Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Seesaw-twisting system with cylindrical steel slit damper for vibration

control of structures
Shuai Feng, Hiroshi Tagawa *, Xingchen Chen
Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study extends the seesaw system as a twisting device, named seesaw-twisting system, which operates with a
Seesaw-twisting system newly proposed cylindrical steel slit damper (CSSD). The CSSD has been fabricated using a steel cylinder with a
Slit damper certain number of slit cuts in the axial direction. Through the seesaw-twisting system, the reciprocating structural
Structural control
vibration is smoothly transferred into the torsion of the CSSD, leading to elastoplastic flexural deformation of the
Energy dissipation
Cyclic test
strips to dissipate seismic energy. The evaluation formulas for the initial lateral stiffness and lateral yield strength
Bi-linear model of the system were first derived in this study. The system performance was verified using cyclic loading tests and
Finite element analysis finite element analyses. All specimens yielded at a small story drift angle, indicating that energy dissipation can
be triggered early in an earthquake. The system exhibited stable hysteretic behavior and abundant energy
dissipation capacity. In addition, a simplified bi-linear analytical model was adopted to simulate the hysteretic
behavior of the proposed system, revealing high validity with the test results in hysteretic curve and energy
dissipation. For the initial lateral stiffness and lateral yield strength of the system, high consistency was observed
across the results from theoretical calculations, experimental tests, and finite element analyses.

1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, there has been increased interest
regarding structural control technologies that mitigate structural vi­
bration under dynamic loads [1]. Energy dissipation systems have been
increasingly used in new and retrofit constructions to dissipate seismic
energy for structures [2]. Diverse energy dissipation mechanisms of
dampers have been developed, such as yielding of metal, friction sliding,
fluid orificing, and deformation of viscoelastic solids or fluids [3–6].
Simultaneously, a series of working methods of dampers have been
applied, including installing dampers to function with seesaw systems,
bracing systems, and at the top and bottom of beam flange plates [7–9].
Regardless of the type of damper or setting method, a qualified energy
dissipation device should have the characteristics of stable and large
energy dissipative capability [10].
Among them, the steel slit damper (SSD) and seesaw systems have
attracted considerable attention and induced a large volume of research
[11–14]. Focusing on the steel slit damper itself, the structural behavior
was studied theoretically and experimentally [15], the appropriate
slenderness ratios that represent the buckling behavior of an SSD were
defined by the finite element method [16], and the optimum boundary
shape of the SSD was obtained by a numerical model [17]. In addition,
an SSD was installed at the beam-to-column connection, which dissi­
pated the energy imparted to the structure and showed excellent hys­
teretic behavior, preventing the inelastic behavior of the beams and
columns [18]. The SSDs were used also in braces, which entailed a lower
cost and showed stable hysteretic characteristics and abundant energy
dissipation capacity [19]. For the seesaw systems, the previous study
analyzed the seismic response of steel frames equipped with the seesaw
system using linear viscous dampers [20]. The efficiency of the seesaw
system when applied to low-rise 3-D steel structures was presented by
inelastic seismic time-history analyses [21]. Moreover, free vibration
tests and cyclic loading tests were conducted on frame models with a
seesaw system using fluid viscous dampers, U-dampers, and SSDs to
obtain the respective hysteretic behavior [22–24]. A recent experi­
mental study revealed the vibration characteristics of full-scale three-
story steel buildings with seesaw systems [25].
This study extends the seesaw system as a twisting device, named
seesaw-twisting system. The system functions with a newly proposed
cylindrical steel slit damper (CSSD) to dissipate energy under story drift.
First, the configuration and mechanical characteristics of the newly
raised CSSD and seesaw-twisting system are examined. Subsequently,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: htagawa@hiroshima-u.ac.jp (H. Tagawa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.02.077
Received 16 September 2022; Received in revised form 22 January 2023; Accepted 14 February 2023
Available online 2 March 2023
2352-0124/© 2023 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

and yield strength of the proposed system are examined using the test
data.

2. Seesaw-twisting system with CSSD

End Plate
2.1. Outline of seesaw-twisting system with CSSD

Base
Weld
Strip
Base
Built-up view
End Plate
Fig. 1. Geometric design of cylindrical steel slit damper.
the evaluation formulas for the initial lateral stiffness and lateral yield
strength of the system are derived. Furthermore, the hysteretic perfor­
mance and energy dissipation capacity are verified through five cyclic
tests. A brief bi-linear model is applied to describe the proposed system,
and its validity is verified by comparing it with the experimental results.
Finally, finite element analyses are conducted to determine the detailed
stress distribution characteristics of the damper. The validity of the
evaluation formulas and finite element analyses for the initial stiffness
Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the newly proposed CSSD, which is
fabricated using a steel cylinder with two end plates welded at both
ends. A series of slits are cut from the cylinder, creating a certain number
of strips. The slits have rounded ends, reducing stress concentration at
the ends of the strips. Bolt holes are drilled on each end plate for
connection to the system, thereby avoiding in-situ welding, eliminating
uncertainties of field work, and enabling easy replacement. Fig. 2 shows
the proposed seesaw-twisting energy dissipation system, which com­
prises two steel rod braces, an upper member, a pin, a bottom member,
and the novel CSSD. One side of the damper is fastened to the stationary
bottom member, whereas the other is connected to the free-rotatable
upper member. The pin passes through the three components and
serves as the torsion center of the upper member as well as the CSSD.
The pin sustains the shear force transformed through the seesaw-
twisting system. Considering the brittle shear failure of a pin and the
hardening effect of CSSD, the safety factor should be set larger than
three in the pin design [26]. Each edge of the upper member is con­
nected to one vertex of a frame by a rod brace in diagonal form. Each
brace is composed of steel rods with turnbuckles. By introducing pre-
tension in rods by turnbuckles, the seesaw system property enables
that only tensile force appears in the bracing members during vibration.

Steel Rod Brace

Turnbuckle

Upper Member Cylindrical Steel

Slit Damper
Pin
Bottom Member

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Concept of seesaw-twisting system with cylindrical steel slit damper: (a) initial configuration; (b) deformed configuration.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3. A single strip of CSSD: (a) equivalent strip length; (b) deformed configuration; (c) bending moment distribution.

1377
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

The plastic yield strength of each strip FsP and torsional strength of
the CSSD TDP are obtained as

2MP σy tb2
FsP = = (3)
l′ 2l′

D− t
TDP = nFsP (4)
2
where E represents Young’s modulus, G signifies shear modulus, MP
is the full-plastic moment of the strip section, c is a stiffness reduction
factor expressed as a fraction of the fixed-ended stiffness to be calibrated
from experiments, σy is the material yield stress, and n signifies the
number of strips in the device. l’ signifies the equivalent strip length
[19,27,28] as depicted in Fig. 3 (a). t and b denote the thickness and
width of the strip, respectively, and D represents the outer diameter of
the damper section, as depicted in Fig. 4.

2.3. System lateral stiffness and strength

Fig. 4. Geometric parameters of cylindrical steel slit damper.
As illustrated in Fig. 2(b), the lateral displacement caused by a rightward
lateral force F leads to the rotation of the upper member through two
braces, and the CSSD is twisted, resulting in the flexural deformation of
each strip. The plastic deformation of the steel strips dissipates seismic
energy to reduce the structural responses. In contrast, a leftward load
causes the opposite rotation of the upper member and reverse bending
deformation of the strips. Thus, the reciprocating vibration of the
structure is transformed into elastoplastic deformation of the CSSD.
2.2. CSSD torsional stiffness and strength
Fig. 5 shows a simplified analysis model. Points A and B represent the
left and right connection points of the upper member and two braces,
respectively. Point O denotes the center of the pin as well as the damper.
In terms of geometric deformation, the relationship between displace­
ments δ, δD, δB is [13]:
δD δB
δ= + (5)
fR cosα
where δ is the lateral displacement of the frame, fR denotes the
magnification factor of the seesaw system, δD is the vertical displace­
ment of point A, δB is the deformation of the brace, which can be
expressed as:

Under the relative rotation of the two end plates, the strips behave as cosαcosβ
fR = (6)
beams fixed at one side and supported at the other end with a roller. sin(α + β)
Under lateral force Fs, each strip bends with an inflection point at the
δD = θw (7)
midpoint (Fig. 3 (b)). There is also a relatively slight deformation in the
bases. The moment of each strip increases linearly from the midpoint to
FB
the two ends (Fig. 3 (c)). Under a sufficient relative rotation of the two δB = (8)
kB
end plates, plastic hinges form at each end of the strip. The tangential
bearing forces of the circularly arranged strips contribute to the CSSD where α represents the bracing angle, β is the angle of line AO from
bearing torque. the horizon, θ is the torsional angle of the damper, w is the lateral dis­
The initial stiffness of each strip ks and the initial torsional stiffness of tance between points O and A as shown in Fig. 5 (a), FB is the axial force
the CSSD SD are expressed as of the brace, and kB is the axial stiffness of the brace, as shown in Fig. 5
(b).
1
ks = l′ 3 l′
(1) The force relationships are:
Etb3
+ Gtb
F = 2FB cosα (9)
D− t 2
SD = cnks ( ) (2) T = 2FB e (10)
2

Fig. 5. Simplification of analytical model: (a) initial configuration; (b) deformed configuration.

1378
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

Fig. 6. Test setup: (a) elevation; (b) damper details. (units: mm).

Fig. 7. Overall view of test setup and column top rollers.

where F denotes the lateral force of the system, T denotes the torque factor of the seesaw-twisting system is defined as the ratio of the CSSD
moment on the CSSD, and e denotes the perpendicular distance from torsional deformation θ to the story drift angle R.
point O to the brace. The torsional deformation of the CSSD in elastic deformation can be
From Eqs. (5)–(10), the system initial lateral stiffness keval can be expressed using the torque moment T and the initial torsional stiffness
obtained as: SD as follows:
F fR cosα T
keval = = fR
(11) θ= (13)
δ S1 we + 2k1 cosα
SD
D B

The story drift angle R can be expressed using the lateral displace­
From Eqs. (3), (4), (9), and (10), the lateral yield strength Feval can be
ment of frame δ and frame height h as follows:
y
obtained as:
δ
TP nσ y tb2 (D − t)cosα R= (14)
F eval
y = D cosα = (12) h
e 4l’ e
From Eqs. (5), (7), (8), (10), and (13), the relationship between the
2.4. Relationship between the story drift angle and CSSD torsional angle lateral displacement of frame δ and the vertical displacement of point A
δD can be obtained as follows:
As shown in Fig. 5, the story drift leads the CSSD to torsional
deformation by the proposed seesaw-twisting system. The amplification

1379
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

(a) Specimen T-A (b) Specimen T-B (c) Specimen T-C

Fig. 8. Damper dimensions. (units: mm).

was screwed to the upper member, which could rotate freely together
Table 1
with the damper specimen around the pin under the reciprocal traction
Damper specifications (units: mm).
of the braces. One displacement sensor was set up on the end plate to
Specimen D t l b l’ l’/ n Loading measure the torsional angle of the CSSD. The upper member can move
b amplitude
freely along the pin, which avoids increment of tension force in each
T-A 146 8 83.5 12.0 84.3 7 18 increasing strip of the CSSD. The absence of in-situ welding in the damper instal­
T-A-c 146 8 83.5 12.0 84.3 7 18 constant
lation was intended to allow easy replacement after a large earthquake.
T-B 146 8 59.2 12.0 60.2 5 18 increasing
T-C 146 8 82.0 16.7 83.4 5 13 increasing A support member parallel to the upper member was added to ensure
T-N — — — — — — — constant stable torsion of the specimen, avoiding warping. Each edge of the upper
member was connected to the opposite beam-column joint using one
brace with an axial stiffness of 13.3 kN/mm. For the notations presented
δD =
1
δ (15) in Fig. 5, w was 300 mm, e was 364 mm, and the horizontal angles α and
SD
β were 42◦ and 36◦ respectively. At the intersection of the bracing
1 1
fR
+ 2ewcosα kB

members, a cross-buckle component was used to avoid contact. The

By substituting Eqs. (7) and (14) into Eq. (15), the torsional angle of
the damper θ can be expressed by the story drift angle R as follows:
1 mounted on both sides near the upper edge. The steel rods were con­
θ= R = fste R
w
fR h
1
+ 2ehcos α
SD
kB
where fste denotes the amplification factor of the seesaw-twisting
system during the elastic stage.
The amplification factor fste functions with the stiffness ratio of the
CSSD SD and braces kB. In the plastic range, the stiffness SD becomes
small and, as the extreme case for SD = 0, Eq. (16) can be simplified as
follows:
fR h
θ= R = f pst R
w
3. Cyclic loading tests
3.1. Test setup and test specimens
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show the test setup. The frame with full hinge
connections was attached by the seesaw-twisting system composed of
steel rod braces, an upper member (in green), a bottom member (in red),
and the CSSD. Consequently, the lateral stiffness and strength depended
only on the seesaw-twisting system, whereas it is worth mentioning that
this damping system is also available to the moment frame. The column
and beam sections were H-150 × 150 × 7 × 10 (steel grade: SN400B),
and the out-of-plane displacement of the frame was restricted by a larger
fixed support frame at the column tops. As shown in Fig. 7, there was a
certain interval between the frame and the boundary frame at the initial
stage of loading. A pair of rollers was attached to the column top to
eliminate the friction of the boundary frame on the frame once contact
occurred during the loading tests. The span and height of the frame were
2200 mm and 1568 mm, respectively. The bottom member fixed to the
base beam acted as the base such that the pin with a diameter of 80 mm
passed through it and served as the torsion center of the upper member
with the damper. As shown in Fig. 6 (b), one side of the proposed novel
damper was screwed to the stationary bottom member and the other side
brace members consisted of steel rods of grade SS400 with a diameter of
25 mm. The brace axial force was monitored using strain gauges
(16)
nected by turnbuckles, through which pre-tension of 20 kN corre­
sponding to 200 μ strain was introduced to the brace and the brace
tensile state was maintained throughout the experiment. The effective­
ness of the pre-tension of brace members in the practical application of a
seesaw system was examined in a previous full-scale test using a real-size
three-story building [25]. That study used rods with a diameter of 38
mm and observed little pre-tension loss during the vibration tests for a
rather long period of time. In that test, pre-tension was introduced into
the rods using a dedicated tool instead of turnbuckle components.
(17) The configuration of the CSSD and specifications in this research
study are shown in Fig. 8 and Table 1, respectively, in which the geo­
metric quantities represented by each notation are explained in Fig. 4.
The cylinder part was made of steel grade STKM13A and the end plates
were made of steel grade SS400. The column l’/b means the aspect ratio
of the strip. All the dampers had the same diameter and thickness. Four
specimens were fabricated in this study. Specimens T-A and T-A-c had
the same configuration and were used as the base models. Compared to
them, specimen T-B had shorter strips, while specimen T-C possessed
wider strips of almost the same length as the base model. Each damper
weighed approximately 11.5 kg. For each specimen, six strain gauges
were pasted on four strips in a fixed order named T1-T6, B1-B6, L1-L6,
R1-R6, respectively. All specimens were made of the same material, and
the properties obtained by the tensile coupon tests were: yield stress 267
N/mm2, ultimate stress 472 N/mm2 and elongation 39 %.
3.2. Loading programs
A lateral load F was applied at the right beam-to-column connection,
and the lateral displacement δ was measured, as shown in Fig. 6.
Rightward loading and displacement were specified as positive in the
test. The two types of loading programs adopted in this study are shown
in Fig. 9. The loading condition of gradually increasing amplitude was
used for T-A, T-B and T-C to explore the hysteretic behavior of the

1380
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

Fig. 9. Loading history: (a) increasing amplitude; (b) constant amplitude.

(a) Specimen T-A (b) Specimen T-B

(c) Specimen T-C (d) Specimen T-N.

Fig. 10. Lateral load and story drift angle relationships.

intended damper, in which the story drift angle R (=δ/1568 mm)
increased from 0.005 to 0.04 at intervals of 0.005. Two full cycles of
loading were conducted at each amplitude angle. A loading test with a
constant amplitude was conducted for T-A-c until the strength deterio­
rated to half of its initial value to examine the failure form, cumulative
plastic deformation, and dissipated energy of the device. Considering
the FEMA-461 [29] for quasistatic cyclic loading tests, the loading
amplitude was determined to be 0.03 rad for this novel damper.
Compared to the yield story drift angle of 0.0035 rad that is shown in
Table 4, the amplitude of 0.03 rad was 8.6 times larger than that of yield
story drift angle. In addition, a loading test of two cycles with a constant
amplitude of 0.04 rad was conducted for specimen T-N without damper
to determine the frictional resistance of the system. In the loading test of
specimen T-N, the same amount of pre-tension was introduced to the
braces to simulate the experimental conditions for specimens T-A, T-B
and T-C.

1381
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

Table 2
Initial lateral stiffness (units: kN/mm).
keval kFEA ktest keval/ktest kFEA/ktest

T-A 1.16 1.10 1.28 0.90 0.86

T-B 2.55 2.21 2.88 0.89 0.77
T-C 2.02 1.70 2.12 0.95 0.80

Table 3
Lateral yield strength (units: kN).
Feval
y FFEA
y Ftest
y Feval
y /Fy
test
FFEA
y /Ftest
y

T-A 4.66 5.08 4.86 0.96 1.05

T-B 6.51 6.94 7.16 0.91 0.97
T-C 6.51 6.88 7.51 0.87 0.92

Table 4
Yield story drift angle (units: rad).
Reval
y RFEA
y Rtest
y Reval
y /Ry
test
RFEA
y /Rtest
y

T-A 0.0026 0.0037 0.0035 0.73 1.06

T-B 0.0016 0.0025 0.0022 0.74 1.14
T-C 0.0021 0.0032 0.0030 0.69 1.07

3.3. Test results and discussion

3.3.1. Lateral load and story drift angle relationships

Fig. 10 shows the relationships between the lateral load and story
drift angle for the specimens T-A, T-B, T-C and T-N. All CSSD specimens
completely experienced the increasing amplitude loading tests and
showed stable hysteretic properties, even when the maximum story drift
angles reached 0.04 rad. The lateral loads of specimens T-B with shorter
strips and T-C with wider strips are larger than that of the base model T-
A as a whole. All hysteresis curves are plump spindle shape within the
entire loading process. The increment of tension force in the strips is
very slight. Fig. 10 (d) shows the mechanical performance of the seesaw-
twisting system without damper. At the yield story drift angle, the lateral
load fluctuated around 1.2 kN, and therefore, the frictional resistance of
the system is assumed as 1.2 kN to determine the values of Ftesty in Table 3
and Py in the bi-linear model. It should be noted that all the experimental
curves in the figures are based on raw data.
The initial lateral stiffness ktest and lateral yield strength Ftest y
measured in the tests are organized in Table 2, and Table 3, respectively.
The lateral yield strength was determined as the lateral load at which the
lateral stiffness decreased to one-third of the initial value minus the
frictional resistance of 1.2 kN. All specimens yielded in early phases of
the loading processes at approximately R = 0.003 rad, as shown in the
column Rtest y in Table 4.

3.3.2. System deformation and brace behavior

The respective deformation of the whole system, upper member and
damper in the loading tests are shown in Fig. 11 with specimen T-A at R
= 0.04 rad as an example. It is evident that the displacement of the frame
is transformed into the rotation of the upper member by the braces, and
further, into the torsion of the damper. Even under a large deformation
of R = 0.04, the system and damper operated stably. The compatibility
of the proposed system with the frame is hereby demonstrated. Fig. 11. Deformation of test specimen T-A at R = 0.04 rad: (a) overall view; (b)
Fig. 12 shows the relationship between the damper torsional angle damping device; (c) damper.
and story drift angle measured in the experiments together with the
theoretical prediction using Eqs. (16) and (17) for the three specimens. that the damper torsional angle θ varies within the boundaries provided
The horizontal axis represents the story drift angle R and the vertical axis by Eqs. (16) and (17), respectively.
represents the damper torsional angle θ. The amplification factors (θ/R) Fig. 13 shows the brace axial force and story drift angle relationship.
in the elastic range obtained using Eq. (16) for specimens T-A, T-B, and The letters L and R denote the bracing members connected to the left and
T-C are 2.96, 2.66 and 2.77. In the plastic range the amplification factor right sides of the upper member respectively, as shown in Fig. 6. The
(θ/R) turned out to be 3.21 for all specimens by Eq. (17). Fig. 12 shows results demonstrate that the brace axial force remains tensile during

1382
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

Fig. 12. Damper torsional angle and story drift angle relationships.

35 35 35

30 30 30
Brace force (kN)

Brace force (kN)

Brace force (kN)

25 25 25

20 20 20

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 R 5 R 5 R
L L L
0 0 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
R (rad) R (rad) R (rad)

(a) Specimen T-A (b) Specimen T-B (c) Specimen T-C

Fig. 13. Brace axial force and story drift angle relationships.

1.4 1.4 1.4

Normalised lateral load
Normalised lateral load

1.2 1.2 1.2

Normalised lateral load

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

T2 T1 T5
T3 T4 T6
0.6 0.6 0.6
B2 B1 B5
B3 B4 B6
0.4 0.4 0.4
L2 L1 L5
L3 L4 L6
0.2 0.2 0.2
R2 R1 R5
R3 R4 R6
0.0 0.0 0.0
2 4 6 -4 -2 0 -1.5 0.0 1.5
Normalised strain ( / y) Normalised strain ( / y) Normalised Strain / y)

(a) Tension side (b) Compression side (c) Middle position

Fig. 14. Axial strain measured on strips of Specimen T-B.

loading, indicating that the deformation of the braces is extremely values at T-2, T-3, B-2, B-3, L-2, L-3, R-2, and R-3 increased on the
limited. When the story drift angle reaches 0.01 rad, the lateral tension side, and those at T-1, T-4, B-1, B-4, L-1, L-4, R-1, and R-4
displacement of the frame is approximately 15 mm. For a brace with an increased on the compression side. All the measured strips first experi­
inclination of 42◦ , the axial deformation of the brace might exceed 10 enced similar elastic deformation and then entered plasticity when the
mm if the upper member does not rotate, which is significantly larger normalized lateral load reached 1, which confirms the validity of the
than the yield deformation. Consequently, the rotation of the upper plastic mechanism analysis. Hence, it can be seen that the torque
member is fundamentally important for the seesaw-twisting system. moment is uniformly converted to the tangential force of each strip in
the CSSD. The strains at the tension and compression positions are
3.3.3. Strip behavior almost symmetrical, and those at the middle position are very limited,
The strain measured during the first loading stage of specimen T-B is indicating that the deformation of the strips was close to the anti-
shown in Fig. 14, and is divided into the tension, compression, and symmetrical flexural deformation in double curvature without obvious
middle positions. The vertical axis represents the normalized lateral axial deformation.
force. Correspondingly, the horizontal axis represents the normalized
strain. As described in Section 2.2, in the torsional state of the CSSD, the 3.3.4. Cumulative plastic deformation capacity and failure form
strips were expected to bend with an inflection point at the midpoint For specimen T-A-c, which was loaded under a constant story drift
(Fig. 3 (b)). When the loading test of specimen T-B started, the strain angle of 0.03 rad, significant strength reduction did not occur until the

1383
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

20

15

10 the 3rd-67th cycle

the 1st cycle
Lateral load (kN)

5
the 84th cycle
0

-5

-10

-15

-20
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
R (rad)

Fig. 15. Lateral load and story drift angle relationship of specimen T-A-c.

second half of the 67th cycle of loading. The experiment continued with
clacks of metal fracture until the strength gradually decreased to half of
the initial value, and a total of 84 cycles were loaded. As expected, all the
cracks were formed in the roots of the strips. As shown in Fig. 15, it is Fig. 17. Failure form of test specimen T-A-c: (a) fatigue failure fracture of the
67th cycle; (b) strength failure fracture of the 84th cycle.
valuable and noteworthy that the system did not fail immediately after
the strength deteriorated. Instead, the strength decreased in a step-by-
step manner. Until clear strength reduction occurred in the second
half of the 67th loading cycle, this light-weight specimen (approx. 11.5
kg) was capable of dissipating 100.6 kJ energy. Thereafter, without
immediate complete failure, it absorbed further 18.5 kJ energy until the
strength decreased to half of the maximum. The system exhibited a fairly
stable and significant energy dissipation capacity.
The cumulative plastic deformation ratio η is introduced to represent
the plastic deformation capacity of the proposed damper, which is
defined as follows to characterize the plastic deformation ability:
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒
⃒cum δ+ −
p |+⃒cum δp |
η= (18)
δy

where cumδ+ p and cumδp signify the cumulative plastic deformation

−

in the positive and negative loading directions, respectively, which can

be acquired by separating the curve of the load–displacement relation­
ship presented in Fig. 16 [26]. δy is the lateral yield deformation of the
frame, which is calculated by Feval
y divided by keval, which are obtained
from Eqs. (12) and (11), respectively. The η value for specimen T-A-c
Fig. 18. Bi-linear hysteretic model.
was recorded as 3453 before apparent strength reduction occurred,

15
the 67th cycle
10
the 84th cycle
Lateral load (kN)

-5

-10
Positive
Negative
-15
250 500 750 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 6750 7000
Cumulative deformation (mm)

Fig. 16. Lateral load and cumulative deformation relationship of specimen T-A-c.

1384
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

20 3500
Experiment
15 Bi-linear model
3000

Dissipated energy (kN·mm)

10
2500
Lateral load (kN)

5
2000
0
1500
-5
1000
-10

-15 500
Experiment
Bi-linear model
-20 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
R (rad) R (rad)
(a) Specimen T-A
20 6000
Experiment
15 Bi-linear model
5000

Dissipated energy (kN·mm)

10
Lateral load (kN)

5 4000

0 3000

-5
2000
-10

-15 1000
Experiment
Bi-linear model
-20 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
R (rad) R (rad)

(b) Specimen T-B

20 5000
Experiment
15 Bi-linear model

4000
Dissipated energy (kN·mm)

10
Lateral load (kN)

5
3000
0

-5 2000

-10
1000
-15 Experiment
Bi-linear model
-20 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
R (rad) R (rad)

(c) Specimen T-C

Fig. 19. Comparison of hysteretic model with test results.

which proved the deformation capacity of the twisting system with the
CSSD. After strength deterioration, the bearing capacity of the system
decreased gradually with each loading cycle rather than sudden failure.
The failure forms of specimen T-A-c are shown in Fig. 17. For spec­
imen T-A-c with 18 strips, penetrating fractures occurred at the ends of
14 strips. Cracks were observed at the edges of the other 4 strips. For the
flatter fatigue fracture in the 67th cycle (Fig. 17 (a)), the surface of the
fracture presents two distinct areas: one is a smooth fatigue crack
developing zone with obvious shell pattern streaks, and the other is a
rough final rupture zone. The shell pattern lines were fully developed
and spread forward wavily. In contrast, the strength failure fracture in
the 84th cycle (Fig. 17 (b)) is tortuous, and the fracture surface exhibits
coarse granular characteristics.

1385
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

Top Plate
Strip
Base
Bottom
Plate
Fig. 20. FEA model of specimen T-A.
3.3.5. Bi-linear hysteretic model
A concise hysteretic model of the damping system is essential for
structural design, which requires quantitative calculations. Here a brief
bi-linear model is adopted, as shown in Fig. 18, using straight lines to
simplify the experimental curves of the proposed energy dissipation
system. As the story drift angle of 0.02 rad is often used as the story drift
limit for the design of building structures, the bi-linear model was
determined based on the test results of specimens T-A, T-B, and T-C up to
R = 0.02 rad, during which no strength degradation was observed. Four
parameters are employed in the model, in which the elastic stiffness K1 is
the lateral system stiffness keval obtained by Eq. (11). The lateral system
stiffness keval was calculated using the torsional stiffness of the CSSD SD
obtained by Eq. (2), in which the stiffness reduction factors c were
determined to be 0.78, 0.76 and 0.73 for specimens T-A, T-B, and T-C,
respectively, based on the torque moment and torsional angle of the
CSSD obtained from the tests. Py denotes the initial lateral yield
strength, which is the sum of Fevaly calculated using Eq. (12), and the
frictional resistance 1.2 kN. The values of keval and Feval y for the three
specimens are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
In addition, c1 and c2 denote the increase ratio of the strength relative
to isotropic and kinematic hardening, respectively. These values were
determined by the test results in terms of the similarity of hysteretic
curves and the fitting accuracy of energy dissipation. The fitting accu­
racy was assessed by considering the differences in energy dissipation
between the test results and the bi-linear model. Two quantities, Etotal
and Esum, were considered for the energy dissipation difference. Etotal
refers to the absolute difference between the total energy dissipation,
and Esum is the sum of the absolute differences at the amplitude points.
Considering the agreement with the hysteretic curves and the minimi­
zation of the energy differences, as presented in Appendix A, the values
of c1 = 0.23, 0.11, and 0.14 were selected for the specimens T-A, T-B,
and T-C, respectively, and c2 = 0.01 was determined for the three
specimens.
The hysteretic curve and energy dissipation of the test results and bi-
linear model up to R = 0.02 rad are compared in Fig. 19. First, the fig­
ures on the left reveal that the bi-linear model fundamentally coincides
with the test curve, both in pattern and value levels. Next, the right
figures show that the energy dissipation curves of the bi-linear model
almost match perfectly with the experimental results, and the differ­
ences in the total dissipated energy are all less than 1.0 %. It can be
stated that the cyclic behavior of the damping system is quantitatively
depicted by this concise analysis model.
The reason for the most suitable c1 values for the three specimens
being different is attributed to the difference between their yield story
drifts. As shown in Table 4, the yield story drift angles, from small to
large, are in the order of T-B, T-C, and T-A. Under the same loading
program, the extent of yield from severe to mild and the inclination of
the yield curve from gentle to steep are also in this order. As a result, the

(a) Specimen T-A (b) Specimen T-B (c) Specimen T-C

Fig. 21. Comparison of experimental and numerical hysteresis curves.

(a) Specimen T-A (b) Specimen T-B (c) Specimen T-C

Fig. 22. Comparison of skeleton curves with numerical monotonic analysis.

1386
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

Fig. 23. Von-Mises stress for θ = 0.01 rad: (a) specimen T-A; (b) specimen T-B; (c) specimen T-C.

|h2nd0.02 y2nd0.02|
|h2nd
0.02 y0.02|
2nd

|h1st
0.02 y0.02|
1st

|h2nd
0.015 y0.015|
2nd

|h2nd0.01 y2nd0.01|

Fig. A.1. Examples of absolute differences at the amplitude points.

(a) Etotal (b) Esum

Fig. A.2. Dissipated energy difference for T-A.

most suitable c1 values are 0.11 (T-B), 0.14 (T-C), and 0.23 (T-A). 4. Finite element analysis (FEA) of CSSD

4.1. Analysis models and setting

To investigate the detailed stress distribution of the proposed CSSD,

1387
S. Feng et al.
(a) Etotal
Fig. A.3. Dissipated energy difference for T-B.
(a) Etotal
Fig. A.4. Dissipated energy difference for T-C.
FEA was conducted for the three dampers. In this study, the simulation
software ANSYS 2019 R1 was used. The analysis model corresponding to
the test specimen T-A is shown in Fig. 20. The welded and bolted
connection details were not considered in the models. The end plates
and CSSD were modeled using the multi-layered eight node shell
element 281 in ANSYS. The yield and ultimate stresses of the damper
material were assigned to those obtained by the tensile coupon tests, as
explained in Section 3.1. Young’s modulus was 2.05 × 105N/mm2.
Poisson’s ratio was 0.3. Plastic properties of the damper material obeyed
the Von Mises yield criterion and considered isotropic-kinematic hard­
ening effect, where the isotropic hardening ratio was 0.005 and the
Chaboche kinematic hardening parameters were set to C = 1025 N/mm2
and γ = 256. The notations C and γ can be found in Ref. [30].
All the degrees of freedom of the nodes along the bottom plate edge
were fully constrained. Forced displacements were applied to the nodes
along the edge of the top plate.
4.2. Torque moment and torsional angle relationships
Comparisons of the experimental and FE analyses are shown in
Figs. 21 and 22, respectively. The horizontal and vertical axes represent
the torsional angle and torque moment of the CSSD, respectively. The
1388
Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390
(b) Esum
(b) Esum
torque moment of the experimental data was calculated using the axial
force of the two braces measured in the experiment. Fig. 21 shows a
comparison of the experimental and FEA hysteresis curves. The analysis
results exhibited hysteretic behavior similar to the experimental data
discussed in the previous section. Fig. 22 presents a comparison of the
experimental skeleton curves with monotonic FE analysis. As shown in
the figure, the FEA curves provide a similar prediction for the tendency
of the test skeleton curve and yield at almost the same damper rotation
angle. For specimen T-A, the FEA curve nearly coincides with the
experimental curve. For specimens T-B and T-C, the FEA result values
are slightly lower than the experimental data, which is due to the
inevitable frictional resistance of the system.
4.3. Stress distribution
Fig. 23 shows the equivalent von Mises stress distribution of the FEA
model when the torsional angle applied to the CSSD reached 0.01 rad.
Considering that the yield regions are shown in red, the models of all the
three specimens yielded. All the models of the three specifications
exhibit similar stress characteristics. All strips shared the torque load
evenly, and the stress concentration is suppressed at the root of the
strips, which is consistent with the locations of the cracks formed in the
S. Feng et al. Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390

experiment. Along the strip, the stress rapidly decreased outside the
root. The stress in the base part is remarkably small.
4.4. Initial lateral stiffness, lateral yield strength, and yield story drift
angle
The initial lateral stiffness, lateral yield strength, and yield story drift
angle determined by theoretical evaluation, FEA, experimental tests,
and the ratios of the two former values to the latter are presented in
Tables 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The predicted initial lateral stiffness keval
and lateral yield strength Feval
y were obtained using Eqs. (11) and (12),
respectively. The lateral yield strength from FEA FFEA y and tests Ftest y
were determined as the lateral load at which the lateral stiffness
decreased to one-third of the initial value. The lateral system stiffness
and load from FEA were obtained from the results of the damper using
the relationship between the frame and damper expressed by Eqs. (5),
(9), and (12). The yield story drift angles were defined as the lateral
displacement divided by the frame height of 1568 mm at the yield point.
First, the theoretical evaluation and FEA results correspond satisfacto­
rily with the experimentally measured values for the initial lateral
stiffness, lateral yield strength, and yield story drift angle. Moreover, all
dampers enter plastic deformation at a small story drift, indicating that
the yielding of the damper can be triggered extraordinarily early to
dissipate energy during an earthquake. Furthermore, the system char­
acteristics show a specific variation range owing to differences in the
damper geometry, making it possible to design a relatively wide range of
structural properties. For instance, the lateral strengths of specimens T-B
and T-C in the evaluation are the same, but the initial stiffness is
different, which signifies that the lateral strength and initial stiffness of
the proposed system can be designed independently.
5. Conclusions
This study proposes a novel seesaw-twisting energy dissipation sys­
tem using a cylindrical steel slit damper (CSSD). First, evaluation for­
mulas for the lateral stiffness and strength of the damping system were
derived. Subsequently, three cyclic loading tests with increasing am­
plitudes and two tests with constant amplitudes were conducted.
Finally, finite element analyses of the cylindrical dampers were per­
formed. The main findings are summarized below.
1. The system demonstrated extremely stable hysteretic characteristics
and abundant energy-dissipation capacity. Furthermore, all dampers
entered plastic deformation at a small story drift angle, indicating
that the yielding of dampers can be triggered early during earth­
quakes to dissipate energy.
2. The experimental specimens did not fail until they experienced
abundant loading cycles and exhibited an extraordinary plastic
deformation capacity.
3. The force–deformation relation of the proposed system can be fitted
into a brief bi-linear model, through which both the hysteretic curve
and dissipated energy can be accurately described.
4. Regarding the initial lateral stiffness and lateral yield strength, the
system performance described by the theory and finite element
analysis was in satisfactory agreement with the experimental results.
5. The performance of the proposed system could be easily controlled
by varying the thickness, length, and width of the strips. The initial
lateral stiffness and lateral yield strength can be independently
designed and exhibit an extensive range of variations. Therefore, the
proposed system has the potential to satisfy the particular needs of
seismic design practices.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JST SPRING, Grant Number
JPMJSP2132.

Appendix A. Determination of c1 and c2 for bi-linear models

Fig. A.1 presents examples of the differences in dissipated energy at the amplitude points, where yi and hi denote the dissipated energies obtained
from the loading tests and bilinear models.
The absolute difference in total energy dissipation at the maximum considered amplitude of 0.02 rad is obtained from:
⃒ ⃒
Etotal = ⃒h2nd 2nd ⃒
− 0.02 − y− 0.02 (A.1)

where, h2nd − 0.02 refers to the dissipated energy of the test until the second cycle at –0.02 rad amplitude.
The sum of the absolute differences at all the amplitude points till 0.02 rad is obtained from:
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒
Etotal = ⃒h1st 1st ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒
0.005 − y0.005 + h− 0.005 − y− 0.005 + h0.005 − y0.005 + h− 0.005 − y− 0.005 + h0.01 − y0.01 + h− 0.01 − y− 0.01
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒
+⃒h2nd − y2nd ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒ ⃒ 1st ⃒ ⃒ 2nd ⃒ ⃒ 2nd
0.01 + h− 0.01 − y− 0.01 + h0.015 − y0.015 + h− 0.015 − y− 0.015 + h0.015 − y0.015 + h− 0.015 − y− 0.015
⃒ (A.2)
⃒ 0.01 ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
+⃒h1st − y1st ⃒ + ⃒h1st − y1st ⃒ + ⃒h2nd − y2nd ⃒ + ⃒h2nd − y2nd ⃒
0.02 0.02 − 0.02 − 0.02 0.02 0.02 − 0.02 − 0.02

The dissipated energy differences, Etotal and Esum vary for different values of c1 and c2. Figs. A.2, A.3, and A.4 show the variations in Etotal and Esum
for three test specimens. Overall, the energy differences exhibited a downward convex change trend for Etotal and Esum. Based on the energy dissipation
differences and agreement of the hysteretic curves, c1 = 0.23, 0.11, and 0.14 were selected for specimens T-A, T-B, and T-C, respectively, and c2 = 0.01
was determined for the three specimens.

References [4] Mahyari SL, Riahi HT, Hashemi M. Investigating the analytical and experimental
performance of a pure torsional yielding damper. J Constr Steel Res 2019;161:
385–99.
[1] Housner GW, Bergman LA, Caughey TK, Chassiakos AG, Claus RO, Masri SF, et al.
[5] Mualla IH, Belev B. Performance of steel frames with a new friction damper device
Structural control: past, present, and future. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
under earthquake excitation. Eng Struct 2002;24(3):365–71.
ASCE 1997;123(9):897–971.
[6] Kang J-D, Tagawa H. Seismic response of steel structures with seesaw systems
[2] Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Hammel W, Sigaher AN. Toggle–brace–damper
using viscoelastic dampers. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42(5):779–94.
seismic energy dissipation systems. Struct Eng 2001;127(2):105–12.
[3] Zhang Z, Ou J, Li D, Zhang S. Optimization design of coupling beam metal damper
in shear wall structures. Appl Sci 2017;7(2):137.

1389
S. Feng et al.
[7] Kang JD, Mori Y. Simplified estimation method of inelastic seismic demands of
buildings with seesaw system using fluid viscous dampers. Eng Struct 2017;138:
120–30.
[8] Iwata M, Murai M. Buckling-restrained brace using steel mortar planks;
performance evaluation as a hysteretic damper. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35
(14):1807–26.
[9] Saffari H, Hedayat AA, Nejad MP. Post-Northridge connections with slit dampers to
enhance strength and ductility. J Constr Steel Res 2013;80:138–52.
[10] Dela D, Lera J, Esguerra C, Almazan JL. Earthquake behavior of structures with
copper energy dissipaters. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:329–58.
[11] Lee J, Kim J. Development of box-shaped steel slit dampers for seismic retrofit of
building structures. Eng Struct 2017;150:934–46.
[12] Oh S-H, Park H-Y. Experimental study on seismic performance of steel slit damper
under additional tensile load. Journal of Building Engineering 2022;50.
[13] Kang JD, Tagawa H. Seismic performance of steel structures with seesaw energy
dissipation system using fluid viscous dampers. Eng Struct 2013;56:431–42.
[14] Kang J-D, Tagawa H. Comparison between experimental and analytical results for
seesaw energy dissipation systems using fluid viscous dampers. Earthq Eng Eng Vib
2016;15(1):79–90.
[15] Chan RWK, Albermani F. Experimental study of steel slit damper for passive energy
dissipation. Eng Struct 2008;30(4):1058–66.
[16] Hedayat AA. Prediction of the force displacement capacity boundary of an
unbuckled steel slit damper. J Constr Steel Res 2015;114:30–50.
[17] Aminzadeh M, Kazemi HS, Tavakkoli SM. A numerical study on optimum shape of
steel slit dampers. Adv Struct Eng 2020;23(14):2967–81.
[18] Oh S-H, Kim Y-J, Ryu H-S. Seismic performance of steel structures with slit
dampers. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):1997–2008.
[19] Benavent-Climent A. A brace-type seismic damper based on yielding the walls of
hollow structural sections. Eng Struct 2010;32(4):1113–22.
1390
Structures 50 (2023) 1376–1390
[20] Katsimpini PS, Papagiannopoulos GA, Sfakianakis MG. On the seismic response and
damping capacity of low-rise plane steel frames with seesaw system. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2018;107:407–16.
[21] Katsimpini PS, Papagiannopoulos GA, Askouni PK, Karabalis DL. Seismic response
of low-rise 3-D steel structures equipped with the seesaw system. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 2020;128.
[22] Tagawa H, Gao J. Evaluation of vibration control system with U-dampers based on
quasi-linear motion mechanism. J Constr Steel Res 2012;70:213–25.
[23] Kang J-D, Tagawa H. Experimental evaluation of dynamic characteristics of seesaw
energy dissipation system for vibration control of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2014;43(12):1889–95.
[24] Tagawa H, Yamanishi T, Takaki A, Chan RWK. Cyclic behavior of seesaw energy
dissipation system with steel slit dampers. J Constr Steel Res 2016;117:24–34.
[25] Y Hirata, H Tagawa, M Kawashima, H Harada. Experimental study on practical
application of seesaw system. Proceedings of the fib Symposium of Concrete
Structures: New Trends for Eco-Efficiency and Performance, Virtual, Lisbon, 2021;
2067–2076.
[26] Sun XF. Mechanics of materials. Fifth Edition. Higher Education Press; 2009. in
Chinese.
[27] Oh SH, Kim YJ, Ryu HS. Seismic performance of steel structure with slit dampers.
Eng Struct 2009;31:1997–2008.
[28] Ghabraie K, Chan R, Huang X, Xie YM. Shape optimization of metallic yielding
devices for passive mitigation of seismic energy. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2258–67.
[29] FEMA 461. Interim testing protocols for determining the seismic performance
characteristics of structural and nonstructural components. Redwood City,
California: Applied Technology Council; 2007.
[30] Sheldon Imaoka. Chaboche nonlinear kinematic hardening model. STI0805,
ANSYS Release: 11, 2008.