Comparative performance of passive devices for piping system under seismic excitation

Abstract Among several passive control devices, X-plate damper, viscous damper, visco-elastic damper, tuned mass damper and multiple tuned mass dampers are popular and used to mitigate the seismic response in the 3-D piping system. In the present paper detailed studies are made to see the effectiveness of the dampers when used in 3-D piping system subjected to artificial earthquake with increasing amplitudes. The analytical results obtained using Wen's model are compared with the corresponding experimental results available which indicated a good match with the proposed analytical procedure for the X-plate dampers. It is observed that there is significant reduction in the seismic response of interest like relative displacement, acceleration and the support reaction of the piping system with passive devices. In general, the passive devices under particular optimum parameters such as stiffness and damping are very effective and practically implementable for the seismic response mitigation, vibration control and seismic requalification of piping system.

[1]  T. T. Soong,et al.  Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and state-of-the- practice , 2002 .

[2]  Robert D. Hanson,et al.  Seismic design with supplemental energy dissipation devices , 2001 .

[3]  T. Kukkola.  Energy absorbers used against impact loading , 1976 .

[4]  H. S. Kushwaha,et al.  The great Hanshin earthquake of January 17, 1995 , 1995 .

[5]  T. T. Soong,et al.  Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering , 1997 .

[6]  Jerome J. Connor,et al.  Introduction to Structural Motion Control , 2002 .

[7]  Hsiang-Chuan Tsai,et al.  Optimum tuned-mass dampers for minimizing steady-state response of support-excited and damped systems , 1993 .

[8]  Y. M. Parulekar,et al.  PASSIVE RESPONSE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION: A STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW , 2009 .

[9]  Y. K. Wen,et al.  Methods of Random Vibration for Inelastic Structures , 1989 .

[10]  R. S. Jangid,et al.  Optimum X-plate dampers for seismic response control of piping systems , 2006 .

[11]  R. S. Jangid.  Optimum Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers for base‐excited undamped system , 1999 .

[12]  Hiroe Kobayashi,et al.  Positive use of damping devices for piping systems — Some experiences and new proposals , 1987 .

[13]  T. T. Soong,et al.  STRUCTURAL CONTROL: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE , 1997 .

[14]  D. E. Olson,et al.  Decreasing snubber inservice inspection costs through snubber reduction and improved test limits , 1988 .

[15]  J. Jonczyk,et al.  Loads of piping systems due to malfunctions of snubbers , 1991 .

[16]  G. B. Warburton,et al.  Optimum absorber parameters for various combinations of response and excitation parameters , 1982 .

[17]  R. S. Jangid,et al.  OPTIMUM MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS FOR BASE-EXCITED DAMPED MAIN SYSTEM , 2004 .

[18]  Paul H. Anderson,et al.  Seismic stops vs. snubbers, a reliable alternative , 1988 .