@ ŒfÚŽGŽi˜ajF “ú–{’nkHŠwƒVƒ“ƒ|ƒWƒEƒ€˜_•¶W VolF 9-2Šª ”NF 1994”N •ÅF 1903-1908•Å ’˜ŽÒi˜ajF - ƒ^ƒCƒgƒ‹i˜ajF - ´˜^i˜ajF
- ƒL[ƒ[ƒhi˜ajF - ŒfÚŽGŽi‰pjF PROCEEDINGS OF THE JAPAN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SYMPOSIUM ’˜ŽÒi‰pjF Tetsuo KUBO, Eiichi FURUTA, Hiroyasu SATO ƒ^ƒCƒgƒ‹i‰pjF COMPARISON OF SIRUCTURAL RESPONSE PERFORMANCE BETWEEN AMD AND TMD SEISMIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ´˜^i‰pjF
Seismic responses of a building equipped with a response control system are discussed. Responses equipped with either an AMD or TMD control system are evaluated, and are compared with each other. Fundamental features of the systems including control efficiency arc examined. With application of a TMD system, one can lessen structural responses indicating a significant reduction of response of the component tuned, provided that the system parameters are well regulated to the building. With application of an AMD system, a building decreases in its structural responses within a wide variety of components of oscillation regardless the system parameters prescribed. ƒL[ƒ[ƒhi‰pjF - ‹LŽ–‹æ•ªF - ‹æ•ª @@@ˆÏˆõ‰ï˜_•¶W