rUTTERWORTH InE'NEMA..

0141-0296(95)00020-8

EngineeringStructures, Vol.

17, No. 5, pp, 372-380, 1995 Copyright 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0141~)296/95 $10.00 + 0.00

Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers

K. L. Shen and T. T. Soong
Civil Engineering Department, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260,
USA

K. C. C h a n g
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

M. L. L a i
The 3M Company, St. Paul MN 55144, USA

This paper summarizes an experimental and analytical study on the seismic retrofit of a 1/3-scale reinforced concrete frame using viscoelastic dampers. After the frame had been damaged in the laboratory under simulated strong earthquake ground motions, two sets of viscoelastic dampers were designed and implemented to the structure, and the frame was subjected to further simulated seismic excitations. Test results show that viscoelastic dampers are very effective in reducing the seismic response of reinforced concrete structures. In addition, the equivalent structural damping ratio can easily be predicted by the modal strain energy method with some modification. Therefore, seismic design of reinforced concrete structures with added viscoelastic dampers can be carried out similarly to conventional structural design procedures.

Keywords: damping, seismic retrofit, concrete frame, energy dissipation device

Viscoelastic (VE) dampers have been shown to be effective energy dissipation devices for structures in wind and in some seismic applications. They have been applied to buildings to act against wind-induced vibrations for more than 20 years 14 Recently, they have been investigated for earthquake resistant design applications. Results from analytical and experimental studies 5,6 during the last few years have shown that VE dampers can be effective in reducing the seismic response of steel structures. It has also been shown that, under simulated strong earthquakes, the VE dampers can still dissipate a significant amount of energy even at high ambient temperatures7. In addition, it was found that the equivalent damping ratio and seismic response of a viscoelastically damped structure can easily and accurately be predicted by using the modal strain energy method and conventional linear dynamic analysis theoriesTM. Accordingly, a simple design procedure consistent with traditional structural design practices has been proposed for the design of structures with added VE dampers 9,1. The conclusions described above have been experimentally verified on steel structures which normally possess relatively low inherent damping so that a moderate increase in structural damping provided by the VE dampers can lead to a significant improvement in the dynamic structural response. For reinforced concrete structures, the inherent damping is normally higher than that of steel structures. The efficacy of using VE dampers in reducing the seismic response of reinforced concrete structures therefore needs to be experimentally verified. In addition, the accuracy of the modal strain energy method in estimating the damping ratio of structures with relatively high inherent damping such as the reinforced concrete structures remains to be further studied. In this paper, these issues are addressed through an experimental and analytical study of a reinforced concrete model frame with added VE dampers in the laboratory.

Description of the test model

The model structure used in this study is a 1/3-scale threestorey, three-bay by one-bay, reinforced concrete frame rep-

372

Seismic behaviour of ,reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers: K. L. Shen et al.
(a)

373

12'-0"

2" Slob (ty~)

(b)

2" S~ob(t~)

4"(typ)

3'-6'

y ~

8'-0"
2-3/4" PL T&B (TYP)

2-'~/4" PL T&B ('l'~q ~)

2'-5 1/2" 7,~:

(-~ LOADCELL (TYP) 4'-0"

2'-5 1/2"

J
I

T ~
131
5' -8"

t
2'-~o"

~LOADCELL(TYP)1'-51 / 7 , ; t

2'-5 I/2" 3""

7.7 7~

1- "1/2"
iI

i
Rigid

2'-5 1/2" BQse

s'-e"

xix
4-

i
X"" 1,__10,,~V4,,?V 5'-8"

.P',F 1'-10" 4"

Figure 1 Main dimensions of Frame. (a) Front view; (b)side view. (Taken from Reference 11)

resenting an interior bay of a typical office building. Figure la and b show its main dimensions. The concrete used in this frame had a targeted strength of 3500 psi, but the final strength of different components had variations due to varying moistures in the mate:rials and varying ambient temperatures at the time of constn~ction. The results of the concrete specimen tests are presenled in Table 1. The slab reinforcing steel used in this model was a gauge 12 galvanized, 2 in square wire mesh. The transverse reinforcing steel (hoop steel) was a gauge 11 black wire. The longitudinal reinforcing steel of beams and columns consisted of annealed D4 and D5 rebars. Table 2 gives the average measured properties of the reinforcing steel used in the model. The frame was originally designed as a test model for an investigation of the seisnfic behaviour of lightly reinforced concrete structures. After damage in previous shaking table tests, it was then retrofitted using the improved concrete jacketing method proposed in Reference 11. This retrofit method

can be outlined as: (i) encasing existing columns in a concrete jacket with additional longitudinal and transverse reinforcement; (ii)posttensioning the longitudinal high strength column reinforcement; and (iii)providing a reinforced concrete fillet in the unreinforced beam-column joints. A more detailed description of the model structure, such as the details of reinforcement, can be found in Reference 11. After the column retrofit, the frame was again tested under 0.2g and 0.3g scaled Taft earthquake ground motions and experienced further damage. The structural properties of this frame before the dampers were added are described in Table 3.

Test set-up and e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o g r a m The VE dampers were then incorporated into the structure as an alternative means of retrofit. In the tests, two dampers

Table 1 Concrete properties of model frame (taken from Reference 11)

Strength of concrete, f'c (ksi) 3.38 4.34 4.96 4.36 3.82 2.92 3.37 4,03 Young's modulus of concrete, Strain value at maximum stress, ~co 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0026 0.0022 0.0015 0.0019 0.0021

Ec
(ksi) 2920 3900 3900 3900 3360 2930 3800 3370

Spalling strain,
Cspall

Locations Lower 1st storey columns Upper 2nd storey columns 1st storey slab Lower 2nd storey column,s Upper 2nd storey columns 2nd storey slab 3rd storey columns 3rd storey slab

0.011 0.017 0.009 0.014 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.012

374

Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers: K. L. Shen et al.

Table2 Reinforcing steel properties of model frame (taken from Reference 11)
Diameter, db (in)
0.109 0.120 0.225 0.252

Bar
12 ga. 11 ga D4 D5

Yielding stress, fv (ksi)

58 56 68 38

Young's modulus of steel, Es (ksi)

29900 29800 31050 31050

Maximum stress, fmax (ksi)

64 70 73 54

Table3 Dynamic properties of model frame

Mass at each floor Frequencies 12.25 (xl0 a kg)

fl = 1.88 Hz f2 = 7.50 Hz f3 = 15.48 Hz

[0.0031 0.0054 0.0065]

only presents the results based on the Taft 0.2g input. The effectiveness of VE dampers under this input is then assessed based on a comparison of these results with those before the dampers were added under the same scaled earthquake.

First mode shape

Design of VE dampers and their properties

The acceleration response spectrum of the scaled earthquake ground motion (Taft 0.2g) used in this study is shown in Figure 3 with damping ratios 5%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Like other earthquakes, response spectra with low damping ratios (5% is a typical value for reinforced concrete structures) show large fluctuations in amplitude with respect to frequency. It implies that, by simply stiffening the structural elements, higher seismic input energy can be transmitted to the structure because of frequency shift, resulting in larger shear and moment demands on members. By applying VE dampers to the structure, however, it is possible to significantly increase the structural damping ratio and consequently reduce the seismic response of the structure over a wide range of structural frequencies. Following the design procedure as shown in Figure 4 9, two sets of VE dampers providing additional damping ratios of 12% and 20% (Types A and B), respectively, to the structure were designed. The stiffness provided by the dampers, k', at each storey was estimated by 9

First mode damping ratio

5.5%

were added to each floor by using diagonal steel braces at each side of the frame (Figure 2). A total of 84 data acquisition channels were used in the set-up to record the displacements, accelerations and internal forces. A shaking table test series for this frame with VE dampers was then conducted using white noise excitations (for structural identification), 0.05g (minor earthquake) and 0.2g (moderate earthquake) scaled Taft earthquake. This paper

k'---k,

2~ (1)

-qo - 2~:

where ~ is the desired damping ratio, ~/o is the loss factor of the dampers, k, is the storey stiffness of the structure without the added dampers, and A=

k'h G'n

(2)

Figure2 (a) Structural test set-up; (b) connection of damper

to brace

where A is the area of the VE material, n is the number of dampers added to each storey, G' is the shear storage modulus of the VE material 12, and h is the thickness of the VE layers, which is estimated on the basis of the allowable strain in the dampers. The design procedure outlined in Figure 4 is almost the same as the conventional one except that the damping ratio is considered as an additional design parameter. The VE dampers were positioned as diagonal braces between adjacent floors in the middle span of the frame as shown in Figure 2. A sketch of the dampers is shown in Figure 5 and their dimensions are listed in Table 4. The dampers with larger areas of VE material layers (Type B) will provide more additional damping to the structure and are, of course,

Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers: K. L. Shen et al.
0.45

375

P+dodof the I~odelwith Da~perB

0.40-

i
F

.~ o.ao
0.25 i 0.200.150.10
. . .

,, ] ~

-~
. . . . . .

o.os.................

0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00 1.50 Period (sec.)

2.00

2.50

Figure 3 Response spectrum of Taft earthquake (0.2g) StrucmralAnalysis I~'~ =_I~ DetermineReqttired Damping Ratio

~Or

III]
Dampertype A

I
Dampertype B

SelectAvailable Damp~Locations

,1

Figure 5 Type A and Type B dampers Table4 Dimensions of VE material layers in damper

SelectDamper
S~fness and loss factor

]
Length (cm) Damper A Damper B
8.89

Width (cm)
6.35

Thickness (cm)
1.27

Calculate DampingRatio Using

17.78

6.35

1.27

ModalStrainEnca'gyMethod

No

Complete

temperature). The area enclosed in each loop represents the energy dissipation by the damper per cycle. Damper test results show that, in general, damper properties are functions of temperature, frequency and strain. However, the hysteresis loops are stable if the damper strain is within 20%, and the excitation frequency is below 3.0 Hz. These findings are consistent with results from previous investigations7. Therefore, linear viscoelasticity theories can be employed to evaluate the stiffness, shear storage modulus and shear loss modulus of the damper lA2. Table 5 summarizes the properties of the damper at 10% strain under the ambient temperature of 22C.

Test results
Figure 4 Flow chart of damper design Itaken from Reference
9)

stiffer. The VE material layers of these dampers are thicker than those used in previous research for steel frames, which allow larger shear deformation under smaller shear strain. The damper properties were determined by testing the damper under sinusoidal excitations at prescribed frequencies, temperatures and strains. Figure 6 shows the damper test set-up and the first 20 cycles of loaddeformation curves of a typical damper (Type A) test at the frequency of 3.0 Hz and 10% strain at about 220C (room

Dynamic structural characteristics Structural properties with and without added dampers were first identified by shaking table tests using white noise excitations with PGA of 0.025g. The important dynamic characteristics of the structure, such as frequencies, mode shapes and the stiffness matrix were obtained based on the acceleration transfer functions between the base input and the response output at each floor. The equivalent damping ratios were then estimated using the half-power (bandwidth) method based on these functions. Figure 7 shows the transfer functions at the roof of the frame for

376

Seismic behaviour o f reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers: K. L. Shen et al.
4

3.5

.............. i~i

......... ............... t ............ i ....... i ....... :.::~ivyp::i

........... :

3'

2,5"

7
1.5-

1"

0.5"

. . . . . . .

~ : T ~ ................. ~ ............

~'~,2 .............. !. . . . . . . . ~............. '~........... '........... t ........... ~

....
.........

(a)

1o 12 Frequency

1(

IS (Hz)

IS

20

22

24

28

(b)
5.00 4.00 3,00

Figure 7 Transfer functions of frame at roof Table6 Frequencies and damping ratios of damped and undamped frame
Undamped Damper A
2.52 17%-18%

Damper B
3.02 22%-23%

2.00

1.oo
o 0.00 o ~, - 1 . 0 0 -2.00

Frequency (Hz) Damping ratio

1.86
5%-7%

737.09 -526.11
-3.00 -4.00 -5,00 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 Displacement 0.05 (cm) 0.I0 0.15

65.72" (kN/cm) 356.70

Ks= -526.11

893.87 -439.44

65.72 -439.44 for Type A and 863.31 -539.29

Figure 6 Damper: (a) test set-up; (b) first 20 loops from actuator test for Type A damper Table5 Damper properties
Stiffness (kN/cm) Loss factor Shear storage Shear loss modulus (MPa) modulus (MPa)

29.84 (kN/cm) 416.20

Ks= -539.29

982.57 -484.62

29.84 -484.62 for Type B. The first-mode shape is ~l = [0.0034 for Type A, and ~l = [0.0032 0.0053 0.0053

Type A
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz 12.19 16.23 18.39 22.40 23.67 22.26 29.94 36,09 41.10 43,46 1.302 1.230 1.318 1.267 1.261 1.364 1.250 1.243 1.182 1.248 1.372 1.827 2.068 2.517 2.661 1.255 1.682 2.027 2.310 2.448 1.786 2.248 2.723 3.192 3.358 1.710 2.103 2.523 2.730 2.972

0.0065]

0.0066]

Type B

the two different types of dampers. It can be seen that the dynamic response of the viscoelastically damped frame is dominated by its first mode of vibration. Table 6 gives a summary of the identification results in the frequency and damping ratio of this mode. The first-mode frequency and damping ratio of the structure before the VE dampers were added are also listed in the table for comparison. The stiffness matrix, Ks, of the frame with the added dampers has the values

for Type B. The mode shapes are normalized with respect to the mass matrix. It is clear from the identification tests that the VE dampers provided a significant increase in the damping ratio of the frame, from about 5% to about 18% and 23%, respectively, by using Type A and Type B dampers. In addition to the increase in structural damping, the natural frequencies of the structures were also increased due to the additional stiffness provided by the dampers. Structural identifications were carried out for this frame at three stages: (1) before the dampers were added, (2) after the dampers were added; and (3)after the dampers were removed from the frame. A comparison of the identification results at stages 1 and 3 shows that the frame did not experience further damage when the VE dampers were used as an alternative means of retrofit.

Seismic behaviour o1: reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers: K. L. Shen et al.
20,00

377

(a)
!
4 .............-~......

=
~..............

15.00 10.00
eL

..............,........................

..............i.............,............;.................... ~.............
..............~ ;.............. .i...........~

5.00

' ..........s..........

a
........... J i...............

0.00

-5.00

Domper
i

-10.00
-1500 -20.00

~ l l l J

;~'~----.--

D a m p ~r A

.............. i i .i.. i i i ;........ i~ i ! i "i l *i~ ........... l ; ~'........... i ;'i............. i

--Q80
--0.40 --0.20 -0.00 Story

l~l~-~Damper
0 0.5 1 i

B i

i drift t*~)
0.~.0 0.40 0.00
- 0.80

.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Relat.i~e displacement. (cm) Figure8 Comparison of maximum relative displacements, with and without dampers
Seismic structural response The effectiveness of VE dampers when added to the reinforced concrete frame was evaluated based on the shaking tables tests under the 0.2g Taft earthquake. The maximum relative displacement and interstorey drift of each floor are compared in Figures 8 and 9, with and without the added dampers. The reductions in the relative displacement are about 52% for Type A and 68% for Type B, respectively, while they are 48% and 65% in maximum interstorey drifts. A comparison of the Type A and Type B damper results shows that the larger dampers provide more damping to the structure and therefore have larger reduction in response. Figure 10 shows the relationship between the shear force, in the concrete columns and the interstorey drift at the first floor, from which a significant reduction of column shear can be observed (53% and 63% for Types A and B, respectively). Since the areas enclosed by the curves indicate energy dissipation through inelastic deformation of the columns, a decrease in this area due to the added dampers shows the reduction of the inelastic deformation demand on the structure. Based on the energy concept, using VE dampers as energy absorbers to protect the reinforced concrete frame against earthquake ground motions can be effectiw; as can be seen in this experimental study.

2000
(b)

15.00' 10.00 ' 5.00 '

..............~..............,............. i. . . . . . . . . i ............. ~ ............ .............

~" a
w

0 . 0 O " ..............~..............~.....................

~ ............4 ......... .............

i ................... j -5.00 ..............

-10.00

i............. !..............

-1500 -20.00

i ;

i;
0B0

-0.80 "--0~40 " -0.20 " -0.00 " 0.20 ' 040 Stnr7 drirc ( ~

0.50

20.00
i

(c)

15oo 10.00
eL
.............. ,..............;.............. ~............~ ............. 4 ............ .4 .............

500 0.00

-5.00.
-10.00 -15,00
-20.00

.............i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.............. ; .............. ; . . . . . . . . . . . " ............ -' ............. -"............. ...................................................................................................

-0,o

"-o;,o

'-0~2o ' -o;oo ' o.2o ' oio

d z >,2

story drift. (in)

' o.eo

080

Figure 10 Base column shear of frame, with and without dampers. (a)without damper; (b)with damper Type A; (c)with damper Type B

Analytical study
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Drift (ore) Figure 9 Comparison of maximum interstorey drifts, with and without dampers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
In this section, an analytical procedure for predicting the damping ratio for the viscoelastically damped frame is developed and is compared with the experimental results obtained herein. The theory employed is based on the modal strain energy method.

378

Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers: K. L. Shen et al.
F

67.24 -33.62

0.0 (kN/cm) 33.62

Ko = -33.62
0.0
X

67.24 -33.62 -33.62

for Type A, and 126.72 -63.36 0.0 (kN/cm) 63.36

Figure 11 Damping evaluation for SDOF system

Ko= -63.36
0.0

126.72 -63.36 -63.36

As an energy dissipator, the equivalent structural damping ratio of a viscoelastically damped structure can be evaluated using an energy approach. For a single-degreeof-freedom structure, it can be estimated by 13

E~ - 4 7rEins

(3)

where Ed is the dissipated energy per cycle, E,~ is the maximum strain energy of the structure (Figure 11), and is the damping ratio of the structure. This equation can be generalized to multi-degree-of-freedom structures6'1 by considering ~ as a modal damping ratio, and Ea and Eros as, respectively, the dissipated energy and maximum strain energy associated with each vibrational mode. For the ith mode

E~ 5 = 47rE~,,

(4)

for Type B. As mentioned above, the reinforced concrete frame was damaged before the dampers were added. This damage resulted in inelastic behaviour of the beams and columns whose properties were difficult to predict analytically. Therefore, the stiffness matrix, Ks, and the mode shapes used in this study are obtained from the structural identification mentioned in the previous section. The use of equation (5) results in damping ratios of 13.5% and 18% of critical for this frame with added dampers of Types A and B, respectively. These values are close to the desired damping ratios (12% and 20%, respectively) upon which the damper sizes were estimated, but they differ from those obtained from the identifications as shown in Table 6. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the structural damping ratio ~ in equation (5) is only contributed by the added dampers. Therefore, it is only valid for the structures which generally have small inherent damping. For a reinforced concrete frame, the following modification is thus necessary to take into account the original inherent damping of the structure. The free vibration of a multi-degree-of-freedom system is governed by MS + Ck + Kx = 0 (7)

Based on this definition, the damping ratio of the ith mode can also be represented in terms of modal strain energy7 as

no 4~Kz,4,,
~ ' - 2 ,EKe,/,,

(5)

where x is the displacement vector and M, C, K are the mass matrix, damping matrix and stiffness matrix of the system (real), respectively. Equation (7) can be rewritten as, by suppressing the Ck term 11 MS + K x = 0 (8)

where Ko is the stiffness matrix resulting from the damper contribution only, Ks is the total stiffness matrix of the structure including the dampers, ~/o is the loss factor of the dampers, and the vector (~i is the ith modal shape vector. In this study, only the first-mode damping ratio was predicted by equation (5). The loss factor and stiffness of an individual damper are obtained experimentally (Table 5) with linear interpolation, and matrix Ko is formed according to the damper configuration. Generally, it has the form

where the stiffness matrix ~" is now complex since the structure contains viscoelastic dampers. If matrix K is written as
D

K = KR +jKI
the following equation is obtained oJ~2(1 + Jn,) = dpTMa~---~ +J ~

(9)

-nko

(10)

~=

~. 2nko . . . . . . 2nko -nko -nko nko

(6)

where ko = ko cos20, ko is the stiffness of an individual damper, 0 is the angle of the brace, and n is the number of dampers used at each floor. In this study, this matrix has the values

where KR and KI are the real and imaginary parts of K, respectively, and ~biis the complex mode shape corresponding to the ith frequency of the system. An approximate value for the loss factor ~/i can be calculated by approximating the complex mode shape by the real vector 4,i~4, which is just the real part of that mode shape. Making this approximation in equation (10), the loss factor is expressed by

Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers: K. L. Shen et al.

379

~Kl~)i
where

( 11)

KR =K~ +K~ =Ks

(12)

The imaginary part of the; stiffness matrix, K1, is assumed to be, according to the linear theory,

KI = ~TcKc + ~oKD

(13)

where Kc and ~/c are the original stiffness matrix and loss factor of the reinforced concrete frame, respectively, and Ko is the stiffness matrix contributed by the added dampers. Substituting equation (13) into equation (11), the damping ratio of the reinforced concrete frame with the added dampers can be shown to be

COD - 2~c) ~)TKD~i

~i = ~C +
or

dpTKschi

(14)

pers are very effective in reducing the seismic response of reinforced concrete frame even though inherent damping of the structure is high. The reduction of inelastic deformation demand on the frame can also be clearly observed. From the concept of energy dissipation, this experimental study has proved that the VE damper can be an alternative to retrofitting for reinforced concrete buildings. The modal strain energy method which works well for steel structures also works for reinforced concrete structures, but a modification should be made since its inherent damping is not usually negligible. The conclusions drawn for steel structures can therefore be extended to reinforced concrete structures. A formula to predict damping for viscoelastically damped reinforced concrete frames has been proposed in this paper. The results show good agreement with the experiments. The design procedure for the VE damper proposed in Reference 9 can be used with the modified formula for reinforced concrete structures, which is basically the same as the conventional procedure except that the damping ratio is considered as an additional design parameter.

Acknowledgments
(,7o - 2 ~ ) 4,~,Ko,

~, = ~5~+

(15)

where ~c is the original damping ratio of the reinforced concrete frame. The above equation includes contributions from the added dampers and the damping of the reinforced concrete frame itself. Table 7 compares the experimental results and that obtained from equation (15). It is seen that the damping ratios calculated by the modified formula are very close to the experimental values for both Type A and Type B damper cases. Since the frequency of the structure is much easier to obtain than the stiffness matrix, Ks, in equation (14), equation (15) is usually preferred in applications. Approximating the complex mode shape by its real part in the modal strain energy method appears to be accurate for the system with small damping. The experimental study discussed herein shows that this is a good approximation for damping ratios up to 20% of critical. The formula used for the damper stiffness calculation, equation (1), can then be modified as

The frame and the set-up used in this experimental study were provided by Professor A. M. Reinhorn. His technical assistance, together with that of Dr. J. Bracci, Mr. M. Pitman and Dan Walch with the experimental program, is gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research under Grant NCEER-91-513 lB. The authors are also grateful to Dr. E. J. Nielsen of the 3M company for technical and financial support, and for supplying the viscoelastic dampers used in the experiments.

References
1 Mahmoodi, P. 'Design and analysis of viscoelastic vibration dampers for structures', Proc. INOVA-73 World Innovative Week Conf., E. D. Eyrolles, Paris, 1974, pp. 25-39 2 Mahmoodi, P. 'Structural dampers', J. Struct. Div., ASCE 1972, 95 (ST8), 1661-1672 3 Keel, C. J. and Mahmoodi, P. 'Designing of viscoelastic dampers for the Colombia Center Building', in Building motion in wind (Eds E. N. Isyumov and T. Tschanz) ASCE, New York, 1986, pp. 66-82 4 Mahmoodi, P. and Keel, C. J. 'Performance of structural dampers for the Columbia Center Building', in Building motion in wind (Eds E. N. lsyumov and T. Tschanz) ASCE, New York, 1986, pp. 83-106 5 Lin, R. C., Liang, Z., Soong, T. T. and Zhang, R. H. 'An experimental study on seismic behaviour of viscoelasticaUy damped structures', Engng Struct. 1991, 13 (1), 75-84 6 Zhang, R. H., Soong, T. T. and Mahmoodi, P. Seismic response of steel frame structures with added viscoelastic dampers', Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 1989, 18 (3), 389-396 7 Chang, K. C., Soong, T. T., Oh, S.-T. and Lai, M. L. 'Seismic response of 2/5 scale structure with added viscoelastic dampers, Technical Report NCEER-91-0012, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York, 1991 8 Aiken, I. D., Kelly, J. M. and Mahmoodi, P. 'The application of viscoelastic dampers to seismically resistant structures', Proc. Fourth U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engng, 20-24 May 1990, Palm Spring, CA (Vol. 3) 9 Chang, K. C., Soong, T. T., Lai, M. L. and Nielsen, E. J. 'Viscoelastic dampers as energy dissipation devices for structural application', Int. Workshop on Recent Developments in Base-Isolation Techniques for Building, Tokyo, 27-30 April 1992, pp. 175-186 10 Soong, T. T. and Lai, M. L. 'Correlation of experimental results and predictions of viscoelastic damping of a model structure', Proc. Damping "91, San Diego, CA 1991, pp. FCB.1-FCB.9 11 Johnson, C. D. and Kienholz, D. A. 'Finite element prediction of damping in structures with constrained viscoelastic layers', AIAA J. 1982, 20 (9), 1251-1284

k'- 2(~-)~c,~
7 o - 2~

(16)

Conclusions
Experimental studies were conducted on a 1/3-scale reinforced concrete frame with added VE dampers under seismic excitations. The effectiveness of these dampers has been clearly demonstrated. It has been shown that VE damTable 7 Comparison of damping ratios between experiment and model strain energy method

Damper A
Test Modified formula

Damper B 22%-23% 22%

17%-18% 18%

380

Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frame with added viscoelastic dampers: K. L. Shen et al.
tems in terms of energy concepts', J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1962, 34 (7), 954-957 14 Clough, R. W. and Penzien, J. Dynamics of structures, McGraw-Hill, New York 1975

12 Bracci, J. M. 'Experimental and analytical study of seismic damage and retrofit of lightly reinforced concrete structures in low seismicity zones', Phl) Dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, State University Of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, 1992 13 Ungar, E. E. and Kerwin Jr., E. M. 'Loss factors of viscoelastic sys-