A Theoretical Study on Piezoelectric Smart Isolation System

for Seismic Protection of Equipment in Near-fault Areas

LYAN-YWAN LU1,* AND GING-LONG LIN2
1
Department of Construction Engineering, National Kaohsiung
First University of Science and Technology, 1 University Road, Yenchao, Kaohsiung 824, Taiwan
2
Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, National Kaohsiung
First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

ABSTRACT: In order to enhance the efficiency and safety of seismic isolation for equipment
subjected to near-fault earthquakes that usually possess a long-period pulse-like waveform,
a semi-active isolation system named piezoelectric smart isolation system (PSIS), composed
of a sliding isolation platform and a piezoelectric friction damper (PFD), is proposed in
this study. By controlling the embedded piezoelectric actuator with a DC voltage, the friction
force of the PFD can be regulated; therefore, the PFD is able to provide a supplemental
damping, which is controllable by a predetermined control law, for the PSIS system. In order
to evaluate its isolation performance, the seismic responses of the PSIS was simulated
numerically, and the isolation performance of the PSIS was also compared with those
of a passive and an active isolation system. The results of these comparisons are discussed in
this study. The simulation result has shown that the PSIS can prevent both the excessive
isolator displacement and equipment acceleration induced by the long-period pulse
component of a near-fault earthquake.

Key Words: equipment isolation, seismic isolation, near-fault earthquake, piezoelectric

actuator, semi-active control, friction damper, smart structures.

INTRODUCTION due to this can be prevented. It has been demonstrated in

EISMIC protection of equipment in many important
S facilities, such as high-technology factories,
hospitals, computer centers etc., may have great impor-
tance, since these facilities may completely lose their
functionality in a severe earthquake due to the malfunc-
tion or damage of critical equipment (Ungar et al., 1990;
Amick and Gordon, 1997; Chaudhuri and Hutchinson,
2006; Villaverde, 2006). For some vibration-sensitivity
equipment, the failure can be caused not only by
equipment overturning, but also by excessive equipment
acceleration (Lopez and Soong, 2003a,b). In some cases,
well restrained equipment can still be damaged due to the
excessive acceleration response exerted by the strong
ground motion (Lopez and Soong, 2003b).
Seismic isolation is a possible solution for the seismic
protection of equipment. By implementing a soft or
sliding isolation layer under the object to be protected,
which can be a structure or piece of equipment, an
isolation system is able to considerably reduce the ground
acceleration transmitted to the object, and thus damage
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: lylu@ccms.nkfust.edu.tw
Figures 1, 4–7 and 12–19 appear in color online: http://jim.sagepub.com
many cases that seismic isolation is a very effective and
practical means for protecting seismic structures or
equipment (Asher et al., 1995; Celebi, 1996; Naeim and
Kelly, 1999; Yang et al., 2005). Nevertheless, recent
studies have also revealed that when a conventional
passive isolation system of a constant isolation frequency
is subjected to earthquakes with strong near-fault
characteristics that usually possess a long-period velocity
pulse waveform (Hall et al., 1995; Chai and Loh, 2000;
Makris and Chang, 2000), the conventional system may
suffer from a low-frequency resonance-like response that
will cause considerable amplification on the isolator
displacement and endanger the isolated object (Makris
and Chang, 2000; Jangid and Kelly, 2001; Lu et al., 2003).
The reason for this amplification is primarily due to the
fact that the period of the pulse waveform in a near-fault
earthquake is usually between 2 and 4 s, which happens to
be the range of the isolation period commonly adopted
for seismic isolation (Naeim and Kelly, 1999).
In order to overcome the problem of excessive isolator
displacement associated with near-fault earthquakes,
some researchers have suggested adding supplementary
passive damping in isolation systems (Makris and
Chang, 2000; Alhan and Gavin, 2004; Lee and

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MATERIAL SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES, Vol. 20—January 2009 217
1045-389X/09/02 0217–16 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/1045389X08091120
ß SAGE Publications 2009
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
218 L.-Y. LU
Kawashima, 2004). Nevertheless, some studies have also
discovered that adding passive damping in isolation
systems may interfere with isolation effectiveness and
cause an increase in the acceleration response of the
isolated object (Kelly, 1999). Moreover, there is another
drawback associated with passive damping. That is,
once determined, the parameters of a passive device
cannot be adjusted online in response to seismic
excitations whose characteristics may not be as designed.
Consequently, the isolation system with passive damp-
ing may not perform as expected when it is subjected to
a seismic load whose intensity or frequency content is
significantly different from the one it was designed for.
Hence, in order to improve the isolation performance
for various possible earthquakes, the development of
adaptive isolation systems is desirable.
In order to make the isolation system become
adaptive to the external excitation, some researchers
have recently proposed the concept of a semi-active
isolation system, which is sometimes called a smart
isolation system (Nagarajaiah and Narasimhan, 2006).
A semi-active isolation system generally consists of a
passive isolation system with a certain type of semi-
active device (or smart device), such as the MR damper
(Spencer et al., 1997; Sahasrabudhe and Nagarajaiah,
2005a), variable friction device (Yang and Agrawal,
2002; Chen and Chen, 2004a; Lu et al., 2004), variable
stiffness device (Saharabudhe and Nagarajaiah, 2005b;
Lu et al., 2006a; Nagarajaiah and Saharabudhe, 2006),
and so on. The function of the semi-active device, which
is usually installed under the isolation system, is to
attenuate the seismic motion of the isolation system
according to the current system response or excitation,
so that the system response can be mitigated.
The internal parameters of such a semi-active device
can be adjusted online by a controller; thus, like an
active control system, a semi-active system usually
requires sensor measurements and a proper control
law (Symans and Constantinou, 1999; Spencer and
Nagarajaiah, 2003). Nevertheless, a semi-active device is
essentially a ‘variable’ passive one, since the force of the
semi-active device is exerted by the relative motion
between the device and the structure and is a passive
resistant force. In other words, the direction and the
magnitude of the semi-active control force depends on
those of the relative motion of the system, which means
that the semi-active force is not fully controllable. More
importantly, the direction of the control force is always
opposite to the direction of the relative motion of the
system, and cannot be arbitrarily assigned. Since a semi-
active device basically generates a passive force,
theoretically it will not pump energy into the controlled
system. As a result, the control stability can be
guaranteed. Based on the above reasons, an isolation
system involving semi-active devices can be a stable,
adaptive, and promising seismic protection system.
AND G.-L. LIN
The objective of this study is to investigate theoretically
the possible use of a semi-active isolation system, called
piezoelectric smart isolation system (PSIS), that contains
a piezoelectric actuator, for the seismic protection of
equipment subjected to near-fault earthquakes. In this
study, a PSIS is defined as a sliding isolation system with
a piezoelectric friction damper (PFD), whose friction
force can be attenuated by an embedded actuator made
of piezoceramic smart materials. The PFD offers semi-
active supplementary damping for the isolation system.
Piezoceramic materials, which have the advantages of
being lightweight and have a low energy demand, swift
response, and easy implementation, offer the actuation
capability for vibration control of structural systems
(Song et al., 2006). The earliest applications of piezo-
ceramic materials for vibration control of structures was
in aerospace engineering (Bailey and Hubbard, 1985).
Recently, it has also been applied to the control of various
types of civil engineering structures like trusses, beams,
frames, and cable structures (Song et al., 2006).
In addition, in seismic structural control, piezoelectric
materials have been applied in the development of
variable friction dampers (Chen and Chen, 2004a,b),
however, the application of piezoelectric materials
toward the improvement of the performance of seismic
isolation systems in near-fault areas have not been
thoroughly investigated. This study aims to make a
contribution to this application.
The present study is organized as follows. Firstly, the
constituent elements and the configuration of the PSIS
are introduced, and then a semi-active control law
suitable for the control of the PSIS is explained.
The mathematic model and the numerical analysis
method for equipment isolated by a PSIS system is also
discussed. Finally, in order to evaluate the isolation
performance of the PSIS, its seismic response is simulated
in the last two sections. The system parameters and the
ground excitations used in the simulation are explained.
The simulation results are discussed, in which the
performance of the PSIS is also compared with the
responses of a passive and an active isolation system.
In addition, to be practical, the piezoelectric coefficient
used in the simulation, which defines the relation between
the generated force and the driving voltage of the
piezoelectric actuator, will be obtained from a calibration
test conducted on an actual PFD damper.
PIEZOELECTRIC SMART ISOLATION
SYSTEM (PSIS)
Configuration of PSIS
Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of a PSIS, which
consists of a sliding isolation platform and a PFD.
Because of the existence of the isolation stiffness denoted

Sliding platform
Friction bar
Isolated equipment
Sliding block Guide rail
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the piezoelectric smart isolation
system (PSIS).
(a) Wedge block (for pre-load) Friction pad
Load cell Piezoelectric actuator
(b)
Piezoelectric actuator
Load cell Wedge block
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the components of piezoelectric
friction damper (PFD) (a) side view; (b) Tip view.
by springs in Figure 1, the sliding platform has resilient
ability. If the PFD damper is removed from the PSIS, the
remaining sliding platform becomes a conventional
‘passive’ isolation system. Figure 2 shows a possible
configuration for the PFD in the PSIS. As shown in the
figure, a piezoelectric actuator is embedded in the PFD to
provide a controllable clamping force (or contact force)
between the friction pads and friction bar, so the friction
force of the PFD can be regulated by the piezoelectric
actuator. When an earthquake occurs, the friction force
produced by the relative motion between the friction pad
and the friction bar of the PFD will provide energy
dissipation capability for the PSIS system, and then the
response of PSIS can be attenuated. In Figure 2, a pair of
wedge blocks is installed to provide pre-compression
force on the piezoelectric actuator, and a load cell is used
to measure the clamping force of the PFD.
Figure 3 shows the block diagram of the control of the
PFD, and a voltage amplifier and a controller are usually
needed. The controller can be a simple digital controller
that usually consists of a micro-computer (or a PC) with
an analog/digital control card. The micro-computer will
decide the control command based on the sensor
measurement of the current system response, whereas
the A/D card will output the control signal, which is
usually a DC voltage below 10 V. On the other hand, a
piezoelectric actuator usually requires a driving DC
Piezoelectric Smart Isolation System 219
Piezoelectric Piezoelectric actuator Controller
Sensors
friction damper (PC + A/D card)
Spring Control voltage DC 0-10V
Voltage amplifier Power
Driving voltage AC 110 V
Floor DC 0-1000 V
Figure 3. Control block diagram for the piezoelectric friction
damper.
voltage from 0 V up to 1000 V or higher; therefore, the
Outer frame
control voltage provided by the controller is not sufficient
to drive the piezoelectric actuator directly. For this
reason, a voltage amplifier is needed to convert the
control voltage to a higher level sufficient for the control
of the PFD. In the test to be discussed in the next
subsection, an amplifier with a gain of 100 V/V is used to
magnify a 10 V control signal to a 1000 V driving voltage
Friction bar
for the control of the PFD. On the other hand, the electric
Friction bar
current required for the piezoelectric actuator is usually
at a range of several milliAmperes, so the control energy
Friction pad demand for the PFD is minimal compared with the
energy dissipated by the PFD.
Control of PFD Friction Force
Outer frame
As mentioned above, the friction force of the PFD is
controlled by regulating the clamping force produced by
a piezoelectric actuator. The clamping force (i.e., the
normal contact force) applied on the friction interface of
the PFD can be expressed by:
NðtÞ ¼ N0 þ Cz VðtÞ ð1Þ
where N(t) represents the total clamping force, N0
denotes the pre-compression force (produced by adjust-
ing the wedges in Figure 2), V(t) is the driving voltage of
the piezoelectric actuator, Cz denotes the piezoelectric
coefficient of the piezoelectric actuator. Moreover,
according to Coulomb’s friction law, the maximum
friction force ud,max(t) (also called the slip force) of the
PFD depends on N(t), and can be written as:
ud, max ðtÞ ¼ d NðtÞ ð2Þ
where d denotes the friction coefficient of the PFD.
Note that ud,max in Equation (2) represents the absolute
value of the maximum friction. From Equations (1) and
(2), it is evident that by controlling the driving voltage
V(t), the clamping force N(t) as well as the slip force
ud,max(t) of the PFD can be altered in the desired manner.
Measurement of Piezoelectric Coefficient
As mentioned previously, the generation of the
clamping force N(t) of the PFD requires a piezoelectric
actuator. Figure 4 shows a photograph of a typical
220 L.-Y. LU AND G.-L. LIN

Unit : 1 cm
Friction pad
Load cell

Piezoelectric actuator
HPSt 1000/25-15/40 VS35

Friction bar

Figure 5. Photograph of PFD with an embedded piezoelectric

actuator.
Figure 4. Photograph of a typical piezoelectric actuator (manufac-
turer: Piezomechanik GmbH).

Table 1. Specifications of the piezoelectric actuator.

commercial piezoelectric actuator supplied by a manu-
facturer (Piezomechanik GmbH, Germany), while Piezomechanik
Figure 5 shows a photograph of the piezoelectric actuator Manufacturer GmbH (Germany)
embedded in the PFD. Table 1 lists the specifications of Model number HPSt 1000/25-15/40
the piezoelectric actuator shown in Figure 4. The length Dimensions (mm) 35  14  63
of the piezoelectric actuator can be elongated by a driving Maximum stroke (m) 55
voltage. In a free-end (un-loaded) condition, the elonga- Input voltage (V) 200–1000
No. of layers (n) 68
tion of the piezoelectric actuator is approximately Piezoelectric strain constant, d33 (m/ V ) 500  1012
proportional to the input voltage. On the other hand, if Elastic modulus, Y33E
(N/m2) 6  1010
properly restrained at its two ends, the piezoelectric Stiffness (N/m) 300
actuator can generate a thrusting force when an input Resonance frequency (kHz) 25
driving voltage is applied. The condition of the restraints Maximum force generation (N) 13,000
Maximum compression load (N) 22,000
and the stiffness of the supporting boundary at the two
ends of the actuator will affect the magnitude of the force
generated. For a given input voltage to the actuator, a
stiffer boundary will generate a higher thrusting force. Each data point in Figure 6 was obtained by driving the
The formula to describe the relation between the piezoelectric actuator with a harmonic DC voltage,
generated force N(t) and the input voltage V(t) has been shown in Figure 7(a), which has a constant frequency
given in Equation (1). As shown in the equation, the with the amplitude gradually increased from 100, 300,
increase of the force is proportional to the piezoelectric 600 to 900 V. At the same time, the thrusting force of the
coefficient Cz. In addition, the physical meaning of Cz is actuator, which is also the clamping force N(t) of
the force generated by an unit voltage, so Cz can be the PFD, was measured by the embedded load-cell
treated as a measure of the efficiency of the piezoelectric (see Figure 5). For N0 ¼ 1000 N, Figure 7(b) shows the
actuator. A larger Cz implies that a higher thrusting force measured result of relation between the driving voltage
can be generated by the actuator with a given voltage. and the force generated by the actuator. In Figure 7(b),
Since the elongation of a piezoelectric actuator induced electrical-mechanical hysteretic behavior is observed for
by the input voltage is usually in a level of several tens m the tested piezoelectric actuator. This implies that the
(106 m) only, the value of Cz can be very sensitive to the relation between the force N(t) and driving voltage V(t) is
boundary condition. As a result, for a specific layout or actually nonlinear. However, for the convenience of
application, a test is usually required to determine the analysis, the relation of N(t) and V(t) is linearized by
actual Cz of the piezoelectric actuator. using the method of least-square error. The result of
Furthermore, in addition to the effect of the supporting linearization is shown by a dotted regression line in
boundary condition, the value of the coefficient Cz is Figure 7(b). The slope of the regression line represents the
also affected by the preload N0 applied on the piezo- linearized piezoelectric coefficient Cz. The test procedure
electric actuator. Figure 6 shows the experimental described above was repeated several times for a given
relation between preload N0 and Cz, which was obtained N0, so an average Cz can be obtained for each preload N0,
from a calibration test conducted on the piezoelectric as shown in Figure 6. The experimental data of Figure 6
actuator embedded in the PFD shown in Figure 5. show that the relation between Cz and N0 is nonlinear.
 Piezoelectric Smart Isolation System 221

1.4
SEMI-ACTIVE CONTROL LAW FOR PSIS
Experimental
1.3 Regression
In order to determine the control command for
1.2 the clamping force N(t) shown in Equation (1), the
Coefficient Cz (N/V)

implementation of the PSIS generally requires an on-line

1.1
control law. Moreover, because friction behavior is
1 involved, a PSIS is a highly nonlinear system and a
y = −0.1*x2 + 0.51*x + 0.69 special control law is required. Lu et al. (2004) have
0.9 derived a generic control method for structures with
semi-active friction devices. This method is adopted
0.8
and modified in this study to determine the clamping
0.7 force of the PSIS, and the control method is discussed
in this section.
0.6 Let u^ d ðtÞ be the target damper force of the PFD. If a
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Preload N0 (kN)
direct-output feedback control law is employed, this
target force may be expressed as, i.e.,
Figure 6. Piezoelectric coefficient Cz as a function of preload N0.
u^ d ðtÞ ¼ GyðtÞ ð3Þ
(a) 1000
where y(t) denotes the system outputs obtained from
sensor measurement, and G is a constant feedback gain
800
that can be determined by any linear feedback control
law. On the other hand, since the PFD damper is
600
basically a variable passive damper that can only
Voltage (V)

provide a resistant force whose direction is always

400
opposite to that of the slip velocity or to the direction of
the tendency to slip, the target force u^ d ðtÞ determined by
200
Equation (3) may not be achievable at some time
instants. By considering the above constraint due to the
0 passive property of the PFD, the control command of
the clamping force must be modified. The modified
−200 command can be obtained by first equating the damper
0 5 10 15 20
force ud ðtÞ to the target force, i.e.,
Time (s)

(b) 2500 ud ðtÞ ¼ u^ d ðtÞ: ð4Þ

y= (1.1)x + 940 Furthermore, assuming the PFD is in its sliding state,

2000
one has

1500 ud ðtÞ ¼ sgnðud ðtÞÞud, max ðtÞ ð5Þ

Force (N)

where the function sgn(x) means taking the sign of x,

1000
and ud, max ðtÞ represents the slip force that is equal to the
Experimental maximum friction force of the PFD and can be
500 Linearized expressed as:

0 ud, max ðtÞ ¼ d NðtÞ: ð6Þ

0 200 400 600 800 1000
Voltage (V) Next, using Equations (5) and (6) in Equation (4), one
Figure 7. Calibration of piezoelectric coefficient for the can solve the time-variant clamping force
PFD: (a) Input voltage; (b) Generated force vs. input voltage.
u^ d ðtÞ
NðtÞ ¼ sgnðud ðtÞÞ : ð7Þ
In addition, it is also shown that a larger N0 results in a d
higher value of Cz. Therefore, it would be beneficial to
compress the piezoelectric actuator with a sufficient Since physically the clamping force N(t) cannot be
amount of the preload N0 before the PFD starts to work. negative, and the friction coefficient d can only be
222 L.-Y. LU AND G.-L. LIN

greater than zero (i.e., N(t)  0 and d (t) 4 0), from In other words, the slip force of the PFD has a lower
Equation (7) one has the following constraint and an upper bound.

ud ðtÞu^ d ðtÞ  0: ð8Þ

NUMERICAL METHOD FOR ANALYSIS OF
Using the constraint of Equation (8), one can rewrite PSIS RESPONSE
Equation (7) as:
Equation of Motion
ju^ d ðtÞj
NðtÞ ¼ Hðud ðtÞu^ d ðtÞÞ ð9Þ
d The seismic response of equipment isolated by the
PSIS will be simulated for evaluation in a later section.
where Hðud ðtÞu^ d ðtÞÞ represents a Heaviside function The numerical method employed for the simulation is
which is defined as: discussed in this section. Figure 8 shows the mathematic
8 model used in the numerical analysis. In the model, it is
<1 for ud ðtÞu^ d ðtÞ  0 assumed that the equipment isolated by the PSIS is
Hðud ðtÞu^ d ðtÞÞ ¼ : ð10Þ installed on the floor of the primary structure. In the
: figure, the sliding isolation platform with resilient
0 for ud ðtÞu^ d ðtÞ50
mechanism for the PSIS is modeled by a spring of
As shown in Equation (9), in order to obtain the stiffness ki and a friction element of friction coefficient
controlled clamping force N(t) for the PFD, the target i. The former represents the isolation stiffness due to
force u^ d ðtÞ must be modified by the Heaviside function. the resilient mechanism, whereas the latter is used to
Therefore, Equation (9) (not Equation (3)) represents the model the friction effect of the sliding isolation platform.
semi-active control law used for the control of the PSIS. In addition, in Figure 8, the mass of equipment is
Once the clamping force is determined by Equation denoted by me, and the mass, damping, stiffness of the
(9), the desired driving voltage V(t) for the control of the primary structure is denoted by the notations ms, cs and
piezoelectric actuator can be directly solved from ks. Symbols xe and xs represent, respectively, the
Equation (1), i.e., relative-to-the-ground displacements of the equipment
and the structure.
ðNðtÞ  N0 Þ The dynamic equation of the mathematic model
VðtÞ ¼ : ð11Þ
Cz shown in Figure 8 can be represented by:

In practice, the value of V(t) should be limited by the € þ CnðtÞ

MnðtÞ _ þ KnðtÞ ¼ D2 uðtÞ þ Ec wðtÞ ð16Þ
specifications of the installed piezoelectric actuator and
of the voltage amplifier employed, so physically V(t) is where nðtÞ ¼ ½xe ðtÞ, xs ðtÞT denotes the vector containing
subjected to some constraint, for instance the system responses; w(t) is the ground acceleration due
to an earthquake; D2 and Ec denote the force placement
0  VðtÞ  Vmax ð12Þ matrices for the isolation system and the excitation,
respectively. M, C, and K represent the mass, damping,
where Vmax denotes the upper bound of V(t), which is and stiffness matrices of the isolation system. u(t)
equal to 1000 V if the piezoelectric actuator shown in denotes the total friction force of the PSIS. Note that
Table 1 and Figure 4 are used. Furthermore, using the matrix K in Equation (16) includes the isolator
Equation (12) in Equation (1), one obtains a lower and
an upper bound for the clamping force N(t)
Sliding platform mi
Equipment xe
N0  NðtÞ  Nmax ð13Þ PFD
ki m d me

where N (t ) xs

ms
Nmax ¼ N0 þ Cz Vmax : ð14Þ
Primary structure
cs
If Equation (13) is used in Equation (2), the magnitude ks
of the slip force ud,max(t) of the PFD should be also
subjected to a constraint as:

d N0  ud, max ðtÞ  d Nmax : ð15Þ

Figure 8. Mathematic model for the numerical simulation.
 Piezoelectric Smart Isolation System
stiffness ki, so K is a nonsingular stiffness matrix.
Moreover, it must be pointed out that since ki has been
combined with K, the remaining PSIS force denoted by
u(t) at the right-hand side of the equation only contains
the force due to the nonlinear friction effects of the
PSIS. This nonlinear force u(t) actually consists of two
components and can be written as:
uðtÞ ¼ ui ðtÞ þ ud ðtÞ
where ui(t) denotes the friction due to the sliding
isolation platform, and ud (t) denotes the friction
contributed by the semi-active device PFD. Note that
ud(t), which has been discussed in the previous section, is
the controllable damper force provided by the PFD,
whereas ui(t) is an uncontrollable nonlinear force.
Therefore, the dynamic response of the PSIS system
can be attenuated by altering the force ud (t) in real time.
In view of Equations (5) and (6), it is known that ud (t) is
further regulated by controlling the clamping force N(t)
that is determined according to the semi-active control
law shown in Equation (9).
For the convenience of the numerical analysis, the
dynamic equation shown in Equation (16) can also be
recast in a state space form (Meirovitch, 1990), i.e.,
_ ¼ AxðtÞ þ BuðtÞ þ EwðtÞ
xðtÞ
where x(t) is the state vector and can be written as:
 T  T
_
xðtÞ ¼ nðtÞ nðtÞ ¼ x_ e ðtÞ x_ s ðtÞ xe ðtÞ xs ðtÞ
In addition, the system matrix A and force placement
matrices B and E are
2 3 2 3
M1 C M1 K M1 D2
A¼4 5, B ¼ 4 5,
I 0 0 umax ½k ¼ ui, max þ ud, max ½k
2 3 ð20Þ
1
M Ec
E¼4 5:
0 where ui,max and ud,max represent the sliding forces
Discrete-time Solution
As shown in Equation (18), although the controlled
friction force u(t) is determined non-linearly by the
proposed control law, the PSIS dynamic system
represented by the matrix A in Equation (18) is still
linear. Therefore, a numerical method may be obtained
by using the discrete-time solution of Equation (18),
which can be written in the following incremental form
x½k þ 1 ¼ Ad x½k þ Bd u½k þ Ed w½k
223
where
Ad ¼ eAc t
Bd ¼ A1 ðAd  I ÞB ð22Þ
Ed ¼ A1 ðAd  I ÞE
ð17Þ where the constant matrices Ad, Bd, and Ed can be
treated as the discrete-time counterparts of the matrices
A, B, and E in Equation (18). Note that in Equation (22)
A1 exists, since the matrix A computed by Equation
(20) will be nonsingular, provided that the matrix K is
not singular. Moreover, as stated earlier, the matrix K
must be nonsingular since it includes the isolator
stiffness ki. Equation (21) is actually a restatement of
the force equilibrium condition. Equation (21) states
that response x[k þ 1] of the (k þ 1)th time step can be
computed based on the state x[k], the excitation w[k],
and the total friction u[k], all evaluated at the previous
time step, i.e., the kth step. Since the state vector x[k]
can be computed from the (k  1)th step and w[k] is the
given excitation, the only unknown at the right-hand
side of Equation (18) is the total friction u[k], which is a
nonlinear force. The computation of ud[k] will be
explained below.
ð18Þ
Determination of Total Friction Force u[k]
Since u[k] is a friction force, it has two possible motion
ð19Þ states, namely, sliding and stick. Based on the model of
Figure 8, the motion state (either sliding or stick) of the
isolator and the damper must be the same at any given
time instant. Furthermore, by Coulomb’s friction
model, no matter which state, the magnitude of the
total friction u[k] at any time instant should not exceed
its maximum values, which can be computed by
ð23Þ
¼ i me g þ d N½k
(maximum forces) of the isolator and the PFD damper,
respectively. i and d denote the friction coefficient of
the isolator and the damper. N[k] is the controllable
clamping force of the PFD, which is determined by the
control law (see Equation (9)).
Although Equation (23) gives the maximum value of
the friction u[k], the actual value of u[k] depends on the
current response of the PSIS system. In order to
determine the value of u[k] at each time step, the force
balanced method proposed by Lu et al. (2006b), which is
able to deal with structures with friction elements, is
ð21Þ employed in the simulation. The method first assumes
that the PSIS is in its stick state, and then the actual
224 L.-Y. LU AND G.-L. LIN

friction is sought by satisfying the kinematic and force
conditions of friction behavior simultaneously.
By the force balanced method, it is first assumed that
the PSIS is in its stick state at the (k þ 1)th time step, so
the following kinematic condition must be satisfied
the complete (k þ 1)th step response of the system. The
above numerical procedure will be conducted step by
step until the complete time history of the system
response is obtained.

x_ i ½k þ 1 ¼ x_ e ½k þ 1  x_ s ½k þ 1 ¼ D3 x½k þ 1 ¼ 0 ð24Þ
PARAMETERS FOR CASE STUDY OF PSIS

where x_ i [k þ 1] denotes the relative sliding velocity Parameter Values of Numerical Model
between the isolation platform and the structure.
D3 ¼ ½1,  1, 0, 0 is a row matrix that extracts the In order to evaluate the isolation performance of the
isolator relative velocity x_ i [k þ 1] from the state vector PSIS, in the next section, the seismic response of the
x[k þ 1]. Next, substituting x[k þ 1] from Equation (21) PSIS will be simulated by using the numerical
(a force balance condition) into Equation (24) and method discussed in the last section. The simulation
further solving the friction force u[k], one may obtain uses the same structure-equipment-PSIS model shown
in Figure 8. Table 2 lists the numerical values of
u~ ½k ¼ Gx x½k þ Gw w½k ð25Þ the parameters and the properties of the model.
These values were used throughout the numerical
where simulation. As shown in Table 2, the natural frequency
of the isolation platform alone is 0.4 Hz; while,
Gx ¼ ðD3 Bd Þ1 ðD3 Ad Þ, Gw ¼ ðD3 Bd Þ1 ðD3 Ed Þ: ð26Þ the frequency of the structure itself is 3 Hz. To reflect
the reality, the mass of the equipment is taken to
be 0.005% of the structure mass, so the interaction
Note that in Equation (25) u[k] is replaced by the symbol between the equipment and structure is negligible.
~ to signify that the friction force obtained is under
u½k The friction coefficients of the isolation platform
~ may or
the assumption of the stick state. Although u½k and the friction damper are taken to be i ¼ 0.03
may not be the actual friction force, u½k ~ will help and d ¼ 0.2, respectively. Throughout the numerical
determine the actual value. Moreover, the sign of u½k ~ simulation, the time interval for analysis will be
physically represents the direction of the actual friction taken as 0.005 s. In addition, the properties of
force. The actual value of u[k] is determined by the the PFD shown in Table 1 and Figure 5 will also be
following conditions: adopted in the simulation. As shown in Table 2, the
  preload N0 of the PFD is taken to be N0 ¼ 1kN in
1. If u½k
~ 5umax , the PSIS is in its stick state and the the simulation; therefore, according to Figure 6, the
condition in Equation (24) is satisfied; therefore, the corresponding piezoelectric coefficient Cz should be
actual friction force u[k] can be obtained by: 1.10 N/V. This value of Cz will be used throughout the
simulation.
~
u½k ¼ u½k: ð27Þ
Table 2. Structure and SIS parameters for simulation.
 
2. If u½k
~   umax , the PSIS is in its sliding state, then
Item Value
the actual friction force should be equal to the sliding
(maximum friction) force given by Primary structure Mass (ms) 10000 ton
Stiffness (ks) 3.553106 kN/m
Damping coefficient (cs) 1.89104 kN-s/m
~
u½k ¼ umax ½ksgnðu½kÞ: ð28Þ Natural frequency (!s) 3 Hz
Damping ratio (s) 5%
Equipment and Equipment mass (me) 500 kg
For simplicity, Equations (27) and (28) can be further isolation platform Friction coefficient 0.03
of isolator (i)
combined into the following equation, regardless the
Isolation frequency (!i) 0.4 Hz
motion state of the PSIS Isolation stiffness (ki) 3.16 kN/m
Piezoelectric Friction coefficient 0.2
 
u½k ¼ minðu½k
~ , ~
umax ½kÞsgnðu½kÞ ð29Þ friction damper of damper (d)
Preload of PFD (N0) 1.0 kN
Piezoelectric 1.10 N/V
coefficient (Cz)
where the function min(a, b) means taking the minimum Maximum driving 1000 V
value of a and b. After u[k] is computed by Equation voltage (Vmax)
(29), it can be substituted into Equation (21) to compute
 Piezoelectric Smart Isolation System 225

Determination of the Feedback Gain by Modal Earthquake Records for Simulation

Control Method
The generic method of semi-active control for variable
friction dampers mentioned earlier will be employed
in the simulation. As shown in Equations (3) and (9),
the determination of the clamping force N(t) requires a
constant feedback gain G, which can be calculated
based on any linear control law with direct output
feedback. In the numerical study, a modal control
with multiple-step feedback proposed by Lu and
Chung (2001) is employed to determine the gain
matrix. By using the senor measurement collected from
the current and previous time steps (this is the reason
why it is called multiple-step feedback), this method
allows the control designer to achieve a pre-determined
control goal with fewer sensors. Let n be the number of
vibration modes selected to be controlled; q be the
number of sensors used; and m be the number of
measurement steps to be fed back, then the following
relation must be held for the implementation of the
aforementioned modal control.
mq ¼ 2n:
As shown in Figure 8, if the equipment is assumed to
be a rigid body, the equipment is isolated by PSIS
system can be considered as a single DOF system with
two friction elements. In other words, the system
has only one vibration mode to be controlled (n ¼ 1).
Figure 9 shows the sensor placement considered in the
simulation. As shown in figure, there will be only one
displacement sensor (q ¼ 1) installed on the equipment;
therefore, according to Equation (30), the number of the
measurement steps to be fed back for will be m ¼ 2, as
shown in Figure 9. In the later simulation, the goal of
the modal control will be set to increase the damping
Two earthquake acceleration records will be used as
the input excitations in the simulation. The detailed
information about these two earthquake records is given
below.
1. El Centro (S00E) Earthquake, 18 May 1940, peak
acceleration: 341.0 cm/s2.
2. Chi-Chi (TCU068) Earthquake, Channel East-
West, 21 September 1999, peak acceleration:
497.4 cm/s2.
The first record is a famous earthquake that has
been widely used in many earthquake engineering studies,
while the other earthquake record was recorded from
stations near seismic faults (Nagarajaiah and
Narasimhan, 2006). The waveforms of these two
records are shown in Figure 10, while Figure 11 depicts
the 5%-damping-ratio acceleration response spectra
of these two earthquakes with PGA (peak ground
acceleration) values normalized to 1 g. As shown
in Figure 10(b), long-period pulse-like waveforms
ð30Þ can be clearly observed in the Chi-Chi (TCU068)
earthquake; as a result, Figure 11(b) shows that the
earthquake induces a relatively large acceleration spectra
value up to 1g for long-period structures (structural
period larger than 1s), as compared with Figure 11(a).
Therefore, the Chi-Chi (TCU068) earthquake is classified
as a earthquake with strong near-fault characteristics in
this study. On the other hand, Figures 10(a) and 11(a),
show that the El Centro (S00E) earthquake exhibits less
long-period characteristics, so it is used to represent a far-
field earthquake.
(a) El centro earthquake
6
Acceleration (m/s2)

ratio of the vibration mode to 30%, and at the same 4

time to maintain the isolation frequency unchanged, 2

0
i.e., !i ¼ 0.4 Hz. To achieve the above control goal, the
−2
feedback gain G computed based on and the formula
−4
derived by Lu and Chung (2001) is:
−6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
  2 Time (s)
G ¼ 1:4964 1:4967  10 kN=m: ð31Þ
(b) Chi-Chi (TCU068) Earthquake
6
Acceleration (m/s2)

The above gain will be substituted in Equations (3) and (9) 4

to obtain the on-line command of the clamping force N(t). 2
0
Step 1 −2
Step 2 −4
Sensor measurement
−6
Displacement relative to structure 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement relative to structure Time (s)
in previous time step
Figure 10. Two ground acceleration records used for simulation
(a) El centro earthquake (PGA=341.0 cm/s2); (b) chi-chi (TCu068)
Figure 9. Sensor placements for feedback control of PSIS. earthquake (PGA=497.4 cm/s2).
226 L.-Y. LU AND G.-L. LIN

EVALUATION OF PSIS ISOLATION Moreover, in order to quantify the isolation effectiveness

PERFORMANCE
In this section, the seismic response of the PSIS
is simulated and its isolation performance will be
compared with those of its passive and active isolation
counterparts. Here, a passive isolation system means
an uncontrolled PSIS (i.e., let ud ¼0), whereas an
active isolation system is obtained by replacing the
PFD in Figure 8 by an active device that can provide
an active control force. All parameter values of the
PSIS used in the simulation have been explained in
the last section. For the convenience of comparison, the
passive and the active isolation systems also use the same
parametric values shown in Table 2 for the primary
structure, equipment, and sliding platform. In addition,
in determining the active control force, the active
isolation system uses the same modal control method
and gain matrix G (see Equation (31)) as the PSIS.
(a) 3.5
3 equipment acceleration level roughly equal to that of the
2.5
sa (g)
for different isolation systems, the following discussion
and comparison will focus on two system responses,
namely, the isolator displacement and the equipment
acceleration. Here, the isolator displacement means the
displacement of the sliding platform relative to the
primary structure, and the goal of using PSIS is to
reduce both the isolator displacement and the equipment
acceleration simultaneously.
Comparison of PSIS with Passive Isolation System
(A) TIME-HISTORY RESPONSE
Figures 12 and 13 compare the time history responses
of the PSIS and the passive isolation system, when both
are subjected to the two earthquakes already mentioned.
Note that in all figures the PGA of the earthquakes have
been scaled to 0.4 g for the purpose of comparison. In
Figures 12(a) and 13(a), it is evident that when subjected
to a typical far-field earthquake, like the El Centro
earthquake, the PSIS is able to reduce the maximum
isolator displacement while maintaining a maximum
passive system. On the other hand, Figures 12(b) and

2
1.5 13(b) show that when subjected to the near-fault
1 earthquake with long-period pulse waveform, the
0.5
0 passive system exhibits an obvious long-period oscilla-
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
tion behavior in both the acceleration and the displace-
Period (s)
ment responses, whereas the PSIS effectively suppresses
(b) 3.5
both the equipment acceleration and the isolator
3
2.5
displacement simultaneously as compared with the
sa (g)

2 passive isolation.
1.5 Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the demands on the driving
1 voltage and the clamping force for the PFD in the PSIS
0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
subjected to the two different earthquakes. As shown in
Period (s)
the figures, because the driving voltage of the PFD is
bounded by 0  V(t)  1000 V, as a result, the clamping
Figure 11. Normalized acceleration response spectra of
the two earthquakes (5% damping): (a) El centro earthquake; force is bounded by 1.0  N(t)  2.1 kN, with the
(b) chi-chi(TCU068) earthquake. values of Cz and N0 given in Table 2. Figures 14 and 15

Isolator displacement Isolator displacement

(a) 0.2 (b)
Passive 1 Passive
0.15 PSIS PSIS

0.1
0.5
0.05
Disp. (m)

Disp. (m)

0 0
−0.05
−0.5
−0.1

−0.15
−1
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 12. Comparison of isolator displacements due to the two earthquakes (PGA ¼ 0.4 g): (a) El centro earthquake; (b) chi-chi(TCU068).
 Piezoelectric Smart Isolation System 227

also show that: (1) the PFD is activated around the main gain of modal control is saturated more often in the
shock of the earthquake to suppress the maximum near-fault earthquake (Figure 15) than in the far-field
response of the PSIS, but is inactivated for most of the ones (Figure 14), and this implies that the PSIS may
earthquake’s duration. (2) The PFD with the feedback demand more electrical control energy in the former.

Equipment acceleration Equipment acceleration

(a) 1.5 (b) 8
Passive Passive
1 PSIS 6 PSIS

4
0.5
2
Acc. (m/s2)

Acc. (m/s2)
0
0
−0.5
−2
−1
−4
−1.5 −6

−2 −8
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 13. Comparison of equipment accelerations due to the two earthquakes (PGA ¼ 0.4 g): (a) El centro; (b) chi-chi(TCU068).

Control voltage Clamping force

(a) 1000 (b) 2500

800 2000
Voltage (V)

Force (N)

600 1500

400 1000

200 500

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 14. Control voltage and clamping force of PSIS (El Centro, PGA ¼ 0.4 g): (a) control voltage; (b) clamping force.

Control voltage Clamping force

(a) 1000 (b) 2500

800 2000
Voltage (V)

1500
Force (N)

600

400 1000

200 500

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 15. Control voltage and clamping force of PSIS (Chi-Chi (TCU068), PGA ¼ 0.4 g): (a) control voltage; (b) clamping force.
228 L.-Y. LU AND G.-L. LIN

(B) HYSTERESIS LOOP vibration-sensitive equipment is related to excessive peak

In Figure 16, the total hysteresis loops of the PSIS due
to the two different earthquakes are compared with
those of the passive isolation system. The total shear
force shown in Figure 16 includes the total friction and
the restoring force of the whole isolation system. It is
shown that the PSIS increases the height and decreases
the width of the hysteresis loop. This implies that the
PSIS decreases the sliding displacement of the isolators,
but meanwhile maintains the same level of energy
dissipation capacity for the isolation system by increas-
ing the damping force. Therefore, the PSIS can prevent
excessive seismic energy being transmitted up to the
isolated equipment. This may explain why the PSIS is
able to significantly reduce the isolator displacement
without increasing the equipment acceleration.
acceleration response.
Table 4 shows the values of the performance indices of
the PSIS subjected to the two chosen earthquakes
(PGA ¼ 0.4 g). The following observations can be made
from the table. (1) When subjected to the near-fault
earthquake, the PSIS is able to suppress the maximum
isolator displacement down to 33.6% (index J1) and the
maximum equipment acceleration down to 43.2% (index
J2) of the passive isolation responses. In addition, the
reduction in RMS indices J3 and J4 is even better than the
peak response indices for the near-fault earthquake.
For both displacement and acceleration responses, the
RMS ratios of the PSIS are down to about 20–40% of the
passive system. (2) For the far-field ground motion
(the El Centro earthquake), the PSIS is able to reduce the

(C) PERFORMANCE INDICES Table 3. Definition of performance indices.

The control performance of the PSIS in terms of the
Peak isolator Peak equipment
maximum and root-mean-square (RMS) responses is Response displacement acceleration
also evaluated in this subsection. Five performance
maxðxe,r ðtÞÞ maxðx€ e,a ðtÞÞ
indices (J1–J5), defined in Table 3, have been employed. Index* J1 ¼ J2 ¼
maxðx e,r ðtÞÞ maxðx€ e,a ðtÞÞ
The indices J1, J2 in Table 3 represent the ratios of the
Response RMS isolator RMS equipment
maximum isolator displacement xe,r(t) and absolute equi- displacement acceleration
pment acceleration x€ e, a ðtÞ of the SIS. These values are
RMSðxe,r ðtÞÞ RMSðx€ e,a ðtÞÞ
divided by the corresponding maximum responses of the Index* J3 ¼ J4 ¼
RMSðx e,r ðtÞÞ RMSðx€ e,a ðtÞÞ
passive isolation, which are represented by a symbol with
Force Peak PFD damper force
a top-bar in Table 3. On the other hand, the indices J3 and
J4 represent the RMS values of the isolator displacement maxðud ðtÞÞ
Index J5 ¼
maxðVðtÞÞ
xe,r(t) and of the absolute equipment acceleration x€ e, a ðtÞ,
*A symbol with a top-bar represents the association with the passive isolation.
respectively, divided by the corresponding RMS values of
the passive isolation. The performance index J5 repre-
Table 4. Performance indices for PSIS (PGA ¼ 0.4 g).
sents the ratio of the maximum damper friction force to
the maximum isolation shear. Note that for indices J1–J4, Response Force
a value less than one implies that the PSIS has a lower index index
response than the passive isolation. In this case, the PSIS Earthquake Feature J1 J2 J3 J4 J5
has a better performance than the passive system. In
El Centro Far field 0.4729 0.8771 0.4672 1.5493 0.6162
addition, the index J2 has great importance for the TCU068 Near fault 0.3360 0.4315 0.2135 0.3154 0.2935
isolation of equipment, since most of the damage of

Hysteresis loop Hysteresis loop

(a) 1000 (b) 4000
Passive Passive
PSIS 3000 PSIS
Total shear force (N)
Total shear force (N)

500 2000

1000

0 0

−1000

−500 −2000

−3000

−1000 −4000
−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
Isolator displacement (m) Isolator displacement (m)
Figure 16. Comparison of total hysteresis loops of isolation systems due to the two earthquakes (PGA ¼ 0.4 g): (a) El centro;
(b) chi-chi(TCU068).
 Piezoelectric Smart Isolation System 229

peak isolator displacement (see index J1) and equipment
acceleration (see index J2) down to 47 and 88% of those
of the passive system, respectively; although the RMS
acceleration response (see index J4) of the PSIS is 54%
higher than that of the passive system. (3) In view of index
J5, the friction force provided by the PFD damper may
account for about 20–60% of the total shear of the PSIS.
The damper force ratio due to the far-field earthquake is
higher than that due to the near-fault earthquake.
Comparison of PSIS with Active Isolation System
In this subsection, the performance of the PSIS will be
compared with an active isolation system, which is
composed of a sliding isolation platform and an active
device. For fair comparison, the active control force
provided by the active device is determined based on the
same feedback gain as that of the PSIS (see Equation
(31)). The result of the comparison is discussed here.
(A) TIME-HISTORY RESPONSE
Figures 17 and 18 compare, respectively, the displace-
ment and acceleration time histories of the PSIS with
those of the active isolation system, when both systems
are subjected to each of the two chosen earthquakes.
In all figures the PGA level of the earthquakes has been
scaled to 0.4 g. From these figures it is evident that the
PSIS is able to closely follow the responses of the active
system in the earthquakes with either far-field or near-
fault characteristics. This is an important achievement,
since unlike in the active isolation system, the control
force exerted in the PSIS (see Equation (7)) is a passive
force rather than an active force. In other words, the
PSIS is able to achieve about the same control
effectiveness of an active system by using a variable
passive device that demands much less control energy.
(B) HYSTERESIS LOOP
Figure 19 compares the hysteresis loop of the PFD in
the PSIS and that of the active device in the active system.
Note that unlike Figure 16, the forces in Figure 19
are those of the PFD or active device alone, and do
not include those of the sliding platform. As shown in
Figure 19, the hysteresis loops of the PFD closely follow
those of the active device, except that the damper force
ud (t) of the PFD has an upper and lower bound.

Isolator displacement Isolator displacement

(a) 0.1 (b) 0.4
Active Active
PSIS 0.3 PSv

0.05 0.2

0.1
Disp. (m)

Disp. (m)

0 0

−0.1

−0.05 −0.2

−0.3

−0.1 −0.4
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 17. Comparison of isolator displacements due to the two earthquakes (PGA ¼ 0.4 g): (a) El centro; (b) chi-chi(TCU068).

Equipment acceleration Equipment acceleration

(a) 1.5 (b) 3
Active Active
PSIS PSIS
1 2

0.5 1
Acc. (m/s2)

Acc. (m/s2)

0 0

−0.5 −1

−1 −2

−1.5 −3
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 18. Comparison of equipment accelerations due to the two earthquakes (PGA ¼ 0.4 g): (a) El centro; (b) chi-chi(TCU068).
230 L.-Y. LU AND G.-L. LIN

Hysteresis loop Hysteresis loop

(a) 500 (b)
Active 600 Active
400 PSIS PSIS
Damper or active force (N)

Damper or active force (N)

300 400
200 200
100
0
0
−100 −200

−200 −400
−300
−600
−400
−0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Isolator displacement (m) Isolator displacement (m)
Figure 19. Comparison of hysteresis loop of actuator and PFD due to the two chosen earthquakes (PGA ¼ 0.4 g): (a) El centro;
(b) chi-chi(TCU068).

Maximan equipment displacement Maximan equipment displacement

(a) 0.35 (b) 1.4
PSIS PSIS
0.3 Passive 1.2 Passive
Active Active
0.25 1
Disp. (m)

Disp. (m)

0.2 0.8

0.15 0.6

0.1 0.4

0.05 0.2

0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PGA (g) PGA (g)
Figure 20. Maximum isolator displacements of three isolation system subjected to earthquakes with different PGA levels: (a) El centro;
(b) chi-chi(TCU068).

The lower bound is due to the preload N0 applied on the Table 5. Performance indices for active isolation system
piezoelectric actuator, while the upper bound is decided (PGA ¼ 0.4 g).
by the maximum driving voltage Vmax. One can calculate
Response Force
the upper and lower bounds of the PFD force by using
index index
Equation (15) and the parameters given in Table 2,
Earthquake Feature J1 J2 J3 J4 J5
and obtain 200 N  ud  (t) 420 N. Moreover, knowing
the area of the hysteresis loop represents the seismic El Centro Far field 0.4746 0.8771 0.4997 1.1102 0.6749
energy dissipated by the device, one may conclude that TCU068 Near fault 0.3127 0.4188 0.2101 0.2865 0.4148
due to the similarity of the hysteresis loops of the PFD
and active device, the amount of the energy dissipated by earthquakes, the peak and the RMS performance indices
the PFD is lower than but close to that of the active (J1–J4) of the PSIS are very close to those of the active
device. This explains why the responses of the PSIS system. This implies that the PSIS and the active system
shown in Figures 19 and 20 are very similar to those of the have almost equal isolation efficiency. As for the force
active isolation. index J5, it is shown that in a given earthquake the active
system usually requires a higher active control force
(C) PERFORMANCE INDICES than the friction force generated by the PFD, since the
In order to compare the peak and RMS responses, the friction force of the PFD has an upper bound.
five indices (J1–J5) defined in Table 3 have also been
applied to evaluate the performance of the active Comparison of Peak Responses in Different PGA Levels
isolation system. Table 5 shows the performance indices
of the active isolation system subjected to the two It will be interesting to investigate the performance of
earthquakes. Comparing Tables 4 and 5, it can the PSIS when the PGA level of the earthquakes is
be concluded that for either far-field or near-fault changed. Figures 20 and 21 compare the peak responses
 Piezoelectric Smart Isolation System
Maximan equipment acceleration
(a) 2.5
PSIS
Passive
2 Active
acc. (m/s2)
1.5
1 4
0.5
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA (g)
Figure 21. Maximum equipment accelerations of three isolation systems subjected to earthquakes with different PGA levels: (a) El centro;
(b) chi-chi(TCU068).
of the PSIS, passive and active system as a function of the
PGA level for the two earthquakes. Figure 20 compares
the peak isolator displacement, while Figure 21
depicts the peak equipment acceleration. The following
observations can be made from these figures. (1) For the
near-fault earthquake (see Figures 20(b) and 21(b)),
for the range of the PGA levels considered, the
performance of the PSIS is much superior to that of the
passive case. The PSIS can prevent the excessive isolator
displacement and equipment acceleration induced by
the near-fault earthquake. As compared with the
active systems, the PSIS is almost as effective as the
active system in reducing the displacement and accelera-
tion responses, at least for the PGA range considered.
(2) In a typical far-field earthquake (see Figures 20(a) and
21(a)), the isolator displacement of the PSIS is reduced
to only one half of the passive system, and is almost the
same as that of the active system for all PGA levels.
Nevertheless, the three isolation systems induce roughly
the same level of equipment acceleration. In a PGA level
lower than 0.3g, the PSIS and active system have a
slightly higher acceleration response than that of the
passive system.
CONCLUSIONS
Recent studies have revealed that conventional isola-
tion systems may be effective for seismic protection of
structures or equipment subjected to regular (far-field)
earthquakes, but they may also induce an excessive
displacement for the isolated object when subjected to
near-fault earthquakes that usually possess a long-
period pulse waveform. To overcome this problem, a
semi-active isolation system called a Piezoelectric Smart
Isolation System (PSIS) is proposed in this study for the
seismic protection of equipment in near-fault areas. A
PSIS is usually composed of a sliding isolation platform
and a piezoelectric friction damper (PFD). Depending
on the measured system response, the friction force of
231
Maximan equipment acceleration
(b) 10
PSIS
Passive
8 Active
acc. (m/s2)
6
2
0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PGA (g)
the PFD can be regulated on-line by an embedded
piezoelectric actuator, which is driven by a controllable
DC voltage. In other words, the PFD provides a
controllable supplemental damping for the PSIS
system. A numerical simulation was conducted in this
study for the evaluation of the isolation performance of
the PSIS, and its seismic response was compared with
those of a passive isolation system and an active
isolation system. The piezoelectric coefficient of the
PFD used in the simulation was obtained from the
calibration test of an actual PFD with an embedded
piezoelectric actuator. By controlling the PSIS with a
semi-active modal control law, the numerical result has
demonstrated that, regardless of the type of earthquake,
the isolation performance of the PSIS is almost as
effective as its active isolation counterpart, even though
the force generated by the piezoelectric actuator may be
saturated at some instants in an earthquake, due to the
limitation of the driving voltage. On the other hand,
when compared with the passive isolation system, the
performance of the PSIS system is superior to its passive
counterpart in simultaneously suppressing the equip-
ment acceleration and isolator displacement, when both
systems are subjected to a near-fault earthquake with a
strong long-period pulse component. With the above
mentioned results, the primary contribution of this study
is to demonstrate numerically that piezoelectric materi-
als can be applied to improve the performance of seismic
isolation systems for equipment subjected to earth-
quakes with long-period components.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was sponsored in part by National
Science Council of R.O.C. (Taiwan), through Grant
95-2625-Z-327-001. This support is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The authors are also grateful to Mr. Y.-Z. Chen
and Mr. C.-Y. Lin for preparing the experimental data
for the piezoelectric friction damper.
232 L.-Y. LU
REFERENCES
Alhan, C. and Gavin, H. 2004. ‘‘A Parametric Study of Linear and
Non-linear Passively Damped Seismic Isolation Systems for
Buildings,’’ Engineering Structures, 26(4):485–497.
Amick, H. and Gordon, C. 1997. ‘‘On Generic Vibration Criteria for
Advanced Technology Facilities,’’ Journal of Institute of
Environmental Sciences, 40(5):35–44.
Asher, J.W., Hoskere, S.N., Ewing, R.D., Van Volkinburg, D.R.,
Mayes, R.L. and Button, M. 1995. ‘‘Seismic Performance of the
Base Isolated USC University Hospital in the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake,’’ Seismic, Shock, and Vibration Isolation, ASME,
Pressure Vessels and Piping Division (Publication) PVP,
Vol. 319, pp. 147–154.
Bailey, T. and Hubbard, E.J. 1985. ‘‘Distributed Piezoelectric–
Polymer Active Vibration Control of a Cantilever Beam,’’
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 8(5):605–611.
Celebi, M. 1996. ‘‘Successful Performance of a Base-isolated Hospital
Building during the 17 January 1994 Northridge Earthquake,’’
Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 5(2):95–109.
Chai, J.F. and Loh, C.H. 2000. ‘‘Near-fault Ground Motion and its
Effect on Civil Structures,’’ International Workshop on
Mitigation of Seismic Effects on Transportation Structures,
July 12–14, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C., pp. 70–81.
Chaudhuri, S.R. and Hutchinson, T.C. 2006. ‘‘Fragility of Bench-
Mounted Equipment Considering Uncertain Parameters,’’
Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(6):884–898.
Chen, G. and Chen, C. 2004a. ‘‘Semiactive Control of the 20-Story
Benchmark Building with Piezoelectric Friction Dampers,’’
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(4):393–400.
Chen, C. and Chen, G. 2004b. ‘‘Shake Table Tests of a Quarter-scale
Three-storey Building Model with Piezoelectric Friction
Dampers,’’ Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 11(4):
239–257.
Hall, J.F., Heaton, T.H., Halling, M.W. and Wald, D.J. 1995. ‘‘Near-
source Ground Motions and its Effects on Flexible Buildings,’’
Earthquake Spectra, 11(4):569–605.
Jangid, R.S. and Kelly, J.M. 2001. ‘‘Base Isolation for Near-fault
Motion,’’ Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
30(5):691–707.
Kelly, J.M. 1999. ‘‘The Role of Damping in Seismic Isolation,’’
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28(1):3–20.
Lee, T.Y. and Kawashima, K. 2004. ‘‘Effectiveness of Supplementary
Dampers for Isolated Bridges under Strong Near-field Ground
Motions,’’ In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper no. 138, August 1–6, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
Lopez, G.D. and Soong, T.T. 2003a. ‘‘Sliding Fragility of Block-type
Nonstructural Components. Part 1: Unrestrained Components,’’
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32(1):111–129.
Lopez, G.D. and Soong, T.T. 2003b. ‘‘Sliding Fragility of Block-type
Nonstructural Components. Part 2: Restrained Components,’’
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32(1):131–149.
Lu, L.Y., Shih, M.H., Tzeng, S.W. and Chang Chien, C.S. 2003.
‘‘Experiment of a Sliding Isolated Structure Subjected to
Near-fault Ground Motion,’’ In: Proceedings of the 7th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, February 13–15,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Lu, L.Y., Chung, L.L. and Lin, G.L. 2004. ‘‘A General Method for
Semi-active Feedback Control of Variable Friction Dampers,’’
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 15(5):
393–412.
AND G.-L. LIN
Lu, L.Y., Kuo, T.C. and Lin, G.L. 2006a. ‘‘Base Isolation
with Controllable Stiffness for Mitigating Response of
Near-fault Seismic Structures,’’ The 4th World Conference
on Structural Control & Monitoring, July 11–13, San Diego,
CA, USA.
Lu, L.Y., Chung, L.L., Wu, L.Y. and Lin, G.L. 2006b. ‘‘Dynamic
Analysis of Structures with Friction Devices using Discrete-time
State-space Formulation,’’ Computers and Structures, 84(15–16):
1049–1071.
Lu, L.Y. and Chung, L.L. 2001. ‘‘Modal Control of Seismic Structures
using Augmented State Matrix,’’ Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 30(2):237–256.
Makris, N. and Chang, S.P. 2000. ‘‘Effect of Viscous, Viscoelastic
and Friction Damping on the Response of Seismic Isolated
Structures,’’ Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
29(1):85–107.
Meirovitch, L. 1990. Dynamics and Control of Structures, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Naeim, F. and Kelly, J.M. 1999. Design of Seismic Isolated Structures,
Chapter 4, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Nagarajaiah, S. and Narasimhan, S. 2006. ‘‘Smart Base Isolated
Benchmark Building Part II: Phase I Sample Controllers for
Linear Isolation System,’’ Journal of Structural Control and
Health Monitoring, 13(2–3):589–604.
Nagarajaiah, S. and Saharabudhe, S. 2006. ‘‘Seismic Response
Control of Smart Sliding Isolated Buildings using
Variable Stiffness Systems: Experimental and Numerical
Study,’’ Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
35(2):177–197.
Sahasrabudhe, S. and Nagarajaiah, S. 2005a. ‘‘Semi-active Control of
Sliding Isolated Bridges using MR Dampers: An Experimental
and Numerical Study,’’ Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 34(8):965–983.
Saharabudhe, S. and Nagarajaiah, S. 2005b. ‘‘Effectiveness of
Variable Stiffness Systems in Base Isolated Bridges Subjected to
Near Fault Earthquakes: Experimental Study,’’ International
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
16(9):743–756.
Spencer, B.F., Dyke, S.J., Sain, M.K. and Carlson, J.D. 1997.
‘‘Phenomenological Model for Magnetorheological Dampers,’’
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 123(3):230–238.
Spencer, B.F. and Nagarajaiah, S. 2003. ‘‘State of the Art of
Structural Control,’’ Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(7):
845–856.
Song, G., Sethi, V. and Li, H.N. 2006. ‘‘Vibration Control of Civil
Structures using Piezoceramic Smart materials: A Review,’’
Engineering Structures, 28(11):1513–1524.
Symans, M.D. and Constantinou, M.C. 1999. ‘‘Semi-active Control
Systems for Seismic Protection of Structures: A State-of-the-art
Review,’’ Engineering Structures, 21(6):469–487.
Ungar, E.E., Sturz, D.H. and Hal Amick, C. 1990. ‘‘Vibration Control
Design of High Technology Factories,’’ Sound and Vibration,
24(7):20–27.
Villaverde, R. 2006. ‘‘Simple Method to Estimate the Seismic
Nonlinear Response of Nonstructural Components in
Buildings,’’ Engineering Structures, 28(8):1209–1221.
Yang, J.N. and Agrawal, A.K. 2002. ‘‘Semi-active Hybrid Control
Systems for Nonlinear Building Against Near-fault
Earthquakes,’’ Engineering Structures, 24(3):271–280.
Yang, Y.B., Lu, L.Y. and Yau, J.D. 2005. Structure and Equipment
Isolation Vibration and Shock Handbook, In: de Silva, C.W. (ed.),
Chapter 22, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.