Bull Earthquake Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10518-012-9363-x

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Experimental and numerical behaviour of hysteretic

and visco-recentring energy dissipating bracing systems

Antonio Di Cesare · Felice Carlo Ponzo ·

Domenico Nigro · Mauro Dolce · Claudio Moroni

Received: 16 February 2011 / Accepted: 7 June 2012

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract An extensive program of shaking table tests under the name Project JetPacs
(Joint experimental testing on Passive and semi active control systems) has been developed
with the goal of assessing the effectiveness of seven different passive and semi-active energy
dissipating bracing (EDB) systems in controlling the seismic vibrations of framed buildings.
The experimental program, carried out considering a 3D 1/1.5 scaled steel frame, was entirely
funded by the Italian Department of Civil Protection as part of the RELUIS 2005–2008 pro-
ject. The following article focuses on the experimental tests carried out considering only two
EDB systems, based on hysteretic dampers (HD) and visco-recentring devices (SMA + VD)
respectively. Specially shaped low carbon steel plates were used to provide hysteresis in the
HD based devices, while the innovative SMA + VD visco-recentring system was made up of a
combination of viscous dampers (VD) and shape memory alloy (SMA) wires. In this paper a
displacement focused design procedure based on non linear static analysis has been proposed
in order to evaluate the mechanical characteristics of both types of energy dissipating device.
The aim of this design procedure is to limit inter-storey drifts after frame yielding. In order
to assess the robustness of the design procedure and to evaluate the effects of the viscous
and recentring components, two different sets of HD and SMA + VD devices characterized
by slight alterations in the mechanical properties have been tested and compared. Finally,
the experimental seismic response of the structure equipped with and without the HD and
SMA + VD elements is reported and compared with numerical results obtained using non
linear time history analysis.

Keywords Shaking table tests · Steel frame · Energy dissipation · Hysteretic dampers ·
Shape memory alloys · Viscous dampers · Displacement-focused design

A. Di Cesare (B) · F. C. Ponzo · D. Nigro

Department of Structures, Geotechnics and Applied Geology, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
e-mail: antodice@yahoo.it

M. Dolce · C. Moroni
Seismic Risk Office, Italian Department of Civil Protection, Rome, Italy

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

1 Introduction

Traditional philosophies for the design of buildings in seismic prone areas are as follows: (a)
a building will suffer no damage after a minor seismic event, (b) a building shall be reparable
after a moderate seismic event, and (c) a building will not collapse after a severe seismic
event. Conventional seismic design provides capacity through increasing the strength and/or
ductility distributed throughout the structure (Kelly 2001). It has however become apparent,
following several recent seismic events, that the general public and/or the building owner are
no longer satisfied with the above performance objectives.
Passive energy dissipation systems can significantly reduce the ductility demand on struc-
tures subjected to seismic loading (ATC-17-1 1993; Nims et al. 1993; Soong and Dargush
2007; Constantinou et al. 2001; Christopoulos and Filiatrault 2007). Although these tech-
niques have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing seismic effects on existing frames,
extensive experimental investigations are still required in order to provide reliable analysis
and design criteria (Pinto et al. 2007). Furthermore, practical design procedures are required
to ensure widespread application, in particular procedures able to overcome the inherent defi-
ciencies of traditional force-based design (FBD). An alternative approach to the traditional
FBD is direct displacement-based design (DDBD), which starts from a target deformation
(Priestley 1993; Calvi and Kingsley 1995; Fajfar 1999; Priestley and Kowasky 2000; Chopra
and Goel 2001; Lin et al. 2003; Priestley 2003; Kim et al. 2003; Kim and Choi 2006;
Priestley et al. 2007). The DDBD method has been recently adapted to different structural
forms, including the retrofit of existing buildings through additional energy dissipation (Lin
et al. 2008; Mazza and Vulcano 2008; Ponzo et al. 2010b), in which the performance design
objective is obtained by coupling an established performance level (e.g. fully operational,
operational, life safe or near collapse) with a specific level of ground motion (e.g. frequent,
occasional, rare or very rare).
An extensive research project titled JetPacs “Joint Experimental Testing on Passive and
semi Active Control Systems” has been recently completed in the Structural Laboratory of the
University of Basilicata. The experimental model was a 1:1.5 scale 3D steel frame, derived
from a 2-storey, 1-bay prototype building. Research partners from several Italian universi-
ties have studied, developed and applied to the test specimen different energy dissipation
devices that were then subjected to shaking table testing (Dolce et al. 2008). During testing,
a total of seven different passive or semi-active energy dissipating devices based on currently
available (i.e. viscous and hysteretic damping) or innovative systems (i.e. shape-memory-
alloy wires, magneto-rheological fluids) technology have been alternatively applied to the
model.
This article focuses on the experimental testing of the model equipped with energy dissipat-
ing bracing (EDB) systems based on hysteretic dampers (HD) and visco-recentring devices
(SMA + VD), and draws comparisons with the results of the bare test frame (i.e. without
EDB). Research into the use of HD devices was performed by two of the research groups
from the University of Basilicata (UNIBAS) and the University of Calabria (UNICAL). The
UNIBAS Research Unit (Ponzo et al. 2010a) also proposed a new EDB solution based on the
super-elastic properties of shape memory alloy (SMA) wires, which also provides supple-
mental recentring capacity, coupled with viscous dampers (VD). The mechanical properties
of the SMA-based devices, generally used to eliminate post-event residual drifts by returning
the building to its original position (Ponzo et al. 2008; Dolce et al. 2004), have been coupled
with the non linear viscous properties of the VD which develop larger damping forces during
strong (high velocity) motion.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Two sets of device for both EDBs have been designed aimed at achieving a selected target
displacement profile for the structure when subjected to earthquakes consistent with a given
reference response spectrum.
The main objectives of the experimental investigation were: (i) to evaluate the effective-
ness of the SMA + VD and HD EDBs in dissipating input energy and in reducing the seismic
response of the structural model under moderate and strong earthquake loading; (ii) to com-
pare the difference in the behaviour of the structure equipped with SMA + VD and HD EDBs
and of the structure without EDB; (iii) to evaluate the effects of the viscous and recentring
components of the SMA + VD devices and (iv) to validate and verify the reliability of the
proposed design procedure to evaluate the mechanical characteristics of both types of device.
Section 2 of this paper provides an overview of the experimental model, of the test set up
and of the energy dissipating devices, while Sect. 3 describes the numerical model and the
Displacement-Focused Design (DFD) method considered to sizing the HD and SMA + VD
devices. Finally in Sect. 4, the experimental outcomes are briefly summarized and compared
with the results of numerical non linear time history analysis (NTHA).

2 Experimental model, test apparatus and dissipating EDB

The structure used during the experimental dynamic tests was a 1/1.5 scale model designed
starting from a prototype residential steel building. Figure 1a shows the general layout of the
scaled model. The model was a two-storey steel frame with a single span in the test direction.
The two floors, having 4.2 m by 3.2 m plan dimensions, were made of a 100 mm thick steel-
concrete composite system. Both the main and secondary beams of both storeys had the same
steel profile (IPE 180). Similarly, all the columns had a constant cross section (HEB 140)
up the height of the model. All structural elements were S235 grade steel, characterized by
a Young’s modulus of E = 206,000 N/mm2 and a yield strength of f y = 235 N/mm2 . Addi-
tional masses (concrete blocks) were placed on each slab, to account for non structural dead
loads the appropriate amount (30 %) of live load, and the contribution due to mass-similitude
scaling.
The energy dissipating bracing (EDB) systems consisted of four devices, two for each
storey, mounted on the top of two stiff steel chevron braces (HEA100) as shown in Fig. 1b.
Bolts were used to ensure a rigid connection between the braces and the dissipating devices.
Two additional V-inverted steel braces (UPN 80) were placed orthogonally to the direction
of excitation for safety reasons.
The test apparatus in the UNIBAS Structural Laboratory was a single degree of free-
dom shaking table driven by an MTS dynamic actuator having a maximum load capacity of
±500 kN and a stroke of ±250 mm. The actuator was fixed to a 6 m high, 10 m wide reaction
wall and to the base of the test model by means of cylindrical hinges as shown in Fig. 1b
(Dolce et al. 2008). Three MTS SilentfloTM 505-180 hydraulic pumps, each capable of a
flow rate of 600 l/min, operated the actuator. The shaking table consisted of a four-profile rail
guide system (SKF), with two carriages located under each column for each guide (Fig. 1c).
A friction factor of less than 1 % ensured accurate linear movement in the test direction. Steel
bracing (HEM 300) was used at the base of the model to ensure a rigid diaphragm condition
(Fig. 1d). A total of 26 acquisition channels were employed to record the structural response.
Dynamic identification testing of the bare frame (without EDB systems) was carried
out considering a number of different excitation sources: ambient noise, instrumental ham-
mer impact excitations and sine-sweep ground motion. Different output-only modal anal-
ysis techniques, operating in the time domain (ERA Eigensystem Realization Algorithm),

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

(a) Experimental model (b) Lateral view

Reaction Additional Masses
Wall

energy
dissipation
devices

Z Dynamic
Actuator
profile
Z rail guide

(c) SKF Profile rail guide (d) Plan view

Dynamic
Actuator
Y
Y
profile
rail guide

X Reaction
Wall

Fig. 1 JetPacs experimental model and test apparatus

frequency-domain (Frequency Domain Decomposition FDD, Enhanced Frequency Domain

Decomposition EFDD, Complex Mode Identification Function CMIF) and time-frequency-
domain (Time-Frequency Instantaneous Estimators TFIE) were used and the relative results
averaged in order to increase the soundness of the analysis. Furthermore, Frequency Response
Functions FRFs were evaluated from the accelerations measured at the ground level com-
pared to the accelerations measured on the structure, in order to confirm the spurious nature
of certain frequency components corresponding to external excitations. Model mass identi-
fication parameters for each storey in the test configuration are reported in Table 1 together
with the model and added weight. The range of values of model weight evaluated consid-
ering different modal analysis techniques is relatively small (Dolce et al. 2008). In Table 2,
F
dynamic test results are reported in terms of the natural periods Ti,ex p corresponding to the
translational modes along the main axes in plan (i.e. X and Y axes which are parallel and
perpendicular to the test direction, respectively) and torsional modes around the vertical axis
F ) values obtained from impact tests
(i.e. the Z axis). Finally, the modal damping factor (ξi,ex p
are shown in Table 2. In practice, the model was a two degree of freedom system in the
test direction, corresponding to the two horizontal floor displacements, where most of the
structural mass is concentrated.

2.1 Energy dissipating devices

The two EDB systems considered in this paper for analysing and comparing the seismic
behaviour of the experimental model were based on the hysteretic steel and visco-recentring
devices, both proposed and developed “in-house” by the UNIBAS research unit.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 1 Weight estimation of the bare JetPacs experimental model

Storey Model weight (kN) Additional weight (kN) Total weight (kN)

1 36.30–37.38 13.26 49.56–50.64

2 33.35–33.60 13.20 46.55–46.80

Table 2 Vibration periods of the bare JetPacs experimental model

Mode Dominant component F

Ti,ex F
ξi,ex
p (s) p (%) Description

1 Translation along Y 0.35 0.09 In-phase displacement of the storeys

2 Translation along X 0.28 0.15 In-phase displacement of the storeys
3 Torsional around Z 0.19 0.07 In-phase rotation of the storeys
4 Translation along Y 0.12 0.18 Counter-phase displ. of the storeys
5 Translation along X 0.08 0.13 Counter-phase displ. of the storeys
6 Torsional around Z 0.06 0.07 Counter-phase rotation of the storeys

The elasto-plastic devices were based on the hysteretic properties of low carbon steel
plates capable of providing the necessary additional horizontal strength, stiffness and energy
dissipation capacity whilst limiting inter-storey drifts. Two sets of devices having different
mechanical properties for each floor level were designed and applied during testing.
The Hysteretic Dampers (HD) were manufactured and patented by T.I.S. S.p.A. (TIS SpA).
These devices (Fig. 2c) use steel plates having a particular form that dissipates energy through
flexural yielding when displaced beyond their elastic limit. This particular mechanism allows
for a large range of stiffness and strength values to be obtained.
The experimental set-up in the UNIBAS Structural Laboratory used in order to charac-
terize the performance of the stand alone device is shown in Fig. 2a, while Fig. 2b, c shows
the steel devices and the observed post test failure mechanism respectively. Typically, the
ductility of devices based on steel yielding can reach values greater than 20, and display
stable behaviour for an adequate number of cycles (Dolce et al. 1996).
These elements were characterized by the distribution of stress shown in the Fig. 2d, sim-
ulated during numerical modelling in the finite element program ANSYS (ANSYS 2010).
The visco-recentring devices consisted of the coupling of two viscous fluid velocity-depen-
dent energy-dissipating devices (VD) with a displacement dependent Ni–Ti shape memory
alloy device (SMA) providing recentring behaviour.
The proposed visco-recentring (SMA + VD) EDBs were designed, fabricated and tested in
the UNIBAS Laboratory (see Fig. 3). The pre-strained SMA wires that make up the recentring
device were always elongated due to a special arrangement of wires, steel studs and holes
and therefore were tensioned for any positive or negative movement. The Viscous Dampers
(VD), which worked by extruding fluid through specifically designed holes, improved energy
dissipation during strong motion.
The cyclic hysteretic behaviour of the HD was approximated as an elasto-plastic with hard-
ening (EPH) force-displacement model. The cyclic behaviour of the SMA-based devices was
approximated as being bilinear elastic (BE) despite that fact that the material itself exhibits
slight hysteretic behaviour (usually resulting in damping values of 3–5 %), while that of the
SMA + VD was then approximated by an advanced double flag-shaped (FS) model.

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 2 Overview of the hysteretic damper: a experimental set-up for the device characterization tests; b
damping devices; c failure mechanism of the hysteretic devices post-test; d stress distribution from damper
numerical model (ANSYS 2010)

(a) (b)
Fig. 3 Overview of the SMA + VD device: a experimental set-up for device characterization tests; b drawing
of device

In Fig. 4 the main parameters of the EPH (Fig. 4a) and FS (Fig. 4b) models are displayed.
Two important constants for both these models are the ratio between the pre-yield (d > d y )
stiffness k P and post-yield (d < d y ) stiffness k E , defined as the post-yield hardening con-
stant α = k P /k E , and the ratio between the maximum and yield displacements μ D = dd /d y
giving the ductility demand of the device.
In defining an FS system another important parameter must be specified; the strength ratio
β. Shown in eq. 1 this is the ratio between the force amplitude of the elasto-plastic cycle and
the activation force of the system at the yield displacement:
FF S,y (d y ) − FF S,2 (d y )
β= (1)
FF S,y (d y )
FF S,y and FF S,2 are the force levels of the FS model at the yield displacement d y in the
loading and unloading condition, respectively. The parameter β affects the recentring and

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

f EP(d) F EP(d) f FS(d) F FS(d)

kE kE
1
a 1 a
f EP,y 1 f FS,y 1
1 β f FS,y
dy 1 1 dy
1 f FS,2

dy dd d 1 dy dd d
μD * d y 1 μD * d y
1 1+a
1 1

(a) (b)
Fig. 4 Force-displacement behaviour of devices a EPH model of HD and b FS model of SMA + VD

(a) (b)
2
Base shear/Model weight

1.5
SF Triangular
1 Rectangular

Criterion for design of Energy Dissipation Bracing

0.5 System: Δmax < 0.5% for PGA level = 0.44g

Roof displ./Model height

0
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0%

Fig. 5 a Numerical model; b pushover curves of the bare structure (w/o EDBs) and yield points

energy dissipating capabilities of the device (similar the recentring factor as defined in NZS
3101 2006). This value ranges from 0, corresponding to a pure re-centering system (for BE
only), to 2, corresponding to a pure dissipative system (for EPH only).

3 Design procedure for energy dissipating devices

A DFD procedure (Ponzo et al. 2010a; Ponzo and Di Cesare 2009), based on a NLSA,
compatible with the N2 method (EC8-1 2004) has been implemented and adopted for dimen-
sioning both EDB systems.

3.1 Numerical model

The steel frame was modelled before testing began using frame-type 3D finite elements
(Fig. 5a) in SAP2000 (SAP2000 2004). The connection between the columns and the stiff
beams at the base of the model was simulated through the use of fixed restraints with the
floor slabs being simulated by imposing a rigid diaphragm assumption. The numerical results
F
of the modal analysis (Ti,num ) of the bare frame (model w/o bracing) are shown in Table 3
F ). From Table 3 it can be seen that good
along with the actual recorded frame periods (Ti,ex p
agreement between the experimental and numerical dynamic characteristics was found.
In order to account for possible non linear behaviour of the bare structure, plastic hinges
with axial load-dependent behaviour were inserted at the ends of each frame element. A

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 3 Numerical versus experimental periods of vibration of the bare JetPacs experimental model

Mode Dominant component F

Ti,ex F
p (s) Ti,num (s)

1 Translation along Y 0.35 0.35

2 Translation along X 0.28 0.28
3 Torsional around Z 0.19 0.17
4 Translation along Y 0.12 0.11
5 Translation along X 0.08 0.08
6 Torsional around Z 0.06 0.05

NLSA was carried out considering two different distributions of horizontal force: one mass
proportional (rectangular) and the other related to the first modal shape (approximately trian-
gular). The forces in both cases were applied to the centre of mass of each floor. The results
are shown in Fig. 5b in terms of the normalized values of base shear (base shear/model
weight) and roof drift (roof displacement/total model height).
The non linear behaviour of the energy dissipating devices was modelled using link ele-
ments properly calibrated against the results of the experimental tests used to characterize
device behaviour.
The strongly non linear behaviour of the HD was modelled using a Bouc-Wen hysteretic
model (Bouc 1967; Wen 1976), which has excellent versatility in generating a variety of hys-
teretic patterns. The constant α(k P /k E ) was assumed to be 3 %, while the exponent function
which regulates the sharpness of yielding was set to be one.
The SMA + VD devices was modelled by using a combination of bilinear elastic and elas-
to-perfectly plastic (α = 0) unidirectional link elements in parallel for the SMA wire loops
(NZS 3101 2006), and damper link elements (SAP2000 2004) representing the additional
VD. The non linear mechanical behaviour of the VD is given by Eq. 2:

F = cv a (2)

where F is the force of the VD, v is the relative velocity between each end of the damper,
and c and a are the damping coefficient and the damping exponent respectively.

3.2 Design procedure

The design of the test structure was performed aiming to prevent damaged to structural mem-
bers when subjected to the design level seismic loading. The main parameter considered to
gauge the performance of the frame structure and the effectiveness of the EDB system as
a retrofitting technique was the maximum interstorey drift (i.e. inter-storey displacements
divided by the inter-storey height), a parameter which is strictly related to both structural
and non structural damage. Starting from NLSA of the bare frame a threshold value for the
maximum inter-storey drift (Δmax ) was established. The reinforcing system for the frame
structure was then dimensioned to ensure that the frame elements always responded within
its elastic range (Δmax < Δ y ) during shaking table testing.
During the design process a response spectra for high seismic zones and medium soil
characteristics (Type B) was used. This spectra had a peak ground acceleration (PGA) equal
to S*0.35 g = 0.44 g, with S = 1.25 being the soil factor corresponding to Eurocode 8 (EC8-1
2004).

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

STEP 1: NLSA of the bare structure (kF*, Fy*, μ*)

STEP 2: evaluation of the equivalent elasto-plastic damped brace (KDB, FDB, μDB)
modify μDB

STEP 3: distribution up height and along STEP 5: evaluation of the

plan of the characteristics of HD devices characteristics of SMA+VD devices
(kEP,i,s ; FEP,i,s ; μD ; α) (kFS,i,s; FFS,i,s; β ; α)

increase β
NO STEP 4: NTHA of the YES STEP 6: NTHA of the NO
reinforced structure SMA+VD reinforced structure
Δmax Δlim Δmax Δlim

YES HD YES
END

Fig. 6 Flowchart of the design procedure

elastic structure w/o damped brace

elasto-plastic damped brace
elasto-plastic structure with damped brace
elastic structure with damped brace
125 125
Fe,j Fe,j

100 100
Base Shear (kN)

Base Shear (kN)

Aelastic Aelastic
75 75
* *
Fy Fy
50 50
Aplastic Aplastic
* * *
25 * kF 25 k j
kF
k j FDB,j
μDB = 10
FDB,j
d (mm) kDB,j μDB = 5 d (mm)
kDB,j
0 * 0 *
dDB,y de,j d Fy= ds,0 = dDB,u de,j d Fy= ds,0 = dDB,u
0 10 20 0 dDB,y 10 20

Fig. 7 Equal energy criterion for HD1 (μ D B = 10) and HD2 (μ D B = 5)

The main steps of the iterative procedure are summarized in Fig. 6 and described below.
The Step One of the design procedure consists of a preliminary evaluation of the existing
structures lateral resistance in both principle directions (k ∗F , Fy∗ , μ∗ ) through NLSA. As can
be seen from Fig. 5b, the roof drift relating to the onset of yielding for the bare model structure
was equal to approximately 0.7 %. Correspondently, a maximum inter-storey drift of about
0.75 % was found. The hysteretic dissipative braces were then designed with the main goal
of limiting the maximum inter-storey drift below the yield drift (μ∗ = 1) assuming a Safety
Factor (SF) equal to 1.5 and thus giving a target drift of approximately 0.5 %.
Starting from the smallest lateral resistance curve (in the examined case corresponding to
the triangular load distribution), reduced according to the transformation factor Γ of the first
modal shape, the equivalent elastic structure w/o the damped braces was found (see Fig. 7).
In the Step Two, the mechanical characteristics of the equivalent elasto-plastic damped
brace (K D B , FD B , μ D B ) are determined by the iterative procedure described below:

1. A design objective, taken as a target top displacement (ds0 ) of the braced structure is
∗ ) of the bare
established. This is to be less than or equal to the yield displacement (d F,y
structure as the aim in design is to remain elastic (Δmax≤ Δlim = 0.5 %).

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

2. A first hypothetical ductility demand (μ D B ) for the equivalent dissipating brace consis-
tent with the properties of the considered hysteretic device is assumed.
3. The horizontal force at the jth step (Fe, j ) for the elastic structure with the damped brac-
ing is evaluated. This is taken as a function of the global dynamic characteristics of the
braced structure and of the design earthquake. The elastic force Fe, j at each iteration is
calculated to be the equivalent mass m ∗ of the SDOF system multiplied by the acceler-
ation of the elastic spectra (EC8-1 2004). The procedure starts ( j = 0) by considering
the elastic structure without the damped bracing: the equivalent period T0∗ = T ∗ for the
elastic stiffness k0∗ = k ∗, ∗
F and the yield strength Fy,0 = Fy ;
∗

4. The yield displacement of the equivalent bracing (d D B,y ) is obtained as a function of

the design ductility, μ D B (as in substep 2) and the imposed maximum displacement of
the equivalent damped bracing (d B D,u ) equal to the target top displacement ds,0 (as in
substep 1). The yielding force of the elasto-plastic damped brace during the j th iteration
(FD B, j ) is determined by means of the “equal energy criterion” (Fig. 7), between the
elastic and elasto-plastic structure equipped with the damped bracing. From FB D, j , it is
possible to determine: the bracing stiffness, K D B, j and the period of the braced structure
T j∗ (in correspondence to the stiffness k ∗j ) and therefore the new value of Fe, j .

Repeating substeps 3 and 4 the method is considered to have converged when the differ-
ence between the value of Fe, j at the jth step and that of the step before is smaller than an
imposed tolerance value: |Fe, j − Fe, j−1 | < ε, otherwise μ D B is modified.
Step two was applied two times, initial ductility demand (μ D B ) values of 10 and 5 were
assumed for design configurations HD1 and HD2 respectively. In both cases the procedure
converged to a solution, as shown in Fig. 7, within a maximum of three iterations.
The mechanical characteristics of the HD devices up the height of the structure are eval-
uated in Step Three. The stiffness of the equivalent bracing at the ith storey is equal to
K D B,i = k F,i · K D B /k ∗F , distributed hypothesizing that the ratio between the structural
stiffness at each floor (k F,i ) and that of the relative bracing (K D B,i ) is proportional to the
ratio between the stiffness of the equivalent structure (k ∗F ) and the equivalent braced system
(K D B ). In this same way, the strength of the equivalent bracing at the ith storey is equal to
FD B,i = Fy,i∗ ·F ∗
D B /Fy hypothesizing that the ratio between the equivalent bracing strength
FD B,i and the structural strength (Fy,i ∗ ) at each floor is equal to the ratio between strength

of the equivalent bilinear device (FD B ) and strength of the equivalent elastic system of the
bare structure (Fy∗ ).
The stiffness and strength of the equivalent ith storey damped brace (K D B,i and FD B,i ) are
distributed among the single damped braces (K D B,i,s ) and (FD B,i,s ) as a function of number
of braces (n c,i = 2 in the case of the test model) and their actual geometrical inclination
(slope between the individual device and the horizontal axes, φi = 0◦ for the experimental
model), as shown in Fig. 1b.
In the case of the JetPacs model, the total strength and stiffness of a single hysteretic
damped brace (composed of a series of the components: Hysteretic Damper k E P,i,s and
rigid V-inverted steel brace k B,i,s  k E P,i,s ) corresponded to that of the single HD device
(K D B,i,s = k E P,i,s , FD B,i,s = FE P,i,s and μ D B = μ D ).
Verification of the upgraded structure is performed in Step Four by means of non linear
time history analyses (NTHA) checking that the maximum drift (Δmax ) was less than the
drift limit (Δlim ).
Steps 3 and 4 were applied twice for the JetPacs model (configurations HD1 and HD2).
In the Step Five the equivalent FS models for the SMA + VD devices is defined starting
from the parameters of the EPH models which describe the HD devices obtained during step

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 4 Mechanical characteristics of the HD devices by using the design procedure and from experimental
characterization tests (1 Hz).

Design option Level μD Design values Experimental values

FE P,i,s k E P,i,s FE P,i,s k E P,i,s αi
(kN) (kN/mm) (kN) (kN/mm) (%)

HD1 I 10 5.0 7.0 7.5 7.0 3

II 10 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 3
HD2 I 5 8.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 3
II 5 5.5 4.0 7.0 4.0 3

3. This is done by using a proposed design procedure based on the numerical and exper-
imental studies conducted by (Ponzo et al. 2010a). Shown in Fig. 4 the parameters of the
SMA + VD device are then defined as having the same slip-load FF S,i,s = FE P,i,s, the same
elastic stiffness k F S,i,s = k E P,i,s , the same post-yield hardening ratio αi and using a design
value of the parameter β between 0.2 and 0.3, that can reach the same ductility demanded
μ D and thus maximum device displacement dd , as verified in (Ponzo et al. 2008) allowing
for the best compromise between good energy dissipation and a full recentring capability.
The verification of the structure upgraded with SMA + VD devices is carried out in Step Six
by means of non linear time history analyses (NTHA) controlling the maximum inter-storey
drift. As with Steps 3 and 4, Steps 5 and 6 have been applied two times to the JetPacs model
for configurations SMA1 + VD and SMA2 + VD starting from HD1 and HD2 respectively.
The desired mechanical characteristics of the different HD devices were obtained by
changing the dimensions of the thin steel plate elements. The mechanical characteristics of
the SMA-based (SMA) devices are altered by changing the number of Ni–Ti 1 mm diam-
eter wires which were wrapped around two steel studs placed at a distance of 511 mm.
The mechanical characteristics of Viscous Dampers (VD) for the SMA + VD system were
obtained by setting the parameter β to the design value (β = 0.2–0.3) at the design velocity.
The mechanical characteristics of the energy dissipating devices applied to both EDB
systems as obtained from experimental characterization tests are summarized and presented
in Tables 4 and 5 for the HD (design options HD1 and HD2) and SMA + VD dampers (design
options SMA1 + VD and SMA2 + VD) for both stories of the structure. The characteristic
values presented are the slip-load (FE P,i,s and FF S,i,s ), stiffness (k E P,i,s, k F S,i,s ), ductility
ratio (μ D ) or β-parameter (βi ) and the post-yield hardening ratio (αi ). The actual experi-
mental values of FE Pi,s of the HD devices were assumed to be higher than the design values
obtained using the iterative design procedure in order account for differences arising from
the fabrication of the devices. Due to the discretization of the number of wire loops consti-
tuting the SMA devices, each SMA device consisted of 2, 4 or 6, 1 mm diameter SMA wire
loops, some slight discrepancies were found between the characteristics of the HD and the
SMA + VD devices.
Figure 8 shows the comparison between the experimental and numerical force-displace-
ment behaviour of the HD, SMA, VD and SMA + VD devices. As an example, Fig. 8a shows
the dampers used applied to level 2 for Test HD2. Figure 8b shows the devices used for level 2
of Test SMA2, that were the same as those applied to level 1 of Test SMA1. Figure 8c depicts
the VD which was obtained by the coupling of two viscous fluid devices. These devices had
a damping coefficient c equal to 1kN and a damping exponent a equal to 0.30. The same VD
were used for all the visco-recentring devices. Finally, Fig. 8d shows the level 2 devices of

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 5 Mechanical characteristics of the SMA + VD devices by using the design procedure and from exper-
imental characterization tests (1 Hz)

Design Level μD Design values Experimental values

option
FF S,i,s k F S,i,s FF S,i,s k F S,i,s αi βi No. of SMA
(kN) (kN/mm) (kN) (kN/mm) (%) wire loop

SMA1 + VD I 10 7.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 2 0.3 4 ϕ 1 mm

II 10 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 2 0.5 2 ϕ 1 mm
SMA2 + VD I 5 10.0 7.0 8.0 10.0 3 0.2 6 ϕ 1 mm
II 5 7.0 4.0 7.5 8.0 2 0.3 4 ϕ 1 mm

(a) HD2 – II Lev (b) SMA2 – II Lev and (c) VD for all SMA+VD (d) SMA2+VD – II Lev and
SMA1 – I Lev devices SMA1+VD – I Lev
F(kN) 15 Experimental 15 F (kN) 15 15
F (kN) F(kN)
Numerical
10 10 10 10

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-5 -5 -5 -5
d(mm) d(mm ) d(mm) d(mm)
-10 -10 -10 -10

-15 -15 -15 -15

Fig. 8 Comparison between experimental results at 1 Hz cyclic loading and numerical model for: a
hysteretic damper (HD); b recentring device (SMA); c viscous damper (VD); d Visco-recentring (b) + (c)
device (SMA + VD)

Test SMA2 + VD; which were identical to the level 1 devices of Test SMA1 + VD (coupling
(b) + (c)). All testing had a frequency of 1 Hz.

4 Experimental and numerical results

4.1 Seismic inputs

A set of natural earthquakes, comprising of 7 spectrum-compatible accelerograms (identified

as: 1,228, 196, 535, 187, 291, 4,673, 4,677) for high seismic zones and medium soil charac-
teristics (Type B), have been selected from the European Strong Motion database (ESD 2008)
and used during the experimental tests. These natural acceleration records were scaled by
using a scale factor (sf) in order to match, on average, the Eurocode (EC8-1 2004) response
spectra considered during the design procedure. Principle information regarding each record
are reported in Table 6, i.e.: station; identification number of the registration; magnitude (M);
peak ground acceleration (PGA) in the horizontal direction; and scale factor (sf).
To ensure consistency with the scale of the experimental model, all acceleration profiles
were scaled down in duration by a factor of 1/(1.5)1/2 . The pseudo-acceleration (elastic)
response spectra of the seven accelerograms are shown in Fig. 9a together with their average
and the code spectrum, assuming an equivalent viscous damping ratio ξ = 5 %. Figure 9b
shows the elastic spectra of the selected main accelerograms (3 out of the full suite of 7) that
were used for testing at all intensities. The intensities of the ground motions were generated
for both the experimental and numerical studies assuming a percentage of the reference Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA), with reference to the selected accelerograms.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 6 Characteristics of the natural ground motions selected from ESD 2008

No. Earthquakes Date Station Registration M PGA/g sf

1 Izmit (Turkey) 17/08/99 Gezbe-Tubitak 001228xa 7.6 0.357 1.0

2 Montenegro (Serbia) 15/04/79 Petrovac Hotel Oliva 000196xa 6.9 0.454 1.0
3 Erzican (Turkey) 13/03/92 Erzican-Mudurlugu 000535ya 6.6 0.769 1.5
4 Tabas (Iran) 16/09/78 Tabas 000187xa 7.3 0.926 1.5
5 Campano-Lucano (Italy) 23/11/80 Calitri 000291ya 6.9 0.264 1.5
6 South Iceland (Iceland) 17/06/00 Hella 004673ya 6.5 0.716 1.5
7 South Iceland (Iceland) 17/06/00 Selsund 004677ya 6.5 0.716 1.0

000187xa
(a) 35 Seismic Zone 1 subsoil class B
000196xa
(b) 35 Seismic Zone 1 Subsoil class B
000196xa

set of 7 accelerogrms 30 main 3 selected accelerograms 000535ya*1.5

30 000291ya*1.5
001228xa*1.5

Sa (m/sec )
Sa (m/sec )

25 000535ya*1.5 25
2
2

001228xa*1.5 medium
20 20
004673ya*1.5
by code
15 004677ya 15
medium
10 10
by code
5 5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T (sec) T (sec)

Fig. 9 Pseudo-acceleration (elastic) response spectra; a set of 7 accelerograms; b selection of 3 accelerograms

considered for testing at all intensities

4.2 Testing program

Extensive shaking table tests were carried out on the bare frame and with the HD and
SMA + VD EDB configurations. The intensity of the selected natural earthquakes was gradu-
ally increased until the drift limit was reached. As shown in Table 7 the experimental program
consisted of 99 tests on the model equipped with the different EDB configurations:
– 18 and 21 seismic tests for HD1 and HD2, respectively, in order to check the effectiveness
and robustness of the hysteretic damped braces;
– 15 and 11 seismic tests for SMA1 and SMA2, respectively, and 17 and 11 seismic tests
for SMA1 + VD and SMA2 + VD, respectively in order to evaluate the effectiveness of
the recentring SMA and Viscous Damper (VD) components in controlling the seismic
response of the structure;
– 6 seismic tests on the bare frame (model w/o EDB) in order to evaluate the maximum
percentage of PGA required to reach the target drift.

4.3 Seismic response

4.3.1 Hysteretic dampers

The experimental outcomes of the test structure equipped with the HD1 and HD2 EDBs
are compared in Fig. 10 considering the three main acceleration profiles of Fig. 9b

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 7 Summary of the experimental tests carried out assuming different PGA intensities of the selected
accelerograms for HD, SMA and SMA + VD EDB configurations and w/o EDBs (x = tests performed)

PGA (%) 10 25 50 75 100 125

Earthquake no. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3

Configurations
HD1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
HD2 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SMA1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SMA2 x x x x x x x x x x x
SMA1 + VD x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SMA2 + VD x x x x x x x x x x x
w/o EDBs x x x x x x

HD1 EQ1 HD1 EQ2 HD1 EQ3 HD2 EQ1 HD2 EQ2 HD2 EQ3
Drift (%)

15
Acc(g)

F (kN)
0.75% 3

0.50% 2 10

0.25% 1 5

PGA(%) PGA(%) PGA(%)

0.00% 0 0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125%
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 10 Experimental results for the frame with HD1 and HD2 EDB configurations for earthquakes
nos. 1, 2 and 3 at all percentages of PGA, in terms of: a MID (%); b MA (g); c MF (kN)

(earthquake no. 1, 2 and 3) at different levels of seismic intensity (PGA from 10 to 125 %)
in terms of: (i) maximum inter-storey drift (MID) (ii) maximum top floor acceleration (MA)
and (iii) maximum force (MF) in the energy dissipating devices.
As shown, for each intensity of ground motion, the adoption of HD2 led to drifts slightly
less than those experienced using HD1 (Fig. 10a). However, as expected, the maximum force
(MF) experienced by the device was greater for HD2 (Fig. 10c); this led to slightly higher
values of the MA (Fig. 10b).
For all the examined levels of PGA the HD1 and HD2 structures exhibited the highest
values of MID and MA when subjected to earthquake no. 3. This behaviour can be explained
by comparing the acceleration (elastic) response spectra of the considered ground motions
(Fig. 9b) and evaluating the spectral values corresponding to the fundamental period of
vibration of the braced structure in the test direction (second mode—T2,exp DB
= 0.16 s). It can
∼
be seen clearly that in correspondence with the periods of vibrations of the examined cases
Earthquake no. 3 had the highest spectral acceleration, which was also higher than those
of the elastic design spectrum. Experimental configurations HD1 and HD2 provided simi-
lar responses and showed excellent behaviour even when earthquake no. 3 was applied at
PGA = 50 %. HD1 and HD2 displayed almost identical time-history responses in terms of
drift as shown below in Fig. 11. It can also be seen from the figure that the force-displace-
ment response of the device was stable and displayed significant hysteretic behaviour. This
confirms the reliability, effectiveness and robustness of the retrofitting technique even though
changes have been made to the specific design of each device.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

EQ2 100% Inter-storey drifts Force-displacement of dampers

0.5

Drift (%)
0.4 F (kN)
0.3
0.2
I Level
0.1
0
-0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-0.2 … disp (mm)
-0.3 HD2
-0.4 HD1
-0.5 time (sec)
Drift (%)

0.5
0.4
F (kN)
0.3
0.2
II Level

0.1
0
-0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-0.2 … disp (mm)
-0.3 .…

-0.4
-0.5 time (sec)

Fig. 11 Experimental drift time-histories and force-displacement responses for the hysteretic dampers at both
levels, for earthquake no. 2 having 100 % of PGA, and for HD1 and HD2 EBD configurations

A comparison between experimental and numerical results is presented in Fig. 12 in

terms of the inter-storey drift and the force-displacement response of the hysteretic dampers
at each level. The diagrams refer to both design options HD1 and HD2 subjected to 100 %
of earthquake no. 2. The diagrams show also that the numerical model was capable of ade-
quately simulating the observed experimental behaviour, thus representing a reliable tool for
predicting the systems non linear seismic response.
All the experimental and numerical results showed that the responses of the structure
equipped with hysteretic damped braces characterized by different values of strength and the
same stiffness are comparable. By increasing the strength of the device by +25 % at the first
storey and +30 % at the second storey a maximum variation of MID of approximately −10 %
and of MA of about +7 % was observed. This behaviour proves the reliability and robustness
of the design procedure as further demonstrated in (Ponzo and Di Cesare 2009).

4.3.2 Visco-recentring devices

The experimental outcomes of the frame equipped with recentring (SMA1 and SMA2) and
visco-recentring (SMA1 + VD and SMA2 + VD) EDB configurations have been compared in
Fig. 13. The results of the tests carried out considering the three main acceleration profiles
(earthquakes nos. 1, 2 and 3) are shown in terms of (i) maximum inter-storey drift (MID) (ii)
maximum top floor acceleration (MA) and (iii) maximum force (MF) in the energy dissipating
device.
As can be seen, a significant difference in behaviour was observed when changes were
made to the characteristics of the SMA (SMA1 vs SMA2). The maximum MID was observed
for SMA1, while the MA results for all devices is quite similar. A variation of the strength
of the devices equal to 7 % at first storey and 40 % at the second strorey corresponded to
a maximum variation of MID of approximately 50 % and a maximum variation of MA of
about 25 %.
The comparison between the experimental response of the structure with SMA (SMA1 and
SMA2) and SMA + VD (SMA1 + VD and SMA2 + VD) EDBs clearly indicates the improved
vibration control of the structure due to the additional energy dissipation capacity provided

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

(a) EQ2 100% Inter-storey drifts Force-displacement of dampers

Drift (%)
0.5 HD1_Num 15 F (kN)
0.4
HD1_Exp 10
0.3
0.2
I Level 5
0.1
0 0
-0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -10 -5 0 5 10
-5
-0.2 disp (mm)
-0.3
-10
-0.4
-0.5 time (sec) -15

F (kN)
Drift (%)

0.5 15
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
5
II Level

0.1
0 0
-0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -10 -5 0 5 10
-0.2 -5
disp (mm)
-0.3
-10
-0.4
-0.5 time (sec)
-15

(b) EQ2 100% Inter-storey drifts Force-displacement of dampers

F (kN)
Drift (%)

0.5 HD2_Exp 15
0.4 HD2_Num
10
0.3
0.2 5
I Level

0.1
0 0
-0.1 2 6 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
-5
-0.2 disp (mm)
-0.3 -10
-0.4
-0.5
time (sec) -15

0.5 F (kN)
Drift (%)

15
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
5
II Level

0.1
0 0
-0.1 2 4 6 8 10 12 -10 -5 0 5 10
-5
-0.2 disp (mm)
-0.3
-10
-0.4 time (sec)
-0.5 -15

Fig. 12 Experimental and numerical time-histories of drifts and force-displacement of the hysteretic dampers
at the two levels, earthquake no. 2 PGA = 100 %, for: a HD1; b HD2 EBD’s configuration

by the VD devices. Even though the MF of both SMA + VD configurations were quite similar
to those registered by frame without the VD components, the effect of the presence of the
VD becomes significant when the earthquake intensity exceeds a certain threshold value
of the PGA. This value is a function of the yield strength FF S,i,s of the FS model and the
acceleration profiles: PGA = 75 % for SMA1 + VD and for SMA2 + VD for earthquake no.
1; PGA = 25 % for SMA1 and PGA = 75 % for SMA2 earthquake no. 2; the PGA limit was
not reached for earthquake no. 3. After these PGA values the presence of VD components
permitted higher values of PGA to be reached.
In Fig. 14 the experimental response of the model equipped with SMA2 + VD EDBs
is compared with the response of the model with SMA1 + VD (Fig. 14a) and with SMA2
(Fig. 14b) in terms of the time-history record of the inter-storey drifts and cyclic behav-
iour of devices considering earthquake no. 2, PGA = 75 %, as expected differences in the

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

SMA1 SMA1+VD SMA2 SMA2+VD

Drift (%)
3 15

Acc (g)
0.75%

F (kN)
0.50% 2 10
EQ1

0.25% 1 5

PGA (%) PGA (%) PGA (%)

0.00% 0 0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125%

3 15
Drift (%)

Acc (g)
0.75%

F (kN)
2 10
0.50%
EQ2

0.25% 1 5

PGA (%) PGA (%) PGA (%)

0.00% 0 0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125%
Drift (%)

15
Acc (g)

0.75%

F (kN)
3

0.50% 2 10
EQ3

0.25% 1 5

PGA (%) PGA (%) PGA (%)

0.00% 0 0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125%

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 13 Experimental results for the frame with SMA1, SMA2, SMA1 + VD and SMA2 + VD EDBs,
for earthquakes nos. 1, 2 and 3 at different intensities, in terms of: a MID (%), b MA (g) and c MF (kN)

behaviour of the recentring and visco-recentring devices were observed. Moreover, the VD
devices located at the differing floor levels displayed different behaviour due to the different
velocities to which they were subjected (3–5 Hz).
Figure 15 shows the comparison between the experimental and numerical results for the
frame with SMA2 + VD EDBs obtained with reference to earthquake no. 2, 100 % of PGA.
The presence of certain anomalies, which can be attributed to sliding effects inside the
damping devices and to tolerances during manufacture, has been observed during the seismic
motion (Ponzo et al. 2010b): small differences between experimental and ideal stiffness and
slight differences in the behaviour of devices located in differing frames but on the same floor
of the structure produced negligible torsional effects. Despite these anomalies an acceptable
agreement between experimental and numerical force-displacement in the devices during the
shaking table tests has been found.

4.3.3 Comparison

A direct comparison in terms of the force-displacement behaviour of the devices at each

storey registered during the excitation of the test structure equipped with SMA2 + VD and
HD2 EDBs under earthquake n. 2 at PGA = 75, 100 and 125 %, is shown in Fig. 16. Despite
the anomalies described above, representing in any case the typical anomalies that it is pos-
sible to find in a real structure, the experimental outcomes show that as required by the
design procedure the yield strength, stiffness and post-yield hardening ratio of the HD (EPH
model) and SMA + VD (double FS model) were quite similar. In addition, almost the same

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

(a) EQ2 75% Inter-storey drifts. Force vs. displacement of devices

Drift (%)
0.5
SMA2+VD
15 F (kN)
0.4
0.3 10
SMA1+VD
0.2
I Level 5
0.1
disp (mm)
0 0
-0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -10 -5 0 5 10
-0.2 … -5
-0.3
-10
-0.4
-0.5 time (sec)
-15
Drift (%)

0.5 15 F (kN)
0.4
0.3 10
0.2
5
II Level

0.1
0 0
-0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -10 -5 0 5 10
… -5
-0.2 disp (mm)
-0.3
-10
-0.4
-0.5 time (sec)
-15

(b) EQ2 75% Inter-storey drifts. Force-displacement of devices

Drift (%)

0.5
SMA2+VD 15 F (kN)
0.4
SMA2 10
0.3
0.2
5
I Level

0.1
disp (mm)
0 0
-0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -10 -5 0 5 10
-0.2 … -5

-0.3
-10
-0.4
-0.5 time (sec) -15
Drift (%)

0.5 15 F (kN)
0.4
0.3 10
0.2
5
II Level

0.1
0 0
-0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -10 -5 0 5 10
… -5
-0.2 disp (mm)
-0.3
-10
-0.4
-0.5 time (sec) -15

Fig. 14 Comparison of experimental time-histories of drift and force-displacement for visco-recentring

devices at the two levels, earthquake no. 2, PGA = 75 %, between SMA2 + VD EBD configurations:
a SMA1 + VD; b SMA2

I Level II Level
15 F (kN) 15 F (kN)

10 10
EQ2 100%

5 5
disp (mm)
0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
-5 -5
SMA2+VD_Exp disp (mm)
-10 -10
SMA2+VD_Num
-15 -15

Fig. 15 Experimental and numerical force-displacement of SMA2 + VD devices, for earthquake no. 2,
PGA = 100 %

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

EQ2 PGA = 75% PGA = 100% PGA = 125%

15 F (kN) 15 F (kN) 15 F (kN)
10 10 10
5 5 5
I Level

0 0 0
-10 -5 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 -5 0 5 10
d (mm) d (mm) d (mm)
-10 -10 -10
HD2
-15 -15 -15 SMA2+VD
15 F (kN) 15 F (kN) 15 F (kN)
10 10 10
5 5 5
II Level

0 0 0
-10 -5 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 -5 0 5 10
d (mm) d (mm) d (mm)
-10 -10 -10
-15 -15 -15

Fig. 16 Experimental force-displacement response for the hysteretic damper HD2 and visco-recentring de-
vices SMA2 + VD at both levels, for earthquake no. 2, at PGA = 75, 100 and 125 %

maximum displacement (or ductility demand) of the devices of both EDBs was experienced
at both storeys.
Figure 17 shows a comparison between the experimental values obtained considering the
structure equipped with SMA 2, SMA2 + VD, HD2 and SMA2 EDB configurations in terms
of: (i) maximum inter-storey drift (MID), (ii) maximum top floor acceleration (MA) and iii)
Maximum damper Force (MF) for earthquake nos. 1 and 2 at PGA = 75 %. The SMA2 + VD
displayed the best performance in all categories (MID, MA and MF) due to the beneficial
effect of the increased viscous damping capacity. This figure also highlights the activation
of the dampers up the model height.
The response of the bare frame has also been investigated. Figure 18 compares the exper-
imental response of the model with SMA2, SMA2 + VD and HD2 EDB configurations, as
well as the frame w/o the EDBs, in terms of the (i) maximum inter-storey drift (MID) and (ii)
maximum top floor acceleration (MA). The bare structure was subjected to reduced levels
of excitation (maximum PGA = 25 %) to ensure that frame remained within its elastic range.
No variation of equivalent viscous damping was observed when compared with the results
of dynamic characterization test (see Table 2). For low values of seismic intensity (25 % of
PGA) the HD and SMA + VD structures provided comparable results, ensuring a remark-
able reduction of the indicator values when subjected to seismic levels which would be very
close to the damage limit of the bare frame. The seismic response of the structure drastically
reduced in amplitude when the EDBs are used. Figure 18 clearly shows a reduction of the
maximum drift at both the floor levels of more than 2 times when compared with that of
the bare structure. Maximum inter-storey drifts exhibited a similar trend, with a maximum
value of about 0.5 %, the target drift of the design procedure, which is comparable with the
maximum values observed for the bare structure subjected to accelerogram no. 2 at 25 % of
PGA. Comparing the SMA2 + VD and HD2 EDBs, a comparable MID and MA for every
intensity of seismic input (see Fig. 18) was found experimentally.
Finally, the mean values of the MID and MF recorded considering the bare frame
and the HD2 and SMA2 + VD EDB configurations, which resulted from the experimental

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

HD2 SMA2 SMA2+VD

Storey Storey Storey

EQ 1 2st 2st 2st

1st 1st 1st

0.0% 0.5% 0.0 2.5 0 6 12

Storey Storey Storey

2st 2st 2st

EQ 2

1st 1st 1st

0.0% 0.5% 0.0 2.5 0 6 12

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 17 Experimental results at both storeys for SMA2, SMA2 + VD and HD2 EDB configurations,
earthquakes nos. 1 and 2 at PGA = 75%, in terms of: a MID (%); b MA (g); c MF (kN)

PGA = 25% PGA = 50% PGA = 75% PGA = 100%

EQ1
w/o EDB
EQ2
SMA2
EQ3
SMA2+VD

HD2

(a) 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

w/o EDB

SMA2

SMA2+VD

HD2

(b) 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

Fig. 18 Experimental results of the frame w/o EDBs and with SMA2, SMA2 + VD and HD2 EDBs,
earthquakes nos. 1, 2 and 3, at PGA = 25, 50, 75 and 100 %, in terms of: a MID (%); b MA (g)

outcomes and/or NTHA results considering the seven selected accelerograms at PGA = 100 %,
are shown in Fig. 19. It can be seen that the values of the mean MID at both storeys (Fig. 19a)
were comparable to the target value of 0.5 %. The presence of the EDBs gives an average
reduction of the inter-storey drift in the order of 2.5–3 times in comparison with the bare
frame.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Storey HD2_Exp/Num Storey

SMA2+VD_Exp/Num
w/o EBD_Num
2 2

1 1
Drift (%) F (kN)
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 5 10 15

(a) (b)
Fig. 19 Experimental and/or numerical (NTHA) mean values of: a MID (%) and b MF (kN) at both
storey, seven accelerograms at PGA = 100 %, for model w/o EDBs and with HD2 and SMA2 + VD EDBs
configurations

The main advantage of a visco-recentring device is that it will dissipate energy during
motion without damage and will force the structure to return to its original position after
strong motion (null velocity). This will play a crucial role when plastic damage occurs in the
building.
The results presented in this paper have only displayed cases in which all non elastic
behaviour is concentrated in the dissipation devices and therefore residual drifts do not vary
greatly. Due to the large number of cycles to which the HD devices were subjected during
testing fatigue failure occurred. The visco-recentring devices, however, have not undergone
any damage and thus do not require replacement after the earthquake.

5 Conclusions

An extensive program of uni-directional shaking table tests, on a 1:1.5 scale model of a two-
storey three-dimensional steel frame, has been carried out in the Structural Laboratory of the
University of Basilicata, Italy. Seven different passive and semi-active Energy Dissipating
Bracing (EDB) systems have been alternatively used during the tests, including a new form of
Hysteretic Damper (HD) based on the hysteretic properties of shaped steel plates and a new
Visco-recentring devices (SMA + VD) based on the recentring properties of Shape Memory
Alloys (SMA) coupled with viscous dampers (VD). During testing the seismic excitations
were applied at increasing amplitudes expressed as a percentage of the peak ground acceler-
ation of a set of natural earthquakes, up to a maximum value corresponding to the attainment
of the design performance criterion: a limit value of the inter-storey drift selected to avoid
yielding of the frame members (thus guarantee repeatability of the test).
A Displacement-Focused Design (DFD) procedure has been proposed to evaluate the
mechanical characteristics of both devices (HD and SMA + VD) has been described. Two dif-
ferent ductility demand (μ D B ) values were considered in the design procedure used for both
EDB systems (μ D B = 10 for HD1 and SMA + VD1; μ D B = 5 for HD2 and SMA + VD2).
Both the design options led to a comparable level of protection for the framed structure
and considerable damping capacity with stable cyclic behaviour for a large number of load
cycles was observed. The seismic response of the experimental model has been analyzed
comparing the effectiveness of the SMA + VD EDBs with the capacity of the HD EDBs
in controlling seismic vibrations. A comparable maximum inter-storey drift and maximum
acceleration between the EDB systems was found. In fact, the seismic response of the model
with both EDB systems showed maximum inter-storey drifts under the reference seismic

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

inputs (100 % of PGA) limited to 0.45 % which was slightly less than the target value (yield
limit 0.5 %).
The experimental outcomes of the two different sets of HD (HD1 and HD2) and SMA + VD
(SMA1 + VD and SMA2 + VD) devices, characterized by slight alterations in the mechanical
properties have confirmed the reliability, effectiveness and robustness of the retrofitting tech-
nique even though during fabrication further changes have been made to the design values
of each device.
The proposed iterative design procedure to evaluate the mechanical characteristics of the
SMA + VD devices showed their capability in achieving the performance objective, at least
for the considered type of VD.
A good agreement between experimental and numerical results obtained by NTHA using
SAP2000 was observed. The effectiveness of the EDB systems in reducing seismic effects
is highlighted when compared to that of the structure without EDBs, achieving an average
reduction of inter-storey drift in the order of 2.5–3 times.
Numerical and experimental outcomes proved the correctness of the design procedure
and also pointed out the fundamental role of the energy dissipation capacity of the VDs in
reducing the seismic vibrations of the structure and improving the performance of the EDBs.
Through optimal design of the SMA-based devices the EDB can recentre the gravity load-
resisting system to its initial configuration at the end of a seismic event with the addition
of the VD improving the energy dissipation capacity during strong motion. This displays
their superior characteristics under seismic load when compared to a HD device even when
accounting for the increased cost of a SMA + VD device.

Acknowledgments The present work has been carried out within the RELUIS 2005–2008 program, research
line no. 7, funded by the Italian Civil Protection Department.

References

ANSYS (2010) Academic mechanical research. Ansys Italia srl, UK

ATC-17-1 (1993) Proceding of seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active control.
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City
Bouc R (1967) Forced vibration of mechanical systems with hysteresis. In: Proceedings of the 4th international
conference on nonlinear oscillation, Prague
Calvi GM, Kingsley GR (1995) Displacement-based seismic design for MDOF bridge structures. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 24(9):1247–1266
Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A (2007) Principles of passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation. IUSS
Press, Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia, Italy
Chopra AK, Goel RK (2001) Direct displacement-based design: use of inelastic vs elastic design spectra.
Earthq Spectra 17(1):47–64
Constantinou MC, Soong TT, Dargush GF (2001) Passive energy dissipation systems for structural design and
retrofit. Monograph series no.1, MCEER, State University of New York at Buffalo, New York
Dolce M, Filardi B, Marnetto R, Nigro D (1996) Experimental tests and applications of a new biaxial elas-
to-plastic device for the passive control of structures. In: Proceedings of the 4th world congress on joint
sealants and bearing systems for concrete structures, Sacramento
Dolce M, Cardone D, Marnetto R, Mucciarelli M, Nigro D, Ponzo FC, Santarsiero G (2004) Experimental
static and dynamic response of a real r/c frame upgraded with sma re-centering and dissipating braces.
In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver
Dolce M, Ponzo FC, Di Cesare A, Ditommaso R, Moroni C, Nigro D, Serino G, Sorace S, Gattulli V, Occhiuzzi
A, Vulcano A, Foti D (2008) Jet-pacs project: joint experimental testing on passive and semiactive control
systems. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake eng, Beijing
EC8-1 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings. European Standard EN 1998-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussel

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

ESD (2008) European strong motion database. European Commission for Community Research, http://www.
isesd.hi.is/ESD_Local/frameset.htm
Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:
979–993
Kelly TE (2001) Base isolation of structures: design guidelines. Holmes Consulting Group Ltd, New Zealand
Kim J, Choi H (2006) Displacement-based design of supplemental dampers for seismic retrofit of a framed
structure. J Struct Eng 132(6):873–883
Kim J, Choi H, Min KW (2003) Performance-based design of added viscous dampers using capacity spectrum
method. J Earthq Eng 7(1):1–24
Lin YY, Tsai MH, Hwang JS, Chang KC (2003) Direct displacement-based for buildings with passive energy
dissipation systems. Eng Struct 25(1):25–37
Lin YY, Chang KC, Chen CY (2008) Direct displacement-based for seismic retrofit of existing buildings using
non liner viscous dampers. Bull Earthq Eng 6:535–552
Mazza F, Vulcano A (2008) Displacement-based design of dissipative braces at a given performance level of
a framed building. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing
Nims DK, Richter PJ, Bachman RE (1993) The use of the energy dissipating restraint for seismic hazard
mitigation. Earthq Spectra 9(3):467–489
NZS 3101 (2006) Part 1- Appendix B: special provisions for the seismic design of ductile jointed precast
concrete structural systems (normative). New Zealand Standard
Pinto A, Taucer F, Dimova S (2007) Pre-normative research needs to achieve improved design guidelines for
seismic protection in the EU. EUR 22858 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
JRC 007741. http://elsa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/JRC37741.pdf
Ponzo FC, Di Cesare A (2009) A Numerical and Experimental assessment of the Robustness of a seismic
upgrading technique for framed buildings based on hysteretic dissipating devices. In: Proceedings of the
11th world conference on seismic isolation, energy dissipation and active vibration control of structures,
Guangzhou
Ponzo FC, Cardone D, Di Cesare A, Blonna B (2008) Evaluation of behaviour factor for Flag-Shaped hysteretic
models. In: International conference on engineering optimization, Rio de Janeiro
Ponzo FC, Di Cesare A, Moroni C, Nigro D, Moccia D, Dolce M (2010a) JET-PACS project: preliminary
results of dynamic tests on steel frame equipped with visco-recentring system. In: Proceedings of the
14th European conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid
Ponzo FC, Di Cesare A, Arleo G, Totaro P (2010b) Protezione sismica di edifici esistenti con controventi
dissipativi di tipo isteretico: aspetti progettuali ed esecutivi. ISSN 1973-7432 Progettazione Sismica
n1/2010:37–60
Priestley MJN (1993) Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering—conflicts between design and reality.
Bull NZ Nat Soc Earthq Eng 26(3):329–341
Priestley MJN (2003) Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering, revisited. IUSS Press, Pavia
Priestley MJN, Kowasky MJ (2000) Direct displacement-based seismic of concrete buildings. Bull N Z Soc
Earthq Eng 33(4):421–442
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press,
Pavia
SAP2000 (2004) Analysis reference manual. Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley
Soong TT, Dargush GF (2007) Passive energy dissipation systems in structural engineering. Wiley, ISBN-13:
9780471968214
TIS SpA TIS brochure, Roma. http://www.tis.it
Wen YK (1976) Method of random vibration of hysteretic systems. J Eng Mech 102:249–263

123