ISSN (Online) 2581-9429

IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Seismic Performance of Steel Framed Building With

Mass Irregularities With The Use of Different
Combinations of Base Isolators and Dampers
Yatri K. Thakkar1 and Mrs. Noopur Shah2
Post Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering1
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering2
Sal Institute of Technology and Engineering Research, Ahmedabad, India

Abstract: This study addresses the nonlinear seismic responses of 3D Steel frame building upgraded
with a series of passive protective systems. To this, friction damper (FD) as an energy dissipation device
and lead rubber bearing (LRB), and friction pendulum bearing (FPB) base isolators are considering.
For this purpose, eight different cases are taken into account. The first case contains a ten-story steel
frame regular compare with irregular buildings (mass irregularities) as fixed-base (FB), the other four
cases are the single use of FD, LRB and FPB in such frame, and the last three cases are the combined
use of FD with LRB and FPB, Combination of isolators LRB and FPB, Combination of LRB, FPB and
FD. Above same cases are considering for fifteen story steel frame regular buildings compare with
irregular buildings (mass irregularities). Two ground motion records considering in this study by non-
linear time history analysis in ETABS.

Keywords: Seismic Performance, Non-Linear Time History Analysis, Steel Frame Building, Base
Isolators, Dampers, Mass Irregularities

I. INTRODUCTION
Civil engineering structures which are designed to resist against external forces produced by tsunamis windstorm,
hurricane, and earthquakes. Due to many injuries and severe damage to the public buildings and bridges, the earthquake
can be accepted as the most damaging disaster. The retrofitting concept is depending on increasing the stiffness and
strength of the structure. There is special requirement for the critical structures such as medical centers, power supply
stations, and transportation buildings. They have to conserve functionality and also remain fully operational even
during and just after earthquakes that can be only possible by providing seismic isolation system (SIS). SIS can be
categorized into four major groups: passive, active, semi-active, and hybrid systems. The base isolation system (BIS)
and dampers are considered as passive devices that are extremely popular among the engineers, designers and
researchers. Because they neither need to supplemental energy, nor require maintenance during the operation. [7]
In addition to the dampers, BIS also has been successfully adapted both for poorly constructed structures and newly
designed buildings in earthquake-prone regions. [17] Passive control system is generally designed to provide one or a
combination of the following functions:
1. Vertical rigidity or load capacity to support gravity loads in order to provide structural integrity (in the case of
base isolation systems)
2. Lateral flexibility to elongate the natural period of the structure (period shift effect of base isolation systems)
3. Restoring force and re-centering capability to reduce residual displacements to manageable levels
4. An energy dissipation mechanism to absorb the input energy and control the lateral deformation of flexible
elements. [17]

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1301 636

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581
2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

II. DESIGN METHODOLOGY

2.1 Heavy Floor Mass Pattern
 G+10: Uniform m heavy mass of 4 KN/m² on 4th floor and heavy mass of 5 KN/m2 on 8th floor
 G+15: Uniform heavy mass of 4KN/m2 on 6th floor and heavy mass of 5 KN/m2 on 12th floor

2.2 Base Isolation Design

2.2.1 Lead Rubber Bearing

Effective horizontal stiffness =

Design displacement =

Initial characteristics strength of lead core =

Initial post yield stiffness =

Yield displacement =

Final Characteristic strength of lead core =

Post yield stiffness =

2.2.2 Friction Pendulum Bearing

Radius of Friction pendulum =

Damping provided to system =

Horizontal stiffness for isolator =

Effective stiffness for isolator =

Vertical displacement of structure =

2.3 Damper Design

A. Friction Damper (FD)
1.3.1 Concept of Slip Load:
The friction dampers are designed not to slip during wind. During a major earthquake, they slip prior to yielding of
structural members. In general, the lower bound is about 130% of wind shear and the upper bound is 75% of the shear
at which the members will yield. As seen in the diagram for Response versus Slip Load, if the slip load is very low or
very high, the response is very high.
Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1301 637
www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581
2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Figure: Response vs slip load

The range of slip load can be estimated from the static
static analysis of the structure given the horizontal shear forces, so the
slip load in specific story can be estimated by:

2.4 Time History Analysis

The calculation of structural response as a function of time when the system is subjected to a given acceleration,
acce is
called Time History Analysis or response history analysis (THA). Two earthquake ground motions records considered
for this study. [25]
Table: Characteristics of the ground motions used
Earthquake Year Station Mw Vs30(m/s) PGA(g) PDV (cm/s)
record
Kobe-japan 1995 Abeno 6.90 256 0.38 26.11
Northridge 1994 Sylmar 6.69 251.24 0.60 50.16

