COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT SHEAR WALL, X BRACING AND FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 09 | Sep 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1322
“COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH AND
WITHOUT SHEAR WALL, X BRACING AND FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS”
Divya R Hangal1, Sri. Raghu M E2
1Post Graduate student, Structural Engineering, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Davangere,
Karnataka, India
2Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Davangere,
Karnataka, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - According to seismic records, there is an
increase in the need for earthquake-resistant buildings,
which can be met by providing shear wall, X bracing or
Fluid viscous dampers. Due to wind, earthquake and
additional forces, lateral forces generated in the wall’s
plane. In R.C.C building without shear wall, bracing and
FVD the displacement can be seen more.so by placing
shear wall, X bracing and Fluid viscous dampers at the
proper position it resists the lateral loads and provides the
stiffness to the structure. The analysis is by carried out of
R.C.C building with placing shear wall, X bracing and fluid
viscous dampers at corners of the building by using
response spectrum analysis in ETABS software.
Key Words: Lateral forces, shear wall, X bracing, Fluid
viscous dampers, Response spectrum analysis.
1.INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete is widely used in building industry.
Hence every civil engineering programmer must have
basic understanding of the fundamentals of reinforced
concrete.
In order to provide adequate support, the building and to
withstand the natural disaster like earthquake many
research and analysis has been carried out. The study of
seismic behavior of a structure is been checked by using
important criteria and that has been carried out numerous
investigations and that analysis mainly depend upon
elastic and natural behavior of the structure. The torsional
drift displacement and extra force which are acting over
the period of time to the structure. The structure can
withstand mainly depend upon the center of mass and also
considering center of rigidity and considering its figure it
explains kind of seismic behavior that the structure is
going to withstand.
1.1 Shear wall
The reinforced concrete (RC) structure which have plate
like RC walls are called as shear walls in more to slab,
column and beam. These walls are constructed at
foundation level and spread continuous throughout the
building height. The thickness of a shear wall can be
minimum of 150mm to maximum of 400mm in high rise
buildings. The shear walls are constructed along length
and width of a structure.
1.2 X bracing system
In India the RCC structures with the provision of bracing
system is very rare in feature. This feature is very much
desirable where the construction carried out in seismic
areas. By providing bracing system to the structure, it can
reduce or eliminate the effect of earthquake.
1.3 Fluid viscous Dampers
Fluid viscous dampers are also referred as the hydraulic
device that when stroked it dissipates the energy placed
on the structure by seismic action. To reduce the seismic
damages also to improve its performance of a building
many creative ideas of earthquake designing are carried
out using proper demonstrating of structure with new
techniques. Fluid viscous dampers (FVD) are used to
examine the response of an RCC structure when they are
affected to lateral loads and to resist the lates and to
absorb the energy FVD are used.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Mr. K Lovaraju et .al (2015) investigated the non-linear
analysis of frame to identify effective position of an shear
wall in an multistory structure. Four model of an eight-
story building were subjected to an earthquake load, and
ETABS was used to locate shear walls at various locations
throughout the seismic zones. It was concluded that
installing shear wall in an appropriate position is more
relevant if base shear and displacement also lessen
earthquake related displacement.
Chandurkar and pajgade (2013) investigated that
changing position of shear wall will influence the
fascination of powers so that wall should must be put in
legitimate position. Concluded that in case the
measurement of shear wall are huge the major sum level
drive are taken by shear wall conjointly giving the shear
wall at appropriate position it can decrease the
displacement of an structure due to seismic tremor.

S Amir and H Jiaxin(2014) investigated the use of
viscous dampers under seismic and wind loads, finding
that they greatly reduces the energy loss and reduces the
vibration in most structure.it is described how a damping
system need a non-linear characteristics in order to lessen
vibration.
Tejas D Joshi (2013) investigated high rise steel structure
bracing system. For the purpose of the analysis, he
considered G+15 story building that used a variety of
bracing systems, including X bracing, double X bracing,
single diagonal bracing and V bracing. according to the
study braced building offer a higher level of displacement
reduction than unbraced ones. When compared to
unbraced building structures, storied drifting braced
building can change.
D.k. Paul (2012) proposed a realistic implementation on
an earthquake-resistant building in order to withstand
nonlinear lateral seismic stresses.in order to enhance
performance, retrofitting is used, in which chevron
bracing and an aluminum shear links as a beam are
installed. It is found that by using the shear link, the
building becomes are more responsive and capable of
sustaining lateral stresses.
3. OBJECTIVES
1. Comparing the seismic behaviour of a structure with
and without a shear wall, fluid viscous dampers, and a
bracing system is the primary goal of this study.
2. To analyse the displacement changes in the structure
by providing different shear parameters.
3. To investigate the seismic properties using the
response spectrum approach for the identical
structure with and without a shear wall, X bracing and
FVD.
4. To study the efficiency of shear parameters by
following point of view:
a) Maximum displacement
b) shear
c) Combined stress
5. To determine which structure gives superior results
by placing shear parameters.
4. METHODOLOGY
The analysis was conducted utilizing the software ETABS
for the analysis purpose in order to discover the
fundamental elements like displacement, Drift, Story Shear
and Story Stiffness. For the analysis Response Spectrum
method is adopted.
4.1RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS:
Response spectrum analysis is a nonlinear dynamic
statical analysis technique that representing the maximum
seismic response of an elastic structure by evaluating the
data from each natural mode of vibration. It is one of the
best methodologies to determine the particular mode of
vibration for 85% for the base reaction and 90% for
response reduction factor under highest standard so
response spectrum analysis is highly permitted under the
method and known as sum of root of sum of square and
other method which is popularly used is complete
quadratic combination to get the accurate value.
Table 1: Building dimension
Sl. No Name of
the model
Description Height,
m
1. Model 1 RCC structure 30
2. Model 2 Structure with
shear wall
30
FVD
30
X bracing
30
4.2 Material property which is used in this model
are following;
Grade of concrete = M35
Grade of steel = Fe550
Geometry of model
Depth and width of beam = 460x600mm
Depth and width of column = 600x600mm
Slab thickness = 200mm
Shear wall thickness = 200mm
Floor height =3m
Multi Story building total height = 30m
4.3 Load consideration:
1. Dead load is permanent load which cannot vary, which
is constant load which include the beam, column and slab
weight. This dead load assigned according to codal
provision as per IS 875-Part 1(1987).

2. Live load is the load. Load is not a permanent load.
Which is like a temporary load which load is any time add
or remove from any situation. This live load is also
assigned according to codal provision as per IS 875-
Part2(1987).
3. Earthquake Load (EL) Which is also called as dynamic
load this load is sudden in nature and caused vibration to
the building. Agitation is created in building which is
caused by the earthquake. The earthquake or horizontal
load is assigned according to as per the IS 1893-
2002(Part1).
The details to be considered for earthquake load is
• Zone factor take into = 0.16
• Importance factor consider= 1.5
• Response reduction factor in this all models = 3
• Condition of soil = Medium
• Damping percentage = 5%
Load combinations:
1.5(DL+LL)
1.2(DL+LL±EL)
1.5(DL±EL)
0.9DL±1.5EL
4.4 Modelling and analysis
MODEL 1
Model 1: plan and 3D view
MODEL 2
MODEL 3
MODEL 4

5.RESULTS AND COMPARISION
Maximum story Displacement
Maximum story drift
Maximum story shear
Maximum story stiffness
Conclusion
1. In the present study the final comparison is made
for multistorey building with and without shear
wall, X bracing and fluid viscous dampers placing
at the corner.
2. By comparing multistorey building with and
without shear parameters the displacement
reduces by placing shear parameters at corner
position.
3. By considering the results displacement reduces
more by placing shear wall at corners than the
placing X bracing and Fluid viscous dampers.
4. By placing the structure with shear wall, bracing
and fluid viscous it can reduce structural damage
due to the earthquake and resist the lateral force
compared to normal RCC structure.
5. We can conclude that among the four models by
placing the shear wall at the corners gives the best
results considering displacement get highly
reduced and also story drift reduces gives more
stiffness to the structure compared to x bracing
and fluid viscous dampers.
6. By considering displacement and stiffness values
fluid viscous dampers shows the good results it
can be considered for the second choice.
REFERENCES
1 IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Indian Standard Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1
General Provisions and Buildings, (Fifth Revision).
2 IS 456: 2000 Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced
Concrete ± Code of Practice (Fourth Revision)
0
5
10
15
20
25
RCC SW FVD X
BRACIN
GS
X 19.984 10.626 12.428 15.816
Y 21.703 5.018 6.065 13.952
X Y
0
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
RCC SW FVD X
BRACING
S
X 0.000167 0.00035 0.000408 0.000231
Y 0.000186 0.000168 0.000234 0.00023
X Y
0
500
1000
1500
2000
RCC SW FVD X
BRACING
X 563.0545 1223.48 1691.2909 762.5005
Y 559.5854 1215.2816 811.4999 928.2049
X Y
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
RCC SW FVD BRACI
NG
X 1161478.11227181.41469393.21137008.9
Y 1111291.3 2533010 1244881.81420834.7
X Y

3 Mr. K. LovaRaju, Dr. K. V. G. D. Balaji. 2015. Effective
location of shear wall on performance of building
frame subjected to earthquake load. International
Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering
and Technology, 2(1): 33–36.
4 Anil Baral and Dr. SK. Yajdani. 2015. Seismic Analysis
of RC Framed Building for Different Position of Shear
wall. IJIRSET, 4(5): 3346–3353.
5 Z.A. Siddiqi, Rashid Hameed, Usman Akmal,
“Comparison of Different Bracing Systems for Tall
Buildings” Int. Jr. Engr. & Appl. Sci. Vol. 14, Jan., 2014.
6 G.F. Dargush, M.L. Green and Y. Wang, “Evolutionary
Aseismic Design And Retrofit Of Passively Damped
Irregular Structures” 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering.
7 Adithya. M, Swathi rani K.S, Shruthi H K, Dr. Ramesh
B.R, “Study on Effective Bracing Systems for High Rise
Steel Structures”, SSRG International Journal of Civil
Engineering(SSRG-IJCE)volume2Issue2February2015.
8 Anita Tippanagoudar, Dr J G Kori and Dr D K Kulkarni,
“Performance analysis of high rise building with
viscous Damper”, International journal of Advanced
technology & Engineering Research, ISSN No: 2250-
3536, Volume 5, Issue 4, July 2015.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT SHEAR WALL, X BRACING AND FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT SHEAR WALL, X BRACING AND FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS

Similar to COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT SHEAR WALL, X BRACING AND FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS (20)

More from IRJET Journal

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT SHEAR WALL, X BRACING AND FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS