CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 General:

Steel Concentrically Braced Frame (CBF) is commonly used structural system

(Figure 1.1), developed for resisting forces and deformations induced by severe
earthquake ground motions and wind loads. This system offers significant energy
dissipation, ductility, moderate initial stiffness, which render it an efficient lateral load
resisting system. Concentrically braced frames are defined as those where the centre lines
of all intersecting members meet at a point as shown in Fig.1.1. This traditional form of
bracing is widely used for all kinds of construction such as towers, bridges, and buildings,
creating stiffness with great economy of materials in two dimensional space frames.
1.1.1 Advantages of using Steel Concentrically Braced Frame (CBF)
Following are advantages of using CBF as a lateral load resisting system in
comparison with traditional lateral load resisting systems:
1. Due to light weight of CBF, it reduces the seismic loads which are directly
proportional to the mass of the structure.

2. From architectural point of view, CBF increases versatility and space savings
because of the smaller cross section as compared to reinforced concrete section.

3. By using hot rolled Steel section, high quality control is achieved and speed of
construction is faster as compared to reinforced concrete structure.

4. Lateral loading on a building is reversible, braces thus will be subjected in turn to

both tension and compression, and consequently, they are usually designed for the
more stringent case of compression.

1.1.2

Limitations of Steel Concentrically Braced Frame Systems (CBF)

Following are limitations associated with CBF as a lateral load resisting system:

1. CBF systems are usually more flexible in comparison to traditional lateral load
resisting systems.

2. As compared to other reinforced concrete structure, CBF increases its vulnerability

to fire hazards.

3. The inability to provide reversible inelastic deformation is the principal

disadvantage of CBF.

4. Ordinary concentrically braced frames are not allowed in Seismic zones IV and V
and for buildings with an importance factor greater than unity (I > 1.0) in zone III.

5. K bracing is not permitted in earthquake zones by the code. The inelastic

deformation and buckling of K bracing members may produce lateral deflection of
the connected columns, causing collapse.

1.1.3 Design provisions:

Current code-based seismic design provisions, IS 1893 Part1: Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth Revision
2002) & AISC Seismic Provision for Structural Steel Buildings, (ASCE7 2005) adopts
elastic force/strength-based approach and implicitly accounts for inelastic behavior of

structural system through a response reduction factor R. Generally for ductile design, the
code-based provision adopted value of R for Steel CBF is between 3-4.

1.1.4. The performance-based seismic design (PBSD):

The performance-based seismic design (PBSD) method is a more general, reliable
and efficient method which explicitly considers the inelastic behavior of a lateral load
resisting system. The Performance Based Plastic Design (PBPD), a displacement-based
approach of PBSD. It is based on a target displacement ductility ratio and pre-selected
yield mechanism and it uses plastic analysis and design provisions. This approach was
proposed by Chao and Goel (2006).

1.2 Objectives:
Limitations of code-based design method
1. No consideration of inelastic response:
The current seismic design codes for lateral load resisting systems are still not
based on proper inelastic design methodology. As a result, the significant inelastic
displacement capacity of these systems cannot be fully explored. Elastic design
methodology applied on Steel CBF does not recognize the redistribution of moments in
the inelastic range.
2. Unpredictable failure:
The design procedures do not always lead to the intended failure mode and the
expected ductility under severe ground motions

3. Insufficient energy dissipation capacity:

The energy dissipation capacity of structure designed by current seismic code
procedure can be less than that required for preventing collapse under severe ground
motion.

Performance Based Plastic Design (PBPD) is an emerging seismic design method for
next generation. It is of upmost importance to evaluate or to check the advantage of PBPD
over traditional code based method through a design case study. Hence following
objectives are considered for this study:
1. Design a four storey Steel CBF for high seismicity by using force/strength based
approach of current Indian design standard IS: 1893-2002 (BIS: 2002).
2. Obtaining similar design by using displacement base approach of recent PBPD
method proposed by Chao and Goel (2001).
3. Comparing design as well as their seismic performance through nonlinear static
push over analysis (NSPA).
1.3 Scope of the project:
A four storey Steel CBF under high seismic condition is considered for seismic
design. Due to lack of high capacity/strength of Indian standard hot rolled Steel
sections (SP:6(1)-1964), American Institute of Steel Construction standard
sections (AISC 2005b) with high strength Steel (fy=345Mpa) have been use for
this study.
1.4 Outline of the Project:
The project outline is shown on the next page in the form of flowchart

Comparison of strength based & displacement

based seismic design of steel concentrically braced
frames
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Strength Based Design

Chapter 4: Displacement Based

Design
Chapter 5: Comparison between
strength and displacement based
design

Chapter 6 : Findings of study &

Conclusions

Chapter 1 deals with Introduction, advantages of Steel CBF, limitations of code based
design provisions for Steel CBF, objectives, scope of project and outline of report.

Chapter 2 deals with literature review of force/strength based and displacement-based

approach of seismic design for Steel CBF.

Chapter 3 deals with design of a four storey Steel CBF for high seismicity by using
force/strength based approach of current Indian design standard IS: 1893-2002 (BIS:
2002).

Chapter 4 deals with design of a four storey Steel CBF for high seismicity by using
displacement base approach of recent PBPD method proposed by Chao and Goel
(2001).

Chapter 5 deals with comparing with design as well as their seismic performance
through nonlinear static push over analysis (NSPA).

Chapter 6 deals with findings of study, conclusions, thrust areas and recommendations
derived from this study.

(a)

(b)
Figure 1.1: Steel CBF used as a structural system
Concentric Braced Frame

CHAPTER 2
A Review of Seismic Design of Steel Concentrically Braced Frames
And Related Research

2.1 Introduction
The design procedures for regular structures specified in the current seismic codes,
such as IS 1893 PART 1 :2000, are mainly based on elastic analyses under seismic
horizontal forces (Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure), without attempting to predict the
inelastic response. These procedures offer considerable simplification and do not require
the designer to use the understanding of structural dynamics. The structures designed by
these procedures may possess sufficient strength and stiffness to satisfy the requirements
of serviceability limit state. However, the design procedures do not always lead to the
intended failure mode and the expected ductility under severe ground motions. The
energy dissipation capacity of the structure designed by these procedures can be less than
that required to prevent collapse under severe ground motions. Therefore, alternative
design procedure based on inelastic structural analysis and the plastic design should be
adopted for the ultimate limit state.
This chapter begins with reviewing and discussing the current seismic design
codes and provisions for steel concentrically braced frames. After that, related past studies
that addressed the problems of current code procedures or proposed new design methods
based on inelastic analysis and plastic design concepts are also reviewed and discussed.

2.2 EQUIVALENT LATERAL BASE SHEAR FORCE PROCEDURE

The characteristics parameters like intensity, duration etc. of seismic ground
vibrations depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake ,its depth of focus , distance from
the epicenter, properties of soil of medium through which the seismic waves travel and
the soil strata where the structure stands. The random earthquake motions can be resolved
in any directions. Vertical acceleration is considered in large span structures.

The response of a structure to ground vibrations depends on the nature of

foundation soil, form, material, size and mode of constructions of structures and the
duration and characteristics of ground motion.

2.2.1 Assumptions
The following are the assumptions in the earthquake resistant design of structures:
1. Impulsive ground motions of earthquake are complex, irregular in character,
changing in period and time and of short durations, they, therefore, may not cause
resonance as visualized under steady state sinusoidal excitations, except in tall
structures founded on deep soft soils.
2. Wind, maximum flood or maximum sea waves will not occur simultaneously with
the earthquake.
3. For static analysis, elastic modulus of materials shall be taken unless otherwise
mentioned.

2.2.2 DESIGN LATERAL FORCES

Design Horizontal seismic coefficient
The design horizontal seismic coefficients Ah (cl.6.4.2 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2000) for
structure is determined from

Ah =

.. (2.1)

Where;
Z = the zone factor as given Table 2 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, based on classifying the
country in four seismic zones,

I= Importance factor, depending upon functional use of the structures as given in Table 6
of IS 1893 (part 1) :2002,
R= Response reductions factor, depending on the perceived seismic damage, performance
of the structures, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations, as given in Table 7 of IS
1893 (Part 1):2002.However, the value of (I/R) shall not be greater than 1.0, and
S/g= Average response acceleration coefficient for rock or soil sites as given Fig.2 and
Table 3 of IS 1893 (part 1) :2002.
It is further stipulated in cl.6.4.2 of IS 1893 (part 1) :2002, that for any structure with
undamped natural period of vibrations of the structure (in seconds) T 0.1 second, the
value of Ah will not be taken less than Z/2 whatever be the value of I/R.

2.2.3 DESIGN SEISMIC BASE SHEAR

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear VB along any principal
direction (cl.7.5.3 of IS 1893 (part 1):2002) shall be determined from the following
equations:

VB = Ah W (2.2)
Where;
W is the seismic weight of the building as given in cl.7.4.2 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.

2.2.3.1 Distribution of design force

The design base shear VB shall be distributed along the height of the building as per the
following equation (cl.7.7 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002)

Qi =

Where;
Qi = design lateral force at floor i,
10

(2.3)

Wi = Seismic weight of floor i,

Hi = Height of floor I measured from base, and
n = Number of storeys in the building at which the masses are located

