CHAPTER C15

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES WITH SUPPLEMENTAL ENERGY

DISSIPATION

C15.1 SCOPE
The basic form and formulation of requirements for supplemental energy dissipation systems
have been established and coordinated with the Performance Objectives, target Building
Performance Levels, and Seismic Hazard Level criteria of Chapter 2 and the linear and nonlinear
procedures of Chapter 7.
In the 2017 edition of the standard, supplemental energy dissipation provisions were removed
from Chapter 14, and this separate chapter for supplemental energy dissipation was created. The
chapter is based on similar provisions in ASCE 7 because the subcommittee responsible for this
chapter did not believe there to be a reason that the provisions of ASCE 41 differ from those in
ASCE 7, as the theory and application of supplemental energy dissipation is the same regardless
of whether it is used in a retrofit of an existing building or the design of a new building.
Energy dissipation systems include a wide variety of concepts and devices. In some cases, these
systems and devices are implemented with some additional conventional strengthening of the
structure; in all cases, they require evaluation of existing building components. Criteria for
modeling the stiffness, strength, and deformation properties of conventional structural
components of buildings are given in Chapters 9 through 12. This chapter supplements the
requirements of these other chapters with additional criteria and methods of analysis that are
appropriate for buildings retrofitted with energy dissipation devices.
Energy dissipation devices dampen earthquake excitation of the structure that would otherwise
cause higher levels of response and damage to components of the building. Energy dissipation
systems have a wide range of building height applications. Other criteria may also influence the
decision to use energy dissipation devices, because these devices can also be useful for control of
building response caused by wind or mechanical loads.
Energy dissipation systems should be considered early in the design process and should be based
on the Performance Objectives established for the building. In general, energy dissipation
systems are more attractive as a retrofit strategy for buildings that have higher Performance
Objectives than for ordinary buildings (i.e., higher Building Performance Levels and/or more
severe Seismic Hazard Levels). The costs associated with the design, fabrication, and installation
of energy dissipation devices are typically offset by the reduced need for stiffening and
strengthening measures that would otherwise be required to meet Performance Objectives.
Whenever either the Limited Performance Objective of Section 2.2.3 or the Partial Retrofit of
Section 2.2.5 is selected, the structural design requirements are less than those required for the
potential seismic event. There is concern that response to this potential earthquake could exceed
the design limits of the energy dissipation devices, leading to device failure. Therefore, the
displacement and force design of these devices for these two lower Performance Objectives
require a conservative multiplier.
The damping system (DS) is defined separately from the seismic-force-resisting system (SFRS),
although the two systems may have common elements. As illustrated in Fig. C15-1, the DS may
be external or internal to the structure and may have no shared elements, some shared elements,
or all elements in common with the SFRS. Elements common to the DS and the SFRS must be
designed for the loads resulting from the interaction of both systems. When the DS and SFRS
have no common elements, the damper forces must be collected and transferred to members of
the SFRS.
C15.2.2.1 Device Classification. Energy dissipation devices add damping (and sometimes
stiffness) to the building. A wide variety of energy dissipation devices are available, including
fluid viscous dampers, viscoelastic materials, and hysteretic devices. Damping devices that have
found applications or have potential for application may be classified as follows:
Fluid viscous dampers (or oil dampers). These dampers are devices that operate on the principle
of forcing a viscous fluid, typically some form of oil, though an orifice. These devices require
substantial engineering and precision machining such that properties are known within a narrow
range.
Viscoelastic fluid or solid devices. These devices operate on the principle of shearing of highly
viscous fluids or viscoelastic solids. Properties of these devices are strongly dependent on
frequency and temperature.
Metallic yielding devices. These devices dissipate energy through yielding of steel elements.
Typically, these devices are manufactured from steel with carefully controlled yield properties.
The range of values of the yield strength can be determined with simple material rests.
Friction devices. These devices operate on the principle of preloaded sliding interfaces.
Properties are dependent on the materials used and may be highly sensitive to thermal,
environmental, and duration effects.
Other devices. Examples include shape-memory alloys (super-elastic effect); friction–spring
assemblies with recentering capability; and fluid-restoring, force-damping devices.
C15.2.2.4 Performance Objectives and System Redundancy. The increase in displacement and
velocity capacity is dependent on the level of redundancy in the supplemental damping system.
Research has shown that including a factor of 130% over the values calculated by analysis at
BSE-2X can provide a greater margin of safety at large earthquakes. Accordingly, this standard
requires that energy dissipation devices be capable of sustaining larger displacements (and
velocities for velocity-dependent devices) than the maxima calculated by analysis in the BSE-2X.
The response of a building frame incorporating four or more devices in each principal direction in
each story is more reliable than a frame with fewer devices in each principal direction, because
the increase in displacement and velocity capacity is dependent on the level of redundancy in the
supplemental damping system. The increased force caused by the additional displacement and
velocity capacity in the devices shall be used to design the framing that supports the energy
dissipation devices.
The DS must be designed for the actual (unreduced) forces and deflections. For certain elements
of the DS (such as the connections or the members into which the damping devices frame), other
than damping devices, limited yielding is permitted provided that such behavior does not affect
DS function or exceed the amount permitted for elements of conventional structures by the
standard.

Figure C15-1. Damping System (DS) and Seismic-Force-Resisting System (SFRS)

Configurations

C15.3.1 Nominal Design Properties. The nominal design properties can be obtained from
prototype tests. Alternatively, existing prototype test data, available from manufacturers of the
more widely used devices can be used to get reasonably accurate nominal design properties.
These nominal design properties can be confirmed by prototype tests, if desired.
C15.3.2 Maximum and Minimum Damper Properties. As part of the design process, it is
important to recognize that there will be variations in the production damper properties from the
nominal properties. This difference is caused by manufacturing variation. Recommended values
for the specification tolerance on the average properties of all devices of a given type and size are
typically in the +/−10% to +/−15% range. For a +/−10% specification tolerance, the
corresponding λ factors would be λ(spec max) = 1.1 and λ(spec min) = 0.9. Variations for
individual device properties may be greater than the tolerance on the average properties of all
devices of a given type and size. It is recommended that the device manufacturer be consulted
when establishing these tolerance values.
The specification (λspec), environmental (λae), and testing (λtest) factors are used to establish
maximum (λmax) and minimum (λmin) damper properties for each device type and size for use
in mathematical models of the damped structure. These factors are typically applied to whatever
parameters govern the mathematical representation of the device. For fluid viscous devices, these
factors typically apply to the damper constant and not the velocity exponent.
The system property adjustment factor (SPAF) was designed to recognize that a full and
simultaneous increase in each parameter is unlikely to occur at the same time.
C15.4.1 General Limitations for the Linear Analysis Procedures. For buildings that have
dampers in all stories, procedures other than the nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP) have been
shown to provide a reasonable estimate of the global performance of the building. However, the
studies conducted to date have been limited in scope and have focused on the cases where
dampers have been provided in all stories. Because damping devices introduce concentrated
damping at their point of attachment, the authors of the standard recognize that such damping
cannot be represented by a global damping ratio. As such, when dampers are not present in all
stories, use of procedures other than NDP analysis can lead to inaccuracies in calculating the
demand on structural members.
C15.5.1 General Requirements. If energy dissipation devices are dependent on loading
frequency, operating temperature (including temperature rise caused by excitation), deformation
(or strain), velocity, sustained loads, or bilateral loads, such dependence should be accounted for
in the nonlinear time-history analysis. One way to account for variations in the force–deformation
response of energy dissipation devices is to perform multiple analyses of the rehabilitated
building using the likely bounding response characteristics of the energy dissipation devices. The
design of the retrofitted building, including the energy dissipation devices, should be based on the
maximum responses computed from the multiple analyses.
The viscous forces (if any) developed in the seismic framing system should be accounted for in
the analysis and design of the seismic framing system. Evaluation of member action histories
should be based on nodal displacements (operating on member stiffness matrices) and nodal
velocities (operating on member damping matrices).
Key to the acceptable response of a retrofitted building incorporating energy dissipation devices
is the stable response of the energy dissipation devices. The forces and deformations in the
energy dissipation devices that develop during the design earthquake should be demonstrated to
be adequate by prototype testing in accordance with Section 15.9.
C15.5.2.2.1 Solid Viscoelastic Devices. The cyclic response of viscoelastic solids is generally
dependent on the frequency and amplitude of the motion and the operating temperature
(including temperature rise caused by excitation).
C15.5.2.2.2 Fluid Viscoelastic Devices. The cyclic response of fluid viscoelastic devices is
generally dependent on the frequency and amplitude of the motion and the operating temperature
(including temperature rise caused by excitation).
C15.5.2.3 Other Types of Devices. Other energy dissipating devices, such as those having
hysteresis of the type having recentering capabilities as shown in Section 15.5, require modeling
techniques different from those described above. Nims et al. (1993), Tsopelas and Constantinou
(1994), and Pekcan et al. (1995) describe analytical models for some of these devices.
C15.5.4 Accidental Eccentricity. The following procedure is one acceptable method of
developing appropriate amplification factors for deformations and forces for use with center-of-
mass NDP analyses, to account for the effects of accidental torsion. The use of other rationally
based amplification factors is permitted.
The most critical directions for moving the calculated center of mass are such that the accidental
eccentricity adds to the inherent eccentricity in each principal direction at each level. For each of
these two eccentric mass cases, and with lower-bound damper properties, the suite of NDP
analyses should be run, and the results should be processed. The analysis cases are defined in
Table C15-1.

Table C15-1. Acceptable Analysis Cases for Accidental Eccentricity

The results from Cases IIa and IIb are then compared with those from Case I. The following
amplification factors (ratio of Case IIa or IIb response to Case I response) are computed:
1. The amplification of story drift in the structure at the plan location with the highest drift,
enveloped over all stories, and
2. The amplification of frame-line shear forces at each story for the frame subjected to the
maximum drift.
The larger of the two resulting scalars on drift should be used as the deformation amplifier, and
the larger of the two resulting scalars on force should be used as the force amplifier. If both of
these scalars are less than 1.1, the effects of accidental torsion need not be considered. If either
scalar is greater than or equal to 1.1, the effects of accidental eccentricity should be considered as
follows:
NDP analyses of record need consider only the model reflecting the inherent mass eccentricity.
Damper property variation need only be considered for this model. Response quantities should be
computed per Section 7.4.4.2.3. All deformation response quantities should be increased by the
deformation amplifier, and all force quantities should be increased by the force amplifier, before
being used for evaluation or design.

C15.7 DESIGN REVIEW

Review of the seismic and other dynamic input is required because this review should be a part of
the project design criteria. Although review of the prototype test program is mandated, the design
reviewer is no longer required to witness the prototype tests. The independent design review of
many structures incorporating supplemental damping may be performed adequately by one
registered and appropriately experienced design professional. However, for projects involving
significant or critical structures, it is recommended that a design review panel consisting of two
or three registered and appropriately experienced design professionals be used.
C15.8.2 Production Tests. The registered design professional is responsible for defining in the
project specifications the scope of the production damper test program, including the allowable
variation in the average measured properties of the production damping devices. The registered
design professional must decide on the acceptable variation of damper properties on a project-by-
project basis. This range must agree with the specification tolerance from Section 15.3.2. The
standard requires that all production devices of a given type and size are tested.
Individual devices may be permitted a wider variation (typically ±15% or ±20%) from the
nominal design properties. For example, in a device characterized by F = C0[D*]α × sgn(D*), the
mean of the force at a specified velocity for all tested devices might be permitted to vary no more
than ±10% from the specified value of force, but the force at a specified velocity for any
individual device might be permitted to vary no more than ±15% from the specified force.
The production dynamic cyclic test is identical (except for three versus five cycles) to one of the
prototype tests of Section 15.8.1.2, so that direct comparison of production and prototype damper
properties is possible.
The exception is intended to cover those devices that would undergo yielding or be otherwise
damaged under the production test regime.
C15.10.2 Velocity-Dependent Devices. The use of Eq. (15-25) generally captures the maximum
displacement of the building.