Fig 1.
Rotary rubber brace damper (RRBD).
Device with (a) 4 VE layers and (b) 6 VE layers.
Fig 2.
Mechanism of action of the RRBD.
Frame movement to the (a) right and (b) left.
Fig 3.
(a) Specimen sample for uniaxial tension test (mm); (b) photograph of dumbbell specimen sample; (c) Simple Shear Specimen Dimensions; and (d) photograph of specimen sample.
Fig 4.
(a) Monotonic; (b) cyclic.
Fig 5.
Uniaxial experimental stress—strain curve results.
(a) Monotonic; (b) cyclic.
Table 1.
Reduced polynomial model (Yeoh) material constants.
Fig 6.
Relaxation shear test result.
Fig 7.
Experimental shear test results at various rates.
(a) 25% strain, (b) 50% strain, (c) 100% strain; and (d) comparison of shear test results and FEM at 0.5Hz.
Fig 8.
(a) Details of frame tested conducted by Hou and Tagawa (2008) [45], and (b) FE created by authors (all dimensions are in millimeters).
Fig 9.
Cyclic loading protocol [45].
Table 2.
Mechanical properties of components of RRBD.
Fig 10.
Comparison of experimental and numerical results.
Fig 11.
Cyclic behavior of BF and frame with damper.
(a) effects of rubber thickness (RT); (b) dissipated energy vs. rotation; (c) effects of diameter of rubber pad (D); and (d) dissipated energy vs. rotation.
Table 3.
Mechanical properties of parametric study models.
Fig 12.
(a) BF, (b) frame with damper.
Fig 13.
Comparison between the BF and frame with damper under sinusoidal excitation.
(a) Deflection, (b) acceleration.
Table 4.
Properties of RRBD and major types of passive dampers.
Fig 14.
PEEQ distribution at 85-mm column tip displacement.
(a) BF; (b) frame with damper; and (c) typical chevron bracing.
Fig 15.
(a) different rubber thickness, and (b) different rubber diameter.
Fig 16.
Frame models for cyclic analysis.
(a) BF, (b) frame with damper, and (c) typical chevron-braced frame.
Fig 17.
Cyclic loading of column compression force.