Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-968

2018 Impact Factor: 1.272

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2020, Vol. 14 Issue (3) : 773-791    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0627-2
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Evaluation of a developed bypass viscous damper performance
Mahrad FAHIMINIA1(), Aydin SHISHEGARAN2()
1. Structural Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2. Structural Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
 Download: PDF(4265 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

In this study, the dynamic behavior of a developed bypass viscous damper is evaluated. Bypass viscous damper has a flexible hose as an external orifice through which the inside fluid transfer from one side to the other side of the inner piston. Accordingly, the viscosity coefficient of the damper can be adjusted using geometrical dimensions of the hose. Moreover, the external orifice acts as a thermal compensator and alleviates viscous heating of the damper. According to experimental results, Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) model, a numerical formula and the simplified Maxwell model are found and assessed; therefore, the verification of numerical and computational models are evaluated for simulating. Also, a simplified procedure is proposed to design structures with bypass viscous dampers. The design procedure is applied to design an 8-story hospital structure with bypass viscous dampers, and it is compared with the same structure, which is designed with concentric braces and without dampers. Nonlinear time history analyses revealed that the hospital with viscous damper experiences less structural inelastic demands and fewer story accelerations which mean fewer demands on nonstructural elements. Moreover, seismic behaviors of nonstructural masonry claddings are also compared in the cases of hospital structure with and without dampers.
Keywords developed viscous damper      external orifice      energy dissipation      seismic behavior      CFD model of viscous damper      a simplified model     
Corresponding Author(s): Mahrad FAHIMINIA,Aydin SHISHEGARAN   
Just Accepted Date: 11 May 2020   Online First Date: 11 June 2020    Issue Date: 13 July 2020
 Cite this article:   
Mahrad FAHIMINIA,Aydin SHISHEGARAN. Evaluation of a developed bypass viscous damper performance[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 773-791.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-020-0627-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2020/V14/I3/773
Fig.1  Internal details of the bypass viscous damper tested in this study.
parameter of developed bypass viscous damper Dc (mm) Ds (mm) L (mm) d (mm) m ( Pa?·s ) C (kN?·s/mm)
value 60 35 600 6.35 1.8 0.094
Tab.1  Characteristics of the tested damper
Fig.2  Adopted set-up for dynamic testing of the bypass viscous damper. (a) Schematic view of test set-up; (b) schematic view of viscous damper and actuator; (c) actual test set-up; (d) actual viscous damper.
Fig.3  CFD model of the bypass viscous damper. (a) The dimension of simulated bypass viscous damper; (b) flow and pressure in cylinder and hose of bypass viscous damper.
Fig.4  The main steps of the proposed design procedure.
Fig.5  Cyclic behavior of the damper in frequencies of (a) 0.25 Hz, (b) 0.33 Hz, (c) 0.50 Hz, (d), 0.67 Hz, (e) 1.00 Hz. (f) Force-velocity behavior of the damper.
Fig.6  Measured damper behavior under 0.5 Hz loading protocol. (a) Displacement; (b) velocity; (c) force; (d) dissipated energy.
velocity
(mm/s)		 piston front pressure
(MPa)		 effective piston are
(mm2)		 damper power
(kN)		 damping coefficient
(kN?·s/mm)
25 1.40 1864 ?2.61 0.104
50 2.80 1864 ?5.22 0.104
100 5.62 1864 10.48 0.105
150 8.48 1864 15.81 0.105
200 11.37? 1864 21.20 0.106
Tab.2  Damper power, damping coefficient in various fluid speeds.
Fig.7  Determined fluid pressure variations based on the CFD model (speed= 100 mm/s).
Fig.8  comparing laboratory results with computational and numerical results.
Fig.9  (a) Simulated simplified Maxwell model and comparing this computational model with the experimental test setup; (b) comparing experimental results with computational results in 0.25 Hz; (c) comparing experimental results with computational results in 0.33 Hz; (d) comparing experimental results with computational results in 0.50 Hz; (e) comparing experimental results with computational results in 0.67 Hz.
Fig.10  Selected hospital building and evaluation of scenario 1. (a) Considered 8-story hospital building; (b) first three modes in the case of building without damper.
Fig.11  analysis of hospital structure with viscous damper. (a) The first three modes of the building with viscous damper; (b) placement and modeling of viscous dampers.
direction story Φ ΔΦ weight ratio C (kN?·s/mm) no. of dampers each damper selected damper
X-direction 8 0.614 0.068 0.111 16.7 8 2.1 D2
7 0.546 0.082 0.134 20.1 8 2.5 D2.5
6 0.464 0.083 0.135 20.4 8 2.5 D2.5
5 0.381 0.083 0.135 20.4 8 2.5 D2.5
4 0.298 0.084 0.137 20.6 8 2.6 D2.5
3 0.214 0.083 0.135 20.4 8 2.5 D2.5
2 0.131 0.077 0.125 18.9 8 2.4 D2.5
1 0.054 0.054 0.088 13.2 8 1.7 D2
8 0.665 0.077 0.116 18.2 8 2.3 D2.5
Y-direction 7 0.588 0.094 0.141 22.2 8 2.8 D3
6 0.494 0.092 0.138 21.7 8 2.7 D3
5 0.402 0.088 0.132 20.8 8 2.6 D2.5
4 0.314 0.086 0.129 20.3 8 2.5 D2.5
3 0.228 0.087 0.131 20.5 8 2.6 D2.5
2 0.141 0.082 0.123 19.4 8 2.4 D2.5
1 0.059 0.059 0.089 13.9 8 1.7 D2
Tab.3  Distribution of total damping coefficient to different stories and final selection of number and damper models on each story (Φ = fundamental mode vector, ΔΦ = inter-story drift of fundamental mode vector, weight ratio= ΔΦ/sum (ΔΦ), D2, D2.5, and D3, respectively, are linear bypass viscous dampers with damping coefficients of 2, 2.5, and 3 kN?·s/mm)
Fig.12  Maximum inter-story drifts averaged from 10 record pairs with (a) MCE hazard level and (b) DBE hazard level.
Fig.13  Performance of the hospital structure (a) without and (b) with viscous dampers during ChiChi earthquake with MCE hazard level.
Fig.14  Performance of the hospital (a) without and (b) with viscous dampers during ChiChi earthquake with DBE hazard level.
earthquake X-direction Y-direction
DBE MCE DBE MCE
without damper
V (ton)		 with damper
V (ton)		 without damper
V (ton)		 with damper
V (ton)		 ?without damper
V (ton)		 with damper
V (ton)		 ?without damper
V (ton)		 with damper
V (ton)
Northridge 3089 1503 3366 1936 2521 1679 2697 2071
Duzce 3207 1892 3604 2385 2297 1569 2493 1854
Kobe 3110 1394 3305 1811 2330 1460 2605 1735
Manjil 3069 1617 3647 2082 2674 1810 3082 2368
Cape 3177 1757 3570 2460 2437 1644 2883 1908
Kocaeli 3101 1906 3790 2427 2517 1574 3049 1929
Loma 3232 1731 3363 2398 2621 1730 2737 2319
Erzincan 3097 1717 3844 2148 2349 2034 2534 2378
Landers 3205 2028 3452 2564 2563 1748 2737 2252
ChiChi 3316 1846 3665 2344 2448 1406 2675 1926
average 3160 1740 3560 2255 2475 1665 2750 2075
Tab.4  Maximum base shear during different earthquakes (1 ton= 9.81 kN)
Fig.15  Maximum story accelerations averaged from 10 record pairs with (a) MCE hazard level and (b) DBE hazard level.
Fig.16  Accuracy of the design procedure to achieve the target damping ratio in terms of (a) inter-story drifts and (b) story accelerations under MCE seismic hazard.
Fig.17  Details of the considered nonstructural masonry wall. (a) The simulated masonry wall; (b) the detail of the simulated masonry wall.
Fig.18  The collapse of the nonstructural masonry cladding in the case of a hospital without dampers under the Manjil earthquake. (a) The cracked masonry wall at t=11.95 s; (b) the collapsed masonry wall at t=12.60 s; (c) the collapsed masonry wall at t=13.60 s.
1 H Miyamoto, R E Scholl. Design of steel pyramid using seismic dampers. In: Building to Last. Portland, OR: Structures Congress XV, 1997
2 P K Papanikolas. Deck superstructure and cable stays of the Rion-Antirion bridge. In: Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Steel Structures. Patras: ASCE, 2002
3 J Zhang, N Makris, T Delis. Structural characterization of modern highway overcrossings-case study. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2004, 130(6): 846–860
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:6(846)
4 Bacht T, Chase J G, MacRae G, Rodgers G W, Rabczuk T, Dhakal R P, Desombre J. HF2V dissipator effects on the performance of a 3 story moment frame. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2011, 67(12): 1843–1849
5 M C Constantinou, M D Symans. Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Seismic Response of Structures with Supplemental Fluid Viscous Dampers. Technical Report NCEER-92-0032. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1992
6 A A Seleemah, M C Constantinou. Investigation of Seismic Response of Buildings with Linear and Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers. Technical Report NCEER-97-0004. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1997
7 K Kasai, K Matsuda. Full-scale dynamic testing of response-controlled buildings and their components: Concepts, methods, and findings. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2014, 13(S1): 167–181
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-014-0246-9
8 S Infanti, P Papanikolas, M G Catellano. Seismic protection of the Rion-Antirion bridge. In: The 8th World Seminar of Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures. Yerevan, 2003
9 M Yamamoto, S Minewaki, M Nakahara, Y Tsuyuki. Concept and performance testing of a high-capacity oil damper comprising multiple damper units. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016, 45(12): 1919–1933
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2728
10 ASCE 7-16. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016
11 ASCE 41-17. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017
12 M P Singh, L M Moreschi. Optimal placement of dampers for passive response control. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(4): 955–976
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.132
13 L F Miguel, L F Miguel, R H Lopez. Simultaneous optimization of force and placement of friction dampers under seismic loading. Engineering Optimization, 2016, 48(4): 582–602
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2015.1025774
14 A Yousefzadeh, M H Sebt, M Tehranizadeh. The optimal TADAS damper placement in moment resisting steel structures based on a cost-benefit analysis. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 2011, 9(1): 23–32
15 Y Murakami, K Noshi, K Fujita, M Tsuji, I Takewaki. Simultaneous optimal damper placement using oil hysteretic and inertial mass dampers. Earthquakes and Structures, 2013, 5(3): 261–276
https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2013.5.3.261
16 M Sonmez, E Aydin, T Karabork. Using an artificial bee colony algorithm for the optimal placement of viscous dampers in planar building frames. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2013, 48(2): 395–409
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-0892-y
17 L F F Miguel, L F Fadel Miguel, R H Lopez. A firefly algorithm for the design of force and placement of friction dampers for control of man-induced vibrations in footbridges. Optimization and Engineering, 2015, 16(3): 633–661
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-014-9269-3
18 L F Miguel, L F Miguel, R H Lopez. Robust design optimization of friction dampers for structural response control. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2014, 21(9): 1240–1251
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1642
19 R H Zhang, T T Soong. Seismic design of vescoelastic dampers for structural applications. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1992, 118(5): 1375–1392
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:5(1375)
20 N Gluck, A M Reinhorn, J Gluck, R Levy. Design of supplemental dampers for control of structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1996, 122(12): 1394–1399
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:12(1394)
21 I Takewaki. Optimal damper placement for minimum transfer functions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1997, 26(11): 1113–1124
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199711)26:11<1113::AID-EQE696>3.0.CO;2-X
22 S A Mousavi, A K Ghorbani-Tanha. Optimum placement and characteristics of velocity-dependent dampers under seismic excitations. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2012, 11(3): 403–414
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-012-0130-4
23 M Fahiminia, M H Saeed. Experimental investigation and control of structures by using of semi-active viscous dampers. Thesis for the Master’s Degree. Iran: Islamic Azad University, 2017
24 C Black, N Makris. Viscous Heating of Fluid Dampers under Wind and Seismic Loading: Experimental Studies, Mathematical Modeling and Design Formulae. Report No. EERC 2006-01. Berkeley, CA: The University of California, 2006
25 Z Luo, W Yan, W Xu, Q Zheng, B Wang. Experimental research on the multilayer compartmental particle damper and its application methods on long-period bridge structures. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(4): 751–766
26 B Dong, J M Ricles, R Sause. Seismic performance of steel MRF building with nonlinear viscous dampers. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2016, 10(3): 254–271
27 Abaqus. Analysis User’s Manual, Version 6.13 2013. Providence, RI: Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, 2015
28 SAP. Structural Analysis Program. Version 19.1.1. Edinburgh, CA:Computers and Structures Inc., 2000
29 G P Cimellaro, R Retamales. Optimal softening and damping design for buildings. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2007,14(6): 831–857
30 S S Ghorashi, N Valizadeh, S Mohammadi, T Rabczuk. T-spline based XIGA for fracture analysis of orthotropic media. Computers & Structures, 2015, 147: 138–146
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.09.017
31 F Amiri, C Anitescu, M Arroyo, S P A Bordas, T Rabczuk. XLME interpolants, a seamless bridge between XFEM and enriched meshless methods. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(1): 45–57
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-013-0891-2
32 P Areias, M A Msekh, T Rabczuk. Damage and fracture algorithm using the screened Poisson equation and local remeshing. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2016, 158: 116–143
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.10.042
33 P Areias, T Rabczuk. Steiner-point free edge cutting of tetrahedral meshes with applications in fracture. Finite Element Analysis, 2017, 132: 27–41
34 A Shishegaran, A Amiri, M A Jafari. Seismic performance of box-plate, box-plate with UNP, box-plate with L-plate and ordinary rigid beam-to-column moment connections. Journal of Vibroengineering, 2018, 20(3):1470–1487
35 A Shishegaran, S Rahimi, H Darabi. Introducing box-plate beam-to-column moment connections. Vibroengineering PROCEDIA, 2017, 11: 200–204
https://doi.org/10.21595/vp.2017.18548
36 P Areias, J Reinoso, P P Camanho, J César de Sá, T Rabczuk. Effective 2D and 3D crack propagation with local mesh refinement and the screened Poisson equation. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 189: 339–360
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.11.017
37 H Ren, X Zhuang, T. Rabczuk Dual-horizon peridynamics: A stable solution to varying horizons. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2017, 318: 762–782
38 H Ren, X Zhuang, Y Cai, T Rabczuk. Dual-horizon Peridynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2016, 108(12): 1451–1476
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5257
39 J Desombre, G W Rodgers, G A MacRae, T Rabczuk, R P Dhakal, J G Chase. Experimentally validated FEA models of HF2V damage free steel connections for use in full structural analyses. Structural Engineering & Mechanics, 2011, 37(4): 385–399
40 S Joshi, J Hildebrand, A S Aloraier, T Rabczuk. Characterization of material properties and heat source parameters in welding simulation of two overlapping beads on a substrate plate. Computational Materials Science, 2013, 69: 559–565
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.11.029
41 T Bacht, J G Chase, G MacRae, G W Rodgers, T Rabczuk, R P Dhakal, J. Desombre HF2V dissipator effects on the performance of a 3 story moment frame. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2011, 67(12): 1843–1849
42 ETABS. Integrated Building Design Software. Version 16.2.0. CA: Computers and Structures, Inc., 2017
43 K M Hamdia, M Silani, X Zhuang, P He, T Rabczuk. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0210-6
44 M R Ghasemi, A Shishegaran. Role of slanted reinforcement on bending capacity SS beams. Vibroengineering PROCEDIA, 2017, 11: 200–204
45 T Rabczuk, H Ren, X Zhuang. A nonlocal operator method for partial differential equations with application to electromagnetic waveguide problem. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2019, 59(1): 31–55
https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2019.04567
46 C Anitescu, E Atroshchenko, N Alajlan, T Rabczuk. Artificial neural network methods for the solution of second order boundary value problems. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2019, 59(1): 345–359
https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2019.06641
47 H Guo, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. A deep collocation method for the bending analysis of Kirchhoff Plate. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2019, 59(2): 433–456
https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2019.06660
48 A Shsihegaran, M R Ghasemi, H Varaee. Performance of a novel bent-up bars system not interacting with concrete. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(6): 1301–1315
[1] Alireza FARZAMPOUR, Matthew Roy EATHERTON. Parametric computational study on butterfly-shaped hysteretic dampers[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1214-1226.
[2] Yunlin LIU, Shitao ZHU. Finite element analysis on the seismic behavior of side joint of Prefabricated Cage System in prefabricated concrete frame[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1095-1104.
[3] Zhenyuan LUO, Weiming YAN, Weibing XU, Qinfei ZHENG, Baoshun WANG. Experimental research on the multilayer compartmental particle damper and its application methods on long-period bridge structures[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 751-766.
[4] Yan XU, Shijie ZENG, Xinzhi DUAN, Dongbing JI. Seismic experimental study on a concrete pylon from a typical medium span cable-stayed bridge[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 401-411.
[5] Ruipeng LI,Yunfeng ZHANG,Le-Wei TONG. Numerical study of the cyclic load behavior of AISI 316L stainless steel shear links for seismic fuse device[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(4): 414-426.
[6] Shuchun LI, Bo DIAO, Youpo SU, . Seismic behavior experimental study of frame joints with special-shaped column and dispersed steel bar beam[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(4): 378-383.
[7] Wanlin CAO, Jianwei ZHANG, Jingna ZHANG, Min WANG, . Experimental study on seismic behavior of mid-rise RC shear wall with concealed truss[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(4): 370-377.
[8] SUN Yuedong, XIAO Jianzhuang, ZHOU Deyuan. Experimental research on seismic behavior of recycled concrete frame under varying cyclic loading[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2008, 2(4): 302-308.
[9] LU Xilin, LI Xueping, WANG Dan. Modelling and experimental verification on concrete-filled steel tubular columns with L or T section[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(2): 163-169.
[10] ZHANG Chuhan. Challenges of high dam construction to computational mechanics[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(1): 12-33.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed