6th Nirma University International Conference on Engineering

NUiCONE 2017

Experimental Study of Seismic Response of

different structural systems
Vineet Kothari
Assistant Professor
Civil Engineering Department
Nirma University
Flow of Presentation

 Introduction
 Literature Review
 Objective
 Scope of Work
 Experimental Study
 Conclusion
 References
 Introduction
 Dynamic load produces vibration in the structure which causes the
damage or collapse of the structure
 To reduce these vibrations it becomes important for the structure to
absorb or dissipate energy
 Conventional seismic design attempts to make buildings that do not
collapse under strong earthquake shaking, but may sustain damage to
non-structural elements and to some structural members in the building.
 This may cause the building to be non-functional after the earthquake.
 This paper focuses on finding the effectiveness of shear wall and
viscoelastic damper in controlling response of structure.
Introduction
 Energy absorption or dissipation devices
 by increasing stiffness (absorption)
 by improving dynamic performance (dissipation)
 Different Methods to improve seismic response
conventional methods
1. MR frames
2. Shear wall
3. Bracings Systems
4. Dual system
Modern methods
1. Passive control systems
2. Active Control systems
3. Semi-active control systems
4. Hybrid control systems
 Literature Review
 It has been proved that viscoelastic dampers was able to increase the
overall damping of the structure significantly, by reducing earthquake and
wind induced vibrations hence improving the overall performance of
dynamically sensitive structures (Shamali 1995).
 Different experimental studies were carried for full scale model of 11 storey
and testing with different structural systems by giving different excitations
(Butterworth 2004).
 An experimental study of Viscoelastic elastic damper performance increases
with the increase in temperature (Soong 1993)
 A 14-story steel MRF having insufficient stiffness and strength at lower stories
was retrofitted to achieve the optimized response by using either VE or EP
dampers. Both VE and EP systems performed excellently for the major
earthquakes considered (kazuhiko kasai 1988)
 Experimental study on demonstrative model was also carried out with added
bracings for increasing seismic response control (Dhara 2012)
Objective
 The over all objective of this work is to find the effectiveness of shear
wall and viscoelastic damper in controlling seismic response of
structures.
 Scope of Work
 For the experimental study three different models (shear wall model. Bare
frame model and viscoelastic damper model) were fabricated.
 Dynamic structural response for different structural models were studied by
incorporating free and forced vibrations.
 Responses were captured by NV Gate software.
 Stiffness was calculated by plotting load vs deflection graphs at different
stories.
 Natural frequency of structure, maximum acceleration. Maximum velocity and
maximum displacement of the structure was calculated.
 Experimental Study

Models considered
1. Bare frame model
2. Shear wall model
3. Viscoelastic damper model

Model Specifications and materials

1. All plates - 450 mm x 450 mm of 4.2mm thick (Mild steel)
2. Columns -6 mm diameter rod (Stainless steel)
3. Shear wall of stainless steel thick plate (30 cm height 4 cm
wide and 5 mm thick)
4. Miniature model of Viscoelastic damper
 Models

Shear wall Model

Bare frame model
 Models

Assembly to connect damper with

model

Viscoelastic damper model

Miniature model of viscoelastic

damper
Instruments For Recording Data

Uniaxial and triaxial sensor

Sixteen channel
noise and vibration
Main window of analyzer instrument
NVGate software.
 Experimental Test

 Stiffness Test
 Free Vibration
 Shake table test (For 1.875 Hz and 2.5 Hz frequency of
shake table)

Stiffness test Free vibration test Shake Table Test

Stiffness Test Calculation

Stiffness calculated from Load vs

Displacement Graph

Bare Frame 17691 N/m

Model

Shear Wall Model 43491 N/m

Viscoelastic 30818 N/m

Damper Model
 Damping Ratio Calculation
 Models were tested for free vibration
 Damping ratio for different model bare frame model, viscoelastic damper
model and shear wall model was determined using free vibration test
(Logarithmic Decrement Method).
 Damping ratio can be determined from the following equation [Chopra,
2000]
Damping Ratio Calculation

Initial Displacement at
top storey level
ui  j

Damping Ratio Calculation for Different

Models
Damping ratio Damping ratio Damping ratio
calculation for calculation for bare calculation viscoelastic
shear wall model frame model damper model
ui 0.0508 ui 0.0921 ui 0.658
ui  j 0.0256 ui  j 0.078 ui  j 0.264
𝜉 0.064 𝜉 0.153 𝜉 0.145
𝜉 5.34% 𝜉 1.53% 𝜉 14.51%
Calculation of Natural Frequency of the
structure
 For calculating natural frequency of the structure FFT graph was plotted
using NV Gate software as shown in Fig
 Fundamental natural frequency for shear wall model is highest and lowest
in case of bare frame model.

