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

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 Structuralbracing element in thesystem plays an important role in structural behavior during earthquakes Bracing patternofmassivesteelframedbuilding 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 andwithoutbracing 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 primarilytoresistwindandearthquakeforces Membersin a braced frame are designed to work in tension and compression, similarto a truss Bracedframes arealmost always composed of steel members. The commonly used lateral force resisting systems, moment resisting and concentrically braced frames, generally provide economic solutionstooneortheotherofthetworequirementsbutnot both;vis,momentresistingframesareductilebutoftentoo flexible to economically meet drift control requirements, whereasconcentricallybracedframesarestiffbutpossess limitedenergydissipationcapability Recently,eccentrically bracedframeshavebeenadvancedasaneconomicsolution totheseismicdesignproblem Aneccentricallybracedframe is a generalized framing system in which the axial forces inducedinthebracesaretransferredeithertoacolumnor

anotherbracethroughshearandbendinginasegmentofthe beam Thiscriticalbeamsegmentiscalledan"activelink"or simply "link" andwillbedesignatedhereinbyitslengthe These links act to dissipate the large amounts of input energyofasevereseismiceventviamaterialyielding

Bracing configuration: The selection of a bracing configurationisdependentonmanyfactors Theseinclude theheighttowidthproportionsofthebayandthesizeand location of required open areas in the framing elevation Theseconstraintsmaysupersedestructuraloptimizationas designcriteria.Theintroductionoftheparameter,e/L,leads toageneralizationoftheconceptofframingsystem. Ithas beenshownthathighelasticframestiffnesscanbeachieved byreducingtheeccentricity,e Thereductionofe,however, islimitedbytheductilitythatanactivelinkcansupply.

Objective of study

Theobjectiveofthestudycomprisesofthefollowing:

1. Tostudyofthebehaviorofdifferenttypeofsteelbraced andunbracedstructure.

2. ToperformtheResponseSpectrumMethodofanalysison structures.

3 Tocomparethedifferentbracingsteelbuildingstructures suchaswith&withoutbracing.

Building Geometry:

Fig1.1. BuildingPlanconfiguration

Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified

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

2. LITRETURE REVIEW

K S K Karthik Reddy etc al{2015} Hestudied that the comparative seismic behavior of multistory steel building G+15planof25mX25m,sixnumberofbaysalongtoXandZ direction,memberload10kN/m,deadload3kN/m2,liveload 2kN/m2,responsereductionfactor3,importancefactor1, 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 actionofthelateralload,lateralstiffnessconsideredinthe designofsteeltallbuildingframe.Heusedfourdifferenttype bracinginthetallbuildinginordertoprovidelateralstiffness andalsoprovidedaperipheralbracingincolumninseismic zone II and wind speed 200kmph by equivalent static analysisasperIndianStandardCodeIS:1893 2002andwith IS 875 part III 1987 using Staad Pro Software. He used variousparametersinthetermofstorydrift,columnmoment axial force x type and x type bracing compared with unbraced structure and compared with rc building frame withsteelbuildingframe. Heobservedthatx typebracing moreefficientthanthatofreinforcedconcretebracingand completeweightofthebuildingstructureincreasedbyusing concretebracing.

