A PASSIVE TWO-STEP CONTROL FLUID

DAMPING DEVICE FOR SEISMIC

PROTECTION OF STRUCTURES

By

HONGBO WANG

December 2007

A dissertation submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of

State University of New York at Buffalo

In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering

 UMI Number: 3291555

UMI Microform 3291555

Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was jointly sponsored by the National Science Foundation (Grant No.
EEC9701471) and the Federal Highway Administration through the Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (Contract No. DTFH61-98-C-00094). This
financial support is gratefully acknowledged.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. George C. Lee for his valuable
guidance and excellent advice throughout my graduate studies at the University at Buffalo.
In addition to technical knowledge, Professor Lee has taught me to have the courage to
pursue what I believe and to work hard to achieve my goals.

I would also like to thank Professor Niu for his guidance and for sharing his brilliant
thoughts and creative ideas in the laboratory. I also want to thank Prof. Aref and Prof.
Whittaker for serving on my dissertation committee and providing valuable advice and
suggestions.

Thanks also to Scot Weinreber and the other technical support staff at SEESL for their
assistance. I would also like to thank all the friends and colleagues I have met in Buffalo,
especially Dr. Yu-Chen Ou, for his help. I will always treasure the moments shared with
these colleagues during the past few years.

My appreciation also goes to the full support and encouragement of my husband, Lianjun
Weng.

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.................................................................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 4
2.1. Viscous Fluid Damper for Passive Structural Control.................................. 4
2.2. Semi-active Structural Control........................................................................ 6
2.2.1. Electro/Mechanical Devices ..................................................................... 7
2.2.2. Controlled Fluid Viscous Devices ........................................................... 10
2.2.3. Devices Based on Smart Materials ......................................................... 13
2.3. Seismic Isolation Systems ............................................................................... 17
2.3.1. Sliding Isolation Systems......................................................................... 19
2.3.2. Roller Bearing System ............................................................................. 21
2.3.3. Displacement Control and Limiting Device .......................................... 23
CHAPTER 3 COMPONENT TESTS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS OF THE
PROTOTYPE DEVICE .................................................................................................. 25
3.1. Description and Operating Principles........................................................... 25
3.2. Component Test Setup ................................................................................... 30
3.3. Component Test Procedure and Results....................................................... 33
3.3.1. Adjustment of Valves............................................................................... 33
3.3.1.1. Adjustment of pilot operated relief valves..................................... 34
3.3.1.2. Adjustment of needle valve ............................................................. 35
3.3.1.3. Adjustment of displacement control cam ...................................... 38
3.3.2. Responses under Sinusoidal Waves........................................................ 38
3.3.3. Responses under Earthquake Waves ..................................................... 39
3.4. Analytical Model of Two-step Control Devices............................................ 42
3.4.1. Basic Mechanical Equations ................................................................... 42
3.4.2. Numerical Simulations ............................................................................ 45
3.4.2.1. Direct block simulation from basic equations ............................... 45
3.4.2.2. Algebra equation solution method ................................................. 51
3.4.2.3. Verification test results.................................................................... 55
3.5. Simplified Model for Passive Two-step Control Device .............................. 61
CHAPTER 4 PARAMETRIC STUDIES ON SEISMIC RESPONSES OF SDOF
SYSTEMS WITH THE PTCD DEVICES .................................................................... 65
4.1. Description of Ground Motions..................................................................... 65
4.2. Analysis Procedure ......................................................................................... 67
4.3. Control System Parameters and Selected Values ........................................ 71
4.4. Earthquake Responses.................................................................................... 72
4.4.1. Response Quantities................................................................................. 72
4.4.2. Response History...................................................................................... 84
4.4.3. Comparison with Passive Control .......................................................... 88
CHAPTER 5 SHAKE TABLE TESTS OF A BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM .... 100
5.1. Roller Isolation Bearings.............................................................................. 101

ii
 5.2. Combination of Passive Two-step Control Device (PTCD) and Roller
Isolation Bearing (RIB) ............................................................................................ 109
5.3. Shake Table Test Setup ................................................................................ 111
5.4. Experimental Procedures and Results ........................................................ 117
5.4.1. Tests Under Sinusoidal Waves.............................................................. 117
5.4.2. Tests Under Earthquake Waves ........................................................... 133
5.4.2.1. Input earthquake records.............................................................. 133
5.4.2.2. Test procedure and results............................................................ 135
5.5. Test Results Verification .............................................................................. 166
5.5.1. Analytical Model .................................................................................... 166
5.5.2. Verifications of Experimental Results ................................................. 168
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 172
6.1. Summary and Conclusions........................................................................... 172
6.2. Future Research ............................................................................................ 174
APPENDIX A1 FIGURES OF COMPARISON OF SEISMIC RESPONSES
UNDER MCE GROUND MOTIONS.......................................................................... 176
APPENDIX A2 FIGURES OF COMPARISON OF SEISMIC RESPONSES
UNDER MCEN GROUND MOTIONS ....................................................................... 185
REFERENCE................................................................................................................. 194

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Summary of Component Tests (Frequency Scan) ………………………….. 40

Table 3-2: Mechanical Parameters of Prototype Device ….…………...………………. 54
Table 4-1: Deviation Cases under MCE Ground Motions ………………..……………. 87
Table 4-2: Notation for Figures 4-15 and 4-17 ……………………...…………………. 89
Table 4-3: Deviation Cases under MCEN Ground Motions ………….………...…….....95
Table 5-1: Summary of Table Tests (Frequency Scan) …………………………….…. 120
Table 5-2: Shake Table Inputs Measured in Preliminary Tests ……………….………. 134
Table 5-3: Summary of Table Test Results (under Earthquake Waves) ….................... 137

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Semi-active Damper Tested by Symans (1995) ………………………..…… 10

Figure 2-2: Switching Oil Damper tested by Kurino et al. (2004) ……………………… 12
Figure 2-3: Variable Damper Tested by Kawashima (1992) …………………………... 13
Figure 2-4: SMA Stress-strain Relationship …………………………………………… 16
Figure 2-5: Lead Rubber Bearings …………………………………………………….. 18
Figure 2-6: R-FBI System …...………………………………………………………… 19
Figure 2-7: FPS System (Zayas, 1990) ……….………………………………………... 21
Figure 2-8: DCFP System (Fenz, 2006) ……………………………………………….. 21
Figure 2-9: RIB System ………………..………………………………………………. 22
Figure 3-1: Device Schematic ……….…………………………………………………. 26
Figure 3-2: Fluid Flow for Block ………………………………………………………. 27
Figure 3-3: Pilot Operated Relief Valve …………………………………………….…. 28
Figure 3-4: Force-displacement Relationship of PTCD Device …..……….…………... 29
Figure 3-5: PTCD Device …………………….…………………….………………….. 30
Figure 3-6: Prototype Device …………………...……………………………………… 31
Figure 3-7: Distribution of Valves on the Manifold ……….…………………………... 31
Figure 3-8: Displacement Control Cam ………………………………………………... 32
Figure 3-9: Test Arrangement ………………………………………………………….. 33
Figure 3-10: Adjustment of High Pressure Valves …………………………………….. 34
Figure 3-11: Adjustment of High and Low Pressure Valves …………………………... 35
Figure 3-12: Adjustment of Needle Valves ……………………………………………. 36
Figure 3-13: Force-velocity Relationship ……………………………………………… 36
Figure 3-14: Influence of the Needle Valve …….……………………………………... 37
Figure 3-15: Adjustment of Displacement Control Cam ………………………………. 38
Figure 3-16: Responses under Sinusoidal Waves ……………………………………… 41
Figure 3-17: Earthquake Waves Displacement Time History ……………….………..... 41
Figure 3-18: Responses under Earthquake Waves …………………………….………... 42
Figure 3-19: Pressure Development …………………………………………….……..... 49
Figure 3-20: Direct Block Simulation ………………………………………….……… 50

v
Figure 3-21: Simulation Result under 0.4 Hz Sinusoidal Waves ……...………………. 51
Figure 3-22: Algebra Equation Solution Simulation Method ………………………….. 54
Figure 3-23: Simulation Results by Algebra Equation Solution Method ……………… 55
Figure 3-24: Simulation Results for Sinusoidal Waves ………………………………... 56
Figure 3-25: Simulation Results for Earthquake Waves ……………………………….. 60
Figure 3-26: Comparison of Force-displacement Relationship ………………………... 62
Figure 3-27: Comparison of Force-velocity Relationship ……………………………... 62
Figure 4-1: Displacement Spectrum for MCE and MCEN ……………………... 66
Figure 4-2: Analysis Flowchart ………………………………………………………... 71
Figure 4-3: Peak Displacement under MCE …………………………………………… 73
Figure 4-4: Peak Velocity under MCE ………………………………………………… 75
Figure 4-5: Peak Absolute Acceleration under MCE ………………………………….. 77
Figure 4-6: Maximum Es/Ei under MCE ……………………………… 79
Figure 4-7: Mean Peak Displacement ……………………………………………….…. 82
Figure 4-8: Mean Peak Velocity ……………………………………………………….. 83
Figure 4-9: Mean Peak Absolute Acceleration ………………………………………… 83
Figure 4-10: Mean Peak Es/Ei …………………………………………………………. 83
Figure 4-11: Force-displacement Relationship ………………………………………… 85
Figure 4-12: Displacement Time History ……………………………………………… 85
Figure 4-13: Acceleration Time History ……………………………………………….. 85
Figure 4-14: Energy Dissipation Time History (n=3.0) ……………………………….. 86
Figure 4-15: Comparisons under MCE Motions ………………………………………. 91
Figure 4-16: Mean Peak Response under MCE Motions ……………………………….93
Figure 4-17: Comparisons under MCEN Motions …………………………………….. 96
Figure 4-18: Mean Peak Response under MCEN motions …………………………….... 98
Figure 5-1: Movement of Roller Isolation Bearing …………………………………... 102
Figure 5-2: Layout of Roller Bearing ………………………………………………… 103
Figure 5-3: Roller Isolation Bearing Assembly ………………………………….…… 103
Figure 5-4: Force Components of Roller Isolation Bearing ………………………..… 106
Figure 5-5: Force-displacement Relationship for a Combined System ……………… 110
Figure 5-6: Detail of the Test Set-up …...…………………………………………….. 114

vi
Figure 5-7: Base Isolation System …………………..…………………...…………… 115
Figure 5-8: Measurement Sensors ……………………………………………………. 116
Figure 5-9: Test Set-up and Data Acquisition System ……………..…..…………….. 117
Figure 5-10: Force-displacement Loops of PTCD Device under Sinusoidal Waves … 122
Figure 5-11: Comparison of Acceleration Responses under Sinusoidal Waves ……… 128
Figure 5-12: Earthquake Record Time Histories ……………………………………... 134
Figure 5-13: Displacement Response Spectrum ……………………………………… 135
Figure 5-14: Force-displacement Relationship of PTCD device ……………….…….. 140
Figure 5-15: Superstructure Acceleration Time History ……………………………... 147
Figure 5-16: Bearing Displacement Time History ……………………………………. 154
Figure 5-17: Comparison of Acceleration-displacement Relationships ……………… 161
Figure 5-18: Analysis model for RIB and the Base Isolation System ………………... 168
Figure 5-19: Simulation Results under Sinusoidal Waves …………………………… 169
Figure 5-20: Simulation Results under Earthquake Motions …………………………. 171

vii
 ABSTRACT

This dissertation describes the development of a new passive two-step control damping

(PTCD) device for the seismic protection of structures. The new device is a passive system

that acts as a semi-active system by delivering two-step variable damping forces. It can be

applied directly to structures in series with a linearly elastic brace, or as part of a seismic

isolation system by providing an added fail-safe function when the displacement of the

structure becomes excessively large. The PTCD device is simple, cheap and reliable,

because its operation does not need the external power, sensors, computers or special

algorithms that are part of a standard active or semi-active system.

Based on the operating principles of mechanical valves, a prototype PTCD device has been

manufactured and tested under both sinusoidal waves and earthquake ground motions in the

laboratory. Test results show that the PTCD device consistently provides the analytically

predicted two-step variable damping functions. The analytical model was further simplified

to allow direct calculation of the two-step force-displacement relationship to encourage use

of the PTCD device in engineering practice.

Using a simplified approach, parametric studies were conducted on the seismic responses of

a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system with the PTCD device installed and subjected

to the MCEER west coast ground motions. When compared to corresponding systems

installed with conventional passive dampers, the proposed PTCD device provided superior

performance for earthquakes of different intensities. This was illustrated by the

significantly reduced displacement responses under earthquakes with near-fault

viii
characteristics when two-step damping is provided, and a lower level acceleration response

under low and moderate earthquakes.

To illustrate the effectiveness of this device in limiting extra large isolator displacement, a

base isolation system was experimentally studied. This isolation system consisted of a roller

isolation bearing (RIB), and the proposed PTCD device. Shake table tests were performed

on a rigid superstructure equipped with the base isolation system. Experimental results

showed good agreement with the numerically predicted results. Both the analytical and

experimental results illustrated that the PTCD device effectively reduced bearing

displacements and provided better performance for isolated structures.

ix
 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

During the past two decades, a large number of passive energy dissipation devices have

been developed and much research has been conducted to investigate their ability to

improve the seismic responses of structures (Hanson and Soong, 2001). Viscous fluid

dampers (VFD) are a type of supplemental damping device in which the damper force is

generated by a pressure differential across the piston head. Experimental and analytical

investigations indicated that VFDs are effective in reducing seismic demands in structures

(Constantinou and Symans, 1992). Base isolation systems, which decouple the upper

structures from ground shaking, are the most widely implemented and accepted passive

control technology (Naeim and Kelly, 1999).

Semi-active control systems, which modify the control force using a controller and

algorithm, are active technologies that allow a structure to adapt or respond to external

dynamic forces (Soong and Spencer, 2002). However, the lifetime serviceability of the

electric parts used in most semi-active control systems can not meet the requirement of

maintainability and renewability of structural systems. In addition, current approaches to

semi-active control are too comprehensive or expensive to be implemented in the real

world.

Recent major earthquakes have consistently shown that isolated buildings and bridges are

more vulnerable to damage when they are subjected to near-fault earthquakes (Nagarajaiah

and Sun, 2001; Loh et al. 2002). Traditionally, an allowable gap or moat is used in practice

to restrain the excessive isolator displacement during an extreme earthquake. However,

impact between the structure and the adjacent rigid block increases the shear force and drift

1
demands of the superstructure. A technology is needed to prevent impact during severe

earthquakes.

The motivation of this research is to develop a low cost, easy to implement, two-step

control system which is equivalent to a simplified semi-active control device. That can

provide a variable damping for earthquakes with different magnitudes through a simple

mechanical operation, without using electrical power.

The specific objectives of this research are to:

1. Develop a relatively simple, low cost and reliable two-step control device. The

two-step control is mechanically-based. No sensors, computers, special algorithms

or external power sources are needed for implementation.

2. Test and identify the mechanical properties of the prototype passive two-step

control damping (PTCD) device, and develop analytical models to describe its

dynamic behaviour.

3. Perform parametric studies on the seismic response of a single-degree-of-freedom

(SDOF) system incorporating the PTCD device under near-fault ground motions.

4. Develop a base isolation system by combining the proposed PTCD device together

a roller isolation bearing (RIB) system to demonstrate displacement control

features of the device. The smart base isolation system reduces the transforming

force to the upper structure during moderate earthquakes, and controls excessive

bearing displacement thus decreasing impact during extreme earthquakes.

2
This dissertation research is presented in six chapters: Chapter 2 provides a review of basic

research on semi-active control and base isolation systems, mainly focusing on viscous

fluid dampers and sliding base isolation systems. Mechanical properties, component tests

and analytical models of the PTCD device are described in chapter 3. A simplified analysis

method for the PTCD device that can be used in engineering practice is also proposed.

Chapter 4 presents parametric studies on the seismic response of an SDOF system

incorporating the proposed PTCD device. Development and experimental studies of a base

isolation system, which includes the proposed PTCD device and RIB, are described in

chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides a summary, conclusions, and future work.

3
 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

A significant number of passive energy dissipation devices have been developed and much

research has been conducted to examine the efficiency of using passive control systems.

Viscous fluid dampers are considered as supplemental damping devices in which the

damper force is generated by a pressure differential across the piston head. In this chapter,

experimental results and analytical investigations on viscous dampers are reviewed first,

focusing primarily on the nonlinear force-velocity relationship for nonlinear viscous fluid

dampers.

The state-of-the-art research in semi-active structural control is reviewed next. The most

important feature of the proposed PTCD device is that it achieves two-step control using

passive mechanically-based principles rather than semi-active technologies. Variable fluid

viscous damper are emphasized.

Finally, the development of friction isolation systems and research on their displacement

control capabilities under ground motions in the near-fault region are reviewed.

2.1. Viscous Fluid Damper for Passive Structural Control

During the past two decades, a large number of studies have been conducted on passive

structural control systems. Aiken et al. (1993) investigated the effectiveness of seven types

of dampers by comparing the response of tested structures with analytical studies. Hanson

and Soong (2001) presented the basic concepts of supplemental energy dissipation

technology, including characterization of devices, analysis and design of damper-added

structures through several examples. A simplified method for analysis and design of

4
buildings with passive energy dissipation systems was developed and evaluated by

Ramirez et al. (2001) for the year 2000 update of the NEHRP recommended provisions.

Among the many supplemental energy dissipation device available today, fluid viscous

dampers, which operate on the principle of fluid flow through orifices, have been used in a

significant number of applications. At first, many studies focused on linear viscous

behavior. Constantinou and Symans (1992) conducted a series of tests on linear fluid

viscous dampers and their dependence on frequency and temperature. A mathematical

model was used to verify the results of earthquake simulation tests on one- and three-story

steel structures with linear fluid dampers. A combined experimental and analytical study of

reinforced concrete structures retrofitted with linear fluid viscous dampers was conducted

by Reinhorn et al. (1995). Analytical modeling of fluid viscous dampers was then

implemented in IDARC 2D.

Recently, interest has increased in the nonlinear force-velocity relationship of fluid viscous

dampers to determine their ability to limit the peak damper force at large velocities.

Seleemah and Constantinou (1997) presented the first systematic experimental study of

nonlinear viscous damper devices and concluded that nonlinear dampers generally produce

greater drift response reduction than linear dampers. Tan et al. (2005) conducted a

parametric study of the near-fault effects on seismically excited highway bridges. Their

extensive numerical simulations showed that nonlinear viscous dampers can achieve a

significant reduction in response quantities during both broad band and pulse-like ground

motion components. Martinez-Rodrigo and Romero (2003) numerically investigated the

seismic response of multi-story steel moment resisting frames equipped with fluid viscous

dampers. They found that the maximum force experienced by nonlinear dampers could be

5
reduced by more than 35% when compared to retrofitting with linear dampers with a

similar displacement response. Pekcan et al. (1999) considered two issues related to the

design of nonlinear viscous dampers: structural velocities and equivalent viscous damping.

They developed an empirical transformation between pseudo and actual velocities and

used an equivalent power consumption approach to determine the equivalent damping. Lin

and Chopra (2003) examined the seismic response of asymmetric systems with nonlinear

viscous dampers. They found that structural response was slightly affected by nonlinearity,

and nonlinear dampers essentially achieved the same reduction in response but with much

smaller damper force than linear dampers. They also proposed a simplified analysis

procedure for asymmetric-plan systems with nonlinear dampers. Goel (2005) investigated

the effects of damper nonlinearity on the seismic response of asymmetric systems

responding beyond their elastic range. He also examined the effects of damper nonlinearity

on some important response quantities, including base shear and base torque generated by

asymmetric distribution of dampers.

2.2. Semi-active Structural Control

In semi-active control systems, the properties of the system can be modified to an

appropriate adjustment through control algorithms based on structural response feedback.

To achieve an optimum control, a small amount of external power is usually required. The

development and experimental studies of semi-active control systems for application in

structural control have been investigated since the 1990’s (Soong and Spencer, 2002).

According to the characteristics of the devices, semi-active structural control systems can

be divided into two categories: electro/mechanical devices and devices based on smart

materials. Electro/mechanical devices include variable orifice dampers, controllable

6
friction dampers, variable stiffness devices, and tuned mass dampers. Research on the last

three mechanical devices is reviewed first in this chapter. Research on semi-active

controllable fluid dampers are reviewed separately, since the PTCD device presented in

this dissertation achieves the two-step control equivalent to semi-active fluid dampers

through a more simplified operation. Finally, state-of-the-art research on devices based on

smart materials is presented.

2.2.1. Electro/Mechanical Devices

A semi-active variable stiffness system was proposed by Kobori et al. (1993) as a structural

seismic response control system. The primary objective of this system is to control the

stiffness of a building to establish a non-resonant state during an earthquake and thus

suppress its seismic response. The variable stiffness device (VSD) comprises a two-ended

type enclosed hydraulic cylinder with a regulator valve inserted in the tube that connects

the two cylinder chambers. It produces two alternate stiffnesses by locking and unlocking

the connection between the braces and the main structure through its open/close function

controlled by oil movements. The VSDs were installed on a full-scale three-story steel

structure and a control algorithm was developed to ensure appropriate stiffness selection to

evaluate the building’s response in real-time. The control effect was checked by comparing

the recorded response of the structure during earthquakes with the simulated response

obtained by the analytical model of the structure without the control system. The results

confirmed that the control system functioned as expected.

Another type of semi-active independently variable stiffness (SAIVS) control device was

developed by Nagarajaiah and Mate (1998). The SAIVS device consists of sets of spring

7
elements and telescoping tube elements which can change the stiffness to several values.

The shake table test results of an SDOF system, tested with a SAIVS device, illustrated the

control effect – reduction of both the steady state displacement and acceleration response

by harmonic excitation.

The variable friction damper concept is derived from passive friction braces where the

preload is kept constant. Akbay and Aktan (1991) proposed an active friction slip brace

(ASB) which can control the pressure on a frictional interface by an electric motor that

regulates the strength of the brace component. A simple operation algorithm with fixed

damping force increments was developed and applied to a simple frame structure with an

ASB device. An experimental study of a scaled four-story frame mounted with the ASB

was conducted by Pandya et al. (1996).

Experimental and analytical studies of a friction-controllable sliding base isolation system

were conducted by Feng et al. (1992, 1993). The variable friction force, controlled by

computer by changing the pressure in the fluid chamber of the bearing, makes the sliding

isolation system more effective in controlling structural responses under earthquakes with

a broad range of intensities. Two control algorithms, instantaneous optimal control and

bang-bang control, were developed to control the friction force in this system. A prototype

hybrid sliding system was developed and installed on a rigid structural model for shake

table testing. Computer simulation showed good agreement with the experiment results.

Tuned mass dampers (TMD) are mass-spring-dashpot systems installed on the roof of a

building. Although passive TMDs tuned to be in resonance with the structure were proven

to be effective in reducing wind-induced vibration in high-rise buildings, their performance

8
in suppressing seismic response is relatively limited. Hrovat et al. (1983) proposed a

semi-active TMD in which a passive TMD is connected to a so-called semi-active damper

with time varying damper force through operation of a control valve initiated by electrical

signals. Simulation studies on elastic systems showed the proposed system is superior to

passive TMDs and comparable to active TMDs.

TMDs usually need a time interval to become fully effective because the mass is initially at

rest. This makes TMDs inefficient during some strong seismic ground motions that might

occur in the earlier stages of an earthquake. To overcome this disadvantage, a semi-active

TMD which utilizes both initial TMD displacement and variable damping was proposed by

Abe (1996). The control algorithms were developed based on perturbation solutions of

vibration modes. Numerical studies under earthquake loads showed that this semi-active

method offers better performance than conventional passive TMDs.

Nagarajaiah and Varadarajan (2000) developed a semi-active variable stiffness tuned mass

damper (SAIVS-TMD). In this system, the TMD is combined with a semi-active variable

stiffness control (SAIVS) device. A control algorithm based on instantaneous frequency

estimation was used to provide the TMD with optimal stiffness. The system was

implemented in a 1:10 scale three-story frame model. Results from both shake table testing

and analysis confirmed the robust performance of the SAVIS-TMD in reducing structural

responses.

Tuned liquid dampers (TLD) use the same principle as TMD except that the

mass-spring-dashpot system is replaced by a rigid container filled with fluid. Lou et al.

(1994) proposed that the effectiveness of a TLD in reducing seismic vibration can be

9
enhanced by modifying the tank length and adjusting the position of the rotatable baffles in

the tank. A semi-active variable-damping tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) was

studied by Yalla et al. (2001). The system requires a controllable orifice with negligible

valve dynamics whose coefficient of head loss can be changed continuously by applying a

voltage command. Three types of control methods were developed. Numerical examples

showed that the semi-active strategies provide better response reduction than passive

TLCD for both random and harmonic excitations.

2.2.2. Controlled Fluid Viscous Devices

A semi-active fluid viscous damper

typically consists of an external valve

connected to a conventional passive

fluid damper. With a small power

supply, the external valve can

modulate the pressure differential

(a) Construction of semi-active damper
across the piston head and thus adjust

the output force of the dampers.

Symans and Constantinou (1995)

developed and experimentally studied

(b) Force-displacement relationship
Figure 2-1: Semi-active Damper Tested by two semi-active damper systems: a
Symans (1995)
two-stage damper, which can develop

two distinct levels of damping; and a variable damper, which is capable of developing a

wide range of damping characteristics (see figure 2-1). The mechanical properties of the

10
devices and time delays associated with the operation of sinovalves were determined

through component tests. In addition, shake table tests were performed on one- and

three-story model structures both with and without the semi-active damping system.

Analytical predictions of the shake table test results showed good agreement with the

experimental results.

A small-size variable damper similar to the type described by Symans was developed and

tested by Sato et al. (1996). An analytical model that provides the relationship between the

damping force, piston velocity and valve opening ratio was calibrated through test data.

The efficiency of the control system was proven by demonstrating a wide capacity for

generating arbitrary hysteretic loops.

Liang et al. (1995) presented a preliminary theoretical development of a real-time

structural parameter modification (RSPM) system. A pilot experimental study on metal

frame structures incorporating a functional switch with on/off status to control the linear

connection with braces was conducted and the results were quite close to theoretical

predictions. A switching oil damper based on the same principle (the opening of an on/off

valve) as Liang described was developed by Kurino et al. (2004). This device can dissipate

twice as much energy as an ordinary passive damper given the same displacement response

(see figure 2-2). Dynamic loading tests of the full-scale device showed stable performance.

11
 (a) Comparison of hysteretic loop (b) Picture of the damper

Figure 2-2: Switching Oil Damper Tested by Kurino et al. (2004)

Kawashima et al. (1992) proposed a semi-active variable damper that consists of a

cylinder-type viscous damper and an external steel pipe by-pass with servo valves. The

damping force increases until the pressure in the servo valve reaches a specific value, after

which the damping force becomes constant. Based on dynamic loading test results of the

prototype device, an empirical equation was obtained to describe the relationship between

the input voltage and the damping force. A displacement dependent control algorithm was

also developed to control the damping coefficient of the variable damper. Numerical

analysis of a simple span girder bridge showed that the semi-active variable damper can

reduce both peak deck displacement and acceleration.

12
 (a) Construction of damper (b) Force-displacement relationship

Figure 2-3: Variable Damper Tested by Kawashima (1992)

2.2.3. Devices Based on Smart Materials

Electrorheological (ER) materials have the ability to reversibly change properties from a

flowing fluid to a semi-solid state with controllable yield strength in milliseconds when

subjected to an electric field. This characteristic makes ER materials ideally suited for

application to vibration control. Ehrgott and Masri (1992) experimentally investigated the

dynamic behaviour of electrorhelogical materials in shear. Mathematical models that

simulate the post-yield dynamic response of ER materials were developed using three

approaches: a global equivalent linear system approach, a parametric identification, and a

non-parametric method in which the system acceleration and velocity were chosen as state

variables in the two-dimensional Tchebycheff polynomial fit. Component tests on a

small-scale ER damper were performed by Gavin et al. (1996). These experimental results

verified that the Bingham model provides a simple and sufficiently accurate estimation of

pressure gradients and force levels for design purposes, despite many material

13
complexities such as particle size, morphology, stoichiometry, ion concentration,

permittivity and dielectric loss.

Gavin et al. (1996) conducted additional tests on a large-scale ER control device, which is

comprised of an array of nine rigidly interconnected rectangular plates translating

rectilinearly through the ER fluid. This experimental study extended the analysis of

curve-fitting methods by Ehrgott et al. (1992) in a three-dimensional domain including the

electric field. An ER fluid damper suitable for vibration and seismic protection of civil

structures was designed, constructed, and tested by Makris et al. (1996). The damper

consists of an outer cylinder and a piston rod that pushes the ER fluid through a stationary

annular duct. An elastic-viscoplastic law that satisfactorily predicts the fluid behaviour at

different deformation rate was proposed.

Magnetorheological damper (MR) fluids appear to be an attractive alternative to ER fluids

for use in controllable fluid dampers. MR fluids are magnetic analogs of ER fluids, where

reversible changes occur by the application of a magnetic field. Typically, MR fluids

consist of micron-size, magnetically polarized particles dispersed in a carrier medium such

as mineral or silicone oil. Carlson and Weiss (1994) presented the promising features of

MR fluids in civil engineering applications. First, yield stress values of MR fluids were

easily obtained in excess of 80 kPa. Compared to the yield stress of ER fluid in 3 kPa range,

the achievable yield stress of MR fluids was much greater than ER fluids. In addition, MR

fluids can operate at temperatures from -40 to 150oC with only slightly varying yield

strength. Moreover, MR fluids were not affected by the presence of chemical impurities

normally encountered during manufacturing and daily operation. Furthermore, the MR

14
fluid can be readily controlled with low power (e.g. 50 W) and low voltage (e.g. 12~24 V),

which can be supplied by batteries.

To take advantage of the features of MR fluids and evaluate the usefulness of MR devices

in response reduction for civil engineering structures, Spencer et al. (1997) developed a

phenomenological model for MR dampers. This phenomenological model was based on

the Bouc-Wen model, which is numerically tractable and capable of exhibiting a wide

variety of hysteretic behaviours. This model overcame some shortcomings of several other

idealized mechanical models for controllable fluid dampers and predicted the behaviour of

MR dampers. A series of component tests on a prototype MR damper were conducted. The

experimental data showed that the model can accurately predict responses of the MR

damper over a wide range of operating conditions. Additional experiments were performed

by Dyke et al. (1998), where the MR damper was used in conjunction with a

clipped-optimal control strategy to control a three-story test structure subjected to

one-dimensional ground excitation. The clipped-optimal control algorithm used

acceleration responses to perform the control calculation. Experimental results from all

cases showed that the semi-active controllers performed significantly better than passive

systems in reducing the structural responses. To prove the scalability of MR fluid

technology to an appropriate size for civil engineering applications, a full scale, 20-ton MR

damper was designed, built and tested by Spencer et al. (1998). The damper had a stroke of

8 cm and contained approximately 5 liters of MR fluid. Experimental data verified

theoretical analysis of the MR fluid damper by axisymmetric and parallel-plate models.

Shape memory alloys (SMA) are a type of smart material whose intrinsic dissipation

mechanism results in a considerable damping capacity. Two primary properties of SMAs

15
 are of interest in structural control applications. The

first is revisable hysteretic transformation between

different twins of the martensite phase at

temperatures below its transformation temperature

range. As shown in figure 2-4a, this behaviour is

called the shape memory effect (SME). The second

is a diffusionless and revisable phase

Figure 2-4: SMA
Stress-Strain Relationship transformation between austenite and martensite at

a temperature slightly above its transformation temperature. This behaviour is referred to

as the superelastic effect (SEE) and has zero residual strain as shown in figure 2-4b.

Witting and Cozzareli (1992) presented experimental studies of Cu-Zn-Al shape memory

alloys. A Cu-Zn-Al torsional bar, which displays superelastic stress strain relationships,

was designed and installed on a 2/5 scale steel frame structure. Test results demonstrated

that Cu-Zn-Al dampers were effective in mitigating seismic responses, and were sensitive

to different types of ground motions. A detailed test study on nickel and titanium (NiTi)

SMAs was conducted by Whittaker et al. (1995). The effects of temperature,

thermo-mechanical processing and alloy-prestress on the force-deformation characteristics

of both the SME and SEE were investigated. Detailed analysis of the seismic responses of

a pre-selected non-ductile concrete building with and without NiTi SMA energy

dissipaters demonstrated the effectiveness of SMA in mitigating the seismic hazard for a

moderate level of earthquake shaking. Masuda et al. (2002) presented a study on SDOF

system with a pseudoelastic SMA restoring force to find the optimal hysteretic loop

16
“shape” of SMA elements, which provides the maximum damping performance. This

provided the basis for the development of SMA-based semi-active control systems.

Piezoelectric sensors, as small, inexpensive, non-invasive, elastic wave

generators/receptors, have been applied in structural health monitoring (SHM) systems.

Park et al. (2003) summarized the hardware and software issues of impedence-based

piezoelectric sensors. Piezoelectric actuators appear to be attractive for semi-active friction

damper applications in civil engineering because of their wide band capacity, and their

quick and accurate response to a driven command such as voltage signals. Chen and Chen

(2004) presented an experimental study on the seismic response of a quarter-scale,

three-story building model installed with a previously designed and fabricated friction

damper with four piezoelectric actuators on the first story. The results obtained from shake

table tests indicate that the proposed piezoelectric friction damper is adaptable to

multi-level earthquake excitations. A control strategy was developed to suppress the

vibration of the structure when the structural deformation and its derivative were increased.

It was also concluded that significant saturation of a damper has adverse effects on the

seismic effectiveness of a semi-active control strategy. Unsal et al. (2003) developed a new

semi-active piezoelectric based friction damper, the heart of which is a piezoelectric stack

with a mechanical amplifying mechanism. Experimental results on the device showed that

the frictional force amplitude is not strongly dependent on frequency and is approximately

linear with applied voltage.

2.3. Seismic Isolation Systems

The history of using a base isolation system to decouple a superstructure from the effects of

ground motion can be traced back to 400 BC, where the Parthenon in Ancient Greece had a

17
rocking column at its base. Beginning on the 1980’s, implementation of seismic isolation

systems to protect buildings and bridges became widely accepted throughout the U.S.,

Japan, New Zealand, China, U.K., Italy and Turkey, etc. The basic goal of seismic isolation

is to shift the fundamental frequency of a structure away from the dominant frequencies of

earthquake ground motions.

Currently, two basic types of isolation systems are used in practice: elastomeric bearings

and sliding bearings. Elastomeric

bearings include low-damping natural

rubber bearings and lead-rubber bearings.

Typically, elastomeric bearings are

composed of rubber layers alternating

with steel plates solidly joined together

under high pressure and temperature

Figure 2-5: Lead Rubber Bearings
(vulcanization). Properties of rubber such

as high elastic deformation, large elongation, and incompressibility provide low horizontal

stiffness and large vertical stiffness to the bearings. Steel plates can improve the gravity

load carrying capacity and stability of bearings. Mechanical properties of elastomeric

bearings depend on temperature, velocity of loading, load history and strain history.

Lead-rubber bearings are made of lead core and low-damping rubber as shown in figure

2-5. Naeim and Kelly (1999) presented a detailed description of the mechanical

characteristics of elastomeric isolators, developed models of them, and described the

design of elastomeric bearing isolated structures.

18
2.3.1. Sliding Isolation Systems

Sliding isolation bearings use friction to limit the transmission of shear force across the

isolation interface and dissipate seismic energy. These isolator systems can reduce torsion

effects in asymmetric structures. The friction force is developed at the base of a structure

and is proportional to its mass, so the center of mass and the center of resistance of the

sliding support coincide.

A simple pure friction (P-F) system was developed, tested and applied in a low-rise

masonry residential building by Li (1984). An artificial horizontal slit with a layer of sand

spread between two smoothing terrazzo plates was built on top of the foundation of the

masonry walls. Under small earthquakes and wind loads, the system acted as a fixed base

structure due to static friction force. Results of shake table testing showed that sliding

occurred and maximum acceleration of the superstructure was reduced and kept to a

dynamic frictional coefficient multiplied by g.

Mostaghel and Khodaverdian (1987)

presented the dynamics of a

resilient-friction base isolation

(R-FBI) device, which is composed

of a set of flat rings with a central

Figure 2-6: R-FBI System rubber core and/or peripheral rubber

cores (shown in Figure 2-6). The role of the rubber core is to distribute sliding

19
 displacement and velocity along the height of the R-FBI. Results of numerical studies of

the system for various levels of friction and damping demonstrated the R-FBI’s potential as

an effective seismic base isolator.

An innovative seismic isolation system, the Friction Pendulum System (FPS), was

developed by Zayas et al. (1990). The FPS achieves the desired seismic isolation by small

amplitude pendulum motions of the supported structure and absorption of earthquake

energy by friction damping. Figure 2-7 shows a cross section view of an FPS. Component

tests of individual FPS isolators demonstrated their stability. Results from comprehensive

earthquake simulation tests on five building models concluded that an FPS can achieve

effective and versatile seismic isolation effects through its geometry.

Fenz and Constantinou (2006) studied the behavior of a double concave friction pendulum

bearing (DCFP) (see Figure 2-8). A general description of the DCFP bearing that accounts

m for the unequal radii of curvature and coefficients of friction, the effect of the height of the

articulated slider, and the effect of friction in the rotation part of the articulated slider was

presented. The theoretical force-displacement relationship was developed and verified

through characterization testing.

20
 Figure 2 -7: FPS System Figure 2-8: DCFP System
(Zayas, 1990) (Fenz, 2006)

2.3.2. Roller Bearing System

Lin and Hone (1993) presented a base isolation system that used free rolling rods under the

basement. In this device, the maximum force of excitation transmitted to the superstructure

by an earthquake is the rolling friction, which is very small. Through numerical studies on

a three-story frame structure with a solid steel roller isolation system, it was concluded that

the device was quite effective in controlling the acceleration of the superstructure and was

a practical isolation scheme. To overcome the large peak and residual base displacement of

the rolling rod isolator, Jangid and Londhe (1998) proposed elliptical rolling rods rather

than circular ones. A theoretical formulation to obtain the seismic response of a multistory

building supported on elliptical rolling rods was developed. Numerical studies of different

eccentricities of rods showed that elliptical rolling rods were effective in reducing the

seismic response of the system without undergoing large transient and residual

displacement.

21
A rolling isolation system, called the “Ball-in-Cone” (BNC) system, was investigated by

Kasalanati et al. (1997). The BNC bearing consisted of two steel plates with machined and

polished conical surfaces, and a stainless steel spherical ball between them. Earthquake

simulator tests were performed on a bridge model with a BNC bearing coupled with

supplemental friction dampers. Experimental results indicated reductions in pier force and

deck accelerations.

Figure 2-9: Sketch and Photos of RIB

Wang (2005) presented comprehensive studies of a new type of roller isolation bearing

(RIB) consisting of a roller rod between three parallel plates that permitted multidirectional

horizontal movements. Figure 2-9 shows a cross view and photograph of the roller

isolation bearing. The plate surfaces can be either sloped and/or concave. The working

mechanism and equations of motion of the RIB, and its characteristics when combined

with viscous dampers or friction dampers, were studied. A new seismic isolation design

principle for RIB was proposed. Results from both the numerical analysis of a 10-story

building isolated by RIB and an experimental study on a single-span steel girder bridge

isolated by RIB all demonstrated that the proposed RIB system was effective for seismic

isolation applications.

22
2.3.3. Displacement Control and Limiting Device

Since the main purpose of an isolation system is to reduce shear force transition to the

upper structure through low horizontal stiffness of the isolator or through friction and

geometry, large displacements will concentrate on the isolation level. Displacement

control of isolators, especially under ground motions containing large, rapid displacement

pulses in the near-source region, is a main concern. Hall et al. (1995) studied the effects of

near-source ground motions on the responses of isolated buildings. They concluded that a

typical isolated building on flexible pads with a moat width of 40 cm, a dimension

exceeding that in several existing southern California isolated buildings, would impact its

perimeter wall under a moderate to large near-source earthquake. Nagarajaiah and Sun

(2001) evaluated the seismic performance of the base-isolated Fire Command and Control

(FCC) building in Los Angeles during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. From this

evaluation, it was evident that the base-isolated FCC building performed well, except for

impact, which increased shear and drift demands on the structure.

Kikuchi (1992) studied a new type of knock-off abutment to absorb collisions between the

base-isolated bridge girder and the abutment during major earthquakes. Functionality of

the knock-off abutment was tested, a design method was proposed and a field study on an

actual base-isolated bridge in Japan, located on an area of high seismicity and subjected to

heavy highway traffic, was also conducted.

Kim et al. (2000) investigated the efficacy of using energy dissipating restrainers at

expansion joints to prevent collapse of highway bridges in the event of severe earthquakes.

Results from analytical studies demonstrated that energy dissipating restrainers were

effective in limiting the opening displacements and in reducing pounding forces at the

23
expansion joints, without significantly increasing ductility demands in bridge

substructures.

In this dissertation, a passive two-step control damping (PTCD) device is developed. The

device is connected with a roller isolation bearing isolator (RIB) to form a new type of

isolation system. During a moderate earthquake, the PTCD device provides a small amount

of damping, similar to conventional passive viscous dampers, to limit displacement of the

RIB without significantly increasing floor acceleration and interstory drift of the

superstructure. During an extreme earthquake, the PTCD device increases damping under

large displacements through two-step control, thus dissipating more energy to limit

excessive displacements of the isolators and reduce the effects of impact.

24
 CHAPTER 3 COMPONENT TESTS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS OF THE
PROTOTYPE DEVICE

The purpose of this research is to develop a simple and reliable passive device that achieves

a two-step control based on structural response using only mechanical valves, without the

need for any external power source, sensors, computers or special algorithms. This device

is based on a traditional viscous fluid damping device modified by an added by-pass loop

that contains control valves.

3.1. Description and Operating Principles

The research presented in this dissertation focuses on the application of the passive

two-step control damping (PTCD) device to a single-degree-of-freedom structure. In this

device, operations under small structural deformations use the same principles as those in

most traditional passive viscous fluid dampers. That is, when a structure experiences a

small deformations caused by thermal forces or material creep, the damping force, brought

by a slow rate of fluid flow, is small enough to be ignored. However, damping forces can

be offered when small structural deformations occur during short time periods, to account

for the braking load of vehicles or impact. During design earthquakes and strong wind

loads, a supplemental damping system is supposed to provide as much energy dissipation

as possible for a given maximum damping force and displacement, and thus reduce the

overall dynamic response of the structure. According to this motivation, the PTCD device

was designed to offer the same practically constant damping force as a convenient

nonlinear fluid viscous damper. However, the maximum damping force output by this

device is not related to variations in velocity. In addition, the PTCD device can supply a

large damping force when the displacement of the structure exceeds a pre-set design

25
displacement, such as during an extreme earthquake. With this function, the PTCD can not

only suppress excessive displacements caused by an extreme event but can also act as a

shock absorber to prevent the impact force introduced by a sudden stop.

As shown in Figure 3-1, the PTCD device consists of a standard hydraulic cylinder with a

steel stainless piston rod running through it and a bolt-on manifold block. When the piston

rod in the cylinder body moves along with the main structure, the manifold block controls

the oil pressure and thus controls the damping force provided by the device to realize the

functions mentioned above. Figure 3-2 illustrates the fluid flow of the manifold block,

which consists of four types of control valves: needle valve 1, low pressure relief valves 2p

and 2n, high pressure relief valves 3p and 3n, and directional valve 4. The function of each

type of valve is described in the following paragraphs.

Bolt-on Manifold
Piston Rod StandardSeries 2H
Hydraulic Cylinder

Figure 3-1: Device Schematic

The needle valve 1 (orifice) is adjusted to offer a low damping force that is easy to restore

when the structural velocity is very low under thermal force and material creep. A large

damping force can be also achieved under a large structural velocity-caused impact load. It

is the same orifices effect as in most conventional passive fluid viscous dampers.

26
 1: Needle valve
2p: Low pressure valve for positive
2n: Low pressure valve for negative
3p: High pressure valve for positive
3n: High pressure valve for negative
4: Directional valve
4L: Displacement control cam for left
4R: Displacement control cam for right
5: Check valve
N egative
B ase bar
6: Accumulator

Positive
Figure 3-2: Fluid Flow for Block

The low pressure control valves 2p and 2n provide low and constant damping force. These

relief valves are pilot operated and make performance of the proposed device different

from a conventional viscous damper. For general viscous dampers, the damping force is

developed by an orificing effect and can be simply modeled as (Hanson and Soong, 2001):

F = CV α

Where: F : Developed damping force;

C : Damping coefficient related to fluid viscosity and orifice sizes;

V : Relative velocity of damper;

α : Velocity exponent related to the shape of the orifices, generally taken as

0.3~2.0;

However, damping forces developed by the relief valve do not have much of a relationship

with velocity. The pilot operated relief valves 2p and 2n consist of a pilot valve with a

27
spring and a main valve with a spring, as shown in Figure 3-3. The pressure p is calculated

as:

K t 1X t 1 K t 2 X t 2
p= +
A1 A2

Where: K t 1 and K t 2 are spring stiffness of the main and pilot valves, X t1 and X t 2 are

compressed length for springs of the main and pilot valves, and A1 , A2 are effective area

of the main and pilot valves, respectively.

The pilot valve is intentionally designed

as K t 2 >> K t 1 and A2 << A1 , so the

contribution for p from the first item is very

small. This means that significant pressure

can be developed by opening the pilot valve

first. Then, the flow rate of the main valve

does not have much of an effect on the main

Figure 3-3: Pilot Operated Relief Valve pressure. Thus, the total damping force does

not have a significant relationship with velocity variance. Therefore, the damping force of

the proposed device basically depends on the spring force in the pilot valve. An optimizing

damping force is obtained by adjusting the pre-set compression length of the pilot spring.

The operation principle of the higher pressure control valves 3p and 3n is the same as 2p

and 2n, only with a higher damping force provided.

The directional valve 4, a cam operated two-way valve with tapered spool, acts together

with the displacement control cam 4L and 4R to control switching of fluid flow between 2p,

28
2n and 3p, 3n (between lower and higher near constant damping). The directional valve 4 is

usually opened within the range of pre-set displacement, which can be adjusted by

changing the position of cam 4L and 4R on the base bar. When the damper displacement is

over the pre-set value, the cam 4L or 4R depresses the plunger of valve 4. Fluid flow

through low pressure valves gradually decreases to the cut-off point. Thus the PTCD

device provides a high damping force by switching the fluid flow through high pressure

valve 3p or 3n. Two check valves (5) and an accumulator (6) are used to compensate for oil

leakage.

Through operation of these four different types of valves, the proposed PTCD device

provides constant damping forces, which are practically velocity independent, and offer

two stages of control according to the pre-set safe displacement boundary. Figure 3-4

shows the force-displacement relationship of the PTCD device. Compared to semi-active

control damping system, the PTCD device is a relatively simple, low cost and reliable

control device.
Hysteresis Loops of Force-Displacement Relation
(Input Sine vawe0.1Hz 7v [ 8.4in] Needle valve 0.5 turns)
8

adjust by valve 3p adjust by valve 3p

4
adjust by cam 4R

2
adjust by valve 2p
Damping Force [kips]

adjust by valve 1
adjust by valve 1
0

adjusu by valve 2n

-2

adjust by cam 4L

-4

-6

adjusu by valve 3n
adjusu by valve 3n
-8
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement [in]

Figure 3-4: Fore-displacement Relationship of PTCD Device

29
3.2. Component Test Setup
Based on the operation principles

described in Section 3.1, a

prototype PTCD device was

manufactured by modifying a

conventional passive damper with

an added manifold block. The

prototype device is shown in

Figure 3-5. The prototype damper

provides 17,000 lbs maximum

Figure 3-5: PTCD Device damper force and ±15.5 inches

maximum stroke. Geometric sketches of the prototype damper are shown in Figure 3-6.

The size of the device is 81.75 inches in length and 14.4 inches in height. Figure 3-7 shows

the distribution of the needle valve, pilot operated relief valves and check valves on the

manifold block. As shown in Figure 3-8, to achieve displacement adaptive control, the base

bar, where the displacement control cams 4R and 4L are grounded, is connected to the end

of a piston rod by a connecting plate so that it can move together with damper. If the

displacement of the damper reaches the pre-set value, the direction control valve 4 will turn

on/off to change the fluid flow and thus change the damping force.

30
 Inch Tube

Figure 3-6: Prototype Device

Front View Rear View

Left View Right View

Figure 3-7: Distribution of Valves on the Manifold

31
 Connecting plate

Mounting plate

Screw & Washer

Cam
Cam bar holder

Cam base bar

Figure 3-8: Displacement Control Cam

Figure 3-9 shows the test setup for the prototype PTCD device. The device was housed on

the base and connected at one end of the piston to an actuator. The MTS model 244.31

servo hydraulic actuator with 15 kips capacity, ±12 inches stroke, and BD30 servo valve

was used to provide dynamic excitation to the damper. An NI model 407 controller was

used to control the input displacement signal. The force and displacement of the damper

was recorded by a load cell and a displacement transducer built into the actuator.

Experimental data were inputted and acquired using NI Virtual Bench 2.1 data software

running on a PC and a 16 bit NI AT-MIO-16XE-10 data acquisition board. An NI BNC

2090 adapter was used for the connection. The sampling rate was selected as 500

points/second.

32
3.3. Component Test Procedure and Results

3.3.1. Adjustment of Valves

The prototype PTCD device was tested in the arrangement shown in Figure 3-9 by

imposing motion to the damper. To obtain the ideal force-displacement relationship shown

in Figure 3-4, the four valves in the manifold block were adjusted separately or together

during tests under sinusoidal waves input with 8.4 in amplitude and 0.1 Hz. To verify the

operation principles and investigate the performance characteristics of the PTCD device,

the number of valve turns was adjustable in the prototype device. In engineering

application, these valves will be fixed at a certain number of turns to provide the desired

damping forces based on the structural design.

Figure 3-9: Test Arrangement

33
3.3.1.1. Adjustment of pilot operated relief valves

A series of tests were conducted when the displacement control cams were set at ±5 in and

needle valve 1 was fixed at 0.5 turns by adjusting the pilot operated relief valves. First, the

low pressure control valves 2p and 2n were set at 5 turns; and the high pressure control

valves 3p and 3n were adjusted for 4.5, 4.25 and 3 turns separately. From the test results

shown in Figure 3-10, it is seen that both low and high damping forces are approximately

constant and independent with velocity. The results in figure 3-10 also illustrate the

nonlinearity of this new device. When valves 3p and 3n were adjusted to 3 turns, the device

provided almost 5.6 times the damping force, while the displacement exceeded the pre-set

threshold (±5 in).

Hysteresis Loops of Force-Displacement Relation

(Input Sine vawe0.1Hz 7v [ 8.4in] Needle valve 0.5 turns)
10

8 Valve 3p turns
3

4
4.25
Valve 2p turns
2 4.5
Damping Force [kips]

0
5
4.5
Valve 2n turns
-2 4.25

-4

-6
3

-8 Valve 3n turns

-10
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement [in]
u3rr35to50dd5rr25to45n05s0170.fig

Figure 3-10: Adjustment of High Pressure Valves

The valves 2p and 2n were set at 4.75, 4.5, 4.25, 4, 3.75, and 3.5 turns, and then

correspondingly, valves 3p and 3n were adjusted to 4.0, 3.75, 3, 3.25 and 3.0~2.5 turns.

34
Figure 3-11 shows the results of these tests, where the stability and precision of the device

to control the damping force can be observed. Overshoot can be seen in both figures 3-10

and 3-11. The phenomena are obvious when the high pressure valve 3p or 3n opens with

large pressure variation. This is explained by the properties of the pilot relief valves, where

the spring stiffness in the pilot valve and the mass of the valve form a

single-degree-of-freedom system that vibrates under input excitations.

