Viscous Wall Damper

Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 815
Seismic Design of a 15 Story Hospital Using Viscous Wall Dampers
James Newell, Ph.D., P.E.1, Jay Love, S.E.2, Mark Sinclair, S.E.3,
Yu-Ning Chen, P.E.4, and Amarnath Kasalanati, Ph.D., P.E.5
1
Presenter, Degenkolb Engineers, 707 SW Washington St, Suite 600, Portland, OR
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/14/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
97205; PH (503) 223-9932; FAX (503) 242-1780; email: jnewell@degenkolb.com

2
Degenkolb Engineers, 1300 Clay St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612; PH (510) 272-
9040; FAX (510) 272-9526; email: rjlove@degenkolb.com
3
Degenkolb Engineers, 1300 Clay St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612; (510) 272-
9040; FAX (510) 272-9526; email: msinclair@degenkolb.com
4
Degenkolb Engineers, 1300 Clay St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612; PH (510) 272-
9040; FAX (510) 272-9526; email: ynchen@degenkolb.com
5
Dynamic Isolation Systems, Inc., 885 Denmark Dr, Suite 101, McCarran, NV
89434; PH (925) 283-1166; FAX (775) 359-3985; email: akasalanati@dis-inc.com
ABSTRACT
In order to aid in post-earthquake response and recovery efforts, hospitals and other
critical structures must remain operational after a design level seismic event.
Protective systems (base-isolation and supplemental damping) provide a means to
reliably and economically achieve improved structural and nonstructural
performance. Viscous wall dampers (VWDs), originally developed in Japan, will be
used in this first U.S. application to provide supplemental damping and enable a new
15 story hospital in San Francisco, California to achieve stringent performance goals.
This paper introduces the innovative VWD devices, describes the results of full-scale
prototype testing, summarizes VWD properties, and explains modeling techniques for
implementation in nonlinear response history analysis. By using VWDs in this
hospital application, the overall steel weight was reduced by an amount that more
than offset the installed cost of the VWD devices and a unique lateral system was
designed that will enable improved structural performance, when compared with
traditional systems. Also, floor accelerations in the upper floors of the building were
significantly decreased, thereby reducing the costs associated with nonstructural
bracing, especially for the central utilities plant located on the top floor.
INTRODUCTION
Viscous Wall Dampers originated in Japan, where they have been used for more than
20 years and in over 100 projects. VWDs consist of a stiffened steel tank filled with
viscous “fluid” and one or more steel vanes that extend into the tank of viscous fluid.
The VWD tank connects to a girder within a steel moment resisting frame line at one
level and the vane assembly connects to the girder at the level above (see
Structures Congress 2011

Figure 1). Interstory drift and interstory velocity result in in-plane movement of the
vane within the tank. Viscous shearing of the fluid relative to the tank wall and vane
provides damping and energy dissipation.
TANK FLUID
A A
VANE
TANK
SECTION A-A
Figure 1. Typical VWD framing elevation.
Hospitals are critical to post-disaster response and recovery efforts. Lessons from
past earthquakes have shown that while structural seismic performance has improved
something as small as a sprinkler piping leak in an operating room can put a hospital
out of commission until repairs are made. This damage to nonstructural components
is typically sensitive to floor accelerations. One way to reduce the magnitude of floor
accelerations, and reduce the corresponding damage, is with the use of protective
systems (i.e. base isolation, or supplemental damping). The Structural Engineer,
Architect, and Owner of a new hospital to be located in San Francisco, California,
only 11 km from the San Andreas Fault, opted to use innovative viscous wall damper
technology to help achieve stringent structural and nonstructural performance goals.
The new hospital (see Figure 2) is 15 stories above grade, with two below-grade
levels for parking. Levels P3 through Level 4 occupy the entire site, which measures
385 ft by 275 ft. The building plan area reduces at Levels 5 and 6, and reduces again
at Levels 7 through 14 to form the nursing tower. The building roof is up to
approximately 250 ft above sloping grade. Level 15 includes an exterior roof with air
handling units and in interior central utilities plant. Cooling towers, additional air
handling units and emergency generators are located on the Level 16 roof. The
lateral force resisting system above grade consists of steel moment resisting frames
with 153 supplemental VWDs, provided by Dynamic Isolation Systems, Inc.
This project represents the first U.S. application of these devices, which were
originally developed in Japan, and therefore project-specific prototype testing was

conducted in order to characterize VWD wind and seismic performance, determine

appropriate device properties for use in nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA),
and satisfy building code requirements.
Use of viscous wall dampers having displacement, velocity, cyclic-history and

temperature dependent force-deformation properties necessitated the use of NRHA
for design. A VWD modeling approach was developed to capture the displacement
and velocity dependence, and cyclic-history and temperature dependent properties are
considered using an upper and lower bound numerical damper properties analysis
approach. The use of advanced analysis techniques allowed the design team to
integrate this new VWD technology into this unique structure and ensure that the
building seismic performance objectives will be achieved.
Figure 2. Architectural rendering of hospital building.
VISCOUS WALL DAMPER DEVICES
Each VWD consists of a narrow steel tank connected to the lower floor, an inner steel
plate (vane) connected to the upper floor, and a viscous fluid in the small gap
between the tank and vane plates. During seismic excitation, relative floor movement
causes the vane to move through the viscous fluid. The damping force from the
shearing action of the fluid is dependent on the displacement and velocity of this
relative motion. Wall dampers are used as a passive energy dissipation system to

reduce seismic accelerations and interstory drifts, as well as reduce wind-induced

vibration.
VWDs can also be constructed with two vanes. In the case of the double-vane
damper there are three plates that form the tank. A double-vane VWD gives twice
the damping force with only a small increase in plan size (i.e. thickness of the VWD).
The viscous fluid used for wall dampers is a non-toxic, odorless, transparent fluid
with a viscosity of about 90,000 poise at 30°C (95°F). The device can be made to fit
typical openings in a building. Dampers with widths of 6 ft to 20 ft and heights of 6
ft to 14 ft (with spacers) have been used in buildings. The force of the damper is
approximately proportional to the effective area of the vane.
VWDs operate at atmospheric pressure and do not have seals that require
maintenance throughout the service life of the device, unlike other types of viscous
dampers. Other than periodic inspection and inspection after a seismic event, VWDs
are a maintenance-free system.
When used in steel framed buildings, the VWD tank and vane are typically field
bolted to T-stubs that have been welded to the damper bay beams in the shop. Large
diameter high-strength bolts are used to transfer damper overturning forces to
adjacent structural framing and a series of pretensioned high-strength bolts are used
to prevent slip between the steel T-stub and VWD tank and vane components. T-
stubs are used to account for variations in the clear distance between framing
members, while maintaining a consistent VWD height to minimize device production
costs. Other connection configurations are possible when needed to satisfy unique
project requirements.
PROTOTYPE TESTING
As part of rigorous regulatory agency review for this first U.S. project utilizing
VWDs, project-specific full-scale testing of the devices was required to establish
expected wind and seismic performance and determine appropriate properties for
modeling the devices in PERFORM-3D (CSI, 2006). Prototype tests on a series of
dampers were performed at the University of California, San Diego’s Caltrans
Seismic Response Modification Device Test Facility. One 7 ft wide by 12 ft tall
double vane prototype specimen ready for testing is shown in Figure 3. The dampers
were tested to a variety of displacements and velocities (sinusoidal and earthquake
motion) in single and bi-directional loading conditions.
Chapter 18 of ASCE 7-05 (ASCE, 2006) requires a series of sinusoidal cyclic

prototype tests at the maximum earthquake device displacement to establish device
performance. ASCE 7-05 also specifies a 15% tolerance limit on various damper
properties, depending on whether the device is displacement- and/or velocity-
dependent, compared with the average value from the code prescribed five fully

reversed cycles. VWDs are both displacement- and velocity-dependent and therefore
must satisfy the cycle variation tolerance for force at zero displacement (F0), force at
maximum device displacement (F @ Dmax), effective stiffness (Keff), and area of
hysteresis loop (Eloop). These parameters are illustrated for typical VWD load-
deformation response in Figure 4.
Figure 3. Prototype VWD 7 ft by 12 ft test specimen.
600
400 Fo (Pos.) Fmax (Pos.)
200 F@
Keff
Force (kip)
Dmax
0
-200
-400 Fmax (Neg.) Fo (Neg.)
-600
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (in.)
Figure 4. VWD property definitions.
Additional cyclic and simulated earthquake testing was conducted to enable the
design team to characterize expected device performance, provide data to establish
device damping and stiffness properties, and for calibration of numerical models. A
design level earthquake test was performed at the beginning and end of each day of
testing and results from these tests were used to demonstrate that damper properties

did not degrade with repeated cycles, even after approximately 20 tests at design to
maximum considered earthquake level displacement. Figure 5 shows typical load-
deformation response for cyclic and simulated earthquake tests. The larger first-cycle
force observed in Figure 5(a) will be discussed in the damper property modification
factor section below.
600
400
200
Force (kip)
-200
-400
-600
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (in.)
(a) Cyclic test

800
600
400
200
Force (kip)
-200
-400
-600
-800
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (in.)
(b) Earthquake test

Figure 5. Typical load vs. deformation response.
ASCE 7-05 damper prototype testing requirements also prescribe subjecting the
device to a wind test of not less than 2000 continuous fully reversed cycles of wind
loading at displacement amplitudes expected in the design wind storm. A wind
engineering consultant was retained to help establish this expected wind
displacement. Building wind displacements are made up of a static component,
quasi-static component oscillating at approximately 10 times the building natural
frequency, and a dynamic component oscillating at approximately the building
natural frequency. The results of previous wind tunnel testing of a model of the
building combined with the building dynamic properties were used to characterize the

building response during a 100-year wind event. This building response data was
used to develop a realistic wind test loading sequence consisting of the following
steps: 1) Apply static displacement offset, 2) Apply simultaneous combination of
quasi-static and dynamic cycles in both the in-plane and out-of-plane directions
(Figure 6 shows an example of one quasi-static displacement cycle with the
superimposed dynamic cycles), and 3) Remove static displacement offset.
Figure 7 shows the load-deformation response for one typical quasi-static cycle of the
wind testing sequence. Note that the static displacement offset has been removed
from the plotted data. Five iterations of 1000 dynamic wind load cycles were
conducted back-to-back with no significant drop in damper properties. Wind test
results also confirmed a significant level of damping is provided by the VWDs, even
for small amplitude wind-induced displacements.
0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (in.)
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (sec.)
Figure 6. Typical cycle of wind test displacement protocol.
75
50
25
Force (kip)
-25
-50
-75
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure 7. Typical wind test load vs. deformation response.

Damper production testing is also required by ASCE 7-05 Chapter 18 prior to

installation of damping devices in a building. Production testing is intended to verify
that the force-velocity-displacement characteristics of the actual devices fall within
the allowable range assumed in design of the structure. Simulated production tests
were conducted on prototype dampers to establish benchmark data for use in actual
production testing.
DAMPER PROPERTIES AND MODELING
Based on the results of project specific testing and previous testing in Japan, VWD
properties and a modeling scheme were developed for implementation in nonlinear
response history analysis using the computer software package PERFORM-3D.
Damper Model
The damper model consists of a linear spring in series with a nonlinear damper
(Maxwell Model). This damper model was implemented with the PERFORM-3D
viscous bar element made up of a fluid damper and linear elastic bar component. The
damper force versus velocity relationship was represented by Equation 1 and an
additional force cap.
F = CV α (Eq. 1)
where: C = damping coefficient, F = damper force, V = damper velocity, α = damper

velocity exponent. The damper velocity exponent (α = 0.7) was selected based on
empirical Japanese practice and fit of the damper model to prototype test data.
PERFORM-3D implements a multi-linear discretization of the Equation 1 force
versus velocity relationship. The additional force cap was based on observations
from testing.
The compound viscous bar element (dashpot and linear elastic spring) was located at
story mid-height and is connected to the beam above and below with rigid vane and
tank elements. Interstory drift causes relative displacement between the two damper
nodes and activates the viscous bar element. A portion of a typical frame with
dampers is shown in Figure 8.
Stiffness of the VWD vane and tank components was included in the dashpot-spring
damper model properties that were determined based on the results of prototype
testing. Therefore, the component properties of the elastic vane and tank elements
(Column, Steel Type, Nonstandard Section) in the PERFORM-3D model were
considered to be essentially rigid.

Rigid Vane and Tank

Elements
Damper Element
(Dashpot and Spring)
Figure 8. PERFORM-3D model typical damper bays.
Damper Properties
The load-deformation response of VWDs is temperature, displacement, velocity, and
cyclic-history dependent. Temperature and cyclic-history dependence are accounted
for by use of the property modification factors discussed in the next section. Figures
9 and 10 show the displacement and velocity dependence of the VWD load-
deformation response for representative cyclic prototype tests. In general, VWD
forces tend to increase for larger displacement amplitudes and larger velocities.
Fluid damper and linear elastic bar component properties, for use in PERFORM-3D,
were determined with an iterative process based on prototype test results and a simple
PERFORM-3D model of the prototype specimens. Results from PERFORM-3D
simulation of a test was compared to prototype test results to determine damper
properties that provided the best match over a range of different displacement
amplitudes and velocities. This data was also examined to verify that damper
properties used in the overall building model satisfied project-specific design criteria
requirements for the match between prototype test and numerical simulation results.
Damper Property Modification Factors

In order to appropriately account for the expected range of building response due to
variation in damper properties due to first-cycle effect, temperature variation, aging,
and specification tolerance an upper and lower bound damper properties analysis
scheme was adopted. The force-based nominal damper properties determined from
prototype testing were modified by an upper bound or lower bound damper property

modification factor and two analysis cases were completed. Displacement based
demands were typically controlled by analysis with lower bound damper properties
and force based demands by upper bound damper property analysis.
500
400 Disp. = 0.5 in.
Disp. = 1.0 in.
300
Disp. = 2.1 in.
200
Force (kip)
100
0
-100
-200
-300
V = 3.8 in/sec.
-400
-500
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement (in.)
Figure 9. Typical displacement dependent cyclic load vs. deformation response.
800
V = 5 in/sec.
600
V = 8 in/sec.
400
200
Force (kip)
-200
-400
-600
-800
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (in.)
Figure 10. Typical velocity dependent cyclic load vs. deformation response.
As observed in Figures 5(a), 9, and 10, VWDs typically exhibit a higher force
capacity on the first excursion to large displacements (cyclic-history dependence).
This phenomenon is not captured by the damper model implemented in PERFORM-
3D and is referred to as the first-cycle effect. A first-cycle effect upper bound
damper property modification factor (>1.0) is used to ensure the structure is
adequately designed for the increased force demand resulting from the first-cycle
effect. To establish the appropriate values for first-cycle factors maximum positive
and maximum negative force data from prototype testing was compared with
maximum values from PERFORM-3D simulation of the tests. The maximum value

of the test force divided by PERFOM-3D simulation force was used to establish the
first-cycle factor for a given damper size and earthquake demand level.
Table 1 provides a summary of upper and lower bound damper property modification
factors. The first-cycle factor was established as described above and other factors
were established based on Japanese experience with past projects, or in the case of
the individual damper specification tolerance factor based on ASCE 7-05
requirements.
Table 1. Property modification factors.

System Modification Factors (λ) Upper Bound Property Lower Bound Property
Multiplier (λmax) Multiplier (λmin)
First Cycle Effect, λ1st 1.55 to 1.82 1.0
Temperature, λtemp 1.05 0.87
Aging, λaging 1.05 0.95
Specification Tolerance, λspec,a 1.1 0.9
(average of all dampers)
Specification Tolerance, λspec,i 1.15 0.85
(individual dampers)
ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Damper bay beams are expected to form a plastic hinge near the column face, but
should remain elastic at the damper face. Beams can be initially sized based on the
expected moment demand from the VWDs considering upper bound damper
properties.
The presence of VWDs in moment frame bays alters the typically assumed inflection
point location at mid-span of the beam under lateral loading. The VWD applies a
large moment at the center of the damper bay beam that is only partially out-of-phase
with moment frame action. The decrease in assumed inflection point location due to
VWDs may result in a clear span to depth ratio less than the prequalification limits
for beam-to-column moment frame connections specified in AISC 358-05s1 (AISC,
2005) and project-specific moment frame connection testing may be required.
To limit column and foundation overturning forces, dampers are often offset in a
checkerboard pattern instead of a single stack up the height of the building. While
this is effective at reducing overturning forces, special consideration must be given to
the drag members needed to transfer seismic forces between adjacent offset dampers.
The ductility of beam sections that are efficient as flexural members is often
significantly reduced for combined compressive and flexural loading (Newell, 2008).
Stockier sections may provide improved ductility and increased axial load capacity.

In addition to improved structural performance, use of protective systems, such as

VWDs, reduces seismically induced building floor accelerations when compared to
more traditional seismic force resisting systems. This reduction in floor acceleration
demands can result in better performance of nonstructural components (i.e. less
damage) and reduced construction costs associated with nonstructural bracing.
NRHA results can be used to determine floor acceleration values for use in
calculation of nonstructural component horizontal seismic design forces, instead of
using the default equation in ASCE 7. For this hospital, roof level nonstructural
component seismic design forces were reduced by approximately 30%. This will
result in a significant savings in the cost of nonstructural bracing, especially since the
central utilities plant will be located near the hospital roof level.
SUMMARY
The first U.S. implementation of Viscous Wall Dampers has been designed for a
hospital located in San Francisco, California. VWDs were selected for this project
because they will provide a reliable, maintenance-free, cost-effective protective
system to ensure stringent performance goals are achieved. The use of supplemental
damping will reduce seismic induced floor acceleration demands, reduce
nonstructural bracing costs, and reduce potential nonstructural damage after an
earthquake.
Full-scale VWD prototype testing was conducted per the requirements of Chapter 18
of ASCE 7-05, to establish expected wind and seismic performance and determine
appropriate properties for nonlinear response history analysis with PERFORM-3D.
VWDs were modeled with a viscous bar element consisting of a fluid damper and
linear elastic bar components. An analysis approach considering upper and lower
bound damper properties was adopted to appropriately consider the expected range of
building response resulting from potential variability in VWD properties.
REFERENCES
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (2005). Prequalified Connections

for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications
including Supplement No. 1, AISC 358-05s1, Chicago, IL.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2006). Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VA.
Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). (2006). “PERFORM-3D Nonlinear Analysis

and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures Users Guide.” Berkeley, CA.
Newell, J. (2008). “Cyclic Behavior and Design of Steel Columns Subjected to Large
Drift.” PhD Dissertation, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA.

Viscous Wall Damper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Viscous Wall Damper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 815

Seismic Design of a 15 Story Hospital Using Viscous Wall Dampers

97205; PH (503) 223-9932; FAX (503) 242-1780; email: jnewell@degenkolb.com

Structures Congress 2011

Figure 1. Typical VWD framing elevation.

Structures Congress 2011

conducted in order to characterize VWD wind and seismic performance, determine

Use of viscous wall dampers having displacement, velocity, cyclic-history and

Figure 2. Architectural rendering of hospital building.