Bracing and SW

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 13

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF MULTISTOREY


BUILDING STIFFENED WITH BRACING AND SHEAR WALL.
Mohd Atif1, Prof. Laxmikant Vairagade2, Vikrant Nair3
1P.G.

Student, Civil Engineering Department, G.H.R.A.E.T Nagpur, Maharashtra, India


Professor, Civil Engineering Department, G.H.R.A.E.T, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
3Structural Consultant, Techpro Consultancy, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------2Assistant

Abstract - This research work focuses on comparison of


seismic analysis of G+15 building stiffened with bracings
and shear wall. The performance of the building is analyzed
in Zone II, Zone III, Zone IV, Zone V. The study includes
understanding the main consideration factor that leads the
structure to perform poorly during earthquake in order to
achieve their appropriate behavior under future
earthquakes. The analyzed structure is symmetrical, G+15,
Ordinary RC moment-resting frame (OMRF). Modelling of
the structure is done as per staad pro. V8i software. Time
period of the structure in both the direction is retrieve from
the software and as per IS 1893(part 1):2002 seismic
analysis has undergone. The Lateral seismic forces of RC
frame is carried out using linear static method as per IS
1893(part 1) : 2002 for different earthquake zones. The
scope of present work is to understand that the structures
need to have suitable Earthquake resisting features to safely
resist large lateral forces that are imposed on them during
Earthquake. Shear walls are efficient, both in terms of
construction cost and effectiveness in minimizing
Earthquake damage in structure. Also the braced frames
can absorb great degree of energy exerted by earthquake..
The results of the performance and the analysis of the
models are then graphically represented and also in tabular
form and is compared for determining the best performance
of building against lateral stiffness by arrangement of three
different types of bracings with three different orientation
of bracings and shear wall. A comparative analysis is done
in terms of Base shear, Displacement, Axial load, Moments in
Y and Z direction in columns and shear forces, maximum
bending moments, max Torsion in beams.

Key Words: Seismic analysis, Bracings, Shear Wall,


Lateral Stiffness, Indian code IS 1893:2002 and OMRF.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The tallness of a building is relative and cannot be defined
in absolute terms either in relation to height or the
number of stories. But, from a structural engineer's point
of view the tall building or multi-storied building can be
defined as one that, by virtue of its height, is affected by
lateral forces due to wind or earthquake or both to an

2015, IRJET

extent that they play an important role in the structural


design. Tall structures have fascinated mankind from the
beginning of civilization. The Egyptian Pyramids, one
among the seven wonders of world, constructed in 2600
B.C. are among such ancient tall structures. Such
structures were constructed for defense and to show pride
of the population in their civilization. The growth in
modern multi-storied building construction, which began
in late nineteenth century, is intended largely for
commercial and residential purposes.
The design of tall buildings essentially involves a
conceptual design, approximate analysis, preliminary
design and optimization, to safely carry gravity and lateral
loads. The design criteria are, strength, serviceability,
stability and human comfort.
Earthquakes have become a frequent event all over the
world. It is very difficult to predict the intensity, location,
and time of occurrence of earthquake. Structures
adequately designed for usual loads like dead, live, wind
etc may not be necessarily safe against earthquake
loading. It is neither practical nor economically viable to
design structures to remain within elastic limit during
earthquake. The design approach adopted in the Indian
Code IS 1893(Part I): 2002 Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design Of Structures is to ensure that structures
possess at least a minimum strength to withstand minor
earthquake occurring frequently, without damage; resist
moderate earthquakes without significant structural
damage though some non-structural damage may occur;
and aims that structures withstand major earthquake
without collapse.
Structures need to have suitable earthquake resistant
features to safely resist large lateral forces that are
imposed on them during frequent earthquakes. Ordinary
structures for houses are usually built to safely carry their
own weights. Low lateral loads caused by wind and
therefore, perform poorly under large lateral forces
caused by even moderate size earthquake. These lateral
forces can produce the critical stresses in a structure, set
up undesirable vibrations and, in addition, cause lateral
sway of structure, which could reach a stage of discomfort
to the occupants.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1158

