International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2017, pp. 609–616, Article ID: IJCIET_08_08_062

Available online at http://http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=8
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON EFFECT OF

LATERAL LOADING ON STEEL BRACED
REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE OF
UNSYMMETRICAL BUILDING PLAN
M. Prasanna Kumar
Assistant Professor Sr-Scale, Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute of
Technology, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India,

Raja Madhukar Vishnu

Post Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology,
Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India

ABSTRACT
Steel bracings are lateral load resisting structural members which help in increase
of strength and satisfy both architectural and structural requirements considering
gravity and lateral loads. Present analytical research deals with optimum location of
bracing and bracing system in unsymmetrical building plan (T-shape) of G+30
storeys by considering both wind and seismic effect. Bracings such as X and single
diagonal are compared and provided at various exterior locations of structure. In the
present research the comparison is done for five different types of bracings system
such as braces are connected within the storey is type 1, In type 2- bracing are
connected between two storeys, in type 3- bracing are connected between three
storeys, type 4- bracing are connected between four storeys, type 5- bracing are
connected between five storeys. The results are compared with bare frame and steel
braced structure considering ductility, drift control and torsional effect. The analytical
results concluded that providing more stiffness leads to control of drift, reduces
ductile nature and increase of torsional effect. Bracings connecting for more than two
stories increases ductility, reduces stiffness and reduces torsional effect- compared to
bracing connected within the storey.
Keywords: Ductility, Steel bracing, RC structure, Response Spectrum Analysis,
Torsional effect, Unsymmetrical Building Plan,
Cite this Article: M. Prasanna Kumar and Raja Madhukar Vishnu, A Comparative
Study on Effect of Lateral Loading on Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Structure of
Unsymmetrical Building Plan, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(8), 2017, pp. 609–616.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=8

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 609 editor@iaeme.com

 M. Prasanna Kumar and Raja Madhukar Vishnu

1. INTRODUCTION
Functionality of all kinds of structural forms is to transfer gravity load effectively and
structure should resist lateral load caused by wind and seismic forces. Lateral loads influences
structure in developing high stresses and more sway in order to overcome this problem a
lateral force resisting systems such as bracings, shear wall are used to increase the strength of
RC framed structures and control structural damage caused by earthquake.
Today to serve serviceability conditions architects are preferring irregularities for
aesthetic and other conditions. The shape and proportion of the structure effects the
distribution of forces. Due to irregularities structure causes deficient in stiffness, continuous
load path and also tension capacity will be less at re-entrant corners.
In braced frame structures lateral loading is resisted by diagonal members which
transforms the system into girders with web of vertical truss and columns acting as chords.
Diagonal members provide high stiffness to the structure and resist lateral forces by
developing internal axial tensile or compressive actions.
Raja et-al (2015) done performed dynamic analysis considering steel bracing for
unsymmetrical building plan of G+30 storeys. They compared performance of the structure
considering bracing within storey and more than one storey. They concluded that ductile
nature increases when bracings are connected for more than one storey [13] .Raja et-al (2015)
performed research on linear static and response spectrum analysis considering
unsymmetrical building plan of G+30 storeys. They provided internal braces to the structure.
They concluded that X and inverted V braces provide good stiffness and control
displacements but base shear increases [12]. Kadid and Yahiaoui (2011) done research on the
static non-linear pushover analysis of three and six storied RC structure considering X,
inverted V, ZX, and Zipper braces. They concluded that selection of section for steel bracing
effects the global capacity of building and X, Zipper braces provides good results [1]. Badoux
and James (1990) done experimental and analytical research on the retrofitting of steel
bracing for RC frame. The analytical study focusing inelastic response of plane structures
subjected to seismic loading. They concluded that steel bracing is well suited for lateral
strengthening of multistorey RC structure from drift and collapse prevention. Combining
bracing with beam provides significant improvement in elastic behaviour of braced frame [2].
Murali and Arunakanthi (2013) performed an analytical research of optimum location of shear
wall for unsymmetrical building plan using linear static and response spectrum analysis. They
concluded that providing different shapes of shear walls effects the eccentricity, time period,
controls displacement and dynamic analysis is necessary for evaluating actual performance of
the structure [3]. Pincheira, and James (2014) conducted study on seismic performance of
non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frames using inelastic static and dynamic response
analyses for five ground motions representative of major earthquakes on firm and soft soil
conditions of 3,7 and 12 storied RC frames using DRAIN-2D. They concluded that steel
braces would adversely affect lateral strength of reinforced concrete member [5]. Maheri,
Kousari and Razazan (2011) conducted experimental research on ductile nature of RC frames
with X and Knee braces. They concluded that X and Knee braces increases strength and
capacity. X increases stiffness and decreases ductility and Knee bracing provides good
ductility [7]. In the present investigation two different types of bracing systems X, and single
diagonal braces are considered to the structure and models are divided into five different types
and results are compared considering all the five types.

2. MODELLING INFORMATION:
Building plan is T-shape, No. of stories- G + 30, Height of Building 105.6 m, Length of
building 40m(unsymmetrical along X Direction), 40 m(symmetrical along Y Direction),

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 610 editor@iaeme.com

A Comparative Study on Effect of Lateral Loading on Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Structure of
Unsymmetrical Building Plan

Material Properties: Grade of concrete M40, Grade of steel 415, Density of reinforced
concrete 25 KN/m 3, Thickness of slab 0.150 m, Beam Cross Section 0.3m X 0.9 m,
Plinth Beam Cross Section 0.3m X 0.75m, Column Cross Section 1.2m X 1.2m, (Up
to storey 10), 1.0m X 1.0m (11 to 20 storey), 0.8m X 0.8m (21 to 30 storey), Steel Bracing
SectionISA 200X200X25 [12]. Rigid diaphragms are provided to the structure. Figures 1,
2,3,4,5 and 6 are taken from [12]. In the present investigation two different types of bracing
systems X, and single diagonal braces are considered to the structure and models are divided
into five different types. In type 1 bracing is connected within the storey and results are taken
from [12]. In type 2 bracing are connected between two storeys, type 3 three storeys, type 4
four storeys, type 5 five storeys. Results are compared considering all the five types. In each
type there are 8 models (figure 2, 3, 4 and 5) and model 1 is bare frame (fig: 1). Fig: 6 isthe
elevation of each type considering X bracing. Loading condition: Live Load 3 KN/m2,
Floor Finish 1.5 KN/m2,
Seismic Loading Conditions: Zone-V, Soil Type- Medium, Importance Factor- 1, Response
reduction- 5%,
Wind Loading Conditions: Wind Speed 47m/s, Terrain Category- 1, Structure Class- C,
Topography factor (k3)-1.2 [12].Table 1 Historical tsunami that affected the western coast of
India

Figure 1 Top view of Model1 (Without steel bracing)

Figure 2 Top view of Model 2 (X bracing) and Model 3 (Single Diagonal bracing)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 611 editor@iaeme.com

 M. Prasanna Kumar and Raja Madhukar Vishnu

Figure 3 Top view of Model 4 (X bracing) and Model 5 (Single Diagonal bracing)

Figure 4 Top view of Model 6 (X bracing) and Model 7 (Single Diagonal bracing)

Figure 5 Top view of Model 8 (X bracing) and Model 9 (Single Diagonal bracing)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 612 editor@iaeme.com

A Comparative Study on Effect of Lateral Loading on Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Structure of
Unsymmetrical Building Plan

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 6 Elevation view of five types of models (a) Type-1, (b) Type-2, (c) Type-3, (d) Type-4, (e)
Type-5.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The response of structure was compared considering time period, eccentricity, torsion and
storey drift.

5
4.8
4.6
TIME PERIOD(sec)

4.4
4.2 TYPE 1
4 TYPE 2
3.8 TYPE 3
3.6
TYPE 4
3.4
3.2 TYPE 5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MODEL NUMER

Figure 7 Time period considering all models

Time period is very important parameter for ductile behaviour of a structure. As the time
period increases ductile nature increases and collapse time also increases. From fig: 7 we can
observe that when compared to bare frame (model 1) time period of other models is
decreased. There is increasing trend in time period for type 1 to type 5. So by connecting
bracing for more than one storey improves ductile nature.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 613 editor@iaeme.com

 M. Prasanna Kumar and Raja Madhukar Vishnu

2.4
2.2
2
1.8

ECCENTRICTY(m)
1.6 TYPE 1
1.4
1.2 TYPE 2
1
0.8 TYPE 3
0.6 TYPE 4
0.4
0.2 TYPE 5
0
-0.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MODEL NUMBER

Figure 8 Eccentricity along Y-direction considering all models

Eccentricity is distance between center of mass and center of stiffness of a structure.
Basically it happens when building has irregularities. From figure 8 we can observe that when
compared to model 1 in type 1 eccentricity is maximum and decreases from type 2 and
minimum in type 5. Hence by provide required stiffness and mass then eccentricity can be
decreased.

525000
500000
STOREY TORSION(KN-m)

475000 TYPE 1
450000
425000 TYPE 2
400000 TYPE 3
375000
350000 TYPE 4
325000
TYPE 5
300000
275000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MODEL NUMBER

Figure 9 Maximum storey torsion along X-direction considering all models

475000
STOREY TORSION(KN-m)

450000 TYPE 1
425000 TYPE 2
400000
TYPE 3
375000
TYPE 4
350000
325000 TYPE 5

300000
275000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MODEL NUMBER

Figure 10 Maximum storey torsion along Y-direction considering all models

Torsion depends upon eccentricity. From figure 9 and 10 we can observe that when
compared to model 1 in type 2 torsion is maximum and decreases from type 3 and minimum
in type 5. by connecting bracing for more than one storey torsion decreases.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 614 editor@iaeme.com

A Comparative Study on Effect of Lateral Loading on Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Structure of
Unsymmetrical Building Plan

0.0021

MAXIMUM STOREY DRIFT(m)

0.0019
TYPE 1
0.0017
TYPE 2
0.0015
TYPE 3
0.0013
TYPE 4
0.0011
TYPE 5
0.0009
0.0007
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MODEL NUMBER

Figure 11 Maximum storey drift considering DL+WLX load combination

0.0018
MAXIMUM STOREY DRIFT(m)

0.0016
0.0014 TYPE 1

0.0012 TYPE 2

0.001 TYPE 3

TYPE 4
0.0008
TYPE 5
0.0006
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MODEL NUMBER

Figure 12 Maximum storey drift considering DL-WLY load combination

Storey drift is controlled by increase of stiffness. From figure 11 and 12 we can observe
that in type 1 controls maximum drift because stiffness is maximum. For type 2 drift
decreases because stiffness is less when compared to type 1.

4. CONCLUSION
1. Time period increases when connectivity of bracing is more than one storey. There by
improving ductile nature of the building.
2. Eccentricity decreases when connectivity of bracing is more than one storey. Hence by
provide required stiffness and mass then eccentricity can be decreased.
3. Torsion decreases when connectivity of bracing is more than one storey. Here
eccentricity decreases when connected more than one storey. Single diagonal bracing
provides good results when connected to five storeys both along X and Y directions
4. Storey drift decreases when connectivity of bracing is more than one storey. Here
stiffness decreases when connectivity of bracing is more than one storey. X bracing
provides good results when connected to within the storey both along X and Y
directions.
5. X bracing provides maximum stiffness and mass but single diagonal bracing provides
less stiffness and mass.
6. Providing required stiffness and checking ductile nature is very important to a
structure. Reducing mass of a structure improves ductility.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 615 editor@iaeme.com

 M. Prasanna Kumar and Raja Madhukar Vishnu

REFERENCES
[1] A.Kadid and D.Yahiaoui,“Seismic Assessment of Braced RC Frames”, Procedia
Engineering, Volume No. 14, PP. 2899-2905, 2011.
[2] Marc Badoux and James O.Jirsa, “Steel Bracing for RC Frames for Seismic Retrofitting”,
Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), Volume No. 116 Issue No.1, pp- 55-74,1990.
[3] A.Massumi and M.Absalan “Interaction between bracing system and moment resisting
frame in braced RC frames”, Archives Of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Volume No.
13, PP. 260- 268, 2013.
[4] Jose A.Pincheira and James O.Jirsia, “Seismic Response of RC Frames Retrofitted with
steel braces Or walls”, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), Volume No. 121 Issue
No.8, pp- 1225- 1235,1995.
[5] A.murali Krishna and Dr.E.Arunakanthi “Optimum Location of Different Shapes of Shear
Walls in Unsymmetrical High Rise Buildings”, International Journal of Engineering
Research and Technology Volume No.3 Issue No.9, ISSN 2278-0181,2014.
[6] T.Mahdi and V.Bahreini,“Seismic response of Asymmetrical Infilled concrete frames”,
Procedia Engineering, Volume No. 54, PP. 341-352, 2013.
[7] M.R.Maeri, R.Kousari and M.Razazan,“Pushover tests on steel X-braced and Knee braced
RC frames”, Engineering structures, 2011
[8] S.Bungale and Ph.D.S.E.Taranath, Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings Structural
Analysis and Design, Marcel Dekker, 2005.
[9] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 456:2000-code of practice for Plain and Reinforced
Concrete, fourth revision, June 2000.
[10] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 criteria for earthquake resistant design
of structures, fifth revision, June 2002.
[11] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 800:2007 –code of practice for General Construction in
Steel, third revision, December 2007.
[12] Raja Madhukar Vishnu, M.Prasanna Kumar, Y.Balakoti Reddy,“Seismic Response of
steel braced RC structure of Unsymmetrical building”, International Conference On
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials and Processes at Coimbatore Institute Of
Technology during 7th,8th and 9th of January 2015.
[13] Raja Madhukar Vishnu, M.Prasanna Kumar, Y.Balakoti Reddy and A.Murali
Krishna,“Dynamic analysis of steel braced RC structure of Unsymmetrical building plan”,
International Conference On Earth Science and Engineering at Nehru Institute Of
Technology during 20th and 21st of March 2015.
[14] Santhosh H.P, Harsha M.S, Manohar K and Pradeepa B.B, Seismic Isolation of RC
Framed Structure with and without Infills. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 316–327.
[15] Anusha Kudumula, Dr. Vaishali G Ghorpade and Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao, Seismic
Performance of RC Framed Buildings Under Linear Dynamic Analysis. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 09–16.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 616 editor@iaeme.com