Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Simple design method of structure with metallic yielding dampers based

on elasticplastic response reduction curve
Hua Shen a,b, Ruifu Zhang a,, Dagen Weng a, Cong Gao a, Hao Luo a, Chao Pan a,c
a
Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Nantong Vocational University, Nantong 226007, China
c
College of Civil Engineering, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Metallic yielding dampers (MYDs) can effectively improve the seismic performance of structures and are
Received 15 January 2017 used in many practical engineering applications. In this paper, a simple elasticplastic design method of a
Revised 14 July 2017 structure with MYDs is proposed based on the elasticplastic response reduction curve (EPRRC). In
Accepted 16 July 2017
widely used traditional design methods based on the elastic response reduction curve, the elasticplastic
behavior of the main structure is neglected. However, such methods may overestimate the vibration con-
trol effect of MYDs, especially their effect on acceleration reduction, which is demonstrated in this study.
Keywords:
The EPRRC, which can directly reflect the relationship between MYDs characteristic parameters and the
Metallic yielding damper
Elasticplastic design method
responses of the structure with MYDs in the elasticplastic range, is proposed to improve the reliability of
Response reduction curve a structure with MYDs. Then, the corresponding design procedures are presented. To illustrate and verify
Response spectrum the effectiveness of the proposed design method, a six-story reinforced concrete frame is analyzed by
Energy dissipation time history analysis. In conclusion, the proposed design method for the structure with MYDs can ade-
quately satisfy the seismic performance targets under different seismic levels.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In traditional aseismic structures, seismic energy is absorbed by
the plastic deformation of the structural members such as beams,
columns and braces, which may cause structural damage under
earthquake events [1]. Such damage is usually difficult to check,
expensive to repair, and may pose a serious threat to peoples lives
and properties. To prevent such damage, the concept of control
strategies has been introduced into the field of structural engineer-
ing. Among the commonly used structure control methods, passive
energy dissipation technology has been proven to be an effective
method and is widely used in building and bridge structures [2,3].
A metallic yielding damper (MYD) is a type of hysteretic dam-
per made of metal that utilizes the plastic deformation of hys-
teretic materials, such as mild steel, to dissipate the input
seismic energy. Kelly et al. [4] first introduced MYDs into a building
structure to dissipate seismic energy after conducting conceptual
and experimental studies. In the ensuing years, considerable
efforts were made to investigate the seismic performance of the
structure with MYDs and use these devices in the field of structural
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhangruifu@tongji.edu.cn (R. Zhang).
vibration control. It was confirmed that such devices can effec-
tively improve the structural seismic performance [1,516].
According to the type of yielding mechanism, MYDs can be catego-
rized into flexural plate systems, torsional bar dampers, yielding
ring dampers, extrusion devices, shear panel dampers, etc. [17].
In addition to added damping and stiffness devices and bucking-
restrained braces, many new MYDs have been developed in recent
years, such as a dual-function metallic damper [18], a shear and
flexural yielding damper [19], and dual-pipe dampers [20].
MYDs have been found to have many advantages such as an
easy manufacturing process, convenient installation, relatively
low cost, and extreme reliability; therefore, they have been
adopted in many engineering practices [2125]. Generally speak-
ing, by incorporating MYDs into a structure, the stiffness and
damping of the structure can be significantly adjusted [26]. More
seismic energy is absorbed because of the increased damping.
Hence, the seismic responses of a structure with MYDs can be
clearly reduced. However, according to the response spectrum the-
ory, the added stiffness of the structure with MYDs may result in a
decrease in displacement and an increase in acceleration. Because
of the great influence of MYDs on the structural performance and
the coupling effect of the added damping and stiffness, the practi-
cal design of a structure with MYDs is more complex than that of a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.047
0141-0296/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114 99

structure with viscous dampers, where only the damping charac-
teristic is adjusted [17].
To adopt MYDs in practical engineering applications and meet
performance targets, the development of appropriate design meth-
ods becomes very necessary. Tsai et al. [8] proposed a design
method that incorporates the capacity design concept and the opti-
mal strength ratio of the main structure into MYDs, and Clark et al.
[27] suggested using the equivalent static lateral-force provision to
design a structure with MYDs. The Japan Society of Seismic Isola-
tion proposed a design method based on the elastic response
reduction curve (ERRC) to design a structure with MYDs [28],
which has been widely applied. However, these design methods
do not consider the inelastic behavior of the main structure. Under
a moderate or severe seismic event, the main structure may expe-
rience an obvious inelastic behavior, and these design methods
may not be suitable in such cases. To overcome these deficiencies,
two well-known displacement-based design methodsa coeffi-
cient method based on FEMA 273 [29] and a capacity-spectrum
method based on ATC-40 [30]are used to design structures with
MYDs. Because of the limitations involved in the application of
MYDs to existing structures and the complexity in the static non-
linear analysis of structures with MYDs, the direct displacement-
based design method [3133] was developed. However, structural
damage is caused by both the maximum displacement and the
accumulated energy dissipation during seismic events. Thus, the
energy-based design method was developed for structures with
MYDs [3436]. Considering the actual mechanical interaction
between the damper and the brace, Lomiento et al. [37] proposed
a graphical design method. Some optimization algorithms and con-
trol theories are also used to design structures with MYDs, that is,
to determine the number of MYDs along with their locations and
characteristic parameters [3844]. Although some design methods
that consider the inelastic behavior of a structure have been pro-
posed, they are still very complex for practical use. Therefore, it
is necessary to develop a design method for structures with MYDs
that is simpler and more practical but also considers the structural
inelastic behavior.
In this study, while considering the elasticplastic behavior of
the main structure, the existing ERRC is expanded to the elastic
plastic response reduction curve (EPRRC) based on the equivalent
linear theory and the response spectrum theory. Within the elas-
ticplastic range, the EPRRC can directly reflect the relationship
between the MYDs characteristic parameters and the responses
of a structure with MYDs. Then, the results of comparisons
between the EPRRC and the ERRC are analyzed, and a simple design
method based on the EPRRC is proposed. Lastly, the effectiveness of
the proposed design method is verified by applying it to a six-story
reinforced concrete (RC) frame and performing a time history
analysis.
2. Response reduction curve
2.1. Response reduction indexes
The peak responses of an elastic single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) system can be predicted by a common elastic response
spectrum. The mathematical relationship of the peak displacement
Sd , pseudo-velocity Spv , and pseudo-acceleration Spa can be
expressed as follows [45]:

2
T T
Sd T; f Spv T; f Spa T; f 1
2p 2p
where T and f are the fundamental period and the damping ratio of
the SDOF system, respectively.
The forcedisplacement relationship of an elastic main struc-
ture with an MYD is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the elastic stiffness
of the main structure is K f , and the paralleled MYD is idealized as a
bilinear model with elastic stiffness K a , yielding force F ay , and dis-
placement uay . The total curve is bilinear with the initial stiffness
K 0 calculated by adding the elastic stiffness of the main structure
K f and that of the MYD K a . Once the MYD reaches its yielding dis-
placement, the corresponding total lateral force is F y , and the
increase in the lateral force is resisted only by the main structure
until the maximum displacement umax . The equivalent linear
method is adopted herein to consider the inelastic behavior of
the structure with an MYD. Hence, the bilinear system can be sub-
stituted with an equivalent linear model with stiffness K eq , as
shown in Fig. 1. Then, the seismic response of the structure with
the MYD can be estimated using the design response spectrum
with the equivalent period T eq and the damping ratio feq . This esti-
mation procedure is discussed further in this section.
The equivalent period T eq can be determined as:
s s
Kf la
T eq Tf Tf 2
K eq la K a =K f
where la umax =uay is the maximum ductility coefficient, and T f is
the period of the main structure.
Considering the inherent damping ratio f0 and the hysteretic
damping ratio of the MYD fa , the total equivalent damping ratio
of the elastic structure with the MYD feq can be expressed as
follows:
feq f0 fa 3
where f0 is usually set to 5% for an RC structure and 2% for a steel
structure. The term fa can be calculated as follows [30]:
ED
fa 4
4pES

Fig. 1. Forcedisplacement relationship of the elastic structure with the MYD.

100 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114

where ED and ES are the energy dissipated by damping in one cycle

T eq
of reciprocating movement and the maximum strain energy of the Rd Df 15
Tf
structure with the MYD, respectively. Then, using the maximum
ductility coefficient la , fa can be obtained as follows [46]: The expression for Ra is the same as that in Eq. (14).

2K a =K f la  1
fa 5 2.2. ERRC
pla K a =K f la
While under seismic excitation, considering that the maximum Substituting Eqs. (2) and (12) into Eq. (13) for the SPS, Rd can be
ductility coefficient varies from 1 to la because of the randomness rewritten as:
of the seismic response, the equivalent damping ratio feq can be s !
calculated as follows: Df la 1 la
Rd  16
Z la 2 la K a =K f 1 K a =K f la K a =K f
1 2 1 pla  1
feq f0 fa dl f0 ln 6
la 1 la pp lpa Substituting Eqs. (12) and (16) into Eq. (14) for the SPS, Ra can
be rewritten as:
1 s !
p 7 Df 1 la K a =K f
1 K a =K f Ra  1 17
2 1 K a =K f la
To compare the seismic responses of the structure with the
MYD with those of the structure without the MYD, two response Rd and Ra can be expressed as a function of K a =K f and la from Eqs.
reduction indexes Rd and Ra are defined as follows [46]: (16) and (17), respectively. Rd and Ra for the MPSs and the long-
period structures can also be derived in the same manner. The
Sd T eq ; feq T eq Spv T eq ; f0 expressions for Rd and Ra are based on the assumption that the main
Rd Df 8
Sd T f ; f0 T f Spv T f ; f0 structure is elastic and can predict the control effects on the seismic
responses of the main structure with an MYD. Hence, the Rd  Ra
Spa T eq ; feq T f Spv T eq ; f0 curve is usually called an ERRC.
Ra Df 9 In this study, to derive the ERRC, the design response spectrum
Spa T f ; f0 T eq Spv T f ; f0
provided by the Chinese code for the seismic design of buildings
s [47] is used and can be expressed as follows:
1 25f0 8
Df 10 10g2  0:45T 0:45amax g; 0 < T 6 0:1 s
1 25feq >
>
>
>
>
< g2 amax g; 0:1 s < T 6 T g
where Rd and Ra are the displacement reduction index and the Spa T g c 18
pseudo-acceleration (base shear) reduction index, respectively, > T g2 amax g;
>
> T g < T 6 5T g
>
>
:
and Df represents the average reduction of the seismic responses. g2 0:2c  g1 T  5T g amax g; 5T g < T 6 6 s
Considering the characteristics of pseudo-velocity and pseudo-
acceleration spectra within different fundamental periods, the for- 0:05  f
mulas of Rd and Ra can be derived according to the following c 0:9 19
0:3 6f
procedures:
0:05  f
(i) For short-period structures (SPSs), Spa is a constant, and Spv is g1 0:02 20
4 32f
a linear function. The equivalent period of the structure with
the MYD changes from the initial fundamental period T 0 to
0:05  f
T eq . The spectral velocity of the structure with the MYD g2 1 21
0:08 1:6f
can be evaluated according to the following equation:
Z T eq where T g is the characteristic period of the design response spec-
1
Spv T eq ; f0 Spv T; f0 dT 11 trum; amax is the maximum value of the seismic influence coeffi-
T eq  T 0
cient; c is the exponential index of the descending branch; g1 is
T0

the adjusting factor of the linear descending branch; g2 is the damp-

where Spv is the average pseudo-velocity from T 0 to T eq , and
ing modification factor; and g is the acceleration caused by gravity.
T 0 can be calculated as follows:
In practice, the fundamental periods of most building structures
s s
are between 0.1 s and 5T g ; therefore, the discussions here are
Kf 1
T0 Tf Tf 12 mainly limited to an SPS 0:1s < T 6 T g and an MPS
K0 1 K a =K f
T g < T 6 5T g . Based on the concept of an ERRC, the acceleration
Substituting Eq. (11) into Eqs. (8) and (9), Rd and Ra can be response spectrum is first transformed into a pseudo-velocity
obtained as follows: response spectrum according to Eq. (1), and then, Rd of the ERRC
is derived as follows:
T eq T 0 T eq
Rd Df 13
Tf 2T f (i) For SPSs 0:1 s < T 6 T g , Rd can be expressed as:

2

Tf Sd T eq ; feq g2eq T eq T eq T 0
Ra Rd 14 Rd 22
T eq Sd T f ; f0 g20 T f 2T f

(ii) For medium-period structures (MPSs) and long-period where g20 and g2eq are the damping modification factors of f0
structures, Spv is a constant. Therefore, Eq. (8) can be simpli- and feq , respectively.
fied as follows: (ii) For MPSs T g < T 6 5T g , Rd can be expressed as:
 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114



Sd T eq ; feq g2eq T eq 2ceq T f c0 ceq
Rd
Sd T f ; f0 g20 T f Tg
where c20 and ceq are the exponential indexes of the descend-
ing branches of f0 and feq , respectively.
According to Eqs. (14), (22), and (23), for f0 0:05,
1:5 6 la 6 15, 0 6 K a =K f 6 4, and T f =T g 1:5, the ERRCs of the
SPS and the MPS can be plotted in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively.
For a constant la , as K a =K f increases, both Ra and Rd of the SPS
decrease (Fig. 2(a)), which implies that the control effect on struc-
tural vibration is enhanced. When K a =K f exceeds a certain value
and increases further, the improvement in the vibration control
effect may be limited. For a constant K a =K f , as la increases, Rd
changes slightly whereas Ra decreases significantly.
A comparison of Fig. 2(a) and (b) shows some similarities as
well as some differences between them. As K a =K f increases, Rd of
the MPS decreases significantly, as in the case of the SPS. For a
smaller value of the constant la , Ra increases as K a =K f increases,
whereas for a larger value of the constant la , Ra first decreases
and then increases as K a =K f increases, as in the case of the MPS.
2.3. EPRRC
Under frequent seismic events, the main structure can remain
elastic, whereas MYDs can yield and dissipate seismic energy even
though their deformation may be small. However, under moderate
or severe seismic events, both the main structure and the MYDs
may yield and enter the plastic range. In such cases, the stiffness
of the structure with the MYDs decreases significantly and its
dynamic performance changes accordingly. Based on the concept
of performance-based seismic design, a structure should satisfy
the performance targets under different intensity-level seismic
events. Clearly, the seismic responses of the structures based on
the elastic design method cannot be guaranteed to meet the per-
formance targets of the structures in the plastic range. Therefore,
it is worthwhile to develop an EPRRC to consider the main struc-
tures inelastic behavior and establish the theoretical basis for a
simple elasticplastic design method for structures with MYDs.
2.3.1. Forcedisplacement relationship
In this study, the main structure is considered to be inelastic
and is represented by a bilinear model. With the superposition of
the bilinear model of the main structure and that of the MYD, a
Fig. 2. ERRCs (f0 0:05).
101
trilinear model can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 3. A comparison
23
of this figure with Fig. 1 indicates that the linear main structure
is replaced by a bilinear model. In Fig. 3, the yielding force, yielding
displacement, elastic stiffness, and ratio of post-yielding stiffness
are denoted by F fy , ufy , K f , and b, respectively. K 0f and K 0eq are the
secant stiffnesses of the main structure and the total curve, respec-
tively. The other parameters have already been described in the
previous section.
When minor inelastic deformations are sustained in the main
structure, the assumption of superposition can still be used
approximately. To maximize the energy dissipation capacity of
the MYDs and keep the main structure in the minor inelastic range,
it is necessary to achieve sufficiently large displacement ductility
lmax lfy =lay , as recommended by Vargas et al. [33]. Based on
their studies, the range lmax P 5 was proposed for most cases,
i.e., la P 5lf , for the same umax .
2.3.2. Equivalent period
For the structure with the MYD, the MYD should be designed to
yield before the main structure, as shown in Fig. 3. As the displace-
ment u increases, the equivalent period T 0eq of the inelastic main
structure with the MYD may vary as follows:
(i) When u 6 uay , both the main structure and the MYD are in
the elastic range. Therefore, T 0eq is equal to T 0 and can be cal-
culated according to Eq. (12).
(ii) When uay < u < ufy , the main structure is in the elastic range,
whereas the MYD is in the plastic range. Thus, T 0eq is equal to
T eq and can be calculated according to Eq. (2).
(iii) When u P ufy , both the main structure and the MYD are in
the plastic range. With the plastic development of the main
structure, the fundamental period increases as its stiffness
declines. By using the equivalent linear method, K 0f and K 0eq
can be considered to be the equivalent stiffnesses of the
main structure and the structure with the MYD, respectively.
Then, the equivalent period of the main structure T 0f and that
of the structure with the MYD T 0eq can be calculated as
follows:
s s
Kf lf
T 0f T f T 24
K 0f 1 blf  b
f
102 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114

Fig. 3. Forcedisplacement relationship of the inelastic structure with the MYD.

s v Z lf
u 1
K 0f u 1 blf  b f0f f0f ldl
T 0eq T 0f T 0f t 25 lf
K 0eq 1 blf  b 1 Ka
a Kf
1
( )
2qa  m lf n
respectively, where lf umax =ufy and a ufy =uay are defined ln ln n 30
pm  nlf mlf  1 nn=m m
as the ductility coefficient of the main structure and the ratio
of the yielding displacement of the main structure to that of
q a  ab K a =K f 31
the MYD, respectively.

2.3.3. Equivalent damping ratio m ab 32

Under moderate or severe seismic events, both the main struc-
ture and the MYD may enter the plastic range and dissipate seismic n a K a =K f 33
energy. Therefore, by including three parts, namely, the inherent
damping ratio f0 , the nonlinear hysteretic damping ratio of the
2.3.4. Elasticplastic response reduction indexes
MYD f0a , and that of the main structure f0f , the total equivalent
As mentioned above, Rd and Ra are used as the evaluation
damping ratio of the structure with the MYD can be expressed as
indexes of the dampers control effect, although they are usually
follows:
calculated by neglecting the inelastic behavior of the main struc-
f0eq f0 f0a f0f 26 ture. Once the main structure enters the inelastic range, it will start
to dissipate seismic energy. In such a case, the main structure itself
According to Eq. (4), following the calculation detailed in can also be seen as a special damper, and this advantageous effect
Appendix A, the two terms f0a and f0f with the maximum ductility should also be considered in the performance evaluation of struc-
coefficients la and lf , respectively, can be expressed as follows: tures. Therefore, considering the inelastic behavior of the main
2K a =K f la  1 structure, the total equivalent damping ratio of the structure with-
f0a 27 out the MYD feq can be expressed as follows:
pla K a =K f a bla  a
feq f0 ff 34
2aq1  blf  1
f0f 28
plf K a =K f a ablf  1 where ff is the nonlinear hysteretic damping ratio of the main
structure and is different from the damping ratio f0f in Eq. (26)
where q is the damping modification factor, and its values are listed
because of the difference in the maximum strain energies of the
in Table 1.
two systems. According to Eq. (4) and following the calculation
Under seismic excitation, the corresponding nonlinear hys-
detailed in Appendix A, ff with the maximum ductility lf can be
teretic damping ratios can be calculated as follows considering that
the ductility coefficient of the MYD ranges from 1 to la and that of calculated as follows:
the main structure ranges from 1 to lf because of the randomness 2q1  blf  1
of the seismic response: ff 35
( )
plf 1 blf  b
Z la
1 2K a =K f q bla qb=b q b
f0a f0a ldl ln  lnq b Under seismic excitation, considering that the maximum ductil-
la 1 pqla la b ity coefficient varies from 1 to lf because of the randomness of the
29 seismic response, the nonlinear hysteretic damping ratio of the
main structure ff can be expressed as follows:
Z lf
1 2q 1 blf  b
ff ff ldl ln 36
lf 1 pblf lbf
Table 1
Damping modification factor q referenced from ATC-40 [30]. Based on the parameters of the main structure T 0f and ff , R0d and
Structural behavior type Feature of the hysteretic loop q R0a are defined as elasticplastic response reduction indexes and
A Full 1 the R0d  R0a curve is called the EPRRC in this study. Then, the elas-
B Moderate 2/3 ticplastic displacement reduction index R0d can be derived as
C Poor 1/3
follows:
H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114 103

Fig. 4. EPRRCs and ERRCs (f0 0:05).

