See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320995886

Design and Retrofit of Multistory Frames with Elastic-Deformable Viscous

Damping Braces

Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · November 2017

DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2017.1387193

CITATIONS READS

19 164

3 authors:

Daniele Losanno Mariacristina Spizzuoco

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
60 PUBLICATIONS 818 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 771 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Giorgio Serino
University of Naples Federico II
66 PUBLICATIONS 952 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Base Isolation View project

LO-CO-ISO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniele Losanno on 30 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Design and Retrofit of Multistory Frames with

Elastic-Deformable Viscous Damping Braces

Daniele Losanno, Mariacristina Spizzuoco & Giorgio Serino

To cite this article: Daniele Losanno, Mariacristina Spizzuoco & Giorgio Serino (2017): Design
and Retrofit of Multistory Frames with Elastic-Deformable Viscous Damping Braces, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2017.1387193

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1387193

Accepted author version posted online: 10

Nov 2017.
Published online: 29 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 16

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20

Download by: [University Napoli Federico II] Date: 30 November 2017, At: 00:17
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1387193

Design and Retrofit of Multistory Frames with

Elastic-Deformable Viscous Damping Braces
Daniele Losanno, Mariacristina Spizzuoco, and Giorgio Serino
Department of Structures for Engineering & Architecture, University of Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper provides an exhaustive treatment for the analysis of non- Received 14 November 2016
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

Revised 9 May 2017

proportional damping structures equipped with elastically deform-
Accepted 27 July 2017
able viscous damping braces. A frequency domain approach is
adopted for solving the equation of motion as a function of non- KEYWORDS
dimensional parameters. Accounting for the brace flexibility, an opti- Dissipative Braces; Viscous
mal damping system is suggested in order to minimize the resonance Damping; Brace Stiffness;
peak of the top-story displacement response on the first vibration Optimal Retrofit; Optimal
mode. The effect of variation of the dissipative bracing system is Design
demonstrated not only in terms of provided equivalent viscous
damping and maximum response, but also in terms of dominant
frequency and mode shapes.

1. Introduction
Viscous dampers (VDs) employed for the retrofit of existing structures or for the seismic
protection of new ones are generally attached to steel supporting braces. In most analyses,
these braces are neglected and assumed to have infinite stiffness compared with those of
the structure and dissipative devices. However, the dimensions of the steel braces often
need to be limited for functional and esthetic requirements, so that their stiffness can’t be
considered infinite. Nevertheless, a certain brace stiffness is important for activating the
energy dissipative mechanism of VDs. In the following, some results are cited, which have
been produced by researchers in the last few years. They are focused on the influence of
brace stiffness on the dynamics and/or the optimal design of the dissipative devices in a
protected multistory building.
Takewaki and Yoshitomi [1998] proposed an iterative procedure for finding the
optimal damper positioning in a planar building frame, where the objective of the problem
was to minimize the sum of the transfer function amplitudes of the inter-story drifts
evaluated at the undamped fundamental natural frequency subject to a constraint on the
sum of the damping coefficients of the added dampers. The stiffnesses of the auxiliary
members supporting the added VDs installed in the stories are given; the influences of
support-member stiffnesses on the response suppression level and on the optimal damper
positioning are also disclosed numerically.

CONTACT Daniele Losanno daniele.losanno@unina.it Department of Structures for Engineering & Architecture,
University of Napoli Federico II, Via Claudio n. 21, Napoli 80125, Italy.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/UEQE.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 2 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

After a few years, Singh and Moreschi [2002] suggested the use of a genetic algorithm
approach for the optimal design of passive dampers for linearly behaving building
structures. The genetic approach was used to calculate the required number of a given
capacity of dampers and their optimal placement locations in a building to achieve a
desired reduction in the response. The response reduction performance was expressed in
terms of a reduction in a chosen response quantity such as base shear, over-turning
moment, or floor acceleration. Numerical results were reported for two different case
study building models.
Then, Park et al. [2004] applied an optimization algorithm to minimize both the size of
the viscoelastic damper (VED) and the supporting brace stiffness to obtain a determined
reduction of inter-story drifts below given target values. The effect of the flexibility of
supporting braces on the control efficiency of VEDs was investigated by deriving closed-
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

form expressions for the gradients of the objective function and constraints. From the
numerical analysis of an example eight-story shear building (having the same mass and
stiffness at all the stories), it was found that when sufficient stiffness cannot be provided
for the supporting braces, which happens frequently in practice for functional or archi-
tectural reasons, the flexibility of the brace should be taken into account in the design of
the VED to achieve the desired performance of the structure.
A gradient-based evolutionary algorithm for finding the optimal design of both dam-
pers and their supporting members was proposed by Fujita et al. [2010]: it minimizes an
objective function of a linear multistory structure subjected to critical resonant ground
input. The objective function is taken as the sum of the mean-squares of the inter-story
drifts: the total quantity of VEDs is increased evolutionary while the constraint on the
member force of the supporting member is satisfied.
The minimization of an objective function is also the basis of the procedure suggested
by Viola and Guidi [2009], to analyze the influence of the supporting brace stiffness on the
damping optimization of a linear-elastic shear-type model: the sum of mean-square inter-
story drifts to stationary random excitation is minimized. It appropriately extended
Takewaki’s technique [Takewaki, 1999] based on the minimization of an objective func-
tion representing the sum of mean-square inter-story drifts to stationary random excita-
tion. The proposed procedure was a two-phase optimization technique in which an
optimal value of the supporting brace stiffness is also involved. In the first phase, the
optimal distribution of a defined total damping capacity has to be found for a range of
values of the supporting braces’ stiffness; possible increase of the top-floor acceleration,
due to damping optimization evaluated in the first phase, can be resolved by increasing the
total damping capacity of the model during the second phase of the procedure.
A generalized objective function was also presented by Cimellaro [2007] for obtaining
the optimal stiffness and damping coefficients: it considers simultaneously displacements,
absolute accelerations, and base shear. The norm of the displacement, absolute accelera-
tion, and base shear transfer function was evaluated at the fundamental natural frequency
of the system and its value was updated at every step of iteration. Its amplitude was
minimized subject to a constraint on the sum of damping and stiffness coefficients. The
optimization algorithm was verified through three numerical examples.
An optimized objective function was proposed by Castaldo and De Iuliis [2014] too: an
optimal integrated seismic design procedure of the elastic stiffness resources and viscoe-
lastic properties of a dissipative bracing-damper system was issued, to achieve a seismic
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

design displacement, by explicitly considering the dynamic behavior of both the structural
and dissipative bracing systems. The optimal combination of the elastic and viscoelastic
design variables was evaluated by minimizing a cost index assumed as an optimized
objective function.
On the other hand, the dissipative braces as retrofit solutions for existing moment-
resisting frame buildings were studied in depth by Lomiento et al. [2010]. General design
criteria for dampers and supporting braces were given by the authors and a simple design
procedure based on the actual mechanical interaction between dampers and braces was
carried out. The assumption of constant floor stiffness and the reduction of MDOF (multy
degree of freedom) systems to SDOF (single degree of freedom) systems are shown to be
limited in capturing the interaction between the frame structure and the installed braces.
The stiffness of the supporting brace was shown to condition the dissipation capacity of
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

