Study of Dynamic Parameters for an Existing RC Building including Fluid Viscous Damper
Loading...
Date
2026
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
National Institute of Technology, Silchar
Abstract
This work examines how well a current six-level concrete structure in Karimganj, Assam withstands shaking during quakes; the area falls into Zone V on India's hazard map (IS 1893 Part 1:2016). Shaped like a long thin rectangle - measuring 46.37 meters by 6.75 meters - it risks large sideways movement when ground motion strikes. Computer simulations ran in ETABS version 18.1.1 produced five versions: one without added supports, another fitted with one type of shock absorber layout, then two setups splitting dampers across different floor groups, finally a model concentrating devices just on lower levels. Each design underwent spectral assessment along the primary horizontal axis, tracking shifts in vibration period, floor-by-floor shift amounts, changes between adjacent level gaps, total base force resistance, plus how rigidity spreads through height. Results highlight variations tied directly to placement strategy. Among the tested setups, the greatest interstorey drift consistently appears at the bottom level across every model. At peak performance, the dual FVD setup slashes drift by 80.0% - dropping values from 0.00762 to 0.00152 - and cuts roof movement by 73.6%, shifting it from 94.5 mm down to 25.0 mm. With noticeably fewer units installed, the lower-floor damper layout still manages a 66.7% drop in drift, reaching 0.00254, along with a 60.5% shrink in displacement, ending at 37.3 mm - a strong balance between savings and impact. Meanwhile, placing dampers higher up barely changes outcomes: drift slips just 9.2% to 0.00692, while base force eases only 8.7%, stepping from 18,926 kN to 17,286 kN, which underscores its weak contribution. Roughly half of the total lateral resistance vanishes when dampers anchor low, regardless of exact arrangement, suggesting minimal added benefit once a strategic minimum is met. Most effective results come when dampers go where movement is greatest - lower levels matter more than quantity. Placing them higher tends to reduce benefit, so upper floors see little advantage. Evidence clearly supports focusing on low-level installation for better performance during quakes. This approach works well for concrete structures of moderate height in active quake regions like northeast India.