Seismic protection of buildings with friction damper systems

Dr. Borislav Belev Dept. of Steel and Timber Structures UACEG, Sofia, Bulgaria Balkan Seminar on Earthquake Engineering KIIP-Sofia Sofia, 6-7 October 2011

Lecture overview
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Introduction Capacity design philosophy and its evolution Essential definitions and classification Basic concept of passive energy dissipation Advantages and drawbacks of FDS Seismic response of structures with FDS Damper configurations and applications Concluding remarks
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 62

Introduction
Capacity Design Philosophy in Seismic Engineering: Originates from New Zealand (~ 1970); Is also termed Failure mode control Applicable to all major structural materials and systems; Is a design approach, not an analysis technique; Serves as a tool for providing more reliable and predictable seismic response of the structures; Already embedded in most modern design codes; Assumes that adequate ductility can be achieved through proper detailing of the potential plastic zones
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 63

History of development

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

Capacity design principles

The structures shall be made insensitive to the uncertain parameters of ground shaking The locations of dissipative zones that will experience large plastic strains should be pre-selected so that they do not endanger the overall stability These plastic regions require special detailing in order to maintain the desired ductile failure mode during a seismic event For maximizing the global ductility, the other (nondissipative) parts of structure must be secured against premature (brittle) failure via adding extra strength

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

Capacity design principles (contd)

Explanation via Prof. Tom Paulays chain

Option 1: Brittle links weaker

Brittle links Ductile link Brittle links

Option 2: Brittle links stronger (Capacity Design)

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

The overstrength issue

Actual resistances at the plastic regions well above their nominal/design values may endanger the global ductility and resistance Typical sources of overstrength: Material overstrength Strain hardening Strain rate effects Design of members governed by non-seismic combinations of loads or non-ULS (serviceability) criteria
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 67

Approach of the design codes

Eurocode 8, for steel structures:
material overstrength factor ov = [1.25] cross-section overstrength factor i system overstrength factor =min{ i} system redundancy in e-p stage u / 1 typical combination for design actions on non-dissipative members: Ed = Ed,G + 1.1ov Ed,E strength limit for the dissipative zones: fy,max 1.1ovfy Major drawback: the actual ultimate strength of the structure is not known if only linear elastic analysis is performed
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 68

Evolution of capacity design philosophy

Structural fuse concept Damage-tolerant structures (Prof. A. Wada) Performance-based design with: - Explicit performance objectives for at least two seismic intensity levels - Direct comparison of seismic demands vs. capacities via nonlinear analyses - Damage limitation not only to structure, but also to nonstructural components and equipment
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 69

Structural fuse concept (SFC)

SFC uses the idea of protecting the electric circuits by inserting fuses - sacrificeable and replaceable (relative cheap) components that limit the damage in extreme situations.The fuses are the weakest links of the system; Structural fuses have the following functions: - dissipate a major part of seismic input energy - keep primary structure deformations in elastic range - provide a predictable response of the system First implementation: the EBF-system Further developments: Buckling-restrained braces (BRB) Rocking systems Passive energy dissipation systems
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 610

EBF link elements

Plastic link rotation angle (demand) : p = (L/e) p The eccentric brace configuration amplifies the interstorey drift: e.g. for e = 0.2L p = 5 p

Short links (e1.6Mpl / Vpl) preferred: p,c = 0.08 Rad (capacity) Closely spaced web stiffeners to suppress the web shear buckling
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 611

Buckling-restrained braces (BRB)

Also known as Unbonded brace Symmetrical response in tension and compression due to avoided buckling Enhanced energy dissipating capacity Capacity design approach compulsory due to brace overstrength (strain hardening)

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

12

Rocking systems (fuses at base)

(Image from Matt Eatherton et. al paper)

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 613

Passive energy dissipation systems

STRUCTURAL PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS

SEISMIC (BASE) ISOLATION

PASSIVE ENERGY DISSIPATION SYSTEMS

SEMI-ACTIVE AND ACTIVE CONTROL

Source: Soong, T.T. and G.F. Dargush. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering. J. Wiley & Sons, 1997.

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

14

Energy balance and seismic energy dissipation

Seismic input energy Ei = Ek + Es + E + Eh

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

15

Comparison in terms of energy dissipation

The structures differ in the way they manage and distribute the total seismic input energy Ei Conventional structures: energy dissipation through cyclic plastic deformation ductile response means damage and losses code-based design does not explicitly evaluate Eh/Ei the structure may remain vulnerable to aftershocks Structures with damping systems: energy dissipation performed by specialized parts primary structure/frame has mainly gravity load supporting function and re-centering function
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 616

Passive energy dissipation systems

Classification of FEMA 450 (Chapter 15: Structures with damping systems) The damping system (DS) may be external or internal to the structure and may have no shared elements, some shared elements, or all elements in common with the seismic-force-resisting system (SFRS).

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

17

Basic types of damper devices

1. Displacement-dependent devices (metallic dampers, friction dampers) 2. Velocity-dependent devices (fluid viscous dampers, solid visco-elastic dampers, etc.) 3. Other types (shape-memory alloys, self-centering devices, etc.)

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

18

Example: TADAS steel damper

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

19

Arrangement of TADAS device

Arrangement is identical to that of a vertical link element in the EBF-system

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 620

Expected benefits
Added damping (viscous dampers) Added stiffness and damping (visco-elastic, metallic, friction dampers) As a result, enhanced control of the interstorey drifts The capacity design is not abandoned, but the sources of overstrength in the dissipative zones (dampers) are essentially reduced Seismic response is much more predictable than in conventional structures -----------------------------------------In new structures: Enhanced performance (reduced damage) Less stringent detailing for ductility In existing structures: Alternative solution to new shear walls (speed-up retrofit works) Correction of irregularities Supression of torsional response
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 621

Friction dampers

Images provided by Damptech A/S., Denmark (www.damptech.com)

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

22

Advantages of metallic and friction damper devices

Relatively cheap Easy maintenance Durability Well-defined and predictable response, so that the supporting members can be safely designed according to the capacity design rules

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

23

Drawbacks of metallic and friction damper devices

Nonlinear response which complicates the analysis Relatively stiff and thus not very efficient in weak quakes Relatively small number of working cycles and potential low-cycle fatigue problems (metallic dampers) Possible variation of the coefficient of friction with time and degradation of contact surfaces (friction dampers) Reaction to static displacements due to temperature effects and long-term deformations (shrinkage, creep)

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

24

Parameters governing the seismic response

F
Kp

Fs
1 Kt Kbd 1

Kf

Us
K t = K f + K bd SR = K bd K f Kp = K f

U
Yield strength Fs = U s K t

Normalized damper strength = M = Fd F lock

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

25

Basic performance indicators: (a) Response displacements

Displacement reduction, Rd
1

0.8

0.6 Rd

El Centro Taft EW Cekmece

0.4

0.2

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized damper strength

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

26

Basic performance indicators: (b) Response base shear

Base shear reduction, Rf
3 2.5 2 Rf 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized damper strength
El Centro Taft EW Cekmece

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

27

Basic performance indicators: (c) Energy dissipation capacity

Energy reduction index, Re
1 0.8 0.6 Re 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized damper strength El Centro Taft EW Cekmece

Re = (Ei Eh) / Ei = part of total input energy not dissipated by the damper
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 628

Influence of brace stiffness

Rd for Cekmece NS, PGA=0.35g
1

Rf for Cekmece NS, PGA=0.35g

3.5 3

0.8

2.5
0.6 Rd
2*Kbd

Rf

Kbd

2
Kbd

0.4

1.5 1

2*Kbd

0.2

0.5
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized damper strength

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized damper strength

As a general rule, the increase of brace stiffness improves the performance of the damping system
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

29

Criteria for efficiency of damping system

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

30

Performance of single-storey frictiondamped frame (PGA=0.35g)

Seismic performance index, SPI = f(Rd, Rf, Re)
3 2.5 2 El Centro SPI 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized damper strength Taft EW Cekmece

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

31

Shake table testing of friction-damped frame in NCREE, Taiwan (2001)

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

32

Experimental results
Interstorey drift comparison for El Centro 0.30g test
Interstorey drifts (mm) Storey W/O FDDs First Second Third 80.4 79.2 50.1 With FDDs 17.4 19.0 14.3 78.4 76.1 71.1 Reduction (%)

After all the 14 tests (PGA=0.05g to 0.30g) no damage occurred to the dampers, bracing bars, frame members and connections The full-scale testing at NCREE proved the excellent capacity of the proposed damping system to significantly reduce earthquakeinduced building vibrations The seismic performance can be predicted reasonably well by non-linear time history analysis with DRAIN-2DX and SAP2000
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 633

Damper configrations with single frictional hinge

Typical range of slip capacity from 10 to 200 kN

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

34

Large capacity dampers

Range of slip capacity: from 200 to 5000 kN

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 635

Possible arrangements in buildings

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

36

Example of application
Seismic protection of industrial facility Design PGA=0.24g, I=1.0, Soil type=B (stiff soil) Seismic weight W=7800 kN Design objective: To reduce the base shear to levels below 1100 kN, for which the existing supporting RCstructure was originally designed Conventional design of the steel structure as CBF system with chevron braces was inappropriate due to higher base shear level Design solution: use friction dampers with slip capacity of 50-60 kN per device (total slip capacity per direction ~ 600 kN) to protect the foundations
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 637

Typical FDD arrangement in X-direction

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

38

31

Check of the energy dissipating capacity

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

39

Under construction

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

40

Potential for seismic retrofit

Friction dampers in two additional stories erected over an existing residential building in Greece
Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 641

The European standard

EN 15129:2009 Anti-seismic devices Contents: Foreword 1. Scope 2. Normative references 3. Terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations 4. General design rules 5. Rigid connection devices 6. Displacement Dependent Devices 7. Velocity Dependent Devices 8. Isolators 9. Combinations of Devices 10. Evaluation of conformity 11. Installation 12. In-service inspection

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

42

Concluding remarks
The passive energy dissipation systems are now a mature and reliable technology for seismic protection The metallic and friction dampers offer many advantages over the conventional ductility-based seismic design The analysis and design of such displacementdependent damping systems require increased efforts and time but could be really rewarding Addition of new chapter to Eurocode 8 similar to Chapter 10 Base Isolation would facilitate the broader application of damping systems in the earthquake-prone European countries.

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

43

Thank you for your attention !

Balkan seminar on seismic engineering, Sofia, 6-7 October, 2011 6-

44