Impact of friction dampers and ductility factor on the seismic response of concrete moment resisting frame buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".