A REPORT

ON

Seismic Performance Enhancement of a 20-Storey Steel Moment

Resisting Frame with Friction Dampers

BY

Name ID. No. Discipline

Yambal Mukul Ratnakumar 2013A2PS581P B.E (Hons.) Civil

AT
Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai
A Practice School – II station of

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE, PILANI

July-December, 2016

1
 A REPORT

ON
Seismic Performance Enhancement of a 20-Storey Steel Moment Resisting
Frame with Friction Dampers

BY

Name ID. No. Discipline

Yambal Mukul Ratnakumar 2013A2PS581P B.E (Hons.) Civil

AT
Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai
A Practice School – II station of

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE, PILANI

July-December, 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to my guide Dr K Rama Raju for this this wonderful opportunity to

work under him on the topic of “Seismic Performance Enhancement of a 20-Storey Steel

Moment Resisting Frame with Friction Dampers”. I am grateful for his wisdom, guidance,

inspiration, blessings and co-operation all throughout the project and for providing us with all

the necessary resources for the project.

I am also thankful to CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Center for this

opportunity to work under the guidance of an expert scientist and in this process we are getting

exposure to different technologies related to structural engineering and related resources. This

is giving us opportunity to gain knowledge and working experience in the area of Vibration

Control, Earthquake Engineering, Structural Dynamics and Finite Element Modelling.

I am greatly obliged to my Practice School Instructor, Mr. Mahesh Kumar

Hamirwasia for his constant support and encouragement during the course of the project. I

am grateful to the Practice School Division of BITS-Pilani, for giving opportunity to present

the work inputs into the PS-2 program. This is providing us an excellent opportunity to put

our theoretical skills in engineering to use and in turn obtain good knowledge and experience.

I express my sincere gratitude to Prof Souvik Bhattacharya, Vice-Chancellor, Birla Institute

of Technology and Science, Pilani for providing me this opportunity by including 6 months

Practice School experience as a part of our course.

Above all I pay my regards to the Almighty, my parents for their blessings and friends

for their constant support during my project work.

3
 BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
PILANI (RAJASTHAN)
Practice School Division

Station: SERC-CSIR Centre: Chennai

Duration: July – December Date of Start: 4th July

Date of Submission:

Title of the Project: Seismic Performance Enhancement of a 20-Storey Steel Moment Resisting
Frame with Friction Dampers.
ID No/ Name/ Discipline: 2013A2PS581P /Yambal Mukul Ratnakumar/B. E (Hons.) Civil

Name(s) and Designation of the expert(s): Dr K Rama Raju, Chief Scientist, Computational
Mechanics dept., CSIR-SERC
Name(s) of the PS Faculty: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Hamirwasia, Lecturer, BITS Pilani

Key Words: 20-Storey Benchmark Problem, Chevron and Cross Bracing Configurations, Non-linear

dynamic time history analysis, Material and geometrical nonlinearity (P-δ effects), Rayleigh Damping,

Friction Dampers.

Project Areas: Vibration Control, Earthquake performance enhancement of buildings.

Abstract: Dissipation Energy devices may play important role in minimizing building responses
without causing damage to structural and non-structural elements. In present study, a 20-Storey
benchmark Steel Moment resisting frame (SMRF) problem for seismically excited nonlinear buildings
is modelled using ETABS 2015. Nonlinear time history analysis using Fast Nonlinear Analysis (FNA)
with Rayleigh Damping, and Direct Integration using Newmark method with Rayleigh Damping for
three types of earthquakes for Design Based Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Credible Earthquake
(MCE). In this study building is subjected to three different types of earthquakes with Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) of 3.42, 8.18, and 8.27 m/s2 that is El Centro, Kobe and Northridge respectively
with different scale factors for time histories representing DBE and MCE. Seismic performance
enhancement of 20-Storey benchmark SMRF provided with Friction Dampers in Chevron
configuration distributed at different places along the height over the bare frame. Plastic Wen Link
element is used for modelling of friction dampers.

Signature(s) of Student(s) Signature of PS Faculty

Date Date

4
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 6

2. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF BUILDING WITH FRICTION DAMPERS .............................. 8

2.1 Description of Model ..................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Evaluation of Model ..................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Methods for nonlinear time-history analysis ................................................................ 12

2.4 Constant Damping and Rayleigh Damping .................................................................. 12

2.5 Friction Dampers .......................................................................................................... 14

2.6 Slip Load of Friction Dampers (Pall et al, 2014) ......................................................... 16

2.7 Types of Configurations ............................................................................................... 18

2.7.1 Chevron Brace Configuration ................................................................................... 18

2.8 Methodology for Design and Distribution of friction Dampers ................................... 19

2.9 Distribution of dampers for 20-Storey buildings ......................................................... 19

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................ 21

4. SUMMERY AND CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 26

5. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A: Building Responses............................................................................................ 28

6. REFERENCE ....................................................................................................................... 30

5
1. INTRODUCTION

In the present day scenario, the necessity of more flexible civil engineering structures

such as tall buildings and long span bridges is increased and they are subjected to large dynamic

forces such as earthquakes, blasts, wind, moving loads, machines and large ocean waves. This

results in large deformations and accelerations due to strong excessive vibrations in structures.

These vibrations cause human discomfort, partial collapse of structural parts and sometimes this

causes threat to structural safety and may also leads to collapse.

In order to eliminate the undesirable effects of vibrations in structures, it is necessary to

understand the behaviour and response of structural systems subjected to dynamic loads such as

earthquake and wind loads. One of the main challenges the structural engineers of the present

decade are facing is, the development of innovative design concepts to protect the civil

engineering structures from damages to non-structural elements and human occupants due to

hazards such as strong winds and earthquakes. Traditionally, the structural systems relied on their

inherent strength and ability to dissipate energy to survive under severe dynamic loading. The

energy dissipation in such systems may occur by the inelastic cyclic deformations at the specially

detailed plastic hinge regions of structural members. This causes localized damages in the

structure, as the primary structure itself must absorb much of the input energy from dynamic

forces and this requires high cost for repair and retrofit of the structure after disaster. But, for

essential structures such as hospitals, police and fire stations must remain functional even after

the earthquake. For a structure to remain functional after the earthquake, the conventional design

approach is inappropriate as it allows a structure to undergo considerable damages.

In recent years, innovative means of enhancing structural functionality and safety against

dynamic loadings have gained momentum. This includes the use of supplemental energy

6
absorption and dissipation devices in structure to mitigate the adverse effects of these dynamic

loads. These systems work by absorbing and reflecting a portion of input energy that would be

otherwise transmitted to the structure itself. These systems can be classified as passive, active,

semi-active and hybrid vibration control systems based on the manner they control vibrations.

A number of passive energy dissipation devices are commercially available or under

development. Device that have most commonly been used for seismic protection of structures

include viscous fluid dampers, friction dampers, and metallic dampers. Other devices that could

be classified as passive energy dissipation devices or, more generally, passive control devices

include tuned mass and tuned liquid dampers, both of which are primarily applicable to wind

vibration control, re-cantering dampers, and phase transformation dampers. With the introduction

of energy dissipation devices, supplement damping of the structure can be increased to 20% -

30% of critical damping, while the inherent or natural damping of structure is merely 1% - 5%.

A friction damper is a passive energy dissipation device used in the structures to reduce

the response of the building during earthquake. Friction dampers dissipate energy via sliding

friction across the interface between two solid bodies. Due to their low production and

maintenance cost this type of damping devices are widely used both for new and retrofitted

structures. The energy dissipation systems are relatively new and sophisticated concepts that

require more extensive design and detailed nonlinear time-history dynamic analysis. Several

mom-linear computer programs are now capable for modelling of friction dampers. Some of these

are ETABS, SAP2000, DRAIN-TABS, DRAIN-2DX, DRAIN-DX and ANSYS software.

Friction dampers possess large rectangular hysteresis loops, similar to an ideal elasto-

plastic behaviour, with negligible fade over several cycles of reversals (Filiatrault et al., 1986).

Unlike viscous or visco-elastic devices, the performance of friction dampers is independent of

7
temperature and velocity. For a given force and displacement in a damping devices. Therefore,

fewer friction dampers are required to provide a given amount of supplemental damping.

2. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF BUILDING WITH FRICTION DAMPERS

A 20-Storey benchmark SMRF is taken for study for seismic response reduction by

providing friction dampers distributed at different places along the height of the structure using

Chevron bracings. In this study, Non-linear time history analysis using direct integration

Newmark method with coefficients as ß=1/4 and γ=1/2 is used. By assuming 2% structural

damping in first and fifth mode of the building frame, the Raleigh damping is calculated and used

for the analysis. Plastic Wen Link element is used for modelling of friction dampers in the SMRF.

In this study, building is subjected to three different types of earthquakes with Peak Ground

Acceleration (PGA) of 3.42, 8.18, and 8.27 m/s2, i.e., El Centro, Kobe and Northridge

respectively with different scale factors for time histories representing DBE and MCE. The PGA

of the time histories used for Design Based Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Credible

Earthquake (MCE) are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Time Histories (PGA)(m/s2)

DBE MCE
Time history El KO NR El KO NR
Scale factor 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 1 1
PGA(m/s2) 1.71 3.42 4.09 4.135 5.13 8.18 8.27
PGA/g 0.174 0.349 0.417 0.422 .0523 0.834 0.843
Note: El Centro (El), Kobe(KO), Northridge(NR)

Since different earthquake records having the same intensity may give widely varying

structural responses, results obtained using only one record may not be conclusive. Hence, at

least three-time history records should be used and maximum among them used for design. (Pall

et al [2004]). Hence three different earthquake time histories are taken in this study.

8
2.1 Description of Model
The 20-Storey benchmark control problem is considered for present study of seismically

excited nonlinear building. It is 80.77m. (265ft.) tall and is rectangular in plan with bay spacing

of 6.10 m. (20ft.) on center in both the NS (5 bays) and EW (6 bays) directions. Frames used in

the buildings are moment-resisting frames (MRF’s) made up of steel.

The floor system is comprised of 248MPa (36 ksi) steel wide flange beams acting compositely

with floor slab which is made up of steel and concrete. Diaphragm action of floors is assumed to

be rigid in horizontal plane.

Each perimeter MRF frame will be carry equal inertial effects, and hence, half of the seismic

mass is provided to each frame. Total seismic mass in 1st floor is 5.63x1005 kg, 2nd to 19th floor is

5.52x1005 kg, and 20th floor is 5.84x1005 kg. Seismic mass above ground floor is found to be

1.11x107 kg.

20-Storey benchmark problem has two basements below ground level, both having height of

3.65m. (12 ft.) and are named as B1 and B2. Ground floor elevation is 5.49m. (18 ft.), while rest

of the floors have height of 3.96m. (13 ft.). Columns of the structures which are in outer frame

are box columns made up of ASTM A500 having area 15X15 in2. (0.38X0.38 m2) with varying

thickness as shown in Fig. 1. Interior Columns are wide flange sections as shown in elevation

view (Fig. 2) of benchmark problem. Building plan view is also given in Fig. 2. Other building

requirements and data is mentioned in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5.

9
10
 Table 5 Restraints
Restraints Columns are pinned at base. The structure is laterally restrained at the ground level
Splices Column splices are provided at 1.83 m from beam-column joint

2.2 Evaluation of Model

In this study, a 20-Storey benchmark control problem for seismically excited nonlinear

building is modelled using ETABS 2015. The first ten natural frequencies of the buildings are

0.261, 0.754, 1.312, 1.846, 2.398, 2.977, 3.553, 4.148, 4.755, and 5.354 Hz, respectively.

Frequencies for first five modes are almost equal to frequencies given in benchmark problem.

Fundamental period of the building, T1 is 3.838 s. Deformed shaped of first three modes of model

are shown in Fig. 3.

Mode 1 (0.26 Hz) Mode 2 (0.75 Hz) Mode 3 (1.31 Hz)

Fig. 3 Mode Shapes for 20-Storey Building Model

11
2.3 Methods for nonlinear time-history analysis
There are many ways in which nonlinear time history analysis of structure can be

carried out soft wares like ETABS. Nonlinear Modal Analysis is one on analysis method which

also known as Fast Nonlinear Analysis (FNA). FNA as name suggests, took less time as

compared to other methods. In this method, material nonlinearity is considered for link

elements and not for frames, p-δ effects are not considered as well as effects due to large

deformations are neglected. Another more accurate method of time history analysis is

nonlinear time history analysis using Direct Integration. In this method, different Integration

methods like Newmark Integration, Wilson Integration, Collocation Integration, Hilber-

Hughes-Taylor Integration, Chung and Hulburt Integration can be used. This method takes

care of material nonlinearity for frame members as well as for link elements. p-δ or large

deformation effects can also be considered using this method. Here, 20-Storey benchmark

moment resisting frame is analysed with nonlinear time history analysis using Newmark

Integration method including p-δ effects.

2.4 Constant Damping and Rayleigh Damping

Damping is another parameter for carrying time history analysis. FNA allows constant

damping for all natural modes of structure as well as Rayleigh damping while nonlinear time

history analysis using direct integration only considers Rayleigh damping. In Rayleigh Damping,

frequency of first mode and frequency of natural mode which has maximum participation factor

is used to determine damping ratios of other natural modes. Rayleigh damping equation is given

in equation (1)

12
 𝐶 = 𝛼𝑀 + 𝛽𝐾 (1)

Where, α is Mass coefficient,

β is stiffness coefficient

M is mass matrix of building

K is stiffness matrix of building

The reduced damping matrix, C, can now be determined using an assumption of

Rayleigh Damping as mentioned in Equation (2)

𝑇 𝑇 𝑇
̂ 𝑖 + ß𝑘̂𝑖
𝐶̂𝑖 = ɸ𝑅 Cɸ𝑅 = αɸ𝑅 Mɸ𝑅 + βɸ𝑅 K𝜙𝑅 = 𝛼𝑚 (2)

Where, ɸRT is Modal matrix used as transformation matrix

Dividing equation (2) by 𝑚

̂𝑖 ,

𝐶̂𝑖 ⁄𝑚 ̂ 𝑖 + ß𝑘̂𝑖 )⁄𝑚

̂ 𝑖 = 2𝜁𝑖 𝜔𝑖 = (𝛼𝑚 ̂ 𝑖 = (𝛼 + ß𝜔𝑖 2 ) (3)

Assuming first and fifth modes

2𝜁1 𝜔1 = (𝛼 + ß𝜔1 2 ) (4)

2𝜁5 𝜔5 = (𝛼 + ß𝜔5 2 ) (5)

Converting equations (4) and (5) to matrix form,

𝛼 𝜔 𝜔 𝜔1 −𝜔5 𝜁1
[𝛽 ] = 2 𝜔 21−𝜔5 2 [−1⁄𝜔 1⁄𝜔5 ] [𝜁5 ] (6)
1 5 1

Mass coefficient and stiffness coefficient can be calculated using equation (6), the

damping in first and fifth mode are assumed in benchmark problems as 0.02, i.e., 1 = = 0.02.

Values of α and β for bare frame are found out to be 5.91 x10-2(s-1) and 2.4 x10-3 (s) respectively.

For all other modes, damping is calculated, according to Rayleigh damping, is given by Equation

(7).

13
𝜁𝑖 = 𝜁1 (𝜔1 𝜔5 + 𝜔𝑖 2 )/𝜔𝑖 (𝜔1 + 𝜔5 ) (7)
Where, i is the natural frequency of the i-th mode.

Variation of Damping ratio and circular frequencies by assuming constant damping of 2%

for first and fifth modes, the damping ratio using Rayleigh method up to 10 modes, found to be

as shown in Fig. 4. Mass Coefficient (α) and Stiffness Coefficient (ß) are calculated using modal

time periods to give inputs for Rayleigh damping in ETABS 2015.

Fig. 4 Damping Coefficients for the first 10 Modes of the

20-Story Building.

2.5 Friction Dampers

Of all the methods so far available to extract kinetic energy from a moving body, the most

widely adopted is undoubtedly the friction brake. Mechanical engineers have successfully used

this concept for centuries to stop the motion of equipment, automobiles, railway trains, airplanes

etc. It is the most effective, reliable and economical mean to dissipate kinetic energy. Similar to

automobiles, the motion of vibrating building can be slowed down by dissipating seismic energy

in friction. Friction dampers consists of sliding steel plates and work on the principle that when

two metal surfaces slide, friction heat is produced and energy gets dissipated. These type of

14
dampers may likely susceptible to corrosion and cold welding which has direct effect on the

yielding threshold. There may be also associated maintenance problems need to take care.

Otherwise, Friction Dampers are fool proof in construction. Basically, these consist of series of

steel plates, which are specially treated to develop very reliable friction. These plates are clamped

together and allowed to slip at a predetermined load. Decades of research and testing have led to

perfecting the art of friction. Their performance is reliable, repeatable and they possess large

rectangular hysteresis loops with negligible fade. Their performance is independent of velocity

and hence exerts constant force for all future earthquakes, design-based earthquake (DBE) or

maximum credible earthquake (MCE). A much greater quantity of energy can be dissipated in

friction than any other method involving the yielding of steel plates, viscous or viscoelastic

dampers. Therefore, fewer Friction Dampers are required to provide the required amount of

energy dissipation. Friction Dampers are passive energy dissipation devices and, therefore, need

no energy source other than earthquake to operate it. They do not require any repair or

replacement after the earthquake and are always ready to do their job (Pall et al., 2004). Friction

Dampers are customized to suit site conditions and allow greater adaptability than is possible

with other systems. These dampers can be bolted or welded into place. Friction Dampers are

available for long slender tension-only cross bracing, single diagonal tension-compression

bracing and chevron bracing (Fig. 5). The damper for cross bracing is a unique mechanism. When

one of the brace in tension forces the damper to slip, the damper mechanism forces the other

brace to shorten and thus avoid buckling. In this manner, the other brace is immediately ready to

slip the damper on reversal of cycle. These dampers have been used in 65 feet (22 m) long slender

bracing. To avoid pounding at the expansion joints, Friction Connectors can be custom made to

accommodate bi-directional movements.

15
 In a typical undamped structure, the inherent damping is merely 1-5% of critical. With

the introduction of Friction Dampers, structural damping of 20-50% of critical can be easily

achieved. As the dampers dissipate a major portion of the seismic energy, forces and

deformations on the structure are significantly reduced. Friction Dampers significantly reduce

the initial cost of construction while dramatically increasing the earthquake resistance against

damage

Friction Damper for Hysteresis Loop Friction Damper in Tension-only

Tension- Cross Brace
Compression Brace
Fig. 5 Pall Friction Dampers (Pall et al., 2004)

2.6 Slip Load of Friction Dampers (Pall et al, 2014)

The friction dampers are designed not to slip during wind. During a major earthquake,

they slip prior to yielding of structural members. In general, the lower bound is about 130% of

wind shear and the upper bound is 75% of the shear at which the members will yield. As seen in

Figure 15, if the slip load is very low or very high, the response is very high. Several parametric

studies have shown that the slip load of the friction damper is the principal variable with the

appropriate selection of which it is possible to tune the response of structure to an optimum value.

16
Optimum slip load gives minimum response. Selection of slip load should also ensure that after

an earthquake, the building returns to its near original alignment under the spring action of an

elastic structure. Studies have also shown that variations up to ±20% of the optimum slip load do

not affect the response significantly. Therefore, small variations in slip load (8-10%) over life of

the building do not warrant any adjustments or replacement of friction damper.

Fig. 6 Response versus Slip Load (Pall et al, 2014)

For modelling friction dampers, Plastic wen link element in ETABS 2015 is used. The

inputs for modelling damper in ETABS 2015 are Ke, yield strength (slip load), Post yield stiffness

ratio, yield exponent. The bare frame model, chevron brace configurations modelled in ETABS

2015 as shown in Fig. 7.

Stiffness and Slip load are two important factors that affects behaviour of friction

dampers. Stiffness is considered as 1000 times the damper slop load in case of Chevron Brace

Configuration (Pall et al).

17
2.7 Types of Configurations
Dynamic loads on building due to earthquake cause excessive vibrations leading to

severe damage to the building. Vibration can be reduced using passive, semi-active or active

control devices. Various applications of these energy dissipation devices are used in many

countries. In all these applications, damper configurations have been used to deliver the forces

from energy dissipation devices to the structural frame. Generally the damper configurations are

classified based on the orientation of dampers and the way of damper attached to the structural

element such as chevron bracing configuration, scissor-jack bracing configuration, diagonal

bracing and cross bracing configurations. In this study Chevron bracing Configuration is used.

2.7.1 Chevron Brace Configuration

In Chevron configuration the energy dissipation devices are fixed parallel to beam

element in structure. The magnification factor for chevron braced configuration is equal to one.

The magnification factor depends on angle of inclination and placement of dampers. The

magnification factor is defined as ratio of damper displacement to inter-storey drift. It is denoted

as f. Chevron Brace details are shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 Chevron Brace

18
2.8 Methodology for Design and Distribution of friction Dampers
The methodology used for design of 20-Storey Building using Friction Dampers is

mentioned in Table 6.

Table 6 Methodology used for design of building with Friction Damper

Step 1: Define the structural properties and geometry of the building
Step 2: Define material and section properties of all components.
Step 3: Assign the proper restraints.
Step 4: Draw the damper as link element having plastic wen properties.
Step 5: Choose the bracing configuration.as chevron and model it.
Step 6: Choose the no. of dampers and there slip loads for distribution in different floors
of the building. All cases considered are mentioned in Table 7.
Step 7: Choose time histories with appropriate load pattern.
Step 8: Define acceleration time history files of EL Centro, Kobe and Northridge
earthquake records
Step 9: Define modal case, restrict analysis to planar analysis and run the analysis
Step 10: Check time period and frequencies for first few modes.
Step 11: Define all DBE and MCE cases using appropriate scale factors.
Step 12: Define nonlinear analysis case with all Newmark coefficients as 0.5 and 0.25 and
Rayleigh damping of 2 percent for first and fifth mode.
Step 13: Run nonlinear analysis and find responses for DBE and MCE to check if responses
to be in limits as per UBC.

2.9 Distribution of dampers for 20-Storey buildings

The nonlinear time history analyses carried out with Newmark direct integration Method

by considering both material and geometric nonlinearities (p-δ effects) for 20-Storey benchmark

problem for bare frame, and the frame equipped with dampers in Chevron configuration (as shown

in Fig. 8) are subjected to DBE and MCE (as given in Table 1) are carried out using ETABS 2015.

The dampers are provided in the middle bay along height of building to minimize seismic

responses of building. Distribution of slip loads on different floors is mentioned in Table 7.

19
 Fig. 8 Chevron Bracing Model
Table 7. Slip Load Distribution for 20-Storey Building
Chevron Cases
Storey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1 2J 2L 2L 2J 2J 2J 2H 2H 2H 2H 2G 2H 2E 2E 2B 2B 1G 1G 2C 1F 2B
2 2J 2J 2J 2J 2J 2J - - - - - 2H 2E - - - - - - - -
3 2J 2J 2J 2J 2J 2J - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
4 2J 2J 2J 2J 2J 2J - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
5 2H 2H 2H 2E 2H 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
6 2H 2H 2H 2E 2H 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
7 2H 2H 2H 2E 2H 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
8 2H 2H 2H 2E 2H 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
9 2H 2H 2H 2H 2H 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
10 2H 2H 2H 2H 2E 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
11 2H 2H 2H 2H 2E 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
12 2H 2H 2H 2H 2E 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
13 2J 2J 2J 2H 2E 2E - - - - - 2E 2E - - - - - - - -
14 2J 2J 2J 2H 2E 2E 2G 2H 2I 2I 2E 2E 2E 2E 2E 2E 1G 1F 2D 1G 2D
15 2J 2L 2J 2H 2E 2E 2I 2J 2K 2K 2H 2E 2E 2G 2E 2E 1G 1F 2D 1G 2D
16 2H 2J 2H 2H 2E 2E 2I 2J 2K 2K 2H 2E 2E 2G 2E 2E 1G 1G 2D 1G 2D
17 2H 2J 2H 2H 2E 2E 2H 2I 2J 2J 2G 2E 2E 2E 2B 2B 1E 1E 2B 1E 2B
18 2H 2H 2H 2H 2E 2E 2G 2H 2I 2I 2G 2E 2E 2E 2B 2B 1E 1E 2B 1E 2B
19 2H 2H 2H 2H 2E 2E 2B 2B 2A 2B 2B 2E 2E 2B 2B 2B - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2E - - - - - - - -
Characteristics of Dampers A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L are given in Table 8.

20
 Table 8. Slip Loads of Friction Dampers (kN)
DD A B C D E F G H I J K L
SL 50 100 125 150 200 250 300 400 500 600 700 800
DD, Damper Designation; SL, Slip Load.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

To form common basis for evaluating the effectiveness of different control strategies,

common performance indices should be evaluated for common building structure [7].

Dimensionless performance indices used for this study are peak drift ratio (J1) and peak base

shear (J3).A detailed description of evaluation criteria and performance indices was provide by

Ohtori et al. [7]. This performance indices are defined in equation (8) and (9).

The Peak Responses to be used for performance evaluation are base shears and story

drifts are found using Equation (1).Peak Responses,

𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑑 (𝑡)
| 𝑖 |
ℎ𝑖
𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑡,𝑖
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜, 𝐽1 = 𝐸𝑙 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜 { 𝑚𝑎𝑥
} (8)
𝛿
𝐾𝑜𝑏𝑒
𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒

𝑚𝑎𝑥|𝑉(𝑡)|
𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑡
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟, 𝐽 3 = 𝐸𝑙 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜 { 𝐹𝑏𝑚𝑎𝑥
} (9)
𝐾𝑜𝑏𝑒
𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒

Where, ‘i’ is no of storey (varies from 1 to 20), |di (t)| is the inter-story drift of the above

ground level over the time history of each earthquake, hi is the height of each of the associated

stories, δmax is the maximum inter-story drift ratio of the uncontrolled structure, Vi(t) and Fbmax

are the maximum base shear with and without control devices respectively.

The responses of the 20-Storey building distributed with friction dampers having

different slip loads with Chevron configuration (as shown in Fig.8 and given in Table 7) are

21
evaluated. Percent Peak drift ratios and Peak Base Shears are for DBE and MCE ground

excitations are listed in Table 9. These responses are compared with peak response limits

prescribed as per Uniform Building Code 1997 (Tables 10-11)

Table 9. Peak Responses in 20-storey building.

Inter-story Drift Ratio (%) Base shear (kN)
Cases Total Slip Load (kN)
DBE MCE DBE MCE
BF - 1.203 2.405 8185 16370
1 18000 0.658 2.297 6478 12438
2 19600 0.660 2.213 6469 12446
3 18400 0.672 2.360 6464 12444
4 15200 0.720 2.219 6306 12172
5 12800 0.808 2.378 6425 12344
6 10800 0.823 2.366 6290 12220
7 5000 0.833 2.331 6105 13038
8 6000 0.838 2.352 5961 12802
9 6900 0.840 2.403 5943 12632
10 7000 0.841 2.354 5907 12605
11 4000 0.850 2.334 6441 13477
12 8400 0.865 2.350 6088 12743
13 8000 0.877 1.892 6028 13248
14 3000 0.886 2.291 6636 13790
15 2000 0.935 1.962 6893 14280
16 2000 0.935 2.258 6893 14280
17 1600 0.944 1.974 6985 14538
18 1500 0.946 1.990 7041 14695
19 1550 0.947 1.991 6985 14620
20 1550 0.948 1.993 6996 14628
21 1500 0.952 2.010 6996 14710
The values exceeding the limits prescribed by the Uniform Building Code 1997 are underlined

Table 10. Allowable limits of inter-story drifts and base shear

Inter-story drift ratio Maximum Base Shear
(UBC 97 Section 1630.2.2) (UBC 97 Section 1630.2.1)
0.025 for T<0.7 s, 0.02 for T>0.7 s, and the Maximum allowable base shear 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 is given
2.5𝐶 𝐼
building period 𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ)3/4, where by 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑅 𝑎 × 𝑊, where coefficient Ca
coefficient Ct is 0.085 and h is total height of =0.44, importance factor I=1, ductility factor
building. R=8.5, and W is total weight of building.

22
 Table 11. Allowable Maximum limits for 20-storey building as per UBC 97
S. No. Parameters Limits
1 Allowable Drift Ratio (%) 2%
2 Allowable Base Shear (kN) 7043.482 kN
UBC, Uniform Building Code, T=2.290111 s
From the 21 cases of slip load distributions considered (are given in Table 7 and shown

in Fig.8), only six cases (Cases 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) are found to be satisfying the drift limits

prescribed (Table 11) for both DBE and MCE. The base shear limit given in Table 11 is satisfied

for all cases of DBE, but not for MCE except for 1.5 EL case. Slip load distribution for six cases

which are considered for optimization criteria are shown in Fig. 9

20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11 Slip Load Distribution
Storey

10
9
8 Case 13
7 Case 15
6 Case 17
5 Case 18
4 Case 19
3 Case 20
2
1
400
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

Slip Load (kN)

Fig. 9 Slip Load Distribution

Observed peak story shear distribution and peak inter-storey drift ratio for this six cases

for DBE and MCE are shown in Fig.10 and Fig.11 respectively. The peak base shears for both

DBE and MCE are shown in Fig. 12

23
 20 20
DBE Storey Shears 18
18
16 16 DBE Drift Ratio
14 14

12 12
Storey

10 10

Storey
Case 13
8 8 Case 15
BF Case 17
6 Case 13 6 Case 18
Case 15 Case 19
4 Case 17 4 Case 20
Case 18
2 Case 19 2
Case 20
0 0
8000
2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

9000

.0080
.0060

.0065

.0070

.0075

.0085

.0090

.0095
Peak Story Shear (kN) Drift Ratio
Fig 10 Peak responses of frame subjected to El Centro, Kobe and Northridge (DBE)

20 20
MCE Storey Shears 18
18
16 16
MCE Drift Ratio
14 BF 14
Case 13
12 Case 15 12
Storey

10 Case 17
10
Storey

Case 18
8 Case 19 Case 13
Case 20 8 Case 15
6 Case 17
6 Case 18
4 Case 19
4 Case 20
2 Limit
2
0
0
6500
4500

8500

10500

12500

14500

16500

.0160
.0120
.0130
.0140
.0150

.0170
.0180
.0190
.0200

Peak Story Shear (kN) Drift Ratio

Fig 11 Peak responses of frame subjected to El Centro, Kobe and Northridge (MCE)

24
 Even though all six cases satisfy the drift limit prescribed in Table 11, it is observed from

Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 that, Case 13 has much less drift ratio as compared to other cases. Story shear

distribution for DBE found to be uniformly distributed from ground floor till sixth Floor and from

ninth Floor till 16th Floor as shown in Fig. 10. For all other cases storey shears are found to be

non-uniform and it is higher at ground floor. For MCE similar pattern of story shear distribution

is observed. This indicates that the Case 13 is much better than all other five cases.

Fig 12 Peak Base Shears

It can be observed that even though the amount of slip load used is almost 20% of Case 13

for Cases 17-20, they are satisfying the prescribed limits given in Table 11. Since the cost of

friction dampers are inexpensive, it is desirable to preferred to have distribution in Case 13,

because in this case more dampers provided along the height of the building and it decreasing the

responses of the building to minimum possible.

Calculated performance indices J1 and J3, percentage reduction in peak base shear, peak

inter-storey drift ratio and peak story shears are evaluated for this six cases as given in Table 12.

25
 Table 12. Reduction in peak responses as % and Performance indices.
Total % Reduction Performance Indices
Slip Inter-story Base shear Story Shear J1 J3
Cases
Load Drift Ratio
(kN) DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE
13 8000 27.08 21.35 26.36 19.07 31.25 22.91 0.73 0.79 0.74 0.81
15 2000 22.21 18.43 15.79 12.77 12.13 6.87 0.78 0.82 0.84 0.87
17 1600 21.51 17.92 14.66 11.19 15.88 10.87 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.89
18 1500 21.33 17.27 13.98 10.23 14.74 10.14 0.79 0.83 0.86 0.90
19 1550 21.23 17.20 14.66 10.69 15.49 10.30 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.89
20 1550 21.16 17.15 14.52 10.64 15.35 10.24 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.89
Note: Most efficient values are underlined.

Best performance is found for Case 13, for which two friction dampers with slip load of

200kN are provided at each floor in middle bay with Chevron Bracings.

4. SUMMERY AND CONCLUSION

In the present study, nonlinear time history analysis of 20-Storey bare frame equipped

with friction dampers in Chevron configuration is carried out using direct integration by

Newmark method of in ETABS 2015. In SMRF, damping of 2% is assumed for first and fifth

mode and the damping ratio for all other modes are calculated using Rayleigh method. Both

material and geometric nonlinearities (P-δ effects) are considered for analysis of frame subjected

to three different time histories, i.e., N-S component of El Centro, Kobe and Northridge with

different scale factors representing DBE and MCE.

Story drift ratio should be less than 0.02 for building having fundamental time period

greater than 0.7 s (UBC 97 Section1630.2.2). Fundamental time period calculated as per UBC is

found out to be 2.29s. Maximum Base shear should be less than 7043.482 kN which was

calculated as per formula given in UBC 97 Section 16.2.1. From the of 21 different cases of slip

26
load distribution along the height of building provided in middle bay with chevron bracings, only

six cases were found to be satisfy the limits prescribed as per UBC 1997 .

Each floor provided with two friction dampers having slip load of 200kN with Chevron

bracing in middle bay of structure along the height of the building is found to be optimum

distribution of slip load for maximum seismic performance enhancement. Even though six cases

satisfy the drift limit prescribed in UBC, it is observed that, this case has much less drift ratio as

compared to other cases. Story shear distribution for DBE and MCE are found to be uniformly

distributed for this case along the height. For all other cases, storey shears are found to be non-

uniform and it is found to be higher at ground floor. It is further observed that total slip load of

optimum case is almost equal to maximum base shear observed in 20-Storey Bare frame for DBE.

Base shear limit as prescribed in UBC is satisfied for DBE by optimum case as well as

for 1.5 El earthquake which is considered as MCE, but for all other earthquakes (1Ko and 1 NR)

which are considered as MCE, base shear limit is exceeding for this case. This shows MCE base

shears cannot be controlled using friction dampers attached with Chevron bracings.

Future technology is for maximizing seismic performance in the friction dampers, by

inducing variable friction (based on measurement of stress and deformation levels by sensors)

introducing fuzzy or neuro control mechanisms.

27
5. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Building Responses
In this appendix, variation of seismic response of 20-Story benchmark problem

moment resisting bare frame and building with chevron bracing having friction dampers with

it, along with different floors for DBE and MCE are given. Peak story drift ratio variation

along floors of all 21 cases considered in this study for DBE and MCE are given in Table 13,

while peak story shears variation of all cases for DBE and MCE are given in Table 14.

Table 13 Peak story shear vs Floors (kN)

BF Case 13 Case 15 Case 17 Case 18 Case 19 Case 20
F DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE
20 2413 4825 2781 5895 2427 4943 2365 4754 2390 4785 2368 4774 2370 4777
19 4021 8043 3357 7001 3698 7730 3555 7414 3612 7478 3578 7453 3583 7461
18 4803 9605 3814 7894 4232 8936 4014 8377 3994 8447 4026 8426 4028 8437
17 5008 10016 4072 8390 4486 9108 4344 8829 4350 8850 4368 8867 4375 8876
16 5254 10509 4198 8718 4812 9611 4674 9367 4680 9373 4686 9404 4689 9410
15 5065 10130 4368 9011 4792 9542 4683 9365 4687 9368 4696 9399 4696 9401
14 5554 11109 4501 9129 4771 10315 4636 10004 4685 10075 4648 10056 4649 10060
13 5624 11248 4549 9275 5057 10789 4922 10339 4949 10381 4937 10414 4943 10417
12 5583 11165 4549 9275 5036 10712 4870 10324 4887 10383 4885 10393 4895 10392
11 5596 11193 4525 9269 5104 10862 4793 10436 4820 10486 4845 10513 4855 10516
10 5694 11387 4719 9344 4845 10125 4831 10098 4847 10128 4849 10123 4852 10127
9 5485 10969 4893 9687 4887 10062 4856 10005 4851 10025 4861 10030 4861 10034
8 4883 9766 5083 10036 4926 9868 4880 9753 4879 9759 4886 9771 4888 9775
7 5071 10141 5311 10425 5085 10251 4996 9983 5017 10025 4996 9991 5001 9999
6 6294 12588 5527 10828 5395 11541 5324 11349 5383 11423 5346 11395 5346 11392
5 6981 13963 5653 11228 6027 12388 6000 12220 6026 12288 6009 12253 6026 12269
4 7008 14015 5770 11744 6338 13179 6241 12803 6265 12912 6260 12875 6266 12873
3 7599 15198 5905 12720 6944 14625 6726 14186 6801 14318 6777 14256 6785 14263
2 8348 16696 5983 13416 7505 15736 7186 15264 7267 15379 7245 15338 7254 15352
1 8702 17404 5983 13416 7647 16209 7320 15513 7420 15640 7354 15611 7367 15622
0 1078 2157 751 1623 880 1876 817 1788 826 1803 828 1804 830 1805
Note: BF: Bare Frame; F: Floor no

28
 Table 14 Peak inter-story drift ratiovs Floors (%)
BF Case 13 Case 15 Case 17 Case 18 Case 19 Case 20
F DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE DBE MCE
20 0.841 1.682 0.603 1.354 0.755 1.581 0.788 1.605 0.791 1.616 0.791 1.611 0.791 1.612
19 1.1104 2.2197 0.7662 1.6775 0.8040 1.7435 0.8761 1.8474 0.8904 1.8639 0.8814 1.8559 0.8823 1.8578
18 1.1370 2.2749 0.8104 1.7665 0.8792 1.9262 0.9040 1.9555 0.9085 1.9746 0.9057 1.9673 0.9059 1.9692
17 1.1380 2.2760 0.8608 1.8573 0.9334 1.9422 0.9344 1.9422 0.9362 1.9470 0.9397 1.9502 0.9406 1.9514
16 1.1262 2.2534 0.8720 1.8733 0.9355 1.9456 0.9436 1.9474 0.9467 1.9507 0.9474 1.9541 0.9489 1.9557
15 1.2028 2.4057 0.8761 1.8916 0.9324 1.9241 0.9359 1.9225 0.9430 1.9300 0.9382 1.9282 0.9380 1.9282
14 1.1875 2.3750 0.8029 1.7456 0.8456 1.8628 0.8672 1.9131 0.8845 1.9329 0.8727 1.9232 0.8727 1.9235
13 1.0848 2.1696 0.7597 1.6198 0.8498 1.8520 0.8711 1.8676 0.8786 1.8755 0.8771 1.8781 0.8773 1.8786
12 1.0029 2.0049 0.7568 1.6047 0.8675 1.8542 0.8708 1.8498 0.8739 1.8528 0.8763 1.8582 0.8769 1.8587
11 0.9634 1.9258 0.7141 1.5348 0.8087 1.7164 0.8120 1.7094 0.8166 1.7134 0.8160 1.7186 0.8165 1.7188
10 0.9500 1.9009 0.6648 1.4499 0.7685 1.6180 0.7994 1.6631 0.8026 1.6672 0.8025 1.6666 0.8037 1.6672
9 0.9201 1.8411 0.6242 1.3794 0.7502 1.5685 0.7809 1.6130 0.7825 1.6167 0.7839 1.6166 0.7843 1.6172
8 0.8317 1.6633 0.6358 1.3099 0.7213 1.4625 0.7242 1.4882 0.7233 1.4924 0.7255 1.4987 0.7263 1.4994
7 0.7477 1.4943 0.6479 1.3271 0.7176 1.4384 0.7160 1.4350 0.7179 1.4360 0.7179 1.4383 0.7188 1.4392
6 0.8581 1.7162 0.6591 1.3443 0.7166 1.5270 0.7437 1.5656 0.7501 1.5747 0.7457 1.5707 0.7463 1.5706
5 0.8972 1.7954 0.6379 1.2945 0.7610 1.5687 0.7887 1.6050 0.7913 1.6123 0.7898 1.6091 0.7913 1.6112
4 0.8597 1.7194 0.6127 1.2900 0.7624 1.5576 0.7740 1.5721 0.7774 1.5748 0.7773 1.5778 0.7770 1.5785
3 0.9277 1.8543 0.6154 1.3141 0.7775 1.6680 0.8037 1.7014 0.8115 1.7166 0.8081 1.7100 0.8098 1.7105
2 1.0044 2.0097 0.6353 1.3888 0.8426 1.8178 0.8620 1.8427 0.8728 1.8565 0.8719 1.8521 0.8728 1.8548
1 1.1268 2.2527 0.7028 1.6094 0.9051 1.9610 0.9087 1.9744 0.9199 1.9893 0.9202 1.9915 0.9212 1.9920
0 0.1534 0.3067 0.0963 0.2158 0.1189 0.2568 0.1180 0.2570 0.1200 0.2597 0.1203 0.2603 0.1208 0.2606
5 Bare9Frame;5F: Floor
Note: BF: 4 no 6 5 7 9 1 9 3 1 5 3

Peak Base shears observed in six cases which satisfies Drift ratio and base shear

limits for El-Cento, Kobe and Northridge earthquakes having different PGA considered for

DBE and MCE are given in Table 15.

Table 15 Peak Base Shears (kN)

DBE MCE
Time history El KO NR El KO NR
Scale Factors 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 1 1
Bare Frame 2229 7570 4458 8185 6687 16370 15140
Case 13 2229 7570 4458 8185 6687 16370 15140
Case 15 2065 6070 3931 6893 5645 14280 12919
Case 17 2049 6360 3887 6985 5582 14538 13325
Case 18 2047 6411 3863 7041 5560 14695 13405
Case 19 2034 6405 3862 6985 5525 14620 13386
Case 20 2042 6411 3858 6996 5536 14628 13397
Note: El Centro (El), Kobe(KO), Northridge(NR)

29
6. REFERENCE

1. Filiatrault, A., Cherry, S. (1986) Seismic Tests of Friction-Damped Steel Frames, Third

Conference on Dynamic Response of Structures, ASCE, Los Angeles, USA.

2. Pall, A.S., Pall, T. (2004) Performance-based design using Pall friction dampers – an

economical design solution, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Vancouver, Canada.

3. Hart, Gary C., Wong, Kevin, Structural Dynamics for Structural Engineers, United States

of America: 1999.

4. Paz, Mario, Structural Dynamics theory and computation, 2nd-ed. New Delhi, India: 1999.

5. Clough, Ray W., Penzien, Joseph, Clark, B.J. (eds.) Dynamics of Structures, 2nd-ed.

Singapore: 1993.

6. Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, 1997 edition, published by International Conference

of Building Officials.

7. Ohtori Y, Christenson RE, Spancer Jr., BF. Benchmark Control Problems for Seismically

excited nonlinear buildings. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 2004; 130:N0.

4,366-385.

8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NEHRP guidelines for seismic reh

tion of buildings 199; Rep. No. 273/274, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington,

D.C.

9. Rama Raju K, Ansu M., Iyer N. R., A Methodology of design for seismic performance

enhancement of buildings using viscous fluid dampers, Chennai ,India.

30
10. Pall A., Pall R. T., (2004) ,Performance-Based design using Pall Friction Dampers-An

Economical design Solution, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Vancouver, Canada.

11. Chandra R. ,Masand M. ,Nandi S. K., Tripathi C. P., Pall R., Pall A.(2000), Friction-

Dampers for seismic control of La Gardenia Towers South city, Gurgaon, India.,12th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New-Zeland.

12. Sang-Hyun Lee, Ji-Hun Park, Sang-Kyung Lee, Kyung-Won Min, Allocation and slip

load of friction dampers for a seismically excited building structure based on storey shear

force distribution, Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 930-940.

31