Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Structure Behaviour under Seismic loads

using X-Bracing, Inverted V-Bracing Systems
and without Bracing
*Amer Yassin Kabir Sadeghi
Faculty of Civil Engineering. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Near East University, 99138 Nicosia Near East University, 99138 Nicosia
(via Mersin 10, Turkey), Cyprus (via Mersin 10, Turkey), Cyprus

Abstract:- This study aims to assess the seismic analysis, and the model is analyzed by using the pushover
behaviour of different braced steel frames using analysis method by placing connections between all
nonlinear static analysis. The model consists of 11 members at each joint and applying a combination of dead,
stories, designed and analyzed with X-bracing, inverted live, wind, and intensive seismic loads. The failure of
V-bracing, and without bracing through ETABS. connections under cyclic loads (seismic loads in the studied
Therefore, the Maximum Story Drift, Stiffness Factor, research) is considered as one of the structural failure
and Displacement of all these seismic parameters were reasons, while previously the failure of connections was
investigated and compared by implementing the considered as a structural failure reason but not directly
pushover analysis method. The benefit of these attributed reason. [3] There are three collapse mechanisms to
parameters helps decide between rebuilding or repairing investigate if the structure is safe or not, gravity, sideway,
the affected structure after the earthquake. Even though and a combination of sideways and gravity. Recently, the
these parameters are considered approximate methods to design and analysis of structures became more advanced and
predict the displacement and drifts. The results of this can cover more critical details in the design also became
study showed that the frames that are supported with X- simpler and easier to save more time, all that due to the high
bracing are more efficient and have the best seismic progress that scientists achieved.
performance. In addition to that, the investigation was
applied by installing braces in mid-span, and two The earthquakes movement can be classified into, low
different spans. However, installing braces in two spans movement grade earthquake without causing non-structural
has a slight advantage in performance. and structural damages, moderate movement grade
earthquake without causing structural damage and may
Keywords:- Earthquakes, Pushover Analysis, Bracing include some non-structural damage, and intensive
systems, Non-Linear Static Analysis. movement grade earthquake with a deformation possibility
to non-structural and structural damage but collapse is
I. INTRODUCTION unacceptable [8]
In some regions that are affected by earthquakes II. NUMERICAL MODELS
designing structures with considering seismic loads is
important for both reinforced concrete structures and steel Different bracing systems are used to compare the
structures. In this model, the structure is a combination seismic behaviour, and nonlinear and static analysis is
between steel and RC by using RC for both slabs and beams, implemented in to design.
while using steel for columns and braces, and as known,
concrete resistance is very weak in tension stresses, [17] and High-rise symmetric structure includes 10 floors and 5
strong in compression and steel in compression is spans, the height of each floor is 3.3m and the length of each
susceptible to buckling. [9] However, if buckling happens in span is 5.5m, the structure consists of two parts.
the braces after the earthquake, the braces will have
permanent deformation and they won’t be able to recover A. Section Properties
and return to their original shape. Nevertheless, during the  3D framed structures have 5 spans of 5.5 m width in
earthquake, the braced frames compared to buckling, each direction.
experience larger maximum story drifts [10]. Five different  10 floors structure and the height of each story is 3.35
models are compared in this study, the first one is a structure m
without bracing, while the rest are X-bracing structures and  The bracing is placed in the mid-span for the first
inverted V-bracing structures, and the aim is to compare time and in the second and fourth span for the second
between drifts, stiffness, and displacement of these time, and the considered braces are Cross bracing (X-
structures under a combination of loads include seismic bracing), Inverted V-bracing.
loads, while the seismic excitation is considered as the most  150 mm Solid slabs are used for all stories.
severe loading case. [12]  The beams section is reinforced concrete, 600 mm
depth, and 300 mm width.
Generally, it’s hard to find accurate results in the  Columns and braces both are steel sections. For
structure due to cyclic loads using the software,[4] column design, HP18X204. For bracing design, steel
Therefore, this study is focusing on using nonlinear static tube 120X120X10

IJISRT23JAN622 www.ijisrt.com 1091

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Connections between all members and braces have  Wind load is considered as 1kN in all directions.
been used. While Seismic load is considered as 100kN in X and
 For all slabs, dead load and live load are considered Y directions.
to be 5.5kN/m2 and 2.5kN/m2, respectively.  All models were analyzed using ETABS 18 software
 For all beams, dead load coming from the walls is using AISC the American standard.
considered as 7kN/m  The design sections were assigned to 5 models are
 Plastic hinges were placed at both ends of each shown in Figs. 1 to 5.
member.

Fig. 1 X-bracing Mid-span model

Fig. 2: X-bracing two-span model

IJISRT23JAN622 www.ijisrt.com 1092

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Fig. 3: Inverted V-bracing model mid-span

Fig. 4: Inverted V-bracing model two spans

Fig. 5: Without bracing model

IJISRT23JAN622 www.ijisrt.com 1093

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
B. Material Properties
The main used materials are both steel for columns and bracings, and reinforced concrete for slabs and beams according to
AISC Code. All the used materials are shown in table 1.

