[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"ssr-repo-dspace000002300":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"authors":6,"files":8,"advisors":53,"authors_detail":54,"advisors_detail":58,"publisher":59,"publish_place":60,"language":61,"type":62,"type_slug":63,"year":64,"department":65,"study_program":66,"keywords":67,"keywords_detail":71,"abstract":78,"abstract_html":79,"url":80},"repo-dspace000002300","Comparison Between Concentric Bracing Frame And Eccentric Bracing Frames In Earthquake-Resistant High-Rise Building",[7],"Mohammedalameen Ahmed Aldaw A",[9,14,17,20,23,26,29,32,35,38,41,44,47,50],{"chapter":10,"requires_login":11,"label":12,"available":13},"abstrak",false,"Abstrak",true,{"chapter":15,"requires_login":11,"label":16,"available":11},"pendahuluan","Pendahuluan",{"chapter":18,"requires_login":11,"label":19,"available":13},"bab1","Bab I",{"chapter":21,"requires_login":11,"label":22,"available":13},"bab2","Bab II",{"chapter":24,"requires_login":13,"label":25,"available":13},"bab3","Bab III",{"chapter":27,"requires_login":13,"label":28,"available":13},"bab4","Bab IV",{"chapter":30,"requires_login":13,"label":31,"available":13},"bab5","Bab V",{"chapter":33,"requires_login":13,"label":34,"available":11},"bab6","Bab VI",{"chapter":36,"requires_login":13,"label":37,"available":11},"bab7","Bab VII",{"chapter":39,"requires_login":11,"label":40,"available":11},"daftar_pustaka","Daftar Pustaka",{"chapter":42,"requires_login":13,"label":43,"available":11},"lampiran","Lampiran",{"chapter":45,"requires_login":13,"label":46,"available":11},"jurnal","Jurnal",{"chapter":48,"requires_login":11,"label":49,"available":13},"open","Akses Terbuka",{"chapter":51,"requires_login":13,"label":52,"available":11},"full","Dokumen Lengkap",[],[55],{"name":7,"nim":56,"slug":57},"1941320213","mohammedalameen-ahmed-aldaw-a",[],"Politeknik Negeri Malang","Malang","Inggris","Skripsi (D4)","skripsi-d4",2023,"D-IV MANAJEMEN REKAYASA KONSTRUKSI",null,[68,69,70],"Concentric Bracing Frame (CBF)","Eccentric Bracing Frames (EBF)","Earthquake Resistant",[72,74,76],{"name":68,"slug":73},"concentric-bracing-frame-cbf",{"name":69,"slug":75},"eccentric-bracing-frames-ebf",{"name":70,"slug":77},"earthquake-resistant","Earthquake is a natural disaster that often occurs in Indonesia, so that throughout buildings must be designed according to earthquake regulations SNI 1726:2019 Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings is one of the most effective ways to reduce damages under destructive Earthquakes. The use of bracings is one of techniques for seismic rehabilitation of steel structures. In this study we aimed to investigate the seismic performance of three CBF, EBF frame steel structures with moment-resisting frames designed three dimensionally in ETABS 2020 application. Their damage under five. The height of the building is based on the maximum limit according to SNI 1726:2012 table 9 and article 7.2.5.4. Based on these limitations, a height of 12 floors (48meters) and 8 floors (45.9 meters) in this study. Previous research has shown it does ground motions was evaluated using response-based damage model proposed by (Karsaz & Razavi Tosee, 2018). Then, the structures were rehabilitated with different bracing systems (eccentric and concentric inverted-V) and, again, their damage under earthquakes were evaluated and compared with those of moment resisting frames. The pushover analysis results while mid and high-rise buildings with shear Lateral force CBF is 0.91 %, whereas EBF is 2.77 %, compared to MRF. Therefore, CBF has a higher elastic stiffness than EBF the bracing increase displacements for CBF 70 % and EBF 77% compared to MRF because EBF bracing, decreases the displacements of the structural floors considerably therefore it can be said that the EBF bracings provides more lateral hardness for steel structures in comparison to the CBF bracings. The maximum inter-story drift CBF 85% while for EBF is 86% for e = 0.50 m Therefore, EBF is more ductile than CBF ,The weight difference is 1.530%for CBF and 3.20 %for EBF compared to MRF Therefore, EBF has a higher weight than CBF the weights of the intended frames There is a little difference in the weight of the intended frames but the difference between their seismic performances under nonlinear static and dynamic We concluded that the use of response-based damage models can be a suitable procedure for estimating the vulnerability of steel structures rehabilitated with bracing system.","\u003Cp>Earthquake is a natural disaster that often occurs in Indonesia, so that throughout buildings must be designed according to earthquake regulations SNI 1726:2019 Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings is one of the most effective ways to reduce damages under destructive Earthquakes. The use of bracings is one of techniques for seismic rehabilitation of steel structures. In this study we aimed to investigate the seismic performance of three CBF, EBF frame steel structures with moment-resisting frames designed three dimensionally in ETABS 2020 application. Their damage under five. The height of the building is based on the maximum limit according to SNI 1726:2012 table 9 and article 7.2.5.4. Based on these limitations, a height of 12 floors (48meters) and 8 floors (45.9 meters) in this study. Previous research has shown it does ground motions was evaluated using response-based damage model proposed by (Karsaz & Razavi Tosee, 2018). Then, the structures were rehabilitated with different bracing systems (eccentric and concentric inverted-V) and, again, their damage under earthquakes were evaluated and compared with those of moment resisting frames. The pushover analysis results while mid and high-rise buildings with shear Lateral force CBF is 0.91 %, whereas EBF is 2.77 %, compared to MRF. Therefore, CBF has a higher elastic stiffness than EBF the bracing increase displacements for CBF 70 % and EBF 77% compared to MRF because EBF bracing, decreases the displacements of the structural floors considerably therefore it can be said that the EBF bracings provides more lateral hardness for steel structures in comparison to the CBF bracings. The maximum inter-story drift CBF 85% while for EBF is 86% for e = 0.50 m Therefore, EBF is more ductile than CBF ,The weight difference is 1.530%for CBF and 3.20 %for EBF compared to MRF Therefore, EBF has a higher weight than CBF the weights of the intended frames There is a little difference in the weight of the intended frames but the difference between their seismic performances under nonlinear static and dynamic We concluded that the use of response-based damage models can be a suitable procedure for estimating the vulnerability of steel structures rehabilitated with bracing system.\u003C\u002Fp>","https:\u002F\u002Frepository.polinema.ac.id\u002Fcollection\u002Fdetail?id=dspace000002300&year=2023&title=comparison-between-concentric-bracing-frame-and-eccentric-bracing-frames-in-earthquake-resistant-high-rise-building"]