National Conference on Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Structures (CAADS-2016) Paper ID: CAD07

Seismic Response of RC Building with Different Types of Bracings and

Shear Wall in Different Seismic Zones
Mohankumar K. B.1, Vinayak Vijapur2
1
P.G. Student (M.Tech. Structures), Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College,
HAVERI - 581 110, Karnataka, India
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College,
HAVERI - 581 110, Karnataka, India

Abstract
This work focuses on comparison of seismic analysis of G+12 building stiffened with bracings and shear wall. The
performance of the building is analyzed in Zone III, Zone IV and Zone V, with soil type II (Medium). The study includes
understanding the main consideration factor that leads the structure to perform poorly during earthquake in order to achieve
their appropriate behavior under future earthquakes. The analyzed structure is symmetrical, G+12, Special RC moment-resting
frame (SMRF). Modeling of the structure is done as per ETABS 2015 software. Time period of the structure in both the direction
is retrieve from the software and as per IS 1893(part 1):2002 seismic analysis has undergone. The Lateral seismic force of RC
frame is carried out using linear static method as per IS 1893(part 1): 2002 for different earthquake zones. The scope of present
work is to understand that the structures need to have suitable Earthquake resisting features to safely resist large lateral forces
that are imposed on them during Earthquake. Shear walls are efficient, both in terms of construction cost and effectiveness in
minimizing Earthquake damage in structure. Also the braced frames can absorb great degree of energy exerted by earthquake.
The results of the performance and the analysis of the models are then graphically represented and also in tabular form and is
compared for determining the best performance of building against lateral stiffness by arrangement of two types of bracings and
shear wall. A comparative analysis is done in terms of Base shear, Displacement, Modal time period and modal frequency, Storey
acceleration and storey drift.

KeyWords:RC building, Bracings, Shear wall, Bare frame, response spectrum, ETABS 2015 etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------

1.INTRODUCTION at the top storey of building to the total height of the

structure. Different structural elements can be used to
Multi storey is a building that has many floors increase the lateral stiffness and to decrease the drift. These
above the earth in the building. Multi storey structures aim Elements improve the lateral stiffness of the structure and
to increase the floor area of the structure without increasing also reduce the drift. Bracings are used to resist the structure
the area of the land that building is built on therefore multi against horizontal forces. The bracing are transfers the load
storey structures saves the land space more effectively and transmit it to the foundation. The bracing carries both
especially where space is limited and expensive. Upper tension as well as compression thus reduces the bending
floors are repetition of lower floors and identical upper movement and shear forces in the columns. Bracing system
stories are more free from stress sound and bad smell and holds the building stable by transferring the loads to the
dust. The major part in the design of multi storied structure ground and is used to resist against the lateral loads.
is to resist the lateral loads along with gravity load. Because Diagonal bracing system is sufficiently efficient elements
it also governs the resulting oscillatory can reduce wide for developing the stiffness and resistance against the wind
range responses in the building. Earth quake is one of the loads Lateral loads can develop high stresses, produce sway
great natural calamities trust upon the mankind since time movement or cause vibration. Therefore, it is very important
immemorial and destroys lot of things as at one time. India for the structure to have sufficient strength against vertical
also experiences some of the most severe earthquake and loads together with adequate stiffness to resist lateral loads.
Indian sub-continent also experience most serve earthquake The shear wall structures have been recognized as one of the
in the world. Seismic analyse of structure is one of the most efficient structural system for such a purpose.
important parameter to be considered for all type of
structures which account for the inelastic behaviour. Seismic The following are some of the lateral load resisting system
response are computed by non-linear static analysis of the adopted in the building.
structure subjected to increasing lateral forces with an a. Moment Resistant Frames.
invariant height whose distribution until a predetermined b. Braced Frames.
target displacement is reached. c. Shear Wall Structures.
The parameter that is used to find out the lateral d. Tube Structures.
stiffness of a building is the ratio as the maximum deflection
Department of Civil Engineering, SDMCET, Dharwad-580002
 National Conference on Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Structures (CAADS-2016) Paper ID: CAD07
2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE The loads are considered as per Indian standard codes are
Structural loads- IS 875:1987 part I, II
The seismic analysis should be carried out for the Earthquake loads- IS 1893:2002
buildings that have lack of resistance to earthquake forces. Dead loads
Seismic analysis will consider dynamic effects hence the Dead loads are taken as per IS 875:1987 part I
exact analysis sometimes become complex. However for Unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3
simple regular structures equivalent linear static analysis is Floor finish = 1 kN/m2
sufficient one. This type of analysis will be carried out for Floor finish at terrace = 1.5 kN/m2
regular and low rise buildings and this method will give Live load
good results for this type of buildings. Dynamic analysis Live loads are considered as per IS 875:1987 part II
will be carried out for the building as specified by code IS Live load = 3.5 kN/m2
1893-2002 (part1). Dynamic analysis will be carried out Earthquake loads are considered as per IS 1893:2002
either by Response spectrum method or site specific Time Zone factor Z = 0.16, 0.24, 0.36
history method. In present study analysis is carried out using Importance factor I = 1.5
Response spectrum method Response reduction factor R = 5

2.1 Response Spectrum Method

3.3 Building Models
The representation of maximum response of
idealized single degree freedom system having certain The modelling of the G+12 structural building with
period and damping, during earthquake ground motions. different types of bracings and with shear wall is done by
This analysis is carried out according to the code IS 1893- using structural analysis software ETABS 2015. The models
2002 (part1). Here type of soil, seismic zone factor should are shown in below figures
be entered from IS 1893-2002 (part1). The standard
response spectra for type of soil considered is applied to
building for the analysis in ETABS 2015 software.
Following diagram shows the standard response spectrum
for medium soil type and that can be given in the form of
time period versus spectral acceleration coefficient (Sa/g).

3. DETAILS OF THE MODELS

Input Parameter
The input data contains the material properties, size
of the structural member, seismic zones as per IS
1893:2002, Loads which is to be considered for the study.

3.1 Super structure

Multi-storied RC framed building of G+12 with
different types of bracings and shear wall as well as bare
frame models is considered for the analysis. All the
structural members are considered to be of reinforced
concrete of grade M30.
The material properties are given below:
The modulus of elasticity of concrete, E = 27386 N/mm2
Density of concrete, = 25 kN/m3
Poisons ratio, = 0.2
Size of the structural members:
Beam = 0.23 m 0.5 m
Column = 0.3 m 0.6 m Fig. 1: Plan of the present study.
Slab = 0.15 m thick
Bracing = ISMB 200
Shear wall = 0.2 m thick
Seismic zone III, IV, V
Zone factor Z = 0.16, 0.24, 0.36 (as per IS 1893:2002,
Table 2)
Response reduction factor, R = 5
Importance factor, I = 1.5

3.2 Loads
For this study the gravity loads as well as earthquake load in
global X and Y directions of the entire structural model is to
be considered.
Department of Civil Engineering, SDMCET, Dharwad-580002
 National Conference on Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Structures (CAADS-2016) Paper ID: CAD07

Fig. 2: 3-D Model and elevation of Bare frame model. Fig. 3: Elevation and 3-D Model of X Braced model.

Fig. 4: Elevation and 3-D Model of V Braced model. Fig. 5: 3-D Model and elevation of Shear wall model.

Department of Civil Engineering, SDMCET, Dharwad-580002

 National Conference on Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Structures (CAADS-2016) Paper ID: CAD07
4. RESULTS
The research work is carried out to perform the Maximum displacement
seismic analysis of RC Building with Different types of 180
Bracings and Shear Wall in Different Seismic Zones due to 170
earthquake excitation. The models of bare frame, V braced, 160
X braced and shear wall models are developed using 150
ETABS-2015 software. These four models are developed in 140
different seismic zones such as zone III, IV and V. Each 130
models has a G+12 storey and located in soil type II 120
(Medium). Analysis is performed by using Response 110
spectrum method to know the base shear of each model in 100
different seismic zones. The maximum displacement, storey 90
drift, acceleration and time period are compared and 80 Zone III
discussion of the results is done in this chapter. 70 Zone IV
60
50 Zone V
Base shear 40
30
4000 20
10
3500
0
3000
Base shear (kN)

2500

2000
ZONE III
1500 Fig.8: Maximum displacement.
ZONE IV
1000 ZONE V
500 Modal frequency in first mode
1
0
0.9

0.8

Fig. 6: Base Shear in Different zones. 0.7

0.6
Time period in first mode
3 0.5
Zone III
2.5 0.4 Zone IV
2 0.3 Zone V
1.5
Zone III 0.2
1
Zone IV
0.1
0.5
Zone V
0 0

Fig. 7: Time period in first mode. Fig. 9: Modal frequency in first mode.

Department of Civil Engineering, SDMCET, Dharwad-580002

 National Conference on Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Structures (CAADS-2016) Paper ID: CAD07
Table 1: Maximum base shear (kN)
BARE V X
Maximum acceleration ZONE SHEARWALL
FRAME BRACING BRACING
1800
1600 III 1310 1316.57 1319.5 1542.58
1400 IV 1964.9 1974.86 1979.2 2313.87
1200
1000 V 2947.4 2962.29 2968.8 3470.8
800 Zone III
600
400 Zone IV Table 2: Maximum displacement in X direction (mm)
200
0 Zone V BARE V X SHEAR
ZONE
FRAME BRACING BRACING WALL

III 74.1 22.9 20.3 8.8

IV 111.1 34.3 30.4 13.2
V 166.6 51.5 45.7 19.8
Fig. 10: Maximum acceleration.
Table 3: Maximum displacement in Y direction (mm)
Maximum storey drift in X direction (mm) ZONE
BARE V X
SHEARWALL
FRAME BRACING BRACING
7
6 III 38 28 25.3 15.9
IV 57 41.9 37.9 23.8
5
V 85.5 62.9 56.9 35.7
4
3 Zone III Table 4: Time period in first mode (Sec)
2 Zone IV
BARE V X
1 ZONE SHEARWALL
Zone V FRAME BRACING BRACING

0
III 2.821 1.656 1.553 1.141
IV 2.821 1.656 1.553 1.141
V 2.821 1.656 1.553 1.141

Fig. 11: Maximum storey drift.

Table 5: Modal frequency in first mode (Hz)
Maximum storey drift in Y direction (mm)
BARE V X
ZONE SHEARWALL
3.5 FRAME BRACING BRACING

3
III 0.355 0.604 0.644 0.877
2.5 IV 0.355 0.604 0.644 0.877
V 0.355 0.604 0.644 0.877
2
1.5 Zone III Table 6: Maximum acceleration (mm/sec2).
1 Zone IV BARE V X SHEAR
ZONE
FRAME BRACING BRACING WALL
0.5 Zone V
III 708.2 659.68 657.2 689.55
0
IV 1062.3 989.52 985.8 1034.33
V 1593.45 1484.28 1478.69 1551.5

Fig. 12: Maximum storey drift in Y direction.

Department of Civil Engineering, SDMCET, Dharwad-580002

 National Conference on Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Structures (CAADS-2016) Paper ID: CAD07
Table 7: Maximum story drift in X direction. REFERENCES:

BARE V X 1. K.S.K. Karthik Reddy et al. A comparative Study

ZONE SHEARWALL
FRAME BRACING BRACING on Behaviour of Mutistoried Building with
Different Types and Arrangements of Bracing
Systems IJSTE, Volume 2 | Issue 2 | August 2015.
III 2.872 0.646 0.575 0.267
2. Umesh .R.Biradar and Shivraj Mangalagi Seismic
Response of Reinforced Concrete Structure by
IV 4.308 0.969 0.863 0.4
Using Different Bracing Systems IJRET, Volume
3 | Issue 9 | September 2014.
V 6.462 1.454 1.294 0.6
3. Punith Kumar Naik. B.D. Seismic Response of a
3-Dimensional Analysis of Multi Storey RC Frame
5. CONCLUSIONS with Steel Bracing as Lateral Load Resisting
Systems IJSETR, Volume 4 | Issue 12 | May 2015.
1. The base shear of the building will be maximum in 4. S.R. Thorat and P.J. Salunke Seismic Behavoiur
the model IV (Shear wall model) compared to the of Multystorey Shear Wall Frame Versus Braced
all the models. The base shear increases as the Concrete Frames IJAME, Volume 4 | Number 3 |
zones changes from higher to lower. 2014.
2. Compared to the model I and model IV the base 5. Sundar M. Deshmukh and J.G. Kulkarni2Analysis
shear is increased by 15% and compared to the of Partially Braced Multistoreyed Building Frames
model II and model III, base shear is increased by Subjected to Gravity and Earthquake Loads
2.22% in zone III. IJARSE, Volume 2 | Issue 8 | August 2013.
3. The displacement of the structure will be maximum 6. Rajesh Jayarambhai Prajapati and Vinubhai.R.Patel
in the model I (Bare frame model) at top storey. Effect of Different Position of Shear Wall on
The displacement of the structure will be reduced Deflection in High Rise Building IJAET, Volume
by providing shear wall and bracings. Compared to 6 | Issue 4 | September 2013.
the bracings systems, shear wall system gives less 7. BhosleAshwini Tanaji and Shaikh A.N. Analysis
displacement result. But by providing the bracings of Reinforced Concrete Building with Different
systems the displacement of the building will be Arrangement of Concrete and Steel Bracing
reduced as well as total weight of the structure will Systems IOSR-JMCE, Volume 12 | Issue 5 | Sept.
be reduced. Oct. 2015.
4. The displacement is reduced by 88.12% compared 8. P.P. Chandurkar and P.S. Pajgade Seismic
to the model I and model IV in X direction in Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear
seismic zone III. Compared to the model II the Wall IJMER, Volume 3 | Issue 3 | May June
displacement is reduced by 11.35% in model III. 2013.
5. The ground acceleration of the building is reduced 9. Abhijeet Baikerikar, Kanchan Kanagali Study Of
by providing various types of bracings and shear Lateral Load Resisting Systems Of Variable
wall. By providing X type of bracing we can Heights In All Soil Types Of High Seismic Zone
reduce the ground acceleration compared to other IJRET, Volume 3 | Issue 10 | October 2014.
types of bracings and shear wall. 10. Rajib Kumar Biswas et al. Comparative Analysis
6. Model IV is 2.63% reduction in ground of a 15 Story Flat Plate Building with and Without
acceleration compared to the model I in seismic Shear Wall and Diagonal Bracing Under Wind and
zone III with acceleration in X direction. Seismic Loads IOSR-JMCE, Volume 9 | Issue 2 |
7. The storey drift is maximum in the model I (Bare Sep. - Oct. 2013.
frame model), the drift will be reduced by 11. Mohd Atif et al. Comparative Study On Seismic
providing bracings and shear wall but shear wall Analysis Of Multistorey Building Stiffened With
gives less drift values compared to the bracings. Bracing And Shear Wall Volume 2 | Issue 5 |
8. The storey drift is reduced by 64.82% in model IV Aug-2015.
compared to the model I in X direction with
seismic zone III. CODES / STANDARDS
12. Indian Standard IS 1893(Part1)2002, Criteria for
earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT General Provisions and Buildings, Fifth Revision,
I am thankful to my guide, Prof. Vinayak Vijapur, Asst. BIS, New Delhi, India.
Professor, Department Civil Engineering, Government 13. Indian Standard, IS 875(Part 1)-1987, Code of
Engineering College, HAVERI, for his constant practice for design loads (other than earthquake)
encouragement and able guidance. Also I thank my parents, for building and structures Part 1, Dead loads
friends and others for their continuous support in making unit weights of building materials and stored
this work complete. materials, BIS, Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India.
14. Indian Standard, IS 875(Part 2)-1987, Code of
practice for design loads (other than earthquake)
for building and structures Part 2 - Imposed loads,
BIS, Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India.

Department of Civil Engineering, SDMCET, Dharwad-580002