III. PARAMETRIC STUDY

3.1 Modal Data And Description
 Grade of steel = FE345
 Grade of concrete = M30
 Type of Building = Commercial building
 Structural system = Special moment frame (SMF)
 Response reduction factor =5
 Importance factor = 1.2
 Zone =I
 Type of soil = Medium
 Thickness of slab = 0.125m
 Story height = 3.2m
 Height of building = 35.2m for G+10 and 51.2m for G+15
 Size of beam = ISMB350
 Size of column = ISHB450 with plate of (250mm x 10mm) for G+10 and ISHB450 with plate
of(250mm x 12mm) for G+15on both side of flanges
 Live load = 2.5 KN/m²
 Dead load = Self wei
weight of sections and slabs
 Floor finish = 1.1 KN/m²

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1301 638

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581
2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

3.2 Material Properties

 Modulus of Elasticity: E = 210000 N/mm2
 Poisson’s Ratio: μ = 0.3
 Density of Concrete = 25 KN/m³
 Density of Steel = 78.5 KN/m³
 Grade of concrete = M30
 Grade of Steel = Fe345

3.3 Modelling in ETABS:

Fig: 3D view of G+10 storied building Fig: Layout of building Fig: 3D view of G+15 storied building

3.4 LRB Properties

Table: Link Properties of LRB for ETABS
G+10 G+10 G+15 G+15
(Regular) (Irregular) (Regular) (Irregular)
Time period TD (Sec) 3 3 3 3
Seismic weight W (KN) 2076.99 2262.23 2849.17 3237.18
Displacement Do (m) 0.175 0.175 0.175 0.175
Effective stiffness (Keff) 927.77 1010.51 1272.70 1446.02
Characteristic strength QD (KN) 50.53 27.82 35.03 39.81
Elastic stiffness (K1) 7789.91 8518.61 10728.8 12189.90
Post yield stiffness (K2) 778.9 851.8 1072.8 1218.9
Yield force Fy (KN) 28.99 31.49 39.67 45.07

3.5 FPS Properties

Table: Link Properties of FPS for ETABS
G+10 G+10 G+15 G+15
(Regular) (Irregular) (Regular) (Irregular)
Time period TD (Sec) 3 3 3 3
Coefficient of friction μ 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Radius R (m) 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23
Weight w (KN) 2076.99 2262.23 2849.17 3237.18
Displacement D (m) 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
Damping β 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255
Effective stiffness (Keff) 1550.87 1689.18 2127.45 2417.17
Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1301 639
www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Elastic stiffness (K1) 47316.4 51536.47 64907.7 73747.07

Horizontal stiffness (K2) 927.77 1010.51 1446.02 1272.7

3.6 Friction Damper Properties

Table: Slip loads of FD in KN for ETABS
Slip Load (KN) G+10 (Regular) G+10 (Irregular) G+15 (Regular) G+15 (Irregular)
Ground Floor 186 208 217 223
1st Floor 185 206 216 222
2nd Floor 184 205 216 222
3rd Floor 180 203 215 221
4th Floor 174 200 213 219
5th Floor 164 194 210 216
6th Floor 149 178 190 211
7th Floor 129 164 179 202
8th Floor 103 119 167 193
9th Floor 70 68 166 183
10th Floor 29 31 156 170
11th Floor - - 137 155
12th Floor - - 114 136
13th Floor - - 89 102
14th Floor - - 59 77
15th Floor - - 21 23

IV. RESULTS

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1301 640

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Fig: Chart shows the results of Max. displacement, Max. base shear, Max. acceleration, Max. story drift for G+10
regular and irregular building with different seismic isolation systems

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1301 641

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Fig: Chart shows the results of Max. displacement, Max. base shear, Max. acceleration, Max. story drift for G+15
regular and irregular building with different seismic isolation systems

V. SUMMARY
For G+10 regular and irregular building:
 Average max. displacement increases as 57.39%, 63.34%, 57.33% in case of LRB, FPS & LRB+FPS and
decreases as 66.86%, 46.47%, 25.24%, 32.17% in case of FD, LRB+FD, FPS+FD and LRB+FPS+FD.
 Avg. max. base shear decreases as 61.4%, 41.78%, 44.83%, 31.26%, 53.09%, 36.18%, 37.90% in case of
LRB, FPS, LRB+FPS, FD, LRB+FD, FPS+FD and LRB+FPS+FD.
 Avg. max. story drift decreases as 55.58%, 40.8%, 44.11%, 53.21%, 41.52%, 47.64% in case of LRB, FPS,
LRB+FPS, FD, LRB+FD, FPS+FD and LRB+FPS+FD.
 Avg. max. acceleration decreases as 57.64%, 41.50%, 48.17%, 37.76%, 48.73%, 39.54% and 42.18% in case
of LRB, FPS, LRB+FPS, FD, LRB+FD, FPS+FD and LRB+FPS+FD.

For G+15 regular and irregular building:

 Average max. displacement increases as 59.42%, 67.23%, 61.31% in case of LRB, FPS & LRB+FPS and
decreases as 54.76%, 42.21%, 23.12%, 32.04% in case of FD, LRB+FD, FPS+FD and LRB+FPS+FD.
 Avg. max. base shear decreases as 59.6%, 40.19%, 42.63%, 30.22%, 48.03%, 34.27%, 37.20% in case of
LRB, FPS, LRB+FPS, FD, LRB+FD, FPS+FD and LRB+FPS+FD.
 Avg. max. story drift decreases as 52.28%, 40.03%, 42.19%, 48.17%, 40.16%, 46.27% in case of LRB, FPS,
LRB+FPS, FD, LRB+FD, FPS+FD and LRB+FPS+FD.
 Avg. max. acceleration decreases as 53.04%, 40.02%, 45.34%, 35.16%, 44.30%, 36.48% and 40.21%

VI. CONCLUSION
 Here the modelling of G+10and G+15 storied buildings and non-linear time history analysis carried out by
using ETABS software. In addition the study derives the seismic performance of building with the use of
different seismic protection systems. In which Base isolators designed as per UBC guidelines and Dampers
designed as per FEMA guidelines.
 The non-linear time history analysis shows that using friction dampers in structures improves the response in
terms of max. displacement, max. story drift and max. acceleration.
 Using base isolators in structure shows reduction in terms of max. base shear, max. story drift, max.
acceleration.
 But displacement is increase in case of base isolators because of minor stiffness of bearings.
 Building with friction dampers are less effective in base shear due to increase of mass & stiffness of friction
dampers in buildings.
 By adding dampers in structure with base isolators it gives more effective response of building
Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1301 642
www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

 As per above results LRB+FD gives effective results compare to other devices.
 Use of lead rubber bearing with friction dampers proves best suited in terms of max. displacement, max. base
shear, max. acceleration, max. story drift in case of regular as well as irregular buildings.

REFERENCES
[1] “Dissipation’s Capacity Study of Lead-Rubber Bearing System in Seismic Steel Structure Design”, Springer
(2017)
[2] “Seismic Response of Friction Damped and Base isolated frames considering Serviceability limit state”,
ELSEVIER (2018)
[3] “Performance Evaluation of Moment-Resisting Steel Framed Buildings under Seismic and Blast induced
Vibrations”, Springer (2018)
[4] “Effects of Friction Pendulum Bearing Properties on Behaviour of Buildings subjected to Seismic Loads”,
ELSEVIER (2019)
[5] “Seismic Analysis of Steel Structures Using Dampers”, IOP. Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering (2020)
[6] “Effect of Lead Rubber Bearing on Seismic Response of Regular and Irregular Frames in Elevation”, Journal
of engineering science (2019)
[7] “Single and Combined use of Friction Damped and Base Isolated Systems in Ordinary Buildings”, ELSEVIER
(2020)
[8] “Comparative Study on the Seismic Behaviour of Asymmetric Steel Structure using Lateral Load Resisting
System”, IJRASET (2019)
[9] “Performance of Viscoelastic and Friction Passive Damping System in Steel Structures”, JSEJ (2015)
[10] “Time History Analysis of Base Isolated Steel Structure”, IJCE (2017)
[11] “Performance Based Design using Pall Friction Dampers an Economical Design Solution”, Vancouver,
Canada (2004)
[12] “Friction Devices for a Seismic Design of Buildings”, Canadian Conference on EarthquakeEngineering(1983)
[13] “Review on Applicability of Combinations of Dampers for Steel Frame Structure”, IRJET (2016)
[14] “Passive Controls of Civil Engineering Structures”, International Conference on Integrity, Reliability and
Failure (2013)
[15] “Characteristics and Applications of Different Types of Dampers as Seismic Energy Dissipater”, IJCSN
(2016)
[16] “Earthquake Analysis of Structure by Base Isolation Technique in SAP”, IJERA (2014)
[17] “A Critical Review on Enhancing Seismic Response of Buildings with Energy Dissipation Methods”, Journal
of structural engineering (2015)
[18] “Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation System”, Earthquake Engineering (2004)
[19] S.K Duggal, “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”
[20] Trevor E. Kelly, “Seismic Isolation for Designers and Structural Engineers” NICEE
[21] Anil K. Chopra, “Dynamics of Structures”
[22] IS 1893:2016 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
[23] UBC-97, Uniform Building Code
[24] www.nicee.org
[25] www.google.com

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1301 643

www.ijarsct.co.in