STEEL BRACINGS:

Increasing the stiffness (e.g. addition of bracing or shear walls) or reducing

the mass (e.g. lightweight floors, lightweight concrete) both reduce the
structural period, and of course the reverse is also true. However, period
depends on the square root of mass divided by stiffnesses, (T =2 M/k )
so large changes in mass and stiffness are needed for a significant change
in period. By contrast mounting the building on flexible bearings can
dramatically increase the period.
Moment-resisting (i.e. unbraced) frames derive their lateral strength, not
from diagonal bracing members, but from the rigidity of the beamcolumn
connection.
CONCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (CBFs):
CBFs are conventionally designed braced frames in which the centre lines
of the bracing members cross at the main joints in the structure, thus
minimising residual moments in the frame.
The pros and cons of braced frames are essentially the opposite of
moment frames; they provide strength and stiffness at low cost but
ductility is likely to be limited and the bracing may restrict architectural
planning.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig-1-Examples of bracing schemes for concentrically braced frames: (a) Xbraced; (b) diagonally braced; (c) alternative diagonally braced; (d) Vbraced; (e) inverted V-braced; and (f ) K-braced Figure 5.2 distinguishes
between various types of braced frame, the seismic resistance of which
can be markedly different.
X-BRACED FRAME:
An X-braced frame (Fig. 1(a)) has bracing members in tension for both
directions of loading, and if these are sized to yield before the columns or
beams fail, ductility can be developed.
DIAGONAL BRACES:
Single bays of diagonal braces (Fig. 1(b) and (c)) respond differently
according to the direction of loading. Configuration (b) may be much
weaker and flexible in the direction causing compression in the braces,
while configuration (c) will be weaker and more flexible in the storeys with
compression braces, leading to the possibility of soft-storey formation.
This is clearly not satisfactory. With more than one diagonally braced bay,
the performance can revert to that of X-bracing if a suitable arrangement of
bracing direction is chosen. Eurocode 8 requires a balance of compression
and tension braces at each level.
Single bays of diagonal braces (Fig. 1(b) and (c)) respond differently
according to the direction of loading. Configuration (b) may be much
weaker and flexible in the direction causing compression in the braces,
while configuration (c) will be weaker and more flexible in the storeys with
compression braces, leading to the possibility of soft-storey formation.
This is clearly not satisfactory. With more than one diagonally braced bay,
the performance can revert to that of X-bracingif a suitable arrangement of

bracing direction is chosen. Eurocode 8 requires a balance of compression

and tension braces at each level.
V-BRACINGS:
The V-braced arrangements of Fig. 1(d) and (e) suffer from the fact that the
buckling capacity of the compression brace is likely to be significantly less
than the tension yield capacity of the tension brace. Thus there is
inevitably an out-of balance load on the horizontal beam when the braces
reach their capacity, which must be resisted in bending of the horizontal
member. This restricts the amount of yielding that the braces can develop,
and hence the overall ductility. Where the horizontal brace has a large
bending strength which can resist the out-of-balance load, the hysteretic
performance of V-braced systems is improved.
K-BRACES:
The same out-of-balance force applies to K-braces (Fig. 1(f )) when the
braces reach their capacity, but this time it is a much more dangerous
horizontal force applied to a column dangerous because column failure
can trigger a general collapse. For this reason, K-braces are not permitted
in seismic regions.
ECCENTRICALLY
FRAMES:

BRACED

FRAMES

(EBFS)

AND

KNEE-BRACED

In EBFs, some of the bracing members are arranged so that their ends do
not meet concentrically on a main member, but are separated to meet
eccentrically

FIG
3

The eccentric link element between the ends of the braces is designed as a
weak but ductile link which yields before any of the other frame members.
It therefore provides a dependable source of ductility and, by using
capacity design principles, it can prevent the shear in the structure from
reaching the level at which buckling occurs in any of the members. The link
element is relatively short and so the elastic response of the frame is
similar to that of the equivalent CBF. The arrangement thus combines the
advantageous stiffness of CBFs in its elastic response, while providing
much greater ductility and avoiding problems of buckling and irreversible
yielding which affect CBFs in their post-yield phase. Arrangements such as
(a) and (b) in Fig above also have architectural advantages in allowing
more space for circulation between bracing members than their
concentrically braced equivalent.
An alternative arrangement with similar characteristics is the knee-braced
frame.

Knee-braced frame
The yielding element here is the knee brace, which remains elastic and
stiff during moderate earthquakes, but yields to provide ductility and
protection from buckling in extreme events. Unlike the link in the EBF, the

knee brace does not form part of the main structural frame, and could be
removed and replaced if it is damaged in an earthquake.
ARRANGEMENT OF TENSION AND COMPRESSION BRACES
Within any plane of bracing, the compression diagonal braces should
balance the tension diagonal braces at each bracing level, in order to avoid
tension braces contributing most to lateral resistance in one direction and
compression braces in the other. This is to satisfy the general principle
that the diagonal elements of bracings should be placed in such a way that
the loaddeflection characteristics of the structure are the same for both
positive and negative phases of the loading cycle.
DISTRIBUTION OF DUCTILITY DEMAND IN BRACES:
It is important to ensure a reasonably uniform distribution of ductility
demand in the braces over the height of the structure. If this is not
achieved, and the braces at one level yield well before the others, a weak
storey might form, concentrating most of the ductility demand at that level.
To avoid this, Eurocode 8 places a restriction on the ratio of bracing
member strength to strength required from the seismic design. The ratio
between maximum and minimum values of this ratio must not exceed
125%. There is no similar requirement in AISC.
DIFFERENT BRACING SYSTEMS:
X-BRACED SYSTEMS:
These are generally designed assuming that the compression braces do
not contribute stiffness or strength. Eurocode 8 places upper and lower
limits on the slenderness of diagonal braces in X-braced systems. The
upper limit corresponds to a slenderness l=ry of around 180 (depending on
yield strength), and is designed to prevent the strength and stiffness
degradation shown for a slender strut in Fig. 1. The lower limit of around
110 is intended to prevent column overloading; columns to which the
diagonal braces are connected will be sized to resist the full yield strength
of the tension brace assuming no force in the compression brace, but
higher axial forces might occur in the columns before very stocky braces
have buckled. In AISC, there is a similar limit on upper bound slenderness,
but no lower limit.
DIAGONAL AND V-BRACED SYSTEMS:
These systems rely on both compression and tension braces for stability,
and so the stiffness and strength of the compression braces must be
explicitly accounted for. The same upper bound limits on slenderness

apply, but there is no lower bound limit in Eurocode 8, because the

concern about neglecting the compression brace force does not apply.
In V-braced systems, the horizontal brace is subjected to an out-of-balance
force when the compression brace begins to buckle, and in Eurocode 8 this
must be designed for. Also, the horizontal brace must be designed to carry
any gravity loads without support from the diagonal braces, and the AISC
rules are similar.
K-BRACED SYSTEMS:
These are not permitted, because buckling of the compression brace
imposes an out-of-balance force not on the horizontal beam (as in the case
of V-braced systems) but on the column, and this is clearly unacceptable.
The design procedure for EBFs in both Eurocode 8 and AISC is similar. For
an elastic analysis, the links are sized from the actions obtained from the
seismic analysis, using the specified q or R factor. They can then be
classified on the basis of their length e, shear strength Vp and flexural
strength Mp as follows.

Typical details of a short link(from AISC)

T.RangaRajan.
6