Seismic Response Control of a G+20 RC High-Rise Building Using X-Bracing and X-Bracing-Shear Wall Hybrid Systems | IJORET – Volume 11- Issue 4 | IJORET-V11I4P1

This paper presents a focused seismic response-control study of a regular G+20 reinforced concrete high-rise building strengthened with X-bracing and an X-bracing-shear wall hybrid system. The work is derived from a broader lateral-system investigation, but is intentionally limited to three configurations – Bare Frame (BF), X-Bracing (XB), and X-Bracing with Shear Wall (XSW) – to examine the structural role of diagonal axial action and wall-based overturning resistance under identical modelling assumptions. A 35 m x 35 m square-plan building with a total height of 74.5 m was modelled in ETABS and analysed by Response Spectrum Analysis as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 for Seismic Zone V, Soil Type II, Z = 0.36, I = 1.5, R = 5 and 5% damping. The response was evaluated using fundamental period, maximum storey displacement, inter-storey drift, storey stiffness and base shear. The BF model showed the most flexible behaviour, with T1 = 2.379 s and average maximum displacement of 54.215 mm. XB reduced T1 to 0.836 s and lowered average displacement by 47.09%, but attracted the largest base shear. XSW further reduced T1 to 0.774 s, limited average displacement to 17.421 mm and reduced average drift by 70.12% relative to BF while producing a lower force demand than XB. The results demonstrate that the XSW system gives a more balanced stiffness-force response for the selected high-rise building.

1) The BF model showed the most flexible response, with T1 = 2.379 s, average maximum displacement of 54.215 mm and average maximum drift of about 0.000920. 2) X-bracing substantially improved the response by reducing T1 to 0.836 s, average displacement by 47.09% and average drift by 51.17% relative to BF. 3) The XSW system gave the most effective response-control performance. It reduced T1 to 0.774 s, limited average displacement to 17.421 mm and reduced average drift by 70.12% compared with BF. 4) Although XB provided major stiffness enhancement, it attracted the largest base shear. XSW produced a better stiffness-force balance by combining wall-based overturning resistance with brace-based shear control. 5) For the selected G+20 RC high-rise building in Zone V, the XSW system is the preferred configuration among the focused models considered in this paper. The conclusion is limited to the adopted geometry, material properties, linear response spectrum method and selected bracing-wall layout.

[1] M. Y. Laissy, “Effect of Different Types of Bracing System and Shear Wall on the Seismic Response of RC Buildings Resting on Sloped Terrain,” Civil Engineering Journal, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1958-1976, 2022, doi: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-09-014. [2] M. Azodi, M. Banazadeh, and A. Mahmoudi, “Seismic performance assessment of high-rise steel moment frame building with Reinforced Concrete (RC) core wall based on nonlinear time history analysis,” Research, Society and Development, vol. 11, no. 4, e35711427464, 2022, doi: 10.33448/rsd-v11i4.27464. [3] A. Osman and A. E. Farouk, “The use of steel X-bracing combined with shear link to seismically upgrading reinforced concrete frames,” Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, vol. 70, art. 150, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s44147-023-00320-7. [4] X. Ji, D. Liu, and C. Molina Hutt, “Seismic performance evaluation of a high-rise building with novel hybrid coupled walls,” Engineering Structures, vol. 169, pp. 216-225, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.011. [5] D.-P. N. Kontoni and A. A. Farghaly, “Enhancing the earthquake resistance of RC and steel high-rise buildings by bracings, shear walls and TMDs considering SSI,” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 2595-2608, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s42107-023-00666-6. [6] J. A. Tajzadah, A. N. Desai, V. V. Agrawal, and V. B. Patel, “Seismic Performance of Steel Bracings with and without Shear Wall in High-rise Buildings,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 607-615, 2019. [7] H. Beiraghi and A. Kheyroddin, “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frames Retrofitted by Different Configurations of Concentric Steel Braces,” Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, vol. 46, pp. 2039-2058, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40996-021-00799-1. [8] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings, New Delhi, India, 2016. [9] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 456:2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice, New Delhi, India, 2000. [10] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 13920:2016, Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces – Code of Practice, New Delhi, India, 2016. [11] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 800:2007, General Construction in Steel – Code of Practice, New Delhi, India, 2007. [Citation Format]

Submit Your Paper Call for Papers About IJORET Journal Scope Review Process