CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL

Earthquakes are one of nature’s greatest hazards; throughout historic time they
have caused significant loss of life and severe damage to property, especially to
man-made structures. On the other hand, earthquakes provide architects and
engineers with a number of important design criteria foreign to the normal design
process. From well established procedures reviewed by many researchers, seismic
isolation may be used to provide an effective solution for a wide range of seismic
design problems.

The application of the base isolation techniques to protect structures against

damage from earthquake attacks has been considered as one of the most effective
approaches and has gained increasing acceptance during the last two decades. This
is because base isolation limits the effects of the earthquake attack, a flexible base
largely decoupling the structure from the ground motion, and the structural response
accelerations are usually less than the ground acceleration.

The purpose of earthquake prevention of buildings is to provide the structural

safety and comfort by controlling the internal forces and displacement within the
particular limits.

Using seismic isolation devices/systems to control earthquake induced vibration

of bridges and buildings is considered to be a relatively matured technology and
such devices have been installed in many structures world-wide in recent decades.
Design guidelines havebeen established and they are periodically improved as new
information based on research and/or field observations become available during
the past 20-30 years [ATC 1995;SEAONC 1986; FEMA 1997; IBC 2000; ECS
2000; AASHTO 2010, ASCE 2007, 2010].

1
1.1.1 ISSUES OF BASE ISOLATION

Seismic isolation is considered as a relatively matured technology as evidenced

by the many practical applications. These applications have been designed based on
codes and provisions that have been established incrementally over time. In the
following, seismic isolation principles are examined from a structural dynamics
perspective with an objective to suggest additional future research needs.

1.1.2 EFFECTS OF SEISMIC ISOLATION

The concept of base isolation is quite simple. The system decouples the
building or structure from the horizontal components of the ground motion by
interposing structural elements with low horizontal stiffness between the structure
and the foundation. This gives the structure a fundamental frequency that is much
lower than both its fixed-base frequency and the predominant frequencies of the
ground motion [4]. This shift of natural period causes a drop in spectral acceleration
for the typical earthquake shaking.

1.2 METHODS

The common method for protecting the structures against the destructive
effectsof earthquakes is to damp the seismic energy for limiting the seismic energy
by the structural elements, thus providing the resistance against the earthquake. In
spite of using this method for a certain level of protection, the structure could be
damaged for real sometimes.

Another method for protection of the structures against the earthquake is to

isolate the building from the ground and/or to install seismic energy dissipating
elements at the appropriate places of the building. With this method, better
protection could be provided, by designing correctly against the earthquake and
therefore significant structural damage level could be minimized.

The earthquakes have been carried on to be an important factor that threatens

2
the social and economic future of the countries, as we can observe the results of
them. Thus, it is insisted on the resolutions that minimize the seismic effects of the
buildings should demonstrate a high performance level in the expected earthquakes.
The seismic isolators and energy dissipating devices are seen to be effective
solutions within thiscontext, which are placed in the building appropriately to damp
the seismic energy or placed between the foundation and vertical structural systems
damping the seismic energy under the ground of the building, thus decreasing the
effects of lateral loads on top floors.

1.3 CONCEPTS

The first is to increase the capacity of the structures to resist the earthquake load
effects (mostly horizontal forces) or to increase the dynamic stiffness such as the
seismic energy dissipation ability by adding damping systems (both devices and/or
structural fuses).

The second concept includes seismic isolation systems to reduce the input load
effects on structures. Obviously, both concepts can be integrated to achieve an
optimaldesign of earthquake resilient structures. This chapter is focused on the
principles of seismic isolation.

It should be pointed out that from the perspective of the structural response
control community, earthquake protective systems are generally classified as
passive, active and semi-active systems. The passive control area consists of many
different categories such as energy dissipation systems, toned-mass systems and
vibration isolation systems. This chapter addresses only the passive, seismic
isolation systems [Soong and Dargush, 1997; Takewaki, 2009; Liang et al, 2011]

1.4 THE PRINCIPLE OF SEISMIC ISOLATION

Various kinds of devices are used in the buildings for the purpose of seismic
isolation. It would be useful to examine the seismic isolation in the framework of

3
the basic principles of dynamics before introducing these devices. Seismic isolation
in a building, when considered within the framework of basic principles of
dynamics, can be maintained by taking under the control, modifying and changing
the characteristics of both restoring-force when affected by seismic forces, and
damping of the building, and also the mass of the building and seismic forces that
affect the building. As it is known, the equation of motion of a building that is
subjected to the ground motion depends on mass, stiffness, and energy damping
nature of the building, as well as on external seismic forces affecting the building.
The characteristics of response forces can be controlled, by changing stiffness of the
building.. On the other hand, response of acceleration and displacement can be
decreased, by increasing the damping effect of the building. Various kinds of
dampers and their combinations can be placed in the building.

1.5 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

 To resist effect of ground motion and would not collapse during the
strong earthquake in framed structure.
 To analyze the seismic effect on base-isolated structure.
 To design earthquake resistant building.
 To study the strength and applicability of base isolated system.
 To prevention of damage of the structure.

1.6SEISMIC DEVICES

In the mid 90s, MAURER started protecting structures from seismic damage,
and has continuously expanded this field of business ever since. The significance of
these products is constantly getting more important – settlement in seismic-prone
metropolitan areas is getting denser and buildings are rising higher and higher. Our
seismic devices very efficiently prevent bridges, buildings and particularly sensitive
installations such as tanks for the storage of liquefied gas from damages. At the
same time, our devices minimize the negative effects of normal everyday strain.

4
 MAURER Seismic Devices – that means numerous technological and structural
engineering inhouse developments that effectively protect structures in the interplay
betweenforcesand movements through strengthening, isolation and/or dissipation.

MAURER - more than a supplier of Seismic Hardware:Our engineers

closely cooperate with architects and structural engineers. In this way, we jointly
develop protection systems that make functional, modern and trendsetting
architecture possible in the first place. High costs for planning, material, logistics
and construction always arise when buildings have to be conventionally stiffened
for seismic protection.

Better adjustment through higher variety of components: The more

components a planner has at his command, the better his solution can be adjusted.
MAURER offers the most comprehensive range of individual components. From
these, our specialists develop the optimal seismic device for the respective customer
requirements. Our seismic devices include:

 Restraint Systems:seismic protection through load distribution

 Isolators:seismic protection through basic isolation and energy
dissipation
 Dampers:seismic protection through energy dissipation
 Seismic Joints:seismic protection through fuse box systems

Figure.1.1 sample of base isolation and non-base isolation building

5
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL

LITERATURE REVIEW is a summary of previous research on a topic. The

literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a
particular area of research or interest. The literature review may also identify gaps
or controversies in the literature and topics needing further research.

2.2 APPLICATION OF SEISMIC ISOLATION DEVICE

Application of seismic isolation system is an existing structure

importance to protect schools was done by M.Banfi (2012). Hedescribed the
application of seismic isolation system in schools (in particular cases in Avezzano-
L’Aquila). The purpose of this paper is to shown how the solution with base
isolation system will be the more suitable in order to adapt the behavior of the
structure reducing as much as possible the structural reinforcement. From his result
the base isolation is an efficient and advanced technology for avoid any risk for
structural behavior of an existing building.

Seismic base isolation in reinforced concrete structures was done by

Diaeddinnassani and Mustafa abdulmajeed(2015). His research was in two
different types of building(symmetrical and non-symmetrical school building). In
his paper the responses of the ‘fixed base’ and ‘base isolated’ condition have been
compared by using SAP2000.His result was the drift ratio (0.0007)for the base
isolated condition while it was 0.003 for the fixed base condition. According to his
result the ‘base isolated’ reduced the base shear more than the ‘fixed base’.

6
2.3SEISMIC ISOLATION DEVICE
Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipating Systems in Earthquake
Resisting Design was done by Vancouver B.C.,(2004).Hesuggested the two
common method for protecting the structure against earthquake effects.One is damp
the seismic energy and another one is isolate the building (or) install seismic energy
dissipating element at the appropriate places of the building. He used two types of
system such as active and passive control system. From his result passive system is
effect and economical than the active control system.

Earthquake protection of building by seismic isolation devices and

concepts was done by Lonutealangi(2010). His research was about using devices
and daring methods to protect building. He dealt with the protection of building by
passive control system using seismic isolation.From his conclusion,seismic
protection of building continuously improves since its early stages.Also
architectural innovations were encouraged by the enhanced structural response
through seismic isolation.

Behavior of structure and installation technique was done by A.B.M

Saifulislam, and Mohammed jameel (2011). He addressed the detail cram on
isolation system, properties, characteristics of various device categories, recognition
along with its effect on building structure. Also he described action of base
isolation. He concluded that seismic isolation separates upper structure from base
by changing of fix joint with flexible one.

A new design procedure for seismically isolated building based on

seismic isolation codes worldwide was done by Demin FENG and Takafumi
MIYAMA (2012). Preliminary design procedure CW2012 was proposed for
seismically isolated buildings based on seismic isolation codes of Japan 2000, USA
IBC 2003,Italy 2005 etc.,. In his paper two types of design philosophy introduced

7
for seismically isolated building .One is equivalent linear analysis and time history
analysis design procedure. His result was ‘time history analysis’ method adopted to
design seismically isolated building proposed by JSSI.

A historical development and research need wasdone by Gorden P.

Warn and Keri L.Ryan(2012).Research was development of modern seismic
isolation through shake table testing of isolated buildings, and reviews of past
efforts to achieve three dimensional seismic isolation. His review was about the
current practice and past research and synthesized with recent developments from
full scale table testing. Before of his research the efforts of three dimensional
isolation have not produced viable or cost effective system.His result was the shake
table testing of base isolated building has shown that a multitude devices have been
experimentally validated to perform as intended.

Design principles of seismic isolation was done by George C.Lee and

Zach Liang (2013). There aretwo general concepts to resist earthquake is to
increase the structure capacity and to increase the dynamic stiffness. He addressed
only the passive seismic isolation system. In his research two control parameters
was determined to control the vibration. One is the natural period or effective period
and another one is effective damping ratio.

Seismic isolators and their types done by Alirezakamrava (2015)

described about what is seismic isolation, seismic isolators , their types,working,
their advantages .He explained the following most famous devices are 1.Buckling
restrained brace, 2.Fluid dampers,3.Visco-elastic dampers, 4.Friction
dampers,5.Hysteretic dampers(yielding dampers). According to him the main
advantage is most effective and suitable for low to medium rise building.

8
 Performance of variable negative stiffness MRE vibration isolation system
done by Run-pu li and Cheng-bin du(2015).They developed a variable negative
stiffness MRE isolation device by combining an improved separable iron core with
laminated MREs. The results shown that the negative stiffness produced by the
magnetic force is the major factor affecting capacity of the isolation system. From his
research compared to device of same size, the isolation system equipped with low
particle volume fraction MREs demonstrates better performance.

9
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 GENERAL
Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a
field of study.it comprises the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and
principles associated with a branch of knowledge. A methodology does not set out to
provide solutions – it is, therefore, not the same as a method.

Select project title

Literature review

Selection of zone

Data collection

Plan in 2d

Analysis of the building with

E-TAB

Calculation

Results

Conclusion

10
3.1 SELECTION OF ZONE

CHENNAI is a city with vulnerable coastlines in the country, a major part of

Chennai is seismically prone and is a `high hazard' earthquake area. According to a
recent study by Anna University, Carried out by the university's Centre for Disaster
Mitigation and Management (CDMM), the entire city was called seismic micro
zoning.Also, new buildings should incorporate appropriate foundation designs and
earthquake-resistant features.

3.1.1 ZONAL CLASSIFICATION

At present, Chennai, Coimbatore and Salem fall under Zone III of the Bureau
of Indian Standards classification. As per the CDMM's micro zonation profile, parts
of the city such as areas in and around Adyar, Guindy, Vadapalani, Nungambakkam
and Vyasarpadi may well fall within Zone IV (high to very high seismic risk).

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

Chennai has been found to have loose soil till 15 metres of depth. Though the
city is prone to quakes of the intensity of 5.8 on the Richter scale, the loose soil
leads to seismic amplification in the range of 6.3 to 7.2 on the Richter scale," says
S. Rajarathnam, Director, and CDMM, who, along with another scientist, G.P.
Ganapathy, conducted the study. The study analyses seismicity in areas with loose
soil of varying depths, ranging from zero to three meters, three to six meters, six to
nine meters, nine to twelve meters and twelve to fifteen meters.

At a depth of three meters, high seismic hazard areas were found distributed
in the north and southwest and the mouth of the Adyar in east Chennai. The
remaining areas were prone to moderate seismic hazard. At a depth of six meters,
parts of the Taramani-Tiruvanmiyur stretch and Indira Nagar fell under the `high
seismic hazard' category. In central Chennai, `highhazard' areas were found in parts
of R.A. Puram, Teynampet, Mylapore, Alwarpet, theKodambakkam-Vadapalani

11
belt, Chetpet, Egmore and the northeast of Thousand Lights. In the northwest, Anna
Nagar West and Anna Nagar East were hazard prone areas. North Chennai was
found to have the largest area of very high to high hazard prone areas in
Vyasarpadi, Basin Bridge, Kondithope and George Town.At nine meters depth, the
high seismic hazard areas became linear and narrowed down to small areas in south
Chennai, and the largest chunk was in the flood plain area. Hazard prone areas lay
in Teynampet, Alwarpet, Mylapore, Gopalapuram, Royapettah and Thousand
Lights.

At twelve-metre depth, high hazard areas were distributed in the central and
western parts of the Cooum and Adyar flood plains. At fifteen meters, high hazard
areas were in parts of West Mambalam, Nandanam, Mylapore, Saligramam and
Alwarpet.

"The hazard can be nullified if foundations for new buildings penetrate the
column of loose soil and rest on the hard rock surface below. Normally, multi-
storeyed buildings are on safer ground as the foundation goes to fifteen feet. If
medium-level buildings too have an appropriately deeper foundation, there is no
cause for worry," the scientists say.

3.3 PLAN

Figure 3.1 Plan

12
 We are considering the 2d plan will execute in Adyar in east Chennai. It is
four storey building and consist twelve columns. The area of total plan 700sqs.ft. It
consist 2BHK.

3.4 DIFFERENT FORM OF BASE ISOLATION

Many different forms of practical base isolation systems have been

developed to provide seismic protection for buildings, including laminated
elastomeric rubber bearings, lead rubber bearings, high damping rubber bearing,
and friction pendulum sliding bearing

3.4.1 LAMINATED RUBBER (ELASTOMERIC) BEARING

Laminated rubber bearings are constructed of alternating rubber layers
bonded to intermediate reinforcing plates that are typically steel as illustrated by the
schematic of a deformed bearing shown in Fig1. The total thickness of rubber
provides the low horizontal stiffness need to achieve the period shift whereas the
spacing of the steel shim plates controls the vertical stiffness of the bearing for a
given shear modulus and bonded rubber area

Figure 3.2.Schematic of a laminated rubber bearing in the laterally deformed

configuration

13
3.4.2 High Damping Rubber (HDR) Bearing
The energy dissipation in high-damping rubber bearings is achieved by
special compounding of the elastomeric. Damping ratios will generally range
between 8% and 20% of critical. The shear modulus of high-damping elastomeric
generally ranges between 0.34 MPaand 1.40 MPa. The material is nonlinear at shear
strains less than 20% and characterized by higher stiffness and damping, which
minimizes the response under wind load and low-level seismic load. Over the range
of 20-120% shear strain, the modulus is low and constant. At large shear strains, the
modulus and energy dissipation increase. This increase in stiffness and damping at
large strains can be exploited to produce a system that is stiff for small input, is
fairly linear and flexible at design level input, and can limit displacements under
unanticipated input levels that exceed design levels

Figure 3.3.High damping rubber bearing

3.4.3. LEAD RUBBER BEARING (LRB)

Lead-plug bearings are generally constructed with low-damping elastomers
and lead cores with diameters ranging 15% to 33% of the bonded diameter of the
bearing as shown in Fig3. Laminated-rubber bearings are able to supply the required
displacements for seismic isolation. By combining them with a lead-plug insert

14
which provides hysteretic energy dissipation; the damping required for a successful
seismic isolation system can be incorporated in a single compact component.

Figure 3.4.Lead Rubber Bearing

3.5 TYPES OF SEISMIC ISOLATOR DEVICES

There are two basic types of base isolator devices (elastomeric bearing and
Friction pendulum bearing systems) and some supplementary devices for them.

3.5.1ELASTOMERIC BEARINGS
These types of devices have been used, before being applied in civil
engineering, to isolate vibrating machines. In their case the vibration energy flow is
directed from the machine towards the foundation that has to be protected. The first
use of a rubber isolation system to protect a structure from earthquakes was in 1969
for an elementary school in Skopje, Yugoslavia.

Based on their main properties and compounds there are two sorts of
elastomeric bearings: Natural and Synthetic Rubber Bearings and Lead Rubber
Bearings. By using Elastomeric bearing systems the building or structure decoupled
from horizontal components of earthquake ground motion by interposing a layer
with low horizontal stiffness between the structure and the foundation.

15
3.5.1.1 NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC RUBBER BEARINGS (NRB):
As it can be seen in the Fig. 4 a), are made of alternating elastomeric layers
that are made of natural rubber or neoprene. and steel shims vulcanized or glued
together. The elastomeric layers provide lateral flexibility and elastic restoring
force. The steel plates reinforce the bearing by providing vertical load capacity and
preventing lateral bulge. A rubber cover protects the ensemble. Mounting plates
connect the device to the structure above and below. Depending on the elastomeric
compounds used, NRB are available as either low damping or high damping. The
low damping bearings are used in conjunction with supplementary damping
devices. The high damping ones are able to provide sufficient inherent damping.

Figure 3.5 Elastomeric bearings: a) Natural Rubber Bearing (NRB), b) elastomeric

bearing device, c) Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB)

3.5.2 FRICTION PENDULUM BEARING:

First use of sliding bearings dates back to antique Persia (today Iran). There
are evidences of pouring sand between the ground and the bearing walls of some
historical structures in Iran. This would create a sliding mechanism for the structure
during earthquakes4, 11Current devices are mainly based on friction between
stainless steel and Teflon®. Depending on their sliding surface geometry, two kinds
of sliding bearings are distinguished: Flat Slider Bearings and Curved Slider

16
Bearings4 Flat slider bearings take place when horizontal forces are applied and do
not have restoring ability so they use with supplementary devices that will describe
later. Curved Slide Bearings act like Flat Slider Bearings but they are little different
in section. They have spherical surface at bottom.

Figure 3.6.Friction pendulum system

Fig. 3.7Flat Friction pendulum section cut

17
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The project from begin the studies and the application of the base isolation
system in residential building in Chennai. Earthquake hazard zonation for urban
areas, mostly referredas seismic micro zonation, is the first and most important step
towards a seismic risk analysis and mitigation strategy in densely populated region.
A number of water bodies (lakes and ponds), which existed in Chennai in the early
period of this century, have been filled up with garbage and transport sand and clay
(CGWBReport, 1993). Adyar River has been transformed into a residential area.
Buildings constructed in these areas would be highly vulnerable to earthquakes.

Figure 4.1 seismic zone in south India

18
4.1 Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
A seismicity study is importance to understand the dynamic behavior of the
earth and is useful to determine the earthquake hazard in a specific region. In order
to understandthe seismicity of Chennai and its vicinity, data regarding spatial
locations of earthquakes and their magnitudes have beencollected for a period of
around 200 years (1807–2006) fromvarious sources and have been used for the
present study.For the historical earthquakes general locations are usedfor which
“generalized” epicentral co-ordinates are available.

Analysis of tectonic lineaments and faults helps in understandingthe regional

seismotectonic activity of the area. Forthe present study, seismotectonic details are
collected fromthe report published by Central Ground Water Board, Chennai.The
NE-SW trending Archaean boundary fault is located in Chennai and separates two
basins. The southern one is shallow without Gondwana sediments. The
northernbasin has extensive Gondwana sediments beneath the alluvium.

The associationof the cumulative number of epicentres of earthquakesor

higher magnitude earthquakes on the respective active lineaments/faults has also
been considered. Based onthe seismicity and seismogenic systems, 4 sources have
been delineated as potential sources for Chennai city and its vicinity of a 200 km
radius. These seismic potential sources are named based on its spatial locations.
These sources generated earthquakes in the range of 3.2 to 5.3 in the past
earthquake history of 200 years. In the present study, the largest well recorded
earthquakes which occurred in the instrumental time period are taken into
consideration. The estimation of ground motion in terms of PGA at bedrock level
can be determined using attenuation relationships. A variation of this approach uses
the reference and site recordings as for theirdifferent site-source distances.

For the regions where strong motion data are not availablefor such analysis,
the attenuation relationships developed for other regions can be used based on the

19
resemblance of theseismotectonic characteristics of both the regions. Abrahamson
and Litehiser (1989) have proposed an attenuation modelfor Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) based on 585 strongground motion records from 76 worldwide
earthquakes. A suitable attenuation relationship developed by Iyengar
andRaghukanth (2004) for Peninsular India applicable to Chennaiis used for the
present study. The attenuation relationused to calculate PGA is given below:
Lny=c1+c2(M−6)+c3(M−6)2−lnR−c4R+lnЄ (1)
Where y refers to PGA in g, M refers to magnitude and Rrefers to hypocentral
distance. Since PGA is known to be attributed nearly as a lognormal random
variable ln y would normally distributed with the average of (lnЄ ) being almost
zero. Hence, with e=I , coefficients for the southern region are (Iyengar and
Raghukanth, 2004):
c1=1.7816; c2=0.9205; c3=−0.0673; c4=0.0035;(lnЄ )=0.3136 (taken as zero)

Table 1. Estimated Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) values Chennaicity by the

closest potential seismic sources.
Seismic Cumulative Maximum Epicentral Estimated
Sources Earthquakes Magnitude Distance from Peak Ground
Chennai Acceleration

A 5 5.6 156 0.176

B 1 5.3 10 0.107

C 3 5.0 155 0.078

D 3 5.0 174 0.078

The determined PGA for the four identified potential seismic sources for the city of
Chennai is in the range of 0.176 gto 0.078 (Table 1). The maximum PGA of 0.176
would be caused by the east-west trending in the southern part of Chennai. This
fault has been associated with 4 earthquake incidences in the past 200-year
earthquake history and themaximum magnitude (Mmax) so far generated is 5.3.

20
 Figure 4.2 Estimated peak ground acceleration for Chennai city.

4.2 DETAILS OF MODEL

In this research, the evaluation and comparison of seismic responses of base
isolated structures with those of fixed base are performed

4.2.1 The Regular Structure

The symmetric structure consists of 5-storey reinforced concrete residential
building( G+ 4 ) with regular plan. The slab thickness is 0.2 m, the outer column
section 0.5m x 0.4m, inner column 0.5m x 0.3m and beam section is 0.6m x 0.4m.

21
 Figure 4.3 symmetric view of residential building

Figure 4.43D Rendered view of beam column connection

22
 Figure 4.5 3D Rendered view of the symmetric building.

4.5.2 LOAD DETAILS

Dead load :

Self weight -1 kN / m²

UDL up to 3rd floor - 4 kN / m²

Roof - 3 kN / m²

Live load :

Up to 3rd floor - 3.5kN / m²

Roof - 1.8kN / m²

Wind load - 1 kN / m²

Combination load - 1.5 x (Dead load + Live load )

23
Two types of analysis used in this project. One is static analysis and dynamic
analysis.
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
It is a subset of structural analysis and is the calculation of the response of a
building ( or nonbuilding ) structure to earthquakes. It is part of the process of
structural design, earthquake engineering or structural assessment and retrofit in
regions where earthquakes are prevalent.
A five storeyed RC frame has been considered to illustrate the analysis and
design. Initially the linear static analysis can be performed for the load
combinations as per IS456:2000 and IS1893:2002 to determine the lateral forces
due to seismic activity. Analysis has been carried out by using STAAD-Pro
software. To demonstrate the design procedure, only one frame in transverse
direction has been considered. The member end forces from the analysis is used is
for the design. The design is mode as per the provision of IS 13920:1993 following
the IS456:2000 and SP16:1980.

4.3.1 Preliminary data

1. Type of structure : Multi – storey rigid jointed frame
2. Zone : III
3. Importance of building : Office building
4. Number of stories : Five ( G + 4 )
5. Height of ground storey : 3.1 m
6. Floor-to-floor height : 3.1 m
7. Size of exterior column : 400 x 500 mm
8. Size of interior column : 300 x 500 mm
9. Size of beams in longitudinal
and transverse direction : 400 x 600 mm
10. Depth of slap : 200.mm
11.Thickness of external walls : 250 mm including plaster

24
 12. Thickness of internal walls : 150 mm including plaster
13. Live load : 3.5 kN / m²forfloor and 1.8 kN / m²in

roof
14. Materials : M25 and Fe415
15. Seismic analysis : Equivalent static load method as per
IS1893 (Part 1):2002
16. Design procedure : Limit state method According to
IS456:1978
17. Ductile detailing : 1S13920:1993

4.3.2 Determination of loads

1. Dead load (DL)
Water proofing of the terrace = 1.5 kN / m²

Floor finish = 0.5 kN./.m²

Weight of walls:
External walls (250 mm thick ) = 0.25 x 20 = 5 kN / m²

Internal walls 150 mm thick = 0.15 x 20 = 3kN / m²

Weight of slab = 25 x 0.14 = 3.5 kN./.m²

2. Live load (LL)
Live load on roof = 1.5 kN. / m²

Live load on floor = 3.5 kN./ m²

3. Earthquake load ( EQ)
ZISa
The design horizontal seismic coefficientAh=
2Rg

Z =0.16 (zone III )

T = 0.09h / √d

25
 (12.4)
=0.09
√25

For T= 0.22

Sa
= g 2.5

I = 1.0
R = 5.0

Ah = 0.16 x 1 x 2.5
2x5

= 0.04

4.3.3 ANALYSIS OF INTERIOR SUBFRAME

4.3.3.1. Analysis of dead load
DL at roof level
Weight of slab = 25 x 0.14 = 3.5kN / m²

Weight of finishes = 1.5 + 0.5 = 2.0 kN / m²

Total weight = 5.5kN / m²

Trapezoidal distribution of floor area on beam (R1) = (1/2) x (1.3 + 3.27 ) x 3.1
= 7.08 m²
Slab weight on beam = 7.08 x 5.5 = 38.95kN
Weight on beam per meter = 38.95 / 3.27 = 11.91kN / m
Self weight of beam = 25 x 0.4 (0.6 – 0.14 )
= 4.6 kN / m

26
Total weight of beam (R1) = 11.91 + 4.6 = 16.51 kN / m

Total weight on beam (R2)

Trapezoidal distribution of floor area on beam = ( 1/2 ) x 4.19 x 1.75 x 0.69
= 2.5 m²
Total weight on beam = 5.5 x 2.5 =13.75 kN
Weight on beam per meter = 13.75 / 4.19 = 3.28kN / m
Self weight of beam = 25 x 0.4 (0.6 – 0.14)
= 4.6 kN / m
Total weight on beam = 3.28 + 4.6 kN / m
= 7.88 k N / m

Dead load on floor level

Weight of slab = 25 x 0.14 = 3.5 kN / m²

Weight on floor finish = 0.5 kN / m²

Total weight = 4 kN / m²

Total weight on beam (R1)

Trapezoidal distribution of floor area = (1/2) x (1.3 + 3.27 ) x 3.1
= 7.08 m²
Self weight of beam = 4 x 7.08 = 28.32 kN
Weight on beam per meter = 28.32 / 3.27 = 8.66 kN / m
Self weight of beam = 25 x 0.4 (0.6 – 0.14 )
= 4.6 kN / m
Self weight of walls = 20 x 0.15 x (3.5 – 0.6 )
= 8.7 kN / m
Total weight on beam = 8.66 + 4.6 + 8.7 = 21.96 kN / m

27
Total weight on beam (R2)
Trapezoidal distribution of floor area on beam = ( 1/2 ) x 4.19 x 1.75 x 0.69
= 2.5 m²
Total weight on beam = 4 x 2.5 =10 kN
Weight on beam = 10 / 4.19 = 2.38 kN / m
Self weight of beam = 25 x 0.4 (0.6 – 0.14)
= 4.6 kN / m
Weight of walls = 20 x 0.15 ( 35 – 0.6 )
= 8.7 kN / m
Total weight on beam = 2.38 + 4.6 + 8.7 = 15 68 kN / m

Figure 4.6 Dead load on subframe

28
Figure 4.7 Dead load at roof level ( Static Analysis )

Figure 4.8 Dead load at floor level (Static Analysis )

29
4.3.3.2 Imposed load or Live load analysis
LL at roof level
Live load = 1.8kN / m²

Trapezoidal distribution of floor area = 7.08 m²

Total weight on beam = 1.8 x 7.08
= 12.74kN
Total weight on beam (R1) = 12.74 / 3.27 =3.89kN / m
Total weight on beam (R2)
Trapezoidal distribution of floor area = 2.5 m²
Total weight on beam = 1.8 x 2.5 =4.5 kN
Total weight on beam (R2) = 4.5 / 4.19 = 1.07 kN / m

