STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING

Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/stc.457

Fundamental mechanism of earthquake response reduction

in building structures with inertial dampers

I. Takewaki,,y, S. Murakami, S. Yoshitomi and M. Tsuji

Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyotodaigaku-Katsura, Nishikyo-ku,

Kyoto 615-8540, Japan

SUMMARY

Fundamental mechanisms of earthquake response reduction in building structures with inertial mass
dampers are investigated. The inertial mass damper is effective with respect to relative acceleration between
two nodes. The influence of inertial mass dampers on the ground-motion input can be expressed by the
influence coefficient vector to be multiplied on the ground-motion acceleration in the right-hand side of
the equations of motion. It is shown that, when an inertial mass damper is taken out from one story, the
component of the influence coefficient vector above that story becomes 1. This means that, if an inertial
mass damper is taken out from one story, the inertial mass dampers above that story do not influence
the input acceleration above that story. This observation is supported by the closed-form expression of the
influence coefficient vector. The mechanism of earthquake response reduction is also discussed from the
viewpoint of earthquake input energy. It is shown that the earthquake input energy under an acceleration
input with a constant Fourier spectrum depends on the influence coefficient vector. Finally, the
characteristics of earthquake response reduction via inertial mass dampers are presented for three recorded
ground motions. Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 20 July 2010; Revised 11 February 2011; Accepted 22 February 2011

KEY WORDS: inertial mass damper; passive damper; structural control; influence coefficient; earthquake
input energy; fundamental mechanism

1. INTRODUCTION
There are various types of passive dampers recently and they are actually incorporated into
buildings in seismic active regions. This technique is taking a position as an indispensable tool
for the structural design of buildings (see, for example, [1–3]). Hysteretic and friction dampers
are effective with respect to relative displacement between two nodes, and viscous dampers are
effective with respect to relative velocity. On the other hand, viscoelastic dampers are effective
with respect to both relative displacement and relative velocity. As an extension of this
mechanical concept, inertial mass dampers (simply called inertial dampers later) can be
introduced as ones effective to relative acceleration between two nodes [4]. It is meaningful to
note that, while viscous dampers have the phase delay of p/2 from springs, inertial dampers have
the phase delay of p from springs. This implies that inertial dampers play a role as mechanical
systems with negative stiffness.
Fundamental mechanisms of earthquake response reduction in building structures with
inertial dampers are investigated in this paper. Although there are some reports on the inertial

*Correspondence to: I. Takewaki, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Kyoto University,
Kyotodaigaku-Katsura, Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto 615-8540, Japan.
y
E-mail: takewaki@archi.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

dampers [4–12], there exist a few on the fundamental mechanisms of earthquake response
reduction in building structures with inertial dampers. A pseudo-negative stiffness effect (for
example, [7]) may be one of the features, which such structures with inertial dampers possess.
It is shown in this paper that the influence of inertial dampers on the ground-motion input
can be expressed by the influence coefficient vector to be multiplied on the ground-motion
acceleration in the right-hand side of the equations of motion. It is demonstrated that, if an
inertial damper is taken out from one story, the inertial dampers above that story do not
influence the input acceleration above that story. This observation is supported by the newly
derived closed-form expression of the influence coefficient vector. The influence of missing of
inertial dampers on the displacement response is disclosed through numerical examples for
transfer function amplitudes of interstory drfits. The mechanism of earthquake response
reduction is also discussed from the viewpoint of earthquake input energy. Finally, the
characteristics of earthquake response reduction via inertial dampers are presented for three
recorded ground motions.

