Analytical Investigation on High and Low Seismic Response of Zero Liquid Discharge Steel Structure

  • B. NambiyannaEmail author
  • Mohammed Younus Salman
  • R. Prabhakara
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 56)


Industrial steel structures supporting thermal Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) are subjected to great lateral forces due to wind and an earthquake. Industrial steel structures are made out of number of joints and structural members, this complicated structural system has to be designed carefully. Strength and performance of these structures for the various combinations of load, geometry, and boundary conditions have to be ascertained before erection. In the present investigation, analytical procedure has been carried out to know the response of various lateral force resisting systems such as “X”, “Inverted V”, “K”, and “Knee” bracings and “Moment Resisting Frame” under high (Zone 5) and low (Zone 2) seismic zones. Response spectrum method of seismic analysis has been used for the study using STAAD Pro V8i software. The various parameters such as fundamental time period, lateral displacement, and storey shear among various structural systems are compared. From the results, it was found that Inverted V bracings show better performance under both high (Zone 5) and low (Zone 2) seismic zone. Further Inverted V bracing is found to be the most efficient structural system for ZLD structure compared to other lateral force resisting systems.


Zero liquid discharge Response spectrum method Time period Lateral displacement Storey shear 



We sincerely thank the management of RIT, General Electric Water and Process Technologies, HOD Civil engineering department, and Principal of RIT Affiliated to VTU Belagavi for their support extended to carry out this work.


  1. 1.
    Siddiqi ZA, Hameed R, Akmal U (2014) Comparison of different bracing systems for tall buildings. Pak J Eng Appl Sci 14:17–26Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS (2004) Bracing systems for seismic retrofitting of steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 65:452–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tajheem Z, Khusru S (2013) Structural behaviour of steel building with concentric and eccentric bracing: a comparative study. Int J Civ Struct Eng 4(1):12–19Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khadiranaikar RB, Halli Y (2012) Seismic performance of RC steel frame with and without bracings. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon PortGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lai J-W, Mahin SA (2014) Steel concentrically braced frames using tubular structural sections as bracing members: design, full scale testing, numerical solution. Int J Steel Struct 14(1):43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alibhat MG, Kamath K, Prasad SK, Pai RR (2014) Seismic performance of concentric braced steelframes from pushover analysis. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng 67–73Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tande SN, Sankpal AA (2014) Study of inelastic behavior of eccentrically braced frames under non linear range. Int J Latest Trends Eng Technol 4(1)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sangle K, Bajoria KM, Mhalungkar V (2012) Seismic analysis of high rise steel frame with and with without building and bracing without bracing. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon Port, no. AISC 2005Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choudhari VA, Nagaraj TK (2015) Analysis of moment resisting frame by knee bracing. Int J Innov Eng Res Technol 2(6):1–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Nambiyanna
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mohammed Younus Salman
    • 1
  • R. Prabhakara
    • 2
  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentRamaiah Institute of TechnologyBengaluruIndia
  2. 2.Former Professor, Civil Engineering DepartmentRamaiah Institute of TechnologyBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations