PSI - Issue 70

Vivek Kumar C et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 70 (2025) 97–104

104

2. The X-bracing system reduces drift at the center and controls it at critical locations like corners. At Story 15, drift at corners in EQx and EQy is 0.000987 for both systems, confirming X-bracing reduces drift at points prone to higher lateral displacements. At alternate locations, both systems show a drift of 0.00034. 3. Displacement is consistently lower at all locations, showing X-bracing effectively controls lateral movements. Story shear results indicate the X-braced system reduces shear forces at all levels, showing better distribution of load and minimizing drift at critical locations. The X-braced system efficiently manages storey drift across all areas, reducing lateral displacement compared to an unbraced system, enhancing stability and resistance to lateral forces. Thus, X-bracing is ideal for reducing storey drift and improving structural performance. 4. Central X-bracing is recognized as the most effective configuration for structural stability, providing lateral stiffness and balanced load distribution against seismic forces. This alignment reduces eccentricities between load path and structural system, preventing uneven deformation during dynamic loading. The central configuration minimizes displacements and inter-storey drifts, particularly at upper levels where structures are prone to sway. Reduced drift mitigates damage and maintains building serviceability during seismic events. Corner X-bracing is less effective as it introduces torsional effects when placed far from the center. As building height increases, asymmetric stiffness can lead to rotation, compromising structural integrity. References Acosta, J., Bojórquez, J., Ruiz-García, J., Bojórquez, E., Iovinella, I., Reyes-Salazar, A., & Ruiz, S. E. (2024). Seismic Performance of Steel Buildings with Eccentrically Braced Frame Systems with Different Configurations. Buildings, 14, 118. Alvarado-Valle, O. E., Gutierrez-Lopez, A., Tolentino, D., & Gaxiola-Camacho, J. R. (2023). Reliability of steel structures with Chevron bracing systems considering the performance-based seismic design philosophy. Discover Mechanical Engineering, 2. Asghari, A., & Hosseini, S. (2024). Seismic Behavior Assessment of Special Concentrically X-Braced Frame with Through Gusset Plate. Chen, R., Hao, D., & Qiu, C. (2019). Seismic Response Analysis of Multi-Story Steel Frames Using BRB and SCB Hybrid Bracing System. Applied Sciences, 10, 284. Ganesh, A., Vivek Kumar, C., Naga Saibaba, A., & Maithri Varun, L. (2022). Evaluation of Response Spectrum and Equivalent Static Analysis for recognizing the safest position of Floating Columns by ETABS in Zone V. IEEE Xplore, 209–216. Gutierrez‐Lopez, A., Gaxiola‐Camacho, J. R., Tolentino, D., & Alvarado‐Valle, O. E. (2023). Structural reliability of steel buildings with X‐bracing systems considering the performance‐based seismic design philosophy. Applied Research, 3. Haamidh, A., C, L., & J, S. (2020). Seismic Response Assessment of Stiffened RCC Frames Located in Gujarat. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 8(5), 2481–2487. IS 875 (Part 3) – (2015). Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, India. IS 1893 (Part 1) – (2016). Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures - Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, India. Krishnasamy, R., Johnson, S. C., Kumar, P. S., & Mohanraj, R. (2024). Experimental Investigation of Lateral Load Test on Diagonal Braced 3M Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Transmission Tower. Power Research - A Journal of CPRI, 19(2), 225–231. Kumar, N., & Grover, D. K. S. (2022). A Comparative Study of Conventional Steel Building and Pre-Engineered Steel Building Structure using STAAD PRO. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 10(6), 1070–1074. Lui, E. M., & Zhang, X. (2013). Stability Design of Cross-Bracing Systems for Frames. Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, 50, 155–168. Marcu, R., & Köber, H. (2021). Seismic design methods for concentrically braced frames. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Env. Science, 664(1), 012086. Nassani, D. E., Hussein, A. K., & Mohammed, A. H. (2017). Comparative Response Assessment of Steel Frames With Different Bracing Systems Under Seismic Effect. Structures, 11, 229–242. Neethu, T. P., & Preethi, M. (2021). Performance of Steel Building Equipped with Crescent Shaped Bracing System under Seismic Excitation. In Springer (pp. 327–335). Ravikumar, K., Singaram, C. J., Palanichamy, S., & Rajendran, M. (2023). Testing and Evaluation of Buckling and Tensile Performance of Glass Fiber–Reinforced Polymer Angle Section with Different Joints/Connections. ASTM Int. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 52(1), 621–638. Shen, J. (2022). Impact of unique practice in concentrically braced frames on their seismic performance. Journal of Const. Steel Research, 201, 107718. Shirpour, A., & Fanaie, N. (2023). Determining the seismic performance factors of quasi-X bracing systems. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 212, 108248. Yassin, K. Sadeghi. (2023). Structure Behaviour under Seismic loads using X-Bracing, Inverted V-Bracing Systems and without Bracing. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). Yeom, H. J., Jung, E. B., & Yoo, J. H. (2015). Evaluation of Seismic Behavior in Non-Seismic Concentrically Braced Frames. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 749, 373–378. Zhang, E. (2013). Stability Design of Cross-Bracing Systems for Frames. Engineering Journal, 50(3), 155–168.