STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING

Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21:741–755

Published online 18 September 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/stc.1598

Experimental studies on seismic performance of three-storey steel

moment resisting frame model with scissor-jack-magnetorheological
damper energy dissipation systems

K. Rama Raju*,†, A. Jame, N. Gopalakrishnan, K. Muthumani and Nagesh R. Iyer

CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai, India

SUMMARY
The supplemental passive and semi-active dampers such as viscous fluid dampers, magnetorheological (MR)
dampers are increasingly used to provide enhanced seismic protection of structures. A three-storey quarter length
scale steel moment resisting frame (SMRF) model, fitted with two scissor-jack-MR damper systems placed at
ground floor level, is designed and fabricated to study its seismic response characteristics. The effective damping
of the frame model for different input currents to MR dampers are found using half power bandwidth method. The
effective damping ratio is found to be maximum at 0A input current to MR dampers, and it is decreasing with the
increase in input current to dampers. The natural frequencies of the model with MR dampers at different input cur-
rents are found. It is observed that the natural frequency of the model increases with increase in input current to
MR dampers. The model is subjected to two types of near field and two types of far field seismic excitations. From
the observation of responses, it is noted that the variation of reductions in displacements and inter-storey drifts in
the frame model beyond 0A input current to MR dampers are not significant. For all four excitations, the storey
shears of the model are decreasing at 0A input current to MR dampers. The storey shears of the model are found
to be increasing with increase in input currents in MR dampers beyond 0A. From experimental studies, it has been
demonstrated that the scissor-jack-MR damper systems are effective in improving the performance of the building.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 5 July 2012; Revised 28 June 2013; Accepted 15 July 2013

KEY WORDS: seismic performance; magnetorheological dampers; scissor-jack-MR damper 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 dis-
sipate seismic-generated vibration energy while accepting a certain level of structural damage. An al-
ternative approach to dissipate seismic energy and to prevent catastrophic failure of a frame structure is
to install passive or semi-active devices within the structure. Passive devices, such as viscoelastic
damper, viscous fluid 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 ran-
dom nature of earthquake events. Different types of semi-active devices have been recently devel-
oped 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)

*Correspondence to: K. Rama Raju, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai-600113, India.
†
E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

742 K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

dampers and electrorheological (ER) dampers are two typical types of smart (semi-active)
dampers under active research. Addition of supplemental passive and semiactive energy dissipa-
tion devices such as viscous fluid dampers (VFDs) and MR dampers are considered to be viable
strategies for enhancing the seismic performance of building structures.
VFDs are increasingly used in new buildings or retrofitting 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 configuration
in the structural system. The configurations with a magnification 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 finding the optimum number, capacity and distribution of dampers
fitted in different configuration in multistory bench mark buildings and is described in references [3,5–7].
VFDs and MR dampers can be used to increase the damping in the structure from 2% to 5% (which is
usually for structures) to 30% [7]. It is important to note that damping beyond 30% critical damping
results in small decrease in response, and such increases would not, in general, lead to economical use
of dampers [8].
A review of several idealized mechanical models for controllable fluid dampers was carried out by
Spencer et al., [9] and they have developed a new model called phenomenological model for
effectively modelling the behaviour of a typical MR damper. Here, the behaviour of MR damper is
modelled as nonlinear viscous fluid damper at various input currents as described in Appendix A.
A new two-stage state feedback control design approach has been developed by Ali and Ramaswamy
[10] to monitor the voltage supplied to MR dampers for semi-active vibration control of the benchmark
highway bridge. Choi et al. [11] 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 lead-rubber bearings. Chang
et al. [12] presented a semi-active control strategy for the seismic protection of the phase II smart
base-isolated benchmark building subjected to near-fault earthquakes.
A procedure for the modelling of MR dampers at different input currents as nonlinear viscous
fluid dampers is described in Appendix A [3]. The effective damping of a three-storey steel moment
resisting frame (SMRF) model fitted with MR dampers in upper toggle bracing mechanism in the
ground floor is experimentally evaluated using half power bandwidth method [13]. In each upper tog-
gle brace, one MR damper was fixed. Using the formulations for nonlinear VFDs given in literature,
a methodology to find effective damping of the structural model is used to compare the experimental
results. In the present study, the same model is fixed with scissor-jack mechanisms in place of upper
toggle brace mechanisms. But, in each scissor-jack mechanism, two MR dampers are fixed. The ef-
fective damping ratio (ξ) of the model is experimentally evaluated by sweep sine test by using half
power bandwidth method. Experimentally, the response characteristics of the frame subjected to
two types of near field and two types of far field earthquake excitations to different input currents
to MR dampers is investigated.
The paper begins with Section 1, where the review of literature and purpose of the present study are de-
scribed. Section 2 gives the description of the one-forth scale model of a single bay three-storey SMRF
model, scissor-jack-MR damper system used in the model, details of the test setup, the methodology of
measuring displacements, the details of the test procedure and methodology used for testing the model.
Section 3 describes the analytical modelling of the frame, scissor-jack-MR damper energy dissipation
systems and MR dampers. Section 4 describes the study of experimental and analytical free vibration
characteristics of the three-storey bare frame, and the frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper energy
dissipation systems fitted with four MR dampers for 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1A input currents. Section 5
gives the details of the experimental evaluation of effective damping ratio (ξ) of the frame model with
scissor-jack-MR damper energy dissipating systems with different input currents to MR dampers.
Section 6 gives the experimental response characteristics of the model frame with scissor-jack-MR damper
energy dissipating systems to two types of near field and two types of far field seismic excitations with dif-
ferent input currents to MR dampers. The experimental and analytical roof displacement, second-storey
inter-storey drift and base shear time histories of the same frame model with input currents 0, 0.25, 0.5,
0.75 and 1A to MR dampers are presented. Section 7 gives the summary and conclusions of the manuscript.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MODEL WITH SCISSOR-JACK-MR DAMPER MECHANISM 743

2. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL MODEL WITH

SCISSOR-JACK-MAGNETORHEOLOGICAL DAMPER SYSTEMS
A one-forth scale model of a single bay three-storey SMRF is designed and fabricated as shown in
Figures 1–3 [3,14]. The structures alignment and loading are chosen in such a way that, it gives
response only in longer direction of structure. The weight at each floor because of externally added
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

Figure 1. Three-storey steel moment resisting frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper energy dissipation systems.

1120 960
Steel plate Steel Plate
Concrete Slab Concrete Slab
ISLB 100 ISLB100

ISLB100
700

ISLB100
700

ISLB100 ISLB100

Steel Plate Steel Plate

Concrete Slab Concrete Slab
ISLB 100 ISLB100
--1 --2 2-- 1--
700
700

Steel Plate Steel Plate

Concrete Slab Concrete Slab

200 ISLB 100 ISLB100

50

--1 --2 1--

2--
850
850

TS100x50x6

Base plate(300x300x10) Base plate(300x300x10)

All dimension are in mm 1.ISA 100x100x5

2.6 mm plate
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW

Figure 2. Front and side view of three-storey steel moment resisting frame model.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
744 K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

Figure 3. Connection details of scissor-jack-magnetorheological damper systems to three-storey frame model.

Figures 1–3. The beams and columns are made of same type of sections (ISLB100@80 N/m). Six
millimetres 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. Reinforced concrete slabs used in the model has dimension,
1120 × 960 × 100 mm. The inherent damping ratio of the structure is found to be 2%. The geometry,
modal properties and modal drifts of the bare frame model are given in Table I. The model frame with
masses is chosen in such a way that the fundamental period of the frame is in the flat region (0.1-0.4 s)
of acceleration spectrum given in Figure 2 of IS 1893 (Part1): 2002 corresponding to Type-I soil stratum.
The experimental fundamental time period of the bare frame model is found to be 0.25 s from sweep sine
testing.

2.1. Damper displacement magnifying mechanisms

Constantinou et al. [15] presented new configurations such as toggle brace and scissor-jack mecha-
nisms to substantially magnify the effect of damping devices so that they can be utilized effectively
in places where structural drift is small. Scissor-jack-damper energy dissipation system was developed
as a variant of the toggle brace damper systems by Sigaher and Constantinou [16] and it has the added
advantage of compactness. The importance of damper displacement mechanisms in design of buildings
for seismic performance enhancement using VFDs is demonstrated with a 20-storey benchmark build-
ing [7]. The mechanisms with VFDs are found to be decreasing both inter-storey drifts and storey
shears in the building.
The system with scissor-jack mechanism combines the displacement magnification feature with
small size, which is achieved through compactness and near-vertical installation. The working of the
scissor-jack is in such a way that by the lateral movement, the opening and closing of the jack is
achieved. The movement of the damper as expansion and contraction results in dissipation of energy.
In present study, two scissor-jack mechanisms are designed and they are connected with two MR
dampers each and fitted in the ground floor of the model as shown in Figure 3. The braces in the scis-
sor-jack-MR damper system are tubular members with 40 mm square and 5 mm thickness, and they are
connected to each other with a pin connection as shown in Figures 1–3. The magnification factor of the
scissor-jack-MR damper system can be found out from the Equation (1)

Table I. Geometric and modal properties of the three-storey bare frame model (Fig.1).
Floor no: Mass (kg) T(s) ф фr
3 444 0.25 1 0.15
2 456 0.85 0.26
1 458 0.59 0.59
T, first mode period in s; Φ, first mode shape; Φr, modal drift between floors.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MODEL WITH SCISSOR-JACK-MR DAMPER MECHANISM 745

cosψ
f ¼ (1)
sinθ

where ‘f’ is the magnification factor, ‘Ψ’ is the angle between horizontal line and the centre line of the
damper mechanism and ‘θ’ is the angle between hollow damper section and centre line of the damper
mechanism. In the present study, Ψ = 64° and θ = 13°, and the magnification factor of designed scissor-
jack-damper system is 1.95. The same model with upper toggle mechanisms was used in earlier studies
[13] and the magnification factor for the same was 3.16. In that model, each toggle brace mechanism
has one MR damper. In present study, each scissor-jack-MR damper energy dissipating system has two
MR dampers.

2.2. Details of test setup

The three-storey steel frame was fabricated according to the details given in Figure 2 with suitable pro-
vision in base plate to connect the model with a shake table. Concrete slab was cast separately and
connected to beams through the bolts with washer. Circular opening of 20 mm diameter at the centre
of slab are made by inserting PVC sleeves in the slab while casting. Additional mass of 200 kg is added
to the model by using 18 mm bolt with spring washer. The structure is fixed firmly with the shake table
by using bolts of 18 mm diameter inserted in each of the base plate sleeves. The accelerometers and the
non-contact laser-based displacement transducer (NCDTs) are fixed at each floor level with the NCDTs
placed in an external steel frame kept outside the shake table.

2.3. Measurement of displacement

An external frame outside the shaking table is provided as a reference frame for laser-based NCDT to
record the displacement time history of different storey of the frame. Accelerometers are attached on
the table in order to check the accuracy of the reproduction of the input accelerogram. Non-contact la-
ser-based displacement sensor, ILD-1700-200 is used for measuring the displacement at various floor
levels. The reason for selecting the non-contact types is that it does not disturb the moving test object.
The sensitivity of the sensor, which is used for the experiment is 12 μm. The measuring range of the
device is 200 mm and having a starting position of measuring range from 70 mm. The reference dis-
tance of the device is 170 mm. NCDTs are used to measure the horizontal displacement at the floor
levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively. All analogue signals from the instrument connected to the model and
shake table are amplified, recorded, digitized and stored. Graphic display and printer facilities are uti-
lized using FFT analyzer.

2.4. Description of test procedure and results

Free vibration tests are carried out using the shake table in unidirectional way at Advanced Seismic
Testing and Research Laboratory at Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Structural Engineer-
ing Research Centre, India. The shake table is excited with low level acceleration and the correspond-
ing 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 to an equal level by tuning their ratio
to unity. Thus, it is possible to build the ratio between two measured accelerations. After the calibra-
tion, the accelerometers are installed at the required points, that is, one at each floor level and two at
the base plate of the shake table. One of the accelerometers at the base level is used to control the mo-
tion of the table, whereas the other is used for frequency response function analysis. The acceleration at
the floor level was found from the accelerometer at the floor 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 am-
plitude 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 the corresponding frequency response function was noted up to the first
three modes (i.e., up to 30 Hz) of the bare frame [13].

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
746 K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

3. DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF THE FRAME WITH

SCISSOR-JACK-MAGNETORHEOLOGICAL DAMPER ENERGY DISSIPATING SYSTEMS

The three-storey quarter length scale SMRF model is fitted with two scissor-jack-MR damper systems
placed at ground floor level is shown in Figure 1, and it is modelled with SAP 2000 software
(Computers and Structures, Inc, Berkley, CA, USA) to study its seismic response characteristics. Each
scissor-jack-MR damper system is fitted with two MR dampers. The way two scissor-jack-MR damper
systems are connected to the frame model is shown in Figure 3. The analytical model of same with
SAP 2000 is as shown in Figure 4. 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. The braces in the
scissor-jack are tubular members with 40 mm square and 5 mm thickness, and they are connected to
each other with a pin connection. The pin has, three degrees of freedom, and they are Ux, Uy and θy
and at base support, it has only one degree of freedom θy. Two dampers from the four dampers used
in the model are tested experimentally, and a procedure for modelling of MR dampers at different input
currents as nonlinear VFDs is described in Appendix A. The nonlinear time history analysis is carried
out with nonlinear damper characteristics modelled with NLLINK element of SAP2000. For modelling
nonlinear dampers, NLINK element in SAP 2000 is used. The inputs for the same are effective
stiffness (ke) and effective damping (Ce). The input values used for NLINK element are damping
coefficient (C0) and damping exponent (α) at different input currents to MR damper (S.No:015918),

Figure 4. Analytical model of three-storey frame model with scissor-jack-magnetorheological damper energy
dissipation systems.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MODEL WITH SCISSOR-JACK-MR DAMPER MECHANISM 747

and they are given in Table A.1 of Appendix A. The columns and beams are modelled as beam
elements and the slabs are modelled as plate elements.

4. FREE VIBRATION STUDIES OF THE FRAME MODEL

In the experimental program carried out on three-storey SMRF frame model, after obtaining the natural
frequencies through sweep sine test, 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 floor response acceleration to
base acceleration were determined, and the experimental values for the mode shape vector are evalu-
ated [3,13]. The mode shapes experimentally obtained satisfied both normality and orthogonality con-
ditions within acceptable experimental error (±5%), and the natural frequencies back worked using the
mode shapes mentioned earlier matched well with experimental values.
The amplitude of the sinusoidal displacement waveform was chosen for sine wave excitation,
keeping the acceleration amplitude constant at 0.1 g. The forcing frequency is varied over a range that
includes the natural frequencies of the system. A frequency response curve in the form of acceleration
amplitude (corresponding floor level) versus frequency is plotted directly from the measured data. The
natural frequency can be determined from experimentally obtained frequency response curve. In the
present study, it is assumed that the columns are fixed at the base. The natural frequencies of the bare
frame model for first three modes are determined experimentally on shake table and also analytically
by using SAP 2000, and they are found to be 4.2, 12.5, 20 and 4.17, 12.52, 19.52 Hz, respectively.
The comparisons of experimental and analytical frequencies of bare frame are shown in Figure 5.
The test procedure mentioned earlier was carried out for the case of the three-storey SMRF frame
model with two scissor-jack-MR damper systems, with the input currents ranging from 0A to 1A with
an increment of 0.25A to MR dampers. The natural frequencies of the frame model with scissor-jack
mechanism and dampers with input currents ranging from 0A to 1A with an increment of 0.25A for
first and second modes are determined by experimentally and analytically (using SAP2000) are
summarized in Table II. The first mode natural frequencies obtained from experimental studies of
the frame model are found to be increasing with an increase in input currents in the dampers from
0A to 1A. The second mode frequency is significantly high compared with theoretical value, but does
not show significant variation for various current levels during testing. But in analytical studies, there is
no change in the first mode, natural frequency is observed with increase in input current to MR
dampers as has been observed in the experimental studies as the differences are marginal (Table II).

Bare Frame Model

Mode I (4.2 Hz) Mode II (12.5 Hz)
Mode III (21 Hz) Mode I Ana (4 Hz)
Mode II Ana (12.5 Hz) Mode III Ana (20 Hz)
3

2
Storey

0
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
Response Amplitude Factor

Figure 5. Mode shapes (experimental and analytical).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
748 K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

Table II. Natural frequencies of the frame model with scissor-jack-magnetorheological damper systems.
Natural frequency (Hz)
Without damper With damper
Current input (A) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
First mode (Exp) 3.75 4 4.38 4.88 5 5
Second mode (Exp) 12.25 14.13 14.38 15 14.75 14.75
First mode (Ana) 4.206 4.307 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31
Second mode (Ana) 12.932 13.06 13.06 13.06 13.06 13.06
Exp, experimental; Ana, analytical.

13
12 0A
11 0.25A
Frequency Response amplitude

0.5A
10 0.75A
9 1A

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6. Frequency response function measured in third floor of three-storey frame model for different current
inputs to magnetorheological dampers.

Table III. Effective damping ratio of the frame model with scissor-jack-magnetorheological damper systems using
half power bandwidth method.
Current input (A) f1 f2 ξ ¼ ððff 2 f 1Þ
þf Þ
2 1

0.00 3.6 4.7 0.133

0.25 4.2 5.4 0.125
0.50 4.65 5.35 0.070
0.75 4.65 5.35 0.070
1.00 4.85 5.5 0.063
ξ is damping ratio.

exc 1 Time History with PGA 0.1g exc 3 Time History 0.1g
1 1.2
Acceleration (m/s2)

Acceleration (m/s2)

0.8
0.5
0.4

0 0
-0.4
-0.5
-0.8
-1 -1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 7. Seismic excitations exc1 and exc3 considered in the experimental study.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MODEL WITH SCISSOR-JACK-MR DAMPER MECHANISM 749

exc1 with PGA of 0.1g exc2 with PGA of 0.2g

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

3 3

2 2

Floor
Floor 1 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Peak storey displacement (mm) Peak storey displacement (mm)

exc3 with PGA of 0.1g exc3 with PGA of 0.2g

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

2 2
Floor

Floor
1 1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Peak storey displacement (mm) Peak storey displacement (mm)
Note: WOD: Frame without dampers (bare frame)

Figure 8. Storey displacements in frame model because of excitations exc1, exc2, exc3 and exc4.

exc1 with PGA of 0.1g exc2 with PGA of 0.2g

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

2 2
Floor

Floor

1 1

0 0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Peak storey shear (kN) Peak storey shear (kN)

exc4 with PGA of 0.2g

exc3 with PGA of 0.1g WOD 0A 0.25A
WOD 0A 0.25A 0.5A 0.75A 1A
0.5A 0.75A 1A 3
3

2
Floor

2
Floor

1 1

0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Peak storey shear (kN) Peak storey shear (kN)
Note: WOD: Frame without dampers (bare frame)
Figure 9. Storey shears of the frame model subjected to excitations exc1, exc2, exc3 and exc4.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
750 K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

5. EFFECTIVE DAMPING RATIOS OF THE FRAME MODEL

The ratio of the third floor acceleration to base level acceleration, frequency response amplitudes cor-
responding to the third floor level of the frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper systems with

Table IV. Response because of near field excitation of the frame model with scissor-jack-magnetorheological
damper systems.
Peak storey Peak inter-storey Peak storey
EQ Configurations Current displacements (mm) drift ratio % shears (kN)
(A) First Second Third First Second Third First Second Third
exc1 0.1 g WOD 2.8 4.4 5.2 0.36 0.26 0.17 3.67 2.83 1.65

WD 0.00 1.5 2.6 3.5 0.18 0.17 0.14 2.67 2.24 1.39
0.25 1.5 2.8 3.8 0.18 0.18 0.14 3.05 2.55 1.51
0.50 1.5 3.0 4.1 0.17 0.23 0.17 3.59 3.14 2.01
0.75 1.3 3.1 4.4 0.16 0.26 0.19 3.79 3.59 2.15
1.00 1.3 3.2 4.5 0.15 0.28 0.19 4.23 3.74 2.17
0.00 46 42 34 52 35 17 27 21 16
0.25 44 37 28 50 29 15 17 10 8
% Red 0.50 48 33 22 53 10 2 2 11 22
0.75 52 30 16 57 1 12 3 27 30
1.00 53 29 15 58 7 17 15 32 32

exc2 0.2 g WOD 6.7 10.6 12.6 0.79 0.55 0.37 7.80 6.65 3.77
WD 0.00 3.8 6.3 7.8 0.45 0.36 0.27 6.01 4.79 2.51
0.25 3.4 6.0 7.4 0.40 0.39 0.27 7.31 6.57 3.27
0.50 3.2 6.0 7.8 0.38 0.43 0.32 7.70 6.52 3.68
0.75 3.0 6.4 8.9 0.36 0.53 0.35 7.86 6.95 4.08
1.00 2.8 6.7 9.3 0.32 0.59 0.40 8.88 7.81 4.74
0.00 43 41 38 43 34 27 23 28 33
0.25 50 43 41 50 28 25 6 1 13

% Red 0.50 52 43 38 52 21 12 1 2 2
0.75 55 39 29 55 4 3 1 5 8
1.00 59 37 26 59 8 10 14 18 26
exc3 0.1 g WOD 3.1 4.7 5.9 0.37 0.23 0.18 3.70 2.82 1.58
WD 0.00 1.4 2.4 3.2 0.17 0.15 0.12 2.66 2.17 0.97
0.25 1.0 2.1 3.0 0.12 0.16 0.15 2.75 2.26 1.53
0.50 0.9 2.0 3.1 0.10 0.18 0.16 2.98 2.49 1.60
0.75 0.9 2.0 3.2 0.10 0.17 0.17 3.08 2.50 1.62
1.00 0.9 2.0 3.1 0.11 0.18 0.18 3.12 2.52 1.67
% Red 0.00 54 49 46 54 35 34 28 23 39
0.25 67 55 49 67 30 19 26 20 3
0.50 72 57 47 72 23 13 20 12 1
0.75 72 58 46 72 27 8 17 12 2
1.00 71 58 47 71 24 4 16 11 6

exc4 0.2 g WOD 6.2 9.8 11.7 0.73 0.51 0.32 7.61 5.58 3.22
WD 0.00 3.1 5.4 7.0 0.37 0.33 0.24 3.96 2.22 1.92
0.25 2.6 4.8 6.1 0.31 0.32 0.23 4.76 3.14 2.52
0.50 1.9 4.1 6.1 0.22 0.34 0.30 5.04 4.06 3.31
0.75 1.6 4.0 6.2 0.19 0.38 0.32 5.16 3.96 3.51
1.00 1.6 4.2 6.3 0.19 0.38 0.33 5.28 3.95 3.39
% Red 0.00 50 44 40 50 36 25 48 60 40
0.25 58 51 48 58 39 27 37 44 22
0.50 70 58 48 70 34 5 34 27 3
0.75 74 59 47 74 27 1 32 29 9
1.00 74 57 46 74 26 2 31 29 5
WOD, without damper; WD, with damper.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MODEL WITH SCISSOR-JACK-MR DAMPER MECHANISM 751

different input currents (viz., 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1A) to MR damper, and the frequencies are found
by carrying out by sweep sine test with the test setup described in Section 2.2. The variation of fre-
quency response amplitude with excitation frequencies are plotted in Figure 6. From experimental fre-
quency response curves, the damping ratios of the system are found at different input currents to MR
dampers and are given in Table III. The effective damping ratio (ξ) of the frame model is maximum
(0.133) at 0A, and the ξ is observed to decrease with increase in input current to MR dampers (ξ de-
creasing from 0.133 to 0.063 with the variation of input current from 0A to 1A). The decrease of ξ
in the frame model with the increase in input current to MR dampers beyond 0A could be because
of fluids in the dampers becoming linear viscous to semi-solid.

6. RESPONSE OF THE FRAME MODEL TO SEISMIC EXCITATIONS

The frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper systems with different input currents (viz., 0, 0.25, 0.5,
0.75 and 1A) to MR damper, and the bare frame are subjected to two near field excitations, exc1 and
exc2 with PGA of 0.1 g and 0.2 g and two far field excitations exc3 and exc4 with PGA of 0.1 g and
0.2 g. The excitations exc1 and exc3 are shown in Figure 7. The excitations exc1 and exc2 are of the
same type, but the magnitude of excitation of exc2 is double that of exc1. The excitations exc3 and
exc4 are of the same type, and the magnitude of excitation of exc4 is double that of exc3 and they
are spectrum compatible accelerogram corresponding to the acceleration spectrum specified in IS
1893 (Part1): 2002 for hard soil conditions. Each of the time histories considered is composed of
5000 time steps and with a step size of 0.005 s.
The peak storey displacement and storey shears of response time histories of the model without and
with MR dampers at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1A input currents subjected to four types of excitations exc1,
exc2, exc3 and exc4 are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively. Because of the provision of MR
dampers at different input currents, the performance enhancement in deformation, inter-storey drifts
and storey shears for near field and far field excitations are given in Table IV. In the table, the values
with maximum reduction in peak storey displacements, inter-storey and storey shears are underlined,
and the abbreviations WOD and WD represent without and with dampers. For both near field and
far field excitations, the displacements and inter-storey drifts are found to be decreasing in the frame
model with scissor-jack-MR damper system with different input currents (viz., 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and
1A). But the variation of reductions in displacements and inter-storey drifts in the frame model with

Figure 10. Shear force (kN) versus deformation (mm) at first floor level of the frame.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
752 K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

scissor-jack-MR damper system with increase in input current beyond 0A, are not significant. For all
four excitations, the storey shears in the frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper system are found
to be decreasing at 0A input current to MR dampers. But, the storey shears of the frame model are in-
creasing with increase in input currents beyond 0A in MR dampers. The increase in storey shears in the
frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper system, with increasing in input currents beyond 0A to MR
dampers is because the fluids in the dampers are becoming viscous to semi-solid.
The force deformation (shear force vs storey drift) behaviour of the first floor in the frame model
without and with scissor-jack-MR damper system with input currents (viz., 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and
1A) subjected to four types of excitations, namely, exc1, exc2, exc3 and exc4 are shown in Figure 10.
The maximum energy dissipation in the frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper systems was ob-
served at 0A input current to MR dampers. The minimum energy dissipation was observed in the frame
at 1A input current to MR dampers.
The experimental and analytical roof displacement and second-storey inter-storey drift, and the base
shear time histories of the model with input different currents (viz., 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1A) to MR
dampers subjected to excitation exc1 are shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively. Even though,

Figure 11. Roof displacement and inter-storey drift ratio in middle floor of the frame model subjected to excitation exc1.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MODEL WITH SCISSOR-JACK-MR DAMPER MECHANISM 753

Figure 12. Base shear of the frame model subjected to excitation exc1.

the responses from analytical model with approximate MR damper model are showing the same trend
as experimental, the analytical model is under estimating the responses of frame model with scissor-
jack-MR damper system and not able to capture accurately the variation in responses in the model with
variation of input currents.

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A one-forth scale model of three-storey SMRF structure is designed and fabricated to carry out exper-
imental studies. Two scissor-jack mechanisms are designed with a magnification factor of 1.98. Each
scissor-jack-MR damper system is connected with two MR dampers and fitted in the ground floor of
the model. The first mode natural frequencies obtained from experimental studies of the frame model
are found to be increasing with the increase in input currents in the dampers from 0A to 1A. The in-
crease in first mode natural frequency with the increase in input currents in the dampers from 0A to
1A could not be captured with the proposed approximate MR damper model in the analytical model
of the frame as has been observed in the experimental studies as the differences are marginal (Table II).
By carrying out the sweep sine test on the frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper system, the ef-
fective damping ratio (ξ) of the model at different input currents (viz., 0.25A, 0.5A, 0.75A and 1A) is
found using half power bandwidth method. It is observed that ξ of the frame model with scissor-jack-
MR damper system is maximum (0.133) at 0A input current to MR dampers, and ξ is decreasing with
an increase in input current to MR dampers (the damping ratio decreasing from 0.133 to 0.063 with the
variation of input current from 0A to 1A). The decrease in ξ in the model with the increase in input current
to MR dampers beyond 0A could be because of fluids in the dampers becoming viscous to semi-solid.
The frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper system is excited with two near field (viz., exc1 and
exc2) and two far field (viz., exc3 and exc4) time histories. For both near field and far field excitations,
the displacements and inter-storey drifts are decreasing in frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper
system, with different input currents (0A, 0.25A, 0.5A, 0.75A and 1A) to MR dampers. But the vari-
ation of reductions in displacements and inter-storey drifts in the model beyond 0A input current to MR
dampers are not significant (Figures 8 and Table IV). For all four excitations, the storey shears of frame
model with scissor-jack-MR damper system are decreasing at 0A input current to MR dampers. The
storey shears in the frame model are found to be increasing with increase in input currents in MR
dampers beyond 0A (Figure 9 and Table IV). The increase in storey shears in the frame model with
scissor-jack-MR damper system, with increasing input current beyond 0A to MR dampers could be
because of the fluids in the dampers are becoming viscous to semi-solid.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
754 K. RAMA RAJU ET AL.

Based on the experimental studies reported with regard to the dynamic response of the MR damper,
force-velocity relationship is modelled as a nonlinear viscous damper at different input currents [3].
The experimental and analytical roof displacements, second-storey inter-storey drift, and base shear
time histories of frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper system with input currents (viz., 0, 0.25,
0.5, 0.75 and 1A) to MR dampers subjected to excitation exc1 are studied. Even though, the responses
from analytical model with approximate MR damper model are showing the same trend as experimen-
tal, the analytical model is underestimating the responses of the frame model with scissor-jack-MR
damper system and not able to capture accurately the variation in responses in the model with variation
of input currents.
From experimental study of damping and seismic response characteristics of the three-storey SMRF
model fitted with two scissor-jack-MR damper systems at different input currents to MR dampers, the
model with passive MR dampers (0A input current) is found to be most efficient. From experimental
studies, it has been demonstrated that the MR dampers are effective in improving the performance
of frame model with scissor-jack-MR damper system.

APPENDIX A: CHARACTERIZATION OF MAGNETORHEOLOGICAL

DAMPERS

The dynamic characteristics of two MR dampers (Model Number RD-1005-3 with serial numbers 015918
and 021602 ) supplied by Lord® Corporation subjected to sinusoidal and triangular excitations at frequen-
cies (viz., 2, 2.5 and 3Hz), amplitudes of displacements (viz., 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 16 and 20 mm) and current
supplies (viz., 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1A) are found experimentally [3]. The approximate force-velocity re-
lationships of the two MR dampers subjected to sinusoidal excitation at 2 Hz at input currents 0, 0.25, 0.5,
0.75 and 1A with amplitudes of 3 mm were fitted with fractional velocity power law by using Equation
A.1. The relationship for MR damper with serial number, 015918 is shown in Figures A.1.

DamperS.No:015918 for different current input and 2Hz frequency

2.5
2
1.5
1
Force (kN)

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Velocity (m/s)
Figure A1. Magnetorheological damper characterisation at different current inputs.

f D ¼ Co j u̇ jα signðu̇Þ (A:1)

Where, fD is the damper output force u̇ is the velocity and Co is the damping coefficient with units of
force per velocity, α is a real positive exponent. The force-velocity relationships obtained experimentally
shows that it behaves as nonlinear viscous damper at different input currents. The properties for two MR
dampers, damping coefficient (C0) and damping exponent (α) are found and they are tabulated in Table
A.1. The values of C0 and α are found to be slightly varying in the two MR dampers tested.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MODEL WITH SCISSOR-JACK-MR DAMPER MECHANISM 755

Table A.1 Magnetorheological damper properties obtained from experiments [3].

Damper S.No:015918 Damper S.No:021602
α
Current (A) C0 (N (s/m) ) α C0(N (s/m)α) α
0 585 0.34 557 0.30
0.25 1632 0.34 2011 0.31
0.5 2700 0.28 2645 0.19
0.75 3150 0.21 3310 0.21
1 4150 0.21 4032 0.21
C0 is the damping coefficient and α is the exponent.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is being published with the kind permission of Director, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre,
Chennai-600113, India.

REFERENCES

1. Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering. Wiley & Sons: Chichester, England,
1997.
2. Symans MD, Constantinou MC. Seismic testing of a building structure with a semi-active fluid damper control system.
International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering 1997; 26(7):759–777.
3. Rama Raju K. Studies on seismic performance enhancement of buildings with viscous fluid dampers and
magnetorheological dampers, PhD Thesis, July 2008, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Chennai.
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 20-21, Bangalore, June 2003.
5. Rama Raju K, Meher Prasad A, Muthumani K, Lakshmanan N, Jagadish DR and Amuthasheela R. Optimum distribution of
rd
viscous fluid dampers in multi-storied buildings”, The 3 International Conference on Structural Stability and Dynamics,
June 19-22, Kissimmee, Florida, 2005.
6. Rama Raju K, Meher Prasad A, Lakshmanan N, Muthumani K, Jagadish DR, Amuthasheela R. Optimum distribution of
viscous fluid dampers in structural systems. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India) 2005; 86:103–108.
7. Rama Raju K, Ansu M, Iyer NR. A methodology of design for seismic performance enhancement of buildings using viscous
fluid dampers. Journal Structural Control and Health monitoring 2013. doi:10.1002/stc.1568.
8. Hanson RD, Soong TT. Seismic design with supplemental energy dissipation devices. EERI Publication No. MNO-8, 2001.
9. Spencer BF Jr., Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Phenomenological model for magnetorheological dampers. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 1997; ASCE, 123(3): 230–238.
10. 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(5):564–585.
11. 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(5):785–796.
12. Chang CM, Park KS, Mullenix A, Spencer SF Jr. Semiactive control strategy for phase II smart base isolated benchmark
building. Journal of Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2008; 15(5):673–696.
13. Rama Raju K, Meher Prasad A, Muthumani K, Gopalakrishnan N, Iyer NR, Lakshmanan N. Experimental studies on use of
toggle brace mechanism fitted with magnetorheological dampers for seismic performance enhancement of three-storey steel
moment-resisting frame model. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2013; 20(3):373–386. doi:10.1002/stc.499.
14. Rama Raju K, Meher Prasad A, Abdul Malik S, Ramesh M. Effectiveness of nonlinear viscous fluid dampers with upper
toggle brace mechanism in vibration control of a steel moment resistant frame model. Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC 2006; 32(5):357–364.
15. Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Hammel W, Sigaher AN. Toggle-brace-damper seismic energy dissipation systems. Journal
of Structural Engineering ASCE 2001; 127(2):105–112.
16. Sigaher AN, Constantinou MC. Scissor-jack-damper energy dissipation system, Technical Report MCEER-04-0010,
December 1, 2004.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2014; 21: 741–755
DOI: 10.1002/stc