104 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114

(i) For the SPS 0:1s < T 6 T g , R0d is expressed as: same as the parameters used to plot the ERRCs in Fig. 2. Under
the same conditions, the EPRRCs (solid lines) and the ERRCs (dot-
!
g2eq T 0eq T 0eq T 0
Sd T 0eq ; f0eq ted lines) are plotted together and compared, as shown in Fig. 4.
R0d 37 The figure indicates that the curve shape of the EPRRC is similar
0 
Sd T f ; ff g2f T 0f T 0f T f
to that of the ERRC for different SPS and MPS cases. Some differ-
where g2f and g2eq are the damping modification factors of ff ences are also found between the two sets of curves. For a conve-
nient evaluation of the differences, the displacement reduction
and f0eq , respectively.
ratio ud and the acceleration reduction ratio ua are respectively
defined as follows:
(ii) For the MPS T g < T 6 5T g , R0d is expressed as:
!2ceq !cf ceq R0d  Rd
g2eq T 0eq
Sd T 0eq ; f0eq T 0f ud  100% 40
R0d 38 R0d
Sd T 0f ; ff g2f T 0f Tg

where c2f and c2eq are the exponential indexes of the descend- R0a  Ra
ua  100% 41
ing branches of ff and f0eq , respectively. Ra
The elasticplastic acceleration reduction index R0a of both the For example, for K a =K f 1, the response reduction ratios of the
SPS and the MPS can be expressed as follows: SPS and those of the MPS are listed in Tables 2and 3, respectively.
!2 In the cases of the SPS and MPS, as la increases, ud increases and
T 0f goes from negative to positive, which means that for a large la , the
R0a R0d 39
T 0eq ERRC may overestimate the control effect of displacement. In con-
trast, the ERRC may underestimate the control effect of displace-
ment for a small value of la . ud decreases as lf increases, which
2.4. Comparisons between EPRRC and ERRC thereby implies that an improvement in the ductility of the main
structure enhances the control effect of displacement. As la and
By setting T f =T g 1:5, b 0:6, and q 2=3 (type B in Table 1) lf increase, ua increases in the cases of the SPS and MPS, which
and according to Eqs. (37)(39), a series of EPRRCs (lf 1:5, 2.0, means that the control effect on the structural acceleration accord-
and 3.0) of the SPS and the MPS can be obtained with the param- ing to the ERRC is overestimated and the extent of overestimation
eters f0 0:05, 1:5 6 la 6 15, and 0 6 K a =K f 6 4, which are the increases as la and lf increase, especially in the case of the MPS.

Table 2
Response reduction ratios of the SPS (K a =K f 1).

Reduction ratio lf la
1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00 8.00 15.00
ud 1.5 4% 3% 1% 1% 4% 6%
2.0 7% 5% 2% 0% 4% 6%
3.0 9% 7% 4% 1% 3% 6%
ua 1.5 2% 2% 3% 4% 6% 7%
2.0 3% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8%
3.0 4% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%

Table 3
Response reduction ratios of the MPS (K a =K f 1).

Reduction ratio lf la
1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00 8.00 15.00
ud 1.5 1% 2% 5% 7% 10% 11%
2.0 3% 0% 4% 6% 10% 11%
3.0 5% 2% 3% 5% 9% 10%
ua 1.5 5% 7% 9% 10% 12% 12%
2.0 6% 8% 10% 11% 13% 13%
3.0 8% 10% 12% 13% 13% 13%

Table 4
Response reduction ratios of the SPS (la 2).

Reduction ratio lf K a =K f

0.30 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

ud 1.5 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 1%
2.0 3% 3% 4% 3% 1% 0%
3.0 2% 3% 3% 2% 0% 2%
ua 1.5 3% 4% 6% 6% 6% 6%
2.0 4% 5% 7% 8% 8% 8%
3.0 4% 5% 7% 9% 10% 10%
 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114 105

Table 5
Response reduction ratios of the MPS (la 2).

Reduction ratio lf K a =K f

0.30 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

ud 1.5 5% 7% 10% 11% 11% 10%
2.0 5% 7% 10% 10% 10% 9%
3.0 5% 7% 9% 10% 9% 8%
ua 1.5 6% 8% 12% 14% 15% 16%
2.0 6% 9% 13% 16% 18% 19%
3.0 6% 9% 13% 18% 20% 21%

On the other hand, consider the example where la 8. For this
case, the response reduction ratios of the SPS and those of the MPS
are listed in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. In the case of the SPS and
the MPS, as K a =K f increases, ud initially increases and then
decreases, which means that the control effect of the displacement
according to the ERRC is overestimated, and the extent of overesti-
mation initially increases and then decreases. As lf increases, ud
decreases in the cases of the SPS and MPS, which implies that
the control effect of displacement can be improved by increasing
the ductility of the main structure. In addition, as K a =K f and lf
increase, ua increases, which means that the control effect on the
structural acceleration according to the ERRC is overestimated,
and the extent of overestimation increases as K a =K f and lf
increase, especially in the case of the MPS.
The abovementioned analysis indicates that the ERRC may over-
estimate the vibration control effects of the MYD, especially their
effect on acceleration reduction, because the inelastic behavior of
the main structure is neglected. The overestimation can make the
structure designed according to the ERRC unsafe. Therefore, to
ensure the safety of a structure with MYDs, it is necessary to con-
sider the inelasticity of the main structure during a seismic event
and develop a new design method based on the EPRRC.

Fig. 5. Design flowchart of the structure with the MYDs.

106 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114

3. Design method based on EPRRC where Sa and Sd are the spectral acceleration and displacement,
respectively; Q 1 and Q i are the base and ith story shear forces,
A flowchart of the proposed design method based on the EPRRC respectively; M is the equivalent mass; mi is the ith story mass;
is shown in Fig. 5, and the detailed design procedures are given as c1 is the modal participation factor in the first mode; ui;1 is the
follows: modal displacement of the ith story (the ith mass in the multiple-
Step 1: Obtain the capacity spectrum and the story stiffness of degrees-of-freedom system) in the first mode; un;1 is the modal dis-
the primary structure. A pushover analysis of the primary structure placement at the top of the structure in the first mode; and Dn is the
is carried out, and the relationship curves of the story shear force top story displacement.
Q i and the story drift di are obtained. Based on the Q i  di curves, The story stiffness K i can be expressed as follows:
the capacity spectrum can be obtained according to the following
equations: Q ei
Ki 46
Dei
Q1
Sa 42
M where Q ei and Dei are the ith story shear force and displacement
within the elastic range, respectively.
Dn
Sd 43 Step 2: Determine the stories where the MYDs should be
c1  ui;1 installed. The target structural performance point (TSPP) (Sdp , Sap )
P can be obtained according to the capacity spectrum and the design
mi  ui;1 2
M P 44 response spectrum [48], and then, the story drift distribution di can
mi  u2i;1 be determined using the TSPP and the Q i  di curve. The target
P story drift [d] is set according to the design requirement, and then,
mi  ui;1
c1 P 45 the ith story displacement reduction Rdi can be calculated as
mi  u2i1 follows:

Fig. 6. Plan and elevation of the RC frame.

 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114 107

d
Rdi 47
di
when Rdi is less than 1.0. The stories with relatively large drifts,
which should be reduced, are selected to install the MYDs.
Step 3: Determine the parameters of the EPRRC. By using the
energy equivalent method, the equivalent bilinear representation
of the capacity spectrum associated with the TSPP is plotted, and
the yielding point (Sdy , Say ) can be determined. Then, the ductility
coefficient of the main structure lf and the ratio of post-yielding
stiffness b can be obtained according to the following equations:
Sdp Say
lf 48
Sdy Sap
Fig. 7. Trilinear hysteretic model for the plastic hinges.
Sap  Say Sdy
b 49
Sdp  Sdy Say
Table 7
The ith story yielding drift dyi of the Q i  di curves can also be Modal periods of ST0.
determined by using the energy equivalent method, and then the
ith story ductility coefficient lfi can be obtained as follows: Modals 1st modal 2nd modal 3rd modal
Period (s) 1.511 1.302 1.254
di
lfi 50
dyi
According to the design requirements and the performance of
practical products, the ith story yielding displacement of the MYDs
uai can be selected to meet the required condition, lai P 5lfi , and
then, the ductility coefficient of the MYDs of the ith story lai be cal-
culated as follows:
uai  hi d
lai 51
uai uai
where [uai ] and hi are the ith story target displacement of MYDs and
the ith story height, respectively.
Step 4: Determine the yielding force of the MYDs. For the given
maximum ductility coefficient lai of the EPRRC, it is possible to
obtain one or two optional values of the stiffness ratio K ai =K i ,
where K ai denotes the ith story elastic stiffness of the MYDs, and
it is easy to judge as to which one of these values is a reasonable
one from the EPRRC. Then, from the EPRRC, the ith story elastic Fig. 8. Capacity spectrum and its bilinear representation.
stiffness ratio K ai =K i is determined by using the values of lf , b,
Rdi , and lai . Finally, the ith story yielding force of the MYDs F ai is
calculated as follows:
Table 8

 Elastic stiffness distribution of ST0.
K ai
F ai K i uai K ai uai 52
Ki Story 1 2 3 4 5 6
Elastic stiffness K i (kN/mm) 141 170 173 171 164 140

4. Design example

4.1. Model information

A six-story RC frame is adopted to illustrate the proposed

design method. The plan and elevation of the RC frame are shown
in Fig. 6. The beam sections in the Y-direction and of the middle
span in the X-direction are 300  400 mm (width  height), and

Table 6
Model information.
P
Story Story height (m) Mass of story mi (t) Total mass of story mi (t)
6 3.6 594.5 594.5
5 3.6 515.7 1110.2
4 3.6 515.7 1625.9
3 3.6 515.7 2141.6
2 3.6 515.7 2657.3
1 5.5 558.7 3216.0
Fig. 9. Curves of the story shear force and the drift Q i  di .
108 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114

Table 9
Pushover analysis results of ST0 at the TSPP.

Story 1 2 3 4 5 6
Shear force (pushover) Q i (kN) 3140 2670 2304 1928 1422 743
Story drift (pushover) di (rad) 1/161 1/158 1/170 1/214 1/327 1/658
Target story drift [di ](rad) 1/200
Reduction ratio of displacement Rdi 0.81 0.79 0.85 1.07 1.64 3.29
Stories requiring dampers 1, 2, 3

Fig. 10. Plan and elevation of the MYD arrangement.

those remaining are 300  600 mm. The column sections of the
first story are 450  450 mm, while the other columns are
400  400 mm. The slabs of the floor and roof thicknesses
are 120 mm. All the dead loads from the first to the fifth story
are 5.0 kN/m2. The live loads of the middle span in the
X-direction are 2.5 kN/m2, and those remaining are 2.0 kN/m2.
The roof dead and live loads are 6.5 kN/m2 and 2.0 kN/m2,
respectively. Table 6 lists the mass of each story, considering the
entire dead load and 0.5 times the live load. The inherent damping
ratio f0 of the RC frame is 0.05.
 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114 109

Fig. 11. Story demand points in the EPRRC (T 1 =T g 3:78).
The RC frame is modeled as a three-dimensional frame model.
For the computational efficiency, assuming that bending yielding
occurs at the ends of members, plastic hinges and fiber segments
are placed at the end of the beams and columns, respectively.
Fig. 7 shows a trilinear model adopted for the bending moment
curvature backbone relationships of the plastic hinges, where
superscripts p and n denote positive and negative directions,
respectively; M y and M u denote the yielding bending moment
and the hardening bending moment, respectively; and wy , wu , and
wx represent the yielding curvature, hardening curvature, and ulti-
mate curvature of the beams sections, respectively. The fiber seg-
ments are chosen to simulate the mechanical behavior of the
columns. The biaxial bending and PMM interaction can be auto-
matically calculated.
The compression strength of the concrete is 30 MPa, and the
yielding strengths of the longitudinal steel bar and the stirrup
bar are 400 and 235 MPa, respectively. The characteristic period
of the ground motion T g and the peak ground acceleration (PGA)
are set as 0.4 s and 0.2 g, respectively. The RC frame without the
MYDs and the RC frame with the MYDs are denoted as ST0 and
ST1, respectively. A model analysis is carried out for ST0, and the
first three modal periods are obtained and listed in Table 7.
4.2. Damper arrangement and design
A pushover analysis is conducted for ST0, and the capacity spec-
trum obtained according to Eqs. (42)(45) is shown in Fig. 8. The
TSPP (Sdu , Sau ) is found to be (66.5 mm, 94.4 gal), and the yielding
point (Sdy , Say ) is found to be (36.0 mm, 62.0 gal) by using the
energy equivalent method. Then, the ductility coefficient of ST0
lf and the ratio of post-yielding stiffness b are calculated to be
1.21 and 0.62 according to Eqs. (48) and (49), respectively.
Based on the Q i  di curve obtained from the pushover anal-
ysis, the story elastic stiffness distribution of ST0 is determined
according to Eq. (46) and the stiffness values are listed in
Table 8. The story drift distribution di of ST0 corresponding to
the TSPP is shown in Fig. 9, and the associated parameter
values are listed in Table 9. Because the target story drift is
[d] = 1/200 (dashed line in Fig. 9), the displacement reduction
Rdi can be determined according to Eq. (47). The MYDs should
be installed in the stories, where Rdi exceeds 1. Therefore, from
Table 9, it can be inferred that the MYDs should be installed at
the 1st-3rd stories and the MYD arrangement is shown in
Fig. 10.
The first model period of ST0 T 1 1:511 s is between
T g 0:4 s and 5T g 2 s; therefore, ST0 can be considered as an
MPS. By setting lf 1:21, b 0:62, f0 0:05, and the period
ratio T 1 =T g 3:78, the EPRRC is plotted, as shown in Fig. 11.
In this study, the yielding displacement of the MYD uai is set
to 2 mm. Then, the ductility coefficient of the MYD lai is
obtained according to Eq. (51), and the obtained coefficient
satisfies the condition lai P 5lfi . When lai and Rdi are provided,
the elastic stiffness ratio K ai =K i can be determined according to
the EPRRC. Its values are listed in Table 10, and the correspond-
ing story demand points are shown in Fig. 11. Further, the elastic
stiffness K ai and the design yielding force F ay are determined
according to Eq. (52), and the parameters of the MYDs are listed
in Table 10.
4.3. Verification by time history analysis
4.3.1. Seismic input
To verify the control effect of the additional MYDs, 12 different
seismic waves are chosen to carry out the time history analysis:
AW1 and AW2, which are artificial seismic waves, and NW1
NW10, which are natural seismic waves. These natural seismic
waves are selected from the strong motion database of the Pacific
Earthquake Research Center [4951]. All the seismic waves follow
the Chinese design response spectrum with a characteristic period
T g of 0.4 s, and the normalized design spectrum in the Chinese code
is expressed as follows:
8
>
> 1 11:5T; 0 < T 6 0:1 s
>
>
< 2:25; 0:1 s < T 6 0:4 s
Spa  0:9 53
>
> 2:25 0:4 ; 0:4 s < T 6 2 s
>
> T
: 0:9
2:250:2  0:02T  2; 0:2 s < T 6 6 s

Table 10
Parameters of the MYDs.

Story 1 2 3
Story parameters of the MYDs Yielding displacement uai (mm) 2 2 2
Target displacement [ uai ] (mm) 27.5 18 18
Ductility coefficient lfi 2.29 1.79 1.77
Ductility coefficient lai 13.75 9 9
Elastic stiffness ratio K ai =K i 1.13 0.97 0.60
Elastic stiffness K ai (kN/mm) 159.33 164.90 103.80
Design yielding force F ai (kN) 318.66 329.80 207.60
Number of dampers 4 4 4
Parameters of the MYDs for each damper Yielding force of each damper F (kN) 80 90 60
Yielding displacement u (mm) 2 2 2
Elastic stiffness of each damper K (kN/mm) 40 45 30
110 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114

Table 11
Details of natural waves.

Name RSN Year Magnitude Epicentral distance (km) Event Station

NW1 9 1942 6.50 56.88 Borrego El Centro Array #9
NW2 15 1952 7.36 38.42 Kern County Taft Lincoln School
NW3 28 1966 6.19 17.64 Parkfield Cholame-Shandon Array #12
NW4 68 1971 6.61 22.77 San Fernando LA-Hollywood Stor FF
NW5 93 1971 6.61 39.45 San Fernando Whittier Narrows Dam
NW6 131 1976 5.91 41.37 Friuli_Italy-02 Codroipo
NW7 138 1978 7.35 24.07 Tabas_Iran Boshrooyeh
NW8 169 1979 6.53 22.03 Imperial Valley-06 Delta
NW9 186 1979 6.53 35.64 Imperial Valley-06 Niland Fire Station
NW10 215 1980 5.80 15.84 Livermore-01 San Ramon Fire Station

Fig. 12. Normalized response spectra.

Fig. 13. Seismic response of ST0 (PGA = 0.2 g).

The details of the five natural seismic waves are listed in
Table 11, and the corresponding response spectra and the code
spectrum are shown in Fig. 12. According to the Chinese code for
seismic design of buildings [47], the PGAs of the seismic waves
are set to 0.07 g, 0.2 g, and 0.4 g corresponding to the frequent,
moderate, and severe seismic events, respectively, before carrying
out time history analysis.
4.3.2. Verification of the damper arrangement
Fig. 13 shows the story displacements and the story drifts of ST0
obtained by conducting the time history analysis at PGA = 0.2 g.
Then, the average story drifts of ST0 are obtained. It is found that
the average story drifts at the 1st-3rd stories do not meet the story
target drift [d] = 1/200; therefore, it is necessary to install MYDs at
the 1st-3rd stories.
 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114 111

Fig. 14. Average story drifts and shear forces (PGA = 0.07 g).

Fig. 15. Average story drifts and shear forces (PGA = 0.2 g).

Fig. 16. Average story drifts and shear forces (PGA = 0.4 g).
112 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114

Table 12
Reduction ratio of the seismic responses between ST0 and ST1.

Seismic response PGA (g) ST0 ST1 Reduction ratio j

Story drift (rad) 0.07 1/408 1/712 74%
0.2 1/169 1/218 29%
0.4 1/71 1/89 26%
Story shear force (kN) 0.07 1565.51 988.39 58%
0.2 2839.89 2543.94 12%
0.4 3597.85 3474.06 4%

Fig. 17. Hysteretic loops of the MYDs.

4.3.3. Verification of the mitigation effect
ST1, which is designed according to the proposed method, is
analyzed to investigate the mitigation effect by the time history
analysis. The 12 different seismic waves are used as the base exci-
tation. The PGA is set as 0.07 g, 0.2 g, and 0.4 g, and the average
story drifts and shear forces of ST1 and those of ST0 are shown
and compared in Figs. 1416. These figures indicate that MYDs
can be used to effectively control the story drifts and shear forces,
and the story drifts of ST1 can adequately satisfy the performance
targets 1/550, 1/200, and 1/80 under frequent, moderate, and sev-
ere seismic events, respectively. Hence, the effectiveness of the
proposed method is verified.
For PGA values of 0.07 g, 0.2 g, and 0.4 g, the maximum story
drifts and shear forces of ST0 and those of ST1 are listed in Table 12.
For the convenient evaluation of the control effect, a comparison
index is defined as follows:
RST0  RST1
j  100%
RST1
where RST0 and RST1 are the maximum seismic responses of ST0 and
ST1, respectively.
Table 12 indicates that both the maximum story drifts and the
story forces of the main structure can be effectively reduced, espe-
cially in the case of PGA = 0.07 g, using the proposed method.
The hysteretic loops between the damping force and the actu-
ated displacement of three MYDs installed at the left side of the
Y1 axis (Fig. 10) under the seismic wave NWX1 for PGA = 0.2 g
are shown in Fig. 17. The results indicate that the MYDs provide
good energy dissipation during the seismic event.
5. Conclusion
In this study, based on the equivalent linear theory and the
response spectrum theory, a simple design method is proposed
for a structure with MYDs. First, the existing ERRC method is intro-
duced, which is then expanded to the EPRRC method by consider-
ing the elasticplastic behavior of the main structure. Second, the
procedures of the proposed method are described, and the results
of the EPRRC and ERRC are compared. Third, a six-story RC frame
model is analyzed to verify the effectiveness of the proposed
design procedure. Based on the study results, the following main
conclusions can be drawn:
(i) The existing ERRC method, in which the inelastic behavior of
the main structure is neglected, is found to overestimate the
vibration control effects of a structure with MYDs, especially
their effect on the acceleration reduction. Therefore, the
inelastic behavior of the main structure should be consid-
ered when evaluating the seismic performance of a structure
with MYDs.
(ii) When the inelastic behavior of the main structure is consid-
54 ered, the proposed EPRRC can directly reflect the relation-
ship between the MYDs characteristic parameters and the
responses of the structure with the MYDs and, more impor-
tantly, can lead to a safer design of a structure with the
MYDs.
(iii) The proposed method can be used to effectively reduce both
the maximum story drifts and the story forces of the main
structure, and the seismic performance targets under differ-
ent seismic levels can be adequately satisfied.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Shanghai Pujiang Program
under Grant No. 17PJ1409200, the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China under Grant No. 51308418, and by the Sichuan
Department of Science and Technology under Grant No.
2016JZ0009.
 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114 113

Appendix A. Calculation of the nonlinear hysteretic damping

ratios

When the main structure comes into the plastic range, the non-
linear hysteretic damping ratio of the MYD f0a and that of the main
structure f0f in the controlled structure and the nonlinear hysteretic
damping ratio of the main structure ff in the uncontrolled
structure are three important parameters to derive the EPRRC. In
this study, the detailed processes of the calculations for these
damping ratios are presented as follows according to Eq. (4):

(i) The nonlinear hysteretic damping ratio of the MYD f0a with
the maximum ductility coefficient la can be calculated as
follows, and the calculation diagram is shown as Fig. A1:

EDa 4uay K a umax  uay A1

1 Fig. A3. Calculation diagram of ff .

ESa umax uay K a ufy K f bK f umax  ufy  A2
2

EDa 2K a =K f la  1 (ii) The nonlinear hysteretic damping ratio of the main structure
f0a A3 f0f with the maximum ductility coefficient lf can be calcu-
4pESa pla K a =K f a bla  a
lated as follows, and the calculation diagram is shown as
where EDa is the energy dissipated by the MYD in one cycle of Fig. A2.
n
reciprocating movement, and ESa is the maximum strain
EDf 4 K f ufy bK f umax  ufy umax  K f u2fy  bK f umax  ufy 2
energy of the main structure with the MYD.
2ufy bK f umax  ufy 4K f 1  bufy umax  ufy A4

1
ESf umax uay K a ufy K f bK f umax  ufy  A5
2

EDf 2aq1  blf  1

f0f A6
4pESf plf K a =K f a ablf  1

where EDf is the energy dissipated by the main structure in

one cycle of reciprocating movement, and ESf is the maxi-
mum strain energy of the main structure with the MYD.
(iii) The nonlinear hysteretic damping ratio of the main structure
ff with the maximum ductility coefficient lf can be calcu-
lated as follows, and the calculation diagram is shown as
Fig. A3.

EDf EDf 4K f 1  bufy umax  ufy A7

1
Fig. A1. Calculation diagram of f0a . ESa umax ufy K f bK f umax  ufy  A8
2

EDf 2q1  blf  1

ff A9
4pESf plf 1 blf  b
where EDf is the energy dissipated by the main structure in
one cycle of reciprocating movement, and ESf is the maxi-
mum strain energy of the main structure without the MYD.

References

[1] Saeedi F, Shabakhty N, Mousavi SR. Seismic assessment of steel frames with
triangularplate added damping and stiffness devices. J Constr Steel Res
2016;125:1525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.06.011.
[2] Soong TT, Spencer Jr BF. Supplemental energy dissipation: stateoftheart
and stateofthepractice. Eng Struct 2002;24:24359. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00092-X.
[3] Pan C, Zhang R, Luo H, Li C, Shen H. Demand-based optimal design of oscillator
with parallel-layout viscous inerter damper. Struct Control Health Monit 2017:
e2051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/stc.2051.
[4] Kelly JM, Skinner RI, Heine AJ. Mechanics of energy absorption in special
devices for use in earthquake resistant structures. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng
Fig. A2. Calculation diagram of f0f . 1972;5:6287.
114 H. Shen et al. / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 98114
[5] Skinner RI, Kelly JM, Heine AJ. Hysteretic dampers for earthquakeresistant
structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1974;3:28796.
[6] Skinner RI, Tyler RG, Heine AJ, Robinson WH. Hysteretic dampers for the
protection of structures from earthquakes. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng
1980;3:2236.
[7] Whittaker A, Bertero V, Alonso J, Thompson C. Earthquake simulator testing of
steel plate added damping and stiffness elements Report No. UCB/EERC-89/
02. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California; 1989.
[8] Tsai KC, Chen HW, Hong CP, Su YF. Design of steel triangular plate energy
absorbers for seismicresistant construction. Earthq Spectra 1993;9:50528.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/1.1585727.
[9] Dargush GF, Soong TT. Behavior of metallic plate dampers in seismic passive
energy dissipation systems. Earthq Spectra 1995;11:54568.
[10] Matteis GD, Landolfo R, Mazzolani FM. Seismic response of MR steel frames
with lowyield steel shear panels. Eng Struct 2003;25:15568. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00124-4.
[11] Curadelli RO, Riera JD. Reliability based assessment of the
effectiveness of metallic dampers in buildings under seismic
excitations. Eng Struct 2004;26:19318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2004.07.004.
[12] Vargas R, Bruneau M. Effect of supplemental viscous damping on the seismic
response of structural systems with metallic dampers. J Struct Eng
2007;133:143444.
[13] Kim D, Dargush GF, Basaran C. A cyclic twosurface thermoplastic damage
model with application to metallic plate dampers. Eng Struct 2013;52:60820.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.02.030.
[14] Deng K, Pan P, Sun J, Liu J, Xue Y. Shape optimization design of steel shear
panel dampers. J Constr Steel Res 2014;99:18793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jcsr.2014.03.001.
[15] Lee CH, Lho SH, Kim DH, Oh J, Ju YK. Hourglassshaped strip damper subjected
to monotonic and cyclic loadings. Eng Struct 2016;119:12234. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.04.019.
[16] Basu D, Reddy PRM. A new metallic damper for seismic resilience: analytical
feasibility study. Structures 2016;7:16583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2016.06.011.
[17] Zhang C, Zhou Y, Weng DG, Lu DH, Wu CX. A methodology for design of
metallic dampers in retrofit of earthquakedamaged frame. Struct Eng Mech
2015;56:56988.
[18] Li HN, Li G. Experimental study of structure with dual function metallic
dampers. Eng Struct 2007;29:191728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2006.10.007.
[19] Sahoo DR, Singhal T, Taraithia SS, Saini A. Cyclic behavior of shear-
and-flexural yielding metallic dampers. J Constr Steel Res 2015;114:
24757.
[20] Mahjoubi S, Maleki S. Seismic performance evaluation and design of steel
structures equipped with dualpipe dampers. J Constr Steel Res
2016;122:2539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.01.023.
[21] Martinez-Romero E. Experiences on the use of supplementary energy
dissipators on building structures. Earthq Spectra 1993;9:581625.
[22] Perry CL, Fierro EA, Sedarat H, Scholl RE. Seismic upgrade in San Francisco
using energy dissipation devices. Earthq Spectra 1993;9:55979.
[23] Kitagawa Y, Midorikawa M. Seismic isolation and passive responsecontrol
buildings in Japan. Smart Mater Struct 1998;7:5817.
[24] Symans MD, Charney FA, Whittaker AS, Constantinou MC, Kircher CA, Johnson
MW, et al. Energy dissipation systems for seismic applications: current
practice and recent developments. J Struct Eng 2008;134:321. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:1(3).
[25] Pan P, Ye LP, Wei S, Cao HY. Engineering practice of seismic isolation and
energy dissipation structures in China. Sci China Technol Sci
2012;55:303646.
[26] Whittaker AS, Bertero VV, Thompson CL, Alonso LJ. Seismic testing of steel
plate energy dissipation devices. Earthq Spectra 1991;7:563604.
[27] Clark P, Aiken I, Kasai K, Ko E, Kimura I. Design procedures for buildings
incorporating hysteretic damping devices. In: Proc. 68th annual convention,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Santa Barbara, California.
[28] Manual JSSI. Design and construction manual for passively controlled
buildings. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society of Seismic Isolation; 2007 [in Japanese].
[29] FEMA 273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington DC: Building Seismic Safety Council; 1997.
[30] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete building. Redwood City,
CA: Applied Technology Council; 1996.
[31] Lin YY, Tsai MH, Hwang JS, Chang KC. Direct displacementbased design for
building with passive energy dissipation systems. Eng Struct 2003;25:2537.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00099-8.
[32] Kim J, Seo Y. Seismic design of lowrise steel frames with buckling-restrained
braces. Eng Struct 2004;26:54351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2003.11.005.
[33] Vargas R, Bruneau M. Seismic design of multistory buildings with metallic
structural fuses. In: Proc. 8th US national conference on earthquake
engineering, San Francisco, California, USA.
[34] Choi H, Kim J. Energybased seismic design of buckling-restrained braced
frames using hysteretic energy spectrum. Eng Struct 2006;28:30411. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.008.
[35] Benavent-Climent A. An energybased method for seismic retrofit of existing
frames using hysteretic dampers. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31:138596.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.05.015.
[36] Habibi A, Chan RWK, Albermani F. Energybased design method for seismic
retrofitting with passive energy dissipation systems. Eng Struct
2013;46:7786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.011.
[37] Lomiento G, Bonessio N, Braga F. Design criteria for added dampers and
supporting braces. Seism Isol Prot Syst 2010;1:5573.
[38] Gluck N, Reinhorn AM, Gluck J, Levy R. Design of supplemental dampers for
control of structures. J Struct Eng 1996;122:13949.
[39] Moreschi LM, Singh MP. Design of yielding metallic and friction dampers for
optimal seismic performance. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2003;32:1291311.
[40] Dargush GF, Sant RS. Evolutionary aseismic design and retrofit of structures
with passive energy dissipation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34:160126.
[41] Apostolakis G, Dargush GF. Optimal seismic design of momentresisting steel
frames with hysteretic passive devices. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2009;39:35576.
[42] Parulekar YM, Reddy GR, Vaze KK, Ghosh AK, Kushwaha HS, Ramesh Babu R.
Seismic response analysis of RCC structure with yielding dampers using
linearization techniques. Nucl Eng Des 2009;239:305461. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.08.016.
[43] Jensen HA, Sepulveda JG. On the reliabilitybased design of structures
including passive energy dissipation systems. Struct Safety 2012;34:390400.
[44] Ribakov Y, Gluck J. Optimal design of ADAS damped MDOF structures. Earthq
Spectra 2012;15:31730.
[45] Clougn RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill; 1993.
[46] Kasai K, Fu Y, Watanabe A. Passive control systems for seismic damage
mitigation. J Struct Eng 1998;124:50112.
[47] GB 50011-2010. Code for seismic design of buildings. Beijing: the Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Construction of the Peoples Republic of China;
2010.
[48] Hao L, Zhang R. Structural safety redundancybased design method for
structure with viscous dampers. Struct Eng Mech 2016;59:82140.
[49] PEER. PEER Ground Motion Database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center; 2016.
[50] Pan C, Zhang R, Luo H, Shen H. Baseline correction of vibration acceleration
signals with inconsistent initial velocity and displacement. Adv Mech Eng
2016;8:111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1687814016675534.
[51] Pan C, Zhang R, Luo H, Shen H. Target-based algorithm for baseline correction
of inconsistent vibration signals. J Vib Control 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077546316689014.