Applied Sciences: A New Stainless-Steel Tube-in-Tube Damper For Seismic Protection of Structures

applied
sciences
Article
A New Stainless-Steel Tube-in-Tube Damper for
Seismic Protection of Structures
Guillermo González-Sanz , David Escolano-Margarit and Amadeo Benavent-Climent *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28006 Madrid, Spain;
guillermo.gonzalez.sanz@upm.es (G.G.-S.); d.escolano@upm.es (D.E.-M.)
* Correspondence: amadeo.benavent@upm.es; Tel.: +34-910-677-237

Received: 1 February 2020; Accepted: 17 February 2020; Published: 19 February 2020
Featured Application: The damper presented in this paper is applied for the protection of buildings
subjected to strong earthquakes; in particular, for preventing or minimizing damage to the main
structure and reducing its lateral displacements.
Abstract: This paper investigates a new stainless-steel tube-in-tube damper (SS-TTD) designed for
the passive control of structures subjected to seismic loadings. It consists of two tubes assembled
in a telescopic configuration. A series of slits are cut on the walls of the exterior tube in order to
create a series of strips with a large height-to-width ratio. The exterior tube is connected to the
interior tube so that when the brace-type damper is subjected to forced axial displacements, the strips
dissipate energy in the form of flexural plastic deformations. The performance of the SS-TTD is
assessed experimentally through quasi-static and dynamic shaking table tests. Its ultimate energy
dissipation capacity is quantitatively evaluated, and a procedure is proposed to predict the failure.
The cumulative ductility of the SS-TTD is about 4-fold larger than that reported for other dampers
based on slit-type plates in previous studies. Its ultimate energy dissipation capacity is 3- and 16-fold
higher than that of slit-type plates made of mild steel and high-strength steel, respectively. Finally,
two hysteretic models are investigated and compared to characterise the hysteretic behaviour of the
SS-TTD under arbitrarily applied cyclic loads.
Keywords: metallic damper; stainless steel; shaking table test; cyclic loading; energy dissipation
1. Introduction
For decades, seismic-resistant structures have been designed using the conventional approach of
ensuring life safety against earthquakes, the main objective being to prevent buildings from collapsing.
However, this approach comes at the cost of assuming important damage to the structure after the
earthquake, requiring in most cases its demolition and rebuilding or a high cost of repair. Strong ground
motions such as the Northridge (Northridge, 1994) or Hyogo-ken Nambu (Kobe, 1995) earthquakes
have long since proven that this approach is no longer valid, as economic losses are also to be considered
in seismic-resistant design. Controlling damage is a key aspect of the so-called Performance-Based
Seismic Design: the new paradigm that has guided the development of codes, strategies and new
technologies in the earthquake engineering field since the beginning of this century.
Substantial research efforts have been devoted to the development of innovative systems to
control structures’ vibration. These are categorized into four groups: passive systems, active systems,
semi-active systems and hybrid systems [1–4]. Among them, passive control systems based on the use of
displacement-dependent energy dissipation devices (EDDs)—also referred to herein as dampers—have
been proven to be a cost-effective solution. When installed in the main structure, they can enhance the
overall performance of the building, reducing the seismic response in terms of displacements and,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410; doi:10.3390/app10041410 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl.Appl.
Sci. Sci.
2020, 10, 10,
2020, 14101410 2 of2 23
of 22
can enhance the overall performance of the building, reducing the seismic response in terms of
more importantly,and,
displacements attracting most of the energy
more importantly, attractinginput
mostby of
thethe
earthquake.
energy input Thebydamage concentrates
the earthquake. The in
the damage
EDDs, whichconcentrates in the EDDs, which are specifically engineered elements easy to inspect, repairan
are specifically engineered elements easy to inspect, repair and/or replace after
earthquake. This prevents
and/or replace after an damage to theThis
earthquake. main structure
prevents and minimizes
damage to the maindisruption
structureonandthe building
minimizesuse.
In displacement-dependent
disruption on the building use. dampers, energy is dissipated through different mechanisms: metal
yielding,Inmetal phase transformation, friction, sliding, etc. Dampers based on metal
displacement-dependent dampers, energy is dissipated through different mechanisms: metal yielding (metallic
dampers)
yielding,are made
metal of materials
phase with afriction,
transformation, large inherent plastic
sliding, etc. deformation
Dampers capacity
based on metal and (metallic
yielding shaped to
dampers)
avoid are made
any source of materials
of stress with a that
concentration largecould
inherent plastic deformation
jeopardise the inherentcapacity
high energyand shaped to
dissipation
avoid any source of stress concentration that could jeopardise the inherent
capacity of the material. Many metallic dampers have been developed in the last decades, and a high energy dissipation
capacity of the
state-of-the-art material.
review Many metallic
of metallic dampersdampers
can be have
foundbeenindeveloped in the lastdesigns
[5]. The original decades, and based
were a state-on
of-the-art
simple review
torsion of metallic
or bending dampers
of steel canand
plates be found in [5].
uniaxial The originalofdesigns
deformation U-shape were basedSome
strips. on simple
widely
torsion or bending of steel plates and uniaxial deformation of U-shape
used examples are: Buckling Restrained Braces, Added Damping and Stiffness, and its triangular strips. Some widely used
examples
version. Otherare: Buckling
energy Restrained
dissipation Braces,
devices thatAdded
haveDamping and Stiffness,
drawn attention latelyand
are its
thetriangular version.1a)
slit type (Figure
Other energy dissipation devices that have drawn attention lately are the slit type (Figure 1a) and the
and the honeycomb damper (Figure 1b). They are built from steel plates with openings of constant
honeycomb damper (Figure 1b). They are built from steel plates with openings of constant width
width referred to as slits (Figure 1a), or a variable honeycomb shape (Figure 1b), leaving between them
referred to as slits (Figure 1a), or a variable honeycomb shape (Figure 1b), leaving between them steel
steel strips of constant (Figure 1a) or variable (Figure 1b) width. These strips dissipate energy through
strips of constant (Figure 1a) or variable (Figure 1b) width. These strips dissipate energy through
plastic flexural/shear deformations.
plastic flexural/shear deformations.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 1. 1. Metallicdampers:
Metallic dampers:(a)
(a) slit
slit damper;
damper; (b)
(b)honeycomb
honeycombdamper.
damper.
Several
Several recent
recent studies
studies havehave investigatedslit-type
investigated slit-typedampers
dampersmademadeof ofmild
mild steel.
steel. Chan
Chan [6] [6]studied
studied a
a slit damper fabricated from a standard structural wide-flange section
slit damper fabricated from a standard structural wide-flange section with some slits cut in with some slits cut in thethe
web.
web.
Teruna [7] investigated several steel dampers with a honeycomb geometry
Teruna [7] investigated several steel dampers with a honeycomb geometry with the aim of yielding with the aim of yielding
all the length of the strip simultaneously. Lee [8] proposed several optimized nonuniform shapes for
all the length of the strip simultaneously. Lee [8] proposed several optimized nonuniform shapes
the openings of the damper and compared their overall performance through quasi-static cyclic tests.
for the openings of the damper and compared their overall performance through quasi-static cyclic
Lee [9] developed a series of hourglass-shaped strip dampers and tested them under quasi-static and
tests. Lee [9] developed a series of hourglass-shaped strip dampers and tested them under quasi-static
dynamic monotonic and cyclic loading. Amiri [10] studied a symmetric slit damper cut from a steel
andplate
dynamic monotonic and cyclic loading. Amiri [10] studied a symmetric slit damper cut from a
having a low height-to-thickness ratio. The shape and dimensions of several specimens were
steel plate having
optimized a low experimentally
and tested height-to-thickness underratio.
cyclic The shape
loading and dimensions
in quasi-static of several
conditions. specimens
Extending the
were optimized and tested experimentally under cyclic loading in quasi-static
concept of the slit-type damper, Benavent [11] devised a tube-in-tube damper based on yielding conditions. Extending
the
the walls
concept of of the slit-type
hollow mild steeldamper, Benavent
structural [11]which
sections, devised cana be
tube-in-tube
installed indamper
a framebased on yielding
structure as a
the conventional
walls of hollow mildbrace.
diagonal steel Past
structural
studiessections, which
on slit-type can be
dampers installed
used in a made
steel plates frameofstructure as a
mild steel,
conventional
low-yield steel diagonal
or evenbrace. Past studies
high-strength steelon slit-type
[12]. To thedampers
knowledge used steel
of the plates slit-type
authors, made ofdampers
mild steel,
low-yield
made ofsteel or even
stainless steelhigh-strength
have not beensteel [12].inTothe
reported the knowledge of the authors, slit-type dampers
literature.
made ofThis studysteel
stainless proposes
have not a new
been Stainless-Steel
reported in the Tube-in-Tube
literature. Damper (hereafter SS-TTD), whose
source of energy
This study dissipation
proposes a newisStainless-Steel
the plastic deformation
Tube-in-Tube of stainless-steel plates with
Damper (hereafter slits. whose
SS-TTD), Besidessource
the
novelty of using stainless steel instead of mild or high-strength steel, SS-TTD uses
of energy dissipation is the plastic deformation of stainless-steel plates with slits. Besides the novelty strips with an h/b
aspect ratio (see Figure 1a) as large as possible within the dimensional constraints
of using stainless steel instead of mild or high-strength steel, SS-TTD uses strips with an h/b aspect ratio imposed for
(seearchitectural
Figure 1a) asreasons
large as(i.e., in conventional
possible within the buildings,
dimensional theconstraints
cross section of the tubes
imposed is limited soreasons
for architectural that
(i.e.,the brace damper can be embedded in partitions or exterior walls). Stainless steel has an inherent
in conventional buildings, the cross section of the tubes is limited so that the brace damper can be
energy dissipation capacity that is markedly larger than that of low-yield steel or mild steel. This is
embedded in partitions or exterior walls). Stainless steel has an inherent energy dissipation capacity
that is markedly larger than that of low-yield steel or mild steel. This is due to its higher ductility,
that is, the amount of plastic deformation that the material can endure until failure [13]. Meanwhile,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 3 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 3 of 23
dueh/b
large to ratios
its higher ductility,
guarantee a that is, the amount
flexural-type of plastic
yielding modedeformation
of the steel that theand
strips material can the
enhance endure
energy
until failure
dissipation [13]. Meanwhile,
capacity largeThe
of the damper. h/b ratios guarantee
performance a flexural-type
of the yielding
SS-TTD in terms mode of the
of hysteretic steel
behaviour,
strips and
ductility andenhance
ultimatethe energydissipation
energy dissipationcapacity
capacityisofinvestigated
the damper. through
The performance
dynamicofshaking
the SS-TTD
tableintests
terms of hysteretic behaviour, ductility and ultimate energy dissipation capacity
and quasi-static cyclic tests. A comparison with other metallic dampers proposed in the literature is investigated
is through
presented.dynamic shaking
Finally, table tests and
two numerical quasi-static
models cyclic tests.
are proposed and A comparison
compared, to with other
predict themetallic
hysteretic
dampers proposed in the literature
behaviour and failure of the damper. is presented. Finally, two numerical models are proposed and
compared, to predict the hysteretic behaviour and failure of the damper.
2. Proposed Seismic Damper
2. Proposed Seismic Damper
The proposed SS-TTD damper is constructed through the assemblage of two standardized
The proposed SS-TTD damper is constructed through the assemblage of two standardized
stainless-steel tubes with a telescopic configuration (Figure 2a). All faces (i.e., the four walls) of the
stainless-steel tubes with a telescopic configuration (Figure 2a). All faces (i.e., the four walls) of the
outer tube are regularly slit transversally to its longitudinal axis, forming strips. The strips are grooved
outer tube are regularly slit transversally to its longitudinal axis, forming strips. The strips are
so that one of its sides can be connected to a common plate, thus linking all in parallel. The common
grooved so that one of its sides can be connected to a common plate, thus linking all in parallel. The
plate that gathers
common plate thatone end ofone
gathers each
endsteel strip
of each is fixed
steel strip to the inner
is fixed to thetube
innerwith
tubeplug
withwelding at discrete
plug welding at
points. The other end of each steel strip is connected to the corner of the outer tube.
discrete points. The other end of each steel strip is connected to the corner of the outer tube. When When the brace
is the
subjected
brace istosubjected
axial forces, the forces,
to axial relative displacements
the betweenbetween
relative displacements the tubes impose
the a double
tubes impose curvature
a double
flexural deformation on the strips, which behave as a series of fixed-ended
curvature flexural deformation on the strips, which behave as a series of fixed-ended beams. These beams. These strips
constitute the energy
strips constitute the dissipating part of part
energy dissipating the SS-TTD. One end
of the SS-TTD. Oneofend
eachoftube
eachistube
connected to auxiliary
is connected to
brace members
auxiliary braceof the appropriate
members length that
of the appropriate connect
length the SS-TTD
that connect damper
the SS-TTD to the
damper to two points
the two of the
points
of the building
building structure structure
that are that are expected
expected to undergo
to undergo large
large relative
relative horizontal
horizontal displacements(Figure
displacements (Figure 2b).
2b). Typically, in frame structures, these points are two beam-column joints of
Typically, in frame structures, these points are two beam-column joints of consecutive spans and consecutive spans andfloor
floor as
levels, levels,
shown as shown in Figure
in Figure 2b. 2b.
(a) (b)
Figure2.2.Proposed
Figure Proposed damper
damper (a)
(a)and
andinstallation
installationinina typical building
a typical frame
building (b).(b).
frame
Knowingthe
Knowing the geometry
geometry and
andmechanical
mechanical properties
propertiesof the
of stainless steel that
the stainless steelform
thatthe strips,
form thethe
strips,
theaxial
axialyielding force
yielding QyQand
force y apparent
and apparentmaximum
maximum force Q
force of
B Q
B
the
of damper
the damperare readily
are obtained
readily by
obtained by
applying fundamental engineering principles as follows:
applying fundamental engineering principles as follows:
𝑄 =𝑛
σ y tb2 ; 𝑄 = 𝑛 σB tb
, 2 (1)
Qy = n ; QB = n , (1)
2h0 respectively,2h
where b and t are the strip width and thickness, 0 r is the radius at the extremes of
and
the strips (see Figure 3a); n is the total number of strips in the damper; σy and σB are the steel tensile
where b and t are the strip width and thickness, respectively, and r is the radius at the extremes of the
stress at yielding and maximum states, and h’ = h + [2r2/(h + 2r)] is the height of an equivalent strut
strips (see Figure 3a); n is the total number of strips in the damper; σy and σB are the steel tensile stress
where the actual round-shape ends are0replaced by straight lines (see Figure 3b). The expression for
at h’
yielding and maximum
was obtained states,
by comparing theand h = of
results h+ [2r2 /(h +analyses
numerical 2r)] is the height ofwith
conducted an equivalent strut
two different where
finite
theelement
actual round-shape h0
models (Model 1 and Model 2) that represented one steel strip. In Model 1 the strip hadwas
ends are replaced by straight lines (see Figure 3b). The expression for
obtained
roundedbyends,
comparing
as showntheinresults
Figure of
3a.numerical
In Model 2analyses
the actual conducted withwere
rounded ends two different finite
replaced by element
straight
models (Model 1 and Model 2) that represented one steel strip. In Model 1 the strip had rounded
lines defined, as shown in Figure 3b. A parametric study was conducted with different combinations ends,
as shown in Figure 3a. In Model 2 the actual rounded ends were replaced by straight lines defined,
as shown in Figure 3b. A parametric study was conducted with different combinations of r, h and
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 4 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 4 of 23
h0
b. For each combination, the value of the equivalent height that makes the strength and stiffness
Appl.
of r, hSci.
and2020,
b. 10,
For1410 4 of
each combination, the value of the equivalent height h’ that makes the strength and23
of the strip approximately equal (error less than 10%) in Model 1 and in Model 2 was determined.
stiffness of the strip approximately equal (error less than 10%) in Model 1 and in Model 2 was
0 was readily obtained by numerical regression of these results.
Theofexpression
r, h and b. Forfor heach combination, the value of the equivalent height h’ that makes the strength and
determined. The expression for h’ was readily obtained by numerical regression of these results.
stiffness of the strip approximately equal (error less than 10%) in Model 1 and in Model 2 was
determined. The expression for h’ was readily obtained by numerical regression of these results.
Figure3.3.Geometry
Figure Geometryof
of the
the (a) actual
actual and
and(b)
(b)equivalent
equivalentstrut.
strut.
TheThe
yielding Figure 3. Geometry
yieldingdisplacement
displacement ofof the of the (a)δactual
the struts,
struts, and
yy,, can
can be
be(b)estimated
equivalent using
estimated strut.
usingthetheequivalent
equivalentstrip
strip
approximation of Figure 3b, by integration of the curvatures along the total height h + 2r giving [11]:
approximation of Figure 3b, by integration of the curvatures along the total height h + 2r giving [11]:
The yielding displacement of the struts, δy, can be estimated using the equivalent strip
𝛿 = of0the
approximation of Figure 3b, by integration 1 + 3 ln
3 curvatures
Qy h along (2)
. ! the total height h + 2r giving [11]:
h + 2r
δy = 1 + 3 ln . (2)
Here E is the 𝛿 =
Young’s modulus of the material. 1 + 3 lnh0 displacement at yielding of the
nEtb3 The total axial . overall
(2)
brace-type damper is readily obtained by adding to Equation (2) the elastic axial deformation of the
Here
Here
inner E E the
is
and is the Young’s
Young’s
outer tubes, andmodulus
modulus ofdeformation
of the
the elastic the material.
material. Theaxial
Theoftotal
the totaldisplacement
auxiliaryaxial displacement
brace at of
at yielding
members. yielding of the
the overall
overall brace-type
brace-type damperdamper is readily
is readily obtained
obtained by adding
by adding to Equation
to Equation (2) theaxial
(2) the elastic elastic axial deformation
deformation of the
inner
of the
3. andand
inner outer
Experimental tubes,
outer and the
tubes, andelastic
Investigation deformation
the elastic of the of
deformation auxiliary brace members.
the auxiliary brace members.
The hysteretic
3. Experimental behaviour and energy dissipation capacity of the SS-TTD were investigated
Investigation
3. Experimental Investigation
experimentally. Two different types of test were conducted: (i) dynamic shaking table tests; and (ii)
TheThe hysteretic
hysteretic
quasi-static behaviour
cyclic behaviour
tests. Threeand andenergy
energy
identical dissipation
dissipation
SS-TTDs, capacity
capacity
as shown of
of the
in Figure the4,SS-TTD
SS-TTD were
were built were investigated
investigated
following the
experimentally.
experimentally.
specifications Twodifferent
Two
describeddifferent types2.of
types
in Section ofThe
test were
wereconducted:
testouter conducted:
and (i) (i)
inner tubes dynamic
dynamic
were shaking
#150.4 table
shaking
mm and tests;
table andmm
tests;
#140.4 (ii)
and
quasi-static cyclic
(ii) (#width.thickness) tests.
quasi-static cyclicsquare Three
tests. hollow identical
Three identical SS-TTDs,
sections cutSS-TTDs, as shown
as shown
from a single in
segment. Figure
in Figure 4, were
A total4,ofwerebuilt following
built(25
100 strips following the
per face)the
specifications
with dimensions
specifications described
described inSection
of b = 5inmm,Section
h = 802.2.
mm,Thet outer
The =outer
4 mmandandinner
and tubes
a radius
inner tubesof were
the
were #150.4
ends of rmm
#150.4 =mm
5 mmand
and #140.4
were slitmm
#140.4 onmm
(#width.thickness) square
the outer tube. Material
(#width.thickness) square tests hollow
hollowwere sections cut
also conducted
sections from
cut from toa single segment.
determine
a single A total
the mechanical
segment. of 100 strips
A total ofproperties. (25 per
100 strips (25 per face)
face)
with dimensions of b = 5 mm, h = 80 mm, t = 4 mm and a radius of the ends of r = 5 mm were slit on
with dimensions of b = 5 mm, h = 80 mm, t = 4 mm and a radius of the ends of r = 5 mm were slit on
the outer tube. Material tests were also conducted to determine the mechanical properties.
the outer tube. Material tests were also conducted to determine the mechanical properties.
Figure 4. TTD damper specimen.
Figure4.4.TTD
Figure TTD damper specimen.
damper specimen.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 5 of 23
3.1. Material Testing

All SS-TTD specimens were built with stainless steel, grade 1.4301 (304-L AISI). The material
Appl.mechanical
Sci. 2020, 10,properties
1410 5 of 22
were obtained following the indications of ISO 6892-1:2016 [14] from standard
coupon tension tests (Figure 5).
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 5 of 23
mechanical properties were obtained following the indications of ISO 6892-1:2016 [14] from standard
mechanical properties were obtained
Figurefollowing
5. Couponthe indications
tension of ISO 6892-1:2016 [14] from standard
test specimen.
Since the dampers were studied under quasi-static and dynamic loads, the material was
subjected to monotonic loading at two different strain rates of 0.003 and 0.115 mm/mm/s, hereafter
referred to as static and dynamic loadings, respectively. The strain rate is defined here as strain
increments per second at the central section of the coupon tension test specimen (i.e., between points
2 and 3 in Figure 5), between zero Figure
Figure 5.5.Coupon
strain Coupon
and yield tension test
strain.
tension testTwospecimen.
specimens were tested at each strain
specimen.
rate.
SinceSincethe the
Figure dampers
dampers
6a shows the were
were studiedstudied
stress‒strain under under
curve quasi-static
quasi-static
obtained and
during andthedynamic
dynamic tests andloads,
loads, the the idealisation
material
a trilineal material
was subjectedwas of
subjected
to monotonic to
the former. loadingmonotonic loading
at two different
Table 1 summarizes at two
the mean different
strain strain
ratesand
values rates
of corresponding of
0.003 and 0.115 0.003 and 0.115
mm/mm/s,
standard mm/mm/s,hereafter
deviation hereafter
of thereferred
main
referred
to as static
curve to asdynamic
and
parameters static and
obtained dynamic
loadings, loadings,
from respectively.
direct tensile respectively.
The strain
tests. In this The
rate strain rate
is defined
table, σ0.2% , isisthe defined
here here increments
as strain
0.2% yielding as strain
stress
increments per second at the central section of the coupon tension test specimen (i.e., between points
per second at the central section of the coupon tension test specimen (i.e., between points 2 and 3 in
(parameter commonly used to describe stainless steel), σ u is the ultimate stress, and ε u is the ultimate
2elongation.
and 3 in Figure 5), betweenthe
For convenience, zero strain and
defining yield strain.
parameters of theTwo specimens
trilinear were testedFigure at each 6bstrain
Figure 5), between zero strain and yield strain. Two specimens wereapproximation
tested at eachinstrain rate. were
rate.
included, namely:
Figure 6a showsσthe y, εy stress-strain
yielding stresscurve and strain
obtained at theduring
limit ofthe proportionality;
tests and a trilineal and σb, idealisation
εb stress and of
Figure the6aendshows thesmooth
stress‒strain curvebranch obtained during thetotests and arange. trilineal idealisation of
the strain
former. at Table of the
1 summarizes thetransition
mean values from
and elastic
corresponding inelastic
standard The
deviation stress‒strain
of the main
the former.
curves Table
were idealized 1 summarizes
as follows: the mean
(i) an initial values and corresponding
linear-elastic branch standard
following deviation of the main
curve
curve
parameters
parameters
obtained
obtained
from direct
from direct
tensile tests. In this
tensile tests. In this table, σ0.2%
table, σ0.2% , isthe the modulus
0.2% yielding
, is the 0.2% yielding stress
of elasticity stress
E until
(parameter the limit
commonly of proportionality
used to describe (σ y, εy); (ii) a second transition linear branch from (σy, εy) to (σb, εb)
stainless steel), σ is the ultimate stress, and ε is the ultimate
(parameter
representing commonly
the transitionusedcurve;
to describe(iii) astainless steel), σuubranch
final horizontal is the ultimate
from (σb,stress, εb) to (σ and εu isu the ultimate
u, ε u) closely fitting
elongation.
elongation. For convenience, the defining parameters
parameters of the trilinear approximation inin
of the trilinear approximation Figure 6b 6b were
the inelasticFor convenience,
part. The values the of σdefining
b and εb were determined so as the area under the real curve and the
Figure were
included,
included, namely: σ , ε yielding
namely: σy y, εyy yielding stress
stressAs and and strain
strain atthe at the
themodulus limit of proportionality;
limit of proportionality; and σ , ε stress
of elasticity wasand σb, εb in stress
b band
trilinear approximation was the same. expected, the same all tests,
andstrain
strainatatthe theendendofofthe thesmooth
smoothtransition
transition branch
branch from
from elastic
elastic to to inelastic
inelastic range.
range. The The stress-strain
stress‒strain
E = 2 × 10 MPa, irrespective of the strain rate applied. Table 1 also includes the theoretical values of
5
curves
curves were idealized asas follows:
follows:(i) (i)ananinitial linear-elastic branch following the modulus of elasticity
Qy andwere idealized
δy obtained with Equations (1) initial
and (2).linear-elastic branch following the modulus of elasticity
E until
E untilthethelimit
limitof of
proportionality
proportionality (σ(σ ,
y yyε, ε );
y );(ii)
(ii) aa second
second transition
transition linear linearbranch branchfrom from(σ(σ y, yε,yε
) yto) to , εbb,) εb )
(σb(σ
representing the
representing the transition transition curve;
curve; (iii)
Table 1. Mechanical (iii) a final horizontal
a final horizontal
properties of the stainless branch
branch from
steel atfrom (σ , ε εb ) torates.
)
(σb ,strain
different b b to (σ (σu , εu ) closely fitting
u , ε u) closely fitting
thethe inelastic
inelastic part.part.
TheThe valuesofofσσ
values b and
band ε εbb were determined
determined so
so as
as the
the area
area under
under thethe real
realcurvecurve and andthethe
Strain rate mm/mm/s σ0.2% MPa σu MPa σy MPa Qy kN σb MPa Qb kN εy % δy mm εb %
trilinear
trilinear approximation
approximation waswas thesame.
the same.As Asexpected,
expected, the the modulus
modulus ofofelasticity
elasticity waswas thethesame same in εall
u%
in tests,
all tests,
0.003 377 ± 15 604 ± 30 250 ± 5 15.50 405 ± 15 25.14 0.12 ± 0.05 1.08 0.40 ± 0.01 46 ± 1
E = 2 ×
E = 2 × 10 MPa,10
5 5 MPa, irrespective
irrespective of the strain rate applied. Table 1 also includes the theoretical values of
0.115 529of± 6the709strain
± 16 400 rate
± 10 applied.
24.83 560Table 1 also
± 15 34.76 includes
0.20 ± 0.01 1.73 the 0.57
theoretical
± 0.02 44 values±2 of
Q Qy
y and δy obtained with Equations (1) and (2).
and δ obtained with Equations (1) and (2).
y
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the stainless steel at different strain rates.
Strain rate mm/mm/s σ0.2% MPa σu MPa σy MPa Qy kN σb MPa Qb kN εy % δy mm εb % εu %

0.003 377 ± 15 604 ± 30 250 ± 5 15.50 405 ± 15 25.14 0.12 ± 0.05 1.08 0.40 ± 0.01 46 ± 1
0.115 529 ± 6 709 ± 16 400 ± 10 24.83 560 ± 15 34.76 0.20 ± 0.01 1.73 0.57 ± 0.02 44 ± 2
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6.6.Stress-strain
Stress‒straincurves:
curves: (a)
(a) tension
tension tests;
tests;(b)
(b)idealisation.
idealisation.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the stainless steel at different strain rates.
Strain Rate σ 0.2% σu σy σb

Qy kN Qb kN εy % δy mm εb % εu %
mm/mm/s MPa MPa
(a) MPa MPa (b)
0.003 377 ± 15 604 ± 30 250 ± 5 15.50 405 ± 15 25.14 0.12 ± 0.05 1.08 0.40 ± 0.01 46 ± 1
0.115 529 ± 6 Figure
709 ± 166. Stress‒strain
400 ± 10 curves:560
24.83 (a)±tension
15 tests; (b)
34.76 0.20idealisation.
± 0.01 1.73 0.57 ± 0.02 44 ± 2
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 6 of 22
3.2. Shaking Table Dynamic Tests

In order to assess the performance of the damper against realistic earthquake-type dynamic
loading, six SS-TTDs were installed in a reinforced concrete (RC) structure and tested with the shaking
table of the Laboratory of Structural Dynamics of the University of Granada, Spain. The RC structure
represents, at 2/5 scale, a portion of a prototype building structure consisting of RC waffle-flat plates
supported on isolated RC columns. The prototype structure is shown in Figure 7. The portion of
the structure that was selected and built in the laboratory is enclosed with dashed lines. The circles
in Figure 7 indicate the sections (located at mid span of the plate and at mid height of the columns)
where the bending moment is assumed to be zero under horizontal loads. The prototype structure was
designed to sustain gravity loads only, according to the Spanish construction codes [15,16]. Figure 8
shows the portion of the prototype RC structure with the SS-TTDs mounted on the shaking table.
As seen in Figure 8, three SS-TTDs were installed in each storey as diagonal bars. The three identical
SS-TTDs shown in Figure 4 were installed in the upper storey, and will be referred to as SS-TTD4,
SS-TTD5 and SS-TTD6. Reactive steel blocks were located at the top columns and on the waffle-flat
plate to reproduce the mass of the upper part of the structure and to satisfy similitude laws. Figure 9
shows the overall experimental set-up. A detailed description of a similar reinforced structure tested
by the authors in previous studies and with a different type of damper can be found in [17].
The seismic tests were performed with a bidirectional MTS 3 × 3 m2 shaking table. The setup
of instrumentation included uniaxial accelerometers, displacement transducers (LVDTs) and more
than 400 strain gauges set in the whole structure. On the SS-TTDs, a pair of LVDTs for each damper
measured the mean values of the relative axial displacements between the tubes. Axial forces were
obtained as the average value from six strain gauges fixed to the auxiliary square hollow sections
(#80.4 mm) connecting the SS-TTD to the main structure. Figure 8 shows the test specimen equipped
with the SS-TTDs and the setup and instrumentation utilized.
The RC structure with the SS-TTDs was subjected to eight seismic simulations. In all simulations
the two horizontal components, north-south (NS) and east-west (EW), of ground motion acceleration
recorded at Bar-Skupstina Opstine during the Montenegro earthquake (1979) were simultaneously
applied, scaled in amplitude by a factor that was successively increased from 15% of the original
record to 190%. The NS component was applied in the direction of the axis of symmetry of the test
specimen (referred to as direction X), and the EW component in the orthogonal direction (referred to as
direction Y). Figure 10 shows the histories of acceleration applied to the shaking table in the X and Y
horizontal directions. Figure 11 shows the movements of the reactive steel blocks located at the top of
the columns of the upper storey; more precisely, the relative displacements in the X and Y horizontal
directions with respect to the RC waffle-flat plate, and the rotations about the vertical axis passing
through the centre of mass. It can be seen that the relative displacements in the Y direction (Figure 11b)
are about two times larger than in the X direction (Figure 11a). The corresponding maximum inter
storey drifts (i.e., the relative displacement divided by the height of the columns) were about 1% in the
X direction and 2% in the Y direction. These values are below the limit of 2.5% associated with the
performance level of life safety, and far below the 4% associated with collapse in previous studies on
RC waffle-flat plate systems [17]. This means that the SS-TTDs protected the structure against collapse
and kept it within reasonable levels of safety when subjected to ground motions with peak ground
accelerations as large as 1g (here g is the acceleration of gravity), as shown in Figure 10.
shaking table. As seen in Figure 8, three SS-TTDs were installed in each storey as diagonal bars. The
three identical SS-TTDs shown in Figure 4 were installed in the upper storey, and will be referred to
as SS-TTD4, SS-TTD5 and SS-TTD6. Reactive steel blocks were located at the top columns and on the
waffle-flat plate to reproduce the mass of the upper part of the structure and to satisfy similitude
laws. Figure 9 shows the overall experimental set-up. A detailed description of a similar reinforced
Appl. Sci. 2020, tested
structure 10, 1410by the authors in previous studies and with a different type of damper can be found
7 of 22
in [17].
Figure 7. Sketch of the whole structure.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 Figure 7. Sketch of the whole structure. 7 of 23
The seismic tests were performed with a bidirectional MTS 3 × 3 m shaking table. The setup of
2
instrumentation included uniaxial accelerometers, displacement transducers (LVDTs) and more than
400 strain gauges set in the whole structure. On the SS-TTDs, a pair of LVDTs for each damper
measured the mean values of the relative axial displacements between the tubes. Axial forces were
obtained as the average value from six strain gauges fixed to the auxiliary square hollow sections
(#80.4 mm) connecting the SS-TTD to the main structure. Figure 8 shows the test specimen equipped
with the SS-TTDs and the setup and instrumentation utilized.
Figure 8. RC structure with SS-TTDs. (a) View in plan and (b) in elevation.
Figure 8. RC structure with SS-TTDs. (a) View in plan and (b) in elevation.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 8 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 8 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10,Figure

1410 9. General overview of the experimental setup used for the shaking table tests. 9 of 23
Figure
Appl. Sci. 2020, 9. General overview of the experimental setup used for the shaking table tests.
10, 1410 9 of 23
The RC structure with the SS-TTDs was subjected to eight seismic simulations. In all simulations
the two horizontal components, north‒south (NS) and east‒west (EW), of ground motion acceleration
recorded at Bar-Skupstina Opstine during the Montenegro earthquake (1979) were simultaneously
applied, scaled in amplitude by a factor that was successively increased from 15% of the original
record to 190%. The NS component was applied in the direction of the axis of symmetry of the test
specimen (referred to as direction X), and the EW component in the orthogonal direction (referred to
as direction Y). Figure 10 shows the histories of acceleration applied to the shaking table in the X and
Y horizontal directions. Figure 11 shows the movements of the reactive steel blocks located at the top
of the columns of the upper storey; more precisely, the relative displacements in the X and Y
horizontal directions with respect to the RC waffle-flat plate, and the rotations about the vertical axis
passing through theFigure centre 10. History of accelerations applied to the shaking table.
of
Figure10. mass.
10.History
HistoryIt of
can be seen that
accelerations the relative
applied displacements in the Y direction
Figure of accelerations appliedto tothe
theshaking
shakingtable.
table.
(Figure 11b) are about two times larger than in the X direction (Figure 11a). The corresponding
maximum inter storey drifts (i.e., the relative displacement divided by the height of the columns)
were about 1% in the X direction and 2% in the Y direction. These values are below the limit of 2.5%
associated with the performance level of life safety, and far below the 4% associated with collapse in
previous studies on RC waffle-flat plate systems [17]. This means that the SS-TTDs protected the
structure against collapse and kept it within reasonable levels of safety when subjected to ground
motions with peak ground accelerations as large as 1g (here g is the acceleration of gravity), as shown
in Figure 10.
In the 1st, 2nd and 3rd seismic simulations the SS-TTDs remained elastic with maximum axial
displacements of 0.2δyDYN, 0.5δyDYN and 0.9δyDYN. During the following seismic simulations, the SS-
TTDs underwent plastic deformations and reached maximum axial displacements of up to 5.2δyDYN.
This study focuses (a) on the results obtained from (b) the SS-TTDs located on the upper (c) floor, namely SS-
(a) (b) (c)
TTD4, SS-TTD5, and SS-TTD6. The overall response in terms of axial force vs axial displacement of
Figure 11. History of displacements and rotations of the reactive steel blocks located at the top of the
these SS-TTDs
Figure can be
11. History seen in Figureand
of displacements 12.rotations
At the end of reactive
of the the seismic
steel simulations,
blocks locatedthe main
at the top RC structure
of the
columns
Figureof the
11. upper
History ofstorey during the
displacements andshaking table
rotations tests:
of the relative
reactive displacement
steel blocks in
located the X (a)
at the topand
of Y (b)
the
(columns
columns and
of the waffle-flat
upper storey slab)
during remained
the shaking basically
table tests: elastic
relative (i.e., with
displacement no
in damage);
the X (a) and the
Y steel
horizontal
columnsdirections,
ofdid
the not
upper and rotation
storey (c) the
during about the axis
shaking passing
table throughdisplacement
tests:and
relative its centre of in
mass.
thewas
X (a)observed
and Y in
reinforcement experience any plastic deformation only minor
(b) horizontal directions, and rotation (c) about the axis passing through its centre of mass. cracking
(b) horizontal
the concrete. directions,theand rotation (c) about the axis passing through its butcentre of mass.
In the 1st,In2nd contrast,
and 3rd SS-TTD
seismicendured large
simulations plastic deformations
the SS-TTDs remainedwithoutelastic failure, i.e., the
with maximum
SS-TTDs did not reach their ultimate energy dissipation capacity.
axial displacements of 0.2δyDYN , 0.5δyDYN and 0.9δyDYN . During the following seismic simulations,
the SS-TTDs underwent plastic deformations and reached maximum axial displacements of up to
5.2δyDYN . This study focuses on the results obtained from the SS-TTDs located on the upper floor,
namely SS-TTD4, SS-TTD5, and SS-TTD6. The overall response in terms of axial force vs. axial
displacement of these SS-TTDs can be seen in Figure 12. At the end of the seismic simulations, the main
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 9 of 22
(a) (b) (c)
RC structure (columns and waffle-flat slab) remained basically elastic (i.e., with no damage); the steel
Figure 11. History
reinforcement did not of experience
displacementsany
andplastic
rotationsdeformation
of the reactive and
steel only
blocksminor
locatedcracking
at the top of
wasthe observed
columns of the upper storey during the shaking table tests: relative displacement in the X (a) and Y
in the concrete. In contrast, the SS-TTD endured large plastic deformations but without failure, i.e.,
(b) horizontal directions, and rotation (c) about the axis passing through its centre of mass.
the SS-TTDs did not reach their ultimate energy dissipation capacity.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 10 of 23

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 12. Q-δ curves obtained from the shaking table tests: (a) SS-TTD4, (b) SS-TTD5, (c) SS-TTD6.
Figure 12. Q‒δ curves obtained from the shaking table tests: (a) SS-TTD4, (b) SS-TTD5, (c) SS-TTD6.
3.3. Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests

After performing the shaking table dynamic tests, the SS-TTDs installed in the upper storey were
subjected to cyclic quasi-static loading until failure in order to quantify their ultimate energy
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 10 of 22
3.3. Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests

After performing the shaking table dynamic tests, the SS-TTDs installed in the upper storey were
subjected to cyclic quasi-static loading until failure in order to quantify their ultimate energy dissipation
capacity. The specimens were disassembled from the RC structure and tested on a SAXEWAY T1000
universal testing machine with a maximum load capacity of 1000 kN, as shown in Figure 13. Both the
inner and outer tube were welded to a 25-mm base plate that was rigidly bolted to the base of the testing
machine and to the actuator, respectively. All the tests were carried out under displacement control
with the same cyclic rate of 0.02 Hz. Two displacement transducers (LVDTs), connecting the inner
and outer tubes in the direction of the applied load, controlled and measured relative displacements
between the tubes. Three different loading histories consisting of cyclic forced displacements were
applied to the SS-TTDs. Specimen SS-TTD4 was subjected to an initial displacement of 10 mm in the
positive direction followed by cycles of constant amplitude equal to 5 times the yield displacement
δyST . Specimens SS-TTD5 and SS-TTD6 were subjected to sequential sets of cycles with incremental
amplitude, following the protocol proposed by ATC [18]. In both cases the increment of displacement
amplitude from one set of cycles to the next, ∆δ, was ∆δ/δYst = 1; the difference was the number of 11 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410
cycles nc applied within each set. For specimen SS-TTD5 nc = 10, while for specimen SS-TTD6 nc = 4.
The SS-TTD damper was assumed to fail when the force under increasing displacements dropped
increasing displacements dropped below 20% of the maximum force attained in previous cycles of
below 20% of the maximum force attained in previous cycles of deformation.
deformation.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 13.13. Experimentalsetup
Experimental setup for
for static
staticcyclic
cyclictests: (a)(a)
tests: identification of components,
identification (b) photograph.
of components, (b) photograph.
The entire axial force-displacement, Q-δ, hysteretic curves obtained from the quasi-static cyclic
The entire axial force‒displacement, Q‒δ, hysteretic curves obtained from the quasi-static cyclic
tests are plotted in dotted lines in Figure 14. The solid line represents the hysteretic behaviour before
testsfailure,
are plotted in dotted
with the dottedlines
lines in Figure
showing 14. The
the Q-δ solid
curves afterline represents the hysteretic behaviour before
failure.
failure, with the dotted lines showing the Q‒δ curves after failure.
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Experimental setup for static cyclic tests: (a) identification of components, (b) photograph.
The entire axial force‒displacement, Q‒δ, hysteretic curves obtained from the quasi-static cyclic
Appl. are
tests Sci. plotted
2020, 10, in
1410
dotted lines in Figure 14. The solid line represents the hysteretic behaviour before 11 of 22
failure, with the dotted lines showing the Q‒δ curves after failure.
(a)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 (b) 12 of 23
(c)
Figure
Figure14.
14.Q‒δ
Q-δcurves
curvesobtained
obtainedfrom
fromthe
thequasi-static
quasi-staticcyclic
cyclictests:
tests:(a)
(a)SS-TTD4,
SS-TTD4,(b)
(b)SS-TTD5,
SS-TTD5,(c)
(c)SS-
SS-TTD6.
TTD6.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Hysteretic Behaviour
4.1. Hysteretic Behaviour
The seismic performance of the SS-TTDs is readily characterised in the complete load-displacement
Q-δ The seismiccurves
hysteretic performance
of Figure of 15;
the itSS-TTDs
combines is the
readily characterised
curves in thethe
obtained from complete
shakingload-
table tests
displacement
and from theQ‒δ hysteretic curves
quasi-static of Figure
tests. Since the15; it combines
yield force andtheyield
curves obtained from
displacement thedifferent
are shaking under
table tests and(i.e.,
quasi-static from the =
QyST 15.5 kN, δtests.
quasi-static yST = 1.08 mm), and under dynamic loads (i.e., QyDYN = 24.83 kN,
Since the yield force and yield displacement are different
under
δyDYNquasi-static
= 1.73 mm)(i.e., to =strain
dueQyST 15.5 kN,
rateδyST = 1.08[19–21],
effects mm), and under
prior dynamic loads
to combining the(i.e.,
Q-δQcurves
yDYN = 24.83
they were
kN, δyDYN = 1.73 mm) due to strain rate effects [19,20,21], prior to combining the Q‒δ curves they were
normalized by the corresponding yielding force and yielding displacement. From the Q‒δ curves
shown in Figure 15 the following observations can be made. First, the SS-TTD exhibits a stable
hysteretic behaviour. Second, the Q‒δ curves under repeated cycles of the same amplitude are almost
coincident, that is, the reduction of the peak strength under repeated cycles of constant amplitude is
small. Third, second order effects due to strip geometric nonlinearity appear when the imposed
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 12 of 22
normalized by the corresponding yielding force and yielding displacement. From the Q-δ curves
shown in Figure 15 the following observations can be made. First, the SS-TTD exhibits a stable hysteretic
behaviour. Second, the Q-δ curves under repeated cycles of the same amplitude are almost coincident,
that is, the reduction of the peak strength under repeated cycles of constant amplitude is small. Third,
second order effects due to strip geometric nonlinearity appear when the imposed displacements are
very large, more precisely at displacement ductility µ = δmax /δyST above 12. This geometric nonlinearity
results in a spurious increase of the restoring force. It must be noted, however, that the value of the
ductility µ (i.e., about 12) beyond which the geometric nonlinearity effects become significant is far
beyond the realistic range of lateral displacements that could be allowed in actual structures equipped
with dampers. More precisely, in flexible RC frames or RC waffle-flat plate systems, damage starts for
interstorey drifts, ID, between 0.005 and 0.01 times the storey height H [17,22]. Even if some (moderate)
damage is allowed in the RC structure to reduce the cost of the dampers, the ID should not exceed
about 0.015H, because otherwise installing the dampers would be meaningless. Assuming a realistic
storey height (after scaling by the scaling factor of the test specimen 2/5) of H = 3000 × 2/5 = 1200 mm,
and an angle of the SS-TTD axis with the horizontal α = 0.46 rad, the maximum axial displacement
δmax (=H × ID × cosα) normalized by the yield displacement δyDYN (=1.73 mm), i.e., δmax /δyDYN , to be
allowed in the SS-TTD to prevent damage in the main RC structure would range between 3.1 and 6.2,
and should be smaller than 9.3 in any case. These values are below the axial displacement ductility µ
(= 12) corresponding to the onset of the second order effects.
The shape of the hysteretic loop Q-δ obtained in one cycle of imposed deformation at maximum
amplitude δmax is typically characterised by the equivalent viscous ratio ξ, defined as follows:
1 Wc
ξ = , (3)
2π Qmax δmax
where Wc is the energy dissipated in one cycle and Qmax the force attained at δmax . This formula is
obtained by equating the hysteretic energy dissipated in one cycle and the energy dissipated through
viscous damping by means of an equivalent viscous damper in one cycle of harmonic vibration [23].
The larger ξ is, the closer the shape of the hysteretic loop to an ideal parallelogram. ξ was calculated
for the hysteretic loops obtained from the SS-TTDs subjected to cycles of incremental amplitude;
the results are displayed in Figure 16 against the amplitude of the cycle δmax normalized by δy . It can
be seen that for practical values of δmax /δy (between approximately 6.2 and 9.3), the equivalent viscous
damping ξ remains approximately constant at 30%. This value is compared in the last column of
Table 2 with the ξ’s obtained in previous studies [6–8,10] for slit-type plates with different geometries
(h, b, t shown in Figure 3) and material properties of the steel (σY ). It can be seen that the value of ξ for
the damper proposed in this study is within the range (30%–51%) found for other types of dampers in
previous studies, although in the lower bound. This means that the proposed damper does not present
advantages in comparison to other dampers from the point of view of the amount of energy that can
be dissipated per cycle for fixed values of Qmax and δmax . Table 2 also shows the accumulated inelastic
deformation ratio, η, and the cumulative ductility factor [6–11], µCUM , that are typical parameters
used to characterise the performance of dampers. These parameters are defined later in Equations (5)
and (7), respectively.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 13 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 13 of 23
(a)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 14 of 23
where Wc is the energy dissipated in one cycle and Qmax the force attained at δmax. This formula is
obtained by equating the hysteretic energy dissipated in one cycle and the energy dissipated through
viscous damping by means of an equivalent viscous (b) damper in one cycle of harmonic vibration [23].
The larger ξ is, the closer the shape of the hysteretic loop to an ideal parallelogram. ξ was calculated
for the hysteretic loops obtained from the SS-TTDs subjected to cycles of incremental amplitude; the
results are displayed in Figure 16 against the amplitude of the cycle δmax normalized by δy. It can be
seen that for practical values of δmax/δy (between approximately 6.2 and 9.3), the equivalent viscous
damping ξ remains approximately constant at 30%. This value is compared in the last column of
Table 2 with the ξ’s obtained in previous studies [6–8,10] for slit-type plates with different geometries
(h, b, t shown in Figure 3) and material properties of the steel (σY). It can be seen that the value of ξ
for the damper proposed in this study is within the range (30%–51%) found for other types of
dampers in previous studies, although in the lower bound. This means that the proposed damper
does not present advantages in comparison to other dampers from the point of view of the amount
of energy that can be dissipated per cycle for fixed values of Qmax and δmax. Table 2 also shows the
accumulated inelastic deformation ratio, η, and the cumulative ductility factor [6–11], µCUM, that are
(c)
typical parameters used to characterise the performance of dampers. These parameters are defined
later in Figure
Figure
15. Total
Equations (5) normalized
and (7),Q-δ
15. Total normalized
Q‒δ curves of the tested specimens: (a) SS-TTD4, (b) SS-TTD5, (c) SS-
respectively.
curves of the tested specimens: (a) SS-TTD4, (b) SS-TTD5, (c) SS-TTD6.
TTD6.
The shape of the hysteretic loop Q‒δ obtained in one cycle of imposed deformation at maximum
amplitude δmax is typically characterised by the equivalent viscous ratio ξ, defined as follows:
𝜉= , (3)
Figure
Figure 16.16.Equivalent
Equivalentviscous
viscous damping
damping ξ
ξ versus
versusthe
thenormalized
normalizedcycle
cycleamplitude.
amplitude.
Table 2. Comparison with other slit-type steel plate dampers.
h b t σy δy Qy μ μCUM η ξ
Reference (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (mm) (kN) (%)
Chan [6] 77–99 15–17 8 316 1.2–1.7 11.5–17.5 8–11 380–490 370–460 30–50
Teruna [7] 240 70–90 * 20 292 2.5–3.4 114–176 10–20 80–125 325–700 40–50
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 14 of 22
Table 2. Comparison with other slit-type steel plate dampers.
h b t σy δy Qy µ µCUM η ξ
Reference (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (mm) (kN) (%)
Chan [6] 77–99 15–17 8 316 1.2–1.7 11.5–17.5 8–11 380–490 370–460 30–50
Teruna [7] 240 70–90 * 20 292 2.5–3.4 114–176 10–20 80–125 325–700 40–50
Lee [8] 180 30–36 * 10 300 0.8–1.2 73–83 30–38 380–660 1200–2200 44–51
Lee [9] 180 36 * 10 308 1.0–1.5 78–89 20–35 370–480 1000–1400 -
Amiri [10] 80 14–28 * 20 241 1.1–1.5 30–71 20–28 390–480 558–642 36–43
Benavent [11] 20–80 15–20 8–12 449 0.2–0.5 51–332 30–60 480–720 407–774 -
This study 80 5 4 250–400 1.1–1.7 15.5–24.8 12–17 1728–2707 3332–3766 30
* Nonuniform shape (dimensions at the ends of the strip).
4.2. Ultimate Energy Dissipation Capacity and Prediction of Failure

Previous studies [24–26] have pointed out the dependence of the ultimate energy dissipation
capacity of structural members subjected to low-cycle fatigue on the pattern of loading applied.
An appropriate way [24,25] to take into account this dependency consists of splitting the total energy
dissipated by the damper into two parts: the energy dissipated on the so-called skeleton part and the
energy dissipated on the Bauschinger part, as shown in Figure 17. The typical Q-δ curve obtained
by testing a steel component under arbitrarily applied cyclic loads until failure (Figure 17a) can
be decomposed into the skeleton part (Figure 17b) and Bauschinger part (Figure 17c) as follows.
The skeleton part is formed, in each domain of loading, by connecting sequentially the segments of the
Q-δ curve whose force Q exceeds the maximum force attained in previous cycles in the same domain
of loading. The skeleton curves obtained in this way coincide with the Q-δ obtained by subjecting the
steel component to monotonic loadings [25]. The skeleton curves are idealized by the trilinear curve in
Figure 17b (dashed and dotted lines), in turn defined by the following parameters: Qy and δy given by
Equations (1) and (2); the elastic stiffness Ke (=Qy /δy ); the force QB at the onset of the second plastic
branch given by Equation (1); and the first and second plastic stiffness, Kp1 and Kp2 . The displacement
δB associated with QB is readily obtained from Kp1 and QB . In Figure 17b, S δu + and S δu − denote
the maximum deformation accumulated in the positive and negative skeleton parts. The portion
of the total plastic strain energy dissipated by the damper on the skeleton part, in the positive and
negative domains of loading, respectively S Wu + and S Wu − , is readily obtained by integrating the areas
enveloped by each skeleton curve in Figure 17b. The Bauschinger part is constituted by the segments
of the Q-δ curve that start at Q = 0 and end at the point corresponding to the maximum load attained
in the preceding cycles in the same loading domain. The Bauschinger parts are graphically depicted in
Figure 17c, and the area enveloped in each domain of loading, B Wu + and B Wu − , represents the portion
of the total energy dissipated by the steel element in the Bauschinger part.
For convenience, S Wu + , S Wu − , B Wu + , B Wu − , S δu + and S δu − , are expressed in a nondimensional
form by:
+ + +
S δu S δu
− − −
+ S Wu S Wu B Wu B Wu
Sη = ; Sη− = ; Bη+ = ; Bη− = ; ep η + = ; ep η − = (4)
Qy δy Qy δy Qy δy Qy δy δy δy
and the total energy dissipated on the skeleton part, on the Bauschinger part, and the total energy
dissipated by the steel component until failure can be expressed in nondimensional form by:

Sη = S η + + S η − ; B η = B η + + B η − ; ep η = ep η + + ep η − ; η = S η + B η. (5)
Past studies [12] showed that B η and ep η follow an approximately linear relationship:
Bη = aep η + b0 , (6)
where a and b0 are two parameters determined from tests.

areas enveloped by each skeleton curve in Figure 17b. The Bauschinger part is constituted by the
segments of the Q‒δ curve that start at Q = 0 and end at the point corresponding to the maximum
load attained in the preceding cycles in the same loading domain. The Bauschinger parts are
graphically depicted in Figure 17c, and the area enveloped in each domain of loading, BWu+ and BWu-
, represents the portion of the total energy dissipated by the steel element in the Bauschinger part.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 15 of 22
(a)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 16 of 23
(b)
(c)
Figure
Figure 17. 17. Decomposition
Decomposition of Q‒δ
of Q-δ curve:(a)
curve: (a)overall
overall curve;
curve;(b)(b)
skeleton part;part;
skeleton (c) Bauschinger part. part.
(c) Bauschinger
For convenience, SWu , SWu , BWu , BWu , Sδu and Sδu , are expressed in a nondimensional form by:
+ - + - + -
The normalized Q-δ curves obtained in each test until failure (Figure 15) were decomposed as
explained above and the 𝑊values obtained 𝑊 for the𝑊nondimensional 𝑊 𝛿
parameters defined𝛿 in Equations (4)
𝜂̅ = ; 𝜂̅ = ; 𝜂̅ = ; 𝜂̅ = ; 𝜂̅ = ; 𝜂̅ = (4)
and (5) are summarized 𝑄 𝛿in Table 3. 𝑄 𝛿Figure 18𝑄shows 𝛿 the 𝑄 𝛿
normalized 𝛿
skeleton 𝛿
curves together with
an approximated
and the totaltrilinear curve (bold
energy dissipated on thedotted
skeleton line)
part,where kp1 = 1/2.5 part,
on the Bauschinger and and = 1/14.
kp2 the Figure 19a–c
total energy
dissipated
shows with circle,byrhombus
the steel component
and square untilsymbols
failure canthe values ofinS η,
be expressed B η and η
nondimensional at form
failureby:obtained from
the tested specimens; they are plotted
𝜂 = 𝜂̅ + 𝜂̅ ; 𝜂 = 𝜂̅ + against η. The
ep 𝜂̅ ; decomposition explained
𝜂 = 𝜂̅ + 𝜂̅ ; 𝜂 = 𝜂 + 𝜂. above was (5)also done
at each Past
point of the normalized Q-δ curves of Figure 15, the corresponding
studies [12] showed that 𝜂 and 𝜂 follow an approximately linear relationship:
values of S η, B η, η and
ep η are plotted with solid lines in Figure 19. These curves represent the “energy dissipation path”
𝜂 =𝑎 𝜂+𝑏 , (6)
followed by each test specimen up to failure. Also plotted in Figure 19a is a line (solid bold) with
slope a =where a and
−14.66 b’ are two
passing parameters
through thedetermined from tests.
point (0, 3900), which is found to fit the experimental results
well. This value a = −14.66 is the one obtained in test
The normalized Q‒δ curves obtained in each until failure
previous (Figure
studies [12]15)
forwere decomposed
slit-type platesasmade of
explained above and the values obtained for the nondimensional parameters defined in Equations
mild and high-strength steel; thus the results of this study indicate it is likewise valid for the slit-type
(4) and (5) are summarized in Table 3. Figure 18 shows the normalized skeleton curves together with
0 , from the experimental results of this study it is
plates made of stainless
an approximated steel.curve
trilinear As for dotted line)bwhere
parameter
(bold kp1 = 1/2.5 and kp2 = 1/14. Figure 19a–c shows
proposed to circle,
with b0 = 3900
adoptrhombus andfor slit-type
square symbolsplates madeofof
the values Sη,stainless
Bη and η at steel.
failureThe valuefrom
obtained the tested b is a
of parameter 0
epη. The decomposition

specimens;
good indicator of they are plotted
the ultimate againstdissipation
energy capacity of explained above Comparing
the damper. was also donethe 0
b obtained
at each
pointSS-TTD
for the new of the normalized
damper—b Q‒δ 0 =curves of Figurethat
3900—with 15, reported
the corresponding values
in previous of Sη, Bon
studies η, ηslit-plates
and epη aremade of
plotted with solid lines in Figure 19. These curves represent the “energy dissipation path” followed
mild steel [12] and high-strength steel [12]—b0 = 1325 and b0 = 250, respectively—it is concluded that
by each test specimen up to failure. Also plotted in Figure 19a is a line (solid bold) with slope a =
−14.66 passing through the point (0, 3900), which is found to fit the experimental results well. This
value a = −14.66 is the one obtained in previous studies [12] for slit-type plates made of mild and high-
strength steel; thus the results of this study indicate it is likewise valid for the slit-type plates made
of stainless steel. As for parameter b’, from the experimental results of this study it is proposed to
adopt b’ = 3900 for slit-type plates made of stainless steel. The value of parameter b’ is a good indicator
of the ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the damper. Comparing the b’ obtained for the new SS-
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 17 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 17 of 23
Appl. Sci. the normalized

2020, 10, 1410 ultimate
the normalized
energy dissipation capacity of the SS-TTD, characterised by parameters kp1 =
ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the SS-TTD, characterised by parameters kp1 = 16 of 22
1/2.5, kp2 = 1/14, a = −14.66, b = 3900 and the values of Qy, QB, δy given by Equations (1) and (2). Once
1/2.5, kp2 = 1/14, a = −14.66, b = 3900 and the values of Qy, QB, δy given by Equations (1) and (2). Once
the ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the SS-TTD is determined, the failure of the SS-TTD under
the ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the SS-TTD is determined, the failure of the SS-TTD under
arbitrarily
the ultimate energy applied cyclic loading
dissipation capacity can of
be predicted from the Q‒δ curveplates
obtained upform
to each
theinstant
arbitrarily applied cyclic loading can bethe stainless-steel
predicted slit-type
from the Q‒δ curve obtainedthat
up to each new SS-TTD
instant
from numerical simulations (i.e., nonlinear time history analysis) as follows. At any instant i, the
is aboutfrom
threenumerical
times largersimulations (i.e., of
than that nonlinear time
the mild history
steel analysis)
slit-type as follows.
plates, and 16Attimes
any instant
larger i,than
the that of
values of epη and η are calculated from the Q‒δ curve obtained up to instant i as explained above, they
values of
the high-strength epη and η are calculated from the Q‒δ curve obtained up to instant i as explained above, they
are named epsteel
ηi andslit-type plates.
ηi hereafter. Tracking this pair of points (epηi, ηi) and plotting them in Figure 19c,
are named epηi and ηi hereafter. Tracking this pair of points (epηi, ηi) and plotting them in Figure 19c,
failure is expected to occur when the solid bold line is reached.
failure is expected to occur when the solid bold line is reached.
Table 3. Ultimate energy dissipation capacity.
Table 3. Ultimate energy dissipation capacity.
¯+ ¯− Table
¯ + 3. ¯Ultimate ¯energy
+ ¯−
dissipation
+ capacity.
Specimen ep η |ep η |
η | η | η |B η |
− η |η | η − µCUM B η/S η
Specimen 𝒆𝒑𝜼 𝒆𝒑𝜼 S 𝑺S𝜼 𝑺𝜼 B 𝑩𝜼 𝑩𝜼 𝜼 |𝜼 | η μCUM Bη/Sη
Specimen
SS-TTD5 𝜼
𝒆𝒑9.3 𝒆𝒑 𝜼 𝑺𝜼 𝑺𝜼 𝜼
𝑩 1611
𝑩 𝜼 𝜼 |𝜼 | η μ1912
CUM Bη/Sη41.7
SS-TTD5 17.6 17.6 9.3 37 41
37 41 1643
1643 16111680 1652
1680 1652 3332
3332 1912 41.7
SS-TTD5
SS-TTD6 17.6
22.5 28.4 9.3 37
54 66 41 1643
1700 16331611 1680 1652
1754 1699 3332
3453 1912
1728 41.7 27.8
SS-TTD6 22.5 28.4 54 66 1700 1633 1754 1699 3453 1728 27.8
SS-TTD6 9.3 22.5
SS-TTD4 6.5 28.4 16 1054 66 1884
1700
185616331900
1754 1699 3766
1866 3453 1728
2707 27.8143.8
SS-TTD4 9.3 6.5 16 10 1884 1856 1900 1866 3766 2707 143.8
SS-TTD4 9.3 6.5 16 10 1884 1856 1900 1866 3766 2707 143.8
Figure 18. Skeleton curves.

Figure 18.Skeleton
Figure18. curves.
Skeleton curves.
Figure 19. Ultimate energy dissipation capacity: (a) Bauschinger part, (b) skeleton part, (c) total.
Previous studies [6–11] related the ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the damper to the
Thecumulative
solid bold line in
ductility Figure
factor µCUM19b represents
defined the(7).
by Equation normalized δ isdissipated
energy
In this equation, on the skeleton
the sum of excursions
cumulative ductility factor µCUM defined by Equation (7). In this equation, δ is the sum of excursions
of
part against ep η. It wasexperienced
displacement experienced
calculatedby by the
using damper, normalized
the approximated by the yielding displacement δ . Figure
in 20
normalized bytrilinear skeleton curve shown Figure 18
y
of displacement the damper, the yielding displacement δy. Figure 20
shows
with dotted the normalized ultimate energy dissipation capacity η against µ CUM obtained for the SS-TTDs
showsbold lines. It isultimate
the normalized found energy
to fit the experimental
dissipation capacityresults very
η against µCUMwell (i.e.,for
obtained circle, rhombus and
the SS-TTDs
tested in this study until failure.
square symbols). Finally,
tested in this the solid
study until bold lines of Figure 19a,b were redrawn in Figure 19c (thin solid line
failure.
∑𝛿
and thin dotted line) and summed up to obtain 𝜇 the=∑ solid
𝛿 bold line of Figure 19c that represents (7) the
𝜇 = 𝛿 (7)
normalized ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the𝛿SS-TTD, characterised by parameters kp1 = 1/2.5,
kp2 = 1/14, a = −14.66, b = 3900 and the values of Qy , QB , δy given by Equations (1) and (2). Once the
ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the SS-TTD is determined, the failure of the SS-TTD under
arbitrarily applied cyclic loading can be predicted from the Q-δ curve obtained up to each instant from
numerical simulations (i.e., nonlinear time history analysis) as follows. At any instant i, the values of
ep η and η are calculated from the Q-δ curve obtained up to instant i as explained above, they are named
ep ηi and ηi hereafter. Tracking this pair of points (ep ηi , ηi ) and plotting them in Figure 19c, failure is
expected to occur when the solid bold line is reached.
cumulative ductility factor µCUM defined by Equation (7). In this equation, δ is the sum of excursions
P
of displacement experienced by the damper, normalized by the yielding displacement δy . Figure 20

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 17 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 18 of 23

shows the normalized ultimate energy dissipation capacity η against µCUM obtained for the SS-TTDs
tested inThe
thispair
study until failure.
of values (η, µCUM) at failure obtained P
for the SS-TTDs are plotted in Figure 21 and
δ
compared with the values obtained in previous studies [6–9]. It is seen that the proposed SS-TTD has
µCUM = (7)
δy
an energy dissipation capacity and an accumulated ductility notably larger than those reported for
other dampers in previous studies.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 18 of 23
The pair of values (η, µCUM) at failure obtained for the SS-TTDs are plotted in Figure 21 and
Figure 20.
Figure 20. Normalized
Normalizedultimate
ultimateenergy dissipation
energy capacity
dissipation against
capacity cumulative
against ductility
cumulative factor.factor.
ductility
The pair of values (η, µCUM ) at failure obtained for the SS-TTDs are plotted in Figure 21 and
Figure 20. Normalized ultimate energy dissipation capacity against cumulative ductility factor.
Figure 21. Comparison of the η‒µCUM relationship between the selected references and this study.
5. Numerical Characterization
Two different numerical models were investigated to predict the hysteretic behaviour of the SS-
TTDFigure Figure
under21. 21. Comparison
Comparison
arbitrary η-µη‒µ
of the
cyclicofloadings.
the The
CUM
CUM relationship
first one isbetween
relationship betweenthethe
selected
the polygonal references
selected
model and on
references
based this
andstudy.
this study.
piecewise linear
segments. The second one is a smooth hysteretic Bouc‒Wen model [27], characterised by a continuous
5. Numerical
5. Numerical Characterization
Characterization
change of stiffness due to yielding and sharp changes from loading to unloading paths.
Two different numerical models were investigated to predict the hysteretic behaviour of the SS-
Two different numerical models were investigated to predict the hysteretic behaviour of the
TTD under
5.1. Polygonal arbitrary cyclic loadings. The first one is the polygonal model based on piecewise linear
Model
SS-TTD under arbitrary cyclic loadings. The first one is the polygonal model based on piecewise linear
segments. The second one is a smooth hysteretic Bouc‒Wen model [27], characterised by a continuous
segments.
TheThe
change second
polygonal
of one
stiffness dueistoayielding
model smooth hysteretic
builds and
on Bouc-Wen
the decomposition
sharp changes model to[27],
of the
from loading Q-δcharacterised
loops
unloading into by
paths. a continuous
skeleton and
change of stiffness
Bauschinger partsdue to yielding
explained and sharp
in Section 4.2.changes from
The shape of loading to unloading
the skeleton paths.
can be determined either
5.1. Polygonal
experimentally Model
with the procedure explained in Section 4.2 (Figure 18) or numerically. The shape of
5.1.each
Polygonal
TheModel
Bauschinger curve model
polygonal is approximated by two
builds on the segments of
decomposition (dashed and
the Q-δ dotted
loops intolines) as shown
skeleton and in
Figure 22. The slope partsofexplained
TheBauschinger
polygonal modelthe first in
builds segment
on Section of 4.2.this
the decomposition Thebilinear
shape of
of approximation
the the skeleton can
Q-δ loops into is taken equal to either
be determined
skeleton and the initial
Bauschinger
elasticexperimentally
stiffness Ke. The withordinate
the procedure
Qm ofexplained
the end point in Section
of the 4.2second
(Figuresegment
18) or numerically.
(named point The shape
11 in of Figure
parts explained in Section 4.2. The shape of the skeleton can be determined either experimentally with
each Bauschinger
22) coincides with thecurve maximum is approximated
force attained by two by segments
the damper (dashed and dotted
in previous cycleslines)
of as shown in in
displacement
the procedure
Figure explained
22. The slope inofSection
the first4.2 (Figure
segment of 18)
this or numerically.
bilinear approximationThe shape
is taken of equal
each Bauschinger
to the initial curve
the same domain of loading. The abscissa of this end of point is determined from the deformation Bδ.
is approximated by two
elastic stiffness Ke. segments
The ordinate (dashed
Qm of the and
enddotted
point oflines) as shown
the second in Figure
segment (named22. The
point 11 slope
in Figure of the first
As discussed next, the value of Bδ of a Bauschinger curve is very well correlated with the plastic
22)ofcoincides with approximation
the maximum force is attained by thetodamper in previous cycles of displacement
Ke . The ordinate in
segment
deformation this accumulated
bilinear on the skeleton takenpart,equal
ΣSδ, upthe to initial elastic
the point where stiffness
the Bauschinger curveQm
the same domain of loading. The abscissa of this end of point is determined from the deformation Bδ.
of the endFigure
starts. point of 23athe second
shows segment (named (Σpoint 11 in Figure 22) coincides with the maximum force
Sδ, Bδ) calculated for each Bauschinger curve obtained
As discussed next, thethe pairofofBδvalues
value of a Bauschinger curve is very well correlated with the plastic
attained by the
from deformation damper
the tests conducted in previous
onon the cycles of displacement in theapproximately
same domain of loading. The abscissa
accumulated theSS-TTDs
skeleton in part,this
ΣSδstudy.
, up to An the point where the Bauschingerlinear relationship
curve is
of this end
observed of point
starts.between
Figure 23a Bδ shows
is determined
and ΣSthe δ that from
paircan the deformation
be expressed
of values (ΣSδ, Bδ) by δ.
theBbold
calculated As discussed
fordashed next,
line of slope
each Bauschinger the
curveβ =obtained
value
0.35, of thatB δis,of a
Bδ=0.35Σ
Bauschingerfrom Sδ.the
curvetestsisconducted
Finally, very
the wellon
ordinate correlated
of
thethe with in the
intersection
SS-TTDs plastic
thispoint
study.ofAn deformation
theapproximately
two segmentsaccumulated
is taken
linear asonαQ
relationship the skeleton
m, is
where
theΣvalue
part, S δ, up
observedofto the point
between
parameter B δα
where
and
is Σ δ
the
determined
S Bauschinger
that can be
so expressed
that curve
the by
areasstarts.
the boldFigure
enveloped dashed 23a
byline shows
the of slope
actual β
the =pair
0.35,
Bauschingerof values
that is,
curve(ΣS δ,
and by
Bδ the δ
B δ) calculated for each Bauschinger curve obtained from the tests conducted on the SS-TTDs in this
=0.35Σ . Finally,
bilinear
S the ordinate
approximations of the
is intersection
the same. point
Figure of the
23b two segments
represents, inis taken
the as αQ
horizontal m , where
axis, the
the value of parameter α is determined so that the areas enveloped by the actual Bauschinger curve
and by the bilinear approximations is the same. Figure 23b represents, in the horizontal axis, the
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 18 of 22
study. An approximately linear relationship is observed between B δ and ΣS δ that can be expressed by
the bold dashed line of slope β = 0.35, that is, B δ = 0.35ΣS δ. Finally, the ordinate of the intersection
point of the two segments is taken as αQm , where the value of parameter α is determined so that
the areasAppl. Sci.
Sci. 2020,
enveloped
Appl. 2020, 10,
10, 1410
by the actual Bauschinger curve and by the bilinear approximations
1410 19
19 of
of 23
is the same.
23
Figure 23b
actual
represents, in the horizontal axis, the actual values of Q /Q
m ytests conducted on the SS-segment
for each Bauschinger
actual values
values of of Q
Qmm/Q
/Qyy for
for each
each Bauschinger
Bauschinger segment
segment obtained
obtained from
from the
the tests conducted on the SS-
obtained fromand
TTDs,
TTDs, and
the
in tests
in the
conducted
the vertical
vertical axis,
on
axis, the
theof
the value
SS-TTDs,
value of αQ
αQmm/Q
and
/Qyythat
in thethevertical
that satisfies
satisfies the above axis, theAs
above condition.
value
condition. As seen
seen in
αQm /Qy that
ofFigure
in Figure
satisfies23b,
the α above condition. As seen in Figure
23b, α can be taken as approximately equal to α = 0.4.
can be taken as approximately equal to α23b,
= α
0.4. can be taken as approximately equal to α = 0.4.
Figure 22. Idealisation of the Bauschinger parts.

Figure
Figure 22.22. Idealisation of
Idealisation of the
theBauschinger
Bauschingerparts.
parts.
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 23. Modellisation of the Bauschinger part: (a) β values, (b) α values.
Figure
Figure 23.
23. Modellisation
Modellisation of
of the
the Bauschinger
Bauschinger part:
part: (a)
(a) ββ values,
values, (b)
(b) αα values.
values.
5.2. Bouc-Wen Model
5.2.
5.2. Bouc‒Wen
Bouc‒Wen Model
Model
Although the Bouc-Wen
Although model does not take take into accountenergy the energy dissipation explicitly,
Although the the Bouc‒Wen
Bouc‒Wen model model does does notnot take into into account
account the the energy dissipation
dissipation explicitly,
explicitly, itit
produces continuous curves that fit—better than the polygonal model—the actual shape of the Q-δδ of the
it produces
producescontinuous
continuous curves
curves that
that fit—better
fit—better than thanthe the polygonal
polygonal model—the model—the
actual actual
shape of theshape
Q-
Q-δ curves
curves
curves obtained
obtainedexperimentally.
obtained experimentally.
experimentally. Moreover, Moreover,
Moreover, it
is is
itit is implemented
implemented
implemented in in well-known
in well-known
well-known FEM FEM software
FEM software
software for
for for
structural
structural
structural analysis analysis
analysis such
suchsuch as
as as SAP2000
SAP2000 (Walnut
SAP2000 (Walnut Creek
(WalnutCreek Creek [CA],
[CA], USA)
USA)USA)
[CA], [28] or OpenSees
[28] or OpenSees (Berkeley [CA]
(Berkeley [CA]
[28] or OpenSees USA)
USA) [CA]
(Berkeley
[29].
[29]. The
The main parameters to
to define the Bouc‒Wen model
model in in SAP2000 are based on on Wen’s formulation
USA) [29]. Themain main parameters
parameters define to the Bouc‒Wen
define the Bouc-Wen SAP2000
modelareinbased SAP2000 Wen’s areformulation
based on Wen’s
[30]:
[30]: (i)
(i) the
the initial
initial stiffness
stiffness kk00,, (ii)
(ii) the
the ratio
ratio of of postyielding
postyielding stiffness
stiffness to to the
the initial
initial stiffness
stiffness α’,
α’, and
and (iii)
(iii)
formulation
the [30]: (i)parameter
transition the initialfrom stiffness
linear kto
0 , (ii) the ratio
nonlinear rangeof n. postyielding
OpenSees has stiffness to thea initial
implemented refined stiffness
the transition parameter from linear to nonlinear range n. OpenSees has implemented a refined
α0 , and version
(iii) the
version of transition
of the
the Bouc‒Wen parameter
Bouc‒Wen model model [27] from
[27] that linear
that includes to nonlinear
includes additional range
additional parameters
parameters ton. OpenSees
to control
control the has
the shape implemented
shape of of the
the a
refined hysteresis
version of the
loops Bouc-Wen
(β’ and γ) model
and the [27] that
strength includes
degradation
hysteresis loops (β’ and γ) and the strength degradation (Δν and Δη). These parameters wereadditional
(Δν and parameters
Δη). These to control
parameters werethe shape
calibrated
calibrated in
of the hysteresis this
loops
in (β 0 and
this study
study to γ)
to match
matchandthe thenormalized
the Q/Q
strength degradation
normalized versus δδ//δδ(∆ν
Q/Qyy versus yy curves
curves ∆η). These
and obtained
obtained from the
the tests,
fromparameters
tests, were
giving:
giving:
calibrated k
in this = 1,
k0 =study
0 α’ = 1/14,
1, α’ = to
1/14, n = 1.2,
n = 1.2,
match β’ = 0.5,
theβ’normalized γ = 0.5,
= 0.5, γ = 0.5, Q/Q Δν = −6·10
Δν =y−6·10 −4
versusand
−4 and Δη
δ/ δΔη = 1·10 −3. The
= 1·10 obtained
−3 Bouc‒Wen
. The Bouc‒Wen equation
equation
y curves from the tests, giving:
implemented
0 = 1/14, n in in OpenSees in terms
terms of stress, σ,
stress, and strain, −4 ε, ε, is
is shown
shown in Equation (8):
k0 = 1, αimplemented = OpenSees
1.2, β0 = in 0.5, γ =of0.5, ∆νσ,=and strain,
−6·10 and ∆η = in Equation
1·10 −3 . The(8):
Bouc-Wen equation
implemented in OpenSees in terms of stress, σ = α′𝑘
σ = α′𝑘σ, andε + 1 −
ε + 1strain,α′ 𝑘
− α′ 𝑘 ε, z.
z. is shown in Equation (8): (8)
(8)
Here,
Here, zz is
is aa variable
variable that
that represents
represents the
the hysteretic
hysteretic deformation
deformation and and is
is related
related with
with the
the time
time derivative
derivative
0 0
of the strain, 𝜀, by the following σ = α
expression:
of the strain, 𝜀, by the following expression: k0 ε + ( 1 − α ) k 0 z. (8)
𝑛
1−||𝑧𝑧||𝑛{𝛽′𝑠𝑔𝑛
1− {𝛽′𝑠𝑔𝑛 𝜀𝜀𝑧𝑧 +𝛾}𝛥𝜈
+𝛾}𝛥𝜈
żż =
= 𝜀𝜀,, (9)the time (9)
Here, z is a variable that represents the hysteretic deformation and is related with
𝛥𝜂
𝛥𝜂
.
derivative
where
where |𝑧|
of the strain, ε,
|𝑧| indicates
indicates theby
the the following
modulus
modulus and
and sgn expression:
sgn the
the sign.
sign. A
A detailed
detailed explanation
explanation can
can be
be found
found in
in [31].
[31]. More
More
sophisticated
sophisticated Bouc‒Wen-based
Bouc‒Wen-based models
models have
have been
n proposed
been in
proposed inothe
the literature
literature to
to take
take into
into account
account the
the
.
1 − |z|n β0 sgn εz + γ ∆ν .
ż = ε, (9)
∆η
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 19 of 22
where |z| indicates the modulus and sgn the sign. A detailed explanation can be found in [31]. More
sophisticated Bouc-Wen-based models have been proposed in the literature to take into account the
pinching and strain hardening effects [32–35]. However, a simplified model is adopted in this study
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 20 of 23
since the realistic range of displacements expected on structures equipped with dampers (µ < 9) are
below the displacements
pinching associated
and strain hardening with
effects the onset
[32–35]. of the asecond
However, order
simplified effects
model is that cause
adopted in the
thispinching
study
of the hysteretic
since loops
the realistic (µ >of12).
range displacements expected on structures equipped with dampers (μ<9) are
below the displacements associated with the onset of the second order effects that cause the pinching
5.3.ofComparison andloops
the hysteretic Validation
(μ > 12).
Figure 24a,c,e compare the normalized Q/Qy versus δ/ δy curves obtained experimentally for
5.3. Comparison and Validation
specimens SS-TTD4, SS-TTD5 and SS-TTD6, with the prediction provided by the polynomial and
Figure models
the Bouc-Wen 24a,c,e compare
under the thesame
normalized
history Q/Q
of loading δ/δy curves
y versusapplied obtained
during experimentally
the tests. The shape of forthe
specimens SS-TTD4, SS-TTD5 and SS-TTD6, with the prediction provided by the polynomial
hysteretic loops provided by both numerical models is found to be close to the experimental results. and the
TheBouc‒Wen
normalized models under δ/δ
Q/Qy versus they same
curveshistory of loading
obtained with theapplied during
numerical the was
models tests.decomposed
The shape ofinto thethe
hysteretic loops provided by both numerical models is found to be close to the experimental
skeleton part and the Bauschinger part (as explained in Section 4.2) and the energy dissipation paths results.
The normalized Q/Qy versus δ/δy curves obtained with the numerical models was decomposed into
in the ep η-η plane were obtained. These paths are compared with the ones obtained experimentally
the skeleton part and the Bauschinger part (as explained in Section 4.2) and the energy dissipation
in Figure 24b,d,f. In general, both models approach the energy dissipation paths obtained from the
paths in the epη‒η plane were obtained. These paths are compared with the ones obtained
tests reasonably well. The approach is better ?particularly in specimen SS-TTD6? with the polygonal
experimentally in Figure 24b,d,f. In general, both models approach the energy dissipation paths
model than with the Bouc-Wen model, as was to be expected since the polygonal model is explicitly
obtained from the tests reasonably well. The approach is better ⎯particularly in specimen SS-TTD6⎯
calibrated from energy dissipation considerations. Both numerical models predict the point of failure
with the polygonal model than with the Bouc‒Wen model, as was to be expected since the polygonal
very well,iswith
model errors
explicitly below 10%.
calibrated It is also
from energy worth noting
dissipation that theBoth
considerations. polynomial
numericalmodel
modelsispredict
not able
to capture strength degradation effects under cycles of constant amplitude, whereas
the point of failure very well, with errors below 10%. It is also worth noting that the polynomial in the refined
Bouc-Wen model implemented in OpenSees there are two parameters that allow this
model is not able to capture strength degradation effects under cycles of constant amplitude, whereas degradation
to be
in reproduced. Nonetheless,
the refined Bouc‒Wen modelthe strength degradation
implemented in OpenSeesisthere
negligible asparameters
are two noted in previous sections,
that allow this
anddegradation
the error accumulated in the predicted
to be reproduced. energy
Nonetheless, the dissipation capacity due
strength degradation to ignoringasthis
is negligible strength
noted in
degradation is below and
previous sections, 10%,the
which
errorisaccumulated
not significant in the
in the overall energy
predicted response.dissipation capacity due to
ignoring this strength degradation is below 10%, which is not significant in the overall response.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 24. Cont.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 20 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 21 of 23
(e) (f)
Figure
Figure 24. Comparison
24. Comparison between
between test
test andand numericalmodel
numerical modelsimulations:
simulations: a)
(a)SS-TTD4
SS-TTD4 normalized
normalizedQ‒δQ-δ
curves,curves, (b) SS-TTD4
(b) SS-TTD4 energy
energy dissipation
dissipation paths,
paths, (c) SS-TTD5
(c) SS-TTD5 normalized
normalized Q-δQ‒δ curves,
curves, (d) (d) SS-TTD5
SS-TTD5 energy
energy dissipation
dissipation paths, (e)normalized
paths, (e) SS-TTD6 SS-TTD6 normalized Q‒δ(f)curves,
Q-δ curves, SS-TTD6(f) SS-TTD6 energy dissipation
energy dissipation paths. paths
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
ThisThis paper
paper presents
presents a new
a new displacement-dependent damper,
displacement-dependent damper, referred
referredto toas
asthe
theStainless-Steel
Stainless-Steel
Tube-in-Tube
Tube-in-Tube Damper
Damper (SS-TTD),
(SS-TTD), forforthe
thepassive
passivecontrol
control ofof structures
structures subjected
subjectedtotoseismic
seismic loadings.
loadings.
TheThe SS-TTD
SS-TTD consists
consists of two
of two tubes
tubes (innerand
(inner andouter
outertubes)
tubes) arranged
arranged inin aa telescopic
telescopicconfiguration
configuration thatthat
can be installed in a frame structure as a conventional brace. The source of energy
can be installed in a frame structure as a conventional brace. The source of energy dissipation is the dissipation is the
plastic
plastic deformation
deformation of of stainless-steelstrips
stainless-steel stripsachieved
achieved by by opening
opening slits
slitsininthe
thewalls
wallsofofthe outer
the outertube.
tube.
Stainless steel is used because its inherent energy dissipation capacity is larger than low-yield or mild
Stainless steel is used because its inherent energy dissipation capacity is larger than low-yield or mild
steel, and is more durable against corrosion, thus reducing maintenance costs. The height-to-width
steel, and is more durable against corrosion, thus reducing maintenance costs. The height-to-width
ratio of the steel strips is made as large as possible⎯within the dimensional requirements imposed
ratio of the steel strips is made as large as possible?within the dimensional requirements imposed
by architectural constraints⎯to guarantee a flexural-type yielding mode and to enhance the energy
by architectural constraints?to guarantee a flexural-type yielding mode and to enhance the energy
dissipation capacity. Three SS-TTDs were built and tested under dynamic and static cyclic loads. In
dissipation capacity.
the dynamic tests,Three
the newSS-TTDs
damperswere built
were and tested
installed in a under dynamicplate
RC waffle-flat andstructure
static cyclic
andloads. In the
subjected
dynamic
to several ground motion simulations on a shaking table. In the static tests, the dampers were to
tests, the new dampers were installed in a RC waffle-flat plate structure and subjected
several ground
subjected to motion
cycles ofsimulations on a shaking
constant amplitude table. InFrom
until failure. the static tests,
the tests thethe dampers
following were subjected
conclusions can
to cycles of
be drawn: constant amplitude until failure. From the tests the following conclusions can be drawn:
• •TheThenewnew damper
damper exhibitsa astable
exhibits stablehysteretic
hystereticbehaviour
behaviour until
until failure,
failure,with
withminor
minorreduction
reductionofof
thethe
peak strength under repeated cycles of constant
peak strength under repeated cycles of constant amplitude. amplitude.
• •ForFor realistic
realistic values
values ofofthe
themaximum
maximumductility
ductility demand
demand (3‒9),
(3-9), the
the force‒displacement
force-displacementcurves curvesareare
exempt from geometric nonlinearity effects that cause spurious increases
exempt from geometric nonlinearity effects that cause spurious increases of the restoring force; of the restoring force;
such geometric nonlinearities start at a displacement ductility larger than about 12.
such geometric nonlinearities start at a displacement ductility larger than about 12.
• The force‒displacement curve of the SS-TTD was split into the so-called skeleton part and the
• The force-displacement curve of the SS-TTD was split into the so-called skeleton part and the
Bauschinger part, and the ultimate energy dissipation capacity of SS-TTD in each part was
Bauschinger
quantitativelypart, and thefurthermore,
evaluated; ultimate energy dissipation
a procedure capacity
to predict of SS-TTD
the failure in eachbased
of the damper part on
was
quantitatively evaluated;
this decomposition furthermore, a procedure to predict the failure of the damper based on
is proposed.
this decomposition is proposed.
• The ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the SS-TTD, expressed in terms of the amount of
• Theenergy
ultimate
that energy dissipation
can be dissipated capacityonly
consuming of the
theSS-TTD, expressed
Bauschinger in and
part, is 3- terms of the
16-fold amount
higher than of
energy that
that of can beplates
slit-type dissipated
made consuming
of mild steelonlyandthe Bauschinger
high-strength part,
steel, is 3- and 16-fold
respectively. Further,higher
the
cumulative ductility of the SS-TTD exceeds by more than four times the
than that of slit-type plates made of mild steel and high-strength steel, respectively. Further,values reported in the
theliterature
cumulative for ductility
similar slit-type steel plate
of the SS-TTD dampers.
exceeds by more than four times the values reported in the
•literature
Two numerical
for similar models are proposed
slit-type steel platetodampers.
characterise the hysteretic behaviour of the SS-TTD: a
• Two polygonal
numerical model basedare
models onproposed
the decomposition into thethe
to characterise skeleton and behaviour
hysteretic Bauschingerofparts of the
the SS-TTD:
force‒displacement curves, and a smooth model that uses the Bouc‒Wen
a polygonal model based on the decomposition into the skeleton and Bauschinger parts of the formulation. Although
both models adequately reproduce the response obtained experimentally, the former predicts the
force-displacement curves, and a smooth model that uses the Bouc-Wen formulation. Although
energy dissipation path and failure of the damper better, while the latter reproduces the shape
both models adequately reproduce the response obtained experimentally, the former predicts the
of the hysteretic loops more accurately.
energy dissipation path and failure of the damper better, while the latter reproduces the shape of
the hysteretic loops more accurately.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 21 of 22
Author Contributions: A.B.-C. conceived the damper and experimental campaigns as principal investigator
of the grant funding the project; G.G.-S. performed the static tests, participated in the shaking table tests, and
processed the experimental results; G.G.-S., D.E.-M. and A.B.-C. analysed the experimental results and obtained
the conclusions; all authors contributed to writing the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity, grant number MEC
BIA2017 88814 R, and received funds from the European Union (Fonds Européen de Dévelopment Régional).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
1. Soong, T.T.; Spencer, B.F. Supplemental energy dissipation: State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice.
Eng. Struct. 2002, 24, 243–259. [CrossRef]
2. Spencer, B.F.; Nagarajaiah, S. State of the art of structural control. J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 129, 845–856. [CrossRef]
3. Saaed, T.E.; Nikolakopoulos, G.; Jonasson, J.; Hedlund, H. A state-of-the-art review of structural control
systems. J. Vibrat. Control. 2015, 21, 919–937. [CrossRef]
4. Housner, G.W.; Bergman, L.A.; Caughey, T.K.; Chassiakos, A.G.; Claus, R.O.; Masri, S.F.; Skelton, R.E.;
Soong, T.T.; Spencer, B.F.; Yao, J.T.P. Structural control: Past, present, and future. J. Eng. Mech. 1997, 123,
897–971. [CrossRef]
5. Javanmardi, A.; Ibrahim, Z.; Ghaedi, K.; Benisi Ghadim, H.; Hanif, M.U. State-of-the-art review of metallic
dampers: Testing, development and implementation. Arch. Comput. Meth. Eng. 2019, 26, 1–24. [CrossRef]
6. Chan, R.W.K.; Albermani, F. Experimental study of steel slit damper for passive energy dissipation. Eng. Struct.
2008, 30, 1058–1066. [CrossRef]
7. Teruna, D.R.; Majid, T.A.; Budiono, B. Experimental study of hysteretic steel damper for energy dissipation
capacity. Adv. Civ. Eng 2015, 631726. [CrossRef]
8. Lee, C.; Ju, Y.K.; Min, J.; Lho, S.; Kim, S. Non-uniform steel strip dampers subjected to cyclic loadings.
9. Lee, C.; Lho, S.; Kim, D.; Oh, J.; Ju, Y.K. Hourglass-shaped strip damper subjected to monotonic and cyclic
loadings. Eng. Struct. 2016, 119, 122–134. [CrossRef]
10. Amiri, H.A.; Najafabadi, E.P.; Estekanchi, H.E. Experimental and analytical study of block slit damper.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018, 141, 167–178. [CrossRef]
11. Benavent-Climent, A. A brace-type seismic damper based on yielding the walls of hollow structural sections.
12. Benavent-Climent, A.; Oh, S.; Akiyama, H. Ultimate energy absorption capacity of slit-type steel plates
subjected to shear deformations. J. Struct. Constr. Eng. 1998, 503, 139–147. [CrossRef]
13. Nip, K.H.; Gardner, L.; Elghazouli, A.Y. Cyclic testing and numerical modelling of carbon steel and stainless
steel tubular bracing members. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 424–441. [CrossRef]
14. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Metallic Materials. Tensile Testing. Part 1: Method of
Test at Room Temperature; UNE-EN ISO 6892-1:2016; The International Organization for Standardization (ISO):
Madrid, Spain, 2017.
15. Ministerio de Fomento. Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural. In Estructuras de Hormigón estructural (EHE-08);
Centro Publicaciones: Madrid, Spain, 2008.
16. Ministerio de Fomento. Norma de Construcción Sismorresistente. In Parte General y Edificación (NSCE-02);
Centro Publicaciones: Madrid, Spain, 2003.
17. Benavent-Climent, A.; Gale-Lamuela, D.; Donaire-Avila, J. Energy capacity and seismic performance of RC
waffle-flat plate structures under two components of far-field ground motions: Shake table tests. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 2019, 48, 949–969. [CrossRef]
18. ATC. Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures; Applied Technology Council:
Redwood City, CA, USA, 1992.
19. Cadoni, E.; Fenu, L.; Forni, D. Strain rate behaviour in tension of austenitic stainless steel used for reinforcing
bars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 399–407. [CrossRef]
20. Lichtenfeld, J.A.; Mataya, M.C.; Van Tyne, C.J. Effect of strain rate on stress-strain behavior of alloy 309 and
304L austenitic stainless steel. Metall. Mater. Trans. 2006, 37, 147–161. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 22 of 22
21. Lee, W.S.; Lin, C.F.; Chen, B.T. Tensile properties and microstructural aspects of 304L stainless steel weldments
as a function of strain rate and temperature. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C-J. Eng. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2005, 219,
439–451. [CrossRef]
22. Benavent-Climent, A.; Donaire-Avila, J.; Oliver-Saiz, E. Shaking table tests of a reinforced concrete waffle–flat
plate structure designed following modern codes: Seismic performance and damage evaluation. Earthq. Eng.
23. Chopra, A.K. Dynamics of Structures; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1995; Volume 3.
24. Benavent-Climent, A. An energy-based damage model for seismic response of steel structures. Earthq. Eng.
25. Kato, B.; Akiyama, H.; Yamanouchi, H. Predictable Properties of Structural Steels Subjected to Incremental
Cyclic Loading. In IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by
Well-Defined Loads; IABSE-AIPC-IVBH Publications: Lisbon, Portugal, 1973; pp. 119–124.
26. Jiao, Y.; Shimada, Y.; Kishiki, S.; Yamada, S. Study of Energy Dissipation Capacity of Steel Beams Under Cyclic
Loading. In Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas STESSA; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009.
27. Baber, T.T.; Noori, M.N. Random vibration of degrading, pinching systems. J. Eng. Mech. 1985, 111,
1010–1026. [CrossRef]
28. SAP2000. CSI Analysis Reference Manual; Computers and Structures Inc.: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017.
29. OpenSees. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2010.
30. Wen, Y.K. Method for Random Vibration of Hysteretic Systems. J. Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE 1976, 102, 249–263.
31. Haukaas, T.; Der Kiureghian, A. Finite Element Reliability and Sensitivity Methods for Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering. In Proceedings of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of
Engineering; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1 April 2004.
32. Noori, M.N.; Padula, M.D.; Davoodi, H. Application of an Itô-based approximation method to random
vibration of a pinching hysteretic system. Nonlinear. Dyn. 1992, 3, 305–327. [CrossRef]
33. Sivaselvan, M.V.; Reinhorn, A.M. Hysteretic models for deteriorating inelastic structures. J. Eng. Mech. 2000,
126, 633–640. [CrossRef]
34. Wu, M.; Smyth, A. Real-time parameter estimation for degrading and pinching hysteretic models. Int. J.
Non-Linear Mech. 2008, 43, 822–833. [CrossRef]
35. Bursi, O.S.; Ceravolo, R.; Erlicher, S.; Zanotti Fragonara, L. Identification of the hysteretic behaviour of a
partial-strength steel-concrete moment-resisting frame structure subject to pseudodynamic tests. Earthq. Eng.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Applied Sciences: A New Stainless-Steel Tube-in-Tube Damper For Seismic Protection of Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Applied Sciences: A New Stainless-Steel Tube-in-Tube Damper For Seismic Protection of Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410; doi:10.3390/app10041410 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 4 of 23

Figure 4. TTD damper specimen.

3.1. Material Testing

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the stainless steel at different strain rates.

Strain rate mm/mm/s σ0.2% MPa σu MPa σy MPa Qy kN σb MPa Qb kN εy % δy mm εb % εu %

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the stainless steel at different strain rates.

Strain Rate σ 0.2% σu σy σb

3.2. Shaking Table Dynamic Tests

Figure 7. Sketch of the whole structure.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 8 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10,Figure

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 10 of 23

3.3. Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests

3.3. Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 (b) 12 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 14 of 23

Table 2. Comparison with other slit-type steel plate dampers.

Table 2. Comparison with other slit-type steel plate dampers.

4.2. Ultimate Energy Dissipation Capacity and Prediction of Failure

where a and b0 are two parameters determined from tests.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 16 of 23

epη. The decomposition

Appl. Sci. the normalized

Figure 18. Skeleton curves.

of displacement experienced by the damper, normalized by the yielding displacement δy . Figure 20

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 18 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1410 18 of 23

Figure 22. Idealisation of the Bauschinger parts.

Figure 24. Cont.

You might also like