ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMED STRUCTURE(G+15) WITH STEEL BRACING SYSTEM USING ETABS

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

Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMED STRUCTURE(G+15) WITH STEEL BRACING SYSTEM USING ETABS

1,P.G Student , Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences ,Tirupati, India 2,3,4Assitant Professor, Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences ,Tirupati, India***

Abstract - Earthquakes representoneofthelargestpotential sources of casualties and damage for inhabited areas due to a natural hazard. There was a need to control the damage caused by earthquake to the existing buildings. Many strengthened solid structures need retrofit to overcome inadequacies to oppose seismic loads. Bracing was the best technique which can be used to existing reinforced concrete buildings. Steel bracing is economical, simpletoerect,involves less space and has adaptability to plan for meeting the required strength and stiffness. The current work manages investigation of impact of steel bracings on RC outlined structures. With the end goal of this review, built up concrete outlined building (G+15) was displayed and broke down in three sections 1) Model without steel bracings and shear wall 2) Model with various propping framework 3) Model with shear wall. Bracings and shear walls were set at the center inlets and this multitude of models were investigated for seismic powers at various seismic zones utilizing E tabs 2015 programming. To figure out seismic execution of steel propping and shear wall to RCC building, boundaries as Lateral dislodgingandStory shear shouldbe examined.Itwas found that the chevron kind of steel propping was viewed as additional proficient in zones II&III and V sort of supporting was viewed as additional productive in Zones IV&V.

Words: BRACING SYSTEMS, ,ZONE II,III,IV,V.

1. INTRODUCTION

Propped outlines are known to be productive primary frameworks for structures under high parallel loads, for example, seismic or wind loadings. The way that the horizontalobstructionofedgecanbefundamentallyworked onbytheexpansionofaproppingframeworkhasprompted retrofittingseismicallylackingsupportedsubstantialcasings with steel propping framework. Steel supporting frameworkshavebothdowntoearthandfinancialbenefits. The expected benefit of supporting framework is the relatively little expansion in mass related with the retrofittingplansincethisisanextraordinaryissueforafew retrofittingstrategies.

1.2 STEEL BRACINGS

On a worldwide premise of opposing tremor loads, shear walls are usually utilized in RC outlined structures, while steel supporting is most frequently utilized in steel

structures. Over the most recent twenty years, various reportshaveadditionallydemonstratedtheviableutilization of steel propping in RC outlines. There are quantities of potentialoutcomestoorganizesteelbracings,forexample, quantities of potential outcomes to orchestrate steel bracings like Diagonal, X, K, V, Inverted V or chevron and worldwide sort concentric bracings. The propping frameworks can be gathered by their area in the built up substantial edges as inward or outside and as per their association style as erratic or concentric supporting framework

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Study on the Heat of Hydration and Strength Prof. Bhosle Ashwini Tanaji and Prof. Shaikh A. N (2015) studied the seismic analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) structures with various sorts of propping .The supporting wereaccommodatedfringesegmentsandatanytwoequal sidesofbuildingmodel.Athirteen-storybuildingistakenfor examinationwhichissituatedatseismiczoneIIIaccording to IS 1893: 2002 utilizing ETABS programming. The rate decrease in story uprooting is found out. The paper expresses that the X sort of substantial propping fundamentallyaddstotheprimaryfirmnessandlessensthe most extreme story float of the edges. The supporting frameworkworksonthefirmnessandstrengthlimitaswell astheuprootinglimitoftheconstruction

Hussain Imran K.M and Sowjanya G.V (2014) studied the stability analysis of rigid steel frames with andwithoutbracingsystemsundertheeffectofseismicand wind loads.Forthis project theyhad taken five models in whichoneiswithoutbracingstructureandfourmodelswith different bracing systems and analysed the response of buildings with and without bracings systems subjected to seismic load and wind load using ETABS. The model is analysedbyequivalentstaticanalysisasperIS1893:2002. EffectofWindLoadsontheStructuralSystemsareanalysed andcomparedasperIS875(part3).Finallytheycameintoa conclusionthatforhighlyaffectedearthquakezonesandfor differentwindspeedsthestructurehavingX-typeBracings arehighlyeffectivetypeofbracingstyle.

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

Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

3. METHODOLOGY, MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

OF FRAMES

Thecurrentworkmanagesinvestigationofimpactofsteel bracingsonRCoutlinedstructures.Withtheendgoalofthis review, six models of built up concrete outlined building (G+15) fortified with various kinds of concentrically supportedcasingsandshearwallsindifferentseismiczones (i.e.,zone-II,III,IVandV)ischosen.Thecasingsineachfloor weredissectedandintendedforgravityloadsaccordingtoIS 456:2000andforparallelburdens(tremorloads)according toIS1893:2002(section1)

3.1 STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION

Following are the different types of models: Modelwithoutbracingsandshearwall(Basemodel)  ModelwithVBracing  ModelwithChevronBracing(InvertedVBracing)

3.2 ETABS 2015

ETABS2015isaprogramintendedforstructuresplanand primary investigation. ETABS 2015 offers 3D item based demonstrating and representation devices, quick straight and nonlinear logical power, modern and extensive plan capacitiesformanymaterials,andkeenrealisticshowcases, reports,andschematicdrawings.

Foundationtype Isolatedfooting Soilstrata Medium

MemberProperties

SlabThickness 200mm

Beams

PlinthBeam 350x350mm FloorBeam 300x550mm

Columns 450x600mm WallThickness

Exteriorwall 230mm

Interiorwall 115mm

Shearwallthickness 230mm SteelBracingSize ISMB300

MaterialProperties

Gradeofconcrete M30 Gradeofsteel Fe550

Densityofconcrete 25kN/m3 Densityofbrick 19.20kN/m3 Modulusofelasticityofconcrete 27400N/mm2 Modulusofelasticityofsteel 2×105 N/mm2

LoadIntensities

Floorfinish 1KN/m2 Liveload 2KN/m2

Table 3.2: Parameters of Earthquake Loads Considered for the Study

Parameters values

SeismicZoneFactor

Zone5 0.36 Zone4 0.24 Zone3 0.16 Zone2 0.10

Importancefactor 1.0

Fig

Table 3.1:

GeneralDescription

3.1

plan of building

Description of the Building

Plandimension 32x35m

Structure OMRF No.ofstorey G+15 Floortofloorheight 3.00m

Responsereductionfactor 3.0 Percentageofdamping 5% Soiltype Mediumsoil

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Adetailedstudywasconductedtoevaluatetheperformance of concrete structures under seismic loading with and withoutlateralloadresistingelements.ResultsofResponse SpectrumAnalysishavebeenusedtoobserveandcompare floorresponseofallthemodels



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

Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

ComparisonofseismicperformanceofModelswith DifferentBracingsystemfromzone2tozone5.

4.1 Comparison of Seismic Performance of Models with Different Bracing system from Zone 2 to Zone 5.

The following result shows the variation of Story Displacementfordifferentbracedbuildinginvariousseismic zones

Table 4.1: Comparison of Story Displacement of different braced models in Zone 2

Story Elevation m Location Base Model mm

V Bracing mm

Chevron Bracing mm

Story15 45 Top 27.2 17.2 11.9

Story14 42 Top 26.8 16.7 12.8

Story13 39 Top 25.7 15.9 13.6

Story12 36 Top 24.6 15.2 14.2

Story11 33 Top 23.5 14.8 14.6

Story10 30 Top 22.7 14 13.9

Story9 27 Top 21.5 12.9 12.8

Story8 24 Top 19.8 11.8 11.6

Story7 21 Top 17.8 10.5 10.3

Story6 18 Top 15.5 9.1 9

Story5 15 Top 13 7.7 7.6

Story4 12 Top 10.4 6.4 6.3

Story3 9 Top 7.7 5.1 5

Story2 6 Top 4.9 3.8 3.8 Story1 3 Top 1.7 2.8 2.9 Base 0 Top 0 0 0

Table 4.2 Comparison of Story Displacement of different braced models in Zone 3

Story Elevat ion m

Location Base Model mm

V Bracing mm

Chevron Bracing mm

Story15 45 Top 41.3 26.1 19.6

Story14 42 Top 40.5 25.3 20.9

Story13 39 Top 39.7 24.9 21.8 Story12 36 Top 38.4 24.3 22.6

Story11 33 Top 37.5 23.9 23.7

Story10 30 Top 36.3 22.4 22.3

Story9 27 Top 34.3 20.7 20.5

Story8 24 Top 31.6 18.8 18.6

Story7 21 Top 28.4 16.8 16.5

Story6 18 Top 24.7 14.6 14.4

Story5 15 Top 20.8 12.4 12.2

Story4 12 Top 16.6 10.2 10 Story3 9 Top 12.3 8.1 8

Story2 6 Top 7.8 6.1 6.1 Story1 3 Top 2.6 4.4 4.5 Base 0 Top 0 0 0

Fig 4.2 Comparison of Story Displacement of different braced models in Zone 3

Table 4.3 Comparison of Story Displacement of different braced models in Zone 5

Story Elevation m Location Base Model mm

V Bracing mm

Chevron Bracing mm

Story15 45 Top 88.8 56.1 49.6

Story14 42 Top 87.7 55.6 50.7

Story13 39 Top 86.4 54.7 51.7

Fig 4.1: Comparison of Story Displacement of different braced models in Zone 2

Story12 36 Top 85.6 53.9 52.4

Story11 33 Top 84.4 53.2 53.4 Story10 30 Top 81.7 50.1 50.3

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Story9 27 Top 77.3 46.2 46.6

Story8 24 Top 71.2 41.9 42.4

Story7 21 Top 63.9 37.2 37.7

Story6 18 Top 55.6 32.3 32.8

Story5 15 Top 46.7 27.4 27.8

Story4 12 Top 37.3 22.6 22.9

Story3 9 Top 27.6 18 18.2

17.5 13.7 13.7

798 73 5

Story8 24 Top 563.5 509 1082.8 43 1051.35 7

Story7 21 Top 640.0 833 1230.2 25 1194.35

Story6 18 Top 695.8 549 1337.6 28 1298.55 4

Story5 15 Top 734.1 439 1411.3 63 1370.09 3

Story4 12 Top 758.2 281 1457.7 44 1415.09 2

Story3 9 Top 771.3 857 1483.0 82 1439.67 5

Story2 6 Top 776.8 946 1493.6 91 1449.96 8

Story1 3 Top 777.2 459 1494.3 74 1450.62 9

Base 0 Top 0 0 0

Fig 4.4: Comparison of Story Shear of different braced models in Zone 2 Table 4.5: Comparison of Story Shear of different braced models in Zone 4

Story1 5 45 Top 190.26 86.244 98.4756 Story1 4 42 Top 247.58 147.2598 153.29 Story1 3 39 Top 350.21 272.296 232.276

Story1 2 36 Top 410.74 501.285 410.2569

Story 11 33 Top 423.862 7 810.451 788.1524

2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Story 10 30 Top 804.220 8 1542.928 1498.813

Story 9 27 Top 1111.15 2 2134.002 2072.281

Story 8 24 Top 1352.52 2 2598.823 2523.257

Story 7 21 Top 1536.2 2952.541 2866.44

Story 6 18 Top 1670.05 2 3210.307 3116.529

Story 5 15 Top 1761.94 5 3387.272 3288.223

Story 4 12 Top 1819.74 8 3498.585 3396.22

Story 3 9 Top 1851.32 6 3559.396 3455.221

Story 2 6 Top 1864.54 7 3584.857 3479.923

Story 1 3 Top 1865.39 3586.497 3481.509 Base 0 Top 0 0 0

Story10 30 Top 1206.331 2314.392 2248.219

Story9 27 Top 1666.727 3201.002 3108.422

Story8 24 Top 2028.783 3898.234 3784.886

Story7 21 Top 2304.3 4428.811 4299.66

Story6 18 Top 2505.078 4815.461 4674.793

Story5 15 Top 2642.918 5080.907 4932.334

Story4 12 Top 2729.621 5247.877 5094.33

Story3 9 Top 2776.989 5339.094 5182.831

Story2 6 Top 2796.821 5377.286 5219.885

Story1 3 Top 2798.085 5379.745 5222.263 Base 0 Top 0 0 0

Fig 4.6: Comparison of Story Shear of different braced models in Zone 5

DISCUSSION

• In Zone 2, greatest story dislodging of a typical structureisdiminishedby37.02%and37.87%,byutilizing Vandchevronbracingsseparately.

• InZone3,mostextremestoryremovalofatypical structureisdecreasedby36.26%and36.8%,byutilizingV andchevronseparately.

• InZone5,mostextremestorydislodgingofatypical structureisdiminishedby36.96%and36.72%byutilizingV andchevronbracingsseparately

5. CONCLUSION

Story15

• Steelproppingisoneofthefavorableideaswhich canbeutilizedtofortifyorretrofitthecurrentdesignsas reinforcing of designs ends up being a superior choice givingtothemonetarycontemplationsandquicksanctuary issuesasopposedtosubstitutionofstructures.

• Thechevronsortofsteelsupportingwasviewedas additionalproficientinZonesII&IIIandVkindofpropping wasviewedasadditionalproductiveinZonesIV&V.

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

Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

• Steel bracings can be utilized as an option in contrast to other fortifying or retrofitting strategy as the totalloadofthecurrentstructurewontchangealtogether..

• The story shear of a propped fabricating was extremely high when contrasted with unbraced building which demonstrates that solidness of building has expanded.

6. REFERENCES



Prof.BhosleAshwiniTanaji,Prof.ShaikhA.N.,“Analysis ofReinforced Concrete Buildingwith Different Arrangement of Concrete and Steel Bracing system” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X,Volume12,Issue5Ver.V(Sep.-Oct.2015).



Y.U.Kulkarni, Prof. P. K. Joshi, “Analysis and Design Of VariousBracingSystemIn HighRiseSteel Structures” International Journal of Advance Research In Science And Engineering, IJARSE, Vol. No.3, Issue No.11, November2014ISSN-2319-8354(E).



Hussain Imran K.M, Mrs.Sowjanya G.V, “Stability AnalysisofRigidSteelFramesWithandWithoutBracing Systems under the Effect of Seismic and Wind Loads” InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Research ISSN 2348-7607 ,Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp: (137142),Month:April2014-September2014.

Suresh P, Panduranga Rao B, Kalyana Rama J.S, “Influence of diagonal braces in RCC multi-storied frames under wind loads: A case study” international journalofcivilandstructuralengineeringvolume3,no 1,2012. 



S.I.Khan,Prof.P.O.Modani,“SeismicRetrofittingofRC Building by Using Different Bracing Systems” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) Vol. 2 Issue 7, July – 2013, IJERTIJERTISSN:2278-0181. 

Batta Pradip A, Nakum Raisha F, Solanki Nirmala B, “Review on Comparison of Different Types of Bracing SystemUsedinTallBuilding”Indianjournalofapplied research, Volume : 5 | Issue : 4 | April 2015 | ISSN2249-555X.



S.Zubair Ahmed, K.V.Ramana, Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar,“SeismicResponseofRCFrameStructurewith SoftStorey”IJRET:InternationalJournalofResearchin EngineeringandTechnologyeISSN:2319-1163|pISSN: 2321-7308,Volume:03Issue:09|Sep-2014.



M.D. Kevadkar, P.B. Kodag, “Lateral Load Analysis of R.C.C. Building” International Journal of Modern EngineeringResearch(IJMER)Vol.3,Issue.3,May-June. 2013pp-1428-1434,ISSN:2249-6645.



NaveenKumarB.S,NaveenB.S,ParikshithShetty,“Time Period Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Building with andWithoutInfluenceofSteelBracings”International JournalofModernChemistryandAppliedScience2015, 2(3),148-152,ISSN2349–0594.