Study of a semi-active stiffness damper under various earthquake inputs

Djajakesukma, SL; Samali, B; Nguyen, H

Study of a semi-active stiffness damper under various earthquake inputs

Djajakesukma, SL Samali, B

Nguyen, H

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31 (10), pp. 1757 - 1776
Issue Date:: 2002-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2002 Djajakesukma Samali Nguyen.pdf	Published Version	601.09 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Djajakesukma, SL	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Samali, B https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3426-7745	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Nguyen, H https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3373-8178	en_US
dc.date.issued	2002-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31 (10), pp. 1757 - 1776	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0098-8847	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/34966
dc.description.abstract	Semi-active stiffness damper (SASD) is one of many semi-active control systems with the capability to mitigate the dynamic response using only a small amount of external power. The system consists of a hydraulic damper connected to the bracing frame in a selected story unit. In this paper, study of a SASD in two building models of five-stories under four benchmark earthquake records is reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the control system against structure type and varying earthquake inputs. Various control laws are chosen to work with SASD, such as: resetting control, switching control, linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and modified LQR, and the results are compared with no control and passive control cases. Numerical results show that the use of a SASD is effective in reducing seismic responses. Control effectiveness is dependent on the type of structure and earthquake excitation. Passive control is less effective than other control cases as expected. Resetting control, switching control and LQR generally perform similarly in response reduction. While modified LQR is more efficient and robust compared with other control algorithms. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1002/eqe.181	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Strategic, Defence & Security Studies	en_US
dc.title	Study of a semi-active stiffness damper under various earthquake inputs	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	10	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	31	en_US
utslib.for	090504 Earthquake Engineering	en_US
utslib.for	090505 Infrastructure Engineering and Asset Management	en_US
utslib.for	090506 Structural Engineering	en_US
utslib.for	0905 Civil Engineering	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHT - Health Technologies
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	10	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	31	en_US

Abstract:

Semi-active stiffness damper (SASD) is one of many semi-active control systems with the capability to mitigate the dynamic response using only a small amount of external power. The system consists of a hydraulic damper connected to the bracing frame in a selected story unit. In this paper, study of a SASD in two building models of five-stories under four benchmark earthquake records is reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the control system against structure type and varying earthquake inputs. Various control laws are chosen to work with SASD, such as: resetting control, switching control, linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and modified LQR, and the results are compared with no control and passive control cases. Numerical results show that the use of a SASD is effective in reducing seismic responses. Control effectiveness is dependent on the type of structure and earthquake excitation. Passive control is less effective than other control cases as expected. Resetting control, switching control and LQR generally perform similarly in response reduction. While modified LQR is more efficient and robust compared with other control algorithms. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/34966