GIRIJANANDA CHOWDHURY INSTITUTE OF

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI

Project Report
On
THE SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF REINFORCED
CEMENT CONCRETE-BRACING SYSTEM IN A REINFORCED
CONCRETE STRUCTURE.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the
Degree of Bachelor of Technology
In
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ASSAM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

Submitted by:
BHABARNAB GOSWAMI (190310001006)
DEVASISH DAS (190310001012)
NEEL SAGAR KALITA (190310001031)
TANAZ IKRAM (190310001047)
 GIRIJANANDA CHOWDHURY INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Bhabarnab Goswami, Devasish Das, Neel Sagar Kalita & Tanaz Ikram
students of B.Tech 7th Semester have completed the project titled “THE SEISMIC
BEHAVIOUR OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE-BRACING
SYSTEM IN A REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE” during the academic session 2022-
2023 under my guidance and supervision.
The project approved for the submission as required partial fulfillment for the completion of
Bachelor of Technology Degree.

Date: Project
Supervisor
Dr. Snehal Kaushik
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
GIMT, Guwahati.

Dr. Krishnanga Gohain Dr. Thuleswar Nath

Professor and Head Principal
Department of Civil Engineering GIMT, Guwahati
GIMT, Guwahati

2
 DECLARATION

We hereby declare that this project “THE SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF

DIFFERENT TYPES OF REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE-BRACING SYSTEM IN
A REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE” was carried out by us under guidance
and supervision of Dr. Snehal Kaushik, Associate Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology,
Guwahati.

This project work is submitted to Department of Civil Engineering during the

academic year 2022-23. The work is never produced before any authority except
Assam Science and Technology University for evaluation.

Project Member Roll No Signature

BHABARNAB GOSWAMI (190310001006)

DEVASISH DAS (190310001012)
NEEL SAGAR KALITA (190310001031)
TANAZ IKRAM (190310001047)

3
 ABSTRACT

Construction of a building requires proper planning and management. Steel braced frame is
one of the structural systems used to resist earthquake loads in multistoried buildings. The
use of steel bracing systems for strengthening or retrofitting seismically inadequate
reinforced concrete frames is a viable solution for enhancing earthquake resistance.
In the present work, the seismic study of conventional bracing in RCC structure using
SAP2000 software is investigated. A G+5 multistoried RC framed building in Zone V (as per
IS: 1893-2016) is considered, and two different types of bracings are applied namely X
bracing and Chevron bracing. The bracings are provided in four different patterns and the
effectiveness is examined. In the beginning, a few research papers related to the topic from
different writers are studied and then a model was designed in SAP2000 where the analysis
was carried out. The types of analysis taken here are Pushover analysis and Time History
Analysis. The analysis concludes which type of bracing gives minimum displacement.

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project is very much important for a technical student. Being a student of technical
education, we should possess some concept in practical dissertation which is different from
theoretical and vocational sides. It is less sufficient for her to get a complete idea that
particular engineering subject without dissertation.

We have immense pleasure in expressing our deep sense of gratitude to our supervisor Dr.
Snehal Kaushik, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, for her inspiring
guidance and constant encouragement throughout our work. We are grateful to her for
sparing her valuable time and effort at all the help, affection and kind words, which helped us
to complete the work successfully.

We also like to thank Dr. Krishnanga Gohain, Head, Civil Engineering Department for his
valuable suggestion during the project work.

In addition, a special thanks to our parents, other family members and friends for their
unconditional love and support in every way possible throughout the process of this course,
this thesis and beyond.

Project Member Roll No Signature

BHABARNAB GOSWAMI (190310001006)

DEVASISH DAS (190310001012)
NEEL SAGAR KALITA (190310001031)
TANAZ IKRAM (190310001047)

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

6
LIST OF TABLES

7
LIST OF FIGURES

8
 LIST OF SYMBOLS
Ah Design horizontal seismic coefficient
DL Dead load
E Modulus of elasticity
EQx Earthquake load along x direction
EQy Earthquake load along y direction
h Height of the structure
hi Height measure from the base of the building to floor i
LL Live load
N Number of stores in the building
Q Lateral force at floor i
R Response reduction factor
Sa/g Average response acceleration coefficient for rock or soil sites based on
appropriate natural periods and damping of the structure
VB Design seismic base shear
T Approximate fundamental period of vibration of the structure
W Seismic weight of the structure
Wi Seismic weight of floor i
Z Zone factor

9
INTRODUCTION

10
 Chapter 1- Introduction

1.1 General
One of the most devastating natural disasters that occur in the world is earthquakes. Earthquake (also
known as quake or tremor) is the sudden shaking of the ground caused by the passage of seismic
waves through Earth’s rocks. Seismic waves are produced when some form of energy stored in
Earth’s crust is suddenly released, usually when masses of rock straining against one another suddenly
fracture and “slip.” Earthquakes range in size from those that are so weak that they cannot be felt to
those violent enough to propel objects and people into the air and wreak destruction across the world.
Effect of earthquakes:
The effects of earthquakes include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Shaking and ground rupture:

Shaking and ground rupture are the main effects created by earthquakes, principally resulting in more
or less severe damage to buildings and other rigid structures. The severity of the local effects depends
on the complex combination of the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the epicenter, and the
local geological and geomorphological conditions, which may amplify or reduce wave propagation.
The ground-shaking is measured by ground acceleration. Specific local geological, geomorphological,
and geo-structural features can induce high levels of shaking on the ground surface even from low-
intensity earthquakes. This effect is called site or local amplification. It is principally due to the
transfer of the seismic motion from hard deep soils to soft superficial soils and to effects of seismic
energy focalization owing to typical geometrical setting of the deposits. Ground rupture is a visible
breaking and displacement of the Earth's surface along the trace of the fault, which may be of the
order of several meters in the case of major earthquakes. Ground rupture is a major risk for large
engineering structures such as dams, bridges, and nuclear power stations and requires careful mapping
of existing faults to identify any that are likely to break the ground surface within the life of the
structure.

 Soil liquefaction
Soil liquefaction occurs when, because of the shaking, water-saturated granular material (such as
sand) temporarily loses its strength and transforms from a solid to a liquid. Soil liquefaction may
cause rigid structures, like buildings and bridges, to tilt or sink into the liquefied deposits. For
example, in the 1964 Alaska earthquake, soil liquefaction caused many buildings to sink into the
ground, eventually collapsing upon themselves.

 Human impact
An earthquake may cause injury and loss of life, road and bridge damage, general property damage,
and collapse or destabilization (potentially leading to future collapse) of buildings. The aftermath may
bring disease, lack of basic necessities, mental consequences such as panic attacks, depression to
survivors, and higher insurance premiums.

 Land slides
Earthquakes can produce slope instability leading to landslides, a major geological hazard. Landslide
danger may persist while emergency personnel are attempting rescue.

11
  Fires
Earthquakes can cause fires by damaging electrical power or gas lines. In the event of water mains
rupturing and a loss of pressure, it may also become difficult to stop the spread of a fire once it has
started. For example, more deaths in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake were caused by fire than by
the earthquake itself.

 Tsunami
Tsunamis are long-wavelength, long-period sea waves produced by the sudden or abrupt movement of
large volumes of water including when an earthquake occurs at sea. In the open ocean the distance
between wave crests can surpass 100 kilometers (62 mi), and the wave periods can vary from five
minutes to one hour. Such tsunamis travel 600-800 kilometers per hour (373-497 miles per hour),
depending on water depth. Large waves produced by an earthquake or a submarine landslide can
overrun nearby coastal areas in a matter of minutes. Tsunamis can also travel thousands of kilometers
across open ocean and wreak destruction on far shores hours after the earthquake that generated them.
Ordinarily, subduction earthquakes under magnitude 7.5 do not cause tsunamis, although some
instances of this have been recorded. Most destructive tsunamis are caused by earthquakes of
magnitude 7.5 or more.

 Floods
Floods may be secondary effects of earthquakes, if dams are damaged. Earthquakes may cause
landslips to dam rivers, which collapse and cause floods. The terrain below the Sarez Lake in
Tajikistan is in danger of catastrophic flooding if the landslide dam formed by the earthquake, known
as the Usoi Dam, were to fail during a future earthquake. Impact projections suggest the flood could
affect roughly 5 million people.

Effect of earthquake on structures:

Earthquakes have adverse effects on the building. Seismic waves are generated from crust and travel
toward earth surface which causes shaking of the ground. So, when the seismic waves are subjected
on a building resting on it, it experiences motion at its base. From Newton’s First Law of Motion,
even though the base of the building moves with the ground, the roof has a tendency to stay in its
original position. However, since the walls and columns are attached to it, the roof is dragged with the
base of the building. The tendency of the roof structure to remain at its original position is called
inertia. The inertia forces can cause shearing of the structure which can concentrate stresses on the
weak walls or joints in the structure resulting in failure or perhaps total collapse. Seismic analysis is
performed to understand the response of buildings when subjected to earthquake.

Earthquake resistant buildings:

Construction of multistoried buildings has become inevitable both for residential as well as office
purposes. If the high raised structures are not properly designed, then it may cause complete failure of
the structure. Earthquake resistant construction is the fabrication of a building or structure that can
withstand the sudden ground shaking that is characteristic of earthquake, thereby minimizing
structural damage and human deaths and injuries. Suitable construction methods are required to
ensure that proper design objectives for earthquake-resistance are met. Construction methods can vary
dramatically throughout the world, so one must be aware of local construction methods and resource
availability before concluding whether a particular earthquake-resistant design will be practical and
realistic for the region.

12
Under normal conditions, a building’s walls, columns, and beams primarily experience only vertical
loads of compression. However, during an earthquake, lateral and shear loading occurs, which results
in tensile and torsional forces on structural elements. Those forces result in high stresses at the
building’s corners and throughout various joints.

Bracings:
Bracing is a construction technique used to improve the structural performance of a building. The
bracing systems are necessary for structures that are subjected to lateral loads due to earthquakes,
wind etc. It increases the capability of building structures to withstand the lateral load.

The primary function of bracing is to transfer horizontal forces from the frame to the foundation of the
building.

In a multi-storey building, the beams and columns are generally arranged in an orthogonal pattern in
both elevation and on plan. In a braced frame building, the resistance to horizontal forces is provided
by two orthogonal bracing systems:

Vertical bracing- Bracing in vertical planes (between lines of columns) provides load paths to
transfer horizontal forces to ground level and provide lateral stability.

Horizontal bracing- At each floor level, bracing in a horizontal plane, generally provided by floor
plate action, provides a load path to transfer the horizontal forces (mainly from the perimeter columns,
due to wind) to the planes of vertical bracing.

Depending upon the various requirements in building systems the major bracings are classified into
following types:

1. Single diagonal
2. Cross diagonal
3. K – bracing
4. V- bracing
5. Eccentric bracing

Structures which are subjected to lateral forces basically wind load and earthquake load, we resist
these loads using bracing or any other structural component. So braced column is not designed to
resist these. The main advantage of braced column is the sideways translation is negligible, thus the
lateral sway is zero.

We go for unbraced columns, where the number of storeys is only 2 to 3 and in less earthquake prone
zones. Unbraced columns are basically those columns which are designed to resist the lateral loads
caused by wind load and earthquake loads. It has a more serviceable area as compared to the braced
columns structure.

13
14
15
 Literature Review

General
For any kind of project, we need a very strong reference through which we can have an
approach to that project topic. We went through various journals of previous works present
on the internet to get some ideas for our project. As our topic was to analyze the seismic
behaviour of different types of RCC bracing system in a RC structure, we studied the journals
related to our topic. Some of the journals and their main marked points are written below. By
studying these research papers, we cleared up many doubts regarding our topic.

Sagar T. kawale et al (2019) [1], said that one of the main difficulties when a building is in a
seismically active zone is the lateral stability of the structure and this can be addressed by
using bracings that have large plastic deformation before failure. This paper compares
seismic analysis of G+11 square building and L shaped building by using time history
analysis in ETAB 17.01 software, also compare displacement, base shear and pseudo
acceleration and used four different types of bracing systems- i) X Bracings ii) V Bracings
iii) Inverted V Bracings iv) Diagonal bracing. It was found that among all the 4 types of
bracing, displacement of “X Bracing” is minimum in both types of building and for
comparing the shape of building “L”shaped building gives minimum displacement with “X”
bracing.

