Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Full length article

Experimental study of precast self-centering concrete shear walls

with external friction dampers
Yang Liu a , Wei Zhou a,b,c ,∗, Xinying Xie a
a School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, 73 Huanghe Road, Nangang District, Harbin, 150090, Heilongjiang, China
b Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control of the Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of Technology, 73 Huanghe Road,
Nangang District, Harbin, 150090, Heilongjiang, China
c
Key Lab of Smart Prevention and Mitigation of Civil Engineering Disasters of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin
Institute of Technology, 73 Huanghe Road, Nangang District, Harbin, 150090, Heilongjiang, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Self-centering walls perform relatively well in reducing structural damage and residual defor-
Self-centering shear wall mation owing to the joint rocking mechanism. Nevertheless, drawbacks of the self-centering
Friction dampers walls were limited robustness and redundancy, thus sufficient dissipating capacity is essential
Post-earthquake recovery
for improving stiffness, reducing seismic response, and controlling structural collapse. Among
Dissipating capacity
all these dampers used in self-centering systems in previous studies, slip-friction dampers
Self-centering ability
are highly preferred because of their simplicity, perfect rigid-plastic hysteresis characteristic,
large stroke, and stable dissipating capacity. After the earthquake ceases, friction force can be
eliminated by loosening the tightening bolts to help facilitate post-earthquake recovery, and it is
convenient to be replaced or repaired. In the present study, experiments of asymmetric friction
dampers with brass-steel interfaces were conducted. To obtain the optimal characteristics for
stable dissipating, different configurations of slip-friction dampers were designed and tested.
The friction dampers were further installed vertically at the base rocking joint of the self-
centering shear walls, and the performance of the walls was studied under horizontal quasi-static
cyclic loading. Application of the friction dampers significantly increases the energy dissipating
capacity and the post-yield stiffness. The energy dissipating ratio improved up to 81.2%
compared to rocking walls with no additional damping. Damage was limited to the brass shims
in friction dampers, while wall specimens were able to exhibit up to 3.0% horizontal drift
without cracks, degradation, and significant concrete damage at the boundary elements. An
average maximum residual drift of both positive and negative directions observed at the end of
the test was 0.415% at 3.0% horizontal drift, that major structural realignment is not required,
and repair of the structure is practically feasible.

1. Introduction

Concrete shear walls are widely used in high seismic regions as a reliable and economical way to resist seismic actions, and
their performance has been validated through several major earthquakes in controlling collapse and casualties. However, structures
designed following current codes are generally designed under the consideration of life safety. Following this idea, energy input
from ground motions is dissipated by pre-defined plastic hinge regions, but excessive development of plasticity renders large

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, 73 Huanghe Road, Nangang District, Harbin, 150090, Heilongjiang,
China.
E-mail addresses: liuyanghit2012@stu.hit.edu.cn (Y. Liu), zhouwei-hit@163.com (W. Zhou), zoom_1025@126.com (X. Xie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106182
Received 5 May 2022; Received in revised form 16 February 2023; Accepted 24 February 2023
Available online 28 February 2023
2352-7102/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

residual drifts. Residual drifts can be large enough to seriously jeopardize structural stability in aftershocks, and render the building
uneconomical to repair (i.e., the cost of repair is comparable to the cost of replacing the building) [1]. For instance, severe wall
damage was observed in the 𝑀𝑤 6.3 Christchurch Earthquake of February 22, 2011, including the wall compression buckling and
longitudinal bar fracture in the wall boundary [2,3]. Nearly 1,000 buildings in the Christchurch CBD were demolished, and the
total rebuilding costs from $30 to $40 billion (equivalent to almost 20% of New Zealand’s annual GDP) [4]. Furthermore, enormous
economic loss not only comes from repair but also from indirect loss owing to business downtime. There is thus an increasing
demand for the functional promotion of structures to facilitate recovery and mitigate financial loss after earthquakes, which also
refers to as the earthquake resilience.
To meet this need, the self-centering technique was proposed from the PRESSS system [5] in the 1990s, in which a precast
wall system was designed to be discontinuous at joints intentionally, that separated wall panels and foundation were assembled by
post-tensioned tendons to achieve a base joint rocking mechanism. The key concept is the gap that forms during the earthquake
at joints, where tensile damage is eliminated, and the post-tensioned tendon pulls the structure back to the initial undeformed
position. Several studies [6–8] were conducted to investigate the performance of self-centering shear walls, and the results showed
that they were able to deform large lateral displacements with almost no damage and residual drift. However, discontinuous joint
impedes the development of plasticity, thus rendering narrow hysteresis loops and limited energy dissipating capacity. To provide
sufficient energy dissipating capacity in controlling seismic response, additional dampers were implemented to calibrate the hybrid
self-centering walls in many studies [9–18]. In the past two decades, several self-centering wall structures were also built [19–21],
and some of them were examined by real earthquakes [20], which showed excellent self-centering ability and remained operational
with little damage. The superiority of the self-centering walls has been demonstrated through experimental studies and earthquakes,
in terms of eliminating structural damage as well as residual drift. Since wall concrete is well confined at the boundary and the
yielding of tendon is delayed, damage is usually concentrated at the dampers installed. However, dampers used in most of the
previous studies are internally bonded metallic yield dampers, such as the mild steel bars, which is a simple and economical way
of energy dissipating but irreparable.
Given that very few studies paid attention to the post-earthquake repair of the walls, this paper presents an experimental study
of self-centering concrete shear walls with external replaceable friction dampers. A friction damper is usually comprised of several
plates stacked together which contains several friction interfaces and is clamped by the normal force from pre-tensioned bolts.
Compared with other types of dampers, friction dampers are highly preferred particularly for the seismic fortification of engineering
structures due to their simplicity, reliability, and maximum energy dissipation as a result of the generation of rectangular hysteresis
loops [22]. By loosing the clamping bolts, the friction force can be easily eliminated, and the damaged friction shims can be replaced,
which significantly facilitates post-earthquake recovery. Friction dampers have already been used as dissipating devices in several
structural systems, such as steel moment frames [23–25], coupling beams [26,27], timber structures [28–31], and precast concrete
structures [32–36]. Their excellent performance has been demonstrated through both experimental and numerical investigations,
and most importantly, loading amplitude, frequency, and the number of cycles do not affect the friction performance observably.
In this study, an asymmetric design of the slotted friction damper was selected, and a series of uni-axial cyclic loading tests were
performed to examine the properties of the brass-steel interface first. After obtaining the optimal design of the friction dampers, three
self-centering wall specimens were designed and tested under quasi-static loading tests, in which friction dampers were installed
vertically at the bottom rocking joint of the wall. Based on the results obtained, seismic performance of the self-centering concrete
shear walls, such as the hysteresis performance, energy dissipating capacity, and self-centering ability, were analyzed and discussed
in detail.

2. Uni-axial cyclic tests of friction dampers

2.1. Specimen design

Eight asymmetric slip-friction dampers were designed and tested under uni-axial cyclic loading. Two two-mm-thick brass shims
were clamped by three 20 mm thick steel plates in the friction dampers, as illustrated in Fig. 1, resulting in two brass-steel friction
interfaces. The top steel plate was not connected to the bottom plate, resulting in an asymmetric design in this study, which simplifies
the damper design, and makes it easier to replace the damaged brass shims during post-earthquake recovery. Normal force was
applied by 𝛷20 high-strength bolts of grade 8.9 (nominal ultimate strength 𝑓𝑢𝑛 = 800 MPa, and the yield-to-ultimate strength ratio
is 𝑓𝑦𝑛 ∕𝑓𝑢𝑛 = 0.9). The bottom plate and middle plate were connected to both ends, whereas the top plate was not connected, which
was constrained by the prestressing bolt and slid simultaneously with the bottom plate during loading. The friction shims were made
of two-mm-thick H65 brass plates, as illustrated in Fig. 1. H65 refers to the brass type specified by the Chinese GB/T 5231 code [37],
that the copper content ranges between 63.0% and 68.5%, which is similar to the C26800𝐴 brass listed in ASTM B36 code [38].
To investigate the optimal design of the friction dampers, three different configurations were designed, as shown in Fig. 1, and the
detailed design parameters are summarized in Table 1. There were one, two, and three long slots in the main plate for the bolts to
slide within, whereas the bolts, brass shims, and the outer two steel plates moved simultaneously. The tightening force in bolt was
controlled by the torque applied according to Eq. (1) from the Chinese standard for the design of steel structures [39]:

𝑇 = 𝑘𝑃 𝑑 (1)
where 𝑇 is the applied torque, 𝑘 is a constant, which is 0.12 for all the bolts in this study as provided by the manufacturer, 𝑃 is the
tightening force in bolt, and 𝑑 is the bolt diameter. For instance, applied torque 𝑇 for every bolt in specimen B-2-150 is 150 N m,
resulting in a total torque of 600 N m and a tightening force of 250.0 kN in all the bolts. Additionally, surface of the steel plate
which was in contact with the brass shims was polished, to reduce the variation of friction coefficient.

2
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 1. Friction damper design (unit: mm).

2.2. Test setup, instrumentation, and loading protocol

Fig. 2 illustrates the test setup of the friction dampers. The friction damper specimens were tested in a self-balanced concrete
ring beam, which was over-reinforced to be rigid enough. One end of the damper was connected to a hydraulic actuator, which
is attached to the outer concrete ring beam by bolts. The other end was directly attached to the concrete ring beam. The main
plate was fixed, while the bottom plate slid simultaneously with the hydraulic actuator, as well as the top plate, brass shims, and
the tightening bolts. Slip displacement of the steel plates was measured by LVDTs (Linear Variable Differential Transformer), and
the friction force was monitored by a load cell connected between the damper and the hydraulic actuator. Loading for the friction
dampers was totally displacement-controlled, as shown in Fig. 3, and the loading velocity was controlled to about 3 mm/sec, which
was deemed to be quasi-static loading. Every specimen was subjected to six displacement cycles, including three displacement levels
(±20 mm, ±40 mm, and ±60 mm) and repeated twice.

3
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Table 1
Friction damper design parameters.
Specimen no. Slot number Bolt number Every bolt torque Total torque Total tightening force
(N m) (N m) (kN)
B-1-300 1 2 300 600 250.0
B-2-150 150 600 250.0
B-2-200 200 800 333.3
2 4
B-2-250 250 1000 416.7
B-2-300 300 1200 500.0
B-3-100 100 600 250.0
B-3-150 3 6 150 900 375.0
B-3-200 200 1200 500.0

Note: For the name of test specimens, the first character represents for brass friction shims, the second number represents the number of slots on the main plate,
and final number represents the torque applied to every bolt. For instance,‘‘B-2-150’’ represents a brass friction damper specimen having two slots on the main
plate, and the torque applied to every bolt is 150 N m.

Fig. 2. Test setup and instrumentation.

Fig. 3. Loading protocol of the dampers.

2.3. Test results and analysis

Fig. 4 illustrates the hysteresis curves of all the test dampers, which are the relations between friction force and slip displacement
of the bottom plate. Due to the asymmetric design of the dampers and the gaps between the bolt rod and bolt hole on the top and
bottom plates, small ‘‘chips’’ are observed on the hysteresis loop when the direction of loading was reserved, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
Loss of friction force was observed during tests, such as in specimens B-2-250 and B-2-300, which might be attributed to the loose of
the tightening bolts under repeated loading. However, all the test dampers exhibited stable elastic-perfectly-plastic characteristics.
To obtain the optimal design of the friction dampers, the equivalent friction coefficient 𝛽 is defined, and the performance of different
designs of friction dampers is compared following.
According to the theory of tribology, the relation between friction force 𝑓 and normal force 𝐹𝑁 can be expressed by Eq. (2):

𝑓 = 𝜇𝐹𝑁 (2)

4
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 4. Hysteresis curves of the friction damper specimens.

Fig. 5. Friction coefficient.

where 𝜇 is the friction coefficient. However, the normal force 𝐹𝑁 does not equal the tightening force 𝑃 provided by bolts, because
the normal force 𝐹𝑁 applied to the brass shim might not be distributed uniformly due to different configurations of the slots and
bolts. Therefore, a linear relationship between 𝐹𝑁 and 𝑃 is assumed by Eq. (3) herein:

𝐹𝑁 = 𝛼𝑃 (3)

where 𝛼 is a reduction factor. Since the tightening force 𝑃 can be directly obtained by Eq. (1), thus the equivalent friction coefficient
𝛽 is defined as the ratio of friction force 𝑓 to tightening force 𝑃 provided by the bolts, as presented by Eq. (4):
𝑓 𝑓 𝑘𝑑
𝛽= = 𝜇𝛼 = (4)
𝑃 𝑇
To obtain the equivalent friction coefficient 𝛽, a stable process of slip within ±80% of the displacement amplitude in both the
positive and negative directions of every load cycle is selected [26]. Calculated 𝛽 from different specimens are illustrated in Fig. 5,
as well as the standard deviation. The average 𝛽 of the dampers with one slot (B-1-300), two slots (B-2 series), and three slots (B-3
series) are 0.165, 0.377, and 0.283, respectively. The difference in the calculated equivalent friction coefficient 𝛽 can be attributable
to the non-uniform normal force distribution. However, a more stable 𝛽 was obtained as the torque applied and the number of slots
increased. The friction damper design with two slots showed the highest equivalent friction coefficient 𝛽 among all the damper
designs and the most stable performance, which was further introduced in the quasi-static tests of the self-centering walls.

5
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Table 2
Design parameters of the self-centering walls.
Specimen no. Tendon Damper Self-centering
Area Eccentricity Initial stress Number Eccentricity Friction force ratio 𝛼𝑠𝑐
(mm2 ) (mm) (MPa) (mm) (kN)
280.0 558
SW-1 ±150.0 6 0, ±215.0 0.73
(2𝛷15.2) (156.24 kN)
420.0 558 107.7a
SW-2 0, ±150.0 4 ±215.0 1.09
(3𝛷15.2) (234.36 kN)
420.0 558
SW-3 0, ±150.0 6 0, ±215.0 1.09
(3𝛷15.2) (234.36 kN)
a
Total friction force of all the friction dampers in every wall specimen.

Fig. 6. Friction damper design (unit: mm).

3. Quasi-static tests of self-centering concrete walls with friction dampers

3.1. Specimen design

Three self-centering wall specimens with friction dampers were tested, and the detailed design parameters are all summarized in
Table 2. The damper design with two slots and four high-strength bolts was selected herein, but some modifications were made to
match the dimension of self-centering walls. Detailed design of the friction dampers is illustrated in Fig. 6. All the test self-centering
walls share the identical design of dimension and reinforcement. The test walls were 2200 mm tall, 1000 mm long, and 140 mm
wide, and the effective height (vertical distance from the horizontal loading force to the bottom of the wall) was 2.0 m. 15.2 mm-
diameter seven-wire strands (𝛷15.2) were placed in the metal corrugated flat ducts embedded in the wall panel and foundation as
the tendons, with an unbonded length of 2.62 m.
The wall cross-section is illustrated in Fig. 7, which shows the reinforcements and the friction dampers in detail. The boundary
confined region was 260 mm long on both positive and negative sides, where the confining stirrups were 𝛷8 bars with a spacing of
60 mm, and the longitudinal bars were 6𝛷12. Distributed web bars were 𝛷8@150 mm in both horizontal and vertical directions.
Friction dampers were arranged symmetrically at the front and back face of the wall. Bolt rods went across the wall panel, and the
damper slid simultaneously with the opposite one as the bottom gap opens and closes up. As calculated from the former section, the
equivalent friction coefficient 𝛽 varied from 0.335 to 0.441, therefore an average value of 0.377 was used to calculate the yielding
force here. A constant torque, which is 240 N m, was applied to bolts of all the friction dampers in every wall specimen. Every
two friction dampers were clamped by the same set of bolts at the front and back face, thus resulting in a total tightening force of
142.9 kN, and a total friction force of 107.7 kN. Fig. 8 illustrates the details at the wall bottom joint. Fig. 9 illustrates the deformed
base joint, where the gap opens, and the friction dampers start sliding to dissipate energy. To avoid shear slip in the horizontal
direction during loading, a 30 mm-depth slot was made at the top surface of the foundation, with a dimension slightly larger than
the cross-section of the wall panel. The edge of the wall panel bottom and the slot of the foundation were wrapped by 3 mm-thick
L30 × 30 angle steel. Before tests, the wall panel was inserted into the foundation slot and lifted 15 mm up vertically. A grout pad
was cast between to maintain construction tolerances and alignment, then the tendons were jacked after curing for 7 days.
As recommended by Smith [40], restoring force (such as the prestressing load and the gravity load) should be able to compress the
damper to yield in compression to accomplish restoration. To evaluate the self-centering ability of the wall specimens preliminarily

6
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 7. Wall cross section (SW-2).

Fig. 8. Details at the wall foundation (SW-2).

Fig. 9. Deflected wall base joint (SW-2).

before tests, the self-centering ability ratio 𝛼𝑠𝑐 is defined by Eq. (5):
𝑁𝑔 + 𝑁𝑝,𝑖𝑛𝑖
𝛼𝑠𝑐 = (5)
2 × 𝑁𝑓
where 𝑁𝑔 is the gravity load, 𝑁𝑝,𝑖𝑛𝑖 is the initial prestressing load, and 𝑁𝑓 is the total yielding force of the friction dampers. According
to Eq. (5), test walls are classified as having a lower level of self-centering ability (SW-1), and a higher level of self-centering ability
(SW-2 and SW-3). Additionally, specimen SW-2 and SW-3 are identical in design whereas the position of friction dampers was
adjusted, which are used to study the influence of different damper configurations.

3.2. Material properties

Mechanical properties of the concrete, steel bars, and tendons are listed in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, respectively.

3.3. Test setup, instrumentation, and loading protocol

Fig. 10 illustrates the test setup and instrumentation, and the positive direction is defined as when the wall was pushed north.
The horizontal cyclic force was provided by an MTS actuator, and the vertical height from the horizontal load to the wall bottom
is 2.0 m. Out-of-plane deformation of the wall was constrained by two lateral bracings on both the front and back faces. Horizontal
displacement was measured by three LVDTs, at the top and middle height of the wall, and the foundation slip was also monitored.

7
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Table 3
Mechanical properties of the concrete.
Test age (d) Cubic compressive Prismatic Cylindrical Tensile strength 𝑓𝑡 Elastic modulus 𝐸𝑐
strength 𝑓𝑐𝑢 (MPa) compressive compressive (MPa) (GPa)
strength 𝑓𝑐 (MPa) strength 𝑓𝑐′ (MPa)
28 47.8a 33.6b 37.8c 3.03d 34.2e

Note: Designation of the concrete strength according to 150 mm cubes was 40 MPa. Mechanical properties of concrete are tested or calculated.
a Cubic compressive strength 𝑓
𝑐𝑢 is the average value of six 150 mm cubes.
b
Prismatic compressive strength 𝑓𝑐 is the average value of three prisms (150 mm × 150 mm × 300 mm).
c
Cylindrical compressive strength 𝑓𝑐′ is calculated from 0.79𝑓𝑐𝑢 .
d Tensile 2∕3
strength 𝑓𝑡 is calculated from 0.23𝑓𝑐𝑢 .
e
( )
Elastic modulus 𝐸𝑐 is calculated from 105 ∕ 2.2 + 34.7∕𝑓𝑐𝑢 .

Table 4
Mechanical properties of the steel bar.
Diameter (mm) Grade Yielding strength 𝑓𝑠𝑦 (MPa) Ultimate strength 𝑓𝑠𝑢 (MPa) Elastic modulus 𝐸𝑠 (GPa)
𝛷8 HPB300 367.8 538.3
200.0
𝛷12 HRB400 478.5 669.3

Table 5
Mechanical properties of the tendon.
Grade (MPa) Diameter (mm) Elastic limit 𝑓𝑝𝑒 Yielding strength Ultimate strength Elastic modulus 𝐸𝑝
(MPa) 𝑓𝑝𝑦 (MPa) 𝑓𝑝𝑢 (MPa) (GPa)
1860 𝛷15.2 1542.5a 1658.2b 1928.1 196.6
a
Elastic limit 𝑓𝑝𝑒 is calculated from 0.8𝑓𝑝𝑢 .
b
Yielding strength 𝑓𝑝𝑦 is took as the tendon stress at 1.0% elongation.

Fig. 10. Test setup and Instrumentation (SW-2)

Two LVDTs were arranged vertically at the bottom rocking interface the monitor the gap deformation, which was located 100mm
away from the wall edge. Additionally, LVDTs were attached to the wall and arranged vertically at the center line of the friction
dampers to monitor the relative vertical slip between the wall and the main plate, as shown in Fig. 10. Horizontal base shear was
monitored by the built-in load cells of the MTS actuator. Tendon force was monitored and recorded by the barrel load cells at the
top slot of the wall.
In this study, the loading protocol was totally displacement-controlled. As per ACI ITG 5.1 code [41], wall specimens should be
tested until failure or reaching the drift angle limit 𝜃𝑙𝑖𝑚 defined by the following equation in percent:
𝐻𝑤 2000
𝜃𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 0.8 × + 0.5 = 0.8 × + 0.5 = 2.10% (6)
𝐿𝑤 1000
where 𝐻𝑤 is the wall height, and 𝐿𝑤 is the wall length. Maximum horizontal drift reached for all the specimens was 3.0% drift.
The increment between different drift levels was identical, which was 0.25% (5 mm), and repeated twice for every drift level, as
illustrated in Fig. 11, and two cycles of 0.15% (3 mm) were applied to the wall specimens as preloading.

8
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 11. Loading protocol.

Fig. 12. Wall damage after tests.

3.4. Test results and analysis

3.4.1. Test observations and wall damage

Since no additional gravity was applied, the axial load ratio of all the test wall specimens was far below 0.1. Also, benefiting from
the high confinement and the angle steel armor, only cover concrete spalling at the wall toe was observed, as presented in Fig. 12(a).
Damage was concentrated to the brass shims of the friction dampers, as illustrated in Fig. 12(b) and Fig. 12(c). Further damage like
core concrete damage and flexural/shear cracks were not observed, as well as resistance degradation. However, due to poor wedge
differential seating in tendon anchorage, brittle fractures of individual strand wire occurred for specimens SW-2 and SW-3 during
tests, rendering sudden tendon stress loss. Despite this, all the wall specimens were able to exhibit large horizontal deformation and
showed appreciable self-centering ability. Detailed performance of the test wall specimens is discussed in the following sections.

3.4.2. Hysteresis curves and skeleton curves

The hysteresis curves of all the wall specimens are presented in Fig. 13, and the skeleton curves were plotted in red solid lines
with circle markers. Since the hysteresis curves were not strictly symmetrical in both positive and negative directions, the average
skeleton curves are also illustrated in Fig. 14.

3.4.3. PT tendon stress variation

Measured tendon stress is summarized in Fig. 15, which is normalized by the ultimate strength 𝑓𝑝𝑢 to be ranged from 0 to 1,
and tendons were numbered as 1, 2, and 3 from south to north. Elastic limit 𝑓𝑝𝑒 of the strands is 1658.2 MPa (0.8𝑓𝑝𝑢 ), while the
maximum tendon stress of all specimens did not exceed 𝑓𝑝𝑒 , thus all the tendons worked elastically. However, due to poor wedge
differential seating in tendon anchorage, brittle fracture of strand wire (Tendon 1 of SW-2 at 1.813% during the first cycle of 2.0%
drift, and Tendon 3 of SW-3 at −1.747% during the first cycle of 2.0% drift) occurred, which are noted in Fig. 15, resulting sudden
stress loss. Similar premature fracture of strand wires was also observed in previous studies [42], even though the strand still remains
elastic. Except for tendon stress resulting from fracture, stress loss was also observed, especially for the outer tendons (Tendon 1 and

9
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 13. Hysteresis curves.

Fig. 14. Average skeleton curves.

Tendon 3) of SW-1 and SW-2, which might attribute to the wedge slippage in tendon anchorages. To better illustrate the variation
and loss of tendon stress test, critical states such as the initial, positive maximum, negative maximum, and the ending tendon stress
of every first cycle are extracted from Fig. 15 and plotted in Fig. 16.
As presented in Fig. 16, maximum tendon stress rises linearly with increasing horizontal drift. Tendon 1 of SW-3 exhibited the
maximum tendon stress increase among all the wall specimens, which is 0.788𝑓𝑝𝑢 (1516.9 MPa), while the maximum stress loss
occurred for Tendon 1 of SW-2, and the remaining tendon stress was only 0.099𝑓𝑝𝑢 (190.6 MPa). Fig. 17 summarizes the total stress

10
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 15. PT tendon stress.

Fig. 16. PT tendon stress loss (every first cycle).

11
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 17. Normalized tendon stress loss and residual prestressing load.

Fig. 18. Determination of the yield state (FEMA 356 method)

Table 6
Wall ductility and stiffness.
Specimen no. 𝑑𝑦 (mm) 𝐹𝑦 (kN) 𝑑𝑢 (mm) 𝐹𝑢 (kN) 𝑘1 (kN/mm) 𝑘2 (kN/mm) 𝐹𝑦 ∕𝐹𝑢 𝜇a 𝑟𝑘 b
SW-1 4.80 70.80 60.00 128.02 14.76 1.04 0.553 12.51 0.070
SW-2 5.19 84.65 60.00 154.29 16.31 1.27 0.549 11.56 0.078
SW-3 10.12 106.21 60.00 172.73 10.49 1.33 0.615 5.93 0.127
a
Displacement ductility 𝜇 = 𝑑𝑢 ∕𝑑𝑦 .
b
Post-yield stiffness ratio 𝑟𝑘 = 𝑘2 ∕𝑘1 .

loss and residual prestressing load of every wall specimen, where the bars represent the normalized stress loss with respect to initial
stress, and the lines with circle markers represent the residual prestress load as the test goes on. Since stress loss was negligible
before 1.0% drift, only results after were presented in Fig. 17 for the sake of brevity. Before 2.0% drift, SW-1 exhibited the maximum
tendon stress loss when backing to the plumb position. Because of the strand wire fracture, stress loss of SW-2 and SW-3 increased
suddenly after 2.0% drift. Ultimately, 66.8%, 61.5%, and 79.3% of the initial jacked prestressing load remained for SW-1, SW-2,
and SW-3, respectively. Higher residual prestressing load was preserved for SW-3, thus resulting in higher base shear than SW-2 as
presented in Fig. 14, though they were designed to have the same level of initial prestressing load.

3.4.4. Displacement ductility and wall stiffness

Since all the test wall specimens were not tested to failure, and the yield state cannot be determined using the critical state of
the tendons and friction dampers, thus a bi-linear approximation according to the average skeleton curves presented in Fig. 14 is
simplified using the procedure in FEMA 356 [43] to determine the yield state and the failure state, as illustrated in Fig. 18. The
initial stiffness 𝑘1 is simplified as the secant stiffness at 0.6𝐹𝑦 , and an iterative method is required to balance the area below the
simplified bi-linear curve and the skeleton curve to obtain the yield force 𝐹𝑦 , and the failure state is defined as the ultimate state of
the skeleton curve. Since all the specimens did not exhibit force degradation, the ultimate state is defined as the peak. Calculated
yield displacement 𝑑𝑦 , yield force 𝐹𝑦 , displacement ductility 𝜇, initial stiffness 𝑘1 , post-yield stiffness 𝑘2 , and the post-yield stiffness
ratio 𝑟𝑘 according to the average skeleton curve of every first cycle are summarized in Table 6.

12
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 19. Stiffness degradation.

As presented in Table 6, a higher post-yield stiffness ratio 𝑟𝑘 was observed for specimen SW-3 since a higher prestressing load was
preserved, while also resulting in limited deformation ductility. Kawashima et al. [44] has concluded that post-yield stiffness ratio
𝑟𝑘 could be set as low as 5% to 10%, above which point residual displacement cannot be reduced further [45]. 𝑟𝑘 of all test walls
is larger than 0.05, especially for SW-3 which benefited from higher prestressing load preserved. Except for the post-yield stiffness
ratio, stiffness degradation of all the test specimens was also calculated, as a qualitative comparison between walls with different
parameters. Stiffness degradation of every first cycle is presented in Fig. 19, in which Fig. 19(a) illustrates the secant stiffness, and
Fig. 19(b) illustrates the normalized ratio with respect to the secant stiffness at the first drift level (0.15%). Wall SW-2 had the
highest secant stiffness at the beginning but presented a rapid reduction due to the loss of tendon stress. Benefitting from the higher
prestressing load preserved, the stiffness of SW-3 degraded slower and possessed a higher secant stiffness after 0.5% horizontal drift.

3.4.5. Energy dissipating capacity

Fig. 20 presents the energy dissipated of every load cycle, and the cumulative energy dissipation at the end of every drift level
during tests. As shown in Fig. 20, the first cycle generally dissipates more energy than the subsequent cycle with the same maximum
drift, and energy dissipated by every cycle and the cumulative energy increases with increasing horizontal resistance. To further
compare the dissipating capacity between different specimens, the equivalent viscous damping ratio 𝜁𝑒𝑞 was calculated according to
Chopra [46], and calculated 𝜁𝑒𝑞 of all the test specimens at every first cycle is illustrated in Fig. 21. Generally speaking, the equivalent
viscous damping ratio 𝜁𝑒𝑞 increases for larger displacement reversals because plasticity of the sacrificial members develops and
dissipates more input energy as the test goes on. For instance, equivalent viscous damping ratio 𝜁𝑒𝑞 for ordinary bottom-fixed cast-
in-situ concrete shear walls was about 5.0% at the beginning of test, and gradually went up to about 20.0% at damage state [47,48].
However, as presented in Fig. 21, an adverse trend was observed, that 𝜁𝑒𝑞 drops as horizontal drift increases. For instance, 𝜁𝑒𝑞 of
specimen SW-1 and SW-2 at the first displacement cycle (0.15% horizontal drift) is 13.20% and 13.96%, respectively. And ultimately,
at the first cycle of the final drift level (3.0% horizontal drift), 𝜁𝑒𝑞 dropped to 8.35% and 8.45%, where a reduction of 36.7% and
39.5% is observed, respectively. For specimen SW-3, degradation of 𝜁𝑒𝑞 was not observed, but the energy dissipating capacity is
still limited, and the average of which during test was only 9.06%. This attributes to the moment–shear–axial interactions that the
bolts exhibited, which rendered the loss of tightening force provided by the bolts, and the loss of friction force further. Since no
traditional damping (like steel bars) but friction dampers were introduced, 𝜁𝑒𝑞 drops as the quasi-static test goes on.
Previous experimental studies of the rocking walls without additional damping implied that the equivalent viscous damping ratio
𝜁𝑒𝑞 in each hysteresis loop was relatively small (about 5.0%) [49]. Even for specimen SW-3, the improvement is 81.2% on average
compared to the rocking walls, though it possesses the poorest energy dissipating capacity among all the test walls in this study,
indicating a relatively high level of damping. Furthermore, previous studies and design codes [41,50,51] recommend a minimum
requirement of energy dissipating capacity based on the relative energy dissipating ratio 𝛽ℎ , that 𝛽ℎ must be larger than or equal
to 12.5% because there may be inadequate damping, and the oscillation may continue for a considerable time after an earthquake,
possibly producing low-cycle fatigue effects and excessive displacements [50]. The corresponding value for 𝜁𝑒𝑞 is 7.96% when 𝛽ℎ =
12.5%, and as presented in Fig. 21, all the test specimens showed sufficient dissipating capacity to reduce seismic response.

3.4.6. Residual drift and self-centering ability

Residual drift is an important consideration in judging the post-earthquake safety of a building and the economic feasibility of
repair. To eliminate the asymmetry of the hysteresis curve, residual drift 𝛿𝑟 is calculated using Eq. (7), which is the average value
of both positive and negative directions:
|𝑑 + | + |𝑑 − |
| 𝑟| | 𝑟| 1
𝛿𝑟 = × × 100% (7)
2 𝐻𝑤

13
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 20. Energy dissipating capacity.

Fig. 21. Equivalent viscous damping.

where 𝑑𝑟+ and 𝑑𝑟− are the residual drift in both directions of the first cycle at every drift level, and 𝐻𝑤 is the wall effective height
(2.0 m). Calculated residual drift of every first drift cycle is illustrated in Fig. 22.
Because of the lower level of restoring force that SW-1 has, SW-1 exhibited the maximum residual drift before 2.0% drift. After
the wire fracture of Tendon 3 in SW-3, there is a sudden increase of SW-3 at 2.0% drift, resulting in the highest 𝛿𝑟 among all the
specimens eventually (0.415%). As recommended by FEMA P-58 [1], the limit story residual drift corresponding to no structural
realignment is 0.2% (DS1 state), and the limit story residual drift to limit degradation in structural stability (i.e., collapse safety) is
0.5% (DS2 state). Until the final 3.0% drift level, 𝛿𝑟 of all specimens is smaller than 0.5%, that major structural realignment is not
required, and repair of the structure is practically feasible. In the current displacement-based design (DBD) method that is generally
used for design of self-centering structures, the target maximum drift ratio is set to be 2.0%. For rocking walls without additional
damping, corresponding residual drift ranged from 0.13% to 0.22% in previous study [52], while the corresponding residual drift

14
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Fig. 22. Residual drift (every first cycle).

for the test specimens in this study is 0.245%, 0.203%, and 0.203%, respectively, which is only slightly larger. Benefiting from the
dynamic stability [53] as a result of an increased probability of the system to yield toward the plumb position rather than away,
observed residual drift could be even smaller under earthquake excitation compared with the results obtained from quasi-static
tests herein. Furthermore, compared with the typical reinforced concrete shear walls (bottom fully constrained), the maximum
story drift corresponding to DS1 and DS2 damage states are 1.0% and 2.2%, respectively. For self-centering wall specimens tested
in this study, the maximum residual drift at 1.0% transient drift was only 0.13%, and only 0.24% at 2.0% horizontal drift, indicating
an appreciable self-centering ability for quick recovery after earthquakes.

4. Conclusion

In this study, the seismic performance of the asymmetric friction dampers was tested under cyclic tests. Dampers with the most
stable friction performance were further introduced into the self-centering walls externally, and three self-centering concrete shear
wall specimens were tested. Overall, the wall specimens showed excellent energy dissipating and self-centering ability with minor
damage. Based on the results presented herein, the main findings and conclusions of this study are summarized as follows:

(1) Different design parameters of the asymmetric slotted friction dampers using brass shims are considered and tested under
quasi-static loading. The friction dampers with two slots and four bolts possessed the most stable friction force and the highest
friction coefficient (𝛽 = 0.377). This design of the asymmetric friction dampers was also utilized in the test of the self-centering
walls.
(2) Self-centering shear walls with friction dampers were able to undergo large horizontal drift while exhibiting minor damage.
Only cover concrete spalling was observed and tendons worked elastically. Damage was concentrated to the brass shims in
friction dampers, which can be easily replaced after the earthquake ceases to facilitate post-earthquake repair.
(3) Though specimens SW-2 and SW-3 suffered from the premature fracture of tendons which resulted in a sudden drop of tendon
stress, the residual drift of all the test specimens when unloaded to the plumb position was smaller than 0.5%, which satisfies
the DS2 level as defined in FEMA P-58 code. Major structural realignment is not required, and repair of the structure is
practically feasible.
(4) Resulting from the moment–shear–axial interaction that the bolts exhibits, the clamping force provided by the bolts losses, as
well as the friction force of the friction dampers. Thus, 𝜁𝑒𝑞 drops for larger drift levels, but the minimum energy dissipating
requirement of 𝛽ℎ = 12.5% (𝜁𝑒𝑞 = 7.96%) recommended was still satisfied until the final 3.0% drift level. A higher level of
energy dissipating capacity is obtained by the self-centering wall installed by the external friction dampers, and a considerable
improvement of 81.2% by average is observed compared to the rocking walls without additional damping.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yang Liu: Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Wei Zhou: Supervision, Conceptualization,
Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. Xinying Xie: Investigation, Formal analysis.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

15
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [grant number 52178126]. Special thanks
to Mr. Xing Zhao, Mr, Chi Ma, and Mr. Jiawei Wang, for their assistance before and during the experimental work.

References

[1] FEMA P-58, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Second ed., Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2018.
[2] The M 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand, Earthquake of February 22, 2011, Technical Report, 2011, EERI Special Earthquake Report.
[3] W.Y. Kam, S. Pampanin, The seismic performance of RC buildings in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, Struct. Concr. 12 (4) (2011) 223–233.
[4] New Zealand Budget Speech, 2013, URL https://www.treasury.govt.nz/resources/budget-speech-5.
[5] M.N. Priestley, Overview of PRESSS research program, PCI J. 36 (4) (1991) 50–57.
[6] Y. Kurama, R. Sause, S. Pessiki, L.-W. Lu, Lateral load behavior and seismic design of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls, ACI Struct. J. 96
(4) (1999) 622–632.
[7] F.J. Perez, R. Sause, S. Pessiki, Analytical and experimental lateral load behavior of unbonded posttensioned precast concrete walls, J. Struct. Eng. 133
(11) (2007) 1531–1540.
[8] M. Nazari, S. Sritharan, S. Aaleti, Single precast concrete rocking walls as earthquake force-resisting elements, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 46 (5) (2017)
753–769.
[9] J.I. Restrepo, A. Rahman, Seismic performance of self-centering structural walls incorporating energy dissipators, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (11) (2007) 1560–1570.
[10] D. Marriott, The Development of High-performance Post-tensioned Rocking Systems for the Seismic Design of Structures (Ph.D. thesis), University of
Canterbury, 2009.
[11] B.J. Smith, Y.C. Kurama, M.J. McGinnis, Design and measured behavior of a hybrid precast concrete wall specimen for seismic regions, J. Struct. Eng.
137 (10) (2011) 1052–1062.
[12] S. Sritharan, S. Aaleti, R.S. Henry, K.-Y. Liu, K.-C. Tsai, Precast concrete wall with end columns (PreWEC) for earthquake resistant design, Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 44 (12) (2015) 2075–2092.
[13] R. Henry, S. Sritharan, J. Ingham, Finite element analysis of the PreWEC self-centering concrete wall system, Eng. Struct. 115 (2016) 28–41.
[14] X. Lu, X. Dang, J. Qian, Y. Zhou, H. Jiang, Experimental study of self-centering shear walls with horizontal bottom slits, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (3) (2017)
04016183.
[15] T. Guo, L. Wang, Z. Xu, Y. Hao, Experimental and numerical investigation of jointed self-centering concrete walls with friction connectors, Eng. Struct.
161 (2018) 192–206.
[16] A. Gu, Y. Zhou, Y. Xiao, Q. Li, G. Qu, Experimental study and parameter analysis on the seismic performance of self-centering hybrid reinforced concrete
shear walls, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 116 (2019) 409–420.
[17] X. Li, Y.C. Kurama, G. Wu, Experimental and numerical study of precast posttensioned walls with yielding-based and friction-based energy dissipation,
Eng. Struct. 212 (2020) 110391.
[18] Y. Liu, W. Zhou, Experimental investigation of self-centering hybrid concrete shear walls subjected to horizontal cyclic loading, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
50 (14) (2021) 3754–3770.
[19] A. Cattanach, S. Pampanin, 21st century precast: The detailing and manufacture of NZ’s first multi-storey PRESSS building, in: NZ Concrete Industry
Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand, 2008.
[20] S. Pampanin, W. Kam, G. Haverland, S. Gardiner, Expectation meets reality: Seismic performance of post-tensioned precast concrete Southern Cross
Endoscopy Building during the 22nd Feb 2011 Christchurch earthquake, in: NZ Concrete Industry Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand, 2011.
[21] T. Guo, Z. Xu, L. Song, L. Wang, Z. Zhang, Seismic resilience upgrade of RC frame building using self-centering concrete walls with distributed friction
devices, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (12) (2017) 04017160.
[22] S. Jaisee, F. Yue, Y.H. Ooi, A state-of-the-art review on passive friction dampers and their applications, Eng. Struct. 235 (2021) 112022.
[23] M. Wolski, J.M. Ricles, R. Sause, Experimental study of a self-centering beam-column connection with bottom flange friction device, J. Struct. Eng. 135
(5) (2009) 479–488.
[24] G.A. MacRae, G.C. Clifton, H. Mackinven, N. Mago, J. Butterworth, S. Pampanin, The sliding hinge joint moment connection, Bull. New Zealand Earthq.
Eng. 43 (3) (2010) 202–212.
[25] J. Borzouie, G.A. MacRae, J.G. Chase, G.W. Rodgers, G.C. Clifton, Experimental studies on cyclic performance of column base strong axis-aligned asymmetric
friction connections, J. Struct. Eng. 142 (1) (2016) 04015078.
[26] Z. Qu, X. Ji, X. Shi, Y. Wang, H. Liu, Cyclic loading test of steel coupling beams with mid-span friction dampers and RC slabs, Eng. Struct. 203 (2020)
109876.
[27] M.S. Zareian, M.R. Esfahani, A. Hosseini, Experimental evaluation of self-centering hybrid coupled wall subassemblies with friction dampers, Eng. Struct.
214 (2020) 110644.
[28] A. Hashemi, R. Masoudnia, P. Quenneville, Seismic performance of hybrid self-centring steel-timber rocking core walls with slip friction connections, J.
Construct. Steel Res. 126 (2016) 201–213.
[29] D. Fitzgerald, T.H. Miller, A. Sinha, J.A. Nairn, Cross-laminated timber rocking walls with slip-friction connections, Eng. Struct. 220 (2020) 110973.
[30] Z. Li, F. Chen, M. He, R. Zhou, Y. Cui, Y. Sun, G. He, Lateral performance of self-centering steel-timber hybrid shear walls with slip-friction dampers:
Experimental investigation and numerical simulation, J. Struct. Eng. 147 (1) (2021) 04020291.
[31] Y. Lu, Q. Lv, Y. Liu, Experimental and numerical study on seismic performance of CLB rocking wall with bending-friction coupled dampers, J. Build. Eng.
45 (2022) 103622.
[32] B.G. Morgen, Y.C. Kurama, Seismic design of friction-damped precast concrete frame structures, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (11) (2007) 1501–1511.
[33] M.N. Eldin, A.J. Dereje, J. Kim, Seismic retrofit of RC buildings using self-centering PC frames with friction-dampers, Eng. Struct. 208 (2020) 109925.
[34] X. Du, Z. Wang, H. Liu, M. Liu, Research on seismic behavior of precast self-centering concrete walls with dry slip-friction connectors, J. Build. Eng. 42
(2021) 102668.
[35] L. Xu, S. Xiao, Z. Li, Experimental investigation on the seismic behavior of a new self-centering shear wall with additional friction, J. Struct. Eng. 147
(5) (2021) 04021056.
[36] Q. Fang, J. Sun, H. Qiu, H. Jiang, B. Dal Lago, F. Biondini, Experimental evaluation on the seismic behavior of precast concrete shear walls with slip-friction
devices, J. Build. Eng. 52 (2022) 104507.

16
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Building Engineering 68 (2023) 106182

[37] GB/T 5231–2012, Designation and Chemical Composition of Wrought Copper and Copper Alloys, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection
and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China, 2012.
[38] ASTM B36/B36M–18, Standard specification for brass plate, sheet, strip, and rolled bar, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/B0036_B0036M-18.
[39] GB 50017–2017, Standard for Design of Steel Structures, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (MOHURD),
Beijing, China, 2017.
[40] B.J. Smith, Design, Analysis, and Experimental Evaluation of Hybrid Precast Concrete Shear Walls for Seismic Regions (Ph.D. thesis), University of Notre
Dame, 2012.
[41] ACI ITG-5.1-07, Acceptance Criteria for Special Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Structural Walls Based on Validation Testing and Commentary, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, U.S.A., 2007.
[42] K.Q. Walsh, Y.C. Kurama, Behavior of unbonded posttensioning monostrand anchorage systems under monotonic tensile loading, PCI J. 55 (1) (2010)
97–117.
[43] FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.,
2000.
[44] K. Kawashima, G.A. MacRae, J.-i. Hoshikuma, K. Nagaya, Residual displacement response spectrum, J. Struct. Eng. 124 (5) (1998) 523–530.
[45] D. Pettinga, C. Christopoulos, S. Pampanin, N. Priestley, Effectiveness of simple approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings, Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 36 (12) (2007) 1763–1783.
[46] A.K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures, Pearson, 2017.
[47] R. Oesterle, A. Fiorato, L. Johal, J. Carpenter, H. Russell, W. Corley, Earthquake resistant structural walls - Tests of isolated walls, (PB271-467) Portland
Cement Association, 1976.
[48] R. Oesterle, J. Aristizabal-Ochoa, A. Fiorato, H. Russell, W. Corley, Earthquake resistant structural walls - Tests of isolated walls - Phase II, (PB80-132418)
Portland Cement Association, 1979.
[49] R. Hassanli, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, Experimental investigation of in-plane cyclic response of unbonded posttensioned masonry walls, J. Struct. Eng.
142 (5) (2016) 04015171.
[50] Y.C. Kurama, Hybrid post-tensioned precast concrete walls for use in seismic regions, PCI J. 47 (5) (2002) 36–59.
[51] ACI T1.1-01, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing (T1.1-01) and Commentary (T1.1R-01), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI 48333-9094, U.S.A., 2001.
[52] J. Wang, W. Zhou, Experimental and numerical response of unbonded post-tensioned rocking wall under lateral cyclic loading, J. Build. Eng. 66 (2023)
105827.
[53] G.A. MacRae, K. Kawashima, Post-earthquake residual displacements of bilinear oscillators, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26 (7) (1997) 701–716.

17