Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
+ =
=
n
1 i k
k k
D
i
h Q
L
1
N (8)
=
+
=
1 i
1 k
1 k k i
b
h u A (9)
1 j
1 i
1 j
n
1 j k
k k
D
j
c
j
c
j
i
b
h h Q
L
1
E A
h
L
2
+
= + =
(
(
(
(
= A
(10)
- 5 -
i
Dy b
i
Dy s
i
Dy t
A A A + = (11)
As seen in Figure 12d, the apparent stiffness of the
damper system decreases from K
D
to K
Deq
due to the
additional deformation
b
A
Dy
. Because of this reduction in
the stiffness of the dampers system, the yield story drift of
the damper system initially assumed to be equal to vA
Fy
(Equation 3) increases and the damper system will require
a larger story drift to reach its yield point and start to
dissipate hysteretic energy. The larger the global flexural
deformation is, the larger the reduction in the stiffness and
effectiveness of the damper system.
Since the damper system is intended to yield before the
R/C frame does, the inequality in Equation 12 (represented
by a I index) should be satisfied. To determine the value
of I in Equation 12 when the damper yields, Equation 10
should be rewritten as in Equation 13. Assuming that all
stories yield simultaneously, Q
Dy
is taken from Equation 2.
It is worth mentioning that all parameters in Equation 13
are known prior to the analysis of the building with
dampers, and that the I index can be used for a preliminary
estimation of the story number up to which the damper
system yields before the R/C frame does. A practical
implication of this I index is that the designer, based on
the value of I, could decide a suitable arrangement of
dampers or column properties so as to achieve an adequate
level of effectiveness of dampers.
0 . 1
i
Fy
i
Dy t
i
s =
A
A
I
(12)
1 j
1 i
1 j
n
1 j k
k k
Fy
j
c
j
c
j
i
Dy b
h h Q
L
'
E A
h
L
2
+
= + =
(
(
(
(
=
|
A
(13)
Calculated values of I are compared with those
obtained from pushover analysis, as shown in Figure 13.
As can be seen, there is a good correspondence of
calculated values of I to those from pushover analysis
regardless of the building height, especially for v 0.4 and
|' 0.4. It is also seen that Equation 13 tends to
underestimate the value of I in the upper stories in the 10-
and 20-story models, especially for v 0.6 and |' 0.5. In
general, there seems to be a relatively good
correspondence up to the story number where the
calculated value of I is equal to unity. In the 5-story model,
the correspondence is very good regardless of the values of
v or |'. It can be also seen that the difference between
calculated values of I and those from pushover analysis
increases over the building height and as v and |' increases,
and that is more noticeable for values of I larger than unity.
This difference is mainly because Equation 13 does not
consider the progress of yielding in the R/C frame and
dampers in the stories below the story at which I is being
calculated, which increases the story drift response.
Moreover, the axial rigidity of columns is assumed to
remain elastic in Equation 13.
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that by installing dampers according to
the proposed scheme, the seismic performance of the
structure is improved because the lateral deformation
demand and seismic damage are reduced uniformly over
the building height. Particularly, low values of v and |'
lead to a fairly constant distribution over the building
height of the reduction in proportion of story drift demand;
which clearly indicates a controlled protection to the R/C
frame. In high-rise frames, the seismic damage tends to
distribute more uniformly over the building height after
damper installation.
The global flexural deformation of the damper-installed
bay reduces the contribution of dampers (installed at the
upper stories of mid- and high-rise buildings) to the total
hysteretic energy dissipation, particularly for values of |'
larger than 0.5. On the other hand, dampers installed in
low-rise frames are scarcely affected by the global flexural
deformation regardless of the strength of dampers. In
general, the contribution of dampers to the total hysteretic
energy dissipation increases with increasing values of |'
and decreasing values of v. However, this contribution
tends to decrease for large values of |' in mid- and high-
rise buildings due to the effect of global flexural
deformation of the damper-installed bay.
The proposed analytical procedure to account for the
global flexural deformation through the I index was shown
to provide useful information for the preliminary
estimation of the story number up to which the damper
system yields before the R/C frame. The proposed index
provides satisfactory results for values of I as large as
unity.
Figure 8. Total R/C frame hysteretic energy
REFERENCES
[1] The Building Center of Japan, 2000. The Building Standard Law of Japan.
[2] Saito, T., 2010. Structural Earthquake Response Analysis (STERA-3D)
software, IISEE, BRI, Tsukuba, Japan.
[3] Takeda, T., Sozen, M. A., and Nielsen, N. N., 1970. Reinforced concrete
response to simulated earthquakes, Journal of Structural Division (ASCE)
96(ST12), 2557-2573.
[4] Kamura, H., Inoue, K., Kuwahara, S., and Ogawa, K., 2002. Modeling of the
moment resistant frame with hysteretic damper to fishbone-shaped frame for the
response analysis. J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ 562, 151-158 (in Japanese).
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
PGV50 20-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
20-story PGV100
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
PGV50 10-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGV100 10-story
M
e
a
n
o
f
E
H
F
/
E
H
F
0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
PGV50 5-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGV100 5-story
- 6 -
Figure 7. Maximum story drift for the PGV50 seismic intensity
Figure 10. Vertical distribution of the E
HF
/ E
I
ratio
Figure 9. Participation of R/C frame into the total input energy
Figure 11. Contribution of damper system to
the total hysteretic energy dissipation
Figure 12. Global flexural deformation: (a)
rotation of the first story, (b) rotation of the i-th
story, (c) total deformed configuration, and (d)
effect of global flexural deformation on the damper
system
Figure 13. Comparison of I index
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
Mean of E
HF
/ E
I
- PGV100
0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
5
4
3
2
1
10
8
6
4
2
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
20
15
10
5
PGV50 20-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGV100 20-story
PGV50 10-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGV100 10-story
M
e
a
n
o
f
E
H
D
/
E
H
T
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
PGV50 5-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGV100 5-story
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
PGV50 10-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGV100 10-story
M
e
a
n
o
f
E
H
F
/
E
I
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
PGV50 5-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGV100 5-story
PGV50 20-story
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGV100 20-story
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
N
i
N
i
h
i
L L L
Story 1
(a) (b) (c)
(d)
Story 2
Story i
h
i
h
1
h
1
h
i
Story 1
Story 2
Story i
Story 1
Story i
h
i+1
Damper system
Q
i
Dy
Q
i
S
t
o
r
y
S
h
e
a
r
Story Drift
K
i
D
K
i
Deq
Equation 12 Pushover
0 0.5 1.0
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0
0 0.5 1.0
10
8
6
4
2
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
20
15
10
5
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
5
4
3
1
2
10
8
6
4
2
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
S
t
o
r
y
N
o
.
20
15
10
5