10.57647/jsm.2025.1704.14

Seismic Loss Assessment of RC Structures Rehabilitated by Viscous Dampers Designed Based on Performance Index Method

Show Details XML PDF
  • Hamed Poloee Amirabad1,
  • Sepideh Rahimi*1,
  • Mohamad Hoseinzadeh1,
  • Morteza Hosseinali Beygi2,
  1. Department of Civil Engineering, No.C., Islamic Azad University, Nour, Iran
  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

Received: 2025-06-09

Revised: 2025-08-29

Accepted: 2025-09-19

Published in Issue 2025-12-31

Copyright (c) 2025 Hamed Poloee Amirabad, Sepideh Rahimi, Mohamad Hoseinzadeh, Morteza Hosseinali Beygi (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Poloee Amirabad, H., Rahimi, S., Hoseinzadeh, M., & Hosseinali Beygi, M. (2025). Seismic Loss Assessment of RC Structures Rehabilitated by Viscous Dampers Designed Based on Performance Index Method. Journal of Solid Mechanics, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.57647/jsm.2025.1704.14
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 71

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate and compare the behavior of viscous dampers designed using the Performance Index (PI) method and the ASCE7 approach. To this end, two categories of 12-story reinforced concrete (RC) moment-resisting frames are considered in this study: standard and substandard structures. The substandard structure is rehabilitated by viscous dampers. Although the PI method is typically utilized in designing Pall friction dampers, in this study, the approach recommended by ASCE7 and the energy-based PI method is employed in designing viscous dampers. Initially, various performance parameters of the structures are compared. The results have demonstrated that lateral displacement and roof acceleration values are lower in the ASCE7 approach than in the PI method. However, the structure equipped with viscous dampers designed via the PI method exhibits lower drift and dissipated plastic strain energy compared to the ASCE7 approach. Then, using Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), fragility and loss function curves are obtained and presented for the three considered structural configurations. The findings revealed that the structure with dampers designed by the PI method has a lower probability of exceedance at a given spectral acceleration compared to other structures. Furthermore, the loss function based on the FEMA P-58 methodology indicates that, at the design spectral acceleration, the repair-to-construction cost ratio at the probability of 50% is 0.45 for structures without dampers, and 0.07 and 0.08 for those with dampers designed using the PI and ASCE7 methods, respectively.

Keywords

  • Viscous damper,
  • Performance index,
  • Fragility analysis,
  • Loss function,
  • FEMA P-58 methodology
PDF

References

  1. Kouhi, H., Ansari, R., Salahshoor, E., and Fard, B.M. 2021. A comparison between the linear and nonlinear dynamic vibration absorber for a Timoshenko beam. Journal of Solid Mechanics 13:448–459.
  2. Mostoufi, M., Nahvi, H., and Mirshafiee, B. 2014. Vibration and bifurcation analysis of a nonlinear damped mass grounded system.
  3. Altieri, D., Tubaldi, E., Patelli, E., and Dall’Asta, A. 2017. Assessment of optimal design methods of viscous dampers. Procedia Engineering 199:1152–1157.
  4. Moradpour, S., and Dehestani, M. 2019. Optimal DDBD procedure for designing steel structures with nonlinear fluid viscous dampers. Structures (Elsevier):154–174.
  5. De Domenico, D., Ricciardi, G., and Takewaki, I. 2019. Design strategies of viscous dampers for seismic protection of building structures: A review. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 118:144–165.
  6. Hu, X., Zhang, R., Ren, X., Pan, C., Zhang, X., and Li, H. 2022. Simplified design method for structure with viscous damper based on the specified damping distribution pattern. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 26:1367–1387.
  7. Occhiuzzi, A. 2009. Additional viscous dampers for civil structures: Analysis of design methods based on effective evaluation of modal damping ratios. Engineering Structures 31:1093–1101.
  8. Kim, J., Choi, H., and Min, K.-W. 2003. Performance-based design of added viscous dampers using capacity spectrum method. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 7:1–24.
  9. ASCE/SEI 7-10. 2010. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers.
  10. Zhu, R., Guo, T., and Mwangilwa, F. 2020. Development and test of a self-centering fluidic viscous damper. Advances in Structural Engineering 23:2835–2849.
  11. De Domenico, D., and Hajirasouliha, I. 2021. Multi-level performance-based design optimisation of steel frames with nonlinear viscous dampers. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19:5015–5049.
  12. Akehashi, H., and Takewaki, I. 2020. Comparative investigation on optimal viscous damper placement for elastic-plastic MDOF structures: Transfer function amplitude or double impulse. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130:105987.
  13. Palermo, M., and Silvestri, S. 2020. Damping reduction factors for adjacent buildings connected by fluid-viscous dampers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 138:106323.
  14. Fallah, N., and Honarparast, S. 2013. NSGA-II based multi-objective optimization in design of Pall friction dampers. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 89:75–85.
  15. Poloiee, H., and Rahimi, S. 2023. Investigating the use of energy-based performance index in the design of Pall friction and viscous dampers and vibration isolators in RC structures. Modares Civil Engineering Journal 23:77–88.
  16. Patankar, D., Shrikhande, M., and Chatzis, M. 2024. Design considerations and optimum parameters of a friction damper in SDOF systems for seismic response reduction. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 28:1299–1311.
  17. Tavakoli, H., and Afrapoli, M.M. 2018. Robustness analysis of steel structures with various lateral load resisting systems under the seismic progressive collapse. Engineering Failure Analysis 83:88–101.
  18. Moradi, M., Tavakoli, H., and Abdollahzadeh, G. 2019. Probabilistic assessment of failure time in steel frame subjected to fire load under progressive collapses scenario. Engineering Failure Analysis 102:136–147.
  19. Moradi, M., and Abdolmohammadi, M. 2020. Seismic fragility evaluation of a diagrid structure based on energy method. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 174:106311.
  20. Moradi, M., Tavakoli, H., and Abdollahzade, G. 2020. Sensitivity analysis of the failure time of reinforced concrete frame under post-earthquake fire loading. Structural Concrete 21:625–641.
  21. Nabid, N., Hajirasouliha, I., and Petkovski, M. 2018. Performance-based optimisation of RC frames with friction wall dampers using a low-cost optimisation method. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16:5017–5040.
  22. Shirkhani, A., Mualla, I.H., Shabakhty, N., and Mousavi, S.R. 2015. Behavior of steel frames with rotational friction dampers by endurance time method. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 107:211–222.
  23. Shirkhani, A., Azar, B.F., and Basim, M.C. 2021. Seismic loss assessment of steel structures equipped with rotational friction dampers subjected to intensifying dynamic excitations. Engineering Structures 238:112233.
  24. Shirkhani, A., Farahmand Azar, B., and Basim, M.C. 2020. Optimum slip load of T-shaped friction dampers in steel frames by endurance time method. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings 173:746–760.
  25. Shirkhani, A., Farahmand Azar, B., Shabakhty, N., and Mousavi, S.R. 2014. Application of endurance time method in seismic assessment of steel frames with friction damper devices. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 16:139–146.
  26. Shirkhani, A., Farahmand Azar, B., and Charkhtab Basim, M. 2020. Evaluation of efficiency index of friction energy dissipation devices using endurance time method. Numerical Methods in Civil Engineering 5:12–20.
  27. Mualla, I.H., and Belev, B. 2002. Performance of steel frames with a new friction damper device under earthquake excitation. Engineering Structures 24:365–371.
  28. Tavakoli, H., Moradi, M., Goodarzi, M., and Najafi, H. 2022. Outrigger braced system placement effect on seismic collapse probability of tall buildings. Civil Engineering Infrastructures Journal 55:259–276.
  29. Zhou, Y., Xiao, Y., and Sebaq, M.S. 2022. Energy-based fragility curves of building structures equipped with viscous dampers. Structures (Elsevier):1660–1679.
  30. Moradi, M., and Tavakoli, H. 2020. Proposal of an energy based assessment of robustness index of steel moment frames under the seismic progressive collapse. Civil Engineering Infrastructures Journal 53:277–293.
  31. Hosseinlou, F., Moradi, M., Sadrianzade, M., and Jalali, P. 2025. An energy-based method for calculating the fragility curve of bridges: A case study. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering:1–26.
  32. Moradi, M., Tavakoli, H., and Abdollahzade, G. 2024. Probabilistic evaluation of failure time of reinforced concrete frame in post-earthquake fire scenario. Structural Concrete 25:3487–3504.
  33. Moradi, M., Tavakoli, H., and Abdollahzadeh, G.R. 2022. Collapse probability assessment of a 4-story RC frame under post-earthquake fire scenario. Civil Engineering Infrastructures Journal 55:121–137.
  34. Cardone, D. 2016. Fragility curves and loss functions for RC structural components with smooth rebars. Earthquakes and Structures 10:1181–1212.
  35. Del Vecchio, C., Di Ludovico, M., Pampanin, S., and Prota, A. 2018. Repair costs of existing RC buildings damaged by the L’Aquila earthquake and comparison with FEMA P-58 predictions. Earthquake Spectra 34:237–263.
  36. FEMA P-58. 2018. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Washington, DC: Prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  37. Iranian National Building Code. 2013. Loads applied to building (Section 6). Tehran, Iran: Ministry of Housing and Research Center.
  38. Standard No. 2800. 2015. Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings (4th ed.). Building and Housing Research Center.
  39. Iranian National Building Code. 2013. Design and implementation of reinforced concrete buildings (Section 9). Tehran, Iran: Ministry of Housing and Research Center.
  40. Perform3D. 2006. Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures (Version 4). Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures, Inc.
  41. FEMA 356. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  42. Sattar, S. 2018. Evaluating the consistency between prescriptive and performance-based seismic design approaches for reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Engineering Structures 174:919–931.
  43. Whittle, J., Williams, M., Karavasilis, T.L., and Blakeborough, A. 2012. A comparison of viscous damper placement methods for improving seismic building design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 16:540–560.
  44. Priestley, M., and Grant, D. 2005. Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9:229–255.
  45. Kitayama, S., and Constantinou, M.C. 2018. Seismic performance of buildings with viscous damping systems designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7-16. Journal of Structural Engineering 144:04018050.
  46. Fahiminia, M., and Shishegaran, A. 2020. Evaluation of a developed bypass viscous damper performance. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering 14:773–791.
  47. Dong, B., Sause, R., and Ricles, J.M. 2016. Seismic response and performance of a steel MRF building with nonlinear viscous dampers under DBE and MCE. Journal of Structural Engineering 142:04016023.
  48. Sepehri, A., Taghikhany, T., and Ahmadi Namin, S.M.R. 2019. Seismic design and assessment of structures with viscous dampers at limit state levels: Focus on probability of damage in devices. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 28:e1569.
  49. Yeh, F.-Y., Chang, K.-C., Chen, T.-W., and Yu, C.-H. 2014. The dynamic performance of a shear thickening fluid viscous damper. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 37:983–994.
  50. Goodarzi, M.J., Moradi, M., Jalali, P., Abdolmohammadi, M., and Hasheminejad, S.M. 2023. Fragility assessment of an outrigger structure system based on energy method. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 32:e2017.
  51. FEMA P-695. 2009. Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  52. Mojiri, S., El-Dakhakhni, W.W., and Tait, M.J. 2015. Seismic fragility evaluation of lightly reinforced concrete-block shear walls for probabilistic risk assessment. Journal of Structural Engineering 141:04014116.
  53. Zhu, H., Miao, C., and Zhuang, M. 2019. Analysis of office-teaching comprehensive buildings using a modified seismic performance evaluation method. Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences 118:471–491.
  54. Caruso, C., Bento, R., and Castro, J.M. 2019. A contribution to the seismic performance and loss assessment of old RC wall-frame buildings. Engineering Structures 197:109369.
  55. Yurdakul, Ö., Del Vecchio, C., Di Ludovico, M., Routil, L., and Avşar, Ö. 2021. Crack width-based fragility curves for repairability of substandard beam-column joints. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19:6081–6111.
  56. Shahnazaryan, D., O’Reilly, G.J., and Monteiro, R. 2021. Story loss functions for seismic design and assessment: Development of tools and application. Earthquake Spectra 37:2813–2839.
  57. Mucedero, G., Perrone, D., and Monteiro, R. 2024. Generalised storey loss functions for seismic loss assessment of Italian residential buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 28:451–474.
  58. Perrone, G., Cardone, D., O’Reilly, G., and Sullivan, T.J. 2022. Developing a direct approach for estimating expected annual losses of Italian buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 26:1–32.
  59. Gribbon, C., Jennings, Z., De Francesco, G., and Sullivan, T. 2021. Seismic design and analysis of a medium density residential building.
  60. Papadopoulos, A.N., Vamvatsikos, D., and Kazantzi, A.K. 2019. Development and application of FEMA P-58 compatible story loss functions. Earthquake Spectra 35:95–112.
  61. Silva, A., Castro, J.M., and Monteiro, R. 2020. A rational approach to the conversion of FEMA P-58 seismic repair costs to Europe. Earthquake Spectra 36:1607–1618.
  62. Nobahar, E., Asgarian, B., Mercan, O., and Soroushian, S. 2021. A post-tensioned self-centering yielding brace system: Development and performance-based seismic analysis. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 17:392–412.