IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 4 | Issue 2 | August 2017

ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structures

with Different Types of Bracing System
Mayank Chouhan Dr. Savita Maru
PG Student Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain, M.P. India Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain, M.P. India

Abstract
Steel is by far most useful material in construction and played an important role in last few decades. It must necessary to analyze
and design a structure to perform well under seismic loads and also endow with well strength, stability and ductility for seismic
design. The seismic performance of a multi-story steel frame structure is analyzed according to the provision of current Indian
code (IS800-20007), seismic data and seismic factor from Indian code (IS1893-2002). Few guidelines like Applied Technology
Council (ATC40) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA356) have used. Steel bracing is very useful for increasing
the shear capacity of the structure. Bracing can be used as retrofit as well. There are few possibilities to arrange steel bracings such
as X, V, Diagonal, K (Concentric bracings) and some eccentric bracings as well. Enough work has done in these types of bracings
in several analyses. In this study typical G+8 story Steel frame buildings have analyzed, for various types of eccentric and
concentric bracings. In this thesis Diamond bracing (Double K), Invert V, two types of eccentric bracings and a bare frame.
Performance of each frame is studied through pushover analysis. In the present study five different types of model analyzed using
pushover analysis. The pushover analysis has been carried out using SAP2000 v18, a product of computer and structure
international. The results of all models are analyze and compare in term of base shear, story displacement, pushover curve, spectrum
curve, performance point of the structure and story drift. If the overall performance of the buildings have found between LS-CP
(Life safety – Collapse Prevent) structures is safe. The hinge results and location has been determined and it is noted that the most
of the hinges begin to form in B-IO range at performance point.
Keywords: Pushover analysis, performance objectives high rise steel frame with different types of bracing, bracing
pattern, performance point, displacement
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

Nonlinear static pushover analysis gives a better view on the performance of the structures during seismic events. The seismic
performance of a multi-story steel frame building is designed according to the provisions of IS 800 2007. Steel structures are more
elastic than RCC structures but they show lateral deflection than RCC building. A bracing is an arrangement that is provided to
minimize the lateral deflection of structure. A braced frame is a structural system which is designed principally to resist wind and
earthquake forces. Braced frames are classified as concentric braced frames (CBF) or eccentric braced frames (EBF). Concentric
braced frames are frames in which the core line of the member that get together at a joint, intersect at a point to form a vertical
truss system which resist lateral forces. These frames provide complete truss action with member subjected to the axial forces in
elastic range. Concentric braced frames (CBF) are used to resists wind forces. Bracing arranged concentrically in structure pose
difficulties in preventing foundation uplift. Because one diagonal of an opposing pair is always in tension, possibility of brittle
failure is present.
Eccentric braced frames(EBF) is a framing system in which the forces induced in the braces are transferred either to a column
or to another brace through shear and bending in small segment of beam called link. The link in EBF act like structural fuses to
dissipates earthquake induced energy in stable manner. EBFs represent an economically effective way of designing steel structure
for seismic loading. Due to eccentric bracings there is reduction in the lateral stiffness of the system and improve the energy
dissipation capacity.

II. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Nonlinear static analysis may be classified as displacement control when lateral displacement is compulsory on the structure and
its equilibrium determine the forces. Likewise, when lateral forces are obligatory, the study is termed as force-controlled pushover
analysis. The importance of the target force and target displacement is to calculate the maximum displacement or maximum force
expected to be experienced by the building structure throughout the design earthquake. Response of structure clear of maximum
strength can be determined only by displacement controlled pushover analysis. Hence, in the present study, displacement-
controlled pushover method is used for analysis of building structural steel frames with and without bracings.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 37

 Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structures with Different Types of Bracing System
(IJSTE/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 008)

This paper includes the structural behavior of steel building for braced frame under lateral and static loading. The main aspire
of study has been to recognize the type of bracing arrangement which causes minimum displacement such contributes to greater
lateral stiffness to the building. This process aims to produce structures with predictable seismic performance.
The three key elements of this method are: -
 Capacity: - It is a representation of the structures ability to resist the seismic demand.
 Demand: - It is a representation of the earthquake ground motion.
 Performance: - It is an intersection point of capacity spectrum and demand spectrum.
Different states such as Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, Collapse prevention and collapse are defines as per ATC 40 and FEMA
356.
Table – 1
Performance level of structure
Performance Level Structural Performance Non Structural Performance
Very light damage Negligible damage. Power & other utilities are
Operational (O)
No permanent drift Substantially original strength and stiffness available
Light damage
Immediate No permanent drift Equipments & content secure but may not operate
Occupancy (IO) Substantially original strength & stiffness minor cracking due to mechanical/utility failure
Elevators can be restarted Fire protection operable
Moderate damage
Some permanent drift Falling hazard mitigated but extensive systems
Life Safety (LS)
Residual strength & stiffness in all stories Gravity elements damage
function building may be beyond economical repair
Severe damage
Large permanent drifts
Collapse Little residual strength & stiffness
Extensive damage
Prevention (CP) Gravity elements function
Some exits blocked
Building near collapse

Linear Dynamic analysis (Response spectrum)

Here the full design base shear and lateral force all along some principal direction is given in terms of design horizontal seismic
coefficient and seismic mass of the building. Design horizontal seismic coefficient depends on the seismic zone importance factor
of the structure, seismic zone factor of site, response reduction factor of the lateral load resisting elements and the fundamental
period of the structure. The method usually used for the equivalent static analysis is given below:
1) Determination of fundamental natural period (Ta) of the buildings Ta = 0.075h0.075 Moment resisting RC frame building
without brick infill wall.
Ta = 0.085h0.075 Moment resisting steel frame building without brick infill walls Ta = 0.09h /√d All other buildings including
moment resisting RC frame building with brick infill walls.
Where,
h - Is the height of building in meter
d- Is the base dimension of building at plinth level in m, along the considered direction of lateral force.
2) Determination of base shear (VB) of the building
VB = Ah×W
Where,
Ah=(Z/2)*(I/R)*(Sa/g) is the design horizontal seismic coefficient, which depends on the seismic zone factor (Z), importance factor
(I), response reduction factor (R) and the average response acceleration coefficients (Sa/g). Sa/g in turn depends on the nature of
foundation soil (rock, medium or soft soil sites), natural period and the damping of the structure.
3) Distribution of design base shear The design base shear VB thus obtained shall be distributed along the height of the building
as per the following expression:

Where, Qi is the design lateral force, Wi is the seismic weight, hi is the height of the ith floor measured from base and n is the
number of stories in the building.

Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover Analysis)

Pushover analysis is one of the methods available to understand the seismic behavior of the structure. Nonlinear static pushover
analysis was used to evaluate the seismic performance of the structures. The numerical analysis was done using SAP2000 18 and
guidelines of ATC-40 and FEMA 356 were followed. The overall performance evaluation was done using capacity curves, storey

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 38

 Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structures with Different Types of Bracing System
(IJSTE/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 008)

displacements, base shear, spectrum curve and ductility ratios. Plastic hinge hypothesis was used to capture the nonlinear behavior
according to which plastic deformations are lumped on plastic hinges and rest of the system shows linear elastic behavior.

III. STRUCTURAL MODELING

For the analysis work, five models of building (G+8) floors are made to know the realistic behavior of building during earthquake.
In these study eccentric bracings, concentric bracings and bare frame has taken for the pushover analysis. Typically bay width is
taken 4m in both X and Y direction. No of bays in both directions are 4. Total height of building is 31.9m. Story height (floor to
floor) 3.1m were considered in this study. All the joints of beam column and bracings are rigid. There are assigned Diaphragm in
all joints because; it is horizontal or nearly horizontal system which transmits lateral forces to vertical resisting system like bracing
system. The models were analyzed as per Indian standard code and Fema356 and ATC 40. Different arrangement of steel braced
frame and a bare frame considered below. All columns are fixed from base for foundation.

Fig. 1; Common plan for all building model

In this study a single model of bare frame and 4 models with different functional properties of bracing eccentric and concentric
have taken.

