SEISMIC PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS

SEISMIC PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS:
PASSIVE ENERGY DISSIPATION Major Objectives

Presented & Developed by:
Michael D. Symans, PhD • Illustrate why use of passive energy dissipation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
systems may be beneficial
• Provide overview of types of energy dissipation
systems available
• Describe behavior, modeling, and analysis of
structures with energy dissipation systems
• Review developing building code requirements
Initially Developed by:

Finley A. Charney, PE, PhD
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Passive Energy Dissipation 15 – 6 - 1 Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Passive Energy Dissipation 15 – 6 - 2
Outline: Part II
Outline: Part I • Velocity-Dependent Damping Systems:
Fluid Dampers and Viscoelastic Dampers
• Objectives of Advanced Technology Systems • Models for Velocity-Dependent Dampers
and Effects on Seismic Response • Effects of Linkage Flexibility
• Distinction Between Natural and Added • Displacement-Dependent Damping
Damping Systems: Steel Plate Dampers, Unbonded
• Energy Distribution and Damage Reduction Brace Dampers, and Friction Dampers
• Classification of Passive Energy Dissipation • Concept of Equivalent Viscous Damping
Systems • Modeling Considerations for Structures
with Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
Outline: Part III Outline: Part IV

• MDOF Solution Using Complex Modal
• Seismic Analysis of MDOF Structures with
Analysis
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
• Example: Damped Mode Shapes and
• Representations of Damping
Frequencies
• Examples: Application of Modal Strain
• An Unexpected Effect of Passive Damping
Energy Method and Non-Classical
Damping Analysis • Modeling Dampers in Computer Software
• Summary of MDOF Analysis Procedures • Guidelines and Code-Related Documents
for Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
Outline: Part I Objectives of Energy Dissipation and
Seismic Isolation Systems
• Objectives of Advanced Technology Systems
and Effects on Seismic Response • Enhance performance of structures at all hazard levels by:
• Distinction Between Natural and Added Minimizing interruption of use of facility
Damping (e.g., Immediate Occupancy Performance Level)
• Energy Distribution and Damage Reduction Reducing damaging deformations in structural and
• Classification of Passive Energy Dissipation nonstructural components
Systems Reducing acceleration response to minimize contents-

related damage
Effect of Added Damping Effect of Added Stiffness

(Viscous Damper) (Added Bracing)
1.2 1.2
T=.50 T=1.0 T=.50 T=1.0
g
g
5% Damping 5% Damping
1.0 1.0
Acceleration,
T=1.5 Acceleration, T=1.5

10% 10%
g
g
Pseudoacceleration,
0.8
Pseudoacceleration,
0.8
20% 20%
0.6 30% 0.6 30%

Pseudo-Spectral
Pseudo-Spectral
40% T=2.0 40% T=2.0
0.4 - Decreased Displacement 0.4 - Decreased Displacement

- Decreased Shear Force - Increased Shear Force
T=3.0 T=3.0
0.2 0.2
T=4.0 T=4.0
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Spectral Displacement, Inches Spectral Displacement, Inches
Effect of Added Damping and Stiffness Effect of Reduced Stiffness

(ADAS System) (Seismic Isolation)
1.2 1.2
T=.50 T=1.0 T=.50 T=1.0
g
5% Damping 5% Damping
Acceleration,
Acceleration,
1.0 1.0
T=1.5 T=1.5
10% 10%
g
g
Pseudoacceleration,
Pseudoacceleration,
0.8 0.8
20% 20%
0.6 0.6
Pseudo-Spectral
Pseudo-Spectral
30% 30%
40% T=2.0 40% - Decreased Shear Force T=2.0
- Decreased Displacement - Increased Displacement

0.4 0.4
- Decreased Shear (possibly)
T=3.0 T=3.0
0.2 0.2
T=4.0 T=4.0
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Spectral Displacement, Inches Spectral Displacement, Inches
Effect of Reduced Stiffness Effect of Damping and Yield Strength
(Seismic Isolation with Dampers) on Deformation Demand
1.2
T=.50 T=1.0
g
5% Damping 1.4
Acceleration,
1.0
T=1.5
1.2
Peak Displacement (in)

10%
g
Yield
Pseudoacceleration,
0.8
1 Strength
20%
(kips)
0.6 30% 0.8
Pseudo-Spectral
40% - Decreased Shear T=2.0 10

- Increased Displacement 0.6 20
0.4
0.4 30
T=3.0
0.2 0.2
T=4.0
0
0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20
Spectral Displacement, Inches Damping Ratio (%)
Outline: Part I Distinction Between Natural and Added Damping

Natural (Inherent) Damping
and Effects on Seismic Response ξ is a structural property, dependent on
system mass, stiffness, and inherent
• Distinction Between Natural and Added energy dissipation mechanisms
Damping ξ NATURAL = 0.5 to 7.0%
• Energy Distribution and Damage Reduction
Added Damping
• Classification of Passive Energy Dissipation
ξ is a structural property, dependent on
Systems C system mass, stiffness, and the
added damping coefficient C
ξ ADDED = 10 to 30%
1981/1982 US-JAPAN PROJECT 1981/1982 US-JAPAN PROJECT

Response of Bare Frame Before and After Adding Ballast Change in Damping and Frequency with Accumulated Damage
FREQUENCY, HZ
7
DAMPING, %
6 CRITICAL
Model Weight 1
Bare Model 18 kips 0

Loaded Model 105 kips 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION, %G
Outline: Part I Reduction in Seismic Damage
• Objectives of Advanced Technology Systems Energy Balance:
Hysteretic Energy
and Effects on Seismic Response

EI = ES + E K + ( E DI + E DA ) + E H
• Distinction Between Natural and Added
Damping Inherent Damping Added Damping
• Energy Distribution and Damage Reduction
DI
• Classification of Passive Energy Dissipation Damage Index:
E (t )
Systems 1.0
u
DI (t ) = max + ρ H
uult Fy uult
0.0
Source: Park and Ang (1985) Collapse Damage
State
Duration-Dependent Damage Index 200

10% Damping
E (t )
180
u
DI (t ) = max + ρ H
Energy, inch-kips 160
KINETIC + Damping Reduces
Absorbed(kip-inch)
140
STRAIN
DAMPING
Hysteretic Energy
uult Fy uult
120
100
80
Dissipation Demand
Energy
Source: Park and Ang (1985) 60
40 HYSTERETIC
20
u max = maximum displacement 0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24
200
28 32 36 40 44 48 20% Damping
DI
180
uult
Time, Seconds
= monotonic ultimate displacement 160
Absorbed Energy, Inch-Kips

(kip-inch)
140
KINETIC +
ρ = calibration factor
1.0 120
100
STRAIN
DAMPING
80
EH
Energy
= hysteretic energy dissipated 60
40
Fy = monotonic yield force 0.0

Collapse Damage
20
HYSTERETIC
0
State 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time, Seconds
28 32 36 40 44 48
Effect of Damping and Yield Strength Energy and Damage Histories, 5% Damping
on Hysteretic Energy
300
Hysteretic
EI = 260
Viscous + Hysteretic
250
Total
140
EDI+EDA
Energy, In-Kips
200
120 150
Hysteretic Energy (kip-in)
100 Yield
EH
100
Strength
50
80 (kips)
10 0
60
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
20
40 30
1.00
Max=0.55
Damage Index
0.80
Analysis
0.60
20 0.40
0.20 performed
0 0.00 on NONLIN
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 T ime, Seconds
Damping Ratio (%)

Energy and Damage Histories, 20% Damping Reduction in Damage with Increased Damping
300
Hysteretic 5% Damping 20% Damping

250 Viscous + Hysteretic
T otal
EI = 210 40% Damping 60% Damping
0.60
Energy, In-Kips
200
150
EDI+EDA 0.50
100
0.40
Damage Index
50
0
EH 0.30
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
0.20
1.00
0.80 Max=0.30 0.10

Damage Index
0.60
0.40
0.00
0.20
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 Time, Seconds
Time, Seconds
Outline: Part I Classification of Passive Energy

Dissipation Systems
and Effects on Seismic Response Velocity-Dependent Systems
• Viscous fluid or viscoelastic solid dampers
• Distinction Between Natural and Added • May or may not add stiffness to structure
Damping
Displacement-Dependent Systems
• Energy Distribution and Damage Reduction • Metallic yielding or friction dampers
• Classification of Passive Energy Dissipation • Always adds stiffness to structure
Systems Other
• Re-centering devices (shape-memory alloys, etc.)
• Vibration absorbers (tuned mass dampers)
Outline: Part II
Cross-Section of Viscous Fluid Damper
• Velocity-Dependent Damping Systems:
• Models for Velocity-Dependent Dampers
• Effects of Linkage Flexibility
• Displacement-Dependent Damping
Systems: Steel Plate Dampers,Unbonded
Brace Dampers, and Friction Dampers
• Concept of Equivalent Viscous Damping
• Modeling Considerations for Structures
with Passive Damping Systems Source: Taylor Devices, Inc.
Possible Damper Placement Within Structure Chevron Brace and Viscous Damper
Augmented
Bracing
Diagonally Braced Damping System Fluid Dampers within Inverted Chevron Brace
Pacific Bell North Area Operation Center (911 Emergency Center)
Sacramento, California
(3-Story Steel-Framed Building Constructed in 1995)
62 Dampers: 30 Kip Capacity, +/-2 in. Stroke
Fluid Damper within Diagonal Brace Toggle Brace Damping System

U1
San Francisco State
Office Building
San Francisco, CA UD sin θ 2
AF = =
U1 cos(θ1 + θ 2 )
θ2
UD
Huntington Tower
Boston, MA
θ1
Toggle Brace Deployment Harmonic Behavior of Fluid Damper
u ( t ) = u 0 sin( ω t ) Imposed Motion
Phase
Angle
Loading Frequency (Lag)
Total Force
P ( t ) = P0 sin(ω t ) cos(δ ) + P0 cos(ω t ) sin(δ )

δ
1500 ELASTIC FORCE
ω DAMPING FORCE
1000
TOTAL FORCE
FORCE, KIPS
500
-500
-1000
Huntington Tower, Boston, MA
-1500
- New 38-story steel-framed building 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
- 100 direct-acting and toggle-brace dampers TIME, SECONDS
- 1300 kN (292 kips), +/- 101 mm (+/- 4 in.)
- Dampers suppress wind-induced vibration Note: Damping force 90o out-of-phase with elastic force.
P ( t ) = K S u ( t ) + C u&( t ) Frequency-Domain Force-Displacement Relation

P P K
K S = 0 cos( δ ) K L = 0 sin( δ ) C = L
⎛P ⎞
δ = sin −1 ⎜⎜ Z ⎟⎟
P ( t ) = K S u (t ) + C u& (t )
u0 u0 ω ⎝ P0 ⎠ Apply Fourier Transform:
Storage Stiffness Loss Stiffness Damping Coeff.
uo
Phase Angle
P ( ω ) = K S u (ω ) + K L i ω u (ω ) / ω
ℑ
K* P ( ω ) = [K S + iK L ]u (ω ) K * (ω )
Total Force, P
K L (ω )
Po Complex Stiffness: δ
P (ω )
PZ KS
K (ω ) =
*
K S (ω ) ℜ
u (ω )
P (ω ) = K * (ω )u (ω ) Compact Force-Displ. Relation
for Viscoelastic Dampers
PZ = K L u o = Po sin (δ ) Damper Displacement, u

E D = πPZ uo = πPouo sin(δ )
Note: ( )
ℜ K* = KS and ( )
ℑ K* = KL
Dependence of Storage Stiffness on Frequency Dependence of Damping Coefficient on Frequency

for Typical “Single-Ended” Fluid Damper for Typical “Single-Ended” Fluid Damper
10000 140
Coefficient C, lb-sec/in
lb-sec/in
120
(lb/in)
Stiffnesslbs/inch
8000 Cutoff
100 Frequency
Damping Coefficient,
6000
Storage Stiffness,
80
Cutoff
Frequency 60
4000
Storage
Damping
40
2000
20
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Excitation Frequency
Excitation Frequency, Hz(Hz)
Excitation FrequencyHz.
Excitation Frequency, (Hz)
Dependence of Phase Angle on Frequency Dependence of Damping Coefficient on
for Typical “Single-Ended” Fluid Damper Temperature for Typical Fluid Damper
120
120
lb-sec/in
Phase Angle (degrees)
100
100
Constant, k-sec/in
80
DampingCoefficient,
80
60
60
40
40
Damping
20
20
0
10 15 20 25 δ
0 5 0
δ δ 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (Hz)
Temperature (Degrees
Temperature, DegreesC)
C
Behavior of Fluid Damper with Zero Storage Actual Hysteretic Behavior of Fluid Damper
Stiffness Harmonic Loading
K
K S = 0 ⇒ δ = 90 o P ( t ) = C u& = L u&
ω
uo
Damper Force, P
Seismic Loading
Po
E d = π Po u o
Source:
Constantinou and Symans (1992)
Damper Displacement, u
Force-Velocity Behavior of Viscous Fluid Damper Nonlinear Fluid Dampers

α
0.2 0.4
Exp
0.6 0.8 1.0
P ( t ) = C u& sgn( u& )
120
300 α = 01
.
80
200
α = 10
.
Damper Force, Kips
100 40
Force, Kips
0 0
-100 -40
α
-200
P ( t ) = C u& sgn( u& ) -80
-300
-6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
-120
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Damper Deformational Velocity, in/sec
Displacement, Inches
Energy Dissipated Per Cycle for Linear Relationship Between λ and α
and Nonlinear Viscous Fluid Dampers for Viscous Fluid Damper
Linear Damper: E D = π Pouo 4.0
AF = λ/π = 1.24
Hysteretic Energy Factor λ

Hysteretic Energy Factor 3.8
Nonlinear Damper: E D = λ Pouo 3.6

AF = 1.11
⎛ α⎞
3.4
Γ 2 ⎜1 + ⎟ AF = 1.0
λ = 4× 2 ⎝ 2⎠ α 3.2
Γ(2 + α )
3.0
Γ = Gamma Function 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Damper Velocity Exponent α
Ratio of Nonlinear Damping Coefficient to Linear Damping

Relationship Between Nonlinear and Linear Damping Coefficient (For a Given Loading Frequency)
Coefficient for Equal Energy Dissipation Per Cycle
Loading
Loading Freqency
Frequency = (6.28
= 1 Hz 6.28 Hz
rad/sec)
12
C NL π
= ( uoω )1−α
10
Max Disp = 1.0
CL λ
Ratio of CNL to CL
8 Max Disp = 2.0

Max Disp = 3.0
6
Note: Ratio is frequency- and displacement-dependent 2

and is therefore meaningful only for steady-state
harmonic response. 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Velocity Exponent
Ratio of Nonlinear Damping Constant to Linear Damping Example of Linear vs Nonlinear Damping
Constant (For a Given Maximum Displacement) 800
Maximum Displacement = 1 Alpha = 1.0
600 Alpha = 0.5
12
400
Load Freq = 1/3
6.28Hz
Hz (2.09 rad/s) Frequency = 1 Hz (6.28 rad/s)
10 200 Max. Disp. = 10.0 in.
Load Freq = 1/2
3.14Hz
Hz (3.14 rad/s)
Force, Kips
Ratio of CNL to CL
8 Load Freq = 2 HzHz

2.09 (6.28 rad/s) 0 λ = 3.58
6 -200 CLinear = 10.0 k-sec/in

CNonlinear = 69.5 k-sec0.5/in0.5
4 -400
2 -600
0 -800
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Velocity Exponent
Recommendations Related to Nonlinear Viscous Dampers Advantages of Fluid Dampers
• Do NOT attempt to linearize the problem when nonlinear
viscous dampers are used. Perform the analysis with • High reliability
discrete nonlinear viscous dampers. • High force and displacement capacity
• Force Limited when velocity exponent < 1.0
• Do NOT attempt to calculate effective damping in terms • Available through several manufacturers
of a damping ratio (ξ) when using nonlinear viscous
dampers.
• No added stiffness at lower frequencies
• Damping force (possibly) out of phase with
• DO NOT attempt to use a free vibration analysis to structure elastic forces
determine equivalent viscous damping when nonlinear • Moderate temperature dependency
viscous dampers are used. • May be able to use linear analysis
Viscoelastic Dampers
Disadvantages of Fluid Dampers L
A
• Somewhat higher cost

• Not force limited (particularly when exponent = 1.0)
• Necessity for nonlinear analysis in most practical P(t) P(t)
Viscoelastic Material A
cases (as it has been shown that it is generally not
possible to add enough damping to eliminate all inelastic u(t)
W
response)
Developed in the 1960’s h
for Wind Applications
h
Section A-A
Implementation of Viscoelastic Dampers Harmonic Behavior of Viscoelastic Damper

u ( t ) = u 0 sin( ω t ) Imposed Motion Phase
Angle
Loading Frequency (Lag)
Total Force
P ( t ) = P0 sin(ω t ) cos(δ ) + P0 cos(ω t ) sin(δ )

800 ELASTIC FORCE
600 DAMPING FORCE
400 TOTAL FORCE
STRESS, PSI
200
0
Building 116, US Naval Supply -200
Facility, San Diego, CA -400
- Seismic Retrofit of 3-Story -600
Nonductile RC Building -800

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
- 64 Dampers Within Chevron
TIME, SECONDS
Bracing Installed in 1996
P( t ) = KS u( t ) + Cu(t
& ) Frequency-Domain Stress-Strain Relation
KS =
G' A
KL =
G'' A
C=
KL
δ = sin −1 ⎜⎜
⎛τZ ⎞
⎟⎟ τ ( t ) = G ′γ (t ) + G ′′γ& (t ) / ω
h h ω ⎝ τ0 ⎠ Apply Fourier Transform:
Storage Stiffness Damping Coeff. Phase Angle
τ ( ω ) = G ′γ (ω ) + G ′′iω γ (ω ) / ω
Loss Stiffness
G ′′ (ω )
G’ = Storage Modulus γ0 η = = tan (δ )
G ′ (ω )
G’’ = Loss Modulus
Loss Factor
τ ( ω ) = [G ′ + iG ′′]γ (ω )
G* ℑ
τ ( ω ) = G ′[1 + i η ]γ (ω ) G * (ω )
Shear Stress
τ0
τZ G’
Complex Shear Modulus:
δ G ′′(ω )
τ (ω )
τ Z = G ′′γ o = τ o sin (δ ) G (ω ) =
*
= G ′[1 + i η ] G ′(ω ) ℜ
γ (ω )
τ (ω ) = G * (ω )γ (ω ) Compact Stress-Strain Relation
for Viscoelastic Materials
τ ( t ) = G ′γ (t ) + G ′′γ& (t ) / ω Shear Strain
E D = πτ Z γ o Ah = πτ oγ o Ah sin (δ ) = π G ′′γ o2V
Dependence of Storage and Loss Moduli on Temperature Dependence of Loss Factor on Temperature
and Frequency for Typical Viscoelastic Damper and Frequency for Typical Viscoelastic Damper
3 1.5
Storage or Loss Modulus (MPa)
Increasing Temperature Increasing Temperature

Loss Factor
2 1.0
1 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Actual Hysteretic Behavior of Viscoelastic Damper

Harmonic Loading
Advantages of Viscoelastic Dampers
• High reliability
Seismic Loading • May be able to use linear analysis
• Somewhat lower cost
Outline: Part II
Disadvantages of Viscoelastic Dampers • Velocity-Dependent Damping Systems:
• Strong Temperature Dependence • Models for Velocity-Dependent Dampers
• Lower Force and Displacement Capacity • Effects of Linkage Flexibility
• Not Force Limited • Displacement-Dependent Damping
• Necessity for nonlinear analysis in most Systems: Steel Plate Dampers, Unbonded
practical cases (as it has been shown that it is
generally not possible to add enough damping
• Concept of Equivalent Viscous Damping
to eliminate all inelastic response) • Modeling Considerations for Structures
with Passive Damping Systems
Modeling Linear Viscous/Viscoelastic

Modeling Viscous Dampers: Dampers: Kelvin Model
Simple Dashpot
CD Newtonian Dashpot
CD P(t)
P(t)
u(t)
u(t) KD
Hookean Spring
Newtonian Dashpot P ( t ) = C D u& (t ) P ( t ) = K D u (t ) + C D u& (t )
Useful For : Useful For :
Fluid Dampers with Zero Storage Stiffness Viscoelastic Dampers and Fluid Dampers with
Storage Stiffness and Weak Frequency Dependence.
This Model Ignores Temperature Dependence
This Model Ignores Temperature Dependence
Kelvin Model (Continued)

Kelvin Model (Continued)
P ( t ) = K D u (t ) + C d u& (t )
CD
Apply Fourier Transform:
P(t)
P ( ω ) = [K D + i ω C d ]u (ω ) KS(ω )
Kelvin Model
Complex Stiffness: KD KD u(t)
K ( ω ) = K D + iω C d
*
Storage Stiffness: C(ω ) C(ω) = CD

[
K S ( ω ) = ℜ K * (ω ) = K D ] CD
P(t)
Equivalent Kelvin
Loss Stiffness:
[ ]
Model
u(t)
K L ( ω ) = ℑ K (ω ) = C Dω
* KS (ω ) = KD
Damping Coefficient: ω
K L (ω )
C( ω ) = = CD
ω
Modeling Linear Viscous/Viscoelastic Maxwell Model (Continued)
Dampers: Maxwell Model P( t ) +
CD &
P (t ) = C d u& (t ) KS(ω )
KD
P(t) KD
Apply Fourier Transform:
C
CD KD P ( ω ) + i ω D P (ω ) = i ω C d u (ω )
KD
u(t)
Complex Stiffness:
C(ω )
C Dλω 2 C Dω
Newtonian Dashpot; K *(ω ) = + i
C 1 + λ 2ω 2 1 + λ 2ω 2
P ( t ) + D P& (t ) = C D u& (t )
CD
Hookean Spring
KD Relaxation Time: λ = CD K D
Useful For : Storage Stiffness:
Viscoelastic Dampers and Fluid Dampers with Strong K S ( ω ) = ℜ K * (ω ) = [ ] K D λ2ω 2 ω
1 + λ2ω 2 Damping Coefficient:
Frequency Dependence.
This Model Ignores Temperature Dependence Loss Stiffness: K S (ω ) CD
K L ( ω ) = ℑ K * (ω ) = [ ] C Dω
1 + λ2ω 2
C( ω ) =
ω
=
1 + λ2ω 2
Maxwell Model Parameters from Experimental Maxwell Model Parameters from Experimental
Testing of Fluid Viscous Damper Testing of Fluid Viscous Damper
10000 Damping Coefficient, lb-sec/in 140
120
(lb/in)
Stiffnesslbs/inch
8000 CD
100
KD
6000
Storage Stiffness,
80
60
4000
Storage
40
2000
20
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Excitation Frequency (Hz)
Excitation FrequencyHz.
Excitation Frequency, (Hz)
Maxwell Model (Continued) Outline: Part II

P(t)
Maxwell Model
CD KD
u(t) Fluid Dampers and Viscoelastic Dampers
C(ω ) =
CD • Models for Velocity-Dependent Dampers
1+λ2ω2 • Effects of Linkage Flexibility
P(t) Equivalent Kelvin • Displacement-Dependent Damping
K Dλ ω 2 2 u(t)
Model Systems: Steel Plate Dampers,Unbonded
KS (ω ) = Brace Dampers, and Friction Dampers
1 + λ2ω 2
Note: - If KD is very large, λ is very small, KS is small
CD • Concept of Equivalent Viscous Damping
and C = CD
- If CD is very small, λ is very small, KS is small
and C = CD with Passive Damping Systems
- If KD is very small, λ is very large, C is small
and KS = KD. KD
Effect of Linkage Flexibility on Damper Effectiveness Outline: Part II
Because the damper is always
in series with the linkage, the
damper-brace assembly acts • Models for Velocity-Dependent Dampers
like a Maxwell model. • Effects of Linkage Flexibility
θ
Hence, the effectiveness of the • Displacement-Dependent Damping
damper is reduced. The degree Systems: Steel Plate Dampers, Unbonded
of lost effectiveness is a function Brace Dampers, and Friction Dampers
of the structural properties and
the loading frequency. • Concept of Equivalent Viscous Damping
K Brace, Effective =2
AE
cos 2 θ • Modeling Considerations for Structures
L with Passive Damping Systems
Steel Plate Dampers Implementation of ADAS System

(Added Damping and Stiffness System - ADAS)
V
Wells Fargo Bank,
L San Francisco, CA
t - Seismic Retrofit of Two-
Story Nonductile Concrete
V
Frame; Constructed in 1967
b - 7 Dampers Within Chevron
Bracing Installed in 1992
- Yield Force Per Damper:
L 150 kips
Hysteretic Behavior of ADAS Device Ideal Hysteretic Behavior of ADAS Damper

(SAP2000 and ETABS Implementation)
Initial Stiffness Secondary Stiffness

Ratio
Fy
F = β k D + (1 − β ) Fy Z
( ) if D& ⋅ Z > 0
Force, F
k ⎪⎧ D& 1 − Z
α
Z& = ⎨
Fy ⎪⎩ D& otherwise
Yield Sharpness
ADAS Device Experimental Response (Static) Displacement, D.
Z is a Path Dependency Parameter
(Tsai et al. 1993) (Source: Tsai et al. 1993)
Parameters of Mathematical Model
of ADAS Damper Unbonded Brace Damper
V n (2 + a / b )EI b
k=
L3
L
t nf y bt 3
V Fy = Steel Brace (yielding core)
b 4L (coated with debonding chemicals)
n = Number of plates Stiff Shell Prevents

L f y = Yield force of each plate Buckling of Core
a Ib = Second moment of area Concrete

of each plate at b
(i.e, at top of plate)
Implementation of Unbonded Brace Damper Hysteretic Behavior of

Unbonded Brace Damper
Plant and Environmental

Sciences Replacement
Facility
- New Three-Story Building
on UC Davis Campus
- First Building in USA to Use
Unbonded Brace Damper
- 132 Unbonded Braced
Frames with Diagonal or
Chevron Brace Installation
- Cost of Dampers = 0.5% of
Building Cost
Source: ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine, March 2000.
Testing of Unbonded Brace Damper

Advantages of ADAS System
and Unbonded Brace Damper
• Force-Limited
• Easy to construct
Testing Performed • Relatively Inexpensive
at UC Berkeley
• Adds both “Damping” and Stiffness
Typical Hysteresis
Loops from
Cyclic Testing
Friction Dampers: Slotted-Bolted Damper
Disadvantages of ADAS System
and Unbonded Brace Damper
• Must be Replaced after Major Earthquake

• Highly Nonlinear Behavior
• Adds Stiffness to System
• Undesirable Residual Deformations Possible
Pall Friction Damper

Sumitomo Friction Damper Pall Cross-Bracing Friction Damper

(Sumitomo Metal Industries, Japan)
Interior of Webster
Library at Concordia
University, Montreal,
Canada
Implementation of Pall Friction Damper Hysteretic Behavior of Slotted-Bolted

Friction Damper
McConnel Library at
Concordia University,
Montreal, Canada
- Two Interconnected
Buildings of 6 and 10 Stories
- RC Frames with Flat Slabs
- 143 Cross-Bracing Friction
Dampers Installed in 1987
- 60 Dampers Exposed for
Aesthetics
Ideal Hysteretic Behavior of Friction Damper
Normal Force
60
Advantages of Friction Dampers
μN u& ( t )
40
FD = Nμ
20
u& ( t ) • Force-Limited
Force, Kips
−u0 u0
0 Coefficient of Friction
• Easy to construct
-20
Alternatively,
FD = Nμ sgn[u& (t )]
-40
− μN • Relatively Inexpensive
-60 sgn(x)
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1
x
-1
Outline: Part II
Disadvantages of Friction Dampers • Velocity-Dependent Damping Systems:
• Models for Velocity-Dependent Dampers
• May be Difficult to Maintain over Time • Effects of Linkage Flexibility
• Highly Nonlinear Behavior • Displacement-Dependent Damping
• Adds Large Initial Stiffness to System Systems: Steel Plate Dampers, Unbonded
• Undesirable Residual Deformations Possible • Concept of Equivalent Viscous Damping
with Passive Damping Systems
Equivalent Viscous Damping: Effect of Inelastic System Post-Yielding Stiffness

Damping System with Inelastic or Friction Behavior on Equivalent Viscous Damping
FD 0.6
FD
α=0
αK
0.5
α
Equivalent Hysteretic Damping Ratio
ES 0.4 0.00
0.05 K
uD
E 0.3
0.10
0.15
uy μu y u
EHH 0.20
0.25
0.2 0.30
2( μ − 1)(1 − α )
Es based on secant stiffness ξH =
0.1
α = 0.3 πμ (1 + μα − α )
EH
ξH = 0
4πES
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ductility Demand μ
Note: Computed damping ratio is displacement-dependent Note: May be Modified (κ) for Other (less Robust)
Hysteretic Behavior
Equivalent Viscous Damping: Equivalent Viscous Damping:
“Equivalent” System with Linear Viscous Damper
Caution!
FD
• It is not possible, on a device level, to “replace” a
C ES displacement-dependent device (e.g. a Friction Damper)
uD with a velocity-dependent device (e.g. a Fluid Damper).
ED
• Some simplified procedures allow such replacement on
a structural level, wherein a “smeared” equivalent viscous
damping ratio is found for the whole structure. This
C = 2mωξ H approach is marginally useful for preliminary design, and
should not be used under any circumstances for final design.
Es and ω are based on Secant Stiffness of Inelastic System
Outline: Part II Modeling Considerations for Structures with

• Velocity-Dependent Damping Systems: Passive Energy Dissipation Devices
Fluid Dampers and Viscoelastic Dampers • Damping is almost always nonclassical
• Models for Velocity-Dependent Dampers (Damping matrix is not proportional to stiffness
• Effects of Linkage Flexibility and/or mass)
• Displacement-Dependent Damping • For seismic applications, system response

Systems: Steel Plate Dampers, Unbonded is usually partially inelastic
• For seismic applications, viscous damper behavior
• Concept of Equivalent Viscous Damping is typically nonlinear (velocity exponents in the
• Modeling Considerations for Structures range of 0.5 to 0.8)
with Passive Damping Systems Conclusion: This is a NONLINEAR analysis problem!
Seismic Analysis of Structures with Passive Energy

Outline: Part III Dissipation Systems
• Seismic Analysis of MDOF Structures with Linear No Nonlinear Response-History
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems Behavior? Analysis
• Representations of Damping Yes
• Examples: Application of Modal Strain (implies viscous
or viscoelastic
behavior)
Complex Modal Response
Energy Method and Non-Classical No Spectrum Analysis
Classical
Damping Analysis Damping? or
(Complex Modal) Response-History
• Summary of MDOF Analysis Procedures
Yes
Analysis
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis

or
(Modal) Response-History Analysis
Seismic Analysis of MDOF Structures MDOF Solution Techniques
with Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
Mv&&( t ) + C I v&( t ) + C Av&( t ) + FS ( t ) = − MRv&&g ( t )
Mv&&( t ) + C I v&( t ) + C Av&( t ) + FS ( t ) = − MRv&&g ( t ) Explicit integration of fully coupled equations:
Inherent Damping:
Linear • Treat CI as Rayleigh damping and model CA
explicitly.
Added Viscous Damping:
Linear or Nonlinear
• Use Newmark solver (with iteration) to solve full
Restoring Force: set of coupled equations.
(May include Added Devices)
C A ≠ f ( ω)
Linear or Nonlinear
System may be linear or nonlinear.
Fast Nonlinear Analysis

MDOF Solution Techniques
Mv&&( t ) + C I v&( t ) + C Av&( t ) + K E v( t ) + FH ( t ) = − MRv&&g ( t )
Mv&&( t ) + C I v&( t ) + C Av&( t ) + FS ( t ) = − MRv&&g ( t ) Move Added Damper Forces
Nonlinear Restoring Force
and Nonlinear Forces to RHS:
Fast Nonlinear Analysis: Mv&&( t ) + C I v&( t ) + K E v( t ) = − MRv&&g ( t ) − FH ( t ) − C Av&( t )

Treat CI as modal damping and model CA Linear Terms Nonlinear Terms
explicitly. Move CA (and any other nonlinear
terms) to right-hand side. Left-hand side may Transform Coordinates: v (t ) = Φ y ( t )
be uncoupled by Ritz Vectors. Iterate on Orthogonal basis of Ritz vectors:
unbalanced right-hand side forces. Apply Transformation: Number of vectors << N
~ ~ ~ ~
M&y&( t ) + C I y& ( t ) + K E y( t ) = −Φ T MR v&&g ( t ) − Φ T FH ( t ) − C A y& ( t )
System may be linear or nonlinear.
Uncoupled Coupled
Fast Nonlinear Analysis MDOF Solution Techniques
FAST SLOW Mv&&( t ) + C I v&( t ) + C Av&( t ) + FS ( t ) = − MRv&&g ( t )

Explicit integration or response spectrum
analysis of first few uncoupled modal equations:
Relative Solution Speed:
FNA/Full Integration
10.0 • Treat CI as modal damping or Rayleigh damping

• Use Modal Strain Energy method to represent CA
1.0 as modal damping ratios.
System must be linear.
Applicable only to viscous (or viscoelastic)
0.0 1.0
damping systems.
Nonlinear DOF / Total DOF
Outline: Part III Modal Damping Ratios
• Seismic Analysis of MDOF Structures with Mv&& + Cv& + Kv = − MRv&&g

• Representations of Damping v = Φy
Energy Method and Non-Classical &y&i + 2ξ iω i y& i + ω i 2 yi = Γi v&&g
Damping Analysis
• Summary of MDOF Analysis Procedures
Specify modal damping values directly
Modal Superposition Damping Rayleigh Proportional Damping

⎡ n 2ξ ω ⎤ C R = αM + βK
C = M⎢ T
i i
∑
⎢⎣ i =1 φi Mφ i
φiT φi ⎥ M
⎥⎦
Skyhook
0.12
MASS
Skyhook 0.10 STIFFNESS
COMBINED
0.08
Damping Ratio
Artificial Coupling
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency, radians/second
Note: There is no need to develop C explicitly.

Derivation of Modal Strain Energy Method

Floor Damper
Deformation of Structure
Displacement Deformation
in its Second Mode
E D ,i ,story k = πω i Ck ( φi ,k − φi ,k −1 )2
φ 2,1
φ 2,1 - φ 2,2
1 1
φ 2,2 ES ,i = φiT Kφi = ω i2φiT Mφi
2 2
φ 2,2 - φ 2,3
φ 2,3 n stories
φ 2,3 - φ 2,4 ∑ ED ,i ,story k

φ 2,4 ξi = k =1
4πES ,i
φ 2,4
Modal Strain Energy Damping Ratio
N stories
∑ Ck ( φi ,k − φi ,k −1 )2
ξi =
φiT C Aφi
ξi = k =1
2mi*ω i
2ωi φTi M φi
φTi C A φi φT C φ Note: φ is the Undamped Mode Shape

ξi = = i *A i
2ωi φi M φi 2mi ωi
T
The Modal Strain Energy Method is approximate if

Note: IF CA is diagonalized by Φ,
THEN
the structure is non-classically damped since the
undamped and damped mode shapes are different.
ci*
ξi =
2mi*ω i
Example: Application of Modal Strain Energy Method

Outline: Part III
m = 1.0 k-sec2/in. Proportional Damping
• Seismic Analysis of MDOF Structures with k = 200 k/in. c = 10.0 k-sec/in.

m = 1.5
• Representations of Damping m = 1.5
k = 250 c = 12.5

k = 300 c = 15.0
Energy Method and Non-Classical m = 1.5
Damping Analysis k = 350 c = 17.5
• Summary of MDOF Analysis Procedures m = 1.5
c = 20.0
k = 400
Example: Application of Modal Strain Energy Method

Modal Damping Ratios from Modal Strain Energy
m = 1.0 k-sec2/in. Nearly Proportional Damping
Method for Proportional Damping Distribution
0.8 k = 200 k/in. c = 10 k-sec/in.
Proportional
m = 1.5
0.7
Frequency Damping
(rad/sec) Ratio, ξ 0.6
k = 250 c = 10
4.54 0.113 m = 1.5
0.5
Damping Ratio
12.1 0.302
0.4
18.5 0.462 k = 300 c = 10
23.0 0.575 0.3
m = 1.5
27.6 0.690
0.2
k = 350 c = 20
0.1 m = 1.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 k = 400 c = 30
Frequency, rad/sec
Modal Damping Ratios from Modal Strain Energy Example: Application of Modal Strain Energy Method
Method for Nearly Proportional Damping Distribution m = 1.0 k-sec2/in. Nonproportional Damping
0.8
0.7 Proportional k = 200 k/in.

Nearly Proportional
m = 1.5
Frequency Damping 0.6
(rad/sec) Ratio, ξ
Damping Ratio 0.5 k = 250
4.54 0.123 m = 1.5
12.1 0.318 0.4
18.5 0.455 0.3 k = 300
23.0 0.557 m = 1.5
27.6 0.702 0.2
0.1 k = 350 c = 20 k-sec/in

m = 1.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency, rad/sec k = 400 c = 30
Modal Damping Ratios from Modal Strain Energy

Modal Superposition Damping
Method for Nonproportional Damping Distribution ⎡ n 2ξ ω ⎤
C = M ⎢∑ T i i φiT φi ⎥ M
⎢⎣ i =1 φi Mφ i
0.8
0.7
Proportional ⎥⎦
Nearly Proportional
Frequency Damping Nonproportional Skyhook
0.6
(rad/sec) Ratio. ξ
4.54 0.089 0.5
Damping Ratio
12.1 0.144
18.5 0.134
0.4
Artificial Coupling
23.0 0.194 0.3
27.6 0.514 0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency, rad/sec Modal Superposition Damping can be used to construct the damping matrix
from the modal damping ratios obtained via the Modal Strain Energy Method
Comparison of Actual Damping Matrix and Damping Comparison of Actual Damping Matrix and Damping
Matrix Obtained from MSE Damping Ratios Matrix Obtained from MSE Damping Ratios
Proportional Damping Actual Damping Matrix Nearly Proportional Damping Actual Damping Matrix
⎡ 10.0 − 10.0 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ 10.0 − 10.0 0 0 ⎤ 0
c = 10.0 k-sec/in. ⎢− 10.0 22.5 − 12.5 0 0 ⎥⎥ ⎢ − 10.0 ⎥
⎢ c = 10.0 k-sec/in. ⎢ 20.0 − 10.0 0 ⎥ 0
CA = ⎢ 0 − 12.5 27.5 − 15.0 0 ⎥ CA = ⎢ 0 − 10.0 20.0 − 10.0 ⎥ 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 − 15.0 32.5 − 17.5⎥ − 10.0 30.0 − 20.0⎥
c = 12.5 ⎢ 0 0
⎢⎣ 0 0 0 − 17.5 37.5 ⎥⎦ c = 10.0 ⎢⎣ 0 0 0 − 20.0 50.0 ⎥⎦
c = 15.0 Modal Superposition Damping Modal Superposition Damping

Matrix Using MSE Damping Ratios c = 10.0
Matrix Using MSE Damping Ratios
c = 17.5 ⎡ 10.0 − 10.0 0 0 0 ⎤
− 9.66 − 0.166 − 0.228 − 0.010⎤
⎢− 10.0 22.5 − 12.5 c = 20.0 ⎡ 10.0
0 ⎥⎥ ⎢ − 9.66 − 12.2 − 0.169 − 0.422⎥⎥
⎢ 0
⎢ 22.0
C=⎢ 0 − 12.5 27.5 − 15.0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ C = ⎢− 0.166 − 12.2 27.3 − 15.1 − 0.731⎥
c = 20.0 ⎢ 0 0 − 15.0 32.5 − 17.5⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0
c = 30.0 ⎢− 0.228 − 0.169 − 15.1 33.1 − 17.8 ⎥
0 0 − 17.5 37.5 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣− 0.010 − 0.422 − 0.731 − 17.8 37.5 ⎥⎦
Comparison of Actual Damping Matrix and Damping Example: Seismic Analysis of a Structure
Matrix Obtained from MSE Damping Ratios with Nonproportional Damping
Nonproportional Damping
Actual Damping Matrix • Discrete Damping vs Rayleigh Damping
⎡ 0 0 0 0 ⎤ 0
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎥
• Discrete Damping: Rigid vs Flexible Braces
⎢
CA = ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ MSE Results
⎢ 0 0 0 20.0 − 20.0⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 0 − 20.0 50.0 ⎥⎦ Frequency Damping
(rad/sec) Ratio, ξ
4.54 0.089
Modal Superposition Damping 12.1 0.144
Matrix Using MSE Damping Ratios 18.5 0.134
− 2.96 − 1.098
c = 20.0 k-sec/in. 23.0 0.194
c = 20.0 k-sec/in. ⎡ 3.65 0.456 0.066 ⎤
⎢ − 2.96 8.27 − 5.92 2.72 − 2.07 ⎥⎥ 27.6 0.514
⎢ c = 30.0
C = ⎢ 0.456 − 5.92 13.4 − 10.9 6.21 ⎥
c = 30.0 ⎢ ⎥ Damping ratios in modes 1 and 4 used
⎢− 1.098 2.72 − 10.9 21.9 − 15.1 ⎥
to construct Rayleigh damping matrix.
⎢⎣ 0.066 − 2.07 6.21 − 15.1 20.9 ⎥⎦
Computing Rayleigh Damping Proportionality Factors (Using NONLIN Pro) Example: Discrete (Stiff Braces) vs Rayleigh Damping
14
12
Peak Roof Displacement, Inches
10
6 Very Stiff Braces
2 Discrete Dampers
Rayleigh Damping c
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
1.5c
First Mode Damping, % Critical
Example: Discrete (Stiff Braces) vs Rayleigh Damping Example: Effect of Brace Stiffness
(Discrete Damping Model)
1600 14
1400 12
1200
Peak Base Shear, Kips
10
1000
8
800
Very Stiff Braces 6
600
400 Discrete Dampers 4

Rayleigh Damping: Inertial
200 2 Very Stiff Braces
Rayleigh Damping: Columns
c Reasonably Stiff Braces c
0 0
1.5c 1.5c
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
First Mode Damping, % Critical First Mode Damping, % Critical
Example: Effect of Brace Stiffness (Discrete Damping Model) Example: Discrete (Flexible Braces) vs Rayleigh Damping
Inertial Forces)
1600 14
1400 12

1200
(fromKips
10
1000
KipsForce,
8
800
Inertial
6
600
Shear,
Peak BasePeak
4
400
200 Very Stiff Braces 2 Discrete Model with Flexible Braces

Reasonably Stiff Braces Rayleigh Damping
0 c 0 c
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 1.5c 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.01.5c
First Mode Damping, % Critical First Mode Damping, % Critical
Example: Effect of Brace Stiffness on

Example: Discrete (Flexible Braces) vs Rayleigh Damping
Peak Story Shear Forces
1600 1000
KipsForces)
STIFF BRACES
800 C o lu m n s
600 B r a c e s (D a m p e r )
1400 400
Shear, Kips
200
Inertial
0
1200 -2 0 0
-4 0 0
Forcer,
-6 0 0
1000 -8 0 0
Kips (from
-1 0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
800 T im e , S e c o n d s
Peak Inertial
600 1000
C o lu m n s
FLEX BRACES
800
B ra c e s (D a m p e r)
Peak Base Shear,
600
400 400
Shear, Kips
200
Discrete Model with Flexible Braces 0
200 -2 0 0
Rayleigh Damping -4 0 0
0 c -6 0 0
-8 0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 1.5c

20.0 -1 0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
First Mode Damping, % Critical T im e , S e c o n d s
Summary: MDOF Analysis Procedures

Outline: Part III
(Linear Systems and Linear Dampers)
• Seismic Analysis of MDOF Structures with • Use discrete damper elements and explicitly include these
dampers in the system damping matrix. Perform response
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems history analysis of full system. Preferred.
• Representations of Damping
• Use discrete damper elements to estimate modal damping
• Examples: Application of Modal Strain ratios and use these damping ratios in modal response
Energy Method and Non-Classical history or modal response spectrum analysis. Dangerous.
Damping Analysis • Use discrete damper elements to estimate modal damping
• Summary of MDOF Analysis Procedures ratios and use these damping ratios in a response history
analysis which incorporates Rayleigh proportional
damping. Dangerous.
Summary: MDOF Analysis Procedures Summary: MDOF Analysis Procedures
(Linear Systems with Nonlinear Dampers) (Nonlinear Systems with Nonlinear Dampers)
• Use discrete damper elements and explicitly include these • Use discrete damper elements and explicitly include these
dampers in the system damping matrix. Perform response dampers in the system damping matrix. Explicitly model
history analysis of full system. Preferred.
inelastic behavior in superstructure. Perform response history
analysis of full system. Preferred.
• Replace nonlinear dampers with “equivalent energy”
based linear dampers, and then use these equivalent
• Replace nonlinear dampers with “equivalent energy”
dampers in the system damping matrix. Perform response
based linear dampers and use modal strain energy approach
history analysis of full system. Very Dangerous. to estimate modal damping ratios. Use pushover analysis
to represent inelastic behavior in superstructure. Use
• Replace nonlinear dampers with “equivalent energy” capacity-demand spectrum approach to estimate system
based linear dampers, use modal strain energy approach deformations. Do This at Your Own Risk!
to estimate modal damping ratios, and then perform
response spectrum or modal response history analysis.
Very Dangerous.
Outline: Part IV MDOF Solution for Non-Classically Damped

Structures Using Complex Modal Analysis
Analysis Mv&&( t ) + C I v&( t ) + C Av&( t ) + FS ( t ) = − MRv&&g ( t )
• Example: Damped Mode Shapes and Modal Analysis using Damped Mode Shapes:
Frequencies
• Treat CI as modal damping and model CA
explicitly.
• Modeling Dampers in Computer Software
• Guidelines and Code-Related Documents • Solve by modal superposition using damped
for Passive Energy Dissipation Systems (complex) mode shapes and frequencies.
System (dampers and structure) must be linear.
Damped Eigenproblem Solution of Damped Eigenproblem

EOM for Damped Assume Harmonic Response for n-th mode: Z n = Pn eλ n t
Mv&&( t ) + C Av&( t ) + Kv( t ) = 0 Free Vibration
Substitute Response into Damped Eigenproblem
Linear Structure State Space Equation:
Pn λ n = HPn for n-th Mode
Assume CI is negligible
⎧v& ⎫ Damped Eigenproblem

State Vector: Z = ⎨ ⎬ PΛ = HP
for All Modes
⎩v ⎭
State-Space Eigenvalue Matrix: ⎡λ ⎤
Z& = HZ Λ=⎢ *⎥
λ = diag [ λ n ]
Transformation: (* = complex conjugate) λ
⎣ ⎦
⎡− M −1C A − M −1 K ⎤ ⎡Φλ Φ* λ* ⎤
State Matrix: H =⎢ ⎥ Eigenvector Matrix: P=⎢
I 0 ⎦ ⎥
⎣ ⎣Φ Φ* ⎦
Extracting Modal Damping and Frequency
from Complex Eigenvalues
Extracting Damped Mode Shapes
Complex Analogous to
Roots of Characteristic
Eigenvalue λ n = −ξ n ωn ± iωn 1 − ξ 2n Equation for SDOF
for Mode n: Damped Free Vibration
⎡ΦΛ Φ *Λ* ⎤
Problem
Modal Frequency: ω n = λn P=⎢ ⎥

⎣Φ Φ* ⎦
ℜ(λn )
Modal Damping Ratio: ξn = −
λn
Damped Mode Shapes
Note: i = −1
Damped Mode Shapes Outline: Part IV

U1 Imaginary Analysis
⎧ a1 + ib1 ⎫ • Example: Damped Mode Shapes and
U2
⎪a + ib ⎪ Frequencies
⎪ 2⎪
φ =⎨ 2 ⎬ • An Unexpected Effect of Passive Damping
U3
⎪ a3 + ib3 ⎪ Real
⎩⎪a4 + ib4 ⎭⎪ • Modeling Dampers in Computer Software
U4
• Guidelines and Code-Related Documents
Example: Damped Mode Shapes and Frequencies Example: Damped Mode Shapes and Frequencies
m = 1.0 k-sec2/in. Nonproportional Damping System with Non-Classical Damping
k = 200 k/in. Using UNDAMPED Using DAMPED
m = 1.5 MODE SHAPES MODE SHAPES*
Frequency Damping Frequency Damping
k = 250 (rad/sec) Ratio (rad/sec) Ratio
m = 1.5
1 4.54 0.089 1 4.58 0.089
2 12.1 0.144 2 12.3 0.141
k = 300 3 18.4 0.134 3 18.9
m = 1.5 0.064
4 23.0 0.194 4 24.0 0.027
k = 350 5 27.6 0.516 5 25.1 0.770
c = 20 k-sec/in
m = 1.5 *Table is for model with
VERY STIFF braces.
c = 30
k = 400 Obtained from MSE Method Significant Differences in
Higher Mode Damping Ratios
1.5
Example: Damped Mode Shapes and Frequencies 2 3 4
1.0
1
System with Non-Classical Damping
Modal Amplitude
Level 5
1.2 Mode = 1 0.5
Level 4
ω = 4.58 0.0 Level 3
Level 1
0.8 Level 2
ξ = 0.089 Level 3
-0.5 Level 1
Real Component of Mode Shape
Level 3
-1.0
Level 4
0.4 Level 5 -1.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Time, Seconds
0
5
4
4 2 1 3
-0.4
Story Level
3
-0.8 2
1
-1.2
0
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Imaginary Component of Mode Shape Modal Displacement
Example: Damped Mode Shapes and Frequencies

System with Non-Classical Damping Outline: Part IV
1.2 Mode = 2
Level 5
Level 4
ω = 12.34
ξ = 0.141
0.8
Analysis
Imaginary Component of Mode Shape
Level 3
Level 2
0.4 Level 1
• Example: Damped Mode Shapes and
0
Frequencies
-0.4
• Modeling Dampers in Computer Software
-0.8
• Guidelines and Code-Related Documents
-1.2 for Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Real Component of Mode Shape
An Unexpected Effect of Passive Damping Toggle Brace Deployment
The larger the damping

coefficient C, the smaller
the damping ratio ξ.
Why?
Note:
Occurs for toggle-braced systems only.
Huntington Tower
- 111 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA
- New 38-story steel-framed building
- 100 Direct-acting and toggle-brace dampers
- 1300 kN (292 kips), +/- 101 mm (+/- 4 in.)
- Dampers suppress wind vibration
Huntington Tower
Methods of Analysis Used to
Example: Toggle Brace Damping System
Determine Damping Ratio
360
U1 • Energy Ratios for Steady-State
Harmonic Loading: ξ = ED/4πES
U3
• Modal Strain Energy
U2 • Free Vibration Log Decrement
150
65 • Damped Eigenproblem
159
C =10 to 40 k-sec/in (increments of 10)
A =10 to 100 in2 (increments of 10)
Units: inches
Computed Damping Ratios for System With A = 10 Computed Damping Ratios for System With A = 20
A10 A20
0.600 0.600
Damping Energy
Energy Ratio
Damping Energy
Energy Ratio
Modal
Modal Strain Energy
Strain Energy
0.500 Log
LogDecrement
Decrement 0.500 Modal StrainEnergy
Modal Strain Energy
Log
Log Decrement
Decrement
Damped Eigenproblem
Complex Eigenvalues Damped Eigenproblem
Complex Eignevalues
Damping Ratio
Damping Ratio
0.400 0.400
0.300 0.300
0.200 0.200
0.100 0.100
0.000 0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Damping
DampingCoefficient (k-sec/in)
Constant (k-sec/in) Damping Constant (k-sec/in)
Damping Coefficient (k-sec/in)
Computed Damping Ratios for System With A = 30 Computed Damping Ratios for System With A = 50
A30
A50
0.600 0.600
Damping
Energy Energy
Energy Ratio
Ratio Damping Energy
Energy Ratio
Modal
ModalStrain
Modal Energy
Strain Energy
Strain Energy
0.500 0.500
Modal Strain
Modal Strain Energy
Energy
LogDecrement
Log
Log Decrement
Decrement LogDecrement
Log Decrement
Damped Eigenproblem
Complex
Damped Eigenproblem
Eigenvalues
Complex Eigenvalues
Damped Eigenproblem
0.400
Damping Ratio
0.400
Damping Ratio
0.300
0.300
0.200
0.200
0.100
0.100
0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Damping Coefficient
Damping Constant(k-sec/in)
(k-sec/in) DampingCoefficient
Constant (k-sec/in)
Damping (k-sec/in)
Phase Difference Between Damper
Why Does Damping Ratio Reduce for Low Displacement and Frame Displacement
Brace Area/Damping Coefficient Ratios? 3.00 DDamper
evice Lateral
Frame
2.00
A=10
Displacement, in.
U1 1.00
0.00
-1.00
C=40
U3 -2.00
A/C=0.25
-3.00
U2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
T im e, Seconds
3.00
UD
D evice
Damper Lateral
Frame
2.00
A=50
Displacement, in
1.00
0.00
-1.00
C=40
Displacement in Damper is Out-of-Phase -2.00 A/C=1.25
-3.00
with Displacement at DOF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25
T im e, sec
30 35 40 45 50
Damped Mode Shapes for System With A=20 in2

Interim Summary Related to
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 C=0 0.4 C=10 0.4 C=20 Modeling and Analysis (1)
0.2 0.2 0.2
2 2
IMAGINARY
• Viscously damped systems are very effective in

2
IMAGINARY
2
IMAGINARY
0.0 0.0 0.0

1 1 1 1
reducing damaging deformations in structures.

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
3
3 3 3
-0.6 -0.6 -0.6
• With minor exceptions, viscously damped systems

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
REAL REAL REAL
0.6 0.6 0.6

are non-classical, and must be modeled explicitly
C=30 C=40 C=50
using dynamic time history analysis.
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2

2
IMAGINARY
2
IMAGINARY
2
IMAGINARY
0.0 0.0 0.0
• Avoid the use of the Modal Strain Energy method

1
1 1
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2
(it may provide unconservative results)

3
U3
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
-0.6
3
-0.6
U1 3
-0.6
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
REAL
U2 REAL REAL
Interim Summary Related to Outline: Part IV

Modeling and Analysis (2)
• Damped mode shapes provide phase angle • MDOF Solution Using Complex Modal
information that is essential in assessing and Analysis
improving the efficiency of viscously damped • Example: Damped Mode Shapes and
systems. This is particularly true for linkage Frequencies
systems (e.g. toggle-braced systems).
• If damped eigenproblem analysis procedures are • Modeling Dampers in Computer Software
not available, use overlayed response history plots • Guidelines and Code-Related Documents
of damper displacement and interstory displacement
to assess damper efficiency. (This would be
required for nonlinear viscously damped systems.)
Modeling Linear Viscous Dampers in DRAIN
Computer Software Analysis Capabilities
Use a Type-1 truss bar element with
SAP2000; RAM stiffness proportional damping:
ETABS DRAIN Perform AE
K= C = βK
Linear Viscous Fluid Dampers Yes Yes Yes L
Nonlinear Viscous Fluid Dampers Yes NO Yes*
For dampers with low stiffness:
Viscoelastic Dampers Yes Yes Yes Set A = L, E = 0.01 and
ADAS Type Systems Yes Yes Yes L β = CDamper/0.01
j k
Unbonded Brace Systems Damper
Yes Yes Yes i k
Friction Systems Yes Yes Yes j Result:
General System Yielding Pending Yes Yes K = 0.01 C = C Damper
*Piecewise Linear F = Cu& = βKu& = C Damper u&
Modeling Viscous/Viscoelastic Dampers

Modeling Linear Viscous Dampers in DRAIN
Using the SAP2000 NLLINK Element
Dampers may be i k
similarly modeled using
the zero-length “Type-4” CD KD
connection element. The damper is modeled as a Maxwell Element consisting of a linear or
nonlinear dashpot in series with a linear spring.
j To model a linear viscous dashpot, KD must be set to a large value, but

i k not too large or convergence will not be achieved. To achieve this, it is
Nodes j and m have recommended that the relaxation time
m the same coordinates (λ = CD/KD) be an order of magnitude less than the loading time step Δt.
For example, let KD = 100CD/Δt. Sensitivity to KD should be checked.
SAP2000 often has difficulty converging when nonlinear dampers

are used and the velocity exponent is less than 0.4.
Modeling ADAS, Unbonded Brace, and Friction

Dampers using the SAP2000 NLLINK Element Outline: Part IV
F
βk • MDOF Solution Using Complex Modal
F = β kD + (1 − β ) F y Z Fy Analysis
•
( )
Example: Damped Mode Shapes and
k ⎧⎪ D& 1 − Z α if D& Z > 0 α=50 Frequencies
Z& = ⎨ α=4
Fy ⎪⎩ D& otherwise k α=2 • An Unexpected Effect of Passive Damping
D • Modeling Dampers in Computer Software
Note: Z is an internal hysteretic variable with magnitude less than or equal to
unity. The yield surface is associated with a magnitude of unity. • Guidelines and Code-Related Documents
For bilinear behavior, use α of approximately 50. Larger values can for Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
produce strange results.
1993 - Tentative General Requirements for the Design and
1993 - Tentative General Requirements for the Design and Construction of Structures Incorporating Discrete Passive
Construction of Structures Incorporating Discrete Passive Energy Dissipation Devices (2 of 3)
Energy Dissipation Devices (1 of 3)
- Draft version developed by Energy Dissipation Working Group (EDWG) of Energy

Base Isolation Subcommittee of Seismology Committee of SEAONC
(Not reviewed/approved by SEAOC; used as basis for 1994 NEHRP Provisions) Dissipation
Device (EDD)
- Philosophy: For Design Basis Earthquake (10/50), confine inelastic behavior to
energy dissipation devices (EDD); gravity load resisting system to remain elastic
- Established terminology and nomenclature for energy dissipation systems (EDS)

Energy
- Classified systems as rate-independent or rate-dependent
(included metallic, friction, viscoelastic, and viscous dampers) Dissipation
Assembly (EDA)
- Required at least two vertical lines of dampers in each principal direction of
building; dampers to be continuous from the base of the building
- Prescribed analysis and testing procedures

Energy Dissipation Nomenclature
1993 - Tentative General Requirements for the Design and 1994 - NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
Construction of Structures Incorporating Discrete Passive for New Buildings and Other Structures (1 of 4)
Energy Dissipation Devices (3 of 3) Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 222A & 223A)
- Elastic structures with rate-dependent devices: Linear dynamic procedures - Includes Appendix to Chapter 2 entitled: Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
(response spectrum or response history analysis)
- Material is based on:
- 1993 draft SEAONC EDWG document
- Inelastic structures or structures with rate-independent devices: - Proceedings of ATC 17-1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive
Nonlinear dynamic response history analysis Energy Dissipation, and Active Control (March 1993)
- Special issue of Earthquake Spectra (August 1993)
- Prototype tests on full-size specimens (not required if previous tests
performed and documented by ICBO) - Applicable to wide range of EDD’s; therefore requires EDD performance verification
via prototype testing
- General acceptability criteria for energy dissipation systems:
- Performance objective identical to conventional structural system
- Remain stable at design displacements (i.e., life-safety for design EQ)
- Provide non-decreasing resistance with increasing displacement
(for rate-independent systems) - At least two EDD per story in each principal direction, distributed continuously
- Exhibit no degradation under repeated cyclic load at design displ. from base to top of building unless adequate performance (drift limits satisfied
- Have quantifiable engineering parameters and member curvature capacities not exceeded) with incomplete vertical
distribution can be demonstrated
- Independent engineering review panel required to oversee design and testing
- Members that transmit damper forces to foundation designed to remain elastic
1994 - NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations 1994 - NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings and Other Structures (2 of 4) for New Buildings and Other Structures (3 of 4)
Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 222A & 223A) Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 222A & 223A)
Analysis/Design Procedure for Linear Viscous Energy Dissipation Systems Analysis/Design Procedure for EDD’s other than Linear Viscous Dampers
1) Preliminary Design: Linear dynamic modal analysis using effective stiffness
Vmin = BV = BCSW and damping coefficient of energy dissipation devices. Use B-factor to
reduce modal base shears.
Vmin = Minimum base shear for design of structure with EDS FD+ + FD−
Deff Eq. (C2A.3.2.1a)
[Use for linear static (ELF) or linear dynamic (Modal) analysis] k = Effective Device Stiffness at Design Displacement
Δ+ + Δ−
V = Minimum base shear for design of structure without EDS
2mω nWD W T
B = Reduction factor to account for energy dissipation provided by EDS EDD Behavior ceq = 2mω nξ eq = = D2 2
(based on combined, inherent plus added damping, damping ratio) 4πWS 2π Δ
Eq. (2A.3.2.1)
FD+
1.2
Force
Note: After publication, it was

Δ−
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
Equivalent Device Damping Coefficient

Reduction Factor, B
1
recognized that this procedure may
0.8
not be appropriate since it allows FD− Δ+
ξ combined = ξ str + ∑ D
0.6 reduction in forces due to both W
Deff
0.4 inelastic structural response Slope = k 4πSE
0.2
(R-factor) and added damping Area = WD Eq. (C2A.3.2.1c)
(B-factor). For yielding structures, Combined Equivalent Damping Ratio
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
added damping will not reduce forces. Deformation
2) Performance Verification: Nonlinear response history analysis
Combined Damping Ratio (%)
1994 - NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings and Other Structures (4 of 4) 1997 - NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 222A & 223A)
for New Buildings and Other Structures
- For nonlinear response-history analysis, mathematical modeling should account for: Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 302 & 303)
- Plan and vertical spatial distribution of EDD’s
- Dependence of EDD’s on loading frequency, temperature, sustained loads,
nonlinearities, and bilateral loads - Includes an appendix to Chapter 13 entitled:
Passive Energy Dissipation
- Prototype Tests on at least two full-size EDD’s
(unless prior testing has been documented) - The appendix in the 1994 NEHRP Provisions was
- 200 fully reversed cycles corresponding to wind forces deleted since it was deemed to be insufficient for design
- 50 fully reversed cycles corresponding to design earthquake
- 10 fully reversed cycles corresponding to maximum capable earthquake
and regulation. It was replaced with 3 paragraphs that
provide very general guidance on passive energy
dissipation systems.
- Acceptability criteria from prototype testing of EDD’s:
- Hysteresis loops have non-negative incremental force-carrying capacities
(for rate-independent systems only)
- Exhibit limited effective stiffness degradation under repeated cyclic load
- Exhibit limited degradation in energy loss per cycle under repeated cyclic load
- Have quantifiable engineering parameters
- Remain stable at design displacements
1997 - NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273)
1997 - NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings (FEMA 274) (1 of 9)
- Chapter 9 entitled: Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation
(Developed by New Technologies Team under ATC Project 33)
- Performance-based document -Simplified vs. Systematic Rehabilitation

- Rehabilitation objectives based on desired performance levels for selected hazard levels - Simplified: For simple structures in areas of low to moderate seismicity
- Systematic: Considers all elements needed to attain rehabilitation objective
- Global Structural Performance Levels
- Operational (OP)
- Immediate Occupancy (IO) - Systematic Rehabilitation methods of analysis:
- Life-Safety (LS)
Most Applicable - Linear static procedure (LSP)
Performance Levels - Linear dynamic procedure (LDP) Coefficient Method
- Collapse Prevention (CP)
- Nonlinear static procedure (NSP)
- Hazard levels - Nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP) Capacity Spectrum Method
- Basic Safety Earthquake 1 (BSE-1): 10/50 event
- Basic Safety Earthquake 2 (BSE-2): 2/50 event (Maximum Considered EQ - MCE)
- Rehabilitation Objectives
- Limited Objectives (less than BSO) Applicable
- Basic Safety Objective (BSO): LS for BSE-1 and CP for BSE-2 Rehabilitation
- Enhanced Objectives (more than BSO) Objectives
1997 - NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273) 1997 - NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273)
1997 - NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 1997 - NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings (FEMA 274) (3 of 9) Buildings (FEMA 274) (4 of 9)
• Basic Principles:
– Dampers should be spatially distributed (at each story and on each side of Mathematical Modeling of Displacement-Dependent Devices
building)
– Redundancy (at least two dampers along the same line of action; design
forces for
dampers and damper framing system are reduced as damper redundancy
F+
is increased)
– For BSE-2, dampers and their connections designed to avoid failure (i.e,
Area = WD F = keff D Eq. (9-20)
Force in Device
not weak link)
– Members that transmit damper forces to foundation designed to remain
D−
Force, F
elastic
F+ + F−
• Classification of EDD’s D+ keff = Eq. (9-21)
Effective Stiffness
– Displacement-dependent D+ + D− of Device
– Velocity-dependent
– Other (e.g., shape memory alloys and fluid restoring force/damping F− Slope = keff
dampers)
1 WD Eq. (9-39)
Displacement, D β eff = Equivalent Viscous
Manufacturing quality control program should be established along with
prototype testing programs and independent panel review of system design and
2π keff Dave
2
Damping Ratio of
testing program Device
Buildings (FEMA 274) (5 of 9) Buildings (FEMA 274) (6 of 9)
Mathematical Modeling of Solid Viscoelastic Devices
Mathematical Modeling of Fluid Viscoelastic and Fluid Viscous Devices
EDD Behavior F = keff D + CD& Eq. (9-22)
Force in Device Fluid Viscoelastic Devices:
Force
D− F+ F + λF& = CD& Maxwell Model
F− D+ F+ + F− Eq. (9-23)
keff = = K′ Effective Stiffness
Area = WD
Slope = k eff D+ + D− of Device
Fluid Viscous Devices:
F = C0 D& sgn(D& )
α
Eq. (9-25)
Deformation Loss Stiffness
Storage Stiffness Linear or Nonlinear Dashpot Model
WD K ′′ Eq. (9-24)
C= = Damping Coefficient Caution: Only use fluid viscous device model if K′ = 0 for frequencies
πω 1 Dave
2
ω1 of Device
between 0.5 f1 and 2.0 f1; Otherwise, use fluid viscoelastic device model.
Average Peak Displ. Circular frequency of mode 1
Buildings (FEMA 274) (7 of 9) Buildings (FEMA 274) 8 of 9)
Pushover Analysis for Structures with EDD’s (Part of NSP)
Design Process for Velocity-Dependent Dampers using NSP
Performance point without dampers
Roof Displ. Performance point with dampers Steps
1) Estimate Target Displacement (performance point)
With Viscous Dampers 2) Calculate Effective Damping Ratio and Secant Stiffness of building with dampers
Base Shear
at Target Displacement
3) Use Effective Damping and Secant Stiffness to calculate revised Target Displacement
4) Compare Target Displacement from Steps 1 and 4.
No dampers
If within tolerance, stop. Otherwise, return to Step 1.
Roof Displacement
Base Shear
With Friction
∑W j
Effective damping ratio of building with dampers at Target Displ.;
With ADAS Dampers Dampers With Viscoelastic β eff = β + j
j = index over devices
Dampers 4πWk
Base Shear
Base Shear
Base Shear
No dampers No dampers No dampers

1
Roof Displacement Roof Displacement Roof Displacement
Wk = ∑ Fiδ i
2 i
Maximum strain energy in building with dampers at Target Displ.;
i = index over floor levels
Reduced Displacement Reduced Damage

2000 – Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356)
Design Process for Velocity-Dependent Dampers using NSP (2)
2π 2
Work done by j-th damper with building
subjected to Target Displacement
• Prestandard version of 1997 NEHRP Guidelines and
Wj = C jδ rj2 (assumes harmonic motion with amplitude equal to Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
TS Target Displacement and frequency corresponding
to Secant Stiffness at Target Displacement)
(FEMA 273 & 274)
TS ∑ C j cos 2 θ jφrj2 • Prepared by ASCE for FEMA

Alternate expression for Effective Damping Ratio
β eff = β + j
4π ∑ m φ
that uses modal amplitudes of first mode shape
i i
2
• Prestandard = Document has been accepted for use as the
i start of the formal standard development process
Checking Building Component Behavior (Forces and Deformations) (i.e., it is an initial draft for a consensus standard)
For velocity-dependent dampers, must check component behavior at three stages:
1) Maximum Displacement
2) Maximum Velocity
3) Maximum Acceleration
Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 368 & 369) Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 368 & 369)
- Appendix to Chapter 13 entitled Structures with Damping Systems - Members that transmit damper forces to foundation designed to
(completely revised/updated version of 1994 and 1997 Provisions; Brief commentary provided) remain elastic
- Intention: - Prototype tests on at least two full-size EDD’s

- Apply to all energy dissipation systems (EDS) (reduced-scale tests permitted for velocity-dependent dampers)
- Provide design criteria compatible with conventional
and enhanced seismic performance - Production testing of dampers prior to installation.
- Distinguish between design of members that are part
of EDS and members that are independent of EDS. - Independent engineering panel for review of design and testing
programs
-The seismic force resisting system must comply with the requirements
for the system’s Seismic Design Category, except that the damping
- Residual mode concept introduced for linear static analysis.
system may be used to meet drift limits.
This mode, which is in addition to the fundamental mode, is
No reduction in detailing is thereby allowed,
used to account for the combined effects of higher modes.
even if analysis shows that the damping system
Higher mode interstory-velocities can be significant and thus
is capable of producing significant reductions in
are important for velocity-dependent dampers.
ductility demand or damage.

for New Buildings and Other Structures (4 of 8)
for New Buildings and Other Structures (3 of 8)
Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 368 & 369)
Part 1 – Provisions & Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 368 & 369)
Effective Damping Ratio
Methods of Analysis: (used to determine factors, B, that reduce structure response)
• Linear Static (Equivalent Lateral Force*) β m = β I + βVm μ + β H

- OK for Preliminary Design Hysteretic Damping Due to
• Linear Dynamic (Modal Response Spectrum*) Post-Yield Behavior in Structure
- OK for Preliminary Design
• Nonlinear Static (Pushover*) Equivalent Viscous Damping of
- May Produce Significant Errors EDS in the m-th Mode
• Nonlinear Dynamic (Response History)
Inherent Damping Due to Pre-Yield Energy
- Required if S1 > 0.6 g and may be used in all other cases Dissipation of Structure
*The Provisions allow final design using these procedures, but (βI = 5% or less unless higher values can be justified)
only under restricted circumstances.
Effective Damping Ratio in m-th mode of vibration
Equivalent Viscous Damping from EDS
Base Shear Force Minimum base shear for design
β m = β I + βVm μ + β H of structure without EDS
∑Wmj ⎧ V ⎫
βVm = j Equivalent Viscous Damping in m-th mode Vmin = max ⎨ ; 0.75V ⎬
4πWm (due to EDS)
⎩ BV + I ⎭
Minimum base shear for Spectral reduction factor
1
Wm = ∑ Fimδ im
2 i
Maximum Elastic Strain Energy of structure
in m-th mode
design of seismic force
resisting system
based on the sum of
viscous and inherent damping
Adjustment factor that accounts for dominance of To protect against damper system malfunction, maximum reduction
μ post-yielding inelastic hysteretic energy dissipation in base shear over a conventional structure is 25%
2.0 1.2
V T=.50 T=1.0
1.8
Vmin ≥ 0.75V =
1.33 5% Damping
1.6
1.0 Effect of Added T=1.5
Maximum base shear 10%
Viscous Damping
Pseudoacceleration, g
Spectral Reduction Factor
1.4 0.8
reduction factor
1.2 20%
0.6 30%
1.0 40% T=2.0
0.8
Maximum Added Decreased Displacement
Decreased Shear Force (can not take full advantage of)
Damping WRT 0.4
0.6
Minimum Base Shear T=3.0
0.4 = 14 - 5 = 9% 0.2
0.2 T=4.0
0.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Spectral Displacement, Inches
Total Effective Damping Ratio, %

SEISMIC PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SEISMIC PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SEISMIC PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS:

PASSIVE ENERGY DISSIPATION Major Objectives

Initially Developed by:

Outline: Part III Outline: Part IV

Systems  Reducing acceleration response to minimize contents-

Effect of Added Damping Effect of Added Stiffness

T=1.5 Acceleration, T=1.5

0.6 30% 0.6 30%

40% T=2.0 40% T=2.0

0.4 - Decreased Displacement 0.4 - Decreased Displacement

Effect of Added Damping and Stiffness Effect of Reduced Stiffness

- Decreased Displacement - Increased Displacement

Peak Displacement (in)

40% - Decreased Shear T=2.0 10

Outline: Part I Distinction Between Natural and Added Damping

1981/1982 US-JAPAN PROJECT 1981/1982 US-JAPAN PROJECT

Bare Model 18 kips 0

PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION, %G

and Effects on Seismic Response

Duration-Dependent Damage Index 200

Source: Park and Ang (1985) 60

u max = maximum displacement 0

= monotonic ultimate displacement 160

Absorbed Energy, Inch-Kips

= hysteretic energy dissipated 60

Fy = monotonic yield force 0.0

Damping Ratio (%)

Hysteretic 5% Damping 20% Damping

0.80 Max=0.30 0.10

Outline: Part I Classification of Passive Energy

62 Dampers: 30 Kip Capacity, +/-2 in. Stroke

Fluid Damper within Diagonal Brace Toggle Brace Damping System

P ( t ) = P0 sin(ω t ) cos(δ ) + P0 cos(ω t ) sin(δ )

P ( t ) = K S u ( t ) + C u&( t ) Frequency-Domain Force-Displacement Relation

PZ = K L u o = Po sin (δ ) Damper Displacement, u

Dependence of Storage Stiffness on Frequency Dependence of Damping Coefficient on Frequency

Force-Velocity Behavior of Viscous Fluid Damper Nonlinear Fluid Dampers

Hysteretic Energy Factor λ

Nonlinear Damper: E D = λ Pouo 3.6

Ratio of Nonlinear Damping Coefficient to Linear Damping

8 Max Disp = 2.0

Note: Ratio is frequency- and displacement-dependent 2

8 Load Freq = 2 HzHz

6 -200 CLinear = 10.0 k-sec/in

• Somewhat higher cost

Implementation of Viscoelastic Dampers Harmonic Behavior of Viscoelastic Damper

P ( t ) = P0 sin(ω t ) cos(δ ) + P0 cos(ω t ) sin(δ )

Nonductile RC Building -800

Increasing Temperature Increasing Temperature

Actual Hysteretic Behavior of Viscoelastic Damper

Modeling Linear Viscous/Viscoelastic

Kelvin Model (Continued)

Complex Stiffness: KD KD u(t)

Storage Stiffness: C(ω ) C(ω) = CD

Maxwell Model (Continued) Outline: Part II

Steel Plate Dampers Implementation of ADAS System

Hysteretic Behavior of ADAS Device Ideal Hysteretic Behavior of ADAS Damper

Initial Stiffness Secondary Stiffness

n = Number of plates Stiff Shell Prevents

a Ib = Second moment of area Concrete

Implementation of Unbonded Brace Damper Hysteretic Behavior of

Plant and Environmental

Testing of Unbonded Brace Damper

Systems Reducing acceleration response to minimize contents-