Proceedings of

th
12 Structural Engineering Convention-An International Event
(SEC 2020)

Seismic Performance of Coupled Buildings Connected by Semiactive MR Dampers

Involving Resilient-Friction Base Isolator

S. M. Dumne11,*, S. D. Bharti2, M. K. Shrimali3

1
Department of Applied Mechanics, Lecturer, Government Polytechnic, Nashik 422 101, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Associate Professor, Malaviya National Institute Technology, Jaipur, 302 017, India
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Professor, Malaviya National Institute Technology, Jaipur, 302 017, India,

Abstract

The technique of coupled building strategy is more viable to protect the adjacent buildings of dissimilar in characteristics against seismic
hazards. The philosophy of coupled building control in which adjacent buildings are allowed to exerts counter-acting forces one upon another.
This study includes the seismic performance of various Coupled Buildings with respect to Uncoupled Buildings for which two models of
Coupled Building are considered that is, first one is the two shear type adjacent buildings connected in-line with MR dampers and second one is
same as first with taller building is isolated by Resilient-Friction Base Isolator at its foundation. The seismic response analysis of RC coupled
buildings are studied in terms of peak responses subjected to unidirectional excitation due to Kobe 1995 earthquake. The governing equation of
motion of various coupled buildings is solved numerically by Newmark’s step-by-step method. The dynamic behaviour of semiactive MR
damper and R-FBI base isolation system has been predicted by modified Bouc-Wen model and Wen’s model respectively. This study employed
the Lyapunov direct approach as a control algorithm for the stability analysis and design of semiactive MR controller. The responses of various
coupled buildings and uncoupled buildings are simulated through MATLAB  computing software. This study outlined that model of Coupled
Building-2 performs more effective in controlling the seismic responses whereas model of Coupled Building-1 perform well not only in reducing
the responses but also avoid pounding from the adjacent buildings. Further, there is significant reduction in responses of taller building isolated
by base isolation system whereas marginal reduction takes place in shorter building which is not isolated.

Keywords: Seismic performance, responses, Uncoupled Building, Coupled Building, Semiactive MR Damper, R-FBI base isolator, Pounding

1. Introduction

The issue of seismic hazard mitigation of adjacent
connected buildings has been investigated over the years
through various strategies of Coupled Buildings. But still
from the early decades, significant damages of civil
structures have been caused by seismic hazards which have
been underscored to rethink about the existing structural
control philosophy. Therefore, the structural community has
started to establish the control systems through which
counteracting control force produces and get exerted over
the seismically excited coupled buildings. In recent past, the
dissipation technique using dampers is combined with the
base isolation technique, called hybrid control and this
hybrid control strategy not only applied to the individual
buildings but also applied effectively to the adjacent
buildings. Moreover, seismic response mitigation of
individual building has been studied by many researchers
and same strategy has been applied coupled buildings. A
semiactive control has attracted a great deal of attention in
recent years as it operates with few watts of power and
continues to work as a passive device when the control
algorithm fails [1]. The Spencer et al [2] has proposed a
model to predict the dynamic behaviour of MR damper,
referred as phenomenological model, that can effectively
predicts the response over wide range of operating
conditions. The comparative study [3] has been carried out
for different base isolation systems under uniform shear
beam in terms of superstructure acceleration and bearing
displacement. Moreover, an updated review [4] on
behaviour of base isolated buildings against seismic
excitation has been studied through which it is stated that
sliding base isolation system is quite effective in reducing
the large levels of superstructure acceleration to a maximum
acceleration transmission which is limited to maximum
frictional force.

*Corresponding author, Tel: +919422873345; E-mail address:smdumne@gmail.com

A Resilient-Friction Base Isolator (R-FBI) system [5] is damping and restoring spring. Over the decade, a parametric
developed in the field of control system which provides the study [6] on performance of seismic base isolation systems
isolation effects through the parallel action of friction, for elevated water reservoir by varying the isolation system
S. M. Dumne .et.al.
parameters and observed that R-FBI system is quite These strategies are not only useful in controlling
effective in controlling the seismic response. A remarkable structural response but also reducing large bearing
finding about hybrid control strategy [7] is the more displacement. Moreover, such scheme is useful in upgrading
powerful technique for mitigation of earthquake which the seismic performance of existing building adjacent to
includes the best combination of semiactive dampers and newly constructed building. The effectiveness of passive
base isolation in which semiactive control is more type of friction dampers in mitigating the seismic response
prominent to reduce the superstructure acceleration whereas of connected buildings with different dynamic
base isolation system reduces the ground motion to be characteristics [12] is illustrated that friction dampers are
transmitted in structure. The study of seismic responses and quite effective in reducing the seismic responses, further
bearing displacement of isolated building by impact of remarked that it is not necessary to connect all floors of
adjacent structure [8] is studied and observed that increase adjacent buildings by dampers but lesser dampers at
of flexibility in building leads to increase in superstructure appropriate locations can significantly reduce the earthquake
acceleration. Further, effects of impact become more severe response. A semiactive in-line MR dampers connected to
due to increase of superstructure flexibility, number of each floor of adjacent dissimilar buildings [13] and observed
storey and stiffness of adjacent structures. An extensive that semiactive MR control is effective not only in
parametric study [9] pointed out that dampers are more controlling the responses but also avoid damages due to
effective for shorter of coupled building than taller further it impact from the adjacent buildings. It is also noted that
is also observed that this strategy found more effective for response reduction is better in shorter building than that of
adjacent buildings of same height than those of different taller building.
heights. An effectiveness of fluid damper that operates on a The present study consists of two adjacent dissimilar
principle of fluid flow through orifices, defined by Maxwell uncoupled buildings of which one is taller and another
model [10] implies that use of Maxwell model described shorter with same storey height. The two uncoupled adjacent
with appropriate parameters can increase the modal damping buildings from which two models are considered that is, two
ratio and reduces the response of adjacent buildings adjacent buildings connected by in-line semiactive MR
significantly. The dynamic characteristics and seismic dampers at each floor, described as Coupled Building-1 and
responses of connected buildings of various categories [11] second one is, Coupled Building-2 in which taller building
such as both buildings connected by discrete linear of Coupled Building-1 being isolated by R-FBI system. The
viscoelastic dampers, both buildings are isolated and only specific objectives of study are (1) seismic response analysis
shorter building being isolated. The result underlined that of Uncoupled Buildings and Coupled Buildings (2)
each model consist of two adjacent buildings of which one investigation of most effective model in reducing seismic
is taller and another is shorter having different dynamic responses from the Coupled Building Models (3)
characteristics with adjoining floors are connected by inline comparative study on seismic performance of two Coupled
MR dampers and taller building is isolated by R-FBI type of Buildings with respect to Uncoupled Buildings.
sliding base isolation system.
2. Structural Models of Coupled Building
Taller
The various coupled building models considered for mm,1
building kn-1,2
this study are shown in Fig. 1. The models of Coupled Buildings are idealized as
Taller km,1 type building with lateral degrees-of-freedom at
linear shear
mm,1 m
building their floor levels.m-1,1
This model Shorter
is assumed to remain in linear
km,1 elastic kstate and
m-1,1 Fig. does notBuilding
1. Coupled yield
building under unidirectional
mn,2 models
mm-1,1 earthquake. Further, it is assumed that there is no spatial
Shorter km-4,1 mm-4,1 fn and
km-1,1 variation of ground motion mn-1,2 kn,2 due to soil-
any effect
mn,2
building structure interaction is neglected. The floors of both
k mm-5,1
km-4,1 mm-4,1 fn buildingsm-5,1
are at the samefn-1 kn-1,2 stories. For
level having different
mn-1,2 general case, considering the story of taller and shorter
m
km-5,1 mm-5,1 buildingkequals
2,1 m and nf2respectively.
to 2,1 m2,2 As
k2,2taller building is
fn-1
isolated at its base m1,1therefore, Coupled
m1,2 Building involving
k1,1
base isolation f1
will have (m+n+1) k1,2
degrees-of-freedom.
k2,1 m2,1 f2 m2,2 k2,2
m1,1 The governing equation
Coupled of motion for multi degrees-of-
Building-
k1,1 f1 m1,2 freedom of adjacent
mb,1 1 damper connected buildings involving
base isolation is expressed in matrix form as
(kb,  M   u   C   u    K   u    M   r u   D   f    B   f  (1)
Sliding system Coupled g  p  d  p  b
cb) Building-2 where, [M], [C] and [K] are the matrices of mass, damping
and stiffness for model of Coupled Building-2 respectively,
{u}= { ub, u1, u2, u3 um+n+1},  u and ü are the vectors of
floor displacement, velocity and acceleration respectively
with respect to the ground in which response of taller
building lies in the first (m+1) positions andkn,2 that of shorter
building lies to (n) positions, ub is the bearing displacement,
{r} is the vector of influence coefficient consisting all 1
 Z
2
L ({Z })  (3)
elements equal to one, üg is the ground acceleration due to 2 p

earthquake, [Dp] and [Bp] are the matrices of damper and

isolator position respectively, {fd} and {fb} are the vectors of The term  Z p
is the P-norm of state defined by
damper and bearing force respectively. 1
 Z   Z T   PL   Z  
2
Considering, m and n are the degrees-of-freedom of p
taller and shorter buildings respectively. In above equation,
[M], [C] and [K] are matrices having sizes of order equal to where,  PL  is real, symmetric, positive definite matrix. In
(m+n+1) are explicitly described as case of a linear system, to ensure L as negative definite then
 M   O    K   O1   [PL] is found out from the Lyapunov equation which is
 M    O 1 M1  ,  K    1  and
 2   2    O2   K 2  
given as below
 AT   PL    PL   A    QP  (4)
 C   O  
 C    O1 C1  For a positive definite matrix,  Qp  is considered as a unit
 2   2  
matrix. The derivative of Lyapunov function for the solution
where, [O1](m+1, m+1) and [O2](n, n) are the null matrices of taller
of state-space equation is
and shorter buildings respectively whereas mass matrices, 1
[M1](m+1, m+1) and [M2](n, n) of taller and shorter buildings L    Z T   QP   Z    Z T   PL   Bd   f d   Bb   f b    Z T   PL   E  ug (5)
2
respectively In developing control law, command voltage  V  supplied
to MR driver is restricted to either zeros or maximum, that
2.1 Computation of MR Damper Force
is, V  [ 0,Vmax ] corresponding to a fixed set of states,
In order to describe the dynamic behavior of MR therefore control law minimizes L as
damper [17] as shown in Fig. 2(a), an appropriate control
algorithm and its modeling is essential. For doing so, an
V=Vmax H   Z   P   B   f   B   f  
T
L d d b b
(6)

equation of motion (Eq. 1) may be represented in the form where, H () is Heaviside step function, when the function H
of state-space equation is () is greater than zero, command voltage supplied to the
MR driver is maximum (V= Vmax) otherwise, the command
 z  t   =  A  z  t   +  Bd   f d  t   +  Bb   f b  t   +  E  ug  t  (2)
voltage set to zero (V= 0).
where, z is the state variable, A is the system matrix For predicting the MR damper force accurately,
composed of structural mass, stiffness and damping, Bd and there are several models are developed, from which a
Bb are the distribution matrices of damper and bearing force modified Bouc-Wen model [2] as shown in Fig. 2 (b) is used
respectively and E is the matrix of excitation force and are to describe the dynamic behaviour of MR damper.
explicitly given as χd
k0 ud
u  u   O I   O  c1
z    ; z    ; A=  -1 ;B =
-M -1C  d  M -1 D p 
, c0
u  u  -M K

 O  O  Bouc-Wen Fd
Bb =  -1  E=  
 M B p  -r 
Orifice
Piston Seal and
k Bearing
where, [I] and [O] are the identity and null matrices, 1
respectively; vector ż (t) is the state variable of structural
system which contains relative velocity and acceleration
response with respect to ground. Wires to
This study employed the Lyapunov direct approach as a Accumulator Coil MR fluid electromagnet
control algorithm for the stability analysis and design of MR
controller. This theory requires the use of Lyapunov
function, denoted by L ({Z}), which must be a positive Fig. 2 (a). Cross section of Small scale MR damper
definite function of state of the system {Z}. According to
fundamental approach of Lyapunov theory, if the rate of The equation of damper force predicted by this model is
change of Lyapunov function L ({Z }) is negative semi- f d  c1 x  k1 (ud  x0 ) (7)
definite function, the origin is stable in the sense of z    u  x ( z ) z
( n 1) n
 (u  x ) z  A (u  x ) (8)
d d d d
Lyapunov. Thus, in determining the control law, goal is to
choose a control input, which will result in making L as  1 
x      0 z  c0ud  k0 ( ud  x ) (9)
negative as possible. In this approach, a Lyapunov function   c0  c1  
is chosen in the form as where, ud is the damper displacement with respect to ground;
x is an internal pseudo-displacement of damper; z is the
S. M. Dumne .et.al.
hysteretic displacement of damper that accounts for history
dependence of response; k1 is the accumulator stiffness; c0 is
introduced to control the viscous damping of damper at
large velocities, c1 is the viscous damping used to produce
non-linear roll-off in the force-velocity loop at low
velocities; k0 is introduced to control the stiffness of damper
at large velocities; x0 is the initial displacement of linear
spring k1; 0 is the evolutionary coefficient and , β, n and Ad
are the damper parameters that controls the shape of
hysteresis loop and dot () represents the differentiation with
respect to the time. The model parameters are depends on
command voltage, c0 ,c1 , 0 which are expressed
respectively as
c c c U
0 0a 0b
(10)
c1  c1a  c1bU (11)
 0   oa   obU (12)
where, U is the output of first order filter and is given by the
following equation
    (U  V )
U (13)
An Eq. (13) is necessary to model the dynamics involved in
reaching rheological equilibrium and in driving the
electromagnet in the MR damper. A small time lag exists
between the command signals and damper force due to
inductance in coil of electromagnet. This time lag is
modeled by first-order filter equation between the maximum
commands voltage applied (Vmax) and output of first-order
filter (U) using time constant (1/η) of first order filter.
The damper displacement {ud} and velocity  ud  of
interconnecting in-line semiactive MR damper is given by
the following expressions is
ud  mni   u  mni   u  m ni   and
 
ud  m ni   u  m ni   u  m ni   (14)
 
where, m and n are the degrees-of-freedom for
superstructure of taller and shorter buildings respectively, i
is the counter ranging, (i = 1, 2, 3,n) and subscript in
bracket indicate the damper position at the level of
connectivity.
2.2 Computation of Bearing Force
The frictional force mobilized at the interface of
sliding system is assumed to be non-linear function of
displacement and velocity at interface. Furthermore,
modeling of bearing force depends on type of base isolation
system used. The sliding base isolation system which is
considered in this study is described below
Resilient-Friction Base Isolator
The resilient-friction base isolator (R-FBI) as shown in
Fig. 3(a) provides an isolation effects through parallel action
of friction, damping and restoring spring [5] along with its
schematic diagram as shown in Fig. 3(b). This system is
designed such that vertical load is carried only by the sliding
ring; which are very rigid in vertical direction. As soon as
ground motion exceeds certain level, lateral load exceeds the
friction force then base starts to slide and rubber core
deforms as a result resistance setup.
ub
kb
cb mb
ub

Fig. 3 (b). Schematic
Fig. 3 (a). Resilient–friction diagram of RFBI
base isolator
The Resilient-Friction Base Isolator (R-FBI) describe a
bearing force (fb) is given by
f b  cb vb  kbub  f r (15)
where, cb and kb are the damping and stiffness of base
isolator respectively, vb and ub are the velocity and
displacement of bearing system respectively, fr is the friction
force produced at the interface of sliding system. The value
of frictional force (fr) can be obtained by two approaches
referred as, conventional model and hysteretic model. In this
study, hysteretic model is considered to compute the
frictional force in which hysteretic displacement (z) is
evaluated using Wen’s equation [18]. The frictional force
mobilized at the interface of system is
fr = fs z (16)
where, fs is the limiting frictional force which is expressed
by f s= μ Mt g. where, Mt is the total mass of building
including mass of isolation floor, g is the gravitational
acceleration, μ is the friction coefficient of sliding system
that depends on an instantaneous velocity of base floor is
expressed by Eq. (17). The friction coefficient (μ) of sliding
system with Teflon-steel bearing [19] is modeled and
described by an equation as
  max     exp  a vb  (17)
where, μmax is the maximum friction coefficient at large
velocity of sliding (after leveling off), μmin is the minimum
friction coefficient at small velocity of sliding, ∆μ is the
difference of maximum and minimum friction coefficient
respectively at large and small velocity at the interface of
system, and its value is assumed to be independent of
relative velocity (μ=0) at the sliding interface which leads
to coulomb-friction idealization, a is the calibration
coefficient or constant for a given bearing pressure and
interface condition is taken as 20 sec/m and z is the
hysteretic displacement evaluated by the Wen’s model [18]
satisfying the nonlinear first order differential equation as
n 1 n
qz b    vb zb zb   vb zb  Avb (18)
where, q is the yield displacement of bearing, β and τ are the
strengthening coefficient of lead plug that controls the shape
and size of hysteresis loop, n and A are the integer constant
that controls the smoothness of transition from elastic to
plastic state. The parameters β, τ, n and A are so selected so
as to provide a rigid-plastic shape (typical Coulomb-friction 0=0.18 m, and k1=0.0087 kN/m. Further, for sliding base
behaviour). isolator, the parameters [16] are taken as Tb=4s, b= 0.1 and
Table-1. Natural modes and frequencies (ωn) of taller and μmax= 0.04. This model is subjected to unidirectional
shorter Buildings excitation due to a real Kobe N00E 1995 earthquake having
PGA= 0.834g (JMA). The maximum command voltage
supplied to the current driver of MR damper is 6V and base
Natural Natural Frequency (rad/sec) shear (Bsy) is normalized by weight of respective building.
mode
The peak response parameters of interest are, top floor
Taller Building Shorter Building displacement (uf), top floor acceleration (af), normalized
1 12.94 15.98 storey shear (Ssy/W), storey drift (ur) and normalized base
2 38.54 47.40 shear (Bsy/W). The natural modes and natural frequencies of
3 63.28 77.20 uncoupled taller and shorter buildings are shown in Table-I.
4 86.60 104.38
Fig. 4 illustrate the time varying response of top floor
5 107.99 128.00 displacement, top floor acceleration and base shear of taller
building for both Uncoupled and Coupled Buildings under
unidirectional earthquake motion. From the plotted graph, it
The natural period of isolation system is controlled by is observed that significant reduction in responses of taller
selecting an appropriate radius of curvature for concave building of Coupled Building 2 with respect responses of
surface. The stiffness or sliding curvature (kb) and damping uncoupled taller building.
(cb) of R-FBI system are selected so as to obtain the desired
value of isolation period (Tb) and damping ratio (ξb) of the
system using following expression 2 Uncoupled taller Building
Coupled Building-1
1
Mt Coupled Building-2

Tb  2 and
Bsy/W
0
kb -1

cb -2

b 
Uncoupled taller Building
2
(19) Coupled Building-1
2 M t b Coupled Building-2
af (g)

0
where, Mt and Wt are the total mass and weight of building -2
including isolation floor, respectively, kb, cb and b are the 10 Uncoupled taller Building
stiffness, damping and natural frequency of isolation bearing 5
Coupled Building-1
uf (cm )

Coupled Building-2
respectively. 0
-5
-10
3. Numerical Study 0 5 10 15 20 25
T (second)
Fig. 4. Time varying top floor response of taller building under Kobe
Earthquake (Vmax= 6V; b= 0.1, Tb= 4s, max= 0.04)

For numerical study, seismic performance of various

proposed Models of Coupled Buildings in reducing the
responses with respect to the Uncoupled Buildings are
studied. The mass and stiffness of each story of building
models are considered [14] as 1600 ton and 1.2107 kN/m,
respectively which derives the fundamental time period of
taller building and shorter building equal to 0.48s and 0.39s,
respectively. Besides, mass of isolation floor is taken as
10% in excess of floor mass that is, equal to 1760 ton. The Table-2. Comparison of top floor peak responses of various coupled
damper parameters [15] have been suitably scaled to suit the buildings with uncoupled buildings under earthquake Kobe, 1995 (Vmax=
damper deformation behaviour are as η= 195s-1, c1a= 6V; Tb= 4s, µmax= 0.04, ξb= 0.1)
8106.20 kN-s/m, c1b=7807.90 kN-s/m/V, c0a= 50.30 kN-s/m,
c0b=48.70 kN-s/m/V, 0a= 8.70 kN/m, 0b= 6.40 kN/m/V, =
496m-2, β= 496 m-2, Ad= 810.50, n= 2, k0= 0.0054 kN/m,
 S. M. Dumne .et.al.
Voltage, Tb=4s, b= 0.1 and μmax= 0.04 is shown in Fig. 6
Taller Building
Peak and 7 respectively. From these figures, it is noted that MR
Coupled Coupled
responses Uncoupled damper employed is quite effective to dissipate the
Building- Building-
Building
1 2 significant amount of seismic energy input. Further, the
uf (cm) 16.6 14.73 0.90 force-deformation behaviour of R-FBI system used at the
af (g) 2.83 (11.26)
2.75 (94.57)
0.27 base of taller building of Coupled Building 2 under Kobe
(2.82)
0.268 (90.54)
0.027 earthquake is depicted in Figure 8. From this energy loop, it
Ssy/W 0.2824
(5.09)
2.35 (90.50)
0.13 has been observed that R-FBI base isolator is well capable
ur (cm) 2.52
(6.75)
1.91 (94.83)
0.15 to deflect the vibration energy to be entered in
Bsy/W 1.94
(1.94) (92.26) superstructure.
Note: Value in parenthesis represents the percentage
reduction in responses with respect uncoupled taller and 6
Kobe 1995 Earthquake Coupled Building-1
shorter buildings.

3
3
Further, time varying response of top floor

Normalized damper force x 10

displacement, top floor acceleration and base shear of
shorter building as depicted in Fig. 5 shows that marginal 0

response reduction is take place. From both fig. 4 and 5, it

has been seen that reduction in responses of Coupled -3
Building 1 is not significant with respect to the respective
uncoupled taller and shorter buildings but impacts by the
adjacent buildings get reduced to certain extent. -6
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Damper displacement (cm)
In addition to above study, the peak responses such Fig. 6. Force-deformation behaviour of top MR damper
as top floor displacement (uf), top floor acceleration (af),
normalized storey shear (Ssy/W), storey drift (ur) and
normalized base shear (Bsy/W) of taller and shorter buildings Kobe 1995 Earthquake Coupled Building-2
are shown in Table-II in which, value in parenthesis shows

2
5
the percentage reduction in responses of Coupled Buildings
Normalized Bearing force x10
with respect to response of uncoupled taller and shorter
buildings. The observations implies that significant 0
reduction in responses of taller building of Coupled
Buildings 1and 2 are observed that is, 5.5% and 92.53%
respectively with respect to the uncoupled taller building -5
whereas marginal reduction in responses of shorter building
which is about 8% for both Coupled Building models. -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
However, it is also observed that model of Coupled Bearing displacement (cm)
Building-1 is not performed effectively against seismic Fig. 8. Force-deformation behaviour of R-FBI system

hazard mitigation whereas Coupled Building-2 works

effectively. But it is particularly noted that Coupled 4. Conclusions
Building-1 performs well against damages due to pounding
caused by the adjacent buildings. The seismic response analysis has been evaluated
for uncoupled Buildings and various models of Coupled
Uncoupled shorter Building
Buildings with the help of MATLAB  7.0 computing
2
1
Coupled Building-1
Coupled Building-2
software. The seismic performance in terms of responses of
Coupled Buildings is studied with respect to the uncoupled
Bs y/W

0
-1
taller and shorter Buildings. The seismic performance of
-2
Uncoupled shorter Building Coupled Buildings is studied by plotting time varying
2 Coupled Building-1
Coupled Building-2 response and values of peak responses of Uncoupled
af (g )

0
Building and various models of Coupled Buildings. The
-2 concluding remarks are, taller building of Coupled Building-
16 Uncoupled shorter Building
Coupled Building-1
2 which is isolated at its base performs very effective
uf (c m )

8
0
Coupled Building-2
whereas shorter building of same model works marginal in
-8 reducing the seismic responses with respect to the respective
-16
0 5 10 15 20 25
uncoupled taller Building. Similarly, Coupled Building-1
T (second)
Fig.5. Time varying top floor response of shorter building under responded lesser in reducing the seismic responses but
Kobe earthquake (Vmax= 6V; b= 0.1, Tb= 4s, max= 0.04) perform well in avoiding impact from the adjacent
buildings. Hence, Coupled Building-2 involves MR dampers
and base isolation as a result, it perform more effective than
The hysteretic behaviour of top floor in-line MR Coupled Building-1 linked only with MR dampers.
damper used for the coupled building 1 and 2 under Kobe
earthquake having damper and isolator parameters are, V= 6
References

1. Symans MD, Constantinou MC. Semiactive control systems for

seismic protection of structures: state-of-the-art review. Engineering
Structures, 1999; 21:469-487.
2. Spencer Jr BF, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Phenomenological
model for Magnetorheological dampers. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 1997, ASCE, 123(3): 230-238.
3. Su L, Ahmadi D, and Tadjbakhsh IG. Comparative study of
performances of various base isolation systems, part I: shear beam
structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1989;
18: 11-32.
4. Jangid RS, Datta TK. Seismic behaviour of base-isolated buildings: a
state-of-the art review. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers,
Structures & Buildings, 1995; 110: 186-203.
5. Mostaghel N, Khodaverdian M. Dynamics of resilient-friction base
isolator (R-FBI). Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
1987; 15(3): 379-390.
6. Shrimali MK. Seismic response of elevated liquid storage STEEL
tanks under Bi-direction excitation. Steel Structures, 2007; 07: 239-
251.
7. Housner GW, Bergman LA, Caughey TK, Chassiakos AG, Claus RO,
Masri SF, Skelton RE, Soong TT, Spencer BF, Yao JTP. Structural
control: past, present and future. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, 1997; 123(9): 897-971.
8. Matsagar VA, Jangid RS. Seismic response of base-isolated structures
during impact with adjacent structures. Engineering Structures, 2003;
25: 1311-1323.
9. Xu YL, Zhan S, Ko JM, Zhang WS. Experimental investigation of
adjacent buildings connected by fluid damper. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1999; 28: 609-631.
10. Zhang WS, Xu YL. Vibration analysis of two buildings linked by
maxwell model-defined fluid dampers. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 2000; 233(5): 775-796.
11. Matsagar VA, Jangid RS. Viscoelastic damper connected to adjacent
structures involving seismic isolation. Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management, 2005; 11(4): 309-322.
12. Bhaskararao A V, Jangid RS. Seismic response of adjacent buildings
connected with friction dampers. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
2006; 4: 43-64.
13. Bharti SD, Dumne SM, Shrimali MK. Seismic response analysis of
adjacent buildings connected with MR dampers. Engineering
Structures, 2010; 12: 2122-2133.
14. Ni YQ, Ko JM, Yang ZG. Random seismic response analysis of
adjacent buildings coupled with non-linear hysteretic dampers.
Journal of sound and Vibration, 2001; 17: 403-417.
15. Yang G, Spencer Jr BF, Carlson JD, Sain MK. Large-scale MR fluid
dampers: modeling and dynamic performance considerations.
Engineering Structures, 2002 24: 309-323.
16. Jangid RS. Seismic response of structures with sliding systems.
Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 2000; 02: 45-54.
17. Dyke SJ, Spencer Jr BF, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Modeling and control
of magnetorheological dampers for seismic response reduction. Smart
materials and structures, 1996; 5: 565-575.
18. Wen YK. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE, 1976; 102(2): 249-263.
19. Constantinou MC, Mokha A, Reinhorn AM. Teflon bearings in base
isolation II: testing & modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 1990; 116(2): 455-474.