Seismic Behavior of Steel Frame Structure with and Without Bracing

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 07 | July 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1543
Seismic Behavior of Steel Frame Structure with and Without Bracing
Prakash Dwivedi1, Prof. Siddhartha Deb2, 3Prof. Anubhav Rai, 4Prof. Vedant Shrivastava
1M-Tech Structural Engineering & Gyan Ganga Institute of Technology and Sciences, Jabalpur, M.P. India
2&3Assistant Professor, Deptt of Civil & Gyan Ganga Institute of Technology and Sciences, Jabalpur, M.P. India
4Associate Professor, Deptt of Civil & Gyan Ganga Institute of Technology and Sciences, Jabalpur, M.P. India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Steel Building in the world in the last decades,
the steel structure for the building industry has played an
important role in the most useful content. Providing the
strength, stability and flexibility are the key purposes of
seismic design. It is to design a structure under seismic load is
required to perform. Structural bracing element in thesystem
plays an important role in structural behavior during
earthquakes. Bracing pattern of massivesteelframedbuilding
can modify the behavior of the global seismic. In this study
model a G+21 with Square Shape building Plan 35mX35m,
height of each floor is 3.2m and Structure in Etabssoftwareby
Response Spectrum Method and Analysis the Earthquake
analysis of the Structure in seismic zones III with all soil (Soft,
Medium and soil of India) conditions.
A software package ETABS SOFTWARE is using for the
analysis of steel buildings and different parameters are
compared. The property of the section is used as per IS
800:2007 which is analysis for various types of bracingslikeX,
V, inverted V, Eccen Forward, Eccen Back and withoutbracing
and Performance of each frame is carried out and studied the
comparatively through Response Spectrum Method.
In this study, the comparative analysis of Steel multistory
building with and without bracing framed structure in the
term of Maximum Lateral Force.
Key Words: Seismic zone, Soil type, G+21Multistory Steel
Building, different type Bracing, Etabs Software etc.
1.INTRODUCTION
A Braced Frame is a structural system which is designed
primarily to resist wind and earthquake forces. Members in
a braced frame are designed to work in tension and
compression, similar to a truss. Braced frames are almost
always composed of steel members. The commonly used
lateral force resisting systems, moment resisting and
concentrically braced frames, generally provide economic
solutions to one or the other of the tworequirementsbutnot
both; vis., moment resisting frames are ductile but often too
flexible to economically meet drift control requirements,
whereas concentrically braced frames are stiff but possess
limited energy dissipation capability. Recently,eccentrically
braced frames have been advanced as an economic solution
to the seismic design problem. Aneccentricallybracedframe
is a generalized framing system in which the axial forces
induced in the braces are transferred either to a column or
another brace through shear andbendingina segmentofthe
beam. This critical beam segment is called an "activelink" or
simply "link" and will be designated herein by its length e.
These links act to dissipate the large amounts of input
energy of a severe seismic event via material yielding.
Bracing configuration: The selection of a bracing
configuration is dependent on many factors. These include
the height to width proportions of the bay and the size and
location of required open areas in the framing elevation.
These constraints may supersede structural optimization as
design criteria. The introduction of the parameter, e/L,leads
to a generalization of the concept of framing system. It has
been shown that high elastic frame stiffness can be achieved
by reducing the eccentricity, e. The reduction of e, however,
is limited by the ductility that an active link can supply.
Objective of study
The objective of the study comprises of the following:
1. To study of the behavior of different type of steel braced
and unbraced structure.
2. To perform the Response SpectrumMethodofanalysison
structures.
3. To compare the different bracing steel buildingstructures
such as with & without bracing.
Building Geometry:
Fig1.1. Building Plan configuration

2. LITRETURE REVIEW
K. S. K. Karthik Reddy etc al{2015}- He studied that the
comparative seismic behavior of multistory steel building
G+15 plan of 25mX25m, six number of bays along to X and Z
direction, member load 10kN/m, dead load 3kN/m2, liveload
2 kN/m2, response reduction factor 3, importance factor 1,
depth of foundation 3m, damping ratio five percent with
different types and arrangement of racing. The tall steel
building subjected to lateral or torsional effect under the
action of the lateral load, lateral stiffness considered in the
design of steel tall building frame. He usedfourdifferenttype
bracing in the tall building in ordertoprovidelateralstiffness
and also provided a peripheral bracing in column in seismic
zone II and wind speed 200kmph by equivalent static
analysis as per Indian Standard CodeIS:1893-2002andwith
IS 875 part-III-1987 using Staad Pro Software. He used
various parameters inthetermofstorydrift,columnmoment
axial force x-type and x-type bracing compared with
unbraced structure and compared with rc building frame
with steel building frame. He observed that x-type bracing
more efficient than that of reinforced concrete bracing and
completeweight of the building structureincreased by using
concrete bracing.
Dr. Prakash M R, JagdeeshB N (2016):-Hestudiedthatthe
seismic analysis of the steel framed structure with mega
bracing system. The propping is a standout amongst other
horizontal burden opposing frameworks and it will be the
suitable answer for upgrading quake obstruction. A
Supporting is a framework that is given to limit the sidelong
avoidance of structure. The individuals from a propped
outline are exposed to strainand pressure, with the goal that
they are given to take these powerslikea support. Supported
edges are constantly structured of steel individuals.
Utilization of the propped outlines has gotten extremely
famous in skyscraper structure and furthermore in seismic
plan of them. Demonstrating and investigation utilizing
programming ETABS to decipher connection between
supports outline and without support outline perspectives
and concentrated to evaluate the seismic reaction of steel
structure with concentric propping framework. Two basic
setups were used; vertical unpredictable model (VIRM),
vertical sporadic model with super supporting(VIRM_MB). A
15 story steel second opposing edge was broke down for all
zones of soil type-II (medium). The examinations were done
to evaluate the basic execution under quake ground
movements. These models are looked at in changed angles,
for example, story float, story uprooting and base shear. It
presumes that the decrease of story floats inmegasupported
casing happens as forthe without propped outline. Thestory
relocationoftheverticalunpredictablestructureisdecreased
77.64% by the utilization of user propping framework in
contrast with without supporting framework. Subsequently,
it very well may be said that propping framework has more
effect on the limitation to comparative with floor removal.
The most extreme base shear for mega (VIRM_MB) propping

outline are diminished by 23.42% when contrasted with
VIRM without supporting casing.
I. Anusha etc al (2016) - He studied the analysis of steel
building frame G+5 structure against the seismic loads and
different loading conditions. He selected the six story
building fame structure with three bays in lateral and
horizontal direction and height of each floor was 3m and
spacing between bays 8m along to horizontal while6malong
the lateral direction. He also selected different seismic
parameters like seismic zoneIII, response reductionfactor3,
importance facto 5 and damping ratio five percent. He
selected two methods foranalysisthestructureasEquivalent
static load method and response spectrum method and also
checked the P-delta analysis and connection design of
exterior and interior joint. He observed different results like
story drift, story shear more in lateral forced method as
response spectrum method and Dynamic analysis values are
smaller than the lateral force method.
3. MATHEDOLOGY
The seismic performance i.e. analysis of steel structures is
attempt in the current project. For this, the proposed
methodology is as follows:
1. An extensive survey of the literature on the response of
steel structures to seismic loading is performed.
2. Different type of steel structure are taken andanalyzed by
Dynamic Analysis.
3. Different type of bracing system of steel structures are
taken and analyzed by different groundmotion withthehelp
of RSM analysis.
4. Calculate the different results of steel structure i.e.
without bracing.
5. Plot different curves from RSM analysis for all types of
steel structure i.e. without bracing.
1. Using Etabs Software.
2. Creating building plan of building structure.
3. Applying property like beam , column, slab
dimension and support on structure.
4. Applying Load likeDeadload,Liveload,seismicload
and load combination as per IS code.
5. Getting Results in the form of Max Overturning
Moments, Max Story Shears. Max Story Displacement, Max.
Story Drifts etc.
6. Results Analysis: Graphical analysis in the term of
Max Overturning Moments, Max Story Shears. Max Story
Displacement, Max. Story Drifts etc.
7. Conclusion
4. MODELLING AND DESCRIPTIONS
Etabs is a general purpose program for doing the analysis
the structure with different types soil condition and seismic
zone III. The following three activities must be performedto
achieve that goal
a. Model generation using Etabs.
b. The calculations to determine the analytical results
c. Result check is all encouragedbyapparatusescontainedin
the system's graphical surroundings.
Parameter Using:
Type of Building : Steel Framed Structure
Number of Floor : G+21 (Square Shape Building)
Section Property: ISMB, ISWB and ISLB sections
Seismic Parameter:
Seismic Zone- III
Soil Type- Medium Soil
Damping = 5% (as per table-3 clause 6.4.2 ), Zone factor
for zone V, Z=0.16)
Importance Factor I=1.5 (Important structure as per
Table-6)
Response Reduction Factor R=5 for Special steel moment
resisting frame Table-7)
Sa/g= Average acceleration coefficient (depend on Natural
fundamental period)
Geometry and Modelling
Grade of concrete is considered M25
Grade of Rebar is considered Fe-415
Grade of Steel –Fe-345

5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
5.1 STOREY LATERAL FORCE
5.1 MAXIMUM STOREY LATERAL FORCE IN MODEL-I
Table: 5.1 Storey Lateral force in MODEL-I
Fig. 5.1A Storey Lateral force in MODEL-I
Fig. 5.1B Storey Lateral force in MODEL-I
5.2 MAXIMUM STOREY LATERAL FORCE IN MODEL-II
Fig. 5.2A Storey Lateral force in MODEL-II
Fig. 5.2B Storey Lateral force in MODEL-II

Table: 5.2 Storey Lateral force in MODEL-II 5.3 MAXIMUM STOREY LATERAL FORCE IN MODEL-III
Table: 5.3 Storey Lateral force in MODEL-III
Fig. 5.3A Storey Lateral force in MODEL-III

Fig. 5.3B Storey Lateral force in MODEL-III
5.4 MAXIMUM STOREY LATERAL FORCE IN MODEL-IV
Table: 5.4 Storey Lateral force in MODEL-IV
Fig. 5.4A Storey Lateral force in MODEL-IV
Fig. 5.4B Storey Lateral force in MODEL-IV
5.2.5 MAXIMUM STOREY LATERAL FORCE IN MODEL-V
Fig. 5.5A Storey Lateral force in MODEL-V

Fig. 5.5B Storey Lateral force in MODEL-V
Table: 5.5 Storey Lateral force in MODEL-V
5.6 MAXIMUM STOREY LATERAL FORCE IN MODEL-VI
Fig. 5.6A Storey Lateral force in MODEL-VI
Table: 5.6 Storey Lateral force in MODEL-VI

Fig. 5.6B Storey Lateral force in MODEL-VI
6. CONCLUSIONS
After the analysis is completed, the following outcome is
found:
It is found that the storey lateral force maximum taken as
963.0019 KN at top storey of the building while minimum at
first storey taken as 0.827 KN but zero at base in both the
direction of x and y respectively.
363.65 KN at top storey of the building while minimum at
first storey taken as 0.8295 KN but zero at base in both the
363.2914 KN at top storey of the building, zero at base but
minimum value at first storey takenas0.8281KNin both the
Also observed that the lateral force of the cross bracing
system of structure gradually increased when increased the
height of structures. It means that the effect the lateral force
varies with height of the structure. In the braced structure
found minimum lateral force means that the braced
structure is more effective and safe other the unbraced
structure.
REFERENCES
[1] K. S. K. Karthik Reddy, Sai Kala Kondepudi: A
Comparative Study on BehaviorofMultistoriedBuilding
with Different Types and Arrangements of Bracing
Systems- IJSTE - International Journal of Science
Technology & Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | August
2015 ISSN (online): 2349-784X.M.Young,TheTechnical
Writer’s Handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science,
1989.
[2] Jagadeesh B N, Dr. Prakash M R: Seismic Response Of
Steel Structure WithMega BracingSystem-International
Journal Of Engineering Sciences&ResearchTechnology,
ISSN: 2277-9655, Jagadeesh B N* et al.,5(9):September,
2016.
[3] Umesh. R .Biradar, Shivraj Mangalgi ―Seismic Response
of Reinforced Concrete by using different Bracing
Systems International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology (IJRET) Vol. 3, Issue 09
Sept. 2014 ISSN: 2319-1163 ISSN: 2321-7308.
[4] Ajay Mapari1 , Prof. Y. M. Ghugal: Seismic Evaluation Of
High Rise Steel Structures With And Without Bracing-
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science
and Engineering, Volume 6, Issue 3, ISSN (O) 2313-
8354, ISSN (P) 2319-8346, March 2017.
[5] Zasiah Tafheem, Shovona Khusru “Structural behaviour
of steel building withconcentricandeccentricbracing:A
comparative study”, international journal of civil and
structural engineering, Volume 4, No 1, 2013.
[6] IS: 875 (Part 1) - 1987, “Indian Standard Code of
Practice for design loads for building and structures,
Dead Loads” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[7] IS 456:2000, “Indian Standard plain and reinforced
concreteCode of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, 2000.
[8] IS 800(2007), “Indian Standards Code of Practice for
General Construction in Steel”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
[9] Ashiru Muhammad, ChhaviGupta,IbrahimB.Mahmoud:
Comparative analysis of Seismic Behaviour of Multi-
storey Composite Steel and Conventional Reinforced
Concrete Framed Structures- International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 10,
October-2015 ISSN 2229-5518.
[10] Kuldeep Kumar Chaudhary., Sabih Ahmad., Syed Aqeel
Ahmad., Anwar Ahmad and Rajiv Banerjee: Analytical
Study On The Structure Behaviour Of Regular And
Irregular Space Frame BySTAAD.PROV8i-International
Journal of Recent Scientific Research Vol. 9, Issue, 5(D),
pp. 26749-26754, May, 2018.

Seismic Behavior of Steel Frame Structure with and Without Bracing

More Related Content

Similar to Seismic Behavior of Steel Frame Structure with and Without Bracing (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Seismic Behavior of Steel Frame Structure with and Without Bracing