You are on page 1of 4

IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol.

4, Issue 03, 2016 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613

Comparative Study of Seismic Response of Structure with Different Base


Isolators
Yogesh P. Patel1 Prof. P. G. Patel2
1
P.G. Student 2Associate Professor
1,2
Department of Applied Mechanics
1,2
L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad
Abstract Conventional seismic design attempts to make
building that do not collapse under strong earthquake
shaking, but may sustain severe damage to non-structural
elements as well as some structural members. This may
render the building non-functional after the earthquake,
which is not acceptable for important buildings, like
hospitals. Special techniques are required to design
buildings such that they will not suffer damage even in a
severe earthquake. One of the technologies used to protect
buildings from damaging earthquake effect is Base
Isolation. The idea behind base isolation is to detach
(isolate) the building from the ground in such a way that
earthquake motions are not transmitted up through the
building, or at least greatly reduced. This paper presents the
seismic behaviour of R.C.C frame structure with different
base isolators. Two types of base isolators are considered Fig. 1: Family of Isolation Devices
namely Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) and Friction Pendulum
System (FPS). Isolators are designed for different story II. LITERATURE REVIEW
height (12 m, 24 m, 36 m, 48 m). Response quantities like A. R.S. Jangid (2002)
base shear, time period and story displacement will be
Increase the period of isolation, increases the bearing
extracted for building with fixed base and building with
isolated base by performing Response Spectrum Analysis displacement but decreases the superstructure acceleration.
(RSA) to establish their effectiveness and final conclusion The increase in the yield strength of lead-rubber bearing
will be made on the bases of study. decreases the bearing displacement but increases the
superstructure acceleration. The increase in the friction
Key words: Seismic Isolation, Comparative Study,
coefficient of sliding systems decreases the sliding
Elastomeric Bearing, Sliding System
displacement but increases the superstructure acceleration.
In general, the lead-rubber bearings and sliding systems with
I. INTRODUCTION
restoring force such as FPS perform well in comparison to
A high proportion of the earth is subjected to earthquakes other isolation systems.
and society expects that structural engineers will design our
buildings so that they can survive the effects of these B. M.K. Sharbatdar, S.R. Hoseini Vaez, G. Ghodrati Amiri
earthquakes. As for all the load cases generally encountered (2011)
in the design process, such as gravity and lateral loads, for In the vicinity of causative earthquake faults, ground
that work to meet a single basic equation motions at a particular site are significantly influenced by
CAPACITY > DEMAND the rupture mechanism and slip direction relative to the site
Generally, we know that earthquakes happen and and by the permanent ground displacement at the site
are uncontrollable. So, in that sense, we have to accept the resulting from tectonic movement. Maximum base
demand and make sure that the capacity exceeds it. The displacement can be differed up to 66% in a zone within a
earthquake causes inertia forces proportional to the product distance of about 4km from the ruptured fault. Maximum
of the building mass and the earthquake ground top floor acceleration can be differed up to 35% for the
accelerations. As the ground accelerations increases, the records of Imperial Valley.
strength of the building, the capacity, must be increased to
C. Sajal Kanti Deb (2004)
avoid structural damage.
Base isolation takes the opposite approach; it Base isolation systems can be used at soft-soil sites where
attempts to reduce the demand rather than increase the load on the isolation system and sizes of the isolation
capacity. We cannot control the earthquake itself but we can systems are sufficiently large. The resultant maximum
modify the demand it makes on the structure by preventing bearing displacement is mainly due to the normal
the motions being transmitted from the foundation into the component of the near-fault. The effect of soilstructure
structure above. interaction is small when the isolators are much more
flexible, than the soil, if not the soil may contribute to the
building behaviour.

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 788


Comparative Study of Seismic Response of Structure with Different Base Isolators
(IJSRD/Vol. 4/Issue 03/2016/214)

D. Chandak N. R. (2013) IV. DESIGN OF ISOLATORS


[4] The increase in period for structure with isolated base A complete design for base isolation should ensure that the
makes sure that the structure being completely removed isolators can support the maximum gravity service loads of
from the resonance range of the earthquake. Friction the structure throughout its life, and the isolators can
pendulum isolators (FI) has reduces further the response of provide the dual function of period shift and energy
isolated building when compared to that of the response dissipation to the isolated structure during earthquakes.
obtained with rubber bearings (RB). IS code depicting the 4 8 12 16
higher values of base shear for similar ground types defined Description Story Story Story Story
in EC-8 code which may lead to overestimate the (12 m) (24 m) (36 m) (48 m)
overturning moments and could results in heavier structural Effective Horizontal
473.12 965.12 1457.52 1944.07
members in the building. Stiffness, Keff (kN/m)
Short term Yield force,
15.61 31.84 48.08 64.13
Qd (kN)
III. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Post Yield Horizontal
398.80 813.52 1228.57 1638.70
This section presents the information for model Stiffness, kd (kN/m)
development of R.C. frame building with LRB & FPS at GF Table 2: Properties of LRB
in ETABS. The response of R.C frame building in the form 4
8 Story
12 16
of Story Displacement, Base shear and time period were Description Story Story Story
(24 m)
calculated. The method of analysis used was Response (12 m) (36 m) (48 m)
Spectrum Analysis given in IS-1893 (part-1):2002. Various Effective Horizontal
601.27 1262.07 1922.84 2583.63
results such as storey displacement, base shear and time Stiffness, Keff (kN/m)
Radius of Curvature,
period are calculated for different building height (12 m, 24 1.5 1.5 1.55 1.55
RFPS (m)
m, 36 m and 48 m).
Table 3: Properties of Fps

V. ANALYSIS RESULTS
A. Time Period

Fig. 2: Plan of Building in ETABS


Geometry of building
No of bays in X-direction (m) 4
No of bays in Y-direction (m) 4 Fig. 3: Period (Sec)
Height of building (m) 15
Typical story height (m) 3 B. Base Shear
Length of building (m) 20
Width of building (m) 20
Column Size (m x m) 0.5 x 0.5
Beam Size (m x m) 0.23 x 0.45
Length and width of one bay (m) 5
No of column in one story 25
Material Data
3 25
Density of concrete (KN/m )
2 25
Grade of concrete (N/mm )
3 20
Density of brick (KN/m )
2 415
Yield strength of steel (N/mm )
Loading Data
2 1.5
Terrace Live Load (KN/m )
2 3
Floor Live Load (KN/m )
Wall Load (KN/m) 11.73
Fig. 4: Base Shear (KN)
Table 1: Structure Configuration

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 789


Comparative Study of Seismic Response of Structure with Different Base Isolators
(IJSRD/Vol. 4/Issue 03/2016/214)

C. Story Displacement

Fig. 7:
Fig. 5: Story

Fig. 8:
Fig. 6: Story Displacement
VI. CONCLUSION
Max. Base shear reduction are 75.16 % and 77.33% in
12 m structure with FPS and LRB with respect to fixed
base structure.

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 790


Comparative Study of Seismic Response of Structure with Different Base Isolators
(IJSRD/Vol. 4/Issue 03/2016/214)

For each & every case base shear are always decreased
in both isolated structures compared to fixed base. But,
as the story height increases rate of decrease of base
shear are decreased.
Max. Increment in time period, 3.55 times & 3.93 times
are shown in 12 m structure with FPS and LRB with
respect to fixed base structure.
For each & every case time period are always increased
in both isolated structures compared to fixed base. But,
as the story height increases rate of increases of time
period are decreased.
Structure with FPS gives lower response compared to
structure with LRB in all cases.
In base isolated structure, max. displacement is
concentrated at the isolation level, thats why we get
max. drift at ground floor.
With increase in height, rigid body movement of
superstructure are not achieved in base isolated
structure

REFERENCES
[1] R.S. Jangid, Parametric Study of Base-Isolated
Structures, Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 5
No. 2, 2002, pp. 113-122.
[2] M.K. Sharbatdar, S.R. Hoseini Vaez, G. Ghodrati
Amiri, Seismic Response of Base-Isolated Structures
with LRB and FPS under near Fault Ground Motions,
The 12th East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural
Engineering and Construction, ELSEVIER, pp. 3245-
3251.
[3] Sajal Kanti Deb, Seismic Base Isolation- An
Overview, Special Section: Geotechnics and
Earthquake Hazards, Current Science, Vol. 87, No. 10,
25 November 2004, pp. 1426-1430.
[4] Chandak N. R., Effect of Base Isolation on the
Response of reinforced Concrete Building, Journal of
Civil Engineering Research 2013, Vol. 3(4), pp. 135-
142.
[5] Yeong-Bin Yang, Kuo-Chun Chang, Jong-Dar Yau
(2000), Base Isolation, Earthquake Engineering
Handbook, CRC Press, Chapter 17, pp. 17.1-17.31.

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 791