2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS
2.1. Equations of motion in terms of influence coefficient vector
Since the fundamental mechanisms of earthquake response reduction in building structures with
inertial dampers can be described well by use of a certain coefficient vector fZg, that coefficient
vector will be introduced and defined in the following.
The shear building model with inertial dampers in all the stories is considered first. Let [M],
[Z], [K] and [C] denote the mass, inertial mass, stiffness and damping matrices. The floor
displacements are denoted by fxg and the vector consisting of only unity is expressed by f1g.
The equations of motion for this model can be expressed as:
ð½M1½ZÞf€xg1½Cf_xg1½Kfxg ¼ ½Mf1g€ug ð1Þ
The influence of inertial dampers on the ground-motion input can be expressed by the coefficient
vector fZg ¼ ð½M1½ZÞ1 ½Mf1g, called an influence coefficient vector, to be multiplied on the
ground-motion acceleration in the right-hand side of the equations of motion. Here, the
equations of motion can be modified to
ð½M1½ZÞf€xg1½Cf_xg1½Kfxg ¼ ð½M1½ZÞfZg€ug ð2Þ
It is shown here that, when an inertial damper is taken out from one story, the component of
the influence coefficient vector above that story becomes 1. This means that, if an inertial
damper is taken out from one story, the inertial dampers above that story do not influence the
input acceleration above that story. This observation can be made because the closed-form
expression of the influence coefficient vector fZg is in this paper. The mechanism of earthquake
response reduction is also discussed from the viewpoint of earthquake input energy. It is shown
that the earthquake input energy under an acceleration input with a constant Fourier spectrum
depends on the influence coefficient vector and the earthquake input energy can be reduced
certainly by adding the inertial dampers consecutively from the bottom.

2.2. Concept of inertial damper

Consider a single-degree-of-freedom (DOF) model with an inertial damper as shown in Figure 1.
Let Iy, y, x and R denote the moment of inertia of the inertial damper, the rotation angle of the
inertial damper, the horizontal displacement of the model and the radius of the inertial damper.
The internal force in the inertial damper can then be described in terms of relative acceleration as
€
p ¼ ðIy y=RÞ ¼ ðIy =R2 Þ€x ¼ z€x ð3Þ
where z denotes the coefficient of the inertial damper between the internal force in the inertial
damper and the corresponding relative acceleration. Figure 2 shows an example of schematic
diagrams of the inertial damper.

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

m
k
R rotating
disk
x θ
c

Figure 1. Single-DOF structure with an inertial damper.

Figure 2. Example of schematic diagram of inertial damper.

force force force

deformation deformation deformation

viscous damper viscoelastic damper inertial damper

Figure 3. Force–deformation relations of a viscous damper, a viscoelastic damper and an inertial damper.

Figure 3 presents the force–deformation relations of a viscous damper, a viscoelastic damper

and an inertial damper. It can be understood that, while the viscous damper has zero stiffness
and the viscoelastic damper has positive stiffness, the inertial damper has a pseudo-negative
stiffness.

3. TWO-DOF SHEAR BUILDING MODEL WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

Consider a two-DOF shear building model with inertial dampers z1 and z2 as shown in Figure 4.
Let m1 and m2 denote the floor masses and let k1 and k2 denote the story stiffnesses. The
equations of motion subjected to the base acceleration u€ g can be expressed as
          
m1 0 z1 1z2 z2 x€ 1 c1 1c2 c2 x_ 1 k1 1k2 k2 x1
1 1 1
0 m2 z2 z2 x€ 2 c2 c2 x_ 2 k2 k2 x2
  
m1 0 1
¼ u€ g ð4Þ
0 m2 1
Let us introduce a new vector fZ1 Z2 gT defined by
     1   
Z1 m1 0 z1 1z2 z2 m1 0 1
 1 ¼ ð½M1½ZÞ1 ½Mf1g ð5Þ
Z2 0 m2 z2 z2 0 m2 1

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

m2

k2 z2
x1
c2 m1

k1 z1 : inertial damper
: spring
: dashpot
c1

Figure 4. Two-DOF structure with inertial dampers.

The equations of motion can then be transformed into

          
m1 0 z1 1z2 z2 x€ 1 c1 1c2 c2 x_ 1 k1 1k2 k2 x1
1 1 1
0 m2 z2 z2 x€ 2 c2 c2 x_ 2 k2 k2 x2
    
m1 0 z1 1z2 z2 Z1
¼ 1 u€ g ð6Þ
0 m2 z2 z2 Z2
Since fZ1 Z2 gT ¼ f 1 1gT in case of z1 ¼ z2 ¼ 0, it may be meaningful to consider the reduction
of the influence coefficient from unity.
After some manipulation in Equation (5), fZ1 Z2 gT can be expressed as
     
