Aditya

Analytical studies on rigid frames with friction dampers under seismic loads 2015-16
Chapter 1
INTRODUTION
1.1 Introduction to earthquake resistant design of structures
An earthquake can be defined as a violent shaking of earth, which happens when a

large amount of strain energy stored in the rocks is released. This seismic energy is
transmitted in the form of seismic waves through the body and surface of the earth.
Earthquake has a lot of ill effects on all type of buildings. It causes vibrations of particles in
all three directions viz. two horizontal and one vertical direction. Most of the structures are
primarily designed for resisting gravity loads and because of the factor of safety that we were
adopted in the design, the structures can resist vertical shaking. But structures designed only
for gravity loads, cannot sustain the horizontal shakings caused by the earthquake. The
structures may undergo large deformations or complete collapse depending on the type of
structure, magnitude of earthquake and many other factors. The collapse of buildings causes
a lot of ill effects like loss of life and property damage. Therefore a large amount of financial
losses and social sufferings occurs. Hence it becomes necessary and a challenge to design the
structures to resist earthquakes.
In the design, the important thing is, we are interested only in designing earthquake
resistant structures but not earthquake proof structures. This is because, the earthquakes will
be minor, moderate, major or great and the frequency of occurrence of minor earthquakes is
more, moderate earthquake is less, major earthquakes is rare and great earthquakes is very
rare. Therefore, designing a structure to resist a great earthquake which may not even occur
in the life span of the structure is not having any meaning and also it becomes highly
uneconomical. The design philosophy of earthquake resistant structures lies nearly midway
between the safety and economy. The design philosophy that we are adopted includes the
following aspects.
a) The structures should resist minor earthquakes without any structural damage.
b) The structures should resist moderate earthquakes may be with small amount of
structural damage which can be easily repairable.
1 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.
c) Under major earthquakes the structures may undergo large deformations which
may not be repairable but structures should not collapse[1].
The structures can undergo large deformations means it should be ductile as much as
possible. If it is brittle it will collapse without much deformation and will cause much
damage. So, by providing ductility to the structures we can make it earthquake resistant and
using this concept ductile detailing of RC structures are also done and are called as special
moment resisting frames. The use of shear walls to increase the stiffness, the use of braced
steel frames, base isolation methods are also some methods of earthquake resistant design.
1.2 Vibrations and damping of a system
A vibration can be defined as a motion that repeats after an interval of time. It can be
also be defined as to and fro motion of a particle. These are generally classified as free and
forced vibrations. In free vibrations, there is no external forces acting on the system and
vibration will be due to the initial displacement or initial velocity given to the system. In case
of forced vibrations, the vibrations will be due to the external forces acting on the system.
The vibrations are also classified on the basis of the presence of an energy dissipation system
that is the provision of damping as damped and undamped vibrations as shown in Figure 1.1.
The undamped system consists of only mass and stiffness which vibrates under its natural
frequency. In case of an undamped system, an additional damping is provided which
dissipates the energy and reduces vibration. The provision of shock absorbers in the vehicles
is a very good example for a damped system.
Figure 1.1: Undamped and damped vibrating models

Damping is measured by coefficient of damping and its unit is N-sec/m. All the
systems require certain amount of damping to return into equilibrium as quickly as possible
without oscillating and it is called as the critical damping and measured as coefficient of
critical damping. The ratio of coefficient of damping of a system to its coefficient of critical
damping is called as the damping factor or damping ratio (ζ) and is generally expressed in
percentage. If this damping ratio is more than one, then the system becomes over damped
and there is no question of vibrations in the system. On the other hand if the damping ratio is
less than one it becomes under damped system in which system undergoes some vibrations
and gradually comes to equilibrium. If the damping ratio is zero then it is called as undamped
system. So, the damping of a system plays a vital role in the control of vibrations.
1.3 Seismic Control of Structures
Over many decades, earthquake resistant design of the structures was dependent on
the material ductility to dissipate the seismic energy induced in the structural systems. During
a major earthquake a large amount of energy will be induced into the structure. The way in
which this energy is dissipated in the structure decides the level of damage. In the ductility
based design, the energy will be dissipated by large inelastic deformations in the structures
causing bending, twisting and cracking and the structure may collapse depending on the
magnitude of earthquake and other factors. So by providing ductility to the structure we can
achieve life safety, as the structure gives enough warnings before absolute collapse. But the
damage control cannot be achieved to the required level. The ductility based design also has
the problem of highly congested reinforcement in beam column joints in case of RC
structures etc.
Because of these drawbacks, many structural control techniques have been developed
over the years and are gaining importance nowadays. These structural control systems
dissipate a major portion of seismic energy and reduce the forces on the primary structure
and hence limit the deformations in the structure. So, with the use of these structural control
techniques damage control can also be achieved to the required level along with the life
safety. The structural control systems are broadly classified into passive energy dissipation
systems, active control systems, hybrid and semi active control systems.

1.4 Passive Energy Dissipation (PED) systems
These systems compose of materials and devices for enhancing damping, stiffness
and strength, and can be used for both seismic hazard mitigation and rehabilitation of
structures. These systems are characterized by their energy dissipating capacity in the
structural systems in which they are installed. These types of devices are always ready to
perform to their capacity and do not depends on the excitation. Passive energy dissipation
systems do not require any external power source for their working and dissipates energy by
mechanical means. The different types of passive energy dissipating devices along with their
working principles are described below.
1.4.1 Friction dampers
The details of the friction dampers were discussed in detail in section 1.6
1.4.2 Visco elastic dampers
This type of materials are usually made up of visco elastic materials like copolymers
or glassy substances like Bitumen Rubber Compounds, thermoplastic rubber etc. These
materials have good adhesive strength, can undergo large shear deformations and can take
the form of a thin sheet. These types of materials are sensitive to temperature, strain and
other environmental factors and hence proper analysis of the material has to be done before
the design of visco elastic dampers. Visco elastic dampers consist of thin steel plates and
visco elastic material sheets which are laminated alternatively as shown in Figure 1.2. Visco
elastic dampers work on the principle of large shear deformations. When a vibration is
induced in a structure due to an earthquake, relative motion occurs between the outer plates
and centre plate, due to which a shear deformation occurs in the visco elastic materials and
hence the energy is dissipated.

Figure 1.2: Visco elastic damper configuration
1.4.3 Metallic yield dampers
This is also one of the effective ways of energy dissipation which works on the
principle of dissipation of energy by inelastic deformations of metals. In most of the metallic
yield dampers, mild steel plates of triangular or X shape are used so that uniform yielding
throughout the material can be achieved. Figure 1.3 shows a typical X shaped plate damper
or ADAS (Added Damping And Stiffness) device. When vibrations are induced in the
structure due to an earthquake, the provided metallic yield damper yields first, dissipating a
major portion of seismic energy and hence reduces the energy input into the structure and
safeguards it.
Figure 1.3: Metallic yield dampers

An unbounded brace or tension/compression yielding brace shown in Figure 1.4, is

another type of damping device which works on the same metallic yielding principle. It
consists of a core plate encased in a concrete or mortar filled steel tube. The core plate
provide a stable energy dissipation by yielding under reversed axial loading, while the
surrounding concrete filled steel tube resists compression buckling.
The disadvantage of metallic yield dampers is they need regular inspection as there is
a chance of premature fracture of the devices due to fatigue caused by strong wind loads.
This type of dampers needs to be replaced after the earthquake.
Figure 1.4: Unbonded brace
1.4.4 Viscous fluid dampers
This type of dampers works on the concept of fluid orificing in which energy will be
dissipated through the movement of a piston in a highly viscous fluid. A viscous fluid
damper consists of a piston containing number of small orifices, within a damper housing
filled with a compound of silicone or similar type of oil as shown in Figure 1.5. When
vibrations are induced in the structure due to an earthquake the piston moves, which causes
the viscous fluid to move from one side to the other through small orifices, thereby dissipates
a large amount of energy and safeguards the structure.
Figure 1.5: Viscous fluid dampers
1.4.5 Tuned Mass Dampers
Earlier these types of dampers are used for mitigation of wind induced excitations and
recently several researches are done to implement them to reduce hazards due to seismic
excitations. A passive tuned mass damper (TMD) can only be tuned into a single frequency
of the structure and hence response of the structure can be significantly reduced by tuning it
into resonant frequency. These types of dampers have higher mass compare to other
dampers.
1.4.6 Tuned Liquid Dampers
This works on the similar principles of Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD). In effect, a
secondary mass in the form of a body of liquid is introduced is introduced into the structural
system and tuned to act as a dynamic vibration absorber. They have their primary
applications in controlling wind induced vibrations. When compare to TMDs Tuned Liquid
Dampers (TLD) include low initial cost, ease of frequency tuning and virtually free of
maintenance.

1.5 Active, Hybrid and Semi-Active Control Systems
The schematic representation of an active control system is as shown in Figure 1.6.

This system is a combination of computer science data processing, sensing technology,
structural dynamics and wind and earthquake engineering. An active control system consists
of sensors located about the structures to measure both external excitations and structural
response, controller unit and actuators. During seismic excitations, the sensors measure the
accelerations at the structural base and send it to the computer control unit. The computer
control unit processes the measured information and using the control algorithm given to the
control unit, it computes the required control forces and sends it to the actuators. The
actuators are usually powered by external sources and they produce the required control
forces. At the same time, the structural response to the external excitations is also measured
by the sensors and is processed by the control unit. The control unit computes the control
forces such that only the least structural response is possible. These types of systems are
applicable for multi hazard mitigations, like it can be used for both wind and seismic
excitations. The response control is most effective in this system.
Figure 1.6: Schematic representation of active control system
The schematic representation of a hybrid control system is as shown in Figure 1.7. It

is a combination of active control and passive dissipation systems. The power required to
operate this type of system is comparatively much less than that of an active control system.
In this type of system a portion of the energy is dissipated by passive energy dissipation
devices and hence load on the active control system is reduced and consequently required
power is also less. A side benefit of hybrid system is that, in case of a power failure, the

passive components of the control still offer some degree of protection, unlike a fully active
control system.
Figure 1.7: Schematic representation of hybrid control system
Figure 1.8: Schematic representation of semi active control system
A semi-active control system is similar to the hybrid control system. The difference
between the two systems is, in semi active control systems control actuators do not add
mechanical energy directly into the structure. Hence they are also often called as controllable
passive devices. Due to the presence of PEDs this system also has a benefit of partial
protection even in the case of a power failure, similar to the hybrid control systems. The
schematic representation of a semi active control system is as shown in Figure 1.8.
1.6 Friction Dampers
The energy dissipation in a friction damper is similar to the dissipation of kinetic

energy of a moving vehicle by the use of friction between tyre and the road. These types of
devices are pioneered by Pall in 1979. As the name itself says friction dampers utilizes the
mechanism of solid friction that develops between two solid bodies sliding relative to one
another to give required energy dissipation. These are one of the major passive energy
dissipating devices characterized by their energy dissipating capacity (slip load). Friction
dampers generally possess large, rectangular and nearly stable hysteresis loops thereby
indicating high energy dissipation capacity.
Several friction damping devices have been tested experimentally namely, Pall,
Fitzgerald, Sumitomo, Constantinou, Dorka, Grigorian etc. and some of these have been used
in the structures around the world. Among these devices Pall friction dampers have found
many practical applications worldwide.
1.6.1 Construction and Working
Friction dampers are simple and fool proof in construction. Pall friction dampers
(Figure 1.9) consist of series of steel plates which are specially treated to develop reliable
friction. These plates are clamped together with high strength steel bolts and allowed to slip
at a predetermined load[3]. These friction dampers are designed not to slip during wind
storms and moderate earthquakes. During a major earthquake they slip at a predetermined
load and dissipate a large portion of energy allowing the building to remain elastic or delays
the yielding. Hence the damage to the primary structure is significantly reduced. Pall friction
dampers suitable for different type of construction like concrete shear walls, both cast in situ
and pre cast, braced steel or concrete frames, clad frame construction, low rise buildings have
been developed. Pall friction dampers are available for different bracing systems like tension
cross bracing, single diagonal bracing, chevron bracings etc[3]. They are also used for
retrofitting and rehabilitation purposes.
In case of rotational friction dampers the bolt connects three steel plates and between
these plates there are two circular friction pad discs (as shown in Figure 1.10), which ensure
stable friction force and reduce noise of the movement. The central plate will be connected to
the beam of the frame structure by a hinge and the side plates are connected to the bracing
systems. During a major earthquake when the horizontal force exceeds the frictional forces,

sliding starts and the central plates rotates relatively to the friction pad discs and thereby
dissipates major portion of seismic energy[4].
The friction dampers are designed not to slip during wind storms and moderate
earthquakes. During a major earthquake under severe excitations, they slip at a
predetermined load before yielding occurs in other structural members and dissipates a large
portion of seismic energy. In other words dampers yield prior to the primary structure
allowing the building to remain elastic or at least delays yielding during catastrophic
conditions[3]. Hence the damage to the primary structure is significantly reduced.
Figure 1.9: Pall friction damper Figure 1.10: Details of rotational friction damper
The friction dampers are inexpensive and not affected by environmental factors like
temperature, stiffness degradation due to ageing etc. In most of the times they do not need
repair or replacement even after the earthquake and can perform multiple times and also do
not need regular inspection. Compare to other types of dampers, friction dampers have high
damping capacity and hence require less number of dampers for a particular structure. The
cost of the structures with friction dampers will be much less compare to that of moment
resisting frames, especially in the regions of high seismic activity.
1.6.2 Analysis and Modeling
Figure 1.11 and Figure 1.12 shows the hysteresis loops (Load vs deformation curves
under sinusoidal loading) of a friction damper device in an experimental investigation for
different frequency of excitation and displacement amplitude respectively[4]. The area under
the hysteresis loop gives the amount of energy dissipation. In this experiment the friction
damper is connected in chevron bracing systems and the relative rotation of the plates under
sinusoidal loading is measured. Both the figures clearly indicates that friction dampers
possess large rectangular hysteresis loops with negligible fade over several cycles of reversal
of load, indicating the high amount of energy dissipating capacity compare to other type of
dampers. From Figure 1.11, it can be clearly seen that the hysteresis loop of a friction damper
or the energy dissipating capacity is independent of the frequency of the excitation force[4].
Figure 1.11: Frequency independence of friction damper
But form Figure 1.12, it can be observed that the area of the hysteresis loop increases
with increase in the displacement amplitude of the damper, which means the amount of
energy dissipation in the friction damper is proportional to the displacement amplitude of the
damper.
During a major earthquake the slippage of friction damper in an elastic brace

constitutes artificial non linearity similar to the elasto – plastic behavior of steel. And also the
equivalent structural damping is proportional to the displacement amplitude of the damper.

Hence the friction damped buildings require the use of non linear time history analysis to
compute the required optimal slip load or design slip load. As it is known that different
earthquake records even though of same magnitude gives widely varying structural response,
at least three pairs of earthquake time histories suitable for the region has to be used for the
analysis.
Figure 1.12: Dependence on the displacement amplitude
The modeling of a friction damper is very simple. Since the hysteresis loop of the
friction damper is similar to the rectangular loop of a perfectly elasto-plastic material, the slip
load of friction damper may be considered as a fictitious yield force. An elastic brace with a
friction damper can be treated as a brace which yields at slip load of damper.
1.6.3 Optimum (Design) Slip load of Friction Dampers
For every friction damper in a structural system, there exists a slip load which
minimizes the difference between the input seismic energy and dissipated energy by the

damper. This slip load is called as the optimum slip load of the friction damper. The energy
dissipated in the structural system due to friction will be the maximum at optimum slip load.
Thus the optimal slip load corresponds to the least response of the structure and maximum
energy dissipation by the damper.
The criteria used for the selection of slip loads for the friction dampers are outlined as
below[5].
 The damper should not slip under wind and low to moderate earthquake loadings.
This requirement gives the minimum value of the slip load.
 The slip in a damper should occur before the yield limit of any member of the
structure is reached. This requirement gives the maximum value of the slip load.
 The slip load should be such that the energy dissipated in the structure due to friction
should be maximized.
 Also the selected slip load should ensure the deformations of the structure are in
elastic range only.
Based on the above criteria, approximate slip load of the friction damper will be
estimated and optimization of the loads was achieved by performing a series of nonlinear
time history dynamic analyses, varying the slip loads and evaluating the response
quantities[5]. The slip load corresponding to the least response is treated as the optimum slip
load of friction damper.

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Literature Review
Supplemental energy dissipation: state of the art and state of the practice – T.T. Soong
and B.F. Spencer [2]
The paper presented different method of structural control techniques which includes both
passive energy dissipation systems and active control systems. The basic working principles
of different types of passive energy dissipating devices such as friction dampers, visco elastic
dampers, metallic yielding dampers, viscous fluid dampers, tuned mass dampers and tuned
liquid dampers were discussed. This paper also gives information regarding active systems
like hybrid mass damper systems, active mass damper systems, semi active mass damper
systems and semi active controllable fluid dampers. The historical outline and development
of different type of dampers and their present state of art and practice was described. In case
of friction dampers, it was mentioned that friction dampers possess rectangular hysteresis
loops similar to coulomb friction. This paper also includes the advantages and limitations of
all type of systems and it was concluded that continuous effort in hardware, software and
design procedures is required for faster implementation of these systems.
Friction dampers for seismic control of buildings – “A Canadian Experience” – Avtar

S. Pall and Rashmi Pall [3]
This paper clearly described the problems associated with conventional earthquake resistant
design of structures and the concept of aseismic design with the use of inexpensive Pall
friction dampers. The construction of Pall friction dampers, their behavior under a major and
moderate earthquake, concept of slip load of friction dampers, energy dissipation capacity
and limited maintenance of friction dampers has been described completely. It was suggested
that the friction damper in an elastic bracing constitutes an artificial non linearity; the design
of friction damped buildings requires non linear time history dynamic analysis. Several
practical of Pall friction dampers in both steel and concrete structures including both new

construction and retrofitting of the existing buildings were also briefly discussed. It was
concluded that friction dampers can provide an alternative, practical, economical and
effective approach to earthquake resistant design of structures.
Dynamic response of RC frame with a new friction damper device – Imad H. Mualla,
Leif O. Nielsen, Marco Viviani and Lambertor Briseghella [4]
This paper presented a study on the parameters which govern the performance of a novel
friction damper device. The experimental tests were performed to study the parameters such
as forcing frequencies, bolt force, displacement amplitude, and pre stressing bar force. The
tests were also conducted on different type of friction materials, the results of which shows
that an asbestos free friction material (friction pad material) provides stable hysteresis loops
without causing any damages to the steel plates. A single bay single storey test frame with
friction damper is tested by 2 to 7 Hz forcing frequency keeping other parameters as
constants and the results indicated that the energy dissipating capacity of friction damper is
almost independent of the forcing frequency for this frequency range. The same frame tested
with different displacement amplitudes 1.75 to 4.5mm and the results indicated that the
energy dissipating capacity of the friction damper increases linearly with the displacement
amplitude. It was also stated that this linearity effect of displacement amplitude makes the
mathematical modeling of the friction damper very simple. With the addition of friction
damper it was observed that for the given earthquake motion, the storey drift was dropped by
59%. A three bay five storey frame was also studied to determine the efficiency of friction
damper in a multi storey frame. More than 54% reduction in the horizontal peak
displacement and a very good reduction in the storey drift were observed. It was concluded
that significant reduction in the response is possible with the use of friction dampers and it is
a viable alternative for ductility based conventional earthquake resistant design both for
rehabilitation of structures and new construction.
Seismic response of a nine storey steel frame with friction damped cross bracings – Ian
D. Aiken, James N. Kelly and Avtar S.Pall [5]
This paper presented the results of experimental tests conducted on a nine storey steel
moment resisting frame which was incorporated with the friction damping devices in cross
bracings. The response of the structure with friction dampers was compared with that of the
equivalent moment resisting frames. Prior to the earthquake tests, the initial damping in the
structure was found out by using logarithmic decrement values under impulsive excitation
and the initial damping was found to be 2.4% for moment resisting frame and 5.6% for
friction damped frame under low level excitation. For earthquake tests on the model, ten
different real and synthesized earthquake signals with wide range of earthquake motion
characteristics were used. From the experimental tests it was observed that the equivalent
viscous damping ratio of the individual dampers increases with the increase in magnitude of
the earthquake input and these values were in the range of 8.5% to a maximum of 37.6%.
The total damping in the friction damped braced frame was observed to be 7% to 10% for
smaller magnitudes and it was up to 16.7% under severe earthquakes. The amount of seismic
energy dissipated by the friction dampers was also estimated, which showed that friction
dampers dissipated 60% to 70% of total input seismic energy in upper level of the structure
and up to 93% at the lower levels. To compare the responses, the maximum relative
displacement of 2.8 to 3 inches was considered and the input signal was increased up to that
maximum relative displacement was achieved. The results showed that the friction damped
braced frame experienced a PGA of 0.651g corresponding to maximum relative displacement
of 2.8 inches, whereas the moment resisting frame undergone a maximum relative
displacement of 3.11 inches at a PGA of 0.249g for the modified Mexico City signal. The
hysteresis behavior of friction dampers and the criteria to select the slip load of damper
(optimal or design slip load) were also discussed. It was concluded that friction dampers are
more reliable and they increase available damping in the structure and thereby enhances the
performance of the structure under severe earthquake excitations.
Numerical prediction of shaking table tests on a full scale friction damped structure –
I.H.Mualla, L.O.Nielsen, B.Belev, W.I.Liao, C.H.Loh and A.Agarawal [8]
This paper described the performance of a three storey moment resisting steel frame building
equipped with a novel friction damping system which was developed at the Technical
University of Denmark. The shaking table testing for different sets of the damper resistance
along the height of the frame was carried. The performance of friction dampers under
different far field and near fault earthquake acceleration record, which were scaled into
different intensities were verified. For numerical analysis, finite element plane frame models

of the bare and friction damped frames were created before the experimental program, to
support planning of shake table test and assist in the friction damper design. The friction
action of damper was conventionally modeled as nonlinear spring with rigid plastic moment
relationship. The bracing bars were represented with Element 09 of DRAIN – 2DX code.
After completion of experimental work several modifications in the analytical models were
done to get a good agreement between the simulated and measured seismic response. It was
observed that a very good reduction in storey drift (more than 70%) was obtained for El
Centro 0.3g and Kobe 0.175g tests with the use of friction dampers. The description of the
damping device, major results of previous research and details of shake table testing set up
were also included. It was conclude that the seismic performance of a friction damped frame
could be reasonably predicted by non linear time history analysis using commercial software
packages like DRAIN – 2DX. However it was also said that future work is required for
developing a practical design methodology for use of friction damper devices in multi storey
structures.
Evaluation of Pall Friction Damper performance in Near Fault Earthquakes by using of

Nonlinear time history Analysis – Kolsum Jafarzadeh, Mohammad ali Lotfollahi-
Yaghin and Rasoul Sabetahd [9]
In this paper, the seismic response of some structural models with and without Pall friction
dampers, under the effects of near fault earthquake ground motions has been determined
analytically. Three plane frame models (6, 9 and 15 storey) were modeled as special moment
resisting frames with and without friction dampers (one damper at each storey), having
specific dead load, live load and soil conditions. Horizontal acceleration records of eight
different earthquakes were used in nonlinear time history analysis, which was carried out
using OpenSees software. By taking the maximum roof displacement as criteria to compare
the responses under various slip loads, the optimal slip load or design slip load corresponding
to the least response was estimated for all the models. By knowing the design slip load, the
maximum roof floor displacement, roof floor acceleration and base shear was evaluated
using nonlinear time history analysis for the three frames with and without dampers and then
the results were compared. The results clearly showed that the value of the design slip load
increases with increase in number of floors. Among the measured responses, the maximum

roof acceleration was increased by an average of 6.3% with the addition of friction dampers.
However, the maximum roof displacement and base shear were found to be reduced by 46%
and 25% on an average respectively.
Seismic analysis of benchmark building installed with friction dampers – Bhiva R. Raut
and R.S. Jangid [10]
This paper presented an analytical study carried out on a 20 storey steel building installed
with friction dampers, under different seismic excitations like El Centro, Kobe, Hachinohe
and Northridge. This 20 storey steel building was declared as a seismically excited
benchmark building by structural control community to compare different structural control
or energy dissipating systems. Two evaluation models, namely pre earthquake and post
earthquake models, ten different performance criteria (J1 to J10) specified for the benchmark
building were used in the analysis. The details of the benchmark building, modeling of
friction damper, governing equations of motion and details of ground motions were
discussed. A parametric study was done to investigate the slip load of dampers corresponding
to the least response. To minimize the cost of dampers, a study on the optimal placement of
dampers rather than providing them at all the floor levels was carried out. A numerical
analysis was also done by varying the slip load of the dampers along the height of the
building. From the obtained results, for both pre and post earthquake models, it was
concluded that, friction dampers were effective in reducing the performance criteria J1 to J10
of the selected benchmark building and friction dampers were able to dampen the responses
quickly. It was noted that a slight variation in the design slip load will does not have much
effect on responses. It was also concluded that the response can be controlled significantly by
providing dampers at optimal locations with suitable slip loads. The inter storey drift can also
be substantially reduced at every floor by varying the damper force along the height of the
building.
Full scale testing of concentrically braced and friction damped braced steel frames
under simulated seismic loading – H.G. Kullmann and S. Cherry [11]
This paper presented the results of a full scale cyclic and earthquake simulation tests
conducted on a cross braced and a friction damped (Pall dampers) panel of a medium rise
typical 6 storey steel frame building. Two finite element models of 6 storey steel buildings;
one with HSS cross bracings and one with friction damped bracings were created. Dynamic
analyses were carried out on both the frames using the design earthquake specified for the
particular building in Vancouver, Canada. After the dynamic analyses, the most distressed
panel of both the frames was identified and full scale experimental tests on that panel were
conducted, under reverse cyclic conditions and also under the seismic deformations, which
were predicted by the computer analysis, but applied as quasi static displacements. The
results of the analytical study showed that the cross braced frame exhibits higher inter storey
drifts at the top floors, but the friction damped frame showed higher drifts at the bottom
floors. The analytical results also showed that there is not much difference in response of two
frames but, friction dampers does not allowed yielding of any basic structural elements. The
full scale experimental tests on the panels showed that conventional cross braced frames
possess very good energy dissipating properties, but there are always chances of early fatigue
failure. In experimental tests, in case of friction damped frames, it was observed that friction
dampers develop repeatable and a very regular hysteresis loops closely approximating
hysteresis properties of its analytical model. The tests also indicated that significant brace
bending can occur if the connections in the brace are capable of developing bending
moments. The damper and brace design may have to consider these forces.
Response of Friction Damped Braced Frames – Avtar S. Pall and Cedric Marsh [12]
This paper described the response of friction damped braced frames for seismic control of
buildings. To determine the effectiveness of friction device on the seismic response, an
example analysis was carried out to compare the results with alternate systems. Three ten
storey frames which include a moment resisting frame, braced moment resisting frame and a
friction damped braced frame were chosen for the analysis. Inelastic time history analysis
was carried out using Drain – 2D software for El Centro 1940 (N.S. Component) earthquake
signal. Friction damped braced frame was analyzed for various slip loads to determine the
optimum slip load. It was observed that the variation in the response was negligible for 10-
15% variation in the optimum slip load and also the friction device extracted required amount
of energy dissipation before any of the structural members yield. The results clearly showed
that none of the members in friction damped braced frame have yielded, whereas, 90% of the
columns and 10% of the beams yielded in moment resisting frame and 60% of the beams and

90% of the braces yielded in braced moment resisting frame. After the termination of the
forcing motion, the response of the friction damped braced frame diminished rapidly when
compare to moment resisting frame and braced moment resisting frame. With the use of
friction damped braces, the base shear was reduced by more than 20% and top storey
deflection was found to be reduced by more than 50%. The inter storey drift was also well
reduced in case of friction damped braced frame. The existing structural systems and the
problems associated with them, the concept of friction damped braces and optimum slip load
of friction dampers were also discussed. It was concluded that with the help of friction
dampers, the building can be tuned into optimum response with sufficient energy dissipation
and without yielding of any materials.
Seismic Design of Simple Friction Damped Braced Frames – Andre Filiatrault and
Sheldon Cherry [13]
This paper presented a new and efficient modeling approach for seismic analysis and design
of steel structures equipped with friction dampers. A new Friction Damped Braced Frame
Analysis Program (FDBFAP) adaptable to micro computer environment was developed, in
which hysteretic properties of friction devices were derived theoretically. This FDBFAP uses
step by step integration procedure and performs a series of dynamic analyses of friction
damped braced frame for specified slip load distribution. At the end of each step, energy and
Relative Performance Index (RPI) were calculated. The finite element discretization of
friction device and the direct stiffness approach were used to derive the stiffness matrix. The
optimal slip load of the structure is the one which minimizes the Relative Performance Index.
Using the FDBFAP as a tool, a parametric study on a series of one storey structures was
performed to develop a simplified design equation to get the optimal slip load of the
structures. The properties of the structure and ground motion anticipated at the site were
taken into account in the design equation. Using this design equation, a design slip load
spectrum was constructed for a single storey friction damped structure. It was concluded that,
the design slip load equation and spectrum can be used for rapid and direct evaluation of
optimal slip load of friction dampers for single storey friction damped structures, instead of a
series of non linear time history dynamic analyses.

Friction Dampers for Seismic Control of La Gardenia Towers South City, Gurgaon,
India – Ramesh Chandra, Moti Masand, S.K. Nanda, C.P. Tripathi, Rashmi Pall, Avtar
Pall [14]
This paper described the design and construction details of La Gardenia housing complex
consisting seven towers of 18 storeys with two basements, in South City, Gurgaon, India, in
which Pall friction dampers were used to resist the earthquake forces. This building was the
first practical application of the friction dampers in India. In these buildings, Pall friction
dampers were provided in the steel bracings in concrete frames. A total of 66 friction
dampers having slip load capacity of 700kN were used. For the purpose of design, three
dimensional nonlinear time history analyses were performed using computer program
ETABS considering three different earthquake records. To determine the effectiveness of
dampers, analyses were also carried on frames with shear walls and braced moment frames
and then the maximum responses were compared. The peak displacement of top floor was
reduced by more than 36% and the storey shear was reduced by 38%, when compared with
braced moment frames and frames with shear walls. It was seen that about 40% of seismic
energy was dissipated by the use of friction dampers and it was also observed that in friction
damped frame all members were remained elastics state, whereas, in braced moment frames,
all braces and 25% of the columns were yielded and shear walls at the base were overstressed
by 40% in case of frames with shear walls. In this paper, it was mentioned that Indian
Standard Codes are ductility based and do not explicitly apply for friction dampers. However
in some other countries like U.S. and Canada, the use of friction dampers for seismic control
is permitted, provided demonstration of good performance of friction damped buildings using
nonlinear analysis. The drawbacks of conventional methods, mechanism of Pall friction
dampers and their design criteria were also discussed. It was concluded that Pall friction
dampers provided a practical and economical solution for seismic control of buildings.
Response Modification Factor of Chevron Braced Frame with Pall Friction Damper –
J. Vaseghi Amiri and P. Esmaeiltabar Nesheli [15]
This paper presented the results of an analytical study carried out to evaluate the
effectiveness of friction damper on the parameters of steel braced frame such as ductility
reduction factor, over strength factor and behavior factor or response reduction factor. Two

dimensional nonlinear static analysis or pushover analysis and nonlinear time history
dynamic analysis were carried out using SAP2000 (nonlinear version) software on three
single bay frames of 5, 8 and 10 storeys. For all three frames, 3, 8, 15, 20, 50 and 100% of
total weight of the structure were calculated and the values were distributed uniformly along
in each level, amongst the dampers as their slip loads. In this study the maximum relative
displacement of storeys is used as a criterion to evaluate the level of structural damage. After
the nonlinear static analysis, the base shear vs. roof displacement curve is idealized with two
lines to get idealized capacity curve, based on which the seismic parameters of the structure
were evaluated. In dynamic time history analysis three different earthquake records were
used for analyzing all the three frames. The results showed that as the height of the structure
increases the response reduction factor decreases. In dynamic analysis, it was observed that
over strength factor of the structure increases consistently, while ductility increases and then
decreases. The results clearly indicated that, the performance of the frames was better at
optimal slip loads and at optimal slip loads, the response reduction factor reached its highest
value of 10.55, 7.71 and 6.45 for 5, 8 and 10 storey models respectively. It was concluded
that, the variations of response reduction factor were not in accordance with the nonlinear
static analysis and hence static analysis for the analysis of structures equipped with friction
dampers has not been found to be a suitable method.
Evaluating Equivalent Damping and Response Modification Factor of Frames

Equipped by Pall Friction Dampers - M. Mahmoudi, A. Mirzaei and S. Vosough [16]
This paper presented an analytical study to evaluate equivalent damping and response
modification factors of frames equipped with Pall friction dampers. Three steel frame models
of 3, 5 and 7 storey were considered for the analysis. Three earthquake records namely
Tabas, Northridge and Loma were used in the time history analysis. To determine the
equivalent damping, base shear for each of the Pall equipped frame was achieved by using
nonlinear analysis. Then each frame was analyzed in sequential steps by linear analysis and
damping is increased in each step, until the same base shear (determined by non linear
analysis) was achieved. The damping ratio at which, base shear obtained by the linear
analysis is equal to the base shear achieved by nonlinear analysis was taken as the equivalent
damping of the frame. The mean value of the equivalent damping obtained for 3, 5 and 7

storey frames were 19.5%, 16.2% and 12.2% respectively. The response modification factor
of these frames equipped with Pall friction dampers was also estimated using incremental
nonlinear dynamic analysis. The mean value of the response reduction factor obtained for 3,
5 and 7 storey frames were 21.71, 17.04 and 14.20 respectively. It was concluded that both
equivalent damping and response modification factor of the frames equipped with friction
dampers decreases with increase in the number of storeys.
Seismic Energy Dissipation of a Building Using Friction Damper – Shilpa G. Nikam,

S.K. Wagholikar and G.R. Patil [17]
This paper presented an overview of friction dampers which can be used for dissipation of
seismic energy in the buildings. The structural performance of friction dampers under
earthquakes, the manufacture of friction dampers and their characteristics, the concept of
optimal slip load of friction dampers were fully discussed. It was clearly mentioned that
friction dampers possess large, rectangular and a nearly stable hysteresis loops indicating
high energy dissipating capacity. The types of structural systems in which friction dampers
can provide a good reduction in the response under seismic loads were also discussed. It was
stated that friction dampers may not be suitable for high rise buildings where the wind forces
exceeds the seismic forces. Regarding the analysis of friction damped buildings, it was
mentioned that attempts to provide simple analysis methods have not been very successful
and the nonlinear time history dynamic analysis is required for the friction damped buildings.
The low installation cost of friction dampers was also discussed and it was said that
immediate occupancy after earthquake and easy way of retrofitting and installation makes the
friction dampers economical. The paper concluded that friction dampers provide economical
and effective approach for the design of earthquake resistant structures.
Verification tests of the Dynamic behavior of the novel friction based rotational damper
using shaking table – A. Toyooka, T. Himeno, Y. Hishijima, H. Iemura and I. Mualla
[18]
This paper presented the results of large scale shaking table tests conducted to evaluate the
dynamic performance of a newly developed novel friction based rotational damper. This
experimental investigation was concentrated on the use of friction damper devices in bridges.
The girder consisting of counterweights, bearings and the prototype of proposed damper was
excited by sinusoidal wave motions and some strong ground motions. The girder was
supported on two different setups; setup 1 and setup 2. In setup 1, the girder was supported
by four natural rubber bearings and was prepared for both sinusoidal and earthquake
excitation tests. In setup 2, the girder was supported by two natural rubber bearings and four
slide bearings and the setup was prepared for sinusoidal excitation tests. Four damper
specimens were placed at every corner of the girder in both the setups. The sinusoidal tests
on the two setups confirmed that, the hysteretic behavior of the new proposed damper was
similar to other friction devices and they generated stable friction forces. Both the setups
were tested for different loading frequency and the results showed that proposed friction
damper have stable energy dissipation capacity under wide range of loading frequencies. In
the earthquake excitation tests on the setup 1, it was observed that the damper behaved as an
elasto-plastic material. The responses of the girder without dampers were calculated
numerically and when compared with the measured response with dampers, the maximum
response (displacement) was reduced by 22.8% in Onne Br. Motion and 54.2% in JR
Takatori input. The difference in the response reduction may be due to the difference in
frequency characters of the input motion. The paper concluded that the friction damper
successfully introduces the supplemental damping to the structure under both intense and
long term earthquakes with stable energy dissipation.
An Experimental Study on Seismic behavior of Shear Friction Damper using Shaking

Table Test – Park et al [19]
Park et al developed a new shear type friction damper to dissipate the energy induced in the
structure during an earthquake. The dynamic behavior of two shear type friction dampers,
provided for a steel SDOF structure, was studied under Kobe EW (1995) and El Centro NS
(1940) earthquake signal using shaking table. Further the shaking table test results were
compared with nonlinear time history analysis results performed by using perfect elasto-
plastic hysteretic model. The shaking table test results showed that, the shear type friction
damper absorbed the input seismic energy very effectively and its behavior is near to perfect
elasto-plastic. In addition, as a result of time history analysis performed by using a perfect
elasto-plastic model, the value of initial elastic stiffness nearly matches the value of

maximum sliding proof force. Thus it was concluded that the results were deemed to be
relatively finely simulated.
Effect of Friction Damper Brace Design Parameters on Seismic Performance of Multi-

storey Building Structures - Saman Musician, Amir B. Hami, Hamid Masaeli and
Faramarz Khoshnoudian [20]
This paper presented the results of numerical analyses performed on low to medium rise
building structures (4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 storeys), having different fundamental periods,
equipped with friction damper brace systems. The effect of variations in the number of FDD
installations, arrangement of dampers along the height of the structure, total slip load ratios
ith
(ratio of total slip load of storey to the total weight of the ith storey), on the seismic
response of the structures was investigated. The results showed that, to examine the
arrangement of FDDs along the height of the structure, entire possible states of the damper
placement have to be considered and no particular optimal pattern can be prescribed in
general. The optimal value of total slip load ratio can be determined if number of FDD
installations were well defined. It was concluded that, uniform distribution of the slip load
among FDDs and optimal number of FDDs remain invariant when fundamental period of the
structure increases (more than 1.8 seconds).
Seismic Upgrade of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Factory at Everett, WA, USA –
Charlie Vail, Jeff Hubbell, Brian O‟Connor, John King and Avtar Pall [21]
This paper presented analysis and construction procedure for seismic upgrade of the Boeing
commercial airplane factory at Everett, WA, USA with the help of Pall friction dampers. The
airplane factory was expanded and seismically upgraded in 1996. The first storey of the
building was a soft storey and above the second floor it has relatively rigid structure.
Initially, seismic upgrade using conventional Brute strength approach involving addition of
heavy cover plates to the columns was analyzed using linear elastic static analysis
techniques. The results showed that the approach leads to replacing or strengthening of
majority of the structure with expensive and time consuming foundation works, which would
interfere with the production activities. As an alternative approach, Pall friction dampers
were chosen for supplemental damping to dissipate the seismic energy and to reduce the
seismic forces exerted on the structure. Nonlinear time history dynamic analyses were carried
out using SAP2000 nonlinear program to estimate the optimum slip load of friction dampers,
which were spread throughout the building at optimal locations. A total of 537 friction
dampers, varying in capacity from 75kips to 200kips were used to achieve the required
reduction in response. The use of Pall friction dampers provided an economical and effective
approach for the seismic upgrade of the structure with minimal disturbance to its functional
use.
Seismic Control of Federal Electronics Research Building, Ottawa – Palanimuthu

(Ravi) Sundararaj and R. Tina Pall [22]
This paper presented analysis and design procedure for seismic control of Federal Electronics
Research Building, Ottawa, Canada, using Pall friction dampers. The building was designed
and built in 1993 and an additional storey was added to the existing structure in 2003. It was
a three storey building of concrete frame construction with one basement. The building
houses very sensitive and expensive instruments and it was required to safeguard the
valuable scientific data in the event of a major earthquake. For this purpose, friction dampers
installed in cross bracings and single diagonal bracing were used. Three dimensional
nonlinear time history dynamic analysis were done using DRAIN – TABS computer program
for three different earthquake records, to determine the optimum slip load of friction
dampers. A total of 23 friction dampers having slip load of 300kN were used to safeguard the
structure from the damage. It was concluded that the use of Pall friction dampers provided a
practical and economical solution for the performance based design of Federal Electronics
Research Building.
Friction Dampers for Seismic Upgrade of St. Vincent Hospital, Ottawa – A. Malhotra,
D. Carson, P.Gopal, A. Braimah, G. Di Giovanni and R. Pall [23]
This paper presented analysis and seismic upgrade details of St. Vincent hospital, Ottawa,
Canada, which was done by the use of Pall friction dampers in steel bracings. The hospital
complex had five blocks out of which one is a new construction and other blocks were built
between 1890 and early 1950‟s. The buildings were five storey concrete frame construction
with one basement level. The earthquake resistance of the structures was significantly less
than the current code requirements due to lack of ductility in columns and beams. As the
conventional seismic rehabilitation with concrete shear walls or rigid bracings required
expensive and time consuming foundation works, an alternative approach of supplemental

damping in the form of Pall friction dampers was used for the seismic upgrade. A series of
three dimensional nonlinear time history dynamic analyses for both DBE and MCE were
carried out using ETABS software for each block individually, to get the optimum slip load
of friction dampers. A total of 183 friction dampers having design slip load of 300kN were
used in all blocks. To determine the effectiveness of friction dampers, the analyses were
carried out with conventional rigid braces and the results were compared with that of friction
damped braces. The results showed superior performance of friction dampers over rigid
braces. It was concluded that, the use of Pall friction dampers provided a practical,
economical and time expedient solution to the seismic upgrade of St. Vincent hospital.
Seismic Retrofit of MUCTC building using Friction Dampers, Palais des Congres,
Montreal - Serge Vezina and R. Tina Pall [24]
This paper presented the analysis and construction details of the seismic upgrade of MUCTC
building, Montreal, with the use of Pall friction dampers. The MUCTC building, located in
the heart of Montreal, was built in 1928. In 2000, it was decided to expand the nearby Palais
des Congres (Conventional Centre). The new extension was built around and integrated with
the MUCTC building which is of historic significance. Seismic upgrade of the MUCTC
building was also done along with the expansion. As the conventional seismic rehabilitation
with concrete shear walls or rigid bracings required expensive and time consuming
foundation works, an alternative approach of supplemental damping in the form of Pall
friction dampers was used for the seismic upgrade. A series of three dimensional nonlinear
time history dynamic analyses were carried out in ETABS software, using three different
earthquake records, to get the optimum slip load of friction dampers. A total of 88 friction
dampers having slip load of 500-600kN were used in diagonal and chevron bracings. To
determine the effectiveness of friction dampers, the analyses were carried out with
conventional rigid braces and the results were compared with that of friction damped braces.
The results showed superior performance of friction dampers over rigid braces. It was
concluded that, the use of Pall friction dampers provided a practical and economical solution
to the seismic upgrade of the MUCTC building.

Friction Dampers for Seismic Upgrade of Quebec Police Headquarters, Montreal –

Rashmi „Tina‟ Pall, Gilles Gauthier, Serge Delisle and Avtar Pall [25]
This paper presented the details of seismic upgrade of Quebec police headquarters building,
Montreal, with the help of Pall friction dampers provided in steel bracings. The existing steel
frame building of 16 storeys was built in 1964 and a change of occupancy was planned in
1997, which initiated the retrofitting of the building. In order to increase the seismic
resistance of the structure, supplemental damping in the form of Pall friction dampers was
chosen as the solution, instead of conventional rehabilitation methods. . A series of three
dimensional nonlinear time history dynamic analyses were carried out in ETABS software,
using three different earthquake records, to get the optimum slip load of friction dampers. In
total, 62 friction dampers with slip loads varying from 225kN to 670kN were used to extract
required energy dissipation. To determine the effectiveness of friction dampers, the analyses
were carried out with conventional rigid braces and the results were compared with that of
friction damped braces. The results showed superior performance of friction dampers over
rigid braces. It was concluded that, the use of Pall friction dampers provided a practical and
economical solution to the seismic upgrade of the police headquarters.
Friction Damper for Seismic Rehabilitation of Eaton Building, Montreal – C. Pasquin,

N. Leboeuf and T. Pall [26]
This paper presented seismic analysis and upgrade details of the Eaton building, Montreal,
with the help of Pall friction dampers in steel bracings. The existing nine storey Eaton
building was built in several phases from 1925 to 1959 with different structural systems
including both concrete and steel frames with concrete slabs. The lateral load resisting
capacity of the structure was too low and in 2000, it was decided to do the seismic upgrade of
the structure. In order to increase the seismic resistance of the structure, supplemental
damping in the form of Pall friction dampers was chosen as the solution, instead of
conventional rehabilitation methods. . A series of three dimensional nonlinear time history
dynamic analyses were carried out in ETABS software, using different earthquake records, to
get the optimum slip load of friction dampers. A total of 161 friction dampers having slip
loads of 700kN at ground storey, 600kN for the next 5 storeys and 300kN at the upper
storeys were used achieve the least response. To determine the effectiveness of friction

dampers, the analyses were carried out with conventional rigid braces and the results were
compared with that of friction damped braces. The results showed superior performance of
friction dampers over rigid braces. It was concluded that, the use of Pall friction dampers
provided a practical and economical solution to the seismic upgrade of the Eaton building.
Performance Based Design using Pall Friction Dampers – An Economical Design

Solution – Avtar Pall and R. Tina Pall [27]
This paper described the details of the performance based design of buildings using Pall
friction dampers and its economical feasibility. The construction of Pall friction damper, its
working under earthquakes, slip load and salient features of the Pall friction dampers, design
criteria and need of the nonlinear time history dynamic analysis were discussed. The cost and
performance of friction dampers were compared with that of viscous dampers and unbonded
braces. The advantages gained by the use of friction dampers in many practical applications
like Boeing Commercial Airplane factory, Moscone West Convention Center, Canadian
Space Agency Headquarters etc. were also discussed. It was concluded that, the use of Pall
friction dampers can provide practical, economical and effective approach for the
performance based design of new and retrofitting of existing structures, to resist major
earthquakes.
Use of Friction Dampers on Elevated Water Tanks – David B. Swanson, Bryce Falkin,
Kylie K. Yamatsuka, Daniel J. Campbell [28]
This paper presented the seismic evaluation and retrofit design of the Renton Highlands and
Rolling Hills elevated water storage tanks utilizing friction dampers. The two water tanks
were hit by an earthquake of magnitude of 6.8 having an epicentral distance of 37 miles. The
seismic evaluation, carried out on the two water tanks showed that both tanks had significant
seismic deficiencies to critical elements, including steel columns, diagonal braces and
horizontal struts. The retrofitting of the water tanks was done with the help of friction
dampers, which provided the highest level of performance and cost approximately 35% of
the tank replacement cost. Cost of retrofitting using conventional strengthening and stiffening
methods were determined to be approximately 50-80% of the tank replacement cost. Hence
the use of friction dampers provided a significant cost benefits in retrofitting.

Improved Deployment of Friction Dampers in Asymmetric Multi-storey Buildings – O

A Pekau, B Dasgupta and H Bedair [29]
This paper presented the results of an analytical study on 5, 8 and 10 storey eccentric frame
structures equipped with the friction dampers. It was demonstrated that, it is possible to
enhance the performance of friction damping in asymmetric structures by optimizing the
distribution of the slip load of these devices, over the plan layout of the structure. The results
showed that, when the slip loads of dampers were distributed such that, their resultant
eccentricity is the negative of the structural eccentricity (between centre of mass and centre
of stiffness), the maximum displacement can be optimized. It was also concluded that, a slip
load distribution having centre of damper strength coinciding with the centre of mass of the
structure can also provide reasonably good performance of the structure.
Experimental Evaluation of New Friction Damper Device – Imad H. Mualla [30]
This paper presented the experimental study on the new friction damper device. The device
consisted of several steel plates that rotate against each other in opposite directions producing
friction between the plates to dissipate energy. The stable and rectangular hysteresis loops
were observed when friction pad material was provided between inner faces of the steel
plates. The experimental studies confirmed that, the hysteresis loop of the damper is
independent of the forcing frequency and linearly dependent on the displacement amplitude
of the damper. It was concluded that the supplemental damping provided by the friction
damper, dissipates a big amount of kinetic energy in the structure and thus eliminates the
need of structural ductility.
Seismic Rehabilitation of Justice Headquarters Building, Ottawa, Canada – John

Balazic, Guru Guruswamy, John Elliot, Rashmi „Tina‟ Pall and Avtar Pall [31]
This paper presented seismic analysis and upgrade details of Justice Headquarters building,
Ottawa, Canada, with the help of friction dampers in steel bracings. The existing eight storey
concrete frame structure was built in 1955 and is of heritage importance. The structure has
low seismic load resisting capacity as per the requirements of current codes and it was
decided to do the seismic upgrade of the structure in 1995. In order to increase the seismic
resistance of the structure, supplemental damping in the form of Pall friction dampers was

chosen as the solution, instead of conventional rehabilitation methods. A series of three

dimensional nonlinear time history dynamic analyses were carried out in DRAIN-TABS
software, using three different earthquake records, to get the optimum slip load of friction
dampers. A total of 84 friction dampers having slip loads of 500kN to 700kN were used in
the single diagonal and chevron bracings. To determine the effectiveness of friction dampers,
the analyses were carried out with conventional rigid braces and the results were compared
with that of friction damped braces. The results showed superior performance of friction
dampers over rigid braces. It was concluded that, the use of Pall friction dampers provided a
practical and economical solution to the seismic upgrade of the justice headquarters building.
High-tech Seismic Design of Le Nouvel Europa, Montreal – Vassily Verganelakis and R.

Tina Pall [32]
This paper presented the seismic analysis details of Nouvel Europa, a luxury condominium
building complex in Montreal, Canada, with the help of Pall friction dampers in steel
bracings. The complex consists of two ten storey concrete frame structures with two
basement levels. As the developers wanted for high performance standards, supplemental
damping in the form of Pall friction dampers was chosen as the solution, instead of
conventional ductility based approaches. A series of three dimensional nonlinear time history
dynamic analyses were carried out in ETABS software, using three different earthquake
records, to get the optimum slip load of friction dampers. A total of 57 friction dampers
having slip loads of 600kN were installed in single diagonal bracings to achieve required
energy dissipation. It was concluded that, the use of Pall friction dampers provided a
practical, efficient and economical solution to the seismic control of the Europa building.
Friction Dampers for Seismic Control of Ambulatory Care Centre, Sharp Memorial
Hospital, San Diego, CA – Bharat Soli, Dennis Baerwald, Pete Krebs and R. Tina Pall
[33]
This paper presented the seismic analysis details of the Ambulatory Care Center building
located in San Diego, CA, with the help of Pall friction dampers. The building complex
consists of two four storey steel frame structures. As the buildings are of post disaster
importance, the use of supplemental damping was considered as the ideal solution for the
control of seismic forces. Friction and Viscous dampers were studied for the purpose, among
which friction dampers showed superior performance with minimum cost. A series of three
dimensional nonlinear time history dynamic analyses were carried out in ETABS software,
using three different pairs of earthquake records, to get the optimum slip load of friction
dampers. A total of 22 friction having slip loads of 100 to 330kips were used to get the least
response of the structure. It was concluded that, the use of Pall friction dampers provided a
practical, efficient and economical solution to the seismic control of the Ambulatory Care
Center buildings.
2.2 Findings from the Literature
The following conclusions can be drawn from the above discussed literatures.
 Friction damper is a type of Passive Energy Dissipation device (PED), which

dissipates the seismic energy purely by mechanical means and does not require any
external power source for its working.
 Friction dampers generally consist of steel plates connected with high strength steel
bolts. The plates are specially treated to develop reliable friction between them to
dissipate energy. During a major earthquake friction dampers slip at a predetermined
load called as slip load and dissipates a major portion of seismic energy.
 The slip in the friction damper occurs before yielding takes place in any of the
structural member and hence prevents or at least delays yielding of main structural
elements.
 Friction dampers generally posses large and rectangular hysteresis loops which
indicates high energy dissipation. These hysteresis loops are nearly stable and have a
negligible fade over large number of cycles of loads.
 The hysteresis loop or energy dissipating capacity of the friction dampers does not
depend upon the frequency of the excitation force.
 The area under the hysteresis loop increases linearly with the increase in displacement
amplitude of the damper. Thus the energy dissipating capacity of the friction damper
increases linearly with the displacement amplitude of the damper.
 Since the hysteresis loop of the friction damper is similar to the rectangular loop of a
perfectly elasto-plastic material, the slip load of friction damper may be considered as

a fictitious yield force. An elastic brace with a friction damper can be treated as a
brace which yields at slip load of damper.
 For every friction damper in a structural system, there exists a slip load which
minimizes the difference between the input seismic energy and dissipated energy by
the damper. This slip load is called as the optimum slip load of the friction damper.
Thus the optimal slip load corresponds to the least response of the structure and
maximum energy dissipation by the damper.
 Experimental and analytical studies confirm that, 10-15% variation in the optimum
slip load of the friction damper does not affect the performance of the structure much.
 The optimal slip load of the friction dampers increases with the number of storeys or
height of the building.
 During a major earthquake the slippage of friction damper in an elastic brace
constitutes artificial non linearity similar to the elasto – plastic behavior of steel. And
also the equivalent structural damping is proportional to the displacement amplitude
of the damper. Hence the friction damped buildings require the use of non linear time
history analysis to compute the required optimal slip load or design slip load.
 As it is known that different earthquake records even though of same magnitude gives
widely varying structural response, at least three pairs of earthquake time histories
suitable for the region has to be used for the analysis.
 Good reduction in the response can be achieved by the placement of the friction
dampers in optimal locations in the structure.
 Variation in the slip load along the height of the building instead of constant slip load
may result in the good reduction in the inter storey drift and some cost savings can
also be expected.
 The performance of friction dampers are not affected by the environmental factors
like temperature, weathering, stiffness degradation due to ageing etc. and hence
regular inspection is not required.
 Friction dampers are more durable, need less maintenance and can perform under
multiple earthquakes.
 Proper analysis and installation of the friction damper is a must for good performance
of the structure during an earthquake.

2.3 Gap Analysis
By the overview of literature, the areas having lack of research can be summarized as
follows.
 Most of the research works are limited to study on the performance of the friction
damped structures under some standard earthquake records like El Centro, Kobe,
Northridge etc. Studies on the performance of structures equipped with friction
dampers, under earthquake loads specified by the Indian Standard Codes for different
zones is required.
 The effectiveness of the friction dampers in different zones of India specified by the
Indian Standard Codes has to be studied.
 Limited information is available on comparison of the performance of friction
dampers in different bracing systems.
 Experimental investigations on the performance of friction dampers in steel bracings,
provided in the concrete frames are not available.
 Limited information is available on the shear wall structures provided with friction
dampers.
 More research is required regarding the performance of the friction dampers in high
rise structures (more than 20 storeys) is required.
 Proper information is not available on the performance of friction damper in different
soil conditions.
 There is no clear information or a proper procedure to find out the optimal locations
for the placing of friction dampers.
 Limited information is available in varying the slip load of the friction damper along
the height of the building.
 Even though friction dampers are most efficient among different type of passive
dampers, cost and performance comparative study on the different type of passive
energy dissipating devices are not enough.
 Development of design slip load spectrum for multi storey structure will simplify the
design of friction damped structures.

 More research to estimate the response reduction factor of the friction damped
structure under various slip loads and various height of the structure is required.
 Very less information is available regarding the performance of the friction damper
under repeated earthquake loadings.
 Limited information is available regarding the distribution slip loads in asymmetric
multi-storey buildings to minimize the response of the structures.
2.4 Objectives of the Present Study
The main objectives of the present study are
 To determine the effect of friction dampers on the response of the rigid plane and
space frames under earthquake excitations.
 To determine the suitability of friction dampers in earthquake resistant structures for
different seismic zones of India (specified by IS 1893:2002).
2.5 Need of the Present Investigation
In India, over many decades, earthquake resistant design of the structures was
dependent on the material ductility to dissipate the seismic energy induced in the structural
systems. During a major earthquake a large amount of energy will be induced into the
structure. The way in which this energy is dissipated in the structure decides the level of
damage. In the ductility based design, the energy will be dissipated by large inelastic
deformations in the structures causing bending, twisting and cracking and the structure may
collapse depending on the magnitude of earthquake and other factors. So by providing
ductility to the structure we can achieve life safety, as the structure gives enough warnings
before absolute collapse. But the damage control cannot be achieved to the required level.
The ductility based design also has the problem of highly congested reinforcement in beam
column joints in case of RC structures etc.
Many of the literatures showed that the seismic control of the structures using
friction dampers can provide an alternative, safe, efficient and economical approach for
earthquake resistant design of structures. However the studies on the performance of the
friction damped structures in controlling responses were limited to some standard earthquake
records. As India consists of four different seismic zones, the effectiveness of the friction
damped structure in controlling responses in various seismic zones of India is a topic of
interest. The present study focuses on the performance of friction damped frames and their
effectiveness in controlling the responses, in different seismic zones of India.
2.6 Methodology
The following methodology will be adopted in the present study. SAP2000 computer
program will be used for the analysis. The analysis will be divided into two parts viz. plane
frame analysis and space frame analysis.
2.6.1 Plane frame analysis
A 7 bay 25 storey plane reinforced concrete frame is considered for the present study.
The response quantities such as storey displacements, storey accelerations, inter storey drifts,
maximum base shear, and maximum beam and column forces were used to evaluate the
performance of friction dampers. The analysis involves following steps.
 Determination of response quantities without friction dampers: The above mentioned

response quantities will be determined for a rigid plane frame of 25 storeys without
any friction dampers for all the seismic zones of India
 Determination of optimum slip load of friction dampers: A series of nonlinear time
history dynamic analysis will be performed on the same frame provided with friction
dampers in single diagonal steel bracings for different slip loads. The slip load which
gives least response will be selected as the optimum slip load. The optimal slip load
of friction dampers will be obtained for all the seismic zones.
 Determination of response quantities with friction dampers: Once the optimum slip
load is obtained, the above mentioned response quantities will be determined for the
same frame provided with friction dampers of optimum slip load for all the seismic
zones.
 Comparison of the results: The response quantities obtained for the frame with
friction dampers is then compared with that of the frame without friction dampers.
The possible reduction in each of the response quantities, in each seismic zone, with

the use of friction dampers will be estimated. The suitability of the friction dampers
for different seismic zones will be determined based on the optimal slip load and
reduction in the response.
2.6.2 Space frame analysis
A G+8 storey space reinforced concrete frame is considered for the present study. The
response quantities such as storey displacements, storey accelerations, inter storey drifts,
maximum base shear, and maximum beam and column forces were used to evaluate the
performance of friction dampers. The analysis involves following steps.
 Determination of response quantities without friction dampers: The above mentioned

response quantities will be determined for a rigid space frame without any friction
dampers under El Centro (N-S component) and Indian seismic zone IV acceleration
time histories.
 Determination of optimum slip load of friction dampers: A series of nonlinear time
history dynamic analysis will be performed on the same frame provided with friction
dampers in single diagonal steel bracings for different slip loads. The slip load which
gives least response will be selected as the optimum slip load. The optimal slip load
of friction dampers will be obtained for zone IV time history.
 Determination of response quantities with friction dampers: Once the optimum slip
load is obtained, the above mentioned response quantities will be determined for the
same frame provided with friction dampers of optimum slip load for zone IV and El
Centro (N-S) time histories.
 Comparison of the results: The response quantities obtained for the frame with
friction dampers is then compared with that of the frame without friction dampers.
The possible reduction in each of the response quantities, under both earthquake
inputs, with the use of friction dampers will be estimated.

Chapter 3
MODELING AND ANALYSIS

The modeling and analysis of the friction damped structures was carried out using
SAP2000 (version 17) computer package. SAP2000 is capable of doing all types of
earthquake analysis such as equivalent static analysis, response spectrum analysis, push over
analysis and time history analysis. SAP2000 is provided with sufficient number of elements
for modeling beams, columns, slabs, isolators and different type of dampers. SAP2000
possesses excellent computational capabilities to do nonlinear time history analysis in a short
duration of time.
3.1 Nonlinear time history analysis in SAP2000
As the behavior of friction damper under the action of repeated loads is nonlinear, the
analysis of the friction damper requires nonlinear time history analysis. Many of the previous
studies confirm that the behavior of the friction damped structure can be predicted accurately
by the use of nonlinear time history analysis. In the present study, nonlinear modal time
history analysis provided by the SAP2000 is used.
The time history analysis requires the natural periods and mode shapes of the
structure. In order to get the natural periods, modal analysis was carried out. Eigen vectors
are used to obtain the period and mode shapes. The minimum and the maximum number of
modes, to be considered in the time history analysis, have to be specified while carrying out
modal analysis. The mass source which gives the amount of mass that will vibrate under
earthquake has to be predefined. The reduction factors for live load should be specified while
defining the mass source. The window provided by the SAP2000 for defining modal analysis
is shown in Figure 3.1.
Once the modal analysis is completed, the acceleration time history function such as
zone II, III, El Centro etc. which are to be used in the analysis have to be defined. The values
of accelerations will be loaded directly from a notepad file. The input file may contain time
and corresponding acceleration values or only acceleration values at equal interval of time

which has to be specified while defining the time history functions. The other input details
such as number of points per line, number of header lines to skip, number of prefix characters
per line should be entered based on the input file data. Once the input file is loaded properly,
the acceleration time history graph will be displayed. The window provided by the SAP2000
for defining the time history function is shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1: Defining modal analysis case in SAP2000
After defining the time history function, the nonlinear modal time history case has to
be defined. The mass source, analysis type (nonlinear), solution type (modal) and history
type (transient) are to be specified. The load type has to be selected as acceleration and
direction of the acceleration has to be specified along with the time history function and its
scale factor. In case of space frames two separate analysis cases have to be defined for two
directions. The scale factor will be given as 9.81 if the acceleration values are in terms of „g‟
or else as 1. The number of output time steps and output time step size are specified
depending on the duration of earthquake and required accuracy. The accuracy increases by
decreasing the output time step size. The value of material damping to be considered in all
modes has to be specified. After all these input, the analysis will be carried out and the
response of all the joints and frames can be obtained by „show plot functions‟ option. The
window provided by the SAP2000 for defining the nonlinear modal time history analysis is
shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.2: Defining time history function in SAP2000

Figure 3.3: Defining nonlinear modal time history analysis case in SAP2000
3.2 Modeling of friction damper in SAP2000
One of the major steps in the analysis of friction damped structures is to model the
friction dampers analytically. The modeling of the friction damper varies with the type of
bracing system used to provide the friction dampers. In the present study, the friction
dampers are provided in single diagonal steel bracings in all the analysis.
As the friction dampers possesses rectangular and stable hysteresis loops, which is
similar to the rectangular loop of a perfectly elasto plastic material, the slip load of the

friction damper is treated as a fictitious yield force. Hence the friction damper provided in a
single diagonal bracing can be modeled as a damped brace which yields at the slip load of the
friction damper.
SAP2000 provides a number of elements to model different type of dampers. In order

to model the friction dampers, plastic (Wen) link element is used. Both the bracing and the
friction damper are together modeled as a damped brace using a single plastic (Wen) link
element. An appropriate bracing having gross section yielding capacity greater than 1.3 times
of the slip load is assumed first. The mass and weight of the element are calculated assuming
it as a complete brace, because the addition of damper do not varies the mass of the brace
much. The friction dampers in single diagonal bracings are active in only the local axial
direction. Hence only one active degrees of freedom U1 is selected and as its behavior is
nonlinear, the nonlinear mark is ticked. As there is no case of rotation, rotational inertia R1,
R2 and R3 will be entered as zero. The window provided by the SAP2000 to define the
plastic (Wen) element is shown in Figure 3.4.
After specifying the active degree of freedom U1, the nonlinear properties of damper
in that direction has to be specified. The values of effective stiffness, yield strength, post
yield stiffness ratio and yielding exponent are required to describe the nonlinear properties of
the friction damper in the direction U1. The effective stiffness will be calculated based on the
cross sectional area of the brace and total length of the damped brace. None of the damper
properties are required while calculating the effective stiffness. Yield strength will be
specified in terms of the slip load of the friction dampers. It serves as a primary variable
having high impact on the response of the structure.
Post yield stiffness ratio is defined as the ratio of nonlinear stiffness of the damper to
its linear stiffness. As the hysteresis loop of the friction damper is almost a rectangle, a post
yield stiffness ratio of 0.0001 indicating very less nonlinear stiffness is suggested by Pall and
the same has been used in the analysis. Figure 3.5 shows a graphical representation of
hysteresis curve, where „r‟ indicates the post yield stiffness ratio and „k‟ indicates the linear
stiffness.
Yielding exponent is the one which determines the sharpness of transition from the
linear stiffness to the nonlinear stiffness. In case of friction dampers, as the hysteresis curves
shows a very sharp transition from linear to nonlinear stiffness, a yielding exponent of 10 is
suggested by Pall and the same has been used in the analysis. Yield strength, post yield
stiffness ratio and yielding exponent are purely the properties of the damper and are not
related to the properties of the brace. Only effective stiffness is calculated based on the
properties of brace. While varying the slip load, it has to be ensured that the brace strength is
more than 130% of the slip load. This allows the damper to get activated first before yielding
occurs in the brace.
Figure 3.4: Defining plastic (Wen) element in SAP2000

The brace to frame connections and brace to damper connections are also should be designed
for 130% of the slip load of the dampers. The window provided by the SAP2000 in defining
the nonlinear properties of the friction damper in the direction U1 is shown in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.5: Graphical representation of the hysteresis curve
Figure 3.6: Defining nonlinear properties of friction damper in the direction U1 in SAP2000
3.3 Input earthquake details
In the present study, the acceleration time histories corresponding to Indian seismic
zones (II, III, IV and V) specified by IS 1893:2002 and El Centro ground motion (N-S
component) are used for the analysis. The plane frame is analyzed under acceleration time
histories of all Indian seismic zones. The space frame was analyzed under zone IV and El
Centro acceleration time histories.
The acceleration time histories of zone II, III, IV and V, specified by IS 1893:2002,
are shown in Figure 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 respectively. The acceleration values are in m/sec 2
and the maximum acceleration values are 1.38 m/sec2, 2.21 m/sec2, 3.32 m/sec2 and 4.97
m/sec2 for zone II, III, IV and V respectively. The duration of the earthquake is 32 seconds.
Figure 3.7: Acceleration time history of zone II

Figure 3.8: Acceleration time history of zone III
Figure 3.9: Acceleration time history of zone IV

Figure 3.10: Acceleration time history of zone V
Figure 3.11: Acceleration time history of El Centro ground motion (N-S component)
The acceleration time history of El Centro ground motion (N-S component) is shown
in Figure 3.11. The acceleration values are in terms of „g‟ and the maximum acceleration is
0.3456g. The duration of strong ground shaking is around 30 seconds.
3.4 Description of the analytical models
One plane and one space frame model made up of reinforced concrete are considered
in the present study. In both the models, fixed support conditions are assumed and soil
structure interaction effects are neglected. A modal damping of 5% of the critical is
considered in all modes, in order to account for the material damping. P-Δ effects were
included to consider the effects of geometric nonlinearity. In both the models and in all zones
friction dampers are provided in the single diagonal steel bracings.
3.4.1 Plane frame model
As the multi storey buildings are very common nowadays, a 7 bay 25 storey
reinforced concrete model, made up of M30 concrete and Fe 415 steel was considered. Bay
width is taken as 5m, storey height as 3m and a plinth beam at 2m height. Hence the total
height and width of the frame is 77m and 35m respectively. Column and beam sizes are
600*600mm and 230*450mm respectively and are modeled as frame elements. For the
purpose of load calculations, frames were assumed to be spaced at 3.5m centre to centre with
one way distribution of loads. 150mm thick slab, 230mm thick wall, 1kN/m2 finishes load,
1.5kN/m2 live load on roof and 4kN/m2 live load on floors are considered. A live load
reduction factor of 0 for roof and 0.5 for all floors is considered in the earthquake analysis as
specified by the IS 1893:2002. The final loads on the frame and all other preliminary data of
the plane frame model are given Table 3.1. The safety of the frame is initially checked
against the load combination of 1.5(DL+LL).
The friction dampers are provided in the single diagonal steel bracings. In zone II, III,
and IV, the friction dampers are provided in the central bay with one damper per storey
resulting in total of 25 dampers as shown Figure 3.12. In zone V, the same approach was
tried first, but many of the beams and columns were failed. Hence friction dampers are
provided in second and sixth bay with two dampers per storey. Even though by providing 2
dampers per storey some of the beams are failed again. Hence additional six dampers each
are provided in first, last and central bay, to safeguard the frame from earthquake forces,
resulting in total of 68 dampers for the frame as shown in Figure 3.13.
Table 3.1 Preliminary data of the plane frame
Materials
Concrete M30
Steel Fe 415
Section Properties
Beam size 230*450mm
Column size 600*600mm
Bay width 5m
No. of bays 7
Total width 35m
Storey height 3m
Plinth height 2m
No. of storeys 25
Total height 77m
Final loads on beams (kN/m)
Dead Live
Roof beams 16.5 5.5 (R=0)
Plinth beams 12 0
Floor beams 28.5 14 (R=0.5)
Modal analysis
Fundamental period 4.47 sec
Max. No. of modes 30
Min. No. of modes 1
Single angle ISA 100*100*10 is used as the brace for zone II and III and its
properties and the calculation of effective stiffness are given in Table 3.2.

For zone IV and zone V, double angle ISA 100*100*8 is used as the brace. Its
properties and calculation of effective stiffness are given in Table 3.3.
Figure 3.12 Location of friction dampers in the plane frame for zone II, III and IV

Table 3.2: Brace details for zone II and III in plane frame analysis
Brace details for zone II and III

Brace used ISA 100*100*10
Cross sectional area (A) 19.03cm2
Weight 14.9kg/m
Total length of the brace (L) 5.086m
Total weight of the brace 75.78kg (0.7434kN)
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 200000MPa
Effective stiffness (K=AE/L) 74832.87kN/m
Gross section yielding capacity 432.5kN
Maximum slip load of the damper 332.69kN
Figure 3.13: Location of friction dampers in the plane frame for zone V
Table 3.3: Brace details for zone IV and V in plane frame analysis
Brace details for zone IV and V

Brace used 2 ISA 100*100*8
Weight 24.2kg/m
3.4.2 Space frame model
As all the practical buildings are three dimensional structures, the performance of the
friction dampers in a space frame model was verified under zone IV and El Centro
acceleration time histories. For the purpose of analysis, a G+8 storey reinforced concrete
frame model made up of M30 concrete and Fe500 steel was considered. Bay width is taken
as 5m with 5 numbers of bays in both the directions, resulting in the total dimensions of
25*25m. The storey height is taken as 3m with a plinth beam at 1.5m height, resulting in the
total height of 28.5m. Column and beam sizes are 500*500mm and 230*450mm respectively
and are modeled as frame elements. Thin plate element is used to model the slabs. 175mm
thick slab, 230mm thick wall, a parapet wall of 230mm thick and 0.9m height on exterior
roof beams, 1.5kN/m2 finishes load, 1.5kN/m2 live load on roof and 4kN/m2 live load on
floors are considered. A live load reduction factor of 0 for roof and 0.5 for all floors is
considered in the earthquake analysis as specified by the IS 1893:2002. The final loads on the
frame and all other preliminary data of the plane frame model are given Table 3.4. The safety
of the frame is initially checked against the load combination of 1.5(DL+LL).
The friction dampers are provided in single diagonal steel bracings. As it is a space
frame, the dampers need to be provided in both the directions and also, as the building is

identical in both the directions, the dampers can also be provided in the similar manner in
both the directions and hence, the response of the structure will also be same in both the
directions. The dampers are provided in the central bay throughout the periphery of the frame
as shown in Figure 3.14. In the interior of the frame, dampers are provided in second and
Table 3.4: Preliminary data of the space frame
Materials
Concrete M30
Steel Fe 500
Section Properties
Beam size 230*450mm
Column size 500*500mm
Slab thickness 175mm
Bay width 5m
No. of bays 5 in both directions
Total width 25m in both directions
Storey height 3m
Plinth height 1.5m
No. of storeys 9
Total height 28.5m
Loads on slabs and beams
Finishes kN/m2 Live kN/m2 Wall kN/m Parapet kN/m
Floor slabs 1.5 4 (R=0.5) - -
Roof slabs 1.5 1.5 (R=0) - -
Floor beams - - 12 -
Roof beams
(Exterior) - - - 4.5
Modal analysis
Fundamental period 1.56 sec
Max. No. of modes 15
Min. No. of modes 1
Table 3.5: Brace details in space frame analysis
Brace details for zone IV and El Centro input

Brace used 2 ISA 100*100*8
Weight 24.2kg/m
Figure 3.14: Location of friction dampers in the periphery of the space frame
fourth bay throughout as shown in Figure 3.15. It resulted in total of 10 friction dampers in
each direction per storey and hence a total of 180 friction dampers for the frame with
dampers in each direction. Figure 3.16 shows the three dimensional view of the damped
frame, modeled in SAP2000. Double angle ISA 100*100*8 is used as the brace. Its
properties and calculations of effective stiffness are given Table 3.5.
Figure 3.15: Location of the friction dampers in the interior of the space frame

Figure 3.16: Three dimensional view of the damped frame modeled in SAP2000

Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Plane frame analysis results
The 7 bay 25 storey plane frame was analyzed under zone II, III, IV and V
acceleration time histories and their results were used to determine the suitability of friction
dampers for different seismic zones of India. The optimal slip load of the friction dampers
was determined first for each zone and then the responses such as forces, accelerations and
displacements of the friction damped frame were compared with that of the bare frame.
4.1.1 Plane frame analysis results for zone II
4.1.1.1 Determination of optimal slip load for zone II
The optimal slip load corresponds to the maximum energy dissipation and the
minimum response of the structure. The criteria used in selecting the optimal slip load are
maximum displacement of the roof, maximum base shear, percentage of input energy
dissipated by the dampers, safety of the structure and maximum axial loads in the columns
due to earthquake. However in case of zone II, the frame designed to resist the gravity loads
was capable of resisting earthquake induced forces also. Hence the optimal slip load was
selected based on the minimum response. The detailed results obtained by using the
nonlinear time history analysis to select the optimal slip load of the dampers for zone II is
given in Table 4.1. The variation of the maximum roof displacement, maximum forces (base
shear and axial loads) and the percentage of energy dissipated by the dampers with slip load
of the friction dampers is shown in Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 respectively.

Figure 4.1: Variation of the maximum displacement with slip load of the dampers for zone II
Figure 4.2: Variation of the maximum forces with slip load of the dampers for zone II
Figure 4.3: Variation of the energy dissipation with slip load of the dampers for zone II

Table 4.1: Determination of optimal slip load for the plane frame for zone II
Slip Load Total Total Percentage of No. of Max. Max. Max. Axial
of the Input Energy Total Input Beams Base Displ. of Force in
Friction Energy Dissipated Energy Failed Shear the Top the
Damper in in kN-m by the Dissipated by in kN Storey in Members
kN Dampers the Dampers mm in kN
in kN-m (%)
0 215.7 0.0 0.00 0 771.5 97.98 558.3
25 228.5 88.1 38.55 0 611.8 90.38 519.5
50 225.7 102.5 45.41 0 536.9 82.38 472.4
75 218.8 94.2 43.03 0 471.2 80.17 463.6
100 212.9 79.9 37.55 0 523.3 81.72 473.8
125 206.9 64.1 30.97 0 583.4 83.45 485.1
150 200.8 49.3 24.53 0 620.8 85.60 498.3
175 195.8 37.4 19.09 0 647.7 88.33 514.2
200 192.7 29.1 15.10 0 664.1 91.00 531.0
From the results of the nonlinear time history analysis, the optimal slip load of the
friction dampers for the plane frame for zone II was selected as 75kN. From Figures 4.1, 4.2
and 4.3, it was concluded that both forces and displacements were minimum at the optimal
slip load and also the energy dissipated by the friction dampers was maximum at the optimal
slip load.
4.1.1.2 Comparison of responses of the plane frame for zone II
The response quantities that were used to compare the friction damped frame with the
bare frame includes maximum storey displacements, maximum storey accelerations, inter
storey drifts, maximum storey shear, maximum beam moments due to the earthquake,
maximum column axial load and moments due to earthquake. The reduction in each of the
response quantities at each storey level was found out and then the percentage reduction at
each storey level and average reduction in the response quantities were determined. The

Table 4.2: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Floor Maximum Maximum Reduction in Percentage Reduction

Number Displacement for Displacement for Displacement in in Displacement (%)
Bare Frame in mm Damped Frame in mm
mm
25 97.98 80.17 17.81 18.18
24 97.14 79.09 18.05 18.58
23 95.94 77.64 18.30 19.07
22 94.19 75.78 18.41 19.55
21 91.79 73.61 18.18 19.81
20 88.76 71.33 17.43 19.64
19 85.23 68.95 16.28 19.10
18 81.35 66.45 14.90 18.32
17 77.07 63.83 13.24 17.18
16 72.63 61.49 11.14 15.34
15 69.56 59.02 10.54 15.15
14 67.50 56.09 11.41 16.90
13 65.48 52.72 12.76 19.49
12 63.14 49.21 13.93 22.06
11 60.45 45.77 14.68 24.28
10 59.29 43.17 16.12 27.19
9 56.62 41.15 15.47 27.32
8 53.33 38.35 14.98 28.09
7 49.08 34.73 14.35 29.24
6 43.80 30.44 13.36 30.50
5 37.56 25.64 11.92 31.74
4 30.54 20.46 10.08 33.01
3 22.96 15.10 7.86 34.23
2 15.14 9.78 5.36 35.39
1 7.56 4.82 2.75 36.33
Plinth 1.56 0.99 0.58 36.86
Ground 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg Reduction in Displacement (%)= 24.33

maximum displacements at each storey level for the frame with and without friction dampers
are given in Table 4.2 and the corresponding variation in Figure 4.4.
It was observed that on average displacements were reduced by 24.33% and also the
reduction is more in the lower storeys compare to the higher storeys.
Figure 4.4: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Figure 4.5: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone II

The maximum accelerations at each storey level for the frame with and without
friction dampers are given in Table 4.3 and the corresponding variation is shown in Figure
4.5. It was found that the average reduction in the acceleration is 4.84% and at some storeys
the acceleration was more for the damped frame than that of the bare frame.
Figure 4.6: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Figure 4.7: Maximum storey shear for the frame with and without dampers for zone II

Table 4.3: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Maximum Maximum
Reduction in
Floor Acceleration for Acceleration for Percentage Reduction
Acceleration in
Number Bare Frame in Damped Frame in in Acceleration (%)
m/sec2
m/sec2 m/sec2
25 2.008 1.812 0.196 9.76
24 1.797 1.638 0.159 8.85
23 1.611 1.493 0.118 7.32
22 1.435 1.493 -0.058 -4.04
21 1.401 1.399 0.002 0.14
20 1.394 1.377 0.017 1.22
19 1.631 1.322 0.309 18.95
18 1.743 1.395 0.348 19.97
17 1.739 1.491 0.248 14.26
16 1.678 1.554 0.124 7.39
15 1.584 1.535 0.049 3.09
14 1.603 1.520 0.083 5.18
13 1.600 1.490 0.110 6.88
12 1.615 1.562 0.053 3.28
11 1.618 1.721 -0.103 -6.37
10 1.562 1.746 -0.184 -11.78
9 1.589 1.599 -0.010 -0.63
8 1.618 1.621 -0.003 -0.19
7 1.554 1.722 -0.168 -10.81
6 1.887 1.832 0.055 2.91
5 1.963 1.634 0.329 16.76
4 1.553 1.557 -0.004 -0.26
3 1.690 1.539 0.151 8.93
2 1.510 1.326 0.184 12.19
1 1.009 0.920 0.089 8.78
Plinth 0.260 0.249 0.010 3.97
Ground 0.000 0.000 0.000
Avg Reduction in Acceleration (%) = 4.84

The maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without friction dampers are
given in Table 4.4 and the corresponding variation is given in Figure 4.6. It was observed
that the average reduction in the inter storey drifts is only 5.09% and at some storeys the
drifts are more in the damped frame than the bare frame. However, the maximum drifts at the
lower storeys were well reduced in case of friction damped frame.
The maximum storey shears at each storey level for the frame with and without
dampers are given in Table 4.5 and the corresponding variation is given in Figure 4.7. It was
observed that on average 23.68% of the storey shears were reduced by the introduction of
friction dampers.
The maximum beam moments at each storey level for the frame with and without
friction dampers induced due to the earth quake were given in Table 4.6 and the
corresponding variation is shown in Figure 4.8. It was observed that 31.25% of the beam
moments induced due to the earthquake was reduced by the introduction of friction dampers.
The maximum column axial loads and column moments induced due to the
earthquake at each storey level were given in Table 4.7 and Table 4.8 respectively and the
corresponding variations were shown in Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 respectively. It was
observed that on average 33% of the column forces were reduced due to the introduction of
the friction dampers.
Figure 4.8: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Table 4.4: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Maximum Storey Maximum Storey Percentage Reduction

Floor Reduction in Inter
Drift for Bare Drift for Damped in Inter Storey Drift
Number storey Drift
Frame Frame (%)
25 0.00028 0.00036 -8E-05 -28.57

24 0.0004 0.000483333 -8.33333E-05 -20.83
23 0.000583333 0.00062 -3.66667E-05 -6.29
22 0.0008 0.000723333 7.66667E-05 9.58
21 0.00101 0.00076 0.00025 24.75
20 0.001176667 0.000793333 0.000383333 32.58
19 0.001293333 0.000833333 0.00046 35.57
18 0.001426667 0.000873333 0.000553333 38.79
17 0.00148 0.00078 0.0007 47.30
16 0.001023333 0.000823333 0.0002 19.54
15 0.000686667 0.000976667 -0.00029 -42.23
14 0.000673333 0.001123333 -0.00045 -66.83
13 0.00078 0.00117 -0.00039 -50.00
12 0.000896667 0.001146667 -0.00025 -27.88
11 0.000386667 0.000866667 -0.00048 -124.14
10 0.00089 0.000673333 0.000216667 24.34
9 0.001096667 0.000933333 0.000163333 14.89
8 0.001416667 0.001206667 0.00021 14.82
7 0.00176 0.00143 0.00033 18.75
6 0.00208 0.0016 0.00048 23.08
5 0.00234 0.001726667 0.000613333 26.21
4 0.002526667 0.001786667 0.00074 29.29
3 0.002606667 0.001772667 0.000834 31.99
2 0.002526 0.001655667 0.000870333 34.46
1 0.001999333 0.001275833 0.0007235 36.19
Plinth 0.000782 0.00049375 0.00028825 36.86
Ground
Avg Reduction in Inter Storey Drifts (%) = 5.09

Table 4.5: Maximum storey shears for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Maximum
Maximum Storey Reduction in
Storey Storey Shear for Percentage Reduction
Shear for Damped Storey Shear in
Number Bare Frame in in Storey Shear (%)
Frame in kN kN
kN
25 114.08 93.09 20.99 18.40
24 294.94 206.70 88.24 29.92
23 430.91 274.31 156.60 36.34
22 530.26 327.77 202.49 38.19
21 581.68 365.30 216.38 37.20
20 621.43 401.17 220.26 35.44
19 645.75 431.11 214.64 33.24
18 652.86 463.44 189.42 29.01
17 626.13 466.72 159.41 25.46
16 563.92 427.07 136.85 24.27
15 534.90 382.41 152.49 28.51
14 535.60 419.63 115.97 21.65
13 518.70 471.51 47.19 9.10
12 523.88 497.43 26.45 5.05
11 532.06 499.03 33.03 6.21
10 555.93 496.05 59.88 10.77
9 550.29 470.95 79.34 14.42
8 587.83 464.28 123.55 21.02
7 615.23 485.40 129.83 21.10
6 630.79 538.31 92.48 14.66
5 665.94 551.34 114.60 17.21
4 689.57 562.96 126.61 18.36
3 713.57 549.84 163.73 22.95
2 725.77 523.03 202.74 27.93
1 763.73 532.29 231.44 30.30
Ground 771.51 471.17 300.34 38.93
Avg Reduction in Storey Shear (%) = 23.68

Table 4.6: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Maximum Beam Maximum Beam Reduction in Percentage

Floor
Moment for Bare Moment for Damped Beam Moment in Reduction in Beam
Number
Frame in kN-m Frame in kN-m kN-m Moment (%)
25 34.8 28.6 6.2 17.91

24 54.9 36.8 18.1 32.94
23 79.1 46.6 32.5 41.04
22 99.9 56.0 43.9 43.95
21 114.4 65.1 49.3 43.11
20 126.6 72.9 53.7 42.43
19 133.7 77.7 56.0 41.87
18 136.8 84.1 52.8 38.56
17 134.1 87.2 46.9 34.97
16 125.1 83.3 41.8 33.42
15 112.1 76.6 35.5 31.65
14 114.1 76.2 37.9 33.23
13 113.0 82.1 30.9 27.31
12 108.5 89.4 19.1 17.59
11 109.9 91.0 18.9 17.23
10 108.2 87.2 21.0 19.45
9 105.3 82.4 22.9 21.72
8 112.8 80.0 32.8 29.11
7 119.7 81.4 38.3 32.01
6 124.9 91.8 33.1 26.52
5 129.5 97.7 31.9 24.59
4 135.0 99.5 35.5 26.32
3 139.9 97.8 42.1 30.12
2 137.2 91.1 46.1 33.57
1 123.1 79.6 43.5 35.35
Plinth 73.9 47.0 27.0 36.48
Avg Reduction in Beam Moments (%) = 31.25

Table 4.7: Maximum column axial loads for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Percentage
Maximum Column Maximum Column Reduction in
Storey Reduction in
Axial Load for Bare Axial Load for Damped Column Axial
Number Column Axial
Frame in kN Frame in kN Load in kN
Load (%)
25 9.4 6.3 3.1 33.18
24 25.8 22.8 3.0 11.55
23 52.2 42.1 10.0 19.24
22 87.2 61.0 26.2 30.04
21 127.8 79.4 48.4 37.88
20 169.4 97.0 72.4 42.73
19 209.6 113.7 95.9 45.75
18 258.0 129.5 128.5 49.81
17 304.9 145.9 159.0 52.15
16 348.0 168.6 179.4 51.55
15 385.2 189.8 195.4 50.73
14 415.1 209.7 205.4 49.48
13 437.5 228.0 209.5 47.89
12 453.5 244.4 209.1 46.11
11 463.8 258.2 205.6 44.33
10 469.4 278.3 191.1 40.71
9 471.6 298.9 172.7 36.62
8 471.1 318.6 152.5 32.37
7 467.5 338.6 128.9 27.57
6 472.3 361.1 111.2 23.54
5 489.0 383.6 105.4 21.55
4 503.2 405.2 98.0 19.48
3 516.1 424.9 91.2 17.67
2 531.8 441.7 90.1 16.94
1 547.9 456.0 91.9 16.77
Ground 558.3 463.6 94.7 16.96
Avg Reduction in Column Axial Loads (%) = 33.95

Table 4.8: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
Moment for Bare Moment for Damped Column Moment
Number Column Moment
Frame in kN-m Frame in kN-m in kN-m
(%)
25 33.7 17.7 16.0 47.48
24 31.9 26.1 5.7 17.93
23 66.3 34.5 31.8 47.98
22 95.3 49.7 45.6 47.88
21 123.9 59.3 64.6 52.13
20 136.8 70.4 66.5 48.57
19 139.6 77.5 62.1 44.46
18 148.0 84.5 63.5 42.91
17 153.9 97.5 56.4 36.66
16 150.1 100.9 49.2 32.78
15 136.7 91.7 45.0 32.92
14 121.6 75.5 46.1 37.91
13 123.8 80.1 43.7 35.32
12 123.6 94.0 29.6 23.96
11 118.4 101.1 17.3 14.61
10 122.6 99.5 23.1 18.86
9 133.1 98.1 35.0 26.28
8 132.6 91.8 40.8 30.74
7 123.8 92.4 31.4 25.40
6 132.5 95.8 36.7 27.71
5 137.8 106.4 31.4 22.79
4 148.3 113.6 34.7 23.40
3 162.5 120.4 42.1 25.91
2 182.6 124.0 58.6 32.09
1 236.4 152.1 84.3 35.66
Ground 293.0 185.3 107.7 36.76
Avg Reduction in Column Moments (%) = 33.43

Figure 4.9: Maximum column axial loads for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
Figure 4.10: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone II
4.1.2 Plane frame analysis results for zone III
4.1.2.1 Determination of optimal slip load for zone III
due to earthquake. However in case of zone III also, the frame designed to resist the gravity
loads was capable of resisting earthquake induced forces also. Hence the optimal slip load
was selected based on the minimum response. The detailed results obtained by using the
nonlinear time history analysis to select the optimal slip load of the dampers for zone III is
given in Table 4.9. The variation of the maximum roof displacement, maximum forces (base
shear and axial loads) and the percentage of energy dissipated by the dampers with slip load
of the friction dampers is shown in Figure 4.11, Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13 respectively.
Figure 4.11: Variation of the maximum displacement with slip load of the dampers for zone
III

Table 4.9: Determination of optimal slip load for the plane frame for zone III
Slip Total Percentage of Max.

Total Max.
Load of Energy Total Input Max. Axial
Input No. of Displ. of
the Dissipated Energy Base Force in
Energy Beams the Top
Friction by the Dissipated by Shear in the
in kN- Failed Storey in
Damper Dampers the Dampers kN Members
m mm
in kN in kN-m (%) in kN
0 552.6 0.0 0.00 0 1235.0 156.8 893.7
25 576.3 177.5 30.80 0 1020.0 149.9 862.4
50 587.4 244.8 41.68 0 954.7 141.6 812.2
75 580.6 262.7 45.25 0 876.1 133.5 764.9
100 568.6 255.2 44.88 0 792.8 128.1 736.1
125 518.3 237.1 45.75 0 761.7 128.6 744.3
150 509.3 214.5 42.12 0 803.3 130.1 754.0
175 500.8 189.6 37.86 0 880.7 132.0 765.7
200 491.7 164.2 33.39 0 933.8 133.6 776.7
225 483.0 139.8 28.94 0 974.0 135.5 788.8
250 475.5 117.8 24.77 0 1005.0 138.2 804.2
Figure 4.12: Variation of the maximum forces with slip load of the dampers for zone III

Figure 4.13: Variation of the energy dissipation with slip load of the dampers for zone III
friction dampers for the plane frame for zone III was selected as 125kN. From Figures 4.11,
4.12 and 4.13, it was concluded that both forces and displacements were minimum at the
optimal slip load and also the energy dissipated by the friction dampers was maximum at the
optimal slip load.
4.1.2.2 Comparison of responses of the plane frame for zone III

Table 4.10: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Maximum Maximum
Reduction in
Floor Displacement for Displacement for Percentage Reduction
Displacement in
Number Bare Frame in Damped Frame in in Displacement (%)
mm
mm mm
25 156.8 128.6 28.2 17.98
24 155.5 126.8 28.7 18.46
23 153.6 124.4 29.2 19.01
22 150.8 121.3 29.5 19.56
21 146.9 117.8 29.1 19.81
20 142.1 114.1 28.0 19.70
19 136.4 110.2 26.2 19.21
18 130.2 106.1 24.1 18.51
17 123.4 101.9 21.5 17.42
16 116.3 98.2 18.1 15.57
15 111.3 94.3 17.0 15.29
14 108.0 89.6 18.4 17.01
13 104.8 84.3 20.5 19.58
12 101.0 78.8 22.2 22.02
11 98.2 73.3 24.9 25.37
10 94.9 69.7 25.2 26.56
9 90.6 66.5 24.2 26.67
8 85.4 61.9 23.4 27.43
7 78.5 56.1 22.4 28.56
6 70.1 49.2 20.9 29.83
5 60.1 41.1 19.0 31.59
4 48.9 33.0 15.8 32.41
3 36.7 24.4 12.4 33.67
2 24.2 15.8 8.4 34.81
1 12.1 7.8 4.3 35.78
Plinth 2.5 1.6 0.9 36.29
Ground 0.0 0.0 0.0
Avg Reduction in Displacement (%) = 24.16

4.15. It was found that the average reduction in the acceleration is 4.61% and at some storeys
the acceleration was more for the damped frame than that of the bare frame.
Figure 4.14: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Figure 4.15: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Table 4.11: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Maximum Maximum
Reduction in
Acceleration in
m/sec2
m/sec2 m/sec2
25 3.213 2.932 0.281 8.75
24 2.876 2.642 0.234 8.14
23 2.581 2.406 0.175 6.78
22 2.293 2.400 -0.107 -4.67
21 2.243 2.264 -0.021 -0.94
20 2.231 2.216 0.015 0.67
19 2.610 2.127 0.483 18.51
18 2.789 2.226 0.563 20.19
17 2.792 2.378 0.414 14.83
16 2.695 2.479 0.216 8.01
15 2.537 2.446 0.091 3.59
14 2.566 2.435 0.131 5.11
13 2.564 2.378 0.186 7.25
12 2.583 2.510 0.073 2.83
11 2.587 2.751 -0.164 -6.34
10 2.500 2.792 -0.292 -11.68
9 2.542 2.547 -0.005 -0.20
8 2.591 2.626 -0.035 -1.35
7 2.486 2.786 -0.300 -12.07
6 3.026 2.960 0.066 2.18
5 3.142 2.619 0.523 16.65
4 2.485 2.492 -0.007 -0.28
3 2.701 2.468 0.233 8.63
2 2.413 2.130 0.283 11.73
1 1.620 1.480 0.140 8.64
Plinth 0.417 0.396 0.021 5.01
Ground 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 4.12: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Maximum Maximum Storey Percentage

Storey Drift for Drift for Damped Reduction in Inter
Number storey Drift
Bare Frame Frame Storey Drift (%)
25 0.000433333 0.0006 -0.000166667 -38.46

24 0.000633333 0.0008 -0.000166667 -26.32
23 0.000933333 0.001033333 -0.0001 -10.71
22 0.0013 0.001166667 0.000133333 10.26
21 0.0016 0.001233333 0.000366667 22.92
20 0.0019 0.0013 0.0006 31.58
19 0.002066667 0.001366667 0.0007 33.87
18 0.002266667 0.0014 0.000866667 38.24
17 0.002366667 0.001236667 0.00113 47.75
16 0.001666667 0.001303333 0.000363333 21.80
15 0.0011 0.00155 -0.00045 -40.91
14 0.001066667 0.001783333 -0.000716667 -67.19
13 0.001266667 0.00184 -0.000573333 -45.26
12 0.00095 0.001836667 -0.000886667 -93.33
11 0.001086667 0.001186667 -1E-04 -9.20
10 0.001423333 0.00108 0.000343333 24.12
9 0.001756667 0.001503333 0.000253333 14.42
8 0.00227 0.001943333 0.000326667 14.39
7 0.002813333 0.002306667 0.000506667 18.01
6 0.00333 0.00269 0.00064 19.22
5 0.003743333 0.002693333 0.00105 28.05
4 0.004046667 0.00289 0.001156667 28.58
3 0.004173333 0.00286 0.001313333 31.47
2 0.00404 0.002673 0.001367 33.84
1 0.003199333 0.002059 0.001140333 35.64
Plinth 0.001251 0.000797 0.000454 36.29
Ground

dampers are given in Table 4.13 and the corresponding variation is given in Figure 4.17. It
was observed that on average 23.38% of the storey shears were reduced by the introduction
of friction dampers.
observed that on average 33% of the column forces were reduced due to the introduction of
the friction dampers.
Figure 4.16: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Table 4.13: Maximum storey shears for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Maximum Storey Maximum Storey Reduction in Percentage

Storey
Shear for Bare Shear for Damped Storey Shear in Reduction in Storey
Number
Frame in kN Frame in kN kN Shear (%)
25 182.55 145.98 36.57 20.03

24 471.97 302.45 169.52 35.92
23 689.56 440.81 248.75 36.07
22 848.50 529.33 319.17 37.62
21 930.79 589.60 341.19 36.66
20 994.06 649.05 345.01 34.71
19 1033.37 696.87 336.50 32.56
18 1044.86 748.95 295.91 28.32
17 1002.17 750.82 251.35 25.08
16 902.73 686.25 216.48 23.98
15 856.47 613.86 242.61 28.33
14 857.63 672.73 184.90 21.56
13 830.47 757.48 72.99 8.79
12 838.32 801.59 36.73 4.38
11 851.36 806.65 44.71 5.25
10 889.19 803.90 85.29 9.59
9 880.83 755.29 125.54 14.25
8 940.91 747.68 193.23 20.54
7 984.74 784.72 200.02 20.31
6 1009.68 869.69 139.99 13.86
5 1065.93 893.33 172.60 16.19
4 1103.43 912.56 190.87 17.30
3 1141.90 890.90 251.00 21.98
2 1161.44 847.53 313.91 27.03
1 1222.23 863.61 358.62 29.34
Ground 1234.69 761.69 473.00 38.31

Table 4.14: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone III

Floor
Number
25 55.7 46.7 9.1 16.31

24 87.9 59.9 28.0 31.88
23 126.6 75.6 51.0 40.31
22 159.9 90.5 69.4 43.41
21 183.0 104.9 78.1 42.68
20 202.5 117.5 85.0 41.98
19 213.9 125.7 88.2 41.23
18 218.9 135.5 83.4 38.10
17 214.7 140.4 74.3 34.61
16 200.2 133.8 66.4 33.17
15 179.5 122.9 56.6 31.53
14 182.7 122.0 60.7 33.22
13 180.9 131.4 49.5 27.36
12 173.8 143.4 30.4 17.49
11 175.8 146.2 29.6 16.84
10 173.2 140.4 32.8 18.94
9 168.4 133.4 35.0 20.78
8 180.5 127.6 52.9 29.31
7 191.5 130.8 60.7 31.70
6 200.0 147.8 52.2 26.10
5 207.3 157.5 49.8 24.02
4 216.0 160.7 55.3 25.60
3 223.9 157.9 66.0 29.48
2 219.5 147.2 72.3 32.94
1 197.0 128.5 68.5 34.77
Plinth 118.3 75.8 42.5 35.90

Table 4.15: Maximum column axial loads for the frame with and without dampers for zone
III
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
Number Column Axial Load
(%)
25 15.0 10.3 4.7 31.33
24 41.3 37.8 3.5 8.52
23 83.5 69.7 13.7 16.46
22 139.5 100.8 38.7 27.74
21 204.5 131.1 73.4 35.89
20 271.0 160.2 110.8 40.89
19 335.3 187.9 147.4 43.96
18 412.7 213.9 198.8 48.17
17 487.7 238.1 249.6 51.18
16 556.8 271.3 285.5 51.28
15 616.4 305.4 311.0 50.45
14 664.2 337.4 326.8 49.20
13 700.2 367.1 333.1 47.57
12 725.7 393.7 332.0 45.75
11 742.3 416.2 326.1 43.93
10 751.4 444.3 307.1 40.87
9 754.2 477.5 276.7 36.69
8 755.0 509.7 245.3 32.49
7 748.5 544.1 204.4 27.31
6 756.2 580.3 175.9 23.26
5 783.0 616.4 166.6 21.28
4 805.7 650.9 154.8 19.21
3 826.2 682.4 143.8 17.40
2 851.3 709.2 142.1 16.69
1 877.1 732.2 144.9 16.52
Ground 893.7 744.3 149.4 16.72
Avg Reduction in Column Axial Load (%) = 33.11
Table 4.16: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
(%)
25 53.9 27.9 26.1 48.31
24 51.0 42.5 8.5 16.71
23 106.0 55.4 50.6 47.71
22 152.4 78.8 73.6 48.32
21 198.2 95.5 102.7 51.82
20 219.0 113.2 105.8 48.31
19 223.3 124.8 98.5 44.11
18 236.8 136.3 100.5 42.44
17 246.3 156.9 89.4 36.30
16 240.2 161.6 78.6 32.72
15 218.8 147.0 71.8 32.82
14 194.7 121.4 73.3 37.65
13 198.2 127.6 70.6 35.62
12 197.9 150.1 47.8 24.15
11 189.4 162.2 27.2 14.36
10 196.1 160.3 35.8 18.26
9 212.9 158.5 54.4 25.55
8 212.1 146.2 65.9 31.07
7 198.2 147.7 50.5 25.48
6 212.1 154.0 58.1 27.39
5 220.5 171.1 49.4 22.40
4 237.5 183.4 54.1 22.78
3 260.0 194.3 65.7 25.27
2 292.2 200.2 92.0 31.49
1 378.3 245.5 132.8 35.10
Ground 469.0 299.3 169.7 36.18

Figure 4.17: Maximum storey shear for the frame with and without dampers for zone III
Figure 4.18: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone III

Figure 4.19: Maximum column axial loads for the frame with and without dampers for zone
III
Figure 4.20: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone III

4.1.3 Plane frame analysis results for zone IV
4.1.3.1 Determination of optimal slip load for zone IV
due to earthquake. In case of zone IV, the frame designed to resist the gravity loads was not
capable of resisting earthquake induced forces. When the damper element is introduced and
the slip load is increased, the failure of the members decreased and the frame was completely
safe when the slip load was between 100kN to 300kN. When the slip load is further increased
beyond 300kN, the failure again started and the failure of members increased with the slip
load. Hence the optimal slip load should lie between 100kN to 300kN and was selected based
on the minimum response. The detailed results obtained by using the nonlinear time history
analysis to select the optimal slip load of the dampers for zone IV is given in Table 4.17. The
variation of the maximum roof displacement, maximum forces (base shear and axial loads)
and the percentage of energy dissipated by the dampers with slip load of the friction dampers
is shown in Figure 4.21, Figure 4.22 and Figure 4.23 respectively.
IV
Table 4.17: Determination of optimal slip load for the plane frame for zone IV
Total Percentage of Max.

Slip Load Max.
Total Energy Total Input Max. Axial
of the No. of Displ. of
Input Dissipated Energy Base Force in
Friction Beams the Top
Energy in by the Dissipated by Shear in the
Damper Failed Storey in
kN-m Dampers the Dampers kN Members
in kN mm
in kN-m (%) in kN
0 1142 0.0 0.00 140 1853 235.2 1340
50 1204 488.4 40.56 20 1473 219.1 1267
100 1207 635.3 52.63 0 1323 205.3 1180
150 1187 664.8 56.01 0 1225 191.8 1098
200 1191 661.7 55.56 0 1196 186.6 1072
225 1198 654.2 54.61 0 1207 187.2 1082
250 1204 642.6 53.37 0 1234 188.3 1091
300 1213 611.0 50.37 0 1311 191.1 1109
350 1221 574.4 47.04 3 1401 194.6 1129
400 1229 535.0 43.53 11 1479 198.5 1151
450 1234 493.8 40.02 17 1541 202.8 1176
500 1237 452.9 36.61 23 1593 208.0 1206
550 1243 415.7 33.44 26 1642 213.7 1239
Figure 4.22: Variation of the maximum forces with slip load of the dampers for zone IV

Figure 4.23: Variation of the energy dissipation with slip load of the dampers for zone IV
friction dampers for the plane frame for zone IV was selected as 200kN. From Figures 4.21,
optimal slip load.
4.1.3.2 Comparison of responses of the plane frame for zone IV

Table 4.18: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Maximum
Maximum Reduction in
Floor Displacement for Percentage Reduction
Displacement for Displacement in
Number Damped Frame in in Displacement (%)
Bare Frame in mm mm
mm
25 235.2 186.6 48.6 20.66
24 233.2 184.0 49.2 21.10
23 230.3 180.6 49.7 21.58
22 226.1 176.6 49.5 21.89
21 220.4 171.8 48.6 22.05
20 213.1 166.4 46.7 21.91
19 204.6 160.2 44.4 21.70
18 195.3 153.4 41.9 21.45
17 185.0 146.2 38.8 20.97
16 174.4 139.9 34.5 19.78
15 167.0 133.8 33.2 19.88
14 162.1 127.1 35.0 21.59
13 157.2 120.3 36.9 23.47
12 151.6 112.9 38.7 25.53
11 147.4 104.8 42.6 28.90
10 142.5 96.2 46.4 32.53
9 136.0 90.9 45.1 33.18
8 128.1 85.5 42.6 33.24
7 117.9 78.5 39.4 33.44
6 105.2 69.6 35.7 33.89
5 90.2 59.1 31.1 34.46
4 73.4 47.6 25.8 35.12
3 55.2 35.4 19.8 35.90
2 36.4 23.2 13.2 36.28
1 18.2 11.6 6.6 36.05
Plinth 3.8 2.4 1.3 35.70
Ground 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.25. It was found that the average reduction in the acceleration is only 2.49% and at some
storeys the acceleration was more for the damped frame than that of the bare frame.
Figure 4.24: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Figure 4.25: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Table 4.19: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Maximum Maximum
Reduction in
Acceleration in
m/sec2
m/sec2 m/sec2
25 4.821 4.433 0.388 8.05
24 4.315 3.785 0.530 12.28
23 3.862 3.485 0.377 9.76
22 3.445 3.456 -0.011 -0.32
21 3.364 3.558 -0.194 -5.77
20 3.347 3.395 -0.048 -1.43
19 3.915 3.448 0.467 11.93
18 4.184 3.696 0.488 11.66
17 4.181 3.650 0.531 12.70
16 4.038 3.490 0.548 13.57
15 3.809 3.536 0.273 7.17
14 3.854 3.705 0.149 3.87
13 3.840 3.665 0.175 4.56
12 3.875 3.780 0.095 2.45
11 3.885 3.946 -0.061 -1.57
10 3.750 3.862 -0.112 -2.99
9 3.814 4.147 -0.333 -8.73
8 3.887 4.254 -0.367 -9.44
7 3.729 4.020 -0.291 -7.80
6 4.539 4.815 -0.276 -6.08
5 4.718 4.593 0.125 2.65
4 3.727 3.745 -0.018 -0.48
3 4.047 3.840 0.207 5.11
2 3.620 3.352 0.268 7.40
1 2.427 2.432 -0.005 -0.21
Plinth 0.625 0.646 -0.022 -3.47
Ground 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 4.20: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV

Number storey Drift
Frame Frame (%)
25 0.000666667 0.000866667 -0.0002 -30.00

24 0.000966667 0.001133333 -0.000166667 -17.24
23 0.0014 0.001333333 6.66667E-05 4.76
22 0.0019 0.0016 0.0003 15.79
21 0.002433333 0.0018 0.000633333 26.03
20 0.002833333 0.002066667 0.000766667 27.06
19 0.0031 0.002266667 0.000833333 26.88
18 0.003433333 0.0024 0.001033333 30.10
17 0.003533333 0.0021 0.001433333 40.57
16 0.002466667 0.002033333 0.000433333 17.57
15 0.001633333 0.002233333 -0.0006 -36.73
14 0.001633333 0.002266667 -0.000633333 -38.78
13 0.001866667 0.002466667 -0.0006 -32.14
12 0.0014 0.0027 -0.0013 -92.86
11 0.001633333 0.002883333 -0.00125 -76.53
10 0.002166667 0.00176 0.000406667 18.77
9 0.002633333 0.001783333 0.00085 32.28
8 0.0034 0.002346667 0.001053333 30.98
7 0.004233333 0.002976667 0.001256667 29.69
6 0.004986667 0.00347 0.001516667 30.41
5 0.005623333 0.003846667 0.001776667 31.59
4 0.006073333 0.004083333 0.00199 32.77
3 0.006263333 0.00406 0.002203333 35.18
2 0.006063333 0.00385 0.002213333 36.50
1 0.004804667 0.003068333 0.001736333 36.14
Plinth 0.001878 0.0012075 0.0006705 35.70
Ground

observed that on average 34.13% of the column axial loads and 38.12% of the column
moments were reduced due to the introduction of the friction dampers.
Figure 4.26: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Table 4.21: Maximum storey shears for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Maximum Storey Maximum Storey Reduction in

Storey Percentage Reduction in
Shear for Bare Shear for Damped Storey Shear in
Number Storey Shear (%)
Frame in kN Frame in kN kN
25 273.91 197.77 76.14 27.80

24 708.10 458.95 249.15 35.19
23 1034.60 572.51 462.09 44.66
22 1273.11 647.27 625.84 49.16
21 1396.66 763.88 632.78 45.31
20 1491.02 884.27 606.75 40.69
19 1549.82 945.90 603.92 38.97
18 1567.01 952.52 614.49 39.21
17 1502.89 950.51 552.38 36.75
16 1353.74 954.99 398.75 29.46
15 1284.56 980.87 303.69 23.64
14 1286.31 950.18 336.13 26.13
13 1245.54 1069.83 175.71 14.11
12 1257.93 1120.81 137.12 10.90
11 1277.59 1133.85 143.74 11.25
10 1334.62 1173.43 161.19 12.08
9 1322.17 1191.59 130.58 9.88
8 1412.36 1132.65 279.71 19.80
7 1478.19 1088.58 389.61 26.36
6 1515.58 1203.45 312.13 20.59
5 1585.05 1299.51 285.54 18.01
4 1656.31 1321.30 335.01 20.23
3 1714.08 1343.35 370.73 21.63
2 1743.43 1261.36 482.07 27.65
1 1834.59 1343.18 491.41 26.79
Ground 1853.27 1196.15 657.12 35.46

Table 4.22: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV

Floor
Number
25 83.6 70.0 13.7 16.33

24 131.8 88.6 43.2 32.75
23 189.9 108.3 81.6 42.97
22 239.9 125.8 114.1 47.56
21 274.4 145.1 129.3 47.12
20 303.7 166.5 137.2 45.18
19 320.8 182.0 138.8 43.27
18 328.2 188.4 139.8 42.60
17 321.9 186.1 135.8 42.19
16 300.3 186.8 113.5 37.80
15 269.1 189.5 79.6 29.58
14 273.9 188.6 85.3 31.14
13 271.3 184.6 86.7 31.96
12 260.6 197.3 63.3 24.29
11 263.8 204.7 59.1 22.40
10 259.9 202.2 57.7 22.20
9 252.8 195.7 57.1 22.59
8 270.9 192.3 78.6 29.01
7 287.5 188.7 98.8 34.37
6 300.2 198.8 101.4 33.78
5 311.2 217.9 93.3 29.98
4 324.2 226.0 98.2 30.29
3 336.1 225.3 110.8 32.97
2 329.5 214.5 115.0 34.90
1 295.8 189.1 106.7 36.07
Plinth 177.6 114.6 63.0 35.47

IV
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
Number Column Axial
Load (%)
25 22.5 16.6 6.0 26.44
24 62.0 59.1 2.9 4.65
23 125.2 108.9 16.3 13.02
22 209.4 157.5 51.9 24.79
21 306.8 204.3 102.5 33.41
20 406.6 248.8 157.8 38.81
19 502.9 290.7 212.2 42.20
18 619.0 329.7 289.3 46.74
17 731.5 365.5 366.0 50.03
16 835.1 397.9 437.2 52.35
15 924.4 429.1 495.3 53.58
14 996.0 472.3 523.7 52.58
13 1050.0 508.9 541.1 51.53
12 1088.0 555.1 532.9 48.98
11 1113.0 603.5 509.5 45.78
10 1127.0 649.9 477.1 42.33
9 1132.0 695.5 436.5 38.56
8 1131.0 740.6 390.4 34.52
7 1122.0 785.7 336.3 29.97
6 1134.0 831.3 302.7 26.69
5 1174.0 878.9 295.1 25.14
4 1208.0 926.5 281.5 23.30
3 1239.0 972.8 266.2 21.49
2 1277.0 1016.0 261.0 20.44
1 1315.0 1052.0 263.0 20.00
Ground 1340.0 1072.0 268.0 20.00
Table 4.24: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
(%)
25 80.9 39.2 41.7 51.53
24 76.5 65.1 11.4 14.87
23 159.1 75.2 84.0 52.77
22 228.7 89.8 138.9 60.73
21 297.4 115.4 182.0 61.20
20 328.5 143.1 185.4 56.44
19 334.9 172.4 162.5 48.52
18 355.2 190.1 165.1 46.48
17 369.3 195.1 174.2 47.17
16 360.2 198.2 162.0 44.98
15 328.1 188.2 139.9 42.64
14 292.1 188.9 103.2 35.33
13 297.3 191.0 106.3 35.76
12 296.8 199.1 97.7 32.92
11 284.2 219.4 64.8 22.80
10 294.3 219.2 75.1 25.52
9 319.6 223.4 96.2 30.10
8 318.4 229.5 88.9 27.92
7 297.6 215.6 82.0 27.55
6 318.3 206.9 111.4 35.00
5 331.0 234.6 96.4 29.12
4 356.4 256.4 100.0 28.06
3 390.3 275.3 115.0 29.46
2 438.6 292.1 146.5 33.40
1 567.9 366.2 201.7 35.52
Ground 704.0 455.4 248.6 35.31

Figure 4.27: Maximum storey shear for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Figure 4.28: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV

IV
Figure 4.30: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV

4.1.4 Plane frame analysis results for zone V
4.1.4.1 Determination of optimal slip load for zone V
due to earthquake. In case of zone V, the frame designed to resist the gravity loads was not
the slip load is increased, the failure of the members decreased. However the frame was
completely safe only in limited range of slip load (from 90kN to 120kN). When the slip load
is further increased beyond 120kN, the failure again started and the failure of members
increased with the slip load. Hence the optimal slip load should lie between 90kN to 120kN
and was selected based on the minimum response. The detailed results obtained by using the
nonlinear time history analysis to select the optimal slip load of the dampers for zone V is
given in Table 4.25. The variation of the maximum roof displacement, maximum forces
(base shear and axial loads) and the percentage of energy dissipated by the dampers with slip
load of the friction dampers is shown in Figure 4.31, Figure 4.32 and Figure 4.33
respectively.
V
Table 4.25: Determination of optimal slip load for the plane frame for zone V
Slip Total Percentage of Max.

Max.
Load of Total Energy Total Input Max. Axial
No. of Displ. of
the Input Dissipated Energy Base Force in
Beams the Top
Friction Energy by the Dissipated by Shear in the
Failed Storey in
Damper in kN-m Dampers in the Dampers kN Members
mm
in kN kN-m (%) in kN
0 2569 0 0.00 159 2777 352.4 2008
25 2941 1131 38.46 150 2263 330.7 1932
50 2989 1605 53.70 108 1964 305.3 1760
75 3053 1874 61.38 31 1823 279.3 1614
85 3100 1962 63.29 6 1768 270.5 1574
100 3186 2087 65.51 0 1692 258.5 1525
115 3285 2204 67.09 0 1680 247.4 1485
125 3352 2275 67.87 3 1719 240.6 1475
150 3519 2435 69.20 21 1849 227.8 1477
175 3679 2570 69.86 35 1948 217.6 1473
200 3829 2684 70.10 43 2014 208.7 1487
250 4102 2865 69.84 51 2114 198.8 1560
300 4354 3006 69.04 59 2202 200.3 1608
400 4782 3182 66.54 72 2309 206.8 1778
500 5140 3266 63.54 84 2631 236.4 2043
Figure 4.32: Variation of the maximum forces with slip load of the dampers for zone V
Figure 4.33: Variation of the energy dissipation with slip load of the dampers for zone V
friction dampers for the plane frame for zone V was selected as 115kN. From Figures 4.31,
optimal slip load.
4.1.4.2 Comparison of responses of the plane frame for zone V

Table 4.26: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
Maximum Maximum
Reduction in
Floor Displacement for Displacement for Percentage Reduction
Displacement in
Number Bare Frame in Damped Frame in in Displacement (%)
mm
mm mm
25 352.4 247.4 105.0 29.80
24 349.3 245.3 104.0 29.77
23 345.0 242.1 102.9 29.83
22 338.7 237.9 100.8 29.76
21 330.1 232.9 97.2 29.45
20 319.2 226.6 92.6 29.01
19 306.5 218.8 87.7 28.61
18 292.5 209.6 82.9 28.34
17 277.2 199.2 78.0 28.14
16 261.2 188.9 72.3 27.68
15 250.1 178.7 71.4 28.55
14 242.7 168.1 74.6 30.74
13 235.5 157.1 78.4 33.29
12 227.1 146.9 80.2 35.31
11 220.7 136.4 84.3 38.20
10 213.4 125.0 88.4 41.42
9 203.7 112.6 91.1 44.72
8 191.9 99.8 92.1 47.98
7 176.6 90.4 86.2 48.83
6 157.6 80.7 76.9 48.79
5 135.2 69.7 65.5 48.48
4 109.9 57.3 52.6 47.86
3 82.6 43.7 38.9 47.08
2 54.5 29.4 25.1 46.11
1 27.2 15.0 12.3 45.04
Plinth 5.6 3.2 2.4 43.39
Ground 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.35. It was found that the average reduction in the acceleration is only 5.19% and at some
storeys the acceleration was more for the damped frame than that of the bare frame.
Figure 4.34: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
Figure 4.35: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone V

Table 4.27: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
Maximum Maximum
Reduction in Percentage
Floor Acceleration for Acceleration for
Acceleration in Reduction in
Number Bare Frame in Damped Frame in
m/sec2 Acceleration (%)
m/sec2 m/sec2
25 7.226 5.615 1.611 22.29
24 6.467 5.387 1.080 16.70
23 5.798 5.361 0.437 7.54
22 5.162 5.282 -0.120 -2.32
21 5.043 5.048 -0.005 -0.10
20 5.019 5.064 -0.045 -0.90
19 5.871 5.340 0.531 9.04
18 6.274 5.114 1.160 18.49
17 6.269 4.737 1.532 24.44
16 6.051 4.733 1.318 21.78
15 5.714 5.378 0.336 5.88
14 5.782 5.698 0.084 1.45
13 5.762 5.648 0.114 1.98
12 5.822 5.379 0.443 7.61
11 5.828 5.569 0.259 4.44
10 5.625 5.427 0.198 3.52
9 5.721 6.170 -0.449 -7.85
8 5.825 5.812 0.013 0.22
7 5.594 6.548 -0.954 -17.05
6 6.810 7.100 -0.290 -4.26
5 7.079 6.324 0.755 10.67
4 5.597 5.673 -0.076 -1.36
3 6.071 5.691 0.380 6.26
2 5.442 4.980 0.462 8.49
1 3.639 3.376 0.263 7.23
Plinth 0.936 1.024 -0.088 -9.35
Ground 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 4.28: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone V

Number storey Drift
Frame Frame (%)
25 0.001033333 0.0007 0.000333333 32.26

24 0.001433333 0.001066667 0.000366667 25.58
23 0.0021 0.0014 0.0007 33.33
22 0.002866667 0.001666667 0.0012 41.86
21 0.003633333 0.0021 0.001533333 42.20
20 0.004233333 0.0026 0.001633333 38.58
19 0.004666667 0.003066667 0.0016 34.29
18 0.0051 0.003466667 0.001633333 32.03
17 0.005333333 0.003433333 0.0019 35.63
16 0.0037 0.0034 0.0003 8.11
15 0.002466667 0.003533333 -0.001066667 -43.24
14 0.0024 0.003666667 -0.001266667 -52.78
13 0.0028 0.0034 -0.0006 -21.43
12 0.002133333 0.0035 -0.001366667 -64.06
11 0.002433333 0.0038 -0.001366667 -56.16
10 0.003233333 0.004133333 -0.0009 -27.84
9 0.003933333 0.004256667 -0.000323333 -8.22
8 0.0051 0.003156667 0.001943333 38.10
7 0.006333333 0.003216667 0.003116667 49.21
6 0.007466667 0.003683333 0.003783333 50.67
5 0.008433333 0.00412 0.004313333 51.15
4 0.00909 0.004523333 0.004566667 50.24
3 0.009383333 0.00479 0.004593333 48.95
2 0.009086667 0.0048 0.004286667 47.18
1 0.007197333 0.003924667 0.003272667 45.47
Plinth 0.002814 0.001593 0.001221 43.39
Ground

that the average reduction in the inter storey drifts is increased to 18.25%. The maximum
drifts were well reduced in case of damped frame and also uniform drifts were observed in
case of damped frame, unlike the bare frame.
Figure 4.36: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
Table 4.29: Maximum storey shears for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
Maximum Storey Maximum Storey

Storey Reduction in Storey Percentage Reduction
Shear for Bare Shear for Damped
Number Shear in kN in Storey Shear (%)
Frame in kN Frame in kN
25 410.86 264.63 146.23 35.59

24 1062.15 472.18 589.97 55.54
23 1551.84 749.76 802.08 51.69
22 1909.51 919.20 990.31 51.86
21 2094.68 986.29 1108.39 52.91
20 2236.78 1061.08 1175.70 52.56
19 2324.92 1112.41 1212.51 52.15
18 2350.73 1220.41 1130.32 48.08
17 2254.54 1287.61 966.93 42.89
16 2030.84 1272.93 757.91 37.32
15 1925.23 1391.99 533.24 27.70
14 1927.74 1301.65 626.09 32.48
13 1915.78 1349.29 566.49 29.57
12 1902.13 1381.66 520.47 27.36
11 1927.81 1358.17 569.64 29.55
10 2005.05 1378.28 626.77 31.26
9 1980.78 1479.49 501.29 25.31
8 2115.98 1497.17 618.81 29.24
7 2253.20 1669.40 583.80 25.91
6 2323.56 1708.24 615.32 26.48
5 2412.41 1628.33 784.08 32.50
4 2523.64 1710.71 812.93 32.21
3 2599.38 1735.09 864.29 33.25
2 2612.35 1689.92 922.43 35.31
1 2749.18 1822.10 927.08 33.72
Ground 2777.22 1680.33 1096.89 39.50

Table 4.30: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone V

Floor
Number
25 125.4 60.3 65.1 51.93

24 197.7 79.4 118.3 59.83
23 284.8 110.4 174.4 61.24
22 359.9 144.6 215.3 59.82
21 411.7 170.4 241.3 58.61
20 455.6 184.1 271.5 59.59
19 481.2 197.6 283.6 58.94
18 492.4 211.4 281.0 57.07
17 482.9 228.6 254.3 52.66
16 450.4 238.0 212.4 47.16
15 403.7 241.4 162.3 40.20
14 410.6 242.4 168.2 40.96
13 406.5 241.3 165.2 40.64
12 390.6 234.5 156.1 39.96
11 395.3 236.2 159.1 40.25
10 389.4 245.2 144.2 37.03
9 379.2 247.8 131.4 34.65
8 405.8 240.6 165.2 40.71
7 430.7 239.9 190.8 44.30
6 449.7 248.1 201.6 44.83
5 466.3 253.0 213.3 45.74
4 485.7 256.7 229.0 47.15
3 503.6 260.5 243.1 48.27
2 493.7 257.1 236.6 47.92
1 443.1 238.0 205.1 46.29
Plinth 266.1 147.9 118.2 44.42

Table 4.31: Maximum column axial loads for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
Number Column Axial Load
(%)
25 33.8 19.2 14.5 43.07
24 93.0 46.2 46.8 50.34
23 187.9 79.6 108.3 57.65
22 314.1 119.8 194.3 61.86
21 460.2 176.9 283.3 61.56
20 610.0 239.4 370.6 60.75
19 754.4 303.9 450.5 59.72
18 928.6 370.5 558.1 60.10
17 1097.0 439.8 657.2 59.91
16 1253.0 509.3 743.7 59.35
15 1387.0 575.3 811.7 58.52
14 1494.0 634.4 859.6 57.54
13 1575.0 683.5 891.5 56.60
12 1633.0 721.1 911.9 55.84
11 1670.0 758.6 911.4 54.57
10 1690.0 830.0 860.0 50.89
9 1698.0 905.9 792.1 46.65
8 1696.0 981.0 715.0 42.16
7 1683.0 1055.0 628.0 37.31
6 1699.0 1129.0 570.0 33.55
5 1759.0 1201.0 558.0 31.72
4 1810.0 1273.0 537.0 29.67
3 1856.0 1344.0 512.0 27.59
2 1912.0 1409.0 503.0 26.31
1 1970.0 1459.0 511.0 25.94
Ground 2008.0 1485.0 523.0 26.05

Table 4.32: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
(%)
25 121.3 52.2 69.1 56.97
24 114.7 71.3 43.4 37.81
23 238.5 83.6 154.9 64.96
22 343.0 137.3 205.7 59.97
21 446.1 158.3 287.8 64.51
20 492.7 178.5 314.2 63.77
19 502.5 191.7 310.8 61.85
18 532.8 211.7 321.1 60.27
17 554.0 236.7 317.3 57.27
16 540.4 247.1 293.3 54.27
15 492.3 250.7 241.6 49.08
14 437.7 257.6 180.1 41.15
13 445.5 257.9 187.6 42.11
12 444.9 232.6 212.3 47.72
11 425.9 233.5 192.4 45.17
10 441.1 259.8 181.3 41.10
9 479.4 266.1 213.3 44.49
8 477.5 246.6 230.9 48.36
7 445.8 256.8 189.0 42.40
6 477.0 269.4 207.6 43.52
5 496.0 268.1 227.9 45.95
4 534.1 279.9 254.2 47.59
3 584.8 316.1 268.7 45.95
2 657.2 343.3 313.9 47.76
1 850.9 465.6 385.3 45.28
Ground 1055.0 605.6 449.4 42.60

Figure 4.37: Maximum storey shear for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
Figure 4.38: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone V

V
Figure 4.40: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone V
4.2 Space frame analysis results
In order to verify the performance of the friction dampers in a three dimensional

structure, a G+8 storey space frame was analyzed under zone IV and El Centro (N-S
component) acceleration time histories. The optimal slip load of the friction dampers was
first determined under zone IV acceleration time history. Later, the responses of the damped
frame were compared with that of the bare frame under the zone IV and El Centro time
histories, with the same optimal slip load.
4.2.1 Space frame analysis results for zone IV
4.2.1.1 Determination of optimal slip load for zone IV
due to earthquake. In the present case, the frame designed to resist the gravity loads was not
the slip load is increased, the failure of the members decreased and the frame was completely
safe when the slip load was above 250kN. The analysis was stopped at 650kN slip load, as
any further increase will lead to the requirement of stronger braces, which becomes
uneconomical. Hence the optimal slip load should lie above 300kN and was selected based
on the minimum response. The detailed results obtained by using the nonlinear time history
analysis to select the optimal slip load of the dampers for zone IV is given in Table 4.33. The
variation of the maximum roof displacement, maximum base shear, maximum axial loads
and the percentage of energy dissipated by the dampers with slip load of the friction dampers
is shown in Figure 4.41, Figure 4.42, Figure 4.43 and Figure 4.44 respectively.
friction dampers for the space frame for zone IV was selected as 350kN. From Figures 4.41,
4.42, 4.43 and 4.44, it was concluded that both forces and displacements were minimum at
the optimal slip load and also the energy dissipated by the friction dampers was maximum at
the optimal slip load.
Table 4.33: Determination of optimal slip load for the space frame for zone IV
Slip Total Percentage of

Max.
Load of Total Energy Total Input Max. Max. Axial No. of
Displ. of
the Input Dissipated Energy Base Force in the Members
the Top
Friction Energy by the Dissipated by Shear Members in Failed
Storey in
Damper in kN-m Dampers the Dampers in kN kN
mm
in kN in kN-m (%)
0 6725 0 0.00 16120 192.1 2179 56
50 7569 3096 40.90 14120 168.7 1915 18
100 8384 4805 57.31 14680 154.6 1756 24
150 8971 5880 65.54 14400 144.5 1638 22
200 9362 6512 69.56 13770 135.4 1533 12
250 9545 6811 71.36 12930 124.6 1409 2
300 9788 7035 71.87 12410 118.8 1343 0
350 10100 7254 71.82 11780 118.5 1337 0
400 10420 7440 71.40 11620 119.2 1344 0
450 10720 7588 70.78 11890 119.9 1352 0
500 11010 7703 69.96 12070 120.5 1357 0
550 11270 7780 69.03 12160 120.7 1359 0
600 11500 7813 67.94 12120 120.2 1353 0
650 11690 7802 66.74 12000 119.0 1340 0
IV

Figure 4.42: Variation of the maximum base shear with slip load of the dampers for zone IV
Figure 4.43: Variation of the maximum axial load with slip load of the dampers for zone IV
Figure 4.44: Variation of the energy dissipation with slip load of the dampers for zone IV
4.2.1.2 Comparison of responses of the space frame for zone IV
maximum column axial load and moments due to earthquake. As the frame dimensions and
properties were same in both the directions, all the response quantities were also the same.
The reduction in each of the response quantities at each storey level was found out and then
the percentage reduction at each storey level and average reduction in the response quantities
were determined. The maximum displacements at each storey level for the frame with and
without friction dampers are given in Table 4.34 and the corresponding variation in Figure
4.45.
It was observed that on average displacements were reduced by 33% and the
reductions were nearly uniform throughout.
Table 4.34: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Maximum Maximum Reduction in Percentage

Floor
Displacement for Displacement for Displacement in Reduction in
Number
Bare Frame in mm Damped Frame in mm mm Displacement (%)
9 192.1 118.5 73.6 38.31

8 185.7 115.7 70.0 37.70
7 173.3 110.1 63.2 36.47
6 155.0 101.6 53.4 34.45
5 132.5 90.2 42.3 31.92
4 111.0 76.3 34.7 31.23
3 89.4 61.8 27.6 30.87
2 64.1 45.1 19.0 29.63
1 35.9 25.2 10.7 29.73
Plinth 6.3 4.4 1.9 29.71
Ground 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 4.45: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
4.46. It was found that the average reduction in the acceleration is 23.58% and at all storeys
the accelerations were less for the damped frame than that of the bare frame.
Figure 4.46: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV

Table 4.35: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Maximum Maximum Acceleration Reduction in Percentage

Floor
Acceleration for Bare for Damped Frame in Acceleration in Reduction in
Number
Frame in m/sec2 m/sec2 m/sec2 Acceleration (%)
9 6.835 4.948 1.887 27.61

8 6.315 4.739 1.576 24.96
7 5.349 4.602 0.747 13.97
6 5.517 4.470 1.047 18.98
5 5.812 4.629 1.183 20.35
4 5.748 4.650 1.098 19.10
3 5.445 4.209 1.236 22.70
2 4.504 3.266 1.238 27.49
1 2.702 1.893 0.809 29.94
Plinth 0.487 0.337 0.150 30.75
Ground 0.000 0.000 0.000
that the average reduction in the inter storey drifts is 40.52% and the drifts were well reduced
at all storeys in case of friction damped frame.
Figure 4.47: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Table 4.36: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Maximum Maximum Storey Percentage Reduction

Storey Drift for Drift for Damped in Inter Storey Drift
Number storey Drift
Bare Frame Frame (%)
9 0.002133333 0.000933333 0.0012 56.25

8 0.004133333 0.001866667 0.002266667 54.84
7 0.0061 0.002833333 0.003266667 53.55
6 0.0075 0.0038 0.0037 49.33
5 0.007166667 0.00462 0.002546667 35.53
4 0.0072 0.004846667 0.002353333 32.69
3 0.00844 0.00557 0.00287 34.00
2 0.009406667 0.00663 0.002776667 29.52
1 0.009853 0.006923667 0.002929333 29.73
Plinth 0.004200667 0.002952667 0.001248 29.71
Ground
Figure 4.48: Maximum storey shear for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV

Table 4.37: Maximum storey shears for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Maximum Storey Maximum Storey

Storey Reduction in Storey Percentage Reduction in
Shear for Bare Shear for Damped
Number Shear in kN Storey Shear (%)
Frame in kN Frame in kN
9 2542 3316 -774 -30.43
8 6934 5797 1137 16.39
7 10356 7553 2803 27.06
6 12548 9182 3366 26.82
5 13486 10637 2849 21.12
4 13926 11901 2025 14.54
3 14212 12935 1277 8.99
2 15340 13715 1625 10.60
1 16330 14393 1937 11.86
Ground 16120 11780 4340 26.92
Figure 4.49: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Table 4.38: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV

Floor
Number
9 64.1 28.5 35.6 55.55

8 145.3 58.4 86.9 59.79
7 237.7 96.8 140.9 59.29
6 310.8 135.5 175.3 56.40
5 346.8 174.1 172.7 49.80
4 344.7 210.2 134.5 39.02
3 350.8 240.7 110.1 31.39
2 373.2 262.3 110.9 29.72
1 416.7 292.3 124.4 29.85
Plinth 372.7 261.8 110.9 29.76
IV
IV
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
Axial Load for Bare Axial Load for Column Axial Load
Number Column Axial
Frame in kN Damped Frame in kN in kN
Load (%)
9 37 13 24 64.61
8 151 46 104 69.27
7 362 121 240 66.43
6 642 236 407 63.29
5 956 386 570 59.63
4 1267 567 700 55.23
3 1552 775 777 50.06
2 1803 1004 799 44.32
1 2065 1245 820 39.71
Ground 2179 1337 842 38.64
Figure 4.51: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV

Table 4.40: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for zone IV
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
(%)
9 129.0 48.1 80.9 62.73
8 380.1 133.3 246.8 64.93
7 608.4 226.1 382.3 62.84
6 756.2 313.9 442.3 58.49
5 808.6 392.8 415.8 51.42
4 779.5 460.8 318.7 40.89
3 781.0 518.4 262.6 33.62
2 836.3 590.6 245.7 29.38
1 898.3 635.6 262.7 29.24
Ground 1057.0 743.2 313.8 29.69
4.2.2 Space frame analysis results for El Centro (N-S) input
4.2.2.1 Determination of optimal slip load for El Centro (N-S) input
minimum response of the structure. In the present case, the optimal slip load was first
determined for zone IV acceleration time history. As the results of the trial runs indicated
that, the displacement and forces under El Centro ground motion input are near to that of
zone IV, the same optimal slip load was used for El Centro (N-S) input. Also it should
always be noted that, while designing the friction damped buildings, the performance of the
damped building has to be ensured under minimum three earthquake records of similar
intensity. Hence the performance of the frame with same optimal slip load was evaluated
under El Centro (N-S) ground motion input. In a practical design case, the performance
should be verified under two more additional earthquake records of similar intensity, in
addition to the one that is specified for the particular zone.

4.2.2.2 Comparison of responses of the space frame for El Centro (N-S) input
maximum column axial load and moments due to earthquake. As the frame dimensions and
properties were same in both the directions, all the response quantities were also the same.
The reduction in each of the response quantities at each storey level was found out and then
the percentage reduction at each storey level and average reduction in the response quantities
were determined. The maximum displacements at each storey level for the frame with and
without friction dampers are given in Table 4.41 and the corresponding variation in Figure
4.52.
It was observed that on average displacements were reduced by 26.87% and the
reductions were more at the higher storeys and less at the lower stories.
Table 4.41: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for El Centro
(N-S) input
Maximum Maximum Reduction in Percentage

Floor
Displacement for Displacement for Displacement in Reduction in
Number
Bare Frame in mm Damped Frame in mm mm Displacement (%)
9 165.3 92.5 72.9 44.07

8 159.9 91.7 68.2 42.66
7 149.3 90.1 59.2 39.65
6 133.6 87.0 46.6 34.90
5 114.2 81.4 32.8 28.73
4 92.5 72.5 20.0 21.60
3 70.3 59.9 10.4 14.84
2 50.7 43.6 7.2 14.10
1 28.2 24.3 3.9 13.87
Plinth 5.0 4.3 0.7 14.28
Ground 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 4.52: Maximum displacements for the frame with and without dampers for El Centro
(N-S) input
4.53. It was found that the average reduction in the acceleration is 26.10% and accelerations
were nearly uniform in all storeys in case of friction damped frame, which is not in case of
bare frame.
Figure 4.53: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for El Centro
(N-S) input

Table 4.42: Maximum accelerations for the frame with and without dampers for El Centro
(N-S) input
Maximum Maximum Acceleration Reduction in Percentage

Floor
Acceleration for Bare for Damped Frame in Acceleration in Reduction in
Number
Frame in m/sec2 m/sec2 m/sec2 Acceleration (%)
9 8.202 5.376 2.826 34.46

8 7.604 5.257 2.347 30.87
7 6.453 5.070 1.383 21.43
6 4.977 4.765 0.212 4.26
5 4.383 4.586 -0.203 -4.63
4 5.952 4.636 1.316 22.11
3 6.356 4.240 2.116 33.29
2 5.418 3.325 2.093 38.63
1 3.299 1.978 1.321 40.04
Plinth 0.597 0.355 0.242 40.51
Ground 0.000 0.000 0.000
that the average reduction in the inter storey drifts is 48.36% and the drifts were well reduced
at all storeys, especially at the higher storeys in case of friction damped frame.

