Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

Friction Dampers for Seismic Protections of Steel Buildings Subjected to

Earthquakes: Emphasis on Structural Design
Lucia Tirca*
Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Synonyms
Damping; Earthquake; Energy dissipation; Friction dampers; Seismic design; Steel buildings

Introduction
To reduce the seismic demand, researchers have proposed to incorporate supplemental energy dissipation
devices into the structural system of buildings. According to the primary dissipation mechanism,
supplemental energy dissipation devices are grouped into two categories: hysteretic and
viscoelastic. Hysteretic devices rely on the relative displacements of components within the device and
are typically based on either metallic yielding or frictional sliding, while viscoelastic devices are velocity
dependent. More specifically, friction devices dissipate energy through the relative sliding developed
between two solid interfaces. Depending on the type of friction devices, they could be installed in line
with single-diagonal or chevron steel braces, at the intersection of X-bracing system, and in parallel with
the beam located at the top of chevron bracing system. The activation of slip forces that characterize the
designed friction dampers occur simultaneously with the maximum internal forces allowable to develop
in the system during the ground motion excitation. The building reaches the peak interstorey drift when
the available slip distance provided by friction damper devices was consumed. “The forces generated by
these devices installed in the structural members are usually in phase with the internal forces resulting
from ground motion shaking” (Christopoullos and Filiatrault 2006).
The total input energy, EI, induced by a seismic event into a structural system can be expressed as a
summation of kinetic energy, Ek, cumulative strain energy, ES, inherent damping, ED, and the hysteretic
damping Eh of the seismic force resisting system (SFRS). In this study, Eh is the damping induced by
friction devices. The energy balance equation is:

EI ¼ Ek þ ES þ ED þ Eh (1)

The kinetic and cumulative strain energy are accumulated into the primary structural system and rely on
structural damage (Akiyama 2000; Tirca 2009), while the system is damped by both ED and Eh, which are
amplitude-dependent. In general, the contribution of ED and Eh is related to the amount of post-yielding
response and Eq. 1 can be rearranged as follows:

E k þ E S ¼ E I  ðE D þ E h Þ (2)

In Eq. 1, the term (Ek + ES) expresses the vibrational energy, Ev, or more specifically the potential damage
energy, while (ED + Eh) is the energy dissipated by viscous damping in the structural members and
supplemental devices. Thus, by adding damping into a structural system the elastic vibration energy

*Email: Lucia.Tirca@concordia.ca

Page 1 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

80%

70%

60%

50%

Ev = % EI
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Damping

Fig. 1 Vibrational energy versus supplemental damping

diminishes, while structural members are protected from damage associated with permanent deforma-
tions. In this light, the main design objective is to minimize the difference between the seismic input
energy and that dissipated by the dampers (Christopoullos and Filiatrault 2006). The variation of Ev as a
function of supplemental damping is depicted in Fig. 1.
Pioneering work on friction devices was conducted by Pall (1979) and Pall and Marsh (1981). Since
then, several types of friction dampers have been developed and studied in the literature. These devices
differ in their mechanical shape and materials used for the sliding surfaces.
Pall friction dampers dissipate energy through friction developed by the relative sliding within two
surfaces in contact which are clamped by posttensioned bolts. In order to obtain stable rectangular
hysteresis loops similar to that of Coulomb friction, different types of surface treatment and lining
material were studied experimentally. After investigating the response of slip bolted joints under
monotonic loading, Pall reported that the most stable behavior was obtained when brake lining pads in
contact with mill scale surface on plate was chosen (Fig. 2a). Nevertheless, minor differences between the
static and dynamic friction coefficient were observed. However, under large seismic excitations, the
posttensioned bolts of friction dampers may impact into the end of slotted hole and undergo bearing or
even bolt shear failure. The hysteretic behavior of friction damper shown in Fig. 2b is similar to that of an
elasto-perfectly plastic system. Herein, the backbone curve is composed of four segments: elastic,
slipping, bearing, and bolt shear failure. When the demand is higher than the available slip length
which is equal to the length of slotted hole, a sudden increment in storey shear forces accompanied by
decreasing of Coulomb damping is encountered. The hysteresis behavior depicted in Fig. 2c in terms of
slip load versus the slip length, D, shows rectangular symmetrical loops which are largely influenced by
the fluctuation of friction coefficient during the slipping stage. The elastic stiffness, ko, shown in Fig. 2c, is
the stiffness of the attached brace member.
Due to their efficiency (Pall and Pall 2004), Pall friction dampers were employed in more than 40 new
and retrofit buildings in Canada, United States, and India (Christopoullos and Filiatrault 2006). Examples
of Pall friction damper installed in an X-bracing system and single-diagonal brace are showed in Fig. 3.
In the last two decades, the following types of friction devices have been developed: slotted bolted
connections (Fitzgerald et al. 1989; Grigorian et al. 1993; Tremblay 1993), Sumitomo devices developed
by Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. of Japan and reported by Aiken and Kelly (1990), energy dissipating
restraint damper (EDR) developed by Flour Daniel Inc. (Nims et al. 1993), friction variable damper
developed based on the EDR damper (Zhou and Peng 2009), friction damper developed by Mualla
(2000), etc.

Page 2 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

Fig. 2 Response of slip-bolted joint: (a) monotonic test, (b) back-bone curve, and (c) hysteretic behavior (After Pall 1979)

Fig. 3 Pall friction dampers manufactured by Pall Dynamics Lmt. Montreal: (a) installed in X-bracing at Concordia Library,
Montreal, and (b) installed in single-diagonal brace at Boeing Commercial Airplane Factory Everrett, USA (Courtesy Dr. Pall)

The energy dissipated by the Sumitomo friction damper is due to friction generated when friction pads,
made of cooper alloy with graphite plug inserts, slide directly on the inner surface of the outer cylinder.
The precompressed internal spring, incorporated into the device, applies a force that is converted through
the action of inner and outer wedges into a normal force on the friction pads. Sumitomo device can be
installed in parallel to the beam located on top of chevron bracing system or in-line with steel braces. As
reported by Aiken and Kelly (1990), Sumitomo dampers were used in two high-rise buildings in Japan in
order to resist small intensity earthquakes and ground floor vibrations.
The EDR damper is similar to Sumitomo device. It includes the following components: an internal
spring, steel compression wedges, bronze friction wedges, stops at both spring’s ends, and the outer steel
cylinder. Its functioning comprising the generating slip force depends on the length of the internal spring.

Page 3 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

In addition, the normal force acting on the cylinder wall and the friction force developed between the
bronze friction wedges and the inner surface of the outer cylinder determine the slip force in the device. As
noted by Nims et al. (1993), the EDR device can produce a wide range of hysteretic behavior such as
double-flag shape and triangular lobed shape. Both types of hysteresis loops are self-centering. By using
the same principles, Zhou and Peng (2009) proposed a new friction variable damper where a sliding shaft
and a friction ring were used to replace the spring and wedges. In addition, two zones with high and low
friction coefficient have been defined in the internal walls of the outer cylinder.
The friction damper proposed by Mualla (2000) was added to connect the top part of chevron braces to
the mid-span of a moment resisting frame beam. This friction damper, patented by DAMPTECH
Denmark, consists of three steel plates that are able to rotate against each other around a pre-stressed
bolt which passes through. Two circular friction pad discs inserted between the aforementioned steel
plates provide dry friction lubrication and ensure stable friction forces. As reported by Liao et al. (2004), a
full scale test conducted on a three-storey moment resisting frame with added chevron bracing system and
Mualla’s dampers was investigated. The total weight of the frame was about 34 t. The bracing system
consisted of bar members that were pre-tensioned in order to avoid buckling. Due to the application of
lower scaling simulated ground motions, no damage of structural members was reported during the
conducted experimental tests.

Design Provisions
Since 1980, seismic response control techniques have been used as complementary solutions to the
existing SFRSs. Despite of their wide-spread applications, design guidelines for structures equipped with
supplemental energy dissipation devices (hysteretic and viscoelastic) are still in evolving phases. This
study refers to the design philosophy of structures with incorporated friction damper devices (FDD). As
mentioned above, FDDs are hysteretic devices. For example, buckling-restrained braces are also known
as hysteretic damper devices and are designed to dissipate part of vibration energy through yielding of the
core plate.
In general, hysteretic devices are installed in braces and are able to undergo large inelastic response,
while they dissipate most of the hysteretic energy. The purpose of installing these devices into the
structural system is to maintain the main structure either elastic or within low inelastic deformations.
Both, the main frame and the supplemental energy dissipation system, share the same deformation, which
in turn is that of the entire system. It is important to assure stable response of these devices under dynamic
loading. Thus, the added dampers installed in new or retrofit buildings should yield or slip before the shear
resistance of the main structure is reached.
In North America, the first design guidelines addressing provisions for passive energy dissipated
devices were introduced in FEMA 356 (2000) and FEMA 450 (2003) that refer to the seismic rehabil-
itation of buildings and seismic design for new buildings, respectively. Later on, FEMA 450 was replaced
by FEMA-P 750 (2009). The aforementioned design guidelines were incorporated in Chapter 14 of
ASCE/SEI 41-13 (Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings), as well as in Chapter 18 of
ASCE/SEI 7-10 standard. It is noted that Commentary J of NBCC 2010 (National Building Code of
Canada) includes two clauses in regard to seismic design with supplemental energy dissipated devices.
However, both CSA/S16-2009 and ANSI/AISC 360-2010 standard provide design regulations for the
“ductile buckling-restrained braced frames” system.
In Europe, the Eurocode 8 part 1 (CEN 2004) contains Chapter 10 entitled Base isolation, but this
chapter does not cover regulations for passive energy dissipation devices installed into several storeys of
building’s structure.

Page 4 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

The aforementioned guidelines specify general requirements, analysis procedures, required testing
program, etc. A brief review of these guidelines with highlights on friction damper devices design is
presented below.

FEMA P-750 and ASCE/SEI 7-10 Provisions

Design Philosophy
General requirements:

– Structures with a damping system have a seismic force resisting system that provides a complete load
path. The base shear used to design the employed SFRS shall not be less than Vmin, where Vmin is the
grater of:
V min ¼ V =Bv þ1 and V min ¼ 0:75 V :

Herein, V is the seismic base shear in the direction of calculation determined in accordance with the
code procedure corresponding to the selected SFRS and Bv+1 is the numerical coefficient set for
effective damping reduction factor that is equal to the damping provided by supplemental dampers
in addition to the inherent damping (2 % for steel structures). For irregular building structures and for
damping system that has less than four damper devices per floor disposed in the direction of loading,
the minimum base shear will not be less than 1.0 V.
– Damping system may be used in addition to the SFRS in order to meet interstorey drift limits and it may
be located external or internal to the structure, while it shares or not the members of SFRS. In Fig. 4 is
illustrated a SFRS consisting of one bay moment resisting frame (MRF) and a damping system
composed of diagonal braces with installed FDs. The FD system is located independently to the
MRF system.
– Energy dissipating devices must be tested before installation for displacement and slip force
corresponding to seismic demand that is required by code.
– Linear static and response spectrum analysis methods for design are accepted for regular structures that
have at least four damper devices per each floor located in one principal direction of the building. Like
MRF or braced frame structures, damped structures yield during the design ground motions, while they
need to behave elastically under the wind loads.
– For detailed design and seismic response investigations, nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses are
recommended.

MRF
PFF

Fig. 4 Configuration of SFRS and damping system (no shared elements)

Page 5 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

– Dampers are modeled to perform in the plastic range. The computer model should be calibrated based
on experimental test results. For designs in which the SFRS is expected to yield, the postyield behavior
of the structural elements must be modeled explicitly.

In the ASCE/SEI 7-10 provisions, damping system is defined as being “the collection of structural
elements that includes all the individual damping devices, all structural elements or bracing required to
transfer forces from damping devices to the base of the structure, and the structural elements required to
transfer forces from damping devices to the seismic force-resisting system.” For details of design
procedure, the reader is referred to the ASCE/SEI 7-10 document. It is noted that other design method-
ologies can be applied to design structures equipped with friction dampers.

Design of Structures Equipped With Pall Friction Dampers

As noted above, metallic dampers and friction dampers are hysteretic dampers. The design of structures
equipped with metallic dampers or friction dampers is similar. The difference consists of changing the
yield load corresponding to metallic dampers with the slip load of friction dampers. As mentioned above,
friction dampers are installed in braces and are designed not to slip under the wind forces. On the other
hand, in order to increase the building performance under earthquake loads, systems composed of friction-
damped braces are added to the MRF structures, while the MRF system should posses enough strength,
stiffness, and ductility. Furthermore, all members of the SFRS and those attached to FDs should be
designed to carry the internal forces developed when slip forces are activated. Thus, the application of
capacity design checks to structural members is required. According to Christopoullos and Filiatrault
(2006) the design of structures equipped with friction dampers can be divided in four steps:

• Calculate the demanded slip force and size the in-line brace by employing simplified methods (e.g., the
equivalent static force procedure). Then, the demanded peak interstorey drift (e.g. linear dynamic
analysis methods) should be evaluated.
• Optimize the design of friction dampers and adjacent members.
• Apply the capacity design and size all structural members to carry the designed slip forces.
• Use the nonlinear time-history dynamic analysis to check the design performance of building structure
under an ensemble of selected ground motions scaled to match the design response spectrum
corresponding to 2 % probability of exceedance in 50 years (NBCC 2010).

A review of different design procedures from the literature is discussed below. However, in all design
procedures, the building structure is composed of a bare frame system and a supplemental damping
system, whilst its response is analyzed before and after the friction dampers are activated.

Design Procedures from the Literature

The first design procedure for MRF system equipped with friction damped braces was proposed by
Baktash and Marsh (1986). They considered a single storey MRF structure with friction damped braced
bays. Based on this procedure, the slip force is activated when yielding in the moment resisting frame
brace is reached. For a single bay MRF frame that was designed based on the principle “strong column
weak beam”, the shear force resisted by the frame action, Vs is related to the plastic moment capacity of the
MRF beam, Mp. Herein, Mp = Vsh/2, where h is the storey height. Thus, the proposed design method is
based on the assumption that the lateral shear force leading the damper in-line with brace to slip must be
equal to the shear force causing the MRF to yield and is expressed by the following equation:

V s ¼ 2M p =h (3)

Page 6 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

The corresponding shear deflection of the storey, Ds is:

Ds ¼ ðV t  V br Þ=k u (4)

where Vt is the total shear force exerted by the frame and braces, Vbr is the total shear force exerted by
braces alone, and ku is the lateral stiffness of the bare MRF.
The hysteretic energy dissipated by friction devices Ef is:

E f ¼ V br Ds ¼ V br ðV t  V br Þ=k u (5)

By differentiating Eq. 5 with respect to Vbr and setting it equal to zero, the maximum energy dissipated by
friction devices is obtained:

ðEf =ðV br ¼ V t =k u  2V br =k u ¼ 0 (6)

From Eq. 6, the shear force exerted by braces is:

V br ¼ 0:5V t (7)

Thus, to maximize the energy dissipated by friction devices, the total shear force must be equally shared
between friction devices and the bare frame (MRF). In addition, it was reported that the optimum slip
force of friction devices installed in structure depends on the structural characteristics only and not on the
ground motion intensity (Baktash and Marsh 1987).
Filiatrault and Cherry (1988) proposed to determine the optimum activation of friction devices based on
minimizing the Relative Performance Index, RPI, devised from the application of the energy concept.

RPI ¼ 1⁄2½SEA=SEAo þ U max =U max0  (8)

where SEA is the strain energy area of all structural members of a friction damped system, SEA0 is the
strain energy area corresponding to a zero activation force, Umax is the maximum strain energy stored in
all structural members of a friction damped system, and Umax0 is the maximum strain energy for a zero slip
force. The values resulted for the RPI yield to three cases: (i) RPI = 1 corresponds to the response of a bare
frame structure; (ii) RPI < 1 corresponds to the response of a damped structure which is smaller than the
response of the bare frame structure; (iii) RPI > 1 corresponds to the response of a damped structure
which is larger than the response of the bare frame structure. Authors recommended the selection of
diagonal braces to comply to Tb/Tu < 0.4, where Tb and Tu are the fundamental period of the braced frame
structure and bare frame structure, respectively. Herein, the fundamental periods Tb and Tu can be
expressed as Tb = 2p/ob and Tu = 2p/ou, where ob is the natural circular frequency of the fully braced
frame before dampers are activated, ob = (kb/m)0.5 and ou is the natural circular frequency of bare frame,
ou = (ku/m)0.5. In addition, kb and ku are the lateral stiffness of the braced frame structure and bare frame
structure, respectively. In these expressions, m is the total seismic mass of the system. Later on, Filiatrault
and Cherry (1990) proposed the following equation to calculate the total shear force, Vo that is required to
activate all friction damper devices in a structure:



V o =W ¼ ag =g  Q T b =T g , T b =T u , N f (9)

where Nf is the number of floors, ag is the design peak ground acceleration, g is the gravity acceleration, Tg

Page 7 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

is the predominant period of the selected design ground motion, and Q is an unknown single valued
function that is given in Eq. 10a for 0  Tg/Tu  1 and Eq. 10b for Tg/Tu > 1.



Q ¼ T g =T u  1:24N f  0:31 T b =T u þ 1:04N f þ 0:43 (10a)




Q ¼ ðT b =T u Þ  0:01N f þ 0:02 T g =T u  1:25N f  0:32 þ T g =T u  0:002  0:002N f
þ 1:04N f þ 0:42 (10b)

Equations 9 and 10a or 10b can be used directly to calculate the total base shear force V0. It is noted that for
a single diagonal brace located at floor i, the slip force is Pi and the activation shear at that floor is Vi = Pi
cosyi, where yi is the angle of brace inclination reported to a horizontal line.
In the meantime, studies on hysteretic bracing systems were carried out by Ciampi et al. (1990, 1992,
1995, etc.) who considered that both MRF and bracing system are arranged in parallel. They concluded
that the activation of friction damper devices should occur before yielding of moment resisting frame. In
addition, Ciampi et al. (1995) referred to four key parameters such as:

• Tf, which is the fundamental period of the bare moment resisting frame. A deductable parameter is
a = Tb/Tf where Tb is the fundamental period of the bracing system.
• l = kb/kf which is the ratio between the stiffness of bracing system and the stiffness of the bare moment
resisting frame.
• ß = dby/dfy which is the ratio between the displacement that cause yielding of bracing system and that
that causes yielding of bare MRF system.
• f = Ffy/mag which is the yield strength of the frame normalized to the mass of the structure multiplied
by the design peak ground acceleration. Similarly, it can be defined b = Fby/mag, where Fby is the yield
force of bracing system. The total normalized force is II = f + b.

The selection of the above parameters suggests the variation effect of ß and l on the building response.
When ß = 1, bracing system and MRF system yield for the same lateral displacement. When ß = 0, the
structural system corresponds to the MRF system only. They recommended an optimal value of ß around
0.5.
The application of this design methodology to MDOF systems requires uniform distribution of stiffness
and slip forces along the building height, aiming at uniform activation of friction devices in order to avoid
damage concentration within a specific floor. In addition, they proposed to maintain at each storey the
stiffness of braces proportional to the bare frame stiffness. Also, they recommended keeping proportion-
ality between the horizontal projection of slip forces per floor and the corresponding static or dynamic
distributed storey shear over the building height. In addition, two design assumptions were made: (i) the
MRF system is designed to respond elastically while the friction damper devices behave in the non-linear
range and (ii) the MRF system may yield when dfy was reached, therefore after friction damper devices
were activated. The tri-linear force-displacement constitutive low is depicted in Fig. 5.
Fu and Cherry (1999, 2000) proposed a simplified design method that leads to a code compatible
procedure for a friction-damped steel braced frame system. First, they developed the method for a SDOF
system based on establishing an equivalent ductility-related force modification factor R, which reflects the
capacity of the system to dissipate energy. They have developed a trilinear model similar with that
illustrated in Fig. 5, where  parameter was replaced by the restoring force of a SDOF system, f(t). In
addition, I and II parameters were replaced by fs and fy, where fs is the slip restoring force (after dampers
were activated) and fy is the yielding restoring force developed when f(t) exceeds fy and the frame
members yield. Thus, to design the friction-damped steel braced frame system, the design base shear is

Page 8 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

ηII
kf
ηI
Bracing system
ηb

kf+kb MRF
ηf
kb
kf

δby δfy δ

Fig. 5 Trilinear force-displacement constitutive low (After Ciampi et al. 1995)

first calculated based on the code procedure (e.g. equivalent static force procedure). In this case, the value
assigned to the R factor (Rd in the current NBCC code) is evaluated based on the selected system
parameters. Then, all members are designed based on forces resulted from the distribution of design
base shear over the building height, and the brace stiffness and slip forces are evaluated at each floor. In
this study, friction-damped braces were installed in a ductile steel MRF system. The response of building
designed based on the employed R factor should be verified such that the demanded lateral frame
deflection under the wind and earthquake load to be maintained below the code limits. For example,
according to the NBCC 2010 requirements, the system must respond elastically under the wind load,
while the interstorey drift should not exceed hs/500. Under earthquake loads, the maximum interstorey
drift should be less than 2.5%hs for a building classed under the normal category. Herein, hs is the storey’s
height.
Tirca (2009) proposed a design methodology to upgrade the seismic resistance of an existing steel
moment frame building designed before 1970. The method complies with FEMA 356 (2000) provisions.
First, the available elastic base shear, Vf, provided by the existing steel moment frame system was
evaluated by using modal response spectrum method and a three-dimensional building model. Then,
the required base shear carried by friction-damped braces Vbr was computed as being the difference
between the code demand, V, and Vf. Herein, V is the minimum lateral earthquake force computed based
on NBCC provisions by setting Rd = 1.0. The effect of torsion was included. By considering the nonlinear
behavior of friction dampers, the resulted base shear assigned to friction-damped braces, Vbr was divided
by Bv+1 as per FEMA 356 and then was distributed over the structure height. According to FEMA
356 recommendation, minimum four friction-damped braces displaced in the direction of loading were
installed in each floor. The slip force of each device located at storey i was computed by divided the
corresponding storey shear force resulted from a dynamic analysis to the number of friction-damped
braces and to the cosyi, where yi was defined above. All steel braces were designed to behave elastically
while sustaining the nonlinear response of attached friction damper. Thus, braces were sized such that
130%Cr to be larger than the slip force, whereas Cr is the brace compressive resistance. To preserve the
existing columns of MRF system in elastic range, it was proposed to stagger the installation of friction-
damped braces such that to minimize torsion. To prevent the concentration of damage at specific storeys, it
was proposed to maintain a constant ratio between the horizontal projection of slip forces and dynamic
distributed storey shear over the building height. However, the available slip length should be
recommended in the design phase in order to avoid sudden failure. The displacement at yield, Dy, depends
on the stiffness of friction-damped braces, kbd, as shown in Fig. 2c. As noted above, the stiffness of the

Page 9 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

Fig. 6 Mechanical model of a SDOF system

frame and the stiffness of friction-damped braces are in parallel (kf + kbd), whereas Dy = Fs/(kf + kbd) and
Fs is the slip restoring force. In this study, the seismic response of retrofitted building equipped with
friction-damped braces was verified to remain within the interstorey drift code limits and forces developed
in structural members to be below the members’ resistance. It was concluded that friction-damped braces
installed in moment frame buildings are able to control the interstorey drift and floor acceleration.

Numerical Modeling of Friction-Damped Braces

In general, researchers select the bilinear force-deformation model for simulating the behavior of friction
damper devices. When performing nonlinear time-history analyses, convergence problems may arise due
to the sharp transitions from the elastic to inelastic stages during the loading, unloading, and reloading
cycles. Due to the large number of friction devices installed in a building structure, the bilinear model “can
become computationally inefficient” when these devices are in different phases of stiffness transition
(Moreschi and Singh 2003). To overpass this modeling drawback, the Bouc-Wen model is recommended.
In addition, in the case of Bouc-Wen model, it is the same differential equation that governs its response
(Eq. 11) and more specifically its behavior during different transition stages. Therefore, the Bouc-Wen
model is able to simulate the highly nonlinear Coulomb friction and has the ability to represent different
hysteresis shapes according to the values of the parameters involved (Morales Ramirez 2011). Since the
desired shape of the Coulomb dry friction law is symmetric and strength and stiffness degradation is
neglected, the Bouc-Wen model is reduced to a nonlinear restoring force (Eq. 11) of a SDOF system
shown in Fig. 6. The evolutionary variable z, given in Eq. 11, is defined in Eq. 12.

_ zÞ ¼ ak o u þ ð1  aÞk o z
fsðu, (11)
 
A  jzjn ½g þ bsgnðuz
_ Þv
z_ ¼ u_ (12)


In the above equations, a is the participation ratio of the initial stiffness in the nonlinear response, ko is the
initial stiffness of the system, u is the displacement of the SDOF system, and z is the hysteresis variable. In
Eq. 12, g and b are parameters controlling the shape of the hysteresis cycle and the exponent n influences
the sharpness of the model in the transition zones. The remaining parameters A, n, and  control the
degradation process in stiffness and strength. When the degradation process is neglected, the aforemen-
tioned parameters are A = Ao, n = 1, and  = 1. The considered SDOF system is characterized by the
restoring force fs(du/dt, z) that has a linear and a nonlinear component, as defined in Eq. 11. Using n = 1
might yield to a flexible behavior, while increasing the period of vibration and reducing the inertial forces.
The smooth transition toward a rectangular hysteresis shape is obtained for a large value of variable
n which might become computationally expensive, because the transient analysis requires the calculation

Page 10 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

a
fs
b Ps + fd
kbr
BW Slipping Ps Bearing No
Brace slipping
–ua
EPPGap No u
uy ua + uy
slipping
–Ps Slipping
EPPGap
Bearing
–(Ps + fd)

Fig. 7 Friction-damped brace: (a) Schematic model and (b) Hysteresis model plus the bearing state

of the evolutionary variable z at each step of time for a single element. By using n = 10, it gives an
acceptable level of prediction because the difference is quickly reduced throughout the evolution of the
slipping stage.
To simulate the slip and slip-lock phases of friction-damped brace device in OpenSees (McKenna and
Fenves 2004), Morales Ramirez (2011) proposed a novel equivalent uniaxial material composed of
BoucWen material (BW) in parallel with gap springs made of Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Gap material
(EPPGap), which are already available in the OpenSees library (Mazzoni et al. 2006). The friction damper
was arranged in series with the brace member made of steel material. The brace was modeled with a truss
element. The schematic representation of friction-damped brace device is shown in Fig. 7a. In the
illustrated model, BoucWen material was selected to replicate the smooth hysteresis behavior of friction
damper (stick–slip and slip phase), which was activated when the axial stress ss generated by the slip force
Ps was reached (ss = Ps/Abr and Abr is the gross area of the attached brace). Each friction damper is
characterized by its slip force and slip length that are resulted from calculation. However, under strong
ground motions, the provided slip length, ua, may be limited and the pretensioned edge bolt may drive the
friction damper into the slip-lock phase as depicted in Fig. 7b (Morales Ramirez and Tirca 2012). Herein,
uy is the elastic axial deformation of the brace. To simulate the slip-lock phase, one equivalent EPPGap
spring made of three bilinear gap springs arrange in parallel each other are defined to act in tension and
another set in compression. Each uniaxial ElasticPPGap material (OpenSees notation) has a defined
stress–strain or force-deformation relationship either in tension or in compression. Thus, one equivalent
EPPGap spring is activated when the displacement demand exceeds the available slip length, +ua, and the
other is activated when the -ua slip length is reached. Once activated, this component is able to limit the
displacement and to increase the force experienced by the friction damper. The threshold force of these
gap elements is related to the maximum force that the device is able to withstand (Ps + fd) without reaching
failure (Fig. 7b). To control the failure phase, the MinMax material was set to decouple the friction device
when the strain of the ElasticPPGap material exceeds the predefined bounds either in tension or
compression. In addition, when the MinMax material is activated (e.g., t = ti), the device is decoupled
from t = ti until the end of analysis.
Detailed design examples of 4-, 8-, and 12-storey MRF building equipped with Pall friction dampers
installed in-line with braces are given in Morales Ramirez (2011) reference. The building is located in
Montreal, Canada, and was subjected to ten simulated and historical ground motions scaled to match the
design response spectrum over the period of interest 0.2 T1–1.5 T1, where T1 is the fundamental period of
the building. All analyses were performed using OpenSees.
To evaluate the seismic response of structures equipped with friction-damped braces, the following
parameters should be investigated: interstorey drift, lateral deflection, and residual interstorey drift.

Page 11 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

For an accurate OpenSees model of friction-damped brace, it is required to calibrate the model against
experimental test results. Presently, experimental tests conducted on Pall friction dampers installed in-line
with braces are carried out and the obtained results will be disseminated. Furthermore, the development of
a code-based design method for structures equipped with friction-damped braces is required.

Summary
Since 1980, seismic response control techniques have been used as complementary solutions to the
existing seismic force resisting systems and several types of friction damper devices were developed.
Among them, Pall friction damper devices are the most popular. However, despite of their wide-spread
applications, design guidelines for structures equipped with supplemental energy dissipation devices are
still in an evolving phase. This study refers to the design philosophy of structures with incorporated
friction dampers that in most cases are installed in-line with steel braces. A brief review of design
guidelines and other seismic design provisions that emphasize on the design of friction-damped braces
is presented. In addition, a brief discussion on the numerical modeling of friction-damped braces was
conducted.

Cross-References
▶ Nonlinear Dynamic Seismic Analysis

References
Aiken ID, Kelly JM (1990) Earthquake simulator testing and analytical studies of two energy-absorving
systems for multistory structures. Report No UBC/EERC-90/03, Earthquake Engineering Rresearch
Center, University of California, Berkeley
Akiyama H (2000) Evaluation of fractural mode of failure in steel structures following Kobe lessons.
J Construct Steel Res 55:211–227
American Society of Civil Engineers (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures
ASCE Reston. SEI 7–10
American Society of Civil Engineers (2013) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings ASCE
Reston. SEI 41–13
Baktash P, Marsh C (1986) Seismic behavior of friction damped braced frames. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, pp 1099–1105
Baktash P, Marsh C (1987) Damped moment-resistant braced frames: A comparative study. Can J Civil
Eng 14:342–346
CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance structures. ENV 1998–2. Brussels,
Begium
Christopoullos C, Filiatrault A (2006) Passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation. Instituto
Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia, IUSS Press, Pavia
Ciampi V, Ferretti A (1990) Energy dissipation in buildings using special bracing systems. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 9th European conference on earthquake engineering, vol 3. Moscow, pp 9–18
Ciampi V, Paolone A, De Angelis M (1992) On the seismic design of dissipative bracing. In: 10th world
conference on earthquake engineering, vol 7. Madrid, pp 4133–4138

Page 12 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

Ciampi V, De Angelis M, Paolone F (1995) Design of yielding or friction-based dissipative bracing for
seismic protection of buildings. Eng Struct 17:381–391
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2003) NEHRP Recommended seismic provisions for
new buildings and other structures. FEMA-450, Washington, DC
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for
new buildings and other structures. FEMA-P-750, Washington, DC
Filiatrault A, Cherry S (1988) Seismic design of friction damped braced steel plane frames by energy
methods. Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory report UBC-EERL-88-01. Department of Civil
Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Filiatrault A, Cherry S (1990) Seismic design spectra for friction damped structures. ASCE J Struct Eng
116(5):1334–1355
Fitzgerald TF, Anagnos T, Goodson M, Zsutty T (1989) Slotted bolted connections in a seismic design of
concentrically braced connections. Earthquake Spectra, EERI 5(2):383–91
Fu Y, Cherry S (1999) Simplified seismic code design procedure for friction damped steel frames.
Canadian J Civil Eng 26:55–71
Fu Y, Cherry S (2000) Design of friction damped structures using lateral force procedure. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 29:989–1010
Grigorian CE, Yang TS, Popov EP (1993) Slotted bolted connection energy dissipators. Earthq Spectra
9(3):491–504
Liao WI, Mualla I, Loh CH (2004) Shaking table test of a friction-damped frame structure in. Struct Des
Tall Spec 13:45–54
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G (2006) Opensees command language manual. PEER,
University of California, Berkeley
McKenna F, Fenves GL (2004) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees), PEER,
University of California, Berkeley
Morales Ramirez JD (2011) Numerical simulations of steel frames equipped with friction-damped
diagonal-bracing devices. MASc thesis, Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia
University, Montreal
Morales Ramirez JD, Tirca L (2012) Numerical simulation and design of friction-damped steel frame
structures. In: The 15th world conference in earthquake engineering, Lisbon, paper #2538
Moreschi LM, Singh MP (2003) Design of yielding metallic and friction dampers for optimal seismic
performance. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:1291–1311
Mualla IH (2000) Experimental and computational evaluation of a novel friction damper device. PhD
thesis, Department of Structural Engineering and Materials, Technical University of Denmark
National Research Council of Canada (2010) National building code of Canada. National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa
Nims D, Ritcher R, Bachman R (1993) The use of the energy dissipating restraint for seismic hazard
mitigation. Earthq Spectra 9(3):467–489
Pall A (1979) Limited slip bolted joints, a device to control the seismic response of large panel structures.
PhD thesis, Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal
Pall A, Marsh C (1981) Response of friction damped braced frames. J Struct Div ASCE
108(ST6):1313–1323

Page 13 of 14
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_312-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2021

Pall A, Pall R (2004) Performance based design using Pall friction dampers – An economical design
solution. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, paper #1955
Tirca L (2009) A simple approach for the seismic retrofit of buildings with staggered friction dampers. In:
Mazzolani FM (ed) Proceedings of the first international conference on: protection of historical
buildings. CRC Press, Italy, pp 761–768
Tremblay R (1993) Seismic behavior and design of friction concentrically braced frames for steel
buildings. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Zhou X, Peng L (2009) A new type of damper with friction. Earthq Eng Eng Vibrat 8(4):507–520

Page 14 of 14