Virtual hybrid simulation is a computationally-efficient method that enables coupling of two or more finite element analysis programs. In this study, benefits of this technique in predicting both cyclic and seismic response of a one-story one-bay frame equipped with a Triangular-plate Added Damping and Stiffness (TADAS) damper are evaluated. For this purpose, a detailed FE model of the damper is built in Abaqus to take into account precise modelling of its hysteretic behavior as well as a number of important features related to the geometric characteristics of the including parts of the device, while the remainder of the structure is modelled in OpenSees. Continuous exchange of the data between the coupled codes is conducted through the software framework, OpenFresco. Comparison of the results with experimental outcomes is presented, which proves the ability of the introduced technique in modelling the behavior of such structures in an efficient manner while preserving sufficient accuracy. At the end, a series of dynamic virtual hybrid simulations of the frame are performed which provide useful insights into design of TADAS frames.
Abaqus Inc (2013) Abaqus version 6.12 documentation, Dassault Systémes SIMULIA, Providence, RI. See also: http://www.simulia.com.
2.
Bakhaty AA, Govindjee S and Mosalam K (2014) Theoretical development of hybrid simulation applied to plate structures. PEER Report 2014-02. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: Headquarters at the University of California, Berkeley.
3.
BHRC (2015) Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center. PART SAZE SAINAR engineering Company report on TADAS damper experiments. Report No. 1122-9/ (in Persian).
4.
BrandoGD'AgostinoFDe MatteisG (2015) Seismic performance of MR frames protected by viscous or hysteretic dampers. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings24: 653–671.
5.
Castaneda AguilarNE (2012) Development and validation of a real-time computational framework for hybrid simulation of dynamically-excited steel frame structures, West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.
6.
CastanedaNGaoXDykeSJ (2013) Computational Tool for Real-Time Hybrid Simulation of Seismically Excited Steel Frame Structures. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering29: 04014049.
7.
Dareini HS and Hashemi BH (2011) Use of Dual Systems in Tadas Dampers to Improve Seismic Behavior of Buildings in Different Levels. The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, pp. 2788–2795.
8.
De la LleraJCEsguerraCAlmazánJL (2004) Earthquake behavior of structures with copper energy dissipators. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics33: 329–358.
9.
HashemiMJMosquedaAG (2014) Innovative substructuring technique for hybrid simulation of multistory buildings through collapse. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics43: 2059–2074.
10.
Huang X, Sadeghian V and Kwon O (2015) Development of Integrated Framework for Distributed Multi-Platform Simulation. 6th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, 11th International Workshop on Advanced Smart Materials and Smart Structures Technology. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
11.
Ji J, Kwon O-S, Elnashai AS, et al. (2008) Multi-resolution distributed FEA simulation of a 54-story RC building. Computational Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering: Structures and Infrastructures Book Series pp. 223–239.
12.
KaravasilisTLKerawalaSHaleE (2012) Hysteretic model for steel energy dissipation devices and evaluation of a minimal-damage seismic design approach for steel buildings. Journal of Constructional Steel Research70: 358–367.
13.
Karavasilis TL, Seo C-Y and Ricles J (2009) HybridFEM: A program for dynamic time history analysis of 2D inelastic framed structures and real-time hybrid simulation. ATLSS Report No. 08-09. Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA.
14.
KellyJMSkinnerRHeineA (1972) Mechanisms of energy absorption in special devices for use in earthquake resistant structures. Bulletin of NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering5: 63–88.
15.
KwonO-SElnashaiAS (2008) Seismic analysis of meloland road overcrossing using multiplatform simulation software including SSI. Journal of Structural Engineering134: 651–660.
16.
KwonOElnashaiASSpencerBF (2008) A framework for distributed analytical and hybrid simulations. Structural Engineering and Mechanics30: 331–350.
17.
LovejoyER (2013) Multiplatform Analysis Seismic Evaluation of a Non-Seismically Detailed Nonlinear RC Structure Retrofitted With Magneto-Rheological Dampers, Master's Thesis, University of Connecticut Graduate School.
18.
MagharehADykeSJPrakashAet al. (2014) Establishing a predictive performance indicator for real‐time hybrid simulation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics43: 2299–2318.
19.
MahmoudHNElnashaiASSpencerBFet al. (2013) Hybrid Simulation for Earthquake Response of Semirigid Partial-Strength Steel Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering139: 1134–1148.
20.
MartinezILSantacanaFOWilliamsMSet al. (2014) Celestina-Sim: Framework to Support Distributed Testing and Service Integration in Earthquake Engineering. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering30. Doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000455, 04014119.
21.
MazzaFVulcanoA (2012) Effects of near‐fault ground motions on the nonlinear dynamic response of base‐isolated rc framed buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41: 211–232.
22.
McKennaFFenvesGLScottMHJeremicB (2000) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
23.
MoreschiLSinghM (2003) Design of yielding metallic and friction dampers for optimal seismic performance. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics32: 1291–1311.
24.
MosalamKMGünayS (2014) Seismic performance evaluation of high voltage disconnect switches using real‐time hybrid simulation: I. System development and validation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics43: 1205–1222.
25.
Mosqueda G, M Del Carpio Ramos and Hashemi MJ (2015) Application of Hybrid Simulation to Investigate the Seismic Behavior of Steel Moment Frame Structures through Collapse. 6th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, 11th International Workshop on Advanced Smart Materials and Smart Structures Technology. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, United States.
26.
Mosqueda G, Stojadinovic B and Mahin AS (2005) Implementation and Accuracy of Continuous Hybrid Simulation with Geographically Distributed Substructures. Report No. UBC/EERC 2005-02. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
27.
NakashimaMKatoHTakaokaE (1992) Development of real‐time pseudo dynamic testing. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics21: 79–92.
28.
NakashimaMMcCormickJWangT (2008) Hybrid Simulation: A historical perspective. Hybrid Simulation: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, CRC Press: Taylor & Francis, pp. 3–12.
29.
NakataNStehmanM (2012) Substructure shake table test method using a controlled mass: formulation and numerical simulation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41: 1977–1988.
30.
SaoumaVKangD-HHaussmannG (2012) A computational finite-element program for hybrid simulation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41: 375–389.
31.
SchellenbergAHuangYMahinSA (2008) Structural FE-software coupling through the experimental software framework, OpenFresco. Proceedings, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China. Paper No. 14_14-0177.
32.
Schellenberg AH, Mahin SA and Fenves GL (2009) Advanced Implementation of Hybrid Simulation. PEER Report 2009/104. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of engineering University of California, Berkeley.
33.
Sextos A, Bousias S, Taskari O, et al. (2014) An Intercontinental Hybrid Simulation Experiment For The purpose of Seismic Assessment of a Three-span R/C Bridge. 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska, US. DOI: 10.4231/D3JD4PQ1X.
34.
SextosAGTaskariO (2009) Single and multi-platform simulation of linear and non-linear bridge-soil systems. Coupled Site and Soil-Structure Interaction Effects with Application to Seismic Risk Mitigation. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security: Springer, Netherlands, pp. 225–239.
35.
ShahiSKBakerJW (2011) Regression models for predicting the probability of near-fault earthquake ground motion pulses, and their period. Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering30: 459.
36.
ShooshtariAMasoodiAMoghaddamSH (2014) Free Vibration Analysis of Gabled Frame Considering Elastic Supports and Semi-Rigid Connections. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering8: 696–700.
37.
SymansMCharneyFWhittakerAet al. (2008) Energy dissipation systems for seismic applications: current practice and recent developments. Journal of Structural Engineering134: 3–21.
38.
TerunaDRMajidTABudionoB (2015) Experimental Study of Hysteretic Steel Damper for Energy Dissipation Capacity. Advances in Civil Engineering2015: 12. Article ID 631726.
39.
TsaiK-CChenH-WHongC-Pet al. (1993) Design of steel triangular plate energy absorbers for seismic-resistant construction. Earthquake Spectra9: 505–528.
40.
Tsai K and Li C (1994) Seismic Analysis of Passive Energy Dissipation Subsystems by Hybrid Experiments. Proceedings of the 12th International Modal Analysis. pp.1520.
41.
VargasRBruneauM (2007) Effect of supplemental viscous damping on the seismic response of structural systems with metallic dampers. Journal of Structural Engineering133: 1434–1444.
42.
WangTNakashimaMPanP (2006) On-line hybrid test combining with general-purpose finite element software. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics35: 1471–1488.
43.
Whittaker AS, Bertero VV, G. JLA, et al. (1989) Earthquake simulator testing of steel plate added damping and stiffness elements. Report No. UCB/EERC-89-02. Berkeley, California, USA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.
(in Persian)