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

net/publication/260995397

Maximum damping forces for structures with viscous dampers under near-
source earthquakes

Article  in  Engineering Structures · June 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.036

CITATIONS READS

38 3,016

2 authors:

George Hatzigeorgiou Nikos Pnevmatikos

Hellenic Open University University of West Attica
118 PUBLICATIONS   2,789 CITATIONS    99 PUBLICATIONS   433 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Progressive collapse View project

structural control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nikos Pnevmatikos on 03 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Maximum damping forces for structures with viscous dampers under

near-source earthquakes
George D. Hatzigeorgiou a,⇑, Nikos G. Pnevmatikos b
a
Engineering Project Management MSc Program, School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece
b
Dept. of Civil Infrastructure Works, Technological Educational Institution of Athens, Athens, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines the inelastic response behaviour of structures with supplemental viscous dampers
Received 19 February 2013 under near-source pulse-like ground motions. It is well known that the design of dampers requires the
Revised 26 November 2013 effective evaluation of maximum seismic velocities or maximum damping forces. In order to avoid com-
Accepted 27 February 2014
plicated methods, such as the dynamic inelastic analysis, this study proposes a simple and effective eval-
Available online 21 March 2014
uating method for these maximum values using the inelastic velocity ratio. This ratio is a modification
factor which allows the evaluation of the maximum inelastic velocity or damping force from their corre-
Keywords:
sponding elastic counterparts. The paper focuses on structures. Extensive parametric studies are con-
Maximum damping forces
Viscous dampers
ducted to examine the influence of characteristics of structure (period of vibration, post-elastic
Near-source ground motions stiffness, force reduction factor), of supplemental damping (equivalent viscous damping ratio) and of
Inelastic response ground motion (type of earthquake fault) on the maximum seismic velocities and damping forces.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In order to decrease the maximum seismic response of build-
ings, bridges and other civil structures, a variety of passive energy
dissipation devices have been implemented on them for over forty
years [1–3]. Various experimental and analytical studies about
structures with supplemental damping have been presented in
the past, such as studies of Refs [4–10], amongst others. More spe-
cifically, Constantinou and Tadjbakhsh [4] examined the optimum
design of a first story damping system. Makris and Constantinou
[5] investigated the fractional-derivative Maxwell model for vis-
cous dampers and Nishimura [6] studied on the performance eval-
uation of damping devices installed in a building structure.
Additionally, Symans et al. [7] reviewed the energy dissipation sys-
tems for seismic applications and Lavan and Dargush [8] investi-
gated a multi-objective evolutionary seismic design with passive
energy dissipation systems. Konstantinidis et al. [9] examined
experimentally the the force-output of fluid dampers by in situ
monitoring and Nishimura [10] investigated the performance of a
building structure with nonlinear dampers under Tohoku earth-
quake. Furthermore, a large variety of damper placement methods
have been published in the pertinent literature. One can mention
here the pioneering work of Takewaki [11] as well as the contribu-
tions of Lopez-Garcia [12], Singh and Moreschi [13], Uetani et al.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2610 367769.
E-mail address: hatzigeorgiou@eap.gr (G.D. Hatzigeorgiou).
[14] and Lavan and Levy [15,16]. Furthermore, Trombetti and
Silvestri [17] found that a mass-proportional distribution is very
efficient, but can be impractical to implement. Aydin et al. [18]
found that the optimal configurations and locations of dampers
can be achieved using transfer functions. Cimellaro [19] investi-
gated the simultaneous stiffness-damping optimization problem
with respect to structural acceleration, displacement and base
shear. Silvestri and Trombetti [20] proposed that viscous dampers
of each floor of a structure should be connected to a fixed point and
this system is far superior to those offered by damper placements
which see dampers placed between adjacent storeys (as in the
traditional setup). Hwang et al. [21] compared the distribution
methods for viscous damping coefficients to buildings. Recently
Adachi et al. [22] proposed a practical method for optimum design
of nonlinear oil dampers with relief mechanism installed in multi-
story framed building structures while Adachi et al. [23] showed
that maximum interstory velocities plays a critical role in super
high-rise buildings.
Generally, the use of passive energy dissipation devices leads to
reduced displacement structural response; however, nonlinear
time history analysis is also required for the majority of passively
damped civil structures since their earthquake vibration induces
inelastic deformations in one or more structural elements
[24,25]. The maximum seismic velocity is essential for the design
of supplemental viscous dampers and generally for the assessment
of performance based seismic design of inelastic structures with
these systems [26]. Practically, the design velocity of a building

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.036
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Author's personal copy
2 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13
storey (hence of the dampers) is based on design/elastic velocity
spectra proposed by codes [27]. More specifically, according to
the provisions of FEMA-450 [27] for supplementary dampers
(Chapter 15), the ‘design earthquake story velocity’ is allowed to
be evaluated by the ‘design earthquake story displacement’, using
the elastic pseudo-velocity spectrum. In this case, the actual veloc-
ity is considered to be equal to the elastic counterpart, assuming an
‘equal velocity rule’, similar to the well-known ‘equal displacement
rule’ which correlates the maximum elastic with the maximum
inelastic displacement. Hatzigeorgiou and Papagiannopoulos [28]
recently examined the relation between the maximum seismic
velocity of inelastic structures in comparison with the maximum
seismic velocity of elastic structures. Thus, taking into account that
the elastic velocity spectra lead to different velocities in compari-
son with the actual ones as well as many structures with supple-
mentary dampers can behave inelastically, it is evident that the
elastic velocity spectra cannot be used in these cases. Therefore,
the ‘equal velocity rule’ seems to be an unreliable assumption,
which can leads to overstated energy dissipation with fictitious
seismic performance level and overdesigned dampers. The nonlin-
ear time history analysis leads to reliable estimation of actual
velocities reducing the aforementioned shortcoming. Nevertheless,
this approach appears to be complicated for the everyday engi-
neering practice due to the increased computational effort. For this
reason, Hatzigeorgiou and Papagiannopoulos [28] proposed an
alternative method, which is based on the inelastic velocity ratio
(IVR). The IVR can be defined as the ratio of the maximum inelastic
to maximum elastic velocity of a structural system, where its
knowledge allows the computation of maximum inelastic velocity
directly from the corresponding elastic one. This approach is quite
similar to the estimation procedure and philosophy of ‘inelastic
displacement ratio’, i.e., the ratio of the maximum inelastic to max-
imum elastic displacement for SDOF systems [29–32].
It should be noted that in many cases of seismic design, struc-
tures may lead to damage or failure in case of near-field ground
motions, which are not taken into account when using code-based
seismic design provisions constructed on the basis of ordinary far-
field ground motions [33]. Thus, near-field ground motions have
been identified as imposing extreme demands on structures to
an extent not predicted by typical measures such as response spec-
tra [34]. Therefore, it should be recognized that further research is
needed for the evaluation of behaviour and structural performance
of structures with supplemental damping under near-field earth-
quakes, mainly due to pulse-like character of these ground motions
[35,36].
This paper extends the work [28], which has been focused on
far-field ground motions, investigating the maximum seismic
velocities of elastic and inelastic structures with supplemental
fluid (oil) viscous dampers under near-source pulse-like ground
motions. Furthermore, this work examines two additional key
parameters that have not been examined in the pertinent litera-
ture, i.e., the influences of post-elastic stiffness of structures under
consideration and of type of earthquake fault on the IVR. Extensive
parametric studies are conducted to obtain the empirical expres-
sions for the IVR, in terms of the period of vibration, the effective
viscous damping ratio, the force reduction factor and the type of
earthquake fault. Finally, one characteristic numerical example is
presented in order to illustrate the proposed method and demon-
strate its accuracy.
2. Maximum seismic velocities of elastic and inelastic systems
This section examines the inelastic behaviour of single-degree-
of freedom (SDOF) systems with viscous damping under near-
source pulse-like ground motions. The analysis is concentrated
on the evaluation of maximum seismic velocities. Firstly, an elas-
tic–perfectly plastic response is assumed to model their structural
behaviour, which is shown in Fig. 1a, while the more general bilin-
ear elastoplastic model (Fig. 1b) is also investigated to take into
account the influence of post-elastic stiffness on the maximum
seismic velocities.
The equation of motion of these systems is given by [37]
€ þ cu_ þ kT u ¼ mag
mu ð1Þ
where m is the mass, u the relative displacement, c the effective vis-
cous damping coefficient, kT the tangent stiffness, ag the accelera-
tion of the ground motion and upper dots stand for time
derivatives. The maximum force response of a linear elastic system
can be denoted by fel, while the yield strength of a nonlinear elasto-
plastic system can be denoted by fy. Thus, the force reduction R fac-
tor can be defined as the ratio of maximum elastic to the maximum
inelastic force, i.e., R = fel/fy. For a defined the yield displacement uy,
the yield force fy can be expressed in terms of the yield displace-
ment and the elastic stiffness kel as fy = kel  uy.
Strain hardening or softening takes place after yielding initiates.
For a defined inelastic (tangent) stiffness, i.e. the slope kin = H  kel
of the second branch of the skeleton force–displacement relation-
ship (see Fig. 1b), where H the post-yield stiffness ratio. An elastic–
perfectly plastic response assumes that H = 0. Although its simplic-
ity these models are effective to simulate the behaviour of highly
ductile systems including buckling restrained braced frames and
eccentric braced frames [38]. Furthermore, elastic–perfectly plastic
SDOF systems have been successfully applied to describe the seis-
mic response of multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) conventional
systems [39,40]. For example, Uang and Bertero [41] adopted such
a model to simulate the seismic behaviour of a 3-D multi-degree-
of-freedom (MDOF) dual system with two exterior ductile mo-
ment-resisting frames and one interior concentrically K-braced
frame in the excitation direction that had been experimentally
tested. They found that for steel dual systems of medium rise
buildings it is possible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the in-
put energy for a multi-storey building structure from the absolute
input energy spectra for a SDOF system and the fundamental per-
iod of the multi-storey structure. Furthermore, this model has also
been applied for MDOF passively damped structures [42,43], since
the dynamic peak response of MDOF structures with dampers can
be predicted effectively by their equivalent SDOF systems [44].
In order to investigate the maximum seismic velocities of elas-
tic and inelastic systems, the inelastic velocity ratio (IVR) is defined
as the ratio of the maximum inelastic to maximum elastic velocity
of a single-degree-of freedom (SDOF) system. Thus,
u_ max;in
IVR ¼ ð2Þ
u_ max;el
Fig. 2 shows the velocity time histories for an elastic–perfectly
plastic SDOF system with supplemental viscous dampers examin-
ing both the elastic and inelastic response.
This system has elastic stiffness kel = 2000 kN/m, mass m =
50.66 kN s2/m and effective (inherent + supplemental) damping
c = 127.3 kN s/m. The corresponding period of vibration is T =
1.0 s, the effective viscous damping ratio is n = 20% and a force
reduction factor R = 2.5 is assumed for the case of inelastic behav-
iour. This system has been subjected to the following four near-
source pulse-like strong ground motions:
 Coalinga earthquake (07/22/83, USGS Station 1651 – Transmit-
ter Hill, Dir. 270) – (#415 of PEER Strong Ground Motion Data-
base [45]).
 North Palm Springs earthquake (07/08/86, USGS Station 5070,
North Palm Springs, Dir. 210) – (#529 of PEER Strong Ground
Motion Database [45]).
 Author's personal copy

G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13 3

(a) Force fel (b) Force fel

fmax
fy fy Hkel
1

kel kel
1 1
uy uel umax uy uel umax
Displacement Displacement

Fig. 1. Models for SDOF systems: (a) elastic – perfectly plastic and (b) bilinear elastoplastic.

Fig. 2. Elastic and inelastic response of a SDOF system with supplemental damping.

 Loma Prieta earthquake (10/18/89, Alameda Naval Air Stn
Hanger, Dir. 180) – (#738 of PEER Strong Ground Motion
Database [45]).
 Chi–Chi, Taiwan earthquake (09/20/99, CHY006, Dir. 180) –
(#1182 of PEER Strong Ground Motion Database [45]).
For comparison reasons, all these records have been normalized
for peak ground acceleration (PGA) equal to 0.30 g.
It is observed that the maximum velocities for inelastic systems
are smaller in comparison with their counterparts of elastic
systems.
The most suitable representation to describe the action of vis-
cous dampers is the Maxwell model [5]. This viscoelastic model
adopts a linear spring, which simulates the damper’s stiffness in
series with a linear or nonlinear dashpot to simulate the damping.
However, ignoring the linear spring, a simplified Maxwell model
can be adopted, mainly for simplicity reasons for the analyses,
and this model is found that provide sufficient accuracy [46]. Thus,
examining the simplified Maxwell model, Seleemah and Constanti-
nou [47] found that the behaviour of viscous dampers can be
appropriately expressed by the following relation
_
F d ðtÞ ¼ c  juðtÞja
_
 sgnðuðtÞÞ ð3Þ
where Fd(t) is the damping force, a an exponent whose value is
determined experimentally and sgn the signum function. Thus,
the simplified Maxwell model corresponding to Eq. (3) is a nonlin-
ear viscous dashpot. Fig. 3 shows the damping force–velocity rela-
tion for various values of exponent of velocity, both for linear
(a = 1.0) and nonlinear dashpot (a – 1.0).
For earthquake engineering applications, the exponent a typi-
cally varies between 0.5 and 2.0 [48] where the value a – 1.0 cor-
responds to the case of a nonlinear viscous dashpot. Furthermore,
many viscous dampers (e.g. oil dampers) are usually used with the
mechanism of relief in order to avoid excessively large forces; in
this case, the dampers’ behaviour is nonlinear [22,23]. However,
investigating the seismic protection of building structures, many
 Author's personal copy
4 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13
Fig. 3. Damping force–velocity relation.
researchers have applied and tested linear viscous dampers (i.e.,
a = 1.0) [49–51]. Moreover, in preliminary analysis and design
stages, the velocity exponent a = 1.0 is recommended for simplicity
[7]. Finally, Goel [25] examining the seismic response control of
irregular structures using nonlinear dampers and investigating dif-
ferent values for the velocity exponent (a = 0.35, 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0)
found that ‘‘the damper nonlinearity has little influence on the base
shear’’. For all these reasons, this paper focuses exclusively on lin-
ear viscous dampers. In this case, the maximum damping force, Fd,-
max, is given by
F d;max ¼ c  u_ max
where u_ max is the maximum velocity. Since the design of dampers of
passively damped structures requires the knowledge of maximum
damping force, it is important to reliably evaluate the maximum
velocity. Thus, using Eqs. (2) and (4), the IVR can also be defined
for structures with linear dampers as the ratio of the maximum
damping forces between inelastic and elastic structural systems
F ðd;maxÞin
IVR ¼
F ðd;maxÞel
This velocity is usually estimated using the pseudo-velocity
spectrum (or even the relative velocity spectrum), which appears
to be an unreliable assumption as is apparent from Fig. 2. Thus,
the assumption of IVR = 1.0, as is not necessarily a conservative
assumption. This can be confirmed through the investigation of
the total energy of a structural system. According to Uang and Ber-
tero [41], the absolute energy equation can be expressed by
EI ¼ Ek þ Es þ Eh þ Ed
where EI is the earthquake input energy, i.e., the energy demand by
the earthquake ground motion on the structure [7,52]. Furthermore,
the right hand side of Eq. (8) represents the energy capacity or sup-
ply of the structure, which has to do with the kinetic energy, Ek, the
recoverable elastic strain energy, Es, the irrecoverable hysteretic en-
ergy, Eh, and the energy dissipated by the inherent structural damp-
ing capability and/or the supplemental viscous dampers, Ed. It
should be noted that for elastic structural systems, the total energy
is almost equal to damping energy, while for inelastic systems, the
hysteretic energy is equal with the difference between total and
dissipated energy. The equivalent damping ratio can be evaluated
from the damping energy, Ed. For example, for a single-degree-of-
freedom system with a nonlinear viscous dashpot subjected to
an imposed harmonic displacement with amplitude u0 and
frequency x (or period T), the damping ratio is given by (Symans
and Constantinou [51])
2aþ1 ua1 a2
c C2 ð1 þ a=2Þ
0 x
n¼
pm Cð2 þ aÞ
where C is the gamma function. Especially for the case of linear vis-
cous dampers (a = 1.0), damping ratio results from
c
n¼ ð7bÞ
2mx
where it is evident that the damping ratio is dependent on the
amplitude of motion expect for the case of linear dampers. In any
case, the damping energy, Ed, is given by
Z T
Ed ¼ _ a usgnð
cjuj _ _
uÞdt ð8aÞ
0
while for the case of linear viscous dampers (a = 1.0), damping
energy results from
Z T
Ed ¼ cu_ 2 dt ð8bÞ
0
It is evident from Eq. (8) that the overestimation of actual
velocity leads to overestimation of dissipated energy Ed. This is
clearly shown in Fig. 4 where the time histories of damping
energy, both for the elastic (R = 1.0) and inelastic case (R = 2.5),
as well as the total energy for the inelastic case are presented. It
should be noted that the total energy for the elastic structures
is not shown here since it is almost identical with the elastic
damping energy. It is obvious from Fig. 4 that the dissipated en-
ergy of an elastic system is greater in any case than the dissipated
energy of the inelastic system, and in many cases even greater
than the total energy of inelastic system. Therefore, assuming that
ð4Þ
IVR = 1.0, the hysteretic energy, due to inelastic structural behav-
iour and damage cannot be evaluated and creating a discrepancy
that does not appear to be acceptable or safe for many structural
systems.
Furthermore, Fig. 5 shows the damping force–displacement dia-
grams for the aforementioned near-source seismic records, both
for the elastic (R = 1.0) and inelastic (R = 2.5) systems. The variation
on maximum damping force between elastic and inelastic struc-
ð5Þ tural systems is obvious in Fig. 4. Thus, the need for the develop-
ment of an accurate and efficient procedure for the quantification
of this difference either in terms of maximum seismic velocities
via the IVR (Eq. (4)) or equivalently in terms of maximum damping
forces (Eq. (6)) under near-source pulse-like ground motions is
apparent. This quantification is materialized in the following
sections.
Finally, examining behaviour of a structure with supplementary
damping, different arrangements of viscous dampers lead to differ-
ent damping matrix (or effective damping [53]) and consequently
ð6Þ
to different response. Therefore, the maximum seismic velocities
depend on the installation of viscous dampers, i.e.:
(a) structures with and without dampers have different
response and therefore different maximum velocities, and,
(b) the installation of different configurations of dampers leads
to structures with different dynamic characteristics and
therefore to different structural responses.
It should be mentioned that the designers can take advantage of
the optimum position of the dampers to minimize, where possible,
the structural response (e.g., see the works of Takewaki [11,54]).
3. Seismic input
The near-source pulse-like strong ground motion database
examined in this study constitutes a representative number of
earthquakes from a variety of tectonic environments. Thus, a total
ð7aÞ of 60 records were selected to cover a range of frequency content,
 Author's personal copy
G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13
Fig. 4. Energy of elastic and inelastic structural systems with supplemental damping.
duration, and magnitude. Two different types of faults are
examined (Fig. 6): strike-slip (left- or right-lateral) and non-
strike-slip (reverse or oblique-reverse in this study).
The examined near-source pulse-like strong ground motions,
which were downloaded from the database of the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center [45], have been re-
corded during the action of the following earthquakes:
Strike-slip faults – 30 records:
 Coyote Lake (08/06/79; 1 Station: Gilroy Array #6).
 Imperial Valley (10/15/79; 8 Stations: Aeropuerto Mexicali,
Agrarias, Brawley Airport, EC Meloland Overpass FF, El Centro
Array #10, El Centro Array #6, El Centro Array #8, Holtville Post
Office.
 Mammoth Lakes (05/27/80; 1 Station: Long Valley Dam (Upr L
Abut)).
 Westmorland (04/26/81; 2 Stations: Parachute Test Site, Fire
Stat.).
 Morgan Hill (04/24/84; 2 Stations: Coyote Lake Dam (SW Abut),
Gilroy Array #6).
 San Salvador (10/10/86; 2 Stations: Geotech. Investig. Center,
National Geografical Inst.).
 Superstition Hills (11/24/87; 3 Stations: El Centro Imp. Co. Cent,
Kornbloom Road (temp), Parachute Test Site).
 Erzican, Turkey (03/13/92; 1 Station: Erzincan).
 Landers (06/28/92; 2 Stations: Lucerne; Yermo Fire Station).
 Kobe, Japan (01/16/95; 3 Stations: KJMA, Takarazuka; Takatori).
 Kocaeli, Turkey (08/17/99; 2 Stations: Arcelik, Yarimca).
 Duzce, Turkey (11/12/99; 2 Stations: Bolu, Duzce).
 Yountville (09/03/2000; 1 Station: Napa Fire Station #3).
5
Non- strike-slip (reverse and oblique-reverse) faults – 30
records:
 San Fernando (02/09/71; 1 Station: Pacoima Dam).
 Coalinga (07/22/83; 3 Stations: Oil City, Transmitter Hill, Coal-
inga-14th & Elm – Old CHP).
 Nahanni, Canada (12/23/85; 1 Station: Site 2).
 Palm Springs (07/08/86; 1 Station: North Palm Springs).
 Whittier Narrows (10/01/87; 1 Station: LB – Orange Ave).
 Loma Prieta (10/18/89; 7 Stations: Alameda Naval Air (Hanger),
Gilroy – Gavilan Coll., Gilroy – Historic Bldg., Gilroy Array #2,
LGPC, Oakland – Outer Harbor Wharf, Oakland – Title & Trust).
 Cape Mendocino (04/25/92; 2 Stations: Cape Mendocino,
Petrolia).
 Northridge (01/17/94; 9 Stations: LA – Wadsworth VA Hospital
North, LA Dam, Newhall – Fire Stat., Newhall – W Pico Canyon
Rd., Pacoima Dam (downstr), Pacoima Dam (upper left, Rinaldi
Receiving Stat., Sylmar – Converter Stat. East, Sylmar – Olive
View Med FF).
 Chi–Chi, Taiwan (09/20/99; 5 Stations: CHY006, CHY035,
TAP003, TAP005, TCU036).
For comparison reasons, all these records have been normalized
for peak ground acceleration (PGA) equal to 0.30 g. All the afore-
mentioned seismic records are characterized by velocity pulses,
which have period equal to Tp, as typically shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8
shows the values of these periods, which have been adopted from
the PEER strong ground motion database [45]. The reader can also
consult the work of Krawinkler [55] for the modeling of near-fault
records with pulses.
 Author's personal copy

6 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13

Fig. 5. Damping force–displacement diagrams for systems with supplemental damping.

Fig. 9 depicts the pseudo-acceleration spectra of the aforemen-
tioned records for viscous damping ratio n = 5%.
Furthermore, Fig. 10 shows the corresponding pseudo-velocity
spectra. For comparison reasons, the mean spectrum of these re-
cords and the EC8 [56] design spectrum are also provided. It is
obvious from Figs. 9 and 10 that the mean spectra are closely fol-
low the design spectrum of EC8 [56], especially in the constant
velocity region (i.e., for 0.5 s 6 T 6 2.0 s). In the constant displace-
ment region (T P 2 s), the ground motions under consideration
that have been recorded during earthquakes with strike-slip fault
mechanism appear to lead to higher spectral velocities in compar-
ison with earthquakes with non-strike-slip fault mechanism
(reverse, or oblique-reverse).
4. Evaluation of IVR for elastic–perfectly plastic sdof systems
This section examines appropriate empirical expressions for the
IVR. Thus, for each near-source pulse-like seismic record, the
period of the SDOF system is increased from 0.1 to 5.0 s with an
 Author's personal copy
G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13
Fig. 6. Mechanisms of near-source pulse-like ground motions under consideration.
Fig. 7. Typical pulse-type ground velocity time history examining in this study.
Fig. 8. Pulse periods Tp for the seismic records under consideration.
increment of 0.1 s (i.e., 50 values of period), the effective viscous
damping ratio is equal to n = 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%, and
the force reduction factor is assumed to increase from 1.0 to 8.0
with an increment of 0.5 (i.e., 15 values of R factors). Thus,
270,000 analyses are examined: (60 ground motions)  (15 force
reduction factors, R)  (50 periods, T)  (6 viscous damping ratios,
n). Every analysis serves to solve the nonlinear differential Eq. (1)
and determine the response in terms of various parameters of
7
the problem. A complete nonlinear regression analysis is then car-
ried out on the basis of the data obtained by these analyses. The
relation of IVR versus the force reduction factor, structural period
and effective viscous damping ratio is regressed for the series of
the aforementioned analyses and the following empirical expres-
sion is adopted
IVRðR; T; nÞ ¼ 1 þ ðRc1  1Þ
" #
2
c2 þ c3  lnðTÞ þ c4  ðlnðTÞÞ þ c5  n
 ð9Þ
1 þ c6  lnðTÞ þ c7  n
Eq. (9) is one of the simplest equations that successfully
described the numerical data and has been selected by means of
Table Curve 3D (v.2 Ó Jandel Scientific Software) after testing thou-
sands of mathematical equations. The criterion for the selection
of this equation has to do with the minimum sum of squared resid-
uals. Values of the parameters c1-c7 are determined by nonlinear
regression analysis, where Table 1 shows them for the whole sam-
ple of records.
The efficiency of the proposed empirical relation is shown in
Fig. 11 where the ‘exact’ IVRs from dynamic inelastic analyses are
compared with predicted IVRs using Eq. (9), both for strike-slip
and reverse/oblique-reverse faults.
It is observed that the model results obtained from this study
are in good agreement with those obtained from the ‘exact’
dynamic inelastic analyses, i.e., the predicted IVRs are almost iden-
tical with the ‘exact’ IVRs since these values are located very close
to the diagonal of the diagrams of Fig. 11. Finally, Table 2 provides
the basic statistical parameters about the proposed model to clarify
its effectiveness and accuracy.
5. Influence of various parameters on IVR
This section examines the influence of various parameters on
IVR, such as period of vibration, equivalent viscous damping ratio,
type of seismic fault, force reduction factor, post-yield stiffness,
distance of seismic fault and characteristic periods Tp of seismic re-
cords under consideration.
5.1. Influence of period of vibration on IVR
Initially, the influence of period of vibration on IVR is investi-
gated. Fig. 12 examines the IVR of an elastic–perfectly-plastic SDOF
system with n = 20% and R = 4.0, both for the exact dynamic inelas-
tic analyses and the proposed method. This system is subjected to
 Author's personal copy

8 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13

Fig. 9. Pseudo-acceleration spectra of strong ground motions under consideration.

Fig. 10. Pseudo-velocity spectra of strong ground motions under consideration.

specific ground motions, similar conclusions can be drawn, as

Table 1
IVR parameters c1–c7 for elastic–perfectly plastic SDOF systems. shown in Fig. 13.
Comparing Figs. 12 and 13, it is observed that the deviation be-
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7
tween the ‘exact’ values and the proposed Eq. (9) is greater for the
Strike-slip faults 0.0234 8.91 2.38 2.53 5.87 0.257 1.24 case of non-averaged results, given the uncertainties associated
Reverse faults 0.0314 8.09 1.80 3.88 4.85 0.130 5.44
with seismic ground motions. However, even in this case, the mod-
el results obtained from this study are in satisfactorily agreement
the whole sample of earthquakes examining separately the groups with those obtained from dynamic inelastic analyses.
of each fault mechanism. It is evident that the period strongly
affects the inelastic velocity ratio. Thus, the influence of period of 5.2. Influence of viscous damping and type of seismic fault on IVR
vibration on IVR should be taken into account in any case. It should
be noted that Fig. 12 depicts the ‘exact’ mean values after averag- The influence of equivalent viscous damping ratio and type of
ing of dynamic inelastic analyses results. Furthermore, examining seismic fault on IVR is examined in the following. Without loss of

Fig. 11. Comparison between ‘exact’ and predicted IVR.

 Author's personal copy

G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13 9

Table 2 generality, an elastic–perfectly plastic SDOF system designed for

Basic statistical parameters for the proposed model for the whole sample. R = 3.0 is investigated, for various values of viscous damping ratio,
IVRexact/IVRprediction Standard Correlation as shown in Fig. 14 which examines earthquakes with strike-slip
deviation factor R2 faults. It is obvious that the viscous damping ratio strongly affects
Mean Median the IVR where the lower the damping ratio, the higher the IVR. In
Strike-slip faults 0.991 0.989 0.056 0.871 any case, the maximum seismic velocity is generally less than its
Reverse faults 1.013 1.006 0.068 0.832 counterpart of elastic systems, except for very short period sys-
tems where IVR > 1.0.

Fig. 12. Influence of period of vibration on IVR for the whole sample of records.

Fig. 13. Influence of period of vibration on IVR for specific earthquakes.

Fig. 14. Influence of viscous damping ratio on IVR for earthquakes with strike-slip faults.
 Author's personal copy

10 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13

Fig. 15. Influence of viscous damping ratio on IVR for earthquakes with non-strike-slip faults.

Fig. 16. Influence of force reduction factor on IVR for earthquakes with strike-slip faults.

Examining the same systems, i.e., elastic–perfectly plastic

SDOFs with R = 3.0, similar conclusions can be drawn, as shown
in Fig. 15, for earthquakes with non-strike-slip fault mechanism.
Furthermore, comparing Figs. 14 and 15 between them, it can be
seen that seismic records from strike-slip faults and non-strike slip
faults generally lead to different IVRs; more specifically the latter
type of faults leads to lower IVRs in comparison with the first type.

5.3. Influence of force reduction factor on IVR

An elastic–perfectly-plastic SDOF system with n = 20% is exam-

ined to evaluate the influence of force reduction factors on IVR. This
system is subject to the whole sample of records and three force
reduction factors are considered, i.e., R = 1.5, 3.0 and 8.0. Fig. 16
show the analyses results, where it is obvious that the IVR values
estimated by the ‘exact’ dynamic inelastic analysis and the pro-
posed method are quite similar between themselves.
It is found that the force reduction factor period strongly influ-
ences the IVR, where generally, the higher the R factor, the smaller
the IVR. Furthermore, examining specific records, similar conclu-
sions can be drawn, as shown in Fig. 17.
5.4. Influence of post-yield stiffness on IVR
All results provided so far assumed an elastic–perfectly plastic
behaviour (Fig. 1a). Additionally, the influence of post-yield stiff-
ness ratio H (i.e., post-yield lateral stiffness normalized to initial
lateral stiffness, see Fig. 1b) is also examined in this study. Typical
Fig. 17. Influence of force reduction factor on IVR for specific earthquakes.
values of this ratio for moment resisting frames are H = 2–3% [57].
Fig. 18 shows the mean IVR spectra for the whole sample of earth-
quakes, examining systems with R = 3, n = 20% and post-yield stiff-
ness ratios H = 0% and H = 5%.
From Fig. 18, it can be seen that the IVR is not affected by the
post-yield stiffness ratio H and therefore its influence can be prac-
tically ignored; some small differences between H = 0% and H = 5%
are presented only for very stiff structures. Therefore, the c1–c7
parameters of Table 1 can be applied in Eq. (9) both for elastic–per-
fectly plastic systems and elastoplastic systems with positive post-
yield stiffness ratio.
 Author's personal copy

G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13 11

Fig. 18. Influence of post-yield stiffness ratio on IVR of SDOF systems (R = 3, n = 20%).

6. Numerical example
In this section, a characteristic example is presented in order to
illustrate the proposed method and demonstrate its accuracy. This
example examines a six storey/three bay steel frame, which is
shown in Fig. 19a. The width of each bay is equal to 6 m and the
storey height is equal to 3 m. Columns consist of standard
HEB280 and HEB260 sections and beams of standard IPE360 and
IPE330 sections [58]. The frame is subjected to a uniform load
25 kN/m (dead and live loads of floors) on its beams, while the
material properties correspond to structural steel grade S235.
The frame has been designed in accordance with the provisions
of EC3 [59] and EC8 [56] assuming force reduction factor R = 3.
It should be recognized that in applications involving building
structures in earthquakes, most often only one mode of vibration
is relevant [60]. For example, the ‘‘single-mode approach’’ has been
successfully applied to determine the optimal design of fluid vis-
cous dampers for buildings using the first significant mode of
vibration [61]. Thus, the fundamental period of the frame is equal
to 1.33 s and this parameter is used in Eq. (9). This empirical
expression has been mainly proposed for single-degree-of-freedom
systems but it is also applied for the multi-degree-of-freedom

Fig. 19. Six-storey steel structure: (a) bare frame and (b) frame with dampers.

Fig. 20. Maximum forces of dampers in a six-storey steel structure.

 Author's personal copy
12 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13
system of Fig. 19a to check its efficiency and applicability in more
complicated problems in praxis.
The structure is subjected to Chi–Chi earthquake (Taiwan 09/
20/99, oblique-reverse fault, Station CHY006, EW comp.) where
the seismic response is computed using the Ruaumoko analysis
program [62]. The maximum interstorey drift ratio (IDR) is found
equal to 4.1% (ffi4.0%), which correspond to SP4 performance level
according to SEAOC Blue Book [63] for Preliminary Design
(Table AppIB-4, p. 408), i.e., the case where the structural damage
is major and residual strength and stiffness of structure and margin
against collapse are significantly reduced. In order to reduce the
maximum IDR up to 1.8%, i.e., to achieve the SP2 performance level
according to SEAOC Blue Book [63], a uniform viscous dampers
placement is examined (Fig. 19b). The SP2 performance level repre-
sents the case where the structural damage is expected to be minor
to moderate. In this case, the required viscosity of dampers (damp-
ers’ constant) is found to be C = 2980 kN s/m, which corresponds to
total effective viscous damping neff = 33%, instead of inherent
damping ratio n = 3%.
Considering the following parameters: oblique-reverse fault-
mechanism, T = 1.33 s, n = 0.33 and R = 3, the IVR is found to be
0.878 using Eq. (9). Fig. 20 depicts the maximum forces of dampers
both for the elastic and inelastic response. Furthermore, Fig. 20 also
shows the evaluated maximum forces using the proposed method,
i.e., using Eqs. (5) and (9). It is evident that the maximum forces of
dampers are different between the elastic and inelastic (effective)
behaviour. Furthermore, it is observed that the proposed method
can accurately evaluate the effective forces of dampers.
7. Conclusions
A new method is developed for the evaluation of effective veloc-
ities and damping forces for structures with supplemental viscous
dampers under near-source earthquakes. The study focuses on sin-
gle-degree-of-freedom systems with elastoplastic behaviour and
for seismic faults with strike-slip and reverse or oblique reverse
mechanism. On the basis on the computation of inelastic velocity
ratio, which is defined as the ratio of the maximum inelastic to
the maximum elastic velocity of a system, it is feasible to evaluate
the maximum inelastic velocity or damping force directly from the
corresponding elastic counterparts. The proposed method appears
to be straightforward, accurate and effortless since it requires the
knowledge of basic structural parameters such as the period of
vibration, force reduction factor, effective viscous damping ratio
as well as the knowledge of seismic fault mechanism. Examining
the maximum velocities and the maximum damping forces, it is
found that nonlinear structures generally present lower values
for these parameters in comparison with the counterparts of the
elastic systems. Additionally, it is found that generally, the period
of vibration, the effective viscous damping ratio and the forced
reduction factors strongly affect the inelastic velocity ratio. Fur-
thermore, the type of seismic fault mechanism also affects this ra-
tio. Additionally, the post-elastic stiffness has not an effect on IVR
and, therefore, this structural parameter can be ignored. Finally,
although that the proposed method focuses on single-degree of
freedom systems, examining a characteristic multi-degree-of free-
dom system, i.e., a planar 6-storey/3-bay moment resisting steel
frame, it is found that the effective damping forces and velocities
can also be sufficiently evaluated using the proposed method.
References
[1] Takewaki I. Building control with passive dampers: optimal performance-
based design for earthquakes. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 2009.
[2] Liang Z, Lee GC, Dargush GF, Song J. Structural damping: applications in
seismic response modification. Boca Raton (Fl): CRC Press – Taylor & Francis;
2012.
[3] Mahmoodi P. Structural dampers. J Struct Div-ASCE 1969;95:1661–72.
[4] Constantinou MC, Tadjbakhsh IG. Optimum design of a first story damping
system. Comput Struct 1983;17:305–10.
[5] Makris N, Constantinou MC. Fractional-derivative Maxwell model for viscous
dampers. J Struct Eng – ASCE 1991;117(9):2708–24.
[6] Nishimura I. Performance evaluation of damping devices installed in a building
structure. J Struct Constr Eng – Trans Arch Inst Jpn 2004;579:23–30.
[7] Symans MD, Charney F, Whittaker AS, Constantinou MC, Kircher CA, Johnson
MW, McNamara RJ. Energy dissipation systems for seismic applications:
current practice and recent developments. J Struct Eng – ASCE
2008;134(1):3–31 (Special Issue on Design and Analysis of Structures with
Seismic Damping Systems).
[8] Lavan O, Dargush GF. Multi-objective evolutionary seismic design with passive
energy dissipation systems. J Earthquake Eng 2009;13(6):758–90.
[9] Konstantinidis D. Makris N, Kelly JM. In situ monitoring of the force-output of
fluid dampers: experimental investigation. In: 3rd International conference on
advances in experimental structural engineering, October 15–16, 2009, San
Francisco.
[10] Nishimura I. Performance evaluation of a building structure with nonlinear
dampers under strong ground motion on March 11, 2011. In: 14th US-Japan
workshop on improvement of structural design and construction practices,
December 3–5, 2012; Wailea-Makena (Maui), Hawaii.
[11] Takewaki I. Optimal damper placement for minimum transfer functions.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1997;26(11):1113–24.
[12] Lopez-Garcia D. A simple method for the design of optimal damper
configurations in MDOF structures. Earthquake Spectra 2001;17(3):387–98.
[13] Singh MP, Moreschi LM. Optimal seismic response control with dampers.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2001;30(4):553–72.
[14] Uetani K, Tsuji M, Takewaki I. Application of an optimum design method to
practical building frames with viscous dampers and hysteretic dampers. Eng
Struct 2003;25(5):579–92.
[15] Lavan O, Levy R. Optimal peripheral drift control of 3D irregular framed
structures using supplemental viscous dampers. J Earthquake Eng
2006;10(6):903–23.
[16] Lavan O, Levy R. Simple iterative use of Lyapunov’s solution for the linear
optimal seismic design of passive devices in framed buildings. J Earthquake
Eng 2009;13:650–66.
[17] Trombetti T, Silvestri S. Added viscous dampers in shear-type structures: the
effectiveness of mass proportional damping. J Earthquake Eng
2004;8(2):275–313.
[18] Aydin E, Boduroglu MH, Guney D. Optimal damper distribution for seismic
rehabilitation of planar building structures. Eng Struct 2007;29:176–85.
[19] Cimellaro GP. Simultaneous stiffness-damping optimization of structures with
respect to acceleration, displacement and base shear. Eng Struct
2007;29:2853–70.
[20] Silvestri S, Trombetti T. Physical and numerical approaches for the optimal
insertion of seismic viscous dampers in shear-type structures. J Earthquake
Eng 2007;11(5):787–828.
[21] Hwang J-S, Wang-Chuen L, Nian-Juan W. Comparison of distribution methods
for viscous damping coefficients to buildings. Struct Infrastruct Eng: Maint,
Manage, Life-Cycle Des Perform 2013;9(1):28–41.
[22] Adachi F, Yoshitomi S, Tsuji M, Takewaki I. Nonlinear optimal oil damper
design in seismically controlled multi-story building frame. Soil Dynam
Earthquake Eng 2013;44(1):1–13.
[23] Adachi F, Fujita K, Tsuji M, Takewaki I. Importance of interstory velocity on
optimal along-height allocation of viscous oil dampers in super high-rise
buildings. Eng Struct 2013;56:489–500.
[24] Xu ZD, Shen YP, Zhao HT. A synthetic optimization analysis method structure
with viscoelastic damper. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2003;23:683–9.
[25] Goel RK. Seismic response control of irregular structures using nonlinear
dampers. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering 2004; Paper No. 3242.
[26] Sadek F, Mohraz B, Riley MA. Linear procedures for structures with velocity-
dependent dampers. J. Struct. Eng. – ASCE 2000;126(8):887–95.
[27] Federal Emergency Management Agency- FEMA450, NEHRP Recommended
provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, Part
1: provisions and Part 2: commentary, Washington, DC; 2003.
[28] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Papagiannopoulos GA. Inelastic velocity ratio. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dynam 2012;41(14):2025–41.
[29] Miranda E. Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites. J Struct
Eng – ASCE 2000;126(10):1150–9.
[30] Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Inelastic deformation ratios for design and
evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems. J Struct
Eng – ASCE 2004;130(9):1309–19.
[31] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures
subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 2009;31:2744–55.
[32] Kabongo-Booto G, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Inelastic displacement ratio spectrum for
near-fault ground motions. Int J Eng Technol (IJET) 2013;5(6):694–7.
[33] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to
multiple near-fault earthquakes. Comput Struct 2010;88(5–6):309–21.
[34] Baker JW. Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using
wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2007;97(5):1486–501.
[35] Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS. A mathematical representation of near-fault
ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2003;93(3):1099–131.
[36] Makris N, Black CJ. Evaluation of peak ground velocity as a ‘‘good’’ intensity
measure for near-source ground motions. J Eng Mech 2004;130:1032–44.
 Author's personal copy
G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, N.G. Pnevmatikos / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 1–13
[37] Chopra A. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake
engineering. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.; 2006.
[38] Comartin CD, Aschheim M, Guyader A, Hamburger R, Hanson R, Holmes W,
et al. A Summary of FEMA 440: improvement of nonlinear static seismic
analysis procedures. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004; Paper No. 1476.
[39] Mazzolani FM, Piluso V. The theory and design of seismic resistant steel
frames. London: E&FN Spon; 1996.
[40] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design.
Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(3):573–92.
[41] Uang CM, Bertero VV. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dynam 1990;19:77–90.
[42] Fib – International Federation for Structural Concrete. Seismic Bridge Design
and Retrofit – Structural Solutions. Fib Bulletin 39: 65–128, Lausanne,
Switzerland; 2007.
[43] Lee SH, Min KW, Hwang JS, Kim J. Evaluation of equivalent damping ratio of a
structure with added dampers. Eng Struct 2004;26:335–46.
[44] Lin X, Moss PJ, Carr AJ. Seismic analysis and design of building structures with
supplemental lead dampers. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on
earthquake engineering; 2000; Paper No. 1417.
[45] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center – PEER, Next Generation
Attenuation database; <http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_
database/> (accessed 18.07.2012).
[46] Narkhede DI, Sinha R. Behavior of nonlinear fluid viscous dampers for control
of shock vibrations. J Sound Vib 2014;333(1):80–98.
[47] Seleemah A, Constantinou MC. Investigation of seismic response of buildings
with linear and nonlinear fluid viscous dampers. Report No. NCEER 97-0004,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of New York
at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; 1997.
[48] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NEHRP commentary on the
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings FEMA-274, Prepared by
the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety Council,
Washington, DC; 1997.
[49] Constantinou MC, Symans MD. Experimental study of seismic response of
buildings with supplemental fluid dampers. Struct Des Tall Build
1993;2(2):93–132.
[50] Reinhorn AM, Li C, Constantinou MC. Experimental and analytical
investigation of seismic retrofit of structures with supplemental damping.
View publication stats
13
Part I: Fluid viscous damping devices. Report No. NCEER 95-0001, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of New York at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; 1995.
[51] Symans MD, Constantinou MC. Passive fluid viscous damping systems for
seismic energy dissipation. J Earthquake Technol 1998;35(4):185–206.
[52] Hwang JS. Seismic design of structures with viscous dampers. In: International
training programs for seismic design of building structures, Taipei, Taiwan;
2002.
[53] Occhiuzzi A. Additional viscous dampers for civil structures: analysis of design
methods based on effective evaluation of modal damping rations. Eng Struct
2009;31(5):1093–101.
[54] Takewaki I. Optimal damper placement for critical excitation. Probab Eng
Mech 2000;15:317–25.
[55] Krawinkler H. Matching of equivalent pulses to near-fault ground motions.
Report to the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER); 2003.
<http://www.peertestbeds.net/Cct/
Krawinkler_Pulse_Matching_Description.doc>.
[56] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 2004-1-1, CEN, Brussels;
2005.
[57] Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E. Evaluation of residual drift demands in regular multi-
storey frames for performance-based seismic assessment. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dynam 2006;35:1609–29.
[58] Androic B, Dzeba I, Dujmovic D. International structural steel sections. Design
tables according to Eurocode 3. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn; 2000.
[59] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures – Part 1–1: General rules for buildings,
ENV1993-1-1, European Standard EN 1998–1, European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels; 1992.
[60] Reinhorn AM, Gluck N, Gluck J, Levy R. Optimal design of supplemental
dampers for control of structures. In: Proceedings of the 11th European
conference on earthquake engineering, Paris; 1998.
[61] Gluck N, Reinhorn AM, Gluck J, Levy R. Design of supplemental dampers for
control of structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 1996;122(12):1394–9.
[62] Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO – Inelastic dynamic analysis program. Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; 2008.
[63] SEAOC. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary,
Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA; 1999.