EFFECT OF BRACING ON RCC MULTISTORY BUILDING USING LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYIS ON DIFFERENT SEISMIC INTENSITIES

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 07 | July 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2595
EFFECT OF BRACING ON RCC MULTISTORY BUILDING USING LINEAR
TIME HISTORY ANALYIS ON DIFFERENT SEISMIC INTENSITIES
Santosh Potadar1, Prof K P Thejaswi2
1M.Tech Department of Civil Engineering, Gogte Institute of Technology Belagavi.
2Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering, Gogte Institute of Technology Belagavi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - In India, exorbitant land prices and a lack of
available land might lead to the construction of multi-story
buildings. Phenomena called an earthquake mightprovide the
most damaging forces for structures. Buildings need to be
designed properly to keep people safe. The main goal is to
create an earthquake-resistant construction by conducting a
seismic study of the building using a static equivalent
technique of research and using E-TABS software for both
static and dynamic analysis. A G+10 Non Braced and Braced
(X, V and Inverted V) building plan is taken into consideration
for this. For seismic zone II, III, IV, and V, calculations are
made. By calculating all acting loads on the structure,
including the lateral loads brought on by Time history data.
The Seismic response i.e. Displacement, Storey Drift, Base
Shear and Modal mass participating ratio are obtained.
Key Words: Linear Time History Analysis, Storey
Displacement, Storey Drift, Base Shear, Bracing,Seismic
Intensities.
1. INTRODUCTION
Constructions constructed to withstand earthquakes are
known as earthquake-resistant structures. The aim of
earthquake resistant construction is to erect structures that
perform better during seismic activity than their
conventional counterparts, even though no structure can be
completely impervious to earthquake damage.
1.1 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT STRUCTURES
The specification of ground motion from prior earthquake
data is the foundation for the earthquake design of the
structure. Therefore, it is crucial to create any significant
construction with earthquake resistance in accordancewith
seismic frequency to prevent damage. However, because
earthquake forces vary and are unpredictable,itisnecessary
to analyse structures under all seismic forces usingsoftware
tools.
1.2 DYNAMIC ANALYIS
For buildings that don't resist earthquake forces, a seismic
study should be performed. Since dynamic influences might
be included in seismic analysis, the accurate analysis will
usuallybecomechallenging.However,analogouslinearstatic
analysis is sufficient for simple regular structures; this kind
of analysis is done for regular and low-rise buildings. The
multi-story building will undergo seismic analysis in
accordance with the requirements of the IS 1893-2016 code
(part 1). Either a time history analysis approach or a
response spectrum method is used for dynamic analysis.
2. SEISMIC INTENSITIES IN INDIA
Instead of the previous version's five or six seismic zones,
the earthquake zoning map of India now splits the nation
into four seismic zones (Zones II, III, IV, and V). This
partitioning map predicts that Zone V will experience the
highest degree of seismicity,whileZone0will experience the
lowest level of seismicity. Each zone demonstrates how an
earthquake's effects at a particularlocationcorroborated the
observations of the affected areas and may even be depicted
using a descriptive scale like the Medvedev-Sponheuer-
Karnik scale, which is a macro unstable intensity scale used
to gauge the severity of ground shaking based on effectsthat
have been observed in a specific area of the earthquake's
occurrence.
3. BRACED FRAMES
These are the truss-braced structural frames, which
primarily use components in tension or compression to
withstand lateral forces. Braced frames can withstand
stresses better than a rectangular moment-resisting frame
because they are more frequently subjected to axial loads.
The braced frame structure is intended to perform better.
Braces can be arranged in an X-shaped, V-shaped, or
inverted V-shaped configuration.
4. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The current study aims to investigate the seismic analysis of
a multi-storey building (G+10) with braced (X, V, and
Inverted V) and without braced symmetrical in plan, under
earthquake load, by adopting a linear time history analysis
method to evaluate storey drift and displacementsandother
comparisons at zone II, III, IV and V Analysis of structure
using dynamic method and finding out drift, displacement,
and base shear to understand the fundamental principles of
structures. Creating a 3D model of the structure using the E-
TABS software to conduct a thorough analysis, to analyse

how a building responds to seismic loads, and compare the
various analysis results of buildings in zones II, III, IV, and V.
5. METHODOLOGY
6. SPECIFICATION OF THE BUILDING
Fig.1 Elevation
Fig.2 Plan
7. BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS
S.NO Parameters Values
1. Length 15m
2. Width 12m
3. Height 35.5m
4. Grade of Steel Fe500
5. Grade of Concrete M25
6. Steel Section for Bracing Fe250
7. Steel Section for Bracing ISMB300
8. Top Storey Height 3.5m
9. Bottom Storey Height 4m
10. Wall Thickness 0.230m
11. Slab Thickness 0.150m
12. Beam size 0.23mX0.45m
13. Column size 0.45mX0.45m
14. Live Load 3.5kN/m2
15. Floor Finish 1.5kN/m2
16. Parapet Wall 1.25m
17. Density of Concrete 24kN/m3
18. Density Of Brick wall 19kN/m3
19. Bracings X,V and Inv V
7. TIME HISTORY DATA
The ETABS analysis uses a variety of time histories as real-
time seismic data. It is up to us to choose the data to utilize
as the input parameters for the software analysis. The time
history of the Bhuj Earthquake, which happened on January
26, 2001 in Gujarat, India, will be taken into account as a
linear time history analysis is carried out on a multi-story
RCC building frame in this study.
S.N
O
EQ Date Scale P.G.A
g
1. BHUJ, INDIA Jan 26
2001
6.9 0.110
Fig 3. Time History Analysis

8. RESULTS- Y-axis is obtained for all results.
Displacement (mm) Zone II
Displacement (mm) Zone III
Displacement (mm) Zone IV
Storey No bracing X bracing V bracing Inv V bracing
10 162.398 31.483 25.297 29.428
9 158.963 28.773 23.432 27.178
8 152.429 25.686 21.55 24.546
7 142.287 22.36 19.481 21.612
6 130.737 18.916 17.253 18.495
5 116.21 15.502 14.915 15.332
4 97.46 12.441 12.53 12.276
3 74.626 9.74 10.175 9.742
2 48.766 7.463 7.985 7.635
1 22.247 5.587 5.709 5.573
Displacement (mm) Zone V
10 243.612 47.267 37.955 41.432
9 238.459 43.198 35.157 38.187
8 228.656 38.564 32.333 34.344
7 213.443 33.57 29.228 30.091
6 196.117 28.399 25.886 25.6
5 174.326 23.274 22.378 21.076
4 146.198 18.678 18.8 17.299
3 111.946 14.624 15.267 13.788
2 73.153 11.205 11.98 10.759
1 33.373 8.387 8.566 7.832
10 56.385 13.125 10.53 12.233
9 55.192 11.995 9.754 11.298
8 52.923 10.708 8.971 10.204
7 49.402 9.322 8.109 8.984
6 45.392 7.886 7.182 7.688
5 40.348 6.463 6.208 6.373
4 33.838 5.186 5.216 5.103
3 25.91 4.061 4.236 4.05
2 16.931 3.111 3.324 3.174
1 7.724 2.329 2.376 2.317
10 108.266 20.989 16.877 19.627
9 105.976 19.182 15.632 18.126
8 101.619 17.124 14.377 16.371
7 94.858 14.907 12.997 14.414
6 87.158 12.61 11.51 12.335
5 77.474 10.335 9.95 10.225
4 64.973 8.294 8.359 8.188
3 49.751 6.494 6.788 6.497
2 32.51 4.975 5.327 5.092
1 14.832 3.724 3.809 3.717
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Storey
Displacement
Zone V
No brcacing
X bracing
V bracing
Inv V bracing

Storey Drift Zone II
10 0.000673 0.000326 0.000279 0.000286
9 0.001229 0.000368 0.000329 0.000342
8 0.001736 0.000396 0.000361 0.00038
7 0.0021 0.00041 0.000373 0.0004
6 0.002184 0.000407 0.000363 0.000398
5 0.002049 0.000384 0.000331 0.000374
4 0.002265 0.000345 0.000289 0.000332
3 0.002592 0.000285 0.000261 0.000277
2 0.002698 0.000251 0.00028 0.000255
1 0.001931 0.000582 0.000593 0.000579
Storey Drift Zone III
10 0.001292 0.000521 0.000447 0.00046
9 0.002359 0.000588 0.000527 0.000548
8 0.003333 0.000634 0.000579 0.00061
7 0.004032 0.000656 0.000598 0.000641
6 0.004194 0.00065 0.000581 0.000638
5 0.003934 0.000615 0.00053 0.0006
4 0.004349 0.000551 0.000464 0.000532
3 0.004978 0.000456 0.000419 0.000445
2 0.00518 0.000402 0.000449 0.000409
1 0.003708 0.000931 0.000951 0.000929
Storey Drift Zone IV
10 0.001938 0.000782 0.00067 0.000689
9 0.003539 0.000882 0.00079 0.000822
8 0.005 0.00095 0.000867 0.000915
7 0.006047 0.000984 0.000896 0.000962
6 0.006291 0.000975 0.000871 0.000957
5 0.005901 0.000922 0.000795 0.000899
4 0.006524 0.000827 0.000695 0.000798
3 0.007467 0.000684 0.000627 0.000667
2 0.00777 0.000602 0.000673 0.000614
1 0.005562 0.001397 0.001425 0.001393
Storey Drift Zone V
10 0.002908 0.001174 0.001006 0.00099
9 0.005309 0.001324 0.001185 0.001173
8 0.0075 0.001427 0.001301 0.001296
7 0.009072 0.001477 0.001344 0.001351
6 0.009437 0.001464 0.001307 0.001332
5 0.008852 0.001384 0.001192 0.001239
4 0.009786 0.001242 0.001043 0.001121
3 0.011201 0.001027 0.000941 0.000927
2 0.011656 0.000904 0.001009 0.000866
1 0.008343 0.002097 0.002139 0.001958
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Storey
Storey Drift
Zone III
No bracing
X bracing
V bracing
Inv V bracing
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Storey
Storey Drift
Zone IV
No bracing
X bracing
V bracing
Inv V bracing
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Storey
Storey Drift
Zone V
No bracing
X bracing
V bracing
Inv V bracing

Base Shear (kN)
Zone
X- Bracing V - Bracing
Inv V
Bracing
2 491.570 489.760 489.190
3 786.090 784.940 784.860
4 1179.140 1176.580 1176.800
5 1770.310 1765.920 1757.550
Modal mass participating ratio.
Mode No bracing X bracing V bracing Inv V bracing
Time % Time % Time % Time %
1 2.695 82.11 (UY) 1.526 84.93 (UY) 1.646 84.46 (UY) 1.583 85.41 (UY)
2 2.539 82.19(UX) 1.432 87.31(UX) 1.528 86.43(UX) 1.467 87.59(UX)
3 2.252 82.84(RZ) 1.055 93.54(RZ) 1.125 92.2(RZ) 1.095 93.22(RZ)
4 0.87 9.97(UY) 0.497 13.84 (UY) 0.527 13.59(UY) 0.525 12.78 (UY)
5 0.822 10.21 (UX) 0.474 11.79 (UX) 0.496 12.26(UX) 0.492 11.17 (UX)
6 0.733 9.6(RZ) 0.343 6.14 (RZ) 0.365 7.2 (RZ) 0.358 6.2 (RZ)
7 0.492 3.6 (UY) 0.223 0.97 (UY) 0.254 1.42 (UY) 0.252 1.2 (UY)
8 0.465 3.5 (UX) 0.207 0.69 (UX) 0.23 0.97 (UX) 0.228 0.89 (UX)
9 0.421 3.5 (RZ) 0.143 0.25 (RZ) 0.166 0.44 (RZ) 0.165 0.41(RZ)
10 0.33 1.88 (UY) 0.138 0.16 (UY) 0.165 0.3(UY) 0.164 0.28 (UY)
11 0.315 1.81(UX) 0.131 0.12 (UX) 0.149 0.2(UX) 0.148 0.19 (UX)
12 0.285 1.71(RZ) 0.102 0 0.124 0 0.123 0
Mode 1 - Translational –UY
Mode 2 – Translational UX
Mode 3 – Rotational RZ
9. CONCLUSIONS
 1. The seismic responses of the buildings in both the
directions are similar in terms of their intensity. These
include base shear, storey displacements, and floor drifts.
The intensity of these responses varies significantly across
different time periods.
2. The values of seismic responses are computed by taking
into account the varying intensities of seismic activities
across different time periods. They show that the order of
seismic intensity changes with increasing intensity.
3. The displacement of the X bracing structure (47mm) is
greater than that of the V (37mm) and Inverted V bracing
(41mm) in Zone V, and a similar pattern is followed inall the
zones, according to the analysis. It is also noted that the
displacement is quite high at the roof and very low at the
base.
4. The base shear of the X-bracing structure in Zone V is
1770 kN, which is more than twice asstrongastheV-bracing
and Inverted V-bracing structures. Similar patterns can be
observed in all seismic zones.
5. Storey Drift mostly affects the middle of the building
structure, and it is determined that it is higher in the X
bracing than in the other bracing structures and that it gets
worse as the seismic zone gets bigger. It was 0.000407 in
Zone II of the X bracing structure and 0.00146 in Zone V on
the fifth floor. This indicates that, when comparing zoneIIto
zone V, the storey drift increases by more than 50%. The
storey drift in ground floor of all braced system in all zone
has a huge spike. It is due to soft storey effect where in the
lateral stiffness of the above storey is more than below.
6. The first two modes, which account for more than 60–65
percent of the mode participation ratio, are translational
modes; the third mode, rotation, accounts for 93.22 percent
of the bracing structures. Except for the absence of a bracing
structure, the modal Participating Ratio of X bracing, V
bracing, and inverted V bracing Structure all follow a similar
pattern. It is also observed that natural period for braced
structure is much less than the unbraced structure, hence
less displacement in braced structure.
7. The difference in base shear for all the braced structure
(X,V and Inverted V ) is not more than 10%.
8. Time History is a realistic seismic analysis method that
offers a better assurance of the security of structures that
have been examined and developed in accordance with IS
code.

