Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

A New Metallic Damper for Seismic Resilience: Analytical Feasibility Study

Dhiman Basu , P.R.M. Reddy
Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper explores the feasibility of a metallic damper that enables dissipation of input energy regardless of the
Received 15 February 2016 direction of seismic excitation. Also explored is the feasibility of appropriate mounting system. Feasibility study
Received in revised form 19 May 2016 carried out here is restricted to the analytical domain: A ten-storied building located in a seismically active region
Accepted 28 June 2016
of India and three seismic events recorded at the Large Scale Seismic Testing (LSST) array, Lotung, Taiwan. Merits
Available online 29 June 2016
of the proposed damper and its mounting system are evident over the commonly used X-plate systems but the
Keywords:
extent of benets depends on the types of ground motion. Component level testing indicates that necking may
Added damping and stiffness (ADAS) dampers not be a serious concern in proposed device.
Hourglass-ADAS (HADAS) 2016 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Storey stiffness
Incremental dynamic analysis
3D-bracing

1. Introduction The damper is designed to be yielding with a nominal activation load

Principle of conventional earthquake-resistant design that has been
applied for the last 75 years is intended to ensure an acceptable safety
level while avoiding catastrophic failures and life loss. A large amount
of research has been conducted over the last half century into develop-
ing the innovative earthquake-resistant systems in order to raise the
seismic resilience while keeping the construction costs reasonable.
Use of metallic damper as supplemental energy dissipating device is
one of the earliest approaches adopted in seismic resilient design.
Added Damping and Stiffness (ADAS) dampers are the most commonly
used metallic dampers in seismic design. Steel plate ADAS dampers
have been the focus of many researchers in augmenting the energy ab-
sorbing capacity of a building. Originally manufactured by Bechtel Cor-
poration, ADAS damper is an evolution of earlier X-plate used as a
damping source for piping systems [19]. Geometry of the ADAS incorpo-
rates several interconnected yielding plates in parallel. A number of re-
searchers have investigated the behaviour of individual ADAS elements
including, Bergman and Goel [4]; Whittaker et al. [25,26]; Su and Han-
son [20]; and Xia and Hanson [27]. ADAS dampers used in these studies
were made of X-shaped steel plates, bolted together through two ends
of each plates. These studies have conrmed its suitability for applica-
tion in buildings to improve the seismic performance. Several other var-
iants of ADAS have been reported (for example, [7,8,14,21]) but this
paper considers only X-plate ADAS for further comparison.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dbasu@iitgn.ac.in (D. Basu).
and much before the yielding of building. Early yielding of the damper is
thus to avoid inelastic excursion in the primary load resisting structural
elements. Whittaker et al. [25,26], proposed a simple procedure den-
ing the force-displacement relation for ADAS dampers, which was
based on X-shaped idealization of the plates along with following two
assumptions: a) X-plates are rigidly restrained at their ends; and b) X-
plates deform in double curvature. Force-displacement plot of the
ADAS damper was then idealized as elastic-perfectly-plastic, with plas-
tic (yield) load (Py) and yield displacement (y) given by,

  
P y f y  Bt 2 =3L ; y f y  H 2 =2Et 1
where, B, t, and H are the width, thickness and height of the damper, re-
spectively; fy and E are the yield stress and Young's modulus of the ma-
terial, respectively.
However, ADAS has limited applicability due to the fact that once it
is deformed laterally the plates will be subjected to tension resulting
in an early failure at the neck of the X-shaped plate and thereby reduc-
ing the effectiveness of the device. This failure mode was identied in a
series of tests conducted at UC Berkeley. In order to improve the weak-
ness of ADAS, Triangular-ADAS (TADAS) was then developed. Further,
all the ADAS and TADAS dampers studied to date perform effectively
only along the in-plane direction of the mounting system (and not
along the out-of-plane direction). Bi-directional seismic demand is
met by providing ADAS/TADAS dampers along two orthogonal direc-
tions. Consequently, design of a low to medium rise, full-scaled building
with ADAS / TADAS elements leads to signicantly heavy, and often

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2016.06.011
2352-0124/ 2016 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
166 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Fig. 1. Development of new 3D bracing system for HADAS damper.

unmanageable, size of the dampers. For example, Tsai et al. [22] report- the proposed device followed by a comparison between the same build-
ed the design of a twenty storied steel moment resisting frame with ing with ADAS and with proposed device. Emphasis has been paid on
TADAS elements that resulted in 33 plates of 476 mm depth, 350 mm the comparison of performance against sustaining a design basis event
width and 50 mm thickness at the rst storey level; however, the num- when using the X-plate ADAS and proposed dampers. A series of device
ber of plates decreases at the upper storeys. level experimental investigations is also carried out to study the suscep-
This situation can be conveniently improved if a damper effectively tibility of necking in the proposed device.
performing along both horizontal directions is developed. Objective of
this paper is to investigate the feasibility of such a damper without 1.1. Development of 3D Damper and 3D Bracing System
sacricing any of the benets of ADAS dampers. Note that such a damp-
er, even if exists, requires a special mounting system which is capable of Intuition might suggest that an axisymmetric form of the ADAS X-
providing stiffness along two orthogonal horizontal directions. Chevron plate, i.e., an hourglass shape could be a viable solution. Proposed 3D
bracings, commonly used in mounting the ADAS dampers, have negligi-
ble stiffness along the out-of-plane direction and hence, are not suitable.
Another objective of this paper is to explore the feasibility of such a
mounting system. This paper is restricted to exploring the analytical fea-
sibility. Experimental validation will be carried out and reported
separately.
In this paper, rst, proling of a 3D damper is presented to enable si-
multaneous yielding all along its length regardless of the direction of ex-
citation; second, an appropriate mounting system is congured that
offers equal rigidity regardless of the direction of excitation; third, de-
sign parameters for the damper along with the mounting system are
identied; fourth, a step-by-step design process is proposed for a build-
ing equipped with the 3D dampers; and nally, the expected perfor-
mance is compared. One ten-storied building located in seismic Zone
V of India and three seismic events recorded at Large Scale Seismic Test-
ing (LSST) Array in Lotung, Taiwan are used for this comparison. A brief
comparison is rst presented between the building with and without Fig. 2. Tri-linear force deformation plot (modied from [22].
 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183 167

damper is referred to the Hourglass Added Damping and Stiffness Table 1

(HADAS) damper in the remainder of this paper. A typical layout of Details of Ground Motion Data.

HADAS damper prole is shown in Fig. 1a. Noting the similarity with SNo Description Event-1 Event-2 Event-3
ADAS dampers, the variation of diameter along the height of an 1 Date 16/1/1986 20/5/1986 14/11/1986
HADAS damper can be dened as, 2 Latitude 24 Deg-45 24 Deg-04 23 Deg-59 Min-
Min-46.2 Sec Min-54 Sec 30.5 Sec
 
2z 1=4 3 Longitude 121 Deg-57 121 Deg-35 121 Deg-49 Min-
dz D 1 2 Min-40.1 Sec Min-29.4 Sec 59.4 Sec
H
4 Focal depth 10.2 15.8 15
(kM)
where, H = height of the HADAS damper, D = diameter at the top/bot- 5 Local magnitude 6.1 6.2 6.5
tom end, d (z) = diameter at a depth z from end A. The prole enables 6 Epicentral 20 66 75
simultaneous exural yielding throughout the length, similar to an distance (kM)
ADAS damper. Resulting displacement due to bending (b) and yield
load (Py) can be expressed as follows:
! !
D3 H2 this paper. Nevertheless, a similar extension of the TADAS damper can
Py f y ; b f y 3
16H 2ED also be developed and the weakness due to necking can be completely
eliminated. This variant is, however, not pursued further in this paper
Shear deformation was assumed to be negligible in the case of ADAS with a clear understanding that necking will not be considered as a
damper. However, the current design of HADAS damper includes its weakness in the proposed damper. Hence, HADAS damper is focused
shear deformation in an approximate way. Assuming a circular prismat- in the remainder of this paper for further investigation and comparison.
ic member of uniform cross section (diameter D), shear deformation of Further, the HADAS damper is made out of a solid piece of rod (not an-
the damper s is given by, nular) and hence, the chances of local failure seems to be minimum.
Suitable 3D bracing system, capable of providing stiffness along two
s D f y =4G 4 lateral orthogonal directions, in order to receive full benet from the
HADAS damper is proposed (Fig. 1bd). This bracing system comprises
Plastic (idealized yield) strength and yield displacement of HADAS of four bays (panel b), which are numbered for the purpose of illustra-
damper are calculated as follows: tion. Each bay consists of one bracing and one damper, which are also
! ! assumed to be numbered in accordance with the bay. Precisely, the
D3 H2 D bracing system has 2 bays in x-direction (namely, bays-1 and -2) and
P py 1:7 f y ; py 1:7f y 5
16H 2ED 4G 2 bays in y-direction (namely, bays-3 and -4). Note the HADAS dampers
provided in bays-3 and -4 (panel c) are not effective in x-direction, as
where, 1.7 represents the ratio and plastic to elastic section modulus, the chevron bracing system has negligible stiffness along the out-of-
also known as the shape factor. Theoretically, the diameter reduces to plane direction. Similarly, HADAS dampers provided in bays-1 and -2
zero at the mid-height which is practically infeasible. Instead, the diam- are not effective in y-direction. If the bracing system, for example, that
eter is kept constant for the central 5% of the total height. shown in Fig. 4c is subjected to a seismic excitation along x-direction,
The proposed HADAS damper is aimed to provide an extension of only dampers-1 and -2 will participate effectively in dissipating the
the X-Plate ADAS damper in three dimension and hence, the weakness input seismic energy.
due to neck is still expected to be present in the HADAS damper. How- In order to force all the four dampers, both in x- and y-directions, to
ever, due to the one-fourth order parabolic proling with central 5% participate in energy dissipation, top ends of the chevron bracing sys-
height of constant diameter, the neck of HADAS is not as weak as in tems are proposed to be connected laterally through horizontal bracings
the case of conventional X-plate. A series of device level testing has (Fig. 1d). This does not alter overall stiffness of the bracing in either x- or
been performed to study the initiation of necking, as discussed later in y-direction. However, total stiffness along x- (y-) direction will be

Fig. 3. Location of the LSST array in Lotung, Taiwan (www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~smdmc/llsst/llsst.htm),

168 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Fig. 4. Time history data plots for all events.

distributed uniformly in all four bracings and hence, all four dampers
will contribute to energy dissipation.
1.2. Inuence of metallic damper parameters on bare frames
Inuence of various design parameters of ADAS dampers on the seis-
mic response of buildings has been extensively investigated [27]. In a
similar line, Tsai et al. [22] reported the investigation with TADAS ele-
ments and salient design parameters relevant to the context of the pres-
ent paper are described here for the ready reference. Let the horizontal
stiffness of TADAS / HADAS damper and bracing be dened as Kd and Kb,
respectively; resulting equivalent stiffness be Kh; ratio of Kh to storey
stiffness of the bare frame / structure (Kf) be SR; and ratio of Kb to the
Kd be DSR. Hence,
K h K b  K d =K b K d ; SR K h =K f ; DSR K b =K d 6
These design parameters are to be selected in such a way that en-
sures yielding of the damper at a nominal activation load and much be-
fore the yielding of frame/building. Tsai et al. [22] proposed a tri-linear
model to characterize the force-displacement relationship of a steel
frame with TADAS damper. A similar model with modications for the

Fig. 5. 5% damped response spectra.

 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183 169

Metallic damper is likely to increase the oor acceleration which

is considered as one its main drawback and particularly important
when safety of nonstructural components is a concern. Acceleration
ratio is dened here as the ratio of storey forces at a particular
displacement level in with and without damper cases to assess the
likelihood amplication in oor acceleration on account of the instal-
lation of dampers. With reference to Fig. 2, the amplication depends
on the displacement level (precisely the storey drift) and may be
expressed as follows:

Fig. 6. Assessment of storey stiffness: actual frame and equivalent shear frame.  A R 1 SR   for y1
y1 y1
AR 1 SR 1 SR  SHRa 1 for y1 y2
     
y1 y1

1 SR 1 SR  SHRa 1 SHR f SR  SHRa 1
HADAS damper is presented in Fig. 2. Combined stiffness (owing to the y2 y2 y2
AR   for y2

parallel connection) of the bare frame and HADAS damper is 1 SHR f
y2
1

11
Ks Kh K f 7

and, y1and y2 represent the yield displacements of the frame/building First part of Eq. (11) shows that the amplication of acceleration is
with and without HADAS damper, respectively. Denoting the post elas- constant until the dampers start yielding and the extent of amplication
tic stiffness ratio of the equivalent system of damper and bracing as, depends on SR. Within the range of displacement when dampers yield
SHRa total restoring forces developed in the combined system at the dis- but not the structural components, as indicated by the second part of
placement levels y1and y2 are given by Ry1 and Ry2, respectively, as Eq. (11), the amplication of acceleration depends on the level of dis-
follows: placement and can be alternatively expressed as


Ry1 K h K f  y1 and Ry2 K
f  y2 Kh  y1 SHRa  K h
 C1
 y2 y1 8 AR y1 y2 C 0 where; ; C0
y1
1 SR  SHRa ; and C 1 SR1SHRa 12
Denoting the ratio Ry2 to Ry1as

U Ry2 =Ry1 9
Noting that C0 and C1are always positive, one may expect the accel-
eration amplication to decrease with increasing displacement. Finally,
and substituting Ry1 and Ry2 from Eq. (8) into Eq. (9), and thereafter uti-
after the yielding of structural components, acceleration amplication is
lizing Eq. (6), it may be shown that
given by the last part of Eq. (11), which may be alternatively expressed
  as
y2 1 SR
1 U1 10
y1 1 SR  SHRa  

1 D0
In the design of buildings with HADAS damper, as shown later,

 y2
AR y2 AR y2  
Eq. (10) will be used to estimate the yield displacement of the equiva-
1 SHR f 1 13
lent system of damper and bracing based on a set of assumed normal-    y2
ized design parameters, namely, SR, SHRa and U, and the yield y1

where; D0 SR 1SHRa SHR f SHRa 1SHR f
displacement of the bare frame/structure, y2. y2

Table 2
Details of 20 storey frame for storey stiffness calculation.

Floor Level Column line Beam bay Force (kN) Displacement (mm) Storey stiffness (kN/m)

C1 & C4 C2 & C3 B1 & B3 B2

RF W12 106 W14 176 W24 94 W24 94 27.6 49.8 14,061

19 F W12 106 W14 176 W24 94 W24 94 26.6 47.8 24,140
18 F W12 106 W14 176 W24 94 W24 117 25.3 45.5 31,851
17 F W12 106 W14 176 W24 104 W24 117 23.9 43.1 37,854
16 F W14 109 W14 193 W24 104 W24 117 22.4 40.3 44,177
15 F W14 109 W14 193 W24 104 W24 117 20.8 37.5 50,080
14 F W14 109 W14 193 W24 114 W24 146 19.2 34.5 55,833
13 F W14 109 W14 193 W24 114 W24 146 17.5 31.6 59,884
12 F W14 120 W14 211 W24 114 W24 146 15.8 28.5 65,723
11 F W14 120 W14 211 W24 114 W24 146 14.2 25.5 69,498
10 F W14 132 W14 211 W24 114 W24 146 12.5 22.4 74,109
9F W14 132 W14 211 W24 114 W24 146 10.8 19.4 80,493
8F W14 145 W14 257 W24 124 W30 173 9.1 16.4 94,135
7F W14 145 W14 257 W24 124 W30 173 7.7 13.8 99,830
6F W14 159 W14 257 W24 124 W30 173 6.3 11.3 107,242
5F W14 159 W14 257 W24 124 W30 173 4.9 8.9 115,475
4F W14 176 W14 283 W24 124 W30 211 3.6 6.6 131,471
3F W14 176 W14 283 W24 124 W30 211 2.5 4.5 142,331
2F W14 211 W14 342 W24 124 W30 211 1.5 2.6 175,255
1F W14 211 W14 342 W24 124 W30 211 0.6 1.1 254,921
170 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Fig. 7. Comparison response based on Indian Standard Response Spectrum (a) Deformation, (b) Storey shear and (c) Lateral force.

Note the acceleration amplication will increase with displacement demand of the system with damper is expected to be somewhat lesser.
level, if and only if, the D0 is positive, and that will be the case only when Finally, if the system without damper fails to meet the demand of a
ground motion while installation of damper enables it, computation of
1 acceleration amplication is irrelevant in such a case.
1
SHR f y1
N 14
1 y2
1
SHRa 1.3. Storey stiffness of the building

Further, acceleration amplication can be forced to decrease with in-
creasing displacement if the following condition is approximately satis-
ed:
SHR f y2
N 15
SHRa y1
First part of Eq. (11) and Eq. (12)Eq. (15) together provide an ex-
pected amplication in oor acceleration of on account of installation
of dampers.
The acceleration amplication computed here may be considered as
an upper bound when both systems, i.e., with and without damper,
safely meet the ground motion demand. This is because of the fact
that, the acceleration amplication is computed above at the displace-
ment level of the system without damper and the actual displacement
Yield displacement of the bare frame or building without the HADAS
damper is an important design parameter and estimation of which re-
quires the storey stiffness to be known a priori. By denition, storey
stiffness is the ratio of storey force to the storey drift and holds good
only in case of a shear building, i.e., with oor beams of innite rigidity,
and resulting in a tri-diagonal lateral stiffness matrix. Finite beam stiff-
ness in reality leads to a fully populated lateral stiffness matrix and
hence, storey stiffness hardly exists, but preliminary seismic design re-
quires it to be known in an approximate sense. Efforts have been
made in literature to dene the storey stiffness [3,5,9,15,17]. All the pre-
vious studies on storey stiffness are based on idealizations that are rare-
ly met and practically not user friendly with the computer based
analysis. Further, performance of computed storey stiffness under dy-
namic loading has not been studied. A convenient procedure to estimate
storey stiffness is proposed in this paper with an emphasis to dynamic

Fig. 8. Comparison of response using storey stiffness based on time history analysis (Event-2, EW) (a) Deformation, (b) Storey shear and (c) Lateral force.
 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183 171

(the one used in storey stiffness calculation) is applied. Therefore, calcu-

lated storey stiffness depends on the applied force prole, which how-
ever is not realistic. In order to eliminate this dependency, lateral force
prole is replaced by the inertial force at the rst mode and displace-
ment prole is replaced by the associated modal displacement. Conse-
quently,

fU g P s  SD  fg1 ; f F g P s  SD  K fg1
P s  SD  21 Mfg1 17

where, Ps, SD, 1and {}1 are the participation factor, spectral displace-
ment, natural frequency and mode shape of the rst mode, respectively;
[K] and [M] are the stiffness and lumped mass matrices, respectively, of
the real frame. Note that Ps and SD do not enter into the calculation.
Therefore, storey stiffness estimation of a frame requires calculation of
the rst modal displacement and associated modal force vector, and
combining these data through Eq. (16).

1.4. Assessment of calculated storey stiffness

Storey stiffness calculated based on the procedure proposed above

will be assessed here with respect to an example frame subjected to
seismic excitations in the form of response spectra and acceleration
time series. Description of ground motions considered in this study is
presented rst followed by the description of the example frame.

2. Description of ground motions

Fig. 9. Example building: typical oor plan (with dampers location).
2.1. Seismic array

displacement response. The procedure can be easily implemented with

The Lotung-LSST (LLSST) site is a part of the much larger SMART1
a standard commercial software.
array (Fig. 3a). All fteen free-surface accelerometers at the LLSST (Fig.
Storey stiffness is formulated here through converting a fully popu-
3b) are positioned along three arms at approximately 120 degree inter-
lated stiffness matrix into a tri-diagonal form of an associated shear
vals. Each arm extends for about 50 m and the spacing between the sur-
building that satises a given force and displacement prole. In order
face stations varies from 3 m to 90 m. Each arm contains ve stations
to illustrate this, let us consider the static equilibrium of a frame in
that are designated here as 1 through 5, starting at the centre of the
terms of its lateral degrees of freedom as{F} = [K]{U}. Specifying a
array. For example, FA1_1 and FA2_5 denote the innermost and outer-
force prole {F}, thereafter calculating the resulting displacement pro-
most stations located on arm 1 and 2, respectively.
le {U}, the stiffness matrix is set to a tri-diagonal form and storey stiff-
Further details on the site characteristics, instrumentation and re-
nesses are calculated in terms of {F} and {U}:
corded seismic event may be obtained from the URL http://www.
0 1 earth.sinica.edu.tw/~smdmc/llsst/llsst.htm . The average wave veloci-
Xn ties at the surface layer of the recording site are: 140 m/s and 595 m/s
Ki @ F j A=U i U i1 V i =U i U i1 16 for the S and P waves, respectively [24].
ji

2.2. Seismic events considered

where Fi, Vi , Ui and Ki are the lateral force, storey shear, oor displace-
ment and lateral stiffness, respectively, at the ith storey level. This en- Three strong motions events recorded at station FA1_1 of LSST array,
sures that resulting shear frame will have the exactly same Taiwan are considered here for analysis. Detailed description of each
displacement prole as that of the real frame if the same force prole event is presented in Table 1. Both East-West (EW) and North-South

Table 3
Damper dimensions in x-direction.

Storey Storey Number Storey stiffness Equivalent stiffness of Required Yield Required yield Height Diameter Selected
number stiffness of demand per the damper and stiffness of the displacement of displacement of the (mm) (mm) height and
(kN/m) dampers damper, Kf, bracing Kh, (kN/m) damper Kd, the storey y2, damper y2, (mm) diameter
(kN/m) (kN/m) (mm) (mm)

1 1,393,021 8 174,128 261,191 391,787 12.5 3.76 399 184 460 & 190
2 1,023,118 8 127,890 191,835 287,752 16 4.81 469 190
3 987,082 8 123,385 185,078 277,617 16 4.81 467 188
4 967,973 8 120,997 181,495 272,243 16.5 4.96 479 190
5 950,025 8 118,753 178,130 267,195 17 3.79 378 159 350 & 150
6 930,005 8 116,251 174,376 261,564 15 3.34 347 149
7 904,735 8 113,092 169,638 254,457 15 3.34 341 146
8 867,927 8 108,491 162,736 244,104 13 2.9 294 129
9 804,130 8 100,516 150,774 226,162 11 1.98 214 101 190 & 90
10 645,771 8 80,721 121,082 181,623 7.8 1.4 163 78
172 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Table 4
Damper dimensions in y-direction.

Storey Storey Number Storey stiffness Equivalent stiffness of Required Yield Required yield Height Diameter Selected
stiffness of demand per the damper and stiffness of the displacement of displacement of the (mm) (mm) height and
(kN/m) dampers damper, Kf, bracing Kh, (kN/m) damper Kd, the storey y2, damper y2, (mm) diameter
(kN/m) (kN/m) (mm) (mm)

1 1,366,518 8 170,815 256,222 384,333 12 3.61 382 178 460 & 190
2 989,952 8 123,744 185,616 278,424 15 4.51 452 184
3 948,642 8 118,580 177,870 266,806 17 5.11 492 193
4 925,320 8 115,665 173,498 260,246 17 5.11 490 191
5 903,432 8 112,929 169,393 254,090 16.5 3.68 371 155 350 & 150
6 879,318 8 109,915 164,872 247,308 16 3.56 357 150
7 849,292 8 106,161 159,242 238,863 14 3.12 318 136
8 806,386 8 100,798 151,197 226,796 14 3.12 316 134
9 734,095 8 91,762 137,643 206,464 11 1.98 211 97 190 & 90
10 567,984 8 70,998 106,497 159,746 8.3 1.49 178 80

(NS) components recorded at the station FA1_1 are considered for anal-
ysis. Description of acceleration time series is presented in Fig. 4 and the
associated 5% damped response spectra are shown in Fig. 5.
2.3. Model description and storey stiffness
One twenty-storeyed building frame, adapted from Tsai et al. [22], is
considered here (Fig. 6) for the purpose of illustration. Height and the
bay width of the frame are not provided in the referred paper, and
hence, are assumed to be 3 m and 4 m, respectively. The frame is mo-
ment resisting and rigidly held at the ground. Section details are de-
scribed in Table 2. Design dead and live load are considered as 36 kN/
m and 20 kN/m, respectively, uniformly distributed over the span of
each oor. These loads are converted into equivalent mass and lumped
at the respective joints. Modulus of elasticity of steel is taken as 200 GPa.
Modal analysis is carried out using SAP 2000 [6] and the resulting dis-
placement (u) and lateral force (F) at the rst mode are noted
(Table 2). Storey stiffness (K) calculated using Eq. (16) is also tabulated
in Table 2.
2.4. Assessment of calculated storey stiffness
An equivalent shear frame (Fig. 6) is congured with the storey stiff-
ness calculated above and mass at any oor level is the same as the sum
of the joint masses at the respective oor level. Both frames, namely, the
original building frame and the equivalent shear frame, are analysed
subjected to the 5% damped acceleration response spectra per IS
1893-Part-1 [12] with the following details: peak ground acceleration
0.18 g and medium soil. Fig. 7 presents the comparison of height wise
variation of maximum oor displacement, storey force and lateral
force in both the frames. Similar comparison is assessed in case of all
three seismic events and the assessment includes both analyses,
namely, the response spectrum and time history. Both EW and NS com-
ponents are considered in this assessment separately. Fig. 8 presents the
sample comparison based on time history analysis against the EW com-
ponent of Event-2 and further details are reported in Reddy [16]. In all
cases, prole of maximum displacement from shear frame model
matches with that of the actual building in close proximity. Maximum
storey shear also shows similar agreement whereas comparison of max-
imum lateral force prole exhibits some variation. Note the responses
compared here are the peak values and may not occur at the same
time. Nevertheless, the proposed procedure of approximating storey
stiffness may qualify for use in the design of buildings with metallic
dampers.
Alternatively, one may choose to compare the frequency and mode
shape of original and assumed shear buildings to assess the calculated
storey stiffness. Note that rst modal properties are bound to be satis-
ed as it is derived from the eigenvalue problem in the rst mode.
2.5. Design of building with HADAS damper-methodology
Design of buildings with TADAS dampers has been outlined by Tsai
et al. [22]. In a similar line, step-by-steps for the design of building
with HADAS damper are presented below:
1. Approximate SR [per Eq. (6)]. Xia and Hanson [27] reported the inu-
ence of selected SR on the seismic response of buildings.
2. Design the building without HADAS element in place. A moment
resisting frame (MRF) capable of resisting at least 25% of the pre-
scribed seismic force is recommended.
3. Compute the storey stiffness K (where i represents the respective
storey level) of the building based on the procedure presented above.
4. Perform pushover analysis based on the seismic code specied lateral
load prole (without HADAS elements in place). Plot the pushover

Fig. 10. Force-displacement behaviour.

 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183 173

Table 5 9. Perform nonlinear time history analysis for the building with HADAS
Mechanical characteristics of dampers. elements in place against the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE). Check
Floor Height Diameter Yield load Yield Stiffness the serviceability limit state specied by the seismic code and repeat
number (mm) (mm) (kN) displacement (kN/mm) the procedure with revised dimension, if not satised. Also, check the
14 460 190 1393 4.64 300 stability against the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE).
58 350 150 901 3.45 261
910 190 90 358 1.77 202 3. Design of HADAS damper for an example building

3.1. Description of building

Table 6
Failure PGA for the three seismic events. Typical oor plan of a ten-storeyed residential building with storey
Failure PGA height as 3.5 m is shown in Fig. 9. All beams (300 mm 500 mm) and
Event-1 Event-2 Event-3
columns (500 mm 500 mm) are assumed to be of the same size for
simplicity and wall thickness is 150 mm. Floor slab is considered to be
EW NS EW NS EW NS
200 mm thick and rigid in its own plane (rigid oor diaphragm) for lat-
Building without damper 0.16 g 0.23 g 0.18 g 0.15 g 0.14 g 0.16 eral load analysis. M25 concrete is considered throughout with charac-
Building with damper 0.28 g 0.4 g 0.4 g 0.33 g 0.3 g 0.35 g
teristic strength of 25 MPa, Young's modulus 25,000 MPa, Poisson's ratio
Data in bold indicate higher of EW and NS directions. 0.2 and unit weight 25 kN/m [3]. Brick masonry and plasters are as-
sumed to contribute only in mass with unit weights as19 kN/m3 and
20 kN/m3, respectively. Grade 415 and 250 [11] are used for longitudinal
curve (dened here as the storey shear vs storey drift) at respective and conning reinforcements, respectively. Dead load on beams are cal-
storey levels and idealize as a bilinear plot. Displacement associated culated as 11 kN/m and, dead and live load on slab are calculated as
with the transition point may be considered as the yield displace- 5 kN/m2 and 3 kN/m2, respectively [10].
ment of the bare frame, y2. Seismic weight (dead load and 50% live load) of the building is calcu-
5. Select a suitable value for DSR [per Eq. (6)] as recommended by Xia lated as 29,500 kN, which is lumped at the centre of mass of respective
and Hanson [27]. Ideally a value less than 2 is preferred. oor. Fundamental time period, per IS-1893-Part-I [12] is worked out as
6. Select a suitable value for U [per Eq. (9)] to x the damper yield load. 1.08 s. The building is assumed to be located in Zone-V (PGA = 0.36 g at
In order to mobilize energy dissipation in the dampers placed at MCE). Assuming an importance factor of 1.5, medium soil and response
upper storey levels, relatively lower yield load is assumed for these reduction factor R = 4.5, the design base shear is computed as 2264 kN
dampers (as the storey shear decreases with height). This parameter and is distributed across the height. The design of building is carried out
also helps in controlling acceleration amplication at higher based on the load combinations specied in IS-1893-Part-I [12]. For
displacement. simplicity, all columns are chosen with identical reinforcement (12
7. Compute the equivalent stiffness (Kh) of bracing with HADAS damp- numbers, equally distributed, 25 mm diameter longitudinal steel and
er per Eq. (6) and its yield displacement (y1) per Eq. (10) for the se- 6 mm stirrups @ 150 mm c/c), which is maximum of the all calculated
lected SR, SHRa (usually less than 5% for metallic dampers), U and reinforcement sets. All beams are chosen with identical reinforcement
DSR. Stiffness of the damper (Kd) and bracing (Kb) can be calculated which is assumed to be the nominal reinforcement [12]. This is particu-
using the estimated Kh and assumed DSR. Similarly, yield displace- larly to enforce the strong column-weak beam theory. Reinforcement
ment of the damper can be calculated from the computedy1. Geo- detailing is assumed to be conforming to IS-13920 [13] with provisions
metric design of the HADAS dampers at each oor can be carried for ductility. Potential locations of plastic hinge are considered at the
out based on the respective yield displacement and stiffness. beam and column-ends at an offset of the 10% unsupported length
8. The extent of yielding in a storey can be assessed through the push- from the centreline of the joint [6]. Floor mass (seismic weight) is as-
over curve as explained in step-4. Metallic damper is not recom- sumed to be uniformly distributed and lumped at all the nodes at the re-
mended in a storey if the extent of yielding is not adequate. spective oor level for all subsequent analyses.

Fig. 11. Comparison of Peak oor displacement prole in Event-1.

174 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Fig. 12. Comparison of peak drift prole in Event-1.

3.2. Design of HADAS damper
Salient features of the design process are illustrated below:
1. Calculate storey stiffness (without HADAS element in place) per
Eq. (16). [Tables 3 and 4 present the data.]
2. The damper is made of Aluminium (Al 6351 T6): Young's modulus
(E) = 70 GPa, Yield stress (fy) = 280 MPa and Poisson's ratio
(v) = 0.3. Aluminium is selected in this paper so as to augment the
(fy/E) and hence, the yield displacement. For example, yield displace-
ment of the aluminium damper is three times of that if made of mild
steel.
3. Assume SR = 1.5 (as suggested by [27] and calculate the required
equivalent stiffness (Kh) of bracing and damper. Now assume the
number of installations / modules (two modules are considered in
the present example) and calculate the (Kh) per module.
4. Assume DSR = Kb/Kd = 2 (as suggested by [27] and compute Kd from
Kh.
5. Assume U = Ry2/Ry1 = 2 (as suggested by [22] ideally the same at all
storey levels.
6. Calculate yield displacement at each storey level (y2) when HADAS
dampers are not in place. Variation of storey shear against storey drift
(pushover curve) at the respective level is idealized as a bilinear plot
under equal-area principle. Fig. 10a illustrates the procedure at the
rst storey level. Note that the resulting storey stiffness from
pushover curve may vary from that reported in Tables 3 and 4,
resulting in a difference in assumed and actual SR.
7. Calculate the required yield displacement (y1) of the damper per
Eq. (10).
8. Use the same assumed SR and SHRa, and repeat the above procedure
for other stories. The parameter U should remain the same in order to
target the samey1/y2. However, in order to ensure the yielding of
the dampers at higher stories, it is suggested to increase U along
the height. For this example building, U = 2 is considered for the
rst four stories, U = 2.5 in fth to eighth stories, and U = 3 for
the top two stories.
9. Yield displacement of the HADAS damper is related to that of the
building with damper as follows:
d y1  DSR=DSR 1 18
Dimensions of the damper (H and D) are calculated using Eq. (5) and
Eq. (10). Note the difference between dand y1[Eq. (18)] reduces as
the bracing stiffness increases and d y1for a nearly rigid bracing. De-
spite the bracing considered is not rigid in this example, d y1 is as-
sumed. Design calculations are illustrated in Tables 3 and 4.
10. Required dimensions for the HADAS dampers may vary with the
oor levels and last column of Tables 3 and 4 also shows the

Fig. 13. Performance of damper in Event-1.

 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183 175

Table 7
Drift comparison at selected oor levels.

Event No. PGA Floor No. X-direction Y-direction

Drift (mm) Reduc-tion (%) Drift (mm) Reduction (%)

Without damper With damper Without damper With damper

1 0.2 g 1 12.1 7.1 41.3 17.4 9.6 44.8

2 15.4 8.2 46.8 21.6 11.7 45.8
3 13.9 7.7 44.6 19.6 10.8 44.9
2 0.16 g 1 16.7 6.5 61.1 7.5 4.7 37.3
2 21.9 7.3 66.7 9.2 5.4 41.3
3 20.4 6.8 66.7 9.3 5.3 43.0
3 0.14 g 1 9.6 7.6 20.8 13.9 6.6 52.5
2 13.45 9 33.1 15.84 7.7 51.4
3 13.19 8.6 34.8 15.45 7.2 53.4

dimension of dampers adopted in this example. Mechanical charac-
teristics of these dampers are computed per Eq. (5) and presented
in Table 5.
11. The procedure presented above is recommended for the buildings
with nearly equal storey stiffness along both x- and y-directions. If
the storey stiffness varies considerably in two orthogonal direc-
tions, it is suggested to arrive at the dimension of the dampers
based on storey stiffness which is higher of the two.
3.3. Verication of mechanical Properties of HADAS damper using nite el-
ement analysis
An HADAS damper of height 460 mm and end diameter 190 mm is
considered for nite element analysis in ANSYS platform (10-noded tet-
rahedral structural solid element with 6 degrees of freedom per node,
SOLID 192). All the degrees of freedom at top and bottom planes of
the damper are restrained. Material properties are considered the
same as AL 6351T6 [16]. Displacement controlled nonlinear analysis is
performed using a target displacement of 25 mm at one end of the
damper. Resisting force at the other end is calculated to plot the force-
displacement behaviour (Fig. 10b). Yield load and yield displacement
of the damper are noted as 1330 kN and 4.70 mm, respectively. On
the other hand, Eq. (5) computes these parameters as 1393 kN and
4.64 mm, respectively. Clearly, analytical modelling [Eq. (5)] can predict
the yield properties reasonably well. The nominal variation noted here,
especially in the yield force, may be attributed to the variation of re-
quired geometry at the neck of the damper.
Alternatively, one may choose a cyclic loading protocol to for devel-
oping the full hysteresis loop. However, the objective here is to validate
the parameters of backbone curve estimated using a set of simplied
analytical expressions, and for which, the monotonic displacement con-
trolled analysis performed here is sufcient.
3.4. Incremental dynamic analysis
Three seismic events, as described earlier in context with the assess-
ment of storey stiffness, are considered for Incremental Dynamic Analy-
sis (IDA) [23]. Two horizontal components of ground motion are
assumed to be acting simultaneously. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
of the recorded EW and NS directions are noted and whichever is great-
er, is chosen for scaling the ground motion in IDA. Suitable multiplica-
tion factor (amplitude scaling) is chosen for an intensity level and
same multiplication factor is applied to the other orthogonal compo-
nent. EW component is always applied along the x- direction (Fig. 9).
The process is applied to a series of chosen intensity levels.
Emphasis here is to study the performance against the design basis
earthquake and not up to the collapse state, and hence, the term IDA
seems to be questionable. Nevertheless, choice of three seismic events
may sufce and nonlinear time history analyses are performed allowing
the formation of plastic hinges at all potential locations. Intensity level is
increased at the rate of 0.01 g so as to capture different performance
levels [FEMA 356 [1,6]. Note the choice of hinge properties is consistent
with the objective of this study.
Table 6 presents the failure scenario (not collapse): failure PGA of
the structure is dened as the maximum intensity level which the struc-
ture can withstand for the entire duration of the event. Clearly, this PGA
level is fairly low and should not be considered as causing collapse. Sim-
ilar analyses are carried out for the same buildings with dampers in
place and Fig. 9 also shows the position of HADAS dampers considered.
Table 6 also shows the failure scenario (not collapse) for the building

Fig. 14. Variation of storey shear against storey drift in Event-1.

176 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Fig. 15. Variation of column shear against storey drift: First storey along x-direction in Event-1.

with HADAS dampers in place. Clearly, incorporating HADAS dampers
in seismic design has led to a better seismic resilience (against the de-
sign basis event) by enhancing the failure PGA, which is expected.
4. Results and discussions: building with and without HADAS
damper
In order to facilitate such comparison, two intensity levels, namely L-
PGA and H-PGA are considered for each seismic event. L-PGA is dened
as an intensity level which is close but somewhat less than the failure
PGA of building without HADAS damper. Similarly, H-PGA stands for
the same but for building with HADAS dampers in place. Table 6 supple-
ments the necessary information. Two types of analysis duration, name-
ly, the Termination Point (TP) and Initial Failure Point (IFP) are dened
to facilitate further comparison, especially, when the excitation level ex-
ceeds failure PGA. TP is dened as the instant at which the analysis is ei-
ther stopped on account of numerical instability or continuing with
excessive slow rate of convergence (user will have to terminate the
analysis). Clearly, TP does not provide any meaningful information on
account of user's discretion. IFP, in that case, is dened as the instant
of rst appearance of failure hinge providing reasonable basis of com-
parison. Note that if the building is able to withstand the excitation
level for its entire duration, TP and IFP will be indeterminate.
4.1. Floor displacement and storey drift
The horizontal displacement at the Centre of Mass (CM) of respec-
tive oor is extracted throughout the time history and absolute peak
displacement at that oor level is denoted as the peak oor displace-
ment. Variation of peak oor displacement across the height is dened
as the peak oor displacement prole. Note that the peak oor displace-
ment at all oor levels may not occur at the same time instant. Peak sto-
rey drift prole is also dened in a similar sense. Peak oor
displacement and storey drift proles are compared for the building
with and without HADAS damper; building equipped with damper is
referred to With Damper, 3D. Signicant reduction in peak proles is
evident on account of installing HADAS dampers for all three ground
motions with L-PGA intensity level. Figs. 11a and 12a provide sample il-
lustration, which is expected. Similar studies are carried out at the H-
PGA intensity level. Note that the building without damper could not
withstand the excitation for its entire duration (implying a failure sce-
nario) and hence, the associated comparison of response between
with and without damper cases does not make any sense. Nevertheless,
IFP is considered for noting down the peak oor displacement prole in
without damper case while the entire duration is chosen for the case
with damper. Figs. 11b and 12b present the sample comparison.

Table 8
Dimension details of ADAS dampers.

Floor Height Width Thickness Number Yield Yield Stiffness

number (mm) (mm) (mm) of Force displacement (kN/mm)
plates (kN) (mm)
(mm)

14 420 210 35 19 1455 4.73 308

58 380 190 35 14 1072 3.87 277
910 260 128 35 6 452 1.81 250

Table 9
Failure PGA for the example building with ADAS dampers.

PGA considered

Event-1 Event-2 Event-3

EW NS EW NS EW NS
0.21 g 0.3 g 0.3 g 0.25 g 0.26 g 0.3 g

Fig. 16. Position of ADAS damper in a typical plan view. Data in bold indicate higher of EW and NS directions.
 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183 177

Fig. 17. Comparison of peak oor displacement.

Note that the drift at the lower stories at the design basis level equal reinforcement, which lead to signicant localized displacement
is less than 1% for the building without dampers, which is demand at the lower stories, and perhaps instantaneously.
somewhat low. This stems from the approximation made during the Further details on the comparison of peak proles are presented in
simplied design by selecting all columns (and all beams) with Reddy [16].
178 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Fig. 18. Comparison of peak storey drift.

 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183 179

4.2. Performance of dampers Table 10

Drift Comparison in x- direction for all events.

Fig. 13 furnishes sample comparison, which is a generic trend in all Storey Drift (mm) Percentage drift
the events considered. Dampers contribute to lowering the drift number
With 3D With 2D
reduction
through yielding and also by augmenting stiffness. Relative contribution damper damper
of the latter is more at the L-PGA level of excitation while the former
Event - 1 1 13 10 23
contributes a lot at the H-PGA level. The percentage drift reductions 2 16 12 25
for all three events are shown in Table 7. For brevity, presented data is 3 15 11 27
restricted to the rst three storey levels at L-PGA. Event - 2 1 17.2 13 24
2 18.9 14.9 21
3 16.1 13.1 19
4.3. Storey shear vs storey drift Event - 3 1 Not much improvement
2
3
Variation of storey shear aginst storey drift is also compared. Fig. 14
presents sample illustrations of both L-PGA and H-PGA intensity levels.
Signicant inelastic deformation is evident at L-PGA when dampers are
not installed. For example, yield force at the second storey level is 4.6. Comparison of HADAS and ADAS dampers
7000 kN (Fig. 14a) and the associated maximum drift may be noted as
22 mm. Installation of damper indicates nominal yielding with a maxi- The example building is now assumed to be equipped with the ADAS
mum drift of 12 mm at the same intensity level. Note the increase in sto- dampers. Design of the ADAS dampers is carried out in a similar way and
rey shear does not indicate the increase in column shear. This is salient details of which, relevant to the direct comparison, are presented
primarily attributed to the increase of stiffness contributed by the below.
damper and partly due to its yielding. Similar comparison at H-PGA
does not make sense as the building without damper faces failure (evi- 4.7. Design of ADAS dampers
dent from signicant yielding). On the other hand, installation of
dampers contributes in resisting the increased excitation (from L-PGA 1. Number of damper installations considered is the same as in case of
to H-PGA), not only by offering enhanced stiffness but also through pro- HADAS damper, i.e. a total of eight. These eight installations are
viding supplemental damping. Fig. 14b, for example, indicates stable grouped into two: 4 each in x- and y-directions (Fig. 16).
hysteretic behaviour with nominal inelastic deformation. Clearly with 2. Mild steel is used for the ADAS dampers with yield stress, Young's
further increase in intensity, the building with dampers will be able to modulus and Poisson's ratio as 250 MPa, 200 GPa, and 0.3,
sustain more inelastic deformation prior to failure. respectively.
It is instructive to compare Figs. 13 and 14, and note the following to 3. The yield load and yield displacement considered earlier for a typical
exceptions. First, horizontal axis represents the displacement of damper HADAS damper at any storey level are chosen to x the dimension of
in Fig. 13, which is expected to be slightly different on accounting the a typical ADAS damper at that particular storey level.
exibility of the supporting bracings. For example, maximum damper 4. Denoting H and B as the height and width, respectively, H/B = 2 is
displacement at the rst storey is 7 mm [Fig. 13b] against the maximum chosen per Whittaker et al. [25] and [26] in the design of ADAS
rst storey drift of 11 mm [Fig. 14a]. Second, vertical axis in Fig. 13 illus- damper as X-plate. Each plate is considered here of 35 mm thick.
trates a yield plateau while Fig. 14 shows some nominal stiffness degra- 5. Knowing a target yield displacement, height of the ADAS damper can
dation (as columns are not yielding). Similar observations hold good for be calculated as
other ground motions also [16]. s
2Et
H y 19
4.4. Column shear vs storey Drift. 1:5 f y
6. The number of required X-plates for the ADAS damper can be calcu-
Storey shear at any particular level is shared by the columns and lated based on the required yield force as follows
dampers. The term column shear refers to the part of storey shear
shared by the columns. Sample variation of column shear against the 2LP y
storey drift is compared in Fig. 15 for Event-1 (rst storey level along n 20
Bt 2 f y
x-direction). Further details including other seismic events are reported
in Reddy [16]. A signicant amount of reduction in column shear after where, Py is the yield strength of a typical ADAS damper.
installation of damper is evident, especially, at the L-PGA. 7. Resulting dimensions after rounding off along with the mechanical
properties of X-plate ADAS dampers are presented in Table 8
4.5. Floor acceleration
Table 11
Installation of damper leads to an increase in storey shear as evident Drift comparison in y-direction for all events.
from Fig. 14. Hence, considerable increase in oor acceleration is ex-
Storey Drift (mm) Percentage drift
pected, which is one of the main drawbacks with any metallic damper.
number reduction
This is attributed to the selection of parameter SR. Present example With 3D With 2D
problem considers it as 1.5, which is expected to produce 2.5 times damper damper

the oor acceleration prior to the yielding of the damper as derived in Event-1 1 19 15 21
rst part of Eq. (11). This is also evident from Fig. 15a. However, the in- 2 22 17 23
3 18.5 15.8 15
crease in acceleration can be controlled at higher displacement, if the
Event-2 1 Not much improvement
design parameters are selected judiciously, for example, if Eq. (15) is 2
satised. Consider Fig. 10, for example, and it may be computed that 3
SHRf = 0.086 and SHRa = 0.015 resulting in SHRf/SHRa 6 at the rst Event-3 1 16.7 15.1 10
storey level along x-direction. On the other hand, Eq. (10) may be eval- 2 19.7 17.2 13
3 17.7 15.5 12
uated as y2/y1 = 3.32 and hence, Eq. (15) is satised.
180 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

4.8. Incremental dynamic analysis.

IDA is carried out for the three selected seismic events with PGA scaled
at the rate of 0.05 g. One intensity level, as shown in Table 9, is considered
for comparing the performance of ADAS and HADAS dampers. The build-
ing equipped with HADAS and ADAS dampers are referred to Building
(3D) and Building (2D), respectively, in the subsequent discussions.

5. Results and discussions

5.1. Peak oor displacement

Peak oor displacement prole is compared in Fig. 17. For example,

the roof displacement in x- direction is reduced from 103 mm (2D) to
81 mm (3D) (implying a reduction of 22%), whereas that in y- direction
is reduced from 130 mm (2D) to 112 mm (3D) (implying a reduction of
14%) during Event-1. Similar trend is also observed in other two events.
However, y-direction in Event-2 and x-direction in Event-3 do not show
much reduction. Hence, the relative benet using the HADAS damper
depends on the ground motion also. However, the benet is never less
than that offered by ADAS X-plate.

5.2. Peak storey drift

Peak storey drift prole is compared in Fig. 18. A reduction of 23%

drift in x-direction and 22% in y-direction is evident during Event-1 on
account of installation of HADAS damper over the ADAS. Similar trend
can be observed in other two events also. However, not much improve-
ment is observed in y-direction of Event-2 and x-direction of Event-3.
Fig. 20. ADAS damper along with bare frame.
Percentage reductions of drifts for all the three events are shown in
Tables 10 and 11. For brevity, presented data is restricted to the rst
three storey levels only.
6. Comparison of economy.

5.3. Floor acceleration 6.1. Required bracing dimensions for ADAS and HADAS dampers

Comparison of oor acceleration shows that use of HADAS damper
does not lead to further increase over the X-plate ADAS. Sample com-
parison is presented in Fig. 19 for the roof level during Event-1.
5.4. Failure PGA
As identied in Tables 6 and 9, for example, during Event-1, use of
ADAS damper can sustain a design level excitation with a PGA of 0.3 g,
whereas HADAS damper enables the building to sustain a PGA of 0.4 g.
Clearly, in all perspectives, HADAS damper enables the building to
perform better while sustaining a design basis event.
Installation of HADAS damper requires a special 3D bracing system
and description of which is presented earlier in this paper along with
its merits over the commonly used chevron type for ADAS dampers.
The same example building is considered to enable comparison of re-
quired bracing system in HADAS and ADAS dampers. Height and diam-
eter of the HADAS damper provided at the rst storey is 190 mm and
460 mm, respectively (Table 5). The ADAS damper is provided with 19
number of X-plates of width and height as 210 mm and 420 mm, re-
spectively (Table 8). The stiffness of HADAS and ADAS dampers are
300 kN/mm and 309 kN/mm, respectively. In both cases, bracing to
damper stiffness ratio (DSR) is considered as 2 while computing the

Fig. 19. Comparison of roof acceleration (Event-1).

 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183
Fig. 21. HADAS damper along with bare frame.
required stiffness of the bracing. Each X-plate provided in ADAS damper
is of 35 mm thickness and placed at a separation of 40 mm. Resulting di-
mensions of the ADAS damper is 1.42 m in length and 0.41 m in height.
Fixing the length and height of the HADAS/ADAS damper, one can es-
timate the length of the bracing. Knowing the bracing stiffness (with
DSR), required cross sectional area can be estimated. The detailed dimen-
sions and length of the bracing provided for the considered bay with
ADAS and HADAS dampers are shown in Figs. 20 and 21, respectively.
[Ideally, the chevron bracings used to mount ADAS dampers should
have a point of intersection coinciding with the centroid of lower part of
the ADAS.] A bracing of dimension 2 ISA200 150 18 (back to back con-
nection) for a length of 2.76 m are required to achieve the required stiff-
ness in case of HADAS dampers. Similarly 4 ISA200 200 18 are
required for achieving the required stiffness of the bracing in case of
ADAS damper. Volume of bracing required for the HADAS and ADAS
dampers may be calculated as 0.0659 m3 and 0.143 m3, respectively, indi-
cating a volume reduction of 54% when installing with the HADAS.
6.2. Comparison of Volume of HADAS and ADAS dampers
Volume of the HADAS and ADAS dampers are compared at the re-
spective storey levels (Table 12). Installation of HADAS dampers result
in a volume reduction of 78% over ADAS dampers at the rst four stories
and 83% at the remaining storey levels.
6.3. Material cost savings
Assuming the mass density of Al and Mild steel are 2750 kg/m3 and
7850 kg/m3, respectively, and even though uctuating but assuming the
material cost per unit weight of Al is 5 to 7 times that of the Mild Steel,
it may be shown that total material cost of HADAS damper is still less
than half of that of the X-plate ADAS. Further, mounting system will also
Table 12
The details of volume calculation of dampers.
Floor number Volume of the damper (cm3) Percentage reduction in volume
ADAS damper HADAS damper
14 5865 1304 78
58 3537 618 83
910 698 120 83
181
be much cheaper in case of HADAS as explained above. However, fabrica-
tion cost is expected to be higher in HADAS. Nevertheless, HADAS does not
lead to additional cost hike over the X-plate ADAS on account of using the
Aluminium damper and proposed mounting system (Mild Steel).
6.4. Device level testing of HADAS damper: susceptibility to necking failure
The same AL (6351T6) is used for designing a scaled model of the
HADAS damper: 100 mm height and 20 mm diameter. The mechanical
properties of the material are veried by conducting ASTM standard
coupon test on three Aluminium specimens (Fig. 22). Resulting average
yield strength and Young's modulus are 280 Mpa and 70 Gpa, respec-
tively. A pair of dampers (Fig. 23a) are connected to rigid ends at one
side while the other ends are connected to a common metal block.
This is to simulate the double curvature deformation (Fig. 23b) in each
damper. Fig. 23c and d explain the loading arrangement (Universal
Testing Machine) and observed failure pattern, respectively. Resulting
force-deformation plot for this pair of dampers is presented in Fig. 24a
and the associated elastic stiffness is twice that of an individual damper.
Further, the dampers exhibit a ductility even greater than 5 and hence,
weakness due to necking is not a serious concern. Finite element analy-
sis of an individual damper leads to a force-deformation plot as shown
in Fig. 24b, which is consistent with the experimental results.
7. Summary and conclusions
1. Proposed HADAS damper is capable of resisting the seismic excita-
tion regardless of direction and hence, best suits in resisting the bidi-
rectional seismic excitation. The mounting system is required to
provide large stiffness along both lateral directions. Such a mounting
system is also proposed. [Conventional ADAS (X-plate) dampers re-
sist the seismic excitation only along one direction and hence, two
separate types of installation are required in order to resist the bidi-
rectional excitation.]
2. A step-by-step design guidelines for the building with HADAS damp-
er is proposed, which is in line with that exists for other ADAS
dampers, except a modication in the ratio of yield load in structure
(with damper) to that at which yielding of damper initiates. This
modication facilitates yielding of the dampers at upper stories.
182 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183

Fig. 22. Aluminium coupon test.

3. Storey stiffness does not exist in real buildings (with nite beam stiff-
ness) and is a required design parameter. A suitable calculation pro-
cedure is proposed followed by the validation of results.
4. Installation of HADAS damper in example building shows improve-
ment in seismic resilience when compared to the building without
dampers, which is expected. The comparison is restricted up to the
design basis event.
5. Installation of HADAS damper leads to a better performance as
compared to the X-plate ADAS dampers. Improvement is seen in
the form of resulting displacement, drift and column shear demand.
Most importantly, HADAS dampers improves (in terms of PGA) the
design basis event. Amplication of oor acceleration level remains
the same regardless of the installation of X-plate ADAS and HADAS.
6. ADAS (X-plate) and HADAS dampers are designed separately for the
same example building subjected to the same seismic excitation. Signif-
icant volume reduction in damper and supporting bracing systems are
achieved when opted with the proposed HADAS dampers. This is also
shown to be cost effective. Aluminium of HADAS damper also improves
the corrosion resistance when compared to the mild steel in ADAS.
7. Mounting system in HADAS damper involves four adjacent bays that
apparently is not desirable from functionality aspects. However, with
careful planning of the functionality along with the selection of ap-
propriate location, it may be possible to overcome the challenges.
8. Necking is the weakest zone leading to early tension failure
in ADAS (X Plate) dampers. Device level test results indicate
that HDAS damper is relatively less susceptible to the neck
formation.
9. Finally, analytical feasibility study of proposed HADAS damper is in-
vestigated in this paper and the next step is to verify the proof of con-
cept through experimental study on a scaled and full-scaled model
with emphasis to the various connection details. A part of the exper-
imental work has been initiated and will be reported elsewhere after
completion.
Acknowledgement
The nancial support for the studies described herein was provid-
ed by Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar. The authors grate-
fully acknowledge the Institute of Earth Science, Academia, Sinica,
Taiwan for sharing the strong motion data. The nancial support,
technical review and provision of data are gratefully acknowledged.
Any opinions, ndings, conclusions or recommendations expressed
in this paper are of the authors and do not necessarily reect those
of Funding Agency.

Fig. 23. Device level testing of HADAS damper.

 D. Basu, P.R.M. Reddy / Structures 7 (2016) 165183
Fig. 24. Comparison of HADAS device testing under monotonic displacement control.
References
[1] ASCE. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Standard FEMA-356. Reston, Verginia: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2000.
[3] Benjamin JR. Statically indeterminate structures. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Inc.; 1959.
[4] Bergman DM, Goel SC. Evaluation of cyclic testing of steel-plate devices for added
damping and stiffness. Ann Arbor: Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Michigan;
1987(UMCE 87-10).
[5] Blume JA, et al. Design of multistory reinforced concrete buildings for earthquake
motions. Portland Cement Association; 1961.
[6] CSI. SAP 2000: Static and dynamic nite element analysis of structures. Berkeley,
California: Computers and Structures, Inc.; 2009.
[7] Deng K, Pan P, Sun J, Liu J, Xue Y. Shape optimization design of steel shear panel
dampers. J Constr Steel Res 2014;99:18793.
[8] Hong-Nan L, Gang L, Su-Yan W. Study and application of metallic yielding energy dis-
sipation devices in buildings. Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 2125, 2014; 2014 (Anchorage, Alaska).
[9] Hosseini M, Imagh-e-Naiini MR. A quick method for estimating the lateral stiffness
of building system. Struct Des Tall Build 1999;8(3):24760.
[10] IS-875-Part-2. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquakes) for Buildngs
and structures. Part-2: Imposed loads. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 1987.
[11] IS-1786. High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement:
Specication. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2008.
[12] IS-1893-Part-I. Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Part-1: General
provisions and buildings. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2002.
[13] IS-13920. Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic
forces: code of practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 1993.
183
[14] Marshall JD, Charney FA. Seismic response of steel frame structures with hybrid pas-
sive control systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41(4):71533.
[15] Muto K. Aseismic design analysis of buildings. Japan: Maruzen Co., Ltd.; 1974.
[16] Reddy PRM. Design of a new passive energy dissipation system for earthquake resistant
structures. Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, India: Master's Thesis; 2015.
[17] Schltz AE. Approximating lateral stiffness of stories in elastic frames. J Struct Eng
ASCE 1992;118(1):24363.
[19] Stiemer SF, et al. Experimental behavior of a spatial piping system with steel energy
absorbers subjected to a simulated differential seismic input. Berkeley: Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1981(UCB/EERC-81/09).
[20] Su YF, Hanson RW. Seismic response of building structures with mechanical
damping devices. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan; 1990(Research
report .UMCE 90-2).
[21] TENA-Colunga. A. Mathematical modelling of the ADAS energy dissipation device.
Eng Struct 1997;19(10):81121.
[22] Tsai KC, et al. Design of steel triangular plate energy absorbers for seismic-resistant
construction. Earthquake Spectra 1993;9(3):50528.
[23] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2002;31(3):491514.
[24] Wen KL, Yeh YT. Seismic velocity structure beneath the SMART-1 Array. Bull Inst
Earth Sci Acad Sin 1984;4:5172.
[25] Whittaker AS, et al. Earthquake simulator testing of steel plate added damping and
stiffness elements. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley; 1989(UCB/EERC-89/02).
[26] Whittaker AS, et al. Seismic testing of steel plate energy dissipation devices. Earth-
quake Spectra 1991;7(4):563604.
[27] Xia C, Hanson RD. Inuence of ADAS element parameters on building seismic re-
sponse. J Struct Eng 1992;118(7):190318.