Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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)
taken for the study of seismic response reduction of the frame by providing viscous
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
are distributed along the height of the frame to reduce the seismic response of the
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-jack dampers are found out. The average
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.
-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
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, 2007). It is found that external damping beyond 30%
results in small decrease in responses, and such increases lead to usage of more dampers
). 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
asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=8
MULTISTOREYED
COUS FLUID –
(Y. Ohtori et al., 2004) is
taken for the study of seismic response reduction of the frame by providing viscous
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
are distributed along the height of the frame to reduce the seismic response of the
Among the four time history analysis, the peak responses such as absolute
acceleration, displacements, drifts, damper displacements, and damper forces for the
jack dampers are found out. The average
response reduction values between the bare frame and the six models are presented
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.
jack dampers, peak responses, absolute acceleration
tha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar, Seismic Response of
Scissor Jack Dampers, International
.
&VType=8&IType=8
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
It is found that external damping beyond 30%
results in small decrease in responses, and such increases lead to usage of more dampers
). 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
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.
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 291 [email protected]
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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 292 [email protected]
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
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
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
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
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
bay spacing of 6.10m (20ft) on center in both the NS (5 bays) and EW (6 bays) directions.
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,
column dimensions, support conditions, restraints, connections, splices and storey height
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)
7. The elevation and dimensions of
shown in the Fig. 8.
77m (265ft) tall and is rectangular in plan with
bay spacing of 6.10m (20ft) on center in both the NS (5 bays) and EW (6 bays) directions.
Kg, and 20th
floor is
storey benchmark building such as beam dimensions,
column dimensions, support conditions, restraints, connections, splices and storey height
ses in each storey are shown in Figure.8 (Y. Ohtori et al.,
mrak building (Y.Ohtori et al., 2004)
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 294 [email protected]
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).
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 295 [email protected]
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).
3. Model_3 (SJ_M3): 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 1st, 3
rd and 5
th 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. c).
4. Model_4 (SJ_M4): 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 3rd
bay length alone, such as 2 scissor-jack configuration
dampers per story. So that, total numbers of dampers placed along the height of the
building are 120. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10. d).
5. Model_5 (SJ_M5): Dampers are placed in G+4 stories throughout the bay length such
as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers in each stories and from 5th
to 20th
storey
dampers are placed in 1st, 3
rd and 5
th 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 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
dampers are placed in 1st, 3
rd and 5
th 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 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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 296 [email protected]
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
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 297 [email protected]
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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 298 [email protected]
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
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 299 [email protected]
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
Storey EC KO NR SM PEAKS
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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 300 [email protected]
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,
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 301 [email protected]
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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 302 [email protected]
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
Absolute Acceleration (a)
Absolute acceleration VS Storey
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
Absolute Acceleration (a)
Absolute acceleration VS Storey
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
Absolute Acceleration (a)
Absolute acceleration VS Storey
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
Absolute Acceleration (a)
Absolute acceleration VS Storey
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
Absolute Acceleration (a)
Absolute acceleration VS Storey
for SJ_M_6
a_EC
a_K
Oa_N
R
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 303 [email protected]
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)
Displacements VS Storey for
SJ_M_2
d_EC
d_K
O
123456789
1011121314151617181920
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Sto
rey
Displacement (d)
Displacements VS Storey for
SJ_M_3
d_EC
d_K
O
123456789
1011121314151617181920
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Sto
rey
Displacement (d)
Displacements VS Storey for
SJ_M_4
d_EC
d_K
O
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 304 [email protected]
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
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 305 [email protected]
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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 306 [email protected]
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
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 307 [email protected]
Table 8 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_1 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements
and drifts
Table 9 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_2 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements
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
S.No a d drifts % difference
BF SJ_M_1 BF SJ_M_1 BF SJ_M_1 a d drifts
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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 308 [email protected]
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
S.No a d drifts % difference
BF SJ_M_3 BF SJ_M_3 BF SJ_M_3 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
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 11 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_4 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements
and drifts
S.No a d drifts % difference
BF SJ_M_4 BF SJ_M_4 BF SJ_M_4 a d 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
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 309 [email protected]
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
Table 12 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_5 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements
and drifts
S.No a d drifts % difference
BF SJ_M_5 BF SJ_M_5 BF SJ_M_5 a d 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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 310 [email protected]
Table 13 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_6 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements
and drifts
S.No a d drifts % difference
BF SJ_M_6 BF SJ_M_6 BF SJ_M_6 a d 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
J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 311 [email protected]
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
Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid–Scissor Jack Dampers
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 312 [email protected]
Table 16 Inter-storey drifts response of SJ_M_6 frame
Storey EC KO NR SM PEAKS
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