1 

CHAPTER C18 SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES WITH

2  DAMPING SYSTEMS
3 

4  C18.1 GENERAL

5  The requirements of this chapter apply to all types of damping systems, including both
6  displacement-dependent damping devices of hysteretic or friction systems and velocity-

LY
7  dependent damping devices of viscous or viscoelastic systems (Soong and Dargush 1997,
8  Constantinou et al. 1998, Hanson and Soong 2001). Compliance with these requirements is

N
9  intended to produce performance comparable to that for a structure with a conventional seismic

O
10  force-resisting system, but the same methods can be used to achieve higher performance.

11 
n
The damping system (DS) is defined separately from the seismic force-resisting system (SFRS),
io
12  although the two systems may have common elements. As illustrated in Figure C18.1-1, the DS
13  may be external or internal to the structure and may have no shared elements, some shared
at

14  elements, or all elements in common with the SFRS. Elements common to the DS and the SFRS
m

15  must be designed for a combination of the loads of the two systems. When the DS and SFRS
have no common elements, the damper forces must be collected and transferred to members of
or

16 
17  the SFRS.
nf
rI
Fo

1 
 
 LY
N
1 

O
2  FIGURE C18.1-1. Damping System (DS) and Seismic Force-Resisting System (SFRS)
3  Configurations.
n
io
4  C18.2 GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
at

5 
m
or

6  C18.2.1 System Requirements

nf

7  Structures with a DS must have an SFRS that provides a complete load path. The SFRS must
8  comply with all the height, Seismic Design Category, and redundancy limitations and with the
rI

9  detailing requirements specified in this standard for the specific SFRS. The SFRS without the
Fo

10  damping system (as if damping devices were disconnected) must be designed to have not less
11  than 75% of the strength required for structures without a DS that have that type of SFRS (and
12  not less than 100% if the structure is horizontally or vertically irregular). The damping systems,
13  however, may be used to meet the drift limits (whether the structure is regular or irregular).
14  Having the SFRS designed for a minimum of 75% of the strength required for structures without
15  a DS, provides safety in the event of damping system malfunction and produces a composite
16  system with sufficient stiffness and strength to have a controlled lateral displacement response.

2 
 
 1  The analysis and design of the SFRS under the base shear, Vmin , from Equations (18.2-1) or

2  (18.2-2) or, if the exception applies, under the unreduced base shear, V , should be based on a
3  model of the SFRS that excludes the damping system.

4  C18.2.1.2 Damping System

5  The DS must be designed for the actual (unreduced) MCER forces (such as peak force occurring

6  in damping devices) and deflections. For certain elements of the DS (such as the connections or

LY
7  the members into which the damping devices frame), other than damping devices, limited
8  yielding is permitted provided that such behavior does not affect damping system function or
exceed the amount permitted for elements of conventional structures by the standard.

N
9 

O
10  Furthermore, force-controlled actions in elements of the DS must consider seismic forces that are

11  1.2 times the computed average

MCER response. Note that this increase is applied for each

12  n
element action, rather than for each element. Force-controlled actions are associated with brittle
io
13  failure modes where inelastic deformation capacity cannot be ensured. The 20% increase in
at

14  seismic force for these actions is required to safeguard against undesirable behavior.
m

15  C18.2.2.1 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters and Response Spectrum

or

16  The design earthquake and MCER spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS, SD1, SMS, and
nf

17  SM1) are used in the equivalent lateral force procedure. The design earthquake and MCER spectra
18  are used for response spectrum analysis.
rI

19  C18.2.2.2 Ground Motions for Response History Analysis

Fo

20  Development of target spectra and ground motions for structures with damping systems,
21  analyzed using response history methods, generally follows the corresponding requirements for
22  non-damped structures. The maximum and minimum damper properties, required elsewhere in
23  this chapter, need not be considered to determine the period range of interest. Although
24  amplitude scaling is used to adjust the ground motions from MCER down to design-earthquake,
25  either amplitude scaling or spectral matching are available methods in Chapter 16 for developing

3 
 
 1  the MCER motions. Other sections of Chapter 16 that are not specifically referenced do not apply
2  to structures with damping systems.

3  C18.2.3 Procedure Selection

4  The nonlinear response history procedure for structures incorporating supplemental damping
5  systems is the preferred procedure, and Chapter 18 is structured accordingly. This method,
6  consistent with the majority of current practice, provides the most realistic predictions of the
7  seismic response of the combined seismic force-resisting system and damping system.

LY
8  However, via the exception, response spectrum (RS) and equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis
9  methods can be used for design of structures with damping systems that meet certain

N
10  configuration and other limiting criteria (for example, at least two damping devices at each story

O
11  configured to resist torsion). The analysis methods of damped structures are based on nonlinear
12  static “pushover” characterization of the structure and calculation of peak response, using
13  n
effective (secant) stiffness and effective damping properties of the first (pushover) mode in the
io
14  direction of interest. These concepts are used in Chapter 17 to characterize the force-deflection
at
15  properties of isolation systems, modified to explicitly incorporate the effects of ductility demand
16  (post-yield response) and higher mode response of structures with dampers. Similar to
m

17  conventional structures, damped structures generally yield during strong ground shaking, and
or

18  their performance can be influenced strongly by the response of higher modes.
nf

19  The RS and ELF procedures presented in Chapter 18 have several simplifications and limits,
outlined as follows:
rI

20 

21  1. A multiple degree of freedom (MDOF) structure with a damping system can be
Fo

22  transformed into equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems using modal
23  decomposition procedures. This procedure assumes that the collapse mechanism for the
24  structure is an SDOF mechanism so that the drift distribution over height can be
25  estimated reasonably, using either the first mode shape or another profile, such as an
26  inverted triangle. Such procedures do not strictly apply to either yielding buildings or
27  buildings that are nonproportionally damped.
28  2. The response of an inelastic SDOF system can be estimated using equivalent linear
29  properties and a 5% damped response spectrum. Spectra for damping greater than 5% can

4 
 
 1  be established using damping coefficients, and velocity-dependent forces can be
2  established either by using the pseudovelocity and modal information or by applying
3  correction factors to the pseudovelocity.
4  3. The nonlinear response of the structure can be represented by a bilinear hysteretic
5  relationship with zero postelastic stiffness (elastoplastic behavior).
6  4. The yield strength of the structure can be estimated either by performing simple plastic
7  analysis or by using the specified minimum seismic base shear and values of R , Ω0 , and

8  Cd .

LY
9  5. Higher modes need to be considered in the equivalent lateral force procedure to capture
10  their effects on velocity-dependent forces. This requirement is reflected in the residual

N
11  mode procedure.

O
12  FEMA 440 (2005) presents a review of simplified procedures for the analysis of yielding
13  structures. The combined effects of the simplifications mentioned above are reported by Ramirez
14  n
et al. (2001) and Pavlou and Constantinou (2004), based on studies of three-story and six-story
io
15  buildings with damping systems designed by the procedures of the standard. The RS and ELF
at
16  procedures of the standard are found to provide conservative predictions of drift and predictions
17  of damper forces and member actions that are of acceptable accuracy when compared to results
m

18  of nonlinear dynamic response history analysis. When designed in accordance with the standard,
or

19  structures with damping systems are expected to have structural performance at least as good as
that of structures without damping systems. Pavlou and Constantinou (2006) report that
nf

20 
21  structures with damping systems, designed in accordance with the standard, provide the benefit
rI

22  of reduced secondary system response, although this benefit is restricted to systems with added
viscous damping.
Fo

23 

24  C18.2.4.1 Device Design

25  Damping devices may operate on a variety of principles and may use materials that affect their
26  short-term and long-term performance. This commentary provides guidance on the behavior of
27  some of these devices, in order to justify the language in the standard and in order to assist the
28  engineer in deciding on the upper and lower bound values of mechanical properties of the
29  devices for use in analysis and design.

5 
 
 1  Damping devices that have found applications or have potential for application may be classified
2  as follows:

3  1. Fluid viscous dampers (or oil dampers) that operate on the principle of orificing of fluid,
4  typically some form of oil (Constantinou et al. 2007). These devices are typically highly
5  engineered and precision made so that their properties are known within a narrow range.
6  That is, when the devices are tested, their properties show small variability. One issue is
7  heating that may have significant effects (Makris et al. 1998), which can be alleviated or
8  eliminated by using accumulators or by using materials with varying thermal expansion

LY
9  properties so that the orifice size is automatically adjusted with varying temperature.
10  However, their long-term behavior may be affected by a variety of potential problems:

N
11  (a) Devices using accumulators include valves that may fail over time, depending on

O
12  the quality of construction and history of operation. It is not possible to know if
13  and when a valve may fail.
14  n
(b) Fluid is maintained in the device by seals between the body and the moving piston
io
15  of the device, which may leak either as a result of wear caused by excessive
at
16  cumulative travel or poor construction. For buildings, excessive cumulative travel
17  is rarely an issue. When seals leak, the output of the device reduces, depending on
m

18  the reduction of internal pressure of the device. It is recommended that potential
or

19  leakage of oil not be considered in establishing lower bound values of property
20  modification factors (as it is not possible to know) but rather a periodic inspection
nf

21  and maintenance program recommended by the manufacturer be used to detect

rI

22  problems and make corrections.

(c) Orifices may be very small in diameter and therefore may result in clogging when
Fo

23 
24  impure oil is used or the oil is contaminated by particles of rubber used in the
25  sealing of fluid in poorly constructed devices or by metal particles resulting from
26  internal corrosion or because of oil cavitation when poor-quality materials are
27  used. Typically, rubber should not be used in sealing and parts should be threaded
28  rather than welded or connected by posttensioning. Larger diameter orifices
29  should be preferred.
30  2. Viscoelastic fluid or solid devices. These devices operate on the principle of shearing of
31  highly viscous fluids or viscoelastic solids. These viscous fluids and viscoelastic solids

6 
 
 1  have a strong dependence of properties on frequency and temperature. These effects
2  should be assessed by qualification testing. Their long-term behavior is determined by the
3  behavior of the fluid or solid used, both of which are expected to harden with time. The
4  engineer should ask the supplier for data on the aging of the material based on
5  observations in real time. Information based on accelerated aging is not useful and should
6  not be used (Constantinou et al. 2007).
7  3. Metallic yielding devices. Yielding steel devices are typically manufactured of steel with
8  yield properties that are known within a narrow range. Nevertheless, the range of values

LY
9  of the yield strength can be determined with simple material tests. Also, testing some of
10  the devices should be used to verify the information obtained in coupon testing. Aging is

N
11  of least concern because corrosion may only slightly reduce the section geometrical
12  properties. An inspection and maintenance program should eliminate the concern for

O
13  aging.
14 
n
4. Friction devices. Friction devices operate on the principle of preloaded sliding interfaces.
io
15  There are two issues with such devices:
16  (a) The preload may reduce over time because of creep in sliding interface materials
at

17  or the preloading arrangement, or wear in the sliding interface when there is
m

18  substantial service-load related motion or after high-speed seismic motion. It is

not possible to know what the preload may be within the lifetime of the structure,
or

19 
20  but the loss may be minimized when high-strength bolts are used and high-
nf

21  strength/low-wear materials are used for the sliding interface.

(b) The friction coefficient at the sliding interface may substantially change over
rI

22 
23  time. The engineer is directed to Constantinou et al. (2007) for a presentation on
Fo

24  the nature of friction and the short-term and long-term behavior of some sliding
25  interfaces. In general, reliable and predictable results in the long-term friction
26  may be obtained when the sliding interface consists of a highly polished metal
27  (typically stainless steel) in contact with a nonmetallic softer material that is
28  loaded to high pressure under confined conditions, so that creep is completed in a
29  short time. However, such interfaces also result in low friction (and thus are
30  typically used in sliding isolation bearings). The engineer is referred to
31  Chapter 17 and the related commentary for such cases. Desirable high friction

7 
 
 1  (from a performance standpoint) may be obtained by use of metal to metal sliding
2  interfaces. However, some of these interfaces are absolutely unreliable because
3  they promote severe additional corrosion and they should never be used (British
4  Standards Institution 1983). Other bimetallic interfaces have the tendency to form
5  solid solutions or intermetallic compounds with one another when in contact
6  without motion. This tendency leads to cold welding (very high adhesion or very
7  high friction). Such materials are identified by compatibility charts (Rabinowicz
8  1995). The original Rabinowicz charts categorized pairs of metals as incompatible

LY
9  (low adhesion) to compatible and identical (high adhesion). Based on this
10  characterization, identical metals and most bimetallic interfaces should be

N
11  excluded from consideration in sliding interfaces. Excluding interfaces that
12  include lead (too soft), molybdenum, silver, and gold (too expensive), only

O
13  interfaces of tin–chromium, cadmium–aluminum, and copper–chromium are
14 
n
likely to have low adhesion. Of these, the tin–chromium interface has problems of
io
15  additional corrosion (British Standards Institution 1983) and should not be used.
16  Accordingly, only bimetallic interfaces of cadmium–aluminum and copper–
at

17  chromium may be useful. The materials in these interfaces have similar hardness
m

18  so that creep-related effects are expected to be important, leading to increased true
area of contact and increased friction force over time (Constantinou et al. 2007).
or

19 
20  This increase leads to the conclusion that all bimetallic interfaces result in
nf

21  significant changes in friction force over time that are not possible to predict, and
therefore, these types of interfaces should not be used.
rI

22 
23  5. Lead extrusion devices. These devices operate on the principle of extruding lead through
Fo

24  an orifice. The behavior of the device is dependent on the rate of loading and
25  temperature, and its force output reduces with increasing cycling because of heating
26  effects. These effects can be quantified by testing so that the nominal properties and
27  property modification factors can be established. Leakage of lead during the lifetime of
28  the device is possible during operation and provided that the seals fail, although the
29  effects cannot be expected to be significant. Leakage is preventable by the use of proven
30  sealing technologies and by qualification testing to verify (Skinner et al. 1993).

8 
 
 1  The registered design professional (RDP) must define the ambient temperature and the design
2  temperature range. The ambient temperature is defined as the normal in-service temperature of
3  the damping device. For devices installed in interior spaces, this temperature may be taken as
4  70°F, and the design temperature range could come from the project mechanical engineer. For
5  devices installed exposed to exterior temperature variation, the ambient temperature may be
6  taken as the annual average temperature at the site, and the design temperature range may be
7  taken as the annual minimum and maximum temperatures. Since the design temperature range is
8  implicitly tied to MCER analysis through λ factors for temperature, the use of maximum and

LY
9  minimum temperatures over the design life of the structure are considered too severe.

10  C18.2.4.4 Nominal Design Properties

N
11  Device manufacturers typically supply nominal design properties that are reasonably accurate

O
12  based on previous prototype test programs. The nominal properties can be confirmed by project-
13  specific prototype tests during either the design or construction phases of the project.
n
io
14 
at

15  C18.2.4.5 Maximum and Minimum Damper Properties

m

16  Specification Tolerance on Nominal Design Properties

or

17  As part of the design process, it is important to recognize that there are variations in the
18  production damper properties from the nominal properties. This difference is caused by
nf

19  manufacturing variation. Recommended values for the specification tolerance on the average
rI

20  properties of all devices of a given type and size are typically in the 10% to 15% range. For a
21  10% specification tolerance, the corresponding λ factors would be λ (spec,max)  1.1 and
Fo

22  λ(spec,min)  0.9 . Variations for individual device properties may be greater than the tolerance on

23  the average properties of all devices of a given type and size. It is recommended that the device
24  manufacturer be consulted when establishing these tolerance values.

25  Property Variation ( λ ) Factors and Maximum and Minimum Damper Properties

26  Section 18.2.4.5 requires the devices to be analyzed and designed with consideration given to
27  environmental conditions, including the effects of aging, creep, fatigue, and operating

9 
 
 1  temperatures. The individual aging and environmental factors are multiplied together, and then
2  the portion of the resulting λ factor ( λ ae ) differing from unity is reduced by 0.75 based on the

3  assumption that not all the maximum/minimum aging and environmental values occur
4  simultaneously.

5  Results of prototype tests may also indicate the need to address device behavior whereby tested
6  properties differ from the nominal design properties because of test-related effects. Such
7  behavior may include velocity effects, first cycle effects, and any other testing effects that cause
behavior different from the nominal design properties. This behavior is addressed through a

LY
8 

9  testing λ factor ( λ test ), which is a multiple of all the individual testing effects.

N
10  The specification ( λspec ), environmental ( λ ae ) and testing ( λ test ) factors are used to establish

O
11  maximum ( λmax ) and minimum ( λmin ) damper properties for each device type and size for use in

12 
n
mathematical models of the damped structure, in accordance with Equations (18.2-3a) and (18.2-
io
13  3b). These factors are typically applied to whatever parameters govern the mathematical
14  representation of the device.
at

15  It should be noted that more sophisticated mathematical models account for various property
m

16  variation effects directly (e.g., velocity or temperature). When such models are used, the
or

17  cumulative effect of the λ factors reduce (become closer to 1.0), since some of the typical
behaviors contributing to λmax and λmin are already included explicitly in the model. Some
nf

18 

19  effects, such as specification tolerance and aging, will likely always remain since they cannot be
rI

20  accounted for in mathematical models.

