Performance Design of Low to Mid-Rise Steel Structures Equipped with Viscous Damper

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

Abstract

The direct displacement-based design (DDBD) method is one of the most powerful and efficient performance-based design procedures. This method has the ability to consider the nonlinear behavior of structures under seismic excitation with acceptable accuracy. The methodology of this method is based on substituting a multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) system into a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system associated with the peak displacement response. The SDOF system is defined by implementing equivalent parameters such as effective mass and height, design displacement, yield displacement, ductility, effective damping, and effective period. Up to now, the DDBD method has been applied and developed by many researchers and the last version of the model code for DDBD was published as DBD12.
Over the past three decades, using fluid viscous dampers as a manner for more reliable and safer design of structures, particularly in seismic regions, has steadily increased. Consequently, the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure as an allowable method for designing structures equipped with dampers has been presented by ASCE-7. However, the DDBD method also suggests the procedure to design structures equipped with dampers. Previous studies showed that although structures equipped with viscous dampers designed by the DBD12 approach can satisfy the target performance limit states, a significant overestimation may be seen between the performance target limit and inert-story drift ratios (IDRs) obtained from nonlinear time-history analyses. In other words, the structures are not economically designed.
To solve this drawback, the present study proposes modifications for low to mid-rise steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) with dampers in the DDBD method. In doing so, the effect of interaction between ductility demand and added extra damping related to the viscous damper is considered to calculate effective damping. Moreover, a velocity modification factor is also applied for calculating damper constants. In order to compare the proposed modifications with the conventional DBD12 approach, 3-, 6- and 9-story steel MRFs are designed by each of mentioned procedures separately. Furthermore, linear and nonlinear dampers with velocity exponent values equal to 0.35, 0.5, 0.7, and 1 are used. To investigate the seismic performance of the structures designed, nonlinear time-history analyses are performed under the ground motions that the average of their pseudo-acceleration response spectra is matched with 2800 standard design spectrum. Then, the IDRs and displacement profiles of the structures are compared at the maximum considerable earthquake (MCE) hazard level. The results obtained from the analyses of the structures designed by DBD12 confirm the overdesign of this approach. On the other hand, the obtained results of structures designed via proposed modifications validate the efficiency of these modifications. Low-rise MRFs in all of the velocity exponent values can significantly decrease the difference between the peak IDR and target limit. Also, implementing the proposed modifications for mid-rise MRFs with linear damper and damper velocity exponent values equal to 0.7 can acceptably match the peak IDR and target limit. In addition, the seismic behavior of structures designed by the proposed modifications at the MCE hazard level is also checked at the design earthquake (DE) hazard level. The results show the satisfaction of life safety performance level for these structures. It is worth to mention that the peak IDRs in the mid-rise MRFs with damper velocity exponent values equal to 0.5 and 0.35 designed by the proposed modifications exceed the target limits at both the MCE and DE levels. Therefore, more studies are suggested for mid-rise MRFs with nonlinear dampers.
Finally, comparison between two mentioned procedures reveals that using the proposed modification in the DDBD method leads to about 8% decrease for used steel and about 30% decrease for damper constants.
   

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Seleemah, A.A. and Constantinou, M.C. (1997) Investigation of Seismic Response of Buildings with Linear and Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers. Buffalo, NY.
  2. Miyamoto, H.K., Gilani, A.S.J., Wada, A., and Ariyaratana, C. (2010) Limit states and failure mechanisms of viscous dampers and the implications for large earthquakes. Eng. & Struct. Dyn., 39, 1279-1297.
  3. Miyamoto, H.K., Gilani, A.S.J., Wada, A. and Ariyaratana, C. (2011) Identifying the collapse hazard of steel special moment-frame buildings with viscous dampers using the FEMA P695 methodology. Earthquake Spectra, 27, 1147-1168.
  4. Sepehri, A., Taghikhany, T., and Ahmadi Namin, S.M.R. (2019) Seismic design and assessment of structures with viscous dampers at limit state levels: Focus on probability of damage in devices. Struct. Tall Spec. Build., 28, e1569.
  5. Kitayama, S. and Constantinou, M.C. (2018) Seismic performance of buildings with viscous damping systems designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7-16. Journal of Structural Engineer-ing, 144, 04018050.
  6. Seo, C.Y., Karavasilis, T.L., Ricles, J.M., and Sause, R. (2014) Seismic performance and probabilistic collapse resistance assessment of steel moment resisting frames with fluid viscous dampers. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 43.
  7. Dadpour, O. and Banazadeh, M. (2019) Probabilistic seismic response models for risk assessment and design of steel moment frames with linear viscous dampers. Earthquake Spectra, 55, 267-288.
  8. Ramirez, O., Constantinou, M.C., Kitcher, C.A. and et al. (2001) Development and Evaluation of Simplified Procedures for Passive Energy Disipation Systems, MCEER-00-0010. Buffalo, NY.
  9. FEMA 450 (2003) Nehrp Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. Washington, DC.
  10. ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2017) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA.
  11. Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., and Kowalsky, M. (2007) Displacement Based Seismic Design of Structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press.
  12. Sullivan, T.J., Priestley, M.J.N., and Calvi, G.M. (2012) A Model Code for the Seismic Design of Structures, DBD12. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press.
  13. Sullivan, T.J. (2013) Direct displacement-based seismic design of steel eccentrically braced frame structures. Earthq. Eng., 11, 2197-2231.
  14. Sullivan, T.J., Maley, T., and Calvi, G.M. (2011) Seismic response of steel moment resisting frames designed using a Direct DBD procedure. 8th Int. Conf. Struct. Dyn. EURODYN 2011, 308-315.
  15. Tehranizadeh, M. and Yakhchalian, M. (2011) Displacement based and consolidated force/ displacement based methods for seismic assessment of steel moment resisting frames. Scientia Iranica, 18, 1054-1060.
  16. Nievas, C.I. and Sullivan, T.J. (2015) Applicability of the direct displacement-based design method to steel moment resisting frames with setbacks. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13, 3841-3870.
  17. Abadi, R.E. and Bahar, O. (2018) Investigation of the LS level hysteretic damping capacity of steel MR frames’ needs for the direct displacement-based design method. KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 22, 1304-1315.
  18. Wijesundara, K.K. and Rajeev, P. (2012) Direct displacement-based seismic design of steel concentric braced frame structures. J. Struct. Eng., 13, 243-257.
  19. Al-Mashaykhi, M., Rajeev, P., Wijesundara, K.K., and Hashemi, M.J. (2019) Displacement profile for displacement based seismic design of concentric braced frames. Constr. Steel Res., 155, 233-248.
  20. Lin, Y.Y., Tsai, M.H., Hwang, J.S., and Chang, K.C. (2003) Direct displacement-based design for building with passive energy dissipation systems. Engineering Structures, 25, 25-37.
  21. Lin, Y.Y., Chang, K.C., and Chen, C.Y. (2008) Direct displacement-based design for seismic retrofit of existing buildings using nonlinear viscous dampers. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 6, 535-552.
  22. Sullivan, T.J. and Lago, A. (2012) Towards a simplified Direct DBD procedure for the seismic design of moment resisting frames with viscous dampers. Engineering Structures, 35, 140-148.
  23. Noruzvand, M., Mohebbi, M., and Shakeri, K. (2020) Modified direct displacement-based design approach for structures equipped with fluid viscous damper. Struct Control Heal Monit, 27, 1-19.
  24. Moradpour, S. and Dehestani, M. (2019) Optimal DDBD procedure for designing steel structures with nonlinear fluid viscous dampers. Structures, 22, 154-174.
  25. Alehojjat, S.B., Bahar, O., and Yakhchalian, M. (2021) Improvements in the direct displacement-based design procedure for mid-rise steel MRFs equipped with viscous dampers. Structures, 34, 1636-1650.
  26. Sullivan, T.J. (2011) Direct displacement-based design of a RC wall-steel EBF dual system with added dampers. New Zeal Soc Earthq. Eng., 44, 167-178.
  27. Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Brussels, Belgium.
  28. Pettinga, J.D. and Priestley, M.J.N. (2005) Dynamic behavior of reinforced concreteframes designed with direct displacement-based design. Earthq. Eng., 9, 309-330.
  29. ANSI/AISC 341-10 (2010) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. Chicago, Illinois.
  30. DISTEEL (2015) Displacement-based Seismic Design of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures. European Union.
  31. Alehojjat, S.B., Bahar, O., and Yakhchalian, M. (2021) Equivalent viscous damping in steel structures equipped with dampers. Struct. Eng. Geotech., 11(2), 1-12.
  32. Standard No. 2800 (2014) Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, 4th Edition. Tehran, Iran.
  33. PEER (2014) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Database. https://ngawest2. berkeley.edu.
  34. Seismomatch (2014) Earthquake Software for Response Spectrum Matching. Seismosoft https:// seismosoft.com/
  35. Papagiannopoulos, G.A., Hatzigeorgiou, G.D., and Beskos, D.E. (2013) Recovery of spectral absolute acceleration and spectral relative velocity from their pseudo-spectral counterparts. Earthquake Structures, 4, 489-508.
  36. SAP2000 (2018) Integerated Solution for Structural Analysis and Design, CSI Analysis Reference Manual For SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE and CSiBridge. Berkelely, CA: Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI).
  37. ASCE/SEI 41-13 (2014) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Reston, VA.
  38. Asgarkhani, N., Yakhchalian, M. and Mohebi, B. (2020) Evaluation of approximate methods for estimating residual drift demands in BRBFs. Engineering Structures, 224, 110849.
  39. Arab, R. and Yakhchalian, M. (2022) Investigating approximate methods to predict residual interstory drift ratio demands in steel eccentrically braced frames. J. Steel Struct., 22(5).
  40. Del Gobbo, G.M., Williams, M.S. and Blakeborough, A. (2018) Comparing fluid viscous damper placement methods considering total-building seismic performance. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 47, 2864-2886.