buildings

Article
Study on the Damping Efficiency of a Structure with Additional
Viscous Dampers Based on the Shaking Table Test
Xiang Lan 1,2 , Longfei Zhang 1,2, * , Baifeng Sun 3,4, * and Wen Pan 5

1 College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Kunming University, Kunming 650214, China;
[email protected]
2 Institute of Engineering Earthquake Resistance and Disaster Reduction, Kunming University,
Kunming 650214, China
3 China-Pakistan Belt and Road Joint Laboratory on Smart Disaster Prevention of Major Infrastructures,
Ministry of Science and Technology, Nanjing 211189, China
4 Yunnan Design Institute Group Co., Ltd., Kunming 650238, China
5 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Kunming University of Science and Technology,
Kunming 650051, China
* Correspondence: [email protected] (L.Z.); [email protected] (B.S.)

Abstract: This study specifically focuses on the damping efficiency of a damped structure with
additional viscous dampers. A two-layer steel frame structure with eight sets of viscous dampers is
used to conduct a series of seismic simulation shaking table tests, including a non-damped structure
without dampers and two damped structures with dampers placed at 1/2 and 1/6 of the beam
span, respectively. By conducting these tests, the energy dissipation, force, and displacement of the
damper, as well as the parameters of the structure such as floor displacement and acceleration, are
obtained. The main damping efficiency indicators of the damped structure are calculated, including
the additional damping ratio, inter-story displacement utilization rate, as well as the reduction rate
of the vertex displacement and the base shear relative to the non-damped structure. The study
shows that the viscous dampers exhibit full hysteresis loops and a strong energy dissipation capacity
in the structure. The seismic response of the vertex displacement and base shear in the damped
structure is significantly smaller than that in the non-damped structure. Under different seismic
levels, including frequent earthquakes, occasional earthquakes, and rare earthquakes, the damping
Citation: Lan, X.; Zhang, L.; Sun, B.;
effect of the dampers placed at 1/2 of the beam span is significantly better than that placed at 1/6 of
Pan, W. Study on the Damping
the beam span. For example, the additional damping ratio for the X-direction artificial wave REN is
Efficiency of a Structure with
19% and 11%, 20% and 13%, and 13% and 11%, respectively. The patterns for inter-story displacement
Additional Viscous Dampers Based on
utilization ratio, reduction rate of the vertex displacement, and reduction rate of the base shear are
the Shaking Table Test. Buildings 2024,
14, 1506. https://doi.org/10.3390/
similar. The research findings strongly indicate that the damped structure with additional viscous
buildings14061506 dampers exhibits excellent damping efficiency. In future damping design, designers need to fully
consider the placement of viscous dampers within the beam span.
Academic Editor: Giuseppina Uva

Received: 1 April 2024 Keywords: energy dissipation structure; viscous damper; placement arrangement; damping
Revised: 1 May 2024 efficiency; shaking table test
Accepted: 20 May 2024
Published: 23 May 2024

1. Introduction
Energy dissipation structures are designed to reduce the impact of seismic or other
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
external forces on a building by using a series of energy dissipation systems. These systems
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
can absorb and dissipate energy, effectively reducing the vibration response of the structure
distributed under the terms and
and preventing or minimizing structural damage [1,2]. There are four main types of energy
conditions of the Creative Commons dissipation control: active, semi-active, passive, and intelligent [3,4]. Passive control devices
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// are further classified into velocity-dependent dampers, displacement-dependent dampers,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and hybrid dampers based on their relationship with velocity and displacement. They
4.0/). can also be categorized as rate-dependent or rate-independent dampers based on their

Buildings 2024, 14, 1506. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061506 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 2 of 24

dependence on velocity [5,6]. Viscous dampers [7–9] are the most commonly used velocity-
based dissipative devices that utilize the damping characteristics of viscous materials to
reduce structural vibration response. They generate a damping force when subjected
to external forces, which can absorb and dissipate energy. Compared to other types of
dampers, viscous dampers have several advantages, including a higher additional damping
ratio, stable and reliable damping characteristics within the frequency response range, and
relatively simple structures resulting in low installation and maintenance costs. As a result,
viscous dampers have been widely applied in practical engineering. There are various
installation methods for viscous dampers in damped structures, including supported and
cantilever wall types. The supported type includes single diagonal support, V-shaped
support, and inverted V-shaped support. However, from the perspective of functional use
in building structures, designers and construction units prefer viscous dampers arranged
in a cantilever wall type as they do not obstruct doors and windows and they minimize the
impact on the building’s functionality.
To optimize the implementation of viscous dampers in damped structures, numerous
researchers have conducted thorough studies on the damping efficacy of various types of
damped structures. Hwang et al. [10] proposed a new calculation formula to accurately
predict the additional damping ratio of mid-high-rise buildings. Xie et al. [11] studied the
effectiveness and optimization design of non-linear viscous dampers in inelastic structures.
Gherbi et al. [12] minimized the design time by estimating the damping coefficient of non-
linear fluid viscous dampers. The calculation methods for the additional damping ratio
have been a hot topic of research. There are non-dimensional parameter methods based
on non-linear viscous dampers [13], simplified calculation methods based on structural
characteristics, excitation frequency, and damper parameters [14], as well as non-classical
modal damping ratio calculation methods based on the known state-space representation
of the dynamic system [15]. The seismic performance of structures with additional viscous
dampers has been significantly improved [16]; therefore, viscous dampers have also been
applied in steel structures [17], super-tall building structures [18], and even in structural
retrofitting [19,20].
As is well known, seismic excitation is essentially a random vibration. Tubaldi
et al. [21,22] investigated the probabilistic response assessment and non-stationary stochas-
tic response of structures. Zhang et al. [23] proposed a structural analysis method based on
Lyapunov differential equations. Su et al. [24] explored the optimal design of non-linear vis-
cous dampers for large-scale structures under non-stationary seismic excitation, employing
a stochastic approach. Rodolfo et al. [25] conducted a probabilistic evaluation of high-
rise buildings’ dynamic response using transfer functions. Experimental research on the
damped structures can be conducted using pseudo-static tests [26]. Alternatively, a more
direct approach is to utilize a seismic simulation shaking table for dynamic testing [27,28].
Nevertheless, there have been only a few shaking table tests that have specifically focused
on the damped structure with additional viscous dampers and the non-damped structure
without any additional viscous dampers.
Scholars have also conducted extensive research on the damping efficiency of optimal
control and the most effective placement of dampers in damped structures. Singh et al. [29]
suggested a gradient optimization technique, utilizing inter-story displacement, base
shear, or floor acceleration as performance indicators. Aguirre et al. [30] evaluated and
compared the optimal distribution of spatial dampers for linear and non-linear systems.
Parcianello et al. [31] studied the placement of dampers aiming to reduce the displacement
and acceleration of frame structures under seismic action. Whittle et al. [32] investigated
the impact of five distinct configurations of viscous dampers on the seismic performance
of structures. In order to achieve relatively uniform parameters for each damper size
in the structure, Lopez [33] proposed a simplified algorithm based on sequential search.
Takewaki [34,35], Lin et al. [36], and Aydin et al. [37] conducted research on the optimal
placement of dampers considering the minimum transfer function, critical excitation,
damping coefficients, and seismic rehabilitation. However, no studies have been found
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 3 of 24

on the damping efficiency of damped structures when dampers are placed at different
positions within the same beam span.
In the field of engineering, it is common to reveal the laws of things through the
in-depth study of specific phenomena. This process usually begins with observing the
phenomena, followed by establishing the corresponding theoretical models through logical
reasoning and theoretical analysis. Numerical simulation methods, such as finite element
analysis, are then used to verify the related laws, and appropriate experiments are designed
for further validation. Finally, the results are modified based on feedback from actual
engineering applications to achieve higher applicability accuracy. The main objective of this
experiment is to compare and analyze the experimental results of the structure with and
without the attached viscous damper. The vibration frequency and velocity under actual
working conditions are simulated, and the response of the damper is measured to evaluate
its damping effect. This study examines the damping efficiency of structures equipped with
viscous dampers and investigates how damper placement affects the damping efficiency
across beam spans. The analysis focuses on key damping efficiency indicators, including
the additional damping ratio, reduction in the vertex displacement, reduction in the base
shear, and inter-story displacement utilization rate. The findings of this research will serve
as valuable guidance and reference for design professionals when incorporating viscous
dampers into future damped structure designs.

2. Shaking Table Test Design

2.1. Test Equipment
The viscous damper is a type of damper that is dependent on velocity. When used in
building construction projects, its frequency typically falls between 1 and 3 Hz, and the
velocity range is usually between 100 mm/s and 600 mm/s. Therefore, traditional quasi-
static tests or static tests are not suitable for evaluating the performance of the structure.
This experiment utilized a dynamic loading system based on the seismic simulation shaking
table platform at the Engineering Seismic Research Institute of Kunming University of
Science and Technology. The damping effect on structures was evaluated through the
loading of earthquake waves onto structural systems. The fundamental parameters of the
shaking table are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Basic parameters of the shaking table.

Projects Basic Parameters

Tabletop dimensions 4m×4m
Maximum load capacity 30 tons
Bi-directional three degrees of freedom (X and Y
Vibration direction
translational motion, and Z rotational motion)
Various types of waves, including regular waves, random
Vibration waveforms
waves, and simulated seismic waves.
The maximum acceleration ±1.0 g (Payload of 20 tons), ±0.8 g (Payload of 30 tons)
Maximum velocity 800 mm/s
Maximum displacement ±125 mm
Frequency range 0.1 Hz~100 Hz

2.2. Selection of Materials and Their Material Property Testing

The steel used was conventional Q235 H-section steel commonly found on the market.
The H-section steel consisted of different cross-section sizes from the same manufacturer
and batch. The three main types were HW100 × 100, HW125 × 125, and HW175 × 175,
with actual dimensions shown in Table 2. According to the standard of “Metallic materials-
Tensile testing-Part 1: Method of test at room temperature” [38], samples were taken from
the web position of the H-section steel as shown in Figure 1a. Then, the specimens were
prepared as shown in Figure 1b for tensile testing, and the values of Young’s modulus,
 with actual dimensions shown in Table 2. According to the standard of “Metallic materi-
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 als-Tensile testing-Part 1: Method of test at room temperature” [38], samples were 4taken of 24
from the web position of the H-section steel as shown in Figure 1a. Then, the specimens
were prepared as shown in Figure 1b for tensile testing, and the values of Young’s modu-
lus, yield
yield strength,
strength, tensile
tensile strength,
strength, and elongation
and elongation at fracture
at fracture of the specimens
of the specimens were
were measured,
measured, as presented
as presented in Table 3. in Table 3.

Table
Table2.2.Actual
Actualdimensions
dimensionsofofvarious
varioustypes
typesof
of H-section
H-section steel profiles.
profiles.

Width
Width Height
Height TheThickness
The Thickness of the The
of the TheThickness
Thicknessof of
thethe
Types
Types
b/mm
b/mm h/mm
h/mm WebPlate/mm
Web Plate/mm Flange/mm
Flange/mm
HW100
HW100××100
100 100
100 100
100 5.35.3 7.0
7.0
HW125××125
HW125 125 125
125 125
125 6.06.0 8.0
8.0
HW175 × 175 175 175 6.4 9.3
HW175 × 175 175 175 6.4 9.3

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure1.1.Sample
Samplepreparation
preparation and designdiagram
and design diagramfor
formaterial
material testing
testing specimens.
specimens. (a) Sampling
(a) Sampling in thein
the shadowed area. (b) Test specimen design diagram.
shadowed area. (b) Test specimen design diagram.

Table
Table3.3.Test
Testresults
resultsofofspecimen
specimenmaterial
material properties.
properties.
Measured Ten- Elongation
Test Specimen Measured Measured
Types Test Measured Yield sile Strength fu/fy ≥ 1.25 fy/235 ≤ 1.30
Young’s
Young’sMod-
at Fracture
Yield Tensile
SpecimenStrength fy/MPa
Types Number f u /f y ≥ 1.25 f y /235 ≤ 1.30 ulus E/GPa Elongation at
Modulus
Number
Strength fu/MPa
Strength
E/GPa
δ/%
Fracture δ/%
No.1 f y /MPa
263 f u /MPa
376 1.43 1.12 195 31
HW No.2 No.1 264263 376
378 1.43
1.43 1.12
1.12 195
193 3127
HW
100 × 100 No.3 No.2 256264 378
375 1.43
1.47 1.12
1.09 193
190 27
31
100 × 100 No.3 256 375 1.47 1.09 190 31
Average
Average 261261 376
376 1.44
1.44 1.11
1.11 193
193 3030
No.1 No.1 262262 429
429 1.64
1.64 1.11
1.11 202
202 2828
HW HW No.2 No.2 261261 430
430 1.65
1.65 1.11
1.11 203
203 2727
×
125 × 125
125 125 No.3 No.3 261261 425
425 1.63
1.63 1.11
1.11 204
204 2727
Average
Average 261261 428
428 1.64
1.64 1.11
1.11 203
203 27
27
No.1 No.1 260260 424
424 1.63
1.63 1.10
1.10 204
204 2727
HW No.2 258 419 1.62 1.10 212 26
HW No.2 No.3 258262 419 1.62 1.10 212 26
175 × 175 427 1.63 1.12 209 28
175 × 175 No.3Average 262260 427
423 1.63
1.63 1.12
1.11 209
208 2728
Average 260 423 1.63 1.11 208 27
The specimens were tested for tensile strength using an electronic universal testing
The specimens were tested for tensile strength using an electronic universal testing
machine with a capacity of 100 kN, as illustrated in Figure 2.
machine with
From a capacity
Table 3, it canofbe
100 kN, as illustrated
observed in Figure
that the material test2.results for the three types of
H-section steel specimens in the experiment meet all the specified criteria.

2.3. Experimental Model Fabrication

In order to achieve the purpose of this experiment, a two-story single-span steel frame
structure system model was constructed. The height of each floor was 3.6 m, and the span
in both the X- and Y-directions was 3.0 m. The cross-section dimensions of the four columns
were all HW175 × 175, and the column bases were connected by welding. The cross-section
dimensions of the beams in the strong axis direction of the columns (X-direction) were
HW100 × 100, and the cross-section dimensions of the beams in the weak axis direction of
 Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 5 of 24

the columns (Y-direction) were HW125 × 125. The beams and columns were connected
by “T” type keys with bolt connections. The damper was connected to the beam through
bolts, with the upper and lower columns of the intermediate column. The upper and
lower columns of the intermediate column were made of steel plates with a width of
400 mm and a thickness of 10 mm. The out-of-plane stiffness was satisfied by structural
measures. In order to connect the lower column of the intermediate column, a ground
beam layer was specifically designed in the model. The elevation from the apex of the
ground beam to the base of the column measured 0.40 m, as depicted in Figure 3. The
connection configuration between the beam–column joints and the damper installation
method are clearly demonstrated. The shaking table test models are presented in Figure 4;
specifically, Figure 4a illustrates the undamped structural model without dampers, while
Figure 4b portrays the damping structural model equipped with dampers. The model
weight was determined by the combination of the self-weight of components and additional
counterweights. According to the requirement of 3.0 kN/m2 , the counterweights were
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 25
uniformly arranged on the floor slabs of the model. The final total weight of the model was
6.7 tons.

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Comparison
Figure of test
2. Comparison specimens
of test before
specimens and after
before and tensile testing.
after tensile (a) Before
testing. the test.the
(a) Before (b)test.
After(b) After
thethe
experiment.
experiment.

From Table 3, it can be observed that the material test results for the three types of H-
section steel specimens in the experiment meet all the specified criteria.

2.3. Experimental Model Fabrication

In order to achieve the purpose of this experiment, a two-story single-span steel
frame structure system model was constructed. The height of each floor was 3.6 m, and
the span in both the X- and Y-directions was 3.0 m. The cross-section dimensions of the
four columns were all HW175 × 175, and the column bases were connected by welding.
The cross-section dimensions of the beams in the strong axis direction of the columns (X-
direction) were HW100 × 100, and the cross-section dimensions of the beams in the weak
axis direction of the columns (Y-direction) were HW125 × 125. The beams and columns
(a) (b)
were connected by “T” type keys with bolt connections. The damper was connected to the
beam through bolts, with the upper and lower columns of the intermediate column. The
upper and lower columns of the intermediate column were made of steel plates with a
width of 400 mm and a thickness of 10 mm. The out-of-plane stiffness was satisfied by
structural measures. In order to connect the lower column of the intermediate column, a
ground beam layer was specifically designed in the model. The elevation from the apex of
the ground beam to the base of the column measured 0.40 m, as depicted in Figure 3. The
connection configuration between the beam–column joints and the damper installation
method are clearly demonstrated. The shaking table test models are presented in Figure
4; specifically, Figure 4a illustrates the undamped structural model without dampers,
while Figure 4b portrays the damping structural (c) model equipped with dampers. The
model
Figure 3. weight
Diagram was
of determined
connection of by the combination
beam–column joints
Figure 3. Diagram of connection of beam–column joints of
and theand
self-weight
installation ofof
components
of dampers.
installation (a)and
(a) Assembly
dampers. Assembly
additional
opening and counterweights.
positioning diagram According
of to
beam–column the requirement
joints. (b) Assembly of 3.0 kN/m
physical 2, theofcounter-
diagram
opening and positioning diagram of beam–column joints. (b) Assembly physical diagram of beam– beam–
column
weightsjoints.
were (c)uniformly
Physical diagram
arrangedof damping
onofthe device
floor installation.
slabs of the model. The final total weight of
column joints. (c) Physical diagram damping device installation.
the model was 6.7 tons.
 (c)
Figure 3. Diagram of connection of beam–column joints and installation of dampers. (a) Assembly
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 opening and positioning diagram of beam–column joints. (b) Assembly physical diagram of beam–
6 of 24
column joints. (c) Physical diagram of damping device installation.

(a) (b)
Figure 4.4.Seismic
Figure Seismicsimulation
simulation shaking
shaking table
table test test models.
models. (a) Non-damping
(a) Non-damping structural
structural model.model. (b)
(b) Damp-
Damping structural model. The letters E, S, W, and N in the figure, respectively, represent the four
ing structural model. The letters E, S, W, and N in the figure, respectively, represent the four cardinal
cardinal directions: east, south, west, and north.
directions: east, south, west, and north.

2.4. Damping Device Design Parameters and Arrangement Positions

The experiment employed eight sets of dampers, with four sets of Type I dampers
and four sets of Type II dampers. Five sets of each type of damper were prepared. The
design parameters of the dampers mainly included the damping coefficient and damping
index. Typically, the total damping coefficient required for a seismic structure is derived
based on three parameters: the energy dissipation of the damper, the strain energy of the
structure, and the additional damping ratio of the structure. Subsequently, the damping
coefficient for each damper is obtained by evenly distributing the total damping coefficient
among the dampers. The damping index is usually selected between 0.25 and 0.50 based
on practical engineering experience [39]. The final design parameters of the dampers for
this experiment are shown in Table 4. The dimensional and physical appearance of the
dampers are illustrated in Figure 5.
ings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 7 of 24

Table 4. Damping device design parameters.

Damping Coeffi-
Damping Design Design Quan- Quantity in
Damping
Types Coefficient
cient Damping Design Design Quantity in
Types Index α Stroke/mm Load/kN Quantity/Set
tity/Set Reserve/Set
C/kN·(s/mm) α
C/kN·(s/mm)α Index α Stroke/mm Load/kN Reserve/Set
I I 0.4 0.4 0.3
0.3 ±30
±30 2.252.25 4 4 1 1
II II 0.3 0.3 0.45
0.45 ±
±20 20 3.333.33 4 4 1 1

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)
Figure 5. Damping
Figuredevice appearance,
5. Damping structural dimensions,
device appearance, and physical
structural dimensions, anddiagram.
physical(a) Appear-
diagram. (a) Appearance
ance dimensions of Type I damper. (b) Appearance dimensions of Type II damper. (c) Physical
dimensions of Type I damper. (b) Appearance dimensions of Type II damper. (c) Physical photo of
photo of TypeType
I damper. (d) Physical
I damper. photo
(d) Physical of Type
photo II damper.
of Type II damper.

In accordance Inwith the stipulations

accordance with theofstipulations
“Technical specification
of “Technicalforspecification
seismic energyfordis-
seismic energy
sipation of buildings”
dissipation[40], the mechanical
of buildings” performance
[40], the mechanical test of dampers
performance testwas conducted.
of dampers was conducted.
The followingThewere the specific
following were steps: (1) Using
the specific the(1)sine
steps: excitation
Using the sinemethod, themethod,
excitation loading the loading
system of the testing
system of machine was
the testing controlled
machine wasby the inputbydisplacement
controlled u = u0sin(ωt),
the input displacement u = u0 sin(ωt),
where u0 is the designed displacement of the damper and ω = 2πf 1 is the circular frequency
 of Type I damper. (d) Physical photo of Type II damper.

In accordance with the stipulations of “Technical specification for seismic energy dis-
sipation of buildings” [40], the mechanical performance test of dampers was conducted.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 The following were the specific steps: (1) Using the sine excitation method, the loading 8 of 24
system of the testing machine was controlled by the input displacement u = u 0 sin(ωt),
where u 0 is the designed displacement of the damper and ω = 2πf 1 is the circular frequency
corresponding
corresponding to to the
the structural
structural fundamental frequency ff 11.. (2)
fundamental frequency (2) Frequency
Frequency f1 f1 was
was applied
applied
to the damper, with displacement amplitudes of 0.1u 0 , 0.2u 0 , 0.5u 0 , 0.7u 0 , 1.0u 0 , and 1.2u 0 ,
to the damper, with displacement amplitudes of 0.1u0 , 0.2u0 , 0.5u0 , 0.7u0 , 1.0u0 , and
respectively. Five continuous
1.2u0 , respectively. cycles were
Five continuous cycles completed and the force–displacement
were completed and the force–displacement hystere-
sis loops of the damper were plotted. (3) The damping coefficient
hysteresis loops of the damper were plotted. (3) The damping coefficient and damping and damping index
corresponding to the third cycle under each operating condition
index corresponding to the third cycle under each operating condition were obtained were obtained through
regression fitting, and
through regression theyand
fitting, were taken
they wereastaken
the measurement
as the measurement values.values.
FiguresFigures
6 and 76 show
and 7
one representative damper for each of the two types, namely I-4
show one representative damper for each of the two types, namely I-4 and II-1. The and II-1. The measured
parameters of all dampers
measured parameters of allare shown are
dampers in Table
shown5. in Table 5.

3.0
Ⅰ-4# F/kN Ⅱ-1# 3.5 F/kN

2.0 2.5

1.0 1.5

u/mm 0.5 u/mm

0.0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -30 -20 -10 -0.5 0 10 20 30
-1.0
-1.5

-2.0 -2.5

-3.0 -3.5
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Damping
Damping device
device hysteresis
hysteresis loops
loops measured
measured in
in practice.
practice. (a)
(a) Hysteresis
Hysteresis loops
loops of
of non-linear
non-linear
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25
viscous damper I-4. (b) Hysteresis loops of non-linear viscous damper II-1. Note: “#” in the figure
viscous damper I-4. (b) Hysteresis loops of non-linear viscous damper II-1. Note: “#” in the figure
indicates the number, such as I-4# represents No. I-4. The same meaning applies elsewhere in the
indicates the number, such as I-4# represents No. I-4. The same meaning applies elsewhere in the text.
text.

(a) (b)
Figure 7.7.The
Figure Themeasured
measuredvalues
valuesofofthe
the dampers’
dampers’ damping
damping coefficient
coefficient andand index.
index. (a) damper.
(a) I-4 I-4 damper. (b)
(b) II-1
II-1 damper.
damper.

Table 5. Damper measured parameters.

Table 5. Damper measured parameters.
Types Damping Coefficient C Types Damping Coefficient C
Types Damping Coefficient C Types Damping Coefficient C
I-1 0.52 kN/(mm/s)0.28 II-1 0.29 kN/(mm/s)0.43
I-1 0.28 II-1 0.43
I-2 0.200.52 kN/(mm/s)
kN/(mm/s) 0.38 II-2 0.210.29 kN/(mm/s)
kN/(mm/s)0.49
I-2 0.20 kN/(mm/s)0.38 II-2 0.21 kN/(mm/s)0.49
I-3 I-3 0.280.28
kN/(mm/s) 0.34
kN/(mm/s)0.34 II-3II-3 0.370.37
kN/(mm/s)0.40
kN/(mm/s)0.40
I-4 I-4 0.400.40
kN/(mm/s) 0.29
kN/(mm/s)0.29 II-4II-4 0.270.27
kN/(mm/s)0.44
kN/(mm/s)0.44
I-5 I-5 0.360.36
kN/(mm/s) 0.30 0.30
kN/(mm/s) II-5II-5 0.310.31
kN/(mm/s)0.42 0.42
kN/(mm/s)

In the
In the experimental
experimental model,
model, the
the dampers
dampers in in the
the east–west
east–west direction
direction are
are Type
Type I,I, with
with
the second floor designated as I-2 and I-4, and the first floor as I-1 and I-5. The
the second floor designated as I-2 and I-4, and the first floor as I-1 and I-5. The dampers dampers
in the
in the north–south
north–south direction
direction are
are Type
Type II,
II, with
with the
the second
second floor
floor designated
designated asas II-1
II-1 and
and II-3,
II-3,
and the first floor as II-4 and II-2. Figure 8 shows the arrangement of dampers at the 1/2
position within the beam span. We conducted experimental tests on the damped struc-
tures corresponding to the damper arrangement at both the 1/2 position and the 1/6 posi-
tion within the beam span.
 I-3 0.28 kN/(mm/s)0.34 II-3 0.37 kN/(mm/s)0.40
I-4 0.40 kN/(mm/s)0.29 II-4 0.27 kN/(mm/s)0.44
I-5 0.36 kN/(mm/s)0.30 II-5 0.31 kN/(mm/s)0.42

Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 In the experimental model, the dampers in the east–west direction are Type I,9 with of 24
the second floor designated as I-2 and I-4, and the first floor as I-1 and I-5. The dampers
in the north–south direction are Type II, with the second floor designated as II-1 and II-3,
and thefirst
and the firstfloor
flooras
asII-4
II-4and
andII-2.
II-2.Figure
Figure88shows
showsthethearrangement
arrangementofofdampers
dampersatatthe
the1/2
1/2
position within the beam span. We conducted experimental tests on the damped
position within the beam span. We conducted experimental tests on the damped structures struc-
tures corresponding
corresponding to the to the damper
damper arrangement
arrangement atthe
at both both theposition
1/2 1/2 position and1/6
and the the position
1/6 posi-
tion within
within the beam
the beam span.span.

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 25

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Damping
Dampingdevice
devicearrangement
arrangementposition.
position.(a)(a)
The first
The layer
first of dampers
layer of dampers is positioned at 1/2
is positioned at
span. (b) The second layer of dampers is positioned at 1/2 span. (c) The first layer of dampers
1/2 span. (b) The second layer of dampers is positioned at 1/2 span. (c) The first layer of dampers
is
positioned at 1/6 span. (d) The second layer of dampers is positioned at 1/6 span. Note: The un-
is positioned at 1/6 span. (d) The second layer of dampers is positioned at 1/6 span. Note: The
marked column sections in the figure are all HW175 × 175. The dotted ellipses denote the placement
unmarked column sections in the figure are all HW175 × 175. The dotted ellipses denote the
of viscous damper.
placement of viscous damper.
2.5. Sensor
2.5. Sensor Placement
Placement
The experiment
The experiment mainly
mainly considered
considered two
two aspects:
aspects: the
the input of seismic
input of seismic excitation
excitation and
and
the output
the output of
of aa structural
structural response.
response. In
In this
this experiment,
experiment, control
control was
was achieved
achieved by
by inputting
inputting
iteratively converged displacements into the seismic simulation shaking table, while data
collection was
wasperformed
performedusing
usingacceleration
accelerationsensors andand
sensors displacement
displacementsensors for the
sensors forout-
the
put. The acceleration sensors were used to collect the acceleration values of the table
output. The acceleration sensors were used to collect the acceleration values of the table and
the floors. On the shaking table surface, one was arranged in the X-direction and another
was arranged in the Y-direction. At the position of the ground beam layer, one was ar-
ranged in the X-direction and another was arranged in the Y-direction. In the first and
second layers of the structure, there were two arrangements in the X-direction and one
arrangement in the Y-direction. Therefore, a total of ten acceleration sensors were ar-
 Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 10 of 24

and the floors. On the shaking table surface, one was arranged in the X-direction and
another was arranged in the Y-direction. At the position of the ground beam layer, one
was arranged in the X-direction and another was arranged in the Y-direction. In the
first and second layers of the structure, there were two arrangements in the X-direction
and one arrangement in the Y-direction. Therefore, a total of ten acceleration sensors
were arranged according to the positions shown in Figure 9a. The primary purpose of
arranging displacement sensors was to collect the displacement of the dampers and obtain
the displacement time-history curves of the dampers under seismic action, and then plot
the hysteresis loops together with the force time-history curves of the dampers. Secondly,
the floor displacement of the structure was measured. Two displacement sensors were
installed on each floor to measure the inter-story displacements, with one installed in the
X-direction and the other in the Y-direction. The top pin of the sensor was placed on the
outer surface of the cantilever square steel column. Displacement sensors for measuring
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 25 a
damper displacement were installed on both the southern and western floors. Therefore,
total of eight displacement sensors were arranged, as shown in Figure 9b.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9. 9.The
Theplacement
placement ofofdisplacement
displacement and
andacceleration
accelerationsensors.
sensors.(a)(a)
Positioning ofofacceleration
Positioning acceleration
sensors. (b) Positioning of displacement sensors. In (a), “X1” represents the first acceleration sensor
sensors. (b) Positioning of displacement sensors. In (a), “X1” represents the first acceleration sensor
in the X-direction, “Y1” represents the first acceleration sensor in the Y-direction, and so on. In (b),
in the X-direction, “Y1” represents the first acceleration sensor in the Y-direction, and so on. In (b),
“1#” denotes the position of the first displacement sensor, and the numerical value within parenthe-
“1#”
ses denotesthe
indicates thefloor
position
whereof the
the first displacement
displacement sensor,
sensor and theThe
is located. numerical value within
cantilevered squareparentheses
steel col-
indicates
umn is usedtheto floor where
support thethe
topdisplacement sensor is located.
pin of the displacement The cantilevered square steel column is
sensors.
used to support the top pin of the displacement sensors.
2.6. Experimental Loading Conditions
2.6. Experimental Loading Conditions
The experiment considered three seismic levels: frequent earthquakes, occasional
The experiment considered three seismic levels: frequent earthquakes, occasional
earthquakes, and rare earthquakes. The corresponding peak ground accelerations were
earthquakes, and rare earthquakes. The corresponding peak ground accelerations were
0.07 g, 0.20 g, and 0.40 g, respectively. According to the “Code for Seismic Design of Build-
0.07 g, 0.20 g, and 0.40 g, respectively. According to the “Code for Seismic Design of
ings” [41], two
Buildings” natural
[41], waves and
two natural oneand
waves artificial wave were
one artificial waveselected to input
were selected tointo theinto
input seis-
the
mic simulation shaking table system. The seismic wave records were standardized
seismic simulation shaking table system. The seismic wave records were standardized to to peak
values, as depicted
peak values, in Figure
as depicted in 10a. To10a.
Figure adjust
To for various
adjust seismicseismic
for various levels, these
levels,records were
these records
amplified using a scaling factor. However, the time axis of the records remained
were amplified using a scaling factor. However, the time axis of the records remained unaltered.
The information
unaltered. The derived fromderived
information the natural
fromwave recordswave
the natural is presented inpresented
records is Table 6. The time- 6.
in Table
history curves of the seismic waves and their response spectrum curves under the frequent
earthquake level are shown in Figure 10b.

0.25
1 601
oefficient α

632
0
0.2 REN
Normative response spectrum
-1
ation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
 earthquakes, and rare earthquakes. The corresponding peak ground accelerations were
0.07 g, 0.20 g, and 0.40 g, respectively. According to the “Code for Seismic Design of Build-
ings” [41], two natural waves and one artificial wave were selected to input into the seis-
mic simulation shaking table system. The seismic wave records were standardized to peak
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 values, as depicted in Figure 10a. To adjust for various seismic levels, these records were
11 of 24
amplified using a scaling factor. However, the time axis of the records remained unaltered.
The information derived from the natural wave records is presented in Table 6. The time-
The time-history
history curves of thecurves
seismicofwaves
the seismic waves
and their and their
response response
spectrum spectrum
curves curves
under the under
frequent
the frequent
earthquake earthquake
level are shown level are shown
in Figure 10b. in Figure 10b.

0.25
1 601

Earthquake influence coefficient α

632
0
0.2 REN
Normative response spectrum
-1
Peak normalization

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
1 0.15
0

-1 0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
0.05
0

-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time / s
Period (s)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure10.
10.The
Thetime-history curves
time-history and
curves response
and spectrum
response spectrumcurves
curvesofofthe
theinput seismic
input seismicwaves
wavesduring
during
the experiment. (a) Seismic wave time-history curves. (b) Response spectrum curves.
the experiment. (a) Seismic wave time-history curves. (b) Response spectrum curves.

Table 6. Basic information of natural seismic waves.

Occurrence PGA
Numbered Earthquake Name Recording Station
Time (m/s2 )
601 Imperial Valley-07 15 October 1979 USGS STATION 412 3.20
SYLMAR-COUNTY HOSPITAL
632 Northridge-05 17 January 1994 0.90
PARKING LOT

There were a total of 22 loading conditions in the experimental test, mainly con-
sidering three seismic waves, the X- and Y-axes of the structure, including the levels of
frequent earthquakes, occasional earthquakes, and rare earthquakes, as well as white noise
conditions, as shown in Table 7. The experiments were divided into three groups: the
non-damped structure without additional dampers, the damped structure with additional
dampers placed at the 1/2 position within the beam span, and the damped structure with
dampers placed at the 1/6 position within the beam span. All three groups of shaking
table tests were loaded according to the conditions in Table 7. The three sets of experiments
conducted white noise testing under the first working condition and obtained consistent
structural frequency results of 2.0 Hz in the X-direction and 1.5 Hz in the Y-direction.
This indicates that the stiffness along the strong axis (X-direction) of the H-shaped steel
column section was larger, while the stiffness along the weak axis (Y-direction) was smaller.
Furthermore, the structural frequency remained unchanged after the fourth white noise test.

Table 7. Experimental loading conditions. W1, W2, W3, and W4 represent the first, second, third, and
fourth instances of white noise, respectively. The peak ground accelerations loaded during the tests
are considered to be relatively small at 0.07 g.

Operating Condition Operating Condition

Seismic Levels Seismic Waves Direction PGA/g
Numbers Name
1 W1 the first white noise XY 0.07
2 FX-601 601 X 0.07
3 FY-601 601 Y 0.07
4 FX-632 632 X 0.07
Frequent earthquake
5 FY-632 632 Y 0.07
6 FX-REN REN X 0.07
7 FY-REN REN Y 0.07
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 12 of 24

Table 7. Cont.

Operating Condition Operating Condition

Seismic Levels Seismic Waves Direction PGA/g
Numbers Name
8 W2 the second white noise XY 0.07
9 OX-601 601 X 0.20
10 OY-601 601 Y 0.20
11 OX-632 632 X 0.20
Occasional earthquake
12 OY-632 632 Y 0.20
13 OX-REN REN X 0.20
14 OY-REN REN Y 0.20
15 W3 the third white noise XY 0.07
16 RX-601 601 X 0.40
17 RY-601 601 Y 0.40
18 RX-632 632 X 0.40
Rare earthquake
19 RY-632 632 Y 0.40
20 RX-REN REN X 0.40
21 RY-REN REN Y 0.40
22 W4 the fourth white noise XY 0.07
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 25

3. Test Results Analysis

3.1. 3.1.
Hysteresis Loops
Hysteresis ofofthe
Loops theDampers
Dampers
To facilitate thethe
To facilitate comparative
comparativestudy
studyof
ofthe
thedampers’ energydissipation
dampers’ energy dissipationeffect
effect
at at various
vari-
ous locations,
locations, their hysteresis
their hysteresis energyenergy dissipation
dissipation loops
loops were
were tested
tested andand plottedunder
plotted under frequent,
fre-
quent, occasional,
occasional, and rare and rare earthquakes.
earthquakes. The hysteresis
The hysteresis loops
loops of damper
of damper No.
No. I-4were
I-4 were plotted
plot- in
ted in the X-direction,
the X-direction, and the hysteresis
and the hysteresis loops ofloops of damper
damper No.was
No. II-1 II-1plotted
was plotted
in thein Y-direction,
the Y-
direction,
as shown as shown
in Figure 11.in Figure 11.

1.5 F/kN Ⅰ-4# 1.5 F/kN Ⅰ-4#

1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
u/mm u/mm
-1.5 -1.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(a) (b)
2.5 F/kN Ⅰ-4# 2.5 F/kN Ⅰ-4#

1.5 1.5

0.5 0.5

-0.5 -0.5

-1.5 -1.5
u/mm u/mm
-2.5 -2.5
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
(c) (d)
2.5 F/kN Ⅰ-4# 2.5 F/kN Ⅰ-4#
Figure 11. Cont.
1.5 1.5

0.5 0.5

-0.5 -0.5
 -0.5 -0.5

-1.5 -1.5
u/mm u/mm
Buildings 2024, 14,-2.5
1506 -2.5 13 of 24
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
(c) (d)
2.5 F/kN Ⅰ-4# 2.5 F/kN Ⅰ-4#

1.5 1.5

0.5 0.5

-0.5 -0.5

-1.5 -1.5
u/mm u/mm
Buildings -2.5
2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW -2.5 14 of 25
-28 -20 -12 -4 4 12 20 28 -28 -20 -12 -4 4 12 20 28
(e) (f)

1.5 F/kN Ⅱ-1# 1.5 F/kN Ⅱ-1#

1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
u/mm u/mm
-1.5 -1.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(g) (h)
2.5 F/kN Ⅱ-1# 2.5 F/kN Ⅱ-1#

1.5 1.5

0.5 0.5

-0.5 -0.5

-1.5 -1.5
u/mm u/mm
-2.5 -2.5
-10 -6 -2 2 6 10 -10 -6 -2 2 6 10
(i) (j)
3.5 F/kN Ⅱ-1# 3.5 F/kN Ⅱ-1#
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
u/mm u/mm
-3.5 -3.5
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
(k) (l)
Figure 11. Hysteresis loops of dampers under different arrangement positions and seismic levels.
Figure 11. Hysteresis
(a) Earthquake loops of encountered
is frequently dampers under at thedifferent arrangement
1/2 position positions
in the X-direction. (b) and seismicislevels.
Earthquake
frequently encountered
(a) Earthquake is frequently at the 1/6 position at
encountered theX-direction.
in the 1/2 position(c) Earthquake is occasionally
in the X-direction. encoun-
(b) Earthquake is
tered atencountered
frequently the 1/2 position
at thein1/6 X-direction.
the position (d)X-direction.
in the Earthquake (c)
is occasionally
Earthquake encountered at the
is occasionally 1/6
encountered
position in the X-direction. (e) Earthquake is rarely encountered at the 1/2 position in tshe X-direc-
tion. (f) Earthquake is rarely encountered at the 1/6 position in the X-direction. (g) Earthquake is
frequently encountered at the 1/2 position in the Y-direction. (h) Earthquake is frequently encoun-
tered at the 1/6 position in the Y-direction. (i) Earthquake is occasionally encountered at the 1/2
position in the Y-direction. (j) Earthquake is occasionally encountered at the 1/6 position in the Y-
direction. (k) Earthquake is rarely encountered at the 1/2 position in the Y-direction. (l) Earthquake
is rarely encountered at the 1/6 position in the Y-direction.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 14 of 24

at the 1/2 position in the X-direction. (d) Earthquake is occasionally encountered at the 1/6 position
in the X-direction. (e) Earthquake is rarely encountered at the 1/2 position in tshe X-direction.
(f) Earthquake is rarely encountered at the 1/6 position in the X-direction. (g) Earthquake is frequently
encountered at the 1/2 position in the Y-direction. (h) Earthquake is frequently encountered at the
1/6 position in the Y-direction. (i) Earthquake is occasionally encountered at the 1/2 position in
the Y-direction. (j) Earthquake is occasionally encountered at the 1/6 position in the Y-direction.
(k) Earthquake is rarely encountered at the 1/2 position in the Y-direction. (l) Earthquake is rarely
encountered at the 1/6 position in the Y-direction.

When the damper works under seismic excitation, the degree of fullness of the hys-
teresis loops and the size of the area reflected in the force and displacement are important
indicators to measure the energy dissipation effect of the damper. By studying and compar-
ing the hysteresis loops of the I-4 damper arranged in the X-direction and the II-1 damper
arranged in the Y-direction in Figure 11, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The hysteresis loops of the dampers are uniformly full at different seismic levels,
indicating strong energy dissipation capacity. With the increase in seismic level, the
energy dissipation capacity of the dampers increases rapidly.
(2) The area of the hysteresis loops when the damper is arranged at the 1/2 position
within the beam span, i.e., the energy dissipation effect of the damper, is significantly
larger than that when the damper is arranged at the 1/6 position within the beam
span.
(3) The force and displacement of the I-4 and II-1 dampers under rare earthquakes are in
good agreement with the design parameters in Table 4.

3.2. Additional Damping Ratio

The additional damping ratio is a crucial parameter for evaluating the damping effi-
ciency of a structural system. Viscous dampers are a prime example of velocity-dependent
dampers. In accordance with the prevailing standards in China [40,41], the effective addi-
tional damping ratio provided by dampers to the structural system can be calculated using
the following formula.
n
∑ Wcj
j =1
ξd = (1)
4πWs
where ξ d represents the additional effective damping ratio provided by dampers to the
structure; Wcj is the energy dissipated by the jth damper in the structure during one cycle
of reciprocating motion with an inter-story displacement ∆u j ; n is the number of dampers;
Ws is the total strain energy of the damped structure under the expected displacement.
The structural model’s frequency remained constant throughout the initial phase,
frequent earthquakes, occasional earthquakes, and rare earthquakes. This suggests that
the structure was still in an elastic or near-elastic state. Consequently, the shaking table
experiment results can be calculated separately for additional damping ratios in the X-
and Y-directions for three seismic waves under frequent, occasional, and rare earthquake
conditions using Equation (1), as illustrated in Figure 12.
From Figure 12a, it can be observed that the stiffness of the structure in the X-direction
is higher, and its natural frequency is also higher, with a value of 2.0 Hz. The following
points can be derived:
(1) The additional damping ratio varies significantly with different locations of damper
arrangement.
(2) Regardless of whether the earthquake is frequent, occasional, or rare, the additional
damping ratio of the damper arrangement at the 1/2 position within the beam span is
significantly greater than that at the 1/6 position within the beam span. For example,
for the artificial seismic wave REN, the additional damping ratios are 19% and 11%,
  j =1
cj
(1)
ξd =
4πWs

where ξ d represents the additional effective damping ratio provided by dampers to the
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 structure; Wcj is the energy dissipated by the jth damper in the structure during one cycle 15 of 24
of reciprocating motion with an inter-story displacement Δ u j ; n is the number of damp-
ers; Ws is the total strain energy of the damped structure under the expected displace-
20% and 13%, and 13% and 11% at different seismic levels and different arrangement
ment.
positions, respectively.
The structural model’s frequency remained constant throughout the initial phase,
frequent earthquakes,trend
(3) The overall is that
occasional the additional
earthquakes, damping
and rare ratio This
earthquakes. decreases
suggests with
that increasing
the structure was still in an elastic or near-elastic state. Consequently, the shaking tableof the beam
seismic level, especially when the damper is arranged at the 1/2 position
span.
experiment For instance,
results the additional
can be calculated separatelydamping ratiosdamping
for additional of the natural
ratios inseismic
the X- wave 601
under frequent, occasional, and rare earthquake conditions are 21%,
and Y-directions for three seismic waves under frequent, occasional, and rare earthquake 17%, and 13%,
respectively.
conditions using Equation (1), as illustrated in Figure 12.

EQF EQO EQR

24
21 22
20
19
Additional damping ratio ζd/ %

20
17 17
16
13 13 13 12 13
12 12 11
12 11 11
9 9
8

0
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 601 632 REN 601 632 REN 16 of 25
Half position One-sixth position
(a)
EQF EQO EQR
27
28 26 26 26
25 26 25
24 25
23
24
Additional damping ratio ζd / %

21 21 22 22
21 21
20
20
17
16

12

0
601 632 REN 601 632 REN
Half position One-sixth posution
(b)
Figure
Figure12.12.
Comparison of theof
Comparison additional damping
the additional ratios. (a)ratios.
damping The additional
(a) The damping ratio
additional in the X- ratio in the
damping
direction. (b) The additional damping ratio in the Y-direction. EQF represents structures subjected
X-direction. (b) The additional damping ratio in the Y-direction. EQF represents structures subjected
to frequent earthquakes, EQO represents structures subjected to occasional earthquakes, and EQR
to frequent
represents earthquakes,
structures subjectedEQO represents
to rare structures
earthquakes. subjected
In the following to occasional
figures provided inearthquakes,
this article, and EQR
represents
when structures
using these subjected tothey
three abbreviations, rareall
earthquakes.
have the same Inmeaning.
the following figures provided in this article,
when using these three abbreviations, they all have the same meaning.
From Figure 12a, it can be observed that the stiffness of the structure in the X-direc-
tion is higher, and its12b,
From Figure natural frequency
it can is alsothat
be observed higher,
thewith a value
stiffness of 2.0
of the Hz. The in
structure follow-
the Y-direction
ing points can be derived:
is relatively low, and the natural frequency is also low, with a value of 1.5 Hz. The
(1)difference
The additional damping
in additional ratio varies
damping significantly
ratio with different
with different damper locations
arrangementof damper
positions is not
arrangement.
as significant as in the X-direction for different seismic levels.
(2) Regardless of whether
In conclusion, it canthebe
earthquake
inferred is frequent,
that occasional,damping
the additional or rare, the additional
ratio provided by the
damping ratio of the damper arrangement at the 1/2 position within the
damper to the structure is closely related to the lateral stiffness of the structure beam span under
is significantly greater than that at the 1/6 position within the beam span. For exam-
different arrangement positions and seismic levels. The larger the lateral stiffness, the
ple, for the artificial seismic wave REN, the additional damping ratios are 19% and
greater the difference and regularity in the additional damping ratio, as in the X-direction.
11%, 20% and 13%, and 13% and 11% at different seismic levels and different arrange-
ment positions, respectively.
(3) The overall trend is that the additional damping ratio decreases with increasing seis-
mic level, especially when the damper is arranged at the 1/2 position of the beam
span. For instance, the additional damping ratios of the natural seismic wave 601
under frequent, occasional, and rare earthquake conditions are 21%, 17%, and 13%,
respectively.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 16 of 24

Conversely, the smaller the lateral stiffness, the smaller the difference and less obvious the
regularity in the additional damping ratio, as in the Y-direction.

3.3. Inter-Story Displacement Utilization Rate

In damped structures, the displacement of a damper under seismic excitation is an
important indicator of their energy dissipation, which can be clearly observed from the
hysteresis loops of dampers. By testing the displacement of floors and the corresponding
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
damper displacement under seismic action, the ratio between17the of 25
two can be calculated
under frequent earthquakes, occasional earthquakes, and rare earthquakes. The definition
of the inter-story displacement utilization rate is as follows: the ratio between the displace-
hysteresis loops of dampers. By testing the displacement of floors and the corresponding
ment
damper of a damper
displacement and
under the floor
seismic action,displacement
the ratio betweenofthe
thetwo
floor
canwhere the damper is located in a
be calculated
damped
under frequent structure.
earthquakes,The calculation
occasional expression
earthquakes, is as follows:
and rare earthquakes. The definition
of the inter-story displacement utilization rate is as follows: the ratio between the displace-
ment of a damper and the floor displacement of the floor u where the damper is located in
η = d × 100%
a damped structure. The calculation expression is as follows:
(2)
u
u
where η represents the inter-story η = d ×displacement
100% utilization rate; u (2) represents the displace-
u
ment of the floor where the damping device is located; ud represents the displacement of
where η represents the inter-story displacement utilization rate; u represents the dis-
the damper.
placement of the floor where the damping device is located; u represents the displace- d

ment of theThe experiment investigated the inter-story displacement utilization rate under differ-
damper.
ent
The arrangements of dampers
experiment investigated for frequent,
the inter-story occasional,
displacement utilizationand
rate rare
underearthquakes.
dif- This newly
proposed
ferent evaluation
arrangements index,
of dampers which can
for frequent, effectively
occasional, measure
and rare the energy
earthquakes. This dissipation effect of
newly proposedcan
dampers, evaluation
be usedindex, which can
to assess the effectively
dampingmeasure the energy
efficiency dissipation
of damped structure. The inter-story
effect of dampers, can be used to assess the damping efficiency of damped structure. The
displacement utilization rate obtained by calculation according to Equation (2) is shown in
inter-story displacement utilization rate obtained by calculation according to Equation (2)
Figure 13.
is shown in Figure 13.

0.90 X-2 X-1 Y-2 Y-1

0.9 0.83 0.83 0.85
0.79 0.76
Inter-story displacement utilization rate η

0.75 0.76 0.76 0.74

0.76 0.75
0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67
0.63
0.57 0.560.54
0.6
0.50
0.48 0.49

0.3

0.0
601 632 REN 601 632 REN
Half position One-sixth position
(a)
X-2 X-1 Y-2 Y-1
1.2
1.02 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.00
Inter-story displacement utilization rate η

0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.95

0.88 0.91
0.88 0.87 0.88
0.9 0.82 0.84 0.83 0.82
0.78 0.76 0.78
0.73 0.74

0.6

0.3

0.0
601 632 REN 601 632 REN
Half position One-sixth position
(b)

Figure 13. Cont.

Buildings
Buildings 2024, 14, x14,
2024, FOR1506
PEER REVIEW 18 of 25 17 of 24

X-2 X-1 Y-2 Y-1

1.2 1.10 1.10
1.06
1.06 1.03 1.06 1.061.051.05

Inter-story displacement utilization rate η

1.00 0.99 0.97
0.97 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.930.930.92
0.89 0.87
0.9 0.860.87 0.85

0.6

0.3

0.0
601 632 REN 601 632 REN
Half position One-sixth position
(c)
Figure 13. Comparison
Figure of the inter-story
13. Comparison displacement
of the utilization
inter-story rate. (a) The
displacement inter-story
utilization displace-
rate. (a) The inter-story displace-
ment utilization rate under frequent earthquakes. (b) The inter-story displacement utilization rate
ment utilization rate under frequent earthquakes. (b) The inter-story
under occasional earthquakes. (c) The inter-story displacement utilization rate under rare earth-displacement utilization rate
quakes.under occasional
X-2 represents the earthquakes. (c) The inter-story
inter-story displacement displacement
utilization rate utilization
of the second floor in therate
X- under rare earthquakes.
direction. The meanings of other labels on the diagrams are similar.
X-2 represents the inter-story displacement utilization rate of the second floor in the X-direction. The
meanings
From of other
Figure 13, labels on
the following the
can bediagrams
observed: are similar.
(1) There is a significant difference in the inter-story displacement utilization rate for
From Figure 13, the following can be observed:
different damper placement positions, regardless of whether it is subjected to fre-
(1) occasional,
quent, There is or a significant
rare earthquakes.difference in the displacement
The inter-story inter-story utilization
displacement
rate utilization rate for
is significantly higher
different when the
damper dampers are
placement placed at regardless
positions, the 1/2 position within the it is subjected to fre-
of whether
beam span compared to the 1/6 position within the beam span.
quent, occasional, or rare earthquakes. The inter-story displacement utilization rate is
(2) With the increase in seismic levels, the inter-story displacement utilization rate also
significantly higher when the dampers are placed at the 1/2 position within the beam
noticeably increases. For the 1/2 position, the inter-story displacement utilization rate
span0.74
ranges from compared
to 0.90 fortofrequent
the 1/6earthquakes,
position within
from 0.87thetobeam span.
1.04 for occasional
(2) Withand
earthquakes, thefrom
increase
0.93 to in seismic
1.10 for rare levels, the inter-story displacement utilization rate also
earthquakes.
(3) It can also be observed
noticeably from the figure
increases. that 1/2
For the the inter-story
position,displacement utilization
the inter-story displacement utilization
rate of the second
rate floorfrom
ranges is greater
0.74 than thatfor
to 0.90 of the first floor.
frequent earthquakes, from 0.87 to 1.04 for occasional
earthquakes, and from 0.93 to 1.10 for rare earthquakes.
3.4. Reduction Rate of Vertex Displacement
(3) It can also be observed from the figure that the inter-story displacement utilization
In comparison to non-damped structures, damped structures with additional viscous
rate ofa reduced
dampers exhibited the second floor is greater
displacement responsethan that
for each of the
floor. Thisfirst floor.
led to a signifi-
cant decrease in the vertex displacement of the structure, thereby enhancing its seismic
3.4. Reduction
performance. Rate of
Consequently, theVertex Displacement
reduction rate of the vertex displacement served as an
important indicator to measure the damping
In comparison to non-damped efficiency of the structure.
structures, dampedThis is calculated
structures with additional viscous
by comparing the vertex displacement of a damped structure to that of a non-damped
dampers exhibited a reduced displacement response for each floor. This led to a signifi-
structure and is expressed as a ratio. The calculation formula for this ratio is as follows:
cant decrease in the vertex displacement of the structure, thereby enhancing its seismic
u0 − u
performance. Consequently, μu = the reduction
×100% rate of the vertex displacement
(3) served as an
u0
important indicator to measure the damping efficiency of the structure. This is calculated
where byμu comparing
represents thethe vertex
reduction displacement
rate of a damped
of the vertex displacement, u0 represents
structure theto that of a non-damped
ver-
structure in
tex displacement and
theisnon-damped
expressed structure,
as a ratio.and Theu calculation formula
represents the for this ratio is as follows:
vertex displace-
ment in the damped structure.
u0 − u
µu = × 100% (3)
u0

where µu represents the reduction rate of the vertex displacement, u0 represents the vertex
displacement in the non-damped structure, and u represents the vertex displacement in the
damped structure.
The reduction rate of the vertex displacement and the averages of three seismic
waves in both the X- and Y-directions for structures under frequent, occasional, and rare
earthquakes were calculated using Equation (3), as illustrated in Figure 14. Figure 14c
presents the average vertex displacements of three seismic waves corresponding to the
structure’s X- and Y-directions with dampers arranged at the 1/2 and 1/6 positions within
the beam span, respectively. When these values were compared with the average vertex
 is significantly smaller than that of the non-damped structure. For example, under
rare earthquakes, the vertex displacement in the X-direction for the damped and non-
damped structures is 50-plus mm and 92 mm, respectively, while in the Y-direction,
it is 50-plus mm and 84 mm, respectively. This indicates that the damped structure
with additional viscous dampers has excellent damping efficiency. Moreover, the
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 18 of 24
vertex displacement when the dampers are arranged at the 1/2 position within the
beam span is smaller than that when the dampers are arranged at the 1/6 position,
indicating that the closer the damper is to the middle of the beam span, the better the
damping efficiency
displacement of the structure.
of non-damped structures, the comparison results revealed a distinct contrast.

EQF-X EQF-Y EQO-X EQO-Y EQR-X EQR-Y

0.75 0.72

Reduction rate of vertex displacement μu

0.65 0.66 0.63
0.59
0.60 0.55 0.54 0.53
0.50 0.50 0.52 0.51
0.46 0.48
0.43
0.45 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40
0… 0.34 0.34
0.31
0.30 0.26

0.15

0.00
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 25
601 632 REN Average
Half position
(a)
EQF-X EQF-Y EQO-X EQO-Y EQR-X EQR-Y
0.75
Reduction rate of vertex displacement μu

0.64 0.61
0.60
0.52
0.50
0.47 0.48
0.45 0.43
0.45 0.39 0.39 0.37
0.36 0.38
0.35 0.35
0.31 0.33 0.32
0.28 0.30 0.29 0.30
0.30 0.25
0.17
0.15

0.00
601 632 REN Average
One-sixth position
(b)
Half position One-sixth position Non-damping
96 92
84
Average value of vertex displacement (mm)

64 57
55
52 50
47 47

32 28
23 25 27
18 17
9 9 11
7

0
EQF-X EQF-Y EQO-X EQO-Y EQR-X EQR-Y
(c)
Figure
Figure14.14.
Comparison
Comparisonof vertex displacement
of vertex reduction
displacement rate. (a) The
reduction reduction
rate. (a) The rate of vertex
reduction dis-of vertex dis-
rate
placement at 1/2 position under different seismic levels. (b) The reduction rate of vertex displace-
placement at 1/2 position under different seismic levels. (b) The reduction rate of vertex displacement
ment at 1/6 position under different seismic levels. (c) The average value of vertex displacement at
at 1/6 position
different positionsunder
under different seismiclevels.
different seismic levels. (c) The average value of vertex displacement at different
positions under different seismic levels.
3.5. Reduction Rate of Base Shear
The reduction rate of the base shear is a crucial indicator for assessing the damping
efficiency of a structure. When a damped structure is equipped with additional viscous
dampers, its response to seismic excitation decreases, leading to a significant reduction in
the base shear of the structure and improving its seismic performance. The reduction rate
of the base shear is calculated by dividing the reduction in the base shear of the damped
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 19 of 24

As can be seen from Figure 14, the following is evident:

(1) The reduction rate of the vertex displacement in the damped structure is significant.
When the dampers are arranged at the 1/2 position within the beam span, the re-
duction rates of the vertex displacement for the three waves range from 0.26 to 0.72,
while when the dampers are arranged at the 1/6 position within the beam span, the
reduction rates of the vertex displacement for the three waves range from 0.17 to 0.64.
The average reduction rates of the vertex displacement for the three seismic waves
range from 0.40 to 0.63 and 0.35 to 0.48, respectively.
(2) The reduction rate of the vertex displacement under the action of the artificial wave
REN is significantly higher than that of the other two natural waves, 601 and 632.
(3) From Figure 14c, it can be seen that the vertex displacement of the damped structure
is significantly smaller than that of the non-damped structure. For example, under
rare earthquakes, the vertex displacement in the X-direction for the damped and non-
damped structures is 50-plus mm and 92 mm, respectively, while in the Y-direction,
it is 50-plus mm and 84 mm, respectively. This indicates that the damped structure
with additional viscous dampers has excellent damping efficiency. Moreover, the
vertex displacement when the dampers are arranged at the 1/2 position within the
beam span is smaller than that when the dampers are arranged at the 1/6 position,
indicating that the closer the damper is to the middle of the beam span, the better the
damping efficiency of the structure.

3.5. Reduction Rate of Base Shear

The reduction rate of the base shear is a crucial indicator for assessing the damping
efficiency of a structure. When a damped structure is equipped with additional viscous
dampers, its response to seismic excitation decreases, leading to a significant reduction in
the base shear of the structure and improving its seismic performance. The reduction rate
of the base shear is calculated by dividing the reduction in the base shear of the damped
structure by that of the non-damped structure. The formula for calculating this rate is as
follows:
V0 − V
µV = × 100% (4)
V0
In the equation, µV represents the base shear reduction rate, V0 represents the base
shear of the non-damped structure, and V represents the base shear of the damped structure.
The reduction rate of the base shear and the averages of three seismic waves corre-
sponding to the structure’s X- and Y-directions under frequent earthquakes, occasional
earthquakes, and rare earthquakes were calculated, according to Equation (4), as shown
in Figure 15. Figure 15c presents the average base shear of the three seismic waves corre-
sponding to the structure’s X- and Y-directions when dampers were arranged at the 1/2
and 1/6 positions within the beam span, respectively. When these values were compared
with the average base shear of non-damped structures, the comparison results revealed a
distinct contrast.
The following conclusions can be drawn from Figure 15:
(1) The reduction rate of the base shear in the damped structure is significant. When
dampers are arranged at the 1/2 position within the beam span, the reduction rates
of the base shear for the three waves range from 0.16 to 0.46. When dampers are
arranged at the 1/6 position within the beam span, the reduction rates of the base
shear for the three waves range from 0.12 to 0.41. The average reduction rates of the
base shear for the three waves are between 0.28 and 0.34, and between 0.22 and 0.27,
respectively.
(2) The reduction rate of the base shear under the artificial wave REN is significantly
higher than that of the other two natural waves, 601 and 632.
(3) From Figure 15c, it can be observed that the base shear of the damped structure is
significantly smaller than that of the non-damped structure. For example, under
rare earthquake conditions, the base shear in the X-direction for the damped and
 In the equation, μV represents the base shear reduction rate, V 0 represents the base
shear of the non-damped structure, and V represents the base shear of the damped struc-
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 ture. 20 of 24
The reduction rate of the base shear and the averages of three seismic waves corre-
sponding to the structure’s X- and Y-directions under frequent earthquakes, occasional
earthquakes,
non-damped andstructures
rare earthquakes were
are 30-plus kNcalculated,
and 46 kN,according
respectively, to and
Equation
in the (4), as shown
Y-direction,
in Figure 15. Figure 15c presents the average base shear of the three seismic
they are 20-plus kN and 30 kN, respectively. This indicates that the damped structurewaves corre-
sponding to the structure’s
with additional X- and Y-directions
viscous dampers has excellentwhen dampers
damping wereMoreover,
efficiency. arranged the at the
base 1/2
andshear
1/6 positions within are
when dampers the arranged
beam span, respectively.
at the When these
1/2 span position valuesthan
is smaller werethatcompared
when
withdampers
the average base shear
are arranged at of
thenon-damped structures,
1/6 span position, the comparison
indicating results
that the closer therevealed
damper a
distinct
is to contrast.
the middle of the beam span, the better the damping efficiency of the structure.

EQF-X EQF-Y EQO-X EQO-Y EQR-X EQR-Y

0.50 0.46
0.44
0.43
Reduction rate of base shear μV

0.40 0.38
0.36
0.34 0.34
0.33 0.32 0.32
0.31 0.30 0.30
0.30 0.29 0.28
0.24 0.25 0.250.25 0.25
0.22 0.20
0.19
0.20
0.16

0.10

0.00
601 632 REN Average
Half position
(a)
EQF-X EQF-Y EQO-X EQO-Y EQR-X EQR-Y
0.50

0.41
Reduction rate of base shear μV

0.40 0.37 0.38

0.33
0.32
0.30
0.30 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.27
0.24 0.27
0.22 0.22 0.24
0.20 0.20
0.20 0.17
0.16 0.16
0.13 0.13
0.12
0.10

0.00
601 632 REN Average
One-sixth position
(b)
Figure 15. Cont.
 Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 25
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 21 of 24

Half position One-sixth position Non-damping

48 46

Average vavlue of base shear (kN)

33
31
32 30

24
22 22
18 19
17
16 14 14
12
10
7 8 8 9

0
EQF-X EQF-Y EQO-X EQO-Y EQR-X EQR-Y
(c)
Figure15.
Figure 15. Comparison
Comparison of ofbase
baseshear
shearreduction rate.
reduction (a) The
rate. reduction
(a) The rate of
reduction base
rate of shear at 1/2 position
base shear at 1/2
under different seismic levels. (b) The reduction rate of base shear at 1/6 position under
position under different seismic levels. (b) The reduction rate of base shear at 1/6 position different seis-
under
mic levels. (c) The average value of base shear at different positions under different seismic levels.
different seismic levels. (c) The average value of base shear at different positions under different
seismic levels.
The following conclusions can be drawn from Figure 15:
(1) From Figures 14rate
The reduction andof 15,the
it can
basebeshear
observed
in the that the reduction
damped structure rate
is of the base shear
significant. When
in thedampers
dampedare structure
arranged is significantly
at the 1/2 positionsmaller thanthe
within thebeam
reduction
span, rate of the vertex
the reduction rates
displacement. This is an important principle that designers need to
of the base shear for the three waves range from 0.16 to 0.46. When dampers are ar- pay attention to when
conducting
ranged theat damping design.within the beam span, the reduction rates of the base shear
the 1/6 position
for the three waves range from 0.12 to 0.41. The average reduction rates of the base
4. Conclusions
shear for the three waves are between 0.28 and 0.34, and between 0.22 and 0.27, re-
This study utilized a two-story steel structure for shaking table testing, examining the
spectively.
response of both non-damped
(2) The reduction rate of theand base damped structures
shear under the to seismicwave
artificial excitation.
REN isAdditionally,
significantly
the impact of varying the position of viscous dampers
higher than that of the other two natural waves, 601 and 632. on the damping efficiency of damped
structures was explored. The key findings are summarized below.
(3) From Figure 15c, it can be observed that the base shear of the damped structure is
(1) Thesignificantly
response smaller
of damped thanstructures
that of theand non-damped
non-damped structure.
structuresForunder
example, underseis-
different rare
earthquake conditions, the base shear in the X-direction
mic levels is significantly different. The vertex displacement was reduced from for the damped and non-
damped
17–18 mmstructures
to 7–11 mm arefor30-plus
frequentkN and 46 kN, respectively,
earthquakes, from 47 mmand in the mm
to 23–28 Y-direction,
for oc-
they are earthquakes,
casional 20-plus kN and and30from
kN, respectively.
84–92 mm toThis indicates
50–57 mm for that theearthquakes.
rare damped structure
The
withshear
base additional viscous from
was reduced dampers 10–12haskNexcellent
to 7–9 kN damping efficiency.
for frequent Moreover,
earthquakes, fromthe
base shear
19–24 kN to when
14–18 dampers are arranged
kN for occasional at the 1/2
earthquakes, and span
fromposition
30–46 kN is smaller
to 22–31than
kN that
for
when
rare dampers are
earthquakes. Thisarranged at the 1/6 span
fully demonstrated position,
that the damped indicating
structures that theadditional
with closer the
damperdampers
viscous is to thehad middle
goodofdamping
the beameffects.
span, the better the damping efficiency of the
structure.
(2) From the hysteresis loops of the damper, it can be seen that the viscous damper
added to the structure
From Figures 14 and 15, effectively
it can be dissipated
observedseismic
that theenergy.
reductionThisrate
further significantly
of the base shear
reduced the seismic response of the structure. Compared with
in the damped structure is significantly smaller than the reduction rate of the vertex dis- the non-damped
structures,
placement. Thisthe average
is an reduction
important ratesthat
principle of the vertex need
designers displacement and basetoshear
to pay attention when
for the three waves
conducting the damping design. of damped structures were 0.35–0.63 and 0.22–0.34, respectively.
This fully demonstrated that the damped structures using viscous dampers exhibited
excellent damping efficiency.
4. Conclusions
(3) The arrangement position of dampers within the beam span significantly affected
This study utilized a two-story steel structure for shaking table testing, examining
the damping efficiency of the damped structure. Overall, the damping effect was
the response of both non-damped and damped structures to seismic excitation. Addition-
significantly better when the dampers were placed at the 1/2 position of the beam
ally,span
the impact
compared of varying
to the the
1/6position
position.ofTheviscous dampers
hysteresis on the
loops damping efficiency
representing the energyof
damped structures was explored. The key findings are summarized
dissipation of the dampers illustrated this phenomenon. As for the additional damp- below.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 22 of 24

ing ratio of the structures, taking the artificial wave REN in the X-direction as an
example, they were 19% and 11% for frequent earthquakes, 20% and 13% for occa-
sional earthquakes, and 13% and 11% for rare earthquakes under the two placement
positions, respectively. The inter-story displacement utilization rate was 0.74–0.90 and
0.48–0.69, 0.87–1.04 and 0.73–0.95, and 0.93–1.10 and 0.85–1.0 for the two positions
under frequent, occasional, and rare earthquakes, respectively. The average reduction
rate of the vertex displacement for the three waves was 0.40–0.63 and 0.35–0.48 for
the two placement positions, respectively. The average reduction rate of the base
shear for the three waves was 0.28–0.34 and 0.22–0.27 for the two placement positions,
respectively.
(4) Introducing a novel evaluation metric known as the inter-story displacement utiliza-
tion rate, which is primarily utilized to gauge the displacement utilization of dampers
in damped structures based on the floor’s displacement where the damper is located.
This study revealed that the closer the damper was positioned to the center of the
beam span, the higher the inter-story displacement utilization rate. Furthermore, as
seismic levels increased, so did the inter-story displacement utilization rate. When a
centrally placed damper experienced significant seismic activity, the inter-story dis-
placement utilization rate approached 1.0, indicating that the damper’s displacement
can reach a level comparable to that of the floor.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.L., L.Z., B.S. and W.P.; methodology, X.L.; software, X.L.;
validation, X.L., L.Z. and B.S.; formal analysis, X.L.; investigation, L.Z.; resources, X.L.; data curation,
X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.L.; writing—review and editing, X.L.; visualization, L.Z.;
supervision, B.S.; project administration, X.L.; funding acquisition, X.L. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by Yunnan Provincial Basic Research Special Project (By X.L.,
Grant No. 202101AU070059), Research Project of Introducing Talents in Kunming University (By
X.L., Grant No. XJ20210006) and China-Pakistan Belt and Rosad Joint Laboratory on Smart Disaster
Prevention of Major Infrastructures (By B.S., Grant No. 2022CPBRJL-10).
Data Availability Statement: All the data utilized in the research has been fully presented in the
paper. No additional data has been employed.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Baifeng Sun was employed by the company Yunnan Design Institute
Group Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Lin, W.H.; Chopra, A.K. Earthquake response of elastic SDF systems with nonlinear fluid viscous dampers. Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 2002, 31, 1623–1642. [CrossRef]
2. Soong, T.T.; Spencer, B.F., Jr. Supplemental energy dissipation: State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Eng. Struct. 2002, 24,
243–259. [CrossRef]
3. Titirla, M.D. A state-of-the-art review of passive energy dissipation systems in steel braces. Buildings 2023, 13, 851. [CrossRef]
4. Constantinou, M.C.; Symans, M.D. Experimental study of seismic response of buildings with supplemental fluid dampers. Struct.
Design Tall Build. 1993, 2, 93–132. [CrossRef]
5. Vaiana, N.; Sessa, S.; Marmo, F.; Rosati, L. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of hysteretic mechanical systems by combining a novel
rate-independent model and an explicit time integration method. Nonlinear Dyn. 2019, 98, 2879–2901. [CrossRef]
6. Vaiana, N.; Napolitano, C.; Rosati, L. Some recent advances on the modeling of the hysteretic behavior of rate-independent
passive energy dissipation devices. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, 28–30 June 2021; pp. 2435–2445.
7. Zoccolini, L.; Bruschi, E.; Cattaneo, S.; Quaglini, V. Current trends in fluid viscous dampers with semi-active and adaptive
behavior. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10358. [CrossRef]
8. Lu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, X. Nonlinear dissipative devices in structural vibration control: A review. J. Sound Vib. 2018, 423,
18–49. [CrossRef]
9. Lavan, O. On the efficiency of viscous dampers in reducing various seismic responses of wall structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
2012, 41, 1673–1692. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 23 of 24

10. Hwang, J.S.; Huang, Y.N.; Yi, S.L.; Song, Y.H. Design formulations for supplemental viscous dampers to building structures. J.
Struct. Eng. 2008, 134, 22–31. [CrossRef]
11. Xie, Y.; Zhang, J.; Xi, W. Effectiveness evaluation and optimal design of nonlinear viscous dampers for inelastic structures under
pulse-type ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2018, 47, 2802–2820. [CrossRef]
12. Gherbi, A.; Belgasmia, M. A simplified design strategy of nonlinear fluid viscous dampers for MDOF structures. Iran. J. Sci.
Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2022, 46, 857–864. [CrossRef]
13. Diotallevi, P.P.; Landi, L.; Dellavalle, A. A methodology for the direct assessment of the damping ratio of structures equipped
with nonlinear viscous dampers. J. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 16, 350–373. [CrossRef]
14. Xu, W.; Du, D.; Wang, S.; Li, W. A new method to calculate additional damping ratio considering the effect of excitation frequency.
Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 3172982. [CrossRef]
15. Occhiuzzi, A. Additional viscous dampers for civil structures: Analysis of design methods based on effective evaluation of modal
damping ratios. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 1093–1101. [CrossRef]
16. Rama, R.K.; Ansu, M.; Iyer, N.R. A methodology of design for seismic performance enhancement of buildings using viscous fluid
dampers. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014, 21, 342–355. [CrossRef]
17. Domenico, D.D.; Hajirasouliha, I. Multi-level performance-based design optimisation of steel frames with nonlinear viscous
dampers. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 19, 5015–5049. [CrossRef]
18. Ding, J.; Wang, S.; Wu, H. Seismic performance analysis of viscous damping outrigger in super high-rise buildings. Struct. Design
Tall Spec. Build. 2018, 27, e1486. [CrossRef]
19. Dargush, G.F.; Sant, R.S. Evolutionary aseismic design and retrofit of structures with passive energy dissipation. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 2005, 34, 1601–1626. [CrossRef]
20. Lavan, O.; Amir, O. Simultaneous topology and sizing optimization of viscous dampers in seismic retrofitting of 3D irregular
frame structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2014, 43, 1325–1342. [CrossRef]
21. Tubaldi, E.; Ragni, L.; Dall’Asta, A. Probabilistic seismic response assessment of linear systems equipped with nonlinear viscous
dampers. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2015, 44, 101–120. [CrossRef]
22. Tubaldi, E.; Kougioumtzoglou, I.A. Nonstationary stochastic response of structural systems equipped with nonlinear viscous
dampers under seismic excitation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2015, 44, 121–138. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, Y.; Xu, W.; Du, D.; Wang, S. Stochastic optimization of dissipation structures based on Lyapunov differential equations
and the full stress design method. Buildings 2023, 13, 665. [CrossRef]
24. Su, C.; Li, B.; Chen, T.; Dai, X. Stochastic optimal design of nonlinear viscous dampers for large-scale structures subjected to
non-stationary seismic excitations based on dimension-reduced explicit method. Eng. Struct. 2018, 175, 217–230. [CrossRef]
25. Rodolfo, J.T.G.; Yeudy, F.V.A.; Ramon, G.D. Probabilistic estimation of the dynamic response of high-rise buildings via transfer
functions. Eng. Struct. 2024, 302, 117299.
26. Wang, Z.; Zhao, J.; Chen, X.; Liu, S.; Ma, B. Experimental investigation of seismic response of precast concrete panels with
castellated keys support pillar connections under in-plane cyclic loading. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 21764. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Chang, K.C.; Lin, Y.Y.; Chen, C.Y. Shaking table study on displacement-based design for seismic retrofit of existing buildings
using nonlinear viscous dampers. J. Struct. Eng. 2008, 134, 671–681. [CrossRef]
28. Bogdanovic, A.; Rakicevic, Z.; Noroozinejad Farsangi, E. Shake table tests and numerical investigation of a resilient damping
device for seismic response control of building structures. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2019, 26, e2443. [CrossRef]
29. Singh, M.P.; Moreschi, L.M. Optimal seismic response control with dampers. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2001, 30, 553–572.
[CrossRef]
30. Aguirre, J.J.; Almazan, J.L.; Paul, C.J. Optimal control of linear and nonlinear asymmetric structures by means of passive energy
dampers. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2013, 42, 377–395. [CrossRef]
31. Parcianello, E.; Chisari, C.; Amadio, C. Optimal design of nonlinear viscous dampers for frame structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2017, 100, 257–260. [CrossRef]
32. Whittle, J.K.; Williams, M.S.; Karavasilis, T.L.; Blakeborough, A. A comparison of viscous damper placement methods for
improving seismic building design. J. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 16, 540–560. [CrossRef]
33. Lopez, G.D. A simple method for the design of optimal damper configurations in MDOF structures. Earthq. Spectra. 2001, 17,
387–398.
34. Takewaki, I. Optimal damper placement for minimum transfer functions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1997, 26, 1113–1124. [CrossRef]
35. Takewaki, I. Optimal damper placement for critical excitation. Probabilist. Eng. Mech. 2000, 15, 317–325. [CrossRef]
36. Lin, T.K.; Hwang, J.S.; Chen, K.H. Optimal distribution of damping coefficients for viscous dampers in buildings. Int. J. Struct.
Stab. Dyn. 2017, 17, 1750054. [CrossRef]
37. Aydin, E.; Boduroglu, M.H.; Guney, D. Optimal damper distribution for seismic rehabilitation of planar building structures. Eng.
Struct. 2007, 29, 176–185. [CrossRef]
38. GB/T 228.1-2021; Chinese Standard, Metallic Materials-Tensile Testing–Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature. Chinese
Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2021.
39. Lan, X.; Pan, W.; Zhang, L.; Yu, W.; Wu, K. Application and research of viscous fluid damper in frame structure. Sichuan Build. Sci.
2022, 48, 10–17. (In Chinese)
Buildings 2024, 14, 1506 24 of 24

40. JGJ 297-2013; Chinese Standard, Technical Specification for Seismic Energy Dissipation of Buildings. Chinese Architecture and
Building Press: Beijing, China, 2013.
41. GB 50011-2016; Chinese Standard, Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. Chinese Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China,
2016.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.