Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental study of steel slit damper for passive energy dissipation

Ricky W.K. Chan a,b , Faris Albermani a,∗
a Department of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia
b Department of Building and Construction, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Received 13 April 2007; received in revised form 12 July 2007; accepted 12 July 2007
Available online 15 August 2007

Abstract

This paper summarizes the development of a new steel energy dissipative device designed for earthquake protection of structures. The Steel
Slit Damper (SSD) is fabricated from a standard structural wide-flange section with a number of slits cut from the web, in a vierendeel truss
arrangement. The device is a weld-free design, thereby eliminating the uncertainties and difficulties encountered in in situ welding. Energy is
dissipated through flexural yielding of the vierendeel’s web members when the device is subjected to inelastic cyclic deformation. The performance
of the device was verified by nine tests and the effects of geometrical parameters were investigated. Experiments showed that the device exhibited
stable hysteresis with excellent energy dissipation and ductility. The device yielded at small angular distortion and is thus expected to dissipate
energy early in an earthquake. The structural characteristics of the device are readily determined from fundamental engineering principles, thus
the design can be easily modified or extended to suit particular structural requirements.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Energy dissipation; Metallic damper; Cyclic tests; Earthquake resistant structure

1. Introduction minimized. Passive devices do not require an external source

The research and development of structural control against
wind and earthquake excitation have achieved significant
progress over the last three decades [1,2]. Structural control
can broadly be classified into three categories: (1) Passive
control systems are those structures equipped with designated
devices or dampers which do not require an external source of
power, (2) Active control systems are those structures equipped
with real-time processing sensors and force delivery devices
which require an external source of power to generate structural
control forces, and (3) Semi-active control systems which use
little power to change certain structural parameters. Passive
control systems, also known as passive energy dissipation
systems, have been considered an effective and inexpensive
way to mitigate earthquake risks to structures. With designated
energy dissipative devices installed in a structure, a large
portion of the input energy supplied by wind and/or earthquake
can be dissipated; hence the damage to the parent structure is
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: f.albermani@uq.edu.au (F. Albermani).
of power, hence the reliability associated with power supply
and computer control during an earthquake event is eliminated.
By arranging the devices in a way that facilitates replacement,
damaged devices can be replaced with minimum time and
cost, hence interruption to human occupancy is minimized—a
crucial benefit to the building owners and occupants.
Energy dissipation can be achieved by a number of
mechanisms: friction sliding, yielding of metals, phase
transformation of metals, fluid orificing and deformation of
viscoelastic solid or fluid. In particular, one of the most popular
mechanisms for dissipation of energy input to a structure is
through the yielding of metallic materials. The research in
metallic passive energy dissipative devices has been conducted
over the last three decades. Numerous metallic dampers have
been proposed and installed [3–5]. Popular devices include the
hourglass shape ADAS device [6], its variant the triangular
shape TADAS [7], Honeycomb damper [8] and Buckling
Restrained Brace [9]. These devices are mainly designed to
be incorporated into the bracing system of structural frames.
Other devices were developed for installation between beams
and columns in a frame structure [10]. On the other hand, some
researchers have made use of alternative materials in device

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.005
 R.W.K. Chan, F. Albermani / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066
Fig. 1. Geometric design of steel slit damper (a) and (b) SL-1 to SL-7, (c) SL-8 and (d) SL-9.
fabrication, such as lead, low-yield steel, copper and shape
memory alloys to improve the performance [11–15].
de la Llera et al. [14] described that a good metallic damper
must possess two important characteristics in order for these
devices to be used in engineering applications: (1) to have
stable and large energy dissipative capability; (2) to have a
representative model of its cyclic behaviour. In line with the
second aspect, numerous experiment-based and mechanics-
based models have been developed [16–19]. While some
researchers used the simpler bilinear model for hysteretic
response [19], others adopted models such as the Bouc–Wen
model [14] and Ramberg–Osgood model [18]. These models
are capable of capturing the smooth transition from elastic to
inelastic regime observed in experiments.
The design aspect of structures equipped with passive
devices has been considered by many researchers [19–21].
Nakashima et al. [21] described that the first yielding,
i.e. yielding of the damping mechanism has to be set low, for the
purpose of triggering the energy dissipation as early as possible,
and to set the yielding level of the parent structure high for the
purpose of retarding serious structural damage.
This paper summarizes a development of a new metallic
passive device; the steel slit damper SSD. The proposed
device provides stable and reasonably large energy dissipative
capability, and provides a low-cost alternative to structural
designers. The structural behaviour of the proposed SSD is
evaluated theoretically, followed by experimental verifications.
Eight cyclic tests and one monotonic test were conducted.
Results and discussions are presented with emphasis on key
1059
features which affect energy dissipation capability. The concept
of SSD, though of a different configuration, was implemented
in a 26-storey building in Japan in 1996 [22].
2. Device design
The basic design of the proposed device is shown in Fig. 1.
It is fabricated from a short length of a standard structural wide-
flange section with a number of slits cut from the web, leaving
a number of strips between the two flanges in a vierendeel
truss arrangement. The slits are rounded at their ends, thereby
reducing stress concentration in reentrant-corners. Four bolt
holes are drilled on each flange for the connection to the parent
structure. The device is a weld-free design, thus eliminating the
uncertainties and imperfections associated with welding. The
device can be installed on top of an inverted-V brace of a framed
structure as shown in Fig. 2. Under small relative displacement
between the two supported flanges, the strips behave as a series
of partially fixed-ended beams and deform in double curvature.
The elastic bending moment in the strips is shown in Fig. 3(a).
Under sufficient displacement, plastic hinges form at both ends
of each strip. Consequently, the mechanical characteristics of
the slit damper can be described in terms of the strip length
l0 , strip depth b and web thickness t (Fig. 1). Assuming
elastic–perfectly-plastic behaviour, the device yield load Py
can be determined based on a plastic mechanism analysis (see
Appendix).
nσ y tb2
Py = (1)
2l0
1060 R.W.K. Chan, F. Albermani / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066

Table 1
Test specimens (units: mm)
Specimen ID Measured dimensions b/l0 Test regime
t b l0
SL-1 8.0 14.9 97.0 0.155 Cyclic
SL-2 15.0 87.1 0.172
SL-3 15.1 77.0 0.195
SL-4 16.9 99.2 0.172
SL-5 16.8 88.3 0.191
SL-6 16.5 79.0 0.215
Fig. 2. A single-storey structure with a damper. SL-7 16.6 99.1 0.172 Monotonic
SL-8 16.6 Varies Varies Cyclic
SL-9 16.5

drilled on each flange. Two standard test coupons were taken

Fig. 3. (a) Bending moment in SSD and (b) Deformed shape of SSD.
where n is the number of strips in the device, l0 is as shown in
Fig. 1(a) and σ y is the material yield stress. The elastic stiffness
of the device kd can be determined by assuming that the strips
are partially fixed at their ends. It is given by,
from the web of the section. Coupon tests gave an average
tensile yield stress of 316.5 N/mm2 and an average Modulus
of Elasticity of 206.1 kN/mm2 . Among the nine specimens,
SL-1 to SL-6 aimed at investigating the best geometry of the
slit arrangement (i.e. b/l0 ratio). SL-7 was fabricated with
the identical dimensions of SL-4 and was instrumented to
determine the strain behaviour of the device under monotonic
loading. SL-8 and -9 were fabricated with varied slit lengths,
as shown in Figs. 1(c) and (d). Each specimen weighed
approximately 2.2 kg. A summary of the specimens are given
in Table 1.
3.2. Test setup, loading history and instrumentation

Etb3 Based on the existing laboratory conditions, the test setup

kd = cn
l03
where E is Young’s modulus and c is a stiffness coefficient to
be calibrated from experiments.
3. Experimental verification
The objective of the experiments is to verify the structural
characteristics as well as the cyclic performance of the proposed
device. Attempts were made to identify the key geometric
parameters for largest energy dissipation. Particular attention
was paid to the change in stiffness and equivalent damping
ratio. It was assumed that the device is used as a retrofit option
where axial force in the device is less significant; hence no axial
force was applied to the specimens in the experiment.
3.1. Specimens
A total of nine specimens similar to Fig. 1(a) were fabricated
at the City University of Hong Kong. To simplify the fabrication
process, all specimens (each 100 mm long) in this study were
cut from a single segment of a structural wide-flange section
152 × 152 × 37 Universal Column to BS4449 (depth ×
flange width × web thickness × flange thickness is 161.8 ×
152.2 × 8 × 11.5 mm respectively). Consequently, the web
thickness t is identical and material strengths of all specimens
may be assumed equal. Four 16 mm diameter holes were
(2)
shown in Fig. 4 was developed. The test specimens were
installed between a ground beam and an L-beam, securely
fastened by four M16 bolts (snug tight) on each side. Forced
displacement was applied by an MTS 100 kN capacity
computer-controlled actuator quasi-statically to the specimen
via the L-beam. To ensure the verticality of the applied load,
a pantograph system was welded to the right hand side of
the L-beam. To prevent the L-beam from deflecting out-of-
plane, lateral supports (with rollers) were provided (not shown
for clarity). However, these supports were later removed as
it was noticed that the pantograph system already prevented
the L-beam from deflecting out-of-plane. The complete test
setup rested on a reaction frame which was significantly stiffer.
The centreline of the actuator implied an eccentricity to the
specimen, measured 162 mm to the centreline of the specimen.
A free-run of the setup (i.e. without the specimen installed) was
performed, and the result showed that friction and the effect of
gravity were considerably negligible. The test setup was robust
and repeatable, and no visible damage occurred after all tests
were carried out.
Displacement history for the cyclic tests is shown in Fig. 5.
Three cycles were performed at each amplitude: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5,
2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0 and 20.0 mm. The tests were
carried out until the complete failure of specimens.
Displacements of the specimens were measured indepen-
dently by a set of LVDTs, marked as 1 through 3 in Fig. 4.
 R.W.K. Chan, F. Albermani / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066
Fig. 4. Test setup.
Fig. 5. Displacement history for cyclic tests.
While LVDT 1 measures the elastic deformation of the support,
the difference across LVDT 1 and 2 measured the absolute dis-
tortion of the test specimen. With LVDT 3 and the distance be-
tween LVDT 2 and 3 measured, in-plane rotation of the L-beam
could be monitored and was found to be negligible.
3.3. Test results and discussion
All eight specimens deformed in a stable manner under
the cyclic tests. The strips deformed in double curvature
as expected. Figs. 6(a)–(h) present the force–displacement
hysteresis obtained in the cyclic tests. A positive sign
refers to downward force and displacement. Shear strain γ
(i.e. distortion divided by total width of the device) of the
specimens are also shown. It is clear that all specimens
have yielded at small displacement and exhibited very stable
hysteretic behaviour with a gradual transition between the
elastic and inelastic regime. As seen from Fig. 6, the device
response is usually less than the input displacement (Fig. 5)
due to small elastic support displacement. The structural
characteristics of the device were determined based on the
absolute deformation of the device as calculated from the
difference between LVDT 1 and 2 (Fig. 4). Specimen SL-1
(specimen with the smallest b/l0 ratio), sustained the lowest
force while specimen SL-6 (specimen with highest b/l0 ratio)
sustained the largest.
1061
Strength degradation started to appear when cracks slowly
formed at the ends of the strips due to stress concentration.
On an average this took place after 27 cycles of loading. The
exact location at which these cracks originated differed among
the specimens. The tests were stopped after one or more strips
completely fractured and the load sustained was significantly
reduced. The number of cycles Nc sustained by the specimens
is tabulated in Table 2. On the other hand, the connection of
the specimens by four structural bolts on each flange performed
satisfactorily; no significant distortion was observed after the
tests.
For specimens SL-8 and -9 with variable slit lengths, cracks
first appeared in strips on the side adjacent to the shorter slit.
As will be discussed in later sections, in terms of strength
and energy dissipation capabilities, these two specimens did
not demonstrate any superior performance. Fig. 7 shows the
damaged device after testing.
3.3.1. Yield and initial stiffness
Key experimental results are tabulated in Table 2.
Experimental yield strength Py,ex is defined as the point
at which there is visible deviation from the initial linear
relationship. The predicted yield load of the device, Py , using
Eq. (1) and the measured and calculated properties of each
device are also tabulated for comparison. The predicted yield
strengths using plastic mechanism analysis are generally in
good agreement with the test results.
The average stiffness coefficient c determined from the tests
was 0.30, suggesting that the actual stiffness of the strips is 30%
of that of a fixed-ended beam. The c values for specimens with
smaller slenderness (SL-3 and -6) were relatively lower than
0.3.
A nonlinear finite element (FE) analysis, in which the device
was represented by solid elements, was carried out and result
was compared with the monotonic test of specimen SL-7 in
Fig. 8. The elastic and plastic properties of the material were
directly obtained from the standard coupon test. As can be seen
from Fig. 8, the FE model gave very accurate prediction of
the elastic stiffness but slightly over estimated the elastoplastic
response. The same FE model gave an out-of-plane stiffness
of 1.27 kN/mm based on the geometry of SL-7, a value
comparable to a typical cleat-plate type of brace connection
used in practice.
3.3.2. Peak strengths and ductility ratios
Both the positive (Pmax downward) and negative (Pmin
upward) peak strengths are tabulated in Table 2. Negative peaks
were, on an average 13% lower than the positive peak values
due to the Bauschinger effect. Due to strain-hardening, the
maximum positive peak strengths Pmax obtained are on an
average 2.0 times higher than the experimental yield Py,ex .
Cumulatively, SL-1 (the specimen with the lowest b/l0 ratio)
travelled the longest displacement prior to failure. Ductility
ratio is defined by µ = δmax /δ y , where δmax is the maximum
displacement during a stable cycle and δ y is the nominal
yield displacement (see Appendix). The curves for normalized
strength Pmax /Py versus ductility are shown in Fig. 9. It is
1062 R.W.K. Chan, F. Albermani / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066

Fig. 6. Force–displacement hysteresis for cyclic test specimens.

interesting to note that all specimens behaved in a similar
fashion. All specimens sustained ductility ratios in the range
of 29–40. It should be noted that ductility is dependent on the
displacement history applied, and it will vary if the history is
changed. For the monotonic test SL-7, a ductility ratio over 55
was achieved when the test was terminated. It is expected that
a higher ductility than this is possible to achieve.
3.3.3. Energy dissipation
The curves for cumulative energy dissipation versus
cumulative displacement are shown in Fig. 10. Specimens
dissipated negligible energy at the start while the specimens
were loaded in their elastic range. The curves take off as
the specimens were displaced beyond their yield limit. The
small wobbles in these curves were caused by the elastic
 R.W.K. Chan, F. Albermani / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066 1063

Fig. 6. (continued)

(a) SL-4. (b) SL-8.

Fig. 7. Specimens at failure.

Table 2
Summary of test results (units: kN, mm)

Specimen kd c Py Py,ex Py /Py,ex Pmax Pmin δy δmax µ Nc

SL-1 6.67 0.29 11.83 11.51 1.03 22.61 −19.37 0.49 17.32 35.42 29
SL-2 9.31 0.29 13.78 13.09 1.05 25.54 −20.59 0.39 12.05 30.86 27
SL-3 12.36 0.26 11.56 15.02 0.77 25.81 −25.98 0.30 11.66 38.49 26
SL-4 9.30 0.29 14.34 14.62 0.98 29.61 −23.28 0.45 16.47 36.69 29
SL-5 12.54 0.29 16.75 16.11 1.04 31.26 −26.40 0.36 11.92 32.83 26
SL-6 13.52 0.23 17.45 17.47 1.00 35.68 −29.79 0.29 11.44 39.19 26
SL-7 14.56 0.48 12.94 14.08 0.92 25.71 – 0.46 25.71 55.89 –
SL-8 11.02 0.31 14.15 14.80 0.96 29.56 −25.41 0.41 11.88 28.86 27
SL-9 10.21 0.25 15.19 15.49 0.98 31.68 −29.41 0.37 11.42 30.81 26

energy released at each cycle. These light-weight specimens
(around 2.2 kg each) are capable of dissipating significant
amounts of energy (8–10 kJ). Among the specimens, SL-4
dissipated the highest energy (10.3 kJ) while SL-3 dissipated
the least (6.92 kJ). SL-6, which possesses strips with the least
slenderness, dissipated energy with the highest rate but failed at
a relatively low cumulated displacement. It is possible to design
the proposed device according to the desired level of energy
dissipation that can be quantified through numerical analysis of
the entire structure.
3.3.4. Strain distributions
In order to monitor the strain behaviour of the device, a
monotonic test was carried out. The force–displacement curve
for specimen SL-7 is shown in Fig. 8. The geometry of SL-7
is identical to the previously tested SL-4 which dissipated the
1064 R.W.K. Chan, F. Albermani / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066
Fig. 8. Force–displacement curve of SL-7.
Fig. 9. Envelope curves for test specimens in cyclic tests.
Fig. 10. Cumulative dissipated energy of specimens.
largest amount of energy. A total of 24 high-yield strain-gauges
(SG) were attached to the strips (i.e. 6 gauges on each strip).
Under monotonic loading, the strain measured at the top and
bottom fibres of each strip are shown in Figs. 13(a) and 13(b)
respectively. These figures confirm the validity of the plastic
Fig. 11. Effective stiffness and energy dissipated in a cycle.
mechanism analysis and also show that loading is uniformly
distributed between the four strips in the device.
3.3.5. Equivalent stiffness and damping ratios
It is generally accepted that energy dissipated in cyclic
straining of metals is rate-independent. For practical use it is
sometimes more preferable to express the device properties in
an equivalent viscous system. This is basically a single degree
of freedom oscillator with an equivalent stiffness keff defined as
(see Fig. 11),
|Pmax | − |Pmin |
keff = . (3)
|δmax | − |δmin |
The damping ratio for the equivalent system, ζeq can be
obtained by equating the measured energy dissipated per
cycle (E D ) in the experiment to that of a viscously damped
oscillator [23]. It can be expressed by,
1 ED
ζeq = (4)
4π E S0
where E S0 is the energy stored in an elastic spring with a
stiffness keff and displacement δmax .
The plots of equivalent damping ratio versus normalized
effective stiffness keff /kd are shown in Fig. 12 (for different
loading cycles). Each point represents a feasible stiffness and
equivalent damping ratio of the proposed device. Effective
stiffness decreases as the device undergoes larger displacement.
It can be observed that equivalent damping ratios vary
approximately inversely with effective stiffness. In large
displacement ranges, the specimens provide a damping ratio in
excess of 50% and in general the device can furnish a damping
ratio range between 30% to 50%.
4. Conclusions
This paper describes the development of a new low-cost
steel energy dissipative device. The steel slit damper SSD
is fabricated from commonly available wide-flange structural
section. No special fabrication technique is involved; hence the
device can be easily implemented in practice.
 R.W.K. Chan, F. Albermani / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066
Fig. 12. Equivalent damping ratios of specimens.
Fig. 13(a). Axial strain measured on top of strips of SL-7.
Fig. 13(b). Axial strain measured on bottom of strips of SL-7.
The proposed device dissipates input energy by flexural
yielding of a series of strips, which are created by cutting
a series of slits through the web of a short length wide-
flange section. Eight cyclic tests and one monotonic test were
conducted and the main findings are summarized below:
1. Cyclic tests demonstrated stable hysteretic behaviour and
dissipated significant amounts of energy (6.9–10.3 kJ) under
quasi-static conditions.
1065
2. The yield strength of the device can be easily predicted
by plastic mechanism analysis. The elastic stiffness of the
device can be calibrated empirically. A nonlinear finite
element analysis gave accurate predictions of the elastic and
post-yield behaviour of the device. Therefore, the design of
the device can be easily extended to suit particular needs.
3. Due to strain-hardening, the ultimate strength of the
specimens was larger than their respective yield strength by
a factor of 2.0. Such strain-hardening effect is beneficial in
terms of increased energy dissipation.
4. Devices with longer and/or wider slits behave more flexibly.
Devices with shorter and/or narrower slits possess higher
stiffness, dissipate energy at a higher rate but suffer from
earlier failure.
5. Large plastic strains concentrations at strip ends cause
the specimens to fail by fracture. On an average this
happens after more than 27 loading cycles with cumulative
displacement of over 500 mm.
Acknowledgement
This research is partially funded by the City University of
Hong Kong (Project No. 9040797-560).
Appendix. Mechanism analysis of slit damper
The second moment of area I can be calculated by the
geometry of the prismatic strips.
I = tb3 /12. (5)
For a unit displacement between the two sides of the device,
elastic stiffness against displacement is given by,
12E I Etb3
kd = cn = cn (6)
l03 l03
where n = number of prismatic strips in the SSD
c = stiffness coefficient of device, expressed as a fraction of
fixed-ended stiffness
t = width of strips
b = depth of strips.
When movement is sufficiently large, bending moment at the
ends of strips causes the extreme fibres to reach yield stress.
Subsequently, plastic hinges form at both ends with a rotation
θ p . For prismatic beams the full plastic moment M p is given by,
tb2
M p = σy . (7)
4
The ultimate force of the device can be determined based on the
collapse mechanism when all beam end moment become plastic
hinges. According to the conservation of energy, and assuming
an elastic–perfectly-plastic material behaviour;
Py δ p = 2n M p θ p . (8)
By using the geometric relationship as shown in Fig. 3,
the plastic displacement δ p sustained by the damper can be
expressed in terms of plastic rotation θ p by
δ p = l tan θ p . (9)
1066 R.W.K. Chan, F. Albermani / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1058–1066
For small rotation, tan θ p ≈ θ p , Eq. (9) is reduced to
δ p = lθ p . (10)
Substituting Eqs. (7) and (10) into (8) gives
2n M p nσ y tb2
Py = = (11)
l0 2l0
and nominal yield displacement can be obtained from
δ y = 0.5ε y l02 /b. (12)
References
[1] Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive energy dissipation systems in structural
engineering. John Wiley & Sons; 1997.
[2] Soong TT, Spencer Jr BF. Supplemental energy dissipation: State-of-the-
art and state-of-the-practice. Engineering Structures 2002;24:243–59.
[3] Boardman PR, Wood BJ, Carr AJ. Union House – A cross braced structure
with energy dissipaters. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering 1983;16(2).
[4] Martines-Romero E. Experiences on the use of supplemental energy
dissipaters on building structures. Earthquake Spectra 1993;9(3):581–625.
[5] Perry CL, Fierro EA, Sedarat H, Scholl RE. Seismic upgrade in San
Francisco using energy dissipation devices. Earthquake Spectra 1993;
9(3):559–79.
[6] Bergman DM, Goel SC. Evaluation of cyclic testing of steel plate devices
for added damping and stiffness. Report no. UMCE87-10. Ann Arbor (MI,
USA): The University of Michigan; 1987.
[7] Tsai K, Chen H, Hong C, Su Y. Design of steel triangular plate energy
absorbers for seismic-resistant construction. Earthquake Spectra 1993;
9(3):505–28.
[8] Kobori T, Miura Y, Fukusawa E, Yamada T, Arita T, Takenake Y, et al.
Development and application of hysteresis steel dampers. In: Proceedings
of 11th world conference on earthquake engineering. 1992. p. 2341–6.
[9] Clark PW, Aiken ID, Tajirian F, Kasai K, Ko E, Kimura I. Design
procedures for buildings incorporating hysteretic damping devices.
In: Proc. int. post-SmiRT conf. seminar on seismic isolation. Passive
energy dissipation and active control of vibrations of structures. 1999.
[10] Koetaka Y, Chusilp P, Zhang Z, Ando M, Suita K, Inoue K, et al.
Mechanical property of beam-to-column moment connection with
hysteretic dampers for column weak axis. Engineering Structures 2005;
27:109–17.
[11] Rodgers GW, Chase JG, Mander JB, Leach NC, Denmead CS. High force-
to-volume extrusion dampers and shock absorbers for civil infrastructure.
In: Proceedings of 19th Australasian conference on the mechanics of
structures and materials. 2006.
[12] Nakashima M, Iwai S, Iwata M, Takeuchi T, Konomi S, Akazawa T, et al.
Energy dissipation behaviours of shear panels made of low yield steel.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994;23:1299–313.
[13] Nakashima M. Strain-hardening behaviour of shear panels made of low-
yield steel, I: Test. Journal of Structural Engineering 1995;121(12):
1742–9.
[14] de la Llera J, Esguerra C, Almazan JL. Earthquake behavior of structures
with copper energy dissipaters. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2004;33:329–58.
[15] Dolce M, Cardone D, Marnetto R. Implementation and testing of passive
control devices based on shape memory alloys. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 2000;29:945–68.
[16] Williams MS, Albermani F. Monotonic and cyclic tests on shear
diaphragm dissipaters for steel frames. Advanced Steel Construction
2006;2(1):1–21.
[17] Tena-Colunga A. Mathematical modeling of the ADAS energy dissipation
device. Engineering Structures 1997;19(10):811–21.
[18] Nakashima M, Akazawa T, Tsuji B. Strain-hardening behavior of
shear panels made of low-yield steel, II: Model. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1995;121(12):1750–7.
[19] Xia C, Hanson RD. Influence of ADAS element parameters on building
seismic response. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1992;118(7):
1903–18.
[20] Wu B, Ou JP, Soong TT. Optimal placement of energy dissipation
devices for three-dimensional structures. Engineering Structures 1997;
19(2):113–25.
[21] Nakashima M, Saburi K, Tsuji B. Energy input and dissipation behavior
of structures with hysteretic dampers. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1996;25:483–96.
[22] Wada A, Huang YH, Iwata M. Passive damping technology for buildings
in Japan. Proceeding of progress in structural engineering materials, vol.
2. 2000. p. 335–50.
[23] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1995.