Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018

Creativity in Structural Design

July 16-20, 2018, MIT, Boston, USA
Caitlin Mueller, Sigrid Adriaenssens (eds.)

Seismic resistance performance of stadium structure with a

hybrid damper device
Joonho Lee*, Heesuk Moona, Geecheol Kimb, Kyungju Hwangc

* Metro Total Construction CTO

Beobwon-ro 11-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
joonho.lee.97@gmail.com
a
Metro Total Construction Institute of Technology
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, Seoil University, Seoul, Korea
c
Department of Architecture, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea

Abstract
This paper summarizes the development of a hybrid passive energy dissipation device combining a
steel slit damper and rotational friction dampers in parallel to be used for seismic retrofit of stadium
structures. Compared with the conventional slit dampers with the same yield strength, the hybrid
damper has an advantage in that only friction dampers can be activated for the micro-vibration such as
small earthquakes or strong wind, and both friction and slit damper work simultaneously for strong
earthquake excitation. Cyclic loading tests of the friction, slit, and the combined hybrid dampers are
carried out to evaluate their seismic energy dissipation capability. The hybrid dampers are applied to
seismic retrofit of a reinforced concrete stadium model structure, where it is observed that the dampers
are effective in rehabilitating seismic performance and restraining the building performance within a
given target performance level. The effect of the hybrid damper device is verified by nonlinear
dynamic analyses using Perform 3D. The analysis results show that the dissipated inelastic energy is
concentrated on the hybrid damper and the maximum inter-story drift of the stadium model structure
with damping system satisfies the requirement of the current code.
Keywords: Seismic performance evaluation, Seismic rehabilitation, Hybrid damper, Spatial structure, Stadium structure

1. Introduction
Following a 5.8 magnitude earthquake on September 12, 2016 in Gyeongju Province, a magnitude 5.4
earthquake occurred in the northern region of Pohang City on November 15, 2017 in South Korea.
Typical damage types are the short column failure of school structures, the collapse of deteriorated
apartment buildings, and the torsional destruction of the 1st story pilotis of public housing. South
Korea is proved no longer not an earthquake safety zone. Only 7.9 % of the building structures are
earthquake-resistant, according to the recent survey conducted by the government agencies in October
2017. Almost 30% of the spatial structures for the public, like stadiums are not designed according to
the current seismic provisions for such building structures. In this paper seismic performance of the
stadium structures was evaluated according to the guidelines presented in the KISTEC(Korea
Infrastructure Safety Corporation) [1]. Structural stability of the upper truss structure was evaluated by
nonlinear dynamic analysis using Perform 3D[2] and hybrid damping device is used for seismic
reinforcement.

(a) Shot column failure (b) Deteriorated apartment (c) 1st story pilotis failure
Figure 1: Types of damage caused by Pohang earthquake

Copyright © 2018 by < Joonho Lee, Heesuk Moon, Geecheol Kim, Kyungju Hwang>
Published by the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) with permission.
 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018
Creativity in Structural Design

2. Hybrid slit-friction damper

The hybrid slit-friction wall type damper[3] is made of a steel slit damper and rotational friction
dampers connected in parallel which works for both major and minor earthquakes. For minor
earthquakes, the slit damper remains elastic and only the friction damper works to dissipate energy,
while for strong earthquakes both the friction and slit dampers work simultaneously. The plate has
nine strips: the width (b), thickness (t), and the height (Lo) of each strip are 20 mm, 15 mm, and 200
mm respectively. The eight circular friction pad(Non-asbestos material) with diameter of 100 mm is
attached to the slit damper using a steel bar fastened by a high-tension bolt. A 1.0 mm-deep recess is
made on the surface of both the slit damper plate and the steel bar to prevent lateral movement of the
friction pad and to restrain radial elongation of the pad due to the large compression force applied by
the high-tension bolt. Cyclic loading tests of the combined hybrid dampers are carried out to evaluate
their seismic energy dissipation capability. The strength of the hybrid damping device increased 45%
at the same displacement compared to the slit damping device and the initial stiffness of device
increased 30.1%.

(a) Hybrid damping device (b) Frame (c) Hysteresis curves (d) 5 cycle loading test
Figure 2: Hybrid slit-friction damper

3. Seismic performance evaluation of stadium structure

Since the seismic design code considering seismic load was introduced in 1988, the revised KBC-
2016(Korean Building Code) is applied in Korea. KISTEC published "Assessment and Improvement
of Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings" in 2004 and was revised in 2013 to reflect the concept
of performance based design. The methodology consisted of the preliminary evaluation, 1st and 2nd
step seismic evaluation, reflecting the infill and masonry wall in the structural analysis. The example
structure to be evaluated is a comprehensive stadium facility constructed in 1984 and is a four-story
reinforced concrete structure(Figure 3). Since the importance factor of the stadium facility over
5,000m2 is 1.0, the seismic category is ‘I’. Therefore, the required performance level is ‘Life Safety
(LS)’ for the design based earthquake seismic hazard level of the design spectral acceleration
coefficients SDS = 0.355 and SD1 = 0.210. However, buildings designated as emergency evacuation
facilities for earthquakes, typhoons or other emergencies are classified as seismic category "Special"
and the target performance is ‘Immediate Occupancy(0.5% interstory-drift ratio)’. The 1st step seismic
evaluation of the methodology is based on the strength of the structural member resulted from the
elastic analysis. A linear static procedure or linear dynamic procedure is performed according to the
category of the building to be evaluated. The deformation-controlled member uses the expected
strength, and the force-controlled member uses the nominal strength to calculate the flexural and shear
strength of each structural member.

(a) 2nd floor plan (b) Spatial roof truss (c) Cross section of stadium
Figure 3: Example stadium structure

2
 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018
Creativity in Structural Design

When generating load combination, force-controlled member is considered the load transmission
reduction factor, and the modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to
displacements calculated for linear elastic response. The performance level of each structural member
is determined by m-factor and the performance level of the structure to be evaluated is determined
according to the vertical load-carrying capacity of the member corresponding to each performance
level. As a result of the 1st step seismic evaluation of the mentioned comprehensive stadium structure,
the vertical load sharing ratio of the beam and column members are evaluated as the collapse level,
and a 2nd step seismic evaluation should be proceeded.
The 2nd step seismic performance evaluation is evaluated by considering the ductility and deformation
capacity of members using nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis) method. After defining the
material nonlinear behavior characteristics of the individual members, the relationship between the
roof displacement and the base shear force is calculated while gradually increasing the lateral
displacement. And the stress and strain of each structural member at the performance point is reviewed
whether it meets the acceptance criteria. The performance point is calculated using the capacity
spectrum method based on ATC-40 or FEMA 440. The preliminary nonlinear static analysis is
performed and the modeling parameters of the member are reentered using the shear force and axial
force ratio derived from the primary performance point to calculate the performance point. As a result
of the 2nd step seismic performance evaluation of the example structure, the vertical load sharing ratio
at the performance point was evaluated as Immediate Occupancy in the X direction and Life Safety in
the Y direction. The interstory-drift ratio is estimated to be 0.53% in the X direction and 0.72% in the
Y direction, not satisfying the target performance (IO: 0.5%).
In the 1st and 2nd step seismic performance evaluation, the upper truss was replaced with the gravity
load, therefore the structural stability of the entire structure including the upper truss was examined
through the nonlinear dynamic analysis. Nonlinear dynamic analysis was performed by Perform 3D
and nonlinear properties of reinforced concrete and upper steel truss members were entered by the
methodology. The artificial earthquake records were used for the nonlinear analysis that were scaled to
the design based earthquake spectrum without considering the response modification factor and
importance factor(Figure 4). The displacements of the upper trusses due to seismic loads were set to be
similar to the average values of the lower story height and therefore 7 interstory-drift ratio were
estimated. As a result of the eigenvalue analysis, the 1st mode is twisted. In the 2nd and 3rd modes, the
deflection displacement of the upper truss occurs as shown in the Table below.

(a) Design Spectrum (b) Time history of artificial earthquakes

Figure 4: Artificial earthquakes used in Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Table 1: Eigenvalue analysis result
1st Mode (Z-axis rotation) 2nd Mode (Y-direction) 3rd Mode (X-direction)

Mode
shapes

Period 0.6873 sec 0.588 sec 0.5805 sec

3
 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018
Creativity in Structural Design

The average interstory-drift of 7-earthquake in X-direction occurred up to 0.0053 in the first story
column, and that of upper truss was up to 0.58%. When the seismic evaluation reinforcement of the
large space structure is carried out, the upper truss is replaced with the gravity load and the
substructure is evaluated prescriptive. This is because it takes much time to model and analyze for
nonlinear dynamic analysis.

4. Seismic rehabilitation
Since the target performance of the example structure is Immediate Occupancy, the seismic
performance is enhanced by using the hybrid damping device. In this paper the behavior of the hybrid
damper is modeled using the ‘Rubber Type Seismic Isolator Element’ provided in the nonlinear
analysis software Perform 3D. The force-displacement relationship of the hybrid damper was obtained
from the cyclic loading test and the FE analysis. 24 hybrid slit-friction dampers were installed on the
1st floor, and the performance evaluation result satisfies the target performance level of 0.5%
interstory-drift ratio(Figure 5). Because the energy dissipated in the hybrid damping devices is 70.1%,
42.6% respectively in the x, y direction, the hybrid damping device effectively dissipates the
earthquake energy.
7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

Story
Story

Average Average
Artificial EQ1 Artificial EQ1
Artificial EQ2 Immediate Artificial EQ2
3 Immediate 3
Artificial EQ3 Artificial EQ3
Occupacncy Occupacncy
Artificial EQ4 Artificial EQ4
Artificial EQ5 Artificial EQ5
Artificial EQ6 Artificial EQ6
2 Artificial EQ7 2 Artificial EQ7

1 1

0 0
-0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Interstory-drift Interstory-drift

(a) Layout plan of HD device (b) Interstory-drift (X-dir.) (c) Interstory-drift (Y-dir.)
Figure 5: Nonlinear dynamic analysis results

5. Conclusion
In this paper the hybrid dampers were applied to seismic retrofit of a complex stadium structure
including upper truss to validate their effectiveness. The seismic performance of the model structure
retrofitted with the hybrid dampers was evaluated using the nonlinear model of the dampers obtained
from the experiment. The maximum inter-story drifts of the retrofitted structure averaged over the
seven nonlinear analysis results satisfied the target performance level(0.5% interstory drift ratio).
However, as a result of the nonlinear dynamic analysis, seismic reinforcement is required in the upper
truss because some members exceed the target performance.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant(18AUDP-B100343-04) from Architecture & Urban
Development Research Program funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean
government.

References
[1] KISTEC, "Assessment of Seismic Performance of Existing Facilities (Buildings), " Korea
Infrastructure Safety Corporation, 2013.
[2] Perform 3D, Computer and Structures. Inc., Berkeley, CA, 2015.
[3] J. Lee, H. Kang and J. Kim, "Seismic performance of steel-friction hybrid dampers," Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, vol. 136, pp. 128-139, 2017.