See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324585682

Seismic Performance of Asymmetrical Building with VE Dampers

Article  in  International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics · April 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 520

3 authors:

Naga Sai Tirupathi Kamatchi Palaniyandi

Larsen & Toubro CSIR Structural Engineering Research Centre
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Santhi A.S.
VIT University
64 PUBLICATIONS   304 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF ASYMMETRICAL BUILDING WITH DAMPERS & COLLAPSE STATE EVALUATION OF ASYMMETRICAL BUILDING View project

Utilising Bottom ash of Thermal Power Plants for construction activities as substitute of fine aggregate View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Naga Sai Tirupathi on 19 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
Volume 118 No. 18 2018, 3843-3849
ISSN: 1311-8080 (printed version); ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)
url: http://www.ijpam.eu
Special Issue
ijpam.eu

Seismic Performance of Asymmetrical

Building with VE Dampers
1
T. Naga Sai, 2P.Kamatchi and 3A.S.Santhi
1,2,3
Professor, SCALE, VIT University, Vellore- 632014, India

Abstract
Asymmetry in mass or stiffness in the building causes eccentricities which will be unfavorable during
seismic excitation. This leads to unconscionable edge deformation and shear forces in the
asymmetrical building compared to symmetrical building. In this paper, linear time history analysis are
carried out for a typical ten storey asymmetrical building with and without viscoelastic dampers and
the variations of response ratio with eccentricity ratio and frequency ratio for four different
earthquakes are studied.
Keywords: viscoelastic damper, Response ratio, eccentricity ratio, frequency ratio

1. Introduction
During past earthquakes, most of the asymmetrical buildings got damaged because of coupled
torsional effects and unsymmetrical edge deformations(Hall and Beck 1986; Sadek and Tso, 1989).
Non coincidence of center of stiffness and center of mass subject the building to torsional
deformations during earthquake excitation. Eccentric mass due to temporary storage of materials
also can lead to torsional failures due to asymmetric distribution of lateral loads viz., earthquake and
wind. Many researchers have studied the response of asymmetric buildings due to earthquakes.
On the other hand, many studies are reported in literature on the use of supplemental viscous
damping devices for response reduction of single degree of freedom (SDOF) asymmetric plan
systems(Goel 1998; Lin and Chopra 2001, 2003a; b). Lin and Chopra focused on the seismic
response of linearly elastic, one storey asymmetric plan systems with supplemental viscous dampers.
García et al. (2007) have carried out analytical and experimental investigations on plan asymmetric
single storey building with viscoelastic dampers. In the present study, a typical ten storey asymmetric
building with and without viscoelastic damper has been chosen and the variation of response ratio
with eccentricity ratio and torsional to uncoupled translational frequency ratio are studied for four
different earthquakes.

2. Parameters for asymmetrical building

For characterizing the performance of asymmetrical buildings with viscoelastic dampers, eccentricity
ratio and uncoupled torsional to translational frequency ratio are chosen as critical parameters(Bharti
2012). The eccentricity ratio and frequency ratios are defined as given in eqs.1, 2. In this present
study, eccentricity in x direction (E x) only is considered and the earthquake is assumed to be acting in
y direction.
Eccentricity ratio= v1= …….. (1)

Frequency ratio= v2= ……… (2)

= = …….. (3)

= )….. (4)

3843
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Where m= mass
= Translational stiffness in Y direction
= Rotational stiffness

ρ= mass radius of gyration =

a=length of the building

b= breadth of the building

3. Response ratios
In order to quantify the reduction in response due to addition of viscoelastic dampers, in
asymmetrical building along flexible and stiff edge, response ratios R1, R2 and R3 are defined as
given in eqs 5 -7. Building with viscoelastic damper is designated as BWD and building without
viscoelastic damper is designated as BWOD.

Response ratios R1, R2 and R3 is defined as

R1= (5)

R2= (6)

R3= (7)

4. Numerical study
A typical ten storied building chosen for present study has a plan dimension of 35mx15m
consisting 7 bays of 5m each in x-direction and 3 bays of 5m each in y-direction as shown in Fig. 1.
Each storey height is 3m. For symmetrical building, columns sizes of 0.4mx0.4m are used.
Eccentricities in X-direction are considered by varying the column sizes in the frame (as shown in
2
Table 1). A constant mass of 1ton/m is distributed over a 200mm thick rigid slab for all the eccentric
cases. In this building, four different earthquakes viz., Elcentro, Lomaprieta, Northridge and Zone-V
medium soil spectrum compatible earthquake are applied in Y- direction and linear time history
analysis are carried out.

Figure. 1. Plan of building

3844
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Table 1 Moment of Inertia for frames

4
Ex Frame moment of inertia(m )
(%) A,B,C E F G H
,D
0 0.034 0.008 0.008 0.00 0.008
1 5 5 85 5
1 0.034 0.013 0.008 0.00 0.008
1 7 5 85 5
2 0.034 0.020 0.008 0.00 0.008
1 8 5 85 5
3 0.034 0.008 0.013 0.00 0.008
1 5 7 85 5
4 0.034 0.020 0.013 0.00 0.008
1 8 7 85 5
5 0.034 0.008 0.008 0.01 0.008
1 5 5 37 5
10 0.034 0.008 0.008 0.02 0.008
1 5 5 08 5
15 0.034 0.008 0.008 0.00 0.020
1 5 5 85 8
20 0.034 0.008 0.013 0.01 0.020
1 5 7 37 8
25 0.034 0.008 0.020 0.02 0.020
1 5 8 08 8

5. Viscoelastic damper with chevron bracing

Viscoelastic energy dissipation systems are classified into viscoelastic solid, viscoelastic fluid and
viscous devices (Constantinou et al. 1998). In this study, viscoelastic solid damper with 3M ISD 110
1 11
VE is used. The important properties of VE dampers are storage modulus G , loss modulus G and
0
loss factor ηv. In the present study, VE dampers are designed for 15% damping at 30 temperature.
Effective stiffness and effective damping of damper along with required stiffness of bracings are
calculated as per the procedure reported in literature(Chang et al. 1998; Merin Ross et al. 2014).
To control the response of flexible edge and stiff edge, VE dampers are arranged in both the
edges. Chevron type bracings and dampers are arranged in middle frame (along Y direction) at
alternate floors as shown in Fig. 2 using link element in SAP2000.

Figure. 2. Arrangement of VE damper in chevron bracings

6. Results & Discussions

The variation of flexible edge deformation response ratio (R1) and stiff edge deformation
response ratio (R2) with respect to eccentricity ratio (v1) for four different earthquakes are given in
Fig.3. The variation of flexible edge deformation response ratio (R1) and stiff edge deformation
response ratio (R2) with respect to frequency ratio (v2) for four different earthquakes are given in
Fig.4.
For Elcentro earthquake (Fig. 3(a)), at lower eccentricity (Ex<5%), the response ratio R1 and R2
are similar. For higher eccentricities (Ex>5%), the variation in response ratios R1 and R2 are high. For
Lomaprieta earthquake (Fig.3(b)), eccentricity above 10% causes similar response ratio for stiff and
flexible edge. For Northridge earthquake (Fig. 3(c)), at smaller eccentricities the flexible edge

3845
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

response ratio is higher than response ratio for stiff edge. At 15% eccentricity in the building,
response ratios R1 and R2 are similar. For spectrum compatible earthquake (Fig. 3(d)), at 10%, 15%
& 20% eccentricity of buildings, R1 is higher than R2.
When flexible edge and stiff edge response ratios are plotted with frequency ratio (v2) as shown
in Fig. 4, flexible edge response ratio and stiff edge response ratio are different by 20% at higher
frequency ratios for elcentro (Fig. 4(a)). For Lomaprieta (Fig. 4(b)) and Northridge earthquakes (Fig.
4(c)), the variation of response ratio R1 and R2 are about 5% for all the frequency ratios. For
spectrum compatible zone-V earthquake (Fig. 4(d)), stiff edge response ratio is higher than flexible
edge response ratio at a frequency ratio of 1.15 to 1.4.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure. 3. Variation of R1 and R2 with eccentricity ratio (v1)

(a) Elcentro (b) Lomaprieta (c) Northridge (d) spectrum compatible zone-V earthquake

(a) (b)

3846
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

(c) (d)
Figure. 4. Variation of R1 and R2 with frequency ratio (v2)

(a) Elcentro (b) Lomaprieta (c) Northridge (d) spectrum compatible zone-V earthquake

(a) (b)

Figure. 5. Variation of normalized base shear response ratio (R3) of four different earthquakes with:
(a) Eccentricity ratio (v1) (b) Frequency ratio (v2)

Normalized base shear response ratio (R3) with eccentricity ratio (v1) and frequency ratio
(v2) for different earthquakes are shown in Fig. 5(a) and Fig.5 (b). From Fig. 5(a), R3 with v1,
addition of viscoelastic damper effectively reduced the base shear response ratio for elcentro
earthquake. With the same number of dampers in the structure, the base shear response ratio is
higher for Northridge earthquake, than other earthquakes considered.

6. Conclusion
In this paper, reduction in response at stiff edge and flexible edge of a typical asymmetric building,
due to the addition of viscoelastic dampers has been quantified for different eccentricity ratios and
frequency ratios for four different earthquakes. From the studies made, response reduction at stiff
edge is found to be different from that of reduction observed at flexible edge for the same number of
dampers provided. Further, response reduction is found to be varying for different earthquakes.
Hence it is necessary to account for asymmetry of the building and the characteristics of
earthquakes while designing for viscoelastic dampers.

Acknowledgement
First author acknowledges the Director, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai
for granting permission to carry out this study at CSIR-SERC as a part of his Master’s thesis.

3847
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

References
[1] Bharti, S. D. (2012). “Seismic Response Control of Asymmetric
Plan Building with Semiactive MR Damper.” 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE).
[2] Chang, K. C., Lin, Y. Y., and Lai, M. L. (1998). “Seismic Design of
Structures with Added Viscoelastic Dampers.” Journal of
Earthquake Technology.
[3] Constantinou, M., Soong, T., and Dargush, G. (1998). Passive
Energy Dissipation Systems for Structural Design and Retrofit.
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
[4] García, M., de la Llera, J. C., and Almazán, J. L. (2007). “Torsional
balance of plan asymmetric structures with viscoelastic dampers.”
Engineering Structures, 29(6), 914–932.
[5] Goel, R. K. (1998). “Effects of Supplemental Viscous Damping on
Seismic Response of Asymmetric-Plan Systems.” Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 27(August 1997), 125–141.
[6] Hall, J. F., and Beck, J. L. (1986). “Hall and Damage in Mexico.”
Geophysical Research Letters, 13(6), 589–592.
[7] Lin, W. H., and Chopra, A. K. (2001). “Understanding and
predicting effects of supplemental viscous damping on seismic
response of asymmetric one-storey systems.” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30(10), 1475–1494.
[8] Lin, W. H., and Chopra, A. K. (2003a). “Asymmetric one-storey
elastic systems with non-linear viscous and viscoelastic dampers:
Earthquake response.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 32(4), 555–577.
[9] Lin, W. H., and Chopra, A. K. (2003b). “Asymmetric one-storey
elastic systems with non-linear viscous and viscoelastic dampers:
Earthquake response.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 32(4), 555–577.
[10] Merin Ross, Kamatchi, P., and Nagesh, R. I. (2014). “Importance
of Site-specific analyses for Steel Framed Buildings with Passive
Energy Dissipators.” Journal of Structural Engineering CSIR-
SERC, 41(4), 307–319.
[11] Sadek,A, W., and Tso, W, K. (1989). “Strength eccentricity concept
for inelastic analysis of asymmetrical structures.” Enginnering
Structures, 11(3), 189–194.

3848
3849
 3850

View publication stats