Adithya. M et al (2015) [2] said that when a tall building is subjected to lateral or torsional
deflections under the action of fluctuating wind loads, the resulting oscillatory movement can
induce a wide range of responses hence lateral deflections must be limited. Bracing is a
highly efficient and economical method to laterally stiffen the frame structures against wind
loads. This project is about the efficiency of using different types of bracings and with
different steel profiles for bracing members for multi-storey steel frames. A three-
dimensional structure is taken with 4 horizontal bays and 20 stories. The beams and columns
are designed to withstand dead and live load only. Wind load and Earthquake loads are taken
by bracings. The bracings are provided only on the peripheral columns. Four bracings are
used in a storey for economic purposes. The analysis concluded that the lateral storey
displacements of the building are greatly reduced by the use of single diagonal bracings
arranged as diamond shape in 3rd and 4th bay in comparison to concentric (X) bracing and
eccentric (V) bracing system.

Safvana P, Ms Anila S (2018) [3] said that a viable solution for enhancing earthquake
resistance is to use steel bracing systems for strengthening and retrofitting seismically
inadequate reinforced concrete frames. The seismic study of conventional X brace, zipper
brace and SBS in RCC, steel and composite structures using ETABS software is investigated.

16
Bracing is provided at each corner. A G+6, G+12 and G+18 story with 6 bay in X direction
and 3 bay in Y direction is analyzed. The effectiveness of various types of steel bracing is
examined. The effect of the distribution of the steel bracing along the height of the steel
structure on the seismic performance of the rehabilitated building is studied. Provision of
conventional X braces, zipper braces and SBS is provided in each story. The percentage
reduction in lateral displacement is found out. It is found that the zipper of steel bracing
significantly contributes to the reduction in displacement and SBS contributes to the
reduction of story shear compared to conventional X bracings in steel and composite
structures whereas both reduction in displacement and base shear is found out for SBS braced
in case of RCC structures. It is also found that when the SBS spring is provided at all floors,
the lateral storey displacement is reduced compared to the SBS DS of composite structure
when the spring is provided at lower storey.

Surender Kumar et al (2017) [4] A seismic study of steel braced RC frame with different
arrangements Steel buildings. Seismic coefficient technique (direct static examination) has
been led to appraise the impact of various arranging of supporting individuals in the building
edge and impact of the distinctive steel cross-segment. Exhibit think about is a fifteen-story
building thought to be situated in seismic zone IV according to the seismic zone guide of
India. Two steel profiles ISA, ISMC were used as supporting individuals by thinking about
same cross-sectional zone. The propping was accommodating fringe segments. A four-story
building was broken down for seismic zone IV according to IS 1893: 2002 utilizing STAAD
Pro programming. The adequacy of different kinds of steel supporting in restoring a G +15
story building was analyzed. It was discovered that the X kind of steel propping altogether
adds to the basic firmness. It is additionally discovered that the different plans of propping
frameworks had awesome effect on seismic show of the building casing and point area gives
better outcome as analyzed ISMC segment.

A Kadid [5] they said that earthquakes in Turkey (1999), Taiwan (1999) and Algeria (2003)
demonstrated the catastrophic impact of such power upon urban cities. A great number of
existing buildings in Algeria designed without seismic design criteria and detailing rules for
dissipative structural behavior suffered damages which were far worse than that for newer
buildings designed and built according to the more stringent seismic code rules. Thus, it is of
critical importance that the structures that need seismic retrofitting are correctly identified,
and an optimal retrofitting is conducted in a cost-effective fashion. Among the retrofitting
techniques available, steel braces can be considered as one of the most efficient solutions for
seismic performance upgrading of RC frame structures. This paper investigates the seismic
behavior of RC buildings strengthened with different types of steel braces, X-braced, inverted
V braced, ZX braced, and Zipper braced. Static nonlinear pushover analysis has been
conducted to estimate the capacity of three story and six story buildings with different brace-
frame systems and different cross sections for the braces. It is found that adding braces
enhances the global capacity of the buildings in terms of strength, deformation and ductility

17
compared to the case with no bracing, and the X and Zipper bracing systems performed better
depending on the type and size of the cross section.

Chui-Hsin Chen et al (2008) [6] This study is confined to an assessment of the seismic
response of two nearly identical three-story tall steel buildings. The model buildings have
regularly spaced gravity-resisting frames with lateral earthquake-load resistance provided by
special concentric braced frames (SCBF) or buckling restrained braced frames (BRBF)
located on the perimeter of the building. The braces including the gusset plates at the ends
were modeled with force-based nonlinear beam-column element. These building systems are
analyzed to improve understanding of the behavior of conventionally braced and buckling
restrained braced frames, and to identify improved performance-based design and analysis
procedures. Sixty ground motion records were used to conduct nonlinear dynamic analysis of
each of the four models. A preliminary examination of floor level accelerations shows that
drifts and accelerations vary by different amounts as the intensity of shaking increases. In
particular, at large levels of shaking, the peak accelerations appear to be limited by the
strength of the structure.

H. Moghaddam, I. Hajirasouliha (2006) [7] This paper investigates the potentialities of the
pushover analysis to estimate the seismic deformation demands of concentrically braced steel
frames.

Shashikumar N S et al (2018) [8] carried out the analysis of a Structural model by using
software ETABS 2016. In the model considered the building model with different bracing
systems and the project concentrated with some of the design factors like Storey
Displacement, Drifts and Modal Participation in different zones. They concluded that
strength of the building will increase on adding of the bracings, more in X bracing compared
to others. The minimum storey displacement for lateral loading happened in Zone 2 V
bracing and maximum in X bracing. Story drift is minimum for X braced model at zone 2 and
maximum at V braced model for Zone 5.

Mahmoud Maher, R. Akbari (2003) [9] carried out the study for the earthquake behaviour
factor (R) for steel X supported and knee-propped RC structures. The R factor parts including
pliability lessening factor and over quality factor are extricated from inelastic weakling
examinations of support outline frameworks of various statures and setups. The impacts of a
few parameters affecting the estimation of R factor, including the tallness of the casing, offer
of supporting framework from the connected load and the kind of propping framework are
researched. The stature of this kind of sidelong load-opposing framework profoundly affects
the R factor, as it specifically influences the flexibility limit of the double framework.
Finally, in view of the discoveries displayed, speculative R esteems are proposed for steel-
supported minute opposing RC outline double frameworks for various malleability requests.

18
Rathod and Gupta (2020) [10] carries out a nonlinear time history analysis on a ten storey
structure considering time history of el centro earthquake 1940 using ETABS. The various
response parameters like base shear, storey drift, storey displacements etc are calculated.
Results from the base reaction conclude that the base reaction increases with time.  
 

19
CHAPTER 3- METHODOLOGY

3.1- Introduction
As we are doing a project about analysis of a building with different bracing system and patterns, we
took help from a software maned SAP 2000. SAP 2000 is general-purpose civil engineering software
ideal for the analysis and design of any type of structural system. Basic and advanced systems,
ranging from 2D to 3D, of simple geometry to complex, may be modelled, analyzed, designed and
optimized using a practical and intuitive object- based modelling environment that simplifies and
streamlines that engineering process. The SAP Fire Analysis Engine integral to SAP2000 drives a
sophisticated finite-element analysis procedure. An addition suite of advanced analysis features is
available to uses engaging state-of-the-art practice with non-linear and dynamic consideration.
Created by engineers for effective engineering, SAP2000 is the ideal software tool for users of any
experience level, designing any structural system.

3.2- Static pushover analysis

Pushover analysis is a static analysis used to investigate how far into the inelastic range a building can
go before it is on the verge of a total or a partial collapse. A model for the building is assembled on a
computer, with all load-resisting elements together with their force–deformation relationships both
before and after yielding and with dead loads plus average live loads. Then a small set of horizontal
forces is applied so as to simulate the effects of ground motions, and deformations are calculated. The
forces are then increased in steps so as to develop a plot of base motion versus deformation.
Examination of this plot reveals the largest base motion that the building can resist.
This approach was developed to permit analysis of existing buildings and to study the effectiveness of
schemes for strengthening these buildings and giving them greater ductility. Figure 1 shows typical
plots for an existing building both before and after it is remediated. The existing building begins to
lose resistance rapidly once its peak resistance is exceeded, and it would likely collapse during a very
strong shaking. The strengthened building exhibits some ductility that will make collapse much less
likely. Pushover analysis is now also used frequently to evaluate the expected performance of designs
for new buildings.

FIG- 1

20
3.2- Non- Linear Time History Analysis
Nonlinear time history analysis is known for simulating a structure behavior under severe earthquake
more proper than other methods. However, for simplicity, most of the bridges in the category of
Ordinary Standard Bridge (OBS) are being analyzed by a combined procedure which consist of a
linear ARS analysis for earthquake response (demand) and a static nonlinear pushover for ultimate
displacement (capacity) per the guidelines of many transportation agencies worldwide. The demand
and capacity are then compared to determine the safety of the bridge. For the single degree of freedom
(SDOF) system, this procedure has been proven to be an effective method with satisfactory accuracy.
For bridges in the category of OBS but with noticeable characteristics of multi-degree of freedom
(MDOF) system, large discrepancies between deformation patterns from linear analysis and nonlinear
pushover are often observed by the engineers. So, the accuracy of the conclusion from the procedure
is questioned. To explore nonlinear dynamic behavior of these bridges and investigate the adequacy of
the popular combined linear with nonlinear analysis procedure, a series of bridges within the OSB
ranging from slight to severe mass and stiffness unbalance was analyzed. The analysis methods used
for each bridge include linear and nonlinear time history analysis, linear ARS analysis and nonlinear
static pushover. To ensure valid results comparison, a ground acceleration time history is used for
both linear and nonlinear time history analysis. Its frequencies domain ARS curve is used for ARS
analysis. Selected bridge model, ground acceleration and analysis methods, procedures, results,
comparison, discussion, conclusion and suggestions are all presented in this paper.

3.3- Bracing system used in the model

X-BRACING:
X-bracing is an auxiliary designing practice where the parallel load on a building is diminished by
moving the heap into the outside sections. X-supporting was utilized as a part of the development of
the 1908 Singer Building, at that point the tallest working on the planet.

INV V OR CHEVRON BRACING SYSTEM:

Inverted V-bracings system (also known as chevron bracing) involves the two members meeting at a
center point on the upper horizontal component.

21
22
Modelling of Sample

In the present work, a G+5 RC building is considered. SAP2000 is used to create 3D model

and run all analysis. It is a 6 storey RCC building with a floor-to-floor height of 3m. The plan
dimension is 24m x 18m. The structure is subjected to dead load, live load and earthquake
load. The load combinations are considered according to IS 1893:2016 (Part 1).  Brief
detailing of the structure is given below. 

Fig 2: Building elevation YZ Fig 3: Building elevation XZ

Fig 4: Building plan

23
 Fig 5: 3D view of Building

Two different types of bracings, in four different patterns is modelled for analysis. The types
of bracings used are:
1. X bracing
2. Chevron Bracing (Inverted V)
The models of the braced frame patterns are shown below:

24
SPECIFICATION OF THE BUILDING:

Table 1.

Serial Specifications Value

No.
1 Height of building 18 m
2 No. of bays along X axis 4
3 No. of bays along Y axis 3
4 Bay length along X axis 6m
5 Bay length along Y axis 6m
6 Beam dimension 350 X 300 mm
7 Column dimension 450 X 400 mm
8 Bracing dimension 150 X 150 X 12 mm
9 Slab thickness 125 mm
10 Grade of concrete M25
11 Grade of steel Fe250
12 Grade of rebar HYSD415, Mild250
13 Live load 3 kN/m2
14 Unit weight of concrete 25 kN/m2
15 Seismic Zone V

Load:
The first vertical load that is considered is dead load. Dead loads are permanent or
stationary loads which are transferred to structure throughout the life span. Dead load
is primary due to self weight of structural members. Permanent partition walls, fixed
permanent equipment’s and weight of different materials. Permanent partition walls,
fixed permanent equipment's and weight of different materials. It majorly consists of the
weight of roofs, beams, walls and column etc. which are otherwise the permanent parts of the
building. The calculation of dead loads of each structure are calculated by the volume of each
section and multiplied with the unit weight.

Imposed Loads or Live Loads (IL or LL):

The second vertical load that is considered in design of a structure is imposed loads or live
loads. Live loads are either movable or moving loads without any acceleration or impact.

25
These loads are assumed to be produced by the intended use or occupancy of the building
including weights of movable partitions or furniture etc. Live loads keep on changing from
time to time. These loads are to be suitably assumed by the designer. It is one of the major
loads in the design. The minimum values of live loads to be assumed are given in IS 875 (part
2)-1987. It depends upon the intended use of the building.

Earthquake Loads (EL):

Earthquake forces constitute to both vertical and horizontal forces on the building. The total
vibration caused by earthquake may be resolved into three mutually perpendicular directions,
usually taken as vertical and two horizontal directions. The movement in vertical direction
does not cause forces in superstructure to any significant extent. But the horizontal movement
of the building at the time of earthquake is to be considered while designing.
In this present study, earthquake load is applied as equivalent static loads at each floor level.
This static load varies with the mass of the floor and the height of the floor from the
foundation. Maximum load acts at the top floor of the building. The static load is calculated
in accordance with the IS 1893:2016(Part 1).
In a building mass is mostly concentrated at floor levels. When seismic forces act on the
building, inertia forces develop at the floor levels. The sum of all these inertia forces
developed at the floor levels is called base shear (VB). As per IS 1893:2016, design seismic
base shear is defined as---
V B= Ah ×W
Where, Ah = Design horizontal acceleration coefficient
W = Seismic weight of the building.
The weight of the whole building is lumped at the floor levels. For roof to the seismic weight
is contributed by the roof slab and roof beams and half in height of one storey along the top
storey height namely columns and structural walls. For the rest of the floors, the seismic
weight is contributed by floor level members namely slabs (including finishing loads) and
beams (including the full weight of the brick masonry infill wall), and the members along a
storey height (full height of one storey namely columns and structural walls. The horizontal
acceleration coefficient (Ah) depends on zone factor (Z), importance factor of the building
(1), response reduction factor (R) and average response acceleration coefficient (Sa/g).
Design horizontal acceleration coefficient is given by:
Z Sa I
Ah = × ×
2 g R
26
Design base shear calculated is distributed along the height of the building as per the
following given the lateral forces Qi as.
Qi =VB
Where, Qi = design lateral force at floor i
hi = height of floor measured from floor i
Wi = seismic weight of floor i.
n = number of storey in the building is the number of levels at which the masses are
located.
The distribution of Qi is shown in Figure 4.2. The building is assumed to be located in seismic
zone V on rocky strata. The importance factor and response reduction factor of the building
are considered as I and 5 respectively. Earthquake load is calculated in both directions along
large and small plan dimension.

Load Combination:
There are three types of load cases namely dead load (DL), live load (LL) and earthquake
load (EQ) which are considered for the analysis. Live loads are temporary loads whereas
earthquake motion is sudden and happens for a short duration. It is least likely that full design
LL and full design EL are acting together at together at the same time. The load combinations
shall be considered as specified in respective standards due to all load effects mentioned
therein. In addition, those specified in this standard shall be applicable, which include
earthquake effects. Thus, realistic load combinations are considered for analysis as per IS
1893: 2016 (Part 1) and they are as follows:

1. DL+LL
2. 1.2(DL+LL+EQ X)
3. 1.2(DL+LL-EQ X)
4. 1.2(DL+LL-EQ Y)
5. 1.2(DL+LL+EQ Y)
6. 1.5(DL+EQ X)
7. 1.5(DL-EQ X)
8. 1.5(DL+EQ Y)
9. 1.5(DL-EQ Y)
10. 0.9DL+1.5EQ X
11. 0.9DL-1.5EQ X

27
12. 0.9DL+1.5EQ Y
13.0.9DL-1.5EQ Y

28
 Results and Discussion

Linear Static Analysis

In this study the structure is subjected to three load cases namely dead load, live load and
earthquake load and the analysis is carried out in SAP2000 for 13 load combinations. In the
linear analysis the parameters like maximum bending moment, shear force, storey
displacement and storey drift are determined for the bare as well as braced frame. The main
result which we are finding for comparison is storey displacement and storey drift.
The results of the maximum bending moment and shear force are shown in the Table and
Table respectively.

29
Storey Displacement
Story displacement is the deflection or the lateral displacement of a single story relative to the
base or ground level of the structure. Hence we can we can expect higher total displacement
values as we move up the structure. The lateral force resisting system can limit the excessive
lateral displacement of the building.

Comparison of Storey Displacement

Very firstly the building is compared on the basis of the lateral displacement for Chevron
Braced frame and X braced frame according to their different patterns. The table and graph
for the displacement are being added below.

Table : Comparison of displacement of linear analysis in different braced frames

Storey Storey Displacement (mm)

Height
Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 Pattern 4

Chevron X Chevron X Chevron X Chevron X

18 7.40 12.72 4.00 7.89 15.25 15.12 14.43 18.91

15 6.16 11.22 3.34 6.92 14.24 14.10 13.25 17.35

12 4.69 9.12 2.55 5.61 11.07 10.92 10.13 13.86

9 3.18 6.71 1.74 4.13 9.24 9.15 8.48 11.00

6 1.79 4.19 0.99 2.60 4.88 4.81 4.36 6.18

3 0.66 1.74 0.38 1.14 2.99 2.99 2.90 3.19

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30
 Fig 5: Comparison of storey displacement

Fig 5 shows the joint displacement at each floor for Chevron braced frame (Pattern 1.
Pattern 2, Pattern 3, Pattern 4) and X braced frame (Pattern 1, Pattern 2, Pattern 3,
Pattern 4). From the graph we can observe that the displacement is maximum in case
of X P4 which is the X braced frame with the bracings only in the mid-section present
alternately. The top displacement is 18.91mm. The least displacement is shown by the
Model Chevron P2 which is the chevron braced frame with the bracings present on the
sides and the top displacement is 4mm.

Storey Drift
Storey drift is the lateral displacement of a floor relative to the floor below and storey
drift ratio is the storey drift divided by the storey height.

31
Comparison of Storey Drift
After the completion of comparison of displacement in the G+5 building, comparison
is carried out on the basis of Inter storey drift. The storey drift for the different
patterns of chevron and X bracing are shown in the Table below and the comparison
curve is shown in Fig 5.

Table: Comparison of storey drift of linear analysis of Chevron braced and X braced
frame

Storey Storey Drift

Height
Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 Pattern 4

Chevron X Chevron X Chevron X Chevron X

18 0.42 0.50 0.22 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.39 0.52

15 0.49 0.70 0.26 0.44 1.06 1.06 1.04 1.16

12 0.50 0.81 0.27 0.49 0.61 0.59 0.55 0.95

9 0.46 0.84 0.25 0.51 1.45 1.45 1.37 1.61

6 0.38 0.82 0.20 0.49 0.63 0.61 0.49 1.00

3 0.22 0.58 0.13 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.06

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32
 Fig 6: Storey drift curve

The storey drift curve shows the comparison of storey drift of Chevron and X bracing
and the different patterns. From the storey drift curve we see that the X P4 shows the
maximum lateral displacement. X P4 has X bracings present alternately in the mid-
section. The lateral displacement is maximum at a height of 9m from the base and the
value is 1.61. The least is shown by Chevron P2 which has Chevron bracings present
on the sides. The value of the least lateral displacement is 0.13 at a height of 3m.

Nonlinear analysis: 

In this study, a non-linear pushover analysis and time history analysis is performed for RC
frame building where 9 models are considered to study the overall behaviour. 

Pushover Analysis: 

In the pushover analysis monotonically increasing lateral forces are applied to a nonlinear
mathematical model of the building until the displacement of the control node at the roof
level exceeds the target displacement. For a specific earthquake, the building should have
enough capacity to withstand a specified roof displacement. This is called the target
displacement and is defined as an estimate of the likely building roof displacement in the
design earthquake. The maximum displacement taken was 800mm (about 2.62 ft). In this
33
study the displacement and storey drift are compared and base shear is determined. The
building model taken for study are the bare frame and the braced frames.

34
Comparison of storey displacement:

Storey Storey Displacement

Height
Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 Pattern 4

Bare Chevron X Chevron X Chevron X Chevron X

frame bracing bracing bracing bracing bracing bracing bracing bracing

18 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

15 0.64 0.79 0.8 0.79 0.8 0.79 0.8 0.79 0.8

12 0.48 0.76 0.79 0.76 0.78 0.61 0.59 0.61 0.59

9 0.32 0.54 0.55 0.54 0.55 0.41 0.35 0.41 0.35

6 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.12 0.21 0.12

3 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35
Fig 7: Displacement vs Height curve comparing bare frame, Chevron
bracing pattern 1 and X bracing pattern 1

36
Fig 8: Displacement vs Height curve comparing bare frame, Chevron
bracing pattern 2 and X bracing pattern 2

37
Fig 9: Displacement vs Height curve comparing bare frame, Chevron bracing
pattern 3 and X bracing pattern 3

38
Fig 10: Displacement vs Height curve comparing bare frame, Chevron bracing pattern
4 and X bracing pattern 4

39
40