2021
DOI: 10.1007/s11803-021-2047-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Substructure design optimization and nonlinear responses control analysis of the mega-sub controlled structural system (MSCSS) under earthquake action

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…MSCSS showed a response control rate of over 10% and a base shear control rate of 20% during long-period ground motions [18,19]. According to the MSCSS, the controlling effectiveness of structural acceleration and displacement at the top of a mega-frame with various arrangements and numbers of substructures ranged from 42% to 70% [20], whereas the controlling effectiveness of substructural acceleration and displacement ranged from 20% to 65%. Using mid-story isolation and inverted V-bracing (chevron), the MSCSS has demonstrated remarkable stabilizing effects against earthquake-induced structural vibration and shows significant improvements, particularly under a service load, with an average structural acceleration response of 49.7% under the El Centro earthquake.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MSCSS showed a response control rate of over 10% and a base shear control rate of 20% during long-period ground motions [18,19]. According to the MSCSS, the controlling effectiveness of structural acceleration and displacement at the top of a mega-frame with various arrangements and numbers of substructures ranged from 42% to 70% [20], whereas the controlling effectiveness of substructural acceleration and displacement ranged from 20% to 65%. Using mid-story isolation and inverted V-bracing (chevron), the MSCSS has demonstrated remarkable stabilizing effects against earthquake-induced structural vibration and shows significant improvements, particularly under a service load, with an average structural acceleration response of 49.7% under the El Centro earthquake.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 11,12 ] The controlling effectiveness of the structural acceleration and displacement at the top of the mega‐frame of the MSCSS with various arrangements and numbers of substructures ranged from 42% to 70%, while the substructural acceleration and displacement ranged from 20% to 65%. [ 13 ]…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[11,12] The controlling effectiveness of the structural acceleration and displacement at the top of the mega-frame of the MSCSS with various arrangements and numbers of substructures ranged from 42% to 70%, while the substructural acceleration and displacement ranged from 20% to 65%. [13] Nevertheless, although the research on controlling the MSCSS response has achieved some remarkable results to date, within the field of structural engineering, it remains necessary to further improve the response control effect of the MSCSS, reduce the high cost of the structure and improve the ability to control the structural response; these issues also continue to be common problems in the design theory of superhighrise buildings.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additional columns on sub-structures in the MSCSS can support megabeams above, reduce bending moments in mega-beams, and allow for larger beam spans. LRBs on additional columns not only dissipate the energy but also further increase the relative motion between the mega-structure and sub-structures, thereby increasing the energy dissipated by the dampers [8][9][10]. The MSCSS with LRBs has been explored by several researchers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Later, they further investigated the effect of different relative stiffness ratios and mass ratios on the vibration control performance of the sub-structure. The accelerations and displacements of sub-structures in structural systems during earthquakes, and the optimal ranges of relative stiffness ratios and mass ratios were found [10]. Fan et al developed an optimization program based on a genetic algorithm.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%