SEISMIC PERFOMANCE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS WITH FRICTION

DEVICES

Dissertation submitted as part requirement

for the degree of Master of Science in

Structural Engineering

By:

Koray Tugay

Supervisor:

Dr. Mihail Petkovski

The University of Sheffield

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering

September 2010
Koray Tugay certifies that all the material contained within this document is his own
work except where it is clearly referenced to others.

___________________

(signature)

I
 Abstract

Friction devices offer an effective solution for seismic rehabilitation for structures by
energy dissipating capabilities.

In this study, the effectiveness of friction devices are checked by numerical analysis,
using the commercially available software SAP2000 on a 3 storey reinforced concrete
frame structure by non – linear time history analysis using 4 different ground
motions, namely El – Centro, Kobe, Northridge and the Mexico, 3 of them being
modified to hit the structure as strong as possible in the means of frequency
content.

The monitored results are maximum inter – storey drifts at any time and any floor
level, structural damage, maximum top floor displacements and top floor
displacement time history graphs.

It is shown that, a structure designed with a behaviour factor of 6, retrofitted with

friction devices performed better compared to a structure designed with a behaviour
factor of 3 and the optimum yield force distribution is a characteristic that depends
on the structure, however lies in a range.

II
 Acknowledgments

Many thanks to...

...all the lecturers of the University of Sheffield, especially Dr. Mihail Petkovski for
his patience, and the enthusiasm for sharing his knowledge his students.

...all my friend in Sheffield but especially Angelos Angelakis for making this MSc year
what it was. I wish our paths meet somewhere in future again.

...my friends back home but especially Basar Aykut a.k.a. “The Warrior of the Light”
for supporting me on my decision on doing this MSc. You are the lecturer of the
lecturers.

...Luis Eduardo Peternell Altamira for helping someone he has never seen and
probably will never see in the future. I hope I can help you, sometime, somehow.

(and last but not least)

...my family for being there for me for the last 25 years, and supporting me
financially, sacrificing a lot for this MSc year. I know it was not easy for you, and I
know I can never pay you back. All I can wish for is that I can provide your grandchild,
what you have provided to me.

...and my special one Bilge Gurhan. We have so much to share.

III
Contents

Abstract ...........................................................................................................................II

Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................................III

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... VII

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. IX

Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

Aims & Objectives............................................................................................................2

Literature Review ............................................................................................................3

Structural Control ........................................................................................................3

Passive Structural Control ............................................................................................4

Dry Friction ..................................................................................................................5

Friction Devices ...........................................................................................................6

Current Practice Examples .........................................................................................12

Modelling & Methodology .............................................................................................14

Methodology .............................................................................................................14

Modelling of Structures .............................................................................................15

Modelling of Friction Devices .....................................................................................16

Design of Structures...................................................................................................18

Properties of Structure A .......................................................................................20

Properties of Structure B........................................................................................21

Design of Retrofitted Structure ..................................................................................22

Design of Bracing System ...........................................................................................23

Properties of Structure B – Equipped with Braces ..................................................26

Allocation of Yield Forces ...........................................................................................27

Earthquake Records ...................................................................................................29

IV
 El Centro Earthquake .............................................................................................29

Loma Earthquake ...................................................................................................30

Northridge Earthquake ..........................................................................................31

Mexico Earthquake ................................................................................................32

Analysis Results .............................................................................................................33

Assessed Parameters .................................................................................................33

Inter – Storey Drifts................................................................................................33

Structural Damage .................................................................................................33

Top Floor Displacements ........................................................................................33

Top Floor Displacement Time History Response Comparison .................................33

El – Centro Results .....................................................................................................34

Maximum Inter Storey Drifts..................................................................................34

Structural Damage .................................................................................................35

Top Floor Displacements ........................................................................................36

Top Floor Displacement Time History Response Comparison .................................36

Loma Results .............................................................................................................37

Maximum Inter Storey Drifts..................................................................................37

Structural Damage .................................................................................................38

Top Floor Displacements ........................................................................................39

Top Floor Displacement Time History Response Comparison .................................39

Northridge Results .....................................................................................................40

Mexico Results...........................................................................................................40

Maximum Inter Storey Drifts..................................................................................40

Structural Damage .................................................................................................41

Top Floor Displacements ........................................................................................41

Top Floor Displacement Time History Response Comparison .................................42

V
 Summary and Evaluation of Results ...........................................................................43

Conclusions and Future Work ........................................................................................45

References.....................................................................................................................47

Appendix A – Design of Structures .................................................................................49

Design of Structure A .................................................................................................49

Design of Structure B .................................................................................................53

Appendix B – Allocation of Yield Forces .........................................................................57

First Storey Strength ..................................................................................................57

Second Storey Strength .............................................................................................58

Third Storey Strength .................................................................................................58

VI
List of Figures

Figure 1 - Passive Control Systems [4] ...............................................................................4

Figure 2 - Force Diagram for Block on Ground [9] ..............................................................5
Figure 3 - Friction Force - Applied Force Relationship [9] ...................................................5
Figure 4 - Friction Damper Details [5] ................................................................................6
Figure 5 - Different Configurations [4} ...............................................................................6
Figure 6 - Typical Rectangular Hysteresis Loops [4} ...........................................................7
Figure 7 - Force - Displacement Hysteresis Loops of Friction Device Under 4
Earthquakes [7] .................................................................................................................8
Figure 8 – Equivalent Brace and Frame Unit and the Force – Displacement Relation [6]....9
Figure 9 – Displacement responses of the protected frame and the bare frame for an
initial displacement.[4]......................................................................................................9
Figure 10 – Effects of Bracing Stiffness on Dissipated Energy Percentage [8] ...................11
Figure 11 – Close – Up View of an Installed Buckling – Restrained Braces [1]...................11
Figure 12 – Patient Tower – Seattle [1] ...........................................................................12
Figure 13 – Completed Damper Installation [1] ...............................................................13
Figure 14 – Hinge Properties ..........................................................................................15
Figure 15 – Definition of parameters for the Wen plasticity property. [9] .......................16
Figure 16 - Plan view of chosen structure ......................................................................18
Figure 17 - Elevation view of chosen structure...............................................................19
Figure 18 – Placement of Friction Devices on Structure B ..............................................22
Figure 19 – Effects of Damper Stiffness and Yield Force [9] .............................................24
Figure 20 – Top Floor Displacement with Different Bracings ..........................................25
Figure 21 – Top Floor Displacement with Different Bracings in Detail ............................25
Figure 22 – El Centro Acceleration Time History ............................................................29
Figure 23 – El Centro Power Spectrum ...........................................................................29
Figure 24 – Loma ( Modified ) Acceleration Time History ...............................................30
Figure 25 – Loma ( Modified ) Power Spectrum .............................................................30
Figure 26 – Northridge Acceleration Time History..........................................................31
Figure 27 – Northridge Power Spectrum ........................................................................31

VII
Figure 28 – Mexico ( Modified ) Acceleration Time History ............................................32
Figure 29 – Mexico ( Modified ) Power Spectrum ..........................................................32
Figure 30 – Peak Inter – Storey Drifts / El – Centro ........................................................34
Figure 31 – Structural Damage / El – Centro ..................................................................35
Figure 32 – Top Floor Displacements / El – Centro .........................................................36
Figure 33 – Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison / El – Centro .......................36
Figure 34 – Peak Inter – Storey Drifts / Loma .................................................................37
Figure 35 – Structural Damage / Loma ...........................................................................38
Figure 36 – Top Floor Displacements / Loma .................................................................39
Figure 37 – Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison / Loma ...............................39
Figure 38 – Peak Inter – Storey Drifts / Mexico ..............................................................40
Figure 39 – Structural Damage / Loma ...........................................................................41
Figure 40 – Top Floor Displacements / Mexico...............................................................41
Figure 41 – Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison / Mexico.............................42
Figure 42 – Response Spectrum Function / Structure A .................................................50
Figure 43 – Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 1 – 2 / Structure A ........................52
Figure 44 – Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 3 / Structure A ..............................52
Figure 45 – Response Spectrum Function / Structure B..................................................54
Figure 46 – Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 1 – 2 / Structure B.........................56
Figure 47 – Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 3 / Structure B ..............................56
Figure 48 – First Storey Push over Method ....................................................................57
Figure 49 – Second Storey Push over Method................................................................58
Figure 50 – Third Storey Push over Method ...................................................................58

VIII
List of Tables

Table 1 – Element Sizes / Structure A.............................................................................20

Table 2 – Assigned Hinge Values for Beams / Structure A ..............................................20
Table 3 – Modal Information / Structure A ....................................................................20
Table 4 – Element Sizes / Structure B .............................................................................21
Table 5 – Assigned Hinge Values for Beams / Structure B ..............................................21
Table 6 – Modal Information / Structure B.....................................................................21
Table 7 – Storey Shear Forces – Structure B ...................................................................27
Table 8 – Step Numbers and Allocated Yield Forces .......................................................28
Table 9 – Assumed Frame Element Sizes / Structure A...................................................49
Table 10 – Beam Moment Values / Structure A .............................................................51
Table 11– Column Moment and Axial Load Values / Structure A....................................51
Table 12 – Assumed Frame Element Sizes / Structure B .................................................53
Table 13 – Beam Moment Values / Structure B..............................................................55
Table 14 – Column Moment and Axial Load Values / Structure B ...................................55

IX
Introduction

In January 12, 2010, an estimated 230.000 of people have lost their lives, in the Haiti
earthquake, which is the 6th earthquake ranked by Loss of Life.

When deadliest natural disasters are investigated, earthquakes take 6 places in the
top 10 of the list, for the past century.

When the economical prospects and survived but injured people are considered,
there is no doubt that, earthquakes are one of the most hazardous of the natural
disasters, and cause big losses in human life and economy.

But actually, earthquakes are not the reason for people to lose their lives. The
structures that are not designed properly are most likely to be the reason for people
to lose their lives and the economical sufferings.

We do not have the technology to prevent earthquakes yet, but with new design
methods and approaches and a better understanding of behaviors of materials,
structures can be built to resist even the most intensive earthquakes.

When an earthquake occurs, certain amount of energy is fed to the structure. If this
energy can be dissipated before being fed to the structure, obviously the structure
will need to resist lower lateral forces.

This study focuses on one of these devices, friction devices, which work with this
logic where the input energy is dissipated with friction forces.

1
Aims & Objectives

This study will focus on Passive Control of the Seismic Response of Reinforced Frame
Buildings, namely Friction Devices, mainly on investigating the retrofitting capability
of the Friction Devices on weak Reinforced Concrete structure, studying the
performance with respect to a properly designed RC structure to Eurocode 8.

2 Reinforced Concrete structures are designed with behavior factors of 3 and 6.

These structures are tested under 4 different recorded earthquake accelerations.
The objective is to find the retrofitting capability of friction devices on the structure
designed with the higher behavior factor, and the outputs are compared with the
structure designed with the behavior factor of 3.

Also, an observation on the optimum slip loads for the retrofitting capability is done.

In addition to these, one of the aims of this study is to give a State of the Art Review
of Friction Devices, which includes an introduction to Passive Control Systems and
Principles of Friction Devices, in order to provide the reader a better understanding
of the study in this paper, and to provide a guide and references for further
researches in these areas.

2
Literature Review

Structural Control

Harsh ground motions, as in earthquakes, induce lateral forces on structures, causing

them to swing with amplitude proportional to the energy fed in. This energy
depends on several properties, including: properties of the structure such as the
mass and the natural frequency and the nature of the earthquake and is never easy
to estimate or to calculate.

This energy can be stored in the structural elements with elastic strain up to a
certain level. However, designing a structure to resist an earthquake only with elastic
deformations would end up with huge sections and would be uneconomical.

Because of these reasons, the latest approach in earthquake resistant design relies
on energy dissipating ability of the structural elements with plastic deformations,
which ends in economical solutions, however leaving permanent damage in the
elements.

The energy that is fed to the structure can also be reduced by various structural
control systems, rather than the structural elements. These systems can be either
“passive” or “active”.

Active control systems have the capability to monitor the input signals, such as
ground motions, and to optimize the properties for the best output in seconds.

On the other hand, passive control systems consist of pre – determined properties
that cannot adjust or optimize themselves for different input values.

The idea is not to increase the capacity of the existing structure, but rather to
decrease the demand in different ways, leaving the structure with a less amount of
energy to deal with, which decreases the risk of a total collapse in most severe
earthquakes or decreases the damage in less severe ground motions.

3
Passive Structural Control

There are several different types of passive control devices that have been under
development since mid – 1970’s with a rapid increase in implementations, especially
in U.S.A and Japan, starting in mid – 1990’s. [1], [2], [3]

Passive control devices that are mentioned can be divided into 3 groups depending
on how they work. Figure 1 demonstrates briefly how base isolation systems, energy
dissipating devices and mass dampers work.

Figure 1 - Passive Control Systems [4]

Friction devices belong to energy dissipating devices category and as the name
suggests, use the friction forces to dissipate energy.

Using the inter – storey drifts between adjacent floors, two plates located in the
friction devices convert kinetic energy to heat energy and surface deformations, thus
reducing the energy that is transferred to the structural elements.

4
Dry Friction

Friction devices that are being used in structural engineering field uses dry – friction
contact areas. Dry friction resists relative lateral motion of two solid surfaces which
are in contact.

Figure 2 - Force Diagram for Block on Ground [9]

Figure 2 illustrates the forces that are important in understanding of dry – friction. As
seen in the figure, Ff, the frictional force, opposes to slide between the bodies. µ, the
friction coefficient, depends on the surfaces that are in contact. N, the normal force,
here depends on the self weight of the block, whereas, as will be illustrated later, in
friction devices can be adjusted by bolts. The frictional force is given by: Ff = µ ×N

When the acting force on the block is less than frictional force, the block will stand
still. As the acting force gets larger than the frictional force, the block will move, and
the frictional force will start doing physical work, i.e. dissipating energy. Figure 3
shows this
relationship.

Figure 3 - Friction Force - Applied Force Relationship [9]

5
Friction Devices

The friction device consists of two steel casing and a sliding piece located between
the casings. The interface between the inner and outer pieces in faced with a high
brake pad material and the normal force is adjusted by pre - stressed bolts. [5]

Figure 4 - Friction Damper Details [5]

Friction devices can be inserted in structure in different configurations.

Figure 5 - Different Configurations [4}

Commonly used configurations can be seen in figure 5.

6
Advantages of friction devices can be summarized as:

• High energy absorbing ability.

• Adjustable friction force through pre-stressing.
• Behaviour not affected by number of cycles, high energy dissipation at every
cycle.
• Unlimited capacity of energy dissipation.
• Can be re - used after the earthquake.
• No fatigue effects.

As mentioned above, friction devices dissipate energy at every cycle, when the
lateral force is higher than the friction force. By definition from principles of dry
friction, friction devices show a rectangular hysteresis loops during excitation. Figure
6 shows a typical idealized loop of a friction hysteresis loop adjusted to a certain
level of friction force.

Figure 6 - Typical Rectangular Hysteresis Loops [4}

7
Nh and Xu [7] has done shake table tests on 3 storey and 12 storey structures
equipped with friction devices, and plotted the actual hysteresis loops under 4
different recorded earthquakes and proved that the idealized hysteresis loops can be
used accurately for modelling the friction devices. (Figure 7)

Figure 7 - Force - Displacement Hysteresis Loops of Friction Device Under 4

Earthquakes [7]

Because the friction devices are connected through bracing systems, properties of
these structures equipped with friction devices also change due to these bracings as
well. An equivalent brace and frame unit and the force – displacement relation of
such system can be represented as in Figure 8.

8
 Figure 8 Equivalent Brace and Frame Unit and the Force Displacement
Relation [6]

As can be concluded from Figure 8, due to the added bracing and the friction
devices, the fundamental period of the structure is modified. Depending on the
stiffness of the bracings, the number of friction devices, and the current condition of
the friction device in a given instance (slippage condition – locked condition), natural
period of the structure lies between a range of, all being in the slipping condition or
all of them being in locked condition.

De La Cruz showed the time history of displacement response of a frame equipped

with a friction device and a bare frame and concluded that: “The period of the free
response tends to shorten while there is sliding. After the final sticking, the frame
behaves as a SDOF (braced frame) and period keeps constant.” [4]

Figure 9 Displacement responses of the protected frame and the bare frame for an initial
displacement.[4]

9
It is obvious that, during a ground motion, the response of the structure will depend
on the stiffness of the braces and the adjusted slippage load.

The main goal with retrofitting structures with friction devices is to dissipate the
energy that is input by the earthquake rather than making the frame structure to act
as a braced frame.

High slippage loads will lock the friction devices, as the lateral force will never be
higher than the adjusted load, and the frame will act as a braced frame.

On the other hand, low slippage loads will dissipate energy; however the dissipated
energy will be very low due to this value, and again will be useless.

These facts conclude that the slippage load must be adjusted to a certain value for
best results. Several studies showed that, this value lies between a range, depending
on the properties of the structure that will be discussed later. When the slippage
load is adjusted for an optimum value, the stiffness of the bracing has almost no
effect on the output, therefore for an economical solution, a bracing system that is
enough to take the loads transferred from friction devices and not to buckle under
compression forces should be chosen.

Mualla and Belev did numerical analysis to show the effect of the stiffness of the
bracing on a structure equipped with Friction Devices and concluded that “A change
[8]
in brace stiffness leads to shifting the period of vibration and damping ratio”.
However as can be seen from Figure 10, even when the bracing stiffness (the cross
section area of the bracing) is tripled, the difference in dissipated energy is affected
slightly.

10
 Figure 10 Effects of Bracing Stiffness on Dissipated Energy Percentage [8]

As mentioned before, due to energy dissipating being the main goal, and the desire
to choose small sections for economical solutions, buckling issues are treated with
special solutions. Figure 11 shows a close – up view of installed buckling – restrained
braces. [1]

Figure 11 Close Up View of an Installed Buckling Restrained Braces [1]

11
Current Practice Examples

A recent and a good example of this design consisting Friction Devices is the Kaiser
Santa Clara Medical Center, Santa Clara, California. This is a 327 bed hospital with a
gross floor area of 65.960 m2 that was opened in mid 2007. This hospital lies
between 2 major fault lines, namely San Andreas and Hayward, and is in a risk of
very strong near – field earthquake action.

The final design had Friction Devices at each floor in ten bays, in two principle
directions of the structure, with slippage values between 1,115 to 2,450 kN.

Seismic analysis of this design shows for a strong ground motion that is expected to
be in the region, a maximum story drift of 1.5 %.

One example for a recently done seismic retrofitting is the retrofitting of the Patient
Tower in Seattle seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Patient Tower Seattle [1]

12
The Patient Tower is a structure consisting of 14 floors that was originally
constructed in 1970. First 2 floors consist of relatively rigid RC podium. The 2 floors
above the podium include RC columns that support the shear walls in the above
floors. Therefore, the 2 floors above the podium are soft stories, a high risk for
earthquakes.

The structure has been retrofitted with friction devices, and in accordance with the
FEMA – 356 standards, now it meets Immediate Occupancy performance level for
the design seismic event, and the drifts in the soft floors were reduced by 1.5.

Used friction devices were cross – brace frames, dissipater located in the middle of
the frame, 24 in quantity with a slippage load of 890 kN as can be seen in Figure 13.

Figure 13 Completed Damper Installation [1]

This solution contributed the following advantages:

• Solution resulted in approximately $1 million savings on the foundation work

compared to the conventional concrete shear wall seismic upgrade scheme.
• Simplified the construction process with minimum disturbances to an
occupied hospital facility during construction.
• Aesthetically unique and acceptable.
• Added structural integrity and improved building life safety.
• Helps minimizing post – earthquake structural and non structural damage
and reduce potential down time and repair costs after a seismic event.

13
Modelling & Methodology

Methodology

All the modelling and analysis is done using commercially available software
SAP2000.

For Modal Analysis Eigen Vectors have been used which is used in Response
Spectrum Analysis. 5% of damping is assumed for the structure.

Non – linear time history analyses are used for comparing the behaviours of the
structures under recorded earthquake ground motions.

Time history analysis are performed using the same software, SAP2000, using the
implicit integration method Hilbet – Hughes – Taylor method, as suggested in
SAP2000 help files, in which the equation of motion at a time step is modified by the
inclusion of a numerical damping parameter which takes a value between 0 and –
1/3.

When is set to zero, the method becomes same with the Newmark implicit scheme
wih = 1/4 and = 1/2.

As takes negative values, it tends to dampen the higher modes of vibration,

improving convergence at the cost of a small loss of accuracy.

Analyses are performed with = 0 for frames without friction devices and -0.05 is
used for structures equipped with friction devices, which experienced convergence
problems with = 0, due to very small mass at the intersection of the link elements,
which ended up in high frequency modes.

For time history analysis, a step size of 0.003 seconds is used. Time history analysis
continues from the combination Dead + 0.24 Live.

14
Modelling of Structures

Used material has a self weight of 25 kN / m3 and Young’s modulus of 30000 N /

mm2.

Rigid floor diaphragm constraints are applied to each level, to take into account the
stiffness of the slab, making all nodes lie at the same horizontal plane.

Joints 1, 5, 9 and 13 are fixed to the base and all other connections are rigid
connections as it would be in a RC structure.

Mass is taken into account automatically by SAP with the sum of self weight of the
elements, acting dead loads and 24% of the acting live loads.

Beam and column elements are assumed to be in the elastic zone, except at defined
hinge locations, all located at 5% of the length of the element from each end.

M3 types of hinges are applied to beams and P – M3 interacting hinges are applied
to columns.

Figure 14 Hinge Properties

Hinges are assumed to resist 10% more of the yield value assigned with a rotation of
0.015 rad. After this point, the moment capacity of the hinge drops to 20% of the
yield value, and after a rotation of 0.025 rad. moment capacity drops to zero.

15
Modelling of Friction Devices

Frame with the dissipater located between the braces and the upper slab is used
through this study.

Friction devices are modelled using link elements. Based on the behaviour of friction
devices, an elastic – perfectly plastic element is used.

The plasticity model that was assigned to the friction device is based on the
hysteretic behaviour proposed by Wen where the non – linear force – deformation
relationship is given in Figure 15. [9]

Figure 15 Definition of parameters for the Wen plasticity property. [9]

Where k is the elastic spring constant, Fy is the yield force, r is the specified ratio of
post – yield stiffness to elastic stiffness k, and z is an internal hysteretic variable.

16
This variable z has a range of -1 < z < 1, with the yield surface represented by |z| = 1.

The initial value of this variable is 0, and it is calculated with the equation (1) where
exp is an exponent greater than or equal to unity.

Equation 1 - Value of z

Large values of this exp increase the sharpness of yielding as shown in Figure 15. The
practical limit for exp is about 20 [10] and used for this study.

Post yield stiffness is assigned as 0, assuming there will be no stiffness at all during
yielding, and an elastic stiffness of 2100000 N / mm2 which corresponds to a very
chunky piece of metal, because the stiffness of the bracing will be assigned to the
bracing members in the model.

Braces, that the friction devices are connected to, assume not to fail under
compression therefore buckling is not considered.

Brace member materials have a stiffness value of 210000 N / mm2 which is a

common value for steel used in practice.

17
Design of Structures

Two 3 storey reinforced concrete frame structures were chosen and designed for the
purpose of this study.

The chosen structures have the same properties with an only exception of one being
designed to Eurocode 8 with a behaviour factor of 3 (Structure A), whereas the
second structure designed with a behaviour factor of 6 (Structure B).

Both frame structures have floor height of 4 meters and 3 spans of 6.5m. Also it is
assumed that the frame repeats itself at every 6.5 meters. Plan and the elevation
view of the chosen structure can be seen in Figure 16 and Figure 17.

Figure 16 - Plan view of chosen structure

18
 Figure 17 - Elevation view of chosen structure

Frame and joint labelling is also seen in the elevation view and will be consistent
through this paper.

The designed frame is the frame on that lies on the Axis 2 on plan view, also shown
by red colour.

For design purposes, response spectrum is chosen to be Type 1 (for moderate or

large events), soil type C (dense sand or gravel, or stiff clay), scaled to a peak ground
acceleration of 4 m/s2.

Assumed dead loads are to be self weight of the structural elements plus 0.5 kN/m2
on slabs, and a live load of 2.5 kN/m2. Mass for the purpose of the response
spectrum analysis and time history analysis is taken as 0.24 × Live Loads + 1 × Dead
Loads.

19
Properties of Structure A

As mentioned before, Structure A is designed with a behaviour factor of 3.

Step by step detailed calculations can be found in Appendix A.

Frame Element Sizes

First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Columns 50 x 50 50 x 50 45 x 45
Beams 35 x 50 35 x 50 30 x 45
Table 1 Element Sizes / Structure A

Beam Moment Resistance Values ( kN.m )

First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Design Positive 420 356.5 122
Design Negative -624.5 -575 -300
Table 2 Assigned Hinge Values for Beams / Structure A

As mentioned before, due to the fact that the moment resistance values depend on
the axial load on the columns, P – M3 interacting hinge properties are assigned to
columns. These interaction diagrams can be found in Appendix A.

Modal Information
Period (sec) Frequency ( hz ) Modal Participating Mass Modal Mass Sum
0.74 1.35 82.94% 83%
0.24 4.17 12.65% 96%
0.12 8.33 4.40% 100%
Table 3 Modal Information / Structure A

Structure A, structure properly designed to Eurocode 8, has a fundamental period of

0.74 sec. as seen in Table 3.

20
Properties of Structure B

As mentioned before, Structure A is designed with a behaviour factor of 6.

Step by step detailed calculations can be found in Appendix A.

Assumed Frame Element Sizes

First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Columns 45 x 45 45 x 45 40 x 40
Beams 30 x 45 30 x 45 30 x 40
Table 4 Element Sizes / Structure B

Beam Moment Resistance Values ( kN.m )

First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Design Positive 97.75 70 46
Design Negative -300 -287.5 -172.5
Table 5 Assigned Hinge Values for Beams / Structure B

As mentioned before, due to the fact that the moment resistance values depend on
the axial load on the columns, P – M3 interacting hinge properties are assigned to
columns. These interaction diagrams can be found in Appendix A.

Modal Information
Period (sec) Frequency ( hz ) Modal Participating Mass Modal Mass Sum
0.91 1.10 82.77% 83%
0.29 3.45 12.70% 96%
0.15 6.67 4.52% 100%
Table 6 Modal Information / Structure B

Structure B, structure properly designed to Eurocode 8, has a fundamental period of

0.91 sec. as seen in Table 6.

21
Design of Retrofitted Structure

It is clear that the most important value that has to be considered is the yield value
of the friction device for increasing the capacity of the structure against seismic
loading. However, the bracing system which is connected to the friction device has
to be designed as well.

So it is evident that there are 2 main parameters that have to be decided on, for
every individual friction device.

Which means, in the case of this study, due to the structure that is considered is a 3
floor structure; there will be 6 independent values that have to be decided.

It is obvious that, these parameters will affect the seismic capacity increase of the
frame highly, which also depends on the frames individual characteristics.

Proposed placement of the friction devices can be seen in Figure 18.

Figure 18 Placement of Friction Devices on Structure B

22
Design of Bracing System

The bracing system acts as the structural element that causes the friction device to
use inter – storey drifts between adjacent levels by connecting the mentioned levels
with the friction device in between.

Of course, the bracing members should be able to carry the load transferred from
friction devices to the lower floor.

Besides that, due to the added stiffness with the bracing members, the fundamental
period of the structure changes and shifts to higher frequencies, i.e. the structure as
a whole gets stiffer.

However this is only true when all the friction devices are locked, i.e. when the
structure acts as a braced frame. Once the friction devices start yielding, the
structure then acts as the original frame though with dissipating the energy that is
being fed by seismic motion.

[9]
Altamira did numerical analysis on a 3 storey steel frame retrofitted with friction
devices with artificially generated ground motions. He applied the same yield forces
on every floor, and increased this value gradually. For every step, he used different
bracing stiffness values as well. With this study, he showed that the response of the
structure depends mainly on the yield force and the bracing stiffness has almost no
effect.

23
 Figure 19 Effects of Damper Stiffness and Yield Force [9]

Sang – Hyun Lee et .al, also showed the effect of the damper stiffness and concluded
that the effects of the damper stiffness is minor, compared to the effects of yield
force on seismic performance. [6]

Petkovski and Waldron also did numerical analysis with friction devices connected
with panels instead of braces and came to the conclusion that: “The response of
structures with different panels (stiff or flexible) is almost identical.” [11]

To verify this information, an initial yield force of 200 kN has been assumed in all the
braces, and 3 different kinds of braces are chosen with cross section areas of 10, 15
and 20 cm2 and implemented in Structure B. Analysis has been run with the first 30
seconds of the recorded ground motion El – Centro. With the 3 different kinds of
braces and same yield forces, time history for top floor displacements are given in
Figure 20 and 21.

24
 Top Floor Displacements
8
6

Displacements ( cm )
4
2
B15
0
B20
-2
B25
-4
-6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time ( sec )

Figure 20 Top Floor Displacement with Different Bracings

Figure 21 shows the first 10 seconds of the Figure 20 in detail for a better evaluation.

Top Floor Displacements

8

6
Displacements ( cm )

4
2
B15
0
B20
-2
B25
-4
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time ( sec )

Figure 21 Top Floor Displacement with Different Bracings in Detail

Figure 20 and 21 clearly shows and verifies the statement by the mentioned
references that the response does not depend on the brace stiffness as much and is
almost identical.

Therefore, a bracing member with 20 cm2 has been chosen for this study, with the
capability of resisting an axial load of 1000 kN both in compression and tension,
assuming a strength value of 500 N / mm2. Where in any analysis cases the axial load

25
on any bracing member is above 1000 kN, this will be mentioned and the analysis
will be run with a greater cross sectional area.

This study will not investigate the influence of the bracing member stiffness and will
only focus on the influence of the yield force.

Properties of Structure B Equipped with Braces

As mentioned before, friction devices will change the natural period of the structure
dramatically, adding stiffness due to the bracing members.

Structure B – equipped with the bracing members with a cross section area of 20 cm2
has a natural period of 0.4874 sec. , which is equal to a frequency of 2.05 hz.

This means that the structure will have a natural period of 0.4874 sec when all the
friction devices are locked, or will have the same natural period as if it was a bare
frame, when all the friction devices are activated, which is 0.91 sec.

During a ground motion, depending on the number and the status of the friction
devices, the first natural period will be in this range.

For a better understanding of the capability of the friction devices, ground motions
will be chosen to be effective within this range for this study.

26
Allocation of Yield Forces

As mention before, the allocation of the yield force on the friction devices is the
most important variable for seismic retrofitting of structures.

To date, there are no design guidelines in Eurocode for friction devices. There are
several studies done by various researchers on different approaches on design and
allocation of yield forces.

Petkovski and Waldron has done a research on “Optimum Friction Forces for Passive
[11]
Control of the Seismic Response of Multi – Storey Buildings” and proposed a
design methodology for allocation of yield forces.

This study will use this approach and will use 20 different sets of yield forces for each
recorded ground motion.

Petkovski and Waldron proposed a method where first the lateral storey stiffness K
and storey yield force, fy is determined and then the yield forces are assigned to the
friction devices with a constant ratio to these values for each storey.

Petkovski and Waldron defines the storey stiffness as the initial stiffness of the
storey, which will be used as defined by them in this study as well, before the
incidence of any plastic hinges and the storey strength as the storey shear force
where first incidence of plastic hinge.

Storey Shear Forces - Structure B

First Storey Second Storey Third Storey
Storey Shear Force ( kN ) 559.078 517.682 330.095
Table 7 Storey Shear Forces Structure B

Design steps can be found in detail in Appendix B.

27
 Allocated Yield Forces ( kN )
Step fy / fs First Storey Second Storey Third Storey
1 0.1 56 52 33
2 0.2 112 104 66
3 0.3 168 155 99
4 0.4 224 207 132
5 0.5 280 259 165
6 0.6 335 311 198
7 0.7 391 362 231
8 0.8 447 414 264
9 0.9 503 466 297
10 1 559 518 330
11 1.2 671 621 396
12 1.4 783 725 462
13 1.6 895 828 528
14 1.8 1006 932 594
15 2 1118 1035 660
Table 8 Step Numbers and Allocated Yield Forces

Table 8 shows the chosen fy to fs ratios where fy stands for the yield force and fs for
the storey shear force.

15 steps are chosen for this study as seen in Table 8. Ratios are kept same for all
levels and allocated yield forces are seen for every storey.

28
Earthquake Records

4 recorded ground motions have been chosen for this study, namely the El – Centro
earthquake, Loma earthquake, Northridge earthquake and the Mexico City
earthquake.

El Centro Earthquake

30 seconds of the El Centro earthquake has been used that has a maximum ground
acceleration value of 0.34 g and is effective for the structures with the fundamental
period 1 – 2 Hz. Figure 22 and 23 shows the details for this ground motion.

El Centro - Acceleration Time History

0,4
Acceleration ( g )

0,2

-0,2

-0,4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time ( sec )

Figure 22 El Centro Acceleration Time History

El Centro - Power Spectrum

0,12
Spectral Amplitude

0,1
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Frequency ( hz )

Figure 23 El Centro Power Spectrum

29
Loma Earthquake

Like the El – Centro earthquake, first 30 seconds of the Loma earthquake ground
acceleration time history has been used.

Acceleration values of the Loma earthquake are doubled due to low natural values.
This ground motion has greater spectral amplitude values, mainly effective for the
structures with natural periods between 1 – 1.5 hz, also having a peak around 0.5 hz.
Figure 24 and 25 shows the acceleration time history and power spectrum for Loma
earthquake.

Loma ( Modified ) - Acceleration Record

0,3
0,2
Acceleration ( g )

0,1
0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time ( sec )

Figure 24 Loma ( Modified ) Acceleration Time History

Loma ( Modified ) - Power Spectrum

0,35
Spectral Amplitude

0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Frequency ( hz )

Figure 25 Loma ( Modified ) Power Spectrum

30
Northridge Earthquake

Northridge earthquake time history has been compressed by a factor of 2 in the

means of seconds. This ended up making a 50 seconds recorded motion a 25
seconds motion.

This modification has been done to shift the effective frequencies to the range which
is between 1 – 2 Hz, mainly around 1.5 Hz.

Northridge has a maximum ground acceleration value of 0.4 g and has the greatest
spectral acceleration among the earthquakes used, making it the most destructive.

Northridge ( Modified ) - Acceleration Time History

0,4
Acceleration ( g )

0,2
0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time ( sec )

Figure 26 Northridge Acceleration Time History

Northridge ( Modified ) - Power Spectrum

0,7
Spectral Amplitude

0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Frequency ( hz )

Figure 27 Northridge Power Spectrum

31
Mexico Earthquake

Like the Northridge earthquake, this time history has been modified, but this time
compressed by a factor of 2.5 to make it effective between 1 – 2 Hz as in the
previous ones.

Figure 28 and 29 shows the acceleration time history and the power spectrum for
Mexico earthquake.

Mexico ( Modified ) - Acceleration Time History

0,2
Acceleration ( g )

0,1

-0,1

-0,2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time ( sec )

Figure 28 Mexico ( Modified ) Acceleration Time History

Mexico ( Modified ) - Power Spectrum

0,04
Spectral Amplitude

0,03

0,02

0,01

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Frequency ( hz )

Figure 29 Mexico ( Modified ) Power Spectrum

32
Analysis Results

Assessed Parameters

Responses of the structures are investigated in 4 categories.

Inter Storey Drifts

Maximum inter – storey drift figures show the maximum inter – storey drifts in any
storeys at any time in the structure and is compared with the Structure A where
possible. If at any step for Structure B, the structure has collapsed, inter – storey drift
is not shown in the figure.

Structural Damage

Structural damage is shown by the number of plastic hinges formed through the
structure in any structural members, beams or columns.

Hinges are shown in 2 different types. Type 1 is a hinge with a plastic rotation less
than 0.003 rad. representing lower damage. Type 2 is a hinge with a plastic rotation
greater than 0.003 rad. representing higher damage in an element.

Top Floor Displacements

Maximum top floor displacements are investigated in this part for every step and
compared with Structure A where possible.

Top Floor Displacement Time History Response Comparison

Structure A top floor displacement time history is compared with the best solution
offered with the friction devices.

33
El Centro Results

Structure A which is designed to Eurocode 8 with a behaviour factor of 3 has

performed well through the El – Centro ground motion record, without collapsing,
forming plastic hinges in the structural elements.

Structure B which is designed to Eurocode 8 with a behaviour factor of 6 collapsed

forming plastic hinges beyond the capability of the members, thus dropping the
moment resistance completely.

Adding friction devices to Structure B made it possible for it to stand under this
earthquake up to step 12. After step 12, structure failed like the bare frame.

Maximum Inter Storey Drifts

Structure A had a maximum inter – storey drift of 4.25 cm. Structure B with the
added friction devices had an inter – storey of 2.54 cm. in step 8 which is the
greatest reduction among all the steps in terms of maximum inter – storey drifts.

Peak Inter - Storey Drifts

4,5
4
Inter - Storey Drift ( cm )

3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Structure B
Step
Structure A

Figure 30 Peak Inter Storey Drifts / El Centro

34
Structural Damage

Structure A formed 15 type 1 plastic hinges and 7 type 2 plastic hinges, a total of 22
plastic hinges all through the structure in structural elements.

Figure 31 gives the number of plastic hinges formed through the structure in any
structural member.

From the structural damage perspective, step 8 survives the earthquake with the
least structural damage in the members with the least number (6) of Type 2 plastic
hinges, which have a plastic rotation above 0.003 rad. and 8 plastic hinges with
plastic rotations below 0.003 rad.

Step 1 configuration survived the earthquake, however with a great damage in the
structural members with the greatest Type 2 of plastic hinges.

Step 13 14 and 15 did not make it possible for Structure B to survive under El –
Centro earthquake.

Structural Damage

30

25
Number of Plastic Hinges

8 7
20 7
8
7
24 7
15
9
6
6 6
10 6
17 17 16
15 14
12
5 9 9
7 8 8
4
0 N/A N/A N/A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Step Type 2 Plastic Hinges

Type 1 Plastic Hinges

Figure 31 Structural Damage / El Centro

35
Top Floor Displacements

Maximum Top Floor Displacement

12
Displacement ( cm ) 10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Structure B
Step
Structure A

Figure 32 Top Floor Displacements / El Centro

Maximum reduction in top floor displacement is achieved in Step 11. However this
does not necessarily mean that this is the best solution, as can be seen in inter –
storey drifts and structural damages.

Top Floor Displacement Time History Response Comparison

Figure 33 shows the time history of the top floor displacement of Structure A and
Structure B – step 8 in the same figure.

Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison

15
10
Displacement ( cm )

5
0
-5
-10
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Structure A
Time ( sec ) Structure B - Step 8

Figure 33 Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison / El Centro

36
Loma Results

Structure A which is designed to Eurocode 8 with a behaviour factor of 3 collapsed

under this acceleration time history.

Structure B which is designed to Eurocode 8 with a behaviour factor of 6 also

collapsed forming plastic hinges beyond the capability of the members, thus
dropping the moment resistance completely.

Adding friction devices to Structure B made it possible for it to stand under this
earthquake up to step 12. After step 12, structure failed like the bare frame.

Maximum Inter Storey Drifts

As mentioned before Structure A collapsed therefore is not available for comparison

in inter – storey drifts. Structure B with the added friction devices had an inter –
storey of 3.24 cm. in step 12 which is the lowest among all the steps in terms of
maximum inter – storey drifts.

Peak Inter - Storey Drifts

5
4,5
Inter - Storey Drift ( cm )

4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Structure B
Step

Figure 34 Peak Inter Storey Drifts / Loma

37
Structural Damage

Structure C formed 15 type 1 plastic hinges and 7 type 2 plastic hinges.

Figure 35 gives the number of plastic hinges formed through the structure in any
structural member.

From the structural damage perspective, step 12 survives the earthquake with the
least structural damage in the members with the least number of Type 2 plastic
hinges, which have a plastic rotation above 0.003 rad. and 8 plastic hinges with
plastic rotations below 0.003 rad.

Step 1 configuration survived the earthquake, however with a great damage in the
structural members with the greatest Type 2 of plastic hinges.

Step 13 14 and 15 did not make it possible for Structure B to survive under El –
Centro earthquake.

Structural Damage
30
Number of Plastic Hinges

25

20
16 16
15 20 16 14
13 13
10 7 6
13 11 9
5 10 9 8 8 8
6 7 6 5 7
3 3 N/A N/A N/A
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Type 2 Plastic Hinges
Step
Type 1 Plastic Hinges

Figure 35 Structural Damage / Loma

38
Top Floor Displacements

Maximum Top Floor Displacement

12

Displacement ( cm ) 10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Step Structure B

Figure 36 Top Floor Displacements / Loma

Maximum reduction in top floor displacement is achieved in Step 12. For the case of
Loma earthquake, this also corresponds to the best seismic performance reduction,
matching with structural damage and inter – storey drifts perspectives.

Top Floor Displacement Time History Response Comparison

Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison

15
10
Displacement ( cm )

5
0
-5
-10
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Structure B - Step 12
Time ( sec ) Structure A

Figure 37 Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison / Loma

Due to a total collapse in time step 8.20 seconds, Structure A is shown in 0 for the
rest of the duration in Figure 37.

39
Northridge Results

All of the structures that have been used in this study, Structure A, Structure B bare
frame and Structure B equipped with friction devices, failed and collapsed under this
ground motion record, therefore none of the result categories is applicable.

Mexico Results

Structure A and Structure B – bare frame collapsed under this ground motion.

Adding friction devices made it possible for Structure B to not to collapse as in Loma.

Maximum Inter Storey Drifts

Inter – storey drifts and structural damage results are not applicable for Structure A.
Maximum Inter – storey drifts for Structure B equipped with friction devices are
given in Figure 38 for each step.

Peak Inter - Storey Drifts

3,5
3
Inter - Storey Drift ( cm )

2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Step
Structure B

Figure 38 Peak Inter Storey Drifts / Mexico

40
Structural Damage

Types and number of plastic hinges in the Structure for each step is given in Figure
39.

Structural Damage
20
18
Number of Plastic Hinges

16
14 12 5
12
10
8 16
6 12
4 8
2
N/A N/A 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Type 2 Plastic Hinges
Step Type 1 Plastic Hinges

Figure 39 Structural Damage / Loma

Step 1 and Step 2 did not make it possible for Structure B to stand the Mexico
earthquake. After step 7, structure remained in elastic zone as seen in Figure 39.

Top Floor Displacements

Maximum Top Floor Displacement

9
8
Displacement ( cm )

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Step Structure B

Figure 40 Top Floor Displacements / Mexico

Figure 40 shows the maximum top floor displacements for the Mexico earthquake.
As in Structural Damage, these parameters remain same after Step 7 with increasing
steps.

41
Top Floor Displacement Time History Response Comparison

Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison

10
8
Displacement ( cm ) 6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Structure B - Step 15
Time ( sec )
Structure A

Figure 41 Top Floor Displacement Response Comparison / Mexico

Figure 41 shows the top floor displacement response of Structure A and Structure B
equipped with friction devices – Step 15.

Structure A collapses at sec 23 while Structure B survives the earthquake without

any major displacements in top floor.

42
Summary and Evaluation of Results

Structure A, Structure B bare frame and Structure B equipped with Friction Devices
have been assessed under 4 different ground motions in this Study.

3 of these ground motions have been modified in terms of amplitude and frequency
content to attack the structure harshly.

Structure A was able to stand only under El – Centro ground motion, which was the
only one used as original. Same structure, Structure A has failed in ground motions
Loma, Northridge and Mexico.

Structure B, which was designed by a behaviour factor of 6 failed in all ground

motions as expected.

Friction devices made it possible for Structure B to show a better seismic

performance for ground motions El – Centro, Loma and Mexico. However, none of
the yield force steps made it possible for Structure B not to collapse under
Northridge earthquake.

In the case of El – Centro, the best seismic performance for Structure B is obtained in
Step 8, in terms of structural damage and inter – storey drifts. This is due to the
optimum possible solution that can be achieved by the friction devices. When the
allocated yield forces were too low, friction devices made more cycles however
dissipating less energy, therefore more energy was induced to the structure. When
the yield forces were higher than this optimum value, the friction devices made less
loops. Even that the yielding force was higher, with less displacements, less induces
energy was dissipated.

After Step 12, the lateral forces in the friction devices were not big enough to
activate them, thus Structure acted as a braced frame only, without dissipating any
energy in Friction devices. This led to a collapse of the structure.

43
When Step 8 for Structure B is compared with Structure A, a reduction ratio of 35% is
observed in peak inter – storey drifts. When structural damage is observed for the
same situations, a reduction of 50% is seen.

Loma results are similar to the El – Centro results; however a comparison with
Structure A is not possible, as in Northridge and Mexico.

This time the best seismic performance is achieved in Step 12 which is different from
the previous mentioned case, El – Centro, however after Step 13 the same output is
seen.

This verifies the information that there is an optimum solution for a Structure,
however this optimum solution is not an exact value for the structure itself, but lies
in a range depending on the earthquake.

Northridge was the most destructive ground motion among the ones that have been
used in this study with the maximum peak ground acceleration value and maximum
peak spectral acceleration values.

There are no outputs available for this ground motion due to a failure in all
numerical analysis.

Output values for Mexico earthquake shows a different perspective of the Friction
Devices. As can be seen from the relevant figures, this time the structure failed in
steps 1 and 2, however was always able to stand with increasing allocated yield
forces.

As in previous examples, with higher yield forces structure acted as a braced

structure only, and the friction devices did not dissipate any energy. But in this
situation, natural frequency of the structure was shifted, where the ground motion is
not effective. It can be seen in Figure 41 that, the braced structure vanished the
resonance effects just by frequency shifting, therefore making it possible for
Structure B to stand. When the yield forces are low, devices are always activated, the
structure is in the danger zone frequency, and the dissipated energy is not enough
for structure to stand.

44
Conclusions and Future Work

This study has presented the basic procedure of designing a frame structure to
Eurocode 8 with 2 different behaviour factors, 3 and 6 respectively and then the
seismic behaviour improvement of the structure designed with the behaviour factor
of 6 with friction devices.

Of course, a behaviour factor of 6 is neither reasonable nor allowed in Eurocode for

any type of structure. This corresponds to a great energy dissipation expectation in
structural members without failing.

Confirming this statement, this structure has failed under all earthquake records.

Structure that is designed with a behaviour factor of 3 could stand only 1 of the
ground motions used out of 4 records. This is mainly due to the fact that the
earthquakes are modified in terms of dominant frequencies and especially adjusted
to be destructive for this structure.

Structure B, retrofitted with friction devices made it possible for this Structure to
stand 3 of the records that have been used.

Due to the fact that Structure A was only able to survive the El – Centro earthquake,
a comparison was available only for this.

Structure B, improved with the optimum solution showed a better seismic

performance than Structure A, lasting with less structural damage.

Also friction devices made it possible for Structure B to stand the earthquakes that
Structure A was not able to.

45
This study also confirms the conclusions previous studies have came to that the most
important parameter is to determine the yield force.

For low values of yield forces, differences in the stiffness of the braces have almost
no effect. As the yield forces get larger, the stiffness of the braces gains relevance,
however, this is mainly due to the fact that friction devices are in locked mode thus
the structure will act more like a braced frame, where the stiffness will have a high
influence. This means that the dissipated energy will be low which means the aim is
not reached.

Friction devices, by nature need non – linear analysis and there are many
combinations possible for allocation of yield forces on the devices.

For every step, a time consuming non – linear time history analysis has to be done to
see the performance of the structure.

Also, it cannot be said that there is only one best optimum yield forces allocation
depending on a structure, but this allocation of yield forces depend on the
earthquake as well. Altamira (2009) also mentioned this fact in his study and
confirmed.

However, a trend is seen in all the studies that have been done in the past on friction
devices that this optimum value lies between in a range.

This fact is also confirmed and observed in this study, that below or above this range,
although being in the activated state friction devices either dissipate very low energy
due to the low yield forces, or get locked and do not dissipate energy at all leaving
the Structure as a braced – frame only.

The study is done with a 3 storey structure. A more detailed study should be done
with different storey levels and different structural properties to see how different
parameters affect the difference between performance levels of structures designed
with low behaviour factors and high behaviour factors but retrofitted with friction
devices.

46
References

1. M.D. Symans et. al, Energy Dissipation Systems for Seismic Applications: Current
Practice and Recent Developments, Journal of Structural Engineering, 01/2008, p3-21

2. G.W. Housner et. al, Structural Control: Past, Present, And Future, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics,09/1997,p897-971

3. Aiken I., Passive Energy Dissipation Hardware And Applications, Proceedings, Los
Angeles County And Seaosc Symposium On Passive Energy Dissipation Systems For
New And Existing Buildings, Los Angeles, 06/1996.

4. De la Crus S.T., Contribution to the assessment of the Efficiency of Friction

Dissipators for Seismic Protection of Buildings, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya,
06/2003

5. Tehranizadeh M., Design and Construction of a Friction Damper Applying Brake

Lining Pads, Amir Kabir University of Technology, Lecture Notes, 2008.

6. Lee S.H. et al., Allocation and slip load of friction dampers for a seismically excited
building structure based on storey shear force distribution, Engineering Structures,
06/2007, p930-940

7. Nh C. Et .al., Seismic response control of a building complex utilizing passive

friction damper: Experimental investigation, Earthquake Engineering And Structural
Dynamics, 02/2006, p657-677

8. Mualla I.H., Belev B., Performance of steel frames with a new friction damper
device under earthquake excitation, Engineering Structures, 2002, p365-371

9. Altamira L., Seismic Interstory Drift Demands in Steel Friction Damped Braced
Buildings, Msc Thesis, Texas A&M University, 2009

10. CSI, CSI analysis reference manual for SAP2000, ETABS and SAFE, Software
Manual, Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley, CA, 2007.

47
11. Petkovski M., Waldron P., Optimum friction forces for passive control of the
seismic response of multi storey buildings, Conference Paper

48
Appendix A Design of Structures

Design of Structure A

Assumed Frame Element Sizes

First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Columns 50 x 50 50 x 50 45 x 45
Beams 35 x 50 35 x 50 30 x 45
Table 9 Assumed Frame Element Sizes / Structure A

For purpose of design, preliminary selection of element sizes is as shown in table

above. Slabs are assumed to have a thickness of 0.20 meters.

Self weight and mass of the beam elements are modified by 0.6 since is already
taken into account when the slab weight and mass is added to the frames as dead
loads.

Applied additional dead loads on beams

Self weight of slabs: 2 x [ 0.20 × 3.25 x 25 ] = 32.5 kN / m

Assumed additional dead loads: 2 x [ 0.50 × 3.25 ] = 3.25 kN / m

Applied additional dead loads on joints

Self weight of the beams (Floors 1/2):2 x [ 3.25 x (0.5 – 0.2) x 0.35 x 25 ] = 17.0625 kN

Self weight of the beams (Floor 3 ):2 x [ 3.25 x (0.45 – 0.2) x 0.30 x 25 ] = 12.1875 kN

Dead load transferred from the beams to the joints:

Internal Joints: 6.5 x 35.75 / 2 116.1875 kN

External Joints: 6.5 x 35.75 / 4 = 58.09375 kN

49
Applied live loads on beams

Live load transferred from slabs: 2 x [ 2.50 x 3.25 ] = 16.25 kN / m

Applied live loads on joints

Internal Joints: 6.5 x 16.25 / 2 = 52.8125 kN

External Joints: 6.5 x 16.25 / 4 = 26.40625 kN

Mass Source: 0.24 × Live Loads + 1 × Dead Loads

Response Spectrum Analysis

Response Spectrum to Eurocode 8 with Design Ground acceleration 0.4g, Spectrum

Type:1, Ground Type: C, Behaviour Factor: 3 and Damping Ratio: 0.05

Response Spectrum Function

0,45
0,4
0,35
Acceleration ( g )

0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Period ( sec )

Figure 42 Response Spectrum Function / Structure A

50
Response Spectrum Analysis Results

Beam Results

Elements have been designed under combination Dead + 0.24 Live + Response
Spectrum

Beam Moment Values ( kN.m )

First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Action Positive 365 310 106
Design Positive 420 356.5 122
Action Negative - 543 - 500 - 257
Design Negative - 624.5 - 575 - 300
Table 10 Beam Moment Values / Structure A

Design moment values are assumed to be 15% more of the action values. Exact
longitudinal reinforcement areas are not calculated.

Column Results

Column Moment and Axial Load Values ( kN.m / kN )

Internal Columns External Columns
Max Moment Min Axial Max Moment Minimum Axial
First Floor 648 903 593 220
Second Floor 490 593 337 148
Third Floor 320 285 184 92
Table 11 Column Moment and Axial Load Values / Structure A

Because of the fact that moment resistance values depend greatly on the axial force
acting on the columns, columns are designed properly with reinforcements.

Assumed concrete grade is C30 and rebar grade is S460.

Provided steel area in columns for the columns are: 5 32 on each side with a clear
distance of 40 mm. The interaction diagram for this section is shown below.
(Negative values compression, positive values tension, interaction diagrams are
symmetrical.)

51
 Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 1 - 2
4000
2000
0
Axial Load ( kN ) -2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Moment ( kN.m )

Figure 43 Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 1 2 / Structure A

Interaction Diagram for Columns Floor 3

4000
2000
0
Axial Load ( kN )

-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Moment ( kN.m )

Figure 44 Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 3 / Structure A

Red plus signs correspond to calculated values seen in the table. All the values are
within the range of the limits for both column sections.

52
Design of Structure B

Assumed Frame Element Sizes

First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Columns 45 x 45 45 x 45 40 x 40
Beams 30 x 45 30 x 45 30 x 40
Table 12 Assumed Frame Element Sizes / Structure B

For purpose of design, preliminary selection of element sizes is as shown in table

above. Slabs are assumed to have a thickness of 0.20 meters.

Self weight and mass of the beam elements are modified by 0.6 since is already
taken into account when the slab weight and mass is added to the frames as dead
loads.

Applied additional dead loads on beams

Self weight of slabs: 2 x [ 0.20 × 3.25 x 25 ] = 32.5 kN / m

Assumed additional dead loads: 2 x [ 0.50 × 3.25 ] = 3.25 kN / m

Applied additional dead loads on joints

Self weight of the beams (Floors 1/2):2 x [ 3.25 x (0.45 – 0.2) x 0.30 x 25 ] = 12.1875
kN

Self weight of the beams (Floor 3 ):2 x [ 3.25 x (0.40 – 0.2) x 0.30 x 25 ] = 9.75 kN

Dead load transferred from the beams to the joints:

Internal Joints: 6.5 x 35.75 / 2 = 116.1875 kN

External Joints: 6.5 x 35.75 / 4 = 58.09375 kN

53
Applied live loads on beams

Live load transferred from slabs: 2 x [ 2.50 x 3.25 ] = 16.25 kN / m

Applied live loads on joints

Internal Joints: 6.5 x 16.25 / 2 = 52.8125 kN

External Joints: 6.5 x 16.25 / 4 = 26.40625 kN

Mass Source: 0.24 × Live Loads + 1 × Dead Loads

Response Spectrum Analysis

Response Spectrum to Eurocode 8 with Design Ground acceleration 0.4g, Spectrum

Type:1, Ground Type: C, Behaviour Factor: 3 and Damping Ratio: 0.05

Response Spectrum Function

0,35
0,3
Acceleration ( g )

0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Period ( sec )

Figure 45 Response Spectrum Function / Structure B

54
Response Spectrum Analysis Results

Beam Results

Elements have been designed under combination Dead + 0.24 Live + Response
Spectrum

Beam Moment Values ( kN.m )

First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Action Positive 85 60 40
Design Positive 97.75 70 46
Action Negative -260 -250 -150
Design Negative -300 -287.5 -172.5
Table 13 Beam Moment Values / Structure B

Design moment values are assumed to be 15% more of the action values. Exact
longitudinal reinforcement areas are not calculated.

Column Results

Column Moment and Axial Load Values ( kN.m / kN )

Internal Columns External Columns
Max Moment Min Axial Max Moment Minimum Axial
First Floor 252 903 243 361
Second Floor 190 593 150 242
Third Floor 132 288 150 165
Table 14 Column Moment and Axial Load Values / Structure B

Because of the fact that moment resistance values depend greatly on the axial force
acting on the columns, columns are designed properly with reinforcements.

Assumed concrete grade is C30 and rebar grade is S460.

Provided steel area in columns for the columns are: 4 25 on each side with a clear
distance of 40 mm. The interaction diagram for this section is shown below.
(Negative values compression, positive values tension, interaction diagrams are
symmetrical.)

55
 Interaction Diagram for Columns Floor 1 2
2000

Axial Load ( kN )
-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000

-10000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Moment ( kN.m )

Figure 46 Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 1 2 / Structure B

Interaction Diagram for Columns Floor 3

4000
2000
0
Axial Load ( kN )

-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Moment ( kN.m )

Figure 47 Interaction Diagram for Columns Storey 3 / Structure B

Red plus signs correspond to calculated values seen in the table. All the values are
within the range of the limits for both column sections.

56
Appendix B Allocation of Yield Forces

A series of non – linear static analysis has been done as suggested by Petkovski and
Waldron [11] to find each storey strength.

Unit lateral force is applied at every storey, restraining all the nodes in the below
storey. This unit load is increased step by step and the displacement – force graph is
monitored.

Storey strength is defined as the lateral force where the stiffness of the storey
changes, i.e. when first plastic hinge forms in the storey.

First Storey Strength

Restraints: Joints 1, 5,9,13. Load Applied: Joint 2 Monitored Displacement: Joint 14.

First Storey Strength

800
Storey Shear ( kN )

600

400

200

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Monitored Displacement ( cm )

Figure 48 First Storey Push over Method

57
Second Storey Strength

Restraints: Joints: 2, 6, 10, 14, Load Applied: Joint: 3, Monitored Displacement: Joint
15.

Second Storey Strength

700
600
Storey Shear ( kN )

500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Monitored Displacement ( cm )

Figure 49 Second Storey Push over Method

Third Storey Strength

Restraints: Joints 3, 7,11,15, Load Applied: Joint 4, Monitored Displacement: Joint 16.

Third Storey Strength

500
Storey Shear ( kN )

400
300
200
100
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Monitored Displacement ( cm )

Figure 50 Third Storey Push over Method

58