International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1741–1753 | Cite as

Development and Cyclic Behavior of U-Shaped Steel Dampers with Perforated and Nonparallel Arm Configurations

  • Kurtulus AtaseverEmail author
  • Oguz C. Celik
  • Ercan Yuksel


Metallic dampers are sacrificial devices (fuses) that dissipate significant energy during earthquakes while protecting other parts of structures from possible damage. In addition to numerous implementation opportunities of other base isolation systems, U-shaped dampers (UD) are one of the widely investigated and used devices in practice especially in Japan. The present study focuses on enhancing seismic performance of these types of dampers by changing their geometric properties. UDs with perforated (i.e. with holes) and/or nonparallel arms are developed for this purpose. For a better comparison, the criterion of equal material volume (or mass) has been utilized. Three dimensional finite element models of the new type of UDs are formed and investigated numerically under selected displacement histories. Based on the obtained hysteretic curves; dissipated energy intensities, effective stiffness ratios, reaction forces, effective damping ratios are evaluated in this parametric study. It is found that both damper types have merits in use of seismic applications and that the selection of the damper configuration is dependent on the design specific issues.


Seismic isolation Metallic dampers Hysteretic behavior Finite element analysis 


  1. Armstrong, P. J., & Frederick, C. O. (1966). A mathematical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger effect. Central Electricity Generating Board [and] Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, Research and Development Department.Google Scholar
  2. Atasever, K., Celik, O. C., & Yuksel, E. (2017). Modelling hysteretic behaviour of U-shaped steel dampers. Ce/Papers, 1(2–3), 3239–3248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman, J. W. (2011). Seismic behavior of code designed steel plate shear walls. Engineering Structures, 33(1), 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman, J. W., Celik, O. C., & Bruneau, M. (2005). Comparing hysteretic behavior of light-gauge steel plate shear walls and braced frames. Engineering Structures, 27(3), 475–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruneau, M., Uang, C.-M., & Sabelli, R. (2011). Ductile design of steel structures (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.Google Scholar
  6. Celik, O. C., & Bruneau, M. (2011). Skewed slab-on-girder steel bridge superstructures with bidirectional-ductile end diaphragms. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 16(2), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, R. W. K., & Albermani, F. (2008). Experimental study of steel slit damper for passive energy dissipation. Engineering Structures, 30(4), 1058–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deng, K., Pan, P., Su, Y., & Xue, Y. (2015). Shape optimization of U-shaped damper for improving its bi-directional performance under cyclic loading. Engineering Structures, 93(2015), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng, K., Pan, P., & Wang, C. (2013). Development of crawler steel damper for bridges. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 85, 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ene, D., Kishiki, S., Yamada, S., Jiao, Y., Konishi, Y., Terashima, M., et al. (2015). Experimental study on the bidirectional inelastic deformation capacity of U-shaped steel dampers for seismic isolated buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 45(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jiao, Y., Kishiki, S., Ene, D., Yamada, S., Kawamura, N., & Konishi, Y. (2014). Plastic deformation capacity and hysteretic behaviour of U-shaped steel dampers for seismic isolated buildings under dynamic cylic loadings. In Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Alaska.Google Scholar
  12. Jiao, Y., Kishiki, S., Yamada, S., Ene, D., Konishi, Y., Hoashi, Y., et al. (2015). Low cyclic fatigue and hysteretic behavior of U-shaped steel dampers for seismically isolated buildings under dynamic cyclic loadings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 44(10), 1523–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jirásek, M., & Bazant, Z. (2002). Inelastic analysis of structures. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Kato, S., & Kim, Y. B. (2006). A finite element parametric study on the mechanical properties of J-shaped steel hysteresis devices. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 62(8), 802–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kato, S., Kim, Y.-B., Nakazawa, S., & Ohya, T. (2005). Simulation of the cyclic behavior of J-shaped steel hysteresis devices and study on the efficiency for reducing earthquake responses of space structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 61(10), 1457–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kawamura, N., Konishi, Y., Terashima, M., Jiao, Y., Ene, D., Kishiki, S., & Yamada, S. (2014). Evaluation methods od residual fatigue life of U shaped steel dampers after extreme earthquake excitation. In Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Alaska.Google Scholar
  17. Kelly, J., Skinner, R., & Heine, A. (1972). Mechanism of energy absorption in special devices for use in earthquakes resistant structures. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 5(3), 63–88.Google Scholar
  18. Kishiki, S., Yamada, S., Ene, D., Konishi, Y., Kawamura, N., & Terashima, M. (2014). Evaluation of plastic deformation capacity of U shaped steel dampers for base-isolated structures under 2D horizontal loading. In Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Alaska.Google Scholar
  19. Konishi, Y., Kawamura, N., Terashima, M., Kishiki, S., Yamada, S., Aiken, I., Black, C., Murakami, K., & Someya, T. (2012). Evaluation of the fatigue life and behavior characteristics of U-shaped steel dampers after extreme earthquake loading. In 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  20. Lemaître, J., & Chaboche, J.-L. (1990). Mechanics of solid materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Myers, A. T., Deierlein, G. G., & Kanvinde, A. (2009). Testing and probabilistic simulation of ductile fracture initiation in structural steel components and weldments. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  22. Oh, S.-H., Song, S.-H., Lee, S.-H., & Kim, H.-J. (2012). Seismic response of base isolating systems with U-shaped hysteretic dampers. International Journal of Steel Structures, 12(2), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oh, S., Song, S., Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2013). Experimental study of seismic performance of base-isolated frames with U-shaped hysteretic energy-dissipating devices. Engineering Structures, 56(2013), 2014–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pandikkadavath, M. S., & Sahoo, D. R. (2016). Analytical investigation on cyclic response of buckling-restrained braces with short yielding core segments. International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(4), 1273–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pilkey, W. D., & Pilkey, D. F. (2007). Peterson’s stress concentration factors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sahoo, D. R., Sidhu, B. S., & Kumar, A. (2015a). Behavior of unstiffened steel plate shear wall with simple beam-to-column connections and flexible boundary elements. International Journal of Steel Structures, 15(1), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sahoo, D. R., Singhal, T., Taraithia, S. S., & Saini, A. (2015b). Cyclic behavior of shear-and-flexural yielding metallic dampers. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 114, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schulz, K. J. (1942). On the state of stress in perforated strips and plates. In Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Soong, T. T., & Spencer, B. F. (2002). Supplemental energy dissipation: State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Engineering Structures, 24(3), 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suzuki, K., Saeki, E., & Watanabe, A. (1999). Experimental study of U-shaped steel damper. Part 1: Test of single U-shaped damper. Part 2: Test of U-shaped dampers with rubber bearings. In Proceedings of Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) Annual Conference, B-2 (pp. 665–668).Google Scholar
  31. Suzuki, K., Watanabe, A., & Saeki, E. (2005). Development of U-shaped steel damper for seismic isolation system. Nippon Steel Technical Report.Google Scholar
  32. Tagawa, H., & Gao, J. (2012). Evaluation of vibration control system with U-dampers based on quasi-linear motion mechanism. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 70(2012), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Takeuchi, T., & Wada, A. (2017). Buckling-restrained braces and applications. The Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (JSSI).Google Scholar
  34. Tsai, K.-C., Chen, H.-W., Hong, C.-P., & Su, Y.-F. (1993). Design of steel triangular plate energy absorbers for seismic-resistant construction. Earthquake Spectra, 9(3), 505–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wada, A., Saeki, E., Takeuchi, T., & Watanabe, A. (1998). Development of unbonded brace. Nippon Steel’s Unbonded Braces (promotional document) (pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
  36. Walter Yang, C.-S., DesRoches, R., & Leon, R. T. (2010). Design and analysis of braced frames with shape memory alloy and energy-absorbing hybrid devices. Engineering Structures, 32(2), 498–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureMimar Sinan Fine Arts University (MSGSU)IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Structural and Earthquake Engineering Division, Faculty of ArchitectureIstanbul Technical University (ITU)IstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Civil EngineeringIstanbul Technical University (ITU)IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations