Modification Factor

Related terms:
Fatigue Life, Deformation, S-N Curve, Calcium Silicate, Fatigue Stress, Ground
Motion, Stress Amplitude

View all Topics

Example of a Two-Story Unreinforced Masonry Building

Retrofitted by Shotcrete☆
Arash Mardani, ... Mohammad Yekrangnia, in Advanced Design Examples of Seismic Retrofit of Structures, 2019

2.7.6.1 Deformation-Controlled Actions

Acceptance criteria for deformation-controlled actions in components shall satisfy Eq. (2.38):
mκQCE>QUD (2.38)
where:
m = component capacity modification factor to account for expected ductility associated with this action at the selected
structural performance level. The m-factors for use with corresponding expected strength shall be obtained from Table 2.11;

Table 2.11. m-Factors in LSP for URM In-Plane Walls and Piers

Performance Level

Code Failure Mode Confinement IO LS CP

ASCE 41-13 Rockinga N.A. 1.0≤1.5heffL≤1.5 1.5≤3.0heffL≤3.75 2.0≤4.0heffL≤5.0

Bed-joint sliding N.A. 1.0 3.0 4.0

Code 360-12 Rocking Unconfined 1.0 2.0 3.0

Bed-joint sliding Confined 1.0 3.0 4.5

Rocking Unconfined 1.5heffL≥1.0 2heffL≥1.5 3heffL≥2.0

Bed-joint sliding Confined 1.5heffL≥1.0 3heffL≥1.5 4.5heffL≥2.0

 a
m-factors for rocking apply only for walls and wall piers with fa/fm′ less than or equal to 4%, unless it can be demonstrated by
analysis using moment curvature or other acceptable means that toe crushing does not occur at the expected pier drift;
otherwise, walls and wall piers shall be considered force controlled. Alternatively, nonlinear procedures and acceptance
criteria should be used.

QCE = expected strength of component deformation-controlled action of an element at the deformation level under
consideration which is determined according to Section 2.7.5.1; and
κ = knowledge factor defined in according to Table 2.12 which is assumed to be 1.0 because usual level of knowledge exists
about the example buildings including material properties, as-built sketches, etc. This factor is used to account for
uncertainty in the collection of as-built data, a knowledge factor, κ, shall be selected considering the selected performance
objective, analysis procedure, and data collection process.

Table 2.12. Data Collection Requirements

Level of Knowledge

Data Minimum Usual Comprehensive

ASCE 41-13

Performance LS or lower LS or lower Higher than LS

level

Analysis LSP, LDP All All

procedures

Testing No tests Usual testing Comprehensive testing

Drawings Design drawings or equivalent No drawings Design drawings or equivalent Construction documents
or equivalent

Condition Visual Visual Comprehensive Visual Comprehensive Visual Comprehensive

assessment

Material From default From design From default From drawings From usual From From
properties values drawings values and tests tests usual comprehensive
tests tests

Knowledge 0.75 0.90a,b 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

factor (κ)

Code 360-12

Retrofit level Enhanced or lower Enhanced or Special Special

lower

Analysis LSP, LDP All All All

procedures

Knowledge 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00

factor (κ)

a
If the building meets the benchmark requirements of standard material, e.g., ASTM, then κ = 1.0.
b
If inspection or testing records are available to substantiate the design drawings, then κ = 1.0.
It is noteworthy that only Code 360 considers the effects if confining ties in capacity calculation for URM walls, whereas the
previous version of this code, that is, Code 360-2006, does not take this effect into account. ASCE 41 is also silent about
confined masonry walls.

Example of a Steel Frame Building Retrofitted with Concentric

Braces☆
Abdoreza S. Moghadam, ... Mahdi Eghbali, in Advanced Design Examples of Seismic Retrofit of Structures, 2019

5.7.1.1 Deformation-Controlled Actions

Acceptance criteria for deformation-controlled actions in components shall satisfy Eq. (5.27).
mκQCE>QUD (5.27)
where:
m = component capacity modification factor to account for expected ductility associated with this action at the selected
structural performance level. The m-factors for use with corresponding expected strength shall be obtained from Table 5.11;

Table 5.11. Acceptance Criteria for Linear Procedures-Structural Steel Components [3]

m-Factors for Linear ProceduresW

Primary Secondary

Component/Action IO LS CP LS CP

Beams—flexure

a: 2 6 8 10 12
bf2tf≤52Fyeandhtw≤418Fye

b: bf2tf≥65Fyeorhtw≥640Fye 1.25 2 3 3 4

c: Other Linear interpolation between the values on lines a and b for both flange slenderness (first term) and
web slenderness (second term) shall be performed, and the lowest resulting value shall be used.

Columns—flexurea,b

For P/PCL < 0.2

a: 2 6 8 10 12
bf2tf≤52Fyeandhtw≤300Fye

b. bf2tf≥65Fyeorhtw≥460Fye 1.25 1.25 2 2 3

c: Other Linear interpolation between the values on lines a and b for both flange slenderness (first term) and
web slenderness (second term) shall be performed, and the lowest resulting value shall be used.

For 0.2 ≤ P/PCL ≤ 0.5

a: 1.25 –c –d –e –f
bf2tf≤52Fyeandhtw≤260Fye

b: bf2tf≥65Fyeorhtw≥400Fye 1.25 1.25 1.5 2 2

 m-Factors for Linear Procedures

Primary Secondary

Component/Action IO LS CP LS CP

c: Other Linear interpolation between the values on lines a and b for both flange slenderness (first term) and
web slenderness (second term) shall be performed, and the lowest resulting value shall be used.

a
Columns in moment or braced frames shall be permitted to be designed for the maximum force delivered by connecting
members. For rectangular or square columns, replace bt/2tf with b/t, replace 52 with 110, and replace 65 with 190.
b
Columns with P/PCL > 0.5 shall be considered force controlled.
c
m = 9(1 − 5/3 P/PCL) in the plane of bending.
d
m = 12(1 − 5/3 P/PCL) in the plane of bending.
e
m = 15(1 − 5/3 P/PCL) in the plane of bending.
f
m = 18(1 − 5/3 P/PCL) in the plane of bending.

QCE = expected strength of component deformation-controlled action of an element at the deformation level under
consideration which is determined according to Section 5.7; and
κ = knowledge factor defined in according to Table 2.12 which is assumed to be 1.0 because the usual level of knowledge
exists about the example buildings, including material properties, as-built sketches, etc.

Beams
The acceptance criteria of this section shall apply to flexural actions of structural steel elements that have a calculated axial
load that does not exceed 10% of the axial strength. Beam flexure and shear shall be considered deformation controlled.
Values for the m-factor used in Eq. (5.27) shall be as specified in Table 5.11.
Columns
Based on ASCE 41 [3], for steel columns under combined axial compression and bending stress, where the axial column
load is less than 50% of the lower-bound axial column strength, PCL, the column shall be considered deformation
controlled for flexural behavior and force controlled for compressive behavior, and the combined strength shall be evaluated
by Eq. (5.28) or Eq. (5.29).
For 0.2≤PUFPCL≤0.5
PUFPCL+89MxmxMCEx+MymyMCEy≤1.0 (5.28)
For PUFPCL<0.2
PUF2PCL+MxmxMCEx+MymyMCEy≤1.0 (5.29)
where:
PUF = axial force in the member computed in accordance with Section 5.5.5.2;
PCL = lower-bound compression strength of the column;
Mx = bending moment in the member for the x-axis computed in accordance with Section 5.5.5.2;
My = bending moment in the member for the y-axis computed in accordance with Section 5.5.5.2;
MCEx = expected bending strength of the column for the x-axis;
MCEy = expected bending strength of the column for the y-axis;
mx = value of m for the column bending about the x-axis in accordance with Table 5.11; and
my = value of m for the column bending about the y-axis in accordance with Table 5.11.

