Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Seismic response of building structures

with dampers in shear walls
L.P.B. Madsen, D.P. Thambiratnam *, N.J. Perera
School of Civil Engineering, Physical Infrastructure Center, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434,
2 George Street, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia
Received 1 October 2001; accepted 1 November 2002

Abstract
When buildings are subjected to earthquakes, it is imperative to dissipate some of the input energy through pre-
determined and well designed mechanisms. This study investigates the influence of mechanical control on structural
systems through the application of strategically located component elements with reliable damping and stiffness
properties that can modulate the response. The effects of installing such damping elements at two particular locations
have been investigated. These positions are between the shear walls near the coupling beams and within cut out sections
of the wall elements in multi-storey structures. Finite element time history analysis is used in the study and results
indicate that the proposed procedure is able to achieve reasonable improvements in seismic response.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic response; Building; Passive dampers; Displacements; Accelerations

1. Introduction from damage and improving the seismic response. This,

When buildings are subjected to earthquakes or
shock waves from explosions, it is essential to provide
avenues for energy absorption in these buildings to
avoid the detrimental effects caused by such random and
unpredictable loads that far exceed the elastic strength
capacity of structural elements. During recent earth-
quakes it has been found that lack of energy absorption
mechanisms is one of the causes of poor building per-
formance. It is increasingly common practice in the de-
sign of multi-storey buildings to detail locations that will
form plastic hinges which are usually positioned in
beams near beam column joints [12,14]. These locations
are designed to dissipate substantial energy through in-
elastic deformation, thus protecting the main structure
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-7-3864-1467; fax: +61-7-
3864-1515.
E-mail address: d.thambiratnam@qut.edu.au (D.P. Tham-
biratnam).
however, results in the necessity to repair the damage to
the structural members after they have been subjected to
extreme load effects.
Many multi-storey buildings contain shear walls
around the elevator shafts and stairwells. These walls
provide considerable lateral stiffness to the structure to
enable it to resist horizontal loadings such as earth-
quakes and wind. There will usually be several openings
in these shear walls and if two such openings are on
opposite sides, deep beams are used to interconnect the
walls. These coupling beams are generally used as a
means of providing framing action to the core elements.
In order to dissipate energy during earthquakes they
must undergo inelastic yielding, and therefore, due to
their small span to depth ratio, require highly complex
and congested reinforcing to achieve ductility. They are
difficult to construct due to the need for this diagonal
reinforcement, as well as service penetrations.
In addition to using plastic hinges, the input energy
can also be absorbed by the use of damping devices.
Over the past decade there has been significant research

0045-7949/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 4 4 1 - 8
240 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253
conducted on the use of damping devices for dissipating
seismic energy [7]. These devices can be placed within the
structure to reduce the demand on the structural ele-
ments to absorb energy, and thus, they are designed to
protect the building from excessive damage. Today there
are various types of manufactured dampers available Ôoff
the shelfÕ. They use a variety of materials to obtain
various levels of stiffness and damping [9]. Some of them
include viscoelastic (VE), viscous fluid, friction and
metallic yield dampers, which have different dynamic
characteristics and so will affect the seismic response of
structures differently [8]. These devises can enhance the
stiffness, damping and strength of a structure and can be
used to retrofit old buildings to withstand natural haz-
ards such as earthquakes, cyclones and shock loads. In
recent years they have been used to improve the re-
sponse of bridges and buildings [7].
The characteristics of VE and viscous dampers are
that they dissipate energy at all levels of deformation
and over a broad range of excitation frequencies [4,5].
Friction dampers on the other hand, dissipate energy
only when the slip force is reached and exceeded [2].
Metallic yield dampers dissipate energy through the in-
elastic deformation of the material [15]. A combination
of these dampers can be used within the structural sys-
tem to effectively dampen out the high and low fre-
quency content of earthquakes [11]. This is commonly
referred to as a hybrid system. These types of dampers
are categorised as passive control for they develop forces
in opposition to the input forces at the locations where
they are attached to the structure [7]. Other control
systems, classified as active or semi-active and which
require power supply to be active during the event, are
not considered in this paper. Chang et al. [6] and Aiken
and Kelly [2], have shown that dampers placed within
relatively flexible multi-storey structures can be very
effective in reducing the lateral acceleration, velocity and
deflection response under seismic loading. Structures
that have relatively high interstorey drifts or substantial
joint rotations can enable certain types of dampers to act
effectively to minimise damage to the buildings.
Using finite element time history analysis, this paper
investigates the seismic behaviour of multi-storey build-
ings using damping devices strategically located within
the load resisting elements. It will concentrate on two
particular damping systems in multi-storey buildings
containing shear walls. In the first system dampers will
be positioned between two shear walls, which are linked
by coupling beams. The height of the space in which the
dampers are to be located will be restricted, to allow
reasonable access under these beams. A double diagonal
damper configuration will be placed in the vicinity of
these beams to modulate the seismic response, which will
be studied under different earthquake records.
In the second system the effects of dampers located
within the shear wall in the lower stories of the building
system will be investigated. This will be applicable to
new design as well as retrofitting existing buildings to
ensure seismic safety by fitting damping devices which
can transform a wall panel into a damping element. A
highly damped lower part of a multi-storey building will,
theoretically, modulate the dynamic excitation resulting
from strong ground motions due to a reduction in
stiffness and should, therefore, produce a better overall
seismic response of the building. The validity of this
theory will be studied by considering the effects of
dampers located in various positions within the shear
wall on the acceleration and deflection response of
buildings under seismic loading. A range of shear wall
widths will be considered.
The aim of this research will be to evaluate how the
two aforementioned damping systems will affect the
seismic response of the structure. For the purposes of
this study VE dampers will be modelled. These dampen
the excitation through shear deformation of the mate-
rial, and dissipate energy at different magnitudes and
patterns of deformation [3]. They were chosen for the
ability to conveniently approximate their behaviour
under cyclic loading with reasonable accuracy. Finite
element time-history analysis under earthquake loading
was carried out using the software ABAQUS Version
5.8.
2. Model description
This study examines the effects of two different
damping systems in improving the seismic performance
of multi-storey building structures. The dampers are
placed between the shear walls at the coupling beam
location in the first system and analysis was undertaken
on six-, and 20-storey building models to assess the ef-
fectiveness of the damper placement under earthquake
loading. In the second system dampers were located
within cut-out sections of shear walls. A nine and a 20-
storey building were studied. In both these structures,
there was a plane central shear wall which was con-
nected to columns on either side of it. These models are
discussed in further detail below.
A finite element program ABAQUS Version 5.8 was
selected to obtain the response of the structures under
earthquake loading. The dynamic procedure in ABA-
QUS Version 5.8 [10] uses implicit time integration. The
response of the structure is obtained for selected time
steps of the input earthquake accelerogram. To study
the effectiveness of the damping systems in mitigating
the seismic response, the tip accelerations and displace-
ments at each floor level in the damped structure were
acquired from the results of the analyses, and compared
with those of the bare, undamped structure.
In this study VE dampers are used and each damper
is modelled as a spring and a dashpot in parallel. The
 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253
stiffness and damping coefficients are defined by the
equations given by [1, p. 2–7]:
G0 A
kd ¼
t Shear wall
G00 A
Cd ¼
xt
where, A is the shear area of the VE material, t is the
thickness of the VE material, x is the loading frequency
of the VE damper, G0 is the shear storage modulus, and
G00 is the shear loss modulus.
The following expressions were used to obtain the
moduli of the VE material as defined by Abbas and
Kelly [1, p. C-1]:
G0 ¼ 16:0x0:51 c0:23 eð72:46=TempÞ
G00 ¼ 18:5x0:51 c0:20 eð73:89=TempÞ
This model with properties determined from Eqs. (1)
and (2) will approximate the true behaviour of a VE
damper within 10%, when subjected to vibratory loading
such as seismic loading. This was considered to be suf-
ficiently accurate for the purposes of this investigation.
In order to create such a computer model, it has to be
assumed that there is information on the frequency of
loading applied to the damper; the shear strain and the
temperature of the VE material. In the present investi-
gation, the ambient temperature of the VE material was
assumed to be 21 °C, the shear strain, c, was assumed to
remain constant at 100%. This was done as it has been
shown that a large decrease in the stiffness occurs in the
0–50% strain range, whereas in the 50–200% strain range
the stiffness remains approximately constant [2]. For the
loading frequency, x, either the first or second mode of
vibration of the structure was used. It was assumed in
this study that the structure will predominantly vibrate
in one of these modes [1]. The choice of loading fre-
quency depended on which mode of vibration of the
structure was within the predominate frequency range of
earthquakes of 0.5–3 Hz. It should be noted that in this
model, only the lateral deformations are damped. Ro-
tational deformations are not damped.
Concrete material properties were used for the
building (structural) models, since shear wall and cou-
pling beam structures are constructed using reinforced
concrete. The material properties of the concrete used
had a compressive strength, fc0 , of 32 MPa, a YoungÕs
modulus, Ec , of 30,000 MPa, a Poissons ratio, t, of 0.2,
and a density, q, of 2500 kg/m3 .
241
Coupling
Beam Lumped
mass
ð1Þ
Dampers
B21 Beam
elements
Application of the time-
ð2Þ history acceleration
Fig. 1. Six-storey structure with shear walls and coupling
beams––damping system 1.
2.1. Damping system 1––dampers between shear walls
2.1.1. Six-storey structural model
The shear wall–coupling beam model was con-
structed using two-dimensional beam elements as shown
ð3Þ in Fig. 1. The beam element type used was a 2-node
linear beam designated B21 and consists of a two-
dimensional beam with three degrees of freedom: at each
ð4Þ node, viz; translations along and normal to the beam
axis and a rotational degree of freedom about the axis
normal to the plane. This type of element is shear de-
formable and accounts for finite axial strains and is,
therefore, suitable for modelling both thick and thin
section beams [10]. The shear wall and coupling beams
were represented as rectangular sections; the shear wall
was 3 m wide by 0.5 m thick, and each coupling beam
was 0.6 m deep by 0.3 m wide. Lumped masses were
placed at each node where the coupling beam intersected
the shear wall to represent the gravity loads from the
floor. A lumped mass of 1:02  106 kg per floor was
designated. The distance between the shear walls was
fixed at 2.4 m, and height between each level at 3.0 m.
This corresponded to an overall height of 18.0 m for the
six-storey building.
Though several damper configurations were studied
[13], in this paper, results of only one configuration,
which produced the best response under earthquake
loading will be discussed. This is the double diagonal
damper, which is placed throughout the height of the
structure, as shown in Fig. 1 for the lowest storey. The
vertical distance between the end points of attachment
of the dampers was limited to a practical value of 600
mm so as to allow adequate clearance levels (or access)
under the beams. The response of this model was in-
vestigated under the 1940 El Centro, the 1971 San Fer-
nando and the 1988 Tennant Creek earthquake records.
2.1.2. Twenty-storey structural model
A 20-storey building was analysed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the method of placing dampers between
the shear walls. The shear walls and coupling beams
were represented as rectangular sections of 1.5 by 0.5,
242 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253

