Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types of bracing systems

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 05 Issue: 02 | Feb-2016, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 82
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF R C BUILDINGS ON SLOPING
GROUNDS WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF BRACING SYSTEMS
Manjunath C S1
, Siddu Karthik C S2
1
Assistant Professor, Department of CIVIL, Vijaya Vittala Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, India
vbspmanju@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of CIVIL, Vijaya Vittala Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, India
siddu2804@gmail.com
Abstract
Structure are highly susceptible to serve damages in earthquake scenario, so choosing an appropriate lateral force resisting
bracing systems will have a significant effect on performance of the structure. So this present study is aimed at evaluating and
comparing various types of eccentric steel bracings for 12 storey RC frame building resisting on sloping ground configurations.
For this 5 types of bracing systems like X-Bracing, Diagonal bracing, K- bracing, V-bracing and inverted V bracing are
considered on the outer periphery of the buildings with step back and set back – step back type configurations are modeled and
analyzed. The models are compared for different aspects within the structure, such as the maximum storey displacement, base
shear, storey drift and storey shear, the structure is analyzed for seismic zone V and medium soil condition as per IS 1893:2002
using ETABS software. Results conclude that on sloping ground due to irregularity on ground surface, the structures are more
vulnerable to earthquakes. Hence use of eccentric steel bracing is an effective and economical way to resist earthquake forces,
Inverted V type bracing performs well compared to other bracing types. By using inverted V type bracing in step back buildings
types maximum storey displacement of 70% and storey drift of 66% are obtained. Similarly for setback – step back configuration
maximum storey displacement of 74% and storey drift of 70% are obtained respectively.
Keywords: X-Bracing, Diagonal Bracing, K- Bracing, V-Bracing and Inverted V Bracing
--------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION
Earth quakes are the natural phenomenon’s which are
caused by the release of large strain energy by the moving
faults below the surface of the earth, which ultimately
causes the shaking of the earth top surface in all possible
directions with different amplitudes and intensities of lateral
forces. Earthquake can be classified depending on the
intensity of quake, duration and directions as minor,
moderate and severe and is measured on the Richter
magnitude scale. Anything above magnitude 7 is considered
as severe type of quakes.
Fig 1. Earthquake Occurrences
Due to the industrial revolution, in the recent decade the
growths in the cities have been on rise in incremental folds.
Due to which the scarcity of plain topography land is a
common problem in many cities, for this reason developers
are often constructing multistory buildings to accommodate
this rising population on sloping grounds. But with such
provisions increase in self weight and live load along with
lateral earthquake forces will increase and affect the
buildings depending on many factors like strength of
materials used, type of soil surface , amount of mass and
stiffness of structural and non structural members, levels of
workmanship, intensity of distribution of live loads during
quake and also the response of the soil beneath the structure.
Hence there is an urgent need to do a seismic assessment of
the present structure in most urban area which comes under
higher seismic zones to avoid the catastrophic events which
recently caused in Nepal earthquake and assess seismic
venerability of buildings which is an essential component of
disaster management policy in India.
Seismic analysis is a method to carry out the response of the
building structure during ground motions. It is a part of
process structural design, which includes seismic
assessments of the buildings and also the retrofitting
measures to strengthen the retaining structure in the seismic
regions. In recent days the buildings with irregular
configurations in both plan and elevation are common.
These buildings asymmetry will suffer severely during
earthquakes and undergo coupled torsion and lateral
motions. A building can be designed to be earthquake proof
for a rare but strong earthquake proof, but such buildings
will be more expensive. The most logical approach to
seismic design problem is to accept the uncertainty of the
seismic phenomenon.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
The analysis procedure teaches us how to identify the
seismic forces and its demand. Depending upon the type of
structure and its cost, the method of analyzing the structure
varies from linear to non linear. The static non – procedure
indicates which part of the building fails first and the
elements begin to yield and deform in elastically as the load
and displacement increases. Thus the resulting curve shows
the capacity of the building and demand for the specific
intensity of seismic forces, this resulting graph will generate
a point on the curve where the capacity and demand will
meet and we get a performance point. This point can be
actually considered as the actual displacement of the
structure in response to the specified lateral ground forces.
At last, this procedure gives the engineer a better
understanding of the seismic characteristics of the structure
and results in more logical and effective designs in future
buildings and will be more economical for the retrofitting
strategy of an existing building. The guidelines which
recommends on these topics are ATC-40 and FEMA-356.
1.1 Lateral Load Resisting Systems
Lateral load resisting systems are used to resist the
horizontal or lateral loads that are applied on the structure in
the form of earthquake force or wind force.
1.1.1 Types of Lateral Load Resisting Systems
a) Moment resisting frame
b) In-fill frame
c) Shear wall
d) Tube system
e) Hybrid system
f) Braced frame
2. OBJECTIVES
The present work is aimed at evaluating R C framed
buildings with the following objectives
• To evaluate the response of multi-storied RC building
structure with different bracing systems subjected to
seismic loading and to identify the suitable bracing
system for resisting the seismic load efficiently.
• Finding out the deflections & storey drift at each storey
using response spectrum method, equivalent static
method, push over analysis and time history analysis
method
• To observe the level of change of internal forces and
storey drift for different types of braced models with the
bare frame model.
• To investigate the seismic performance of a multi-
storeyed RC building with different bracing
arrangements such as X, inverted V , V, diagonals and
K bracings using Nonlinear Static Pushover analysis
method and Non-linear dynamic i.e. Time history
analysis procedure.
2.1 Modeling and Analysis Method
• 3D modeling for analysis of R C frame multistory
building having different types of bracing systems using
ETABS.
• The building is analyzed by Equivalent static, Response
Spectrum and Pushover analysis.
• The building models are pushed along positive
orthogonal directions.
2.2 Parameters to be Studied
• Base shear
• Storey shear
• Storey drift
• Storey displacement
• Performance point
3. METHODOLOGY
To study and evaluate the behavior of reinforce concrete
buildings resting on the sloping ground. Here, a static,
dynamic and a non-linear static analysis of a RC- building
with fixed base is done considering different types of steel
bracing frames using ETABS. In this analysis two different
types of buildings are considered.
1. Step back building (Sloping ground)
2. setback – step back building (Sloping ground)
The linear and non-linear analysis of RC-frame building
resting on sloping ground is been performed for zone V and
medium soil as per FEMA-356 and ATC-40. In this
analysis, the pushover analysis is performed by subjecting
the building to a monotonically increasing pattern of later
loads, which will represent the inertial forces experiencing
by the structure when subjected to gradual ground shaking.
Under this incrementally increasing load the structure will
yield at certain point, thus the performance of the structure
can be evaluated in this method.
3.1 Software
The software used for this analysis is ETABS 9.7 which
stands for Earthquake three dimensional analysis of building
system. It is an innovative structural analysis program
developed to design and analyzes the structure under various
lateral forces. Some of the advantages of ETABS are
 The modeling process for most of the building
configurations can be erected using simple grid system
which is defined by the horizontal floors and vertical
column lines with minimum effort.
 Many of the floor system will be similar dimensions and
properties, so by using similar storey option in edit grid
data the structure will be erected with very less efforts.
 The analysis parameters like storey drift, displacement,
overturning moments and performance point of structure
can be used for the design of the buildings.
3.2 Analysis Considerations
In the 3D analysis of various types of models following
methods are studied

_______________________________________________________________________________________
• Equivalent static method
• Response spectrum method
• Non-Linear Static Analysis
3.3 Description of Various Building Models
For the particular study, the plan of the building is kept
same for both step back and setback step back types of
buildings.
3.3.1 Step back building models
Model 1: Building modeled as bare frame. However, masses
of the 230mm thick walls are included in the model.
Model 2: Building has inverted V bracings along the outer
periphery of the step back type building.
Model 3: Building has V bracings along the outer periphery
of the step back type building.
Model 4: Building has K bracings along the outer periphery
Model 5: Building has X bracings along the outer periphery
Model 6: Building has forward diagonal (/) bracings along
the outer periphery of the step back type building.
3.3.2 Setback – step back building models
Model 7: Building modeled as bare frame. However, masses
of the 230mm thick walls are included in the setback – step
back type building.
Model 8: Building has inverted V bracings along the outer
periphery of the setback – step back type building.
Model 9: Building has V bracings along the outer periphery
of the setback – step back type building.
Model 10: Building has K bracings along the outer
Model 11: Building has X bracings along the outer
Model 12: Building has forward diagonal (/) bracings along
the outer periphery of the setback – step back type building.
Fig 2. Plan Layout
All the considered building models have the same plan
dimension (28m x 24m). The models plan has four bays in
each direction.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this chapter, the results of twelve selected building
models are presented and discussed in detail. The results are
included for all the different buildings models. The analysis
of the different building models is performed by using
ETABS analysis software.
In the present study the behavior of each model is captured
and the results are tabulated in the form of base shear, lateral
displacement and story drift in linear analysis. Where as in
non linear, the performance of all the models are observed in
terms of hinge formations and performance point. In non
linear analysis, the pushover method is adopted and all the
models are pushed using two different loading patterns in
order to obtain plastic hinge and the critical performance
point.
4.1 Storey Displacement
The maximum displacement for each floor level with
respect to its ground is presented in tables obtained for
equivalent static method (ESA) and response spectrum
method (RSA) for step-back and step-back set-back types of
building configurations with different types of bracing
systems along both longitudinal (x-direction) and transverse
(y-direction) are listed in the tables below and for better
compatibility the displacements for each models are plotted
in charts below.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fig 3. Comparison of storey Displacement for different step-
back building models along longitudinal direction (ESA).
back building models along transverse direction (ESA).
back building models along longitudinal direction (RSA).
back building models along transverse direction (RSA).
Fig 7. Comparison of storey Displacement for different set
back -step back building models along longitudinal direction
(ESA).
back – step back building models along transverse direction
(ESA).
back – step back building models along longitudinal
direction (RSA).
back – step back building models along transverse direction
(RSA).

_______________________________________________________________________________________
4.2 Storey Drift
The permissible storey drift according to IS 1893-2002 : is
limited to .004 times the storey height, so the minimum
damage would take place during earth quake and pose less
physiological fear in the minds of people. The maximum
storey drift for step back configuration and setback – step
back configuration buildings models along longitudinal and
transverse direction obtained from ETABS are show in
tables below.
Fig 11. Comparison of storey Drift for different step-back
building models along longitudinal direction (ESA).
building models along transverse direction (ESA).
building models along longitudinal direction (RSA).
building models along transverse direction (RSA).
Fig 15. Comparison of storey Drift for different set back -
step back building models along longitudinal direction
(ESA).
Fig 16. Comparison of storey Drift for different set back –
step back building models along transverse direction (ESA).
step back building models along longitudinal direction
(RSA).

_______________________________________________________________________________________
step back building models along transverse direction (RSA).
4.3 Base Shear
The base shear for Equivalent static method (Vb) and the
Response spectrum method (VB) as per IS 1893: 2002( Part
I) for various building models are listed in the tables below.
The scale factor Vb/VB has been multiplied as per clause
7.8.2 IS 1893:2002 (Part I)
Fig 19. Model Vs Base shear for different step back models
along longitudinal direction.
Fig 20. Model Vs Base shear for different step back models
along transverse direction.
Fig 21. Model Vs Base shear for different set back - step
back models along longitudinal direction.
Fig 22. Model Vs Base shear for different set back - step
back models along transverse direction.
4.4 Push Over Analysis
Pushover analysis for different sets of step back and setback
– step back buildings configurations are analysed in this
chapter using ETABS software , thus parameters like base
shear, performance point, roof displacement, spectral
acceleration (Sa) and spectral displacement are being
considered.
Fig 23. Comparison of base Shear at hinge for step back
models along longitudinal direction and transverse direction.
Fig 24. Comparison of base Shear at hinge for setback- step
back models along longitudinal direction and transverse
direction.
4.5 Performance Point
The seismic performance evaluation comprises of
comparisons between some of the demand that earthquake
places on the structure to measure the capacity of the
building to resist. Base shear (total horizontal force at the
lower level of the building) is normal parameter that is used
for this purpose. The base shear demand that would be
generated by a given earthquake or intensity of ground
motion and compare this to capacity of the building.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1. Performance point parameters for step back models along longitudinal direction.
Model No 1 2 3 4 5 6
Spectral acceleration (Sa) 0.119 0.476 0.471 0.427 0.423 0.379
Spectral Displacement (Sd) 0.156 0.071 0.072 0.081 0.083 0.098
Base Shear (KN) 6575.9 29660.2 29476.4 26850.3 25632.6 23727.73
Roof Displacement (mm) 209 95 97 108 110 133
A-B 1737 1694 1677 1743 1742 1639
B-IO 241 506 532 491 440 538
IO-LS 97 127 122 95 137 134
LS-CP 244 5 5 1 9 22
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 0 6 0 0 0 0
D-E 15 2 2 2 2 1
>E 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total no of hinges 2334 2334 2334 2334 2334 2334
Table 2. Performance point parameters for step back models along transverse direction.
Model No 1 2 3 4 5 6
Spectral Displacement (Sd) 0.168 .066 .082 .089 .092 .100
Base Shear (KN) 6666.97 32810.9 29459.75 26740.42 24648.7 24559.2
A-B 1695 1652 1567 1615 1736 1492
B-IO 298 438 602 505 448 596
IO-LS 108 143 155 195 131 168
LS-CP 228 8 14 18 10 77
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 0 0 0 0 0 0
D-E 5 2 0 1 3 1
>E 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 3. Performance point parameters for set back - step back models along longitudinal direction.
Model No 7 8 9 10 11 12
Base Shear (KN) 6440.90 28826.5 30612.72 27780.2 24553.44 22526.35
A-B 1547 1364 1408 322 1504 1436
B-IO 209 475 455 314 401 464
IO-LS 62 176 186 104 138 140
LS-CP 225 10 0 0 13 16
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 0 0 0 0 0 0
D-E 15 1 0 2 2 1
>E 0 0 0 0 0 0

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4. Performance point parameters for set back - step back models along transverse direction.
Model No 7 8 9 10 11 12
Base Shear (KN) 6608.43 28476.42 27694.83 25483.66 232883.7 23150.36
A-B 1390 1340 1344 868 1515 1242
B-IO 364 574 564 396 429 536
IO-LS 126 149 142 177 103 196
LS-CP 177 28 20 0 6 43
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 0 0 0 0 0 0
D-E 1 2 1 0 0 1
>E 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary
The present work attempts to study the seismic response and
performance level of symmetric RC building located in
seismic zone-V. In this study all important components of
the building that influence the mass, strength, stiffness and
deformability of the structure are included in the analytical
model. To study the behavior of different bracing systems at
various locations in longitudinal and transverse direction.
The deflections at different storey levels and storey drifts are
compared by performing equivalent static and response
spectrum method. The seismic performance level of the
building models are obtained by performing non-linear static
pushover analysis. The study leads to the following
conclusions.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
1. With the provision of different types of bracings, the
storey drift and storey displacement gets reduced.
2. Models with inverted V bracings in longitudinal and
transverse direction are found to be efficient against
lateral seismic loading as they shows better performance
in terms of strength and stiffness.
3. Storey drifts are found within the permissible limit as
specified by IS1893-2002.
4. The performance of different building system are
evaluated by pushover analysis procedure, for bare frame
models the performance level is reaching to the ultimate
collapse level, while models with X,V and K bracings
system models are within IO(immediate occupancy) to
LS(life safety) region only.
5. By performing pushover analysis, the weak links and
failure location can fairly be identified.
6. REFRENCES
[1] Vani Prasad , Nivin Philip “Effectiveness of Inclusion
of Steel bracing in Existing RC Framed Structure”,
International Journal of Research in Engineering
&Technology, Vol .2 Issue 9, sep 2014 (P. 81-88).
[2] Shivanand B, H.S Vidhyadhara “Design of 3D RC
Frame on Sloping Ground”, International Journal of
Research in Engineering & Technology, Vol .3 Issue 8
Aug 2014 ISSN 2321-7308
[3] Umesh .R.Biradar, Shivraj Mangalgi “Seismic
Response of Reinforced Concrete Structure by using
different Bracing System”, IJRET, vol.3, Issue 09, Sep
2014 (P.422-426).
