OUTLINE

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. INTRODUCTION LITRATURE REVIEW

SEGMENTAL BUILDING & BASE-ISOLATED STIFFENED SUPERSTRUCTURE BUILDING PROGRAM FOR MDOF SYSTEM PROGRAM VERIFICATION

WORK TO BE DONE IN NEXT PHASE REFERENCES

1 INTRODUCTION
Earthquake Resistance Methods Ductile Detailing Method Response Control Methods Semi-Active Control Methods

Active Mass Damping Base-Isolation Stiffness Control Devices Active Bracing Energy Dissipation Electro/Magneto Active Hybrid Semi-Active Hybrid Damper Active Tendons Tuned Mass Damper Rheological Control Methods Control Methods Friction Control Devices
3

Detailing of Reinforcement as per Active Control IS-13920 Provisions Passive Control Methods Methods

DUCTILE DETAILING METHOD FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE

Ductility of structure is enhanced by proper ductile detailing of

reinforcement.

members during earthquake. non-structural damage.

Ductility can be achieved only through yielding of structural Following the yielding, structure shows large structural and Performance of intended ductile structures have proved to be unsatisfactory and far below expectation during past
4

earthquake.

PASSIVE CONTROL METHODS

To enhance structural safety and integrity against earthquake Base-isolation is Most Promising Alternative. Base isolation is Decoupling of Building by introducing Low Horizontal Stiffness Bearing between structure and foundation.

SUITABILITY OF BASE ISOLATION

The sub-soil does not produce a predominance of Long Period Ground Motion. Structure is Fairly Squat and with sufficiently High Column Load. The site permits horizontal Displacements At The Base of The Order of 200 mm or More. Lateral Loads Due to Wind are Less than approximately 10% of the weight of structure.

NEED FOR PRESENT STUDY

An empirical formula for time period for multi- storey structure with N storeys is
Tn = 0.1 N

Taking a look at response spectra curve given in IS:1893(PART 1): 2002

Tall structures have high time period, so they Attract Less Earthquake Force. Despite of high flexibility following requirements have attracted engineers to apply base-isolation to tall structures. 1. Comfort of occupants 2. When Contents of building are More Valuable then building itself. 3. High-precision factories and building with Sensitive Equipments. 4. Buildings that should remain Operational Immediately After Earthquake like hospitals, police-stations, telecommunication stations etc.

Significant benefits of base isolation can be obtained in LowRise Structures (less than 10-storeys).

LIMITATION OF BASE-ISOLATED TALL BUILDINGS

Susceptible To Resonance under long period ground motion. Area with Loose Soils produces Long Period Ground Motions. Drift in tall Uncontrollable. flexible building might become

Base-displacement Becomes Large so proper care should be taken for connection and installation of services at base-isolation level.

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
To study performance of Segmental Building with Laminated Rubber Bearing under different Near Fault and Far Fault Ground Motion. To verify Effectiveness Of Segmental Building compared to conventionally base-isolated system and fixed-base buildings. To study performance of Segmental Building with ActiveHybrid Control System under different Near Fault and Far Fault Ground Motion. To carry out parametric study and comparison of Segmental Building With Active-Hybrid And Passive Control.
10

2. LITRATURE REVIEW
Number of papers have been published on Structural Control for Tall Buildings. Excellent reviews being published on the control concepts and applications are available in papers of Pan, Jain, Ariga, Matsagar etc.

PAN et al. (1995) investigated dynamic characteristic of Segmental

Building with Isolator with Optimum Parameters Subjected to N-S El Centro Ground Motion and carried out comparision with fixed base and base isolated building. it was found that segmantal building possesed ability to Isolate Building Similar to Base Isolated Building and Also Significantly Reduces Overall Displacement.

Random Seismic Excitation and concluded that segmental building decouple building from ground excitation and considerable Reduction in Displacement at Base Level Compared Base Isolated Building. subjected to different earthquake motion and observed Considerable Reduction In Maximum Roof Acceleration & Maximum Storey Drift but storey shear and base displacement increased due to stiffening.

PAN et al. (1998) investigated response of Segmental Building to a JAIN et al. (2004) stiffened superstructure with 10, 14 & 20 storeys were

11

ARIGA et al. (2006) investigated the Resonant Behaviour of Base-isolated JANGID (2004) discussed problem of sliding structure which is discontinuous

High-Rise Building under long period ground motion induced by surface waves and concluded that friction type isolators have remarkable characteristics unfavorable to long period ground motion.

one as different set of equation with Varying Force Function are Required for Sliding and Non-sliding Phase. Comparative study of conventional model and hysteretic model of frictional force is carried out.

PRANESH et al. (2002) carried out parametric study of Multistory Building SPENCER et al. (2003) discussed the recent development in smart control
with VFPI and found it Stable During Low and Medium Intensity Excitation and Fails Safe During High Intensity Ground Motion.

systems and discussed advantages of semi-active devices due to their mechanical simplicity, low power requirement and large controllable force capacity.
12

Theoretical backgrounds of different active control schemes, Important Parametric Observations on Active Structural Control, Limitations and Difficulties in Their Practical Applications were discussed.

Dutta (2003) ) gave state-of-art review of Active Controlled Structures.

CONCLUDING REMARK
The review of literature revels that Structural Control Technique Is Inevitable Earthquake Resistant Design Method. It also gives idea about performance and Advantages Of Passive, Active And Semi-active control systems. Some papers shows that despite of longer time period Baseisolation Can Still Be Implemented In Tall Buildings and also discuss about Resonant Behavior of isolated structures under long period ground motion

13

3. SEGMENTAL BUILDING

It is extension of the conventional base isolation technique with a Distributed Flexibility In The Superstructure.

SEGMENTAL BUILDING

BASE ISOLATED BUILDING

FIXED BASE BUILDING

14

As the Building Is Divided In Number Of Segments this type of building is known as segmental building. Each Segment is Comprise of Few Storey and is Interconnected by Vibrational Isolator system. Absorption and dissipation of earthquake energy are Afforded By Isolators At All Level rather than at base-isolator level only. Order of Displacement Demand at Base Level is Less than solely base-isolated building.

15

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF SEGMENTAL BUILDING

MODEL OF BASE-ISOLATED BUILDING OVER RAILWAY PLATFORM (CHINA)

16

SHIODOME SUMITOMO BUILDING (JAPAN)

17

ISOLATORS ARE INSTALLED AT 8 STOREY ABOVE PARKING

DONG-II HIGH VILL CITY BUILDING (KOREA)

18

4. FLOW CHART FOR RESPONSE OF MULTI-DEGREE FREEDOM SYSTEM

INPUTS

Number Of Storeys Mass Stiffness

Damping Of Structure Ground Excitation

Properties Of Isolators
19

Stodola Vianellos Method is Adopted for Eigen Value and Eigen Vector Solution. Super-Position of Modal Damping Matrix is Used for Construction of Damping Matrix. Newmarks Step-By-Step Integration Method assuming Linear Variation in Acceleration is Adopted For Time History Analysis.
20

READ INPUT DATA

FORM DIAGONAL MASS MATRIX

FORMATION OF STIFFNESS MATRIX FORMATION OF DAMPING MATRIX

21

ASSIGN BASE ISOLATOR PROPERTIES

NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF DYNAMIC RESPONSE USING

STEP BY STEP INTEGRATION TECHNIQUE

INTERPRETATION & COMPARISION OF RESPONSE

22

5. PROGRAM VERIFICATION

Program Verification For Fixed Base Building Program Verification For Base-isolated Building Program Verification For Segmental Building

23

PROGRAM VERIFICATION FOR FIXED BASE BUILDING

Five-Storey Shear Frame (Chopra, A. K. (2000). Dynamics Of Structures: Theory And Applications To Earthquake Engineering, 2nd Ed., Prenticehall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.)

DATA Storey Height (h) = Storey Stiffness (k) = 12

Mass (m) =

Subjected To N-S Component Of EL CENTRO Ground Motion

24

Damping Ratio () =

5%

31.54 kips/in.

100 kips/g

TABULAR COMPARISON
Natural Time Period
Mode of Vibration Second Fourth Fifth Third First Program Output 1.9996 0.3383 0.4346 0.6850 Chopra 2.0000 0.3383 0.4346 0.6852

0.2966 Response

0.2966 Program Output 6.841 73.179 35.083 2589.2

Chopra 6.847 73.278 35.217 2593.2

25

Peak roof displacement (inch) Peak base shear (kips) Peak fifth storey shear (kips) Peak base overturning moment (kips-ft)

GRAPHICAL COMPARISON

ROOF DISPLACEMENT FROM PROGRAM

ROOF DISPLACEMENT FROM CHOPRA

26

BASE SHEAR FROM PROGRAM

BASE SHEAR FROM CHOPRA

27

ROOF SHEAR FROM PROGRAM

ROOF SHEAR FROM CHOPRA

28

BASE-OVER TURNING MOMENT FROM PROGRAM

BASE-OVER TURNING MOMENT FROM CHOPRA

29

PROGRAM VERIFICATION FOR BASE-ISOLATED BUILDING

Five Storey Base-Isolated Shear Frame (Matsagar, V. A. and Jangid, R. S. (2003) Seismic Response of Base-Isolated Structures During Impact with Adjacent Structures Engineering Structures, Elsevier, 25, 2003.) Type Of Isolator LRB

Superstructure Time Period Base-isolator Time Period Mass Ratio (MB / M) Superstructure Damping Ratio Base-isolator Damping Ratio

0.5 SEC 2.0 SEC 0.02 0.10 1.0

Subjected To N00E Component Of 1989 LOMA PRIETA Earthquake Recorded At LOS GATOS PRESENTATION CENTER
30

BEARING DISPLACEMENT FROM PROGRAM

BEARING DISPLACEMENT FROM MATSAGAR

31

TOP FLOOR ACCELERATION FROM PROGRAM

TOP FLOOR ACCELERATION FROM MATSAGAR

32

VERIFICATION OF PROGRAM FOR SEGMENTAL BUILDING

(Pan, T. C., Ling, S. F. and Cui, W. (1995) Seismic Response of Segmental Buildings Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 24,1039-1048) 3m 5% 4 16

Number Of Storeys Height Of Storey

Number Of Storey In Segment

Modal Damping Ratio N-S COMPONENT EL CENTRO EARTHQUAKE Isolator Properties LEVEL OF ISOLATOR

Ground Level Fourth Floor Eighth Floor

LATERAL STIFFNESS 108 N/m 1.11 12.9 6.76 2.14

33

Twelfth Floor

PROPERTIES OF SEGMENT
STIFFNESS OF STOREY THROUGH OUT SEGMENT FIRST (BOTTOM MOST) FOURTH TOP SECOND THIRD LEVEL STIFFNESS (N/m) 1.29 x 109 6.76 x 108 2.4 x 109

3.15 x 108

MASS OF STOREY IN INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT INTERMEDIATE LEVELS SEGMENT ROOF MASS ISOLATED RAFT STOREY MASS (kg) 2.52 x 105 3.49 x 105 1.39 x 105
34

TABULAR VERIFICATION OF NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)

Program Output 0.55 1.37 2.55 4.02 4.68

Pan et al. (1995)

FUNDAMENTAL MODE SHAPES

0.54

1.35

2.48

3.92

4.61

FIRST MODE

SECOND MODE

35

5. PROGRAM VERIFICATION

THIRD MODE

FOURTH MODE
36

5. ANALYSIS OF SEGMENTAL , BASE-ISOLATED & FIXED-BASE BUILDING

Number Of Storeys Height Of Storey

Number Of Storey In Segment

Modal Damping Ratio

3m 5% 4

16

Isolator Properties Segmental Building

LEVEL OF ISOLATOR

Ground Level Fourth Floor Eighth Floor

LATERAL STIFFNESS 108 N/m 1.51 2.76 0.57 3.15

Base-Isolated Building - 0.59 x 108 N/m

Twelfth Floor

37

Sr No 1

GROUND MOTIONS CONSIDERED

Type Earthquake Record PGD Component TCU 047 (cm) 22.22 9.6

PGV (cm/s) 40.02 27.6 60 54 33

PGA (g) 0.413 0.351 1.01 0.345 0.602

2 3 4

Motion Near

Fault

Far

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe

Motion

Fault

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe

KAKOGAWA 090 El-Cento Array # 8 KJM 000 TCU 129

DELTA 352

19.02 50.15

32.32

17.68

81.3

0.821
38

DYNAMIC PROPERTIES

Natural Frequencies (Hz)

F B Model S B Model B I Model Mode 1

0.94 0.49 0.46

Mode 2

2.26 1.55 1.25

Mode 3

3.66 2.90 2.03

Mode 4

5.21 4.43 3.01

Mode 5

6.26 5.64 4.23

39

FUNDAMENTAL MODE SHAPES

50 50 40

FB SB BI
Height m
0.2 0.4 0.6 Mode 1 0.8 1.0 1.2

40

30

30

Height m

20

20

10

10

0 0.0 50

0 -1.8 50

-1.2

-0.6

0.0

0.6

1.2

Mode 2

40

40

30

30

Height m

20

Height m
-0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2

20

10

10

0 -1.2

0 -8

-4

Mode 3

Mode 4

40

Reduction in Base Displacements

Type Far Fault Motion Near Fault Motion Earthquake Segmental Building
0.06102 0.09887 0.0617

Chi-Chi, Taiwan Imperial Valley Kobe

Base Isolated Building

0.10635 0.2 0.17152 0.17257 0.223 0.285

% Difference
41.98 72.59 64.42 42.71

Chi-Chi, Taiwan Imperial Valley Kobe

0.05483 0.07338

0.15858

67.09 44.36
41

Peak Storey Displacement - 1999 Chi-Chi FF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00
FB SB BI

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00

Peak Storey Displacement - 1995 Kobe FF

Height m

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Height m

0.12

0.24

0.36

Displacement m Peak Storey Displacement - 1979 Imperial Valley FF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0

Displacement m

Peak Displacement Response Under Far Fault Ground Motions

0.1 0.2 0.3

Height m

Displacement m
42

Peak Storey Displacement - 1999 Chi-Chi NF 50 40

Height m
Height m

Peak Storey Displacement - 1995 Kobe NF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0

30 20 10 0 0.0 0.1 Displacement m

Peak Storey Displacement - 1979 Imperial Valley NF
50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00
FB SB BI

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Displacement m

Peak Displacement Response Under Near Fault Ground Motions

0.15 0.30 0.45

Height m

Displacement m
43

Top - Storey Acceleration Response

Earthquake Far Fault IMP VALL FF CHI-CHI NF KOBE NF KOBE FF CHI-CHI FF Segmental Building 0.43288 0.33166 0.60602 0.33588 Base Isolated Building 0.36227 0.32156 0.40546 0.38119 % Difference -19.49 11.89 -1.65 -3.14

Near Fault IMP VALL NF

0.47897 1.09837

0.47121 0.89199

-49.46 -23.14
44

Peak Storey Acceleration - 1999 Chi-Chi FF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0
FB SB BI

Peak Storey Acceleration - 1979 Imperial Valley FF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0

Height m

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Height m

0.3

0.6

0.9

Absolute acceleration
50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00

Absolute acceleration (m/s2)

Peak Storey Acceleration - 1995 Kobe FF

Peak Absolute Acceleration Response Under Far Fault Ground Motions

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Height m

Absolute acceleration (m/s2)

45

Peak Storey Acceleration - 1999 Chi-Chi NF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0
FB SB BI

Peak Storey Acceleration - 1979 Imperial Valley NF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0

Height m

Height m

0.8

1.6
2

2.4

0.5

1.0
2

1.5

Absolute acceleration (m/s ) Peak Storey Acceleration - 1995 Kobe NF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0

Absolute acceleration (m/s )

0.8

1.6

2.4
2

3.2

Peak Absolute Acceleration Response Under Near Fault Ground Motions

46

Height m

Absolute acceleration (m/s )

Reduction in Base-Shear
Earthquake Far Fault IMP VALL FF Near Fault IMP VALL NF KOBE NF CHI-CHI NF KOBE FF CHI-CHI FF Segmental Building 9.21E+06 1.11E+07 1.49E+07 8.28E+06 7.76E+06 Base Isolated Building 1.17E+07 1.52E+07 1.17E+07 1.36E+07 7.23E+06 % Difference 21.25 27.10 -7.34

-27.61 -23.43

39.13

2.39E+07

1.94E+07

47

Peak Storey Shear - 1999 Chi-Chi FF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
FB SB BI

Peak Storey Shear - 1979 Imperial Valley FF

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Height (m)

Storey Shear (N) X106

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
6

Height (m)

Storey Shear (N) X106

Peak Storey Shear - 1995 Kobe FF

16

18

20

Peak Storey Shear Response Under Far Fault Ground Motions

48

Height (m)

Storey Shear (N) X10

Peak Storey Shear - 1999 Chi-Chi NF

50

Peak Storey Shear - 1979 Imperial Valley NF

50
FB SB BI

40

40 30 20 10 0

Height (m)

20

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
6

Height (m)

30

20

22

24

26

10

12

14

16

18

Storey Shear (N) X10

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30

Storey Shear (N) X106

Peak Storey Shear - 1995 Kobe NF

40

50

Storey Shear (N) X106

Peak Storey Shear Response Under Near Fault Ground Motions

49

Height (m)

Reduction in Base-Over Turning Moment

Earthquake Far Fault Near Fault IMP VALL FF IMP VALL NF KOBE NF CHI-CHI NF KOBE FF CHI-CHI FF Segmental Building 2.62E+08 1.60E+08 Base Isolated Building 2.49E+08 3.17E+08 % Difference 35.82 17.24 7.41

2.96E+08

2.64E+08 3.53E+08 4.69E+08

3.20E+08

3.62E+08

27.07 11.36 25.60

3.98E+08 6.30E+08

50

Peak Storey Overturning Moment - 1999 Chi-Chi FF

50 40 30 20 10 0
FB SB BI

Peak Storey Overturning Moment - 1979 Imperial Valley FF

50 40 30 20 10 0

Height (m)

Height m

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Over Turning Moment kN-m

50 40 30 20 10 0

X107

Over Turning Moment (N-m)

X107

Peak Storey Overturning Moment - 1995 Kobe FF

11

22

33

44 X10
7

55

Peak Over Turning Moment Response Under Far Fault Ground Motions
51

Height (m)

Over Turning Moment (N-m)

Peak Storey Overturning Moment - 1999 Chi-Chi NF

50 40 30 20 10 0 50 40 30 20 10 0

Peak Storey Overturning Moment - 1979 Imperial Valley NF

Height (m)

Height (m)

FB SB BI

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

18

27

36

45

X10 Over Turning Moment (N-m) Peak Storey Overturning Moment - 1995 Kobe NF
50 40 30 20 10 0

Over Turning Moment (N-m)

X10

20

40

60

80

100

120

140
7

160

Peak Over Turning Moment Response Under Near Fault Ground Motions
52

Height (m)

Over Turning Moment (N-m)

X10

0.15

0.10

Hysteresis Damping in Base-Isolated Building

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

0.05

0.00

Force

Force

0.0

Force

0.0

-0.05 -0.1 -0.10 -0.1

-0.15

Chi - Chi FF
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

-0.2

Chi - Chi NF

-0.2

Imperial Valley FF

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Displacement

Displacement

Displacement

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

0.3

Force

Force

0.0

Force
Kobe FF

0.0

0.0

-0.1

-0.1

-0.1

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

Imperial Valley NF
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1

-0.3

Kobe NF
0.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Displacement

Displacement

Displacement m

53

12th Storey Isolator

0.06

Hysteresis Damping in Segmental Building

0.10

8th Storey Isolator

0.3

12th Storey Isolator

8th Storey Isolator

0.03

0.05

0.2

0.30

0.00

0.1

0.15

Force

Force

Force

-0.03

0.0

Force
-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

0.00

0.00

-0.05 -0.06 -0.10

-0.1 -0.15 -0.2

-0.09

-0.014

-0.007

0.000

0.007

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

-0.04

-0.30

-0.2

0.0
Displacement (m)

0.2

0.4

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

4th Storey Isolator

0.14 0.18

Base-Isolator

0.4

4th Storey Isolator

Base-Isolator
0.50

0.07

0.09

0.2

0.25

Force

Force
-0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06

Force

Force

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

-0.25

-0.07

-0.09
-0.2 -0.50 -0.2

-0.14

-0.02 -0.01 0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

-0.18 -0.08

-0.04

0.00

0.04

0.08

-0.06

-0.1

0.0

0.1

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

1999 Chi-Chi TCU 047 Far Fault

1995 Kobe KJM 000 Near Fault

54

4. ACTIVE-HYBRID CONTROL OF SEGMENTAL BUILDING

Combination of Active Control Devices and Passive Control Devices is known as Active-hybrid Control Actuators are installed at segment level along with Laminated Rubber Bearings in segmental building Pole Placement Technique is used as Control Algorithm for generation of control forces.
55

ACTIVE CONTROL OF STRUCTURES

EXTERNAL EXCITATIONS

STRUCTURE

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

CONTROL FORCES

CLOSED-LOOP SENSORS SYSTEM

ACTUATORS

OPEN-LOOP SENSORS SYSTEM

COMPUTATION OF CONTROL FORCES

56

 When Only Structural Response Variables are measured the control configuration are known as Closed-Loop or Feed-Back System. When Only Excitation are measured the control configuration are known as Open-Loop or Feed-Front System. When information of both Response Quantities and External Excitation are measures for control design it is known as ClosedOpen-Loop System. System used in present study is Closed-Loop System.
57

PROBLEMS IN REAL-TIME APPLICATIONS

Modeling error Time Delay Limited Sensors and Controllers Parameter Uncertainty and System Identification Discrete Time Control Reliability Cost-Effectiveness and Hardware Requirements

58

EQUATION OF MOTION OF CONTROLLED STRUCTURE

u Is Control Force Vector And Is Proportional To , x and Ground Excitation K1, C1, E Are Time Independent Matrix Control Depends On How K1 And C1 Are Obtained
59

D Is Location Matrix

STATE-SPACE EQUATION
Using State-space Second Order Differential Equation Of Motion Is Converted In First Order Equation Let Equation Of Motion Be

60

State-space Equation For Controlled Motion Will Be

Where G Is Gain Matrix And D Is Position Vector

61

ACTIVE CONTROL ALGORITHMS

Number of active algorithms are developed for finding control force u(t).

Most of algorithm derive control force by minimizing the norm of some response therefore termed as Optimal Control Algorithm. The derived control forces are linear functions of state vector hence are also known as Linear Optimal Control Algorithm.

There are also some algorithm that are not based on optimal criterion but on stability criterion or some other considerations.

Also control algorithms have control forces in terms non-linear functions of state vector.
62

CONTROL ALGORITHMS
Pole Placement Technique / Pole Assignment Technique

Classical Linear Optimal Control / Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) Instantaneous Optimal Control Closed Open Loop Control Bounded State Control

Independent Modal Space Control (IMSC) And some other FUZZY Controls and Predictive Controls.

63

POLE-PLACEMENT TECHNIQUE
State-Space Equation For Controlled Motion

Eigen values of A are poles of uncontrolled systems. Eigen values of are poles of uncontrolled systems. The poles of system is given by

64

S - PLANE
Imaginary

Stable Region

Unstable Region

Real

Desired poles are selected such that they are on left side of uncontrolled pole.

Choice of desired poles depends upon percentage of control forces and amount of peak control force required.

After selecting poles of controlled system the Gain matrix G is obtained to generate control forces.

65

FEEDBACK GAIN MATRIX

Ackermanns formula is used to calculate G Feedback Gain Matrix. MATLAB has standard programs for calculation of gain matrix i.e. acker - for Ackermanns formula for SDOF systems place for MDOF systems.

For calculating G matrix A, B, and J Desired Pole Matrix are required e.g. G = acker(A,B,J) G = place(A,B,J)

66

COMPUTATION OF RESPONSE
First order linear differential equation of motion

On solving equation we get displacement and velocity responses of building.

Equation is solved using Linear Time Invariant Simulation function of MATLAB i.e. lsim

67

VERIFICATION OF PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE CONTROL USING POLE PLACEMENT TECHNIQUE

Five-Storey Shear Frame With Actuator At Top Storey (Dutta, T. K. (2010). Seismic Analysis of Structures , John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd.)

DATA Storey Height (h) = Storey Stiffness (k) = Damping Ratio () = 4m

Mass (m) =

150000 kg 5%

200000 kN/m.

Actuators are installed at top storey Subjected to N-S Component of EL CENTRO ground motion
68

Uncontrolled Poles -6.260 + 71.858 i + 64.864 i + 51.527 i + 33.113 i + 11.410 i 11.410 i 33.113 i 51.527 i 64.864 i 71.858 i

Desired Poles -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -22 -22 + + + + + 71 i 70 i 30 i 12 i

-6.260 -5.173 -5.173 -3.416 -3.416 -1.658 -1.658 -0.571 -0.571

71 i 70 i 30 i 0.4 i
69

12 i

0.4 i

DISPLACEMENTS OF FIFTH STOREY

0.08 0.06 0.04

Controlled Response Uncontrolled Response

Displacement (m)

0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

70

DISPLACEMENTS OF FIRST FLOOR

0.03

0.02

Controlled Response Uncontrolled Response

Displacement (m)

0.01

0.00

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

71

Comparison of Peak Base Displacement (cm)

% Differenc e 17.18 29.34 37.04 17.59 26.16 23.52

Type Far Field Motion Near Fault Motion

Earthquake 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe

Active Control 5.11 4.31 3.45 8.15 5.42 12.13

Passive Control 6.17 6.10 5.48 9.89 7.34 15.86

72

Comparison of Roof Displacement (cm)

% e

Type Field Near Far

Earthquake 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe

Control 18.92 8.66

Active

Control 17.66 28.82

Passive

Differenc 50.96 34.35 52.31 31.61 46.08 35.51

73

Motion Motion Fault

14.33

20.19 21.62 31.29

30.05

29.52 40.10 48.52

Comparison of Peak Storey Displacement - 1999 Chi-Chi FF

50 50

Comparison of Peak Storey Displacement - 1979 Imperial Valley FF

40

40

30

30

Height (m)
Controlled Uncontrolled

Height (m)

20

20

10

10

0 0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.15

0.18

0 0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Displacement (m) Comparison of Peak Storey Displacement - 1995 Kobe FF

Displacement (m)

50

40

30

20

10

0 0.00

Peak Storey Displacement Response Under Far Fault Ground Motions

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Height (m)

Displacement (m)

74

Comparison of Peak Storey Displacement - 1999 Chi-Chi NF

50 50

Comparison of Peak Storey Displacement - 1979 Imperial Valley NF

40

40

30

30

Height (m)

20

Height (m)
Controlled Uncontrolled
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

20

10

10

0 0.00

0 0.00

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.30

0.36

0.42

Displacement (m) Comparison of Peak Storey Displacement - 1995 Kobe NF

Displacement (m)

50

40

30

20

10

0 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Peak Storey Displacement Response Under Near Fault Ground Motions

75

Height (m)

Displacement (m)

Comparison of Peak Base Shear X106 (N)

Type Far Field Motion Fault Near

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe

Earthquake

Control 7.72 6.51 5.21

Active

Control 9.32 9.22 8.29

Passive

Difference 17.17 29.39 37.15 26.08 23.38

12.30 18.32 8.19

14.93

Motion

23.91

11.08

17.62

76

1999 Chi-Chi - TCU 047

50
Controlled Uncontrolled

1979 Imperial Valley - DELTA 352

50 40 30

40 30

Height (m)

20 10 0

Height (m)
0 2 4 6
6

20 10 0

10

10

Storey Shear X10 (N) 1995 Kobe - KAKOGAWA 090

50 40 30

Storey Shear X106 (N)

20 10 0

Peak Storey Shear Response Under Far Fault Ground Motions

0 2 4 6 8 10

Height (m)

Storey Shear X106 (N)

77

1999 Chi-Chi - TCU 129

50 40 30 50 40 30

1979 Imperial Valley - El-Centro Array#8

Height (m)

20 10 0

Height (m)
0 4 8
6

20 10 0

12

16

6
6

12

Storey Shear X10 (N) 1995 Kobe - KJM 000

50 40 30

Storey Shear X10 (N)

20 10 0

Peak Storey Shear Response Under Near Fault Ground Motions

0 5 10 15 20 25

Height (m)

Storey Shear X106 (N)

78

Comparison of Peak Base Over-Turning MomentX108 (N-m)

Type Far Field Motion Fault Near

Earthquake 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe

Control 0.93 1.64

Active

Control 1.60 2.62 2.96

Passive

Differenc 41.88 e 37.40

2.46

1.34 2.71

2.64 4.69

Motion

2.01

3.53

16.89

49.24 43.06 42.22

79

1999 Chi-Chi - TCU 047

50
Controlled Uncontrolled

1979 Imperial Valley - DELTA 352

50 40 30

40 30

Height (m)

20 10 0

Height (m)
0 3 6 9 12 15 18

20 10 0

Over-Turning Moment X107 (N-m) 1995 Kobe - Kakogawa 090

14
7

21

28

Over Turning Moment X10 N-m

50 40 30

20 10 0

10

15

20

25

30

Over Turning Moment X107 N-m

Peak Over Turning Moment Response Under Far Fault Ground Motions
80

Height (m)

50 40 30

1999 Chi-Chi - TCU 129

50 40 30

1979 Imperial Valley - El-Centro Array#8

Height (m)

20 10 0

Height (m)
0 5 10 15 20
7

20 10 0

25

30

12

18

24
7

30

36

Over Turning Moment X10 N-m 1995 Kobe - KJM 000

50 40 30

Over Turning Moment X10 N-m

20 10 0

Peak Over Turning Moment Response Under Near Fault Ground Motions
0 10 20 30
7

Height (m)

40

50

Over Turning Moment X10 N-m

81

Peak Control Force

Type Far Field Motion Near Fault Motion

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1979 Imperial Valley 1995 Kobe

Earthquake

Control Force X103 (kN) 18.92 14.33 20.19 21.62 31.29

82

8.66

1999 Chi-Chi - TCU 047

1.5 1.0

1979 Imperial Valley - DELTA 352

Force (N) X 106

Force (N) X 106

0 19 38 57 76 95

0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0

-1

-2

-1.5

20

40

60

80

100

Time (s)
1.4

Time (s)

1995 Kobe - Kakogawa 090

0.7

0.0

-0.7

Control Force History Under Far Fault Ground Motions

0 11 22 33 44

Force (N) X 106

-1.4

Time (s)
83

3 2

1999 Chi-Chi - TCU 129

2

1979 Imperial Valley - El-Centro Array#8

Force (N) X 106

0 -1 -2 -3 0 19 38 57 76 95

Force (N) X 106

-1

-2

10

20

30

40

Time (s)
4

Time (s)

1995 Kobe - KJM 000

-2

Control Force History Under Near Fault Ground Motions

0 10 20 30 40 50

Force (N) X 106

-4

Time (s)

84

Displacement (m)

Comparison Of Isolator Displacement Subjected To 1999 Chi-Chi TCU 047

0.016 0.008 0.000

Isolator Displacement at 12th Storey

Uncontrolled Controlled

-0.008 -0.016 30

Time (s)

60

0.10
Displacement (m)

Isolator Displacement at 8th Storey

0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 30

Time (s)

60

0.026
Displacement (m)

Isolator Displacement at 4th Storey

0.013 0.000 -0.013 -0.026 30

0.064
Displacement (m)

Time (s) Isolator Displacement at Ground Level

60

0.032 0.000 -0.032 -0.064 30

Time (s)

60

85

0.04

Displacement (m)

0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04

Comparison Of Isolator Displacement Subjected To 1995 KOBE KJM000

Isolator Displacement at 12th Storey
Uncontrolled Controlled

10

20

0.26

Time (s) Isolator Displacement at 8th Storey

Displacement (m)

0.13 0.00 -0.13 -0.26 10 20

Displacement (m)

0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06

Time (s) Isolator Displacement at 4th Storey

10

20

0.150

Time (s) Isolator Displacement at Ground Level

Displacement (m)

0.075 0.000 -0.075 -0.150 10 20

Time (s)

86

Comparison Of Hysteresis Damping

1999 Chi-Chi TCU 047

1999 Chi-Chi TCU 129

87

5. CONCLUSION & FUTURE SCOPE

Segmental Building With Passive Control
Natural Time Period of segmental building is Higher compared to other so attracted earthquake force is lower Increase of 14 % in Peak Roof Acceleration is noticed in segmental building compared to base isolated building but it is remarkably low compared to fixed-base building.

Reduction of Average 56% in Peak Base Displacement is obtained in segmental building compared to base-isolated

Average 5 % Reduction in Storey Shear response is seen in segmental building compared to base-isolated building under set of near fault and far fault ground motions. A Large Amount of Energy is Dissipated at Different Levels in segmental building when compared to base-isolated building. Average Reduction of 21 % is Seen in Peak Base Over-Turning Moment in segmental building compared to base isolated building.

88

Segmental Building With Active-Hybrid Control

Average Reductions of 25% in Peak Base Displacement while 42 % in peak roof displacement is seen in controlled building over uncontrolled building subjected to both near fault and far fault ground motion. Reduction of Average 21 % in Peak Base Overturning Moment is seen in controlled building compared to uncontrolled building Reduction of Average 23 % in Peak Base Shear is seen on controlled building over uncontrolled building

Due to reduced displacements and introduction of control force Very Less Amount of Energy is Dissipated by Isolators in Controlled Building when compared to uncontrolled building.

Based on above observations, it is concluded that Segmental Building Appears to Hold the Promise of Extending Passive and Active-hybrid Control Technique to Mid-rise Buildings also which is still restricted to low-rise buildings.

89

Future Scope
Comparative study on response of segmental building with Variation of Number of Storeys in Each Segment. Response of segmental building with Other Friction Base and Elastomeric Isolators under different ground motion.

Response of segmental building with Semi-Active And HybridAemi-Active Control Systems under seismic and wind loads. Experimental evaluation of seismic performance of segmental building with passive and active control.

Response of segmental building with passive and active control under Action of Wind Load.

90

REFERENCES
Ariga, T., Kanno, Y., Takewaki, I.(2006) Resonant Behaviour of BaseIsolated High-Rise Buildings Under Long-Period Ground Motions Journal of the Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 15, 325-338.
Chopra, A K Dynamics of Structures Pearson Education. Inc.

Clough, R. W. & Penzien, J. Dynamics of Structures Mc Graw Hill, Inc. Deb, S. K. (2004) Seismic Base Isolation An Overview Special Section: Geotechnics and Earthquake Hazards; Current Science, 87. Craig, R. R. Jr. Structural Dynamics John Wiley & Sons

Dutta, T. K. Seismic Analysis of Structures , John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd

Hong, W. K., Kim, H. C. (2004) Performance of a multi-story structure with a resilient-friction base isolation system Computers and Structures, 82, 2271-2283
91

Jain, S. K. & Thakkar, S. K. (2004) Effect of Super Structure Stiffening On Base Isolated Tall Building I E (I) Journal, 85,142-148. Jangid, R. S. (2004) Computational Numerical Models for Seismic Response of Structure Isolated By Sliding Systems Structural Control and Health Monitoring.

Journal of soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 5, 202-216. Isolated Structures During Impact Engineering Structures, Elsevier, 25, 2003. With Adjacent

Kelly, J. M. (1986) Aseismic base isolation: review and bibliography

Matsagar, V. A. and Jangid, R. S. (2003) Seismic Response of Base-

Pranesh, M. and Sinha, R. (2000) VFPI: An Isolation Device for A Seismic Design Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 29, 603627. Pranesh, M. and Sinha, R. (2002) Earthquake Resistance Design of Structures using the Variable Frequency Pendulum Isolator ASCE, 128, 870-880.

Structures

92

Mukhopadhyay, M. Vibrations, Dynamics & Structural Systems Oxford & IHB Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Pan, T. C., Ling, S. F. and Cui, W. (1995) Seismic Response of Segmental Buildings Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 24,1039-1048. Paz, M. Structural Dynamics Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.

Pan, T. C., Cui, W. (1998) Response of Segmental Buildings To Random Seismic Motions Iset Journal of Earthquake Technology, 35, 378.

Soni, D. P., Mistry, B. B., Jangid, R. S. and Panchal, V. R. (2010) Seismic Response of The Double Variable Frequency Pendulum Isolator Structural Control and Health Monitoring. Soni, D. P., Mistry, B. B. and Panchal, V. R. (2010) Behaviour of asymmetric building with double variable frequency pendulum isolator Journal of Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 34, 61-84.

Soong, T. T., (1990) Active Structural Control: Theory and Practice Longman Scientific & Technical.

93

Soong, T. T., Costantinou, M. C., (1994) Passive And Active Structural Vibration Control in Civil Engineering Springer Verlag Wien New-York. Spencer, B. F. Jr., Nagrajaiah, S., (2003) State of the Art of Structural Control Springer Verlag Wien New-York.

94

95