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Shear wall is one of the most commonly used lateral load


resisting element in high rise building. Shear wall (SW)
has high in plane stiffness and strength which can be used
simultaneously to resist large horizontal load and support
gravity load. The scope of present work is to study and
investigate the effectiveness of RC shear wall in medium
rise building.
Reinforced concrete shear walls are used in Bare frame
building to resist lateral force due to wind and
earthquakes. They are usually provided between column
lines, in stair wells, lift wells, in shafts. Shear wall provide
lateral load resisting by transferring the wind or
earthquake load to foundation. Besides, they impart lateral
stiffness to the system and also carry gravity loads. But
bare frame with shear wall still become economically
unattractive. If the structural engineers consider property
the non-structural element in structural design along with
other elements like shear wall gives better results.
The most effective and practical method of enhancing
the seismic resistance is to increase the energy absorption
capacity of structures by combining bracing elements in
the frame. The braced frame can absorb a greater degree
of energy exerted by earthquakes. Bracing members are
widely used in steel structures to reduce lateral
displacement and dissipate energy during strong ground
motions. This concept extended to concrete frames. The
various aspects such as size and shape of building, location
of shear wall and bracing in building, distribution of mass,
distribution of stiffness greatly affect the behaviors of
structures.
Bracing system improves the seismic
performance of the frame by increasing its lateral stiffness
and capacity. To the addition of bracing system load could
be transferred out of the frame and into the braces, by
passing the weak columns. The stiffness added by the
bracing system is maintained almost up to the peak
strength. Stiffness is particularly important at
serviceability state, where deformations are limited to
prevent damage.

1.2 Objective of the Project


Tall building developments have been rapidly increasing
worldwide. The growth of multistory building in the last
several decades is seen as the part of necessity for vertical
expansion for business as well as residence in major cities.
It is observed that there is a need to study the structural
systems for R.C.C framed structure, which resists the
lateral loads due to seismic effect. Safety and minimum
damage level of a structure could be the prime
requirement of tall buildings. To meet these requirements,
the structure should have adequate lateral strength,
lateral stiffness and sufficient ductility. Among the various
structural systems, shear wall frame or braced concrete
frame could be a point of choice for designer. Therefore, it
attracts to review and observe the behavior of these
structural systems under seismic effect. Hence, it is

2015, IRJET

proposed to study the dynamic behavior of reinforced


concrete frame with and without shear wall and steel
braced frame. The purpose of this study is to compare the
seismic response of above structural systems. Axial forces
and moments in members and floor displacements will be
compared.
The most effective and practical method of
enhancing the seismic resistance is to increase the energy
absorption capacity of structures by combining bracing
elements in the frame. The braced frame can absorb a
greater degree of energy exerted by earthquakes.
The present study is an effort towards analysis of
the structure during the earthquake. G+15stories
residential building is considered. To analyze a multistoreyed RC framed building considering different
earthquake intensities II, III, IV and V by response spectra
method and find the base shear value for different
structures.
Seismic analysis of RC frame with bare and different
position of shear wall and braced frame is carried out
using Linear static analysis method as per IS 1893 (Part I):
2002[22] by using STAAD-PRO software .For this analysis
different types of models are considered and comparison
of seismic performance is carried out.

1.3 Methodology
The methodology worked out to achieve the mentioned
objectives is as follows:
1. Modeling of the selected building in Staad pro. V8i
Software.
2. Retrieved time period of structure from the
software.
3. Thirteen models as per the Indian code
specification were prepared. Models including
Bare frame, frames with shear walls and frames
with bracings.
4. Applied calculated Lateral seismic forces and load
combinations as per IS 1893-2002.
Analyzed the models for axial forces, moments, lateral
displacements, max shear force and max torsion and
graphical and tabular representation of the data is
presented.

1.3.1 Time period


The Equivalent static methods works on seismic
coefficient, which rely on the natural time period of
vibration of the structure, the earthquake resistance
design of the structures requires time period to calculate
the base shear. The time period of the structure has been
taken from the Staad pro software.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1159

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Time period in X- direction = 1.02


Sa/g = 1.33
Time period in Y- direction= 1.44
Sa/g = 0.94

1.3.3 Mass and Base shear calculatons:

1.3.2 Load Combinations


Load combinations that are to be used for Limit state
Design of reinforced concrete structure are listed below.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

1.5(DL + LL)
1.2(DL + LL EQ - X)
1.2(DL + LL EQ - Y)
1.5(DL EQ - X)
1.5(DL EQ - Y)
0.9DL 1.5EQ - X
0.9DL 1.5EQ Y

1.3.2 Distribution of the horizontal seismic


forces:
Load and base shear calculation has been done as per IS
1893-2002. The base shear is calculated and distributed
throughout the height at each floor of the building and the
lateral seismic force induced at any level is determined.

Indian standards IS-1893:2002:


IS 1893:2002 is denoted as Criteria for earthquake
resistant Design of structures Part 1 General provisions
and buildings.
The design lateral force shall first be computed for the
building as a whole. Thedesign lateral force shall then be
distributed to the various floor levels. This overall design
seismic force thus obtained at each floor level shall then be
distributed to individual lateral load resisting elements
depending on the floor diaphragm action.
The design base shear calculated shall be distributed along
the height of the building as per the following expression:

2015, IRJET

BASE
BASE
SHEAR
SHEAR in
in X- dir
Z- dir KN
KN
BF
51161.4
1136.64
804.94
DB1
51246.58 1138.53
806.28
DB2
51225.29 1138.06
805.94
DB3
51246.58 1138.53
806.28
VB1
51331.76 1140.42
807.62
VB2
51289.17 1139.47
806.95
II
VB3
51331.76 1140.42
807.62
XB1
51331.76 1140.42
807.62
XB2
51289.17 1139.47
806.95
XB3
51331.76 1140.42
807.62
SW1
37518
833.52
587.78
SW2
36557.55
812.19
572.73
SW3
46864.05 1041.16
737.33
BF
51161.4
1818.62
1287.9
DB1
51246.58 1821.65
1290.05
DB2
51225.29 1820.89
1289.51
DB3
51246.58 1821.65
1290.05
VB1
51331.76 1824.67
1292.19
VB2
51289.17 1823.16
1291.12
III
VB3
51331.76 1824.67
1292.19
XB1
51331.76 1824.67
1292.19
XB2
51289.17 1823.16
1291.12
XB3
51331.76 1824.67
1292.19
SW1
37518
1333.64
940.45
SW2
36557.55
1299.5
916.38
SW3
46864.05 1665.86
1179.72
BF
51161.4
2727.93
1931.85
DB1
51246.58 2732.47
1935.07
DB2
51225.29 2731.33
1934.27
DB3
51246.58 2732.47
1935.07
VB1
51331.76 2737.01
1938.29
VB2
51289.17 2734.74
1936.68
IV
VB3
51331.76 2737.01
1938.29
XB1
51331.76 2737.01
1938.29
XB2
51289.17 2734.74
1936.68
XB3
51331.76 2737.01
1938.29
SW1
37518
2000.46
1410.68
SW2
36557.55 1949.25
1374.56
SW3
46864.05 2498.79
1769.59
Mass calculations and base shear are summarized as:
ZONE

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

MODEL
TYPE

TOTAL
MASS KN

Page 1160

ZONE

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

MODEL
TYPE

TOTAL
MASS KN

BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

51161.4
51246.58
51225.29
51246.58
51331.76
51289.17
51331.76
51331.76
51289.17
51331.76
37518
36557.55
46864.05

BASE
SHEAR
in X- dir
KN
4091.89
4098.7
4097
4098.7
4105.51
4102.11
4105.51
4105.51
4102.11
4105.51
3000.69
2923.87
3748.19

www.irjet.net

BASE
SHEAR in
Z- dir KN
2897.78
2902.61
2901.4
2902.61
2907.43
2905.02
2907.43
2907.43
2905.02
2907.43
2116.02
2061.85
2654.38

1.3.4 Modeling:
This building has been modeled as 3D Space frame model
with six degree of freedom at each node using STAAD PRO, software for stimulation of behavior under gravity

and seismic loading. The isometric 3D view and plan of the


building model is shown as figure. The support condition
is considered as fully fixed.

1.3.3 Specifications
The specifications used in modeling are
Sr.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Parameters

Dimensions/Type

Plan dimension
Number of stories
Total height of building
Height of each storey
Column size
Beam size
Grade of concrete
Frame type
Soil type
Live load
Floor finish
Inner wall
Outer wall
Slab thickness
Unit weights of Concrete
Unit weights of brick
work
Shear wall thickness
Section for steel bracing

18m x 9 m
G+15
48m
3m
230 X 600 mm
230 x 400 mm
M20
OMRF
Medium soil
3 KN/sq.m
1 KN/sq.m
230 mm
230 mm
230mm
25 KN/Cum
19 KN/Cum

Fig-1: Plan of the selected building

200mm
ISA 110 X 110 X 10mm
Fig-2: 3D View of the selected building

2015, IRJET

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1161

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Fig-5:
Building
with
diagonal bracings at outer and
position (DB3)

inner

F
ig-3:
Buildi
ng
with
diago
nal
bracin
gs at
corne
r
(DB1)

Fig-6: Building with V- bracings at corner (VB1)

Fig4:
Building with diagonal bracings at periphery (DB2)
Fig-7: Building with V- bracings at periphery (VB2)

2015, IRJET

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1162

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Fig-8: Building with V- bracings at outer and


inner position (VB3)

Fig11
: Building with X- bracings at outer and
inner position(XB3)
Fig-9: Building with X- bracings at corner (XB1)
F
ig-12:
Building
with
Shear
walls at
corner
(SW1)

Fig-10: Building with X- bracings at periphery (XB2)

2015, IRJET

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1163

ZONE

II
ZONE

III

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM
SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
TYPE
XB2
BF
XB3
DB1
SW1
DB2
SW2
DB3
SW3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

www.irjet.net

MAX DEFL. mm
143.817
98.138
108.318
123.313
88.8
99.947
111.55
MAX DEFL.
83.841
mm
96.093
228.391
105.852
150.545
52.917
167.972
92.278
191.079
49.041
138.947
158.558
173.403
130.711
151.497
163.853
80.695
146.63
75.721

2 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS


2.1 OVERVIEW
A G+15 building is analyzed and compared with shear wall
and three different patterns of bracings with three
different positioning of it
during the earthquake
considering all the four zones. Parameters like
displacement, axial force, bending moment for columns
and shear, moment, torsion for beams are calculated.
Graphical and Tabular representation of data is discussed
in this chapter.

2.2 Column
2.2.1

Maximum Displacements

Table-1: Maximum lateral displacement

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

IV

MEDIUM

Fig-13: Building with Shear Walls at periphery (SW2)

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
TYPE
VB2
BF
VB3
DB1
XB1
DB2
XB2
DB3
XB3
VB1
SW1
VB2
SW2
VB3
SW3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX DEFL.
mm
511.748
329.173
369.401
419.241
MAX DEFL.
309.157
mm
353.908
341.641
381.551
222.012
290.725
247.796
337.882
282.161
359.278
207.066
329.173
236.085
369.401
256.524
219.241
195.09
225.44
241.876
118.825
219.33
112.107

Fig13: Building with Shear walls at outer and inner


pos. (SW3)
Fig-2.2.1: Comparison of Maximum lateral displacement.

2015, IRJET

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1164

2.2.2

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Maximum Axial Force on columns


ZONE

SOIL TYPE

IV

MEDIUM

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

Table-2: Maximum Axial Force

ZONE

II

ZONE

III

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. AXIAL FORCE


KN
3754.125
3676.076
3633.57
4365.885
3662.431
3600.98
4205.122
3660.097
3616.189
4368.47
3446.125
3009.234
2703.727

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. AXIAL FORCE


KN
3754.125
3676.076
3779.796
5143.843
3662.431
3732.18
4947.643
3660.097
3965.621
5141.555
3446.125
3009.234
2703.727

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. AXIAL FORCE


KN
4080.79
4470.95
4483.657
6188.884
4130.686
4465.085
5976.484
4320.864
4787.607
6211.149
3453.888
3016.997
2830.39

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. AXIAL FORCE


KN
4806.754
5684.934
5532.102
7744.801
5300.399
5561.863
7461.526
5530.95
6019.381
7757.32
5684.934
5532.102
4744.801

Fig-2.2.2: Comparison of Maximum Axial force

2015, IRJET

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1165

2.2.3

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Maximum Moment in columns

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

IV

MEDIUM

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

Table-3: Maximum Moment in columns

ZONE

II

ZONE

III

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

2015, IRJET

TYPE

MAX.MOMENT KNm

BF

126.818

DB1

129.019

DB2

166.199

DB3

123.71

VB1

108.32

VB2

98.933

VB3

108.921

XB1

104.818

XB2

106.402

XB3

112.518

SW1

153.471

SW2

78.053

SW3

125.172

TYPE

MAX.MOMENT KNm

BF

200.963

DB1

197.255

DB2

261.507

DB3

200.578

VB1

154.956

VB2

142.515

VB3

150.414

XB1

155.434

XB2

161.543

XB3

166.58

SW1

183.425

SW2

100.503

SW3

143.837

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX.MOMENT KNm
301.426
288.603
388.063
303.525
223.593
205.561
209.105
222.093
233.728
238.316
223.069
133.891
178.032

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX.MOMENT KNm
451.383
425.079
567.75
472.812
326.99
307.431
310.17
324.714
342.01
346.378
425.079
367.75
412.812

Page 1166

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Fig-2.2.3: Comparison of Maximum moments(KN-M)

2.2.4

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

Maximum Torsion in beams


Table-4: Maximum Torsion in beams

ZONE

II

ZONE

III

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

2015, IRJET

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. Torsion KN-M

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. Torsion KN-M

3.406
22.653
14.706
16.154
26.626
20.413
24.628
22.407
14.117
17.523
32.284
38.478
16.891

3.406
27.095
20.588
22.448
30.704
24.187
29.526
26.304
18.601
24.425
32.284
53.168
19.831

IV

MEDIUM

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

TYPE

MAX. Torsion KN-M

BF

3.406

DB1

33.18

DB2

28.509

DB3

30.891

VB1

36.264

VB2

29.15

VB3

36.265

XB1

32.218

XB2

24.595

XB3

33.627

SW1

36.752

SW2

72.754

SW3

23.75

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. Torsion KN-M


3.406
42.358
40.439
43.631
44.923
36.656
46.489
41.29
33.664
47.43
48.252
102.134
29.63

Page 1167

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Fig-2.2.4: Comparison of Maximum Torsion in KN-M

2.2.5

Maximum Shear Force in beams


TYPE

MAX. Shear Force


KN

BF

218.074

MAX. Shear Force


KN

DB1

225.548

DB2

244.451

124.754
131.386
129.777
127.152
123.726
138.309
161.741
126.963
111.387
127.548
154.856
161.105
161.183

DB3

226.616

VB1

208.606

VB2

199.395

VB3

222.312

XB1

212.821

XB2

192.901

XB3

230.083

SW1

232.594

SW2

217.858

SW3

226.96

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. Shear Force


KN
301.32
306.635
343.052
313.19
282.809
263.032
307.138
287.62
264.539
319.274
327.298
268.88
315.367

Table5: Maximum Shear Force in beams


ZONE

II

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

ZONE

III

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX. Shear Force


KN
162.906
171.271
178.986
168.9
159.966
164.224
187.604
163.927
145.142
170.622
174.066
184.836
177.274

ZONE

IV

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

Fig-2.2.5: Comparison of Maximum Shear Force in KN

2015, IRJET

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1168

2.2.6

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Maximum Banding Moments in beams


Table-6: Maximum Bending Moments in beams

ZONE

II

ZONE

III

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX.Bending
Moment (KN-M)
140.675
156.132
148.978
139.584
143.332
124.651
136.62
149.443
120.803
140.255
184.371
219.48
195.675

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX.Bending
Moment (KN-M)
199.346
216.778
226.704
199.148
198.372
171.62
184.174
205.821
175.778
202.523
218.915
264.667
220.104

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

IV

MEDIUM

ZONE

SOIL TYPE

MEDIUM

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

TYPE
BF
DB1
DB2
DB3
VB1
VB2
VB3
XB1
XB2
XB3
SW1
SW2
SW3

MAX.Bending
Moment (KN-M)
279.626
299.361
325.499
285.92
272.145
244.727
269.389
280.431
248.03
291.714
307.192
326.849
289.273

MAX.Bending
Moment (KN-M)
403.62
422.737
474.302
416.078
384.955
352.464
397.211
394.331
356.408
425.501
449.248
423.028
421.859

Fig-2.2.6: Comparison of Max Bending Moment in KNM

2015, IRJET

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1169

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 02 Issue: 05 | Aug-2015

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

CONCLUSIONS
1.

2.

3.

REFERENCES

Shear wall elements are very much efficient in


reducing lateral displacement of frame as drift
and horizontal deflection induced in shear wall
frame are much less than that induced in braced
frame and plane frame.
The location of shear-wall and brace member has
significant effect on the seismic response than the
plane frame.
The location of shear-wall- 3 is favorable as they
are effective in reducing actions induced in frame
with less horizontal deflection and drift.

% REDUCTION OF MAXIMUML LATERAL DSLACEMENT


in mm
ZONE

BF

SW3

% Reduction

ZONE-II
ZONEIII
ZONEIV

143.817

49.041

65.90%

228.391

75.721

66.85%

341.641

112.107

67.19%

ZONE-V

511.748

219.241

57.16%

4.

Shear wall construction will provide large


stiffness to the building by reducing the damage
to the structure.
5. The concept of using steel bracing is one of the
advantageous concepts which can be used to
strengthen or retrofit the existing structures.
6. Steel bracings can be used as an alternative to the
other strengthening or retrofitting techniques
available as the total weight on the existing
building will not change significantly.
7. Steel bracings reduce flexure and shear demands
on beams and columns and transfer the lateral
loads through axial load mechanism.
8. The lateral displacements of the building studied
are reduced by the use of X type of bracing
systems.
9. The building frames with X bracing system will
have minimum possible bending moments in
comparison to other types of bracing systems.
10. Using steel bracings the total weight on the
existing building will not change significantly.
11. The lateral displacement of the building is
reduced by 35% to 45 % by the use of X Type
steel bracing system, and X bracing type reduced
maximum displacement.

2015, IRJET

[1] Himalee Rahangadle, S. R. Satone, Design and


Analysis of Multistoried Building with Effect of
Shear wall, International journal of Engineering
Reserch and Applications, Vol 3, Issue 3, pp-223232, ISSN:2248-9622.
[2] Arlekar J. N., Jain S. K. and Murty C. V.R., Seismic
Response of RC Frame Building with Soft First
Storey, proceeding of CBRI
Golden Jubliee
Conference on Natural Hazards in Urban Habitat,
1997, New Delhi, pp.13-24.
[3] Anand. N., Mightraj. C., Prince Arulraj G., Seismic
Behaviour of RCC shear wall Under Different Soil
Conditions, Indian Geotechnical Conference-2012,
GEO trendz , IGS Mumbai chapter ant IIT Bombay.
[4] FEMA 356, Presented and Commentry for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency , Washington,
2000.
[5] Nabin Raj C. , S. Elavenil, Analytical Study on
Seismic Performance of Hybrid (Dual) Structural
System Subjected to Earthquake, International
Journal of Modern Engineering Research. Vol.2,
Issue.4, 2012, pp2358-2363, ISSN:2249-6645.
[6] Kumar, S. R. and kumar, G. R., Seismic Retrofit of
Soft Storey Building using
Steel Bracing,
Workshop on retrofitting of structures, Oct 10-11,
2003, IIT Roorkee,pp. 148-158.
[7] Lawson R.S.. Vicki Vance, Krawinkler H., Nonlinear
Static Pushover Analysis- Why, When, and How?,
Fifth US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering Proceeding, Vol.1, 1994, pp.283-292.
[8] Krawinkler H., Seneviratna G., Pros and Cones of
Pushover analysis of seismic performance
Evaluation, Engineering Structures, Vol.20, No.46,1997.
[9] M.D. Kevadkar, P. B. Kodag, Lateral Load analysis
of R.C.C Building, International Journal of Modern
Engineering Research Vol.3, Issue3,2013. Pp14281434, ISSN:2249-6645.
[10] Kadid A. and Boumrkik A., Pushover Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Frames Structures, Asian
Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and
Housing), VOL.9, No.1, 2008,pp.75-83.
[11] Kabeyasawa, T., Sanada, Y. and Kuramoto, H.,
Design and Analysis of a Six Storey RC Frame- wall
System with Soft First Storey for Shaking Table
Test, Vol.35, NO.11, 2006, PP.1425-1451.
[12] Sundar M. Deshmukh, J. G. Kulkarni, Analysis of
Partially Braced Multistorey Building Frames
Subjected to Gravity and Earthquake Loads,
International Journal of Advance Research In
Science and Engineering. Vol. No.2, Issue No.8,
2013, ISSN 2319-8354.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 1170

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy