bbelev_mdcms_2007
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
1/35
Analysis and Design of Structures with
Displacement-Dependent DampingSystems
Borislav Belev, Atanas Nikolov and Zdravko Bonev
Faculty of Civil Engineering, UACEG
Sofia, Bulgaria
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
2/35
2
Introduction and essential definitions
Source: Soong, T.T. and G.F. Dargush. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
in Structural Engineering. J. Wiley & Sons, 1997.
STRUCTURAL
PROTECTIVESYSTEMS
PASSIVE ENERGY
DISSIPATION
SYSTEMS
SEMI-ACTIVE
AND ACTIVE
CONTROL
SEISMIC
(BASE)
ISOLATION
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
3/35
Basic Components of a Damping System
1 = Primary frame; 2 = Damper device; 3 = Supporting member
Damping system = damping devices + supporting members (braces, walls, etc.)
3
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
4/35
Classification of FEMA 450(Chapter 15: Structures with damping systems)
The chapter defines the damping system as:
The collection of structural elements that includes: (1) allindividual damping devices, (2) all structural elements or
bracing required to transfer forces from damping devices to
the base of the structure, and (3) all structural elements
required to transfer forces from damping devices to the
seismic-force-resisting system (SFRS).
The damping system (DS) may be external or internal tothe structure and may have no shared elements, some
shared elements, or all elements in common with the
seismic-force-resisting system.
4
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
5/35
Possible configurations
5
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
6/35
Possible configurations (cont.)
6
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
7/35
Types of damper devices (FEMA 273)
Displacement-dependent devices
(metallic dampers, friction dampers)
Velocity-dependent devices
(fluid viscous dampers,solid visco-elastic dampers, etc.)
Other types (shape-memory alloys, self-centering devices,etc.)
7
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
8/35
Expected benefits of application of DS
Added damping (viscous dampers)
Added stiffness and damping (visco-elastic, metallic, friction)
As a result, enhanced control of the interstorey drifts
------------------------------------------
In new structures: Enhanced performance (reduced damage)
Less stringent detailing for ductility (economy)
In existing structures:
Alternative to shear walls (speed-up retrofit)
Correction of irregularities
Supression of torsional response
8
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
9/35
Performance in terms of energy dissipation
The structures differ in the way they manage and distribute thetotal input seismic energyEi
Conventional structures:
energy dissipation through cyclic plastic deformation
ductile response means damage and lossescode-based design does not explicitly evaluateEh/Eidissipation capacity is exhausted after a major quake
Structures with damping systems:
energy dissipation performed by specialized partsprimary structure/frame has mainly gravity load supportingfunction and re-centering function
9
Global energy balance:Ei = Ek+ Es + E +Eh
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
10/35
Advantages of displacement-dependent
damper devices
Relatively cheap
Easy maintenance
Durability
Well-defined and predictable response, so that the
supporting members can be safely designed accordingto the capacity design rules
10
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
11/35
Drawbacks of displacement-dependent
damper devices
Nonlinear response which complicates the analysis/design Relatively stiff and thus not very efficient in weak quakes
Relatively small number of working cycles and potential
low-cycle fatigue problems (metallic dampers only)
Possible variation of the coefficient of friction with time
and degradation of contact surfaces (friction dampers only)
React to static displacements due to temperature effects and
long-term deformations (shrinkage, creep)
11
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
12/35
Parameters influencing the response of a
simple friction-damped frame
Illustration of the damper action
12
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
13/35
Definition of the equivalent
bilinear-hysteresis SDOF-model
13
Us U
Fs
F
O
Kt1
1
Kt
Kp
1 Kf1
Kbd
( )bdtaftss KKhMKUFstrengthYield ==bdft KKK +=
fp KK =
fbd KKSR =
ufMMMstrengthdamperNormalized =
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
14/35
Criteria for efficiency of supplemental damping
(1)
14
Fu & Cherry (1999)
min22 + fd RR
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
15/35
Criteria for efficiency of supplemental damping
(2)
15
Belev (2000)
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
16/35
Numerical evaluation of DS efficiency for a
simple friction-damped frame (PGA=0.35g)
16
Seismic performance index, SPI = f(Rd, Rf, Re)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized damper strength
SPI
El Centro
Taft EWCekmece
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
17/35
Comparison of performance of several
displacement-dependent devicesList of the damper devices under consideration:
TADAS (steel triangular plate damper, analog of ADAS)
FDD (friction damper device, already discussed)
UFP (steel U-shaped Flexure Plate)
Frames used as Primary structure: Steel six-storey frame, originally designed as CBF
RC single-storey portal frame (L=7.6 m, H=5.3 m)
Software tools: SAP2000 Nonlinear (for the steel frame)
DRAIN-2DX (for the RC frame)
EXTRACT (for the RC cross-section analysis)
17
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
18/35
TADAS steel damper
18
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
19/35
Arrangement of UFP or FDD devices within
the primary RC portal frame
19
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
20/35
Layout of original steel frame
Originally designed as CBF for design GA=0.27g and q=2.0
20
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
21/35
Performance comparison of TADAS and
FDD installed in the steel frame
Record PGA scaled
m/s2
to BRACED T-ADAS FDD BRACED T-ADAS FDD T-ADAS FDD Ei Ed Ei Ed
El Centro NS 3.417 0.27g 8.21 8.12 5.35 1351 644 281 45 70 155.1 69.98 146.7 102.3
Taft EW 1.505 0.27g 6.12 8.78 7.27 1153 583 301 38 68 144.6 54.8 156 105.8Cekmece NS 2.296 0.27g 11.20 8.00 7.47 1974 610 310 37 69 123.6 45.58 159.8 110.8Vrancea NS 1.949 0.20g 4.71 24.3 29.2 900 1173 530 69 53 540.7 375.5 314.4 167.2
Energy T-ADAS Energy FDDRoof displacement (cm) Base Shear (kN) Energy Ratio (%)
Roof Displacement
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
ElCentro
NS
TaftEW
Cekmece
NS
Vrancea
NS
RoofDisplacem
ent,cm
BRACED
TADAS
FDD
Base Shear
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
ElCentro
NS
TaftEW
Cekmece
NS
Vrancea
NS
BaseShear,kN
BRACED
TADAS
FDD
Energy Ratio
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ElCentro
NS
TaftEW
Cekmece
NS
Vrancea
NS
Hysteretic/InputEnergy,%
TADAS
FDD
Note: All acceleration histories scaled to PGA=0.27g except Vrancea NC,
which was left with its original PGA=0.20g
21
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
22/35
Performance comparison of UFP and FDD
installed in the RC frame
El Centro NS, PGA = 1.5x0.35g=0.52g
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)
Displaceme
nt(mm)
FDD (1.5) UFP (1.5) Bare frame (1.5)
22
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
23/35
Estimated plastic rotations
in the primary RC frame members
5,34,910,27,87,918,50,52El Centro NS
0,71,94,91,72,76,30,35El Centro NS
Frame
with FDDs
Frame
with UFPs
Bare RC
frame
Frame
with FDDs
Frame
with UFPs
Bare RC
frame
ax. plastic rotation in the girder(mRad)
ax. plastic rotation in the columns(mRad)PGA
(g)
Ground
acceleration
history
5,34,910,27,87,918,50,52El Centro NS
0,71,94,91,72,76,30,35El Centro NS
Frame
with FDDs
Frame
with UFPs
Bare RC
frame
Frame
with FDDs
Frame
with UFPs
Bare RC
frame
ax. plastic rotation in the girder(mRad)
ax. plastic rotation in the columns(mRad)PGA
(g)
Ground
acceleration
history
23
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
24/35
Pushover analysis:Deformed shape and plastic hinges
at roof displacement = 30cm
24
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
25/35
Basic steps of improved analysis procedure1. Conventional modal analysis estimate T1 and {1}
2. Nonlinear static pushover analysis trace the roof
displacement vs. base shear relationship3. Calculate the properties of the Equivalent SDOF-system
4. Nonlinear time-history analysis of the ESDOF-system
find the max. base shear, max. displacement and Ed
/ Ei
5. Determine the performance point of the real MDOF-
structure (in terms of base shear and roof displacement)
6. Check the location of the performance point on the
pushover curve from Step 2
7. Estimate deformations and forces in the members and
dampers corresponding to the performance point
25
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
26/35
Comparison of results for El Centro NS
with PGA=0.27g
1058Difference (%)
50613.58.78
NL Static Pushover + NL
dynamic TH Analysis of the
equivalent SDOF-system
456448.12
Direct partially NL
dynamic TH Analysis
of the MDOF-system
Energy ratioEd/E
i
(%)Base shear (kN)
Lateral roof
displacement (cm)
RESPONSE PARAMETER
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
26
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
27/35
Shake table testing of friction-damped frame
in NCREE, Taiwan (2001)
27
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
28/35
Numerical predictions of the seismic
performance
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, (s)
Displacement,(mm)
Experiment
Numerical
Note 1: Seismic input El Centro NS with PGA=0.2g
Note 2: Modal damping ratios for the first and second modes of vibration assumed 1.5% and
0.5%, respectively, to reflect the findings of previous system identification analyses 28
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
29/35
Conclusions
from the shake-table testing The full-scale testing at the NCREE proved the excellent
capacity of the proposed damping system to significantly
reduce earthquake-induced building vibrations
The seismic performance of such friction-damped frames
could be predicted reasonably well by conventional
software for non-linear time history analysis such asDRAIN-2DX and SAP2000
Dampers supported by tension-only braces seem sensitive
to imperfections - deviations from the design brace slope
influenced the brace stiffness, periods of vibration andseismic response.
29
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
30/35
An example of successful application Seismic protection of industrial facility
Design PGA=0.24g, I=1.00, Soil type=B (stiff soil)
Seismic weight W=7800 kN
Design objective: To reduce the base shear to levels below
1120 kN, for which the existing supporting RCsub-structure
was originally designed Conventional design as CBF system with chevron braces is
inappropriate due to higher base shear level
(2.5x0.24x7800/1.5=3120 kN)
Design solution: use friction dampers with slip capacity of 50-
60 kN per device (total slip capacity per direction 600 kN)
30
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
31/35
Typical FDD arrangement in X-direction
31
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
32/35
Energy dissipation by the damping system
32
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
33/35
Under construction
33
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
34/35
Concluding remarks The passive energy dissipation systems are now a mature
and reliable technology for seismic protection
The metallic and friction dampers offer certain advantages
that can be put to work if a proper system of supporting
members is employed
The analysis and design of such displacement-dependentdamping systems require increased efforts and time but
could be really rewarding
The option of supplemental damping should be considered
at the very early stages of conceptual design and planning
34
-
7/27/2019 BBelev_MDCMS_2007
35/35
Thank you for your attention!