Z1 1 z1 m2 1z2
¼  ð7Þ
Z2 1 ðm1 1z1 1z2 Þðm2 1z2 Þ  z22 z2

4. THREE-DOF SHEAR BUILDING MODEL WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

Consider a three-DOF shear building model with inertial dampers as shown in Figure 5.
As in the 2-DOF model, it may be appropriate to evaluate the reduction of the influence
coefficient from unity (the influence coefficient of the original model without inertial dampers).
The influence coefficient vector can be expressed as
8 9 8 9
< 1 = z < ðm2 1z2 1z3 Þðm3 1z3 Þ  z23 =
1
fZg ¼ 1  z2 ðm3 1z3 Þ ð8Þ
: ; jAj : ;
1 z2 z3
where |A| denotes the determinant of the matrix [A] 5 [M]1[Z].
Consider first a model with an inertial damper z1(6¼0) in the first story only (see Case 1 in
Figure 6(a)). When adding an inertial damper z2(6¼0) in the second story (see Case 2 in Figure
6(a)), the increasing value of the influence coefficient in the first story from the original model
with an inertial damper z1(6¼0) in the first story only can be obtained using the method of
mathematical induction as
m2 m2
DZ1 j1!2 ¼ Z1 ð2Þ  Z1 ð1Þ ¼ f1  Z2 ð2Þg ¼ f1  Z2 ð2Þg 40 ð9Þ
m1 1z1 j1 Að1Þ1 j
where Zi(j) indicates the influence coefficient at the ith floor of the model with inertial dampers
from the first story through the jth story and ji AðlÞj j is the determinant of the sub-matrix from ith
row, ith column through jth row, jth column of the matrix [A] defined for the model with the
consecutive inertial dampers z1 ¼ 6 0; . . . ; zl 6¼ 0 and zl11 ¼ 0 up to the story (l11). In Equation (9),
it is noted that 1  Z2 ð2Þ ¼ z1 z2 =j1 Að2Þ2 j and j1 Að1Þ1 j ¼ m1 1z1 . This means that
DZ2 j1!2 ¼ Z2 ð2Þ  1 ¼ z1 z2 =j1 Að2Þ2 jo0. It should be noted that ji AðlÞj j are all positive
numbers because of the positive definiteness of the principal sub-matrices of the matrix [A].
Consider next a model with inertial dampers z1(6¼0) and z2(6¼0). When adding an inertial
damper z3(6¼0) in the third story (see Case 3 in Figure 6(a)), the increasing values of the influence
coefficients in the first and second stories from the original model with inertial dampers z1(6¼0)

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

x3
m3

k3 z3
x2
c3 m2

k2 z2
x1
c2 m1
: inertial damper
k1 z1 : spring
: dashpot
c1

Figure 5. Three-DOF structure with inertial dampers.

(a) no damper Case1 Case2 Case3

smaller
1

1 larger
smaller

1 larger
smaller larger

(b) no damper Case1 Case2 Case3

Figure 6. (a) Four structures with and without inertial dampers; (b) variation of influence coefficient vector
for three-DOF structures with and without inertial dampers.

and z2(6¼0) can be obtained as

z2 m 3
DZ1 j2!3 ¼ Z1 ð3Þ  Z1 ð2Þ ¼ f1  Z3 ð3Þg 40 ð10Þ
j1 Að2Þ2 j
ðm1 1z1 1z2 Þm3
DZ2 j2!3 ¼ Z2 ð3Þ  Z2 ð2Þ ¼ f1  Z3 ð3Þg 40 ð11Þ
j1 Að2Þ2 j
In Equations (10), (11), 1  Z3 ð3Þ ¼ z1 z2 z3 =jAj and j1 Að2Þ2 j ¼ ðm1 1z1 1z2 Þðm2 1z2 Þ  z22 . This
means that DZ3 j2!3 ¼ Z3 ð3Þ  1 ¼ z1 z2 z3 =jAjo0. It should be noted that |A| and
ji AðlÞj j are all positive numbers because of the positive definiteness of the matrix [A] and its
principal sub-matrices. Figure 6(b) indicates clearly the change of the influence coefficients
during the above-mentioned process and demonstrates the validity of Equations (8)–(11).
The influence coefficient vectors for models with various damper allocation patterns are
shown in Table I and the increments (DZ1 j1!2 , DZ1 j2!3 , DZ2 j2!3 etc.) of the influence coefficients
from the model with a damper allocation pattern to another model with a different damper
allocation pattern are summarized in Table II.

5. MDOF SHEAR BUILDING MODEL WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

5.1. Shear building model with inertial dampers in all stories
Extension of the previous results for two and three-story models to the n-story model will be
made in this section. Assume first that the inertial dampers exist in all the stories.

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

Table I. Influence coefficient vectors for models with various damper allocation patterns.
Damper allocation pattern Influence coefficient

First story Second story Third story First story Second story Third story
z1 fðm2 1z2 1z3 Þðm3 1z3 Þ  z23 g z1 z2 ðm3 1z3 Þ z1 z2 z3
3 3 3 1 1 1
j1 Að3Þ3 j j1 Að3Þ3 j j1 Að3Þ3 j
z1 ðm2 1z2 Þ z1 z2
3 3  1 1 1
j1 Að2Þ2 j j1 Að2Þ2 j
z1
3  3 1 1 1
j1 Að1Þ1 j
z1
3   1 1 1
j1 Að1Þ1 j
 3 3 1 1 1
 3  1 1 1
  3 1 1 1
   1 1 1
3: inertial damper exists,  : inertial damper does not exist, j1 Að3Þ3 j ¼ jAj.

Table II. Increments of the influence coefficients from the model with a damper allocation pattern to
another model with a different damper allocation pattern.
Increment of influence coefficient

Change of damper allocation pattern First story Second story Third story
m2 z1 z2
Case1-Case2 1f1  Z2 ð2Þg  0
j1 Að1Þ1 j j1 Að2Þ2 j
z2 m 3 ðm1 1z1 1z2 Þm3 z1 z2 z3
Case2-Case3 1f1  Z3 ð3Þg 1f1  Z3 ð3Þg 
j1 Að2Þ2 j j1 Að2Þ2 j j1 Að3Þ3 j
j1 Að3Þ3 j ¼ jAj:

As for the matrix [A], the following relation can be derived

½Af1g ¼ f m1 1z1 m2 m3    mn gT ð12Þ
Let aij denote the (i, j) adjoint factor of the matrix [A] and let |Aij| denote the determinant of the
matrix such that the ith row and jth column are deleted from the matrix [A]. From the
mathematical definition, aij can then be expressed as
aij  ð1Þi1j jAij j ð13Þ
In this case, the influence coefficient vector can be computed as
2 3
a11 a21    an1 8 > m1 >
9
6 .. .. 7 >
> >
>
6 7 >
< m >
=
1 a
1 6 12 . . 7 2
fZg ½A ½Mf1g ¼ 6 . 7 .
jAj 6 . .. .. 7>> .. > >
4 . . . 5>> >
: > ;
a1n a2n    ann m n
2 3
a11 a21    an1 8 >
9
m1 1z1 >
8
> a11 >
9
6 .. 7
.. 7> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > >
1 66 a12 . . 7< m2 = z1 < a12 =
¼ 6 . .. 7 
jAj 6 . .. 7> ... > jAj > .. >
4 . . . 5>>
>
>
>
> > . >
>
> >
>
: ; : ;
a1n a2n    ann m n a 1n
z1
¼½A1 ½Af1g  f a11 a12    a1n gT
jAj
z1
¼f1g  f a11 a12    a1n gT ð14Þ
jAj

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

Furthermore, the (1, i) adjoint factor of the matrix [A] may be modified as follows by repeating
the adjoint expansion.
 
 z2 
 
 .. 
 0 . 
 
 .. 
 
 . z 
a1i ¼ð1Þ11i  i

 0 mi11 1zi11 1zi12 
 
 .. 
 
 zi12 . 
 
 mn 1zn 
 
( ) mi11 1zi11 1zi12 
Yi  
11i  .. 
¼ð1Þ ðzj Þ  zi12 . 
 
j¼2  
mn 1zn
 
! mi11 1zi11 1zi12 
Yi  
 .. 
¼ zj  z .  ð15Þ
 i12 
j¼2  
mn 1zn
Therefore the ith component of fZg can be derived as
8 z1
>
> 1  jAj j2 AðnÞn j
>
>
ði ¼ 1Þ
>
> !
>
>
< z1 Y i
1 zj ji11 AðnÞn j ði ¼ 2; 3; . . . ; n  1Þ
Zi ðnÞ ¼ jAj j¼2 ð16Þ
>
>
>
>
>
> z1 Y n
>
> 1  zj ði ¼ nÞ
: jAj j¼2

It can be observed from Equation (16) that, when an inertial damper is taken out from one story
(see Figure 7), the coefficient Zi above that story becomes 1. This means that, if an inertial
damper is taken out from one story, the inertial dampers above that story do not influence the
input acceleration above that story. In other words, when a story exists in which the inertial
damper is not allocated, the allocation of inertial dampers above that story does not affect the
influence coefficient vector.

5.2. Shear building model with consecutive inertial dampers up to lth story
In order to make clear the effect by deleting the inertial damper (see Figure 8), zl11 ¼ 0 is
substituted into Equation (16). The following relations hold for the matrix [A] of the model with
z1 6¼ 0; . . . ; zl 6¼ 0 and zl11 ¼ 0.
jAðlÞj ¼ j1 AðlÞl jjl11 AðlÞn j ð17Þ

ji AðlÞn j ¼ ji AðlÞl jjl11 AðlÞn j ð1piplÞ ð18Þ

n n n
n −1 n −1 n −1
1
l +1 1 l +1 1 l +1
l l l ηl (l )

2 2 2 ηl (2)
1 1 1 ηl (1)

[Z ] = [0] z1 = 0 zl +1 = 0
no damper

Figure 7. Influence coefficient vector for n-DOF structures with and without inertial dampers.

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

with
without inertial same
influence 1
inertial damper
damper coefficient
without vector
(l+1)th
inertial
story ηl (l)
damper
: inertial damper
η2 (l)
: spring
: dashpot η1 (l)

influence
coefficient {η}
vector

Figure 8. Relation of placement of inertial dampers with influence coefficient vector for n-DOF structures
with and without inertial dampers.

jl ½AðlÞ1i n1 j ¼ jl11 AðlÞn j ð1piplÞ ð19Þ

jAðlÞ1i j ¼ j1 ½AðlÞ1i l1 jjl ½AðlÞ1i n1 j ¼ j1 ½AðlÞ1i l1 jjl11 AðlÞn j ð1piplÞ ð20Þ
where jp ½AðlÞij q j is the determinant of the sub-matrix from the pth row and pth column through
the qth row and qth column of the matrix AðlÞij constructed by deleting the ith row, and jth
column from the matrix [A] for the model with z1 6¼ 0; . . . ; zl 6¼ 0 and zl11 ¼ 0.
The ith effective coefficient vector Zi(l) for the model with z1 6¼ 0; . . . ; zl 6¼ 0 and zl11 ¼ 0 can
be derived as
8 !
>
> ji11 AðlÞl j Y i
>1 
> zj ð1pipl  1Þ
>
> j1 AðlÞl j j¼1
< !
Zi ðlÞ ¼ 1 Yl ð21Þ
>
> 1  z ði ¼ lÞ
>
> j1 AðlÞl j j¼1
j
>
>
:
1 ðl11pipnÞ

5.3. Increment of influence coefficient

As in the 2-DOF and 3-DOF models, the increment of the influence coefficient is evaluated.
When adding an inertial damper zl11 ð6¼ 0Þ in the (l11)-th story to the original model with
inertial dampers z1 6¼ 0; . . . ; zl 6¼ 0; zl11 ¼ 0, the decreasing values of the influence coefficients in
all the stories from the original model can be obtained explicitly. This derivation will be shown
in the following.
The expression ji AðjÞj j will be simplified as ji A0j j and ji Aðj11Þj j will be simplified as ji Aj j. It is
noted that zj12 ¼ 0 is not required in the definition of ji Aðj11Þj j. The following relations hold for
the determinants ji A0j j and ji Aj j.
ji A0j j ¼ ðmj 1zj Þji Aj1 j  z2j ji Aj2 j ð22Þ

ji Aj j ¼ ðmj 1zj 1zj11 Þji Aj1 j  z2j ji Aj2 j ð23Þ

Therefore, the following relation can be derived

ji A0j11 j ¼ðmj11 1zj11 Þji Aj j  z2j11 ji Aj1 j
¼ðmj11 1zj11 Þðji A0j j1zj11 ji Aj1 jÞ  z2j11 ji Aj1 j
¼ðmj11 1zj11 Þji A0j j1mj11 zj11 ji Aj1 j ð24Þ

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

In the following, j is regarded as l. The increment DZi jl!l11 for 1pipl  1 can be
manipulated as follows:

DZi jl!l11 ¼Zi ðl11Þ  Zi ðlÞ

! ( ! )
Y i
ji11 A0l11 j Y
i
ji11 A0l j
¼1  zj  1 zj
j¼1
j1 A0l11 j j¼1
j1 A0l j
! 
Y
i
ji11 A0l j ji11 A0l11 j
¼ zj 
j¼1
j1 A0l j j1 A0l11 j
!
Y
i
1
¼ zj fji11 A0l jj1 A0l11 j  ji11 A0l11 jj1 A0l jg ð25Þ
j¼1
j1 Al jj1 A0l11 j
0

