## 4 Results and Discussion
### Ultimate Energy Dissipation Capacity and Prediction of Failure
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **h** & **b** & **t** & \(\sigma_{y}\) & \(\delta_{y}\) & \(\delta_{y}\) & \(\mu\) & \(\mu_{\text{cum}}\) & \(\eta\) & \(\xi\) \\ \hline
**Reference** & **(mm)** & **(mm)** & **(mm)** & **(MPa)** & **(mm)** & **(kN)** & & & & **(\%)** \\ \hline [PERSON] [6] & 77–99 & 15–17 & 8 & 316 & 1.2–1.7 & 11.5–17.5 & 8–11 & 380–490 & 370–460 & 30–50 \\ [PERSON] [7] & 240 & 70–90 * & 20 & 292 & 2.5–3.4 & 114–176 & 10–20 & 80–125 & 325–700 & 40–50 \\ [PERSON] [8] & 180 & 30–36 * & 10 & 300 & 0.8–1.2 & 73–83 & 30–38 & 380–660 & 100–2200 & 44–51 \\ [PERSON] [9] & 180 & 36 * & 10 & 308 & 1.0–1.5 & 78–89 & 20–35 & 370–480 & 1000–1400 & - \\ [PERSON] [10] & 80 & 14–28 * & 20 & 241 & 1.1–1.5 & 30–71 & 20–28 & 390–480 & 558–642 & 36–43 \\ [PERSON] [11] & 20–80 & 15–20 & 8–12 & 449 & 0.2–0.5 & 51–332 & 30–60 & 480–720 & 407–774 & - \\ This study & 80 & 5 & 4 & 250–400 & 1.1–1.7 & 15.5–24.8 & 12–17 & 1728–2707 & 3332–3766 & 30 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Nonuniform shape (dimensions at the ends of the strip).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison with other slit-type steel plate dampers. The normalized \(Q\)-\(\delta\) curves obtained in each test until failure (Figure 15) were decomposed as explained above and the values obtained for the nondimensional parameters defined in Equations (4) and (5) are summarized in Table 3. Figure 18 shows the normalized skeleton curves together with an approximated trilinear curve (bold dotted line) where \(k_{p1}=1/2.5\) and \(k_{p2}=1/14\). Figure 19a-c shows with circle, rhombus and square symbols the values of \(s\eta\), \(s\eta\) and \(\eta\) at failure obtained from the tested specimens; they are plotted against \({}_{\varphi}\eta\). The decomposition explained above was also done at each point of the normalized \(Q\)-\(\delta\) curves of Figure 15, the corresponding values of \(s\eta\), \(s\eta\), \(\eta\) and \({}_{\varphi}\eta\) are plotted with solid lines in Figure 19. These curves represent the \"energy dissipation path\" followed by each test specimen up to failure. Also plotted in Figure 19a is a line (solid bold) with slope \(a=-14.66\) passing through the point (0, 3900), which is found to fit the experimental results well. This value \(a=-14.66\) is the one obtained in previous studies [12] for slit-type plates made of mild and high-strength steel; thus the results of this study indicate it is likewise valid for the slit-type plates made of stainless steel. As for parameter \(b^{\prime}\), from the experimental results of this study it is proposed to adopt \(b^{\prime}=3900\) for slit-type plates made of stainless steel. The value of parameter \(b^{\prime}\) is a good indicator of the ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the damper. Comparing the \(b^{\prime}\) obtained for the new SS-TTD damper--\(b^{\prime}=3900\)--with that reported in previous studies on slit-plates made of mild steel [12] and high-strength steel [12]--\(b^{\prime}=1325\) and \(b^{\prime}=250\), respectively--it is concluded that  
Figure 17: Decomposition of \(Q\)-\(\delta\) curve: (**a**) overall curve; (**b**) skeleton part; (**c**) Bauschinger part. the ultimate energy dissipation capacity of the stainless-steel slit-type plates that form the new SS-TTD is about three times larger than that of the mild steel slit-type plates, and 16 times larger than that of the high-strength steel slit-type plates. The solid bold line in Figure 19b represents the normalized energy dissipated on the skeleton part against \({}_{cp}\eta\). It was calculated using the approximated trilinear skeleton curve shown in Figure 18 with dotted bold lines. It is found to fit the experimental results very well (i.e., circle, rhombus and square symbols).