See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326246513

Journal of Structural Engineering and Management Comparative Study on

Damper and Shear Wall in Earthquake Analysis for Multi-storey Structure

Article · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 57

3 authors:

Simran Pathan Deepak Nathuji Kakade

SRM Institute of Science and Technology P.E.S College Of Engineering
12 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abhijeet Wadekar
P.E.S College Of Engineering
34 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Corbels View project

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HIGH STRENGTH FIBRE REINFORCED CONCRETE FOR DIFFERENT GRADES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deepak Nathuji Kakade on 12 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Structural Engineering and Management
ISSN: 2393-8773 (Online)
Volume 4, Issue 2
www.stmjournals.com

Comparative Study on Damper and Shear Wall in

Earthquake Analysis for Multi-storey Structure
S.S. Pathan*, D.N. Kakade, A.P. Wadekar
Department of Civil Engineering, P.E.S. College of Engineering, Nagsenvan, Aurangabad,
Maharashtra, India

Abstract
The earthquake is the one of the most devastating natural hazards that causes serious Structural
damage and also great loss of life. Structural irregularities or asymmetrical plan are commonly
found in constructions and structure due to the architectural demand .this research work
focused on symmetric and asymmetric multi-storey building under the action of earthquake with
and without damper and shear wall. The load combination given in IS-1893-2002 (Part-1.). The
performance in symmetrical and asymmetrical structure to be checked by response spectrum
method by using E-TABS software.

Keywords: Earthquake analysis, Damper, shear wall, E-TABS

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: shakerpathan19@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION chassis of the car. When seismic energy is

General
The most recent earthquake has shown that
irregular distribution of mass, stiffness and
strength may cause serious damage in structure.
Nowadays, development in material qualities
and design technology in construction field
become more light or poor. The type of
structure located in area where the earthquake
or wind acting on the structure due to result of
serious structural damage.
In asymmetric building torsion is form due to
eccentricity between centre of mass and centre
of rigidity due to effect in beam, and column.
The torsion in beam and column increase that
effect in area of steel increase.
Earthquake load are considered using provision
made by the Indian standard code IS 1893–
2002(Part-I) [1]. Building section and shear
wall section are designed by IS 456:2000 [2].
Ductile Detailing Code IS 13920-1993 [3].
Seismic Dampers
Seismic damage in buildings and improving
their seismic performance is by installing
seismic dampers in place of structural elements,
such as diagonal braces. These dampers act like
the hydraulic shock absorbers in cars—much of
the sudden jerks are absorbed in the hydraulic
fluids and only little is transmitted above to the
transmitted through them, dampers absorb part
of it, and thus damp the motion of the building
[4-5].
Shear Wall
Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings often have
vertical plate like RC wall called shear wall.
These wall generally start at foundation level
and are the continuous the throughout the
building height. Their thickness can be low as
400 mm in high-rise building. Shear wall like
vertically oriented beam that carry earthquake
loads downward to the foundation.
Response spectrum Analysis
This approach permits the multiple mode of
response of a building to be taken into account.
This is required in many building codes for all
except for very simple or very complex
structures. The structural response can be
defined as a combination of many modes.
Computer analysis can be used to determine
these modes for a structure. For each mode, a
response is obtained from the design spectrum,
corresponding to the modal.
Frequency and the modal mass and then they
are combined to estimate the total response of
the structure. In this, the magnitude of forces in
all directions is calculated and then effects on
the building are observed.

JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 13
Comparative Study on Damper and Shear Wall in Earthquake Analysi Pathan et al.

BUILDING DETAIL Table 2: Structural Data.

Consider 12 story RCC building and the No. of Story 2
asymmetric building such as C and T shape Ground Story height 2m
building. The analysis is done by using the E- Floor to Floor height 3m
TABS Software. In this damper replace by Slab thickness 150 mm
External Wall 230 mm
shear wall consider with and without area of
Internal Wall 150 mm
steel in beam. In this all beam of same
Beam 300  600
orientation from 1st to last floor consider (Table
Column 300  1200
1-3) and Figure (1-12). Live Load 3 kN/m2
Floor Finish 1 kN/m2
Table 1: Design Data for Friction Damper. Grade of Concrete M20
Parameter Properties Grade of Steel Fe415
Link/Support type Plastic (Wen)
Mass 0.435 Table 3: Shear Wall Data.
Weight 4.26 kN/m Shear Wall Specification Sizes
Yielding exponent 10 Design of shear wall General R/F
Thickness of shear wall 200 mm
Post yield Strength ratio 0.0001
Corner bar size 12 mm
Yield Strength 1560 kN General bar size 8 mm
Effective Stiffness 1218269 N/mm Spacing between bar 250 mm

Fig. 1: C-Shape Plan.

Fig. 2: C-Shape Plan with Damper.

JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 14
Journal of Structural Engineering and Management
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2393-8773 (Online)

Fig. 3: C-Shape Plan with Shear Wall.

Fig. 4: 3D view of C-Shape Fig. 5: 3D view of C-Shape Fig. 6: 3D view of C-Shape

Plan. Plan with Damper. Plan with Shear Wall.

Fig. 7: T-Shape Plan.

JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 15
Comparative Study on Damper and Shear Wall in Earthquake Analysi Pathan et al.

Fig. 8: T-Shape Plan with Damper.

Fig. 9: T-Shape Plan with Shear Wall.

Fig. 10: 3D view of T-Shape Fig. 11: 3D view of T-Shape Fig. 12: 3D view of T-Shape
Plan. Plan with Damper. Plan with Shear Wall.

JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 16
Journal of Structural Engineering and Management
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2393-8773 (Online)

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 4: Comparison of Ast in mm2 for Beam B-10.
No. of floor Ast Top Ast Top with Damper Ast Top with Shear Wall
1 563 520 520
2 1093 520 520
3 1294 520 520
4 1370 520 520
5 1373 520 520
6 1328 520 520
7 1244 520 520
8 1126 520 520
9 981 520 520
10 816 520 520
11 655 520 520
12 520 520 520

Table 5: Comparison of Ast in mm2 for Beam B-10.

No. of floor Ast Bottom Ast Bottom with Damper Ast Bottom with Shear Wall
1 520 520 520
2 752 520 520
3 880 520 520
4 909 520 520
5 880 520 520
6 815 520 520
7 724 520 520
8 608 520 520
9 520 520 520
10 520 520 520
11 520 520 520
12 520 520 520
Table 6: Comparison of Ast in mm2 for Beam B-22.
No. of floor Ast Top Ast Top with Damper Ast Top with Shear Wall
1 1095 521 520
2 1320 678 521
3 1293 763 648
4 1227 826 729
5 1153 852 779
6 1062 848 801
7 951 817 799
8 816 763 776
9 655 692 739
10 520 606 689
11 520 528 665
12 520 520 520

Table 7: Comparison of Ast in mm2 for Beam B-22.

No. of floor Ast Bottom Ast Bottom with Damper Ast Bottom with Shear Wall
1 959 520 520
2 1078 520 520
3 1037 520 520
4 984 571 520
5 918 592 520
6 836 590 520
7 734 563 520
8 608 520 520
9 520 520 520
10 520 520 520
11 520 520 520
12 520 520 520

JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 17
Comparative Study on Damper and Shear Wall in Earthquake Analysi Pathan et al.

Table 8: Comparison of Ast in mm2 for Beam B-10.

No. of Floor Ast Top Ast Top with Damper Ast Top with Shear Wall
1 766 466 466
2 1577 510 466
3 1704 466 466
4 1705 466 466
5 1655 466 466
6 1582 466 466
7 1471 466 466
8 1329 466 466
9 1167 466 466
10 983 466 466
11 794 466 466
12 607 466 466

Table 9: Comparison of Ast in mm2 for Beam B-10.

