Vol.15, No.

1 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION March, 2016

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2016) 15: 79-90 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-016-0306-4

Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw

energy dissipation systems using fluid viscous dampers

Jae-Do Kang1† and Hiroshi Tagawa2‡

1. Hyogo Earthquake Engineering Research Center, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention,
Miki 673-0515, Japan
2. Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan

Abstract: This paper presents results of experimental and numerical investigations of a seesaw energy dissipation system
(SEDS) using fluid viscous dampers (FVDs). To confirm the characteristics of the FVDs used in the tests, harmonic dynamic
loading tests were conducted in advance of the free vibration tests and the shaking table tests. Shaking table tests were
conducted to demonstrate the damping capacity of the SEDS under random excitations such as seismic waves, and the results
showed SEDSs have sufficient damping capacity for reducing the seismic response of frames. Free vibration tests were
conducted to confirm the reliability of simplified analysis. Time history response analyses were also conducted and the results
are in close agreement with shaking table test results.

Keywords: seesaw energy dissipation system; experimental verification; shaking table test; simplified analysis; dynamic
characteristic

1 Introduction brace, seesaw, and dampers. The seesaw member is pin-

Energy dissipation systems of many types have
increasingly been used in new and retrofit constructions
over the last few decades (Soong and Spencer, 2002;
Symans et al., 2008) and related design procedures have
been investigated (FEMA, 1997; Ramirez et al., 2001;
JSSI, 2007; ASCE, 2010). Various passive dampers have
been investigated such as friction dampers (Ng and Xu,
2006; Tsai et al., 2008; Zhou and Peng, 2009), metallic
yielding dampers (Iwata and Murai, 2006; Kim and Seo,
2004), fluid viscous dampers (Ou et al., 2007; Lin et al.,
2009; Chen and Chai, 2011), and viscoelastic dampers
(Zhang and Soong, 1992; Kasai et al., 1998; Chang and
Singh, 2002). These dampers can be installed in various
ways including diagonal braces, chevron braces, and
magnifying brace systems. Various magnifying brace
systems have been proposed and investigated to improve
performance under various dynamic loads, and to reduce
the damper volume. They include toggle, scissor-jack,
and seesaw systems (Constantinou et al., 2001; Hwang
et al., 2005; Huang, 2009; Sigaher and Constantinou,
2003; Kang and Tagawa, 2013a). Seesaw systems, called
seesaw energy dissipation systems (SEDSs), comprise a
Correspondence to: Jae-Do Kang, Hyogo Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, National Research Institute for
Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Miki 673-0515, Japan
Tel: +81 794858211; Fax: +81 794858993
E-mail: kang@bosai.go.jp
†
Research Fellow; §Professor
Received March 11, 2014; Accepted July 22, 2015
supported. A couple of dampers are installed vertically
in the seesaw member. When a frame deforms under a
lateral load, the displacements of dampers are magnified
via rotation of the seesaw. When the lateral load direction
reverses, tensile axial force is generated immediately
in the opposite brace. This behavior is based on the
seesaw mechanism characteristics and on pre-tension
effects. The SEDS capacity has been demonstrated by
theoretical and analytical results, and by results from
preliminary experiments (Kang and Tagawa, 2013b;
Kang and Tagawa, 2014). However, the damping
capacity of the SEDS under random excitations such
as seismic waves has not been investigated. Moreover,
no experimental verification of the simplified analysis
results or time history response analysis results has been
pursued. Also, a shaking table test of the SEDS should
be done to clarify its characteristics.
This paper presents a combined experimental and
analytical investigation of SEDSs using fluid viscous
dampers (FVDs). The objectives of this paper is as
follows: (i) To demonstrate the damping capacity of
SEDSs under random excitations; (ii) To evaluate the
reliability and accuracy of a simplified analysis; and
(iii) To evaluate the accuracy of time history response
analysis.
For experimental verification of the damping
capacity of SEDSs under random excitations, shaking
table tests were conducted for a building frame model
with the SEDS using FVDs. To confirm the influence of
the magnification factor, i.e., the ratio between the story
displacement of the frame and damper displacement,
80 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
on the damping capacity of the SEDS under random
excitations, three magnification factors were considered
in the tests. The test results show that SEDSs have
sufficient damping capacity to reduce seismic response
of the frames and the magnification factor affects the
damping capacity. To determine the damping coefficient
of the damper used in simplified and time-history response
analyses, harmonic dynamic tests were conducted
for two FVDs. Free vibration tests were conducted to
evaluate the accuracy of the simplified analysis results.
The reliability of the simplified analysis results was
confirmed by comparing the equivalent natural periods
and the added damping ratios calculated by simplified
analysis with those obtained from free vibration tests. To
evaluate the accuracy of time history response analysis
results, those results were compared with shaking table
test results; close agreement was obtained.
2 Experiment setup
2.1 Testing frame models
For comparison of experimental and analytical
results, building frame model 1 (hereinafter designated
as “BFM 1”), consisting of a rigid steel floor plate and
four flexible columns, was designed and constructed as
shown in Fig. 1. The rigid steel plate was 800 mm ×
300 mm with a rectangular void of 600 mm × 150 mm.
Flexible rectangular columns having a cross section of
50 mm × 3 mm were high-strength plates. The clear floor
height was 470 mm.
2.2 Seesaw mechanism
Figure 1 shows that the SEDS comprise three parts:
brace, seesaw, and damper units. The brace member
comprises two cables having 0.74 mm diameter,
Rigid floor plate
D shackle with screw pin
Built load cell
Turnbuckle
Cable
470
526
α
β
Seesaw
z
x y
(a)
Fig. 1 Configuration of experimental model (unit: mm): (a) front view and (b) side view
Vol.15
turnbuckles, D-shackle, and built load cells for
measuring the brace forces. The pre-tension in braces
was introduced by turning up the turnbuckles. Figure 2
shows the seesaw comprising a rotation member, support
member, and pin. The seesaw members were made of
acrylic plate with 5 mm thickness to reduce the mass
of the rotation member related to the rotational inertial
force of the seesaw. The damper unit comprises three
parts: two hinge bases, rod-ends with bearings, and the
FVDs. The damper unit is presented in section 2.3. Two
built load cells, which consist of the 30 mm × 10 mm
steel plate with 0.6 mm thickness and two strain gauges,
were designed and arranged between the D-shackle and
the turnbuckle. These load cells measured only strains
for the calculation of the cable forces. The damping
capacity of the SEDS is influenced by the magnification
factor, fR, which represents the ratio between the story
displacement of the frame and damper displacement.
When the brace is assumed to be rigid, the magnification
factor of the SEDS is (cosα × cosβ) / sin (α + β). In this
equation, α and β represent, respectively, the horizontal
angle of a brace and the angle between the connection
point and center pin of the seesaw, as shown in Fig. 1.
To confirm the influence of the magnification factor
on the damping capacity of the SEDS under random
excitations, three magnification factors are considered in
the tests. The magnification factors 1 (MF1), 2 (MF2),
and 3 (MF3) shown in Fig. 2 are 0.85, 0.77, and 069,
respectively (Kang and Tagawa, 2014).
2.3 Laboratory-scale fluid viscous dampers
2.3.1 Damper configuration, measurement and
instrumentation of damper performance test
The FVDs consisted of an oil damper-housing for
a radio-controlled car (CR01-01/LB; World Space CAD
Industrial Co.) that was filled with four-cylinder engine
FVD
z
(b)
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers 81

350 128
90
MF1 MF2 MF3

D shackle with screw pin

Seesaw member Hinge base

(5 mm acrylic)
z FVD z
148

x y

Rod-end with bearing

Pin with ball bearing Hinge base

(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Seesaw energy dissipation system using FVDs (unit: mm): (a) front view and (b) side view

oil designed for motorcycles. The maximum stroke of
the FVDs was ± 18 mm.
To estimate damper characteristics related to its
performance, harmonic dynamic loading tests were
conducted. The parameters in the harmonic dynamic
loading test were the following: displacement amplitude
of 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm; excitation frequency of 0.5, 0.7, 1,
and 2 Hz. A mono-axial shaking table located at Nagoya
University was used for damper performance tests, as
shown in Fig. 3. An electrodynamic exciter controlled
with displacement and frequency by a function
generator was used. The force in the damper was
measured using a load cell connected to a rigid frame.
The table velocity, which is approximately the damper
velocity, was measured using a servo-type velocimeter
(VSE-15A; Tokyo Sokushin Co. Ltd.). Its displacement
was measured using a laser displacement sensor (LB-
01; Keyence Co. Ltd.). The measured velocity and
displacement were adjusted using an amplifier (AV-200;
Tokyo Sokushin Co. Ltd.) and a signal controller (LB-
60; Keyence Co.). All measured and adjusted data were
recorded using a data logger (DRA-30A; Tokyo Sokki
Kenkyujo Co. Ltd.). The sampling rate was 200 Hz in all
channels. Characteristics of the FVD were determined
based on the recorded force, velocity, and displacement.
2.3.2 Damper characterization
Energy is dissipated in the damper as the piston
rod moves through the fluid. It forces the fluid to flow
through the piston head orifices. Force FD in the FVD is
calculated as
FD  C sgn(v)v (1)
where C represents the damping coefficient, v stands for
the velocity of the damper, and  signifies an exponent
that controls the shape of the force velocity relation. An
FVD with  = 1 is called a linear FVD, in which the
damper forces are proportional to the relative velocity.
To ascertain the damping coefficient and exponent
of the FVDs used in the tests, peak damper velocities
and forces extracted from harmonic dynamic test were
analyzed. According to these results, the damping
coefficients of dampers 1 and 2 were obtained using
least-squares method as 0.086 and 0.077, respectively
(Kang and Tagawa, 2014). The hysteretic behaviors
of damper 1 over a range of excitation with respect to
the displacement amplitude are shown in Fig. 4. Solid
lines show the recorded data. The hysteretic loops
clearly show an ellipse loop. These results demonstrate
that the FVDs have a linear viscous characteristic. The

Laser displacement sensor Velocimeter (Servo) Damper unit

Steel angle
Rigid frame
Shaking table
Exciter Load cell

Signal controller PC
Laser displacement sensor
Data logger
Load cell
Amplifiers
Velocimeter (Servo)

Fig. 3 Damper performance test scheme and experimental instrumentation

82 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

20 Force (N) 20 Force (N)

(a) (b)
Experiment

Analysis

-20 20 -20 20
Displ. (mm) Displ. (mm)

-20 -20
Force (N) Force (N)
20 20
(c) (d)

-20 20 -20 20
Displ. (mm) Displ. (mm)

-20 -20

Fig. 4 Damper force-displacement loops of the FVD 1: (a) 0.5 Hz, (b) 0.7 Hz, (c) 1 Hz, and (d) 2 Hz

calculated hysteretic loops from Eq. (1) using each
obtained damping coefficient are presented in Fig. 4 as
dotted lines. Figure 4 shows that the calculated hysteretic
loops agree well with the recorded data.
2.4 Testing procedure
Free vibration tests were conducted to evaluate the
accuracy of the simplified analysis results. In the free
vibration tests, some steel plates were added to BFM 1
to vary the natural period of the tested building frame
models, such as BFM 2 and BFM 3. The respective
masses of the BFMs 1, 2, and 3 were 15.44, 21.88, and
28.33 kg. Three cases of the magnification factors of
the SEDS were considered in the free vibration tests,
as shown in Fig. 2. For each test, the initial amplitudes
were considered in two cases as 5 mm and 10 mm for
the quantitative evaluation of the dynamic characteristic
of the test models. Table 1 presents test specimens.
The initial displacements of the BFMs were adjusted
by tightening a screw connected to the BFMs. The test
models were put into the free vibration state by cutting

Table 1 Labels of test models

Model Composition of model Pre-tension

Building frame Seesaw Number of
labels Without With
model mechanism FVD
F ● – – – –
FwS_NT ● ● – ● –
FwS_IT ● ● – – ●
SEDS ● ● 2 – ●
F = building frame model (BFM)
FwS_NT = BFM with seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (without pre-tension)
FwS_IT = BFM with seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (with pre-tension)
SEDS = Seesaw energy dissipation system using FVDs with pre-tension.
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers
the string. Additional details related to free vibration test
schemes were presented in an earlier report by Kang and
Tagawa (2014).
A shaking table test was conducted for BFM 1
with the SEDS to evaluate of the SEDS capacity under
a seismic wave and to assess the accuracy of the time
history response analysis results. To confirm the influence
of the magnification factor on the damping capacity of
the SEDS under random excitations, three magnification
factors were also considered in the shaking table tests.
Four input signal waves were simulated based on the
following earthquake records: 1940 El Centro (NS),
1952 Taft (EW), 1968 Hachinohe (NS), and the 1995
Japan Meteorological Agency Kobe (NS). These waves
were scaled so that the peak table acceleration was equal
to 1.5 m/s2. The corresponding time duration was 20 s.
Figure 5 shows 5% damped acceleration response
spectra obtained using the measured table accelerations
in each test. Because three response spectra agreed well
in terms of having the same input signal wave, the table
motions derived from the same input wave might be
regarded as identical.
2.5 Measurement and instrumentation
A mono-axial shaking table located at Nagoya
University was used for shaking table tests, as shown in
Fig. 6. The data measurement system consisted of two
servo-type accelerometers (V405-BR; San-Esu Co. Ltd.),
one servo-type velocimeter (VSE-15A; Tokyo Sokushin
Co. Ltd.), two built load cells, two laser displacement
sensors (LK-G505; Keyence Co.), and 16 strain gauges.
The measured accelerations, velocity, and displacements
were adjusted, respectively, using an amplifier (SLV-
7
(a)
5 MF2
3
Spectral acceleration (m/s2)
(c)
7 T1
1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s)
Fig. 5 Response spectra using measured table acceleration: (a) simulated El Centro, (b) simulated Taft, (c) simulated Hachinohe,
and (d) simulated Kobe
83
8206; San-Esu Co. Ltd.), another amplifier (AV-200;
Tokyo Sokushin Co. Ltd.), and a signal controller (LK-
G3000V; Keyence Co.). The measured and adjusted data
were recorded using a data logger (DRA-30A; Tokyo
Sokki Kenkyujo Co. Ltd.). The sampling rate was 200
Hz in all channels.
3 Simplified analysis and time history response
analysis
For simple design and analysis of the frame with
the SEDS using FVDs, the equation of motion for the
generalized SEDS is written as shown below (Kang and
Tagawa, 2013b).
mx  (Cframe  Ceq ) x  (kf  keq ) x  f (t ) (2)
In that equation, Cframe, kf , keq , and Ceq represent,
respectively, the frame damping coefficient, the frame
stiffness, the generalized system stiffness of the SEDS,
and the generalized damping coefficient of the SEDS.
Because slender columns were used in the tests, the
equivalent natural period and added damping ratio were
calculated by considering the stiffness reduction as
w N
kf  kframe  (3)
L
where kframe, w, and L signify the BFM initial lateral
stiffness, the BFM weight, and the clear floor height
such as deformation length, respectively. In addition,
N (= psinα) denotes an axial force in the columns by
(b) MF1
MF3
(d)
T1
2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
84 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

Signal controller PC
Laser displacement sensor
Data logger
Strain gauge
Amplifiers
Velocimeter (Servo-type)

Accelerometer (Servo-type)

Function generator Rigid

frame

Amplifier
z

Shaking table
Exciter

Fig. 6 Shaking table test scheme and experimental instrumentation

introducing pre-tension, where p and α represent the where kB, CD, and fR denote the brace stiffness, the damper
total pre-tension force and the horizontal angles of cable, coefficient, and the magnification factor, respectively.
respectively. For BFMs without pre-tension, the value of The magnification factor is presented in section 2.2.
N is regarded as zero. From Eq. (2), the equivalent natural period Teq and
In Eq. (2), the generalized system stiffness of the added damping ratio aheq of the SEDS using FVDs can
SEDS and the generalized damping coefficient of the be expressed simply as
SEDS are expressed as (Kang and Tagawa, 2013b)
m
Teq  2 (6a)
(keq )(Ceq ) 2 kf  keq
keq  (4a)
(keq ) 2  (Ceq ) 2

Ceq
2 heq  (6b)
k 
(keq ) (Ceq ) a
Ceq  (4b) 2  keq m
(keq ) 2  (Ceq ) 2 f

where w, keq, and Ceq denote, respectively, the original
frame frequency, the equivalent brace stiffness of the
SEDS, and the equivalent damping coefficient of the
SEDS. The equivalent brace stiffness and the equivalent
damping coefficient are defined as (Kang and Tagawa,
2013b)
keq  2kB cos  2
Ceq  2CD f R 2
where m represents the BFM mass.
To evaluate the accuracy of the simplified analysis
using the generalized Kelvin model as expressed in Eq. (6),
the equivalent natural period and added damping ratio
were compared with results obtained from free vibration
tests.
The time history response analysis of the tested
(5a) models was performed using a nonlinear dynamic
analysis program: SNAP ver. 5 (SNAP, 2009). The
analysis model is a single-degree-of-freedom system
with the equivalent Maxwell model. The values of
(5b) the Maxwell model element are the equivalent brace
stiffness and damping coefficient as expressed in Eq. (5).
The column lateral stiffness and damping ratio obtained
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers 85

from free vibration tests are 10 N/mm and 0.0035,
respectively. The measured acceleration on a table for
each test was used for the input acceleration for time
history response analysis.
4 Experimental and analytical results and
discussion
4.1 Free vibration tests
This section presents the results of free vibration
tests for the BFMs, BFMs with the seesaw mechanism
excluding the FVDs, and BFMs with the SEDS using
the FVDs. The natural periods and damping ratios were
calculated using the logarithmic decrement method on
the response acceleration.
4.1.1 Influence of seesaw mechanism
Seismic energy is dissipated by dampers of the
SEDS. The SEDS, however, includes mechanism
components such as joints, pins, and the seesaw. These
components might affect the dynamic characteristics of
the test models, such as the damping ratio and the natural
z has a damping capacity sufficient to reduce the seismic
x Figure 8 compares the experimental results and
Fig. 7 BFMs with the seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs
period, by the rotational inertial force of the seesaw or
friction around the pin and joint. As shown in Fig. 7,
the free vibration tests for the BFMs with the seesaw
mechanism excluding the FVDs were conducted to
confirm those effects in advance of the SEDS test.
Table 2 presents results of the free vibration tests
of the BFMs, and those for BFMs with the seesaw
mechanism excluding the FVDs with and without pre-
tension. The cable connection position was arranged at
MF2, as shown in Fig. 2. The respective natural periods
of BFMs 1, 2, and 3 are 0.243, 0.288, and 0.328 s. The
natural periods of the test models increased along with
the installation of the seesaw mechanism excluding
the FVDs. The natural periods of the test models also
increased by introducing pre-tension (100 N) on the
cables. The increase, however, were so small as to be
useless. The respective damping ratios of BFMs 1, 2, and
3 under initial amplitude of 5 mm are 0.0035, 0.0034,
and 0.003. The damping ratios of the tested models were
increased by installing a seesaw mechanism excluding
the FVDs and introducing pre-tension. The increased
values of the damping ratio, however, also were so
small as to be useless. Consequently, the SEDS effects
discussed hereinafter are generated by the FVDs based
on the seesaw mechanism.
4.1.2 Comparison between experiment and simplified
analysis results
The average of damping ratios of the tested models
without the SEDS is 0.0038 (Kang and Tagawa, 2014).
However, the respective averages of damping ratios
of the tested models with the SEDS considering MF1,
MF2, and MF3 are 0.1152, 0.1082, and 0.0892 (Kang
and Tagawa, 2014). Those of the tested models with
MF1 are larger than the others. These results show
that the damping ratios are increased by increasing the
magnification factor. These results verify that the SEDS
response of the frame.
results of the simplified analysis using the generalized
Kelvin model for the SEDS. The vertical axis shows
results of the simplified analysis. The horizontal axis

Table 2 Results of the free vibration test of BFM with and without the seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (MF2)
Tested frame
Index Tested models
BFM 1 BFM 2 BFM 3
Natural period (s) F 0.243 0.288 0.328
FwS_NT 0.246 0.291 0.33
FwS_IT 0.25 0.294 0.335
Damping ratio F 0.0035 0.0034 0.003
FwS_NT 0.0036 0.0032 0.0031
FwS_IT 0.0036 0.0037 0.0038
F = building frame model (BFM)
FwS_NT = BFM with seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (without pre-tension)
FwS_IT = BFM with seesaw mechanism excluding the FVDs (with pre-tension)
86 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

0.5 0.2
115%
0.4
Natural period (Theory, s)

85%

Damping ratio (Theory)

0.3 85%
0.1

0.2

0.1

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2
Natural period (Experiment, s) Damping ratio (Experiment)
(a) (b)
Fig. 8 Comparison between results obtained by experimentation and simplified analysis: (a) natural period and (b) damping ratio

shows the experiment results. Figure 8(a) shows that
the natural periods obtained from simplified analysis
approximately coincide with the experimental results.
Figure 8(b) shows that the added damping ratio
obtained from simplified analysis agree well with the
experimentally obtained results. The added damping
ratios obtained from simplified analysis have a -15% or
+15% error.
4.2 Shaking table tests
This section presents shaking table test results for
BFM 1 with the SEDS that has pre-tension. To clarify the
effects of the magnification factor, the cable connection
position considered three cases on each input wave:
MF1, MF2, and MF3.
4.2.1 Results of shaking table tests
For later comparison of the seismic responses of
the SEDS with different magnification factors, three
response evaluation criteria (peak displacement (J1),
peak velocity (J2), and peak acceleration (J3)) are defined
as shown below.
max  x(t ) 
J1 
Sd T1 ,  1 
max  x (t ) 
J2 
Sv T1 ,  1 
max  
x(t ) 
J3 
Sa T1 ,  1 
In that equation, x(t ) , x (t ) , and 
x(t ) represent,
respectively, the displacement, velocity, and absolute
acceleration response of the frame. Sd T1 ,  1  , Sv T1 ,  1  ,
and Sa T1 ,  1  denote displacement, velocity, and
acceleration response spectrum values obtained using
the measured table acceleration, respectively. The BFMs
behaved in the elastic range in all tests. Therefore, the
spectrum values might be regarded as the peak values of
uncoupled frame on each input wave. T1 and  1 denote,
respectively, the natural period (0.243 s) and damping
ratio (0.0035) obtained from the free vibration tests.
Table 3 presents results obtained from the shaking
table tests. The peak displacement (J1), velocity (J2),
and acceleration criterion (J3) were 0.46–0.6, 0.62–0.9,
and 0.46–0.64, respectively. These results verify that
the SEDS has sufficient capacity to reduce the seismic
response of the frame under random excitations.
The peak and root-mean-square (RMS) values of
displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the SEDS
with MF1 are smaller than others for each input wave.
These results demonstrate that the magnification factor
also influences the damping capacity of the SEDS under
random excitations.
4.2.2 Comparison between shaking table test results and
(7a) time history response analysis results
This section presents a comparison between results
of experiment and time history response analysis using
the equivalent Maxwell model for the SEDS, viz., Eq. (4).
(7b) To evaluate the accuracy of the analysis model for
time history response analysis and analytical results,
four evaluation criteria, viz., peak displacements (J4),
RMS displacement (J5), peak acceleration (J6), and RMS
acceleration (J7), are defined as shown below.
(7c)
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers 87

Table 3 Results of the shaking table test

Frame motion
Displacement Velocity Acceleration
Excitation Configuration (mm) (m/s) (m/s2)
Peak RMS Peak RMS Peak RMS
(J1) (J2) (J3)
El Centro MF1 2.5 0.44 0.09 0.01 1.59 0.31
(1.5 m/s2) (0.53) (0.68) (0.5)
MF2 2.66 0.45 0.09 0.01 1.68 0.31
(0.55) (0.69) (0.52)
MF3 2.69 0.49 0.09 0.01 1.76 0.34
(0.57) (0.72) (0.56)
Taft MF1 4.03 0.70 0.13 0.02 2.68 0.48
(1.5 m/s2) (0.46) (0.62) (0.46)
MF2 4.43 0.76 0.14 0.03 2.92 0.52
(0.51) (0.63) (0.5)
MF3 4.83 0.83 0.14 0.03 3.17 0.56
(0.56) (0.64) (0.55)
Hachinohe MF1 3.76 0.47 0.14 0.02 2.46 0.32
(1.5 m/s2) (0.58) (0.89) (0.56)
MF2 4.09 0.49 0.14 0.02 2.61 0.33
(0.62) (0.88) (0.59)
MF3 4.36 0.51 0.14 0.02 2.78 0.35
(0.67) (0.89) (0.64)
Kobe MF1 3.32 0.41 0.13 0.02 2.05 0.27
(1.5 m/s2) (0.51) (0.81) (0.47)
MF2 3.41 0.42 0.13 0.02 2.12 0.28
(0.56) (0.87) (0.52)
MF3 3.53 0.42 0.14 0.02 2.18 0.28
(0.64) (0.96) (0.59)

In those equations,  (t ) and (t ) denote,

max   (t )  respectively, the displacement and absolute acceleration
J4  (8a) response of the frame with the SEDS obtained through
max  x(t )  time history response analysis.
Table 4 presents the results of the time history response
analysis. The peak and RMS values of displacement and
RMS   (t )  acceleration of the SEDS with MF1 are smaller than
J5  (8b)
RMS x(t )  others in each input wave. The respective criteria for peak
(J4) and RMS (J5) displacement are 0.88–0.94 and 0.87–
0.94. The respective criteria for peak (J6) and RMS (J7)
acceleration are 0.92–0.96 and 0.91–0.96. These results
max  (t ) 
J6  (8c) verify that the analysis model for time history response
max  
x(t )  analysis and analytical results have high accuracy, while
the peak and RMS values obtained from time history
response analysis are smaller than those obtained from
shaking table tests. Figure 9 presents a comparison of the
RMS (t )  results obtained from experiments and those obtained
J7  (8d)
RMS 
x(t )  from time history response analysis. The displacement
and absolute acceleration data obtained from time
history response analysis show good agreement with
data obtained from experiments.
 88 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

Table 4 Results of time history response analysis

Frame motion
Displacement Acceleration
Excitation Configuration (mm) (m/s2)
Peak RMS Peak RMS
(J4) (J5) (J6) (J7)
El Centro MF1 2.28 0.37 1.58 0.26
(1.5 m/s2) (0.91) (0.84) (0.99) (0.84)
MF2 2.41 0.43 1.64 0.29
(0.91) (0.96) (0.98) (0.94)
MF3 2.58 0.47 1.74 0.32
(0.96) (0.96) (0.99) (0.94)
Taft MF1 3.47 0.61 2.4 0.43
(1.5 m/s2) (0.86) (0.87) (0.9) (0.9)
MF2 4.05 0.7 2.76 0.48
(0.91) (0.92) (0.95) (0.92)
MF3 4.56 0.78 3.08 0.53
(0.94) (0.94) (0.97) (0.95)
Hachinohe MF1 3.39 0.42 2.36 0.29
(1.5 m/s2) (0.9) (0.89) (0.96) (0.91)
MF2 3.68 0.46 2.51 0.31
(0.9) (0.94) (0.96) (0.94)
MF3 3.98 0.48 2.69 0.33
(0.91) (0.94) (0.97) (0.94)
Kobe MF1 2.76 0.38 1.89 0.26
(1.5 m/s2) (0.83) (0.93) (0.92) (0.96)
MF2 3 0.4 2.03 0.27
(0.88) (0.95) (0.96) (0.96)
MF3 3.14 0.41 2.1 0.27
(0.89) (0.98) (0.96) (0.96)

6 3
Experiment Experiment
Acceleration (m/s2)

Analysis Analysis
Displacement (mm)

0 0

-6 -3
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
3 2
Experiment Experiment
Analysis Analysis
Acceleration (m/s2)
Displacement (mm)

0 0

-3 -2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
Fig. 9 Comparison between results of experiment and time history response analysis: (a) frame displacement (Taft, MF 1),
(b) frame acceleration (Taft, MF 1), (c) frame displacement (El Centro, MF 3), and (d) frame acceleration (El Centro, MF 3)
No.1 Jae-Do Kang et al.: Comparison between experimental and analytical results for seesaw systems using fluid viscous dampers
5 Conclusion
This paper presents the results of experimental and
analytical investigations of a seesaw energy dissipation
system (SEDS) using fluid viscous dampers (FVDs).
The results obtained from experiments were compared
with analytical results.
Shaking table tests were conducted for building
frame models with the SEDS using FVDs to confirm the
damping capacity of the SEDS under random excitations.
The experiment results demonstrate: (1) the damping
capacity of the SEDS is sufficient to reduce the seismic
response of the frame and (2) the damping capacity of
the SEDS under random excitations is influenced by the
magnification factor.
Free vibration tests were conducted for three
building frame models with the SEDS using FVDs to
confirm the reliability of the simplified analysis results.
The equivalent natural periods and added damping
ratios calculated by the simplified analysis agree well
with those obtained from free vibration tests. The added
damping ratios obtained from numerical analyses have a
-15% or +15% error.
Time history response analyses were also conducted
and the results are in close agreement with shaking table
test results.
References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010),
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, USA.
Chang TS and Singh MP (2002), “Seismic Analysis
of Structures with a Fractional Derivative Model of
Viscoelastic Dampers,” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 1(2): 251–260.
Chen YT and Chai YH (2011), “Effects of Brace Stiffness
on Performance of Structures with Supplemental
Maxwell Model-based Brace-damper Systems,”
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40(1):
75–92.
Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Hammel W and Sigaher
AN (2001), “Toggle–brace–damper Seismic Energy
Dissipation Systems,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
127(2): 105–112.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
(1997), NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings (FEMA Publication 273), Washington, DC.
Huang HC (2009), “Efficiency of the Motion
Amplification Device with Viscous Dampers and
Its Application in High-rise Buildings,” Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(4): 521–536.
Hwang JS, Huang YN and Hung YH (2005), “Analytical
and Experimental Study of Toggle-brace-damper
Systems,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(7):
1035–1043.
89
Iwata M and Murai M (2006), “Buckling-restrained Brace
Using Steel Mortar Planks; Performance Evaluation
as a Hysteretic Damper,” Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 35(14): 1807–1826.
Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (JSSI) (2007), Design
and Construction Manual for Passively Controlled
Buildings, Second Edition, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japanese)
Kang JD and Tagawa H (2013a), “Seismic Response of
Steel Structures with Seesaw Systems Using Viscoelastic
Dampers,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 42(5): 779–794.
Kang JD and Tagawa H (2013b), “Seismic Performance
of Steel Structures with Seesaw Energy Dissipation
System Using Fluid Viscous Dampers,” Engineering
Structures, 56: 431–442.
Kang JD and Tagawa H (2014), “Experimental
Evaluation of Dynamic Characteristics of Seesaw
Energy Dissipation System for Vibration Control of
Structures,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 43(12): 1889-1895.
Kasai K, Fu Y and Watanabe A (1998), “Passive Control
Systems for Seismic Damage Mitigation,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, 124(5): 501–512.
Kim J and Seo Y (2004), “Seismic Design of Low-
rise Steel Frames with Buckling-restrained Braces,”
Engineering Structures, 26(5): 543–551.
Lin TK, Chen CC, Chang KC, Lin CCJ and Hwang
HS (2009), “Mitigation of Micro Vibration by Viscous
Dampers,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 8(4): 568–582.
Ng CL and Xu YL (2006), “Seismic Response Control of
a Building Complex Utilizing Passive Friction Damper:
Experimental Investigation,” Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics, 35(6): 657–677.
Ou JP, Long X and Li QS (2007), “Seismic Response
Analysis of Structures with Velocity-dependent
Dampers,” Journal of Construction Steel Research,
63(5): 628–638.
Ramirez OM, Constantinou MC, Kircher CA, Whittaker
AS, Johnson MW, Gomez JD and Chrysostomou CZ
(2001), Development and Evaluation of Simplified
Procedures for Analysis and Design of Buildings
with Passive Energy Dissipation Systems, Technical
Report MCEER-00-0010, Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of
New York at Buffalo, USA.
Sigaher AN and Constantinou MC (2003), “Scissor-
Jack-Damper Energy Dissipation System,” Earthquake
Spectra, 19(1): 133–158.
SNAP (2009), Technical Manual, ver.5, Kozo System,
Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Soong TT and Spencer BF (2002), “Supplemental
Energy Dissipation: State-of-the-art and State-of-the-
practice,” Engineering Structures, 24(3): 243–259.
Symans MD, Charney FA, Whittaker AS, Constantinou
90 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

MC, Kircher CA, Johnson MW and McNamara RJ (2008), 627–645.

“Energy Dissipation Systems for Seismic Applications:
Current Practice and Recent Developments,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, 134(1): 3–21.
Tsai KC, Chou CC, Lin CL, Chen PC and Jhang SJ
(2008), “Seismic Self-centering Steel Beam-to-column
Moment Connections using Bolted Friction Devices,”
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(4):
Zhang RH and Soong TT (1992), “Seismic Design of
Viscoelastic Dampers for Structural Applications,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 118(5): 1375–1392.
Zhou X and Peng L (2009), “A New Type of Damper
with Friction-variable Characteristics,” Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(4): 507–520.