IRJET- Comparative Seismic Evaluation of Response of RC Building with Shear Wall Frame and Different Bracing Systems’

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 917
‘COMPARATIVE SEISMIC EVALUATION OF RESPONSE OF RC BUILDING
WITH SHEAR WALL FRAME AND DIFFERENT BRACING SYSTEMS’
Amru shamil 1, Prof. D.J. Dhyani 2
1PG student, Department of civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhal Patel of technology (SVIT), Vasad, Gujarat, India
2professor, Department of civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhal Patel of technology(SVIT), Vasad, Gujarat, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - In the presents study the seismic evaluation of
G+14 storey RC building using shear-wall and different kinds
of bracing systems are carried out. The proposed model
buildings are square shaped buildings. All structuralmembers
are designed in accordance with EURO CODE 8. The frame
type of proposed model building used is the specialRCmoment
resisting frame. In this study, response spectrum analysis
technique is used for dynamic analysis. The analysis and
design of the structure are carried out through the use of
ETABS v 2015 software program. In this study shear-wall and
different bracing systems are used to understand seismic
response of the proposed buildings. The storey drifts, base
shear, and maximum storey displacement results are
compared.
Key Words: Response spectrum, base shear, Seismic,
Story displacement and Story drift.
1. INTRODUCTION
The demands of high-rise buildingsare increasingfromtime
to time in metro cities due to the rapid growth of
populations, cost of land, and limitation of spaces. As the
height of the building increases, horizontal loads because of
earthquake and wind loadsbecomesthe governingloads.To
withstand the lateral loads due to seismic loads and wind
load to raises the stiffness’s of the structure or to increase
the capacity of the building to resist the lateral load. The
characteristics of the building at the time of earthquake
shake mostly based on the stiffness, strength, and
distribution of weight in both directions of the building. To
decrease the impact of seismic loads shear-walls and steel
braces are utilized as a part of the building. These can be
utilized for enhancing the seismic response of the structure.
The primary concern of structural design is the safety of the
structure during a major earthquake, it is essential to
guarantee adequate lateral stiffness to resist the seismic
load. The introduction of different steel braces and shear
wall on to reinforced concrete buildings to improve rigidity
have been discovered effective and efficient [1]. Most
commonly reinforced concrete shear wallsare utilizedinRC
buildings due to good performance to resist earthquake
loads, whereas different steel braces are frequently utilized
in steel buildings due to the fact that steel braces are very
effective and efficient techniques to withstand horizontal
loads in a frame building [6]. In the past two decade bracing
systems are utilized as retrofitting measures for tall
buildings, however, recently many researchers have
investigated that steel bracings are a viable alternative for
RC shear wall in new buildingswith the proper connections.
Patil, desai and khurd (2016) carried out “comparative
analysis and design of 15 story RC building with shear wall
and different typesof bracing”. The modeling and analysisof
the structure was done in ETABs software. Shear wall and
different steel bracing systems are good in reduction of roof
displacement and maximum story drift [2].
S.R. Thorat and P.J. Salunke(2014) discussed about “seismic
response of braced concrete frames compared with that of
shear frames”. They also studied the location of shear wall
and brace elements. The location of shear wall and braced
frame hasimportant role on seismic responseofthebuilding
[3].
Viswanth, Prakash and Desai (2010) “investigated the effect
of the distribution of steel bracing along the height of RC
frame on seismic performance of rehabilitated building in 4,
8, 12 and 16 storied building with various types of steel
bracing”. They recommended to using X-type steel bracing
system in order to increasing the stiffness of the structure
and decreasing the maximum story driftofthestructures[4].
Karthik reddy and kala kondepudi (2015) investigated
“comparative study on behavior of multi-storeyed building
with different types and arrangements of bracing systems”.
Four different kindsof bracing systemshave been examined
for the utilization in tall building to give lateral stiffness [5].
2. METHODOLOGY
To determine the seismic parameters of G+14 storey RC
buildings like maximum story displacement, story drift and
base shear. “Equivalent static and Response spectrum
method of analysis were carried out using ETABs 2015”.
3. MODELING
In the present paperwork, G+14 story Reinforced concrete
building with shear wall and different types of bracing
systems are considered.
Three types of models are considered for the analysis as
given below:
Model 1: bare frame model (unbraced frame model)
Model 2: model frame building with shear wall and different
bracing systems at corner of the model buildings
Model 3: model frame building with shear wall and different
bracing system at 3rd and 5th bays of the model buildings.