Live load at floor level

Live load = 3.5 kN / m²

Total weight on beam ( R1 )

Trapezoidal distribution of floor area on beam = 7.08 m²
Total weight on beam = 3.5 x 7.08 = 24.78 kN
Total weight on beam per meter = 24.78 / 3.27 = 7.57kN / m

Total weight on beam (R2)

Trapezoidal distribution of floor area on beam = 2.5 m²
Total weight on beam = 3.5 x 2.5 = 8.75 kN
Total weight on beam per meter = 8.75 / 4.19 = 2.08kN / m

30
Figure 4.9 Live load at roof level (Static Analysis )

Figure 4.10 Live load at floor level (Static Analysis )

31
4.3.3.3 Analysis of Earthquake load
Determination of design base shear
Dead load
(a) Weight of roof = Weight of slab + Weight of terrace + Water proofing
+ Weight of floor finish
= 56 x 14.4 x ( 3.5 + 1.5 + 0.5 )
= 4435.2kN
(b) Weight of floor = Weight of slab + Weight of floor finish
=56 x 14.4 (3.5 + 0.5 )
= 3225.6 Kn
(c) Weight of outer transverse beams
.= ( 2 (3.27 – (0.5 / 2) – (0.5 / 2) x 3.45) x 2
+ ( 2 (4.19 – (0.5 / 2) – (0.5 / 2) x 3.45) x 2
= 89.14 kN
(d) Weight of outer longitudinal beam
.= ( 8 ( 3.5 – (0.3 / 2 ) – (0.3 – 2) x 3.45 ) x 2
= 176.64 kN
(e) Weight of parapet wall ( say 1.0 m height )
= 2 x ( 56 + 14.4 ) x 1.0 x 3
= 422.4 kN
(f) Weight of external wall
= 20 x 0.25 x ( 25.6 + 93 ) x ( 3.1 – 0.5 )
= 1541.8 kN
(g) Weight of interior transverse beams
= ( 5 ((( 2 x 4.3 ) + (2 x 1.9 )) x 3.45))
= 213.9 kN
(h) Weight of interior longitudinal beams
= ((3.1 – 0.3) x 3.45 x 15 ) x 3
= 434.7 kN

32
 (i) Weight of interior wall
Length of wall in transverse direction
= (( 3.27 – ( 0.5 / 2 ) – ( 0.5 / 2) )x 2 + ( 2.5 – (0.5 / 2 )
– (0.5 / 2)) x 5
= 112.4 m
Length of wall in longitudinal direction
= (( 3.5 – (0.3 / 2) – (0.3 / 2 )) x 8 x 2 )
.= 95.4 m
Height = 3.1 – 0.5 = 2.6 m
Weight = 20 x 0.15 x (112.4 + 95.4 ) x 2.6
= 1620.84 kN
(j) Weight of exterior column / height
= 2 x 16 x 0.4 x 0.5 x 25
= 160 kN / m
(k) Weight of interior column / height
= 120 kN / m

Live load
Live load on roof = Zero
Live load on floors = 50 % of 3.5 kN / m²

= 1.75k N / m²
Total live load on each floor
.= 56 x 14.4 x 1.75
= 1411.2 Kn
Seismic weight
Seismic weight at roof = Weight of roof + Weight of outer transverse beam
+ Weight of outer longitudinal beams + Weight of
Parapet wall + (Weight of external wall / 2 ) +
Weight of interior transverse beams + Weight of

33
 Interior longitudinal beams + ( Weight of exterior
Column / height ) x 3.1 / 2 + (Weight of interior
column / height ) x ( 3.1 / 2 ) + 0
= 4435.2 + 85.56 + 176.64 + 422.4 + (1541.8 / 2 ) +
213.9 + 434.7 + 160 x (3.1 / 2 ) + 120 x (3.1 / 2 ) + 0
= 6973.3 kN
Seismic weight at 2nd , 3rd and 4th floor
= Weight of floor + Weight of outer traverse beam
+ Weight of outer longitudinal beams + Weight of
External wall + Weight of interior transverse beams
+ Weight of Interior longitudinal beams + (Weight of
exterior Column / height ) + (Weight of interior
column / height ) x ( 3.1 ) + 1411.2
= 3225.6 + 85.56 + 176.64 + 1541.8 + 213.9 + 434.7
+ 2257.2 + (160 + 120 ) ( 3.1 / 2 ) + 1411.2
= 7523.4kN
Seismic weight at 1st floor = 3225.6 + 85.56 + 176.64 + 1541.8 +213.9 +434.7
+ 2257.2 + (160 + 120 ) ((3.1 + 4 ) / 2) + 1411.2
= 8083.4 kN
Total seismic weight W = 6973.3 + 3 x 7523.4 + 8083.4
= 37626.9 kN
Total base shear = Ah x W
= 0.09 x 37626.9
= 3386.42 kN
Base shear in each frame = ( 3386.42 / 20 )
= 169.32 kN

34
Figure 4.11 Seismic load applied from x direction on sub frame

Figure 4.12 seismic load applied from z direction on sub frame

35
 Figure 4.13.Applied load details in sub frame( Static analysis )

4.3.3.4 Analysis of combination load

 Load combinations for design and assessment of building or parts are to be
selected based on the required performance level of the building or the part.
The combination load like that factor of safety in building .
 Applied combination load is 1.5 ( DL + LL )

36
 For example,

Figure 4.14 Applied combination load from x direction on sub frame

4.3.3.5 Analysis of wind load

 Wind load is the load placed by the wind speed and its air density on to a
building. With high velocity winds, low pressure areas are created on the
building which creates suction pressure.
 Some are so strong that they can pull of the corner of a home’s roof
 Sometimes the wind load was not calculated in analysis of high rise building
but don’t affected the analysis.
 The wind load is -1 kN / m²in each direction

37
Figure 4.15 Applied wind load on sub frame

Figure 4.16 Plate stress value

38
 Figure 4.17 Displacement of framed structure

Table2. Base shear, base moment and drift in static analysis

Base shear in X direction ( kN ) 94.65
Base shear in Y direction ( kN ) 85.59
Base moment in X direction (kN.m ) 112.67
Base moment in Y direction (kN.m ) 150.05

Max. Inter storey Drift Ratio 0.005

4.4 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Dynamic analysis shall be performed to obtain the design seismic force, and
its distribution to different levels along the various lateral load resisting elements.
There are two types of Dynamic analysis one is Time History method and
other is Response Spectrum method.

39
4.4.1 Time History Method
Time History Method of analysis, when used, shall be based on an
appropriate ground motion and shall be performed using accepted principles of
dynamics.

4.4.2 Response Spectrum Method

Response Spectrum Method of analysis shall be performed using the design

spectrum specified in, or by a site – specific design spectrum.Above the load
calculation is same and applied in Response Spectrum Analysis method.Rubber
bearing used in this structure for resisting earthquake force. The rubber bearing
placed in bottom of plinth beam. Using software in E-TAB. First applied Node,
beam, column and load details on the sub frame and analysis of the structure to get
errorless result and then analysis post processing of the structure.

Figure 4.18Isolation building

40
 Figure 4.19 Rubber bearing placed bottom of the plinth beam (placed between
plinth beam and footing)

4.4.2.1 Load Patterns

Table 3 - Load Patterns
Self Weight
Name Type Auto Load
Multiplier
Dead Dead 1
Live Live 0
EQ-X Seismic 0 IS1893 2002
EQ-Y Seismic 0 IS1893 2002
WIND-X Wind 0 Indian IS875:1987
WIND-Y Wind 0 Indian IS875:1987

41
 Figure 4.17 Errorless analysis in response spectrum analysis

Table4. Base shear, base moment and drift in Response Spectrum analysis
Base shear in X direction ( kN ) 31.9
Base shear in Y direction ( kN ) 18.02
Base moment in X direction (kN.m ) 55.98
Base moment in Y direction (kN.m ) 65.07

Max. Inter story Drift Ratio 0.0001

42
Table 5Comparision between Static Analysis and Response Spectrum Analysis

RESPONSE DIFFERENCE
STATIC
DISCRIPTION SPECTRUM B/W SA AND
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS RSA
Base shear in X 94.65 31.9 62.75
direction (kN )
Base shear in Y 85.59 18.02 67.57
direction (kN )
Base moment in X 112.67 55.98 56.69
direction (kN m)
Base moment in Y 150.05 65.07 84.98
direction (kN m)
Maximum inter 0.005 0.0001 0.005
storey Drift Ratio

160 150.05

140

120 112.67

94.65
100
85.59

80 Static Analysis
65.07
55.98
60 Response Spectrum
Analysis
40 31.9

18.02
20
0.005 , 0.0001
0
Base shear Base shear Base Base Storey Drift
in X in Y moment in moment in Ratio
direction direction X direction Ydirection

43
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

 The results of the study shows that the response of the structure can be
reduced by using base isolation.
 Comparing the results of the base-isolated condition with those obtained
from the fixed-base condition has shown that the base isolation system
reduces the base shear force and story drifts, whilst also increasing the
displacement as the following:
 The base shear in x-direction is equal to 94.65 kN for the base-isolated
condition while it is equal to 31.9 kN in fixed-base condition for symmetric
building.
 The base shear in y-direction is equal to 85.59 kN for the base-isolated
condition while it is equal to 18.02 kN in fixed-base condition for symmetric
building.
 The base moment in x-direction and y direction for the base-isolated
condition is less than the moment for the fixed base condition.
 The drift ratio is (0.0001) for the base-isolated condition while it is 0.005 for
the fixed-base condition.
This study concluded that the base isolation device protect the framed structure upto
6 magnitude during earthquake.

44