, or a
combination of the two.

Following are some cases of behavior of steel structure during Northbridge

Earthquake:

First Interstate Bank Building at Northridge

This is a two-storey steel frame, 25 x 46 m in plan, located on Nordhoff Street in
Northridge, approximately 2 km north of the epicenter. It was built in the mid-
5

1970s and seismically retrofitted in 1991. In the north-south direction, the frame
Page

was concentrically braced along both end walls. As part of the retrofit effort, four
X-bracing bays were added at both levels along the facade. The performance of
these four bracing assemblies is examined herein. The X-bracing members were
made from short legs backto- back L102 x 76 x 6.4 (4 x 3 x % in.) angles. At the
intersection of the braces, one brace was interrupted and continuity was provided

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

by a connecting plate. All connections were welded. The connecting plates

showed evidence of severe buckling and bending, whereas no indication of
inelastic action, nor buckling, could be observed along the bracing members. At
the base of the columns of the X-braced bays, evidence of uplift could be
observed, as the tiles on the ground and the stucco covering the columns were
damaged. This suggests that neither the anchorage nor the brace connecting plates
could sustain the load that developed in the braces.

Serious nonstructural damage, indicating that the structure had experienced

significant deformations, could also be observed. According to recent discussions
with the owner's representative, the extent of structural and nonstructural damage
was such that the building has to be demolished and rebuilt. It is the owner's
intention to replace it with a single storey timber construction.

Three-storey building under construction in Van Nuys

On Sepuvelda Boulevard near Victory Boulevard in Van Nuys, 8 km southeast of
the epicenter, a three-storey building was under construction when the earthquake
struck. Only the first floor slab was poured at that time. In the north-south
direction, the frame was three bays wide with the center bay being a moment
resisting frame. Single-bay inverted V chevron bracings were provided along the
north and south exterior walls for resisting lateral loads in the other principal
direction (Fig.1).

6
Page

Fig.1 Three-storey building under construction in Van Nuys:

chevron bracing on the north wall.

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

The bracing bays were 10 m wide and the storey height was approximately equal
to 3.6 m. The structure did not suffer any significant damage, although the ground
shaking was particularly strong in that area. However, all bracing members at the
first floor experienced significant inelastic out-of-plane buckling (Fig.2).
As shown, both braces were permanently deformed in the buckled shape, which
indicates that both braces likely yielded in tension during the ground shaking.
These members were made from back-to-back channels, 152 mm in depth and 76
mm in width, assembled by means of 10 mm spacers at quarter span. Though an
unbalanced vertical force likely developed at the apex of the V at mid-span of the
beams, no signs of plastic deformation could be observed along the beams. The
moment resisting frames in the north -south direction did not suffer any visible
damage.

Fig. 2. Three-storey building under construction in

Van Nuys: out-of-plane buckling of the first-storey bracing
members on the north wall.

Conclusions
Some concentrically steel braced frames and steel moment resisting frames
experienced various structural and nonstructurd damage during the Northridge
earthquake. None of them collapsed as they generally maintained their gravity
load carrying capacity as well as some degree of lateral stability. The observations
made and the information presented in this paper support for the most part the
relevance of the current design provisions included in the Canadian building code
and standard for steel structures. However, Canadian researchers, code writing
7
Page

committees, and structural engineer designers will need to address a number of

additional issues which can have a significant impact on the seismic resistant
design of steel structures and which are not (or deficiently) addressed by the
current edition of the Canadian codes and standards. This includes the need to

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

- extend a capacity design approach to the whole lateral load resisting system of
the structure, as well as to all categories of moment resisting frames and,
particularly, concentrically braced frames, because of their lower inherent
redundancy;
- account for secondary effects that occur upon buckling of bracing members in
concentrically braced frames;
- consider vertical ground accelerations in the design of horizontal cantilever
structures and exterior columns of bracing bents in concentrically braced frames;
- account for the lower redundancy exhibited by moment resisting frames having
only a few moment resisting bays;
- recognize in the design process the hazard potential from nonstructural damage
occurring during earthquakes.

One of the main lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake is the potential
deficiency of welded flange and bolted web beam-column joints in moment
resisting frames.

