CVLE 517 – Earthquake engineering

By

Jana Shmaysem 201902096

Submitted To

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Faculty of Engineering

Supervisor

Dr. Hassan Ghanem

Fall 2021 – 2022

Tripoli Campus
Table of Contents
I. Abstract..............................................................................................................................5

II. Introduction........................................................................................................................6

III. Drift and displacements.....................................................................................................7

a) Inter-story drift...............................................................................................................7

b) Drift................................................................................................................................7

IV. Bracing systems.................................................................................................................9

a. Vertical bracing..............................................................................................................9

b. Horizontal bracing........................................................................................................11

V. CONVENTIONAL BRACED FRAME MECHANISMS..............................................12

1. Concentrically Braced Frames.....................................................................................12

2. Eccentrically Braced Frames.......................................................................................13

VI. Case studies for the analysis of Seismic forces effects using different types of bracing
systems.....................................................................................................................................15

 1st case study.................................................................................................................15

i. Modeling..................................................................................................................15
ii. Material and geometrical properties........................................................................18
iii. Loading conditions...................................................................................................18
iv. Result & discussion..................................................................................................19

 2nd case study................................................................................................................22

i. Modeling..................................................................................................................22
ii. Results and Discussions...........................................................................................24

 3rd case study................................................................................................................25

i. Methodology............................................................................................................25
ii. Result and discussion...............................................................................................30

VII. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................32

VIII.References........................................................................................................................33

1
2
List of figures
Figure 1:X-Braced steel building...............................................................................................5

Figure 2:Sway difference between braced and unbraced frame................................................6

Figure 3:Drift measurement.......................................................................................................8

Figure 4:Cantilever truss..........................................................................................................10

Figure 5 : Horizontal bracing in a single-story building..........................................................11

Figure 6: a) CBF strong mechanism; b) CBF weak beam mechanism; c) EBE mechanism...13

Figure 7: a) Eccentric D-braced frame, b) Eccentric chevron-braced frame, c)Eccentric V-

braced frame.............................................................................................................................13

Figure 8:Elevation of proposed structural frame.....................................................................15

Figure 9 - Plan of proposed structural frame...........................................................................15

Figure 10: Case1: Structure without bracing system...............................................................16

Figure 11: Structure with X-bracing system............................................................................16

Figure 12:Case 3: Structure with V-bracing system................................................................16

Figure 13:Structure with K Bracing system.............................................................................17

Figure 14:Structure with Inverted V-bracing system...............................................................17

Figure 15: Case 6: Structure with Inverted K bracing system.................................................17

Figure 16:Lateral Displacements (mm) in X direction............................................................19

Figure 17:Lateral Displacement (mm) in structures frames....................................................19

Figure 18:Lateral Displacements (mm) in Z direction.............................................................20

Figure 19:Story Drift(mm) in floors of the structure...............................................................20

Figure 20:Story displacements (mm) in the structure..............................................................21

Figure 21:Comparison of quantity of material used in the structure.......................................22

Figure 22:Structural models.....................................................................................................22

Figure 23:Reinforcements details............................................................................................23

3
Figure 24: 3-story bracing types..............................................................................................23

Figure 25:6-story bracing types...............................................................................................24

Figure 26:Displacement(m) of the 2 buildings........................................................................24

Figure 27:Lateral drift in % for both buildings........................................................................25

Figure 28:Column and Beam layout of the studied steel building...........................................26

Figure 29:Unbraced structure...................................................................................................28

Figure 30:X-braced structure...................................................................................................28

Figure 31:V-braced structure...................................................................................................29

Figure 32:Eccentric-braced structure.......................................................................................29

Figure 33:Displacement along X-direction for unbraced, X braced, V braced and eccentric

braced structure........................................................................................................................30

Figure 34:: Displacement along Y-direction for unbraced, X braced, V braced and eccentric

braced structure........................................................................................................................30

Figure 35:Story Drift of unbraced, X braced, V braced and eccentric braced structures........31

4
List of Tables

I. Abstract

In multistory structure design, lateral loads (wind or seismic loads) are the primary
cause of drift, which frequently affects structural system decisions for high rid. In seismic
analysis, inter-story drift is a particularly relevant engineering response quantity and
indication of structural performance, particularly for high-rise buildings. Designing a building
that can resist earthquake loads is essential. Steel braced frames are particularly efficient
seismic force-resisting mechanisms for enhancing stiffness and strength to protect structures
from the impact produced by natural forces such as earthquake force, providing strength,
stability, and ductility for buildings.
Several case studies of seismic analysis of high-rise RC frame structures with various
types of bracing systems were carried out in this study. The structural performance of several
types of bracing systems was also evaluated. Several story building frames are studied for
different bracing systems (X Bracing, V Bracing, K Bracing, Inverted V Bracing, and
Inverted K Bracing, eccentric bracing…) under seismic loads in the given challenges. For
analysis, the STADD-Pro and ETABS programs are applied. To evaluate the efficiency of a
specific type of bracing system in controlling lateral displacement and member forces in the

5
frame, the results of various bracing systems was compared with bare frame model analysis.
The lateral displacement of the frames studied were well controlled by all bracing systems.
Inverted V bracing, on the other hand, has been discovered to be the most cost-economical
and X bracing being the most-effective.

Figure 1:X-Braced steel building

II. Introduction
Earthquakes are one of the planet's most dangerous threats, with magnitudes ranging
based on the Richter scale. Structures are harmed by high-magnitude earthquakes, and many
lives and properties are lost as a result. In general, lateral load (such as wind and earthquake)
increases as a building's height rises. A tall building is defined as a multi-story structure with
a large adequate response that the effect of lateral load must be carefully considered in
design. Tall structures primarily cause displacements, necessitating the implementation of
particular measures to mitigate them. Using a braced frame system, lateral load impacts on
multistory structures may be mitigated. Bracing is a very effective and cost-effective way to
withstand horizontal force in a frame construction. Vertical loads are carried by the frame's
beams and columns, while lateral loads are carried by the bracing system.

For evaluating the lateral stability and stiffness of lateral force resisting systems of tall
structures, two methods are used:

 Peak inter story drift

6
  lateral displacement (sway)

Figure 2:Sway difference between braced and unbraced frame

Both structural components that are part of the lateral force resisting system and structural
elements that are not part of the lateral force resisting system can be affected by lateral
displacement and drift in seismic design. Regards the lateral force resisting system, when
lateral forces are applied to a structure, the structure moves. As a result, there is a link
between the lateral force resistance system and lateral load movement.

To minimize collapse due to lateral pressures, much research has been conducted into the
calculating approaches and appropriate inter-story drift threshold values for various braced
structure types. The fundamental purpose of this research is to determine the most effective
bracing system for steel buildings that are subjected to lateral loads, as well as to compare the
structural behavior of unbraced and various types of braced structures.

III. Drift and displacements

a) Inter-story drift

Inter-story drift is defined as the relative translational displacement between two successive
floors of a building structure. It is divided into three sections as follows

1. Inter-story shear drift caused by vertical members;

ub ;
2. Inter-story flexural drift caused by vertical members in calculated story

ub ;
3. Inter-story flexural drift caused by vertical members in inferior story

So, the inter-story drift of i-th story can be denoted as:

7
ui  (usi  ubi )  usi (1)

where i is the story number.

(Note that the story's torsion rotation is not considered in this analysis.)

Or use the inter-story drift ratio (IDR), which is defined as the relative translational
displacement among two successive floors divided by the story height, for simplicity

Interstory drift index  Interstory drift story height (2)

b) Drift

The term "drift" has been defined in terms of the overall amount of drift (the total lateral
displacement at the top of the building). The drift index is a basic evaluation of the lateral
stiffness of the structure and is almost entirely used to limit damage to nonstructural
components

Equation defines the drift index.

drift index  displacement height (3)

Total Drift Index  Total Drift Building height   H (4)

Figure 3:Drift measurement

8
These drift values are regulated to particular values to limit nonstructural damage. Drift
indices are a simple and effective method of reducing damages. Drift indices are used as a
measure of building damageability in three ways:

1. Oversimplifies structural performance by basing the entire structure on a single lateral

drift value.
2. Any torsional element of deflection is disregarded, as does any material damage.
3. Drift is not taken into consideration when it comes to horizontal movement,
horizontal racking, or vertical racking.

