Seismic Response Control of High-Rise Mass Varied Structures Using Linear Fluid Viscous Damper

Abstract

Seismic event induces undesirable motion in buildings, energy dissipation systems in civil engineering are indeed needed. There is a mix of structures with passive energy dissipation supplied by Fluid Viscous Dampers systems (FVD). This technology is increasingly being utilized to improve seismic protection for both existing and new structures. The findings of the FVD systems are investigated in order to compare the structural response with and without this device of energy dissipation compared for low and high rise structures, the damper installed at different storey and varying the coefficient of damping (Cd) has been focused in this paper which provides an insight when the variation of Cd and its locations,. The findings of the FVD\'s impressive ability to increase the structure\'s dissipative capabilities without increasing its stiffness. In the case of high rise FVD performance has been evaluated through the top storey displacements which will allow for a conclusion.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Earthquake is a phenomena which no one can predict and control it, tectonic plates movement causes earthquake which will release energy in the form of Primary, Secondary and Love waves on the surface of the earth. Structures built on the earth will be affected by seismic energy due to inertial forces, inherent damping force and resisting force by stiffness, will induce for the oscillation. Structures under oscillation for low rise to some extent can be resisted by structure itself without undergoing large top storey displacement but when the structure is tall large top storey displacement can make the occupants at the top storey in a pathetic condition, to avoid large displacements at the top storey one can use dampers. Dampers can be classified into 4 categories like passive, semi-active, active and hybrid[1], in this study we focus on passive fluid viscous dampers [2]. Fluid viscous dampers are easy to install and for maintenance, in passive system of damping doesn’t require any external power to dissipate seismic energy of structure, absorption of energy through an orifice connected to a piston moving from one part of the cylinder to other filled with silicon or mineral oil. 3[3] and 11[4] storey benchmark mass varied buildings considered for the study using matlab as a tool by state space [5], frequency of the lumped mass models matches exactly with benchmark problems and hence study focused on reducing the top storey displacement for Elcentro 1940 earthquake for 5 g and 0.3417 g [6] accelerograms for low rise and high rise building [7] respectively, using fluid viscous damper at different location or storey’s [8] in the building or structure, finding minimum numbers and location of dampers were discussed in this paper.

II. PASSIVE FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS

Fluid viscous dampers was invented by Houde Engineering at the time of world war 1[9], initially it was used in the automobile industry below engine to reduce vibrations, drastically in the 1960s it was used by NASA in the large scale developed by Taylor[10], [11]. Later it was designed for use in structural engineering in the late of 1980s and early of 1990s by Makris and Constantinou. FVD typically consist of a piston head with orifices contained in a cylinder filled with a highly viscous fluid like mineral or silicon oils or similar type of oil which can work under - 40 to + 60 degree Celsius [10] varying temperature. Energy is dissipated [12] in the damper by fluid orifice when the piston head moves through the fluid. The fluid in the cylinder is nearly incompressible [11], and when damper is subjected to a compressive force fluid volume inside the cylinder is decreased as a result of the piston rod moves which in-turn energy consumed to do work [13].

A decrease in volume results in a restoring force. The seismic force is prevented by using an accumulator. An accumulator works by collecting the volume of fluid that is displaced by the piston rod and storing it in the makeup area. As the rod retreats, a vacuum that has been created will draw the fluid out. A damper with an accumulator is illustrated in the figure 1.

\

A. Characteristics of Passive Fluid Viscous Dampers

FVD are characterized by a resistance force F which it depends on the velocity of piston movement [15], fluid viscosity, orifices size of piston and storage stiffness of damper which it is not considered in the study if it is considered it will be called as viscoelastic damper. The value of damping force F is given by the relationship:

Where,

F – Damping Force induced by Damper in Newton

Cd - is the damping constant in Newton-second/metre,

V - is velocity between the two end of damper in metre/second &

α - is the exponent which depends on viscosity properties of fluid and orifice dimensions of the piston. Values of α < 1 behaves as nonlinear FVD, α = 1 behaves as linear FVD & α > 1 behaviour not so far seen in practical applications.

A typical force displacement relationship [14] shown in below figure 2 of FVD, Structure and structure installed with FVD.

D. Numerical Study

The storey shear building frame model with and without viscous damper at different storey’s were modelled as linear lumped mass [20], governing equations of motion are stated above. The benchmark problem of 3 storey building configured with MR damper of passive off case [21] is considered with FVD installed at ground storey. Using state space matrix it can be solved to determine the displacement and velocity of the storey at the time t for the ground motion of NS component of El-centro 1940 data reproduced at 5 times the original record. The exact modelling of the problem using equations modelled in Matlab. System matrices are as mentioned below:

Fluid Viscous Damper parameters: Cd = 25000 N-s/m                             α = 1

1. Model 1: Dampers Installed at all storey’s

Table 5. Comparison of storey wise displacement for FVD installed at all storey for high rise case.

2. Model 2: Dampers Installed at alternate storey’s

Table 6. Comparison of storey wise displacement for FVD installed at alternate storey for high rise case.

3. Model 3: Dampers Installed at alternate two storey’s

Table 7. Comparison of storey wise displacement for FVD installed at alternate two storey for high rise case.

III. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

A.  Low Rise Case

1. Validating low rise benchmark problem to 0.45 % difference in results led to the conclusion that low value of  Cd can be used with increased number of dampers to achieve better results with cost effective.
2. When the Cd is constant the force developed may be high, if top storey displacement can be set to a target value Cd can be varied and number of damper usage may be increased.
3. When the FVD numbers varied in buildings force developed by damper also varied.
4. The lowest top storey displacement achieved for M-4 but it is uneconomical, hence the M-5 model fetched the next better results when compared with M-4 & M-5 models as per table 3.
5. In without damper model clearly obeying a linear pattern as per the fig.2, for M-2 to M-5 models follows hysteretic curve.
6. Top storey displacement reduced 85 % when compared with WOD (without damper model) & M4 models, 80 % when compared with WOD & M5 models & 53 % when compared with WOD & M1.

B.  High Rise Case

1. Mass and stiffness has been varied throughout the height of the 11 storey tall structure.
2. The Cd value has kept constant here based on the demand of damping.
3. The lateral displacement curve is parabolic as per the fig.16.
4. The mean storey wise displacement difference for the tall structure is 1.90 %.
5. In tall structures when FVD placed at different locations as discussed in table 5, 6 & 7 it clear that number of dampers as high the storey displacements are also low and damper force developed is also high .
6. From table 5, 6 & 7 the best models for tall structure is damper installed at alternate 2 storey-number of dampers less but up to 20 % of displacements reduced when compared with WOD.

.IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I thank for my Research Supervisor Dr. Jagadish G Kori and Head of  SOCE, KLETECH, Dr. M V Chitwadgi supporting me to elevate my knowledge in the field of Structural Engineering, I thank Prof. Gurunath Kampli, Prof. Shravan, Prof. Shashibhushan, Prof. Chaitanya, Prof. Basanagouda, Prof. Siddalingesh & Prof. Vinayak Vijapur supporting morally to complete my research work.

Conclusion

1) Mass kept same in all storey’s with varying stiffness installed with FVD to reduce the top storey displacements up to 85 %. 2) Mass and stiffness are varied with FVD to reduce top storey displacements upto 50 %. 3) FVD at two alternate storey in low and high rise cases shows good results when compared to FVD installed at all storey’s.

References

[1] T. E. Saaed, G. Nikolakopoulos, J. E. Jonasson, and H. Hedlund, “A state-of-the-art review of structural control systems,” JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 919–937, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1077546313478294. [2] D. P. Taylor, “History, design, and applications of fluid dampers in structural engineering,” Passive Structural Control Symposium, 13-14 December, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, pp. 17–34, 2002, [Online]. Available: http://taylordevices.com/papers/history/design.htm. [3] S. J. Dyke and B. F. Spencer, “A comparison of semi-active control strategies for the MR damper,” Proceedings - Intelligent Information Systems, IIS 1997, no. January 1998, pp. 580–584, 1997, doi: 10.1109/IIS.1997.645424. [4] S. Pourzeynali, H. H. Lavasani, and A. H. Modarayi, “Active control of high rise building structures using fuzzy logic and genetic algorithms,” Engineering Structures, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 346–357, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.04.015. [5] R. L. W. Ii et al., LINEAR STATE-SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS. 2007. [6] B. Halldórsson, G. P. Mavroeidis, and A. S. Papageorgiou, “Near-fault and far-field strong ground-motion simulation for earthquake engineering applications using the specific barrier model,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 137, no. 3, pp. 433–444, 2011, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000097. [7] R. J. McNamara and D. P. Taylor, “Fluid viscous dampers for high-rise buildings,” Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 145–154, 2003, doi: 10.1002/tal.218. [8] M. P. Singh and L. M. Moreschi, “Optimal placement of dampers for passive response control,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 955–976, 2002, doi: 10.1002/eqe.132. [9] S. T. De Cruz and C. Taylor, “Experimental study of friction dissipators for seismic protection of building structures,” vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 475–486, 2011. [10] N. Makris and M. Constantinou, “Viscous Dampers: Testing Modeling and Application in Vibration and Seismic Isolation,” National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo. 1990, doi: 10.13140/rg.2.1.5008.1445. [11] D. Lee and D. P. Taylor, “Viscous damper development and future trends,” Structural Design of Tall Buildings, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 311–320, 2001, doi: 10.1002/tal.188. [12] D. P. Taylor, “consternation 1996.PDF,” Fluid dampers for application of seismic energy dissipation and seismic isolation, p. 789, 1996. [13] D. P. Taylor and M. C. Constantinou, “Testing Procedures for High Output Fluid Viscous Dampers Used in Building and Bridge Structures to Dissipate Seismic Energy,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 373–381, 1995, doi: 10.1155/1995/676035. [14] M. C. Constantinou and M. D. Symans, “Experimental study of seismic response,” the Structural Design of Tall Buildings, vol. 2, no. January, pp. 93–132, 1993. [15] N. Makris and M. C. Constantinou, “Fractional?Derivative Maxwell Model for Viscous Dampers,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 117, no. 9, pp. 2708–2724, 1991, doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1991)117:9(2708). [16] N. Makris and M. C. Constantinou, “Spring?viscous damper systems for combined seismic and vibration isolation,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 649–664, 1992, doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290210801. [17] C. C. Labise, G. W. Rodgers, G. A. MacRae, and J. Geoffrey Chase, “Viscous and hysteretic damping - Impact of capacity design violation in augmented structural systems,” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 2012, doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.45.1.23-30. [18] A. Ras and N. Boumechra, “Seismic energy dissipation study of linear fluid viscous dampers in steel structure design,” Alexandria Engineering Journal, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2016.07.012. [19] G. B. M., “Principia Mathematica,” Nature, vol. 87, no. 2183. pp. 273–274, 1911, doi: 10.1038/087273a0. [20] M. Paz and W. Leigh, “Structural Dynamics Theory and Computation By Mario Paz.” 2004. [21] S. J. Dyke, B. F. Spencer, M. K. Sain, and J. D. Carlson, “Modeling and control of magnetorheological dampers for seismic response reduction,” Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 565–575, 1996, doi: 10.1088/0964-1726/5/5/006. [22] IS: 875 (2015), “Indian Standard design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures-code of practice,part 3(wind loads),” BIS, New Delhi. p. 51, 2015.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Arun Kumar G S, Jagadish G Kori. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.