You are on page 1of 85

Submitted by

CHIRAG DILIPKUMAR JAIN(C1552003)

Supervisor : Dr. TANUJA P BANDIVADEKAR

Structural Engineering Department,


Sardar Patel College of Engineering, Mumbai
Year 2017-2018 Date: 15/05/2018
Introduction
 Asymmetric structures are almost unavoidable in present day construction due to the
functional and architectural requirements.
 In Asymmetric structures, the lateral Torsional coupling due to eccentricity between Centre
of Mass (CM) and Centre of Rigidity (CR) generates Torsional vibration even under purely
translational ground shaking.
 During shaking inertia forces act through the centre of mass (CM) and the resistive forces
act through the centre of rigidity (CR) due to this non-concurrency of these points inertial
force and resistive force induces twisting of the structure in additional to the lateral
vibration.
TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY

 In torsionally irregular buildings, when


the ration of maximum horizontal
displacement at one end and the
minimum horizontal displacement at the
other end is,
i. In the range 1.5-2.0,
(a) the building configuration shall be
revised to ensure that the natural period
of the fundamental torsion mode of
oscillation shall be smaller than those of
the first two translation modes along
each of the principal plan directions,
(b) three dimensional dynamic analysis
method shall be adopted, &
ii. More than 2.0, the building
configuration shall be revised.
FLUID VISOCUS DAMPER :
 In fluid viscous damper the energy is absorbed by a viscous fluid compressed by a
piston in a cylinder.
 Shock-absorbers in car are the type of fluid damper.
Experimental Study on Torsional Response Control of Frame-shear
Wall Eccentric Structure Using MR Dampers
Xiu Ling Li and Hong Nan Li
 Magneto rheological (MR) damper are applied to reduce the response of the asymmetric
buildings in this paper.

 The shaking table experiment of one 3-floor frame-shear wall eccentric structure with and
without MR dampers is implemented by using rapid control prototyping (RCP) technology
(Li, 2005).

 The experimental results show that the coupled translation and torsion response is
significantly mitigated, and the location of the MR dampers has an important effect on the
control results.
Conclusion:

 The results show reasonably good agreement between the simulation results and the measured
data.

 The experimental results show that the coupled translation and torsion response is significantly
mitigated, and the location of the MR dampers has an important effect on the control results.

 MR dampers were used in conjunction with a modified clipped-optimal control strategy to


control the torsional response of a 3-storey reinforced concrete frame-shear wall structure.

 It is found that the coupled translation and torsion response is significantly mitigated with MR
dampers under different earthquake excitations.
Study On Performance Of Regular And Vertically Irregular
Structure With Dampers, Shear Wall And Infill Wall
Chaitra H N, Dr B Shivakumara Swamy
The study one model of regular structure and one model of vertical irregular structure of G+9 storey is
considered.
•The analysis is carried out by using FE package of ETABS software by equivalent static method and time
history method.
•For equivalent static analysis zone V is considered and the Bhuj time history record is taken for the time history
analysis.
•The results of various parameters like time period, storey displacement, and storey stiffness are obtained and the
graphs are plotted
•The models are provided with different seismic resisting systems such as dampers, shear wall, infill wall and the
enhancement in the seismic performance is studied.
3d plan of Regular frames and Irregular Frame respectively

3d plan of Regular frames and Irregular Frame respectively with


Dampers
3d plan of Regular frames and Irregular Frame respectively with shear
walls

3d plan of Regular frames and Irregular Frame respectively with infill walls
CONCLUSION:
The conclusions obtained from the analysis and results of the present study can be
summed up as follows:
 The time period and storey displacement was found to be reduced as compared to that of bare frame with the addition

of dampers, shear wall and infill wall.

 The storey stiffness was found to be increased as compared to that of bare frame with the addition of dampers, shear

wall, infill wall.

 The time period, storey displacement and was found to be more in case of regular structure as compared to that of

structural model with vertical irregularity.

 The structural models with vertical irregularity provided with shear wall gave better performance in increasing the

stiffness of the structure.

 The seismic response of the regular structure is better in comparison with that of irregular structure because of the

discontinuities along the height of building.


A Study of Plan Irregularity Inducing Accidental Torsional
Moment of Multi Story Building using Staad Pro
Subodh.S.Patil and Shrinivas.R. Suryawanshi
• Present study the seismic load analysis and lateral load analysis as per the seismic code IS 1893 (Part
1): 2002 are carried out.
• For Two Buildings, one is L-Shape and other T-shape asymmetric in plan for building height G+20
and G+22 for comparison criteria is that numbers of columns are kept same for all three buildings and
an effort is made to study the effect of seismic loads on them also determine torsional moments, base
shear, displacement and time period by using response spectrum method.
• Problem statement –A G+20 and G+24 storied bare RC Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame has plan as
shown in fig. is situated in seismic zone III
• A) T-shape Building
In X-direction-6 Bays@30m , In Z-direction- 6Bays@30m
• B) L-shape Building
In X-direction- 6Bays@30m , In Z-direction- 8Bays@40m
• Beam size - 0.23m x 0.45m , Column size - 0.23m x 0.45m , Thickness of slab- 150mm , Height of
storied – 3m , Plinth height above GL – 1.5m , Unit weight of concrete – 25kN/m3 , Live load –
3kN/m3 , Grade of concrete – M20 , Grade of Steel – Fe415
Conclusions:
In this paper modeling of multistoried building with plan irregularity is done. In accordance with IS1893-
2002 for simulation purpose finite element analysis Stadd-Pro V 8i is used following conclusions are
formed after studying T-shape and L-shape Building with variation of height.

• Increase in height of L-shape & T-shape building directly increase in relative displacement & stress at re-entrant
corners

• Architectural Relief is given for L-Shape building relatively considerable decrease in displacement and stresses at re-
entrant corners.

• A T-shape building with shear wall and without shear wall is analyzed and the stress developed at re-entrant corners
is uniform.

• From above the Observation, it is concluded that Architectural Relief is the better solution on the re-entrant corner on
which maximum earthquake damage is done.
Study of Torsional Irregularity in Irregular Structure
Provided with Lead Rubber Bearing Isolator
Nandini .K.G, Pranathi Reddy.B

•To find out the response of a RC frame structure i.e., displacement, base

shear, storey drift, mode shapes and torsional irregularities by dynamic

using software ETABS 2015.

•Response spectrum method is carried out as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.

•All the models are studied and analyzed using response spectrum

method.
Conclusion:
 Displacement Increases in the LRB base compared to Fixed Base for response spectrum analysis and
for earthquake analysis the displacement in the LRB base increases at the middle but only 1%
reduction of displacement is shown in the storey 10 compared to fixed base.
 Base shear and Storey Drift has been reduced in the LRB base isolator model compared to the fixed
base model.
 Torsional irregularity exists in the X-dir when the column size reduces in the fixed and LRB base
model.
Seismic Effect of Re-entrant and Torsional Irregularities On Multi-
Storey Buildings
Lohith Kumar B C, Batu Abera Areda, Dereje Tolosa, Gangadhar N

•Seismic induced torsion in asymmetric RC buildings has been studied for various parameters.

•Equivalent Lateral Force Method (ELF) adopted to study the induced torsion as per IS 1893(Part 1):

2002 codal provisions.

•ETABS v9.5.software package is used to carry all the static and dynamic analysis.

•Since the present study is devoted for the investigation of Torsional behavior of asymmetric

structures, in order to capture exact three dimensional behavior, all the analysis are performed on

complete three dimensional models of the structures.


Re-entrant corners Irregularity
In this irregularity the changes with respect to Regular
building is that the one grid has been deleted in order to
make it re-entrant according to the IS code with respect to
the regular building as per IS 1893-2002 part I.

ETABS model screen shot of a re-entrant corners irregular 10


storied building

Torsion Irregularity
In this irregularity the changes with respect to Regular
building is that the live load has been increased by one
grid throughout the building with respect to other grids
to create torsion irregularity compared to regular
building as per IS 1893-2002 part I.

ETABS model screen shot of a Torsional irregular 10 storied


building
Conclusion:
From the study on Re-entrant corner irregularity following are concluded:
•The Torsional moments, fundamental period & base shear increases with the increase in the height of a
regular building.
•Torsional moments are high in a 20 storied building compared to a 10 or 15 storied building.
•The effect of variation in the Base shear is high in 15 storied building compared to a 10 or a 20 storied
building in soil type 2 in all zones.
•The effect of variation in the fundamental time period is high in a 10 storied building compared to a 15 or
a 20 storied building.
From the study on Torsion irregularity following are concluded:
•The Torsional moments, fundamental period & base shear increases with the increase in the height of a
regular building.
•Torsional moments are high in 10 to 20 storied building in all seismic zones & all soil types.
•Base shear varies linearly from 10 to 20 storied building in all seismic zones & all soil types.
•The effect of variation in the fundamental time period is high in a 10 storied building compared to a 15 or a
20 storied building.
Objective of work:

 To find out the Torsional response of a Irregular RC frame structure (G+25


approx.) i.e., displacement, base shear, storey drift and mode shapes by dynamic
analysis using software ETABS on Torsional Irregular Structures

Apply of Dampers (Visco-Elastic Linear/ Friction) on Torsional Irregular


Structures on different locations.

Comparing the effects of dampers with bare irregular RC frame model.

Checking the effects and finding the optimum location of Damper .


REFERENCES
•Xiu Ling Li and Hong Nan Li (2006) - Experimental Study on Torsional Response Control of
Frame-shear Wall Eccentric Structure Using MR Dampers – ACSE.

•Chaitra H N, Dr B Shivakumara Swamy (Oct 2016) - Study on Performance of Regular and


Vertically Irregular Structure With Dampers, Shear Wall and Infill Wall – IRJET - International
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume: 03, Issue: 10.

•Subodh.S.Patil and Shrinivas.R. Suryawanshi (May 2016) - A Study of Plan Irregularity


Inducing Accidental Torsional Moment of Multi Story Building using Stadd Pro – IJCET -
International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Volume: 06, Issue: 03.

•Nandini .K.G, Pranathi Reddy.B (June 2017) - Study of Torsional Irregularity in Irregular
Structure Provided with Lead Rubber Bearing Isolator – IJESC - International Journal of
Engineering Science and Computing, Volume: 07, Issue: 06.

•Lohith Kumar B C, Batu Abera Areda, Dereje Tolosa, Gangadhar N (April 2017) - Seismic Effect of
Re-entrant and Torsional Irregularities On Multi-Storey Buildings – IRJET - International
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume: 04, Issue: 04.
Analysis of G+35 Storey RCC Building using Viscoelastic Damper on
ETABS.
Devang B. Lad, Ashish K. Sanghavi, Komal M. Panchal,PrashantR.Barbude.

•This paper discusses the reduction in response of a G+35 RCC


building located in Mumbai when Viscoelastic dampers are used
considering seismic loading and wind loading (including gust
factor).
•Best type of bracing configuration, its location and comparison
of three different type of dampers is studied.
•The analysis is done on ETABS 2015 and special emphasis is
laid on reduction of displacement and storey drift.
CONCLUSION:

•The results of this investigation shows that, response of structure can be reduced to considerable (20-25%)
amount by installation of Viscoelastic dampers.
•Properties of dampers i.e. stiffness and damping coefficient are highly sensitive to temperature changes but
comparatively less sensitive to frequency change. Bracing plays an important role in reducing difference in
efficiency of damper due to changes in temperature. Also properties of dampers are inversely proportional to
temperature i.e. lower the temperature higher will be the damper properties.
•Compare to reduction in displacement, reduction in storey drifts and acceleration is more which indicates that
dampers are prominently effective in reducing storey acceleration and storey drift than storey displacement.
•To reduce Wind Deflection, Stiffness Property of Damper is Important & to reduce Earthquake Deflection,
Damping Property of Damper is Important
•Increase in stiffness of building causes increase in earthquake forces acting on building.
Analysis of G+42 R.C.C Structure Using Viscoelastic Damper
Javed Shaikh, Girish Joshi
•This paper describes the seismic and wind analysis of an R.C.C
high rise structure with added Viscoelastic dampers.
•It shows the results of the seismic and wind response of an
R.C.C (G+42) storey structure with and without the use of
Viscoelastic dampers. When passive energy dissipating devices
such as Viscoelastic damper is provided to the structure, the
seismic forces such as absolute displacement, absolute
acceleration, storey drifts are considerably reduced.
•It also shows the comparison of Viscoelastic damper with
different stiffness and damping coefficient values. Analysis is
carried out using ETABS.
CONCLUSION:

The results show that, response of the structure can be greatly reduced by using Viscoelastic
dampers.
•Properties of dampers i.e. stiffness and damping coefficient are highly sensitive to temperature
changes but comparatively less
sensitive to frequency change.
•The best suited position for damper placement is at the point of maximum inter-storey drift than
at the point of maximum absolute displacement.
•The base shear of the structure reduces considerably by using Viscoelastic dampers.
•Instead of providing dampers to all over the structure we can obtain overall reduction in
displacement of the structure by providing dampers at point of maximum inter-storey drift.
Performance of High Rise Structure with Dampers at Different Location.
Ankit Jain, Dr. R. S. Talikoti
•Paper gives the idea about different researches carried out on
multistoried building considering various parameters.
•This study describes the results of a study on the seismic
behavior of a structure (G+7) with and without damper.
•Analysis can be carried out by using any type of finite
element software like ETABS software.
•These models was examine for different parameters like
lateral story displacement, base shear, time period and modal
shapes.
The damped and undamped frames with different
geometrical configurations viz. are taken for the study.
Model-1 building without dampers
Model-2 building with dampers at plinth
Model-3 building with dampers at storey-1
Model-4 building with dampers at storey-2
Model-5 building with dampers at storey-3
Model-6 building with dampers at storey-4
Model-7 building with dampers at storey-5
Model-8 building with dampers at storey-6
Model-9 building with dampers at storey-7
For the seismic analysis of building, the zone factor ‘Z’ is
taken as 0.16 for seismic zone III, Importance Factor ‘I’
equal to 1.
CONCLUSION:
•On the basis of present study and retained literature the following conclusion can be drawn:

• Seismic Performance of building can be improved by providing energy dissipating device (damper),
which absorb input energy during earthquake.

• With deployment of damper in the structures, base shear effectively reduce.

• Due to shear reduction one can make the structure cost effective.

• By graph, response spectrum method have been found to be useful not only for determination structural
response in a particular cases of ground motion but also as a means of investigating the general character
of earthquake ground motion.
MODELING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Fluid Viscous Damper Property(Taylor Devices) :
MODEL 1 : Rectangular Building
No. of Storey's Ground + 20 Storey + Terrace
Floor to Floor Height 3 mtr (Typical)
Loads
Dead Load Self Weight
For Typical floor
Live Load 2 Kn/m2
Super Imposed Dead Load 1.5 Kn/m2
Terrace level
Live Load 3 Kn/m2

Super Imposed Dead Load With Waterproofing 3.5 Kn/m2

Walls
Typical Floor

External Walls 230 Thk Wall With 17 Kn/m2 Density

Internal Walls 150 Thk Wall With 17 Kn/m2 Density

Terrace floor
230 Thk Wall With 1.2 Mtr of 17 kn/m2
Parapet Walls
Desnity
Seismic Code IS 1893 : 2002
Seismic Zone III
Zone Factor 0.16
Response Reduction Factor 3
Centre of Mass and Centre of Rigidity:
Torsion in Rectangular Model
VARIOUS CONFIGURATIONS OF RECTANGULAR
MODELS:

RO without Damper (REC) R1 with Damper (REC).


R2 with Damper (REC). R3 with Damper (REC).
R4 with Damper (REC).
R5 with Damper (REC).
R6 with Damper (REC). R7 with Damper (REC).
R8 with Damper (REC). R9 with Damper (REC).
Sr. Description No. of Damper
No. Used

1 R0 without Damper (REC). 0

2 R1 with Damper (REC). 11

3 R2 with Damper (REC). 22

4 R3 with Damper (REC). 21

5 R4 with Damper (REC). 42

6 R5 with Damper (REC). 21

7 R6 with Damper (REC). 11

8 R7 with Damper (REC). 12

9 R8 with Damper (REC). 12

10 R9 with Damper (REC). 12


R10 with Damper (REC).
11 R10 with Damper (REC). 18
Reduction of Torsion in Rectangular Models :

Torsion Reduction
•As the above results show, that
Total Rz No. of Reduction per
Model Rz Reduced Rz
Reduced
% Reduced
Dampers Damper increasing the number of dampers
doesn’t result in efficient
R0 0.663 0.663 0.000 0 0 0
reduction of Torsion in the
R1 0.663 0.393 0.270 40.757 11 3.705
structure.
R2 0.663 0.301 0.363 54.674 22 2.485
•By observing the above values, it
R3 0.663 0.491 0.172 25.935 21 1.235
can be stated that placement of
R4 0.663 0.378 0.285 42.989 42 1.024 dampers in model R1 is most
R5 0.663 0.419 0.244 36.776 21 1.751 efficient placement. Therefore,
R6 0.663 0.407 0.256 38.661 11 3.515 placement of dampers is very
R7 0.663 0.577 0.086 12.967 12 1.081 essential while reducing the
R8 0.663 0.443 0.220 33.203 12 2.767 torsion.
R9 0.663 0.595 0.068 10.314 12 0.859

R10 0.663 0.489 0.175 26.312 18 1.462


Time Period for Different Rectangular Models:
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Case Mode

sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec

Modal 1 2.683 2.522 2.295 2.549 2.487 2.424 2.541 2.617 2.438 2.632 2.551

Modal 2 2.394 2.247 2.202 2.358 2.341 2.305 2.220 2.262 2.335 2.474 2.349

Modal 3 1.951 1.945 1.913 2.011 2.033 1.976 1.943 1.960 1.934 2.050 1.996

Modal 4 0.939 0.846 0.752 0.860 0.801 0.801 0.870 0.946 0.840 0.980 0.912

Modal 5 0.722 0.675 0.650 0.695 0.677 0.678 0.689 0.735 0.698 0.722 0.723

Modal 6 0.553 0.553 0.554 0.567 0.574 0.561 0.559 0.566 0.549 0.571 0.570

Modal 7 0.536 0.465 0.410 0.462 0.410 0.430 0.482 0.491 0.495 0.532 0.474

Modal 8 0.369 0.332 0.318 0.334 0.318 0.326 0.342 0.378 0.356 0.353 0.355

Modal 9 0.350 0.309 0.273 0.295 0.273 0.281 0.329 0.328 0.343 0.345 0.334

Modal 10 0.274 0.263 0.264 0.268 0.249 0.267 0.265 0.264 0.276 0.267 0.266

Modal 11 0.261 0.234 0.210 0.210 0.191 0.205 0.246 0.244 0.263 0.255 0.249

Modal 12 0.215 0.205 0.195 0.198 0.171 0.200 0.211 0.219 0.218 0.212 0.215
Reduction of Time Period for Different Rectangular Model:
Time Period Reduction

Total
Mode
l
Time
Period
Reduced
Time
Time
Period
%
Reduced
No. of
Dampers
Reduction
per •After adding dampers, Time
Period Damper
Reduced Period in Rectangular Models
gets reduced by 14.461%,
R0 2.683 2.683 0.000 0 0 0

R1 2.683 2.522 0.161 6.001 11 0.546


9.132% & 6% of Model R2, R8,
R2 2.683 2.295 0.388 14.461 22 0.657 & R1 respectively.
R3 2.683 2.549 0.134 4.994 21 0.238 •But model R8 is more effective
R4 2.683 2.487 0.196 7.305 42 0.174
then model R2.
•Model R1 is more effective in
R5 2.683 2.424 0.259 9.653 21 0.460

R6 2.683 2.541 0.142 5.293 11 0.481

R7 2.683 2.617 0.066 2.460 12 0.205 reducing Torsion, since then


R8 2.683 2.438 0.245 9.132 12 0.761 reduction of Time Period in
R9 2.683 2.632 0.051 1.901 12 0.158
model R1 is also important.
R10 2.683 2.551 0.132 4.920 18 0.273
Time Period R0
3.000
R1
2.500 R2

2.000
R3
Time Period

R4
1.500
R5
1.000
R6
R7
0.500
R8
0.000 R9
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mode
R10
Base Shear for Different Rectangular Models:

R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Load
KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN

EQX 2684.3 2839.5 2761.9 2832.5 2980.6 2839.5 2761.9 2769.0 2769.0 2769.0 2811.3

EQY 1550.5 1640.2 1595.4 1636.1 1721.7 1640.2 1595.4 1599.4 1599.4 1599.4 1623.9

As Time Period decreases, Base Shear increases, but models R7,


R8, R9 specify that No. of dampers and locations, also plays the
important role in increase of Base Shear.
Base Shear (Eqx)
3050.0
R0
3000.0
R1
2950.0
R2
2900.0

Base Shear in (KN)


R3
2850.0
R4
2800.0
R5
2750.0
R6
2700.0
R7
2650.0
R8
2600.0
R9
2550.0
R10
2500.0

Base Shear (Eqy)


1750.0
R0
1700.0 R1
R2

Base Shear in (KN)


1650.0 R3
R4
1600.0 R5
R6
1550.0
R7
R8
1500.0
R9
R10
1450.0
Displacement in EQX Direction for Different Rectangular Models:
Floors R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX
Terrace 79.69 78.99 79.20 80.43 84.23 80.76 79.28 80.00 79.65 84.57 81.95
20 76.66 75.88 75.98 77.00 80.63 77.29 75.99 76.92 76.53 81.18 78.55
19 73.46 72.48 72.49 75.83 76.90 73.83 72.28 73.66 73.22 77.67 75.03
18 69.97 68.87 68.80 73.63 72.97 70.74 69.03 70.12 69.63 73.81 71.25
17 66.36 65.13 64.99 69.95 68.93 66.21 65.32 66.43 65.88 69.84 67.33
16 62.49 61.18 60.95 66.16 64.70 62.18 61.35 62.51 61.91 65.65 63.20
15 58.52 57.22 56.94 62.17 60.41 58.80 57.37 58.53 57.87 61.43 59.03
14 54.47 53.04 52.68 58.89 55.95 53.80 53.32 54.37 53.63 57.03 54.67
13 50.34 48.88 48.50 49.65 51.46 49.48 49.10 50.19 49.38 52.65 50.31
12 46.09 44.63 44.23 45.28 46.86 45.10 44.82 45.92 44.99 48.12 45.87
11 41.79 40.29 39.83 40.88 42.24 40.64 40.61 41.73 40.56 43.58 41.54
10 37.52 36.01 35.54 36.52 37.64 36.27 36.29 37.84 36.15 39.08 37.48
9 33.25 31.74 31.22 32.17 33.08 31.88 32.06 33.98 31.75 34.60 33.16
8 29.00 27.53 27.04 27.85 28.56 27.58 27.97 29.79 27.36 30.15 28.72
7 24.91 23.46 22.95 23.71 24.24 23.42 23.89 25.63 23.15 25.87 24.92
6 20.93 19.56 19.08 19.72 20.09 19.47 20.02 21.56 19.06 21.73 20.25
5 17.10 15.83 15.35 15.92 16.15 15.65 16.39 17.62 15.13 17.73 16.23
4 13.44 12.34 11.96 12.37 12.49 12.16 12.85 13.87 11.44 13.94 12.49
3 10.09 9.16 8.80 9.16 9.20 8.94 9.67 10.41 8.13 10.45 8.96
2 7.04 6.34 6.09 6.32 6.33 6.19 6.94 7.26 5.35 7.29 5.89
1 4.45 3.97 3.79 4.00 4.01 3.84 4.50 4.59 3.39 4.61 3.50
Gr 2.30 2.09 1.97 2.07 2.05 1.97 2.33 2.37 1.75 2.38 1.11
Displacement
21
20 R0

19
18 R1 As dampers are added
17
16
15
R2 in Y-direction, there is
14
13
R3 no much variation in
displacement in X
No of Floors

12 R4
11
10
9
R5 direction.
8
7 R6 Even though
6
5 R7 deflection increases
4
3 R8 by 4-5 mm.
2
1 R9
0
-10.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 R10

Displacement in X Direction for EQX case(mm)


Displacement in EQY Direction for Different Rectangular Models.
Floors R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY
Terrace 53.41 57.38 46.62 54.73 51.69 50.15 57.86 47.88 52.26 53.58 51.13
20 51.03 55.04 44.35 54.47 48.20 47.79 55.20 45.62 50.82 51.66 49.39
19 48.08 52.59 42.23 50.17 46.66 45.36 52.87 43.33 48.36 50.27 46.75
18 46.08 50.03 39.74 47.69 44.06 42.92 50.31 40.90 45.74 47.42 44.20
17 43.49 47.34 37.50 45.15 41.38 40.27 47.52 38.44 43.08 44.82 41.64
16 40.77 44.56 34.86 42.47 38.63 37.72 44.76 35.88 40.28 42.13 38.95
15 38.02 41.71 32.54 39.74 35.83 34.94 41.90 33.33 37.46 39.35 36.24
14 35.18 38.75 29.80 36.90 32.98 32.31 38.76 30.73 34.54 36.45 33.45
13 32.33 35.69 27.30 34.05 30.11 29.44 35.76 28.15 31.62 33.51 30.67
12 29.40 32.53 25.04 31.11 27.24 26.80 32.67 25.66 28.62 30.49 27.93
11 26.48 29.41 22.16 28.13 24.37 23.88 29.44 23.34 25.62 27.45 25.30
10 23.57 26.30 19.77 25.18 21.53 21.28 26.32 21.32 22.65 24.43 23.57
9 20.67 23.19 17.15 22.20 18.75 18.45 23.15 20.25 19.70 21.43 20.55
8 17.81 20.05 15.02 19.22 16.06 15.99 19.87 17.24 16.79 18.46 17.52
7 15.05 17.03 12.42 16.34 13.48 13.31 16.80 14.50 14.01 15.59 14.78
6 12.39 14.07 10.37 13.52 11.02 11.10 13.83 12.02 11.35 12.83 12.16
5 9.84 11.21 8.12 10.77 8.74 8.65 10.91 9.63 8.81 10.18 9.62
4 7.45 8.49 6.56 8.14 6.66 6.79 8.19 7.34 6.48 7.70 7.23
3 5.30 6.03 4.48 5.75 4.84 4.66 5.73 5.26 4.43 5.48 5.05
2 3.43 3.88 3.19 3.66 3.31 3.39 3.56 3.15 2.74 3.54 3.16
1 1.98 2.23 1.87 2.07 2.17 1.93 2.13 1.98 2.14 2.05 1.77
Gr 0.98 1.13 1.45 1.43 1.46 1.39 1.09 0.98 1.98 1.02 1.62
Displacement
21
20 R0
19 •Reduction of displacement in
18
17
R1
EQY Case, is maximum in R2
16 R2 model, but it is not efficient as
15
14 R3
it has 22 Dampers.
13 •As model R7 is having
12 R4
efficient reduction in
No of Floors

11
10 R5 displacement.
9
8 R6
•Model R1 which is efficient
7 in reducing Torsion,
6 R7
5 displacement in EQY-Case is
4 R8 increasing.
3
2 R9
1
0 R10
-1 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Displacement in Y Direction for EQY case (mm)


Story Drift in EQX Direction for Different Rectangular Models:
Floors R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10

EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX EQX
Terrace
0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0011
(21)
20 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014
19 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014
18 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015
17 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015
16 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
15 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014
14 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0013 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014
13 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0013 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014
12 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
11 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014
10 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014
9 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0012 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013
8 0.0012 0.0012 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0013
7 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0010 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012
6 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0011 0.0009 0.0011 0.0010
5 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0007 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009 0.0007 0.0009 0.0008
4 0.0008 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0005 0.0007 0.0006
3 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0008 0.0008 0.0006 0.0008 0.0006
2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Gr (0) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Base (-1) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Story Drift
R0
25

R1

R2
20

R3

R4
No. of Stories

15

R5

10 R6

R7

5 R8

R9
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016 0.0018
R10
Story Drift in X Direction for EQX case
Story Drift in EQY Direction for Different Rectangular Models:
Floors R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY EQY
Terrace (21) 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0006 0.0007
20 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0007 0.0009
19 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009
18 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009
17 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009
16 0.0009 0.0010 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009
15 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009 0.0011 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009
14 0.0010 0.0010 0.0008 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009
13 0.0010 0.0011 0.0008 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
12 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
11 0.0010 0.0010 0.0008 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010 0.0007 0.0010 0.0010 0.0008
10 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0011 0.0007 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
9 0.0010 0.0010 0.0008 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
8 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009
7 0.0009 0.0010 0.0007 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0010 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009
6 0.0009 0.0010 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0010 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008
5 0.0008 0.0009 0.0006 0.0009 0.0007 0.0007 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
4 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0008 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0008 0.0008 0.0007
3 0.0006 0.0007 0.0005 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007
2 0.0005 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005
1 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004
Gr (0) 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0007 0.0003 0.0005
Base (-1) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Story Drift
25
R0

R1
20
R2

R3
No. of Stories

15
R4

R5
10
R6

R7
5
R8

R9
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 R10
Story Drift in Y Direction for EQY Case
MODEL 1 : L Shaped Building
No. of Storey's Ground + 20 Storey + Terrace
Floor to Floor Height 3 mtr (Typical)
Loads
Dead Load Self Weight
For Typical floor
Live Load 2 Kn/m2
Super Imposed Dead Load 1.5 Kn/m2
Terrace level
Live Load 3 Kn/m2

Super Imposed Dead Load With Waterproofing 3.5 Kn/m2

Walls
Typical Floor

External Walls 230 Thk Wall With 17 Kn/m2 Density

Internal Walls 150 Thk Wall With 17 Kn/m2 Density

Terrace floor
230 Thk Wall With 1.2 Mtr of 17 kn/m2
Parapet Walls
Desnity
Seismic Code IS 1893 : 2002
Seismic Zone III
Zone Factor 0.16
Response Reduction Factor 3
Centre of Mass and Centre of Rigidity:
Torsion in L Shaped Model
VARIOUS CONFIGURATIONS OF L SHAPED
MODELS:

RO without Damper (L Shape). R1 with Damper (L Shape).


R2 with Damper (L Shape). R3 with Damper (L Shape).
R4 with Damper (L Shape). R5 with Damper (L Shape).
R6 with Damper (L Shape). R7 with Damper (L Shape).
R8 with Damper (L Shape). R9 with Damper (L Shape).
Sr. Description No. of Damper
No. Used

1 R0 without Damper (L Shape). 0

2 R1 with Damper (L Shape). 7

3 R2 with Damper (L Shape). 14

4 R3 with Damper (L Shape). 14

5 R4 with Damper (L Shape). 11

6 R5 with Damper (L Shape). 22

7 R6 with Damper (L Shape). 8

8 R7 with Damper (L Shape). 11

9 R8 with Damper (L Shape). 12

10 R9 with Damper (L Shape). 12

11 R10 with Damper (L Shape). 12


R8 with Damper (L Shape).
Reduction of Torsion in L Shaped Model:

Torsion Reduction
TOTAL
•As the above results show,
REDEUCED % no. of Reduction
Model RZ
RZ
Rz
Reduced dampers per damper
that increasing the number of
Reduced
dampers doesn’t result in
R0 0.503 0.503 0.000 0 0 0
efficient reduction of Torsion
R1 0.503 0.391 0.112 22.249 7 3.178
in the structure.
R2 0.503 0.370 0.133 26.500 14 1.893
•By observing the above
R3 0.503 0.360 0.143 28.486 14 2.035
values, it can be stated that
R4 0.503 0.380 0.124 24.533 11 2.230
placement of dampers in
R5 0.503 0.332 0.172 34.108 22 1.550
model R6 & R1 is most
R6 0.503 0.345 0.158 31.406 8 3.926 efficient placement. Therefore,
R7 0.503 0.455 0.049 9.674 11 0.879 placement of dampers is very
R8 0.503 0.390 0.114 22.547 12 1.879 essential while reducing the
R9 0.503 0.482 0.021 4.191 12 0.349 torsion.
R10 0.503 0.443 0.061 12.078 12 1.006
Time Period for Different L shaped Models:
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Case Mode
Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec

Modal 1 3.093 2.752 2.751 2.755 2.751 2.750 2.745 2.918 2.892 2.909 2.870

Modal 2 2.477 2.474 2.335 2.353 2.475 2.371 2.351 2.377 2.298 2.324 2.303

Modal 3 2.239 2.238 2.245 2.237 2.245 2.247 2.265 2.250 2.213 2.264 2.243

Modal 4 1.065 0.886 0.878 0.880 0.876 0.863 0.861 1.004 0.975 1.004 0.967

Modal 5 0.720 0.715 0.672 0.673 0.714 0.677 0.677 0.695 0.680 0.682 0.671

Modal 6 0.646 0.644 0.632 0.629 0.645 0.630 0.636 0.647 0.629 0.649 0.627

Modal 7 0.616 0.482 0.477 0.478 0.470 0.460 0.458 0.573 0.544 0.574 0.564

Modal 8 0.432 0.330 0.328 0.328 0.329 0.319 0.320 0.353 0.349 0.353 0.397

Modal 9 0.333 0.330 0.318 0.317 0.311 0.305 0.304 0.327 0.326 0.324 0.321

Modal 10 0.327 0.305 0.287 0.287 0.305 0.288 0.289 0.307 0.300 0.307 0.290

Modal 11 0.304 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.228 0.225 0.225 0.299 0.278 0.298 0.287

Modal 12 0.255 0.207 0.208 0.208 0.198 0.196 0.197 0.223 0.217 0.223 0.224
Reduction of Time Period for Different L Shaped Model:

Torsion Reduction •After adding dampers, Time


Period in L Shaped Models
Reduced Total Time Reduction
Time % No. of
Model
Period
time Period
Reduced dampers
per gets reduced by 11.251%,
period Reduced damper
11.090% & 11.057%, 11.025%
R0 3.093 3.093 0.000 0 0 0 of Model R6, R5, & R2, R1
R1 3.093 2.752 0.341 11.025 7 1.575 respectively.
R2
R3
3.093
3.093
2.751
2.755
0.342
0.338
11.057
10.928
14
14
0.790
0.781
•But model R1 is more
R4 3.093 2.751 0.342 11.057 11 1.005 effective then model R6.
R5 3.093 2.750 0.343 11.090 22 0.504 •Model R1 is more effective in
R6 3.093 2.745 0.348 11.251 8 1.406
R7 3.093 2.918 0.175 5.658 11 0.514
reducing Torsion, since then
R8 3.093 2.892 0.201 6.499 12 0.542 reduction of Time Period in
R9 3.093 2.909 0.184 5.949 12 0.496
model R1 is also important.
R10 3.093 2.870 0.223 7.210 12 0.601
TIME HISTORY
3.500
R0

3.000 R1

R2
2.500
TIME IN SECONDS

R3

2.000 R4

R5
1.500
R6

1.000 R7

R8
0.500

R9

0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 R10

MODE
Base Shear in L Shaped Model:
Base R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Shear kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

EQX 3639.86 3689.56 3739.25 3739.25 3717.96 3796.05 3796.05 3696.66 3717.96 3717.96 3725.06

EQY 2573.66 2608.81 2643.95 2643.95 2628.89 2684.10 2684.11 2613.83 2628.89 2628.89 2633.91

As Time Period decreases, Base Shear increases, but models R8,


R9 specify that No. of dampers and locations, also plays the
important role in increase of Base Shear.
Base Shear
R0
3850.00
R1

3800.00 R2

R3
3750.00
Base Shear in kN

R4

3700.00 R5

R6
3650.00
R7
3600.00 R8

R9
3550.00
Base Shear for EQX R10

Base Shear
R0
2700.00
R1
2680.00
R2
2660.00
2640.00 R3

Base Shear in kN
2620.00 R4

2600.00 R5
2580.00 R6
2560.00
R7
2540.00
R8
2520.00
R9
2500.00
Base Shear for EQY R10
Displacement in X Direction For EQX Case for Different L Shape Models:
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
EQX
kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN
Terrace (21) 87.48 88.22 89.50 88.26 88.53 89.53 91.37 87.98 88.61 89.54 88.65
20 83.12 83.84 85.09 83.89 84.22 85.22 86.96 83.76 84.38 85.24 84.44
19 78.69 79.47 80.70 79.56 79.79 80.76 82.38 79.31 79.92 80.72 79.99
18 74.27 75.03 76.20 75.13 75.40 76.37 77.89 74.84 75.43 76.17 75.51
17 69.74 70.48 71.59 70.59 70.84 71.78 73.19 70.27 70.85 71.52 70.91
16 65.14 65.90 66.98 66.04 66.22 67.13 68.44 65.62 66.28 66.80 66.25
15 60.46 61.20 62.21 61.36 61.50 62.37 63.57 60.91 61.55 62.00 61.52
14 55.72 59.44 57.38 56.60 56.73 57.57 58.66 56.15 56.76 57.16 56.82
13 50.94 51.67 52.56 51.85 51.90 52.70 53.68 51.41 52.00 52.34 51.99
12 46.14 46.84 47.66 47.03 47.05 47.81 48.69 46.59 47.14 47.43 47.11
11 41.34 42.00 42.75 42.20 42.19 42.91 43.68 41.85 42.27 42.51 42.24
10 36.67 37.22 37.92 37.63 37.38 38.16 38.73 37.38 37.45 37.62 37.50
9 32.30 32.51 33.10 33.08 32.86 33.54 33.81 32.92 32.81 32.86 32.98
8 28.09 28.21 28.43 28.69 28.50 29.07 29.07 28.60 28.48 28.55 28.58
7 23.94 23.97 24.08 24.36 24.22 24.67 24.44 24.32 24.19 24.26 24.28
6 19.92 19.87 19.94 20.17 20.07 20.43 20.13 20.20 20.07 20.14 20.13
5 16.04 15.94 15.98 16.17 16.10 16.36 16.12 16.23 16.13 16.18 16.15
4 12.35 12.23 12.25 12.41 12.36 12.54 12.35 12.46 12.42 12.42 12.37
3 8.93 8.78 8.78 8.90 8.90 9.02 8.88 8.96 8.95 8.94 8.92
2 5.83 5.71 5.70 5.78 5.85 5.93 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.80 5.91
1 3.16 3.14 3.14 3.20 3.17 3.20 3.14 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.23
Gr (0) 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.10 1.11 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.13
Base (-1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Displacement
21 R0
20
19 R1
As dampers are added
18
17
16
15
R2 in Y-direction, there is
R3
14
no much variation in
No. of Stories

13
12 R4
11
10
9
R5 displacement in X
8
7
6
R6

R7
direction.
5
4
3
2
R8 Even though
1
0
-1
R9
deflection increases
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 R10

Displacement in EQX Case (mm) by 2-3 mm.


Displacement in Y Direction for EQY Case for Different L Shape Models:

R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
EQY
kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN
Terrace
(21) 144.64 119.25 116.16 119.88 118.50 116.72 119.96 129.48 132.80 128.05 128.66
20 139.07 113.89 110.98 114.53 112.79 111.07 114.19 124.53 127.80 123.14 123.34
19 132.67 108.27 105.43 108.83 106.27 104.70 107.69 118.23 121.43 116.99 116.98
18 126.69 102.37 99.75 102.98 100.40 98.90 101.76 112.26 115.39 111.19 111.01
17 120.16 96.08 93.68 96.73 93.99 92.64 95.36 105.76 108.73 104.84 104.52
16 113.23 90.31 87.96 90.85 87.93 86.64 89.22 98.91 101.42 98.14 97.73
15 105.94 83.29 81.22 83.89 81.04 79.92 82.35 91.82 94.19 91.19 90.95
14 98.55 76.35 74.54 76.98 74.86 73.79 76.06 85.15 87.45 84.64 85.31
13 91.04 70.52 68.73 71.01 67.99 67.08 69.19 79.95 82.19 79.50 78.32
12 83.37 63.40 61.89 63.95 61.82 60.94 62.89 73.04 75.19 72.69 70.86
11 75.64 56.37 55.12 56.95 54.94 54.23 56.00 65.59 67.53 65.35 63.30
10 67.91 50.76 49.49 51.16 48.95 48.25 49.86 58.14 59.58 57.99 55.89
9 60.16 43.83 42.83 44.27 42.26 41.71 43.13 50.85 52.09 50.79 49.09
8 52.71 37.35 36.58 37.80 36.65 36.09 37.36 44.64 45.80 44.66 44.04
7 45.31 32.38 31.55 32.64 30.57 30.12 31.22 40.31 41.43 40.39 37.63
6 38.10 26.27 25.67 26.55 25.56 25.07 26.02 34.32 35.35 34.45 30.81
5 31.06 20.21 20.11 20.79 20.13 19.73 20.51 27.71 28.54 27.87 24.11
4 24.29 16.66 16.15 16.73 15.98 15.51 16.15 21.16 21.59 21.33 17.87
3 17.89 11.67 11.34 11.75 11.53 11.12 11.62 14.94 15.17 15.10 12.88
2 11.96 7.30 7.14 7.39 8.56 8.07 8.46 9.27 9.40 9.39 10.13
1 6.61 5.20 4.93 5.15 4.78 4.44 4.67 4.60 4.66 4.68 6.12
Gr (0) 2.30 2.07 1.92 2.02 3.50 3.14 3.32 3.77 3.82 3.85 2.18
Base (-1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Displacement
21
R0
20
19
18
R1 •Reduction of displacement in
17
16
R2 EQY Case, is maximum in R2
15
14
R3 model, but it is not efficient as
13
R4 it has 14 Dampers.
No. of Stories

12
11
10
R5
•As model R1,R6 is having
9
R6
8 efficient reduction in
7
R7
6 displacement.
•Model R1 which is efficient
5
R8
4
3
R9
2
1
in reducing Torsion also.
R10
0

-10.00-1 10.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 90.00 110.00 130.00 150.00


Displacement in EQY Case (mm)
Story Drift in EQX Direction for Different L Shaped Models:
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
EQX
kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

Terrace (21)
0.00145 0.00146 0.00147 0.00146 0.00144 0.00144 0.00147 0.00141 0.00141 0.00144 0.00141
20 0.00148 0.00146 0.00146 0.00144 0.00148 0.00149 0.00153 0.00148 0.00149 0.00151 0.00148
19 0.00148 0.00148 0.00150 0.00148 0.00146 0.00146 0.00150 0.00149 0.00150 0.00152 0.00150
18 0.00151 0.00152 0.00154 0.00151 0.00152 0.00153 0.00157 0.00153 0.00153 0.00155 0.00153
17 0.00153 0.00153 0.00154 0.00152 0.00154 0.00155 0.00158 0.00155 0.00153 0.00158 0.00156
16 0.00156 0.00157 0.00159 0.00156 0.00157 0.00159 0.00163 0.00157 0.00158 0.00160 0.00158
15 0.00158 0.00159 0.00161 0.00158 0.00159 0.00160 0.00163 0.00159 0.00160 0.00161 0.00157
14 0.00159 0.00159 0.00161 0.00159 0.00161 0.00162 0.00166 0.00158 0.00159 0.00161 0.00161
13 0.00160 0.00161 0.00164 0.00161 0.00162 0.00163 0.00166 0.00161 0.00162 0.00164 0.00163
12 0.00160 0.00161 0.00164 0.00161 0.00162 0.00163 0.00167 0.00161 0.00162 0.00164 0.00162
11 0.00159 0.00160 0.00161 0.00160 0.00161 0.00162 0.00165 0.00160 0.00161 0.00163 0.00161
10 0.00157 0.00158 0.00161 0.00158 0.00159 0.00161 0.00164 0.00158 0.00159 0.00161 0.00159
9 0.00152 0.00154 0.00156 0.00154 0.00154 0.00156 0.00158 0.00153 0.00155 0.00156 0.00153
8 0.00148 0.00149 0.00150 0.00149 0.00150 0.00152 0.00155 0.00148 0.00149 0.00150 0.00150
7 0.00141 0.00142 0.00145 0.00142 0.00143 0.00145 0.00147 0.00142 0.00143 0.00144 0.00143
6 0.00133 0.00134 0.00137 0.00135 0.00135 0.00137 0.00140 0.00134 0.00136 0.00136 0.00135
5 0.00123 0.00125 0.00127 0.00126 0.00125 0.00128 0.00130 0.00126 0.00126 0.00125 0.00126
4 0.00114 0.00115 0.00116 0.00117 0.00115 0.00118 0.00117 0.00117 0.00116 0.00116 0.00115
3 0.00103 0.00103 0.00103 0.00104 0.00102 0.00103 0.00103 0.00105 0.00105 0.00105 0.00101
2 0.00089 0.00086 0.00086 0.00086 0.00089 0.00091 0.00089 0.00090 0.00090 0.00090 0.00089
1 0.00069 0.00068 0.00068 0.00069 0.00069 0.00070 0.00069 0.00068 0.00068 0.00068 0.00070
Gr (0) 0.00037 0.00037 0.00037 0.00038 0.00037 0.00037 0.00036 0.00036 0.00036 0.00036 0.00038
Base (-1) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Story Drift
21 R0
20
19
R1
18
17
16 R2
15
No. of Stories

14 R3
13
12 R4
11
10 R5
9
8 R6
7
6 R7
5
4 R8
3
2
R9
1
0
-10.00000 0.00020 0.00040 0.00060 0.00080 0.00100 0.00120 0.00140 0.00160 0.00180 R10
Story Drift in EQX Case (mm)
Story Drift in EQY Direction for Different L Shaped Models:
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
EQY
kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

Terrace (21) 0.00186 0.00179 0.00173 0.00178 0.00191 0.00188 0.00192 0.00165 0.00167 0.00163 0.00177

20 0.00213 0.00187 0.00185 0.00190 0.00217 0.00212 0.00217 0.00210 0.00212 0.00205 0.00212
19 0.00199 0.00197 0.00189 0.00195 0.00196 0.00193 0.00198 0.00199 0.00201 0.00193 0.00199
18 0.00218 0.00210 0.00202 0.00209 0.00214 0.00209 0.00214 0.00217 0.00222 0.00212 0.00216
17 0.00231 0.00192 0.00191 0.00196 0.00202 0.00200 0.00205 0.00228 0.00244 0.00223 0.00227
16 0.00243 0.00234 0.00225 0.00232 0.00230 0.00224 0.00229 0.00236 0.00241 0.00232 0.00226
15 0.00246 0.00232 0.00223 0.00230 0.00206 0.00205 0.00210 0.00222 0.00225 0.00218 0.00188
14 0.00251 0.00194 0.00194 0.00199 0.00229 0.00224 0.00229 0.00174 0.00175 0.00172 0.00233
13 0.00255 0.00237 0.00228 0.00236 0.00206 0.00205 0.00210 0.00230 0.00233 0.00227 0.00249
12 0.00258 0.00235 0.00226 0.00233 0.00229 0.00224 0.00230 0.00248 0.00255 0.00245 0.00252
11 0.00257 0.00187 0.00188 0.00193 0.00200 0.00199 0.00205 0.00249 0.00265 0.00245 0.00247
10 0.00258 0.00231 0.00222 0.00230 0.00223 0.00218 0.00224 0.00243 0.00250 0.00240 0.00227
9 0.00249 0.00216 0.00208 0.00216 0.00187 0.00187 0.00193 0.00207 0.00210 0.00204 0.00168
8 0.00247 0.00166 0.00168 0.00172 0.00203 0.00199 0.00205 0.00144 0.00146 0.00142 0.00214
7 0.00241 0.00204 0.00196 0.00203 0.00167 0.00168 0.00173 0.00200 0.00203 0.00198 0.00227
6 0.00235 0.00192 0.00185 0.00192 0.00181 0.00178 0.00184 0.00220 0.00227 0.00219 0.00224
5 0.00226 0.00129 0.00132 0.00135 0.00139 0.00141 0.00145 0.00218 0.00232 0.00218 0.00208
4 0.00213 0.00166 0.00160 0.00166 0.00148 0.00146 0.00151 0.00207 0.00214 0.00208 0.00166
3 0.00198 0.00146 0.00140 0.00145 0.00099 0.00102 0.00105 0.00189 0.00193 0.00190 0.00092
2 0.00178 0.00070 0.00074 0.00075 0.00126 0.00121 0.00126 0.00156 0.00158 0.00157 0.00134
1 0.00144 0.00105 0.00101 0.00105 0.00095 0.00089 0.00093 0.00094 0.00095 0.00095 0.00132
Gr (0) 0.00077 0.00069 0.00064 0.00067 0.00117 0.00105 0.00111 0.00126 0.00127 0.00128 0.00073
Base (-1) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Story Drift
21
R0
20

19

18 R1
17

16 R2
15

14
R3
No. of Stories

13

12

11 R4
10

9 R5
8

6
R6
5

4 R7
3

2
R8
1

-1
R9
0.00000 0.00050 0.00100 0.00150 0.00200 0.00250
R10
Story Drift in EQY Case (mm)