Article Type: Research Article

 

Article Citation: Mirza Amir Baig, and Adeeb Ur Rehman. (2020). COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERFORMANCE BASED BEHAVIOUR OF MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES WITH STRUCTURAL SHEAR WALLS, CONCENTRIC BRACED FRAMES & BUCKLE RESISTING BRACED FRAMES. International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 8(9), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i9.2020.1442

 

Received Date: 7 September 2020

 

Accepted Date: 29 September 2020

 

Keywords:

Moment Resisting Frames (MRF)

Structural Shear Walls (SSW)

Concentric Braced Frames (CBF)

Buckle Resisting Braced Frames (BRBF)

American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE)
ABSTRACT

Performance evaluation and design of civil facilities against earthquakes is a challenge to engineers because of the large uncertainty in the seismic demand and capacity of structures. The purpose of the study is to perform comparative analytical investigation of performance-based behavior between Moment Resisting Frames with Structural shear Walls, Concentric Braced Frames & Buckle Resisting Braced Frames of a concrete structure by using ETABS-2017 software. The comparative analytical evaluation of the study will be based on the parameters such as displacement, inter-story drift, pushover curve and life expectancy level. The purpose of the study is to obtain a structural system which is more efficient, reliable and strong in its nature and strength.

1.      INTRODUCTION

 

A static non-linear analysis i.e. pushover analysis, is performed in the analytical investigation. The investigation is performed by developing three different models in ETABS-2017 software. First model consists of building with ductile reinforced concrete structural walls. Second model consist of building with special braced frames having concentric braces, these concentric braces are modeled as X-braces. Third model consist of buckle resisting braced frames, these braces are modeled as single inclined braces. Since the Indian Standard Codes do not address the BRBF system and also the performance-based analysis of the structure, we will be proceeding with the procedure prescribed in ASCE 41-13. Evaluation of the performance needs to be described in terms of reliability of the structural system against various limit states over a given period of time. In view of the large uncertainties in both demand and capacity, the performance of the structural systems can be described meaningfully only when these uncertainties are taken into consideration explicitly.

 

2.      METODOLOGY

 

·         Modeling the separate models for SSW, CBF and BRBF of a concrete building with their respective analytical system.

·         Introducing a static nonlinear case to investigate a performance-based behavior in the above defined system.

·         Analyzing the models and evaluating the study.

 

3.      MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

 

The structure consists of G+10+T floors, the usage of the structure is for the residential use with 48meters height. In the first model structural shear walls are modelled, in the second model steel box section is used for the bracing and in the third model star seismic buckle resisting braced frames properties were imported in the model and these were assigned to the bracing members for the analysis of concrete structure. Although all the three models are similar in its properties and parameters in model but they differ by using the SSW, CBF & BRBF system.

 

Table 4.1: Analysis data

 

Table 4.2: Load considered

 

Table 4.3: Analysis parameters

 

4.      RESULT AND CONCLUSION

 

The evaluation of the analysis based on the parameters such as target displacement, inter-story drift, pushover curve and life expectancy level are as follows with a comparison of the results and discussion.

 

4.1. TARGET DISPLACEMENT

 

The target displacement is evaluated from different analysis carried out on moment resisting frame with SSW, CBF & BRBF. The peak target displacement at top level is enlisted in table no. 5.1.1. From figure no. 5.1.1, it is evaluated that moment resisting frame with SSW have maximum target displacement between CBF & BRBF and target displacement between CBF & BRBF analysis has come out to be same.

 

Figure 5.1.1: Top level story displacement

 

Table 5.1.1: Peak target displacement

 

4.2. STORY DRIFT

 

The story drift is evaluated from different analysis carried out on moment resisting frame with SSW, CBF & BRBF. The results are evaluated story wise which are enlisted in in table 5.2.1. From figure 5.2.1, it is evaluated that moment resisting frame with SSW have maximum story drift as compared with CBF & BRBF and from ground floor level to 6 floor level story drift exist more in CBF than BRBF system and above it goes inverse.

 

Table 5.2.1: Story drift

 

Figure 5.2.1: Comparison of story drift

 

4.3. HINGES FORMED IN THE LIFE EXPECTANCY LEVEL

 

A plot is drawn to know about the hinges formed in the life expectancy level in various steps defined in the analysis. From figure 5.3.1 to 5.3.6, it is evaluated that maximum number of hinges lies in the immediate occupancy level in all the three systems. As number of steps increased in the analysis states of hinges starts changing to the higher states. Moment resisting frame with SSW have maximum number of hinges in life safety level than CBF & BRBF system. Maximum number of hinges beyond the collapse prevention level is formed in the BRBF system and least number of hinges beyond the collapse prevention level is formed in the SSW system.

 

Figure 5.3.1: Hinges formed in life expectancy level SSW system X direction

 

Figure 5.3.2: Hinges formed in life expectancy level SSW system Y direction

 

Figure 5.3.3: Hinges formed in life expectancy level CBF system X direction

 

Figure 5.3.4: Hinges formed in life expectancy level CBF system Y direction

 

Figure 5.3.5: Hinges formed in life expectancy level BRBF system X direction

 

Figure 5.3.6: Hinges formed in life expectancy level BRBF system Y direction

 

4.4. HINGES

 

Figure 5.4.1 to 5.4.6, shows the view of the structure in 3-dimensional form. From the figures we can see the hinges formed in the different element of the structure. Green hinges represent the hinges lies in the life safety level and red hinges represents the hinges lies beyond the collapse prevention level. From the analysis it can be evaluated that maximum number of hinges lies beyond the collapse prevention level is formed in the BRBF system and least number of hinges lies beyond the collapse prevention level is formed in the SSW system.

 

 

 

4.5. BASE SHEAR VS MONITORED DISPLACEMENT

 

Figure 5.5.1 to 5.5.6, represent the curve between the base shear and monitored displacement. The smoothness of the curve shows the accuracy of modelling and analysis. In SSW system the curve seems to be heading constantly upward with the increasing in the base shear & displacement values till its reached the collapse point though in this system the collapse point didn’t formed. In CBF system the curve is also observed to be smooth but at the later stages the downward kink is observed in the curve that downward kink is the collapse point in the analysis. In BRBF system the curve is also observed to be smooth and we also have a collapse point in the analysis.

 

Figure 5.5.1: Base shear vs monitored displacement SSW system X direction

 

Figure 5.5.2: Base shear vs monitored displacement SSW system Y direction

 

Figure 5.5.3: Base shear vs monitored displacement CBF system X direction

 

 

Figure 5.5.4: Base shear vs monitored displacement CBF system Y direction

 

Figure 5.5.5: Base shear vs monitored displacement BRBF system X direction

 

Figure 5.5.6: Base shear vs monitored displacement BRBF system Y direction

 

4.6. SPECTRAL ACCELERATION VS SPECTRAL DISPLACEMENT

 

Figure 5.6.1 to 5.6.6 represent the curve of single demand and capacity of the structure. The point where both the curve intersects that point is known as performance point. In SSW system the performance point is obtained at minimum base shear as compared to the CBF & BFBR system. In CBF system the performance point is obtained at maximum base shear as compared to the SSW & BFBR system.

 

Figure 5.6.1: Spectral acceleration vs spectral displacement SSW system X direction

 

 

Figure 5.6.2: Spectral acceleration vs spectral displacement SSW system Y direction

 

Figure 5.6.3: Spectral acceleration vs spectral displacement CBF system X direction

 

Figure 5.6.4: Spectral acceleration vs spectral displacement CBF system Y direction

 

 

Figure 5.6.5: Spectral acceleration vs spectral displacement BRBF system X direction

 

Figure 5.6.6: Spectral acceleration vs spectral displacement BRBF system Y direction

 

4.7. CONCLUSION

 

This paper proposes the study to obtain a structural system which is more efficient, reliable and strong in its nature and strength. For this purpose, the investigation is carried out for 3 different structural system i.e. moment resisting frame with SSW, CBF & BRBF. The sizes of the members and loads on the building are kept same in all the systems. The conclusion on the evaluated results for the parameters such as target displacement, inter story drift, pushover curve and life expectancy level.

The maximum target displacement and story drift is obtained in the SSW system as compared with CBF & BRBF system but the maximum number of hinges formed beyond the collapse prevention level is formed in BRBF system although we also encountered a collapse point in CBF & BRBF system.

From the investigation it can be concluded that moment resisting frame with SSW system is more efficient, reliable and strong in its nature and strength as compared with CBF & BRBF system.

 

SOURCES OF FUNDING

 

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 

The author have declared that no competing interests exist.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

 

None.

 

REFERENCES

 

     [1]        Indian Standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures IS 1893:2016.

     [2]        IS456-2000PlainandReinforcedConcrete-IndianStandardcodeofpractice for general structural use of plain and reinforced concrete.

     [3]        IS 800-2000, Indian Standard code of practice for steel. M. R. Banihashami, A. R. Mirzagoltabar, H. R. Tavakoli, July 2015.

     [4]        Ryan A Kersting, Larry A Fahnestak, Walterio A Lopez 2015.

     [5]        ZasiahTafheem et al (2013)

     [6]        Viswanath K.G et al (2010)

     [7]        Chui-Hsin Chen et al (2008)

     [8]        D. Roke et al (2008)

     [9]        A.Y. Elghazouli et al (2008)

   [10]     Luigi DI SARNO et al (2004)

   [11]     Rafael Sabelli et al (2003)

   [12]     FEMA-356, pre-standard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildingsFederalEmergencyFederalAgencyWashingtonDC,2000.

   [13]     FEMA-440 (2205) “Improvement of Nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

   [14]     Rahul RANA1, Limin JIN2 and Atila ZEKIOGLU: “PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A 19 STORY CONCRETE SHEAR WALL building”

   [15]     T. Venkat Das Assistant Professor civil engineering KL University, GUNTUR India 2016: “Push Over Analysis for Concrete Structures at

   [16]     Sesimic Zone-3 using Etabs Software”

   [17]     Abdallah Yacine Rahmani1 • Nouredine Bourahla1 • Rita Bento2 • Mohamed Badaoui 2016: “An improved upper-bound pushover procedure for seismic assessment of high-rise moment resisting steel frames”

   [18]     Alexis Nzapfakumunsi: “Seismic design evaluation of T shaped irregular RC building plans by using pushover analysis”

   [19]     Dokumen.tips_star seismic buckling restrained braces for ETABS