Heat Transfer Calculation in Furnaces

Yanguo Zhang, ... Hui Zhou, in Theory and Calculation of Heat Transfer in Furnaces, 2016

5.2.2 Calculation Method Instructions [17,22,35,37,40,43,45]17223537404345

First, calculate flame center modification factor M according to fuel type, combustion type, burner position, and burner tilt.
The following M values are important (please also refer to Table D6.11):

M = 0.54 – 0.2Xm for gas and heavy-oil-fired boilers.

M=0.59−0.5XmundefinedforundefinedPCundefinedboilersundefinedburingundefinedbituminousundefinedcoalun (5.28)
definedandundefinedlignite
M = 0.56 – 0.5Xm for PC boilers burning anthracite, lean coal, and high-ash bituminous coal.
M = 0.59 for grate-firing boilers with a thin coal layer (a wind-force coal thrower boiler).
M = 0.52 for grate-firing boilers with a thick coal layer (grate boiler, stoker).
Flame center relative position Xm can be calculated by the following equation:
Xm=XB+ΔX (5.29)
where XB = HB/HF, HB is burner height from the burner center to the furnace hopper center or furnace bottom, and HF is
furnace height from the furnace exit center to the furnace hopper center or furnace bottom. For a pulverized coal furnace,
apply the following correction ΔX values:

ΔX = 0.1 D≤420 t/h(116 kg/s)

ΔX = 0.05 D>420 t/h(116 kg/s)
ΔX = 0 Tangential fired boiler

When the combustor tilts upwards 20 degree, ΔX increases by 0.1. When the combustor tilts downwards 20 degree, ΔX
decreases by 0.1. When the tilting angle is between –20 degree∼20 degree, ΔX can be calculated based on ΔX linear
interpolation.
Average flame temperature is not included in Eq. (5.26) (the Gurvich equation). Based on the radiative heat transfer
equation, thermal balance equation, and Eq. (5.26), however, the average flame temperature can be determined through the
Gurvich method. See the following:
Tg4=MTF″Ta31M23TaTF″−12 (5.30)
Do note that this equation is completely empirical.
Let’s examine the scope of application of the Gurvich method a bit. Under the 1973 standard suggested by the former
Soviet Union for boiler thermal calculation, Eq. (5.26) can be applied when θF″ ≤0.9. What was the foundation for this
scope?
From the thermal balance equation:
q=φBcalVC¯A(Ta−TF″) (5.31)
and radiative heat transfer equation:
q=σa~FTg4ψ (5.32)
as well as Eqs. (5.31) and (5.32):
Boa~F=11−θF″Tg4Ta4 (5.33)
substitute this equation into Eq. (5.26):
M53θF″53(1−θF″)23=(TgTa)4 (5.34)
We know that Tg≤Ta, so:
θF″(1−θF″)25≤1M (5.35)
where when M = 0.3, θF″≤0.95, when M = 0.44, θF″≤0.9, and when M = 0.5, θF″≤0.85. Generally, M is not less than 0.44,
therefore θF″≤0.9 is the scope of the Gurvich equation.
The above analysis determined the application scope based on the relationship Tg ≤ Ta. In fact, Tg<Tm<Ta, thus the actual
application scope is a bit narrower, usually θF″<0.7.
The heat transfer in large-capacity boilers should be calculated a little differently. The Gurvich equation, Eq. (5.26), was
obtained based on experimental data from a boiler with output D ≤200∼300 t/h. (The influence of temperature uniformity in
the furnace was ignored during data analysis and modeling.) The output of a modern boiler, especially a large utility boiler,
is far greater than this value (with maximum capacity above 3000 t/h). When boiler volume is large, Eq. (5.26) does not
produce very accurate results—the calculated furnace outlet gas temperature is then lower than the measured value (often
lower than 100∼130°C). The following is an equation for furnace heat transfer suitable for a large boiler, with correction for
an uneven temperature field:
TF″=Ta1−Ma~FψTa210800qH0.6 (5.36)
where the calculation methods of a~F, ψ, Ta, and M are as introduced above. Please note that thermal efficiency coefficient
ψ is an average value. The heat release rate per unit of radiative heating surface area qH, can be calculated by the following
equation:
qH=BcalQfuelAF
where Qfuel is the heat input by fuel of 1 kg:
Qfuel=Qar,net,p(100−quc−qug−qph)100−quc+Qair
Approximately:
Qfuel=Qar,net,p
where the empirical value of qH for large-volume boilers is recommended. For bituminous coal or lean coal, qH =
290∼310 kW/m2; for low-grade lignite, when boiler capacity is 180∼275 kg/s (660∼990 t/h), qH = 210∼280 kW/m2; for heavy
oil, qH = 560∼635 kW/m2. These data can be referred to easily during boiler design.
The furnace volume heat release rate is: qV=BQar,net,pVF, furnace cross-section heat release rate is qA=BQar,net,pAF, and
furnace release rate is qH=BcalQrH, where VF is furnace volume, AF is furnace cross section area, H is furnace heating
surface area, B is fuel consumption, and Qr is the furnace heat transfer rate.
A few additional instructions are necessary for furnace heat transfer calculation. There are two main goals when performing
furnace heat transfer calculations: (1) determining the transfer rate and the heat distribution in each heating surface of the
boiler, and (2) solving and choosing the proper furnace outlet gas temperature (prior to the slag screen) to prevent slagging
and tube burst from occurring in the convection heating surface downstream of the furnace exit.
1. Design and verification calculation
Furnace heat transfer calculation is a part of the overall thermal calculation of the boiler. Boiler thermal calculation also
includes design calculation (where an original need is given to design a new boiler), and verification calculation (where a
 finished design or an existing boiler’s ability to meet an original requirement when fuel or load changes is verified).
Furnace heat transfer calculation is necessary for both design calculation and verification calculation. For the furnace
outlet gas temperature, generally TF″<TDT is needed, TDT is the deformation temperature of coal ash, TF″≤TST−100(K),
and TST is the softening temperature of coal ash.
2. Calculation of VF and AF
While calculating furnace effective radiation layer thickness s=3.6VFAF, the VF and AF are needed. VF is the enclosed
volume in terms of the water wall center line or furnace wall when without a water wall. The horizontal plane passing
through the half-height of the furnace hopper acts as the bottom boundary of VF for suspension-firing furnaces. AF is
the area covering the volume of VF; for grate-firing boilers the fire bed area is included in the total AF.

Model-Based Optimization Techniques

Peter Wilson, H. Alan Mantooth, in Model-Based Engineering for Complex Electronic Systems, 2013

10.3.7 Testing the Modified Jiles–Atherton Model Behavior

In order to test the basic behavior of the volume factor modification for the Jiles–Atherton model, the original model was
modified to include the volume factor as a parameter to the model. When a fixed amplitude H was applied, then the effect
of the parameter could be ascertained on the minor loop modeling performance. Firstly, a Jiles–Atherton model was created
based on the major loop characterization results, and then a magnetic field strength of ±30 A/m applied (about 20% of the
major loop values) to create a minor loop. The value of Λ was varied from 0.2 through to 1.0 (1.0 is the same as the original
unmodified model). Figure 10.15 shows the results of the measured B–H loop, the unmodified Jiles–Atherton model, and
the modified model with Λ=0.4.

Figure 10.15. Measured, original and Λ modified Jiles-Atherton (JA) B–H loops

It is clear from Figure 10.15 that making this modification can significantly improve the performance of the model for
minor loops, without the need for different sets of parameters. The model is now extended to include the dynamic behavior
of modifying Λ according to the recent H turning points.
Example of a Steel Frame Building With Masonry Infill Walls☆
Mohammad Yekrangnia, Hamed Seyri, in Advanced Design Examples of Seismic Retrofit of Structures, 2019

Deformation-Controlled
Acceptance criteria for deformation-controlled actions in components shall satisfy Eq. (4.30):
mκQCE>QUD (4.30)
where:

m = component capacity modification factor to account for expected ductility associated with this action at the selected
structural performance level. The m-factors for use with corresponding expected strength shall be obtained from Table
4.12. When using this table, Vfre, the expected capacity of the bare frame, should be determined;

Table 4.12. m-Factors for Masonry Infill Panels

m-Factors

β=VfreVinf LinfHinf IO LS CP

β &lt; 0.7 0.5 1.0 4.0 N.A.

1.0 1.0 3.5 N.A.

2.0 1.0 3.0 N.A.

β ≤ 0.7 &lt; 1.3 0.5 1.5 6.0 N.A.

1.0 1.2 5.2 N.A.

2.0 1.0 4.5 N.A.

β ≥ 1.3 0.5 1.5 8.0 N.A.

1.0 1.2 7.0 N.A.

2.0 1.0 6.0 N.A.

QCE = expected strength of component deformation-controlled action of an element at the deformation level under
consideration which is determined according to Section “Expected Shear Strength.” The actions in infill panels are
considered deformation-controlled. It is noted that this strength is equal to the horizontal component of the axial force
in the equivalent strut; and
κ = knowledge factor is assumed 1.0 because usual level of knowledge exists about the example buildings including
material properties, as-built sketches, etc.

Seismic Design for Buildings

Mohiuddin Ali Khan Ph.D., P.E., C. Eng., M.I.C.E. (London), in Earthquake-Resistant Structures, 2013

Response Modified Factor an Engineering Approach

The probability of occurrence of the most powerful event is small and uncertain. For this reason both IBC and UBC allow
the use of a response modification factor (R) in scaling down peak design moments. R values are based on a building’s
energy absorption and dissipation capacity. Larger values are assigned to highly damped structures constructed of ductile
materials.
Factors Affecting R Values: The planning and design of a seismic-resistant structure must consider such issues as
configuration, shape, and height; foundation and framing system; materials; construction methods; and nonstructural
components. In resolving these, the following facts must be remembered:
Building Shape Influences Behavior. Geometric shapes such as squares or rectangles usually perform better than
buildings in the shape of the letters L, T, U, H, O, or a variation of these.
Building Material Influences Behavior. Ductile materials perform better than brittle ones. Examples of ductile materials
include steel and aluminum. Examples of brittle materials include brick, stone, and unstrengthened concrete. Concrete,
the most widely used construction material in the world, is made of sand, gravel, and crushed stone bonded with
cement and needs to be reinforced with steel bars.
Height Affects Behavior. Buildings of different heights shake at different frequencies. Soil response to shaking is a
factor.
Function Affects Design. Seismic-resistant criteria may differ for hospitals, fire stations, office buildings, and the like.
Proximity Affects Design. Close proximity to adjacent buildings influences.

Seismic Bridge Design

Mohiuddin Ali Khan Ph.D., P.E., C. Eng., M.I.C.E. (London), in Earthquake-Resistant Structures, 2013

8.3.1 Methods of Structural Analysis

Three-dimensional structural models allowing for six degrees of freedom need to be developed to perform multi-mode
response spectral analysis using SEISAB, GT-STRUDL, or STAAD-Pro software. The parameters for seismic category,
response modification factors, site coefficients, and the methods of analysis currently being used appear to be semi-
empirical.
Most substructure response modification factors (R) have decreased in AASHTO’s LRFD code, resulting in higher design
moments and forces, given that design moment or force=moment or force from seismic analysis/R. Designs based on LRFD
code result in increased member size or in reinforcement steel.
The current LRFD code reclassified sites as Seismic Zones 1 through 4 in place of A through D in the old LFD code, but
there is no change in the range or magnitude of acceleration coefficients. Studies show that in current codes sufficient
attention has not been paid to ductility or seismic detailing. The design needs to be performance-based.
A solved example using the single-mode spectral analysis method is given in the AASHTO standard specifications
(Supplement A of Seismic Design Commentary to Section 4, Analysis and Design Requirements). A plot derived from SEISAB
software is given in Figure 8.2 for a 2-span bridge with a transverse cross-frame comprising multiple columns. Load Case 2
is for longitudinal forces.
Figure 8.2. Bridge deck subjected to transverse and longitudinal loading.

Wind Energy
H. Nfaoui, in Comprehensive Renewable Energy, 2012

2.04.2.4 Fundamental Causes of Wind

There are two principal reasons for the movement and direction of motion of the Earth’s atmosphere – the unequal
amounts of solar radiation received at different latitudes and the rotation of the earth. Superimposed upon the general
world wind circulation, due to these two factors, modifications arising from local disturbances, such as the tropical cyclone.
We have on a terrestrial scale regular pressure systems that produce important winds, called dominant winds or general
circulation. In practice, atmospheric circulation may be represented as it is shown in Figure 1 and it is useful in identifying
the most important global wind characteristics.

Figure 1. General world wind circulation [2].

In each hemisphere, we can discern three more or less individualized cells: a tropical cell, a temperate cell, and a polar cell,
which turn one against the other like cogs in a gear box. The north and south tropical cells are separated from one another
by the equatorial calm which is a low-pressure area and from the temperate cells by the subtropical high-pressure zones.
Actually, the sketch is not perfect. The unequal heating of oceans and continents surface, relief, vegetation, and seasonal
variations deform and modify the high- and low-pressure zones. There are also atmospheric disturbances created by masses
of cold air that move, from time to time, from the poles towards the equator. Thus, the state of the atmosphere is
continually evolving. As a result, the most favorable area for wind energy production is situated on the continents near the
seashores or in the sea.

Example of an RC Building Retrofitted by RC Shear Walls☆

Teymour Honarbakhsh, ... Kamran Rahmati, in Advanced Design Examples of Seismic Retrofit of Structures, 2019

Seismic Loads
According to Code 360, the seismic loads in the linear static procedure are considered based on Eq. (3.1);
QE-LSP=C1C2CmSaW (3.1)
where:
QE − LSP = pseudo lateral force in linear static procedure;
Sa = response spectrum acceleration, at the fundamental period and damping ratio of the building in the direction
under consideration;
C1 = modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to displacements calculated for linear
elastic response which is based on Eq. (3.2), which is 1.0 for the example building:
1≤C1=1+Ts−T2Ts−0.2 (3.2)
C2 = modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness degradation, and strength
deterioration on maximum displacement response. In the absence of precise calculations, C2 can be taken as 1.0; and
Cm = effective mass factor to account for higher modal mass participation effects obtained from Table 3.4 of Code 360
[1]. Cm is 0.8 for RC buildings with at least three stories in this table.
As a result, the equivalent static load is:
QE-LSP=0.8SaW
The seismic loads in the linear dynamic procedure are considered based on Eq. (3.3):
QE-LDP=C1C2SaW (3.3)
and hence:
QE-LDP=SaW=ABW
According to Code 360, the natural period of the first mode of vibration for the example building is according to:
T=0.05H0.75 (3.4)
where:
T = natural period of the first mode; and
H = total height of the building.

For both the northern and southern buildings, the reflection factor (B) is 1.94 and the design acceleration (A) for the region
with very high seismicity is 0.35.
We have:
QE-LDP=ABW=0.35×1.94W=0.68W
In the linear dynamic procedure, all the demand forces and deformations are multiplied by coefficients C1 and C2. The
seismic forces coefficients are presented in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11. Seismic Forces Coefficients

Natural Period of the Building Tx, y = 0.05 × 41.250.75 = 0.8 s

C1 C1=1+Ts−T2Ts−0.2=1

C2 C2 = 1.0

Sa (Earthquake-1) Sa = (A × g)B = 0.35 × 9.81 × B = 3.43B

Seismic forces coefficient in X and Y directions (Earthquake-1) C1C2Sa = 1 × 1 × 3.43B = 3.43B

Sa (Earthquake-1) Sa = 1.5(A × g)B = 1.5(0.35 × 9.81 × B) = 5.14B

Seismic forces coefficient in X and Y directions (Earthquake-2) C1C2Sa = 1 × 1 × 5.14B = 5.14B

Design procedures for tall buildings with dynamic modification

devices
Alberto Lago, ... Antony Wood, in Damping Technologies for Tall Buildings, 2019

5.1.3.3.3 Modification factors of dynamic modification properties

Nominal properties of dynamic modification system shall take into account the variation due to different factors, such as
temperature, aging, and environmental exposure (ASCE, 2017a; NEHRP, 2015). In general, to account for property variation
factors in modeling, there are three methods:
1. Using advanced software packages which explicitly models property variation due to environmental conditions (e.g.,
temperature and velocity). More detail about this approach is outside the scope of this book.
2. Through testing data (see Chapter 7).
3. Use of property modification factors (λ) (see subsequent discussion).

Property modifications factors (λ) should be defined for each category of dynamic modification devices. US codes provide
different expressions to calculate them:
• NEHRP (2015) and ASCE 7-16 (ASCE, 2017a) recommend that a minimum, λmin, and a maximum, λmax, variation
factor shall be employed in damper modeling, analysis, and design. These two factors are functions of minimum and
maximum values of three parameters: aging/environmental factors (λae), testing (λtest), and specifications (λspec), as
follows:
λmax={1+[0.75(λae,max−1)]}λtest,max×λspec,max≥λmax,lim (5.4)
λmin={1−[0.75(1−λae,min)]}λtest,min×λspec,min≤λmin,lim (5.5)
Practical ranges are (NEHRP, 2015; ASCE, 2017a): 0.85≤λmin≤0.95 and 1.05≤λmax≤1.15. The limiting values for
distributed dampers are: λmax,lim = 1.2 and λmin,lim = 0.85; while for base isolation the following values are
 recommended: λmax,lim = 1.8 and λmin,lim = 0.8 or 0.6 for NEHRP (2015) and ASCE (2017a) respectively.
Maximum and minimum design properties can be obtained by multiplying nominal design properties of dampers by
the property variation factors λmin and λmax, as follows:
Maximum property=Nominal property×λmax (5.6)
Minimum property=Nominal property×λmin (5.7)
Then, separate analyses and design for the building with maximum and minimum properties should be performed
under external excitation (e.g., wind and SLE/DE/MCER earthquake conditions).
• ASCE 41-17 (2017b): similar to NEHRP (2015) and ASCE (2017a) recommendations the minimum, λmin, and
maximum, λmax, modification factors can be computed as follows:
λmax={1+[SPAF(λPM,max−1)]}λspec,max≥λmax,lim (5.8)
λmin={1−[SPAF(1−λPM,min)]}λspec,min≤λmin,lim (5.9)
where
λspec is the ower and upper specification tolerance, which is the permissible variation between the average
production test values and the nominal values (in the range of +10% to +15%); λPM is the global property
modification factor, which is the product of all the factors for environmental and testing effects (typical values are
provided in ASCE (2017a) based on AASHTO recommendations (AASHTO, 2010));
SPAF is the system property adjustment factor, which takes into account that each property modification factor
does not occur at the same time (taken as 0.67 for all performance levels). ASCE 41-17 (ASCE, 2017b) provides
guidance on this factor based on AASHTO recommendations (AASHTO, 2010); λmax,lim is the maximum limit
value equals to 1.15 or 1.3 for distributed dampers and base isolation, respectively; and λmin,lim is the minimum
limit value equals to 0.85 for both distributed dampers and base isolation.
Multiplying nominal design properties of dampers by property variation factors λmin and λmax leads to maximum (Eq.
5.6) and minimum (Eq. 5.7) design properties.

About ScienceDirect Remote access Shopping cart Advertise Contact and support
Terms and conditions Privacy policy

We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you
agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered
trademark of Elsevier B.V.