STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/stc.499

Experimental studies on use of toggle brace mechanism tted with

magnetorheological dampers for seismic performance enhancement
of three-storey steel moment-resisting frame model
K. Rama Raju1,*,, A. Meher Prasad2, K. Muthumani1, N. Gopalakrishnan1,
Nagesh R. Iyer1 and N. Lakshmanan1
2

1
CSIR- Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai 600113, India
Structures Division, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras 600036, India

SUMMARY
The supplemental passive and semi-active dampers such as viscous uid dampers and magnetorheological (MR)
dampers normally placed in either Chevron or Toggle brace are increasingly used to provide enhanced seismic protection for new/retrot existing buildings and bridges. The experimental nonlinear forcevelocity relationships of
MR dampers at different current inputs are tted to fractional velocity power law. A three-storey quarter length
scale steel moment-resisting frame model with two MR dampers xed in upper toggle brace mechanism placed
at ground oor level is designed and fabricated to study its seismic response characteristics. The natural frequencies and corresponding damping ratios of the model with MR damper at different current inputs are found. A procedure for modeling of MR dampers as nonlinear viscous uid dampers is described. A methodology to nd
effective damping of the structural model is developed, using the formulations for nonlinear viscous uid dampers
given in literature. The methodology developed is used for nding the effective damping of structural model tted
with MR dampers in upper toggle bracing mechanism in different storeys of frame model. The model is subjected
to two types of seismic excitations, and from studies of responses, it is found that the reduction in responses because of provision of MR dampers are to be quite signicant. Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 1 October 2010; Revised 14 June 2011; Accepted 26 August 2011
KEY WORDS: seismic performance; magnetorheological dampers; toggle braces mechanism; dynamic characteristics; steel moment-resistant frame

1. INTRODUCTION
Conventional seismic design of a frame structure relies on the inherent ductility of the structure to
dissipate seismic-generated vibration energy while accepting a certain level of structural damage. An
alternative approach to dissipate seismic energy and to prevent catastrophic failure of a frame structure
is to install passive or active/semi-active devices within the structure. Passive devices, such as viscoelastic
damper, viscous uid damper, friction damper, metallic damper, tuned mass damper, and tuned liquid
damper can partially absorb structural vibration energy and reduce seismic response of the structure [1].
These passive devices are relatively simple and easy to be used as complementary structural appendages.
However, the effectiveness of passive devices is always limited to combat the random nature of earthquake
events. Different types of semi-active devices have been recently developed to equip passive control
devices with actively controlled parameters forming a semi-active yet stable and low-power required
damping system [2]. Among them, magnetorheological (MR) dampers and Electrorheological (ER) dampers are two typical types of smart (semi-active) dampers under active research. Addition of supplemental
passive and semi-active energy dissipation devices such as viscous uid dampers and MR dampers are
considered to be viable strategies for enhancing the seismic performance of building structures.
*Correspondence to: K. Rama Raju, Scientist, Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR Complex, Taramani, Chennai600113, India.

E-mail: krraju@sercm.org

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

Viscous uid dampers are increasingly used in new buildings or retrotting the existing buildings in
order to dissipate much of the earthquake-induced energy in elements not forming part of the gravity
framing systems [3,4]. The philosophy behind the use of these elements is to limit or eliminate damage
to the structural frame. The novelty and most interesting implementation of these energy dissipation
devices is its conguration in the structural system. The congurations with a magnication factor
larger than unity are very effective in enhancing the damping ratio with a reduced requirement for
damper force. An iterative procedure using time history analysis is developed for nding the optimum
number, capacity, and distribution of dampers tted in different conguration in multistorey benchmark buildings and is described in references [3,5,6].
A review of several idealized mechanical models for controllable uid dampers was carried out by
Spencer et al. in 1997 [7], and they have developed a new model called phenomenological model for
effectively modeling the behavior of a typical MR damper. Here, the behavior of MR damper is modeled as nonlinear viscous uid damper at various current inputs.
A new two-stage state feedback control design approach has been developed by Ali and Ramaswamy
[8] to monitor the voltage supplied to MR dampers for semi-active vibration control of the benchmark
highway bridge. Choi et al. [9] numerically investigated the applicability of the MR damper-based smart
passive control system with the electromagnetic induction part to the base-isolated building structures
with nonlinear isolation systems such as friction pendulum bearings and leadrubber bearings. Chang
et al. [10] presented a semi-active control strategy for the seismic protection of the phase II smart
base-isolated benchmark building subjected to near-fault earthquakes.
In this paper, the effective damping of a frame model tted with MR dampers in upper toggle bracing mechanism in the ground oor is experimentally evaluated. A procedure for modeling of MR
dampers at different current inputs as nonlinear viscous uid dampers is described. A methodology
to nd effective damping of the structural model is developed, using the formulations for nonlinear viscous uid dampers given in literature. This methodology is used for nding the effective damping of
structural model tted with MR dampers in upper toggle bracing mechanism in different storeys of
frame model. Experimentally, the sensitivity of the frame with MR damper in upper toggle bracing
conguration to different current inputs is investigated.
2. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL MODEL
A one-quarter scaled model of single bay three-storey steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF) is
designed and fabricated as shown in Figures 13 [3,11]. The structure alignment and loading are

Figure 1. Frame model with upper toggle brace mechanism with magnetorheological dampers [3].
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON USE OF TOGGLE BRACE MECHANISM

1120

960
Steel Plate

Steel plate
Concrete Slab

Concrete Slab
ISLB100

ISLB100

ISLB100

ISLB100

ISLB100

700

700

ISLB 100

Steel Plate
Concrete Slab

Steel Plate
Concrete Slab

ISLB100

ISLB 100

2-- 1--

700

700

--1 --2

Steel Plate
Concrete Slab

Steel Plate
Concrete Slab

ISLB100

ISLB 100
50

200
422

--1 --2

1-2--

Pipe
OD21/ID17

43

4
47

Pipe
OD21/ID17

Pipe
OD21/ID17

TS100x50x6

406

638
69

850

850

7
40

Damper

38

32

Base plate(300x300x10)

Base plate(300x300x10)

1.ISA 100x100x5
2.6 mm plate

All dimension are in mm

FRONT VIEW

SIDE VIEW

Figure 2. Plan and elevation of frame model with upper toggle brace mechanism and dampers [3].

1075

422

50

Steel Plate
Concrete Slab

540

158

DAMPER

9 0

43

482

800

47
4

0
16

38

32

3
69

7
40

638

50

1116

Figure 3. Connection details of upper toggle brace mechanism and damper to the frame model.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

chosen such a way that it gives response only in longer direction of structure. The weight at each oor
including steel plate is 4.0 kN (excluding the tributary weight from beam and column).
The three-storey SMRF model has a length of 1120 mm, width of 960 mm, and an overall height of
2250 mm as shown in Figures 13. The beams and columns are made of same type of sections
(ISLB100@80 N/m). Six-millimeter thick gusset plates are used for connecting beams and columns.
The members are connected with bolts (eight, 10-mm high strength bolts with spring washer).
The dimensions of base plates used near support are 300
300
10 mm. The RC concrete slabs
used in the model has dimension, 1120
960
100 mm. The inherent damping ratio of the structure
is assumed to be 2%. The geometry, modal properties, and modal drifts of the structure are given in
Table I.
The model frame with masses are chosen in such a way that the fundamental period of the frame is
in the at region (0.10.4 s) of acceleration spectrum given in IS 18932002 corresponding to Type I
soil stratum as shown in Figure 4. The experimental fundamental period of the model is found to be
0.25 s from sweep sine testing. Two MR dampers were placed at ground oor level by upper toggle
brace conguration to the frame model. The toggle braces are tubular members with 21 mm diameter
and 4 mm thickness, and they are connected to each other with a pin connection. The toggle brace
mechanisms and damper are connected to frame with a pin connection as shown in Figures 13.
The values of 1 = 32 and 2 = 43 for toggle braces (Figure 3) and the orientation of the dampers in
the upper toggle brace conguration were evolved iteratively by using the formula [12] for magnication factor given by Equation (1), such that it gives maximum magnication factor (varies from 2 to 5)
and at the same time keeps the stroke length of the damper to its limiting value 53 mm.
f

sin2
sin1
cos1 2

(1)

Here, 1 and 2 are 32 and 43 , respectively are the angles of inclinations of the bracings as shown
in Figure 3. For the damper used, the limiting stroke length is 53 mm. In the nal conguration, the
values of 1 and 2 for toggle braces and the orientation of the dampers in the upper toggle brace conguration are 32 and 43 , respectively, as shown in Figure 3 and corresponding magnication factor is
Table I. Geometric and modal properties of the structure (Figure 1).
Floor no.

Mass (kg)

T (s)

400
400
400

0.25

1
0.85
0.59

0.15
0.26
0.59

3
2
1

Spectral Acceration Coefficient (sa/g)

Note: T is the rst mode period in s, is the rst mode shape, and r is the modal drift between oors.

3
2.5
Type I (Rock, or Hard Soil)

Type II (medium Soil)

Type III (Soft Soil)

1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Periods (s)

Figure 4. Response spectrum for rock and soil sites for 5% damping.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON USE OF TOGGLE BRACE MECHANISM

3.16 and it is found from Equation (1). Here, the angles 1 and 2 vary under vibration and the magnication factor, f, also vary, but in practical design of toggle brace systems results in smaller rotations
and the nonlinear terms are neglected [12].
2.1. Details of test setup
The three-storey steel frame was fabricated according to the details given in Figure 2 with suitable provision in base plate to connect the model with shake table. Concrete slab was cast separately and
connected to beams through the bolts with washer. Circular opening of 20 mm diameter at center of
slab are made by inserting polyvinyl chloride sleeves in the slab while casting. Additional mass of
200 kg is added to the model using 18-mm bolt with spring washer. The structure is xed rmly with
the shake table using bolts of 18 mm diameter inserted in each of the base plate sleeves. The accelerometers and the linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) are xed at each oor level with the
LVDTs placed in an external steel frame kept outside the shake table.
2.2. Measurement of displacement
An external frame outside the shaking table is provided to record the displacement history of the table.
Accelerometers are attached on the table in order to check the accuracy of the reproduction of the input
accelerogram. LVDTs of capacity 20 and 50 mm are used to measure the horizontal displacement
at the oor levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. All analog signals from instrument connected to the model
and shake table are amplied, recorded, digitized, and stored. Graphic display and printer facilities are
utilized using FFT analyzer.
2.3. Description of test procedure and results
Free vibration tests are carried out using the shaking table in unidirectional way at Advanced Seismic
Testing and Research Laboratory at Structural Engineering Research Centre, Council of Scientic &
Industrial Research, India. The shake table is excited with low-level acceleration, and the
corresponding data from the accelerometers placed side by side on the shake table is compared. In case,
the output voltage of the accelerometers is not equal then; they are calibrated on an equal level by tuning their ratio to unity. Thus, it is possible to build the ratio between two measured accelerations. After
the calibration, the accelerometers are installed at the required points, i.e. one at each oor level and
two at the base plate of the shake table. One of the accelerometers at the base level is used to control
the motion of the table, whereas the other is used for frequency response function analysis. The acceleration at the oor level was found from the accelerometer at the oor level. The accelerometer at the
base gives the acceleration according to the input data of the shake table. The second accelerometer at
the base is used to control the amplitude of the base acceleration to make it possible to keep the acceleration amplitude constant (in general, it is between 0.02 and 0.1 g). Each time, the frequency was increased with an increment of 0.1 Hz and corresponding frequency response function was noted up to
the rst three modes (i.e. up to 30 Hz) and it is as shown in Figure 5.
80

Amplitude Factor

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 5. Frequency response function.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

3. FREE VIBRATION STUDIES OF THE FRAME MODEL

The equation of motion for the dynamic system with base excitation can be written as

::
::
Mx C x_ Kx -Mixg

(2)

where M, C, K, and i represent the mass, damping, stiffness, and inuence matrices, respectively. The
variation of real and imaginary parts of ratio of oor level acceleration to base acceleration for the three
oors are obtained numerically increasing values of o2. Around the natural frequencies, the real part
quickly changes from positive to negative or vice versa, whereas the imaginary part is positive or
negative. The imaginary part of the transfer function for oor level acceleration to base acceleration at
natural frequencies represents the mode shape to some scale i,j at the ith oor at jth natural frequency.
The normalized mode shape is obtained as fi;j = fi, j/|fi, j |max, where |fi, j |max is the maximum value of
i,j at jth natural frequency. In the experimental program, after obtaining the natural frequencies through
sweep sine testing, the structure was excited at the three natural frequencies namely 4.2, 12.5, and 19.5 Hz,
and the imaginary parts of the transfer function of oor response acceleration to base acceleration were
determined, and the experimental values for the mode shape vector are evaluated using the procedure
given earlier. These are plotted in Figure 6. The mode shapes experimentally obtained satised both
normality and orthogonality conditions within acceptable experimental error (5%), and the natural
frequencies back worked using the above mode shapes matched well with experimental values.
The amplitude of the sinusoidal displacement waveform was chosen for sine wave excitation keeping the acceleration amplitude constant 0.1 g. The forcing frequency is varied over a range that includes
the natural frequency of the system. A frequency response curve in the form of acceleration amplitude
(corresponding oor level) versus frequency is plotted directly from the measured data. The natural frequency can be determined from experimentally obtained frequency response curve. The above test procedure was carried out for the case of frame model with upper toggle bracing mechanism and dampers
with the current inputs ranging from 0 to 1 A with an increment of 0.25 A. The natural frequencies of
the frame model with upper toggle bracing mechanism and dampers with current inputs ranging from 0
to 1 A with an increment of 0.25 A for the rst and second modes are determined by experiments. The
natural frequencies for frame model with current inputs ranging from 0 to 1 A with an increment of
0.25 A are summarized in Table II.
Mode I Exp. (4.2 Hz)
Mode III Exp. (19.5 Hz)
Mode II Ana (12.5 Hz)

Mode II Exp. (12.5 Hz)

Mode I Ana (4 Hz)
Mode III Ana (20 Hz)

Storey

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

Response Amplitude Factor

Figure 6. Mode shapes (experimental and analytical).

Table II. Fundamental natural frequencies for frame model with and without current input.
Sine wave excitation, 0.1 g
Natural frequency (Hz)
Current input (A)
First mode
Second mode

0
4.0
18.5

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0.25
4.5
18.0

0.5
4.5
17.5

0.75
4.5
17.5

1.0
4.5
17.5

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON USE OF TOGGLE BRACE MECHANISM

Theoretically, although addition of damper should not cause any change in frequency, a certain
level of stiffening is noticed particularly at higher current levels. At 0 A current level, the frequency
is 4 Hz, but at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 A, the frequency is observed to be 4.5 Hz (Table II). The second
frequency is signicantly high compared with theoretical value but does not show variation for various
current levels during testing.
In the present study, it is assumed that the columns are xed at the base. The natural frequencies of
this frame model for the rst three modes are determined by experimentally and analytically using
SAP2000 software (Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA), and they are found to be 4,
12.5, 20, and 4.17, 12.84, 20 Hz, respectively. Two MR dampers were placed at ground oor level
by upper toggle brace conguration to the frame model. The value of stiffness k, for the braces connecting the damper to the frame, is large enough to ensure that the element behaves as a pure damper.
These braces were taken as tubular members with 21 mm diameter and 4 mm thickness, and they are
connected to each other with a pin connection. The pin has, three degrees of freedom, and they are
Ux, Uz, and Y, and at base support, it has only one degree of freedom, Y. The comparisons of experimental and analytical frequencies are given in Figure 6.

4. EFFECTIVE DAMPING RATIO OF THE MODEL FRAME

Frequency Response Amplitude,

(x 0.1g)

The ratio of the third oor acceleration to base level acceleration, frequency response amplitudes,
corresponding to the third oor level of three-storey steel frame with MR damper at different current
inputs (A) and frequencies are recorded. The variation of frequency response amplitude with excitation
frequency is plotted in Figure 7. From experimental frequency response curve, the damping ratios of
the system is found at different current inputs to MR dampers and is given in Table III. It is observed
that for the current input 0 and 0.25 A, the damping ratio, x, is in 0.11 and 0.1, respectively. However,
with further increase in the current input, it is found that x is constant at about 0.07. From this, it can be
concluded that at 0 A, the system is having maximum efciency, and further increase in the current input beyond 0.25A, the efciency decreases signicantly. This is not in tune with the analytical expectation, i.e. increased damping with increase in current input. Experimental investigation becomes
extremely important in view of the above observation.
Frequency

6
0.25

0.5 A

0.75 A

1A

0A

5
4
3
2
1
0
3

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

Frequency

Figure 7. Frequency response function measured in the third oor at different current inputs.
Table III. Damping using bandwidth method.
Current input (A)
1.0
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.0

f1

f2

f2
j ff11 
f2

3.6
3.85
4.05
4.1
4.1

4.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.75

0.074
0.07
0.07
0.1
0.11

Note: x is the damping ratio.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

4.1. Viscous damping provided by linear viscous dampers

The damping ratio (x) provided by linear viscous dampers for a SDOF system subjected to one cycle of
harmonic vibration is [13]
WD
(3)
4pWS
where WD = the energy dissipated by linear viscous dampers in one cycle of harmonic vibration;
WS = the strain energy. For MDOF systems, the energy dissipated by linear viscous dampers and
the strain energy of the system for the primary mode can be computed as
 
2
X
X
2p
WD
WD j
pCj
(4)
uroof fmr;j fj
Tm
j
j
x

WS

2p2 X
m u 2 f2
i i roof mi
Tm2

(5)

in which WDj = the energy dissipated by linear viscous damper j in one complete cycle loading;
Cj = the damping coefcient for linear viscous damper j; Tm = the period of vibration of the primary mode; uroof = the maximum roof displacement; mr,j = the relative modal displacement of
the primary mode between the ends of damper j along the axis of damper j; fj = magnication
factor; mi = the mass of oor level i; mi = the modal displacement of the primary mode at oor
level i. Substituting Equations (4) and (5) in Equation (3), the damping ratio (xd) provided by linear viscous dampers for the primary mode can be obtained.
P
Tm j C j f2mr;j fj2
(6)
xd
P
4p i mi f2mi
4.2. Equivalent viscous damping provided by nonlinear viscous dampers
The energy dissipated by nonlinear viscous dampers for a SDOF system subjected to one cycle of harmonic vibration is [14].
 a
Z
Z
2p
u0a1
(7)
WD Fd du CN u_ a du lCN
Tm
l 22a

2 1 a=2
2 a

(8)

where u = the displacement response of the SDOF system; u0 = the maximum value of u; CN = the
damping coefcient of nonlinear viscous dampers; = the gamma function.
Equation (7) can be extended to MDOF systems as
  aj 
aj 1
X
X
2p
WD;j
lj CN;j
uroof fmr;j fj
(9)
WD
Tm
j
j
Substituting Equations (9) and (5) in Equation (3), the equivalent viscous damping ratio (xm) provided by the nonlinear viscous dampers [11] for the primary mode can be obtained as
 aj 2
P
aj 1 aj 1 aj 1
2p
uroof
fmr;j fj
j lj CN;j Tm
(10)
xd
P
2p i mi f2mi
a j 2

lj 2



2 1 aj =2


2 aj

(11)

where CN,j = the damping coefcient for nonlinear viscous damper j; aj = the velocity exponent for
nonlinear viscous damper j. If aj = 1 (i.e. the case of linear viscous damping), lj = p and then, Equation
(10) becomes Equation (6).
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON USE OF TOGGLE BRACE MECHANISM

In this study, the equivalent (linear) viscous damping provided by nonlinear viscous dampers is basically derived from the assumption that the average energy dissipated by the linear and the nonlinear
viscous dampers in a SDOF system subjected to all cycles of harmonic vibration is equal, i.e.
1
u0

Zu0

1
WDN du
u0

1
u0

Zu0
lCN

0
a 1+a

2p
Tm

Zu0
WDL du

(12)

a
u

a1

1
du
u0

Zu0


2p 2
pC
u du
Tm

(13)

where WDN = lCN(2p/Tm) u = the energy dissipated by nonlinear viscous dampers in one cycle of
harmonic vibration; WDL = pC(2p/Tm)u2 = the energy dissipated by linear viscous dampers in one cycle
of harmonic vibration. The left-hand side in Equation (12) is the average energy dissipated by nonlinear viscous dampers, and the right-hand side is the average energy dissipated by linear viscous dampers. Integrating Equation (13), the equivalent damping coefcient can be obtained as
 a1
3lCN T2pm
u0a1
(14)
C
p2 a
Equation (14) is resulted from a SDOF system formulation. It can be extended to MDOF systems by
replacing u0 with uroof mr,j fj as
 aj 1 
aj 1
3lj CN;j T2pm
uroof fmr;j fj


Cj
(15)
p 2 aj
Thus, the equivalent viscous damping ratio provided by nonlinear viscous dampers can be derived
by substituting Equation (15) in Equation (6) as
P lj CN;j  2p aj 2 aj 1 aj 1 aj 1
3 j 2a
uroof fmr;j fj
j Tm
(16)
xd
P
2p i mi f2mi
Although the functions of Equations (10) and (16) are similar, they are derived from different bases.
Therefore, the results calculated from the two equations are somewhat different. In general, the equivalent viscous damping computed from Equation (10) is found to be smaller than that obtained from
Equation (16).

5. CHARACTERIZATION OF MAGNETORHEOLOGICAL DAMPERS [3]

A review of several idealized mechanical models for controllable uid dampers was carried out by
Spencer et al. in 1997, and they have developed a new model called phenomenological model for effectively modeling the behavior of a typical MR damper. Here, a MR damper is modeled as nonlinear
viscous uid damper at various current inputs.
The dynamic response of the MR damper, RD-1005-3 subjected to sinusoidal excitation at 2 Hz
with amplitudes of 3 mm was found experimentally. The characterization of MR damper is carried
out by providing various (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 A) current inputs by tting experimental force
velocity relationships to fractional velocity power (FVP) law, and damper properties, damping
coefcient, C0, and damping exponent, a, were found. The forcevelocity relationship obtained experimentally shows that it behaves as nonlinear viscous damper at different current inputs. The MR
damper with toggle brace mechanism is incorporated in a three-storey steel moment-resisting frame.
The damping ratio obtained varies from 0.07 to 0.11 as given Table III. Theoretical expectation
showed signicant variation in damping ratio with input current. Hence, it is clear that individual
performance as a damper, and in a structural scheme wherein there are other sub-assemblies also, could
have an effect on efciency of the damper performance.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

The force and velocity relation for nonlinear viscous uid dampers can be expressed as a FVP law:
(17)
fD Co ju_ ja signu_
where fD is the damper output force, u_ is the velocity, and C0 is the damping coefcient with units of
force per velocity; a is a real positive exponent. From the experimental values, the nonlinear relationships between force and velocity prole at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 A current inputs for the MR damper
with different amplitudes of sinusoidal excitation are represented as the FVP law given in Equation
(17), and they are shown in Figure 8. The damping coefcient, C0, and the real positive exponent,
a, are found from FVP law using least square t method and are tabulated in Table IV. The relationship
between current inputs (A), damping coefcient (C0), and the exponent (a) in FVP law for the damper
is given in Table V. Here, a is the current input, C(a) is the damping coefcient, and a(a) is the exponent in FVP law, and a is a real positive exponent.
6. DESIGN OF NONLINEAR VISCOUS DAMPING SYSTEM
6.1. Design coefcients of design basis earthquake as per IS: 18932002
Consider that the steel frame shown in Figure 2 is located in seismic Zone V. The soil conditions are
medium stiff.
Zone factor, Z = 0.36 for Zone 5, from Table 2 of IS: 18932002.
The importance factor, I, is assumed to be 1, as per Table 6 of IS: 18932002.
For medium stiff soil and 5% damping, from Figure 2 of IS: 18932002.
For T = 0.33 s, Sa/g = 2.5.
Response reduction factor, R = 5.0, as per Table 7 of IS: 18932002.
DamperS.No:015918 for different current input and 2Hz frequency
2.5
2
1.5

0A-Exp
0.25A-Exp
0.50A-Exp
0.75A-Exp
1A-Exp

0A-FVP Law
0.25A-FVP Law
0.50A- FVP Law
0.75A-FVP Law
1A-FVP Law

Force (kN)

1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Velocity (m/s)

Figure 8. Damper S.No:015918 characterizations at different current inputs with experimental data tted with
fractional velocity power law.
Table IV. Damper properties obtained from experiments.
Current (A)

Damping coefcient C0 (N (s/m)a)

Exponent a

585
1632
2700
3150
4150

0.34
0.34
0.28
0.21
0.21

0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON USE OF TOGGLE BRACE MECHANISM

Table V. Variation of damper constants, a and C0 with current.

C(a) = 2821a3  5045a2 + 5789.4a + 559.19
a(a) = 0.6933a3  1.0514a2 + 0.2281a + 0.3396
Note: a is the current input, a is the real positive exponent, C(a) and a(a) are the damping coefcient and exponents, respectively,
in fractional velocity power law.

Horizontal seismic coefcient,

Z I Sa
0:09
2R g
The modal participation factor of the rst mode, PF1
P
mi fim
400
1 400
0:85 400
0:59
PF1 Pi

1:178
2
400
12 400
0:852 400
0:592
i mi fim
Ah

Floor acceleration, Ai1

Ai1 PF1 fi1 Ah
Ai1 1:178
1
0:09
9:81 1:04 m=s2
Floor displacement, i1

i1


T 2
Ai1
2p



0:25 2
1:049810 16:152 mm
2p
Magnetorheological dampers at different current inputs are modeled as nonlinear viscous uid dampers [3]. For different current inputs, the C0 and a, values were found as given in Table IV. Using these
values, the equivalent viscous damping ratios, xd, are estimated using Equations (9) and (15), by provision of MR dampers at the rst, rst and second, and all three oors, are given in Tables VI and VII,
uroof i1

Table VI. Effective damping (xd) values using Equation (9).

xd considering dampers at
Floor I
Current (A)
0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1

C0(N (s/m)a)

Equation (9)

Experimental

Floors
I and
II

585
1632
2700
3150
4150

0.34
0.34
0.28
0.21
0.21

0.0145
0.0405
0.0695
0.0847
0.1116

0.11
0.1
0.07
0.07
0.07

0.02
0.0558
0.0969
0.1198
0.1578

Floors
I, II, &
III
0.0226
0.0631
0.1104
0.1378
0.1816

Table VII. Effective damping (xd) values using Equation (15).

xd considering dampers at
Floor I
Current (A)
0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1

C0(N (s/m)a)

Equation (15)

Experimental

Floors
I & II

585
1632
2700
3150
4150

0.34
0.34
0.28
0.21
0.21

0.0186
0.0520
0.0915
0.1150
0.1515

0.11
0.1
0.07
0.07
0.07

0.0256
0.0715
0.1275
0.1626
0.2143

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Floors
I, II, &
III
0.0290
0.0809
0.1453
0.1871
0.2465

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

respectively. From results, it is observed that addition of dampers at all oors increase the effective
damping in structure at the given current inputs in MR dampers.
From the results of effective damping ratio calculated, it can be observed that the dampers placed
in the rst oor contributes more to the effective damping ratio of the model comparing with the contribution of the dampers placed in all other oors. The effective damping contribution of dampers
placed in the third oor is the least. Thus, effective damping contribution because of the dampers
placed at the rst and second oors is very signicant. The effective damping estimated using Equation (15) is relatively more than the effective damping calculated using Equation (9). The more the
current input (from 0 to 1 A) is, the more the effective damping in the model is. From Tables VI
and VII, it can be observed that the analytical results using Equation (9) are closer to the experimental results. Here, it is to be noted that in analytical model of MR damper, the Hysteresis effect is
neglected.

7. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF THE MODEL FRAME

The model with and without dampers is subjected to two types of synthetic earthquake excitations
exc1 and exc2 having PGAs of 0.2 and 0.4 g, and the same are as shown in Figure 9. The accelerometers are placed at all the oors levels of the model, and the accelerations are recorded. Analytically, the velocities and displacements are derived from the accelerations measured. The peak storey
displacement, interstorey drifts, and interstorey shears of response time histories of the model without
and with dampers at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 A current inputs are shown in Figures 10, 11, and 12,
respectively. In all cases, provision of dampers at different current inputs, the performance enhancement in deformation, interstorey drifts, and base shear is observed except in few cases (Table VIII).
For excitation exc1 current input beyond 0.25 A, an increase in interstorey drift in the rst oor level
is observed. Similarly, for excitation exc2, an increase in interstorey drift is observed at 0 A current
input at the rst oor level.

Earthquake excitation exc1

Acceleration (m/s2)

Acceleration (m/s2)

Earthquake excitation exc2

3
2
1
0
-1

2
0

-2

-2

-4

-3
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Time

Time (s)

Figure 9. Excitations exc1 and exc2 considered on the experimental three-storey model.

Peak storey displacements of the frame subjected to

1
0

exc2
0A
0.75A

WOD
0.5A

0.25A
1A

Floor

Floor

Peak storey displacements of the frame subjected to exc1

WOD
0A
0.25A
0.5A
0.75A
1A
3

2
1
0

Displacements(mm)

10 11 12

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Displacements(mm)

Figure 10. Storey displacements of the frame subjected to excitations exc1 and exc2.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON USE OF TOGGLE BRACE MECHANISM

Inter-storey drifts of 3-storey frame subjected to exc2

Inter-storey drifts of 3-storey frame subjected to exc1

0A
0.75A

0.25A
1A

Floor

Floor

WOD
0.5A

1
0

WOD
0.5A

0A
0.75A

0.25A
1A

1
0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Drift(mm)

Drift(mm)

Figure 11. Interstorey drifts of the frame subjected to excitations exc1 and exc2.
Storey shears of the frame subjected to excitation exc1
WOD

0A

0.25A

0.5A

0.75A

Storey shears of the frame subjected to excitation exc2

1A

WOD

0A

0.25A

0.5A

0.75A

1A

2
Floor

Floor

0
1

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

10

11

12

Shear(kN)

She ar(kN)

Figure 12. Storey shears of the frame subjected to excitations exc1 and exc2.
Table VIII. Reduction in storey displacement, acceleration, and drift ratio in three-storey frame with provision of
magnetorheological dampers at different current inputs.
Storey displacements (mm)
EQ

Current
Conguration
(A)

exc1 WOD
WD

Reduction (%)

exc2 WOD
WD

Reduction (%)

0.0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
0.0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
0.0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
0.0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0

Interstorey drifts (mm)

First

Second

Third

First

26.57
9.15
7.63
2.82
15.86
11.76
65.56
71.28
89.39
40.31
55.74
21
8.36
7.07
8.63
8.55
7.66
60.19
66.33
58.90
59.29
63.52

11.57
1.73
3.85
3.39
3.58
3.63
85.05
66.72
70.70
69.06
68.63
17.02
9.65
6.45
5.97
5.5
5.86
43.30
62.10
64.92
67.69
65.57

8.86
2.08
3.3
3.01
3.15
4.8
76.52
62.75
66.03
64.45
45.82
26.57
7.15
5.71
2.55
15.86
11.76
73.09
78.51
90.40
40.31
55.74

2.8
2.5
1.9
3.7
3.9
6.2
10.71
32.14
32.14
39.29
121.43
4.76
6.04
4.33
3.07
3.31
3.54
26.89
9.03
35.50
30.46
25.63

Second Third
14.5
4.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
4.4
66.21
84.14
82.76
81.38
69.66
27.81
8.63
5.81
5.84
20.63
11.72
68.97
79.11
79.00
25.82
57.86

11.5
2.5
1.2
1
0.9
1.1
78.26
89.57
91.30
92.17
90.43
26.57
9.15
7.63
2.82
15.86
11.76
65.56
71.28
89.39
40.31
55.74

Storey shears (kN)

First Second Third
5.802
3.583
3.062
3.418
3.565
3.607
38.25
47.24
41.10
38.57
37.84
11.376
7.184
5.836
7.896
7.994
8.080
36.85
48.69
30.59
29.73
28.98

4.673
2.813
2.692
3.004
3.091
3.102
39.80
42.40
35.72
33.86
33.62
8.858
5.407
4.689
5.878
6.330
6.483
38.96
47.07
33.65
28.55
26.82

2.646
1.537
1.954
2.115
2.161
2.179
41.90
26.14
20.07
18.34
17.65
5.030
3.644
3.633
4.792
4.863
4.963
27.56
27.78
4.74
3.33
1.33

Note: EQ stands for earthquake, WOD stands for without damper, and WD is with damper.

8. SUMMARY AND CONLUSIONS

Based on the experimental studies reported in this paper with regard to the dynamic response of the
MR damper, namely forcevelocity relationship, it is inferred that it behaves as a nonlinear viscous
damper at different current inputs.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc

K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

A three-storey SMRF model was fabricated to carry out experimental studies. The MR damper with
upper toggle brace mechanism is incorporated in a three-storey SMRF. The damping ratio obtained from
experimental studies varies from 0.07 to 0.11 only, and for majority of the cases, the average value may
be taken as 0.07. However, theoretical expectation showed signicant variation in damping ratio with input current. Hence, it is clear that individual performance as a damper, and in a structural scheme wherein
there are other sub-assemblies also, could have an effect on efciency of the damper performance.
In order to study the efcacy of provision of MR damper, the three-storey SMRF with damper assembly is also excited using two time history signals, exc1 and exc2. The reduction in maximum displacement, storey drift, acceleration, and base shear shows the effectiveness of dampers used with
upper toggle brace conguration. The results show that provision of MR dampers with upper toggle
bracing mechanism would act as vibration control device by dissipating energy at oor level where
they are placed and controls the vibration levels of oors above.
Experimentally, the sensitivity of the frame with MR damper in upper toggle bracing conguration
to current input is investigated. It is observed that there is no performance enhancement in the system
by transferring MR damper from passive to semi-active state. An attempt has been made to model the
MR damper, with different current inputs, as nonlinear viscous damper. Using the formulations for
nonlinear viscous uid dampers given in literature, a methodology to nd effective damping of the
structural model is developed. This methodology is used for nding the effective damping of structural
model tted with MR dampers in upper toggle bracing mechanism in different storeys of frame model.
By comparing the experimental effective damping with the analytical effective damping, it is noted that
the results are found to be of the same order, but the variation of damping with current inputs is not
following the same pattern. Further investigations are required to be carried out to nd effectiveness
of the system subjected to near-eld earthquakes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is published with the kind permission of the Director, CSIR- Structural Engineering Research Centre,
Chennai-600113.
REFERENCES
1. Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering. Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 1997.
2. Symans MD, Constantinou MC. Seismic testing of a building structure with a semi-active uid damper control system.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997; 26(7):759777.
3. Rama Raju K. Studies on seismic performance enhancement of buildings with viscous uid dampers and magnetorheological dampers. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, July 2008.
4. Rama Raju K, Meher Prasad A, Muthumani K. Overview of active and passive control analysis and design methodologies
used in civil engineering structures. National Seminar on smart Materials, Intelligent Structures & Systems in Civil Engineering 2021, Bangalore, June 2003.
5. Rama Raju K, Meher Prasad A, Muthumani K, Lakshmanan N, Jagadish DR, Amuthasheela R. Optimum distribution of
viscous uid dampers in multi-storied buildings. The 3rd International Conference on Structural Stability and Dynamics,
Kissimmee, Florida, 1922 June 2005.
6. Rama Raju K, Meher Prasad A, Lakshmanan N, Muthumani K, Jagadish DR, Amuthasheela R. Optimum distribution of
viscous uid dampers in structural systems. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India) 2005; 86:103108.
7. Spencer Jr BF, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Phenomenological model for magnetorheological dampers. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1997; 123(3):230238.
8. Ali SF, Ramaswamy A. Optimal dynamic inversion-based semi-active control of benchmark bridge using MR dampers.
Journal of Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2009; 16:564585.
9. Choi KM, Jung HJ, Lee HJ, Cho SW. Seismic protection of base-isolated building with nonlinear isolation system using
smart passive control strategy. Journal of Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2008; 15:785796.
10. Chang CM, Park KS, Mullenix, A, Spencer Jr SF. Semiactive control strategy for phase II smart base isolated benchmark
building. Journal of Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2008; 15:673696.
11. Rama Raju K, Meher Prasad A, Abdul Malik S, Ramesh M. Effectiveness of nonlinear viscous uid dampers with upper
toggle brace mechanism in vibration control of a steel moment resistant frame model. Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC 2006; 32(5):357364.
12. Constantinou MC, Panos T, Hammel W, Sigaher AN. Toggle-brace-damper seismic energy dissipation systems. Journal of
Structural Engineering 2001; 127(2):105112.
13. Lin YY, Chang KC, Chen CY. Direct displacement-based design for seismic retrot of existing buildings using nonlinear
viscous dampers. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2008; 6:535552.
14. Remirez OM, Constantinou MC, Kircher CA, Whittaker AS, Jonson MW, Gomez JD, Chrysostomou CZ. Development and
evaluation of simplied procedures for analysis and design of buildings with passive energy dissipation systems. Report No:
MCEER-00-0010, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), University of New York at
Buffalo, NY, 2000.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/stc