Study on Effectiveness of Lattice-Framed Walls

(LFW) in RC Highrise Building

Thet Ei#1, Aung Than Win#2 & Thinzar Khaing#3
#Department of Civil Engineering, Yangon Technological University,
Yangon, Republic of the Union of Myanmar
1
thetei24@gmail.com
2
aungthanwinytu22@gmail.com
3
thinzar@ytu.edu.mm

Abstract— Lattice means the arrangement of diagonal
pattern or trussed network of secondary bars. In this
study, lattice type steel braces (X-bracings) are used at
various locations to increase the strength of RC framed
structure. Steel bracing system is one of the effective
measures for resisting the horizontal forces like seismic
and wind forces in reinforced concrete multistory
buildings. Bracing members are subjected to tension and
compression ; subsequently they are provided to take these
forces. Steel bracing framework expands the stiffness and
strength of the RC building. Seismic coefficient method (
linear static analysis ) has been conducted to evaluate the
effect of different locations of bracing members in the
building frame. For this study, a thirty-two storeyed
building assumed to be situated at Mandalay region
according to MNBC code. For modelling and analysis
work, computer software SAP 2000 was used. Concrete
compression strength (fc’= 3ksi) and reinforcing yield
stress (Fy=50ksi) were used in this paper. Result of this
study revealed that X-bracing reduces bending moment,
lateral displacement, storey drift and axial force
significantly. It was also found that various location of
bracing systems has great influence on high seismic region.
Keywords— Linear Static Analysis, X-bracing , lattice ,
reinforced concrete building, storey drift , bending
moment , SAP 2000
I. INTRODUCTION
Structures are designed to resist moderate and frequently
occurring earthquakes and must have sufficient stiffness and
strengthen to control deflection and to prevent any possible
damage. Reinforced concrete buildings can adequately resist
both horizontal and vertical load. To resist higher value of
seismic forces, lateral load resisting (for example; shear wall,
steel bracing) systems should be introduced. Rigid bracing
systems are one of the lateral load resisting systems which
have got structural importance especially in reinforced
concrete building. Steel bracing system enhances the
resistance of the structure against horizontal forces by
expanding its stiffness and stability. Bracings hold the
structure stable by exchanging the horizontal loads , for
example , quake or wind burdens down to the ground and
oppose sidelong loads, in that way keep the influence of the
structure. Bracings also provide high stiffness due to
horizontal shear is primary absorbed and resist lateral forces
by developing internal axial actions. Lattice type steel braces
(X-bracing) provides good stiffness and control lateral
displacements but base shear increases. Steel bracing
members in RC structure is conservative, simple to set up,
involve less space and give obliged quality and inflexibility.
II. BRACING SYSTEM
Steel bracing is a highly efficient and economical method
of resisting horizontal forces in a frame structure. Bracing has
been used to stabilize laterally the majority of the world’s
tallest building structures as well as one of the major retrofit
measures. Bracing is efficient because the diagonals work in
axial stress and therefore call for minimum member sizes in
providing stiffness and strength against horizontal shear. A
number of researchers have investigated various techniques
such as infilling walls, adding walls to existing columns, and
adding steel bracing to improve the strength of ductility of
existing buildings. A bracing system improves the seismic
performance of the frame by increasing its lateral stiffness and
capacity. Through the addition of the bracing system , load
could be transferred out of the frame and into braces,
bypassing the weak columns while increasing strength. Steel
braced frames are efficient structural systems for buildings
subjected to seismic or wind lateral loadings. Therefore, the
use of steel-bracing systems for retrofitting reinforced-
concrete frames with inadequate lateral resistance is attractive.
The first approach is realized with the introduction of steel
braces in steel structures and of RC shear walls in RC
structures. However, the use of steel bracing systems for RC
buildings may have both practical and economical advantages.
Steel bracing members in RC structure are conservative, easy
to set up, involve less space. In particular, this system offers
advantages such as the ability to accommodate openings and
minimal added weight of the structure. Steel braced frame is
one of the lateral load opposing framework in multi-storey
structure. The steel braces are usually placed in vertically
aligned spans. This system allows obtaining a great increase
of stiffness with minimal added weight, and so it is very
effective for existing structure for which the poor lateral
stiffness is the main problem. Lattice type steel braces (X-  Basic wind velocity - 100 mph
bracing) increase lateral stiffness which may attract a larger  Importance factor -1
inertia force due to earthquake.  Windward coefficient - 0.8
 Leeward coefficient - 0.5
III. METHODOLOGY
4. Earthquake load
The static properties and stability of the structures with
different locations of steel bracings are compared in detail.  Spectral Response
Based on analysis results, the influences of the lateral Acceleration (based on
displacement, storey drift, bending moment, axial force and MNBC code) - Ss = 2.01, S1 = 0.8
stability of the structure with different locations of steel  Long-period transition
bracings are studied systematically. Then, the optimal Period TL - 6sec
location of steel bracings is chosen.  Building occupancy
category -1
IV. STRUCTURAL MODEL  R - 5.5
 Ct - 0.016
A. Type and size of proposed model  x - 0.9
 Type of structure - 32 stories RC
structure E. Member sections
 Location - Mandalay Floor Level Column
 Type of occupancy - Office Ground Floor to 3rd floor C36”x36”
 Length of structure - 115ft 4th floor to 7th floor C33”x33”
8th floor to 11th floor C30”x30”
 Width of structure - 120ft 12th floor to 15th floor C27”x27”
 Typical floor height - 10ft 16th floor to 19th floor C24”x24”
20th floor to 23rd floor C21”x21”
B. Material Properties of concrete 24th floor to 27th floor C18”x18”
• Unit weight of concrete = 150 pcf 28th floor to 31st floor C15”x15”
• Concrete compression
strength, fc’ = 3ksi Span Length Beam
• Reinforcing yield stress, Fy = 50ksi Main Beam (20ft span) B16”x28”
• Modulus of elasticity of Main Beam(18ft span) B16”x24”
Main Beam (15ft span) B14”x22”
concrete, E = 3.122x103ksi Main Beam(13ft span) B14”x20”

C. Material Properties of steel

Steel bracing size Double angle 3x3x3/8
• Unit weight of steel = 489 pcf
• Modulus of electricity, E = 29000 ksi
Shear wall size SW18”,SW16”,SW14”,SW12”
• Poisson’s ratio, µ = 0.3
• Minimum yield stress, Fy = 50ksi
• Minimum tensile strength, Fu = 65ksi

D. Loading considerations
1. Dead loads

 4½ in thick brick wall = 50 psf

 9 in thick brick wall = 100psf
 Superimposed dead load = 20 psf

2. Live loads

 Live load on floor = 50 psf

 Live load on roof = 20 psf

3. Wind load

 Exposure type -C Bare Frame Model-1

 Lateral Displacement of Structural Models
EQX, Comb-20(0.9D.L+1EQX)
35
30 Bare Frame
25 Model-1

Floor Level
20 Model-2
15
Model-3
10
Model-4
5
limit line
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement(in)

Fig 2 (a)
Model-2 Model-3

Lateral Displacement of Structural Models

EQY, Comb-22(0.9D.L+1EQY)

35
Bare Frame
30
25 Model-1
Floor Level

20 Model-2
15
Model-3
10
5 Model-4
0 limit line
0 5 10 15 20 25

Displacement(in)

Fig 2(b)
Model-4

Figure 1; RC building frames with X-bracings
V. COMPARISON OF ANALYSIS RESULTS
In this study, the proposed model is analyzed in 4
different locations of X-bracings by using SAP 2000 software.
Analysis results for all different locations of X-bracings are
compared to obtain the best location to resist seismic effect.
A. Lateral displacement
Firstly, the lateral displacement of models with and
without steel bracings due to control load combination in X
and Y directions are compared.
Above figures demonstrate the lateral displacements of
the structural models. Model-1 reduces 2 percent in X-
direction and 3 percent in Y-direction of lateral displacement.
Model-2 reduces 19 percent in X-direction and 15 percent in
Y-direction of lateral displacement. Model-3 reduces 11
percent in X-direction and Y-direction of lateral displacement.
Model-4 reduces 24 percent in X-direction and 20 percent in
Y-direction of lateral displacement. Model -4 gives the better
result than the other models.
B. Storey Drift
The storey drift of models with and without steel bracings
due to control load combination in X and Y directions are
compared.
 Storey Drift of Structural Models (EQX) Bending Moment of Beam at Support
35
EQX, Comb-20(0.9D.L+1EQX)
30
35
25
30
Floor Level

Bare Frame
20 25 Bare Frame

Floor Level
Model-1
15 20
Model-2 Model-1
10 15
Model-3 Model-2
5 10
Model-4 5 Model-3
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 Model-4
Storey drift(in) -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
Bending Moment (Kip-ft)
Fig-3(a)
Fig-4(b)
Storey Drift of Structural Models (EQY) Above figures demonstrates that models with steel bracing
reduce maximum bending moment significantly.
35
30
D. Axial Force
25 Bare Frame
Floor Level

20
Model-1
15 30F
10 Model-2
27F
5 Model-3 24F
21F Model-4
Floor Level

0 Model-4
0 0.5 1 18F
15F Model-3
Storey Drift(in) 12F Model-2
9F
Fig-3(b) 6F Model-1
3F Bare Frame
GF
0 1000 2000 3000
Above graphs show the storey drifts of the structural
Axial Force(Kip)
models. Model-3 has minimum storey drift up to half of the
structural model because of adding steel bracing half of the
Fig-5
structure but model-4 has the minimum storey drift compared
to any other models.
E. Lateral Force
C. Bending Moment
Lateral Force of Structural Models(EQX)
Combination-20
Bending Moment of Beam at Mid-Span
EQX, Comb-20 (0.9D.L+1EQX)
28F
24F
Model-4
Floor Level

20F
Bare Frame
Floor Level

16F Model-3
Model-1 12F Model-2
8F
Model-2 4F Model-1
Model-3 GF Bare Frame
0 200 400 600 800
Model-4
-150 -100 -50 0 Lateral Force(Kip)
Bending Moment(Kip-ft)

Fig-4(a) Fig-6(a)
 G. Overturning Moment
Lateral Force of Structural Models(EQY)
.
Combination-22
The Overturning Moment of Structural Models
(EQX) Combination-20
28F
24F
Model-4
Floor Level

20F 28F
16F Model-3 24F Model-4

Floor Level
12F 20F
Model-2 16F Model-3
8F 12F
4F Model-1 Model-2
8F
GF Bare Frame 4F Model-1
0 200 400 600 800 GF
0 1000000 2000000 3000000 Bare Frame
Lateral Force(Kip)
Overturning Moment(Kip-ft)
Fig-6(b)
The lateral force of the proposed buildings is shown in Fig-8(a)
figure-6(a) and figure-6(b). The lateral force is nearly the
same for all models.

The Overturning Moment of Structural Models

F. Storey Shear (EQY) Combination-22

30F
The Storey Shear of Structural Models (EQX)
25F
Model-4
Floor Level
Combination-20
20F
15F Model-3
28F 10F Model-2
24F Model-4 5F
Floor Level

20F Model-1
Model-3 GF
16F
12F 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 Bare Frame
8F Model-2
Overturning Moment(Kip-ft)
4F Model-1
GF
0 5000 10000 15000 Bare Frame Fig-8(b)
Shear Force(Kip) The overturning moment is shown in Figure 8(a) and 8(b).
The The overturning moment at the base of models with steel
Fig-7(a) bracings is slightly greater than bare frame

V. CONCLUSION
The use of steel bracings in high-rise buildings increase
The Storey Shear of Structural Models (EQY) the stiffness and makes the structural form efficient under
Combination-22 lateral load. The concept of using steel bracing is one of the
advantageous method which can be used to strengthen
28F structure. Steel bracing system also shows the efficient and
24F Model-4 economical measures for RC structure located in high seismic
Floor Level

20F
16F Model-3 zone. Model-4 significantly reduces lateral displacement,
12F storey drift and bending moment than the other models. It is
8F Model-2
concluded that changing the location of steel bracings has
4F Model-1
GF
considerable effect on seismic performance of the building.
0 5000 10000 15000 Bare Frame From all of four models , Model-4 gives better performance.
Shear Force(Kip)

Fig-7(b) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The storey shear is shown in Figure 7(a) and 7(b). The First of all, the author would like to sincerely thankful Dr.
accumulative storey shear of models with steel bracings is Nyan Myint Kyaw, Professor and Head of Civil Engineering
slightly greater than bare frame Department, Yangon Technological University for his kind
lead and guidance. The author is greatly indebted to U Aung
Than Win, lecturer of Civil Engineering Department, Yangon
Technological University, for his invaluable suggestions and
careful editing this paper. The author is sincerely thankful to
her co-supervisor Dr.Thinzar Khaing , Professor of the
Department of Civil Engineering of the Yangon
Technological University, for giving advice, and helpful
suggestions in the preparation of this paper.

REFERENCES
[1] Taranath, B.(1998) : Structural Analysis & Design of Tall Buildings.
New York, Mc Graw Hill.
[2] Smith B S and Coull A (1991): Tall Building Structure: Analysis and
design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, USA.
Concrete.
[3] Reinforced Concrete Design, U Nyi Hla Nge
[4] Structural Steel Design, U Nyi Hla Nge
[5] 2009 International Building Code.