COMPARTIVE STUDY OF COMBINED EFFECTS OF LRB WITH

BRACING & LRB WITH FLUID VISCOUS DAMPER IN SESMIC

ANALYSIS BY TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS USING ETABS SOFTWARE
Aditi Yadav1, Khushboo Uniyal2* , Deepshikha Shukla3, Akshaya Saini4, Ritiksha Danu5
1
PG Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Graphic Era (Deemed to be) University,
2
Assisstant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Graphic Era (Deemed to Be)
University, India.
3
Assisstant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Graphic Era (Deemed to Be)
University, India.
4
PG Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Graphic Era (Deemed to be) University,
India.
5
Assisstant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Graphic Era Hill, University,
India.

*Corresponding Author Email: khushboouniyal29@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

One seismic retrofitting method used to enhance the seismic performance of structures,
especially buildings and bridges, is lead rubber bearing (LRB) bracing. Installing lead
core rubber bearings between columns and beams strengthens the structure's resistance to
stresses generated by earthquakes. This technique is known as LRB bracing. A seismic
retrofitting tool called a Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) viscous damper is used to increase a
structure's ability to withstand earthquakes. It is composed of layers of rubber that give
flexibility and dampening qualities, encircling a lead core. In areas prone to earthquakes,
the seismic performance of buildings is a major concern, requiring the creation of efficient
mitigation techniques. This study compares the effectiveness of two well-known seismic
retrofit methods, Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) bracing and LRB viscous damper, both
separately and in combination using time history analysis and ETABS software to provide
a thorough assessment of the structural response to seismic loads. A comparative analysis
has been reflected between combined effects of LRB Bracing and LRB Viscous Damper
using ETABS software for both seismic and wind loads for a G+23 story RCC building
with lead rubber bearing base isolation with bracing and occasionally with viscous
 damper. The results of this study provide important new information about how to choose
and incorporate seismic retrofit techniques to improve a structure's seismic performance.
The results also aid in the advancement of earthquake engineering and the creation of
resilient infrastructure by providing guidance to practitioners and engineers when deciding
whether to use LRB bracing which shows a greater value of shear force value or LRB
viscous damper which exhibits a lower value of shear force on the basis of analysis done.
Keywords: LRB with bracing, LRB with viscous damper, Retrofitting, Seismic analysis,
Time History Analysis, ETABS.

INTRODUCTION

Seismic forces have dynamic effects that can cause large-scale or permanent damage to a
structure, so the design of the structure should withstand such loads or vibrations that can be
readily absorbed. Occasionally, vibrations can be so great that there is a high risk of a structure
collapsing, with severe consequences for both the economy and human life.
In the lapse of time the world has witnessed a wide range of earthquakes of different magnitudes.
Turkey-Seria earthquake (2023) of 7.8 magnitude, Tohoku, Japan earthquake (2011) of 9.1
magnitude, Noto earthquake, Japan (2024) of 7.5 magnitude are some of the significant one as
per the report of United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR)[1]. Bhuj, a region
in the Ran of Kachchh experienced an earthquake of magnitude 6.9 (on Richter Scale) which is
considered as the greatest earthquake which India has faced till date. This study takes the data of
this disaster as the reference data in order to incorporate better results which will sync in with the
analysis more because this is the greatest earthquake of Indian region.
Lead rubber bearing base (LRB) isolation is a very effective way to stop a structure from vibrating during
a seismic or wind event, but if our structure is located near a coast, the magnitude of the earthquake and
the intensity of the wind can sometimes be very high. In order to protect our building effectively we use
bracing and viscous dampers to see which one is more safe during a seismic event . In these cases, proper
member design and additional techniques are required to support the member.
Time history analysis provides a reliable way to assess dynamic behaviour under seismic loads,
especially when combined with viscous dampers and LRB systems. This study highlights the
effectiveness of LRB with bracing and LRB with viscous damper and their shear stress values are
analysed using time history analysis method. Future work will focus on improving analytical
models to properly represent intricate structural reactions over time while taking damping effects
and nonlinearities into account. More effective simulations will be possible thanks to
developments in computational techniques, which will also make parametric studies and the
optimisation of LRB-Viscous damper setups for certain seismic scenarios easier. Real-time
monitoring and control system integration can also improve a structure's ability to adjust during a
seismic event, hence enhancing its performance and safety. By protecting communities from
seismic risks, more sustainable and resilient infrastructure designs will be developed as a result of
ongoing study in this field.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to examine a multi-story building subjected to seismic forces using
LRB bracing and LRB viscous dampers in conjunction, examine both combinations changing
moments, examine the narrative drift in both scenarios to see which one is more successful in
terms of sustainment of seismic load, and compare all the results and provide a suggestion
regarding the combination that will be selected for cost and safety reasons.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Jadhav Nachiket S., [2], examined the use of Time History Analysis to evaluate storey shear and
overturning moment in the seismic analysis of residential buildings with stories ranging from
G+9 to G+20. Time history information is taken from the PEER Ground Motion Database. Based
on the maximum storey shear and overturning force, the efficacy of fluid viscous dampers, cross
bracing, base isolation, and shear walls is compared with regular moment-resisting structures.
These components are positioned at various structural corners to identify optimal models.
Masood Ahmed Shariff, [3] did a study using ETABS software is to analyse an irregular H-
shaped building that measures 36 metres in both the X and Y directions. Equivalent static linear
seismic analysis is used to compare an X-braced frame with a bare frame. Based on factors
including base shear and lateral displacement, performance is assessed, with a particular
emphasis on Zone IV with medium soil conditions as per IS codes. Rishi Mishra, [4],
investigated several bracing strategies that are effective in withstanding lateral stresses while
doing seismic analysis on high-rise reinforced concrete structure frames. In order to provide
buildings more strength and stiffness and protect them from natural disasters like earthquakes,
bracing is an essential component. STAAD-Pro programme is used to analyse a G+10 story
building frame and assess different bracing systems (X, V, K, Inverted V, and Inverted K) under
seismic loading. The study evaluates these systems' ability to regulate member forces and lateral
displacement by contrasting them with a bare frame model. Although every bracing system
manages lateral displacement effectively, the most cost-effective option is Inverted V bracing.
Vinod Kumar Parma, [5] By putting in isolators at the base, base isolation (BI) protects structures
from earthquake damage worldwide. This prolongs the life of the structure and reduces resonance
hazards, improving seismic resilience. In order to examine the effectiveness of BI in plan and
vertical irregular multi-story RC frame buildings, this study uses ETABS 2013 software to
analyse a 15-story RC frame structure utilising Time History analysis. For base isolation system
analysis, Lead Rubber Bearings (LRBs) are designed in accordance with UBC 97 code. The
findings show that base separated structures have longer times and less base shear than fixed base
structures. In strong seismic locations, vertical irregular buildings with isolators at the base
perform better than plan irregular buildings.

This study incorporates a G+23 building analysis which is a new innovation in the field of time
history analysis of structures with a combination of LRB with bracing and LRB with viscous
dampers.
METHODOLOGY

STEP-1
Literature Review

STEP-2
Observed the diasster assesment report of earthquakes published by UNDRR

STEP-3
Studied the FVD table with different capacities force of Bhuj earthquake and took the earthquake data as reference data

STEP-4
Create a model of G+23 building on ETABS

STEP-5
Apply combination of loads on the model developed

STEP-6
Apply the combination of LRB with viscous damper Apply the combination of LRB with Cross Bracing

STEP-7

Use Time History Analysis to analyse the model and conclude the results obtained

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

ETABS software is used to model and analyse a G+23 story structure with a bottom square shape because
of the effective analysis speed of the software. The building's components, which include columns, slabs,
beams, and staircases, of different models are depicted in Figure 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. Live load, dead load,
seismic load, and wind load are taken into consideration according to IS:1893(Part-1) - 2002. The details
of this model, which is examined in the (zone IV) intensity earthquake, are as follows:
Fig.1: Plan of Building at story 1 Fig.2: Plan of Building at story 9
Fig.3: Plan of Building at story 9 Fig.4: Plan of Building at story 20

Fig.5: Multistory Building with Fig.6: Multistory Building with

LRB base isolation And Fluid LRB base isolation And Bracing
Viscous Damper
 Type of model G+1 G+9 G+15 G+20
Floor to floor height in 3000 3000 3000 3000
mm
Beam size (mm x mm) 650x600 600x400 550x350 500x300
Column size (mm x mm) 750x750 600x600 550x550 500x500
Slab thickness in mm 150 150 150 150
Grade of concrete M40 M40 M40 M40
Seismic zone(z) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Importance factor(I) 1 1 1 1
Soil Type Medium Type 2 Medium Type 2 Medium Type 2 Medium Type 2

Base Isolation LRB base LRB base LRB base LRB base
isolation isolation isolation isolation
Dampers Fluid Viscous Fluid Viscous Fluid Viscous Fluid Viscous
Damper Damper Damper Damper
Bracing Cross Bracing Cross Bracing Cross Bracing Cross Bracing
Table 1: Model Details

