Proceedings of International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanics and Materials (ICRAMM-2016)

December 17-18, 2016, VSSUT Burla, (Paper No. ..)

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF ENERGY DISSIPATION DEVICES IN VERTICALLY

IRREGULAR BUILDINGS
Subhransu Sekhar Swain, Assistant Executive Engineer, Odisha Works Department, subhransu12930@yahoo.com
Sanjaya Kumar Patro, Professor in Civil Engineering Department, VSSUT, Burla, litusanjay@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT: The poor performance of the vertically irregular buildings is commonly observed during an earthquake. The
effectiveness of the force control approach of earthquake resistant design, i.e. forces to be resisted by structural members are
reduced by reducing the force due to use of some supplemental energy dissipation devices, in the case of these vertically
irregular buildings when subjected to a seismic excitation has been discussed in this paper.
An analytical framework has been developed to evaluate the effectiveness of energy dissipation devices, such as friction
damper, viscoelastic damper and viscous damper, in reducing the seismic response of multi storey building frames. Building
frames have been modelled with vertical irregularities at different storey levels of the building. The El Centro ground motion
record has been used to evaluate the response of the vertically irregular building when subjected El Centro ground motion. The
structural response assessments using this ground motion represent the likely response of the structure under the range of
expected ground motion characteristics. Response parameters like inter storey drift, floor displacement and absolute
acceleration are evaluated for example systems. It has been observed that the response parameters are reduced for the vertically
irregular building with dampers when compared to i) free frame or ii) braced frame buildings, which indicates the effectiveness
of the energy dissipation devices in reducing the energy demand of the example vertically irregular structures considered.
INTRODUCTION
The current trend of urbanization is witnessing a stiff rise in
construction of building infrastructure. Particularly in the
developing countries like India the construction of low rise
and high rise reinforced concrete buildings have been
increased immensely. As planar space is limited, hence the
vertical growth is gaining attention. In Tier-II cities of India,
where population intensity is less, construction of
low/medium rise building complexes are gaining popularity
in comparison to high rise towers. But, be it high rise towers
or low rise building complexes, due to paucity of land,
buildings often requires open ground floors for parking and
to provide open access at ground level. Open spaces in other
floors for accommodating a meeting hall, reception lobby or
any other open space which have no infill are also seen in
these high rise buildings. Again, as the analysis and design of
these buildings are generally done with commercially
available designing tools which analyses and designs the
reinforced concrete frames without considering the structural
effect of infill walls, hence the design of these buildings often
excludes the structural effect of the masonry infill wall,
existing in the floors above. However, in reality, the existence
of masonry infill walls in the floors above and its
nonexistence at the open story level of an RC frame,
introduces sudden incoherence in the lateral strength and
stiffness along the height of the frame, known as the vertical
irregularity. Again, as the open floor becomes less stiff
against lateral load (e.g. Earthquake) compared to upper
floors in absence of masonry infill walls, these building acts
as soft story buildings. As per Indian standard code of
practice a soft storey is one in which the lateral stiffness is

less than 70% of that in the storey above or less than 80% of
the average lateral stiffness of the three storeys above [1].
Studies of Bhuj earthquake [2] indicate that about 2350 G+4
and G+10 storey buildings having soft storey at the ground
floor suffered structural damage in urban areas within 250 km
of the epicenter. A large number of reinforced concrete
buildings in urban areas near the epicenter collapsed whereas
most of the buildings experienced structural damage resulting
in numbers of causalities. Such poor performance of the soft
storey buildings during seismic activity, always advocated
against the construction of such soft ground storey buildings.
Increasing construction of multi storied buildings with a soft
ground story, however, indicates that the practical need of an
open space to provide car parking space far overweighs the
advice issued by the engineering community. Hence the need
for strengthening the buildings with the unavoidable soft
storeys has gathered the attention of researchers.
Several researchers have addressed the problem of soft storey
from different angles in the recent past. One approach to
address the problem is in (a) raising the stiffness of the open
storey to at least 50% of the stiffness of the storey above,
such that the soft storeys are avoided, and (b) open storeys
are to be provided with sufficient lateral strength. The
potential measures to accomplish the above are (i) by
providing stiffer columns in the open storey, and (ii) by
providing a concrete service core in the building. By
providing stiffer columns, the lateral drift demand on the first
storey columns is reduced, however the provision of service
core results in effective reduction of drift as well as the
strength demands on the first storey columns [3]. Structural

Subhransu Sekhar Swain & Sanjaya Kumar Patro

performance of low-to-midrise RC buildings of several
configurations highlighting on the dynamic properties,
internal energy, and the magnitude and dissemination of
earthquake load has also been deliberated [4]. Numerous
idealized prototypes were made to characterize different
structural arrangements, including pure frame, frames with
fully or partially infilled panels, and frames with a bottom
level soft story, and assessments were made on the
fundamental periods, base shear, and strain energy absorbed
by the soft storey level among these structures.
From a seismic point of view, soft story is found to be
dangerous, because the superstructure of the soft storey
building performs like a quasi-rigid body, while a large
rotation ductility demand concentrates on the extreme
sections of the columns of the ground floor [5]. It is also
observed from the spectral response of SDOF frames with
nonlinear infills that, in the first large post-cracking period,
infills moderate the spectral translations and forces through
their high damping, regardless of their apparent stiffening
effect on the system [6].
The Indian seismic code requires members of the soft storey
to be designed for 2.5 times the seismic storey shears and
moments, obtained without considering the effects of
masonry infill in any storey. As the member level
strengthening techniques (e.g. Concrete jacketing, steel
caging, steel jacketing and FRP jacketing etc.) may not be
viable economically to improve the structural performance,
during earthquakes, of the deficient reinforced concrete
structures beyond a certain limit, the structural performance
of this type of deficient structures can be enhanced by
reducing the seismic structural requirement through the
supplemental energy dissipation mechanisms. Recently,
attempts have been made by researchers for the development
of the perception of energy dissipation or supplemental
damping into a workable technology, and a number of these
devices, such as friction dampers, viscoelastic dampers,
viscous dampers, metallic dampers, aluminium shear links
[7]and bracing elements have been installed in structures for
passive energy dissipation throughout the world[8]. However,
very limited research has been done in strengthening of soft
storeyed reinforced concrete framed building using passive
energy dissipation devices. The effectiveness of such passive
energy devices, i.e. sliding friction damper, viscoelastic
damper and viscous damper, in improving the seismic
performance of the soft storey reinforced concrete frame
building has been investigated analytically in this study.
MATHEMATICAL FORM11ULATION
The mathematical formulation of multi-degree-of-freedom
(MDOF) frame structure with Slotted Bolted connection type
friction device mounted on Chevron brace proposed by
Swain et al [9] has been followed in this investigation for
investigating the effectiveness of friction damper. The same
mathematical formulation has been extended to use for other
dampers like viscous damper and viscoelastic damper. The
structure is considered as a two-dimensional (2-D) shear

building. Two degrees-of-freedom are present on each floor,

with reference to the horizontal displacement of the storey
and the brace with damper relative to the ground, as shown in
Fig 1(a). Simple friction energy-dissipation dampers with
slotted bolted connection (SBC) has been considered, where
the sliding plate within the vertical plane is connected to the
centerline of beam soffit as shown in Fig. 1 (b). The sliding
plate having slotted holes is sandwiched between two
clamping plates. The clamping plates are rigidly mounted on
the Chevron brace and connected to the sliding plate through
pretension bolts. The slotted holes facilitate the sliding of the
sliding plate over the frictional interface at constant
controllable pretension force. Two lumped mass models, one
for the free frame structure and another for the brace with
damper, are required to idealize the dynamic behavior of the
structure. As shown in Fig. 1 (c) a Viscoelastic damper
usually consists of a copolymer viscoelastic layer bonded
with steel plate. The steel flanges shown in the Fig. 1(c) are
connected to the roof beam and the center plate is connected
to the chevron brace such that the displacement is allowed
along the horizontal direction, i.e. when structural vibration
induces relative motion between outer flange and center
plate, shear deformation in Viscoelastic damper occurs and
hence energy dissipation takes place. A typical arrangement
of viscous fluid damper with run through rod design
operating on the principle of fluid flow through orifices is
shown in Fig.1(d). In this device one end of the damper is
connected to the chevron brace while the other end is
connected to the roof/structural element. When the damper is
subjected to compressive force, due to the resultant pressure
difference between the two chambers, silicone oil (Fluid)
starts to flow through an orifice in the piston head and hence,
the energy input is converted into heat, which disperses into
the atmosphere. In case of viscoelastic and viscous damper
the DOF has been reduced to one degree of freedom system
considering the very high value of the sliding coefficient
between the surfaces throughout the time history response.
Tthe generalized governing equations of motion for structure
with dampers, in matrix form can be given as:

&
& Cu& Ku Mru&
&g
Mu

(1)
where M, C, and K are the mass, damping and stiffness
matrices, respectively, r is the force-influence vector, u
represents the displacement degrees of freedom relative to the
base of the structure and ug is the ground displacement. The
matrices are given as:
Mf

M bd

u f

, r
u

bd

C f Cbd 2 Cbd 3
K f K bd 2 K bd
3
,
,K

T
T
Cbd1
K bd 1
(Cbd 3 )
(K bd 3 )

,C

r f
, r f 1, rbd 1

rbd

(2)
where

Seismic performance of energy dissipation devices in vertically irregular buildings

a)Damper added building MDOF system with damper

c) Details of Viscoelastic Damper

d) Details of Viscous damper

b) Details of friction damper
Fig 1. Schematic diagram of building with supplemental damping systems

mbd 1 0 0
M bd 0 O 0 ,
0 0 mbdN
cbd 1 0 0
Cbd 1 0 O 0 , Cbd 2
0 0 cbdN

0 cbd 2 0
cbd 2 0 0

0 O c 0 , C 0 0 O c
bdN
bd 3

bdN ,
0 0 0

0
0 0

kbd 1 0 0
K bd 1 0 O 0 , K bd 2
0 0 kbdN

0
kbd 2 0 0
0 kbd 2
0 O k 0 ,K
0 0 O k

bdN
bd 3
bdN

0 0 0
0 0
0

(3)
In the above equations, Mf, Cf and Kf are the NN mass,
damping and stiffness matrices of the structure excluding the
bracing members, Mbd, Cbd1, Cbd2, Cbd3, Kbd1, Kbd2 and Kbd3 are

Subhransu Sekhar Swain & Sanjaya Kumar Patro

NN equivalent mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the
brace with dampers, respectively. The damping property of
the free frame (excluding the brace with damper) structure
may be different from the same of the brace with damper. So
the complete structure is non-classical damped system. The
non-classical damping matrix [C] for the structure is
developed by first assessing the classical damping matrix for
the free frame, [Cf], based on the damping ratios appropriate
for the structure [10] and then adding with equivalent
damping matrix [Cbd] for structure with damper), which
considers damping contribution of both the bracing and the
damper. Similarly, the non-classical stiffness matrix [K] for
the structure is developed by first assessing the classical
stiffness matrix for the free frame, Kf and then adding with
equivalent stiffness matrix Kbd for structure with the
dampers), which considers contribution of both the bracing
and damper.
The structure and the brace DOFs at any storey for the
structure with damper, satisfy the following conditions during
the time history:
&
&f u
&
&bd
u
u&f u&bd
u f ubd

(4)
To achieve the above condition the sliding coefficient
between the interfaces considered for the friction damper in
the mathematical formulation is considered as infinity. The
structure and the brace together are considered as one degree
of freedom at each floor.
The equivalent stiffness coefficient and damping coefficient
of the structure which considers contribution of both damper
and specified bracing as assumed in this investigation [10]
are presented below:
K bdi

Cbdi

b d kb kd ( b kb d kd ) 2 b d 2 kb cd 2
( b kb d kd ) 2 2 d 2cd 2

b 2 d kb2cd

( b kb d kd ) 2 2 d 2cd 2

(5)
(6)

Here,
Kbdi = Equivalent stiffness of the supplemental damping
system (Viscoelastic and Viscous damper) with brace and
damper in each storey.
Cbdi = Equivalent damping coefficient of the supplemental
damping system (Viscoelastic and Viscous damper) with
brace and damper in each storey.

d = Attachment coefficients
For Chevron or cross bracing b = 2cos2 and d = 1.
and

= angle of bracing with reference to the horizontal surface

kb = Axial Brace Stiffness

kd = Axial damper Stiffness
= frequency of the system

cd = Damping coefficient of the damper

The damping properties such as damper stiffness and
damping coefficients for the viscoelastic damper are obtained
from the following expression:
kd

AG
AG
and cd
h
h

(7)

where,
A = Area of the damper
G = Shear storage modulus
G = Shear loss modulus
= frequency of the system
h = damper thickness
However in case of the viscous damper the damper stiffness
is considered to be negligible. The damping coefficient of the
viscous damper is assumed to be 4.0 kN sec/m for calculation
of the equivalent damping stiffness and damping coefficient
of the damping system, Kbd and Cbd.
SOLUTION PROCEDURE
For obtaining the numerical solution of these equations
appropriate non-linear solution techniques can be adopted.
Among the many methods one of the most effective is the
step-by-step direct integration method. This problem is
solved by modification of step-by-step linear acceleration
method. The precision of the result, during the solution of
such nonlinear equation, is highly related to the phase
alteration of motion i.e. from non sliding phase to sliding
phase and vice versa. For obtaining accuracy in the solution
process, the selected time interval is subdivided, whenever
change in phase of motion is anticipated. These can possible
for single point sliding system. But for multi-point sliding
system this will be very complex. In this solution process, the
response is evaluated at successive increment t (10 -6 second)
of time for computational convenience. The condition of
dynamic equilibrium is established at the commencement of
each interval.
The equation of motion in matrix form at a particular i th time
step can be divided into two equations: (1) equation at the
degree-of-freedom on the level of floor, and (2) equation at
the degree-of-freedom on the level of damper. From the
known response at the ith time step, the response at i+1 time
step can be computed. It is initially assumed that the
nonsliding-sliding conditions in the damper at instant i are the
same at i+1. The complete solution consists of three nested
iteration
loops
with
coupling
quantities
&
&
u
,
u
,
u
,
u
and
F
and the estimated
f ,i 1 d ,i 1 f ,i 1 d ,i1
f ,i 1
unbalanced frictional resistance as well as estimated

acceleration F f ,st ,i 1 temp , u f ,i 1 temp , u d ,i 1 temp at step

i+1. Initially at i+1 floor displacement, damper displacement,

floor velocity, damper velocity with assumed initial estimated
quantities of floor and damper acceleration can be obtained.
The new estimated floor acceleration can be obtained from
the equation at the degree-of-freedom on the level of floor,
which is first iteration loop. In second iteration unbalanced

Seismic performance of energy dissipation devices in vertically irregular buildings

resistance will be found from equation of motion
corresponding to degree-of-freedom at the level of damper.
Through the third iteration, brace with damper acceleration
can be calculated from the equation at the degree-of-freedom
on the level of damper. Iterations will continue until the
convergence to the tolerance error (10-6) between new and old
estimated quantities. Thus, after the fulfillment of the
established conditions for the above iteration loops, the
sliding-non sliding condition at each floor level must be
checked before going to the next instant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXAMPLE STRUCTURE
Three four-storey reinforced concrete frames i.e. having, i)
Free ground floor (Ground Floor as Soft story denoted by
FG), ii) Free first floor (First floor as Soft story, denoted by
FF) and iii) Free second floor (Second Floor as Soft storey,
denoted by FS), as shown in Fig.2 has been considered for
evaluating the seismic performance of dampers in the
vertically irregular buildings based on the above
mathematical modelling. All the frames have been analysed
for i) free frame (FF), ii) Frame with bracing (FB), iii) frame
with friction damper(FFD), iv) frame with viscoelastic
damper (FVID) and v) frame with viscous damper(FVD).
Friction joints with slotted holes are positioned in such a
manner that sliding plate can be mounted vertically as shown
in Fig. 4(d). The placement of sliders in vertical plane of the
beam ensures that only the pretension force controls the
normal load on the sliding surface. The braces with damping
dampers exhibit highly non-linear behaviour. The effect of
energy dissipation due to viscous damping in the brace
members is normally very small compared to the work done
by friction sliding. So the viscous damping in the brace has
been neglected. The structural damping ratios of the freeframe have been taken as 5% of its critical damping. The four
storey reinforced concrete shear frame buildings [11] is
idealised as four degrees of freedom lumped mass model
system. Example building parameters are evaluated as below
based on the preliminary data presented in Table 1.
Calculation of Mass of the Floors for Free ground floor
frame:
Mass on the Roof: mf4 = Mass of the infill + Mass of the
columns + Mass of the beams in the longitudinal and
transverse direction + Mass of the floor + Imposed load of
the floor = 53485 Kg
Mass of the 2nd and 3rd floor: mf2 and mf3
Mass of the infill + Mass of the columns + Mass of the beams
in the longitudinal and transverse direction + Mass of the
floor + Imposed load of the floor =92954 Kg
Mass of the first floor: mf1
Mass of the infill + Mass of the columns + Mass of the beams
in the longitudinal and transverse direction + Mass of the
floor + Imposed load of the floor = 68871 Kg
Similarly, the masses for other frames may be calculated to
be
Mass of the Floors for Free first floor frame:

mf1= mf2 = 68871 Kg; mf3 = 92954 Kg and mf4 = 53485 Kg

and Mass of the Floors for Free Second floor frame:
mf1= 92954 Kg ; mf2 = mf3 = 68871 Kg and mf4 = 53485 Kg
Calculation of stiffness of the Floors:
12 EI
Column stiffness of the storey = 3 = 11880.79 KN/m
l
Total lateral stiffness of each storey
= 4 x Column stiffness of the storey
= 47523.16 kN/m

Table 1 Assumed Preliminary data required for analysis

of example soft storey building
Sl
Details
Assumed in Current Problem
no.
1.
Type of structure
Multi storey Rigid jointed
plane frame (Special RC
Moment resisting frame)
2.

Four,(G + 3)

3.

Number
of
Storeys
Floor Height

4.

Infill wall

5.

Imposed load

250mm
thick
including
plaster in longitudinal and
150mm
in
transverse
direction
3.5 KN/m2

6.

Materials

7.

Size of Columns

8.

Size of Beams

9.

Depth of Slab

10.

Specific weight
of RCC
Specific weight
of infill
Elastic Modulus
of Concrete
Elastic Modulus
of Mortar

11.
12
13

3.5m

Concrete (M 20) and

Reinforcement (Fe 415)
250mm x450 mm
250mm
x 400mm
in
longitudinal and 250mm
x350mm
in
transverse
direction
100 mm
25 kN/m3
20 kN/m3
22360 N/mm
13800 N/mm

Stiffness of the infill: (Considering Diagonal strut Model):

1
Width of the strut(W) = x h 2 l 2
2
4
4

E f Ic h

Ef Ibl

Where, h
and
l

2 2E m t sin2
E m t sin2

Subhransu Sekhar Swain & Sanjaya Kumar Patro

(a) Ground floor as Soft Storey

(b) First floor as Soft Storey

(c) Second floor as Soft Storey

Fig.2 Arrangement of soft storey frames i.e. softstorey free frame, frame with bacings and frame with
Dampers

h
tan 1 35o , Ic = 1.8984 x10-3 m4, Ib = 1.3333 x10-3 m4 ,
l

h = 0.611 and l = 1.455

Width of the strut (W) =

1
x 0.6112 1.4552 = 0.789 m
2

Cross Sectional area of the diagonal strut = W x t

=0.789x 0.25 = 0.19725 m2
Diagonal length of the strut = ld = h2 l 2 = 6.103 m
AE

2
m
Hence, stiffness of the infill =
cos
ld
= 299171.72 KN/m

So, for a frame of 3 bays there are 3 struts participating in

one direction, the total stiffness of each storey hence =
4 stiffness of columns + 3 stiffness of infill
= 945038.31 KN/m
And for frames having no infill, total stiffness of storey
= 4 stiffness of columns = 47523.15 KN/m
Mass of bracings and dampers: mbdi 50.0 kg
Stiffness of bracing members: kdi 95446.30KN/m
For the case of Friction damper, the presence of two friction
interfaces doubles the frictional resistance. The total normal
load ( FN ) on the sliding surface is equal to 2nb FNi , where

nb is

the number of pretension bolts, and FNi is the

pretension force in a single bolt. All the bolts in a particular

friction damper are assumed to have the same pretension
force. It may be noted that the structure weight does not have

Seismic performance of energy dissipation devices in vertically irregular buildings

any effect to the normal load ( FN ). IS: 800 2007 [12]
recommends typical average values of coefficient of friction
for different treatment surface which are presented in Table
3.4. In this investigation, the coefficients of sliding friction
(sliding stage, d ) and (stick stage, s ) are taken as 0.5 as this
coefficient resembles with the coefficient values for different
surfaces such as (i) Surfaces blasted with short or grit with
any loose rust removed, no pitting (ii) Sand blasted surface,
after light rusting (iii) Surface blasted with shot or grit and
spray metallized with aluminium (thickness > 50 m) and
(iv) Sand blasted surface.
The floor mass, floor stiffness and total weight calculated
above for the lumped mass models of the structural frames
has been considered to be the same for all five models, i.e. for
i) Soft Storey free frame ii) Soft Storey Braced Frame,
iii)Soft Storey frame with friction damper, iv) Soft Storey
frame with viscoelastic damper and v) Soft Storey frame with
viscous damper.
The damping properties such as damper stiffness and
damping coefficients for the viscoelastic damper are
calculated as below:
For target equivalent damping ratio 30 % and as the structural
damping is 5 % hence about 25% equivalent damping must
be added to the free frame model.
The added stiffness due to the Viscoelastic damper should be
proportional to the storey stiffness of the free frame structure
and expressed for each storey as [13]
di kdi

2
ksi
2

For this investigation =1.1,

=target added damping ratio = 0.25 (25%)
ksi = structural storey stiffness without added damper
= 47523150 N/m
di= attachment coefficient for Chevron brace = 1.0
Hence, kdi = 39602625 N/m
The thickness of the Viscoelastic material, h, is determined
from maximum allowable damper deformation to ensure the
maximum strain in the Viscoelastic material is smaller than
maximum allowable value. The maximum damper
deformation allowed is the maximum allowed storey drift i.e
0.004 times the storey height as per clause 7.11.1 of IS:1893
(Part 1),2002. In this investigation the maximum allowable
damper deformation = 0.004 x 3.5 = 0.014m. If the maximum
design damper strain of 60% is allowed then the damper
thickness h is determined as
h = 0.014/0.6 = 0.0233 m, say 0.025m
The shear storage modulus G , for frequency f =1.933 Hz and
assumed ambient temperature of 250 is determined to be =
1344525 [14]
The area of each viscoelastic damper is determined from
kd

AG
h

i.e, A = 0.72 m2
Providing 2 viscoelastic layer of dampers, the selected
dimensions for each damper pad is 0.6m x 0.6m or proving

0.72 m2, total per damper. Hence the properties of the damper
added structure at this iteration (A= 0.72 m2) are calculated
for the following damping device properties
kd

AG
= 38722320 N/m
h

and cd
Where,

AG
= 3504859 N sec/m
h

G = Shear loss modulus = G =1.1 x1344525

=1478978

= frequency of the system= 12.153 rad/sec

The equivalent stiffness and damping coefficients of damper

added structure for viscoelastic and viscous damper taking in
to account the specified brace damper configuration are
calculated using the expressions given in Eq. 3.12 and 3.13 as
below:

d = Attachment coefficients
For Chevron or cross bracing b = 2cos2 and d = 1.
and

So,

b = 2cos2 = 0.676041103 and d = 1

kb = Axial Brace Stiffness = 95046300 N/m
kd = Axial damper Stiffness = 38722320 N/m
= frequency of the system = 12.153 rad/sec
cd = Damping coefficient of the damper = 3504859 N Sec/m

Hence,

kbd = 30019119 N/m

and cbd .= 1165232 N Sec/m
The damping coefficient of the viscous damper is assumed to
be 4.0 kN sec/m for calculation of the equivalent damping
stiffness and damping coefficient of the damping system. As
the damper stiffness for viscous damper is neglected hence
kbd and cbd for viscous damper are calculated, using eq. 2.12
and 2.13, to be 23389788 N/m and 2543944 N sec/m.
Ground motion
The characteristics of ground motion that are important are
peak ground accelerations (PGA), duration of strong motion,
and its frequency content. Many studies use the NS
component of the famous El Centro 1940 acceleration time
history as shown in Fig..3. Hence the effect of El Centro
Ground motions (PGA=0.348g), 1940 on the performance of
the example structures has been studied in this investigation.

Subhransu Sekhar Swain & Sanjaya Kumar Patro

FGFB
FGFFD
FGFVID
FGFVD

0
-2

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

Fig.3 Acceleration time-history of El Centro Ground

motions, 1940
NUMERICAL RSULTS AND DISCUSSION:
The maximum inter-storey drift, floor displacement and the
maximum absolute acceleration for the example structures
are evaluated at each storey level subjected to El Centro
Ground Motion. The maximum inter storey drifts and
absolute accelerations are evaluated for soft-storey free frame
structure, soft-storey braced frame structure, and soft-storey
frame with energy dissipation devices. For friction damper, a
pretension force of 800 kN has been selected for the response
evaluation of structure. The response behaviour of the
example structure with viscoelastic damper has been
investigated for target equivalent structural damping of
30%,i.e. equivalent stiffness (kbd) of 30019119 N/m and
equivalent damping (cbd) of 1165232 NSec/m as discussed
earlier. Similarly, the response behaviour of the example
structure with viscous damper has been investigated for target
equivalent structural damping of 30%, i.e. equivalent
stiffness (kbd) of 23389788 N/m and equivalent damping
(cbd) of 2543944 Nsec/m. Since the prime objective of the
frame buildings with energy dissipation systems is to reduce
the peak responses, the investigations of maximum responses
enable one to evaluate the effectiveness of the devices.
Table 2. Floor wise Peak values of Inter storey drift, floor
displacement and Absolute acceleration of example Free
Ground Floor frame
Ground First
Second
Floor
Floor
Floor
Floor Wise Value of Inter-storey Drift (m)
FGFF
0.0554
0.0022
0.0014
FGFB
0.0181
0.0022
0.0013
FGFFD
0.0170
0.0010
0.0007
FGFVID
0.0291
0.0019
0.0012
FGFVD
0.0301
0.0019
0.0012
Floor Wise Value of Floor Displacement
FGFF
0.0554
0.0576
0.0589
FGFB
0.0181
0.0202
0.0216
FGFFD
0.0170
0.0180
0.0187
FGFVID
0.0291
0.0310
0.0322
FGFVD
0.0301
0.0320
0.0331
Floor Wise Value of Absolute Acceleration
FGFF
8.3100
8.5400
8.6900

Roof

4
2

0.0594
0.0221
0.0189
0.0327
0.0335
8.7500

8.8309
4.6636
8.0049
7.6457

1
0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Inter Storey Drift (m)

4
3
2
1
0.00

0.0005
0.0005
0.0003
0.0004
0.0004

8.6798
4.1751
7.8999
7.5913

Frame with Viscous Damping

Frame With Viscoelastic Damper
Frame with Friction Damper
Frame with Bracings
Free Frame

0.00

0.01

Floor Displacement (m)

Storey Number

-4

8.3196
4.0726
7.7060
7.4703

It is found that the peak values of inter-storey drift, floor

displacement and the maximum absolute acceleration has
been reduced comprehensively with introduction of bracings
or any of the energy dissipation devices in the structure.
Table 2 shows the floor wise peak values of Inter storey drift,
Floor displacement and Absolute acceleration of example
structures with Free Ground Floor when subjected to El
Centro Ground motion. It can be observed from the Table.2
that a reduction of 20% to 70% in inter storey drift is found in
case of structure with bracings or structure with dampers in
comparison to the free frame structure. A reduction of 45% to
70% in floor displacement and 8% to 50% of peak absolute
acceleration is also observed for frame with bracings or frame
with dampers in comparison to the free frame structure. In
comparison to frames with Viscoelastic damper, where
reduction of 20% to 47% of free frame response is observed
and Viscous dampers, where reduction of 20% to 45% of free
frame response is observed, Frames with bracings and
friction damper are found to be more effective in reducing the
storey drift and floor displacement, where reduction of 40%
to 69% of free frame response is observed. However, the
friction damper is found to be the most effective damper in
reducing all responses of example structures with Free
Ground Floor.

Storey Number

Storey Number

PGA = 0.348g

Ground Acc. (m/s )

7.6682
4.3314
7.2700
7.2661

4
3
2
1
0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

Peak Absolute Acceleration (m/s )

Fig.4 Inter-storey Drift, Floor Displacement and Absolute

Acceleration at all storey levels for Open Storey at First
Floor, i.e. Free First Storey Frame )

Seismic performance of energy dissipation devices in vertically irregular buildings

Fig.4 demonstrates the peak Inter-storey Drift, Floor

Displacement and Absolute Acceleration at all storey levels
for Open Storey at First Floor, i.e. Free First Storey Frame
structure for FF, FB, FFD, FFVID, FFVD when subjected to
El Centro Ground motion. From the figure it is evident that
the structural bracings and energy dissipations devices are
effective in drift reduction of the example structure.
However, only Friction damper is found to be contributing to
reduction of Peak Absolute acceleration of the Free First
storey frame structure at all floor levels. From the figure it
can be observed that in the frame with friction damper, the
floor displacement is reduced by 44% to 69% of free frame
response at all storey levels. While in the frame with Friction
dampers a reduction of 44% to 69%, in the frame with
viscoelastic damper a reduction of 34% to 36% and in the
frame with viscous damper a reduction of 37% to 38 % of
free frame floor displacement response is observed at first
floor, second floor and roof level. Structural bracings,
viscoelastic damper and viscous damper are found to be
ineffective in controlling the absolute acceleration response
of the frame having open storey at first floor level, while
friction damper is found to be the only damper where the
absolute acceleration response is reduced by 36% to 40% of
the free frame response.
Free Frame
Frame with Bracings
Frame with Friction Damper
Frame with Viscoelastic Damper
Frame with Viscous Damper

0.0250

a) Roof

0.0125
0.0000
-0.0125
-0.0250
0.0250
0.0125
0.0000
-0.0125
-0.0250
0.0250

b) ThirFloor

c) Second Floor

0.0125
0.0000
-0.0125
-0.0250
0.0250

d) First Floor

0.0125
0.0000
-0.0125
-0.0250
0

Time (s)

Fig.5 Floor Displacement Time history response of Example

Free Second Floor Frame subjected to El Centro Ground
motion at all floor levels
The Floor displacement time history response of Example
Free Second Floor Frame for FF, FB, FFD, FFVID, FFVD
subjected to El Centro Ground motion at all floor levels is
presented in Fig.5. It can be interpreted from the figure that
the floor displacement is higher at second storey and roof

level due to presence of open storey at second floor. All the

dampers are found to be more effective in reduction of floor
displacement response in comparison to free frame and brace
frame. Reduction to the tune of 50% of the floor
displacement response of free frame is observed over the
entire time period for all frames with dampers. The most
effective damper is the friction damper, where the response
reduction is highest among all dampers and bracings.
CONCLUSIONS
The numerical methodology for determining the dynamic
structural behaviour of the MDOF planar structures equipped
with Slotted Bolted Connection (SBC) type friction slider
mounted on Chevron brace from a published literature has
been extended to use the methodology for other dampers like
viscous damper and viscoelastic damper. The response
parameters like inter storey drift, floor displacement and
absolute acceleration of example vertically irregular frames,
i.e. frames having non existence of masonry infill walls in the
different floor levels, are evaluated for free frame, frame with
bracings, friction damper, viscoelastic and viscous damper.
Based on the investigations presented in this paper, the
following main conclusions can be drawn.
1. The response parameters such as inter storey drift, floor
displacement and absolute acceleration of the frames having
open storey posses reduced performance due to inadequate
stiffness, drift capacity and energy dissipation potential.
2. Adding stiffness by means of structural bracings may result
in reduction of drift responses but it may not effect in
reducing the absolute acceleration of the frames.
3. Open storey frames equipped with supplemental energy
dissipations devices such as friction damper, viscoelastic
damper and viscous damper demonstrates good seismic
behaviour during seismic events.
4. Friction based energy dissipation device proved to be the
most effective device, among the three energy dissipation
considered in this study devices, in reducing the response
parameters of the considered vertically irregular frames when
subjected to El Centro Ground motion.
REFERENCES
1. IS:1893 (2002), Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures Part 1 General Provisions
of Buildings (Fifth Revision), New Delhi, Bureau of
Indian Standards
2. Sinha, R., Shaw, R. (2001), Bhuj Earth quake of January
26,2001 Consequences and future Challenges.
3. Arlekar, J.N., Jain, S.K., and Murty, C.V.R.(1997).
Proceedings of the CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference on
Natural Hazards in Urban Habitat, New Delhi
4. Huang, S.(2005), Seismic behaviors of reinforced
concrete structures with soft Story, Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Structural Stability and
Dynamics, June 19-22, Kissimmee, Florida
5. Mezzi, M. (2004), Architectural and Structural
Configurations of Buildings with Innovative Aseismic
Systems, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, , (Paper No.1318), Vancouver,
B.C., Canada
6. Fardis, M.N., and Panagiotakos, T. B. (1997), Seismic
design and response of bare and masonry-infilled

Subhransu Sekhar Swain & Sanjaya Kumar Patro

reinforced concrete buildings, Part II: Infilled structures,
J. Earthquake Eng., Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 475503
7. Sahoo, D.R., Rai, D.C. (2013), Design and evaluation of
seismic strengthening techniques for reinforced concrete
frames with soft ground storey, Engineering Strcuctures,
56, 1933-1944
8. Constantinou, M. C., Soong, T. T., Dargush, G. F. (1998)
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for Structural
Design and Retrofit, MCEER, University at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY.
9. Swain, S.S., Patro, S.K., Sinha,R.(2016). Numerical
methodology for Dynamic analysis of Buildings with
Friction dampers, Bulletin of NZSEE, Vol. 49, No. 3
10. Hanson,R. D, Soong,T. T., (2001), Seismic design with
supplemental energy dissipation devices, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA
11. Agarwal, P, Shrikhande, M. (2006) Earthquake resistant
design of structures, Prentice Hall India, New Delhi
12. IS:800 (2007), Indian Standard General Construction in
Steel Code of Practice (Third Revision), New Delhi,
Bureau of Indian Standards
13. Soong, T.T., Lai, M.L.,(1991) , Corelation of
experimental results with prediction of Viscoelastic
damping for a model structure, Proc. Damping91, San
Diego, CA
14. Shen, K.L., Soong,T.T., (1995), Modeling of Viscoelastic
dampers for structural applications, ASCE Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 121(6); 694-701