Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Dynamic response analysis of a 24-story damped steel structure

Demin Feng, and Takafumi Miyama

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120010 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.5005751


View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.5005751
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1892/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in


Soft storey effects on plastic hinge propagation of moment resisting reinforced concrete building subjected to
Ranau earthquake
AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120007 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005748

An investigation on damaged buildings in Ranau due the 2015 Sabah earthquake


AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120015 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005756

Earthquake response analysis of 11-story RC building that suffered damage in 2011 East Japan Earthquake
AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120008 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005749

Performance of Koyna dam based on static and dynamic analysis


AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120009 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005750

A comprehensive study on the influence of strength and stiffness eccentricities to the on-plan rotation of
asymmetric structure
AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120013 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005754

Performance of rockfill dam under dynamic loading


AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120012 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005753
Dynamic Response Analysis of a 24-story Damped Steel
Structure
Demin Feng1, a) and Takafumi Miyama2, b)
1
Technology Development Division, Fujita Corp., Japan
2
Tezukayama University, Japan
a)
Corresponding author: feng@fujita.co.jp
b)
miyama@tezukayama-u.ac.jp

Abstract. In Japanese and Chinese building codes, a two-stage design philosophy, damage limitation (small earthquake,
Level 1) and life safety (extreme large earthquake, Level 2), is adopted. It is very interesting to compare the design
method of a damped structure based on the two building codes. In the Chinese code, in order to be consistent with the
conventional seismic design method, the damped structure is also designed at the small earthquake level. The effect of
damper systems is considered by the additional damping ratio concept. The design force will be obtained from the
damped design spectrum considering the reduction due to the additional damping ratio. The additional damping ratio by
the damper system is usually calculated by a time history analysis method at the small earthquake level. The velocity
dependent type dampers such as viscous dampers can function well even in the small earthquake level. But, if steel
damper is used, which usually remains elastic in the small earthquake, there will be no additional damping ratio achieved.
On the other hand, a time history analysis is used in Japan both for small earthquake and extreme large earthquake level.
The characteristics of damper system and ductility of the structure can be modelled well. An existing 24-story steel frame
is modified to demonstrate the design process of the damped structure based on the two building codes. Viscous wall type
damper and low yield steel panel dampers are studied as the damper system.

INTRODUCTION
In Japan and China, the application number of the damped building has been increased significantly. In Japan,
there have been more than 1251 buildings at the end of 2014 [1]. But neither the design criteria of the damped
buildings nor manufacturing inspection criteria of the dampers are covered in the building code. JSSI [2] has
published a manual book concerning the mechanism, design, fabrication, testing, quality control, and analytical
modelling of various types of dampers, as well as design, construction, and analysis of damped buildings. AIJ [3]
recommended provisions for steel dampers such as BRB and panel dampers. On the other hand, the energy
dissipation technology has been used widely in the high-rise buildings with the construction boom in China. Both
the design criteria of the damped buildings and manufacturing inspection criteria of the dampers have been well
documented in the building code [4-6].
In this paper, the design flow chart and the features of the two building code on damped buildings are
summarized first. In both Japanese and Chinese building codes, a two-stage design philosophy, damage limitation
(small earthquake, Level 1) and life safety (extreme large earthquake, Level 2), is adopted. In Japanese code,
allowable stress elastic design is used in Level 1 and non-linear design in Level 2 earthquake. In order to utilize the
energy dissipation technology, the designer has to do non-linear dynamic response analysis and the damped building
has to be certified by the Ministry. Usually, the damped building has better performance target than aseismic one. In
Chinese code, elastic design is used in Level 1 and specification design in Level 2. In accordance with the aseismic
design, the damped building is also designed at small earthquake level (Level 1) where the earthquake load is
decreased by considering the additional damping ratio contributed by the dampers. But hysteric dampers like BRB
or steel panel dampers will not yield in Level 1, so only stiffness contribution will be considered. Since the response

Proceedings of the International Conference of Global Network for Innovative Technology and AWAM International Conference in Civil Engineering (IGNITE-AICCE’17)
AIP Conf. Proc. 1892, 120010-1–120010-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005751
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1574-4/$30.00

120010-1
shape such as drift angle at Level 1 and Level 2 differ significantly, the damper’s performance cannot be evaluated
well only basing on the response values at Level 1. The performance target of a damped structure is set the same as
the aseismic one usually adopted in China.
An existing 24-story steel frame is modified to demonstrate the design process of the damped structure based on
the two building codes. Velocity dependent type viscous wall type damper and hysteric type low yield steel panel
dampers are studied as the damper system. The response values and energy absorption are compared.

DAMPED STRUCTURE DESIGN IN CHINESE BUILDING CODE


The damped structure design method is adopted in the building code GB50011-2001 at first, and then updated in
GB50011-2010 [4]. The manufacturing inspection criteria of the dampers are covered in the code JG/T209-2012 [5].
JGJ 297-2013 [6] gives detailed technical specifications of damped structure design and manufacturing inspection
criteria of the dampers.
The limit state design concept is adopted in the aseismic design. The response values calculated from Level 1 are
combined by various factors and checked with the design strength of materials. Specification design is conducted in
Level 2 to meet the requirements of ductility and deformation capacity. The response spectrum analysis method is
usually used to design. For design of a damped structure, the earthquake load is decreased by considering the
additional damping ratio contributed by the dampers. The calculation of the additional damping ratio is shown in
Equation (1).
n
]d ¦Wcj /(4SWs ) (1)
j 1

where, ]d: additional damping ratio of dampers;


Wcj: total energy dissipated by dampers;
Ws: total input earthquake energy;

The additional damping ratio of dampers is usually calculated by the average response values from multiple
Level 1 input motions using elastic time history analysis. In addition to Equation (1), it can be calculated also by
comparing response values such as top displacement value, story drift angle, shear force or resistant moment of base
story. The effective damping of the damped structure is a sum of the additional damping ratio with the structure
damping ratio, which is usually 5% for RC structure, 3% for steel structure in an aseismic model.

DAMPED STRUCTURE DESIGN IN JAPANESE BUILDING CODE


In Japanese code, allowable stress elastic design is used in Level 1 and non-linear design in Level 2 earthquake.
In order to utilize the energy dissipation technology, the designer has to do non-linear dynamic response analysis
and the damped building has to be certified by the Ministry. The hysteric damper is most popular one due to its
cheap cost. However, in the Great East Japan (Tohoku) Earthquake on March 11, 2011, the observed ground
motions were having strong long period and long duration time. The velocity dependent type dampers such as oil
damper (bi-linear property with velocity) and viscous damper increased more and more.
TABLE 1. The performance target of a damped building.

Level 1 Level 2
Ground motions Three motions compatible with design Three motions compatible with design
spectrum and three recorded motions spectrum and three recorded motions
with peak velocity normalized to with peak velocity normalized to
25cm/s 50cm/s
Super-structure Drift angle < 1/300 Drift angle < 1/150
(aseismic: 1/200) (aseismic: 1/100㸧
stress ӌ short term allowable strength Story ductility factor < 2
Member ductility factor < 4
Hysteric damper Checking cumulative deformation

120010-2
The performance target of a damped building is usually higher than the aseismic one as shown in Table 1. The
drift angle value in the super-structure is set smaller than the aseismic one. More than six ground motions are used in
the dynamic response analysis. The maximum response values are used to design the building. In Level 2 input,
story ductility factor and member ductility factor are checked too as same with aseismic one. Moreover it is
important to check the cumulative deformation on hysteric type dampers.

A DAMPED STRUCTURE MODEL


A 24-story damped steel structure [7] is analyzed to understand the design procedure of both building codes.
Two types of damper system: velocity dependent viscous wall damper and hysteric low yield steel panel damper are
used [2].

Structure Model
For dynamic response analysis, the super-structure was modelled as a nonlinear bending-shear type multiple-
degree-of-freedom system. The parameters used in the model were obtained from a static pushover analysis and
shown in Table 2. Fig. 1 shows a typical story shear model parameters comparing with the pushover analysis results,
which agreed very well. The bending spring was assumed as elastic. The shear spring model was modelled as tri-
linear or bi-linear depending on the column materials. The CFT columns in 1st and 2nd stories are modelled as tri-
linear, while the steel columns above 3rd story as modelled as bi-linear model. By using the bending shear model,
the shear deformation relating with dampers can be calculated directly. A varying-stiffness proportional damping
system was assumed in the time history analysis. The damping ratio for bending spring was assumed as 0.02, while
the damping ratio for shear spring was assumed as 0.02 corresponding 1st natural period. The three natural periods
were obtained from the mode analysis as 3.292s, 1.107s and 0.659s, respectively at the concerned direction.

3
40x10

1F
30
3F
Shear force (kN)

10F

20 15F

20F
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
FIGURE 1. The story shear model parameters comparing with pushover analysis results.

To limit analysis cases, only one synthetic input motion was used which is compatible with Chinese design
spectrum (Intensity 8, Tg=0.4s) [8]. The peak acceleration was 0.397g. Time duration and time interval were 120s
and 0.01s, respectively. The synthetic motion was used as Level 2 motion directly in both building codes. For
Chinese Level 1 motion, the peak acceleration value was normalized to 0.07g. The pseudo velocity spectra of both
Level 1 and Level 2 motion are compared with Chinese and Japanese design spectra in Fig.2. It can be seen, the
response pseudo velocity values agreed well with the code spectra. However, in Chinese code, the response pseudo
velocity values increased with the period which usually have a constant value in other building codes.

120010-3
TABLE 2. Parameters of the super-structure bending-shear MDOF model.

Bending Elastic
Floor Mass Height Type Ratio of Ratio of Crack load Yield load
stiffness stiffness
Kr K1 K2/K1 K3/K1 Qc Qy
(t) (m) (KN䞉m/rad) (KN/mm) (kN) (kN)
RF 216 84.75 Bilinear 1.508E+08 137.9 - 0.324 - 1794
23F 1067 80.55 Bilinear 2.298E+09 403.1 - 0.460 - 5037
22F 1078 76.25 Bilinear 5.123E+09 660.1 - 0.454 - 7418
21F 1073 72.95 Bilinear 5.654E+09 697.7 - 0.454 - 9370
20F 1073 69.65 Bilinear 5.969E+09 723.1 - 0.447 - 11215
19F 1080 66.35 Bilinear 7.449E+09 768.1 - 0.426 - 12922
18F 1083 63.05 Bilinear 7.537E+09 788.0 - 0.428 - 14507
17F 1085 59.75 Bilinear 7.555E+09 802.5 - 0.398 - 16091
16F 1085 56.45 Bilinear 7.556E+09 805.1 - 0.304 - 17499
15F 1087 53.15 Bilinear 7.537E+09 802.1 - 0.202 - 18977
14F 1086 49.85 Bilinear 7.506E+09 801.3 - 0.131 - 20202
13F 1087 46.55 Bilinear 7.519E+09 811.7 - 0.091 - 21173
12F 1088 43.25 Bilinear 7.469E+09 816.5 - 0.065 - 22125
11F 1088 39.95 Bilinear 7.420E+09 831.0 - 0.048 - 23053
10F 1091 36.65 Bilinear 7.351E+09 845.7 - 0.038 - 23892
9F 1091 33.35 Bilinear 7.283E+09 851.3 - 0.032 - 24632
8F 1091 30.05 Bilinear 7.216E+09 858.8 - 0.029 - 25345
7F 1094 26.75 Bilinear 7.819E+09 884.3 - 0.027 - 25972
6F 1097 23.45 Bilinear 7.736E+09 893.9 - 0.028 - 26419
5F 1098 20.15 Bilinear 7.952E+09 919.5 - 0.031 - 26722
4F 1098 16.85 Bilinear 7.879E+09 1001.7 - 0.038 - 26629
3F 1098 13.55 Bilinear 7.773E+09 1574.9 - 0.062 - 23692
2F 1669 10.25 Trilinear 1.503E+10 2518.0 0.284 0.044 5238 28847
1F 1787 5.25 Trilinear 1.540E+10 4766.5 0.330 0.060 5912 29519
K : Stiffness after crack; K : Stiffness after yield

FIGURE 2. The pseudo velocity spectra of both Level 1 and Level 2 motion comparing with Chinese and Japanese design
spectra.

120010-4
Dampers
Two types of damper system: velocity dependent viscous wall damper and hysteric low yield steel panel damper
are used. The viscous wall damper is modelled by Maxwell model. The steel panel damper is modelled by bi-linear
model.

DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS RESULTS


Dynamic response analysis results of Level 1 and Level 2 motions are summarized following mainly Chinese
code. In Level 1 analysis, the procedure to calculate the additional damping ratio of dampers is demonstrated. In
Level 2 analysis, the performance target is set to story drift angle required by both codes, and the story ductility
factor following Japanese code.

Response Analysis of the Aseismic Model


Dynamic response analyses were carried out on the aseismic model at Level 1 and Level 2 input motions. The
story drift angle and energy absorption diagram at Level 2 are shown in Fig.3. The maximum of story drift angle at
Level 1 was 1/375, smaller than code requirement of 1/250. The maximum of story drift angle at Level 2 was 1/42,
larger than code requirement of 1/50. From the energy absorption diagram in Fig.3, it can be understood that at
Level 2 input, the super-structure became yielding and absorbed half of the input energy. Thus the story ductility
factor was so much high as 5.1 in 3rd story.

RF 60x10
3

Level 1 Aseismic, Level 2


Level 2 50 Ei
20F

40
Energy (kN m)

15F
Floor

30 Es
10F
20 Ed

5F
10
Ek
1F 0
0 1/100
10 20 30x10-3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Drift angle (rad ) Time (s)
Ei: input energy; Ed: energy absorbed by structure’s damping;
Es: energy absorbed by structure’s plasticity; Ek: kinetic energy
(a) Story drift angle (b) Energy absorption diagram at Level 2 input
FIGURE 3. The story drift angle and energy absorption diagram at Level 2 input.
The performance target of the damped structure at Level 2 input was set as: the story drift angle less than 1/100;
the story ductility factor less than two.
In Chinese code, the dampers’ effect is evaluated at Level 1 input. It is usually better to place dampers according
the response results at Level 1 input. In this study, the performance target of the damped structure was set at Level 2
input, so the dampers’ planning was carried out based on the Level 2 response results. The dampers planning are
shown in Table 3.

120010-5
TABLE 3. Details of the dampers.

<OYIU[Y]GRRJGSVKX 2U]_OKRJYZKKRVGTKRJGSVKX
Floor
Type Number C(kN/[m/s])K(KN/mm) Type Number K(kN/mm) Fy(KN) β
14F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 1 1048 2099 0.01
13F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 1 1048 2099 0.01
12F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 1 1048 2099 0.01
11F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 1 1048 2099 0.01
10F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 1 1048 2099 0.01
9F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 1 1048 2099 0.01
8F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 2 2096 4198 0.01
7F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 2 2096 4198 0.01
6F VFD-NL×2500×60 4 23484 2360 MYD-S×2000×2.0 2 2096 4198 0.01
5F VFD-NL×2500×60 4 23484 2360 MYD-S×2000×2.0 2 2096 4198 0.01
4F VFD-NL×2500×60 4 23484 2360 MYD-S×2000×2.0 2 2096 4198 0.01
3F VFD-NL×2500×60 4 23484 2360 MYD-S×2000×2.0 3 3144 6297 0.01
2F VFD-NL×2000×60 3 14091 1410 MYD-S×2000×2.0 1 1048 2099 0.01
1F MYD-S×2000×2.0 1 1048 2099 0.01
0.45
F=CV

Response Analysis of the Damper Structures at Level 1 Input


Response analysis results of the damper structures at Level 1 input are shown in Fig.4. In the case of viscous
wall damper, all response results: story drift angle, story shear force coefficient and floor acceleration became
smaller. In the case of steel panel damper, the dampers did not yield at Level 1 input and contributed stiffness to the
main structure. The natural periods of the damped structure with steel dampers became shorter as: 2.452s, 0.945s
and 0.557s. Thus, the story drift angle became smaller, while shear force coefficient and floor acceleration became
larger.
The energy absorption diagram of the damped structure with viscous damper is shown in Fig.5. From Equation
(1), the additional damping ratio of the dampers was calculated as 5.5%.

Aseismic
Viscous
Steel
RF

20F

15F

10F

5F

1F
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0x10-3 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Drift angle (rad.) Shear force coefficient Response acc. (g)

FIGURE 4. Response analysis results of the damper structures at Level 1 input.

120010-6
1400 Ei
Viscous damper
1200 Level 1

1000 Em

Energy (kN m)
800

600

400 Ed

200
Es Ek
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)
Ei: input energy; Em: energy absorbed by viscous dampers; Ed: energy absorbed by structure’s damping;
Es: energy absorbed by structure’s plasticity; Ek: kinetic energy
FIGURE 5. The energy absorption diagram of the damped structure with viscous damper.

Response Analysis of the Damper Structures at Level 2 Input


Response analysis results of the damper structures at Level 2 input are shown in Fig.6. In both cases of viscous
wall damper and steel panel damper, the performance target was satisfied. The story drift angle was less than 1/100,
and the story ductility factor was 1.6 for both cases by adjusting number of dampers.
In the case of viscous wall damper, all response results: story drift angle, story shear force coefficient and floor
acceleration became smaller like the response results at Level 1 input. The energy absorption diagram of the damped
structure with viscous damper is shown in Fig.7. From Equation (1), the additional damping ratio of the dampers
was calculated as 6.1% for reference.
In the case of steel panel damper, although not good as the viscous wall damper, all response results became
smaller than the aseismic model.

Aseismic
Viscous
Steel
RF

20F

15F

10F

5F

1F
0 5 1/100
10 15 2025x10-3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Drift angle (rad.) Shear force coefficient Response acc. (g)

FIGURE 6. Response analysis results of the damper structures at Level 2 input.

120010-7
3
60x10
Viscous damper, Level 2 Steel damper, Level 2
50

40 Ei Ei
Energy (kN m)

30 Em
Eh
20
Ed Ed
10
Es Ek Es E k
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s) Time (s)
Ei: input energy; Em, Eh: energy absorbed by dampers; Ed: energy absorbed by structure’s damping;
Es: energy absorbed by main structure’s plasticity; Ek: kinetic energy
FIGURE 7. The energy absorption diagram of the damped structure at Level 2 input.

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the design flow chart and the features of the Chinese and Japanese building code on damped
buildings were summarized. An existing 24-story steel frame was modified to demonstrate the design process of the
damped structure. Velocity dependent type viscous wall type dampers and hysteric type low yield steel panel
dampers were studied as the damper system. The response values and energy absorption diagram were compared.
x The viscous wall type dampers had better performance and reduced responses of the main structure at both
Level 1 and Level 2 inputs. The additional damping ratios of the dampers based on Chinese code were 5.5%
at Level 1 input and 6.1% at Level 2 input, respectively.
x The steel panel dampers contributed stiffness at Level 1 input and had good performance at Level 2 input.
x The optimization of damper planning should be carried out based on the response values at Level 2 input.

REFERENCES
1. Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (JSSI), Annual meeting report (in Japanese), 2016.
2. Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (JSSI), Manual for design and construction of passively-controlled
Buildings (3rd edition) (in Japanese), 2013.
3. Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), Recommended provisions for seismic damping systems applied to steel
structures (in Japanese), 2014.
4. Ministry of Construction, P.R.China, Code for seismic design of buildings, GB50011-2010 (in Chinese), 2010.
5. Ministry of Construction, P.R.China, Dampers for vibration energy dissipation of buildings, JG/T209-2012 (in
Chinese), 2012.
6. Ministry of Construction, P.R.China, Technical specification for seismic energy dissipation of buildings, JGJ
297-2013 (in Chinese), 2013.
7. D. Feng, et al., “Response analysis on a 24-story damped steel structure”, 10th Japan-China building structure
technology symposium, Nanjing (in Chinese), 2013
8. D. Feng, et al., “A comparative study of seismic isolation codes worldwide (Part I, II)”, 1st ECEES, Geneva,
No.63, No.66, 2006

120010-8