International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017, pp. 900910 Article ID: IJCIET_08_01_106

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE CONTROL OF RCC

MOMENT RESISTING FRAME USING FLUID
VISCOUS DAMPERS
A.K. Sinha
Professor and Centre Director, Earthquake Safety Clinic and Centre,
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, India

Sharad Singh
Research Scholar, Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, India

ABSTRACT
Frequent earthquakes round the globe and large no of structures vulnerable to it have
necessitated the need for structural response control to gain pace in application around the
globe. This paper discusses the use and effectiveness of one such device, fluid viscous dampers,
for response control of structures and to reduce damping demand on structural system. In this
paper a non-linear time history analysis has been carried out on a 3D model of a 12 story RCC
MRF building using 3-directional synthetic accelerogram. Two different cases of building
models with and without supplemental damping have been analyzed using ETABS. The story
responses in terms of absolute maximum displacement and story drift have been compared.
Time history response plots for the two models have also been compared for various responses
viz. roof displacement and acceleration, base shear and story shear forces, along with the
various energy components and damping behavior. The results of the time history analysis are
in close conformation with previous investigations and represent the effectiveness of dampers
in improving the structural response as well as damping demand on structural systems.
Key words: Structural response control, Non-linear time history analysis, Fluid Viscous dampers.

Cite this Article: A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh, Structural Response Control of RCC Moment
Resisting Frame Using Fluid Viscous Dampers. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 900910.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1

1. INTRODUCTION
The concept of structural response control has been widely spread in the structural engineering
community [1-4, 7, 8, 14, 23]. Methods of response control like seismic isolation (SI) and energy
dissipation (ED) have shown significant progress in controlling the response of structures. The
structural control using energy dissipation can be achieved in many ways of which fluid viscous
damping has gained prominence [1-3, 8, 14, 23]. Fluid Viscous Damper (FVD) is installed in
structures to dissipate the input energy of vibration due to external excitation and thereby reduce the

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 900 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh

damping demand on members of the structure. The dynamic behavior of the structure installed with
FVD can be represented by equation (1).
M + {C + | | [ ]} +Ku=M g (1)
Where M is the mass matrix, C is the damping coefficient matrix, C0 is the damping constant for
FVD, is piston velocity of the FVD, sgn is signum function, is damping exponent, K is stiffness
matrix, is acceleration, is velocity, u is displacement, and g is ground acceleration.
The mass and stiffness contribution of dampers to the dynamic behavior of structures is usually
neglected due to small values as compared to those of structural members. Even though very small, the
mass and stiffness contributions of damper brace system attached to the structure should be
incorporated in analysis. Investigations have been carried out to use FVD in RC buildings for dynamic
response control. Multi storey buildings specially the major lifeline buildings like hospitals,
emergency centres, schools and administrative buildings need to adopt response control devices for
improved performance levels [12]. In this context a study has been carried out to observe the behavior
of RC frame buildings with FVD installed for structural response control.
A comprehensive review of Passive Energy Dissipation (PED) concepts and application shows that
addition of PED devices to structural system reduces the excessive deformation and ductility demands
and at the same time enhances its energy dissipation capacity. The PED devices have been found to
be effective for both shock loads as well as earthquake forces [3, 4, 7, 14, 23].
Among the viscous energy dissipation devices, FVD have been widely used in vibration control as
PED devices [2, 5-9, 11, 13, 19, 21-23, 25]. FVD enhance the performance of structures not only by
reducing the deformation demand but also the force demand. Non-linear FVDs have been proposed for
control of seismic response of structural system [13, 19]. Non-linear FVD achieves the same reduction
in response but with significant reduced damper force as compared to linear damper. While using
Chevron braced frame with non-linear FVD in near-fault ground motion, it has been found that the
energy dissipated by them prevents the buckling of braces and helps the frame members to remain
within elastic limits [9]. In a diagonal brace damping systems the deformation of the device is
proportional to the relative displacement between the floors i.e. the inter-storey drift. Analytical study
of a ten story steel frame structure where viscous damping has been incorporated in modal damping
has presented positive results [25]. The study shows the viscous diagonal damper to be effective in
reducing floor displacements and inter-storey drifts against seismic loadings. Extensive research on
viscous dampers reveals that viscous damping provides an accurate representation of energy
dissipation characteristics of viscous dampers [1]. The analytical results using viscous damping within
a linear elastic analysis approach has good correlation with experimental results, such that
displacements and story shears typically are within 10%. Viscous dampers can reduce the drift of a
MRF by as much as 50% without significantly increasing the base shear demand or floor
accelerations. Herein the design of viscous damper dose not incorporates the stiffness of the structure.
There are two important issues involved in application of viscoelastic damping for seismic loads i.e.
significant higher levels of damping needed to be effective against seismic load and the damper has to
undergo significant large deformations during severe seismic response. Earthquake simulator tests for
diagonal viscous dampers with varied vibration inputs further demonstrate effectiveness of adding
energy dissipation using viscous dampers [1-2]. It is found that viscous dampers supplement the
structural damping at all levels of excitation unlike friction or inelastic deformation dampers, as
damping increases with level of response. The analysis shows that 20% added damping is optimum
and that the temperature changes in the dampers are small and can be disregarded.

2. IDEALIZATION OF FVD
A typical idealized load deformation curve for a damper is shown (Figure 1). The equivalent stiffness
and damping of any damper can be computed using the curve as:

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 901 editor@iaeme.com

 Structural Response Control of RCC Moment Resisting Frame Using Fluid Viscous Dampers

= (2)

= (3)

Figure 1 A generalized force displacement curve for dampers to represent formulation of equation (2) and (3)
for linear dampers (dashed straight line) and for non-linear dampers (solid bilinear curve)
Where F is the force and is the displacement. Empirical expressions for and depends
upon material properties and characteristics. Fluid viscous dampers exhibit viscoelastic behavior. This
behavior is best predicted with the Maxwell model [20, 24].It is described as a spring in series with a
dashpot using equation (4).
( ) ( )
( )+ = (4)
Where P is damper output force, is relaxation time, is damping constant at zero
frequency, and u is displacement of piston head with respect to damper housing. The relaxation time
for damper is defined as
= (5)
where is damping constant at zero frequency and is storage stiffness of damper at infinite
frequency. A more general Maxwell model [20] is described by equation (6).
( ) ( )
( )+ = (6)

where and are fractional derivatives of orders r and q, based on material properties. When
r=q=1 the model becomes Maxwell model described in equation (4).

2.1. Linear Fluid Viscous Dampers

The model described by above equation has been simplified to obtain a more useful model of linear
viscous damping. The device parameters, and , are obtained from experimental tests [5]. If
frequency of vibration is below cut-off frequency, the second term in equation (4) drops out and model
of damper is simplified as
( )= (7)
where is independent of frequency. With this model damper behaves as linear viscous dashpot.
An important feature of linear viscous model equation is that damper force is a function of velocity.
Hence if the device is loaded with a sinusoidal function, displacements may be a sine function and

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 902 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh

then will be out of phase with velocity and damper force, which will be a cosine function. Again this is
beneficial if structure remains elastic, since dampers will reduce drifts and shear forces without
creating greater column axial forces in combination with column bending moments.

2.2. Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers

As the current study uses nonlinear fluid viscous dampers the model represented for linear fluid
dampers has to be made more general to include nonlinear damping, to explain non-linear fluid
viscous dampers. This generalized form is as follows [5, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 24]
( )= (8)
Where, is a real positive exponent that ranges from 0.1 to 2, and sgn is signum function. When
is unity, equation reduces to linear viscous dashpot model described for linear fluid viscous
damping. It has been suggested that a design with value of =0.5 should be used for situations when a
structure is subjected to extremely high velocity shocks, or near-field earthquakes, because this type of
damping will limit peak force in damper.

3. ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
ETABS 2015 has been used to carry out this study. The building under consideration in this study is a
12 storey RCC special moment resistant frame as per the guidelines of IS 1893:2002 for seismic zone
V and site class I (rocky or hard soil). The schematics of building plan and elevation are shown in
figure 2 and 3. The total height of the building is 40.2 m. The height of 1 st floor from ground floor is
3.2 m and the foundation is at 2 m below the ground floor. All other storey heights above the 1 st floor
are 3.5 m. Frame sections used for modeling depend upon design requirements. The base is fixed to
restrain in all 6 DOFs. A rigid diaphragm action has been considered for all the floors. A panel zone
has been considered for beam column connectivity with local axes along column, with inbuilt auto
inelastic properties. Non-linear hinges have been considered for frame elements [9, 10, 15-18].
For the design of frame guidelines in IS 875 Part 1, 2 and 5 for dead load, imposed load and load
combinations have been used to define gravity loads and IS 1893:2002 has been used to define seismic
load on the building. Natural time period of building T=1.1974 sec; seismic zone factor Z=0.36;
Importance factor I=1.5; Response reduction factor R=5. The torsional effect has been considered due
to accidental eccentricity. The mass source definition includes default definition of elemental self-
mass and additional mass. The modal case used in preliminary modeling and design process of
original building follows eigenvalue method with default definitions [15].
The product which has been taken into account for development of FVD model in this study is
67DP1892101- type-A damper manufactured by Taylor Devices Inc., USA [11]. The dampers have
been installed in even bays only in the exterior throughout the height of the building as shown in
figure 3. It is modeled as a link element with link type damper-exponential. The damper is modeled
only along one longitudinal direction and restrained in other two transverse directions, in its local
coordinate system. Non-linearity is considered along the active direction U1. Rotation has been
restrained. Following values have been used to model the damper (table 1).

Table 1 Damper properties used in modeling

Mass Weight Effective Effective Damping
Stiffness* Damping Exponent ()
(Kg) (KN) (KN/m) ( ( ) ) -
511.84 5.016 28144.86 420 0.8
*Stiffness provided by bracings

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 903 editor@iaeme.com

 Structural Response Control of RCC Moment Resisting Frame Using Fluid Viscous Dampers

Non-linear dynamic analysis has been performed to study the effect of FVD on seismic behavior
of structure. The time history analysis method adopted in this study uses a tri directional ground
motion. Response spectrum function has been defined using IS 1893: 2002 for a damping of 5% [15].
The accelerogram record used in this study is the SYLMARFF county hospital parking lot record
of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. A set of three records at 0 o, 90o and Z direction have been used
with PGA values of 826.76 cm/s2, 592.639 cm/s2, and 524.985 cm/s2 respectively. This time history
function data has been matched to response spectrum function, to generate synthetic accelerogram for
the assumed site condition. The spectral matching has been done in frequency domain. The matching
parameter is set in a frequency range of 0.01 cycles/sec to 100 cycles/sec. The 3 synthetic
accelerogram in 3 directions (U1, U2 and U3) are applied simultaneously, to create realistic ground
motion condition [24].

Figure 2 Plan view of building model

Figure 3 Elevation view of building model with and without dampers

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 904 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The modal analysis has been carried out for 12 modes and following time periods have been noted
down for various modes (tables 2) in each case for frame with and without supplemental damping.
Since the frequencies are just the inverse of time period hence they have not been specifically noted
down here. From the table for time period it can be easily seen that the time period of the oscillation of
the structure has shifted to lower values on addition of dampers to the system. The variation along the
modes is considerable. Other modal results have not been considered for comparison as the study
strictly focuses on investigations of non-linear time history analysis.

Table 2 Time period for buildings with and without supplemental damping for various modes

4.1. Results of Non-Linear Time History Analysis

The results of non-linear time history analysis to be hereafter referred as THA have been studied for
both storey responses in terms of storey v/s storey response as well as time history functions of the
responses. The storey responses considered here are absolute maximum storey displacement to be
hereafter referred as AMSD and absolute maximum storey drift to be hereafter referred as AMSd.

4.1.1. Absolute Max. Storey Displacements (mm)

The AMSD of different stories have been plotted for THA in both X and Y directions. The
observations reveal the effectiveness of dampers in controlling the story displacement response of the
building. In both the cases the maximum displacement is at the roof level and minimum at the base
level storey. Observations for AMSD comparing the models with and without supplemental damping
shows that models with dampers have lower response as compared to model without dampers. For
building model with damper the maximum storey displacement attained at top story is 152.848 mm in
global X-direction and 120.514 mm in global Y-direction as compared to 174.218 mm and 149.635
mm for building model without damper at top story in global X and Y directions respectively. For
ground story there is not any difference in AMSD of two models which increases up to top story. A
lower AMSD value for building with damper shows the effectiveness of dampers in controlling the
response of the structure.

4.1.2. Absolute Max. Storey Drift (Unit less)

The Absolute maximum storey drift in terms of inter-story drift ratio (IDR) of different stories has
been obtained for both global X and Y directions. The code suggests a limiting value of 0.004 times

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 905 editor@iaeme.com

 Structural Response Control of RCC Moment Resisting Frame Using Fluid Viscous Dampers

the storey height for drift in any storey i.e. 0.014 m [3]. The IDR values has been obtained using the
following formula
IDR= (Dn+1 Dn)/Hn (9)
th
Where, Dn+1 is the displacement of upper floor or n+1 floor, Dn is the displacement of lower floor
or nth floor and Hn is the storey height or floor separation for the given storey.

Figure 4 AMSD for building with and without supplemental damping in Global X and Y directions

Figure 5 IDR v/s storey plot for building with and without supplemental damping in Global X and Y Directions
The plot of IDR shows that this value is exceeded in both the cases. The maximum value of IDR
for building without damper is 0.0068 and 0.0055 in global X and Y directions respectively at story 4.
Whereas the maximum value for building with damper is 0.0054 at story 4 in global X-direction and
0.0042 at story 8 in global Y-direction. The value of IDR has exceeded the limiting value of 0.004 in
both the cases. In case of building without damper this value exceeds at 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
storey in both directions whereas in case of building with damper this value exceeds at stories 3 rd, 4th,
5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th in global X-direction and at 5th and 8th storey in global Y-direction. Even though the
drift values exceed the limiting value for building with dampers it is comparatively lower than the drift
values for building without damper observable in either direction.

4.2. Time History of Responses

The responses of the structure for THA have been obtained as time history functions of response
against time. The TH functions give better insight into the response behavior of structure at each time
step of analysis. The time history plots have been represented for following responses viz. Roof

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 906 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh

displacement, Roof Acceleration, Base Shear force, storey shear force and plot for input energy and
damped energy.

4.2.1. Time History of Roof Displacement and Roof Acceleration

Roof displacement and acceleration are important parameters to analyze the behavior of structure
under dynamic loading. It presents a better insight into performance of the structure as a whole. Plots
of roof displacement v/s time period and roof acceleration v/s time period for two building models
with and without supplemental damping under seismic loading have been obtained. The displacement
plots reveal that displacement values for building without dampers is as high as 174.218 mm which is
subsequently lower for building model with dampers with maximum displacement as high as 152.911
mm. The use of dampers has not successfully reduced the displacement values at all-time instances in
comparison to building without dampers but has managed to keep the overall displacement of building
within a limited range with smooth transitions preventing sudden reversal of displacement load.
Similar interpretation can be made for roof acceleration time history response. The roof acceleration
for building with damper is as high as 6.34 m/sec2 which is even higher than the maximum roof
acceleration of 5.99 m/sce2 for building without dampers. But the transition of roof acceleration over
time and overall roof acceleration response is within a controlled range.

Figure 6 Roof displacement and acceleration v/s time plots in global X-direction for building with and without
supplemental damping

Figure 7 Base shear force v/s time plot in global X-direction for building with and without supplemental
damping

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 907 editor@iaeme.com

 Structural Response Control of RCC Moment Resisting Frame Using Fluid Viscous Dampers

Figure 8 Storey Shear force v/s time plots in global X-direction at story 1, 5, 9 and 12 for building with and
without supplemental damping

4.2.2. Base Shear Force in X Direction

The base shear force in X direction against time period has been plotted for building models with and
without supplemental damping. It can be seen from the time history of base shear force that the overall
effect of damper in reducing the base shear is significant even though the maximum shear value of
11089.34 KN for building with damper is more than the shear value of 10645.89 KN for building
without damper. As can be seen the base shear for building with damper against the building without
damper has higher values for small fraction of time indicating that on the time scale of the event the
building experiences less amount of force over the run of the event. The increased force in case of the
building with damper can be attributed to increased mass due to addition of dampers in the building.

4.2.3. Time History of Storey Shear Force

The storey shear plot is a very important parameter to study to observe the resistance provided at
different stories against storey displacement. The resistance offered with time can be visualized from
TH plots for storey shear. The TH of storey shear for stories 1, 5, 9 and 12 for both the building cases
has been compared. In each case the maximum value of story shear at given stories is higher for
building with dampers. Another trend in story shear values to observe is decrease in story shear from
bottom to top of the building in both the cases. Even though the maximum story shear forces for
building with dampers is higher than that for building without damper the overall effect is similar to
time history plot of base shear force. Over the time scale of the event different stories of the building
with damper experience lesser force over the run of the event as compared to the building without

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 908 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh

damper. Again as stated for base shear force the higher value of story shear in case of building with
damper can be attributed to the increased mass by addition of dampers at each story level.

5. CONCLUSION
The results of the non-linear modal time history analysis conducted on a 12 story RC frame structure
with and without FVD, represented using story responses and time history plots for various
parameters, demonstrate that the story response of the structure in form of AMSD and AMSd have
been reduced considerably by use of dampers. The time history plot of roof acceleration show
considerable reduction over the time scale of the event by use of dampers against the building without
supplemental damping. The effectiveness of dampers is evident in form of reduced stress demands on
structural elements. The time history plot of roof displacement over the time scale of event by use of
dampers shows overall reduction in maximum displacement value. The displacement values are within
limited range desired proving the effectiveness of dampers in reducing the displacement response of
the structure. The time history plots of base shear and story shears for stories 1, 5, 9 and 12 have
similar pattern as to time history plot of roof acceleration. The dampers have been effective in
reducing shear forces in the structure. Even though the FVDs have significantly reduced the responses,
the damping demand of structure can be further reduced by optimum selection and installation of
FVDs at various critical locations.

REFERENCES
[1] Aiken, I. D. And Kelly, J. M., Earthquake Simulator Testing and Analytical Studies of Two
Energy-Absorbing Systems for Multi-Storey Structures, Report No. UCB/EERC-90/03, Earthquake
Engineering Research Centre, University Of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1990.
[2] Aiken I.D., Kelly J. M. And Mahmoodi P. The Application of Viscoelastic Dampers to Seismically
Resistant Structures. Proceedings of the Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Palm Springs, California, 3, May 1990, Pp. 459468.
[3] Chopra A. K. Dynamics of Structure- Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd
Edition. Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi. 2007
[4] Constantinou, M. C., Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for
Structural Design and Retrofit Monograph No. 1, Multidisciplinary Centre for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, 1998.
[5] Constantinou, M.C. And Symans, M. D. Experimental And Analytical Investigation Of Seismic
Response Of Structures With Supplemental Fluid Dampers,Report No. NCEER 92-0032, National
Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, University Of New York At Buffalo, Buffalo, NY,
1992.
[6] Constantinou, M. C. And Symans, M. D. Experimental Study Of Seismic Response Of Structures
With Supplemental Fluid Dampers, The Structural Design Of Tall Buildings, 2, 1993a, Pp. 93-132.
[7] Constantinou, M. C. And Symans, M. D.Seismic Response Of Structures With Supplemental
Damping, The Structural Design Of Tall Buildings, 2, 1993b, Pp. 77-92.
[8] Constantinou, M. C., Symans, M. D., Tsopelas, P., And Taylor, D. P. Fluid Viscous Dampers In
Applications Of Seismic Energy Dissipation And Seismic Isolation, ATC-17-1Seminar On Seismic
Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, And Active Control, San Francisco, CA, 1993, Pp. 581-592.
[9] Dicleli, M. And Mehta, A. Seismic Performance Of Chevron Braced Steel Frames With And
Without Viscous Fluid Dampers As A Function Of Ground Motion And Damper Characteristics,
Journal Of Constructional Steel Research,63, 2007, Pp. 11021115
[10] Durgesh, C. Rai, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur.
The Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, An Over View Of Earthquake Engineering

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 909 editor@iaeme.com

 Structural Response Control of RCC Moment Resisting Frame Using Fluid Viscous Dampers

[11] Narkhede D. I. And Sinha R., Characterization Of Fluid Viscous Dampers For Shock Excitation,
Proceedings Of Tenth U.S. National Conference On Earthquake Engineering Frontiers Of
Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska, July 21-25, 2014.
[12] FEMA 445, Next-Generation Performance Based Seismic Design Guidelines: Program Plan For
New And Existing Buildings, Applied Technology Council, August 2006
[13] Goel, R. K.Seismic Response of Linear and Non-Linear Asymmetric Systems with Nonlinear
Viscous Dampers, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics. 34, 2005, Pp. 825-846.
[14] Hanson, R., Supplemental Damping for Improved Seismic Performance, Earthquake Spectra,
9(3),1993, Pp. 319-334.
[15] IS: 1893(Part-I), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures, Fifth Revision, 2002.
[16] IS: 4326, Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings- Code of Practice (Second
Revision), 1993.
[17] IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening Of Buildings, Indian Institute
of Technology Kanpur. Project Sponsored By Gujarat State Disaster Mitigation Authority, 2005.
[18] IS-NBC: National Building Code of India. Steps For Safe Design And Construction Of Multi-
Storey Reinforced Concrete Buildings, 2005.
[19] Lin, W. H. And Chopra, A. K. Earthquake Response of Elastic SDF System with Non-Linear Fluid
Viscous Dampers, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.31, 2002, Pp. 1623-1642.
[20] Makris, N. and Constantinou, M.C. Fractional Derivative Maxwell Model For Viscous Dampers,
Journal Of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 117(9), 1991, Pp. 2708-2724
[21] Peckan, G., Mander,J. B. And Chen, S. S. Fundamental Considerations For The Design Of Non-
Linear Viscous Dampers, Earthquake Engineering And Structural Dynamics. 28, 1999, Pp. 1405-
1425.
[22] Seleemah, A. A. And Constantinou, M. C., Investigation Of Seismic Response Of Buildings With
Linear And Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers, Report No. NCEER 97-0004, National Centre for
Earthquake Engineering Research, University Of New York At Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1997.
[23] Soong, T. T. And Dargush, G. F. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems In Structural Engineering,
Wiley: New York, 1997.
[24] T. K. Datta, Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi, India, Seismic Analysis Of Structures, ISBN
978-0-470-82461-0 (HB), John Wiley &Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2 Clementi Loop, # 02-01, Singapore
129809, 2010.
[25] Zhang, R.H., Soong, T. T. And Mahmoodi,P. Seismic Response Of Steel Frame Structures With
Added Viscoelastic Dampers. Earthquake Engineering and Structural. Dynamic,18, 1989,Pp. 389
396.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 910 editor@iaeme.com