You are on page 1of 12

Vol.15, No.

1 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION March, 2016

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2016) 15: 79-90 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-016-0306-4

Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw


energy dissipation systems using fluid viscous dampers

Jae-Do Kang1† and Hiroshi Tagawa2‡


1. Hyogo Earthquake Engineering Research Center, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention,
Miki 673-0515, Japan
2. Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan

Abstract: This paper presents results of experimental and numerical investigations of a seesaw energy dissipation system
(SEDS) using fluid viscous dampers (FVDs). To confirm the characteristics of the FVDs used in the tests, harmonic dynamic
loading tests were conducted in advance of the free vibration tests and the shaking table tests. Shaking table tests were
conducted to demonstrate the damping capacity of the SEDS under random excitations such as seismic waves, and the results
showed SEDSs have sufficient damping capacity for reducing the seismic response of frames. Free vibration tests were
conducted to confirm the reliability of simplified analysis. Time history response analyses were also conducted and the results
are in close agreement with shaking table test results.

Keywords: seesaw energy dissipation system; experimental verification; shaking table test; simplified analysis; dynamic
characteristic

1 Introduction brace, seesaw, and dampers. The seesaw member is pin-


supported. A couple of dampers are installed vertically
Energy dissipation systems of many types have in the seesaw member. When a frame deforms under a
increasingly been used in new and retrofit constructions lateral load, the displacements of dampers are magnified
over the last few decades (Soong and Spencer, 2002; via rotation of the seesaw. When the lateral load direction
Symans et al., 2008) and related design procedures have reverses, tensile axial force is generated immediately
been investigated (FEMA, 1997; Ramirez et al., 2001; in the opposite brace. This behavior is based on the
JSSI, 2007; ASCE, 2010). Various passive dampers have seesaw mechanism characteristics and on pre-tension
been investigated such as friction dampers (Ng and Xu, effects. The SEDS capacity has been demonstrated by
2006; Tsai et al., 2008; Zhou and Peng, 2009), metallic theoretical and analytical results, and by results from
yielding dampers (Iwata and Murai, 2006; Kim and Seo, preliminary experiments (Kang and Tagawa, 2013b;
2004), fluid viscous dampers (Ou et al., 2007; Lin et al., Kang and Tagawa, 2014). However, the damping
2009; Chen and Chai, 2011), and viscoelastic dampers capacity of the SEDS under random excitations such
(Zhang and Soong, 1992; Kasai et al., 1998; Chang and as seismic waves has not been investigated. Moreover,
Singh, 2002). These dampers can be installed in various no experimental verification of the simplified analysis
ways including diagonal braces, chevron braces, and results or time history response analysis results has been
magnifying brace systems. Various magnifying brace pursued. Also, a shaking table test of the SEDS should
systems have been proposed and investigated to improve be done to clarify its characteristics.
performance under various dynamic loads, and to reduce This paper presents a combined experimental and
the damper volume. They include toggle, scissor-jack, analytical investigation of SEDSs using fluid viscous
and seesaw systems (Constantinou et al., 2001; Hwang dampers (FVDs). The objectives of this paper is as
et al., 2005; Huang, 2009; Sigaher and Constantinou, follows: (i) To demonstrate the damping capacity of
2003; Kang and Tagawa, 2013a). Seesaw systems, called SEDSs under random excitations; (ii) To evaluate the
seesaw energy dissipation systems (SEDSs), comprise a reliability and accuracy of a simplified analysis; and
(iii) To evaluate the accuracy of time history response
Correspondence to: Jae-Do Kang, Hyogo Earthquake analysis.
Engineering Research Center, National Research Institute for For experimental verification of the damping
Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Miki 673-0515, Japan capacity of SEDSs under random excitations, shaking
Tel: +81 794858211; Fax: +81 794858993 table tests were conducted for a building frame model
E-mail: kang@bosai.go.jp with the SEDS using FVDs. To confirm the influence of

Research Fellow; §Professor the magnification factor, i.e., the ratio between the story
Received March 11, 2014; Accepted July 22, 2015 displacement of the frame and damper displacement,
80 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

on the damping capacity of the SEDS under random turnbuckles, D-shackle, and built load cells for
excitations, three magnification factors were considered measuring the brace forces. The pre-tension in braces
in the tests. The test results show that SEDSs have was introduced by turning up the turnbuckles. Figure 2
sufficient damping capacity to reduce seismic response shows the seesaw comprising a rotation member, support
of the frames and the magnification factor affects the member, and pin. The seesaw members were made of
damping capacity. To determine the damping coefficient acrylic plate with 5 mm thickness to reduce the mass
of the damper used in simplified and time-history response of the rotation member related to the rotational inertial
analyses, harmonic dynamic tests were conducted force of the seesaw. The damper unit comprises three
for two FVDs. Free vibration tests were conducted to parts: two hinge bases, rod-ends with bearings, and the
evaluate the accuracy of the simplified analysis results. FVDs. The damper unit is presented in section 2.3. Two
The reliability of the simplified analysis results was built load cells, which consist of the 30 mm × 10 mm
confirmed by comparing the equivalent natural periods steel plate with 0.6 mm thickness and two strain gauges,
and the added damping ratios calculated by simplified were designed and arranged between the D-shackle and
analysis with those obtained from free vibration tests. To the turnbuckle. These load cells measured only strains
evaluate the accuracy of time history response analysis for the calculation of the cable forces. The damping
results, those results were compared with shaking table capacity of the SEDS is influenced by the magnification
test results; close agreement was obtained. factor, fR, which represents the ratio between the story
displacement of the frame and damper displacement.
When the brace is assumed to be rigid, the magnification
2 Experiment setup factor of the SEDS is (cosα × cosβ) / sin (α + β). In this
equation, α and β represent, respectively, the horizontal
2.1 Testing frame models angle of a brace and the angle between the connection
point and center pin of the seesaw, as shown in Fig. 1.
For comparison of experimental and analytical
To confirm the influence of the magnification factor
results, building frame model 1 (hereinafter designated
on the damping capacity of the SEDS under random
as “BFM 1”), consisting of a rigid steel floor plate and
excitations, three magnification factors are considered in
four flexible columns, was designed and constructed as
the tests. The magnification factors 1 (MF1), 2 (MF2),
shown in Fig. 1. The rigid steel plate was 800 mm ×
and 3 (MF3) shown in Fig. 2 are 0.85, 0.77, and 069,
300 mm with a rectangular void of 600 mm × 150 mm.
respectively (Kang and Tagawa, 2014).
Flexible rectangular columns having a cross section of
50 mm × 3 mm were high-strength plates. The clear floor
height was 470 mm. 2.3 Laboratory-scale fluid viscous dampers

2.2 Seesaw mechanism 2.3.1 Damper configuration, measurement and


instrumentation of damper performance test
Figure 1 shows that the SEDS comprise three parts: The FVDs consisted of an oil damper-housing for
brace, seesaw, and damper units. The brace member a radio-controlled car (CR01-01/LB; World Space CAD
comprises two cables having 0.74 mm diameter, Industrial Co.) that was filled with four-cylinder engine

Rigid floor plate

D shackle with screw pin


Built load cell
Turnbuckle

Cable
470
526

α
β
Seesaw FVD
z
z

x y

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 Configuration of experimental model (unit: mm): (a) front view and (b) side view
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers 81

350 128
90
MF1 MF2 MF3

D shackle with screw pin

Seesaw member Hinge base


(5 mm acrylic)
z FVD z
148

x y

Rod-end with bearing


Pin with ball bearing Hinge base

(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Seesaw energy dissipation system using FVDs (unit: mm): (a) front view and (b) side view

oil designed for motorcycles. The maximum stroke of 2.3.2 Damper characterization
the FVDs was ± 18 mm. Energy is dissipated in the damper as the piston
To estimate damper characteristics related to its rod moves through the fluid. It forces the fluid to flow
performance, harmonic dynamic loading tests were through the piston head orifices. Force FD in the FVD is
conducted. The parameters in the harmonic dynamic calculated as
loading test were the following: displacement amplitude
of 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm; excitation frequency of 0.5, 0.7, 1, FD  C sgn(v)v (1)
and 2 Hz. A mono-axial shaking table located at Nagoya
University was used for damper performance tests, as where C represents the damping coefficient, v stands for
shown in Fig. 3. An electrodynamic exciter controlled the velocity of the damper, and  signifies an exponent
with displacement and frequency by a function that controls the shape of the force velocity relation. An
generator was used. The force in the damper was FVD with  = 1 is called a linear FVD, in which the
measured using a load cell connected to a rigid frame. damper forces are proportional to the relative velocity.
The table velocity, which is approximately the damper To ascertain the damping coefficient and exponent
velocity, was measured using a servo-type velocimeter of the FVDs used in the tests, peak damper velocities
(VSE-15A; Tokyo Sokushin Co. Ltd.). Its displacement and forces extracted from harmonic dynamic test were
was measured using a laser displacement sensor (LB- analyzed. According to these results, the damping
01; Keyence Co. Ltd.). The measured velocity and coefficients of dampers 1 and 2 were obtained using
displacement were adjusted using an amplifier (AV-200; least-squares method as 0.086 and 0.077, respectively
Tokyo Sokushin Co. Ltd.) and a signal controller (LB- (Kang and Tagawa, 2014). The hysteretic behaviors
60; Keyence Co.). All measured and adjusted data were of damper 1 over a range of excitation with respect to
recorded using a data logger (DRA-30A; Tokyo Sokki the displacement amplitude are shown in Fig. 4. Solid
Kenkyujo Co. Ltd.). The sampling rate was 200 Hz in all lines show the recorded data. The hysteretic loops
channels. Characteristics of the FVD were determined clearly show an ellipse loop. These results demonstrate
based on the recorded force, velocity, and displacement. that the FVDs have a linear viscous characteristic. The

Laser displacement sensor Velocimeter (Servo) Damper unit

Steel angle
Rigid frame
Shaking table
Exciter Load cell

Signal controller PC
Laser displacement sensor
Data logger
Load cell
Amplifiers
Velocimeter (Servo)

Fig. 3 Damper performance test scheme and experimental instrumentation


82 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

20 Force (N) 20 Force (N)


(a) (b)
Experiment

Analysis

-20 20 -20 20
Displ. (mm) Displ. (mm)

-20 -20
Force (N) Force (N)
20 20
(c) (d)

-20 20 -20 20
Displ. (mm) Displ. (mm)

-20 -20

Fig. 4 Damper force-displacement loops of the FVD 1: (a) 0.5 Hz, (b) 0.7 Hz, (c) 1 Hz, and (d) 2 Hz

calculated hysteretic loops from Eq. (1) using each models, such as BFM 2 and BFM 3. The respective
obtained damping coefficient are presented in Fig. 4 as masses of the BFMs 1, 2, and 3 were 15.44, 21.88, and
dotted lines. Figure 4 shows that the calculated hysteretic 28.33 kg. Three cases of the magnification factors of
loops agree well with the recorded data. the SEDS were considered in the free vibration tests,
as shown in Fig. 2. For each test, the initial amplitudes
2.4 Testing procedure were considered in two cases as 5 mm and 10 mm for
the quantitative evaluation of the dynamic characteristic
Free vibration tests were conducted to evaluate the of the test models. Table 1 presents test specimens.
accuracy of the simplified analysis results. In the free The initial displacements of the BFMs were adjusted
vibration tests, some steel plates were added to BFM 1 by tightening a screw connected to the BFMs. The test
to vary the natural period of the tested building frame models were put into the free vibration state by cutting

Table 1 Labels of test models

Model Composition of model Pre-tension


Building frame Seesaw Number of
labels Without With
model mechanism FVD
F ● – – – –
FwS_NT ● ● – ● –
FwS_IT ● ● – – ●
SEDS ● ● 2 – ●
F = building frame model (BFM)
FwS_NT = BFM with seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (without pre-tension)
FwS_IT = BFM with seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (with pre-tension)
SEDS = Seesaw energy dissipation system using FVDs with pre-tension.
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers 83

the string. Additional details related to free vibration test 8206; San-Esu Co. Ltd.), another amplifier (AV-200;
schemes were presented in an earlier report by Kang and Tokyo Sokushin Co. Ltd.), and a signal controller (LK-
Tagawa (2014). G3000V; Keyence Co.). The measured and adjusted data
A shaking table test was conducted for BFM 1 were recorded using a data logger (DRA-30A; Tokyo
with the SEDS to evaluate of the SEDS capacity under Sokki Kenkyujo Co. Ltd.). The sampling rate was 200
a seismic wave and to assess the accuracy of the time Hz in all channels.
history response analysis results. To confirm the influence
of the magnification factor on the damping capacity of
the SEDS under random excitations, three magnification 3 Simplified analysis and time history response
factors were also considered in the shaking table tests. analysis
Four input signal waves were simulated based on the
following earthquake records: 1940 El Centro (NS), For simple design and analysis of the frame with
1952 Taft (EW), 1968 Hachinohe (NS), and the 1995 the SEDS using FVDs, the equation of motion for the
Japan Meteorological Agency Kobe (NS). These waves generalized SEDS is written as shown below (Kang and
were scaled so that the peak table acceleration was equal Tagawa, 2013b).
to 1.5 m/s2. The corresponding time duration was 20 s.
Figure 5 shows 5% damped acceleration response mx  (Cframe  Ceq ) x  (kf  keq ) x  f (t ) (2)
spectra obtained using the measured table accelerations
in each test. Because three response spectra agreed well In that equation, Cframe, kf , keq , and Ceq represent,
in terms of having the same input signal wave, the table respectively, the frame damping coefficient, the frame
motions derived from the same input wave might be stiffness, the generalized system stiffness of the SEDS,
regarded as identical. and the generalized damping coefficient of the SEDS.
Because slender columns were used in the tests, the
2.5 Measurement and instrumentation equivalent natural period and added damping ratio were
calculated by considering the stiffness reduction as
A mono-axial shaking table located at Nagoya
University was used for shaking table tests, as shown in
w N
Fig. 6. The data measurement system consisted of two kf  kframe  (3)
servo-type accelerometers (V405-BR; San-Esu Co. Ltd.), L
one servo-type velocimeter (VSE-15A; Tokyo Sokushin
Co. Ltd.), two built load cells, two laser displacement where kframe, w, and L signify the BFM initial lateral
sensors (LK-G505; Keyence Co.), and 16 strain gauges. stiffness, the BFM weight, and the clear floor height
The measured accelerations, velocity, and displacements such as deformation length, respectively. In addition,
were adjusted, respectively, using an amplifier (SLV- N (= psinα) denotes an axial force in the columns by

7
(a) (b) MF1

5 MF2
MF3

3
Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

(c) (d)
7 T1 T1

1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Period (s)
Fig. 5 Response spectra using measured table acceleration: (a) simulated El Centro, (b) simulated Taft, (c) simulated Hachinohe,
and (d) simulated Kobe
84 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

Signal controller PC
Laser displacement sensor
Data logger
Strain gauge
Amplifiers
Velocimeter (Servo-type)

Accelerometer (Servo-type)

Function generator Rigid


frame

Amplifier
z

Shaking table
Exciter

Fig. 6 Shaking table test scheme and experimental instrumentation

introducing pre-tension, where p and α represent the where kB, CD, and fR denote the brace stiffness, the damper
total pre-tension force and the horizontal angles of cable, coefficient, and the magnification factor, respectively.
respectively. For BFMs without pre-tension, the value of The magnification factor is presented in section 2.2.
N is regarded as zero. From Eq. (2), the equivalent natural period Teq and
In Eq. (2), the generalized system stiffness of the added damping ratio aheq of the SEDS using FVDs can
SEDS and the generalized damping coefficient of the be expressed simply as
SEDS are expressed as (Kang and Tagawa, 2013b)
m
Teq  2 (6a)
(keq )(Ceq ) 2 kf  keq
keq  (4a)
(keq ) 2  (Ceq ) 2

Ceq
2 heq  (6b)
k 
(keq ) (Ceq ) a
Ceq  (4b) 2  keq m
(keq ) 2  (Ceq ) 2 f

where w, keq, and Ceq denote, respectively, the original where m represents the BFM mass.
frame frequency, the equivalent brace stiffness of the To evaluate the accuracy of the simplified analysis
SEDS, and the equivalent damping coefficient of the using the generalized Kelvin model as expressed in Eq. (6),
SEDS. The equivalent brace stiffness and the equivalent the equivalent natural period and added damping ratio
damping coefficient are defined as (Kang and Tagawa, were compared with results obtained from free vibration
2013b) tests.
The time history response analysis of the tested
keq  2kB cos  2 (5a) models was performed using a nonlinear dynamic
analysis program: SNAP ver. 5 (SNAP, 2009). The
analysis model is a single-degree-of-freedom system
with the equivalent Maxwell model. The values of
Ceq  2CD f R 2 (5b) the Maxwell model element are the equivalent brace
stiffness and damping coefficient as expressed in Eq. (5).
The column lateral stiffness and damping ratio obtained
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers 85

from free vibration tests are 10 N/mm and 0.0035, period, by the rotational inertial force of the seesaw or
respectively. The measured acceleration on a table for friction around the pin and joint. As shown in Fig. 7,
each test was used for the input acceleration for time the free vibration tests for the BFMs with the seesaw
history response analysis. mechanism excluding the FVDs were conducted to
confirm those effects in advance of the SEDS test.
Table 2 presents results of the free vibration tests
of the BFMs, and those for BFMs with the seesaw
4 Experimental and analytical results and mechanism excluding the FVDs with and without pre-
discussion tension. The cable connection position was arranged at
MF2, as shown in Fig. 2. The respective natural periods
of BFMs 1, 2, and 3 are 0.243, 0.288, and 0.328 s. The
4.1 Free vibration tests natural periods of the test models increased along with
the installation of the seesaw mechanism excluding
This section presents the results of free vibration the FVDs. The natural periods of the test models also
tests for the BFMs, BFMs with the seesaw mechanism increased by introducing pre-tension (100 N) on the
excluding the FVDs, and BFMs with the SEDS using cables. The increase, however, were so small as to be
the FVDs. The natural periods and damping ratios were useless. The respective damping ratios of BFMs 1, 2, and
calculated using the logarithmic decrement method on 3 under initial amplitude of 5 mm are 0.0035, 0.0034,
the response acceleration. and 0.003. The damping ratios of the tested models were
4.1.1 Influence of seesaw mechanism increased by installing a seesaw mechanism excluding
Seismic energy is dissipated by dampers of the the FVDs and introducing pre-tension. The increased
SEDS. The SEDS, however, includes mechanism values of the damping ratio, however, also were so
components such as joints, pins, and the seesaw. These small as to be useless. Consequently, the SEDS effects
components might affect the dynamic characteristics of discussed hereinafter are generated by the FVDs based
the test models, such as the damping ratio and the natural on the seesaw mechanism.
4.1.2 Comparison between experiment and simplified
analysis results
The average of damping ratios of the tested models
without the SEDS is 0.0038 (Kang and Tagawa, 2014).
However, the respective averages of damping ratios
of the tested models with the SEDS considering MF1,
MF2, and MF3 are 0.1152, 0.1082, and 0.0892 (Kang
and Tagawa, 2014). Those of the tested models with
MF1 are larger than the others. These results show
that the damping ratios are increased by increasing the
magnification factor. These results verify that the SEDS
z has a damping capacity sufficient to reduce the seismic
response of the frame.
x Figure 8 compares the experimental results and
results of the simplified analysis using the generalized
Kelvin model for the SEDS. The vertical axis shows
Fig. 7 BFMs with the seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs results of the simplified analysis. The horizontal axis

Table 2 Results of the free vibration test of BFM with and without the seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (MF2)
Tested frame
Index Tested models
BFM 1 BFM 2 BFM 3
Natural period (s) F 0.243 0.288 0.328
FwS_NT 0.246 0.291 0.33
FwS_IT 0.25 0.294 0.335
Damping ratio F 0.0035 0.0034 0.003
FwS_NT 0.0036 0.0032 0.0031
FwS_IT 0.0036 0.0037 0.0038
F = building frame model (BFM)
FwS_NT = BFM with seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (without pre-tension)
FwS_IT = BFM with seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (with pre-tension)
86 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

0.5 0.2
115%
0.4
Natural period (Theory, s)

85%

Damping ratio (Theory)


0.3 85%
0.1

0.2

0.1

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2
Natural period (Experiment, s) Damping ratio (Experiment)
(a) (b)
Fig. 8 Comparison between results obtained by experimentation and simplified analysis: (a) natural period and (b) damping ratio

shows the experiment results. Figure 8(a) shows that In that equation, x(t ) , x (t ) , and 
x(t ) represent,
the natural periods obtained from simplified analysis respectively, the displacement, velocity, and absolute
approximately coincide with the experimental results. acceleration response of the frame. Sd T1 ,  1  , Sv T1 ,  1  ,
Figure 8(b) shows that the added damping ratio and Sa T1 ,  1  denote displacement, velocity, and
obtained from simplified analysis agree well with the acceleration response spectrum values obtained using
experimentally obtained results. The added damping the measured table acceleration, respectively. The BFMs
ratios obtained from simplified analysis have a -15% or behaved in the elastic range in all tests. Therefore, the
+15% error. spectrum values might be regarded as the peak values of
uncoupled frame on each input wave. T1 and  1 denote,
4.2 Shaking table tests respectively, the natural period (0.243 s) and damping
ratio (0.0035) obtained from the free vibration tests.
This section presents shaking table test results for Table 3 presents results obtained from the shaking
BFM 1 with the SEDS that has pre-tension. To clarify the table tests. The peak displacement (J1), velocity (J2),
effects of the magnification factor, the cable connection and acceleration criterion (J3) were 0.46–0.6, 0.62–0.9,
position considered three cases on each input wave: and 0.46–0.64, respectively. These results verify that
MF1, MF2, and MF3. the SEDS has sufficient capacity to reduce the seismic
4.2.1 Results of shaking table tests response of the frame under random excitations.
For later comparison of the seismic responses of The peak and root-mean-square (RMS) values of
the SEDS with different magnification factors, three displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the SEDS
response evaluation criteria (peak displacement (J1), with MF1 are smaller than others for each input wave.
peak velocity (J2), and peak acceleration (J3)) are defined These results demonstrate that the magnification factor
as shown below. also influences the damping capacity of the SEDS under
random excitations.
max  x(t )  4.2.2 Comparison between shaking table test results and
J1  (7a) time history response analysis results
Sd T1 ,  1 
This section presents a comparison between results
of experiment and time history response analysis using
the equivalent Maxwell model for the SEDS, viz., Eq. (4).
max  x (t ) 
J2  (7b) To evaluate the accuracy of the analysis model for
Sv T1 ,  1  time history response analysis and analytical results,
four evaluation criteria, viz., peak displacements (J4),
RMS displacement (J5), peak acceleration (J6), and RMS
max  
x(t )  acceleration (J7), are defined as shown below.
J3  (7c)
Sa T1 ,  1 
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers 87

Table 3 Results of the shaking table test


Frame motion
Displacement Velocity Acceleration
Excitation Configuration (mm) (m/s) (m/s2)
Peak RMS Peak RMS Peak RMS
(J1) (J2) (J3)
El Centro MF1 2.5 0.44 0.09 0.01 1.59 0.31
(1.5 m/s2) (0.53) (0.68) (0.5)
MF2 2.66 0.45 0.09 0.01 1.68 0.31
(0.55) (0.69) (0.52)
MF3 2.69 0.49 0.09 0.01 1.76 0.34
(0.57) (0.72) (0.56)
Taft MF1 4.03 0.70 0.13 0.02 2.68 0.48
(1.5 m/s2) (0.46) (0.62) (0.46)
MF2 4.43 0.76 0.14 0.03 2.92 0.52
(0.51) (0.63) (0.5)
MF3 4.83 0.83 0.14 0.03 3.17 0.56
(0.56) (0.64) (0.55)
Hachinohe MF1 3.76 0.47 0.14 0.02 2.46 0.32
(1.5 m/s2) (0.58) (0.89) (0.56)
MF2 4.09 0.49 0.14 0.02 2.61 0.33
(0.62) (0.88) (0.59)
MF3 4.36 0.51 0.14 0.02 2.78 0.35
(0.67) (0.89) (0.64)
Kobe MF1 3.32 0.41 0.13 0.02 2.05 0.27
(1.5 m/s2) (0.51) (0.81) (0.47)
MF2 3.41 0.42 0.13 0.02 2.12 0.28
(0.56) (0.87) (0.52)
MF3 3.53 0.42 0.14 0.02 2.18 0.28
(0.64) (0.96) (0.59)

In those equations,  (t ) and (t ) denote,


max   (t )  respectively, the displacement and absolute acceleration
J4  (8a) response of the frame with the SEDS obtained through
max  x(t )  time history response analysis.
Table 4 presents the results of the time history response
analysis. The peak and RMS values of displacement and
RMS   (t )  acceleration of the SEDS with MF1 are smaller than
J5  (8b)
RMS x(t )  others in each input wave. The respective criteria for peak
(J4) and RMS (J5) displacement are 0.88–0.94 and 0.87–
0.94. The respective criteria for peak (J6) and RMS (J7)
acceleration are 0.92–0.96 and 0.91–0.96. These results
max  (t ) 
J6  (8c) verify that the analysis model for time history response
max  
x(t )  analysis and analytical results have high accuracy, while
the peak and RMS values obtained from time history
response analysis are smaller than those obtained from
shaking table tests. Figure 9 presents a comparison of the
RMS (t )  results obtained from experiments and those obtained
J7  (8d)
RMS 
x(t )  from time history response analysis. The displacement
and absolute acceleration data obtained from time
history response analysis show good agreement with
data obtained from experiments.
88 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

Table 4 Results of time history response analysis


Frame motion
Displacement Acceleration
Excitation Configuration (mm) (m/s2)
Peak RMS Peak RMS
(J4) (J5) (J6) (J7)
El Centro MF1 2.28 0.37 1.58 0.26
(1.5 m/s2) (0.91) (0.84) (0.99) (0.84)
MF2 2.41 0.43 1.64 0.29
(0.91) (0.96) (0.98) (0.94)
MF3 2.58 0.47 1.74 0.32
(0.96) (0.96) (0.99) (0.94)
Taft MF1 3.47 0.61 2.4 0.43
(1.5 m/s2) (0.86) (0.87) (0.9) (0.9)
MF2 4.05 0.7 2.76 0.48
(0.91) (0.92) (0.95) (0.92)
MF3 4.56 0.78 3.08 0.53
(0.94) (0.94) (0.97) (0.95)
Hachinohe MF1 3.39 0.42 2.36 0.29
(1.5 m/s2) (0.9) (0.89) (0.96) (0.91)
MF2 3.68 0.46 2.51 0.31
(0.9) (0.94) (0.96) (0.94)
MF3 3.98 0.48 2.69 0.33
(0.91) (0.94) (0.97) (0.94)
Kobe MF1 2.76 0.38 1.89 0.26
(1.5 m/s2) (0.83) (0.93) (0.92) (0.96)
MF2 3 0.4 2.03 0.27
(0.88) (0.95) (0.96) (0.96)
MF3 3.14 0.41 2.1 0.27
(0.89) (0.98) (0.96) (0.96)

6 3
Experiment Experiment
Acceleration (m/s2)

Analysis Analysis
Displacement (mm)

0 0

-6 -3
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
3 2
Experiment Experiment
Analysis Analysis
Acceleration (m/s2)
Displacement (mm)

0 0

-3 -2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
Fig. 9 Comparison between results of experiment and time history response analysis: (a) frame displacement (Taft, MF 1),
(b) frame acceleration (Taft, MF 1), (c) frame displacement (El Centro, MF 3), and (d) frame acceleration (El Centro, MF 3)
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers 89

5 Conclusion Iwata M and Murai M (2006), “Buckling-restrained Brace


Using Steel Mortar Planks; Performance Evaluation
This paper presents the results of experimental and as a Hysteretic Damper,” Earthquake Engineering &
analytical investigations of a seesaw energy dissipation Structural Dynamics, 35(14): 1807–1826.
system (SEDS) using fluid viscous dampers (FVDs). Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (JSSI) (2007), Design
The results obtained from experiments were compared and Construction Manual for Passively Controlled
with analytical results. Buildings, Second Edition, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japanese)
Shaking table tests were conducted for building Kang JD and Tagawa H (2013a), “Seismic Response of
frame models with the SEDS using FVDs to confirm the Steel Structures with Seesaw Systems Using Viscoelastic
damping capacity of the SEDS under random excitations. Dampers,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
The experiment results demonstrate: (1) the damping Dynamics, 42(5): 779–794.
capacity of the SEDS is sufficient to reduce the seismic
Kang JD and Tagawa H (2013b), “Seismic Performance
response of the frame and (2) the damping capacity of
of Steel Structures with Seesaw Energy Dissipation
the SEDS under random excitations is influenced by the
System Using Fluid Viscous Dampers,” Engineering
magnification factor.
Structures, 56: 431–442.
Free vibration tests were conducted for three
building frame models with the SEDS using FVDs to Kang JD and Tagawa H (2014), “Experimental
confirm the reliability of the simplified analysis results. Evaluation of Dynamic Characteristics of Seesaw
The equivalent natural periods and added damping Energy Dissipation System for Vibration Control of
ratios calculated by the simplified analysis agree well Structures,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
with those obtained from free vibration tests. The added Dynamics, 43(12): 1889-1895.
damping ratios obtained from numerical analyses have a Kasai K, Fu Y and Watanabe A (1998), “Passive Control
-15% or +15% error. Systems for Seismic Damage Mitigation,” Journal of
Time history response analyses were also conducted Structural Engineering, 124(5): 501–512.
and the results are in close agreement with shaking table Kim J and Seo Y (2004), “Seismic Design of Low-
test results. rise Steel Frames with Buckling-restrained Braces,”
Engineering Structures, 26(5): 543–551.
References Lin TK, Chen CC, Chang KC, Lin CCJ and Hwang
HS (2009), “Mitigation of Micro Vibration by Viscous
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010), Dampers,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Vibration, 8(4): 568–582.
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, USA. Ng CL and Xu YL (2006), “Seismic Response Control of
Chang TS and Singh MP (2002), “Seismic Analysis a Building Complex Utilizing Passive Friction Damper:
of Structures with a Fractional Derivative Model of Experimental Investigation,” Earthquake Engineering
Viscoelastic Dampers,” Earthquake Engineering and & Structural Dynamics, 35(6): 657–677.
Engineering Vibration, 1(2): 251–260. Ou JP, Long X and Li QS (2007), “Seismic Response
Analysis of Structures with Velocity-dependent
Chen YT and Chai YH (2011), “Effects of Brace Stiffness
Dampers,” Journal of Construction Steel Research,
on Performance of Structures with Supplemental
63(5): 628–638.
Maxwell Model-based Brace-damper Systems,”
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40(1): Ramirez OM, Constantinou MC, Kircher CA, Whittaker
75–92. AS, Johnson MW, Gomez JD and Chrysostomou CZ
(2001), Development and Evaluation of Simplified
Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Hammel W and Sigaher
Procedures for Analysis and Design of Buildings
AN (2001), “Toggle–brace–damper Seismic Energy
with Passive Energy Dissipation Systems, Technical
Dissipation Systems,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
Report MCEER-00-0010, Multidisciplinary Center for
127(2): 105–112.
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) New York at Buffalo, USA.
(1997), NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
Sigaher AN and Constantinou MC (2003), “Scissor-
of Buildings (FEMA Publication 273), Washington, DC.
Jack-Damper Energy Dissipation System,” Earthquake
Huang HC (2009), “Efficiency of the Motion Spectra, 19(1): 133–158.
Amplification Device with Viscous Dampers and
SNAP (2009), Technical Manual, ver.5, Kozo System,
Its Application in High-rise Buildings,” Earthquake
Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(4): 521–536.
Soong TT and Spencer BF (2002), “Supplemental
Hwang JS, Huang YN and Hung YH (2005), “Analytical
Energy Dissipation: State-of-the-art and State-of-the-
and Experimental Study of Toggle-brace-damper
practice,” Engineering Structures, 24(3): 243–259.
Systems,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(7):
1035–1043. Symans MD, Charney FA, Whittaker AS, Constantinou
90 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

MC, Kircher CA, Johnson MW and McNamara RJ (2008), 627–645.


“Energy Dissipation Systems for Seismic Applications: Zhang RH and Soong TT (1992), “Seismic Design of
Current Practice and Recent Developments,” Journal of Viscoelastic Dampers for Structural Applications,”
Structural Engineering, 134(1): 3–21. Journal of Structural Engineering, 118(5): 1375–1392.
Tsai KC, Chou CC, Lin CL, Chen PC and Jhang SJ Zhou X and Peng L (2009), “A New Type of Damper
(2008), “Seismic Self-centering Steel Beam-to-column with Friction-variable Characteristics,” Earthquake
Moment Connections using Bolted Friction Devices,” Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(4): 507–520.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(4):