STRUCTURAL RESPONSE CONTROL OF RCC MOMENT … · Among the viscous energy dissipation devices, FVD have been widely used in vibration control as PED devices [2, 5-9, 11, 13, 19, 21-23,

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 900 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017, pp. 900–910 Article ID: IJCIET_08_01_106

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE CONTROL OF RCC

MOMENT RESISTING FRAME USING FLUID

VISCOUS DAMPERS

A.K. Sinha

Professor and Centre Director, Earthquake Safety Clinic and Centre,

Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, India

Sharad Singh

Research Scholar, Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,

National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, India

ABSTRACT

Frequent earthquakes round the globe and large no of structures vulnerable to it have

necessitated the need for structural response control to gain pace in application around the

globe. This paper discusses the use and effectiveness of one such device, fluid viscous dampers,

for response control of structures and to reduce damping demand on structural system. In this

paper a non-linear time history analysis has been carried out on a 3D model of a 12 story RCC

MRF building using 3-directional synthetic accelerogram. Two different cases of building

models with and without supplemental damping have been analyzed using ETABS. The story

responses in terms of absolute maximum displacement and story drift have been compared.

Time history response plots for the two models have also been compared for various responses

viz. roof displacement and acceleration, base shear and story shear forces, along with the

various energy components and damping behavior. The results of the time history analysis are

in close conformation with previous investigations and represent the effectiveness of dampers

in improving the structural response as well as damping demand on structural systems.

Key words: Structural response control, Non-linear time history analysis, Fluid Viscous dampers.

Cite this Article: A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh, Structural Response Control of RCC Moment

Resisting Frame Using Fluid Viscous Dampers. International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 900–910.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of structural response control has been widely spread in the structural engineering

community [1-4, 7, 8, 14, 23]. Methods of response control like seismic isolation (SI) and energy

dissipation (ED) have shown significant progress in controlling the response of structures. The

structural control using energy dissipation can be achieved in many ways of which fluid viscous

damping has gained prominence [1-3, 8, 14, 23]. Fluid Viscous Damper (FVD) is installed in

structures to dissipate the input energy of vibration due to external excitation and thereby reduce the

A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh


damping demand on members of the structure. The dynamic behavior of the structure installed with

FVD can be represented by equation (1).

M�� + {C�� +��|�|��[�]} +Ku=−M�� g (1)

Where M is the mass matrix, C is the damping coefficient matrix, C0 is the damping constant for

FVD, � is piston velocity of the FVD, sgn is signum function, � is damping exponent, K is stiffness

matrix, �� is acceleration, �� is velocity, u is displacement, and �� g is ground acceleration.

The mass and stiffness contribution of dampers to the dynamic behavior of structures is usually

neglected due to small values as compared to those of structural members. Even though very small, the

mass and stiffness contributions of damper brace system attached to the structure should be

incorporated in analysis. Investigations have been carried out to use FVD in RC buildings for dynamic

response control. Multi storey buildings specially the major lifeline buildings like hospitals,

emergency centres, schools and administrative buildings need to adopt response control devices for

improved performance levels [12]. In this context a study has been carried out to observe the behavior

of RC frame buildings with FVD installed for structural response control.

A comprehensive review of Passive Energy Dissipation (PED) concepts and application shows that

addition of PED devices to structural system reduces the excessive deformation and ductility demands

and at the same time enhances its energy dissipation capacity. The PED devices have been found to

be effective for both shock loads as well as earthquake forces [3, 4, 7, 14, 23].

Among the viscous energy dissipation devices, FVD have been widely used in vibration control as

PED devices [2, 5-9, 11, 13, 19, 21-23, 25]. FVD enhance the performance of structures not only by

reducing the deformation demand but also the force demand. Non-linear FVDs have been proposed for

control of seismic response of structural system [13, 19]. Non-linear FVD achieves the same reduction

in response but with significant reduced damper force as compared to linear damper. While using

Chevron braced frame with non-linear FVD in near-fault ground motion, it has been found that the

energy dissipated by them prevents the buckling of braces and helps the frame members to remain

within elastic limits [9]. In a diagonal brace damping systems the deformation of the device is

proportional to the relative displacement between the floors i.e. the inter-storey drift. Analytical study

of a ten story steel frame structure where viscous damping has been incorporated in modal damping

has presented positive results [25]. The study shows the viscous diagonal damper to be effective in

reducing floor displacements and inter-storey drifts against seismic loadings. Extensive research on

viscous dampers reveals that viscous damping provides an accurate representation of energy

dissipation characteristics of viscous dampers [1]. The analytical results using viscous damping within

a linear elastic analysis approach has good correlation with experimental results, such that

displacements and story shears typically are within 10%. Viscous dampers can reduce the drift of a

MRF by as much as 50% without significantly increasing the base shear demand or floor

accelerations. Herein the design of viscous damper dose not incorporates the stiffness of the structure.

There are two important issues involved in application of viscoelastic damping for seismic loads i.e.

significant higher levels of damping needed to be effective against seismic load and the damper has to

undergo significant large deformations during severe seismic response. Earthquake simulator tests for

diagonal viscous dampers with varied vibration inputs further demonstrate effectiveness of adding

energy dissipation using viscous dampers [1-2]. It is found that viscous dampers supplement the

structural damping at all levels of excitation unlike friction or inelastic deformation dampers, as

damping increases with level of response. The analysis shows that 20% added damping is optimum

and that the temperature changes in the dampers are small and can be disregarded.

2. IDEALIZATION OF FVD

A typical idealized load deformation curve for a damper is shown (Figure 1). The equivalent stiffness

��and damping ��of any damper can be computed using the curve as:

Structural Response Control of RCC Moment Resisting Frame Using Fluid Viscous Dampers


�� = ��

∆��∆� (2)

�� = �� ! " #

�$%&∆$%&' (3)

Figure 1 A generalized force displacement curve for dampers to represent formulation of equation (2) and (3)

for linear dampers (dashed straight line) and for non-linear dampers (solid bilinear curve)

Where F is the force and Δ is the displacement. Empirical expressions for �� and �� depends

upon material properties and characteristics. Fluid viscous dampers exhibit viscoelastic behavior. This

behavior is best predicted with the Maxwell model [20, 24].It is described as a spring in series with a

dashpot using equation (4).

()*+ + - ./)0+.0 = ��

.1)0+.0 (4)

Where ‘P’ is damper output force, ‘λ’ is relaxation time, ′��′ is damping constant at zero

frequency, and ‘u’ is displacement of piston head with respect to damper housing. The relaxation time

for damper is defined as

- = 3456

(5)

where′��′ is damping constant at zero frequency and ′��′ is storage stiffness of damper at infinite

frequency. A more general Maxwell model [20] is described by equation (6).

()*+ + - .7/)0+.07 = ��

.81)0+.08 (6)

where.7

.07 and .8

.08are fractional derivatives of orders r and q, based on material properties. When

r=q=1 the model becomes Maxwell model described in equation (4).

2.1. Linear Fluid Viscous Dampers

The model described by above equation has been simplified to obtain a more useful model of linear

viscous damping. The device parameters, λ and��, are obtained from experimental tests [5]. If

frequency of vibration is below cut-off frequency, the second term in equation (4) drops out and model

of damper is simplified as

()*+ = ��.1.0 (7)

where�� is independent of frequency. With this model damper behaves as linear viscous dashpot.

An important feature of linear viscous model equation is that damper force is a function of velocity.

Hence if the device is loaded with a sinusoidal function, displacements may be a sine function and



then will be out of phase with velocity and damper force, which will be a cosine function. Again this is

beneficial if structure remains elastic, since dampers will reduce drifts and shear forces without

creating greater column axial forces in combination with column bending moments.

2.2. Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers

As the current study uses nonlinear fluid viscous dampers the model represented for linear fluid

dampers has to be made more general to include nonlinear damping, to explain non-linear fluid

viscous dampers. This generalized form is as follows [5, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 24]

()*+ = �� 9.1.0 9

� � �.1

.0' (8)

Where, ‘α’ is a real positive exponent that ranges from 0.1 to 2, and sgn is signum function. When

α is unity, equation reduces to linear viscous dashpot model described for linear fluid viscous

damping. It has been suggested that a design with value of α=0.5 should be used for situations when a

structure is subjected to extremely high velocity shocks, or near-field earthquakes, because this type of

damping will limit peak force in damper.

3. ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ETABS 2015 has been used to carry out this study. The building under consideration in this study is a

12 storey RCC special moment resistant frame as per the guidelines of IS 1893:2002 for seismic zone

V and site class I (rocky or hard soil). The schematics of building plan and elevation are shown in

figure 2 and 3. The total height of the building is 40.2 m. The height of 1st floor from ground floor is

3.2 m and the foundation is at 2 m below the ground floor. All other storey heights above the 1st floor

are 3.5 m. Frame sections used for modeling depend upon design requirements. The base is fixed to

restrain in all 6 DOFs. A rigid diaphragm action has been considered for all the floors. A panel zone

has been considered for beam column connectivity with local axes along column, with inbuilt auto

inelastic properties. Non-linear hinges have been considered for frame elements [9, 10, 15-18].

For the design of frame guidelines in IS 875 Part 1, 2 and 5 for dead load, imposed load and load

combinations have been used to define gravity loads and IS 1893:2002 has been used to define seismic

load on the building. Natural time period of building T=1.1974 sec; seismic zone factor Z=0.36;

Importance factor I=1.5; Response reduction factor R=5. The torsional effect has been considered due

to accidental eccentricity. The mass source definition includes default definition of elemental self-

mass and additional mass. The modal case used in preliminary modeling and design process of

original building follows eigenvalue method with default definitions [15].

The product which has been taken into account for development of FVD model in this study is

67DP1892101- type-A damper manufactured by Taylor Devices Inc., USA [11]. The dampers have

been installed in even bays only in the exterior throughout the height of the building as shown in

figure 3. It is modeled as a link element with link type damper-exponential. The damper is modeled

only along one longitudinal direction and restrained in other two transverse directions, in its local

coordinate system. Non-linearity is considered along the active direction U1. Rotation has been

restrained. Following values have been used to model the damper (table 1).

Table 1 Damper properties used in modeling

Mass Weight Effective

Stiffness*

Effective

Damping

Damping

Exponent (α)

(Kg) (KN) (KN/m) (�:) ;⁄ +3�=#) -

511.84 5.016 28144.86 420 0.8

*Stiffness provided by bracings



Non-linear dynamic analysis has been performed to study the effect of FVD on seismic behavior

of structure. The time history analysis method adopted in this study uses a tri directional ground

motion. Response spectrum function has been defined using IS 1893: 2002 for a damping of 5% [15].

The accelerogram record used in this study is the SYLMARFF county hospital parking lot record

of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. A set of three records at 0o, 90o and Z direction have been used

with PGA values of 826.76 cm/s2, 592.639 cm/s2, and 524.985 cm/s2 respectively. This time history

function data has been matched to response spectrum function, to generate synthetic accelerogram for

the assumed site condition. The spectral matching has been done in frequency domain. The matching

parameter is set in a frequency range of 0.01 cycles/sec to 100 cycles/sec. The 3 synthetic

accelerogram in 3 directions (U1, U2 and U3) are applied simultaneously, to create realistic ground

motion condition [24].

Figure 2 Plan view of building model

Figure 3 Elevation view of building model with and without dampers



4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The modal analysis has been carried out for 12 modes and following time periods have been noted

down for various modes (tables 2) in each case for frame with and without supplemental damping.

Since the frequencies are just the inverse of time period hence they have not been specifically noted

down here. From the table for time period it can be easily seen that the time period of the oscillation of

the structure has shifted to lower values on addition of dampers to the system. The variation along the

modes is considerable. Other modal results have not been considered for comparison as the study

strictly focuses on investigations of non-linear time history analysis.

Table 2 Time period for buildings with and without supplemental damping for various modes

4.1. Results of Non-Linear Time History Analysis

The results of non-linear time history analysis to be hereafter referred as THA have been studied for

both storey responses in terms of storey v/s storey response as well as time history functions of the

responses. The storey responses considered here are absolute maximum storey displacement to be

hereafter referred as AMSD and absolute maximum storey drift to be hereafter referred as AMSd.

4.1.1. Absolute Max. Storey Displacements (mm)

The AMSD of different stories have been plotted for THA in both X and Y directions. The

observations reveal the effectiveness of dampers in controlling the story displacement response of the

building. In both the cases the maximum displacement is at the roof level and minimum at the base

level storey. Observations for AMSD comparing the models with and without supplemental damping

shows that models with dampers have lower response as compared to model without dampers. For

building model with damper the maximum storey displacement attained at top story is 152.848 mm in

global X-direction and 120.514 mm in global Y-direction as compared to 174.218 mm and 149.635

mm for building model without damper at top story in global X and Y directions respectively. For

ground story there is not any difference in AMSD of two models which increases up to top story. A

lower AMSD value for building with damper shows the effectiveness of dampers in controlling the

response of the structure.

4.1.2. Absolute Max. Storey Drift (Unit less)

The Absolute maximum storey drift in terms of inter-story drift ratio (IDR) of different stories has

been obtained for both global X and Y directions. The code suggests a limiting value of 0.004 times



the storey height for drift in any storey i.e. 0.014 m [3]. The IDR values has been obtained using the

following formula

IDR= (Dn+1 – Dn)/Hn (9)

Where, Dn+1 is the displacement of upper floor or n+1th floor, Dn is the displacement of lower floor

or nth floor and Hn is the storey height or floor separation for the given storey.

Figure 4 AMSD for building with and without supplemental damping in Global X and Y directions

Figure 5 IDR v/s storey plot for building with and without supplemental damping in Global X and Y Directions

The plot of IDR shows that this value is exceeded in both the cases. The maximum value of IDR

for building without damper is 0.0068 and 0.0055 in global X and Y directions respectively at story 4.

Whereas the maximum value for building with damper is 0.0054 at story 4 in global X-direction and

0.0042 at story 8 in global Y-direction. The value of IDR has exceeded the limiting value of 0.004 in

both the cases. In case of building without damper this value exceeds at 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th

storey in both directions whereas in case of building with damper this value exceeds at stories 3rd, 4th,

5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th in global X-direction and at 5th and 8th storey in global Y-direction. Even though the

drift values exceed the limiting value for building with dampers it is comparatively lower than the drift

values for building without damper observable in either direction.

4.2. Time History of Responses

The responses of the structure for THA have been obtained as time history functions of response

against time. The TH functions give better insight into the response behavior of structure at each time

step of analysis. The time history plots have been represented for following responses viz. Roof



displacement, Roof Acceleration, Base Shear force, storey shear force and plot for input energy and

damped energy.

4.2.1. Time History of Roof Displacement and Roof Acceleration

Roof displacement and acceleration are important parameters to analyze the behavior of structure

under dynamic loading. It presents a better insight into performance of the structure as a whole. Plots

of roof displacement v/s time period and roof acceleration v/s time period for two building models

with and without supplemental damping under seismic loading have been obtained. The displacement

plots reveal that displacement values for building without dampers is as high as 174.218 mm which is

subsequently lower for building model with dampers with maximum displacement as high as 152.911

mm. The use of dampers has not successfully reduced the displacement values at all-time instances in

comparison to building without dampers but has managed to keep the overall displacement of building

within a limited range with smooth transitions preventing sudden reversal of displacement load.

Similar interpretation can be made for roof acceleration time history response. The roof acceleration

for building with damper is as high as 6.34 m/sec2 which is even higher than the maximum roof

acceleration of 5.99 m/sce2 for building without dampers. But the transition of roof acceleration over

time and overall roof acceleration response is within a controlled range.

Figure 6 Roof displacement and acceleration v/s time plots in global X-direction for building with and without

supplemental damping

Figure 7 Base shear force v/s time plot in global X-direction for building with and without supplemental

damping



Figure 8 Storey Shear force v/s time plots in global X-direction at story 1, 5, 9 and 12 for building with and

without supplemental damping

4.2.2. Base Shear Force in X Direction

The base shear force in X direction against time period has been plotted for building models with and

without supplemental damping. It can be seen from the time history of base shear force that the overall

effect of damper in reducing the base shear is significant even though the maximum shear value of

11089.34 KN for building with damper is more than the shear value of 10645.89 KN for building

without damper. As can be seen the base shear for building with damper against the building without

damper has higher values for small fraction of time indicating that on the time scale of the event the

building experiences less amount of force over the run of the event. The increased force in case of the

building with damper can be attributed to increased mass due to addition of dampers in the building.

4.2.3. Time History of Storey Shear Force

The storey shear plot is a very important parameter to study to observe the resistance provided at

different stories against storey displacement. The resistance offered with time can be visualized from

TH plots for storey shear. The TH of storey shear for stories 1, 5, 9 and 12 for both the building cases

has been compared. In each case the maximum value of story shear at given stories is higher for

building with dampers. Another trend in story shear values to observe is decrease in story shear from

bottom to top of the building in both the cases. Even though the maximum story shear forces for

building with dampers is higher than that for building without damper the overall effect is similar to

time history plot of base shear force. Over the time scale of the event different stories of the building

with damper experience lesser force over the run of the event as compared to the building without



damper. Again as stated for base shear force the higher value of story shear in case of building with

damper can be attributed to the increased mass by addition of dampers at each story level.

5. CONCLUSION

The results of the non-linear modal time history analysis conducted on a 12 story RC frame structure

with and without FVD, represented using story responses and time history plots for various

parameters, demonstrate that the story response of the structure in form of AMSD and AMSd have

been reduced considerably by use of dampers. The time history plot of roof acceleration show

considerable reduction over the time scale of the event by use of dampers against the building without

supplemental damping. The effectiveness of dampers is evident in form of reduced stress demands on

structural elements. The time history plot of roof displacement over the time scale of event by use of

dampers shows overall reduction in maximum displacement value. The displacement values are within

limited range desired proving the effectiveness of dampers in reducing the displacement response of

the structure. The time history plots of base shear and story shears for stories 1, 5, 9 and 12 have

similar pattern as to time history plot of roof acceleration. The dampers have been effective in

reducing shear forces in the structure. Even though the FVDs have significantly reduced the responses,

the damping demand of structure can be further reduced by optimum selection and installation of

FVDs at various critical locations.

REFERENCES

[1] Aiken, I. D. And Kelly, J. M., Earthquake Simulator Testing and Analytical Studies of Two

Energy-Absorbing Systems for Multi-Storey Structures, Report No. UCB/EERC-90/03, Earthquake

Engineering Research Centre, University Of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1990.

[2] Aiken I.D., Kelly J. M. And Mahmoodi P. The Application of Viscoelastic Dampers to Seismically

Resistant Structures. Proceedings of the Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Palm Springs, California, 3, May 1990, Pp. 459–468.

[3] Chopra A. K. Dynamics of Structure- Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd

Edition. Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi. 2007

[4] Constantinou, M. C., Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for

Structural Design and Retrofit Monograph No. 1, Multidisciplinary Centre for Earthquake

Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, 1998.

[5] Constantinou, M.C. And Symans, M. D. Experimental And Analytical Investigation Of Seismic

Response Of Structures With Supplemental Fluid Dampers,Report No. NCEER 92-0032, National

Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, University Of New York At Buffalo, Buffalo, NY,

1992.

[6] Constantinou, M. C. And Symans, M. D. Experimental Study Of Seismic Response Of Structures

With Supplemental Fluid Dampers, The Structural Design Of Tall Buildings, 2, 1993a, Pp. 93-132.

[7] Constantinou, M. C. And Symans, M. D.Seismic Response Of Structures With Supplemental

Damping, The Structural Design Of Tall Buildings, 2, 1993b, Pp. 77-92.

[8] Constantinou, M. C., Symans, M. D., Tsopelas, P., And Taylor, D. P. Fluid Viscous Dampers In

Applications Of Seismic Energy Dissipation And Seismic Isolation, ATC-17-1Seminar On Seismic

Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, And Active Control, San Francisco, CA, 1993, Pp. 581-592.

[9] Dicleli, M. And Mehta, A. Seismic Performance Of Chevron Braced Steel Frames With And

Without Viscous Fluid Dampers As A Function Of Ground Motion And Damper Characteristics,

Journal Of Constructional Steel Research,63, 2007, Pp. 1102–1115

[10] Durgesh, C. Rai, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur.

The Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, An Over View Of Earthquake Engineering



[11] Narkhede D. I. And Sinha R., Characterization Of Fluid Viscous Dampers For Shock Excitation,

Proceedings Of Tenth U.S. National Conference On Earthquake Engineering Frontiers Of

Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska, July 21-25, 2014.

[12] FEMA 445, Next-Generation Performance Based Seismic Design Guidelines: Program Plan For

New And Existing Buildings, Applied Technology Council, August 2006

[13] Goel, R. K.Seismic Response of Linear and Non-Linear Asymmetric Systems with Nonlinear

Viscous Dampers, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics. 34, 2005, Pp. 825-846.

[14] Hanson, R., Supplemental Damping for Improved Seismic Performance, Earthquake Spectra,

9(3),1993, Pp. 319-334.

[15] IS: 1893(Part-I), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures, Fifth Revision, 2002.

[16] IS: 4326, Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings- Code of Practice (Second

Revision), 1993.

[17] IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening Of Buildings, Indian Institute

of Technology Kanpur. Project Sponsored By Gujarat State Disaster Mitigation Authority, 2005.

[18] IS-NBC: National Building Code of India. Steps For Safe Design And Construction Of Multi-

Storey Reinforced Concrete Buildings, 2005.

[19] Lin, W. H. And Chopra, A. K. Earthquake Response of Elastic SDF System with Non-Linear Fluid

Viscous Dampers, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.31, 2002, Pp. 1623-1642.

[20] Makris, N. and Constantinou, M.C. Fractional Derivative Maxwell Model For Viscous Dampers,

Journal Of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 117(9), 1991, Pp. 2708-2724

[21] Peckan, G., Mander,J. B. And Chen, S. S. Fundamental Considerations For The Design Of Non-

Linear Viscous Dampers, Earthquake Engineering And Structural Dynamics. 28, 1999, Pp. 1405-

1425.

[22] Seleemah, A. A. And Constantinou, M. C., Investigation Of Seismic Response Of Buildings With

Linear And Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers, Report No. NCEER 97-0004, National Centre for

Earthquake Engineering Research, University Of New York At Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1997.

[23] Soong, T. T. And Dargush, G. F. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems In Structural Engineering,

Wiley: New York, 1997.

[24] T. K. Datta, Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi, India, “Seismic Analysis Of Structures”, ISBN

978-0-470-82461-0 (HB), John Wiley &Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2 Clementi Loop, # 02-01, Singapore

129809, 2010.

[25] Zhang, R.H., Soong, T. T. And Mahmoodi,P. Seismic Response Of Steel Frame Structures With

Added Viscoelastic Dampers. Earthquake Engineering and Structural. Dynamic,18, 1989,Pp. 389–

396.

[26] Abhijitsinh Parmar, Vidhi Patel, Bhrugu Kotak and Mittal Patel, Seismic Response Control of

Asymmetric Building Using Viscous Damper. International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 5(12), 2014, pp.267–276.

[27] Swathi Ratna. K, Analysis of RCC and Simcon Buildings Subjected To Blast Effects. International

Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), 7(4), 2016, pp.223–233.

Documents

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE CONTROL OF RCC MOMENT … · Among the viscous energy dissipation devices, FVD have been widely used in vibration control as PED devices [2, 5-9, 11, 13, 19, 21-23,