0 views

Uploaded by Rodrigo Lezameta

ad

- Structural modeling and analysis of gas turbine using 3d elements
- Seismic Pounding
- ACE2012_Schedule_Day1.pdf
- Comparison of Wind Loads Calculated by Fifteen Different Codes and Standards,For Low (Steel Portal Frame), Medium and High-rise Buildings
- 5aese Korea Univ Hslee 2 Final
- VTR8_II_85
- Software Verification
- Experiment on Linear Vibration Apparatus
- 05-01-0374
- Assignment 3 Eece 300
- Water Power Penstocks Hydrodynamic Pressures Due to Earthquakes Oct 2005
- GL Ship Vibration 09
- Car Analysis
- Fileh
- Soil Dynamics (syllabus).pdf
- Campbell PDF
- Inno2018 Emt2502 Vibrations Undamped Mdof
- Eigen value Extraction method-.doc
- Enhancement of vibration for FSAE Race Car Driver
- Vibration Analysis of a Residential Building

You are on page 1of 12

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

energy dissipation systems using fluid viscous dampers

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

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

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

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

(5 mm acrylic)

z FVD z

148

x y

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

Steel angle

Rigid frame

Shaking table

Exciter Load cell

Signal controller PC

Laser displacement sensor

Data logger

Load cell

Amplifiers

Velocimeter (Servo)

82 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

(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

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)

frame

Amplifier

z

Shaking table

Exciter

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%

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

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)

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

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

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

“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):

- Structural modeling and analysis of gas turbine using 3d elementsUploaded bysidk1984
- Seismic PoundingUploaded byagustinusset
- ACE2012_Schedule_Day1.pdfUploaded byTuba Eroglu Azak
- Comparison of Wind Loads Calculated by Fifteen Different Codes and Standards,For Low (Steel Portal Frame), Medium and High-rise BuildingsUploaded byCalvin Tang
- 5aese Korea Univ Hslee 2 FinalUploaded byDaniel Francisco Cevallos
- VTR8_II_85Uploaded byRoy Christian Coarita Tintaya
- Software VerificationUploaded bySƠn
- Experiment on Linear Vibration ApparatusUploaded byanuradamudalige
- 05-01-0374Uploaded bythanzawtun1
- Assignment 3 Eece 300Uploaded byTiago Cardoso
- Water Power Penstocks Hydrodynamic Pressures Due to Earthquakes Oct 2005Uploaded byBagheri Hessam
- GL Ship Vibration 09Uploaded byucv vibraciones mecanicas
- Car AnalysisUploaded bymatteo_1234
- FilehUploaded byhitesh_tilala
- Soil Dynamics (syllabus).pdfUploaded byRamesh Selvaraj
- Campbell PDFUploaded byAnonymous d23gWCRQ
- Eigen value Extraction method-.docUploaded byV.m. Rajan
- Inno2018 Emt2502 Vibrations Undamped MdofUploaded byinnoodira
- Enhancement of vibration for FSAE Race Car DriverUploaded byFarah Danial
- Vibration Analysis of a Residential BuildingUploaded byPedro Henrique Gama Neiva
- Prediction of safe working frequencies of screening machine by Harmonic AnalysisUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- Cen 502 End Term (2017) - PrintUploaded byskverma5724
- FE-based Vehicle Analysis of Heavy TrucksUploaded byviluk
- Pentamaran1Uploaded bymohammad ridho
- Problemas Circuitos MagneticosUploaded byPatrickGustavoSuyoMarin
- 4Uploaded byRobert Simmons
- Static ResponseUploaded byBendine Kouider
- 13_2623Uploaded byTeju Ashu
- 2002 - Frequency Damage IdentificationUploaded bypaulkohan
- 2011011124.C1.Thambiratnam.draft_paper.p108-S66AuthorGalley.pdfUploaded bymingul

- Paper3 - Simultaneous Optimization of Force and Placement of Friction Dampers Under Seismic LoadingUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta
- Paper5 - Investigations of the Application of Gyro-mass Dampers With Various Types of Supplemental Dampers for Vibration Control of Building StructuresUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta
- 5.0 Ejemplos de Descripción de SuelosUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta
- Resumen FinalUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta
- 12660004 Compdyn FinalUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta

- Sat Math Hard Practice QuizUploaded byappleniu
- 8dio Requiem Pro 2 Read MeUploaded byFersh Jarringtone
- Coiled Tubing for Downhole ProcessUploaded byCristian Barbuceanu
- Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 05Uploaded byElliot Morton
- HW2VM235SU2016Uploaded bytony960129
- glutamine stability study.pdfUploaded byItay Raphael Oron
- VFD Cable Termination GuideUploaded bymehdi227
- RoFEB1Uploaded bySergio
- Turbodesign-Next Generation Design Software for PumpsUploaded byJun GWan Park
- Dunhm-Bush PRODUCT GUIDEDB Global Product GuideUploaded byFalak Khan
- Band SawUploaded byKelvin Tyh
- Eur J Orthod 2003 Benson 149 58Uploaded byEliza DN
- human factorsUploaded byravindhar_809173
- 238 Guillain Barre SyndromeUploaded byDr. Anish Golchha
- Dumont 43-101 FINAL Jul25Uploaded byoztug
- Prayer to Our Lady of Good SuccessUploaded byJennyx Duarte
- A Pope’s Answer to the Problem of Pain _ Catholic AnswersUploaded byAnonymous 01pQbZUMM
- Pain AssessmentUploaded byAnonymous GoYA1OWWl
- 16Uploaded byPablo Erices
- Case Millennium TSS J v1Uploaded bykiller drama
- Cse Rgpv SyllabusUploaded bynayansharma19485
- on the symmetries of strong and weak interactionsUploaded byghauldin
- F4 mid-year '09 P3Uploaded byMarz Zamzuri
- Circuit, Resistor Report ExampleUploaded byDebby Syefira
- Whirlpool Osmosis GuideUploaded byg_junk5213
- Zebra MC3200 User GuideUploaded byManohar
- 604 Squadron BookUploaded byAnonymous opf1scD
- Anthropogenic Hazard - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byDeepjyoti Kalita
- Micro-Textures in Plagioclase From 1994e1995 EruptionUploaded byMonse Cascante
- origin of religionUploaded byapi-312876356