taylordevices inc.

Fluid Viscous Dampers

General Guidelines for Engineers
Including a Brief History
Table of Contents

Contributors .....................................................................................................................................3
Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................5
Chapter 1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................7
Chapter 2 - Fluid Damping Devices - A Century of History ....................................................9
Chapter 3 - Design Description of Dampers ...........................................................................15
Chapter 4 - Damper Output Characteristics and Unique Benefits .....................................17
Chapter 5 - Generalized Effects of Adding Fluid Dampers to a Structure .......................21
Chapter 6 - Damper Mounting Arrangements .......................................................................27
Chapter 7 - Design and Analysis of Building Structures with Fluid Viscous Dampers .......31
Part 1: Creating the Analytical Model with FVDs for NLRHA .............................32
Part 2: New Construction - Special Moment Frames with FVDs .......................60
Part 3: Seismic Retrofit - Moment Frame with FVDs ...........................................75
Part 4: New Construction - Taylor Damped Moment Frame™ ...........................87
Chapter 8 - Fluid Damper Performance vs. Other Technologies .....................................117
Chapter 9 - Incorporating Dampers into Buildings ............................................................127
Chapter 10 - Photographs ........................................................................................................135
Chapter 11 - Mounting Hardware ..........................................................................................161
Chapter 12 - Available Sizes and Dimensions .......................................................................181
Chapter 13 - Taylor Devices’ Literature .................................................................................185
Chapter 14 - Sample Technical Manual .................................................................................207
Appendix - Case Studies ...........................................................................................................219

taylordevices inc. 1
Contributors
The staff at Taylor Devices is very Mark Berquist
proud to have collaborated with Taylor Devices, Inc.
experts in the field of damping to
produce this manual. We thank Nathan Canney
everyone for their inspiration and Taylor Devices, Inc.
contributions. Ben Covich
Taylor Devices, Inc.

Richard DePasquale
Taylor Devices, Inc.

Marcus Freeman
Taylor Devices, Inc.

Sean Frye
Taylor Devices, Inc.

Amir Gilani
Miyamoto International

Alan Klembczyk
Taylor Devices, Inc.

David Lee
Taylor Devices, Inc.

Aaron Malatesta
Taylor Devices, Inc.

John Metzger
Taylor Devices, Inc.

Robert Schneider
Taylor Devices, Inc.

Chris Smith
EQC Global

Douglas Taylor
Taylor Devices, Inc.

Shanshan Wang
University of California, Berkeley

Craig Winters
Taylor Devices, Inc.

© 2024 Taylor Devices Inc.

All rights reserved throughout the world.
Reproduction and/or creation of derivative works strictly prohibited.

taylordevices inc. 3
Foreword
Over the last 36 years or so, I have had the unique honor to work at Taylor
Devices, Inc. Over that period, we have seen substantial evolution within
the Company, its products, its customers, and its culture.
Beginning in the early to mid-1990’s, we had the opportunity to adapt some
of our new and old fluid damper designs for use in structures to provide
for better earthquake resistance. Based on the results of laboratory tests,
analytical studies, and field performance during wind and seismic events,
this technology has demonstrated remarkable improvement in structural
control. Indeed, fluid dampers reduce deflection, stress, and acceleration
at the same time without substantially increasing cost or even at all.
It can be quite astonishing to see the dramatic effect that even a small
amount of damping can have on the performance of a structure during
dynamic events. However, it is also surprising to see the use of inferior products and technologies
being used for improving performance when well-proven designs already exist. When considering
the use of a potentially life-saving component, I remind people that what is acceptable for use in
the US military and aerospace sector ought to be appropriate for saving lives. It is important to note
that dampers can allow a structure to return to its initial condition after a large event. Demolishing a
structure or replacing energy absorbing elements after an event at a great cost is simply not necessary.
As structural engineers have now progressed out of the infancy phase of designing dampers into
structures for seismic control, I feel that we have a responsibility to share the benefits with as many
concerned influences as possible. As managers, engineers, or academia, we have a responsibility to
move mankind forward with the knowledge we have obtained. However, we should always do so with
the highest standards of honesty and integrity while also holding each other to the highest standards.
For this reason and many others, I am asking all our readers to share this knowledge while recognizing
that we do indeed share a high level of responsibility to make the earth a better place by helping to
save human lives in the event of natural phenomena for which we have little control.
Recent research and development efforts have allowed us to have an even greater opportunity to
make a positive impact to society through the use of the “Taylor Damped Moment Frame™” which
provides a simplified and prescriptive method for designing structures utilizing dampers. This method
has been evaluated and approved by the International Code Council and published as ICC ESR-4769.
It provides a simple, robust, and reliable method, thereby improving the resiliency of structures without
adding any unnecessary risk.
This Damper Manual attempts to accommodate our common goals while recognizing that we all have
important choices to make. Taylor Devices is always available to help make the right choices. We
recognize the merits of our products. We hold our products and ourselves to the highest quality
standards.
This Manual is not intended to represent fluid dampers as simple commodities and therefore encourage
the use of inferior products. Although the technology has proven itself, the process and products shall
always be held to the highest standard. Taylor Devices recognizes that important responsibility.
Alan Klembczyk

President, Taylor Devices, Inc.

taylordevices inc. 5
6
taylordevices inc.
1

Chapter 1
Introduction

The end of the Cold War in 1990 heralded a restructuring period for the American military and
defense industry. One of the outcomes of this new era was that political and economic change
allowed previously restricted technologies to become available to the general public. This conversion
of defense technology is typified by highly advanced products and services that suddenly appeared in
the marketplace, seemingly out of nowhere. Perhaps the best known of these is the now ubiquitous
Internet, which in reality came from 1970's defense technology intended for use by government
agencies in the event of nuclear war.

In the civil engineering field, high capacity fluid dampers have transitioned from defense related
structures to commercial applications on buildings and bridges subjected to seismic and/or wind storm
inputs. Because fluid damping technology was proven thoroughly reliable and robust through decades
of Cold War usage, implementation on commercial structures has taken place very quickly.

Indeed, over the last 35 years, utilizing various types of added-damping devices in structures has
emerged as a useful, reliable and predictable tool in significantly improving the resiliency of structures
to a dynamic input. Thousands of structures, both new-builds and retrofits throughout the world have
utilized added-damping devices. Much research and testing efforts have been performed that verify
the benefits of incorporating added-damping devices in structures. Linear and non-linear fluid viscous
dampers continue to demonstrate excellent performance in reducing deflection, acceleration response,
inter- story drift and stress. Damping device designs that have been well proven through decades of
use are available in configurations that provide forces that depend on input velocity, deflection, or a
combination of both.

Although various building codes have emerged throughout the world that address methods and
response requirements of structures when utilizing damping devices, these codes do not provide a
general comparison in improved resiliency that is realized through their use.

The concept of damping within a structural system can have different meanings to the various
engineering disciplines. To the civil engineer, damping may mean only a reference note on a seismic or
wind spectral plot, “5% damped spectra” being the most common notation. To the structural engineer,
damping means changes in overall stress within a structure subject to shock and vibration, with
frequent arguments whether a structure will have “2%, 3%, 4%, but not more than 5%” structural
damping. On the other hand, mechanical engineers do not necessarily view damping as a benevolent
feature, since machines, by definition, are supposed to transmit forces and motions efficiently, without
energy losses. Thus, the need for damping in a machine often signifies that an engineering design error
has been made.

In the classical mechanical engineering text “Vibration Theory and Applications,” William Thomson [1]
avoids a single, direct definition of damping by offering the following descriptions: “Vibrating systems

taylordevices inc. 7
Chapter 1

are all more or less subject to damping because energy is dissipated by friction and other resistances.
Since no energy is supplied in free vibration, the motion in free vibration will diminish with time, and
is said to be damped.

It follows from these descriptions that a damper is an element which can be added to a system to
provide forces which are resistive to motion, thus providing a means of energy dissipation. Assuming
that this working definition will suffice for general use, the next area of interest is to generally describe
the functional output of a damper. As with the definition of damping, the functional output of a
damper is somewhat controversial, since different output equations exist within the context of the
various engineering disciplines.

Alternatively, damping can be defined as that attribute of a dynamic system that results in a decrease
in the amplitude of oscillation. This results in the removal of some amount of energy in that system. In
keeping with the law of conservation of energy, this energy is actually transformed into another form.
Consequently, the term “damper” can be defined as that mechanism or internal property that provides
this transfer of energy. Typically, damping converts mechanical energy into heat. This heat is then
dissipated to the surroundings through any of the 3 modes of heat transfer defined as conduction,
convection and radiation.

Fluid viscous dampers operate by providing a resisting force only when moving. They do not add
stiffness to a structure, and they do not carry any static load.

Like automobiles driven on a bumpy road, buildings in seismic regions are a dynamic problem. Who
would ever buy or manufacture a car without shock absorbers? The dynamic laws of physics are the
same for each.

It is with great pleasure that Taylor Devices offers this damper manual as a guide for engineers with
various levels of experience in order to take advantage of this technology that has been successfully
transitioned from previous applications to now improve the dynamic performance of structures and to
help save lives throughout the world.

References
1. Thomson, William, 1965, Vibration Theory and Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.

8
taylordevices inc.
2 Fluid Damping Devices
A Century of History

Chapter 2
It is axiomatic that during times of war, new technology develops extremely quickly, since the fates of
nations may well depend upon which antagonist can mass-produce improved weapons more quickly.
In the case of fluid dampers, the evolution of large bore artillery and naval guns in the late 1800's
provided the need for the product, and the various major governments were only too eager to provide
the development funding.

The Guns of War, 1897-1918 — Necessity Fosters Invention

The evolution of large dampers began with the advent of large breech loaded cannons in the 1860's.
Prior to this, large guns were muzzle loaded in a very time-consuming manner. Gaining easy access
to the gun’s muzzle end for loading was simple; the weapon was merely allowed to move backwards
anywhere from one to twenty feet after firing. Motion was retarded by means of a spade-like device
literally digging into the earth on land-based weapons. Shipboard guns used friction slides or inclined
surfaces to arrest their firing motion, often aided with block and tackle mechanisms. After loading, the
gun crew would push the gun back into its “battery,” or ready to fire position. The advent of breech
loading allowed for much more rapid (and safer) loading of the weapon, and a desirable higher rate of
fire. Unfortunately, the high firing rate required that the gun crew work much faster repositioning the
gun, quickly exhausting the crew.

Several unsuccessful concepts of arresting gun recoil were attempted, involving both coil springs and
rubber blocks. Meanwhile, the inventors of that time were investigating the new field of hydraulic
components, and by the late 1860's, experiments were taking place using hydraulic dampers to
arrest gun recoil. It is reported by Hogg [1] that the British Army was the first to use hydraulic recoil
dampers on gun carriages in 1862. The first mass-produced hydraulic recoil damper was used on the
75 mm French field gun, Model M1897. This weapon was hailed as a true technological marvel and
is considered to be the first modern artillery piece. The carriage of the weapon included a slide to
support the gun itself, and a 48-inch stroke fluid damper combined with a light spring to attenuate
recoil energy and return the gun to battery. The French M1897 went on to serve in both World War
I and World War II. Many variations of the weapon exist since many countries “borrowed” the design
after capturing one or more examples during World War I. One of the more unusual uses for the low
recoil French M1897 was by the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. The Air Corps needed
a ground attack aircraft with as much firepower as possible. The solution to the problem involved
mounting a complete M1897 with recoil dampers into the nose of the U.S. Model B-25 “Mitchell”
Bomber, firing forward. The modified aircraft proved successful, and the use of the hydraulic dampers
eliminated damage to the aircraft.

By the end of World War I, tens of thousands of fluid dampers were being used on field artillery pieces,
naval guns, coastal guns and railway guns. Some dampers of this period were even of the adaptive

taylordevices inc. 9
 type, where changing the gun elevation angle would change the resultant damping force. This was
accomplished by using a gear train between gun carriage and the damper. The gear train would rotate
an adjustment rod or screw protruding from the damper cylinder. As the gun was elevated, the damper
would become “stiffer”, and use less displacement. This feature allowed the gun carriage to be reduced
in size and weight, since at high elevation angles, the carriage no longer needed to maintain clearance
to the ground for the entire recoil stroke.

Toward the end of World War I, another advantage of fluid dampers was discovered. This was that
reduced recoil allowed weapons to easily fire larger projectiles, with larger propellant charges to obtain
greater range. Indeed, from March to July of 1918, the City of Paris was attacked by the German Army
with a weapon of “super gun” proportions. Details did not become available until the war ended, and
then only after intense efforts by the allies. The weapon was named the Paris Gun, and included a
Chapter 2

130-foot long barrel, which fired a 210 mm diameter shell at a range up to 85 miles. The gun itself,
with fluid dampers, weighed over 140 tons, not including the weight of the tremendous carriage that
carried the weapon. Three of the Paris Guns were built, but all were withdrawn from service as the
allied armies approached their locations. Mysteriously, none were recovered by the allied forces after
the war ended.

The Automotive Damper - Optimization Through Evolution

The 1920's and 1930's were a period when the automobile became a dominant feature of American
culture. Since the automobile was a relatively new product with a large potential market, automotive
manufacturers were forced, by competitive pressures, to produce a product that would be appealing
to the consumer. One of the most appealing traits that an automobile could possess was a smooth
ride over all possible road surfaces; this proved to be a true challenge for automotive engineers of this
period.

The earliest auto suspensions were simply carried over from horse-drawn wagons. The suspension
consisted of multiple leaf elliptical or semi-elliptical springs. Damping was limited to the inter- leaf
friction which occurred as the spring leaves ground over one another as the spring deflected. Damping
would obviously have a high variance from day-to-day, depending on whether the spring was dry, wet,
hot, cold, rusty, dirty, or recently cleaned and oiled.

This day-to-day damping change proved unacceptable to the consumer, and external friction pads or
rubber dampers were added to the suspension. These provided a small but noticeable improvement
over using the spring itself as a damper, plus it was possible to make the damper adjustable for wear.
The “ideal” damping material was usually pure asbestos washers or pads, compressed between two
iron plates. One plate was fixed to the car frame by a bolt, the other was attached to an actuating arm.
A large draw bolt went through the center of the damper assembly, and tightening or loosening of the
bolt served to adjust the damping force.

The high maintenance and marginal improvement obtained with friction and rubber dampers caused
automotive parts suppliers to look for improved damping systems, and fluid dampers quickly entered
the scene. The biggest problem with adapting the fluid damper for automotive use proved to be poor
quality seals. The guns of World War I usually needed a major overhaul every 500 rounds or so, due to
barrel wear, and this was an opportune time to change damper seals, which usually were leaking badly
after 500 cycles. Considering that the seals of the day consisted of cut lengths of hemp rope forced
into a pocket with a hammer, this was no surprise! “Improved” seals of the 1920's consisted of a stack
of round leather washers forced into position with a packing nut. These were an improvement over
hemp strands, but still could not provide the cyclic life necessary for automotive use.

10
taylordevices inc.
In 1925, Ralph Peo of the Houdaille Company in Buffalo, New York, invented a solution to the seal
problem. Instead of improving the seal, he redesigned the damper to use a rotating piston rod and
vane assembly, thus replacing long travel, sliding seal motion with a short 60-120 degree rotary travel.
The Houdaille rotary damper was actuated by crank arms attached to the moving components of
the suspension. The short rotary travel of the seal allowed for roughly 10,000 miles of road travel
before seal replacement became necessary. Within a short period, most automobiles were using the
Houdaille rotary damper. Figure 2.1 is one of the original patent sheets depicting Peo’s 1925 invention.

In 1949, the Delco Division of General Motors finally designed a sliding seal damper that had an
adequate life for automotive use, thus ending the rotary damper era. Present-day automotive shock
absorbers have an internal construction that is very similar to the gun recoil buffers of World War I,
except that modern seals provide substantially greater life.

Chapter 2
Figure 2.1
Patent Sheet – R. Peo’s Rotary Shock Absorber

The Cold War - Dampers Go Underground

Various historical accounts include great amounts of information about the Cold War period, which
lasted from the end of World War II to approximately 1990. Early on in the Cold War, both the United
States and The Soviet Union began developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), equipped
with nuclear warheads. Although still debated, most defense analysts state that the U.S. strategic
war doctrine was such that our missiles would not be launched until enemy warheads had actually
detonated on or above U.S. soil. Adherence to this doctrine assumed that the enemy’s initial targets
would be U.S. missile launchers, striking as many of these as possible in a first strike. In order for the
U.S. to launch a counterstrike under these conditions, our missiles needed to be designed and/ or
based in such a way that they could survive a nuclear attack without damage. Initially, land based
missiles were simply placed underground in heavily reinforced launch silos, usually accompanied by
underground launch facility buildings. However, as missile guidance systems evolved, the accuracy of
enemy missiles was improved, and the need for shock isolation devices became apparent. Early missile
isolators consisted of simple coil springs with fluid dampers. In some cases, the spring- damper units
were used to isolate the missiles themselves and various critical items inside the launch complex. In
other cases, entire structures were base isolated in vertical and horizontal planes.

During the 1960's, it became impossible to provide large enough mechanical springs to provide the

taylordevices inc. 11
 optimal isolation, so fluid dampers were converted to liquid-spring dampers, an extremely powerful
yet compact isolation component. In a liquid spring-damper, the operating fluid is compressed and
orificed simultaneously. By selecting special fluids with high compressibility, it was possible to produce
both high spring and damping forces in an extremely small package. Without becoming too specific
(for security considerations), some of the liquid spring-dampers of the late 1980's could simultaneously
provide spring forces of 50 tons and damping forces of 150 tons from a package of only seven inches
in diameter! Operating fluid pressures of up to 50,000 psi were relatively common. In comparison, a
high-powered hunting rifle has peak firing pressures in the 40,000 psi range. Some of these products
for large land based missiles had more than four feet of displacement, with output forces up to 500
tons.

The successful use of high-capacity fluid dampers and liquid-spring dampers on land based missile
Chapter 2

facilities led to additional applications on shipboard and submarine missiles and related equipment
items. By the end of the Cold War, a typical U.S. Naval warship would have more than 1,000 fluid
damping devices installed on its missiles and primary electronics systems. These devices range from 1
ton to 50 tons of output force.

During the 1990's, the end of the Cold War combined with the political and economic climate caused
a dramatic downsizing of U.S. defense capabilities. At the same time, security restrictions on the sale
and commercial use of Cold War era technology had been greatly relaxed.

After the Cold War - Transition of Defense Technology to the

Private Sector
Defense firms found very few new opportunities in their traditional markets when the Cold War ended.
Some firms grew smaller, or maintained sales levels by oftentimes painful mergers or consolidations.
Relatively few firms were able to transition their technology to the commercial marketplace. In 1987,
Taylor Devices, Inc., began to look for commercial outlets for its defense products.

Taylor Devices’ defense expertise involved the design and manufacture of large, fluid damping devices
for protection of missiles, electronics systems, and large structures against the effects of weapons
explosion. The company’s staff elected to pursue commercial applications related to seismic and high
wind protection of structures. The damper style selected dated from the 1970's, and was developed
on a sole-source basis by the firm for use on the U.S. Air Force’s MX Ballistic Missile, and the U.S.
Navy’s Tomahawk Cruise Missile. On the latter program, the company has produced more than 29,000
fluid damping devices for use on the shipboard launched Tomahawk.

Early on, it was decided to pursue joint research on fluid damped building and bridge structures with
the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER). NCEER was conveniently located
on the campus of the State University of New York at Buffalo, just a short distance from Taylor Devices’
facilities. The research involved taking existing military production fluid damping devices, and simply
installing them onto scaled models of civil engineering structures, as supplemental components. The
structures were then subjected to seismic transient testing on the University’s large seismic shake
table. Test results proved excellent, with dramatic reductions of stress and deflection occurring with
added fluid damping in the 15-40% of critical range.

In general, it was found that adding 20% critical damping to a structure will triple its earthquake
resistance, without increasing stress or deflection. Numerous reports were published by NCEER and
the University, documenting the improvements obtainable with fluid dampers. The U.S. Department
of Defense proved very cooperative in allowing Taylor Devices to disclose the origins and applicable
design concepts for the damping devices used in the research.

12
taylordevices inc.
For example, steel building structures were tested with fluid dampers being currently produced for
the B-2 Stealth Bomber. Concrete building structures were tested using Tomahawk missile dampers.
Bridge structures were tested with dampers from the CIA’s famed Glomar Explorer Research Vessel.
Other bridge structures were fitted with spring-damper units from submarine based torpedoes.

It became evident that there were no barriers towards commercial implementation of Taylor’s damping
products, and by 1993, an order was received for 186 dampers to be used on all five buildings of the
new Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton, California. Specifications for these dampers are
provided in Table 2.1, and a photo of a completed damper follows in Figure 2.2.

More than 800 additional building and bridge projects followed the Arrowhead Medical Center order
over the subsequent 30 years. The transition of fluid dampers from military to civilian applications has

Chapter 2
proven to be the quintessential example of literally “turning swords into plowshares.”

Damper Specifications
San Bernardino County Medical Center
Displacement = 48 in.

Maximum Damping Force = 320,000lb

Maximum Operating Velocity = 60 in./sec.

Power Dissipation = 2,170,000 watts

Length = 14.5 ft. extended

Diameter = 14 in.

Weight = 3,000 lb. Table 2.1

San Bernardino County Medical
Quantity Required = 186
Center Damper Specification

Figure 2.2
Photograph of Completed Damper

References
1. Hogg, I.V., 1971, The Guns 1914-1918, Ballantine Books Inc., New York, New York.

taylordevices inc. 13
Chapter 2

14
taylordevices inc.
3 Design Description of Dampers

Basic Design Description

The essential design elements of a fluid damper are relatively few. However, the detailing of these
elements varies greatly and can, in some cases, become both difficult and complex. Figure 3.1 depicts
a typical fluid damper and its parts.

Chapter 3
Figure 3.1
Typical Fluid Damper & Parts

The Damper shown in Figure 3.1 is shown in its mid-stroke position. The main pressure chamber is
referred to as the Cylinder (not labeled). It is completely full of Fluid including the volumes on both
sides of the Piston Head. The Piston Rod is attached to the Piston Head. On the left end of the Piston
Rod is a Clevis for attachment to the structure. As the damper reciprocates during a dynamic event,
this Clevis, the Piston Rod and the Piston Head move as one component. All the other parts remain
stationary.

As the Piston Head moves, the Fluid on either side of it is forced through orifices in the Piston Head.
On the left side of the Cylinder is a Cap and Seal to encapsulate the Fluid against static and dynamic
pressure. On the right side of the Cylinder is another Cap and Seal. As one end of the Piston Rod moves
into the Cylinder, the other moves out, thus maintaining conservation of volume of the Fluid without a
build-up of static pressure. Both Clevises are typically outfitted with spherical bearings to allow some
level of mis-alignment with the surrounding structure.

Other damper configurations are available, but the basic operation of each variant is similar with respect
to the description outlined above. See Chapters 10, 12, and 13 for more information.

Force & Fatigue Rating

Taylor Devices Dampers are available in force ratings up to 1800 KIP (8000 kN). The design of the
structural components of these dampers provides a safety margin to yield of approximately 2:1 at
their rated force. All components of the dampers, including the pressure vessel, have been analyzed

taylordevices inc. 15
 for strength using modern-day finite element analysis. Actual damper stress reports are available upon
request based on actual project requirements.

Typical seismic dampers require a velocity exponent of less than 1.0 (see equation 4.1.) This means
that although the safety margin is 2:1 based on force rating, the actual safety margin based on velocity
is much higher, depending on the velocity exponent used.

Dampers are evaluated for fatigue resistance as applicable to individual damper applications.

Power Rating
Where applicable, damper designs are evaluated for power transmitting capabilities. Oftentimes this
becomes a design driver for wind damper applications whereby substantial power is absorbed by the
damper for extended periods of time as would be experienced during wind storms. The short-term
power capability of dampers (during earthquakes) is typically many times higher.

Since fluid dampers convert mechanical energy to heat, there is a temperature rise within the damping
fluid during dynamic motion that eventually transfers to the outside surfaces where that energy is
safely dissipated to the surrounding environment. Energy per unit of time defines power. Therefore,
the capability of a damper to accept a temperature rise and then transfer heat to the environment over
a known time period will define its power rating.

Taylor Devices uses a proprietary power analysis software tool that accurately predicts internal and
external surface temperature versus time with given power input scenarios. For each application,
the power is evaluated to be sure that the damper would be fully capable of absorbing short-term
Chapter 3

and long-term (continuous) input without experiencing any degradation in function due to increased
temperatures.

Fire Rating
Taylor Devices dampers have been evaluated for time-based fire rating to be sure that they would be
operable during temporary exposure to fire. These dampers are robust hydraulic devices containing
thick-walled alloy steel cylinders. The components that provide the necessary damping function are
not sensitive to short-term exposure to high heat. Only features such as elastomeric bellows and paint
may be susceptible to damage from short-term exposure.

Fire ratings have been established by using Heisler chart information for temperature-time history of
cylinders exposed to fire at approximately 1900°F (1020°C). A conservative approach was used that
neglected the insulative effects of the working fluid of the damper and therefore assumed that the
damper was a solid steel bar. The failure mode of a damper during exposure to fire would be melting
of the seals, thereby releasing the non-toxic, non-flammable fluid to the surrounding area. No risk of
explosion exists since the melting of the seals would release any high-pressure build-up prior to there
being any high stress in the pressure vessel.

The results of the fire rating analysis of Taylor Devices dampers provides a typical fire rating well in
excess of 1⁄2 hour for all models, and even greater than 1 hour for medium to large standard dampers.
This means that even being exposed to direct flame at 1900°F, Taylor Devices dampers will operate
for at least 1⁄2 hour. It is anticipated that if any area of a structure was exposed to fire for this period
of time that the structure would sustain catastrophic damage. Therefore, damage to dampers due to
exposure to fire should not be regarded as a primary concern.

16
taylordevices inc.
4 Damper Output Characteristics
and Unique Benefits

Fluid dampers operate by providing a resisting force only when moving. They do not add stiffness to
a structure, and they do not carry any static load. However, stiffness can be added to a damper upon
request – a device called a fluid viscoelastic damper (FVED), whereby the spring acts in parallel with
the damper. This should not be confused with the spring function that is in series with the damper
(Maxwell stiffness). Refer to Chapter 7 for more information on Maxwell stiffness. A fluid damper
consists of a piston moving back and forth through a viscous fluid thereby generating high pressure.
This piston has custom designed orifices that produce an optimized relationship that produces this
pressure (force) that varies with velocity. The greater the velocity, the greater the resisting force that is
produced. This relationship is typically characterized by the following equation:

Damping Force = Damping Constant (C) x Velocity α (Eqn. 4.1)

where α is the damping exponent. Note that this equation does not represent the Maxwell stiffness
portion of the damper. The damping exponent can be set between 0.2 and 2.0 depending on the
specific application. Values of α in the range of 0.3 to 0.5 are most common for seismic applications
in buildings. Bridge applications in U.S. Seismic Zones 3 and 4 use similar damping exponent values.
Wind damping applications tend to use exponents in the range of 0.5 to 1.0, with the lower values
being used in structures driven by both wind and seismic inputs. Fluid dampers for use in tuned mass
dampers use exponents as high as 2.0.

Because the fluid damper only produces a resisting force while stroking and does not provide a
restoring (spring) force, energy is absorbed by the damper's fluid and converted to heat. This absorbed
energy is simply the summation of the damping force multiplied by the deflection. Because dampers
can be designed to generate greater than 10,000 psi (69 MPa) of damping pressure, the force, and

Chapter 4
therefore the absorbed energy, can be relatively high for a short period of time. This heat is then safely
dissipated to the air around the damper.

It is this absorbed energy that significantly reduces the necessity of the structural elements to absorb
that energy through yielding. Although this seems like a simple concept, the benefits are often not fully
realized. This is because it is not only important how fluid dampers absorb energy, but also when they
absorb energy.

Imagine a structure moving due to a transient input. A significant response of that structure will be
along its dominant natural frequency as a sine wave. As the structure moves through its initial position,
the deformation at this moment in time, and therefore strain, is zero. It is also at this moment in
time that the structure is moving with greatest velocity and therefore the damper is reacting with its
greatest force. Conversely, as the structure reaches its peak deflection and stress farthest away from
its initial position, the velocity reduces to zero and the damper reacts with zero force. Because of
this, utilizing fluid dampers actually reduces the required strength and stiffness of a structures lateral

taylordevices inc. 17
 force resisting system in order to resist wind or seismic demands. It also reduces base shear, thereby
reducing foundation sizes. This is an efficient means to improve structures in terms of cost, weight and
performance.

The benefits of the out-of-phase behavior of fluid dampers is not the case with elements that increase
stiffness or elements that are not velocity sensitive such as friction dampers or buckling restrained
braces (BRB’s). A benefit of not adding stiffness to the structure is that including fluid dampers does
not change the fundamental period of the structure. In retrofit applications, this means that the seismic
response of the building (i.e. the spectral acceleration) does not increase. For new construction, this
benefit can be used to produce longer period structures than their undamped counterparts, thereby
reducing their seismic response to earthquakes and the structure’s demands.

Returning to Equation 4.1, if a comparison is made of the energy absorbed for each cycle to the damping
exponent for a fluid damper under sinusoidal input, a fluid damper with a lower damping exponent
absorbs more energy per cycle than one with a higher exponent, keeping the peak force constant. This
is illustrated in Figure 4.1 below. Put in another way, in order to absorb the same amount of energy, a
damper with a higher exponent will require a higher force than a damper with a lower exponent.

Referring to the red curve in Figure 4.1 where the damping exponent is 0.4, the area under the force-
displacement curve (hysteresis), the energy absorbed, is more than the area enclosed by the blue
curve where the damping exponent is 1.0 (i.e. linear damping). However, there are diminishing returns
with lower exponents, as can be seen by the comparison of the black line (α = 0.3) to the red line (α =
0.4). Lower exponent dampers, however, have higher forces near the point of maximum displacement,
thereby reducing the benefits of the out-of-phase relationship between the lateral system and a
velocity dependent device. Therefore, a damping exponent of 0.4 oftentimes provides an optimal
combination of maintaining a high amount of energy absorption and minimizing the stress of adjacent
structural members.
Chapter 4

Figure 4.1
Comparison of Energy Absorbed with Varying Damping Exponents with Sinusoidal Input

18
taylordevices inc.
It should also be noted that although virtually any combination of damping coefficients and damping
exponent values are available, it is recommended that a constant damping exponent be used on
the same project and only the damping constant is varied. It is best to amortize the non-recurring
engineering and testing costs over as many dampers as possible and in many cases damper properties
can be grouped effectively to minimize manufacturing costs and optimize performance.

Chapter 12 provides a series of charts with available damper sizes and their dimensional information.
Dampers are available with any value of C and α within the limitation discussed above. In most seismic
applications, however, dampers tend to experience velocities ranging from 2 in/s to 30 in/s so some
standardization is possible. For seismic applications, Taylor Devices is striving to standardize our
damping constant offerings according to Table 4.1 below when a damper exponent of 0.4 is used. Note
that these C values are tied to the damping exponent equal to 0.4 and would need to be translated to
equivalent constants for other damping exponents. Also, these are not the only values possible, but
provide reasonable starting points for most seismic applications.

Table 4.1
Suggested C Values for Taylor Devices’ Dampers in Seismic Applications with Damping Exponent (α) equal to 0.4

US Units Metric Units MKS Units

kip-(sec/in)0.4 kN-(sec/m)0.4 tonf-(sec/m)0.4
1,316 25,439 2,594
1,144 22,114 2,255
995 19,234 1,961
865 16,721 1,705
752 14,537 1,482
654 12,642 1,289
569 10,999 1,122
495 9,569 976
430 8,312 848
374 7,230 737
325 6,283 641
283 5,471 558
246 4,755 485
214 4,137 422
186 3,596 367
162 3,132 319
141 2,726 278

Chapter 4
123 2,378 242
107 2,068 211
93 1,798 183
81 1,566 160
70 1,353 138
61 1,179 120
53 1,025 104
46 889 91
40 773 79
35 677 69
30 580 59
26 504 51
23 439 45

taylordevices inc. 19
Chapter 4

20
taylordevices inc.
5 Generalized Effects of Adding
Fluid Dampers to a Structure

Damping is one of many different methods that have been proposed for allowing a structure to achieve
optimal performance when it is subjected to seismic, windstorm or other types of transient shock
and vibration disturbances. Conventional approach would dictate that the structure must passively
attenuate or dissipate the effects of transient inputs through a combination of strength, flexibility,
deformability and energy absorption. The level of damping in a conventional structure is very low, and
hence the amount of energy dissipated during transient disturbances is also very low. During strong
motions, such as large earthquakes, conventional structures usually deform well beyond their elastic
limits, and remain intact only due to their ability to inelastically deform. Therefore, most of the energy
dissipated is absorbed by the structure itself through localized damage.

The concept of added-on dampers within a structure assumes that some of the energy input to the
structure from a transient will be absorbed, not by the structure itself, but rather by supplemental
damping elements. An idealized supplemental damper would be of a form such that the force being
produced by the damper is of such a magnitude and occurs at such a time that the damper forces do
not increase overall stress in the structure. Properly implemented, an ideal damper should be able to
simultaneously reduce stress, deflection and response acceleration in the structure.

Figure 5.1 depicts earthquake spectra capacity and demand curves for a sample building with 20%,
30% and 40% damped demand curves. This figure is reproduced from FEMA 274 [1] and assumes
linear or viscous damping elements are used.

The effects of added supplemental damping in a structure subjected to earthquake transients is

depicted in the test results provided in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. The tested structure was a single story,
steel building frame, using steel moment frame connections. Figure 5.2 shows the response of the test
structure under a scaled input of 33% of the 1940 El Centro earthquake. Note that a small hysteresis
loop is apparent in Figure 5.2, revealing that the test structure was at the onset of yield. Structural
damping in the frame was in the 2% range. In comparison, Figure 5.3 is the same structure with 20%
added damping, obtained by the addition of two small linear fluid dampers installed as diagonal brace
elements. The large energy dissipation of added damping is readily apparent in the football shaped
damping curve superimposed over the structural spring rate curve. Note also that the input in Figure
5.3 is the full 100% El Centro earthquake, yet base shear and deflection of the frame are virtually
unchanged from the undamped case of Figure 5.2. Thus, in this case, the addition of 20% added
linear damping to the structure increased its earthquake resistance by a factor of 3, compared to
that of the same structure without added damping. Most importantly, this threefold performance
improvement was obtained without increasing the stress or deflection in the structure. In fact, it is
this tremendous performance improvement that has caused much of the interest in fluid dampers
for structural engineering use. To paraphrase the body builders’ saying, this is a case where dampers
Chapter 5

provide a big gain, without any pain!

taylordevices inc. 21
 Figure 5.1
Spectral capacity and demand curves for
rehabilitated one-story building

Figure 5.2
One-story structure, no dampers,
El Centro 33.3%

Figure 5.3
One-story structure, two
dampers, El Centro 100%
Chapter 5

22
taylordevices inc.
The test results from Figures 5.2 and 5.3 used the 1940 El Centro earthquake transient as a test
input. When these results were first obtained, they included tests showing similar performance gains
with other notable earthquakes for which transient records were available. Nevertheless, questions
had arisen in the ensuing years as to whether fluid dampers would be functional with other inputs,
including actual earthquakes such as the 1994 Northridge, California and 1995 Kobe, Japan events,
plus hypothetical inputs such as a big, purely impulsive quake or a slow rolling sine wave quake. In
addition, potential customers with windstorm inputs wanted to know if seismic dampers worked in
wind, and Government customers wanted to know if damage from terrorist attacks against buildings
would be reduced by dampers. The actual question being raised was simply: Fluid dampers appear to
be a useful engineering component. Are they truly useful for all types of shock and vibration inputs?
The answer is a definite yes, and it is relatively easy to demonstrate this by considering generalized
qualities of a transient pulse.

The first and most important parameter of a transient is the peak translational velocity. The peak
velocity is of primary importance because this determines the peak amount of energy that must be
managed by the structural system. This velocity can be achieved by either a small acceleration over
a long time period, or by a large acceleration over a short period. Additionally, since fluid dampers
are velocity-dependent devices, the maximum velocity will dictate the maximum damper force, and
therefore their size. Thus, the maximum acceleration rate of the pulse is the second most important
parameter of a transient since the structure and the fluid dampers must be designed to accommodate
the acceleration without being damaged by impulsive loadings. Figure 5.4 provides tabular data for
maximum velocities and accelerations for catastrophic inputs. The least important parameters of the
transient are those related to the actual shape of the various portions of the pulse. This is simply
because no two discrete transients can be expected to be identical, these events being chaotic by
their very nature. If one considers how a damped structure behaves under transients having a given
maximum translational velocity and maximum acceleration then in reality, only two simple extreme
cases need to be considered.

Case One: The structure is excited by a step function, with acceleration equal to the maximum
acceleration expected, for a time duration such that maximum translational velocity is obtained.

Case Two: The structure is excited by a forced sine wave at the frequency of the structure’s first
resonant mode, with input amplitude increased until the maximum specified acceleration or velocity
is achieved.

An example of structural response to the first case, the impulsive input, is provided in Figure 5.5, for both
the undamped and fluid damped condition. The response in this case assumed infinite acceleration,
with velocity stepping from zero to maximum value instantaneously, and an elastic structure. It is
readily apparent that the fluid damped structure experiences substantially less force and deflection
than the undamped structure, even though each structure is storing or absorbing equal amounts of
impulse energy.

An example of the second case is provided in Figure 5.6 and depicts the magnification factor on
input amplitude for a system subjected to forced harmonic excitations with linear fluid damping. The
condition of resonance is obtained at a frequency ratio of 1.0 and shows the tremendous benefits of
fluid damping. The equation for magnification at resonance is:
1
magnification factor =
2g
Chapter 5

where ζ = the damping ratio c

ccr

taylordevices inc. 23
 Tabular Data for Maximum Velocities and Accelerations
Peak Acceleration Peak Velocity

Northridge Earthquake .9 G 51 In/Sec.

Kobe Earthquake .8 G 35 In/Sec.

Ship, Moored Mine 25. G+ 90 In/Sec.+

Missile Silo, Nuclear Air Burst 80. G+ 450 In/Sec.+

Submarine, Nuclear Depth Charge 600. G+ 500 In/Sec.+

Figure 5.4
Catastrophic Transients

Figure 5.5
Response to impulsive inputs

Of particular note is that for a typical building with 2% damping, the magnification factor at resonance
is 25 to 1. This number reduces to a much more manageable value of only 2 to 1 at 25% damping. It
is of value to the engineer to note that virtually no structure is built with the safety factor of 25 to 1
necessary to accommodate the 2% damped resonant response. In comparison, most structures have
sufficient safety factors to accept the 2 to 1 magnification for the 25% damped structure subjected to
forced resonance.

From these examples, it is relatively easy to understand that fluid damping will always improve the
response of a structure, under any expected transient.

Three Generic Types of Dampers and How Each of Them Affects a Structure:

Fluid dampers have the unique ability to simultaneously reduce both stress and deflection (and therefore
response acceleration) within a structure subjected to a transient. This is because a fluid damper varies
its force only with velocity, which provides a response that is inherently out-of-phase with stresses
due to flexing of the structure. Other dampers can normally be classified as either hysteretic, where
a fixed damping force is generated under any deflection, or as visco-elastic, where a damper behaves
as a complex spring and damper combination. In the latter case, force may be a displacement and
velocity-dependent parameter. Figure 5.7 provides representative outputs from sine wave excitation
of these three damper types. Inclusive in these non-fluid damper types are yielding elements, friction
devices, plastic hinges, friction slides, bonded rubber, molded rubber, and shaped rubber. None of
Chapter 5

these devices, other than fluid dampers, have an out-of-phase response to structural flexural stresses.

24
taylordevices inc.
 Figure 5.6
Magnification factor for
forced harmonic excitation

This is simply because the outputs of these devices are dependent upon parameters other than, or in
addition to, velocity. Hence, all of these other types of dampers will decrease deflection in a structure
at the same time they are increasing column stress. The out-of-phase response that is unique to fluid
dampers can be easily understood by considering a building shaking laterally back and forth during a
seismic event or a windstorm.

Column stress is at a peak when the building has flexed a maximum amount from its normal position.
This is also the point at which the flexed columns reverse direction to move back in the opposite
direction. If we add a fluid damper to the building, damping force will reduce to zero at this point of
maximum deflection. This is because the damper stroking velocity goes to zero as the columns reverse
direction. As the building flexes back in the opposite direction, maximum damper force occurs at
maximum velocity, which occurs when the column flexes through its normal, upright position. This
is also the point where column stresses are at a minimum. It is this out-of-phase response that is the
most desirable design aspect of fluid viscous damping.

In summary, adding fluid damping will always improve the response of a structure under any expected
transient. Fluid dampers are a useful engineering component that can substantially reduce stress,
deflection and acceleration in a structure subjected to a dynamic event. Only fluid dampers, that have
a velocity-dependent output function, generate forces that are out of phase with structural stresses.

Chapter 5

taylordevices inc. 25
 Figure 5.7 Output of the Three Generic Damper Types

References
1. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA
274), April 1997, prepared by Applied Technology Council (ATC-33 Project), Redwood City,
Chapter 5

California.

26
taylordevices inc.
6

Chapter 6
Damper Mounting Arrangements

Distributed Damping
Using Distributed Damping throughout a structure is a direct method of applying damping to a
structure or mechanism, generally placing the dampers at multiple levels of the structure. The main
benefit of distributed damping is that the damping system captures and absorbs the energy at its
source throughout the structure, instead of applying damping at a secondary system, elsewhere, or
at one location in the structure to later collect and attempt to dampen motions as they are amplified
throughout the structure. Of primary benefit with distributed damping is that the (direct) damping
can absorb energy in any and all frequencies of input vibration, instead of being confined to a tuned
or “dialed-in” frequency. This is highly beneficial with wind or earthquake motion input which do not
necessarily shake the structure at only its fundamental period of motion.

Many methods exist to implement distributed damping in a structure, the typical underlying concept
is to connect the moving masses (floor levels) with dampers so that as they move or deflect relative
to one-another in a shearing-type motion, the dampers capture this motion and resist in both tension
and compression directions with an opposing force. This concept works well in typical moment frame,
shear wall, or braced frame office or residential type buildings, and can be applied to short, medium
and tall structures. It is noted that all of these systems are passive, meaning that no external power is
needed to make the dampers function. The dampers simply react at any time they are deflected. Some
of the implementation methods include the following:

COMPACT DAMPER CONFIGURATION

MODIFIED CHEVRON CONFIGURATION

WITH ONE OR TWO HORIZONTAL DAMPERS

CHEVRON DAMPER CONFIGURATION

WITH INTEGRAL OR HSS EXTENDERS

DIAGONAL DAMPER CONFIGURATION

WITH INTEGRAL OR HSS EXTENDERS

Figure 6.1
Damper configurations model

taylordevices inc. 27
Chapter 6

Modified chevron frames are depicted in Figure 6.2. In this configuration, the dampers are placed
horizontally, and connected to a frame (chevron) that is intended to be near-rigid with the floor it
is connected to. The advantage with this direct damping orientation is that the horizontal flexibility
of the structure injects this full movement directly into the horizontal orientation of the damper.
However, a small amount of motion can be lost due to the constraints of the attainable stiffness of
an economical chevron frame.

Figure 6.2
Dampers in Chevron Braced Frames

Dampers in Diagonal bracing schemes are depicted in Figure 6.3. In this orientation, the horizontal
movement of the structure only allows an angular component of the full deflection to go into the
damper, but thence takes this motion directly to the next floor level, straight through a strong
tension/compression member. Often this diagonal bracing scheme is considered the most basic, or
simplistic method to apply distributed damping in a structure.

Figure 6.3
Dampers in Diagonal Braced Frames

28
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 6
So-called Mega Braces shown in Figure 6.4 can be used to capture deflections over multiple floor levels
and collect the larger motion from these levels and pass that motion through the energy absorbing
damper connected to major structural nodes. This concept is similar to diagonal bracing, but over a
much longer span.

Figure 6.4
Dampers in Mega-Brace Frames

taylordevices inc. 29
Chapter 6

Damped Outrigger
Additionally, an outrigger solution to apply damping to taller, more slender building systems can be
used where it is determined that the gross motion of the structure does not fall into the traditional
shearing-type movement pattern, but exhibits more of an overall tension/compression on the
opposing outer columns of the building. Often outrigger damping can be accomplished by creating a
rigid level near the top of a building that moves with the core and connecting dampers between the
rigid level and the outer columns of the building. This useful system is shown in Figures 6.5 and 6.6.

Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6

Dampers in Outrigger Systems (a) Dampers in Outrigger Systems (b)

Base Isolation with Dampers

Dampers can also be distributed in base isolation systems, as depicted in Figure 6.7, where the
damper is used to augment the vertically supporting isolators, and most often provide viscous
(velocity dependent) damping to significantly improve the performance and usefulness of the
isolators.

Figure 6.7
Dampers in Base-Isolation Systems

Numerous other techniques can be applied to implement distributed damping by using similar
principles and/or different orientations, or structural systems and mechanisms to capture structural
movement and inject that movement into the distributed dampers.

30
taylordevices inc.
7
Design and Analysis of
Building Structures with
Fluid Viscous Dampers

Chapter 7
SCOPE

Fluid Viscous Dampers (FVDs) serve to protect new and existing structures during hazardous seismic
events and provide an economical solution for resilient design. Adoption of FVDs for applications
in building and bridge structures has become prevalent in countries like the USA, Japan and Taiwan,
however FVDs are under-utilized in many other high seismic regions across the world. One of the
factors contributing to this under-utilization is the lack of familiarity of many structural engineers
with damping devices and the relative ease in which they can be designed and implemented in
commercial structural engineering software.

This document aims to educate structural engineers on the use of FVDs and assist in promulgating
the application of FVDs for seismic protection of buildings and bridges. The discussions in this guide
are intended to be informative and are envisioned to demonstrate general modeling and design
processes of building structures with FVDs. The reader is referred to industry documented literature,
such as the SEAOC: IBC 2012 Structural/Seismic Design Manual - Volume 5 and FEMA P- 1051: 2015
NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions - Design Examples for a more detailed description on the
design application of supplemental damping for building structures.

Disclaimer: This chapter is only intended to serve as an example and is not meant to be applied directly to the design of any
structure. The responsibility of such design with the Design Engineer.

taylordevices inc. 31
 PART I: CREATING THE ANALYTICAL MODEL WITH FVDs FOR NLRHA
Overview

Implementation of FVDs in the commercial program ETABS (CSI 2023) is demonstrated by providing
a step-by-step procedure for generating the analytical building model. The selected building model
is a generic example and is not representative of any particular structure. For the purposes of this
example, ETABS V21.1.0 has been utilized.

The following is noted:

• The guide demonstrates implementation of FVDs using ETABS; the same approach is generally
Chapter 7

applicable to other CSI Inc. software such as SAP2000 and other commercial software programs.
Applications for Perform3D are slightly different and are discussed briefly.

• The guide demonstrates modeling and design with building structures; however, a similar
approach can be used for bridges, and other types of structures..

• The guide focuses on modeling FVDs for Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA),
although linear dampers can be modeled within ETABS for Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
(MRSA) as well.

Creating the ETABS Model

Summary of Building Properties

The key properties of the example building are summarized in Table 7.1.1. This is a rectangular
reinforced concrete moment frame structure.

Property Value
Bays in the X direction 7 @ 24 ft
Bays in the Y direction 3 @ 24 ft
Stories 3
Story height 12 ft
Column 24 x24 in. square
Beam 14x24 in.
Slab 8 in. NWC
Concrete Compressive Strength 4 ksi
Grade of Steel Reinforcement 60 ksi
SDS=1.50 g
SD1=0.6 g
Site Seismicity
Site class D
Risk category II

Table 7.1.1
Key Properties of the Example Building

32
taylordevices inc.
Creating a New Building Model

It is assumed the user is familiar with the basics of generating an ETABS building model. However, for
completeness, a brief discussion on the topic is presented here.

• Under the tab file, open new and initialize model (Figure 7.1.1). In this figure, the user selects
the units, steel and concrete design code and databases used to select the structural members
from the pull-down tabs.

• Select grid only option and specify the number of bays in X and Y direction, bay width in each
direction, number of stories and story height (Figure 7.1.2); press OK and in plan view, the

Chapter 7
program will display the grids (Figure 7.1.3).

Figure 7.1.1
Model Initialization

Figure 7.1.2
Selection of Templates Using Grid Only

taylordevices inc. 33
Chapter 7

Figure 7.1.3
Grid Pattern in Plan-View

Defining Material Properties

• Click the Define > Material Properties command to access and define the material form
(Figure 7.1.4)

Figure 7. 1.4
Defining Materials Properties

34
taylordevices inc.
Defining Frame (Beam-Column) and Shell (Slab) Objects
• Use Define>Section Properties>Frame to open the dialog box (Figure 7.1.5)
• • Click on Frame sections box, and then add new property /section type concrete rectangular,
then enter values as required for section properties (Figure 7.1.6). Under Property Modifiers
click on Modify/Show Modifiers, to modify section properties if required. In the same menu,
click on Modify/Show Rebar to assign reinforcement data (Figure 7.1.7)
• Use Define >Section Properties>Slab Sections, to define slab objects for the floor (Figure 7.1.8)
Note: It is important to note that ETABS V20 and later needs vertical mass to be included when modeling dampers (otherwise an
error occurs with unknown significance) – older versions of ETABS do not have this requirement. Because of this, slab elements must
be “thin-shell” types rather than “membrane,” which don’t have any vertical stiffness. When using concrete over metal deck elements,

Chapter 7
only the “membrane” designation is allowed, so the engineer is advised to use an equivalent slab element instead.

Figure 7.1.5
Define Selection Menu

Figure 7.1.6
Defining and Modifying Column Sectional Properties

taylordevices inc. 35
Chapter 7

Figure 7.1.7
Defining and Modifying Column Sectional Properties

Figure 7.1.8
Defining and Modifying Slab Section Properties

36
taylordevices inc.
Draw Frame and Slab Objects
• Use the Draw > Draw Beam/Column/Brace Objects command or click one of the five buttons
shown in this topic to draw frame objects. When the menu command is used, a menu of five
subcommands displays (Figure 7.1.9). Once a property is selected, the user can then graphically
draw the frame element by clicking on the correct geometrical locations.
• Use the Draw > Draw Floor/Wall Objects command or click one of the five buttons shown in
this topic to draw floor objects. When the menu command is used, a menu of five subcommands
displays (Figure 7.1.10). Once a property is selected, the user can then graphically draw the
floor/wall element by clicking on the correct geometrical locations.

Chapter 7
Figure 7.1.9
Drawing of Frame Objects

Figure 7.1.10
Drawing of Floor Objects

taylordevices inc. 37
 Display Model
Once all beams, columns, and floors are drawn, assign property fixity to the base of the columns and
the model can be displayed in 3-D (Figure 7.1.11) in plan (Figure 7.1.12), or elevation (Figure 7.1.13
and Figure 7.1.14). Once the floor plan or elevation videos have been defined for one of the stories
or gridlines, the floor plans can be replicated (Z direction) to other stories and the elevations can be
replicated (X and Y directions) along the building gridlines.

At this step, a three-dimensional model of the building has been completed. The model will next be
updated by the addition of FVDs.
Chapter 7

Figure 7.1.11
3D Model After Replicating Plans

38
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.1.12
Plans for Beam and Column Object

Figure 7.1.13
Transverse (Y) Elevation

Figure 7.1.14
Longitudinal (X) Elevation

taylordevices inc. 39
 Design and Modeling of Fluid Viscous Dampers

Fluid Viscous Dampers

FVDs are velocity dependent devices that are used in buildings to dissipate seismic energy. In gen-
eral, the higher the effective damping in a building, the lower the responses (forces, displacements,
stresses, and drift ratios). In typical buildings, an inherent damping ratio (g) of 2% to 5% of critical is
expected. FVDs can be distributed up the building height to provide substantially larger amount of
effective damping. The following is noted:
• FVDs are frequency independent devices without a stiffness component. So, unlike tuned
devices, no tuning of FVDs to any particular frequency is required. The fact that FVDs do not
Chapter 7

contribute stiffness to the structure also means that the building period (T) remains unchanged.
• FVDs are velocity dependent devices and the output forces generated by FVDs are primarily
out-of-phase with the maximum strains on the building structure.
• FVDs are classified as passive devices, no external power source is required to activate them.
Dampers are activated when there is relative motion between the two ends of the unit and
seismic energy is converted to heat and safely dissipated into the atmosphere.
• FVDs do not require regular maintenance and for typical applications, there is no degradation of
the performance with use or typical temperature variations.
• FVDs don’t need to be placed in every level of a building and are often placed in strategic
locations to maximize efficiency of the dampers, or to meet other project constraints.

Mathematical Modelling of Fluid Viscous Dampers

The behavior of a fluid viscous damper is idealized as a pure dashpot as shown in the constitutive
equation below:

F = C*Vα (Eq. 7.1.1)

Equation 7.1.1 provides the relationship between the damper output force (F) and velocity (V),
where C and α (alpha) are the damping constant and velocity exponent, respectively. An alpha of 1.0
represents a linear damper, whereas values other than 1.0 represent a nonlinear damper. See Figure
7.1.15 for different behavior of an FVD with constant C value and varied alpha. Specifications for al-
pha typically range from 0.3 to 1.0; in general, the lower the exponent the more efficient the viscous
damping for seismic energy dissipation.

40
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.1.15
Damper Force-Velocity Relation for Linear (α = 1.0) and Nonlinear (α = 0.4) FVDs

Candidate Building Types

FVDs are activated by the relative motion at the two ends of the damper and work best to mitigate
dynamic response of more flexible buildings like steel or concrete moment frames; base isolation
systems are also significantly improved with additional viscous damping with dampers placed across
the isolation plane.

FVDs are ideal candidates to address building irregularities. For buildings, with a soft story, place-
ment of dampers at only the soft story can significantly reduce the soft story response, without
decreasing structure period or impacting the total base shear. For buildings with plan irregularities,
placement of dampers opposite the more rigid side of the building can be used to reduce the torsion-
al amplification of the structure during motion. FVDs are efficient in resolving building separation
issues as well by reducing drift.

Dampers have been used in stiffer buildings, but oversized dampers or motion amplification con-
figurations would be required to amplify the small relative motion at the two ends of the dampers.
Another solution may be to span the dampers across multiple floors to magnify the displacement.
For this type of installation, “no play” connections are also required to ensure that the dampers are
fully engaged even at small displacements.

Damping Configuration
Similar to lateral force resisting systems, it is important to ensure that dampers are placed in a con-
figuration that does not introduce significant asymmetry to the structure. The most efficient place-
ment of dampers would be symmetric about the building’s center of mass to control any torsional
motion of the building.

At a minimum, two dampers should be placed in each direction with at least one damper on each
side of building’s center of mass. ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 impose penalties on the damper velocity
and stroke when fewer than four dampers are provided on a given floor and direction or if there
are fewer than two dampers on either side of the center of mass (See ASCE 7 §18.2.4.6 or ASCE 41

taylordevices inc. 41
 §15.2.2.4). To avoid this penalty, we often recommend considering four dampers in each direction
as a starting point in damper design. For buildings with a larger footprint, more dampers will often
be used in order limit the damper force output. Limiting force output from the dampers can lead to
more economical structural member sizes and connections. The exact placement of FVDs, like brac-
ing elements, are subject to architectural constraints.

As building height increases so does the fundamental period; correspondingly inter-story floor ve-
locities are less, and damping efficiency increases. For low-rise buildings, FVDs are typically placed
at a higher percentage of the total floor levels than for mid- and high-rise buildings. FVDs are usually
not required at every floor and are often terminated before the top levels or alternated at different
floor levels. A good rule of thumb for mid- and high-rise buildings is that dampers, when used with
distributed damping, can be terminated for the upper fifth of the building height.
Chapter 7

FVDs can be arranged in many different configurations and some of the most common configura-
tions include diagonal, double-diagonal, chevron, and the inverted chevron. These configurations
are demonstrated in Chapter 6 of this guide. For tall buildings, damped outriggers and mega dampers
spanning many floors can be extremely efficient. In this chapter the chevron, diagonal, and double
diagonal configurations will be discussed.

Preliminary Damper Sizing

NLRHA is not required to develop conceptual damping system designs. There are several methods
for estimating the dynamic response of a structure with supplemental damping using linear or Modal
Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) procedures. ASCE 7 has documented procedures in Chapter
18 Section 18.7 Alternative Procedures based on the Modal Strain Energy Method. The section’s
source document, MCEER Technical Report 00-0010, outlines the procedure for implementation of
the method thoroughly.

Using this method, only a modal analysis and assumed damping configuration is required to deter-
mine a conceptual design for desired performance objectives. In general, an estimate of total equiv-
alent damping for each mode is determined and directly applied to the spectral response of each
mode shape for MRSA.

Total equivalent damping of each mode shape can be

approximated using equation 7.1.2 below, where Wj is the
work done by each viscous device in one complete cycle of
loading and Wk is the kinetic energy at each floor level:

(Eqn. 7.1.2)

When considering linear dampers, the following equation can

be applied, where each variable is as shown in Figure 7.1.16:

(Eqn. 7.1.3)

Figure 7.1.16
Idealize 2DOF System with Assumed Damping Configuration and Modal Shape Variables

42
taylordevices inc.
If FVD elements are modeled in ETABS, linear damping coefficients can be provided and ETABS will
use the Modal Strain Energy Method to apply total equivalent viscous damping for each mode based
on damper configuration and properties during MRSA. These design and analysis procedures are
outside the scope of this document as NLRHA is required for buildings in regions of high seismicity
and provides more consistent and accurate results. However, these linear procedures are helpful for
preliminary sizing in most projects.

FVD Properties in ETABS

The definition of FVDs in ETABS follows the constitutive relationship defined in Equation 7.1.1, plus
a series spring constant, Kd, as shown in figure 7.1.17 below. This spring constant captures the elastic

Chapter 7
behavior of the parts of the damper element, but such as the piston rod, column stiffness of the fluid,
etc. The damping properties are based on the Maxwell model of viscoelasticity having an exponential
viscous damper in series with a linear spring, also known as the Maxwell Stiffness.

The total deformation of the damper element, d, is captured by the

following equation:

d = dk + dc (Eqn. 7.1.4)
where, dK = the elastic deformation of the damper components (i.e.
deformation across the spring)
Figure 7.1.17
Exponential Damper Link dc = deformation associated with pushing the damper piston
head through the viscous fluid (i.e deformation across the
dashpot)
The total output force can be determined as:
F = k*dk = c* ḋc (Eqn. 7.1.5)
Where, ḋc = the deformation rate (velocity) across the damper

Typically, dampers are attached to extender braces to extend the damper from work-point to work-
point in a building as shown in Figure 7.1.18. When modeling in ETABS of SAP2000, a single link
element is used to capture the combined behavior of both the damper and the extender brace. In
order to accurately capture the distribution of deformation between the damper and extender
braces, a combined stiffness (K*d) for the entire element must be calculated using springs in series
formulation shown in Equation 7.1.6.

Figure 7.1.18
Exponential Damper Link Model versus Damper and Extender Brace Installation

taylordevices inc. 43
 (Eqn. 7.1.6)

Where, Ke = Elastic stiffness of the extender brace =

The elastic stiffness of the damper varies based on the damper properties. Table 7.1.1 provides
component Maxwell stiffness (Kd) for each damper. The component of stiffness from the extender
brace shall be determined based the pin-to-pin length of the damper system and the extender section
properties.
Chapter 7

Damper ID (rated Force) Rated Stroke (±in) Maxwell Stiffness (kip/in)

17120 (55 k) 3 625

17130 (110 k) 4 940

17140 (165 k) 4 1400

17150 (220 k) 4 1875

17160 (330 k) 4 2800

17170 (440 k) 5 3000

20860 (575 k) 5 3700

20870 (750 k) 5 5000

20880 (975 k) 5 6000

17200 (1350 k) 5 9750

Table 7.1.1:
Maxwell Stiffness for Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers

44
taylordevices inc.
Figure 7.1.19 shows the force-displacement response of a linear damper subjected to the same
harmonic excitation with Maxwell stiffness. As the stiffness decreases, so does the amount of energy
dissipation, meaning that a larger proportion of the fixed deformation between the two ends of
the element is being taken up by elastic deformation of the springs as opposed to movement that
generates damping in the damper element. The relationship between Maxwell stiffness and damping
efficiency is nonlinear as shown in Figure 7.1.20. Figure 7.1.20 illustrates the reduction in total
energy dissipation, or damping efficiency, as a function of the Maxwell stiffness.

Chapter 7
Figure 7.1.19 Figure 7.1.20
Linear Damper Force-Displacement Response Linear Damping Efficiency vs. Maxwell Stiffness

Figure 7.1.21 shows the force-displacement response of a nonlinear damper subjected to the same
harmonic excitation with varied Maxwell stiffness. Again, as the Maxwell stiffness decreases, so
does the amount of energy dissipation.

Figure 7.1.21 Figure 7.1.22

Nonlinear Damper Force-Displacement Response Nonlinear Damping Efficiency vs. Maxwell Stiffness

When using extender braces in conjunction with dampers, designers should verify the extender
braces for both axial strength and stiffness for optimal design efficiency. In most cases the brace
design will be controlled by minimum strength requirements. In cases where extender braces are
long (greater than 20 feet), and displacements are small (less than 2 inches) it might be more cost
efficient to increase the size of the extender brace to reduce energy dissipation loss.

taylordevices inc. 45
 Defining FVDs in ETABS
In ETABS, use the following steps to define the FVD properties:

Click on Define >Link >Link Properties, Link Property Name (e.g. "Damp"), Link Type, on drop down
menu select Damper-Exponent Type (Figure 7.1.23)

For Damper-Exponential (Fluid Viscous Dampers), select directional properties U1, and check box for
Non-Linear and click on Modify/Show for U1. (Figure 7.1.24)

Enter the values for Series Spring Stiffness, Damping, and Damping Exponent on Nonlinear Properties
data form (Figure 7.1.25).
Chapter 7

For this example, the following properties are used to define the force-velocity relation of the FVD:
1. damping constant, C = 123 kips – (sec/in)α
2. velocity exponent, α = 0.4
3. Series Spring Constant, K = 2000 k/in
The linear damper properties can be provided for use with response spectrum analysis, although
ETABS will not consider nonlinear exponents and damper forces will not be provided as output.
The values of mass and weight can be left as zero or a small value can be specified to assist in analysis
convergence. Typical damper weights would range from several hundred to several thousand pounds,
depending on the damper size.

Figure 7.1.23
Selecting of Damper Type

46
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.1.24
Defining Damper Properties

Figure 7. 1.25
Defining Damper Nonlinear Properties

taylordevices inc. 47
 Adding Dampers to the Model
• Use the Draw > Draw Links command select draw links (Figure 7.1.26).
• Under submenu, select the damper property that was defined in the previous section (Figure 7.1.27).
Note, if the incorrect link type is selected, then change the property under Assign>Links>Link
Properties

Diagonal Damping Configurations

Once the correct FVD property is selected, the user can then graphically draw the link element by
clicking on the correct geometrical locations for the first and second ends of the damper. Ensure that
the link ends are physically connected to nodes in the model.
Chapter 7

Figure 7.1.26
Drawing of Links

Figure 7.1.27
Select Damper Properties

The damper locations and properties can be displayed by viewing elevation (Figure 7.1.28) or 3D
(Figure 7.1.29) views. Diagonal dampers are shown here. X-dampers are drawn similarly.

Figure 7.1.28
Damper Location in Longitudinal (X) Elevation

48
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.1.29
Dampers in 3D Model

Drawing Dampers in Chevron (or Double Diagonal) Configuration

In this section, a chevron damper configuration between grid BC and FG is added. The approach is
similar to the diagonal dampers. However, first the midpoint of beams needs to be determined. The
user can graphically draw the link element by clicking on the correct geometrical locations for the first
and second ends of the damper. One of the damper ends will be located at the middle of the beam
(Figure 7.1.30)

Figure 7.1.30
Turn Midpoint and End Snap On

Figure 7. 1.31
Damper Location Along Longitudinal Elevation

taylordevices inc. 49
 Drawing Modified Chevron with Horizontal Dampers
In this section, an alternative configuration is used whereby the dampers are placed horizontally and a
chevron brace configuration is used to drive the dampers – the so-called Modified Chevron with Hor-
izontal Dampers. The main advantage of this configuration is that since the dampers are horizontal,
they capitalize on all of the differential movement between the floors instead of just the angled com-
ponent. As a result, smaller dampers can be used. The main considerations of this configuration are:
• Since one end of dampers must move with the lower story, stiff bracing needs to be provided.
• Since the damper is attached eccentrically to the beam-column joint, additional moment is
introduced to the beam or column,
• Detailed drawing for the damper connecting elements must be provided to allow for the free
Chapter 7

movement of dampers, and out of plane motion of dampers needs to be restrained.

• The construction cost for the attachment members is higher because of the more complex
configuration.

Figure 7. 1.32
Frame Elevation for Modified Chevron with Horizontal Dampers Configuration

50
taylordevices inc.
 • Define a “STIFF” element. At a conceptual stage, we can assume these elements are infinity stiff
to see the true performance of the damper. The stiffness of these elements will be refined as the
design progresses. Define>Section Properties>Frame Sections
• Define the coordinate for the work-point node at the intersection of the two dampers and the
two braces approximately 10 inches below the bottom of the beam.
• In the edit menu, select replicate and include the distances required for the workpoint node.
• Next, replicate these nodes in each direction by the length of damper plus the half width of the
gusset plate connection to obtain the second end of each damper.
• In the property definition menu, use material steel and define both the Chevron brace size
(Typically square HSS or WF section) and also the section properties for the stiff connections.
• Draw the frame elements and horizontal dampers. Provide moment release for the HSS braces

Chapter 7
at each end in the M3 direction, not the M2 direction.
• Repeat the same procedure by drawing or replicating dampers in the other bays.

The final frame in ETABS would look like the elevation shown in Figure 7.1.33.

Figure 7. 1.33
Analytical Model of Modified Chevron with Horizontal Dampers Configuration

Figure 7.1.34 shows the implementation of the Modified Chevron with Horizontal Dampers for a frame.

Figure 7. 1.34
Damper Location Along Longitudinal Elevation
At this stage the analytical model of the building structure with FVDs is complete. The next step is to
define seismic loading for the structure.

taylordevices inc. 51
 Seismic Loading

The US-based Building Codes ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 place limitations on the use of linear methods for
the design of damped structures, therefore NLRHA is most often used for the assessment and design
of building structures with fluid viscous dampers in high seismic zones. Performing NLRHA using
direct- integration methods can be time-consuming, however there is a much faster NLRHA method
that can accurately predict seismic behavior of buildings structures with fluid viscous dampers called
Fast Nonlinear Analysis (FNA).

FNA is a modal analysis method that uses Modal Ritz vectors to accurately predict the behavior of a
structure under dynamic seismic loading with small amounts of material nonlinearity and nonlinear
Chapter 7

FVDs through link objects. This analysis technique is permitted in the building codes. Once dampers
are added to a structural system, the demand on the members is significantly reduced, generally
allowing lateral elements to remain essentially elastic. FNA is used in this design guide and is part
of the standard of practice in many design offices. For more information on FNA refer to the CSI
Analysis Reference Manual.

In order to accurately capture the combination of vertical and seismic loads, a preload of the vertical
loads using the ramp function shall be applied before seismic loading. See CSI Analysis Reference
Manual for details on using the ramp function to apply vertical loads appropriately using FNA. FNA
for seismic loading requires definition of several input variables including building mass, modal case,
and seismic acceleration histories.

Mass Source
The user shall specify the total seismic mass to be considered in the NLRHA. The seismic mass
includes the self-weight of the structural elements (beams, columns, braces, slabs, walls, etc.),
superimposed dead load and a portion of live load (if applicable).

Click on Define >Mass Source, add or modify mass sources data if required by clicking on submenu
(Figure 7.1.35). The user also has the option of selecting whether only lateral mass is considered or
if vertical contribution of mass is also included in analysis (for cases when there is a gravity preload
preceding the lateral analysis). When using dampers, it is advised to uncheck “Lump Lateral Mass at
Story Levels” and to check “Include Vertical Mass” – this avoids warnings in ETABS V20 and later.

Figure 7.1.35
Defining Mass Source

52
taylordevices inc.
Modal Cases
Click on Define >Modal Cases, to open the modal dialogue box. Click on Modify/Show Case to open
the modal case data (Figure 7.1.367). Next:
• Under subcase type select Ritz
• Check P-Delta as needed
• Under Loads applied, select Ux and Uy (and Uz if necessary) and select all links.

Link elements (in this case FVDs) must be activated to contribute to the dynamic response. This is
achieved in the modal case definition

Chapter 7
Because FNA is a modal analysis approach, the number of modes defined is critical to obtaining accurate
results. In the CSI Reference Manual, they state that modes are needed for each mass degree of
freedom, where “a mass degree of freedom is an active degree of freedom that possesses translational
mass or rotational mass moment of inertia.” In addition to a mode for each mass degree of freedom,
an additional mode is required for each “independent nonlinear deformation,” which includes the U1
deformation of each damper element. In the end, the EOR should confirm that they have supplied a
sufficient number of modes to obtain convergence in results from the NLRHA when using FNA.

Figure 7.1.36
Modal Ritz Case Definition

Make sure “Link” is defined in the load case when dampers are present in the model (it just happens
to be cut off in this screen shot).

taylordevices inc. 53
 Response History Function
Although response spectrum analysis is not used directly in this design guide, the response spectrum
function will be used as part of development of seismic acceleration histories
• Define>Function>Response Spectrum to open menu (Figure 7.1.37) select ASCE 7-10 and
specify a name.
Chapter 7

Figure 7. 1.37
Response Spectrum Definition

• Modify/Show Function open sub-menu and input site-specific parameters (Figure 7.1.38)

Figure 7.1.38
Site-Specific Response Spectrum Function

54
taylordevices inc.
Site Specific Acceleration Histories
On most projects the ground motion suites are selected and scaled to match site-specific seismic
characteristics by either a geotechnical engineer or seismology specialist for the structural engineer’s
final analysis and design report. There are several methods for developing these ground motion
suites and the reader is referred to the ASCE building code specifications and commentary for more
detailed discussion on this subject. For the initial phases of a project sample ground motions can be
selected and scaled using the spectral matching tool in ETABS.

Input of Code-Compliant Acceleration History

The easiest way to run a single ground motion is to use the default record in ETABS available in

Chapter 7
the definition of the Matched Time History menu – which happens to be the El Centro record.
Additional ground motions may be imported from the PEER Ground Motion Database as text files
and directly imported to ETABS.

Define>Function>Time History to open the dialogue box and select Matched to Response Spectrum
from the drop-down menu (Figure 7.1.39).

Figure 7.1.39
Menu to Add New Time History

Select Add New Function and the definition menu will open. Name your time history appropriately,
select the Target Response Spectrum (a DE level response spectrum in this case) and leave the
Reference Acceleration Time History to “Program Default” if the El Centro record is being scaled.
The engineer should refer to ASCE 7 Section 16.4 to better understand the guidelines and penalties
associated with Spectral Matching in the Time versus Frequency Domain. Note the units for both
response spectrum (g in this example, and seed acceleration (cm/s2 in this example). The program
engine performs the matching and generates the matched record (Figure 7.1.44). Note that the
matched records have the units of g.

After selecting the matching method, target spectrum and reference time history, click the Match
Time History button in the bottom right. After the matching has been completed, select OK to save
the scaled record.

taylordevices inc. 55
Chapter 7

Figure 7.1.40
Defining Time History Functions Matched to the Response Spectrum

Load Cases
Define>Load Case to open the load case menu. Select add new load case and the load case menu
(Figure 7.1.41)

Figure 7.1.41
Load Case Definition Menu

The Load Case Data window will open, which is where the Time History load case is defined. Note
that the load case type is Time History and FNA selected from pull down menus. The matched record
is used as input functions in both directions (U1 and U2) and scaled (g=386.1 in/sec2). Analysis is
conducted for 1559 steps and a time step of 0.02 is used for analysis (which align with the El Centro
input). The inherent damping is assumed to equal 2.5% of critical which is lower than the traditional
5% assumed inherent damping for an undamped building per ASCE 7-22 Section 18.3.

56
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.1.42
Load Case Definition for
Lateral Loading

At the conclusion of this step, the definition of the model has been completed and user can start
analysis.

Analysis
ASCE Building codes require design and analysis based on the use of seven sets of two-component
ground motion suites; structural response are based on the average value of the seven ground
motions. In this guide, a single two component motion suite will be used for illustration.
Set Load Cases to Run
Analysis>Load Cases to run, ensure that the FNA cases are with dampers and the Ritz modal case
are selected (Figure 7.1.43) and then run analysis. The program then runs analysis and stops at the
conclusion of all the load cases.

Figure 7.1.43
Analysis Cases

taylordevices inc. 57
 Analysis Results
Results of seismic NLRHA including story drift ratios, member demands, total viscous damping, etc.
can be reviewed to verify that a structure meets desired performance objectives. If the results are
acceptable, then no additional iterations of damper properties are required, and damper results can be
assessed for specification. If the results do not meet performance objectives, then damping properties
may need to be modified. There are several sophisticated algorithms to optimize damper properties.
The simplest change is to increase or decrease the damping constant and leave the velocity exponent
unchanged. A larger damping constant should be applied if building response is not acceptable, and
a smaller damping constant if damper forces are deemed too large. For typical applications, it is
economical to group the dampers in a few groups.
Chapter 7

Damper Response
A good first start to check damper performance is to spot check hysteresis loops, which can be done
through the Display>Quick Hysteresis>Links menu (Figure 7.1.44)

Figure 7.1.44
Damper Hystereric Loop
Display Menu

Damper hysteretic loops should be wide open, not pinched or overly skewed (Figure 7.1.45).

Figure 7.1.45
Sample Damper Hysteretic
Loop Output from ETABS

58
taylordevices inc.
To export a complete documentation of damper forces and stroke, use Display>Show Tables to
tabulate and export for analysis. Damper results are located under ANALYSIS RESULTS>Element
Output>Link Output.

Damper stroke (displacement) is the U1 output and force is the axial demand (P). Designers will
likely decide to use more than one size of damper for any given building structure. For example, one
size damper can be used on the bottom floor and a smaller size on the upper floors. Alternatively,
different damper sizes can be used in the two directions. In this example, for simplicity, only one
damper size will be specified.

Cumulative Energy Plot

Chapter 7
Display>Cumulative Energy Components to see the Figure 7.1.46 below and make sure to select the
appropriate Load Case at the bottom left corner.

Total cumulative energy is displayed in this plot. From this plot one can determine total viscous
damping ratio by scaling the ratio of energy dissipated by the global damping versus viscous damping.
In this case, the Global Damping (GD) is 10.3%, Nonlinear Viscous Damping (NVD) is 89.6% and
Inherent Damping is 2.5%. The ratio of NVD to GD times the inherent is 89.6/10.3*2.5 = 21.7%
additional viscous damping.

Figure 7.1.46
Cumulative Energy Plot

taylordevices inc. 59
 PART 2: NEW CONSTRUCTION - SPECIAL MOMENT FRAMES WITH FVDs
The combination of a primary structural system and a supplemental damping system is an attractive
and efficient solution for seismic protection of buildings in regions of high seismicity. Pairing fluid
viscous dampers (FVDs) with either steel or reinforced concrete special moment resisting frames
(SMF) results in a highly damped, long period building that limits seismic demand on structural and
nonstructural components. FVDs can be incorporated into seismic design to produce large equivalent
viscous damping; reducing the demand on the special moment frames significantly.

Design Approach

The general approach is to design the SMF members for the minimum strength requirements of the
Chapter 7

building code only, meeting all the relevant requirements of ASCE 7-22 except the limitations for
the story drift ratios (SDRs). FVDs are then used to reduce the SDRs to comply with deformation
requirements. For a design approach solely rooted in linear design approaches that does not require
peer review, the Taylor Damped Moment Frame™ (TDMF™), see Chapter 7, Part 4.

An additional design check is required to assure that the structural system is satisfactory to carry
the demands from the dampers; the designer should check force demands on connecting structural
elements and the foundation system. However, since the force in the FVDs is primarily out-of-
phase with the maximum dynamic displacements, the demand on the primary structural system
and the foundation are generally not increased, and the initial design for the ASCE 7-22 strength
requirements is sufficient.

Construction Costs

One of the main advantages of using supplemental fluid viscous damping with special moment frames
is the reduction in the steel or concrete tonnage. Generally the steel tonnage in the moment frame
can be reduced by 25% up to even 35% in some systems. Since the design of a SMF is generally
governed by the SDR, larger steel or concrete sizes than required to resist building code level design
forces would be required to meet this requirement. When using FVDs to control SDR, smaller
member sizes can be used.

A secondary advantage is that unlike bracing elements, FVDs don’t need to be placed directly in line
with the primary lateral system or even at every floor, so long as the diaphragm, collectors, etc. can
resist the damper-induced forces. This provides greater flexibility to meet architectural objectives
that other lateral systems may not.

Resiliency

Using software, like HB Risk’s SP3 platform, to operationalize the FEMA P-58 and ATC 138
methodologies is a useful way to demonstrate the improved performance provided by a damped
structure. Reduced damage and downtime can be used to show building owners and clients the
benefits of improved seismic performance with dampers. Building structures designed with fluid
viscous dampers will experience a significantly lower level of member nonlinearity (damage)
compared to a code design building without dampers. A decrease in nonlinearity of the primary
structural system greatly reduces the chance of any residual deformations post-seismic activity. The
drifts, accelerations, and the demand on the structural system and other components are all reduced
such that total loss after an earthquake will be significantly less.

60
taylordevices inc.
Overview

The design of a new steel SMF with FVDs is presented. The building considered in this report is
intended to represent realistic construction with seismic risk category II occupancy.

The main components of this section are the following:

• Describe the building and site seismic characteristics

• Size members and complete design per strength requirements of ASCE 7-22, compute SDRs,
tabulate steel tonnage for SMF members

Chapter 7
• Determine the global equivalent viscous damping required to satisfy the code SDR requirements.
Use the results to estimate the damping constant for analysis

• Develop a set of matched ground motions for analysis

• Perform nominal and bounded analysis (nominal +/-15%)

• Perform design check of primary structural elements

• Provide damper specifications

• Other design considerations

• Testing and QC

taylordevices inc. 61
 Building and Site Seismic Characteristics
Description of the Building
The building is square in plan measuring 150 ft on each side consisting of five 30-ft long bays. Typical
stories are 13 ft tall. The gravity system consists of 4-in thick concrete slab supported by steel gravity
beams and columns. The lateral force resisting system (LFRS) comprises three bays of steel SMF placed
on the perimeter. Figure 7.2.1 presents line drawings of plan and elevation views of the structures. The
SMF bays are highlighted in green in the figure.
Chapter 7

Plan

Elevation
Figure 7.2.1.
Building Geometry

The additional dead and live load on the floor and roof are 40/80 and 20/20 psf, respectively. The
building seismic mass is approximately 10,000 kips.

62
taylordevices inc.
Site Seismic Characteristics

Property Value
Location Los Angeles, CA
Site Seismicity SDS = 1.00 g
SD1 = 0.60 g
SMS = 1.50 g
SM1 = 0.90 g
FA = 1.0
FV = 1.5

Chapter 7
Soil Class = D
Risk Category II

The spectral acceleration (Sa) as a function of period (T) can be obtained for all period ranges of
interest. The design spectrum is shown in Figure 7.2.2.

Figure 7.2. 2
Design Response Spectrum for the Example Building

Design of Special Moment Frames

The building model was generated as discussed in the Chapter 7 Part 1. Next the seismic loading was
defined using the program’s ASCE 7-22 automatic seismic loading based on the equivalent lateral load
procedures. The seismic load cases were defined using ASCE 7-22 procedure for steel SMF buildings.
The load combinations of ASCE 7-22 were used for the design process. The steel members were
assigned auto select sizes and the programs design module was allowed to iterate and determine
the member sizes. It is noted that the design met the strength requirements of the code including
the provisions for strong column-weak beam. It is further assumed that since this is a new building,
continuity plates are provided, and if necessary, doubler plates will be added to the columns webs.
However, to keep the design economical, a limited number of beam and column sizes were used, as
is the practice in the field. For example, the same side beams were used at a floor for a given SMF.
Furthermore, columns were sized to reduce the requirements for doubler plates, again consistent with
field practice. Figure 7.2.3 presents the demand to capacity ratios (DCRs) for the building. The gravity

taylordevices inc. 63
 joists are not shown in the model. There is a choice of explicitly including the joists in the model or
adding bracing points for the beam to account for these members.

Figure 7.2.4 presents the distribution of SDR along the building height. The SDR was computed
based on the unreduced (inelastic demand) per ASCE 7-22 requirements. The plots are shown for two
percentages of damping of critical. The first curve corresponds to 5% equivalent damping that is the
basis for the code design. As seen in the figure, the SDR for 5% of critical damping ratio exceeds the
building code threshold of 2% for SDR at nearly all the floors and SDR is larger at the middle floors.
Chapter 7

Figure 7.2. 3
Steel Member Design Check

Figure 7.2. 4
Computed SDR

64
taylordevices inc.
To comply with the building code provisions, FVDs will be added to the building to reduce SDR. When
a global equivalent viscous damping ratio is 20%, SDR is reduced to 2%, which provides compliance
with the code limit of 2.0% for SDR for a DE event. As a starting point, an approximate damping ratio
of 20% (linear damping for the initial trial) will be targeted for the FVDs. This is somewhat smaller than
the required FVD damping because of the following reasons:
• Discrete damping is less effective than global damping. Global equivalent damping is an idealized
case and is used to obtain an initial estimate for the required size of FVDs. It is not intended to
be used in design or analysis, as it assumes an idealized orthogonal damping matrix and uniform
damping for the building. This overestimates the performance of discretely distributed FVDs
that produce a non-orthogonal damping matrix and complex mode shapes. Bounding analysis is
required by ASCE 7-22 which reduces the effectiveness of damping.

Chapter 7
• Bounding analysis is required by ASCE 7-22 which reduces the effectiveness of damping.
• The inherent building damping is likely less than the assumed 5% values.
• Research has shown that adding dampers for a total damping ratio of approximately 20% improves
performance of buildings when subject to large earthquakes.

Damper Configuration and Properties

Damper Configuration
The final size of dampers will be determined by nonlinear response history analysis (as discussed later).
For analysis, an initial damper size is required. Figure 7.2.5 presents the proposed damper configuration.
Note the following:
• The dampers placed symmetrically and along the perimeter are most effective.
• There are two dampers in each direction on each side of the building’s center of mass, satisfying
the redundancy requirements defined by ASCE 7-22.

Figure 7.2. 5
Placement of Dampers

taylordevices inc. 65
 • Dampers are placed on the gravity bays as not to interfere with the SMF bays.
• The dampers are placed at all floors. Given that this is a five-story building, and because the
SDR are similar at different stories, this setup seems intuitive. During analysis, dampers at
upper stories could potentially be eliminated. This is the usual practice in design, however, was
not considered in this report.
• The dampers are placed diagonally. This configuration is effective since the damper axis is
only at 23 degrees from horizontal. The diagonal configuration also simplifies the design of
connection elements for dampers. In practice, architectural constraints might necessitate
moving of dampers to different bays. The effect of such relocation of dampers on the
performance is minimal as long as the damper symmetry is maintained and the redundancy
requirements are met, given that the building has rigid floor diaphragms.
Chapter 7

• Dampers are placed on the same bay at all levels. Some engineers prefer staggering the dampers
along different bays along the building height to limit the force imparted to the columns. For
the staggered arrangement, collectors need to be provided to transfer the damper force from
the floor above to the floor below. In this report, the single bay approach is used.
• See Chapter 6.0 of this manual for other damper placement options.

Preliminary Damper Size

As discussed in Chapter 7 Part 1, many methods and procedures have been developed for preliminary
sizing and configuration of dampers for buildings. This example uses stiffness proportional damping,
a method derived from the modal strain energy method to obtain the preliminary size of dampers.
Stiffness proportional damping follows the following constitutive relation for determining linear
damper constraints, Cj(L), at each floor level in each direction:

Cj(L) (Eq. 7.2.1)

Whereby,

• bv = the viscous damping ratio

• ki = story stiffness obtained from static analysis of the building
• ni = number of dampers in each direction under investigation
• T = fundamental building period
• qi = angle of the dampers with respect to horizontal (Note this assumes all dampers are at
the same angle for a particular floor level)

For this design example the following information is provided, plus Table 7.2.1 below:
• Desired Damping Ratio, b = 22%
• Building period, T = 2.1 sec
Floor Level ki Ѳi ni Cj(L)
(k/in) (degrees) (kip-sec/in)
5 422 23 4 16
4 391 23 4 15
3 414 23 4 15
2 458 23 4 17
1 800 23 4 30
Table 7.2. 1 Calculation of Preliminary Damping Coefficient

66
taylordevices inc.
Note from the table that the linear damping coefficient is similar for the four upper levels, but larger
for the first level since that level is stiffer due to the fixity at the column base; story drifts are also
lower at that level and therefore one damping constant, C ~ 16, could be specified. In practice, it
might be desirable to use more than one size damper or C value along the building height or in the
two directions, if significantly different reduction in SDR is needed. However, even in such cases, it is
a good practice to limit the number of damper specifications to economize the design, generally using
a minimum quantity of 8 for each damper type. The value of C = 16 kip-sec/in is for linear dampers. In
this example we want to use a velocity exponent, α = 0.4, in order to limit the damper force, but also
maintain the same energy dissipation.
A simple method can be used to equate a linear damper with a nonlinear damper. Nonlinear damping
is amplitude dependent so we can recognize our desired SDR of 2%. This means the displacement of

Chapter 7
the damper, d, is equal to 2% x story height x cos(Ѳ).

For this case, the damper displacement, d, is 3.1 in. Then the energy dissipated in one cycle of motion,
Wj, can be compared between both a nonlinear and linear damper as shown in Figure 7.2.6 below.
The energy dissipated in one cycle of motion, Wj, is calculated as the area within force-displacement
loop. Reference MCEER Technical Report 00-0010 for calculation of Wj for both nonlinear and linear
dampers.

Figure 7.2.6
Force-Displacement Loop for One Cycle of Motion

For this example, the initial damping constant value of 54 with a velocity exponent, α =0.4, is used.
As a check, one can calculate the maximum damper force for each damper. Since the building period
is 2.1 sec, then the damper velocity can be computed:

Now for a linear damper (α =1), the damper force is then:

F = CV = 149 kips (Eq. 7.2.4)
Whereas for a nonlinear damper (α=0.4), the damper force is then:

F = CVα = 131 kips (Eq. 7.2.5)

Even though, both dampers produce the same amount of energy dissipation, the damper force is
approximately 10% smaller for the nonlinear damper, compared to the linear damper, showing the
higher efficiency of nonlinear (low exponent) dampers.

taylordevices inc. 67
 Bounding Procedures

Seismic protective devices (isolators and dampers) are proprietary products manufactured by a select
group of suppliers. Similar to all manufacturing, certain variation in properties from nominal can be
expected. ASCE 7-22 recognizes this and specifies:

A maximum and minimum analysis and design property shall be established for each modeling parameter as
necessary for the selected method of analysis. Maximum velocity coefficients, stiffness, strength, and energy
dissipation shall be considered together as the maximum analysis and design case, and minimum velocity
coefficients, strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation shall be considered together as the minimum analysis
and design case.
Chapter 7

The standard requires two steps:

1. Determination of property modification factor (PMF, λ).

2. Performing bounding analysis.

The PMF can vary significantly from product to product and from one manufacturer to another. The
standard recognizes the good quality control in manufacturing of FVD by Taylor Devices Inc. (See
Figure C18.2-1 of ASCE 7-22, the lowest permitted value of 15% for the PMF can be used. The PMF
applies to the damping constant only and the velocity exponent is not changed. Thus, the following
two cases are considered:

• Lower bound analysis: CLB=0.85*54 = 46. This case governs for the SDR and demands in the
LFRS.
• Upper bound analysis: CUB=1.15*54 = 62. This case results in larger damper forces and governs
the design of all components and members that transmit the damper force to ground.

Seismic Loading

For design and analysis of new structures with FVDs, engineers can use either the nonlinear response
history analysis (NLRHA) procedure or alternative procedures based on the modal strain energy
method. The Taylor Damped Moment Frame (TDMFTM) design procedure was approved by ICC for
use as an alternative method and is based on Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) only. See ICC
ESR 4769 (https://icc-es.org/report-listing/esr-4769/) for the official design procedure and Chapter 7
Part 4 of this document for a design example. The use of other modal strain energy methods, per the
Standard, are subject to certain limitations.

The NLRHA procedure requires that the dampers be modeled as nonlinear elements to capture their
velocity dependence and hysteretic behavior. However, the primary structural system can be modeled
as linear elements because the use of FVDs reduces the demand on the buildings, and thus limits the
extent of nonlinear response. This approach is used in this report.

Development of Acceleration Records

For this example, 7 pairs of strong motion suites were chosen from the PEER Ground Motion Database.
The records were selected from strong motion data that can be expected at the site. The records were
then spectrally matched to the target spectrum of Figure 7.2.2 using the ETABS application shown in
Part 1. Figure 7.2.7 shows the response spectra for the 14 acceleration records tightly matched the
target response spectrum.

68
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.2.7
Spectrally Matched Ground Motion Records

Analysis Results

Two models, one with upper bound and one with lower bound damping coefficients, were analyzed for
the seven two-component spectrally matched ground motion suites. A load combination was defined
averaging the ground motion results for each model, including the effect of vertical loads. The lower
bound model was used to check design of the primary structural system, compute the SDR, and check
damper stroke requirements; the upper bound model was used to check the damper force demands.

Lower Bound Analysis

Figure 7.2.8 presents the SDR computed from response history analysis for the building with dampers
and from the original model. It is noted that the dampers are quite effective in reducing SDR (reduction
of approximately 40%) and for the building with dampers, the maximum SDR is approximately 1.6%,
meeting the ASCE 7-22 requirements for SDR.

Figure 7.2.10 presents the demand to capacity ratios (DCR) for the load combination of the average of
the NLRHA cases. For clarity, data from only the SMF elements are shown. Note the following:

• Most members remain elastic.

• For a code design SMF building an R factor of 8 is used. This implies large energy dissipation
by the ductile steel members. This energy dissipation is obtained by the yielding of ductile
members. Thus, a code-compliant building is expected to perform well but sustain significant
damage in the design earthquake. By contrast, the building with dampers experiences very
limited nonlinear behavior, and therefore much less damage (or possibly no damage).

taylordevices inc. 69
Chapter 7

Figure 7.2.8
Reduction in SDR After the Addition of Dampers

Upper Bound Analysis (nominal +15%)

Figure 7.2.9 presents the force-displacement relation for one of the dampers on the second floor. For
this acceleration record, the maximum damper force is approximately 200 kips. As seen in the figure,
the dampers dissipate a large amount of seismic energy (cumulative area in the loops).

Figure 7.2.9
Force-Displacement Plot - Second Floor Damper

70
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Building

Typical Frame

Figure 7.2.10
Design Check

taylordevices inc. 71
 DCR values are smaller for this analysis but the damper forces are larger. As such, components such as
diaphragms, collectors, and foundation elements need to be checked for the damper force computed
from the upper bound analysis. Table 7.2.2 presents the damper responses.

Floor DE Damper Force DE Damper Velocity 150% x DE ≈ MCE MCE Damper Force 120% MCE Damper Force DE Damper
Level
(kips) (in/sec) Damper Velocity (in/sec) (kips) (kips) Disp.

5 123 9.5 14.3 145 174 1.0

4 145 14.3 21.5 171 205 1.0
3 166 20.1 30.2 195 234 2.0

2 179 24.2 36.3 211 253 2.0

1 157 17.5 26.3 185 222 1.0

Chapter 7

Table 7.2.2
Computed Damper Responses

Fluid Viscous Damper Specification Requirements

One size of damper can be specified for this building since all the dampers have the same properties
and similar force and stroke demands. When specifying damper properties with Taylor Devices, Inc.
the drawings and specifications should indicate the following:
• Number of dampers, n = 40 (8 dampers per floor x 5 floors)
• Nominal Damping constant, C = 54 kips-sec/inα
• Velocity Exponent, α = 0.4
• Required Damper Stroke = ±4 in
• MCER Damper Force = 253 kips

Note: The maximum computed displacement at the design earthquake is approximately 2 in. The
anticipated displacement at MCER would be at least 150% greater, approximately ±3 in. As a general
rule of thumb, we advise taking the maximum from the suite of MCER ground motions with lower bound
damper properties to define the stroke, just as added precaution around the dampers exhausting their
stroke capacity and bottoming out.

Similarly, the maximum damper force is approximately 180 kips from the design earthquake. MCER
level analysis is required for damper specification per ASCE; typically MCE maximum velocities are
150% greater than design earthquake velocities. It is also required that MCE level forces be scaled by
120% for the design of “force-controlled” elements such as connections. As a rule of thumb, we advise
using the average of the suite of MCER ground motions using nominal damper properties to define the
minimum damper rated force.

Figure 7.2.11 is Taylor Devices, Inc standard damper sizes. Material requirements for the dampers
are controlled by force and stroke and thus the cost of fluid viscous dampers is dependent on these
parameters. The cost is minimally affected by specification of the damping constant and the velocity
exponent. Also, note that Taylor Devices dampers are designed to provide an adequate factor of safety
to the damper capacity shown in the Figure 7.2.11.

72
taylordevices inc.
 taylordevices inc.
FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS & LOCK-UP DEVICES DIMENSIONS

CLEVIS END CONDITION BASE PLATE END CONDITION

PLATE
FULL RADIUS SPHERICAL BEARING BORE CYLINDER DIAMETER THICKNESS

CLEVIS

Chapter 7
WIDTH

CLEVIS CLEVIS DEPTH

THICKNESS
MID-STROKE LENGTH

TAYLOR
MID-STROKE MID-STROKE MAXIMUM WEIGHT WEIGHT MAXIMUM CLEVIS CLEVIS SPHERICAL
FORCE DEVICES STROKE
LENGTH (IN) LENGTH (IN) CYLINDER (LB) (LB) CLEVIS WIDTH DEPTH THICKNESS BEARING
(KIP) MODEL (IN)
CLEVIS-BASE* CLEVIS-CLEVIS* DIAMETER (IN) CLEVIS-BASE CLEVIS-CLEVIS (IN) (IN) (IN) BORE (IN)
NUMBER
55 17120 31.00 34.13 ±3 41/2 100 90 4 3.25 1.67 1.50
110 17130 39.25 42.00 ±4 53/4 215 180 5 4.00 2.16 2.00
165 17140 40.00 47.00 ±4 71/4 370 300 6 5.10 2.31 2.25
220 17150 41.25 48.75 ±4 81/4 560 425 71/4 5.88 2.78 2.75
330 17160 43.50 51.75 ±4 91/2 675 550 8 6.38 3.03 3.00
440 17170 53.00 62.00 ±5 111/4 1100 900 91/4 7.50 3.56 3.50
575 20860 59.00 67.00 ±5 123/4 1585 1310 101/4 7.50 4.40 4.00
750 20870 62.00 71.00 ±5 141/2 2150 1780 103/4 8.50 4.90 4.50
975 20880 ** 76.00 ±5 17 ** 2700 121/4 8.50 5.56 5.00
1350 17200 ** 84.00 ±5 201/4 ** 4000 133/4 12.00 6.00 6.00
1800 17210 ** 90.25 ±5 221/4 ** 5500 161/4 13.50 7.00 7.00

NOTE:
VARIOUS STROKES ARE AVAILABLE, FROM * MIDSTROKE LENGTH VALUES BASED ON STANDARD STROKE FOR SQUARE AND ROUND FLANGE
±3” UP TO ±42”. FORCE CAPACITY MAY BE PLATES. RECTANGULAR FLANGE PLATES WILL BE LONGER. CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS.
REDUCED FOR LONGER STROKES. ** CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN.
MADE IN USA

Rev 1-2024

Figure 7.2.11
Viscous Damper Sizes, Taylor Devices

taylordevices inc. 73
 Design Consideration
SMF design and the damper specifications were adequate and did not require iteration in this
example. Typically, one or two cycles of iterations can be necessary before final design is complete.
Amongst other details, the designer will need to consider the following details for final design:
• Check damper connections, columns, diaphragms, collectors, and foundations connected to
damping devices to resist damper force specifications elastically.
• Design of the extender brace. The extender brace serves to attach the damper unit to the
structure. It must be strong enough to withstand the damper force without buckling and
adequately stiff as discussed in Part 1. The actual extender brace stiffness is computed using
Chapter 7

the size and length of the brace.

• Note that Taylor Devices can provide dampers with integral extenders for a more efficient
overall design that allows for easier installation on-site.

Steel Tonnage
Table 7.2.3 lists the column and beam sizes for two models: one designed without dampers
meeting both the strength and drift requirements of the building code, and one meeting only the
code strength requirements and utilizing dampers to control drift. The reduction in steel tonnage
compensates for the additional cost of the dampers.

LFRS member sizes Code Damper

L1-L3 W24x229 W24x146
Columns
L4-L5 W24x176 W24x131
L1-L3 W24x94 W24x76
Beams
L4-L5 W24x76 W24x62
Beams 78 63
Steel Tonnage Columns 109 73
Total 187 136
Table 7.2.3
Steel Members for Moment Frames

Testing and Quality Control

ASCE 7-22 requires prototype testing of new devices. These tests are extensive and time consuming
and can therefore add unnecessary cost/time to a project. However, since in almost all cases, a
damper similar to a unit previously tested by Taylor Devices is specified, these tests can be waived.
ASCE 7-22 also requires QC production testing of dampers. Taylor Devices tests 100% of their units
prior to shipment to the jobsite and these tests can be witnessed by the design engineer, if desired.
Refer to Taylor Devices sample specifications for typical damper production testing.

74
taylordevices inc.
PART 3: SEISMIC RETROFIT - MOMENT FRAME WITH FVDs
Steel special moment frame (SMF) buildings constructed prior to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
typically used welded unreinforced flange (WUF) beam-to-column connections (so-called Pre-
Northridge Steel Moment Frames, PN-SMFs). The Northridge and Kobe earthquakes revealed that this
then-popular construction was subject to premature brittle failure. FEMA 351 (FEMA 2000) presents
methodology for the retrofit of such buildings. The application of fluid viscous dampers is one of
the most highly recommended seismic retrofit options for efficiency and construction flexibility. In
most cases a foundation retrofit is not required, significantly shortening the construction schedule and
reducing cost.

The FEMA document writes:

Chapter 7
The intent of seismic upgrades employing supplemental energy dissipation devices, also called dampers, is
to reduce the amount of deformation induced in the structure during its response to ground shaking. In this
respect, it is similar to upgrades accomplished through global structural stiffening. However, rather than
introducing stiffening to a structure, this upgrade technique reduces deformation through the dissipation
of energy within a series of devices that are introduced into the structure as part of the upgrade. .

Fluid viscous dampers (FVDs) provide an ideal solution for the seismic retrofitting of PN-SMF buildings.
They serve to reduce the story drift ratios (SDRs) and thus the demand on the vulnerable connections
by increasing the damping in the system.

• The PN-SMF buildings are flexible by nature and thus FVDs will become easily activated by
motion of the building
• FVDs do not add stiffness to the system and thus the period of the building will remain
unchanged. For more flexible buildings, this retrofit approach will maintain the building period
away from the constant amplitude plateau and thus limit the seismic forces. By contrast, when
retrofit strategies, which increase lateral stiffness, are implemented, the building period will
reduce and thus result in an increase in the seismic demand.
• The force in FVDs is velocity dependent and thus primarily out-of-phase with the inertial/
strain induced forces of the building. Thus, the increase in demand on the existing members
and foundations are less than conventional seismic retrofitting
• FVDs can be sized to further limit the force in the dampers and the building
• The addition of supplementary damping reduces the peak floor accelerations and thus protects
the vulnerable acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components and building content.
• Since the seismic energy is dissipated by the FVDs, the structural damage is reduced or
eliminated. This is in contrast to well-engineered ductile buildings for which energy dissipation
occurs by the nonlinear behavior in the ductile elements. To attain such ductility, the engineer
accepts the inevitable associated controlled damage.

taylordevices inc. 75
 Overview

In this Part, the seismic retrofit of an existing steel PN-SMF with FVDs is presented. The building
considered in this report, is intended to represent a realistic construction with seismic risk category II
occupancy, commercial or residential use.

The main components of this section are the following:

• Describe the building characteristics and site
• Select target performance per ASCE 41-17
• Determine a desired damping ratio using ASCE 41-17 table and size dampers
• Perform nominal and bounded analysis (nominal +/-15%)
Chapter 7

• Compute demands and capacities for structural members and connections and compare with
the M-factors of ASCE 41-17
• Provide damper specifications
• Other Design Considerations
• Testing and QC

Building and Site Seismic Characteristics

Description of the Building
The five-story building is square in plan measuring 150 ft on each side consisting of five 30-ft long
bays. Typical stories are 13 ft tall. The gravity system consists of 4-in thick concrete slab supported
by steel gravity beams and columns. The lateral force resisting system (LFRS) comprises three bays of
steel SMF placed on the perimeter. Figure 7.3.1 presents line drawings of plan and elevation views of
the structures. The PN-SMF bays are shown highlighted in green. The additional dead and live load on
the floor and roof are 40/80 and 20/20 psf, respectively. The building seismic mass is approximately
10,000 kips including contribution from nonstructural components and gravity members.

The building was constructed in the early 1980s and uses WUF beam-to-column connections.
Material nonlinearity was not included in the analysis because the members were anticipated to
remain “essentially elastic” (DCR of 1.5 or less). Therefore, linear modeling of structural members and
connections were permitted by ASCE 41-17. Furthermore, the connections did not have continuity
plates or doubler plates. The design of the building was based on the strength and drift provisions of
the building code. As such, the existing building had a maximum SDR of 2%. This was code-compliant,
although, the vulnerable connections could not resist the rotations associated with that level of drift.
The building is retrofitted using the provisions of ASCE 41-17. The seismic retrofit had the following
objectives:
• Meet the basic performance objective of ASCE 41-17 for life safety at BSE-1N (approximately
475-year return period) earthquakes.
• The building to remain operational during the retrofit
• The seismic retrofit to allow for the existing architectural features and occupancy constraints
• Retrofit to be cost effective and also meet certain life-cycle goals
• The building is a candidate for a rating program and the goal is to obtain a gold or platinum
ratings.
To meet these requirements, FVDs were used to reduce the SDR to approximately 1% at BSE 1N. At
such a low level of SDR, the structural members and connections are expected to remain (essentially)
elastic. The selected damper retrofit allowed continued occupancy and was integrated to meet the
architectural constraints.

76
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Plan

Elevation

Figure 7.3.1
Building Geometry

taylordevices inc. 77
 Site Seismic Characteristics
US Geological Survey (USGS) web tools can be used to determine the mapped spectral accelerations
for 0.2 sec, SS, and 1.0 sec, S1, based on the longitude and latitude of a site in Los Angeles, California,
summarized below.

Property Value
Location Los Angeles, CA
Site Seismicity SXS = 1.00 g
SX1 = 0.60 g
Soil Class = D
Chapter 7

Risk Category II

Figure 7.3.2
BSE 1N Response Spectrum for the Example Building

Condition of Existing Structure

Since the design of PN-SMF buildings is usually governed by drift requirements, the member sizes
were selected based on this drift. Figure 7.3.3 presents the distribution of SDR along the building
height. The SDR was computed based on the unreduced demand. As seen in the figure, the SDR is
approximately 2% for this building.

Figure 7.3.3
Computed SDR

78
taylordevices inc.
Damping Configurations and Properties
The final size of dampers will be determined by nonlinear response history analysis as discussed later.
For analysis, an initial damper size is required. Figure 7.3.4 presents the proposed damper configura-
tion. Note the following:

• The dampers are placed along the perimeter. This is not necessary, but “balanced” placement
should be considered to avoid any damper-induced torsion.

• There are at least 2 dampers in each direction on each side of the building center of mass to
avoid the redundancy penalties of ASCE 41-17.

Chapter 7
• Dampers are placed in Chevron (double diagonal) configurations to keep the middle portions
of the bays open in this example. Only dampers at the bottom three levels are used in the first
pass. During analysis, dampers at upper stories could potentially be added.

Figure 7.3.4
Placement of Dampers

taylordevices inc. 79
 Preliminary Damping Estimate
When supplementary damping is added to structures, an estimate in the reduction in dynamic
response can be determined using the numerical damping coefficient, B1, defined by ASCE 41-17
section 2.4.1.7.1. Note that the damping coefficient, B1, is actually a unitless reduction factor, not to
be confused with the damping coefficient (or damping constant) with units that describe the force-
velocity relationship of a fluid viscous damper.

Table 7.3.1 provides the damping coefficient for varying levels of effective damping, b. A given dynamic
response can be divided by the damping coefficient to approximate reduced response.
Chapter 7

Effective damping, b Damping coefficient, B1

2% 0.8
5% 1.0
10% 1.2
20% 1.5
30% 1.8
40% 2.1 Table 7.3.1
Numerical Coefficients for Various
50% 2.4 Damping Ratios

Since the objective of the seismic retrofit is to reduce maximum SDR from 2% to 1%, a numerical
coefficient of approximately 2.0 is desired (reduce by half). This value corresponds to a damping ratio
of 30%-40%. FVDs were initially sized to provide damping ratio of approximately 35% of critical.
• Since there are only three levels of dampers, the same dampers were used at all levels.
• A velocity exponent (a) of 0.4 was used to limit the damper force at large earthquakes (high
damper velocities).
• The nominal damping coefficient, C, used for each damper is 70 kip-(sec/in)a.

Seismic Loading
For retrofit of existing structures that use energy dissipation devices, engineers can use either the
nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) procedure or alternative procedures based on the modal
strain energy method. The use of methods other than NLRHA are subject to certain limitations. The
NLRHA procedure requires that the dampers be modeled as nonlinear elements to capture their
velocity dependence and hysteretic behavior. However, the primary structural system can usually be
modeled with linear elements because the use of FVDs reduces the demand on the buildings, and thus
limits the extent of nonlinear response.

Development of Acceleration Records

To perform NLRHA, the user must define sets of independent pairs for a minimum of 7 ground motion
records (Ref ASCE 41-17 § 15.5.3).

Input Histories
For this report, 7 pairs of strong motion records were chosen from the PEER Ground Motion Database.
The records were selected from strong motion data that can be expected at the site. These records
were then scaled to the target spectrum of Figure 7.3.5 using the method described in Part 1.

80
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.3.5
Scaled Records

Analysis Results

Two models, one with upper bound and one with lower bound damping coefficients, were analyzed for
the seven two-component spectrally matched ground motion suites. A load combination was defined
averaging the ground motion results for each model, including the effect of vertical loads. The lower
bound model was used to check design of the primary structural system, compute the SDR, and check
damper stroke requirements; the upper bound model was used to check the damper force demands
on elements supporting the dampers themselves.

Lower Bounding Analysis (nominal -15%)

Seismic Figure 7.3.6 presents the SDR computed from response history analysis for the building
with dampers and from the original model. Notice that dampers have reduced the maximum SDR
to approximately 1%, the retrofit design performance objective. If larger SDRs were obtained, then
the damping constant would be increased, and analysis repeated. In typical cases, only one of two
iterations would be necessary to finalize the damper properties.

taylordevices inc. 81
Chapter 7

Figure 7.3.6
Reduction in SDR After the Addition of Dampers

Table 9-4 of ASCE 41-17 provides information on the m-factors for beams, columns, and connections.
Although the m-factors for beams and columns are high for compact sections. The design is governed
by the m-factor for the WUF connection.

For example, the governing m-factor was computed as 1.2. In some cases, the m-factor reduces to 1,
therefore requiring the building will need to remain elastic at the BSE 1N level to meet the life safety
performance objectives. Figure 7.3.7 presents the DCR values for the load combination of the average
of the NLRHA cases using lower bound damper properties. For clarity, only data for the PN-SMF
elements are shown. The retrofitted building met the life safety performance goal, as all the members
remained elastic. The seismic retrofit protected the vulnerable WUF connections without the need to
repair these connections.

82
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Building

Figure 7.3.7a
DCR for BSE 1N (allowable m-factor 1.2 for life safety)

Figure 7.3.7b
DCR for BSE 1N (allowable m-factor 1.2 for life safety)

taylordevices inc. 83
 Upper Bound Analysis
Figure 7.3.8 presents the force-displacement relation for one of the dampers. For this acceleration
record, the maximum damper force is approximately 160 kips. As seen in the figure, the dampers
dissipate a significant amount of seismic energy (cumulative area in the hysteresis loops).
Chapter 7

Figure 7.3.8
Force-Displacement Relation, Second Floor Damper

For completeness, components such as diaphragms, collectors, and foundation elements would need
to be checked for the damper force computed from the upper bound analysis. Table 7.3.2 presents
the damper responses. In this example, because the dampers are being specified based upon BSE-1N
level analysis only (as opposed to BSE-2X), a penalty of 200% is applied to velocity and displacement
(Ref ASCE 41-17 §15.2.2.4). With a damping exponent of 0.4, this becomes a (2)0.4 = 1.32 amplifier
on the BSE-1N force.
Floor BSE-1N: 200% x BSE-1N: BSE-1N Damper 200% x BSE-1N: BSE-1N: Damper 200% x BSE-1N
Level Damper Velocity Damper Velocity Force Damper Force Displacement Damper Displace-
(in/sec) (in/sec) (kips) (kips) (in) ment (in)
5 -- -- -- -- --
4 -- -- -- -- --
3 8.1 16.2 162 214 1.3 2.6

2 8.3 16.6 163 215 1.2 2.4

1 6.2 12.4 145 191 1.5 3.0

Table 7.3.2
Computed Damper Responses
One damper size can be specified for this building retrofit since all the dampers have the same
properties and similar force and stroke demands. When specifying damper properties with Taylor
Devices, Inc. the drawings and specifications should indicate the following:
• Number of dampers, n = 24 (8 dampers per floor x 3 floors)
• Nominal Damping constant, C = 70 kip-(sec/in)α
• Velocity Exponent, α = 0.4
• Damper Design Stroke = ± 3 in
• Damper Rated Force = 215 kips

84
taylordevices inc.
 taylordevices inc.
FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS & LOCK-UP DEVICES DIMENSIONS

CLEVIS END CONDITION BASE PLATE END CONDITION

PLATE
FULL RADIUS SPHERICAL BEARING BORE CYLINDER DIAMETER THICKNESS

CLEVIS
WIDTH

CLEVIS CLEVIS DEPTH

Chapter 7
THICKNESS
MID-STROKE LENGTH

TAYLOR
MID-STROKE MID-STROKE MAXIMUM WEIGHT WEIGHT MAXIMUM CLEVIS CLEVIS SPHERICAL
FORCE DEVICES STROKE
LENGTH (IN) LENGTH (IN) CYLINDER (LB) (LB) CLEVIS WIDTH DEPTH THICKNESS BEARING
(KIP) MODEL (IN)
CLEVIS-BASE* CLEVIS-CLEVIS* DIAMETER (IN) CLEVIS-BASE CLEVIS-CLEVIS (IN) (IN) (IN) BORE (IN)
NUMBER
55 17120 31.00 34.13 ±3 41/2 100 90 4 3.25 1.67 1.50
110 17130 39.25 42.00 ±4 53/4 215 180 5 4.00 2.16 2.00
165 17140 40.00 47.00 ±4 71/4 370 300 6 5.10 2.31 2.25
220 17150 41.25 48.75 ±4 81/4 560 425 71/4 5.88 2.78 2.75
330 17160 43.50 51.75 ±4 91/2 675 550 8 6.38 3.03 3.00
440 17170 53.00 62.00 ±5 111/4 1100 900 91/4 7.50 3.56 3.50
575 20860 59.00 67.00 ±5 123/4 1585 1310 101/4 7.50 4.40 4.00
750 20870 62.00 71.00 ±5 141/2 2150 1780 103/4 8.50 4.90 4.50
975 20880 ** 76.00 ±5 17 ** 2700 121/4 8.50 5.56 5.00
1350 17200 ** 84.00 ±5 201/4 ** 4000 133/4 12.00 6.00 6.00
1800 17210 ** 90.25 ±5 221/4 ** 5500 161/4 13.50 7.00 7.00

NOTE:
VARIOUS STROKES ARE AVAILABLE, FROM * MIDSTROKE LENGTH VALUES BASED ON STANDARD STROKE FOR SQUARE AND ROUND FLANGE
±3” UP TO ±42”. FORCE CAPACITY MAY BE PLATES. RECTANGULAR FLANGE PLATES WILL BE LONGER. CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS.
REDUCED FOR LONGER STROKES. ** CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN.
MADE IN USA

Rev 1-2024

Figure 7.3.9
Fluid Viscous Damper Sizes (Taylor Devices)

taylordevices inc. 85
 Design Considerations

Amongst other details, the designer should consider the following for seismic assessment:
• Check the existing elements such as columns, diaphragms, collectors, and foundations for
program output forces (including seismic and demand from dampers) and strengthen as
required.
• Design all new members and connections connected to damping devices for the specified
damper forces.
• Design of the extender brace. The extender brace serves to attach the damper unit to the
structure. It must be strong enough to withstand the damper force without buckling and
Chapter 7

adequately stiff as discussed in Part 1. The actual extender brace stiffness is computed using
the size and length of the brace.
• Note that Taylor Devices can provide dampers with integral extenders for a more efficient
overall design that allows for easier installation on-site.

Testing and Quality Control

ASCE 41-17 requires prototype testing of new devices. These tests are extensive and time consuming
and can therefore add unnecessary cost/time to a project. However, since in almost all cases, a damper
similar to a unit previously tested by Taylor Devices is specified, these tests can be waived.

ASCE 41-17 also requires QC production testing of dampers. Taylor Devices tests 100% of their units
prior to shipment to the jobsite and these tests can be witnessed by the design engineer, if desired.
Refer to Taylor Devices sample specifications for typical damper production testing.

86
taylordevices inc.
PART 4: NEW CONSTRUCTION – TAYLOR DAMPED MOMENT FRAME™
Design Approach

The Taylor Damped Moment Frame System™ (TDMF™) is an additional design option that engineers
can utilize to provide supplemental damping to new steel moment frame construction. The TDMF™
design procedure removes the ASCE 7 Chapter 18 requirements for nonlinear response history analysis
and peer reviewing. The TDMF™ is evaluated as an alternative structural system in accordance with
ASCE 7 §12.2.1.1 and can be used to save both time and cost in damper design. This procedure was
developed and validated through the rigorous AC494 and FEMA P-695 processes and is officially
approved in the International Code Council Evaluation Services ESR-4769 (https://icc-es.org/report-

Chapter 7
listing/ esr-4769/).

The TDMF™ consists of a combination of steel special moment frames (SMFs) and supplemental
damper frames (DFs) that utilize Taylor Devices’ fluid viscous dampers. The SMFs act as a primary lateral
load resisting system, while the dampers dissipate seismic energy and reduce the overall response of
the structure. These two frames are procedurally decoupled allowing for ETABS models that do not
include damper elements. Physically, the relationship between the SMF and DF can take three forms,
shown conceptually in Figure 7.4.1 plan views.

1. Type I – The SMF and DF are in separate bays without any common elements.
2. Type II – The SMF and DF share the same bay.
3. Type III – The SMF and DF located in adjacent bays and there are share common elements.
In reality, projects will likely have a mixture of each type as DF locations are going to be driven by
function and other outside constraints.

Figure 7.4.1 Illustration of physical relationship between the SMF and DF locations

The approved configurations for the dampers are shown in Figure 7.4.2. Similar to the types above, a
given project may have any combination of these configurations throughout the building.

taylordevices inc. 87
Chapter 7

Figure 7.4.2 Approved damper configurations – a) diagonal, b) chevron, c) inverted chevron, d) 2-story X-type, e) column
connected modified chevron, f) column connected modified inverted chevron, g), beam connected modified inverted
chevron, and h) beam connected modified chevron.

The following system requirements also apply in order to use the TDMF™ system:

1. For each story above the base, there must be at least 2 dampers in each principal direction. The
dampers must be located to resist torsion. Typically, this means the dampers are located on
either side of the center mass.
2. Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers are required.
3. Flexible diaphragms are not permitted.
4. Extreme Torsional Irregularity per ASCE 7 Ch. 12 is not permitted. This condition needs to be
checked on the base structure, without using dampers to counter the inherent torsion.
5. Height limit of 300 feet.

When designing a building using the TDMF™ the engineer may take a Cd factor of 4.5 instead of 5.5
used for conventional steel moment frames. This accounts for the effect the dampers have in reducing
the structural response. Also, the base shear determined with modal response spectrum analysis is
scaled to 75% of the ELF base shear instead of 100% as would be done through conventional design.
The remaining sections will illustrate a detailed example of the TDMF™ procedure on an archetype
building.

The official design procedure, codified in the the ICC ESR #4769 can be found at the following site:
https://icc-es.org/report-listing/esr-4769/

88
taylordevices inc.
Description of the Building
The building considered in this example is a four-story steel building. The building has plan dimensions
of 120 feet by 180 ft with 30-foot bays in both directions (Figure 7.4.3). The lateral system consists of
perimeter special steel moment frames (SMFs), in each direction, and interior damper frames (DFs) – at
Type I system.

Chapter 7
Figure 7.4.3 Archetype structure plan view

The seismic design criteria and gravity loading are summarized in Tables 7.4.1 and 7.4.2, respectively.
See previous sections in this document for guidance on modeling and seismic analysis procedures in
ETABS.

Property Value
Bays in the X direction 6 @ 30 ft
Bays in the Y direction 4 @ 30 ft
Stories 4
Typical Story height 14 ft
First Story Height 16 ft
Mapped Spectral Acceleration SS = 1.25; S1 = 0.643
Site Class Coefficients Fa = 1.2; Fv = 1.4
Site Class C
Spectral Response Coefficients SDS = 1.0 ; SD1 = 0.6
Seismic Design Category D
Response Modification Coefficient (R) 8
Cd 4.5
W 3.0
Table 7.4.1 Seismic Design Criteria

taylordevices inc. 89
 Property Value
Unreduced Live Loading 50 psf
Assumed Dead Load (including self-weight) 80 psf
Cladding Load 7.5 psf
Table 7.4.2 Gravity Loads
The Base Shear Coefficient is calculated per ASCE 7-16, Chapter 12 and reduced by 75% in
alignment with the ICC-ESR to account for the effects of the dampers.

T1 = 1.9 seconds (from modal analysis)

Chapter 7

Ta = 0.028*(58)0.8 = 0.72 seconds (ASCE 7-16 EQ. 12.8-7)

Cu = 1.4 (ASCE 7-16 Table 12.8-1)
CuTa = 1.01 seconds (controls for ELF & MRSA strength design)

Moment Frame Design

Steel special moment frames are designed based on the combined lateral and gravity demands
determined from the response spectrum analysis in ETABS. This design example does not go into
detail for the design of the SMFs. For detailed walk-throughs of MF design, the reader is directed
to the 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual Volume 4.
The TDMF™ design procedure is compatible with all prequalified moment connections per
AISC, including proprietary connections like Simpson StrongFrame®, SidePlate®, DuraFuse and
ConXtech®. For this example, the moment frame was designed using an RBS. Design provisions
and how this was captured in ETABS is shown below.
RBS definitions following AISC 358 §5.8 are shown here:
• 0.5bf ≤ a ≤ 0.75bf
• 0.65d ≤ b ≤ 0.85d
• 0.1bbf ≤ c ≤ 0.25bbf
Figure 7.4.4 demonstrates the RBS input parameters in ETABS.
Additional moment frame design checks are summarized below and ETABS is used to confirm
design sections.

90
taylordevices inc.
 • Assume beams are braced at max allowable spacing,
o Note, beam bracing will be required at RBS Section (for composite, we can assume deck
braces the beam at this point.)
o Determine brace requirements per AISC 341 Eq. D1-2/Spec. A-6-7)
(.+2,
o Max spacing = 𝐿𝐿1 =
34.4
6) 7*
o Point strength = 𝑃𝑃51 =0.2𝑥𝑥 8
where Cd=1
3+ .+ 9
• Flexure Strength (Eq. A.6-7) 𝑀𝑀5 = :
+ +(<6) 7*
• Stiffness (Eq. A-6-8) = ;x -,) <8
=,
• Axial stiffness of beam K=
-

Chapter 7
Figure 7.4.4. RBS definition in ETABS

taylordevices inc. 91
Chapter 7

Figure 7.4.5 Moment Frame Element Design Check in ETABS, including RBS

Defining Load Cases in ETABS for TDMF™ Designs

Table 7.4.3 below summarizes the possible load cases that would be used in the design of the
lateral system.
First, we calculate our ELF base shear per ASCE 7-16, Chapter 12 which will be used to scale the
modal load case used in strength design. Per the previous section the ELF base shear is:

Modal Load Case for Strength Design: The modal base shear, Vt, is determined from a modal
load case scaled by 1.0*gravity*(Ie/R), (“FULL MRSA” from Table 7.4.3). For this example, Vt =
273 kips. For strength design, this load case is scaled such that the modal base shear, VDYN, is
equal to 75% of the ELF base shear. This produces the “MRSA Strength” load case in Table 7.4.3.

92
taylordevices inc.
strength design, this load case is scaled such that the modal base shear, DYN, is equal to 7 of the E F
base shear. his produces the MRSA Strength load case in able 7.4.3.

Modal oad Case for Deformation Design For the DMF s stem, modal scaling per ASCE 7-16
12. .1.4.2 has been modified as follows

= + +
= 0.3 0.6/(8/1) = 0.03 (Controls)
0. 0.643/(8/1) = 0.04

he associated base shear is 0.03 7110 = 213 kips.

Because the unscaled modal base shear, t, is greater than Cs,d , modal scaling for drift is not required. If
t were less than Cs,d , then we would need to scale the MRSA Drift case b the following factor

Chapter 7
For this example, the MRSA Strength load case would go ern strength design while the MRSA Drift
load case would be used to determine the deformation go ern design.

oad Case Scale Factor in oad Case

oad Case Descr i pti on Base Shear
ID Defi ni ti on
E F E F Base Shear Calculation - ELF = 30 kips
F nscaled MRSA Base Shear = 48.26
3 t = 273 kips
MRSA Response spectrum scaled b g/(R/Ie)
MRSA (.
= 70.0 8 DYN = 3 6 kips =
Scaled MRSA Base Shear 3
Strength 0.7 ELF

MRSA 7*
Scaled MRSA for Drift g = 217.18 -
Drift 3

T e 7.4. B e S e r S ing E e ire tion

taylordevices inc. 93
 Moment Frame Design Check
A summary of the SMF design shapes and output design check are shown in Figures 7.4.6 and
7.4.7, respectively. The output drift from the MRSA analysis is shown in Figure 7.4.8.
Chapter 7

Figure 7.4.6 Moment Frame Shapes

Figure 7.4.7 Sample Moment Frame Element Design Check – DCR Values Shown

94
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.4.8 MRSA Drift Results

Damper Frame Design

The selection of the damping constant follows a prescriptive approach described in the ICC ESR
Annex A §4. First, a linear damping constant is calculated based upon achieving the required 25%
viscous damping ratio, the fundamental period, and the stiffness of the floor where the dampers
will be located. Then, a pseudo-velocity is calculated based upon the fundamental translational
period and used to translate the linear damping constant to a nonlinear damping constant with
a damping exponent, a, of 0.4.

Determining Damper C Value

The following calculations trace through the determination of the nonlinear damping constant
for the fourth floor X-direction dampers in this design example. Table 7.4.3 summarizes key
variables in the determination of damper properties and their values for the fourth story example.

taylordevices inc. 95
 ariable Defi ni ti on alue for 4 t Floor
Exampl e
angle of inclination of the t damper on it floor measured from 43
hori ontal
orientation of damper to principal axis being e aluated = 0 if aligned 0
design stor drift between le els i and (i -1) occurring simultaneousl 0.4 in.
with i (from static E F anal sis)
it stor linear stiffness in principal direction of interest 26 k/in (see below)
arget iscous Damping Ratio, DMF ICC-ESR 476 A.4.1 0.2
Shape factor per MCEER 00-0010 Eqn 4-14, DMF ICC-ESR 476 3. 82
A.4.2
number of DMF stories 4
elocit Amplification Factor for igher Modes, DMF ICC-ESR 1. (see below)
Chapter 7

476 A. .1.1
+ elocit Amplification Factor for first stor ielding, DMF ICC-ESR 1.0
476 A. .1.2
erstrength on elocit for MCE, DMF ICC-ESR 476 A. .4 2.
erstrength on Displacement for MCE, Seismic Design Categor D 3. (see below)
or ess, DMF ICC-ESR 476 A. .4 A.7.2.4.1
pper Bound Expected Properties Factor for Damping, DMF ICC- 1.1
ESR 476 A. .4
BF Base Shear Correction Factor 1.0
elocit Exponent 0.4
( D Recommended alue)
T e 7.4. e ri e in eter ining ing on t nt er t e T FA ro

he lateral stiffness of the MF s stem for the purposes of calculating the damping constant is determined
using the E F load cases. able 7.4.4 documents this calculation for this design example.

Stor / E F Stor Force E F Stor Shear St or Di spl acement w/o Cd Stor Stiffness, ki
Floor (kips) (kips) (in) (k/in)
4 132 132 2.3 26
3 4 226 1. 0 34
2 8 283 1.2 420
1 26 310 0. 8 3
T e 7.4.4 eter in tion of Fr e Stiffne fro E F Re u t

= = =

First the linear C alue is determined

+
= (ICC-ESR 476 E A-4.1)

2 +.2 +
= =
(

Note that the true fundamental period, , is used here, not the period cap of C imposed b the code.
hen the damper displacement associated with the stor drift is calculated and used to determine a pseudo-
elocit

96
taylordevices inc.
 = = =
= = (ICC-ESR 476 E A-4.3)

= =

he pseudo- elocit us used to translate the linear C alue into a nonlinear C alue

+
= (ICC-ESR 476 E A-4.4)
+ (.
= =

Chapter 7
An allowable range for the specified nonlinear C alue is determined
= = =

= = =

Finall , a specified nonlinear damping constant (C NL s e ) is chosen from the a lor catalog to be within the
range. In this example

C NL s e = 40 kip (s/in)

Now that we ha e calculated our nonlinear C alue, we must modif our elocit to account for higher
modes and nonlinear beha ior, the A factor. he A factor accounts for tendencies obser ed in the
original ICC stud that shows the first floor reaching the maximum stroke before the other floors.

= = = (ICC-ESR 476 E A- .2)

+ = (First floor dampers onl )

+ = (Damper is not located at first floor)

= + = = (ICC-ESR 476 E A- .1)
+.2

he amplified elocit is then used to determine the corresponding damper forces at DE (f ), MCE (f E, )
and o erstrength (F ) le els.
(.
= =40 = (ICC-ESR 476 E A- .4)
= = = (ICC-ESR 476 E A- . )

= (ICC-ESR 476 E A- .6)

(.
= =

he damper rated force is associated with the MCE le el demands. herefore, we would select a damper
rated for 110 kips for the four dampers at this le el.

taylordevices inc. 97
 Similar to elocit , we must amplif the MRSA determined displacements b appl ing an omega factor, Wd,
de eloped for stroke. In addition to the amplification of the stroke, there is a minimum threshold that the
damper must accommodate at least 3 interstor drift.

= = (ICC-ESR 476 A.7.2.3.1)

= + = = (ICC-ESR 476 E A-7.1)
= = =

o erning Stroke = =
Chapter 7

a lor t picall pro ides stroke capacit in 1 increments, so for this example we would pro ide
stroke capacit for the manufactured damper.

able 7.4. summari es the damper properties that would be considered complete for specification of a
damper order. Because the dampers are s mmetric in this building, with equal angles with respect to
hori ontal and all aligned with the principal axes, the will ha e the same damping constants. In cases
where these conditions are not met, there ma be a need to ha e ar ing damping constants (See later
section on Damper Induced orsion)

Stor / otal C NL s e f E, Rated Force of Required Stroke

Floor uantit kip-(s/in) (kips) Sel ect ed Damper ( ki ps ( in)
4 8 40 6 110
3 8 61 164 16 6
2 8 70 1 220 6
1 8 3 24 330 6
T e 7.4. Su r of Fin er ro ertie

able 7.4.6 summari es the Damper Frame (DF) sections used for design. he following pages deri e the
forces for ke DF elements, specificall the beam, column, and extender brace components for the
dampers at the fourth floor.

Stor /Floor Co l umn Beam Extenders

4 14 68 18 86 SS6 6 1/4
3 14 68 18 86 SS8 8 1/4
2 14 132 18 7 SS8 8 /16
1 14 132 18 7 SS 3/8
T e 7.4. Su r of er Fr e Se tion

Beam Demand Determination ( -direction)

Beam ength = 30 ft
rib. idth = 30 ft

98
taylordevices inc.
 D = 83 psf
wde d = 83 30 = 2,4 0 plf
= 0 psf
w e = 0 30 = 1, 00 plf
Damper induced axial force, PE D = F cos = 136 cos(43) = . kips

o erning oad Combination (1.2 0.2SD )D 0.2 1.0E

where, E = max ( D, WF D, D 0.7 WF D, 0.7 D WF D) per ICC ESR 476 E A- .3.

In this example, because this is a pe I s stem, there is no earthquake demand ( D) on the damper
frames, therefore the full damper induced effect ( D) controls.

Chapter 7
Flexural Demands
w = (1.2 0.2SD ) wde d 0.2 w e = (1.2 0.2 1.0) 2,4 0 0.2 1, 00 = 3,861 plf = 3.861 klf

= = =

= = =

Note that neither the dampers nor their extenders will ield at MCE , therefore there is no need to
accommodate an imbalanced load associated with the che ron configuration as ou would ha e to do in a
normal braced condition.

Column Demand Determination (below roof and supporting -direction damper)

rib. Area = 30 30 = 00 ft
Pde d = 83 00 = 74,700 lbs = 74.7 kips
P e = 0 00 = 4 ,000 lbs = 4 kips
PE D =F sin = 136 sin(43) = 2.7 kips
P = (1.2 0.2 1.0) 74.7 0.2 4 1.0 2.7 = 208.6 kips

Damper Extender Brace Demand Determination and Stiffness Check

erstrength damper forces (F ) are used for the design of extender braces.
(.
= = =
t = 10.64 ft

he Effecti e ength Factor, k, is unit (1) because this is a true pin-pin connection. he minimum brace
stiffness per ICC ESR 476 A.7.3.2 is calculated as the following

= = =

At the top floor, SS 6x6x1/4 extenders were chosen based on force. he associated stiffness is
= = =

taylordevices inc. 99
Chapter 7

Figure 7.4.9 Damper Frame Components

100
taylordevices inc.
Additional TDMF™ Considerations

Diaphragm Design
Diaphragms serve as an essential component in a building’s seismic force resisting capabilities.
Diaphragms for the TDMF™ system include inertial forces plus the horizontal component of the
dampers, though these do not act perfectly in-phase. For this archetype building, determining
the diaphragm loads will be done in two phases. The first is the classic equivalent beam model
used to determine the mass inertial forces, where the diaphragm is treated as a horizontal beam
spanning to the perimeter moment frames. Inertial loads are distributed across the diaphragm
and the corresponding chords and collector forces are determined from the shear and moment

Chapter 7
diagrams. Calculations for these forces following ASCE 7-16 §12.10 “Diaphragms, chords, and
collectors” are shown in the example calculations.

The second phase of the diaphragm design is to consider the effect of the horizontal component
of the damper force. This force is not resisted by the moment frame, but instead is resisted by
an equal and opposite inertial force from the diaphragm mass. This is partially because the
peak damper force occurs when the displacement is zero and, in the idealized case, there is no
deformation in the diaphragm or lateral system. An equivalent beam model can still be assumed
to capture this effect where in the horizontal component of the damper force is converted to
distributed load and the damper frame act as “pseudo supports.”

After superimposing the demands from each the phase chord and collector forces can be
determined.

Diaphragm Force
Inertial diaphragm forces for the TDMF™, Fpx, are derived per ASCE 7-16 §12.10 and are
reduced by 25% for the TDMF™ system which aligns with the reduction in base shear (and
accounts for the reduced floor accelerations associated with damped systems). Returning to our
previous example, table 7.4.7 shows the calculations for the inertial diaphragm loads. Figures
7.4.10 and 7.4.11 illustrate how both the inertial and damper loads are distributed into the
diaphragm through shear and moment.

Table 7.4.7 Y-Direction Diaphragm Loads

taylordevices inc. 101

Chapter 7

Figure 7.4.10 Roof Diaphragm Inertial Forces

To derive the damper-induced diaphragm loads, the horizontal component of the damper force is
assumed to act in the same direction. In this example, there are two chevron bays and therefore
four dampers contributing in each principal direction. The overstrength damper force, Fji, is used
per EQ ICC-ESR 4769 EQ A-5.6.

It should be noted that on floors other than the roof, the damper forces from the story above
and story below could theoretically partially or fully cancel out. This assumption, however,
assumes that the dampers are peaking at the same moment and may be an unconservative
assumption. If the damper forces from the story above are to be used to reduced the damper-
induced diaphragm forces, it is recommended that no more than 70% of the damper force from
the story above is used to counter the damper from the story below.

102
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.4.11. Roof Diaphragm Damper-Induced Forces

Inertial and damper-induced forces are combined in accordance with the load combinations
given in ICC ESR 4769 EQ A-9.2 (or EQ A-9.3 where overstrength is required for inertial forces).
The following graphs show the shear and moment demands from inertial demands and damper
induced and the envelope demands to be used for the diaphragm design.

Figure 7.4.12. Roof Diaphragm Superimposed Shear Demands

taylordevices inc. 103

Chapter 7

Figure 7.4.13 Roof Diaphragm Superimposed Moment Demands

Note, these calculations assume that the inertial seismic demand and the induced damper force
occur in the same direction (+Y inertial, + Y damper force). However, it is important to also
consider when the inertial force occurs in the opposite direction as the damper force (-Y inertial,
+ Y damper force).

104
taylordevices inc.
Foundation Design
Foundations for the Moment Frames are designed per standard engineering practice and,
therefore, are not covered in this design example. Instead, this example focuses on the
derivation of loads required for the design of the foundations in the Damper Frame – specifically
the combination of gravity and damper loads. Figure 7.4.14 shows the contribution to story
forces from dead load, live load and dampers as well as the accumulated force down the height
of the column. Note that only the vertical component of the damper force contributes, and, per
ICC ESR 4769 § A.9, the damper forces are associated with DE level demands, not overstrength
forces.
• Column Trib. Area = 900 ft2

Chapter 7
• Dead Load = 83 psf
• Live Load = 50 psf
• Example Damper Force @ 4th Floor = fj4*sin(q) = 82*sin(43) = 56 kips

Cumulative Column Loads

Column Loads Per Story for Foundation Demands

D = 75 k D = 75 k
L= 45 k L= 45 k
PETD= 56 k PETD= 56 k

D = 75 k D = 150 k
L= 45 k L= 90 k
PETD= 95 k PETD= 151 k

D = 75 k D = 225 k
L= 45 k L= 135 k
PETD= 113 k PETD= 264 k

D = 75 k D = 300 k
L= 45 k L= 180 k
PETD= 145 k PETD= 409 k

Figure 7.4.14 Damper Frame Foundation Demands

The load combinations that would need to be considered are:

Strength: 1.2D + 1.6L Service: D+L
1.4D D
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + 0.25L ± 1.0QTD D + 0.75 L ± 0.525QTD
(0.9D – 0.2SDS)D ± 1.0QTD 0.6D ± 0.525QTD

For the case shown above, the controlling foundation demands for strength considerations
would be:
Maximum Compression: (1.2 + 0.2*1.0)*300 + 0.25*180 + 1.0*409 = 874 kips
Maximum Tension: (0.9 – 0.2*1.0)*300 – 1.0*409 = -199 kips

taylordevices inc. 105

 Damper-Induced Torsion and Asymmetric Dampers
The consideration of torsion is critical in accounting for the full effects of seismic loading on
structures. ASCE 7 requires determining both the accidental torsion moment and if there exists
a torsional irregularity in this system. While this section does not go in detail on how these
effects are determined, it will outline how to account for possible additional torsion induced by
eccentricity in the damper frame. Note, per ASCE 7 §12.8.4.2 buildings that are not classified as
torsionally irregular do not need to include the effects of accidental torsion in the final seismic
design. Therefore, most buildings with MFs at or near the perimeter and that have little or no
eccentricity in the damping system (i.e., buildings that are not classified as torsionally irregular)
will be unaffected by this requirement, because accidental torsion is not required for their design.
Inherent torsion is always included in the MF design, per ASCE 7.
Chapter 7

The magnitude of this torsional amplification is dependent on the relative distance between
the center of damping and the center of mass. The closer the center of damping aligns with the
center of mass the less additional torsion is induced in the system. Like stiffness, the higher
the source of damping is concentrated without separation or distribution across the floor (i.e.,
a core configuration of dampers) the more amplified torsion must be resisted by the moment
frame. Additional accidental torsion due to the damping system can be avoided by specifying a
concentric damping system. Concentric damping can be achieved by making DF lines symmetric
about the center of mass or by increasing/decreasing the damping constants of individual
dampers such that the center of damping aligns with the center of mass. The following example
will provide additional clarity in how to determine the damper induced torsion as well as how
to mitigate the effects by “tuning out” the eccentricity between the center of damping and the
center of mass.

In the floor plate below, we see there are three frames with two dampers in the Y-direction. If
we assume that all dampers at this floor will have the same C values, we can calculate C for each
damper with the following equation from the previous section.

Where,

θji = angle of inclination of the jth damper on ith floor measured from horizontal
φji = orientation of damper to principal axis being evaluated = 0 if aligned
ki = ith story linear stiffness in principal direction of interest
βv = Target Viscous Damping Ratio (ICC-ESR 4769 § A.4.1)

Figure 7.4.15 Illustration of damper orientation in plan

(left) and angle of inclination (right)

106
taylordevices inc.
For this example, C was chosen to be 374 kip-(s/in)α. With equal C values and angles with respect
to horizontal and the principal axes, the geometric center can be used to determine the center of
damping. For this example, taking the location from the grid systems origin on the left side, the
center of damping (CD) is calculated as follows:

Chapter 7

Figure 7.4.16 Center of Damping in the Y direction

Figure 7.4.16 shows the eccentricity, e_(TD,i), between the Center of Mass (COM) and CD is
greater than the 0.02L, therefore the damper-induced torsion must be considered and is additive
to the accidental torsion calculated by a 5% offset. The total torsion is calculated as:

taylordevices inc. 107

 here r D, is the radius of g ration of the dampers and is calculated b the following equation

+
𝑥𝑥 -
=
+ -

he radius of g ration captures the resistance to torsion based on the locations of the dampers, close to
the core or spread to the perimeter.

For our example,

x = damper location
= the ratio between the exact calculated nonlinear damping constant and the actual specified
Chapter 7

7
nonlinear damping constant =
7
C L = linear damping constant determined abo e (not associated with specified nonlinear constant)
e D, = 4 feet
= = =
=
= 37 feet
D, = stor shear = 321 kips

𝑀𝑀 6. = = =

From the calculation we can see the damper induced torsion effect is not insignificant and for this example
adds o er 0 to the accidental torsion demand. owe er, the damper-induced torsion can be easil
mitigated b tuning the center of damping and bringing it closer to the mass (within the 2 offset so that
it can be ignored). o do this we can use a modified equation to calculate the linear damping constant
(C L ) that allows each damper to ha e a unique alue so long as a total amount of energ dissipation is
pro ided.

+ +
+ - + - -

his equation ma be expressed as

+ +
-
+

sing this equation, we can iterate the linear C alues for each damper, balancing the required amount of
energ dissipation with the location of the center of damping to reduce or eliminate the damper-induced
torsion. e will start b increasing the C alues for the dampers on the left side of the center of mass and
decreasing the C alues on the right to pull the center of damping left and decrease the eccentricit .

108
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure 7.4. 7. d te ue

- = =
+

+
= =

+ 𝑥𝑥 -
=
+ -

= =

e onl need to consider damper-induced torsion when the eccentricit between the center of mass and
the center of damping is greater than 0.02 . In this example, that threshold is 7. feet and with the tuned
damping constants, we e reduced the damper eccentricit to feet, therefore damper-induced torsion is
not required to be considered.

taylordevices inc. 109

 Optional Reduction in Damper-Induced Column Loads
The following section outlines the option to reduce column loads within the damper frame.
Sample calculations for a case different than the examples shown before is used to illustrate how
to take advantage of this reduction.

The damper-induced column axial loads corresponding to the maximum velocity stage loading
(ETD) can be reduced based on the more conservative of two different column force reduction
factors, CF1ji and CF2ji, for a given column j within story i. The factor CF1ji uses a cumulative
“top-to-bottom” reduction approach based on the number of continuously damped bays above
story i of interest (nai), with increasing load reduction for columns in stories supporting more
dampers above. This reduction is referred to as cumulative since the reduction is applied to the
Chapter 7

cumulative damper-induced column axial load at the column of interest. An illustration of the
definition of nai is shown in Figure 7.4.18 for a few common cases.

The second factor, CF2ji, applies force reduction based on the local damper-induced column axial
forces at a given story based on the number of stories above the local column of interest (nai,local),
before taking the total damper-induced column axial load to be used for damper frame design.
The definition of nai,local is shown for different stories (i.e., columns) of interest in Figure 7.4.19.

This reduction in damper-induced column forces provides a more accurate representation

of reality, especially in taller buildings with continuously damped frame bays. The simplified
approach, which assumes that all dampers reach their peak force simultaneously and therefore
accumulates 100% in continuous columns, can be overly conservative. The relationships were
derived based on a large set of nonlinear analysis archetypes where the damper-induced column
axial loads could be monitored at the collapse limit state (i.e., stroke exceedance). Number of
story limits are placed in the relationships to avoid unconservative force reduction for shorter
buildings and limit the upper bound reduction to be consistent with the scope of the archetypes
analyzed to avoid extrapolation that is not supported by nonlinear analysis.

The two different damper-induced column axial load reduction factors are implemented in order
to avoid unconservative loads for structures with specific details that could make one reduction
factor more unconservative than the other. An illustration of two such possible cases is shown
in Figure 7.4.20.

110
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Figure7.4.18 Illustration of the number of continuously damped bays for damper-induced column axial load reduction: a)
Damper bays not continuous in elevation, b) Continuous damper bay in elevation

Figure 7.4.19 Illustration of local continuously damped bays depending on the story (column) of interest

taylordevices inc. 111

Chapter 7

Figure 7.4.20 Illustration of building layouts that are controlled by the two different damper-induced column axial load
reduction equations

The following tables show example axial load design values for a hypothetical 20-story damping
frame. Table 7.4.8 illustrates the calculation of the cumulative CF1ji factors and corresponding
reduced column axial loads (PETD1,ji). Table 7.4.9 shows an example calculation for the CF2ji factors
and reduced column axial loads (PETD2,ji) that first reduce the local damper-induced column
demands before taking the sum of all loads above the column of interest. Table 7.4.10 provides
a summary of the unreduced (simplified analysis) loads compared with the controlling reduced
axial load. An excel spreadsheet for determining the allowable reductions in TDMFTM damper
frames is available at no charge from Taylor Devices.

112
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 7
Table 7.4.8 Example calculations for column axial load reduction using factor CF1ji

taylordevices inc. 113

Chapter 7

Table 7.4.9. Example calculations for column axial load reduction using factor CF2ji

Story Damper- induced Cumulative Axial nai PETD1.ji PETD2,ji Reduced Axial % Difference to
axial load Plocal,ji load Pji load PETD,ji 1 No Reduction
(no reduction)
20 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%
19 84.5 84.5 1 84.5 84.5 80.4 0%
18 167.7 252.2 2 252.2 252.2 234.9 0%
17 240.8 492.9 3 492.9 492.9 423.1 0%
16 290.3 783.2 4 738.9 770.6 668.2 -2%
15 297.9 1081.2 5 965.3 1030.7 935.3 -5%
14 349.5 1430.6 6 1212.4 1306.2 1181.3 -9%
13 354.0 1784.6 7 1439.2 1542.7 1439.4 -14%
12 403.4 2188.0 8 1683.1 1783.9 1653.5 -18%
11 397.8 2585.8 9 1901.3 1979.7 1832.6 -23%
10 398.2 2984.0 20 2101.4 2148.1 2050.4 -28%
9 457.8 3441.7 11 2325.5 2351.6 2266.0 -32%
8 461.0 3902.7 12 2534.2 2542.2 2468.5 -35%
7 461.1 4363.8 13 2727.4 2717.9 2658.4 -38%
6 457.2 4821.0 14 2904.2 2873.4 2873.1 -40%
5 520.9 5341.9 15 3105.8 3076.6 3071.3 -42%
4 523.4 5865.3 16 3295.1 3273.6 3257.4 -44%
3 522.2 6387.5 17 3471.4 3460.5 3431.9 -46%
2 591.7 6979.2 18 3673.3 3698.5 3630.1 -47%
1 565.4 7544.6 19 3772.3 3900.3 3800.0 -48%
1
Based on taking envelope of PETD1,ji and PETD2,ji

Table 7.4.10 Example damper-induced column axial load reduction summary

114
taylordevices inc.
References

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2018, ASCE/SEI 41-17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings Arlington, VA

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2017, ASCE/SEI7-16, Minimum Design Loads For Buildings
and Other Structures, Arlington, VA

Computes and Structures Inc. (CSI) 2021, ETABS : Integrated Design, Analysis, and Drafting of
Building Systems, Walnut Creek, CA https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs

Chapter 7
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 351, Recommended Seismic Evaluation and
Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Washington DC.

MCEER 2001, Development and Evaluation of Simplified Procedures for Analysis and Design of
Buildings with Passive Energy Dissipation Systems, Technical Report, MCEER 00-0010

NEHRP 2015 Recommended Seismic Provisions: Design Examples

2012 IBC – SEAOC Structural Seismic Design Manual – Volume 5, Examples for Seismically Isolated
Buildings and Buildings with Supplemental Damping

taylordevices inc. 115

Chapter 7

116
taylordevices inc.
8 Fluid Damper Performance vs.
Other Technologies

With an increasing number of applications of Taylor Devices’ fluid viscous dampers (FVD) in a wide
variety of projects, the superior performance and applicability of these velocity-dependent devices for
seismic- and wind-resistant design are more recognized by structural engineers. This chapter highlights
the critical characteristics of FVDs by comparing their characteristics with several other commonly
used passive energy-dissipating devices, including buckling restrained braces (BRB), friction dampers,
yielding dampers, visco-elastic dampers (VED), viscous wall dampers (VWD), and tuned mass dampers
(TMD). Several key advantages of FVDs include: reduced seismic demands due to period shifting;
minimal interaction with primary structural system; less dependency on frequency and temperature;
more flexibility in terms of locations, configurations and size selection. Moreover, FVDs can provide
substantial added damping to structures, are easier to implement, require less effort for maintenance
during service periods and need no external power, control actuators or sensors.

Chapter 8
Buckling Restrained Braces
Buckling restrained braces (BRB’s) are commonly used energy-dissipation devices worldwide. Statistics
[1] have shown that hysteretic dampers (including BRBs) occupy the largest percentage of use in the
seismic protective devices market, which is partly due to their somewhat inexpensive, initial price.
Another factor that might explain the trend lies in the fact that in most countries except Japan, BRBs
are treated as ordinary braces, thus conventional design methods such as the equivalent lateral force
analysis method or modal response spectral analysis method can be used. Consequently, there are no
requirements for peer review.

As an alternative, Taylor Devices’ FVDs can provide an equally straightforward method to implement in
a structure since they have been extensively tested, researched, and applied in thousands of projects.
Recently, the advent of the Taylor Damped Moment Frame™ provides a simple and prescriptive
method to implement fluid dampers into new structures without the need for peer review or complex
time history analysis. Additionally, Taylor FVDs have several advantageous characteristics over BRBs,
as listed below.

Reduce floor accelerations

The mechanical properties of a BRB are displacement-dependent and a BRB exhibits bilinear hysteretic
behavior. Contrary to a conventional brace that buckles in compression, a BRB avoids buckling with its
encasing unit, and usually has slightly greater strength in compression than tension (Figure 8.1).

taylordevices inc. 117

 Figure 8.1
Typical axial force-displacement behavior of
a conventional brace versus a BRB [2].

A noted feature of a BRB system is that it provides static stiffness to a bare frame, increasing its lateral
stiffness and thus attracting larger seismic forces due to period shifting. This could be illustrated by
Figure 8.2, which shows a code-compliant design spectrum. For a typical low-rise to high-rise building,
the fundamental period usually falls into the velocity-constant or displacement- constant range and
stiffening the structure will shift its fundamental period to the left (from blue dashed line to the red
dashed line). Consequently, the seismic force demand would be amplified. See the changes from the
blue arrow to the red arrow in the figure below.
Chapter 8

Figure 8.2
Typical design response spectrum shape.

118
taylordevices inc.
Therefore, although the additional damping that BRBs provide helps reduce the drift ratio of a structure,
BRBs are less efficient in reducing the base shear and floor accelerations of a building compared to
FVDs. Consider one case study for example:

In a recent study [3], the cost-efficiency of three different energy dissipation devices to upgrade an
existing tall steel moment frame was examined, including the case using (1) FVDs; (2) BRBs; and (3)
viscous wall dampers (VWDs). Fig. 3 shows the distribution of peak floor accelerations for different
cases including: (a) the original building before adding any supplemental energy dissipation devices
(black line); (b) the building incorporating FVDs (blue line); (c) the building with BRBs (pink line); and (d)
the building with VWDs (red line). The locations for installation and effective damping ratios were kept
the same for case (b), (c) and (d). It is clearly shown that the addition of BRBs stiffened the building and
increased the seismic force demand. This has led to larger accelerations throughout the floors, with
the majority of floors exceeding the values of the original building.

Chapter 8
Figure 8.3
Distributions of peak floor accelerations [3].

On the contrary, FVDs are velocity-dependent devices. The typical hysteretic behavior of a linear FVD
(Figure 8.4) indicated that such a device does not provide static stiffness, thereby avoiding additional
seismic forces in the structure. Moreover, FVDs provide damper forces that are out-of-phase with
displacement, hence damper forces would not increase the story forces and floor accelerations. See
the blue line of Figure 8.3.

Figure 8.4
Typical axial force-displacement
behavior of a FVD.

taylordevices inc. 119

 FVDs control residual drift
As seen from the hysteresis loop of a BRB (Figure 8.1), this device has low post-yield stiffness and
lacks re-centering capability. Consequently, the residual drift ratios of a building with BRBs after
an earthquake event could be large, thereby requiring significant cost to repair or replace them. In
contrast, a building with FVDs has much better re-centering capability, and could result in much
reduced residual drift ratios, thereby providing a more resilient design with no inherent cost to repair
the FVDs. Indeed, FVDs are designed to maintain their full function and condition after large seismic
events, including the maximum considered event.

FVDs limit interactions with existing columns

BRBs are purely displacement-dependent, and they develop forces that coincide with structural
movement, i.e., the BRB forces are in-phase with the structural displacement. Therefore, a large
portion of the BRB force will be transferred to elements connected with these braces. Although
the additional damping provided by BRBs helps reduce the drift ratios of the structure and hence
decrease the forces on columns due to overturning, the additional forces transferred to connected
columns would offset for such a reduction which might end up with even larger column axial forces.
For example, the case-study building examined in [3] indicated that only the scheme using FVDs
(blue lines) was able to reduce the column axial force Demand/Capacity (D/C) ratios, whereas BRBs
(pink lines) increased the column D/C ratios by about 20-30% for columns located at lower floors;
see Figure 8.5.
Chapter 8

Figure 8.5
Distributions of peak column axial D/C
in a case-study building: (+) tension (-)
compression [3].

Friction Dampers
A friction damper is another kind of displacement-dependent energy dissipation device. Fig. 6(a)
shows a friction device (also known as “Pall device”), which is placed at the intersection of the cross
braces. When an earthquake occurs, the brace in tension forces the damper at the joint link to slip,
which activates the four links and forces the compression brace to shorten. In this way, the brace
buckling could be avoided, and energy would be dissipated in both tension and compression braces.
The hysteresis loop of a friction damper is illustrated in Figure 8.6(b).

120
taylordevices inc.
Figure 8.6
Illustration of (a): a friction damper (photo courtesy of James Kelly); and (b) hysteresis loop of a friction damper.

Similar as a BRB, a friction damper exhibits a few disadvantages compared to a FVD, including:
• Inducing larger seismic forces;
• Increasing the peak floor accelerations;
• Increasing base shear;
• Resulting in larger residual drift ratios;
• Increasing the column axial forces connected with them.

In addition to these drawbacks, a friction damper exerts a constant force for all levels of earthquake
excitations, and thus the friction force at each story level needs to be carefully selected to achieve the

Chapter 8
optimal performance. Additionally, a friction damper usually comes in the X-crossing configuration,
taking up more spacing than a diagonal or a chevron-type configuration.

Yielding Dampers
A yielding damper dissipates energy through the yielding properties of mild steel. The typical hysteresis
loop is shown in Figure 8.7. As with a BRB or a friction damper, a yielding damper moves in-phase
with displacement, incurring larger seismic forces and likely leading to larger floor accelerations
and base shears. Moreover, they develop forces that coincide with structural movement and cause
a large portion of forces to be transferred to structural members connected with these devices.
Whittaker et al. [4] performed testing on a 3-story model with one type of yielding damper - added
damping and stiffness devices (known as “ADAS”) and reported a 14% increase in column axial load
compared to the bare frame without ADAS. Also, these dampers lack re-centering capabilities and
could result in large residual drift ratios of a building after an earthquake excitation.

Additionally, most yielding dampers utilize metallic materials, and would require replacement after a
major event, thus increasing the associated life-cycle cost.

Figure 8.7
Hysteresis loop of a yielding damper

taylordevices inc. 121

 Viscoelastic Dampers
Different than devices that depend purely on displacement, there are other kinds of devices that
perform based on both displacement and velocity. One such device is the viscoelastic damper (VED).
A VED consists of layers of viscoelastic solid sandwiched between steel plates. It dissipates energy
through relative shear deformation of the viscoelastic material. In general, viscoelastic solid materials
exhibit both storage stiffness and loss stiffness and their mechanical properties would depend on both
frequency and temperature [5]. As a comparison, an FVD system out-performs a VED system by the
aspects listed below.

FVDs Limit seismic force and in-phase components

Figure 8.8 shows a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system model representation of a viscoelastic
damper system, with the driving braces (Kb) in series with the damper and the frame (Kf) included.
When a VED system is subject to the harmonic displacement u(t)=u max sin (ωt) (ω is the circular
frequency), the damper force has components that are both in-phase and out-of-phase with the
displacement as expressed below:

Fd(t) = Ka'u max sin ωt + Ka"u max cos ωt (Eqn. 8.1)

Where Ka' and Ka" are the storage stiffness (provide additional stiffening) and loss stiffness (provide
additional damping) of the brace-damper subsystem, and their mathematical expressions are illustrated
as [6]:
Chapter 8

(Kb+Kd ') KbKd '+KbKd " 2 Kb 2 Kd" 2

Ka' = Ka"= (Eqn. 8.2)
(Kb+Kd')2Kd" 2 (Kb+Kd')2Kd" 2

Note: Kd"=Cω

In the case of a FVD system, no additional brace stiffness exists, i.e., Kd '=0. As such, the above
expressions are reduced to:

KbKd " 2 Kb 2 Kd" 2

Ka' = Ka"= (Eqn. 8.3)
Kb 2 +Kd" 2 Kb 2 +Kd" 2

Comparing Eqn. 8.3 and Eqn. 8.2, it is shown that the static stiffness (Ka') is zero for an FVD system
when ω is zero, but that is not the case for a VED system. A direct result of zero static stiffness (for an
FVD system) is that the modal properties of a structure stay the same. On the contrary, incorporation
of VEDs stiffens the structure and increases its seismic input. Under a dynamic loading case (i.e., ω
is greater than zero), as long as driving braces stiffness Kb is fairly large, the storage stiffness (Ka')
in Eqn. 8.3 is approximately zero, indicating that the in-phase
component in an FVD system is negligible when subject to
external excitations. However, in a VED system, both the
storage stiffness and loss stiffness exist regardless of the
size of driving braces. This in-phase component enlarges the
interaction between VEDs and the structural members, and
results in larger forces within elements that are connected with
the dampers, as discussed in previous paragraphs. Figure 8.8 a SDOF system with a viscoelastic damper [6].

122
taylordevices inc.
FVDs provide stable mechanical properties
Taylor Devices’ FVDs provide stable mechanical properties over a wide range of frequency and
temperature and are almost completely independent of the amplitude of motion. Early research
reported by Constantinou and Symans [5] indicated that an FVD exhibited relative stable mechanical
properties over a frequency range of 0.1 HZ to 4 HZ and could operate over a wide temperature range
(-40 °C to 70 °C). The peak damper forces in tests with a frequency of 2 Hz and 4 HZ were almost
identical, and the loss stiffness of dampers reduced by a factor of less than 2 when the temperature
was in the range of 0 °C to 50 °C. Such a range of change is very small when compared to a VED.

A VED could exhibit a significant dependency on frequency and temperature. For example, it was
reported that a VED changed its storage and loss shear stiffness by a factor of larger than 7 when
the frequency changes from 0.1 HZ to 4 HZ; and exhibit a nearly 50-fold decrease in stiffness in the
temperature range of about 0 °C to 50 °C [5]. Such a large change of mechanical properties in VEDs
when subjected to environmental settings (e.g., temperature) would diminish their additional damping
effect and adversely impact the performance of the structure. For example, when VEDs are used
in a tall building, the building might have asymmetric stiffness due to dramatic changes of damper
properties over story height.

Viscous Wall dampers

Another device that exhibits both displacement and velocity dependency is a viscous wall damper
(VWD). As with VEDs, adding VWDs to a building would change the modal properties of the building,
and hence increase the seismic forces. VWDs provide in-phase components, and thus have more

Chapter 8
interactions with the primary structural system. This could also be illustrated in the case study published
by Wang and Mahin [3]; see Fig. 8.5 of the comparison of column axial D/C ratios for different systems.

Moreover, VWDs were found to cause critical issues when used in an existing building with vulnerable
members (e.g., Pre-Northridge connections). Wang and Mahin [3] identified that using wall-type
dampers on a case-study Pre-Northridge steel moment frame could change the typical beam
deflection shapes, increase shear or/and moment on vulnerable beam-to-column connections, and
thus make these connections more likely to fail. Consequently, the damping effect that these VWDs
could provide would be significantly diminished.

On the contrary, a velocity-dependent FVD provides a damping force that is out-of-phase with
displacement, a much more desirable solution to retrofit existing vulnerable buildings. Moreover,
additional strengthening can be provided easily when connecting FVDs to the beam-to-column
connections by utilizing their end bracings. Thus, vulnerable connections could be addressed at the
same time that the dampers are installed.

taylordevices inc. 123

 Tuned Mass Dampers
A tuned mass damper (TMD) is a type of energy dissipation device that employs a mass (steel, concrete
or water) to oscillate out of phase with the building movement. In comparison to a TMD system, a FVD
system has the advantages in the following aspects.

FVDs have virtually no constraints on amount of damping provided

In a TMD system, the mass ratio (ratio of TMD mass to building effective mass) controls the amount
of damping that can be provided to the building. A large mass ratio is needed to provide substantial
damping. However, when FVDs are used, a substantial amount of damping is easy to incorporate since
FVD’s come in various sizes to meet the damping demand in a specific structure. FVD’s have little
constraints on available C values.

TMD’s are tuned to operate efficiently at only one frequency, that being the natural frequency of
the structure. Therefore, system tuning might be required later should the fundamental period of a
building change, e.g., a building softens due to yielding of some members under a large seismic event
or continuous cycling due to wind. FVD’s require no adjustment for fundamental period changes.
They operate efficiently at any realistic frequency.

FVDs provide more flexibility to choose locations and configurations

A TMD is usually placed at the top of a building, thereby taking up large portions of valuable top floors
and requiring special design of devices to suspend it. Conversely, FVDs are distributed at various
locations in a building based on the functional and architectural requirements for each building.
Chapter 8

For example, if the exterior of a building cannot be altered, FVDs are placed inside the building. If
interference with office use or egress is of concern, the FVDs are placed outside the building. Moreover,
FVDs are typically distributed across multiple bays or frames in a building, with the benefit of reducing
accumulated damper forces to beams/columns. Since FVDs are usually distributed in a variety of
locations throughout a building, they also increase the redundancy such that if any damper were to be
damaged for any reason, this would not substantially affect the overall damping effect.

Manufacturing and installing a TMD is usually complicated and expensive. It has been shown that the
cost of producing the device constitutes approximately 82% of the entire design and construction
process when using a TMD [7]. FVDs are not only much less expensive but installing them is typically
a much less percentage of the overall construction cost.

In terms of the configuration of placing FVDs, they could be arranged in a single diagonal form to
make the construction process simpler. Alternative configurations such as the chevron configuration
or V-shape configuration help maximize a damper’s deformation and could allow for more space to
include doors or windows. If a structure is relatively stiff, FVD’s can be provided that respond to
very small displacements. Additionally, if, in some cases the structure is quite large, dampers could be
installed across multiple stories to increase their deformation and thus energy dissipation capacities.
Apart from using FVD’s in the superstructure of a building, they are often used in bridges to control
their vibrations when subjected to external excitations. FVD’s are also used in combination with base
isolation systems to reduce the displacement of the system. When two structures are closely located,
FVDs could be used in the gap between these adjacent structures to eliminate potential pounding
during an earthquake or wind event.

124
taylordevices inc.
Summary
FVDs have found wide applicability in structural engineering practice to improve the dynamic
behavior under a wind or earthquake event. They provide a list of attractive features over other
types of energy-dissipating devices.

When compared with a displacement-dependent device (e.g., BRB, friction damper, and yielding
damper etc.), FVDs can limit the increase of seismic forces, reduce floor accelerations in addition
to reducing story drift ratios, control residual drift ratios and limit interaction with other structural
members.

When compared with a device exhibiting both displacement-dependency and velocity-dependency,

an FVD has limited in-phase components which more efficiently limits the floor accelerations and
interactions with the primary structural system. FVDs are a more appealing solution for the retrofit
of existing buildings. Moreover, an FVD has more stable mechanical properties over a wide range of
frequencies and temperatures when compared with a device using visco-elastic materials.

Additionally, FVDs have more flexibility to select locations, configurations and sizes when compared
to a TMD system.

Reference
1. Xie, Q. (2005). State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 61:727-748.

Chapter 8
2. ANSI/AISC. (2010). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois.

3. Wang, S. and Mahin, S (2016). Seismic upgrade of an existing tall building by different energy
dissipation devices. Proceedings of 2016 SEAOC Convention, Paper No. 29, Oct. 12-15, 2016,
Maui, Hawaii.

4. Whittaker, A. S., Bertero, V. V., Alonso, J. L. and Thompson, C. L. (1989). Earthquake simulator
testing of steel plate added damping and stiffness elements. Report No. UCB/EERC-89/02,
University of California, Berkeley.

5. Constantinou, M.C., Symans, M.D. (1992). Experimental and analytical investigation of seismic
response of structures with supplemental fluid viscous dampers, NCEER-92-0032, Department
of Civil Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.

6. Fu, Y. M. (1996). Frame retrofit by using viscous and viscoelastic dampers, Proceedings of 11th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No. 428.

7. Tse, T.T.T., Kwok, K.C.S., and Tamura, Y. (2012). Performance and cost evaluation of a smart
tuned mass damper for suppressing wind-induced lateral-torsional motion of tall structures.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 138 (4), 514-525.

taylordevices inc. 125

Chapter 8

126
taylordevices inc.
9 Incorporating Dampers into
Buildings

Overview
The benefits of using dampers have been thoroughly reviewed in earlier sections of this manual. In
summary, adding dampers to new or existing buildings helps to reduce drifts and floor accelerations;
dissipates energy through the conversion of motion into heat instead of inelastic behavior in structural
elements; improves building resiliency and reduces earthquake-induced damage. Buildings with
a supplemental fluid viscous damping system with between 10 to 40 percent of critical damping
experience over 50% less displacement than a code prescribed building design; up to a 40% smaller
base shear; and over a 50% reduction in floor accelerations. Fluid Viscous Dampers (FVDs) do not
change the stiffness of the building, are velocity dependent, have a property variation of less than ±
15%, are easy to install, and require no maintenance.

Scope
The purpose of this section is to demonstrate how dampers are installed into building structures,
including:
• Common damper configurations
• Components used to connect dampers to new or existing structures
• General rules for damper placement
• Damper device procurement process

Common Damper Configurations

Chapter 9
The most common application for dampers in buildings is to span the damper between one (or
multiple) floors to capture the differential movement between the floors to stroke the damper.
Similar to any braced configuration, diagonal and chevron configurations are the most common
configurations used to place dampers in buildings (Figure 9.1). In these configurations, the dampers
are in-line between the two work points and an extender brace is used to connect the damper; the
extender could either be a separate HSS section or an integral element (See the following section
for more detail). Dampers in these configurations benefit from the angled component of the story
drift, therefore some efficiency is lost in the energy dissipation (1/cos2q). Because of this, a good
rule of thumb would be not to have dampers steeper than 45 degrees from horizontal, although any
reasonable angle can be accommodated by setting the damping function accordingly.

taylordevices inc. 127

 Figure 9.1
Dampers in Diagonal (left) and Chevron (right) configurations.

To optimize the damper performance, several configurations have been developed that place the
damper horizontally and then use a brace or built-up system as a driver to move the damper relative to
the floor above or below. Figure 9.2 shows two such configurations which utilize the entire bay with
two dampers for a wider bay or just one damper for a narrower bay.

Figure 9.2
Modified configurations with horizontal dampers; single damper in a narrow bay (left) and a Modified Chevron configuration
in a standard bay (right).
Chapter 9

Many other more specialized damper configurations have been developed including toggle braces to
amplify damper stroke in stiff buildings, compact configurations placed in only a portion of a bay, and
the Open Space Damper Configuration which places dampers in the corners of a bay and allows for
minimal interruption of the space. Typically, these specialized types of configurations are costly in the
connecting hardware and, in some cases, reduce the efficiency of the damper versus the direct damping
shown above. For these reasons, Taylor Devices tends to direct engineers to use the aforementioned
configurations except in very unique circumstances.

Dampers can also be added to base isolation systems, spanning across the isolation plane to help
reduce the displacement of the isolators. When this is done, the dampers are placed horizontally (or at
a shallow angle) with the pins at the spherical bearings mounted vertically to allow for free movement
in the horizontal plane as the isolated building moves. Figure 9.3 shows cases where dampers were
added to base isolation systems.

128
taylordevices inc.
Figure 9.3
Dampers used in conjunction with base isolation system to reduce displacements.

Components Used to Connect Dampers to New or Existing Structures

Figure 9.4 generically shows all the parts that can be used to connect dampers into structures in
a diagonal configuration. This figure shows a base plate damper model where the damper has a
clevis and spherical bearing at one end and a base plate at the other. The base plate is attached to a
mirrored plate which is welded to the extender brace. The clevises at both ends can be sandwiched
by two tang plates that bolt or weld to the gusset plate (Figure 9.5). Alternatively, a double gusset
plate can be used to connect directly to the clevis (Figure 9.6). In both cases, a gap between the
plates and the clevis is necessary to allow for out-of-plane rotation of the spherical bearing to
protect the damper.

Clevis Tang Extender Brace Gusset Plate

(TDI or EOR) (TDI or EOR) (EOR)

Mounting Pin and Spherical

Bearing – both ends
(Supplied by TDI) Clevis Bracket

Chapter 9
(TDI or EOR)
Fluid Viscous Damper
(Supplied by TDI) Clevis Tang
(TDI or EOR)
Extender Brace Baseplate
(EOR Design to match TDI bolt pattern)

Mounting Bolts
Gusset Plate
(Per TDI Design, Supplied by Other)
(EOR)

Figure 9.4
Connecting parts used to attach dampers to a given building frame.

taylordevices inc. 129

 Figure 9.5
Tang and spacer plates used to connect the damper clevis to the gusset plate.

Figure 9.6
Double gusset plate used to connect directly to damper clevis.

Instead of using the base plate configuration with an HSS extender, some projects will use an integral
extender manufactured by Taylor Devices directly (Figure 9.7). This solution eliminates the bulk of the
base plate which is helpful if width is a concern. It also tends to look sleeker and appeals to architects
in situations where the damper is going to be exposed.
Chapter 9

Figure 9.7
Dampers with integral extenders in exposed application.

130
taylordevices inc.
Finally, Taylor Devices provides a third extender option, the telescoping extender, where the integral
extender comes in two or three pieces and are positioned and welded in the field (Figure 9.8). This
option allows for the accommodation of in-field conditions, which is very useful in retrofit applications
where the exact pin-to-pin lengths may not be known or may vary from bay to bay. It also allows the
pieces to be sized to fit in service elevators for easier implementation into existing buildings.

Figure 9.8
Dampers with telescoping extenders.

General Rules for Damper Placement

The location of dampers is largely driven by the functional needs of the building, access, and architectural

Chapter 9
needs. There are some key considerations that should be held when deciding where to place dampers.
• The US building standards ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 impose redundancy penalties if there
are fewer than four dampers on a given floor in a given principal direction or if there are
fewer than two dampers on either side of the center of mass. This penalty varies from 1.3
to 2.0 and is an amplification on velocity and displacement. For this reason, we typically
recommend using a minimum of four dampers on a given floor in the principal direction
under consideration.
• On a given floor in a given principal direction, dampers should be placed as symmetrically
as possible about the center of mass to avoid damper-induced torsion into the system. If
dampers must be placed with significant asymmetry, the C values can be varied such that the
“center of damping” still aligns with the center of mass.

taylordevices inc. 131

 • For structures with inherent torsion, dampers may be used to counter the inherent torsion
through placement or selecting C values that move the “center of damping” opposite of
the inherent torsion.
• When using nonlinear analysis approaches, dampers do not have to be placed on each
floor of a building. Typically, dampers can be removed from the upper fifth of mid-rise
buildings and taller.
• Dampers do not have to be placed in the same location floor to floor. Figure 9.9 shows
a building elevation where the dampers are staggered up the height of the building. This
helps to reduce the accumulation of damper force in any given column to avoid column
strengthening or additional foundation work.

Figure 9.9
Staggered damper placement up the height of a building.

Fluid Viscous Damping Device Design Review

As described in ASCE 7-22, Section 18.5 or ASCE 14-17, Section 15.7, a design review of the damping
system and related test programs shall be performed by an independent team of registered design
professionals in the appropriate disciplines and others experienced in seismic analysis methods and
Chapter 9

the theory and application of energy dissipation systems. The design review shall include, but need
not be limited to, the following:
• Project design criteria including site-specific spectra and ground motion histories;
• Preliminary design of the seismic force-resisting system and the damping system, including
selection of the devices and their parameters;
• Review of manufacturer test data and property modification factors for the manufacturer
and device selected;
• Prototype testing program;
• Final design of the entire structural system and supporting analyses, including modeling of
the damping devices for response history analysis, if performed;
• Damping device production testing program

132
taylordevices inc.
In the early applications of energy dissipation, many design review panels included three individuals
to cover the range of expertise required in the design review, including the site-specific seismic and
other criteria and the prototype testing of the devices. Design review may now be performed by just
one individual. For more significant structures, a local jurisdiction may require a design review panel
with two or three individuals, but for many structures incorporating energy dissipation devices, one
well qualified and experienced design reviewer is adequate.

Although review of the prototype test program is mandated, the design reviewer is no longer required
to witness the prototype tests.

The design review is not a difficult, timely or costly process. Many suitably qualified design
professionals are available to perform the review. If required, Taylor Devices, Inc. can provide a list
of design professionals that have served in this capacity on previous projects.

Damper Device Procurement Process

Damper devices are manufactured and fabricated to meet the specific requirement of each project.
Taylor Devices does have discrete damper sizes, C values (see Chapter 4) and alpha values (typically
0.4) which are used across most seismic applications. Using these damper properties can help
streamline the design and fabrication process, especially the reduction of testing requirements due
to many previous tests of similar devices which can be used to waive prototype testing. However,
unique dampers can always be manufactured for special circumstances including damper constants
and exponents other than these “standards.”

The estimated time of FVD production should always be verified with Taylor Devices and will depend
on the project, availability of materials and damper size. The critical information required to place an
order or receive a quotation include:
• Quantity
• Required Force Rating (associated with average MCE or BSE-2X with nominal C value)
• Required Stroke (associated with maximum MCE or BSE-2X with lower bound C value)
• Damping Constant, C
• Damping Exponent, a
• Any special requirements (special paint, mounting features, etc.)

Chapter 9
Taylor Devices offers reasonable terms & conditions in consideration of project-specific requirements
and reasonable payment terms.

References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2022, ASCE/SEI 7-22, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2018, ASCE/SEI 41-17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Existing Buildings, Reston, VA.

taylordevices inc. 133

Chapter 9

134
taylordevices inc.
 10 Photographs

Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces

8 Willis | Wellington, New Zealand • Retrofit

Chapter 10

300 Lakeside | Oakland, CA • Retrofit

taylordevices inc. 135

 Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

999 Sepulveda | El Segundo, CA • Retrofit Close-up of a damper at 999 Sepulveda

Chapter 10

Exterior dampers at 999 Sepulveda

136
taylordevices inc.
Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

San Francisco Civic Center Complex | San Francisco, CA • New Build

Chapter 10

Jinbocho Office Building

Tokyo, Japan • New Build

taylordevices inc. 137

 Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

San Miguel Mall | Lima, Peru • New Build

Chapter 10

Amgen Building | Seattle, WA • New Build

138
taylordevices inc.
Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

Public Safety Building | Salt Lake City, UT • New Build

Chapter 10

Cal Poly Pomona Library | Pomona, CA • Retrofit

taylordevices inc. 139

 Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

12 Moorhouse Ave | Christchurch, New Zealand • New Build

Chapter 10

CHCH Outpatient Building | Christchurch, New Zealand • New Build

140
taylordevices inc.
Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

350 California Street | San Francisco, CA • Retrofit

Chapter 10

10th & K Street | Sacramento, CA • Retrofit

taylordevices inc. 141

 Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

San Diego Courthouse | San Diego, CA • New Build

Chapter 10

101 Continental Blvd | El Segundo, CA • Retrofit

142
taylordevices inc.
Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

San Bernardino Justice Center | San Bernardino, CA • New Build

Chapter 10

CSUS AIRC
Sacramento, CA • New Build

taylordevices inc. 143

 Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

Caltrans District 4 Office Building | Oakland, CA • Retrofit

Chapter 10

Glass Factory
Taichung, Taiwan • Retrofit

144
taylordevices inc.
Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

Bremerton Naval Hospital | Bremerton, WA • Retrofit

Chapter 10

651 Gateway | San Francisco, CA • Retrofit

taylordevices inc. 145

 Dampers in Diagonal and Chevron Braces (continued)

Colorado Place | Santa Monica, CA • Retrofit

Chapter 10

St. James Theatre | Wellington, New Zealand • Retrofit

146
taylordevices inc.
Modified Chevron with Horizontal Dampers

Portland State University Student Union | Portland, OR • Retrofit (Ext)

Chapter 10

Portland Galleria
Portland, OR • Retrofit

taylordevices inc. 147

 Modified Chevron with Horizontal Dampers (continued)

Patio Mayor Building Hotel Woodland

Santiago, Chile • Retrofit Woodland, CA • Retrofit
Chapter 10

Nordstrom Southcoast Plaza | Costa Mesa, CA • Retrofit

148
taylordevices inc.
Dampers with Motion Amplification Devices

111 Huntington | Boston, MA • New Build

Chapter 10

Yerba Buena Tower | San Francisco, CA Olympic Building | Cyprus

New Build New Build

taylordevices inc. 149

 Base Isolation with Dampers

KDDI Building | Tokyo, Japan • New Build

Chapter 10

LARTMC | Glendale, CA • New Build

150
taylordevices inc.
Base Isolation with Dampers (continued)

Hayward City Hall | Hayward, CA • New Build

Chapter 10

Arrowhead Regional Medical Center | San Bernardino, CA • New Build

taylordevices inc. 151

 Base Isolation with Dampers (continued)

Tokyo Rinkai Hospital | Tokyo Japan • New Build

Chapter 10

Fujisawa City Hall | Fujisawa, Japan • New Build

152
taylordevices inc.
Base Isolation with Dampers (continued)

Loma Linda University Medical Center | Loma Linda, CA • New Build

Chapter 10

NTT Data Center | Santa Clara, CA • New Build

taylordevices inc. 153

 Bridge Dampers

Oakland Bay Bridge | San Francisco, CA • Retrofit

Chapter 10

Guozigou Bridge | China • New Build

154
taylordevices inc.
Bridge Dampers (continued)

Hangzhou East Bridge | China • New Build

Chapter 10

Santiago Creek Bridge | Irvine, CA • Retrofit

taylordevices inc. 155

 Bridge Dampers (continued)

Tianjin Railway Bridge | Tianjin, China • New Build

Chapter 10

Gang Hwa Bridge | S. Korea • Retrofit

156
taylordevices inc.
Bridge Dampers (continued)

Las Vegas Pedestrian Bridge TMD | Las Vegas, NV • New Build

Millennium Bridge | London, UK • New Build

Chapter 10

taylordevices inc. 157

 Miscellaneous Damper Installations

Toranomon 5 Office Building | Tokyo, Japan • New Build

Chapter 10

Safeco Field | Seattle, WA

New Build

158
taylordevices inc.
Miscellaneous Damper Installations (continued)

Ichilov Hospital | Israel • Retrofit

Chapter 10

181 Fremont Street | San Francisco, CA

New Build

taylordevices inc. 159

Chapter 10

160
taylordevices inc.
11

Chapter 11
Mounting Hardware

Taylor Devices fluid viscous dampers are provided with a spherical bearing in each end that provides
at least ±5° of rotation in both directions to account for construction misalignment and for out-of-
plane movement during an input event. This spherical bearing and misalignment can be seen in the
following diagram.

Figure 11.1

taylordevices inc. 161

Chapter 11

In order to maintain the ±5° rotation, it is important to make sure that no surrounding geometry
interferes with the movement of the clevises. A common interference can come from the bracket
that is housing the end of the damper. To prevent this, it is important for the bracket manufacturer
and the damper manufacturer to coordinate their efforts. Taylor Devices has produced the following
chart drawing to aid in the design and manufacture of brackets that will allow ±5° minimum rotational
clearance.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISIONS

ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED

LINE BORE "H" THRU. A

B
CORRECTED 17140 PIN HOLE SIZE, UPDATED TANG DIMENSIONS
ADDED METRIC TOLERANCE TO "H" DIMENSION
07/4/3
08/8/6
J.C.M.
D.J.D.H.
BOTH TANGS 2X RETAINING RING,
D AFTER WELDING SUPPLIED BY TAYLOR D

PER TAYLOR

SHIMS, FREE TO SLIDE

SUPPLIED BY TAYLOR

MOUNTING PIN
C SUPPLIED BY TAYLOR C

SIZE AND NUMBER 5°

OF MOUNTING MISALIGNMENT
HOLES AND BOLTS SECTION A-A
PER CUSTOMER
"D 1" (MAX.)
PER TAYLOR

"T" PLATE (MIN.)

B B
CL "H" LINE
BORED HOLE
A A

"D2" (MIN.)
PER CUSTOMER
PER TAYLOR
TANG WIDTH "G" MIN.
PER CUSTOMER PER TAYLOR

PREPARED D. HORNE 06/5/10

NORTH TONAWANDA, NY

FOR REFERENCE
CHECKED
devices inc. PHONE 716-694-0800
FAX 716-695-6015
A THIS IS A TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL FOR A TAYLOR DEVICES UNIT. Q.A. A
THIS SHOULD BE USED AS A GUIDELINE FOR CONNECTION DETAILS. ONLY MFG APPR.

DEVIATIONS FROM THE SHOWN CONFIGURATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE, BUT ENGINEER J.C.M. 07/4/3 FIELD INSTALLATION GUIDE
THE FACTORY SHOULD BE CONSULTED. (COTTER PINS AND WASHERS MAY APPROVED J.C.M. 07/4/3
BE SUBSTITUTED FOR RETAINING RINGS). "SUPPLIED ITEMS" ARE PROVIDED MATERIAL:
SIZE CAGE CODE DRAWING NO: REV.
BY TAYLOR DEVICES WITH THE UNITS. B 06742 PIN AND BRACKET GUIDE B
NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
SCALE: 1:4 SHEET 1 OF 1
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Figure 11.2

If a gusset plate already exists at the installation location, Tang Plates can be a good substitute for a
bracket. With tang plates, the pin, shims, and tang plates can be assembled prior to lifting the damper
into position. With the tangs attached to the damper, only nuts, bolts and washers need to be used to
attach the assembly to the structure. An example of a tang plate can be seen in Figure 11.3.

To ensure that the bearing stays in the middle of the bracket or tang plates, Taylor Devices provides
two shims with each pin kit. The shims are to be placed on the insides of the bracket or tang plates
such that the damper clevis is centered, always allowing enough space on either side to pivot and
provide the required 5° of pivot/rotation. The assembly can be seen in Figure 11.4.

162
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
Figure 11.3

Figure 11.4
Pin Kit Arrangement and Installation Details

taylordevices inc. 163

Chapter 11

To facilitate a close fit and ensure that the dampers can properly function at small displacements,
Taylor Devices machines very tight tolerance dimensions on its bearings and pin kits. It is common to
have tolerances of ±0.001 inches on the diameter of a mounting pin. This allows a very close fit so
that all the motion of an event is translated directly into the damper, rather than into free-play in the
assemblies, due to pin-slop. Because the tolerances are held so tight, bracket holes must be bored
after any welding of plates. This is to ensure the holes are perfectly aligned and to avoid post welding
warpage of the bracket plates that would misalign the bored and aligned holes. Examples of some
typical pin kits can be seen in Figure 11.5 and 11.6.

Figure 11.5

Figure 11.6

164
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
Taylor Devices strives to meet its customer's needs and will design unique solutions to unique
problems. If there are concerns that a major earthquake could occur during the construction or retrofit
of a building, Taylor Devices can provide a system that can be activated within a short period of time.
Using our Pin-in-a-Pin system, the dampers can be installed in the structure with a thin-walled pin that
is designed to hold the unit in place but would buckle under the load from an earthquake. Once all
dampers are installed, it is a simple matter to quickly go to each installation site and slide a solid center
pin into the thin-walled pin, thereby activating the system and providing instant damping protection.
An example of one of these thin-walled/solid-core pins can be seen in Figure 11.7.

Figure 11.7

taylordevices inc. 165

Chapter 11

Taylor Devices provides two different systems for retaining pins in the assembly. The first is a
retaining ring system that are wound onto each end of the pins. The second system includes washers
and cotter pins. Examples of the two systems can be seen in Figure 11.8, 11.9, and 11.10.

Figure 11.8
Pin Kit Retaining Ring Assembly

166
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
TYPICAL PIN KIT WITH COTTER PINS

Figure 11.9
Un-installed position

Figure 11.10
Installed position

taylordevices inc. 167

Chapter 11

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONAL LEFT BLANK

168
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
taylordevices inc.

GUSSET-TO-GUSSET
ASSEMBLY GUIDE
Imperial Version | 1.24

taylordevices inc. 169

Chapter 11

DAMPERS WITH
INTEGRAL
EXTENDER

Integral Extender Dimensions for Given Pin-to-Pin Lengths

Damper ID
(rated Force)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

17120 (55k) Dimensions available upon request

Dimensions available
17130 (110k) OD=7 in; Min k=1,010 k/in OD=8 in; Min k=970 k/in
upon request

OD=8 in;
17140 (165k) OD=7 in.; Min k=1,240 k/in OD=10 in; Min k=1,120 k/in
Min k=1,190 k/in

OD=7 in; OD=8 in; OD=12.5 in;

17150 (220k) OD=10 in; Min k=1,200 k/in
Min k=1,390 k/in Min k=1,300 k/in Min k=1,440 k/in

OD=8 in;
17160 (330k) OD=10 in; Min k=1,400 k/in OD=12 in; Min k=1,440 k/in
Min k=1,630 k/in

17170 (440k) OD=12.5 in; Min k=1,440 k/in

20860 (575k) OD=11 in; Min k=2,510 k/in OD=12 in; Min k=2,890 k/in

20870 (750k) OD=12 in; Min k=3,470 k/in OD=13.5 in; Min k=4,160 k/in

20880 (975k) OD=13.5 in; Min k=4,160 k/in

17200 (1350k) Dimensions available upon request

Notes
OD = Nominal Outer Diameter (in inches)
Tube designs assume a Factor of Safety of 1.6 on the rated damper force
Tube sizes for intermediate lengths available upon request, but may impact lead times

30

170
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
DAMPERS WITH
TELESCOPING
EXTENDER

when installing the dampers. A damper with the telescoping extender

can come in two or three pieces, making it easier to transport them
in service elevators and through hallways – avoiding the need for

allows the same damper and extender to be used in different locations

where pin-to-pin lengths may vary slightly in the built condition. After
the damper and extender have been installed, the telescoping tubes

12
accommodated.

taylordevices inc. 171

Chapter 11

BASE
BASEPLATE UNITSWITH
PLATE UNITS WITHHSS
HSS EXTENDERS
EXTENDERS
Flange Plate Dimensions (in.)

Square Plate Rectangle Plate

Damper ID
(rated Force) Max Pin-to- No. of Weld Max Pin-to- No. of
Pin Length (ft) Bolts A B C tD tExt HSS Size Size Pin Length (ft) Bolts A B C

17120 (55 k) Dimensions available upon reques

17 8 13/ 101/4 4 11/2 1.5 1 5x5x1/2 3/ 17 6 1/ 73/4 11 41/ 2

17130 (110k) 23 8 13/ 111/4 41/2 13/4 1.5 1 6x6x1/2 3/ 23 6 1/ 73/4 12 4/ 2

30 8 13/ 131/4 51/2 2 1.5 1 8x8x1/2 3/ 30 6 1/ 9 14 5/ 2

19 8 1/ 121/4 43/4 2 2.4 1.5 6x6x1/2 1/2 19 6 11/ 83/4 121/2 4/

17140 (165k) 24 8 1/ 131/4 51/4 21/4 2.4 1.5 7x7x1/2 1/2 24 6 11/ 83/4 131/2 53/

30 8 1/ 151/4 61/4 21/2 2.4 1.5 9x9x1/2 1/2 30 6 11/ 101/4 151/2 63/

20 8 11/ 133/4 53/ 21/4 3 1.5 7x7x1/2 1/2 20 6 11/4 93/4 141/4 51/2

17150 (220k) 26 8 11/ 143/4 5/ 23/ 3 1.5 8x8x1/2 1/2 26 6 11/4 93/4 151/4 6

30 8 11/ 153/4 63/ 21/2 3 1.5 9x9x1/2 1/2 30 6 1 1/4 101/4 161/4 61/2

22 8 13/ 161/4 61/4 2/ 3.4 2 8x8x / / 22 8 13/ 133/4 16 61/4 5

17160 (330k) 27 8 13/ 171/4 63/4 23/4 3.4 2 9x9x / / 27 8 13/ 133/4 17 63/4 5

30 8 13/ 181/4 71/4 3 3.4 2 10x10x / / 30 8 13/ 133/4 18 71/4 5

19 8 11/2 181/4 7 31/2 4 2 9x9x / 3/4 19 8 11/2 141/4 173/4 7

17170 (440k) 30 8 11/2 191/4 71/2 33/4 4 2 10x10x3/4 3/4 30 8 11/2 141/4 183/4 71/2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30 8 1/ 22 83/4 4 3.9 2 12x12x3/4 3/4 30 8 1/ 151/4 213/4 8/ 5

20860 (575k)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30 12 1/ 24 93/4 51/2 4 2.5 14x14x / 3/4 30 10 1/ 19 24 10

20870 (750k) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30 16 1/ 281/4 11 / 6 5 2.5 18x18x / / - - - - - -

20880 (975 k)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

17200 (1350k) 30 20 1/ 321/4 13 / 8 5.5 3 22x22x1 / - - - - - -

Assumes Grade 50 plates and A490 Bolts.

172
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
XTENDERS

Rectangle Plate Round Plate

x Pin-to- No. of A B C E tD tExt HSS Size Weld Max Pin-to- No. of D d tD tExt HSS Size
ength (ft) Bolts Size Pin Length (ft) Bolts
Dimensions available upon request

17 6 1/ 73/4 11 41/ 2.625 2 1 5x5x1/2 3/ 13 6 1/ 103/4 81/4 1.5 1 5x1/2

23 6 1/ 73/4 12 4/ 2.625 2 1 6x6x1/2 3/ 23 6 1/ 123/4 101/4 1.5 1 7x1/2

30 6 1/ 9 14 5/ 2.625 2 1 8x8x1/2 3/ 30 6 1/ 143/4 121/4 1.5 1 9x1/2

19 6 11/ 83/4 121/2 4/ 3 2.9 1.5 6x6x1/2 1/2 12 6 11/ 121/2 93/4 2.4 1.5 6x1/2

24 6 11/ 83/4 131/2 53/ 3 2.9 1.5 7x7x1/2 1/2 23 6 11/ 141/2 113/4 2.4 1.5 8x1/2

30 6 11/ 101/4 151/2 63/ 3 2.9 1.5 9x9x1/2 1/2 30 6 11/ 161/2 133/4 2.4 1.5 10x1/2

20 6 11/4 93/4 141/4 51/2 3.25 3.4 2 7x7x1/2 1/2 11 6 11/4 141/4 11 3 1.5 7x1/2

26 6 11/4 93/4 151/4 6 3.25 3.4 2 8x8x1/2 1/2 23 6 11/4 161/4 13 3 1.5 9x1/2

30 6 1 1/4 101/4 161/4 61/2 3.25 3.4 2 9x9x1/2 1/2 30 6 11/4 18 143/4 3 1.5 10.75x1/2

22 8 13/ 133/4 16 61/4 5.0625 3.4 2 8x8x / / 10 8 13/ 16 121/2 3.4 2 8x /

27 8 13/ 133/4 17 63/4 5.0625 3.4 2 9x9x / / 23 8 13/ 18 141/2 3.4 2 10x /

30 8 13/ 133/4 18 71/4 5.0625 3.4 2 10x10x / / 30 8 13/ 20 161/2 3.4 2 12x /

19 8 11/2 141/4 173/4 7 5.25 3.9 2.5 9x9x / 3/4 16 8 11/2 191/4 151/2 4 2 10.75x /

30 8 11/2 141/4 183/4 71/2 5.25 3.9 2.5 10x10x3/4 3/4 24 8 11/2 201/2 163/4 4 2 12x /

- - - - - - - - - - - 30 8 11/2 221/2 183/4 4 2 14x /

30 8 1/ 151/4 213/4 8/ 5.625 4.9 2.5 12x12x3/4 3/4 19 8 1/ 211/4 171/4 4 2 12x3/4

- - - - - - - - - - - 30 8 1/ 231/4 191/4 4 2 14x3/4

30 10 1/ 19 24 10 7.5 5.4 3 14x14x / 3/4 15 12 1/ 221/4 181/4 4 2.5 123/4 /

- - - - - - - - - - - 24 12 1/ 231/2 191/2 4 2.5 14x /

- - - - - - - - - - - 30 12 1/ 251/2 211/2 4 2.5 16x /

- - - - - - - - - - - 17 16 1/ 253/4 213/4 5 2.5 16x /

- - - - - - - - - - - 30 16 1/ 273/4 233/4 5 2.5 18x /

- - - - - - - - - - - 30 20 1/ 313/4 273/4 5.5 3 22x1

taylordevices inc. 173

Chapter 11

DAMPER-GUSSET CONNECTION
Clevis Tang Extender Brace Gusset Plate
(TDI or EOR) (TDI or EOR) (EOR)

Mounting Pin and Spherical

Bearing – both ends
(Supplied by TDI) Clevis Bracket
(TDI or EOR)
Fluid Viscous Damper
(Supplied by TDI) Clevis Tang
(TDI or EOR)
Extender Brace Baseplate
(EOR Design to match TDI bolt pattern)

Mounting Bolts
Gusset Plate
(Per TDI Design, Supplied by Other)
(EOR)

Damper or Extender Brace Clevis

Pin (supplied by TDI)

Gusset Plate

Spacer Plate

Tang Plate (welded or bolted)

Double Gusset Alternative Connection Option

Some engineers choose to use a double gusset connection rather
than a single gusset with tang plates. For this design option, the EOR
designs the gusset plates and ensures that the space between the

dimensions are same as the Bore Hole Diameter shown in Tang Plate
0 01

174
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
Relevant Pin Dimensions (in.)
Damper ID (rated Force)
Pin Dia. D1 Max D2 Min Min. Gap, “G”

17120 (55 k) 1.50 2.75 2.75 2.63

17130 (110k) 2.00 3.50 3.00 3.13

17140 (165k) 2.25 3.75 3.75 3.25

17150 (220k) 2.75 5.00 4.50 3.75

17160 (330k) 3.00 5.25 4.75 4.00

17170 (440k) 3.50 6.50 5.50 4.75

20860 (575k) 4.00 6.75 6.00 5.75

20870 (750k) 4.00 7.00 7.00 6.00

20880 (975 k) 5.00 8.00 7.00 7.00

17200 (1350k) 6.00 9.00 8.00 9.00

Pin-To-Pin Connection

connection at both ends. This is most critical in short bays where the in-plane deformation of the moment

extender tube to the gusset plate. When integral or telescoping extenders are used and provided by Taylor,
both ends will have a spherical bearing with a pin. When a base-plate damper is connected to an HSS
extender tube, a clevis bracket with an embedded spherical bearing can be welded to an end-cap on the

protect the damper – please consult Taylor Devices to explore this option on a case-by-case basis.

taylordevices inc. 175

Chapter 11

TANG PLATE CONNECTION OPTIONS

Welded Tang Plate Dimensions (in.)
Bore Hole
Damper ID Fillet
Diameter A B C t
(rated Force) Weld Size
(±0.01”)

17120 (55 k) 1.53 7 4.5 9.75 0.5 1/4

17130 (110k) 2.03 12 5.5 15 0.75 1/4

17140 (165k) 2.28 12 6 15.75 1 3/

17150 (220k) 2.78 15 8.25 19.5 1 3/

17160 (330k) 3.03 21.5 9 26.25 1.25 3/

17170 (440k) 3.53 22 10.25 27.5 1.5 1/2

20860 (575k) 4.03 22 10.5 28 2 /

20870 (750k) 4.53 28 13.25 35 2 /

20880 (975 k) 5.03 30 14.25 37 2.5 3/4

17200 (1350k) 6.03 31 16.25 39 3 1

Bolted Tang Plate Dimensions (in.)

Damper ID Total no. Bolt Bore Hole
nbx nby d A B C E F G t
(rated Force) of Bolts Diameter Diameter

17120 (55 k) 2 2 4 3/4 1.53 0.8125 4.5 4.5 7.25 3.88 2.25 11/ 0.5

17130 (110k) 3 2 6 / 2.03 1 7.5 5.5 10.5 4.25 2.5 11/4 0.75

17140 (165k) 4 2 8 1 2.28 1.125 11 6 14.75 5.13 2.75 13/ 1

17150 (220k) 3 3 9 1 2.78 1.125 8.25 8.25 12.75 5.87 2.75 13/ 1

17160 (330k) 4 3 12 11/ 3.03 1.25 12.25 9 17 6.38 3 1/ 1.25

17170 (440k) 4 3 12 11/4 3.53 1.375 13.25 10.25 18.75 7.25 3.25 13/4 1.5

20860 (575k) 5 3 15 11/4 4.03 1.375 16.5 10.5 22.5 7.75 3.25 13/4 2

20870 (750k) 5 4 20 11/4 4.53 1.375 16.5 13.25 23.5 8.75 3.25 13/4 2

20880 (975 k) 5 4 20 13/ 5.03 1.5 17.75 14.25 24.75 8.88 3.5 1/ 2.5

17200 (1350k) 6 4 24 11/2 6.03 1.625 22.75 16.25 30.75 10 3.75 2 3

Notes
Assumes Factor of Safety of 1.5 on the rated force of the damper with an individual tang plate taking 75% of the load
Assumes Grade 50 plates and A325 Bolts
Bolts shall meet slip critical criteria
70

176
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
CLEVIS BRACKET INFORMATION
Relevant Clevis Dimensions (in.)
Damper ID
Width Depth Thickness
(rated Force)

17120 (55 k) 4.00 3.25 1.67

17130 (110k) 5.00 4.00 2.16

17140 (165k) 6.00 5.10 2.31

17150 (220k) 7.25 5.88 2.78

17160 (330k) 8.00 6.38 3.03

17170 (440k) 9.25 7.50 3.56

20860 (575k) 10.25 7.50 4.40

20870 (750k) 10.75 8.50 4.90

20880 (975 k) 12.75 8.50 5.56

17200 (1350k) 13.75 12.00 6.00

Clevis Bracket Dimensions (in.)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISIONS

shorter bay (pin-to-pin lengths less than ~20-feet). When an HSS extender is used, a Clevis Bracket can be welded to the ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED

end of the tube. The clevis contains the spherical bearing, the same as on the damper end, and can then be connected
D D

CLEVIS PLATE
PJP WELD SIZE X 45 THICKNESS
Damper ID Length to Clevis PJP Bevel
Width Steel Grade
(rated Force) Bore Thickness Weld Size
SPHERICAL
C 17120 (55 k) 3.75 4
BEARING 1.75 Grade
C 50 /
CLEVIS WIDTH
17130 (110k) 5.25 4.5 2.25 Grade 50 3/
6 5 4 3 2
REVISIONS
1
17140 (165k) 6 5.25 2.75 Grade 50 1/2
ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED

17150 (220k) 7.75 6 2.75 Grade 50 1/2

B D B

LENGTH TO
17160 (330k) 9.25 6.5 3 Grade 50 /
BORE

CLEVIS PLATE
THICKNESS
17170 (440k) 10.75 8 3.5 Grade 50 3/4

20860 (575k) 12 8.75 4 Grade 50 3/4

SPHERICAL
BEARING
14.5 9.5 5 Grade 42 1
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED DIMENSIONS ARE PREPARED RKS 2023/10/11

20870 (750k)
IN INCHES. TOLERANCES, ANGLES 2 NORTH TONAWANDA, NY
.XX .03 .XXX C .010 CHECKED PHONE 716-694-0800
2.) EOR SHALL CONFIRM ADEQUACY OF WELD USING .XXXX .0050 X/X 1/16 FAX 716-695-6015
A
A Q.A.
RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS. MACHINED EXTERNAL SURFACES TO BE 250
FLAME CUT EXTERNAL SURFACES TO BE 1000
MAX
MAX
HOT ROLLED EXTERNAL SURFACES TO BE 1000 MAX AS ROLLED MFG APPR.

WELDABLE CLEVIS TANG

ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COATINGS
1.) ALL WELDS SHALL BE LOW-HYDROGEN ELECTRODES WITH A MINIMUM
16.5 11 5.5 Grade 42 11/
ENGINEER RKS 2023/10/11

TENSILE STRENGTH OF 70 KSI. 20880 (975 k)

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
This document and its contents are the property of Taylor
Devices, Inc. and shall not be disclosed to any 3rd party without
APPROVED
MATERIAL:
prior written authorization and shall be used by the recipient SIZE CAGE CODE DRAWING NO: REV.
only for the purpose for which it was transmitted.
B 06742 67DP-20800-07 for Gusset-to-Gusset Guide

NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

17200 (1350k)
CUSTOMER APPROVAL:___________________________
20 SCALE: 1:512.25 6
SHEET 1 OF 1 Grade 42 11/4
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TH TO
RE

NG
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED DIMENSIONS ARE
IN INCHES. TOLERANCES, ANGLES 2
.XX
.XXXX
.03 .XXX
.0050 X/X
.010
1/16
MACHINED EXTERNAL SURFACES TO BE 250
FLAME CUT EXTERNAL SURFACES TO BE 1000
MAX
MAX
taylordevices inc.
PREPARED

CHECKED

Q.A.
RKS 2023/10/11
NORTH TONAWANDA, NY
PHONE 716-694-0800
FAX 716-695-6015
A 177
HOT ROLLED EXTERNAL SURFACES TO BE 1000 MAX AS ROLLED MFG APPR.

WELDABLE CLEVIS TANG

ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COATINGS
DES WITH A MINIMUM CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
ENGINEER RKS 2023/10/11
APPROVED
This document and its contents are the property of Taylor
Devices, Inc. and shall not be disclosed to any 3rd party without MATERIAL:
prior written authorization and shall be used by the recipient SIZE CAGE CODE DRAWING NO: REV.
only for the purpose for which it was transmitted.
B 06742 67DP-20800-07 for Gusset-to-Gusset Guide
CUSTOMER APPROVAL:___________________________
Chapter 11

DAMPER INFORMATION
Relevant Damper Dimensions (in.)

Mid-Stroke Mid-Stroke Max Maximum

Damper ID Sleeve Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
Length Length Stroke Cylinder/Bellows Cylinder
(rated Force) Diameter** Clevis-Base Clevis-Clevis
Clevis-Base* Clevis-Clevis* Diameter Diameter

17120 (55 k) 31.00 34.13 ±3 51/4 61/4 41/2 100 90

17130 (110k) 39.25 42.00 ±4 7 71/4 53/4 215 180

17140 (165k) 40.00 47.00 ±4 81/4 83/4 71/4 370 300

17150 (220k) 41.25 48.75 ±4 91/2 93/4 81/4 560 425

17160 (330k) 43.50 51.75 ±4 101/2 11 91/2 675 550

17170 (440k) 53.00 62.00 ±5 123/4 111/4 111/4 1100 900

20860 (575k) 59.00 67.00 ±5 143/4 123/4 123/4 1585 1310

20870 (750k) 62.00 71.00 ±5 163/4 141/2 141/2 2150 1780

20880 (975 k) *** 76.00 ±5 191/4 17 17 *** 2700

17200 (1350k) *** 84.00 ±5 221/2 201/4 201/4 *** 4000

17210 (1800k) *** 90.25 ±5 *** 221/4 221/4 *** 5500

for dimensions.
** Bellows are replaced with sleeves for some applications
*** Consult the factory for dimensions not shown.

Damper FAQ
Does Taylor Devices design gusset plates? How do I select the proper damper force and stroke?
The damper selection should be based on the output forces from
responsibility. Taylor Devices can provide guidance/review for load the MCER or BSE-2X level analysis. Typically, we advise using the
determination for the design of the gusset plates, as needed. We output forces from the average of a suite of ground motions with
the nominal C value (not Upper or Lower Bound). The damper rated
2
damper will remain elastic for the variability of a ground motion
suite including upper bound properties and code-imposed penalties.
What access or maintenance is required for the
dampers? requirement from the suite of ground motions at MCER or BSE-2X
Our dampers are maintenance-free. While no inspection protocol with lower bound damper properties to ensure that the damper has
is required, access hatches are often provided should a visual
inspection be needed. Taylor Devices recommends a visual
Do the dampers need to have fireproofing?
No, dampers are not considered part of the primary structure – they
What kind of length adjustability is available to are not critical to carry gravity loads. If the damper were exposed
accommodate in-field conditions?

depending on the damper rated force. This applies to baseplate

and integral extender dampers. Telescoping extenders can be or piston rod would inhibit the functionality of the damper itself as a
mechanism to dissipate seismic energy and therefore is avoided.

upon request.

178
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 11
CONFIGURATION EXAMPLES

Square Baseplate Rectangular Baseplate Round Baseplate

Damper with square baseplate and bolted tang

plates that has a pin-to-pin connection.

Damper using a welded tang plate to the

gusset plate.

Dampers with telescoping extenders. Damper with an integral extender and uses a
small belllows.

taylordevices inc. 179

Chapter 11

180
taylordevices inc.
 12 Available Sizes and Dimensions

Chapter 12
Depicted below are four Taylor Devices’ brochures that represent the available sizes and dimensions
for our Fluid Viscous Dampers and Lock-Up Devices.

taylordevices inc.
FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS & LOCK-UP DEVICES DIMENSIONS

CLEVIS END CONDITION BASE PLATE END CONDITION

PLATE
FULL RADIUS SPHERICAL BEARING BORE CYLINDER DIAMETER THICKNESS

CLEVIS
WIDTH

CLEVIS CLEVIS DEPTH

THICKNESS
MID-STROKE LENGTH

TAYLOR
MID-STROKE MID-STROKE MAXIMUM WEIGHT WEIGHT MAXIMUM CLEVIS CLEVIS SPHERICAL
FORCE DEVICES STROKE
LENGTH (IN) LENGTH (IN) CYLINDER (LB) (LB) CLEVIS WIDTH DEPTH THICKNESS BEARING
(KIP) MODEL (IN)
CLEVIS-BASE* CLEVIS-CLEVIS* DIAMETER (IN) CLEVIS-BASE CLEVIS-CLEVIS (IN) (IN) (IN) BORE (IN)
NUMBER
55 17120 31.00 34.13 ±3 41/2 100 90 4 3.25 1.67 1.50
110 17130 39.25 42.00 ±4 53/4 215 180 5 4.00 2.16 2.00
165 17140 40.00 47.00 ±4 71/4 370 300 6 5.10 2.31 2.25
220 17150 41.25 48.75 ±4 81/4 560 425 71/4 5.88 2.78 2.75
330 17160 43.50 51.75 ±4 91/2 675 550 8 6.38 3.03 3.00
440 17170 53.00 62.00 ±5 111/4 1100 900 91/4 7.50 3.56 3.50
575 20860 59.00 67.00 ±5 123/4 1585 1310 101/4 7.50 4.40 4.00
750 20870 62.00 71.00 ±5 141/2 2150 1780 103/4 8.50 4.90 4.50
975 20880 ** 76.00 ±5 17 ** 2700 121/4 8.50 5.56 5.00
1350 17200 ** 84.00 ±5 201/4 ** 4000 133/4 12.00 6.00 6.00
1800 17210 ** 90.25 ±5 221/4 ** 5500 161/4 13.50 7.00 7.00

NOTE:
VARIOUS STROKES ARE AVAILABLE, FROM * MIDSTROKE LENGTH VALUES BASED ON STANDARD STROKE FOR SQUARE AND ROUND FLANGE
±3” UP TO ±42”. FORCE CAPACITY MAY BE PLATES. RECTANGULAR FLANGE PLATES WILL BE LONGER. CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS.
REDUCED FOR LONGER STROKES. ** CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN.
MADE IN USA

Rev 1-2024

Figure 12.1
Fluid Viscous Dampers & Lock-up Devices' Dimensions (Standard)

taylordevices inc. 181

 taylordevices inc.
FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS & LOCK-UP DEVICES
FLANGE PLATE DIMENSIONS
Chapter 12

TAYLOR SQUARE PLATE (IN.) RECTANGLE PLATE (IN.) ROUND PLATE (IN.)
FORCE DEVICES
DAMPER DAMPER DAMPER
(KIP) MODEL NO. OF
A B C BASE PLATE HSS SIZE*
NO. OF
A B C E BASE PLATE HSS SIZE*
NO. OF
D d BASE PLATE HSS SIZE*
BOLTS BOLTS BOLTS
NUMBER THICKNESS THICKNESS THICKNESS

55 17120 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
110 17130 8 13/ 11.25 4.5 1.75 1.5 6x6 6 1/ 7.75 12 4.63 2.63 2 6x6 6 1/ 12.75 10.25 1.5 7”
165 17140 8 1/ 13.25 5.25 2.25 2.4 7x7 6 11/ 8.75 13.5 5.38 3 2.9 7x7 6 11/ 14.5 11.75 2.4 8”
220 17150 8 11/ 14.75 5.88 2.38 3 8x8 6 11/4 9.75 15.25 6 3.25 3.4 8x8 6 11/4 16.25 13 3 9"
330 17160 8 13/ 17.25 6.75 2.75 3.4 9x9 8 13/ 13.75 17 6.75 5.06 3.4 9x9 8 13/ 18 14.5 3.4 10"
440 17170 8 11/2 19.25 7.5 3.75 4 10x10 8 11/2 14.25 18.75 7.5 5.25 3.9 10x10 8 11/2 20.5 16.75 4 12”
575 20860 8 1/ 22 8.75 4 4 12x12 8 1/ 15.25 21.75 8.88 5.63 4.9 12x12 8 1/ 23.25 19.25 4 14”
750 20870 12 1/ 24 9.75 5.5 4 14x14 10 1/ 19 24 10 7.5 5.4 14x14 12 1/ 23.5 19.5 4 14”
975 20880 16 1/ 28.25 11.88 6 5 18x18 - - - - - - - - 16 1/ 27.75 23.75 5 18”
1350 17200 20 1/ 32.25 13.88 8 5.5 22x22 - - - - - - - - 20 1/ 31.75 27.75 5.5 22”

* BASEPLATE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE DEVELOPED TO ACCOMMODATE AN HSS EXTENDER SIZED FOR A MINIMUM PIN-TO-PIN LENGTH OF 23’. BASEPLATE DIMENSIONS FOR
LARGER OR SMALLER EXTENDERS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. DAMPER BASEPLATE EDGES ARE FLAMECUT. ASSUMES A490 BOLTS.
** CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN.
Rev 1-2024

Figure 12.2
Fluid Viscous Dampers & Lock-up Devices' Flange Plate Dimensions (Standard)

182
taylordevices inc.
 taylordevices inc.
FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS & LOCK-UP DEVICES DIMENSIONS

CLEVIS END CONDITION BASE PLATE END CONDITION

PLATE
FULL RADIUS SPHERICAL BEARING BORE CYLINDER DIAMETER THICKNESS

CLEVIS
WIDTH

Chapter 12
CLEVIS CLEVIS DEPTH
THICKNESS
MID-STROKE LENGTH

TAYLOR MAXIMUM
MID-STROKE MID-STROKE WEIGHT WEIGHT MAXIMUM CLEVIS CLEVIS SPHERICAL
FORCE DEVICES STROKE CYLINDER
LENGTH (mm) LENGTH (mm) (kg) (kg) CLEVIS WIDTH DEPTH THICKNESS BEARING
(kN) MODEL (mm) DIAMETER
CLEVIS-BASE* CLEVIS-CLEVIS* CLEVIS-BASE CLEVIS-CLEVIS (mm) (mm) (mm) BORE (mm)
NUMBER (mm)
250 17120 787 867 ±75 114 45 41 102 83 42 38
500 17130 997 1067 ±100 146 98 82 127 102 55 51
750 17140 1016 1194 ±100 184 168 136 152 130 59 57
1000 17150 1048 1238 ±100 210 254 193 184 149 71 70
1500 17160 1105 1314 ±100 241 306 249 203 162 77 76
2000 17170 1346 1575 ±125 286 499 408 235 191 90 89
2550 20860 1499 1702 ±125 324 719 594 260 191 112 102
3000 20870 1575 1803 ±125 368 975 807 273 216 124 114
4000 17190 ** 1930 ±125 432 ** 1225 311 216 141 127
6500 17200 ** 2134 ±125 514 ** 1814 349 305 152 152
8000 17210 ** 2292 ±125 565 ** 2495 413 343 178 178
Metric numbers are rounded
NOTE:
VARIOUS STROKES ARE AVAILABLE, FROM * MIDSTROKE LENGTHS VALUES BASED ON STANDARD STROKE. FOR LONGER STROKES, CONSULT
±76mm UP TO ±1067mm. FORCE CAPACITY THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS.
MAY BE REDUCED FOR LONGER STROKES. ** CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN.
MADE IN USA

Rev 1-2024

Figure 12.1
Fluid Viscous Dampers & Lock-up Devices' Dimensions (Metric)

taylordevices inc. 183

 taylordevices inc.
FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS & LOCK-UP DEVICES
FLANGE PLATE DIMENSIONS
Chapter 12

TAYLOR SQUARE PLATE (mm) RECTANGLE PLATE (mm) ROUND PLATE (mm)
FORCE DEVICES
DAMPER DAMPER DAMPER
(kN) MODEL NO. OF
A B C BASE PLATE HSS SIZE*
NO. OF
A B C E BASE PLATE HSS SIZE*
NO. OF
D d BASE PLATE HSS SIZE*
BOLTS BOLTS BOLTS
NUMBER THICKNESS THICKNESS THICKNESS

250 17120 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
500 17130 8 20.5 286 114.5 44.5 38 153x153 6 24.0 197 305 117.5 67.0 51 153x153 6 24.0 324 260.5 38 178
750 17140 8 24.0 337 133.5 57.0 61 178x178 6 28.5 222 343 136.5 76.0 74 178x178 6 28.5 368 298.5 61 203
1000 17150 8 28.5 375 149.5 60.5 76 203x203 6 32.0 248 387 152.5 82.5 86 203x203 6 32.0 413 330.0 76 229
1500 17160 8 35.0 438 171.5 70.0 86 229x229 8 35.0 349 432 171.5 128.5 86 229x229 8 35.0 457 368.5 86 254
2000 17170 8 38.0 489 190.5 95.5 102 229x229 8 38.0 362 476 190.5 133.5 99 229x229 8 38.0 521 425.5 102 305
2550 20860 8 41.5 559 222.5 101.5 102 305x305 8 41.5 387 552 225.5 143.0 124 305x305 8 41.5 591 489.0 102 356
3000 20870 12 41.5 610 247.5 139.5 102 356x356 10 41.5 483 610 254.0 190.5 137 356x356 12 41.5 597 495.5 102 356
4000 17190 16 41.5 718 302.0 152.5 127 ** - - - - - - - - 16 41.5 705 603.5 127 457
6500 17200 20 41.5 819 352.5 203.0 140 ** - - - - - - - - 20 41.5 807 705.0 140 559
Metric numbers are rounded
* BASEPLATE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE DEVELOPED TO ACCOMMODATE AN HSS EXTENDER SIZED FOR A PIN-TO-PIN LENGTH OF 6.1m. BASEPLATE DIMENSIONS FOR LARGER
OR SMALLER EXTENDERS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. DAMPER BASEPLATE EDGES ARE FLAMECUT. ASSUMES A490 BOLTS.
** CONSULT THE FACTORY FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN.
Rev 1-2024

Figure 12.2
Fluid Viscous Dampers & Lock-up Devices' Flange Plate Dimensions (Metric)

184
taylordevices inc.
13 Taylor Devices’ Literature

Over the years, Taylor Devices has compliled an extensive library of materials and literature to
highlight the features and benefits of Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers. Rather than including every
piece of literature in this chapter, we have chosen a select few pieces that we find will be the most
useful to many of our readers. To view all our most up to date brochures, please visit our website at
www.taylordevices.com/brochures-and-catalogs/

Chapter 13
Additionally, you can find our catalog of 100+ case studies, white papers, and more in our
Technical Papers section of our website for even more in-depth and technical information about
our products.

Fluid Viscous Damper Overview Brochure (8 pages) ....................186-193

Non-Ductile Concrete Buildings—Retrofit (2 pages) ..................... 194-195
Non-Ductile Steel Buildings—Retrofit (2 pages) ............................. 196-197
Seismic Dampers for Building Applications (2 pages)....................198-199
Seismic Dampers for Bridge Applications (2 pages).......................200-201
Metal Bellows Dampers (2 pages) ..................................................... 202-203
Fluid Visco-Elastic Dampers (2 pages) .............................................. 204-205

taylordevices inc. 185

 taylordevices inc.
Chapter 13

FLUID VISCOUS
DAMPERS
FOR SEISMIC PROTECTION
Imperial Version | 1.24

186
taylordevices inc.
FLUID VISCOUS DAMPER
Fluid viscous dampers (FVDs) are used to dissipate • Force capacities up to
energy in a structure caused by seismic and wind 1800 kips
events. FVDs can increase structural damping,
typically between 15% and 35% in seismic • Stroke capacities up to
applications, which significantly reduces drifts and ±42”
stresses in a structure. • Up to 35-year warranty
100% of our dampers are tested in-house at our • Seals designed for 40 ksi /
facility to ensure that they meet the specified force- 275 MPa internal pressure
velocity relationship. Our extensive database of past and are energized by

Chapter 13
testing results allows us to often meet exemption pressure
criteria for Prototype Testing, saving time and • FVDs remain functional
money. beyond MCE Level
demands
Using FVDs allows the structure to remain largely
undamaged, improving functional recovery capacity • Orifices designed to
and operability following an earthquake. When achieve project specific
used in retrofits, FVDs are used to reduce seismic C & Alpha values
force and deformation demands below the existing • Seals are designed to run
structural capacity, reducing the need for costly dry, resulting in no loss of
widespread strengthening. fluid over time or need for
maintenance

taylordevices inc. 187

 NEW CONSTRUCTION

MORE RESILIENT STRUCTURES

Adding dampers to a structure reduces the
spectral acceleration of the structure, thereby
reducing member si es, foundations, drifts, and
oor accelerations. FVDs can be used to allow
the structure to remain elastic as opposed to
conventional systems which rely upon the yielding
of structural elements to dissipate seismic energy,
causing damage. educed drifts and accelerations
resulting from a damped solution limit nonstructural
damage, supporting functional recovery ob ectives.

TO O exico ity, exico

Built in 2002, this 55-story skyscraper uses 98 Taylor
Dampers in mega-braces to dissipate earthquake energy. In
January 2003, a 7.6 magnitude earthquake shock the city.
Chapter 13

Not only did the building remain standing, but occupants

inside did not even know an earthquake had occurred.

TAYLOR DAMPEDTM
MOMENT FRAME
Our new Taylor Damped oment FrameT TD FT )
procedure simplifies the design process, eliminating
• No Peer Review Required
the need for onlinear Time- istory nalysis and
Peer eview. This prescriptive method decouples • No Time-History Analysis
the pecial teel oment Frame design from
the damper frame, allowing for easier analytical
models, less guess work with damper si ing, and • Shortened Design Time
smoothing coordination with Taylor Devices. This
procedure has approval by - through the
rigorous procedure, including validation with
over 0 archetype structures using the F P-
methodology. SCAN TO
LEARN
MORE

188
taylordevices inc.
RETROFIT

THE IDEAL RETROFIT SOLUTION

etrofitting structures with FVDs is becoming the preferred solution for the
following key reasons
• Reduce Drifts – up to 50% reductions.
• Cost Effective decreasing seismic demands below the capacity of the existing
structure, including foundations, avoids extensive work to upgrade structural elements
and foundations.
• Minimal Impact – dampers can be placed in targeted locations, avoiding sensitive areas
and only requiring locali ed work. Dampers can be moved through service elevators for
ease of construction on pro ects that need to maintain operability during construction.
• Placement dampers do not have to stack vertically up the height of the building.
• Phased Installation dampers do not add stiffness to the structure therefore, they can
be placed in a building over several phases as space becomes available.
• Continuous Energy Dissipation FVDs work continuously at all seismic levels to
dissipate energy, improving structural behavior at service level up to ultimate design
events.

Chapter 13
DAMPER
CONFIGURATIONS
COMPACT DAMPER CONFIGURATION

MODIFIED CHEVRON CONFIGURATION

WITH ONE OR TWO HORIZONTAL DAMPERS

CHEVRON DAMPER CONFIGURATION

WITH INTEGRAL OR HSS EXTENDERS
Elevation [ft]

DIAGONAL DAMPER CONFIGURATION

WITH INTEGRAL OR HSS EXTENDERS

DAMPERS WITH BASE ISOLATION

taylordevices inc. 189

 CASE STUDY

651 GATEWAY
Location South San Francisco, CA
Size 325,000 SF
Stories 17
Number of Dampers 127
Construction Steel
Structural Engineer IMEG
Structural Consultant Maffei Structural Engineering

The existing building at 1 ateway in the ity of outh an Francisco

is a 1 -story office building originally constructed in the mid 1 0 s.
The lateral system consists of a central core of eccentric-braced
frames Fs and perimeter Pre- orthridge steel moment frames.
The trape oidal oor plan, combined with an asymmetric layout for
the F core led to significant twisting in the original building.
Chapter 13

The ideal retrofit solution would

need to address several key goals
• void costly beam-column
connection repairs of the Pre-
orthridge moment frames
Elevation [ft]

• void the need for

foundation retrofit
• ddress the plan-torsion
effects of the asymmetric
design to reduce story drifts
Maximum Drift Ratio [%]
chematic evaluations quickly showed that dampers could reduce
the impacts of plan-torsion by using an asymmetric damper
placement, countering the effects of the trape oidal shape. dding
Taylor Dampers over height of the building also provided a solution
which eliminated the need for foundation retrofits and kept moment
demands at the beam-column connections below their existing
Elevation [ft]

capacity.

Staggering the damper placement up the height, reduced the

accumulated load in the columns, helping to avoid the need for column
strengthening and foundation improvements. Damper si ing was
optimi ed for cost and performance, eliminating the need to retrofit
any beam-column connections and reduced oor accelerations
Rotation [%]
which will help protect nonstructural elements in an earthquake.

190
taylordevices inc.
BRIDGE APPLICATIONS
imilar to systems found in buildings, Taylor Dampers can be used in bridge applications to
absorb wind, seismic, and pedestrian energy. This system can increase damping levels from
the usual 0. %-1% critical damping to a 0% critical damping range. Our bridge dampers
feature a heavy-wall steel guide, high strength, mirror polished, stainless steel piston rods and
-part heavy-duty paint system on external components. ridge dampers are available with
lost-motion devices, fuse elements or friction collar to eliminate the continuous response to
small, everyday traffic and wind induced vibrations. etal bellows dampers can provide infinite
lifespan for applications with low-amplitude cycling such as long span or pedestrian bridges.
ock-up devices are used on bridges to limit displacements in bearings and expansion oints.

Types of Bridges
• igh peed ailways
• Aerial Viaducts
• ong- pan
•

Chapter 13
Pedestrian

Guozigou Bridge | Xinjiang, China

taylordevices inc. 191

 TAYLOR-ED SOLUTIONS
BASE ISOLATION
Taylor Dampers halve the building displacements when added to ase solation ystems. The
reduction in displacement reduces the cost of the isolators, the moats around the building,
as well as the services and utilities that are detailed to allow for the building movement. The
addition of viscous dampers to the
base isolation system increases
the amount of energy dissipation
Chapter 13

during a seismic event improving the

performance of the system.

The 106 dampers on the Loma Linda

University Medical Center reduced the
displacement by half to ±42”

LOCK-UP DEVICES
imilar to a seatbelt in a car, a ock- p Device D allows free movement during slow
velocities such as thermal movement and acts as a temporary rigid link during transient
events such as earthquakes or train braking on a bridge. The most common applications are
for reducing the si e of expansion oints
in long span structures or stadiums and
to reduce the earthquake load for a fixed
pier on a bridge when LUDs are installed
on ad acent expansion piers.

192
taylordevices inc.
METAL BELLOWS
Originally designed for critical military and
aerospace applications, these dampers utilize
exible type metal bellows seals rather than
conventional sliding type seals. This results
in a 100% hermetically sealed design with
absolutely ero leakage. They are designed
for infinite life by limiting the bellow s stresses
to be less than the material fatigue endurance
limits.

The metal bellows dampers on the illennium

ridge had been sub ected to 00 million
cycles in the first years of service. They
now have been performing awlessly for
over 0 years. The devices provide effective
damping at extremely small amplitudes and
are ideal for applications such as human-
induced vibration for buildings and bridges

Chapter 13
and for wind vibration when used in damped
outriggers and meagabraces on tall buildings.

37 dampers were added to the Millennium

Bridge to control the unexpected oscillation
caused by pedestrian vibrations.

FLUID VISCO-ELASTIC DAMPERS

Fluid Visco- lastic Dampers FV Ds combine
the technology of Taylor Devices traditional uid
viscous damper in series with an internal spring
element to provide both damping and stiffness to
structures. This targeted approach provides the benefits of FVDs by reducing seismic demands
on structures while also allowing designers to provide additional stiffness in desired locations
to improve building performance. Doing so makes FV Ds an optimal choice for building with
soft stories or torsional irregularities. This approach was taken for the seismic rehab of otel
tockton, where FV Ds were used in combination with traditional FVDs to ensure that existing
structural elements remained elastic.

taylordevices inc. 193

 Taylor Retrofit Solutions for
Non-Ductile Concrete Buildings
Taylor Devices is a world leader in the manufacturing of high quality seismic
protection products. Our qualified team offers extensive experience with the design
of damping systems for seismic upgrades of existing concrete buildings. Taylor
Devices can also offer training and design tools to project stakeholders through
technical presentations and project specific consulting.

taylordevices inc.
Non-Ductile Concrete: Cause for Concern
Before the 1980s the inclusion of seismic design requirements in building
structures was minimal and based mainly on observations made during
previous earthquakes. The concepts of a ductile concrete moment frame
did not find their way into building codes until the 1967 UBC, yet these were
still limited to structures above 160 feet. Seismic events like the 1964
Anchorage Alaska Earthquake and the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
laid bare the deficiencies of the existing building codes. Several concrete
buildings collapsed, and many were damaged beyond repair. There were
multiple reasons for the damage and collapses, but most can be attributed
to non-ductile detailing of the columns, beams, and beam-column joints.
Chapter 13

There are still thousands of pre-1980 non-ductile concrete buildings

in high seismic regions in the U.S. and abroad. The California Seismic
Safety Commission estimates that there are 40,000 in California.
Several Southern California cities have recently adopted ordinances
that require owners to assess the collapse potential of their older
concrete buildings and retrofit these if the assessment deems
this necessary. These cities include the City of Los Angeles, West
Hollywood, and Santa Monica. San Francisco is currently deciding
what to do about the non-ductile concrete building stock in the city.
Olive View Hospital – failed tied column.
(Source: NISEE-PEER, University of California,
Berkeley)

FVD Solutions for Non-Ductile Concrete Structures

There is an economical way to retrofit these non-ductile concrete
buildings before the next big one hits. Non-ductile concrete
moment frame structures are ideal candidates for upgrades
employing Fluid Viscous Dampers (FVDs) because they are
inherently flexible structures permitting FVDs to dissipate large
amounts of energy at relatively low force levels. As the building
sways in an earthquake and one-floor moves relative to another,
this drives the FVD, which dissipates the energy as heat, without any
damage to the FVD. Conventional retrofit methods are more costly,
architecturally restrictive, and disruptive to building occupants.
The FVD is a velocity-dependent device uniquely capable of
mitigating the structure’s dynamic motion during an earthquake,
without increasing demands on the structure and foundations.

Simplified procedures for retrofitting structures with Fluid

Viscous Dampers have been developed and implemented
in building code standards from the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE). With just a basic understanding
of the building characteristic properties and an assumed
configuration of the FVDs, Taylor Devices can provide a
conceptual design and cost estimate for an upgrade solution.

www.taylordevices.com
90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 | Phone: +1-716-694-0800 | [email protected]

194
taylordevices inc.
 Building Specifics

• Located in Sacramento,CA
• Built in the early 1970s
• Two 14 Story RC Towers
• Roughly 175,00 SF Each
• Engineering Performed by
Miyamoto International

CS
case study
555
Ca itol all
Capitol Mall in Sacramento California consists of two 14 story concrete o ce towers totaling over 0,000 square feet.
t was constructed in the early 1970s to the 1967 version of the Universal Building Code. The facilities had several factors
that enhanced its seismic performance such as its rectangular floor plan and its symmetrical design, however, there were
concerns regarding several other structural deficiencies.

The biggest concern regarding the structure’s seismic performance was due in part to the soft-story response of the first
floor which was 0 taller than all of the other floors. These structures are more prone to collapse in the event of an
earthquake. Additionally, the structure also experienced drift great than in both orthogonal directions. These responses
are deemed too high for non-ductile concrete buildings.

Chapter 13
The buildings in their existing configuration had a robable Maximum Loss ( ML) value that exceeded 0 and it was
determined that the structure was more than likely to experience moderate to significant damage in the event of a design-
level earthquake. This combination of concerns led building management to consider and ultimately pursue a seismic
upgrade of the structure.

Eight Fluid Viscous Dampers were added to the first floor of each tower, totaling 16 dampers. These devices were aesthetically
integrated into the existing building structure and presented minimal disturbance to facility operations during installation.

Additionally, building management opted to cancel their earthquake insurance, roughly 14 ,000 a year, given the direct
investment in a seismic improvement technology to protect the structure. With a project cost of roughly 00,000, building
management was able to achieve a full return on investment in 6 years.

RESULTS:

• oft story response at the first oor

significantly reduced.
• rift ratio at the oor reduced from to
. essentially limiting damage to minor
yielding or none at all.
• luid viscous damper solution dramatically
reduced the total project cost.
• inimal impact on the day to day
operations of the facilities.

www.taylordevices.com
90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 | Phone: +1-716-694-0800 | [email protected]

taylordevices inc. 195

 Taylor Retrofit Solutions for
Pre-Northridge Steel oment rame Buildings
Taylor Devices is a world leader in the manufacturing of high quality seismic
protection products. Our qualified team offers extensive experience with the design
of damping systems for seismic upgrades of existing steel buildings. Taylor Devices
can also offer training and design tools to project stakeholders through technical
presentations and project specific consulting.

taylordevices inc.
Pre-Northridge Steel Moment Frame Buildings:
A Cause for Concern
From one side of the acific cean to the other, major
seismic events have shown the vulnerability of improperly
detailed steel buildings. Many welded, steel, moment-
frame buildings sustained significant damage in both
Los Angeles, California and Kobe, Japan during the 1994
Northridge earthquake and the 1995 Kobe earthquake,
respectively. This damage consisted of a brittle fracturing
of the steel frames at the welded joints between the beams
and columns due to the lack of suitable energy dissipation.
Chapter 13

A few of the most severely damaged buildings could readily be

observed to be out-of-plumb; however, many of the damaged
buildings exhibited no outward signs of these fractures. The
observed damage raised questions as to whether buildings in
cities affected by other past earthquakes had also sustained
similar undetected damage and were now weakened and Fracturing of welded connections can lead to damage to the
potentially hazardous. In fact, some structures in the San bolted connections that hold the beams onto the columns,
creating potential for localized collapse.
Francisco Bay area have been discovered to have similar
fracture damage most probably dating back to the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake.

FVD Solutions for Pre-Northridge Steel Moment

Frame Structures
Welded steel moment-frame structures are ideal candidates for
upgrades employing Fluid Viscous Dampers (FVDs) because
they are inherently flexible structures permitting FVDs to
dissipate large amounts of energy at relatively low force levels.
As the building sways in an earthquake and one-floor moves
relative to another, this drives the FVD, which dissipates the
energy as heat, without any damage to the FVD. Conventional
retrofit methods are more costly, architecturally restrictive,
and disruptive to building occupants. The FVD is a velocity-
dependent device uniquely capable of mitigating the structure’s
dynamic motion during an earthquake without increasing
demands on the structure and foundations.
Simplified procedures for retrofitting structures with Fluid
Viscous Dampers have been developed and implemented in
building code standards from the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE). With just a basic understanding of the
building characteristic properties and an assumed configuration
of the FVDs, Taylor Devices can provide a conceptual design
and cost-estimate for an upgrade solution.
www.taylordevices.com
90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 | Phone: +1-716-694-0800 | [email protected]

196
taylordevices inc.
 BUILDING SPECIFICS:

• Located in Bremerton, WA
• Built in the late 1970s
• 9 Stories Tall
• 250,000 sq/ft
• Engineering Performed by
Reid Middleton

CS Bremerton
Naval os ital
case study

The Naval Hospital at Bremerton (NHB) is a fully accredited, community-based hospital that serves over 60,000 military
families in the uget Sound region. iven its proximity to Seattle, in the event of a major earthquake, the medical campus
could anticipate the need to serve over 250,000 people.

n 001, the hospital shook for 4 seconds as the 6. magnitude Nisqually Earthquake struck the acific Northwest.
ccupants on the upper floors recalled seeing the building sway as they watched the tree line below and feared for its
collapse. The hospital structure experienced significant lateral drifts during the relatively small, less than design level
earthquake, particularly on the upper floors of the tower of the main building. Calculated peak roof displacements from this
modest earthquake shaking were over 6 .

Chapter 13
Since the main building was constructed in the late 1960s with re-Northridge Steel Moment Frames, a detailed inspection
in accordance with FEMA 350 standards was performed and the building was evaluated. During the evaluation of the
structure, it was determined that a conventional seismic retrofit by strengthening or stiffening would have been too costly
and disruptive to hospital operations, therefore alternative retrofit solutions had to be considered.

The use of Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers proved to be the best design scheme to improve the seismic performance of
the building while minimizing the disruption to hospital operations. In total, 88 Fluid Viscous Dampers were strategically
installed in the existing structure. These dampers reduced the demands on the existing structure by reducing the lateral
displacement of the structure and no retrofitting of the foundation was required.

RESULTS:

• tory drifts and oor accelerations reduced by over .

• Diaphragm rotations reduced by on all oors.
• luid iscous Damper solution dramatically reduced the
total project cost.
• inimal impact on the day to day operations of the
hospital.
• o retrofit of the foundation was required
www.taylordevices.com
90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 | Phone: +1-716-694-0800 | [email protected]

taylordevices inc. 197

 taylordevices inc.

SEISMIC DAMPERS FOR BUILDING APPLICATIONS

BY TAYLOR DEVICES

Industry Leading Seismic Protection

Originally developed for military and aerospace applications in the 1 0 s, Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers are now used
Chapter 13

by structural engineers worldwide to protect their work and the people who rely upon its safety.

• With over 700 projects world-wide, we are the • Our policy is to test every single seismic damper
world leader in providing seismic and wind we produce to maximum output requirements
dampers for any structure
• Taylor dampers are designed and tested in output
• Our dampers have been validated through rigorous force ratings up to million pounds 00 k and
research, full scale testing and published work by amplitudes up to - inches 1.0 m
highly reputable organizations
• ighly efficient damper design can absorb
• Proprietary dry-running seals have been qualified tremendous amounts of energy during an
and tested for millions of cycles and are earthquake thus minimizing or eliminating
manufactured only by Taylor Devices damage to the structure
• High strength, mirror polished, stainless steel • Unequalled ability to provide a damper design that
piston rods is accurate, controllable, efficient, temperature
and frequency independent and maintenance free
• Strict control over our design and manufacturing
processes with rd party certification to O 001, • Taylor dampers have unequalled ability to respond
O 1 001 and the stringent aerospace quality to extremely small or very large motions
standard 100
• The only technology that can reduce stress and
• dentical quality standards for all our products de ection simultaneously damper forces are out
whether they are used for space ight, military of phase with structural dynamic forces
equipment, buildings or bridges
• 35 year warranty
• Products certified by are now being used to
save lives on earth

90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 | Phone: (716) 694-0800 | www.taylordevices.com

ISO 9001 | AS9100 | ISO 14001

198
taylordevices inc.
 taylordevices inc.

Chapter 13

Taylor Devices Inc. Contact Us:

90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Phone: (716) 694-0800
www.taylordevices.com Email: [email protected]
1/2020

taylordevices inc. 199

 taylordevices inc.

SEISMIC DAMPERS FOR BRIDGE APPLICATIONS

BY TAYLOR DEVICES
Industry Leading Shock and Vibration Protection
Originally developed for military and aerospace applications in the 1960’s, Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers are now
used by structural engineers worldwide to protect bridges and the people who rely upon them to have a functional
Chapter 13

structure/lifeline after an earthquake.

• Taylor Devices is the world leader in providing • Our policy is to test every single bridge damper we
dampers to control vibrations caused by produce to maximum output requirements
earthquakes, wind, traffic and pedestrians
• Taylor dampers are designed and tested in output
• Our dampers have been validated through rigorous force ratings up to 2 million pounds (8900 kN) and
research, full scale testing and published work by amplitudes up to +/-42 inches (1.06 m)
highly reputable organizations
• Unequalled ability to provide a damper design that
• Proprietary dry-running seals have been qualified is accurate, controllable, efficient, temperature
and tested for millions of cycles and are and frequency independent and maintenance free
manufactured only by Taylor Devices
• Taylor dampers have unequalled ability to respond
• High strength, mirror polished, stainless steel to extremely small or very large motions
piston rods and 3 part heavy-duty paint system on
external components
• The only technology that can reduce stress and
de ection simultaneously damper forces are out-
• Damper output force is proportional to velocity, of-phase with structural dynamic forces
Force = CV ; between 0.2 and 2.0; unlimited
C values available for optimal structural
• Bridge dampers are available with “Lost Motion
Devices or Fuse Elements or Brake Elements” to
performance
eliminate the continuous response to small, every-
• Long stroke bridge dampers have a heavy-wall day traffic and wind induced vibrations
steel guide sleeve
• Dampers can also be provided with special stroke
• Identical quality standards for all our products limiting devices or end-of-travel bumpers
whether they are used for space ight, military
equipment, buildings or bridges

90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 | Phone: (716) 694-0800 | www.taylordevices.com

ISO 9001 | AS9100 | ISO 14001

200
taylordevices inc.
 taylordevices inc.

Chapter 13

Taylor Devices Inc. Contact Us:

90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Phone: (716) 694-0800
www.taylordevices.com Email: [email protected]
1/2020

taylordevices inc. 201

 taylordevices inc.

METAL BELLOWS DAMPERS

BY TAYLOR DEVICES

The Ultimate in Fluid Damper Design • nfinite life The only damper design in the world
Chapter 13

that is designed for infinite life. Parts are stressed

nique hermetically sealed dampers were originally below the material fatigue endurance limit ensuring
developed by Taylor Devices during the 1 0 s for the dampers will survive for billions of cycles
use on platforms based in outer space where uid • Virtually ero friction There is no source of friction
leakage could cause catastrophic failure to critical typical of standard elastomeric seals
space missions. onventional sliding surfaces • ffective damping at extremely small amplitudes
that were sealed acceptably on earth proved • xtremely high-fidelity response to shock and
unacceptable for spacecraft use. The reason was vibration over a frequency band of 0- 00
and amplitudes as low as - 0.001 inches -
simply that even the tiniest amount of uid leakage
0.00 mm or less
past conventional seals turns into a dense fog in
a vacuum, contaminating optics and electronic
• igh series stiffness for high damping effectiveness

systems. • Various damping functions are achieved based on

customer requirements
ow, these same dampers have been successfully • Taylor etal ellows Dampers are designed and
adapted for use in structures for protection against tested in output force ratings up to 0 P or more
and strokes up to - 0 inches or more
wind and seismic events. dditionally, metal bellows
dampers are ideal for applications requiring damping • o maintenance over the life of the structure or
dynamic system
at very low displacements, including human-induced
vibration for bridges and buildings.
• bsolute ero leakage due to hermetically sealed
construction

90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 | Phone: (716) 694-0800 | www.taylordevices.com

ISO 9001 | AS9100 | ISO 14001

202
taylordevices inc.
 taylordevices inc.

Chapter 13

Taylor Devices Inc. Contact Us:

90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Phone: (716) 694-0800
www.taylordevices.com Email: [email protected]
1/2020

taylordevices inc. 203

 taylordevices inc.

FLUID VISCO-ELASTIC DAMPERS

BY TAYLOR DEVICES

Combining Damping Solutions

Fluid Visco-Elastic Dampers (FVEDs) are made up of a combination
of traditional uid viscous dampers and spring elements. These
Chapter 13

types of dampers have been successfully used in the aerospace

industry for many years and are now being used in structural
applications for seismic and wind protection.

lthough most buildings have enough lateral stiffness provided

by the building frame and can be simply upgraded with pure
dampers, some buildings can greatly benefit from a small amount
of additional stiffness. The additional stiffness can be provided
by strengthening the frame or by simply adding FV Ds.

• FV Ds are used to provide additional stiffness • FV Ds are economical and a fraction of the total
in a building. This makes them a great choice for cost as shown in the otel tockton case study.
retrofitting soft story buildings.
• FV Ds are available in forces up to 1 00 kip 000k

• FV Ds can be used in combination with traditional • FV Ds have stable performance over a wide
dampers. temperature range and are 100% tested.

FVD SPRING FVED

90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 | Phone: (716) 694-0800 | www.taylordevices.com

ISO 9001 | AS9100 | ISO 14001

204
taylordevices inc.
 taylordevices inc.
Case Study
SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC
CONCRETE STRUCTURE WITH FLUID
VISCO-ELASTIC DAMPERS
by Miyamoto International

HOTEL STOCKTON - STOCKTON, CA

This pro ect included the nonlinear seismic analysis, development, and implementation of an innovative seismic retrofit
strategy for a six-story non-ductile reinforced concrete 1 ,000 sqft 1 , 0 m historic building. Dynamic and nonlinear
static analyses verified that the building had a weak soft-story with inadequate post-yield capacity, and a large torsional
response. The analysis indicated that the existing building was seismically deficient and would not be able to withstand the
design earthquake forces.

STRUCTURAL UPGRADE

Chapter 13
Fluid viscous dampers have been extensively researched onstantinou and ymans, 1 and implemented in the upgrade
of many structures, including the seismic retrofit of the historic otel Woodland iyamoto and choll 1 . FVDs provide
an economical way of improving the structural response without losing any oor space. This was the chosen seismic
improvement method for this building as it reduces the second oor drifts by introducing viscous damping, thereby reducing
the seismic demand on the superstructure. FVDs were strategically placed in the structure to optimi e their effectiveness
without interfering with architectural features of the ground oor. total of 0 damper bays were utili ed. nitially, only linear
uid viscous dampers were considered for the upgrade,
however, this approach necessitated using relatively large DBE c, k-sec/in K, k/in
Device No. Capacity, α
devices to meet the performance criteria. n addition, this kip (kN)
(kNsec/mm) (kN/mm)
did not address the torsional irregularity of the building.
FVD 16 210 (934) 100 (35) 0.5 None
To mitigate these problems, FV Ds were utili ed in four FVED 4 300 (1334) 125 (44) 0.5 144 (50)
damper bays. The nearby table summari es the damper
properties.

CONCLUSION
The analytical studies predict that the retrofitted structure will have a significantly improved performance when compared
to the original structure. n particular, the upgrade will ensure the existing structural members will remain elastic by limiting
the seismic demand on the structure. This upgrade will greatly reduce the damage in an earthquake. The seismic upgrade
cost of 1. million was about % of total million construction cost. This amounts to ft m of the 1 ft
1, 0 m total cost.

Taylor Devices Inc. Contact Us:

90 Taylor Drive | North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Phone: (716) 694-0800
www.taylordevices.com Email: [email protected]
11/2020

taylordevices inc. 205

Chapter 13

206
taylordevices inc.
14 Sample Technical Manual
Taylor Device provides a submittal to customers that includes technical information and
specifications about the dampers and how to install them. The following chapter shows what is
included in a typical manual.

A. Technical Description
Taylor Devices’ Fluid Viscous Dampers are constructed only from the highest quality materials. Finish
machining and fabrication of parts is performed exclusively at Taylor Devices’ North Tonawanda,
NY facility. Shown at the bottom of this page is a typical Fluid Viscous Damper with the following
components:
1. Piston Rod: Solid 17-4 PH stainless steel, billet machined, through hardened, then
hand polished to a mirror finish of less than 4 microinches.
2. Piston Head: Solid steel construction, machined from billet. Contains fluid flow
channels that provide the orificing for the damping function (F=CVα ).
3. Seals/Seal Bearings: Dynamic seals and seal bearings are manufactured by Taylor
Devices to patented and proprietary specifications from acetyl resin and Virgin
Teflon.
4. Fluid: Silicone fluid, per select sections of Federal Standard VV-D-1078. This fluid is
nonflammable and noncombustible under current North American/OSHA standards
and is classified as cosmetically inert by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
5. Cylinder: Heat-treated alloy steel, machined from pierced billet or solid, corrosion
protected by painting.
6. End Cap: Heat-treated alloy steel, billet machined from wrought condition, through
heat treated, and corrosion protected by painting.

Chapter 14
7. Extender: Carbon steel, machined from wrought billet, tube, or pipe, then painted
for corrosion protection.
8. End Clevis: Heat-treated alloy steel; painted for corrosion protection.
9. Spherical Bearing: Forged from aircraft quality alloy steel, hand fitted and checked
for clearance.
10. Outer Sleeve: Carbon steel, painted for corrosion protection.

Figure 14.1
Typical fluid viscous damper

taylordevices inc. 207

 B. Handling
Although Taylor Devices dampers are very robust in design, care should be taken when handling a
damper. This section gives the recommended handling procedures.

B.1 Shipping
Each damper shall be placed on a wooden skid for shipping and secured with metal banding and blue
shrink-wrap. The skid must remain upright (The 4x4 wooden feet down) at all times to help prevent
damage to the dampers. DO NOT STACK THE SKIDS.

B.2 Storage
The dampers may be stored on their shipping skids for an indefinite period if they are kept in a
suitable environment. The wooden shipping skids will deteriorate over time unless they are kept in
a relatively dry environment.

B.3 Lifting
The dampers will be shipped on wooden skids. See Chapter 12 of this manual for the weight of
the dampers. Each skid must be lifted in two locations with an evenly distributed force as typically
performed with a fork truck.

After carefully removing the shrink-wrap and metal banding, the damper may be lifted from its skid
by a single strap located at its balancing point. Care must always be taken when moving a damper
so that there is no damage to the factory fill port that protrudes out of the cylinder.

B.4 Unit Care

All surfaces on the damper are painted for corrosion protection (See section E.2 of this chapter).
Any damage to the painted or coated surface may cause superficial surface corrosion, and must
be touched up with paint. Only damage to the underlying steel will be cause for evaluation or
corrective action. The factory fill port that protrudes out of the cylinder is a relatively delicate
component, compared to the rest of the damper. Cognizance of this port at all times is necessary to
prevent damage to it. This port seals a high internal fluid pressure and is wired in place for safety.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS PORT OR SAFETY WIRE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Chapter 14

C. Installation
Taylor Devices' Fluid Viscous Dampers are easily installed with a minimum of tools required. For a
Viscous Damper used in a structure, connection points of the damper are as indicated in Section A
and shown in Section F. Refer to Section F of this chapter for drawings of the Fluid Viscous Dampers
and their mounting hardware.

C.1 Tools Required

• Tape measure
• Hammer (2 to 4 lb.)
• Light marine grease (Taylor Blu-Grease supplied with dampers)
• Hoist device with straps

208
taylordevices inc.
C.2 Installation Procedure - Fluid Viscous Damper.
1. Measure the eye-to-eye (center of first spherical bearing to the center of the second
spherical bearing) length of the Viscous Damper and compare it with the mid-stroke
length of the Viscous Damper shown in Section 6.0 of this manual. If the dimensions
do not match to within 1⁄8 inch, consult a representative from Taylor Devices, Inc. The
Viscous Damper may need to be adjusted. Refer to Section C.3 & C.4 of this chapter
for more details.
2. Place the mounting brackets (not provided by Taylor Devices) into position using a
jack or hoist as necessary, per the contract documents and drawings. Attach the
mounting brackets with bolts or weld per the requirements in the contract documents
and drawings making sure the brackets are properly aligned towards each other.
3. Hoist the Fluid Viscous Damper into position, using a jack or hoist as necessary. The
clevis ends should easily fit into the mounting bracket assemblies with extra play.
4. Clean the mounting pins with commercially available parts cleaner and let them dry
completely. Lubricate the mounting pins with supplied Taylor Blu-Grease.
5. Align the spherical bearing at one end of the Viscous Damper with the hole in the
mounting bracket using a tapered pin, wood wedges or other means as necessary.
6. Position the mounting pin by hand with the beveled edge leading into the mounting
bracket hole and push through the entire assembly as shown in section 6.0 of
this manual. Re-align and adjust the Viscous Damper as necessary. If difficulty is
encountered in pushing the mounting pin through, light tapping with a hammer
may be used. If unreasonable difficulty is encountered, consult a Taylor Devices'
representative.
7. Install the Retaining Rings on both ends of the mounting pin, as shown in the manual
assembly method diagram found in section F of this chapter.
8. Repeat steps 2 through 7 for the opposite end of the Fluid Viscous damper. If
alignment difficulty occurs, contact a Taylor Devices’ representative.

C.3 Damper length adjustment using the available adjustment for Taylor Devices Part
Number 67DP-17170-01
The dampers will be shipped in a mid-stroke position that is shown on the drawings in section F
of this chapter. This is the length that should be set between the centers of the holes in the clevis
plates where the damper mounting pins will be attached through. The damper units are equipped

Chapter 14
with an adjustment nut that allows for mechanical adjustment of ±½ in. The clevis is free to rotate
for ±½ in of adjustment (each 180o rotation is equal to 0.083 in). After the damper has been adjusted
to the correct length tighten the adjustment set screw to lock the threads. DO NOT exceed ±½ inch
adjustment in either direction. If further length adjustment is required, the damper must be stroked.
The Engineer of Record must approve any use of damper stroke for length adjustment.

taylordevices inc. 209

 C.4 Using Damper Stroke for Adjustment Consult the Engineer of Record

THIS METHOD OF ADJUSTMENT IS ONLY TO BE PERFORMED IF

DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE E.O.R.
Extension - Stroking a damper in extension can most easily be accomplished by lifting the FVD with
a strap until the FVD is vertical. This may extend the unit. If the unit does not extend under its
own weight, additional weight may be hung from the other end as necessary. Alternatively, a come-
along, or a winching device may be used with one end of the damper pinned into its bracket, and the
other end pulled by the device.

Compression - To compress the FVD is slightly more difficult. The FVD can be lifted, as previously
described, by one end and then set down on the ground on the opposite end. Additional weight may
need to be placed on the top clevis as necessary. Care must be taken to avoid damage to the unit,
or toppling/collapse of this setup.

Note that a force of approximately 2%-4% of the maximum rated force of the damper may be
necessary to overcome internal seal gripping forces and allow stroking of the damper.

D. Inspection
D.1 Periodic Inspection
Taylor Devices' Fluid Viscous Dampers are designed to be completely maintenance free for the
life of the damper. No periodic maintenance, inspection or spare parts are required, desired, or
recommended for Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers. However, if the owner’s in-house safety
manual for seismic protection elements requires periodic inspection, the following procedure is
suggested:
1. If the dampers are not located in open access bays, provide access panels at damper
locations for ease of visual inspection. Access panels should be so located as to
provide clear visual inspection of at least one-half of the whole damper and if
possible, the entire damper.
2. Inspection intervals of approximately two (2) years, or after any sizable earthquake,
with a written record of damper condition (i.e. clean, dusty, etc.).
Chapter 14

3. Visual inspection of the damper bay (surroundings) to determine if any foreign object
is interfering with or restricting the damper from functioning properly and that the
bracket alignment is properly accommodated.
4. Visual inspection of the damper units. If the damper has been overloaded in stroke
or force, one of the following observations will be easily noted:
a. Obvious substantial and persistent fluid leakage, observable on the outside of
the damper.
b. Discernable looseness or play in the end attachment bearings of the damper.
3. No other inspection techniques are necessary.

210
taylordevices inc.
D.2 Other Inspection
Visual inspection of the dampers prior to installation is recommended to determine if any
obvious damage has occurred from shipping, storage or handling. Post-earthquake inspection is
recommended and consists of the procedure listed above in Section D.1 of this chapter. If any
discernable or unordinary situation is observed at any time, please consult the factory:

Taylor Devices, Inc.

90 Taylor Drive
North Tonawanda, NY 14120-0748

PHONE: 716-694-0800
FACSIMILE: 716-695-6015

E. Maintenance
E.1 Periodic Maintenance
Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers are intended for 100% maintenance free operation and hence,
no fluid refill ports are provided. Under normal operation, no maintenance whatsoever is required
for the life of the damper.

All Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers have the main cylinder cartridge sealed at the factory and
no field repair or maintenance can be performed. If the damper sustains any damage, the damper
must be returned to the address below:

Taylor Devices, Inc.

90 Taylor Drive
North Tonawanda, NY 14120-0748

Taylor Devices' personnel will then contact the owner of the damper concerning the status of
the device.

E.2 Painting
For aesthetic value, the dampers can be repainted if a different color is desired or if any surface
irregularities develop on painted surfaces. The spherical bearings and rod should not be painted.

Chapter 14
External surfaces that can be repainted have been factory painted with a corrosion resistant primer,
top color black. All other surfaces are to be carefully covered and masked to prevent paint spray
from contacting these surfaces and from entering the sleeve or spherical bearing assemblies. Always
be sure to remove all masking tape after paint has dried. Failure to remove masking, or painting
surfaces not recommended for painting; could cause improper function of the damper. Feel free
to consult the factory, should there be any additional questions or concerns. Paint information is
included in section F of this chapter for reference.

taylordevices inc. 211

 F. Specification Drawings
Outline drawings of the damper and hardware supplied by Taylor Devices are following this page.

Figure 14.2
Lock Up Device Drawing
Chapter 14

Figure 14.3
Pin Kit Drawing

212
taylordevices inc.
Figure 14.4
Pin Kit Assembly

Chapter 14

taylordevices inc. 213

Chapter 14

Figure 14.5
Retaining Ring Installation

214
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 14

Figure 14.6
Typical Paint Technical Data Sheet

taylordevices inc. 215

Chapter 14

216
taylordevices inc.
 Chapter 14

taylordevices inc. 217

Chapter 14

218
taylordevices inc.
Appendix

Case Studies
The following is a list of select case studies. Full versions of the studies follow these descriptions.

1. Cost Delta for Achieving Higher Structural Performance Levels – Major cities in California
are now mandating that existing buildings with the highest seismic risks be retrofitted in
conformance with local ordinances. As a consequence to the recent engineering community’s
push for cities and building owners to become more resilient against seismic events, many
owners are now more conscious about their buildings’ anticipated seismic performance.
Owners are now beginning to ask engineers what it means to design above the minimum code
standards. For an owner to make an educated decision on building design, engineers need to
convey the increased cost of a higher structural performance in simple terms. This paper covers
a scenario in which an existing Pre-Northridge Steel Moment Frame building was evaluated
for three different performance objectives under California’s hospital building standards. This
paper highlights the differences in structural scope between each performance level as well
as the expected percent increase in construction costs. Engineers can use this case study
as an example when speaking to their clients about relative costs between different seismic
performance levels.

2. Seismic retrofit and FEMA P-58 risk assessment of mid-rise soft-story concrete towers – The
two frame office towers, constructed in the 1970s per the 1967 edition of the UBC, use perimeter
reinforced concrete moment frames to resist seismic loading. The buildings are rectangular
in plan and have certain characteristics that adversely affect their seismic performance, in
particular the presence of a soft-story response at the first floor (approximately 50% taller
than typical floors), and limited ductility typical of buildings of that era. Risk analysis showed
that for the towers the PML exceeded 20%. Nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) of
the towers was conducted and showed that in the existing configuration, the story drift ratios
(SDRs) at the first floor exceeded 2%, shear hinging of the first floor beams was expected and
that the SDRs would need to be reduced to approximately 1.4% for the first floor to limit the
extent of nonlinear response. Seismic retrofit included addition of 300-kip viscous dampers in
both directions to the first floor of the building. Analysis showed that the retrofitted structure
had a first floor SDR of approximately 1.3% and that the soft story response and plastic shear
hinging of first floor beams were mitigated. FEMA P-58 analysis of the retrofitted buildings
were then conducted using the results—SDR, story acceleration, and residual drifts—from the
NLRHA. It was seen that the 90th percentile repair cost (PML) was significantly reduced and
was now less than 15%.

taylordevices inc. 219

Appendix

3. Seismic Rehabilitation of Historic Concrete Structure With Fluid Visco-Elastic Dampers –

This paper presents the nonlinear seismic analysis, development, and implementation of an
innovative seismic retrofit strategy for a six-story nonductile reinforced concrete 145,000-
sf (13,470 m2) historic building. Dynamic and nonlinear static analytical results verified that
the building had a weak soft-story with inadequate post-yield capacity, and large torsional
response. The analysis indicated that the existing building is not seismically adequate to
withstand anticipated lateral forces generated by earthquake excitations at the site. A “collapse
prevention” performance upgrade for a 475-year return event was desired. Nonlinear fluid
viscous dampers were placed at the first story level to reduce the seismic demand and obtain
a more uniform response. Visco-elastic fluid viscous dampers were strategically placed at one
side of the building to reduce the torsional irregularity of the building. The proposed cost
effective, state-of-the-art retrofit will improve the seismic performance of the building.

4. Seismic Upgrade of an Existing Tall Building by Different Energy Dissipation Devices – The
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center has expanded its Tall Building Initiative
(TBI) program to include the seismic performance of existing tall buildings. A 35-story steel
moment resisting frame, designed in 1968, and had representative details of buildings between
1960 to 1990 was selected for detailed seismic evaluation in the framework of Performance
Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE). It was identified that the case study building failed
to meet the performance objectives suggested by ASCE 41-13, and had a number of seismic
vulnerabilities that endangered its structural integrity at two basic safety earthquake hazard
levels (BSE): BSE-1E and BSE-2E. Therefore, exploration of retrofit strategies and their cost-
effectiveness are fostered. In this paper, three kinds of supplemental energy dissipation devices
are investigated to upgrade the seismic performance of the case study building, including fluid
viscous dampers (FVDs), viscous wall dampers (VWDs) and buckling restrained braces (BRBs).
The retrofit design started by selecting locations to install supplemental devices. Then the total
effective damping ratios needed to achieve the target roof displacements in two directions
were estimated based on a damping scale factor (DSF). One retrofit strategy by using FVDs
was investigated as a first trail, and the mechanical characteristics of each damper device were
calculated based on the overall effective damping ratio and the story wise distributions of
dampers. Next, other two retrofit strategies by using VWDs or BRBs were investigated. Sizing
of different devices at one location was performed following the principle of equal energy
dissipation. The effectiveness of each strategy to meet the retrofit intent of ensuring structural
stability at BSE-2E were compared. Moreover, probabilistic damage and loss analysis were
conducted using Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT) to relate the structural
responses to economic losses. After a detailed examination, it was found that upgrading the
case study tall building using FVDs was the most effective retrofit strategy to control structural
responses, and reduce damage and economic losses after BSE-2E events.

220
taylordevices inc.
 Appendix
5. Practical Implementation of ASCE-41 and NLRHA Procedures for the Design of the LLUMC
Replacement Hospital – The Loma Linda University Medical Center Campus Transformation
Project (LLUMC CTP) is a new 17 story base-isolated 1,000,000 square foot replacement
acute care hospital located less than 1 km from the San Jacinto Fault. The seismic design and
analysis of the structure used LS-DYNA to efficiently perform nonlinear response history
analysis (NLRHA) with 110 individual ground motion analyses incorporating DE, MCE,
upper bound, lower bound, and varying ground motion direction. Implementation of triple
pendulum isolators, fluid viscous dampers, buckling restrained braces, and SidePlate moment
frames in LS-DYNA will be described. As required for OSHPD-1 facilities, the NLRHA results
demonstrated Immediate Occupancy performance at DE and Life Safety performance at MCE
using element backbone curves and acceptance criteria from ASCE 41 as amended by the
California Building Code. Inconsistencies in element acceptance criteria for combined lateral
systems and other code implementation challenges will be discussed. A cloud computing and
database framework, using Penguin-on-Demand and Amazon Web Services, was developed
to manage the 8 terabytes of data generated from each set of 110 ground motion analyses
performed on each design iteration. Automated processes enabled the team to reduce the time
between design iterations to 2 weeks for the complete suite of NLRHA, post-processing, report
generation, and design optimization. The team’s approach to analysis data management, design
optimization procedures based on NLRHA results, automated post-processing, and automated
report generation will be detailed.

6. Integrated Design and Construction at the 250 West 55th Street Tower – The recently
completed 40 story office tower at 250 west 55th street in Manhattan demonstrates
the best in innovative structural design, and use of 3-D coordination tools for design
and construction. This paper describes the integrated process that was followed
and some of the challenges that were met along the way, and will be of interest to
design professionals and others interested in integrated construction processes.
The integrated 3-D process started with the use of Revit from the Schematic design stage, and
was followed through the design, procurement, and construction phases, with all major sub
contractors producing 3-D or 4-D models. These models were carefully integrated by the general
contractor, and enabled savings in schedule, reduction of field conflicts, and reduced project risks.
The progress of the project was further complicated by a suspension of construction for two
years after completion of the foundations. This paper describes some of the unusual steps taken
to manage this process and allow for an accelerated schedule upon restart of construction.

7. Design of an Essential Facility with Steel Moment Frames and Viscous Dampers Using 2000
NEHRP – This new 2-story, 40,000ft2 police headquarters becomes the first building in the
United States to apply 2000 NEHRP procedure to design an essential facility with Fluid Viscous
Dampers (FVDs). The structure is located in Vacaville, California, which is in a region of high
seismic activity and classified as zone 4 per 1997 Uniform Building Code. The lateral force
resisting system (LFRS) consists of special steel moment frames with FVDs. In accordance with
2000 NEHRP, the LFRS is sized and designed with strength requirements of the code level force.
FVDs are provided to control displacement of the structure. This design philosophy leads to a
low frequency structure with low acceleration. FVDs reduce the displacement level to less than
0.01 story drift ratio. Earthquake performance and cost effectiveness are the primary concerns

taylordevices inc. 221

Appendix

in designing this building. Site specific response spectra and time histories are synthesized for
a 500-year and a 2,500-year return event. Performance Based Design using both linear and
nonlinear time history analyses is conducted to ensure “immediate occupancy” performance.
A cost study shows that much of the FVD’s cost is offset by reducing the weight of the LFRS
while providing a far superior performance than the “code-compliant” structures.

8. Seismic Retrofit of the Tower of Hope – Preservation of a Masterwork of Mid-Century Modernism

- Richard Neutra’s iconic Tower of Hope on the Christ Cathedral (formerly “Crystal Cathedral”)
campus in Garden Grove, California has been an important Orange County landmark since it was
built in 1968. The thirteen-story tower – the tallest building in Orange County when it was built
– has been called an “overlooked masterwork in Neutra’s oeuvre” by architectural historians.

Like many concrete buildings built prior to the 1971 Sylmar Earthquake in California, the
Tower of Hope’s concrete frames lack the ductility needed to safely dissipate seismic
energy. After acquiring the Crystal Cathedral campus in 2012 the Roman Catholic Diocese
of Orange undertook a comprehensive renovation and seismic retrofit project to provide
21st century seismic resilience to the historic tower. This challenging seismic retrofit and
renovation project was completed in 2015. The retrofit work included the installation
of fluid viscous dampers on the second through fifth floors of the tower in combination
with fiber-reinforced polymer strengthening of targeted concrete columns and walls.

This paper focuses on two challenges unique to the Tower of Hope. First, it was imperative
that the retrofit design respect the historically significant mid-century modernist architecture,
preserving those features that were emblematic of that period of significance. Seismic retrofit
construction was limited to areas that didn’t affect Neutra’s open floor plate design aesthetic
or lessen the inside-outside connectivity of each of the spaces. This openness was particularly
challenging to preserve in the glass-walled first floor lobby where seismic forces are at their
most intense. The second unique challenge was the large damper connection forces that had
to be developed into the existing cast-in-place concrete frames without damaging the existing
steel rebar. The strategies described by the authors are generally applicable to other historic
buildings from the mid-century modernist movement and to the use of fluid viscous dampers
to retrofit concrete frames.

9. Strong Medicine – An article from Modern Steel Construction magazine discussing the use of
viscous dampers for the seismic upgrade of the Naval Hospital located Bremerton, WA.

10. Performance Based Seismic Retrofit of an Older Non-Ductile Reinforced Concrete Building
per ASCE 41-13 using Component Testing and Viscous Fluid Dampers - This paper presents
a retrofit project utilizing advanced analysis techniques, extensive materials and component
testing programs, and integration of viscous fluid dampers in a historic non-ductile concrete
building in California. The retrofit design is based on the nonlinear dynamic procedure in ASCE
41-13. A component testing program was conducted at the UCLA Testing Laboratory to more
accurately quantify the ductility of the unique building façade framing which does not only

222
taylordevices inc.
 Appendix
provide gravity support but also a meaningful contribution to the building lateral resistance.
Viscous fluid dampers, seamlessly integrated into the building historic architecture, effectively
reduces the ductility demand in the existing lateral system. The retrofit design also included
confining FRP wraps at select internal beams and columns to meet the required seismic ductility
demands. The preservation of the architecture as well as cost benefits and construction
schedule savings show this retrofit scheme is an advanced alternative to other more intrusive
conventional retrofit schemes.

11. Design of Structures with Dampers per ASCE 7-16 and Performance for Large Earthquakes
- An impediment to the use of seismic protection devices has been the difficulty for practicing
engineers to design buildings with isolation system or damping devices. ASCE/SEI task
committees charged with development of new generation of codes for seismic design and
retrofit of buildings have updated the relevant code sections with one goal being to encourage
the use of such devices. An effort was undertaken to develop a step-by-step design guideline
for such design. Following the preparation of guideline, incremental analysis of four steel SMF
building models was undertaken. The benchmark model was designed using the strength and
drift requirements of ASCE 7-16. The other models were based on provisions of Chapter 18
of ASCE 7-16. For one model the lower base shear value was used, and for a third model, the
drift ratios were further limited to obtain enhanced performance. Lower- and upper-bound
analyses as required by ASCE 7-16 were conducted to size the dampers. The models were
then subjected to incremental nonlinear analysis and key response parameters were evaluated.
In all cases, the use of dampers resulted in reduction in the hinging of SMF members. It was
notes that the best performing model was the model designed for 100% of nominal base shear
and above minimum effective damping had superior performance, remaining elastic at design
earthquake, and having almost no residual displacement at very large earthquakes.

taylordevices inc. 223

CASE STUDY: 1

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Case Study: Cost Delta for Achieving Higher Structural

Performance Levels

Kamalpreet Kalsi, Project Engineer

Daniel Zepeda, Principal
Degenkolb Engineers
Los Angeles, CA

Abstract improved seismic performance of acute care facilities after a

major seismic events. These Performance Objectives are
Major cities in California are now mandating that existing categorized into five categories, SPC-1, SPC-2, SPC-3, SPC-4
buildings with the highest seismic risks be retrofitted in and SPC5 (See Figure 1c). SPC-1 is not considered safe under
conformance with local ordinances. As a consequence to the a seismic event, while SPC-2 and above will have different
recent engineering community’s push for cities and building levels of safety under a seismic event. Figure 1a and Figure 1b
owners to become more resilient against seismic events, show the timeline of major milestones associated with
many owners are now more conscious about their buildings’ California legislation for hospitals regulated by OSHPD.
anticipated seismic performance. Owners are now beginning
to ask engineers what it means to design above the minimum
code standards. For an owner to make an educated decision on
building design, engineers need to convey the increased cost
of a higher structural performance in simple terms. This paper
covers a scenario in which an existing Pre-Northridge Steel
Moment Frame building was evaluated for three different
performance objectives under California’s hospital building
standards. This paper highlights the differences in structural
scope between each performance level as well as the expected
percent increase in construction costs. Engineers can use this
case study as an example when speaking to their clients about
relative costs between different seismic performance levels.

Introduction and Background Figure 1a: Timeline of Hospital Upgrades in California

Note: Figure re-printed from webinar by California Hospital
The case study project is a hospital located in California and Commission on May 2015.
falls under Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD) jurisdiction.

Under the state code, any essential facility (in this case an acute
care hospital) requires the importance factor “I” to be 1.5 when
designing a new building. Similarly, when evaluating or
retrofitting an existing building, a higher performance criteria
is utilized. The higher seismic criteria result in more extensive
retrofits compared to similar buildings under the same hazard.
California has always been in the forefront of seismic
protection by demanding stricter regulations to protect lives
and property. Essential facilities, such as hospitals, came under
regulation after passage of the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital
Seismic Safety Act post 1971’s Sylmar earthquake. Senate Bill
(SB) 1953 and subsequent regulations have provided timelines Figure 1b: Timeline of Hospital Upgrades in California
and performance objectives that hospitals should meet to contd.
comply with California State’s overall goal of ensuring the

224
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 1 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Note: Figure re-printed from webinar by California Hospital category provides an alternate path to compliance beyond
Commission on May 2015 2030.

Table 2.5.3 of the California Administrative Code (CAC) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 41-13 defines
defines the Structural Performance Categories (SPC) in more the different performance levels and CBC 201 outlines the
detail (Figure 1c). It is worth noting that an existing building objectives for each performance level. As part of this case
could only be upgraded from an SPC-1 to an SPC-2 or SPC-5. study these objectives and criteria were performed for three
However, in recent years OSHPD has defined an intermediate different performance categories: SPC-2, SPC-4D, and SPC-5.
category SPC-4D that can be used to retrofit an existing
building. This new category is expected to yield a similar • SPC-2: ife Safety structural performance level in
seismic performance level as SPC-4. accordance with 2.3.1.3 of ASCE 41-13 at BSE-1E
hazard. BSE-1E hazard corresponds to a return period
The retrofit example is a six story steel moment frame of 225 year.
building, which was erected in 1972. OSHPD designated the
building as an SPC-1 due to significant structural deficiencies. • SPC-4D: Damage Control structural performance
The project’s general contractor provided pricing to upgrade level in accordance with 2.3.1.2.1 of ASCE 41-13
the building to structural performance categories: SPC-2, SPC- at BSE-1E hazard and Collapse Prevention structural
4D and SPC-5. See Table 1 for reference. hat follows is an performance level in accordance with 2.3.1.5 of
analysis of project’s potential seismic upgrades and their ASCE 41-13 at BSE-2E hazard. BSE-2E hazard
associated costs. This type of analysis is recommended for corresponds to a return period of 975 years
assisting building owners, as they make critical safety and
financial decision to make seismic upgrades. • SPC-5: Immediate Occupancy structural
performance level in accordance with 2.3.1.1 of
Table 1: naps ot from C C Table . . for C ASCE 41-13 at BSE-1N hazard and ife Safety
description performance level in accordance with ASCE 41-13
2.3.1.3 at BSE-2N hazard. BSE -1N corresponds to a
return period of 475 years, and BSE-2N corresponds
to a return period of 2,475 years.

ASCE 41-13 defines the post-earthquake damage state for ife

Safety as the state in which a structure has damaged
components but still regains a margin against the onset of
partial or total collapse. In addition, the definition of damage
state for a Damage Control performance objective is the
midway point between ife Safety and Immediate Occupancy.
It is intended to provide a structure with a greater reliability of
resisting collapse and being less damaged than a typical
structure but not to the extent required of a structure designed
to meet the Immediate Occupancy Performance evel. It is
important to note that, for this performance level, repairs may
Note: eprinted from California Administrative Code 201 . be required before the building can be re-occupied after a
design level earthquake.
Performance Levels and Ha ards
The post-earthquake damage state for Collapse Prevention is
As indicated in the table above, in 201 California Hospital such that the building is on the verge of collapse with
Building Safety Board included a new performance category significant portions of the structural and non-structural
(SPC-4D) under California Building Code (CBC) to allow components damaged beyond repair. A building designed to
acute care hospitals another seismic upgrade option. The SPC- this level of performance will likely not be able to be
4D performance category is meant to be equivalent to the reoccupied after a maximum credible earthquake. Figure 2,
minimum prescriptive requirements of the 19 0 CBC. Prior to shows different damage states for buildings under a seismic
the addition of this new performance category, an existing event.
building (SPC-1 or SPC-2) was required to upgrade to SPC-5.
Buildings not upgraded to these stringent SPC-5 requirements
would have to be removed or rebuilt before 2030. The SPC-4D

taylordevices inc. 225

CASE STUDY: 1 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

• Soft Story per 3.3.2

• Adjacent Building per 3.4
• Drift Check per 4.3.2
• Strong Column eak Beam per 4.2.
• Pre-Northridge elded Moment Frames per 4.2.10
• Untopped Diaphragms per 7.3.1 and 7.3.2

Building etrofit Scheme

The building retrofit consists of new primary external damped

3-bay moment frames at all three sides of the building. The
external frames are connected to the structure through
horizontal trusses. The existing perimeter beams are used as
drags and minor strengthening was required to increase the
Figure : ifferent damage stages for buildings drag capacities. Deep pile foundations support the new lateral
Note: Figure re-printed from webinar by California Hospital elements. Each new external frame is supported on a pile cap.
Commission on May 2015 The new piles consist of a battered, proprietary pile system to
resist seismic demands. Figure 3a shows a typicalplan view of
isting Building Descri tion the building and Figure 3b shows a typical retrofit elevation of
the external damped moment frame with foundation.
The project building is an existing six-story structure built in
1972 that is triangular in plan. It is located in San Bernardino,
California. The lateral force resisting system ( F S) of the
existing structure consists of pre-Northridge steel moment
frames that extend to the roof level of the structure. The
moment frames are positioned such that one -bay moment
frame is located at each of the three sides of the structure along
the perimeter, and one 4-bay moment frame is located 20 ft.
directly inward and parallel with each -bay moment frame.
This structural configuration provides frames total (three -
bay frames, and three 4-bay frames) within the building. The
moment frames were designed using the prescriptive pre-
Northridge welded unreinforced flange ( UF) moment
connection. The gravity system of the structure consists of a
flat one-way concrete slab that spans between wide flange steel
joists. These joists span between larger wide flange beams
girders and are in turn supported by the wide flange columns. Figure a: erall lan of t e uilding
Above the roof level, there is an existing penthouse and
elevator machine room. The penthouse and elevator machine
room areas consist of un-topped metal deck over wide flange
steel beams supported by steel columns. The penthouse floor
plan is mostly triangular in plan as well. The lateral system for
the penthouse structure consists of diagonal steel plate-straps
in selected beam-column frames. At the foundation level, the
structure consists of a slab-on-grade system with cast-in-place
drilled piles and grade beams.

isting Building Deficiencies

As part of the initial assessment, a Tier 1 evaluation was

conducted in accordance with Chapter of the CAC. The
following deficiencies were identified by performing a
analysis:

226
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 1 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

returning Architectural-Mechanical-Electrical-Plumbing
(AMEP) fixtures back after necessary removals (if any) to
conduct the retrofit. Finally, ADA projects are upgrades that
are triggered by code for seismic upgrade projects.

Figure 4 shows the direct cost associated with the structural

upgrade of the building for three different structural
performance categories: SPC-2, SPC-4D, and SPC-5. As
illustrated, the incremental structural cost difference between
SPC-4D and SPC-5 is less than that of SPC-2 to SPC-4D. In
this case study, the low relative structural cost difference
between SPC-4D and SPC-5 is atypical, and related to the
selected retrofit configuration, specifically the use of external
dampers. Additionally, when selecting an upgrade option
based on costs, it is important to note that SPC-2 would still
require future upgrades before 2030 per current legislations
(implying additional costs in the near future).

STRUCTURAL COST
$30 $234 /sf
$222 /sf

$25 $192 /sf

Millions

Figure b: le ation of ternal amped oment Frame $20

etrofit c eme
$15
Cost Com arison
$10
Although the evaluation of multiple performance objectives
$5
was not the initial intention of the project, changes in state
legislation (i.e. introduction of SPC-4D) opened the $-
opportunity to explore them. In addition the owner was SPC-2 SPC-4D SPC-5
attracted to the idea of having a better structural performance
with an extended life cycle. As such the design team was
requested by the owner to explore various performance Figure : irect structural cost of retrofit for t ree
categories. The various analysis provided the team with an different structural performance categories.
opportunity to understand the overall construction costs
associated with different upgrades. Although in a structural Figure 5 shows the cost associated with removing and re-
retrofit project, the structural costs are a major portion of the patching architectural, mechanical, electric and plumbing. For
overall budget, they are not the only deciding factor of the this project, this cost also includes the mandatory ADA
project scope. This is because there are other non-structural upgrade requirements per California Building Code totaling to
costs associated with a retrofit that require a large percentage 20 of the overall project. The total project cost differences
of the overall budget and can also be the determining factors between incremental upgrades from SPC-2 to SPC-4D to SPC-
when deciding how to proceed with a project. Major costs 5 are nominal as compared to the structural cost differences
associated with the structural retrofit explored in this paper (see Figure 4).
include structural upgrades, non-structural upgrades, make
ready projects, ADA projects, and patch back work costs. The
case study does not include costs the owner incurs for special
inspections, and operational downtime. This paper refers to
make ready projects as site preparation and relocation of staff
in and around the construction area to make space “ready” for
the retrofit. Patch back work refers to the costs associated with

taylordevices inc. 227

CASE STUDY: 1 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

cost jump between SPC-2 and SPC-4D upgrades (over 3.5

million), the total cost difference between SPC-2 and SPC-4D
is not much greater (just 4 million). Although the AMEP and
AM COST make ready costs are substantial, these costs do not increase
$14 /sf significantly between each upgrade scenario the way the
$1 0 structural costs increase between SPC-2 and SPC-4D. This
$1 holds true for the overall cost differences between SPC-4D and
$1 SPC-5. In addition, the total cost was approximately half of
$142 /sf what a new building would cost in today’s market.
Millions

$1 4
$1 2
$1 0
$1
$13 /sf TOTAL COST
$1 $ 00 /sf
$1 4 $100
$90
$1 2
$ 0
$1 0
$ 0
Millions

SPC-2 SPC-4D SPC-5

$43 /sf $45 /sf
$ 0 $402 /sf
$50
Figure : patc bac cost of retrofit for t ree $40
different structural performance categories. $30
$20
Figure shows make ready project costs. Similar to the AMEP $10
cost differences between upgrade scenarios, the make ready $-
costs differences between SPC-2 to SPC-4D to SPC-5
upgrades are minimal compared to the structural cost
comparisons (see Figure 4).
Figure : erall total pro ect cost of retrofit for t ree
different structural performance categories and ne
MA R A COST construction comparison.

$9 2 $ 5 /sf Conclusion
$9 1 As seen in the cost comparison study of different structural
$9 1 upgrade performance levels, the total upgrade cost consists of
$ 4 /sf
Millions

many different aspects apart from just upgrading the structural

$9 0
components. A 15 increase in structural only upgrading cost
$9 0 from SPC-2 to SPC-4D results in only increase in total cost
$ 3 /sf
$ 9 of retrofit. A 5 increase in structural only upgrading cost
from SPC-4D to SPC-5 results in only 4 increase in total cost
$ 9
of retrofit. A 22 increase in structural only upgrading cost
$ from SPC-2 to SPC-5 results in only 13 increase in overall
$ cost of retrofit.
SPC-2 SPC-4D SPC-5
As illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure , the AMEP and make
ready costs are substantial to the project however, the cost
Figure : a e ead pro ects cost of retrofit for t ree differences between the three upgrade scenarios are not large.
different structural performance categories. Therefore, when looking at the overall costs differences
between upgrade scenarios in Figure 7, the AMEP and make
Figure 7 compares the overall (total) cost for the three different ready costs dilute the larger structural cost differences between
structural upgrades and an approximate cost of a similarly each upgrade scenario. Having the cost data available for
sized new building. hereas Figure 4 shows a large structural different performance categories, the owner ended up choosing

228
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 1 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

SPC-4D performance level for upgrade. Even though cost

delta was small to get SPC-5 performance level, the existing
adjacent buildings limited the size of new foundation. SPC-5
foundation size would have resulted it more disruption and
downtime.

e hope this study can be used to encourage building owners

to do a cost study on various performance levels prior to
proceeding with the retrofit design. A reasonable cost increase
can result in having a higher performance building.

eferences

201 CBC, California Building Code, California Code of

egulations, Title 24, Part 2, olume 1 2 (based on the
2015 International Building Code), including Supplements,
California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA.

201 CAC, California Administrative Code, California Code

of egulations, Title 24, Part 1

2015, California Hospital Association (CHA) webinar on new

seismic performance category (SPC-4D)

taylordevices inc. 229

CASE STUDY: 2

Seismic retrofit and FEMA P-58 risk assessment of mid-rise

soft-story concrete towers
Kit Miyamoto, Ph.D., S.E., Amir SJ Gilani, Ph.D., S.E. and Lon Determan, S.E.
Miyamoto International
Los Angeles, CA

Abstract The lateral load is resisted by a system of reinforced concrete

perimeter moment frames. Figure 1 presents the plan view of
The two frame office towers, constructed in the 1970s per the a typical floor and the location of the lateral load resisting
1967 edition of the UBC, use perimeter reinforced concrete system. Columns are 28-in square and support 18x40 in. beams
moment frames to resist seismic loading. The buildings are on the second floor and 18x30 in. beams at the floors above. In
rectangular in plan and have certain characteristics that the longitudinal direction, there are five 29-ft long bays on
adversely affect their seismic performance, in particular the each side (10 bays total), and in the transverse direction, there
presence of a soft-story response at the first floor are three 26-ft long bays on each side (6 bays total).
(approximately 50% taller than typical floors), and limited
ductility typical of buildings of that era. Risk analysis showed
that for the towers the PML exceeded 20%. Nonlinear response
history analysis (NLRHA) of the towers was conducted and
showed that in the existing configuration, the story drift ratios
(SDRs) at the first floor exceeded 2%, shear hinging of the first
floor beams was expected and that the SDRs would need to be
reduced to approximately 1.4% for the first floor to limit the
extent of nonlinear response. Seismic retrofit included addition
of 300-kip viscous dampers in both directions to the first floor
of the building. Analysis showed that the retrofitted structure
had a first floor SDR of approximately 1.3% and that the soft
story response and plastic shear hinging of first floor beams Figure 1. Lateral load resisting system
were mitigated. FEMA P-58 analysis of the retrofitted
buildings were then conducted using the results—SDR, story Site seismicity
acceleration, and residual drifts—from the NLRHA. It was The building site is classified as Class D. For the building site
seen that the 90th percentile repair cost (PML) was and soil conditions, the USGS provides the following design
significantly reduced and was now less than 15%. parameters: short period acceleration of 0.53g, and 1-sec
acceleration of 0.31g. These values are used to construct the
Introduction seismic demand for the building. The seismicity at the site is
considered moderate.
Description of the buildings
Recent visits to the building has shown that the structure has
The office towers investigated, located in downtown not experienced any noticeable damage from past earthquakes,
Sacramento, CA, are of very similar construction. For the including the recent 2014 South Napa event.
purposes of this study, the west tower was specifically
modeled and evaluated. The west tower is a 14-story Building characteristics
reinforced concrete moment frame building constructed in
1971. The building has a plan dimension of approximately 150 Overview
x 81 ft. The building is rectangular in plan. Typical floors Reinforced concrete buildings constructed prior to adoption of
measure 11 ft in height, whereas, the first floor is 17 ft tall. new seismic codes are usually classified as having low
Gravity loading is resisted by a system consisting of 8-inch ductility. In other words, such buildings do not have the means
thick post-tensioned 2-way flat slab and reinforced concrete to resist the seismic energy that is imparted to them by
columns bearing on a pile foundation system. earthquakes. The low-ductile reinforced concrete buildings
have performed poorly in past earthquakes.

230
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 2 (continued)

Factors enhancing seismic performance requirement is not met for the Type D columns shown in
the plans. This code requirement is intended to prevent
The structure under consideration has several key design buckling of longitudinal reinforcement at locations of high
features that enhance its earthquake resistance, including the seismic loading.
following:
 oint eccentricity. Eccentricity in the line of action
between beams and columns will amplify loading on the
 Structural configuration. The building is regular in plan,
members.
with no re-entrant corners or vertical off-sets. Regular
buildings have performed well in past earthquakes. Seismic erformance of e isting building
 Close stirrup spacing at the beam-to-column oints. The
Overview
plans show stirrup spacing of 4-in. on center for beams
and tie spacing of 3.25-in. on center at the oints. The
ASCE 41-13 (ASCE 2014) provides comprehensive
reinforcement is shown with 135-degree hooks. Such
requirements for seismic evaluation and upgrade of existing
close spacing of transverse reinforcement would prevent
buildings and was used for this structure. Computer program
the buckling of reinforcement at the location of highest
ETABS (CSI 2016) was used to prepare a three-dimensional
seismic stress.
mathematical model of the building see Figure 2. This model
was used to assess the performance of the existing building
Factors decreasing seismic performance moment frames. Nominal material properties, spans and
member si es specified in the original construction documents
The structure under consideration has several key design were used in analysis. Dimensions were based on centerline
features that reduce its earthquake resistance, including the dimensions provided in the drawings. Gravity loading on the
following: building is composed of member self-weights, design live load
and additional dead load to account for non-structural
 Soft-story response. The first story of the building is elements such as flooring, ceiling, and duct work, which is
approximately 50% taller than the stories above. distributed uniformly on floor slabs. The concrete floor
Buildings with such configuration can be vulnerable to diaphragms are modeled as rigid, meshed shell elements. The
earthquake damage because the deformation and damage seismic loading was based on values obtained from the USGS
is concentrated at the first floor, while good design web site for the design earthquake (475-year event).
typically results in uniform distribution of lateral
deformation among all floors.
 Transverse reinforcement. The beams have stirrup spacing
of 18-in. and 13-in. on center near midspan at the second
level and above, respectively. The mid-height column tie
spacing is 12-in. on center. These values exceed the
current code limits and can lead to premature failure in
some members.
 Shear capacity of beams. Beams are constructed of
lightweight concrete and use No. 3 or 4 transverse bars
spaced 18 in. or 13 in. on center at middle third of the
members, thus having limited shear capacity. Modern
codes attempt to mitigate shear failure by requiring ductile
flexural damage prior to shear failure.
 Splices and development length. The tension lap splices
for the beams do not meet the current code requirements.
The column 18 to 14 longitudinal bar splices use cold-
welded couplers. Inadequate splice and development
length can lead to bar pullout and prevent reinforcement
from reaching its capacity.
 Column ties. The code requires that every other Figure 2. Mathematical model of the building
longitudinal reinforcement have a tie around it. This

taylordevices inc. 231

CASE STUDY: 2 (continued)

Building codes allow for both linear and nonlinear analysis. measures should be considered for the first floor or two. For
hen linear analysis is used, there are certain conservatisms multistory non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings, drifts
built into the results to account for the modeling and analysis need to be kept to 1.5% or lower.
assumptions. By contrast, nonlinear analysis attempts to
model the behavior of the building and its components in Pushover analysis
greater detail, resulting in greater accuracy of the results,
thusly requiring less conservatism. For this structure, Preliminary nonlinear analysis of the structure was conducted.
nonlinear analysis was utili ed to compute capacities and the For this analysis, it was assumed that all reinforcement as
principal of equal displacement was applied to demands. In shown in the plans will be fully developed and that bending
other word, displacement-based (or performance-based), nonlinearity would only occur near the oints. Additionally,
rather than force-based, methodology was employed. given the low capacity of concrete beams in shear, the model
incorporated nonlinear elements at midspan of the beams. ey
Story drift ratios (SDRs) findings are summari ed in Table 1.

Figure 3 presents the computed drift ratios at the design ey usho er analysis results
earthquakes. Drift ratios are one of the most telling parameters
in evaluating the response of a building, as they correlate Displacement, in SDR %
directly to the demand on structural members and drift-
sensitive structural components, such as partitions. The Step Level - - - -
building codes place limits on drifts at the design-level Existing Roof 17.0 20.0
1.9 2.2
earthquake. building L1 3.9 4.5
nset of Roof 14.0 13.0
200
1.6 1.4
180
damage First 3.2 2.9
160 X
Y The deformed shapes of the perimeter frame for the building
140
in its existing condition during design earthquake is shown in
120 Figure 4.
Elevation, ft

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%
Drift ratio, %

Figure 3. Drift ratios at design earthquake

Figure 3 reveals the following: Figure 4. Building deformed shape

 Drift ratio in the - (transverse) direction are larger than Examination of Table 1 and Figure 4 indicates the following:
in the - (longitudinal) direction. This is because there are  The building in its existing condition (without upgrade)
fewer moment frame bays in the -direction. will experience damage when sub ected to the design
 Drift ratios at the first floor are the largest because of the earthquake
soft story present at this level. First floor drift in the -  The ma or damage will be primarily limited to the first
direction exceeds 2%. floor. Since damage is concentrated at one level only, this
For multistory non- or low-ductile reinforced concrete can lead to instability and collapse.
moment frame buildings, the target drift ratio is typically set  If the first floor displacement is reduced below
at approximately 1% to 1.5%. At 1% or below, the structure approximately 2.9 in. (1.4% drift), then damage is
is unlikely to experience any damage. The 1.5% value is essentially eliminated.
referred to as nearly elastic—implying that there will be some
small level of nonlinearity but the damage is likely to be
locali ed and minor. A review of Figure 3 shows that upgrade

232
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 2 (continued)

Seismic u grade with fluid iscous dam ers

Fluid viscous dampers, were used as the upgrade solution.
Dampers possess the following characteristics:

 Developed by the defense and aerospace industry, and

present state-of-the-art solution for civil applications.
 Are maintenance free and have been widely used in
upgrade of reinforced concrete buildings with proven
reliability.
 Minimi e the need for strengthening of existing members
and foundations.
Figure 6. Damper placement, bottom story
 Can be aesthetically integrated into the building
architectural features. Findings
 Have been extensively tested.
Figure 7 presents the computed story displacements for the
 Are cost-effective. upgraded model. The displacement values of Table 1
corresponding to the approximate thresholds for linear
 Minimi e disruption to building occupancy.
response (no or minor damage) at the first floor and roof levels
are also shown as arrows in the figure. It is noted that
For this pro ect, dampers were selected with the following displacements of the upgraded model are within the acceptable
properties: limits.
200
 elocity exponent 0.5 180

 Damper nominal design force 350 kips 160 X

Y
140

120
Elevation, ft

Seismic u grade e aluation 100

80
Overview 60

40
The analytical model of the building was revised by adding 8
dampers per floor for the bottom story see Figure 5 and Figure 20

6. Analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of the 0

proposed upgrade. Three pairs of recorded accelerations from 0 5 10

tort i la e ent, in
15 20

past California earthquakes were synthesi ed to correspond Figure 7. Computed story displacements
closely to the types of motions that can be anticipated at the
building site during a design-level earthquake. Maximum Figure 8 presents the computed drift ratios for the existing and
values were then selected for assessment of the upgraded upgraded building. The efficacy of the proposed upgrade can
building model. be evaluated by noting the following:
 The soft-story response at the first floor is significantly
reduced. The drift ratio at the first floor was on the order
of twice that of the typical floors above, and this
amplification is now reduced by approximately 60%.
 Drift ratio at first floor is approximately 1.2%. As such,
no or only minor yielding of concrete members is
expected.

Figure 5. Revised building model with dampers

taylordevices inc. 233

CASE STUDY: 2 (continued)

200 400

180
00
160
200
140
100
120
Elevation, ft

or e, i
100 0

80
100
60
200
40
00
20

0 400
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 2 1 0 1 2
Drift ratio, % Di la e ent, in

Figure 8. Computed drift ratios (Y direction) Figure 10. First floor damper force-displacement
response
The effectiveness of the damper upgrade solution can further
be seen in Figure 9, where the significant reduction in first isk PM analysis
floor displacement and nonlinear structural damage can be
seen. Probabilistic risk analysis was conducted to compute the
5 probable maximum loss (90% confidence PML) and the
4
scenario expected loss (50% confidence SEL) of the structure
before and after upgrading. A similar analysis was conducted
previously by URS Corporation. The results are presented in
2 Table 2 for both studies.
Di la e ent, in

0 PML SEL
1 Existing 31 14
2
Upgraded 19 9

Scenario-based risk analysis design

4
earth uake
5
0 5 10 15 20
i e, e
The following is noted:
Figure 9. Displacement of existing and upgraded
models, First floor, Y-direction
 The reduction in PML and SEL for the upgraded building
is more pronounced due to the differences in upgrade
As shown in Figure 10, viscous dampers dissipate a significant
approaches proposed. The URS proposed upgrade
amount of the earthquake input energy. In the absence of
consisted of wrapping the mid-sections of all frame beams
dampers, such energy must be absorbed by the existing
and columns. hile this approach is effective in providing
reinforced concrete members through nonlinear action and
confinement and increasing shear capacity of the concrete
structural damage.
members, it does not reduce the seismic demand or soft-
story behavior. ith the proposed upgrade using dampers,
the soft-story behavior is mitigated and demand on the
existing members is reduced to near-elastic levels. Thus
concerns regarding the member ductility are no longer
applicable.

234
taylordevices inc.
 CASE STUDY: 2 (continued)

Seismic isk Analysis Procedure viscous dampers. The key input parameters include story drift
ratio, peak floor acceleration, and residual drift see Figure 13
The FEMA P-58 (FEMA 2012 and SP3 2016) methodology is through Figure 14.
a probabilistic approach that combines the site-specific ha ard,
building properties, and exposure to estimate key response
parameters, including the 90th-percentile repair cost in the
event of the design (475-year return period) earthquake. The
simulation for this pro ect included 10,000 Monte Carlo
analyses.

Site Hazard

The site ha ard was based on USGS data. The de-aggregation

data from contributing faults is presented in Figure 11 and the
ha ard curve for the site is presented in Figure 12.

Figure 13. Story drift ratios

Figure 14. Peak floor accelerations

Figure 11. De-aggregation for the site seismic hazard
Building Capacity

Building capacity was based on the FEMA 154 checklist. The

default values for the collapse fragility were used.
Building Content and Fragility Functions

The building contents (structural and nonstructural) were

based on typical contents for this class of buildings. The P58
default fragility functions were used.
Figure 12. Site hazard curve Results
Building Properties The median and 90% repair costs for the design earthquake
were computed as approximately 6% and 12%, respectively
The building was defined as a 14-story reinforced concrete see Table 3.
moment frame structure, with lateral frames located at the
building perimeter. It is of 1970s vintage, Risk Category II and
has office occupancy.

The input data for building properties were based on the results
from the structural analysis of the building retrofitted with

taylordevices inc. 235

CASE STUDY: 2 (continued)

Median and re air cost

Sa (3.6s) Mean Median 90th percentile
(g) repair cost repair cost repair cost
8% 12% 6% 12%

Pro ect status

The construction for the seismic retrofitting of the towers has

been completed. Figure 15and Figure 16 present a portion of
construction plans showing the damper elevations and
connection to the existing concrete members, respectively. As
required by ASCE 41-13, all dampers were sub ected to
production testing conducted by the manufacturer. Figure 17
shows the force-velocity relation for the 350-kip dampers.
Figure 18 presents photographs of retrofitted building
Figure 17. Force-velocity relation

Figure 15. Elevation view of damper placement

Figure 16. Connection details for dampers

Figure 18. Seismic retrofitting using viscous dampers

236
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 2 (continued)

onclusions

The preliminary probable response of the office towers in

Sacramento to earthquake loading was investigated using a
combination of advanced structural analysis and risk
assessment. Analysis and evaluation showed the following:

 The buildings in their existing configurations had PML

values that exceed 20 and will likely experience moderate
to significant damage in the event of a design-level
earthquake.
 The building structure had a moderate degree of
nonductile detailing as well as soft-story behavior at the
ground floor which pose significant ha ards during
earthquakes.
 The buildings were effectively upgraded with fluid
viscous dampers.
 The upgraded solution mitigated the critical building
deficiencies and reduce the PML.

eferences

ASCE 41-13 (2014) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of

Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, A.

ASTM E2557 (2016) Standard Practice for Probable

Maximum Loss (PML) Evaluations for Earthquake Due-
Diligence Assessments. American Society of Testing and
Material, est Conshohocken, PA

ETABS (2016), Integrated software package for the structural

analysis and design of buildings, Computers and Structures
Inc., alnut Creek, CA

FEMA P-58 (2012) Seismic Performance Assessment of

Buildings Federal Emergency Management Agency
ashington, D.C

SP3 (2016) Seimic Performance Predication Program,

Hasleton and Baker, https: www.hbrisk.com

taylordevices inc. 237

CASE STUDY: 3

Seismic Rehabilitation of Historic Concrete

Structure
With Fluid Visco-Elastic Dampers

Kit Miyamoto, M.S., S.E., President & CEO

Lon M. Determan, S.E., Project Manager
Amir Gilani, PhD, P.E., Project Engineer
Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.
West Sacramento, CA

Robert D. Hansen, PhD, P.E., Professor Emeritus

University of Michigan
Walnut Creek, CA

Abstract Introduction

This paper presents the nonlinear seismic analysis, This paper presents the performance-based evaluation
development, and implementation of an innovative and retrofit design of the Hotel Stockton. The 145,000-sf
seismic retrofit strategy for a six-story nonductile (13,470 m2) reinforced concrete building, built in 1910
reinforced concrete 145,000-sf (13,470 m2) historic in Stockton, California, is a torsionally irregular
building. Dynamic and nonlinear static analytical results structure comprised of a six-story portion connected to a
verified that the building had a weak soft-story with two-story portion. There was significant concern that
inadequate post-yield capacity, and large torsional the building will not be able to withstand the level of
response. The analysis indicated that the existing earthquake shaking expected at the site for two reasons:
building is not seismically adequate to withstand a weak and soft lateral force resisting system at the first
anticipated lateral forces generated by earthquake floor level, and the inadequate confinement of
excitations at the site. A “collapse prevention” reinforcement in the first story columns. To assess the
performance upgrade for a 475-year return event was performance of the structure, a detailed mathematical
desired. Nonlinear fluid viscous dampers were placed at model of the building was prepared based on FEMA 273
the first story level to reduce the seismic demand and guidelines. Dynamic and nonlinear static analytical
obtain a more uniform response. Visco-elastic fluid results verified the presence of the soft-story response,
viscous dampers were strategically placed at one side of inadequate post-yield capacity, and large torsional
the building to reduce the torsional irregularity of the response. The analyses indicated that the existing
building. The proposed cost effective, state-of-the-art building is not seismically adequate to withstand
retrofit will improve the seismic performance of the anticipated lateral forces generated by earthquake
building. excitations at the site. The existing structure will suffer
substantial damage and possible collapse in the event of
a major earthquake.

238
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

To address the above-mentioned inadequacies, the E-W direction and 100 ft (30.5 m) in the N-S direction.
Owner decided to undertake a voluntary seismic upgrade In elevation, it is comprised of a six-story portion on the
of this building. The focus of the seismic rehabilitation east side and a two-story portion on the west side, and
was to address the major deficiencies of the structure, has a full basement. The first story is 18 ft (5.5 m) high
namely the soft-story and torsional response of the and the remaining floors have a story height of 10’-3”
building. The main objective was to provide a “collapse (3.1 m). Figure 1 below shows a south elevation of the
prevention” performance goal during a 475-year return eastern portion of the building.
event. Nonlinear fluid viscous dampers were placed at
the first story level to reduce the seismic demand and In the E-W direction, the building consists of 15 bays at
obtain a more uniform response. Visco-elastic fluid approximately 20-ft (6.1-m) spacing. In the N-S
viscous dampers were strategically placed at one side of direction, there are five bays at approximately 20 ft (6.1
the building to reduce the torsional irregularity of the m) per bay, see Figure 2. The structure is a cast-in-place
building. Finally, the first story interior columns reinforced concrete building. Reinforced concrete
supporting the six-story portion of the building were columns, beams, and shear walls comprise the gravity
wrapped with a fiber-reinforced polymer composite and lateral load resisting system. The basement columns
(FRP). A new mathematical model was prepared are 18- and 20-in. (457 and 508 mm) square for the two-
incorporating the seismic upgrades, and was subjected to story and six-story segments of the building,
nonlinear time history analyses using three sets of two- respectively. At the ground floor and above, column
component, independent acceleration histories derived sizes vary from 18-in. (457 mm) square at the first story
from a site-specific acceleration spectrum. Evaluation of to 14-in. (356 mm) square at the fifth story. There is a
the analytical results of this model showed that the story full 9-in. (229 mm) thick concrete perimeter wall
drift for the first floor was significantly reduced, the between the basement and the first floor, and there are
torsional response was nearly eliminated, and all numerous 6-in. (152 mm) thick concrete walls between
structural members remained elastic. the floors above the second floor. However, there are no
structural walls between the ground and the second floor
Description of Structure levels. Typical floors consist of 4-in. (102 mm) concrete
slabs with a 2-in. (51 mm) topping slab supported by E-
The Hotel Stockton, built in 1910 as a 252-guest room W concrete beams, and N-S concrete girders.
hotel, is a historic landmark building in Stockton,
California. The building, also referred to as The Although the as-built plans of the structure are not
Stockton, measures approximately 300 ft (91.4 m) in the available, field investigations have shown that the

Figure 1: South Elevation

taylordevices inc. 239

CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

columns typically have four and eight longitudinal MPa), per FEMA 273. A yield value of 36 ksi (250
reinforcing bars around the perimeter of columns at the MPa) was used for the column ties.
two-story and six-story segments, respectively. Typical
• Frame elements. All columns were modeled as
minimum concrete cover for the reinforcement is
square sections with longitudinal bars in a circular
approximately 2 ½ to 3 in. (64 to 76 mm). The ground-
pattern. Girders and beams were modeled as
to-first story columns have eight 1-in (25 mm) square
rectangular sections with the section depth measured
bars. Typical transverse ties consist of 1/8-in (3.2 mm)
from the top of the topping slab. T-beam action from
thick by 1-in (25 mm) wide bars at 8 in. (203 mm)
the floor slab was neglected. All dimensions were
spacing.
specified as centerline-to-centerline – (i.e. no rigid
end offsets were specified). The perimeter basement
walls and wall segments between the floors were

Figure 2: Plan View at 2nd Floor

Analytical Model of Existing Structure modeled as shell elements. Similarly, the floor slabs
at all levels were modeled as shell elements. FEMA
The computer program ETABS (CSI 2001) was used to 273 recommends using a value of 50% of the gross
prepare a mathematical model of the building, see Figure moment of inertia (Ig) for the cracked moment of
3 for a schematic of the model. Key features of the inertia (Icr) of the flexural members. This reduction
mathematical model are summarized below. factor was applied to the beams, columns and
shearwalls.
• Material properties. A concrete compressive • Parameters for nonlinear analysis. For this soft-
strength of 3 ksi was used. This value is consistent story structure, the nonlinear behavior will be
for concrete strength of buildings constructed in the entirely limited to the first story columns. As such,
early part of the last century (FEMA 273), and nonlinear hinges were defined and placed on these
corresponds to the values obtained from field columns. To capture the complete nonlinear
investigations. Tensile testing of sample response of these columns, two types of hinges were
reinforcement indicated yield and tensile strengths of used: shear hinges placed at mid-height of the
approximately 65 and 72 ksi (450 and 500 MPa), columns, and biaxial-force (PMM) hinges near the
respectively. Field studies indicated that the column top and bottom of the columns. The location of the
longitudinal reinforcement splice lengths varied PMM hinges was determined by assuming that the
from 26 to 28 inches (660 to 711 mm) for 1-in (25 plastic hinges would form at a distance of 2b/3
mm) square bars. Therefore, the yield properties of (where “b” equals the width of the column) from the
the longitudinal bars were reduced to 42 ksi (290 top and bottom of column-to-floor connections. For
the PMM hinges, interaction curves based on ACI

240
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

318-99 were used to determine the axial force- columns should remain elastic.
biaxial moment yield surface. For the nonlinear
• Gravity loading. Gravity loads used in the model
analysis, the column plastic hinge properties are a
consisted of the self-weight of the structure, 0.02 ksf
function of column slenderness, transverse
(0.96 kPa) for partitions, 0.025 ksf (1.20 kPa) for
reinforcement (size, spacing, and anchorage), and
weight of the 2-in. (50-cm) topping slab, and 0.005
axial and shear demand. For the columns under
ksf (2.40 ksf) for miscellaneous (e.g., fans, vents,
consideration, the axial force ranges between 10-15
plaster). Live loads consisted of typical code
percent of the nominal compressive strength, and
prescribed floor loads.
flexure is the controlling response. The shear force is
less than three times the nominal shear strength, and • Inertial mass. The mass of the structure consisted of
the columns have poor confinement (transverse all structure dead loads and one half of the partition
reinforcement). Since the lap splices for the loads. The code-mandated 5-percent eccentricity
longitudinal reinforcement are not fully developed, was achieved by offsetting the floor mass. The total
sudden strength degradation may occur after the inertial weight (mass) of the structure is
onset of the nonlinear behavior. Therefore, hinge approximately 14,000 kips (64,050 kN).
formation (yielding) should be avoided, and subject

Figure 3: Schematic of The Mathematical Model of The Building

taylordevices inc. 241

CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

Earthquake Histories from the horizontal components of each of the three

recorded earthquake records to the target spectra, and
Site investigations were used to determine the site- then base-line correcting in the time domain. The
specific acceleration spectra. The Design Basis records were derived from the 1989 Loma Prieta
Earthquake (DBE) spectra (10% probability of earthquake (0- and 90-degree components recorded at

0.8

DBE (PGA = 0.22g) MCE (PGA = 0.34g)

0.6
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Period (sec)

Figure 4: Response Spectra

exceedence in 50 years) used for the studies presented Agnews, 0- and 90-degree components recorded at
herein is shown in Figure 4. In the same plot, the Gilroy, and 270- and 360-degree components recorded at
response spectrum for the Maximum Considered San Marino). Figure 5 shows the DBE acceleration
Earthquake (MCE) (2% probability of exceedence in 50 record and the computed acceleration spectrum for the x-
years) is also shown. component of the Agnews record. The y-component of
this record and the x- and y-components of the other two
Three sets of time histories were prepared by J. P. Singh records have similar acceleration spectra.
(Singh 2002) by matching the response spectra derived
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
accel, g

0
-0 . 1
-0 . 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
t im e , s e c
0 .8

0 .6
sa, g

0 .4

0 .2

0
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4
p e rio d , s e c

Figure 5: Acceleration Record & Spectrum

242
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

Analytical results of the existing building

building torsional component to this mode. In particular, the
largest deformation occurs at the far right (east) side of
Dynamic analysis. A modal analysis of the building was the building. This torsional response will place
conducted to determine the fundamental period and additional demand on the columns at this side of the
mode shapes of the structure. Table 1 summarizes the structure.
results for the first three modes obtained. The first two
mode shapes of the building are shown in Figure 6a and Nonlinear pushover analysis. To assess the performance
6b. It is noted that the response is that of a soft-story of the building to seismic loading, a nonlinear static
structure with nearly all the deformation concentrated in analysis was conducted. The structure was initially
the first story columns. loaded to a gravity loading equal to 110% of the dead
load and 27.5% of the unreduced live load. Next, step-
Table 1 by-step lateral loading in the x- and y- directions were
Mode Period (sec) Principal direction applied to the structure. Two separate and independent
1 1.2 Transverse (N-S) lateral load patterns were considered: (1) a force pattern
2 1.0 Longitudinal (E-W) matching the mode shapes with 100% and 30% loading
3 0.9 Torsion in each direction and (2) uniform force pattern with
100% and 30% loading in each direction. For the

Ground Level

Figure 6: Modes 1 & 2 (Elevations)

Figure 7 shows the deformed shape of the second floor governing load case, the demand and capacity curves do
in plan for the first mode. It is noted that due to the lack not intersect. Therefore, collapse of the structure is
of symmetry in the N-S direction, there is a large predicted.

Figure 7: Mode 1 (Plan)

taylordevices inc. 243

CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

Two particular events of interest were studied: (1) when

does the first plastic hinge form in each direction, and The displaced structure at a story displacement of 1.5 in.
(2) what is the ultimate configuration of the plastic (38 mm) for loading along the longitudinal-axis (Figure
hinge? (The plastic hinges are identified by circles on 9a), and 2.5 in. (64 mm) for loading along the
the columns.) The displaced shape of the structure at the Transverse-axis are shown (Figure 9b). Note that many
formation of the first column plastic hinge is shown in of the first story columns have formed plastic hinges at
Figure 8. The frame elevation on the left corresponds to the top and bottom. The soft-story behavior of the

First Hinge First Hinge

Figure 8: Hinge Initiation

the formation of the first plastic hinge when the structure building is made clear in the figures; all the floors above
is pushed along the longitudal-direction. This yielding the second floor have a nearly rigid behavior, while the

Figure 9a & 9b: Progressive Hinge Formation (elevations)

response occurs at a displacement of 0.84 in. (21 mm), first story columns experience substantial deformation.
measured at the second floor level. The frame elevation
on the right corresponds to the formation of the first Figure 10 shows the second floor plan view of the
plastic hinge when the structure is pushed along the structure at the deformation level of 2.5 in. (64 mm) as
transverse-direction. This yielding response occurs at a the structure is pushed in the transverse-direction. It is
displacement of 1.44 in. (37 mm), measured at the right noted that all the nonlinear behavior is concentrated at or
(east) side of the second floor level. In summary, as close to the right (east) side of the building. As
long as the second floor displacements are limited to the previously noted, the building is torsionally irregular in
values specified above, it is expected that the column the transverse direction.
response for the critical first story columns will remain
in the elastic range.

244
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

Figure 10: Progressive Hinge Formation (Plan)

Linear time history analyses. To investigate the Performance Goal. Since this is a voluntary seismic
performance of the building during a 475-year return upgrade, the focus of the seismic rehabilitation is to
event (DBE), the structure was subjected to acceleration address the major deficiencies of the structure, namely,
time histories. Study of the three motions revealed that the soft-story and torsional response of the building.
the San Marino record produced the most severe test for The retrofit will limit the response of the structure to
the structure (i.e., the largest values of column stress and linear elastic behavior; that is, limiting the maximum x-
story drift). As such, this record will be used for the and y-components of the second floor displacement to
remainder of this paper for comparison purposes. 0.85 in. (22 mm) and 1.44 in. (37 mm), respectively.
This will give an adequate level of confidence against
The three dimensional linear model was subjected to this collapse of the structure. The main performance goal is
accelerogram. Figure 11 shows the second floor to provide a cost-effective “collapse prevention”
displacements as measured at the lower-right (S.E.) performance upgrade during a 475-year return event
corner of the building. Using equal displacement (DBE).
assumption, a comparison of the time history response of
the existing building with that of the nonlinear pushover Retrofit method
analysis indicates that the story drifts will cause
significant plastic rotation in the hinge regions of the To meet the selected performance goals for the upgrade
columns, and cause probable collapse of the building.

5.0

2.5
Displ, in.

0.0

-2.5

-5.0
0 10 20
Time, sec

Figure 11: Displacement History of Existing Structure (Linear Model)

taylordevices inc. 245

CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

of this structure, a retrofit approach combining several were considered for the upgrade, however, this approach
state-of-the-art strategies was utilized. necessitated using relatively large devices to meet the
performance criteria. In addition, this did not address
1. Reduce the soft-weak story effects by increasing the
the torsional irregularity of the building. To mitigate
effective damping of the structure. This objective
these problems, two types of devices were utilized:
was achieved by employing Fluid Viscous Dampers
nonlinear fluid viscous dampers were used in 16 braced
(FVD) at the first floor.
bays, and a combination of nonlinear fluid viscous
2. Reduce the torsional response of the building dampers in parallel with elastic elements (herein referred
without increasing acceleration demand of the super to as fluid visco-elastic dampers, or FVEDs) was utilized
structure. This was achieved by adding fluid visco- in four braced bays. The table below summarizes the
elastic dampers at the east side of the structure. pertinent properties of the devices.
3. Provide a more redundant story shear capacity in the
Table 2: Damper Properties
upper floor transverse direction. In the transverse
Device No. DBE c, k-sec/in K, k/in
direction, the building has structural walls at the
Capacity, (kN- (kN/mm)
exterior walls only. Therefore, wood shear walls
kip (kN) sec/mm)
were added for the upper six story portion of the
FVD 16 210 (934) 100 (35) 0.5 None
building. These walls will act in a fashion
FVED 4 300 (1334) 125 (44) 0.5 144 (50)
analogous to cross-walls in an unreinforced masonry
(URM) bearing wall building. Additional columns at either end of the diagonal devices
will prevent the transfer of the damper forces to the
4. Provide redundancy for the gravity load-carrying existing building columns. Figure 12 shows a typical
capacity of the columns along the right (east) side of damper frame elevation.
the structure. Addition of steel columns for the FVD
braces adjacent to all the columns along this gridline
met this goal.
5. Increase ductility of all the interior first story
columns for the 6-story segment of the building. To
meet this criterion, fiber-reinforced polymer
composite (FRP) was wrapped around the hinge
regions (top and bottom) of the columns.

Structural upgrade

FVDs have been extensively researched (Constantinou

and Symans, 1992) and implemented in the upgrade of
many structures, including the seismic retrofit of the
historic Hotel Woodland (Miyamoto and Scholl 1996).
FVDs provide an economical way of improving the Figure 12: Damper Frame Elevation
structural response without losing any floor space. This
was the chosen seismic improvement method for this
building for two reasons: (1) it reduces the second floor Fluid Visco-Elastic Damper
displacement by increasing viscous damping, and (2) it
reduces the seismic demand of the superstructure. A combination of fluid viscous dampers and poly-
urethane elastomers have been successfully used in the
Damper selection. FVDs were strategically placed in aerospace industry. The mechanical characteristics of
the structure to optimize their effectiveness without this elastomer are as follows: (Gallagher Corporation,
blocking access to the architecturally sensitive areas of 2002)
the ground floor. A total of 20 damper bays were
utilized. Initially, only linear fluid viscous dampers

246
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

1. Urethane Elastomers provides consistent mechanical incorporating the dampers were performed. The
properties through a temperature range of 0ºF to mathematical model of the existing building was
225ºF (-18ºC to 107ºC). modified by adding the sixteen FVDs and the four
FVEDs. Two time history cases were considered. In
2. Urethane exhibits compressive capacity of 80 ksi
one case, the mathematical model was preloaded by a
(552 MPa) without molecular damage and elasticity.
static load equal to 90% of the total dead load prior to
3. Aging under static stress has no effect on mechanical being subjected to the lateral accelerations. In the
properties if protected from ultraviolet light. second case, the preload equaled 110% of the dead load
4. Flame resistance is sufficient to meet Federal and 27.5% of the unreduced live load. The envelope of
Aerospace Regulation 25.853B. response quantities was then obtained by selecting the
maximum values from the two load cases.
See Figure 13 for FVED and FVD construction.
Response evaluation. To evaluate the seismic response
Prototype testing per FEMA 273 will be conducted to
of the upgraded structure, the displacement response of
verify response and durability.
the second floor was examined and a stress check of all

FVED FVD
Figure 13: FVED & FVD Devices
Response of the retrofitted structure first story columns was performed. Figure 14 shows the
second floor displacement responses for the lower-right
To assess the effectiveness of the proposed building (S.E.) corner. It is noted that the maximum computed
upgrade, nonlinear time history analyses of the structure displacements are approximately 0.56 in. (14 mm) and

Displacement History
1.0

0.8

0.6
0.56

0.4
Displacement, in.

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4
x-Direction y-Direction
-0.6

-0.8
-0.85

-1.0
0 5 10 15 20
Time, sec

Figure 14: Displacement History of Damped Structure

taylordevices inc. 247

CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

0.85 in. (22 mm) in the longitudal transverse directions, structure was upgraded with a combination of sixteen
respectively, which is well below their target values. nonlinear fluid viscous dampers, four nonlinear fluid
This corresponds to story drift ratios of approximately visco-elastic dampers, and fiber reinforced polymer wrap
0.003 and 0.004, respectively. A comparison of the at selected columns. The analytical studies predict that
displacement response for the original structure and this the retrofitted structure will have a significantly
figure shows that the maximum response was reduced by improved performance when compared to the existing
more than a factor of five by the addition of FVD and structure. In particular, the upgrade will limit the
FVED elements. response of the existing members to the linear range by
limiting the expected seismic demand on the structure.
Finally, the computed axial force in the columns was This upgrade will reduce the risk of building collapse.
examined. No net axial tension was found in the Total seismic upgrade cost was $1.3 million ($9/ft2,
existing columns. The maximum force in the FVD was $96/m2), which was about 5% of total construction
less than 200 kips (890 kN). As such, the 200-kip (890 budget ($24 million, $165/ft2, $1780/m2).
kN) dampers used are adequate for these 16 damper

Typical FVED Response

300
291

200

100 Elastomer 86
Response
Force, kip

-100 Combined

Viscous
-200 Response

-2 4 9

-300
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Displacement, in.
Figure 15: Typical FVED response
bays. Figure 15 depicts the response of a typical FVED. References
It is noted that the maximum damper and spring forces
are approximately 250 kips ( 1112 kN) and 90 kips (400 Computer and Structures, Inc., 2002, “ETABS 7.2.2,
kN), respectively. Spectra acceleration of this structure Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and
was 0.17g. design of building systems,” Berkeley, CA
Conclusion FEMA 273, October 1997, “NEHRP Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” Building Seismic
Analytical studies of the Hotel Stockton revealed that the Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
structure would not be able to withstand the seismic
loading resulting from the anticipated site-specific Miyamoto, H.K. and Scholl, 2002, “Seismic Rehabilitation
earthquakes. To mitigate this seismic deficiency, the of an Historic Non-Ductile Soft-Story Concrete Structure

248
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 3 (continued)

using Fluid Viscous Dampers,” Proceedings of the 11th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Constantinou, M. and Symans, M., 1992, “Experimental &

Analytical Investigation of Seismic Response of Structures
with Supplemental Fluid Viscous Dampers,” State
University Of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York,
NCEER-92-0032

Sing, 2002, Site Specific Time Histories for Hotel

Stockton, Richmond, CA

Gallagher Corporation, 2002, “The Engineering

Properties of Urethane Elastomers,” Gurnee, IL

taylordevices inc. 249

CASE STUDY: 4

Seismic Upgrade of an Existing Tall Building by Different

Energy Dissipation Devices

Shanshan Wang, Graduate Student Researcher

Stephen Mahin, Professor
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA

Abstract 01. Introduction

The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center In traditional design where seismic energy is mainly
has expanded its Tall Building Initiative (TBI) program to dissipated by irrecoverable inelastic deformation of structural
include the seismic performance of existing tall buildings. A elements, the building safety is maintained at the compromise
35-story steel moment resisting frame, designed in 1968, and of components’ damage, leading to direct and indirect
had representative details of buildings between 1960 to 1990 economic losses. This has been highlighted in recent
was selected for detailed seismic evaluation in the framework earthquakes in Chile, Japan, China and New Zealand. As
of Performance Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE). It such, the development of seismic protection systems has been
was identified that the case study building failed to meet the spurred, which includes base isolation, active control and
performance objectives suggested by ASCE 41-13, and had a passive energy dissipation systems by large (Soong and
number of seismic vulnerabilities that endangered its Spencer, 2002). Of these, passive energy dissipation systems
structural integrity at two basic safety earthquake hazard do not require external power source, and are relatively easy
levels (BSE): BSE-1E and BSE-2E. Therefore, exploration to install, and thus considered as a better choice to upgrade
of retrofit strategies and their cost-effectiveness are fostered. existing structures. Three kinds of devices are investigated in
In this paper, three kinds of supplemental energy dissipation this paper: fluid viscous dampers (FVDs), viscous wall
devices are investigated to upgrade the seismic performance dampers (VWDs) and buckling restrained braces (BRBs), and
of the case study building, including fluid viscous dampers they are used in combination with preliminary retrofit
(FVDs), viscous wall dampers (VWDs) and buckling methods to upgrade an existing 35-story Pre-Northridge steel
restrained braces (BRBs). The retrofit design started by moment resisting frame. The investigations focus on
selecting locations to install supplemental devices. Then the comparing the cost-effectiveness of each retrofit method, and
total effective damping ratios needed to achieve the target also raise critical design considerations that appear for each
roof displacements in two directions were estimated based on strategy. Fig. 1 illustrates the applications of these three
a damping scale factor (DSF). One retrofit strategy by using devices.
FVDs was investigated as a first trail, and the mechanical
characteristics of each damper device were calculated based
on the overall effective damping ratio and the story wise
distributions of dampers. Next, other two retrofit strategies
by using VWDs or BRBs were investigated. Sizing of
different devices at one location was performed following the
principle of equal energy dissipation. The effectiveness of
each strategy to meet the retrofit intent of ensuring structural
stability at BSE-2E were compared. Moreover, probabilistic
damage and loss analysis were conducted using Performance
Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT) to relate the structural (a). FVDs
responses to economic losses. After a detailed examination, Figure 1. Supplemental energy dissipation devices
it was found that upgrading the case study tall building using
FVDs was the most effective retrofit strategy to control
structural responses, and reduce damage and economic losses
after BSE-2E events.

250
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

A systematic structural evaluation of the case study building

indicated that the building failed to meet the performance
objectives suggested by ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 41,
2013). Similar outcomes were found using FEMA 351,
Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for
Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (FEMA
2000), and FEMA P-58, Seismic Performance Assessment of
Buildings (FEMA 2012a-c), showing that the building had a
(b). VWDs variety of seismic vulnerabilities, and suffered great damage
and economic losses after basic safety earthquake hazard
level (BSE) events. Consequently, feasible upgrade
strategies are necessary to enhance the seismic performance
of the building. The intent of the retrofit is to reduce the
overall drifts of the structure to a level where brittle fracture
of the beam-to-column connections would not seriously
jeopardize the overall stability of the structure at a basic
safety earthquake, level 2 (BSE-2E) hazard (with a
probability of exceedance of 5% in 50 years). To achieve this,
a “two-stage” retrofit plan was proposed. In “Stage-1”, the
(c). BRBs prevalent brittle column splices were fixed everywhere, and
Figure 1 (continued). Supplemental energy dissipation heavy concrete claddings were removed. The retrofit resulted
devices in a change of elastic model periods, that were 4.33 sec. (X-
direction translation), 4.18 sec. (Y-direction translation), and
02. Evaluation of the Case Study Building 3.59 sec. (rotation). Nevertheless, these strategies were
demonstrated insufficient to achieve the target performance
A 35-story steel moment resisting frame that had goal, and thus additional strategies are necessary. In “Stage-
representative design details from the period of 1960 to 1990 2”, three different kinds of supplemental energy dissipation
was selected for systematic seismic evaluations. The case devices were used in conjunction with strategies used in
study building is about 490 ft. tall, with a typical floor height “Stage-1” for further improvement, including FVDs, VWDs
of 13 ft. It spans about 185 ft. by 135 ft. in plan, and has a and BRBs. This paper focuses on the “Stage-2” retrofits, and
typical beam span of 30 ft. The building completed compares the cost-effectiveness of upgrading the case study
construction in San Francisco in 1971, consisting of complete tall building using selected devices.
three-dimensional moment-resisting space frames in both
longitudinal direction (X) and transverse direction (Y). Fig. 2
shows a frame elevation and a floor plan of the building
model.

Beam-to-column moment connections used typical pre-

Northridge details and the column slices were erected using
partial joint penetration welds, both considered to be quite
brittle. A three-dimensional (3D) model was generated using
the program: Open System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (OpenSees, Mckenna et. al., 2010) to investigate
its nonlinear dynamic behavior; see Fig. 3. All aboveground
main framing members contributing to the seismic lateral
force resisting systems were included (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
Given the nature of this investigation, certain modelling
simplifications were made. For instance, the basement levels
were disregarded. The first three elastic modal periods of the
structure were: 4.70 sec. (X-direction translation), 4.53 sec.
(Y-direction translation), and 4.15 sec. (rotation). More (a) (b)
details about the building information and numerical Figure 2. Illustration of the building model: (a) plane view of
modeling could be found in a Lai et. al. (2015). a typical frame in X-direction; (b) floor elevation

taylordevices inc. 251

CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

efficiency. Effective damping ratios were estimated based on

the target roof displacement in each direction at BSE-2E
events. The mechanical properties of dampers were selected
using an equation related to the effective damping ratio, and
story wise distributions of dampers. Several design
considerations and viable alternatives to address these
considerations were raised at the end of this section.

4.1 Damper locations

To initialize the design within an existing building, the first

consideration was selecting proper locations to install
supplemental devices. Fig. 5 shows the plane view of a
typical floor based on the architectural drawing, where the
black boxes indicate column locations. The interior frames
are usually adjacent to stairs and elevator locations, and
putting dampers there would interfere with office space and
egress. Therefore, the perimeter frames are considered as
Figure 3. Illustration of the building model better options to add dampers. At first few trials, FVDs were
installed along all stories with three different distribution
03. Analysis Method patterns of the damping constant C: (I) uniform; (II)
proportional to story shear; and (III) proportional to story
Nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) was used to stiffness. A preliminary analysis found that scheme (III),
examine the seismic responses of the existing building using with damping constant C values proportional to story
OpenSees. The retrofit feasibility study focused on BSE-2E stiffness, was the most efficient among the three and thus
hazard level. Three ground motions were selected at this selected for continued refinement. The initial design was
hazard level for preliminary design and comparison, and the refined by removing dampers, or adjusting damper sizes
selection criteria was the closeness of their pseudo- based on the control effectiveness of dampers at different
acceleration spectra to the target spectra near the fundamental regions. Consequently, a refined design scheme with
period of the original building, as shown in Fig. 4. “Stage-2” concentrated dampers at lower two-thirds of the building was
retrofit started with a numerical model with “Stage-1” retrofit, proposed; see Fig. 6. Damping exponent α was set to be 0.35
i.e., the column splices were fixed everywhere, and concrete to ensure adequate control effectiveness without excessive
cladding were removed. This baseline model was denoted as damper forces, based on a parametric study. In a single
“as-built” hereafter. frame, dampers were distributed across multiple bays to
minimize accumulation of forces transferred to the adjacent
columns.

Figure 4. Target response spectrum and selected ground

motions at BSE-2E

04. Retrofit with FVDs

The “Stage-2” retrofit plan started with design of FVDs. The

locations for installing devices were selected considering the Figure 5. Openings at building floor
architectural restraints, constructability as well as damper

252
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

during dynamic vibration is neglected (Constantinou and

Symans 1992; Reinhorn and Constantnou 1995):
Fd = Cvα·sign(v) (1)
where C is the damping constant, α is the damping exponent,
and sign (v) is the sign function of relative velocity of the
piston end with respect to the damper housing. In earthquake
engineering, α is generally in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 (Lee and
Taylor 2001). Eq. (1) could predict behaviors of a FVD well
for low rate excitations, but the frequency-dependent contents
need to be accounted as the operating frequency increases.

To model the FVD in OpenSees, a viscous damper material

was used to represent the damper sub-assemblage: a dashpot
and a spring in series. The dashpot resembled the pure
viscous behavior, as described by Eq. (1); the elastic spring
element represented the driving braces. Researches (Fu and
Kasai 1998; Takewaki and Yoshitomi 1998) have found that
the brace flexibility would influence the damper behavior
significantly and shall be fully accounted for. In this study,
Figure 6. Story wise damper distributions the total brace stiffness per story was equal to twice of the
story stiffness, which was proven to be rigid enough to ensure
4.2 Effective damping ratios adequate effect of FVDs.

Estimating the overall effective damping (including the 4.4 Design considerations
intrinsic damping and supplemental damping) needed to
reduce the overall drifts is a prerequisite to estimate For a high-rise building, fairly large dampers are usually
additional damping demand. A non-iterative approach was required to achieve the target performance goal, and this
used based on researches of Rezaeian et al. (2012). In this poses great challenges to existing buildings. Issues such as
approach, a Damping Scale Factor (DSF) was developed to delivering heavy devices to multiple stories and clearing
adjust the 5% damped spectral ordinates to damping ratio structural/non-structural components would increase
ranging between 0.5% and 30%, which is defined as the ratio construction difficulty and retrofit costs, and need careful
between the target overall displacement to the current considerations. Alternatives such as using two dampers per
displacement demand. The target roof displacement at each driver, more damped bays at selected stories, and utilizing
direction was selected based on the static pushover curves toggle-brace mechanisms to magnify the effective force of a
when the original building abruptly lost more than 70% force damping device (Taylor and Constantinou 1998) might be
resistance capacity. Meanwhile the current displacement considered. On the other perspective, reduced performance
demands were estimated from the displacement spectrum at objectives might be used.
BSE-2E event. The DSF was then related to a regression
relation derived based on the entire NGA-W2 earthquake Another critical design consideration is the vulnerable
record set (Rezaeian et al. 2012). Variations of magnitude, columns. After implementing “Stage-1” retrofits, the
source-to-site distance and local site conditions have been columns are anticipated to have adequate tension capacities,
considered in the regression relation. With a calculated DSF but they might still be overloaded in compression. Using
of each direction, the required damping ratios at a BSE-2E FVDs could bring down the drift ratios and reduce the axial
event were estimated, which were 8% for X-direction and 13% forces and bending moments in columns. Nevertheless, an
for Y-direction. excessive accumulation of damper forces on adjoining
columns would cause problems if the structure enters into
4.3 Mathematical modeling inelastic range, and the damper forces are large. Other
factors such as the flexibility of connecting elements (e.g.,
General fractional derivative Maxwell model was described driving braces, girders, connections and columns) would
by Makris and Constantinou (1990) to capture the behavior of drive the dampers to act more in-phase with peak
FVDs, whereas a simplified mathematical model (Eq. (1)) displacement and add up to the total forces in columns.
could be used if the operating frequency is under the cut-off Additional retrofit methods such as filling the columns with
frequency of a FVD, that is, the stiffening effect of a FVD concrete, constructing mega columns at the corners might be
investigated.

taylordevices inc. 253

CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

05. Retrofit with VWDs

The retrofit design scheme of using VWDs followed that of

FVDs, and used consistent installation locations. The
mathematical model and mechanical properties of VWDs are
presented in this section. One of a unique design issue of
VDWs is highlighted in the end.

5.1 Mathematical modeling

A Kelvin material model (Eq. 2) with linearized parameter

could be used to simulate a viscoelastic damper with mild
frequency-dependence (Lobo et. al. 1993):
Fd = Ku + Cv α (2)
where C is the damping constant, α is the damping exponent, Figure 7. VWD modeling
and these two parameters of each VWD are kept the same as
that of a FVD at the same location. u is the relative 5.2 Design considerations
displacement of the two steel plates. Another parameter K,
representing the storage stiffness of VWD tanks is introduced, VWDs could provide more architectural flexibility than the
which represents the capability of a VWD to provide brace-type dampers (e.g., FVDs, BRBs), and they could
additional stiffness. Recent tests on VWDs in the United provide both additional damping and additional stiffness.
States (Newell et. al. 2011) showed the stiffening of the However, several considerations call for special attention. As
structure due to wall dampers was about 5%, and thus the with the case to install FVDs, using VWDs would bring
stiffness parameter K of 1000 k/in was used for all VWD about similar design considerations such as the large damper
elements in this study for simplicity. sizes, vulnerable columns etc. Additionally, the effect of a
VWD in the frame would be quite sensitive to the behaviors
In the numerical model, a beam was modified if a VWD of beams connected with it. For an existing steel building
element was inserted into its middle span; see Fig. 7. First, having Pre-Northridge moment connection details, this
an additional node was created in the central bay of a beam, problem is a bigger concern and thus presented below.
and the beam was discretized into two elements. The
alternation was made for both the upper and lower beams First of all, the effect of a VWD will be greatly influenced by
connected to a VWD. To model the VWD element, a two the behaviors of beams connected with it. Fig. 8 shows the
node link element was generated in OpenSees that connected deformed shapes of a frame with two different cases. In case
the two middle nodes at upper and lower beams, and a 1, if a beam is strong and could provide full restraint against
viscous damper material model and an elastic material model bending, it would deform as an end fixed beam, and its
were used in parallel to represent Eq. (2). The parameters of deformed shape could produce large relative movement
a viscous damper material were identical to the FVD element between two steel plates; see Fig. 8(a). Consequently, a large
at each location, and the elastic material used a stiffness K amount of energy dissipation would be produced. On the
equaling 1000 k/in, as discussed before. The materials were other hand, in case 2, the beams-to-column connections are
applied in the direction of in-plane movement of the VWD. released, and the beam would deform without rotational
With introduced additional stiffness, the overall fundamental constraints. As such, the deformed shape of the upper and
period of the case study building shifted from 4.33 sec. (have lower beams would limit the relative displacement between
“Stage-1” retrofit only) to 4.10 sec. two steel plates, and result in insufficient energy dissipation
of the VWD; see Fig. 8(b). Thereby, in order to ensure
adequate energy dissipation provided by VWDs, the beams
need to be strong and provide enough rotational constraints.
However, the Pre-Northridge beam-to-column connections
used in the case study building make it hard to meet this
criterion, since a great many of these connections exhibited
brittle failure (Lai et. al. 2015). Once the beam end
connections fail, the beam would deform like case 2,
significantly diminishing the energy dissipation capacity of
the connected VWD element. It should also be highlighted
that a sudden change of the deformed shapes upon the beam

254
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

failure might produce a spike of force and deformation on the

VWD, and bring about the rupture of viscous material and the
failure of the wall damper.

Figure 9. Deformed shape of a frame when the storage

stiffness of a VWD is large

Thirdly, the seismic demands on the structural components

(a). Case 1: deformed shape with fixed-end connection would be increased with the additional stiffening effect,
which in turn would cause an earlier fracture of beam-to-
column connections. Both the bending moment demands and
the shear demands would be increased. It should be noted
that the increase of the shears also depends on the aspect ratio
(defined as its width-to-depth ratio) of a VWD. The shear
forces are amplified by the inverse of the aspect ratio. Thus
if a small aspect ratio is used, beam would end up with large
shear force, and suffer from shear yielding. Nevertheless, the
numerical model did not include the shear yielding, and the
results would be optimistic.

06. Retrofit with BRBs

(b). Case 2: deformed shape with pin-end connection BRBs are cheaper than FVDs or VWDs, and they are
Figure 8. Deformed shape of a frame with different boundary considered as ordinary braces in the U.S. design code, which
conditions make their design and analysis procedures less complicated
than other supplemental energy dissipation devices. As with
Secondly, the storage stiffness of a VWD would affect the previous two retrofit methods, the distributions of BRBs in
beam deformations. If the storage stiffness of a VWD under the existing building followed the pattern with FVDs and
a dynamic loading is large, it would prevent the two steel VWDs. In this section, the mathematic modeling of a BRB
plates moving freely (see Fig. 9), and resulted in reduced in OpenSees and the major design considerations would be
energy dissipation capacity of a VWD. Note that the storage discussed.
stiffness of a VWD is not an exclusive contribution from the
steel plates; the frequency-dependent part of the viscous 6.1 Mathematical modeling
material would also influence the storage stiffness (Fu and
Kasai, 1998). More research is needed to understand the BRB is a kind of displacement-dependent devices, and it
relation between the VWD storage stiffness, beam stiffness, dissipates energy through the yielding of the brace. The basic
and their effect on the behavior of the VWD. force-displacing relation of a BRB is expressed as:
Fd = Ku (3)
where K is the effective stiffness of the brace, and u is the
relative displacement between two ends of a brace. When a
brace is in its elastic range, K represents the elastic stiffness.
After it yields, a post-yield stiffness in the order of 0.001 of
the elastic stiffness is used to represent its force resistant
capacity. This strain hardening value of 0.001 is
recommended in the OpenSees manual (Mazzoni et al. 2006),

taylordevices inc. 255

CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

which could control the transition from elastic to plastic direction follow a similar trend. It should be noted that
branches and accounts for isotropic hardening. during the simulation (entire ground motion duration plus 15-
second free vibrations), most numerical simulations were
To simulate the behavior of a BRB, a co-rotational truss successful; however, in the case with VWDs, several VWDs
element was used in OpenSees. The material model used a were broken under one ground motion excitation after the
Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto model (Steel02), and was assigned connected beams failed, and the structure had a peak drift
in the axial direction of the element. The effective stiffness ratio in excess of 10%. In this case, the numerical analysis
K0 in the elastic range was estimated using the principle of was arbitrarily terminated since the building was most likely
equal energy dissipation. This was calibrated by assuming to collapse.
that that the peak force F0 of a FVD and a BRB would be the
same when they reached a same peak displacement U0 ; see 7.1 Global responses
Fig. 10. The proposed simple model was adequate to capture
the primary characteristics of BRBs, e.g., the Bauchinger The peak displacement distributions shown in Fig. 11
effect and strain hardening effect, and thus selected for this indicate that all cases incorporating different devices could
study. The stiffening effect of BRBs changed the help reduce the structural deformations by a large amount,
fundamental period of the building from 4.33 sec. to 4.05 sec. ranging from 20% to 40%. With a same effective damping
ratio, they help bring down the peak roof displacement to a
similar value, and the value is close to the selected target roof
displacement, i.e., 38 inches in the X-direction. This
demonstrates that the DSF method discussed in Section 4.2 to
estimate the effective damping ratio is adequate for
preliminary design of FVDs.

Figure 10. Illustration of hysteresis loops of a BRB and a

FVD

6.2 Design considerations

When use BRBs, design considerations such as large peak

forces of BRB devices, and overloaded columns exist, as with
other retrofit methods. Nevertheless, their displacement-
Figure 11. Distributions of peak displacement in X-dir.
dependency would force BRBs to act more in-phase with
peak displacement, and the peak force demands on existing
Among three retrofit schemes, the strategy of using FVDs is
beams and columns would be increased at a larger extend
considered as the most effective to eliminate the concentrated
than other two methods.
drift ratios at floor level 2-10, and contributes to a more
uniform distribution of the peak deformations; see Fig. 12.
07. Comparison of Control Effect
On the other hand, the retrofitted schemes using VWDs or
BRBs could not achieve satisfied control effect and still have
The results of global structural responses, damper/BRB
a peak drift ratio in excess of 3% at floor 3 to floor 7. Such a
behaviors, and column axial force status are presented for the
large drift ratio indicates the latter two retrofitted methods are
“as-built” building with “Stage-1” retrofits only, and three
not able to meet the retrofit intent of maintaining structural
retrofitted cases with different supplemental energy
stability at BSE-2E events.
dissipation devices. The maximum results from three
nonlinear response analyses are used, as stipulated by ASCE
41-13. Two horizontal directions are evaluated separately,
while only the X-direction drift ratios and floor accelerations
are shown for discussions, and the global responses in the Y-

256
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

Figure 14. Time history of roof accelerations

Figure 12. Distributions of peak drift ratio in X-dir.
7.2 Damper responses
The maximum peak floor accelerations are examined in Fig.
In addition to the structural global responses, the peak force
13. The “as-built” case has a peak floor acceleration of 0.85g
demands of each retrofit scheme are examined. The
at roof level. FVDs are able to reduce the peak floor
hysteresis loops of one device, located in Y-direction at the
accelerations by about 30% throughout the stories, and bring
3rd floor, subjected to one ground motion are plotted for
down the peak value at roof to 0.69g. The reductions benefit
different schemes; see Fig. 15. Under a same excitation,
from the additional damping effect provided by FVDs, and
three devices have different behaviors. The FVD exhibits
the additional stiffening effect is not significant. On the other
pure viscous properties, as shown by the elliptical shape of
hand, the case installing VWDs provides limited control over
hysteresis loop. The VWD has steel tanks at the exteriors of
the peak floor accelerations: the reduction is less than 10%
the viscous material, thus having an increased load-resistant
over all the story levels, and is essential zero at roof level.
capacity. However, a BRB has a totally different energy
The third case that uses BRBs is demonstrated to have the
dissipation mechanism compared to a FVD or a VWD. A
worst control effect, where the floor accelerations are
BRB dissipates energy through the yielding of braces, and a
increased at a majority of floor levels, and the peak roof
typical hysteresis loop is represented by a bilinear curve. For
acceleration is increased to 0.96g. This counter productivity
the damper selected for investigation, the FVD dissipates
of BRBs to control floor accelerations is mainly attributed to
most input energy despite that all three devices are designed
their displacement-dependent characteristics, which would
to have a similar energy dissipation capacity. All different
increase the force demands and accelerations at each floor.
devices show a similar deformation level.
Similarly, the roof acceleration time history during free
Meanwhile, the maximum damper force demands are shown
vibration phase in Fig. 14 shows that only FVDs could
for all schemes in Fig. 16. Fairly large force demands are
contribute to a more rapid decay of vibrations among three
observed for all cases, ranging from 1200 kips to 2300 kips.
cases under investigation.
It should be noted that FVD scheme, the most effective to
suppress the peak deformations and peak floor accelerations,
turns to have the smallest peak force demands among the
three.

Figure 13. Distributions of peak floor accelerations

taylordevices inc. 257

CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

(a). FVD

Figure 16. Distributions of peak force of each kind of device

7.3 Column axial force status

The evaluation of the case study building reveals that

vulnerable columns have posed a great danger to the seismic
integrity of the building. In the “Stage-1” retrofit, the brittle
columns splices were fixed and thus the concerns of brittle
column splice rupture/failure were eliminated. Nevertheless,
on the compression side, the columns might be overloaded
axially. Under a combined axial forces and bending moments,
these columns are very sensitive to yielding, threatening the
(b). VWD overall stability of the building. The introduction of
supplemental energy dissipation devices could bring down
the drift ratios demands, but the total force demands in the
base columns would remain the same if the seismic input
does not change. In the case having VWDs or BRBs, the
seismic demands are increased due to their additional
stiffening effect. As such, the axial force demands on base
columns would increase, exacerbating the column conditions.

To evaluate the influence of supplemental devices on the

columns, the envelopes of axial force demand-to-capacity
(D/C) ratio are examined for one group of exterior corner
columns. The selected columns fall into Group 1, identified
in Fig. 17, which have built-up W-sections. These corner
(c). BRB columns are usually most heavily loaded under selected
Figure 15. Hysteresis loops of one damper/BRB in story 3, Y- seismic excitations. The “Stage-1” methods have
direction. strengthened the column splices, the columns tension
capacities are thus estimated based on Equation 9-8 of ASCE
41-13, i.e., Pt = Ag Fy, where Ag is the gross section of
columns, and Fy is the expected yield strength of the material.
On the compression side, the buckling of columns is
considered and the lower bound compression capacities are
calculated: Pc = Ag  Fcr, where Fcr is the material strength
considering global buckling.

The positive sign is for tension while the negative sign

signifies compression in Fig. 18. The green line is the

258
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

compression demands due to gravity force, which consumes 08. Damage and Loss Analysis
about 30% of the column compression capacities. For the
“as-built” case, the peak D/C exceeds 1.0 at floor 6-7, and The damage and loss analysis was conducted using the
there are more than half of stories having peak D/C ratios software developed by FEMA: Performance Assessment
larger than 0.5. At these levels, ASCE 41 indicates that the Calculation Tool (PACT). The PACT performs the
members should be treated to be force controlled and remain probabilistic loss calculations in the framework of
elastic. The high D/C ratios at most floor indicate a Performance Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE). The
significant reduction of column bending capacities, which repair cost and repair time of each realization were estimated
would likely contribute to the weak column, strong beam from fragility curves of structural and non-structural
behavior observed in the results. On the other hand, tension components, and consequence functions of damaged
rupture/failure is typically not a concern with all the brittle components. Four engineering demand parameters were used
splices fixed. to predict the damage states of different components,
including the peak story drift ratios, peak floor accelerations,
For the case with FVDs, the peak D/C rations are reduced peak floor velocities and maximum residual drift ratios.
slightly at several floors on tension, though there are no Among these, the first three parameters were results from
significant reductions of compression forces. Nevertheless, nonlinear response history analyses, while the residual drift
neither VWDs nor BRBs are able to alleviate the high column ratios were estimated based on an empirical relation
axial forces. The axial D/C ratios at most floors are increased suggested by FEMA P-58 (FEMA 2012a).
instead, and widespread column failures are more likely in
both cases. Other strategies to upgrade the column capacities, The probability of the building having irreparable residual
such as filling concrete in the built-up section columns, or drifts and the probability of unsafe tagging at BSE-2E event
adding corner columns could be explored. for the “as-built” building and three fully retrofitted buildings
are summarized in Table 1. The “as-built” one is expected to
have very large residual drift ratios at BSE-2E events, making
repair work unsafe and unrealistic. This could be seen from
the high chances of irreparability and high probability of
unsafe tagging of the “as-built” case. It is most likely that a
complete tearing down and reconstruction are necessary. As
a comparison, the building inserting FVDs successfully
brings down the residual drifts, and it has only 0.6% chance
of being irreparable. A 26.9% of unsafe tagging is estimated,
which is mainly resulted from failure of Pre-Northridge
beam-to-column connections and prefabricated steel stairs.
Consistent with what have been observed from structural
analysis results, the other two retrofit methods by using either
VWDs or BRBs still exhibit large residual drifts, and are less
Figure 17. Column group designations effective to reduce the chance of tearing down the building,
nor the chance of unsafe tagging at BSE-2E.

To better assess each retrofit scheme, the cumulative

distribution curves of repair loss ratio are presented and
compared; see Fig. 19. The repair loss ratio is defined as the
repair cost divided by the building’s replacement cost
according to FEMA P-58 (2012a). The replacement cost of
this building is the reconstruction fees, and is estimated to be
$475 million based on recent market values of similar
buildings in San Francisco area (Kidder Mathews 2015).
From the cumulative distribution curves, the median values
and 90 percentile values are extracted and listed in Fig. 20.
Both the “as-built” case and the VWDs case have a median
loss ratio equal to 1.0, i.e., the building needs full
replacement after a BSE-2E event for these cases. The
retrofit scheme with BRBs brings down the median loss ratio
Figure 18. Distributions of column axial D/C ratios to about 0.084, but still hits 1.0 when a larger confidence

10

taylordevices inc. 259

CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

level (90 percentile) is assessed. On the contrary, the retrofit

scheme using FVDs avoids large economic losses, and
reduces the median repair loss ratios to 0.047, and 90
percentile value to 0.071.

The overall cost-benefit of each retrofit scheme needs to

include the costs associated with purchasing and
implementing supplemental energy dissipation devices in the
building. The initial costs of purchasing various
supplemental energy dissipation devices from manufactures
are estimated in Table 2. These costs are a rough estimation
based on available online data and consultation from
experienced engineers, since real data is usually confidential
and not easy to approach. BRB is the cheapest, and VWD is
the most expensive device. Additional installation fees such
as construction cost to strengthen existing structural
elements/connections, transportation cost of heavy devices to Figure 19. Cumulative distribution curve of loss ratio
higher floors, and cleaning fees to save space for
supplemental devices need to be fully accounted.
Nevertheless, it would be rather difficult to estimate this
budget considering large uncertainty of above mentioned
items. As such, a simple calibration is proposed by using an
amplification factor, which is multiplied by the initial device
costs to represent the total investment of each retrofit scheme.
An amplification factor of 10 is used considering the size of
the case study building, its importance and quantity of
devices. The cost efficiency of different retrofit methods at
BSE-2E event are compared in Table 3. The FVDs retrofit
method is considered to be the most cost-efficient to upgrade
the case study building since it has more than 50% chance to
save $452 M repair cost, and more than 90% chance to save
$441 M after a BSE-2E event. Meanwhile, the initial
investment of $84 M is relatively small compared with its
potential savings. The case using BRBs ranks the second Figure 20. Median and 90 percentile loss ratio
since it has the minimum initial investment of $17 M, and has
more than 50% chance of saving $435 M repair cost at a
BSE-2E event. Nevertheless, no benefits are expected if a Table 2. Estimated initial costs of various devices
higher confidence level of 90% is to be achieved. Lastly, Scheme Initial Cost ($M)
there is more than 50% chance that VWDs would not save
repair cost, and its initial investment is the largest. Thus FVDs 6.4
VWD is the least cost-effective method. VWDs 8.4
BRBs 1.7
Table 1. Loss estimates
Scenario Probability of Probability of unsafe
irreparability tagging Table 3. Cost benefit comparison
As-built 94.3% 98.3% Scheme Investment Benefit from savings ($M)
($M) Median 90 percentiles
FVDs 0.6% 26.9%
VWDs 66.0% 70.6% As-built 0 0 0
BRBs 45.5% 60.6% FVDs 64 452 441
VWDs 84 0 0
BRBs 17 435 0

11

260
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

09. Conclusions beams fail. The displacement-dependent BRBs are acting in-
phase with structural displacements, and increase the force
A representative Pre-Northridge high-rise steel moment demands to existing members. Besides, both VWDs and
resisting frame was selected for seismic performance BRBs provided additional stiffness, reducing the building’s
assessment. The evaluations were based on ASCE 41-13 fundamental period and increasing the seismic force demands.
procedures FEMA 351 and FEMA P-58, and identified
several major structural vulnerabilities of the case study In addition, the behaviors of dampers or BRBs are checked.
building. As such, possible retrofit methods as well as their The results indicate that fairly large devices are required in all
cost-effectiveness were explored. A “two-stage” retrofit plan schemes, while the sizes of FVDs needed are anticipated to
was proposed for the case study building. In “Stage-1”, the be the smallest despite of their best control effects among the
brittle column splices were fixed everywhere, and the exterior three schemes. To relate the structural performance to the
heavy claddings were removed. However, analysis results economic losses, a damage and loss analysis is conducted
indicated that “Stage-1” method alone was not enough to following procedures outlined in FEMA P-58. The results
meet the retrofit goal of maintaining structural stability at a are consistent with the structural analyses, indicating that
BSE-2E event. Therefore, in “Stage-2”, several supplemental FVDs are the most effective to reduce the probability of
energy dissipation devices were used in combination with having irreparable residual drifts, probability of unsafe
“Stage-1” methods to further enhance the building’s seismic tagging, and led to much reduced economic losses after a
performance. The control effect, in particularly the cost- BSE-2E event from the “as-built” case. BRBs help improve
effectiveness of each retrofit method is investigated and the structural behavior a little, but are insufficient to provide
compared in this paper. a high confidence level of 90% to reduce repair cost. On the
other hand, VWDs provide little, if any, contributions to
Three devices are investigated in this paper: FVDs, VWDs reducing the economic consequences after a BSE-2E event
and BRBs. The design started by designing FVDs. Four due to a great number of beam failure and diminished damper
perimeter frames were selected to install these devices so that effect.
the interaction of occupants and interior components could be
minimized. The total effective damping ratios were Several design considerations exist for each scheme. One
estimated to achieve the target roof displacements at each common issue among three cases is the widespread
horizontal direction. A refined damper design was proposed vulnerable columns in the building. Even after the brittle
where dampers were installed only in locations with better splices were fixed, the columns are overloaded in
control effectiveness. These locations were the same for all compression and sensitive to yielding under combined axial
retrofitted schemes using different energy dissipation devices. force and bending. This poses great threat to the seismic
In addition, the mechanical properties of three devices were integrity of the building, and additional methods to upgrade
selected based on the assumption of equal energy dissipation. columns should be explored.

The structural global responses, devices behaviors and In summary, among three energy dissipation devices
column axial force status are presented. The results presented investigated, FVDs have the least interaction with structural
are the maximum values from three nonlinear response members, and are able to introduce additional damping
history analyses at BSE-2E. The global responses show that without significantly increasing the structural demands on the
the FVDs are the most effective to bring down the drift vulnerable columns and beams. Therefore, they are viewed
concentrations at floor level 2 to 10, and result in a more as the most promising solution to improve the structural
uniform distribution of the peak deformations. The peak drift behavior and reduce the economic losses of a Pre-Northridge
ratio after installation of FVDs is less than 1.5%, which could high-rise steel moment resisting frame.
essentially eliminate the beam-to-column connections failure
at BSE-2E events. FVDs are also shown to be the most Acknowledgement
efficient to suppress the peak floor accelerations and
contribute to a more rapid decay of the structural vibrations. This paper is supported by Pacific Earthquake Engineering
For other two retrofitted cases using VWDs or BRBs, unique Research center (PEER) as part of its Tall Building Initiative
problems are found and neither of them is able to provide and Next-Generation Attenuation Relationship programs.
effective structural control to the building under seismic Special thanks to Dr. Jiun-Wei Lai and Dr. Matthew
excitations, and thus unable to meet the retrofit goal. Schoettler who dedicated to set up the OpenSees model, as
Specifically, the introduction of a VWD in the middle of a well as the assistance from Dr. Frank McKenna, Dr. Andreas
beam having Pre-Northridge connection details would cause Schellenberg and Prof. Dimitrois Lignos to refine the
an earlier fracture of beams, and the control effect of VWDs numerical model. The authors would also like to express
would be significantly diminished once a large number of great gratitude to Prof. Kazuhiko Kasai of Tokyo Institute of

12

taylordevices inc. 261

CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

Technology, Dr. Kit Miyamoto and Dr. Amir Gilani of No. 2015/14, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Miyamoto International, Dr. Amarnath Kasalanati of Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Dynamic Isolation Systems, Jim Malley of Degenkolb
Engineers and Rob Smith of Arup for sharing their valuable Lee D. and Taylor D. P. (2001). Viscous damper
expertise and advice. development and future trends, J. Struct. Des. Tall Buil., 10,
311-320.
Reference
Lobo, R.F., Bracci, J.M., Shen, K.L. et al., Reinhorn, A.M.,
AISC (2010). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, and Soong, T.T. (1993). Inelastic response of reinforced
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. concrete structures with viscoelastic braces, Report No.
NCEER-93-0006, National Center for Earthquake
ASCE (2013) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Engineering Research, Buffalo, State University of New
Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE/SEI York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y.
41-13, Reston, VA.
Makris N., and Constantinou M.C. (1990). Viscous dampers:
Constantinou M. C., Symans M. D. (1992). Experimental and testing, modeling and application in vibration and seismic
analytical investigation of seismic response of structures with isolation, Report No. NCEER-90-0028, National Center for
supplemental fluid viscous dampers, NCEER-92-0032, Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Buffalo, NY.
Mazzoni, S., Mckenna, F., Scott, M.H., and Fenves, G.L.
FEMA (2000). Recommended Seismic Evaluation and (2009). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation:
Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame User command-language manual, Pacific Earthquake
Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Engineering Research Center, University of California,
351 report, Washington, D.C. Berkeley, OpenSees version 2.0 users’ manual, retrieved
from
FEMA. (2012a): Seismic Performance Assessment of http://opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/usermanual/,
Buildings, Volume 1 – Methodology. Federal Emergency August, 2016.
Management Agency, FEMA P-58-1 report, Washington,
D.C. McKenna, F., Scott, M., and Fenves, G. (2010). Nonlinear
finite-element analysis software architecture using object
FEMA (2012b). Seismic Performance Assessment of composition, J. Comput. Civil Eng., 24(1): 95-107.
Buildings, Volume 2 – Implementation Guide, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA P-58-2 report, Newell J., Love J., Sinclair M., Chen Y-N., and Kasalanati A.
Washington, D.C. (2011). Seismic design of a 15-story hospital using viscous
wall dampers, Proceedings of Structural Congress, Las
FEMA (2012c). Seismic Performance Assessment of Vegas, Nevada, U.S.
Buildings, Volume 3 – Supporting Electronic Materials and
Background Documentation, Federal Emergency Reinhorn A. M., Li C., Constantinou M. C. (1995):
Management Agency, FEMA P-58-3 report, Washington, Experimental and analytical investigation of seismic retrofit
D.C. of structures with supplemental damping, part I: fluid viscous
damping devices. NCEER-95-0001, National Center for
Fu Y., Kasai K. (1998). Comparative study of frames using Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
viscoelastic and viscous dampers, Structural Engineering, York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
124:513-552.
Rezaeian S., Bozorgnia Y., Idriss I.M., Campbell K.W.,
Kidder Mathews (2015). San Francisco office real estate Abrahamson N.A., Silva W.J. (2012). Spectral damping scale
market review 3 rd quarter 2015, retrieved March 2016, from factors for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic
http://www.kiddermathews.com/downloads/research/office- regions, PEER Report No. 2012/01, Pacific Earthquake
market-research-san-francisco-2015-3q.pdf. Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Lai, J.-W., Wang, S. Schoettler, M. and Mahin S. (2015). Soong T. T., Spencer B. F. (2002). Supplemental energy
Seismic performance assessment of a tall building having dissipation: state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Eng.
Pre-Northridge moment-resisting connections, PEER Report Struct., 24, 243-259.

13

262
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 4 (continued)

Takewaki I. and Yoshitomi S. (1998). Effects of support

stiffness on optimal damper placement for a planar building
frame, J. Struct. Des. Tall Buil., 7: 323-336.

Taylor, D.P., Constantinou, M.C. (1998). Development and

testing of an improved fluid damper configuration for
structures having high rigidity, Proceedings of the 69th
Shock and Vibration Symposium, St. Paul, MN.

14

taylordevices inc. 263

CASE STUDY: 5

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Practical Implementation of ASCE-41 and NLRHA Procedures

for the Design of the LLUMC Replacement Hospital

Gregory Nielsen PE, Simon Rees SE, Branden Dong PE, Kermin Chok SE,
Eaman Fatemi, Atila Zekioglu SE
Arup
Los Angeles, CA

Abstract performance-based seismic design process for this project,

including management of large data sets, nonlinear response
The Loma Linda University Medical Center Campus history driven design, and navigating the practical
Transformation Project (LLUMC CTP) is a new 17 story base- implementation of ASCE 41-06 criteria and CBC 2013
isolated 1,000,000 square foot replacement acute care hospital OSHPD amendments.
located less than 1 km from the San Jacinto Fault. The seismic
design and analysis of the structure used LS-DYNA to
efficiently perform nonlinear response history analysis
(NLRHA) with 110 individual ground motion analyses
incorporating DE, MCE, upper bound, lower bound, and
varying ground motion direction. Implementation of triple
pendulum isolators, fluid viscous dampers, buckling restrained
braces, and SidePlate moment frames in LS-DYNA will be
described. As required for OSHPD-1 facilities, the NLRHA
results demonstrated Immediate Occupancy performance at
DE and Life Safety performance at MCE using element
backbone curves and acceptance criteria from ASCE 41 as
amended by the California Building Code. Inconsistencies in
element acceptance criteria for combined lateral systems and
other code implementation challenges will be discussed. A
cloud computing and database framework, using Penguin-on-
Demand and Amazon Web Services, was developed to manage
the 8 terabytes of data generated from each set of 110 ground
motion analyses performed on each design iteration.
Automated processes enabled the team to reduce the time
between design iterations to 2 weeks for the complete suite of
NLRHA, post-processing, report generation, and design
optimization. The team’s approach to analysis data Figure 1: Structural Revit model illustrating the LLUMC CTP
management, design optimization procedures based on building.
NLRHA results, automated post-processing, and automated
report generation will be detailed. Basis of Design

Introduction The hospital building is located at a highly seismic site only 1

km from the San Jacinto Fault and 5 km from the San Andreas
The Loma Linda University Medical Center Campus Fault. A site-specific seismic hazard assessment was
Transformation Project (LLUMC CTP) is a new base isolated performed by GeoPentech and the resulting Design
1,000,000 square foot replacement hospital in Loma Linda, Earthquake and Maximum Considered Earthquake spectra are
CA. The project will bring the LLUMC campus in compliance shown in Figure 2. Due to the close proximity of the site to the
with the California Hospital Seismic Safety Act and is an causative faults, the design ground motions developed for the
OSHPD-1 acute care facility providing Level 3 Trauma project include near-fault source effects and pulse
services to San Bernardino County. An image of the structural characteristics. In addition, a vertical response spectrum was
model is shown in Figure 1. This paper describes Arup’s also produced for the site which far exceeded the code

264
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 5 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

minimum vertical seismic component (0.2SDS) as shown in base BRBF solution was rejected due to incompatibility
Figure 2. Arup’s approach to mitigating this severe vertical between the required number of brace lines and the functional
seismic component through the use of an innovative vertical program of the hospital.
isolation system (VIS) will be detailed in a future paper. A
suite of 11 tri-directional ground motions was used to be The final selected structural design uses a base isolation
consistent with the provisions of ASCE 7-16 and forms the system comprised of 126 triple friction pendulum bearings
basis for the nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) with +/-42” displacement capacity manufactured by
procedure used for the structural design. These were originally Earthquake Protection Systems and 104 fluid viscous dampers
developed at the MCE level and scaled by two-thirds for the with 800 kip MCE capacity manufactured by Taylor Devices.
DE level. Ultimately 110 individual ground motions were The pendulum isolators have an effective period of 4.5 seconds
required for each design iteration: 11 ground motions, 2 and the dampers have a velocity exponent of 0.7. The total
orthogonal directions, upper bound (UB) and lower bound equivalent system damping coefficient is 50% of critical
(LB) properties, DE and MCE, and an additional 45 degree damping. High damping using supplemental dampers was
oriented UB and LB analysis at MCE. selected to control the overall building displacements and
reduce reliance on the friction pendulum system for system
damping, which is affected by the changing vertical load due
to the high site-specific vertical ground motion component.
Controlling the isolator displacements to 42” instead of 84”
without supplemental damping resulted in an optimal cost
solution by controlling the isolator and damper component
costs, the costs associated with stability framing above and
below the isolators, and the costs associated with expansion
joint covers and flexible service connections.

Figure 2: Horizontal and Vertical MCEr spectra for LLUMC

Site

Arup considered a wide variety of structural steel lateral

system configurations before concluding that the optimal
structural system was a combination of base isolation with
BRB’s and SidePlate moment frames above. The choice of
lateral system was driven by the high seismicity and pulse-like
nature of the site ground motions at periods greater than 1
second (SD1 equals 1.54g and is greater than SDS) and the
overall final height and relative slenderness of the hospital
towers. At 17 stories and 230 feet tall the LLUMC CTP will
be the tallest hospital in California. Initial evaluations into a Figure 3: Representative BRBF elevation
fixed-base biaxial moment frame design proved impossible to
achieve the required 1.25% interstory drift even when using Stabilizing the top of the isolators is a moment connected grid
every column line in the building as a frame and the strongest of 60” deep steel plate girders designed for Immediate
and stiffest SidePlate moment frame beam-column Occupancy performance at MCE. The majority of these
combinations permissible by AISC 358-10. Similarly, a fixed

taylordevices inc. 265

CASE STUDY: 5 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

moment connections are bolted connections to control welding substantially less nonlinearity in the model and hence
distortion in the field during steel erection. A SidePlate special substantially less analysis time and data generation. For
moment frame system is used in the East-West (tower long LLUMC the seismic demands were much higher and
axis) direction and a BRBF system is used in the North-South optimization of the NLRHA performance was required to
(tower short axis) direction. The frames are designed to widen reduce the overall structural tonnage. NLRHA optimization
at the base in order to reduce the overall uplift demands on the could not be practically done without first creating an
base isolation system to manageable levels. A representative automated workflow which could generate, analyze, and post-
braced frame elevation is shown in Figure 3. The design uses process all of the required analyses into a reduced form
ASTM A913 Grade 65 steel sections for columns and selected suitable for design while also minimizing the feedback time to
BRBF beams in order to achieve the required IO performance fit within the aggressive project schedule. A single design
at MCE for these “overstrength” category elements. A full list iteration of 110 ground motions resulted in over 6 TB of data
of the performance requirements of various elements of the generated and over 10 design iterations were conducted
structure are listed in Table 1. While the average result was through the course of the project from Design Development to
required to meet the criteria of Table 1, no ground motion was final Permit. From the outset, the goal was to turn the time
allowed to result in elements exceeding the Collapse intensive NLRHA into a practical tool in the designer’s
Prevention (CP) limit. toolbox, similar to response spectrum analysis, so that from a
designer’s view NLRHA was not used as a final performance
Table 1: Performance requirements for NLRHA verification but rather an integral design process.
Element Performance at Performance at
DE MCE The team chose to use LS-DYNA as the analysis engine for the
FPT LRFD Design Expected Strength project. This choice was for the following reasons:
Isolator Design
FV Damper LRFD Design Expected Strength • Excellent model stability under 3d ground motions
Design with 1.5 FOS
Mat LRFD Design, Expected Strength • Reduced analysis time using explicit time domain
Foundation Settlement < 1.5” Design, Settlement < solver versus other software
6”
Level A IO, 1 y IO, 1 y • Staff familiarity
Isolator
Framing • Ability to use with cloud computing services
SidePlate IO, 0.25 y IO, 0.25 y
Columns There was a considerable learning curve in introducing LS-
SidePlate IO, 0.02 radians LS, 0.03 radians DYNA to OSHPD plan review staff. The design utilized the
Beams Collaborative Plan Review (CPR) process which allowed for
BRBF IO, 0.25 y IO, 0.25 y monthly meetings between the design team and the review
Columns team during the 18 month review duration which was essential
BRBF IO, 0.25 y IO, 0.25 y in helping OSHPD become confident in the nonstandard
Beams analysis tools. A bounding analysis study was performed in
BRBF IO, 3 y LS, 10 y order to select the most demanding set of bounding parameters
Braces for the soil behavior, isolator behavior, damping behavior, and
Drag LRFD Design Expected Strength BRB strengths. Figure 4 shows the result of the bounding
Connections Design analysis on a 2-dimensional frame which indicated that the
Diaphragms LRFD Design Expected Strength least favorable sets of bounding values corresponded to Lower
Design Bound of all parameters and the Upper Bound of all
parameters. The Lower Bound analysis controlled the isolator
NLRHA Workflow displacements and damper velocities while the Upper Bound
analysis controlled the superstructure drifts, frame demands,
The major analytical challenge facing the design team was and floor accelerations. Selecting a single Lower Bound and a
creating an analysis framework that could handle the large sets single Upper Bound analysis reduced the possible
of data generated by the NLRHA models which were larger permutations considerably and was essential in keeping the
than any Arup had previously had to deal with. Arup’s prior analysis set to a manageable 110 ground motions.
work on the base isolated San Francisco General Hospital
utilized an essentially elastic design on top of isolation with

266
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 5 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

SidePlate *MAT_HYSTERETIC_BEAM elements

Beam calibrated to experimental SidePlate moment
Elements frame cyclic test results.
Other *MAT_HYSTERETIC_BEAM elements
Moment calibrated to ASCE 41-06 backbone curves.
Frame
Elements
BRB *MAT_HYSTERETIC_BEAM elements
braces calibrated to experimental cyclic test results
of Nippon Steel BRBs.
Soil *MAT_SPRING_GENERAL_NONLINEAR
Springs elements calibrated to ASCE 41-06 backbone
curves.

Figure 4: Results of 2d frame bounding analysis (run 1 is

with all upper bound properties, run 16 is with all lower
bound properties)

In addition, a number of verification analyses were performed

prior to analyzing the full 3d model to ensure that the modeling
methodology used in LS-DYNA appropriately captured the Figure 5: Illustration of the NLRHA Workflow
essential physical behavior and met OSHPD’s review
requirements. These elements and their LS-DYNA materials The NLRHA workflow is illustrated in Figure 5 including the
are tabulated in Table 2. various time durations for each activity. The framework for
pre-processing and visualization utilizes a MySQL database
Table 2: List of LS-DYNA materials and application with a graphical front end using Rhino and Grasshopper. The
Element LS-DYNA material model and calibration analysis uses cloud analysis nodes from Penguin-On-Demand
FPT Three single pendulum (POD) and a small number of post-processing operations such
Isolator *MAT_SEISMIC_ISOLATOR elements in as floor drifts are performed on the analysis nodes. After the
series. An additional analyses are complete, analysts can view the results remotely
*MAT_GENERAL_NONLINEAR_1DOF_ to check for any bugs or spurious results. After this quality
DISCRETE_BEAM element was added in control process, the resulting data is then transferred to
parallel to model the failure behavior of the Amazon Web Services (AWS) Redshift for the remaining bulk
isolator rim at maximum displacement. The of the post-processing and images of the visualized data are
performance of the combined element was captured in report-ready format. The report is then compiled
compared to MCEER Technical Report # 08- back on the local server where the design team can assess the
0018 for 3d movement and uplift behavior. performance of the model and make the necessary changes to
further optimize the behavior. The overall time from the
FVD *MAT_NONLINEAR_VISCOUS_DAMPE
implementation of a design change to having the full suite of
Damper R element in parallel with a
compiled results and engineering demand parameters (EDP’s)
*MAT_SPRING_GENERAL_NONLINEAR
was reduced to 1 week. This short feedback time allowed the
element to model the lock-up strength and
structural design to be finely tuned over multiple iterations and
stiffness of the viscous damper and
within the framework for design and review.
connections upon exceeding the stroke
capacity of the damper. This stiffness was
The process begins with the structural Revit model which
calibrated to physical test measurements and
defines the basic frame geometry and section sizes. These are
the strength was capped as 1.5x the MCE
pulled into the database and the structural analysis geometry is
damper capacity.
generated based on the various element types. Both the lateral

taylordevices inc. 267

CASE STUDY: 5 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

and vertical force resisting elements are imported, including nodes was limited to those processes which primarily served
the floor slabs. Rigid end offsets, element discretization, to reduce the data sets, for instance reducing a set of
element offsets, and particular material assignments are added displacement histories into drift histories or converting damper
using a set of Grasshopper components ensuring the generated relative displacements from the three axes of global
analysis geometry model is fully connected and aligns with all displacement to a single rotating along-damper axis. The
of the essential parameters validated in the LS-DYNA essential data was then transferred to AWS Redshift, a cloud
validation package signed off by OSHPD. As part of this database warehousing service, where it could be stored,
process the floor slabs are generated as cracked elastic 2d shell queried, and processed at a cheaper cost per core. Due to IT
elements with the required seismic mass and all gravity beam infrastructure limits in Arup’s LA office, the transfer from
members are included as elastic beam elements. While the POD to AWS was much faster than transferring the data from
baseline output is that all elements and nodal displacements are POD to Arup for internal processing. The AWS platform also
written by LS-DYNA at 20 Hz sampling rate, selected nodes allows for scalability and automatic backups for the large data
and elements, such as drift nodes, building separation nodes, sets. At the time that the LLUMC project was in analysis
and floor acceleration nodes, must be selected prior to analysis production, two other projects of similar scale and data
to output at a higher 200 Hz sampling rate. A 200 Hz sampling generation were being run out of the same office. Having a
rate is not used on all elements as this would generate more central off-site repository allowed the teams to focus on
data than is physically necessary to capture the relevant EDPs delivering the projects using a common set of tools rather than
and slow the entire process. Once all of these assignments are spending valuable time maintaining internal IT infrastructure.
complete, the Grasshopper components write the necessary
keyword cards for the complete LS-DYNA analysis models in Finally, the data was post-processed on AWS Redshift using
all 110 variants (ground motion, bounding properties, standard SQL queries to turn the 110 individual records into
directionality, and severity). This model preparation process is sets of EDP’s representing the average of the maximum
fully automated. An image of the LS-DYNA model is shown response from each ground motion over the ground motion
in Figure 6. suites. This final database of EDP’s was visualized in Rhino
on the same geometry wireframe model used to generate the
analysis models at the start. These final visualizations, along
with a hard drive with all of the post-processed data tables,
analysis run files, and keyword files, were submitted to
OSHPD for review. Intermediate iterations were used to
optimize the performance of the structure primarily using
conservation of energy approaches for resizing deformation-
controlled elements with target inelastic deformation limits.
The EDPs tracked are tabulated in Table 3. A sample of the
figures generated from the process is shown in Figure 7.

Table 3: List of EDPs tracked for NLRHA

Element Metadata Output
Force-Controlled Forces and inelastic
elements deformations
Deformation-Controlled Forces and inelastic
elements deformations
Figure 6: Image of the LS-DYNA analysis model. FPT Isolators Forces, displacements, and rim
inelastic displacements
The analysis models are uploaded to the Penguin-On-Demand FV Dampers Forces, stroke displacement,
(POD) cloud computing cluster which has sufficient scale to stroke velocity, lock up
allow all 110 models to be run in parallel. The longest ground element force and deformation
motion was able to run on a single compute node in 8 hours so Gravity moment Forces
the full suite of analyses could be sent off at the end of the connected elements
workday all runs would be finished by the following morning. Drag, collector, and Forces
The models are then checked for spurious results or early diaphragm truss
termination errors, which could be corrected during the elements
workday, and then some minor post-processing was Soil Springs Forces and inelastic
performed. Post-processing on the more expensive compute deformations
Building Separations Relative displacements

268
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 5 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Interstory Drift Relative drifts at key points in Vertical Load Factor for NLRHA of Friction
building Pendulum Isolated buildings
Floor Accelerations Accelerations at key points in
building A unique feature of friction pendulum isolated buildings is that
Lateral Frames Story force time histories from the shear force in the bearings is directly proportional to the
cross-sections axial load applied to the bearing. This can lead to, and did on
Diaphragms Moment and shear envelopes the LLUMC project, a difference in interpretation regarding
derived from concurrent story the appropriate load combination to be applied to the overall
force time histories building when performing NLRHA. This issue has previously
been avoided in the designs for elastic structures on top of
isolation in which case the NLRHA was performed using an
unfactored 1.0 D combination roughly equivalent to the
seismic mass and then factoring the additional dead loads on
the superstructure elements using linear superposition.
However this is not possible for a combined NLRHA model
with nonlinearity in both the isolation system and the
superstructure lateral frame. A number of interpretations could
be considered ranging from 1.0 D + 0.25 L (ASCE 7-10
Section 16.2.3) to as much as 1.2 D + (0.2SMS W) + 0.5L or as
little as 0.9 D – (0.2SMS W) (ASCE 7-10 Section 17.8.2.5). On
LLUMC this maximum case could require the building to be
analyzed as though it was under 0.48g or 1.62g, meaning that
the same seismic force could act on the building but with 50%
or 160% of the lateral resistance in the isolators. A series of
analyses were performed to illustrate that the effect of the time
varying vertical ground motion on the lateral shear of the
isolation system was on the order of 5% variation in shear and
2% for isolator displacement. This result is primarily due to the
large amount of damping present in the isolation system
despite the very high vertical ground motions. The final load
combinations for the NLRHA lateral analysis were selected as
a compromise between the two extremes:

• Design Earthquake Cases: 1.0D + 0.2SDSD + 0.25L and

0.9D – 0.2SDSD

• Maximum Considered Earthquake Cases: 1.0D + 0.25L

The individual member design for force controlled elements

Figure 7: BRBF Frame elevation showing plastic strains from used additional load factors on the vertical loads per the
DE suite applicable sections of the code. It should be noted that the load
combination of 1.0D + 0.25L does not correspond to the
Practical Implementation Issues seismic weight of the building and therefore still results in
conservatism in lateral resistance in friction pendulum isolated
The design and plan review process of the LLUMC CTP buildings.
project illustrated a number of possible differences in
reasonable interpretation of code requirements as well as Gravity Column Deformation Compatibility for Steel
potential unintended consequences of certain code provisions. Frames
A number of these issues are summarized below and worth
further investigation by other researchers as part of future in- ASCE 7-10 Section 12.12.5 requires deformation
depth studies. compatibility to be assessed for non-seismic force-resisting
system elements due to the displacements at the design story
drift. For steel buildings designed in accordance with AISC
341-10, Section D3 applies. However since only the User Note

taylordevices inc. 269

CASE STUDY: 5 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

of Section D3 specifies that “flexible shear connections that delay onset of the flexural hinge. It should be noted that the
allow member end rotations per Section J1.2 of the magnitude of the forces in the BRBF beams was too great to
Specification should be considered to meet these make a true pin connection viable. This appears to be an
requirements.” The commentary further illustrates that only unintended consequence of the code since it does not appear
differential drift between floors leads to additional column logical to design a BRBF based on the performance of the
moment demands. Since this is not written into the body of the moment connected frame rather than rely on the energy
Seismic Provisions additional analysis was required to dissipating capacity of the BRB itself. It is unlikely that prior
illustrate that the columns did not have inelastic rotation projects utilizing deeper beam section and allowed to drift
demands when the drift histories of the building were applied. beyond 1.5% perform as required by this strict interpretation
To prove this a typical gravity column stack was modeled in of the code provisions.
LS-DYNA with ASCE 41-06 plastic hinge properties modeled
and FEMA 355 gravity shear tab inelastic hinges where the Floor Accelerations – Expected versus Actual
columns connected to gravity beams. The full suite of DE and
MCE ground motions were then applied in two orthogonal Seismic isolation is often used to reduce in-floor accelerations
directions and the plastic rotation was monitored. Only 1 for sensitive equipment. However, as Table 4 shows, the floor
ground motion at MCE resulted in hinging in the column. The acceleration results from LLUMC were in some cases higher
sizing design for the columns considered a 0.3% differential than the code prescriptive floor accelerations for nonstructural
story drift as an added moment in the LRFD column design component design in a fixed base building at the same site. The
and appears to be a reasonable design factor for this building relatively tall and flexible structure on top of the isolation
which was designed to 1.5% drift at DE. While the project plane likely leads to higher accelerations than may be
required that this be proven through rigorous methods it is a originally expected. Further, the design team found that LS-
logical result considering that the NLRHA did not indicate DYNA tends to predict higher accelerations (by up to 50%)
hinging in force controlled columns which are part of the than SAP2000. This will be investigated in the future and
lateral system and, in the case of the moment frames, are much compared to actual experimental shake table tests. It may also
stiffer than the gravity columns and hence will yield at a lower be the case that the prescriptive code floor accelerations for
rotation than the gravity columns. The use of Grade 65 steel nonstructural components in fixed base buildings may be
for the column sections also delays the onset of plastic hinging lower than they should be to ensure reliable performance. This
and is recommended. should also be investigated further and compared to actual
instrumented buildings and experimental tests.
BRBF Beam Plastic Rotation Limits Incompatible
with BRB Strain Limits Force-Controlled Frame Columns

An unintended consequence was discovered by virtue of A final lesson learned relates to force-controlled columns and
having modeled all of the lateral frame elements with plastic their treatment in the NLRHA model. Per the requirements of
hinges. ASCE 41-06 requires that beams of buckling restrained ASCE 41-06 these force-controlled columns should be
braced frames be treated similarly to the columns of the same modeled as elastic elements and the average of the maximum
frames and in some cases are force controlled. However, these forces developed in these elements from the suite of ground
low plastic rotation thresholds appear to be incompatible with motions should be compared to the capacity of the column.
the BRB strain limits of 3 y and 10 y for IO and LS However this could underestimate the response of the building
performance, respectively. The imposed deformation pattern if these elements were to exceed their capacity in any one
of the frame in the NLRHA that is required to yield the braces, ground motion. Due to this fact OSHPD requested that force
particularly for the W18 or W21 beam sections which are used controlled elements be modeled with axial load dependent
in typical designs, often results in inelastic behavior of the inelastic hinges. This then created the problem of
beams which cannot be controlled except by increasing the interpretation of results from the average of the suite of
stiffness and strength of the braces. This in turn increase the analyses. If any one of the motions resulted in plastic hinging,
column and brace forces required for capacity design. Due to no matter how slight, the average of the suite would indicate a
these reasons, the typical BRBF beam on the LLUMC project nonzero plastic rotation. This would then no longer meet the
is a stocky W14 column section since its shallow depth results requirement that there should be no yielding in force-
in delayed onset of a flexural hinge. Further the majority of the controlled elements. The only way to satisfy the requirement
BRBF beams were proportioned to have less than 0.5 P/Pcl so would be to design the column such that it did not hinge in any
as to keep them in the deformation controlled category of of the ground motions, which clearly represents overdesign
ASCE 41-06. Nonetheless this still required a plastic rotation relative to the averaging methodology used throughout ASCE
of 0.25 y in accordance with ASCE 41-06. In a few select 41-06. This issue was finally concluded by allowing a plastic
instances the beams were even increased to Grade 65 to further rotation of up to 0.05 y in force-controlled elements. This also

270
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 5 (continued)

2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

highlights the need to remain consistent with the procedures of

a single standard without modification.

Conclusion

The LLUMC CTP project represents one of the first designs

by Arup utilizing NLRHA as an integral part of the design
development and optimization process. Key to unlocking this
potential was the development of an automated workflow for
assembling, analyzing, and post-processing complex and very
large structural analysis models in a short enough time
duration to respond to design changes. This required a
considerable investment in analysis, database, and
visualization tools but reduced the engineer time required by
an order of magnitude while increasing the throughput of
analysis models. The project generated over 50 TB of data
over 1000 individual analyses during the design and
optimization process. This optimization process was essential
in eliminating every excess ton of structural steel on the
project and mitigating the substantial budget impacts of an
extremely challenging site. This case study illustrates that
design and optimization using NLRHA is feasible and the
framework is set to apply this methodology to future projects
to increase performance reliability and reduce cost.

taylordevices inc. 271

CASE STUDY: 6

Integrated Design and Construction at the 250 West 55th Street Tower

Matt Jackson SE, PE1 and Berkay Baykal LEED AP2

1
Associate Principal, Arup, 77 Water Street, New York, NY 10005; e-mail:
[email protected]
2
Project Engineer, Turner Construction Company, 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY
10014; e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The recently completed 40 story office tower at 250 west 55th street in Manhattan
demonstrates the best in innovative structural design, and use of 3-D coordination
tools for design and construction. This paper describes the integrated process that was
followed and some of the challenges that were met along the way, and will be of
interest to design professionals and others interested in integrated construction
processes.

The integrated 3-D process started with the use of Revit from the Schematic design
stage, and was followed through the design, procurement, and construction phases,
with all major sub contractors producing 3-D or 4-D models. These models were
carefully integrated by the general contractor, and enabled savings in schedule,
reduction of field conflicts, and reduced project risks.

The progress of the project was further complicated by a suspension of construction

for two years after completion of the foundations. This paper describes some of the
unusual steps taken to manage this process and allow for an accelerated schedule
upon restart of construction.

INTRODUCTION

250 West 55th st, is a steel framed, 600ft tall, 40 story office tower, located in
midtown Manhattan. The tower, developed by Boston Properties, and designed by
Architect Skidmore Owings and Merrill, contains approximately one million sq. ft,
and is slated for occupancy in early 2014.

The design of the project commenced in 2007, and it was decided from the beginning
of the schematic design phase, that BIM, and specifically Revit, would be used
throughout the design of the tower by the Architect, Structural, and MEP Engineers.
Although this is more common now, at the time this was very unusual, and this was
pursued with the goal of not only delivering a better integrated project, but also
developing a 3-D working process that could serve as a model for future projects.

272
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

Figure 1. Completed Tower © Kevin Chu/KCJP Figure 2. Structural Revit model

One aspect of particular focus for the coordination was the core. As is typical for a
New York City project, the core was a steel braced frame, and as such coordination of
gusset plates, with the ducts, pipes and conduits that must pass in and out of the core
is critical. This began for the typical office floors at the schematic design stage,
before the framing of the core was finalized, and included consideration of not only
the current needs of the building, but allowance for the addition of extra conduits in
the future.

Although clash detection tools exist within the software to facilitate this, this work
still requires an understanding of the critical coordination locations due to the
numerous other hits that an automated tool would produce on a model at this level of
detail. In addition it is necessary to bring forward the modeling of many items in

taylordevices inc. 273

CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

these critical areas, beyond the level of detail that would typical be required at this
stage.

Figure 3. Coordination of critical clearances in Navisworks

The use of the Revit model continued throughout the design into the procurement
phase with the model being shared with bidders, providing greater understanding of
the level of design and coordination. This is particularly important for fast-track
projects where early trades are bid before the design is completed, and this process
helped realize very consistent bids for the early steel package.

During the steel bid, the contract documents also required the steel detailer to provide
models and attend meetings early during the detailing phase, with the goal that the
design team would review the model, and thus expedite review of the shop
submittals, with minimal re-submittals required.

The Steel Contractor, Owen Steel, and their detailer, 4D Global Group, embraced
these ideas, and participated in several in person and on-line meetings as the model
was built and reviewed. This not only helped speed reviews, but the improved
interaction with the detailer, together with the BIM design process that was followed
enabled a substantial reduction in the number of RFI’s that were raised in the process.
In the 5 years that have passed since this phase was completed, the software available
has improved to the point where conventional shop drawings could be eliminated
entirely.

Due to the fast-track nature of the project, the detailing model, produced in Tekla,
was available to the design team, before the completion of Construction Documents
by the architect, and hence this fully detailed model was able to be overlaid with the
Architecture and MEP models and further clash checks carried out.

274
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN CHALLENGES

A significant structural challenge arose when the wind tunnel testing was completed,
after the end of the schematic design stage. The testing revealed that the loading on
the building from the wind was less than that required by the code, and that which
had been assumed in the preliminary design. Although the loading was lower, the
accelerations that occupants would experience at the top of the tower were predicted
to be higher than desirable according to most guidelines.

Desirable

Figure 4 - Initial wind loads and accelerations

Options to reduce the accelerations to an acceptable level were studied, and this
included adding more steel to the lateral system in order to add stiffness, as well as
various options for adding damping to the structure. Because the loads were less than
originally designed for, this allowed for some steel weight to be removed, however
this would potentially increase accelerations further. If however a damping system
with sufficient damping was added, then the benefit of these reduced loads could be
taken, and overall steel tonnage reduced. The result of this was that damping was
demonstrated to be a much more cost effective solution than adding stiffness, as is
commonly the case for tall buildings.

Damping systems considered included tuned mass dampers, tuned liquid column
dampers, and a viscous damping system integrated into the structure of the building.
As the building included a mechanical room at the top of the tower, the intention was
to integrate the damping into this space. Both the tuned mass dampers and tuned
liquid column damping system would have required significant rearrangement of the

taylordevices inc. 275

CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)
mechanical equipment to accommodate the damper, however a novel arrangement of
viscous dampers was developed that incorporated the dampers into a series of
outriggers connecting the core to the perimeter of the building.

By arranging the dampers into an outrigger configuration, and thus damping the
dominant flexural deformation rather than shear deformation, sufficient damping was
obtained with the use of just 7 dampers.

There are many challenges to designing a viscous damping system, in particular the
damping system must be analyzed as a part of the overall structure, rather than as a
separate bolt on system as can be done with a tuned mass damper.

The specification of the dampers for control of wind movements is quite different to
those used for seismic applications, where viscous dampers are more commonly used
in buildings. The dampers must operate at very small amplitudes to avoid building
movements being able to build up, and must also cycle constantly whenever the
winds reach a sufficient level. To meet these challenges, and allow for a long
maintenance free life, a damper with no conventional seals provided by Taylor
Devices, was selected.

Despite the high specification of the dampers, the overall cost of the system was less
than half the cost of a conventional tuned mass damper that would have achieved a
similar level of damping.

Figure 5 – Photo of damper and arrangement of dampers (indicated in yellow)

A more detailed description of the damping system and the challenges of integrating
this into the design is contained in the paper ‘Increasing Efficiency in tall buildings by
Damping’ (Jackson and Scott 2010).

276
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

DELAYED CONSTRUCTION

One of the most significant challenges encountered during the project was caused by
the economic crisis in 2008. Because of the changed market conditions the developer
chose to postpone construction until the market was more favorable. The team
quickly moved to put in place a plan to allow for an orderly demobilization and
efficient restart when the time was right. The foundation construction and steel
fabrication was already under way at this time, and so the team decided to complete
the structure up to the grade level to both stabilize the perimeter walls and allow the
site to be more easily waterproofed and protected. The fabrication continued for the
remainder of the steel, and this was stored in a yard in South Carolina, close to
fabricator Owen Steel. The team developed a plan to ensure that the site would be
safe and agreed a monitoring program with the department of buildings to make
certain the site would continue to be secure.

When time came to restart construction, the team was concerned about the corrosion
that had developed on the surfaces that had been prepared for slip-critical
connections; in particular, those that had been blast cleaned to achieve a Class B
surface. The RCSC bolting specification suggests that some corrosion for up to a year
should be acceptable, but no further data was available to specify exactly what level
of corrosion over what period of time would still perform in a satisfactory way.

Figure 6 – Steel storage yard

We decided to test a sample of representative connections from the stored pieces and
verify the coefficient of friction directly. The resulting tests showed that the stored

taylordevices inc. 277

CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

steel exceeded the required 0.5 coefficient of friction, and all of the samples showed
higher levels of friction than some freshly blast cleaned control samples, some of
which did not quite reach the required friction level.

CONSTRUCTION RESTART

Once the developer made the choice to restart construction, several unusual
opportunities and challenges arose. The availability of the already fabricated steel
meant that steel erection could start almost immediately, and the previously
completed and waterproofed cellar levels meant that some of the critical MEP spaces
were already available for installation, however none of the MEP subcontractors had
yet to start their work. This meant that engineering, coordination and fabrication for
MEP trades, was now on the critical path for construction, and any reduction in this
time would directly improve the schedule.

One of these installation areas, where construction could begin, was the switchgear
room, which was on the critical path of the construction schedule. Another challenge
during the cellar level coordination was the fact that because no electrical contractor
coordination was carried out in the first phase of construction, no conduit had been
embedded into the slab; this resulted in substantial amount of electrical conduits to be
accounted for in coordination.

A number of things helped in overcoming these MEP coordination challenges: First,

the building was already designed in Revit and the architect has turned over this
model to be used by contractors. Secondly, a structural steel fabrication model was
readily available in Tekla. By combining these models, an accurate background
model was established; and 3D MEP coordination started very quickly.

Navisworks was used for 3D coordination; and every trade used their own choice of
software specialized in their field. Within 20 sessions, coordination of the cellar
levels was completed. Thanks to BIM, subcontractors were able to go into fabrication
from the coordination model almost immediately. Typically, on similar projects,
subcontractors would submit shop drawings before and after coordination for
engineer’s review and approval. In this project, the MEP design engineer, Cosentini,
participated in the 3D coordination, and the final model was submitted for their
review and approval. As there was no need to wait for shop drawing review and
approval, fabrication started almost immediately after coordination.

Participation of engineer in the 3D coordination process also saved tremendous time

and reduced the number of RFIs and potential future issues. During the entire
coordination of 250 West 55th street, there were only 180 RFIs submitted for MEP
trades. Due to the unique nature of each project, it is not easy to compare this number
to a benchmark. However, it is safe to say that this was far fewer than the number of

278
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

RFIs that would have been submitted if the team did not utilize BIM and engage the
engineer during this process. Most of the RFIs were being addressed on the fly and in
person by the engineer. Virtual meetings were used when the engineer was not
available to attend all day meetings.

Figure 7 - C2 Level Coordination

With the help of strategies outlined above, MEP installation started in cellar levels
earlier than scheduled. One of the key areas, as mentioned before, was the switchgear
room. Early start of this area eventually resulted in early delivery of permanent
power, which was one of the major construction milestones scheduled for December
of 2012. Instead, this milestone was delivered in May of 2012. Needless to say,
getting permanent power earlier than scheduled benefited the overall construction
schedule.

As coordination on cellar levels was ongoing, coordination of the risers concurrently

progressed. Through quickly identifying any issues with structural openings and large
penetrations, such as requirements for modifications and the need for adding more
openings, it was possible to modify the steel as it was being erected. This as a result
eliminated the need for comeback fixes. Coordination of beam penetrations in
miscellaneous areas of the building was another focus area. Even though the design
engineer coordinated major penetrations and steel was fabricated accordingly, due to
the nature of tight coordination, additional beam penetrations were required. With

taylordevices inc. 279

CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

BIM it was possible to identify these penetrations early on and with great accuracy
allowing steel subcontractor to apply penetrations without any field measurements.

One of the most challenging areas of 250 West 55th Street project was the
construction of 39th floor mechanical room. The construction team has coordinated
the installation sequence of this area in great level of detail with the help of BIM.
Specifically, 4D-scheduling was used to identify underutilized and overcrowded
areas, leading to an efficient staging and sequence of installation. The team also
heavily relied on the 3D-model to identify necessary structural steel leave-outs.

Figure 8 - Roof Level Coordination

Two particular examples of obtaining tangible results from using BIM were boilers
and the generator. These were the largest and heaviest pieces of equipment on this
floor, originally intended to be set during steel erection on temporary posts and
dropped to their permanent positions after floor was poured. With the staging

280
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

coordination efforts outlined above, the construction team was able to continue to
pour concrete and set both of these equipment without the use of temporary posts.
This way, the 39th floor was delivered to MEP trades earlier and substantial schedule
savings were realized. Another important benefit of this strategy was the reduced risk
due to not double-handling this sensitive equipment.

Another example as a result of structural steel coordination on the 39th floor was the
issue with cooling tower dunnage steel. This steel was fabricated prior to the approval
of cooling towers due to the fabrication schedule and stalled nature of this project.
Early enough in the project the discrepancy between cooling towers and dunnage
steel was identified, allowing the team to make adjustments on cooling towers and
giving the structural engineer enough time to analyze and make sure that the offset
nature of the new layout was structurally acceptable.

Figure 9 - Construction at the roof level

Once the tower cranes were erected, and steel erection restarted, the steel progressed
very quickly with topping out achieved in approximately 9 months. With the MEP
trades able to follow closely behind through the expedited coordination and
accelerated schedules.

taylordevices inc. 281

CASE STUDY: 6 (continued)

CONCLUSIONS

The design and construction of the 250 West 55th St tower utilized a tightly integrated
approach in order to maximize the benefit to the client, and minimize construction
issues and cost. This included extensive use of BIM during design and construction,
as well as a closely integrated team approach to dealing with project challenges.

Overall, the full building TCO was received in May of 2013, compared to the initial
scheduled date of September of 2013 when the project was restarted. From cost
perspective no construction contingency was used throughout the project. Although
there are many other factors in these great achievements, the carefully integrated
approach to design and construction using the best available BIM tools, was a key
factor.

REFERENCES

1. Jackson, M. and Scott, D. (2010) “Increasing Efficiency in Tall Buildings by

Damping” Structures Congress 2010: pp. 3132-3142

282
taylordevices inc.
taylordevices inc. 283
CASE STUDY: 7

71st Annual Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention Santa Barbara, California, September 2002

Design of an Essential Facility with Steel

Moment Frames and Viscous Dampers Using
2000 NEHRP
Kit Miyamoto, M.S., S.E., President & CEO
Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.
West Sacramento, CA

Robert D. Hanson, PhD., P.E.

University of Michigan
Walnut Creek, CA
Abstract This paper presents an earthquake design procedure and
a case study of the Vacaville Police Headquarters. The
This new 2-story, 40,000ft2 police headquarters earthquake design “goal” of this essential facility is to
becomes the first building in the United States to apply provide an immediate occupancy performance for a
2000 NEHRP procedure to design an essential facility 475-year return seismic event. However, the project
with Fluid Viscous Dampers (FVDs). The structure is requirement is to keep the construction cost within
located in Vacaville, California, which is in a region of typical code conformed buildings. The combination of
high seismic activity and classified as zone 4 per 1997 Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) and Fluid
Uniform Building Code. The lateral force resisting Viscous Dampers (FVDs) are used as the lateral force
system (LFRS) consists of special steel moment frames resistance system. This system as described by Gimmel,
with FVDs. In accordance with 2000 NEHRP, the Lindorfer, and Miyamoto, (2002) results in cost
LFRS is sized and designed with strength requirements efficiency and superior seismic performance. The 2000
of the code level force. FVDs are provided to control NEHRP (FEMA, 2000) guideline was used to design
displacement of the structure. This design philosophy the project, since it is considered to be a state-of-the-art
leads to a low frequency structure with low procedure for seismic damping devices. This project
acceleration. FVDs reduce the displacement level to becomes the first structure in the United States to use
less than 0.01 story drift ratio. Earthquake performance this advanced procedure.
and cost effectiveness are the primary concerns in
designing this building. Site specific response spectra Building Description
and time histories are synthesized for a 500-year and a
2,500-year return event. Performance Based Design The project is located in Vacaville, California, which is
using both linear and nonlinear time history analyses is within a region of many active faults and high seismic
conducted to ensure “immediate occupancy” activity. The structure is a 2-story, 40,000ft2 (3,716m2)
performance. A cost study shows that much of the steel framed structure. The roof is composed of metal
FVD’s cost is offset by reducing the weight of the deck and WF beams, and the floor is composed of 21/2-
LFRS while providing a far superior performance than inch (6.4cm) lightweight concrete over 3-inch (7.6cm)
the “code-compliant” structures. metal deck and steel composite beams. The exterior
finish is lightweight architectural finish over
nonstructural metal stud walls. See figure 1 for
Introduction architectural rendering. See figure 2 for the second floor
structural plan. A perimeter SMRF is provided along
Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.
1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

284
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

the longitudinal direction. For the transverse direction, plan. A 24-inch (61.0cm) deep pad foundation is
one-bay SMRF is provided at each column line. The provided at WF columns.
location and quantity of SMRF is the same for the roof

Figure 1: Architectural Rendering (Courtesy of Indigo Architecture)

Light Weight Concrete

Over Metal Deck

Indicates Indicates
Composite Moment
WF Beam Frames

Figure 2: Second Floor Structural Plan

Seismic Risk The site soil consists of 65feet (19.8m) of alluvium

overlaying siltstone. The site is considered to be Sd soil
per 1997 UBC. The Vaca fault, which is not considered
Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.
1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

taylordevices inc. 285

CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

to be active, is closest to the site at a distance of 0.2 km. Great Valley Fault. The 1889 Antioch (M 6.3)
The next closest faults are segments 4 and 5 of the earthquake is attributed to the Greenville fault (Singh,
Great Valley Seismic Source Zone located at distance 2002). The 1997 Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1997)
of 6.6 and 9.8 km, respectively. These faults are ignores the near fault effects from blind thrust faults
considered to be blind thrust faults. The closest fault such as the Great Valley Source, therefore, the site
considered capable of surface rupture is the Green specific response spectra were created for this project
Valley-Concord fault located at 18 km from the site. (Singh, 2002). See figure 3 for a 475-year return and
The significant nearby earthquake was the 1892 figure 4 for a 2,500-year return response spectra.
Vacaville/Winters (M 6.5), which was attributed to the

Average
Fault Normal
1.400 Fault Parallel
Acceleration (g)

1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000

Period (sec)

Figure 3: 475-year Return Response Spectra (Singh, 2002)

Average
Fault Normal
2.500 Fault Parallel
Acceleration (g)

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000

(Period) (sec)

Figure 4: 2,500-year Return Response Spectra (Singh, 2002)

Conventional Structural Design The structure was first designed as a conventional

SMRF to provide a benchmark for cost and seismic
performance comparison with a high-tech system. The

Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.

1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

286
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

2000 NEHRP was used to design SMRF. The following discussion, only the longitudinal frame is considered.
are design parameters for the Equivalent Lateral Force Tributary weight of the roof is 380kip (1,690KN) and of
Procedure. the floor is 924kip (4,110KN). Table 1 shows the results
Seismic Use Group III I = 1.5 of the modal analysis.
SMS = 1.95g at 0.3sec. (site specific)
SML = 1.05g at 1.0sec. (site specific) Period (sec) Mass Participation %
SDS = 2/3 x 1.95g = 1.3g Mode 1 0.69 84
SDL = 2/3 x 1.05g = 0.7g Mode 2 0.27 16
Seismic Design Category D Table 1: Results of Modal Analysis
SMRF: R = 8, Cd = 5.5 (Conventional Design)
Cs = SRDS I = 0.24g
Nonlinear static pushover was conducted to gauge an
Cs = SDL I = 0.32g earthquake performance of this frame. Figure 6 shows
RTa
capacity/demand spectra with a site-specific 475-year
Ta = 0.4 return event. Please note that figure 6 is for a single
0.24g should be used for seismic shear. degree of freedom system.
The above value is compared with 1997 UBC. The following are results of the pushover for a 475-year
Ca = 0.44xNa = 0.44 return event. The results are converted to the multi
Cv = 0.64xNv = 0.64 degree of freedom system.
Near field factors are 1.0, since blind thrust faults are Maximum roof displacement = 5.6 inch
ignored by 1997 UBC. (14.2cm)
R = 8.5, I = 1.25 Base shear = 0.80g
2.5 CaI Effective period = 0.71sec.
V= R = 0.16g Effective damping = 8.4%
Cv I Max drift ratio = 0.016
V = RT = 0.24g Some yielding events were observed at the bottom of
0.16g should be used for seismic shear. This value is the first floor columns and second floor beams. The
lower than 2000 NEHRP value. It is affected by the drift ratio is reasonable, but the base shear of 0.8g may
magnitude of R, I, and near field factors. The 2000 cause nonstructural damage to the second floor
NEHRP allows 75% of seismic shear to be used for the equipment and roof HVAC units. This is the limitation
damped frame if the total effective damping is 14% or of the conventional design. This fairly strong SMRF
greater. Therefore, 0.75x0.24g = 0.18g. SMRF is provides near elastic response. However this system
designed for both strength and drift criteria using 0.18g also produces high roof and floor accelerations. For this
base shear. The 0.18g value is larger than the 0.16g ground motion, the high frequency system such as shear
value required by the 1997 UBC; therefore it will be walls and steel brace systems would produce an even
used to design this frame to compare with the damped higher acceleration and increase seismic demands on
frame described later. The drift criteria is the controlling nonstructural components. The base isolation may be an
criteria of the design rather than the strength criteria. ideal solution for this case, yet, the cost increase was
Allowable story drift ratio is 0.015 and computed not allowed by the project requirement.
maximum drift is multiplied by Cd .
I
Figure 5 shows the longitude frame elevation. For the
transverse direction, SMRFs and dampers are provided
to approximate equivalent stiffness and strength as the
longitudinal direction. Therefore, for the following

Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.

1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

taylordevices inc. 287

CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

30'-0" (TYP) W21X50 @ ROOF

(TYP)
(9.14 m)

(4.88 m)
16'-0"
W24X68 @ FLOOR
(TYP)

(4.27 m)
14'-0"
W14X159 COLUMN PAD FOOTING 3'-0"x3'-0" (0.92 m x 0.92 m)
(TYP) (TYP) GRADE BEAM (TYP)

Figure 5: Longitudinal Frame Elevation

1.4

5% Damped Spectra
1.2 Demand Spectra
Capacity Spectra
Spectra Acceleration (g)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Spectra Displacement (in)

Figure 6: Capacity/Demand Spectra for Conventional Frame

Hi-tech Systems Design elevation. The difference from figure 5 is the “pinned”
foundation condition and roof beam sizes. See table 2
The structure was then redesigned using SMRF with for FVD properties.
FVDs per 2000 NEHRP. The base shear of 0.18g as Damping Constant ‘C’ Per a FVD
described above was used to resize the frame members. Unit
The 2000 NEHRP describes that the frame members are 1st Floor FVDs 60kip-sec2/in (105kN-sec2/cm)
sized with strength requirements of the code level 2nd Floor FVDs 30kip-sec 2/in (52.5kN-sec2/cm)
(0.18g), and FVDs are provided to control displacement Table 2: FVD Property
of the structure. See figure 7 for the new frame

Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.

1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

288
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

The damping force is defined as

F = CV
V = Velocity
= 0.6 Nonlinear time history analysis showed that all SMRF
These damping properties were selected based on an elements remained elastic. The maximum roof
optimal displacement reduction and FVD force output. displacement is reduced by 55% from the conventional
Table 3 shows the results of the modal analysis. The design; the base shear is reduced by 65%; and the
results show that the predominant period shifted from maximum story drift ratio is reduced by 38%. The
0.69sec of the conventional SMRF to 1.2sec. This maximum FVD force per unit is 206kip (916kN) at the
frequency shift effectively brings the dynamic response first level. These results show that the structural damage
to a lower acceleration range in the site-specific is eliminated and nonstructural damage is significantly
response spectra. reduced by adding FVD. Figure 8 shows FVD force vs.
FVD displacement for one of the first floor FVD units.
Period (sec) Mass Participation (%) It shows the effect of the damping exponent 0.6. The
Mode 1 1.20 96.5 shape of the hysteresis loop is between the oval
Mode 2 0.08 03.5 ( = 1.0) and the rectangular ( < 0.1). Figure 9 shows
Table 3: Results of Modal Analysis FVD force vs. 2nd floor velocity for one of the first floor
units. It shows nonlinear response of FVD unit. Figure
The nonlinear computer model with discrete damping 10 shows FVD force at one of the first floor FVD units
elements were created using ETABS 7. Three sets of and first floor column bending moment of the first 20
time history ground motions compatible to a 475-year seconds of this 40-second record. It shows maximum
return event were synthesized by Singh (2002). FVD force is out-of-phase from maximum bending
Nonlinear time history analyses using step-by-step moment. Figure 11 shows the base shear of SMRF with
linear acceleration procedure were conducted. Table 4 FVD and the conventional SMRF for the first 20
compares the results of this analysis with the results of seconds. It shows a substantial reduction of the base
the push over analysis of conventional SMRF. shear. A linear time history analysis was conducted on
the elastic frame of the conventional SMRF. The elastic
frame was used since the push over results show near
Conventional
SMRF w/ FVD elastic response of the conventional frame. Results of
SMRF
linear time history and pushover analyses are slightly
Max. roof
2.5in (6.4cm) 5.6in (14.2cm) varied. Figure 12 shows the roof displacement of SMRF
displacement
with FVD and the conventional SMRF for the first 20
Max. base shear 0.29g 0.8g seconds. It shows a substantial reduction of the
Max. story drift displacement. Figure 13 shows energy balance. FVD
0.010 0.016
ratio energy dissipates the majority of the input energy.
Table 4: Performance Comparison for 475-year
Record

Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.

1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

taylordevices inc. 289

CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

30'-0" (TYP) W18X40 @ ROOF W24X68 @ FLOOR

(9.14 m) (TYP) (TYP)

(4.88 m)
16'-0"
(4.27 m)
14'-0"
W14X159 COLUMN PAD FOOTING INDICATES FVD
(TYP) (TYP) (TYP)

Figure 7: Longitudinal Frame Elevation with FVDs

250

200

150

100

50
Forces (k)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Displacement (in)

Figure 8: FVD Force vs. FVD Displacement for 475-year Record

Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.

1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

290
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

250

200

150

100

50
Force (k)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Velocity (in/sec)

Figure 9: FVD Force vs. 2nd Floor Velocity for 475-year Record

600

500

400
FVD Force
Moment (k-in) or Force (k)

Column Bending Moment

300

200

100

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)
Figure 10: FVD Force vs. Column Moment for 475-year Record

Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.

1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

taylordevices inc. 291

CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

1500

Conventional SMRF
1000
SMRF with FVD
Base Shear (k)

500

-500

-1000

-1500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)

Figure 11: Base Shear of SMRF with FVD vs. Conventional SMRF for 475-year Record

Conventional SMRF
6

SMRF with FVD

Roof Displacement (in)

-2

-4

-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)
Figure 12: Conventional SMRF for a 475-year Record vs. Roof Displacement of SMRF with FVD

Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.

1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

292
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 7 (continued)

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500
Input Kinetic
Potential Inherent Damp
FVD
2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 13: Energy Balance for 475-year Record

Discussion and Conclusions References

The results of this case study show that the 2000 Gimmel, Lindorfar, and Miyamoto, “Design of a New
NEHRP procedure is a very effective way to design a Moment Frame Building Incorporating Viscous
damped structure. The elastic frequency of the structure Dampers Following the Guidelines of the 1999 SEAOC
is shifted to a low frequency that generates lower floor Blue Book,” Proceedings of ATC17-2, May 2002,
and roof accelerations while the story displacements are Redwood City, California.
controlled by dampers. The maximum story drift was
limited to less than 1.0%, while all members remained NEHRP, 2000, “Recommended Guidelines for the
elastic. The maximum base shear is 0.29g for a 475- Seismic Design of Buildings and Other Structures,”
year return event. The final study will include results of FEMA 368, Washington, DC
a 2,500-year return. These parameters indicate that
structural and non-structural damages are significantly ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, International
reduced when compared to conventional lateral system. Council of Building Officials, Whittier, California.
The cost of FVDs are effectively offset by the reduction
in costs of the foundation system and the structural J.P. Singh and Associates, 2002, “Geotechnical and
steel of the roof beams. Seismological Findings and Recommendations,”
Richmond, California.

Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.

1450 Halyard Dr., Suite One
West Sacramento, CA 95691

taylordevices inc. 293

CASE STUDY: 8

Seismic Retrofit of the Tower of Hope – Preservation of a

Masterwork of Mid-Century Modernism

Bryan Seamer, S.E., Director

Daniel Wang, S.E., Director
LPA, Inc.
Irvine, CA

Abstract Background

Richard Neutra’s iconic Tower of Hope on the Christ Built in 1968, the Tower of Hope was the final piece of the
Cathedral (formerly “Crystal Cathedral”) campus in Garden four-building campus that formed the original home to
Grove, California has been an important Orange County Reverend Robert H. Schuller’s growing Reformed Church of
landmark since it was built in 1968. The thirteen-story tower America congregation in Garden Grove, California. Designed
– the tallest building in Orange County when it was built – has by famed international architect Richard Neutra, the Tower of
been called an “overlooked masterwork in Neutra’s oeuvre” by Hope joined Neutra’s Arboretum worship hall and the Large
architectural historians. and Small Galleries to create an enclosed garden courtyard at
the heart of the campus. The Tower was originally planned to
Like many concrete buildings built prior to the 1971 Sylmar be a low-lying companion to the other low-profile buildings on
Earthquake in California, the Tower of Hope’s concrete frames the site but was ultimately reconceived as a slender vertical
lack the ductility needed to safely dissipate seismic energy. tower with 28,000 square feet of offices and classrooms in
After acquiring the Crystal Cathedral campus in 2012 the thirteen stories. The Tower of Hope along with the other three
Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange undertook a Neutra-designed buildings on the Christ Cathedral campus are
comprehensive renovation and seismic retrofit project to recognized by architectural historians as important examples
provide 21st century seismic resilience to the historic tower. of mid-century modernism as well as works in Neutra’s
This challenging seismic retrofit and renovation project was celebrated portfolio.
completed in 2015. The retrofit work included the installation
of fluid viscous dampers on the second through fifth floors of Reverend Schuller’s ministry grew dramatically during the
the tower in combination with fiber-reinforced polymer 1970s and 1980s as his televised “Hour of Power” became
strengthening of targeted concrete columns and walls. synonymous with televangelism and his campus grew to
include Philip Johnson’s landmark glass-and-steel clad Crystal
This paper focuses on two challenges unique to the Tower of Cathedral directly to the north of the Tower of Hope.
Hope. First, it was imperative that the retrofit design respect
the historically significant mid-century modernist architecture, In 2012, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange purchased the
preserving those features that were emblematic of that period former Crystal Cathedral campus including the Tower of Hope
of significance. Seismic retrofit construction was limited to from Reverend Schuller to serve as its long-planned diocesan
areas that didn’t affect Neutra’s open floor plate design cathedral. The Diocese immediately begin a program of
aesthetic or lessen the inside-outside connectivity of each of modernization and renovation of all of the buildings on the
the spaces. This openness was particularly challenging to newly re-named Christ Cathedral campus. From the beginning
preserve in the glass-walled first floor lobby where seismic the fate of the Tower of Hope was in doubt. During the
forces are at their most intense. The second unique challenge Diocese’s acquisition due diligence process in the Fall of 2011,
was the large damper connection forces that had to be a seismic assessment suggested that the Tower of Hope was
developed into the existing cast-in-place concrete frames the most vulnerable building on the Cathedral campus. While
without damaging the existing steel rebar. The strategies the Diocese recognized the Tower’s architectural and cultural
described by the authors are generally applicable to other significance, it decided that the safety of its large parish
historic buildings from the mid-century modernist movement population must ultimately take precedence. It was at that time
and to the use of fluid viscous dampers to retrofit concrete that contingency plans were made to demolish the Tower of
frames. Hope and replace it with a modern office building in case a
viable seismic retrofit solution could not be devised.

294
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Building Description

The Tower of Hope was originally built to house offices and

classrooms supporting Reverend Schuller’s growing
Reformed Church of America. The tower consists of thirteen
occupied stories with a double-high volume thirteenth story
that houses the famed Chapel in the Sky and its panoramic
views of Orange County. The building footprint is very small
by modern office building standards, 58’-4” in the longitudinal
direction and 32’-2” in the transverse direction. With less than
1,900 gross square feet of space per floor the building
configuration is more akin to a series of stacked rooms than a
traditionally subdivided office building. The floor to floor
height is typically 11’4” with the 13’8” first floor and the 25’3”
high thirteenth floor chapel serving as exceptions. The roof
height is approximately 162’above grade. An interstitial floor
above the thirteenth floor houses a machine room above the
building’s two elevators on the west side of the tower.

Figure 1 – The Tower of Hope’s 13th floor Chapel in Figure 2 – Tower of Hope South Elevation.
the Sky offers 360o views of Orange County.

The structural system of the tower is entirely cast-in-place

concrete. Floor construction typically consists of 4 ½”
concrete slabs spanning between 27” deep concrete beams
spaced at 11’-0” on center. The beams are not isotropic along
their length, the width varying from 20” at each end to 12” at
mid-span. These main beams span north to south across the
32’-2” dimension providing completely open column-free
floors. Perimeter concrete columns are rectangular 16” by 28”
on the south side and trapezoidal 16” by 42” on the north side
of the tower. Column reinforcing consists of tightly confined
circular cores with more widely tied perimeter longitudinal
bars forming the finished shapes of the columns.

taylordevices inc. 295

CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Figure 4 – Typical floor plan showing locations of

concrete moment frames (in blue) and concrete
shear walls (in red).

Several building elements extend out from the tower footprint.

An enclosed interior stair tower extends from the northwestern
corner of the main tower. With 12” thick concrete walls on
two sides the cast-in-place concrete stair ties into each main
floor diaphragm via an 8’4” wide 6” thick concrete slab. At
the southeast corner of the main building a second exterior stair
cantilevers thrillingly from the tower. This column-free stair
is cantilevered almost 12’ from the main floor slabs with post-
tensioned tendons. Thin architectural steel cables at 5” on
center enclose two sides of the vertigo-inducing stair but do
not serve as structural hangers for the far landing. One of the
most prominent features of the building is illuminated steel
cross that soars to 88’ above the roof of the tower.

The lateral force resisting system of the tower consists of

concrete moment frames formed by the perimeter columns and
beams and the main transverse interior beams. Supplemental
lateral force resistance is provided by the two 12” thick
Figure 3 – Erection of the steel cross on the roof of concrete walls that are on the north and west sides of the
the Tower of Hope in 1968. (Richard and Dion Neutra northwest stair tower. The location of these shear walls, far
Paper Archives, 1925-1970). from the main tower’s center of mass, and the lack of a
similarly rigid element on the other side of the tower result in
The foundation of the building is a Raymond step-tapered pile a torsional response of the tower when loaded in the north-
system with pile caps tied to each other with reinforced south direction.
concrete grade beams. The Raymond pile system, developed
by Alfred E. Raymond in 1893, consists of a series of helically-
corrugated cylindrical steel shells driven into the soil in 8’ to
16’ lengths. Each subsequent shell is wider than the shell
below it so the diameter of the pile is tapered along its length.
The steel shells are filled with concrete as the shell-driving
process advances into the soil to form a steel-concrete
composite pile.

296
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Seismic Vulnerabilities
The initial seismic assessment of the Tower of Hope was based
When the Diocese of Orange purchased the Christ Cathedral on a “Tier 1 Screening” as described in ASCE Standard 31-03
campus in 2012 the due diligence phase of the real estate “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings.” This process
transaction identified the Tower of Hope as a building of consists of a series of quick checks to identify potential
elevated seismic risk due to its age and concrete moment frame vulnerabilities that warrant more detailed study. The
construction. The seismic vulnerabilities associated with non- prescriptive checklist of potential vulnerabilities was
ductile concrete frames and the risk they pose to buildings of supplemented by a detailed review of the construction
this age and construction type are well-known. As part of a documents by experienced structural engineers to identify
campus wide modernization and renovation program the potentially brittle concrete details and other system-wide
Diocese solicited the services of several structural engineers, vulnerabilities.
including Irvine-based integrated design firm LPA, Inc., to
perform a detailed evaluation of the Tower of Hope. This Several serious deficiencies were identified during the
initial assessment comprised three basic steps: data collection, screening phase, most of them related to non-ductile detailing
seismic screening, and identification of potential deficiencies. of the concrete frames:

A common challenge with assessment and retrofit of buildings  Inadequate confinement of column reinforcing. The
of this age is that original construction documents are not often central core of each columns is confined with a tight
available. This potential challenge is amplified in a concrete spiral of #4 bars at a 2” on center. However, the
building because direct observation of the steel reinforcing is remainder of the vertical bars, including those at the
impossible and non-destructive testing methods are time- perimeter of the column that are potentially most
consuming and not always accurate. This challenge was effective in resisting flexural forces is confined with
largely bypassed on the Tower of Hope retrofit project, #3 ties spaced at 12” on center.
however, because the building is an important piece of
architectural history and the design team had incredible access  Short splices in column vertical bars. Typical column
to original sources of information on the design and splices are 30 bar diameters.
construction of the building.
 Vertical column bars are not fully developed into the
For the Tower of Hope project these issues were avoided foundation.
entirely due to the careful preservation of Richard Neutra’s
records by architectural historians at the “Richard and Dion  Frame beam longitudinal bars not fully developed
Neutra papers, 1925-1970” archive at the Charles E. Young into frame columns. In multiple locations not all of
Research Library on the campus of UCLA. This archive holds the longitudinal bars are fully developed into the
nearly comprehensive documentation on the design and columns due to 90-degree hooks that don’t extend far
construction of the Tower of Hope. Complete construction enough into the columns or bottom bars that don’t
drawings by Richard and Dion Neutra, Architects and have hooks at all.
Associates and J. Kinoshita & Associates Consulting
Structural Engineers dated May 15, 1966 proved to be  Torsional irregularity. The stair tower at the
instrumental in understanding the construction of the Tower. northeast corner is enclosed with 12” thick concrete
In addition to original construction documents, the design team walls while the much larger main tower is a moment-
was able to review meeting minutes, correspondences, resisting space frame. The difference in lateral
construction RFIs, submittals, and crucially, inspection and stiffness of these two systems leads to a torsional
testing reports. The availability of original concrete testing response and induces amplified seismic forces in the
reports was important for two reasons. First, it gave the design outer frames and the relatively narrow portion of floor
team confidence in the as-built compressive strength of the slab that ties the stair tower to the rest of the structure.
concrete. This confidence is directly applied analytically in
the form of a knowledge factor, , that is a part of the seismic Taken in total these deficiencies – particularly those related to
retrofit provisions of ASCE Standard 41-06. The most non-ductile concrete detailing – represent a serious risk to the
important discovery during the design team’s review of building despite a seismic-force resisting system that is
Neutra’s project records was the fact that during construction otherwise relatively well-proportioned and redundant for a
the contractor decided to use 4,000 psi concrete in lieu of the building of this size.
3,000 psi concrete called for in the structural. This change is
not insignificant in relation to the seismic performance of the
building as is discussed further below.

taylordevices inc. 297

CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Figure 5 – Typical column reinforcing detail.

Figure 7 – Original construction drawing showing

column to pile cap connection, column bar lap
length and column tie configuration

Figure 6 – Representative beam to column joint

detail.

298
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Seismic Retrofit Constraints

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange approached the

renovation and retrofit project with the safety of its large
congregation and staff as the main priority but knew that
preserving the Tower of Hope would be challenging for
several reasons. As a historically significant work by one of
the masters of the modern architecture movement preservation
of Neutra’s original design aesthetic through the retrofit
process was essential. To ensure that the historic architecture
was maintained and celebrated through the renovation project
Barbara Lamprecht, an architectural historian and expert in the
works of Richard Neutra joined the design team. With her
guidance, LPA’s team of architects and structural engineers
designed renovation and retrofit measures that were true to the
architectural period of significance. Specifically, the inside- Figure 9 – Southern view from lobby to courtyard and
outside connectivity between the glass-walled lobby and the fountain.
fountain and garden to the south and entrance to the east
needed to be maintained. This dictum essentially precluded Another factor limiting the placement of new seismic load
the addition of new lateral-force resisting elements at the resisting elements is the very small floor plates. At only 32
perimeter of the first floor - the location where such elements feet wide by 58 feet long the usable square footage of each
would be most effective. floor is very valuable. Any new walls or braced frames in the
interior of the building would make space planning a major
The Tower along with the former Crystal Cathedral campus is challenge and make it nearly impossible to design fully open
also an important part of the history of Orange County, CA. floors. Further, because the Diocese’s program included a
The Diocese chose to preserve the top floor Chapel-in-the-Sky combination of entirely open floorplan classrooms, subdivided
and Rev. Robert Schuller’s private office on the twelfth floor office floors, a television studio, a chapel and the open-plan
in recognition of the building’s regional historical significance. lobby there were no common walls at the interior of the
building that stacked from floor to floor.

Another major constraint to designing an effective seismic

retrofit strategy was cost-related. Due to site soil conditions the
Tower of Hope is supported by deep pile foundations. A
traditional retrofit design that adds significant lateral stiffness
to the tower would lead to increased foundation loads and the
need for new piles. Construction of any new piles, while
technically possible beneath the existing building, proved to
prohibitively expensive. The exterior glazing and cladding of
the tower also needed to be preserved both because of the
historic aesthetic and because of the cost needed to replace it.
Any seismic retrofit design would need to be able to be built
without replacing or damaging the glass.

These constraints when taken together form a set of seismic

Figure 8 – Glass-walled lobby looking west. design criteria that severely limited the possible retrofit
options.

taylordevices inc. 299

CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Seismic Retrofit Design shear, flexure, and axial behavior and rebar slip deformations
per the requirements of ASCE 41-06.
Based on the aesthetic, historic, economic, and practical
constraints the seismic retrofit strategy for the Tower of Hope The seismic analysis of the building was performed using
was designed to meet the following objectives: ETABs Version 9.7 structural analysis and design software
published by Computers and Structures, Inc. The finite
 Respect the period of architectural significance and element model was subjected to seven pairs of site-specific
historical context of the Tower by not adding response spectra-scaled time histories for each of the two
structural elements to the first floor, twelfth floor earthquake hazard levels. The time histories were constructed
offices of Reverend Schuller or thirteenth floor by Leighton Consulting, Inc. geotechnical engineers based on
Chapel-in-the-Sky earthquake records having magnitudes between 6.0 and 7.0 at
 Limit new seismic-force resisting elements to the distances ranging from 10 to 20 kilometers and geologic and
perimeter column lines to maximize usable interior seismic/tectonic environments compatible to the site of the
space and allow for future flexibility. Tower of Hope. Leighton Consulting, Inc. built these site
 Avoid the need for adding new foundation elements specific acceleration time histories to meet the requirements of
in order to minimize construction costs. Section 1.6.2.2 of ASCE 41-06. Because seven sets of time
histories were considered in the analysis the average value of
LPA, Inc. structural engineers worked closely with the Diocese each of the maximum response parameters from each time
of Orange to establish the structural performance objectives for history was used for assessing the acceptability of each
the seismic retrofit. In accordance with the voluntary seismic structural element. Multi-directional seismic effects were
retrofit provisions of the 2013 California Building Code and taken into account by using 100% of the response parameter
American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 41-06, “Seismic with a given time history applied in the X-direction combined
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings” (ASCE 41-06) the with 30% of the response parameter with the time history
following structural performance objectives were selected: applied in the Y-direction. This resulted in fourteen time
history analyses for each of the two earthquake hazard levels.
 Life Safety performance during an earthquake having
a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (BSE-1) The results of the time history analysis were exported to
 Collapse Prevention performance during an Microsoft Excel and post-processed using proprietary LPA,
earthquake having a 2% probability of exceedance in Inc. spreadsheets and Visual Basic macros. Each existing
50 years (BSE-2). concrete beam, column and shear wall that resists seismic
forces was checked against the ASCE 41-06, Supplement No.1
In order to satisfy both the practical and analytical project acceptability criteria for both Life Safety and Collapse
objectives two specialized structural components were used in Prevention performance. These acceptance criteria are based
tandem. First, supplemental damping was added to the on multiple force-controlled or deformation controlled actions
building in the form of diagonally-oriented fluid viscous for each element and explicitly include consideration of stress
dampers. This served to reduce the seismic demand on the level, rebar splice length, confining reinforcement, and
existing concrete frames without adding significant foundation development of rebar into beam-column joints. Because of the
forces. Second, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) was added to lack of ductile rebar detailing at the Tower of the Hope the
select concrete columns and walls for increased strength. acceptance criteria of many of the concrete beams and columns
necessitates nearly elastic behavior.
The structural design for the seismic retrofit followed the
linear dynamic procedure of ASCE 41-06 using site specific
time histories. The linear time history procedure was chosen
for two reasons. First, the fluid viscous dampers are velocity-
dependent so a time-history analysis was needed to model the
effect of this supplemental damping. Because of the limited
ductility of the existing concrete beams and columns these
elements had very little post-elastic capacity so any effective
retrofit design would necessarily result in nearly linear behaver
of these elements. Because of this practical reality and for
computational efficiency a linear time history analysis was
performed. The concrete elements were modelled with
reduced effective stiffness parameters between 30% and 70%
of EcIg for flexure and 40% of EcAg for shear to account for

300
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

resulted in dampers with a maximum of 260 kips of axial force

and 4” of stroke during the suite of BSE-2 time histories. A
factor of safety of 2.0 against yielding and 2.5 against ultimate
failure was used in the design of the damper components.
Taylor Devices of North Tonawanda, NY designed and
fabricated the 32 dampers for the Tower of Hope.

During the preliminary design phase of the project a review of

the original Tower of Hope construction files uncovered
concrete submittals and field inspection and testing reports that
revealed that the as-designed 3,000 psi concrete for the
superstructure was replaced with 4,000 psi concrete during
construction. The design team hypothesized that this change
was made to accelerate erection time as each subsequent level
had to reach adequate strength before the next level up could
be poured. This construction change had an initially
counterintuitive effect on the retrofit design. While the high
strength concrete did have more capacity than originally
thought it also resulted in a more rigid structure. This added
stiffness led to higher seismic forces and reduced the
effectiveness of the fluid viscous dampers which generate
damping to the structure proportionally to their drift-induced
stroke velocity.

In its original condition, without any supplemental damping

approximately one third of the existing concrete elements did
not meet the seismic performance objectives required by
ASCE 41-06. With damping added on levels two through five
only about 6% were still deficient. These remaining deficient
elements were strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) wrap to add flexural capacity, confinement or both.

Figure 10 – ETABS model of Tower of Hope in

original condition.

The final retrofit design for the Tower of Hope balanced the
addition of fluid viscous dampers and FRP-strengthening of
columns and walls with the goal of minimizing total
construction cost. To that end, the retrofit design process was
iterative with supplemental damping increased until the
addition of more damping had only incremental effect on the
acceptability of the existing concrete frames and shear walls.
The final result was a design that included dampers added in a Figure 11 – Fluid viscous dampers on the north side
two-story X configuration on each of the perimeter column of the Tower of Hope.
lines on stories two through five. After analytically
experimenting with several different combinations of damper
properties it was determined that dampers with a damping
constant, C, of 120 kip-sec/in and a velocity exponent, , of
0.5 was most effective for this building. These properties

taylordevices inc. 301

CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Figure 12 – West elevation of the Tower of Hope, fluid

viscous dampers visible at second through fifth
floors.

The Raymond Step-Tapered pile system was also evaluated

using the acceptance criteria detailed in ASCE 41-06.
Ultimate pile uplift, compression, and lateral capacities were
derived from information found in the Raymond Pile design
guide and soil properties provided by the project geotechnical
engineer. This analysis demonstrated that the existing pile
system met the seismic performance objectives without need
for retrofit.

Figure 13 – Structural model of the Tower of Hope

with dampers on second through fifth floors.

302
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Seismic Retrofit Detailing and Construction

The seismic retrofit of this historically significant 1968 non-

ductile concrete frame building included unique detailing
challenges both structurally and architecturally.

The most challenging part of the structural design was

developing the large damper forces into the existing concrete
frame. The vertical component of the damper reaction was
resisted by Grade 105 bolts through the existing concrete
frame beams near the diagonal damper driver connection point
at beam mid-span or at the beam-to-column joint. Horizontal
forces were resisted with a series of Hilti KBTZ expansion
anchors along the entire length of the concrete frame beams.
This resulted in steel connection plates that ran the length of
the floor at the perimeter of the building between columns
which practically maximized the ability for the concrete frame
to transfer forces into the dampers without failure of these
connections.

The installation of the critical damper to concrete frame

connection bolts and expansion anchors proved equally
challenging. Because the essence of the retrofit strategy was
to take advantage of the capacity of the existing concrete
frames it was imperative to preserve as much of that inherent
capacity as possible during installation of the dampers. This
meant that any connections between new steel elements and
existing concrete beams and columns needed to avoid
Figure 14 – Tower of Hope entrance with FRP visible damaging existing steel rebar to the extent that was possible.
on exterior face of concrete column. While the record drawings showed sizes, quantities, and
configuration of all of the column and beam reinforcing the
precise location could not be determined without extensive
testing in the field. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) was used
extensively during construction to precisely locate the existing
rebar. The design allowed for small adjustments of connection
bolt locations in the field to avoid existing rebar although in
several locations connections had to be reconfigured and
reanalyzed during construction to allow through-bolts to snake
through the existing beams without damaging their
reinforcing. This resulted in highly customized connections at
many of the 64 damper and driver connection locations. In
order to keep the project on schedule much of the steel
connection fabrication took place on site with bolt holes being
drilled in plates and plates welded to braces in the field only
after a viable bolt pattern had been identified and analyzed on
a case-by-case basis. The contracting team of MATT
construction and Saunders Commercial Seismic implemented
a 24-hour work day in three 8-hr shifts, six days a week during
the four-week long damper installation phase of the
construction. In the end the design and construction team
worked hand-in-hand to successfully install over 250 anchors
and bolts.
Figure 15 – Column confinement FRP installation.

10

taylordevices inc. 303

CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

Figure 16 – Damper connection to existing concrete

beam-column joint detail.

At the west side of the building the concrete frame beams are
narrower than on the other three sides because of the proximity
of the building’s elevator shaft. This condition reduced the Figure 17 – Damper connection to beam and column
effectiveness of expansion anchors installed on the top surface at southern column line.
of the beam due to reduced concrete edge distance. Because of
this Grade 105 through-bolts were added through the two Maintaining and preserving the mid-century modernist
columns on the west side of the building. The through-bolts at aesthetic and the specific elements of Richard Neutra’s design
both column and beam were designed to resist the combined was as important as the structural engineering requirements of
effects of tension and shear. Because the column ties were the project. While much of the FRP wrap occurred within the
spaced too closely to avoid damaging them when installing the curtain-wall envelope of the Tower there were locations where
through-bolts the retrofit design included the addition of FRP was needed on the exterior of the building as well. In
confinement FRP between the connection plates and the order to hide the FRP yet maintain an aesthetic true to the
concrete columns on this side of the tower. The sequencing original period of architectural significance the design team
and coordination between the GPR testing company, structural worked closely with the team’s architectural historian to
engineer, FRP sub-contractor and steel sub-contractor had to develop fluted 10-gage metal cladding that was differentiated
be carefully orchestrated to ensure that the dampers and FRP from but consistent with the original Neutra design.
could be installed without damaging the longitudinal column
and beam reinforcing.

11

304
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

 The addition of supplemental damping to an existing

structure is an effective way to significantly reduce
seismic demands on the building. Fluid viscous
dampers are most effective near the base of the
building but need not extend through the first floor to
the foundation to improve overall seismic
performance of a structure.

 Seismic retrofit in a concrete building may be limited

by the ability to transfer seismic forces between the
existing concrete structure and strengthening
elements. This limitation is particularly important
when a small number of bracing elements are added
because the connection capacity between new steel
elements and existing concrete is relatively small.

 The Tower of Hope seismic retrofit project was

successful in part because of the relatively small floor
plates of the building. Each floor comprises less than
1,900 square feet of space so perimeter dampers
proved effective. The supplemental damping needed
to effectively retrofit the Tower of Hope resulted in
approximately one damper per 500 square feet of
floor area in each direction. To be more generally
applicable for typical non-ductile concrete moment
frame retrofit in buildings with larger floor plates it
should be understood by the design team that more
dampers than is architecturally practical may be
needed.

Figure 18 – Architectural metal paneling to hide FRP  Locating and avoiding existing steel reinforcing in a
at column adjacent to building entrance. Reference large concrete frame is very challenging. While the
Figure 14. quantity of bars may be understood by reviewing
record drawings and other as-built information the
Conclusions exact location in the field may vary by several inches
in any direction. Careful detailing to allow for
This paper presented a case study in performance-based flexibility during construction and thoughtful
seismic retrofit for a historically significant non-ductile coordination and planning between the structural
concrete frame building using a combination of fluid viscous engineer, contractor, testing company and project
dampers and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP). Several of the inspector is essential when new steel elements are
lessons learned by the project team on this project may be being added to an existing concrete building.
broadly applicable to other projects with similar project goals
and features. These general conclusions include the following: Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Roman Catholic Diocese

 Respect for the features of the building that make it
of Orange County for their commitment to preserving this
historically significant are important. The project
iconic building and their willingness to embrace an innovative
team for the Tower of Hope included an architectural
performance-based design retrofit strategy. The Diocese team
historian who is an expert in the works of Richard
was led by Rob Neal, Managing Partner of Hager Pacific
Neutra to ensure that the seismic retrofit and
Properties, and Tracy Bejotte, Chief Operating Officer of the
associated renovation work was differentiated from
Christ Catholic Cathedral Corporation.
yet compatible with the building’s period of
architectural significance.

12

taylordevices inc. 305

CASE STUDY: 8 (continued)

The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions

of the LPA, Inc. integrated architecture and interior design
team led by Jim Wirick, AIA, and Maria Louie.

Finally, the dedicated construction team led by Kevin Pitzer of

MATT Construction and Amber Zamora of Saunders
Commercial Seismic deserves recognition for their
commitment to high quality work on this very demanding
construction project.

References

ASCE, 2003, ASCE Standard 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of

Existing Buildings, 2003, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

ASCE, 2006 ASCE Standard 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of

Existing Buildings w/ Supplement No. 1, 2006, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

ACI, 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-11), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Barbara Lamprecht, lamprecht, archiTEXTudal, personal

communication, various dates.

CBSC, 2013, California Building Code, California Code of

Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2, California Building
Standards Commission, Sacramento, California.

Computers and Structures, Inc., 2011, ETABS version 9.7

[Computer software], 2011, Berkeley, California.

Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2012, Geotechnical Exploration for

Proposed Seismic Upgrade of Tower of Hope and Arboretum
Building Existing Crystal Cathedral Campus 12141 South
Lewis Street Garden Grove, California, Project No. 10021.001

Raymond International Inc., Raymond Step-Taper Piles, 1977,

Houston, Texas.

Richard and Dion Neutra papers archive, 1925-1970, Charles

E. Young Research Library, University of California, Los
Angeles.

13

306
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 9

Renovation and Retrofit

Strong
Medicine
By Douglas R. Wilson, P.E.,
Russell D. Kent, P.E.,
Stephen Stanek, P.E., and
David B. Swanson, P.E., S.E.

N
aval Hospital Bremerton, in This effort provided the US Navy and the
Bremerton, WA, serves 60,000 design team with a “big picture”
A much-needed military families in the Puget overview of the building stock and seis-
seismic retrofit is just Sound area. Located near
Seattle, it is only one of two
mic hazards, as well as an initial relative
ranking of seismic risk among the facili-
what the doctor major hospitals on Washington’s Kitsap ties. It was an exceptional tool to priori-
Peninsula. In the aftermath of a serious tize further work for investigating in
ordered for this aging natural disaster, like a large-scale earth- more detail those facilities with the high-
quake, the hospital could be called on to est risk.
naval hospital immediately serve more than 250,000 One of the high-risk buildings was the
people. late 1960s-era main hospital building—a
serving thousands nine story, 250,000 sq ft. structure with a
on Washington’s First Step structural steel moment frame, compos-
The hospital complex includes more ite concrete on metal deck floors, precast
Puget Sound. than 20 buildings, some of which were concrete cladding, and concrete stair
constructed as early as the 1930s. The US towers. The main hospital building did
Navy wanted to know the seismic risk of not have the worst hazard score. How-
the Bremerton medical facility, and how ever, the structure is significantly larger
best to go about mitigating that risk. than any of the other medical buildings
Starting in 1999, structural engineers from in the complex and is home to the most
Reid Middleton embarked on a series of essential medical functions.
seismic screenings and evaluations of the
various naval hospital facilities to system- Recommendation
atically determine seismic deficiencies. A detailed seismic evaluation of the
The first step was to understand the hospital using performance-based engi-
extent and type of seismic structural haz- neering standards (FEMA 310 – Hand-
ards and evaluate the risk based on book for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings–
building type, use, and occupancy. A Prestandard and FEMA 356 – Pre-
FEMA 154 – Rapid Visual Screening of standard and Commentary for the Seismic
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Rehabilitation of Buildings) was performed
Handbook techniques were employed to to gain a better understanding of the
screen and document initial findings. potential seismic deficiencies.

Modern Steel Construction • February 2005

taylordevices inc. 307

CASE STUDY: 9 (continued)

The building’s lateral force resisting

Nisqually Earthquake Scaled to 10% in 50 Years
system (LFRS) is comprised of a highly
redundant steel moment frames system ∆ = 12.1”
at all beam-to-column connections. With (0.74% Drift)
Roof
more than 1,200 moment connections, the Floor 7
LFRS has a large amount of redundancy.
Floor 6
However, it is too flexible, resulting in
∆ = 3.8” Floor 5
excessive drift, large torsional response (0.47% Drift)
of the narrow tower, high expected rota- Mechanical

tional demands, and forces on the “pre- Floor 4

Northridge” 1960s-era moment frame Floor 3

connections. Floor 2
Additionally, there was incompatibil-
ity between the flexible LFRS and the Floor 1

rigid concrete stair. The cladding panel

Basement
connections were not designed to accom-
modate the expected drifts from a Transverse Direction - Pre-Retrofit
design-level earthquake and presented a
In its pre-retrofit state, the hospitalʼs story drifts could be significant.
potential falling hazard for the building
exit paths. Excessive drifts also caused
some of the building columns to be over-
stressed in axial load, combined with Nisqually Earthquake Scaled to 10% in 50 Years
biaxial bending.
This detailed seismic evaluation was ∆ = 7.2”
(0.44% Drift)
completed in late 2000 and recom- Roof

mended a comprehensive seismic retrofit Floor 7

of the hospital. Floor 6

∆ = 2.4” Floor 5
Mother Nature Steps In (0.30% Drift)
Mechanical
In February 2001, the magnitude 6.8
Floor 4
Nisqually Earthquake shook the Puget
Sound area. Shaking at the hospital was Floor 3

modest because of the earthquake’s Floor 2

depth, and because its epicenter was

Floor 1
located approximately 30 miles away. A
seismograph in the hospital recorded a Basement

horizontal peak ground acceleration of

0.11g at the basement level and a peak Transverse Direction - Post Retrofit
roof acceleration of 0.47g. The hospital The seismic retrofit significantly reduces story drifts. It will also reduce floor accelerations by
structure experienced significant lateral about 1/3 for all floors.
drifts during the small, “less than design-
level” earthquake, particularly on the complete detailed inspections. It took cant cracks or fractures) related to the
upper floors of the tower. Calculated several months for all of the earthquake modest earthquake shaking was
peak roof displacements from this mod- repairs to be made and for the building observed.
est earthquake shaking were over 6” (a to be restored to full use.
drift ratio of 0.5%). The movement Because the main hospital was con- Performance-Based Design
caused a significant amount of damage to structed in the late 1960s with pre-North- Because a traditional seismic retrofit
non-structural features and finishes in ridge steel moment frame connections, a by strengthening and stiffening the
the hospital—especially at upper floors. detailed inspection and testing program moment frame LFRS would have been
It could have been much worse. If a in accordance with the FEMA 350 series costly and disruptive, alternative retrofit
design level earthquake had struck Puget standards was undertaken to investigate design schemes were evaluated. The use
Sound, roof displacements of the nine- whether the earthquake had damaged of supplemental seismic damping
story hospital could have been several the moment frame connections. Thirty of proved to be the best design scheme to
feet, resulting in much more significant the approximately 1,550 moment connec- improve the seismic performance of the
damage and loss of hospital function. tions were exposed and visually 30-plus-year-old building while mini-
Approximately six hours after the inspected for damage. Several of these mizing disruption during construction.
earthquake, the facilities staff had per- connections were also inspected using The purpose of supplemental passive
formed rapid inspections of the hospital, non-destructive ultrasonic and magnetic damping is to reduce lateral displace-
and enough information had been col- particle test procedures to increase the ment of the building through benign dis-
lected and analyzed to allow the hospital likelihood of finding damage not identi- sipation of the earthquake’s energy
be reopened for further operations. It fied by visual inspection. Of the 30 con- through heat created in the damper sys-
took several days for Reid Middleton to nections inspected, no damage (signifi- tem. One of the challenges of seismic

February 2005 • Modern Steel Construction

308
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 9 (continued)

ity to minimize the impact of construc-

tion on essential hospital operations. The
project will breathe life back into the
building for a cost in line with other
upgrades to the facility. ★

Douglas Wilson is a project engineer for

Reid Middleton, Inc.’s Structural Engineer-
ing Group. Russell Kent is facility manager
for Naval Hospital Bremerton. Stephen
Mock-ups of the dampers were used at vari- Stanek is a project lead with Engineering
ous locations in the hospital to gauge the
aesthetic and operational impact of damper Field Activity Northwest. David Swanson is
locations. director of Reid Middleton, Inc.’s Structural
Engineering Group.
retrofit projects is “not making things was able to “tune” his site-specific
worse.” Retrofits can potentially alter the ground response study to the characteris-
original load paths, causing members to tics of the site and building. This Owner
carry loads they were not originally response record provided the design US Navy
designed for. team with a benchmark response, and
Architect
The passive damping mechanism the owner with a clear understanding of
CollinsWoerman, Bellevue, WA
supplements the existing LFRS. It is a future building performance.
permanent installation that remains in Slated for construction in 2005, a total Structural Engineer/Prime
place and is functional for the life of the of 88 seismic dampers will be installed at Consultant
structure, even following a seismic event. 44 select locations in the building. Each Reid Middleton, Inc., Everett, WA
Through energy dissipation, dampers damper has a 200 to 300 kip capacity with
significantly reduce the seismic forces, a ±3” stroke. Some of the dampers will be Engineering Software
displacements, and floor accelerations in left exposed to the view of patients and ETABS
the structure, thus reducing or eliminat- staff, while others will be concealed in
ing earthquake damage to the building’s existing wall cavities and by new fin-
primary structural system and many of ishes. The installation of seismic dampers
the non-structural systems. is an effective means to seismically retro-
Supplemental seismic damping was fit essential facilities like Naval Hospital
designed to be installed at discreet loca- Bremerton to improve their earthquake
tions throughout the main hospital build- performance and post-earthquake func-
ing. Because the seismic damping system tionality.
is passive and supplemental, it does not
appreciably change the fundamental Cost
LFRS response for wind loading in the The estimated replacement cost of the
building. main hospital is $60 million, while the
One benefit of this damping system is estimated cost of a seismic retrofit is $4
the ability to shift damper locations from million. Because the existing building is
floor to floor to avoid extremely sensitive expected to support the hospital’s mis-
areas of the hospital. Also, shifting sion for at least 30 years, investment in
damper locations reduces the demands earthquake performance improvements
placed on the existing building columns, just made sense.
compared to a traditional retrofit where
the lateral elements are stacked from Results
floor to floor. The retrofit will have significant
impact on the building’s behavior:
Analysis • Story drifts and floor accelerations
State-of-the-art 3D nonlinear finite reduced by approximately 30% at all
element analyses were used in the design floors
of the hospital seismic retrofit. Target per- • Damped response for a 2,500-year
formance levels are “Immediate Occu- event reduced to the same magnitude
pancy” for the 10%/50 year Design Basis as the response of the un-retrofitted
Earthquake (DBE) and “Collapse Preven- building to a 500-year event
tion” for the 2%/50 year Maximum Con- • Diaphragm rotations reduced by 30%
sidered Earthquake (MCE). to 70% at all levels
Because the design team had an actual The use of fluid viscous dampers,
record of the building’s roof, fifth floor, along with performance-based design,
and basement responses to the Nisqually provides a solution that is cost effective
Earthquake, the geotechnical engineer and, just as importantly, has the flexibil-

Modern Steel Construction • February 2005

taylordevices inc. 309

CASE STUDY: 10

310
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 10 (continued)

taylordevices inc. 311

CASE STUDY: 10 (continued)

312
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 10 (continued)

taylordevices inc. 313

CASE STUDY: 10 (continued)

314
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 10 (continued)

taylordevices inc. 315

CASE STUDY: 11

Design of Structures with Dampers per ASCE 7-16 and Performance

for Large Earthquakes

Amir SJ Gilani1 and H. Kit Miyamoto2

1 Manager Earthquake Engineering, Miyamoto International, Inc. 1450 Halyard Dr,

est Sacramento, CA 95691 email: agilani miyamotointernational.com
2 President, Miyamoto International, Inc. 707 ilshire Blvd. Suite 5100 Los Angeles,
CA 90017 email: kit miyamotointernational.com

ABSTRACT

An impediment to the use of seismic protection devices has been the difficulty for
practicing engineers to design buildings with isolation system or damping devices.
ASCE SEI task committees charged with the development of a new generation of codes
for seismic design and retrofit of buildings have updated the relevant code sections with
one goal being to encourage the use of such devices. An effort was undertaken to
develop a step-by-step design guideline for such design. Following the preparation of
guideline, incremental analysis of four steel SMF building models was undertaken. The
benchmark model was designed using the strength and drift requirements of ASCE 7-
16. The other models were based on provisions of Chapter 18 of ASCE 7-16. For one
model the lower base shear value was used, and for a third model, the drift ratios were
further limited to obtain enhanced performance. Lower- and upper-bound analyses as
required by ASCE 7-16 were conducted to si e the dampers. The models were then
sub ected to incremental nonlinear analysis and key response parameters were
evaluated. In all cases, the use of dampers resulted in reduction in the hinging of SMF
members. It was noted that the best performing model was the model designed for 100%
of nominal base shear and above minimum effective damping had superior performance,
remaining elastic at design earthquake, and having almost no residual displacement at
very large earthquakes.

INTRODUCTION

Overview. Fluid viscous dampers (F Ds) were originally developed as shock absorbers
for the defense and aerospace industries. F Ds consist of a cylinder and a stainless-steel
piston. The cylinder is filled with compressible silicone fluid. The damper is activated
by the flow of silicone fluid between chambers at opposite ends of the unit, through
small orifices. Figure 1 shows the damper cross-section. In recent years, they have been
used extensively for seismic application for both new and retrofit construction. During

316
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

seismic events, the devices become active and the seismic input energy is used to heat
the fluid and is thusly dissipated. After installation, the dampers require minimal
maintenance. They have been shown to possess stable and dependable properties for
design earthquakes. Figure 2 shows the diagonal dampers placed in a reinforced concrete
moment frame building.

igure 1. D cross section Taylor 2 17 igure 2. Diagonal D in a uilding

The combination of fluid viscous dampers and steel or reinforced concrete

special moment resisting frames (SMF) provide an attractive option for the design of
new buildings in the regions of high seismicity. The resulting building is a highly
damped, low-frequency building that limits seismic demand on structural and
nonstructural components. F Ds can be incorporated into new construction to produce
large equivalent viscous damping thus reduce the demand on the structural system.
The main advantage of this design is the reduction in steel or concrete tonnage.
Since the design of SMF is generally governed by the story drift ratios (SDRs), larger
steel or concrete si es would be required to meet this requirement. However, since in
this design, F Ds are used to control SDR, smaller member si es can be used, and this
saving in material would compensate for the cost of the dampers.

ASCE 7-16 design procedure. The general approach is to design the SMF members for
the strength requirements of the building code only. Such building would then meet all
the relevant requirements of ASCE (2016) except the limitations for the SDRs. F Ds
are then added to design to reduce the SDRs and provide compliance with all the code
requirements. Since the force in F Ds is primarily out-of-phase with the inertial forces,
the demand on the existing members of the foundation is not significantly increased.
However, a second design check for the model with the dampers in necessary to assure
that the design is still satisfactory.
The provisions in ASCE 7 (2016) provide information on the bounding analysis.
For viscous dampers it is anticipated that the property modification factors factors)
to be in the range of -15%. The upper bound analysis would govern the requirement
for the damper force, whereas the lower bound analysis will determine the damper
constant necessary to meet the SDR requirements.

taylordevices inc. 317

CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

hen a building is designed according to Chapter 18 of ASCE 7-16, it is

permissible to reduce the base shear demand to as low as 75% of the computed demand
to account for the beneficial effect of supplementary damping. The effect of this
reduction in strength on the response of the structure to large earthquakes is not well
known.
Additionally, currently there are no provisions on the minimum effective
damping to be added as part of the design process. Research (Miyamoto and Gilani
2015) has shown that enhanced performance with a reduced SDR can be archived for
the design by using larger dampers. hile the larger (or more) dampers will add slightly
to the initial cost, both the seismic performance and the life-cycle cost are significantly
improved.
In this paper, analytical investigation of an example steel SMF with dampers is
presented. The models were designed per ASCE 7-16 for the design earthquake (DE)
and then sub ected to larger earthquake and key responses and level of expected damage
(assumed correlated to the plastic hinging and plastic hinge rotations) was investigated.
Table 1 summari es the key parameters considered as part of this investigation.

Ta le 1. Key parameters for the models

Demand parameter B0 B1 B2 B3
b 100% 100% 100% 75%
SDR no damper 2% 2% 2% 2%
SDR with dampers -- 2% % 2%

MODEL PROPERTIES AND DESIGN

Building Model. The five-story building is square in plan measuring 150 ft on a side
consisting of five 30-ft long bays. Typical stories are 13 ft tall. The gravity system
consists of a 4-in thick concrete slab supported by steel gravity beams and columns. The
lateral force resisting system (LFRS) comprises three bays of steel SMF placed on the
perimeter. The building seismic mass is approximately 10,000 kips. A typical frame on
the perimeter was selected for analysis. The dead load and inertial mass tributary to this
frame were included in the model. Figure 3 presents elevation an elevation view of the
model.

Seismic demand. The seismic demand was based on a typical location in Los Angeles,
California, with mapped short-period (SS) and 1-second (S1) spectral accelerations of
1.5g and 0.6g, respectively. The structure was classified as Risk Category II (I 1.0)
and located on Site Class D. Thus, the design earthquake (DE) short- and 1-second
spectral accelerations were equal to 1.0g and 0.6g, respectively. This value placed the
structures in Seismic Design Category (SDC) D, according to the ASCE SEI 7
definition, for both short- and 1-second spectral intensities. The spectral acceleration
(Sa) as a function of period (T) can be obtained for all period ranges of interest. The
design spectrum is shown in Figure 4.

318
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

Following the design of moment frames according to ASCE SEI 7 requirements

for strength, dampers were si ed to limit story drift ratios for models B1 through B3.
For new structures that use energy dissipation devices, the engineers can use either the
nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) procedure or other methods such as
equivalent lateral force or response spectrum analysis. The use of methods other than
NLRHA are sub ect to certain limitations. The NLRHA requires that the dampers be
modeled as nonlinear elements to capture their force-velocity response. However, the
structural members in most cases can be modeled as linear. This approach was used to
si e the dampers.
To perform NLRHA, seven pairs of independent pairs of strong motion data
were selected from the PEER NGA est database (PEER 2017). Either scaling or
spectrum-matching of records is permitted. In this example, the matching procedure is
used. The recorded accelerations were spectrally matched to the target spectrum of
Figure 4 and presented in the same figure. In this investigation, one of the components
for each record was used in analysis.

igure . Building geometry igure . DE response spectrum

Building design. The equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure of ASCE 7-16 was used
to design the members of the LRFS for the models. The first model was designed for
both strength and drift, whereas, the last three models were checked for strength
provisions only. The design of the models was based on the current seismic provisions
and thus all AISC seismic requirements (2016a and 2016b) were met. The requirement
for the strong column-weak beam governed the si e of several columns especially for
B0. As it is common in practice, the same beam or column si es were used for a given
story. In addition, the members were grouped to reduce the number of member si es for
a more efficient design. Table 2 summari es the si e of LFRS members.

Ta le 2. L RS mem er si es
LFRS member si es B0 B1 B2 B3
Columns L1-L3 24x229 24x146 24x146 24x131

taylordevices inc. 319

CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

L4-Roof 24x176 24x131 24x131 24x94

L1-L3 24x94 24x76 24x76 24x55
Beams
L4-Roof 24x76 24x62 24x62 24x55

Table 3 presents the SDRs computed for each model. The listed values are the so-called
inelastic SDR as defined in ASCE 7-16. For models B1 through B3, F Ds are added to
lower the SDR to the 2% threshold value. The fundamental period for each model is also
shown in the figure.

Ta le . SDR code- ased design SDR

Story B0 B1 B2 B3
Roof 1.6% 1.9% 1.9% 2.3%
L4 2.0% 2.3% 2.3% 2.0%
L3 2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 3.0%
L2 2.0% 2.6% 2.6% 3.2%
L1 1.4% 1.8% 1.8% 2.1%

Period, sec 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.4

Damper property selection. The initial selection of damper si e was based on the
approximate reductions in the response listed in ASCE 7-16. The damper constant (C)
was then optimi ed to provide an SDR of approximately 2% (1% for B2) for the level
with the highest SDR for the lower bound NLRHA see Table 4. Since there are only
five levels in the building, one si e damper was used for all elevations. For all dampers,
nonlinear models with a velocity exponent ( ) of 0.5 were used.

Ta le . Computed SDR
B0 B2 B3 B4
-- -- -- 85% Nom. 120% 85% Nom. 120% 85% Nom. 120%
Roof -- -- -- 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8%
L4 -- -- -- 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3%
Story L3 -- -- -- 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6%
L2 -- -- -- 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7%
L1 -- -- -- 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1%

Table 5 summari es the nominal damper properties from analysis. The damper
force and displacement correspond to the average value from the seven NLRHA for the
damper with the largest response.

Ta le . Nominal damper si es DE
Damper property B0 B1 B2 B3
C (k,in units) -- 20 110 30
-- 0.5 0.5 0.5
diver brace, k in -- 2000 2000 2000
Damper force, kips -- 70 300 100
Damper displacement, in -- 2.6 1.3 2.7

320
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

Table 6 presents the computed damper force and displacements from the upper bound
and lower bound analyses. Note that the increase in the damper force from upper bound
analysis is somewhat mitigated because nonlinear dampers are used.

Ta le 6. Upper and Lower ound results DE

Damper property B0 B1 B2 B3
85% 120% 85% 120% 85% 120% 85% 120%
Damper force, kips -- -- 50 80 260 340 80 110
Damper displacement, in -- -- 2.8 2.5 1.5 1.2 2.8 2.5
Damper capacity, kips -- 100 420 135
Damper stroke, in. -- 4.5 2.5 4.5

ASCE 7-16 requires that the dampers be si ed to resist forces, displacements, and
velocities from MCER ground motions. Table 7 presents the expected displacement and
force capacity of dampers based on the ASCE 7-16 requirements.

Ta le 7. Nominal damper capacities

Damper property B0 B1 B2 B3
Damper capacity, kips -- 100 420 135
Damper stroke, in. -- 4.5 2.5 4.5

ANAL SIS PROGRAM

Overview. In this section, the response of the four models to large earthquakes is
investigated. For analyses, the following assumptions were made: a) for incremental
analysis, epsilon effect is usually used to account for the variation on the spectral shape
of ground motion for larger intensities ( amvatsikos and Cornell, 2004). This factor was
not included in the analysis b) since the model is representative of new construction, it
was assumed that ductile beam-to-column connections were used. As such hinge
properties for compact sections from Table 9.6 of ASCE 41-17 (2018) were used for the
beams and columns (see Figure 5) c) the panel one was not explicitly modeled,
however, the centerline dimensions without rigid end offsets were used d) research
(Miyamoto and Gilani 2015) has shown that reaching the damper force and stroke
capacities can have significant effect on the response of structures with dampers. This
effect was not explicitly modeled however, the damper forces were monitored, and a
limit state was considered when the force in the dampers reached its capacity e) Damper
manufacturers (Taylor 2017) typically use a larger factor of safety for the damper force
than required by ASCE 7-16 however, since the ob ective of the analysis was to strictly
comply with the ASCE 7-16 requirements, such increase in capacity was not accounted
for in the analysis and f) to expedite the analysis and data processing, incremental
analysis was performed using only one of the seven records. The selection of the record
was based on how close an individual record represented the average response. Figure
6 presents the individual response from seven records normali ed to the average

taylordevices inc. 321

CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

response at each level. The record with the least deviation is identified with a solid line
and used hereafter.
5

Story
3

1
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3
SDR, ratio to average of seven
igure . Nonlinear analysis model igure 6. Response normali ed to average

Ground motion intensities. The models were sub ected to incrementally increasing
ground motion amplitudes and the responses of the models were monitored. The
following intensities were selected: 2 3DE (the typical value used for allowable stress
design and for which members are expected to remain elastic) DE (life safety
performance) MCER (Collapse prevention performance) 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 times
MCER (investigate the response to large earthquakes).

ANAL SIS RESULTS

Deformed shapes. Figure 7 depicts the displaced shape of the model at maximum
deflection (not concurrent for all models) at four selected levels of incremental ground
motion. In the figures, the models correspond to B0 through B4 from top to bottom
respectively. The following is noted:

 At 67%DE intensity, all models remained elastic and thus comply with the
assumptions used in the allowable stress design methodology
 At 100%DE, B2 the model with enhanced design, remained elastic and thus
damage free. For the other three models, plastic hinges formed. The hinges for all
the models met the life safety requirement, which is the implied performance level
for the new buildings. The models with minimum supplemental damping (B1 and
B3) underwent less nonlinearity and met a higher performance
 At 100%MCE, all models met the collapse prevention criteria or better whereas
B2 met the higher immediate occupancy performance.
 At 200%MCE, except for B2, large plastic hinge rotations beyond collapse
prevention are noted.

322
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

100%DE 100%MCE

150%MCE 200%MCE
igure 7. Displaced shape of the models at given intensities

taylordevices inc. 323

CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

Displacement response. Figure 8 presents the displacement response of the top floor of
the models at the selected responses.
15
0 1
10 2 3
Roof is lace ent, in

10

15
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
i e, se
100%DE
20
0 1
15 2 3
Roof is la e ent, in

10

10

15

20
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
i e, se
100%MCE
40
0 1
30
2 3
Roof ispla e ent, in

20

10

10

20

30

40
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
i e, se
200%MCE
igure . Key response parameters as a function of incremental intensities

324
taylordevices inc.
CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

Response evaluation. ey response parameters from analyses are summari ed in Table

8. The maximum responses from analysis are shown. The values correspond to the
values at the top floor of the building. The results for B3 are not shown, as they were
similar to B1. These response parameters are the key in assessing the seismic risk for
the buildings, are indicative of downtime, and repair costs. The structures with dampers
experience lower accelerations and thus reduce demand on acceleration-sensitive
components. For the enhanced model B2, the residual displacement is essentially
eliminated. This parameter is critical whether a building needs replacement in the
aftermath of an earthquake.

Ta le . Ma ima of responses
Response 100%DE 100%MCE 200%MCE
B0 B1 B2 B0 B1 B2 B0 B1 B2
Displacement, in. 12.9 10.9 5.5 18.3 14.7 8.8 28.3 36.1 21.7
Peak floor acceleration (PFA), g 1.00 0.64 0.44 1.32 0.82 0.57 2.00 1.10 0.81
Residual displacement (RD) 3.2 0.7 0 5.6 1.8 0.3 10.0 14.4 0.3

Damper responses. Table 9 summari es the damper forces from the analysis. As seen,
the damper forces at large earthquakes exceed the current ASCE 7-16 requirements. It
is recommended that a factor of approximately 2.0 beyond MCE be used for si ing
dampers—consistent with the current manufacturer practice (Taylor 2017).

Ta le . Damper response
Damper force, kips Force capacity
Input level B1 B2 B3 B1 B2 B3
100%DE 80 350 110 0.8 0.8 0.8
100%MCE 100 440 125 1.0 1.0 1.0
200%MCE 130 580 160 1.3 1.4 1.2

CONCLUSIONS

New steel buildings were designed using provisions of ASCE 7-16. A baseline case was
designed using the code strength and drift requirements. The other three cases used
dampers to control the drift ratios. Different targets of base shear and SDR were used.
The analysis showed that:
 hen sub ected to large earthquakes, models with dampers would experience
smaller plastic hinge rotations, SDR, floor accelerations, and residual
displacement
 The enhanced model based on 100% of nominal base shear and larger effective
damping (smaller SDR) has superior performance. This model remained damage
free at MCE.
 To utili e the beneficial effect of dampers, it is critical to si e the units to have
sufficient strength. This is the current manufacturer practice and provides an
additional margin of safety for very large earthquakes.

taylordevices inc. 325

CASE STUDY: 11 (continued)

RE ERENCES

AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). (2016a) Specification for Structural

Steel Buildings Standard ANSI AISC 360-16. AISC, Chicago, IL
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). (2016b) Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings Standard ANSI AISC 341-16. AISC, Chicago, IL
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2014) Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, Standard ASCE SEI 7-16. Fourth printing.
ASCE, Reston, A.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2018) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Existing Buildings, Standard ASCE SEI 41-17. Fourth printing. ASCE,
Reston, A.
Miyamoto, H. ., and Gilani, A.S . (2015). Seismic Viscous Dampers: Enhanced
performance and cost-effective application of PBE, ASCE Structures Congress,
Portland, R.
PEER (2017), PEER NGA, Records Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center,
University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, CA.
Taylor (2017), Personal Communications
Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI) (2017) Integrated Software for Structural Analysis
and Design SAP 2000, alnut Creek, CA.
amvatsikos, D. and Cornell, A.C. (2004) Applied Incremental Dynamic Analysis,
Earthquake Spectra, olume 20, No. 2, pages 523 553, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, akland, CA

326
taylordevices inc.
taylordevices inc. 327
 taylordevices inc.
90 Taylor Drive
North Tonawanda, NY 14120-0748
Phone: (716) 694-0800 | Fax: (716) 695-6015

www.taylordevices.com

© 2024 Taylor Devices Inc.

All rights reserved throughout the world.
Reproduction and/or creation of derivative works strictly prohibited.

3.24 Edition