2.3 REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH ON CONCENTRICALLY BRACED

FRAMES
The design of concentrically bracings may be found in Becker (1995), Becker and
Ishler (1996), Bruneau et al. (1997), Bozorgnia and Bertero (2004), and Williams (2004).
Thus, many studies have been carried out to investigate and revise the design procedures
currently used in seismic codes or to develop new design procedures for the
concentrically braced frames.
Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs) are very efficient steel structures that are
commonly used to resist forces due to wind or earthquakes because they provide complete
truss action.
Based on research performed during last the last twenty years or so (for example,
Goel, 1992a), current seismic codes such as (ANSI, 2005a) now include provisions to
design ductile concentrically braced frames called Special Concentrically Braced Frames
(SCBFs). Since the seismic forces are assumed to be entirely resisted by means of truss
action , the columns are designed based on axial load demand only, and simple shear
connections are used to join the beams and columns (Tremblay and Robert,2000; Mac
Rae et al., 2004; ANSI, 2005c). It has been estimated that CBFs comprise about 40
percent of the newly built commercial constructions in the last decade in California
(Uriz,2005).This is attributed to the simpler design and high efficiency of CBFs compared
to other systems such as moment frames, especially after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

Mac Rae has proposed the Steel concentrically braced frames are generally
designed to resist lateral force by means of truss action. Design considerations for
columns in these frames are therefore governed by the column axial force while column
11

bending moment demands are generally ignored. However, if the columns cannot carry
moments, then dynamic inelastic time-historey analyses show that a soft-storey
mechanism is likely to occur causing large concentrated deformations in only one storey.
Such large concentrations of damage are not generally seen in real frames since columns
are generally continuous and they possess some flexural stiffness and strength. This paper
develops relationships for column stiffness and drift concentration within a frame based
on pushover and dynamic analyses. It is shown that continuous seismic and gravity
columns in a structure significantly decrease the possibility of large drift concentrations.
An assessment method and example to determine the required column stiffness necessary
to limit the concentration of storey drift is provided.

R.G. Redwood, V.S. Channagiri studied that new provisions of the CSA standard
for steel structures (CAN/CSA-S16.1-M89) dealing with detailing of concentrically
braced frames for seismic design are described and related to requirements of the National
Building Code of Canada. The basis of the new requirements is outlined, and an example
eight-storey frame is used to outline a methodology for the design process for a ductile
braced frame and to illustrate the impact of the provisions.

Tremblay, R. And N.Robert.2000 suggested that Single-storey buildings typically

incorporate a steel roof deck diaphragm that is relied on to transfer lateral loads to the
vertical bracing bents. Modern building codes allow engineers to use reduced seismic
loads in design provided that the seismic load resisting system (SLRS) of the structure is
adequately designed and detailed to withstand strong ground shaking through ductile
response. This approach has been adopted by the North American model codes which
typically include special provisions to achieve satisfactory inelastic seismic performance.
The vertical braces of steel buildings are usually selected as the energy dissipating fuse
element, while the diaphragm and other elements in the SLRS should be designed to have
a capacity that exceeds the nominal resistance of the braces. Steel bracing members
designed for compression inherently possess significant reserve strength when loaded in
tension, which means that large brace tension loads must be considered in the design of
12

the surrounding protected structural components. Capacity design seismic provisions have
led to the need for much thicker roof deck panels and more closely spaced diaphragm
connection patterns compared with past practice. This paper provides a description of the
current US seismic design approach and an example as it is applied to a single-storey
building and its diaphragm. An overview of the related aspects of an on-going research
project on the flexibility and ductility of the roof diaphragm in low-rise steel buildings is
also included.

Shaback, B and T.Brown.2003 deduced that the hysteretic behavior of nine square
hollow structural steel (HSS) sections with gusset plate end connections subject to
inelastic cyclic loading has been examined by an experimental investigation.

2.3.1NHRP Seismic Design Salient Feature On CBFs

The configuration of braces also affects system performance. Multiple
configurations of bracing are used, and these configurations are identified in Figure 2.1.
Braces buckle in compression and yield in tension. The initial compressive buckling
capacity is smaller than the tensile yield force, and for subsequent buckling cycles, the
buckling capacity is further reduced by the prior inelastic excursion. Therefore, bracing
systems must be balanced so that the lateral resistance in tension and compression is
similar in both directions. This means that diagonal bracing (Figure 2.1) must be used in
matched tensile and compressive pairs. As a result, diagonal

Fig: 2.1 Various Braced Frames Systems

13

bracing (Figure 2.1) must be used in opposing pairs to achieve this required balance.
Other bracing configurations, such as the X-brace, multi-storey X-brace and chevron
brace directly achieve this balance. X-bracing is most commonly used with light bracing
on shorter structures. Research shows that the buckling capacity of X-bracing is best
estimated by using one half the brace length when the braces intersect and connect at mid
section (Palmer 2012). However, the inelastic deformation capacity of the X-braced
system is somewhat reduced from that achievable with many other braced frame systems
because the inelastic deformation is concentrated in one-half the brace length because the
other half of the brace cannot fully develop its capacity as the more damaged half
deteriorates. The compressive buckling resistance of most other brace configurations is
best estimated by considering true end-to-end length of the brace with an effective length
factor, K, of 1.0 (i.e., neglecting rotation stiffness of the brace-to-gusset connection.)

Concentration of inelastic deformation in a limited number of stories occurs with

braced frames. Experiments suggest that multi-storey X-bracing offers a slight advantage
in that it provides a somewhat more robust path for transferring storey shear to adjacent
stories even after brace buckling and fracture because the remaining tension brace may
directly transfer its force to the next storey. Chevron or inverted-chevron bracing
(inverted V- or V-bracing) has intersecting brace connections at mid span of the beam
(Figure 2.1). Large unbalanced forces and bending moments on the beam occur because
the buckling load is smaller than the tensile yield resistance and decreases with increasing
damage. The bending moment increases as the compressive resistance deteriorates and
AISC 341 requires that the beam be designed for these bending moments. Research shows
that the beam deformation associated with the unbalanced forces in chevron bracing
increases the axial compressive deformation of the brace and reduces the inelastic
deformation capacity prior to brace fracture (Okazaki et al. 2012). However, flexural
yielding of the beam increases the damping of dynamic response.

Other bracing configurations are possible, and some are expressly prohibited in
AISC 341. K-braces intersect at mid-height of the column. They have the same
14

unbalanced force problem as noted with chevron bracing, but bending moments and
inelastic deformation will occur in the column and may fail, triggering collapse. As a
result, K-bracing is not permitted for the SCBF system. In addition, tension-only bracing
has had relatively poor performance during past earthquakes because the lack of
compressive brace resistance leads to inelastic behavior with slack braces that have no
stiffness until the slack is taken up. The slack braces may lead to progressively increasing
drift and impact loading on the brace, and early brace fracture may occur. Consequently,
tension-only bracing is also prohibited for the SCBF system.

2.4 Performance Based Plastic Design (PBPD) Method

In order to achieve more predictable structural performance under strong
earthquake ground motions, knowledge of the ultimate structural behavior such as
nonlinear relationship between force and deformation and the yield mechanism of the
structure are essential. Consequently, design factor such as determination of appropriate
design lateral forces and member strength hierarchy, selection of desirable yield
mechanism, and structure strength & drift for a given hazard levels should become part of
the design process from the beginning .
The PBPD method uses pre-selected target drift and yield mechanisms as key
performance limit states. These two limit states are directly related to the degree and
distribution of structural damage, respectively. The design base shear for a specified
hazard level

is calculated by equating

the work needed to push the structure

monotonically up to the target drift to the energy required by an equivalent elastic Plastic Single Degree of Freedom (EP-SDOF) system to achieve the same state (Fig
2.2). Also, a new distribution of lateral design forces is used (Chao et al, 2007), which is
based on relative distribution of maximum storey shears consistent with inelastic dynamic
response result.

Plastic design is then performed to detail the frame members and

connections in order to achieve the intended yield mechanism & behavior.

.
15

Fig. 2.2: PBPD Design Lateral Force

In this design approach the designer selects the target displacements & yield
mechanism & determines the design forces and members sizes for a given a earthquake.
There is no need factor such as R, I & Cd as are required in the current design course and
over which debate already exists. The PBPD design procedures is not to different from
what is done in current practices, yet it can be readily incorporated within the context of
border Performance Bases Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) frame work. It does differ
from the way PBEE is practiced currently which usually starts with an initial design
according to conventional elastic design procedures using applicable design codes,
allowed by a cumbersome and time consuming iterative assessment process by using
inelastic static or dynamic analyses until the desired performance objectives are met. The
iteration are carried out in a purely trail & error manner. No guidance is provided to the
designer as to how to achieve the desired goals such as controlling drifts or the
distributions and extent of inelastic deformation. In contrast, the PBPD method is a direct
design method, which required no evaluation after the initial design because the nonlinear
behavior and key performance criteria are built into the design process from the start. The
design procedure is easy to follow it can be easily programmed as well. Al though not
necessary, structures designed by PBPD could be evaluated by other evaluation methods
16

if desired. In cases where significant structural irregularities are present, the method will
provide a good initial design, which may require some refinement through nonlinear static
or dynamic analysis.
PBPD application to concentrically braced frames with degrading hysteretic
behavior due to brace buckling is currently being developed. The results thus far have
been most encouraging

Fig. 2.3: Typical Hysteretic responses for CBF

17

CHAPTER 3
Design of a Four Storey Steel CBF for High Seismicity by using Force/Strength
Based
Approach of Current Indian Design Standard IS: 1893-2002 (BIS, 2002)

3.1 Introduction
Seismic designs of structure are based on force/strength based approach used
today and the IS: 1893 (Part I), 2002 code is based on this approach. Seismic designs of
most of the structure are on the basis of lateral force assumed to be equivalent to the
actual loading. It is based on providing the structure with a minimum lateral strength to
resist seismic loads, assuming that the structure will behave adequately in the non-linear
range. The base shear which is the total horizontal force on the structure is calculated on
the basis of structure mass and fundamental period of vibration and corresponding mode
shape. The base shear is distributed along the height of structure in terms of lateral forces
according to code formula. Only some simple constructional detail rules are to be satisfied
as material ductility, member slenderness, etc. This method is usually conservative for
low to medium height buildings with a regular conformation.
Steel CBF is designed as per the IS 800:2007 along with IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 for
site and geometric configurations. In this chapter we formulate the problem and design it
as per the strength based method and obtain the section. For analysis we use ABAQUS
finite element software.

3.2 Case Study

A design case study of 4-storey frames in a study building located in high seismic
zone (Zone V as per IS: 1893-Part-I 2000) for soft soil condition with Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) is considered for the following geometric configurations.
The plan and elevation of this CBF is shown in Figure 3.1.

18

Selected study frame for code-based

code
and displacement-based
based seismic design

Figure 3.1: Plan and elevation of four-storey

four storey CBF study building

Given Data:
Elastic response spectra

IS: 1893 (Part 1) 2002.

Damping factor

5%

Site condition

Soft soil

Material property

Fe 345 steel with elastic perfectly plastic

stress strain relationship
19

Hot rolled steel section

From AISC standard. (AISC, 2005b)

Table 3.1 Floor wise seismic weight for study building

Floor Level i Floor Height (m) Seismic Weight (kN)
4th

4.0

5000

3rd

4.0

5000

2nd

4.0

5000

1st

4.0

5000

Design:

Design of steel concentrically braced frame along X-X direction,

There are two set of steel CBF in X-X direction as lateral load resisting systems for
earthquake in X-direction.

Thus, seismic weight is distributed equally on each set and floor wise seismic weight
on each set of steel CBF is as per Table 3.2

20

Total seismic weight, W = 220000 kN

Fundamental time period for Steel CBF and for soft soil condition is,

Total height of building = 16 m

Calculation of Design base shear,

Ah =

Zone factor Z, is not considered for Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE ),

Importance factor,

Response reduction
ion factor,

Spectral acceleration,
= 2.50

Figure 3.2: Calculation of Sa/g from elastic response spectra of IS: 1893
1893-PartI-2002

Therefore,
21

Design base shear,

Table 3.2 Storey

Storey-wise Lateral Distribution of Design
gn Base Shear
Floor Level

(kN)

(m)

(kN)

4th

5000

16

1280000

0.534

6675

3rd

5000

12

720000

0.30

3750

2nd

5000

320000

0.133

1662.5

1st

5000

80000

0.033

412.5

=2400000

=1.0

=12500

3.3 Design of frame components

Code based design method is an iterative procedure which do not provide design
equation for individual components of Steel CBF. Initial section for column and beam of
CBF are selected from AISC stee
steell sections by trial and error method. With these initial
sections, CBF is modeled using B31 (3 dimensional beam element) in ABAQUS 6.9
(ABAQUS, 2009) which is general purpose Finite Element Software. The design is
optimized by elastic analysis of this fram
framee under equivalent static lateral load (as obtained
in Table 3.2), such that demand to capacity ratio is near to unity.

(cl. 9.3.1.1, IS 800:2007)

22

Fig: 3.2 Details of beam, column and brace analyzed by code-based

code
method.

Table 3.3: Cross Sections of Beam, Column & Brace

W36X441
(BEAM)

W36X800
(COLUMN)

HSS 16X16X0.625
(RECTANGULAR
BRACE)

23

Table 3.4: Sectional Properties of Beam, Column & Brace

AISC

Ax
2

Bf

Tf

Tw

Iz

Ix

Zx
3

Zy

(in )

(in)

(in)

(in)

(in)

(in )

(in )

(in )

(in )

(in3)

W36X441

130

38.90

17

2.44

1.36

32100

194

1990

1990

368

W36X800

236

42.60

18

4.29

2.38

64700

1060

4200

3650

743

HSS

35

16

0.58

1370

2170

1370

200

200

24

Iy

SECTION

16X16X0.625

CHAPTER 4
Design of a four storey Steel CBF for high seismicity by using displacement based
approach of PBPD method

4.1 Introduction

It is desirable to design structures so that they behave in a predictable manner.

This can be achieved by allowing for the formation of a preselected desirable yield
mechanism so that the structure has adequate strength and ductility during design level
ground motions. The preselected yield mechanism can be defined as a strong column
weak beam mechanism to prevent formation of collapse mechanisms with poor energy
dissipation capacity for the structure. However, elastic design procedures used in current
seismic code cannot guarantee to design the structure with a desirable mechanism and to
predict the predominantly inelastic nature of the structure response during severe
earthquakes. Therefore, use of plastic theory in seismic design procedure, especially in
performance-based design, is necessary to avoid undesired collapse mechanisms.
Many experimental and analytical studies have been carried out in the past to
investigate the validity of the distribution of lateral forces prescribed by various seismic
design codes, particularly the IS 1893-Part1 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings (BIS,2002). For simplicity of the
design procedure, a linear distribution of the equivalent lateral forces has been generally
used in code. However, many studies have shown that this distribution may not be valid in
the inelastic state and may underestimate the storey shears.
Since the performance-based plastic design procedure is primarily based on
inelastic state is used.

25

Fig 4.1: Target Yield Mechanism of CBF with Chevron Bracing

A design case study of 44-storey frames as same as in chapter 3, under the soft soil
so
condition and maximum selected earthquake is considered.

4.2 Case Study

For target ductility ratio, t = 4.0
Using elastic response spectra in IS: 1893 (Part 1) 2002.
Damping factor

= 5%

Site condition = Soft soil

Material property Fe 3345
45 steel with elastic perfectly plastic stress strain relationship
Hot rolled steel section used from AISC standard.

Fundamental Time Period:

Equivalent fundamental time period of inelastic structure

26

Where,
= Fundamental time period of linear elastic structure = 0.1 X No of storey = 0.4 sec
t = Displacement ductility ratio

= Strain hardening ratio = 0

The average response acceleration coefficient Sa/g for

Sa/g = 1.25

Ductility reduction factor

Ductility reduction factor

Energy modification factor

Yield drift

, Energy modification factor

,

and Plastic drift

27

0.44

and

= 5%

For steel moment resisting frames, the yield drift

Assume,

= 0.09%
% = 0.0
0.009
4

$%

assumed to be between 0.6% to 1%

$%
0.009

0.027

Evaluation of Seismic Lateral Force Distr

Distribution
Table 4.1 Evaluation of Seismic Lateral Force Distribution
Floor Level

(KN)

4th

5000

16

1280000

0.534

8.544

3rd

5000

12

720000

0.30

3.600

2nd

5000

320000

0.133

1.064

1st

5000

80000

0.033

0.132

=2400000

=1.0

=13.34

28

Calculation of yield base shear Vby

Shear Proportioning Factor

A PBPD method based on inelastic state uses a new term named shear
proportioning factor derived from the concept of the relative distributions is defined
defi
as:

Where, i is the static storey shears at level i,

Vn is the static storey shears at the top level computed from the linear lateral force
distribution shape of the first mode of vibration and the exponent b is a numerical factor.

Assuming an inverted
inverted triangular force distribution along the height of the structure
to derive the static storey shears, the lateral force at level i can be expressed as:

Where,

is the lateral force distribution factor,

Where,
wi is the weight of the structure at level i
hi is the height of beam level i from the ground,
29

is the total base shea

shear.

VB is the design base shear.

The equation of Vi and Vn put in equation of i

The shear proportioning factor i,, plays an important role in the performancebased plastic design procedure. The factor is directly related to the storey lateral strength
and stiffness along the height of the structure. It also represents the variation of storey
drifts along the height. Therefore, the factor can be used to derive a lateral force
distribution based on inelastic state and to design beams of the structure.
Using the shear proportioning factor, the lateral forces,fi
forces, and fn,, applied at level i and at
the top level n can be written as

Where

and i+1 are the shear proportioning factors at level i and i+1, respectively.

30

Evaluation of Storey--wise Lateral Force Distribution

Table 4.2 Evaluation of Storey-wise

Storey wise Lateral Force Distribution
Floor
=
Level

(m)

(kN)
(kN)

4th

16

0.53

4140

4140

1.0

16.00

66240

3rd

12

0.30

2330.4

6470.4

1.5628

6.7536

27964.8

2nd

0.13

1
1033.14

7503.54

1.8124

1.9968

8265.12

1st

0.03

256.344

7768

1.8763

0.2556

1025.376

=6.25

=25.006

=103495.
3

Design of Bracing Members:

Memb
It is based on following 3 criterias:

Strength Criterion

Fracture Criterion

Compactness Criterion

Strength Criterion:
The braces are designed based on their ultimate state, i.e., tension yielding and
post-buckling,
buckling, to resist total design storey she
shear,
ar, neglecting contribution from
columns. Thus,
31

()*

+,-. * -/, )1

(3.

0.5 35, )1 cos (:)

Table 4.3: Required Brace Strength

41

4140

1035

)1
cos
(kN)
1385

41

6470.4

1617.5

2164.15

7503.54

1875.75

2510

7768

2598.30

2598.30

Floor Level

4
2
2
1

Vi
(kN)

41
41

Vi (for 1 CBF )
(kN)

Designing the braces for the maximum storey shear, i.e., 2598.30 kN, we get the
section HSS 12 X 12 X 0.25 having strength of 2675 kN, thus satisfying the
strength criterion.
Design of Beams:
The post-buckling strength of a brace is taken as 0.5 Pcr for in-plane buckling.
Beams intersected by the braces should be designed assuming that no gravity loads are
resisted by the braces. Those beams should also be designed to support vertical and
horizontal unbalanced loads resulting from the force difference in the tension and
compression braces. The design of beams should follow the beam-column design
requirements due to presence of high axial forces. The unbalanced loads resulting from
the braces are as follows:
=

=>

(
?

. 3.

. 3.

0.5 35, ) cos

0.5 35, @ sin

Where,
32

Fh is the horizontal unbalanced force

Fv is the vertical unbalanced force

Ry is the ratio of the expected yield strength to the specified minimum yield
strength, taken equal to 1

Py is the nominal yield strength = FyAg , and

Pcr is the nominal compressive strength = Fcr Ag

Table 4.4: Design Parameters for Beams of 4-storey CBF

Floor

RyPy

0.5 Pcr

Fh

Fv

Pu

Mu

Level

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kNm)

4th

2403.96

270.445

2017.67

1400

3000

9600

The section corresponding to the moment of 9600 kNm is W36X395.

Table 4.5: Sectional Properties of Beam, Column & Brace

AISC

Ax
2

Bf

Tf

Tw

Iz

Ix

Zx
3

Zy

(in )

(in)

(in)

(in)

(in)

(in )

(in )

(in )

(in )

(in3)

W36X395

116

38.40

16.8

2.20

1.22

28500

142

1750

1710

325

W36X441

130

38.90

17

2.44

1.36

32100

194

1990

1990

368

HSS

10.80

12

0.23

248

384

248

47.6

47.6

33

Iy

SECTION

12X12X0.25

Table 4.6: Cross Sections of Beam, Column & Brace

W36X441
(COLUMN)

W36X395
(BEAM)

HSS
12X12X0.25
(RECTANGUL
AR BRACE)

34

CHAPTER 5
Comparison of Code-Based and PBPD Designs
5.1 General
This Chapter deals with comparison of Code-Based and PBPD designs so as to
arrive at more realistic and reasonable design.

The code-based and PBPD designs are compared on the basis of

1) Lighter design.
2) Achieving the assumed fundamental time period in design procedure.
3) Performance in nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA).

Following analysis techniques are used for comparison purpose

1) Eigen value analysis:
This analysis evaluate fundamental mode of vibration which is an important dynamic
characteristic of structural system as the base shear demands is entirely dependent on the
fundamental time period.

2) Nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA):

Pushover analysis is an approximate analysis method in which the structure is subjected to
monotonically increasing lateral forces with an invariant height-wise distribution until a
structural system undergoes inelastic state. Figure 5.1 shows a typical pushover plot of a
structural system with base shear as ordinate and roof displacement as abscissa.
The various steps involved in carrying out the Nonlinear Static Pushover analysis are as
follows.
1) Determine the gravity loading and the vertical distribution of the lateral loads.
2) Determine the desired building performance level.
35

3) Calculate the status of the structures based on its performance level.

4) Compute the maximum target Displacement, t.

Figure 5.1: Typical pushover curve

5.2 Modeling of steel CBF in ABAQUS 6.9
Both steel CBF design are modeled using B31 element in general purpose FE software
ABAQUS 6.9 (Abaqus, 2009). Typical model of code-based CBF is shown in Figure 5.2.
This figure also shows the boundary conditions of steel CBF.

36

Figure 5.2: Typical model of code

code-based
based CBF in ABAQUS 6.9
5.3 Eigen value analysis
Eigen value analysis has been conducted on both designs by Frequency step with
Lanczos eigen solver of ABAQUS 6.9 (Abaqus,
(Abaqus, 2009).Table 5.1 shows the comparison
between assumed and obtained fundamental time period of both design. Figure 5.3 present
a typical fundamental mode of code-based
code
design of four-storey
storey CBF.
Table 5.1: Comparison between assumed and obtained fundamental
fundamental time period of both
design
T1 (assumed)

T1 (obtained)

(s)

(s)

Code-based
based design

0.68

0.62

PBPD

0.80

1.05

Design

37

Figure 5.3: Typical fundamental mode of code

code-based
based design of four-storey
four
CBF
5.4 Nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA):
NSPA is used to evaluate the expected performance of a structural system by estimating
its strength and deformation demands in design earthquakes. This evaluation is based on
an assessment of important performance parameters, including global drift, inter-storey
inter
drift,
rift, and inelastic element deformations. The IS: 1893-Part
1893 Part I-2002
I
(BIS, 2002)
recommended lateral force distribution
d
is used for NSPA of both design model. Each
model of design is subjected to the unidirectional monotonic push till the respective target
displacement
isplacement so as to induce significant inelastic deformations in the system. Thereof
displacement versus base shear plot is bilinearized by equating the areas under the actual
pushover curve and the approximate one and yield point and yield base shear is obtained
for each design.
38

Figure 5.4 shows the unidirectional monotonic pushover load on finite element model of

code-based steel CBF

Monotonic uni-directional pushover load

till plastic collapse mechanism

Figure 5.4: Typical pushover load on code-based design of four-storey CBF

Figure 5.5 shows typical deformed shape of code-based design of four-storey CBF obtained

from NSPA. From this deformed shape a soft-storey formation is observed at second
storey indicating that code-based design fails at higher lateral load.
39

Figure 5.4: Typical deformed shape of code-based

based design of four-storey
four
CBF
obtained from NSPA
Figure 5.5 shows typical base shear versus roof displacement plot for code-based
code
design of

four-storey
storey CBF obtained from NSPA.

40

Figure 5.5: Typical base shear versus roof displacement plot for code-based design of
four-storey CBF obtained from NSPA.
Table 5.2 shows the comparison between design and obtained yield base shear for both
designs from NSPA. From this table it is observed that code-based design is too
conservative as compare to PBPD design. The justification for the same is that PBPD
provides plastic design equations for individual component of steel CBF whereas in codebased design the elements need to be optimized by an iterative procedure such that
capacity is more than demand.

Table 5.2: Comparison between design and obtained yield base shear for both designs
from NSPA.
Vby (Design)

Vby (From NSPA)

(kN)

(kN)

Code-based design

12500

13750

PBPD

7768

7684

Design

41

CHAPTER 6
Concluding Summary and Scope for Future Work
6.1 Summary
Aim of this study is to compare the traditional code-based and recent performance-based plastic
design method for steel CBF. This comparison is based on lighter section for components of CBF
(light weight design), performance in nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA). Following points
from design and analysis can be summarized for the comparison
1. Code-based design is more conservative and heavy weight design as it follows strengthbased approach
2. In displacement-based approach significant inelastic deformation capacity of system is
fully utilized hence PBPD design result in light weight system
3. When fundamental time periods of both design as assumed in respective seismic force
calculations are compared with those obtained from eigen value analysis it is observed
that PBPD design is more accurate with less difference in assumed and obtained value.
4. Nonlinear static pushover analysis of these design shows that code-based design is more
prone to have soft-storey which is undesirable collapse mechanism where as PBPD design
achieves a pre-selected yield mechanism and hence effective in utilizing significant
inelastic deformation capacity. Hence it is suggested that existing design standard should
follow the displacement-based approach rather than elastic force/strength-based approach.
6.2 Scope for future work
This study is only limited to low rise CBF system. Following can be considered as scope for
future work
1. Design comparison for medium to high rise CBF.
2. Comparison of seismic performance of design can be evaluated by using nonlinear
dynamic analysis

42

References:
1) N. Subramanian (2008), Design of steel structures, OXFORD UNIVERSITY
PRESS Publication.
2) BIS, IS 1893 (Part 1): (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of structures
Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, Fifth Revision.
3) BIS, IS 800:2007, General Construction in Steel Code of practice,Bureau of Indian
Standards, Fifth Revision.
4) Subhash C. Goel and Shin Ho Chao (2008), PERFORMANCE BASED PLASTIC
DESIGN EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT STEEL STRUCTURES,
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF COUNCIL Publication.
5) Soon Sik Lee and Subhash C. Goel (2001), PERFORMANCE BASED OF STEEL
MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES USING TARGET DRIFT AND YIELD
MECHANISM, Research Report UMCEE 01-17,.
6) Shin Ho Chao and Subhash C. Goel (2006), A SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD FOR
STEEL CONCETRIC BRACED FRAMES FOR ENHANCED PERFORMANCE,
4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering Taipei, Taiwan, Paper No,
227.
7) Swapnil B. Kharmale and Siddhath Ghosh (2012), SEISMIC LATERAL FORCE
DISTRIBUTION FOR DUCTILITY BASED DESIGN OF STEEL PLATE SHEAR
WALLS, Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, Vol.6, No.1 (2012) 1250004 (24
pages).
8) Macrae, G.A., Y.Kimura, and C.Roeder. (2004) Effect of Column Stiffness on
Braced Frame Seismic Behaviour. Journal of Structural Engineering 130 (3): 381391.
9) Miranda, E.and V.V.Bertero. (1994). Evaluation of Strength Reduction Factors for
Earthquake Resistant Design.Earthquake Spectra 10, no.2:357-379.
10) Redwood, R.G and V.S Channagiri. (1991). Earthquake Resistant Design of
Concentrically Braced Steel Frames. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 18:839850.
43

11) Shaback, B.and T.Brown. (2003). Behaviour of Square Hollow Structural Steel
Braces with End Connections under Reversed Cyclic Axial Loading. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 30:745-753.
12) Tremblay, R. M Bruneau, M. Nakashima, H. G. L. Prion, A.Filiatrault, and R.Devall.
(1996). Seismic Design of Steel Buildings: Lessons from the 1995 Hyogo Ken
Nanbu Earthquake.Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 23: 727-756.
13) Tremblay, R, and N.Robert. (2000). Seismic design of Low and Medium Rise
Chevron Braced Steel Frames.Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 27: 1192 -1206.

44