›
44 TheStructuralEngineer
August 2014
Experimental
validation of
novel friction
damper for
anti-seismic
control of civil
structures
R. di Leo, L. Lecce, R. Pecora and F. Amoroso
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy
Synopsis
This work presents a new semi-active
friction damper device, based on
piezoelectric technology, for the anti-seismic
control of civil structures.
A civil structure, representative of a two
storey steel framed building, and a reference
seismic excitation signal were used to size
the semi-active friction damper. Matlab-
Simulink® based software (EarthSim) was
implemented to simulate the response of the
steel frame to the seismic excitation, applied
at the base of the structure. The dynamic
response was evaluated both in the case
of the active device (controlled response)
as well as the non-active device. Different
configurations (in terms of the device’s
overall performance and control algorithm
parameters) were simulated for the active
control system. In so doing, a reference
configuration for the structural control
system was determined by identifying
optimal values for control logic parameters,
as well as for the damper’s preload and
maximum force.
TSE32_44-51 Friction v3.indd 44
Research
Novel friction damper
Focus then turned to the structural design
phase. 3D CAD was used to generate a
digital mock-up of the device and structural
analyses were conducted using the finite
element method.
The proposed device presents an original
conceptual layout, characterised by a
compact and easy allocation of the piezo
actuator which is installed inside the piston
of the damper. A highly efficient transmission
chain allows for the transfer of the
compression force generated by the piezo
actuator, to four pads of friction material,
preventing the motion of the piston along its
chamber. Theoretical performances were
validated by means of experimental tests
carried out on a physical prototype, loaded
through a hydraulic test machine.
Introduction
The control of structures, subjected to
seismic excitation, is a significant challenge
for civil/structural engineers. The classical
approach for the mitigation of seismic
hazards (‘strength based design’), consists
of designing structures with sufficient
strength capacity. This approach requires
the resistance of the individual structural
elements to be greater than the demand
associated with the extreme loading. In this
way, after the structure has been designed,
the properties of stiffness are derived and
used to check the various serviceability
constraints (e.g. the elastic behaviour)1.
Recent developments have limited
the importance and effectiveness of
this method. In fact, the construction of
structures with more flexibility (longer span,
horizontal structures and taller buildings)
leads to more structural motion under
service loadings, thus placing greater
emphasis on serviceability. Moreover, the
experience of recent earthquakes has
proved that the cost of repairing structural
damage due to inelastic deformation, has
been greater than envisaged. This supports
a valid arguement to decrease reliance on
inelastic deformation and, by contrast, to
control the structural response with other
types of energy dissipation and absorption
mechanisms.
New requirements and recent project
trends have contributed to the promotion
of a new design philosophy, commonly
referred as ‘motion based structural design’.
This approach focuses on the motion
compliance within design requirements
— such as restrictions on displacements
and accelerations — and seeks optimal
deployment of material stiffness and
motion control devices to achieve these
requirements, as well as to satisfy strength
constraints. Structural motion control
represents the most effective technology for
motion based design1.
Structural control devices are divided
into passive, active and semi-active control
systems. Popularity of passive and active
control systems has been growing and may
preclude the need to allow for inelastic
deformations in the structural system.
Semi-active control systems are a trade-off
between passive and active ones. These
devices preserve the reliability of passive
control systems while taking advantage
of the tunability typical of active control
systems2. Active and semi-active systems
are clearly more complex than passive
ones, since they embed sensors, control
devices and actuators. The sensing system
measures either the displacements along
the degrees of freedom or acceleration
signals. The control algorithm regulates the
magnitude of control forces at any given
time3. When only the structural response
variables are measured, the control
configuration is referred to as ‘feedback
control’ since the structural response is
continually monitored and this information
24/07/2014 11:46

 Figure 1
Digital model of steel frame (red = Node No., A = HEA100, B = UPN100)
is used to make continual corrections to
the applied control forces. A ‘feedforward
control’ results when the control forces are
regulated only on the basis of the measured
excitation, which is in turn represented (for
earthquake inputs) by the accelerations
at the base of the structure. Whereas the
information on both the response quantities
and excitation are used for control, the term
‘feedback-feedforward control’ is referred to
in the literature4.
This paper focuses on the semi-active
control system. This category generally
includes variable stiffness control
devices, electrorheological dampers,
magnetorheological dampers, variable
friction control devices and fluid viscous
dampers4,5. A variable friction device is
proposed by the authors. The semi-active
friction damper consists of two bodies
sliding with respect to each other, while
subjected to a controllable contact force
(which generates energy dissipation as a
function of the contact force and the friction
coefficient between the surfaces in contact).
It is possible to generate the contact
clamping force by means of different
actuation solutions. Pandya et. al. describe
an experimental test program relative to
semi-active friction dampers, installed along
the diagonal bracings of a small-scale four
storey structure, mounted on a vibration
table6. Their damper consists of a sliding
friction interface, on which an adjustable
clamping force is supplied through a
pneumatic actuator. Other experimental
isolation systems, including semi-active
friction sliding bearings, are described by
Feng et al.7,8 and Feng and Fujii9. In these
cases the clamping forces are produced by
the pressure of a fluid.
There are sound reasons for considering
piezoelectric technology for the generation
of clamping force. The first studies on
TSE32_44-51 Friction v3.indd 45
the topic were carried out by Chen and
Chen10–13 et. al. The clamping force is
regulated through piezoelectric stack
actuators, which can quickly and accurately
respond to a driven command such as a
voltage signal. In addition, piezoelectric
actuators are effective over a wide frequency
range and are reliable and compact in
design, as demanded in civil engineering
applications14. In an unpublished paper
by Durmaz et al.15 the authors developed
a prototype friction damper which gave
a significantly higher control force with a
low power consumption. Chen and Chen
experimentally evaluated the performance of
the semi-active control strategy, referring to
a fabricated physical prototype14.
Muanke reported on the use of a dry
friction mechanism. This mechanism uses
two piezoelectric stack actuators to apply
a variable normal force between a moving
 Figure 2
Time–seismic
acceleration (m/s2)
www.thestructuralengineer.org
45
mass and two friction pads. In this manner,
energy is dissipated through friction at this
contact interface. The objective was to
adjust the normal force in order to reach the
maximal power dissipated16.
Preumont et al. presented a vibration
control system for a scaled truss tower
(composed of 12 bays of 140mm each),
controlled by two PZT struts, utilising the
integrated force feedback controller. They
reported that the PZT actuators provide
better control than resistive shunting (which
turns the PZT actuator into a passive
vibration absorber)17.
Xu and Ng investigated a semi-active
coupling control of a building complex,
consisting of a main building and a podium
structure, using variable friction dampers.
They presented the results of semi-active
control testing performed on a scaled
laboratory model of the building complex.
This was composed by a rectangular,
steel-frame, 2.4m tall, 12 storey building,
surrounded by a 0.6m tall three storey
podium structure. The piezo-driven variable
friction damper worked by utilising PZT
actuators to apply pressure on a sliding
steel plate, thus generating a friction force.
The authors compared four cases using
an LQG controller: no connection between
the two buildings, a rigid connection at
all three bottom floors, a passive damper
connecting the third floors, and finally a
PZT variable friction damper connecting
the third floors. The model was subjected to
the motions induced by the 1940 El Centro,
1968 Hachinohe, 1994 Northridge and 1995
Kobe earthquakes. It was found that the PZT
variable friction damper reduced the inter-
storey accelerations by 20%, compared with
passive dampers3,18.
24/07/2014 14:01
 ›
46 TheStructuralEngineer Research
August 2014 Novel friction damper
W Figure 3
Installation of
damper on steel frame
W Figure 4
Damper mock-up
W Figure 5
Damper with
cylinder in transparency
In this paper, the preliminary design and
structural sizing of a new semi-active friction
damper with piezoelectric actuation are
presented. The device is characterised by an
original conceptual layout, oriented toward
a compact, easy and effective installation of
the piezoelectric actuator.
A single seismic signal, a reference
steel-framed two-storey structure and a
specific installation layout of the damper
on the reference structure, have all
been initially chosen to tailor the device
to a physical application scenario. The
EarthSim code (an in-house developed
software) was implemented for such a
purpose. The seismic signal was taken
from representative seismic accelerograms
N Figure 6
FEM analysis: ANSYS model recorded in the vicinity of Naples.
TSE32_44-51 Friction v3.indd 46
Choice of building, earthquake signal
and results of EarthSim simulations
In order to size the semi-active friction
damper with piezoelectric actuation and
subsequently to design the device, the
configuration of a reference civil structure
and a typical earthquake accelerogram were
assumed.
The structure is composed of a two-
storey steel frame at scale 1:219. The frame’s
pillars are characterised by HEA100 beams
while UPN100 are used as floor beams.
Each storey has a height of 2m and shows a
rectangular 2.4m x 3m plant shape (Figure
1). The structure is also provided with lateral
reinforcements consisting of X-braced
angular bars with an ‘L’ section shape and
dimensions of 30 x 50 x 5mm. Each floor
is composed of a zigzag steel sheet with
a reinforced concrete slab, assuring the
inertial features of Table 1. The numerical
model of the structure was realised in an
MSC-Patran® environment and successfully
correlated with the experimental modes
coming from resonance tests carried out on
the reference structure19.
The selected seismic signal (Figure 2) is
unidirectional and is applied in the Y
direction (Fig. 1). The signal belongs to a first
seismic class with a peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of 3.2ms–2.
A Matlab/Simulink tool (EarthSim) was
developed to simulate the dynamic response
of the structure (accelerations, velocities
and displacements) at each storey, to
seismic accelerations at its base. Two
specific modules were dedicated to the
simulation of the piezo-actuated friction
damper and to the control law, respectively.
In general, the use of EarthSim enabled the
authors to compare different solutions of
structural control, as well as to define the
performance requirements of the device
(after its proper modelling) and to optimise
the parameters related to the control logic.
Each floor of the frame was modelled with
four nodes, located at the corners of the
floor (Fig. 1). Each node was characterised
by six degrees of freedom (totalling 48
degrees of freedom). Simulation with
the semi-active device switched-off was
carried out initially. Results pertaining to this
configuration case (first configuration) are
summarised in Table 2. The table details
minimum and maximum acceleration and
displacement at nodes, and minimum and
maximum acceleration and displacement
between the storeys. A mean excelleration
reduction of >20% at each storey became
the design target.
For the simulation of the dynamic
response with activated dampers (second
24/07/2014 11:47
 www.thestructuralengineer.org

47

configuration) the control logic was also

implemented. This control logic determined
the control force required to the damper at
each time-step as a function of the structural
deformation and of the first derivative of
structural deformation (Eqns. 1 and 2).
The control logic was applied to each
damper, for each storey (Figure 3). The
logic also included the passive-mode of the
damper. A minimum constant value of the
control force NPreload, generated by the chosen
preload, was in fact set in the simulation
(more details on implemented control logic
can be found in the literature14).
In order to achieve the 20% target for
mean acceleration reduction per storey,
sensitivity analyses were carried out by
considering different combinations of values
for the parameters of the control logic, the
preload and the maximum force of friction.  Figure 7
Prototype model damper
These analyses allowed for the identification
of an optimal configuration, leading to a 22%
minimum mean acceleration reduction and
50% minimum displacement reduction with Equations 1 and 2

N Preload if e # x ^ t h + g # x: ^ t h # N Preload
N^ t h = *
respect to the uncontrolled case (Table 2). (1)

e # x ^ t h + g # x: ^ t h if e # x ^ t h + g # x: ^ t h 2 N Preload (2)

Table 1: Inertial properties of each floor of where:

steel frame N(t) = total axial control force of damper
NPreload = axial force of damper generated by preload
Floor level Mass M Polar inertia
(kg) (kg*m2)
x(t) = relative displacement between storeys
ẋ = relative velocity between storeys
First 5032 6190
e,g = un-dimensional parameters of control logic (both greater than 0)
Second 4099 6151

Table 2: Simulation – first and second configuration

Node 5 and 8 (m/s2) Node 6 and 7 (m/s2) Node 9 and 12 (m/s2) Node 10 and 11 (m/s2)

1° Conf 2° Conf % 1°-2° Conf 1° Conf 2° Conf % 1°-2° Conf 1° Conf 2° Conf % 1°-2° Conf 1° Conf 2° Conf % 1°-2° Conf

AMin –6.1 AMin –4.3 30% AMin –6.1 AMin –5.0 22% AMin –3.9 AMin –2.9 26% AMin –3.9 AMin –3.2 18%

AMax 5.2 AMax 3.9 25% AMax 5.2 AMax 4.3 17% AMax 4.0 AMax 2.9 27% AMax 4.0 AMax 3.3 17%

Mean improvement of acceleration (1st storey): 24% Mean improvement of acceleration (2nd storey): 22%

Node 5 and 8 (m) Node 6 and 7 (m) Node 9 and 12 (m) Node 10 and 11 (m)

1° Conf 2° Conf % 1°-2° Conf 1° Conf 2° Conf % 1°-2° Conf 1° Conf 2° Conf % 1°-2° Conf 1° Conf 2° Conf % 1°-2° Conf

SMin –0.018 SMin –0.007 60% SMin –0.018 SMin –0.007 60% SMin –0.033 SMin –0.013 61% SMin –0.033 SMin –0.013 61%

SMax 0.018 SMax 0.009 50% SMax 0.018 SMax 0.009 50% SMax 0.040 SMax 0.014 65% SMax 0.040 SMax 0.014 60%

Mean improvement of displacement (1st storey): 57% Mean improvement of displacement (2nd storey): 62%

AMin = Minimum acceleration of the node; AMax = Maximum acceleration of the node
SMin = Minimum displacement of the node; SMax = Maximum displacement of the node

ΔAMin 1st and 2nd storey (m/s2) ΔAMax 1st and 2nd storey (m/s2) ΔSMin 1st and 2nd storey (m) ΔSMax 1st and 2nd storey (m)

First config. Second config. First config. Second config. First config. Second config. First config. Second config.

2.2 1.6 –1.2 1 –0.015 –0.006 0.022 0.005

• ΔA ; ΔA = minimum and maximum acceleration between the second and first storey, it is the minimum and maximum of the subsequent function: ΔA(t)=AII(t)-AI(t) with AII(t) and
Min Max
AI(t) medium displacement of the first and second storey of the structural frame.
• ΔS ; ΔS = minimum and maximum displacement between the second and first storey, it is the minimum and maximum of the subsequent function: ΔS(t)=SII(t)-SI(t) with SII(t) and
Min Max
SI(t) medium displacement of the first and second storey of the structural frame.
• Results of this table are obtained with EarthSim in the subsequent conditions of device and control logic: Maximum force generated by the damper = 13 000N; Preload of the damper
= 8800N; Working frequency of control logic = 15Hz; Parameter 'e' of control logic = 7*10000; Parameter 'g' of control logic = 7*1000.

TSE32_44-51 Friction v3.indd 47 24/07/2014 11:47

 ›
48 TheStructuralEngineer Research
August 2014 Novel friction damper

This configuration result is characterised by:

E Figure 9
Force
generated by piezo
• preload for the device (force generated under different
preload
with piezo off) equal to 8800N
• maximum control force, generated by
piezo, equal to 4200N, for a total of
13 000N
• algorithm working frequency equal to 15Hz
• e and g parameters (Eqn. 2) equal to
70 000 and 7000 respectively

Design of semi-active friction damper

and specifications of tested device
The general properties of the device (as
determined in the previous section) were
considered for the design of the damper.
3D CAD tools were used to draw the digital
mock-up of the single parts of the device
and to check their assembly (Figures 4
and 5). Moreover, accurate structural
verifications were addressed by using
ANSYS® code (Figure 6). The definition
of a correct assembly and disassembly
sequence was properly identified.
Following the definition of tolerances for
each subcomponent, the prototype was
manufactured (Figure 7).
The proposed device presents an
original conceptual layout, characterised
by compact and easy allocation of the
piezo-actuator which is installed inside
the piston of the damper. A highly efficient
transmission chain allows for transferring
the compression force generated by the
piezo-actuator to four pads of friction
material, preventing the motion of the piston
along its chamber. The piston (no. 4 in Fig.
5) slips inside the cylinder (no. 1 in Figs 4
E Figure 10
Force
generated by piezo
under different
voltages
and 5) when there is a relative movement
between the ground and the first storey
and/or between the first and the second
storey. Piston motion is counteracted by the
friction force generated by the four pads
(no. 5 in Fig. 5) and is controllable through
the piezo-actuator. The external cylinder is
equipped with a steel plate (Figs 4 and 7),
allowing for its connection to the frame of
W Figure 8
Typical
displacement–force
curve of piezo
the surrounding structure.
The piezo actuator (Pst/1000/16/150
VS25 produced by Piezomechanik Gmbh)
was selected in compliance with the
specifications resulting from the preliminary
design phase. The amplifier (PVR 1000/1,
Piezomechanik Gmbh) was installed to drive
the actuator using high voltage signals. The
selected piezo presents a maximum stroke
of 150μm assuring a maximum blocking force
equal to 10 000N in correspondence with a
feeding tension of 1000V. A critical aspect
of the piezo actuator was the protection
from tensile forces, bending and torque.
The transmission chain from the piezo to
the four pads was carefully studied, so as to
avoid unwanted solicitations to be directly
transferred to the piezo. To avoid the
transfer of bending or torque, a half sphere
was inserted at the tip of piezo.
Referring to the piezo characteristic
curves (reporting force vs displacement,
parameterised with respect to the electric
tension provided to the piezo, Figure 8) it
can be seen that an increase in the length
of piezo corresponds to a decrease of
its capacity to generate a force20. Any
rigid displacement at the tip of the piezo
must be consequently avoided in order to
preserve the piezo’s integrity as well as its
authority in generating the control force. The
implemented transmission mechanism was
therefore designed to recover all geometric
clearances during the assembly. Properly
packaging the piezo in the transmission
chain and assuring the required preload

TSE32_44-51 Friction v3.indd 48 24/07/2014 11:47


for the semi-active friction damper was
important.
All subcomponents of the chain
were designed and manufactured to
guarantee reduced deformations of the
piezo under applied loads—enhancing
actuation performances. The decrease of
performances resulting from the extension
of the piezo was calculated as:
FMaxreal = FMaxExtensionZero – ^ PiezoStiff # Exsth =
10 000N– a 90 nm # 60nm k = 4600N
N (3)
where:
FMaxreal = maximum force that piezo can
produce after extension
FMaxExtensionZero = maximum force piezo can
produce for a null extension (Blocking force)
PiezoStiff = stiffness of piezo actuator
Exst = extension of piezo, equal to total
deformation of chain
The value of 60μm for the total
deformation of the chain was evaluated on
the basis of iterative simulations performed
in an ANSYS® environment. The maximum
force produced by the piezo was expected
to be approx. 4600N (Eqn. 3).
S Figure 13
Control force vs displacement (frequency 0.5Hz,
stroke ±5mm e V = 0)
TSE32_44-51 Friction v3.indd 49
The friction material for the four pads
was supplied by Italian Brakes srl. Its friction
coefficient with respect to a steel surface
was equal to 0.4. General features of the
manufactured damper prototype are:
• total mass: 85kg
• cylinder length: 618mm
• piston stroke: ±65mm
The damper was evaluated using the
following criteria:
• preload for the device (force generated
with piezo off): 9596N
• maximum variable control force due to the
piezo: 5244N
• maximum control force due to piezo and
preload together: 14 840N21
Experimental tests
Experiements were carried out to verify the
behaviour and performances of the damper.
Firstly, an experimental characterisation
of the isolated piezo was performed. The
maximum force generated was measured
in relation to different preload values. The
piezo was fed with a sinusoidal signal,
characterised by a frequency of 8Hz and
S Figure 14
Control force vs displacement
Left: frequency 1Hz, stroke ±7.5mm e V = 0
www.thestructuralengineer.org
49
W Figure 11
Hydraulic test machine
S Figure 12
Damper showing double
spherical joint
an amplitude of 1000V. The force produced
was measured by a sensor, supplied by
Piezomechanik. This sensor was part of the
stack electrically isolated from the rest of the
piezoelectric actuator. In the range of preload
(3000–6700N), the curve in Figure 9 shows
a region with a reduced slope, indicating a
reduced influence of preload on the force
generated by the piezo. Subsequently, the
actuator was fed with signals at different
levels of voltage. Figure 10 data was obtained
from measurements performed with the
sensor implemented in the piezo device. In
this case the preload was fixed at 6700N. The
linear relaxation between force (generated by
the actuator) and the voltage of the feeding
signal is evident. For a preload of 6700N
and a voltage of 1000V, the force produced
is equal to 4072N. This value is close to the
numerically estimated value of 4600N (Eqn.
3). The 12% difference between numerical
and experimental values was mainly attibuted
to the inevitable error in the estimation of the
total deformation of the transmission chain.
The second stage in the experimental
process involved the characterisation of the
whole damper. The capability of the device to
generate a control force between its sliding
surfaces was analysed. A test-bench was set
Right: frequency 3Hz, stroke ±7.5mm e V = 500
24/07/2014 11:47
 ›
50 TheStructuralEngineer Research
August 2014 Novel friction damper

Table 3: List of experimental tests E Figure 15

Max force,
passive mode
Force Vs Frequency (Passive Tests)
Test Amplitude Frequency Feeding No. of
no. of sinusoidal (Hz) tension cycles Diamond: ±2.5mm
signal (mm) for piezo Square: ±5mm
(V) Triangle: ±7.5mm
Cross: ±10mm

Force (kgf)
1–5 ±2.5 0,5;1;2;3;4 0 30

6–10 ±2.5 0,5;1;2;3;4 500 30

11–15 ±2.5 0,5;1;2;3;4 1000 30

16–20 ±5 0,5;1;2;3;4 0 30

21–25 ±5 0,5;1;2;3;4 500 30

Frequency (Hz)
26–30 ±5 0,5;1;2;3;4 1000 30

31–34 ±7.5 0,5;1;2;3 0 30

35–38 ±7.5 0,5;1;2;3 500 30 E Figure 16

Max force,
Stroke: ±5mm
Force Vs Frequency
for Total stroke 5mm e V=0 V=500 V=1000
39–42 ±7.5 0,5;1;2;3 1000 30
Diamond: V = 0
43–46 ±10 0,5;1;2;3 0 30 Square: V = 500
Triangle: V = 1000
47–50 ±10 0,5;1;2;3 500 30

51–54 ±10 0,5;1;2;3 500 30

Force (kgf)

up for such a purpose. The core of this test

setup was represented by a hydraulic test
machine (Figure 11), equipped with a dynamic
actuator with a stroke of ±25mm. Axial Frequency (Hz)
dynamic load (up to 1200kN in tension and
440kN in compression) were assured in the
frequency range 0–4Hz. The external cylinder E Figure 17
Max force,
Stroke: ±10mm
Force Vs Frequency
for Total stroke 10mm e V=0 V=500 V=1000
of the actuator was firmly connected to a rigid
steel plate through four steel bars, each with Diamond: V = 0
Square: V = 500
a diameter of 24mm. The damper’s piston Triangle: V = 1000
Force (kgf)

was connected to the piston of the actuator

through a double spherical joint (Figure 12)
and a 100kN load cell, produced by Metior®.
The main body of the damper was firmly
connected to three rigid steel plates that were
Frequency (Hz)
clamped to the four bars (Fig. 12). The hydraulic
actuator was used to load the device along
its longitudinal axis. The setup also included
a horizontal displacement transducer, able to E Figure 18
Max force,
Stroke: ±15mm
Force Vs Frequency
for Total stroke 15mm e V=0 V=500 V=1000
measure the displacement of the actuator’s
Diamond: V = 0
piston and used for the displacement control of Square: V = 500
its motion. Triangle: V = 1000
Force (kgf)

A Hewlett Packard® signal generator was

adopted to produce the feeding signal. This
signal was sent to the piezo actuator after
being treated by a piezoamplifier.
The force sensor, embedded in the piezo
Frequency (Hz)
stack, produced an output signal which was
sent to a charge amplifier and then to a signal
recorder. This recorder was characterised by
16 analogical channels and acquired signals in
the range of ±10V with a maximum frequency
of 200 000 samples. The following signals the passive mode of the piezo (the tension characterised by good trends in relation to
were acquired during tests: control force (from of the feeding signal was set equal to zero, dissipation of energy.
the Metior load cell), displacement of hydraulic i.e. actuator off) while others covered the Damper efficiency was properly defined
device piston (measured by LVDT sensor) and semi-active mode at two different levels of as the ratio between the energy dissipated
an electrical signal feeding the piezo. feeding tension: 500V and 1000V. The most by the damper while operating in passive
54 tests were carried out as detailed in significant results in terms of control force vs mode, and the maximum dissipation of energy
Table 3. In these tests, the hydraulic actuator displacement can be seen in Figures 13 and theoretically available for the real stroke
imposed sinusoidal displacements to the 14. (depurated by mechanical clearance), while
damper’s piston. Sinusoidal signals were These results clearly show the presence corresponding to the maximum control force
characterised by 30 cycles at frequencies of a mechanical clearance in the double recorded in the passive test. According to
equal to 0.5, 1, 2, 3 or 4Hz. Some tests explored spherical joint. Passive-mode diagrams are this definition, the efficiency of the proposed

TSE32_44-51 Friction v3.indd 50 24/07/2014 11:48


friction damper was equal to 0.92.
Data arising from experiments in passive
mode are reported in Figures 15–18 together
with data belonging to active-mode tests
(V = 500, V = 1000) at a parity of stroke. In
passive-mode, the control force of 9596N,
numerically evaluated, was obtained in
relation to a frequency equal to 0.5Hz and a
stroke equal to ±10mm.
The surplus of control force due to the
activation of the piezo in respect to the
passive case is evident in Figs 15–18. The
resultant control force produced by the
piezo, was largely proportional to the feeding
tension. Nevertheless, the increase of its
contribution between V = 0Volts and V =
500Volts is always lower than the increase
between V = 500Volts and V = 1000Volts.
The maximum mean contribution of
the piezo to the control force is equal to
4240N, which is smaller than the value of
5244N numerically estimated. That said, this
value is at any rate sufficient to achieve the
maximum variable control force of 4200N,
set as the target for this project.
Conclusions
This work presents a new semi-active
friction damper, based on piezoelectric
technology and devoted to the anti-seismic
control of a civil structure. A steel-framed
building was chosen as a reference to size
the device, in combination with a specific
seismic excitation signal.
A Matlab/Simulink simulation program,
EarthSim, was used to simulate the
behaviour of the steel frame under the
chosen seismic excitation. Cases with and
without the activation of the piezoelectric
friction device were investigated, and a
reference configuration for the control
system was identified. The damper was than
designed to fit the performance required by
the Matlab/Simulink simulation. The damper
was based on an original conceptual layout,
independent of any scheme available in the
literature.
Device performances in terms of
generated force from the piezoelectric
actuator were experimentally evaluated
during a test-bench campaign, together with
the control force produced by the damper,
in relation to imposed displacements time-
histories.
Finally, significant force vs displacement
curves were plotted, in both damper passive
mode and semi-active mode cases (in the
latter case the piezo actuator was fed
with two different levels of tension: V=500
volts and V=1000 volts). The semi-active
contribution of the piezoelectric device to
the force control was characterised by a
maximum value of 4240N and was in good
agreement with the numerical expectations.
TSE32_44-51 Friction v3.indd 51
www.thestructuralengineer.org
51
References
E1 Connor J. J. (2002) Introduction to structural motion control, Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall
E2 Symans M. D and Constantinou M. C. (1999) ‘Semi-active control systems for
seismic protection of structures: a state-of-the-art review’, Engng Struct., 21,
pp. 469–487
E3 Fisco N. R. and Adeli H. (2011) ‘Smart structures: Part I—Active and semi-active
control‘, Scientia Iranica, 18 (3), pp. 275–284
E4 Chu S. Y., Soong T. T. and Reinhorn A. M. (2005) Active, Hybrid and Semi-active
Structural Control, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
E5 Soong T. T. and Spencer Jr, B. F. (2002) ‘Supplemental energy dissipation:
state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice’, Engng Struct., 24, pp. 243–259
E6 Pandya J., Akbay Z., Uras M. and Aktan H. (1996) ‘Experimental implementation
of hybrid control’, Proc. Structures Congress XIV, Chicago, IL, pp. 1172–1179
E7 Feng M. Q. (1993) ‘Application of hybrid sliding isolation system to buildings’, J.
Engng Mech, 119 (10), pp. 2090–2108
E8 Feng M. Q., Shinozuka M. and Fujii S. (1993) ‘Friction controllable sliding
isolation system’, J. Engng Mech., 119 (9), pp. 1845–1864
E9 Fujii S. and Feng Q. (1992) ‘Hybrid isolation system using friction-controllable
sliding bearings – part 2: shaking table test’, Proc. 10th World Conf. Earthquake
Engineering, Madrid, Spain. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, pp. 2417–2420
E 10 Chen G. D. and Chen C. C. (1992) ‘Behavior of piezoelectric friction dampers
under dynamic loading’, In Liu S. C. (Ed.) Smart Structures and Materials 2000:
Smart Systems for Bridges, Structures and Highways. Proc. SPIE 3988, pp.
54–63
E 11 Chen G. D. and Chen C. C. (2004) ‘Semi-active control of the 20-storey
benchmark building with piezoelectric friction dampers’, ASCE J. Engng Mech,
130 (4), pp. 393–400
E 12 Chen G. D. and Chen C. C. (2002) ‘Building hazard mitigation with piezoelectric
friction dampers’, Proc. Inter. Conf. Advances in Building Technology, Hong
Kong, pp. 1465–1472
E 13 Chen G. D., Garrett G.T., Chen C. C. and Cheng F. Y. (2004) ‘Piezoelectric
friction dampers for earthquake mitigation of buildings: design, fabrication, and
characterization’, Struct. Engng and Mech., 17( 3–4), pp. 539–556
E 14 Chen C. C and Chen G. D. (2004) ‘Shake table tests of a quarter-scale three-
storey building model with piezoelectric friction dampers’, Struct. Control Health
Monit., 11, pp. 239–257
E 15 Durmaz O., Clark W. W., Bennett D. S., Paine J. S. and Samuelson M. N. (2003)
‘Analysis of a novel piezoelectric Coulomb damper‘ (unpublished)
E 16 Muanke P. B., Masson P. and Micheau P. (2008) ‘Determination of normal force
for optimal energy dissipation of harmonic disturbance in a semi-active device‘,
J. Sound and Vibration, 311 (3–5), pp. 633–651
E 17 Preumont A., de Marneffe B., Deraemaeker A. and Bossen F. (2008) ‘The
damping of a truss structure with a piezoelectric transducer‘, Comp. and Struct.,
86 (3–5), pp. 227–239
E 18 Xu Y. L. and Ng C. L. (2008) ‘Seismic protection of a building complex using
variable friction damper: experimental investigation‘, J. Engng Mech., 134 (8),
pp. 637–649
E 19 Pecora R., Franco F. and Lecce L. (2008) ‘Rapporto tecnico A3.5.2.: Telai in
acciaio: modelli dinamici numerici e correlazione numerico/sperimentale’,
Progetto Tellus Stabilita
E 20 Physik Instrumente (PI) www.physikinstrumente.com
E 21 Di Leo R., Lecce L., Pecora R. and Amoroso F. (2012) ‘Development of a new
semi-active friction damper, using piezoelectric technology for the anti-seismic
control of civil structures‘, Mechanics and Control, 31 (1), (http://journals.bg.agh.
edu.pl/MECHANICS-CTRL/2012.31.1/mech.2012.31.1.1.pdf)
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the Consorzio TRE for their valued collaboration in
the framework of the research project, Tellus Stabilita, where the activities described in
this paper took place. Special thanks goes to Giuseppe Campanella and Mariacristina
Spizzuoco from the Department of Science and Technique of Constructions of Naples
University Federico II for having supported the experimental activities with excellent
facilities and useful advice.
24/07/2014 11:48