Natural
Frequency
ω f
Bare Frame 15.707
2.5 Hz
Model rad/sec
Shear Wall 27.48
4.375 Hz
Model rad/sec
Viscoelastic
19.63
Damper 3.125 Hz
rad/sec
Model

FFT curve for bare frame model using

NV Gate software
Comparison of Acceleration Velocity and
Displacement of Bare Frame Model at
Different Forcing Frequencies

Max Max Max Max

For 1.875 Max Max
Accelera Displace For 2.5 Hz Accelera Displace
Hz Velocity Velocity
tion ment tion ment
Storey
Storey
(m/s2) (m/s) Cm (m/s2) (m/s) cm

1st 1.027 0.274 0.81 1st 2.54 0.508 1.08

2nd 1.245 0.332 1.57 2nd 3.12 0.624 2.24

3rd 1.297 0.345 2 3rd 3.532 0.7064 3.064

Comparison of Acceleration Velocity and
Displacement of Viscoelastic Damper
Model at Different Forcing Frequencies

For 2.5 Hz Max Max Max For Max Max Max

Accelera Velocity Displace 1.875 Hz Accelera Velocity Displace
Storey tion ment tion ment
Storey
(m/s2) (m/s) Cm (m/s2) (m/s) Cm

1st 0.5826 0.11652 0.5652 1st 0.05373 0.01432 0.1911

2nd 0.741 0.1432 0.882 2nd 0.0709 0.0189 0.2979

3rd 0.7662 0.15324 1.312 3rd 0.1049 0.02797 0.3729

Comparison of Acceleration Velocity and
Displacement of Shear Wall Model at
Different Forcing Frequencies
For Max Max Max For 2.5 Max Max Max
1.875 Hz Acceleratio Velocity Displac Hz Accelerat Velocity Displacement
n ement ion
Storey
(m/s2) (m/s) cm Storey (m/s2) (m/s) cm
1st 0.06738 0.01786 0.1197 1st 0.1304 0.02608 0.1404

2nd 0.07689 0.0205 0.2534 2nd 0.1405 0.0281 0.2708

3rd 0.08608 0.0229 0.306 3rd 0.1675 0.0335 0.365

Comparison of Displacement response
for 1.875 Hz frequency of Shake Table
Comparison of Displacement response
for 2.5 Hz frequency of Shake Table
Conclusions

 There is increase in damping ratio for viscoelastic damper model as

compared with bare frame model and shear wall model.
 Fundamental natural frequency and stiffness are highest in case of shear
wall model.
 Displacement calculated for three stories is lesser in case of viscoelastic
damper model and least in case of shear wall model as compared with
bare frame model.
 Displacement reduction is higher at lower stories; this shows viscoelastic
damper is more effective at lower stories.
References
 B. Samali and K. C. S. Kwok, Use of viscoelastic dampers in reducing wind
and earthquake induced motion of building, Engineering Structures, vol. 17,
1995
 N. Makris& M. C. Constantinou. Viscous dampers: testing, modeling and
application in vibration and seismic isolation. National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.NCEER Report, 1990.
 T. T. Soong, D. S. Hao, K. C. Chang, M. L. Lai. Seismic behavoir and design
guidelines for steel frame structures with added viscoelastic dampers,
National Centre For Earthquake Engineering Research, 1993.
 A. K. Chopra. Dynamics of structures.theory and appliction to earthquake
engineering. Pearson Education, Inc., 2007.
References
 Barry Davidson John Butterworth, Jin Hee LEE. Experimental determination
of modal damping from full scale testing. 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, August 2004
 Dhara Panchal and Sharad Purohit Dynamic Response Control of a
Building Model using Bracings. Chemical, Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Tracks of the 3rd Nirma University International Conference on Engineering-
NUiCONE-2012