American Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-223X Issue 53 (2012), pp. 24-34

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012
http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm

Study the Effect of using Different Kind of Bracing

System in Tall Steel Structures
Behruz Bagheri Azar
Department of Civil Engineering, Shomal, Branch
Shomal University, Iran
E-mail: B.bagheriazar@yahoo.com
Tel: +989144065831
Mohammad Reza Bagerzadeh Karimi
Department of Civil Engineering, Maraghe, Branch
Islamic Azad University, Iran, Member of the Tabriz Elite House
E-mail: MRBKarimi@gmail.com
Tel: +989141060397; Fax: +984115570509
Abstract
Tall building structures should be able to tolerate different types of forces such as
lateral forces like wind or earthquakes so bracing methods are normally used for steel
structures. In this study, steel structures with 20, 30 and 40 floors using cross bracing
method with different length and configurations were studied by ABAQUS software in
order to find the best suited configuration of bracing. For this purpose various forms of
bracing system with equal amount of steel consumption were studied under earthquake
loads both in static and dynamic analysis and best array and also type in mega bracing of
such structures are then reviewed and selected.

Keywords: Mega-brace, tall steel structures, shear-lag, ABAQUS

1. Introduction
With increasing of experiences from the events of the last earthquakes and reviewing the behavior of
the structures, more and more innovative topics in new buildings has been considered. This paper
investigates the application of seismic systems using braces as one of the most effective methods in
steel structures. The most important issues in the study of this kind of systems are to determine the
appropriate arrangement of bracing. In this study, also the concept of mega bracing and their properties
as a new approach of bracing method is investigated. Lateral resistance in braced frames is provided by
diagonal members which forms the vertical truss structure together with the main beams. Columns in
this structure are basic members. Since the shear forces are supported by horizontal components of
tensile or compressive axial forces, bracing systems are very efficient. The desired behavior of bracing
system in generation of lateral stiffness with minimum amount of materials, reveal it as an economic
solution for a variety of buildings with arbitrary height. Another advantage of diagonal bracings is that
the main beams have minimum participation in resisting of lateral loads and therefore of deck systems
in different stories can be designed in a repetitive manner that is more desirable in economical point of

Study the Effect of using Different Kind of Bracing System in Tall Steel Structures

25

view. The essential issue of these systems in non-uniform distribution of forces and decreasing total
resistant moment of structure lead to reduced economic efficiency.
The major weakness of this phenomenon is called shear lag that causes perpendicular axial load
distribution to the columns which is different from the ideal uniform distribution for lateral forces. The
main origin of this phenomenon is in the behavior of shear deformations in peripheral beams of the
structure and also doesnt remain plane after bending in this system which increase tension in the
corner columns and decrease in tension in the middle columns [1].
Recently, new type of bracing systems called mega bracings has been introduced as shown in
figure 1. According to the geometrical shape of these bracings, it is expected that they present different
seismic behavior in stiffness, efficiency and ductility compared to current bracing systems. Therefore,
detailed study of seismic behavior in these structures is quite considerable.
Adding these bracings to the structural system is associated with increasing lateral stiffness and
decreasing shear lag. Bracings in these structures cover several stories and spans as a single bracing.
Hence, several structural arrangements of a dedicated bracing type are possible for any structure.
Therefore, several structural arrangements for the braces a particular category (such as X) is probable
[2]. Therefore, we will investigate the behavior of these types of structures versus alternate with current
type of bracings, in medium and high height and the results will be presented.
Figure 1: John Hancock tower

First, the effects of adding mega bracing systems on the structures are carried out by
considering three structures with 20, 30 and 40 stories that have 30X30 plan and height of 60, 90 and
120m, respectively. Main parameters of interests in the study of bracings effects are storey drift and
capacity diagram of structure. Each of the above mentioned parameters for braced structures is
calculated by different types of bracings, and will be refereed later in the parts.

2. Modeling Assumptions
All of studied samples are residential with each storey of up to3m height. The plan of structure in two
directions consists of six spans with equal length of 5m in both sides. The mentioned plan and different
types of bracings are shown in figure 3. It should be noted that limiting the number of bracings arrays,
is due to restrictions in fabrication and erection of the bracings members and also their connection so
that can support columns in the successive floors.

26

Behruz Bagheri Azar and Mohammad Reza Bagerzadeh Karimi

Figure 2: Structural plan

Figure 3: Different kind of bracing system

Case (1)

Case (2)

Case (3)

Case (4)

Structure is located in an area with high risk of earthquake. The type of local soil is II and
structure importance factor is 1. Since the height of all structures over 50m, nonlinear dynamic analysis
is used for analyzing the structures [3]. Deck system is joist block and has sufficient rigidity for
distributing lateral forces between vertical elements. The beams types are I and both of bracings and
columns are box sections. The steel yield and ultimate stresses are Fy=2400 kg/cm, Fu=3600 kg/cm,
respectively and also the compressive strength of concrete is fc=240 kg/cm.

3. Numerical Modeling
Computer modeling is performed using ABAQUS version 6.9.3.which is a collection of effective
engineering simulation programs that is based on a finite element method. It can solve a widespread
range of problems from simple linear to complicated nonlinear analysis. On nonlinear analysis
ABAQUS software automatically selects the appropriate force-displacement graphs and set these
parameters continuously during the analysis in order to obtain the results accuracy [4].
3.1. Materials Properties
Due to the plastic and elastic of materials, it is essential to consider plastic and elastic behavior of
them. Therefore, the stress-strain relationship of material derived from direct tensile test will be
defined. The diagram of stress-strain is shown (fig. 4):

Study the Effect of using Different Kind of Bracing System in Tall Steel Structures

27

Figure 4: Stress-Strain diagram

3.2. Features of Elements Modeled in ABAQUS

Wire elements are used to model the frames and bracings. Beams and columns are modeled by beam
elements using B31 that is two nodal element and also bracings modeled by truss elements using
T2D2. Connections of the beams to columns are completely clamped and bracings connection to frame
is completely pinned. Columns bases connected to the foundation by clamped form.
3.3. Nonlinear Dynamical Analysis
The response of structure in the nonlinear dynamic analysis is calculated by considering the nonlinear
behavior of materials and geometric nonlinearity. In this method, stiffness matrix and damping can be
updated from one step to another one. However, they are constant during each step and numerical
methods are used to calculate the response of structure under earthquake excitation for each step [5].

4. Comparison on Various Arrays of Bracing

In this part, the effects of adding different kinds of bracings are investigated on lateral drift of
components. As already mentioned, differences between mega and current bracings in distribution of
axial forces was turned mega bracings to an ideal choice. Hence, the displacement of each structure in
four various arrays of bracings are shown in the subsequent figures.
As shown in figure 4, results show that using of mega bracings reduce significantly
displacements and the reduction depends on selected bracing model. Because of their stiffness, third
and forth kinds of bracings are caused a maximum reduction in lateral displacement. Clearly, it is seen
that the drift of 23cm on the 30th storey in the first array reduced to 14cm in the third. The results of
displacements in various arrays for 30 storey structure are given in table1.
The Most Important Reasons for using Mega Bracings are

The maximum efficiency in structural systems is achieved in the bending mode and it can
be provided by mega systems.
Bracing members are caused more balanced distribution of columns load under gravity
and lateral loads.
Due to shear lag reduction in mega systems, columns distances can be increased.

28

Behruz Bagheri Azar and Mohammad Reza Bagerzadeh Karimi

Figure 5: Displacements

20 floors

Table 1:

30 floors

40 floors

Displacements for 30-floor building

Floors
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Case 1
22.91786
22.00318
21.073
20.12618
19.1645
18.18903
17.20191
16.20606
15.20563
14.21805
13.24071
12.30736
11.3788
10.45684
9.546576
8.663408
7.799116
6.957236
6.142344
5.358496
4.611984
3.924544
3.272776
2.660528
2.093676
1.57768
1.118416
0.722072
0.395772
0.145704

Case 2
16.25286
15.66318
15.02178
14.3766
13.70946
13.03386
12.34026
11.6397
10.93098
10.24548
9.54582
8.9193
8.2647
7.6137
6.97296
6.3498
5.74314
5.14554
4.56948
4.00764
3.46824
2.98458
2.51784
2.07312
1.66092
1.27644
0.93192
0.6216
0.35568
0.12252

Case 3
13.5781
12.9687
12.5834
12.2734
11.8391
11.1247
10.3846
9.8978
9.5
9.0551
8.3474
7.6524
7.1855
6.8041
6.3427
5.7018
5.0414
4.6097
4.2657
3.8646
3.308
2.7777
2.4144
2.1251
1.8082
1.4078
0.987
0.6776
0.422
0.1732

Case 4
12.0878
11.5622
10.9372
10.5797
10.1837
9.872
9.5608
9.2187
8.7437
8.1383
7.3955
6.6834
6.0037
5.5463
5.1591
4.8507
4.5598
4.2493
3.8823
3.3968
2.8463
2.282
1.7813
1.4417
1.179
0.9464
0.7266
0.5121
0.3024
0.1051

Study the Effect of using Different Kind of Bracing System in Tall Steel Structures

29

5. The Effect of Different Cases of Braces on Shear-Lag

Regards to the differences between the structures with and without braces, axial force distribution in
the central columns is different. The difference in the distribution of forces due to the flexibility of the
circumferential beams and all the columns do not corporate in absorbing the energy. Because of the
importance of shear deformation, it will not remain plane after bending. Distribution of forces perfectly
matches the ideal distribution will not be based on common strength materials Formulas (fig 6).
One way to reduce the effects is decreasing the distance between the columns and increasing
the stiffness of surrounding beams in the structures without bracing system which limit the dimension
of windows in buildings. The most effective method to solve the problem is just to add bracing system
to the structures.
In this paper, shear-lag on the flange of the columns which is perpendicular to the lateral forces
was studied. To calculate the shear-lag effects in the structure, the proportion of the highest to the
lowest of axial forces which was approached by analyzing the structures under lateral forces was
studied (Fig 7).
Figure 6: Axial stress distribution in the columns of frames under lateral load

Figure 7: Diagrams of shear-lag

20 floors

30 floors

40 floors

30

Behruz Bagheri Azar and Mohammad Reza Bagerzadeh Karimi

As it is shown in figure 7 in all the structures studied, case 2 and 3 have the most effective on
decreasing the shear-lag at the lowest floors. As it is clear by diagram, case 4 shows good behavior at
the lowest floors but this trend did not continue to decrease the shear lag at the upper floors and also
greatly weakened. In case 1, it shows that this trend continue to decrease the shear-lag. Regards to the
Behavior mode of frames and braces, absorbing the forces in mega braces is larger than the common
braces at the lowest floors of the building but its vice versa at the upper floors. So the braces systems
which have the most stiffness absorb maximum forces compare to the other cases of bracing system,
and the more reduction of the force in the frame cause to more reduces the amount of shear-lag but also
it is vice versa at the upper floors.
It is necessary to note that Interaction of frame and braces are not the only factor in increasing
the shear-lag at the upper floors of the building but the effect of higher modes is also effective in the
behavior of the structure. The results of shear-lag for different kind of cases for 30-floor building are
illustrated in table 2.
Table 2:

Shear-Lag for 30-floor building

Floors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Case 1
4.67
4.36
4.14
3.79
3.68
3.54
3.32
2.98
2.57
2.36
2.25
2.00
1.88
1.75
1.70
1.75
1.87
1.77
1.63
1.56
1.55
1.81
1.93
1.99
2.03
2.14
2.18
2.45
2.55
2.87

Case 2
3.27
3.18
1.48
1.36
1.37
1.81
1.72
1.75
1.30
0.96
0.80
1.02
1.32
1.22
1.42
1.56
1.66
1.76
1.87
1.96
2.12
2.20
2.30
2.50
2.70
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.60
2.70

Case 3
1.65
1.65
2.13
2.45
2.67
2.77
2.76
2.65
2.02
1.78
1.56
1.40
1.46
1.75
1.67
1.77
1.87
1.77
1.67
1.65
1.76
1.88
1.99
2.12
2.20
2.00
1.97
1.90
2.00
2.20

Case 4
1.87
1.65
2.01
2.24
2.13
1.05
0.96
0.86
1.20
2.20
2.60
2.90
3.20
3.50
3.70
3.80
3.89
4.01
4.10
4.20
4.32
4.20
4.00
3.90
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
3.50
4.00

6. Study Elastic Strain Energy

Considering that much of the damage caused by earthquake especially under the large earthquake
occurs in the reciprocating cycle of non-elastic. Parameters, the most associated with the cyclical
behavior of structures and results earthquake damage, are structural energy. In other words, Energy
absorption capacity of the structure should be more than the energy is required on structures during an
earthquake event [6].

Study the Effect of using Different Kind of Bracing System in Tall Steel Structures
EI = EE + ED
In which:
EI : Energy applied
EE : Stored elastic energy
ED : Wasted energy
The equation 1 can also be written as follows:
EI = ( Ek + Es ) + ( E f + Eh )

31
(1)

(2)

Where:
Ek : Kinetic energy of the structure
Es : Elastic strain energy
E f : Viscous damping energy

Eh : Hysteresis energy (Residual energy)

EI and EE + ED show the needs and Inventories, respectively. At the first step, effective choice
of structure design and estimates of EI is for severe earthquakes. According to this, design should
retain the behavior of the structure around the safety range. The ability of the structure in order to
dissipate the energy under the elastic limit of earthquake through damping and elastic deformation and
for the Earthquake near collapse through the damping and deformation of plasticity (plastic) should be
investigated. The most important part is how to distribute dissipation energy in the entire structural
system. In recent years, increasing the amount of ED with active and inactive damping system has
been significantly possible. Although technical and economical satisfy the equation of inventories with
increased inventories by increasing EE is considered [7]. In this study, to better understand the
different cases of bracing system in terms of strain energy, the total amount of energy analyzed for the
entire of the structure and bracing system, the results are illustrated in figure (8) to (10). Also the
results of different cases of bracing are shown in table 3.
Table 3:

Maximum energy absorbed by the entire structural system and bracing systems
Floors

Entire structural system

Bracing system

20
30
40

Case 1
2.14E+06
5.37E+06
1.03E+07

3.44E+05
5.80E+05
7.47E+05

20
30
40

Case 2
1.39E+06
3.31E+06
6.25E+06

3.86E+05
7.18E+05
9.72E+05

Case 3
20
30
40
20
30
40

7.21E+05
1.59E+06
2.79E+06
Case 4
6.08E+05
1.37E+06
2.47E+06

4.87E+05
9.81E+05
1.44E+06
4.02E+05
8.19E+05
1.16E+06

32

Behruz Bagheri Azar and Mohammad Reza Bagerzadeh Karimi

Figure 8: Energy absorbed by the entire structural system and bracing system in 20-floor buildings

Figure 9: Energy absorbed by the entire structural system and bracing system in 30-floor buildings

Study the Effect of using Different Kind of Bracing System in Tall Steel Structures

33

Figure 10: Energy absorbed by the entire structural system and bracing system in 40-floor buildings

Regards to the illustrations, the rate of Participation of bracing system for energy absorption in
the entire structural system, cases 3 and 4 compare to cases 1 and 2 were significantly increased. The
difference in energy absorption is due to the specific form of mega bracing system which all columns
are in contact unlike common bracing system which is continually in contact with several columns.
Table 4:

Percentage of energy absorbed by bracing system

Floors
20
30
40

Case 1
16%
11%
7.30%

Case 2
28%
22%
16%

Case 3
67%
62%
52%

Case 4
66%
60%
50%

With increasing height of the building percent of participation in the energy absorption of the
bracing system reduces. Case (3 and 4) in terms of energy absorption, have close behavior and also by
increasing the height of the building differences are not significant.

7. Conclusions
1. Using mega braces instead of common braces cause to decrease lateral displacement and
shear lag which improve structural behavior and increase efficiency of the buildings.
2. If purpose of using braces in order to decrease displacement and shear lag, using the cases
2 and 3 will be the most effective in reducing these parameters.
3. Regards to the mega braces system which are also form as an architectural, so the
arrangement of bracing system in the buildings is not only based on structural criteria.
4. With the results of cases 2, 3 and 4 can be seen that the results are very close. To better
understand the differences in their functional cases should consider the higher elevations.

34

Behruz Bagheri Azar and Mohammad Reza Bagerzadeh Karimi

5. At all using mega bracing system due to decrease the cross section and the length of
braces and also reduce the number of connection plates (between brace and column) And
the increased energy absorption compared to other cases of bracing system, The structure
is more economically justifiable.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]

[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]
[14]
[15]

Gunel, M. Ilgin, H. 1991, A proposal for the classification of structural systems of tall
buildings. BUILDING AND ENVIORMENT, Volume 42, Issue 7, Pages 2667-2675.
Beedle, LS, Rice, DB, 1995, Structural systems for tall buildings, Council on Tall Buildings
and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) Committee 3. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
BHRC. 2005,Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings:Standard no.
2800 (3rd edition) Building and Housing Research Center.
help ABAQUS 6.9.3
Smith, BS. Coull, A. 1991, Tall building structures: analysis and design. New York, Wiley.
Soong TT, Dargush.1999, Passive energy dissipation systems in structural engineering.
Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons.
Tena-Colunga A, Vergara A.1997, Comparative study on the seismic retrofit of a mid-rise steel
building: Steel bracing vs. energy dissipation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics;26(6):63755.
Khatib IF, Mahin SA, Pister KS, 1988, Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel frames,
Report no, UCB/EERC-88/01, Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California.
Kim J, Choi H. 2004, Response modification factors of chevron-braced frames. Journal
of Engineering, Structure 2004;27:285300.
sorace, S.and Terenzi, G, 2003, An advances seismic protection technology, advances in
structures:1185-1191.
Freeman, S, A, 1995, on the Correlation of Code forces to Earthquake Demands, Proc. Of the
U.S.-japan Workshaop on Inprovement of Bulding Structural Design and Construction
Practices(ATC 15-3)
Uang.C.M.,Establishinf, 1999, R factors Building Seismic Provisions,J. of Struct Engry.ASCE,
Vol. 117, No.1,pp19-28.
Mazzolani, F.M and Gioncu. V. 1996, theoty and Design of Seismic Resistant Steel frames, E
& fn Spon.
Como, M.and Lanni, G, 1983, Aseismic Toughness of structures, J. of Mecc anica, Vol.18.