(a) Diamond (Double K) (b) Invert V bracing (c) Eccentric type (d) Bare frame (e) Bracing at corner
Fig. 2; Elevation of all buildings

IV. MATERIAL PROPERTIES

The material used in structure is steel in Beam, Column and Bracing member, the material considered in slab is concrete. Fe-345
grade of steel and M20 grade of concrete are used for all the frame models used in this study. The material properties are taken as
per Indian Standard code IS 800 and IS 456. Parameters considered for the study is given below.
Table – 2
Building parameter considered for the study
Particular Details
3 KN/M2 At Typical Floor
Live Load
1.5 KN/M2 On Terrace
Slab Thickness 150mm
As Per Is: 875-Not Designed For Wind
Wind Load Load, Since Earthquake Loads Exceed The

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 39

 Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structures with Different Types of Bracing System
(IJSTE/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 008)

Wind Loads.
Earthquake Load As Per Is-1893 (Part 1) – 2002
Depth Of Foundation Below Ground 3.1m
Type Of Soil Type II, Medium As Per Is:1893
Storey Height 3.2m
Plan Size 16m x 16m
No. of Bays in X Direction 4
No. of Bays in Y Direction 4
Grade Of Concrete M-20
Grade of steel Fe345 Structure steel
Column Size ISMB 550
Beam Size ISWB 500
Bracing Size ISMB 400
Building Importance Factor 1
Response Reduction Factor for concentric and eccentric respectively 4,5
Height of all buildings 31.9 m

V. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Procedure of pushover analysis

 Define all the material properties, frame sections, load cases and mass source.
 Assign hinge properties available in SAP2000 Nonlinear as per ATC-40 to the frame elements. For the beam default hinge
that yields based upon the flexure (M3) and shear(V2) is assigned, for the column default hinge that yields based upon the
interaction of the axial force and bending moment (P M2 M3) is assigned, and for the equivalent diagonal strut default hinge
that yields based upon the axial force (P) only is assigned.
 Define three static pushover cases. In the first case gravity load is applied to the structure, in the second case lateral load.
 After defining the all load cases run the analysis for the pushover load case and nonlinear gravity load case.
 Pushover curve of all braced frame structure and bare frame structure have found after analysis. The capacity of the building
is determined by pushover curve. All types of results are discussed below.

(a) Pushover curve of Diamond bracing (Double K) (b) Pushover curve of Bracing Inverted ‘V’

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 40

 Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structures with Different Types of Bracing System
(IJSTE/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 008)

(c) Pushover curve of Bracing at corner (d) Pushover curve of Bracing Eccentric type

(e) Pushover curve of bare frame

Fig. 3; Pushover curves of all buildings

In above figure pushover curves of all buildings have obtained, from the Pushover curve the data about displacement and base
shear have obtained.
Capacity spectrum curve is useful for calculate the overall demand of the structure and capacity of the structure. It is useful to
obtain the performance point of the structure. Spectrum curve of all buildings are discussed below in figures.

(a) Spectrum curve of Diamond bracing (Double K) (b) Spectrum curve of bracing Invert ‘V’

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 41

 Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structures with Different Types of Bracing System
(IJSTE/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 008)

(c) Spectrum curve of bracing At corner (d) Spectrum curve of Eccentric bracing

(e) Spectrum curve of Bare frame

Fig. 4: Spectrum curves of all buildings

Performance point Displacement

Structure type
(KN) (mm)
Diamond bracing (Double K) 6925.922 0.084
Bracing at corner 6152.398 0.093
Invert V bracing 6488.383 0.089
Eccentric bracing 6173.156 0.092
Bare frame 6960.880 0.123
In the below figures shown that the location of plastic hinges formed for different performance levels in their final step of
analysis for PUSH X direction. Whenever we check the performance of the structure we calculate the deformation of the hinges.
If hinges are in O-CP (Operational to collapse prevent) stage, we can say that overall structure is safe. The various types of location
and deformation of hinges are given below.

(a) Location of hinges obtained from building with Diamond bracing (Double K)

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 42

 Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structures with Different Types of Bracing System
(IJSTE/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 008)

(b) Location of hinges obtained from building with bracing At corner

(c) Location of hinges obtained from building with bracing Invert ‘V’

(d) Location of hinges obtained from building with Eccentric bracing

(e) Location of hinges obtained from building Bare frame

Fig. 5: Hinges location of all buildings

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 43

 Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structures with Different Types of Bracing System
(IJSTE/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 008)

From the above results the location of different types of hinges for different types of the buildings are obtained.

VI. CONCLUSION

1) Results obtained from the structure with diamond bracing (Double K) gives the minimum displacement 0.084mm at
performance level. And the performance point obtained is 6925.922KN.
2) The result obtained from bare frame structure gives the maximum displacement 0.123mm at performance level.
3) The performance points are determined for all five building models.
4) The maximum value of performance point obtained from the structure having no bracing, bare frame structure is 6960.880KN.

REFERENCES
[1] Atc 40 (Applied Technology Council)
[2] Fema356 2000 (Federal Emergency Management Agency) “Pre Standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”.
[3] Is1893 (Part 1) 2002 “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design Of Structures” General Provision and All Buildings.
[4] Is: 800 Indian Standard “Code of Practice for General Construction of Steel”
[5] Adithya. M, Swathi Rani K.S, Shruthi H K, Dr. Ramesh B.R, “Study On Effective Bracing Systems For High Rise Steel Structures”, Ssrg International
Journal Of Civil Engineering (Ssrg-Ijce) – Volume 2 Issue 2 February2015 Issn:2348–8352.
[6] Anshul Umredkar, Prof. Sandeep Gaikwad& Prof. Amey Khedikar “Investigation Of Steel Building Structures With Reference To Pushover Analysis”,
Imperial Journal Of Interdisciplinary Research (Ijir)- Vol-2, Issue-9, 2016.
[7] A. S. Moghdam and W. K. Tso “Pushover Analysis for Asymmetric and Set-Back Multi-Story Buildings”. 12wcee 2000, 1093.
[8] Chui-Hsin Chen., Jiun-Wei Lai., Stephen Mahin, “Seismic Performance Assessment Of Concentrically Braced Steel Frame Buildings”, The 14th World
Conference On Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
[9] D C Rai,S C Goel “Seismic Evaluation And Upgrading Of Chevron Braced Frames” Journal Of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003).
[10] Ghobarah, Ahmed. (2001) “Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Engineering: State Of Development”. Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 878-884.
[11] Juan Carlos Vielma, Reyes Herrera, Sigrit Perez, Alex Barbat, Ronald Ugel, “Seismic Response Of High-Rise Steel Framed Buildings With Chevron-Braced
Designed According To Venezuelan Codes”, Vol.4, Special Issue, 694-698 (2012).
[12] K.G.Vishwanath, “Seismic Response of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames”, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering (2010).
[13] K.K Sangle, K.M.Bajoria And V.Mhalungkar., (2012) “Seismic Analysis Of High Rise Steel Frame Building With And Without Bracing” 15wcee, Lisboa.
[14] Mr. A. Vijay and Mr. K. Vijayakumar, “Performance of Steel Frame by Pushover Analysis for Solid and Hollow Sections”, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Development, Vol. 8, Issue 7, Pp 05-12, September 2013.
[15] Pooja B. Suryawanshi, Prof. H. G. Sonkusaree, “Analysis Of Seismic Design Steel Braced Frame”, International Journal Of Science Technology &
Engineering (Ijste)- Vol 2, Issue-11 May 2016.
[16] Pundkar R. S, Alandkar P. M “Influence Of Steel Plate Shear Wall On Multistory Steel Building”, International Journal Of Engineering Research And
Applications (Ijera) Issn: 2248-9622 Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, Pp.1940-1945.
[17] R. Hasan, L. Xu, and D.E. Grierson “Push-Over Analysis for Performance-Based Seismic Design”. Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 2483–2493.
[18] Shih-Ho Chao and Subhash C. Goel, “A Seismic Design Method for Steel Concentric Braced Frames for Enhanced Performance”, 4th International
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, October 12-13, 2006
[19] Shahrzad Eghtesadi, Danesh Nourzadeh, Khosrow Bargi (2011), “Comparative Study On Different Types Of Bracing Systems In Steel Structures”, World
Academy Of Science, Engineering And Technology (2011).
[20] Vaseem Inamdar And Arun Kumar (2014), “Pushover Analysis Of Complex Steel Frame With Bracing Using Etabs”.
[21] Zasiah Tafheem, Shovona Khusru (2013), “Structural Behavior of Steel Building with Concentric and Eccentric Bracing: A Comparative Study”, International
Journal of Civil And Structural Engineering Volume 1.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 44