A.Specifications:-

i. Damper
→ Type – Fluid Viscous Damper (FVD)
→ Mass – 98Kg
→ Weight – 500
→ Directional Property – U1 Fixed
ii. Base Isolation
→ Effective stiffness U1 – 1175418.57kN/m
→ Effective stiffness U2&U3 – 1175.42kN/m
→ Yield strength taken U2 & U3 – 34.7kN
→ Effective damping – 5%
iii. Bracing
→ Type – cross Bracing
→ Section – ISLB 600
B.Different Load:-

i. Dead Load = Self weight automatic taken By ETABS

ii. Live Load = 2kN/m^2
iii. Super dead load
a. Floor finish = 1.5kN/m^2
b. Masonry = 1.8kN/m^2
iv. Time History seismic analysis based on Bhuj 2001Gujarat earthquake

C.Load Combinations:-

Based on IS 1893 - 2002

i. 1.5(DL + LL + SDL)
ii. 1.2(DL+LL+EQX)
iii. 1.2(DL+LL+EQY)
iv. 1.5(DL+EQX)
v. 1.5(DL+EQY)
vi. 0.9DL+1.5EQX
vii. 0.9DL+1.5EQY

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Maximum Story Shear

Maximum Storey Shear is a graph, shows lateral seismic load acting per story. At the case A
“LRB with the Damper” the maximum story shear at base is -532kN,at 9 th story is -306Kn, at 15th
is -422Kn, at 23rd story is -44Kn and in Case B “LRB with Bracing” at base -720Kn, at 9 th story
is -660Kn, at 15th is -420Kn, at 23rd is -44Kn. The maximum shear force is in the base in both
case in Case A -534Kn and in case B is -720Kn in this Case B is getting Maximum Shear force.

Table 2: Maximum Story Shear

Story Case A (in Kn) Case B (in Kn)

Base -532 -720
9th -306 -660
15th -422 -420
23rd -44 -44

Fig.7 Story shear in LRB and Viscous damper Fig.8 Story Shear in LRB and bracing
Maximum story Overturning Moment

Maximum story overturning Moment are the moment which provide unstability to the structure
it plays a very important role in design of any structure that’s why we have to focus on it.In case
A “LRB with the Damper” the maximum story overturning Moment at base is -35000kN-m,at 9 th
story is -19234Kn-m, at 15th is -4409Kn-m, at 23rd story is 0Kn-m and in Case B “LRB with
Bracing” at base -34500Kn-m, at 9th story is -16725Kn-m, at 15th is -4409Kn-m, at 23rd is 0Kn-m.
In Case A maximum overturning at the storey 2 nd 36000Kn-m but in Case B it is on base -
34500Kn-m.

Table 3: Maximum story Overturning Moment

Story Case A (in Kn-m) Case B (in Kn-m)

Base -35000 -34500
9th -19234 -16725
15th -4409 -4404
23rd 0 0

Fig.9 Story Overturning moment in Fig.10 Story Overturning moment in

LRB and Viscous damper LRB and Bracing
Maximum Story displacement

Maximum story displacement is the displacement of stories which occurs at every story in multi-
story buildings the story displacement increase with the increase in height. In case A “LRB with
the Damper” the maximum story Displacement at base is 39mm, at 9 th story is 44mm, at 15th is
50mm, at 23rd story is 61mm and in Case B “LRB with Bracing” at base is 39mm, at 9 th story is
45mm, at 15th is 53mm, at 23rd is 64mm. in that case B is higher Story Displacement value with
the 64 mm at the 23rd story.

Table 4: Maximum Story displacement

Story Case A (in mm) Case B (in mm)

Base 39 39
9th 44 45
15th 50 53
23rd 61 64

Fig.11 Maximum story Displacement in Fig.12 Maximum story Displacement

LRB and viscous damper in LRB and Bracing
Maximum story Drift

Maximum story Drift is the lateral displacement of one story to the respect of another it will be
the displacement of story to the neighbor story. At the case A “LRB with the Damper” the
maximum story Drift at base is 0, at 9 th story is 328*10^-6, at 15th is 610*10^-6, at 23rd story is
229*10^-6 and in Case B “LRB with Bracing” at base is 0, at 9 th story is 369*10^-6, at 15th is
628*10^-6, at 23rd is 247*10^-6. Maximum value in case B is at the 15 th story with the value of
628*10^-6.

Table 5: Maximum story Drift

Story Case A Case B

Base 0 0

9th 328*10-6 369*10-6

15th 610*10-6 628*10-6

23rd 229*10-6 247*10-6

 Fig.13 Maximum story Drift in LRB Fig.14 Maximum story Drift in LRB and
and Viscous Damper Bracing

CONCLUSION

After the analysis of the results the maximum storey shear in the case of LRB base isolation with bracing
is larger than the LRB base isolation with fluid viscous damper, and it is indirectly proportional to the
height of multi storey buildings. The maximum story overturning moment, which is largest on the second
story of the building in the event of LRB base isolation with fluid viscous damper. The maximum storey
displacement is inversely related to the maximum storey shear and increases with building height. In the
case of the LRB base isolation with bracing, it is high, measuring 64 mm. Our structure is safe in such
scenario since the maximum story drift in the case of LRB with bracing is higher—0.000628—and less
than the 0.004 allowed by IS 1893 Part1: 2016. Therefore, LRB with a viscous damper is a better
combination in comparison to LRB with bracing.
FUTURE SCOPE

For improving structural resilience in seismically active areas, combining a viscous damper with a linear
resonant brake (LRB) is a viable option. The future potential is in refining the way these technologies are
integrated to minimise dynamic reactions, lower structural damage, and improve occupant safety. The
design parameters will be fine-tuned using sophisticated computer simulations and experimental
validations, enabling customised applications across a range of structures and settings. Moreover,
investigating new materials and manufacturing processes can improve LRB with viscous damper
assemblies' longevity and efficiency. Innovation will be fueled by joint efforts between material scientists,
engineers, and architects, opening the door for extensive implementation in infrastructure building and
retrofitting projects around the world. These developments have the potential to completely transform
seismic-resistant design guidelines, guaranteeing a more durable built environment for coming
generations.

REFERENCES

[1] United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR),Disaster Assessment Report
2023.

[2] Jadhav Nachiket S., Shelke Nagesh L., Deosrkar Manoj U., “Seismic analysis of structure
Using Bracing, Damper, Base Isolation By Time history Method” Volume 07 Issue:07, July
2020.

[3] Gaurish Kumar Som, Ajay kumar Singh ‘ Seismic Assessment and Analysis of Base Isolated
Building’ Journal of Structural and Transportation Studies, Volume 2 Issue 2

[4] Masood Ahmed Shariff, Owais m, Rachana C, Vinu S, Ashish Dubay B, “Seismic Analysis of
Multistorey Building with Bracings using ETABS” , ISSN(Online): 2319-8753, Vol. 8, Issue 5,
May 2019,
[5] Rishi Mishra, Dr. Abhay Sharma, Dr Vivek Garg ,“Analysis of RC Building Frames for
Seismic Forces Using Different Types of Bracing Systems”, International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278-0181, Vol. 3 Issue 7, July – 2017

[6] Shameena Khannavar, M.H.Kolhar, Anjum Algur, “Seismic Analysis of RC Structures Using
Fluid viscous Dampers” , International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering
Technology (IJRASET), Volume 5 Issue XII December 2017

[7] Vinodkumar Parma, G.S.Hiremath, “Effect of base isolation in Multistoried rc irregular Building
using time history analysis”, IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, eISSN: 2319-1163

[8] Madhukaran, Dr. H. Eramma Sandeep kumar.D.S., Raghavendra.M.R, ”Seismic assessment

of multistory symmetric and asymmetric buildings with and without dampers”, International
Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR) Volume 6, Issue 12,
December 2017, ISSN: 2278 -7798

[9] Shameena Khannavar, M.H.Kolhar, “SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF RC STRUCTURES USING

BASE ISOLATION TECHNIQUE”, International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology (IRJET), Volume: 03 Issue: 07 | July-2016

[10] Xiaoye Yu, “Improving the efficiency of structure using mechanics concept”, university of
Manchester
ANNEXURE

TABLE 1- FVD with different capacities force(kN)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
250 17120 38.1 787 ±75 43 100 83 33 114 44
500 17130 50.8 997 ±100 55 127 102 44 150 98
750 17140 57.15 1016 ±100 59 155 129 50 184 168
1000 17150 69.85 1048 ±100 71 185 150 61 210 254
1500 17160 76.2 1105 ±100 77 205 162 67 241 306
2000 17170 88.9 1346 ±125 91 230 191 78 286 500
3000 17180 101.6 1441 ±125 117 290 203 89 350 800
4000 17190 127 1645 ±125 142 325 273 111 425 1088
6500 17200 152.4 1752 ±125 154 350 305 121 515 1930
8000 17210 177.8 1867 ±125 178 415 317 135 565 2625

Where,

COLUMN 1- FORCE (kilo-newton),

COLUMN 2- Taylor Device Model Number,

COLUMN 3- Spherical Bearing Bore Diameter(mm),

COLUMN 4- Mid-Stroke Length(mm),

COLUMN 5- Stroke(mm),

COLUMN 6- Clevis Thickness(mm),

COLUMN 7- Maximum Clevis Width(mm),

COLUMN 8- Clevis Depth(mm),

COLUMN 9- Bearing Thickness(mm),

COLUMN 10- Maximum cylinder Diameter(mm),

COLUMN 11- Weight(kg).