International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 Buckling Analysis of RC Framed Structures With and Without Bracings Sudha S Goudar1 , R.G.Talasadar2 1PG Student department of Civil engineering, B.L.D.E.A’s V.P. Dr P.G. Halakatti College of Engineering and Technology, Vijayapur. 2Associate Professor department of Civil engineering, B.L.D.E.A’s V.P. Dr P.G. Halakatti College of Engineering and Technology, Vijayapur.karnataka, India ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract - In general, concrete braced reinforced concrete 1.1 Bracings frame is one of the structural systems used to resist buckling loads and buckling of multi-storey structures. The use of Different Story’s are selected like one-storey, three-storey, concrete bracing systems for strengthening buckling five-storey and Ten-storey three bays frames was chosen inadequate reinforced concrete frames is a viable solution for and five different bracing patterns and locations were enhancing buckling resistance. Concrete and steel is selected. Frame was modelled at Bay width as 4m and storey economical, easy to erect and flexible to design for meeting the height as 3.5m. Bracing patterns include single Diagonal, required strength and stiffness. A numerical method for the double diagonal (X), Chevron inverted V, K and V bracings. solution of the elastic stability of fixed frames is presented and the procedure to perform elastic buckling analysis for frame in 1.2 Shear wall use computing buckling loads and buckling modes in frames with fixed columns. For resistance of the earthquake forces shear wall frames and concrete braced frames structural systems used. In this study buckling analysis of reinforced concrete building Generally Reinforced Concrete shear walls have been used as with different types of bracings V, inverted V, X, Diagonal and main lateral load opposing framework in medium & tall K type, bare frame, P-Delta effect, slenderness ratio, and shear structures on account of their high lateral unbending nature. walls studied. The method is illustrated in detail for different cases of single storey, three storey, five storey and ten storey 1.3 Slenderness ratio buildings is analysed for buckling using ETABS, one and three storeys buildings is analysed for buckling using ANSYS Slenderness ratio is the proportion length of a column and software. Comparing the both software’s values, the bracing minimum range of gyration of its cross area shaped by a system improves not only the stiffness capacity but also the plane. If the slenderness ratio is smaller than (kl/r) min buckling of the structure. The main parameters considered are failure happens by crushing. If the slenderness proportion is buckling factor, p-delta effect, slenderness ratio and shear more than (kl/r) min failure happens by buckling, deflection wall. load or stress diminishing for more slenderness. Key Words: Buckling analysis of the structure using 1.4 P-Delta ETABS and ANSYS, performance of slenderness ratio, shear wall, P-delta, stiffness, Bracings. They are second order impacts which increases raise the deformations, member's method for movement and extend 1. INTRODUCTION the effective fundamental period of the structure. P-delta effects in structure may be restrained by increasing its sidely Buckling concept of restrained braces was first introduced rigidity, increasing its strength or by combining of those two. by Wakabayashi in 1973. Buckling can be defined as The basic concept of critical buckling load Pcr the structure 2. MODELLING encounters sudden failure when subjected to compressive load and its length requests of size are greater than both of When considering the presents study, an attempt is made to its separate measurements such a column is known as a quantify the influence of Buckling analysis of RC framed section. we can see there are 2 types of the frames regard to structure With bracing and Without bracing. and its possible side sway where side sway prevented and frames with side to strengthen using shear wall, slenderness ratio, P-Delta sway permitted. In first type of the frame The buckling takes effect and stiffness. For this purpose typical 1,3, 5 and 10 place when the applied load P is equal to critical Pcr storey structures are modelled & analysed using ETABS and columns, and at the top end column is flexibly limited by ANSYS software. beam to which the column is firmly associated, and the critical load of the section depends not only on the column stiffness, additionally depend on rigidity of the beam. © 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 607 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 Table -1: Structural details of the model The analysis is carried out for the bare frame as well as for the braced frames by considering X, V , K, Diagonal,Inverted Number of storey 1,3,5 and 10 V type bracing, slenderness ratio, shear wall, Stiffness and p delta effect for the same model configuration described Storey height 3.5m above. The regular building elevation views with different Number of Bays 3 bays in both types of bracings are shown. directions Spacing of Bays 4 m in both direction 2.2 By using ANSYS Beam Size 230x450 mm Column size 500x500 mm Bracing size 300x300 mm Grade of Materials M25 and Fe 500 Slab Thickness 150mm Load Considered (Dead load 8.2 kN/m2 + Floor finish + Live load ) 2.1 Using ETABS Software Fig-3 Bare model, Diagonal, K type bracing models using Finite element method by using ANSYS Software. The bare frame models considered are described as following Similarly models are prepared for the 1, 3, 5 storeys and 10 storeys. A finite element buckling study determines the lowest buckling factors and their corresponding buckling modes. The bare frame models of 5 different configurations such as Regular, one, three, five and ten are analyzed. Later X, V, Diagonal, V, Inverted V and K bracings are applied to strengthen the structures. The results are compared for structures with and without bracings for 3 storeys structures of all models. The results are basically compared to find which type of bracing will be more effective for different regular structures. Fig-1 Shows models of Regular building without bracing 1, 3, 5 and 10 storeys structures. Buckling Analysis of frames Analytic buckling studies identify additional classes of instability besides Euler buckling. They include lateral buckling, torsion buckling, and other buckling modes. A finite element buckling study determines the lowest buckling factors and their corresponding modes.A buckling, or stability, analysis is an Eigen problem. The size of the scalar Eigen value is known as the “buckling load factor”. The processed displacement Eigen vector is referred to as the "buckling mode" or mode shape. The results of analysis compared include P-delta, slenderness ratio, Stiffness and Buckling of the structures with bracing and without bracings. Fig-2 Shows models of Regular building with bracing 1, 3, 5 and 10 storeys structures, and 3D model of shear wall. © 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 608 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 Table-3 Buckling factor values for storey 3 Buckling 1 2 3 4 5 mode Storey 3 26.686 38.557 79.223 160.2 175.06 The columns sizes for three storey structures considered C300x300. The above graphs shows variations of buckling Fig-4 3D models of buckling modes (first buckling modes factor for different modes. Number of stories increases the of models with bracing and without bracings) buckling factor goes on decreases. Similarly buckling modes for diagonal, X, K, Inverted V type of storey 3 bracings for different stories. 1200 1000 800 2.3 Buckling modes of 3 storey structures by using ANSYS 600 C500x500 400 buckling factor 200 0 Bare f rame diagonal v bracing x bracing inverted v bracing Fig-7 bracing v/s buckling factor. Table-4 Variations of buckling modes values for 3 stroreys. for different bracings by using ETABS software Bare Inv V V X Diagonal K 100.753 942.67 369.979 421.508 726.077 286.075 Fig-5 first buckling modes of 3 storey structures Type of bracing system as lateral load resisting system, Table-2 Variations of buckling modes values for 3 stroreys material of bracing system also increases the stiffness and structures. ductility of the structure. Bracing system is good practice of scheme for high rise RCC structures to strengthen against Bare X Diagonal K buckling. So it can be concluded that Inverted V bracing model system is good practice for implementation in high rise 61.888 327.27 206.96 347.24 structures and reduces the damages in RCC structures during lateral load resisting capacity of the structures. Results of the buckling analysis were compared between the ETABS and ANSYS the variations of buckling factor for bare Mode 1 model 38%, X bracing 22%, K bracing 17% and diagonal 2500 2000 bracing 39%. The average difference between both software 1500 Without shear w all With shear w all values is 25%. 1000 BucklingFactor 500 Similarly the buckling factor results are calculated for one, 0 Storey 1 Storey 3 Storey 5 Storey 10 five and ten storey by using ETABS and buckling factor is Number of Stories calculated for one and three storey using ANSYS. Fig-8 comparison of without shear walls and with shear 2.4 Graphical representation of buckling factor values walls for different stories.