Table 4.43: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for El
Centro (N-S) input
Maximum Storey Maximum Storey Percentage

Drift for Bare Drift for Damped Reduction in Inter
Number storey Drift
Frame Frame Storey Drift (%)
9 0.0018 0.000253333 0.001546667 85.93

8 0.003533333 0.000526667 0.003006667 85.09
7 0.005233333 0.001046667 0.004186667 80.00
6 0.006466667 0.00186 0.004606667 71.24
5 0.00723 0.002953333 0.004276667 59.15
4 0.007393333 0.004213333 0.00318 43.01
3 0.006536667 0.00544 0.001096667 16.78
2 0.00751 0.00643 0.00108 14.38
1 0.007739667 0.006673 0.001066667 13.78
Plinth 0.003314 0.002840667 0.000473333 14.28
Ground
Figure 4.54: Maximum inter storey drifts for the frame with and without dampers for El
Centro (N-S) input
Table 4.44: Maximum storey shears for the frame with and without dampers for El Centro
(N-S) input
Maximum Storey Maximum Storey Reduction in Percentage

Storey
Shear for Bare Frame Shear for Damped Storey Shear in Reduction in Storey
Number
in kN Frame in kN kN Shear (%)
9 2538 2434 104 4.10

8 6588 4958 1630 24.74
7 9380 6246 3134 33.41
6 10940 7294 3646 33.33
5 11380 8322 3058 26.87
4 12184 9980 2204 18.09
3 12512 11766 746 5.96
2 12750 13212 -462 -3.62
1 13330 14068 -738 -5.54
Ground 12790 11140 1650 12.90
Figure 4.55: Maximum storey shear for the frame with and without dampers for El Centro
(N-S) input

Table 4.45: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for El Centro
(N-S) input
Percentage
Maximum Beam Maximum Beam
Floor Reduction in Beam Reduction in
Moment for Bare Moment for Damped
Number Moment in kN-m Beam Moment
Frame in kN-m Frame in kN-m
(%)
9 61.8 18.4 43.4 70.18
8 141.7 41.3 100.4 70.85
7 228.8 70.0 158.8 69.39
6 285.8 95.5 190.3 66.57
5 288.3 128.0 160.3 55.60
4 292.7 164.5 128.2 43.80
3 302.1 198.5 103.6 34.29
2 326.4 246.5 79.9 24.48
1 328.5 282.4 46.1 14.03
Plinth 294.3 251.9 42.4 14.41
Figure 4.56: Maximum beam moments for the frame with and without dampers for El Centro
(N-S) input
Table 4.46: Maximum column axial loads for the frame with and without dampers for El
Centro (N-S) input
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
Number Column Axial
Load (%)
9 41.9 10.6 31.3 74.65
8 159.8 41.2 118.6 74.22
7 366.8 97.3 269.5 73.46
6 625.0 182.9 442.1 70.74
5 885.5 288.6 596.9 67.41
4 1105.0 409.2 695.8 62.97
3 1256.0 542.4 713.6 56.82
2 1505.0 689.1 815.9 54.21
1 1777.0 928.7 848.3 47.74
Ground 1878.0 1027.0 851.0 45.31
Figure 4.57: Maximum column axial loads for the frame with and without dampers for El
Centro (N-S) input
Table 4.47: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for El
Centro (N-S) input
Percentage
Storey Reduction in
(%)
9 126.5 35.3 91.2 72.06
8 377.6 105.6 272.0 72.03
7 586.5 176.5 410.0 69.91
6 687.3 234.7 452.6 65.85
5 664.6 278.9 385.7 58.03
4 668.8 338.5 330.3 49.39
3 674.2 450.1 224.1 33.24
2 682.9 571.9 111.0 16.25
1 710.7 608.1 102.6 14.44
Ground 831.9 715.0 116.9 14.05
Figure 4.58: Maximum column moments for the frame with and without dampers for El
Centro (N-S) input
4.3 Summary of results
4.3.1 Optimal slip load of friction dampers
The details of the optimal slip load of the friction dampers, provided in the 7 bay 25
storey plane frame, for different seismic zones of India, along with the percentage of energy
dissipated by the dampers are given in Table 4.48.
Table 4.48: Optimum slip load for different seismic zones for the plane frame
Percentage of Energy
Seismic Optimum Slip No of
Dissipated by the Dampers
Zone Load in kN Dampers
(%)
Zone 2 75 25 43.03
Zone 3 125 25 45.75
Zone 4 200 25 55.56
Zone 5 115 68 67.09
From Table 4.48, it was clear that, the optimal slip load of the friction dampers
increases with the seismic risk. Even though the optimal slip load of the dampers was less for
the zone V, more number of friction dampers were used to safeguard the structure. It was
also clear that, as the optimal slip load increases, more amount of energy will be taken care
by the dampers. It can also be said that, in case of zone IV and zone V, in order to safeguard
the structure (designed for gravity loads) from earthquake forces, more amount of energy has
to be dissipated by the dampers.

The optimal slip load for zone II is very less and it may result in the activation of the
dampers under wind loads, which have both advantages as well as disadvantages. If friction
damper gets activated under wind loads, they will help in resisting wind loads which
becomes an advantage. However their constant performance under wind loads may lead to
fatigue failure of dampers, because of which they need a regular inspection. One more
important thing to look at is the frame is safe in zone II and zone III even without dampers,
which means the frame which resist the gravity loads can also resist the earthquake forces
even without dampers.
In case of space frame, the optimal slip load was determined only for zone IV and the
same was used for analysis under El Centro ground motion. The optimal slip load of the
friction dampers was found to be 350kN and a total of 180 dampers were provided.
4.3.2 Reduction in the response quantities
The average reduction in all the response quantities for the plane frame with the
introduction of friction dampers (with optimal slip load), for all the seismic zones of India are
given in Table 4.49.
Table 4.49: Average reduction in responses for the plane frame
Average Reduction (%) Seismic Zone

in Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Base Shear 38.92 38.32 35.46 39.50
Displacement 24.33 24.16 27.40 37.16
Acceleration 4.84 4.61 2.49 5.19
Storey Drifts 5.09 6.12 8.25 18.25
Storey Shear 23.68 23.38 27.37 37.38
Beam Moments 31.25 30.76 33.80 48.08
Colum Axial Loads 33.95 33.11 34.13 47.51
Column Moments 33.43 33.17 38.12 50.07

The average reduction in all the response quantities for the space frame with the
introduction of friction dampers (with optimal slip load), for zone IV and El Centro (N-S)
time histories are given in Table 4.50.
Table 4.50: Average reduction in responses for the space frame
Earthquake Input
Average Reduction (%) in
Zone IV El Centro (N-S)
Base Shear 26.92 12.90
Displacement 33.00 26.87
Acceleration 23.58 26.10
Storey Drifts 40.52 48.36
Storey Shear 13.39 15.02
Beam Moments 44.06 46.36
Colum Axial Loads 55.12 62.75
Column Moments 46.32 46.53
From Table 4.49 and 4.50, it was clear that friction dampers are able to reduce both
forces and displacements considerably in all the seismic zones. The reduction in the
responses usually increased with the seismic risk, indicating the superior performance of the
friction dampers under severe earthquake loads. The superior performance of the friction
dampers was also confirmed in both space and planar reinforced concrete models.

Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS
From the results of the nonlinear time history analysis on rigid plane and space
frames, with and without dampers, under different accelerations time histories, the following
conclusions are drawn.
 The primary variable in the analysis of friction damped buildings is the slip load of
the friction damper and the response of the structure varies with the slip load. By the
proper selection of optimal slip load, the response of the structure can be minimized.
 The friction dampers at optimal slip loads are capable of dissipating a major part of
the seismic energy.
 The introduction of the friction dampers considerably reduced both the forces and the
displacements of the frame in all the seismic zones.
 In the plane frame, even though the average reduction in the inter storey drifts is less,
the maximum storey drifts are well reduced by the introduction of the friction
dampers. Also, the drifts are uniform along the height of the frame in case of friction
damped frame, which is not so in case of bare frame.
 From the plane frame analysis, it is clear that the optimal slip load of the friction
dampers increases with the increase in seismic risk. Even though the optimal slip load
of the friction dampers for zone V is less than that of the zone IV, III and II, more
number of dampers are used in case of zone V.
 From the plane frame analysis, it was found that, in case of seismic zone II, the frame
designed to resist the gravity loads is capable of taking earthquake induced forces
also. Hence, even though there is a good reduction in the response with the help of
friction dampers, the use of friction dampers becomes uneconomical. Also
considering the fact that, lower optimal slip load of friction dampers will lead to their
activation under wind loads, the use friction dampers causes unnecessary problems of
maintenance. Hence the friction dampers are not recommended to use in seismic zone
II.
 In case of seismic zone III, the frame designed to resist the gravity loads is capable of
taking earthquake induced forces also. Hence, even though there is a good reduction
in the response with the help of friction dampers, the use of friction dampers becomes
uneconomical. However, if a building designed to resist the gravity loads is not
capable of resisting earthquake induced forces, friction dampers can be used to take
care of the earthquake forces as well as to limit the deflections. Hence, the friction
dampers are recommended to use only for important buildings and for other buildings
if necessary, in seismic zone III.
 In case of seismic zone IV, the introduction of friction dampers helped in
safeguarding the structure as well as reducing the forces and displacements
significantly, which is evident from both plane and space frame analysis. Hence for
all types of buildings and especially important buildings with post disaster
importance, the use of friction dampers is straight away recommended in case of zone
IV.
 In case of seismic zone V, more than 50% of the earthquake forces were resisted by
the friction dampers and thus helped in safeguarding the structure. Hence friction
dampers are straight away recommended to use in all type of buildings in zone V.
However, as the associated seismic risk is too high, the construction of the important
structures should be avoided in zone V, even with the help of friction dampers.
 In case of zone IV and V, if a building designed for gravity loads has to resist the
earthquake induced forces, then more amount of energy has to be dissipated by some
other external means (friction dampers in the present study).
 The requirement of large sections can be eliminated, as the frame designed for gravity
loads can resist earthquake forces with the help of friction dampers.
 In case of space frame analysis, the optimal slip load of the friction damper was
determined for zone IV and the performance was evaluated under El Centro ground
motion. From the results, it was clear that even though there is some difference in the
response reduction, the friction dampers are able to safeguard the structure from the
earthquake of a different frequency and magnitude.
 The space frame analysis confirms that, dampers have to be placed in both the
directions to resist the earthquake. As symmetric building is considered in the present
study, the placement of dampers was same in both the directions, which is not so in
case of asymmetrical buildings, which has to be analyzed properly and carefully.

 In a practical building, before the analysis, the available positions for the placement
of the friction dampers has to be identified first and then the optimal slip load should
be determined.
 Friction dampers can also be used for the rehabilitation purpose in order to improve
the seismic performance of the existing structures.
 From all the results of the analysis, we can conclude that friction dampers can be used
as one of the better alternative approaches for the conventional ductility based design
methods for earthquake resistant design of structures.

Chapter 6
SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

The present work is not enough for the implementation of friction dampers in
practical structures in India, in an effective manner. Further research works are required in
different areas regarding different aspects and are mentioned below.
 The effectiveness of friction dampers in different type of bracing systems such as

cross bracings (X shaped), knee bracings, eccentric bracings etc. have to be studied
for more efficient use of friction dampers.
 More amounts of experimental investigations have to be done on the performance of
friction dampers in steel bracings, provided in reinforced concrete structures.
 The performance of the friction damped frames has to be evaluated, by comparing
them with shear wall (with and without openings) structures. Also the performance of
the combination of shear wall and friction dampers in a structure has to be verified.
 The performance of the friction damped structures with soil structure interactions
under different soil conditions is yet to be evaluated.
 The comparison of the performance of the friction damped structure with that of
active, semi active, hybrid and other type passive control systems (visco elastic
dampers, tuned mass dampers, tuned liquid dampers, metallic yield dampers and
viscous fluid dampers) has to be done. The cost comparison between different
systems is also a necessary.
 The comparison of the performance of the friction damped structure with that of base
isolation structure and braced frame structure is required.
 The performance of friction damped structure provided with infill walls (with and
without openings) has to be verified.
 The performance of the friction damped structure has to be evaluated under repeated
earthquake loadings.
 The behavior of friction damped structures in asymmetrical multi storey structures
and distribution of slip loads has to be verified properly.

 The performance of the friction dampers in high rise buildings, under severe wind
loads has to be studied properly.
 The development of design slip load spectrum for multi storey structures will simplify
the analysis of the friction damped structure.
 More research is required to estimate the response reduction factor of friction damped
structure for various slip loads and for various slip loads.
 The optimal slip load of the friction dampers can be varied along the height of the
building in order to optimize both the response and the cost.
 The optimal locations for placement of dampers for optimizing the response can also
be studied.
 The suitability of the friction dampers for structures other than buildings such as
water tanks, bridges, transmission towers etc. have to be studied.

REFERENCES
1. C.V.R. Murthy, “Earthquake Tips, Learning Earthquake Design and Construction”,
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur.
2. T.T. Soong and B.F. Spencer, “Supplemental energy dissipation: state of the art and
state of the practice” Journal of Engineering structures 24 (2002) – 243-259.
3. Avtar S. Pall and Rashmi Pall, “Friction dampers for seismic control of buildings – A
Canadian Experience”, Eleventh world conference on Earthquake Engineering – 1996
4. Imad H. Mualla, Leif O. Nielsen, Marco Viviani and Lambertor Briseghella,
“Dynamic response of RC frame with a new friction damper device”
5. Ian D. Aiken, James N. Kelly and Avtar S.Pall, “Seismic response of a nine storey
steel frame with friction damped cross bracings”, 1988
6. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures – General
provisions and buildings, IS 1893 (Part – 1): 2002, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
7. Indian standard code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete for general building
construction, IS 456:2000, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
8. I.H.Mualla, L.O.Nielsen, B.Belev, W.I.Liao, C.H.Loh and A.Agarawal, “Numerical
prediction of shaking table tests on a full scale friction damped structure”, Twelfth
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000
9. Kolsum Jafarzadeh, Mohammad ali Lotfollahi-Yaghin and Rasoul Sabetahd,
“Evaluation of Pall Friction Damper performance in Near Fault Earthquakes by using
of Nonlinear time history Analysis”, World Applied Sciences Journal 20 (2) :264-
270,2012
10. Bhiva R. Raut and R.S. Jangid, “Seismic analysis of benchmark building installed
with friction dampers”, The IES Journal Part A : Civil and Structural Engineering,
7:1, 20-37, 2013
11. H.G. Kullmann and S. Cherry, “Full scale testing of concentrically braced and friction
damped braced steel frames under simulated seismic loading”, Eleventh World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering – 1996 – Elsevier Science Ltd

12. Avtar S. Pall and Cedric Marsh, “Response of Friction Damped Braced Frames”,
Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, CASCE, vol. 108, No.
ST6, June, 1982
13. Andre Filiatrault and Sheldon Cherry, “Seismic Design of Simple Friction Damped
Braced Frames”, Proceedings on Ninth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, August 2-9, 1988, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan (Vol. V)
14. Ramesh Chandra, Moti Masand, S.K. Nanda, C.P. Tripathi, Rashmi Pall, Avtar Pall,
“Friction Dampers for Seismic Control of La Gardenia Towers South City, Gurgaon,
India”, Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000
15. J. Vaseghi Amiri and P. Esmaeiltabar Nesheli, “Response Modification Factor of
Chevron Braced Frame with Pall Friction Damper”, International Journal of
Engineering, Vol-26, No. 2, February 2013, 127-135
16. M. Mahmoudi, A. Mirzaei and S. Vosough, “Evaluating Equivalent Damping and
Response Modification Factor of Frames Equipped by Pall Friction Dampers”,
Journal of Rehabiltation in Civil Engineering 1-1, 78-92, 2013
17. Shilpa G. Nikam, S.K. Wagholikar and G.R. Patil, “Seismic Energy Dissipation of a
Building Using Friction Damper”, International Journal of Innovative Technology
and Exploring Engineering – vol-3, Issue-10, Mrach 2014
18. A. Toyooka, T. Himeno, Y. Hishijima, H. Iemura and I. Mualla, “Verification tests of
the Dynamic behavior of the novel friction based rotational damper using shaking
table”, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008,
Beijing, China
19. Park et al, “An Experimental Study on Seismic behavior of Shear Friction Damper
using Shaking Table Test”, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Lisboa, 2012
20. Saman Musician, Amir B. Hami, Hamid Masaeli and Faramarz Khoshnoudian,
“Effect of Friction Damper Brace Design Parameters on Seismic Performance of
Multi-storey Building Structures”, Research Journal of Environmental and Earth
Sciences 6(5):299-306, 2014
21. Charlie Vail, Jeff Hubbell, Brian O‟Connor, John King and Avtar Pall, “Seismic
Upgrade of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Factory at Everett, WA, USA” –– 13th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-

6, 2004, Paper No. 3207
22. Palanimuthu (Ravi) Sundararaj and R. Tina Pall, “Seismic Control of Federal
Electronics Research Building, Ottawa”, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 2016
23. A. Malhotra, D. Carson, P.Gopal, A. Braimah, G. Di Giovanni and R. Pall, “Friction
Dampers for Seismic Upgrade of St. Vincent Hospital, Ottawa”, 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004,
Paper No. 1952
24. Serge Vezina and R. Tina Pall, “Seismic Retrofit of MUCTC building using Friction
Dampers, Palais des Congres, Montreal”, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
25. Rashmi „Tina‟ Pall, Gilles Gauthier, Serge Delisle and Avtar Pall, “Friction Dampers
for Seismic Upgrade of Quebec Police Headquarters, Montreal”, Twelfth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000, Paper No. 2014
26. C. Pasquin, N. Leboeuf and T. Pall, “Friction Damper for Seismic Rehabilitation of
Eaton Building, Montreal”, 4th Structural Specialty Conference of the Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, June 5-8, 2002
27. Avtar Pall and R. Tina Pall, “Performance Based Design using Pall Friction Dampers
– An Economical Design Solution”, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
28. David B. Swanson, Bryce Falkin, Kylie K. Yamatsuka, Daniel J. Campbell, “Use of
Friction Dampers on Elevated Water Tanks”, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
29. O A Pekau, B Dasgupta and H Bedair, “Improved Deployment of Friction Dampers
in Asymmetric Multi-storey Building”, Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 2000, Paper No. 1144
30. Imad H. Mualla, “Experimental Evaluation of New Friction Damper Device”,
Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000, Paper No. 1048

31. John Balazic, Guru Guruswamy, John Elliot, Rashmi „Tina‟ Pall and Avtar Pall,
“Seismic Rehabilitation of Justice Headquarters Building, Ottawa, Canada”, Twelfth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000, Paper No. 2011
32. Vassily Verganelakis and R. Tina Pall, “High-tech Seismic Design of Le Nouvel
Europa, Montreal”, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 2014
33. Bharat Soli, Dennis Baerwald, Pete Krebs and R. Tina Pall, “Friction Dampers for
Seismic Control of Ambulatory Care Centre, Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego,
CA” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 1953

Aditya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aditya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical studies on rigid frames with friction dampers under seismic loads 2015-16

1.1 Introduction to earthquake resistant design of structures

An earthquake can be defined as a violent shaking of earth, which happens when a

1.2 Vibrations and damping of a system

Figure 1.1: Undamped and damped vibrating models

2 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

1.3 Seismic Control of Structures

3 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

1.4 Passive Energy Dissipation (PED) systems

1.4.1 Friction dampers

1.4.2 Visco elastic dampers

4 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Figure 1.2: Visco elastic damper configuration

1.4.3 Metallic yield dampers

Figure 1.3: Metallic yield dampers

5 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

An unbounded brace or tension/compression yielding brace shown in Figure 1.4, is

Figure 1.4: Unbonded brace

1.4.4 Viscous fluid dampers

Figure 1.5: Viscous fluid dampers

1.4.5 Tuned Mass Dampers

1.4.6 Tuned Liquid Dampers

7 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

1.5 Active, Hybrid and Semi-Active Control Systems

The schematic representation of an active control system is as shown in Figure 1.6.

Figure 1.6: Schematic representation of active control system

The schematic representation of a hybrid control system is as shown in Figure 1.7. It

8 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Figure 1.7: Schematic representation of hybrid control system

Figure 1.8: Schematic representation of semi active control system

1.6 Friction Dampers

The energy dissipation in a friction damper is similar to the dissipation of kinetic

1.6.1 Construction and Working

10 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

1.6.2 Analysis and Modeling

Figure 1.11: Frequency independence of friction damper

During a major earthquake the slippage of friction damper in an elastic brace

12 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Figure 1.12: Dependence on the displacement amplitude

1.6.3 Optimum (Design) Slip load of Friction Dampers

13 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

14 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

2.1 Literature Review

Friction dampers for seismic control of buildings – “A Canadian Experience” – Avtar

15 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

17 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Evaluation of Pall Friction Damper performance in Near Fault Earthquakes by using of

18 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

20 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

21 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

22 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Evaluating Equivalent Damping and Response Modification Factor of Frames

23 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Seismic Energy Dissipation of a Building Using Friction Damper – Shilpa G. Nikam,

An Experimental Study on Seismic behavior of Shear Friction Damper using Shaking

25 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Effect of Friction Damper Brace Design Parameters on Seismic Performance of Multi-

Seismic Control of Federal Electronics Research Building, Ottawa – Palanimuthu

expensive and time consuming foundation works, an alternative approach of supplemental

28 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Friction Dampers for Seismic Upgrade of Quebec Police Headquarters, Montreal –

Friction Damper for Seismic Rehabilitation of Eaton Building, Montreal – C. Pasquin,

29 Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT, Bangalore.

Performance Based Design using Pall Friction Dampers – An Economical Design