Seismic Performance Evaluation of a Recently Developed

Magnetorheological Damper: Experimental Investigation

Daniel Cruze, S.M.ASCE 1; Hemalatha Gladston 2; Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi 3; Arnab Banerjee 4;
Sarala Loganathan 5; and Sundar Manoharan Solomon 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Magnetorheological (MR) dampers have the ability to mitigate natural hazards for structures due to their high energy dissipation
features with low power demand. This feature has made the MR damper one of the most popular semiactive damping devices. The present
work validates the performance of a single-story reinforced concrete (RC) frame using a reduced scale 10 kN capacity multiple coil MR
damper that has recently been developed by the authors. To conduct this test, MR fluid is synthesized and the proposed multicoil MR damper
was designed and fabricated. Three RC frames were cast and tested using a loading frame with a capacity of 50 kN. This frame was subjected
to earthquake excitation with MR damper placed diagonally at 0 A current, 3 A current, and without MR damper for a better comparison.
The comparative performance indicated the reductions in displacements, increase of forces, and changes in crack patterns. The proposed
semiactive damper can, therefore, be used effectively as a seismic resilient device in reducing the structural responses in the regions of
moderate to high seismicity. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000544. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Multicoil magnetorheological (MR) damper; Time history loading; Reinforced concrete (RC) frame; Experimental
Setup; Semiactive; Resilient.

Introduction clipped-optimal control law between various floors in the buildings.

Magnetorheological (MR) dampers were widely studied during the
last few years for structural vibration control due to their promising
features, such as less power, simple design, easy fabrication, non-
linear hysteretic response depending on applied voltages, and
adjustable performance with respect to different hazards (Dyke
et al. 1996; Spencer et al. 1997; Jansen and Dyke 2000; Spencer
and Nagarajaiah 2003; He et al. 2003; Christenson et al. 2008; Cha
and Agrawal 2013a, b; Friedman 2012; Cha et al. 2013a, b). Dyke
et al. (1998) examined the efficiency of MR dampers for seismic
response reduction for a small-scale three-story moment resisting
frame with a total weight of 227 kg and a height of 1.58 m. An
experimental study was performed by placing a scaled-down MR
damper, which had a displacement of 25 mm, operated by the
1 et al. 2017; Collini et al 2016; Casapulla and Maione 2017;
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Karunya Institute of
Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641114, India (corre-
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4024-4742. Email:
danielckarunya@gmail.com
2 conducted real-time hybrid simulation pretesting of a 200-kN
Associate Professor and Head, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Karunya
Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641114,
India. Email: hemalathag@karunya.edu
3
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil and Surveying Engineering, Grad-
uate Univ. of Advanced Technology, Kerman 7631818356, Iran. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2790-526X. Email: noroozinejad@kgut.ac.ir
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India. ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0002-3157-6200. Email: abanerjee@iitd.ac.in
5
Research Associate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Karunya Institute of
Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641114, India. Email:
vijitha.loganathan@gmail.com
6
Director General, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum Univ., Gandhinagar,
Gujarat 382007, India. Email: incsssm@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 30, 2020; approved on
August 17, 2020; published online on November 9, 2020. Discussion per-
iod open until April 9, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Struc-
tural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
Oh and Onoda (2002) presented an experimental study to validate
the performance of MR damper effects on seismic vibration control
of 4.2 m length truss system with 10 bays. Fujitani et al. (2008) and
Bogdanovic et al. (2019) carried out real-time hybrid simulations
(RTHS) and shake table tests to validate the simulations and the
response of MR dampers with a damping force of 10 kN capacity
and 30 mm displacement of the piston.
Li and Wang (2011) performed an experimental test to illustrate
the efficacy and functionality of a small-scale MR damper operated
by a decentralized control algorithm to minimize seismic responses
of two-story reinforced concrete (RC) frame subjected to soil-
structure interactions. The semiactive control method for rocking
blocks that compares different strategies for its implementation
is studied using numerical and analytical investigation (Ceravolo
Casapulla 2015). To compare the mechanical model of MR damp-
ers, such as the hyperbolic tangent model, Bouc-Wen model, al-
gebraic model, and Dahl model, Jiang and Christenson (2011)
MR damper. Jiang and Christenson (2012) discussed a new MR
damper model called the pulse-width modulated (PWM) power
amplifier that provides the damper with the current. Two large-
scale 200-kN MR dampers located in the Smart Structures
Technology Laboratory (SSTL) at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign and the Lehigh University Network for Earth-
quake Engineering Simulation (NEES) facility were used for
conducting the experimental testing. The maximum dynamic
behavior of the large-scale 200-kN MR damper can be predicted
accurately when compared with experimental test results for both
specified ground motion and current and real-time hybrid simu-
lation of semiactive control of the proposed MR damper model.
Daniel et al. (2020) examined the effectiveness of a small-scale
MR damper with a self-powered system consisting of an electro-
magnetic induction (EMI) interface connected to the electrical en-
ergy. The EMI unit attached to the MR damper, therefore, can be

© ASCE 04020061-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061

 used as an efficient and alternative source of power for the MR
damper, making it a self-powering system. This system is subjected
to time history loading (El Centro) and compared with passive,
semiactive, and active control systems. The MR dampers and rub-
ber bearings are held in a concrete frame structure as a base iso-
lating device. The classical linear optimal control algorithm using
continuous control and control strategies is used for controlling the
structural vibration responses. Numerical simulation analysis and
shake table test results suggest that the isolation control system
can effectively resolve the shortcomings due to the narrow opti-
mum control band of the passive isolation system, and is therefore
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
investigated by Fu et al. (2019) to provide optimum control for vari-
ous seismic excitations within a wider frequency range. The exper-
imental investigation was carried out for joints, tuned mass damper,
viscous fluid damper, and tuned liquid column damper resilient
control devices for seismic mitigation in building structures (Basu
et al. 2014; Aydin et al. 2017, 2019a, b; Khan et al. 2012). Gu et al.
(2020) performed an experimental analysis on magnetorheological
elastomer as a base insolation device in a shake table test for a
three-story shear frame. Priya and Gopalakrishnan (2019) experi-
mentally tested the influence of temperature on the MR damper
characteristics with two separate MR damper stroke lengths and
found that temperature impacts the maximum force produced by
the damper and the damper’s energy dissipation. Xu et al. (2019)
performed a shake table experiment on a three-story steel frame
with a MR damper mounted between the ground and first floor with
a microcontroller. Using a microcontroller with a digital signal
processor chip as the control processor, a piecewise control algo-
rithm based on the feedbacks of story drift and ground excitation
acceleration was adopted. Passive-on and passive-off controlled
structures were used under various earthquake vibrations to test
the effectiveness of the smart MR vibration control system. Oh
and Onoda (2002) presented a truss structure with MR damper
and electrorheological (ER) damper. Both were experimentally in-
vestigated and it was shown that the performance of the MR
damper was better than the ER damper.
Bhaiya et al. (2019) built a control system for investigating the
MR damper subjected to the near-field earthquakes for building
frames. The near-field ground motions characteristics are distinctly
different from far-field motions. The MR damper’s output is stud-
ied for two forms of near-field earthquakes, namely Bam (forward-
directivity effect) and Chichi (fling-step effect). Shirinkam and
Razzaghi (2020) studied a braced frame equipped with a diagonally
positioned metallic box-shaped damper (BSD). The wide hysteresis
curve and the presence of two levels of plastic energy dissipation
make it able to withstand moderate and severe earthquakes. The
BSD hysteresis plot is large and the tension and compression duc-
tility factor have been 19.3 and 11.2, respectively. Tse and Chang
(2004) fabricated a small-scale shear mode MR damper designed
based on the Bingham model. RD1097 type MR damper hysteretic
behavior was analyzed and subjected to three excitations, namely
El Centro earthquake, Pingsheng earthquake, and a sinusoidal
wave, and RD1097 MR damper was subjected to Taft wave with
nine control cases using the Bang control system. A three-story test
frame with a semiactive MR damper was subjected to one-
dimensional ground acceleration, as discussed by Yang et al. (2011,
2013). Gong et al. (2019) proposed a pseudonegative stiffness
(PNS) control system with a capacity of 10 kN, using MR damper.
With NI Compact RIO as a hardware platform and Labview as a
software platform, the PNS control system was developed. Shaking
table experiments were carried out on a 4-floor steel-frame base-
isolated structure model using PNS power. For the El Centro earth-
quake, Ji Ji earthquake, Kobe earthquake fault normal (FN), and
Kobe earthquake fault parallel (FP), with increasing peak ground
© ASCE 04020061-2
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061
acceleration, the seismic responses were compared under the un-
controlled case, passive-off case, passive-on case, and displacement
pseudo-negative-stiffness (DPNS) control case. Li and Li (2009)
conducted a shake table test for a three-story RC frame. The genetic
algorithm was used to optimize the control strategy.
In the present study, experimental investigations of a one-third
scale, bare-frame specimen having three different MR damper con-
figurations have been conducted. The main objectives of this
experimental investigation were
1. to study the in-plane behavior of test frame with and without
MR dampers due to time history loading; and
2. to determine the dynamic properties of the frame.
The preparation of the experimental test setup, instrumentation,
and loading history are detailed since the objective of this study was
to investigate the performance of the RC frame with and without
MR dampers. The RC footing was intentionally designed to be rela-
tively strong to avoid any damage during the test under time history
loading. There were three frame specimens cast and tested. However,
the with damper specimen has two different configurations. All the
specimens were tested in the loading frame with a capacity of 200 kN.
Various performances of specimens such as damping force, crack pat-
tern, failure modes, and the load-displacement relationship were inves-
tigated. The results were compared with that of the control specimen.
MR Fluid
MR fluids contain three main components: iron particles, a liquid
carrier, and surfactants. Iron particles are mostly carbonyl iron of
99% purity due to high magnetic permeability and high-density
magnetization. In the present study, Fe3 O4 iron particles were used
and Magnatec oil is used as a carrier liquid. No surfactants were
added to the fluid. The rod-shaped particles minimize wear effects
on the container or system walls inside which the MR fluids work
(Sarala Loganathan, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu). The size of the iron
particles is 12 nm. The small size helps the MR fluids to develop
high yield stress and there will be no corrosion and friction prob-
lems in the fluid. The MR fluid was prepared by mixing the nano −
Fe3 O4 in the carrier oil. The whole mixture was stirred at room
temperature using an overhead stirrer for about 24 h. MR fluid sample
was prepared by 60% iron particles and 40% carrier oil by volume.
Proposed Multicoil MR Damper
The damping force produced in the MR damper is due to viscous
friction when a magnetic field is applied. MR fluid is endorsed with
an annular distance of 1 mm within the cylinder. The viscosity of
the fluid varies depending upon the magnetic field generated by the
coil. The traditional MR damper has a limit of 3 piston poles and
3 coils, while 9 coils and 10 piston poles with a uniform distance of
10 mm and a depth of 20 mm is manufactured in the proposed MR
damper to generate more shear forces. The cylinder thickness is
5 mm. Typically, by increasing the number of flow gaps and pro-
viding more piston poles, more shear forces will result in the sides
of the piston, as shown in Fig. 1. The proposed MR damper will
produce a maximum damping force of 10 kN. The electromagnetic
circuit will provide more flux lines in the flow gaps in milliseconds
according to the design. Nine multiple coils should be modeled to
produce 10 kN damping power. The wires from the coils were con-
nected to the direct current (DC) power supply, which resulted in a
magnetic field generation and stress in the MR fluid. The benefit of
using the toothing system in the piston configuration is the alternate
polarities in the magnetic field strengthen the fluid through two
adjacent cores in the piston, whereas in the conventional single
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the proposed MR damper.

Fig. 3. Proposed MR damper in MTS machine.

Table 1. Damping force of the proposed MR damper

% increase in Difference in damping
Current Maximum damping force force with reference
(A) force (kN) with respect to 0 A to 0 A
0 1.60 — —
0.5 2.30 43.74 0.70
1 3.02 88.75 0.72
1.5 3.78 136.25 0.76
2 4.42 176.25 0.62
2.5 5.10 218.75 0.68
3 5.83 264.37 0.73

of current. The active volume of MR fluid is defined as the mag-

Fig. 2. Components of the proposed MR damper: (a) piston; (b) outer netic field passes the volume of fluid (Bai et al. 2015).
cylinder; (c) coil winding, (d) end cover; (e) cylinder cap; and (f) MR
damper.
Experimental Test (Damper Level)

The performance of the MR dampers (Krishnamoorthy, Coimbatore,

or length coil it is absent. The proposed damper has a payload of
13.2 kg. As per the design, the proposed damper was fabricated and
parts are shown in Figs. 2(a–f). The electromagnetic coil was
wound on a light-duty lathe.
The device’s chambers are filled with MR fluid. The accumu-
lator at the bottom end of the chamber is not equipped. The MR
fluid flows through the annular gap between chambers as the piston
moves. The nine coils are resistant to heat and are electrically in-
sulated. The field around the piston head is created when the mag-
netic field is applied. The position of the magnetic field in multiple
coils produces maximum damping force due to the effect of the
current supply. The maximum magnetic flux density produced in
each coil at 3 A is 2.15 T. The magnetic flux lines are perpendicular
to the direction of flow and give flow resistance. The proposed de-
sign can control a wide range through varying values and directions
India) was under application of real-time seismic accelerogram his-
tory of the 1940 El Centro earthquake ground motion through the
material testing system (MTS) 100 T Universal Testing Machine
(UTM) machine at the Karunya Institute of Technology and Sci-
ences, Coimbatore, India, as shown in Fig. 3. The magnitude of
the current was kept constant at 0 and 3 A throughout the entire
testing. The top of the piston and end cover are fixed with threaded
fixtures.
The resulting damping forces of the proposed MR damper are
also obtained and presented in Table 1. The input is the displace-
ment response in the MTS machine, in which time histories of ac-
celeration are converted to time histories of displacement to
conduct the experiments. The force versus displacement response
of the proposed MR damper at each 0.5 A interval current applied
in the multiple coils is illustrated in Fig. 4.

© ASCE 04020061-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Force versus displacement responses.

The damping force of the MR damper for 0 A current is margin- have a reasonable degree of precision with moderate complexity
ally less than that of the 3 A. To model the hysteresis behavior of compared to existing models. The pinching effect occurred in
the MR damper Bouc-Wen model is defined by the sharp shift in the zero-force region due to strain hardening; the hardening effect
the slope of the maximum force about 8 s. The proposed models occurred at the maximum force region due to an increase of current

© ASCE 04020061-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061

 Table 2. Reinforcement detailing of RC frame members
Member Overall size (L × B × H) Clear cover (mm)
Beam 1,000 × 250 × 250 25
Column 3,000 × 200 × 300 25
Note: L = length in mm; B = breadth in mm; H = depth/height in mm; nos = numbers; c/c = center to center distance; and ∅ = diameter of bars in mm.
in the horizontal direction; and the softening effect occurred at
the zero-force region in the vertical direction. The maximum damp-
ing force of 5.83 kN is generated from the proposed multicoil MR
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
damper at 3 A. The difference of damping force is 0.70 kN, approx-
imately, for each interval of 0.5 A. Maximum and minimum out-
put for the hysteresis curve of MR damper reached the design
requirements.
Experimental Test (Structure Level)
The configuration of the nominal 2-story reinforced concrete build-
ing was scaled down to 1:3 ratio based on our experimental setup
capability. A comprehensive test program was carried out using
three specimens. The first frame is considered as the reference
specimen (bare frame), the second frame is an RC frame with MR
damper at 0 A current, and the third set consists of an RC frame
with MR damper at 3 A current.
Two-Story Building Model
A standard 2-story 4-bay RC building is considered as the reference
structure in this investigation. The column height is considered as
3.0 m. According to the Indian Standard (IS) 456: 2000 (BIS 2000),
all prototype frame members have been built. The dead load on the
beams consists of the self-weight of the beam and is 3.0 kN=m2 .
Live loads on the roof and floor are assumed as 1.5 kN=m2 . The
concrete grade in the frame members was assumed to be M20 with
the specified compressive strength of 20 MPa and reinforcement
grade was thermomechanically treated (TMT) bars with the stated
yield strength of 415 MPa. The linear static analysis was carried out
to determine the resultant axial loads, bending moments, and shear
forces in all members of the study frame using computer package
STAAD Pro V8i version 20 (Joseph et al. 2018). As per IS
456:2000, 1.5 [dead load (DL) + imposed load (IL)] load combi-
nation was considered. The measurements and description of the
members of the prototype frame are given in Table 2.
Fig. 5. Elevation of bare frame.
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061
Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement (mm c=c)
∅12 (6nos) ∅8@120
∅12 (4nos) ∅8@200
Scaling of the Prototype Building
Fig. 5. shows a single-bay single-story RC frame considered in the
present experimental investigation, which is a reduced scale (1:3)
interior frame of the 2-story prototype building. All member sec-
tions of the model frame were proportioned to that of prototype
frame members based on similitude laws for material and section
properties. According to the laws of similitude, the dimension of
the prototype was reduced by the scale factor 1=3, as provided in
Table 3, and the reinforcements are reduced to the design areas of
the reinforcements of the prototype (Garevski et al. 2004). The
reinforcement details of the normal prototype frame are given in
Table 4.
Dimensions and Reinforcement Detailing of the Normal
Frame
The primary elements of the normal frame considered in the exper-
imental study are (1) footing (1,600 × 560 × 100 mm), (2) two col-
umns (100 × 77 × 77 mm), and (3) beam (100 × 77 × 77 mm).
The shear reinforcements of the beam and columns consisted of
high-strength wires as TMT bars. Frame members were designed
only for gravity loads as per IS 456:2000 provisions.
Fig. 6 shows the arrangement of main and transverse reinforce-
ments in various members of the normal frame, which represents
the typical reinforcement detailing of a gravity load–designed RC
frame. The detailing of reinforcements in these members was car-
ried out as per IS 456:2000 provisions, satisfying the requirements
of development length of tension and compression reinforcement.
Stirrups used in each member of the normal frame were pro-
vided with 90° end hooks and extended for a length of at least eight
times its diameter beyond the hook. Nominal shear strengthening
was provided in regular frame columns. The RC footing was de-
signed purposely to be much stronger to prevent any damage during
the study.
Material Properties
Concrete and reinforcing steel are the two primary materials of the
RC frame. The design of various members of the frame was based
on assumed or specified values of different materials. However,
various properties of these materials may vary from their design
values depending on the level of quality control during the con-
struction process. It is, therefore, necessary to determine the actual
material properties to verify the compliance with relevant codes of
Table 3. Dimensions of the model
Scale factor Member Prototype (mm) Our model (mm)
1=3 Length of beam 3,000 1,000
Depth of beam 200 77
Width of beam 200 77
Height of column 3,000 1,000
Depth of column 300 77
Width of column 200 77
Source: Data from Joseph et al. (2018).
04020061-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Table 4. Reinforcement details of the prototype
Member Components Reinforcement details
Beam Tension steel 3 numbers of 12 mm diameter bars
Compression steel 3 numbers of 12 mm diameter bars
Shear reinforcement 8 mm diameter 2 legged stirrups at 120 mm c/c spacing
Column Longitudinal reinforcement 4 numbers of 12 mm diameter bars
Transverse reinforcement 8 mm diameter 2 legged stirrups at 200 mm c/c spacing
Note: c/c = center to center distance.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Reinforcement details of the scaled bare frame.

RC construction. Moreover, the actual properties of concrete and
steel are extremely important for the analysis of the bare frame
under various loading conditions. Hence, several standard tests
were carried out on each component of reinforced concrete as sum-
marized in the following sections.
Concrete Mix Design
Ordinary portland cement (Grade 43) was used to prepare the con-
crete used in RC frame construction. Table 5 summarizes the physi-
cal properties of the cement obtained from the standard tests, as per
IS 8112:1989 (BIS 1989) provisions. Compressive strength of ce-
ment was determined by testing three mortar cubes composed of
(1) one part cement by mass, (2) three parts standard sand by mass,
and (3) 25% of standard consistency plus 3.0% (of the combined
mass of cement and sand) water, as per IS 4031:1998 (Part 6) (BIS
1988) provisions. The average compressive strength of cement
cubes at 28 days was found to be 48.1 MPa. Moreover, the physical
properties of cement satisfied the desired limits as specified in
the code.
Natural sand confirming to Zone-II [IS 383 (BIS 1970)] avail-
able in the locality was used as fine aggregate in cement concrete of
the RC frame. The maximum size of fine and coarse aggregates
used in concrete was limited to 4.75 and 10 mm, respectively.
Although coarse aggregates of 12.5 mm in size are used in practice
for preparation of cement concrete, the maximum size of aggregate
used in the present study was limited to 10 mm because of the re-
duced size of the study frame. Table 6 summarizes the results of
sieve analysis carried out for both fine and coarse aggregates.

Table 6. Sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates

Table 5. Physical properties of cement used in cement concrete Percentage of passing
Physical properties Observed values Desired values Sieve size (mm) Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate
Standard consistency 28.5% — 12.5 100 —
Initial setting time 130 min >30 min 10 96 100
Final setting time 225 min <600 min 4.75 75 95
Compressive strength 2.36 9.8 89.5
3 day 28.1 MPa >23 MPa 1.18 0 70.7
7 day 38.3 MPa >33 MPa 0.6 — 50.7
28 day 48.1 MPa >43 MPa 0.3 — 16.7

© ASCE 04020061-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061

 Table 7. Physical properties of fine and coarse aggregate
Property Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate
Specific gravity 2.7 2.65
Water absorption (%) 0.34 1.12
Bulk density (kg=m3 ) 1,485 1,620
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Concrete cubes for testing the compressive strength.
Fig. 8. Plywood formwork. (Images by Daniel Cruze.)
As expected, more than 90% of the aggregates passed through the
respective maximum size of sieves for both fine and coarse
aggregates.
Table 7 summarizes the physical properties of both fine and
coarse aggregates obtained using standard tests as per IS 2386:1963
(part-111) (BIS 1963) provisions. Specific gravities of both fine
and coarse aggregates are nearly the same, whereas the bulk density
of fine aggregates was about 10% more than coarse aggregates. In
addition, fine aggregates absorbed about 3.0 times the amount of
water as compared to the coarse aggregates.
Many batches of in-place mixed concrete were used to cast vari-
ous RC frame members. The concrete mix was designed for a com-
pressive strength characteristic of 20 MPa. Fig. 7 shows the casting
of each frame cube to be tested using UTM. The target cube com-
pressive strength of the design mix was computed to be 26.6 MPa
for the prescribed standard deviation value of 4.0 MPa, as per IS
10262:1982 (BIS 1982) provisions. The concrete mix ratio was
found to be 1.00:1.62:2.33 (cement:sand:coarse aggregate) with
a water:cement ratio of 0.5:0.9.
The average 28-day compressive strength of concrete is found to
be 27.9 MPa, which compares well with the target cube strength of
26.6 MPa. However, the compressive strength of concrete at the
day of testing was found to be 31.7 MPa, which was about 15%
higher than the 28-day compressive strength.
Reinforcing Steels
In the investigated RC frames, two kinds of steel were used as rein-
forcements. TMT bars with a required yield strength of 415 MPa
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061
Fig. 9. Painting plywood with oil. (Image by Daniel Cruze.)
were used in all frame members as longitudinal and transverse rein-
forcements, except in beams and columns where high-strength ca-
bles were used as shear reinforcements. Tensile properties of these
reinforcing steel were obtained by conducting coupon tests us-
ing UTM.
A data acquisition system was used for the online recording of
force and deformations of the coupons. Tensile stress was estimated
by dividing the force carried by the coupons to their respective
original cross-sectional areas. Similarly, the tensile strain was com-
puted as the ratio of tensile deformations of the coupons to their
respective gauge lengths. Gauge length for the extensometer was
taken as the distance between the holding clamps, which was
25 mm for the particular extensometer used for the test.
The yield strengths of TMT bars were nearly equal or slightly
more than the specified value of 415 MPa. However, high-strength
wire showed significantly higher yield strengths as compared to
TMT bars. Ultimate strength was found to be 12%–15% higher
than the yield strength for high-strength wires and about 30%–35%
for TMT bars.
Construction of the Test Frames
The construction of RC frames was carried out with a casting of
frame members in the vertical position to facilitate a real pouring
of mixed in-place concrete. The plywood formwork was constructed
to the desired dimension with a tolerance of about 2.5 mm, as
shown in Fig. 8. The plywood formwork was polished with oil
for removing casted specimen easily, as shown in Fig. 9.
As per the detailing of reinforcement, centering work was done
as shown in Fig. 10. The reinforcement cage in formwork was
placed such that the batches of mixed in-place concrete that was
used to cast the required cover concrete was maintained for each
frame member.
The process of casting was started from the footing to the col-
umns and completed at the beam. After the completion of the cast-
ing process, top surfaces of the frame members were properly finish
leveled, as shown in Fig. 11. The members are compacted manually
for all specimens, as shown in Fig. 12. The frame members were
properly cured by sprinkling water at regular intervals for 1–28 days
and with covered gunny bags, as shown in Fig. 13.
Experimental Investigation of Frames Equipped with
Proposed MR Damper
The hydraulic actuator was used to apply a lateral load to the
RC frame at the beam level. The actuator had a capacity of 50 kN
(both tension and compression) with a maximum stroke length of
125 mm in each direction. The capacity of the loading frame is
250 kN. The in-built force transducer and displacement transducer
facilitated the measure of the force and displacement generated
04020061-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Compaction of the concrete. (Image by Daniel Cruze.)

Fig. 10. Centering work. (Images by Daniel Cruze.)

The piston of the actuator was set at a distance of 125 mm position,

from the piston of the actuator. The actuator was supported by a
reaction frame composed of steel box-section as column and I sec-
tion. Both members were firmly held to the laboratory strong floor
using steel studs. The actuator was connected to the vertical mem-
bers of the reaction frame, which, in turn, was firmly attached to the
vertical member of the reaction frame using high-strength steel
bolts (Cruze et al. 2018).
The actuator was fixed at the height of 1.1 m from the reaction
floor. The specimens were cast according to this height, so that the
centerline of the piston of the actuator coincides with the beam.
so that the piston can move 125 mm in each direction.
Base Supports
RC footing of the frame was firmly held to the laboratory strong
floor by base supports to prevent its possible vertical movement and
sliding under lateral load. The base supports primarily consisted of
12 circular holes of 20 mm diameter to connect footing and floor
support using high-strength 18-mm bolts, as shown in Fig. 14. In
addition, wooden blocks were placed at both ends of the footing,

Fig. 11. Casting of the RC frames. (Images by Daniel Cruze.)

© ASCE 04020061-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Curing of the RC frames. (Images by Daniel Cruze.)

Fig. 14. Specimen with the base supports.

which were sufficiently tightened to the laboratory strong floor

(Cruze et al. 2019). These sections provide restraints to the sliding
of the frame through frictional resistance, whereas it also minimizes
the possible longitudinal movement of the frame.

Setup and Instrumentation

The instrumentations used in the time history load test were (1) ac-
tuator, and (2) linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs).
The actuator was used to measure the lateral strength and LVDTs Fig. 15. Instrumentation and schematic view of the experimental setup:
were used to measure the displacement response of the frame on the (a) bare frame; and (b) MR damper added diagonally.
left side, respectively. The LVDTs were placed at the top and bot-
tom. The LVDT’s needle was fixed at the distance of 25 mm posi-
tion, so that the piston can move 25 mm in each direction.
The position of the displacement transducers (LVDTs) along the
Test Specimens
height of columns of the frame remained unchanged and were kept
at the same location for all the specimens (Tahamouli Roudsari The single-bay frame was considered for experimental study. The
et al. 2019). A high-performance data acquisition system from scaled-down reinforced concrete frame specimens were cast. Three
Atalon was used to get the data during the time history loading test different types of configurations are made, namely (1) bare frame,
of the frame. Figs. 15(a and b) show the instrumentation and the (2) frame with MR damper at 0 A, and (3) frame with MR damper
schematic view of the experimental setup of the bare frame and MR at 3 A. The representation of three test specimens was tabulated in
damper added diagonally (Daniel et al. 2019). Table 8.

© ASCE 04020061-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061

 Table 8. Test specimens
Specimen Representation
S1 Bare frame
S2 Frame with MR damper −0 A
S3 Frame with MR damper −3 A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Loading history.
Loading History
The MR damper is required to absorb seismic energy, making use
of time history loading to assess output, such as damages, lateral
strength, and energy dissipation. The in-plane lateral loads are ap-
plied to the top of the specimens in the displacement control mode.
Fig. 16 shows the displacement-time history loading of the El
Centro earthquake ground motions. The scaling factors are consid-
ered as 1.0 with the corresponding peak ground acceleration (PGA)
0.36g. The seismic loading approach is introduced as an alternative
to the shake table system for economically measuring the seismic
performance of structures. In this method, varying displacements
are applied to the test structure. However, during testing, the mo-
tions and deformations observed in the test structure are used to
infer the inertial forces that the structure would have exposed to
the actual earthquake. These dynamic forces are typically accom-
plished by means of actuators pushing against a large reaction
frame. This method has the advantage of testing large and tall struc-
tures for evaluating their seismic performance.
Experimental Results
Displacement controlled time history load test was carried out on
three frames to determine the load-carrying capacity and damage
propagations using the proposed system. The time history load test
has a maximum displacement of 12.59 mm and is applied at the
beam level. Roof displacement response of the frame with MR
Table 9. Observed lateral load–carrying capacity
First shear First shear crack
Specimen crack (kN) displacement (mm)
S1 3.23
S2 5.32
S3 8.32
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061
Fig. 17. Experimental setup for the bare frame.
damper at 0 and 3 A current due to time history load are presented.
The cracks were marked to evaluate the behavior of joints, number
of cracks, and type of cracks. The ultimate load and ultimate dis-
placement are tabulated in Table 9. The general performance, lat-
eral load versus time, and lateral displacement versus time are
described subsequently for all tested specimens.
Bare Frame (S1)
The bare frame [Specimen (S) 1] was chosen as the reference frame
for comparing its performance against the frame with MR damper
specimens. The input displacement was applied in the frame. The
first shear crack occurred at a displacement of 2.3 mm at a time of
2 s, at approximately 2.7 kN. This crack was observed at a beam-
column joint. The response shows that not much pinching effect
has occurred. The maximum value of lateral load carried by the
bare frame was 5.53 kN with a displacement of 12.48 mm. The
experimental setup of the bare frame is shown in Fig. 17.
Bare Frame with MR Damper—0 A (S2)
This specimen is a frame with MR damper placed diagonally using
a double lap joint, as shown in Fig. 18. The MR damper is filled
with MR fluid, during the test no current is applied to the magnetic
coil. The first shear crack was observed at the displacement of
4.32 mm at 2 s, at approximately 3.1 kN in the beam-column joints.
The maximum value of the lateral load carried by this specimen
was 6.64 kN with a displacement of 11.95 mm.
Bare Frame with MR Damper—3 A (S3)
This specimen is a bare frame with MR damper applied 3 A cur-
rent to the magnetic coil placed diagonally. The first shear crack
was observed at the displacement of 6.2 mm at 2 s at approxi-
mately 7.4 kN in the beam-column joints. The maximum value
Ultimate Ultimate load
load (kN) displacement (mm)
2.30 5.53 12.55
4.32 6.64 11.95
6.20 8.97 9.66
04020061-10 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. Experimental setup of the test frame with the proposed MR damper.

Fig. 19. Time versus displacement and time versus load graph. S = specimen.

© ASCE 04020061-11 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 20. Crack pattern of (a) S1; (b) S2; and (c) S3. (Images by Daniel Cruze.)

of the lateral load carried by this specimen was 8.97 kN with a
displacement of 9.66 mm. The time versus displacement and time
versus loading graphs for all three specimens are illustrated
in Fig. 19.
Crack Pattern
For all three test specimens, most of the first shear cracks occurred
at the first 2 s of experiments. The cracks are mainly observed in
beam-column joints. During the test, visual observations were
made of the cracks. The cracks that emerged have been labeled
and registered after the test ended. Also, it was reported where
the loads producing the first crack and the loads causing the frame
failure. Finally, the pattern of cracks for each frame was neatly pho-
tographed, as shown in Figs. 20(a–c).
Conclusions
This experimental study is focused on the development of a seismic
resilient semiactive MR damper system placed diagonally in the
RC bare frame using a double lap joint to study the performance
of the RC frame equipped with the new device. The main findings
are as follows:
• In the investigated MR damper, the damping force produced by
the damper with 0 A has been significantly smaller than that
produced by the 3 A.
• The pinching effect occurred in the zero-force region due to
strain hardening.
• Hardening effect occurred at the maximum force region due to
an increase of current in the horizontal direction.
• The softening effect was observed in the zero-force region in the
vertical direction.
• The maximum damping force of 5.83 kN is generated from the
proposed multicoil MR damper at 3 A.
• The difference of damping force is 0.70 kN, approximately, for
each interval of 0.5 A.
• The maximum and minimum outputs for the hysteresis curve of
MR damper reached the design requirements.
• The load–time behavior was increased dramatically when cur-
rent is added to the normal frame.
• Out of all the specimens, the frame with MR damper applied
3 A current shows much better performance compared to
others.
• No pinching effect has occurred. A maximum of 23.02% dis-
placement reduction was observed in the RC frame when com-
pared with the bare frame.
• A maximum of 38.35% increase was recorded in frame force
when compared with the bare frame.

© ASCE 04020061-12 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061

 The experimental results indicate that the proposed damper can
be used as a resilient semiactive device for seismic mitigation in
building structures.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request (earthquake data).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Department of Science and Technology,
India (Grant No. DST/TSG/STS/2015/30-G) for their financial
support.
References
Aydin, E., B. Ozturk, M. Bati, Y. Kavaz, and B. Kilic. 2019a. “Effects of
tuned liquid column damper properties on the dynamic response of
structures.” In Proc., ASCE-EMI 2019 Int. Conf. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Aydin, E., B. Ozturk, H. Cetin, M. Tanrıkulu, and F. S. Gur. 2019b.
“Application of viscous fluid dampers to rehabilitate structural vibra-
tions.” In Proc., ASCE-EMI 2019 Int. Conf. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Aydin, E., B. Ozturk, M. Dutkiewicz, H. Cetin, O. Okkay, U. Ohancan, and
Y. E. Sirin. 2017. “Experiments of tuned liquid damper (TLD) on the
reduced shear frame model under harmonic loads.” In Vol. 143 of Proc.,
EPJ Web of Conf. on EFM16—Experimental Fluid Mechanics 2016,
02001. Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf
/201714302001.
Bai, X. X., N. M. Wereley, and W. Hu. 2015. “Maximizing semi-active
vibration isolation utilizing a magnetorheological damper with an inner
bypass configuration.” J. Appl. Phys. 117 (17): 17C711. https://doi.org
/10.1063/1.4908302.
Basu, B., et al. 2014. “A European association for the control of structures
joint perspective: Recent studies in civil structural control across
Europe.” Struct. Control Health Monit. 21 (12): 1414–1436. https://doi
.org/10.1002/stc.1652.
Bhaiya, V., S. D. Bharti, M. K. Shrimali, and T. K. Datta. 2019. “Perfor-
mance of semi-actively controlled building frame using MR damper for
near-field earthquakes.” In Vol. 2 of Recent advances in structural
engineering, 397–407. Singapore: Springer.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1963. Test for aggregate for concrete. IS
2386-1963 Part 1 to VIII. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1970. Specification for coarse and fine
aggregates from natural sources for concrete. BIS 383. New Delhi,
India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1982. Recommended guidelines for con-
crete mix. IS 10262-1982. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1988. Methods of physical tests for
hydraulic cement. IS 4031(Part 4)-1988. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1989. Grade ordinary Portland
cement—Specification (first revision). IS 8112:1989. New Delhi,
India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2000. Plain and reinforced concrete
code of practice. IS 456-2000. New Delhi, India: BIS.
Bogdanovic, A., Z. Rakicevic, and E. Noroozinejad Farsangi. 2019. “Shake
table tests and numerical investigation of a resilient damping device for
seismic response control of building structures.” Struct. Control Health
Monit. 26 (11): e2443. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2443.
Casapulla, C. 2015. “On the resonance conditions of rigid rocking blocks.”
Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7 (2): 760–771.
Casapulla, C., and A. Maione. 2017. “Critical response of free-standing
rocking blocks to the intense phase of an earthquake.” Int. Rev. Civ.
Eng. 8 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.15866/irece.v8i1.11024.
© ASCE 04020061-13
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061
Ceravolo, R., M. L. Pecorelli, and L. Z. Zanotti Fragonara. 2017.
“Comparison of semi-active control strategies for rocking objects under
pulse and harmonic excitations.” Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 90 (Jun):
175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.12.006.
Cha, Y.-J., and A. K. Agrawal. 2013a. “Decentralized output feedback
polynomial control of seismically excited structures using genetic
algorithm.” Struct. Control Health Monit. 20 (3): 241–258. https://doi
.org/10.1002/stc.486.
Cha, Y.-J., and A. K. Agrawal. 2013b. “Velocity-based semi-active turbo-
Lyapunov control algorithm for seismically excited nonlinear smart
structures.” Struct. Control Health Monit. 20 (6): 1043–1056. https://
doi.org/10.1002/stc.1517.
Cha, Y.-J., A. K. Agrawal, and S. J. Dyke. 2013a. “Time delay effects on
large-scale MR damper based semi-active control strategies.” Smart
Mater. Struct. 22 (1): 015011. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/22/1
/015011.
Cha, Y.-J., J. Zhang, A. K. Agrawal, B. Dong, A. Friedman, S. J. Dyke, and
J. Ricles. 2013b. “Comparative studies of semi-active control strategies
for MR dampers: Pure simulation and real-time hybrid tests.” J. Struct.
Eng. 139 (7): 1237–1248. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943
-541X.0000639.
Christenson, R., Y. Z. Lin, A. Emmons, and B. Bass. 2008. “Large-scale
experimental verification of semiactive control through real-time hybrid
simulation.” J. Struct. Eng. 134 (4): 522–534. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(522).
Collini, L., R. Garziera, K. Riabova, M. Munitsyna, and A. Tasora. 2016.
“Oscillations control of rocking-block-type buildings by the addition of
a tuned pendulum.” Shock Vib. 2016: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155
/2016/8570538.
Cruze, D., H. Gladston, S. Loganathan, T. Dharmaraj, and S. M. Solomon.
2019. “Effects of creep on RC frame subjected to cyclic load with mag-
netorheological damper.” In Creep characteristics of engineering ma-
terials. London: IntechOpen.
Cruze, D., G. Hemalatha, S. V. S. Jebadurai, L. Sarala, D. Tensing, and
S. J. E. Christy. 2018. “A review on the magnetorheological fluid,
damper and its applications for seismic mitigation.” Civ. Eng. J. 4 (12):
3058–3074. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-03091220.
Daniel, C., G. Hemalatha, L. Sarala, D. Tensing, S. S. Manoharan, and
X. X. Bai. 2020. “Experimental investigation of a self-powered mag-
netorheological damper for seismic mitigation.” In CIGOS 2019, inno-
vation for sustainable infrastructure, 397–402. Singapore: Springer.
Daniel, C., G. Hemalatha, L. Sarala, D. Tensing, and S. Sundar Manoharan.
2019. “Seismic mitigation of building frames using magnetorheological
damper.” Int. J. Eng. 32 (11): 1543–1547. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije
.2019.32.11b.05.
Dyke, S. J., B. F. Spencer, Jr., M. K. Sain, and J. D. Carlson. 1996.
“Modeling and control of magnetorheological dampers for seismic re-
sponse reduction.” Smart Mater. Struct. 5 (5): 565–575. https://doi.org
/10.1088/0964-1726/5/5/006.
Dyke, S. J., B. F. Spencer, Jr., M. K. Sain, and J. D. Carlson. 1998. “An
experimental study of MR dampers for seismic protection.” Smart Ma-
ter. Struct. 7 (5): 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/7/5/012.
Friedman, A. J. 2012. Development and experimental validation of a new
control strategy considering device dynamics for large-scale MR damp-
ers using real-time hybrid simulation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ.
Fu, W., C. Zhang, M. Li, and C. Duan. 2019. “Experimental investigation
on semi-active control of base isolation system using magnetorheolog-
ical dampers for concrete frame structure.” Appl. Sci. 9 (18): 3866.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183866.
Fujitani, H., H. Sakae, R. Kawasaki, H. Fujii, T. Hiwatashi, and T. Saito.
2008. “Verification of real-time hybrid tests of response control of
base isolation system by MR damper comparing shaking table tests.”
In Proc., 15th Int. Symp. on Smart Structures and Materials and
Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring. Bellingham, WA:
International Society for Optics and Photonics.
Garevski, M., V. Hristovski, K. Talaganov, and M. Stojmanovska. 2004.
“Experimental investigations of 1/3-scale RC frame with infill walls
building structures.” In Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engi-
neering. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Canadian Association for Earthquake
Engineering.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Gong, W., S. Xiong, and P. Tan. 2019. “Experimental and numerical studies
on pseudo-negative-stiffness control of a base isolated building using
magneto-rheological dampers.” Smart Mater. Struct. 28 (10): 105020.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/ab0ead.
Gu, X., J. Li, and Y. Li. 2020. “Experimental realisation of the real-time
controlled smart magnetorheological elastomer seismic isolation system
with shake table.” Struct. Control Health Monit. 27 (1): e2476. https://
doi.org/10.1002/stc.2476.
He, W. L., A. K. Agrawal, and J. N. Yang. 2003. “A novel semi-active
friction controller for linear structures against earthquakes.” J. Struct.
Eng. 129 (7): 941–950. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(2003)129:7(941).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of Massachusetts, Amherst" on 11/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Jansen, L. M., and S. J. Dyke. 2000. “Semiactive control strategies for MR
dampers: Comparative study.” J. Eng. Mech. 126 (8): 795–803. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:8(795).
Jiang, Z., and R. E. Christenson. 2011. “A comparison of 200 kN magneto-
rheological damper models for use in real-time hybrid simulation pre-
testing.” Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (6): 065011. https://doi.org/10.1088
/0964-1726/20/6/065011.
Jiang, Z., and R. E. Christenson. 2012. “A fully dynamic magnetorheolog-
ical fluid damper model.” Smart Mater. Struct. 21 (6): 065002. https://
doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/21/6/065002.
Joseph, J. S., H. Gladston, and V. Vellapandi. 2018. “Development of link
column frame system for seismic resistance of reinforced concrete
structures.” Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 7 (3): 523–546. https://doi.org/10
.1520/ACEM20170106.
Khan, M. S. A., A. Suresh, and N. S. Ramaiah. 2012. “Analysis of mag-
netorheological fluid damper with various piston profiles.” Int. J. Eng.
Adv. Technol. 2 (2): 77–83.
Li, H., and J. Wang. 2011. “Experimental investigation of the seismic control
of a nonlinear soil-structure system using MR dampers.” Smart Mater.
Struct. 20 (8): 085026. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/20/8/085026.
Li, H. N., and X. L. Li. 2009. “Experiment and analysis of torsional seismic
responses for asymmetric structures with semi-active control by MR
dampers.” Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (7): 075007. https://doi.org/10
.1088/0964-1726/18/7/075007.
Oh, H. U., and J. Onoda. 2002. “An experimental study of a semiactive
magneto-rheological fluid variable damper for vibration suppression
© ASCE 04020061-14
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(1): 04020061
of truss structures.” Smart Mater. Struct. 11 (1): 156. https://doi.org/10
.1088/0964-1726/11/1/318.
Priya, C. B., and N. Gopalakrishnan. 2019. “Experimental investigations
of the effect of temperature on the characteristics of MR damper.”
In Vol. 2 of Recent advances in structural engineering, 435–443.
Singapore: Springer.
Shirinkam, M. R., and J. Razzaghi. 2020. “Experimental and analytical
investigation on the behavior of metallic box-shaped dampers (BSD).”
In Vol. 23 of Structures. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.12.018.
Spencer, B. F., Jr., S. J. Dyke, M. K. Sain, and J. D. Carlson. 1997.
“Phenomenological model of a magnetorheological damper.” J. Eng.
Mech. 123 (3): 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(1997)123:3(230).
Spencer, B. F., Jr., and S. Nagarajaiah. 2003. “State of the art of structural
control.” J. Struct. Eng. 129 (7): 845–856. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:7(845).
Tahamouli Roudsari, M., K. Cheraghi, and M. R. Habibi. 2019. “Investi-
gation of retrofitting RC moment resisting frames with ADAS yielding
dampers.” Asian J. Civ. Eng. 20 (1): 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s42107-018-0092-6.
Tse, T., and C. C. Chang. 2004. “Shear-mode rotary magnetorheological
damper for small-scale structural control experiments.” J. Struct. Eng.
130 (6): 904–911. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)
130:6(904).
Xu, Z. D., Y. L. Zhao, Y. Q. Guo, X. L. Yang, and W. Sarwar. 2019. “Shak-
ing table tests of magnetorheological damped frame to mitigate the re-
sponse under real-time online control.” Smart Mater. Struct. 28 (11):
115021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/ab45fd.
Yang, M. G., Z. Q. Chen, and X. G. Hua. 2011. “An experimental study on
using MR damper to mitigate longitudinal seismic response of a sus-
pension bridge.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 31 (8): 1171–1181. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.04.006.
Yang, M. G., C. Y. Li, and Z. Q. Chen. 2013. “A new simple non-linear
hysteretic model for MR damper and verification of seismic response
reduction experiment.” Eng. Struct. 52 (Jul): 434–445. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.006.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.