## 3 Material Test and Results for LLFD
### LfD Material Test Results and Analysis
#### 3.3.2 Performance Compatibility Conditions of LLFD  
As previously mentioned, a cyclic loading test was conducted based on the test method for displacement-dependent vibration control devices presented in KDS 41 [23] as a test for damping systems. The performance compatibility of the vibration control system was evaluated based on the test results and the KDS 41 [23] standard shown in Table 5. Tables 6-9 show the results of evaluating the performance compatibilities of the proposed FL-LLFD-1, FL-LLFD-2, GS-LLFD-1, and GS-LLFD-2 specimens. The suitability of each specimen was evaluated based on a maximum displacement of 33 mm, with the results indicating that all the LLFD specimens exhibited suitable performances as displacement-dependent vibration control devices. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Classification**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Performance Suitability Conditions**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Condition 1} & Cycle & 1 & 2 & 3 & Average \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(V_{d,max}\) (kN) & 190.3 & 190.3 & 184.5 & 188.4 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(V_{d,min}\) (kN) & \(-\)188.7 & \(-\)189 & \(-\)190 & \(-\)189.2 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \((V_{d,max}-V_{ave})/V_{ave}\) & 1.01 & 1.01 & \(-\)2.07 & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & \((V_{d,min}-V_{ave})/V_{ave}\) & \(-\)0.26 & \(-\)0.11 & 0.42 & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & Result & Conforming & Conforming & Conforming & - \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Condition 2} & Cycle & 1 & 2 & 3 & Average \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(V_{d,max}\) (kN) & 171.3 & 170.5 & 169.4 & 170.4 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(V_{d,min}\) (kN) & \(-\)173.6 & \(-\)173.1 & \(-\)173.5 & \(-\)173.4 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \((V_{d,max}-V_{ave})/V_{ave}\) & 0.53 & 0.06 & \(-\)0.59 & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & \((V_{d,min}-V_{ave})/V_{ave}\) & 0.12 & \(-\)0.17 & 0.06 & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & Result & Conforming & Conforming & Conforming & - \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Condition 3} & Cycle & 1 & 2 & 3 & Average \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(E_{d}\) (kN\(\cdot\)mm) & 23.4 & 22.8 & 23.2 & 23.1 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \((E_{d}-E_{d,ave})/E_{d,ave}\) & 1.3 & \(-\)1.3 & 0.43 & - \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Result & Conforming & Conforming & Conforming & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Performance suitability evaluation of seismic control device of FL-LLFD-1 specimen. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criterion** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Performance Requirements**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{1} & During cyclic loading for a certain number of cycles, both the maximum load (\(V_{d,max}\)) and the minimum load (\(V_{d,min}\)) measured at the zero-displacement point are required to be within 15% of the average (\(V_{d,ave}\)) of all measured loads. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2} & During cyclic loading for a certain number of cycles, the loads measured in each direction at the maximum device displacement are required to be within 15% of the average of all measured loads. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{3} & During cyclic loading for a certain number of cycles, the area of the hysteresis loop measured by RCom the damper (\(E_{d}\)) is required to be within 15% of the average of all measured hysteresis loop areas (\(E_{d,ave}\)). \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Performance suitability conditions of displacement-dependent seismic control device [23].