50 M.-H. Shih and W.-P.

Sung

displacement response of top roof for bare structure is smaller than that of Mode
III, 0.627 m for bare structure and 0.076 m for Mode III respectively. The shock
absorption ratio of the structural displacement of top roof is 87.9 %.
Figure 6c reveals that the absolute acceleration responses of Mode I and Mode
II are greater than those of bare structure, the variation trend of these responses is
reverse for those of bare structure. Therefore, the structural acceleration responses
of Mode I and Mode II have been enlarged for the lower floors of building by
added with dampers. After checking the time history of acceleration responses,
it is found that the difference of switching time causes the magnification of the
structural acceleration responses. The test results of Mode III are mined to show that
the transient amplification phenomenon has been eliminated by the synchronization
process of ASHD. Not only the maximum structural acceleration responses of all
floors are less than those of bare structure, but also the control effects of structural
displacement control are better than those of Mode I and II.
The maximum absolute acceleration responses of Mode I and Mode II have no
apparent effects because of pulse phenomena. Nevertheless, the shock absorption
effects of base shear responses provide obviously mitigation effect for Mode I, II,
and III. Each control mode will reduce 55–60 %.

3 Conclusions

The component test of DSHD and ASHD has been executed to discuss the basic
energy dissipation behavior. Then, a ten floor shear frame structure is applied
to simulate and analyze the seismic proof capability of this building added with
DSHD and ASHD without and with synchronized. The test and analysis results are
synthesized as follows:
1. A ten floor shear frame structure is used to simulate and analyze the seismic
proof capability of this structure added with DSHD and ASHD without and
with synchronized control. Simulation results display that there are no obviously
difference of the maximum story drift reduction percentage between these three
control modes.
2. Simulation results of test structure with ASHD with synchronized control show
that the structural displacement responses of more than half of floors have been
controlled well, better than test structure with ASHD without synchronized
control. Otherwise, a comparison between roof structural displacement responses
of bare structure and those of test structure with ASHD with synchronized
control, the shock absorption ratio of the roof structural displacement is 87.9 %
for test structure under control process of ASHD with synchronized control.
3. Structural acceleration responses of test structure added with DSHD and ASHD
without synchronized control have been enlarged for the lower floors of test
structure under these two control conditions.
4. The base shear responses of test structure added with DSHD and ASHD without
and with synchronized control are reduced 55–60 %.
Seismic Proof of DSHD and ASHD 51

References

1. Housner GW, Bergman LA, Caughey TK, Chassiakoes AG, Claus RO, Masri SF, Skelton RE,
Soong TT, Spencer BF, Yao JTP (1997) Structural control: past present and future. J Eng Mech
123(9):897–971
2. Yao JTP (1972) Concept of structural control. J Struct Div 98(7):1567–1574
3. Meirovitch L (1990) Dynamics and control of structures. Wiley, New York
4. Symans MD, Constantinou MC (1997) Seismic testing of a building structure with a semi-
active fluid damper control system. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(7):759–777
5. Kurata N, Kobori T, Takahashi M, Niwa N, Midorikawa H (1999) Actual seismic response
controlled building with semi-active damper system. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(11):1427–1447
6. Kurata N, Kobori T, Takaashi M, Ishibashi T, Niwa N, Tagami J, Midorikawa H (2000) Forced
vibration test of a building with semi-active damper system. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(5):629–
645
7. Dyke SJ, Spencer BF Jr, Sain MK, Carlson JD (1998) An experimental study of MR dampers
for seismic protection. Smart Mater Struct 7(5):693–703
8. Xu YX, Qu WL, Ko JM (2000) Seismic response control of frame structures using magne-
torheological/electrorheological dampers. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(5):557–575
9. Taylor DP (1996) Fluid dampers for applications of seismic energy dissipation and seismic
isolation. Eleventh world conference on Earthquake Engineering, No. 798
10. Shih MH, Lin CI, Sung WP (2006) Numerical analysis for the energy reduction behavior of
accumulated semi-active hydraulic damper. J Dyn Syst Geom Theor 4(1):29–45
11. Shih MH, Sung WP (2004) The energy dissipation behavior of displacement dependent semi-
active hydraulic damper. J Struct Mech Earthq Eng Jpn Soc Civ Eng 21(2):121s–129s
12. Shih MH, Sung WP, Go CG (2003) A design concept with a displacement dependent semi-
active hydraulic damper for energy dissipation. Exp Tech 27(6):53–56
13. Shih MH, Sung WP, Go CG (2002) Development of accumulated semi-active hydraulic
damper. Exp Tech 26(5):29–32