See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239390959

Analytical and Experimental Study of Toggle-Brace-Damper Systems

Article in Journal of Structural Engineering · July 2005

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:7(1035)

CITATIONS READS
65 2,226

3 authors, including:

Jenn-Shin Hwang Yin-Nan Huang

National Taiwan University of Science and Technology National Taiwan University
57 PUBLICATIONS 1,350 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 1,356 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yin-Nan Huang on 14 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analytical and Experimental Study
of Toggle-Brace-Damper Systems
Jenn-Shin Hwang, M.ASCE1; Yin-Nan Huang2; and Ya-Hui Hung3

Abstract: The toggle-brace mechanism has been recognized as an effective installation configuration of viscous dampers to a stiff
structural system. In this paper, a toggle-brace-damper configuration with dampers directly installed to the beam–column joints is
presented. To facilitate practical applications, a procedure for determining the relationship between the displacement magnification factor
and the geometry of the toggle-brace mechanism is established. Shaking table tests are conducted to investigate the seismic responses of
a three-story steel model structure with and without linear viscous dampers. The installation configurations of the dampers include the
toggle-brace-damper and the diagonal-brace-damper systems. The test results show that the toggle-brace system is more efficient in
enhancing the seismic response control on a stiff structure. However, due to the fact that the gaps existing in the hinge connections of the
toggle-brace-damper system may affect the contribution of damping ratio to the structure, special care must be taken when installing
toggle-brace-damper systems in practical applications.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2005兲131:7共1035兲
CE Database subject headings: Energy dissipation; Damping; Bracing; Seismic response; Shaking table test.

Introduction Therefore, a larger damping coefficient and considerable force

Incorporation of energy dissipation systems into a traditional
earthquake-resistant structure has been recognized as an effective
strategy for seismic protection of structures 共Soong and Dargush
1997; FEMA 2000, 2001兲. Among others, fluid viscous dampers
which can greatly increase the effective damping ratio and reduce
the seismic responses of a structure 共Constantinou and Symans
1992; Reinhorn et al. 1995; Hwang et al. 2004兲 have been applied
to a large number of civil engineering structures in recent years
共Soong and Spencer 2002兲. The lack of storage stiffness below
certain excitation frequency which often covers the most impor-
tant vibration modal frequencies of a typical structure 共Constan-
tinou and Symans 1992兲 has greatly simplified the design proce-
dure for implementing this energy dissipation system. However, it
is a challenge for viscous dampers to be applied to a stiff struc-
tural system simply because the story drift and the relative story
velocity are small compared with a relatively flexible structure.
1 in frames, which may fit for an architectural requirement. Gluck
Professor, Dept. of Construction Engineering, P.O. Box 90-130,
National Taiwan Univ. of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan;
also, Deputy Director, National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan. E-mail: jshwang@ncree.org.tw; jsh@mail.
ntust.edu.tw
2
PhD Candidate, Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environmental
Engineering, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, New York;
formerly, Assistant Research Engineer, National Center for Research
on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan.
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Construction Engineering,
National Taiwan Univ. of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
Note. Associate Editor: Andrei M. Reinhorn. Discussion open until
December 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on December 6, 2002;
approved on November 12, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 7, July 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-9445/2005/7-1035–1043/$25.00.
capacity of viscous dampers are often demanded for dissipating a
desired amount of energy and achieving a targeted damping ratio.
The installation of the viscous damping devices to stiff structural
systems will then become less efficient than the application to a
relatively flexible structure. Regarding this challenge, several
damper installation configurations to magnify the displacements
and velocities in dampers have recently been proposed. Taylor
共“Toggle linkage seismic isolation structure,” U.S. Patent Nos.
5870863 and 5934028, 1996兲 has proposed the “toggle-brace-
damper” system. Constantinou et al. 共2001兲 investigated the
“toggle-brace-damper” system and verified its ability to amplify
the axial displacements of dampers and the efficiency of energy
dissipation through both cyclic loading tests and shaking table
tests with a single degee of freedom steel model. Sigaher and
Constantinou 共2003兲 demonstrated that the “scissor-jack-damper”
system, a variant of the toggle-brace-damper system, can also
enlarge the damper displacements 共or velocity兲 and enhance the
efficiency of energy dissipation without occupying the whole bays
共1996兲 proposed the use of lever arms to magnify the damper
displacements. Through the lever mechanism, high values of the
magnification factor can easily be achieved. However, the effi-
ciency of this amplification in damper displacements may be re-
duced due to the bending deflection of the connecting levers.
Considering this loss of damper displacements, a design proce-
dure for this kind of damping system has been proposed 共Ribakov
and Reinhorn 2003兲 and the results from numerical simulations
showed that the seismic displacements of a structure with this
damping system can be greatly reduced without significant
changes in the base shear forces.
A few practical construction examples of the toggle-brace-
damper systems have been briefly summarized by Constantinou et
al. 共2001兲. For the case of 111 Huntington Avenue in Boston,
Mass. a lower toggle system is utilized with dampers directly
installed to the beam–column joints, which is different from the
one proposed by Constantinou et al. 共2001兲. In this paper, the

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1035

Fig. 1. Illustration of toggle-brace-damper configurations: 共a兲 lower
toggle system; and 共b兲 upper toggle system 共Constantinou et al. 2001兲
design formulas for both lower and upper toggle systems with this
kind of damper installation are proposed to facilitate their practi-
cal applications. In addition, shaking table tests were conducted
using a three-story steel structure equipped with linear viscous
dampers. Both diagonal-brace-damper and toggle-brace-damper
systems are tested to investigate the efficiency of their seismic
response control. The test results of particular interest are ad-
dressed in the paper to substantiate the practical applications of
toggle-brace-damper systems.
Design Formulas of Toggle-Brace-Damper Systems
Magnification Factors of Toggle-Brace-Damper
Systems
Two toggle-brace-damper configurations recently proposed by
Constantinou et al. 共2001兲 are illustrated in Fig. 1. The installation
configuration of Fig. 1共a兲 is called a lower toggle-brace-damper
system while the configuration of Fig. 1共b兲 is identified as an
upper toggle-brace-damper system. It has been shown that the
following relationship exists for these installation configurations
of the damper 共Constantinou et al. 2001兲:
uD = fu 共1兲
F = fFD 共2兲
where uD = relative displacement along the axis of the damper;
u = the story drift; FD = the damper force; F = the horizontal com-
ponent of the force exerted by the damper on the frame; and
f = the magnification factor. If a linear viscous damper is used
FD = Cu̇D 共3兲
where u̇D = relative velocity along the axis of the damper and
C = damping coefficient of the damper. Based on Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲
F = f 2Cu̇ 共4兲
where u̇ = relative story velocity. Using the definition of effective
damping ratio for a structure installed with a diagonal-brace-
damper system 共FEMA 2000兲, the effective damping ratio of a
structure with a toggle-brace-damper system can be derived as
共Constantinou et al. 2001兲
T 兺j C j␾rj
2 2
fj
␰d = 共5兲
4␲ 兺i mi␾2i
where ␰d = effective damping ratio contributed by toggle-brace-
damper systems; T = first mode period of the structure in the di-
rection of consideration; C j = damping coefficient of damper j;
f j = magnification factor of damper j; mi = mass at floor level i;
1036 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005
Fig. 2. Illustration of another toggle-brace-damper configuration:
共a兲 lower toggle system; and 共b兲 upper toggle system
␾rj = relative horizontal modal displacement of damper j of the
first vibration mode; and ␾i = first modal displacement at floor i.
Since the magnification factor f is usually larger than 1 for a
toggle-brace-damper system and is equal to cos ␪ for a diagonal-
brace-damper system, where ␪ is the inclined angle of the damper,
the demand on the damping coefficient C and the load capacity of
the viscous damper in a toggle-brace-damper system is smaller
than that of a diagonal-brace-damper system, corresponding to the
same amount of desired energy dissipation and effective damping
ratio. As a consequence, the toggle-brace-damper configuration
may be one of the more economic and efficient options for the
damper installation to a stiff structure. However, some aspects
remain interesting for discussions on the damper installation con-
figurations of Fig. 1. First, the damper of the toggle-brace-damper
system has to be connected directly to the beam of the structure to
form a 90° angle between one of the brace components and the
damper. The damper force will be directly exerted on the floor
beam and may significantly affect the design of the floor beam.
Second, the magnification factor, which is usually calculated
without considering the deformation of beams, may be smaller
than what is expected due to the flexibility of the beam. Thus, the
effective damping ratio contributed by the damper may be smaller
than the expected value by the design. In order to avoid the un-
certainty arising from the damper installation configuration, two
alternative installation configurations of the toggle-brace-damper
patented by Taylor in “Toggle linkage seismic isolation structure”
共U.S. Patent Nos. 5870863 and 5934028, 1996兲 will be used in
this study as shown in Fig. 2, in which the damper and brace
elements of the toggle-brace-damper system are connected di-
rectly to the beam–column joints.
To derive the magnification factors of the toggle-brace-damper
configuration, the geometric relationship between the deformed
and undeformed frame with a toggle-brace-damper system is il-
lustrated in Fig. 3, and the free body diagrams of the upper and
lower toggle-brace-damper systems are given in Fig. 4. It should
be noted that the derivation of the magnification factor is under
the assumption of small deformation and the axial flexibility of
the braces is not considered. For the frame subjected to a story
drift u as shown in Fig. 3共a兲, the joint that connects the damper
and the braces will move from point E to E⬙. For the lower
toggle-brace-damper system of Fig. 3共b兲, it can be shown that
sin ␪2
d= u 共6兲
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲
where d = EE⬙, and ␪1 – ␪4 are defined in Fig. 2. Besides, the rela-
tive axial deformation of the viscous damper uD,L is
sin ␪2 sin共␪1 + ␪3兲
uD,L = d sin共␪1 + ␪3兲 = u 共7兲
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲
Therefore, the magnification factor of the lower toggle-brace-
damper system is obtained as
Fig. 3. Illustration of magnification factor calculation of toggle brace configurations: 共a兲 deformed frame; 共b兲 lower toggle system; and 共c兲 upper
toggle system

