×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%
2

Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Good Morning,

In regards to Section 11.4.5 of ASCE 7-05, would someone please advise of how one would adjust the Design Response Spectrum curve for a damping ratio other than 5%? I’ve had multiple contradicting statements such as, “the system R-value accounts for the damping associated with that structural system”, or “Table 18.6-1 should be used.” This is not clearly addressed in ASCE 7-05, as there is no reference as to how this curve should be adjusted. Table 18.6-1 obviously comes out of Chapter 18, which is for structures with a formal damping system, but would it apply to just regular structures as well? Does ASCE 7-05 address how to approximate the damping ratio or are these values generally just based upon a building being a steel (damping=2%) or concrete structure (damping=5%)?

A reference to ASCE 7-05 supporting your answer would be much appreciated. I've had (2) PHD's give me conflicting answers and depending on which way you go, the seismic forces could be substantially higher in the case of 2% damping per Table 18.6-1, which calls for increasing the spectral response accelerations by 25%, (1/0.8).

Thank you in advance!

Best Regards,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Why not use time History analysis instead ? Use more that seven TH and use average response !

Scaling design spectrum can be complex and generally required time history anyways !

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Note : I don't know about USA general practice on the subject.

But Where I live, it's quite easy to find design spectrum for 1%, 2% & 5% in PDH and article litterature for major cities.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Our office is not familiar with applying a Time History analysis, so your response just went over my head. Instead, we always use the Equivalent Lateral Force method described in Chapter 12 of ASCE 7-05. This is for a project in the remote Peruvian Andies and so I'm not sure there are even any seismic records available.

Can you elaborate on your third sentence; sounds like you know where to go to scale the design spectrum.

Thank you,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

In research, To develop a spectrum for different damping ratio :

1) You select compatible ground acceleration record (Soil acceleration time history) with your location
2) You do pseudo spectrum time history analysis for 1 degree-of-freedom for a specified range of period and for a specific for each time history.

For canadians, this is THE reference for time history selection : http://www.seismotoolbox.ca/index.html

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Don't know about ASCE, there might be a simplier method. I never searched about that subject in US Litterature and standards.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

You are talking about the response spectrum which is not needed unless you do a modal analysis. If you are using ELF procedure, the response spectrum is not used.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Hi structSU10,

I don't believe your statement is correct. If you look at the equivalent lateral force method, the base shear value from Eq. 12.8-2 of Section 12.8 is a function of SDS, R, and I. The SDS conservatively corresponds to the plateau in the design response spectrum curve, or the maximum seismic force a structure will see. This makes sense since the fundamental period of a structure is unknown initially when design commences.

The dillema that I am facing is that we used SDS as a basis for our seismic loads, yet recently discovered that the design response spectrum SDS may need to be amplified by 25% to account for the fact that our steel structure is only 2% damped as opposed to the 5% that the curve is based upon, (reference Table 18.6-1 of ASCE 7-05). In view of this, we have done a modal analysis to determine the fundamental period of our structure in order to see if we are really in the plateau region of the curve. Our hope is that we won't be and after amplifying the corresponding accerlation, we will still be below the plateau value that we originally designed for.


Thank you,
jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Of course, ELF use uniform design spectra, See equation 12.8-2 to 12.8-4 !!!!

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Hi PicoStruc,

Agreed!

I appreciate the responses, but the fundamental question I posed originally still has not been answered. Any further comment would be appreciated.

Thank you,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

"In regards to Section 11.4.5 of ASCE 7-05, would someone please advise of how one would adjust the Design Response Spectrum curve for a damping ratio other than 5%? I’ve had multiple contradicting statements such as, “the system R-value accounts for the damping associated with that structural system”,

This may be naive on my part but why can't you simply take the 2 single degree systems( 5^% and 2 % damping) and get the peak response of the expected shock? This this called the shock spectra.Or am I missing something?

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Your question is a reminder that the older I get, the more I realize how little I know.... (I have been designing building structures for over 30 years.) I'm on the east coast and most of the projects I work on are ones where "wind controls". I have never given any thought to that "5% of critical damping" notation on the ASCE 7 acceleration maps - and I suspect that I am not alone. I think I found an article that provides an easy way of adjusting the design acceleration. Here is the link,

http://peer2.berkeley.edu/ngawest2_wg/wp-content/u...

The building code requires us to list the important seismic design parameters on our drawings. I suppose the damping value should be added to that information. It appears to be an important variable.

Thanks for asking a great question.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Thank you cliff234,

This article looks promising and Table-2 on the third page looks just like Table 18.6-1 from ASCE 7-05, which I referenced in my inital post. If Table 18.6-1 is the table we're supposed to use to adjust the spectral accelerations, ASCE 7-05 has some improving to due as this is not referenced in Chapter 11 at all. Additionally, this table is in Chapter 18, which is for structures with damping systems, which has thrown us for a loop since we do not have an actual damping system beyond the materails natrual damping.

You definitely are not alone as none of our senior engineers have seen this either. Yes, I think the assumed damping ratio would be important since it impacts the seismic response of any structure. I am currently taking "Dynamics of Strutures" in graduate school, which is how this topic reared its head. I've attached a scanned page that shows how the Design Response Spectrum varies depending on the damping ratio. As you can see, damping ratios above 5% can dramatically increase the seismic forces.

Thank you very much for your helpful post!

Best regards,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Hi cliff234,

My apologies; in my previous post, I indicated in the last sentence of the second paragraph that damping ratios above 5% increases leads to higher seismic forces. This was an error; I meant to have wrote that damping ratios below 5% lead to higher seismic forces.

Best regards,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

I've talked to several other engineers in our office about this. They noted that although the damping ratio of a steel frame might be 2%, the damping ratio of the entire system (including façade, partitions, building contents) is probably much higher. That said, the 5% value is probably accurate enough for most building structures. If you have a very unique structure where the actual damping ratio (considering everything) is less than 5% then the adjustment that you looking to make is probably warranted. Otherwise I suspect that the mapped values based on 5% is accurate enough for design of building structures.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Hi cliff234,

I've had similar conversations and direction from my colleagues, however, since we engineer heavy industrial steel structures, there is typically no facades or internal components to increase the damping ratio, so I think 2% is still more accurate for our industry. The area that we are working in has monthly earthquakes that control our designs, so it's important that we don't underestimate seismic. Thank you, I appreciate your comment though.

Best regards,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Jochav5280, Yes. Based on the type of structures you are designing (and their proximity to frequent earthquakes), I agree with what you are doing. It is interesting how what you were looking for was buried deep in chapter 18. I agree that the there should be a bit more of an explanation on this issue (an explanation on why the 5% damping ratio was used and how to make adjustments if the actual damping ratio is less than 5%) in ASCE 7. Thanks again for posting an interesting question.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

So this big mystery amounts to getting the published spectra depending on where the structure is located, period.And what happens when you don't have that seismic data? If you don't, then I doubt that you can make a meaningful extrrapolation in going from .02 to .05 damping.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Thank you cliff234.

Hi zekeman,

The mistery for me was where do you find the ASCE 7-05 amplification values for adjusting a system with a damping ratio other than 5%, which I believe cliff234 turned me onto. The site accerlations are usually provided by our client and if not, we hire a geotechnical group to produce these values. So getting the actual site parameters is not typically an issue. Once these values are known along with the amplification values, the site specific, damping specific design response spectrum curve can be generated, allowing us to determine the seismic loads.

Best regards,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

".. The site accerlations are usually provided by our client and if not, we hire a geotechnical group to produce these values. So getting the actual site parameters is not typically an issue. Once these values are known along with the amplification values, the site specific, damping specific design response spectrum curve can be generated, allowing us to determine the seismic loads."

If you have this data, why are you so concerned about socalled amplification factors "derived" from the studies which correlate so poorly ( look at the linear fit; its a joke) that in my opinion the scatter is so great that they are useless as a design tool.

Again, why go further than your actual supplied site data? I am truly puzzled.Or am I missing something.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Hi zekeman,

I think you simply are not familiar with ASCE 7-05; see Section 11.4 and 12.8 to better understand our discussion. Yes, we have the accelerations and site/soil classification, (SS, S1, Site Classification), but they correspond to a damping ratio of 5% and therefore they need to be adjusted for damping ratios other than 5%. This is particularly important when damping is less than 5% per the attachment that accompanied my post on 10 Apr 13 17:26; as you can see, a lower damping ratio increases the seismic forces across the range of natural periods.

I'm not sure what studies referenced, so I can't confirm what you've claimed. Nevertheless, if amplification of the ground accelerations is required to account for a difference in damping by code, then it simply must be done, unless one is willing to go off the beaten path which can be done at their own risk/burden.

Best regards,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

See attached for damping values. I would believe that unless your R = 1 and you design is super conservative stresswise, a damping of 5% is conservative. It is true that the lower the damping the greater the response, so you could amplfy if you feel better, but if you can use an R = 3 system, the inelastic response portion should allow for 5% damping to be sufficient.

Also see table 6 from this link http://www.cs.wright.edu/~jslater/SDTCOutreachWebs...

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

About the OP comment

« I think 2% is still more accurate for our industry.»

I agree with that .

Additionnal information about cliff234 comment

« I've talked to several other engineers in our office about this. They noted that although the damping ratio of a steel frame might be 2%, the damping ratio of the entire system (including façade, partitions, building contents) is probably much higher»

There is a lot of literature and debate about this right now. New research seem to indicate that damping ratio, even for existing concrete building, seem more to between 1% and 2%.

--

Right now, (in building design - i dont do industrial), I still follow standards with 5%. But i am aware that a lot of research indicate otherwise.

For industrial structure, it's not clear. Do a standard other than building standard or design guide exist and could provide more information ?

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Hi structSU10,

Per my practicing Dyanmics of Structures professor,the R-value has absolutely nothing to do with the damping of that particular structural system; this is a misconception. All the R-value accounts for is the ductility of the system, nothing more. This makes sense when you consider that the code could not possibly give a broad damping coefficient that works for an unique application of that structural system; there are likely many variables for each specific building design that would impact damping, which would be tough for the code to account for.

Damping is something that can really only be determined after the structure has been built, so generally, I believe the engineering community uses what has been observed in the past, (i.e. concrete damping = 5%, steel damping = 2%). With respect to what you mentioned regarding the R-value and it's impact on damping, I believe at present time the impact is not on damping, but on the natural period of the structure; someday we may be able provide more precise damping information for a given system but we've yet to arrive there. Since a structure's natural period is a function of stiffness and mass, a given structural system of the same height/mass will have a different stiffness than another structural system, and in the end, all this leads to is a different natural period and hence a different seismic force. Since it seems that there is really no good research regarding the damping ratio associated with a particular structural system, I believe the engineering community just uses the 5% and 2% ratios I mentioned previously.

Hi PicoStruc,

I'd appreciate if you could share some of your references. You've got me; not sure if any such standard exists. I got the impression from Larry Muir at AISC that there is still a lot of work to be done, especially in the industrial field.

Best regards,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Personnaly, I didn't have those articles...

But a fast googe search got me these. In my opinion, damping is a parameter that has a big influence on the response and we know about nothing about !

http://peer.berkeley.edu/tbi/wp-content/uploads/20...

Page 12 of that document :
ftp://ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/ayhan/Fabian/Damping/Damp...

Conclusion of this one :
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_48.pdf

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

A lot of confusion here and I hope I wont add to it. I don't think the researchers who wrote the code would have let this very fundamental issue slips under their radar. We should remember that the assumed damping ration is for earthquake design, where we expect the structure to behave inelastically. R and damping ratio don't mix. Yes, R leads to higher damping but we don't account for the R contribution in damping because R is accounted for in the non-linear behaviour we assume.
The limited available data for recorded damping ratio for different building materials indicate that buildings have higher damping at higher stress level. The damping ration that matters for (earthquake) design is that at just under yielding not at working stress level for example. I don't know how it was determined that industrial buildings have 1-2% damping, but records indicate that 5% at high stress levels is conservative. That said, your questions remains unanswered if you have experimentally determined that your structure is 2% damped at just under yield stress level.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

Robbiee,

You make a good point. I read somewhere that the damping ratio of a structure at low levels of loading is smaller than when a structure is exposed to loading in the inelastic range as would occur during the design earthquake. So, while a steel framed structure might have a 2% damping ratio under small wind loads, that damping ratio might be larger when the building is racking back and forth in the inelastic range during the design earthquake. You also make a good point that those who decided on using the 5% value must have had a good reason for doing so. Codes are generally somewhat conservative, so I would be surprised if there was not good justification for using the 5%. Perhaps industrial structures such as those that jochav5280 is designing might warrant the adjustment, however I am comfortable with the 5% for building structures.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

The R value is related to damping, here is how -

The R value allows for the structure to behave inelastically. From that, the R values allow you to use a smaller design load, which through detailing allows the structure to yield in a controled manner, forming areas where energy dissapation is done safetly. That is why a structure to have 1/4 its yield stress during a design earthquake (something with a reccurance of hundreds of years) is basically impossible.

The damping values we use are viscous damping, which is just mathematically convient. Real damping is found not be related to velocity as our general equations of motion are formulated - really the damping we use is made up based on experimental results and curve fitting. Real damping can be attributed to resistance with the air, yielding of cross section, crushing of concrete, etc. .There have been attempts to quantify damping in a more realistic sense - the term is escaping me at this moment - but it is extrodinarly complicated, and viscous damping is 'good enough'. That is why values are all over the board - it is highly structure dependant.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

(OP)
Hi Robbiee,

That is a good point. For clarification, per my Dynamics of Structures professor, 2% damping applies generally to steel buildings, not just industrial structures. Similarly, 5% damping applies to concrete structures in general. Since there is no good direction, like most engineers I suspect, we have chosen to go the more conservative route of 2%; in seismically active zones I think it's better to go that route until a good basis for going a less conservative route is justified. While in-elasticity does increase damping, there doesn't appear to be any definitive answer as to how this should be quantified.

While quantifying damping is still a mystery, my question as to how to adjust the design response spectrum for a given damping ratio appears to have been answered; see Table 18.6-1 of ASCE 7-05. I plan to read through Chapter 18 to make sure this the correct interpretation.

Best regards,

jochav5280

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

My co-workers and I have designed many, many buildings, concrete, wood, steel, whatever with 5% damping. It is not common practice to design all steel buildings with 2% damping, even in incredibly active seismic zones. This happens not just at my company, but most.

Scaling your response spectra is not common at all. It seems pretty silly to scale an acceleration on a series of guesses. Most of the seismic stuff is a guess (backed up by some research) and after the next big one we'll throw it all away and come up with new guesses. Don't overthink it.

I think there's no reason to scale your response spectra unless you're intentionally altering the damping of your facility (viscous dampers...), or you have some unusual design requirements for performance.

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

I agree 100% with Gumpmaster previous comment.

I, myself, still follow the 5% prescribe by the code.

Using lower damping values might increase a lot the cost of the structure and foundation !

Using 2% damping ratio might be a good idea only if it is a demand from the client !!!

Don't forget that you will have a certain overstrength anyways !

RE: Adjustment of the Design Response Spectrum for damping ratios other than 5%

If you get a copy (free online) of FEMA 273: NEHRP Guidlines for The Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings there is a section that specifically addresses this. It is Section 2.6 Sesimic Hazard. The section shows you how to create a Design Spectrum for (a) Any hazard level (i.e. 2in50, 5in50,10in50) (b) Any Site Class and (c) Any Damping Ratio. For steel buildings that probably have a damping ratio of about 2% the guidlines tell you to essentially increase your spectral accelerations by 25 percent (code says divide by 0.8).

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources