,

-
/2015/
5 - 6 2015
5 - 6 NOVEMBER 2015
FIRST SCIENTIFIC - APPLIED CONFERENCE WITH INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION
REHABILITATION AND STRENGTHENING OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
STRUCTURES /RSBS2015/
UNIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURE, CIVIL ENGINEERING AND GEODESY

APPLICATION OF DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR SEISMIC UPGRADE

OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
B. Belev1, I. Mualla2, A. Alaee3
Keywords: seismic upgrade, damping systems, building structures
Research area: earthquake engineering
ABSTRACT
The paper presents briefly the philosophy of capacity design adopted in the modern
earthquake-resistant design codes and its evolution towards the structural fuse concept. The
major types of damper devices used in the contemporary seismic protection systems are
overviewed. The advantages of the passive energy dissipation systems over the conventional
approaches for seismic retrofit of buildings and facilities are summarized.
A few seismic retrofit projects implementing friction dampers of European supplier
are presented.

1. Introduction
Originating from the 70-ies of the last century, the capacity design concept has now
become a worldwide-accepted approach in earthquake-resistant design. It assumes that the
structural system must be made as insensitive as possible to the strongly-variable and
difficult-to-predict characteristics of seismic actions. This can be achieved only if the
structural engineer introduces a hierarchy in the resistances of the structural members in a
way which results in a well-predictable and ductile seismic performance. The capacity design
concept is also named failure mode control implying that the designer must provide
favourable pattern of plastic (dissipative) zones which does not endanger the overall safety of
the building/facility. It is also recognized that even the structures made of very ductile
1

B. Belev, Prof. Dr., Dept. of steel and timber structures, UACEG, Sofia, e-mail:
belev_fce@uacg.bg
2
I. Mualla, Dr., CTO, Damptech, Lyngby, Denmark, e-mail: ihm@byg.dtu.dk
3
A. Alaee, Dr., CEO, B.A.T. Engineers, Tehran, Iran

materials, such as structural steel have brittle components which must be protected from
overstressing through providing extra-strength. In moment-resisting frames, this concept
resulted in a design strategy called strong-columns-weak-beams, implying that the ductile
frame beams must be purposely made weaker than the frame columns in order to avoid
formation of weak storey and/or total collapse initiated by premature column failure.
Based on the vast experience and lessons learnt from many major earthquakes it
became clear that the conventional structures relying on their ductile response could really
survive and save human lives but in general they failed to limit the extent of damage which
resulted in heavy financial losses and business interruption. In this connection, the
development of the structural fuse concept (SFC) can be viewed upon a further step in the
evolution of the capacity design philosophy. A similar concept named Damage-tolerant
structures was proposed by Prof. Akira Wada.
The SFC employs a principle from the field of electrical engineering where a cheap
and replaceable fuse is inserted into the circuit in order to protect its more important
components from damage in case a sudden surge of voltage. This is why the structural fuses
must be the weakest components of the structural system which must dissipate via hysteretic
response a significant part of seismic input energy and keep the response of the primary
gravity-load-resisting members within elastic range.
The eccentrically-braced frame (EBF) is considered the first implementation of the
SFC in seismic engineering. Other systems related to the concept are the so-called bucklingrestrained braces (BRB) and rocking systems. However, the true implementation of SFC
which is superior in comparison to EBFs and BRBs is seen in the various forms of the socalled passive energy dissipation systems (PED-systems).

2. Passive energy dissipation and types of supplemental damping

devices
According to the classification of Soong and Dargush [7], three major structural
protective systems could be used (1) seismic (base) isolation, (2) passive energy
dissipation, and (3) semi-active and active control systems. Damper devices of different
types could be used in any of these three options, but they are typically the key component of
the PED-systems. Depending on the response of the dampers to imposed relative
displacements and/or relative velocities at their end points of attachment, three major types
of devices could be identified according to the classification of FEMA 273 [1]: (a)
displacement-dependent devices (e.g. metallic dampers and friction dampers); (b) velocitydependent dampers (fluid viscous dampers, solid visco-elastic dampers, etc.); and (c) other
types (shape-memory alloys, self-centering devices, etc.). Comprehensive details of the
energy-dissipation mechanism and mathematical modelling of these devices could be found
elsewhere [1, 7].
Initially the PED-systems were meant to add supplemental damping only and
considered mainly as a tool for enhanced control of the interstorey drifts. It is believed,
however, that the inclusion of a damping system adds much more merits and advantages. In
new-built buildings and facilities it will enhance the overall seismic performance in terms of
reduced ductility demands, which implies less damage to structural and non-structural parts
and more economical design of members and connections. While the available ductility of
the conventional structures is problematic following a strong earthquake, a building/facility
with a properly designed damping system will better preserve its energy dissipation capacity
and will not be vulnerable to the common aftershocks.

STRUCTURAL
PROTECTIVE
SYSTEMS

SEISMIC
(BASE)
ISOLATION

PASSIVE ENERGY
DISSIPATION
SYSTEMS

SEMI-ACTIVE
AND ACTIVE
CONTROL

Figure 1. Types of structural protective systems according to [7]

When applied for seismic retrofit of existing structures, the PED-systems could be a
economic and time-saving alternative to the conventional upgrade measures (e.g. addition of
new RC shear walls), and an efficient engineering tool for correction of seismic deficiencies
such as irregularities, suppression of torsional response, etc.
The displacement-dependent dampers (metallic dampers, friction devices, etc.) are
relatively cheap, durable and show well-defined predictable response which is not sensitive
to the frequency of excitation. The storey shear forces can be limited to predefined levels
irrespective of the intensity of the ground motion. Therefore, the supporting members can be
safely designed according to the capacity design rules. However, the force-displacement
response of these dampers is nonlinear which complicates the analysis and design. These
dampers are sensitive to temperature effects and long-term deformations (shrinkage, creep,
etc.) of the primary structure. They add both damping and stiffness but may not be activated
by small earthquakes. The metallic dampers, in particular, may have potential low-fatigue
problems, while the friction dampers may suffer from degradation of the contact surfaces and
variation of the friction coefficient in long term.

3. Rotational friction dampers (RFDs) for seismic protection and

vibration control
The original configuration of the rotational friction damper (RFD) developed by the
first author consists of steel plates clamped together by a prestressed steel bolt to form a Tshaped device. In-between the steel plates circular friction pad discs made of high-tech
composite material are inserted. In order to maintain a constant pressure at the friction
interfaces several disc springs, external steel plates and hardened washers are used. The slip
capacity of the device and its energy dissipation potential can be easily increased by adding
more layers of steel plates and friction pads. Complete description of the device and review
of parameters influencing the dynamic response of structures with friction dampers along
with discussion of efficiency criteria can be found in [5].
In 2001, an international team conducted intensive research program on a three-storey
building equipped with RFDs at the advanced large-scale shake-table testing facility of the
NCREE in Taiwan. The test building was a steel moment-resisting frame structure with 3.0
m storey height and 4.5 m bay width in the direction of shaking (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Layout of full-scale testing at NCREE and closer view of one of the RFDs

The performance of the damped structure was evaluated for 14 cases of seismic input
with peak ground acceleration (PGA) from 0.05g to 0.30g. Several patterns of the damper
slip resistances along the height of the building were used but each of them was kept for a
couple of tests of different intensity. For example, the Kobe Takatori record was first applied
with PGA = 0.1g followed by consecutive shaking with PGA of 0.05g, 0.15g and 0.175g,
respectively without readjusting the bolt clamping forces and device slip capacities. The
other tests with stronger ground shaking (PGA = 0.15g - 0.30g) demonstrated the remarkable
efficiency of the damping system in reducing the lateral displacements and interstorey drifts
of the test building by 70 to 80 %. More detailed information on the testing carried out in
NCREE and its results can be found in [6].
Further research, development and commercial supply of RFDs with improved
configurations and broad range of slip capacities are now provided by the company
Damptech AS based in Denmark. The small capacity dampers (10 200 kN) typically
have a T- or V-shape and a single rotational friction hinge (Fig. 3), while the dampers with
larger slip capacity (300 2500 kN) are usually multi-joint devices (Fig. 4). The largest
damper fabricated and tested by Damptech has the impressive slip capacity of 5000 kN.
The typical arrangements of Damptech friction dampers include a supporting V- or
chevron brace. A sliding joint with out-of-plane restraint must be used for connecting the tip
of the supporting brace to the floor beam. Fig. 5 shows the layout of the friction dampers
used in the tallest building in Japan (Abeno Harukas Bldg. in Osaka). Rotational friction
dampers have been also used in several base-isolated buildings. Seismic (base) isolation (see
Fig. 1) is a protection technique for buildings and other structures which reduces
significantly the seismic energy input and related shear forces and interstorey drifts. Other
applications of RFDs include industrial facilities and power plants were they have been
successfully used for reducing machine-induced vibrations. More information on the topic
can be found on the web [8]. Rigorous testing of sample damper units has been
systematically carried out prior to their shipment to the respective project site in order to
confirm the specified target properties of the devices.

Figure 3. T- and V-shaped RFDs with single friction hinge

Figure 4. Multi-joint large-capacity RFDs

Figure 5. Damper arrangement in the tallest building of Japan

4. Major seismic deficiencies of existing structures and basic

approaches to seismic upgrade
Many publications have summarized and made classifications of the basic issues faced
by the structural engineers during a rigorous seismic assessment of existing buildings and
facilities. One of the most comprehensive classifications of the seismic deficiencies is given
by FEMA 547 [2]. In order to develop efficient strategies for seismic rehabilitation FEMA

547 has placed these deficiencies into categories most of which are common to all building
types. These deficiencies are related to problems with:
(1) Global strength
(2) Global stiffness
(3) Configuration (irregularities in plan and along the height)
(4) Load path
(5) Component detailing (brittle or fast-degrading post-elastic behaviour)
(6) Horizontal diaphragms
(7) Foundations
In addition, FEMA 547 has included the category Other deficiencies, related to
geologic hazards, pounding hazard of adjacent buildings and deterioration (damage) of
structural materials produced by various factors.
When the major seismic deficiencies for a specific building are identified, its
rehabilitation could implement one ore several classes of measures listed below [2]:
(1) Adding new elements (e.g. RC shear walls, steel bracing, etc.)
(2) Improving the performance of existing members in terms of strength and
deformation capacity
(3) Improving the connectivity and integrity between the components
(4) Reducing the seismic demand by removing masses or by seismic protection
(supplemental damping systems or seismic isolation).
In addition to the above measures FEMA 547 suggests that selective removal of
components may be carried out in order to avoid damaging interaction with other
components or reduce available irregularities.
A good illustration of the basic approaches to seismic retrofit can be made in ADRSformat charts, where ADRS stands for Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum [4].
The comparison of the conventional structural strengthening (Fig. 6(a)) with the more
advanced enhancement of seismic energy dissipation (Fig. 6(d)) reveals that in the
conventional retrofit the increase of global strength is usually accompanied by unwanted
increase of global stiffness which results in further increase in lateral seismic forces.

5. Examples of seismic retrofit with RFDs

One of the first applications of the Damptech friction dampers was in two ancient
Japanese temple buildings with timber structure. Both temples had a soft basement storey
and by adding dampers and bracings both stiffness and supplemental damping were
increased. The first temple with RFD devices was the Yakuri-ji Temple in Kagawa
Prefecture (Fig. 7).
The passive energy dissipation concept was implemented by the authors for the seismic
protection of an industrial facility in Greece which had to be erected over an existing RC
substructure. The design PGA for the site was 0.24g. The target was to reduce the design
base shear to levels below 1120 kN, for which the supporting RC sub-structure was
originally designed. Preliminary calculations indicated that a conventional steel structure
with chevron braces was not acceptable due to the very high base shear (about 3000 kN
according to the Greek seismic code). The design solution involved RFDs of small slip
capacity (50-60 kN per device), which resulted in total slip capacity per each major direction
smaller than 600 kN (Fig. 8).
An example of rooftop extension of existing residential building (2+2 stories) with
light-weight steel structure and application of Damptech dampers is shown on Fig. 9.

Figure 6. Comparison of basic retrofit measures in ADRS-format [4]

Figure 7. Japanese temple upgraded with RFD devices [8]

Figure 8. Industrial facility with V-shaped RFD devices (Greece)

Figure 9. Steel rooftop extension with RFDs (Greece)

Passive energy dissipation systems and devices can be successfully used for seismic
upgrade of single-storey buildings with precast RC structure. Typical problems associated
with this structural system are its relatively low lateral stiffness, low inherent damping, low
structural redundancy and connections between primary structural members which are not
suitable for seismic areas. The set of these drawbacks often results in severe damage in
strong ground shaking. A study made in Turkey has revealed that the majority of the existing
buildings of this type (industrial single-storey precast RC frame structures) are highly
vulnerable to seismic actions and very few of them satisfy the provisions of current Turkish
design code [3]. An example of seismic retrofit of such building with V-shaped rotational
friction dampers is shown in Fig. 10. The major advantage of this approach was the fact that
it was implemented without any business interruption of the building.

Figure 10. Seismic upgrade of precast RC frames (Turkey)

The last example illustrates the application of rotational friction dampers for the seismic
retrofit of a twenty-storey office building in Tehran, Iran with a steel primary structure. It
was concluded by the local consulting company that the building does not meet the
requirements of the current design code. The locations of the added braces with RFDs are
indicated on Fig. 11 with thick lines. In order not to overstress the existing columns the
added braces with dampers were arranged in alternating bays along the height where

possible. Fig. 12 shows a typical detailing used for this project, developed by the third
author. The efficiency of the chosen retrofit solution was confirmed by nonlinear time
history response analyses.

Figure 11. Plan of added braces with dampers in multistorey steel structure (Iran)

Figure 12. Typical joint detailing of braces with dampers (Iran)

6. Conclusions
Based on the review of many publications on applications of passive energy dissipation
systems for seismic upgrade of existing structures and experience of the authors in research
and design, the following essential conclusions could be drawn:
1) The passive damping systems have reached the status of a mature and reliable
seismic protection technology;
2) The application of displacement-dependent damping devices (and friction dampers in
particular) complicates the design due to their nonlinear response but could be a powerful
and non-expensive engineering tool for enhancing the safety of existing buildings and
industrial facilities;
3) The retrofit solutions with RFDs may offer certain advantages over the conventional
seismic retrofit measures such as avoidance of foundation strengthening and business
interruption;
4) The major difficulty when applying this relatively new technology is the deficient
deformation capacity of the older structures. The critical point is to provide deformation
compatibility of the added damping system with the existing structure through selective
upgrade of critical members and joints with advanced materials such as FRP.
5) Despite that a new European product standard for anti-seismic devices is available
(EN 15129), a new section to Eurocode 8 with design guidance and provisions for the
implementation of damping devices in new and existing structures is needed.

LITERATURE
1. FEMA, NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 273),
Washington D.C., 1997.
2. FEMA, Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA
547), Washington D.C., 2006.
3. Ildirim, S., Asik, G., Erkus, B., Mualla, I., Seismic retrofit of single story precast
reinforced concrete structures with infill walls using friction dampers. Second European
conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, August 2014.
4. IST Group, Methods for Seismic Retrofitting of Structures, MIT, 2004.
5. Mualla I.H., Belev B. Performance of steel frames with a new friction damper
device under earthquake excitation. Engineering Structures, 2002, 24(3): 365-371.
6. Mualla I.H., Nielsen L.O., Belev B., Liao W.I., Loh C.H., Agrawal A. Performance
of friction-damped frame structure: shaking table testing and numerical simulations.
Proceedings of 7th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, USA, 2002,
vol. I, pp. 287-294.
7. Soong T.T., Dargush G.F. Passive energy dissipation systems in structural
engineering. J. Wiley & Sons, 1997.
8. www.damptech.com