1 / 26

Yeong-Jong Moon Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering KAIST, Korea

The 17 th Engineering Mechanics Conference of ASCE University of Delaware, Newark, DE June 13 - 16, 2004. Application of Some MR Damper-based Control Systems for Seismic Protection of Benchmark Base Isolated Building. Yeong-Jong Moon Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering

daniel-waters
Download Presentation

Yeong-Jong Moon Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering KAIST, Korea

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The 17th Engineering Mechanics Conference of ASCE University of Delaware, Newark, DE June 13 - 16, 2004 Application of Some MR Damper-based Control Systems for Seismic Protection of Benchmark Base Isolated Building Yeong-Jong Moon Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering KAIST, Korea

  2. Contents • Introduction • Benchmark Base Isolated Building • MR Damper-based Control System • Control Algorithms • Numerical Simulation Results • Conclusions Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  3. Introduction • Base isolation systems, such as elastomeric, friction, and lead-rubber bearing systems, have been accepted as an effective means for seismic protection of building structures. • Base isolation systems can reduce inter-story drifts and floor accelerations, whereas base displacements in those systems may be increased.  expensive loss of space for seismic gap • Hybrid-type base isolation systems employing additional active control devices have been studied to limit base drift. Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  4. Because of its adaptability and reliability, an MR damper- based hybrid-type base isolation system could solve the large base drift problem of the passive-type base isolation system. • To systematically compare the effectiveness of control systems for base isolated buildings, the benchmark study developed by Narasimhan et al. (2003) based on input from the ASCE structural control committee. • In the benchmark problem, three different kinds of base isolation systems, such as linear elastomeric with low damping, frictional systems, and bilinear or nonlinear elastomeric systems, are considered. Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  5. Objective of This Study To verify the effectiveness of the MR damper-based control systems considering some control algorithms, such as modified clipped-optimal control, maximum energy dissipation, and the modulated homogeneous friction algorithms, for seismic protection of base isolation system. Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  6. Benchmark Base Isolated Building • Benchmark Structure • an eight-story base isolated steel-braced framed building • width: 82.4m and 54.3m • similar to existing buildings in LA, California Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  7. Linear elastomeric isolation system: 92 low damping elastomeric bearings • Nonlinear isolation system: 61 friction pendulum bearings and 31 linear elastomeric bearings • Supplemental active or semiactive control devices: 16 active or semiactive control devices at the isolation level (8 in X- and 8 in Y-direction) • Base Isolation Systems Considered Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  8. MR Damper-based Control System • Control Diagram for MR Damper-based System Base Isolated Building Structure MR Damper Controller (Control Algorithm) Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  9. Control Algorithms • Original Clipped-Optimal Control Algorithm Base Isolated Building Structure MR Damper Optimal Control (LQG) Clipped Algorithm (0 or Vmax) Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  10. Modified Clipped-Optimal Control Algorithms • Modified version proposed by Yoshida and Dyke (2004) Base Isolated Building Structure MR Damper Optimal Control (LQG) Clipped Algorithm (Vc) Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  11. Another modified version proposed in this study Base Isolated Building Structure MR Damper Optimal Control (LQG) Clipped Algorithm (Vc) Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  12. Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm • This algorithm considers a Lyapunov function that represents the relative energy in the structure (Jansen and Dyke, 2000). Base Isolated Building Structure MR Damper Clipped Algorithm (0 or Vmax) Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  13. Modulated Homogeneous Friction Algorithm • This algorithm originally developed for use with variable friction devices was modified for MR dampers (Jansen and Dyke, 2000). Base Isolated Building Structure MR Damper Clipped Algorithm (0 or Vmax) , in which , the most recent local extrema in the deformation of the MR damper Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  14. Numerical Simulation Results • Control Algorithms Considered - Original modified clipped-optimal for linear system (OCO) - Skyhook control for nonlinear system (SHC) - Modified clipped-optimal by Yoshida and Dyke (MCO-1) - Modified clipped-optimal proposed herein (MCO-2) - Maximum energy dissipation (MED) - Modulated homogeneous friction (MHF) • Base Isolation Systems Considered - Linear elastomeric isolation system - Nonlinear friction isolation system Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  15. Evaluation Criteria (Narasimhan et al., 2003) - J1: normalized peak base shear - J2: normalized peak structure shear - J3: normalized peak base displ. or isolator deformation - J4: normalized peak inter-story drift - J5: normalized peak absolute floor acceleration - J6: normalized peak force generated by all control devices - J7: normalized RMS base displacement - J8: normalized RMS absolute floor acceleration - J9: normalized total energy absorbed by all control devices * In this study, the results of each algorithm are normalized by those of OCO in linear case and SHC in nonlinear case. Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  16. Earthquakes Used (Narasimhan et al., 2003) Both the fault-normal (FN) and the fault-parallel (FP) components of - Newhall record in Northridge earthquake - Sylmar record in Northridge earthquake - El Centro record in Imperial Valley earthquake - Rinaldi record in Northridge earthquake - Kobe record in Hogoken Nanbu earthquake - Jiji068 record in Jiji earthquake - Erzinkan record in Erzinkan earthquake Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  17. Earthquakes J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 Newhall FP:X FN:Y 1.06 0.97 1.27 1.09 0.97 0.95 1.62 0.76 0.67 FP:Y FN:X 1.00 0.98 1.26 1.08 0.72 0.91 1.90 0.72 0.67 Slymar FP:X FN:Y 0.99 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.08 1.40 1.19 0.88 0.84 FP:Y FN:X 1.46 1.15 1.05 1.14 2.40 2.33 1.15 0.85 0.89 El Centro FP:X FN:Y 0.89 1.05 2.30 1.04 0.37 0.29 3.25 0.52 0.63 FP:Y FN:X 0.89 1.09 2.40 1.21 0.41 0.26 3.42 0.58 0.61 Rinaldi FP:X FN:Y 0.91 1.03 1.21 1.03 0.81 0.97 1.32 0.87 0.76 FP:Y FN:X 0.85 1.01 0.98 1.05 0.75 0.97 1.22 0.68 0.77 Kobe FP:X FN:Y 0.91 0.93 1.35 1.11 0.88 1.11 2.19 0.81 0.70 FP:Y FN:X 0.99 1.06 1.38 1.28 0.79 1.21 2.42 0.89 0.63 Jiji FP:X FN:Y 1.18 1.06 1.04 1.10 1.81 2.44 1.22 0.99 0.86 FP:Y FN:X 1.30 1.02 1.04 1.04 2.33 3.62 1.31 1.06 0.88 Erzinkan FP:X FN:Y 0.99 0.95 1.17 0.90 0.97 1.01 1.28 0.85 0.76 FP:Y FN:X 0.91 0.84 1.16 0.96 1.00 1.31 1.26 0.71 0.79 • Linear Elastomeric Isolation System • Control performance of MCO-1 normalized by OCO Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  18. Discussion - All the peak floor accelerations (J5) are reduced up to 63% except of the Sylmar and Jiji cases while maintaining the similar level of the peak inter-story drifts (J4) (a 28% increase ~ a 10% decrease). - All the peak isolator deformations (J3) in MCO-1 are larger than those in OCO (a 4%~140% increase) except of the Rinaldi case (a 2% decrease). - In the El Centro case, MCO-1 significantly reduces the peak floor acceleration (J5), whereas is drastically increases the peak isolator deformation (J3) . Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  19. Earthquakes J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 Newhall FP:X FN:Y 1.01 0.95 1.03 1.00 1.02 0.98 1.09 0.86 0.94 FP:Y FN:X 0.90 0.88 1.04 1.09 0.73 0.97 1.32 0.91 0.94 Slymar FP:X FN:Y 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.07 0.96 1.00 1.02 0.98 0.98 FP:Y FN:X 0.92 0.92 1.10 1.00 0.92 0.94 1.12 0.80 0.98 El Centro FP:X FN:Y 1.17 1.19 1.34 1.15 0.97 0.86 1.48 0.78 0.90 FP:Y FN:X 1.22 1.24 1.96 1.47 1.18 0.83 1.72 0.91 0.93 Rinaldi FP:X FN:Y 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.95 1.07 0.97 1.03 0.97 0.97 FP:Y FN:X 0.97 1.01 0.91 0.97 1.01 0.97 0.84 0.68 0.97 Kobe FP:X FN:Y 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.08 0.98 1.01 1.26 0.94 0.95 FP:Y FN:X 1.15 1.15 1.04 1.31 0.95 1.05 1.64 1.08 0.90 Jiji FP:X FN:Y 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 1.01 1.01 0.97 0.98 FP:Y FN:X 0.90 0.91 0.99 0.92 0.86 0.99 1.05 0.82 0.95 Erzinkan FP:X FN:Y 0.98 0.95 0.99 0.91 0.98 1.01 1.01 0.97 0.98 FP:Y FN:X 0.90 0.83 1.08 0.95 0.89 0.96 0.92 0.76 0.98 • Control performance of MCO-2 normalized by OCO Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  20. Discussion - The overall performance of MCO-2 is similar to that of MCO-1. - All the peak floor accelerations (J5) are reduced up to 27% except of the El Centro and Rinaldi cases. - Increases in J5 of MCO-2 are not large compare with those of MCO-1 (e.g., an 18% increase under El Centro in MCO-2; a 140% increase under Sylmar in MCO-1). - It is verified that MCO-2 could be the more reliable control algorithm under various ground motions. Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  21. Earthquakes J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 Newhall FP:X FN:Y 0.91 0.93 1.25 0.97 0.73 0.95 1.44 0.82 0.80 FP:Y FN:X 0.93 0.84 1.18 0.93 0.89 0.97 1.68 0.92 0.81 Slymar FP:X FN:Y 0.97 1.04 1.15 0.97 0.82 0.93 1.33 0.93 0.80 FP:Y FN:X 0.88 0.89 0.95 0.98 0.89 0.98 1.04 0.76 0.86 El Centro FP:X FN:Y 1.01 1.04 1.36 1.00 0.89 0.95 1.72 0.83 0.86 FP:Y FN:X 0.87 1.10 1.96 1.22 1.10 1.15 2.39 0.98 0.85 Rinaldi FP:X FN:Y 0.92 1.04 1.05 1.04 0.82 0.93 1.32 0.97 0.82 FP:Y FN:X 0.81 0.97 1.03 1.03 0.73 0.97 1.03 0.68 0.79 Kobe FP:X FN:Y 0.77 0.89 1.05 0.98 0.78 1.28 1.24 0.93 0.91 FP:Y FN:X 0.93 0.98 1.04 1.14 0.70 1.27 2.01 1.17 0.86 Jiji FP:X FN:Y 1.06 1.12 1.20 1.11 0.90 0.75 1.28 1.02 0.76 FP:Y FN:X 0.98 1.01 1.16 1.03 0.99 0.95 1.29 0.85 0.77 Erzinkan FP:X FN:Y 0.91 0.95 1.04 0.88 0.78 0.97 1.30 0.93 0.76 FP:Y FN:X 0.89 0.81 1.13 0.90 0.98 0.92 1.02 0.68 0.84 • Control performance of MHF normalized by OCO Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  22. Discussion - The control performance of MHF is quite good. - All the peak floor accelerations (J5) are reduced by 30% ~1% except of the El Centro case (a 10% increase). - All the peak inter-story drifts (J4) are within the reasonable ranges (a 12% decrease ~ a 22% increase). - MHF could be considered as one of the promising control algorithms for base isolated buildings employing MR dampers in the linear elastomeric case. Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  23. Earthquakes J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 Newhall FP:X FN:Y 1.16 1.11 1.19 1.00 1.12 0.72 1.17 0.88 0.77 FP:Y FN:X 1.05 1.19 1.15 1.20 0.99 0.83 1.04 0.98 0.84 Slymar FP:X FN:Y 1.18 1.23 1.19 1.06 0.85 0.68 1.26 0.88 0.74 FP:Y FN:X 1.16 1.20 1.20 1.36 0.91 0.77 1.37 0.95 0.73 El Centro FP:X FN:Y 0.97 0.84 1.24 0.89 0.90 0.85 1.15 0.84 0.70 FP:Y FN:X 0.85 0.93 0.97 1.01 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.85 0.70 Rinaldi FP:X FN:Y 1.12 1.04 1.07 0.92 0.71 0.76 1.14 0.85 0.75 FP:Y FN:X 1.10 1.08 1.07 0.87 0.82 0.66 1.15 0.84 0.75 Kobe FP:X FN:Y 1.12 0.90 1.39 0.96 0.91 0.69 1.17 0.85 0.56 FP:Y FN:X 1.11 0.96 1.42 1.04 0.91 0.68 1.16 0.87 0.58 Jiji FP:X FN:Y 1.16 1.14 1.27 1.03 0.86 0.86 1.14 0.98 0.88 FP:Y FN:X 1.14 1.10 1.25 1.06 1.06 0.87 1.09 1.02 0.88 Erzinkan FP:X FN:Y 1.06 1.06 1.26 0.96 0.88 0.88 1.38 0.88 0.66 FP:Y FN:X 1.06 1.18 1.29 1.03 0.90 0.79 1.45 0.95 0.71 • Nonlinear Friction Isolation System • Control performance of MHF normalized by SHC Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  24. Discussion - The control performance of MHF is quite good in the nonlinear friction case as well. - All the peak floor accelerations (J5) are reduced by 29% ~1% except of the Newhall and Jiji cases (12% and 6% increases, respectively). - All the peak inter-story drifts (J4) are within the reasonable ranges (a 13% decrease ~ a 36% increase). - MHF could be considered as an appropriate control algorithm for base isolated buildings employing MR dampers in the nonlinear friction case. Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  25. Conclusions • Some control algorithms, such as MCOs, MED, and MHF, are considered to verify the effectiveness of MR damper-based control systems for seismic protection of a base isolated building. • Most of the control algorithms considered could be beneficial in reducing seismic responses of a benchmark base isolated building. • The modulated homogeneous friction algorithm could be considered as one promising candidate for the nonlinear as well as the linear benchmark base isolated systems. Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

  26. Thank you for your attention! Structural Dynamics & Vibration Control Lab., KAIST, Korea

More Related