First Stage Presentation

Seismic Protection Using Adaptive

Negative Stiffness System
Presented by
Nikhil Sunil Kumbhar
(162040003)
Under the guidance of
Dr. M.A. Chakrabarti

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

VEERMATA JIJABAI TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
H. R. Mahajani Marg, Matunga, Mumbai – 400019
2016-17 1
NSD Force-Displacement Relations
• Nonlinear Force Displacement Relation
 Pin  K s l p  l1   l2 l p  l1 
FNSD    K s    2    u  Fg
 ls   l2   l1 l2 2  u 2 


 ks1u, 0  u  u 'y 
 
Fg   ' 
 s1 y k  k  y
ks 2 ks1
k u  u  u '
u  u '
y 
 s2 s1 
NSD Force-Displacement Relations

Assumptions
1. Frictionless movement of joints
2. Members are rigid
3. Hysteresis in joints is negligible
4. All elements are mass less

Schematics of negative stiffness device: (a) Undeformed NSD; (b) Deformed NSD (Nagrajaiah et al.,2013)
Validation
• Reference Work -The experiment conducted on ANSS by Sarlis A.A. et
al. (2013)
• 3-storey moment resisting space frame structure
• Structure was Isolated by NSD and elastomeric bearings
• Elastomeric bearings: For smooth movement between base mat and
shake table
• Viscous dampers : to control the displacement
Validation
Schematics of model
Validation

Experimental Model
Validation

Views of viscous dampers and elastomeric bearings used in isolation system (Sarlis A. A. et al., 2013)
Validation

Fundamental Time Period

Experimental – 0.299 sec
Analytical – 0.291 sec

Fixed Base Model in SAP2000

Validation
• Elastomeric Bearings

Force-displacement relations of five parallel elements representing an elastomeric bearing

Validation

Analytical force-displacement loop of an elastomeric bearing obtained by the combination of the five parallel elements
 Validation
Property Bearing location on the shake table

NE NW SE SW

G1 (Multi-Linear Elastic Element)

Engagement displacement (cm) 2.36 1.60 1.37 1.83

Stiffness after engagement (kN/cm) -0.51 -0.53 -0.65 -0.56

G2 (Multi-linear elastic element)

Engagement displacement (cm) 5.56 5.84 6.10 5.72

Stiffness after engagement (kN/cm) 0.58 0.39 1.24 0.77

H1 (Wen Element)

Elastic stiffness (kN/cm) 175 175 175 175

Yield force (kN) 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089
Yielding exponent 1 1 1 1

H2 (Wen Element)

Elastic stiffness (kN/cm) 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52

Yield force (kN) 1.34 1.34 2.23 1.20
Yielding exponent 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

S1 (Linear elastic spring)

Horizontal Stiffness (kN/cm) 2.87 3.00 3.08 3.15

1. The effective stiffness of all elements is zero except for S1 which should have a very small value
2. The vertical stiffness of all elements except for H1 is zero. For H1, the vertical stiffness is the vertical stiffness of the bearing, equal to 964kN/cm
3. Element G1 has negative stiffness value and therefore negative force for positive displacement
Validation
• Viscous Damper
• Linear viscous damper
• F=Damper force
• =Damping Exponent = 1 for linear
• C= Damping Coefficient = 0.63 kN-sec/cm (Displacement-control test)
Validation
• NSD Properties
Quantity Symbol Value
Length BC of pivot plate l1 25.4 cm
Length CD of pivot plate l2 15.2 cm
NSD spring stiffness Ks 1.4 kN/cm
NSD spring preload Pin 16.5 kN
Double hinged column height h 124.5 cm
Lever length llv 67.3 cm
Length of the pre-compressed lp 76.2
spring

Different components of NSD with symbols (Sarlis A. A. et al., 2013)

 Validation
• NSD
15 NSD Force

10

5
Force (kN)

-5

-10

-15

-10 0 10
Displacement (cm)
Validation
Designation Configuration
E Structure + Elastomeric bearings
ENB-LA Structure + Elastomeric bearings + NSD
EDNB-LA Structure + Elastomeric bearings + NSD + Viscous
Damper
Validation
• 3d Model in SAP2000

Elastomeric
Bearings

NSD Viscous
Damper
Validation
• Loading and Analysis
• Subjected to ground motion of Danali, Alaska 2002 earthquake – PS 10317
• Ground motion history : Time Scale Factor = 0.25 and Length Scale Factor = 2
For similitude purpose
• Scaled PGA – 0.32g
• Type of Analysis – Non Linear Time History
PS 10317
0.2
Acceleration (g)

0.0

-0.2

-0.4
0 50 100
Time (sec)
Validation
• Results

Displacements of the storeys of configuration E

Analytical Experimental Error

Base Displacement (mm) 57.998 58.00 0.003%

1st Storey Displacement 61.438 61.200 0.385%

2nd Storey Displacement 65.281 65.320 0.059%

3rd Storey Displacement 67.506 68.614 1.615%

Validation
• Results

Displacements of the storeys of configuration ENB-LA

Analytical Experimental Error

Base Displacement (mm) 67.943 68.900 1.389%
1st Storey Displacement 70.730 70.547 0.259%
2nd Storey Displacement 72.750 73.383 0.863%
3rd Storey Displacement 74.408 75.213 1.071%
Validation
• Results

Displacements of the storeys of configuration EDNB-LA

Analytical Experimental Error

Base Displacement (mm) 43.126 43.100 0.060%

1st Storey Displacement 45.161 44.747 0.925%

2nd Storey Displacement 47.535 46.851 1.459%

3rd Storey Displacement 49.006 48.590 0.856%
Validation
• Results

Accelerations of the storeys for configuration E

Analytical Experimental Error

Base Acceleration (mm) 3.273 3.041 7.625%
1st Storey Acceleration 3.381 3.335 1.367%
2nd Storey Acceleration 3.536 3.532 0.124%
3rd Storey Acceleration 3.725 3.728 0.075%
Validation
• Results

Accelerations of the storeys for configuration ENB-LA (NSD)

Analytical Experimental Error

Base Acceleration (mm) 2.397 2.452 2.263%
1st Storey Acceleration 2.313 2.354 1.758%
2nd Storey Acceleration 2.603 2.649 1.725%
3rd Storey Acceleration 2.767 2.747 0.735%
Validation
• Results
Accelerations of the storeys for configuration EDNB-LA (ANSS)

Analytical Experimental Error

Base Acceleration (mm) 2.158 2.243 3.929%
1st Storey Acceleration 1.962 2.100 7.033%
2nd Storey Acceleration 2.256 2.300 1.936%
3rd Storey Acceleration 2.551 2.596 1.780%
Validation
• Results

Base Shear (kN)

Configuration Analytical Experimental Error

E 66.263 65.6 1.011%
ENB-LA 43.300 44.626 3.062%
EDNB-LA 34.600 35.306 2.040%
Validation

3rd Storey Displacements for Different Configurations

Configuration Displacement Reduction/Incremen

mm t
E 67.506 -

ENB-LA 74.408 +10.224% (6.902mm)

EDNB-LA 49.006 -27.404% (18.5mm)

Validation

Acceleration of 3rd Storey for Different Configurations

Configuration Acceleration Reduction/Increment

m/sec^2
E 3.725 -

ENB-LA 2.767 -25.718% (0.958 m/sec^2)

EDNB-LA 2.551 -31.517%(1.174 m/sec^2)

Validation

Base Shear (kN)

Configuration Base Shear Reduction/Increment

E 66.263 -
ENB-LA 43.300 -34.65% (22.963 kN)
EDNB-LA 34.600 -47.784% (31.663 kN)
Conclusion
• Maximum error in displacement response – 1.615%
• Maximum error in acceleration response – 7.6%
• Maximum error in base shear – 3.06%
• Causes
• Inability to model each and every detail of the actual model
• Assumption of frictionless movement of joints
• Assumption of small rotation of the connecting lever
• Assumption of rigid member
• Results indicate that the developed analytical model in program
SAP2000 predicted well the observed response of the tested model.
Work in progress
Frame type : Planer moment resisting frame
Bay width = 3m
Storey Height = 3m
Sectional Properties
Beam – 300 mm x 400 mm
Column – 400 mm x 400 mm

Material Properties
Concrete – M30
Steel – HYSD 415
Density of concrete – 25 kN/m^3

Member load:-
Dead Load – 19.25 kN/m( Slab wt + FF + Wall load)
Live Load – 3 kN/m
Type of analysis – Time History
• Ground motion – Denali, Alaska 2002 – PS 10317
• PGA – 0.29g * 4= 1.16g
• Duration – 92 sec
• Direction of application + x
• Modal Analysis Results

Modal participating mass

Mode No Period
ratios
1 0.328396 0.86037
2 0.10352 0.97167
3 0.060745 0.99999
4 0.032298 0.99999
5 0.03059 0.99999
6 0.024031 0.99999
7 0.023959 1
• Time history analysis results
Peak Base Shear – 995.1 kN at 27.54 sec
• Top storey displacement
Peak displacement – 47.17mm at 28.5 sec
• Top storey acceleration
Peak Acceleration- 1.615 m/sec^2 at 28.5 sec
 REFERENCES
• Reinhorn A. M, Viti S, Cimellaro G. P. and Chrysostomou C. Z. (2005), “Retrofit
of structures: Strength reduction with damping enhancement” 37th Joint Meeting
of U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, UNJR, Public Works Research
Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, pp.105 to 115
• Pasala D. T. R, Sarlis A. A, Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn A. M, Constantinou M. C.
and Taylor D. (2012), “A new Structural Modification approach for seismic
protection using negative stiffness device”,15WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal, vol, 37/39,
pp.29463-29472.
• Nagarajaiah S, Pasala D. T. R, Reinhorn A. M, Constantinou M. C and Taylor D.
(2013), “Negative Stiffness Device for seismic protection of structures.” J. Struct.
Eng. (ASCE), vol, 139(7), pp.1112 to1123.
• Sarlis A. A, Pasala D. T. R, Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn A. M, Constantinou M. C and
Taylor D. (2016), “Negative Stiffness Device for Seismic Protection of Structures:
Shake Table Testing of a Seismically Isolated Structure.” J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE),
vol, 152(5), pp. 04016005-1 to 04016005-13.
Thank You