Civil-Comp Press, 2015

Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on

Paper 0123456789 Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Computing,
J. Kruis, Y. Tsompanakis and B.H.V. Topping, (Editors),
Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, Scotland

Simplified Nonlinear Analysis:

Application to Damper-Braced Structures
I. Nuzzo1, D. Losanno2, G. Serino2 and L.M. Bozzo3
1
Department of Engineering, University of Naples Parthenope, Italy
2
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture
University of Naples Federico II, Italy
3
Luis Bozzo estructuras y proyectos, S.L., Barcelona, Spain

Abstract

This paper investigates the design of a new or existing structures equipped with
hysteretic dissipation devices by using simplified nonlinear analysis based on the
definition of the strength reduction factor. In this paper a plane reinforced concrete
frame retrofitted by means of properly designed dissipative braces is analysed. In
particular, two different conditions are considered: when the bare frame behaves
elastically or inelastically. The bare frame and the strengthened frame are subjected
to nonlinear static analysis in order to obtain the corresponding strength reduction
factor. This simple study is repeated varying the brace mechanical properties in
order to investigate the effects on the strength reduction factor. The N2 method is
employed to propose a procedure to follow in order to perform strength and ductile
checks of the braced system. Finally some hints are given with respect to the
possibility of design with equivalent damping and stiffness, according to the
American guidelines FEMA 273 and 274.

Keywords: simplified analysis, reduced ADRS spectrum, equivalent damping,

strength reduction factor, energy dissipation, added devices.

1 Introduction
Implementation of nonlinear analysis would be always necessary in order to
correctly design and understand inelastic and dissipative structural behavior. Despite
that, this type of analysis is generally avoided by professional designers because of
its complexity. For this reason, research tends to detect simplified nonlinear analysis
that allow to study the problem through a more user-friendly approach, i.e. linear
static or linear dynamic analysis. In particular it is common practice to evaluate the
seismic action through a reduced elastic response spectrum according to the
structural capacity of dissipating energy by means of hysteretic and/or viscous
damping. A structure able to perform nonlinear hysteretic energy dissipation could

1
be a bare structure, designed according to capacity design criterion, or a damper-
braced structure, that is a system equipped with supplemental damping devices. In
the latter case, plasticization may be only concentrated into added dissipaters. The
response of damped structures depends on the choice of the device: some systems
offer only damping (purely viscous), while others stiffness, strength and damping
(hysteretic devices). Usually dissipative braces provide a reduction of bending
moment and shear forces in columns but also generate an increasing of the axial
force and sometimes of the base shear, thus requiring a local strengthening to the
foundation system. In case of inelastic behavior, due to formation of plastic hinges
or dampers yielding, the structural energy dissipation capacity can be taken into
account introducing ductility, that is a measure of structural capacity to behave
inelastically. According to ductility capacity it is possible to define a q factor, or R
factor in American codes, through which the elastic spectrum is reduced into the
inelastic one, thus obtaining the design spectrum for linear analysis. For bare
structures, lots of investigation carried out in the past allowed to classify different
structural typologies and assign them acceptable values of q factors. This paper aims
to propose the initial input to start a similar approach in order to define allowable
values of the q factor for structures equipped with supplemental energy dissipation
devices. In this perspective, first at all it is necessary to establish some hypothesis
that let us to classify different structural typologies to be studied according to
achievable ductility capacities. In this sense, elements of discrimination could be the
location of dissipaters in the structure, executive details relative to both structural
elements and added devices, definition of the elastic or inelastic structural behavior.
Once different cases of study have been identified, nonlinear analysis must be
implemented with the aim of achieving reliable values of the q factor to be proposed
to designers.
A different approach relative to the design of a structure equipped with
supplemental energy dissipation devices consists in the evaluation of the equivalent
viscous damping of the system. To this aim, several methods could be used
nowadays. Among them, there are some linear and nonlinear iterative procedures
suggested by American guidelines FEMA 273 and 274. Once is known, it is
possible to define the relative elastic response spectrum. In case of inelastic behavior
of the bare frame, in correspondence of the equivalent stiffness, i.e. the equivalent
period of oscillation, it is possible to read the seismic demand. It is important to
highlight the necessity to define both equivalent damping and stiffness: the former
considers the reduction of the seismic demand thanks to the structural capacity of
dissipating energy, while the latter takes into account the reduction of the structural
stiffness after the excursion in the nonlinear field of the system.
In the case of a system able to dissipate energy hysteretically, both the
implementation of simplified nonlinear analysis by means of q factor or equivalent
damping and stiffness are allowed. Differently, in the case of a structure equipped
with supplemental viscous energy dissipation system, there are no ductility
capacities unless the bare structure behaves inelastically, then it is not useful to
define a q factor. In this case simplified nonlinear analysis can be performed just
modeling equivalent viscous damping and structural initial stiffness.

2
The paper proposes a simplified nonlinear analysis on simple braced structures with
added supplemental energy dissipation systems, using the elastic spectrum reduced
by means of properly defined q factor.

2 Seismic design by means of the strength reduction

factor q
In current seismic design procedures, structures are never designed to remain elastic
during a major earthquake: this would lead to extremely expensive constructions,
probably unfeasible from an architectural viewpoint. Then, a certain amount of
damage, like the local plasticization of some elements, is always admitted, so
requiring nonlinear analysis to be performed in order to take into account the
effective inelastic behavior of the system. Even if less accurate than non linear
analysis, simplified linear static or dynamic analysis are usually pursued. These
methods consider a linear behavior of the structure and define the seismic action
from the design response spectrum, estimated by adequately reducing the elastic
response spectrum. In a performance based design approach, if u is the required
displacement, the system can achieve this deformation linearly, thus requiring a
higher strength Fe, or inelastically, for a lower level of strength, Fy. The second
option is allowable just if the system can guarantee a certain amount of ductility

= u/y (1)

that is the capacity of performing plastic deformations in correspondence of a fixed

level of strength.

Fe
Forza [kN]

y u Spostamento [m]
Figure 1: Elastic and elasto-plastic behaviours

The current seismic design practice, based on the concept of the capacity design,
allows ductile and dissipative structures to undergo inelastic deformations without
collapse when subjected to strong ground motion. The key words of the capacity

3
design philosophy are ductility and structural redundancy. In fact, elements can
perform a nonlinear behaviour allowing the formation of plastic hinges and energy
dissipation only if they are ductile. Moreover the higher is the number of static
indeterminacy, the greater will be the number of possible plastic hinges forming in
the structure. To ensure a ductile behaviour of the whole structure, the capacity
design criteria focus on different design principles, which can be summarized as the
following:
material characteristics;
details in elements cross sections;
type of elements collapse;
type of structural collapse mechanism.

Material characteristics restrictions mainly concern to steel reinforcement, since

in reinforced concrete elements, the ductile behaviour is given by steel, while
concrete is well-known as brittle material; thus tension-controlled sections are
favourable. In the light of this consideration the eventual hardening of the steel
behaviour should be limited in order to avoid an excessive strength with respect to
concrete. On the other hand a minimum steel hardening performance is desirable
because it allows longer plasticize sections. For the same argumentations the
maximum steel reinforcement quantity in cross sections should be restricted as well.
Moreover, since elements collapse due to shear crisis mainly involves concrete
while flexural crisis essentially engages steel reinforcement, this second
phenomenon should be favoured. Finally, the collapse mechanism of the structure to
be preferred is the one that allows the higher possible number of plastic hinges. In
moment resisting frames this means that the formation of plastic hinges in beams is
desirable with respect to the their formation within columns or beam-column joints.
In this way soft storey collapse mechanism is avoided promoting a global collapse
mechanism, that is more dissipative. Introducing these criteria in the seismic design
procedures ensures a certain structural ductile behaviour. This condition allows to
introduce significant force level reductions with respect to that required to maintain
the structure in the elastic range. Currently, in designed practice the reduction in
forces is determined by dividing the linear elastic design spectrum by the strength
reduction factor, called ductility factor and denoted respectively by "q" and "R" in
European and American states-of-art. In this way, the "inelastic response spectrum"
is defined. Values assigned to the q factors depend on the level of ductility available
in the structure. Considering a structure able to exhibit a nonlinear behavior, it is
possible to estimate q as the product of the parameters R and RS, respectively
representative of ductility and strength capacity of the building (Figure 2):

q R RS (2)

where 1 represents the amplification force factor corresponding to first plastic

hinge, while e and u correspond to maximum forces in the ideal elastic and in the
elasto-plastic systems, respectively.

4
 Figure 2: Plot for the estimation of the reduction factor q

Most of the actual codes provide "q" values for most common structural schemes,
according to expected plastic behaviour, so defining a useful tool for implementing
simplified nonlinear analysis. To date, unfortunately no indications are provided for
structures equipped with energy dissipation devices, which represent an alternative
way to design, based on passive control systems for seismic energy adsorption.
Design codes are still lacking exhaustive provisions to support design of structures
equipped with dissipative braces by simplified analysis methods, thus almost always
requiring non linear analysis.
The paper set the initial input to study the problem of providing tools to promote
simplified design of structures equipped with energy dissipation devices, as
dissipative braces. These elements can be considered as a source of additional
seismic capacity to a new or existing building. The seismic response is not only
affected by mechanical properties of dissipative devices but, in the same way, by the
bare frame behaviour. This could be designed to remain eleastic, thus concentrating
non linearity and permanent deformations in supplemental devices. Differently, the
bare frame could be designed admitting nonlinear behaviour, and then additional
ductile capacity is expected. In both cases, dissipative braces must be designed
according to capacity design criteria. Energy dissipation capacity is strongly
dependent on the relative bare frame to dissipative brace properties, as it will be
clarified in the following paragraphs. Definitely, pointing out effective properties of
added devices and bare frame, it is possible to define a q factor usable for this type
of structures.
The following considerations about definition of q factor for structures equipped
with dissipative devices is mainly related to metallic dissipators while, for viscous
elements, structural ductility almost remains unchanged, only reducing seismic
demand.

5
3 Case of study

In the following a simple reinforced concrete plane frame, supposed to be part of a

real existing building, is studied with the aim of defining its initial capacity curve
and relative q factor. Then a retrofit design is proposed by means of dissipative
braces considering two different conditions: the bare frame behaves elastically (case
A) or inelastically (case B). With the aim of defining a simplified linear design
procedure, in both cases the corresponding q factor is studied.

2.1 Plane reinforced concrete frame

A simple 3-storeys 3-bays r.c. plane frame is herein analysed. The interstory height
is 3.2 m while beams length is 5 m laterally and 4.5 m in the central bay. Columns
and beams transversal cross section is 30x30 cm and 30x40 cm, respectively.
Internal reinforcement is represented in Figure 3.

3 3
24
3.2 m

216 216 114

3

3
15
3.2 m

24
30

40

34
3

216
3.2 m

3 3
3

24
30 216
30
5m 4.5 m 5m

(A) (B) (C)

Figure 3: Plane r.c. frame (A); Column (B) and beam (C) transversal sections
(dimensions are in cm, steel bars diameters are in mm)

The mean value of concrete and steel reinforcement strengths are respectively
fcm=18 MPa and fym=330 MPa. Considering a normal level of knowledge (KL), the
corresponding Confidence Factor is 1.20 according to Eurocode 8 part 3.
Constitutive models for the two materials are shown in Figure 4.

16.0 400
14.0 300
12.0 200
10.0
[MPa]

100
[MPa]

8.0
0
6.0 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
-100
4.0
-200
2.0
-300
0.0
-0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 -400
-2.0

-4.0
Figure 4: Constitutive models for concrete (left) and steel reinforcement (right)

6
Distributed loads applied on beams have been defined considering tributary areas of
5 m (Table 1).
STOREY G1+G2 (kN/m) Qk,slab [kN/m] MASS per storey [t]
1-2 28.66 9.00 60.00
3 21.46 2.25 41.22
Table 1: Storeys load and mass
The structure has been modelled through SAP2000 software, adopting a fiber model
for the definition of flexural plastic hinges at both beams and columns edges. In this
way, sections plastic fiber P-M2-M3 hinges allowed to determine moment-curvature
curve for each critical section (Figure 5) and the stress-deformation curve for each
fiber under displacement controlled nonlinear static analysis.
80.0 45.0
70.0 40.0
60.0 35.0
Moment [kNm]

Moment [kNm]
50.0 30.0
25.0
40.0
20.0
30.0
15.0
20.0
10.0
10.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Curvature [m-1] Curvature [m-1]

Figure 5: Moment-curvature curves: left - column (N=400 kN); right - beam

Then it has been possible to detect the structural capacity, identifying the yielding
and ultimate frame conditions. Two different horizontal forces distributions were
considered, proportional to the first vibrational mode and to the mass distribution,
respectively, then considering the one providing the lowest structural strength.
In particular, the yielding point has been evaluated determining the equivalent
single degree of freedom (SDOF) system capacity curve (d*, F*) through a
bilinearization of the multidegree of freedom (MDOF) system curve (d, F),
introducing the modal participation factor
TM
TM 1.28 (3)

where M is the mass matrix and is the modal shape vector. The bilinearization
criterion adopted is described in Figure 6, where F*=F/ and d*=d/.

Figure 6: Capacity curve bilinearization ([6] C7.3.4.1 )

7
An investigation of the plastic hinges configuration has been carried out, showing a
collapse mechanism involving the first two storeys columns (Figure 7) occurring at
the step d=0.08 m and Fu=132 kN, before maximum rotation is achieved anywhere.
In the analysis, shear failure mechanism is not accounted and, even if often recurring
in existing structures, is assumed to be eventually solved by means of local
strengthening. In Figure 8 pushover curves and bilinear curve are plotted, also
highlighting 1 and u values on the MDOF capacity curve, and d*y and d*u on the
SDOF capacity curve, i.e. normalized yielding and ultimate displacement,
respectively.
140 u

F [kN]
120
1

100
F*y=96.84 kN

80

60

40

20
Figure 7: Collapse d*y=0.030 m d*u=0.063 m d [m]
mechanism 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Bilinear Bare frame pushover SDOF system pushover 1 u

Figure 8: MDOF and SDOF systems capacity curves

The q factor has been defined as

q R RS 2.08 1.22 2.5 (4)

It can be noted that the calculated value is in very good agreement with EC8
suggestions, assuming to adopt q in the range 1.53 for existing structures.

2.2 Retrofitted frame

The r.c. frame is now assumed to be retrofitted introducing hysteretic dissipative

braces, whose mechanical behaviour is supposed to be elastic-perfectly plastic. Their
force-displacement curve is completely described by the yielding force Fb and the
initial stiffness kb. In order to size these elements, equivalent brace stiffness k*b and
strength F*b are defined and distributed according to the following criteria:

,
(5)

F , F ,
(6)
F F

8
where kb,i and Fb,i are the stiffness and the yielding force of the i-th brace, ki and Fy,i
are the stiffness and the yielding force of the i-th storey, k* and F*y are the stiffness
and the yielding force of the equivalent SDOF bare system.
The equivalent brace stiffness is supposed to be 4 times the equivalent frame
stiffness. The single storey stiffness ki can be easily calculated through a linear static
analysis. The equivalent brace strength is evaluated according to proposals presented
in Losanno et al. (in review):
F 1.5 k k x (7)

where is a corrective factor equal to 0.25, and . From

equation (7) it is clear the influence of the seismic action on the definition of braces
mechanical characteristics. The value of ag can be chosen among a range of 0.2-0.3g,
referring to high seismicity Italian areas: in this case a value of 0.3g was set.
The yielding force at each floor of the bare frame is given by

F , k d ,, , (8)

where si is the interstory drift at the i-th storey and sTOT is the maximum drift at the
top. Finally the stiffness and the strength acting in each brace at each floor can be
evaluated as follows:
,
k ,, (9)
,

,
F ,, (10)
,

where nb,i is the number of braces per each floor and s is their angle of inclination.
In this case one brace is assumed per each storey, characterized by parameters
shown in Table 3, while in Table 2 equivalent frame and brace characteristics are
given:

EQUIVALENT FRAME EQUIVALENT BRACE

F*y k* F*b k*b
kN kN/m kN kN/m
97 3184 97 12735
Table 2: Equivalent frame and brace strength and stiffness

FRAME BRACE
Storey Fy,i ki Fyb,i kb,i,s Ab,i,s d*t
- kN kN/m kN kN/m cm2 mm2
1 251 21739 279 250 106478 29 219*5
2 202 16367 224 200 80165 22 168.3*4.5
3 102 15613 113 100 76473 21 168.3*4.5

Table 3: Frame and brace strength and stiffness per each storey
d=circular hollow diameter section; t= circular hollow thickness section

9
Dissipative braces introduced in the structure work in parallel with the bare frame:
because of this the collapse displacement du=0.08 m detected for the bare frame
remains unchanged assuming the frame undergoes plastic deformations (case B). On
the other hand, if the bare frame remains elastic, the design collapse displacement
reduces to the yielding point, that is dy=0.04 m (dy= d*y).

2.2.1 Case A

The r.c. frame is retrofitted through dissipative braces sized as explained in the
previous paragraph; it is supposed to behave elastically, with the aim of preventing
its damage. In this condition, that may be difficult to achieve in real case, ultimate
displacement is equal to the yielding point of the bare frame, that is dy=d*y= 0.04
m. At this point, the ideal linear elastic and inelastic systems forces are compared,
getting the q factor equal to 1.9 (Figure 9). Note that addition of dissipative braces
significantly increases both stiffness and strength, also introducing supplementary
inelastic deformation capacity.

800
700
600
500 q=1.9
F [kN]

400
300
200
100
d [m]
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Bilinear capacity curve - case A Equivalent linear behaviour

Figure 9: Evaluation of the q factor - case A

2.2.2 Case B

The r.c. frame is assumed to be retrofitted through the same dissipative braces of
case A, but in this case the bare frame is supposed to yield: the ultimate condition is
represented by the collapse displacement du=0.08 m. As it is possible to deduce by
the MDOF and SDOF systems capacity curves (Figure 10), q0=R=5.2, while
Rs=u/1=1.28, that means

q R RS 5.2 1.28 6.7 (11)

10
 400

F [kN]
350 u

300
1

250
F*y=231.06 kN

200

150

100

50

d*y=-0.011 m d*u=-0.06 m
d [m]
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Bilinear Braced frame pushover SDOF system pushover 1 u

Figure 10: MDOF and SDOF systems capacity curves

Note that, with respect to the bare frame, u/1 is practically unchanged, while R is
significantly increased. With respect to the previous case, capacity of the braced
frame to undergo plastic deformations provide the system remarkable dissipation
capacity that traduces in higher q values.

2.2.3 Check through N2 method

As suggested in Appendix B of the Eurocode 8, the N2 method [10] can be used in

order to check seismic demand versus corresponding capacity. In particular this
method is based on the definition of the anelastic ADRS (Acceleration Displacement
Response Spectrum) spectrum, given by the elastic one reduced by means of the
strength reduction factor R, function of the required ductility according to the
following relations:
T
R 1 1 if T<TC (12)
TC
R if TTC (13)

Plotting both the bare frame and the retrofitted equivalent SDOF systems capacity
curves in the ADRS format, it is possible to compare ductility demand and
corresponding capacity. If the former is lower than the latter, a performance point
exists, defined as the cross point between the ADRS anelastic seismic demand and
the capacity curve. Note that the inelastic displacement demand dinel depends on the
ratio between periods T and TC:

TC
d 1 qE 1 d if T<TC (14)
E T

d d if TTC (15)

11
In the case-of-study, it is possible to see that the bare frame capacity is less then
seismic demand because Ed>Rd; despite this, the braced frame is verified and a
performance point is defined (Figure 11) in both cases A and B.

0.9
Elastic spectrum
0.8 Inelastic spectrum CASE B
Braced frame capacity curve - CASE B
Bare frame capacity curve
Braced frame capacity curve - CASE A
0.7 Inelastic spectrum CASE A

0.6

Performance Point - CASE A

0.5
Sa [g]

Performance Point - CASE B

0.4

0.3

0.2
CASE A
0.1 CASE B
Rd
Ed
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Sd [m] 0.3

Figure 11: N2 Method

Actually, the retrofitted structure achieved a better behavior with respect to the bare
frame, thanks to an increase of strength, stiffness and dissipation capacity. Available
ductility may increase depending on the new yielding displacement; at the same time
displacement demand tend always to reduce thanks to the dissipative bracing
system, increasing strength, stiffness, and damping.

4 Parameters influencing braced frames ductility factor

General parameters influencing the seismic capacity of a structure equipped with
hysteretic dissipative braces can be summarized in the three following macro-areas,
respectively concerning properties of:
a) bare frame;
b) dissipative braces;
c) bare frame - dissipative braces interaction.
The first important classification concerns the mechanical behavior of the bare
frame: it has been showed, through a simple case study, that an elastic (case A) or
inelastic (case B) behavior of the bare frame generates completely different values
of the q factor. If the bare frame is supposed to keep a linear behavior, its elements
have to be designed in order to meet this condition. On the other hand, if the bare
frame is supposed to undergo plastic deformations, then capacity design criteria
have to be met if the structure is of new conception. In particular, in this case,

12
minimum requirements concerning employed materials, sections, elements and
global structural behaviors, as discussed in paragraph 2, have to be considered in
order to ensure a moderate ductility capacity of the bare frame. Different is the case
of existing structures retrofitted by dissipative braces: just supplemental devices
have to be designed in order to guarantee a certain level of ductility, accounting for
available frame capacity. Specific requirements always apply to devices, both in
terms of strength, ductility, and geometry. Braces have to be selected to ensure a
global ductile behavior: yielding must be reached before brittle crisis, like buckling.
Mechanical properties have to be declared by the supplier.
Finally the bare frame dissipative brace interaction is fundamental in the
definition of the ductility factor q. A capacity design criterion must be pursued:
dissipative braces have to be considered the main source of energy dissipation. In
particular, they represent the only source for case A, while for case B added
elements must be designed to yield before the bare frame. Another important
criterion to follow when sizing dissipative braces is that they should reach yielding
contemporarily among different stories. This condition allows having better
distributed inelastic demand, avoiding high local plastic deformations and providing
a larger amount of dissipated energy. In Figure 12 the axial force in dissipative
braces at different stories (case A previously analyzed) is plotted against the
displacement of the control point, selected at the roof of the frame. It is possible to
notice that yielding is achieved more or less contemporarily for the 3 dissipative
elements.

300

250

200
F [kN]

150

100

50
d [m]
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Link_1 storey Link_2 storey Link_3 storey

Figure 12: Dissipative braces forces against controlled point displacement

The ratio between brace and frame equivalent stiffnesses is significantly influencing
the global system capacity curves. In order to show this, case A and case B have
been repeated considering different configurations of , and evaluating for each of
them the pushover curve and the ductility factor. From Figure 13, it is clear that after
dissipative braces yielding, the system stiffness tends to be equal for all the cases
analysed, simply corresponding to the bare frame stiffness.

13
 400
600

F [kN]
350
500
300
400
250
F [kN]

300 200

200 150

100
100
d [m] 50
0 d [m]
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
k*b/k*=1 k*b/k*=2 k*b/k*=3 k*b/k*=4
k*b/k*=1 k*b/k*=2 k*b/k*=3 k*b/k*=4
k*b/k*=6 k*b/k*=8 k*b/k*=10
k*b/k*=6 k*b/k*=8 k*b/k*=10

Figure 13: Capacity curves for k*b/k*=1; 2; 3; 4; 6; 8; 10: case A (left) and case B
(right)

Ductility factor tend to increase with the ratio : in Figure 14 the evolution of the
strength reduction factor against the ratio is plotted for case A and B,
respectively. In case B, q0=R has been considered despite of q factor. Plots show
that for values 6 the q factor doesnt increase significantly. The reason is that
the q factor is evaluated considering the equivalent SDOF system capacity curve and
the bilinearization may determine this type of result.
Note that, even if values of greater than 4 give higher values of q (as it
happens in case B), this condition may be unfeasible for large required brace
dimensions.
2.0 10.0
1.8 9.0
Strength reduction factor q
Strength reduction factor q

1.6 8.0
1.4 7.0
1.2 6.0
1.0 5.0
0.8 4.0
0.6 3.0
0.4 2.0
0.2 1.0
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
k*b/k* k*b/k*
k*b/k* q k*b/k* q0
1 1.2 1 2.6
2 1.6 2 4.0
3 1.9 3 4.5
4 1.9 4 5.2
6 1.9 6 8.4
8 1.8 8 7.5

10 1.9 10 8.8

Figure 14: q factors as a function of k*b/k*: case A (left) and B (right)

Varying the distribution of yielding forces in braces, led to capacity curves plotted in
Figure 15, relative to case A and case B, respectively: note that the initial and post-
yielding stiffnesses of the global system are unvaried. The strength reduction factors
q have been evaluated, getting the values of Table 4.

14
 400
700

F [kN]
350
600
300
500
250
400 Fb distr_1
F [kN]

200
Fb distr_2
300 Fb distr_3 Fb distr_1
150
Fb distr_2
200 100
Fb distr_3

100 50
d [m] d [m]
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Figure 15: Capacity curves for different braces force distributions (left-Case A;
right-Case B)

Case A Case B Storey Fb,i distr_1 Fb,i distr_2 Fb,i distr_3

q0 - [kN] [kN] [kN]
Fb,i distr_1 1.6 5.7 1 200 250 300
Fb,i distr_2 1.9 5.2 2 150 200 250
Fb,i distr_3 2.0 5.7 3 100 100 150

Table 4: Ductility factor q for different braces force distribution

All the consideration discussed above contribute to define a classification of

structures equipped with dissipative braces. Changing their properties in definite
ranges, different structural typologies could be defined and, for each of them,
parametric static nonlinear analysis may bring to evaluate specific q factors. Finally,
it could be stated that if a certain structure satisfies some pre-assigned requirements
that make this structure belong to a pre-defined structural typology, then its seismic
design could be carried out through a simplified nonlinear analysis by means of the
corresponding q factor.
This aim is at the base of this paper, that, as a starting point, just wants to
demonstrate that yielding dissipative braces represent an additional capacity of the
structure that can be numerically converted into a properly defined strength
reduction factor q, usable to perform simplified nonlinear analysis.

5 Dissipative braced structures design through simplified

nonlinear analysis

Dissipative braces represent an additional seismic capacity for structures. For this
reason, dissipative braced structures could be designed through simplified nonlinear
analysis just introducing an adequate q factor, obtained as the result of extensive
parametric analysis. In this way, by means of a linear dynamic analysis, it is possible
to promptly design or preliminary design a braced structure: once the seismic
demand has been evaluated, strength and ductile checks must be performed. Lets
consider the ADRS format and distinguish the two cases where the vibrational

15
period of the system T is greater or lower than the period TC relative to the end of
the acceleration sensitive response spectrum. If TTC (Figure 16) it is possible to
consider that if the strength check is satisfied, the ductile check is too, i.e. the equal
displacement rule applies.

T > TC

Fel,max

F
q
Sa [g]

Ed
Fy
Rd
F

dy dEd
Sd [m]
Elastic spectrum Inelastic spectrum Braced frame capacity curve

Figure 16: ADRS spectrum and capcity curve case TTC

With reference to Figure 16, lets suppose that it is required to design a structure
whose capacity curve is represented by the dashed line, for which a q factor has been
defined. For a given elastic response spectrum, it is possible to define the required
elastic force F. Reducing this level of force by the q factor, it is possible to obtain
the ficticius force F through which elements are designed, thanks to available
ductility Rd=q for the triangular equivalence. If F is lower or at least equal to Fy, the
strength check will be satisfied. Actually the real force acting in the structure is F
and not F: for this level of force the structure is yielded, taking advantage of a
ductility level equal to Ed= dEd/ dy =F/Fy=qEd. Since Rd=q, if qEd<q, that is F<Fel,max
(strength check satisfied), also Ed< Rd, that means also ductility check is satisfied.
Now lets consider the case in which T<TC (Figure 17): if the strength check is
verified, it is not necessarily true that the ductile check is satisfied too, i.e. the equal
energy rule applies.

16
 T < TC

Fel,max=F

q
Sa [g]

Ed

Fy=F
Rd

dy dRd dEd Sd [m]

Elastic spectrum Inelastic spectrum Braced frame capacity curve

Figure 17: ADRS spectrum and capcity curve case T<TC

Let us consider the limit case in which F=Fel,max (Figure 17): the strength check is
verified, even if in a limit condition, while the ductile strength is surely not satisfied
(dEd>dRd) because in this case
TC
E qE 1 1 qE (16)
T

Again, Rd=q for the triangular equivalence. Then it is possible to set Ed= Rd=q and
evaluate the value of the strength reduction factor, q*, for which Ed= Rd, is:
T
q q 1 1 (17)
TC

This parameter q* corresponds to the maximum ductility factor for which the ductile
check is satisfied in the limit case (Ed=Rd). Then, if T<TC it is suggested to design
structures for a value of the strength reduction factor q*<q, so contemporarily
ensuring that both strength and ductility checks are fulfilled.

6 Applicative example
Herein an applicative example is presented concerning the implementation of a
simplified nonlinear analysis in order to design a r.c. structure retrofitted by means
of dissipative braces. Assuming that the previously discussed case-of-study belongs
to a certain structural typology corresponding to q factor 6.7, as evaluated in
paragraph 2.2.2, a second frame belonging to the same structural class is designed.

17
This frame is characterized by the same geometry, materials and cross sections as
the case-of-study (Figure 3), provided with an additional storey.
Dissipative braces are characterized by mechanical parameters indicated in Table
5.

FRAME BRACE
Storey Fy,i ki Fyb,i kb,i,s Ab,i,s d*t
- kN kN/m kN kN/m cm2 mm2
1 246 21277 367 350 104213 29 219*5
2 217 16398 325 300 80318 22 168.3*4.5
3 161 16012 241 200 78426 22 168.3*4.5
4 77 14904 115 100 72998 20 168.3*4

Table 5: Frame and brace strength and stiffness per each storey
d=circular hollow diameter section; t= circular hollow thickness section

By modal analysis the fundamental period of vibration T=0.49 s higher than TC has
been evaluated. A linear dynamic analysis with q=6.7 resulted in fulfilling all
strength checks in any element. According to the considerations of paragraph 5, also
ductile checks are satisfied. In order to prove this, a static nonlinear analysis has also
been performed for the retrofit structure, whose capacity curve is plotted in Figure
18: ductility demand is lower than corresponding capacity.

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Sa [g]

0.4
Performance Point

0.3 Ed

0.2 Rd

0.1

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Sd [m] 0.3

Elastic spectrum Inelastic spectrum Braced frame capacity curve

Figure 18: N2 method frame 2

18
7 Equivalent stiffness and damping

A different approach from the aforementioned q factor is briefly introduced. This

method is based on the definition of equivalent damping and stiffness. FEMA 273
NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (1997) and its
commentary FEMA 274 convey suggestions for the employment of passive energy
dissipation devices in retrofit construction. In particular they propose iterative linear
and nonlinear methods in order to define the effective damping ratio of structures
equipped with energy dissipation devices. The main concept at the base of these
methods is the evaluation of the effective damping ratio as

ED,
(18)
EK

where struc is the damping ratio relative to the undamped structure (generally
assumed of 5%), ED,j is work done by device j in one complete cycle (area included
in the hysteretic loop) corresponding to floor displacement i and EK is the
maximum strain energy in the frame, determined as EK F ; note that the
summation of ED,j is extended to all devices present in the direction of forces action.
The floor displacement i is unknown and it is a function of the seismic demand, as
well unknown since depending on eff. Then it is clear why iterative procedures are
required in order to get this parameter. Moreover, together with the definition of the
equivalent damping, the secant stiffness has to be updated in order to get the seismic
demand at the secant period from the effective response spectrum, i.e. reduced by
eff. In this way both the system reduced structural stiffness and increased equivalent
damping are accounted for.
The lack of investigation and validated methods for prompt evaluation of
effective damping ratio of damper added structures contributes to limit the
widespread use of energy dissipation systems.
For the case-of-study, equivalent damping and stiffness have been evaluated at
the ultimate displacement in both cases A and B (Table 6). In particular, with
reference to the equivalent SDOF system, the energy terms EK and ED are evaluated
as:

EK F d (19)

ED 4F d d (20)

Case A Case B
30% 51%
ksec 11601 3913

Table 6: Equivalent damping and stiffness case A and B

19
As expected, the equivalent damping ratio is higher in case B than in case A: the
difference among them is given by dissipation generated by the nonlinear behaviour
of the bare frame and increased ultimate displacement. Moreover results highlight
that the secant stiffness of case A is much higher than the one of case B due to much
lower ultimate displacement. Provided values of the damping ratio and the secant
stiffness represent the maximum and minimum available ones for the case study,
respectively with respect to any other performance point. In order to perform a
nonlinear simplified analysis, the effective value of activated at seismic demand is
required and an iterative procedure would be needed. Since the effective damping
ratio is strongly affected by displacement demand, that depends on both the seismic
demand and the structural behavior, it is not possible to perform a wide parametric
investigation with the aim of defining reference eff and ksec values for given
structural typologies. In conclusion, design of structures equipped with added
dissipative braces by means of nonlinear simplified analysis through equivalent
damping and stiffness is strongly case-dependence and would require iterative
procedures, differently from the q factor simplified linear analysis case.

8 Conclusions
In this paper, the analysis of a simple reinforced concrete frame equipped with
dissipative braces was devoted to define an equivalent strength reduction factor q.
By means of this factor, seismic capacity of the braced frame can be considered,
thus allowing to perform simplified nonlinear analysis based on the use of the design
response spectrum. Main parameters influencing the q factor have been investigated,
carrying out different analysis to study the variation of q for different parameters.
The behaviour of the bare frame for both elastic (case A) and inelastic (case B)
response was considered; then mechanical parameters of the bracing system were
changed, showing the strong influence of the relative brace to frame stiffness and
strength ratio on the global structural capacity.
Accounting for the influence parameters herein presented, and making them vary
in pre-defined ranges, led the authors to define appropriate reference cases at the
base of a wide parametric analysis, that may allow to define suitable strength
reduction factors q for different typologies of dissipative braced structures.
A simple procedure, based on the N2 method, has been proposed in order to study
the satisfaction of strength and ductile checks of a structure designed by means of
simplified nonlinear analysis. An applicative example has been performed.
Finally an alternative approach, based on FEMA guidelines, was presented to define
the equivalent stiffness and damping ratio relative to structures equipped with
energy dissipation devices and applied to the case-of-study. The strong case-
dependence of these parameters makes this method less suitable to simplified
nonlinear analysis.
On the contrary, a wide parametric investigation, like the one proposed in this
study, may lead to the definition of the q factor for given damper added structures,
thus providing promptness to designers for simplified response spectrum analysis.

20
References
[1] T.T. Soong, B.F. Spencer Jr, "Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-art
and state-of-the-practice", Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 243259
[2] F.C. Ponzo, M. Dolce, G. Vigoriti, G. Arleo, A. Di Cesare, "Progettazione di
controventi dissipativi a comportamento dipendente dagli spostamenti",
Dipartimento di Strutture, Geotecnica e Geologia applicata allingegneria,
Universit della Basilicata, Via dellAteneo Lucano, 85100, Potenza
[3] B. Palazzo, L. Petti, M. De Iuliis, "Reduction factors for performance based
seismic design of structures with supplemental dampers", 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2004; Vancouver, Canada
[4] Eurocode 8 Part 3: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Assessment
and retrofitting of buildings
[5] Decreto Ministeriale del 14 gennaio, 2008. Approvazione delle nuove norme
tecniche per le costruzioni. G.U. n. 29 del 4/2/2008
[6] Circolare 2 febbraio 2009, n. 617, Istruzioni per lapplicazione delle Nuove
norme tecniche per le costruzioni di cui al D.M. 14 gennaio 2008
[7] NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273,
October 1997
[8] NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, FEMA 274, October 1997
[9] D. Losanno, M. Spizzuoco, G. Serino, An optimal design procedure for a
simple frame equipped with elasic-deformable dissipative braces,
Engineering structures, in review
[10] P. Fajfar, "Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra",
Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 28, 979-993 (1999)
[11] H.T. Chen, Y.F. Su, D.S. Juang, "Strenght reduction factors for structures
with added damping and stiffness device", 11th WCEE, Mexico
[12] O.M. Ramirez, M.C. Constantinou, A.S. Whittaker, C.A. Kircher, C.Z.
Chrysostomou, "Elastic and inelastic seismic response of buildings with
damping systems", Earthquake spectra, Volume 18, August 2002, Earthquake
Engineering Research institute
[13] A. Di Cesare, F.C. Ponzo, G. Auletta, "Q-factors of reinforced concrete
structures retrofitted with hysteretic energy dissipating bracing system", 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2012; Lisboa, Portugal

21