SEISMIC & WIND ANALYSIS

OF
BRACED STEEL FRAMES

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PATNA, BIHAR – 800005
MAY, 2016

MINOR PROJECT REPORT

PREPARED BY: PROJECT MENTOR

VIKASH SINGH BHANDARI (1303085) PROF. S. S. MISHRA

RAVIKANT TRIVEDI (1303078)
VIKASH KUMAR (1303006)
RAHUL KUMAR (1303054)

1
 CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are thankful to the Dept. of Civil Engineering, NIT Patna, for giving us the
opportunity to execute this project, which is an integral part of the curriculum in
B.Tech program at the National Institute of Technology, Patna.
We are also thankful to our project guide Prof. S. S. Mishra, whose encouragement, guidance
and support from the initial to the final level enabled us to develop an understanding of the
subject.
We are thankful to Prof Vivekananda Singh, Head of Civil Engineering Department, for all
the facilities provided to successfully complete this work. We are also very thankful to all the
faculty members of the department for their constant encouragement, invaluable advice,
inspiration and blessing during the project.

Vikash Singh Bhandari (1303085)

Ravikant Trivedi (1303078)
Vikash Kumar (1303006)
Rahul Kumar (1303054)

2
 ABSTRACT

The large ductility and the high strength to width ratio of structural steel make it an ideal
material for earthquake resistance. In general, steel buildings are more flexible than RCC
buildings, but they also display more lateral displacement than RCC buildings.

Every Special moment resisting frames undergo lateral displacement because they are
susceptible to large lateral loading. The problems associated with this are the P-∆ effect and
the ductile and brittle failure at beams and columns connections. As a consequence, engineers
have increasingly turned to braced steel frames as an economical means for earthquake
resistant loads, because these braced frames can resist large amounts of lateral forces and have
reduced lateral deflection and thus reduced P-∆ effect.

The study of braced steel frame response is widely studied in many branches of Structural
engineering. Many researchers have been deeply studying these structures, over the years,
mainly for their greater capacity of carrying external loads.
In present study. Cross bracing, diagonal bracing and an unbraced frame is considered, the
study consist of two models. Model 1 is a Steel Moment Resisting Frame (SMRFs) with X-
concentric bracing as per IS 800 -2007, while Model-2 is same steel frame with Diagonal
bracing. These CBFs (Concentric Braced Frames) are also used to resist wind forces.
Performance of both Model frame is used for Linear Static analysis,

In the present study, modeling of the steel frame is done under the analysis mentioned above
using E-TABS software is and the results so obtained for different bracing systems(X-bracing,
Diagonal bracing) are compared. Conclusions are drawn based on the tables and graphs
obtained. It’s found out that steel frame with X-bracing is most suitable configuration as it
shows Maximum stiffness and lower drift in compare to frame with diagonal or V-bracing.
On an average, 28% decrement is observed by installing cross bracing instead of
diagonal bracing. Cross bracing is obviously more laterally stiffer than diagonal
bracing, and hence the decrement is observed.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...
Tables of Contents………………………………………………………………..

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THESIS

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives 2
1.2 Methodology 2
1.3 Scope of the present study 2

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General 4
2.2 Literature review 4-5

CHAPTER 3. A REVIEW OF ANALYSIS

3.1 Equivalent static analysis 6-8
3.2 Wind Load analysis 8-9

CHAPTER 4. STRUCTURAL MODELLING

4.1 Introduction 10
4.2 Frame geometry 10-12
4.3 Frame designs 12-14

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

5.1 SESMIC RESPONSE 15-25

4
 5.1.1 Lateral load profile 15
5.1.2 Story drift of the model

5.2 WIND ANALYSIS

5.2.1 Story drift of the model 23

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 25-26

REFERENCES 27

5
cHAPTER 1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES

1.2 METHODOLOGY

1.3 SCOPE OF PRESENT STUDY

6
1. INTRODUCTION:
In the present time, Steel structure plays an important role in the construction industry. Previous
earthquakes in India show that not only non-engineered structures but engineered structures need
to be designed in such a way that they perform well under seismic loading. Structural response
can be increased in Steel moment resisting frames by introducing steel bracings in the structural
system. Bracing can be applied as concentric bracing or eccentric bracing. There are ‘n’ number
of possibilities to arrange steel bracings, such as cross bracing ‘X’, diagonal bracing ‘D’, and
‘V’ type bracing.
Steel moment resisting frames without bracing, inelastic response failure generally occurs at
beam and column connections. They resist lateral forces by flexure and shear in beams and
columns i.e. by frame action. Under severe earthquake loading ductile fracture at beams and
columns connections are common. Moment resisting frames have low elastic stiffness. P-∆
effect is an another problem associated with such structures in high rise buildings.

FIG 1.1 (Deflection of steel frame due to lateral loading)

So, to increase the structure response to lateral loading and good ductility properties to perform
well under seismic loading concentric bracings can be provided. Beams, columns and bracings are
arranged to form a vertical truss and then lateral loading is resisted by truss action. Bracings allow
the system to obtain a great increase in lateral stiffness with minimal added weight. Thus, they
increase the natural frequency and usually decrease the lateral drift. They develop ductility through
inelastic action in braces. Failure occurs because of yielding of truss under tension or buckling of
truss under compression. These failures can be compensated by use of Buckling Reinforced Braced
frame (BRBs) or Self Centering Energy Dissipating frames (SCEDs).
The present study will clearly estimate the advantage of concentrically braced steel frames over
Steel moment resisting frames. A simple computer based modeling in E-Tabs Software is

7
performed for Equivalent static analysis. Further wind load analysis too is performed for a
steel frame with masonry wall configuration.

1.1 OBJECTIVES

Following are the main objective of the present study:

a) To investigate the seismic performance of a multi-story steel frame building
When unbraced and then with different bracing arrangement such as cross (X)
Bracing and Diagonal bracing using Equivalent Static analysis
b) To investigate the wind response of a multi-story steel frame building.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

a) A thorough literature review is done in the process to understand the seismic

evaluation of building structures and application of Equivalent Static analysis in the
analysis process.
b) Understanding the Seismic behavior of steel frames with various concentric bracings
and eccentric bracings.
c) Modeling the steel frame with various concentric bracing by computer software E-
Tabs.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE PRESENT STUDY

In the present study, modeling of the steel frame under the analysis mentioned above
using E-TABS software is done and the results so obtained are compared. Conclusions
are drawn based on the tables and graphs obtained.

8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

9
 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with a brief review of the past and recent study performed by researchers on
seismic analysis of braced steel frames. A detailed review of each literature would be difficult to
address in this chapter. The literature review focusses on concentrically braced frames, failure mode
generally observed in moment resisting frames and bracings, brace to frame connections, local
buckling and plastic hinge formation. The recent study of use of buckling reinforced bracing
(BRBs) and Self-centered energy dissipating frames (SCEDs) is also mentioned.
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEWS
 Tremblay et al.(2003)

Tremblay et al. performs an experimental study on the seismic performance of

concentrically braced steel frames with cold-formed rectangular tubular bracing system.
Analysis is performed on X bracing and single diagonal bracing system. One of the
loading sequence used is a displacement history obtained from nonlinear dynamic
analysis of typical braced steel frames. Results were obtained for different cyclic
loading and were used to characterize the hysteretic response, including energy
dissipation capabilities of the frame. The ductile behavior of the braces under different
earthquake ground loading are studied and used for design applying the codal
procedures. Simplified models were obtained to predict plastic hinge failure and local
buckling failure of bracing as a ductility failure mode. Finally, inelastic deformation
capabilities are obtained before failure of moment resisting frame and bracing members.

Khatib et al. (1988)

The failure mode generally observed in special moment resisting frames with bracing
system is fracture of bracings at the locations of local buckling or plastic hinges.
Significant story drift can occur at a single story and this research shows how the failure
mode occurs and how the failure is concentrated entirely on single floor . So, this is one
of the limitations of using moment resisting frames with bracing system.

 K.G.Vishwanathan (2010)
A four storey building was taken in seismic zone 4 according to IS 1893:2002 . The
performance of the building is evaluated according to story drift. Then the study is
extended to eight story and twelve story. X type of steel bracing is found out to be most
efficient.

10
 Seismic response assessment of concentrically braced steel frame buildings (The 14 th World
 conference on earthquake engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China)
Improvement of performance based design and analysis procedure for better
understanding of conventionally used concentrically braced frame and buckling
restrained braced frames is discussed.

 Hanson and Martin (1987); Kelly et al. (2000)
The typical failure mode experienced by special moment resisting frames with bracing ie.
Damage to braces, brace to frame connections, columns and with base plates were studied.

Ghobarah A. et al., (1997)

The study shows that the inter story drift can also be considered as a means to provide
uniform ductility over the stories of the building. A story drift may result in the occurrence of
a weak story that may cause catastrophic building collapse in a seismic event. Uniform story
ductility over all stories for a building is usually desired in seismic design.

Christopoulus et al. (2008)

An advanced cross bracing system has been used in University of Toronto called (SCEDs)
Self centering energy dissipating frames. Alike, Special moment resisting frames and
Buckling reinforced braced frames, they also dissipate energy, but they have self-centering
capabilities which reduce residual building deformation after major seismic events.

Tremblay et al. (2008)

An extensive analytical study is performed to compare the Buckling restrained braced
frames with self-centering energy dissipating frames. According to the results, the residual
deformation of SCED brace frame systems is negligible under low and moderate hazard
levels and is reduced significantly under MCE or maximum considered earthquake level.

11
Chapter 3

3. A REVIEW OF ANALYSIS

3.1 Equivalent Static Analysis

3.2 Wind load Analysis

12
3.1 EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS – AN OVERVIEW
The equivalent static method is the simplest method of analysis. Here, force depend upon the
fundamental period of structures defined by IS Code 1893:2002 with some changes. First, design
base shear of complete building is calculated, and then distributed along the height of the
building, based on formulae provided in code. Also, it is suitable to apply only on buildings with
regular distribution of mass and stiffness.
Following are the major steps in determining the seismic forces:
3.1.1 Determination of Base shear
For determination of seismic forces, the country is classified in four seismic zones

Fig 3.1 shows seismic zones of India (ref., IS 1893:2002)

13
The total design lateral force or design base shear along any principal direction is determined by
the expression:

V = AhW (3.1)
Where,
Ah = design horizontal seismic coefficient for a structure
W = seismic weight of building
The design horizontal seismic coefficient for a structure A is given by :
Ah = (ZISa)/ 2Rg (3.2)
Z is the zone factor in Table 2 of IS 1893:2002 (part 1). I is the importance factor,
R is the response reduction factor, Sa/g is the average response acceleration coefficient for rock
and soil sites as given in figure 2 of IS 1893:2002 (part 1). The values are given for 5% damping
of the structure.

FIG 3.2
T is the fundamental natural period for buildings calculated as per clause 7.6 of IS
1893:2002 (part1).
Ta = 0.075h0.75 for moment resisting frame without brick infill walls
Ta = 0.085h0.75 for resisting steel frame building without brick infill walls
Ta = 0.09h/√d for all other buildings including moment resisting RC frames
h is the height of the building in m and d is the base dimension of building at plinth level in m.

3.1.2 Lateral distribution of base shear

The total design base shear has to be distributed along the height of the building. The base
shear at any story level depends on the mass and deformed shape of the building. Earthquake

14
forces tend to deflect the building in different shapes, the natural mode shape which in turn
depends upon the degree of freedom of the building. A lumped mass model is idealized at each
floor,which in turn converts a multi storyed building with infinite degree of freedom to a single
degree of freedom in lateral displacement, resulting in degrees of freedom being equal to the
number of floors.
The magnitude of lateral force at floor (node) depends upon:

• Mass of that floor

• Distribution of stiffness over the height of the structure
• Nodal displacement in given mode
IS 1893:2002 (part 1) uses a parabolic distribution of lateral force along the height of the
building. Distribution of base shear along the height is done according to this equation:

Qi = Wi hi2 / ∑n (Wihi2) (3.3)

i=1

Where:

Qi = design lateral force at floor

Wi = seismic weight at floor i
hi = height of floor I measured from foundation
n = number of stories in the building or the number of levels at which masses are located.

3.2 WIND LOAD ANALYSIS - AN OVERVIEW

Tall and slender structure are flexible and exhibit a dynamic response to wind. Tall structures
vibrate in wind due to the turbulence inherent in the wind as well as that generated by the
structure itself due to separation of the floor. Thus there is a mean and fluctuating response to the
wind. Besides, dynamic forces act not only in the direction of the wind flow but also in the
direction nearly perpendicular to the flow (lift forces) , so that tall structures also exhibit an
across wind response.

15
3.2.1 WIND LOAD CALCULATION:

3.2.1.1 DESIGN WIND SPEED:

Vz = Vb* k1* k2* k3 (3.4)

Where,

Vz = Design Wind Speed

Vb = Basic Wind Speed
k1= Probability Factor (Risk Coefficient)
k2= Terrain, height and structure size factor
k3= Topographic factor
3.2.1.2 PROBABILITY FACTOR (k1)

16
3.2.1.3 TERRAIN, HEIGHT AND STRUCTURE SIZE FACTOR (k2)

17
3.2.1.4 TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR (k3)

• Effective when upwind slope greater than 3 degrees.

• If upwind Slope < 3 degrees, k3 = 1;

• Varies between 1.0 - 1.36 for upwind slope > 3 degrees

3.2.1.2 DESIGN WIND PRESSURE:

Pz = 0.6 Vz2 N/m2 (3.5)

Where,
V z = Design wind velocity (m/s)

18
Chapter 4

4. STRUCTURAL MODELLING

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Frame Geometry

4.3 Frame Design

19
 4. STRUCTURAL MODELLING

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The study in this thesis is based on basically on linear static & wind analysis of steel
frames with concentric bracing models. Different configurations of frames are selected such as
cross bracing, diagonal bracing and V and inverted V bracing and analyzed. This chapter
presents a summary of various parameters defining the computational models, the basic
assumptions and the steel frame geometry considered for this study.

4.2 FRAME GEOMETRY

A building (G+20) of total height of 63m (each floor 3m) is taken for study and 2
separate models are created in E-Tabs software. Model 1&Model 2 both are asymmetric
plan which are being used for seismic analysis and wind load analysis.

Height Elevation Similar

Name
mm mm To
Story21 3000 63000 None
Story20 3000 60000 Story21
Story19 3000 57000 Story21
Story18 3000 54000 Story21
Story17 3000 51000 Story21
Story16 3000 48000 Story21
Story15 3000 45000 Story21
Story14 3000 42000 Story21
Story13 3000 39000 Story21
Story12 3000 36000 Story21
Story11 3000 33000 Story21
Story10 3000 30000 Story21
Story9 3000 27000 Story21
Story8 3000 24000 Story21
Story7 3000 21000 Story21
Story6 3000 18000 Story21
Story5 3000 15000 Story21
Story4 3000 12000 Story21
Story3 3000 9000 Story21
Story2 3000 6000 Story21
Story1 3000 3000 Story21
Base 0 0 None

Table 4.1

20
FIG- 4.1( PLAN VIEW OF STEEL FRAME)

21
FIG 4.2 (SIDE ELEVATION FOR MODEL 1(X-BRACED FRAME)

22
FIG: 4.3(SIDE ELEVATION FOR MODEL2 (DIAGONAL BRACED FRAME)

23
FIG 4.4 (3D-VIEW OF STEEL FRAME FOR SEISMIC & WIND LOAD ANALYSIS)

24
4.3 FRAME DESIGN:

4.3.1 MATERIAL: Design of steel elements are carried as per IS 800 (2007)
standards. The characteristic strength of steel is considered 345 Mpa.

Unit
E
Name Type Ν Weight Design Strengths
MPa
kN/m³
Fy=345 MPa, Fu=450
Fe345 Steel 210000 0.3 78
MPa

4.3.2 FRAME SECTIONS: Every beam used in the both the models is ISMC
200. Every column used in the model is ISMC 300 and for bracings angle
section are used. Every bracing is an angle section IS 75x75x5.

Name Material Shape

ISA75X75X5 Fe345 Steel Angle

ISMC200 Fe345 Steel Channel

ISMC300 Fe345 Steel Channel

Table 4.2 (Frame Sections – Summary)

4.3.3 LOADING: The gravity loading consists of the self-weight of the structure, a floor
load of 3kN/m2 on each floor except the roof, the roof floor load is taken 2kN/m2.

4.3.4 FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS:

The building frame used in this study is assumed to be a Residential building (G+20) of
total height 63m, located in Indian seismic zone IV with medium soil conditions.

Seismic loads are estimated as per IS 1893:2002. The design horizontal seismic coefficient
(Ah ) is calculated as per IS 1893:2002

Ah = ZI/2R (4.1)

25
4.3.4.1 FACTORS & COEFFICIENTS:

Seismic Zone Factor, Z [IS Table 2] for zone IV Z = 0.24

Response Reduction Factor, R [IS Table 7] R=5
Importance Factor, I [IS Table 6]( I=1
Soil Type [IS Table 1] = II

Vb = Ah.Sa/g.W (4.2)

Period for analysis = 0.085H0.75 (For Steel Frame) (4.3)

Building Height (G+20) = 21*3= 63m

Using Eqn 4.3 we have:

Period for analysis = 0.085(630.75) = 1.900747sec.

Referring to [IS 1893:2002 fig. 2]

For period=1.900747 and Soil Type II

Seismic Response

Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Sa /g Sa 1.36

=
[IS 6.4.5] g T

Sa/g= 1.36/1.900747 = 0.7155

W= 1197.794 KN (For Unbraced Frame)

W= 1316.1009 KN ( For X-Braced Frame)

W= 1248.845 KN (For Diagonal Braced Frame)

26
Using equation 4.2 the value of base shear for these frames are calculated which are
following:

TYPE OF STEEL BASE SHEAR IN

FRAME EQUIVALENT STATIC
ANALYSIS (KN)
WITHOUT BRACING 20.5677

X-BRACING 22.6036

D-BRACING 21.4454

TABLE 4.3 (Base shear in seismic analysis)

4.3.5 FOR WIND LOAD ANALYSIS:

The building frame used in this study is assumed to be a Residential building (G+20) of
total height 63m, located in Patna(Bihar) wind speed 50m/s with a return period of 50
years.

Wind loads are estimated as per IS:875 Part IV

Wind speed Vb – 50m/s

Terrain Category – II
Structure Class- C (height >50m)
Risk coefficient (K1 factor) 1 (Table 1 Cl 5.3.1 IS 875 Part IV)
Topography K3 Factor) 1
Exposure height (Top Story: 21 to Bottom Story: 4)

27
For Terrain Factor K2 : (IS 875 Part IV, Cl 5.3.3.2):

For terrain category II & Structure class c:

At height 50m K2= 1.10
At height 100m K2 = 1.17

So to obtain the K2 at height 63m we’ll do the linear interpolation.

So K2= 1.1338

Wind Speed

VZ= Vb*K1*K2*K3 (4.4)

Vz= 50*1*1.1338*1 = 56.69 m/s.

4.3.5.1 Wind Pressure:

The wind pressure is calculated from given formula:

Pz= 0.6 VZ2 (4.5)

So we have Pz= 0.6(56.692) = 1928.25 N/m2 = 1.928 KN/m2

28
CHAPTER 5

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE under

different bracing
configuration and loading

Model 1(X-braced frame)

Model 2(Diagonal braced frame)

29
5.1 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STEEL FRAME UNDER DIFFERENT
BRACING CONFIGURATION

5.1.1 LATERAL LOAD PROFILE

The value of lateral load on floors (in KN) due to different bracing system are given in
Following table:

5.1.1.1 UNBRACED FRAME

Table 5.1 Lateral load for Unbraced frame X-Direction

Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir

M kN KN
Story21 63 2.1027 0
Story20 60 2.5735 0
Story19 57 2.3226 0
Story18 54 2.0846 0
Story17 51 1.8594 0
Story16 48 1.6471 0
Story15 45 1.4476 0
Story14 42 1.261 0
Story13 39 1.0873 0
Story12 36 0.9265 0
Story11 33 0.7785 0
Story10 30 0.6434 0
Story9 27 0.5211 0
Story8 24 0.4118 0
Story7 21 0.3153 0
Story6 18 0.2316 0
Story5 15 0.1608 0
Story4 12 0.1029 0
Story3 9 0.0579 0
Story2 6 0.0257 0
Story1 3 0.0064 0
Base 0 0 0

30
Table 5.2 Lateral load for unbraced frame in y direction:

Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir

M kN Kn

Story21 63 0 2.1027

Story20 60 0 2.5735

Story19 57 0 2.3226

Story18 54 0 2.0846

Story17 51 0 1.8594

Story16 48 0 1.6471

Story15 45 0 1.4476

Story14 42 0 1.261

Story13 39 0 1.0873

Story12 36 0 0.9265

Story11 33 0 0.7785

Story10 30 0 0.6434

Story9 27 0 0.5211

Story8 24 0 0.4118

Story7 21 0 0.3153

Story6 18 0 0.2316

Story5 15 0 0.1608

Story4 12 0 0.1029

Story3 9 0 0.0579

Story2 6 0 0.0257

Story1 3 0 0.0064

Base 0 0 0

31
GRAPHS FOR UNBRACED FRAME:

for Unbraced frame the lateral force working in X and Y directions can be represented by
following graphs-

Fig. 5.1 Fig 5.2

From above data it can be analyzed that:

Max lateral Force works at 20th story = 2.573525 KN

Min lateral force works at base = 0 KN

32
5.1.1.2 for X-BRACED FRAME:

Table 5.3 Lateral Load (KN) for X-braced in X direction.

Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir

M kN kN

Story21 63 2.249 0

Story20 60 2.8364 0

Story19 57 2.5599 0

Story18 54 2.2975 0

Story17 51 2.0493 0

Story16 48 1.8153 0

Story15 45 1.5955 0

Story14 42 1.3899 0

Story13 39 1.1984 0

Story12 36 1.0211 0

Story11 33 0.858 0

Story10 30 0.7091 0

Story9 27 0.5744 0

Story8 24 0.4538 0

Story7 21 0.3475 0

Story6 18 0.2553 0

Story5 15 0.1773 0

Story4 12 0.1135 0

Story3 9 0.0638 0

Story2 6 0.0284 0

Story1 3 0.0071 0

Base 0 0 0

33
Table 5.4 Lateral Load (KN) for X-braced in Y -direction.

Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir

m KN KN
Story21 63 0 2.2493

Story20 60 0 2.8368

Story19 57 0 2.5602

Story18 54 0 2.2978

Story17 51 0 2.0496

Story16 48 0 1.8156

Story15 45 0 1.5957

Story14 42 0 1.3901

Story13 39 0 1.1986

Story12 36 0 1.0213

Story11 33 0 0.8581

Story10 30 0 0.7092

Story9 27 0 0.5745

Story8 24 0 0.4539

Story7 21 0 0.3475

Story6 18 0 0.2553

Story5 15 0 0.1773

Story4 12 0 0.1135

Story3 9 0 0.0638

Story2 6 0 0.0284

Story1 3 0 0.0071

Base 0 0 0

34
GRAPHS FOR X-BRACED FRAME:

for X-braced frame the lateral force working in X and Y directions can be represented by
following graphs

Fig 5.3 fig 5.4

From above data it can be analyzed that:

Max lateral Force works at 20th story = 2.8364 KN

Min lateral force works at base = 0 KN

35
5.1.1.2 for D-BRACED FRAME:

Table 5.5 Lateral Load (KN) for D-braced in X Direction.

Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir

m kN kN
Story21 63 2.1659 0

Story20 60 2.687 0

Story19 57 2.4251 0

Story18 54 2.1765 0

Story17 51 1.9414 0

Story16 48 1.7197 0

Story15 45 1.5115 0

Story14 42 1.3167 0

Story13 39 1.1353 0

Story12 36 0.9673 0

Story11 33 0.8128 0

Story10 30 0.6718 0

Story9 27 0.5441 0

Story8 24 0.4299 0

Story7 21 0.3292 0

Story6 18 0.2418 0

Story5 15 0.1679 0

Story4 12 0.1075 0

Story3 9 0.0605 0

Story2 6 0.0269 0

Story1 3 0.0067 0

Base 0 0 0

36
Table 5.6 Lateral Load (KN) for D-braced in Y Direction.

Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir

m KN KN

Story21 63 0 2.1659

Story20 60 0 2.687

Story19 57 0 2.4251

Story18 54 0 2.1765

Story17 51 0 1.9414

Story16 48 0 1.7197

Story15 45 0 1.5115

Story14 42 0 1.3167

Story13 39 0 1.1353

Story12 36 0 0.9673

Story11 33 0 0.8128

Story10 30 0 0.6718

Story9 27 0 0.5441

Story8 24 0 0.4299

Story7 21 0 0.3292

Story6 18 0 0.2418

Story5 15 0 0.1679

Story4 12 0 0.1075

Story3 9 0 0.0605

Story2 6 0 0.0269

Story1 3 0 0.0067

Base 0 0 0

37
GRAPHS FOR D-BRACED FRAME:

for D-braced frame the lateral force working in X and Y directions can be represented by
following graphs-

Fig 5.5 Fig 5.6

From above data it can be analyzed that:

Max lateral Force works at 20th story = 2.687 KN

Min lateral force works at base = 0 KN

38
5.1.1.3 COMPARISON OF LATERAL LOAD PROFILE:

A relative graph of lateral load values of these different frames is formed and further analyzed to
find the suitability of Bracing System in Compare to Unbraced frame.

Lateral Load Profile in equivalent Static Analysis

3

2.5

2
lateral load(KN)

1.5

0.5

floor level
X- bracing D-bracing No Bracing

Fig 5.7

On an average, 87% decrement in story drift is observed by installing cross or

diagonal bracing on the model as compared to that of the model without bracing.

A decrease in the story drift is observed in both the analysis in upper floors. This can
be inferred from that the loading profile of the model. The roof load is lower as
compared to the load on other floors
On an average, 28% decrement is observed by installing cross bracing instead of
diagonal bracing. Cross bracing is obviously more laterally stiffer than diagonal
bracing, and hence the decrement is observed.

39
5.1.2 STORY DRIFT ANALYSIS

5.1.2.1 UNBRACED FRAME: Drift measured due to load combination EQX1 in X and Y
directions are shown in following table.

Table 5.7 Drift due to Unbraced Frame

FLOOR LOAD MAX MAX

COMBO DRIFT IN X DRIFT IN Y

Floor 21 EQX1 0.000119 0

Floor 20 EQX1 0.000145 0

Floor 19 EQX1 0.000172 0

Floor 18 EQX1 0.000197 0

Floor 17 EQX1 0.000219 0

Floor 16 EQX1 0.000239 0

Floor 15 EQX1 0.000255 0

Floor 14 EQX1 0.000269 0

Floor 13 EQX1 0.00028 0

Floor 12 EQX1 0.000289 0

Floor 11 EQX1 0.000295 0

Floor 10 EQX1 0.000299 0

Floor 9 EQX1 0.000301 0

Floor 8 EQX1 0.000301 0

Floor 7 EQX1 0.000299 0

Floor 6 EQX1 0.000295 0

Floor 5 EQX1 0.00029 0

Floor 4 EQX1 0.000282 0

Floor 3 EQX1 0.000268 0

Floor 2 EQX1 0.000236 0

Floor 1 EQX1 0.000129 0

40
GRAPH: Graph for the drift of unbraced frame due to load combination EQX1.

It can be analyzed from the graph that:

Max. Drift occurs b/w story 8 & 11 = 0.000301 =0.0301%

41
5.1.2.2 X- BRACED FRAME: Drift measured due to load combination EQX1 in X and Y
directions are shown in following table.

Table 5.8 Drift due to X-braced Frame

FLOOR LOAD MAX MAX

COMBO DRIFT IN X DRIFT IN Y

Floor 21 EQX1 0.000172 3E-06

Floor 20 EQX1 0.000178 3E-06

Floor 19 EQX1 0.000183 3E-06

Floor 18 EQX1 0.000189 4E-06

Floor 17 EQX1 0.000196 4E-06

Floor 16 EQX1 0.000206 4E-06

Floor 15 EQX1 0.000216 4E-06

Floor 14 EQX1 0.000224 4E-06

Floor 13 EQX1 0.000229 5E-06

Floor 12 EQX1 0.000232 5E-06

Floor 11 EQX1 0.000233 5E-06

Floor 10 EQX1 0.000232 5E-06

Floor 9 EQX1 0.000229 5E-06

Floor 8 EQX1 0.000224 5E-06

Floor 7 EQX1 0.000218 4E-06

Floor 6 EQX1 0.000211 4E-06

Floor 5 EQX1 0.000203 3E-06

Floor 4 EQX1 0.000194 3E-06

Floor 3 EQX1 0.000182 2E-06

Floor 2 EQX1 0.000158 1E-06

Floor 1 EQX1 8.6E-05 3E-06

42
GRAPH: Graph for the drift of X-braced frame due to load combination EQX1.

It can be analyzed from the graph that:

Max. Drift occurs b/w story 8 & 11 = 0.000233 =0.0233%

43
5.1.2.2 D- BRACED FRAME: Drift measured due to load combination EQX1 in X and Y
directions are shown in following table.

Table 5.9 Drift due to D-braced Frame

FLOOR LOAD MAX DRIFT MAX DRIFT

COMBO IN X IN Y

Story 21 EQX1 0.000166 4E-06

Story 20 EQX1 0.000174 3E-06

Story 19 EQX1 0.000182 4E-06

Story 18 EQX1 0.00019 4E-06

Story 17 EQX1 0.0002 4E-06

Story 16 EQX1 0.000212 4E-06

Story 15 EQX1 0.000223 4E-06

Story 14 EQX1 0.000232 4E-06

Story 13 EQX1 0.000237 4E-06

Story 12 EQX1 0.000241 4E-06

Story 11 EQX1 0.000242 4E-06

Story 10 EQX1 0.000241 4E-06

Story 9 EQX1 0.000238 3E-06

Story 8 EQX1 0.000234 3E-06

Story 7 EQX1 0.000228 3E-06

Story 6 EQX1 0.000221 2E-06

Story 5 EQX1 0.000214 2E-06

Story 4 EQX1 0.000204 1E-06

Story 3 EQX1 0.000192 4.981E-07

Story 2 EQX1 0.000168 1E-06

Story 1 EQX1 9.2E-05 4E-06

44
GRAPH: Graph for the drift of D-braced frame due to load combination EQX1.

It can be analyzed from the graph that:

Max. Drift occurs b/w story 8 & 11 = 0.000242 =0.0242%

45
5.2 WIND LOAD ANALYSIS:

5.2.1 STORY DRIFT:

Table 5.10 Drift due to Wind Load

STORY LOAD DRIFT IN X DRIFT IN Y-

PROFILE DIRECTION DIRECTION

Story 21 WIND 1E-06 2.603E-07

Story 20 WIND 1E-06 2.544E-07

Story 19 WIND 1E-06 2.641E-07

Story 18 WIND 2E-06 2.737E-07

Story 17 WIND 2E-06 2.757E-07

Story 16 WIND 2E-06 2.755E-07

Story 15 WIND 2E-06 2.758E-07

Story 14 WIND 2E-06 2.765E-07

Story 13 WIND 2E-06 2.75E-07

Story 12 WIND 1E-06 2.725E-07

Story 11 WIND 1E-06 2.706E-07

Story 10 WIND 1E-06 2.669E-07

Story 9 WIND 1E-06 2.579E-07

Story 8 WIND 1E-06 2.359E-07

Story 7 WIND 1E-06 2.103E-07

Story 6 WIND 1E-06 2.152E-07

Story 5 WIND 2E-06 3.167E-07

Story 4 WIND 2E-06 4.605E-07

Story 3 WIND 1E-06 2.703E-07

Story 2 WIND 1E-06 1.309E-07

Story 1 WIND 3.438E-07 1.457E-07

46
GRAPH: Graph for the drift of frame due to load case Wind 1.

It can be analyzed from the graph that:

Max. Drift occurs at Story4 = 0.000002 =0.0002%

47
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY

CONCLUSION

48
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SUMMARY

The 1st model was an asymmetric plan with a without X-braced moment resisting frame and
while the 2nd model was diagonal braced frame. The bracings increased the stiffness. Cross
bracing is stiffer than diagonal bracing. Hence, for cross bracing maximum base shear was
obtained as compared to diagonally braced model and model without bracing. Bracing decrease
the lateral displacement of the moment resisting frame. Stiffer the frame least is the story drift.
Bracings also increase the shear force and bending moment capacity of the columns. In a
laterally stiffer frame, the columns are subjected to less shear force and bending moment and an
increased axial force at their ends. It’s also found that the story drift in the larger height building
was much more compared to smaller height. Larger height building is stiffer and hence the
variation. So, as the height of the model is increased, a bracing system will decrease the story
drift but an increased height will increase the story drift leading to the problems like P-∆ effect.

CONCLUSION
• Braced steel frame have more base shear than unbraced frames.
• Cross bracing undergo more base shear than diagonal bracing.
• Bracings reduce the lateral displacement of floors.
• Cross bracing undergo lesser lateral displacement than diagonal bracing.
• Under the same bracing system and loading, system with larger height or more number of
storys will have more base shear than the smaller one.
• Under the same bracing system and loading, system with larget height or more number
of storys will undergo large lateral displacement on the same storys than the smaller one.

49
 REFRENCES

• Tremblay, R.; et al., Performance of steel structures during the 1994 Northridge
earthquake, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 22, 2, Apr. 1995, pages 338-360.
• Khatib, I. and Mahin, S., Dynamic inelastic behavior of chevron braced steel frames,
Fifth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1987,
pages 211-220.
• IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”.
• IS 873 (Part 3) , “Wind load Design”.
• Hassan, O.F., Goel, S.C.(1991).”Modelling of bracing members and seismic behavior of
concentrically braced steel frames”.

50
51
15
16
27