Analysis and Design of Structures with Displacement-Dependent Damping Systems

Borislav Belev, Atanas Nikolov and Zdravko Bonev Faculty of Civil Engineering, UACEG Sofia, Bulgaria

Introduction and essential definitions

STRUCTURAL PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS

SEISMIC (BASE) ISOLATION

PASSIVE ENERGY DISSIPATION SYSTEMS

SEMI-ACTIVE AND ACTIVE CONTROL

Source: Soong, T.T. and G.F. Dargush. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering. J. Wiley & Sons, 1997.

Basic Components of a Damping System

1 = Primary frame; 2 = Damper device; 3 = Supporting member Damping system = damping devices + supporting members (braces, walls, etc.)

Classification of FEMA 450

(Chapter 15: Structures with damping systems)
The chapter defines the damping system as: The collection of structural elements that includes: (1) all individual damping devices, (2) all structural elements or bracing required to transfer forces from damping devices to the base of the structure, and (3) all structural elements required to transfer forces from damping devices to the seismic-force-resisting system (SFRS).

The damping system (DS) may be external or internal to the structure and may have no shared elements, some shared elements, or all elements in common with the seismic-force-resisting system.

Possible configurations

Possible configurations (cont.)

Types of damper devices (FEMA 273)

Displacement-dependent devices (metallic dampers, friction dampers) Velocity-dependent devices (fluid viscous dampers, solid visco-elastic dampers, etc.) Other types (shape-memory alloys, self-centering devices, etc.)

Expected benefits of application of DS

Added damping (viscous dampers) Added stiffness and damping (visco-elastic, metallic, friction) As a result, enhanced control of the interstorey drifts -----------------------------------------In new structures: Enhanced performance (reduced damage) Less stringent detailing for ductility (economy) In existing structures: Alternative to shear walls (speed-up retrofit) Correction of irregularities Supression of torsional response

Performance in terms of energy dissipation

Global energy balance: Ei = Ek + Es + E + Eh
The structures differ in the way they manage and distribute the total input seismic energy Ei Conventional structures: energy dissipation through cyclic plastic deformation ductile response means damage and losses code-based design does not explicitly evaluate Eh/Ei dissipation capacity is exhausted after a major quake Structures with damping systems: energy dissipation performed by specialized parts primary structure/frame has mainly gravity load supporting function and re-centering function

Advantages of displacement-dependent damper devices

Relatively cheap Easy maintenance Durability Well-defined and predictable response, so that the supporting members can be safely designed according to the capacity design rules

10

Drawbacks of displacement-dependent damper devices

Nonlinear response which complicates the analysis/design Relatively stiff and thus not very efficient in weak quakes Relatively small number of working cycles and potential low-cycle fatigue problems (metallic dampers only) Possible variation of the coefficient of friction with time and degradation of contact surfaces (friction dampers only) React to static displacements due to temperature effects and long-term deformations (shrinkage, creep)

11

Parameters influencing the response of a simple friction-damped frame

Illustration of the damper action

12

Definition of the equivalent bilinear-hysteresis SDOF-model

F
K t = K f + K bd Kp = Kf SR = K bd K f
Yield strength Fs = U s K t = (M f ha ) (K t K bd )
Normalized damper strength M = M f M u

Fs
1 Kt Kbd 1

Kp

Kf

Us

U
13

Criteria for efficiency of supplemental damping (1)

Fu & Cherry (1999)
2 Rd + R2 f min

14

Criteria for efficiency of supplemental damping (2)

Belev (2000)

15

Numerical evaluation of DS efficiency for a simple friction-damped frame (PGA=0.35g)

Seismic performance index, SPI = f(Rd, Rf, Re)
3 2.5 2 El Centro SPI 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized damper strength Taft EW Cekmece

16

Comparison of performance of several displacement-dependent devices

List of the damper devices under consideration:
TADAS (steel triangular plate damper, analog of ADAS) FDD (friction damper device, already discussed) UFP (steel U-shaped Flexure Plate)

Frames used as Primary structure:

Steel six-storey frame, originally designed as CBF RC single-storey portal frame (L=7.6 m, H=5.3 m)

Software tools:

SAP2000 Nonlinear (for the steel frame) DRAIN-2DX (for the RC frame) EXTRACT (for the RC cross-section analysis)

17

TADAS steel damper

18

Arrangement of UFP or FDD devices within the primary RC portal frame

19

Layout of original steel frame

Originally designed as CBF for design GA=0.27g and q=2.0

20

Performance comparison of TADAS and FDD installed in the steel frame

Record El Centro NS Taft EW Cekmece NS Vrancea NS PGA 2 m/s 3.417 1.505 2.296 1.949 scaled to 0.27g 0.27g 0.27g 0.20g Roof displacement (cm) BRACED 8.21 6.12 11.20 4.71 T-ADAS 8.12 8.78 8.00 24.3 FDD 5.35 7.27 7.47 29.2 Base Shear (kN) BRACED 1351 1153 1974 900 T-ADAS 644 583 610 1173
Base Shear
2000 Hysteretic / Input Energy, % 1750 Base Shear, kN 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 El Centro NS Cekmece NS Vrancea NS El Centro NS Cekmece NS 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 El Centro NS Cekmece NS Taft EW Vrancea NS

Energy Ratio (%) FDD 281 301 310 530 T-ADAS 45 38 37 69 FDD 70 68 69 53

Energy T-ADAS Ei 155.1 144.6 123.6 540.7 Ed 69.98 54.8 45.58 375.5

Energy FDD Ei 146.7 156 159.8 314.4 Ed 102.3 105.8 110.8 167.2

Roof Displacement
35 Roof Displacement, cm 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Taft EW

Energy Ratio

BRACED TADAS FDD

BRACED TADAS FDD

TADAS

FDD

0 Taft EW Vrancea NS

Note:

All acceleration histories scaled to PGA=0.27g except Vrancea NC, which was left with its original PGA=0.20g

21

Performance comparison of UFP and FDD installed in the RC frame

El Centro NS, PGA = 1.5x0.35g=0.52g
40 30

Displacement (mm)

20 10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)
FDD (1.5) UFP (1.5) Bare frame (1.5)

22

Estimated plastic rotations in the primary RC frame members

ax. plastic rotation in the columns (mRad) Bare RC frame 6,3 Frame with UFPs 2,7 Frame with FDDs 1,7 ax. plastic rotation in the girder (mRad) Bare RC frame 4,9 Frame with UFPs 1,9 Frame with FDDs 0,7

Ground acceleration history

PGA (g)

El Centro NS

0,35

El Centro NS

0,52

18,5

7,9

7,8

10,2

4,9

5,3

23

Pushover analysis:
Deformed shape and plastic hinges at roof displacement = 30cm

24

Basic steps of improved analysis procedure

1. Conventional modal analysis estimate T1 and {1} 2. Nonlinear static pushover analysis trace the roof displacement vs. base shear relationship 3. Calculate the properties of the Equivalent SDOF-system 4. Nonlinear time-history analysis of the ESDOF-system find the max. base shear, max. displacement and Ed / Ei 5. Determine the performance point of the real MDOFstructure (in terms of base shear and roof displacement) 6. Check the location of the performance point on the pushover curve from Step 2 7. Estimate deformations and forces in the members and dampers corresponding to the performance point

25

Comparison of results for El Centro NS with PGA=0.27g

RESPONSE PARAMETER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Lateral roof displacement (cm) 8.12 Base shear (kN) Energy ratio Ed/Ei (%) 45

Direct partially NL dynamic TH Analysis of the MDOF-system NL Static Pushover + NL dynamic TH Analysis of the equivalent SDOF-system Difference (%)

644

8.78 8

613.5 5

50 10

26

Shake table testing of friction-damped frame in NCREE, Taiwan (2001)

27

Numerical predictions of the seismic performance

50 40 Experiment Numerical

Displacement, (mm)

30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, (s)
Note 1: Note 2: Seismic input El Centro NS with PGA=0.2g Modal damping ratios for the first and second modes of vibration assumed 1.5% and 0.5%, respectively, to reflect the findings of previous system identification analyses

28

Conclusions from the shake-table testing

The full-scale testing at the NCREE proved the excellent capacity of the proposed damping system to significantly reduce earthquake-induced building vibrations The seismic performance of such friction-damped frames could be predicted reasonably well by conventional software for non-linear time history analysis such as DRAIN-2DX and SAP2000 Dampers supported by tension-only braces seem sensitive to imperfections - deviations from the design brace slope influenced the brace stiffness, periods of vibration and seismic response.

29

An example of successful application

Seismic protection of industrial facility Design PGA=0.24g, I=1.00, Soil type=B (stiff soil) Seismic weight W=7800 kN Design objective: To reduce the base shear to levels below 1120 kN, for which the existing supporting RCsub-structure was originally designed Conventional design as CBF system with chevron braces is inappropriate due to higher base shear level (2.5x0.24x7800/1.5=3120 kN) Design solution: use friction dampers with slip capacity of 5060 kN per device (total slip capacity per direction 600 kN)

30

Typical FDD arrangement in X-direction

31

Energy dissipation by the damping system

32

Under construction

33

Concluding remarks
The passive energy dissipation systems are now a mature and reliable technology for seismic protection The metallic and friction dampers offer certain advantages that can be put to work if a proper system of supporting members is employed The analysis and design of such displacement-dependent damping systems require increased efforts and time but could be really rewarding The option of supplemental damping should be considered at the very early stages of conceptual design and planning

34

Thank you for your attention!