Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{207450,
        author = {Aniket Shivshankar More and Girish Joshi},
        title = {Numerical Assessment of A G+10 Reinforced-Concrete Building With A Roof-Level Tuned Mass Damper And Base Isolation},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {13},
        number = {3},
        pages = {938-950},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=207450},
        abstract = {High-rise reinforced-concrete buildings require effective control of lateral displacement, inter-storey drift, and seismic force demand. This paper presents a numerical comparison of four configurations of a regular G+10 RCC frame: an uncontrolled basic model, a base-isolated model, a model with a roof-level tuned mass damper (TMD), and a combined base-isolation–TMD model. The structure was modelled in ETABS using 3 m bays, 3 m typical storey height, M30 concrete beams and columns, 300 mm x 450 mm beams, 450 mm x 750 mm columns, a 150 mm slab, and a 230 mm wall. Seismic Zone V, zone factor 0.36, medium soil, 5% damping, and a live load of 3 kN/m2 were adopted from the source model. Response was evaluated through full-height profiles and peak values of displacement, drift, and base shear in both principal directions. The roof TMD produced the largest reduction in X-direction roof displacement, decreasing it from 120 mm to 19 mm, or 84.17%. In the Y direction, the combined system reduced roof displacement from 130 mm to 70 mm, or 46.15%. The combined system also reduced peak drift by 53.33% in X and 50.00% in Y. Maximum base shear decreased from 1785 kN to 1075 kN in X and from 1925 kN to 1140 kN in Y, corresponding to reductions of 39.78% and 40.78%. An independent analytical benchmark showed displacement and drift differences of approximately 3–4% relative to ETABS, although simplified base-shear calculations produced larger differences. The results show that a roof TMD can be exceptionally effective for a dominant directional mode, while the combined configuration offers the most balanced overall control of drift and seismic force. The study provides a clear comparative basis for selecting passive vibration-control strategies, while also identifying the need to report exact TMD mass, stiffness, damping, and isolator properties in the final design model.},
        keywords = {tuned mass damper; base isolation; ETABS; reinforced-concrete frame; storey displacement; storey drift; base shear; seismic response},
        month = {August},
        }