The shear strain, which is a mix of horizontal and vertical racking, is the true indicator of
damage in a material. When the practical parameter to restrict is the shear strain in the
damageable material, it is clear that drift indices are not always adequate. The efficacy of
lateral load resisting systems, as well as the amount of materials required for multi-story
structures, are substantially influenced by drift limitations, according to this research.
Structural Engineers' difficulty in selecting strong and stiff enough deformation resisting
systems that will keep drift below acceptable code limits. Multi-story structures sway when
subjected to lateral wind loading, hence a thorough understanding of the nature of the wind
load and the calculation of inter-story drift is essential. Because of its utility in measuring the
stability and stiffness of multi-story buildings, knowledge of lateral displacements at the top
of multi-story buildings is essential. Excessive displacement occurs in multistory buildings
subjected to lateral loads, which has an impact on structural behavior. It is critical to research
frame drift in terms of structure for various forms of frame drift. 

IV. Bracing systems

The beams and columns of a multi-story structure are usually situated in an orthogonal
manner in both elevation and plan. Two orthogonal bracing systems offer horizontal force
resistance in a braced frame building:

 Vertical bracing: Load routes to transmit horizontal forces to ground level and give
lateral stability are provided by bracing in vertical planes (between lines of columns).
 Horizontal bracing: At each floor level, horizontal bracing (usually provided by floor
plate action) offers a load route to transfer horizontal forces (mostly from perimeter
columns owing to wind) to vertical bracing planes.

9
 a. Vertical bracing

The vertical bracing planes in a braced multi-story structure are commonly provided by
diagonal bracing between two lines of columns, as indicated in Figure 4. Single diagonals, as
depicted, must be built for either tension or compression; crossed diagonals, on the other
hand, may be equipped with slender bracing elements conveying just tension.

The floor beams contribute as element of the bracing system when crossing diagonals are
utilized and it is believed that only the tensile diagonals supply resistance. The vertical
bracing must be designed to resist the forces due to the following:

 Wind loads
 Equivalent horizontal forces, representing the effect of initial imperfections
 Effects due to sway

Figure 4:Cantilever truss

For the necessary combinations of

actions, forces in individual elements of the bracing system must be established. Design
forces at ULS are anticipated to be the most onerous for bracing members due to the

Bracing members that are inclined at around 45 degrees are preferred whenever possible.
This results in an efficient system with low member forces compared to alternative

10
configurations, as well as compact connection details where the bracing meets the
beam/column joints. The sway vulnerability of the structure will be increased by narrow
bracing systems with steeply inclined interior elements. More stability will be achieved with
wide bracing systems. The table below gives an indication of how maximum deflection varies
with bracing layout, for a constant size of bracing cross section.

Bracing efficiency
Story height Bracing width Angle from Ratio of maximum
horizontal deflection
(compared to
bracing at 34°)
h 2h 26 ° 0.9
h 1.5h 34 ° 1
h h 45 ° 1.5
h 0.75h 53 ° 2.2
h 0.5h 63 ° 4.5

Table 1:Variation of deflection based on bracing layout

b. Horizontal bracing

At each floor level, a horizontal bracing system is required to transmit horizontal forces
(mostly those transferred from the perimeter columns) to the vertical bracing planes that offer
resistance to horizontal forces.

Figure 5 : Horizontal bracing in a single-story building

Diaphragms are a sort of horizontal bracing system utilized in multi-story braced frames. In
most cases, the floor system will operate as a diaphragm without the need for extra steel
bracing. If there is no diaphragm at roof level, bracing, also known as a wind girder, may be
necessary to sustain the horizontal forces at the top of the columns. See the figure 5 above.