Hysteresis Loops of Force-Displacement Relation

(Input Sine vawe0.1Hz 7v [ 8.4in] Needle valve 0.5 turns)
10
Valve 3p turns
2.5
8 2.75
3 Valve 2p turns

3.25 3.5
6
3.5 3.75
3.75 4
4
4 4.25
4.25 4.5
2 4.5 4.75
Damping Force [kips]

0
5
4.5 4.75
4.5
-2 4.25
4.25
4
4
3.75
-4 3.75
3.5
3.5
3.25
-6
Valve 2n turns
3

2.75
-8
2.5

Valve 3n turns
-10
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement [in]
u3rr35to50dd5rr25to45n05s0170.fig

Figure 3-11: Adjustment of High and Low Pressure Valves

3.3.1.2. Adjustment of needle valve

A series of tests were conducted by adjusting the needle valve 1 when low pressure valves

2p and 2n were fixed at 5 turns, high pressure valves 3p and 3n were fixed at 3 turns and

displacement control cams were set at ±5 in. The test results are shown in Figure 3-12. As

the turn number of needle valve 1 increased (e.g., more opening of needle valve), more

fluid flows through the needle valve instead of the high pressure control valves 3p and 3n.

35
 Hysteresis Loops of Force-Displacement Relation
(Input Sine wave 0.1Hz 7v (8.4 in))
When the needle valve reached 1
10
0.25 turn

8
0.5 turns
turn, high pressure control
0.75 turns
6
Needle valve 1 turn
valves 3p and 3n were no longer
4

effective for its given opening

2
Damping Force [kips]

0
Relief valves 5 turns
pressure. Therefore, damping
-2
forces in the range of
-4

-6
displacement larger than the

-8
pre-set bound were provided by
Relief valves 3 turns
-10
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement [in]
u3rr50dd5rr25to45n02to1s0170.fig
the orifice valve. Velocity data

was obtained by differentiating

Figure 3-12: Adjustment of Needle Valves
displacement and force-velocity

relationships as shown in Figure 3-13. Figures 3-12 and 3-13 show that as the number of

turns of the needle valve increased, the damping forces were reduced, but smaller energy

dissipation and therefore higher velocity were achieved.

The relation between restoration velocity and needle valve adjustment

8

0.25 turns
0.14 in/s per kip
6

0.5 turns 0.75 turns

0.25 in/s per kip 0.5 in/s per kip
5
force [kips]

4
1 turn
0.6 in/s per kip

3
needle valve 1.00 turn
u3rr50dd5rr35s0170-v.txt(1:710)

2 needle valve 0.75 turns

u3rr50dd5rr30n07s0170.txt(1400:2200)

needle valve 0.5 turns

u3rr50dd5rr30n05s0170-v.txt(3260:4000)
1
needle valve 0.25 turns
u3rr50dd5rr30n02s0170-v.txt(1850:2400)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
velocity [in/s] u3n02to1s0170V-F.fig

Figure 3-13: Force-velocity Relationship

36
To investigate the influence of the needle valve on the force-displacement loop shape, a

series of tests were performed by adjusting the high pressure valves while the needle valve

is fixed. From the results of these tests shown in Figure 3-14, it can be seen that increasing

turns of 3p will bring the fluid flow back through needle valve. In other words, decreasing

the opening pressure of the high pressure relief valves 3p by increasing the numbers of

knob turns will result in larger velocity for opening of the high pressure valve. When the

maximum output damping force provided by the needle valve at the moment of pre-set

displacement is less than the opening pressure of valve 3p, the high pressure relief valve 3p

cannot open, which means that fluids flow directly through the needle valve when the

structural displacement is larger than the pre-set value. According to the test results,

adjustment of the pressure valve is not effective when the high pressure valve is smaller

than 3.25 turns and the needle valve is 1 turn, or when the high pressure valve is smaller

than 2.25 turns and the needle valve is 0.75 turns. This adjustment indicates that the

proposed device can be operated to achieve different hysteresis loops.

Hysteresis Loops of Force-Displacement Relation

(Input Sine wave 0.1Hz 7v [8.4 in], Take off cam 4L )

3p# 1 turn 1# 0.25 turns

14 3p# 1.25 turns 1# 0.25 turns

3p# 1 turns 1# 0.5 turns

3p# 1.25 turns 1# 0.5 turns
12
3p# 1.5 turns 1# 0.5 turns
3p# 1.75 turns 1# 0.5 turns
10 3p# 2 turns 1# 0.5 turns
3p# 2.25 turns 1# 0.5 turns
3p# <2.25 turns 1# 0.75 turns
Damping Force [kips]

8 3p# 2.5 turns 1# 0.75 turns

3p# 2.75 turns 1# 0.75 turns

3p# 3 turns 1# 0.75 turns
6
3p# <3.25 turns 1# 1 turn
3p# 3.5 turns 1# 1 turn

4 3p# 3.75 turns 1# 1 turn

3p# 4 turns 1# 1 turn

3p# 4.25 turns 1# 1 turn 2p# 4.75 turns
2

3p# 4.5 turns 1# 1 turn

3n# 5.5 turns 2n# 5 turns

-2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement [in]
u3r47d5r1to45n02to1.fig

Figure 3-14: Influence of the Needle Valve

37
3.3.1.3. Adjustment of displacement control cam

A series of tests were conducted by adjusting the displacement control cams 4L and 4R

when number of knob turns of the low pressure valves was set at 4.75 turns, the high

pressure valves were set at 3.75 turns and the needle valve was set at 0.5 turns. Figure 3-15

displays the results obtained by adjusting displacement control for ±3.5, ±4.0, ±5.0, ±6.0,

and ±7.0 inches, respectively. The prototype device performed well within all ranges of

pre-set displacements. The changing of liquid flow between the low and high pressure

valves was stable at every pre-set control displacement. In addition to overshoot, nonlinear

dead zone is also observed in Figure 3-15. This is caused by a combination of factors, such

as the gap of mechanical components, existing air in the fluid, and the natural nonlinearity

of the elastic module of fluids.

Hysteresis Loops of Force-Displacement relation

(Input Sine wave 0.1 Hz 7v (8.4 in))
7

3p 3.75 turns
6
3p 3.75 turns
5

4
Nonlinear
dead zone
3
2p 4.75 turns
2
Damping Force [kips]

1
1# Needle valves 0.5 turns

2n 4.75 turns
-1
Displacement Control 3.5 in
-2 Displacement Control 4 in
Displacement Control 5 in
Nonlinear -3 Displacement Control 6 in

dead zone -4
Displacement Control 7 in

-5
3n 3.75 turns
-6
3n 3.75 turns
-7
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement [in]
u3rr47dd7to3rr35n05s0170.fig

Figure 3-15: Adjustment of Displacement Control Cam

3.3.2. Responses under Sinusoidal Waves

A total of 21 tests were conducted in the frequency range of 0.1 Hz to 2.0 Hz and amplitude

of 8.4 in when the number of knob turns of the low pressure valves 2p and 2n were set at

38
4.5 turns, the high pressure valves 3p and 3n were set at 3.25 turns, the needle valve was at

0.5 turns and the displacement control cam was fixed at ±5 in. The test results are shown in

Figure 3-16. The damping forces are controlled well within all frequency ranges. Table 3-1

summarizes the test results, where the maximum force output does not include the spike

from overshooting.

3.3.3. Responses under Earthquake Waves

To investigate the performance of this prototype device under excitation from variable

magnitudes, in addition to the sinusoidal excitations, several typical earthquake ground

motions were used. Six earthquake ground motions were used to perform the tests when the

number of knob turns of the low pressure valves 2p and 2n were fixed at 4.75 turns, the

high pressure valves 3p and 3n were fixed at 3.5 turns, the needle valve was set at 0.5 turns

and the displacement control cam was set at ±5in. Figure 3-17 illustrates the displacement

time history of these six earthquake waves. Figure 3-18 shows the test results. It is seen that

the prototype device realizes two-step damping control under all the earthquakes ground

motions used in these tests.

39
 Table 3- 1: Summary of Component Tests (Frequency Scan)

Number Frequency Amplitude Maximum Maximum Force Maximum Force

(Hz) (in) Velocity output by 2p and output by 3p and
(in/s) 2n 3n
(kips) (kips)
Positive Negative Positive Negative
1 0.1 10.2 6.41 2.48 2.50 5.94 6.65
2 0.15 9.6 9.05 2.84 2.83 6.43 7.02
3 0.2 8.64 10.86 3.02 2.91 6.70 7.18
4 0.25 8.16 12.82 3.01 2.97 6.62 7.50
5 0.3 7.44 14.02 3.00 3.00 6.65 7.50
6 0.35 6.84 15.04 2.96 3.00 6.65 7.50
7 0.4 6.24 15.68 2.95 2.99 6.62 7.28
8 0.45 5.1 14.42 2.90 2.93 6.58 7.13
9 0.5 4.65 14.61 2.94 2.89 6.49 6.90
10 0.55 4.2 14.51 2.87 2.94 6.77 6.95
11 0.6 3.8 14.33 2.86 2.90 ---- ----
12 0.7 3.2 14.07 2.82 2.89 ---- ----
13 0.8 10.2 14.07 2.80 2.90 ---- ----
14 0.9 2.5 14.14 2.80 2.88 ---- ----
15 1 2.2 13.82 2.83 2.86 ---- ----
16 1.1 2 13.82 2.84 2.87 ---- ----
17 1.2 1.8 13.57 2.87 2.90 ---- ----
18 1.4 1.5 13.19 2.87 2.89 ---- ----
19 1.6 1.3 13.07 2.91 2.90 ---- ----
20 1.8 1.15 13.01 2.90 2.93 ---- ----
21 2 1 12.57 2.81 2.91 ---- ----

40
 Hysteresis Loops of Force-Displacement Relation
(Scanning for Sine waves 0.1 to 2.0 Hz)
10

0.1 Hz
8 0.15 Hz
3p valves 3.25 turns
0.2 Hz

6 0.25 Hz
0.3 Hz
0.35 Hz
4 2p valves 4.5 turns
0.4 Hz
0.45 Hz
2
Damping Force [kips]

1# Needle valves 0.5 turns 0.5 Hz

0.55 Hz
0 0.6 Hz
0.7 Hz
-2 0.8 Hz
0.9 Hz
2n valves 4.5 turns
-4 1.0 Hz
1.1 Hz
1.2 Hz
-6
1.4 Hz
3np valves 3.25 turns 1.8 Hz
-8
2.0 Hz

-10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement [in]
u3rr45dd5rr32n05s01to20.fig

Figure 3-16: Responses under Sinusoidal Waves

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0
Displacement (in)

2.0

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-2.0
Time (s)
-4.0
Tafn21eD Elcs00eD
-6.0 Elcn90wD Nr7ewD
Mexn90wD Holli90D
-8.0

-10.0

Figure 3-17: Earthquake Waves Displacement Time History

41
 Hysteresis Loops of Force-Displacement Relation
(Input Earthquake waves)
8

3p valve 3.5 turns

4 2p valve 4.75 turns

Damping force [kips] 2 1# valve 0.5 turns

-2

2n valve 4.75 turns

-4
for Tafn21eD
for Elcs00eD
for Elcn90wD
-6
for Nr7ewD
for Mexn90wD 3n valve 3.5 turns
for Holli90D
-8
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement [in]
u3rr47dd5rr35earth-1.fig

Figure 3-18: Responses under Earthquake Waves

3.4. Analytical Model of Two-step Control Devices

Analytical modelling of the device is essential for application of the two-step control in

engineering practice. In this section, a model based on fluid mechanics equations, referred

to as the direct block model, is used to verify the test results. An algebra equation solution

method is also developed. Simulation results show both models can predict the

experimental responses well.

3.4.1. Basic Mechanical Equations

As shown in Figure 3-2, the damping force is developed by the fluid flow through different

valves. Fluid mechanics-based equations for the fluid flows through these valves are

presented separately as follows (Johnson, 2001):

For the main valve flow:

Q1 = K 1 X 1 p10.5 (3- 1)

Where

42
Q1 : Flow of the main valve;

X 1 : Opening size of the main valve;

p1 : Setting pressure;

2g
K 1 = C1πD1 ;
γ

C1 : Flow coefficient of the main valve;

D1 : Diameter of the main valve seat;

γ : Specific gravity of oil, which equals 8.85KN / m3 .

For the pilot valve flow:

Q2 = K 2 X 2 p 20.5 (3- 2)

Where

Q2 : Flow of the pilot valve;

X 2 : Opening size of the pilot valve;

p 2 : Pressure of the main valve upside or pressure of front cavity in pilot valve;

2g
K 2 = C 2πD2 sin α 2
γ

C 2 : Flow coefficient of the pilot valve;

D2 : Diameter of the pilot valve seat;

α 2 : Half cone angle of the pilot valve.

For orifice valve flow:

43
 Q3 = K 3 X 3 p10.5 (3- 3)

Where

Q3 : Flow of the orifice valve;

X 3 : Opening size of the orifice valve;

2g
K 3 = C 3πD3 sin α 3 ;
γ

C 3 : Flow coefficient of the orifice valve;

D3 : Diameter of the orifice valve seat;

α 3 : Half cone angle of the orifice valve.

There are two force equilibrium equations for the main valves and pilot valves,

respectively. For the main valve force:

K t1 ( X t1 + X 1 ) + A1' P2 + G + Fk = A1 p1 (3- 4)

Where

K t1 : Spring stiffness of the main valve;

X t1 : Pre-compression length of the main valve;

A1 , A1' : Areas of the main valve seat and area of the main valve upside, respectively. For

this prototype device, A1 = A1' .

G : Weight of the main valve, and Fk is the hydraulic lock force of the main valve.

For the pilot valve:

K t 2 ( X t 2 + X 2 ) = A2 p2 (3- 5)

44
Where

K t 2 : Spring stiffness of the pilot valve;

X t 2 : Pre-compression length of the pilot valve;

A2 : Area of the pilot valve seat.

For the cylinder flow, the total flow is:

Vc (3- 6)
Ac v − p1 = Q1 + Q2 + Q3
K
Where

Ac : Effective area of the cylinder;

v : Velocity of the piston of the device;

Vc : Compression volume of oil;

K : Bulk modulus of hydraulic oil.

The above three flow equations of the main, pilot and orifice valves, two equilibrium

equations of the main and pilot valves, and the total flow equation of the cylinder are

combined to simulate the force-displacement relationship of the proposed device.

3.4.2. Numerical Simulations

3.4.2.1. Direct block simulation from basic equations

As described in Section 3.1, when the velocity of the damper device is small, only the

orifice valve is opened to offer low damping force while the pilot-operated relief valves are

kept closed. Therefore, for Q1 = Q2 = 0 , equation 3-6 becomes:

Vc (3- 7)
Ac v − p1 = Q3
K

45
Inserting equation 3-3 into the above equation,

Vc (3- 6a)
Ac v − p1 = K 3 X 3 p10.5
K
For a given orifice valve open size X 3 and K 3 , equation 3-6a is the same as the

viscoelastic Maxwell model of a traditional nonlinear viscous damper with a damping

coefficient equal to 2.

As the structural velocity increases, fluid flows through the pilot operated relief valve by

opening the pilot valve first. Start opening size of the pilot valve X 2 k is obtained

by X 2 k = K 3 ⋅ X 3 / K 2 . Pressure at this moment (at the opening of the pilot valve) is

denoted as P2 k and is derived by combining the two equilibrium equations 3-4 and 3-5. For

X 1 = 0 (main valve not opening) and ignoring hydraulic force, equation 3-4 becomes:

K t1 X t1 + A1 P2 = A1 p2 k (3- 4a)

Kt 2 X t 2
Obtaining P2 = from equation 3-5 when X 2 = 0 , and combining it into equation
A2

Kt 2 X t 2
3-4a results in K t1 X t1 + A1 = A1 p2 k . That is also:
A2

K t1 X t1 K t 2 X t 2 (3- 8)
+ = p2 k
A1 A2

46
During opening of the pilot valve, the main valve is closed, which means X 1 = 0 . Ignoring

the hydraulic force, equation 3-4 will be K t1 X t1 + A1 p 2 = A1 p1 , and from equation 3-5,

( Kt 2 X t 2 + Kt 2 X 2 )
P2 = , add P2 , and equation 3-4 becomes:
A2

K t 1 X t1 K t 2 X t 2 K t 2 X 2 (3- 4b)
+ + = p1
A1 A2 A2
Recall equation 3-8 and add P2 k into equation 3-4b, which results in:

( p1 − p2 k ) A2 (3- 9)
X2 =
Kt 2

When the pilot valve is opening, the flow through it is large enough to ignore the flow of

the orifice valves. Combining equation 3-6 (for Q1 = 0, Q3 ≈ 0 ), equation 3-2, and equation

3-8 results in:

Vc ( p − p2 k ) A2 0.5 (3- 6b)

Ac v − p1 = K 2 1 p1
K Kt 2

Using the same principle for the pilot valve, the starting opening pressure of the main valve

is derived and is denoted as P1k . When X 1 = 0 , and ignoring the hydraulic lock force and

weight of valve, equation 3-4 becomes:

K t1 X t1 + A1 P2 = A1 p1k (3- 4c)

Obtaining P2 from equation 3-6 and inserting it into the above equation,

K t1 X t1 K t 2 X t 2 K t 2 X 2 K X (3- 10)
p1k = + + = p2 k + t 2 2
A1 A2 A2 A2

47
 K t1 X t 1 K t 2 X t 2
For X 2 ≈ 0.03 ~ 0.06cm , the result is p1k ≈ p2 k = + . The opening pressure
A1 A2

of main valve almost equals the opening pressure of pilot valve. So the characteristic of the

pilot operated relief valve is that a significant amount of pressure is developed by opening

pilot valve first, and the pressure does not increase much by opening the main valve. The

start opening size of the main valve X 1k is obtained by X 1k = K 2 ⋅ X 2 min / K 1 . Where

X 2 min is the size of the pilot valve when the main valve just starts opening. It is obtained

A2
from equation 3-5 when the pressure reaches p1k as X 2min = p1k − Xt2 .
Kt 2

During the opening of the main valve and ignoring the hydraulic force, equation 3-4 will

be K t1 X t1 + K t1 X 1 + A1 p 2 = A1 p1 , from equation 3-5, P2 is obtained, and added to

equation 3-4:

K t 1 X t1 K t 2 X t 2 K t 2 X 2 K t 1 X 1 (3- 4d)
+ + + = p1
A1 A2 A2 A1

Recall equation 3-10 and insert P1k into equation 3-4d,

( p1 − p1k ) A1 (3- 11)

X1 =
K t1

When the main valve is opening, the flows through the orifice valves and pilot valves can

be ignored. Combining equation 3-6 (for Q2 ≈ 0, Q3 ≈ 0 ), equation 3-2, and equation 3-8

results in:

Vc ( p − p1k ) A1 0.5 (3- 6c)

Ac v − p1 = K 1 1 p1
K K t1

48
The mechanical process of the valves opening is illustrated in Figure 3-19. High pressure

valves 3p and 3n are operated according to the principles described previously, but with a

higher spring stiffness of the pilot valve.

Pressure

p1k Main Valve

Pilot Valve

p2k

Orifice Valve

Velocity

Figure 3-19: Pressure Development

Observed overshooting phenomena seen in Figure 3-10 are simulated by a transfer

ωn 2
function for the self-vibration of the relief valve under step load: (Soong
s 2 + 2ξωn2 s + ωn 2

and Grigoriu, 1993), where the natural frequency ωn and damping ratio ξ are usually

provided by the manufacturer of the valves or determined by a percentage of

overshooting P0 and overshooting time t p through Equations (3-12) and (3-13)

49
 ⎛ 100 ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟
⎝ P0 ⎠
ξ= (3-12)
⎛ 100 ⎞
π 2 + ln 2 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ P0 ⎠

π
ωn = (3-13)
tp 1− ξ 2

A program based on differential equations 3-6a, 3-6b, and 3-6c is compiled to simulate the

response of this prototype device, as shown in Figure 3-20. Figure 3-21 shows the

simulation results under a sinusoidal wave of 0.4 Hz and amplitude 0.4 g acceleration

input.

v c
1 |u| Ac p
s2 +b.s+c Ac 1
t,vi
Abs F
du/dt Vc/K

[p1k] 2
K1 u 2 p1k
A1/Kt1
p1k m ain valve O2
IC

ACDx.mdl
5 (data in ACDm.m)
X1k O5
X1k
pilot valve
3
du/dt Vc/K
O3
2
K2 u
a2/Kt2
p2k [p1k]

p2k
6
X2k O6
X2k

orifice valve
du/dt Vc/K

K3 u^afa 7
X3 [p2k] O7

4
O4

Figure 3-20: Direct Block Simulation

50
 10

Damping Force[kips]
2

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement[in]

Figure 3-21：Simulation Result under 0.4 Hz Sinusoidal Waves

3.4.2.2. Algebra equation solution method

The direct blocks model involves judgment and iteration of three equations, which

decreases the computing speed. Another model is developed to solve the equation based on

Vc
some simplified assumptions. By ignoring the differential part p1 , equation 3-6c results
K

in:

K t1 Ac (3- 14)
p13/ 2 − p1k p11/ 2 − v=0
K1 A1

K t1 Ac
Let D = , the first root for the solution of p11/ 2 from this cubic equation is:
K1 A1

1 1 (3- 15)
⎛D P1k 3 D 2 v 2 ⎞3 ⎛ D P1k 3 D 2 v 2 ⎞3
p11/ 2 =⎜ v+ − + ⎟ +⎜ v− − + ⎟
⎜2 27 4 ⎟ ⎜2 27 4 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

51
For all mechanical parameters of the device larger than zero,

K t 1 X t1 K t 2 X t 2 K t1 Ac P1k 3 D 2v 2
p1k ≈ p2 k = + >> D = , >>
A1 A2 K1 A1 27 4

And therefore equation 3-15 yields the following:

1 1
⎛D P 3 D 2v 2 ⎞3 ⎛ D P 3 D 2v 2 ⎞3 (3- 16)
p11/ 2 = ⎜ v + i 1k − ⎟ + ⎜ v − i 1k − ⎟
⎜2 27 4 ⎟ ⎜2 27 4 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

1
⎛ D 2v 2 P 3 D 2v 2 ⎞3 ⎛ θ θ ⎛ θ⎞ ⎛ θ ⎞⎞
=⎜ + 1k − ⎟ ⎜ cos + i sin + cos ⎜ − ⎟ + i sin ⎜ − ⎟ ⎟
⎜ 4 27 4 ⎟ 3 3 ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠⎠
⎝ ⎠ ⎝

P1k θ
=2 cos
3 3

⎛ P1k 3 D 2 v 2 ⎞
⎜ − ⎟
where : θ = tan −1 ⎜ 27 4 ⎟
⎜ D ⎟
⎜ v ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠

K t 1 X t1 K t 2 X t 2 K A P1k 3 D 2 v 2 D π
For p1k ≈ p2 k = + >> D = t1 c , so − >> v and θ ≈ , thus
A1 A2 K1 A1 27 4 2 2

π p1k
during the opening of the main valve, p11/ 2 ≈ 2 cos is only related to the fabricated
6 3

mechanical parameters of the pilot operated relief valves and is practically constant

regardless of the velocity and displacement of the device.

52
 2 2
⎛ 3⎞ ⎛ p1k ⎞
And p1 ≈ 4 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = p1k , which can be determined by adjusting the
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠

pre-compression length of the spring in the pilot valve, as described in Section 3.1.

The fact that the pilot operated relief valves provide practically constant damping forces

for a given set of mechanical parameters of the pilot operated relief valves (given in Table

3-2), is explained numerically.

From equation (3-10), with X 2 = 0.03cm

K t 1 X t1 K t 2 X t 2
p1k ≈ p2 k = + = 51.38 + 4316.66 = 4368 KN / m 2
A1 A2

Substituting the values given in table 3-2 and the maximum velocity vmax = 1.56m / s (for

sinusoidal wave with frequency at 0.4 Hz and amplitude at 0.4 g) into equation 3-16:

⎛ P1k 3 D 2 vmax2 ⎞
⎜ − ⎟
θ = tan −1 ⎜ 27 4 ⎟ = 89.810 = 0.499π ;
⎜ D ⎟
⎜ vmax ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠

P1k θ
p11/ 2 = 2 cos = 66.13KN 1/ 2 / m ;
3 3

Therefore the analytical solution of pressure when v = vmax is:

KN
p1 = 4373.57 = 1.0013 ( p1k )
m2

This example numerically illustrates the unique mechanical properties of this PTCD device.

The damping force is constant and is independent of the variances in velocity.

53
The program based on the algebra equation solution is shown in Figure 3-22. Simulation

results obtained by this program are shown Figure 3-23.

Table 3- 2: Mechanical Parameters of Prototype Device

Name Value

Effective Area of Cylinder Ac 3.8 X 10−3 m 2

Spring Stiffness K t1 2.94 KN / m

Main Pre-compression length X t1 0.01m

Valve
Area of valve seat A1 5.726 X 10−4 m 2

Diameter of valve seat D1 0.027m

Flow coefficient of valve C1 0.65

Spring Stiffness K t 2 26.48 KN / m

Pre-compression length X t 2 0.0032m

Pilot

Valve Area of valve seat A2 1.963 X 10−5 m 2

|u| Ac
K3 u^afa
X3 3
pk1
orifice valve O3

Ac 1
c F
1
s2 +b.s+c Xinm
t,vi
2
A O2

B main valve
C1 c0
|u|2
MATLAB ACDr2.mal
u[1]
Function s2 +b0.s+c0 (data in ACDm.m)
[t1,xin] |u|
roots

xinm 1
C
D
>= 0

Figure 3-22: Algebra Equation Solution Simulation Method

54
 10

Damping Force[kips]
2

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement[in]

Figure 3-23: Simulation Results by Algebra Equation Solution Method

3.4.2.3. Verification test results

The analytical models described in Sections 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.2 were used to verify the

component tests under sinusoidal waves and earthquake ground motions. Figures 3-24 and

3-25 present a comparison of analytical results obtained by the direct block simulation and

the algebra equation solution with the dynamic test results. The figures show that the

proposed two models can predict the force-displacement relationship of the prototype

device with tolerable error. The algebra equation solution method yields almost the same

results as the direct block method.

55
 0.1 Hz 0.15 Hz

0.2 Hz 0.25 Hz

0.3 Hz 0.35 Hz

Figure 3-24: Simulation Results for Sinusoidal Waves

56
 0.4 Hz 0.45 Hz

0.5 Hz 0.55 Hz

0.6 Hz 0.7 Hz
Figure 3-24: Simulation results for sinusoidal waves (Cont’d)

57
 0.8 Hz 0.9 Hz

1.0 Hz 1.1 Hz

1.2 Hz 1.4 Hz
Figure 3-24: Simulation results for sinusoidal waves (Cont’d)

58
 1.6 Hz 1.8 Hz

2.0 Hz
Figure 3-24: Simulation Results for Sinusoidal Waves (Cont’d)

59
 Elcs00e Elcn90w

Holli90 Mex00e

Nr7ew Tafn21e
Figure 3-25: Simulation Results for Earthquake Waves

60
3.5. Simplified Model for Passive Two-step Control Device

As mentioned in the previous sections, the PTCD damper provides two-step constant

damping forces. This is similar to the principles of a friction damper. For engineering

applications, a simplified model that can describe the output of the damping forces as three

stages is proposed in this section. These three stages are: output of orifice valve, low

pressure relief valves, and high pressure relief valves.

when x ≤ v0 & x ≤ x0

F ( x, x) = c1 x (3- 17)

when x ≤ v0 & x > x0

F ( x, x) = c2 x (3- 18)

when x > v0 & x ≤ x0

F ( x, x) = c1v0 = F1 (3- 19)

when x > v0 & x > x0

F ( x, x) = c2 v0 = F2 (3- 20)

Where: x and x are the displacement and velocity of the damper, v0 is the opening

velocity of the relief valves, and F1 , F2 are the output damper forces of the low pressure

F1 F
relief valves and high pressure relief valves, respectively, c1 = and c2 = 2 .
v0 v0

Figures 3-26 and 3-27 show a comparison between the simplified model and the algebra

equation solution model. The figures show that simplified model accurately predicts the

force-displacement and force-velocity relationships given by equations 3-17 ~ 3-20.

61
 Algebra equation
Simplified model

Damping Force
Xm

F1 X0

F2
0
Displacement

Figure 3-26: Comparison of Force-displacement Relationship

Algebra equation
Simplified model
(V0,F2) F1
Damping Force

-F1

(-V0,-F2)

0
Velocity

Figure 3-27: Comparison of Force-velocity Relationship

There are five critical parameters v0, x0 , xm, F1 = c1v0 , F2 = c2 v0 needed to describe the

xm F c
force-displacement relationship of the PTCD device. Let m = and n = 2 = 2 . These
x0 F1 c1

62
parameters are obtained based on the force-displacement relationship described by the

algebra equation model, which was validated by experimental results. Thus, a comparison

between the results of the simple model and experimental results was not conducted. Since

v0 is in the magnitude of impact load and is small, the shape of the force-displacement

relationship is assumed to be rectangular, and the energy dissipated per cycle is calculated

as:

E = 4c1v0 x0 + 4c2 v0 ( xm − x0 ) = 4c1v0 x0 (1 + n(m − 1))

Therefore, the equivalent damping of the PTCD device is determined by:

4c1v0 x0 (1 + n(m − 1)) (3- 21)

β=
⎛1 ⎞
4π ⎜ nKmx0 ⎟
⎝2 ⎠

The design of the PTCD device is summarized in the following steps:

i. Determine the open velocity of the relief valves v0 , which is related to small live

loads such as brake load and impact load.

ii. Determine F1 = c1v0 according to the acceleration demand for a given performance

level of the structure.

iii. Obtain the pre-set displacement x0 either from response spectrum for design

earthquakes or expected security bound. If determining from response spectrum for

4c1v0 x0 2c1v0
design earthquakes, the damping ratio is β1 = = .
2π Kx0 πK

63
 iv. Determine xm = mx0 for maximum considered earthquakes (MCE) or large

displacement demands for ground motions with large displacement pulses in

near-fault regions, or values of safe gap and moat dimensions.

v. Obtain n from equation 3-21 for expected damping ratio β to determine F2 = nc1v0 .

vi. Add PTCD dampers with damping forces described by equations 3-17~3-20 into the

structural model and process a structural analysis.

Compared to models of traditional nonlinear viscous dampers, the analysis for the PTCD

devices is straight-forward and easy to perform for engineering applications. It is used in

the parametric studies described in the next chapter to investigate the seismic responses of

a system with the PTCD devices installed and subjected to near-fault ground motions.

64
 CHAPTER 4 PARAMETRIC STUDIES ON SEISMIC RESPONSES OF SDOF

SYSTEMS WITH THE PTCD DEVICES

To investigate the effectiveness of the PTCD device, parametric studies on the seismic

responses of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system with the proposed passive

two-step control damping device were conducted and are presented in this chapter. The

hysteretic responses of intermediate and long period systems with PTCD devices are

compared with the responses of corresponding systems with conventional nonlinear

viscous dampers. These comparisons further illustrate that the proposed PTCD device can

significantly reduce displacement responses under earthquakes with near-fault effects; and

at the same time, keep the acceleration demands at a low level under moderate or far-fault

earthquakes.

4.1. Description of Ground Motions

An ensemble of 25 synthetic near-fault ground motions developed by researchers at

MCEER (Wanitkorkul and Filiatrault, 2005) is used to conduct the response-history

analysis. These ground motions have a probability of exceedence of 2% in 50 years in the

Northridge, California area and represent fault-normal horizontal components. They are

referred to as “MCE” or maximum considered earthquakes. These ground motions contain

low frequency near-fault pulses and scaled high-frequency components generated by the

specific barrier model (SBM). The ensemble of scaled high-frequency time histories

without near-fault pulses are referred to as “MCEN.” The seismic responses of SDOF

systems under MCEN ground motions are analyzed to illustrate the effectiveness of

displacement control by the PTCD device under near-fault earthquakes.

65
The median elastic displacement response spectra of 15% damping ratio for ground

motion ensembles MCE and MCEN are shown in figure 4-1. It is observed that the

existence of near-fault pulses in the MCE ground motions present high displacement

demands when the natural periods of the structural systems are larger than 1.2 s. Soft

structures, high-rise buildings, long-span bridges or base isolated structures have natural

periods in this range.

80

60

MCE
R esponse D isplacement (in)

40

20

MCEN

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time Period (Sec.)

Figure 4-1: Displacement Spectrum for MCE and MCEN

66
4.2. Analysis Procedure

The design method described in equations 3-17 to 3-20 is used to model the hysteretic

behaviour of the PTCD device. To illustrate the characteristics of the near constant

damping force and the effectiveness of reducing the displacement response by the two-step

control offered by the PTCD device, two equivalent conventional nonlinear viscous fluid

dampers with a nonlinearity coefficient of α = 0.35 are applied to an SDOF system for

comparison. One is referred to as low damping (LD), whose maximum damping force

under the same non-near-fault (MCEN) ground motion is equal to the output damping

force F1 obtained in the first stage of the PTCD device, and the other is referred to as high

damping (HD), which is designed by the same energy dissipation as the PTCD device

under same near-fault (MCE) ground motion. Earthquake responses of the SDOF system

with LD, HD, and PTCD under all MCEN and MCE ground motions are analyzed and

compared in Section 4.4.

For a linear SDOF system with mass m , elastic stiffness k , inherent damping coefficient c ,

and a nonlinear viscous damper, the motion equation subjected to ground motion xm is:

2ζ sd ωn α
x + 2ζωn x + ωn2 x + (ωn x0 )1−α sgn( x) x = − xm (4-1)
βα

Where ωn = k m is the natural vibration frequency, and ζ = c 2mωn is the inherent

damping ratio of the system.

The supplemental damping ratio ζ sd due to the nonlinear viscous damper is defined as

(Hanson & Soong, 2001):

67
 βα cα
ζ sd = (ωn x0 )α −1 (4-2)
2mωn

Where cα is the damping coefficient of the nonlinear viscous damper, x0 is the maximum

22+α Γ 2 (1 + α / 2)
displacement under ground motion xm , and βα = (Hanson & Soong,
πΓ(2 + α )

2001) is a constant related to the nonlinearity of the viscous damper. As shown in equation

4-2, the supplemental damping ratio ζ sd provided by the nonlinear viscous damper

includes the unknown amplitude x0 , and therefore solving motion equation 4-1 requires a

numerical and iterative method. Usually, the initial value of x0 is given by the elastic

spectrum of the ground motion xm for a system with a natural period Tn and damping

ratio ζ sd . The peak displacement x0 is updated at the end of the i th iteration by x0( i ) .

Iteration is continued until x0( nl ) − x0( nl −1) / x0( nl ) ≤ 0.005 .

According to the design method described above, the LD device is designed under MCEN

ground motion for an expected initial damping ratio ζ sd and a given natural period of

structure Tn . The motion equation of the SDOF system with an LD device subjected to

MCEN ground motion xgn is:

2ζ sd ωn α
x + 2ζωn x + ωn2 x + (ωn x0l )1−α sgn( x) x = − xgn (4- 3)
βα

The meaning of the variables is the same as defined in equation 4-1. In this study, the

inherent damping ratio of the system is assumed to be 2% (Chopra, 2000). The

βα clα
supplemental damping ratio due to the LD device is ζ sd = (ωn x0l )α −1 ,
2mωn

68
for α = 0.35, βα = 1.155 , clα is the damping coefficient of the LD device, and x0l is the

maximum displacement under ground motion xgn . The iteration continues

until x0( nl ) − x0( nl −1) / x0( nl ) ≤ 0.005 .

Secondly, the parameters of the first stage control parameter in the PTCD device are

determined by the analysis results of the SDOF system with LD device under the MCEN

ground motion. The control displacement x0 is the final solution of maximum

displacement in equation 4-3. The output damper force of the low pressure relief valves F1

equals the maximum damping force obtained from the solution of equation 4-3. The

opening velocity of relief valves v0 for the PTCD device is assumed to be v0 = 12.61in / s

in this study. Then, for a given parameter n , the output damper force of the high pressure

relief valves is obtained as F2 = nF1 . The seismic responses of an SDOF system with

mass m , elastic stiffness k , inherent damping coefficient c , and the PTCD device subjected

to a ground motion MCE xg are analyzed by the following equation:

mx + cx + kx + F ( x, x) = − mxg (4- 4)

Where F ( x, x) is determined from equations 3-17 to 3-20. The equivalent damping ratio

of the PTCD device ζ hd is calculated according to equation 3-21. The displacement

factor m is obtained by m = xm x0 and xm is the maximum displacement response of the

SDOF system with the PTCD device under MCE ground motions.

69
Thirdly, the HD device is designed by equivalent energy dissipation as a PTCD device

under MCE ground motion xg . Seismic responses of an SDOF system with HD devices

under the MCE ground motions for the equivalent damping ratio ζ hd is analyzed by the

following equation:

2ζ hd ωn α
x + 2ζωn x + ωn2 x + (ωn x0 h )1−α sgn( x) x = − xg (4- 5)
βα
βα chα
Where ζ hd = (ωn x0 h )α −1 , chα is the damping coefficient of the HD device, and x0 h is
2mωn

the maximum displacement of the system with the HD device subjected to ground

motion xg . The meanings of the other variables are the same as those in equation 4-1. The

initial value for x0(1)h is taken as xm from the analysis results for the system with the PTCD

device. When iteration criteria x0( nh) − x0( nh−1) / x0( nh) ≤ 0.005 are satisfied, the final solution

chα is obtained for a given ζ hd , which is also from the analysis results for the system with

the PTCD device.

Finally, the seismic responses of an SDOF system with LD, PTCD, and HD devices under

the MCEN and MCE ground motions are compared to illustrate the characteristics and

effectiveness of the PTCD device. Figure 4-2 displays a flowchart of this analysis

procedure.

70
 Tn ,ξsd Iteration
MCEN LD Response LD
Device

c1 , x 0

MCE PTCD n Response

Device PTCD Compare

ξhd

HD Iteration
Response HD
Device

Figure 4-2: Analysis Flowchart

4.3. Control System Parameters and Selected Values

This parameter study investigates the effects of three parameters: (1) natural vibration

period of system Tn ; (2) initial supplemental damping ratio ζ sd , which represents the

energy dissipation capacity of the LD under ground motions without near-fault pulses; and

(3) the second stage control parameter n = F2 F1 for the PTCD device, which determines

the shape of the force displacement hysteretic loop generated by the PTCD device.

Six values of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 seconds are considered for natural periods of the

system. These values cover a range of structures with different spectrum displacement

demands under the MCE and MCEN ground motions. The initial damping ratio ζ sd was

selected as 7%, 15%, and 30% to represent low, moderate and high damped structures,

respectively. Based on the component tests results displayed in figure 3-11, the damping

71
force control parameter of the PTCD device, n , was considered for five values as: 2.0, 2.5,

3.0, 4.0, and 5.0.

4.4. Earthquake Responses

4.4.1. Response Quantities

This parametric study investigates the seismic response of systems with different natural

periods, incorporating the PTCD control systems with different initial damping in the first

stage and different second stage control parameter n under the near-fault ground motions

(MCE). The response quantities of interest are:

1). Peak deformation x0

2). Peak value of relative velocity x0

3). Peak absolute acceleration response of mass x0a

4). Maximum strain energy Es , which is related to the internal damage state of

structure.

Figures 4-3 ~ 4-6 present the peak responses of systems with the PTCD devices under

these 25 ground motions. The peak deformation responses presented in figure 4-3

confirms the mean displacement spectrum shown in figure 4-1. The displacement

responses under all near-fault ground motions increase significantly as the natural

period of the system increases. As second-step control factor n changes from 2.0 to 5.0,

the peak displacement responses are effectively reduced. Degrees of reduction are

more effective for high damped structures than low and moderately damped structures.

72
The same tendency can be also observed for peak velocity responses shown in figure

4-4. Increasing initial damping and control factor n can both reduce the peak relative

velocity responses. Generally, large peak velocity responses under all 25 motions are

obtained when the natural period is 2.5 seconds and 3.0 seconds, which is in the

velocity-sensitive region. The influences of the PTCD control parameter n on

reductions of the relative velocity response are more obvious when the initial damping

ratio increases. When an existing structure was designed without considering ground

motions with near-fault effects, adding traditional passive dampers to retrofit might

increase the damping too much, which could have a negative effect during a moderate

earthquake. On the other hand, the PTCD offers an ideal solution for retrofit of such

structures to achieve a variable damping ratio to avoid structural damage under

near-fault earthquakes.

7%

140

120

100
Displacement [cm]

80

60

40

20

0
2524
2322
2120
1918 4
1716
1514 3.5
131211 3
10 9
8 7 2.5
6 5
4 3 2
2 1
1.5
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-3: Peak Displacement under MCE

73
 15%

120

100

80
Displacement [cm]

60

40

20

0
2524
2322
2120
1918 4
1716
1514 3.5
131211 3
10 9
8 7 2.5
6 5
4 3 2
2 1
1.5
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

30%

90

80

70
Displacement [cm]

60

50

40

30

20

10
2524
2322
2120
1918 4
1716
1514 3.5
131211 3
10 9
8 7 2.5
6 5
4 3 2
2 1
1.5
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-3: Peak Displacement under MCE (cont’d)

74
 7%

350

300

250
Velocity [cm/s]

200

150

100

50
2524
2322
2120
1918 4
1716
1514 3.5
131211 3
10 9
8 7 2.5
6 5
4 3 2
2 1
1.5
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

15%

300

250

200
Velocity [cm/s]

150

100

50
2524
2322
2120
1918 4
1716
1514 3.5
131211 3
10 9
8 7 2.5
6 5
4 3 2
2 1
1.5
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-4: Peak Velocity under MCE

75
 30%

220

200

180

160
Velocity [cm/s]

140

120

100

80

60

40
2524
2322
2120
1918 4
1716
1514 3.5
131211 3
10 9
8 7 2.5
6 5
4 3 2
2 1
1.5
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-4: Peak Velocity under MCE (Cont’d)

As shown in Figure 4-5, large peak absolute acceleration occurs when the natural period

Tn is 1.5 seconds and 2.0 seconds. The influence of the PTCD control factor n on

acceleration responses is not consistent for all natural periods and initial damping ratios

considered. Increasing n enlarges peak acceleration responses for Tn = 1.5s with all three

initial damping ratios, Tn = 2.0 s with 15% initial damping ratio, and systems with 30%

initial damping ratio, while acceleration responses are reduced for Tn = 2.0 s with initial

damping ratios of 7% and 15%, respectively. When the natural period is larger than 2.0

seconds, the acceleration responses are all less than 0.55g. Increasing the PTCD control

parameter n can also reduce peak acceleration responses for structures with natural periods

greater than 2.0 seconds, but the influence is not significant since the acceleration

responses for these structures is small. A deviation case is observed for acceleration

76
responses under event 18: enlarging the control parameter n increased the peak

acceleration for all cases with different natural periods and initial damping ratios.

7%

0.9

0.8
Absolute Acceleration [g]

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
2524
2322
2120
1918 1.5
1716
1514 2
13
1211 2.5
10 9
8 7 3
6 5
4 3 3.5
2 1
4
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

15%

1.1

0.9

0.8
Absolute Acceleration [g]

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
2524
2322
2120
1918 1.5
1716
1514 2
13 1211 2.5
10 9
8 7 3
6 5
4 3 3.5
2 1
4
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-5: Peak Absolute Acceleration under MCE

77
 30%

1.4

1.2

1
Absolute Acceleration [g]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
2524
2322
2120
1918 1.5
1716
1514 2
131211 2.5
10 9
8 7 3
6 5
4 3 3.5
2 1
4
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-5: Peak Absolute Acceleration under MCE (Cont’d)

Time histories of input energy by earthquake motions and dissipated energy by structures

are investigated in this study. The input energy E i , kinetic energy E k , energy dissipated by

dampers E d , and strain energy E s are calculated by integrating the equation of motions in

displacement as the following equation (Uang and Bertero, 1988):

1 2
E i = − ∫ 0x mxg dx, E k = mx , E d = ∫ 0x Fd dx, E s = ∫ 0x kxdx (4- 6)
2

The meanings of the parameters in equation 4-6 are the same as defined in Section 4.2.

Strain energy, which is a criterion to evaluate the damage state of a structure, is an

interesting response quality. Since the input energy of each ground motion for structures

with different time periods and damping ratios is not the same, the ratio of strain energy to

total input energy is a better viewpoint. Figure 4-6 presents the proportion of strain energy

for each case under 25 ground motions. No obvious trends exist as the natural period of a

78
structure changes. However, increasing control parameter n and the initial damping ratio

can both effectively reduce the percentage of strain energy, and therefore reduce the

damage state of the structure.

7%

0.8

0.7

0.6
Propotion of Strain Energy

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
2524
2322
2120
1918 1.5
1716
1514 2
131211 2.5
10 9
8 7 3
6 5
4 3 3.5
2 1
4
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-6: Maximum Es/Ei under MCE

79
 15%

0.7

0.6

0.5
Propotion of Strain Energy

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2524
2322
2120
1918 1.5
1716
1514 2
131211 2.5
10 9
8 7 3
6 5
4 3 3.5
2 1
4
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

30%

0.4

0.35

0.3
Propotion of Strain Energy

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
2524
2322
2120
1918 1.5
1716
1514 2
131211 2.5
10 9
8 7 3
6 5
4 3 3.5
2 1
4
Eventnumber
Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-6: Maximum Es/Ei under MCE (Cont’d)

80
Mean values of these peak responses under 25 ground motions are plotted in figures

4-7~4-10. Confirming the observation from figure 4-3, increasing initial damping can

effectively reduce peak displacement. The maximum peak displacements occurring at

Tn = 3.5s and n = 2.0 are reduced by 11.14% when the initial damping ratio changed

from 7% to 15%, and reduced by 27.92% when the initial damping increased from 7% to

30%. The influences of the PTCD control parameter n on the reduction of mean peak

displacements are also different for these three types of systems. For low damped

structures (7% for the MCEN ground motions), when Tn = 2.0 , 2.5 and 3.0 seconds, the

effects of changing n from 2 to 5 on the reduction of the peak displacement response are

16.25%, 18.75% and 14.22%, respectively. For moderately damped structures (15% for

MCEN ground motions), the reductions from n=2.0 to n=5.0 are 24.01%, 28.87%, 26.31%

and 21.92%, respectively, for Tn = 2.0 , 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 seconds. For high damped

structures (30% for MCEN ground motions), the peak displacements are reduced by

34.09%, 36.82% and 33.76%, respectively, for Tn = 2.5 , 3.0, and 3.5 seconds when n is

increased from 2 to 5. This further illustrates that the proposed PTCD device is effective

for displacement control response of structures with long periods, which are vulnerable to

ground motions with near-fault pulses.

From the peak mean velocity shown in Figure 4-8, it can be clearly seen that the

velocity-sensitive region is from Tn = 2.5 ~ 3.5s for all three types of initial damping

ratios. The influence of the control parameter n on the reduction of mean peak velocity is

also more obvious for initially high damped structures.

81
The mean peak absolute acceleration responses shown in figure 4-9 significantly decrease

as the natural period increases or the structural stiffness declines. The change of initial

damping does not have a significant influence on the mean peak absolute acceleration. The

influence of the PTCD control parameter n on acceleration responses for the three types of

structures is not consistent. For low damped structures (7% for MCEN ground motions),

when Tn < 2.0s , increasing n enlarges the acceleration responses, and when Tn > 2.0 s ,

increasing n decreases the acceleration responses. For moderate damped structures (15%

for MCEN ground motions), the threshold time period of the influence of n on peak

acceleration responses is approximately 2.3 seconds. For high damped structures (30% for

the MCEN ground motions), increasing n enlarges the acceleration responses within all the

periods considered. The initial damping for the MCEN ground motions represents the first

stage damping coefficient of the PTCD device. Preliminary conclusions can be obtained

from the results of this study. For long period structures, increasing the second stage

control parameter n of the PTCD device reduces both the displacement and acceleration

responses of structures under near-fault earthquakes, as long as the first stage damping

coefficient C1 is appropriately designed.

7% 15% 30%
90 80 70

80 n=2.0
70 60
n=2.5
70 n=3.0
60 50 n=4.0
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

Dis plac em ent [c m ]

Dis plac em ent [c m ]

n=5.0
60
n=2.0
50 40
n=2.5 n=2.0
50 n=3.0 n=2.5
n=4.0 n=3.0
40 30
n=5.0 n=4.0
40
n=5.0

30 20
30

20 20 10
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-7: Mean Peak Displacement

82
 7% 15% 30%
220 190 160

210 180 n=2.0

150
n=2.5
200 n=3.0
170
140 n=4.0
190 n=5.0
160
V eloc ity [c m /s ]

V eloc ity [c m /s ]

V eloc ity [c m /s ]
180 130
150
170 120
n=2.0
140
160 n=2.5 n=2.0
n=3.0 n=2.5 110
n=4.0 130
150 n=3.0
n=5.0 n=4.0
120 100
140 n=5.0

130 110 90
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-8: Mean Peak Velocity

7% 15% 30%
0.65 0.7 0.9
n=2.0 n=2.0
0.6 n=2.5 0.65 n=2.5
0.8
n=3.0 n=3.0
0.6 n=2.0
0.55 n=4.0 n=4.0
n=5.0 n=5.0 n=2.5
0.55 0.7
A bs olute A c c eleration [g]

A bs olute A c c eleration [g]

A bs olute A c c eleration [g]

0.5 n=3.0
n=4.0
0.5
0.45 0.6 n=5.0
0.45
0.4 0.5
0.4
0.35
0.35 0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2 0.2

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-9: Mean Peak Absolute Acceleration

7% 15% 30%
0.5 0.45 0.3
n=2.0
n=2.0
0.4 n=2.5
n=2.5
0.45 n=3.0 0.25
n=4.0 n=3.0
0.35 n=4.0
n=5.0
P ropotion of S train E nergy

P ropotion of S train E nergy

P ropotion of S train E nergy

n=5.0
0.4 0.2
0.3

0.25
0.35 0.15
n=2.0
n=2.5 0.2
n=3.0
0.3 n=4.0 0.1
n=5.0 0.15

0.25 0.1 0.05

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

Figure 4-10: Mean Peak Es/Ei

A comparison of the mean peak strain energy to the total input energy, Es/Ei, as shown in

figure 4-10 illustrates that increasing either the initial damping ratio for the MCEN ground

motions or the PTCD control parameter n or both are all effective in reducing the

percentage of the strain energy to the total input energy under MCE ground motions. When

n = 5 for high damped structures (30%), the strain energy is only 13% of the total input

energy for Tn = 3.5 and 4 seconds.

83
4.4.2. Response History

The response histories of SDOF systems with the PTCD devices subjected to 25 ground

motions with near-fault effects are investigated. The typical response histories of structures

with a 15% initial damping ratio and a natural period of 3.0 seconds under ground motions

MCE 1 and MCE 14 are shown in figures 4-11 to 4-14, respectively. The

force-displacement relationship shown in figure 4-11 and the displacement time history

shown in figure 4-12 both indicate that displacement responses over all motion durations

are significantly reduced by increasing the damping of the second stage control of the

PTCD device. The degree of reduction is different for these two ground motions. The peak

displacement is reduced by 3.86%, 7.67%, 14.77%, and 21.13% for MCE 1 ground motion,

and 7.67%, 15.14%, 28.88%, and 37.19% for MCE 14 ground motion, when the second

control parameter n is increased from 2.0 to 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0, respectively. For the

acceleration time histories shown in figure 4-13, increasing second stage damping of the

PTCD device also reduces the acceleration responses over all the motion durations for

these two near-fault ground motions. However, the degree of reduction is not as significant

as for the displacement responses. Figure 4-14 plots the energy time history for

Tn = 3.0s, n = 3.0 and ζ sd = 15% . For the SDOF system considered, the input energy and

dissipation energy are balanced and most of the energy is dissipated by the supplemental

damping.

84
 MCE1 MCE14
1000 1000
n=2.0
n=2.0
n=2.5
800 n=2.5
n=3.0 800
n=3.0
n=4.0
n=4.0
n=5.0
600 600 n=5.0

400 400

200 200
damping force [KN]

damping force [KN]

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600
-600

-800
-800

-1000
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -1000
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement[cm]
Displacement[cm]

Figure 4-11: Force-displacement Relationship

80
n=2.0 80
n=2.5 n=2.0
60 60 n=2.5
n=3.0
n=3.0
n=4.0
40 n=4.0
40 n=5.0
n=5.0
20
Displacement [cm]

Displacement [cm]
20
0

0 -20

-40
-20
-60
-40
-80

-60 -100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time[Sec] Time[Sec]

Figure 4-12: Displacement Time History

0.3 0.5
n=2.0 n=2.0
n=2.5 0.4 n=2.5
0.2
n=3.0 n=3.0
n=4.0 0.3 n=4.0
0.1 n=5.0 n=5.0
0.2
Acceleraation [g]
Acceleraation [g]

0 0.1

0
-0.1

-0.1
-0.2
-0.2

-0.3
-0.3

-0.4 -0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time[Sec] Time[Sec]

Figure 4-13: Acceleration Time History

85
 6 6
x 10 x 10
2.5 4

3.5
2
3
E nergy [K N.m m ]

2.5

Energy [KN.mm]
1.5
kinetic energy kinetic energy
2
energy dissipated by damping energy dissipated by damping
1 strain energy strain energy
1.5 input energy
input energy

1
0.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [Sec] Time [Sec]

Figure 4-14: Energy Dissipation Time History (n=3.0)

As described in Section 4.2, the control parameters x0 and C1 for the first stage damping

of the PTCD device are determined according to the peak displacement of the system with

LD devices under the same ground motion without near-fault pulses. With this criterion,

the peak displacements of systems with PTCD devices under near-fault ground motions

should be beyond x0 , and therefore, the PTCD devices should display two-stage control

force-displacement relationships. In this study, several cases with natural periods less than

2.5 seconds were found to be deviation. The displacement demands of the MCE ground

motions are not high enough to be significantly larger than x0 , and in some cases, are even

smaller than x0 . Thus, the force-displacement relationship of the PTCD devices within

these systems only conducts two-stage control in one direction or only one stage control.

Table 4-1 summarizes these deviation cases. Furthermore, the main objective of

developing this PTCD device is to control the large displacement responses of slender or

isolated structures with long periods introduced by near-field earthquakes. The results of

this study also verified that the PTCD device is not applicable for structures with short

periods, for which displacement demand by earthquakes with near-fault effects is not high.

86
 Table 4-1: Deviation Cases under MCE ground motions

Initial Damping Natural Period Event Number

Ratio ( ζ sd ) Tn (Seconds) One stage control Second stage only one
direction
7% 1.5 15,16,17,18,23,24,25 2,4,21
2.0 --- 24,25
15% 1.5 15,17,18,19,23,24,25 2,3,6,14,16,20,21
2.0 24 25
30% 1.5 6,14,15,17,18,24,25 1,2,3,4,5,11,16,19,21,22,23
2.0 17.18.24 15,16,25
2.5 -- 18,25

Although not listed here, the time histories of displacement and absolute acceleration

responses for all cases were investigated. For the cases listed in the third column of table

4-1, second stage control is not conducted, and certainly the second stage damping control

parameter n has no influence on seismic responses. For all the other cases, as expected,

increasing n reduces the displacement responses. When the natural period is larger than 2.0

seconds, the reductions are over the entire duration of motion and the degree of reduction is

also large. For systems with natural periods of 1.5 and 2.0 seconds, the peak displacement

is reduced as n increases, but these reductions are not seen over the duration. Instead, small

increases at peaks of certain small displacement response pulses were observed.

The influence of the second control parameter n on the acceleration response time histories

is a little more complicated. Except for those cases without a second control stage,

enlarging the second stage control damping increases the acceleration responses for

systems with natural periods of 1.5 and 2.0 seconds, which represent stiff structures or

acceleration-sensitive structures and systems with a high initial damping ratio of 30%. The

results are promising when the natural period of the structure falls into the long period

range. For Tn ≥ 3.0 seconds and with low and moderate initial damping ratios of 7% or

87
15%, not only less displacement but also smaller acceleration responses are obtained by

increasing the second stage damping. As for systems with natural periods of 2.5s, which is

the border between the acceleration-sensitive region for this group of ground motions, the

influence of second stage control parameter n on the acceleration responses depends on the

initial damping, which is the first stage control parameter for the PTCD device regarding

ground motion without near-fault effects. When the initial damping ratio is ζ sd = 7% ,

enlarging n reduces the acceleration responses except under events 18, 24, and 25, while

for those with moderate initial damping of 15%, enlarging n reduces or keeps the same

acceleration response except under events 1, 15-18, 24, and 25. This observation implies

that the PTCD device is more effective at reducing both displacement and acceleration

responses under near-fault earthquakes when the first stage damping ratio for ground

motion far from the fault is designed to be low or moderate.

4.4.3. Comparison with Passive Control

To investigate the efficiency of the PTCD devices on controlling the structural

deformations under earthquakes with near-fault effects, two equivalent conventional

passive nonlinear dampers referred to as LD and HD were designed according to the

principles described in Section 4.2 and were applied on the same structure. In this section,

the seismic responses of structures with three types of control systems: LD, PTCD, and HD,

under all ground motions are analyzed and compared in terms of peak displacement and

absolute acceleration responses. The bar charts in Appendix A1 and Appendix A2 display

a comparison of peak displacement and acceleration responses subjected to all 25 MCE

and MCEN ground motions. Figure 4-15 and Figure 4-17 show the typical case with a 15%

88
initial damping ratio and a natural period of 2.5 and 3.0 seconds, respectively. The notation

shown in table 4-2 is applied to Figure 4-15, Figure 4-17, and Figures in Appendix A1 and

Appendix A2.

Table 4-2: Notation for Figures 4-15 and 4-17

Notation Description
LD Low damping
TD-2 PTCD n = 2.0
HD-2 High damping equivalent PTCD n = 2.0
TD-2.5 PTCD n = 2.5
HD-2.5 High damping equivalent PTCD n = 2.5
TD-3 PTCD n = 3.0
HD-3 High damping equivalent PTCD n = 3.0
TD-4 PTCD n = 4.0
HD-4 High damping equivalent PTCD n = 4.0
TD-5 PTCD n = 5.0
HD-5 High damping equivalent PTCD n = 5.0

Several observations are made based on the analysis results. The displacement responses

of PTCD devices are smaller than the responses of LD devices, but are all larger than the

corresponding HD devices with equivalent energy design. This is explained by recalling

the design process of the HD device described in Section 4.2. The energy dissipation

capacity of both the PTCD and HD devices is characterized by the supplemental damping

ratio ζ hd , which is calculated based on the ratio of one-cycle energy dissipation of a linear

SDOF with the damping system under a harmonic excitation to the elastic energy stored at

the maximum displacement. The shape of the force-displacement relationship of the PTCD

device consists of two stages of rectangles, while the loop of the HD device is one

near-rectangular ellipse. The passive nonlinear viscous damper yields smaller

displacement amplitude than the PTCD device with the same energy dissipation per cycle.

In addition, the design of the HD device is an iteration process that accounts for the

89
unknown displacement amplitude and usually yields a smaller peak displacement than

initial displacement due to the inelastic responses under earthquake excitations. The

difference between the PTCD and HD devices is smaller when the natural period of the

system is over 3.0 seconds and the initial damping ratio is 7%.

The acceleration responses from the systems with the PTCD devices are all less than the

acceleration of those with LD devices except for cases of high initial damping of 30%, and

for small natural periods of 1.5 seconds. Similar to the results for the displacement

responses, the corresponding HD devices also yield lower acceleration responses than the

PTCD devices. These differences became smaller as the natural periods of the systems

elongated. The acceleration responses from the systems with HD devices are even slightly

larger than the corresponding PTCD device when the natural period was 4.0 seconds and

the initial damping ratio was 15% under events 8, 9, and 12, when the natural period was

4.0 seconds and initial damping ratio was 30% under events 1-4, 10-13, 15, and 25, when

the natural period was 3.5 seconds and initial damping ratio was 30%, and when the PTCD

control parameter was n = 5.0 under events 2, 4, 11-13, and 15.

90
 15% Tn=2.5s
80

Displacement [cm]
60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
LD TD-2 HD-2 TD-2.5 HD-2.5 Eventnumber
TD-3 HD-3 TD-4 HD-4 TD-5 HD-5

0.8

0.6
Acceleration [g]

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

15% Tn=3.0s
120

100
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
A c c eleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure 4-15: Comparisons under MCE Motions

91
The mean responses for these 25 MCE ground motions are plotted in Figure 4-16. When

compared with the LD devices, PTCD devices can effectively reduce the displacement

responses of structures with long periods of over 2 seconds, and the degree of reductions

become larger as the initial damping increases. For a natural period of Tn = 3.5s and a

second stage control parameter of n = 5.0 , the reductions for low, moderate, and high are

15.39%, 28.08% and 43.15%, respectively. For a natural period of Tn = 3.0s and n = 5.0 ,

the reductions for these three types of initial damping from low to high are 18.05%,

33.22% and 48.00%, respectively. At the same time, the two step damper does not increase

the acceleration responses very much, but on the other hand, reduces it in most cases when

compared to the LD devices. For these same cases, the increases of acceleration responses

for Tn = 3.5s are -6.07%, -6.30%, and 5.94%; and for Tn = 3.0s , they are -8.50%, -10.95%,

and 5.36%, respectively. On the other hand, the responses of systems with the HD control

are typically less than, or nearly the same as, the responses obtained by the PTCD control.

A similar conclusion, that passive high damping displays better performance than

semi-active control, was also made by Symans (1995). In terms of the seismic response of

systems under MCE ground motions, the PTCD device does not display obvious

advantages over HD devices. However, the comparisons of seismic responses under

MCEN ground motions, as presented in the following paragraphs, illustrates that the PTCD

device is able to conduct a two-step control to different external excitations, which

traditional passive control cannot achieve.

92
 Displacement Acceleration
7% 7%
100 0.65
LD
0.6 TD-2
90 HD-2
TD-2.5
0.55
HD-2.5
80 TD-3
0.5 HD-3
TD-4
70
0.45 HD-4
D is p la c e m e n t [c m ]

A c c ele ration [g]

TD-5
HD-5
60 LD 0.4
TD-2
HD-2 0.35
50 TD-2.5
HD-2.5
0.3
TD-3
40 HD-3
TD-4 0.25
HD-4
30
TD-5 0.2
HD-5

20
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

(a) 7%
LD 15% 15%
90
TD-2 0.8
HD-2 LD
80 TD-2.5 TD-2
HD-2.5 0.7
HD-2
TD-3
TD-2.5
70 HD-3
TD-4 0.6 HD-2.5
HD-4 TD-3
60 TD-5 HD-3
Acceleration [g]
Displacement [cm]

HD-5 0.5 TD-4

50 HD-4
TD-5
0.4
HD-5
40

0.3
30

0.2
20

10 0.1
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

(b) 15%
30%
LD 30%
80 0.8
TD-2
LD
HD-2
TD-2.5 TD-2
70 0.7
HD-2.5 HD-2
TD-3 TD-2.5
60 HD-3 0.6 HD-2.5
TD-4 TD-3
HD-4
HD-3
Acceleration [g]

50
Displacement [cm]

TD-5 0.5 TD-4

HD-5
HD-4
40
TD-5
0.4
HD-5
30

0.3
20

0.2
10

0.1
0 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

(c) 30%
Figure 4-16: Mean Peak Response under MCE Motions

93
As described in Section 4.2, the first stage output damping force F1 and control

displacement x0 of the PTCD devices is determined by the maximum damping force and

peak displacement response obtained by the passive LD device under the MCEN. With this

criterion, under the same MCEN, the acceleration level of structures with PTCD devices

will be less than systems with passive nonlinear viscous dampers. At the same time, the

peak displacement is less than x0 . Checking the seismic responses under all 25 MCEN

ground motions shown in Appendix A2, it was seen for most cases, the maximum damping

force equivalent criterion guarantees that the peak displacement of a structure with a PTCD

control system will be smaller than the response of a structure with an LD control system,

and with the same level of peak acceleration responses. Since the PTCD device is

specifically designed to conduct only one stage control under MCEN ground motions, the

peak responses of the same system with a different control parameter n are all the same.

These results are listed here to illustrate the comparison with corresponding HD devices.

Deviation cases are listed in table 4-3. Under these ground motions, the peak displacement

of the PTCD device is larger than the controlling displacement x0 . The PTCD device

conducts two-stage damping control even under ground motions without near-fault pulses

in these cases. As a result, the acceleration responses of systems with the PTCD devices

under these ground motions are larger than those of systems with LD or HD devices. This

observation implies that the design of the control displacement x0 for the PTCD device

should include a safety factor to ensure that the second control stage will not been activated

under low or moderate earthquakes.

94
 Table 4-3: Deviation Cases under MCEN Ground Motions
Initial Damping Natural Period Event Number
Ratio ( ζ sd ) Tn (Seconds)

7% 2.0 15,16,17,18
2.5 17,18
3.0 18
3.5 17,18
15% 1.5 8
2.0 2,3,18,21
2.5 15,16,17,18,24
3.0 6,17,25
3.5 6,17,18
30% 1.5 2,8,23
2.0 2,3,22
2.5 2,3,17,18,24
3.0 17,18,24
3.5 17,18,25
4.0 24,25

When compared to the HD device, the PTCD device displays better control in terms of

peak displacement and acceleration responses under all other MCEN ground motions

except for the cases listed in table 4-4. When natural periods are 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 seconds

for 7% initial damping, and 1.5 and 2.0 seconds for 15% and 30% initial damping, the peak

responses of systems with the PTCD are similar to systems with a corresponding HD

device. While the natural period of a structure increases, the peak acceleration responses of

systems with the PTCD are significantly lower than with the HD device, and at the same

time, the peak displacement responses are kept at the same level. In several cases, they

become smaller.

95
 15% Tn=2.5s
40

30
Displacement [cm]

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
LD TD-2 HD-2 TD-2.5 HD-2.5 TD-3 HD-3 TD-4 HD-4 TD-5 HD-5

0.5

0.4
Acceleration [g]

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

15% Tn=3.0s
30

25
D is p la c e m e n t [c m ]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.35

0.3

0.25
A c c e le ra tio n [g ]

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure 4-17: Comparisons under MCEN Motions

96
Mean values of peak responses are plotted in Figure 4-18. The figure clearly illustrates that

the PTCD device can keep both peak displacement and acceleration responses lower than

passive dampers. This advantage makes the PTCD device a perfect option for application

in seismic response modification of building structures, especially critical facilities, where

acceleration responses of non structural components are important. The degree is not very

obvious since the deviation cases given in table 4-3 are also included in this figure.

The proposed PTCD device can provide a variable damping ratio for earthquakes with

different magnitudes through its two-step control. For low and moderate earthquakes or

ground motions without near-fault effects, the PTCD device only conducts the first stage

control to keep both acceleration and displacement responses at a certain performance level.

If a large earthquake or near-fault ground motion occurs, the PTCD device prevents large

displacements by increasing damping during the second stage. Thus, the proposed device

can act as a combination of conventional “low” and “high” passive viscous damping

devices according to different performance demands.

97
 Displacement Acceleration
7% 7%
22 0.45
LD LD
TD-2 0.4 TD-2
20 HD-2 HD-2
TD-2.5 0.35 TD-2.5
HD-2.5 HD-2.5
18 TD-3 0.3 TD-3
Displacement [cm]

HD-3 HD-3

Acceleration [g]
TD-4 0.25 TD-4
16 HD-4 HD-4
TD-5 0.2 TD-5
HD-5 HD-5
14 0.15

0.1
12
0.05

10 0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

(a) 7%
15% 15%
18 0.4
LD LD
17 TD-2 0.35 TD-2
HD-2 HD-2
TD-2.5 TD-2.5
16 0.3
HD-2.5 HD-2.5
TD-3 TD-3
Displacement [cm]

15 HD-3 0.25 HD-3

Acceleration [g]

TD-4 TD-4
14 HD-4 0.2 HD-4
TD-5 TD-5
HD-5 HD-5
13 0.15

12 0.1

11 0.05

10 0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

(b) 15%
30% 30%
13.5 0.4
LD LD
TD-2 0.35 TD-2
13
HD-2 HD-2
TD-2.5 TD-2.5
0.3
12.5 HD-2.5 HD-2.5
TD-3 TD-3
Displacement [cm]

HD-3 0.25 HD-3

Acceleration [g]

12 TD-4 TD-4
HD-4 0.2 HD-4
TD-5 TD-5
11.5
HD-5 HD-5
0.15

11
0.1

10.5 0.05

10 0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Tn[Sec] Tn[Sec]

(c) 30%
Figure 4-18: Mean Peak Response under MCEN Motions

98
From the comparison of results in terms of peak displacement and peak absolute

acceleration under all MCE and MCEN ground motions, the PTCD device displayed

advantages over traditional “HD” or “LD” devices. Under MCEN ground motions, both

displacement and acceleration responses of systems with the PTCD device are at the same

level as LD devices, but at a lower level than those with HD devices. Under MCE ground

motions, the PTCD device effectively reduces the large displacement of systems with LD

devices, and yields seismic responses at the same level as HD devices.

99
 CHAPTER 5 SHAKE TABLE TESTS OF A BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM

According to conventional seismic design principles, a structure is designed with enough

strength and deformation capacity to dissipate the energy introduced by earthquake ground

motions. Structural redundancy is usually provided to conduct the force re-distribution

caused by yielding and ductile behaviour of some members. However, in base isolated

structures, the isolation system plays the role of a yielding member, and does not distribute

force to other members within the structure. Thus, no structural redundancy is provided by

the isolated system if it is damaged during an earthquake. Since the main operating

principle of an isolation system is to reduce the shear force transition to the upper structure

by allowing a smaller lateral stiffness or friction, large displacements will concentrate on

the isolation level. Supplemental damping may be required to reduce these displacements.

In addition, the allowable displacement in the design of seismic isolation bearings involves

uncertainty. Large displacements of isolators caused by an unexpected extreme event,

especially under ground motions containing large, rapid displacement pulses in the

near-source region, may result in catastrophic failure of the superstructure such as falling

bridge spans or structural collapse. Special methods such moats with allowable width, or

knock-off abutments have been used to provide “fail-safe” performance for isolation

systems. However, evaluations of past seismic performance show that the impact that

accompanies these methods can cause damage to the isolated structures. The new PTCD

device, when combined with isolators, can control their displacements under moderate

earthquakes by acting as a traditional supplemental damping device. At the same time, it

can reduce the effects of impact through energy dissipation and limit excessive

displacement of the isolators.

100
In order to demonstrate the capability of the PTCD device at limiting large bearing

displacements introduced by near-fault earthquakes, a base isolation system consisting a

roller isolation bearing (RIB) and the proposed PTCD device is developed and studied.

The RIB is a new seismic isolation bearing. The characteristics and principles of the RIB

are described in Section 5.1.

5.1. Roller Isolation Bearings

Lee et al. (2005) proposed a new type of seismic isolation bearing which comprises a lower

plate, an upper plate and a cylindrical roller placed between two facing plates with

V-shaped sloping surfaces in contact with the roller. The lower plate is fixable to a base,

while the upper plate is fixable to a superstructure. As shown in Figure 5-1a, under normal

weight of the superstructure, the cylindrical roller resides at the central trough formed by

one or two sloped bearing surfaces. When a relative displacement between the upper and

lower plate occurs, the roller rolls through its rotation axis in contact with both facing

bearing surfaces. As shown in Figure 5-1b, the roller is biased toward the trough to provide

a constant restoring force. When the cylinder roller is between the edges of the two sloped

surfaces, the maximum tolerable displacement of the roller bearing is: X m = 2 Am − Dr

Where: X m is the maximum allowable displacement of the roller bearing.

Am is the half dimension in the horizontal direction of plate.

Dr is diameter of the roller.

One of key characteristics of this bearing is that it can tolerate large displacements in a

relatively small area.

101
 Upper Plate

Roller

Ag Ag
Lower Plate

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5-1: Movement of Roller Isolation Bearing

To avoid the pounding that would probably occur when the roller moves from one side of

the “V” slope to the other side, a curved transition zone across the vertex of “V” shaped

profile is designed for the roller bearing. The radius of the transition curve is equal to or

larger than the radius of the roller. A pair of sidewall members is fixed to the lower plate to

withstand forces in the lateral direction.

The RIB provides bidirectional horizontal isolation by employing an intermediate plate

between the upper and lower plates, a lower roller between the lower and intermediate

plates for its X axis isolation, and an upper roller situated perpendicularly to the lower

roller between the intermediate and upper plates for the Y axis isolation. Figures 5-2 and

5-3 show the layout and photos of a two layer isolation bearing.

102
 Figure 5-2: Layout of Roller Bearing
1. Upper and lower roller; 2. Upper plate; 3. Intermediate plate; 4. Side stiff wall;
5. Lower plate

(a) Roller (b) Roller Assembly

(c) Lower Plate & Lower Roller (d) Intermediate Plate & Upper Roller

Figure 5-3: Roller Isolation Bearing Assembly

103
 (e) Exterior View
Figure 5-3: Roller Isolation Bearing Assembly (Cont’d)

Figure 5-4a shows the motion state of roller bearing. The forces acting on the upper plate

and roller are shown in figures 5-4b and 5-4c. Variables are defined as followings:

M = the mass of the superstructure;

m = the mass of the roller;

g = the acceleration of gravity;

θ1 ,θ 2 = the sloping angles of the upper and bottom plates;

r = the coefficient of rolling friction;

R = the roller radius;

μr = r / R ;

1
I= mR 2 , the moment inertia of the roller;
2

μ y = the coefficient of the lateral slide friction;

x = the relative displacement of the superstructure;

x = the velocity of the superstructure;

104
ax , az = the horizontal and vertical relative accelerations of the superstructure;

arx , arz = the horizontal and vertical relative accelerations of the roller;

ae = the ground acceleration;

ε = the angular acceleration of the roller;

N1 , N 2 = the normal forces at the contact surfaces between the roller and the upper plate,

and between the roller and the lower plate;

F1 , F2 = the parallel friction forces at the contact surfaces between the roller and the upper

plate, and between the roller and the lower plate;

N y = lateral bearing reaction;

θ1
m
ae
θ2
X

Z
(a) Motion State

105
 Mg
N1
Maz
ax (θ1+θ2)/2 M(ax+ae)
θ1
az Nyμy F1

(b) Force Acting On Upper Plate

aur
N1 F1
θ1 ε
R ε
θ2
marz r marx
a rx

F2 N2

(c) Force Acting on Roller (d) Acceleration Illustration

Figure 5-4: Force Components Acting on Roller Isolation Bearing

The equilibrium equations of the forces acting on the upper sloping block in the x and z

coordinates are (Lee et al. 2007):

θ1 + θ 2
N 1 sin θ1 sgn( x ) + F1 cos θ1 sgn( x ) + N y μ y cos( ) + M ( a x + ae ) = 0 (5-1)
2

θ1 + θ2
− N1 cosθ1 sgn( x) + F1 sin θ1 sgn( x)sgn( x) + N y μ y sin( )sgn( x)sgn( x) − M (az − g ) = 0 (5-2)
2

The equilibrium equations of the forces and moment acting on the roller are:

N1 sin θ1 sgn( x ) + F1 cos θ1 sgn( x ) − F2 cos θ2 sgn( x ) − N 2 sin θ2 sgn( x ) + m( arx + ag ) = 0 (5-3)

N1 cosθ1 − F1 sin θ1 sgn( x)sgn( x) + F2 sin θ 2 sgn( x)sgn( x) − N 2 cos θ 2 − m(arz − g ) = 0 (5-4)

( F1 + F2 ).R sgn( x) − ( N1 + N 2 ).r sgn( x) − I ε = 0 (5-5)

106
Where sgn( x) and sgn(x ) are the sign function of the relative displacement and velocity.

Assuming there is no sliding between the upper plate and the roller as well as between the

roller and the lower plate, the horizontal relative acceleration of the upper plate to the roller

a urx and roller to the lower plate arx can be expressed as (refer to Figure 5-4d):

aurx = R.cos θ1.ε , arx = R.cos θ 2 .ε , So:

ax = aurx + arx = Rε .(cos θ1 + cos θ 2 ) (5-6)

And the vertical acceleration is:

az = −(aurz tan θ1 + arz tan θ 2 ) sgn( x) = − Rε .(sin θ1 + sin θ 2 ) sgn( x) (5-7)

Solving equations 5-1 to 5-7 results in:

N1 sgn( x) =
θ1 − θ2 (5-8)
− MRε sin(θ1 − θ2 ) + Mg cosθ1 sgn( x) − Mae sin θ1 − N y μ y sin( ).sgn( x)
2

F1 sgn( x) =
θ1 − θ2 θ1 − θ2 (5- 9)
−2MRε cos2 ( ) − Mg sin θ1 sgn( x) − Mae cosθ1 − N y μ y cos( )sgn( x)
2 2

N2 sgn( x) = MRε sin(θ1 − θ2 )

θ1 − θ2 (5-10)
+(M + m) g cosθ2 sgn( x) − (M + m)ae sin θ2 − N y μ y sin( )sgn( x)
2
θ1 − θ2
F2 sgn( x) = −mRε − 2MRε cos2 ( )
2
(5-11)
θ1 − θ2
−(M + m) g sin θ2 sgn( x) − (M + m)ae cosθ2 − N y μ y cos( )sgn( x)
2

107
 ⎧⎡ ⎛ m⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛ m⎞ ⎤ ⎫
g ⎨ ⎢sin θ1 + ⎜ 1 + ⎟ sin θ 2 ⎥ sgn( x) + μr ⎢ cos θ1 + ⎜ 1 + ⎟ cos θ 2 ⎥ sgn( x) ⎬
⎣ ⎝ M⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ M⎠ ⎦
Rε = − ⎩ ⎭
⎛ θ − θ ⎞ 3 m
4 cos 2 ⎜ 1 2 ⎟ +
⎝ 2 ⎠ 2M
⎧ ⎛ m⎞ ⎡ ⎛ m⎞ ⎤ ⎫ Ny ⎛ θ −θ ⎞
ae ⎨ cos θ1 + ⎜ 1 + ⎟ cos θ 2 − μ r ⎢ sin θ1 + ⎜ 1 + ⎟ sin θ 2 ⎥ sgn( x) sgn( x ) ⎬ + 2μ y cos ⎜ 1 2 ⎟ sgn( x)
⎝ M⎠ ⎣ ⎝ M⎠ ⎦ m ⎝ 2 ⎠
− ⎩ ⎭
⎛ θ − θ ⎞ 3m
4 cos 2 ⎜ 1 2 ⎟ +
⎝ 2 ⎠ 2M

Compared with the mass of the superstructure, the mass of the roller can be ignored,

namely m / M ≈ 0 , therefore:

g[(sin θ1 + sin θ 2 ) sgn( x) + μ r (cos θ1 + cos θ 2 ) sgn( x)

Rε = −
θ −θ
4 cos 2 ( 1 2 )
2
Ny θ1 − θ 2
ae [cos θ1 + cos θ 2 − μ r (sin θ1 + sin θ 2 ) sgn( x) sgn( x)] + 2 μ y cos( ) sgn( x)
− M 2
θ1 − θ 2
4 cos 2 ( )
2
(5-12)
Substitute equation 5-12 into 5-6 and let θ = θ 1 + θ 2 , results in:

θ
ax = −0.5 g[sin θ sgn( x) + 2μr cos 2 sgn( x)
2
(5-13)
θ Ny θ
− ae [cos 2
− 0.5μr sin θ sgn( x)sgn( x) − μ y cos sgn( x)
2 M 2

In consideration of μ r sin θ ≈ 0 from equation 5-13, the relative horizontal acceleration of

superstructure becomes:

θ θ Ny θ
ax = −0.5g sin θ.sgn(x) − ae cos2 − ( gμr cos2 + μy cos )sgn(x)
2 2 M 2

And, the absolute acceleration in the horizontal direction aabs = a x + ae becomes:

θ θ Ny θ
aabs = −0.5g sinθ sgn(x) + ae sin2 − (gμr cos2 + μy cos )sgn(x) (5-14)
2 2 M 2

108
For the roller isolation bearing, usually the sum of θ = θ1 + θ 2 is smaller than 170 , which

θ
means sin 2 ≈ 0 . A series of tests were performed to evaluate the rolling coefficient under
2

different conditions of the surface of the plate slope. The test results showed that under a

clean track, μr = r / R is 0.0034, which agrees with the model data range (0.002~0.005)

provided by design handbooks. Under rusty conditions, the normal value of μr is 0.0074;

and even under the extreme condition of a sand track, the measured μr is 0.012. Therefore,

the third item including μr in equation 5-15 is small enough to be ignored. In this case, the

governing horizontal equation of motion of the system is:

1 Ny θ
x + g sinθ sgn(x) + μy cos sgn(x) = −ag (5-15)
2 M 2

5.2. Combination of Passive Two-step Control Device (PTCD) and Roller Isolation

Bearing (RIB)

Equation 5-15 shows that in the RIB, only a small amount of friction damping is provided

by μ y N y . Experimental studies on a bridge model isolated by RIB conducted at the

University of Nevada, Reno also confirmed that the structural displacement can be large

under different earthquake records if the RIB is applied without any supplemental damping

device (Wang, 2005). A proper damping device should be combined with the RIB in

practical applications. Through numerical studies of the seismic response of the RIB under

excitation provided by 97 earthquake ground motions, Wang (2005) concluded that the

RIB combined with friction dampers has better seismic performance than when it is

combined with linear viscous dampers. The PTCD device, which can achieve a

109
force-displacement relationship similar to that of a friction damper, is an ideal choice to

reduce the displacement responses of the RIB.

The acceleration of a superstructure isolated by the RIB is small, constant and almost

independent on both the level of earthquake ground motion and the mass of the

superstructure. As for the PTCD, the two-step constant damping forces that correspond to

the two performance levels are obtained by adjusting the springs of the high and low

pressure valves. The control displacement and maximum allowable displacements are

determined by the desired fail-safe performance objectives. The characteristics of both the

PTCD and the RIB make the combined system ideal for locating the tradeoff point between

the acceleration of the superstructure and the displacement of the isolator in an isolated

structure.

Fb Fd F

X X X

Figure 5-5: Force-displacement Relationship for a Combined System

Figure 5-5 shows the force-displacement relationship of the RIB with the PTCD device.

The governing equation of motion is:

Mx + Fd ( x, x) + Fb ( x, x) = − Mxg (5-16)

Where: Fd ( x, x) = output damping force by the PTCD device;

110
 Fb ( x, x) = the restoring force provided by the RIB; it can be calculated by

Fb ( x, x) = Maabs and aabs is determined by equation 5-14.

xg = the ground acceleration.

For a simple model, Fd ( x, x) is modelled by equations 3-17 ~ 3-20. And the restoring force

1
Fb ( x, x) is written as Fb ( x, x) = Mg sin θ sgn( x) . Therefore, the governing equation is
2

simplified as:

Fd ( x, x) 1
x+ + g sin θ sgn( x) = − xg (5-17)
M 2

5.3. Shake Table Test Setup

To verify the effectiveness of the PTCD to control the displacement of the isolators and

provide fail-safe performance of the isolated structure, a concrete mass block that models a

rigid superstructure and the combined isolation system (including PTCD and RIB) were

experimentally tested on the shake table at the University at Buffalo.

Four identical roller bearings were used to evenly support the concrete mass in the

experiment. The RIBs are two level, two-directional roller bearings as shown in Figure 5-3.

Since the objective of this test was to investigate the PTCD device that controls responses

in only one direction, in this experiment, the bottom plate, lower roller and intermediate

plate of the bearings were fixed on the shake table. The upper roller and upper plate of the

bearing operated together with all the bottom parts as a one-direction roller isolation

bearing. Upper and lower surfaces of the bearing were 27 inches in length by 27 inches in

111
width (68.6 X 68.6 cm). The overall height of the bearing was 12 inches (30.5 cm). The

radius of the roller was 2.25 inches (5.7 cm). Each bearing was 0.88 kips (3.9 KN) in

weight with a capacity for 200 kips (890 KN) for load carrying, 14 inches (35.6 cm) in

maximum allowable horizontal displacement and 0.026 rad (1.5 deg) in rotation. Except

for the rollers, which are made of high strength alloy steel, the entire bearing was made of

carbon steel. The surfaces of the top and bottom plates that contact the rollers were flat,

which means the θ1 shown in Figure 5-4 is 00 . The intermediate plate had an upward “V”

shape slope upper surface and a downward upside-down “V” shape slope lower surface

with an angle of 2.5 deg, respectively, which means the θ 2 shown in Figure 5-4 is 2.50 .

Therefore, the constant restoring force of this bearing is approximately:

1
Fb = W sin θ 2 ≈ 0.022W . Where, W is the weight of the concrete block:
2

W = 22.04kips = 98KN .

Two PTCD devices with the same mechanical parameters as the prototype device

described in Section 3.2 were used to control the displacements in the positive and negative

directions, respectively. The fluid damping system of each damper was activated when the

piston rod was in tension to avoid compression buckling of the piston rod.

Figure 5-6 show the details of the test setup. The lower part of each RIB was mounted on

the shake table by four threaded rods and nuts, while the upper plate was connected with

the concrete mass block by another four threaded rods and nuts. The concrete block moved

in the horizontal direction relative to the intermediate plate of the bearing, which moved

together with the shake table. Thus, the concrete block modelled the rigid superstructure

112
isolated from the shake table by these four RIBs. Two steel connection frames were welded

to the upper side walls of the bearing to connect every two RIBs. One end of the piston rod

of the PTCD device was connected to the connection frames of the bearings by a spherical

connector, which allowed the piston rod to slide up and down when the roller rolled

upward and downward. The dampers were housed on the shake table by two enlarged

mounting plates, which were provided to meet the position of the available anchorage

holes on the extension of the shake table.

113
 A2
D2

L2 L1

A2

A2
A1
D2

D1
L2 L1

Figure 5-6: Detail of Test Set-up

The five-degree-of-freedom shake table has a maximum stroke of 6 inches in the horizontal

direction and maximum loading capacity of 50 tonf. A controller and MTS software were

used to control the input excitation to the shake table. A linear variable differential

transformer (LVDT) D1 with 10 in capacity was attached to the table and connected to the

reaction frame to measure the displacement of the table. Another LVDT D2 with 15 in

capacity was attached to the table and fixed the other end to the concrete block to measure

114
the relative displacement of the superstructure. Two accelerometers, A1 and A2, were

installed on the side of the table extension and the side of the concrete block to measure the

accelerations of the shake table and superstructure, respectively. Two load cells, L1 and L2,

were installed at the spherical connector of each damper to measure the damping force at

each direction. Experimental data were acquired using the NI Virtual Bench 2.1 data

software running on a PC and a 16 bit NI AT-MIO-16XE-10 data acquisition board. All

recorded signals were filtered using a low-pass butterworth filter. The sampling rate was

selected as 500 points/second.

Figure 5-7 shows the base isolation system. Figure 5-8 shows the measurement sensors and

Figure 5-9 shows the test setup and data acquisition system.

Figure 5-7: Base Isolation System

115
(a) A1 (b) A2

(a) D1 (b) D2

(a) L1 (b) L2
Figure 5-8: Measurement Sensors

116
 Figure 5-9: Test Set-up and Data Acquisition System

5.4. Experimental Procedures and Results

5.4.1. Tests Under Sinusoidal Waves

A total of 27 tests were conducted in the frequency range of 0.3 to 1.5 Hz. The input signals

were displacement controlled to ensure that the input signal was less than the displacement

capacity of the shake table, which is 6 inches. In each test, 4~5 cycles of peak displacement

around 5.8 inches were imposed following the two or three starting cycles with a small

amplitude. Under each frequency input, the displacement control base bar was first

disconnected from the piston rod of the PTCD device, and the experiment was conducted

without displacement control, which meant that the PTCD devices acted as a conventional

passive viscous damper. Next, experiments were performed with displacement control

(base bar was connected to the piston rod) and knob turn numbers of the high pressure

117
valves were set at 4.25 turns and 3.5 turns, respectively. Experiments of the RIB without

dampers attached were not performed for safety reasons, since the displacement of the RIB

would be too large under an input amplitude of 5.85 inches input.

Test results are summarized in Table 5-1. In the third column of the table, the control state

“W/O” means no displacement control, and “W” means with displacement control, created

by setting the displacement control cams at ±2.0in.

From the data shown in table 5-1 for all cases, the maximum acceleration responses of the

superstructure are all lower than the maximum input acceleration except in test No. 2,

where the response is a little bit larger when the high pressure valves in the PTCD device

were set to 4.25 turns under 0.6 Hz frequency input. The isolation effect is prominent for

all cases with no displacement control. The maximum accelerations of the superstructure

are all lower than 0.35 g in these cases. For the cases with displacement control, when the

input frequency is less than 1.0 Hz, the maximum acceleration responses are all lower than

0.55 g. These maximum acceleration responses of the superstructure are slightly lower

than the maximum input, which ranges from 0.22~0.67 g for maximum displacement input

near the capacity of the shake table (6.0 inches). However, the isolator displacements are

significantly reduced to less than 3.6 inches in all these cases. When the input frequency is

larger than 1.0 Hz, the input signals are controlled by the acceleration capacity of 1.0 g for

the shake table and the maximum input accelerations are around 0.7~0.85 g. The isolating

effects are prominent under these vibrations with the maximum acceleration responses of

the superstructure all lower than 0.6 g. The performance of displacement control is not as

significant as when the frequencies were less than 1.0 Hz because the maximum input

118
displacement was lower than 4.5 inches, which does not allow much space for

displacement reduction.

Lee et al. (2007) reported that the ratio of the RIB displacement to the table displacement

was around 1.5 under the sweep-sine test when no damping device was added. The results

of the tests conducted of this base isolation system verified that adding supplemental

damping reduced the maximum displacements of the isolator to be smaller than the

maximum input displacement. The maximum displacement responses of the isolation

system are further reduced when displacement control was added.

The maximum forces were caused by the overshooting of the self-vibration of the valves as

described in Chapter 3. These measured maximum damping forces in positive and negative

directions are different. The difference is large without displacement control at every

frequency input. A preliminary explanation for this phenomenon is that the load cell L1

was misplaced in the negative direction.

119
 Table 5-1: Summary of Table Tests (Frequency scan)
No. Freq. Control Turn Maximum Maximum Displacement Maximum
(Hz) State numbers Acceleration (in) Damping Force
of high (g) (lbs)
pressure Table Mass Input Mass Positive Negative
valve Positive Negative
1 0.6 W/O ---- 0.22 0.17 5.44 4.50 4.26 1579 540
2 0.6 W 4.25 0.29 0.33 5.60 3.23 2.51 6925 4907
3 0.6 W 3.5 0.46 0.42 5.58 3.04 2.13 8946 8237
4 0.7 W/O ---- 0.38 0.21 5.52 5.02 4.74 2282 771
5 0.7 W 4.25 0.42 0.38 5.54 3.19 3.21 7514 5914
6 0.7 W 3.5 0.44 0.42 5.55 3.03 3.01 9895 9938
7 0.8 W/O ---- 0.44 0.21 4.85 4.70 4.37 2407 783
8 0.8 W 4.25 0.48 0.44 4.88 3.28 3.17 6899 6450
9 0.8 W 3.5 0.53 0.47 4.9 2.74 2.95 9960 9623
10 0.9 W/O ---- 0.60 0.27 4.72 4.81 4.33 2690 1269
11 0.9 W 4.25 0.60 0.53 4.78 3.55 3.41 9524 8242
12 0.9 W 3.5 0.67 0.58 4.8 3.21 2.88 10305 10887
13 1.0 W/O ---- 0.72 0.34 4.43 4.57 4.32 4308 2296
14 1.0 W 4.25 0.72 0.66 4.46 3.57 3.63 9892 9203
15 1.0 W 3.5 0.83 0.72 4.49 3.42 2.95 10980 12446
16 1.1 W/O ---- 0.69 0.29 3.67 3.73 3.84 3629 1540
17 1.1 W 4.25 0.69 0.57 3.7 2.92 3.35 8163 9142
18 1.1 W 3.5 0.77 0.72 3.72 3.19 2.37 10620 12213
19 1.2 W/O ---- 0.77 0.34 3.44 3.19 3.78 4342 1655
20 1.2 W 4.25 0.77 0.57 3.46 2.99 3.02 8738 8521
21 1.2 W 3.5 0.78 0.58 3.47 2.85 2.79 11058 11755
22 1.3 W/O ---- 0.82 0.29 3.08 3.50 3.06 4023 1612
23 1.3 W 4.25 0.81 0.61 3.1 2.50 2.80 8149 8660
24 1.3 W 3.5 0.82 0.63 3.1 2.35 2.73 10824 11717
25 1.4 W/O ---- 0.86 0.29 2.77 3.20 2.74 4085 1756
26 1.4 W 4.25 0.84 0.64 2.77 2.76 2.54 7915 7554
27 1.4 W 3.5 0.82 0.67 2.77 2.19 2.52 9538 12551
28 1.5 W/O ---- 0.83 0.26 2.43 2.58 2.13 3785 1285
29 1.5 W 4.25 0.82 0.55 2.43 2.29 2.08 7237 8255
30 1.5 W 3.5 0.79 0.60 2.42 2.13 2.05 9215 10507

The force-displacement relationships of the PTCD device under all 30 tests are plotted in

Figure 5-10. The figure shows that the PTCD device achieve the intended two-stage

variable damping control when connected to the RIB bearing under sinusoidal waves of all

frequencies in these shake table tests. Acting without control as a conventional passive

120
damper, the damping force is almost constant with all the displacement ranges under input

of all frequencies. Overshooting phenomena are obvious when the input frequency is larger

than 1.0 Hz. For the displacement control cases, the damping forces are also nearly

constant when the displacement is within the pre-set controlled range (±2 inches) under

input of all frequencies. This re-illustrates that the output damping force of the PTCD

device under excitation is independent from velocity, displacement and the frequency of

the input waves. In the displacement control cases, when 3.5 turns were applied to the high

pressure valves, the maximum damping forces at the second stage control increased

slightly when compared to the case of 4.25 turns, but the displacement of the isolators was

significantly reduced.

These force-displacement loops were combined with the measured forces from the two

PTCD devices, so the nonlinear dead-zone, which involves existing air and mechanical

gaps, are more obvious in these figures. The loops become clearer when the input

frequency is larger than 0.9 Hz. Since the input signal is limited by the displacement and

acceleration capacity of the shake table, the dampers worked in the second-step damping

within the small ranges. Thus, the force-displacement loops are not in the ideal two stage

rectangular-like shape as in the component tests, where the damping device was driven by

an actuator with a large displacement capacity.

121
 Input Sine-wave 0.6Hz
2

Damping force [kip]

Without Control
1

-1
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Control with 4.25 Turns
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(a) 0.6 Hz

Input Sine-wave 0.7Hz

3
Damping force [kip]

Without Control
2

-1
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

10
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

10

-10

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(b) 0.7 Hz

Figure 5-10: Force-displacement Loops of PTCD Device under Sinusoidal Waves

122
 Input Sine-wave 0.8Hz
4

Damping force [kip]

Without Control
2

-2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

10
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

10

-10

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

(c) 0.8 Hz

Input Sine-wave 0.9Hz

4
Damping force [kip]

Without Control
2

-2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Damping force [kip]

-10
Control with 4.25 Turns
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

10

-10

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(d) 0.9 Hz

Figure 5-10: Force-displacement Loops of PTCD Device under Sinusoidal Waves

(Cont’d)

123
 Input Sine-wave 1.0Hz
10

Damping force [kip]

Without Control
5

-5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Damping force [kip]

-10
Control with 4.25 Turns
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

10

-10

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(e) 1.0 Hz

Input Sine-wave 1.1Hz

6
Without Control
Damping force [kip]

-2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

10
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

10

-10

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(f) 1.1 Hz

Figure 5-10: Force-displacement Loops of PTCD Device under Sinusoidal Waves

(Cont’d)

124
 Input Sine-wave 1.2Hz
5

Damping force [kip]

0

Without Control
-5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

10
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

10

-10

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

(g) 1.2 Hz

Input Sine-wave 1.3Hz

5
Damping force [kip]

Without Control

-5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Damping force [kip]

-5
Control with 4.25 Turns
-10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

10

-10

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

(h) 1.3 Hz

Figure 5-10: Force-displacement Loops of PTCD Device under Sinusoidal Waves

(Cont’d)

125
 Input Sine-wave 1.4Hz
6

Damping force [kip]

Without Control
4

-2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

10
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

10

-10

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

(i) 1.4 Hz

Input Sine-wave 1.5Hz

4
Damping force [kip]

Without Control
2

-2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

10
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 3.5 Turns

10
Damping force [kip]

-5

-10

-15
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement Dc[in]

(j) 1.5 Hz

Figure 5-10: Force-displacement Loops of PTCD Device under Sinusoidal Waves

(Cont’d)

126
Figure 5-11 illustrates the responses of this base isolation system (with displacement

control) and the conventional base isolation system (without displacement control). For the

displacement control case, results with 3.25 knob turns of the high pressure valves are

presented. The acceleration responses of the superstructure for all “without control” cases

are all about 0.2 g under all frequencies input, and become even smaller with 0.15 g under

0.6 Hz input. This confirms the concept of constant output acceleration by this isolation

system regardless of the amplitude and frequency of input. The main reason for the smaller

response under 0.6 Hz input is that the small table velocity obtained for low frequency

provided the same amplitude controlled displacement. For low velocity, the PTCD device

is mainly operated by the orifice valve and thus provides a small output damping force. The

absolute acceleration response of the superstructure consists of two parts: one from the

geometry of the RIB (the second item on the left side of equation 5-10), which is around

0.02 g by the slope angle of the surface as 2.50 . The other part is from the damping force by

the PTCD device (the third item on the left side of equation 5-10), which is also constant

and equals Fd 1 / m = 0.18 g . Thus, for all cases with displacement controls, within the range

of the pre-set controlled displacement (±2 inches), the acceleration responses of the

superstructure are the same magnitude as those for cases without control. When the

displacement response is larger than the pre-set displacement, the acceleration response of

the superstructure increases to around 0.6 g with a larger output damping force by the

second step control of the PTCD device.

When compared to the cases without control, the displacement of the isolators is reduced

under input frequencies of less than 1.0 Hz, which contain large displacement inputs.

127
However, the displacement reduction effect is not as significant as the increase of the

frequency of the input wave. Until for 1.4 Hz and 1.5 Hz, the maximum displacements of

the isolators for these two cases are almost the same. From the acceleration –displacement

relationship shown in Figure 5-11(i) and (j), it is seen that the PTCD devices did not

conduct the second stage control in these cases. On the other hand, this isolation system

shows good isolation effects in reduction of the acceleration responses under high

frequency input, which contains the high acceleration. The test results under sinusoidal

waves illustrate that this isolation system is an ideal option to either reduce acceleration

responses of the superstructure or to control displacement of the isolators according to

inputs with different demands.

Input Sine-wave 0.6Hz

0.4
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.3 table input

0.2

0.1
Acceleration [g]

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(a) 0.6 Hz
Figure 5-11: Comparison of Acceleration Responses under Sinusoidal Waves

128
 Input Sine-wave 0.7Hz
0.5
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.4
table input

0.3

0.2

0.1
Acceleration [g]

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(b) 0.7 Hz

Input Sine-wave 0.8Hz

0.5
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.4
table input

0.3

0.2

0.1
Acceleration [g]

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

(c) 0.8 Hz
Figure 5-11: Comparison of Acceleration Responses under Sinusoidal Waves
(Cont’d)

129
 Input Sine-wave 0.9Hz
0.6
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
table input
0.4

0.2

0
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

(d) 0.9 Hz

Input Sine-wave 1.0Hz

0.8
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.6 table input

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

(e) 1.0 Hz

Figure 5-11: Comparison of Acceleration Responses under Sinusoidal Waves

（Cont’d）

130
 Input Sine-wave 1.1Hz
0.8
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.6 table input

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(f) 1.1 Hz

Input Sine-wave 1.2Hz

0.8
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.6 table input

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(g) 1.2 Hz

Figure 5-11: Comparison of Acceleration Responses under Sinusoidal Waves

（Cont’d）

131
 Input Sine-wave 1.3Hz
1
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.8
table input

0.6

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(h) 1.3 Hz
Input Sine-wave 1.4Hz
1
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.8
table input

0.6

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(i) 1.4 Hz

Figure 5-11: Comparison of Acceleration Responses under Sinusoidal Waves

（Cont’d）

132
 Input Sine-wave 1.5Hz
1
PTCD with control
PTCD without control
0.8
table input

0.6

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement Dc[in]

(j) 1.5 Hz

Figure 5-11: Comparison of Acceleration Responses under Sinusoidal Waves

（Cont’d）

5.4.2. Tests Under Earthquake Waves

5.4.2.1. Input earthquake records

To investigate the displacement control capacity of this base isolation system, 11

earthquake records from seven earthquakes were selected for tests for both “with

displacement control” and “without control” by the PTCD device. To achieve large isolator

displacement response, motions “mes24,” “n12e136,” “koe131,” “co9216,” “le0138,”

“oa02,” and “oa3218” are obtained by scaling the amplitudes of the original records;

motion “n7n1t11” was obtained by scaling the time interval of the original ground motion

data; and motions “ypl3t12” and “pe0125t14” were obtained by scaling both. The peak

133
acceleration and peak displacement listed in Table 5-2 were measured from the

preliminary tests. Figure 5-12 shows the acceleration time histories of these 11 ground

motions. The displacement response spectrum of these waves is shown in Figure 5-13.

Table 5- 2: Shake Table Inputs Measured in Preliminary Tests

Scale Factor Preliminary test results
Time
No. Earthquake File name Amplitude Interval Acceleration [g] Displacement [in]
1 Mexico City mes24 2.4 1 0.29 5.68
2 Northridge n7n1t11 1 1.1 0.69 5.82
3 n12e136 1.36 1 0.83 5.44
4 Kobe koe131 1.31 1 0.69 5.07
5 kon1 1 1 0.81 5.18
6 Marmara ypl3t12 3 1.2 0.75 5.95
7 SANTA CRUZ co9216 2.16 1 0.8 4.25
8 MTNS le0138 1.38 1 0.55 5.63
9 oa02 2 1 0.54 5.42
10 oa3218 2.18 1 0.57 5.77
11 PETRO pe0125t14 1.25 1.4 0.64 5.34

0.8 mes24
n7n1t11
n12e136
koe131
0.6 kon1
ypl3t12
co9216
0.4 le0138
oa02
oa3218
0.2 pe0125t14
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time[s]

Figure 5-12: Earthquake Records Time Histories

134
 80
mes24
n7n1t11
70
n12e136
koe131
60 kon1
Response Displacement [in] ypl3t12
50 co9216
le0138
oa02
40
oa3218
pe0125t14
30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Period[s]

Figure 5-13 : Displacement Response Spectrum

5.4.2.2. Test procedure and results

Under each earthquake record, four experiments were conducted in an order similar to

those under sinusoidal waves. The numbers of knob turns of the low pressure valve were

set at 4.75 for all tests. First, the displacement control base bar was disconnected from the

piston rod of the PTCD device; this experiment is referred to as “without displacement

control,” in which the PTCD devices act as conventional viscous dampers. Then, three

experiments were performed “with control” by connecting the displacement control base

bar with the piston rod. Two had the displacement control cam set to ±3in, and the high

pressure valves were set to 4.25 turns, which represents small output damping forces at the

second stage control, and 3.5 turns for larger second stage damping by the PTCD,

respectively. Another “with control” experiment was conducted by keeping the high

135
pressure valves at 3.5 turns and adjusting the displacement control cam to ±2in, which

models the effect of small first stage control parameter x0 . A total of 44 tests are

summarized in Table 5-3. The notation used in column 3 is the same as in Table 5-1. “w/o”

represents without control and “w” represents with displacement control. The maximum

input and response data in columns 6~10 were measured from the displacement and

acceleration sensors. The maximum table displacements listed in column 8 are around

5.0~6.0 inches, which were obtained by scaling the original earthquake record in ground

motion magnitude, or in rate of record point to approach the displacement capacity of the

shake table. At the same time, the input table acceleration listed in column 6 was set to be

less than the acceleration capacity of the shake table – 1.0 g. The maximum damping forces

were obtained from the measured data by load cells L1 and L2. Generally, these data

verified the concept of constant output damping force by the PTCD devices. The maximum

damping forces were 2 kips for the “without control” case; around 7~8 kips for 4.25 turns

of the high pressure valves; and around 10 kips for 3.5 turns of the high pressure valves.

Variances exist among these data because the maximum damping forces were primarily

from self-vibration of the pressure valve, which is dependent of the input signals.

136
 Table 5-3: Summary of Table Test Results (Under Earthquake Waves)
No. Earthquake Control Pre-set Turn Maximum Maximum Displacement Maximum
file name State control numbers Acceleration (in) Damping Force
displacement of high (g) (lbs)
(in) pressure Table Mass Table Mass Negative Positive
valve Positive Negative
1 Mes24 W/O ---- ---- 0.29 0.14 5.68 5.01 2.10 726 1337
2 Mes24 W ±3 4.25 0.32 0.2 5.63 3.38 1.40 2260 3293
3 Mes24 W ±3 3.5 0.42 0.32 6.14 3.11 1.52 4861 4651
4 Mes24 W ±2 3.5 0.54 0.32 6.09 2.31 2.03 4802 5474
5 N7n1t11 W/O ---- ---- 0.69 0.36 5.82 4.39 3.97 2004 2847
6 N7n1t11 W ±3 4.25 0.62 0.60 5.83 3.56 4.12 9952 6629
7 N7n1t11 W ±3 3.5 0.69 0.63 5.87 3.32 4.14 15260 8835
8 N7n1t11 W ±2 3.5 0.63 0.63 5.86 2.41 4.00 16298 9267
9 N12e136 W/O ---- ---- 0.83 0.37 5.44 4.07 3.08 853 1697
10 N12e136 W ±3 4.25 0.72 0.46 5.61 2.96 3.02 1369 4332
11 N12e136 W ±3 3.75 0.71 0.43 5.8 2.77 2.76 2459 5464
12 N12e136 W ±2 3.5 0.75 0.51 5.9 3.06 2.35 11139 9680
13 Koe131 W/O ---- ---- 0.69 0.38 5.07 4.45 3.18 2882 3536
14 Koe131 W ±3 4.25 0.69 0.61 5.11 3.42 3.85 11767 7625
15 Koe131 W ±3 3.5 0.79 0.75 5.17 2.9 4.06 14928 11811
16 Koe131 W ±2 3.5 0.75 0.74 5.19 2.96 3.32 13258 11016
17 Kon1 W/O ---- ---- 0.81 0.34 5.18 5.36 2.53 1204 1543
18 Kon1 W ±3 4.25 0.79 0.75 5.26 4.11 2.89 10265 10736
19 Kon1 W ±3 3.5 0.84 0.84 5.31 4.03 2.7 14686 12018
20 Kon1 W ±2 3.5 0.85 0.73 5.29 3.38 2.31 15437 10483
21 Ypl3t12 W/O ---- ---- 0.75 0.35 5.95 5.68 2.63 1466 1803
22 Ypl3t12 W ±3 4.25 0.70 0.66 5.94 4.11 2.96 5665 9784
23 Ypl3t12 W ±3 3.5 0.68 0.60 5.94 3.59 3.06 6287 9839

137
 24 Ypl3t12 W ±2 3.5 0.64 0.62 5.96 3.35 2.71 12885 10229
25 Co9216 W/O ---- ---- 0.81 0.35 4.25 5.32 2.69 1127 1491
26 Co9216 W ±3 4.25 0.97 0.67 4.45 4.17 3.19 5322 6222
27 Co9216 W ±3 3.5 0.95 0.58 4.44 3.52 3.61 7793 8069
28 Co9216 W ±2 3.5 0.97 0.77 4.43 3.51 2.86 16149 11660
29 Le0138 W/O ---- ---- 0.55 0.32 5.25 4.39 4.73 1142 2485
30 Le0138 W ±3 4.25 0.61 0.45 5.30 3.8 4.00 4003 5052
31 Le0138 W ±3 3.5 0.57 0.55 5.32 3.32 3.74 7340 7192
32 Le0138 W ±2 3.5 0.54 0.54 5.36 3.21 3.10 13926 9095
33 Oa02 W/O ---- ---- 0.54 0.29 5.42 5.09 4.01 1374 2543
34 Oa02 W ±3 4.25 0.59 0.53 5.44 3.5 3.85 3774 6881
35 Oa02 W ±3 3.5 0.54 0.53 5.51 2.42 3.79 10048 8540
36 Oa02 W ±2 3.5 0.62 0.52 5.53 3.23 2.6 11556 9318
37 Oa3218 W/O ---- ---- 0.57 0.32 5.77 4.13 3.89 1210 2288
38 Oa3218 W ±3 4.25 0.69 0.47 5.85 3.24 3.62 4087 3783
39 Oa3218 W ±3 3.5 0.58 0.50 5.96 2.47 4.19 7099 7202
40 Oa3218 W ±2 3.5 0.62 0.50 6.00 2.60 3.27 11532 8586
41 Pe0125t14 W/O ---- ---- 0.64 0.34 5.34 5.09 2610 2763
42 Pe0125t14 W ±3 4.25 0.65 0.50 5.34 4.26 2.68 6041 6022
43 Pe0125t14 W ±3 3.5 0.68 0.52 5.42 3.65 3.19 7790 9690
44 Pe0125t14 W ±2 3.5 0.65 0.51 5.42 3.42 2.56 11091 9373

138
The damping force-displacement relationships of the PTCD device are plotted in Figure

5-14. The legend “control with 4.25 turns” and “control with 3.5 turns” refers to when the

displacement control cam was adjusted as ±3in and the high pressure valves are set for 4.25

and 3.5 turns, respectively. Similarly, the legend “control with 3.5 turns and 2 in” refers to

pre-set control displacement of ±2in and 3.5 turns of the high pressure valves.

Generally, the PTCD device in this isolation system displayed stable behaviour for each

case under every earthquake record. The output damping force was near-constant for all

“without control” cases and for the first control stage (within the pre-set control

displacement) in the “with control” cases. These force values corresponded to the low

pressure valves with 4.75 knob turns in the range of 2~3 kips. When the displacement

control bars were connected to the piston rods in the “with control” cases, the two-stage

variable damping control was realized under all earthquake input waves. The output

damping forces of the second stage were within the range of 7~8 kips for 4.25 turns; and 10

kips for 3.5 turns of the high pressure valves. These output damping forces of the second

control stage are mainly from overshooting, caused by self-vibration of the high pressure

valves. The isolator displacement was significantly reduced at the moment of increased

damping, thus the high pressure valves only opened for limited times under most inputs

consisting of only one or two displacement pulses. Under the same excitation, in the cases

for “control with 3.5 turns and 2 inches,” the output damping forces at both stages are

almost the same as in the case of “control with 3.5 turns and 3 inches,” except that the

opening of the high pressure valves was earlier and dissipated more energy, and thus

reduced the maximum isolator displacement more.

139
 Without Control Input mes24

Damping force [kip]

2

-2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

Damping force [kip]

-5
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

10
Control with 3.5 Turns
0

-10
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Damping force [kip]

Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

-10
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement Dc[in]

(a) Mes24

Without Control Input n7n1t11

Damping force [kip]

-5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

20
Control with 4.25 Turns
0

-20
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 3.5 Turns

Damping force [kip]

20

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

10
Damping force [kip]

-10

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(b) N7n1t11
Figure 5-14: Force-displacement Relationship of PTCD device

140
 Without Control Input n12e136

Damping force [kip]

2

-2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]
Control with 4.25 Turns
Damping force [kip]
5

-5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

10

0
Control with 3.5 Turns
-10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Damping force [kip]

-10
Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in
-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(c) N12e136

Input koe131
Damping force [kip]

5
Without Control
0

-5
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

Damping force [kip]

20

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]
Control with 3.5 Turns
Damping force [kip]

20

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Damping force [kip]

Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

(d) Koe131
Figure 5-14: Force-displacement Relationship of PTCD device (Cont’d)

141
 Input kon1

Damping force [kip]

2
Without Control
0

-2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Damping force [kip]

20

0
Control with 4.25 Turns
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

20

0
Control with 3.5 Turns
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Damping force [kip]

Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

(e) Kon1

Without Control Input ypl3t12

Damping force [kip]

-2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

10

0
Control with 4.25 Turns
-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
0

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Damping force [kip]

Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(f) Ypl3t12
Figure 5-14: Force-displacement Relationship of PTCD device (Cont’d)

142
 Without Control Input co9216

Damping force [kip]

2

-2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

10
Control with 4.25 Turns
0

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

Control with 3.5 Turns

10

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

20
Damping force [kip]

Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(g) Co9216

Without Control Input le0138

Damping force [kip]

-5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 4.25 Turns

Damping force [kip]

10

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 3.5 Turns

Damping force [kip]

10

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

10
Damping force [kip]

-10

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(h) Le0138
Figure 5-14: Force-displacement Relationship of PTCD device (Cont’d)

143
 Without Control Input oa02

Damping force [kip]

5

-5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

Damping force [kip] Control with 4.25 Turns

10

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

20
Control with 3.5 Turns
0

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Damping force [kip]

-10 Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

-20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

(i) Oa02

Without Control Input oa3218

Damping force [kip]

-5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]
Damping force [kip]

0
Control with 4.25 Turns
-5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 3.5 Turns

Damping force [kip]

10

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Damping force [kip]

-10
Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

(j) Oa3218
Figure 5-14: Force-displacement Relationship of PTCD device (Cont’d)

144
 Without Control Input pe0125t14

Damping force [kip]

5

-5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Damping force [kip]

10

0
Control with 4.25 Turns
-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

Control with 3.5 Turns

Damping force [kip]

10

-10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement Dc[in]

10
Damping force [kip]

-10 Control with 3.5 Turns and 2in

-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement Dc[in]

(k) Pe0125t14

Figure 5-14: Force-displacement Relationship of PTCD device (Cont’d)

Figure 5-15 shows time histories of the superstructure accelerations. The legend is similar

to figure 5-14: “W/O” represents the case without displacement control; “W 4.25” and “W

3.5” mean the displacement control cams were adjusted as ±3 in and the high pressure

valves were set to 4.25 and 3.5 turns, respectively; “W 3.5/2” means the pre-set control

displacement is ±2 in and the high pressure valves had 3.5 knob turns.

For “without control” cases under all input earthquake waves, the maximum accelerations

were all lower than 0.35 g, except one spike of 0.37 g for input “n12e136.” When subjected

to the Mexico earthquake “mes24” input, which is similar to a harmonic excitation, the

superstructure acceleration response had a distinct upper and lower bound with a

magnitude as small as 0.14 g. These responses were similar to the small accelerations of the

superstructure during 0.6 Hz frequency input at sinusoidal wave sweep tests. It is explained

145
by the small structural velocity response under small magnitude input. The output damping

forces of the PTCD device under these small velocities were primarily coming from the

orifice valve and thus resulted in small acceleration responses.

When displacement control was applied, the maximum acceleration responses increased

under large displacements from the larger damping forces of the second control stage, and

were still less than the maximum input acceleration. Unlike other conventional methods,

this energy dissipation device does not produce sudden impact effects or high

superstructure acceleration responses. The maximum acceleration responses were around

0.5~0.6 g when the high pressure valves were set to 4.25 knob turns and around 0.5~0.7 g

when they were set to 3.5 turns. Under each earthquake motion, the acceleration responses

of the superstructure of two “3.5 turns” cases were almost the same, which further

illustrates that the acceleration response of this isolation system is only dependent on the

number of knob turns of the valves in the PTCD device and the angle of the slope surfaces

of the RIB. Note that under the Kobe earthquake record “koe131” in Figure 5-15(d), the

maximum acceleration of the superstructure was 0.75 g for the “w 3.5 turns” cases, which

is the same as the maximum input case. Under the Kobe earthquake record “kon1” in

Figure 5-15(e), the maximum acceleration of the superstructure was 0.75 g with one

negative spike in the “w 4.25 turns” case and 0.84 g with one negative spike in the “w 3.5”

case. These spikes were caused by overshooting of the high pressure valves. The way to

control or compensate the self-vibration of the relief valves under input is a topic for

additional research to further improve the PTCD device.

146
 Input mes24
0.4
W/O
0.3 W 4.25
W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.2

0.1
Acceleration [g]

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [s]

(a) Mes24
Input n7n1t11
0.8
W/O
0.6 W 4.25
W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time [s]

(b) N7n1t11
Figure 5-15: Superstructure Acceleration Time History

147
 Input n12e136

0.5 W/O
W 4.25
0.4
W 3.75
0.3 W 3.5/2

0.2
Acceleration [g]

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [s]

(c) N12e136
Input koe131
0.8
W/O
0.6 W 4.25
W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [s]
(d) Koe131
Figure 5-15: Superstructure Acceleration Time History (Cont’d)

148
 Input kon1

0.6 W/O
W 4.25
W 3.5
0.4
W 3.5/2

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [s]

(e) Kon1
Input ypl3t12
0.8
W/O
0.6 W 4.25
W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time [s]
(f) Ypl3t12
Figure 5-15: Superstructure Acceleration Time History (Cont’d)

149
 Input co9216
0.8
W/O
0.6 W 4.25
W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [s]
(g) Co9216
Input le0138

W/O
0.5
W 4.25
0.4 W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.3

0.2
Acceleration [g]

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [s]

(h) Le0138
Figure 5-15: Superstructure Acceleration Time History (Cont’d)

150
 Input oa02

W/O
0.5
W 4.25
0.4 W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.3

0.2
Acceleration [g]

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [s]
(i) Oa02
Input oa3218
0.5
W/O
0.4
W 4.25
0.3 W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.2

0.1
Acceleration [g]

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [s]

(j) Oa3218
Figure 5-15: Superstructure Acceleration Time History (Cont’d)

151
 Input pe0125t14

W/O
0.5
W 4.25
0.4 W 3.5
W 3.5/2
0.3

0.2
Acceleration [g]

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [s]

(k) Pe0125t14
Figure 5-15: Superstructure Acceleration Time History (Cont’d)

Figure 5-16 shows plots of the bearing displacement time histories of the four cases under

every earthquake wave. The legend is same as in figure 5-15. The maximum displacement

responses for all “without control” cases range from 4.5~5.7 inches and are all smaller than

the maximum input displacement except for the “co9216” input, where the maximum

bearing displacement to maximum input is in the ratio of 1.25. All of the “with control”

cases significantly reduce bearing displacements as expected. The degrees of reduction by

the “w 4.25” case and “w 3.5” case were not significantly different, while the “w 3.5/2”

case, which represents small pre-set control displacement and thus enlarges the range of

the second stage damping and dissipates more energy, reduces bearing displacement more

effectively. The average reduction of maximum bearing displacement by the “with

152
control” cases to the “ without control” case under these 11 input earthquake waves were

20%, 23%, and 32% for “w 4.25”, “w 3.5” and “w 3.5/2”, respectively. To summarize,

increasing the displacement working space of large damping is more effective than

enlarging the second stage damping force to control bearing displacement under these

tested earthquake motions. Further research should be conducted to obtain the optimal

control strategy for this isolation system. On the other hand, comparing (a) to (k) of Figure

5-17, the bearing displacement in each case were within the same magnitude range under

every earthquake record input. The reason is that the RIB realizes the isolation effect by its

geometry (slope angle θ ) and very low stiffness, and thus has no distinct natural frequency.

This isolation system works as a filter system and exhibits the same range of bearing

displacements and acceleration responses of the superstructure that is independent of the

input earthquakes.

153
 Input mes24
5
W/O
4 W 4.25
W 3.5
W 3.5/2
3

2
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [s]

(a) Mes24
Input n7n1t11
5
W/O
4 W 4.25
W 3.5
3
W 3.5/2

2
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time [s]
(b) N7n1t11
Figure 5- 16: Bearing Displacement Time History

154
 Input n12e136
5
W/O
4 W 4.25
W 3.75
3 W 3.5/2

2
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [s]
(c) N12e136
Input koe131
4
W/O
3 W 4.25
W 3.5
2 W 3.5/2

1
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [s]
(d) Koe131
Figure 5-16: Bearing Displacement Time History （Cont’d）

155
 Input kon1
6
W/O
5 W 4.25
W 3.5
4
W 3.5/2

3
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [s]
(e) Kon1
Input ypl3t12
6
W/O
5 W 4.25
W 3.5
4 W 3.5/2

3
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time [s]

(f) Ypl3t12
Figure 5-16: Bearing Displacement Time History （Cont’d）

156
 Input co9216
6
W/O
5 W 4.25
W 3.5
4
W 3.5/2

3
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [s]
(g) Co9216
Input le0138
5
W/O
4 W 4.25
W 3.5
3
W 3.5/2

2
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [s]

(h) Le0138
Figure 5-16: Bearing Displacement Time History （Cont’d）

157
 Input oa02
6
W/O
5
W 4.25
4 W 3.5
W 3.5/2
3

2
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [s]
(i) Oa02
Input oa3218
5
W/O
4 W 4.25
W 3.5
3
W 3.5/2

2
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [s]
(j) Oa3218
Figure 5-16: Bearing Displacement Time History （Cont’d）

158
 Input pe0125t14
6
W/O
5 W 4.25
W 3.5
4
W 3.5/2

3
Displacement [in]

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [s]
(k) Pe0125t14
Figure 5-16: Bearing Displacement Time History （Cont’d）

The test results are rearranged in Figure 5-17 to compare the acceleration-displacement

relationships under each earthquake input. For the “with control” case, only the tests when

the high pressure valves were set at 3.5 turns and the displacement control cam was

adjusted as ±2 in are presented. The data for the shake table input came from the measured

table displacements and accelerations during the “W 3.5/2” tests. Generally speaking,

under all input earthquake motions, the PTCD devices acted as conventional viscous

dampers but with a near-constant acceleration output for the “without control” cases. For

the control cases, the isolation system realized the desired two stage

acceleration-displacement loops. The accelerations from the first control stage for the

control cases are the same values as for the “without control” cases. Under “mes24” motion

159
input, the maximum bearing displacement was reduced by 54% when the displacement

control was applied with acceleration increasing from 0.2 g at the first stage to 0.3 g at the

second stage damping control. In Figure 5-17 (b) and (f), under input motions “n7n1t11”

and “ypl3t12,” the acceleration response for the control case increased from the first stage

from around 0.3 g to the second stage around 0.6 g, while reduction of the maximum

displacement was 23% and 41%, respectively. In Figure 5-17 (d), (e) and (g), under

motions “koe131,” “kon1,” and “co9216,” the acceleration response of the control cases

were from 0.35 g at the first stage to 0.75 g at the second stage, and at the same time, the

reductions of the maximum displacement were 25% , 37%, and 34%, respectively. In

figure 5-17 (c), (h), (i), (j) and (k), under motions “n12e136,” “le0138,” “oa02,” “oa3218,”

and “pe0125t14,” the control cases reached reductions of maximum displacement at 25% ,

32%, 36%, 21% and 33%, respectively, as the acceleration increased from the first stage of

0.25~0.3 g to the second stage of around 0.5 g. For all the cases “without control,” and the

first stage in the “with control” cases, the absolute acceleration responses of the

superstructure were all less than 0.35 g. The maximum bearing displacement was

effectively reduced by the second stage damping control with only a certain increase of the

acceleration responses. This PTCD device provides both an isolation effect by controlling

acceleration responses of the superstructure under moderate earthquakes, and displacement

control capability under earthquakes with large displacement demands through variable

damping and energy dissipation.

160
 Input mes24
0.6
With control
0.5 Without control
Table input
0.4

0.3
Acceleration [g]

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(a) Mes24
Input n7n1t11
0.8
With control
0.6 Without control
Table input

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]
(b) N7n1t11
Figure 5-17: Comparison of Acceleration-displacement Relationships

161
 Input n12e136
0.6
With control
Without control
0.4
Table input

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(c) N12e136
Input koe131
With control
0.8
Without control
Table input
0.6

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(d) Koe131
Figure 5-17: Comparison of Acceleration-displacement Relationships (Cont’d)

162
 Input kon1
1 With control
Without control
0.8 Table input

0.6

0.4
Acceleration [g]

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]
(e) Kon1
Input ypl3t12 With control
0.8 Without control
Table input
0.6

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(f) Ypl3t12
Figure 5-17: Comparison of Acceleration-displacement Relationships (Cont’d)

163
 Input co9216
1
With control
0.8 Without control
Table input
0.6

0.4
Acceleration [g]

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Dc[in]

(g) Co9216
Input le0138 With control
0.6
Without control
Table input
0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(h) Le0138
Figure 5-17: Comparison of Acceleration-displacement Relationships (Cont’d)

164
 Input oa02
0.6

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 With control

Without control
Table input
-0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(i) Oa02
Input oa3218
0.6
With control
Without control
0.4
Table input

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement Dc[in]

(j) Oa3218
Figure 5-17: Comparison of Acceleration-displacement Relationships (Cont’d)

165
 Input pe0125t14
0.8
With control
0.6 Without control
Table input

0.4

0.2
Acceleration [g]

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement Dc[in]

(k) Pe0125t14
Figure 5-17: Comparison of Acceleration-displacement Relationships (Cont’d)

5.5. Test Results Verification

5.5.1. Analytical Model

The equation of motion for the isolation system derived in Section 5.2 is applied to

simulate the test results:

Mx + Fd ( x, x) + Fb ( x, x) = − Mxg

Where: xg is the ground acceleration. Fd ( x, x) is the output damping force by the PTCD

device, which is modeled by the algebra equation solution method shown in Figure 3-22 in

Section 3.4.2.2. And, Fb ( x, x) is the restoring force provided by the RIB, which is

calculated by

166
 ⎛ θ θ Ny θ ⎞
Fb ( x, x) = Maabs = M ⎜ −0.5 g sin θ sgn( x) + ae sin 2 − ( g μ r cos 2 + μ y cos ) sgn( x) ⎟ .
⎝ 2 2 M 2 ⎠

The meaning of the variables is explained in Section 5.1. The sliding friction N y in the

third item of the equation is modified by a dimensionless viscoplasticity function Z, which

describes the hysteretic behavior of the friction force (Constantinou et. al., 1990). The

viscoplasticity function, Z, was obtained from the following first-order, nonlinear

differential equation (Wen, 1976):

η −1 η
YZ + γ x Z Z + β x Z − Ax = 0
−1 ≤ Z ≤ 1

Where the five constants were selected as the following values:

A = 1, β = 0.5, γ = 0.5,η = 2, andY = 0.13mm .

For this isolation system: M = 0.057kipsi s 2 / in = 10 Kni s 2 / m , θ = 2.50 ,

r 0.005
μr = = = 0.0022 , N y = 0.20Mg and μ y = 0.04 for steel to steel friction. Figure
R 2.25

5-18 illustrates the simulation program based on the governing equation of motion.

1
Ag

2 V Z Af0*muye
v1
(1) fric 1
ax1

g mur

0.5

3
x1
sin(tht)
cos(tht/2) x
cos^2(tht/2)

(2) to arc

167
 1
Ag Ag

Ag 1 v1 ax1
3
1 1 s
v ax x1 (2) ACDr1 Ar
s As Sum2
Sum1 Sum3
x SRIS (2) SRIS
v1 Ah
1 SRIS & ACDr1
(1) SRIS 1
s 2 s 4
Xs Xr

9
Ag
Fb
1 v1 ax1
5
s
x1 Arr
(4) ACDr2 Sum9 Sum8
(4) SRIS
v1
Ah 8 SRIS & ACDr2
1
x1 7
s Fd
Amr 6
Xrr

Figure 5-18: Analysis model for RIB and the Base Isolation System

5.5.2. Verifications of Experimental Results

The model shown in Figure 5-18 was used to verify the experimental results of this base

isolation system under sinusoidal waves and earthquake motions. Under each input, only

the “without control case” (noted as W/O) and the “control case” when the high pressure

valves were set at 3.5 turns and the displacement control cams were adjusted to ±2 in are

simulated. Figures 5-19 and 5-20 display the comparisons between the analytical and

experimental results. It is shown that the proposed model simulates peak responses and the

shape of the acceleration-displacement loops. A more refined model needs to be further

developed to predict the response time histories. Under each input, the responses of the

RIBs without supplemental damping were also predicted and presented. It is seen that the

bearing displacement responses were significant for this situation, which is also the reason

that experiments for “only RIBs” was not conducted under the selected motions. The

simulation results further confirmed that the PTCD device effectively reduces the

displacement of the RIBs.

168
 0.5 0.5
Roller Bearing Only W/O Experiment
PACD without control W/O Simulation
0.4 0.4 W Experiment
PACD with control
W/O Simulation

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

A cc eleration [g]
A c c eleration [g]

0 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3

-0.4 -0.4

-0.5 -0.5
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement [in] Displacement [in]

Analysis results Comparison

(a) 0.7 Hz
0.8 0.8
W/O Experiment
W/O Simulation
Roller Bearing Only
0.6 W Experiment
PACD without control 0.6
W/O Simulation
PACD with control

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
A c c eleration [g]

A cc eleration [g]

0 0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement [in] Displacement [in]

Analysis results Comparison

(b) 1.1 Hz
Figure 5-19: Simulation Results under Sinusoidal Waves

169
 0.4
0.4
Roller Bearing Only
PTCD without control 0.3 W/O Experiment
0.3
W/O Simulation
PTCD with control
W Experiment
W/O Simulation
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
Acceleration [g]

Acceleration [g]
0 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3

-0.4 -0.4
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement [in]
Displacement [in]

Analysis results Comparison

(a) mes24
0.8 0.8
Roller Bearing Only W/O Experiment
PTCD without control W/O Simulation
0.6 PTCD with control 0.6 W Experiment
W/O Simulation

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
A c c eleration [g]

A c c eleration [g]

0 0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement [in] Displacement [in]

Analysis results Comparison

（b）Ypl3t12
0.8
0.8
W/O Experiment
Roller Bearing Only
W/O Simulation
PTCD without control
0.6 W Experiment
0.6 PTCD with control
W/O Simulation

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
Acceleration [g]
A c c eleration [g]

0
0

-0.2
-0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement [in] Displacement [in]

Analysis results Comparison

(c) co9216

170
 0.6 0.6
W/O Experiment
Roller Bearing Only
W/O Simulation
PTCD without control
W Experiment
PTCD with control
0.4 W/O Simulation
0.4

0.2 0.2

Acceleration [g]
0
A c c eleration [g]

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement [in] Displacement [in]

Analysis results Comparison

(d) le0138
0.6
0.6
W/O Experiment
Roller Bearing Only W/O Simulation
PTCD without control W Experiment
PTCD with control W/O Simulation
0.4
0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
A cceleration [g]
A c c eleration [g]

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6
-0.6

-0.8
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.8
Displacement [in] -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement [in]

Analysis results Comparison

（e）oa02
0.6 0.6
W/O Experiment
Roller Bearing Only W/O Simulation
PTCD without control W Experiment
0.4 PTCD with control 0.4 W/O Simulation

0.2 0.2

0
A cceleration [g]

0
A c c eleration [g]

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement [in] Displacement [in]

Analysis results Comparison

（f）pe0125
Figure 5-20：Simulation Results under Earthquake Motions

171
 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1. Summary and Conclusions

The research presented in this dissertation describes the development of a new passive

two-step control damping (PTCD) device. This device takes the form of a traditional fluid

viscous damper with a bolt-on manifold block, which consists of valves to control the oil

pressure and thus adjusts the damping force. The PTCD device exhibits a constant

damping force to optimize displacement control, and offers a two-stage control under

unexpected large earthquakes.

A prototype device was developed, manufactured and tested under both sinusoidal waves

and earthquake ground motions. Analytical models based on fluid mechanics and algebra

equation solutions were developed, and verified by results of component tests.

Five critical parameters were established to describe the complete force-displacement

relationship of the PTCD device. They were used in parametric studies on the seismic

responses of SDOF systems with different natural periods under an ensemble of 25

synthetic near-fault ground motions. The peak responses were compared with the

responses of corresponding systems with conventional nonlinear viscous dampers. These

comparisons further illustrate that the new device can provide variable damping ratios

through the two stages control for earthquakes with different magnitudes and demands.

To investigate the effectiveness of this device in limiting large bearing displacements

likely introduced by near-fault earthquakes, a base isolation system consisting of a roller

isolation bearing (RIB) and PTCD device was assembled and tested on the shake table. A

numerical simulation was performed by using the analytical models developed in this

172
research for the base isolation system. The analytical results compared well with the

experimental observations.

The following conclusions are obtained:

(1). This new passive variable damping device can deliver stable and expected two-step

damping control using only mechanical actions, without external power, batteries,

sensors and/or other components required by typical active or semi-active devices.

(2). The proposed two analytical models, the fluid mechanics based model and the algebra

equation solution model, can simulate the unique behaviour of the PTCD device and its

ability to provide two-step constant damping forces, which are practically velocity

independent. These two models are validated by the results of the component tests.

(3). Under ground motions with near-fault pulses, both displacement and acceleration

responses of structures with low damping passive control systems designed without

consideration of near-fault effects are significantly improved by using the PTCD

device. The second stage damping control capability is helpful in controlling the

seismic responses of the structures under near-fault effects.

(4). The response reductions achieved by the PTCD device under near-fault ground

motions is comparable with a high damping passive control system, but does not

exceed them. While under ground motions without near-fault pulses, the acceleration

responses of a structure with the PTCD device is less than that of a structure with a high

damping system. A special feature of this new device is that it can deliver the

conventional “low,” or combined “low” and “high” passive damping control according

to different response demands under earthquake events with different magnitudes.

173
(5). The operating principle of the PTCD device is that under normal conditions, it

performs only the first stage control under small or moderate earthquakes; while it

delivers two-step control under large or near-fault earthquakes. It is effective in

reducing both displacement and acceleration responses under near-fault earthquakes

when the first stage damping ratio for far-fault ground motions is designed to be low or

moderate.

(6). In the base isolation system, combining the PTCD device with the roller isolation

bearing provides a small and constant force to the superstructure. This system achieves

necessary acceleration reductions and controls the bearing displacements under a

moderate or far-fault earthquake. While at the same time, it limits excessive

displacements by supplying large damping and energy dissipation under a large or

near-fault earthquake.

6.2. Future Research

This dissertation research focused on the development of PTCD and the performance of a

SDOF system when added with the PTCD device. To determine the seismic responses of a

multiple degrees of freedom (MDOF) system, additional issues such as the distribution of

dampers, especially for fluid viscous dampers with nonlinear force-velocity behaviour,

must be addressed. Furthermore, compensating or eliminating the overshooting associated

with the switching from low damping force to high damping force, and thus avoid the

activation of high modes effect on isolated MDOF system is also an important issue which

needs to be considered in future research.

174
In the equations of motion of the base isolation system, the output force is simply the

summation of the damper and isolator forces. The interactive mechanism between the

viscous behaviour of the PTCD device and the restoring force of the RIB needs to be

further studied. A refined model should be developed to account for this mechanism. In

addition, the relationship between the two-step isolation effect and the mechanism of

earthquakes should be investigated before practical application of the system.

The PTCD device, acting as a two-step damping device to control the displacements of an

isolator, can be combined with other types of base isolators such as elastomeric bearings to

form a new isolation system. General design methods for the isolation system should be

developed for applications of the PTCD device in various conditions.

175
 APPENDIX A1 FIGURES OF COMPARISON OF SEISMIC RESPONSES
UNDER MCE GROUND MOTIONS
7% Tn=1.5s
60

50
Displacement [cm]

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

LD TD-2 HD-2 TD-2.5 HD-2.5 TD-3 HD-3 TD-4 HD-4 TD-5 HD-5

1.4

1.2

1
Acceleration [g]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

7% Tn=2.0s
70

60

50
Displacement [cm]

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.8

0.6
Acceleration [g]

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions

176
 7% Tn=2.5s
100

80
Displacement [cm]

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
Acceleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
7% Tn=3.0s
120

100
Displacement [cm]

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
Acceleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions (Cont’d)

177
 7% Tn=3.5s
140

120

100
Displacement [cm]

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.5

0.4
Acceleration [g]

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
7% Tn=4.0s
200

150
Displacement [cm]

100

50

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.4

0.3
Acceleration [g]

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions (Cont’d)

178
 15% Tn=1.5s
40

35

30
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

LD TD-2 HD-2 TD-2.5 HD-2.5 TD-3 HD-3 TD-4 HD-4 TD-5 HD-5

1.4

1.2

1
A c c eleration [g]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
15% Tn=2.0s
60

50
Displacem ent [c m ]

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.8
A c celeration [g]

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions (Cont’d)

179
 15% Tn=2.5s
80

70

60
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
A c c eleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
15% Tn=3.0s
120

100
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
A c c eleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions (Cont’d)

180
 15% Tn=3.5s
120

100
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.4

0.35

0.3
A c c eleration [g]

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
15% Tn=4.0s
140

120

100
D is plac em ent [c m ]

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.35

0.3

0.25
A c c eleration [g]

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions (Cont’d)

181
 30% Tn=1.5s
30

25
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

LD TD-2 HD-2 TD-2.5 HD-2.5 TD-3 HD-3 TD-4 HD-4 TD-5 HD-5

1.4

1.2

1
A c c eleration [g]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
30% Tn=2.0s
50

40
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

1.4

1.2

1
A c c eleration [g]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions (Cont’d)

182
 30% Tn=2.5s
70

60

50
D is plac em ent [c m ]

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.8
A c c eleration [g]

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
30% Tn=3.0s
100

80
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
A c c eleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions (Cont’d)

183
 30% Tn=3.5s
100

80
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
A c c eleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
30% Tn=4.0s
120

100
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.4

0.35

0.3
A c c eleration [g]

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A1-1: Comparisons under MCE Motions (Cont’d)

184
 APPENDIX A2 FIGURES OF COMPARISON OF SEISMIC RESPONSES
UNDER MCEN GROUND MOTIONS
7% Tn=1.5s
60

50
Displacem ent [cm]

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

LD TD-2 HD-2 TD-2.5 HD-2.5 TD-3 HD-3 TD-4 HD-4 TD-5 HD-5

1.4

1.2

1
Acceleration [g]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
7% Tn=2.0s
50

40
Displacement [cm]

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
Acceleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions

185
 7% Tn=2.5s
40

35

30
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.35

0.3

0.25
A c c eleration [g]

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
7% Tn=3.0s
25

20
D is plac em ent [c m ]

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.2

0.15
A c c eleration [g]

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions (Cont’d)

186
 7% Tn=3.5s
25

20
D is plac em ent [c m ]

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.12

0.1

0.08
A c c eleration [g]

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
7% Tn=4.0s
25

20
D is plac em ent [c m ]

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.1

0.08
A c c eleration [g]

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions (Cont’d)

187
 15% Tn=1.5s
40

35

30
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

LD TD-2 HD-2 TD-2.5 HD-2.5 TD-3 HD-3 TD-4 HD-4 TD-5 HD-5

0.8
A c c eleration [g]

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
15% Tn=2.0s
35

30

25
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.5

0.4
A c c eleration [g]

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions (Cont’d)

188
 15% Tn=2.5s
35

30

25
Displacement [cm]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.5

0.4
Acceleration [g]

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
15% Tn=3.0s
30

25
D is p la c e m e n t [c m ]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.35

0.3

0.25
A c c e le ra tio n [g ]

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions (Cont’d)

189
 15% Tn=3.5s
25

20
D is plac em ent [c m ]

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.2

0.15
A c c eleration [g]

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
15% Tn=4.0s
25

20
D is plac em ent [c m ]

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.12

0.1

0.08
A c c eleration [g]

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions (Cont’d)

190
 30% Tn=1.5s
30

25
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

LD TD-2 HD-2 TD-2.5 HD-2.5 TD-3 HD-3 TD-4 HD-4 TD-5 HD-5

0.8

0.7

0.6
A c c eleration [g]

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
30% Tn=2.0s
35

30

25
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
A c c eleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions (Cont’d)

191
 30% Tn=2.5s
30

25
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.8
A c c eleration [g]

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
30% Tn=3.0s
30

25
D is plac em ent [c m ]

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.7

0.6

0.5
A c c eleration [g]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions (Cont’d)

192
 30% Tn=3.5s
25

20
D is plac em ent [c m ]

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.35

0.3

0.25
A c c eleration [g]

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber
30% Tn=4.0s
25

20
Dis plac em ent [c m ]

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

0.25

0.2
A c c eleration [g]

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Eventnumber

Figure A2-1: Comparisons under MCEN Motions (Cont’d)

193
 REFERENCE

1. AASHTO, (1998), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Washington, D. C.

2. FEMA, (2000), “NEHRP recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation for New

Buildings and other Structures,” FEMA, Washington, D. C.

3. Chopra, A. K., (2000) “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Application to Earthquake

Engineering”, Prentice Hall

4. Hanson, R.D., Soong, T.T., (2001) “Seismic Design with Supplemental Energy

Dissipation Devices,” Monograph, EERI

5. Naeim, F., J. M. Kelly, (1999) “Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From Theory to

Practice”, Wiley, New York

6. Soong, T. T., (1990) “Active Structural Control: Theory and Practice”, Longman,

London and Wiley, New York

7. Aiken, I.D., Nims, D.K., Whittaker, A.S. and Kelly, J.M., (1993) “Testing of Passive

Energy Dissipation Systems,” Earthquake spectra, Vol. 9, No. 3, EERI

8. Ramirez, O.M., Constantinou, M.C., Kircher, C. A., Whittaker, A. S., Johnson, M. W.,

Gomez, J. D., and Chrysostomou, C. Z. (2001) “Development and Evaluation of

Simplified Procedures for Analysis and Design of Buildings with Passive Energy

194
 Dissipation Systems,” Technical Report MCEER-00-0010, Multidisciplinary Center

for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New

York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

9. Constantinou, M.C., and Symans, M. D., (1992) “Experimental and Analytical

Investigation of Seismic Response of Structures with Supplemental Fluid Viscous

Dampers,” Technical Report NCEER-92-0032, National Center for Earthquake

Engineeg ring Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York at

Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

10. Reinhorn, A. M., and Constantinou, M. C., (1995) “Experimental and Analytical

Investigation of Seismic Retrofit of Structures with Supplemental Damping: Part 1 –

Fluid Viscous Damping Devices,” Technical Report NCEER-95-0001, National Center

for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New

York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

11. Seleemah, A. A., and Constantinou, M. C., (1997) “Investigation of Seismic Response

of Buildings with Linear and Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers,” Technical Report

NCEER-97-0004, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at

Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

12. Tan, P. , Agrawal, A. K. , and Pan, Y. (2005) “Near-field Effects on Seismically Excited

Highway Bridge Equipped With Nonlinear Viscous Dampers” Bridge Structures, Vol.

1 No. 3, September 2005, 307-318

195
13. Martinez-Rodrigo, M. , Romero, M. L., (2003) “An Optimum Retrofit Strategy for

Moment Resisting Frames with Nonlinear Viscous Dampers for Seismic Applications”

Engineering Structures, 2003, 25: 913-925

14. Pekcan, G., Mander, J. B., Chen, S. S. (1999) “ Fundamental Considerations for The

Design of Non-linear Viscous Dampers” Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, 28, 1999, 1405-1425

15. Lin, W. H., Chopra, A. K. (2003) “ Earthquake Response of Symmetric and

Asymmetric One-Story Elastic Systems with Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers or

Nonlinear Viscoelastic Dampers” Technical Report EERC-2003-02, Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley

16. Goel, R. K. (2005) “ Seismic Response of Linear and Non-linear Asymmetric Systems

with Non-linear Fluid Viscous Dampers” Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, 2005, 34: 825-846

17. Soong, T. T., and Spencer, B. F. (2002) “ Supplementary Energy Dissipation:

State-of-the-art and State-of-the-practice” Engineering Structure, 2002, 24: 243-259

18. Kobori, T., Takahashi, M., Nasu, T., and Niwa, N. (1993) “Seismic Response

Controlled Structure with Active Variable Stiffness System” Earthquake Engineering

and Structural Dynamics 1993, 22: 925–41.

196
19. Nagarajaiah, S. and Mate, D., (1998) “Semi-active Control of Continuously Variable

Stiffness System” Proceedings of 2nd World Conference of Structural Control, Vol. 1,

Wiley, New York, 397-405

20. Akbay, Z., Aktan, H. M., (1991) “Actively Regulated Friction Slip Braces”

Proceedings of Sixth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto,

Canada, 1991: 367–374.

21. Pandya, J., Akbay, Z., Uras, M., Aktan, H., (1996) “Experimental Implementation of

Hybrid Control”, Proceedings of Structures Congress XIV, Chicago, IL, 1996:

1172–1179.

22. Feng, M. Q., Shinozuka, M., and Fujii, S., (1992). “Experimental and Analytical Study

of a Hybrid Isolation System Using Friction Controllable Sliding Bearings,” Technical

Report NCEER-92-0009, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,

University at Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

23. Feng, M. Q., Shinozuka, M., and Fujii, S., (1993). “Friction-controllable Sliding

Isolation System,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 119, No. 9 September,

1993: 1845-1864

24. Symans, M. D., Constantinou, M. C., (1995) “Development and Experimental Study of

Semi-active Fluid Damping Devices for Seismic Protection of Structures,” Technical

197
 Report NCEER 95-0011, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,

University at Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

25. Sato, T., Sato M., Tanaka, S., Toki, K., “Modeling of a variable damper and its

application. Proceedings of Second International Workshop on Structural Control,

Hong Kong, 1996: 482–489.

26. Liang, Z., Tong, M., Lee, G. C., (1995) “Real-time Structural Parameter Modification

(RSPM): Development of Innervated Structures,” Technical Report NCEER 95-0012,

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State

University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

27. Kurino, H., Tagami, J., Shimizu, K., and Kobori, T., (2003) “Switching Oil Damper

with Built-in Controller for Structural Control”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.

129, No. 7 July 2003: 895-904.

28. Shih, M. H., Sung, W. P., (2004) “The Energy Dissipation Behavior of Displacement

Dependent Semi-active Hydraulic Dmaper”, Structural Engineering & Earthquake

Engineering Vol. 21, No.2, October 2004: 121-129.

29. Kawashima, K., Unjoh, S., Iida, H., Mukai, H., (1992) “Effectiveness of the Variable

Damper for Reducing Seismic Response of Highway Bridges”, Proceedings of Second

U.S.–Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective Systems for Bridges, PWRI, Tsukuba

Science City, Japan, 1992: 479–493.

198
30. Hrovat, D., Barak, P., and Rabins, M., (1983) “Semi-active Versus Passive or Active

Tuned Mass Dampers for Structural Control”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol.

109, No. 3, June, 1983: 691-705.

31. Abe, M., (1996) “Semi-active Tuned Mass Dampers for Seismic Protection of Civil

Structures”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996; 25:743–749.

32. Nagarajaiah, S. and Varadarajan, N., (2000) “Novel Semi-active Variable Stiffness

Tuned Mass Damper with Real Time Returning Capability”, Proceeding of 13th

Engineering Mechanics Conference. (CD ROM), Reston, Va.

33. Lou, J. Y. K., Lutes, L. D., and Li, J. J., (1994) “Active Tuned Liquid Damper for

Structural Control”, Proceedings of First World Conference on Structural Control,

Los Angeles, CA, 1994: TP1-70–TP1-79.

34. Yalla, S. K., Kareem, A., and Kantor, J. C., (2001) “Semi-active Tuned Liquid Column

Dampers for Vibration Control of Structures”, Engineering Structures 23 2001:

1469-1479.

35. Ehrgott, R. C., and Masri, S. F., (1992) “Modeling the Oscillatory Dynamic Behavior

of Electrorheological Materials in Shear”, Smart Materials and Structures 1992:

1(4):275–285.

199
36. Gavin, H. P., Hanson, R. D., and Filisko, F. E., (1996) “Electrorheological Dampers,

Part I: Analysis and Design”, Journal of Applied Mechanics 1996; 63:669–675.

37. Gavin, H. P., Hanson, R. D., and Filisko F. E., (1996) “Electrorheological Dampers,

Part II: Testing and Modeling”, Journal of Applied Mechanics 1996; 63:676–682.

38. Makris, N., Burton, S. A., Hill, D., and Jordan, M., (1996) “Analysis and Design of ER

Damper for Seismic Protection of Structures”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1996;

122 (10):1003–11.

39. Shames, I. H., and Cozzarelli, F. A., (1992) “Elastic and Inelastic Stress Analysis”,

Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.

40. Carlson, J. D., and Weiss, K. D., (1994) “A Growing Attraction to Magnetic Fluids”,

Machine Design, August, 1994: 61-64.

41. Spencer, B. F., Dyke, S. J., Sain, M. K., and Carlson, J. D., (1997) “Phenomenological

Model for Magnetorheological Dampers”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics

1997,123 (3):230–238.

42. Dyke, S. J., Spencer, B. F., Sain, M. K., and Carlson, J. D., (1998) “An Experimental

Study of MR Dampers for Seismic Protection”, Smart Material Structures 1998, 7:

693-703.

200
43. Spencer, B. F., Yang, G., Carlson, J. D., and Sain, M. K., (1998) “ “Smart” Damper for

Seismic Protection of Structures: A Full-Scale Study”, Proceedings of 2nd World

Conference on Structural Control , Kyoto, Japan, 1998 Vol. 1: 417-426.

44. Witting, P. R., and Cozzarelli, F. A., (1992) “Shape Memory Structural Dampers:

Material Properties, Design and Seismic Testing”, Technical Report NCEER 92-0013,

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State

University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

45. Whittaker, A., Krume, R., Sweeney, S., and Hayes, J., (1995) “Structural Control of

Buildings Response Using Shape-Memory Alloys”, US Army Corps of Engineers

Research Laboratories Technical Report

46. Clark, P., Aiken, I. D., Kelly, J. M., Higashino, M. and Krumme, R. C. (1995)

“Experimental and Analytical Studies of Shape Memory Alloy Dampers for Structural

Control”, SPIE Vol. 2445/241~251

47. Masuda, A., Sone, A. and Noori, M. (2002) “Performance of SMA-based Damping

Devices with Optimized Hysteretic Characteristics”, Proceedings of SPIE (2002) Vol.

4697:347~357

48. Park, G., Sohn, H., Farrar, C. R., and Inman, D. J. (2003) “Overview of Piezoelectric

Impedance-Based Health Monitoring and Path Forward”, The Shocks and Vibration

Digest, Vol. 35 No.6, 2003: 451~463

201
49. Chen, C., and Chen, G. (2004) “Shake Table Tests of a Quarter-scale Three-storey

Building Model with Piezoelectric Friction Dampers”, Structural Control and Health

Monitoring, 2004, 11: 239~257

50. Unsal, M., Niezrecki, C., and Crane III, C. D. (2003) “Force Control of A Piezoelectric

Based Friction Damper”, Proceedings of the SPIE 10th Annual International

Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, San Diego, CA, March 2-6 2003

51. Li, L. (1984) “Base Isolation Measure for Aseismic Buildings in China”, Proceeding of

8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA

52. Mostaghel, N. and Khodaverdian, M. ( 1987) “Dynamics of Resilient-friction Base

Isolator (R-FBI)”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1987 Vol. 15:

379-390

53. Zayas, V. A., Low, S. S., and Mahin, S. A. (1990) “A Simple Pendulum Technique for

Achieving Seismic Isolation”, Earthquake Spectra, 1990 Vol. 6:317-334

54. Fenz, D. M., and Constantinou, M. C. (2006) “Behavior of Double Concave Friction

Pendulum Bearing”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35:

1403-1424

55. Lin, T., and Hone, C. (1993) “Base Isolation by Free Rolling Rods under Basement”,

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993 Vol. 22: 261-273

202
56. Jangid, R. S., and Londhe, Y. B. (1998) “Effectiveness of Elliptical Rolling Rods for

Base Isolation”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, April, 1998: 469

-472

57. Kasalanati, A., Reinhorn, A. M., and Constantinou, M. C. (1997) “Experienmental

Study of Ball in Cone Isolation System”, Proceeding of Structure Congress XV,

Portland, Oregon, April 1997:1191-1195

58. Wang, J., (2005) “Seismic Isolation Analysis and Design Using Roller Isolation

System”, PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo, State University of New York at

Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

59. Hall, J. F., Heaton, T. H., Halling, M. W., and Wald, D. J. (1995) “Near-source Ground

Motion and its Effects on Flexible Buildings”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11 No. 4,

November 1995:569-605

60. Nagarajaiah, S., and Sun, X. (2001) “Base-Isolated FCC Building: Impact Response in

Northridge Earthquake”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 9,

September 2001: 1063-1075

61. Kelly, J. M. (1999) “The Role of Damping in Seismic Isolation”, Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999 Vol. 28: 3-20

203
62. Goto, Y., Kikuchi, T., and Ina, Y. (1992) “Development of Knock-off Abutment for

Base Isolated Bridges”, Proceeding of Tenth World Conference of Earthquake

Engineering, Rotterdam, Vol. 4: 2221-2226

63. Kim, J.-M., Feng, M. Q., Shinozuka, M. (2000) “Energy Dissipating Restrainers for

Highway Bridges”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 19:65-69

64. Constantinou, M. C., Mokha, A. and Reinhorn, A.M. (1990) "Teflon Bearings in Base

Isolation II: Modeling," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(2), 455-474.

65. Johnson, J. L., (2001) “Introduction to Fluid Power,” Thomson Delmar Learning

66. Soong, T. T., and Grigoriou, M. (1993) “Random Vibration of Mechanical and

Structural Systems” Prentice-Hall International Inc.

67. Wen, Y. K. (1976) "Method of Random Vibration of Hysteretic Systems," J. of

Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 102(2), 249-263.

68. Moehle, J. and Deierlein, G. G. (2004) "A Framework Methodology for

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering," Proceedings, 13th World Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, August 2004, CD, Paper

No. 679.

204
69. Loh, C., Liao, W., Chai, J., (2002) “Effect of Near-fault Earthquake on Bridges:

Lessons Learned from Chi-Chi Earthquakes”, Earthquake Engineering and

Engineering Vibration, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp.86-93

70. Uang, C.-M. and Bertero, V.V., (1988) “Use of Energy as a Design Criterion in

Earthquake Resistant Design,” Report UCB/EERC-88/18, Earthquake Engineering

Research Center, University of California at Berkeley

71. Lee, G. C., Ou, Y.-C., Liang, Z., Niu, T.-C., Song, J. (2007). “Principles and

performance of roller seismic isolation bearings for highway bridges.” Report No.

MCEER-07-0019, Multidisciplinary Canter for Earthquake Engineering Research,

University at Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY.

205