Simplified - Methods - of - Yieldng Structures With Damp Systems

Evaluation of Simplified Methods
of Analysis of Yielding Structures

with Damping Systems
Oscar M. Ramirez,a) Michael C. Constantinou,b) M.EERI, Juan D. Gomez,c)

Andrew S. Whittaker,d) M.EERI, and Christis Z. Chrysostomoue)
The 2000 NEHRP Provisions include simplified methods of analysis of

inelastic buildings equipped with linear viscous, nonlinear viscous, and hys-
teretic damping devices. These methods are based in part on the data pre-
sented in the paper. Nonlinear response-history analysis was used to validate
the methods. The derivation of the 2000 NEHRP simplified methods for cal-
culating the maximum acceleration and maximum velocity in damped fram-
ing systems are presented. These simplified methods produce exact or con-
servative estimates of peak displacement and peak acceleration, and
reasonable estimates of peak velocities. The estimated velocities are within
25% of the average values obtained from response-history analysis for a
broad range of periods and damping ratios. Velocity correction factors are
provided to calculate peak velocity given the pseudo-velocity.
[DOI: 10.1193/1.1509763]
INTRODUCTION
Simplified methods of analysis of structures with energy dissipation systems are
based on several approximations. An important approximation is the representation of
the yielding structure by an equivalent linear elastic, viscously damped single-degree-
of-freedom system. The capability of such an approximation to produce realistic esti-
mates of the peak dynamic response has been the subject of many studies (e.g., Iwan and
Gates 1979a and 1979b; Tsopelas et al. 1997; Chopra and Goel 1999). These studies
concentrated on yielding structures without damping systems and assessed the accuracy
of various approximate methods in estimating the peak displacement response. The one
exception has been the study of Tsopelas et al. (1997) that included structures with lin-
ear viscous damping systems.
The study reported in this paper extends the work of Tsopelas et al. (1997) to include
nonlinear viscous and hysteretic damping systems and assesses the accuracy of the sim-
a)
Prof., Director, Centro Experimental de Ingenieria, Universidad Technologica de Panama, El Dorado Panama,
Rep. de Panama
b)
Prof. and Chmn., Dept. of Civ., Struct. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. at Buffalo, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo,
NY 14260
c)
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civ., Struct. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. at Buffalo, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo,
NY 14260
d)
Associate Prof., Dept. of Civ., Struct. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. at Buffalo, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo,
NY 14260
e)
Lecturer, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Higher Technical Institute, 2152 Nicosia, Cyprus
501
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 18, No. 3, pages 501–530, August 2002; © 2002, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
502 O. M. RAMIREZ, M. C. CONSTANTINOU, J. D. GOMEZ, A. S. WHITTAKER, AND C. Z. CHRYSOSTOMOU
plified analysis methods of the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC 2001), hereafter termed the
2000 NEHRP Provisions, in predicting the peak displacement, velocity and acceleration
responses of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. By concentrating on SDOF
systems, the application of the analysis methods does not require pushover analysis to
determine the force-displacement response of the system, and the contribution of higher
modes to the dynamic response need not be considered. These two steps in the analysis
endeavor may be sources of significant errors for multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
systems. The contribution of these steps of the analysis to the total error in the response
calculation is investigated by Ramirez et al. (2000), where multistory buildings with
damping systems are analyzed.
The simplified method of analysis of the 2000 NEHRP Provisions requires, for
SDOF systems, estimation of the peak displacement, calculation of the effective (secant)
stiffness or equivalently the effective period and the effective damping at the peak dis-
placement, calculation of the peak displacement as the intersection of the capacity and
demand curves, and iteration until convergence. Details of the calculation of the effec-
tive stiffness and effective damping are presented in this paper for structures with damp-
ing systems consisting of linear viscous, nonlinear viscous, and yielding damping de-
vices. Further details are presented in Ramirez et al. (2000), where the calculation of the
effective properties is presented for multi-degree-of-freedom systems. Moreover, meth-
odologies for improved prediction of the maximum velocity and the derivation of revised
load combination factors, or load factors (factors FFD and FFV in the 2000 NEHRP Pro-
visions) for calculating the maximum acceleration in viscously damped structures are
presented. The revised load combination factors account for inelastic action in the struc-
tural system and nonlinear viscous behavior.
The approach of Tsopelas et al. (1997) is utilized herein to extend the study of Tso-
pelas to nonlinear viscous and hysteretic damping systems, and to assess the accuracy of
improved methodologies for predicting peak velocities and peak accelerations.
NONLINEAR RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS

Nonlinear response-history analysis of SDOF inelastic systems with damping de-
vices was performed by numerically integrating the equation of motion:
4␲␤imu̇共t兲
mü共t兲⫹FD共t兲⫹ ⫹FF共t兲⫽⫺mag共t兲 (1)
Teff
where m is the mass, u̇ is the relative velocity, ü is the relative acceleration, ag is the
ground acceleration, Teff is the effective (or secant) period, ␤i is the inherent damping
ratio, FD is the force in the damping device, and FF is the spring force in the inelastic
system.
Equation 1 is basically identical to the one utilized by Tsopelas et al. (1997) except
that the forms of the damping force FD and structural resistance FF are changed. Key to
this equation is the description of inherent damping, which is described as linear viscous
with damping ratio equal to ␤i . This ratio is defined with respect to the effective (or
EVALUATION OF SIMPLIFIED METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF YIELDING STRUCTURES WITH DAMPING SYSTEMS 503
Figure 1. Structural system behaviors considered in this study.
secant) stiffness Keff of the structure (equal to the peak spring force divided by the peak
displacement). The effective (or secant) period in Equation 1 is given by
Teff⫽2␲ 冑 m
Keff
(2)
All analyses were performed with ␤i equal to 0.05. Equation 1 was numerically in-
tegrated using an adaptive predictor-corrector scheme and a linear interpolation scheme
for the earthquake-history input (Tsopelas et al. 1997).
The 20 scaled horizontal components of the ten earthquakes reported in the compan-
ion paper of Ramirez et al. (2002) were used in this study. The selection and scaling of
these motions is discussed in both Tsopelas et al. (1997) and Ramirez et al. (2000). As
noted in Ramirez et al. (2002) none of the 20 records were recorded either in the near-
field or on soft-soil sites.
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEM BEHAVIOR

Two types of structural behavior were considered. The first was smooth perfect bi-
linear hysteretic behavior (without deterioration or consideration of P-⌬ effects) as de-
picted in Figure 1a and described by
Fy
FF⫽␣ u⫹共1⫺␣兲FyZF (3)
Dy
DyŻF⫹0.5兩u̇兩ZF兩ZF兩␩⫺1⫹0.5u̇兩ZF兩␩⫺u̇⫽0 (4)
where 兩.兩 stands for the absolute value, ZF is a dimensionless variable and ␩ is a dimen-
sionless parameter. In this study, ␩ was set equal to 5.0.
The perfect bilinear hysteretic system represents the best possible behavior of a
yielding system. The opposite to this (but still without deterioration of either strength or
stiffness) is a system that lacks the ability to dissipate energy. Such a system was ana-
lyzed by modeling it as a bilinear elastic system having the force-displacement relation

depicted in Figure 1b. This relation is described mathematically by
兩u兩⬍D1
冦
K1u
共K2⫺K1兲共u⫺D1兲 2
sgn共u兲⫹K1u D1⭐兩u兩⭐D2
FF⫽ 2共D2⫺D1兲 (5)
共K1⫺K2兲共D1⫹D2兲
sgn共u兲⫹K2u 兩u兩⭓D2
2
Note that this mathematical relation is smooth with transition points (from linear to non-
linear behavior) at displacements D1 and D2 , which were selected to be 0.7 Dy and 1.3
Dy , respectively. The smoothness of the force-displacement relation, as expressed by the
fact that the derivative of FF with respect to u is continuous, facilitates numerical inte-
gration.
DESCRIPTION OF DAMPING SYSTEM

Viscous damping systems were modeled as either linear or nonlinear. For linear vis-
cous behavior the damper force is given by
FD⫽Cu̇ (6)
and for nonlinear viscous behavior by,
FD⫽CN兩u̇兩asgn共u̇兲 (7)
where C and CN are damping coefficients, u̇ is the relative velocity, and a is the damping
exponent, which was set equal to 0.5 in this study.
Yielding damping systems were modeled with smooth elasto-plastic behavior de-
scribed by
FD⫽FdZD (8)
DydŻD⫹0.5兩u̇兩ZD兩ZD兩␩⫺1⫹0.5u̇兩ZD兩␩⫺u̇⫽0 (9)
where ZD is a dimensionless variable, ␩ is equal to 5, and Fd and Dyd are the yield force
and yield displacement of the damping system, respectively.
ANALYZED SYSTEMS
Figure 2 illustrates the force-displacement relations of the SDOF systems described
above, and identifies the parameters used to describe these systems. Each of these sys-
tems is characterized by the force-displacement relation of the inelastic spring exclusive
of the damping devices (shown in the left column of Figure 2). Note that Ay represents
the acceleration at yield in the SDOF.
It is convenient to describe the behavior of the structural frame in terms of the fol-
lowing parameters:
Figure 2. Illustration of behavior of analyzed systems.
1. Elastic period, Te :
Te⫽2␲
Dy
Ay 冉冊 1/2
(10)
2. Post-yielding to elastic stiffness ratio: ␣

3. Ductility-based portion of the R-factor:
Sae
R␮⫽ (11)
Ay
Table 1. Values of parameters in study of bilinear

hysteretic system with viscous damping devices
Te 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 seconds

R␮ 2, 3.33, 5
␣ 0.05, 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0 (elastic)
␤i 0.05
␤␯ Linear Viscous (a⫽1): 0, 0.15, 0.25
Nonlinear Viscous (a⫽0.5): 0.15, 0.25
where Sae is the spectral acceleration at period Te for a damping ratio of 5%.
Each system analyzed in this study had inherent viscous damping of 5%. Additional
system-specific parameters required for the analysis of these structural systems are de-
fined below.
BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH LINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING DEVICES

The bilinear hysteretic system with linear viscous damping devices was originally
analyzed by Tsopelas et al. (1997). Additional analyses were performed in this study for
a wider range of values of period Te and for calculating velocities, which were omitted
in the earlier study. One additional parameter required for this analysis was the added
viscous damping ratio, ␤V , under elastic conditions
CTe
␤V⫽ (12)
4␲m
where m is the mass of the SDOF system and other terms have been defined previously.
The values of the parameters used in the analysis of this system are presented in Table 1.
BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH NONLINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING

DEVICES
The bilinear hysteretic system with nonlinear viscous damping devices was charac-
terized by two additional parameters describing the nonlinear viscous damping devices:
exponent a and coefficient CN (see Equation 7). Since it is inconvenient to use parameter
CN , a dimensionless parameter with a physical significance similar to that of the damp-
ing ratio for linear viscous damping systems (Equation 12) was used instead. This pa-
rameter is defined as the effective damping ratio under elastic conditions:
␤V⫽
CN␭ a⫺1 2␲
2␲ m
D
Te 冉冊 a⫺2
(13)
⌫2共1⫹a/2兲
␭⫽4•2a (14)
⌫共2⫹a兲
Table 2. Values of parameter ␭
a
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
␭ 4.000 3.723 3.496 3.305 3.142 3.000 2.876 2.765 2.667
where D is the maximum displacement, ⌫ is the gamma function, and all other terms
have been defined previously. Equation 13 is based on the definition of the effective
damping ratio as
WD
␤⫽ (15)
4␲Ws
where WD is the energy dissipated per cycle at period Te and displacement D, and Ws is
the strain energy at amplitude D. An expression for WD for nonlinear dampers was de-
rived in Soong and Constantinou (1994) and utilized in ATC (1997):
WD⫽␭CND1⫹a 冉冊
2␲
Te
a
(16)
Values of ␭ are presented in Table 2. For linear viscous devices for which a equals
1.0, ␭ is equal to 3.142 (or ␲) and Equation 13 reduces to Equation 12.
The effective damping in Equation 13 depends on the amplitude of displacement D
as a result of the nonlinear behavior of the viscous devices. In general, iteration is
needed to obtain the value of the effective damping given the properties of the structural
frame and damping devices, and the characteristics of the excitation. However, herein
the value of ␤V is selected (say, 0.15) and used for the calculation of the corresponding
value of CN . Given the period Te and total damping under elastic conditions (␤V⫹␤i),
displacement D is calculated and then used in Equations 13 and 14 to calculate CN for
the application of the simplified method of analysis and the response history analysis.
The values of the parameters used for the studies involving the nonlinear damper are
presented in Table 1.
BILINEAR ELASTIC SYSTEM WITH LINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING DEVICES

The bilinear elastic system with linear viscous damping devices is characterized by
the elastic period, Te , per Equation 10; the ductility-based portion of the R-factor, R␮ ,
per Equation 11, the viscous damping ratio, ␤V , per Equation 12; the stiffness ratio, ␣
(equal to 0.05); and the inherent damping ratio ␤i (equal to 0.05). The values of the pa-
rameters used for the studies described in this paper are presented in Table 3.
BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH YIELDING DAMPING DEVICES

The bilinear hysteretic system with yielding damping devices (see Figure 3) is char-
acterized by the elastic period, Te , in the absence of the yielding damping devices, see

elastic system with linear viscous damping devices
Te 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 seconds

R␮ 2, 3.33, 5
␣ 0.05
␤i 0.05
␤␯ 0.0, 0.15, 0.25
Equation 10; the ductility-based portion of the R-factor, R␮ , see Equation 11; the stiff-
ness ratio ␣ (equal to 0.05); the inherent damping ratio, ␤i (equal to 0.05); and the fol-
lowing two additional parameters:
1. Ratio of the elastic stiffness of the structure inclusive of the damping devices
to the elastic stiffness of the structure exclusive of the damping devices (see
Figure 3)
Fd Fy
⫹
Kt Dyd Dy FdDy
⫽ ⫽1⫹ (17)
Kf Fy FyDyd
Dy
where Fy and Dy are the yield strength and yield displacement of the structural
frame exclusive of the damping system, respectively, K f is the elastic stiffness of
the structural frame exclusive of the damping system (⫽Fy /Dy), Fd and Dyd are
the yield strength and yield displacement of the damping system, respectively,
and Kt is the elastic stiffness of the frame inclusive of the damping system.
2. Ratio of the strength of the damping devices Fd to the strength of the structural
frame Fy , Fd /Fy .
The values of the parameters used in this study are presented in Table 4.
APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED METHODS OF ANALYSIS

BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH LINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING DEVICES
Given the response spectrum and values of the parameters Te , R␮ , ␣, ␤i , and ␤V
(from Table 1), the behavior of the system is completely defined. In the simplified

elastic system with yielding damping devices
Te 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 seconds

R␮ 2, 3.33, 5
␣ 0.05
␤i 0.05
Kt /K f 2, 6, 10
Fd /Fy 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
method of analysis, the peak displacement D is assumed (and presumed larger than Dy)
and the effective period, Teff , and effective damping, ␤eff , are calculated as
Teff⫽2␲ 冉冊
D
A
1/2
(18)
Teff 2qH共AyD⫺ADy 兲
␤eff⫽␤i⫹␤V ⫹ (19)
Te ␲AD
where
SaeT2e
Dy ⫽ 2 (20)
4␲ R␮
and qH is a hysteresis loop adjustment factor, which is utilized to reduce the area under
the perfect bilinear hysteretic loop to better represent the behavior of the real structural
systems. Since the systems analyzed in this study have perfect bilinear hysteresis behav-
ior, a value of qH equal to 1.0 was adopted.
Note that Equation 19 is based on Equation 15 and includes the inherent damping, a
component due to inelastic action (presumed perfectly hysteretic) and a viscous compo-
nent. Quantity A is defined in Figure 2 and represents the acceleration at maximum dis-
placement:
Ay
A⫽Ay⫹␣ 共D⫺Dy 兲 (21)
Dy
BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH NONLINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING

DEVICES
The behavior of this system is defined by the response spectrum and parameters Te ,
R␮ , ␣, ␤i , and ␤V and a (from Table 1). The peak displacement D is assumed and the
effective period is calculated using Equations 18, 20, and 21. Using Equation 15, the
effective damping is calculated as
␤eff⫽␤i⫹␤V 冉冊
Teff
Te
2⫺a
⫹
2qH共AyD⫺ADy 兲
␲AD
(22)
where all terms were defined previously. For a equal to 1.0 (linear viscous damping de-
vices), Equation 22 reduces to Equation 19.
BILINEAR ELASTIC SYSTEM WITH LINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING DEVICES

This system exhibits all the characteristics of the bilinear hysteretic system with lin-
ear viscous damping devices except for the damping contribution due to inelastic action
in the structure. Accordingly, Equations 18, 20, and 21 hold, but the effective damping is
given by
Figure 3. Behavior of bilinear hysteretic system with yielding damping devices.
Teff
␤eff⫽␤i⫹␤V (23)
Te
BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH YIELDING DAMPING DEVICES

The behavior of this system is described by parameters Te , R␮ , ␣, ␤i , Kt /K f , and
Fd /Fy (see Table 4). The yield displacement of the frame, Dy , is determined using Equa-
tion 20 and the yield displacement of the yielding damping devices (see Figure 2) is
determined from
Dy Fd
冉冊
Dyd⫽ (24)
Kt Fy
⫺1
Kf
It is assumed hereafter that Fd⭐Fy and that Dyd⭐Dy , which are both reasonable as-
sumptions for the implementation of yielding damping systems in flexible building
frames. The combined frame-damping system lateral force-displacement relation is tri-
linear as depicted in Figure 3. Consider now that the peak displacement D is larger than
Dy , as shown in Figure 3. The effective period is then given by
Teff⫽2␲ 冉冊
D
A⫹Ad
1/2
(25)
where A is given by Equation 21. The effective damping is given by
␤eff⫽␤i 冉冊
A
A⫹Ad
1/2
⫹
2qH共AyD⫺ADy 兲⫹2Ad共D⫺Dyd兲
␲共A⫹Ad兲D
(26)
Note that in this formulation, the inherent damping of the combined system is re-
duced due to the increase in stiffness under elastic conditions. It is presumed in this case
that the damping system does not dissipate any energy for displacements less than Dyd
so that Teff in Equation 1 is calculated on the basis of the assumption that Ad⫽0. It is
also assumed that the yielding damping system has perfect bilinear hysteretic behavior.
CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION IN

SYSTEMS WITH VISCOUS DAMPING DEVICES
The simplified analysis method described above is iterative since it is based on an
assumed value of displacement D, calculation of the effective period and effective damp-
ing, calculation of the displacement using the response spectrum after modification for
increased damping, and comparison of the calculated and assumed values of displace-
ment. A limit on the calculated displacement, not being less than the displacement cal-
culated for elastic conditions, is then enforced. The results of this analysis are values of
the maximum displacement D and the acceleration A or A⫹Ad for systems with yielding
damping devices, at maximum displacement. In addition, for systems with viscous
damping devices the maximum velocity is needed for the calculation of the peak damp-
ing force. The maximum acceleration, which is larger than A, and which occurs at some
displacement less than D, also must be established.
The maximum velocity in the 2000 NEHRP Provisions is taken as the pseudo-
velocity, that is,
V⫽ 冉冊
2␲
Teff
D (27)
The maximum acceleration can be determined by the procedure that is described by Tso-
pelas et al. (1997) and which is incorporated in FEMA 273. However, that procedure
does not account for nonlinear viscous behavior and inelastic structural behavior. A
more general procedure for nonlinear viscous damping devices and yielding structures is
presented below.
The procedure for a linear elastic structure with a nonlinear viscous damping device
is described first. It is assumed that the structure of stiffness K and mass m undergoes
harmonic vibration at its natural frequency ␻n and amplitude D:
u⫽D cos ␻nt (28)

with velocity
u̇⫽⫺D␻n sin ␻nt (29)

The combined restoring and damping force is given by
Figure 4. Harmonic motion of a structure with nonlinear viscous damping devices and the re-
sultant force-displacement relation.
F⫽ku⫹CN兩u̇兩asgn共u̇兲 (30)
Equation 30 may be written in the form
F 2␲
2 ⫽⫺ ␤ sina ␻nt⫹cos ␻nt (31)
m␻nD ␭ V
in which ␭ is given by Equation 14, ␤V is given by Equation 13, and
␻n ⫽ 冉冊
K
m
1/2
⫽
2␲
Te
(32)
Equation 31 was derived using Equations 28 and 29. The velocity is negative during the
considered cycle of motion as shown in Figure 4.
The maximum value of F from Equation 30 occurs at a time t* when the derivative
of the right-hand side of Equation 31 with respect to time is zero. This results in the
following:
sin2⫺a␻nt* 2␲a␤V
⫽⫺ (33)
cos ␻nt* ␭
This equation cannot be exactly solved for time t* except for the case of linear viscous
device (a⫽1). However, an approximate solution can be derived assuming that (see Fig-
ure 4)
␻nt*⫽␲⫺␦ (34)
in which ␦ is a small phase lag as shown in Figure 4. This assumption is good when a is
small (e.g., ␦⫽0 when a⫽0) and the phase lag can be calculated as
冉冊
1
2␲a␤V 2⫺a
␦⫽ (35)
␭
For linear viscous damping devices, the phase lag ␦ may be calculated exactly as
␦⫽tan⫺1共2␤V兲 (36)
Note that Equation 35 provides a good approximation even in the case of linear vis-
cous damping devices. For such a case, a⫽1 and ␭⫽␲, so that Equation 35 yields ␦
⫽2␤␯ . By comparison to Equation 36, the use of Equation 35 results in an error of about
3% for ␤V⫽0.15 and an error of about 7% for ␤V⫽0.25.
The maximum acceleration is determined by substituting Equations 34 and 35 into
31:
冉
Amax⫽A CF1⫹
2␲␤V
␭
CF2 冊 (37)
where
CF1⫽cos ␦ (38)
and
CF2⫽共sin ␦兲a (39)

Parameters CF1 and CF2 are load combination factors used to calculate the response at
the time of maximum acceleration by combining the effects at the times of maximum
drift and maximum velocity.
Equation 38 describes the contribution of the restoring force to the maximum accel-
eration. It is valid for elastic behavior, that is, for D⬍Dy . As inelastic action occurs, the
value of CF1 increases and eventually obtains the maximum value of unity. This is rec-
ognized when considering that the maximum acceleration occurs when u⫽D•cos ␦ as
seen in Figure 4. Moreover, the effective viscous damping ratio increases with inelastic
action. Accordingly, it can be shown that
冉
Amax⫽A CF1⫹
2␲␤Veff
␭
CF2 冊 (40)
where
CF1⫽cos ␦ if D⬍Dy
CF1⫽␮•cos ␦ if D⬎Dy and ␮•cos ␦⬍1
CF1⫽1 if D⬎Dy and ␮•cos ␦⭓1 (41)
␤Veff⫽␤i⫹␤V 冉冊 Teff
Te
2⫺a
(42)
D
␮⫽ (43)
Dy
and CF2 is still given by Equation 39. Parameter ␦ is computed from Equation 35 with
␤V replaced by ␤Veff . Equations 39 and 41 have been used to calculate the values of the
force coefficients FFD and FFV that are tabulated in the 2000 NEHRP Provisions.
RESULTS OF SIMPLIFIED METHOD OF ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON TO

RESULTS OF NONLINEAR RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS
The response of each analyzed system was determined using the simplified method
of analysis described above. The response spectrum with parameters SDS⫽1.0, SD1
⫽0.6, and Ts⫽0.6 sec was utilized together with values of the damping coefficient pre-
sented in the companion paper by Ramirez et al. (2002) to obtain response spectra for
damping ratios up to 100% of critical. Figures 5 through 13 present a comparison of the
results of response history analysis (average of 20 values) and the results of the simpli-
fied method of analysis. The graphs compare the calculated peak displacement, peak ve-
locity and peak acceleration (including the viscous component) by plotting the results of
the response history analysis on the vertical axis against the results of the simplified
method of analysis on the horizontal axis. Points located below the diagonal line indicate
conservatism in the simplified method of analysis. These figures clearly demonstrate
that (1) the simplified methods of analysis produce exact or larger estimates of the peak
displacement and peak acceleration, and (2) the simplified method of analysis under pre-
dicts the peak velocities for structures with a large effective period (say, Teff
⬎1.5 seconds) but over predicts the peak velocity for structures with a moderate-to-
short effective period (say, Teff⬍1.0 sec). The differences in velocity are as large as 50%
for large effective period and as much as 100% for short effective period.
The results are consistent with the use of pseudo-velocity as a predictor of the maxi-
mum relative velocity (Chopra 1995, Constantinou et al. 1998). The greatest errors oc-
curred for framing systems with low ratio of post-elastic stiffness to elastic stiffness, ␣,
and large R␮ . It is demonstrated in Ramirez et al. (2000) that structures with damping
systems designed on the basis of the 2000 NEHRP Provisions typically exhibit nearly
Figure 5. Comparison of response history analysis results (average of 20 values) to results of

simplified method of analysis for bilinear hysteretic system without damping devices for ␣
⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and ␤i⫽0.05.
elastic behavior for the design-basis earthquake. Under such conditions, the error in pre-
dicting the relative velocity by using the pseudo-velocity is relatively small and thus ac-
ceptable for the purpose of design.
Figure 6. Comparison of time history analysis results (average of 20 values) to results of sim-
plified method of analysis for bilinear hysteretic system (␣⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0) with lin-
ear viscous damping devices, ␤v⫽0.15, and ␤i⫽0.05.
CORRECTION FACTORS FOR VELOCITY

It is worthwhile to investigate whether a simple method can be developed for obtain-
ing better estimates of the relative velocity. Sadek et al. (1999) and Pekcan et al. (1999)
plified method of analysis for bilinear hysteretic system (␣⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0) with lin-
ear viscous damping devices, ␤v⫽0.25, and ␤i⫽0.05.
proposed that the relative velocity be determined as the product of pseudo-velocity and
a correction factor. The correction factor was determined in the studies of Sadek and
Pekcan as the ratio of the exact relative velocity of SDOF systems to the pseudo-
velocity, which was calculated as the exact displacement times the natural angular fre-
plified method of analysis for bilinear hysteretic system (␣⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0) with
nonlinear viscous damping devices (a⫽0.5), ␤v⫽0.15, and ␤i⫽0.05.
quency of the system. The two studies primarily differed in the selection of the earth-
quake records used. Sadek et al. utilized 72 horizontal components of Californian
earthquakes including some with near-fault characteristics. Pekcan et al. utilized 36
horizontal components of Californian, Japanese, and other earthquakes, of which most
plified method of analysis for bilinear hysteretic system (a␣⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0) with
nonlinear viscous damping devices (a⫽0.5), ␤v⫽0.25, and ␤i⫽0.05.
had near-fault characteristics, with peak ground velocities in the range of 1 to 1.8 m/s.
Moreover, Pekcan et al. (1999) scaled the earthquake motions to have a peak ground ve-
plified method of analysis for bilinear elastic system without damping devices for ␣⫽0.05, and
␤i⫽0.05.
locity of 1 m/sec, which is similar to the scaling employed in Tsopelas et al. (1997) and
in this study: a scaling strategy that results in a more balanced contribution of the dif-
ferent earthquake histories to the average response.
plified method of analysis for bilinear elastic system (␣⫽0.05) with linear viscous damping
devices, ␤v⫽0.15, and ␤i⫽0.05.
Values of the correction factor from the study of Sadek et al. (1999) are presented in
Table 5. The study of Pekcan et al. (1999) utilized least square regression analysis to
plified method of analysis for bilinear elastic system (␣⫽0.05) with linear viscous damping
devices, ␤v⫽0.25, and ␤i⫽0.05.
establish equations for the correction factor. The following equation describes the cor-
rection factor CFV for values of the period, T, in the range of 0.2Ts to 3 seconds and
damping ratio, ␤, in the range of 5 to 40 percent
plified method of analysis for bilinear hysteretic system with yielding damping devices for ␣
⫽0.05, and ␤i⫽0.05.
CFV⫽ 冉冊T
Ts
0.455␤⫹0.132
(44)
The availability of a significant number of response history analysis results for a

Table 5. Correction factor for velocity (from Sadek et al. 1999)
Viscous Damping Ratio

Period (sec) 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
0.1 0.70 0.63 0.57 0.53 0.51 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.41
0.3 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.86 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.77
0.5 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.0 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.22 1.28 1.32 1.36
1.5 1.13 1.20 1.27 1.31 1.36 1.46 1.54 1.61 1.65
2.0 1.20 1.28 1.39 1.47 1.53 1.63 1.73 1.82 1.90
2.5 1.23 1.33 1.47 1.55 1.64 1.78 1.89 1.99 2.09
3.0 1.39 1.47 1.56 1.64 1.72 1.88 2.02 2.10 2.26
3.5 1.51 1.60 1.70 1.79 1.87 2.01 2.16 2.29 2.42
4.0 1.61 1.74 1.88 2.00 2.09 2.23 2.36 2.50 2.62
wide range of parameters for yielding systems in the study facilitated the calculation of
improved velocity correction factors. Utilizing results on the exact relative velocity and
the pseudo-velocity, new velocity correction factors were derived and these are pre-
sented in Table 6. Note that these correction factors differ from those of Sadek et al. and
Pekcan et al., as follows: (1) the earthquake motions used in the derivation do not con-
tain any with near-fault characteristics; (2) the analyzed systems are nonlinear; (3) the
pseudo-velocity is calculated as the product of the peak displacement and the effective
frequency, both of which were calculated by approximate means; and (4) the factors ex-
tend to values of the effective period of 4.0 sec and effective damping of 100% of criti-
cal.
The utility of the correction factors in Tables 5 and 6, and of Equation 44 was in-
vestigated by recalculating the velocity in all cases for the present study as the product
of pseudo-velocity and the correction factor, and interpreting the period in Equation 44
and Table 5 as the effective period and the viscous damping ratio in Equation 44 and in
Table 6. New velocity correction factors
Effective Effective Damping Ratio

Period
(sec) 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
0.3 0.72 0.70 0.69 0.67 0.63 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.49
0.5 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.69 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.61
1.0 0.82 0.83 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.95
1.5 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.20
2.0 1.08 1.12 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.41
2.5 1.05 1.11 1.17 1.24 1.30 1.36 1.42 1.48 1.54 1.59
3.0 1.00 1.08 1.17 1.25 1.33 1.42 1.50 1.58 1.67 1.75
3.5 1.09 1.15 1.22 1.30 1.37 1.45 1.52 1.60 1.67 1.75
4.0 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.24 1.38 1.49 1.60 1.70 1.81 1.81
Figure 14. Comparison of velocity predictions without and with correction factors for bilinear
hysteretic system (␣⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 1.0) with linear viscous damping devices, ␤v⫽0.15, and
␤i⫽0.05.
Table 5 as the effective damping. Results of the simplified approach are compared with
those of response-history analysis are presented in Figures 14 through 18. Each of these
figures contains four graphs in which the vertical axis represents the average value of
the results of nonlinear response history analysis on the velocity, and the horizontal axis
represents the velocity calculated by simplified methods without and with the correction
factors. It is apparent that the correction factors reduce the scatter in the data and pro-
hysteretic system (␣⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 1.0) with linear viscous damping devices, ␤v⫽0.25, and
␤i⫽0.05.
duce either very conservative results (factors of Sadek et al. 1999) or results of accept-
able accuracy (factors of Pekcan et al. 1999 and the revised factors of Table 6).
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of the 2000 NEHRP Provisions methods of analysis for yielding struc-
tural frames equipped with linear viscous, nonlinear viscous, and hysteretic damping de-
vices was studied by nonlinear response-history analysis of SDOF systems using 20
hysteretic system (␣⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 1.0) with nonlinear viscous damping devices (a⫽0.5),
␤v⫽0.15, and ␤i⫽0.05.
earthquake histories scaled to match on average the 2000 NEHRP Provisions spectrum
with SDS⫽1.0, SD1⫽0.6 and Ts⫽0.6 seconds. Near-field and soft-soil earthquake histo-
ries were not included in the set of 20 records and as such the conclusions presented
below should not necessarily be directly applied to such conditions. The key products
and observations of the study described in this paper are
1. Derivations for the 2000 NEHRP Provisions equation for calculating the maxi-
hysteretic system (␣⫽0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 1.0) with nonlinear viscous damping devices (a⫽0.5),
␤v⫽0.25, and ␤i⫽0.05.
mum acceleration and maximum velocity in damped framing system were pre-
sented together with the key assumptions upon which the derivations are based.
2. The 2000 NEHRP Provisions simplified methods of analysis produce exact or
conservative estimates of peak displacement and peak acceleration, and reason-
able estimates of peak velocities. Velocity estimates within 25% of the correct
elastic system (␣⫽0.05) with linear viscous damping devices (␤v⫽0.0, 0.15, 0.25, and ␤i
⫽0.05).
values are obtained for frames with 1.0⭐Te⭐3.0 and 0.0⭐␤eff⭐0.4; for periods
and damping ratios outside of these ranges, the velocity correction factor of
Table 6 should be used.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support for this project was provided by the Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, Task on Rehabilitation Strategies for Buildings
(Projects No. 982403, No. 992403, and No. 00-2042). The work was performed under
the direction of Technical Subcommittee 12, Base Isolation and Energy Dissipation, of
the Building Seismic Safety Council, which was tasked with developing analysis and
design procedures for inclusion in the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seis-
mic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. The work of Technical Sub-
committee 12 was supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
REFERENCES
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings and NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, Report Nos. FEMA 273 and 274, prepared for the Building Seismic Safety Coun-
cil, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2001. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, 2000 Edition, Report Nos. FEMA 368
and 369, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Chopra, A. K., 1995. Dynamics of Structures, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 1999, Evaluation of NSP to estimate seismic deformation: SDF
systems, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (4), 482–490.
Constantinou, M. C., Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F., 1998. Passive Energy Dissipation Sys-
tems for Structural Design and Retrofit, Monograph Series No. 1, Multidisciplinary Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York,
Buffalo, NY.
Iwan, W. D., and Gates, N. C., 1979a, The effective period and damping of a class of hysteretic
structures, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 7 (3), 199–211.
Iwan, W. D., and Gates, N. C., 1979b, Estimating earthquake response of simple hysteretic
structures, J. Eng. Mech. Div. 105 (EM3), 391–405.
Pekcan, G., Mander J. B., and Chen S. S., 1999. Design and Retrofit Methodology for Buildings
Structures with Supplemental Energy Dissipating Systems, Technical Report MCEER-99-
0021, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo,
State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Ramirez, O. M., Constantinou, M. C., Kircher, C. A., Whittaker, A. S., Johnson, M. W., Gomez,
J. D., and Chrysostomou, C. Z., 2000. Development and Evaluation of Simplified Procedures
for Analysis and Design of Buildings with Passive Energy Dissipation Systems, MCEER Re-
port 00-0010, Revision 1, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 470 pp.
Ramirez, O. M., Constantinou, M. C., Whittaker, A. S., Kircher, C. A., and Chrysostomou, C.
Z., 2002. Elastic and inelastic seismic response of structures with damping systems, Earth-
quake Spectra 18 (3), 531–547 (this issue).
Sadek, F., Mohraz, B., and Riley, M. A., 1999. Linear Static and Dynamic Procedures for Struc-
tures with Velocity-Dependent Supplemental Dampers, Building and Fire Research Labora-
tory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Soong, T. T., and Constantinou, M. C. (Editors), 1994. Passive and Active Structural Vibration
Control in Civil Engineering, Springer-Verlag, Wien, New York.
Tsopelas, P., Constantinou, M. C., Kircher, C. A., and Whittaker, A. S., 1997. Evaluation of
Simplified Methods of Analysis for Yielding Structures, NCEER Report 97-0012, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New
York, Buffalo, NY.
(Received 28 November 2001; accepted 22 April 2002)

Simplified - Methods - of - Yieldng Structures With Damp Systems

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Simplified - Methods - of - Yieldng Structures With Damp Systems

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Evaluation of Simplified Methods

of Analysis of Yielding Structures

Oscar M. Ramirez,a) Michael C. Constantinou,b) M.EERI, Juan D. Gomez,c)

The 2000 NEHRP Provisions include simplified methods of analysis of

NONLINEAR RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS

Figure 1. Structural system behaviors considered in this study.

DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEM BEHAVIOR

lyzed by modeling it as a bilinear elastic system having the force-displacement relation

DESCRIPTION OF DAMPING SYSTEM

Figure 2. Illustration of behavior of analyzed systems.

2. Post-yielding to elastic stiffness ratio: ␣

Table 1. Values of parameters in study of bilinear

Te 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 seconds

BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH LINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING DEVICES

BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH NONLINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING

Table 2. Values of parameter ␭

BILINEAR ELASTIC SYSTEM WITH LINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING DEVICES

BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH YIELDING DAMPING DEVICES

Table 3. Values of parameters in study of bilinear

Te 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 seconds

APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Table 4. Values of parameters in study of bilinear

Te 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 seconds

BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH NONLINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING

BILINEAR ELASTIC SYSTEM WITH LINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING DEVICES

Figure 3. Behavior of bilinear hysteretic system with yielding damping devices.

BILINEAR HYSTERETIC SYSTEM WITH YIELDING DAMPING DEVICES

where A is given by Equation 21. The effective damping is given by

CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION IN

u⫽D cos ␻nt (28)

u̇⫽⫺D␻n sin ␻nt (29)

CF2⫽共sin ␦兲a (39)

RESULTS OF SIMPLIFIED METHOD OF ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON TO

Figure 5. Comparison of response history analysis results (average of 20 values) to results of

CORRECTION FACTORS FOR VELOCITY

The availability of a significant number of response history analysis results for a

Table 5. Correction factor for velocity (from Sadek et al. 1999)

Viscous Damping Ratio

Table 6. New velocity correction factors

Effective Effective Damping Ratio

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen