You are on page 1of 22

A Friction Damper for

Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete


Moment Frames

Brian G. Morgen
Graduate Research Assistant
Civil Engineering and
Geological Sciences
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana

This paper describes the development of a new type of friction


damper for unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete building
moment frame structures in seismic regions. Previous research has
shown that these structures have desirable seismic characteristics
such as a self-centering capability and an ability to undergo large
nonlinear lateral displacements with little damage; however,
displacements during an earthquake may be larger than acceptable.
To reduce displacements, the proposed friction dampers are placed at
selected beam-column joints, and dissipation of energy occurs
through joint gap opening. Large scale beam-column subassemblies
with and without dampers were tested under reversed cyclic loading.
Results show that the dampers can provide a significant amount of
supplemental energy dissipation at the beam ends, while the selfcentering capability of the structure is preserved.

recast concrete construction results in cost-effective structures


that provide high quality production and rapid erection. However,
the use of precast concrete buildings
in seismic regions of the United States
has been limited due to uncertainty
about their performance during earthquakes.1
In the absence of prescriptive seismic design provisions for precast concrete, current U.S. model building
codes 2 require that precast concrete
frame structures in seismic regions
emulate the behavior of monolithic

P
Yahya C. Kurama, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor
Civil Engineering and
Geological Sciences
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana

112

cast-in-place reinforced concrete


frames, unless certain acceptance criteria3 are satisfied through substantial
experimental and analytical evidence.
In recent years, largely through the
support of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI), the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Manufacturers Association
of California, Inc. (PCMAC), a significant amount of research has been
conducted on the seismic behavior and
design of precast concrete structures
PCI JOURNAL

that do not emulate the behavior of


cast-in-place construction. One of the
non-emulative precast concrete
frame systems that has successfully
emerged from these research efforts
uses unbonded post-tensioning between the precast beam and column
members to achieve the lateral load resistance needed in seismic regions.1,4-20
Unlike monolithic cast-in-place
(CIP) reinforced concrete structures,
the behavior of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete frame structures under lateral loads is governed
by the opening of gaps at the joints between the precast concrete beam and
column members. In addition to significant economic benefits due to dryjointed construction, these precast
concrete structures have desirable
seismic performance characteristics,
such as a self-centering capability
(i.e., ability to return towards the original undisplaced position upon unloading from a nonlinear lateral displacement), and an ability to undergo large
nonlinear lateral displacements without significant structural damage.
The greatest setback to the use of
unbonded post-tensioned precast
frames in seismic regions is that the
lateral displacements during a severe
earthquake may be larger than acceptable as a result of inadequate structural energy dissipation.1 The research
described in this paper focuses on this
issue, with the broad objective of improving the seismic behavior of posttensioned non-emulative precast concrete frame structures by using
supplemental passive energy dissipation.
In order to reduce the lateral displacement demands during a seismic
event, the use of mild (unprestressed)
steel reinforcement through the precast concrete beam-to-column joints,
in addition to the post-tensioning steel,
has been investigated5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16
and successfully applied in practice.4
These partially post-tensioned systems
are often referred to as hybrid precast concrete frame systems due to the
mixed use of mild steel and post-tensioning steel reinforcement across the
beam-to-column joints.
As an alternative, this paper investigates a new type of friction damper
that can be used externally at selected
July-August 2004

Fig. 1. Precast frame with proposed dampers.

beam-to-column joints in a precast


concrete frame system to dissipate energy during an earthquake (see Fig. 1).
The unique gap opening behavior between the beam and column members
of non-emulative post-tensioned precast concrete frames allows for the development of innovative energy dissipation systems. The proposed friction
damper takes advantage of these gap
opening displacements, similar to applications in post-tensioned steel
frame structures and steel-concrete
coupled wall structures. 21-26 The research is described in full detail in
Morgen and Kurama.27

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
AND SCOPE
In the last few decades, a substantial
amount of research has been conducted
on the use of supplemental passive energy dissipation from various types of
damping assemblies (e.g., friction,
metallic yielding, and viscous fluid
dampers) in steel and monolithic CIP
reinforced concrete structures as summarized in a number of overview publications.28-34 In comparison, there has
been little research on the application
of supplemental energy dissipation in
precast concrete construction.8, 10, 35-43

The supplemental energy dissipation system developed in this research


uses friction between adjacent metallic
surfaces caused by relative beam-tocolumn interface rotation in non-emulative post-tensioned precast concrete
frames. Large scale experimental studies were conducted on precast concrete beam-column subassemblies
with and without prototype friction
dampers.
A total of six beam specimens were
tested under pseudo-static reversed
cyclic loading with variations of the
following design parameters: (1)
damper normal force; (2) type of friction interface; (3) area of beam posttensioning steel; (4) initial stress of
beam post-tensioning steel; and (5)
beam depth.
This paper focuses on the results
from these experiments to evaluate the
damper performance and to determine
the nonlinear behavior of frame subassemblies that use these dampers.
The experimental results are also used
to develop and verify a beam-column
subassembly analytical model. Since
the proposed friction-damped precast
concrete structural system is not a
code-approved system, the experimental program described in this
paper is prerequisite to develop the
113

Fig. 2. Prototype building:7, 9, 12 (a) plan view; (b) elevation.

basis towards meeting required acceptance criteria.3

FRICTION DAMPERS IN
SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
Previous research on the development and use of friction dampers in
seismic applications is extensive,28-34
and a full review of the existing literature in this area is beyond the scope of
this paper. The benefits of using friction as a supplemental energy dissipation mechanism for seismic protection
of building structures include: (1) repeatable and reliable damper hysteretic behavior that is relatively independent of velocity and displacement
amplitude; (2) close-to-rectangular
damper force versus displacement behavior providing a large amount of energy dissipation; and (3) large damper
initial stiffness allowing slip to occur
early in the response, and thus, providing energy dissipation beginning at
small lateral displacements of the
structure.
Friction dampers for seismic applications have gone through significant
developments since the inception of
the devices in the late 1970s.44 Earlier
friction dampers consisted of brake
lining pads clamped between steel
plates with mill scale surfaces;43, 45, 46
however, modern versions use specially treated metal surfaces with im114

proved long-term behavior and spring


washers to help maintain the clamping
force.47-49 Most of these dampers are
now sufficiently well understood for
use in new and retrofit design of
monolithic CIP reinforced concrete
and steel building structures.
Previous research on the use of friction dampers in precast concrete structures is limited and has primarily focused on wall structures37, 39, 42, 43 and
braced frame structures.40, 41 In comparison, the damper described in this
paper is used locally at the beam-tocolumn joints of precast concrete
frame structures without the need for
braced members.
The application of similar localdamper configurations in steel-concrete
coupled walls, CIP reinforced concrete
frames, and steel frame structures has
been recently investigated.21-26, 47, 50, 51
The gap-opening displacements that
occur at the beam-to-column interfaces
of post-tensioned non-emulative precast
concrete frames provide promising opportunities for seismic design.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Prototype Frame Building
A prototype unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete frame for a sixstory office building in a region with

high seismic risk (e.g., coastal California), and for a site with a stiff soil
profile (corresponding to Site Class D
in IBC 2003 52), was selected as the
basis for the beam-column subassembly experiments. This particular frame
(referred to as Frame 1) was designed
at Lehigh University in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania by El-Sheikh et al.7, 9, 12
As shown in Fig. 2a, the lateral load
resistance of the prototype building is
provided by four unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete frames, two in
each primary direction, located at the
perimeter of the building plan. The elevation view of the frames is shown in
Fig. 2b.
The column cross-section dimensions are 28 x 38 in. (711 x 965 mm)
and the beam dimensions vary between 24 x 42 in. (610 x 1067 mm) for
the first floor level (see Fig. 2b) and
24 x 26 in. (610 x 660 mm) at the
roof. The resulting clear span-to-depth
slenderness ratios of the beams in the
prototype frame vary between 6.24
(first floor) and 10.0 (roof).
Experimental Setup
Based on the prototype structure described above, 80 percent scale experiments of precast concrete beam-column frame subassemblies were
conducted in the Structural Systems
Laboratory at the University of Notre
PCI JOURNAL

Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana. Test


specimens with and without dampers
were displaced under pseudo-static reversed cyclic loading. The experimental setup is shown in Figs. 3 and 4, and
consists of a precast concrete test
beam, oriented in a vertical configuration, and column and support fixtures.
The location of the lateral loading actuator represents the midspan of the
prototype beam. Note that the beam
gravity loads are not modeled in the
experimental setup.
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the column fixture is supported by two precast concrete support fixtures that are
tied to a reinforced concrete strong
floor. The column fixture was designed to be reused in all of the subassembly tests conducted as part of
this research. Note that the 71.25 in.
(1810 mm) depth of the column fixture is larger than the scaled depth of
the prototype column from Frame 1 to
achieve the desired unbonded length
of the post-tensioning steel as described in more detail below. Thus,
the deformations that may occur in the
joint panel region of the prototype column during seismic loading are not
modeled in the column fixture.
The test beam and column fixture
are joined using two unbonded posttensioning tendons and Dywidag
70.6 in. post-tensioning MA Multiplane Anchors. Each tendon is comprised of three to seven ASTM A416
low-relaxation strands with a nominal
diameter of p = 0.6 in. (15.2 mm), a
cross-sectional area of ap = 0.217 sq
in. (140 mm2) and a design maximum
strength of fpu = 270 ksi (1861 MPa).
High strength, fiber-reinforced grout
(non-shrink, non-metallic, high early
strength Dayton Superior Sure-Grip
High Performance Grout with nylon
fibers) was used at the beam-to-column interface to provide good matching surfaces between the precast beam
specimen and the column fixture.
Additionally, a bond breaker was
used between the fiber reinforced
grout and the column fixture to help
force the gap opening to occur between the grout and the column face
and to help reduce the amount of surface damage to the column face.
The post-tensioning strands are
placed inside two 2 3/ 8 in. (60 mm)
July-August 2004

Fig. 3. Schematic of test setup.

Fig. 4. Photo of
test setup.
115

Fig. 5. Beams 1 through 5


details: (a) cross section
of beam at damper end;
(b) side and plan views;
(c) photo of formwork.

(c)

nominal diameter Dywidag Spiro


ducts located at the beam centerline
(i.e., with zero eccentricity), and run
the length of the test beam and the
depth of the column fixture. In order
to prevent bond between the strands
and the concrete, the post-tensioning
ducts are not filled with grout. Note
116

that the beam post-tensioning tendons


in Lehigh Frame 1 were assigned with
bonded regions near the midspan;
however, in practice the post-tensioning strands are typically left unbonded
over the entire length of the frame and
are anchored only at the outer ends of
the exterior joints.

Since the modeling of the entire unbonded length of the strands (over
four bays as shown in Fig. 2b) from
the prototype frame was not possible
in the subassembly experiments, the
length of the post-tensioning steel between the anchors [equal to the length
of the test beam, including the grout
thickness, plus the depth of the column fixture, for a total depth of 198
in. (5030 mm) as shown in Fig. 3] was
left unbonded in the test specimens.
This unbonded length was chosen to
prevent the yielding of the post-tensioning steel [at an assumed design
yield strength of fpy = 245 ksi (1689
MPa)] during each experiment (up to
the maximum possible actuator stroke
corresponding to a beam chord rotation of approximately b = 5 percent,
where b is calculated as the lateral
displacement of the beam at the actuator level, divided by the height of the
actuator-to-column face). Note that the
shorter unbonded length used in the
test specimens (as compared with the
full unbonded length over the entire
four-bay length of the prototype
frame) results in larger increases in the
post-tensioning force as the beam is
rotated.
Note also that while the test setup in
Figs. 3 and 4 provides important information related to the in-plane behavior
PCI JOURNAL

of isolated beam-column subassemblies with and without dampers, it


does not fully capture the expected behavior of complete framing systems
including the floor diaphragm. In particular, out-of-plane loading effects
and any restraint against gap opening
at the beam-to-column interfaces due
to the floor system are not included in
the experiments.
The behavior of the precast concrete
column member is also not adequately
represented by the test setup because
of the large depth used for the column
fixture. Thus, there is a need for future
experiments of the structural system as
a whole, or of more complete subassemblies including a representative
portion of the floor diaphragm.
Precast Beam Specimens
Six precast concrete beam specimens were produced by Concrete
Technology, Inc. of Springboro, Ohio,
for this research. Beams 1 to 5 have a
depth of hb = 32 in. (813 mm). These
beams, with details shown in Figs. 5a
through 5c, are 80 percent scale models from the second floor of the prototype Lehigh Frame 1. 7, 9, 12 The last
beam specimen (Beam 6) has a reduced depth of hb = 24 in. (610 mm)
for parameter variation.
The clear span-to-depth slenderness
ratio of the test specimens is equal to
6.67 for Beams 1 to 5 and 8.90 for
Beam 6. Note that while the slenderness ratio of Beams 1 to 5 is similar to
values used in previous research8, 10
and practice,4 the slenderness ratio of
Beam 6 may be larger than typical values.
Precast concrete production tolerances for the beams were specified as
1
/16 in. (1.6 mm). Each test beam includes bonded mild steel reinforcement
as follows: (1) ASTM A615 Gr. 60
(A615M Gr. 420) nominal transverse
reinforcement [No. 3 (10M) closed
hoops at 10 in. (254 mm) spacing for
Beams 1 through 6]; (2) ASTM A615
Gr. 60 (A615M Gr. 420) longitudinal
reinforcement [two No. 4 (13M) bars
top and bottom for Beams 1 and 5, six
No. 8 (25M) bars top and bottom for
Beam 2, and four No. 8 bars top and
bottom for Beams 3, 4, and 6]; and (3)
spiral wire concrete confinement reinJuly-August 2004

forcement [9 in. (229 mm) outside diameter, ASTM A82 W5.5 plain steel
wire spirals at 1 in. (25.4 mm) pitch for
Beams 1 through 6].
The transverse reinforcement inside
the beams was designed based on
shear strength recommendations for
prestressed concrete members. 2 The
minimum shear reinforcement requirements governed the design of the test
beam specimens.
The longitudinal bonded mild steel
reinforcement is needed to transfer the
damper forces to the beam, and was
designed to remain linear-elastic under
the maximum forces developed during
testing, based on conservative assumptions.
The reinforcing bars have 90 degree
hooks at the end of the beam adjacent
to the beam-to-column interface (bars
are not continuous through the interface), and are terminated at staggered
intervals (with adequate bar development) over the length of the beam.
Note that only a nominal amount of
longitudinal mild steel reinforcement
[with two No. 4 (13M) bars top and
bottom] was used in Beams 1 and 5
since these beams did not have any
friction dampers.
The spiral reinforcement at the
beam ends was designed to prevent
the crushing of the confined concrete
at a beam chord rotation of b = 5 percent. The stress-strain relationship of
the spiral confined concrete was determined using a model developed by
Mander et al.53 More information on
the design of the bonded mild steel reinforcement inside the beam specimens is not within the scope of this
paper, but can be found in Morgen and
Kurama.27
Material Properties
The design compressive strength for
the concrete in the test beams is fc = 6
ksi (41 MPa) and for the concrete in the
column and support fixtures is fc = 8
ksi (55 MPa). The design yield strength
for the longitudinal and transverse mild
steel reinforcement [ASTM A615 Gr.
60 (A615M Gr. 420) reinforcement] inside the beams is fsy = 60 ksi (414 MPa)
and for the spiral wire steel (ASTM
A82 plain steel wire) is fwy = 65 ksi
(448 MPa). The design maximum

strength for the post-tensioning steel


(ASTM A416 low-relaxation strands)
is fpu = 270 ksi (1862 MPa).
Based on the certified mill report,
the actual yield strength and maximum
strength of the No. 8 (25M) bars used
as the bonded mild steel longitudinal
reinforcement in the beams is f sy =
72.4 ksi (499 MPa) and fsu = 108.6 ksi
(748.8 MPa), respectively.
Material tests were conducted to determine the properties of the concrete
and post-tensioning strand using a 600
kip (2669 kN) SATEC Model
600XWHVL universal testing machine. The concrete compressive
strengths were measured from standard 6 x 12 in. (152 x 305 mm) cylinder tests.
Three concrete cylinders were tested
for each of the precast beam specimens and column and support fixtures.
The cylinders were kept under the
same conditions as the precast beam
and fixture members until testing. The
cylinders for the beam specimens were
tested on the same day as the first test
in each series of tests.
The average (from three cylinders)
measured concrete compressive
strengths for the beam specimens are
fc = 7.7, 8.1, 9.8, 9.7, 10.4, and 10.2
ksi (53, 56, 68, 67, 72, and 70 MPa)
for Beams 1 through 6, respectively.
The average concrete compressive
strength for the column fixture is fc =
9.1 ksi (63 MPa).
The monotonic tensile stress-strain
relationship of the post-tensioning
steel was obtained by testing three
strand specimens. The strains in the
strand specimens were measured using
an MTS Model 634.25E-24 extensometer with a 2.0 in. (50 mm) gauge
length. Single strand steel wedge/barrel post-tensioning anchors were used
to pull the strands until failure to provide anchor conditions similar to those
in the beam-column subassembly experiments.
The average (from three strand
specimens) measured limit of proportionality for the post-tensioning steel
is fpy = 160 ksi (1103 MPa). Note that
this limit of proportionality is a lower
limit (used for analysis purposes), indicating the first point at which the
slope of the strand stress-strain relationship begins to decrease.
117

Fig. 6. Prototype damper details: (a) beam-to-column joint; (b) damper; (c) damper component that connects to the beam;
(d) leaded-bronze friction disc.

Failure of all three strand specimens


occurred due to the fracture of a posttensioning wire (out of a total of seven
wires in each strand) inside an anchor,
at an average stress of fpu = 246 ksi
(1698 MPa), well below the design
maximum strength of f pu = 270 ksi
(1862 MPa). More information on the
material tests is outside the scope of
this paper, but can be found in Morgen
and Kurama.27
Prototype Friction Dampers
Non-emulative post-tensioned precast concrete frame structures are particularly well-suited for damage control during an earthquake. This is
because the primary mode of deformation is gap opening at the interfaces
between the precast beam and column
members while the precast members
themselves incur little or no damage.
The friction damper that was developed through this research uses these
gap opening displacements to provide
supplemental passive energy dissipation to a frame.
The goal of damper design is to develop a device that not only provides
adequate energy dissipation, but also
one that is easy to install and inspect,
can be placed locally at the beam-tocolumn joints (see Fig. 1), and is not
intrusive to the structural layout.
The proposed dampers use the fric118

tion developed between adjacent metallic surfaces as gaps open and close at
the beam-to-column interfaces in an
unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete frame. With technical assistance
on cast steel design from the Steel
Founders Society of America, two
pairs of prototype dampers were developed and manufactured for concept
verification and for use in large-scale
beam-column subassembly testing.
Fig. 6a shows a prototype damper
installed at the test beam-to-column
joint. Each damper is comprised of
five cast-steel components with four
friction interfaces sandwiched in between. Two of the damper components (shown in yellow) are connected
to the beam, while the remaining three
components (shown in red) are connected to the column.
The friction interfaces are clamped
together using a 11/4 in. (31.8 mm) diameter ASTM A490 structural bolt (referred to as the damper normal bolt)
and disc spring washers [stainless steel
Belleville washers with a flat load of
10.5 kips (46.7 kN) each] as shown in
Figs. 6a and 6b. Previous attempts to
develop friction dampers without
spring washers have resulted in a quick
loss of the damper normal force under
large reversed cyclic displacements.34
The spring washers help maintain a
constant normal force acting on the
friction interfaces as slip occurs.47-49

During testing, gap opening displacements at the beam-to-column interface result in slip displacements at
the friction surfaces between the beam
and column damper components, thus
dissipating energy. An oversized slot
shape is machined into the damper
components connected to the beam to
allow the slip displacements to occur
(see Fig. 6c). The design of this slot
shape is described in Morgen and Kurama.27
The damper-to-beam and damperto-column connections are achieved
by clamping the damper components
and connection plates (see Fig. 6a) on
opposite sides of the beam and column
members using through-rods threaded
at each end. The damper connection
plates are used to accommodate construction tolerances and for the distribution of the damper forces to the
beam and column members.
Knowledge gained from past investigations of friction dampers in structural applications47-49 led to the use of
two types of friction interfaces in this
research: (1) leaded-bronze against
stainless steel (LB-SS); and (2)
leaded-bronze against alloy steel (LBCS). These configurations were previously shown to provide consistent and
repeatable damper slip force-displacement characteristics.
In one of the damper pairs, thin
gauge [18 gauge, 0.048 in. (1.22 mm)
PCI JOURNAL

thick] stainless steel sheets are attached with epoxy to both surfaces of
the damper components connected to
the beam. These tests are designated
as the LB-SS friction interface type.
The remaining tests, using the second
pair of dampers with leaded-bronze
surfaces acting directly against machined cast steel (ASTM A216 Gr.
WCB) damper surfaces (with no stainless steel sheets) as shown in Fig. 6c,
are designated as the LB-CS friction
interface type.
The leaded-bronze surfaces at the
friction interfaces are created by sandwiching 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) thick leadedbronze discs (CDA 932/SAE 660
bearing bronze a popular alloy for
bearing applications under moderate
loads and moderate to high speeds),
shown in Fig. 6d, between the beam
and column damper components.
According to Way, 47 the use of a
leaded-bronze alloy at the friction interface is desirable because the material continually self-lubricates when
rubbing against an adjacent metal surface. Self-lubrication is due to the development of a mixture of lead and its
oxide at the surface of the leadedbronze alloy.
By self-lubricating the frictional
surface, the leaded-bronze alloy helps
reduce the stick-slip phenomenon and
results in a consistent value for the coefficient of friction that is independent
of velocity, a desirable characteristic
for seismic design and performance.
The value of the coefficient of friction
depends primarily on the roughness
and type of material in contact with
the leaded-bronze alloy and the surface treatment of the leaded-bronze
alloy, and secondarily on the pressure
applied on the contact surfaces.47
Testing Procedure
Six series of tests (a total of 55 reversed cyclic tests) using the six precast concrete beam specimens described earlier were conducted with
variations of the following design parameters: (1) damper normal force; (2)
type of friction interface; (3) area of
beam post-tensioning steel; (4) initial
stress of beam post-tensioning steel,
and (5) beam depth.
Variations in the experimental paJuly-August 2004

Fig. 7. Displacement loading history.

rameters are provided in Table 1. A


new beam was used in the first test of
each series of tests, with the nominal
displacement loading history as shown
in Fig. 7, as determined from the recommendations of ACI T1.1-01.3 Each
set of three fully reversed displacement cycles labeled in Fig. 7 is followed by a smaller cycle to a displacement amplitude equal to 30 percent of
the preceding set of three cycles.
Note that the actual beam chord rotations, b (calculated as the lateral
displacement of the beam at the actuator level, divided by the height of the
actuator to the column face) reached
during each test were slightly different
than the nominal loading history
shown in Fig. 7.
Note also that the beam chord rotation, b, in the test specimens represents the relative chord rotation between a beam member and a column
member, and thus, is similar to the
column drift ratio as defined in ACI
T1.1-01.3
ACI T1.1-01 recommends that the
test specimens be displaced with gradually increasing column drift ratios,
until the drift ratio equals or exceeds
3.5 percent. The maximum beam
chord rotation of b = 4.5 percent in
Fig. 7 corresponds, approximately, to
the maximum stroke of the actuator
used in the experiments minus the
elastic displacement of the lateral

loading frame under the actuator


force.
Each beam specimen was reused in
the subsequent tests of the same series, under the same displacement history shown in Fig. 7, but with only
one cycle of loading at each displacement amplitude (since little or no additional damage was observed in the
test specimens following the first
cycle of loading to a given displacement amplitude). The maximum beam
chord rotation of b = 4.5 percent was
reached in all of the tests, after which
the specimens were unloaded.
The number of post-tensioning
strands used in each test, with the
maximum for any test being a total of
fourteen (two seven-strand groupings),
is shown in Table 1. Note that since
the dampers have a significant contribution to the beam end moment resistance as described later, less post-tensioning steel was used in the test
specimens than the amount of steel
necessary based on similitude with the
prototype Lehigh Frame 1.
The total post-tensioning steel area
used in Test Series 1 and 2 corresponds to approximately two-thirds of
the 80 percent scale steel area used in
Lehigh Frame 1. The post-tensioning
steel area is further varied in the subsequent test series, as shown in Table 1.
For each test, all sensors, instrumentation, and data acquisition were ini119

Table 1. Summary of beam-column subassembly test program.

Series
No.
1

Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

Beam
No.
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Test
designation
T1-00-14
T2-26-14
T2-13-14
T2-00-14
T2-39-14
T2-00/52-14
T2-00|00/39-14
T3-26-06
T3-00-06
T3-13-06
T3-26b-06
T3-39-06
T3-26-10
T3-00-10
T3-13-10
T3-39-10
T3-52-10
T3-26-14
T3-00-14
T3-13-14
T3-39-14
T3-52-14
T4-26-06
T4-00-06
T4-13-06
T4-26b-06
T4-39-06
T4-26-10
T4-00-10
T4-13-10
T4-26b-10
T4-39-10
T4-52-10
T4-65-10
T4-26-14
T4-00-14
T4-13-14
T4-26b-14
T4-39-14
T4-52-14
T4-65-14
T4-65b-14
T5-00-14
T6-65-14A
T6-00-14A
T6-13-14A
T6-26-14A
T6-39-14A
T6-52-14A
T6-65-14B
T6-00-14B
T6-13-14B
T6-26-14B
T6-39-14B
T6-52-14B

Beam
depth,
hb (in.)
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24

No. of
PT
strands
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
6
6
6
6
6
10
10
10
10
10
14
14
14
14
14
6
6
6
6
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

Total PT
area, Ap
sq in.
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
1.302
1.302
1.302
1.302
1.302
2.170
2.170
2.170
2.170
2.170
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.028
1.302
1.302
1.302
1.302
1.302
2.170
2.170
2.170
2.170
2.170
2.170
2.170
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.028
3.028
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038
3.038

Average
initial
PT stress
fpi /fpu

0.50
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.66
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.52
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.48
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.54
0.52
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.38
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.51
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Initial
total
PT force,
Pi (kips)

411.5
346.2
344.8
345.3
346.1
347.3
232.2
206.0
208.0
205.8
208.7
305.3
294.2
289.8
289.8
292.7
470.4
456.2
454.7
453.2
456.2
197.2
131.9
129.5
128.5
129.2
280.6
262.8
262.5
261.8
262.2
261.8
262.8
445.9
423.3
420.3
419.9
419.9
419.2
419.2
418.9
416.5
307.7
287.4
285.7
285.4
285.4
284.4
420.4
405.7
401.5
400.5
399.4
398.0

Initial beam
Nominal
concrete
damper
stress
normal force
fci (ksi)
Fdn (kips)

0
0.67
26
0.56
13
0.56
39
0.56
0
0.56
varies
0.57
varies
0.38
26
0.34
0
0.34
13
0.33
26
0.34
39
0.50
26
0.48
0
0.47
13
0.47
39
0.48
52
0.77
26
0.74
0
0.74
13
0.74
39
0.74
52
0.32
26
0.21
0
0.21
13
0.21
26
0.21
39
0.46
26
0.43
0
0.43
13
0.43
26
0.43
39
0.43
52
0.43
65
0.72
26
0.69
0
0.68
13
0.68
26
0.68
39
0.68
52
0.68
65
0.68
65
0.68
0
0.67
65
0.62
0
0.62
13
0.62
26
0.62
39
0.62
52
0.91
65
0.88
0
0.87
13
0.87
26
0.87
39
0.86
52

Friction
interface

LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS

LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS

LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS

LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-SS
LB-CS

LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS

LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS

LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS

LB-CS

LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS

LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS
LB-CS

LB-SS = Leaded-Bronze against Stainless Steel; LB-CS = Leaded-Bronze against machined Cast-Steel damper surface; fpi = Pi /Ap; fci = Pi /Ab.
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

120

PCI JOURNAL

tialized such that any data recorded


was due to the application of the posttensioning forces and lateral loads. In
the first stage of testing, the strands
were stressed to the desired total initial post-tensioning force, P i (see
Table 1), using a single-strand (see
Fig. 8a) or multi-strand (see Fig. 8b)
post-tensioning jack at the top of the
beam. For the tests in which a singlestrand jack was used (Test Series 1
through 4), the stresses in the strands
were individually increased incrementally until the desired total post-tensioning force was reached in the tendons. The total force in each tendon
was monitored using a load cell
mounted between the multi-plane anchor and the column fixture at the bottom.
Following the stressing stage, the
dampers were connected to the test
beam and the column fixture by the
hand tightening (to a snug-tight condition) of double-end threaded rods
passing through the ducting in the precast members (see Figs. 5a and 6a).
The desired normal force (Fdn) acting
on the friction interfaces in each
damper was achieved through the
tightening of a 11/4 in. (31.8 mm) diameter ASTM A490 structural bolt,
referred to as the damper normal bolt,
using a hydraulic torque wrench (see
Fig. 6b).
The force in each damper normal
bolt was monitored during testing
using a load cell placed between the
disc spring washers and the damper.
Note that all or most of the force in the

(b)

(a)

Fig. 8. Initial post-tensioning operation: (a) single-strand jack; (b) multi-strand jack.

damper normal bolt is transferred to


the friction interfaces because of the
use of five separate components in
each prototype damper.
The final tightening of the damperto-beam and damper-to-column connection rods was done using a hydraulic torque wrench once the desired
force in the damper normal bolts was
achieved. It was observed that the
tightening of the damper connection
rods did not result in any significant
changes in the damper normal bolt
forces.
Following this pre-test procedure,
the cyclic displacement history in Fig.
7 was applied to the test beam using a

(a)

220 kip (979 kN) capacity hydraulic


actuator located at a height representing the midspan of the prototype beam
at an actuator displacement rate of 0.5
in./min. (13 mm/min.). Linear displacement and rotation transducers were
used to measure the relative displacements and deformations of the precast
concrete test beams and fixtures.
In addition, strain gauges were used
to measure the strains in the beam and
column confined concrete, beam longitudinal mild steel reinforcement, and
damper components. More details on
the instrumentation used in the experiments can be found in Morgen and
Kurama.27

(b)

Fig. 9. Displaced position of beam: (a) without dampers; (b) with dampers.
July-August 2004

121

Fig. 10. Beam end moment versus chord rotation behavior: (a) without dampers;
(b) with dampers.

RESULTS FROM
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Overall Test Specimen Response
The overall behavior from the beamcolumn subassembly experiments
without and with dampers (Tests 43
and 35) is illustrated in Figs. 9a and
9b, respectively. As shown in Table 1,
the only significant difference between
these two tests is the use of dampers.
In both types of experiments, the
beams met design expectations.
122

As each beam specimen was rotated, it behaved in a manner similar


to a rigid member, with most of the
nonlinear deformations occurring as a
result of gap opening at the beam-tocolumn interface. The restoring effect
of the post-tensioning force resulted in
a self-centered behavior, closure of the
gap, and reversal of the slip displacements in the dampers upon unloading.
The experiments without dampers
(Test Series 1 and 5; see Table 1) were
used as a baseline for comparison with
the experiments that included friction

dampers (Test Series 2, 3, 4, and 6).


As an example, Figs. 10a and 10b
show the hysteretic beam end moment
(Mb) versus beam chord rotation (b)
results from a baseline test with no
dampers (Test 43) and from a test with
friction dampers (Test 44), respectively. The beam end moment, Mb, is
calculated as the actuator force multiplied by the height to the column face.
It can be seen from the hysteresis
loops in Fig. 10a that the specimen
without dampers behaves in an essentially elastic manner through nonlinear
displacements (i.e., nonlinear-elastic),
with very little energy dissipation but
with extremely good self-centering capability. As shown in Fig. 10b, the energy dissipation of the specimen can
be significantly increased by using the
proposed friction dampers, while preserving the desired self-centering capability.
Note that the hysteresis loops in Fig.
10b correspond to a beam with a
smaller depth [hb = 24 in. (610 mm)]
than the beam in Fig. 10a [hb = 32 in.
(813 mm); see Table 1]. The total area
of the post-tensioning steel in the two
beams is the same. The strands in Test
44, however, are prestressed to a
lower value to result in similar initial
concrete stresses in the beams (the initial concrete stress, fci, is defined as
the total initial post-tensioning force,
Pi, divided by the beam gross crosssectional area, Ab).
The results show that the maximum
moment resistance of the smaller
beam with dampers (Test 44) is larger
than the resistance of the deeper beam
without dampers (Test 43). It is concluded that the proposed friction
dampers contribute significantly to the
beam end moment resistance, which
may lead to the design of smaller
beams using less post-tensioning steel
in practice. More information on the
contribution of the dampers to the
beam end moment resistance and on
the design of friction-damped beamcolumn joints can be found in Morgen
and Kurama.27
Damper Normal Force
This section describes the effect of
the damper normal force, Fdn, on the
hysteretic beam end moment versus
PCI JOURNAL

Fig. 11. Effect of damper normal force: (a) hysteresis loops; (b) relative energy dissipation ratio.

chord rotation relationship from the


subassembly experiments. The six different hysteresis loops in Fig. 11a correspond to a beam chord rotation of b
= 4.5 percent for the same test beam
(Beam 6), the same total post-tensioning steel area, Ap, similar total initial
post-tensioning force, Pi, and the same
friction interface type (LB-CS), but
with varying levels of the damper normal force, F dn (Tests 44 to 49, see
Table 1).
The results from the third cycle of
loading to b = 4.5 percent are
shown for the virgin beam (Test 44).
Since no additional significant damage
occurred in the beam during the subsequent Tests 45 to 49, the hysteresis
loops in Fig. 11a can be used to directly evaluate the amount of suppleJuly-August 2004

mental energy dissipation provided by


the dampers. The results indicate that
the inelastic energy dissipation per
loading cycle, which can be calculated
as the shaded area enclosed by the
hysteresis loop during that cycle, Dh,
gets larger as the damper normal force
is increased.
The results from the experiments
without and with dampers are evaluated for conformance to ACI T1.1-01.3
According to ACI T1.1-01, the smallest acceptable value for the relative
energy dissipation ratio, , is specified
as 0.125.
The relative energy dissipation ratio,
, is defined for a beam moment-rotation cycle as the ratio of the area, Dh,
enclosed by the hysteresis loop for
that cycle (shaded areas in Fig. 11a) to

the area of the circumscribing parallelogram. The circumscribing area


(dashed lines in Fig. 11a) is defined by
the initial stiffnesses measured during
the first linear-elastic cycle of loading
(from the virgin beam in Test 44) and
the peak positive and negative moment resistances during the cycle for
which the relative energy dissipation
ratio is calculated.3
The relative energy dissipation ratio,
, is a measure of the amount of viscous damping in an equivalent linearelastic system that would result in the
same amount of energy dissipation as
the nonlinear system. ACI T1.1-01
recommends that if is smaller than
0.125, there may be inadequate damping for the frame as a whole, and the
oscillations of the frame may continue
123

Fig. 12. Effect of beam post-tensioning force: (a) hysteresis loops; (b) Mb,max; (c) Dh; (d) .

for a considerable time after an earthquake, possibly producing low-cycle


fatigue effects and excessive displacements.
Fig. 11b illustrates the effect of the
friction dampers on the relative energy
dissipation ratio of the specimens from
Tests 44 to 49, corresponding to beam
chord rotation values of b = 0.25,
0.50, 1.00, 1.75, 2.75, and
4.50 percent. Each marker on Fig. 11b
represents the calculated relative energy dissipation ratio for a selected rotation cycle during each test. For each
rotation cycle, the average measured
damper normal force from the two
dampers used at the beam-to-column
interface is plotted on the x-axis. The
force in each damper normal bolt is
calculated as the average force mea124

sured during the cycle. Note that the


average damper normal force shows
little variation during each test.
The test specimen with no dampers
(Test 45, Fdn = 0 kips) shows unacceptable behavior with < 0.125 at all
rotation levels. The friction-damped
specimens have acceptable behaviors
(with > 0.125) for damper normal
force, Fdn, values ranging from about
5 kips (22 kN) to 15 kips (67 kN) depending on the rotation level. The
specimens also meet all of the other
prescriptive acceptance requirements
of ACI T1.1-01.3
Looking at the plot in Fig. 11b, it
can be observed that for rotation levels
of b = 7.00 percent and larger, the
relative energy dissipation ratio increases nearly proportionally as the

damper normal force is increased (i.e.,


damper slip force increased). For
smaller rotation levels, dampers with
large normal force values have smaller
contributions to the relative energy
dissipation ratio than dampers with
small normal force values. This is possibly because the beam chord rotation
at which the dampers slip increases as
the damper normal force is increased.
The results shown in Fig. 11b for
the virgin beam (Test 44) are based on
the third cycle of loading at each rotation level. Note that for beam chord
rotation values other than b = 4.5
percent, a direct comparison between
Test 44 and Tests 45 to 49 is difficult
since the results from Test 44 are for
the virgin beam, whereas the results
from Tests 45 to 49 are for a beam
PCI JOURNAL

previously displaced to b = 4.5 percent.


Thus, the relative energy dissipation
values corresponding to b = 0.25,
0.50, 1.00, 1.75, and 2.75 percent for Test 44 are shown using
dashed lines in Fig. 11b. Note also that
the total post-tensioning force in Test
44 is slightly larger than the other tests
(see Table 1), further affecting the results. The effect of the beam post-tensioning force on the relative energy
dissipation ratio is discussed below.
Beam Post-Tensioning Force
In addition to varying the damper
normal force, a number of tests were
conducted with varying levels of the
total initial beam post-tensioning
force, Pi. For example, Fig. 12a shows
hysteresis loops (corresponding to a
beam chord rotation of b = 2.75
percent) from specimens tested with
the same friction interface type (LBCS) and at the same level of nominal
damper normal force (Fdn = 26 kips
[116 MPa]), but at three different levels of initial post-tensioning force, Pi
= 197, 281, and 426 kips (876, 1250,
and 1895 kN), respectively (Tests 23,
28, and 35).
The post-tensioning force was varied primarily by using a different
number of strands in each test; however, there are also differences in the
average initial post-tensioning steel
stress between the three tests, as
shown in Table 1. Note that the results
from the third cycle of loading to b =
2.75 percent are shown for the virgin
beam (Test 23) in Fig. 12a. The results
from the subsequent Tests 28 and 35
represent the behavior of the beam at
b = 2.75 percent after it has been
displaced to b = 4.5 percent during
Test 23.
The first observation from Fig. 12 is
that as the initial beam post-tensioning
force is increased, the beam maximum
end moment, M b,max (defined as the
maximum moment resistance under
loading in the positive or negative direction) also increases. This is illustrated in Fig. 12b for loading in the
positive direction; the results in the
negative direction are very similar.
Note that the increase in the maximum beam end moment with the inJuly-August 2004

Fig. 13. Effect of beam depth: (a) hb = 32 in.; (b) hb = 24 in.

crease in the post-tensioning force in


Fig. 12b is not proportional and seems
to be rather small. There are several
factors contributing to these results,
including: (1) the post-tensioning
force provides only a part of the beam
end moment resistance, with a significant portion of the beam moment resistance provided by the dampers; (2)
the beam sustains additional damage
during the displacement cycles to b =
3.5 and 4.5 percent in Test 23; (3)
the neutral axis depth increases as the
total post-tensioning force increases;
and (4) there are differences in the ini-

tial stresses of the post-tensioning


steel in Tests 23, 28, and 35, affecting
the maximum beam end moment
reached. More information on the moment resisting mechanism of frictiondamped post-tensioned precast concrete beams can be found in Morgen
and Kurama.27
Second, Fig. 12c shows that the
amount of inelastic energy dissipation
(i.e., the shaded area, Dh, enclosed by
the hysteresis loops in Fig. 12a) is
similar for the three tests; this is due
to the fact that the inelastic energy dissipation is directly related to the
125

Fig. 14. Beam deterioration: (a) without dampers; (b) with dampers.

damper normal force, which was kept


constant in the tests.
Third, the relative energy dissipation ratio, , decreases as the beam
post-tensioning force is increased.
This observation is plotted in Fig. 12d.
The decrease in as the post-tensioning force is increased occurs because
the maximum beam end moment,
Mb,max, increases while Dh stays relatively constant, since the relative energy dissipation ratio is defined as the
shaded area enclosed by the hysteresis
loop (Dh) divided by the circumscribing parallelogram (which is related to
Mb,max).
Beam Depth
Another parameter that was varied
during the investigation is the beam
depth, hb. Test Series 6 has a reduced
beam depth of 24 in. (610 mm) as
compared with the beams in Series 1
through 5, that are 32 in. (813 mm)
deep (see Table 1).
Fig. 13 illustrates the effect of the
beam depth on the beam-column subassembly behavior based on the results
from Tests 42 and 44. Both tests have
the same nominal damper normal
force, Fdn = 65 kips (289 kN), and the
same friction interface type (LB-CS).
The initial concrete stress in the
beams, fci (calculated as the total initial post-tensioning force Pi divided by
126

the beam gross cross-sectional area


Ab), is kept similar, resulting in different levels of the initial post-tensioning
force in the two tests (see Table 1).
The different initial post-tensioning
force levels are achieved by varying
the initial stress in the strands, while
the total area of the strands used in the
tests is kept constant.
Two observations can be made
based on the test results in Fig. 13.
First, it can be seen that the smaller
the beam depth, the smaller the maximum beam end moment, Mb,max (assuming that the damper slip force is
kept constant). Second, the residual
rotation offset, br (defined as the
beam chord rotation upon unloading to
zero beam end moment), increases as
the beam depth is decreased.
The increase in the residual rotation
occurs since the smaller beam has a
smaller initial post-tensioning force
(and thus, a smaller amount of restoring force), while the damper slip force
is the same between the two tests. This
finding demonstrates the need for a
balanced design between the
damper slip force and the total posttensioning force; a balanced design
provides the largest possible energy
dissipation while maintaining a desired level of self-centering capability
at the design maximum beam rotation.
Note that the results for the virgin
beam (Test 44) in Fig. 13b reflect a

small amount of degradation as the


amplitude of the beam chord rotation
cycles is increased. An investigation
on the effect of the dampers on beam
deterioration is given below.
Beam Deterioration
One of the desirable effects of the
proposed friction dampers is a reduction in the deterioration (i.e., degradation) of the beam end moment versus
chord rotation behavior under cyclic
loading. First, the dampers have nondeteriorating force-displacement characteristics, and thus, their contribution
to the beam end moment resistance
does not deteriorate.
Second, since the damper-to-beam
connections are achieved by clamping
two dampers on opposite sides of a
beam using through-rods threaded at
each end, the damper connection
plates (see Fig. 6a) confine the concrete at the beam ends. This concrete
confinement helps to reduce the beam
deterioration that occurs throughout
the cyclic displacement loading history, and may reduce the need to provide heavy transverse steel confinement inside the concrete.
As an example, Fig. 14 shows the
measured beam end moment versus
chord rotation relationships from Test
43 (without dampers) and Test 2 (with
dampers). Both of these specimens are
PCI JOURNAL

Fig. 15. Analytical model for an interior beam-column subassembly: (a) model adapted from El-Sheikh et al.7, 9, 12;
(b) modified analytical model with friction dampers.

32 in. (813 mm) deep virgin beams


with similar average initial post-tensioning stress, fpi (defined as the total
force in the post-tensioning tendons,
Pi, divided by the total post-tensioning
steel area, Ap), and similar initial concrete stress, fci, as shown in Table 1.
For each test, the last moment-rotation
hysteresis loop to b = 4.5 percent
(nominal) is shaded. Note that the actual rotations reached by each specimen are slightly different than the
nominal values.
During Test 2, three individual
wires from a single post-tensioning
strand slipped, relative to the anchor
wedges, at the top anchor location
when b = 1.75 percent was reached
for the first time. The average stress in
the specimen when slippage occurred
was f p = 157 ksi (1083 MPa), well
below the design yield strength of fpy =
245 ksi (1689 MPa). This premature
failure was attributed to poor seating
of the anchor wedges for the strand.
Upon unloading of the specimen to
b = zero, the total post-tensioning
force decreased to a value of 370.8
kips (1650 kN) as a result of the slip
that occurred in the strand and the test
was continued without restressing the
strand. In order to remove the effect of
the strand slip from the comparisons
between the two tests, the hysteresis
July-August 2004

loops in Figs. 14a and 14b include


only the cycles between b = 2.2 to
4.5 percent (nominal) and the single
intermediate cycles in between.
In Fig. 14, it can be observed that
the differences in resistance and stiffness between the envelope curve (i.e.,
monotonic curve joining the peak
beam end moment resistance at each
beam chord rotation value) and the
last hysteresis loop of the specimen
without dampers (Test 43) are larger
than the differences for the frictiondamped specimen (Test 2), thus
demonstrating the reduced deterioration due to the use of the dampers.
This result can also be observed between Tests 43 and 44 (with different
beam depths, hb, but the same initial
beam concrete stress, fci, in Fig. 10).
Note that the strand slippage resulted in a difference between the
post-tensioning forces in Tests 2 and
43. The total measured post-tensioning
forces during the loading histories in
Fig. 14 range between P = 366.4 kips
(1630 kN) (minimum) to P = 587.7
kips (2614 kN) (maximum) for Test
43, and between P = 342.3 kips (1523
kN) (minimum) to P = 551.8 kips
(2455 kN) (maximum) for Test 2.
Furthermore, the actual beam chord
rotations reached by the two specimens are not exactly the same as ob-

served in Fig. 14. While these differences may have had a small overall effect on the results, the conclusions
stated above regarding the reduced deterioration in the friction-damped
specimen are expected to remain
valid.

ANALYTICAL MODELING
The experimental results described
above are used to develop an analytical model for post-tensioned frictiondamped precast concrete beam-column subassemblies. This subassembly
model is needed to investigate the behavior of multistory friction-damped
precast concrete moment frames under
earthquake-induced loads. The
DRAIN-2DX structural analysis program54 is used as the analytical platform. More information on the analytical modeling can be found in Morgen
and Kurama.27
As described earlier, the nonlinear
deformations of non-emulative posttensioned precast concrete frames
occur primarily at the beam-to-column
joint regions. It is, therefore, important
to focus on the behavior of these regions, including gap opening at the
beam-to-column interfaces, joint panel
zone shear deformations, inelastic behavior of the concrete in compression
127

Fig. 16.
Subassembly
experiment
analytical model.

at the beam ends, and the behavior of


the friction dampers.
As shown in Fig. 15a for an interior
beam-column subassembly, the following elements are used in the analytical model adapted from El-Sheikh
et al.7, 9, 12: (1) fiber beam-column elements to model the beam and column
members; (2) truss elements to model
the unbonded post-tensioning steel;
and (3) a bilinear-elastic zero-length
rotational spring element to model the
panel zone shear deformations.
The zero-length rotational spring element modeling the panel zone shear
deformations is connected to two
nodes with identical coordinates located at the center of the beam-to-column panel joint region. Relative translational displacements of these two
nodes in the x and y directions are not
allowed.
The beam fiber-element nodes at the
beam-to-column interfaces are kinematically constrained to one of the
zero-length spring element nodes at
the center of the beam-to-column joint
region, assuming that no slip (between
the beams and the column) occurs at
the interfaces. The column fiber elements are connected to the other zerolength spring element node using rigid
end zones.
128

The effect of the friction dampers


on the beam-column subassembly behavior is modeled using yielding truss
elements with an elastic-perfectlyplastic hysteretic behavior as shown in
Fig. 15b. The damper slip force, Fds, is
calculated as the damper normal force
multiplied by the number of friction
interfaces times the coefficient of friction. It is assumed that the damper
forces act in a direction parallel to the
beam. The component of the damper
force perpendicular to the beam is ignored.
Each damper truss element is connected to two nodes. It is assumed that
the damper-to-beam and damper-tocolumn connections are properly designed and detailed for the maximum
damper forces. Based on this assumption, the first damper node, which is located at the center of the leaded-bronze
friction disc (where the damper normal
bolt is located), is kinematically constrained to a corresponding beam node.
The second damper node is constrained
to a node located on the column.
Note that as shown in Fig. 15b,
three truss elements are used to represent a post-tensioning tendon in the
analytical model, whereas only one
truss element is used to represent each
tendon in the original model devel-

oped by El-Sheikh et al.7, 9, 12 (see Fig.


15a). The objective of this modification is to model the kinking (deformation) of the post-tensioning tendons
at the beam-to-column interfaces as
the beam is rotated.
In the modified analytical model,
the truss elements representing a posttensioning tendon are connected to
each other at nodes located at the
beam-to-column interfaces. These
nodes are free to move in a direction
parallel to the tendon (since the tendons are unbonded), but are constrained to a corresponding beam fiber
element node in the transverse direction (in a direction perpendicular to
the tendon).
Second order effects should be included in the truss elements for the
post-tensioning tendons, to capture the
effect of kinking on the behavior of
the structure. Second order effects
should also be included in the beam
fiber elements.
The analytical model in Fig. 15b is
used to investigate the beam-column
subassembly specimens from the experimental program as depicted in Fig.
16. Results from analytical models
with and without friction dampers are
compared with the beam-column experiment results.
PCI JOURNAL

Fig. 17. Verification of the analytical model: (a) Mb versus b hystereses; (b) P versus b hystereses.

As an example, the plots in Fig. 17


depict measured-versus-predicted behaviors from a test with friction
dampers (Test 8), and a baseline test
without friction dampers (Test 43).
The top row of plots (Fig. 17a) compares the measured hysteretic beam
end moment versus chord rotation (Mb
versus b) behavior with the analytical
results. Similarly, the bottom row of
plots (Fig. 17b) shows comparisons
for the total force in the post-tensioning tendons versus beam chord rotation (P versus b) behavior.
It can be seen that both the model
without friction dampers and the
model incorporating friction dampers
(through the use of simple yielding
truss elements) produce reasonable analytical comparisons to the experimental results. The relatively simple analytical modeling of the proposed
friction damper is an additional advantage for seismic analysis and design
purposes.

USE OF DAMPERS IN
PRACTICE
The large-scale experimental results
presented in this paper demonstrate
that friction-damped post-tensioned
precast concrete beam-column subassemblies have desirable seismic
characteristics. The proposed friction
July-August 2004

damper system may offer the following additional advantages for use in
practice:
1. The dampers utilize relatively
simple connections to the beam and
column members, and thus, are expected to require a relatively simple
field installation procedure. One possibility during construction would be to
pre-attach the dampers to the precast
concrete beam members on the
ground, before connecting the
dampers to the column members and
final tightening of all damper rods and
bolts during erection. Alternatively,
the dampers can be pre-attached to the
column members, in which case it
may be possible to use damper assemblies to support the beams before the
post-tensioning force is applied.
2. Direct Tension Indicator (DTI)
washers can be used to achieve the desired force in the damper normal bolts
in the field. DTI washers have protrusions pressed out of the flat surface.
The desired damper normal force is
reached when these protrusions are
flattened as measured by a feeler
gauge.
3. The cast-steel damper components are relatively inexpensive to
manufacture, with minimal machining
needed. The added building project
costs due to the design, manufacture,
and installation of the dampers may be

offset through the use of smaller depth


beams with less post-tensioning steel.
Note that one of the goals of this project has been the concept development
and verification of the proposed system. Future practical applications may
require further refinement of the
damper components in order to reduce
their size, thickness, and weight.
4. Post-earthquake inspections and
repair (if needed) of the beam-to-column joints can be easily completed
since the dampers are placed external
to the joint.
5. The beam-to-column joint shear
stresses in a friction-damped frame are
expected to be smaller than the stresses
in a comparable joint with bonded mild
steel reinforcement provided for energy dissipation; this may result in the
design of shallower beams (and possibly columns) in practice.
6. If desired, it would be possible to
conceal dampers inside or behind nonstructural members, such as partitions
and infill walls, to minimize architectural interference.
7. Adequate fire protection for the
dampers is needed; however, corrosion protection for dampers placed indoors would not be necessary.
8. Dampers can be designed not to
slip under service loads due to wind
and small earthquakes, providing additional resistance against gap opening
129

at the beam-to-column interfaces, and


consequently, maintaining the initial
lateral stiffness of the frame as a
whole.
9. The damper slip force can be
controlled not only by controlling the
damper normal force, but also by
varying the number of friction interfaces in the damper design, offering
versatility in providing supplemental
energy dissipation to a frame.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
AND ONGOING RESEARCH
Based on the large scale experimental results presented in this paper, the
use of the proposed friction damper to
increase the energy dissipation of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete building frames in regions of
high and moderate seismic risk is
promising. The following conclusions
on the behavior of the friction-damped
system can be made through this research:
1. Friction-damped precast concrete
beams can go through significant nonlinear rotations with little damage. The
nonlinear rotations occur primarily
through the opening of gaps at the
beam-to-column interfaces.
2. The restoring effect of the posttensioning force results in a self-centering capability, closure of the gaps,
and reversal of the slip displacements
in the dampers upon unloading.
3. Dampers contribute to the beam
end moment resistance so that smaller
depth beams with dampers can have
the same resistance as larger depth
beams without dampers.
4. Dampers contribute to the shear
slip resistance at the beam-to-column
interfaces.
5. Comparisons between test specimens with and without friction
dampers indicate that the primary
source of energy dissipation in the
proposed system is the dampers. The
dampers can be designed to increase
the relative energy dissipation ratio
above the T1.1-013 minimum.

130

For beam chord rotation levels of b


= 1.0 percent and larger, the relative
energy dissipation ratio increases
nearly proportionally as the damper
slip force is increased. For smaller
beam rotation levels, dampers with
large slip force values have smaller
contributions to the relative energy
dissipation ratio than dampers with
small slip force values.
6. Considerations of a balanced
design between the damper slip force
and the total post-tensioning force can
result in a system with the largest possible energy dissipation, while maintaining a desired level of self-centering capability.
7. Increasing the total post-tensioning force results in an increase in the
beam end moment resistance and a decrease in the relative energy dissipation ratio.
8. Cyclic degradation in the flexural
stiffness and resistance of beams with
friction dampers are smaller than the
degradation in beams without
dampers. Furthermore, the damper
connection plates confine the concrete
in the beam and column members, thus
reducing the need for heavy transverse
steel reinforcement for concrete confinement inside the beam ends.
9. Contribution of the dampers to
the axial-flexural behavior of a beam
can be represented using relatively
simple yielding truss elements with
elastic-perfectly-plastic hysteretic
force-displacement relationships.
The authors are presently conducting isolated damper experiments to
determine the effect of displacement
rate and amplitude on the damper behavior. Furthermore, analytical investigations are being carried out to determine the effects of a number of
structural parameters on the seismic
behavior of multistory frictiondamped precast concrete frame buildings, including: (1) frame dimensions;
(2) number, location, and slip force of
the dampers; and (3) amount of posttensioning in the beams.
Comparisons of precast concrete

frames with and without friction


dampers are being made against hybrid precast systems that use mild
steel reinforcement through the beamto-column joints, and against conventional monolithic CIP reinforced concrete systems.
Simplified methods for analysis/design are being investigated, including
a representation of the multi-degreeof-freedom frame system using equivalent linear-elastic and nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom models. A
design approach for the friction
dampers is being developed to determine the required number of dampers
and the damper slip force necessary to
reduce the peak lateral displacements
of the structure to below an allowable
target displacement.
Ultimately, the results of these studies will be used to develop performance-based seismic analysis/design
tools and guidelines.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under
Grant No. CMS 98-74872, as a part of
the CAREER Program. The support of
the NSF Program Directors, Drs. S. C.
Liu and S. L. McCabe, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors recognize the
technical and financial support provided by industry partnerships with: R.
W. Monroe and D. R. Poweleit of the
Steel Founders Society of America; R.
Reddy of Southwest Steel Casting
Company of Longview, Texas; C. E.
Hilgeman and M. A. Fusani of Concrete Technology, Inc. of Springboro,
Ohio; and K. B. Allen and D. Martin
of Dywidag-Systems International of
Bolingbrook, Illinois.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those
of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the NSF or the individuals and organizations acknowledged above. The authors also wish to
thank the PCI JOURNAL reviewers
for their constructive comments.

PCI JOURNAL

REFERENCES
1. Priestley, M., and Tao, J., Seismic Response of Precast Prestressed Concrete Frames with Partially Debonded Tendons,
PCI JOURNAL, V. 38, No. 1, January-February 1993, pp. 5867.
2. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
3. ACI Innovation Task Group 1, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing (T1.1-01) and Commentary (T1.1R-01), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 11 pp.
4. Englekirk, R., Design-Construction of The Paramount A
39-Story Precast Prestressed Concrete Apartment Building,
PCI JOURNAL, V. 47, No. 4, July-August 2002, pp. 56-71.
5. Stanton, J., and Nakaki, S., Design Guidelines for Precast
Concrete Seismic Structural Systems, Report No. PRESSS01/03-09, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA, February 2002.
6. ACI Innovation Task Group 1, Special Hybrid Moment
Frames Composed of Discretely Jointed Precast and Post-Tensioned Concrete Members (ACI T1.2-XX) and Commentary
(T1.2R-XX), ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 5, September-October 2001, pp. 771-784.
7. El-Sheikh, M., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Lu, L.W., Moment
Rotation Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Beam-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, V.
97, No. 1, January-February 2000, pp. 122-131.
8. Priestley, M., Sritharan, S., Conley, J., and Pampanin, S., Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESSS FiveStory Precast Concrete Test Building, PCI JOURNAL, V. 44,
No. 6, November-December 1999, pp. 42-67.
9. El-Sheikh, M., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Lu, L.W., Seismic
Behavior and Design of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast
Concrete Frames, PCI JOURNAL, V. 44, No. 3, May-June
1999, pp. 54-71.
10. Nakaki, S., Stanton, J., and Sritharan, S., An Overview of the
PRESSS Five-Story Precast Test Building, PCI JOURNAL,
V. 44, No. 2, March-April 1999, pp. 26-39.
11. Cheok, G., Stone, W., and Stanton, J., Performance of Hybrid
Moment-Resisting Precast Beam-Column Concrete Connections Subjected to Cyclic Loading, ACI Structural Journal, V.
95, No. 5, September-October 1998, pp. 527-539.
12. El-Sheikh, M., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., Lu, L.W., and Kurama,
Y., Seismic Analysis, Behavior, and Design of Unbonded
Post-Tensioned Precast Moment Frames, Report No. EQ-9702, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, November 1997.
13. Stanton, J., Stone, W., and Cheok, G., A Hybrid Reinforced
Precast Frame for Seismic Regions, PCI JOURNAL, V. 42,
No. 2, March-April 1997, pp. 20-32.
14. Cheok, G., Stone, W., and Nakaki, S., Simplified Design Procedure for Hybrid Precast Concrete Connections, NISTIR
5765, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
Gaithersburg, MD, 1996, 81 pp.
15. Priestley, M., and MacRae, G., Seismic Tests of Precast
Beam-to-Column Joint Subassemblages with Unbonded Tendons, PCI JOURNAL, V. 41, No. 1, January-February 1996,
pp. 64-81.
16. Cheok, G., and Stone, W., Performance of 1/3-Scale Model
Precast Concrete Beam-Column Connections Subjected to
Cyclic Inelastic Loads Report No. 4, NISTIR 5436, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), GaithersJuly-August 2004

burg, MD, June 1994.


17. MacRae, G., and Priestley, M., Precast Post-Tensioned Ungrouted Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblage Tests, Report No. PRESSS-94/01, Department of Applied Mechanics
and Engineering Sciences, University of San Diego, CA,
March 1994, 124 pp.
18. Cheok, G., and Lew, H., Model Precast Concrete Beam-toColumn Joints Subject to Cyclic Loading, PCI JOURNAL, V.
38, No. 4, July-August 1993, pp. 80-92.
19. Cheok, G., Stone, W., and Lew, H., Performance of 1/3-Scale
Model Precast Concrete Beam-Column Connections Subjected
to Cyclic Inelastic Loads Report No. 3, NISTIR 5246, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, August 1993.
20. Cheok, G., and Lew, H., Performance of Precast Concrete
Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to Cyclic Loading,
PCI JOURNAL, V. 36, No. 3, May-June 1991, pp. 56-67.
21. Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A., Uang, C.-M., and Folz, B.,
Post-Tensioned Energy Dissipating Connections for MomentResisting Steel Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 128, No. 9, September 2002, pp. 1111-1120.
22. Ricles, J., Sause, R., Peng, S., and Lu, L., Experimental Evaluation of Earthquake Resistant Post-tensioned Steel Connections, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers, V. 128, No. 7, July 2002, pp. 850-859.
23. Rojas, P., Garlock, M., Ricles, J., and Sause, R., Reducing
Seismic Damage in Steel Frames Using Post-Tensioning,
Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Boston, MA, July
21-25, 2002, 12 pp. (CD-ROM).
24. Ricles, J., Sause, R., Garlock, M., and Zhao, C., Post-Tensioned Seismic-Resistant Connections for Steel Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 127, No. 2, February 2001, pp. 113-121.
25. Kurama, Y., and Shen, Q., Posttensioned Hybrid Coupled
Walls Under Lateral Loads, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 130, No. 2,
February 2004, pp. 297-309.
26. Shen, Q., and Kurama, Y., Nonlinear Behavior of Post-Tensioned Hybrid Coupled Wall Subassemblages, Journal of
Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
V. 128, No. 10, October 2002, pp. 1290-1300.
27. Morgen, B., and Kurama, Y., Friction-Damped Unbonded
Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Moment Frame Structures:
An Integrated Seismic Evaluation, Structural Engineering Research Report #NDSE-04-02, Department of Civil Engineering
and Geological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame, IN (expected publication 2004).
28. ATC, Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active Control, Applied Technology Council, ATC
17-1, V. 2, 1993, pp. 447-687.
29. EERI, Earthquake Spectra - Theme Issue: Passive Energy Dissipation, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, V. 9, No.
3, August 1993, 637 pp.
30. Soong, T., and Constantinou, M. (Editors), Passive and Active
Structural Vibration Control in Civil Engineering, CISM
Courses and Lectures No. 345, International Center for Mechanical Sciences, Springer-Verlag, 1994, 380 pp.
31. Soong, T., and Dargush, G., Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, NY, 1997.
131

32. Housner, G., Bergman, L., Caughey, T., Chassiakos, A.,


Claus, R., Masri, S., Skelton, R, Soong, T., Spencer, B., and
Yao, J., Structural Control: Past, Present, and Future, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Special Issue, American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 123, No. 9, September 1997, pp.
897-971.
33. Soong, T., and Spencer, B., Supplemental Energy Dissipation: State-of-the-Art and State-of-the-Practice, Engineering
Structures, Elsevier Science Ltd., V. 24, 2002, pp. 243-259.
34. Martinez-Rueda, J., On the Evolution of Energy Dissipation
Devices for Seismic Design, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, V. 18, No. 2, May 2002, pp.
309-346.
35. Perez, F., Pessiki, S., and Sause, R., Lateral Load Behavior of
Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls with Vertical Joint Connectors, PCI JOURNAL, V. 49, No. 2, MarchApril 2004, pp. 48-63.
36. Perez, F., Pessiki, S., and Sause, R., Seismic Design of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls with Vertical
Joint Connectors, PCI JOURNAL, V. 49, No. 1, JanuaryFebruary 2004, pp. 58-79.
37. Kurama, Y., Simplified Seismic Design Approach for Friction-Damped Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete
Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 5, September-October 2001, pp. 705-716.
38. Kurama, Y., Seismic Design of Unbonded Post-Tensioned
Precast Walls with Supplemental Viscous Damping, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 4, July-August 2000, pp. 648658.
39. Schultz, A., and Magana, R., Seismic Behavior of Connections in Precast Concrete Walls, in Mete A. Sozen Symposium: A Tribute From His Students, Edited by J. K. Wight and
M. Kreger, ACI Special Publication, ACI SP-162, 1996, pp.
273-311.
40. Pall, A., and Pall, R., Friction-Dampers Used for Seismic
Control of New and Existing Buildings in Canada, Seminar
on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active
Control, ATC-17-1, Applied Technology Council, V. 2, 1993,
pp. 675-686.
41. Cherry, S., and Filiatrault, Seismic Response Control of
Buildings Using Friction Dampers, Earthquake Spectra,
Theme Issue: Passive Energy Dissipation, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, V. 9, No. 3, August 1993, pp. 447466.

132

42. Pekau, O., and Hum, D., Seismic Response of Friction


Jointed Precast Panel Shear Walls, PCI JOURNAL, V. 36,
No. 2, March-April 1991, pp. 56-71.
43. Pall, A., Marsh, C., and Fazio, P., Friction Joints for Seismic
Control of Large Panel Structures, PCI JOURNAL, V. 25,
No. 6, November-December 1980, pp. 38-61.
44. Tyler, R., Damping in Building Structures by Means of PTFE
Sliding Joints, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society
for Earthquake Engineering, V. 10, No. 3, 1977, pp. 139-142.
45. Pall, A., and Marsh, C., Response of Friction-Damped Braced
Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society
of Civil Engineers, V. 108, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 1313-1323.
46. Pall, A., and Marsh, C., Friction-Damped Concrete Shear
Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 78, No. 2, March-April
1981, pp. 187-193.
47. Way, D., Friction-Damped Moment Resisting Frames,
Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, V. 12, No. 3, August 1996, pp. 623-633.
48. Grigorian, C., and Popov, E., Energy Dissipation with Slotted
Bolted Joints, Report No. UCB/EERC-94/02, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, February 1994.
49. Grigorian, C., Yang, T., and Popov, E., Slotted Bolted Connection Energy Dissipators, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, V. 9, No. 3, August 1993, pp.
491-504.
50. Martinez-Rueda, J., Seismic Redesign of RC Frames by
Local Incorporation of Energy Dissipation Devices, Sixth
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Seattle, WA, May 31June 4, 1998, (CD-ROM).
51. Mulas, M., Arcelaschi, M., and Martinez-Rueda, J., Seismic
Redesign of Steel Frames by Local Insertion of Dissipation
Devices, Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas,
Balkema, 2000, pp. 411-418.
52. IBC, International Building Code 2003, International Code
Council, Falls Church, VA, 2003.
53. Mander, J., Priestley, M., and Park, R., Theoretical StressStrain Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 114,
No. 8, August 1988, pp. 1804-1826.
54. Prakash, V., Powell, G., and Campbell, S., DRAIN-2DX
Base Program Description and User Guide; Version 1.10, Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/17, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, November 1993.

PCI JOURNAL

APPENDIX A NOTATION
ap
Ab
Ap
d
Dh
fc
fci
fpi

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

fpu
fpy
fsu

=
=
=

fsy

fwy
Fd

=
=

area of single post-tensioning strand


beam gross cross-sectional area
total beam post-tensioning steel area
damper displacement
inelastic energy dissipation per hysteresis loop
design concrete compressive strength
initial beam concrete stress, Pi/Ap
average initial stress in post-tensioning strands,
Pi/Ap
maximum strength of post-tensioning strands
yield strength of post-tensioning strands
maximum strength of mild (unprestressed) steel
reinforcement
yield strength of mild (unprestressed) steel
reinforcement
yield strength of spiral wire reinforcement
damper force

July-August 2004

Fdn
Fds
hb
H
LB-CS
LB-SS

=
=
=
=
=
=

Mb
Mb,max
N
P
Pi

p
b
br

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

damper normal (clamping) force


damper slip force
beam depth
lateral force
leaded-bronze against cast steel friction interface
leaded-bronze against stainless steel friction
interface
beam end moment
maximum beam end moment reached
column axial force
total force in beam post-tensioning tendons
total initial beam post-tensioning force
relative energy dissipation ratio
diameter of single post-tensioning strand
beam chord rotation
residual beam chord rotation

133