International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882

Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015

Comparative Study on Concentric Steel Braced Frame Structure due to

Effect of Aspect Ratio using Pushover Analysis
1

Kiran Kamath1, Shruthi2, Shashikumar Rao2

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal,
2
Post Graduate Student, Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal,

ABSTRACT
The present study focuses on the effect of different
aspect ratios i.e. H/B ratio, where H is the total height of
the building frame and B is the base width of the
building frame, on the seismic performance of the steel
frame structures. Here, height of the building is kept
constant and the base width is varied. In the present
study, seven different aspect ratios ranging from 1.0 to
3.75 have been considered for the ten storey steel frame
building with concentric bracing i.e. X bracing and
without bracing system. Two types of frames are
considered for the study, one with similar steel sections
for maximum strength required for beam and column
and the other with varying steel sections conforming to
the strength and serviceability requirements to withstand
the specified loading. For this analytical study, ETABS
is used and the comparison between the performances of
bare frames with different aspect ratios is made using
pushover curves. Roof displacement, base shear carried
and performance point are the parameters used to
identify the seismic performance of the frames. It is
inferred that provision of bracings to the frame structure
increased the base shear carrying capacity, performance
point and reduced the roof displacement for all types of
aspect ratios considered.
Keywords - Aspect Ratio, Pushover analysis, Steel
Frame, X Braced Frame, Type 1 Section, Type 2 Section
I.

INTRODUCTION

In last decades Steel structure plays an important role in the

construction industry. It is necessary to design a structure to
perform well under seismic loads. Shear capacity of the
structure can be improved by introducing Steel bracings in the
structural system. Bracings can increase the energy absorption
of structures or decrease the demand forced by earthquake
loads. With the addition of bracings to the structures with
amplified energy dissipation may safely resist forces and
deformations triggered by robust ground waves. Bracings can

be used as retrofit as well. Design of such structure should

have good ductility property to perform well under seismic
loads. To evaluate ductility and other properties for bracing
Push over analysis is performed. In earthquake resistant
design, structures are usually designed for lower levels of
seismic forces and allowed to undergo nonlinear response
under severe ground motion. Hence, a nonlinear static
pushover analysis has become popular in recent years to
determine parameters such as initial stiffness, yield load, yield
displacement, maximum base shear and maximum
displacement.
Khan and Khan, (2014) studied on the typical 15 th storey
regular steel frame building with different pattern of bracing
system. This building is designed for various types of
concentric bracings like V, X, Diagonal and Exterior X and
performance of each frame is carried out through nonlinear
pushover analysis. Three types of sections i.e. ISA, ISMC,
ISMB are used to compare for same patterns of bracing and
results are compared with roof displacement and performance
point [1]. Kalibhat et al., (2014) studied on the effect of a
provision of concentric bracings on the seismic performance
of the steel frames with two different types of concentric
bracings (viz. X and inverted-V type bracing) for the different
storey levels. They found that inclusion of bracing increased
the base shear capacity and decreased the roof displacement
and also reduced the inter storey drift. The lateral storey
displacements of the building are reduced by the use of
inverted-V bracing in comparison to the X bracing system [2].
Vijayakumar and Babu, (2012) estimated the behavior of G+2
reinforced concrete bare frame subjected to earthquake forces
in zone III. The reinforced concrete structures were analyzed
by nonlinear static analysis using SAP2000 software. The
results obtained in terms of pushover demand, capacity
spectrum and plastic hinges gave an insight into the real
behavior of structures. Most of the hinges have developed in
the beams in the form of immediate occupancy, Life safety,
Collapse prevention and few in the columns. The column
hinges have limited the damage [3]. Poluraju and Rao, (2011)
assessed the performance of G+3 building using pushover
analysis. Observations showed that properly designed frame
will perform well under seismic loads. It was found that the
hinges developed more in the beams than the columns; thereby
column had limited damage [4]. Kadid and Yahiaoui, (2011)
examined the seismic behaviour of RC buildings strengthened
with different types of steel braces, X-braced, inverted V
braced, ZX braced, and Zipper braced and nonlinear pushover

www.ijsret.org

247

International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
analysis is carried out. For the analysis purpose they
considered three and six story RC building with different
patterns of bracing system with different cross sections as
mentioned above. Conclusions showed that adding braces
influenced the global capacity of the buildings in terms of
strength, deformation and ductility in comparisons with bare
frame. They found that the X and Zipper bracing systems
performed better than other braces depending on the type and
size of the cross section [5]. Inel and Ozmen, (2006) carried
out push over analysis using SAP [2000] comparing the
performance of the building for default hinge properties and
user defined hinge properties. They have concluded that the
result obtained from user defined hinge properties are more
accurate than of default hinges [6]. Maheri and Hadjipour,
(2003) conducted experiments on scaled models of ductile RC
frames with steel X and knee bracing system. Experiment
results signifies that the yield and strength capacity of a
ductile RC frame can be increased and its global
displacements can be reduced to the desired levels by directly
adding either X or a knee bracing system to the frame. Both X
and knee bracing systems may be used to design or retrofit for
a damage-level earthquake, whenever designing or retrofitting
for a collapse-level earthquake is considered knee bracing is a
effective system [7].
From previous work we can observe that many experimental
and analytical works have been done in the area of the
pushover analysis of the RC frames and few works on steel
frames with different types of bracing systems. Since no work
is done on aspect ratios of steel frames with different types of
bracing systems. Hence, the present work is focused on the
effect of different aspect ratios on the seismic performance of
the steel frames with X bracing systems using ETABS and
results are analyzed through pushover analysis.
II.

maximum displacement or maximum force expected to be

qualified by the structure during the design earthquake.
Response of structure beyond full strength can be bent on only
by displacement controlled pushover analysis. Hence, in the
present study, displacement-controlled pushover method is
used for analysis of structural steel frames. A plot of the total
base shear versus top roof displacement in a building is
attained by this analysis that would specify any early failure or
weakness. The analysis is performed up to failure, thus it
permits purpose of collapse load and ductility capacity. A
typical pushover curve is shown in Figure 1. Force versus
displacement is plotted for gradually increasing lateral loads
till failure. Beyond elastic limit, different states such as
Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), Collapse
prevention (CP), >E collapse are defined as per ATC 40 and
FEMA 356.

Figure 1: Typical pushover curve

III.

DESCRIPTION OF STEEL FRAME STRUCTURES

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Linear elastic analysis gives a good indication of elastic
capacity of structures and indicates where the first yielding
will occur but it cannot predict failure mechanisms and
accounts for redistribution of forces due to progressive
yielding. Among different approaches described in ATC-40,
Nonlinear Static Pushover analysis is very popular because of
its simplicity and ability to estimate component and system
level deformation demands with acceptable accuracy without
intensive computational and modeling effort as dynamic
analysis. Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in
which the magnitude of the structural loading is incrementally
increased in accordance with a certain predefined pattern.
Pushover analysis may be categorized as displacement
controlled pushover analysis when lateral movement is
executed on the building and its equilibrium designates the
forces. In the same way, when lateral forces are enforced, the
analysis is termed as force-controlled pushover analysis. The
target displacement or target force is projected to signify the

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

Figure 2: (i) Steel bare frame, (ii) One Bay X Braced Frame,
(iii) Two Bay X Braced Frame for aspect ratio1.0
In the present study, a 2- bay two dimensional steel frame
structures with one bay X braced frame, two bay X braced
frame and structure without bracing with different aspect

www.ijsret.org

248

International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
ratios has been modeled and analyzed using ETABS. Two
types of frames are considered for the study, one with similar
steel sections (Type 1) for maximum strength required for
beam and column and the other with varying steel sections
(Type 2) confirming to the strength and serviceability
requirements to withstand the specified loading. Structural
configuration of different types of framed structures of aspect
ratio 1.0 is shown in the Figure 2. The building consists of
G+9 stories. All columns in all models are assumed to be fixed
at the base for simplicity. The height of each floor is 3.0m.
Live load on floor is taken as 3kN/m2 and on roof is 1.5kN/m2.
Floor finish on the floor is 1kN/m2. Weathering course on roof
is 2kN/m2. In the seismic weight calculation only 25% of floor
live load is considered. The unit weights of concrete and
masonry are taken as 25kN/m3 and 20kN/m3 respectively.
The building is steel moment resisting frame with concentric
bracing considered to be situated in seismic zone III. The
medium type of soil is considered and time period of the
building in X-direction is considered based on base dimension
of the building as per IS code 1893-2002. The sizes used for
beam is Girder Section1, column is Girder Section2 and that
of X bracing is ISWB600 for Type 1 section. Beam and
column sizes for Type 2 sections as per SP 6 (1) 1964 are
tabulated in Table 1.
Girder Section1: Web plate (800x12) mm, Flange angle
(150x150x18) mm, Flange plates (400x40) mm
Girder Section2: Web plate (800x12) mm, Flange angle
(150x150x18) mm, Flange plates (500x32) mm
Girder Section3: Web plate (800x12) mm, Flange angle
(150x150x18) mm, Flange plates (400x16) mm

IV.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Linear static and pushover analysis is conducted on all the
models for seismic loads defined as per IS 1893-2002 (Part-I)
using ETABS. The pushover analysis provides an insight into
the structural aspects, which controls the performance during
earthquakes. It also provides data on the strength and ductility
of a building. The results obtained from analysis are compared
and discussed as follows.

Figure 3: Pushover curves for bare frame and one bay X

braced frame structures of Type 1 section with different aspect
ratios

Table 1: Beam, column and bracing sizes of Type 2 section for

different aspect ratios

Aspect
Ratio

Base
Width
B in m

1.00

Type 2 Section
Beam Size

Column
Size

X Brace

30

Girder
Section1

Girder
Section2

ISWB 600

1.25

24

Girder
Section3

ISWB600
C.P 32mm

ISMB 600

1.50

20

ISMB550
C.P 40mm

ISWB600
C.P 32mm

ISMB 500

2.00

15

ISMB 600
C.P 25mm

ISWB400
C.P 32mm

ISMB 450

2.50

12

ISMB 600

ISWB 600

ISMB 450

3.00

10

ISMB 450

ISWB 600

ISMB 450

3.75

08

ISMB 400

ISWB 550

ISMB 400

C.P: Cover Plate

Figure 4: Pushover curves for bare frame and two bay X

braced frame structures of Type 1 section with different aspect
ratios
From Figures 3 and 4, Steel Bare Frame, One Bay X Braced
frame and Two Bay X braced frame of Type 1 section with
aspect ratio 1.0 is showing 34%, 49% and 49% better
performance in terms of performance base force when
compared to aspect ratio 3.75 respectively. It is also found that
for aspect ratios 1.5 and 1.25, performance base force has
marginally increased when compared to aspect ratio 1.0

www.ijsret.org

249

International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
because of negligible variation in mass. As bracing is
introduced to the bare frame structures it increased the
performance of the base force and ductile behaviour of the
structure.

Figure 7: Pushover curves for bare frame, one bay X braced

frame and two bay X braced frame structures of Type 1
section for aspect ratios 1.0
Figure 5: Pushover curves for bare frame and one bay X
braced frame structures of Type 2 section with different aspect
ratios

Figure 8: Pushover curves for bare frame, one bay X braced

frame and two bay X braced frame structures of Type 1
section for aspect ratios 3.75
Figure 6: Pushover curves for bare frame and two bay X
braced frame structures of Type 2 section with different aspect
ratios
From Figures 5 and 6, Steel Bare Frame, One Bay X Braced
frame and Two Bay X braced frame of Type 1 section with
aspect ratio 1.0 is showing 92%, 88% and 91% better
performance in terms of performance base force when
compared to aspect ratio 3.75 respectively. It is also found that
higher the aspect ratios lesser is the performance base force
for all types of frame structures.

From Figures 7 and 8, it is found that as bracing is introduced

to the structure maximum base force increased considerably
for all aspect ratios considered. It is also found that two bay X
braced frame is showing higher performance base force than
other types of structures.
From Tables 2 and 3, it can be observed that as aspect ratio
increased performance of base shear decreased considerably
from aspect ratio 1.0 to 3.75 for both type of sections. As
aspect ratio increased roof displacement decreased
considerably from aspect ratio 1.0 to 3.75 for Type 1 section
and that of Type 2 section increased considerably. It is also
observed that bracing enhances the base shear carrying
capacity and reduced the roof displacement. Two bay X
braced frame is showing better performance than bare frame
and one bay X braced frame structures.

www.ijsret.org

250

International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
Table 2: Base Shear for Linear Static Analysis of different
frame structures for Type 1 and Type 2 Sections

Aspect
Ratio

Bare
Frame
B.S in
kN

1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.75

209.14
159.79
131.17
097.51
074.43
061.52
048.99

1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.75

209.14
168.64
141.64
107.87
087.63
074.07
060.59

Type 1 Section
One Bay X
Braced
%
B.S in
Increa
kN
se
544.53
160
433.46
157
332.40
134
219.38
103
159.53
82
123.23
66
90.35
49
Type 2 Section
544.53
160
408.97
155
303.61
132
194.81
99
133.26
79
100.66
63
71.54
46

Two Bay X
Braced
%
B.S in
Incre
kN
ase
565.43
170
450.15
166
345.25
143
227.99
111
165.93
89
128.31
73
94.24
55
565.43
423.03
311.29
199.10
136.44
103.19
73.19

170
164
137
104
83
67
49

Figure 9: Capacity and Demand spectrum curve for bare

frame, one bay X braced frame and two bay X braced frame
structures of Type 1 section for aspect ratios 3.75
From Figure 9, it can be observed that as bracing is introduced
to the structures the performance point increases considerably,
where performance point is the intersection between the
capacity curve and demand curve. This represents the
performance of the building.

B.S: Base Shear

Table 3: Roof Displacement for Linear Static Analysis of
different frame structures for Type 1 and Type 2 Sections

Aspect
Ratio

Bare
Frame
R.D in
mm

1.25
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.75

7.6
5.6
4.5
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.4

1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.75

7.6
9.0
10.9
10.6
11.9
18.3
19.6

Type 1 Section
One Bay X
Braced
%
R.D in
Decre
mm
ase
7.3
3.95
5.6
0
4.4
2.22
3.2
3.03
2.7
3.57
2.4
7.69
2.3
4.17
Type 2 Section
7.3
3.95
7.3
18.89
7.3
33.03
7.0
33.96
8.2
31.09
9.4
48.63
11.1
43.37

Table 4: Base shear and roof displacement at performance

point for Type 1 section
Aspect
Ratio

Two Bay X
Braced
%
R.D in
Decre
mm
ase
4.3
43
3.2
43
2.5
44
1.9
42
1.7
39
1.7
35
1.7
30
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
4.2
4.2
5.4

Type 1 Section
Performance Point(V(kN),d(mm))
Bare
One Bay X
Two Bay X
Frame
Braced
Braced Frame
Frame

1.00

(936.69, 35)

(1357.04,23)

(1806.12, 14)

1.25

(881.28, 30)

(1353.79,20)

(1438.09, 11)

1.50

(829.40, 27)

(1126.49,17)

(1188.37, 09)

2.00

(735.60, 23)

(839.74,14)

(873.44, 7.4)

2.50

(651.09, 21)

(669.40,12)

(687.98, 7.2)

3.00

(569.07, 20)

(557.44,12)

(568.46, 7.4)

3.75

(457.63, 18)

(448.75,12)

(455.31, 8.3)

43
56
65
66
65
77
72

R.D: Roof Displacement

www.ijsret.org

251

International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 0882
Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2015
Table 5: Base shear and roof displacement at performance
point for Type 2 section
Aspect
Ratio

Type 2 Section
Performance Point(V(kN),d(mm))
Two Bay X
Bare Frame
One Bay X
Braced
Braced Frame
Frame

1.00

(936.69, 35)

(1357.04, 23)

(1806.12, 14)

1.25

(657.23, 38)

(914.36,23)

(1135.32, 12)

1.50

(488.39, 41)

(702.39,24)

(821.94,13)

2.00

(372.16, 41)

(563.84,27)

(664.97,14)

2.50

(266.19, 43)

(433.75,32)

(551.69,17)

3.00

(175.48, 53)

(316.89,36)

(446.92,18)

3.75

(135.23, 55)

(218.76,41)

(322.14,24)

From Tables 4 and 5, it can be observed that as aspect ratio

increased base shear at performance point decreased
considerably from aspect ratio 1.0 to 3.75 for both type of
sections. As aspect ratio increased roof displacement at
performance point decreased considerably from aspect ratio
1.0 to 3.75 for Type 1 section and that of Type 2 section
increased considerably. Two bay X braced frame is showing
better performance than bare frame and one bay X braced
frame structures.
V.

CONCLUSIONS
The following are the observations from present analysis.
1.
2.

3.

4.

VI.

As aspect ratio increases, base shear carrying capacity

decreases for both type of section considered in the study.
As aspect ratio increases, roof displacement decreases for
frames with Type 1 section and for Type 2 section it
increases considerably.
The provision of bracing enhances the base shear carrying
capacity of frames and reduces roof displacement
undergone by the structures.
Steel frame with aspect ratio 1.0 and two bay X braced
frame showed better performance in terms of performance
base force and performance point when compared to other
aspect ratios and bare frame, one bay X braced frame
structures considered in the study.

REFERENCES
[1] Khan M. I. and Khan K.N.,(2014), Seismic Analysis of
Steel Frame with Bracings using Pushover Analysis,
International Journal of Advanced Technology in
Engineering and Science, Volume No. 02, Issue No. 07,
Page No. 369-381.
[2] Kalibhat M.G., Kamath K., Prasad S. K. and Pai R.R.,
2014, Seismic Performance of Concentric Braced Steel
Frames from Pushover Analysis, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Page No. 67-73.
[3] Vijaykumar and Babu V. D.L., 2012, Pushover Analysis
of Existing Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures,
European Journal of Scientific Research, Volume No. 71,
Issue No. 02, Page No. 195-202.
[4] Poluraju.P. and Rao N. P.V.S., 2011, Pushover analysis
of reinforced concrete frame structure using SAP 2000,
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering,
Volume No. 04, Issue No. 06, Page No. 684-690.
[5] Kadid A. and Yahiaoui D., 2011, Seismic Assessment of
Braced RC Frames, Procedia Engineering, Volume No.
14, Page No. 2899-2905.
[6] Inel M. and Ozmen H.B., 2006, Effects of plastic hinge
property in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings, Engineering Structure, Volume No. 28, Page
No. 1494-1502.
[7] Maheri M.R. and Hadjipour A., 2003, Experimental
investigation and design of steel brace connection to RC
frame, Engineering Structures, Volume No. 25, Page No.
1707-1714.
[8] IS 800, 2007, General construction in steel, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[9] IS 1893(part 1), 2002, Provision on seismic design of
buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[10] FEMA 356, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC.
[11] ATC-40, 1996 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Concrete Buildings, Applied Technical Council,
California Seismic Safety Commission, Redwood City,
California.
[12] SP 6 (1), 1964, Hand book for Structural Engineer,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to The
Director, and H.O.D, Civil engineering, Manipal Institute of
Technology, Manipal for providing necessary facilities
required for the present study.

www.ijsret.org

252