PSI - Issue 61

Adil Ziraoui et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 61 (2024) 171–179 Adil Ziraoui et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

176 6

Table 4. Results depicting the seismic response of the 8-storey building. Response parameter Unit Type of buildings Fixed-base building

Base-isolated building

Fundamental Period (s)

1,1

1,89

Directions

X

Y

X

Y

Maximum storey displacement

mm mm KN

59,47

70,34

23,17

32,76

Isolator displacement

0

0

4,77

5,01

Base shear

1394,7

1703,2

568,3

655,37

Max storey drift

%

0,34

0,42

0,13

0,17

Max overturning moment

KN. m 28385,4

29251

7722,5

9659,6

Table 5. Results depicting the seismic response of the 10-storey building. Response parameter Unit Type of buildings Fixed-base building

Base-isolated building

Fundamental Period (s)

1,3

2,1

Directions

X

Y

X

Y

Maximum storey displacement

mm mm KN

82,3

92,16

32,58

43,03

Isolator displacement

0

0

5,28

5,56

Base shear

1261,4

1828,27

566,08

734,18

Max storey drift

%

0,38

0,38

0,15

0,18

Max overturning moment

KN. m 28821

37813,9

10218,2

11966,3

Fig. 6. Comparative graph of the displacement for the two structures

For the 8-storey structure, it is remarkable to note that floor displacement is considerably reduced when the isolated base approach is adopted. Indeed, compared with fixed-base buildings, we observe a significant reduction of 53.4% in the X direction and an even more impressive 61.1% in the Y direction. This reduction is particularly significant and testifies to the effectiveness of base isolation in attenuating undesirable seismic movements in these structures. Similarly, for the 10-storey structure, the results are equally convincing. We see a 53.4% reduction in displacement in the X-direction and an even more marked 60% reduction in the Y-direction compared with fixed-