uD,L sin ␪2 sin共␪1 + ␪3兲 Geometric Constraints and Design Procedure of

fL = = 共8兲 Toggle-Brace-Damper Systems
u cos共␪1 + ␪2兲
From Eqs. 共8兲 and 共10兲, it is realized that the magnification factors
This result has been mentioned in Constantinou et al. 共2001兲 in
are related to the inclined angles ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, and ␪4. Since the story
different notations. Similarly, the relative axial deformation of the
height and the span of a frame are usually decided by the architect
viscous damper uD,U of the upper toggle-brace-damper system is

冋 册
and/or the owner of the building before the structural engineers
sin ␪2 are involved with the design of the energy dissipation systems, it
uD,U = d1 + d2 = cos共␪4 − ␪1兲 + sin ␪4 u 共9兲 is therefore necessary to establish some rational procedure to fa-
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲
cilitate the practical design of ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, and ␪4. Three dimension-
and the magnification factor is then obtained by less geometric parameters, ␪1, L1 / D, and H / D of the toggle-
brace-damper systems of Fig. 2 are used in this paper to represent
uD,U sin ␪2 ␪2, ␪3, and ␪4
fU = = cos共␪4 − ␪1兲 + sin ␪4 共10兲
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲
冉 冊
u
1 − 共L1/D兲cos ␪1
Using the free body diagrams shown in Fig. 4, it can easily be ␪2 = tan−1 共16兲
proved that the magnification factors calculated using Eqs. 共8兲 共H/D兲 − 共L1/D兲sin ␪1
and 共10兲 can be substituted into Eq. 共2兲 to determine the lateral
damping force contributed by the damper in the toggle-brace-
damper systems. For the lower toggle-brace-damper system of ␪3 = tan−1 冉 共L1/D兲sin ␪1
1 − 共L1/D兲cos ␪1
冊 共17兲
Fig. 4共a兲, static equilibrium equations corresponding to point E

冉 冊
are used to determine the forces of the braces F1 and F2
共L1/D兲cos ␪1
␪4 = tan−1 共18兲
cos共␪2 − ␪3兲 共H/D兲 − 共L1/D兲sin ␪1
F1 = FD 共11兲
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲 As long as the three dimensionless parameters are assigned, the
magnification factor is determined. Regarding the selection of an
sin共␪1 + ␪3兲 appropriate magnification factor, the following constraints result-
F2 = FD 共12兲
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲 ing from geometric configurations of the toggle-brace-damper
system should be imposed:
in which FD = damper force. The horizontal component of the
1. As depicted in Fig. 5共a兲, ␪1 should be smaller than ␪. Thus
force exerted by the damper on the frame F can then be obtained
as ␪1 艋 tan−1共H/D兲 共19兲
sin ␪2 sin共␪1 + ␪3兲
F = F2 sin ␪2 = F = f LF D 共13兲
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲
For the upper toggle-brace-damper system of Fig. 4共b兲, the rela-
tion among F, FD, and the force of the brace F4 can be established
using the equilibrium equation

cos共␪4 − ␪1兲
F4 = FD 共14兲
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲
Thus,

F = F4 sin ␪2 + FD sin ␪4

= 冉 cos共␪4 − ␪1兲
cos共␪1 + ␪2兲
冊
sin ␪2 + sin ␪4 FD = f UFD 共15兲
Fig. 4. Free body diagrams of toggle brace configurations: 共a兲 upper
toggle system; and 共b兲 lower toggle system

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1037


Fig. 5. Illustration of geometric constrains of toggle-brace-damper
configurations: 共a兲 undeformed shape; and 共b兲 deformed shape
2. Once ␪1 is selected, L1 should be smaller than D / cos ␪1. That
is
1 3. Determine the appropriate range of the combination of ␪1
L1/D 艋
cos ␪1
3. From Fig. 5共b兲, the total length of braces, L1 + L2, must be
greater than QS⬘ after the side sway of the frame has oc-
curred under an earthquake excitation so that the toggle-
brace-damper mechanism can still be preserved. Based on
this constraint, the following inequality can be derived:
Fig. 6. Design charts of f – ␪1 relationship: 共a兲 H / D = 0.3, u / H 艋 0.005; 共b兲 H / D = 0.3, u / H 艋 0.015; 共c兲 H / D = 0.6, u / H 艋 0.005; and 共d兲 H / D
= 0.6, u / H 艋 0.015
1038 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005
冋 冉
u/H 艋 L1/D +
共H/D兲 − 共L1/D兲sin ␪1
cos ␪2
冊
− 冑共H/D兲2 + 1 册冑 1 + 共D/H兲2 共21兲
It is worth noting that the left side of Eq. 共21兲, u / H, is exactly the
story drift ratio. Therefore, for preserving the toggle-brace mecha-
nism, the possible maximum story drift ratio should satisfy Eq.
共21兲 to prevent the two braces of the toggle-brace-damper system
from becoming a straight line or even snapping through.
Based on the aforementioned constraints, the relationship be-
tween the geometric layout of a toggle-brace-damper system and
the magnification factor f, with an architect-decided H / D of the
structural frame, can be established using the following steps:
1. Determine the range of ␪1 satisfying the constraint of Eq.
共19兲;
2. Determine the range of L1 / D observing the constraint of Eq.
共20兲;
共20兲 and L1 / D that satisfy Eq. 共21兲 corresponding to a specified
u / H; and
4. Derive the relationship between the magnification factor f
and the inclined angle ␪1 corresponding to different L1 / D
values.
Following the above procedure, design charts for selecting an
appropriate amplification factor with respect to various geometric

Fig. 7. Experimental setup of test structure: 共a兲 diagonal-brace-
damper configurations; 共b兲 toggle-brace-damper configurations; and
共c兲 closeup view of toggle brace configuration
parameters of a toggle-brace-damper system can then be obtained.
Typical examples are illustrated in Fig. 6 for two maximum pos-
sible story drifts of u / H = 0.005 and u / H = 0.015 that correspond
to an elastic structural response and an expected inelastic struc-
tural response. Inspecting the figure, a few conclusions worth
noting are addressed as follows: 共1兲 Corresponding to an
architect-decided H / D value, the magnification factor generally
increases with respect to a larger ␪1 value and a smaller L1 / D
value. 共2兲 The magnification factor f U of an upper toggle-brace-
damper system is, in most of the cases, larger than the magnifi-
cation factor f L of a lower toggle-brace-damper system for a set
Table 1. Design Parameters of Diagonal and Toggle Brace Configurations of Test Structure
Diagonal brace configuration
Story cos ␪
Second and third 0.87
First 0.83
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1039
Fig. 8. Fitted damping coefficients of linear viscous dampers
installed at: 共a兲 first story; 共b兲 second story; and 共c兲 third story
of selected ␪1 and L1 / D. Thus, the upper toggle brace system is
more efficient than the lower toggle brace system in the damper
displacement amplification. 共3兲 The magnification factor of a
lower toggle-brace-damper system may be smaller than that of a
diagonal-brace-damper system. As a consequence, the energy dis-
sipation of a lower toggle-brace-damper system could be less ef-
ficient than that of a diagonal-brace-damper system if the lower
toggle-brace-damper system is not well designed with an appro-
priate selection of ␪1 and L1 / D. 共4兲 The magnification factors for
u / H = 0.005 and u / H = 0.015 are essentially the same, except that
the ␪1 is subjected to the constraint of Eq. 共21兲 such that the
applicable range of ␪1 corresponding to a L1 / D is different.
Experimental Investigation
A three story scaled-down steel model shown in Fig. 7 was used
to conduct the shaking table tests. The structure was composed of
three parallel moment resisting frames in the longitudinal 共X兲
direction and two exterior dual systems together with a central
moment resisting frame in the transverse 共Y兲 direction. To simu-
late the seismic reactive mass, lead blocks were attached to the
floors of the test structure. The story weights were approximately
equal to 92, 92, and 80 kN from the second floor to the roof,
Toggle brace configuration
H/D L1 / D ␪1 F
0.56 0.8 15° 1.43
0.67 0.79 17° 1.39
 Fig. 10. Typical hysteresis loops of damper subjected to sinusoidal
cyclic displacement reversals with damper displacement measured:
共a兲 from swivel joint to seal restrainer; and 共b兲 from piston rod to seal
restrainer
Fig. 9. Transfer functions deduced from roof responses to white
noise excitations figurations of the test structure: the moment resisting frame
共MRF兲 without dampers, the MRF with the diagonal-brace-
damper system, and the MRF with the toggle-brace-damper sys-
respectively. The member section properties of the test structure
tem. The transfer functions and the identified dynamic properties
have been reported by Hwang and Hsu 共2000兲 and Hwang et al.
of the test structure are summarized in Fig. 9共a兲 and Table 2.
共2002兲.
From Fig. 9共a兲, it is clear that the higher mode responses of the
Two linear viscous dampers were installed to each floor in the
test structure with added dampers become insignificant when
longitudinal 共X兲 direction. Both the diagonal-brace-damper and
compared with those without dampers. Since the MRF without
the upper toggle-brace-damper configurations were tested for
dampers reveals a damping ratio of 4.5%, it is estimated that an
comparison purposes. The design of the viscous dampers was
additional 31.5% damping ratio has been contributed by the
based on the diagonal brace installation configuration with a con-
toggle-brace-damper system and an additional 16.5% additional
cept of distributing the horizontal component of the damper force
damping ratio has been added by the diagonal brace damper sys-
proportional to the story shear of the structure without dampers
tem. Comparing these experimentally determined damping ratios
共Hwang et al. 2002兲. Based on a series of cyclic loading tests of
with those predicted by Eq. 共5兲, it is found that a better agreement
the dampers, the fitted lines to the experimental results are sum-
has been obtained between the predicted and experimental values
marized in Fig. 8 from which the average damping coefficients of
of the diagonal-brace-damper than that of the toggle-brace-
each of the two dampers at the first, second, and third story were,
damper system. The difference may result from the fact that gaps
respectively, equal to 216, 191, and 155 N s / mm. For the upper
may exist in the hinge connections of the toggle-brace-damper
toggle brace frame, ␪1 = 17° and L1 / D = 0.79 for the first story, and
system, in particular the gaps in the swivel joints of the damper.
␪1 = 15° and L1 / D = 0.8 for the second and third stories. Thus, the
The gaps in the swivel joints of the damper may reduce the actual
corresponding amplification factors are equal to 1.39 and 1.43 as
axial deformations of the damper as well as the energy dissipation
summarized in Table 1. Substituting these parameters into Eq. 共5兲,
ability of the toggle-brace-damper system. In addition, since the
the effective damping ratio contributed by the viscous dampers to
story drift is relatively small for a stiff structure, the effect of the
the test structure were obtained to be 17 and 45%, respectively,
gaps may be more significant. Moreover, the gap of the swivel
for the diagonal brace and the toggle brace installation configu-
joint of the damper has been discovered during the cyclic loading
rations.
tests of the dampers. Typical hysteresis loops of the dampers mea-
White noise tests with a peak ground acceleration of 0.15g
sured during the cyclic loading tests are shown in Fig. 10. The
were conducted to identify dynamic properties of the three con-
axial damper displacement of Fig. 10共a兲 is measured directly from
the piston rod to the seal restrainer of the damper while the axial
Table 2. Dynamic Properties of Three Configurations of Test Structure damper displacement of Fig. 10共b兲 is measured from the swivel
joint to the seal restrainer of the damper. Comparing Figs. 10共a
First mode and b兲, it is clear that a gap with a slippage tolerance of about
Frequency Damping ratio 1 mm exists in the swivel joint of the damper.
Frame type 共Hz兲 共%兲 Also observed from Fig. 9共a兲, the test structure with the
toggle-brace-damper system has a slightly higher first model
Moment frame 3.1 4.5
natural frequency than the test structure without a damper. The
Diagonal-brace-damper frame 3.1 21
possible reason for this small frequency increase may be due to
Toggle-brace-damper frame 3.9 36
the flexibility of the bracing system 共Constantinou et al. 2001兲.

1040 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

Table 3. Earthquakes Used for Shaking Table Tests
PGA Intensity scale
Earthquake Station Component 共g兲 共%兲
1940 El Centro Irrigation district S00E 0.349 80
1995 Kobe Kobe, Hanshin NS 0.835 30
1994 Northridge New Hall, Northridge 360° 0.589 40
1999 Chi-Chi TCU017, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan EW 0.126 300
1999 Chi-Chi TCU048, Tai-Chung, Taiwan EW 0.173 180
1999 Chi-Chi TCU068, Tai-Chung, Taiwan EW 0.511 60

Table 4. Maximum Structural Responses and Damper Forces of Shaking Table Tests
Maximum displacement Maximum acceleration Maximum damper force
共mm兲 共g兲 共kN兲
Damper
installation Second Third Second Third First Second Third
Excitation configuration floor floor Roof floor floor Roof story story story
80% El Centro Without damper 11.5 19.2 24.5 0.51 0.68 0.91 — — —
Diagonal 5.9 9.8 12.7 0.34 0.39 0.45 17.74 14.83 8.33
Toggle 4.1 6.6 8.5 0.30 0.32 0.37 15.55 13.20 7.41

30% Kobe Without damper 7.7 12.8 16.2 0.32 0.48 0.60 — — —
Diagonal 4.6 7.6 9.5 0.22 0.30 0.36 10.37 8.51 5.76
Toggle 4.0 5.9 7.2 0.21 0.25 0.27 11.70 10.55 6.10
40% New Hall Without damper 11.6 18.9 23.7 0.46 0.64 0.77 — — —
Diagonal 7.1 11.5 14.5 0.29 0.42 0.51 14.52 12.11 8.04
Toggle 5.6 8.4 10.5 0.28 0.33 0.37 16.25 13.25 8.56
300% TCU017 Without damper 15.2 23.6 29.4 0.68 0.77 0.94 — — —
Diagonal 10.0 15.2 18.7 0.43 0.51 0.58 14.38 11.90 7.22
Toggle 8.5 12.3 14.9 0.41 0.47 0.52 13.50 11.75 7.40

180% TCU048 Without damper 10.8 17.9 22.9 0.45 0.62 0.82 — — —
Diagonal 4.8 8.0 10.2 0.26 0.34 0.42 11.74 9.40 6.51
Toggle 3.6 5.6 6.9 0.25 0.27 0.35 12.00 10.70 7.71

60% TCU068 Without damper 14.6 23.8 29.9 0.52 0.81 1.00 — — —
Diagonal 8.7 13.5 16.7 0.36 0.49 0.57 17.87 14.77 8.22
Toggle 6.3 9.1 10.7 0.27 0.36 0.41 18.80 15.50 8.09

Table 5. Maximum Story Drifts, Damper Displacements, and Magnification Factors Deduced from Shaking Table Tests with Various Earthquake Ground
Motions
Maximum damper
Maximum story drift 共mm兲 displacement 共mm兲 Magnification factor
Ground First Second Third First Second Third First Second Third
excitation story story story story story story story story story
80% El Centro 4.10 2.47 2.08 4.23 2.89 1.66 1.03 1.17 0.80
30% Kobe 4.00 2.02 1.36 3.11 2.3 0.99 0.78 1.14 0.73
40% New Hall 5.60 2.81 2.23 4.93 3.46 1.79 0.88 1.23 0.80
300% TCU017 8.50 3.86 2.64 6.83 5.04 2.71 0.80 1.31 1.03
180% TCU048 3.60 2.05 1.50 3.35 2.29 1.19 0.93 1.12 0.79
60% TCU068 6.30 2.86 1.81 4.84 3.45 1.69 0.77 1.20 0.93

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1041


Fig. 11. Roof seismic responses of three installation configurations
of test structure subjected to 80% El Centro earthquake: 共a兲 relative
displacement; and 共b兲 absolute acceleration
The flexibility of the bracing system converts the pure viscous
behavior of the damping system into the viscoelastic damping
system 共Fu and Kasai 1998兲, and therefore increases the stiffness
of the test structure. This phenomenon is more significant in the
toggle-brace-damper system than in the diagonal-brace system
due to the damper displacement magnification effect of toggle-
brace systems. Another possible reason for the frequency increase
may be due to the effect of the gap in the swivel joint of the
damper. Examining the transfer functions shown in Fig. 9共b兲 of
the test structure under different white noise excitation intensities,
it is seen that the first mode frequency is higher when the excita-
tion is smaller. It can be explained that during a smaller excitation
the story drift is smaller and thus the slippage of the gap becomes
relatively significant. The slippage in the gap seems to provide
more “flexibility” to the braces such that the toggle-brace system
1042 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005
Fig. 12. Comparison of analytical 共SAP2000 analysis reference
manual 2002兲 and experimental responses of toggle brace frame
subjected to 80% El Centro earthquake
is more viscoelastic like than purely viscous. As a consequence,
more stiffness is added to the test structure when the excitation
intensity is smaller, and the first mode frequency of the test struc-
ture is then higher for the case with smaller excitation intensity. In
addition, the increase of the stiffness to the test structure with
toggle-brace-damper systems also partly causes the damping ratio
of the test structure to be lower than the expected value from
assuming a purely viscous behavior to the toggle-brace-damper
system.
Shaking table tests were performed with the ground motions
listed in Table 3. All three configurations including the test struc-
ture without dampers, with the diagonal-brace-damper system,
and with the toggle-brace-damper system, respectively, were
tested. Since the test structure was assumed to be a 0.4 scaled
model, a time scale factor of 0.625 was used to modify the input
ground motions. The test results are summarized in Table 4 from
which it is observed that both the maximum relative displacement
responses and the maximum absolute acceleration responses are
all greatly reduced when the dampers were implemented to the
test structure. The displacement reduction is slightly larger than
the acceleration reduction, particularly for the test structure with
the toggle-brace-damper system. The test structure with the
toggle-brace-damper system reveals better performance than that
with the diagonal-brace-damper system, with almost the same de-
mand of damper forces. However, the relative enhancement on
the seismic performance to the increase on the damping ratio is
limited. This is primarily due to the fact that the reduction of
seismic response is generally more efficient for a damping ratio
increase from 5 to 20%. Beyond this range, the additional damp-
ing ratio is less efficient and, for a very high damping ratio, it may
be negative for the acceleration response control 共Kasai et al.
1998兲.
The roof displacement and acceleration response time histories
of the three test configurations subjected to the 80% El Centro
earthquake are shown in Fig. 11. Significant seismic response
modifications resulting from the implementation of the viscous
dampers are observed throughout the entire time histories. Again,
the toggle mechanism increases the efficiency of energy dissipa-
tion of dampers and results in smaller seismic responses than
those of the structure with the diagonal-brace-damper system.
The magnification factors defined by the ratio between the
maximum damper displacement and the maximum story drift at
the corresponding floor are shown in Table 5. The variance of the
magnification factor in a certain story subjected to different input
ground motions is due to the randomness of the slips in the hinge
joints. On average, the magnification factors of the first to the
third story are just, respectively, 61, 86, and 61% of the expected
values that are equal to 1.39 for the first story and 1.43 for the
second and third stories. The relatively better results of the mag-
nification factors at the second story imply that the gaps of the
joints at that story are smaller than those of other stories.
The randomness of the joint slips has also raised a problem for
the numerical correlation with experimental structural responses.
In Fig. 12, the experimental responses are compared with the
analytical results obtained from the computer code, SAP2000, for
the case of the 80% El Centro earthquake test. Although the
trends of the responses can be captured by the computer code, the
numerical results underestimate the structural responses due to
the fact that the gaps in the swivel joints will reduce the energy
dissipation by the damper systems. Thus, the effects of the gaps in
the swivel joints should be noted while designing a toggle-brace-
damper system for practical constructions, even though the story
drift in a prototype structure will be generally larger than that of
this scaled-down test structure and the effect of the gap in the
swivel joint may be less significant.
Conclusions
In this study, the design procedures for both upper toggle-brace-
damper and lower toggle-brace-damper systems with dampers di-
rectly installed to the beam–column joints have been presented.
The corresponding magnification factor of the damper deforma-
tion has been formulated. To facilitate practical applications, geo-
metric constraints have been imposed so that the appropriate geo-
metric layout of the toggle-brace-damper system can be easily
designed corresponding to a desired added damping ratio. Shak-
ing table tests of a three story scaled-down steel model were
conducted, and it was found that the toggle-brace-damper system
was more efficient in controlling the seismic response of the
structure compared with the structure with a diagonal-brace-
damper system. However, the gaps existing in the swivel joints of
the toggle-brace-damper system, which may decrease the energy
dissipation ability of the damper system and lower the accuracy
of numerical simulations, have to be minimized in practical ap-
plications.
Acknowledgments
The financial support of this study was from the National Science
Council under Grant Nos. NSC-90-2625-Z011-003 and NSC-92-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1043
View publication stats
2625-Z011-002. The support of the National Center for Research
on Earthquake Engineering is appreciated. The viscous dampers
were provided by the Taylor Devices Inc. of North Tonawanda of
New York. This support is acknowledged.
References
Constantinou, M. C., and Symans, M. D. 共1992兲. “Experimental and ana-
lytical investigation of seismic response of structures with supplemen-
tal fluid viscous dampers.” Rep. No. NCEER-92-0032, National Cen-
ter for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of New York at
Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y.
Constantinou, M. C., Tsopelas, P., Hammel, W., and Sigaher, A. N.
共2001兲. “Toggle-brace-damper seismic energy dissipation systems.” J.
Struct. Eng. 127共2兲, 105–112.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 共FEMA兲. 共2000兲. “Prestandard
and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. No.
356, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 共FEMA兲. 共2001兲. “2000
NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
buildings.” Rep. Nos. 368 (Provisions), 369 (Commentary), Washing-
ton, D.C.
Fu, Y., and Kasai, K. 共1998兲. “Comparative study of frames using vis-
coelastic and viscous dampers.” J. Struct. Eng., 124共5兲, 13–522.
Gluck, N. 共1996兲. “Active and passive control of panel walls in tall build-
ings for earthquake effects.” PhD dissertation, Technion-Israel Insti-
tute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Hwang, J. S., and Hsu, T. Y. 共2000兲. “Experimental study of isolated
building under triaxial ground excitation.” J. Struct. Eng. 126共8兲,
879–886.
Hwang, J. S., Huang, Y. N., and Hung, Y. H. 共2002兲. “Experimental and
analytical study of a structure with supplemental nonlinear viscous
dampers.” Rep. No. NCREE-02-020, National Center for Research on
Earthquake Engineering, Taiwan.
Hwang, J. S., Huang, Y. N., Hung, Y. H., and Huang, J. C. 共2004兲,
“Applicability of seismic protective systems to structures with vibra-
tion sensitive equipment.” J. Struct. Eng. 130共11兲, 1676–1684.
Kasai, K., Fu, Y., and Watanabe, A. 共1998兲. “Two types of passive control
systems for seismic damage mitigation.” J. Struct. Eng. 124共5兲, 501–
512.
Reinhorn, A. M., Li, C., and Constantinou, M. C. 共1995兲. “Experimental
and analytical investigation of seismic response of structures with
supplemental damping: Part I. Fluid viscous damping devices.” Tech-
nical Rep. No. NCEER-95-0001, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo,
Buffalo, N.Y.
Ribakov, Y., and Reinhorn, A. M. 共2003兲. “Design of amplified structural
damping using optimal considerations.” J. Struct. Eng. 129共10兲,
1422–1427.
SAP2000 analysis reference manual, version 8.0., 共2002兲. Computers and
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Sigaher, A. N., and Constantinou, M. C. 共2003兲. “Scissor-jack-damper
energy dissipation system.” Earthquake Spectra 19共1兲, 133–158.
Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F. 共1997兲. Passive energy dissipation sys-
tems in structural engineering, Wiley, London.
Soong, T. T., and Spencer, B. F., Jr. 共2002兲. “Supplemental energy dissi-
pation: State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice.” Eng. Struct., 24共3兲,
243–259.