Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
The present study focuses on the effect of different
aspect ratios i.e. H/B ratio, where H is the total height of
the building frame and B is the base width of the
building frame, on the seismic performance of the steel
frame structures. Here, height of the building is kept
constant and the base width is varied. In the present
study, seven different aspect ratios ranging from 1.0 to
3.75 have been considered for the ten storey steel frame
building with concentric bracing i.e. X bracing and
without bracing system. Two types of frames are
considered for the study, one with similar steel sections
for maximum strength required for beam and column
and the other with varying steel sections conforming to
the strength and serviceability requirements to withstand
the specified loading. For this analytical study, ETABS
is used and the comparison between the performances of
bare frames with different aspect ratios is made using
pushover curves. Roof displacement, base shear carried
and performance point are the parameters used to
identify the seismic performance of the frames. It is
inferred that provision of bracings to the frame structure
increased the base shear carrying capacity, performance
point and reduced the roof displacement for all types of
aspect ratios considered.
Keywords - Aspect Ratio, Pushover analysis, Steel
Frame, X Braced Frame, Type 1 Section, Type 2 Section
I.
INTRODUCTION
www.ijsret.org
247
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
analysis is carried out. For the analysis purpose they
considered three and six story RC building with different
patterns of bracing system with different cross sections as
mentioned above. Conclusions showed that adding braces
influenced the global capacity of the buildings in terms of
strength, deformation and ductility in comparisons with bare
frame. They found that the X and Zipper bracing systems
performed better than other braces depending on the type and
size of the cross section [5]. Inel and Ozmen, (2006) carried
out push over analysis using SAP [2000] comparing the
performance of the building for default hinge properties and
user defined hinge properties. They have concluded that the
result obtained from user defined hinge properties are more
accurate than of default hinges [6]. Maheri and Hadjipour,
(2003) conducted experiments on scaled models of ductile RC
frames with steel X and knee bracing system. Experiment
results signifies that the yield and strength capacity of a
ductile RC frame can be increased and its global
displacements can be reduced to the desired levels by directly
adding either X or a knee bracing system to the frame. Both X
and knee bracing systems may be used to design or retrofit for
a damage-level earthquake, whenever designing or retrofitting
for a collapse-level earthquake is considered knee bracing is a
effective system [7].
From previous work we can observe that many experimental
and analytical works have been done in the area of the
pushover analysis of the RC frames and few works on steel
frames with different types of bracing systems. Since no work
is done on aspect ratios of steel frames with different types of
bracing systems. Hence, the present work is focused on the
effect of different aspect ratios on the seismic performance of
the steel frames with X bracing systems using ETABS and
results are analyzed through pushover analysis.
II.
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Linear elastic analysis gives a good indication of elastic
capacity of structures and indicates where the first yielding
will occur but it cannot predict failure mechanisms and
accounts for redistribution of forces due to progressive
yielding. Among different approaches described in ATC-40,
Nonlinear Static Pushover analysis is very popular because of
its simplicity and ability to estimate component and system
level deformation demands with acceptable accuracy without
intensive computational and modeling effort as dynamic
analysis. Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in
which the magnitude of the structural loading is incrementally
increased in accordance with a certain predefined pattern.
Pushover analysis may be categorized as displacement
controlled pushover analysis when lateral movement is
executed on the building and its equilibrium designates the
forces. In the same way, when lateral forces are enforced, the
analysis is termed as force-controlled pushover analysis. The
target displacement or target force is projected to signify the
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Figure 2: (i) Steel bare frame, (ii) One Bay X Braced Frame,
(iii) Two Bay X Braced Frame for aspect ratio1.0
In the present study, a 2- bay two dimensional steel frame
structures with one bay X braced frame, two bay X braced
frame and structure without bracing with different aspect
www.ijsret.org
248
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
ratios has been modeled and analyzed using ETABS. Two
types of frames are considered for the study, one with similar
steel sections (Type 1) for maximum strength required for
beam and column and the other with varying steel sections
(Type 2) confirming to the strength and serviceability
requirements to withstand the specified loading. Structural
configuration of different types of framed structures of aspect
ratio 1.0 is shown in the Figure 2. The building consists of
G+9 stories. All columns in all models are assumed to be fixed
at the base for simplicity. The height of each floor is 3.0m.
Live load on floor is taken as 3kN/m2 and on roof is 1.5kN/m2.
Floor finish on the floor is 1kN/m2. Weathering course on roof
is 2kN/m2. In the seismic weight calculation only 25% of floor
live load is considered. The unit weights of concrete and
masonry are taken as 25kN/m3 and 20kN/m3 respectively.
The building is steel moment resisting frame with concentric
bracing considered to be situated in seismic zone III. The
medium type of soil is considered and time period of the
building in X-direction is considered based on base dimension
of the building as per IS code 1893-2002. The sizes used for
beam is Girder Section1, column is Girder Section2 and that
of X bracing is ISWB600 for Type 1 section. Beam and
column sizes for Type 2 sections as per SP 6 (1) 1964 are
tabulated in Table 1.
Girder Section1: Web plate (800x12) mm, Flange angle
(150x150x18) mm, Flange plates (400x40) mm
Girder Section2: Web plate (800x12) mm, Flange angle
(150x150x18) mm, Flange plates (500x32) mm
Girder Section3: Web plate (800x12) mm, Flange angle
(150x150x18) mm, Flange plates (400x16) mm
IV.
Aspect
Ratio
Base
Width
B in m
1.00
Type 2 Section
Beam Size
Column
Size
X Brace
30
Girder
Section1
Girder
Section2
ISWB 600
1.25
24
Girder
Section3
ISWB600
C.P 32mm
ISMB 600
1.50
20
ISMB550
C.P 40mm
ISWB600
C.P 32mm
ISMB 500
2.00
15
ISMB 600
C.P 25mm
ISWB400
C.P 32mm
ISMB 450
2.50
12
ISMB 600
ISWB 600
ISMB 450
3.00
10
ISMB 450
ISWB 600
ISMB 450
3.75
08
ISMB 400
ISWB 550
ISMB 400
www.ijsret.org
249
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
because of negligible variation in mass. As bracing is
introduced to the bare frame structures it increased the
performance of the base force and ductile behaviour of the
structure.
www.ijsret.org
250
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
Table 2: Base Shear for Linear Static Analysis of different
frame structures for Type 1 and Type 2 Sections
Aspect
Ratio
Bare
Frame
B.S in
kN
1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.75
209.14
159.79
131.17
097.51
074.43
061.52
048.99
1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.75
209.14
168.64
141.64
107.87
087.63
074.07
060.59
Type 1 Section
One Bay X
Braced
%
B.S in
Increa
kN
se
544.53
160
433.46
157
332.40
134
219.38
103
159.53
82
123.23
66
90.35
49
Type 2 Section
544.53
160
408.97
155
303.61
132
194.81
99
133.26
79
100.66
63
71.54
46
Two Bay X
Braced
%
B.S in
Incre
kN
ase
565.43
170
450.15
166
345.25
143
227.99
111
165.93
89
128.31
73
94.24
55
565.43
423.03
311.29
199.10
136.44
103.19
73.19
170
164
137
104
83
67
49
Aspect
Ratio
Bare
Frame
R.D in
mm
1.25
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.75
7.6
5.6
4.5
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.4
1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.75
7.6
9.0
10.9
10.6
11.9
18.3
19.6
Type 1 Section
One Bay X
Braced
%
R.D in
Decre
mm
ase
7.3
3.95
5.6
0
4.4
2.22
3.2
3.03
2.7
3.57
2.4
7.69
2.3
4.17
Type 2 Section
7.3
3.95
7.3
18.89
7.3
33.03
7.0
33.96
8.2
31.09
9.4
48.63
11.1
43.37
Two Bay X
Braced
%
R.D in
Decre
mm
ase
4.3
43
3.2
43
2.5
44
1.9
42
1.7
39
1.7
35
1.7
30
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
4.2
4.2
5.4
Type 1 Section
Performance Point(V(kN),d(mm))
Bare
One Bay X
Two Bay X
Frame
Braced
Braced Frame
Frame
1.00
(936.69, 35)
(1357.04,23)
(1806.12, 14)
1.25
(881.28, 30)
(1353.79,20)
(1438.09, 11)
1.50
(829.40, 27)
(1126.49,17)
(1188.37, 09)
2.00
(735.60, 23)
(839.74,14)
(873.44, 7.4)
2.50
(651.09, 21)
(669.40,12)
(687.98, 7.2)
3.00
(569.07, 20)
(557.44,12)
(568.46, 7.4)
3.75
(457.63, 18)
(448.75,12)
(455.31, 8.3)
43
56
65
66
65
77
72
www.ijsret.org
251
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
Table 5: Base shear and roof displacement at performance
point for Type 2 section
Aspect
Ratio
Type 2 Section
Performance Point(V(kN),d(mm))
Two Bay X
Bare Frame
One Bay X
Braced
Braced Frame
Frame
1.00
(936.69, 35)
(1357.04, 23)
(1806.12, 14)
1.25
(657.23, 38)
(914.36,23)
(1135.32, 12)
1.50
(488.39, 41)
(702.39,24)
(821.94,13)
2.00
(372.16, 41)
(563.84,27)
(664.97,14)
2.50
(266.19, 43)
(433.75,32)
(551.69,17)
3.00
(175.48, 53)
(316.89,36)
(446.92,18)
3.75
(135.23, 55)
(218.76,41)
(322.14,24)
CONCLUSIONS
The following are the observations from present analysis.
1.
2.
3.
4.
VI.
REFERENCES
[1] Khan M. I. and Khan K.N.,(2014), Seismic Analysis of
Steel Frame with Bracings using Pushover Analysis,
International Journal of Advanced Technology in
Engineering and Science, Volume No. 02, Issue No. 07,
Page No. 369-381.
[2] Kalibhat M.G., Kamath K., Prasad S. K. and Pai R.R.,
2014, Seismic Performance of Concentric Braced Steel
Frames from Pushover Analysis, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Page No. 67-73.
[3] Vijaykumar and Babu V. D.L., 2012, Pushover Analysis
of Existing Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures,
European Journal of Scientific Research, Volume No. 71,
Issue No. 02, Page No. 195-202.
[4] Poluraju.P. and Rao N. P.V.S., 2011, Pushover analysis
of reinforced concrete frame structure using SAP 2000,
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering,
Volume No. 04, Issue No. 06, Page No. 684-690.
[5] Kadid A. and Yahiaoui D., 2011, Seismic Assessment of
Braced RC Frames, Procedia Engineering, Volume No.
14, Page No. 2899-2905.
[6] Inel M. and Ozmen H.B., 2006, Effects of plastic hinge
property in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings, Engineering Structure, Volume No. 28, Page
No. 1494-1502.
[7] Maheri M.R. and Hadjipour A., 2003, Experimental
investigation and design of steel brace connection to RC
frame, Engineering Structures, Volume No. 25, Page No.
1707-1714.
[8] IS 800, 2007, General construction in steel, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[9] IS 1893(part 1), 2002, Provision on seismic design of
buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[10] FEMA 356, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC.
[11] ATC-40, 1996 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Concrete Buildings, Applied Technical Council,
California Seismic Safety Commission, Redwood City,
California.
[12] SP 6 (1), 1964, Hand book for Structural Engineer,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to The
Director, and H.O.D, Civil engineering, Manipal Institute of
Technology, Manipal for providing necessary facilities
required for the present study.
www.ijsret.org
252