and 0.6 by 0.3 m, respectively. A lumped mass of of elements used for the walls were M3D4 membrane
500,000 kg was positioned at each shear wall and floor elements. These elements determine stresses in two per-
level intersection point. Dampers were placed in each pendicular directions along the horizontal x-axis and the
level of the structure. Results were obtained for the ac- vertical y-axis [10]. The columns were modelled using
celeration and deflection response of the building under Type B21 bilinear beam elements.
the 1940 El Centro earthquake. These models were ideally configured so that the
columns bore the entire gravity load. The shear wall was
then mainly used to resist the generated lateral loads.
2.2. Damping system 2––dampers within shear walls Lumped masses were located, therefore, on the columns
at each node that correlated to a floor level. At each of
2.2.1. Nine-storey shear structure the floor levels the shear wall and columns were con-
In the nine-storey model, the concrete shear wall was nected using rigid links to simulate the rigidity of the
constructed as a 6.0 m wide by 0.1 m thick rectangular floor slabs and to transfer the lateral load into the wall.
section, and the columns as 0.45 m square sections. These links were modelled in ABAQUS V5.8 [10] using
These were located on either side of the wall, as seen in mpc type beams. This type of constraint linked two
Fig. 2. The height between floor levels was set at 3.0 m, nodes, and forced the translations and rotations at the
which made the overall height of the structure to be 27.0 first node to be the same as at the second node.
m. A lumped mass of 140,000 kg was placed at each Four different damper locations, as shown in Fig. 3,
node of the columns that intersected the floor level. The were used to study the seismic response of this model. In
models studied were two-dimensional, and thus, the type Type A, dampers were placed in the lower three stories;
in Type B in the second and third stories; in Type C in
the second; third and fourth levels; and in Type D
dampers were placed in the upper two levels. Details of
L9 the damper location within the shear wall can be seen in
Shear Wall - M3D4
L8 Fig. 4, where a 4.0 m wide by 2.5 m high wall section has
Membrane elements
been cut out and replaced by two diagonal dampers. As
L7 with the six-storey frame in method 1 a time-history
Lumped analysis was used to obtain the response of the structure
L6 Mass under the same three different seismic records.
L5
L4 Column B21 beam
2.2.2. Twenty-storey shear wall structure
elements A 20-storey shear wall structure incorporating
L3
dampers within the shear wall was studied in a similar
L2 Rigid Link – manner to the nine-storey model. Three different stiff-
L1 MPC BEAM nesses of shear walls were investigated in this study.
These can be described as having relatively low (Type
L), medium (Type M), and high stiffness (Type H), with
Fig. 2. Nine-storey shear wall structure model. varying widths of 4, 6 and 8 m, respectively. The

Detail

Type A Type B Type C Type D

Fig. 3. Damper locations Types A–D, damping system 2.
 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253
Fig. 4. Details of damper placement and dimensions of shear
walls, damping system 2.
amounts of shear wall cut-out in Types L, M and H were
2.5 by 2, 2.5 by 4, and 2.5 by 6 m respectively. Structural
parameters used for all three types consisted of 0.2 m
thick shear walls with 0.4 m square columns on either
side of it. A lumped mass of 50,000 kg was used at each
node of the floor levels. The height between the floor
levels of the model was set at 3.0 m, which gave an
overall height of 60.0 m.
It was anticipated from the results of the nine-storey
model that damper placement Type A (Fig. 3) would
have the best reduction in the tip acceleration and de-
flection response. In this model, it was decided to place
the dampers throughout the lower one third of the shear
wall height. This corresponded to levels one to seven
cut-out and replaced with dampers as shown in Fig. 5. In
all these cases, a 1 m width of shear wall was retained on
either side of the cut out and the detail is similar to that
shown in Fig. 4. These models were subjected to the first
12 s of the 1940 S00E component of the El Centro
earthquake.
Fig. 5. Twenty-storey shear wall model, damping system 2.
243
3. Results
3.1. Damping system 1––dampers between shear walls at
coupling beam locations
3.1.1. Six-storey shear wall coupling beam structure
The results of the six-storey structure under the 1940
El Centro, 1971 San Fernando and 1988 Tennant Creek
earthquakes are presented below. The fundamental fre-
quency of the structure was found using the natural
frequency analysis in ABAQUS V5.8 to be x ¼ 0:552
Hz. Using this as the loading frequency of the damper
the shear storage and shear loss moduli were calculated
to be G0 ¼ 890,000 Pa and G00 ¼ 1,265,000 Pa, respec-
tively. From these values and material dimensions of 400
mm by 300 mm by 11 mm for the double layered
damper, the values of the spring and dashpot were de-
termined to be, kd ¼ 40  106 N/m and Cd ¼ 102  106
N s/m.
Table 1 illustrates the percentage reductions in the
peak values of the tip acceleration, the average inter-
storey drift, and the tip, fourth and second storey de-
flections of the structure under the various earthquake
records. This table demonstrates the varied effectiveness
of the damper configuration under the three different
seismic records. This difference can be attributed to the
varying intensity and frequency content of the earth-
quakes. In almost all cases, the greatest reductions were
under the El Centro earthquake.
Fig. 6 illustrates the time history responses of the tip
acceleration under the El Centro earthquake and it is
evident that the incorporation of dampers into the
structure enabled reductions of its peak acceleration.
Analogous acceleration responses were obtained under
the other two earthquakes. Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate the
tip deflections of the damped and undamped structure
under the El Centro and Tennant Creek earthquakes
respectively. Analogous, but less effective, results were
obtained under the San Fernando earthquake. It can be
seen that in general, the damped and undamped re-
sponses remained in phase and that the damping was
evident after the lapse of a few seconds.
Table 1
Reduction in seismic response of six-storey structure with
damping system 1 and dampers at all levels
Response percentage Earthquake record
reduction El San Tennant
Centro Fernando Creek
Tip acceleration (%) 17.8 18.6 12.1
Tip deflection (%) 15.4 9.1 3.6
Fourth level deflection (%) 14.7 8.1 4.8
Second level deflection (%) 14.1 4.8 8.7
Av. interstorey drift (%) 16 9 5
244 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253

Fig. 6. Tip acceleration response of six-storey structure with damping system 1 and dampers at all levels.

Fig. 7. Tip deflection response of six-storey structure with damping system 1 and dampers at all levels.

3.1.2. Twenty-storey shear wall coupling beam structure
The damper properties were determined as kd ¼
56:7  106 N/m and Cd ¼ 117  106 N s/m. These prop-
erties were based on two double layer dampers in par-
allel with dimensions of 470 mm by 300 mm by 10 mm
and the values G0 ¼ 994,000 Pa and G00 ¼ 1,413,000 Pa.
These moduli were calculated using the loading fre-
quency of 0.685 Hz, which corresponded to the second
natural frequency of the structure. This frequency was
chosen, as the first natural frequency was very low and
fell outside the typical range of earthquake frequencies
of 0.5–3 Hz.
Fig. 9 illustrates the tip acceleration response of the
structure under the 1940 El Centro earthquake and it
can be seen that the incorporation of the dampers re-
duced the peak value of the tip acceleration by 22.3%.
Similarly the peak deflection was reduced by 20.9%.
These results are similar to the results obtained for the
six-storey building and demonstrated that dampers can
be used to improve the mitigation of seismic forces.
3.2. Damping system 2––dampers within shear wall
3.2.1. Nine-storey shear wall structure
A nine-storey shear wall structure was modelled and
analysed as described in the previous section. Results of
the natural frequency analysis for the first and second
modes of the models are presented in Table 2. These
 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253 245

Fig. 8. Tip deflection response of six-storey structure with damping system 1 and dampers at all levels.

Fig. 9. Tip acceleration response of 20-storey structure with damping system 1 and dampers at all levels.

results show that all damper arrangement Types A–D Dynamic analysis of the structure with the various
(described in Fig. 3) reduced the natural frequencies and damper arrangements and types under the El Centro
that Type A, which has dampers positioned in the first
three stories, had the greatest changes in natural fre-
quencies compared to the bare structure. These results
Table 2
were anticipated, as reducing the stiffness at the base Natural frequencies of nine-storey structure with damping
of the structure, would increase the deformation ade- system 2 and damper placement Types A–D
quately to effectively mobilise viscous damping and
Model Natural frequency modes (Hz)
significantly reduce the natural frequency of the build-
ing. It was also shown that the dampers located in the 1 2
upper levels had little effect on the frequency of the Bare 1.088 3.830
structure. These results show that dampers located in Type A 0.565 1.846
the lower levels enable the fundamental structural fre- Type B 0.727 2.350
quency to detune from the dominant earthquake fre- Type C 0.635 2.324
Type D 1.030 2.943
quencies of 1–3 Hz.
246 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253
earthquake record was conducted. For the loading fre-
quency of the damper, an average of the fundamental
frequencies of the damper Types A–D, x ¼ 0:739 Hz
was used. From this, the values of the shear storage and
loss moduli were determined as G0 ¼ 1,033,000 Pa and
G00 ¼ 1,468,000 Pa. Assuming a double layered damper
with material dimensions of 475 mm long by 325 mm
high and 10 mm thick, the damper properties were cal-
culated to be kd ¼ 31:9  106 N/m and Cd ¼ 61:3  106
N s/m.
A summary of the results of the seismic response of
the damped structure is presented in Table 3 which
shows the percentage reductions in the maximum ac-
celeration at the top floor and the maximum deflections
at the top, sixth, fourth and second floors. These results
indicate that the Type A damper location produced the
greatest reductions in the acceleration and deflection
response of the structure and these reductions being
quite significant. Types B and C damper locations also
reduced the response but not to the same level as Type
A. Type C produced a greater mitigation than Type B
due to the fact that it had more dampers. Type D, where
the dampers are positioned in the top two stories, had
little effect upon on the response of the structure.
Table 3
Percentage reductions in maximum response of the nine-storey shear wall structure with damping system 2 and damper placement
Types A–D
Damper placement Tip acceleration Tip deflection
type reduction (%) reduction (%)
A 69.40 50.67
B 38.68 30.77
C 41.88 39.30
D 3.34 3.07
Fig. 10. Tip deflection response of nine-storey shear wall structure with damping system 2 and damper Type A.
Time-histories of tip deflection responses of the
damped and undamped structures for the damper ar-
rangement Type A are shown in Fig. 10, from which it is
evident that arrangement Type A noticeably reduces the
deflection throughout the duration of the earthquake.
Similar results were observed for the acceleration re-
sponse. The damped responses, however, did not remain
in phase with that of the undamped structure responses.
Fig. 11 shows the reductions in the interstorey drifts at
the various levels for the damper locations Types A–D.
In the above figure it can be seen that the Type A
location had the greatest reductions at all levels, except
the lowest. From the third floor up an average of 53%
reduction in the interstorey drift was achieved for this
placement. Again, Type D location where the dampers
were placed in the upper two levels seem to be the least
effective. It is anticipated that this response reduction
will correspond to a decrease of the column moments
and shear forces. Changes in tip deflections with the
percentage the changes in the fundamental frequency of
the structures are shown in Fig. 12 for all four damper
placements. This figure shows that as the change in the
natural frequency increased so did the amount of re-
duction in the tip deflection. Type A performed best
Sixth floor deflec- Fourth floor deflec- Second floor deflec-
tion reduction (%) tion reduction (%) tion reduction (%)
47.47 39.97 22.35
30.52 27.75 22.50
38.55 34.38 34.93
4.92 4.67 4.46
 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253 247

Fig. 11. Interstorey drift reductions in nine-storey shear wall structure with damping system 2 for damper placements Types A–D.

Fig. 12. Variation of tip deflection with natural frequency in nine-storey shear wall structure with damping system 2 and damper
placement Types A–D.

with a 48.1% change in the frequency and a 50.7% de-
crease in deflection. This indicates that the stiffness of
the buildings was sufficiently reduced to allow for the
effective utilisation of the dampers. It is anticipated,
however, that if the stiffness is too low and deformations
are too high other secondary effects would endanger the
stability and strength of the structural system. As a re-
sult there needs to be a balance between stiffness, de-
formation and damping within the structural system for
optimum results. It is shown that a considerable amount
of the seismic energy can be dissipated by the strategic
placement of the dampers.
The effect of Type A damper placement was further
studied under the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and
the 1988 Tennant Creek earthquake records. In these
case, the masses and structural properties were kept the
same, as with the damper properties of kd ¼ 31:9  106
N/m and Cd ¼ 61:3  106 N s/m. Tip deflection re-
sponses of the structure under the San Fernando
earthquake is shown in Fig. 13. It can be seen that a
248 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253
Fig. 13. Tip deflection response of nine-storey shear wall structure with damping system 2 for damper Type A.
significant reduction has been achieved and this dem-
onstrates that for this severe earthquake record with a
peak acceleration of 11.48 m/s2 , the damping system is
able to modulate the seismic response. Analogous results
were obtained under the relatively moderate Tennant
Creek earthquake (with a peak acceleration of 4.09 m/
s2 ). Similar results were obtained fro the acceleration
response.
3.2.2. Twenty-storey shear wall structure
Table 4 shows the results of the natural frequency
analysis of (shear wall) models L, M, and H for the first
and second modes of vibration. All models suffered a
reduction in natural frequencies due to the insertion of
dampers. This was expected, since a reduction in the
stiffness of the structure can be expected to increase the
ductility, and thus, reduce the natural frequencies It can
be seen that the influence on the natural frequencies
increased with increasing stiffness of the shear wall.
The damper properties kd and Cd for each model were
obtained assuming a double layer VE damper with
material dimensions of 475 mm by 300 mm by 10 mm.
Two different dampers Types 1 and 2 were treated and
their properties were obtained assuming that the loading
frequency corresponded to the first and second natural
frequencies of the damped structure, respectively.
Table 4
Natural frequencies of 20-storey shear wall models L, M, and H with damping system 2
Models Natural frequency mode 1
Bare Damped % change
L 0.262 (0.249) 4.73
M 0.383 (0.329) 14.07
H 0.517 (0.387) 25.16
Tables 5 and 6 summarise of the results of the seis-
mic response of the models with the two types of
dampers under the 1940 El Centro earthquake record.
The maximum acceleration at the tip and the maximum
deflection at the tip, 15th, 10th and 5th floors were re-
corded. The results in Table 6 indicate that optimum
reductions in the response (except at level 5) are ob-
tained with model M. Such reductions would lessen the
magnitude of the lateral forces on the building. Though
fifth level deflections increased in the damped structures
(Table 6), they would not have a substantial adverse
effect on the structure as the deflections are small. These
tables also show that reductions in deflection continued
to increase further up the structure in model M and that
there were significant reductions in tip acceleration and
deflections in the damped structures for both damper
types. These values demonstrate the reductions in the
response achieved by this damping system, assuming
that the structure vibrates predominantly in the first
and second modes and show that the damping sys-
tem can enhance the ability to mitigate the seismic
forces.
The tip acceleration and deflection time-history re-
sponses for shear wall model M with damper property
Types 1 and 2 are presented in Figs. 14 and 15 and show
that the damping system reduces the various peak ac-
Natural frequency mode 2
Bare Damped % change
1.422 (1.141) 19.71
2.062 (1.256) 39.06
2.722 (1.341) 50.73
 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253 249

Table 5
Maximum response of 20-storey shear wall models L, M and H with damping system 2
Model type Placement kd ðN=mÞ Cd ðN s=mÞ Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
 106  106 acceleration tip deflection 15th floor 10th floor fifth floor
deflection deflection deflection
Model L Bare – – – 4.47 305.2 196.3 99.8 41.4
Model L (1) 1–7 17 100 3.86 295.3 188.8 98.5 42.4
Model L (2) 1–7 38.7 46.7 3.51 295.8 189.2 99.8 43.2
Model M Bare – – – 4.96 461.6 301.4 157.0 47.7
Model M (1) 1–7 19.3 86.1 3.83 368.6 243.3 146.3 56.1
Model M (2) 1–7 38.7 45 3.41 344.9 247.5 152.8 62.9
Model H Bare – – – 3.720 262.25 174.25 91.71 27.83
Model H (1) 1–7 21.2 77.8 3.614 322.84 218.05 119.28 39.05
Model H (2) 1–7 38.7 42.2 3.227 310.35 216.20 127.20 50.83

Table 6
Percentage reductions in maximum response of 20-storey shear wall models L, M and H with damping system 2
Models Tip acceleration Tip deflection 15th floor deflection 10th floor deflection Fifth floor deflection
reduction (%) reduction (%) reduction (%) reduction (%) reduction (%)
Model L (1) 13.65 3.26 3.79 1.24 )2.18
Model L (2) 21.52 3.08 3.57 )0.06 )4.21
Model M (1) 22.93 20.15 19.28 6.82 )17.54
Model M (2) 31.27 25.29 17.90 2.69 )31.88
Model H (1) 2.84 )23.10 )25.14 )30.07 )40.33
Model H (2) 13.23 )18.34 )24.08 )38.69 )82.64

Fig. 14. Tip acceleration response of 20-storey shear wall model M with damping system 2.

celerations while remaining generally in phase with the
bare structure response. Fig. 16 displays the results of
the reductions in the interstorey drifts for model M with
damper property Types 1 and 2. With Type 1 dampers
there was a 21% average reduction in the interstorey
drift beyond the seventh floor. This has the effect of
reducing the column moments. Damper Type 2 can be
seen to have a similar, but greater effect on the response
of the structure, with an average decrease of 31% in the
interstorey drifts at all levels above the seventh floor.
The increases in interstorey drifts of the damped struc-
ture in the lower levels (up to the sixth floor) are small
and these small values of deflection will not increase the
moments and shear forces significantly.
250 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253

Fig. 15. Tip deflection response of 20-storey shear wall model M with damping system 2.

Fig. 16. Interstorey drift reductions in 20-storey shear wall model M for damping system 2 and damper property Types 1 and 2.

Fig. 17 compares the percentage reductions in the tip
acceleration for the three shear wall models, with respect
to the change in the natural frequency from the bare
structure to the damped structure, for both damper
(property) Types 1 and 2. Similar results were obtained
for the change in tip deflection. These results demon-
strate consistent and similar trends in the responses of
the various shear walls with changes in the natural fre-
quency. As the change in natural frequency increased,
the amount of reduction in both acceleration and de-
flection increased up to a maximum point, beyond which
the trend reverses. In all cases, model L had the least
change in the natural frequency with a marginal to
moderate reduction in the responses. Model M had the
best reduction in both the acceleration and deflection
responses for both damper property Types 1 and 2.
Model H, conversely, had the least amount of reduction
in the responses of the structure. This case (H) also
 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253
Fig. 17. Variation of tip acceleration reduction with natural frequency in 20-storey shear wall models L, M and H under El Centro
earthquake.
corresponded to the largest change in the natural fre-
quency, but there was an increase in the tip deflection for
both damper Types 1 and 2.
In general, the structure with damper property Type
2, which was associated with the second mode, had a
greater reduction in both acceleration and deflection
responses than those with Type 1. From this it can be
surmised that a decrease in the rigidity of the structure
by too much, as in model H, or too little, as in model L,
will have either an adverse effect or only a moderate to
little effect on the seismic response. This suggests that
there is an optimum level of rigidity that needed to be
taken out of the structure, or that sections needed to be
cut out of the shear wall, and replaced with a certain
level of damper properties kd and Cd , in order to obtain
the maximum reduction in the seismic response. It is also
possible that a higher mode could be closer to the
dominant mode in the seismic excitation. Under the
earthquake loading the structure could be acting largely
in its second or third mode of vibration and so the po-
sitioning of the dampers in the lower half of the struc-
ture could be less effective. The placement of dampers
within the shear wall could, therefore, be more effective
in the regions of higher curvature. This, however, needs
further investigation for validation.
4. Discussion and conclusion
Two different VE damping systems within a struc-
tural system which contains shear walls (and coupling
beams), has been explored. The first system involved
dampers placed between the shear walls at the coupling
beam locations, while the second system used damping
devices placed within windows cut in the shear wall.
251
Finite element methods were used to analyse the effects
of dampers in these structural systems under different
earthquakes records.
The first method examined various damper configu-
rations and locations within a shear wall–coupling beam
structure. The results of the study showed that this
method had some, but limited potential for mitigation of
the seismic response of multi-storey structures. This is
believed to be due to the small difference in displacement
between the end points of attachment of the damper, and
to the restriction on the depth of placement within the
cavity between floor levels, and the high stiffness of the
shear wall against lateral loads. The dampersÕ potential
for energy dissipation were, therefore, not fully realised.
The investigation of the six-storey structure showed that
the effectiveness of the dampers varied under the different
earthquake records. This can be attributed to the varying
intensity and frequency content of the earthquake. The
results of the analysis of the 20-storey structure with
dampers in all levels, illustrated that dampers can be used
to improve the mitigation of seismic forces and this
supported the results obtained for the six-storey building.
Limitations of this placement application indicate the
need for damping mechanisms that are sensitive to small
displacements or non displacement dependent damping
systems to derive a significant and practical benefit when
located at coupling beams.
The second damping system, which had the dam-
ping devices located within cut-out sections of the shear
wall, showed that substantial reductions could be
achieved in the seismic response of the building. Re-
sults from this study indicated that by reducing the
stiffness at the base of a shear wall, and by inserting
dampers into the lower levels, it was possible to reduce
the acceleration and deflection response of the structure.
252 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253
Dampers placed in the upper levels had little to no
effect on the structural response. The responses of the
structure were compared under different earthquake
records. There was significant reductions in deflection
and acceleration response under all earthquake records.
The reduction in acceleration will lead to lesser inertia
forces and so increases the ability of the building to
cope with seismic events. The response however, varied
with the earthquake record indicating its dependence
on the intensity and frequency content of the earth-
quake.
The effects of the width of the shear wall and the size of
the cut-out on the seismic response were studied, with the
dampers were located in the lower levels of the shear wall.
The results showed that there was a correlation between
the amount of rigidity cut out of the system and the
stiffness and damping coefficients of the damper replacing
this. This suggests that there is a need to balance these
parameters in order to obtain the optimum improvement
in seismic performance. It was also possible that the
modal response of the structure could influence the ef-
fectiveness on the placement of dampers within the shear
wall. This second damping system showed that, overall,
the dampers were most effectively positioned at the base
of a stiff structure which is the region nearest to the energy
input source. Placement of the dampers within the shear
walls reduces the stiffness of the structure and this is ad-
vantageous to the point of effectively mobilising the
dampers. Thereafter the energy input is modulated by a
combination of deformation and damping with the re-
maining stiffness of the structure helping to dissipate the
energy while maintaining stability and resistance. The
resulting advantage is the reduction of strength demand
and ductility from traditional construction materials. The
investigations showed that significant reduction in struc-
ture acceleration, deformation and consequent strength
demand can be achieved by strategically placing the
dampers within the core walls and controlling the reduc-
tion of stiffness within a reasonable range. It also showed
an ability to de-tune the natural frequency of the structure
from the spectrum of the earthquake frequencies, in
order to avoid resonance. The seismic response of a
20-storey shear wall structure with three different wall
widths showed that there is an optimum stiffness of the
wall beyond which there was an adverse effect on the
response.
The first damping system had very small values of
interstorey deflections at the lower levels, but these in-
creased along the structure height, enabling reasonable
amounts of response reductions. The second damping
system which effectively changed the structural proper-
ties (at the lower levels) and increased the deflections,
enabled the dampers to provide large reactionary forces
to the input forces and hence larger response reductions.
The advantages of the first system simply lay in the ease
of construction with the dampers being attached to the
existing building with minor structural modifications.
The second method was more complex with modifica-
tions required to the shear wall in order to incorporate
the damping devices.
The results of the investigations of the two damping
systems have nevertheless demonstrated an ability to
reduce the seismic response of buildings by strategic
placement of mechanical damping devices within the
conventional shear wall systems.
References
[1] Abbas H, Kelly JM. A methodology for design of
viscoelastic dampers in earthquake-resistant structures.
Technical Report UCB/EERC-93/09, Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center, University of California, Berke-
ley, 1993.
[2] Aiken ID, Kelly JM. Experimental and analytical studies
of two energy-absorbing systems for multistorey structures.
In: Proc 11th Inter Conf on Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology, Tokyo, Japan, vol. K, 1991. p. 145–
50.
[3] Aiken ID, Nims DK, Kelly JM. Comparative study of four
passive energy dissipation systems. Bull New Zealand Nat
Soc Earthquake Eng 1992;25(3):175–92.
[4] Chang KC, Chen SJ, Lai ML. Inelastic behaviour of steel
frames with added viscoelastic dampers. J Struct Eng
1993a;122(10):1178–86.
[5] Chang KC, Lai ML, Soong TT, Hao DS, Yeh YC. Seismic
behaviour and design guidelines for steel frame struc-
tures with added viscoelastic dampers. Technical Report
NCEER-93-0009, State University of New York, Buffalo,
NY, 1993.
[6] Chang KC, Soong TT, Oh ST, Lai ML. Seismic response
of a 2/5 scale steel structure with added viscoelastic
dampers. Technical Report NCEER-91-0012, State Uni-
versity of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1991.
[7] Constantinou MC, Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive
energy dissipation systems for structural design and
retrofit. Monograph No. 1. Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of
New York, Buffalo, NY, 1998.
[8] Fukumoto S, Inoue Y. Effect of characteristics of various
inter-storey dampers on response control for vibration of
building structures. In: Proc 11th World Conf on Earth-
quake Eng, Paper No. 552, 1996.
[9] Hart GC, Wong K. Structural dynamics for structural
engineers. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
[10] Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen. ABAQUS User Manuals
Version 5.8, USA, 1998.
[11] Hisano K, Kuribayashi H, Saitou K, Nakano T. The
application example of the hybrid damping system com-
bined the hysteretic damper with viscous damper to high-
rise building. In: Proc 5th Inter Conf on Motion and
Vibration Control, Sydney, Australia, vol. 1, 2000. p. 451–
6.
[12] Krawinkler H. A few basic concepts for performance based
seismic design. In: Proc 11th World Conf on Earthquake
Eng, Paper No. 1133, 1996.
 L.P.B. Madsen et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 239–253 253

[13] Madsen LPB. Improving the seismic response of structures [14] Park R. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John
by the use of dampers in shear walls. ME thesis, School of Wiley & Sons; 1975.
Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, [15] Tsai CS, Tsai KC. TPEA device as seismic damper for
Brisbane, Australia, 2001. high-rise buildings. J Eng Mech 1992;121(10):1075–81.