Type Material Property

Modulus of Elasticity. E 24855.58 MPa
Shear Modulus. G 10356.49 MPa
Unit Weight 23.5631 kN/m3
Concrete Compressive strength 27.58 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity. E 199947.98 MPa
Shear Modulus. G 76903.07 MPa
Unit Weight 76.9729 kN/m3
Yield stress fy 344.74 MPa
Steel Tensile Strength fu 448.16 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity. E 199947.98 MPa
Unit Weight 76.9729 kN/m3
Yield stress fy 413.69 MPa
Reinforced bars Tensile Strength fu 620.53 MPa
Table 1: Materials properties of models

III. NON-LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS dead, wind, and seismic loads. In each step, increasing
gradually in force and lateral displacement, and decreasing
This approach is economical and imposed as a link gradually in the strength of elements and stiffness of plastic
and it is based on pushover analysis. [7] Non-Linear static hinges. The building should have good performance, and the
analysis in other words pushover analysis where plastic collapse mechanism should be investigated as well, and
hinges are assigned at both ends of each member. [2] The there must be no damage to the plastic hinges to ensure
structure is exposed to a load combination consisting of live, safety in the sideway mechanism of the structure

Fig. 6: Drifts without bracing structure

IV. RESULTS DISCUSSION A. Maximum Story Drifts

Drifts are when directed forces are applied separately to
The used method is non-linear static analysis the structure, forcing the structure to reach the maximum
evaluated and the results are compared to explore which dynamic response value during an earthquake, and it can
structure has the highest stiffness and the lowest help to decide if the structure needs rebuilding or repairing
displacement. The maximum story drifts, ductility factor, [6].
and stiffness factor of all these different seismic parameters
can be compared after running a non-linear static analysis in Generally, the structure without bracing has very high
the software story drifts compared to bracing structures and that leads to
the importance of the braces [5] (the part of the structure
that prevents the drifts is the braced frames and also it helps
to use smaller column and beam sections. [11]). On the
other hand, there is a big difference between the without-

IJISRT23JAN622 www.ijisrt.com 1094

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
bracing model and the remaining models. While two-span drifts in the basement are always zero in both the x and y
bracing in both X-bracing and V inverted bracing can direction, while the second, third, and fourth stories are the
provide fewer drifts than mid-span bracing, X-bracing is most affected stories by the drifts, and starting from the
more efficient compared to the position of the bracing. The fourth, fifth, and sixth story the drifts start decreasing
models’ drifts are presented in Figs. 6 to 10 according to gradually until it reaches the minimum drifts at the highest
each bracing system used. As shown in these figures the story.

Fig. 7: Drifts X-bracing mid-span structure

Fig. 8: Drifts X-bracing two-spans structure

Fig. 9: Drifts Inverted V-bracing mid-span structure

IJISRT23JAN622 www.ijisrt.com 1095

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Fig. 10: Drifts Inverted V-bracing two-span structure

B. Stiffness factor according to the bracing system, and surely, the structure
This factor describes the ability of the structure to that has bracing in two spans has a higher stiffness factor. In
withstand the applied loads without deformation of plastic addition to that, X-bracing has the advantage to use
hinges; also, this factor is helpful to define the collapse according to the higher stiffness factor it has. While there is
mechanism and the displacement of the structure under a an observed difference between the without-bracing
specific load. The difference of stiffness factor differs structure and with-bracing structures as shown in Fig. 11.

The stiffness factor formula is as follows:

K= Ds/Vs
K: the stiffness factor
Ds: the displacement of the first plastic hinge
Vs: the base shear at the first plastic hinge.

Fig. 11 Comparing the stiffness factor at various bracing frames

C. Lateral Displacement In general, the structure reaches the maximum

Each structure should maintain a flexibility percentage to displacement at the highest floor, while the stiffness reaches
avoid brittle failure. Therefore, lateral displacement is the minimum. Bracings play the main role to decrease
depending on the stiffness of the structure which is the more displacement. In addition to that, as usual, X-bracing has the
stiffness there is the less displacement [15]. highest efficiency compared to V-bracing, and two spans are
more efficient than one mid-span as shown in Fig. 8.

IJISRT23JAN622 www.ijisrt.com 1096

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Fig. 12: Comparing the Displacement at various bracing frames

V. CONCLUSION [3.] Al sulayfani. B. J, Abdullah. M. M., (2007). Study of

Bending Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Sections
In this study, two types of braces were placed in two Under Cyclic Loads. Tikrit Journal of Engineering
different positions in an 11-story building to compare four Sciences. Vol. 14, No. 1
structures by using ETABS plus one structure that has no [4.] Al-hachamee. E. K. S, Hussein. A. T., (2006).
bracing to evaluate each structure’s performance under Elastic-Plastic Non-Linear Behavior of Suddenly
seismic loads using non-linear static analysis. According to Loaded Plane Steel Frames by ASI Technique. Tikrit
the study, the outcome can be evaluated as follows: Journal of Engineering Sciences. Vol. 13, No.4
 After running different models, it is obvious that X- [5.] Al-Safi. S, Alameri. I, Wasel. W, Al-Kadasi. A.,
bracing is better to resist seismic loads than Inverted V- (2021). Linear and Nonlinear Behavior of Steel
bracing. Buildings with Different Bracing Systems.
 The use of braces is very important to minimize International Journal of Steel Structures. Vol. 22, No.
earthquake risk. 6.
 The structures that are supported by braces are very [6.] Arab. R, Yakhchalian. M, (2022). Investigating
much better and safe than structures with no braces. Approximate Methods to Predict Residual Inter Story
 There is a slight difference between Installing bracing in Drift Ratio Demands in Steel Eccentrically Braced
two spans and only one span, but bracing in two spans is Frames. International Journal of Steel Structures. Vol.
safer and better in resistance. 22, No. 6.
 The relation between stiffness factor and lateral [7.] Causevic. M, Mitrovic. S, (2011). Comparison
displacement is an inverse relationship. between non-linear dynamic and static seismic
 From the basement to the highest story stiffness factor analysis of structures according to European and US
decreases gradually while lateral displacement increases provisions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.
gradually. [8.] Haido. J. H., (2015). Prediction of RC multi-story
 At point zero in the basement, the drifts equal zero and construction performance with a new proposed design
then start increasing dramatically to reach the highest spectrum approach. Tikrit Journal of Engineering
drifts in the second, third or fourth story, after those Sciences. Vol.22, No.1.
drifts start decreasing regularly to reach the lowest drifts [9.] Ibrahim. A. M, Salman. W. D, Bahlol. F. M., (2019).
in the last story. Flexural Behavior of Concrete Composite Beams
with New Steel Tube Section and Different Shear
REFERENCES Connectors. Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences.
Vol.26, No.1.
[1.] Ahmad. O., (2021). Evaluation of elastic stiffness [10.] Kari. A, Ghassemieh. M, Abolmaali, A., (2011). A
factor of 2D reinforced concrete frame system with new dual bracing system for improving the seismic
different parameters. International Journal of behavior of steel structures. Smart Materials and
Advanced Engineering, Sciences and Applications, Structures.
Vol. 2, No. 2. [11.] Kharomi. M, Shariati. M, (2017). Evaluation of the
[2.] Alkhattab. M., Resatoglu. R., Sadeghi. K., Alibrahim. seismic performance of special moment frames using
B., (2019). Seismic performance of steel frames with incremental nonlinear dynamic analysis. Structural
inverted V-braces for North Cyprus. International Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 63, No. 2.
Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring [12.] Mahmood. M. N, Ahmer. S. Y., (2006). Nonlinear
Engineering. vol. 9, no. 1 Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Framed
Structures Including Soil-Structure Interaction

IJISRT23JAN622 www.ijisrt.com 1097

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Effects. Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences. Vol.
13, No. 3
[13.] Metin Kose, M. and Kayadelen, C. (2013), “Effects
of infill walls on RC buildings under time history
loading using genetic programming and neuro-fuzzy”,
Struct. Eng. Mech., 47(3), 401- 419.
[14.] Santa-Ana P R and Miranda E 2000 Strength-
reduction factors for multi-degree-of-freedom
systems Proc. 12th World Conf. on Earth Engineering
paper 1446
[15.] Sarhan. O, Raslan. M, (2020). Study of the elastic
stiffness factor of steel structures with different lateral
load resisting systems, International Journal of
Advanced Engineering, Sciences and Applications,
Vol. 1, No. 2.
[16.] Shakir. Q. M., Performance of high-strength concrete
one-way slabs with embedded BFRP bar
reinforcement. International Journal of Advanced
Engineering, Sciences and Applications, Vol. 1, No. 3
[17.] Yahyapour. R, Seyedpoor. S,M, (2021). Comparing
the Seismic Behavior of Various Knee Braced Steel
Frames Based on Incremental Dynamic Analysis
and Development of Fragility Curves. International
Journal of Steel Structures. Vol. 22, No. 6.
[18.] Yakhchalian, M., Asgarkhani, N., & Yakhchalian, M.
(2020). Evaluation of defection amplifcation factor
for steel buckling restrained braced frames. Journal of
Building Engineering, 30, 101228.
[19.] Yase. Z. J, Lateef. A. M, Khazaal. A. S., (2021).
Structural Behavior of Simple Supported Two Layers
Reinforced Concrete (Normal strength concrete &
Mortar with 3-Dimension glass fiber), Beams. Tikrit
Journal of Engineering Sciences. Vol.28, No.2
[20.] Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002).
Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake
Engineering Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514.
[21.] Zahrai, S. M., & Bolandi, H. (2019). Numerical study
on the impact of out-of-plane eccentricity on lateral
behavior of concentrically braced frames.
International Journal of Steel Structures, 19(2), 341–
350.

IJISRT23JAN622 www.ijisrt.com 1098