[4] Ajay K Sreerama, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla
“Earthquake behavior of reinforced concrete framed
buildings on hill slopes” International Symposium on
New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in
Asia, Report No:IIIT/TR/2013/-1.
[5] Nauman Mohammed, Islam Nazrul “Behaviour of
Multistorey RCC Structure with Different Type of
Bracing System”, IJIRSET, Vol. 2 Issue 12, Dec 2013,
ISSN 2319-8753.
[6] M.D. Kevadkar, P.B. Kodag, “Lateral Load Analysis
of R.C.C. Building”,International Journal of Modern
Engineering Research (IJMER), Vol.3, Issue.3,May-
June. 2013 Pp-1428-1434 ISSN: 2249-6645.
[7] Kulkarni J.G, Kore P.N “Seismic Response Of
Reinforced Concrete Braced Frames” International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
(IJERA), Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp.1047-1053.
[8] C.M. Ravi Kumar, K.S. Babu Narayan, M.H.
Prashanth, H.B Manjunatha and D.Venkat Reddy,
“Seismic Performance Evaluation of RC Buildings
With Vertical Irregularity”, ISET Golden Jubilee
Symposium Indian Society Of Earthquake Technology
Department Of Earthquake Engineering Building IIT
Roorkee,Roorkee, October 20-21, 2012, Paper No.
E012.
[9] Y.Singh, phani Gade “Seismic Behavior of Buildings
Located on Slopes – An Analytical Study and Some
Observations From Sikkim Earthquake of September
18”, 2011, 15WCEE- LISBOA 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
[10] R. Chiodi, A. Prota & G. Manfredi “Nonlinear seismic
behavior of an existing RC building retrofitted with
BRBs”, 15WCEE- LISBOA 2012.
[11] Madhusudan G. Kalibhat, Arun Kumar Y.M, Kiran
Kamath, Prasad .S.K, Shrinath Shet, “Seismic
Performance of R.C. Frames with Vertical Stiffness
Irregularity from Pushover Analysis”, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE, E-
ISSN: 2278-1684, P-ISSN: 2320-334X Pp 61-66.
[12] Viswanath K.G, Prakash K.B., Anant Desai,“Seismic
Analysis of Steel Braced ReinforcedConcrete
Frames”,International Journal Of Civil And Structural
Engineering, Volume 1, No 1, 2010 ISSN 0976 –
4399.
[13] Braz-César M. T., Barros R. C., “Seismic Performance
of Metallic Braced Frames by Pushover Analysis”,
Compdyn 2009 Eccomas Thematic Conference On
Computational Methods In Structural Dynamics And
Earthquake Engineering M. Papadrakakis, N.D.
Lagaros, M. Fragiadakis (EDS.) Rhodes, Greece, 22–
24 June2009.
[14] B.G. Birajdar, S.S. Nalawade “Seismic Analysis of
Building Resting on Sloping Ground”13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver,
B.C.,Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 1472.
[15] A Ghobarah, H. Abou Elfath “Rehabilitation of a
reinforced concrete frame using eccentric steel
bracing” Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 745–755.
[16] Egor P. Popov, Michael D. Engelhardt “Seismic
Eccentric Braced Frames” J.Construct Steel Research
10 (1988) 321-354.
[17] ATC 40 “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
buildings” Volume 1,California seismic safety
commission, California.
[18] IS: 456-2000., “Code of Practice for Plain and
Reinforced Concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi, India.
[19] IS: 1893 – 2002 (Part 1), “Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures”,part 1-General
provisions and buildings, fifth revision, Bureau of
Indian Standard, New Delhi, India.
[20] S.K.Duggal, “Earthquake resistant design of
structures”, Oxford university press,New Delhi.
[21] Indian Standard IS 800:2007, “General Construction in
Steel- Code of Practice(Third Revision)”, BIS New
Delhi.
[22] SP: 6(1)-1964, “Handbook for Structural Engineers,
Structural Steel Sections(Revised)”, BIS New Delhi.

Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types of bracing systems

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types of bracing systems (20)

More from eSAT Journals (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Seismic performance of r c buildings on sloping grounds with different types of bracing systems