**3.5 Single bay frame without damper**

Moreover, to estimate the efficiency of the MR damper, bare RCC frame without MR damper was also fabricated and tested as depicts in **Figures 9** and **10**. The loading pattern for the present experiment was depicted in **Figure 11**. From the results, it is clear that the first crack was observed in the 10th displacement cycle at the load of 6 kN applied loading pattern for the test experiment. The displacement was found to be 9.583 mm with the crack width of 1 mm. The maximum load carrying capacity was found to be 19 kN.

## **3.6 Frame with damper**

To determine the ultimate load carrying capacity for the frame with MR damper. The experiment was carried out by supplying 3 A current to the MR damper placed in the RCC frame depicts in **Figures 12** and **13**. In the experiment, the first crack was observed at 16th displacement cycles at a load of 8kN which is higher than the bare frame. The displacement of 5.463 mm and a crack width was found to be 1 mm. The load carrying capacity was increased by 55% was observed for the frame with MR damper than the bare frame at 37.7 kN.

**13**

**Figure 11.**

*Loading pattern of cyclic load test.*

**Figure 9.**

**Figure 10.**

*Photograph of bare frame without damper.*

*Load versus deflection for bare frame without MR damper.*

*Effects of Creep on RC Frame Subjected to Cyclic Load with Magnetorheological Damper*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81971*

*Effects of Creep on RC Frame Subjected to Cyclic Load with Magnetorheological Damper DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81971*

**Figure 9.** *Photograph of bare frame without damper.*

*Creep Characteristics of Engineering Materials*

**3.5 Single bay frame without damper**

capacity was found to be 19 kN.

MR damper than the bare frame at 37.7 kN.

**3.6 Frame with damper**

**Figure 7.**

**Figure 8.** *Sketch of test setup.*

*Casted RC framed specimen.*

Moreover, to estimate the efficiency of the MR damper, bare RCC frame without MR damper was also fabricated and tested as depicts in **Figures 9** and **10**. The loading pattern for the present experiment was depicted in **Figure 11**. From the results, it is clear that the first crack was observed in the 10th displacement cycle at the load of 6 kN applied loading pattern for the test experiment. The displacement was found to be 9.583 mm with the crack width of 1 mm. The maximum load carrying

To determine the ultimate load carrying capacity for the frame with MR damper. The experiment was carried out by supplying 3 A current to the MR damper placed in the RCC frame depicts in **Figures 12** and **13**. In the experiment, the first crack was observed at 16th displacement cycles at a load of 8kN which is higher than the bare frame. The displacement of 5.463 mm and a crack width was found to be 1 mm. The load carrying capacity was increased by 55% was observed for the frame with

**12**

**Figure 10.** *Load versus deflection for bare frame without MR damper.*

**Figure 11.** *Loading pattern of cyclic load test.*

**Figure 12.** *Experimental setup of single bay frame with damper.*

**Figure 13.** *Load versus deflection for frame with MR damper.*

**15**

**Figure 16.**

**Figure 15.**

*Effects of Creep on RC Frame Subjected to Cyclic Load with Magnetorheological Damper*

**Figure 14** shows the force versus time curve for with and without MR damper. For this creep study the maximum load and deflection values for damper with and without RC frame are considered. The RCC frame with MR damper has the force of 10.24 kN. On comparing the force results for with and without MR damper, 9.79%

**Figure 15** shows the displacement versus time curve for with and without MR damper. The RCC frame with MR damper has the displacement of 19 mm. On comparing the displacement results for with and without MR damper, 39.85% of

**Figure 16** shows the stress versus time curve for with and without MR damper.

. On comparing the

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81971*

of force was increased for RCC frame with MR damper.

displacement was reduced for RCC frame with MR damper.

*Displacement versus time for with and without MR damper in RCC frame.*

*Stress versus time for with and without MR damper in RCC frame.*

The RCC frame with MR damper has the stress of 5124 N/mm2

**Figure 14.** *Force versus time for with and without MR damper in RCC frame.*

*Effects of Creep on RC Frame Subjected to Cyclic Load with Magnetorheological Damper DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81971*

**Figure 14** shows the force versus time curve for with and without MR damper. For this creep study the maximum load and deflection values for damper with and without RC frame are considered. The RCC frame with MR damper has the force of 10.24 kN. On comparing the force results for with and without MR damper, 9.79% of force was increased for RCC frame with MR damper.

**Figure 15** shows the displacement versus time curve for with and without MR damper. The RCC frame with MR damper has the displacement of 19 mm. On comparing the displacement results for with and without MR damper, 39.85% of displacement was reduced for RCC frame with MR damper.

**Figure 16** shows the stress versus time curve for with and without MR damper. The RCC frame with MR damper has the stress of 5124 N/mm2 . On comparing the

#### **Figure 15.**

*Creep Characteristics of Engineering Materials*

*Experimental setup of single bay frame with damper.*

**14**

**Figure 14.**

**Figure 13.**

**Figure 12.**

*Load versus deflection for frame with MR damper.*

*Force versus time for with and without MR damper in RCC frame.*

*Displacement versus time for with and without MR damper in RCC frame.*

**Figure 16.** *Stress versus time for with and without MR damper in RCC frame.*

#### **Figure 17.**

*Strain versus time for with and without MR damper in RCC frame.*

strain results for with and without MR damper, 9.79% of strain was increased for RCC frame with MR damper.

**Figure 17** shows the strain versus time curve for with and without MR damper. The RCC frame with MR damper has the stress of 0.019. On comparing the strain results for with and without MR damper, 38.09% of strain was decreased for RCC frame with MR damper.
