seismic response of multistoreyed steel frame with vis cous fluid scissor jack … ·...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2017, pp.

Available online at http://http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976

© IAEME Publication

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF

STEEL FRAME WITH VIS

SCISSOR JACK DAMPERS

J.Premalatha,

ABSTRACT

A 20-Storey benchmark steel moment resisting frame

taken for the study of seismic response reduction of the frame by providing viscous

fluid dampers for scissor-jack mechanisms. The model line

the frame subjected to four types of time history earthquake loads with scissor

dampers is carried out using SAP2000 software.

for the frame analysis are N

component of Northridge and S

are distributed along the height of the frame to reduce the seismic response of the

building. Among the four time history analysis, the peak responses such

acceleration, displacements, drifts, damper displacements, and damper forces for the

six different models of the frame with scissor

response reduction values between the bare frame and the six models a

in this paper. The optimum and cost effective placement of damper in the bare frame is

arrived by comparing the peak average response reduction values of the models. The

peak average response reduction values of the optimum model for absolute

acceleration, displacements and drifts are 71.3, 46.9 and 53.1 respectively.

Key words :drifts, scissor-

absolute acceleration, drifts, peak responses, scissor

Cite this Article: J.Premala

Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Visco

Journal of Civil Engineering and

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIE

1. INTRODUCTION

The placing of fluid dampers to a structure does not significantly alter its natural period, but it

increases damping from about 2 to 5% (internal damping) to between 20% and 40%, and

sometimes even more (Haskell and lee

results in small decrease in responses, and such increases lead to usage of more dampers

(Hanson and soong, 2001). The use of fluid dampers results in reduction of storey shear

forces. Due to the viscous nature, fluid dampers reduce drifts and thus column bending

IJCIET/index.asp 289 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 2017, pp. 289–312, Article ID: IJCIET_08_08_032

http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=8

6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

Scopus Indexed

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF MULTISTOREYED

STEEL FRAME WITH VISCOUS FLUID

SCISSOR JACK DAMPERS

J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar

Storey benchmark steel moment resisting frame (Y. Ohtori et al., 2004)


jack mechanisms. The model linear time history analysis of

the frame subjected to four types of time history earthquake loads with scissor

dampers is carried out using SAP2000 software. The four Time Histories considered

for the frame analysis are N-S component of El Centro, N-S component of Kobe, N

component of Northridge and S-E component of S_Monica. The Scissor


Among the four time history analysis, the peak responses such


six different models of the frame with scissor-jack dampers are found out. The average

response reduction values between the bare frame and the six models a





-jack dampers, peak responses, absolute acceleration

absolute acceleration, drifts, peak responses, scissor-jack dampers.

J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar, Seismic Response of

Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid –Scissor Jack Dampers,

Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(8), 2017, pp. 289–312.

aeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=8



sometimes even more (Haskell and lee, 2007). It is found that external damping beyond 30%


). The use of fluid dampers results in reduction of storey shear


[email protected]

asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=8

MULTISTOREYED

COUS FLUID –

(Y. Ohtori et al., 2004) is


ar time history analysis of

the frame subjected to four types of time history earthquake loads with scissor-jack

The four Time Histories considered

mponent of Kobe, N-S

The Scissor-jack dampers


Among the four time history analysis, the peak responses such as absolute


jack dampers are found out. The average

response reduction values between the bare frame and the six models are presented





jack dampers, peak responses, absolute acceleration

tha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar, Seismic Response of

Scissor Jack Dampers, International

.

&VType=8&IType=8



It is found that external damping beyond 30%


). The use of fluid dampers results in reduction of storey shear


Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 290 [email protected]

moments, while introducing additional column axial forces which are out-of phase with the

bending moments (Constantinou MC and Symmans MD 1992).

In order to study the response of the structure (internal forces) as a function of time for a

specific ground motion, the accelerograms of the design earthquake or having several

representative accelerograms of big earthquakes are used. These types of accelerograms with

respect to time can be given as input in software and responses of the structures can be found

out. The accelerograms are applied to the structure as shown in Fig. 1.

The ground accelerations for El Centro and Kobe, S_Monica and Northridge earthquakes

time history earthquakes are shown in Fig. 2. These four types of Time Histories earthquakes

(THEQ) such as El Centro (EC), Kobe (KO), Northridge (NR) and S_monica (SM) are

considered in this study. The PGAs for the earthquake records are 3.417 m/s2, 5.79 m/s

2,

8.268 m/s2 and 2.25 m/s

2 respectively.

Figure 1 Accelorograms input to structure

Figure 2 Time histories of El Centro and Kobe, S-monica and Northridge earthquakes

Dynamic loads on structure due to earthquake cause excessive vibrations leading to severe

damage to the structures. Vibration can be reduced using passive, semi-active or active

control devices. Various applications of these energy dissipation devices are used in many

countries. In all these applications, damper configurations have been used to deliver the forces

from energy dissipation devices to the structural frame. Generally the damper configurations

are classified based on the orientation of damper and the way of device attachment to the

structural element such as chevron brace configuration, Lower toggle configuration and

scissor-jack configuration.



A. Viscoelastic Solid Dampers

Viscoelastic solid dampers consist of solid elastomeric pads viscoelastic material bonded to

steel plates. The steel plates are attached to the structure within chevron or diagonal bracing.

As one end of the damper displaces with respect to the other, the viscoelastic material is

sheared resulting in the development of heat which is dissipated to the environment. Due to

this nature, they exhibit both elasticity and viscosity i.e., they are displacement and velocity

dependent (Chang et al. 2010).

Figure 4 Viscoelastic solid damper, (Chang et al., 1995)

Viscoelastic (VE) damper is one of important kind of passive energy devices these have

been used as energy dissipation devices in many structures where the damper undergoes shear

deformations. Viscoelastic materials exhibit combined features of viscous liquid and elastic

solid when deformed. In other words they dissipate a certain amount of energy as heat and

return to their original shape after every cycle of deformation. Viscoelastic shear damper is

described by (Mahmoodi et. al., 1969) and he also mentioned that it can be efficient in

decreasing the dynamic response of buildings. Viscoelastic dampers made of bonded acrylic

polymers (Viscoelastic) layers. The extension of Viscoelastic shear damper to seismic

applications is more recent. For seismic applications, more effective use of viscoelastic

materials is required since large damping ratios than those for wind are usually required. Fig.

4 shows a typical viscoelastic shear damper consists of viscoelastic layers bonded to steel

plate. When these dampers are mounted to a building structure shear deformations occur, as a

result energy dissipation take place when relative motion occurs between the outer steel

flanges and central plate.

As per Clause no. 7.11.1 of IS1893(Part 1):2002[1], the peak storey drift in any storey

due to specified design lateral force with partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed 0.004 x hs,

where, hs is storey height (3960 mm). So maximum inter-storey drift allowed= 0.004 × 3960 =

16 mm. From the linear time history analysis, the peak storey drift in X- and Y-directions

should be within the allowable limits. Hence, if less than the allowable inter-storey drift

16mm, the structure is assumed to be safe.

B. Scissor-Jack Configuration

For 20 storey benchmark building, scissor jack configurations are placed along with viscous

fluid dampers. For supporting scissor-jack system with beams and columns, plates are placed

in between the ends of scissor jack and beams and columns. Plates are provided because

scissor-jack system cannot be directly connected to beams or columns. The scissor jack

system members are of angular type sections. The configuration of scissor-jack in ground and

other typical floors are placed as shown Fig. 5 and Fig .6 The magnification factor for this

configuration depends on the orientation of the damper (i.e. θ and Ψ). The angles θ and Ψ in

the ground floor of the 20-storey building with scissor jack configuration are 8º and 62º

respectively as shown in Fig. 5. The angles θ and Ψ in the remaining floors (typical floors) of

the 20-storey building with scissor jack configuration are 10º and 52.84º respectively as



shown in Fig. 6. The magnification factor of the scissor jack configuration is given as, f= ��

��. For scissor jack configuration in the ground floor and other typical floors of 20-storey

building, the magnification factors are 3.34 and 3.43 respectively.

Figure 5 Scissor-jack configuration for floors above ground floor

+

Figure 6 Scissor-jack configuration for ground floor

The damper type chosen for scissor jack system is viscous fluid dampers. In SAP2000, for

viscous fluid dampers, link properties type is taken as damper. The main properties

governing dampers are damper stiffness (k) and damping coefficient (C0). The damping

coefficient (C0) values for scissor-jack damper to be used as input in SAP2000 are given in

Table 1.

zeta Entire

building storey

Distribution of damping

coefficient

10

dampers

per

storey

6

dampers

per

storey

2

dampers

per

storey

0.1 25617 1281 128 213 640

0.2 51233 2562 256 427 1281

0.3 76850 3843 384 640 1921

0.4 102470 5123 512 854 2562

0.5 128080 6404 640 1067 3202

0.6 153700 7685 769 1281 3843

0.7 179320 8966 897 1494 4483

0.8 204930 10247 1025 1708 5124

0.9 230550 11528 1153 1921 5764

1 256170 12808 1281 2135 6404

Table 1 Damping coefficients (C0) for scissor-jack dampers in kN


http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE

The 20-storey bench mark building plan is shown in Fig

the 20-storey bench mark building considered in the present study are

The frame taken for the prese

bay spacing of 6.10m (20ft) on center in both the NS (5 bays) and EW (6 bays) directions.

Seismic mass in the 1st floor is 5.63e05Kg, 2

5.84× 105

Kg. The entire details of 20

column dimensions, support conditions, restraints, connections, splices and storey height

specifications and seismic mas

2004).

Fig

Figure 8 Elevation and Dimensions of Twenty storey bench


IJCIET/index.asp 293 [email protected]

THE MODEL FRAME

storey bench mark building plan is shown in Fig. 7. The elevation and dimensions of

storey bench mark building considered in the present study are shown in the Fig

The frame taken for the present study is 80 77m (265ft) tall and is rectangular in plan with


floor is 5.63e05Kg, 2nd

to 19th

floor is 5.52 × 105Kg, and 20

Kg. The entire details of 20-storey benchmark building such as beam dimensions,


specifications and seismic masses in each storey are shown in Figure.8 (Y. Ohtori

Figure 7 Plan of the benchmark building

Elevation and Dimensions of Twenty storey bench mrak building (Y.Ohtori et al., 2004)

[email protected]

7. The elevation and dimensions of

shown in the Fig. 8.

77m (265ft) tall and is rectangular in plan with


Kg, and 20th

floor is

storey benchmark building such as beam dimensions,


ses in each storey are shown in Figure.8 (Y. Ohtori et al.,

mrak building (Y.Ohtori et al., 2004)



Figure 9 Dimensions of Twenty storey benchmrak building

A. Types Of Scissor-Jack Configuration Damper Models

Six different types of scissor-jack configuration damper models (SJ_M1, SJ_M2, SJ_M3

SJ_M4, SJ_M5, and SJ_M6) are considered for the analysis to find the effective placements

and distribution of scissor-jack system in the steel frame. The scissor-jack systems are

distributed along the height of the frame as shown in Fig. 10. The six models are distributed

as,

1. Model_1 (SJ_M1): Dampers are placed in all stories along the height of the building

and distributed as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers per storey. So that total

number of dampers placed throughout the height is 200. The distributions of dampers

are as shown in Fig. 10. a).



2. Model_2 (SJ_M2): Dampers are placed in G+9 stories throughout the bay length such

as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers in each stories and from 10th

to 20th

storey

dampers are placed in 2nd

, 3rd

and 4th

bay length such as 6 scissor-jack configuration

dampers per story. So that, total numbers of dampers placed along the height of the

building are 160. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10.b).



to 20th

storey

dampers are placed in 1st, 3

rd and 5

th bay length such as 6 scissor-jack configuration


building are 160. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10. c).



to 20th

storey

dampers are placed in 3rd

bay length alone, such as 2 scissor-jack configuration


building are 120. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10. d).



to 20th

storey


rd and 5

th bay length, such as 6 scissor-jack configuration


building are 140. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10. e).

6. Model_6 (SJ_M6): Dampers are placed in Ground story alone for the bay length such

as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers in that storey and from 1st to 19

th storey


rd and 5

th bay length, such as 6 scissor-jack configuration


building are 124. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig.10. f).

For six different types of scissor-jack mechanism damper configuration, linear time

history analysis are done and 40% of damping are used for present study based upon base

shear graphs.

10. a) SJ_M1 10.b) SJ_M2 10.c) SJ_M3 10.d) SJ_M4



10. e) SJ_M5 10. f) SJ_M6

Figure 10 Six different models of scissor jack placements in bare frame

3. SEISMIC REPONSES OF BARE FRAME

The natural frequencies and fundamental periods (T) of the building are given in Table 2.

Table 2 Frequency, Time periods and Circular frequency for Bare frame structure



The first mode shape, 1 = [0.75 0.73 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.41

0.36 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.10 0.06]. The 20 mode shapes are given in Table 3 and the

mode shapes are shown in Fig. 10. The maximum value among 20 mode shape values are

taken as Max = [0.80 0.75 0.73 0.70 0.66 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.61 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.63

0.63 0.63 0.64 0.61 0.55]. There is no much difference between the natural frequencies found

out for the present model building and that of the benchmark problem (Y. Ohtori et al.,

2004). The responses such as base shear, accelerations, displacements and inter-storey drifts

are tabulated from Table 4 to Table 7.

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8

Mode 9 Mode 10 Mode 11 Mode 12 Mode 13 Mode 14 Mode 15 Mode 16



Mode 17 Mode 18 Mode 19 Mode 20

Figure 11 Different mode shapes of frame

Table 4 Base shear for bare frame

EQ Base Shear (kN)

EC 3723

KO 4474

NR 4752

SM 6379

Table 5 Absolute acceleration response of bare frame

Storey EC KO NR SM peaks

20 5.34 9.57 5.20 1.49 9.57

19 3.45 5.24 3.95 1.50 5.24

18 3.23 4.95 3.86 1.45 4.95

17 3.22 4.85 4.72 1.19 4.85

16 4.14 3.78 2.70 1.08 4.14

15 4.28 4.62 2.63 1.24 4.62

14 3.58 4.89 2.61 1.01 4.89

13 3.23 4.55 2.57 1.11 4.55

12 2.98 5.85 2.88 1.24 5.85

11 3.50 6.12 2.77 1.18 6.12

10 3.85 5.98 2.95 1.28 5.98

9 3.63 6.13 2.81 1.24 6.13

8 3.24 6.44 3.69 1.24 6.44

7 3.21 6.49 3.97 1.33 6.49

6 3.01 5.88 3.64 1.37 5.88

5 3.13 5.54 3.23 1.38 5.54

4 3.18 5.68 3.23 1.37 5.68

3 3.45 5.21 3.32 1.37 5.21

2 3.73 5.76 2.95 1.42 5.76

1 2.88 4.61 2.65 1.40 4.61



Table 6 Displacement response of bare frame

Storey EC KO NR SM PEAKS

20 0.29 0.36 0.39 0.18 0.39

19 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.17 0.38

18 0.27 0.31 0.36 0.17 0.36

17 0.25 0.30 0.33 0.16 0.33

16 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.30

15 0.24 0.30 0.27 0.14 0.30

14 0.23 0.29 0.25 0.13 0.29

13 0.22 0.29 0.23 0.13 0.29

12 0.20 0.30 0.22 0.12 0.30

11 0.18 0.31 0.21 0.11 0.31

10 0.16 0.30 0.22 0.10 0.30

9 0.14 0.29 0.21 0.09 0.29

8 0.13 0.27 0.21 0.08 0.27

7 0.11 0.24 0.19 0.08 0.24

6 0.10 0.22 0.17 0.07 0.22

5 0.09 0.20 0.14 0.06 0.20

4 0.07 0.17 0.12 0.05 0.17

3 0.06 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.13

2 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.10

1 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.06

Table 7 Inter-storey drifts response of bare frame


20 0.012 0.034 0.014 0.006 0.034

19 0.014 0.017 0.021 0.007 0.021

18 0.013 0.007 0.028 0.009 0.028

17 0.006 0.000 0.029 0.007 0.029

16 0.007 0.001 0.028 0.008 0.028

15 0.010 0.002 0.024 0.009 0.024

14 0.012 0.001 0.015 0.007 0.015

13 0.016 0.011 0.015 0.008 0.016

12 0.021 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.021

11 0.023 0.004 0.001 0.010 0.023

10 0.017 0.013 0.002 0.008 0.017

9 0.013 0.020 0.007 0.007 0.020

8 0.013 0.026 0.014 0.008 0.026

7 0.012 0.024 0.021 0.009 0.024

6 0.013 0.022 0.026 0.010 0.026

5 0.015 0.030 0.027 0.010 0.030

4 0.016 0.034 0.024 0.011 0.034

3 0.015 0.038 0.024 0.011 0.038

2 0.017 0.041 0.028 0.011 0.041

1 0.026 0.056 0.041 0.014 0.056



4. LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR SCISSOR-JACK

MECHANISM AND ITS RESPONSES

Linear time history analysis was carried out for all six models of scissor jack system buildings

and responses such as absolute acceleration (a), displacements (d), inter-storey drifts (dr),

damper displacements (dd) and damper forces (df) are found out for four different time

histories considered for analysis such as El Centro (EC), Kobe (KO), Northridge (NR) and

S_Monica (SM) with PGAs normalized to 0.35g.

The responses of absolute acceleration (a) for all six models are represented as graphs and

are given in Fig. 12. The responses of displacements (d) for all six models are represented as

graphs and are given in Fig. 13. The responses of inter-storey drifts (dr) for all six models are

represented as graphs and are given in Fig. 14. The responses of damper displacements (dd)

for all six models are represented as graphs and are given in Fig. 15. The responses of damper

forces (df) for all six models are represented as graphs and are given in Fig. 16.

Among the four time histories EQ analysis, such as El Centro (EC), Kobe (KO),

Northridge (NR) and S_Monica (SM), the peak responses and its difference between bare

frame are found for absolute acceleration, displacements, drifts, damper displacements, and

damper forces for each model Now peak responses from different models (SJ_M1, SJ_M2,

SJ_M3, LT_M4, LT_M5, and LT_M6) are compared with peak responses of bare frame and

their respective peak response reduction is given in Table 8 to Table 13.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Peak average response reductions as percentage for different models of scissor jack

dampers are tabulated in Table 8 to Table 14. The Peak damper displacement and damper

forces for different models of scissor-jack dampers are given in Table 15. The effective

placement of damper in the bare frame is found by comparing the peak average response

reduction values of six different models of scissor-jack dampers. SJ_M_6 model damper

placements are found to be more effective and cost effective compared to other types of

damper placement and distribution. The peak average response reduction values for SJ_M_6

model frame for absolute acceleration , displacements and drifts are 71.3, 46.9 and 53.1

respectively( Table 14).

6. CONCLUSIONS

1. The Time history analysis of 20 storey benchmark moment resisting steel frame with

6 different placements of Scissor-Jack dampers is carried out for 4 Types of Time

Histories such as N-S component of El Centro, N-S component of Kobe, N-S

component of Northridge and S-E component of S_Monica.

2. The peak responses such as absolute acceleration, displacements, drifts, damper

displacements, and damper forces for the bare frame and six different models of the

frame with scissor-jack dampers are found out.

3. The average response reduction values between the bare frame and the six models are

presented. Significant reduction in seismic responses are observed in frames provided

with scissor jack dampers.

4. The frame model SJ_M_6 is found to be the effective placement of scissor –jack

dampers for the bench mark steel frame. The peak average response reduction values

for SJ_M_6 model frame for absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts are

71.3, 46.9 and 53.1 respectively (Table 14).

5. By Time history analysis , the peak inter-storey drift for the bare frame is found out

as 56 mm ( Table 7) which is greater than the permissible limit of 16 mm. However,



the peak inter-storey drift for the SJ_M_6 model frame satisfied the permissible limit

(16 mm) prescribed in the IS code (Table 15 ) which was achieved by proper

placement of scissor jack dampers in the frame.

6. Inter-storey drifts response of the frame model SJ_M_6 for the different time histories

considered in the study are given in Table 16.

REFERENCES

[1] Y. Ohtori , R.E.Christeson, B.F. Spencer (2004) , “ Benchmark control problems for

seismically excited nonlinear buildings”, Technical Report submitted to University of

Notre Dame, Indiana USA”, 2004

[2] Haskell G and Lee D, (2007) “Fluid Viscous Damping as an Alternative to Base

Isolation”. http://www.taylordevices.com/FluidViscousDamping.htm

[3] Hanson RD and Soong TT (2001) “Seismic design with supplemental energy dissipation

devices”, EERI Publication No. MNO-8.

[4] Constantinou MC and Symmans MD, (1992).” Experimental and analytical investigations

of Seismic Response of Structures with Supplemental Fluid Viscous Dampers” .

Technical Report NCEER-92-0032, National Center for Earthquake Engineering research

(NCEER), State University of New York at Baffalo, Baffalo, N.Y.

[5] IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures”, Bureau of

Indian standards, New Delhi, 2002.

[6] IS 875 (Part 1):1987, “Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for

buildings and structures”, Part 1, Dead loads, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi,

1989.

[7] IS 875 (Part 2):1987, “Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for

buildings and structures”, Part 2 Live loads, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, 1989.

[8] Patil G.R. et al., (2014), “Seismic Energy Dissipation of a Building Using Friction

Damper”, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering

(IJITEE), Volume-3, Issue-10, March 2014.

[9] Chang, K.C., Soong, T.T., Oh, S.T and Lai, M.L. (1995), “Seismic Behaviour of Steel

Frame with Added Viscoelastic Dampers”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,

Vol.121, No.10, pp 1418-1426.

[10] Mahmoodi P., (1969), “Structural Dampers”, Proc. ASCE., 95,ST8, pp:1661-1672.

[11] J.Premalatha, M.Palanisamy and R.Manju, A Study on Seismic Responses of Reinforced

Concrete (Rc) Buildings with Lateral Force Resisting Systems, International Journal of

Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 2017, pp. 1239–1254.

[12] S. S. Sanghai and S. N. Khante, Seismic Response of Unsymmetric Building with

Optimally Placed Friction Dampers. International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 72–88



SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2

SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4

SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6

Figure 12 Absolute acceleration Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Sto

rey

Absolute Acceleration (a)

Absolute acceleration VS Storey

for SJ_M_1

a_EC

a_KO

a_NR

a_SM

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Sto

rey



for SJ_M_2

a_EC

a_KO

a_NR

a_SM

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Sto

rey



for SJ_M_3

a_ECa_KOa_NRa_SM

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Sto

rey



for SJ_M_4

a_EC

a_KO

a_NR

a_SM

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Sto

rey



for SJ_M_5

a_EC

a_KO

a_NR

a_SM

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Sto

rey



for SJ_M_6

a_EC

a_K

Oa_N

R



SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2

SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4

SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6

Figure 13 Displacements Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Sto

rey

Displacement (d)

Displacements VS Storey for

SJ_M_1

d_EC

d_KO

d_NR

d_SM

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Sto

rey

Displacement (d)


SJ_M_2

d_EC

d_K

O

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Sto

rey

Displacement (d)


SJ_M_3

d_EC

d_K

O

123456789

1011121314151617181920

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30

Sto

rey

Displacement (d)


SJ_M_4

d_EC

d_K

O



SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2

SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4

SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6

Figure 14 Inter-storey drifts Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models



SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2

SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4

SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6

Figure 15 Damper displacements Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models



SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2

SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4

SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6

Figure 16 Damper forces Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models



Table 8 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_1 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements

and drifts


and drifts

S.No a d drifts % difference

BF SJ_M_2 BF SJ_M_2 BF SJ_M_2 a d drifts

20 9.57 1.76 0.39 0.32 0.034 0.012 81.6 17.7 65.9

19 5.24 1.57 0.38 0.31 0.021 0.015 70.0 17.8 27.7

18 4.95 1.37 0.36 0.30 0.028 0.018 72.3 17.2 34.8

17 4.85 1.14 0.33 0.28 0.029 0.019 76.6 15.7 35.6

16 4.14 1.01 0.30 0.26 0.028 0.019 75.5 13.7 34.1

15 4.62 1.00 0.30 0.24 0.024 0.016 78.4 18.9 33.0

14 4.89 1.23 0.29 0.22 0.015 0.015 74.8 23.7 4.0

13 4.55 1.49 0.29 0.21 0.016 0.016 67.2 28.5 2.1

12 5.85 1.70 0.30 0.20 0.021 0.017 71.0 35.3 20.0

11 6.12 1.83 0.31 0.19 0.023 0.013 70.0 39.1 41.8

10 5.98 1.90 0.30 0.18 0.017 0.013 68.2 41.9 21.1



20 9.57 2.35 0.39 0.34 0.034 0.014 75.5 14.0 59.6

19 5.24 1.87 0.38 0.32 0.021 0.017 64.3 14.4 15.8

18 4.95 1.55 0.36 0.31 0.028 0.021 68.8 14.2 26.5

17 4.85 1.29 0.33 0.29 0.029 0.021 73.5 13.1 28.4

16 4.14 1.18 0.30 0.27 0.028 0.020 71.4 11.6 27.9

15 4.62 1.29 0.30 0.25 0.024 0.017 72.2 17.3 31.4

14 4.89 1.67 0.29 0.23 0.015 0.015 65.8 22.2 1.8

13 4.55 1.99 0.29 0.22 0.016 0.016 56.3 25.8 0.1

12 5.85 2.21 0.30 0.21 0.021 0.017 62.2 30.3 18.0

11 6.12 2.32 0.31 0.20 0.023 0.014 62.1 33.8 37.2

10 5.98 2.32 0.30 0.19 0.017 0.014 61.3 36.3 14.8

9 6.13 2.26 0.29 0.18 0.020 0.015 63.1 37.9 26.0

8 6.44 2.41 0.27 0.17 0.026 0.015 62.5 38.7 40.2

7 6.49 2.56 0.24 0.15 0.024 0.015 60.6 37.7 36.2

6 5.88 2.67 0.22 0.14 0.026 0.016 54.6 35.9 40.9

5 5.54 2.72 0.20 0.13 0.030 0.019 50.8 36.5 36.1

4 5.68 2.89 0.17 0.11 0.034 0.021 49.1 36.6 37.4

3 5.21 3.22 0.13 0.09 0.038 0.024 38.2 36.4 37.2

2 5.76 3.60 0.10 0.06 0.041 0.026 37.4 36.2 36.8

1 4.61 4.06 0.056 0.04 0.056 0.036 11.8 35.6 35.6



9 6.13 1.94 0.29 0.16 0.020 0.014 68.4 43.6 31.4

8 6.44 1.98 0.27 0.15 0.026 0.015 69.3 44.5 40.4

7 6.49 2.09 0.24 0.13 0.024 0.015 67.8 44.9 39.4

6 5.88 2.21 0.22 0.12 0.026 0.015 62.3 44.3 42.6

5 5.54 2.42 0.20 0.11 0.030 0.017 56.3 44.9 43.4

4 5.68 2.70 0.17 0.09 0.034 0.018 52.4 44.9 46.0

3 5.21 3.06 0.13 0.07 0.038 0.021 41.2 44.7 45.8

2 5.76 3.50 0.10 0.05 0.041 0.023 39.3 44.2 45.1

1 4.61 4.01 0.056 0.03 0.056 0.031 13.0 43.6 43.6

Table 10 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_3 for peak absolute acceleration,displacements

and drifts



20 9.57 1.76 0.39 0.32 0.034 0.012 81.6 17.7 65.9

19 5.24 1.57 0.38 0.31 0.021 0.015 70.0 17.8 27.7

18 4.95 1.37 0.36 0.30 0.028 0.018 72.3 17.2 34.8

17 4.85 1.14 0.33 0.28 0.029 0.019 76.6 15.7 35.6

16 4.14 1.01 0.30 0.26 0.028 0.019 75.5 13.7 34.1

15 4.62 1.00 0.30 0.24 0.024 0.016 78.4 18.9 33.0

14 4.89 1.23 0.29 0.22 0.015 0.015 74.8 23.7 4.0

13 4.55 1.49 0.29 0.21 0.016 0.016 67.2 28.5 2.1

12 5.85 1.70 0.30 0.20 0.021 0.017 71.0 35.3 20.0

11 6.12 1.83 0.31 0.19 0.023 0.013 70.0 39.1 41.8

10 5.98 1.90 0.30 0.18 0.017 0.013 68.2 41.9 21.1

9 6.13 1.94 0.29 0.16 0.020 0.014 68.4 43.6 31.4

8 6.44 1.98 0.27 0.15 0.026 0.015 69.3 44.5 40.4

7 6.49 2.09 0.24 0.13 0.024 0.015 67.8 44.9 39.4

6 5.88 2.21 0.22 0.12 0.026 0.015 62.3 44.3 42.6

5 5.54 2.42 0.20 0.11 0.030 0.017 56.3 44.9 43.4

4 5.68 2.70 0.17 0.09 0.034 0.018 52.4 44.9 46.0

3 5.21 3.06 0.13 0.07 0.038 0.021 41.2 44.7 45.8

2 5.76 3.50 0.10 0.05 0.041 0.023 39.3 44.2 45.1

1 4.61 4.01 0.056 0.03 0.056 0.031 13.0 43.6 43.6


and drifts



20 9.57 1.16 0.39 0.28 0.034 0.008 87.8 28.5 76.5

19 5.24 1.08 0.38 0.27 0.021 0.010 79.4 28.0 50.6

18 4.95 0.98 0.36 0.26 0.028 0.013 80.2 26.7 55.1

17 4.85 0.88 0.33 0.25 0.029 0.013 81.8 24.3 54.7



16 4.14 0.79 0.30 0.24 0.028 0.013 81.0 21.3 52.4

15 4.62 0.79 0.30 0.22 0.024 0.012 82.9 24.8 50.1

14 4.89 0.80 0.29 0.21 0.015 0.013 83.7 28.3 15.0

13 4.55 0.80 0.29 0.20 0.016 0.014 82.3 32.6 14.4

12 5.85 0.83 0.30 0.18 0.021 0.015 85.7 39.6 30.3

11 6.12 0.97 0.31 0.17 0.023 0.015 84.1 45.1 33.8

10 5.98 1.12 0.30 0.15 0.017 0.013 81.2 49.3 22.2

9 6.13 1.28 0.29 0.14 0.020 0.012 79.1 51.6 41.0

8 6.44 1.45 0.27 0.13 0.026 0.012 77.4 51.8 51.6

7 6.49 1.65 0.24 0.12 0.024 0.013 74.6 51.5 47.2

6 5.88 1.88 0.22 0.11 0.026 0.014 67.9 51.8 47.8

5 5.54 2.16 0.20 0.09 0.030 0.015 61.0 53.4 49.2

4 5.68 2.53 0.17 0.08 0.034 0.016 55.5 54.2 52.7

3 5.21 2.98 0.13 0.06 0.038 0.017 42.7 54.5 54.2

2 5.76 3.51 0.10 0.04 0.041 0.019 39.0 54.7 55.0

1 4.61 4.07 0.056 0.03 0.056 0.025 11.8 54.4 54.4


and drifts



20 9.57 1.07 0.39 0.26 0.034 0.007 88.8 33.5 78.0

19 5.24 1.02 0.38 0.25 0.021 0.010 80.5 33.1 53.7

18 4.95 0.95 0.36 0.24 0.028 0.012 80.9 31.9 58.0

17 4.85 0.86 0.33 0.23 0.029 0.011 82.3 29.7 62.6

16 4.14 0.77 0.30 0.22 0.028 0.010 81.5 26.5 63.1

15 4.62 0.74 0.30 0.21 0.024 0.011 83.9 29.0 52.7

14 4.89 0.77 0.29 0.20 0.015 0.012 84.3 32.3 20.2

13 4.55 0.81 0.29 0.19 0.016 0.013 82.1 36.3 19.5

12 5.85 0.88 0.30 0.17 0.021 0.014 85.0 42.9 35.0

11 6.12 1.02 0.31 0.16 0.023 0.014 83.3 48.1 38.1

10 5.98 1.17 0.30 0.15 0.017 0.010 80.4 51.9 38.5

9 6.13 1.31 0.29 0.14 0.020 0.011 78.6 53.0 47.6

8 6.44 1.45 0.27 0.13 0.026 0.011 77.5 53.2 56.9

7 6.49 1.60 0.24 0.12 0.024 0.012 75.3 52.8 50.2

6 5.88 1.80 0.22 0.10 0.026 0.013 69.4 53.0 49.2

5 5.54 2.07 0.20 0.09 0.030 0.015 62.6 54.6 50.4

4 5.68 2.46 0.17 0.08 0.034 0.016 56.8 55.4 53.9

3 5.21 2.95 0.13 0.06 0.038 0.017 43.3 55.7 55.4

2 5.76 3.51 0.10 0.04 0.041 0.018 39.1 55.9 56.2

1 4.61 4.08 0.056 0.02 0.056 0.025 11.5 55.7 55.7




and drifts



20 9.57 0.99 0.39 0.24 0.034 0.006 89.7 38.4 82.2

19 5.24 0.94 0.38 0.24 0.021 0.007 82.1 37.8 65.2

18 4.95 0.88 0.36 0.23 0.028 0.009 82.2 36.2 68.6

17 4.85 0.81 0.33 0.22 0.029 0.009 83.4 33.5 67.9

16 4.14 0.73 0.30 0.21 0.028 0.010 82.3 30.2 66.0

15 4.62 0.73 0.30 0.20 0.024 0.011 84.3 32.4 56.4

14 4.89 0.75 0.29 0.19 0.015 0.011 84.7 35.4 25.6

13 4.55 0.79 0.29 0.18 0.016 0.012 82.6 39.2 25.2

12 5.85 0.85 0.30 0.17 0.021 0.013 85.5 45.4 38.9

11 6.12 0.97 0.31 0.15 0.023 0.013 84.2 50.3 43.6

10 5.98 1.12 0.30 0.14 0.017 0.011 81.2 53.8 36.7

9 6.13 1.28 0.29 0.13 0.020 0.011 79.1 54.8 46.0

8 6.44 1.44 0.27 0.12 0.026 0.011 77.6 55.0 56.4

7 6.49 1.63 0.24 0.11 0.024 0.012 74.9 54.6 52.0

6 5.88 1.87 0.22 0.10 0.026 0.013 68.2 54.9 51.2

5 5.54 2.18 0.20 0.09 0.030 0.014 60.6 56.4 52.4

4 5.68 2.58 0.17 0.07 0.034 0.015 54.6 57.1 55.8

3 5.21 3.07 0.13 0.06 0.038 0.016 41.0 57.4 57.2

2 5.76 3.60 0.10 0.04 0.041 0.017 37.5 57.5 57.8

1 4.61 4.14 0.056 0.02 0.056 0.024 10.2 57.3 57.3

Table 14 Peak average response reduction for different models of scissor jack dampers

S.No SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2 SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4 SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6

a d Drifts a d drifts a d drifts a d drifts a d drifts a d drifts

20 75.5 14.0 59.6 81.6 17.7 65.9 81.6 17.7 65.9 87.8 28.5 76.5 88.8 33.5 78.0 89.7 38.4 82.2

19 64.3 14.4 15.8 70.0 17.8 27.7 70.0 17.8 27.7 79.4 28.0 50.6 80.5 33.1 53.7 82.1 37.8 65.2

18 68.8 14.2 26.5 72.3 17.2 34.8 72.3 17.2 34.8 80.2 26.7 55.1 80.9 31.9 58.0 82.2 36.2 68.6

17 73.5 13.1 28.4 76.6 15.7 35.6 76.6 15.7 35.6 81.8 24.3 54.7 82.3 29.7 62.6 83.4 33.5 67.9

16 71.4 11.6 27.9 75.5 13.7 34.1 75.5 13.7 34.1 81.0 21.3 52.4 81.5 26.5 63.1 82.3 30.2 66.0

15 72.2 17.3 31.4 78.4 18.9 33.0 78.4 18.9 33.0 82.9 24.8 50.1 83.9 29.0 52.7 84.3 32.4 56.4

14 65.8 22.2 1.8 74.8 23.7 4.0 74.8 23.7 4.0 83.7 28.3 15.0 84.3 32.3 20.2 84.7 35.4 25.6

13 56.3 25.8 0.1 67.2 28.5 2.1 67.2 28.5 2.1 82.3 32.6 14.4 82.1 36.3 19.5 82.6 39.2 25.2

12 62.2 30.3 18.0 71.0 35.3 20.0 71.0 35.3 20.0 85.7 39.6 30.3 85.0 42.9 35.0 85.5 45.4 38.9

11 62.1 33.8 37.2 70.0 39.1 41.8 70.0 39.1 41.8 84.1 45.1 33.8 83.3 48.1 38.1 84.2 50.3 43.6

10 61.3 36.3 14.8 68.2 41.9 21.1 68.2 41.9 21.1 81.2 49.3 22.2 80.4 51.9 38.5 81.2 53.8 36.7

9 63.1 37.9 26.0 68.4 43.6 31.4 68.4 43.6 31.4 79.1 51.6 41.0 78.6 53.0 47.6 79.1 54.8 46.0

8 62.5 38.7 40.2 69.3 44.5 40.4 69.3 44.5 40.4 77.4 51.8 51.6 77.5 53.2 56.9 77.6 55.0 56.4

7 60.6 37.7 36.2 67.8 44.9 39.4 67.8 44.9 39.4 74.6 51.5 47.2 75.3 52.8 50.2 74.9 54.6 52.0



6 54.6 35.9 40.9 62.3 44.3 42.6 62.3 44.3 42.6 67.9 51.8 47.8 69.4 53.0 49.2 68.2 54.9 51.2

5 50.8 36.5 36.1 56.3 44.9 43.4 56.3 44.9 43.4 61.0 53.4 49.2 62.6 54.6 50.4 60.6 56.4 52.4

4 49.1 36.6 37.4 52.4 44.9 46.0 52.4 44.9 46.0 55.5 54.2 52.7 56.8 55.4 53.9 54.6 57.1 55.8

3 38.2 36.4 37.2 41.2 44.7 45.8 41.2 44.7 45.8 42.7 54.5 54.2 43.3 55.7 55.4 41.0 57.4 57.2

2 37.4 36.2 36.8 39.3 44.2 45.1 39.3 44.2 45.1 39.0 54.7 55.0 39.1 55.9 56.2 37.5 57.5 57.8

1 11.8 35.6 35.6 13.0 43.6 43.6 13.0 43.6 43.6 11.8 54.4 54.4 11.5 55.7 55.7 10.2 57.3 57.3

A 58.1 28.2 29.4 63.8 33.4 34.9 63.8 33.4 34.9 71.0 41.3 45.4 71.4 44.2 49.7 71.3 46.9 53.1

Note: SJ_M_1, SJ_M_2, SJ_M_3, SJ_M_4, SJ_M_5 and SJ_M_6 indicates SJ: Scissor-jack and M_6: model

number 6; S: Storey; a: absolute acceleration; d: displacement; A: Average; Bold value indicates peak average

response reduction between different models of Scissor-jack dampers. Bold and underlined values indicate

SJ_M_6 model damper placements are most effective.

Table 15 Peak damper displacement and damper forces for different models of scissor-jack dampers

S.No SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2 SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4 SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6

DD DF DD DF DD DF DD DF DD DF DD DF

20 0.042 141.08 0.034 157.72 0.034 157.72 0.022 185.98 0.021 177.77 0.019 153.90

19 0.053 178.29 0.045 203.26 0.045 203.26 0.030 246.55 0.028 235.49 0.025 203.74

18 0.066 206.79 0.057 241.93 0.057 241.93 0.037 312.09 0.035 297.86 0.031 258.06

17 0.067 182.00 0.059 222.66 0.059 222.66 0.040 327.49 0.037 312.20 0.033 271.92

16 0.066 148.76 0.058 191.10 0.058 191.10 0.040 327.88 0.038 313.01 0.034 274.04

15 0.069 142.69 0.062 197.42 0.062 197.42 0.044 353.60 0.041 336.01 0.037 296.65

14 0.072 147.17 0.065 204.66 0.065 204.66 0.048 376.49 0.044 358.25 0.040 318.25

13 0.074 142.31 0.067 203.45 0.067 203.45 0.050 393.31 0.047 372.50 0.043 334.62

12 0.073 132.71 0.068 193.01 0.068 193.01 0.052 400.31 0.049 377.80 0.044 343.38

11 0.069 123.71 0.064 173.22 0.064 173.22 0.051 386.17 0.048 362.65 0.044 334.39

10 0.063 135.70 0.059 110.12 0.059 110.12 0.050 73.63 0.046 345.08 0.043 322.69

9 0.060 159.32 0.056 128.12 0.056 128.12 0.050 73.97 0.046 337.31 0.043 320.68

8 0.062 181.93 0.057 148.26 0.057 148.26 0.049 84.73 0.045 379.14 0.043 368.11

7 0.065 199.58 0.059 166.57 0.059 166.57 0.049 97.55 0.046 456.62 0.044 439.03

6 0.068 213.27 0.062 183.28 0.062 183.28 0.051 113.79 0.049 550.70 0.047 526.53

5 0.070 223.17 0.063 198.10 0.063 198.10 0.053 135.77 0.052 132.66 0.050 630.12

4 0.076 230.79 0.065 210.00 0.065 210.00 0.056 155.89 0.054 153.13 0.052 728.38

3 0.082 243.44 0.070 227.72 0.070 227.72 0.059 178.47 0.057 173.51 0.055 827.78

2 0.086 263.07 0.075 251.49 0.075 251.49 0.061 201.37 0.060 195.10 0.058 938.22

1 0.066 200.07 0.060 201.00 0.060 201.00 0.050 164.00 0.048 157.00 0.009 152.00



Table 16 Inter-storey drifts response of SJ_M_6 frame


20 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.006

19 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.004 0.007

18 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.005 0.009

17 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.005 0.009

16 0.007 0.008 0.010 0.005 0.008

15 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.005 0.011

14 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.006 0.011

13 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.006 0.012

12 0.009 0.011 0.013 0.007 0.013

11 0.009 0.011 0.013 0.007 0.013

10 0.009 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.011

9 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.007 0.011

8 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.007 0.011

7 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.007 0.012

6 0.011 0.010 0.013 0.008 0.013

5 0.011 0.010 0.014 0.008 0.014

4 0.011 0.010 0.015 0.008 0.015

3 0.011 0.012 0.016 0.008 0.016

2 0.011 0.013 0.016 0.008 0.016

1 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.010 0.016

seismic response of multistoreyed steel frame with vis cous fluid scissor jack … ·...

Documents