Fo

21  Example

22  Data from prototype testing, as defined in Section 18.6.2, are used to illustrate the λ factors and
23  the maximum and minimum values to be used in analysis and design. The fluid viscous damper
24  under consideration has the following nominal force-velocity constitutive relationship, with kips
25  and inch units:

26  F  C sgn(V ) | V |α  128sgn(v) | V |0.38

10 
 
 1  The solid line in Figure C18.2-1 depicts the nominal force-displacement relationship.

LY
N
O
2 
n
io
3  FIGURE C18.2-1. Force-velocity relationship for a nonlinear viscous damper.
at
4  Prototype tests of damper corresponding to the following conditions were conducted:
m

5   Force-velocity characteristic tests, all conducted at ambient temperature of 70 °F (21.1

6  °C).
or

7  o 10 full cycles performed at various amplitudes.

nf

8   Temperature tests, three fully reversible cycles conducted at various velocities at the
following temperatures:
rI

9 
10  o 40 °F (4.4 °C)
Fo

11  o 70 °F (21.1 °C)

12  o 100 °F (37.8 °C)
13  The data from prototype tests for each cycle (maximum and negative) are shown as data points in
14  Figure C18.2-1.

15  Also shown in the figure are the variations from nominal in the force-velocity relationships for
16  this damper. The relationships are obtained by changing the damper constant ( C ) value. No
17  variation is considered for the velocity exponent, α . The following diagrams are shown:

11 
 
 1   A pair of lines corresponding to damper nominal constitutive relationship computed with
2  the C value increased or decreased by 10%. These lines account for the λ test factors, as

3  defined in Section 18.2.5.4: , λ (test,min)  0.9 .

4  For these particular devices, the variation in properties caused by aging and
5  environmental factors is taken as 5% ( λ ( ae,max)  1.05 , λ ( ae,min)  0.95 ), and the

6  specification tolerance is set at 5% ( λ (spec,max)  1.05 , λ (spec,min)  0.95 ). These values

7  should be developed in conjunction with the device manufacturer based on their history

LY
8  of production damper test data and experience with aging and other environmental
9  effects. Using these values in Equations (18.2-3a) and (18.2-3b) results in λ max  1.20

N
10  and λ min  0.82 . These values satisfy the minimum variation requirements of

O
11  Section 18.2.4.5. They are rounded to λmax  1.2 and λmin  0.8 .

 A pair of lines corresponding to the cumulative maximum and minimum λ values

12 
n
(accounting for testing, specification tolerance, and other factors listed in
io
13 
14  Section 18.2.4.5) computed with the nominal C value increased or decreased by 20%.
at

15  For this example, analysis with minimum and maximum damper properties should be conducted
m

16  by using 80% and 120% of the nominal value for C , respectively. The analysis with maximum
damper properties typically produces larger damper forces for use in the design of members and
or

17 
18  connections, whereas the analysis with minimum damper properties typically produces less total
nf

19  energy dissipation and hence larger drifts.

rI

20  C18.2.4.6 Damping System Redundancy

This provision is intended to discourage the use of damping systems with low redundancy in any
Fo

21 
22  story. At least four damping devices should be provided in each principal direction, with at least
23  two devices in each direction on each side of the center of stiffness to control torsional response.
24  In cases where there is low damping system redundancy by this definition, all damping devices
25  in all stories must be capable of sustaining increased displacements (with associated forces) and
26  increased velocities (with associated displacements and forces) relative to a system with
27  adequate redundancy. The penalty is 130%.

28 

12 
 
 1  C18.3 NONLINEAR RESPONSE HISTORY PROCEDURE

2  Those elements of the SFRS and the DS that respond essentially elastically at MCER (based on a

3  limit of 1.5 times the expected strength calculated using φ  1 ) are permitted to be modeled
4  elastically. Modeling parameters and acceptance criteria provided in ASCE 41, with a
5  performance objective defined in Table 2.2, as modified in this chapter, are deemed satisfactory
6  to meet the requirements of this section.

7  The hardware of all damping devices (for example, the cylinder of a piston-type device) and the

LY
8  connections between the damping devices and the remainder of the structure must remain elastic
9  at MCER (see Section 18.2.1.2). The nonlinear behavior of all other elements of both the SFRS

N
10  and the DS must be modeled based on test data, which must not be extrapolated beyond the

O
11  tested deformations. Strength and stiffness degradation must be included if such behavior is
12  indicated. However, the damping system must not become nonlinear to such an extent that its
13  function is impaired. n
io
at
14  Nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) is performed at both the design earthquake (DE)
15  and the MCER levels. Accidental eccentricity is included at MCER but need not be included at
m

16  the DE level, since the SFRS design checks from Section 18.2.1.1 include accidental
or

17  eccentricity. However, the results from the NRHA at DE, using a model of the combined SFRS
and DS, must be used to recheck all elements of the SFRS, since the checks of Section 18.2.1.1
nf

18 
19  are conducted using a representation of the structure excluding the damping system. This
rI

20  requirement is defined in Section 18.4.1. The damping system is designed and evaluated based
Fo

21  on the results of the MCER analyses, as defined in Section 18.4.2.

22  C18.3.2 Accidental Mass Eccentricity

23  In order to avoid the need to perform a large number of nonlinear response history analyses that
24  include the suites of ground motions, the upper and lower bound damper properties, and five or
25  more locations of the center of mass, the exception in this provision allows the center-of-mass
26  analysis results to be scaled and used to account for the effects of mass eccentricity in different
27  building quadrants.

13 
 
 1  The following is one suggested method of developing appropriate amplification factors for
2  deformations and forces for use with center-of-mass NRHAs to account for the effects of
3  accidental eccentricity. The use of other rationally developed amplification factors is permitted
4  and encouraged, given that the artificial shift of the center of mass changes the dynamic
5  characteristics of the analyzed structure and may lead to the paradox of reduced torsional
6  response with increasing accidental eccentricity (Basu et al. 2014).

7  The most critical directions for moving the calculated center of mass are such that the accidental
8  eccentricity adds to the inherent eccentricity in each orthogonal direction at each level. For each

LY
9  of these two eccentric mass positions, and with minimum damper properties, the suite of NRHAs
10  should be run and the results processed in accordance with Section 18.3.3. The analysis cases are

N
11  defined in Table C18.3-1.

O
12  Table C18.3-1. Analysis Cases for Establishing Amplification Factors.

n
Case Damper Properties Accidental Eccentricity
io
at
I Minimum No
m

IIa Minimum Yes, X direction

or

IIb Minimum Yes, Y direction

nf

13  The results from Cases IIa and IIb are then compared, in turn, to those from Case I. The
rI

14  following amplification factors (ratio of Case IIa or IIb response to Case I response) are
15  computed:
Fo

16  (a) The amplification for story drift in the structure at the plan location with the highest drift,
17  enveloped over all stories;
18  (b) The amplification for frame-line shear forces at each story for the frame subjected to the
19  maximum drift.
20  The larger of the two resulting scalars on drift should be used as the deformation amplifier, and
21  the larger of the two resulting scalars on force should be used as the force amplifier. Once the

14 
 
 1  amplification factors are established, the effects of accidental eccentricity should be considered
2  as follows.

3  The NRHA procedure should be run for the inherent mass eccentricity case only, considering
4  both maximum and minimum damper properties. For each damper property variation, response
5  quantities should be computed in accordance with Section 18.3.3. All resulting deformation
6  response quantities should be increased by the deformation amplifier, and all resulting force
7  quantities should be increased by the force amplifier before being used for evaluation or design.

LY
8  C18.4 SEISMIC LOAD CONDITIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR
9  NONLINEAR RESPONSE HISTORY PROCEDURE

N
10 

O
11  C18.4.1 Seismic Force-Resisting System
n
io
12  All elements of the SFRS are checked under two conditions. First, the SFRS (excluding the
damping system) is checked under the minimum base shear requirements of Section 18.2.1.1.
at
13 
14  Second, the demands from the NRHA at DE (with a model of the combined SFRS and DS) must
m

15  be used to recheck all elements of the SFRS.

or

16  There are three limiting values for the analytically computed drift ratios at the MCER .
nf

17  Table 12.12-1 lists the allowable drifts for structures. These limiting drift ratios are checked
18  against drift ratio demands computed from the code procedure. Since the code design is an
rI

19  implied DE intensity, the drift ratios in the table are also intended to be used at analysis
Fo

20  conducted at this level.

21  1. 3% limit: For most common structures, the DE allowable drift ratio ( Δa / h ) is 2%.

22  Because for most cases, the ratio of MCER to DE intensity is 1.5, then the allowable drift

23  ratio at MCER becomes 3% ( 1.5 2% ).

24  2. 1.9 factor: When NRHA analysis is used, the code (Section 16.2.4.3 of ASCE 7-10)
25  allows the DE drift ratios computed from analysis to be limited to 125% of the DE drift

15 
 
 1  ratio limits of Table 12.12-1. Therefore, the MCER drift ratios are limited to 1.9

2  (approximately equal to1.5 1.25 ) of limits of Table 12.12-1.

3  3. 1.5 R / Cd factor: The deflections δx of Equation (12.8-15) are computed by amplifying

4  the deflections computed from analysis by the deflection amplification factor ( Cd ). The

5  elastic deflections used in Chapter 12 are computed at DE intensity using elastic analysis
6  with forces that are reduced by the response modification factor, R . Thus, for the purpose
7  of comparing drift ratios computed from NRHA with Table 12.12-1, the entries of the

LY
8  table need to be modified by the R / Cd factor for comparison at DE level. Therefore, the

9  allowable drift ratios at MCER correspond to 1.5R / Cd of entries of the table.

N
O
10  Example: Five-Story Steel Special Moment Frames in Risk Category I or II

 Allowable drift ratio from Table 12.12-1  2% .

11 


n
Allowable drift ratio for structures with dampers using NRHA then would be the smallest
io
12 
13  of
at

14  o 3%,
m

15  o 1.9  2%  3.8% , and

o 1.5  (8 / 5.5)  2%  4.4% .

or

16 

17   3% controls. Thus, all computed drift ratios from NRHA should be 3% or less at MCER .
nf
rI

18  C18.5 DESIGN REVIEW

Fo

19  The independent design review of many structures incorporating supplemental damping may be
20  performed adequately by one registered and appropriately experienced design professional.
21  However, for projects involving significant or critical structures, it is recommended that a design
22  review panel consisting of two or three registered and appropriately experienced design
23  professionals be used.

24  C18.6 TESTING

25  C18.6.1.1 Qualification Tests

16 
 
 1  Property modification factors are used to bound the mechanical properties of damping devices.
2  These factors are device- and manufacturer-dependent and are derived from testing of devices of
3  the physical size and internal construction (e.g., orifices and seals for fluid viscous dampers), and
4  with the force-velocity-displacement response proposed for construction. If damping devices
5  smaller than full-scale are used for qualification testing, principles of scaling and similarity in the
6  peer-reviewed literature for seismic protective devices may be used to interpret test data.
7 
8 

LY
9  C18.6.2.2 Sequence and Cycles of Testing

N
10  The use of 1/ (1.5T1 ) as the testing frequency is based on a softening of the combined SFRS and

O
11  DS associated with a system ductility of approximately 2. Test 2 (d) in Section 18.6.2.2ensures
12  that the prototype damper is tested at the maximum force from analysis.
n
io
13  It should be noted that velocity-dependent devices (for example, those devices characterized by
F  Cvα ) are not intended to be characterized as frequency-dependent under item 4 of this
at
14 

15  section.
m

16  C18.6.2.3 Testing Similar Devices

or

17  In order for existing prototype test data to be used to satisfy the requirement of Section 18.6.2 ,
nf

18  the conditions of this provision must be satisfied. It is imperative that identical manufacturing
19  and quality control procedures be used for the preexisting prototype and the project-specific
rI

20  production damping devices. The precise interpretations of “similar dimensional characteristics,
Fo

21  internal construction, and static and dynamic internal pressures” and “similar maximum strokes
22  and forces” are left to the RDP and the design review team. However, variations in these
23  characteristics of the preexisting prototype device beyond approximately 20% from the
24  corresponding project-specific values should be cause for concern.

25 

17 
 
 1  C18.6.2.4 Determination of Force-Velocity-Displacement Characteristics
2  When determining nominal properties (Item 2) for damping devices whose first-cycle test
3  properties differ significantly from the average properties of the first three cycles, an extra cycle
4  may be added to the test, and the nominal properties may be determined from the average value
5  using data from the second through fourth cycles. In this case, the effect of first-cycle properties
6  must be addressed explicitly and included in the λmax factor. It should be noted that if the

7  property variation methodology of Sections 18.2.4.4 and 18.2.4.5 is applied consistently, the
8  maximum and minimum design properties (Equations (18.2-4a) and (18.2-4b)) will be identical,

LY
9  regardless of whether the nominal properties are taken from the average of Cycles 1 through 3 or
10  Cycles 2 through 4.

N
11  C18.6.3 Production Tests

O
12  The registered design professional is responsible for defining, in the project specifications, the
13  n
scope of the production damper test program, including the allowable variation in the average
io
14  measured properties of the production damping devices. The registered design professional must
at
15  decide on the acceptable variation of damper properties on a project-by-project basis. This range
must agree with the specification tolerance from Section 18.2.4.5. The standard requires that all
m

16 
17  production devices of a given type and size be tested.
or

18  Individual devices may be permitted a wider variation (typically 15% or 20% ) from the
nf

19  nominal design properties. For example, in a device characterized by F  Cvα , the mean of the
rI

20  force at a specified velocity for all tested devices might be permitted to vary no more than 10%
from the specified value of force, but the force at a specified velocity for any individual device
Fo

21 
22  might be permitted to vary no more than 15% from the specified force.

23  The production dynamic cyclic test is identical (except for three versus five cycles) to one of the
24  prototype tests of Section 18.6.2.2 , so that direct comparison of production and prototype
25  damper properties is possible.

26  The exception is intended to cover those devices that would undergo yielding or be otherwise
27  damaged under the production test regime. The intent is that piston-type devices be 100%
28  production tested, since their properties cannot be shown to meet the requirements of the project

18 
 
 1  specifications without testing. For other types of damping devices, whose properties can be
2  demonstrated to be in compliance with the project specifications by other means (for example,
3  via material testing and a manufacturing quality control program), the dynamic cyclic testing of
4  100% of the devices is not required. However, in this case, the RDP must establish an alternative
5  production test program to ensure the quality of the production devices. Such a program would
6  typically focus on such things as manufacturing quality control procedures (identical between
7  prototype and production devices), material testing of samples from a production run, welding
8  procedures, and dimensional control. At least one production device must be tested at 0.67 times

LY
9  the MCER stroke at a frequency equal to 1/ (1.5T1 ) , unless the complete project-specific

10  prototype test program has been performed on an identical device. If such a test results in

N
11  inelastic behavior in the device, or the device is otherwise damaged, that device cannot be used

O
12  for construction.

C18.7 ALTERNATE PROCEDURES AND CORRESPONDING ACCEPTANCE

13 
n
io
14  CRITERIA
at
15  This section applies only to those cases where either the RS or the ELF procedure is adopted.
m

16  C18.7.1 Response-Spectrum Procedure and C18.7.2 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
or

17  Effective Damping

nf

18  In the standard, the reduced response of a structure with a damping system is characterized by
rI

19  the damping coefficient, B , based on the effective damping, β , of the mode of interest. This
approach is the same as that used for isolated structures. Like isolation, effective damping of the
Fo

20 
21  fundamental mode of a damped structure is based on the nonlinear force-deflection properties of
22  the structure. For use with linear analysis methods, nonlinear properties of the structure are
23  inferred from the overstrength factor, Ω0 , and other terms.

24  Figure C18.7-1 illustrates a reduction in design earthquake response of the fundamental mode
25  caused by increased effective damping (represented by coefficient, B1D ). The capacity curve is a

26  plot of the nonlinear behavior of the fundamental mode in spectral acceleration-displacement

19 
 
 1  coordinates. The reduction caused by damping is applied at the effective period of the
2  fundamental mode of vibration (based on the secant stiffness).

LY
N
O
n
io
at
3 
m

4 
or

5  FIGURE C18.7-1. Effective damping reduction of design demand.

nf

6  In general, effective damping is a combination of three components:

rI

7  1. Inherent Damping ( βI )—Inherent damping of the structure at, or just below, yield,

8  excluding added viscous damping (typically assumed to be 2–5% of critical for structural
Fo

9  systems without dampers).

10  2. Hysteretic Damping ( βH )—Postyield hysteretic damping of the seismic force-resisting

11  system and elements of the damping system at the amplitude of interest (taken as 0% of
12  critical at or below yield).
13  3. Added Viscous Damping ( βV )—The viscous component of the damping system (taken as

14  0% for hysteretic or friction-based damping systems).

20 
 
 1  Both hysteretic damping and added viscous damping are amplitude-dependent, and the relative
2  contributions to total effective damping change with the amount of postyield response of the
3  structure. For example, adding dampers to a structure decreases postyield displacement of the
4  structure and, hence, decreases the amount of hysteretic damping provided by the seismic force-
5  resisting system. If the displacements are reduced to the point of yield, the hysteretic component
6  of effective damping is zero and the effective damping is equal to inherent damping plus added
7  viscous damping. If there is no damping system (as in a conventional structure), effective
8  damping simply equals inherent damping.

LY
9  Linear Analysis Methods. The section specifies design earthquake displacements, velocities,
10  and forces in terms of design earthquake spectral acceleration and modal properties. For

N
11  equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis, response is defined by two modes: the fundamental mode

O
12  and the residual mode. The residual mode is used to approximate the combined effects of higher
13  modes. Although typically of secondary importance to story drift, higher modes can be a
14  n
significant contributor to story velocity and, hence, are important for design of velocity-
io
15  dependent damping devices. For response spectrum analysis, higher modes are explicitly
at
16  evaluated.
m

17  For both the ELF and the response spectrum analysis procedures, response in the fundamental
18  mode in the direction of interest is based on assumed nonlinear (pushover) properties of the
or

19  structure. Nonlinear (pushover) properties, expressed in terms of base shear and roof
nf

20  displacement, are related to building capacity, expressed in terms of spectral coordinates, using
mass participation and other fundamental-mode factors shown in Figure C18.7-2. The
rI

21 
22  conversion concepts and factors shown in Figure C18.7-2 are the same as those defined in
Fo

23  Chapter 9 of ASCE 41 (2014), which addresses seismic rehabilitation of a structure with
24  damping devices.

21 
 
 LY
1 

N
2  FIGURE C18.7-2. Pushover and capacity curves.

O
3 

4 
n
Where using linear analysis methods, the shape of the fundamental-mode pushover curve is not
io
5  known, so an idealized elastoplastic shape is assumed, as shown in Figure C18.7-3. The idealized
6  pushover curve is intended to share a common point with the actual pushover curve at the design
at

7  earthquake displacement, D1D . The idealized curve permits definition of the global ductility
m

8  demand caused by the design earthquake, μD , as the ratio of design displacement, D1D , to yield
or

9  displacement, DY . This ductility factor is used to calculate various design factors; it must not
nf

10  exceed the ductility capacity of the seismic force-resisting system, μmax , which is calculated

using factors for conventional structural response. Design examples using linear analysis
rI

11 
12  methods have been developed and found to compare well with the results of nonlinear time
Fo

13  history analysis (Ramirez et al. 2001).

22 
 
 LY
1 

N
2  FIGURE C18.7-3. Pushover and capacity curves.

O
3  Elements of the damping system are designed, and for fundamental-mode design earthquake
4  forces corresponding to a base shear value of VY (except that damping devices are designed and

5  n
prototypes are tested for maximum considered earthquake response). Elements of the seismic
io
6  force-resisting system are designed for reduced fundamental-mode base shear, V1 , where force
at

7  reduction is based on system overstrength (represented by Ω0 ), multiplied by Cd / R for elastic

m

8  analysis (where actual pushover strength is not known). Reduction, using the ratio Cd / R , is
or

9  necessary because the standard provides values of Cd that are less than those for R . Where the
nf

10  two parameters have equal value and the structure is 5% damped under elastic conditions, no
11  adjustment is necessary. Because the analysis methodology is based on calculating the actual
rI

12  story drifts and damping device displacements (rather than the displacements calculated for
Fo

13  elastic conditions at the reduced base shear and then multiplied by Cd ), an adjustment is needed.

14  Because actual story drifts are calculated, the allowable story drift limits of Table 12.12-1 are
15  multiplied by R / Cd before use.

16  C18.7.3 Damped Response Modification

17 

23 
 
 1  C18.7.3.1 Damping Coefficient
2  Values of the damping coefficient, B , in Table 18.7-1 for the design of damped structures are
3  the same as those in Table 17.5-1 for isolated structures at damping levels up to 20% but extend
4  to higher damping levels based on results presented in Ramirez et al. (2001). Table C18.7-1
5  compares values of the damping coefficient as found in the standard and various resource
6  documents and codes. FEMA 440 (2005) and Eurocode 8 (2005) present equations for the
7  damping coefficient, B , whereas the other documents present values of B in tabular format.

8  Table C18.7-1. Values of Damping Coefficient, B .

LY
Table 17.5-1 of ASCE/SEI 7 Table 18.6-1 of

N
Effective (2010), AASHTO (2010), CBC ASCE/SEI 7 (2010) FEMA
Damping, β (2013), seismically isolated (structures with damping 440 Eurocode 8

O
(%) structures) systems) (2005) (2005)

2 0.8 n0.8 0.8 0.8

io
at
5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
m

10 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

or

20 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6

nf

30 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

rI

40 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1

Fo

50 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.3

4
9  The equation in FEMA 440 is B 
5.6  ln(100β)

0.05  β
10  The equation in Eurocode 8 (2005) is B 
0.10

24 
 
 1  C18.7.3.2 Effective Damping
2  The effective damping is calculated assuming that the structural system exhibits perfectly
3  bilinear hysteretic behavior characterized by the effective ductility demand, μ , as described in
4  Ramirez et al. (2001). Effective damping is adjusted using the hysteresis loop adjustment factor,
5  qH , which is the actual area of the hysteresis loop divided by the area of the assumed perfectly
6  bilinear hysteretic loop. In general, values of this factor are less than unity. In Ramirez et al.
7  (2001), expressions for this factor (which they call Quality Factor) are too complex to serve as a
8  simple rule. Equation (18.7-49) provides a simple estimate of this factor. The equation predicts

LY
9  correctly the trend in the constant acceleration domain of the response spectrum, and it is
10  believed to be conservative for flexible structures.

N
11 

O
12  C18.7.4 Seismic Load Conditions and Acceptance Criteria for RSA and ELF Procedures
n
io
13 
at
14  C18.7.4.5 Seismic Load Conditions and Combination of Modal Responses
m

15  Seismic design forces in elements of the damping system are calculated at three distinct stages:
16  maximum displacement, maximum velocity, and maximum acceleration. All three stages need to
or

17  be checked for structures with velocity-dependent damping systems. For displacement-dependent
nf

18  damping systems, the first and third stages are identical, whereas the second stage is
19  inconsequential.
rI

20  Force coefficients CmFD and CmFV are used to combine the effects of forces calculated at the
Fo

21  stages of maximum displacement and maximum velocity to obtain the forces at maximum
22  acceleration. The coefficients are presented in tabular form based on analytic expressions
23  presented in Ramirez et al. (2001) and account for nonlinear viscous behavior and inelastic
24  structural system behavior.

25 

26  REFERENCES

25 
 
 1  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2010). Guide
2  specifications for seismic isolation design, Washington, DC.

3  ASCE. (2014), “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings.” ASCE/SEI 41-13, Reston,
4  VA.

5  Basu, D., Constantinou, M. C., and Whittaker, A. S. (2014). “An equivalent accidental
6  eccentricity to account for the effects of torsional ground motion on structures.” Eng. Struct., 69,
7  1–11.

LY
8  British Standards Institution. (1983). Commentary on corrosion at bimetallic contacts and its
9  alleviation, PD6484:1979, London.

N
10  California Buildings Standards Commission (CBC). (2013). California building code.

O
11  Sacramento, CA.

12  n
Constantinou,M. C., Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F. (1998). Passive energy dissipation systems
io
13  for structural design and retrofit, Monograph 1, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
at
14  Engineering Research, University of Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo.
m

15  Constantinou, M. C., Whittaker, A. S., Kalpakidis, Y., Fenz, D. M., and Warn, G. P. (2007).
16  “Performance of seismic isolation hardware under service and seismic loading.” Report No.
or

17  MCEER-07-0012, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
nf

18  European Committee for Standardization (Eurocode 8). (2005). “Design of structures for
rI

19  earthquake resistance. Part 2: Bridges.” Eurocode 8, European Committee for Standardization.
Fo

20  FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2005). “Improvement of nonlinear static
21  seismic analysis procedures.” FEMA 440, FEMA, Washington, DC.

22  Hanson, R. D., and Soong, T. T. (2001). “Seismic design with supplemental energy dissipation
23  devices.” MNO-8, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.

24  Makris, N., Roussos, Y., Whittaker, A. S., and Kelly, J. M. (1998). “Viscous heating of fluid
25  dampers. I: Large-amplitude motions.” J. Eng. Mech., Pavlou, E., and Constantinou, M. C.

26 
 
 1  (2004). “Response of elastic and inelastic structures with damping systems to near-field and soft-
2  soil ground motions.” Engrg. Struct. 26, 1217–1230.

3  Pavlou, E., and Constantinou, M. C. (2006). “Response of nonstructural components in

4  structures with damping systems.” J. Struct. Engrg., 132(7), 1108–1117.

5  Rabinowicz, E. (1995). Friction and wear of materials, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

6  Ramirez, O. M., Constantinou, M. C., Kircher, C. A., Whittaker, A., Johnson, M., Gomez, J. D.,
7  et al. (2001). “Development and evaluation of simplified procedures of analysis and design for

LY
8  structures with passive energy dissipation systems.” Technical Report MCEER-00-0010,
9  Revision 1, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University of

N
10  Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo.

O
11  Skinner, R. I., Robinson, W. H., and McVerry, G. H. (1993). An introduction to seismic
isolation, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
12 
n
io
13  Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F. (1997). Passive energy dissipation systems in structural
at
14  engineering, Wiley, London.
m

15 
or

16  OTHER REFERENCES (NOT CITED)

nf

17  Miyamoto, H. K., Gilani, A. S. J., Wada, A., and Ariyaratana, C. (2011). “Identifying the
rI

18  collapse hazard of steel special moment-frame buildings with viscous dampers using the FEMA
19  P-695 methodology.” Earthquake Spectra, 27(4), 1147–1168.
Fo

20  Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. (1969). “Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities.”
21  In Proc., 4th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.

22  Ramirez, O. M., Constantinou, M. C., Gomez, J., Whittaker, A. S., and Chrysostomou, C. Z.
23  (2002a). “Evaluation of simplified methods of analysis of yielding structures with damping
24  systems.” Earthquake Spectra, 18(3), 501–530.

27 
 
 1  Ramirez, O. M., Constantinou, M. C., Whittaker, A. S., Kircher, C. A., and Chrysostomou, C. Z.
2  (2002b). “Elastic and inelastic seismic response of buildings with damping systems.” Earthquake
3  Spectra, 18(3), 531–547.

4  Ramirez, O. M., Constantinou, M. C., Whittaker, A. S., Kircher, C. A., Johnson, M. W., and
5  Chrysostomou, C. Z. (2003). “Validation of 2000 NEHRP provisions equivalent lateral force and
6  modal analysis procedures for buildings with damping systems.” Earthquake Spectra, 19(4),
7  981–999.

LY
8  SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). (2013). 2012 IBC SEAOC
9  structural/seismic design manual Volume 5: Examples for seismically isolated buildings and

N
10  buildings with supplemental damping, Sacramento, CA.

O
11  Whittaker, A. S., Constantinou, M. C., Ramirez, O. M., Johnson, M. W., and Chrysostomou, C.
12  Z. (2003). “Equivalent lateral force and modal analysis procedures of the 2000 NEHRP
13  n
provisions for buildings with damping systems.” Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 959–980.
io
14 
at
m
or
nf
rI
Fo

28