Impact of friction dampers and ductility factor on the seismic response of concrete moment resisting frame buildings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Infrastructures around the world are impacted by seismic events and therefore can suffer different types of losses that include: life, structure, economy and much more. It is important to control the vibration in structures using appropriate design methods, materials, and energy dissipation devices. There are many different types of energy dissipating devices providing supplemental damping to structures and control their vibration response. This research focuses on friction devices, particularly, the inline friction dampers used in diagonal bracings to control the vibration in buildings. There is no standard design process available in the National Building Code of Canada to design buildings with friction dampers. The procedure suggested in FEMA guidelines is quite complicated to use. The focus here is to use a rational method for building design with friction dampers and demonstrate the impact of friction dampers in the design process, and seismic response. Currently, dampers are used as a device which are supplementary to the structure post- design, to increase its strength and stiffness that benefit structures. However, that produces a highly conservative design which may not be economically justified. By letting the dampers take about a tart of the lateral forces, structure can be optimized. The effect of fiction dampers was observed by the reduction of moment and shear on columns, the reduction of cost. Six structures were designed for this study: elastic with and without dampers, moderately-ductile with and without dampers and ductile with and without dampers. \n \nThis study demonstrates that by designing and applying friction dampers into the design stage, the beams and columns attract less moment and shear impacting their sizes. While designing the structure, adding dampers helped reduce the cost in material for all three structures by around 7.5% in contrasts to the same model without dampers. An optimization of the structure section was made after adding the dampers into the structure. The impact of moment and shear into the columns and beams was shown to also be reduced of nearly 25-40% (the average is 29.5%). The seismic response of the different building models was determined using nonlinear pushover and time-history analyses. The results show that despite having smaller sections for beams and columns, the structures with dampers have reduced drift as compared to those without dampers. It was clearly demonstrated that friction dampers have an impact into the design of structures making them stronger with a higher response and lower cost. After calculating the cost of material and the overall results of analysis, the ductile structure is found to be the most economical choice. However, considering the post-earthquake damage and repair cost, the moderately-ductile structure with dampers will be a better option.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».