REFERENCES
[1] Duggal S K (2010), “Earthquake Resistance Design of
Structure”, Fourth Edition,OxfordUniversityPress,New
Delhi.
[2] Haselton C B and Whittaker A S (2012), “Selecting and
Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing
Response-History Analyses”, The 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
[3] Romy M and Prabha C (2011), “Dynamic AnalysisofRCC
Buildings with Shear Wall”, International Journal of
Earth Sciences and Engineering, ISSN 0974- 5904, Vol.
04, 659-662.
[4] Shaha V and Karve S (2010), “Illustrated Design of
Reinforced ConcreteBuildings”,SixthEdition,Structures
Publication, Pune.
[5] Patil A.S, Kumbhar P.D,“Time history analysis of
multistoried RRC building for different seismic
intensities”, International Journal of Structural andCivil
Engineering Research, vol.-02, issue-03, Aug 2013.
[6] Bhagwat Mayuri D, “Comparative study of Performance
of multistoried building for Koyna and Bhuj earthquake
by THM and RSM”, International Journal of Advanced
Technology in Engineering and Science, vol.no.-02,
issue- 07, ISSN: 2348-7550, July 2014.
[7] Dubey S.K, Sangamnerka Prakash, Agrawal Ankit,
“Dynamic analysis of structuressubjectedtoearthquake
load”, International Journal of Advance Engineeringand
Research Development, vol.-02, issue-09, ISSN: 2348-
4470, Sep.2015.
[8] Rampure Aarti baburao, “Comparison between
Response SpectrumMethodandTimeHistoryMethodof
dynamic analysis of concrete gravitydam”,OpenJournal
of Civil Engineering,June 2016.
[9] Hawaldar Jyothi C, “Earthquake analysis of G+12storey
building with and without infill for Bhuj and Koyna
earthquake function”, International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology(IRJET), vol.-2, issue-
05,ISSN:2395-0056, august 2015.
[10] Harshita, “seismic Analysis of symmetric RCframeusing
RSM and THM”, International Journal of Scientific
Research and Education, vol-02, issue-03, march 2014.
[11] IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 Design Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant design of Structure.
[12] CSI, (2016), extended 3D analysis of building structures
(ETABS), Computers and Structures Inc., USA.
BIOGRAPHIES
Santosh Potadar
M.Tech Department of Civil
Engineering, Gogte Institute of
Technology Belagavi

EFFECT OF BRACING ON RCC MULTISTORY BUILDING USING LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYIS ON DIFFERENT SEISMIC INTENSITIES

More Related Content

Similar to EFFECT OF BRACING ON RCC MULTISTORY BUILDING USING LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYIS ON DIFFERENT SEISMIC INTENSITIES (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

EFFECT OF BRACING ON RCC MULTISTORY BUILDING USING LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYIS ON DIFFERENT SEISMIC INTENSITIES