Now, we have to study that what is Concentric Braced Frames(CBF) and Steel
Moment Resisting Frame(SMRF) and How they behave during Earthquake.

8
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Chapter – 3
Literature Review

(1) Dynamic Behavior of Flexible, Semirigid and Rigid Steel Frames

By M. N. Nader & A. Astaneh (J. Construct. Steel Research 18 (1991) 179--192)

A single story steel structure was constructed such that the connections could be
changed from fexible to semirigid and finally to rigid connections. The behavior
of flexible and semirigid structures under dynamic loading was studied, and their
respective responses were compared to that of the rigid structure subjected to
similar earthquakes. The use of flexible and semirigid structures in seismic zones
is studied and commented on.

This study had two main objectives:

(1) To compare the lateral deflections and base shear forces that prevail in
flexible, semirigid and fixed structures when these structures are subjected to
similar earthquake loads.
(2) To investigate the force-deformation relations of each of the connections and
their effect on the global ductility of the structure.

Fig. 1. Test structure mounted on the shaking table.

9
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Fig. 2. Details of the (a) flexible, (b) semirigid and (c) rigid connections.

The following conclusions and remarks can be made:

 As the stiffness of the connection increased, the base shear resulting from
the same ground motion increased, while the corresponding lateral drift did
not decrease in a similar manner. This type of structural behavior leads to
the idea of optimal design and how it can be approached. To design a
structure to resist a certain dynamic load, one should search for the
10

optimum system of beam-to-column connections so that the structure would

Page

develop the least possible amount of base shear, and yet not have large
lateral deformations. In this case of a single story structure, having a fixed
connection is not the optimal solution.

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

 Energy can be dissipated in a connection in different ways and not only by

moment-rotation hysteresis behavior. The energy can also be dissipated by
axial force-axial displacement hysteresis behavior, and shear force-shear
displacement hysteresis behavior.

 A well proportioned semirigid and even a flexible connection designed to

allow active participation in nonlinear deformation may enhance the
dynamicm performance of steel frames in low rise buildings.

 Flexible (simple) and semirigid structures behaved well in most of the

dynamic tests. That is, these structures did not have large base shear forces
and yet they did not undergo large lateral drifts. Themoment capacity of the
semirigid connections was higher than expected. Flexible and semirigid
structures have considerable potential for resisting earthquake loading, and
need further study.

11
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(2)Experimental and analytical investigations on seismic behavior of ductile

steel knee braced frames
By Seyed Mehdi Zahrai and Meysam Jalali (Steel and Composite Structures, Vol.
16, No. 1 (2014) 1-21)

Knee Braced Frame (KBF) is a special form of ductile eccentrically braced frame
having a diagonal brace connected to a knee element, as a hysteretic damper,
instead of beam-column joint. This paper first presents an experimental
investigation on cyclic performance of two knee braced single span one-story
frame specimens. The general test arrangement, specimen details, and most
relevant results (failure modes and hysteretic curves) are explained. Some indexes
to assess the seismic performance of KBFs, including ductility; response
reduction factor and energy dissipation capabilities are also subsequently
discussed. Experimental results indicate that the maximum equivalent damping
ratios achieved by test frames are 21.8 and 23% for the specimens, prior to failure.

Finally, a simplified analytical model is derived to predict the bilinear behavior of

the KBFs. Acceptable conformity between analytical and experimental results
proves the accuracy of the proposed model.

12
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(3) EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOUR OF LOW-RISE STEEL BUILDINGS

WITH FLEXIBLE ROOF DIAPHRAGMS
By Robert TREMBLAY1, Tarek BERAIR2 And André FILIATRAULT3
(12WCEE 2000)

This paper reports on an shake table test program performed at École

Polytechnique of Montreal in which a low-rise steel building model with a flexible
roof diaphragm was subjected to seismic ground motions. Several parameters
were investigated among which the stiffness of the roof diaphragm, the ground
motion characteristics, and in-plane mass, stiffness, and strength eccentricities.
The paper presents the design of the model, including the similitude relationships
developed for this particular application. The test results show that a simplified
formula can be used to estimate the fundamental period of the structures. Under
strong ground motion, in-plane roof deformations are approximately twice as
large as those predicted with a static analysis. Shear forces measured in the
diaphragm were also higher than those obtained assuming static loading
conditions. Eccentricity is found to affect significantly the inelastic response of
these structures.

Figure 1: Typical low rise steel building

An extensive shake table test program has been recently completed at École
Polytechnique of Montreal on a 1:7.5 scale steel building model with a metal roof
deck diaphragm. The objectives of this research were to obtain experimental data
on the inelastic response of these structures under severe ground shaking,
13

including the effects of the flexibility of the roof diaphragm, the strain rate effects
Page

on the yield strength of the vertical bracing, and the effects of in-plane
eccentricities. The parameters investigated included two different sites: Victoria,
B.C., and Quebec, Qc, which led to different ground motion characteristics and
roof seismic weight values, two levels of flexibility for the diaphragm, and four
eccentricity conditions: no eccentricity, mass eccentricity, stiffness eccentricity,

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

and strength eccentricity. This paper describes the design of the test model and
presents some of the main findings of this project.

TEST RESULTS

Figure 2: Building prototype

Stiffness and Dynamic Properties

The actual stiffness and strength of the bracing members corresponded well with
the predicted values. However, the measured stiffness values of the roof
diaphragm were significantly different from the theoretical values: 1.54 kN/mm
and 1.94 kN/mm, for the flexible and rigid roof configurations, respectively.

14
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(4) Investigation of the seismic response of three-story special concentrically

braced frames
By Eric J. Lumpkin a, Po-Chien Hsiao b, Charles W. Roeder b,⁎, Dawn E.
Lehman b, Ching-Yi Tsai c, An-Chien Wu d,Chih-Yu Wei d, Keh-Chyuan Tsa
(Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 131–144 ELSEVIER)

Historically, experimental research on the seismic response of braced frame

research has focused on the cyclic and monotonic responses of isolated
components, such as braces or gusset plate connections. However, these
components do not work in isolation, and recent research shows that accurate
evaluation of their seismic performance requires consideration of the complete
system.The specimens evaluated a new design approach for midspan gusset plate
connections. The two specimens had HSS or wide-flange braces in combination
with framing members and connections typical of those used in a three-story
building in regions of high seismicity. Composite, concrete slabs were placed on
each story.

Fig. 6. Experimental Setup for Three-Story Tests; Photograph.

 Wide-flange and HSS braces perform well but differently. Wide flange
braces sustained larger buckling deformation prior to brace fracture than
15

that HSS rectangular tube bracing. Conversely, the HSS tubular braces
Page

retained more stable post-buckling compressive capacity than the wide

flange braces. The wide flange braces caused greater damage to the gusset
plates, because of the increased rotation demands and larger buckling
deformations. Further, the wide flange braces experience a sharp drop in
resistance immediately after buckling, but some of this lost resistance was

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

recovered due to strain hardening and post-buckling deformation. This

observation is also supported by other prior test data. For a given level of
drift ratio, SCBFs with wide flange braces were shown to have a reduced
energy dissipation capability over those with HSS braces because of a more
pinched hysteretic behavior and erratic reductions in resistance in the initial
inelastic cycles. These observations were consistent with single-story frame
test results.
 The frame was designed to ideally have an equal distribution of inelastic
deformation over the height of the structure, since the braces all had similar
lengths and end restraints and the lateral load was applied at the top level.
However, as noted earlier, the actual boundaries of the specimen and the
restraint of the connections was different from the idealized conditions
envisioned in the design. As a result, the inelastic deformation was nearly
equal in the bottom two stories and significantly smaller in the third story.
In part this results from the additional stiffness of the top story, which
results from the greater beam column connection stiffness and the increased
moment frame stiffness.
 Recent braced frame tests using conventional design approaches have
shown significant damage to beams and columns. The new balanced design
method, which employs lighter, more compact gusset plates, significantly
reduces this secondary damage. This provides benefits for performance-
based design and reduced cost of post-earthquake repair. This performance
enhancement also permitted the use of this test frame in multiple tests.

16
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(5) SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF FRAMED STEEL STRUCTURE WITH SEMI

RIGID JOINTS
By Paulina Krolo, Mehmed Cauševic, Mladen Bulic (EUROSTEEL 2014,
September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy)

Beam-to-column joints of steel frames traditionally have been modelled either as

ideally pinned or ideally perfectly rigid.. A typical example of the steel framed
structure is a Swedish model which is composed of steel frames with a reinforced
concrete core. The columns and beams are made of H profiles. In order to achieve
more slender structure, the reinforced concrete core is in these analysis replaced
with steel bracing as shown in Fig. 1. a) and b).

Fig. 1. Axonometric view of Swedish model with a) reinforced concrete core; b) steel
bracing

The aim of this paper is to show the difference between results obtained from
analysis according to Eurocode 8-1 (nonlinear static N2 method) including the
previously mentioned joint stiffness (rigid and semi-rigid) for absolute and
relative displacements of stores.

Numerical model is based on a 3D materially nonlinear analysis using the finite

element software ABAQUS 6.12.

17
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Fig. a) Absolute storey displacement of steel frame with rigid joints (dashed line) and semi-
rigid joint (dotted line);
b) Relative storey displacement of steel frame with rigid joints (dashed line) and semi-rigid joint
(dotted line)

 The absolute top displacement of the steel frame with semi-rigid joints were
grater for 52.6 % in regard to steel frame with rigid joints. Maximum
relative displacement for the steel frame with rigid joints is on the first
storey, while for the steel frame with semi-rigid joints decreases on the first
storey and increases on the other stories. The third storey shows the largest
deviation for the 130 %.
 Joint stiffness plays the important role in the design of semi-rigid frames.
The semi-rigid joints cause the large increase of relative displacements of
stores over the rigid joints. Analysis of frames with semi-rigid joints
resulted in reduction of the beam and column end moments and thus reduce
the beam and column cross section. In that way the semi-rigid joints create
lighter and more economical frame.
18
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(6) SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF HIGH RISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING

WITH AND WITHOUT BRACING
By K.K.Sangle, K.M.Bajoria, V.Mhalungkar (15 WCEE 2012)

Presently, Indian standard codal provisions for finding out the approximate time
period of steel structure is not considering the type of the bracing system. Bracing
element in structural system plays vital role in structural behavior during
earthquake. The pattern of the bracing can extensively modify the global seismic
behavior of the framed steel building. In this paper the linear time history analysis
is carried out on high rise steel building with different pattern of bracing system
for Northridge earthquake. Natural frequencies, fundamental time period, mode
shapes, inter story drift and base shear are calculated with different pattern of
bracing system. Further optimization study was carried out to decide the suitable
type of the bracing pattern by keeping the inter-story drift, total lateral
displacement and stress level within permissible limit. Aim of study was to
compare the results of seismic analysis of high rise steel building with different
pattern of bracing system and without bracing system.

Figure : Steel Framed Model of Building with a) Diagonal Brace-A and b) Diagonal Brace-B
19
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Figure 5.1: Storey Displacement in a) X-direction and b) Y-direction

Figure 5.2: Roof Displacement in a) X-direction and b) Y-direction

Time period as per as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 clause No. 7.6.1, is equal to
Ta = 0.085 h0.75 for Steel frame building (here, h is the height of building in m)
= 0.085 x (143.5)0.75
= 3.52 sec
20
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

5.3 Optimization of frame section

 From the tables it shows that due to bracings in both direction base shear
increases up to 38%.
 The displacements at roof level of the building with different bracing style
is reduces from 43% to 60%. Modal time period is also reduced up to 65%.
 The diagonal brace-B shows highly effective and economical design of
bracing style.

21
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(7) SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF MOMENT-RESISTING STEEL FRAMES:

ANALYTICAL STUDY
By Charles W. Roeder, Member, ASCE, Stephen P. Schneider,
Associate Member, ASCE, and James E. Carpenter, Member, ASCE

An analytical investigation into the seismic performance of steel moment-resisting

frames is presented. The International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
provisions regarding seismic design of steel moment frames are summarized, and
potential problems and discrepancies are noted. The results of prior research are
reviewed, and prototype three-, eight-, and 20-story frames are designed by an
experienced designer. The inel'astic responses of these frames are then determined
for a range of different earthquake acceleration conditions.

The analysis shows that strong-column weak-beam (SCWB) frames result in

much smaller story drifts and better distribution of inelastic deformation and
energy dissipation among elements in the structure than comparable weak-column
strong-beam (WCSB) frames.The difference was most significant with earthquake
acceleration records that cause significant yielding. Steel frames performed
adequately if a spine of SCWB joints is used over the height of the structure. The
computed results were compared to the results of past experiments. The
comparison suggests the SCWB frames should be capable of sustaining the
required deformations. The comparison did not provide a clear answer for WCSB
frames, and so a series of experiments were performed.A number of conclusions
can be drawn from this work:

 Some acceleration records cause more inelastic deformation than others.

The WCSB frames had much larger maximum story drift than comparable
SCWB frames when subjected to acceleration records that cause significant
yielding.
 WCSB frames produce a concentration of plastic deformation to a limited
number of elements, while SCWB frames distribute the plastic deformation
over many more elements in the structure. Therefore, the ductility demand
and damage potential is much greater in WCSB frames.
 The calculations indicate that due to design procedures WCSB frames
tended to be somewhat stronger in resisting lateral loads than comparable
SCWB frames, but the inelastic behavior of WCSB frames is inferior to
SCWB frames unless the WCSB frame is designed for seismic loads that
22

were 33%-100% larger than that used for comparable SCWB frames.
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(8) SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF MIXED STEEL STRUCTURES

By F Danesh (12 WCEE 2000)

Recently many modern steel structures suffered from local failures during the
Northridge and Kobe earthquake. On the other hand, the results obtained from
previous investigations clearly indicated that the semi-rigid connection is feasible
and indeed more economical than the rigidly connected frame.

In this type of structure, the problem is that when the number of stories increases,
the interstorey drift that mostly controls the ultimate state also increases. To
overcome to this difficulty, one solution is that to design a structure with flexible
connections and with no excessive deformation. In this research a mixed steel
structure is designed in which the connections in external frames are rigid and the
partial strength semi-rigid connections are used in internal frames.

This provides an attractive alternative to fully welded steel frames, where

problems of brittle fracture have been recently identified.

The problem is that when the number of storeys increases, the interstoreys drift
that mostly controls the ultimate state also increases. To overcome to this
difficulty, one type of structure that is called “mixed steel structure” is defined. In
mixed steel structure, the external frames are designed with rigid connections to
control the structure from excessive deformation. The partial strength semi-rigid
connections are used in internal frames such that the connections act as a
dissipative part in this type of structures. To compare the seismic response of this
structure with the others, the ten and fourteen storey steel frames with different
types, as rigid, semi- rigid and mixed frames are designed and subjected to
different records.

The computer programme “Drain -2DX” is used for nonlinear dynamic analysis of
these frames.

Hearafter, the main observations are as follows:

 The mixed steel structures are behaved very well. All interstorey drifts for
this type of structure are mostly less than semi-rigid steel frames and are
comparable to rigid steel frames.
 The comparison between rigid and mixed steel structures indicates that the
23

latter has a higher capacity and also higher ductility.

 However the semi-rigid frames have achieved higher acceleration but the
Page

behaviour factors of mixed steel structures are bigger and then this type of
structure is capable to dissipate more energy with no excessive deformation.

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(9) Shaking table tests of a two-story unbraced steel frame

By Seung-Eock Kim_, Dong-Ho Lee, Cuong Ngo-Huu (Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 63 (2007) 412–421)

This paper presents some shaking table tests for a one-bay, two-story steel frame
under simulated earthquake loading. The test frame was designed to be capable of
showing the second-order inelastic behavior under the earthquake loads and to
avoid lateral torsional buckling of a single member. The descriptions of test
specimen, instruments, set-up procedures, and results are presented. A comparison
of the results obtained from experiment and numerical analysis using beam
element model of the ABAQUS program is provided. The experiment aims to
clarify the inelastic behavior of steel frames subjected to earthquake load and its
results can be used to verify the validity of second-order inelastic dynamic
analysis techniques of steel frames.

Fig. . Schematic drawing of test arrangement

24

The shaking table tests as presented above are summarized and concluded as
Page

follows:
 The maximum relative displacements of numerical analysis and the
experiment are well agreed with the maximum difference of 4.75%. The
shapes of the relative displacement time-history responses for the Loma

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Prieta earthquake obtained from numerical analysis and the experiment are
nearly the same. However, the responses for the Northridge earthquake
show a considerable difference after 9 s because the analysis using a simple
beam model does not correctly capture the real behavior when severe
yielding occurs.
 In the first stage of the earthquake loading, the column base is in the elastic
range, so the P–M interaction curves go though the origin regularly. After
the permanent plastic strain occurs in the column base, the curves separate
away from the origin. It can be observed that the larger the offset from the
origin is, the bigger is the permanent plastic strain that occurs.
 In the previous shaking table tests conducted by other researchers, the strain
was usually measured and surveyed only in the elastic range. In this study,
having the strain measured from the elastic range to the plastic range and its
corresponding results including the P–M interaction curve and the inter-
story drift versus shear curve are quite valuable in verification of the
validity of second-order inelastic dynamic analysis techniques and in
investigation of inelastic behavior of steel frames under seismic loading.

25
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

(10)A Comparative Study of Seismic Strengthening of RC Buildings by Steel

Bracings and Concrete Shear walls
By Yaseer Alashkar1, Sohaib Nazar2, Mohammad Ahmed3 (International Journal
of Civil and Structural Engineering Research ISSN 2348-7607 (Online) Vol. 2,
Issue 2, pp: (24-34), Month: October 2014 - March 2015,)

Shear wall and Steel bracing systems are most widely used in medium to high rise
buildings to provide stiffness, strength and energy dissipation required to resist
lateral load imposed by earthquakes and wind. In the past shear wall and steel
bracing have been proved as most feasible solution for seismic retrofitting or
strengthening of buildings. The newly adopted performance evaluation
methodology and capacity design principles are examples of these important
advancements in seismic engineering. Many existing RC buildings need to retrofit
to overcome weaknesses to resist seismic loads. Therefore, there is an essential
need to upgrade the seismic performance of existing RC buildings so that they can
meet the requirements of the new performance-based seismic design techniques.
In this paper, seismic performance of RC building rehabilitated with shear wall
and concentrated steel bracing. An earthquake load is calculated and applied on
nine stories building located in zone III. A comparison has been made between the
effectiveness of different types of steel bracings with concrete shear wall at
different locations of the building. The performance of the building is evaluated in
terms of story drifts, lateral displacements, bending moments and base shear.

In the present study, an existing eight story RC frame structure building has been
analyzed, retrofitted with concrete shear wall and steel bracing provided at the
boundary and core of the building. SAP2000 (V.14.2) has been used [2]. A
comparison has been made for the concrete shear wall and steel bracing in terms
of base shear, lateral displacement, bending moments, story drifts.

Following conclusions can be drawn from this study.

The addition of new concrete shear wall is more oftenly practiced technique
which has prove to be effective for controlling global lateral drifts and reducing
damages in frame structures.
Shear walls reduces significant amount of lateral displacement, bending
moment and shear forces in frame members as compared to other techniques of
retrofitting.
26

Optimal location of shear walls in frame system is critically important to reduce

Page

the lateral forces.

Shear walls located at the core of building shows better performance than at the
boundary of building.

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Steel bracing is one of advantageous and economic technique to enhance the

seismic performance or strengthen the structure.
The increment in dead load due to addition of steel bracings is significantly less
than the other strengthening techniques.
The V-type bracings show some additional flexural moment in columns and
beams due to concentric load at the point where they are attached.
The X-bracing system shows the minimum moment as compared to other types
of bracings.

27
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Chapter – 4

Work Progress

1. INTRODUCTION
Seismic Analysis is a subset of structural analysis and is the calculation of the
response of a structure to earthquakes. Nowadays Steel frame building is well
establishing in metro cities. For construction of steel frame building bracing are
constructed for stiffness and lateral load resistance purpose. Steel frame usually
refers to a building technique with a “skeleton frame” of vertical steel columns
and horizontal I-beams, constructed in a rectangular grid to support the floors,
roof and walls of a building which are all attached to the frame. The development
of this technique made the construction of the skyscraper possible. Bracings are
strong in compression. Bracing with their surrounding frames has to be considered
for increase in lateral load resisting capacity of structure. When bracings are
placed in Steel frame it behaves as diagonal compression strut and transmits
compression force to another joint. Variations in the column stiffness can
influence the mode of failure and lateral stiffness of the bracing.[1,2]

From previous study we can conclude that there is enough research on braced
frame but mostly it is either experimental study or Finite element analysis of
single bay two storey frame. Some macro model studies have been also done but
limited to five to fifteen story 2D frame steel building and in that all model there
are same storey height over entire building. So, there is scope to do Earthquake
analysis on this type of project having more number of stories with 3D modeling
(i.e. high rise framed building) for different kind of vertical configuration and to
see the effect on both conditions i.e. with and without different bracing style. In
this paper Earthquake analysis of a high rise, medium rise, low rise with same
storey height and different storey height steel framed building are carried out for
IS 1893:2002 Zone V, Soil type II Response spectrum ground motion. The results
are considered in terms of joint displacement. The same steel frame building
analyzed with different type of bracing patterns. Here, we only consider response
spectrum study on steel frame building. There are not apply any dead load, live
load or any other load.

2. STRUCTURAL MODELLING
28

For the analysis work, eighteen models of steel frame building are made to know
Page

the realistic behavior of building during earthquake. The length of the building is
20m and width is 20m. Building is symmetrical about X and Y-axis. Modal
damping 5% is considered.

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

The non-structural element and components that do not significantly influence the
building behavior were not modeled. Beams and columns are modeled as frame
element and joined node to nodes. The effect of soil structure interaction is
ignored in analysis. The columns are assumed to be fixed at the ground level.
Response spectrum is used as per guideline given in IS-1893 (Part1).
Following types of structural configuration is study.
(1) 12 m same storey height
Similar Splice
Name Height Elevation To Story
mm mm
Story4 3000 12000 None No
Story3 3000 9000 Story4 No
Story2 3000 6000 Story4 No
Story1 3000 3000 Story4 No
Base 0 0 None No
Table 1: 12m same storey height

(2)12 m different storey height

Similar Splice
Name Height Elevation To Story
mm mm
Story3 5000 12000 None No
Story2 4000 7000 None No
Story1 3000 3000 None No
Base 0 0 None No
Table 2: 12 m different storey height

3. DETAILS OF THE BUILDING PLAN, MEMBER SIZE AND

MATERIALS
3.1 Plan
Plan of the steel building which is used for the study is shown in figure 1.
29
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Fig. 1: Plan of building

Fig. 2: Plan of building

30
Page

Fig. 3: 3-D view of building

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

3.2 Member size of the Beams, Columns and Bracing

Member size used for beams, columns and bracing are shown in table 5.

Column ISA 200X200X30

Beam ISA 200X200X30
Bracing ISA 200X200X30

Table 5: Frame properties

3.3 Material Properties used for analysis

Structural steel- Fe 415
Density-7850 Kg/m3
Young’s Modulus E= 2.1x105 N/mm2
Shear Modulus 76903 N/mm2
Poisson’s Ratio-0.3

4. DIFFERENT TYPES OF BRACING PATTERNS USED IN THE STUDY

Different types of bracing pattern used in the study are shown in figure 3 and 4.

31
Page

Fig. 4: Steel framed building with X Bracing and Diagonal bracing

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

5. RESULTS
Results of Joint displacement at lable 1(shown in Fig. 2) in X direction is
presented in the figure no 5 to 9.

12 m same storey height v/s different storey height

80
63.3
59
60
Joint Displacement (mm)

40 33.8
28.3

20

0
3m Height of Building 12m
Same storey height Different storey height
Fig. 5: 12 m same story height building - X Bracing v/s Diagonal bracing

2 12 m same storey height

1.5 1.6
Joint Displacement (mm)

1.5
1.2
1
1
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.2 0.2
0
3m 6m 9m 12 m
Height of building (m)
X Bracing Diagonal Bracing
Fig. 6: 12 m same story height – X Bracing v/s Diagonal Bracing

1.5 1.4
12 m different storey height 1.2

1
Joint Displacement

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.2
(mm)

32

0.1
0
Page

3m 7m 12 m
Height of building (m)
X Bracing Diagonal Bracing
Fig. 7: 12 m different storey height – X bracing v/s Diagonal bracing

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

7 12 m same storey height - Peripheral bracing

Joint Displacement (mm) 6 6
5.4 5.5
5 5

4.2
4 3.9

3 2.8 2.9
2.6
2.4
2 2.1
1.6
1.3
1 0.9
0.5
0.3
0
3m 6m 9m 12 m
Height of building (m)
X Bracing - Outer side Diagonal Bracing - Outer side X bracing- Inner side Diagonal Bracing - Inner side

Fig. 8: 12 m same story height – Peripheral bracing

8 12 m different storey height - Peripheral bracing

Joint Displacement (mm)

6.4
6 5.8

4.7
4.4
4

2.5
2.4 2.6
2 2
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.3
0
3m 7m 12 m
Height of building (m)
X Bracing - Outer side Diagonal Bracing - Outer side X Bracing - Inner side Diagonal Bracing - Inner side

Fig. 9: 12 m different storey height- Peripheral bracing

6. CONCLUSION
The result of the present study shows that bracing element will have very
33

important effect on structural behaviour under earthquake effect. Steel bracing is

one of advantageous and economic technique to enhance the seismic performance
Page

or strengthen the structure.

Following conclusions can be drawn from this study.

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

 The result of the present study shows that bracing element will have very
important effect on structural behavior under earthquake effect.
 From the graphs it shows that due to bracings in X direction displacements
at roof level of the building with different bracing style is reduces from
48% to 97%.
 The diagonal brace shows highly effective and economical design of
bracing style.
 Diagonal bracing reduces significant amount of lateral displacement in
frame members as compared to X bracing in high rise building
 Joint displacement at lower level is high in same storey height building but
at top of building joint displacement is higher in different storey height
building. Height of upper level floor (5 m) is responsible for this effect
 The change in slope of graph in different storey height building suggests a
change in vertical configuration.
 With same storey height building joint displacement varies linearly up to a
certain height, but after that it's almost straight line, it’s suggested less
vibration at the upper level of the building, it means damping is high at
upper level

7. EXPERIMENTAL WORK

 10th time small prototype model of original building will make for
experimental work
 ISA 20X20X3 section choose for column, beam and bracing

 Length of prototype building: 0.9 m

 Width of prototype building: 0.9 m
 Height of prototype building: 1.2 m

 Connection type: Bolt connection

34
Page

Fig. 10: ISA 20203

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat

 Progress report

Chapter – 5

References

1. K.K.Sangle,K.M.Bajoria,V.Mahalungkar,[2012] ”Seismic analysis of high rise

steel frame with and without bracing”, 15 WCEE 2012.
2. Viswanath K.G , Prakash K.B. , Anant Desai,[2010] ” Seismic analysis of
steel braced reinforced concrete frames”, International Journal of Civil and
Structural Engineering Volume 1, No 1, 2010
3. Seyed Mehdi Zahrai and Meysam Jalali, [2014], “Experimental and
analytical investigations on seismic behavior of ductile steel knee braced
frames” Steel and Composite Structures, Vol. 16, No. 1 (2014) 1-21
4. Robert Tremblay, Tarek Berair And André Filliatrault, [2000] “Experimental
behaviour of low-rise steel building with flexible roof diaphragms ”,
12WCEE 2000
5. Charles W. Roede, Stephen P. Schneider, and James E. Carpenter “Seismic
behavior of moment resisting steel frames:” Analytical study” (ASCE)
6. F Danesh,[2000] “Seismic behavior of mixed steel structure” 12 WCEE 2000
7. Seung-Eock Kim, Dong-Ho Lee, Cuong Ngo-Huu,[2007] “Shaking table tests
of a two-story unbraced steel frame” Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 63 (2007) 412–421
8. Yaseer Alashkar, Sohaib Nazar, Mohammad Ahmed,[2015] “A Comparative
Study of Seismic Strengthening of RC Buildings by Steel Bracings and
Concrete Shear walls” (International Journal of Civil and Structural
Engineering Research ISSN 2348-7607 (Online) Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp: (24-34),
Month: October 2014 - March 2015,)
9. IS 1893(part 1) – 2002, “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures, part 1general provisions and buildings”, fifth revision, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi,India.

35
Page

Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gujarat