Energy Dissipation System Configurations for Improved Performance

Michael C. Constantinou and Ani Natali Sigaher

Abstract
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 08/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Energy dissipation systems are being employed in the United States to provide
enhanced protection for new and retrofit building and bridge construction. The
hardware utilized includes yielding steel devices, friction devices, viscoelastic solid
devices and mostly, so far, viscous fluid devices. This hardware has been used in
either diagonal or chevron brace configurations. Two new developments in the field
of energy dissipation systems utilize unusual configurations which substantially
increase the effectiveness of the system. These configurations are presented in the
paper and their utility is demonstrated.

Introduction

In conventional construction, earthquake-induced energy is dissipated in components

of the gravity-load-resisting system. The action of dissipating energy in framing such
as beams in a moment-resisting frame produces damage in those components. Repair
of such damage after an earthquake is typically expensive and often requires
evacuation of the building while repair work on the gravity system is undertaken.
The objective of adding energy dissipation hardware to new and existing construction
is to dissipate much of the earthquake-induced energy in elements not forming part of
the gravity framing system. Key to this philosophy is limiting or eliminating damage
to the gravity-load-resisting system (FEMA, 1997).
Engineers are familiar with and have extensively used diagonal and chevron brace
configurations for the delivery of forces from energy dissipation devices to the
structural frame (Soong and Dargush, 1997; Constantinou et al., 1998). New
configurations have been developed which offer certain advantages, either in terms of
cost of the energy dissipation devices, or in terms of architectural considerations such
as open space requirements. Particularly, stiff structural systems under seismic load
or structural systems under wind load undergo small drift and the required damping
forces are large. This typically results in increased volume of fluid viscous damping
devices and accordingly cost. In other cases, energy dissipation devices cannot be
used in certain areas due to open space requirements and the ineffectiveness of
damping systems when installed at near-vertical configurations.
Two recently developed configurations, the toggle brace and the scissor-jack energy
dissipation system configurations, offer advantages that overcome these limitations.
Bother utilize innovative mechanisms to amplify displacement and accordingly lower
force demand in the energy dissipation devices. However, they are more complex in
their application since they require more care in their analysis and detailing. This
paper presents these new configurations, compares them with the familiar chevron

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2000

Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering
 brace and diagonal configurations and presents samples of experimental and
analytical results on their behavior.

Description of Toggle-Brace and Scissor-Jack Damper Configurations

The toggle-brace and scissor-jack systems are configurations for magnifying the
damper displacement so that sufficient energy is dissipated with a reduced
requirement for damper force. Conversely, they may be viewed as systems for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 08/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

magnifying the damper force through shallow truss configurations and then delivery
of the magnified force to the structural frame.
Figure 1 illustrates various damper configurations in a framing system. Let the
interstory drift be u, the damper relative displacement be u D , the force along the axis
of the damper be FD and the damping force exerted on the frame be F. It may be
shown (Constantinou et al., 1997) that

uD = f u (1)

F = f FD (2)

where f = magnification factor. Expressions for the magnification factor of various

configurations are shown in Figure 1. The significance of the magnification factor
may be best demonstrated in the case of linear viscous dampers, for which

FD = C o u D (3)

where u D = relative velocity between the ends of the damper along the axis of the
damper. The damping ratio under elastic conditions for a single-story frame (as
shown in Figure 1) with weight, W, and fundamental period, T, is:

C o f 2 gT
β= (4)
4πW

That is, the damping ratio is proportional to the square of the magnification factor.
The toggle-brace and scissor-jack systems can achieve magnification factors larger
than unity. The systems can be typically configured to have values f = 2 to 3
without any significant sensitivity to changes in the geometry of the system. By
contrast, the familiar chevron-brace and diagonal configurations have f less than or
equal to unity.
For the purpose of comparison, consider the case of the use of a linear viscous
damper with C o = 160 kN-s/m (= 0.9 kip-s/in) in the framing systems of Figure 1
with weight W = 1370 kN (= 308 kip) and T = 0.3 second. The resulting damping
ratios are shown in Figure 1. The effectiveness of the toggle-brace and scissor jack
systems is clearly demonstrated. It should be noted that the configurations for these

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2000

Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering
 two systems are identical to those tested at the University at Buffalo (Constantinou et
al., 1997).
It is clear in the results of Figure 1 and in equations (1), (2) and (4) that the toggle-
brace and scissor-jack configurations may provide substantial energy dissipation
capability with the use of low output force devices. This may result in an important
cost advantage in systems that undergo small drifts such as stiff structural systems
under seismic load and most structural systems under wind load. Such cases of small
drift lead to a requirement for increased volume of fluid viscous devices and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 08/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

accordingly increased cost. The use of the new configurations eliminates the
necessity for large volume damping devices and may result in reduced cost.
Moreover, the scissor-jack system may be configured to allow for open space,
minimal obstruction of view and slender configuration, which are often desired by
architects. As an example, Figure 2 illustrates the scissor-jack system tested at the
University at Buffalo. The open bay configuration, the slenderness of the system and
the small size of the damper are apparent.

Some Experimental Results on the Scissor-Jack System

Testing of the scissor-jack system has been recently conducted at the University at
Buffalo. The study included shake table testing of a stiff structural system consisting
of two identical frames with the geometry shown in Figure 2. The frames carried on
their tops a concrete weight of 143 kN (32 kip), resulting in a fundamental frequency,
in the absence of the damping system, of 3.2 Hz. The damping system included two
linear viscous dampers with constant C o = 26 N-s/mm (150 lb-s/in).
Transfer functions obtained in the shake table testing revealed the dynamic
characteristics of the structural system without and with the scissor-jack system.
Shown in Figure 3, these transfer functions reveal: (a) for the structure without the
damping system, a fundamental frequency of 3.2 Hz and damping ratio of 0.04, and
(b) for the structure with the damping system, a fundamental frequency of 4.0 Hz and
damping ratio of 0.15. It is interesting to note that the increase in frequency
(stiffening) is caused by the flexibility of the scissor-jack system (large forces in
toggles cause deflections of the beam), so that a component of the damping force
occurs in-phase with the restoring force (Constantinou et al., 1998).
The model structure was tested on the shake table utilizing a length scale factor of 2
and a time scale factor of 2 . A sample of recorded results for the 1940 El Centro
earthquake, component S00E with peak acceleration of 0.17g is shown in Figure 4.
The figure shows the recorded histories of interstory drift and beam acceleration for
the structure without and with the damping system. The effectiveness of the scissor-
jack system is evident.

Conclusions

Two new energy dissipation system configurations, toggle-brace and scissor-jack,

were described. These systems may offer the advantages of reduced cost of fluid
damping devices in applications of small structural drift (as those of stiff structural

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2000

Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering
 systems) and of open bay configuration, slender construction and minimal obstruction
of view.
The efficacy of these configurations was demonstrated by application to a stiff
structural system in which multi-fold increases in damping ratio with respect to that
provided by conventional damper configurations were shown to be possible with the
toggle-brace and scissor-jack configurations. A sample of experimental results
obtained in the shake table testing of a large scale steel model demonstrated the
effectiveness of the scissor-jack system.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 08/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

References

Constantinou, M.C., P. Tsopelas, and W. Hammel (1997), Testing and Modeling of

an Improved Damper Configuration for Stiff Structural Systems, Center for Industrial
Effectiveness, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY.

Constantinou, M.C., T.T. Soong, and G.F. Dargush (1998), Passive Energy
Dissipation Systems for Structural Design and Retrofit, MCEER Monograph,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.

FEMA (1997), NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report
No. FEMA 273 (Guidelines) and FEMA 274 (Commentary), Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC.

Soong, T.T. and G.F. Dargush (1997), Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in
Structural Engineering, J. Wiley, England.

Authors

Michael C. Constantinou, Member ASCE is Professor and Chairman, Department of

Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, State
University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. Phone: (716) 645-2114 ext. 2404.
Fax: (716)-645-3733. E-mail: constan1@civil.eng.buffalo.edu

Ani Natali Sigaher, Student Member ASCE is Graduate Research Assistant,

Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at
Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. Phone: (716) 645-2114
ext. 2445. Fax: (716)-645-3733. E-mail: sigaher@acsu.buffalo.edu

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2000

Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering
 u
W
θ = 37 o
F
Diagonal
f = cos θ f = 0.799
Co
θ β = 0.017
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 08/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

u
W

F
Chevron

f = 1 .00 f = 1.00
Co
β = 0.027

u
W
θ1 = 31.9 o , θ 2 = 43.2 o
Lower Toggle

F
sin θ 2
f = f = 2.662
cos(θ1 + θ 2 )
θ2
β = 0.194
90° Co
θ1

u
W
θ1 = 31.9 o , θ 2 = 43.2 o
Upper Toggle

F
Co sin θ 2
f = + sin θ1 f = 3.191
cos(θ1 + θ 2)
90° θ2
β = 0.279
θ1

u
W
θ 3 = 9 o , ψ = 70o
Scissor-Jack

F
θ3 cosψ
f = f = 2.159
tan θ 3
Co
β = 0.126
Ψ

Figure 1. Effectiveness of Damper Configurations in Framing Systems

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2000

Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering
 cL

2'-1 3/64"
STIFFENER
W8x21 BEAM BOTH SIDES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 08/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

70°
TS 2x2x1/4"

1'-9"
9° DAMPER
9°

5'-3 9/16''
/4"
10 3 6'-3 7/8"
9°
W8x24 9°
1 29/32"
COL. (TYP.)

1'-
9
3/4
"
TS 2x2x1/4" 20°
9 9/16''

SHAKE TABLE
OR BEAM

8'-4"

Figure 2. Tested Scissor-Jack Damper Configuration

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2000

Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering
 20
RATIO OF BEAM/COLUMN JOINT ACCELERATION

AMPLITUDE OF TRANSFER FUNCTION

TO TABLE ACCELERATION

15

W/OUT
SCISSOR-JACK
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 08/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10 DAMPER SYSTEM
(FOR 0.10g WHITE NOISE)

5 WITH
SCISSOR-JACK
DAMPER SYSTEM
(FOR 0.30g WHITE NOISE)

0
0 5 10
FREQUENCY (Hz)

Figure 3. Amplitude of Transfer Function of Tested Structure with and w/out

Scissor-Jack Damper System

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2000

Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering
 15
WITHOUT
10
DRIFT (mm) 5
0
-5
East Frame
-10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 08/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

West Frame
-15
0 10 20 30 40
15
WITH
10
DRIFT (mm)

5
0
-5
-10
-15
0 10 20 30 40
0.8
WITHOUT
ACCELERATION (g)

0.0

-0.8
0 10 20 30 40
0.8
WITH
ACCELERATION (g)

0.0

-0.8
0 10 20 30 40
TIME (sec)

Figure 4. Recorded Histories of Drift and Acceleration of Structure without and

with Scissor-Jack System in 1940 El Centro Earthquake (PGA=0.17g)

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2000

Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering