IRJET- Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Frames using different X Bracing Configurations

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 04 | Apr 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 5139
Retrofitting Of Reinforced Concrete Frames Using Different X
Bracing Configurations
Jenna Maria Jaleen1, Kilu Ori2, Swaty Arun3, Dr.C.Prabha4
1 Jenna Maria Jaleen , UG student, Dept of Civil Engineering , Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kerala, India
2Kilu Ori, UG student, Dept of Civil Engineering, Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kerala, India
3 Swaty Arun, UG student, Dept of Civil Engineering, Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kerala, India
4Dr.C.Prabha, Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kerala, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Recent earthquakes have caused catastrophic
impact on many multi storied RCC buildings. Their seismic
inadequacy was attributed to reasons such as insufficient
design loads, flawed design, flawed construction or any
changes in the building occupancy. Retrofitting techniques
are adopted for eliminating these structural deficiencies.
Retrofitting is defined as the judicious modification of the
structural properties of an existing building in order to
improve its performance in future earthquakes. Among the
various retrofitting methods available, steel braces are
considered as one of the most efficient solution for
upgrading seismic performance of RC framedstructures.The
use of X type steel bracing system for improving an existing
industrial building is examined, in the viewpoint of
increasing its resistance to potential earthquakeoranyother
damage that is likely to affect it in the future. For this
purpose, various X bracingconfigurationsformedbybracing
the middle, corner as well asalternate frames of thebuilding
are considered. A comparative study isconductedtoidentify
the ideal X type bracing configuration for retrofitting the
building by studying various parameters such as lateral
displacement, storey drift, axial forces, bending moment,
shear force and story stiffness.
KeyWords: Alternate, Braces,Configurations,Displacement,
Drift, Frames, Retrofitting, Shear, Storey
1.INTRODUCTION
In light of the present situation of rapidly increasing
population with the land area remaining constant,
multistoried buildings has become inevitable. As these
buildings become more and more slender with increasing
height, the effect of earthquake ground motion and lateral
winds increases. This will produce lateral displacements
which may exceed the permissible limits or can even lead to
failure, dependingon its presentcondition. Retrofittingisthe
modification of existing structure with additional or new
components to increase the efficiency of the structure.
Retrofitting is predominantly concerned with structural
improvement thereby reducingtheseismichazards.Different
retrofitting techniquesincludeadditionofshearwall,bracing,
jacketing of beams and columns, base isolation, wall
thickening etc.
In medium and high rise structures, loads acting on the
structure mainly consist of gravity loads and lateral loads.
The lateral loadsare due towind, blastandearthquakeetc.So
the structure should have sufficient stiffness and strength
laterally to perform satisfactorilyto theseoccasionalloads.In
recent years, steel bracing is commonly used to increase the
seismic strength of RC framed structure, either for
rehabilitation of structure damaged by earthquake or for
strengtheningofanundamagedstructure,madenecessaryby
the revisions in structural design or loading by standard
codes of practice. Considering the ease of construction and
the relatively low cost, steelbracingsappearsto beattractive
compared to other conventional upgrading techniques. A
largenumber ofexisting reinforcedconcreteframestructures
are in need of seismic retrofitting because of inadequate
lateral resistance. A multistoried industrial building is
selected in seismic zone III and its performance under
seismic loads is studied using ETABS 2016 software. Any
inadequacy in earthquake resistance of the building is
fulfilled by finding out the most suitable steel bracing
configuration as its retrofitting solution.
2.BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS
The building that has been selected for the analysis is a
B+G+4 storey rectangular industrial building with an
industrial area on each floor. It is a framed structure having
base dimensions4166cmx 2920cm.Thebuildingislocatedin
Angamaly, Ernakulum, Kerala in seismic zoneIIIandfounded
on mediumsoil, whichisthe referencegroundcondition.The
building selected is modeled on ETABS 2016 as per its
existing condition and also with various bracing
configurations which will modify its performance. The
information used for modeling the building is given in Table
1. The superstructure was modeled using ETABS 2016 as a
space frame with a grid of columns in the vertical direction,
interconnected with beam members in the orthogonal
directionin each floor level. Itwas modeled with shearwalls
in place ofliftwells. The nodes, thatare themeeting pointsof
beamswithbeamsandbeamswithcolumns, were treatedas
rigid joints due to monolithic construction. The end of
columnsat the bottomofthemodelwas elongated toa depth
of 1.5m with fixed support at the end, to represent the pile
foundation of the building. Allwalls and slabs were modeled
as thin shell elements. The plan, 3D view and elevation in
both X and Y directions are shown using figure 1 and 2.

Table -1: Building Specifications
Building type Industrial
Foundation 1.9m below GL
Typical floor height 4.2m
Wall thickness 20cm
Slab thickness 11cm
Column size C1-300mm x 500mm
C2-250mm x 500mm
C3-400mm x 700mm
C4-200mm x 500mm
Beam size B1-200mm x 500mm
Staircase details Rise-15cm
Tread 30cm
Superstructure Brick masonry
Grade of concrete M25
Grade of steel HYSD415
Density of brick masonry 20kN/m3
Density of concrete 25kN/m3
Modulus of elasticityofconcrete 25000N/m2
From IS 1893(part 1):2016
Seismic zone III
Zone factor 0.16
Response reduction factor 3
Importance factor 1.5
From IS 875(part 3):2015
Wind speed 39m/s
Terrain category 2
Risk coefficient 1.06
Topography factor 1
3.EQUIVALENTSTATICANALYSISOFTHEBUILDING
The building was analyzed for all load combinations as
specified in IS 456:2000 and IS 1893:2016 using equivalent
static analysis, with frames without braces as well as braced
frames. From previous studies [3], [4], it is evident that X
bracing is comparatively more efficient than other types of
bracingsand henceitisselectedforretrofittingtheindustrial
building under consideration. The braces were provided
using the ideal steel section ISHB225, which was
automatically selected in ETABS 2016 by the auto select
option. Apart from the original building without braces, four
different trialconfigurations using X bracingare considered.
The various analysis models thus formed are alternate
system type 1, alternate system type 2, corner braces and
middle braces whose elevations are shown in figures 3, 4, 5
and 6 respectively.
Fig-1. Typical plan view and three dimensional view of the
building modeled in ETABS 2016
Fig-2. Typical elevation view of the building in X direction
and Y direction respectively
Fig-3. Alternate system of bracings Type 1.
Fig- 4. Alternate system of bracings Type 2.

Fig-5. Corner bracing system
Fig-6.Middle bracing system
4 OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS
After conducting the equivalent static analysis the
parameters such as storey displacement, storey drift,
bending moment, shear force, axial force and story stiffness
in the columns, are compared for the model without any
bracing and for the models with bracing at different
positions.
4.1 Lateral Displacement
Variation of lateral displacement in X and Y direction are
shown in chart 1 and 2 respectively. It is observed that
lateral displacement is reduced to large extent for middle
braces in X, Y direction.
Chart -1.Variationof lateral displacement in the X direction
The reduction in lateral displacement in X direction is
74% while it is almost 77% in Y direction, due to the
application of bracings in the middle bays of the building.
Chart -2.Variationof lateral displacement in the Y direction
4.2 Storey Drift
Inter-storey drift is an important indicator of structural
behavior in performance based seismic analysis. It is one of
the particularly useful engineering response quantity and
indicator of the structural performance, especially for high
rise buildings. The inter-storey drift of building structuresis
defined as relative translational displacement between two
consecutive floors.It is the displacement of one levelrelative
to the other level above or below. Variation of storeydriftsin
X and Y direction are shown in chart 3 and 4 respectively.
Chart -3. Variation of storey drift in the X direction
Chart -4. Variation of storey drift in the Y direction

It can be observed from the graph that the storey drifts are
reduced to largest extent for the building with middlebraces
while these are maximum for the system without bracing,
both in X and Y directions.
4.3 Bending Moment
A comparison is made between the maximum values of
bending moment in columns (in kNm) in the various stories,
in figure 7. It can be observed that the bending moment
valuesdecrease forthebracedmodelsunderseismicloadand
the lowest value is observed for the model with middle
braces. This is because the bracings provided create an
alternative path for the transmission of the loads into the
ground.
Fig-7. Bending Moment in kNm
4.4 Shear Force
The maximum shear force in columns (in kN) values in
different storiesarecompared tofind thatit decreasesonthe
application of bracings similar to that of bending moment.
This is also due to the formation of alternative load paths
involving bracings.
Fig-8. Shear force in kN
4.4 Axial force
The maximumaxial forceincolumns (in kN)iscompared
for different stories. Even though there is a decrease in the
axial force value in the topmost storey, for all the below
stories the value slightly increases.
Fig-9. Axial force in kN
4.5 Storey Stiffness
Storey Stiffness (in kN/m) inXand Y direction areshown
in figure 10 and 11 respectively. The increased stiffness for
the braced models is the reason for the improvement of the
properties of the building in terms of lateral displacement,
storey drift, bending moment etc.
Fig-10. Storey Stiffness in X direction
Fig-11. Storey Stiffness in Y direction

5 CONCLUSION
Based on the studies conducted, steel bracings can be
considered as an effective strategy for retrofitting of RC
structures. The lateral stiffness of the building have
significantlyimprovedinXandY directionsby55%and20%
respectively due to the application of middle braces. Thus
from all four arrangements of X bracing system, the
arrangement with middle braces gives better performance
for the building under consideration Steel bracings with
middlebraces havedrastically reducedtheflexuredemandof
buildingby 31%and shear demand by 27%when compared
to un-braced building. After the analysis of structure with
different types of X bracing configurations, it is concluded
that the overall displacement of the structure decreases.
However themaximum reductionin thelateraldisplacement
is due to the application of middle braces. The steel braces
given in the middle frames of the building reduce the lateral
displacement by almost 74% along X direction and 77%
alongYdirection. Intermsofreductioninstoreydrift,middle
braces are found to be the most efficient compared to other
configurations, even though there isincrease inbothcolumn
axial force.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Badouxand J .O. Jirsa,”Steel Bracing of RCFramesfor
Seismic Retrofitting.”,Journal of Structural
Engineering,1990, 55-74.
[2] M. R. Maheri A. Sahebi, “Use of steel bracing in
reinforced concrete frames”, EngineeringStructures,Vol
19, Issue 12,1997,1018-1024
[3] N. Bhojkar, M. Bagade, “Seismic Evaluation of High-rise
Structure by Using Steel Bracing System”, International
Journal of Innovative Science Engineering And
Technology, Vol 2, Issue 3, 2015, ISSN 2348-7968
[4] Z. Tafheem, S. Khusru, “Structural Behavior of Steel
Building with Concentric and Eccentric Bracing: A
comparative study”, International Journal of Civil and
Structural Engineering,Vol 4, No.1, 2013, ISSN 0976-
4399
[5] M. Mubeen, K. N. Khan , M. I. Khan “Seismic analysis of
steel frame a with eccentric bracings using pushover
analysis.”, International JournalofAdvancedTechnology
In Engineering And Science, Vol 3, Issue 6, 2015, 2348-
7550
[6] A Kadid, D.Yahiaoui, “Seismic Assessment of Braced RC
Frames”,
[7] H. A. Safarizkia , S. A. Kristiawan , and A. Basuki,”
Evaluation of the Use of Steel Bracing to Improve
Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Building”,
Procedia Engineering 54(2013), 447-456
[8] J. Chandrakar, A. K. Singh, “Study of Various Local and
Global Seismic Retrofitting Strategies-A Review”,
International Journal of Engineering Research and
Technology, Vol 6, Issue 6, 2017, ISSN 2278-0181
[9] Viswanath K.G., “Seismic Analysis of Steel Braced
Reinforced Concrete Frames”, International Journal of
Civil and Structural Engineering, 2010, pp 114-116
[10] Suresh P, “Influence of Diagonal Braces in RCC
Multistoried Frames under Wind Load- A Case Study”,
International Journal of Civiland StructuralEngineering,
2012, pp 214-226
[11] M. Hyderuddin, M. D. M. Imran, S. Mohsin. “ Retrofitting
of Reinforced Concrete Frames using Steel Bracing”,
International Journal for Scientific Research and
Development”, Vol 4, Issue 8, 2016, ISSN 3331-0613

IRJET- Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Frames using different X Bracing Configurations

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET- Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Frames using different X Bracing Configurations (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Frames using different X Bracing Configurations