Scientia Iranica A (2012) 19 (6), 1379–1390

Sharif University of Technology Scientia Iranica
Transactions A: Civil Engineering www.sciencedirect.com

Theoretical analysis and experimental research on toggle-brace-damper system considering different installation modes
R. Zhang a,∗ , H. He a , D. Weng a , H. Zhou b , S. Ding b
a b

State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China Shanghai Research Institute of Materials, Shanghai, 200437, China

Received 29 August 2011; revised 15 June 2012; accepted 7 August 2012

KEYWORDS Toggle-brace-damper; Energy dissipation; Seismic; Viscous damper.

Abstract The toggle-brace-damper system has been proven to be the most effective system for the energy dissipation of stiff structures. However, the expected effect of the toggle-brace-damper system depends largely on its configuration, the use of steel braces and the installation mode. The existing design methods of toggle-brace-damper systems may be further improved. The analysis of different installation modes and experiments involving toggle-brace-damper systems are conducted to improve understanding of the influence of key factors and to provide design guidance. For toggle-brace-damper system tests, a vertical brace is installed in a steel frame to prevent out-of-plane instability. The calculation formulas for an upper toggle-brace-damper system and other configuration systems with consideration of the influence of brace deformation are studied in the paper. Test results show that the upper toggle-brace-damper system has the largest magnification factor, which is consistent with the theoretical analyses. The brace deformation and installation error cannot be ignored in the design of a toggle-brace-damper system. Installation error can also lead to out-of-plane instability of a toggle-brace-damper system. Moreover, the experimental results show that the magnification factor changes with loading and is different when force is applied in the push and pull directions. © 2012 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The Toggle-Brace-Damper (TBD) system with a viscous damper has been proven to be one of the most efficient devices for absorbing and dissipating earthquake and wind energy. Considerable attention has been focused on the research and development of the structural control devices with particular emphasis on the alleviation of wind and seismic response of buildings and bridges [1]. There are many mature methods for the design of structural energy dissipation, such as the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 65983701; fax: +86 21 65982668. E-mail addresses: zhangruifu@gmail.com (R. Zhang), wdg@tongji.edu.cn (D. Weng). Peer review under responsibility of Sharif University of Technology.

Kasai method [2]. However, there are still issues regarding the use of viscous dampers with small drifts associated with small velocities, which can render viscous damping devices ineffective. For example, using common K-shape and diagonal braces with viscous dampers for shear wall structures and highrise buildings is not effective and may increase costs. Thus, a ‘‘scissor-jack’’ motion amplification device, called a ‘‘togglebrace-damper’’, was proposed and patented by Taylor and Tonawanda [3]. Various motion amplification devices were discussed by Hanson and Soong [4] to overcome the small drifts associated with small velocities. Constantinou et al. [5] demonstrated that the TBD system improved the efficiency of this energy dissipation device by magnifying the damper stroke and verified its ability to enhance the feasibility of the TBD system through both cyclic loading tests and shaking table tests with a Single-Degree-Of-Freedom (SDOF) steel frame. McNamara et al. [6] applied the TBD system to a 39-story office building in Boston, which was completed in 2000. Their computer analysis showed that the stiffness of the toggle braces

1026-3098 © 2012 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.scient.2012.10.011

which is the ratio of the stroke of the damper to the frame horizontal displacement displacement magnification factor. Accordingly. especially for certain key parameters. which is the ratio of the actuator force to the damping force. ε1 ε2 ′ θ1 ′ θ2 A1 A2 E ′ θ3 L3 F1 F2 ˙d u ω f1 f2 played an important role for enhancing the effectiveness of the overall system damper. The calculation formulas for an upper toggle-bracedamper system and other configuration systems are considered including the influence of brace deformation. 2.1380 R. (1) (2) . For the togglebrace-damper system. installation error may result in negative influences on the amplification effect and out-of-plane instability of togglebrace-damper systems. Parameters of toggle-brace-damper system 2. which is different from previous experiments. These dampers were primarily used to reduce wind load. Two TBD configurations proposed by Constantinou et al. F = f (u)Fd . To avoid beam deformation. Huang [9] re-established the equilibrium equations and compatibility relationships for a lower toggle system by incorporating the toggle brace elongations into a series of coupling equations based on simple static relationship assumptions. / Scientia Iranica. which eliminated the deflection from the beam. in which the damper and brace elements of the TBD system are connected directly to the beam–column joints. and installed it directly into the beam–column joints. Ribakov and Reinhorn [8] presented a design method with amplified structural damping using optimal considerations. Later. Additionally. Hwang et al. as shown in Figures 3(b) and 4(b). [5]. TBD system experiments are conducted to increase the understanding of the influence of the key factors and to provide guidance for practical projects. A mathematical model for a lower toggle system that considers the support brace’s stiffness is established by Huang [14]. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 Nomenclature ud f u F Fd relative displacement along the axis of the damper magnification factor story drift horizontal component of the force exerted by the damper damper force damping exponent velocity of the piston rod damping constant inter story height frame bay length horizontal angle of lower brace vertical angle of upper brace horizontal angle of damper vertical angle of damper length of the lower toggle brace length of the upper toggle brace diagonal length of the deformed frame strain of lower brace member with elongation strain of upper brace member with elongation horizontal angle of the lower brace after frame distortion vertical angle of the upper brace after frame distortion cross-sectional area of the lower brace member cross-sectional area of the upper brace member modulus of the brace member angle between the damper and the horizontal beam after the frame has deformed deformation of the damper force of the brace L1 force of the brace L2 relative velocity of the viscous damper circular frequency of the story velocity displacement magnification factor. The expected effect of a TBD system depends largely on the choice of parameters. DeSimone and Steven [7] used the same scheme and applied their viscous dampers to an upper placed toggle brace for a 40-story Four Season Hotel in San Francisco. α V C H D θ1 θ2 θ3 θ4 L1 L2 LAB′ Figure 1: K-shape configuration. a vertical brace is installed in the steel frame to prevent out-of-plane instability. Previous research is inadequate for considering the influence of the axial deformation of braces on amplification factor. Hwang et al. Toggle-brace-damper configurations Figures 1 and 2 are common structural damper configurations. Shao and Miyamoto [12] applied the TBD system to retrofit the torsional irregularity for stiff concrete shear wall structures to achieve the enhanced rehabilitation objective of FEMA 356. Zhang et al. They revised the attachment of the lower brace. To facilitate practical applications. two alternative installation configurations of the TBD system patented by Taylor and Tonawanda [3] are considered. proposed by Constantinou et al. Berton and Bolander [13] proposed constructing the displacement amplification device with a combination of two rack and pinion mechanisms. [10] presented a procedure for determining the relationship between the displacement magnification factor and the geometry of the toggle-brace mechanism and shaking table tests to investigate the seismic responses of a three-story steel model structure with and without linear viscous dampers. especially brace selection. The existing design methods for TBD systems need further improvement.1. [11] presented results from experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of applying viscous dampers to reinforced concrete moment-resisting building structures. The following relationship exists for these installation configurations of the damper [5]: ud = f (u)u. [5] are illustrated in Figures 3(a) and 4(a).

However. formulas describing the upper TBD system that considers the influence of brace elongation are derived separately. F is the horizontal component of the force exerted by the damper. and further analysis is performed to determine the geometric and mechanical relationships while considering the axial deformation of the braces. Derivation of the magnification factor assumes small deformation and ignores the axial flexibility of the braces.14]. In the following analysis. θ2 is the vertical angle of upper brace. . the magnification factor is derived with the approximate formula of frame deformation. the installation error of the TBD system and the deformation of the beam are assumed to be negligible. (H /D) − (L1 /D) sin θ1 L2 = H − L1 sin θ1 cos θ2 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) a b . When the three dimensionless parameters are assigned. a b Figure 3: Lower toggle system. However. and Fd is the damper force. (12) Upper toggle system with consideration of brace deformation The upper TBD system among these installation configurations possesses the largest magnification factor for the axial damper displacement corresponding to a lateral story drift of the structure [11]. f is the magnification factor. D is the frame bay length.R. α where H is the inter story height. Therefore. u is the story drift.2. the results from simplified analytical formulas are not always in accordance with the experimental results. L1 and L2 are the length of the lower and upper toggle braces. simple analyses are introduced. Upper toggle system Certain approximate geometric and mechanical relationships are presented by previous scholars [5. With the story drift from Figure 5(a) and (b). separate scenarios are determined for cases with and without consideration of the axial deformation of the steel brace. (H /D) − (L1 /D) sin θ1   (L1 /D) cos θ1 −1 θ4 = tan . the magnification factors are different for the right and left direction.1.   1 − (L1 /D) cos θ1 θ2 = tan−1 . (10) (3) = sin θ2 where α is the damping exponent. / Scientia Iranica. Geometric relationships and mechanical relationships The geometric relationships and mechanical properties of upper and lower toggle systems are introduced and analyzed in this paper. The magnification factor is then obtained by: f = ud u = d1 + d2 u cos(θ4 − θ1 ) + sin θ4 . θ1 is the horizontal angle of lower brace. L1 + L2 ≥ LAB′ . Therefore. and LAB′ is the diagonal length of the deformed frame. For the small story drift. where ud is the relative displacement along the axis of the damper. The geometric relationships of the right and left deformed frame with the TBD systems are different. 2. 2. When TBD systems are analyzed. θ3 and θ4 are the horizontal and vertical angles of damper. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 1381 have the same magnification factors. the following constraints from the geometric configurations of the TBD system should be imposed [10]: Figure 2: Diagonal configuration. the magnification factor is determined. simplified methods cos(θ1 + θ2 ) u/H ≤ (H /D) − (L1 /D) sin θ1 cos θ2   2 − (H /D) + 1 1 + (D/H )2 . respectively. Figure 4: Upper toggle system. Regarding the selection of an appropriate magnification factor.2.  L1 /D +   (11) For the upper TBD system. θ1 ≤ tan−1 (H /D). Zhang et al.10. V is the velocity of the piston rod. Upper toggle system without considering brace deformation The geometric relationship of the deformed frame with the TBD systems to the right and left are illustrated in Figure 5(a) and (b). respectively. respectively. The damping force Fd of the viscous damper can be expressed by the following formula: Fd = C sgn(V ) |V | . static equilibrium equations are used to determine the forces F1 and F2 of the braces L1 and L2 : F1 sin(θ2 + θ4 ) = F2 cos(θ4 − θ1 ) = Fd cos(θ2 + θ1 ) . and C is the damping constant. L1 /D ≤ 1/ cos θ1 .

A simple geometric relation is shown as follows: L2 (1 + ε2 ) ′ sin(θ3 ) ′ 2 2 L2 2 (1 − ε2 ) + D − 2L2 (1 − ε2 )D sin(θ2 )  2 − L2 2 + D − 2L2 D sin(θ2 ). (28) . The following constraints resulting from geometric configurations of the TBD system should be imposed [5]: L1 /D ≤ 1/ cos θ1 . / Scientia Iranica. (25) = D ′ ′ cos(θ2 − θ3 ) . The deformed frame to the left is shown in Figure 6(b). and (b) left. respectively. the TBD system and the story drift yield to the following geometric compatibility condition: L1 (1 − ε1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) ≥ Relative displacement. the magnification factor is derived with the approximate formula of frame deformation. Moreover. For the top of the frame moving to the right. (20) through ′ ′ ′ (25). (18) ′ ′ . From Eqs. θ1 is the horizontal ′ angle of the lower brace after frame distortion.2. Although the configurations of Figure 7 are similar. ′ ′ L1 (1 − ε1 ) sin(θ1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) cos(θ2 ) = H. ′ A simple geometric relation is shown as follows: L2 (1 − ε2 ) sin(θ3 ) ′ where ε1 and ε2 are the strains of lower and upper brace ′ members with elongation. Lower toggle system The lower Toggle systems are shown in Figure 7. the influence of the axial deformation of the braces on the magnification factor is analyzed by Huang [9]. (26) =  ′ 2 2 L2 2 (1 + ε2 ) + D − 2L2 (1 + ε2 )D sin(θ2 )  2 − L2 2 + D − 2L2 D sin(θ2 ). the six unknown variables θ1 ′ θ3 . the geometric relation of upper toggle system is established: L1 (1 + ε1 ) cos(θ1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) sin(θ2 ) = D + u. ′ ′ ′ The equilibrium equations at the pivot joint for the horizontal and vertical directions are as follows: ′ ′ ′ EA1 ε1 cos(θ1 ) − EA2 ε2 sin(θ2 ) = Fd cos(θ3 ). (20) (21) θ2 = tan−1  1 − (L1 /D) cos θ1 (H /D) − (L1 /D) sin θ1  . (27) L1 (1 + ε1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) ≥  (D + u)2 + H 2 . θ2 .1382 R. For small story drift. from Eqs. described as the L3 of the damper. and θ2 is the vertical angle of the upper brace after frame distortion. (13) through (18). θ3 is the angle between the damper and the horizontal beam after the frame has deformed. ′ ′ ′ =  where the A1 and A2 are the cross-sectional area of the lower and upper brace members. is the difference of the damper displacement before and after frame distortion: L3 = fu = ud (15) (16) −EA1 ε1 sin(θ1 ) + EA2 ε2 cos(θ2 ) = Fd sin(θ3 ). The geometric relationship of the upper toggle system is established: ′ ′ L1 (1 − ε1 ) cos(θ1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) sin(θ2 ) = D − u. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 a b Figure 5: Geometric relationship of upper toggle system: (a) right. = D ′ ′ cos(θ2 − θ3 ) . ε1 . the six unknown variables θ1 . (17) As described in the previous section. respectively. The equilibrium equations at the pivot joint for the horizontal and vertical directions are as follows: ′ ′ ′ EA1 ε1 cos(θ1 ) − EA2 ε2 sin(θ2 ) = Fd cos(θ3 ). is the difference of the damper displacement before and after frame distortion: L3 = fu = ud  (D − u)2 + H 2 . (19) (2) Deformed frame with upper toggle system (to the left). ε1 . Zhang et al. ε2 and f can be solved as a function of the story drift u. (24) Relative displacement. E is the modulus of ′ the brace member. (1) Deformed frame with upper toggle system (to the right). θ3 .2. the amplification effects are different and are analyzed in this paper separately. Lower toggle system without consideration of brace deformation Derivation of the magnification factor assumes small deformation and ignores the axial flexibility of the braces. θ2 . Moreover. ′ ′ ′ L1 (1 + ε1 ) sin(θ1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) cos(θ2 ) = H . Considering the brace deformation to the right shown in Figure 6(a). (22) (23) (13) (14) −EA1 ε1 sin(θ1 ) + EA2 ε2 cos(θ2 ) = Fd sin(θ3 ). described as the deformation L3 of the damper. the TBD system and the story drift yield to the following geometric compatibility condition: 2. ε2 and f can be solved as the function of the story drift u.

and (d) left. (29) (30) (31) H − L1 sin θ1 cos θ2 For the upper TBD system. so four cases are analyzed separately. L1 /D +  (33) . (c) right. respectively: F1 cos(θ2 − θ3 ) L1 + L2 ≥ LAB′ . and (b) left. Lower toggle system with consideration of brace deformation The geometric relationship of the deformed frame with the TBD systems to the right and left are different. θ3 = tan L2 = −1  (L1 /D) sin θ1 1 − (L1 /D) cos θ1 .R.  . a b c d Figure 7: Geometric relationship of lower toggle system: (a) right. (34) =  d1 u = sin θ2 sin(θ1 + θ3 ) cos(θ1 + θ2 ) . (32) through (34) are derived from Figure 7(a) and (b). static equilibrium equations are used to determine the forces F1 and F2 of the braces L1 and L2 .  (32) Eqs. The equations of the lower toggle system for Figure 7(c) and (d) are similar to those of Eqs. (32) through (34). / Scientia Iranica. Zhang et al. but cos(θ1 + θ2 ) is replaced with − cos(θ1 + θ2 ). The magnification factor is then obtained by: f = ud u = F2 sin(θ1 + θ3 ) = Fd cos(θ1 + θ2 ) . Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 1383 a b Figure 6: Deformed frame with upper toggle system: (a) right. (b) left. u/H ≤ (H /D) − (L1 /D) sin θ1 cos θ2   − (H /D)2 + 1 1 + (D/H )2 .

 (41) (D − u)2 + H 2 .  2 − L2 1 + D − 2L1 D cos(θ1 ). the deformation L3 of the damper. (42) through (47). the TBD configuration and the story drift yield to the following geometric compatibility condition: L1 (1 + ε1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) ≥ As in the previous section. (37) (38) (44) (45) EA1 ε1 sin(θ1 ) − EA2 ε2 cos(θ2 ) = F3 sin(θ3 ). (48) . ε2 and f can be solved as the function of the story drift u. and (d) left. / Scientia Iranica. the six unknown variables θ1 . is the difference of the damper displacement before and after frame distortion: L3 = ud = fu =  ′ 2 2 L2 1 (1 + ε1 ) + D − 2L1 (1 + ε1 )D cos(θ1 ) = (40)  ′ 2 2 L2 1 (1 − ε1 ) + D − 2L1 (1 − ε1 )D cos(θ1 )  2 − L2 1 + D − 2L1 D cos(θ1 ). ′ ′ ′ A simple geometric relationship is shown as follows: L1 (1 + ε1 ) sin(θ3 ) ′ A simple geometric relationship is shown as follows: L1 (1 − ε1 ) (39) ′ sin(θ3 ) = D sin(θ1 + θ3 ) ′ ′ . from Eqs. θ2 . Moreover. the TBD configuration and the story drift yield to the following geometric compatibility condition: L1 (1 − ε1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) ≥  (D + u)2 + H 2 . Moreover. = D ′ ′ sin(θ1 + θ3 ) . (46) Relative displacement. ε2 and f can be solved as function of the story drift u.1384 R. ′ ′ L1 (1 + ε1 ) sin(θ1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) cos(θ2 ) = H. The deformed frame to the left is shown in Figure 8(b). (2) Deformed frame with lower toggle system (to the left). ε1 . the deformation L3 of the damper. The equilibrium equations at the pivot joint for the horizontal and vertical directions are as follows: ′ ′ ′ EA1 ε1 cos(θ1 ) − EA2 ε2 sin(θ2 ) = −F3 cos(θ3 ). ′ ′ ′ EA1 ε1 sin(θ1 ) − EA2 ε2 cos(θ2 ) = F3 sin(θ3 ). ′ ′ ′ the six unknown variables θ1 . (c) right. θ2 . The deformed frame to the right is shown in Figure 8(a). ′ ′ The equilibrium equations at the pivot joint in the horizontal and vertical directions: ′ ′ ′ EA1 ε1 cos(θ1 ) − EA2 ε2 sin(θ2 ) = −F3 cos(θ3 ). Zhang et al. (35) through ′ ′ ′ (40). ε1 . θ3 . The geometric relationship for the lower toggle system is established: ′ ′ L1 (1 + ε1 ) cos(θ1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) sin(θ2 ) = D + u. (47) As described in the previous section. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 a b c d Figure 8: Deformed frame with lower toggle system: (a) right. (1) Deformed frame with lower toggle system (to the right). θ3 . (42) (43) (35) (36) L1 (1 − ε1 ) sin(θ1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) cos(θ2 ) = H . (b) left. The geometric relationship of lower toggle system is established: ′ ′ L1 (1 − ε1 ) cos(θ1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) sin(θ2 ) = D − u. from Eqs. is the difference of the damper displacement before and after frame distortion: L3 = ud = fu Relative displacement.

(54) As in the previous section. Loading program The frame is loaded with time history sine waves that include 6 cycles every time to obtain steady test data.2. (56) through (61). ′ ′ ′ −EA1 ε1 sin(θ1 ) + EA2 ε2 cos(θ2 ) = F3 sin(θ3 ). Relative velocity and force of viscous damper (49) (50) ˙ d of the viscous damper may be The relative velocity u expressed as a function of the story drift u under the assumption of circular frequency ω of the story velocity: ˙d = u d(ud (u)) dt d(u) dt L1 (1 + ε1 ) sin(θ1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) cos(θ2 ) = H . (64) = D ′ ′ sin(θ1 + θ3 ) .3. ′ ′ = d(ud (u)) d(u) × d(u) dt (63) The equilibrium equations at the pivot joint for the horizontal and vertical directions: ′ ′ ′ EA1 ε1 cos(θ1 ) − EA2 ε2 sin(θ2 ) = F3 cos(θ3 ). is the difference of the damper displacement before and after frame distortion: L3 = ud = fu =  ′ 2 2 L2 1 (1 + ε1 ) + D − 2L1 (1 + ε1 )D cos(θ1 )  2 − L2 1 + D − 2L1 D cos(θ1 ).02 s. Test procedure and data analysis (61) Modes 1–3 are loaded with small displacements and loading amplitudes of 5–30 mm. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 1385 (3) Deformed frame with lower toggle system (to the right). A simple geometric relationship is shown as follows: L1 (1 + ε1 ) ′ sin(θ3 ) The damping force Fd of viscous damper may be expressed by the following formula: Fd = C sgn(f (u)ωu) |f (u)ωu|α . ε2 and f can be solved as function of the story drift u. A steel frame with different TBD systems is studied with cyclic loading tests. The damping constant of the viscous damper is Cv = 54 kN/(mm/s)α . The force applied on the laterally resistant system of Mode 4. a height of 3 m. described as the deformation L3 of the damper. The column section is H 300 × 200 × 12 × 20. 3. ′ ′ ′ A simple geometric relationship is shown as follows: L1 (1 − ε1 ) sin(θ3 ) ′ = D ′ ) sin(θ1 + θ3 ′ . A full scale experiment is conducted to verify the effect of the displacement amplification mechanism to better reflect actual working conditions. θ3 . the six ′ ′ ′ unknown variables θ1 . The mechanical properties of the viscous damper are shown in Figures 10 and 11 and Table 1.15. / Scientia Iranica. the TBD configuration and the story drift yield to the following geometric compatibility condition: L1 (1 + ε1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) ≥  (D + u)2 + H 2 . Finally. ε1 . described as the deformation L3 of the damper.R. and the bottom beam is H 300 × 300 × 12 × 20. (60) Relative displacement. Moreover. Four modes are tested and analyzed: an upper toggle system. 2. from Eqs. is the difference of the damper displacement before and after frame deformed: L3 = ud = fu =  ′ 2 2 L2 1 (1 − ε1 ) + D − 2L1 (1 − ε1 )D cos(θ1 )  2 − L2 1 + D − 2L1 D cos(θ1 ). (51) (52) = f (u) = f (u)ωu. The time interval length is 0. from Eqs. Brace 3 is made of channel steel to prevent out-of-plane movement of the TBD system. the top beam section is H 300 × 300 × 20 × 20. ′ ′ The equilibrium equations at the pivot joint for the horizontal and vertical directions: ′ ′ ′ EA1 ε1 cos(θ1 ) − EA2 ε2 sin(θ2 ) = F3 cos(θ3 ). θ2 . (53) 3. Experimental research on toggle-brace-damper system Although simplified formulas are facilitated to compute and to design TBD system and the equations considering the axial deformation of the steel brace are more similar to the situations observed in practice. which is composed of a viscous damper and steel frame. Mode 4 is loaded with 5–48 mm amplitudes. and the loading amplitudes and periods are included in Table 2.1. (49) through (54). Zhang et al. ε2 and f can be solved as function of the story drift u. The geometric relationship of the lower toggle system is established: ′ ′ L1 (1 + ε1 ) cos(θ1 ) + L2 (1 + ε2 ) sin(θ2 ) = D + u. as shown in Figure 9. The mechanical properties of the steel frame shown in Figure 13 and Table 3 are obtained Relative displacement. and a horizontal damper installation. Then. the six ′ ′ ′ unknown variables θ1 . Actual working conditions are simulated this way. the TBD system moves with the steel frame. The installation photos of Modes 1 through 4 are illustrated in Figure 12. is equal to the force from the actuator. (62) . Moreover. the installation error and the beam deformation influence the magnification effect. two lower toggle systems.3. θ3 . (56) (57) L1 (1 − ε1 ) sin(θ1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) cos(θ2 ) = H . Experiment models (55) When the top of the frame is loaded circularly with an actuator. the TBD configuration and the story drift yield to the following geometric compatibility condition: L1 (1 − ε1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) ≥  (D − u)2 + H 2 . (4) Deformed frame with lower toggle system (to the left). θ2 . The geometric relationship of the lower toggle system is established: ′ ′ L1 (1 − ε1 ) cos(θ1 ) + L2 (1 − ε2 ) sin(θ2 ) = D − u. 3. (58) (59) −EA1 ε1 sin(θ1 ) + EA2 ε2 cos(θ2 ) = F3 sin(θ3 ). The deformed frame to the right is shown in Figure 8(c). The deformed frame to the left is shown in Figure 8(d). 3. ε1 . Modes 1–3 are loaded with 32–48 mm amplitudes. The frame is tested based on a bay length of 6 m. and the damping exponent is α = 0. As in the previous section. and a pipe diameter of brace 1 and 2 of Φ 146 mm with a pipe thickness of 15 mm.

and the magnification effect . Case 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency (Hz) 0.5 120. / Scientia Iranica.4 51. Table 1: Damper performance. Period (s) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Amplitude (mm) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Period (s) 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 Amplitude (mm) 15 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Period (s) 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 Amplitude (mm) 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Figure 10: Mechanical property curves of a viscous damper. because the magnification effect of push and pull is different. When the actuator force is applied. (b) Mode 2.0 20. (c) Mode 3. and the difference can be determined from Figure 13.3 −1.0 Table 2: Loading cases. Table 4 list the theoretical value of the magnification factor where Mode 1 > Mode 2 > Mode 3.4 Measured value (kN) 92. as observed from Table 5. and (d) Mode 4.1386 R. When angles θ1 .5 108.5 1 1 Amplitude (mm) 25. The magnification factor increased after 10 mm.1 100. In Table 4. but the lateral component of TBD force increases. as shown in Table 5.6 213. According to the lateral force of the actuator from Table 5 and the lateral force of the pure steel frame from Table 3. as shown in Figure 14. The stiffness of the steel frame is maintained.6 97.4 Theoretical value (kN) 90. (10). f1 is the displacement magnification factor. θ2 and θ3 are initially determined. the magnification factor of Mode 1 can be also determined according to Eq. When angles θ1 .6 305.4 33. Zhang et al. For the lateral component of TBD force. the magnification factor of Modes 2 and 3 can be also determined according to Eq.4 108. which is the ratio of the stroke of the damper to the frame horizontal displacement.7 3. because of the connection gap of the system. it is unstable until 13 mm is reached because of a connection gap in the system. The magnification of displacement is not effective under small displacement loadings. the lateral component of the TBD force in Mode 1 can be obtained.3 104.7 127.0 48. θ2 and θ4 are initially determined.5 128.0 0.6 Velocity (mm/s) 31.3 34.2 0.0 1.7 Difference (kN) 1. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 a b c d Figure 9: Installation modes of TBD systems: (a) Mode 1. push is greater than pull. (32). and f2 is the ratio of the actuator force to the damping force.8 119. by measurement of the force of the lateral damper and actuator.4 0.

9 115.1 166. F = ±108.3 534.3 140.5 243. A = ±48.4 kN (c) f = 0.5 Hz. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 1387 a b c d e Figure 11: Hysteresis curves of a viscous damper: (a) f = 0.3 158. A = ±34.3 533.3 180.3 527.5 342.9 317.8 436. A = ±20.3 225.5 325.3 393.0 448. F = ±128.1 366.3 65. Zhang et al.9 413.4 551. These differences are clear from Table 4 and Figure 14.0 469.1 97. F = ±100.1 460.2 505.4 Pull 271.2 296.3 114.3 mm.3 181.5 kN (e) f = 1 Hz.8 94. A = ±33. / Scientia Iranica.4 mm.2 102.3 75. Table 3: Lateral force of the steel frame under displacement loading. A = ±25 mm. the damper performance is . F = ±92.5 348.6 247.8 384.4 Hz.2 Hz.7 547.5 167.5 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Displacement (mm) Frame lateral force (kN) Push 281.4 131.8 kN (d) f = 1 Hz.0 510.7 544.1 70.0 mm. This difference is mainly due to the equations neglecting the influence of brace deformation and installation error.4 of push is greater than pull.3 199.7 kN.15 of the viscous damper used in this test is small so that damping force is sensitive to velocity.6 67.6 214.1 469.3 124.3 75. The damping exponent α = 0.2 Pull 51.7 120.1 kN (b) f = 0. F = ±119.9 482. which is not consistent with equations in which the deformation of the brace is ignored.6 mm.7 145.8 378.9 287.6 150. When the damping constant is increased.3 422.R. Displacement (mm) Frame lateral force (kN) Push 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 51.

1 198.4 203.6 196. −178.6 −370.9 179.9 −291.9 −642.3 745.35 57.3 197. Loading displacement (mm) Lateral force of actuator (kN) Push 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13∗ 14 15 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 200.5 −550.6 303.5 212. Mode 1 Original angle θ1 (DEG) Original angle θ2 (DEG) Original angle θ3 or θ4 (DEG) Magnification factor f1 Magnification factor f2 7.4 −711.4 223.7 432.78 1.8 181. (b) Mode 2.1 203.3 179.63 84.6 −254.4 201.0 778.0 −425.52 2. .3 173.8 394.2 215.4 222.0 199.0 353.2 −529.1 −435.9 Figure 14: Experimental displacement magnification of the TBD (Mode 1).3 −235. In addition to the increase of displacement loading.37 2.6 −273.3 458. Zhang et al.4 627.7 −695.1 179.0 287.7 212. as shown in Figure 14.1 231.7 205.2 −578.36 55.4 174. strong under small displacements.0 374.7 196.1 709.4 692.3 212. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 a b c d Figure 12: Installation modes: (a) Mode 1.36 2.7 −382.2 165.5 188.3 227.5 189.3 170.2 544.03 49.31 47.3 −454.4 733.1 177.5 254.70 1.36 Mode 2 32.2 179.5 Figure 13: The relationship between lateral force and displacement without a TBD.4 −564.2 524. which is consistent with the theoretical equation.2 Pull Lateral component of TBD force (kN) Push 148.0 501.7 −342.9 201.5 187.4 146.7 177.3 282.8 577.8 794.4 206.2 246.2 179.3 178. the difference of the displacement magnification effect between push and pull is larger than the lateral component of TBD force.19 Mode 3 19.9 203.8 596.3 480.0 175.0 196.8 −637. (c) Mode 3.0 −354.3 210.87 34.7 −314.6 220.4 660.5 414. / Scientia Iranica.7 −211.1 205. Table 4: Theoretical value of magnification factor.1388 R.9 −299.7 198. and (d) Mode 4. Therefore.3 183.5 213.6 −619.0 −672.19 2.9 208.8 204.6 311. amplification factor curves.70 Table 5: Experimental lateral force of the TBD system (Mode 1).6 173.4 270.4 193.0 −700.6 −500. stabilize.4 202.8 Pull 127.3 182.9 −739.1 208.0 211.3 234.

8 156.2 −408.6 152.7 152.9 146.3 −375.5 −440.6 497.0 −233.3 668. push is greater than pull for large displacements.0 1389 −184. the lateral stiffness of the steel brace along the push direction becomes smaller and the stiffness becomes larger along the pull direction.6 259.5 175. the out-of-plane stiffness is small because the single steel frame does not have a floor slab. For the displacement magnification factor.3 −713. because of the connection gap of system. Loading displacement (mm) Lateral force of actuator (kN) Push 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 139.1 162.9 133.4 The magnification of displacement is not effective under small displacement loadings.5 104.0 182.8 −638.0 −516. Table 7: Experimental lateral force of TBD system (Mode 3).9 616.1 301.5 163. which is consistent with the theoretical equations.8 138.1 133.1 175.1 232.5 566.6 480. Along with the increase of displacement loading.8 277.1 −495.3 −591.2 −213.4 Figure 15: Experimental displacement magnification of TBD (Mode 2). The magnification of displacement is not effective under small displacement loadings.7 171.4 −316.9 223.4 −434.5 −341.7 186.0 121.1 209.0 150.3 331. .7 732.1 183. / Scientia Iranica.0 134.5 301.0 165.1 186.4 159.0 154. However.6 146.2 −247. as shown in Figure 16.7 −261.9 162.0 185. as shown in Figure 15. Compared to Mode 1.1 131.1 166.3 154.3 359.3 −353.2 701. stabilize.6 417.6 113.8 142. for the lateral force of the actuator.3 −475.7 −354.9 540.6 172.2 263. push is greater than pull. the amplification factor curves.4 136.6 172.8 175.2 503.8 176.4 385. which provides strong damper performance under small displacements.3 −548.7 −282.4 −234. Thus. Loading displacement (mm) Lateral force of actuator (kN) Push 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 179.2 160.8 687. the lateral component of TBD force in Mode 2 can be obtained.3 678. the magnification effect of push and pull is different.1 167.4 169.5 151.4 447. When the angle between brace 2 and the horizontal plane increases along the push direction and the angle along the pull direction decreases.0 146.9 170.3 −509.5 −431.1 155. Along with the increase of displacement loading.4 330.5 292.8 756.3 664.7 171. which is consistent with the theoretical equations. According to the lateral force of the actuator from Table 7 and the lateral force of the pure steel frame from Table 3. push is greater than pull. −113.2 166.R.4 177.4 555. which is different from previous experiments.3 Pull 132.8 −584.0 144.9 104.6 143.2 −528.5 167.9 422.9 177.7 213.4 478.7 149.0 396.2 182.3 312.3 184.6 157.1 241.7 Pull Lateral component of TBD force (kN) Push 128.9 −682.5 163.5 170.4 136. the magnification factor of Mode 2 for push is similar to that for pull.5 591.9 −636.8 −606.3 196. By contrast.6 155.7 144.8 249.8 −554.4 170. For small displacements.3 117.9 128.0 728.3 699.8 −276.0 184. pull is greater than push for the lateral force of actuator and the lateral component of TBD force.0 274.8 −541.7 139.7 336.8 −618.5 −653.6 193.3 −327.0 138. as determined from Table 7.0 168. the lateral component of TBD force in Mode 3 can be obtained. large displacement loadings and high speed cyclic loadings oscillate the top of the steel frame. which is inconsistent with equations in which the deformation of the brace is not considered.7 590.2 168. the lateral component of TBD force increases quickly along the push direction with an increase in displacement loading.6 455.3 −266.4 191.8 645.1 162. for large displacements.3 321.9 −251.1 172. Moreover.2 −307.6 −380.9 519. brace 3 is installed in the steel frame to prevent out-ofplane instability.7 377.5 179.6 109.0 Pull 62.0 −611.0 141.9 187.1 102.1 137. The damping exponent of the viscous damper is small so that the damping force is sensitive to velocity.8 126.3 360.9 139. stabilizes.9 106. as shown in Figure 15.2 −188.2 138.4 −290.9 −690.3 144.5 144.2 146.2 −215. For the lateral force of the actuator and the lateral component of TBD force.6 90.7 155. push is greater than pull for the lateral force of actuator and the lateral component of TBD force.0 −564.1 −322.3 575.5 −671. The influence of the magnification effect is similar to Mode 1. as shown in Figure 9.3 164.6 155.9 −155.7 146. amplification factor curves.2 175. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 Table 6: Experimental lateral force of TBD system (Mode 2). However.9 194. From tests with the three TBD modes. as shown in Table 6.7 −473.2 −324. The steel frame.0 160. Zhang et al. which is not consistent with equations in which the deformation of the brace is ignored.0 179.9 149.9 148.7 152.9 −571.4 186.2 287.4 Pull Lateral component of TBD force (kN) Push 87.2 122. In tests with the TBD system.7 638. as shown in Figure 16.6 155.8 165.4 550.7 187.8 612.0 117.9 162.2 −636.8 157.5 187.0 According to the lateral force of the actuator from Table 6 and the lateral force of the pure steel frame from Table 3.1 −502.5 −296.9 −408. TBD system and actuator are not arranged in the same plane because of installation error.8 155.8 148.

T. [12] Shao. ‘‘Long back spans. ‘‘Analytical and experimental study of toggle-brace-damper systems’’. ‘‘Parametric study for motion amplification device with viscous damper’’. books and proceedings. and Wan. Currently. Ruifu Zhang was born in Shaan. Conclusions Different configurations of a TBD system are tested in this study. Braces 1 and 2 are connected to the viscous damper and their diameter and thickness are 146 mm and 15 mm.S. and Spencer.P. degree from Tongji University in 2012. He obtained a Ph. Installation may lead to out-ofplane instability of the TBD system. Y. pp. P. and Soong.B.C. S. China. and experimental results for upper and lower TBD systems are compared with the theoretical analysis.1390 R. degree in Structure Engineering from the same university in 2008. PA. pp. Vancouver.. and the upper TBD is the best mode. He received his B. E. Journal of Structural Engineering. eventually the magnification factor becomes stable. symmetrical installed TBD systems can provide stronger structures. Hui He was born in Hunan. ‘‘Seismic design with supplemental energy dissipation devices’’. degree in 2006 from Tongji University. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Tongji University in 2004 and his M. degree from Tongji University in 2010. B. pp. respectively. Modern Steel Construction. SLDRCE10-D-01 and by the Foundation of Shanghai Engineering Technical Research Centre under Grant No.F. (2) The magnification factor from theoretical equations that do not consider brace deformation is inconsistent with the experimental results. His main research interest is the energy dissipation structure and storage tank safety. CA. In 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. A. he is working on the energy dissipation structure. Hammel. Journal of Structure Engineering. 129(10). degree in Structure Engineering from Guangxi University in 2007. (1) Through the contrast test. degree in Civil Engineering from Central South University in 2004 and his M. He has published more than 100 articles in well-recognized journals. he is working on the earthquake energy dissipation. 105–112 (2001). [5] Constantinou. Figure 16: Experimental displacement magnification of TBD (Mode 3).D. ‘‘Togglebrace-damper seismic energy dissipations systems’’. Y. pp. USA (2002). in 1980. . ‘‘Seismic performance improvement of a torsional irregular concrete shear wall building using toggle-bracedampers’’. [8] Ribakov.. [9] Huang. Y..D. he is working on the energy dissipation structure and storage tank safety. 501–512 (1998). Currently. Chicago. The axial deformation of the braces is the major factor effecting energy dissipation of the viscous damper. and Tonawanda. 979–983 (2005). ‘‘Design of amplified structural damping using optimal considerations’’. with increasing loading displacement.T. ‘‘Passive control systems for seismic damage mitigation’’. Engineering Structures. H. J. Tsai. 131(7). 243–259 (2002). J. ‘‘Toggle linkage seismic isolation structure’’. He is a senior engineer at Shanghai Research Institute of Materials. The experimental results show that the deformations of braces 1 and 2 have an obvious influence energy dissipation. ASCE Structures Congress. Journal of Structural Engineering. which is consistent with the theoretical results. 124(5).S. A. Currently.D. the magnification factor is always changing under the small displacement from the magnification factor curves. he is working on the earthquake energy dissipation in Shanghai Research Institute of Materials. and Sigaher. He received his Ph. Because of the randomness of the direction of seismic waves. [11] Hwang.S. [10] Hwang. Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE. 47–53 (2001). Sunwei Ding was born in Jiangsu. (3) For geometric parameters.. pp. For large displacement loadings. 28(13).S. Huang. 127(2). 521–536 (2009). and Huang. and magnificent effects of different TBD systems are different such that Mode 1 > Mode 2 > Mode 3 > Mode 4. 4. Engineering Structures. in 1955. [13] Berton. M. 10DZ2252000. N. Dagen Weng is a professor of Civil Engineering at Tongji University. Tsopelas. 24(3). Zhang et al. ‘‘Viscous damper with motion amplification device for high rise building applications’’. [3] Taylor. degree in Civil Engineering from Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology in 2003 and his M.S. ‘‘Supplemental energy dissipation: stateof-the-art and state-of-the practice’’.. A. 1035–1043 (2005). C. R. and Hung. Journal of Structural Engineering. and Reinhorn. Acknowledgments This work is supported by the Foundation of Basic Research Program of the State Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant No.N. degree in Civil Engineering from the same university in 2008. the experimental magnification factor of the push direction is greater than the theoretical value. Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 1379–1390 References [1] Soong. He received his B. Y. ‘‘Amplication system for supplement damping device in seismic applications’’.. R. American Institute of Steel Construction. upturned spandrels and toggle brace-dampers meet the complex seismic requirements of the irregularly shaped steel tower for San Francisco’s Four Seasons Residences’’. [6] McNamara. in 1982. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. magnification effects of TBD systems are effective.Y. However. [4] Hanson. and Watanabe. / Scientia Iranica. B.C. China. 1422–1427 (2003). H. He obtained a Ph. in 1981. ‘‘Experimental study of RC building structures with supplemental viscous dampers and lightly reinforced walls’’. and Miyamoto. Fu. China. V. and the theoretical value is greater than the experimental value for the pull direction. D. [7] DeSimone. China. T. 5934028 (1999). pp. and Bolander. D. USA (2000). which suggests that brace deformation and installation error cannot be ignored in the design of a TBD system. Y. ‘‘Efficiency of the motion amplification device with viscous dampers and its application in highrise buildings’’. [14] Huang. Huang. 8(4). Los Angeles.D. Oakland.C. pp. Philadelphia.. but the effect is not analyzed in detailed due to limitations of the loading amplitude of the actuator. W. pp.S. Hongwei Zhou was born in Shanghai.T. Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering.M. 1816–1824 (2006). Currently. He received his B. 131(6). K. [2] Kasai. USA (2002). C. Wang. pp.J. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. S. K. Canada (2004). S. and Steven.