11
V. Conventional braced frame mechanisms

1. Concentrically Braced Frames

Energy is projected to be dissipated predominantly through brace buckling and yielding in

Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs). Both the bracing and the connections must have
ductile details to ensure acceptable hysteretic response; see Table 2. The imbalanced
demands caused by the difference between the tension and post-buckled compression
strength of the braces are then predicted to arise in the remaining parts, such as beams and
columns.

Member Action Highly Ductile Moderately

Ductile
Braces Deformation- X
controlled
beams Force- X
controlled
columns Force- X
controlled
Table 2:Special CBF member ductility requirements

Simplified capacity design approaches have been used in modern building regulations to
predict the force re-distributions caused by brace buckling and yielding. Inverted-V, or
"chevron" beams, for example, must remain fundamentally elastic under the bending

12
pressures created by an imbalanced load — the vertical load arising from the discrepancy
between the tension and post-buckled compression brace anticipated capacities. As a result,
contemporary construction codes favor the "strong" beam plastic mechanism (see Figure 6.a).
After buckling in the compression brace, the strong beam facilitates yielding in the tension
brace.

The inelastic response of weak beam mechanisms, on the other hand, involves beam flexural
yielding as well; see Figure 6.b. Some researchers believe that beam flexural yielding, as
opposed to brace buckling and yielding, is a more secure method of energy dissipation.
However, this process causes the beam to create a plastic hinge, resulting in potentially
substantial vertical deflections that might harm the slab and floor diaphragm. Vertical
deflections may cause axial shortening in the braces, resulting in increased deformation
demands on the bracing elements.

Figure 6: a) CBF strong mechanism; b) CBF weak beam mechanism; c) EBE mechanism

2. Eccentrically Braced Frames

13
Eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) have long been recognized as efficient lateral load
resisting systems, with ductility equivalent to moment resisting frames (MRFs) and stiffness
equivalent to concentric braced frames (CBFs). The presence of braces gives EBFs their high
stiffness, while the inelastic activity of a segment termed link gives them their superior
ductility. The link is a section of the floor beam that runs between the brace ends or the brace
end and the column flange. The most essential members of EBFs are the links, which
dissipate a substantial amount of energy through their plastic behavior and influence the
frame's strength, stiffness, and ductility.

Figure 7: a) Eccentric D-braced frame, b) Eccentric chevron-braced frame, c) Eccentric V-braced

frame

The basic idea behind EBFs is to keep all inelastic activities in the links, allowing other
members to function elastically under strong earthquake loads. As a result, the link is the
most important component in the construction of an eccentrically braced frame, while other
components are built to bear the maximum forces generated by the completely yielding link.
The length of a link has a big impact on how it behaves. Short links, often known as shear
links, yield mostly in shear, while long links yield primarily in flexure.

Table 3: EBF member ductility requirements.

Member Action Highly Ductile Moderately

Ductile
Beam links Deformation- X
controlled
Braces Force- X
controlled
beams Force- X
controlled
columns Force- X
14
 controlled

VI. Case studies for the analysis of Seismic forces effects using
different types of bracing systems

 1st case study

i. Modeling

The efficiency of various bracing systems in various seismic zones is assessed in order to
determine the most effective bracing method. To create the 3D model and conduct the
analysis, STAAD Pro commercial software is employed. The lateral pressures are resisted
using these bracing systems, and their direction is done with STAAD Pro. The structure's
gravity and lateral loads are taken into account according to codal requirements.

15
 Figure 8:Elevation of proposed structural frame

Figure 9 - Plan of proposed structural frame

In each scenario, a building frame of the following geometrical characteristics is studied for
seismic and gravity loads in three separate seismic zones (Zone II, Zone III, and Zone IV).

CASE-1: G+10 building frame without bracing system (Bare Frame)

Figure 10: Case1: Structure without bracing system

16
 CASE-2: G+10 building frame with X bracing system.

Figure 11: Structure with X-bracing system

CASE-3: G+10 building frame with V bracing system.

Figure 12:Case 3: Structure with V-bracing system

CASE-4: G+10 building frame with K bracing system.

Figure 13:Structure with K Bracing system

17
 CASE-5: G+10 building frame with Inverted V bracing system.

Figure 14:Structure with Inverted V-bracing system

CASE-6: G+10 building frame with Inverted K bracing system.

Figure 15: Case 6: Structure with Inverted K bracing system

ii. Material and geometrical properties

For the modeling of the proposed structural frame, the following material attributes are taken
into account:
Table 4:Details of Material and geometrical property

S.No. Description Parameter

1 Depth of the foundation 3m
2 Floor to floor height 3.5 m
3 Grade of concrete M-25
4 Type of steel FE-415
5 Column size (bottom 2 stories) 0.6mx0.6m

6 Columns size (top 8 stories) 0.5mx0.5m

7 Beam size in x- direction 0.3mx0.6m
8 Beam direction in y-direction 0.3mx0.5m

18
 9 Unit w. of masonry wall 20 kN/m3
10 Slab thickness 150mm

iii. Loading conditions

Table 5:Details of Loadings

Type Parameters
Self-weight of Slab 2
3.75 kN/m
Floor Finish load 2
1 kN/m
Dead loads Wall Load in X
11.6 kN/m
direction
Wall Load in Z
12 kN/m
direction
Live Load on typical 2
Live load 4 kN/m
floors
Earth Quake Zone II,III,IV
Response Reduction
5
Facto
Earthquake loads
Importance Factor 1
Damping 5%
Soil Type Hard soil

iv. Result & discussion

a. Maximum lateral displacement

Tables 6 and 7 and Figures 16 and 17 provide a comparison of lateral displacements in

structures with various bracing techniques. For all seismic zones, X bracing and Inverted V
bracing show the least amount of displacement in buildings.
Table 6:Lateral Displacement (mm) in structures frames

Displacements (mm) Structure In X (Transverse) Direction

Structure types Zone-II Zone-III Zone-IV
Bare frame 80.18 128.87 193.08
X bracing 35.19 54.55 75.19
V bracing 40.79 61.81 86.37
K bracing 51.85 80.19 110.54
Inverted V bracing 37.26 56.53 79.79
Inverted K bracing 48.57 74.95 100.77

19
 Figure 16:Lateral Displacements (mm) in X direction

Displacements (mm) Structure In Z (Transverse) Direction

Structure types Zone-II Zone-III Zone-IV
Bare frame 55.19 88.27 132.37
X bracing 19.45 31.05 43.51
V bracing 23.92 36.98 52.91
K bracing 30.18 47.46 64.05
Inverted V bracing 21.31 33.34 47.67
Inverted K bracing 27.95 44.16 57.83
Figure 17:Lateral Displacement (mm) in structures frames

Figure 18:Lateral Displacements (mm) in Z direction

b. Story drift

After examining several structures in various seismic zones, it was discovered that X bracing
has the least amount of story drift among the many types of bracing systems, however
Inverted V bracing may also be used in the same way as X bracing. Bracing reduces drift to a
certain extent: X bracing reduces drift by up to 55.83 percent, V bracing cuts down drift by

20
up to 30.78 percent, K bracing reduces drift by up to 19.50 percent, Inverted V bracing
reduces drift by up to 56.79 percent, and Inverted K bracing reduces drift by up to 55.07
percent.

Figure 19:Story Drift(mm) in floors of the structure

c. Story displacement

Section displacement is also significantly decreased, with X bracing reducing up to 62.05

percent, V bracing up to 55.02 percent, K bracing down to 39.72 percent, Inverted V bracing
up to 57.77 percent, and Inverted K bracing down to 44.45 percent. Controlling narrative
displacements with X and V bracing has been proven to be more successful.

Figure 20:Story displacements (mm) in the structure

21
 d. Quantity of material used

Table 7 and figure 21 show that the needed quantity of concrete is nearly the same in all
building types, but the overall weight of steel in inverted V bracing is the smallest of all
bracing methods.
Table 7: Quantity of materials used in structure

Steel reinforcement Total steel

Structure types Concrete(m3) Bracing weight
(KN) used (KN)
Bare frame 806.8 1028.29 0 1028.29
X bracing 829.60 817.56 1161.42 1978.98
V bracing 836.50 844.47 523.61 1368.08
K bracing 838.30 927.81 720.62 1648.43
Inverted V 1271.32
834 799.28 472.05
bracing
Inverted K 1689.91
838.30 907.73 782.18
bracing

Figure 21:Comparison of quantity of material used in the structure

 2nd case study

i. Modeling

22
Figure 22 shows the two three-story and six-story RC structures utilized in this investigation.
The slabs were represented in the structural model of the building as concentrated masses at
all joints and their weight in the gravity load case. The bay lengths are 4 m and the height is 3
m. The structures were built without seismic design standards and are situated in an area of
strong seismicity, with a peak ground acceleration of 0.32g. The beam (30x 40) and columns
(35x 35) are equal in size for the two constructions, and the reinforcing details are given in
Figure 23.

Figure 22:Structural models

Figure 23:Reinforcements details

As indicated in figures 24-25, a number of bracing configurations were examined. The

diagonal bracing is naturally obstructive to the architectural layout, causing issues with
interior space and traffic management, as well as the placement of window and door
openings. As a result, it is typically focused in vertical panel or V-inverted construction,
which gives an aperture in the middle of the story and is therefore favored by architects and
owners over the concentrically braced option. As a result, braced frames have traditionally
not been considered an appropriate system in high seismic areas unless the buckling and
yielding are controlled in the design by using both bracing element with small slenderness

23
both at the local and global levels, as well as large beams to sustain the unbalanced vertical
forces resulting from braced buckling.

The inclusion of zipper columns between the brace site at the mid-span of floor beams was
recommended to prevent the tendency of chevron-braced frames to produce soft story
mechanisms in the first floor. The uneven vertical forces at this place caused by buckling of
the bracing are transferred into the stories above by these zipper struts.

Figure 24: 3-story bracing types

Figure 25:6-story bracing types

ii. Results and Discussions

24
 a. Displacements

The capacity of a member or a group of members to oppose acts is defined by their strength
(displacements).

Figure 26:Displacement(m) of the 2 buildings

When compared to the bare frame, the capacity of ZX bracing, Zipper bracing, X bracing,
and inverted bracing systems for the six-story building with the 140 Tube section is increased
by a factor of 6.04, 5.24, 5.16, and 4.47, respectively, while the capacity of zipper bracing,
ZX bracing, X bracing, and inverted bracing systems for the three-story building is increased
by a factor of 16.1,13.0, 9.1, 9.1 respectively. This suggests that adding steel bracing to RC
frames may considerably increase their capacity, particularly with the ZX and zipper systems,
and that the number of stories (dynamic features of the buildings) affects which method
works best. It's worth noticing that the ZX bracing system loses strength as the section
dimensions get larger in comparison to the other bracing systems for the six-story structure.

b. Inter-story drifts

The horizontal drift is used to assess the lateral deformability of structural systems. Inter-
story drifts indicate the relative lateral displacements between two successive floors in
structures, whereas story drifts define the absolute displacements of any level relative to the
foundation. Inter-story drifts are commonly stated as a ratio of displacement to story height h.

25
The lateral stiffness of structural systems is also measured using roof drifts normalized by the
entire height H of the structure. Steel bracing prevent lateral drift, particularly on the first
level of a three-story structure and on the second and third floors of a six-story building.
Because some researchers regard inter-story drift to be a damage measure, it may be deduced
that steel bracing can be utilized to lower the degree of damage in RC structures.

Figure 27:Lateral drift in % for both buildings

o 3rd case study

26
 i. Methodology

A ten-story steel structure was studied and planned utilizing ETABS V.15.2 and Bangladesh
National Building Code (BNBC) 2006 rules and standards. The longitudinal and transverse
dimensions are 90 and 45 feet respectively. The structure has a 100-foot height (10ft of each
story). There are six spans with 5inch slab in the long direction and three spans with 5inch
slab in the short direction. Figure 28 shows the building layout plan.

Figure 28:Column and Beam layout of the studied steel building

W24 section was chosen for corner columns, W18 for long direction exterior columns, W27
for short direction exterior columns, and W36 for internal columns to simplify the analysis.
The dimensions of all columns are shown in Table 8.

Table 8:Column sections used in the model

Column ID Section
Corner columns W24×370
Exterior columns on y-axis W27×539
Exterior columns on x-axis W18×311
Interior columns W36×652

27
In case of beam design, W12 section has been used. Table 9 shows the dimensions of all
beams.

Table 9:Beam sections used in the model

Beam ID Section
B13,B14,B15,B16,17,B18,B31,B32,B33,
B34,B35,B36,B37,B38,B39,B40,B41,B42, W12×96
B43,B44,B45
B2,B3,B4,B5,B8,B9,B10,B11 W12×152
B1,B6,B7,B12,B20,B21,B22,B23,B26,B27,
W12×210
B28, B29
B19,B24,B25,B30 W12×230

The super- dead loads are floor finish (FF), partition wall (PW) which act along with the self-
weight.

Table 10: Dead load and live load

Name of load Value unit

Dead(FF and PW) 35 psf

Cladding Load 0.25 Kip/ft

Live Load 40 lb/ft2

Different coefficients and parameters were employed for the wind (W) and earthquake (EQ)
loadings that were applied to the structure, as shown in Tables 11 and 12.

Table 11: Different coefficients considered for the calculation of seismic load

Name Symbol Value Description

Seismic Zone
Z 0.15 Zone 2
Coefficient
Structural I 1 Standard occupancy
Importance Structure
Coefficient (Commercial-

28
 Office)
Site Coefficient S 1.5 Soli profile type S3
Response
Special Moment
Modification Co- R 12
Resisting frame
efficient

Table 12:Coefficients or parameters considered for the calculation of wind load

Name Symbol Value

Exposure category A --
Basic wind speed Vb 210 km/hr

Structural Importance
CI 1
Coefficient

Because the architectural design is the same for all structural models, they all have the same
beam-column pattern. In this research, one unbraced and three braced building structures
were modeled, including X braced, V braced, and eccentric braced buildings, as illustrated in
the Figures below.

Figure 29:Unbraced structure

29
 Figure 30:X-braced structure

Figure 31:V-braced structure

Figure 32:Eccentric-braced structure

30
 ii. Result and discussion

o Displacement

Figures 33 and 34 show the displacement values of all four structures in both the X and Y
directions.

Figure 33:Displacement along X-direction for unbraced, X braced, V braced and eccentric braced structure

31
 Figure 34:: Displacement along Y-direction for unbraced, X braced, V braced and eccentric braced structure

According to Figure 3, the largest displacement reduction for an X-braced building in the X-
direction and at the top floor is 41.7 percent when compared to an unbraced structure,
followed by 32.2 percent for a V-braced structure and 17.9 percent for an eccentric-braced
structure. Figure 4 shows that in the Y-direction for the roof (10th story), the X-braced
structure reduces maximum displacement by 15.6 percent compared to the unbraced
structure, followed by 8.8 percent for the V-braced structure, and 0.8 percent for the
eccentric-braced structure.

o Story drift

32
 Figure 35:Story Drift of unbraced, X braced, V braced and eccentric braced structures

Figure 5 also shows the drift values for all four structures. The reduction in story drift values
for X-braced structure is 55.7 percent when compared to unbraced structure, followed by 33.7
percent for V-braced structure and 16.7 percent for eccentric-braced structure on the third
level. It has been noticed that in all buildings, the values of story drift are highest on the third
floor.

VII. Conclusion
Numerical studies were carried out in this research to examine the behavior of braced RC

frames utilizing pushover analysis. The findings show that using braced RC frames as the

major lateral load resistance method for RC structures is a viable strategy among existing

seismic rehabilitation strategies. The principle of employing steel bracing to withstand

seismic stresses is useful because, as shown in the case studies, the bracing system
33
 successfully minimizes the lateral displacement of the structure (up to 80%) when compared

to a bare frame. Furthermore, as compared to bare frames, the bracing system proved to be an

effective member in controlling story drift (up to 56%) in buildings. According to the

research, the ZX, V, and X bracing systems are by far the most effective depending on the

dynamic characteristics of the buildings. The section type appears to have a worldwide

impact on building deformation and the operation of the kind of bracing system. Braced

structures have demonstrated to be more resistant than unbraced structures in all simulations.

As a result, bracing members act as a resistive member, increasing the margin of safety in the

event of a collapse.

VIII. References
[1] Shaik Mohammad, N. Raja Nikhil Reddy, Ch. Saipraveen, Vankayalapati Raghu,
Analysis of Steel Frames with Bracings for Seismic Loads, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology 10(3), 2019, pp. 316–329.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=3

34
[2] (2014). Braced frames. Retrieved 12 November 2021, from
http://www.steelconstruction.info/Braced_frames

[3]. Choi, H., Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., & Tremblay, R. (2008). Comparison of the
Seismic Response of Steel Buildings Incorporating Self-Centering Energy Dissipative
Braces, Buckling Restrained Braced and Moment Resisting Frames. Retrieved 12
November 2021, from https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_11-0086.PDF

[4]. Esmaili, M. (2015). Seismic Performance of Eccentrically Braced Frames Designed

According to Canadian Seismic Provisions. Retrieved 12 November 2021, from
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/211518435.pdf

[5]. Ganaie, K., Bohara, B., & Saha, P. (2021). EFFECTS OF INVERTED V BRACING IN
FOUR-STORY IRREGULAR RC STRUCTURES. International Research Journal Of
Modernization In Engineering Technology And Science, 3(4). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351285746

[6]. Kadid, A., & Yahiaoui, D. (2011). Seismic Assessment of Braced RC Frames. Procedia
Engineering, 14, 2899-2905. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.365

[7]. Mishra, R., Sharma, D., & Garg, D. (2014). Analysis of RC Building Frames for Seismic
Forces Using Different Types of Bracing Systems. International Journal Of Engineering
Research & Technology (IJERT), 3(7). Retrieved from
https://www.ijert.org/research/analysis-of-rc-building-frames-for-seismic-forces-using-
different-types-of-bracing-systems-IJERTV3IS070892.pdf

35
[8]. Patil, J., & P. M., A. (2016). DRIFT ANALYSIS IN MULTISTORIED
BUILDING. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES &
RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY, 3.00, 490-492. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.203914

[9]. Simpson, B. (2018). Design Development for Steel Strongback Braced Frames to
Mitigate Concentrations of Damage. Retrieved 12 November 2021, from
https://escholarship.org/content/qt5kb2x4wv/qt5kb2x4wv_noSplash_c77e224303512827
387c579c79e39578.pdf

[10]. ul – Haque, M., Atik Masum, M., Muhtadi Ratul, M., & Tafheem, Z. (2018). EFFECT
OF DIFFERENT BRACING SYSTEMS ON THE STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
OF STEEL BUILDING. Proceedings Of The 4Th International Conference On Civil
Engineering For Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327100656

[11]. Zhou, J., G.B., B., & Li, K. (2012). Calculation Methods for Inter-Story Drifts of
Building Structures. Retrieved 12 November 2021, from
https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_3005.pdf

[12]. Akbari, R., Maheri, M., & Aboutalebi, M. (2014). SEISMIC FRAGILITY
ASSESSMENT OF STEEL X-BRACED AND CHEVRON-BRACED RC
FRAMES. ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BHRC), 16(1), 3-27.

[13]. Browning, J., Warden, B., Matamoros, A., & Lepage, A. (2008). Global and local
seismic drift estimates for RC frames. Engineering Structures, 30(5), 1262-1271. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.003

36