No. of floor Ast Bottom Ast Bottom with Damper Ast Bottom with Shear Wall
1 577 466 466
2 1176 466 466
3 1288 466 466
4 1245 466 466
5 1142 466 466
6 1021 466 466
7 893 466 466
8 758 466 466
9 610 466 466
10 492 466 466
11 466 466 466
12 466 466 466

Table 10: Comparison of Ast in mm2 for beam B-19.

No. of floor Ast Top Ast Top with Damper Ast Top with Shear Wall
1 779 466 466
2 1075 604 607
3 1132 728 799
4 1151 840 990
5 1147 921 892
6 1118 974 731
7 1063 998 799
8 981 997 831
9 873 975 845
10 739 935 844
11 589 900 844
12 466 576 546

Table 11: Comparison of Ast in mm2 for Beam B-19.

No. of floor Ast Bottom Ast Bottom with Damper Ast Bottom with Shear Wall
1 691 466 466
2 768 466 466
3 833 466 515
4 857 578 681
5 861 663 596
6 840 719 466
7 795 748 495
8 724 752 522
9 627 735 533
10 504 701 530
11 466 673 531
12 466 466 466

Tables 4, 5, 6, 7 for C-shape and 8, 9, 10, 11 for T-shape.

JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 18
Journal of Structural Engineering and Management
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2393-8773 (Online)

Fig. 13: Beam B-10 Ast in Top.

Fig. 14: Beam B-10 Ast in Bottom.

Fig. 15: Beam B-22 Ast in Top.

Fig. 16: Beam B-22 Ast in Bottom.

JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 19
Comparative Study on Damper and Shear Wall in Earthquake Analysi Pathan et al.

Fig. 17: Beam B-10 Ast in Top.

Fig. 18: Beam B-10 Ast in Bottom.

Fig. 19: Beam B-19 Ast in Top.

Fig. 20: Beam B-19 Ast in Bottom.

JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 20
 Journal of Structural Engineering and Management
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2393-8773 (Online)
1. In C-shape plan, beam B-10 is an exterior
beam with span of 5 m; from Figures 13 and
14, it concludes that in area of steel top and
bottom reduce by using damper and shear
wall.
2. In C-shape plan, beam B-22 is an interior
beam with span of 4 m; from Figures 15 and
16, it concludes that in area of steel top and
bottom reduce by using damper and shear
wall.
3. In T-shape plan, beam B-10 is an exterior
beam with span of 5 m; from Figures 17 and
18, it concludes that in area of steel top and
bottom reduce by using damper and shear
wall.
4. In T-shape plan, beam B-19 is an interior
beam with span of 4 m; from Figures 19 and
20, it concludes that in area of steel top and
bottom reduce by using damper and shear
wall.
CONCLUSION
Thus, it can be said that the area of steel in top
and bottom reduce by using damper and shear
wall. The performance of damper is less varies
as compare to shear wall. In asymmetric
building the using damper and shear wall
performance well in earthquake analysis.
JoSEM (2017) 13-21 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved
View publication stats
REFERENCES
1. IS-1893 (Part-1): 2002. Indian standard
code for Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures.
2. IS456-2000. Indian Standard Code for
Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code for
Practice.
3. IS13920-1993. Indian Standard for Ductile
Design and Detailing of Reinforced
Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic
Forces–Code for Practice.
4. Abijitsinh Parmar, Vidhi Patel. Seismic
Response Control of Asymmetric Building
Using Viscous Damper. IJCIET. 2014; 5:
267–276p.
5. Sandesh. Torsional Behaviour of
Asymmetrical Building in plan Under
Seismic Forces. IJEERT. 2014; 2: pp. 170–
176p.
Cite this Article
S.S. Pathan, D.N. Kakade, A.P.
Wadekar. Comparative Study on Damper
and Shear Wall in Earthquake Analysis
for Multi-storey Structure. Journal of
Structural Engineering and
Management. 2017; 4(2): 13–21p.
Page 21