Table 1: Description of Members used
Number of stories 15
Storey height 3.5 m
Plan dimension 42 m*42 m
Number of bays in x and y
direction
7
Width of bays in x and y
direction
6 m
Slab thickness 0.15 m
Size of beam 400 mm*600 mm.
Size of bracing section 600 mm* 300 mm * 15mm
Thickness of shear wall 0.3 m
Size of column 1-10 storey
11-15 storey
600 mm*600
mm
400 mm*400
mm
Table 2: Material properties used for analysis
Material properties
Grade of concrete C-40
Grade of steel(rebar) S-500
Density of reinforcedconcrete 25 kN/m2
Modulus of elasticity of
concrete
35GPa for C-40
Modulus of elasticity of steel 200GPa
Density of reinforcing steel 7850 kg/m
Coefficient of thermal
expansion
10*10-6 per o C
Poisons ratio of concrete 0.2
Poisons ratio of steel 0.3
Figure 1: plane view of 15 storey model building
Figure 2: 3-D view of bare frame model buildings
a/ bare frame b/ X- braced frame c/ V-braced frame d/
INT V-braced fame e/ shear wall
Figure 3: elevation view of RC frame building with shear
wall and different bracing systems.

Loads: - The loads considered in this structural analysis are
dead loads, live loads and seismic loads.
Wall load- 7.2 kN/m (Assumed).
Live load and Floor load- 4 kN/m2 & 1.5 KN/m2
Earthquake load: - The Seismic loads EQx and EQy are
given in Load patternsdirectly using Code EN 1998-1: 2004.
Seismic load used in the analysis is given in table below.
Table 3: seismic load used in the analysis
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The linear static analysis and responsespectrumanalysisare
carried out using analysis software ETABS2015. The
response of bare frame, shear wall and different bracing
systems results are obtained and results are compared. The
response parameter considered in this study is Maximum
roof displacement, Maximum story drift, baseshearandtime
period. The reduction in every one of these responses at
each story level is found out and reduction rate in
percentage (%) is calculated.
4.1 Maximum story displacement
The maximum story displacements of 15 story bare fame
model building, with shear wall and different types of
bracing systems analysis results are given below in the table
and graph respectively.
Table 4: maximum story displacement (mm) of model2
buildings
story bare
frame
X-
bracing
V-bracing INT V-
bracing
shear
wall
15 41.568 35.589 35.503 34.398 29.444
14 40.405 33.487 33.547 32.509 27.124
13 38.411 31.129 31.303 30.317 24.757
12 35.701 28.578 28.846 27.891 22.356
11 32.383 25.893 26.226 25.297 19.942
10 28.567 23.095 23.496 22.555 17.54
9 26.45 20.851 21.282 20.434 15.26
8 24.111 18.482 19.026 18.173 13.004
7 21.544 16.053 16.675 15.837 10.799
6 18.76 13.568 14.245 13.433 8.666
5 15.769 11.044 11.749 10.977 6.632
4 12.577 8.51 9.209 8.495 4.741
3 9.198 6.014 6.662 6.031 3.047
2 5.676 3.629 4.162 3.649 1.624
1 2.219 1.457 1.806 1.454 0.56
Figure 4: maximum stor displacements of model2
buildings
Table 5: maximum story displacements (mm) of model
3buildings
sto
ry
bare
frame
X-
bracing
V-
bracing
INT V-
bracing
shear
wall
15 41.568 33.301 34.215 33.793 30.041
14 40.405 31.599 32.545 32.176 27.98
13 38.411 29.609 30.567 30.21 25.841
12 35.701 27.383 28.336 27.957 23.621
11 32.383 24.972 25.898 25.482 21.33
10 28.567 22.388 23.263 22.799 18.99
9 26.45 20.315 21.182 20.722 16.714
8 24.111 18.091 18.977 18.48 14.411
7 21.544 15.782 16.664 16.142 12.103
6 18.76 13.394 14.254 13.718 9.811
5 15.769 10.945 11.762 11.225 7.572
4 12.577 8.466 9.212 8.694 5.442
3 9.198 6.007 6.644 6.175 3.498
2 5.676 3.64 4.116 3.738 1.846
1 2.219 1.466 1.726 1.493 0.616
Subsoil class B
Behavior factor, q Depends on the types of
the structural systems
Seismic zone V
Bedrock acceleration ratio
(α0 = a0 /g) (ratio of design
bedrock acceleration to
acceleration of gravity)
0.2g
Importance factor, I 1
Damping factor 5%

Figure 5: maximum storey displacements of model
3buildings
4.2 STOREY DRIFT
Story drift of 15 storey RC frame building with shear wall
and different bracing types are given in graph as follow
Figure 6: average maximum storey drift of model 2
Buildings
Figure 7: average maximum storey drift of model 3
buildings
Table 6: base shear force for model2 buildings
structural types shear force in KN
bare frame 7245.8
X-frames 9004.7
V-brace 8752.7
INT V-brace 9025.0
shear wall 10927.8
Figure 8: base shear for model 2 buildings
Table 7: base shear for model 3 buildings
structural types shear force KN
bare frame 7245.8
X-frames 8755.9
V-brace 8463.2
INT V-brace 8729.3
shear wall 11338.5
Figure 9: base shear force for model 3 buildings
4.3 BASE SHEAR
The bases shears obtained from response spectrum analysis
are given below.

4.4 TIME PERIODE
The fundamental time period of 15 storymodelbuildingsare
given in the table and figure below.
Table 8: time period for model 2 buildings
structural types Time period in seconds
bare frame 2.318
X-frames 1.932
V-brace 1.989
INT V-brace 1.928
shear wall 1.559
Figure 10: reduction of time period in percentage for
model 2 buildings
Table 9: time period for model 3buildings
structural types Time period in seconds
bare frame 2.318
X-frames 1.875
V-brace 1.925
INT V-brace 1.867
shear wall 1.617
Figure 11: Reduction of time period in percentage for
model 3buildings.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis results and discussion the following
conclusions are drawn
 Providing shear wall and different bracing systems
at different location can affect the lateral stiffness
and strength of reinforced concreteframebuildings.
 Providing shear wall and differentbracingsystemin
proper location severely reduces the maximum
storey displacement and storey drift.
 Steel bracing system can be utilized as an
alternative to replace shear wall on new buildings
be side using it as retrofitting.
 Generally when steel bracing is introduced to the
building the lateral stiffness and strength of the
building increases
REFERENCES
[1] Chandurkar.et.al. “seismic analysisof RCC buildingwith
and without shear wall” international journalofmodern
engineering research. Volume 3,pp-1805-1810,2013.
[2] Patil S.p, Desai R.M, Khurd V.G “comparisonofshearwall
and bracing in RCC framed structures” international
journal for research in applied science and engineering
technology .vol 4 pp. 2321-9653. 2016.
[3] S.R. Thorat and P.J. Salunke “Seismic Behavior of
Multistory Shear Wall Frame Versus Braced Concrete
Frames “ International Journal of Advanced Mechanical
Engineering Volume 4,pp. 323-330, 2014.
[4] K.G Viswanath, K.B Prakash, D.Anant (2010) ‘Seismic
analysis of steel braced Reinforced concrete frame’
international journalof civil andstructuralengineering”.
114-122.
[5] Karthik reddy and kala kondepudi.”a comparativestudy
on behavior of multistoried buildingwithdifferenttypes
and arrangement of bracing systems”. International
journal of science and technology and engineering,
Volume 2, pp. 2349-784X, 2015.
[6] M.R Maheri and A.Sahebi. ”Use of steel bracing in
reinforced concrete frames "engineering structure
vol.19 no.12 oct 1996.
[7] EN. Draft n. 6 of Euro Code 8: Design Provisions for
Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic
Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee
for Standardization: Bruxelles, 2003.
[8] CEN. Euro Code 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 1-1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings, ENV 1993-1-1.
European Committee for Standardization: Bruxelles,
1993.

IRJET- Comparative Seismic Evaluation of Response of RC Building with Shear Wall Frame and Different Bracing Systems’

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to IRJET- Comparative Seismic Evaluation of Response of RC Building with Shear Wall Frame and Different Bracing Systems’ (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- Comparative Seismic Evaluation of Response of RC Building with Shear Wall Frame and Different Bracing Systems’