Project Report1

Seismic Analysis Of Multi-storey Steel Concrete Composite Frame By Using Various Bracing Systems
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In India most of the building structures fall under the category of low rise buildings. So, for
these structures reinforced concrete members are used widely because the construction
becomes quite convenient and economical in nature. But since the population in cities is
growing exponentially and the land is limited, there is a need of vertical growth of buildings
in these cities. So, for the fulfilment of this purpose a large number of medium to high rise
buildings are coming up these days. For these high rise buildings it has been found out that
use of composite members in construction is more effective and economic than using
reinforced concrete members. The popularity of steel-concrete composite construction in
cities can be owed to its advantage over the conventional reinforced concrete construction.
Reinforced concretes frames are used in low rise buildings because loading is nominal. But in
medium and high rise buildings, the conventional reinforced concrete construction cannot be
adopted as there is increased dead load along with span restrictions, less stiffness and
framework which is quite vulnerable to composite construction essentially different materials
are completely compatible and complementary to each other; they have almost the same
thermal expansion; they have an ideal combination of strengths with the concrete efficient in
compression and the steel in tension; concrete also gives corrosion protection and thermal
insulation to the steel at elevated temperatures and additionally can restrain slender steel
sections from local or lateral-tensional buckling. This paper includes comparative study of
RCC with Composite Story building Comparative study includes Storey Stiffness,
Displacement, Drifts, Axial Force in column, Shear force in column, Twisting Moment,
Bending Moments in composite with respect to RCC Sections .Steel-concrete composite
frame system can provide an effective and economic solution to most of these problems in
medium to high-rise buildings.
Composite structures are reliable and show good performance against stiffness,
strength, ductility, and which are the key parameters for design of seismic resistance high
raised buildings. Braced frame models are efficient means to transfer lateral forces caused by
wind and earthquake. Braced frames are less weight than shear walls, so that it will attract
less seismic forces. Braced frames models are proven effective means to enhance ductility of
the structure and efficient means to control inter storey drift and lateral displacement of the
structure.
Steelconcrete composite system performs excellent seismic performance than
conventional RCC and Steel Buildings. Braced frame models can also perform excellent
seismic resistance in earth quake prone regions. Eccentrically braced frames have high
stiffness against the lateral loads such as earthquake and perfect ability to absorb energy.
Provided an overview of seismic resistance eccentrically braced frames with particular
emphasis on the behaviour and design of shear links. The guide lines on seismic design of
steel special concentrically braced frame systems. Due to the truss action generated by the
braced frames, the lateral forces are effectively transferred to the foundation with well-
Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 1

defined energy dissipation system .Braced frame action improves seismic characteristics like
ductility, stiffness, energy dissipation, and decrease inter-storey drift of the structure.
Bracing is a very effective global upgrading strategy to enhance the global stiffness
and strength of steel and composite frames. It can increase the energy absorption of structures
and/or decrease the demand imposed by earthquake loads. Structures with augmented energy
dissipation may safely resist forces and deformations caused by strong ground motions.
Generally, global modifications to the structural system are conceived such that the design
demands, often denoted by target displacement, on the existing structural and non-structural
components, are less than their capacities. Lower demands may reduce the risk of brittle
failures in the structure and/or avoid the interruption of its functionality. The attainment of
global structural ductility is achieved within the design capacity by forcing inelasticity to
Bracing may be inefficient if the braces are not adequately capacity-designed [2]. Braces can
be aesthetically unpleasant where they change the original architectural features of the
building. In addition, braces transmit very high actions to connections and foundations and
these frequently need to be strengthened.
Several configurations of braced frames may be used for seismic rehabilitation. The most
common are concentric braced frames (CBFs), eccentric braced frames (EBFs) and the novel
knee-brace frames (KBFs), recently proposed for earthquake loads. The existence of
tension/compression braces in CBFs results in a lateral stiffness well above that of MRFs.
Common configurations for CBFs include V and inverted-V bracings, K, X and diagonal
bracings. However, V bracings are not advised for retrofitting because of the likelihood of
damage in the beam mid-span. Under horizontal forces the compressed braces may buckle,
thus reducing their load bearing capacity abruptly. Conversely, the force in the tension braces
increases monotonically reaching yield strength and eventually strain-hardening. The net
result is an unbalanced force concentrated at the brace-to-beam connection.
Alternatively, the unbalanced force in the beams may be eliminated through ad hoc bracing
configurations such as macro-bracings, e.g., two, three storey X-bracings or V-bracings with
a zipper column.
1.2 COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
A composite member is constructed by combining concrete member and steel member so

that they act as a single unit. As we know that concrete is strong in compression and weak in
tension on the other side steel is strong in tension and weak in compression. The strength of
concrete in compression is complemented by strength of steel in tension which results in an
efficient section. By the concept of this composite member the concrete and steel are utilized
in a well-organized manner. The structural elements which are comprised in a composite
construction are given below.
1. Composite deck slab
2. Composite beam

3. Composite column
4. Shear connector
Figure 1.1: composite deck slab and beams
1.2.1 COMPOSITE DECK SLAB
Composite floor system comprises of steel beams, metal deck and concrete slab. In general a
steel beam for example I section is coupled with steel deck over which a concrete slab is laid.
The metal deck rests between two steel sections which also serve as operational stand for
concrete work. This composite floor system acts as a diaphragm due to which the composite
floor system produces a rigid horizontal diaphragm, providing solidity to the structure in
addition to that it distributes wind loads and earthquake loads to the composite frame system.
1.2.2 COMPOSITE BEAM
A composite beam is produced by placing a concrete slab over steel beams mostly I section.
When loads are applied on this member these rudiments have a tendency to perform in a self-
regulating way which results in occurrence of slip among them. This relative slip can be
eliminated when we provide an appropriate connection between steel beam and concrete slab,
by providing connections the steel beam and concrete slab is made to act as a single unit. The
steel which is weak in compression buckles under compression loads and concrete which is
weak in tension develops cracks due to tensile loads. By providing above mentioned
arrangement concrete and steel elements act together in order to resist both tensile and
compression loads in an efficient way. Due to higher stiffness than steel members composite
members deflect less than them. For same loading, employing composite beam results in thin,
effective and economic cross sections than RCC structures. The composite deck slab and
composite beams are shown in fig

1.2.3 COMPOSITE COLUMNS
A compression member consisting of both steel and concrete elements can be termed as steel
concrete composite columns. There are two types of composite columns
1. Concrete section with embedded steel section
2. A hallow steel section with concrete infill
Figure 1.2: Types of composite columns
Friction and bond are the two parameters which makes both steel and concrete elements to
act as a single unit in composite columns. The general process of construction of composite
column includes erection of hallow steel section or I section which takes the initial
construction loads then it is filled with concrete or concrete is casted around I beam. Lateral
deflections and buckling of steel members are prevented by concrete member. In addition to
that composite columns have less cross sectional area and light weight when compared with
RCC columns. Due to this the usable floor area increases in composite structures and
foundation cost is also decreased
1.2.4 SHEAR CONNECTORS
This is the main component which is responsible for the development of composite action
between concrete slab and steel beam by shear transfer. This helps the composite system to
take up large amounts of flexural stresses and to transfer horizontal loads to the lateral load
resisting system. The purpose of shear connectors is to avoid partition of concrete slab and
steel beam and to transmit the lateral shear at the concrete and steel interface. There are many
types of shear connectors which can be employed based on their suitability.
1.3 STEEL BRACINGS
On a global basis of resisting earthquake loads, shear walls are commonly used in RC framed
buildings, whereas, steel bracing is most often used in steel structures. In the last two
decades, a number of reports have also indicated the effective use of steel bracing in RC
frames. The bracing methods adopted fall into two main categories, namely:
1. External bracing

2. Internal bracing
In the external bracing system, existing buildings are retrofitted by attaching a local or global
steel bracing system to the exterior frames. Architectural concerns and difficulties in
providing appropriate connections between the steel bracing and RC frames are two of the
shortcomings of this method. In the internal bracing method, the buildings are retrofitted by
incorporating a bracing system inside the individual units or panels of the RC frames. The
bracing may be attached to the RC frame either indirectly or directly.
There are two types of bracing systems
1. Concentric Bracing System
2. Eccentric Bracing System
The concentric bracings increase the lateral stiffness of the frame, thus increasing the
natural frequency and also usually decreasing the lateral drift. However, increase in the
stiffness may attract a larger inertia force due to earthquake. Eccentric Bracings reduce the
lateral stiffness of the system and improve the energy dissipation capacity. Due to eccentric
connection of the braces to beams, the lateral stiffness of the system depends upon the
flexural stiffness of the beams and columns, thus reducing the lateral stiffness of the frame.
Concentric Bracings Eccentric Bracings
Figure 1.3: Type of bracing
1.4 STRENGTHENING OF STRUCTURES WITH CONCRETE AND STEEL

BRACING SYSTEMS
Concrete bracing and Steel bracing is a highly efficient and economical method of resisting
horizontal forces in a frame structure. Bracing has been used to stabilize laterally the majority
of the worlds tallest building structures as well as one of the major retrofit measures. Bracing
is efficient because the diagonals work in axial stress and therefore call for minimum member
sizes in providing stiffness and strength against horizontal shear. A number of researchers
have investigated various techniques such as infilling walls, adding walls to existing columns,
encasing columns, and adding concrete bracing or steel bracing to improve the strength
and/or ductility of existing buildings. A bracing system improves the seismic performance of
the frame by increasing its stiffness and capacity. Through the addition of the bracing system,
load could be transferred out of the frame and into the braces, bypassing the weak columns
while increasing strength. Steel braced frames are efficient structural systems for buildings

subjected to seismic or wind lateral loadings. Therefore, the use of steel bracing systems for
retrofitting reinforced concrete frames with inadequate lateral resistance is attractive.
1.5 STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION
Constitute five different types of braced frame models (a, b, c, d, and e) considered in the
analysis.
Model (a) is a Moment resisting frame structure without bracings.
Model (b) is a chevron braced frames (CBFs) bracing.
Model (c) is a V braced frames (VBFs) bracing.
Model (d) is an X type bracing pattern respectively, arranged in the end span of
external frame.
Model (e) is a zipper braced frames (ZBFs) bracing pattern arranged in the end span
of external frame.
The explained five types of building models analysed by using Equivalent static method and
the results are verified by software. Design parameters such as support reactions, bending
moment, shear force, overall deflection, and story drift are verified by manually.
Figure 1.4: Structural configuration of different bracing system

1.6 ADVANTAGES OF STEEL-COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION
1. Faster construction for maximum utilization of rolled and/or fabricated components

(structural steel members) and hence quick return of the invested capital.
2. More use of a material i.e. steel, which is durable, fully recyclable on replacement and
environment friendly.
3. Reductions in overall weight of structure and thereby reduction in foundation cost.
4. Cost of formwork is lower compared to RCC construction.
5. Cost of handling and transportation is minimized for using major part of the structure
fabricated in the workshop.
6. Easy structural repair/modification/maintenance.
7. Structural steel component has considerable scrap value at the end of useful life.
8. Better seismic resistance i.e. best suited to resist repeated earthquake loadings, which
require a high amount of ductility and hysteretic energy of the material/structural
frame.
9. Composite sections have higher stiffness than the corresponding steel sections (in a
steel structure) and thus bending stresses as well as deflection are lesser.

1.7 NECESSITY OF PROVIDING BRACING SYSTEM
1. Bracing is efficient because the diagonals work in axial stress and therefore call for
minimum member sizes in providing stiffness and strength against horizontal shear. A
number of researchers have investigated various techniques such as infilling walls,
adding walls to existing columns, encasing columns, and adding steel bracing to
improve the strength and/or ductility of existing buildings.
2. A bracing system improves the seismic performance of the frame by increasing its
lateral stiffness and capacity. Through the addition of the bracing system, load could
be transferred out of the frame and into the braces, bypassing the weak columns while
increasing strength.
3. Steel-braced frames are efficient structural systems for buildings subjected to seismic
or wind lateral loadings.

CHAPTER 2
LITRATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION:
Bracing is efficient because the diagonals work in axial stress and therefore call
for minimum member sizes in providing stiffness and strength against horizontal
shear. A bracing system improves the seismic performance of the frame by
increasing its lateral stiffness and capacity. Through the addition of the bracing
system, load could be transferred out of the frame and into the braces, bypassing
the weak columns while increasing strength. Steel-braced frames are efficient
structural systems for buildings subjected to seismic or wind lateral loadings.
Therefore, the use of steel-bracing systems for retrofitting reinforced-concrete
frames with inadequate lateral resistance is attractive.
1.2 LITRATURE REVIEW
Dhanaraj m. patil, keshav k. sangle are to compare the seismic behaviour of

different bracing systems in high rise 2-D steel buildings. Nonlinear static
pushover analyses were carried out to assess the structural performance on
different bracing systems in high rise steel buildings of 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35
storeys. The effects of some parameters influencing the seismic performance,
including type of the bracing system, the height of the building and lateral load
patterns, were investigated. The results show that the different braced frames
performed well in terms of storey displacement, inter-storey drift ratio, base shear
and performance point when compared with the moment resisting frame in high
rise steel buildings. It can be concluded, on a comparative account of the obtained
results that use of CBF, VBF and ZBF enhances structural performances. In
seismically active zones, structures are subjected to lateral earthquake forces in
addition to bearing the primary gravity load. The performance of a structure
during an earthquake depends on the intensity of the earthquake and the properties
of the structure. In seismic events, the response of a steel structure is found to vary
from elastic to highly inelastic. Steel structures should be designed to dissipate
large amounts of energy during a severe seismic excitation, thus ensuring the
sufficient lateral stiffness and strength. In case of high rise buildings, stiffness is
more important than strength. Moment resisting frames and braced frames have
been commonly used as lateral load resisting structural elements in steel buildings.
Moment resisting frames provide ductility through yielding, but due to their
flexibility, they do not satisfy stiffness criteria; however, concentric braced frames
are excellent for stiffness due to their limited ductility. There are several ways of
providing braces to increase the seismic resistance of buildings. The different
bracing systems include typical diagonal bracing, X-bracing, chevron bracing and
V-bracing configurations, which connect the brace concentric to beam-column
joint. Roeder and Popov proposed another bracing system, named eccentric
bracing, combining good features of both moment resisting frame and concentric

braced frame. In eccentric braced frames, energy dissipation capacity in a seismic

excitation is provided by shear links that are an integral part of a beam. However,
after a severe earthquake, replacing a damaged shear link can be time consuming
and expensive as it is a primary structural component. Recently, Ochoa has
proposed an alternative system, named knee braced frame. In this system, the
ductile fuse element is used to prevent collapse of the structure by dissipating
energy through flexural yielding of the knee element. Subsequently, Belandre et
al. re-examined the knee braced frame and proposed some modifications. The
seismic performance of non-ductile chevron braced frames can be improved by
delaying the fracture of braces. This can be achieved in chevron by redesigning
the brace and floor beams to a weak brace and the strong beam system. This
upgraded chevron braced frame results in an excellent hysteretic response,
wherein ductile braces provide a reasonable distribution of damage over the height
of building. Tremblay et al. studied seismic performance of concentrically braced
steel frames.
Sina kazemzadeh azad, cem topkaya reviews the research conducted on steel
eccentrically braced frames (EBFs). Both component level and system level
responses for such braced frames are treated and discussed. For the component
level response, a thorough review of the investigations on links, which are the
primary sources of energy dissipation in EBFs, has been presented. The results of
experimental and numerical studies on strength, rotation capacity, and over
strength of links are discussed. Furthermore, studies on the effects of axial force,
the presence of a concrete slab, the loading history, compactness, link detailing,
and the lateral bracing on link behaviour are summarized. Relevant available
research on link-to-column connections is revisited. Different approaches for the
numerical modelling of links are also given. For the system level response,
characteristics of EBF systems are discussed in light of the capacity design
approach. Findings of numerical studies on the seismic performance of EBFs are
discussed to provide insight into suitable response factors utilized in the design of
these systems The main idea in the design of an eccentrically braced frame (EBF)
is to integrate the advantages of both moment resisting frame (MRF) and
concentrically braced frame (CBF) lateral load resisting systems into a single
structural system. The EBF system originated from Japan in 1970s with the aim
of achieving a structure with high elastic stiffness as well as high energy
dissipation during severe earthquakes. There are several configurations for an
EBF system, some of which are depicted in along with their expected plastic
mechanisms. Larger architectural openings can be used with EBF systems when
compared to CBFs. The short segment of the frame generally designated by the
length is called the link. In EBF systems, yielding is concentrated only at link
segments and all other members of the frame are proportioned to remain
essentially elastic. Therefore, during severe earthquakes, links can be considered
as structural fuses which will dissipate the seismic input energy through stable and
controlled plastic deformations. A comprehensive review is provided in this paper

on the behaviour and design of eccentrically braced frames. The review includes
research conducted on links, as they comprise the most critical elements of an
EBF. In addition, the research on EBF system response is elaborated. Areas of
future research needs are also identified. The comparison of design provisions as
presented in various design specifications is out of the scope of this work;
however, the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings are
mentioned to illustrate relationships between research findings and design rules.
G. Brandonisio , M. Toreno some modifications to the design procedure,

currently implemented in the modern European seismic code for ductile cross
concentric braced frames (X-CBFs), are proposed. The code procedure is aimed to
obtain a ductile and dissipative ultimate behaviour by imposing that the yielding
of diagonal members occurs before the damage and premature failure of beams,
columns and connections (capacity design).The major aim of controlling the over
strength requirements to the non-dissipative members of braced frames, thus
reducing the associated structural weight premium while preserving a satisfactory
inelastic behavior. Concentric braced frames (CBFs) have been traditionally
considered less ductile than moment resisting frames (MRFs); in order to account
for such inherent lack of ductility, larger lateral strength than MRF counterparts
was assigned to CBFs in past seismic design practice. For this purpose, in early
seismic codes the specified value of the response modification factor for CBFs
was quite smaller than for MRFs. However, based on a wide research activity
developed starting from the 80s and on observations carried out in the aftermath
of important earthquakes, an improved understanding of the response of CBFs has
been gained, recognising that CBF structures simply designed according to this
enhanced-strength approach may often exhibit brittle behaviour and experience
serious damages under major earthquakes. For avoiding such a poor performance
of CBF structures, modern seismic codes not only adopt response modification
factors lower than MRF counterparts, but also provide both simplified procedures
for implementing the concepts of capacity design, and specific detailing rules for
the key dissipative zones, namely the diagonal members.
Yang Ding, Min Wu presents a study on the seismic damage evolution and
failure process of steelconcrete hybrid structures through simulation and tests.
For steel members, the KriegKey constitutive model with a plasticity damage
model is used to simulate the damage of steel. For concrete members, the
improved FariaOliver model is adopted to analyses the damage of concrete. After
that, these material models are assigned to fibre elements. The fibre element is
adopted to establish a finite element model of steel concrete hybrid structures. In
order to evaluate the effectiveness of this modelling method, shaking table tests
are conducted on a scaled test model of a three-storey steelconcrete hybrid
structure. The test result shows that the proposed damage model and fibre
elements are effective to simulate the seismic damage evolution and failure
process of steelconcrete structures. The damage of structures during earthquake

is a critical issue in the field of civil engineering because a severe damage is a

great threat to life and property. Meanwhile, more and more new structural
members or systems have been adopted to satisfy the needs of the development of
the world. A steelconcrete hybrid (mixed steel material property and concrete
material property) member or structural system has attracted much attention
because of their excellent mechanical behaviour, such as steelconcrete composite
shear walls, steelconcretesteel sandwich composite shell structures and steel
concrete composite moment resisting frames. Furthermore, a large number of
steelconcrete hybrid structures have been located in seismic regions. Subjected to
strong earthquake ground motion, the damage of steelconcrete hybrid structures
will result in the local failure or overall collapse of the structures. Therefore, it is
significant to study the damage evolution and failure process of steelconcrete
hybrid structures under severe earthquakes. In numerical simulation, two
important problems have to be considered to study the seismic behaviour of steel
concrete hybrid structures. One is the selection of appropriate material models
including a steel material model and a concrete material model. The other is the
selection of appropriate elements in finite element analysis. For the former
problem, a significant amount of research work has been carried out to study the
damage evolution law of steel and concrete in the past decades. Lemaitre and
Chaboche adopted an isotropic plastic damage model of steel, which is based on a
large number of uniaxial tensile tests
F. Ferrario a, F. Iori b, R. Pucinotti describes an experimental study of the

seismic behavior of substructures representing a concentric braced frame of a
prototype structure: a steel building with concentric bracings for offices, meetings
or exhibitions. The prototype structure was designed in accordance with the
capacity design criterion, i.e. by assuming that breaking of connections and
buckling of beams and columns must be preceded by yielding of the diagonals in
tension. The brace beam- to-column joints represent the critical component. The
objective of the test programmed was to characterize the connection behavior
under monotonic, cyclic and random loads. In detail, five tests were carried out on
specimens with standard braces and two tests on specimens with weakened braces
Experimental results are shown as force-inter storey drift ratio diagrams. Then, a
numerical calibration of a model of these joints was successfully accomplished.
After the calibration of the numerical models, in order to evaluate the global
response under seismic loading, a numerical analysis of the reference building was
performed with the Open Sees programme. Both pushover and dynamic nonlinear
time-history analyses were carried out. Experimental and numerical results show
that performance-based design approaches can be reasonably extended to
concentrically braced frames (CBFs) with high strength tubular steel columns.
Eric J. Lumpkin considers Special concentrically braced frames (SCBF) are

stiff, strong and economical lateral-load resisting systems, which can sustain large
inelastic deformation if properly detailed. Historically, experimental research on

the seismic response of braced frame research has focused on the cyclic and
monotonic responses of isolated components, such as braces or gusset plate
connections. However, these components do not work in isolation, and recent
research shows that accurate evaluation of their seismic performance requires
consideration of the complete system. The results demonstrate that multi-story
SCBFs exhibit good inelastic seismic performance with proper design detailing.
Together with prior test results, the test specimens advanced design
recommendations for SCBFs, which result in thinner, more compact corner gusset
plate connections, a rational method of dimensioning mid-span gusset plates, and
a balanced-design procedure for enhanced ductility.
A.r. rahai, m.m. alinia are used Steel bracings, in different geometrical forms,
are commonly used in steel and concrete structures. The lateral stiffness of
structures with concentric bracings depends on the buckling capacity of
compressive bracings; in turn, this buckling phenomenon leads to a decrease in
the energy dissipation capacity. Composite bracings, composed of steel cores
encased in concrete, can increase their capacities. IN this paper, the behavior of
composite bracings is studied in two parts. At first, a number of braced frames are
selected and their behaviours under cyclic loading are studied. Then, using the
data obtained from the first part, two existing concrete structures, a three story and
a nine story building, are selected and strengthened against seismic loadings by
both the conventional concentric steel and the latter composite bracing systems.
The behaviors of these structures are then studied by the push-over method and
the results for the two types of bracings are compared. The performance
evaluation of existing concrete structures shows that a considerable number of
buildings need to be repaired or strengthened. The main reasons for the necessity
to fortify existing structures are: the design and construction defects,
modifications in codes of practice and standards, environmental effects, changes
in their usage and loading conditions and the need to increase the number of
floors. In order to strengthen concrete structures against lateral and seismic
loading, the designers generally tend to lighten the total weight of structures, as
well as strengthening them with shear walls, steel or concrete jackets or fibre
reinforced polymer layers, external pre-stressing, and other popular means of
bracings.

CHAPTER 3
3.1 AIM
To study Seismic analysis of multi-storey steel concrete composite structure by using

various bracing systems.
3.2 OBJECTIVE
1. The analysis and design of composite structure with different bracing under seismic
loading by using STAAD PRO software.
2. To compare response of braced and unbraced building subjected to lateral loads and
identify the suitable bracing systems for resisting the seismic loads efficiently.
3. To study the parameter such as storey drift, base shear, time period, lateral displacement
are compared along with the parameter obtained from seismic analysis.
4. Results are compared with moment resisting frame for the base shear, storey
displacement and storey drift.

CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
4.1 EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS
This method is based on the assumption that whole of the seismic mass of the
structure vibrates with a single time period. The structure is assumed to be in its
fundamental mode of vibration. But this method provides satisfactory results only
when the structure is low rise and there is no significant twisting on ground
movement. As per the IS 1893: 2002, total design seismic base shear is found by the
multiplication of seismic weight of the building and the design horizontal acceleration
spectrum value. This force is distributed horizontally in the proportion of mass and it
should act at the vertical centre of mass of the structure.
a) The weight of all the floors and the roof is calculated and total seismic weight
of the building is found out.
W = W
=1
b) The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta), in seconds, of

all buildings, including moment-resisting frame buildings with brick infill
panels, is estimated by the empirical expression
0.09
=

c) The design horizontal seismic coefficient h A for a structure is determined by

the following expression

=
2
d) The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear is determined by the
following expression.

e) The design base shear computed as above is distributed along the height of
building as per the following expression.

=
=1
4.2 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.
4.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations that are to be used for Limit state Design of reinforced concrete
structure.
4.4 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.
4.5 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. The design 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:

4.6 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The objective of this study is to develop efficient building models by using combination of
braced frames. Five types of multi storied braced frame models are developed in seismic zone
and evaluated its structural performance with respect to member strength, ductility and inter
storey drift. Equivalent static method used for seismic analysis and the results are verified by
software. The results of all five models are analysed and selected an efficient structural model
for design of eight storied commercial building.
The steel concrete composite building used in this study is ten storied (G+9). building have
same floor plan with 4 bays having 4m distance along longitudinal direction and 3 bays
having 4m distance along transverse direction as shown in figure.
Figure 4.1: Building Plan

4.7 DESIGN DATA
Composite floors are designed based on limit state design philosophy. Since IS 456:2000
is also based on limit state methods, the same has been followed wherever it is applicable.
The design should ensure an adequate degree of safety and serviceability of structure. The
structure should therefore be checked for ultimate and serviceability limit states.
Model: G+9
Seismic zone: III
Zone factor: 0.16
Importance factor: 1
Height of building: 31.5 m
Floor height: 3.00m
Depth of foundation: 1.5 m
Plan size: 20 m X 15 m
Type of soil: Medium
Slab depth: 120 mm thick for R.C.C.
Wall thickness: 230 mm.
Material Properties
Unit weight of masonry: 20kN/m3
Unit weight of R.C.C.: 25kN/m3
Unit weight of steel: 79kN/m3
Grade of concrete: M20 for R.C.C and Steel.
Grade of steel: HYSD bars for reinforcement Fe 415
Modulus of Elasticity for R.C.C.: 5000 X N/mm2
Modulus of Elasticity for Steel: 2.1 x 105N/mm2
The steel bracing used is ISA 110X110X10.
Codes for analysis
RCC design: IS 456:2000
Composite design: IS 11384

Seismic analysis is carried out on building models using the software Staad pro V8i. The load
cases considered in the seismic analysis are as per IS 1893 2002 and IS 456.
Figure 4.2: Elevation of Building

Figure 4.3: Model of steel concrete composite moment resisting frame
Figure 4.4: Model of an X type bracing

Figure 4.5: Model of a chevron braced frames
Figure 4.6: Model of a V braced frames

Figure 4.7: Model of a zipper braced frames

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD
STORY DRIFT
Storey number Drift of Composite in X- Drift of Composite in Y-

direction direction
0 0 0
1 0.0634 0.0634
2 0.16 0.16
3 0.21 0.21
4 0.223 0.223
5 0.219 0.219
6 0.198 0.198
7 0.167 0.167
8 0.132 0.132
9 0.112 0.112
10 0.102 0.102
Table 5.1 X-direction and Y-direction
SUPPORT REACTION
FIG 5.1 Support reaction of composite structure

CHAPTER 6
5.1 REMAINING PROPOSED WORK IN STAGE 2
1. Material and data preparation.
2. Calculation of the loads based on building codes.
3. Structural analysis using STAAD PRO.
4. Calculation of the lateral load using uniform distribution and equivalent lateral load
5. Design parameters such as support reactions, bending moment, shear force, overall
deflection, and story drift are verified by manually.
Following Are The Steps Followed Final Project Study To Carry Out Analysis, Design
And Performance Study Of Composite Frames
Create 3d Model Of Complex Steel Concrete Composite Frame.
Assign The Corresponding Section And Loads For The Beam And Column.
Each Type Of Frame Is Analysed Separately By Using Equivalent Static Load Method By
Using Staad Pro. The Analysis Is Conducted For Is 1893(part 1), 2002 Specified
Combinations Of Loadings.
Design Has Been Carried Out Using Staad Pro.
Result Obtain By Moment Resisting Frame Are Compared By Other Bracing Frame

Oct - Dec Jan Feb

Activity Aug-Sept 2016 2016 2016-17 Feb-Mar 2017 Apr-May 2017
Literature Survey
Analysis of literature data

Study of relevant IS codes
and other specifications
Modelling on STAAD
PRO Program
Analysis
Assessment and
comparison of Result
Conclusions
Preparation of Project
Report

REFERENCES
1. DHANARAJ M. PATIL, KESHAV K. SANGLE. Structural Engineering

Department, VJTI, Mumbai 400019, India
2. AISC 360-05, Specification of structural steel building, An American national

standards, American Institute Of Steel Construction, Inc., 2005.
3. Sina Kazemzadeh Azad, Cem Topkaya Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
4. G. Brandonisio a, M. Toreno a, E. Grande b, E. Mele a, A. De Luca a Department of

Structural Engineering, University of Naples, Italy Department of Civil and
Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Italy
5. M. Rezai, H.G.L. Prion, R. Tremblay, N. Bouatay, P. Timler, Seismic Performance of

Brace Elements for concentrically Steel Braced Frames-STESSA 2003-Behaviour of
Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Proceedings of the 4th International Specialty
Conference, Naples, Italy June 2003, pp. 912.
6. M.D. Engelhardt, T. Winneberger, A.J. Zekany, J.T.J. Potyra, Experimental

investigations of dogbone moment connections, Eng. J. 35 (4) (1998) 128139 (AISC,
Fourth Quarter).
7. Yang Ding a, Min Wua,c, Long-He Xu b, Hai-Tao Zhu a, Zhong-Xian Li a School of

Civil Engineering, Tianjin University/Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety
(Tianjin University), Ministry of Education, Tianjin 300072, China.
8. F. Ferrario a, F. Iori b, R. Pucinotti c,R. Zandonini a Armalam S.r.l., Viale Dante,

300, I 38057, Pergine Valsugana, Trento, Italy b Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile,
Ambientale e Meccanica, Universit di Trento, Trento, Italy
9. Eric J. Lumpkin a, Po-Chien Hsiao b, Charles W. Roeder b,, Dawn E. Lehman b,

Ching-Yi Tsai c, An-Chien Wu d, Chih-Yu Wei d, Keh-Chyuan Tsai c a Thornton
Tomasetti, Kansas City, MO, United States b Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2700, United States

10. A.R. Rahai, M.M. Alinia * Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of
Technology, 424 Hafez Avenue, Tehran 15875-4413, Iran
11. IS 1893 (Part 1):2002,Indian Standard, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, PART 1-General Provisions and Buildings(Fifth Revision)
12. IS 456:2000.Plain and reinforced concrete.
13. IS 13920:1993.Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic

forces.
14. STAAD-Structural Analysis and design engineering software.
15. IS: 875(part 1) 1987), handbook on code of practice for design loads (other than
earthquake) for buildings and structures (bureau of Indian standards, new Delhi, 1989.
16. IS 11384:1985, Code of practice for design of composite structures, Bureau of

Indian Standards, New Delhi

Project Report1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Report1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Analysis Of Multi-storey Steel Concrete Composite Frame By Using Various Bracing Systems

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 1

1.2 COMPOSITE STRUCTURES

A composite member is constructed by combining concrete member and steel member so

1. Composite deck slab

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 2

Figure 1.1: composite deck slab and beams

1.2.1 COMPOSITE DECK SLAB

1.2.2 COMPOSITE BEAM

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 3

1.2.3 COMPOSITE COLUMNS

Figure 1.2: Types of composite columns

1.2.4 SHEAR CONNECTORS

1.3 STEEL BRACINGS

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 4

Concentric Bracings Eccentric Bracings

Figure 1.3: Type of bracing

1.4 STRENGTHENING OF STRUCTURES WITH CONCRETE AND STEEL

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 5

1.5 STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION

Figure 1.4: Structural configuration of different bracing system

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 6

1.6 ADVANTAGES OF STEEL-COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION

1. Faster construction for maximum utilization of rolled and/or fabricated components

3. Reductions in overall weight of structure and thereby reduction in foundation cost.

4. Cost of formwork is lower compared to RCC construction.

6. Easy structural repair/modification/maintenance.

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 7

1.7 NECESSITY OF PROVIDING BRACING SYSTEM

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 8

1.2 LITRATURE REVIEW

Dhanaraj m. patil, keshav k. sangle are to compare the seismic behaviour of

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 9

braced frame. In eccentric braced frames, energy dissipation capacity in a seismic

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 10

G. Brandonisio , M. Toreno some modifications to the design procedure,

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 11

is a critical issue in the field of civil engineering because a severe damage is a

F. Ferrario a, F. Iori b, R. Pucinotti describes an experimental study of the

Eric J. Lumpkin considers Special concentrically braced frames (SCBF) are

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 12

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 13

To study Seismic analysis of multi-storey steel concrete composite structure by using

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 14

4.1 EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS

b) The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta), in seconds, of

c) The design horizontal seismic coefficient h A for a structure is determined by

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 15

4.2 TIME PERIOD

4.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS

4.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE HORIZONTAL SEISMIC FORCES

4.5 INDIAN STANDARDS IS-1893:2002

IS 1893:2002 is denoted as Criteria for earthquake resistant Design of structures

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 16

4.6 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Figure 4.1: Building Plan

Jspms Imperial College Of Engineering And Research Wagholi Page 17

4.7 DESIGN DATA

Seismic zone: III

Zone factor: 0.16

Height of building: 31.5 m

Floor height: 3.00m

Depth of foundation: 1.5 m

Type of soil: Medium