the dampers and vice versa. The proposed design procedure was tested on a seven-story
moment-resisting frame building and appears feasible for implementation on real
structures.
A different approach was used by Chen and Chai [2011]; they studied shear-type
buildings with Maxwell model-based brace-damper systems. After showing the closed-
form solutions derived for a single-story building, an iterative numerical procedure was
described for a multistory building, with the aim of obtaining the minimum brace stiffness
together with a set of optimal damper coefficients for a targeted reduction in the mean
square of the inter-story drift, floor acceleration, or base shear force. They concluded that
a brace stiffness equal to the first-story stiffness is adequate for the desirable levels of
response reduction in typical applications.
Besides, Adachi et al. [2013] proposed a practical method for the optimum design of
nonlinear oil dampers with relief mechanism installed in multistory framed building
structures. The optimum design problem was formulated so as to minimize the maximum
inter-story drift or maximum top-story acceleration of a planar frame, subjected to a set of
design earthquake ground motions under the constraint on the sum of relief forces of oil
dampers and on the limit state of oil dampers. The proposed two-step procedure was able
to derive a series of optimal distribution of relief forces of oil dampers with respect to the
level of sum of relief forces of oil dampers, which is useful for structural designers seeking
to derive the relation between the optimal response level and the quantity of passive
dampers.
A new approach was recently provided by Londoño et al. [Londoño et al., 2014;
Londoño et al., 2013], who studied the influence of brace stiffness on the damping action
of linear viscous fluid dampers. It is a different approach based on the observation that the
effects of brace stiffness can be represented as a first-order filter. In the first phase, the
dampers are sized using an optimization strategy that assumes the braces as infinitely stiff
elements; then, the minimum brace stiffnesses are calculated based on the desired damper
efficiency over a predetermined frequency range. Numerical simulations of systems with
added brace-damper assemblies acting under earthquake excitation were used to show the
optimality of the solutions delivered using the proposed design procedure.
Therefore, a number of design procedures are reported in the literature for dissipative
bracing systems in frame structures. Most of them are based on simplifying assumptions,
due to the complexity of the mechanical behavior of systems equipped with dissipative
braces. Those assumptions make the procedures easier to use, but at the same time, less
 4 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

reliable in predicting the behavior of complex structures. On the other hand, the Codes
already highlight the need to include in the models of dissipative bracing systems the
stiffness of the brace, which works in series with the energy dissipation devices, because
the flexibility of these components influence the effective performance [Applied
Technology Council, 1997].
The authors of the present work recently introduced a frequency domain approach to
first evaluate the optimal isolation system for a simply supported bridge [Losanno et al.,
2014] and then to define the optimal design parameter of dissipative braces installed in a
simple one-story–one-bay frame [Losanno et al., 2015].
In this paper, the influence of damping coefficient and supporting brace stiffness on the
dynamic response of multistory buildings is considered by the authors, and a design
procedure of the dissipative bracing systems for existing and new structures is provided. A
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

frequency domain approach is adopted for solving the equations of motion of a multistory
elastic frame, defining the complex stiffness contribution of the brace and the VD
equipment. The system of complex linear equations of motion provides the effect of
both brace elastic stiffness and VD coefficient on dynamic response. The distribution of
mass, damping, and stiffness terms is assumed the more general, so making the formula-
tion valid for not proportional damping. Unlike the current state of art, the proposed
optimization criterion does not fix any target response reduction but provides a damping
bracing system, defined by a stiffness parameter κ and a damping parameter νi,opt(κ),,
which can yield the absolute minimum top-story displacement response. In addition, the
change in frequency response, vibration frequency, and mode shape of the MDOF system
with different damping braces is properly addressed. The method appears completely
general since any frame with any damper-brace distribution can be treated. Numerical
analysis of a real frame under real earthquakes confirms the theoretical results. The
assumptions, made by the authors, of elastic frame behavior and negligible inherent
structural damping are acceptable since a supplemental damping system, when it is
optimally designed, can produce a strong reduction of demand on frame structural and
nonstructural components.

2. Problem Statement
Elastically deformable braces equipped with linear VDs are applied to a multistory frame,
whose dynamic response is analytically obtained by means of a frequency-domain analysis
[Chopra, 2011; Clough and Penzien, 2003]. The combined influence of viscous damping
coefficient and elastic brace stiffness is determined by the procedure. The optimally
protected structure is expected to remain within the elastic range and the inherent
structural damping is neglected.
The frame sketched in Fig. 1 is considered, where the i-th story mass, frame stiffness,
brace stiffness, and viscous damping coefficient are denoted by mfi , kfi , kbi , and Cdi ,
respectively, and the excitation is a harmonic ground motion at the base xg ¼ xg;max  ei$t .
The equations of motion of a linear n-story frame provided with dissipative braces,
each made up of an elastic component (i.e., a steel brace) and a viscous dashpot connected
in series, represent a system of 2n second-order differential equations with constant
coefficients (Eq. 1):
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

m f,n xf,n
xb,n
k f,n Cd,n
kb,n

m f,n-1 xf,n-1
xb,n-1
k f,n-1 Cd,n
kb,n-1

m f,2 xf,2
xb,2
k f,2 Cd,2
kb,2
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

m f,1 xf,1
xb,1
k f,1 Cd,1
kb,1

xg

Figure 1. Multistory frame equipped with viscous damping braces.

M  €xf þ K  xf þ Fd ¼ M  l  $2 xg;max  ei$t (1:a)



Fd ¼ Kb  xf T xb T ¼ Cd  _xf T _xb T (1:b)

where


xf T ¼ xf 1 xf 2 xf 3 ::: xfi ::: xfn1 xfn (2)

is the vector of the unknown floor displacements,

xb T ¼ ½ xb1 xb2 xb3 ::: xbi ::: xbn1 xbn  (3)

is the vector of the unknown brace displacements,

2 3
mf 1 0 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 0
6 0 mf 2 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 mf 3 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 7
6 7
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
M¼6
6 0
7 (4)
6 0 0 ::: mfi ::: 0 0 77
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
6 7
4 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: mfn1 0 5
0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 mfn

is the nxn mass matrix,

 6 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

2 3
kf 1 þ kf 2 kf 2 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 0
6 kf 2 kf 2 þ kf 3 kf 3 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 kf 3 kf 3 þ kf 4 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 7
6 7
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
K¼6
6
7 (5)
6 0 0 0 ::: kfi þ kfiþ1 ::: 0 0 77
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
6 7
4 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: kfn1 þ kfn kfn 5
0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: kfn kfn

is the nxn bare frame stiffness matrix,

2 3
kb2 0 0 ::: 0 ::: ::: ::: kb1 kb2 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 0
6 kb2 kb3 0 ::: 0 :::
6 ::: ::: 0 kb2 kb3 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 7 7
6 0 kb3 kb4 ::: 0 ::: 0 7
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

6 ::: ::: 0 0 kb3 ::: 0 ::: 0 7

6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 77
Kb ¼ 66 0
6 0 0 ::: kbiþ1 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 0 ::: kbi ::: 0 0 7 7
6 :::
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 77
4 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: kbn1 kbn 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: kbn1 kbn 5
0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: ::: kbn 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 kbn
(6)

is the nx2n elastic brace stiffness matrix,

2 3
Cd2 Cd2 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 Cd1 Cd2 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 0
6 0 Cd2 Cd3 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 0 C C ::: 0 ::: 0 0 7
6 d2 d3 7
6 0 0 Cd3 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 0 0 Cd3 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 7
6 7
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
Cd ¼ 66 0
7
6 0 0 ::: Cdi ::: 0 0 0 0 0 ::: Cdi ::: 0 0 7 7
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
6 7
4 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: Cdn1 Cdn 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: Cdn1 Cdn 5
0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 Cdn 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 Cdn
(7)

is the nx2n viscous damping matrix, and lT ¼ ½ 1 1 1 ::: 1 ::: 1 1  is the nx1
identity vector.
The floor horizontal displacements xf 1 ; xf 2 ; :::; xfn and the top brace horizontal
displacements xb1 ; xb2 ; :::; xbn are assumed relative to the base and represent the 2n
kinematic unknowns of the problem.
The force–displacement relationship of a Maxwell element, composed of a spring kb
and a viscous dashpot Cd arranged in series, and subjected to a harmonic displacement
with frequency $, can be expressed in the complex form as Fd ð$Þ ¼ Kd ð$Þ  xf .
The complex stiffness Kd ð$Þ is obtained as follows:
 
x_ f  x_ b 1 1 kb Cd2 $2 þ ik2b Cd $
xf ¼ xb þ ¼ Fd þ ) Fd ¼ xf )
i$ kb i$Cd k2b þ $2 Cd2
(8)
kb C2 $2 k2 Cd $
) Kd ð$Þ ¼ 2 d 2 2 þ i 2 b 2 2 ¼ K 0 d ð$Þ þ iK 00 d ð$Þ
kb þ $ Cd kb þ $ Cd
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

where Kd0 ð$Þ and Kd00 ð$Þ are, respectively, the storage and the loss modulus of the
Maxwell element.
The same Eq. (8) can be expressed by means of the relaxation time τ ¼ Ckbd
00
0 K ð$Þ
Cd τ$ 2
[Constantinou et al., 1996] as: Fd ¼ Kd ð$Þx þ d$ x_ ¼ 1þτ _ For infinitely
2 $2 x þ 1þτ 2 $2 x.
Cd

stiff brace, τ ¼ 0 and consequently the storage modulus of the Maxwell element disap-
pears, thus reducing to a pure VD. In the case, $ ! 1 the loss modulus tends to zero for
any value of Cd , thus reducing to a pure elastic element.
Therefore, to reduce the kinematic unknowns to only floor displacements xf , the force–
displacement relationship of the Maxwell elements (see Eq. (1.b)) is formulated as
Fd ð$Þ ¼ Kd ð$Þ  xf , where the complex nxn stiffness matrix Kd ð$Þ is as follows:
2 3
Kd1 þ Kd2 Kd2 0 ::: 0 ::: 0 0
6 Kd2 Kd2 þ Kd3 Kd3 ::: ::: 0 7
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

6 0 0 7
6 0 Kd3 Kd3 þ Kd4 ::: 0 ::: 0 0 7
6 7
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
6
Kd ð$Þ ¼ 6 7
6 0 0 0 ::: Kdi þ Kdiþ1 ::: 0 0 77
6 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
6 7
4 0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: Kdn1 þ Kdn Kdn 5
0 0 0 ::: 0 ::: Kdn Kdn
(9)
k C2 $2 þik2 C $
with Kdi ð$Þ ¼ bi dik2 þ$2 Cbi2 di ¼ Kdi0 þ iKdi00 , where Kdi0 ð$Þ and Kdi00 ð$Þ are the i-th story
bi di
storage and the loss modulus of the damping brace, respectively.
A Maxwell element was considered at each floor, where the spring has overall stiffness
kbi and the viscous dashpot, connected in series with the first component, has total
damping Cdi .
Equations (1.a) can be then reduced to a system of n complex linear equations:

M  €xf þ ½K þ Kd ð$Þ  xf ¼ M  l  $2 xg;max  ei$t (10)

In the following section, a solution to a nondimensional form of Eq. (10) is found, in case
of both a frame with uniformly distributed structural properties (USPs) and a frame
having irregularly distributed structural properties (ISPs).

2.1. Frame with USPs

In case of a USP frame, the masses, stiffnesses, and damping coefficients have the same
value at all the stories (mf 1 ¼ mf 2 ¼ ::: ¼ mfn ¼ mf , kf 1 ¼ kf 2 ¼ ::: ¼ kfn ¼ kf ,
kb1 ¼ kb2 ¼ ::: ¼ kbn ¼ kb , Cd1 ¼ Cd2 ¼ ::: ¼ Cdn ¼ Cd ). That is, the geometry is comple-
tely defined by four parameters mf , kf , kb , andCd . pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
By introducing the nondimensional time τ ¼ t  ωb (where ωb ¼ ðkf þ kb =mf Þ) and
dividing all terms by the quantity mf  ω2b  xg;max , Eq. (10) can be rewritten in the
followingform:
00 1
ζ f ðτÞ þ ½K þ Kd ð$Þ  ζ f ðτÞ ¼ 1  β2 (11)
mf  ω2b
 8 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

 =ωb have been intro-

where the normalized parameters ζ f ðτ Þ ¼ xf ðτ Þ=xg;max and β ¼ ω
duced. After dividing the stiffness matrices by the quantity mf  ω2b , the complex normal-
ized stiffness matrix Ks ðβÞ of the controlled structure becomes:
2 3
2 1 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: 0
6 1 2
6 1 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
7
6 0 1
6 2 1 0 ::: ::: ::: 7
7
½K þ Kd ð$Þ 6 :::
6 0 1 2 1 ::: ::: ::: 7 7
Ks ðβÞ ¼ ¼ ð
κ þ κ Þ  (12)
mf  ωb
2 s 6 ::: :::
6 0 1 2 1 0 0 77
6 ::: :::
6 ::: 0 ::: ::: ::: 0 77
4 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 0 2 1 5
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 0 1 1
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðβÞ 4ν2 β2 κ 2νβ κð1þκÞ κ
where κs ðβÞ ¼ kKf dþk ¼ þ i 
1þκ 1þ4ν2 β2 κð1þκÞ and κ ¼ 1þκ
1
 (with κ = kf/kb repre-
b 1þ4ν2 β κð1þκÞ
2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
senting the frame to brace relative story stiffness) and v ¼ Cd =2 kf mf .
Eq. (10) thus becomes
00
ζ f ðτÞ þ fðζ f Þ ¼ 1  β2 eiβτ (13)

where the normalized global restoring force has the expression f ðβÞ ¼ Ks ðβÞ  ζ f .

2.2. Frame with ISPs

In case of the ISP frame, a completely general solution is derived, where the mass mf , the
frame stiffness, kf and the brace stiffness kb are set as normalization parameters (e.g., the
first-floor mass, frame, and brace stiffness values), in order to solve the equations of
motion in the nondimensional form. Consequently, the following nondimensional para-
meters are considered:

–m i ¼ mfi =mf

k
– κ ¼ kbf
κ
– κ ¼ 1þκ
kfi
– κfi ¼ kf
– κbi ¼ kkbib pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðβÞ 4ν2i β2 κ 2νi βκbi κð1þκÞ
– κsi ðβÞ ¼ Kkfdiþk ¼κ þ i 1þκ
1
κ
bi þ4νi β κð1þκÞ bi þ4νi β κð1þκÞ
2 2 2 2
b

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
– νi ¼ Cdi =2 kf mf
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
After introducing the normalization frequency of the system ω ¼ ðkf mf =mf Þ and the
nondimensional time τ ¼ t  ωb and dividing all terms of Eq. (10) by the quantity
mf  ω2b  xg;max , the nondimensional form of Eq. (10) is as follows:
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

00
  ζ f ðτÞ þ 1   1  β2  eiβτ
M ½K þ Kd ð$Þ  ζ f ðτÞ ¼ M (14)
mf  ω2b
where
2 3
1
m 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
6 0
6 2
m 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
7
6 :::
6 0 3
m 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
7
6 ::: ::: 0 ::: 0 ::: ::: ::: 7
7
–M¼6

6 :::
6 ::: ::: 0 i
m 0 ::: ::: 7
7
6 :::
6 ::: ::: ::: 0 ::: 0 ::: 7
7
4 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 0 m n1 0 5
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 0 n
m
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

– ζ f ðτ Þ ¼ xf ðτ Þ=xg;max
–β¼ω  =ωb

Dividing the stiffness matrices by the product mf  ω2b , the frame’s normalized stiffness
matrix and the dissipative brace’s normalized stiffness matrix turn, respectively, into
2 3
κf 1 þ κf 2 κf 2 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: 0
6 κf 2 κf 2 þ κf 3 κf 3 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
6 7
6 0 κ κ þ κ κ 0 ::: ::: ::: 7
6 f3 f3 f4 f4 7
K 6 ::: 0 κf 4 κf 4 þ κf 5 κfi ::: ::: ::: 7
6
¼ κ  6 7 (15)
mf  ω2b 6 ::: ::: 0 κfi κfi þ κfiþ1 κfiþ1 0 0 77
6 ::: ::: ::: 0 ::: ::: ::: 0 7
6 7
4 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 0 κfn1 þ κfn κfn 5
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 0 κfn κfn
2 3
κs1 þκs2 κs2 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: 0
6 κs2 þκs2 þκs3 κs3
6 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: 7
7
6 0
6 κs3 þκs3 þκs4 κs4 0 ::: ::: ::: 7
7
Kd ðβÞ 6 6 ::: 0 κs4 þκs4 þκs5 κsi ::: ::: ::: 7
7
¼
mf ω2b 66 ::: ::: 0 κsi þκsi þκsiþ1 κsiþ1 0 0 77
6 :::
6 ::: ::: 0 ::: ::: ::: 0 77
4 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 0 þκsn1 þκsn κsn 5
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 0 κsn þκsn
(16)
The equations of motion then become
00
  ζ f ðτÞ þ fðβÞ ¼ M
M   1  β2  eiβτ (17)
where the normalized global restoring force is defined as f ðβÞ ¼ Ks ðβÞ  ζ f ,
with Ks ðβÞ ¼ mf 1ω2 ½K þ Kd ðβÞ.
b

3. Solution of the Equations of Motion

Both Eqs. (13) and (17) represent a system of n complex linear equations in the unknowns
ζ f;max , whose solution provides the structural response as a function of β. It can be noted
 10 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

that Eq. (13) is a particularization of Eq. (17), when M  reduces to an identity matrix and
the following parameters are valid: κfi ¼ 1, κbi ¼ 1, κsi ¼ κs and νi ¼ ν.
If a steady-state solution in the form ζ f ðτ Þ ¼ ζ f;max eiβτ is assumed, with


ζ Tf;max ðβÞ ¼ ζ f 1;max ζ f 2;max ζ f 3;max ::: ζ fn;max , Eq. (17) becomes


  β2 þ Ks ðβÞ ζ f;max  eiβτ ¼ M
M   1  β2  eiβτ (18)
so that the amplitude of the solution has the following expression:


ζ f;max ðβÞ ¼ M  β2 þ Ks ðβÞ 1  M
  1  β2 (19)
Eq. (19) provides the n frequency response functions (FRFs) ζ i f;max ðβÞ, in terms of
floor displacements relative to the base. Therefore, the dynamic response is completely
defined once the complex normalized stiffness matrix Ks ðβÞ of the controlled structure
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

is known.
When the mass, stiffness, and damping parameters are settled, for νi ¼ 0, each
transfer function exhibits n unbounded resonances corresponding to the n natural
frequencies of the unbraced system. In the same way, for νι→+∞, each transfer
function provides the n mathematical resonances of the n natural modes of the
elastically braced frame.
It is worth observing that, for νi ¼ 0 and νι→+∞, the stiffness contribution Kd;i ð$Þ of
the dissipative brace is equal to 0 and kb;i , respectively.
For any value of ν in the range from 0 to +∞, the generic function ςif ;max ðβÞ shows n
resonance peaks for values of β corresponding to the n damped frequencies of the system.
An increase of νi produces a progressive shift of each resonance peak from limit case νi ¼
0 to limit case νι→+∞. The first normalized frequency of the system corresponding to νi ¼
0 and νι→+∞ is defined by βl ¼ ωl =ωb and βu ¼ ωu =ωb , respectively. Any finite value of νi
in the range [0 +∞[would produce a damped response with an effective first mode’s
resonance β  in the range [βl βu].
From this perspective, an optimization criterion could be derived: an optimal value νi,
opt could be searched as the one that can yield the minimum resonance peak at the first
frequency β. The value β represents the normalized frequency of the system corresponding
to the assigned value of νi (ω  ¼β  ωb ), i.e. the frequency of an external pulsing force
responsible for the first resonance. The effects of higher modes will be taken into
consideration by direct integration at the final design step.
It is seen that increasing the damping above a certain optimal value νi,opt would not be
beneficial because higher values of νi mainly provide stiffness reducing damping, thus
resulting in a purely stiffened undamped system in the limit case νi ¼ 1. Moreover, an in-
depth modification in the dynamic behavior of a damper-braced structure can be pro-
duced by varying the device’s viscous constant, once all stiffness and mass parameters
are set.

4. Case Study: 3-DOFs Structure

The transfer functions expressed by Eq. (19) have been computed for four 3-DOFs
 i ), each one considered in
systems (i.e., four given sets of parameters κ; κf ;i ; κb;i ; m
different configurations defined by different values of νi in the range [0 +∞[. Then,
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

the effect of the relative frame to the brace stiffness parameter was also investigated, by
analyzing two values of κ(κ=0.1, κ=1). Related approaches were proposed by Fu and
Kasai [1998], where the influence of brace stiffness was studied through a parametric
analysis. In that case, the authors recommended a ratio αb of the brace stiffness to the
story stiffness in the region of 10 for near-optimal solutions. In the present paper, the
value κ=0.1 corresponds to αb = 10.
For a given normalization frequency ωb , the parameter κ only affects the frequency βl ,
since increasing values of κ correspond to higher values of βl .
The selection of brace stiffness distribution represents an additional parameter to be
properly investigated in order to improve regularity in terms of stiffness distribution.
Brace stiffness is usually assumed frame proportional to keep the mode shapes
unchanged, but this cannot be best if the bare frame is non-regular. In this case, a
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

better distribution can be attempted to improve the dynamic behavior of the damper-
added frame, and this can be investigated by the current procedure also in terms of
mode shapes and inter-story drift.
In the following, for the sake of simplicity, coefficients νi are assumed uniform
along the height. Such an assumption, even if not necessary for the scope of the work,
is usually acceptable to avoid the use of different devices in the same structure.
Solutions, in terms of magnitude and phase shift of the FRFs, are shown in the next
sections for different systems, representing both USP frame structures (case 1 for
κ=0.1, case 2 for κ=1) and ISP frame structures (case 3 for κ=0.1, case 4 for κ=1).
On each plot, two vertical gray lines are drawn representing the normalized frequen-
cies βl and βu of the system.
The optimal damping value νi,opt was determined for each value of κ, for both USP
and ISP 3-DOFs frame systems. The optimal value is assumed as the one that can
yield the minimum resonance peak on top-floor displacement response in the range
[βl βu]. In addition, the value of the normalized peak displacements ζ if ;max;opt , relative
to the value νi;opt ðκÞ, is plotted for both the base and top-floor levels.

4.1. USP Frame Case

“Case 1” (Table 1) and “case 2” (Table 2) correspond to two case structures characterized
by a uniform mass and stiffness distribution, and a value of κ=0.1 (Fig. 2) and κ=1 (Fig. 3),
respectively.
When the parameter κ is fixed, the effect of ν is remarkable in terms of both shift
in the system frequency and peak amplitude at resonance. For ν=0 and ν→+∞, i.e.,
respectively, at the normalized natural frequency of the bare frame βl and the
elastically braced frame βu , the FRF curves clearly show that the resonance peaks
are unbounded and the phase angles have a shift of ±π. For any finite value of ν, a
damped resonance would occur for a frequency β  in the range [βl βu]. Even if none
of these four values correspond to the optimum one, ν ¼ 1 provides the minimum
FRF resonance amplitude on the first mode compared with ν = 0, ν = 0.1 and ν =∞.
The frequency response curves at resonance are very flattened for values of ν close to
νi,opt. In any case, in the range βl ÷βu a relative maximum can be always detected
 12 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

Table 1. Case 1: USP three-story frame with κ ¼ 0:1.

κ = 0.1 κf,i κb,i mi βl (νi = 0) βu (νi = ∞)
Story #1 1 1 1 0.135 0.445
Story #2 1 1 1
Story #3 1 1 1

Table 2. Case 2: USP 3three-story frame with κ ¼ 1.

κ=1 κf,i κb,i mi βl (νi = 0) βu (νi = ∞)
Story #1 1 1 1 0.315 0.445
Story #2 1 1 1
Story #3 1 1 1
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

15 15
1st 1st
Amplitude (-)

Amplitude (-)
2nd 2nd
10 10
3th 3th
βl βl
5 5
βu βu

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
4 4
1st 1st
2 2
Phase (rad)

Phase (rad)

2nd 2nd
3th 3th
0 βl
0 βl

-2 βu -2 βu

-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
(a) β (-) (b) β (-)

15 15
1st 1st
Amplitude (-)

Amplitude (-)

2nd 2nd
10 10
3th 3th
βl βl
5 5
βu βu

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
4 4
1st 1st
2 2
Phase (rad)

Phase (rad)

2nd 2nd
3th 3th
0 βl
0 βl

-2 βu -2 βu

-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
(c) β (-) β (-)
(d)

Figure 2. FRFs plot for a regular three-story frame with κ=0.1: (a) νi ¼ 0, (b) νi ¼ 0:1, (c) νi ¼ 1, (d)
νi ¼ 1000.

even for νi,opt corresponding to a certain amplification factor, which, especially for
ν=0.1, may result close to unity.
On the other hand, the comparison between FRF amplitude in “case 1” and “case 2”
clearly highlights the influence of κ. At any value of ν, stiffer supporting braces lead to
lower peaks due to higher effectiveness.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

15 15
1st 1st

Amplitude (-)

Amplitude (-)
2nd 2nd
10 10
3th 3th
βl βl
5 5
βu βu

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
4 4
1st 1st
2 2
Phase (rad)

Phase (rad)
2nd 2nd
3th 3th
0 βl
0 βl

-2 βu -2 βu

-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
(a) (b)
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

15 15
1st 1st
Amplitude (-)

Amplitude (-)
2nd 2nd
10 10
3th 3th
βl βl
5 5
βu βu

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
4 4
1st 1st
2 2nd 2 2nd
Phase (rad)

Phase (rad)

3th 3th
0 βl 0 βl

-2 βu -2 βu

-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
(c) (d)

Figure 3. FRFs plot for a regular three-story frame with κ=1: (a) νi ¼ 0, (b) νi ¼ 0:1, (c) νi ¼ 1, (d)
νi ¼ 1000.

Figure 4 shows that, regarding the mode shapes, in both cases (“case 1” and “case 2”)
they don’t vary for any value of νdue to the proportional distribution of the damping
braces elements.
For the considered generic 3-DOF USP frame system, the “optimal” value of the damping
coefficient νi;opt ðκÞ and the corresponding displacement amplitude are shown in Fig. 5.
Figure 5a reports that the optimal damping values for “case 1” and “case 2” are equal
to 1.37 and 0.65, respectively. A decreasing trend of νi;opt is detected, with a higher
slope in the range of κ [0.1 2]. This means that higher values of κ require lower values
of the optimal parameter due to a “loss of efficiency” of the dissipative bracing systems
in transmitting relative displacements. This outcome is opposite to the idea that, for a
higher value of κ, a higher value of ν should be sufficient to balance the lower brace
stiffness.
It is worth noting that the finite stiffness of the elastic supporting brace should be
properly accounted for, since the choice of the optimal damping coefficient is directly
related to κ. Both first- and top-story peak displacements ζ if ;max;opt almost linearly increase
with κ, due to the higher system flexibility.
 14 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

height [m]
3

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
normalized displacement [-]

Figure 4. Mode shape for a regular three-story frame with κ=0.1 and κ=1, for any value of ν.
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

14 st
3 DOFs - regular- 1 floor
th
3 DOFs - regular- 3 floor
12

10
ζif,max,opt(-)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
(a) (b) κ (-)

Figure 5. 3-DOF regular system: values of (a) νi;opt versus κ and (b) ςif ;max;opt versus κ.

4.2. ISP Frame Case

A nonuniform distribution of mass and stiffness properties is assigned to a 3-DOFs
structure. Unlike the USP frame case, the solution of a 3-DOFs ISP frame structure
requires one to set all masses (m i ), stiffnesses (κ; κfi ; κbi ), and damping systems (νi ), in
addition to the parameter κ. The proposed structural cases differ for the parameter κ,
which is equal to 0.1 for “case 3” (Table 3, Fig. 6) and to 1 for “case 4” (Table 4, Fig. 7).
Frequency response is affected by both parameters ν and κ similar to the USP frame
case structure. Among the four considered cases, ν ¼ 1 still represents the value corre-
sponding to the minimum FRF resonance peak on the first mode. At the same time, stiffer
supporting braces (i.e. κ=0.1) proved to be more efficient for a given value of ν. Eq. (19)
can provide the effect of the dissipative brace equivalent stiffness contribution on the
mode shapes. Figure 8 shows the first mode shape on varying the parameter ν: it can be
observed that, for increasing values of ν, the mode shapes change when passing from the
bare frame condition (frequency βl ) to the elastically braced one (frequency βu ).
The “optimal” value of the damping coefficient νi;opt ðκÞ and the corresponding dis-
placement amplitude were found according to the procedure presented in the previous
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

Table 3. Case 3: ISP three-story frame for κ ¼ 0:1.

κ = 0.1 κf,i κb,i mi βl (νi = 0) βu (νi = ∞)
Story #1 1 1 1 0.144 0.515
Story #2 0.75 1 1
Story #3 0.5 0.7 0.5

15 15
1st 1st
Amplitude (-)

Amplitude (-)
2nd 2nd
10 10
3th 3th
βl βl
5 5
βu βu

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
4 4
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

1st 1st
2
Phase (rad)

Phase (rad)
2nd 2 2nd
3th 3th
0 βl 0 βl
-2 βu -2 βu

-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)

(a) (b)
15 15
1st 1st
Amplitude (-)

Amplitude (-)

2nd 2nd
10 10
3th 3th
βl βl
5 5
βu βu

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
4 4
1st 1st
Phase (rad)

Phase (rad)

2 2nd 2 2nd
3th 3th
0 βl
0 βl

-2 βu -2 βu

-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
(c) (d)

Figure 6. FRFs plot for a non-regular three-story frame with κ=0.1: (a) νi ¼ 0, (b) νi ¼ 0:1, (c) νi ¼ 1, (d)
νi ¼ 1000.

Table 4. Case 4: ISP three-story frame for κ ¼ 1.

κ=1 κf,i κb,i mi βl (νi = 0) βu (νi = ∞)
Story #1 1 1 1 0.339 0.515
Story #2 0.75 1 1
Story #3 0.5 0.7 0.5

paragraph and are shown in Fig. 9. Figure 9a highlights that the optimal damping values
for “case 3” and “case 4” are equal to 1.12 and 0.55, respectively.
 16 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

15 15
1st 1st

Amplitude (-)

Amplitude (-)
2nd 2nd
10 10
3th 3th
βl βl
5 5
βu βu

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
4 4
1st 1st
Phase (rad)

Phase (rad)
2 2nd 2 2nd
3th 3th
0 βl 0 βl

-2 βu -2 βu

-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)

(a) (b)
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

15 15
1st 1st
Amplitude (-)

Amplitude (-)
2nd 2nd
10 10
3th 3th
βl βl
5 5
βu βu

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)
4 4
1st 1st
2 2nd 2 2nd
Phase (rad)

Phase (rad)

3th 3th
0 βl 0 βl

-2 βu -2 βu

-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
β (-) β (-)

(c) (d)

Figure 7. FRFs plot for a non-regular three-story frame with κ=1: (a) νi ¼ 0, (b) νi ¼ 0:1, (c) νi ¼ 1, (d)
νi ¼ 1000.

9 9
ν=0 ν=0
ν=0.1 ν=0.1
ν=1 ν=1
ν=inf ν=inf
6 6
height [m]
height [m]

3 3

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(a) normalized displacement [-] (b) normalized displacement [-]

Figure 8. Mode shapes for a non-regular three-story frame with κ=0.1 (a) and κ=1 (b), for the
considered values of ν.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

14
3 DOFs - non regular- 1st floor
th
3 DOFs - non regular- 3 floor
12

10

ζif,max,opt(-)
8

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
κ (-)
(a) (b)
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

Figure 9. 3-DOFs non-regular system: values of (a) νi;opt versus κ and (b) ςif ;max;opt versus κ.

5. Case Study Time History Analyses

A properly dimensioned structure, representative of a three-story one-bay ISP frame, has
been considered. Table 5 shows the characteristics of the analyzed ISP frame structure,
which is represented in the normalized form by “case 4” (κ ¼ 1).
The parameter kf represents the normalization equivalent story-stiffness: its value has
been assumed as corresponding to a one-story one-bay shear-type frame, having 3 m
height and 5 m span, a columns cross-section of 0.40 m×0.40 m, and a concrete Young’s
modulus E = 30000 MPa. The assumption of a shear-type frame is not necessary, since any
tri-diagonal lateral stiffness matrix can be managed by the present method.
Table 5 also shows the dynamic properties, obtained by a classical eigenvalue analysis,
of the frame in the limit cases of a bare frame (Tl ¼ 0:25s) and an elastically braced frame
(Tu ¼ 0:17s). The dynamics of this system is represented by Table 4 and Fig. 8b: it is
worth pointing out that the values of βl and βu in Table 4 perfectly match those in Table 5.
The dynamic response of the case-study 3-DOFs ISP frame system has been investigated
for different values of the viscous damping coefficient, by solving the equations of motion
through time history direct integration in Matlab. The values of νi were selected to properly
investigate the frame response for a low value (Frame 4.1), an optimal value (Frame 4.2), and
a very high value (Frame 4.3) of the damping constant, respectively, in order to compare
different performances and validate the outcome of the analytical procedure.
Three configurations of linear VDs have been examined under the action of both free
and forced vibration.
Note that Frame 4.2 is defined as the “optimal damping system”, according to the
results of Fig. 9a in the previous paragraph.

Table 5. Dimensional three-story ISP frame.

νi = 0 νi = ∞
kf,i [kN/m] kb,i [kN/m] mi [t] ωb [rad/s] Tl [s] fl [Hz] ωl [rad/s] βl Tu [s] fu [Hz] ωu [rad/s] βu
Story #1 56889 56889 20 75.4 0.25 25.6 0.339 0.17 37.6 0.501
Story #2 42667 56889 20 4.08 5.98
Story #3 28445 39822 10
 18 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

For each story, an equivalent diagonal brace with horizontal stiffness kb,i has been
considered to support the damping device Cd,i. The dampers were assumed to be identical
at all the floors for the sake of simplicity.
The structural model of the three-story ISP frame is defined by a 6-DOFs system, where
the first three dynamic DOFs are associated with the floor displacements. The equation of
motion has been formulated as follows:
M  €x þ C  _x þ K  x ¼ €xg M  l (20)
where x is the 2  3 displacement vector, M, K and C are 2  3 × 2  3 matrix, I is the identity
vector, and €xg is the base acceleration. Eq. (20) has been numerically solved by implementing
the Newton–Raphson integration method (with parameters Δt=0.01 s, γ =1/2, β=1/4).
As far as free vibration condition is concerned, it was useful to detect the effect of the
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

assumed brace-damper assemblies in terms of equivalent viscous damping. Equivalent

damping ratios were calculated (Table 6) by simulating a snapback test and applying the
logarithmic decay formulation.
It can be observed that Frame 4.1 and Frame 4.3 barely represent the case of a classical
frame with approximately 5% damping ratio, whereas Frame 4.2 with optimal dampers
size would correspond to a remarkable damping level of 20%.
Alternatively, the modal strain energy method [Charney and McNamara, 2008] has
been employed to evaluate the equivalent damping of the damper-added frame:

ΦTk CA Φk
k ¼ (21)
2ωk ΦTk MΦk
where Φk is the undamped mode shape, ωk is the undamped circular frequency, CA is the
added damping matrix, and M is the mass matrix.
Considering the first mode, Eq. (21) would yield 8.9% damping for the system S4.1 and
49% for S4.2, thus providing much higher results than the real ones (barely two times
effective values). In this case, Frame 4.3 would result in being over-damped. As expected,
modal strain energy overestimates effective damping, thus demonstrating the not con-
servative hypothesis of neglecting supporting brace stiffness.
The system behavior has also been evaluated under the effect of real ground motions:
unlike the theoretical case, the excitation is not a pulsing force, but it can be decomposed
into a series of harmonic components by means of the discrete Fourier Transform
algorithm. Therefore, not only the steady-state response, but also the transitory phase
plays an important role and has to be accounted for. Four un-scaled recorded earthquakes
were selected from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Ground
Motion Database of the University of California (Table 7).
The earthquake response for the systems of Table 8 under Kobe ground motion is
plotted in Figs. 10 and 11, in terms of top displacement and acceleration, whereas the
maximum values are listed in Table 9.

Table 6. Free decay equivalent damping ratio.

S4.1 S4.2 S4.3
νi [-] 0.1 0.55 5
ξ [%] 4.5 19.8 Over-damped
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

Table 7. Ground motion selection.

Earthquake Name Mechanism Station Mw PGA [m/s2]
Kobe [1995] Strike–slip Kakogawa 6.9 3.38
Northridge [1994] Strike–slip 24278 6.7 5.57
Imperial Valley [1979] Strike–slip 5115 6.4 3.09
Loma Prieta [1989] Reverse–oblique 47381 6.9 3.6

Table 8. Different viscous dampers configurations.

S4.1 S4.2 S4.3
νi [-] 0.1 0.55 5
Cd,i [kN/m s] 213 1173 10667
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

0.02 25
ν =0.1

0.015 ν =5 20
ν =0.55
15
0.01
10
0.005 a3 (m/s2) 5
U3(m)

0 0
-0.005 -5
-10
-0.01
-15 ν =0.1
-0.015 -20 ν =5
ν =0.55
-0.02 -25
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
t (s) t (s)
(a) (b)

Figure 10. (a) Top floor displacements and (b) accelerations for three different values of ν.

2 ν =0.1
ν =0.55
1.8
ν =5
input
1.6

1.4

1.2
|Y(f)|

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 11. Top floor displacements FFT for three different values of ν.
 20 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

Table 9. Maximum response under the Kobe earthquake.

S4.1 S4.2 S4.3
dmax [m] 0.018 0.010 0.016
amax [m/s2] 12.5 8.1 21.7
Vmax [kN] 409 307 799

Table 10. Maximum velocity and damping force.

S4.1 S4.2 S4.3
νi [-] 0.1 0.55 5
vmax [m/s] 0.172 0.092 0.035
Fmax [kN] 37 108 375
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

Figure 10 and Table 9 clearly show that both the lowest (ν=0.1) and the highest values
(ν=5) of the damping parameter have detrimental effects with respect to the configura-
tion with νi,opt=0.55, in terms of maximum displacements, accelerations, and base shear.
In Fig. 11, the displacements frequency response content allows deducing for Frame 4.1
and Frame 4.3 a dominant frequency practically equal to the system fundamental
frequencies fl and fu , respectively. Frame 4.2 presents a much flattened frequency
content, more similar to the input ground motion. These results were confirmed by
other ground motions listed in Table 9.
Therefore, the following considerations can be drawn: (i) as predicted by the theoretical
procedure, a certain value νi,opt results in being beneficial under real earthquakes in terms
of maximum response and, additionally, base shear; (ii) for a low value of ν (i.e., ν=0.1),
the structural response tends to that of the bare frame with a dominant vibration
frequency equal to the bare frame natural frequency, characterized by lower accelerations
and higher displacements; (iii) the dynamics of systems with a high value of ν (i.e., ν = 5)
are similar to those of the elastically braced frame with a higher frequency content, lower
displacements, and higher accelerations. When νi is very high, the damper tends “to lock”
the connected points, thus strongly limiting the dissipation of energy and just adding the
lateral stiffness of the supporting brace.
Therefore, given a certain value of relative brace to frame stiffness, κ optimal values of ν
are able to provide the strongest response reduction by achieving a limited-amplitude FFT
spectrum, and providing maximum displacements and accelerations lower than those of
the same system with much lower or much higher values of ν, respectively.
Table 10 shows the maximum inter-story velocity and damping force, necessary to properly
size the damper and the elastic supporting brace, the latter designed to avoid axial buckling.

6. Effective Design Procedure

Results from both theoretical treatment and numerical validation provide a design pro-
cedure that can be summarized in the following flowchart of Fig. 12.
In the case of existing structures, the mass and stiffness properties of the bare frame are
exactly known, unlike in the case of new buildings, for which the design of the bare frame
has also to be addressed. In the latter case, the authors suggest properly designing the bare
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 21
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

Figure 12. Flowchart of the design procedure.

frame for gravity loads only, and then introducing dissipative braces when accounting for
seismic action.
Given the mass (mi) and stiffness (kf,i) properties of the bare frame, as a first step of the
procedure, the stiffness of the elastic supporting braces kb,i and their distribution have to
be defined by taking into account that the higher the relative brace to frame stiffness (kb,1/
kf,1), the more effective is the control system.
At this point, the equations of motion are formulated as in Eq. (18) and the corre-
sponding solution is determined using Eq. (19). When the frame-brace assembly is just
known, the design charts νopt (κ), obtained for several values of κ, can be used to select
νopt ðκÞ by the selected value κ=kf,1/kb,1.
Time history analyses are then performed under the code provided seismic action at the
ultimate limit state, by assuming a starting value of the damping parameter equal
to νopt ðκÞ.
Then, the response reduction level is checked, by verifying whether the parameter
νopt ðκÞ can produce an acceptable response reduction in terms of frame displacement and
base shear, with an allowable level of column axial force.
If the result is not satisfactory, the damping parameter can be modified in order to
obtain an improvement in the achievement of the desired response reduction level. Some
iterations could be needed to define the effective optimal value νopt ðκÞ, since the latter
depends on both the properties of the ground motion and the structural system. At the
 22 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

end of the procedure, i.e. when the optimal damping parameter νopt has been determined,
if a certain response reduction target level is not fulfilled, a different solution can be
pursued by varying the brace stiffness kb,i: the parameter κ can be so reduced in order to
achieve a higher efficiency of the passive control system, or the braces distribution is
changed in order to improve the frame response. Actually, real strong motion properties
(magnitude, duration, frequency content, etc.) may play an important role in the deter-
mination of the effective design optimal value.
In the analytical procedure, the authors made reference to the tri-diagonal stiffness matrix
that would correspond to the shear-type frame. For a real structure, an equivalent story
stiffness parameter kf ;i could be estimated by means of a linear static analysis with a certain
force distribution, thus obtaining an approximated tri-diagonal stiffness matrix satisfying the
assumptions of the method. This assumption would not affect the final design since time
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

history analyses are run with a complete model of the frame under seismic action.
At the same time, the authors assumed a linear frame behavior that may be difficult to
achieve for existing buildings, even with a damping system characterized ny nopt. On the
basis of the present study, a further development of the authors’ work will be represented
by explicitly modeling nonlinear frame behavior and flexible damping braces in order to
evaluate damage prevention with properly defined damping coefficient νopt and brace
stiffness κ.

7. Conclusions
The use of VDs for the mitigation of dynamic response has become a common design
strategy in the seismic protection of buildings. The effect of VDs combined with elastic
supporting braces, on the structural dynamics and energy dissipation mechanism of
controlled multistory buildings, has still not been fully addressed. Although it is well
known that stiffer braces improve the damping capacity, the exact value of the brace
stiffness is usually neglected and additional dampers are modeled as inter-story devices,
whereas in practice brace dimensions have to be limited for functional or economical
requirements. This simplification in modeling may lead to inaccurate evaluation of the
system behavior and the protection system effectiveness, especially in case of highly
damped systems or low stiffness-supporting braces.
This paper properly addresses the combined effect of viscous damping coefficient and
brace stiffness on the global dynamic behavior of a multistory frame, and therefore on the
optimal design of a dissipative bracing system for an existing or a new building structure.
In the first part of the work, a theoretical study in the frequency domain was developed
by the authors, in order to determine the dynamic behavior of an MDOFs frame equipped
with viscous dissipative braces. Each brace mounted in series with a VD has been modeled
by a Maxwell element having a complex stiffness acting in parallel with the stiffness of the
bare frame. An exhaustive treatment is proposed for the analysis of non-proportional
damping structures equipped with elastically deformable viscous damping braces, by
introducing nondimensional parameters. A general form of the equations of motion
with the corresponding solution was found, and the usefulness of the procedure was
proved for a 3-DOF case-study structure. It was demonstrated that extremely varying
damping coefficients can shift the dynamic properties (frequency and mode shapes) of the
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 23

structure between two undamped limit cases, i.e. those corresponding to the bare frame
(ν ¼ 0) and the elastically braced frame (ν ¼ 1). Finite values of ν would introduce
different levels of damping into the structure with consequent reduction in terms of peak
resonance amplitudes. However, the global behavior of the dissipative braced frames is
considerably affected not only by the damping parameter ν, but also by the stiffness
parameter κ representative of the relative frame to brace lateral stiffness. A low value of
κ leads to reduced efficiency in transmitting the inter-story displacement to the damper.
With the aim to define an optimal damping parameter, the authors provided a numerical
solution νi,opt (κ) of the value of the damping parameter that can yield the minimum
displacement resonance peak on the first mode.
In the second part of the work, time history direct integration analyses were run on a 3-
DOF frame system with ISPs, in three different configurations of viscous devices (ν=0.1,
0.55, 5), for κ ¼ 1. Snapback free vibration tests allowed one to evaluate the corresponding
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

equivalent damping ratios and compare this with the modal strain energy results. The
earthquake response of the system enabled one to draw the following considerations:
either higher or lower values of ν are detrimental with respect to the theoretically
determined optimal value νi;opt , in terms of maximum displacements, accelerations, and
base shear; different frequency contents are singled out in the floor displacement FFT, as a
function of ν. Therefore, the effect of ν is remarkable not only in terms of the provided
equivalent viscous damping but also in terms of dominant frequency of the response, since
systems with higher ν tend to vibrate faster.
The present design procedure has the main advantage of not being iterative and at the
same time providing an insight into the structural dynamics of dampers-added systems
with finite stiffness of supporting brace elements. The method appears completely general
since any frame with any damper-brace distribution can be treated. Once the elastic bare
frame is known, the optimal damping constant is obtained to minimize the top displace-
ments for different levels of brace relative stiffness. Depending on the required response
reduction, the minimum value of brace stiffness can be selected with the corresponding
value of the optimal damper coefficient. Alternatively and according to aesthetical or
economical reasons, the maximum brace to frame relative stiffness can be selected and the
corresponding optimal damping coefficient determined. At this point, direct integration
numerical analyses are run to check the effective design of the additional damping system,
taking into account effective ground motions and the potential influence of higher modes.
Further study is under way to determine the effect of nonlinear frame response due to
the formation of plastic hinges in the presence of additional viscous damping systems.

References
Adachi, F., Yoshitomi, S., Tsuji, M. and Takewaki, I. [2013]. “Non linear optimal oil damper design
in seismically controlled multi-story building frame,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
44, 1–13.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). [1997]. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, FEMA 273, USA.
Castaldo, P. and De Iuliis, M. [2014]. “Optimal integrated seismic design of structural and
viscoelastic bracing-damper systems,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 43,
1809–1827.
 24 D. LOSANNO ET AL.

Charney, F. and McNamara, R. [2008]. “Comparison of methods for computing equivalent viscous
damping ratios of structures with added viscous damping,” Journal of Structural Engineering 134
(1), 32–44.
Chen, Y. T. and Chai, Y. H. [2011]. “Effects of brace stiffness on performance of structures with
supplemental Maxwell model-based brace–damper systems,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 40, 75–92.
Chopra, A. K. [2011]. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering,
4th Edn., Harlow, England:Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.
Cimellaro, G. P. [2007]. “Simultaneous stiffness–damping optimization of structures with respect to
acceleration, displacement and base shear,” Engineering Structures 29, 2853–2870.
Clough, R. W. and Penzien, J. [2003]. Dynamics of Structures, Prentice-Hall International Series in
Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, 4th Edn, Berkeley, California: Computers &
Structures, Inc..
Constantinou, M. C., Soong, T. T. and Dargush, G. F. [1996]. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for
Structural Design and Retrofit, New York: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Downloaded by [University Napoli Federico II] at 00:17 30 November 2017

Research (MCEER)..
Fu, Y. and Kasai, K. [1998]. “Comparative study of frames using viscoelastic and viscous dampers,”
Journal of Structural Engineering 124(5), 513–522.
Fujita, K., Moustafa, A. and Takewaki, I. [2010]. “Optimal placement of viscoelastic dampers and
supporting members under variable critical excitation,” Earthquakes and Structures 1(1), 46–67.
Lomiento, G., Bonessio, N. and Braga, F. [2010]. “Design criteria for added dampers and supporting
braces,” Seismic Isolation and Protection Systems 1(1), 55–74.
Londoño, J. M., Wagg, D. J. and Neild, S. A. [2013]. “A noniterative procedure for supplemental
brace-damper systems in single-degree-of-freedom systems,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 42, 2361–2367.
Londoño, J. M., Wagg, D. J. and Neild, S. A. [2014]. “Supporting brace sizing in structures with
added linear viscous fluid dampers: A filter design solution,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 43, 1999–2013.
Losanno, D., Spizzuoco, M. and Serino, G. [2014]. “Optimal design of the seismic protection system
for isolated bridges,” Earthquake and Structures 7(6), 969–999.
Losanno, D., Spizzuoco, M. and Serino, G. [2015]. “An optimal design procedure for a simple frame
equipped with elastic-deformable dissipative braces,” Engineering Structures 101, 677–697.
Park, J. H., Kim, J. and Min, K. W. [2004]. “Optimal design of added viscoelastic dampers and
supporting braces,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 33, 465–484.
Singh, P. S. and Moreschi, L. M. [2002]. “Optimal placement of dampers for passive response
control,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31, 955–976.
Takewaki, I. [1999]. “Displacement–acceleration control via stiffness–damping collaboration,”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28, 1567–1585.
Takewaki, I. and Yoshitomi, S. [1998]. “Effects of support stiffnesses on optimal damper placement
for a planar building frame,” Tall and Special Buildings 7, 323–336.
Viola, E. and Guidi, F. [2009]. “Influence of the supporting braces on the dynamic control of
buildings with added viscous dampers,” Structural Control and Health Monitoring 16, 267–286.

View publication stats