VARIABLE SEMI-ACTIVE FRICTION DAMPERS FOR SEISMIC CONTROL OF STRUCTURES

Jagadish.G. Kori1 and R.S. Jangid2 Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076 (India).

ABSTRACT Semi-active control systems have attracted a great deal of attention in recent years. Because these systems can operate on battery power alone, proving advantageous during seismic events when the main power source to the structure may fail. The behavior of semi-active devices is often highly nonlinear and requires suitable efficient control algorithm. This paper presents the comparative study and performance of variable semiactive friction dampers by using recently proposed predictive control law with direct output feedback. With this control law a variable slip force of a semi-active variable friction damper kept slightly lower than the critical friction force, that allows the damper to remain in slip state during an earthquake, which improves the energy dissipation capacity of the damper. Hence this control algorithm is able to produce a continuous and smooth slip forces for a variable friction damper. The numerical example considers a structure controlled with multiple variable semi-active friction dampers and with multiple passive friction dampers. The parameter, which is the ratio of damper force to critical friction force, is investigated for four different ground motions, which plays an important role in the present control algorithm. The numerically evaluated optimum parametric value is considered for the analysis of the optimum damper placement in the structure. The evaluated results of the variable friction dampers show better performance over the passive dampers for reducing in the structural responses.

1 2

Research Scholar Associate Professor (email: rsjangid@civil.iitb.ac.in)

KEY WORDS Structural control, semi-active control, variable friction damper, control algorithm 1. INTRODUCTION The main aim in the seismic protection of structures is to dissipate energy from earthquakes and reduce vibrations in structures, thereby reducing human and material losses. This is to be achieved by installation of special seismic protection control systems that ensure essentially elastic behavior of the structure during a major earthquake. A variety of control systems have been considered for the applications that can be classified as either passive, active and semi-active. Passive control systems, such as viscoelastic dampers, tuned mass dampers, frictional dampers, tuned liquid dampers, and baseisolation systems, were developed as a means of augmenting the damping in a structure [1-2]. Passive systems impart forces on the structure by reacting to the localized motion of the structure, primarily acting to dissipate the vibratory energy in the structural system. These systems are now widely accepted as a viable means of reducing the responses of a structure. However, passive systems are limited because they cannot adapt to varying loading conditions. Thus, passive systems may perform well in subjected to the loading conditions for which they were designed, but may not be effective in other situations. Active control systems operate by using external energy supplied by actuators to impart forces on the structure, generally depending on a sizeable power supply. The appropriate control action is typically determined based on measurements of the structural responses. However, there are still a number of questions that must be addressed before this technology is widely accepted, including questions of stability, cost effectiveness, reliability, power requirements, Additionally, the need for sizeable power supplies and large control forces may make them quite costly to install and maintain. Semi-active systems offer another alternative in structural control. A variety of semi-active control

devices have been proposed, including variable orifice dampers, variable friction devices, adjustable tuned liquid dampers, and controllable fluid dampers. These systems have attracted much attention recently because they possess the adaptability of active control systems and operate using very low power [3-4]. Typically, a semi-active control device is defined as one that cannot increase the mechanical energy in the controlled system, but has properties that can be dynamically varied. Because these devices are adaptable, they are expected to be quite effective for structural response reduction over a wide range of loading conditions. Additionally, semi-active control devices do not require large power sources such as those associated with active control systems, making them quite attractive for seismic applications. One semi-active device that appears to be particularly promising for seismic protection is the variable friction damper [6]. A friction damper is usually classified as one of the displacement-dependent energy dissipation devices, because its damper force is independent from the velocity and frequency-content of excitations. A friction damper is activated and starts to dissipate energy only if the friction force exerted on its friction interface exceeds the maximum friction force otherwise; an inactivated damper is no different from a regular bracing. For a passive friction damper, the slip force of the damper is a preset fixed value, so for a given earthquake, the damper is activated only within the few cycles of the structural motion in which the exerted force exceeds this fixed value, therefore the energy dissipation capacity of the damper is not fully utilized. Another disadvantage of using passive friction dampers is that during an earthquake the status of a damper may be frequently switched between slip and stick states, and this can result in an unwanted high frequency structural response. In order to improve the performance of friction dampers, the concept of semiactive control is introduced to the dampers [7]. A semi-active friction damper is able to

adjust its slip force by controlling its clamping force in real-time in response to a structures motion during an earthquake. Because of this adaptive nature, a semi-active friction damper is expected to be more effective than a passive damper. The control of semi-active friction dampers requires a feedback control algorithm and on-line measurement of structural response in order to determine the appropriate level of adjustable clamping forces of the dampers. Number of semi-active control algorithms for friction-type variable dampers have been proposed in previous research, such as predictive control [7], feedback control [8], bang-bang control [9], modulated homogenous control [4,10], friction-force incremental control [11], combined viscous and Reid control [12], semi-active control algorithms [13]. The purpose of this paper is to identify a suitable control law, so that it can control very effectively in displacement and acceleration responses of the structures. Make use of this control law and numerically investigate its feasibility and efficiency, as compared with relevant passive device. Here the predictive control law is taken into account for predicting a critical value called friction force for a semi-active friction damper, the method is able to produce a slip force that is only slightly lower than the critical force and constantly keeps the semi-active damper in its slip state throughout an earthquake, so the motion of the structure can be smoothly reduced. 2 VARIABLE FRICTION DAMPER BEHAVIOR AND MODELING A friction damper is a displacement-dependent energy dissipation device, because its damper force is independent from velocity and frequency-content of excitations. A friction damper in general consists of two bodies, which slide with respect to each other subjected to a controllable contact force N(t), generating a dissipative force proportional to the contact force N(t)( 0 ) and the coefficient of friction between the surfaces. In semi-active friction dampers requires a feedback control algorithm and on-line

measurement of structural response in order to determine the appropriate level of adjustable clamping force of the dampers. Consider a seismically excited structure controlled with r semi-active friction dampers. Figure 1a shows the structure with variable friction damper and figure 1b shows the model of semi-active friction damper. In the Figure 1a mass, stiffness and relative to the ground displacement of the i-th floor are denoted by ms,i, ks,i and xi(t) respectively. Where as stiffness of bracing and controllable clamping force of the i-th dampers are denoted by kb,i and Ni(t). The equation of motion can be written as [7],
z(t) = Az(t) + Bu(t) + xg (t)

(1)

where the vector z( t ) is the state of structure, contains the relative ground velocity and displacement of each floor; u( t ) and x g ( t ) denotes the vector of controllable friction forces of semi-active dampers and vector of ground accelerations respectively; A denotes the system matrix composed of structural mass, damping and stiffness matrices; B and E represents the distributing matrices of the control forces and excitations respectively. The equation (1) is discretized in the time domain and excitation force is assumed to be constant within any time interval and converted into a discrete-time form [15]:
z[k+1] A d z[k ]  Bd u[k ]  Ed xg [k ]

(2)

where [k ] or [k+1] denotes the variable is evaluated at the k -th or (k+1)-th time step;
Ad e At represents the discrete-time system matrix with t is the time interval, while

the constant coefficient matrices Bd and matrices B and E that may be written as: Bd = A -1 (Ad - I)B Ed = A -1 (A d - I)E

Ed are the discrete-time counterpart of the

(3)

where I is the identity matrix; Let the actual friction force vector is denoted by u[k] and

critical force vector by u[k ] and reduced to scalars u[k] and damper may be either stick or slip condition. a) in the stick state, if u[k ]  umax [k ] N [k ] b) in the slip state, if
u[k ] t umax [k ] 1 [N ]

u[k ] . The state of the

(4a) (4b)

where is the frictional coefficient and N[k] is the time-varying clamping force of the damper. The clamping force N i [k ] of the damper is kept always slightly less than the critical force ui [k ] , so that the damper will remain in the slip state for entire time history. Based on this concept, the control rule for determining the clamping force of a semiactive damper is [7] as:

Ni [k ]

ui [k ]

0 d 1

(for i 1  r )

(5)

where r is the total number of dampers and is a selectable parameter and plays an important role in the present control law. A larger value of will lead to higher control force, but this does not necessarily guarantee better energy dissipation capacity, the optimum value of parameter will be seen and obtained by the numerical result shown in the latter section. 3 FRICTION CONTROL LAW The effective performance and utilization of the semi-active friction damper strongly depends on the control strategy used. Here a recently developed predictive control with direct output feedback concept is considered. This method employs the technique of multiple-step feedback. Let the sensor measurement vector y s [k  1] is given by [7]: y s [k  1] Cz[k  1] (6)

where C is the sensor placement matrix. Let q be the number of sensors deployed in the structure, so the dimensions y s [k  1] R q x1 and C R q x1 . Here usually q is much less

than 2n. Now by replacing the index k by (k-2) in the equation (2) and also replacing the index (k-1) by (k-2) in the equation (6), the sensor measurement y s [k  2] can be
-1 -1 y s [k  2] CA d z[k  1]  CA -1 d u[ k  2]  CA d Ed x g [ k  2]

(7)

where the discrete-time system matrix A d is usually square and non-singular[15]. By using equations (2) and (6) repeatedly, the sensor measurement vector y s [k  m] taken at the m-th preceding time step may be expressed by y s [k  m] CA
-(m 1) d m -1 -( m 1) z[k  1]  CA d Bd u[k-j-1] j =1 -( m 1)1 d

 CA
m-1 j=1

Ed xg [k-j-1]

(for m t 2)

(8)

a where the matrix operation A d

1 a (Ad ) (for a>0). Finally, putting equations (6) and (8)

(representing m-1 equations, for m 2) together, one can combine them into an expanded matrix equation, i.e.,

y[k  1]
where

A d z[k  1]  Bd u[k  1]  Ed xg [k  1]

(9)

y s [k  1] y [k  2] s qm x1 y[k  1] , R # y s [k  m]

u[k  1] u[k  2] mr x1 u[k  1] R # u[k  m]

C 1 CA d R qm x 2 n #  ( m 1) CA d

(10)

xg [k  1] xg [k  2] mp x1 xg [k  1] R , # x [k  m] g

Ad

(11)

Ed

0 0 1 0  CA d Ed # #  ( m 1) Ed 0  CA d

0 0
 ( m  2)  CA d Ed

0 " R qm x mp # # 1 Ed " CAd " 0

(12)

Bd

0 0 1 0  CA d Bd # #  ( m 1) Bd 0  CA d

0 0
 ( m  2)  CA d Bd

" 0 R qm x mr # # 1 Bd " CA d " 0

(13)

where p denotes the number of independent excitation components. A vector or a matrix with an over bar in the above equations indicates an augmented vector or matrix. The vector y[k  1] contains the sensors measurements taken at the previous m time steps, namely, the k-th, (k-1)-th,.,(k-m)-th time steps, etc. Similarly, u [k  1] and

xg

[k  1] represent the augmented vectors for the damper forces an excitations

recorded from the preceding m time steps respectively. From the equation (9) one can solve for z[k-1] and obtain

z[k  1]

1 Ad ( y[k  1]  Bd u[k  1]  Ed xg [k  1])

(14)

In order to ensure that the matrix A d can be inversed in the last equation, the number of sensors q and the number of feedback steps m must satisfy the condition qm=2n, and also A d must be non-singular. Now from the equation (14) the equation of control law of direct output feedback written as

u[k ] G y y[k  1]  G u u[k  1]  G w xg [k  1]

where the augmented coefficient matrices may be written as Gy Gz Gu Gw K b D( A d  I )
1 G z Ad

(15)

1 Bd  G u D1 G z A d

(16)

1 E d  G w D2 G z A d

where K b is a (r x r) diagonal matrix whose i-th diagonal element kb,i is the stiffness of the i-th damper; D1
[I1 , 0,..., 0] R r x mr , D2 [I 2 , 0,..., 0] R p x mp , I1 R r x r

and

I 2 R p x p . After u[k ] is determined by equation (15), the controllable clamping

force N i [k ](i 1  r ) for each semi-active damper can be computed by substituting each element ui [k ] of u[k ] into equation (5). The resulting control force vector can be evaluated by using equation (15) as:

u[k ] (G y y[k  1]  G u u[k  1]  G w xg [k  1])

(17)

After being multiplied by the factor , the matrices G y , G u and G w may be treated as the control gains. 4 NUMERICAL STUDY To evaluate the performance of variable frictional damper using proposed predictive control law a numerical example is considered of the five-story building as shown in Figure 2. The seismic response of the structure is studied for four different strong earthquake ground motions: (i) the S00E component of Imperial Valley, 1940 (recorded at El Centro; (ii) N00E component of Kobe 1995 (record at the Japan Meteorological Agency); (iii) N00E component of Loma Prieta, 1989 (recorded at the Los Gatos Presentation Center); and (iv) N00E component of Northridge, 1994 (recorded at the Sylmar Converter Station). The peak ground accelerations (PGA) of the Imperial Valley, Kobe, Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes are 0.348g, 0.834g, 0.57g and 0.843g, respectively. The displacement and acceleration response spectra of the above four ground motions for 2% of the critical damping are shown in Figure 3. The maximum ordinates of the acceleration are 1.302g, 4.12g, 3.55g and 3.24g, occurring at the period of 0.46s, 0.35s, 0.64s and 0.35s,for Imperial valley, Kobe, Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes, respectively. The spectra of these ground motion indicate that the ground motions are recorded on firm soil or rock a site. The properties of five-stories building are as follows: (i) the mass of each floor ms,i (i=1,2,3,4,5) are 11213, 11213, 11213, 11213, 10914 kg; (ii) the stiffness ks,i

(i=1,2,3,4,5) are 4106.402, 5079.757, 5079.757, 5079.757, 3673.845 kN/m, respectively and (iii) damping ratio 2% in first mode is considered. To investigate the efficacy of variable friction damper by proposed predictive control law with direct output feedback, which is depended on a parameter . Initially the optimum parameter value is evaluated with ranging =0.5 to 0.99 on a five-story building, two semi-active friction dampers are connected one at between the ground and another at the first floor as shown in figure 2 case (H). Figure 4 to 7 shows the optimum parameter of for 5th and 4th floor peak displacement, acceleration, velocity and story shear for the ground motion results of Imperial Valley, Kobe, Loma Prieta and Northridge respectively. From the Figure 4 to 7 it is observed that the parameter plays an important role for the response of structure is concerned. From the Figure 4 an optimum value of parameter can be found for the all the responses under the ground motion of Imperial Valley 1940. From the Figure 5 an optimum value of parameter can be found for only displacement and velocity responses under the ground motion of Kobe 1995. From the Figure 6 to 7 an optimum value of parameter can be found for the all the responses under the ground motion of Loma Prieta 1989 and Northridge1994 respectively. Hence from the parametric study selecting appropriate value of in control law, can be control the responses of structures very effectively by using variable friction damper. It is also investigated several possible structural control configurations with different damper deployments as shown in Figure 2. The eleven diagrams in Figure 2 represent: (A) Uncontrolled structure without adding any damper; (B) Structure with single passive damper between the ground and the first floor; (C) Structure with two passive damper in lower two stories; (D) Structure with three passive damper in lower three stories; (E) Structure with four passive damper in lower four stories; (F) Structure with five passive damper in all stories; (G) Structure with single semi-active damper

between the ground and the first floor; (H) Structure with two semi-active damper in lower two stories; (I) Structure with three semi-active damper in lower three stories; (J) Structure with four semi-active damper in lower four stories; (K) Structure with five semi-active damper in all stories. Table 1 summarizes the maximum values of the floor displacements; floor accelerations as well as the damper forces resulted from the all eleven cases. Note that in Table 1 the control parameter =0.80 is considered for semi-active damper and all the structural responses and control forces for all cases are evaluated by the Imperial Valley earthquake (PGA=0.348g) ground motion. In the Table 1 the numbers in parentheses denotes the percentage reduction in responses with the uncontrolled system. From the Table 1 it is observed that by increasing the dampers from bottom story to top story at regular interval from the control cases (B to F) both for passive and semi-active dampers creates a considerable reduction in structural responses. Further it is also important to note that by increasing the number of dampers from the economical point of view it is not desirable. Hence by comparing results with cases (D, E) of passive and case (H) of semiactive from the Table 1, with the minimum number of semi-active dampers more effectively it is possible to control the structural responses. Based on this conclusion further study is also made for case (D) of passive and case (H) of semi-active for the real ground motion of Kobe (1995), Lomaprieta and Northridge (1994), the results are as tabulated in Table 2. From the results of Table 2 with minimum number of variable friction semi-active dampers are found more effective in the all cases or real ground motions as compared to multiple passive dampers. The results from the Table 2 indicates that with the minimum two number of semi-active variable friction damper it is possible to reduce the responses about 40% to 50% in comparative study under different real ground motion study.

Figure 8 to 11; compare the time histories of the top story displacements, the absolute top story acceleration and base shear for the uncontrolled structure, structure with case (D) passive dampers and structure with case (H) semi-active dampers for the real ground motion of the Imperial Valley, Kobe, Loma Prieta and Northridge respectively. It cane be noted from Figure 8 to 11 case (H) of semi-active damper provides the most effectiveness in reducing the displacement, acceleration and base shear as comparing to case (D) passive dampers. Figure 12 shows the hystereses of the semiactive variable friction damper in the top stories of the case (H), which produces an ellipse-like hysteresis loop in the all cases of real ground motions indicates the slip sate. 5 CONCLUSIONS In this paper the effectiveness and performance of seismic structures using semi-active variable friction dampers is presented. In a numerical example a five-story structure with several possible structural configurations with passive and semi-active dampers under four type of real ground motions are studied. The entire performance of semi-active damper is depending on the control algorithm; here in predictive control with direct output feedback concept is considered. The parameter , which is the ratio of damper force to critical friction force, is evaluated which plays an important role in the present control algorithm. Hence the variable slip force of a semi-active friction damper kept slightly lower than the critical friction force, that allows the damper to be remain in slip state during an earthquake, which improves the energy dissipation capacity of the damper. The control algorithm is able to produce a continuous and smooth slip forces for a variable friction damper. Based on the parametric and comparative study results following conclusions are made

1) To keep the semi-active variable friction damper to be remain in slip state the optimum parameter , which is the ratio of damper force to critical friction force, is selected by the control designer at which structure produces minimum responses. 2) With the minimum two number of semi-active variable friction damper it is possible to reduce the peak responses about 40% to 50% under different real ground motion study. 3) The time histories of different ground motions clearly indicates that semi-active variable friction dampers more effective in reducing displacements, accelerations and base shear of the structures. 4) Using the multiple or multi-level semi-active variable friction dampers reduces the structural responses considerably but from the economical point of view it is not desirable. 5) The predictive control law with direct output feedback is found successful control algorithm for the variable friction damper in reducing maximum structural responses of the selected structure under four different earthquake loads.

REFERENCES [1] Housner GW, Bergman LA, Caughey TK, Chassiakos AG, Claus RO, Masri SF, Skelton RE, Soong TT, Spencer BF, Yao JTP, Structural control: past, present, and future, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 123 (1997) 897971. [2] Soong TT, Spencer BFJr, Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and state- of-the-practice, Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 243259. [3] Symans MD, Constantinon MC, Semi-active control system for seismic protection of structures: a state-of-the art review, Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 469487. [4] Yang JN, Agrawal AK, Semi-active hybrid control systems for nonlinear buildings against near-field earthquakes, Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 271-280.

[5] Soong TT, Constantinou MC, Passive and Active Structural Vibration Control in Civil Engineering, Springer, New York, 1994. [6] Lu LY, Semi-active model control for seismic structures with variable friction dampers, Engineering Structures , 26 (2004) 437-454. [7] Lu LY, Predictive control of seismic structures with semi-active friction dampers, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 33 (2004) 647668. [8] Lu LY, Chung LL, Lin GL,A general Method for Semi-active Feedback Control of Variable Friction Dampers, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 15 (2004) 393-412. [9] Kannan S, Uras HM, Aktan HM,Active control of building seismic response by energy dissipation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 24 (1995) 747759. [10] Inaudi JA,Modulated homogeneous friction: a semi-active damping strategy, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26 (1997) 361376. [11] Xu YL, Qu WL, Chen ZH, Control of wind-excited truss tower using semi-active friction damper, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 127 (2001) 861868. [12] Chen C, Chen G, Non-linear control of a 20-storey steel building with active piezoelectric friction dampers, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 14 (2002) 2138. [13] Sadek F, Mohraz B, Semiactive control algorithms for structures with variable dampers, Journal of Engineering Mechanics , 124 (1998), 981-990. [14] Lu LY, Seismic Test of Modal Control with Direct Out put Feedback for Building Structures, Structural Engineering and mechanics, 12 (2001), 633-656. [15] Meirovitch L, Dynamics and control of structures, New York, John Wiley & Sons 1990.

[16] Chopra AK, Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, India 2003. [17] Soong TT. Active Structural Control: Theory and Practice. Longman, New York, 1990. [18] Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive energy dissipation systems in structural engineering, New York, Wiley, 1997.

NOTATION The following symbols are used in the paper: A = System matrix; Ad = Discrete-time system matrix; B = Distributing matrix of the control forces; Bd = Discrete-time counterpart of B matrix; C = Sensor placement matrix; E = Distributing matrix of the excitations; Ed = Discrete-time counterpart of E matrix;

G u , G w , G y , G z = Augmented coefficient matrices;

I = Identity matrix; K b = (r x r) diagonal matrix; k = Time step; kb,i = Stiffness of bracing at the i-th dampers; ks,i =Story stiffness at i-th floor; ms,i =Story mass at i-th floor; Ni(t) = Controllable clamping force at the i-th dampers;

n = Number of story; q = Number of sensors; r = Total number of dampers;

u[k ] = Vector of controllable friction forces; u[k ] = Critical force vector;

x g ( t ) = Vector of ground accelerations;

xi(t) = Story displacement relative to the ground at i-th floor; y s = Sensor measurement vector;
z( t ) = State vector;

= Ratio of damper force to critical friction force;

t = Time interval;

= Frictional coefficient;

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 a. Schematic diagram of a structure with variable friction dampers and control feedback system. Figure 1 b. Model of Semi-active Friction Damper. Figure 2. Configurations of structural control with different dampers (A) Uncontrolled, (B to F) Passive Damper, (G to K) Semi-active Damper. Figure 3. Displacement and acceleration spectra of four earthquake ground motions used in analysis. Figure 4. Effect of parameter , the ratio of damper force to critical friction force on peak displacement, acceleration, velocity and story shear when subjected to Imperial Valley, 1940 earthquake.

Figure 5. Effect of parameter , the ratio of damper force to critical friction force on peak displacement, acceleration, velocity and story shear when subjected to Kobe, 1995 earthquake. Figure 6. Effect of parameter , the ratio of damper force to critical friction force on peak displacement, acceleration, velocity and story shear when subjected to Loma Prieta, 1989 earthquake. Figure 7. Effect of parameter , the ratio of damper force to critical friction force on peak displacement, acceleration, velocity and story shear when subjected to Northridge, 1994 earthquake. Figure 8. Time variation of top floor displacement, acceleration and base shear of the Uncontrolled, Passive and Semi-active friction dampers under Imperial Valley 1940 earthquake. Figure 9. Time variation of top floor displacement, acceleration and base shear of the Uncontrolled, Passive and Semi-active friction dampers under Kobe 1995 earthquake. Figure 10. Time variation of top floor displacement, acceleration and base shear of the Uncontrolled, Passive and Semi-active friction dampers under Loma Prieta 1989 earthquake. Figure 11. Time variation of top floor displacement, acceleration and base shear of the Uncontrolled, Passive and Semi-active friction dampers under Northridge 1994 earthquake. Figure 12. Control force-displacement diagrams of the variable friction damper under different earthquakes.

Table 1.Comparison of structural responses and control forces for different control cases due to Imperial Valley earthquake (PGA=0.348g) Number of Devices At 1F At 1,2F Passive At 1,2,3F At 1,2,3,4F At 1,2,3,4,5F At 1F At 1,2F Semi-active (=0.80) At 1,2,3F Max floor displacement (m) 5F 4F 3F 2F 1F Max floor acceleration (m/s) 5F 4F 5.19 5.13 (1.15) 4.56 (12.14) 4.39 (15.41) 4.47 (13.87) 3.93 (24.28) 4.86 (6.35) 4.08 (21.39) 4.03 (22.35) 3.91 (24.66) 3.58 (31.02) 3F 5.74 5.47 (4.7) 4.67 (18.04) 4.38 (23.69) 4.05 (29.44) 3.60 (37.28) 4.34 (24.39) 4.05 (29.44) 3.83 (33.28) 3.67 (36.06) 3.34 (41.81) 2F 4.96 4.75 (4.23) 4.27 (13.91) 4.30 (13.31) 3.70 (25.40) 3.46 (30.24) 4.10 (17.34) 4.02 (18.95) 3.74 (24.60) 3.27 (34.07) 3.14 (36.69) 1F 4.41 4.14 (6.12) 3.83 (13.15) 3.48 (21.09) 3.66 (17.07) 3.39 (23.13) 4.02 (8.84) 3.65 (17.23) 3.37 (23.58) 3.26 (26.08) 3.10 (29.71) Max. Damper Force (kN) 5F 55.76 17.94 4F 55.76 55.76 23.30 19.48 3F 55.76 55.76 55.76 31.99 28.13 25.38 2F 55.76 55.76 55.76 55.76 39.09 42.23 37.50 30.33 1F 55.76 55.76 55.76 55.76 55.76 52.31 54.05 48.25 42.01 34.10

Case A B C D E F G H I J

Control Type Uncontrolled

At 1,2,3,4F At K 1,2,3,4,5F Numbers in parentheses denotes the

0.162 0.139 0.113 0.084 0.051 8.79 0.149 0.129 0.106 0.080 0.048 7.60 (8.02) (9.19) (6.19) (4.16) (5.88) (13.54) 0.131 0.114 0.096 0.073 0.045 6.77 (19.14) (17.99) (15.04) (13.10) (11.76) (22.98) 0.109 0.096 0.082 0.064 0.039 5.97 (32.72) (30.94) (27.43) (23.81) (23.53) (32.08) 0.082 0.072 0.064 0.050 0.031 4.52 (49.38) (48.22) (43.36) (40.48) (39.22) (48.58) 0.070 0.061 0.050 0.036 0.021 3.75 (56.79) (56.12) (55.75) (57.14) (58.82) (57.34) 0.126 0.110 0.091 0.066 0.037 6.03 (22.22) (20.86) (19.47) (21.43) (27.45) (31.40) 0.091 0.083 0.079 0.056 0.030 5.23 (43.83) (40.29) (30.09) (33.3) (41.18) (40.50) 0.083 0.071 0.069 0.051 0.025 4.65 (48.77) (48.92) (38.94) (39.29) (50.98) (47.10) 0.073 0.068 0.067 0.047 0.022 4.11 (50.94) (51.08) (40.71) (44.05) (56.86) (53.24) 0.061 0.058 0.063 0.045 0.020 3.14 (62.35) (58.27) (44.25) (46.43) (60.78) (64.28) % reduction in responses with the uncontrolled system

Table 2. Comparison of Uncontrolled, Passive case (D), Semi-active case (H) for the peak structural responses and control forces under different ground motions (=0.80) Earthquake Imperial Valley (1940) Responses Max Floor Displacement (m) Max Floor Acceleration (m/s) Max Base Shear (KN) Max Control Force (KN) Max Floor Displacement (m) Max Floor Acceleration (m/s) Max Base Shear (KN) Max Control Force (KN) Max Floor Displacement (m) Max Floor Acceleration (m/s) Max Base Shear (KN) Max Control Force (KN) Max Floor Displacement (m) Max Floor Acceleration (m/s) Max Base Shear (KN) Uncontrolled Passive 0.162 0.109
(32.72)

Semi-active 0.091
(43.83)

8.79 190.19 0.509 18.62 679.68 0.465 16.69 577.32 0.566 21.6 675.801

5.97
(32.08)

5.23
(40.50)

151.11
(20.55)

102.23
(46.25)

Kobe (1995)

55.76 0.374
(26.52)

54.05 0.297
(41.65)

13.18
(29.22)

12.05
(35.28)

483.12
(28.92)

338.76
(50.16)

Lomprieta (1989)

55.76 0.359
(22.80)

104.15 0.262
(43.66)

13.41
(19.65)

9.19
(44.95)

434.04
(24.82)

296.07
(48.72)

Northridge (1994)

55.76 0.405
(28.45)

102.18 0.332
(41.34)

17.04
(21.11)

13.92
(35.56)

501.735
(25.76)

344.12
(49.08)

Max Control Force (KN) 55.76 115.12 Numbers in parentheses denotes the % reduction in responses with the uncontrolled system

ms,n ks,n

Sensors xn

ms,i+1

xi+1 ui +1

k s ,i +1 ms,i

xi ui

ks, i
xg

Controller Figure 1 a.

xi
Ni,(t)

ui
kb,i

Figure 1 b.

5 4 3 2 1

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

(H)

(I)

(J) Figure 2.

(K)

1.6 Imperial Valley, 1940 Kobe, 1995 Loma Prieta, 1989 Northridge, 1994

1.2
Displacement (m)

0.8

0.4

0.0 Damping ratio = 2 % 4

Acceleration (g)

0 1 2
Time period (sec) Figure. 3

Displacement (m)

0.16

5 Floor th 4 Floor

th

10

Acceleration (m/s )

0.12

4 0.08 200

1.2 150 1.0

Story Shear (kN)

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Velocity (m/s)

100

0.8

0.6

50 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 4

0.40

Displacement (m)

5 Floor th 4 Floor

th

20

Acceleration (m/s )

0.35

15

0.30

10

0.25 5

200

150

Story Shear (kN)

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Velocity (m/s)

100

50 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 5

0.40

5 Floor th 4 Floor
0.35

th

14

Displacement (m)

Acceleration (m/s )

12

0.30

10

0.25

0.20 2.8

8 250

2.6 200 2.4

Story Shear (kN)

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Velocity (m/s)

2.2

150

2.0

100 1.8

50 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 6

18
th

0.40

5 Floor th 4 Floor
16

Displacement (m)

0.35

Acceleration (m/s )

14

0.30

12

0.25 2.6

300

250 2.4

Story Shear (kN)

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Velocity (m/s)

200

2.2

150

2.0

1.8

100

1.6

50 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 7

0.2 Displacement (m) 0.1 0.0 -0.1 Uncontrolled Passive Semi-active

Acceleration (m/s )

4 0 -4 -8 200

Base Shear (kN)

100 0 -100 -200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (sec)

Figure 8

Displacement (m)

0.4 0.0 -0.4 20

Uncontrolled Passive Semi-active

Acceleration (m/s )

10 0 -10 -20 500 0

Base shear (kN)

-500 0 5 10 15
Time (sec)

20

25

30

Figure 9

Displacement (m)

0.4 0.0 -0.4 20 10 0 -10

Uncontrolled Passive Semi-active

Base Shear (kN)

Acceleration (m/s )

400 0

-400 0 5 10 15
Time (sec)

20

25

Figure 10

Displacement (m)

0.4 0.0 -0.4 20 0 -20 500 0 -500 0 5 10 15

Time (sec)

Uncontrolled Passive Semi-active

Base Shear (kN)

Acceleration (m/s )

20

25

30

Figure 11

50

Imperial Vally (1940)

100

Kobe (1995)

Control Force (kN)

25

50

Control Foece (kN)

-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

-25

-50

-50

-100

-0.15

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)
150

100

Loma Prieta (1989)

100

Northridge (1994)

50

Control Force (kN)

Control Force (kN)

-0.2 0.0 0.2

50

-50

-50

-100

-100

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

Figure 12