Dr. Prakash M R, Jagdeesh B N (2016): Hestudiedthatthe seismic analysis of the steel framed structure with mega bracingsystem Theproppingisastandoutamongstother horizontal burden opposing frameworks and it will be the suitable answer for upgrading quake obstruction A Supportingisaframeworkthatisgiventolimitthesidelong avoidance of structure The individuals from a propped outlineareexposedtostrainandpressure,withthegoalthat theyaregiventotakethesepowerslikeasupport.Supported edges are constantly structured of steel individuals. Utilization of the propped outlines has gotten extremely famousinskyscraperstructureandfurthermoreinseismic plan of them Demonstrating and investigation utilizing programming ETABS to decipher connection between supportsoutlineandwithoutsupportoutlineperspectives and concentrated to evaluate the seismic reaction of steel structure with concentric propping framework Two basic setups were used; vertical unpredictable model (VIRM), verticalsporadicmodelwithsupersupporting(VIRM_MB).A 15storysteelsecondopposingedgewasbrokedownforall zonesofsoiltype II(medium).Theexaminationsweredone to evaluate the basic execution under quake ground movements. Thesemodelsarelookedatinchangedangles, forexample,storyfloat,storyuprootingandbaseshear. It presumesthatthedecreaseofstoryfloatsinmegasupported casinghappensasforthewithoutproppedoutline Thestory relocationoftheverticalunpredictablestructureisdecreased 7764% by the utilization of user propping framework in contrastwithwithoutsupportingframework Subsequently, itverywellmaybesaidthatproppingframeworkhasmore effectonthelimitationtocomparativewithfloorremoval Themostextremebaseshearformega(VIRM_MB)propping

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

outline are diminished by 2342% when contrasted with VIRMwithoutsupportingcasing

I. Anusha etc al (2016) - He studied the analysis of steel buildingframeG+5structureagainsttheseismicloadsand 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 spacingbetweenbays8malongtohorizontalwhile6malong the lateral direction He also selected different seismic parameterslikeseismiczoneIII,responsereductionfactor3, importance facto 5 and damping ratio five percent He selectedtwomethodsforanalysisthestructureasEquivalent staticloadmethodandresponsespectrummethodandalso checked the P delta analysis and connection design of exteriorandinteriorjoint.Heobserveddifferentresultslike story drift, story shear more in lateral forced method as responsespectrummethodandDynamicanalysisvaluesare smallerthanthelateralforcemethod.

3. MATHEDOLOGY

Theseismicperformanceie analysisofsteelstructuresis attempt in the current project For this, the proposed methodologyisasfollows:

1 Anextensivesurveyoftheliteratureontheresponseof steelstructurestoseismicloadingisperformed

2 Differenttypeofsteelstructurearetakenandanalyzedby DynamicAnalysis

3. Different type of bracing system of steel structures are takenandanalyzedbydifferentgroundmotionwiththehelp ofRSManalysis.

4 Calculate the different results of steel structure i e withoutbracing

5 Plot different curves from RSM analysis for all types of steelstructureie withoutbracing

1. UsingEtabsSoftware.

2 Creatingbuildingplanofbuildingstructure

3. Applying property like beam , column, slab dimensionandsupportonstructure.

4 ApplyingLoadlikeDeadload,Liveload,seismicload andloadcombinationasperIScode

5 Getting Results in the form of Max Overturning Moments,MaxStoryShears MaxStoryDisplacement,Max StoryDriftsetc

6. ResultsAnalysis: Graphicalanalysisinthetermof Max Overturning Moments, Max Story Shears. Max Story Displacement,Max. StoryDriftsetc.

7 Conclusion

4. MODELLING AND DESCRIPTIONS

Etabsisa general purposeprogramfordoingtheanalysis thestructurewithdifferenttypessoilconditionandseismic zoneIII.Thefollowingthreeactivitiesmustbeperformedto achievethatgoal

a. ModelgenerationusingEtabs.

b. Thecalculationstodeterminetheanalyticalresults

c.Resultcheckisallencouragedbyapparatusescontainedin thesystem'sgraphicalsurroundings.

ParameterUsing:

TypeofBuilding : SteelFramedStructure

NumberofFloor : G+21 (SquareShapeBuilding)

SectionProperty: ISMB,ISWBandISLBsections

SeismicParameter: SeismicZone III

SoilType MediumSoil

Damping = 5% (aspertable 3clause6.4.2 ),Zonefactor forzoneV,Z=0.16)

ImportanceFactorI=15 (Importantstructureasper Table 6)

ResponseReductionFactorR=5forSpecialsteelmoment resistingframeTable 7)

Sa/g= Averageaccelerationcoefficient (dependonNatural fundamentalperiod) GeometryandModelling

GradeofconcreteisconsideredM25 GradeofRebarisconsideredFe 415 GradeofSteel Fe-345

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

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

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

2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

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

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

2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal |

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

Fig. 5.4A Storey Lateral force in MODEL IV

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. 5.4B 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

2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

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

5.6 MAXIMUM STOREY LATERAL FORCE IN MODEL VI

Fig. 5.5B Storey Lateral force in MODEL V

Table: 5 5 Storey Lateral force in MODEL V

Fig 5 6A Storey Lateral force in MODEL VI

Table: 5.6 Storey Lateral force in MODEL VI

2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified

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

ISSN:2277 9655,JagadeeshBN*etal.,5(9):September, 2016.

[3] Umesh.R.Biradar,ShivrajMangalgi―SeismicResponse of Reinforced Concrete by using different Bracing Systems International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology (IJRET) Vol. 3, Issue 09 Sept.2014ISSN:2319 1163ISSN:2321 7308.

Fig. 5.6B Storey Lateral force in MODEL VI

6. CONCLUSIONS

After the analysis is completed, the following outcome is found:

Itisfoundthatthestoreylateral forcemaximumtaken as 963.0019KNattopstoreyofthebuildingwhileminimumat firststoreytakenas0.827KNbutzeroatbaseinboththe directionofxandyrespectively.

Itisfoundthatthestoreylateral forcemaximumtaken as 363.65KNattopstoreyofthebuildingwhileminimumat firststoreytakenas0.8295KNbutzeroatbaseinboththe directionofxandyrespectively.

Itisfoundthatthestoreylateral forcemaximumtaken as 363.2914KNattopstoreyofthebuilding,zeroatbasebut minimumvalueatfirststoreytakenas0.8281KNinboththe directionofxandyrespectively.

Also observed that the lateral force of the cross bracing systemofstructuregraduallyincreasedwhenincreasedthe heightofstructures Itmeansthattheeffectthelateralforce varieswithheightofthestructure Inthebracedstructure 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 ComparativeStudyonBehaviorofMultistoriedBuilding with Different Types and Arrangements of Bracing Systems IJSTE International Journal of Science Technology&Engineering|Volume2|Issue2|August 2015ISSN(online):2349 784X.M.Young,TheTechnical Writer’sHandbook.MillValley,CA:UniversityScience, 1989.

[2] Jagadeesh B N, Dr. PrakashM R: Seismic Response Of SteelStructureWithMegaBracingSystem International JournalOfEngineeringSciences&ResearchTechnology,

[4] AjayMapari1,Prof.Y.M.Ghugal:SeismicEvaluationOf HighRiseSteel StructuresWithAndWithoutBracing InternationalJournalofAdvancedResearchinScience and Engineering, Volume 6, Issue 3, ISSN (O) 2313 8354,ISSN (P)2319 8346,March2017.

[5] ZasiahTafheem,ShovonaKhusru“Structuralbehaviour ofsteelbuildingwithconcentricandeccentricbracing:A comparative study”, international journal of civil and structuralengineering,Volume4,No1,2013.

[6] IS: 875 (Part 1) 1987, “Indian Standard Code of Practice for design loads for building and structures, DeadLoads”BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi

[7] IS 456:2000, “Indian Standard plain and reinforced concreteCodeofPractice”,BureauofIndianStandards, NewDelhi,2000.

[8] IS 800(2007), “Indian Standards Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel”, Bureau of Indian Standards,NewDelhi.

[9] AshiruMuhammad,ChhaviGupta,IbrahimB.Mahmoud: Comparative analysis of Seismic Behaviour of Multi storey Composite Steel and Conventional Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures International Journal of Scientific&EngineeringResearch,Volume6,Issue10, October 2015ISSN2229 5518.

[10] KuldeepKumarChaudhary.,SabihAhmad.,SyedAqeel Ahmad., Anwar Ahmad and Rajiv Banerjee: Analytical Study On The Structure Behaviour Of Regular And IrregularSpaceFrameBySTAAD.PROV8i International JournalofRecentScientificResearchVol.9,Issue,5(D), pp.26749 26754,May,2018.

2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal