SEISMIC RESPONSE OF MULTISTOREYED STEEL FRAME WITH VISCOUS FLUID SCISSOR JACK DAMPERS

Transcription

1 International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2017, pp , Article ID: IJCIET_08_08_032 Available online at VType=8&IType=8 ISSN Print: and ISSN Online: IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed SEISMIC RESPONSE OF MULTISTOREYED STEEL FRAME WITH VISCOUS FLUID SCISSOR JACK DAMPERS J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar ABSTRACT A 20-Storey benchmark steel moment resisting frame (Y. Ohtori et al., 2004) is taken for the study of seismic response reduction of the frame by providing viscous fluid dampers for scissor-jack mechanisms. The model linear time history analysis of the frame subjected to four types of time history earthquake loads with scissor-jack dampers is carried out using SAP2000 software. The four Time Histories considered for the frame analysis are N-S component of El Centro, N-S component of Kobe, N-S component of Northridge and S-E component of S_Monica. The Scissor-jack dampers are distributed along the height of the frame to reduce the seismic response of the building. Among the four time history analysis, the peak responses such as absolute acceleration, displacements, drifts, damper displacements, and damper forces for the six different models of the frame with scissor-jack dampers are found out. The average response reduction values between the bare frame and the six models are presented in this paper. The optimumm and cost effective placement of damper in the bare frame is arrived by comparing the peak average response reduction values of the models. The peak average response reduction values of the optimum model for absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts are 71.3, 46.9 and 53.1 respectively. Key words :drifts, scissor-jacabsolute acceleration, drifts, peak responses, scissor-jack dampers, peak responses, absolute acceleration dampers. Cite this Article: J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar, Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(8), 2017, pp IET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&ITy ype=8 1. INTRODUCTION The placing of fluid dampers to a structure does not significantly alter its natural period, but it increases damping from about 2 to 5% (internal damping) to between 20% and 40%, and sometimes even more (Haskell and lee, 2007). It is found that external damping beyond 30% results in small decrease in responses, and such increases lead to usage of more dampers (Hanson and soong, 2001). The use of fluid dampers results in reduction of storey shear forces. Due to the viscous nature, fluid dampers reduce drifts and thus column bending editor@iaeme.com

2 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers moments, while introducing additional column axial forces which are out-of phase with the bending moments (Constantinou MC and Symmans MD 1992). In order to study the response of the structure (internal forces) as a function of time for a specific ground motion, the accelerograms of the design earthquake or having several representative accelerograms of big earthquakes are used. These types of accelerograms with respect to time can be given as input in software and responses of the structures can be found out. The accelerograms are applied to the structure as shown in Fig. 1. The ground accelerations for El Centro and Kobe, S_Monica and Northridge earthquakes time history earthquakes are shown in Fig. 2. These four types of Time Histories earthquakes (THEQ) such as El Centro (EC), Kobe (KO), Northridge (NR) and S_monica (SM) are considered in this study. The PGAs for the earthquake records are m/s 2, 5.79 m/s 2, m/s 2 and 2.25 m/s 2 respectively. Figure 1 Accelorograms input to structure Figure 2 Time histories of El Centro and Kobe, S-monica and Northridge earthquakes Dynamic loads on structure due to earthquake cause excessive vibrations leading to severe damage to the structures. Vibration can be reduced using passive, semi-active or active control devices. Various applications of these energy dissipation devices are used in many countries. In all these applications, damper configurations have been used to deliver the forces from energy dissipation devices to the structural frame. Generally the damper configurations are classified based on the orientation of damper and the way of device attachment to the structural element such as chevron brace configuration, Lower toggle configuration and scissor-jack configuration editor@iaeme.com

3 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar A. Viscoelastic Solid Dampers Viscoelastic solid dampers consist of solid elastomeric pads viscoelastic material bonded to steel plates. The steel plates are attached to the structure within chevron or diagonal bracing. As one end of the damper displaces with respect to the other, the viscoelastic material is sheared resulting in the development of heat which is dissipated to the environment. Due to this nature, they exhibit both elasticity and viscosity i.e., they are displacement and velocity dependent (Chang et al. 2010). Figure 4 Viscoelastic solid damper, (Chang et al., 1995) Viscoelastic (VE) damper is one of important kind of passive energy devices these have been used as energy dissipation devices in many structures where the damper undergoes shear deformations. Viscoelastic materials exhibit combined features of viscous liquid and elastic solid when deformed. In other words they dissipate a certain amount of energy as heat and return to their original shape after every cycle of deformation. Viscoelastic shear damper is described by (Mahmoodi et. al., 1969) and he also mentioned that it can be efficient in decreasing the dynamic response of buildings. Viscoelastic dampers made of bonded acrylic polymers (Viscoelastic) layers. The extension of Viscoelastic shear damper to seismic applications is more recent. For seismic applications, more effective use of viscoelastic materials is required since large damping ratios than those for wind are usually required. Fig. 4 shows a typical viscoelastic shear damper consists of viscoelastic layers bonded to steel plate. When these dampers are mounted to a building structure shear deformations occur, as a result energy dissipation take place when relative motion occurs between the outer steel flanges and central plate. As per Clause no of IS1893(Part 1):2002[1], the peak storey drift in any storey due to specified design lateral force with partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed x h s, where, h s is storey height (3960 mm). So maximum inter-storey drift allowed= = 16 mm. From the linear time history analysis, the peak storey drift in X- and Y-directions should be within the allowable limits. Hence, if less than the allowable inter-storey drift 16mm, the structure is assumed to be safe. B. Scissor-Jack Configuration For 20 storey benchmark building, scissor jack configurations are placed along with viscous fluid dampers. For supporting scissor-jack system with beams and columns, plates are placed in between the ends of scissor jack and beams and columns. Plates are provided because scissor-jack system cannot be directly connected to beams or columns. The scissor jack system members are of angular type sections. The configuration of scissor-jack in ground and other typical floors are placed as shown Fig. 5 and Fig.6 The magnification factor for this configuration depends on the orientation of the damper (i.e. θ and Ψ). The angles θ and Ψ in the ground floor of the 20-storey building with scissor jack configuration are 8º and 62º respectively as shown in Fig. 5. The angles θ and Ψ in the remaining floors (typical floors) of the 20-storey building with scissor jack configuration are 10º and 52.84º respectively as editor@iaeme.com

4 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers shown in Fig. 6. The magnification factor of the scissor jack configuration is given as, f=. For scissor jack configuration in the ground floor and other typical floors of 20-storey building, the magnification factors are 3.34 and 3.43 respectively. Figure 5 Scissor-jack configuration for floors above ground floor + Figure 6 Scissor-jack configuration for ground floor The damper type chosen for scissor jack system is viscous fluid dampers. In SAP2000, for viscous fluid dampers, link properties type is taken as damper. The main properties governing dampers are damper stiffness (k) and damping coefficient (C 0 ). The damping coefficient (C 0 ) values for scissor-jack damper to be used as input in SAP2000 are given in Table 1. zeta Entire building storey Distribution of damping coefficient 10 dampers per storey 6 dampers per storey 2 dampers per storey Table 1 Damping coefficients (C0) for scissor-jack dampers in kn editor@iaeme.com

5 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL FRAME The 20-storey bench mark building plan is shown in Fig. 7. The elevation and dimensions of the 20-storey bench mark building considered in the present study are shown in the Fig. 8. The frame taken for the present study is 80 77m (265ft) tall and is rectangular in plan with bay spacing of 6.10m (20ft) on center in both the NS (5 bays) and EW (6 bays) directions. Seismic mass in the 1 st floor is 5.63e05Kg, 2 nd to 19 th floor is Kg, and 20 th floor is Kg. The entire details of 20-storey benchmark building such as beam dimensions, column dimensions, support conditions, restraints, connections, splices and storey height specifications and seismic masses in each storey are shown in Figure.8 (Y. Ohtori et al., 2004). Figure 7 Plan of the benchmark building Figure 8 Elevation and Dimensions of Twenty storey bench mrak building (Y.Ohtori et al., 2004) editor@iaeme.com

6 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers Figure 9 Dimensions of Twenty storey benchmrak building A. Types Of Scissor-Jack Configuration Damper Models Six different types of scissor-jack configuration damper models (SJ_M 1, SJ_M 2, SJ_M 3 SJ_M 4, SJ_M 5, and SJ_M 6 ) are considered for the analysis to find the effective placements and distribution of scissor-jack system in the steel frame. The scissor-jack systems are distributed along the height of the frame as shown in Fig. 10. The six models are distributed as, 1. Model_1 (SJ_M 1 ): Dampers are placed in all stories along the height of the building and distributed as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers per storey. So that total number of dampers placed throughout the height is 200. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10. a) editor@iaeme.com

7 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar 2. Model_2 (SJ_M 2 ): Dampers are placed in G+9 stories throughout the bay length such as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers in each stories and from 10 th to 20 th storey dampers are placed in 2 nd, 3 rd and 4 th bay length such as 6 scissor-jack configuration dampers per story. So that, total numbers of dampers placed along the height of the building are 160. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10.b). 3. Model_3 (SJ_M 3 ): Dampers are placed in G+9 stories throughout the bay length such as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers in each stories and from 10 th to 20 th storey dampers are placed in 1 st, 3 rd and 5 th bay length such as 6 scissor-jack configuration dampers per story. So that, total numbers of dampers placed along the height of the building are 160. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10. c). 4. Model_4 (SJ_M 4 ): Dampers are placed in G+9 stories throughout the bay length such as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers in each stories and from 10 th to 20 th storey dampers are placed in 3 rd bay length alone, such as 2 scissor-jack configuration dampers per story. So that, total numbers of dampers placed along the height of the building are 120. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10. d). 5. Model_5 (SJ_M 5 ): Dampers are placed in G+4 stories throughout the bay length such as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers in each stories and from 5 th to 20 th storey dampers are placed in 1 st, 3 rd and 5 th bay length, such as 6 scissor-jack configuration dampers per story. So that, total numbers of dampers placed along the height of the building are 140. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig. 10. e). 6. Model_6 (SJ_M 6 ): Dampers are placed in Ground story alone for the bay length such as 10 scissor-jack configuration dampers in that storey and from 1 st to 19 th storey dampers are placed in 1 st, 3 rd and 5 th bay length, such as 6 scissor-jack configuration dampers per story. So that, total numbers of dampers placed along the height of the building are 124. The distributions of dampers are as shown in Fig.10. f). For six different types of scissor-jack mechanism damper configuration, linear time history analysis are done and 40% of damping are used for present study based upon base shear graphs. 10. a) SJ_M 1 10.b) SJ_M 2 10.c) SJ_M 3 10.d) SJ_M editor@iaeme.com

8 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers 10. e) SJ_M f) SJ_M 6 Figure 10 Six different models of scissor jack placements in bare frame 3. SEISMIC REPONSES OF BARE FRAME The natural frequencies and fundamental periods (T) of the building are given in Table 2. Table 2 Frequency, Time periods and Circular frequency for Bare frame structure editor@iaeme.com

9 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar The first mode shape, 1 = [ ]. The 20 mode shapes are given in Table 3 and the mode shapes are shown in Fig. 10. The maximum value among 20 mode shape values are taken as Max = [ ]. There is no much difference between the natural frequencies found out for the present model building and that of the benchmark problem (Y. Ohtori et al., 2004). The responses such as base shear, accelerations, displacements and inter-storey drifts are tabulated from Table 4 to Table 7. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9 Mode 10 Mode 11 Mode 12 Mode 13 Mode 14 Mode 15 Mode editor@iaeme.com

10 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers Mode 17 Mode 18 Mode 19 Mode 20 Figure 11 Different mode shapes of frame Table 4 Base shear for bare frame EQ Base Shear (kn) EC 3723 KO 4474 NR 4752 SM 6379 Table 5 Absolute acceleration response of bare frame Storey EC KO NR SM peaks editor@iaeme.com

11 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar Table 6 Displacement response of bare frame Storey EC KO NR SM PEAKS Table 7 Inter-storey drifts response of bare frame Storey EC KO NR SM PEAKS editor@iaeme.com

12 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers 4. LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR SCISSOR-JACK MECHANISM AND ITS RESPONSES Linear time history analysis was carried out for all six models of scissor jack system buildings and responses such as absolute acceleration (a), displacements (d), inter-storey drifts (dr), damper displacements (dd) and damper forces (df) are found out for four different time histories considered for analysis such as El Centro (EC), Kobe (KO), Northridge (NR) and S_Monica (SM) with PGAs normalized to 0.35g. The responses of absolute acceleration (a) for all six models are represented as graphs and are given in Fig. 12. The responses of displacements (d) for all six models are represented as graphs and are given in Fig. 13. The responses of inter-storey drifts (dr) for all six models are represented as graphs and are given in Fig. 14. The responses of damper displacements (dd) for all six models are represented as graphs and are given in Fig. 15. The responses of damper forces (df) for all six models are represented as graphs and are given in Fig. 16. Among the four time histories EQ analysis, such as El Centro (EC), Kobe (KO), Northridge (NR) and S_Monica (SM), the peak responses and its difference between bare frame are found for absolute acceleration, displacements, drifts, damper displacements, and damper forces for each model Now peak responses from different models (SJ_M 1, SJ_M 2, SJ_M 3, LT_M 4, LT_M 5, and LT_M 6 ) are compared with peak responses of bare frame and their respective peak response reduction is given in Table 8 to Table RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Peak average response reductions as percentage for different models of scissor jack dampers are tabulated in Table 8 to Table 14. The Peak damper displacement and damper forces for different models of scissor-jack dampers are given in Table 15. The effective placement of damper in the bare frame is found by comparing the peak average response reduction values of six different models of scissor-jack dampers. SJ_M_6 model damper placements are found to be more effective and cost effective compared to other types of damper placement and distribution. The peak average response reduction values for SJ_M_6 model frame for absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts are 71.3, 46.9 and 53.1 respectively( Table 14). 6. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Time history analysis of 20 storey benchmark moment resisting steel frame with 6 different placements of Scissor-Jack dampers is carried out for 4 Types of Time Histories such as N-S component of El Centro, N-S component of Kobe, N-S component of Northridge and S-E component of S_Monica. 2. The peak responses such as absolute acceleration, displacements, drifts, damper displacements, and damper forces for the bare frame and six different models of the frame with scissor-jack dampers are found out. 3. The average response reduction values between the bare frame and the six models are presented. Significant reduction in seismic responses are observed in frames provided with scissor jack dampers. 4. The frame model SJ_M_6 is found to be the effective placement of scissor jack dampers for the bench mark steel frame. The peak average response reduction values for SJ_M_6 model frame for absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts are 71.3, 46.9 and 53.1 respectively (Table 14). 5. By Time history analysis, the peak inter-storey drift for the bare frame is found out as 56 mm ( Table 7) which is greater than the permissible limit of 16 mm. However, editor@iaeme.com

13 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar the peak inter-storey drift for the SJ_M_6 model frame satisfied the permissible limit (16 mm) prescribed in the IS code (Table 15 ) which was achieved by proper placement of scissor jack dampers in the frame. 6. Inter-storey drifts response of the frame model SJ_M_6 for the different time histories considered in the study are given in Table 16. REFERENCES [1] Y. Ohtori, R.E.Christeson, B.F. Spencer (2004), Benchmark control problems for seismically excited nonlinear buildings, Technical Report submitted to University of Notre Dame, Indiana USA, 2004 [2] Haskell G and Lee D, (2007) Fluid Viscous Damping as an Alternative to Base Isolation. [3] Hanson RD and Soong TT (2001) Seismic design with supplemental energy dissipation devices, EERI Publication No. MNO-8. [4] Constantinou MC and Symmans MD, (1992). Experimental and analytical investigations of Seismic Response of Structures with Supplemental Fluid Viscous Dampers. Technical Report NCEER , National Center for Earthquake Engineering research (NCEER), State University of New York at Baffalo, Baffalo, N.Y. [5] IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, [6] IS 875 (Part 1):1987, Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures, Part 1, Dead loads, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, [7] IS 875 (Part 2):1987, Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures, Part 2 Live loads, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, [8] Patil G.R. et al., (2014), Seismic Energy Dissipation of a Building Using Friction Damper, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), Volume-3, Issue-10, March [9] Chang, K.C., Soong, T.T., Oh, S.T and Lai, M.L. (1995), Seismic Behaviour of Steel Frame with Added Viscoelastic Dampers, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.121, No.10, pp [10] Mahmoodi P., (1969), Structural Dampers, Proc. ASCE., 95,ST8, pp: [11] J.Premalatha, M.Palanisamy and R.Manju, A Study on Seismic Responses of Reinforced Concrete (Rc) Buildings with Lateral Force Resisting Systems, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 2017, pp [12] S. S. Sanghai and S. N. Khante, Seismic Response of Unsymmetric Building with Optimally Placed Friction Dampers. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp editor@iaeme.com

14 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers Storey SJ_M_1 Storey SJ_M_3 Storey SJ_M_5 Absolute acceleration VS Storey for SJ_M_1 a_ec a_ko a_nr a_sm Absolute Acceleration (a) Absolute acceleration VS Storey 20 for SJ_M_ a_ec a_ko a_nr 11 a_sm Absolute Acceleration (a) 5.00 Absolute acceleration VS Storey 20 for SJ_M_ a_ec a_ko a_nr 10 9 a_sm Absolute Acceleration (a) 5.00 Storey SJ_M_2 Storey SJ_M_4 Storey SJ_M_6 Absolute acceleration VS Storey for SJ_M_2 a_ec a_ko a_nr a_sm Absolute Acceleration (a) Absolute acceleration VS Storey 20 for SJ_M_ a_ec a_ko a_nr 11 a_sm Absolute Acceleration (a) 5.00 Absolute acceleration VS Storey 20 for SJ_M_ a_ec a_k O 10 a_n 9 8 R Absolute Acceleration (a) 5.00 Figure 12 Absolute acceleration Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models editor@iaeme.com

15 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar Storey Storey Displacements VS Storey for 20 SJ_M_ d_ec d_ko 6 5 d_nr 4 3 d_sm Displacement 0.20 (d) SJ_M_1 Displacements VS Storey for SJ_M_ d_ec d_k 4 3 O Displacement (d) 0.40 SJ_M_3 Storey Displacements VS Storey for 20 SJ_M_ d_ec d_k 5 4 O Displacement 0.20 (d) Storey SJ_M_2 Displacements VS Storey for SJ_M_ d_ec d_k 4 3 O Displacement 0.20 (d) 0.30 SJ_M_4 SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6 Figure 13 Displacements Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models editor@iaeme.com

16 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2 SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4 SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6 Figure 14 Inter-storey drifts Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models editor@iaeme.com

17 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2 SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4 SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6 Figure 15 Damper displacements Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models editor@iaeme.com

18 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2 SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4 SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6 Figure 16 Damper forces Vs. Storey with SJD for 4 types of THEQ for all 6 models editor@iaeme.com

19 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar Table 8 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_1 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts S.No Table 9 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_2 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts S.No a d drifts % difference BF SJ_M_1 BF SJ_M_1 BF SJ_M_1 a d drifts a d drifts % difference BF SJ_M_2 BF SJ_M_2 BF SJ_M_2 a d drifts editor@iaeme.com

20 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers Table 10 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_3 for peak absolute acceleration,displacements and drifts S.No a d drifts % difference BF SJ_M_3 BF SJ_M_3 BF SJ_M_3 a d drifts Table 11 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_4 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts S.No a d drifts % difference BF SJ_M_4 BF SJ_M_4 BF SJ_M_4 a d drifts editor@iaeme.com

21 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar Table 12 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_5 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts S.No a d drifts % difference BF SJ_M_5 BF SJ_M_5 BF SJ_M_5 a d drifts editor@iaeme.com

22 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers S.No Table 13 Peak Response Reduction b/w BF and SJ_M_6 for peak absolute acceleration, displacements and drifts S.No a d drifts % difference BF SJ_M_6 BF SJ_M_6 BF SJ_M_6 a d drifts Table 14 Peak average response reduction for different models of scissor jack dampers SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2 SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4 SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6 a d Drifts a d drifts a d drifts a d drifts a d drifts a d drifts editor@iaeme.com

23 J.Premalatha, R.Manju and V.Senthilkumar A Note: SJ_M_1, SJ_M_2, SJ_M_3, SJ_M_4, SJ_M_5 and SJ_M_6 indicates SJ: Scissor-jack and M_6: model number 6; S: Storey; a: absolute acceleration; d: displacement; A: Average; Bold value indicates peak average response reduction between different models of Scissor-jack dampers. Bold and underlined values indicate SJ_M_6 model damper placements are most effective. Table 15 Peak damper displacement and damper forces for different models of scissor-jack dampers S.No SJ_M_1 SJ_M_2 SJ_M_3 SJ_M_4 SJ_M_5 SJ_M_6 DD DF DD DF DD DF DD DF DD DF DD DF editor@iaeme.com

24 Seismic Response of Multistoreyed Steel Frame with Viscous Fluid Scissor Jack Dampers Table 16 Inter-storey drifts response of SJ_M_6 frame Storey EC KO NR SM PEAKS editor@iaeme.com