SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF BUILDING

WITH BASE ISOLATION, DAMPER AND

BRACED SYSTEM
Mohit M. Baruwala1, Prof. A. R. Darji2, Dr. Kaushal B. Parikh3
1
Post Graduate Student, Structural Engineering, GEC Dahod, Gujarat, India
2
Assistant professor, Applied Mechanics Department, GEC Dahod, Gujarat, India
3
Head of department, Applied Mechanics Department, GEC Dahod, Gujarat, India

ABSTRACT: The Need for taller structure in construction and real estate industry is
increasing all over the world. These structures are flexible and constructed as light as
possible, which have low value of damping, makes them vulnerable to unwanted vibration.
This vibration creates problem to serviceability requirement of the structure and also reduce
structural integrity with possibilities of failure. In this study reinforce concrete structures are
taken for seismic performance evaluation. This RC building is modeled with different
structural control system such as base isolator, damper and bracing with use of commercial
computer software. After that various ground motion data is applied to the building model to
evaluate structural response. Non-linear time history analysis is carried out for building model
with each control system and the result of seismic response of each of control system is
compared with other control system.

KEY WORDS: Seismic performance, structural response control system, lead rubber bearing
base isolation, fluid viscous damper, cross bracing, time history analysis

I. INTRODUCTION

For seismic design of building structures, the traditional method, i.e., strengthening the Stiffness,
strength, and ductility of the structures, has been in common use for a long time. Therefore, the
dimensions of structural members and the consumption of material are expected to be increased,
which leads to higher cost of the buildings as well as larger seismic responses due to larger
stiffness of the structures. Thus, the efficiency of the traditional method is constrained. To
overcome these disadvantages associated with the traditional method, many vibration-control
measures, called structural control, have been studied and remarkable advances in this respect
have been made over recent years. Structural Control is a diverse field of study. Structural
Control is the one of the areas of current research aims to reduce structural vibrations during
loading such as earthquakes and strong winds.
In terms of different vibration absorption methods, structural control can be classified into active
control, passive control, hybrid control, semi-active control. Base isolation is a passive vibration
control system that does not require any external power source for its operation and utilizes the
motion of the structure to develop the control forces. The application of this technology may
keep the building to remain essentially elastic and thus ensure safety during large earthquakes.
Since a base-isolated structure has fundamental frequency lower than both its fixed base
frequency and the dominant frequencies of ground motion, the first mode of vibration of isolated
structure involves deformation only in the isolation system whereas superstructure remains
almost rigid.
Viscous dampers are hydraulic devices that dissipate the kinetic energy of seismic events and
cushion the impact between structures. They are versatile and can be designed to allow free
movement as well as controlled damping of a structure to protect from wind load, thermal
motion or seismic events.
The development of bracing made the construction of the skyscraper possible. Bracings are
strong in compression. Bracing with their surrounding frames has to be considered for increase
in lateral load resisting capacity of structure. When bracings are placed in Steel frame it behaves
as diagonal compression strut and transmits compression force to another joint. Variations in the
column stiffness can influence the mode of failure and lateral stiffness of the bracing.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A) Review on base isolation

S.M. Kalantari [1] Investigated the effect of using two different types of seismic isolators in
decreasing the base shear and story shears of structure. Four structural models with 2, 5, 8 and 12
stories for three cases including fixed-base, lead-rubber isolator and friction pendulum isolator
with different stiffness have been modeled. All models have been analyzed under earthquake
characteristics of Manjil, Naghan, Tabas and Elcentro using a nonlinear finite element program.
The results indicate that by using lead-rubber isolators, maximum displacements of stories in
low-rise structures have been increased in comparison with fixed-base model. In contrast, in
majority of cases, applying the FPS isolators doesn't guarantee the displacement requirement.
Also by using isolators, number of cycles related to displacement response would be decreased
especially in models with lower stories. In short base isolated structures, the decrease in plastic
hinge formation percent of elements was much more than in fixed-base structures.

C.P. Providakis [2] Performed nonlinear time history analyses using a commercial structural
analysis software package to study the influence of isolation damping on base and superstructure
drift. Various lead-rubber bearing (LRB) isolation systems were systematically compared and
discussed for aseismic performances of two actual reinforced concrete (RC) buildings.
Parametric analysis of the buildings fitted with isolation devices was carried out to choose the
appropriate design parameters. The efficiency of providing supplemental viscous damping for
reducing the isolator displacements while keeping the substructure forces in reasonable ranges
was also investigated.

B) Review on dampers

Liya Mathew [3] studied reinforced concrete buildings with and without fluid viscous dampers.
A parametric study for finding optimum damper properties for the reinforced concrete frames
was conducted. Nonlinear time history analysis was done on a symmetrical square building.
Analysis was carried out using SAP2000 software and comparisons were shown in graphical
format.

ChaoYing lu [4] carried out case study on Pangu Plaza, located at Beijing close to 2008 Olympic
main stadium, 191 meter, 39-story steel high-rise building，was analyzed under earthquake and
wind loads by us, with both Fluid Viscous Dampers (FVD) and Buckling restrained braces (BRB
or UBB), as the seismic protection system. A repeated iteration procedure of design and analysis
was finished for the optimization. The complete seismic response on the horizontal and vertical
directions was shown the Fluid Viscous Dampers are highly effective to reduce the structural
response, as well as the secondary system response.

C) Review on bracings

A Kadid [5] had done research on the seismic behavior of RC buildings strengthened with
different types of steel braces, X-braced, inverted V braced, ZX braced, and Zipper braced. Static
nonlinear pushover analysis has been conducted to estimate the capacity of three story and six
story buildings with different brace-frame systems and different cross sections for the braces. It
was found that adding braces enhances the global capacity of the buildings in terms of strength,
deformation and ductility compared to the case with no bracing, and the X and Zipper bracing
systems performed better depending on the type and size of the cross section.

A. Ghobarah [6] studied The seismic performance of a low-rise non ductile reinforced concrete
(RC) building rehabilitated using eccentric steel bracing A three-story office building was
analyzed using various ground motion records. The effectiveness of the eccentric steel bracing in
rehabilitating the building was examined. The effect of distributing the steel bracing over the
height of the RC frame on the seismic performance of the rehabilitated building was studied. The
behavior of the non ductile RC frame members is represented by a beam–column element
capable of modeling the strength deterioration and the effect of the axial force on the yield
moment and the deformation capacities at peak strength of the members. The link behavior was
modeled using tri-linear moment and shear force representations. The performance of the
building is evaluated in terms of story drifts and damage indices.
 III. STRUCTURAL MODELING

This section presents the information for model development of R.C. frame building with LRB,
FVD and cross bracing in ETABS. Here, each control system is modeled for different stories
building such as 4 stories building, 6-stories building, 8-stories building, 10- stories building, 12-
stories building, 14-stories building, 16- stories building, 18 stories building, 20 stories building,
22 stories building, 24 stories building, 26 stories building, 28 stories building, 30 stories
building. The response of R.C frame building in the form of Story Displacement, story drift and
time period were calculated. The method of analysis used is time history analysis and EL
CENTRO earthquake data used for dynamic time history analysis.

Table 1: Building design data

Story Height 3000 mm

No. of Bays in X-Direction 4
No. of Bays in Y-Direction 4
Bay Width in X-Direction 5000 mm
Bay Width in Y-Direction 5000 mm
Column Size 560 * 560 mm2 (4 to 10 story building), 790 * 790 mm2 (12
to 20 story building) , 950*950 mm2(22 to 30 story building)
Beam Size 230 * 450 mm2
Slab Thickness 120 mm
External wall thickness 230 mm
Internal wall thickness 115 mm
Number of story 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30
Fck (Characteristic Strength of Concrete) 25 N/mm2
Fy (Yeild Strength of Steel) 415 N/mm2

Table 2: building site earthquake data

Type of Soil (as per IS 1893:2002) Rocky or hard strata ( type-1 )

Seismic Zone (as per IS 1893:2002) IV (Z = 0.24)

Importance Factor (as per IS 1893:2002) 1
Response Reduction Factor (as per IS 5
1893:2002)
The properties of the Viscous Damper are considered as provided by the manufacturing company
Taylor Device Inc.,

Damping coefficient: 770kN-s/m, Velocity exponent: 0.3

The section for mounting brace is considered as 200 X 200 X 10 mm hollow square section. The
value of stiffness is calculated as 214960.699 KN/m.

In this study cross ISMB 200 used for group-A buildings (4 story building to 10 story building),
ISMB 225 used for group-B buildings (12 story building to 20 story building), ISMB 250 used
foe group-C building (22 story building to 30 story building) section is used as brace member.
Bracings are provided at each exterior corner bay of reinforce concrete building.

Table 3: properties of LRB

Design 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
variable Story Story Story Story Story Story Story

Vertical 457686.7 457686.7 771650.6 771650.6 771650.6 957481.0 957481.0

Stiffness
(Kv)
Effective 670.93 1019.68 1367.67 1722.00 2072.23 2419.30 2754.44
Horizontal
stiffness
(Keff)
Elastic 4508.86 6852.55 9191.14 11572.31 13925.96 16258.36 18510.62
Stiffness
(Kr)
Yield 22.13 33.64 45.11 56.80 68.36 79.80 90.86
Strength
(KN)

Design 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
variable Story Story Story Story Story Story Story

Vertical 1162477.2 1162477.2 1386607.3 1386607.7 1629847.73 1629847.73 1629847.73

Stiffness
(Kv)
Effective 3084.97 3408.37 3725.29 4035.58 4339.83 4640.12 4936.38
Horizontl
stiffness
(Keff)
Elastic 20731.86 22905.20 25035.01 27120.29 29164.89 31182.93 33173.92
Stiffness
(Kr)
Yield 101.76 112.43 122.89 133.12 143.16 153.06 162.84
Strength
(KN)
 Fig.1: Plan view of building Fig.2: isometric view of building with LRB

Fig.3: isometric view of building with FVD Fig.4: isometric view of building with X bracing
 IV. ANALYSIS RESULTS

A) Time period

From graph it is shown that maximum time period of building is found at 30 story building.
The maximum time period of building with LRB, with FVD, with bracing is respectively
6.181sec,5.250sec,3.776sec

7
6
Time period (sec)

5
4 LRB
3 FVD
2
BRACINGS
1
0
story story story story story story story story story story story story story story
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Fig.5: building time period comparison

B) Building story displacement

From building story displacement table it is shown that maximum story displacement of
building is found at 30 story building. The maximum story displacement of building with
LRB, with FVD, with bracing is respectively 63.2 mm, 46.4 mm, 30 mm.

70

60
Displacement (mm)

50

40 LRB

30 FVD
BRACINGS
20

10

0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
story story story story story story story story story story story story story story

Fig.6: building story displacement comparison

C) Story drift

0.7 0.8
0.6 0.7
0.5 0.6
Drift (mm)

Drift (mm)
0.5
0.4
LRB 0.4 LRB
0.3
FVD 0.3 FVD
0.2
Bracing 0.2 BRACING
0.1 0.1
0 0

Story2
Story1

Story3
Story4
Story5
Story6
Fig.7: 4 story building drift comparison Fig.8: 6 story building drift comparison
0.7
0.6
0.5
Drift (mm)

0.4 LRB

0.3 FVD

0.2 BRACING

0.1
0
Story1 Story2 Story3 Story4 Story5 Story6 Story7 Story8

Fig.9: 8 story building drift comparison

1.2
1
0.8
Drift (mm)

0.6 LRB

0.4 FVD

0.2 BRACING

Fig.10: 10 story building drift comparison

 1.4
1.2
1
Drift (mm)

0.8
LRB
0.6
FVD
0.4
BRACING
0.2
0

Figu.11: 12 story building drift comparison

1.6
1.4
1.2
Drift (mm)

1
0.8 LRB
0.6 FVD
0.4 BRACING
0.2
0

Fig.12: 14 story building drift comparison

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Drift (mm)

1 LRB
0.8
0.6 FVD
0.4 BRACING
0.2
0

Fig.13: 16 story building drift comparison

 Drift (mm) Drift (mm) Drift (mm) Drift (mm)

0
1
2
3
4
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.5
1.5

0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2

3
Story1
Story1 Story1
Story2
Story2 Story2
Story3
Story4 Story3 Story3
Story5 Story4
Story4
Story6 Story5
Story5
Story7 Story6
Story6
Story8 Story7
Story9 Story8 Story7
Story10 Story9 Story8
Story11 Story10 Story9
Story12 Story11 Story10
Story13
Story12 Story11
Story14
Story13 Story12
Story15
Story14 Story13
Story16
Story15
Story17 Story14
Story16
Story18 Story15
Story 19 Story17
Story16
story 20 Story18
Story17

Fig.20: 24 story building drift comparison

Fig.19: 22 story building drift comparison
Fig.17: 18 story building drift comparison

Fig.18: 20 story building drift comparison

story 21 Story 19
story 22 story 20 Story18
story 23 story 21 Story 19
story 24 story 22 story 20

LRB
LRB

FVD
LRB
LRB

FVD
FVD
FVD

BRACING
BRACING
BRACING
BRACING
 Drift (mm) Drift (mm) Drift (mm)

0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5

0.5

0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3

Story1 Story1 Story1

Story2 Story2 Story2
Story3 Story3 Story3
Story4 Story4 Story4
Story5 Story5
Story6 Story5
Story6
Story7 Story6
Story7
Story8 Story7
Story8
Story9 Story8
Story10 Story9
Story10 Story9
Story11
Story11 Story10
Story12
Story13 Story12 Story11
Story14 Story13 Story12
Story15 Story14 Story13
Story16 Story15 Story14
Story17 Story16 Story15
Story18 Story17 Story16
Story 19 Story18 Story17
story 20 Story 19
story 21 Story18
story 20
story 22 Story 19
story 21

Fig.23: 30 story building drift comparison

Fig.22: 28 story building drift comparison
Fig.21: 26 story building drift comparison

story 23 story 20
story 22
story 24 story 21
story 25 story 23
story 24 story 22
story 26
story 25 story 23
story 27
story 28 story 26 story 24
story 29 story 27 story 25
story 30 story 28 story 26

LRB
LRB
LRB

FVD
FVD

FVD
BRACING
BRACING
BRACING
 V. CONCLUSION

 From analytical studies it is concluded that maximum time shifting can be

achieved building with LRB isolators when compared to FVD and bracing.
 The maximum time period achieved for 4 stories building with base isolation is of
83.47% more when compared to 4 stories building with bracing and 71.34% more
when compared 4 stories building with FVD.
 The minimum time period achieved for 30 stories building with base isolation of
38.90% more when compared to 30 stories building with bracing and 15.06%
more when compared 4 stories building with FVD.
 The higher the time period; the higher will be flexibility of building and higher
flexibility provides more seismic wave energy dissipating capacity to the
building.
 As the height of building increase the displacement is increase. All building with
control system shows maximum displacement at 30 stories building.
 At 30 stories building bracing system show 52.53% lesser displacement than
LRB isolators and it also shows 35.24% lesser displacement than FVD.
 Building with FVD shows lesser displacement of building in Y direction when
compared to displacement of building in X direction.
 The drift difference in varies stories with building with bracing is lesser and at
some stories drift are same which shows all stories moves at same level when
lateral force act on it.
 LRB isolators shows maximum drift while bracing shows minimum drift but in
high rise building above 14 story maximum drift control by FVD is more than
bracing.

VI. REFERENCES

[1] S.M. Kalantari, H. Naderpour, S.R. Hoseini Vaez, “INVESTIGATION OF BASE

ISOLATOR TYPE SELECTION ON SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURES
INCLUDING STORY DRIFTS AND PLASTIC HINGE FORMATION”, The 14th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.

[2] C.P. Providakis, “EFFECT OF LRB ISOLATORS AND SUPPLEMENTAL VISCOUS

DAMPERS ON SEISMIC ISOLATED BUILDINGS UNDER NEAR-FAULT
EXCITATIONS”, Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198.

[3] Franco Braga, Michelangelo Laterza, “FIELD TESTING OF LOW-RISE BASE

ISOLATED BUILDING”, Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1599–1610.

[4] Abdolrahim Jalali, Peyman Narjabadifam, “OPTIMUM MODAL CHARACTERISTICS

FOR MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS ISOLATED WITH LRBS”, 4th International
Conference on Earthquake Engineering Taipei, Taiwan, October 12-13, 2006.
[5] Liya Mathew, C. Prabha, “EFFECT OF FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS IN MULTI-
STOREYED BUILDINGS”, IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Engineering
& Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 9, Sep 2014.

[6] Yongqi Chen, Tiezhu Cao, Liangzhe Ma, ChaoYing lu, “SEISMIC PROTECTION
SYSTEM AND ITS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ON THE BEIJING HIGH-RISE
BUILDING PANGU PLAZA”, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.

[7] A.K. Sinha, Sharad Singh, “STRUCTURAL RESPONSE CONTROL OF RCC

MOMENT RESISTING FRAME USING FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS”, International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017.

[8] Nitendra G Mahajan, D B Raijiwala, “SEISMIC RESPONSE CONTROL OF A

BUILDING INSTALLED WITH PASSIVE DAMPERS”, International Journal of
Advanced Engineering Technology, Vol.2, Issue3, July-September, 2011.

[9] A Kadid1, D.Yahiaoui1, “SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRACED RC FRAMES”,

Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2899–2905.

[10] A. Ghobarah a, H. Abou Elfath, “REHABILITATION OF A REINFORCED

CONCRETE FRAME USING ECCENTRIC STEEL BRACING”, Engineering
Structures 23 (2001) 745–755.

[11] Amnart Khampanit , Sutat Leelataviwat , Jensak Kochanin , Pennung Warnitchai,

“ENERGY-BASED SEISMIC STRENGTHENING DESIGN OF NON-DUCTILE
REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES USING BUCKLING-RESTRAINED
BRACES”, Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 110–122.

[12] Pooja Desai, Vikhyat Katti, “BRACINGS AS LATERAL LOAD RESISTING

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM”, International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Volume.4 Issue.5, May -2017.

[13] Ramadan T, Ghobarah A, “ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR SHEAR–LINK BEHAVIOR” J

Struct Engng, ASCE 1995;121(11):1574–80.

[14] Goel, R. K, “SEISMIC RESPONSE OF LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR ASYMMETRIC

SYSTEMS WITH NONLINEAR VISCOUS DAMPERS”, Earthquake Engineering
Structural Dynamics. 34,2005.

[15] D. Lopez Garcia, T. T. Soong,” EFFICIENCY OF A SIMPLE APPROACH TO

DAMPER ALLOCATION IN MDOF STRUCTURES” Journal of Structural
Control,Vol.9 Pages 19-30, 2002 Apr.