Final Doc Batch 1

A project Report
on
Seismic Performance Evaluation of RC Building Connected with
DifferentTypes of Bracings (X, V, Inverted V)
submitted
to
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: ANANTHAPURAM
in the partial full meant of requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Technology
in
Civil Engineering
by
A.PRASAMSHA 202T1A0101
A.DIVYA 182T5A0101
S.LAVANYA 202T1A0141
D.CHANDRAKALA 202T1A0113
D.AKSHAYA 202T1A0112
under the esteemed guidance of
Mrs. V.M.SRUTHI M.Tech

Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering

ASHOKA WOMEN’S ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Accredited by NAAC - A+, Recognized by UGC under section 2(f) of UGC Act 1956
Approved by AICTE& Affiliated to JNTUA, Ananthapuramu
(NH-44, Dupadu, Kurnool-518218)
2020 – 2024
ASHOKA WOMEN’S ENGINEERING COLLEGE
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work entitled “Seismic Performance Evaluation of
RC Building Connected with Different Types of Bracings(X, V, Inverted V)”
that is being submitted by A.PRASAMSHA 202T1A0101, A.DIVYA 182T5A0101,
S.LAVANYA 202T1A0141, D.CHANDRAKALA 202T1A0113, D.AKSHAYA
202T1A0112, in the department of Civil Engineering, ASHOKA WOMEN'S
ENGINEERING COLLEGE, Kurnool partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering from Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological University, Ananthapuram during academic year 2023 – 2024,
This work has been carried out under the guidance.
Guide HOD
Mrs. V M SRUTHI M.Tech Mr. K Anand M.Tech
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
Place:
Date:
Certificate that the candidates examined by The Viva voice examination held at ASHOKA
WOMEN'S ENGINEERING COLLEGE, Kurnool on
Internal Examiner External Examiner

STUDENT DECLARATION
We hear by declare that the project report entitled “Seismic Performance Evaluation of RC
Building Connected with Different Types of Bracings(X, V, Inverted V)” submitted by
as for the award of degree of Bachelor of Technology Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
University, Anantapuram and is a Bonafide record of work done in Ashoka women's
Engineering College and has not been submitted to any other University for award of and
degree.
Date:
Place: Kurnool
A.DIVYA 182T5A0101
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my thanks to many of people I can list here few of them are
Mrs. V M SRUTHI M.Tech, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering department my project guide
from her we learnt many things about the subject which are very helpful to complete my project
and she guided me in right direction.
We express our gratitude to Mr K Anand M.Tech Head of the department Civil

Engineering for the project faculties made available to us in the department and he supported me
throughout my project. At the outside with thank honourable correspondent K.Ashok Vardhan
Reddy Garu, and our beloved principal Dr. R Naveen M.E, Ph. D, for providing as with good faculty
and making their moral support throughout the course.
Finally, we extended our sincere thanks to all the staff members of a civil
engineering department who have cooperation and encouraged us in making or project
successful. We owe thanks and deep appreciation much more than the words can be
expressed to my parents and the family members without their cooperation constant support
and encouragement this would have been a distant dream.
By
A.DIVYA 182T5A0101
ABSTRACT
Earthquake-resistant structures are structures designed to protect buildings from earthquakes.

While no structure can be entirely immune to damage from earthquakes, the goal
of earthquake-resistant construction is to erect structures that fare better during seismic
activity than their conventional counterparts. According to building codes, earthquake-
resistant structures are intended to withstand the largest earthquake of a certain probability
that is likely to occur at their location. This means the loss of life should be minimized by
preventing collapse of the buildings for rare earthquakes while the loss of the functionality
should be limited for more frequent ones. Now a day’s steel bracings technique and shear
wall systems are generally using for designing of earth quake resistant structure due to simple
construction methods, easy to install and they are reduces the deflection and shear in past
studies the earth quack resistant structure is designed by using steel bracings or shear wall
systems in present study a comparison made between these two systems along with general
building in high seismic zone.
In the present study a G+8 story is modeled by using ETABS software and analyzed using
Response spectrum analysis and the comparison is made between the general buildings, steel
bracings buildings to design the earth quake resistant structures. The results like story drift,
story shear, story moment, building torsion, and model stiffness were compared.
Key words: Earthquake, story drift, story shear, story moment, building torsion, model
stiffness.
LIST OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
LIST OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF GRAPHS
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER-I............................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Seismic analysis ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Dynamic actions on buildings-wind and earthquake ....................................................... 2
1.4 Basic aspects of seismic design ........................................................................................ 3
1.5 The four virtues of earthquake resistant buildings ........................................................... 4
1.6 Earthquake-resistant structures ........................................................................................ 6
1.7 Bracing system ................................................................................................................. 6
1.7.1 Vertical bracing ....................................................................................................... 7
1.7.2 Horizontal bracing ................................................................................................... 7
1.7.3Types of bracings ..................................................................................................... 7
1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 10
1.9 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 10
CHPTER-II ........................................................................................................................................... 12
LITERATURE REVIEWS ................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER-III ....................................................................................................................................... 18
METHODOLOGY USED .................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 18
3.2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOADS ACTING ON THE STRUCTURE ......................... 19
CHAPTER –IV ..................................................................................................................................... 27
MODELING OF BUILDING IN ETABS SOFTWARE ..................................................................... 27
4.1 Problem statement .......................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Modeling steps in ETABS ............................................................................................. 28

4.3 Models in ETABS .......................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER-V ........................................................................................................................................ 42
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 42
5.1 RSA X Results ............................................................................................................... 42
5.1.1 Storey drift.......................................................................................................... 42
5.1.1 Base shear ........................................................................................................... 43
5.1.2 Storey stiffness ................................................................................................... 43
5.1.3 Storey acceleration ............................................................................................. 44
5.1.4 Storey shear force ............................................................................................... 45
5.1.5 Storey bending moment ..................................................................................... 46
5.1.7 Storey torsion ..................................................................................................... 47
5.2 RSA Y Results ................................................................................................................ 48
5.2.1 Storey drift .......................................................................................................... 48
5.2.2 Base shear ........................................................................................................... 49
5.2.3 Storey stiffness ................................................................................................... 50
5.2.4 Storey acceleration ............................................................................................. 51
5.2.5 Storey shear force ............................................................................................... 52
5.2.6 Storey bending moment ..................................................................................... 53
5.2.7 Storey torsion ..................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER-VI ....................................................................................................................................... 55
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................... 55
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 56
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.1. 1 Difference in the design effect on a building during natural actions of earthquake
ground movement at base and Wind pressure on exposed are………………………………...3
Fig.1.2 Nature of temporal variations of design actions: earthquake ground motion-zero

mean, cystic and wind pressure-non zero mean, oscillatory ...................................................... 3
Fig.1. 3 Earthquake-Resistant Design Philosophy for buildings .............................................. 4
Fig.1.4 Basic strategy of earthquake design: Calculate maximum elastic forces and reduce by
a factor to obtain design forces .................................................................................................. 5
Fig.1.5 Earthquake-Resistant and NOT earthquake proof: Damage is expected during an
earthquake in normal constructions under damaged building and damaged building. .............. 5
Fig.1. 6 Single diagonal Bracing ............................................................................................... 8
Fig.1. 7 Cross bracing system .................................................................................................... 8
Fig.1. 8 K Bracing system ......................................................................................................... 9
Fig.1. 9 V Bracing system ...................................................................................................... 10
Fig.3. 1 Response spectrum for medium soil type for 5% damping ........................................ 18
Fig.3. 2 Types of loads acting on the structure ........................................................................ 20
Fig.3. 3 Loads on structure ..................................................................................................... 25
Fig 4. 1 General building without bracings...........................................................................................39
Fig 4. 2 Building with X type bracings .................................................................................... 39
Fig 4. 3 Building with X type bracings in elevation position .................................................. 40
Fig 4. 4 Story wise bracing systems......................................................................................... 40
Fig 4. 5 Story wise bracing system in elevation ..................................................................... 41
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 5. 1 Comparison of storey drift due to RSAX ............................................................ 42

Graph 5. 2 Comparison of base shear due to RSAX .............................................................. 43
Graph 5. 3 Comparison of storey stiffness for RSAX ............................................................ 44
Graph 5. 4 Comparison of storey acceleration for RSAX ...................................................... 45
Graph 5. 5 Comparison of shear for RSAX ........................................................................... 46
Graph 5. 6 Comparison of bending for RSAX ....................................................................... 47
Graph 5. 7 Comparison of torsion for RSAX ......................................................................... 48
Graph 5. 8 Comparison of storey drift due to RSAY ............................................................. 49
Graph 5. 9 Comparison of base shear due to RSAY .............................................................. 49
Graph 5. 10 Comparison of stiffness for RSAY.................................................................... 50
Graph 5. 11 Comparison of storey acceleration for RSAY .................................................... 51
Graph 5. 12 Comparison of shear due to RSA Y ................................................................... 52
Graph 5. 13 Comparison of bending for RSA Y .................................................................... 53
Graph 5. 14 Comparison of torsion for RSA Y ...................................................................... 54
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3. 1 Units weight of common materials ........................................................................ 21

Table 3. 2 Some important loads for different areas .............................................................. 22
Table 3. 3 Imposed loads on different storey .......................................................................... 23
Tables 5. 1 Comparison of storey drift values in RSA X ........................................................ 42
Tables 5. 2 Comparison of base shear values in RSA X ......................................................... 43
Tables 5. 3 Comparison of storey stiffness values in RSA X.................................................. 43
Tables 5. 4 Comparisons of storey accelerations in RSA X .................................................... 44
Tables 5. 5 Comparison of storey shear forces in RSA X ....................................................... 45
Tables 5. 6 Comparison of storey bending moment in RSA X .............................................. 46
Tables 5. 7 Comparison of storey torsion values in RSA X .................................................... 47
Tables 5. 8 Comparison of storey drift values in RSA Y ....................................................... 48
Tables 5. 9 Comparison of base shear values in RSA Y ......................................................... 49
Tables 5. 10 Comparison of storey stiffness in RSA Y ........................................................... 50
Tables 5. 11 Comparison of storey accelerations in RSA Y ................................................... 51
Tables 5. 12 Comparison of storey shear force in RSA Y ...................................................... 52
Tables 5. 13 Comparison of storey bending values in RSA Y ................................................ 53
Tables 5. 14 Comparison of storey torsion values in RSA Y .................................................. 54
Different Types of Bracings (X, V, Inverted V)
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Earthquakes are one of nature's most prominent risks to life on this planet and have
decimated incalculable urban areas and towns on for all intents and purposes each landmass.
They are one of man's most dreaded regular marvels because of real seismic tremors
delivering relatively immediate pulverization of structures and different structures.
Furthermore, the harm caused by Earthquakes is on the whole connected with synthetic
structures. As in the instances of avalanches, seismic tremors likewise cause passing by the
harm they instigate in structures, for example, structures, dams, spans and different works of
man. Sadly huge numbers of Earthquakes give almost no or no notice before happening and
this is one reason why Earthquake building is complex.
Nowadays the townhouse building is basic work of the social advance of the province.
Everyday new procedures are being produced for the advancement of living arrangements
financially, rapidly and satisfying the prerequisites of the gathering specialists and creators do
the crease work, arranging and design, and so on, of the developments. Prepared
representatives are trustworthy for doing the illustration works of working with respect to the
way of architects and fashioners. The prepared laborer should secure his activity and could
likewise be capable to agree to the guideline of the architect and might likewise pull in the
coveted illustration of the building, site designs and format designs and numerous others,
with respect to the necessities.
1.2 Seismic analysis
Seismic analysis is a subset of structural analysis and is the calculation of the response
of a building (or non building) structure to earthquakes. It is part of the process of structural
design, earthquake engineering or structural assessment and retrofit in regions where
earthquakes are prevalent.
Department of Civil Engineering Page 1

Earthquake engineering has developed a lot since the early days, and some of the
more complex designs now use special earthquake protective elements either just in the
foundation (base isolation) or distributed throughout the structure. Analyzing these types of
structures requires specialized explicit finite element computer code, which divides time into
very small slices and models the actual physics, much like common video games often have
"physics engines". Very large and complex buildings can be modeled in this way (such as the
Osaka International Convention Center).
1.3 Dynamic actions on buildings-wind and earthquake
Dynamic actions are caused on buildings by both wind and earthquake. But, design
for wind forces and for earthquake effects are distinctly different. The initiative philosophy of
structural design use force as the basis, which is consistent in wind design, wherein the
building is subjected to a pressure on its exposed surface area; this is force-type loading.
However, in earthquake design, the building is subjected to random motion of the ground at
its base (Figure 1.1), which induces inertia forces in the building that in turn cause stresses;
this is displacement-type loading. Another way of expressing this difference is through the
load-deformation curve of the building – the demand on the building is force (i.e., vertical
axis) in force-type loading imposed by wind pressure, and displacement (i.e., horizontal axis)
in displacement-type loading imposed by earthquake shaking.
Wind force on the building has a non-zero mean component superposed with a
relatively small oscillating component. Thus, under wind forces, the building may experience
small fluctuations in the stress field, but reversal of stresses occurs only when the direction of
wind reverses, which happens only over a large duration of time. On the other hand, the
motion of the ground during the earthquake is cyclic about the neutral position of the
structure. Thus, the stresses in the building due to seismic actions undergo many complete
reversals and that took over the small duration of earthquake.

Fig.1. 1 Difference in the design effect on a building during natural actions of earthquake
ground movement at base and Wind pressure on exposed area
Fig.1. 2 Nature of temporal variations of design actions: earthquake ground motion-zero

mean, cystic and wind pressure-non zero mean, oscillatory
1.4 Basic aspects of seismic design
The mass of the building being designed controls seismic design in addition to the
building stiffness, because earthquake induces inertia forces that are proportional to the
building mass. Designing buildings to behave elastically during earthquakes without damage
may render the project economically unviable. As a consequence, it may be necessary for the
structure to undergo damage and thereby dissipate the energy input to it during the
earthquake. Therefore, the traditional earthquake-resistant design philosophy requires that
normal buildings should be able to resist

a. Minor (and frequent) shaking with no damage to structural and non-structural

elements,
b. Moderate shaking with minor damage to structural elements, and some damage to
non-structural elements; and
c. Severe (and infrequent) shaking with damage to structural elements, but with NO
collapse (to save life and property inside/adjoining the building).
Therefore, buildings are designed only for a fraction (~ 8 – 14%) of the force that
they would experience, if they were designed to remain elastic during the expected strong
ground shaking and thereby permitting damage. But, sufficient initial stiffness is required
to be ensured to avoid structural damage under minor shaking. Thus, seismic design balances
reduced cost and acceptable damage, to make the project viable. This careful balance is
arrived based on extensive research and detailed post-earthquake damage assessment studies.
A wealth of this information is translated into precise seismic design provisions. In contrast,
structural damage is not acceptable under design wind forces. For this reason, design against
earthquake effects is called as earthquake-resistant design and not earthquake-proof design.
1.5 The four virtues of earthquake resistant buildings
For a building to perform satisfactory during earthquakes, it must meet the philosophy
of earthquake-resistant design.
Fig.1. 3 Earthquake-Resistant Design Philosophy for buildings

Fig.1. 4 Basic strategy of earthquake design: Calculate maximum elastic forces and reduce
by a factor to obtain design forces
Fig.1. 5 Earthquake-Resistant and NOT earthquake proof: Damage is expected during an

earthquake in normal constructions under damaged building and damaged building.
The design for only a fraction of the elastic level of seismic forces is possible, only if
the building can stably withstand large displacement demand through structural damage
without collapse and undue loss of strength. This property is called ductility. It is relatively
simple to design structures to possess certain lateral strength and initial stiffness by
appropriately proportioning the size and material of the members. But, achieving sufficient

ductility is more involved and requires extensive laboratory tests on full-scale specimen to
identify preferable methods of detailing.
1.6 Earthquake-resistant structures

Earthquake-resistant structures are structures designed to protect buildings
from earthquakes. While no structure can be entirely immune to damage from earthquakes,
the goal of earthquake-resistant construction is to erect structures that fare better during
seismic activity than their conventional counterparts. According to building codes,
earthquake-resistant structures are intended to withstand the largest earthquake of a certain
probability that is likely to occur at their location. This means the loss of life should be
minimized by preventing collapse of the buildings for rare earthquakes while the loss of the
functionality should be limited for more frequent ones.
To combat earthquake destruction, the only method available to ancient architects was
to build their landmark structures to last, often by making them excessively stiff and strong.
Currently, there are several design philosophies in earthquake engineering, making use of
experimental results, computer simulations and observations from past earthquakes to offer
the required performance for the seismic threat at the site of interest. These range from
appropriately sizing the structure to be strong and ductile enough to survive the shaking with
an acceptable damage, to equipping it with base isolation or using structural vibration
control technologies to minimize any forces and deformations. While the former is the
method typically applied in most earthquake-resistant structures, important facilities,
landmarks and cultural heritage buildings use the more advanced (and expensive) techniques
of isolation or control to survive strong shaking with minimal damage. Examples of such
applications are the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels and the Acropolis Museum.
1.7 Bracing system
A braced frame is a structural system commonly used in structures subject to lateral

loads such as wind and seismic pressure. The members in a braced frame are generally made
of structural steel, which can work effectively both in tension and compression.
The beams and columns that form the frame carry vertical loads, and the bracing
system carries the lateral loads. The positioning of braces, however, can be problematic as

they can interfere with the design of the façade and the position of
openings. Buildings adopting high-tech or post-modernist styles have responded to this by
expressing bracing as an internal or external design feature.
The resistance to horizontal forces is provided by two bracing systems:
1.7.1 Vertical bracing
Bracing between column lines (in vertical planes) provides load paths for the
transference of horizontal forces to ground level. Framed buildings require at least three
planes of vertical bracing to brace both directions in plan and to resist torsion about a vertical
axis.
1.7.2 Horizontal bracing
The bracing at each floor (in horizontal planes) provides load paths for the
transference of horizontal forces to the planes of vertical bracing. Horizontal bracing is
needed at each floor level, however, the floor system itself may provide sufficient
resistance. Roofs may require bracing.
1.7.3 Types of bracings
A. Single diagonals
Trussing, or triangulation, is formed by inserting diagonal structural members into

rectangular areas of a structural frame, helping to stabilize the frame. If a single brace is used,
it must be sufficiently resistant to tension and compression.

Fig.1. 6 Single diagonal Bracing
B. Cross-bracing
Cross-bracing (or X-bracing) uses two diagonal members crossing each other. These only
need to be resistant to tension, one brace at a time acting to resist sideways forces, depending
on the direction of loading. As a result, steel cables can also be used for cross-bracing.
However, cross bracing on the outside face of a building can interfere with the positioning
and functioning of window openings. It also results in greater bending in floor beams.
Fig.1. 7 Cross bracing system

C. K BRACING
K-braces connect to the columns at mid-height. This frame has more flexibility for the
provision of openings in the facade and results in the least bending in floor beams. K-bracing
is generally discouraged in seismic regions because of the potential for column failure if
the compression brace buckles.
Fig.1. 8 K Bracing system
D. V BRACING SYSTEM
Two diagonal members forming a V-shape extend downwards from the top two corners of a
horizontal member and meet at a centre point on the lower horizontal member (left-hand
diagram). Inverted V-bracing (right-hand diagram, also known as chevron bracing) involves
the two members meeting at a centre point on the upper horizontal member.
Both systems can significantly reduce the buckling capacity of the compression brace so that
it is less than the tension yield capacity of the tension brace. This can mean that when the
braces reach their resistance capacity, the load must instead be resisted in the bending of the
horizontal member.
Centric bracing is commonly used in seismic regions. It is similar to V-bracing but bracing
members do not meet at a centre point. This means there is a space between them at the top
connection (see photo above, Sales force Tower, London). Bracing members connect to
separate points on the horizontal beams. This is so the 'link' between the bracing members

absorbs energy from seismic activity through plastic deformation. Eccentric single diagonals
can also be used to brace a frame.
Fig.1. 9 V Bracing system
1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The following are the main objectives of the project
1. To study the seismic behavior of building by using IS 1893:2002.

2. To design the earth quake resistant structure by using steel bracings in zone V.
3. To study the multi story building of G+8 by using ETABS Software.
4. To compare the results of story drift, shear force, bending moment, building torsion of
buildings for earth quake resistant buildings.
5. To study the multi story buildings in ETABS.
1.9 SUMMARY
An earthquake is a natural phenomenon and it is generated in the earth’s crust.

Duration of earthquake is normally short. Structures situated in seismic risk areas may be
subjected to severe damage in a major earthquake. During earthquake motions, deformations
take place across the elements of the load-bearing system .Due to these deformations internal
forces develop across the elements of the load-bearing system and cause displacement of the
building. Displacement demand varies depending on the stiffness and mass of the building.

Buildings with higher stiffness and lower mass have less horizontal displacements demands.
The primary objective of all kinds of structural systems used in the building is to transfer
gravity loads effectively. Dead load, live load and snow loads are the common loads
produced by the effect of gravity. Besides the vertical loads, buildings subjected to horizontal
loads caused by wind, blasting or earthquake. Lateral loads can develop high stresses cause
vibration. Therefore, it is very important for the structure to have sufficient strength and
stiffness to resist lateral loads. Bracing System is one of the retrofitting techniques and it
increase strength and stiffness of existing building against lateral force. Bracing is an
effective strategy to enhance the global stiffness and strength of steel frames. It can increase
the energy absorption of structures or decrease the demand like displacement, drift imposed
by earthquake loads.

CHPTER-II
LITERATURE REVIEWS
2.1 Nitin Bhojkar, Mahesh Bagade, et al.,(2015)
In this paper, the seismic analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with different types
of bracing is studied. A G+9 building is analyzed for seismic zone III as per IS 1893: 2002
using STAAD Pro software. The main parameters consider in this paper to compare the
seismic analysis of buildings are lateral displacement, story drift, axial force, base shear. It is
found that the X type of steel bracing significantly contributes to the structural stiffness and
reduces the maximum inter storey drift of the frames. The bracing system improves not only
the lateral stiffness and strength capacity but also the displacement capacity of the structure.
From this paper it was concluded that Steel bracings used as alternative techniques. The
lateral displacement of the building is reduced up to 65% by using X type of bracing system.
Stiffness of the building is increases. Story drifts are reduces using X type of bracing
systems. The axial force is maximum for X bracing system is up to 22%.
2.2 Sarang H. Kshirsagar, Abhijeet A. Galatage, et al.,(2020)

In this Study the seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings with different type of
bracing (Diagonal, V type, inverted V type, K type, X bracing) is studied. The bracing is
provided for outer peripheral columns. A thirteen storey (G+12) building is situated at
seismic zone IV. The building models are analyzed by response spectrum method and time
history method using ETABS software. The main parameters consider in this paper to
compare the seismic analysis of buildings are lateral displacement, storey drift, storey shear,
base shear. It is found that the X types of steel bracing significantly contributes to the
stiffness and reduce the maximum storey displacement of RC building.
From this study it was concluded that the lateral displacement of building is reduce by the use
of diagonal, V type, inverted V type, combined V type, K type, X type of bracing system
respectively and X type of bracing reduced maximum displacement. The lateral displacement
obtained from THM is 33% less than that compared to RSM for bare frame structure.

The storey drift of X type braced building is 23.557% less in X-direction and 24.315% less in
Y-direction than that compared to the bare frame building. The storey drift is within
permissible limit specified as per IS: 1893-2002 (Part I).
2.3 Dasare Shivani Balaji, Prof. Mrs. Kariappa M.S., et al.,(2022)
In this research, to satisfy the need for more residential and commercial land, we can go for
vertical construction, which involves constructing a multistory structure. Knowing how to
endure gravity loads is the fundamental function of a reinforced concrete structure. But lateral
loads from earthquakes and winds can be more damaging to multistory buildings. Multi-story
structures are susceptible to excessive deformation; thus, some measures must be taken to
reduce this risk. As part of our earthquake resistant structural design, we provide bracing
systems. The primary goal of this study is to use an equivalent static approach to analyze
seismic and wind loads. This study carefully compares the X and V bracing systems, which
are thought to be among the most effective during earthquakes. In this investigation, RC
constructions with six, eight, and ten story were utilized.
From this research it was concluded that, The X and V bracing system reduces the building's
lateral movement. By utilizing X and V bracing, the building's stiffness is increased X braces
are more effective than V braces at reducing lateral displacement and story drift. Increase in
the lateral load capacity of a structure are more effectively achieved with X bracing. The
effect of seismic forces is altered by the modification in the bracing section.
2.4 Yachana Wakchaure, Prof. Roshni John, et al.,(2023)
In this study, we analyzed the seismic performance of a Reinforced Concrete building having
re-entrant corner irregularity with steel bracings and shear wall in ETABS Software. The
study shows that though X bracing and Inverted V Bracing shows similar results it is
recommended to provide X bracing than shear wall and other bracings.
From this study it was concluded that, X bracing system shows better performance compared
to V bracing and Inverted V bracing system i.e., Chevron bracing system in both X and Y
direction in terms of story displacement. All the models are within the specified drift limits.
The maximum increment in base shear is due to the application of shear wall in both X and Y

direction for L shaped building. On the other hand, base shear increment is maximum for X
bracing system for T and Plus shaped building.
2.5 Ganesh shitole, udaypatil, shubhamkadam,et al.,(2023)

In this paper the building also affected due to design deficiency, construction deficiency,
additional lads etc. the point has become the subject of research for many civil engineers.
Retrofitting of existing building plays a vital role in reducing energy consumption and
emission of green house gases. Existing reinforced concrete structures, which are constructed
in last twenty years, are not enough resistant t the seismic activities. Retrofitting using steel
bracing among all techniques proves to be effective solution for enhancing seismic safety.
The response of structure is evaluated using response spectrum method.
From this paper it was concluded that, the lateral displacement of building is reduced by the
use of X type bracing system. But the variation in lateral displacement is not so far.
Maximum storey drift is observed in building frame without steel bracing. And minimum
storey drift is observed in third type bracing system i.e. bracing at both exterior panel. The
difference of storey drift is 2.48%.Storey stiffness has increased from type 1 to type 3. It is
observed that storey stiffness has been increased from un braced building to frame with
bracing at two exterior panel. And the percentage of increment is 1.69%.
2.6 Mir TabishAltaf, ArfatRafiq, MubbasherAbbass, et al.,(2023)
In this research examines the seismic analysis of a 15-storey reinforced concrete structure
using various bracing techniques. Using SAP 2000 software, a G+14 building is assessed for
seismic zone V in accordance with IS 1893: 2016. To assess the impact of the bracings in
various stories, a non-linear time history analysis was performed. Lateral displacement, story
drift, base shear, and time period are the primary factors taken into account in this seismic
study of buildings.
From this research it was concluded that, X type of bracing is found to be more effective than
diagonal bracings. The reduction in the displacement along X direction is about 23.67% by
use of steel angle section. Comparative to unbraced building, there is 65.42% reduction in
maximum storey drift in x-direction using X-Bracing with steel angle section. The base shear
of X-braced buildings with steel angle section increased most as compared to building with

diagonal bracing and without bracing which indicates that the stiffness of building increases.
The performance of steel angle section braced frame is better than steel I section frame and
steel tube section frame.
2.7 S. I. Khan, Prof. P.O. Modani et al.,(2013)
In this study, the Buildings, which appeared to be strong enough, may crumble like houses of
cards during earthquake and deficiencies may be exposed. Experience gain from the recent
earthquake of Bhuj, 2001 demonstrates that the most of buildings collapsed were found
deficient to meet out the requirements of the present day codes. In last decade, four
devastating earthquakes of world have been occurred in India, and low to mild intensities
earthquakes are shaking our land frequently.
From this study it was concluded that the joints of the structure have displayed rapid
degradation and the inter storey deflections have increased rapidly in non- linear zone in
structure without bracings. Severe damages have occurred at joints at lower floors whereas
moderate damages have been observed in the first and second floors. Minor damage has been
observed at roof level. The behavior of properly detailed reinforced concrete frame building
is adequate as indicated by the intersection of the demand and capacity curves and the
distribution of hinges in the beams and the columns. Most of the hinges developed in the
beams and few in the columns. The results obtained in terms of demand, capacity and plastic
hinges gave an insight into the real behavior of structures.
2.8 Ashish R.Kondekar, DhartiB. Dolare, et al.,(2022)
In this paper, most of the reinforced concrete buildings failed due to earthquake strikes in that
region. So, it is important to choose an effective lateral load resisting system. In the RCC
frame, greater importance is given to making the structure safe against lateral load. To resist
lateral load acting on the building different types of steel and RCC bracing systems are
provided. Bracing systems have a significant effect on the performance of the structure. The
use of RCC bracing has a potential advantage over other bracing like steel bracing is
economical, easy to erect, occupies less space, and has the flexibility to design for meeting
the required strength, stiffness, and stability.

From this paper it was concluded that after using X-bracing proved to be a safe method for
building against collapse. Story shear is reduced after the LRB & X-bracing are provided as a
base isolation system. Base shear is also reduced after providing LRB & X-bracing which
makes the structure stable during an earthquake. Point displacements are increased in every
story after providing LRB & X-bracing. Finally, it is concluded that after LRB & X-bracing
is provided as a base isolation system it increases the structural stability against earthquake
and reduces reinforcement.
2.9 Aakash Pravin Patil, Prof.RamchandraApte, et al.,(2022).,
In this study an attempt is made to evaluate the seismic performance of an RCC building by
using X, V, K and Inverted V type of bracing systems and best suitable bracing system is
suggested by comparing various parameters like story drift, lateral displacement, time period,
overturning moment and base shear of the building. From this study, it was concluded that
there is no significant increase in base shear due to the addition of bracing system in the
building. There is significant reduction in maximum story drift of the building with the use of
bracing system, which is maximum for X bracing with around 38% reduction and minimum
for K bracing with around 20% reduction. Time period of the building is also considerably
reduced with the use of bracing system, around 24% reduction was there with the use of X
bracing and around 17% reduction was there with use of K bracing. Reduction in lateral
displacement is also similar. There is no significant change in overturning moment of the
building due to addition of bracing system. So we can conclude that use of bracing system in
RCC building improves the seismic performance of the building significantly. Also we can
conclude that X bracing performs better as compared to other bracing systems.
2.10 Karthik .K.M, Vidyashree, et al.,(2015)

In this paper, G+5 storey building model has been analyzed considering different types of
vertical geometric irregularities and steel bracings using pushover analysis with the help of
ETABS 9.7 software. Addition of X type brace, V type Brace and Inverted V/K type brace
shows that use of X-type of bracing is found more suitable to enhance the performance of the
irregular buildings.
From this paper it was concluded that, introduction of irregularities affects the performance
of the building. Lateral displacement and Storey drift increases as the amount of irregularity

present in the building increases. Base shear of irregular configured buildings will be less
compared with the regular building. Performance point of regular frame is found more than
the irregular frame. Addition of bracings to the bare frames shows reduction in lateral
displacement and storey drift. Base shear of the bare frame is also increased in the presence
of steel bracings.

CHAPTER-III
METHODOLOGY USED
3.1 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
The representation of maximum response of idealized single degree freedom system having
certain period and damping, during earthquake ground motions. This analysis is carried out
according to the code IS 1893-2002 (part1). Here type of soil, seismic zone factor should be
entered from IS 1893-2002(part1). The standard response spectra for type of soil considered
is applied to building for the analysis in ETABS 2013 software. Following diagram shows the
standard response spectrum for medium soil type and that can be given in the form of time
period versus spectral acceleration coefficient (Sa/g).
Fig.3. 1 Response spectrum for medium soil type for 5% damping
This approach permits the multiple modes of response of a building to be taken in to account
(in the frequency domain). This is required in many building codes for all except very simple
or very complex structures. The response of a structure can be defined as a combination of
many special shapes (modes) that in a vibrating string correspond to the “harmonic”

computer analysis can be used to determine these modes for a structure. For each mode, a
response is read from the design spectrum, based on the modal frequency and the modal
mass, and they are then combined to provide an estimate of the total response of the structure.
In this we have to calculate the magnitude of forces in all directions i.e. X, Y & Z and then
see the effects on the building. Combination methods include the following:
 absolute - peak values are added together

 square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS)
 complete quadratic combination (CQC) - a method that is an improvement on SRSS for
closely spaced modes
The result of a response spectrum analysis using the response spectrum from a ground motion
is typically different from that which would be calculated directly from a linear dynamic
analysis using that ground motion directly, since phase information is lost in the process of
generating the response spectrum.
In cases where structures are either too irregular, too tall or of significance to a community in
disaster response, the response spectrum approach is no longer appropriate, and more
complex analysis is often required, such as non-linear static analysis or dynamic analysis.
3.2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOADS ACTING ON THE STRUCTURE

The types of loads acting on structures for buildings and other structures can be broadly
classified as vertical loads, horizontal loads and longitudinal loads. The vertical loads consist
of dead loads, live load and impact load. The horizontal loads comprises of wind load and
earthquake load. The longitudinal loads i.e. Tractive and braking forces are considered in
special case of design of bridges, gantry girders etc.

Fig.3. 2 Types of loads acting on the structure
In a construction of building two major factors considered are safety and economy. If the
loads are adjusted and taken higher then economy is affected. If economy is considered and
loads are taken lesser then the safety is compromised.
So the estimation of various loads acting is calculated precisely. Indian Standard code IS:
875-1987 and American Standard Code ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures specifies various design loads for buildings and structures.
Types of loads acting on the structure are:
 Dead loads
 Imposed loads
 Wind loads
 Snow loads
 Earthquake loads
 Special loads
A. Dead loads (DL)
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 primarily due to
self weight of structural members, permanent partition walls, fixed permanent equipments
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. Unit weights of some of the common materials are
presented in table below.
Table 3.1 Units weight of common materials
Sl.NO Material Weight (Kn/m3)

1 Brick masonry 18.8
2 Stone masonry 20.4 - 26.5
3 Plain concrete 24
4 Reinforced cement concrete 24
5 Timber 5-8
B. 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.
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 load keeps 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.
The code gives the values of live loads for the following occupancy classification:
 Residential buildings – dwelling houses, hotels, hostels, boiler rooms and plant
rooms, garages
 Educational buildings
 Assembly buildings
 Business and office buildings
 Mercantile buildings
 Industrial buildings and
 Storage rooms.

The code gives uniformly distributed load as well as concentrated loads. The floor slabs have
to be designed to carry either uniformly distributed loads or concentrated loads whichever
produce greater stresses in the part under consideration. Since it is unlikely that any one
particular time all floors will not be simultaneously carrying maximum loading, the code
permits some reduction in imposed loads in designing columns, load bearing walls, piers
supports and foundations.
Some of the important values are presented in table below which are the minimum values and
wherever necessary more than these values are to be assumed.
Table 3. 2 Some important loads for different areas
Sl. No Occupancy UDL load Concentrated

(kN/m2 (kN/m2)
1 Bath rooms and toilets in all types of building 2 1.8
2 Living and bed rooms 2 1.8
3 Office rooms in
i. Hostels, hotels, hospitals and business 2.5 2.7
building with separate store
ii. In assembly buildings 3 4.5
4 Kitchens in (i) Dwelling houses 2 1.8
(ii) hostels, hotels and hospitals 3 4.5
5 Banking halls, class rooms, x-ray rooms, 3 4.5
operation rooms
6 Dining rooms in (i) educational buildings, 3 2.7
institutional buildings and mercantile buildings
(ii) hostels and hotels 4 2.7
7 Corridors, passages, stair cases in
(i) Dwelling houses, hostels and hotels 3 4.5
(ii) educational institutional and assembly 4 4.5
buildings
(iii) mercantile buildings 5 4.5
8 Reading rooms in libraries
i. With separate storage 3 4.5
ii. Without separate storage 4 4.5
9 Assembly areas in assembly buildings
i. With fixed seats 5 ..
ii. Without fixed seats 5 3.6
10 Store rooms in educational buildings 5 4.5
11 Store room in libraries 6 for a height of 4.5
2.24 + 2 for
every 1 m
additional
height

However in multistoried buildings chances of full imposed loads acting simultaneously on all
floors is very rare. Hence the code makes provision for reduction of loads in designing
columns, load bearing walls, their supports and foundations as shown in table below.
Table 3.3 Imposed loads on different storey
No. of floors (including the roof) to be Reduction in total distributes imposed

carried by member under consideration loads in %
1 0
2 10
3 20
4 30
5 – 10 40
Over 10 50
C. Wind loads
Wind load is primarily horizontal load caused by the movement of air relative to earth. Wind
load is required to be considered in structural design especially when the heath of the
building exceeds two times the dimensions transverse to the exposed wind surface.
For low rise building say up to four to five stories, the wind load is not critical because the
moment of resistance provided by the continuity of floor system to column connection and
walls provided between columns are sufficient to accommodate the effect of these forces.
Further in limit state method the factor for design load is reduced to 1.2 (DL+LL+WL) when
wind is considered as against the factor of 1.5(DL+LL) when wind is not considered.
The horizontal forces exerted by the components of winds are to be kept in mind while
designing is the building. The calculation of wind loads depends on the two factors, namely
velocity of wind and size of the building. Complete details of calculating wind load on
structures are given below (by the IS-875 (Part 3) -1987).

Using colour code, basic wind pressure ‘Vb’ is shown in a map of India. Designer can pick up
the value of Vb depending upon the locality of the building.
To get the design wind velocity Vz the following expression shall be used:
Vz = k1.k2.k3.Vb
Where k1 = risk coefficient
k2 = coefficient based on terrain, height and structure size.
k3 = topography factor
The design wind pressure is given by
pz = 0.6 V2z
Where pz is in N/m2 at height Z and Vz is in m/sec. up to a height of 30m, the wind pressure is
considered to act uniformly. Above 30 m height, the wind pressure increases.
D. Snow loads
Snow loads constitute to the vertical loads in the building. But these types of loads are
considered only in the snow fall places. The IS 875 (part 4) – 1987 deals with snow loads on
roofs of building.
The minimum snow load on a roof area or any other area above ground which is subjected to
snow accumulation obtained by the expression
S = 𝜇So
Where S = design snow load on plan area of roof
𝜇 =shape coefficient and
So = ground snow load
E. Earthquake loads (EL)
Earthquake forces constitute to both vertical and horizontal forces on the building. The total
vibration caused by earthquake may be resolved in to three mutually perpendicular directions,
usually taken as vertical and two horizontal directions.

The movements in vertical direction do 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.
Fig.3. 3 Loads on structure
Horizontal earthquake forces (back-and-forth shaking) create ‘whipping’ forces in all parties
of a building. These forces must transfer between parts of the building to the foundation.
The response of the structure to the ground vibration is a function of the nature of foundation
soil, size and mode of construction and the duration and intensity of ground motion. IS 1893
– 2014 gives the details of such calculations for structures standing soils which will not settle
or side appreciably due to earthquake.
The seismic accelerations for the design may be arrived at from seismic coefficient, which is
defined as the ratio of acceleration due to earthquake and acceleration due to gravity. For
monolithic reinforced concrete structures located in the seismic zone 2, and 3 without more
than 5 stories high and importance factor less than 1, the seismic forces are not critical.
Other loads and effects acting on structures
As per the clause 19.6 of IS 456 – 2000, in addition to above load discussed, account shall be
taken of the following forces and effects if they are liable to affect the safety and
serviceability of the structure.
a) Foundation movement (see IS 1904)

b) Elastic axial shortening

c) Soil and fluid pressure (see IS 875, part 5)
d) Vibration
e) Fatigue
f) Impact (see IS 875, part5)
g) Erection loads (see IS 875, part 2) and
h) Stress concentration effect due to point load and the like.

CHAPTER –IV
MODELING OF BUILDING IN ETABS SOFTWARE
4.1 Problem statement
In the present study, analysis of G+8 stories building in Zone V seismic zone is carried out in
ETABS.
Basic parameters considered for the analysis are
1. Grade of concrete : M30

2. Grade of Reinforcing steel : HYSD Fe500
3. Dimensions of beam : 230mmX500mm
4. Dimensions of column : 500mmX500mm
5. Thickness of slab : 150mm
6. Bracings size : ISA 110X110X10
7. Height of bottom story : 3.3m
8. Height of Remaining story : 3m
9. Live load : 3 KN/m2
10. Dead load : 2 KN/m2
11. Density of concrete : 25 KN/m3
12. Seismic Zone : Zone 5
13. Site type : II
14. Importance factor :1
15. Response reduction factor :5
16. Damping Ratio : 5%
17. Structure class :C
18. Basic wind speed : 44m/s
19. Risk coefficient (K1) : 1.08
20. Terrain size coefficient (K2) : 1.14
21. Topography factor (K3) : 1.36
22. Wind design code : IS 875: 1987 (Part 3)
23. RCC design code : IS 456:2000

24. Steel design code : IS 800: 2007

25. Earth quake design code : IS 1893 : 2002 (Part 1)
4.2 Modeling steps in ETABS
1) Open ETABS program.

2) Check the units of the model in the drop-down box in the lower right-hand corner of the
ETABS Window , click the drop-down box to set units to KN-m.
3) Click the File menu > New model command

4) The next form of Building Plan Grid System and Story Data Definition will be displayed
after you select Ok button.
Set the grid line and spacing between two grid lines. Set the story height data using
Edit Story Data command

5) Define the design code using Options > Preferences > Concrete Frame Design command
This will Display the Concrete Frame Design Preference form as shown in the figure.

6) Click the Define menu > Material Properties
Add New Material or Modify/Show Material used to define material properties

7) Define section columns and beams using Define > Frame section

8) Define wall/slab
To define a slab as membrane element and one way slab define using special one way
load distribution
To define the size of the bracings

9) Generate the model Draw beam using Create Line Command and draw column using
Create Column command
10) Slab is created using 3 options in which 1st draw any shape area, 2nd draw rectangular
area and 3rd create area in between grid line

11) Above creating option used to generate the model as shown in below figure
12) Define various loads (Dead load, live load, wind load, Earthquake load)

13) Dead Load: self weight multiplier is used 1 to calculate dead load as default. Live load or
any other define load 1st select the member where assign this load than click the assign
button.
14) Assign point load and uniform distributed load Select assigning point or member element
than click the assign button.

15) Assign support condition Drop-down box in the lower right-hand corner of the ETABS
window, Select only bottom single storey level to assign fixed support using assign >
Joint/Point>Restrain (Support) command.
16) In building, slab is considered as a single rigid member during earthquake analysis. For
that, all slabs are selected first and apply diaphragm action for rigid or semi rigid
condition.

17) Mass source is defined from Define > mass source command
18) Run analysis from Analysis > Run Analysis command

4.3 Models in ETABS
Building without bracings
Fig 4. 1 General building without bracings
Building with bracings in alternative position in case 1
Fig 4. 2 Building with X type bracings

Building with bracings in alternative position in case 2
Fig 4. 3 Building with X type bracings in elevation position
Building with bracings by story wise case 1
Fig 4. 4 Story wise bracing systems

Building with bracings by story wise case 2
Fig 4. 5 Story wise bracing system in elevation

CHAPTER-V
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
5.1 RSA X Results
5.1.1 Storey Drift
Tables 5. 1 Comparison of storey drift values in RSA X
Without V type Inverted V X Type

Story Output Case
bracings bracings bracings bracings
8 RSA X 0.000164 0.000285 0.000206 0.000194
7 RSA X 0.00028 0.00035 0.000308 0.000292
6 RSA X 0.00039 0.000402 0.0004 0.00038
5 RSA X 0.000486 0.000444 0.000478 0.000453
4 RSA X 0.000568 0.000472 0.00054 0.000512
3 RSA X 0.000636 0.000482 0.000586 0.000554
2 RSA X 0.000684 0.000468 0.000613 0.000577
1 RSA X 0.000693 0.000429 0.000617 0.00057
G RSA X 0.000484 0.000288 0.000461 0.000392
Comparison of storey drift due to RSAX
0.0008
0.0007 Without
Drift values in mm
0.0006 bracings
0.0005 V type
0.0004 bracings
0.0003 Inverted V
0.0002 bracings
0.0001 X Type
0 bracings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Storey number
Graph 5. 1 Comparison of storey drift due to RSAX

5.1.2 Base shear
Tables 5. 2 Comparison of base shear values in RSA X
Output Without Inverted V X Type

S. No V type bracings
Case bracings bracings bracings
1 RSA X 2025.1255 2857.2901 2456.8022 2556.0044
Comparison of base shear due to RSAX

3500
3000
Base shear in kN
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Without V type bracings Inverted V X Type bracings
bracings bracings
Building type
Graph 5. 2 Comparison of base shear due to RSAX
5.1.3 Storey stiffness

Tables 5. 3 Comparison of storey stiffness values in RSA X
Output Inverted V
Story Without bracings V type bracings X Type bracings
Case bracings
8 RSA X 737059.451 656149.77 846802.044 805758.729
7 RSA X 853600.012 1069911.965 1071978.84 1082693.175
6 RSA X 871229.304 1327433.013 1152105.764 1202673.696
5 RSA X 878918.293 1504668.713 1199401.37 1276437.595
4 RSA X 884301.616 1655200.906 1235930.596 1333979.557
3 RSA X 890780.541 1815569.945 1271227.051 1389811.788
2 RSA X 902833.937 2024278.144 1312499.9 1455603.762
1 RSA X 947513.021 2344773.259 1377924.553 1564127.79
G RSA X 1271966.875 3442241.72 1716702.044 2318390.052

Comparison of storey stiffness for RSAX

4000000
STOREY STIFFNESS kN/m 3500000
3000000 Without
2500000 bracings
2000000 V type
1500000 bracings
1000000 Inverted
500000 V bracings
0 X Type
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 G bracings
STOREY NUMBER
Graph 5. 3 Comparison of storey stiffness for RSAX
5.1.4 Storey acceleration
Tables 5. 4 Comparisons of storey accelerations in RSA X
Output V type X Type

Story Without bracings Inverted V bracings
Case bracings bracings
8 RSA X 881.98 1340.13 1093.61 1168.71
7 RSA X 780.67 1162.3 987.36 1048.32
6 RSA X 716.6 1021.97 900.98 950.81
5 RSA X 664.58 918.78 827.56 868.11
4 RSA X 626.03 829.22 760.82 792.84
3 RSA X 591.3 743.23 696.01 717.86
2 RSA X 532.46 644.66 612.63 626.21
1 RSA X 462.92 516.02 512.2 510.04
G RSA X 269.08 280.55 297.43 266.29

Comparison of storey accelaration for RSAX

1400
Acceleration in mm/sec²
1200
1000
Without bracings
800
V type bracings
600 Inverted V bracings
400 X Type bracings
200
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 G
Storey number
Graph 5. 4 Comparison of storey acceleration for RSAX
5.1.5 Storey shear force

Tables 5. 5 Comparison of storey shear forces in RSA X
Output Without V type Inverted V

Story X Type bracings
8 RSA X 361.3532 535.3015 425.9753 454.4372
7 RSA X 715.759 1068.1344 855.8064 910.5709
6 RSA X 1019.1739 1516.0392 1230.4809 1305.879
5 RSA X 1281.8638 1893.7908 1556.4881 1647.6385
4 RSA X 1506.885 2209.0466 1835.7439 1938.1926
3 RSA X 1698.4945 2465.33 2069.9686 2179.0676
2 RSA X 1853.6127 2661.7711 2256.047 2366.9574
1 RSA X 1966.6342 2795.5971 2388.7074 2496.6944
G RSA X 2025.1255 2857.2901 2456.8022 2556.0044

Comparison of shear for RSAX

3500
3000
SHEAR VALUES kN
2500
2000 Without bracings
1500 V type bracings
500 X Type bracings
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 G
STOREY NUMBER
Graph 5. 5 Comparison of shear for RSAX
5.1.6 Storey bending moment

