PART-1

TERM PROJECT
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ANALYSIS (CIVE
5104)

PRESENTATION BY: PAL PANARA (101288367)

COURSE INSTRUCTUR: D.T. LAU

FLOW OF PRESENTATION
• Development of computer models of 6-storey and 24-storey for modelling and
analysis purpose.
• Determination of dynamic properties of the structure by free vibration analysis.
• Free vibration analysis considering axial load effect and comparison of the
results.
• Comparison the results of 6-storey and 24-storey.
• Comparing results obtained by applying impulse loads to 20-storey buildings
using time history analysis with Eigen, Eigen + static correction, and Ritz vector
analysis.
• Earthquake response spectrum analysis.
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE
6 Storey

24 Storey
GRAVITY LOAD APPLICATION
DEAD+CLADING
Sr. No Description Details
1 Dead (5 KPa) Self-weight of beams and column
180kN Joint load on exterior joints
30kN/m Uniform distributed loads on beams on each floor
2 Cladding (2KPa) 48kN Joint load on exterior joints
8kN/m Uniform distributed loads on beams on each floor

DEAD
CLADDIN
G
FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
20 Storey Building

Mode-1 Mode-2 Mode-3

 FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS RESULTS
6 Storey (with and without P-delta effect)
• 90% mass participation in both the scenarios is observed in first two modes.
• The fundamental time period in free vibration analysis without and with P-Delta effects are 0.23sec and 0.234sec
respectively.
• No drastic change seen in comparison.
Mode Period without Mass Period with Mass
P-delta (sec) Participation P-delta Participation
1 0.23 0.7528 0.234 0.7528
2 0.081 0.1663 0.082 0.1665
3 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.0459
4 0.03 0.0224 0.03 0.0224
5 0.023 0.0108 0.023 0.0108
6 0.019 0.0017 0.019 0.0016
7 0.012 0 0.012 0
8 0.011 0 0.011 0
9 0.011 0 0.011 0
10 0.01 0 0.01 0
 FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS RESULTS
20 Storey (with and without P-delta effect)
• 90% mass participation in both the scenarios is observed in first two modes.
• The fundamental time period in free vibration analysis without and with P-Delta effects are 4.038sec and 4.169sec
respectively.

Mode Period without Mass Period with Mass

P-delta (sec) Participation P-delta Participation
1 4.038 0.7316 4.169 0.7325
2 1.402 0.1433 1.435 0.1433
3 0.791 0.0414 0.806 0.041
4 0.562 0.022 0.572 0.0218
5 0.431 0.013 0.438 0.0129
6 0.344 0.0103 0.35 0.0102
7 0.282 0.0069 0.286 0.0069
8 0.237 0.0057 0.24 0.0056
9 0.202 0.0041 0.205 0.0041
10 0.176 0.0034 0.178 0.0035
 IMPULSIVE LOAD ASSIGNMENT
20 Storey

W= 21600 (Dead) + 5640 (Cladding) = 27240 KN

F= 0.02W=544.8 (14th floor)
F= 0.01W=272.4 (13th floor)
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR IMPULSIVE
LOAD
Time history function defined in ETABS representing half sine function
MODE SUPERPOSITION ANALYSIS
Time history response for first 2 modes
MODE SUPERPOSITION ANALYSIS
Time history response for first 3 modes
MODE SUPERPOSITION ANALYSIS
All modes that account for 90% of the participating mass of the building.
MODE SUPERPOSITION ANALYSIS
Time history response for first 2 modes with static correction
MODE SUPERPOSITION ANALYSIS
Time history response for first 3 modes with static correction
MODE SUPERPOSITION ANALYSIS
Time history response for Derived Ritz Vector Analysis
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRUM
ANALYSIS
Roof Displacement

NBCC 2010 Val-des-bois

EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRUM
ANALYSIS
Maximum Storey Shear

NBCC 2010 Val-des-bois

EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRUM
ANALYSIS
Maximum Storey Moment

NBCC 2010 Val-des-bois

EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRUM
ANALYSIS
Results

Sr. Building Response NBCC 2010 Val-des-Bois

No.
1 Storey Displacement 560 mm 160 mm
2 Shear 2.25 x 10^3 KN 0.85 x 10^3 KN
3 Moment 125 x 10^3 KN-m 40 x 10^3 KN-m
 PART-2
RESEARCH PAPER
FIBRE AND GRAPHENE-REINFORCED
ELASTOMERIC ISOLATORS FOR SEISMIC
ISOLATION OF STRUCTURES
INTRODUCTION
Seismic Isolation

• A technique used to protect buildings and other structures from

earthquake damage.
• The basic idea is to separate the structure from the ground using
some form of damping system, such as rubber bearings or lead
dampers.
• This isolation system reduces the amount of seismic energy that is
transferred from the ground to the structure during an earthquake,
which can significantly reduce the amount of damage that the
structure sustains.
INTRODUCTION
Elastomeric Isolators

• Elastomeric isolators (EIs) are devices that separate

structures from seismic or ground-borne vibrations.
• They are stiff in a vertical direction but flexible
horizontally, and are placed between the structure and
its foundation to disconnect them.
• However, the cost of manufacturing, shipping,
handling, and installation currently limits the use of
base isolation to important buildings such as hospitals
and civic centres.
• To expand the use of this technology to residential and
commercial buildings globally, there is a continuing
search for new materials for EIs that are highly
efficient, extremely lightweight, and low cost.
INTRODUCTION
Fibre-Reinforced Elastomeric Isolators

• Made of layers of rubber reinforced with

fiber sheets have been proposed as a less
expensive alternative to SREI.
• Both the weight and cost of building
isolators can be reduced by substituting the
steel reinforcing plates with fiber
reinforcement of high elastic stiffness.
• Different kinds of fibers such as carbon,
glass, nylon and polyester can be used as
an alternative.
 COMPARISON OF NYLON FREI AND SREI
• For the sake of comparison, steel
reinforced elastomeric isolator specimens
and fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators
with nylon were fabricated and the
deformations under vertical load were
compared.

• Under equal vertical loading, the

deformation of nylon FREI is higher than
that of SREI, which indicates that the
vertical loading capacity of nylon FREI is
lower than that of SREI.
Comparison of vertical tests
 COMPARISON OF NYLON FREI AND SREI
• The experimental tests in the fabricated
specimens were carried out with a bearing
test machine which is capable of
subjecting a single bearing to vertical and
horizontal loadings simultaneously. Test results comparing nylon and steel reinforced
• The test results show that the vertical structures
stiffness of nylon FREI is lower than that
of SREI and the damping of nylon FREI is
two times higher than that of SREI. The
vertical and horizontal test results are
shown in Table.
 COMPARISON OF CARBON FREI AND SREI
• The tension stiffness of the nylon can be
strengthened by using high carbon fiber, and
the seismic characteristics of the new isolator
have been investigated.

• The test results indicate that the vertical load

of carbon FREI is three times higher than that
of SREI

Comparison of vertical tests

COMPARISON OF CARBON FREI AND SREI

• These results indicate that the effective

damping of carbon FREI is over two-times
higher than that of SREI.
Test results comparing carbon and steel
• Because the rubber layers between the reinforcements
fibers are thin, there is little bulging of the
rubber and also the tension stiffness of
carbon is higher than that of steel plate.
INTRODUCTION TO NEWLY UNDER DEVELOPING
GRAPHENE REINFORCED ISOLATORS
• Graphene, a one atom thick layer of
carbon, is one of the thinnest materials
which can be conceived. It is the
strongest known material, which is also
mechanically flexible.
Test results comparing carbon and steel
reinforcements
• It can be seen that vertical stiffness of Reinforcement Vertical Test Horizontal Test
GREI is more with almost equal Vertical Equivalent
damping. But, it is way lighter material Stiffness Damping(%)
(kgf/mm)
compared to others, which increases its
Carbon Fiber 320,857 15.85
applications.
Graphene 468,109 12.92
ADVANTAGES:

These materials require no maintenance.

The current cost of a steel-reinforced elastomeric isolator is expensive,

costing thousands of pounds.

However, it is anticipated that the cost of GREI’s will be much lower, at

only a few hundred pounds.

This reduction in cost will be due to the use of 3D printing in

manufacturing, as well as savings in transportation, installation, and
maintenance expenses.
THANK YOU