Tables 5. 6 Comparison of storey bending moment in RSA X

8 RSA X 0 0 0 0
7 RSA X 1084.0596 1605.9045 1277.9259 1363.3116
6 RSA X 3224.0335 4804.1495 3839.849 4089.2308
5 RSA X 6248.7384 9323.437 7505.689 7980.1723
4 RSA X 10027.3577 14939.3713 12119.9029 12865.8332
3 RSA X 14444.6582 21457.9703 17538.5016 18588.7196
2 RSA X 19395.1856 28700.7383 23622.6526 24996.8569
1 RSA X 24775.2517 36495.0342 30232.2441 31936.5427
G RSA X 30470.9121 44668.7319 37217.7007 39245.27

Comparison of bending for RSAX
50000
45000
40000 Without
bracings
bending values kN-m
35000
30000 V type
25000 bracings
20000
Inverted V
15000 bracings
10000
5000 X Type
bracings
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
storey number
Graph 5. 6 Comparison of bending for RSAX
5.1.7 Storey torsion
Tables 5. 7 Comparison of storey torsion values in RSA X

8 RSA X 4336.2384 6787.7742 5357.4232 5730.7009
7 RSA X 8589.1083 13532.2063 10764.1266 11479.3639
6 RSA X 12230.0866 19188.7535 15474.8607 16456.816
5 RSA X 15382.3654 23964.6393 19577.6559 20764.887
4 RSA X 18082.62 27953.5171 23094.1957 24429.7584
3 RSA X 20381.934 31201.6235 26044.3473 27469.6423
2 RSA X 22243.3521 33701.6152 28389.1145 29843.9432
1 RSA X 23599.6105 35409.658 30060.2262 31483.8712
G RSA X 24301.5061 36197.0843 30916.6165 32232.3577

Comparison of torsion for RSAX

TORSION VALUES kN-m 40000
35000
30000
25000
Without bracings
20000
V type bracings
15000
Inverted V bracings
10000
5000 X Type bracings
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 G
STOREY NUMBER
Graph 5. 7 Comparison of torsion for RSAX
5.2 RSA Y Results
5.2.1 Storey drift
Tables 5. 8 Comparison of storey drift values in RSA Y
Story Output Case Without bracings V type bracings Inverted V bracings X Type bracings
8 RSAY 0.000169 0.000299 0.000179 0.000202
7 RSAY 0.000286 0.000348 0.000276 0.00029
6 RSAY 0.000396 0.000401 0.000368 0.000376
5 RSAY 0.000493 0.000442 0.000446 0.000446
4 RSAY 0.000574 0.00047 0.00051 0.000502
3 RSAY 0.000642 0.000479 0.000559 0.000542
2 RSAY 0.00069 0.000466 0.000591 0.000564
1 RSAY 0.000697 0.000533857 0.000599 0.000558
G RSAY 0.000484 0.000563571 0.000441 0.000377

Comparison of storey drift due to RSAY

0.0008
0.0007
Without
Drift values in mm
0.0006
bracings
0.0005
V type
0.0004 bracings
0.0003
Inverted V
0.0002 bracings
0.0001
X Type
0 bracings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Storey number
Graph 5. 8 Comparison of storey drift due to RSAY
5.2.2 Base shear
Tables 5. 9 Comparison of base shear values in RSA Y
Without Inverted V
S. No Output Case V type bracings X Type bracings
bracings bracings
1 RSA Y 2010.117 2778.4039 2389.7063 2485.6577
Comparison of base shear due to RSAY

3000
Base shear in kN
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Without bracings V type bracings Inverted V X Type bracings
bracings
Building type
Graph 5. 9 Comparison of base shear due to RSAY

5.2.3 Storey stiffness
Tables 5. 10 Comparison of storey stiffness in RSA Y
Output Without V type Inverted V X Type

Story
Case bracings bracings bracings bracings
8 RSA Y 712269.376 617630.536 796131.939 757329.408
7 RSA Y 832641.239 1001820.527 1016125.466 1022238.795
6 RSA Y 852834.03 1231910.364 1091600.062 1131654.498
5 RSA Y 861984.427 1391736.636 1135887.671 1199614.347
4 RSA Y 868445.963 1527269.563 1170113.356 1252562.628
3 RSA Y 875891.098 1671125.652 1203206.145 1303903.81
2 RSA Y 888931.986 1856779.58 1241521.217 1363482.545
1 RSA Y 934839.853 2133726.808 1304824.338 1465656.552
G RSA Y 1260922.334 3179211.757 1656751.114 2217600.974
Comparison of stiffness for RSAY

2500000
STOREY STIFFNESS kN/m
2000000
1500000 Without bracings
1000000 V type bracings

Inverted V bracings
500000
X Type bracings
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
STOREY NUMBER
Graph 5. 10 Comparison of stiffness for RSAY

5.2.4 Storey acceleration
Tables 5. 11 Comparison of storey accelerations in RSA Y

Story
8 RSAY 879.4 1237.03 1018.78 1084.31
7 RSAY 776.53 1073.4 914.61 968.57
6 RSAY 712.2 947.61 834.42 879
5 RSAY 660.46 857.69 766.54 802.77
4 RSAY 622.93 780.43 708.36 737.66
3 RSAY 589.34 705.46 652.81 672.53
2 RSAY 531.4 624.61 577.79 590.53
1 RSAY 462.55 520.62 490.79 491.14
G RSAY 268.63 298.12 284.65 256.03
Comparison of storey acceleration for RSAY

1400
1200
Acceleration in mm/sec²
1000
Without bracings
800
V type bracings

X Type bracings
400
200
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 G
Storey number
Graph 5. 11 Comparison of storey acceleration for RSAY

5.2.5 Storey shear force
Tables 5. 12 Comparison of storey shear force in RSA Y

Story
8 RSA Y 360.2681 522.0504 417.5358 444.6379
7 RSA Y 712.6265 1039.0114 836.5161 888.7476
6 RSA Y 1013.6087 1472.9586 1200.1908 1272.2857
5 RSA Y 1273.7872 1838.4894 1515.9276 1603.3258
4 RSA Y 1496.4739 2144.5181 1786.1158 1884.6301
3 RSA Y 1686.1745 2393.5545 2013.1055 2118.3169
2 RSA Y 1839.9005 2585.7237 2193.9302 2301.1408
1 RSA Y 1952.0637 2717.2097 2323.2785 2427.8111
G RSA Y 2010.117 2778.4039 2389.7063 2485.6577
Comparison of shear due to RSA Y

3000
2500
SHEAR VALUES KN-m
2000
Without bracings
1500
V type bracings
500 X Type bracings
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 G
STOREY NUMBER
Graph 5. 12 Comparison of shear due to RSA Y

5.2.6 Storey bending moment
Tables 5. 13 Comparison of storey bending values in RSA Y

Story Output Case
8 RSA Y 0 0 0 0
7 RSA Y 1080.8042 1566.1511 1252.6075 1333.9137
6 RSA Y 3211.281 4675.4333 3756.3272 3994.0024
5 RSA Y 6218.9152 9062.5314 7329.9699 7782.769
4 RSA Y 9972.5593 14508.886 11820.1461 12533.1187
3 RSA Y 14357.3777 20828.4962 17086.5148 18092.025
2 RSA Y 19269.0608 27850.5074 22995.3862 24313.342
1 RSA Y 24605.5819 35409.8307 29412.8505 31050.034
G RSA Y 30254.8803 43341.4673 36195.7002 38146.1539
Comparison of bending for RSA Y

50000
45000
40000
bending valueskN-m
35000
Without
30000 bracings
25000 V type
bracings
20000
Inverted V
15000 bracings
10000 X Type
5000 bracings
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 G
STOREY NUMBER
Graph 5. 13 Comparison of bending for RSA Y

5.2.7 Storey torsion
Tables 5. 14 Comparison of storey torsion values in RSA Y

Story Output Case
8 RSA Y 5043.7529 7308.7049 5845.5017 6224.9307
7 RSA Y 9976.7705 14546.159 11711.2254 12442.4666
6 RSA Y 14190.521 20621.4201 16802.6705 17811.9995
5 RSA Y 17833.0206 25738.8512 21222.9871 22446.561
4 RSA Y 20950.6352 30023.2538 25005.6209 26384.822
3 RSA Y 23606.4425 33509.7623 28183.4776 29656.4361
2 RSA Y 25758.6071 36200.132 30715.0228 32215.9706
1 RSA Y 27328.8924 38040.9362 32525.8986 33989.356
G RSA Y 28141.6374 38897.655 33455.888 34799.2078
Comparison of torsion for RSA Y

40000
35000
TORSION VALUES kN-m
30000
25000
Without bracings
20000
V type bracings
10000 X Type bracings
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
STOREY NUMBER
Graph 5. 14 Comparison of torsion for RSA Y

CHAPTER-VI
CONCLUSIONS
From this study the following conclusions were made
1. Bracing indicated that the structures with bracing have performance points at less
vulnerable damage states than structure without bracing.
2. The provision of bracing enhances the base shear carrying capacity of frames and reduces
roof displacement undergone by the structures.
3. The story drift X, drift Y (lateral displacement) has less values in building with
alternative bracings case 1 than General building, building with alternative bracings case
2, building with story wise bracings case 1, building with story wise bracings case 2. So
the effect of earth quack load is less for the building with alternative bracings case 1 than
cases.
4. The story shear in X, Y direction has less values in building with alternative bracings case
2 than General building, building with alternative bracings case 1, building with story
wise bracings case 1, building with story wise bracings case 2.
5. The value of time period has less value for building with alternative bracings case 2,
building with bracings in story wise case 1, building with bracings in story wise case 2
than building alternative bracings case 1, building without bracings.
6. The value of model stiffness has less value for building with alternative bracings case 2,
building with bracings in story wise case 1, building with bracings in story wise case 2
than building alternative bracings case 1, building without bracings.
7. The Building moment in X, Y direction and building torsion (T) has less values in
building without bracings case than building with alternative bracings case 1, building
with alternative bracings case 1, building with story wise bracings case 1, building with
story wise bracings case 2.
8. It is observed that the bracing reduces the storey displacement as well as storey drift
while it shows maximum storey shear.

REFERENCES
1. Nitin Bhojkar, Mahesh Bagade,et al.,(2015),“Seismic Evaluation of High-rise

Structure by Using Steel Bracing System” IJISET - International Journal of
Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 3, March 2015.
www.ijiset.com ISSN 2348 – 7968.
2. Sarang H. Kshirsagar, Abhijeet A. Galatage,et al.,(2020), “Seismic Evaluation of

RC Building with Different Arrangement of Steel Bracing”International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 07
Issue: 09 | Sep 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072.
3. DasareShivaniBalaji, Prof. Mrs. KariappaM.S.,et al.,(2022), “Analysis and

Comparative study of steel bracing in reinforced concrete building under seismic and
wind load” International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering
Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International
Journal ) Volume:04/Issue:07/July-2022 Impact Factor- 6.752 www.irjmets.com.
4. YachanaWakchaure, Prof. Roshni John, et al.,(2023), “Seismic Analysis of RCC

Irregular Buildings with Shear Wall and Steel Bracings”International Journal of
Research in Engineering and Science (IJRES)ISSN (Online): 2320-9364, ISSN
(Print): 2320-9356 www.ijres.org Volume 11 Issue 1 ǁ January 2023 ǁ PP. 495-503.
5. Ganesh shitole, udaypatil ,shubhamkadam,Dheerajkumarpatil, Girish mali ,et

al.,(2023), “seismic evaluation and Retrofitting of exsting building Using steel
bracing”Vol-5 Issue-3 2019 IJARIIE-ISSN(O)-2395-4396.
6. Mir TabishAltaf, ArfatRafiq, MubbasherAbbass, Dr. Mohammad Umair,et

al.,(2023), “Effect of steel bracing on seismic performance of reinforced concrete
(RC) framed buildings”International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 10 Issue: 06 | Jun 2023
www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072.

7. S. I. Khan, Prof. P. O. Modani et al.,(2013), “Seismic Retrofitting of RC Building

by Using Different Bracing Systems”. International Journal of Engineering Research
& Technology (IJERT) Volume 2 Issue 7, July – 2013 | ISSN: 2278-0181.
8. Ashish R.Kondekar,DhartiB.Dolare, PragatiV.Balande, DivyaS.Shinde,

AnujaJ.Alkunte et al.,(2022) “Analysis & design of G+20 RCC building using X-
bracing system with base Isolator”International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT). Volume 10, Issue 5 May 2022 | ISSN: 2320-2882.
9. AakashPravinPatil, Prof.RamchandraApte et al(2022)., “Strengthening of RC

Frames Using X, V, K and Inverted V Type of Steel Bracings”. International Journal
of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT). Volume No:11,Issue No:06,June
2022 | www.ijstm.com | ISSN 2394-1537.
10. Karthik. K. M, Vidyashree, et al.,(2015)., “EFFECT OF STEEL BRACING ON

VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R.C.C BUILDING FRAMES UNDER SEISMIC
LOADS” International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN:
2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

Final Doc Batch 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Doc Batch 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A project Report

under the esteemed guidance of

Mrs. V.M.SRUTHI M.Tech

Department of Civil Engineering

Assistant Professor Assistant Professor

Internal Examiner External Examiner

We express our gratitude to Mr K Anand M.Tech Head of the department Civil

Earthquake-resistant structures are structures designed to protect buildings from earthquakes.

4.2 Modeling steps in ETABS ............................................................................................. 28

Fig.1.2 Nature of temporal variations of design actions: earthquake ground motion-zero

Graph 5. 1 Comparison of storey drift due to RSAX ............................................................ 42

Table 3. 1 Units weight of common materials ........................................................................ 21

1.2 Seismic analysis

Department of Civil Engineering Page 1

1.3 Dynamic actions on buildings-wind and earthquake

Department of Civil Engineering Page 2

Fig.1. 2 Nature of temporal variations of design actions: earthquake ground motion-zero

1.4 Basic aspects of seismic design

Department of Civil Engineering Page 3

a. Minor (and frequent) shaking with no damage to structural and non-structural

1.5 The four virtues of earthquake resistant buildings

Fig.1. 3 Earthquake-Resistant Design Philosophy for buildings

Department of Civil Engineering Page 4

Fig.1. 5 Earthquake-Resistant and NOT earthquake proof: Damage is expected during an

Department of Civil Engineering Page 5

1.6 Earthquake-resistant structures

1.7 Bracing system

A braced frame is a structural system commonly used in structures subject to lateral

Department of Civil Engineering Page 6

The resistance to horizontal forces is provided by two bracing systems:

1.7.1 Vertical bracing

1.7.2 Horizontal bracing

1.7.3 Types of bracings

Trussing, or triangulation, is formed by inserting diagonal structural members into

Department of Civil Engineering Page 7

Fig.1. 6 Single diagonal Bracing

Fig.1. 7 Cross bracing system

Department of Civil Engineering Page 8

Fig.1. 8 K Bracing system

Department of Civil Engineering Page 9

Fig.1. 9 V Bracing system

1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To study the seismic behavior of building by using IS 1893:2002.

An earthquake is a natural phenomenon and it is generated in the earth’s crust.

Department of Civil Engineering Page 10

Department of Civil Engineering Page 11

2.1 Nitin Bhojkar, Mahesh Bagade, et al.,(2015)

2.2 Sarang H. Kshirsagar, Abhijeet A. Galatage, et al.,(2020)

Department of Civil Engineering Page 12

2.3 Dasare Shivani Balaji, Prof. Mrs. Kariappa M.S., et al.,(2022)

2.4 Yachana Wakchaure, Prof. Roshni John, et al.,(2023)

Department of Civil Engineering Page 13

2.5 Ganesh shitole, udaypatil, shubhamkadam,et al.,(2023)

2.6 Mir TabishAltaf, ArfatRafiq, MubbasherAbbass, et al.,(2023)

Department of Civil Engineering Page 14

2.7 S. I. Khan, Prof. P.O. Modani et al.,(2013)

2.8 Ashish R.Kondekar, DhartiB. Dolare, et al.,(2022)

Department of Civil Engineering Page 15

2.9 Aakash Pravin Patil, Prof.RamchandraApte, et al.,(2022).,

2.10 Karthik .K.M, Vidyashree, et al.,(2015)

Department of Civil Engineering Page 16

Department of Civil Engineering Page 17

3.1 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

Fig.3. 1 Response spectrum for medium soil type for 5% damping