The expression in f g in the last equation of Equation (25) can further be modified as

ji11 A0l jj1 A0l11 j  ji11 A0l11 jj1 A0l j

¼ ji11 A0l jfðml11 1zl11 Þj1 A0l j1ml11 zl11 j1 Al1 jg

 fðml11 1zl11 Þji11 A0l j1ml11 zl11 ji11 Al1 jgj1 A0l j

¼ ml11 zl11 ðji11 A0l jj1 Al1 j  ji11 Al1 jj1 A0l jÞ

¼ ml11 zl11 ½fðml 1zl Þji11 Al1 j  z2l ji11 Al2 jgj1 Al1 j

 ji11 Al1 jfðml 1zl Þj1 Al1 j  z2l j1 Al2 jg

¼ ml11 zl11 z2l ðji11 Al1 jj1 Al2 j  ji11 Al2 jj1 Al1 jÞ ð26Þ

The last expression in Equation (26) can further be modified to

ml11 zl11 z2l ðji11 Al1 jj1 Al2 j  ji11 Al2 jj1 Al1 jÞ

¼ ml11 zl11 z2l ½fðml1 1zl1 1zl Þji11 Al2 j  z2l1 ji11 Al3 jgj1 Al2 j

 ji11 Al2 jfðml1 1zl1 1zl Þj1 Al2 j  z2l1 j1 Al3 jg

¼ ml11 zl11 z2l z2l1 ðji11 Al2 jj1 Al3 j  ji11 Al3 jj1 Al2 jÞ
!
Y l
2
¼ ml11 zl11 zj fðmi11 1zi11 1zi12 Þj1 Ai j  j1 Ai11 jg ð27Þ
j¼i12

The last expression in Equation (27) can be classified into

!
Yl
ml11 zl11 z2j fðmi11 1zi11 1zi12 Þj1 Ai j  j1 Ai11 jg
j¼i12
8 !
>
> Ql
>
> ml11 zl11 2
zj ði ¼ 1Þ
>
>
< j¼2
¼ ! ð28Þ
>
>
>
>m z Q l
>
> 2
zj j1 Ai1 j ð2piÞ
: l11 l11
j¼i11

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

When i 5 1, DZi jl!l11 can be expressed as

DZl jl!l11 ¼Zl ðl11Þ  Zl ðlÞ
! ( ! )
Yl
jl11 A0l11 j Y
l
1
¼1  zj  1 zj
j¼1
j1 A0l11 j j¼1
j1 A0l j
! 
Y
l
1 jl11 Al11 j
¼ zj 
j¼1
j1 A0l j j1 A0l11 j
!
Y
l
1
¼ zj fj1 A0l11 j  jl11 A0l11 jj1 A0l jg
j¼1
j1 Al jj1 A0l11 j
0

!
Y
l
1
¼ zj ½fðml11 1zl11 Þj1 A0l j1ml11 zl11 j1 Al1 jg  ðml11 1zl11 Þj1 A0l j
j¼1
j1 Al jj1 A0l11 j
0

Q
l11
! zj
Y
l
1 j¼1 j1 Al1 jml11
¼ zj ml11 zl11 j1 Al1 j ¼
j¼1
j1 A0l jj1 A0l11 j j1 A0l11 j j1 A0l j

j1 Al1 jml11
¼f1  Zl11 ðl11Þg ð29Þ
j1 A0l j
Finally DZi jl!l11 can be obtained as
8 !
>
> 1 Yl
>
>
>
> 0 f1  Zl11 ðl11Þg zj ml11 ði ¼ 1Þ
> j 1 Al j
>
> j¼2
>
> !
>
>
>
> 1 Yl
>
>
< j A0 j f1  Zl11 ðl11Þgj1 Ai1 j zj ml11 ð2pipl  1Þ
1 l j¼i11
DZi jl!l11 ¼ ð30Þ
>
>
> 1
>
>
> f1  Zl11 ðl11Þgj1 Al1 jml11 ði ¼ lÞ
>
> j1 A0l j
>
>
>
>
>
> f1  Zl11 ðl11Þg ði ¼ l11Þ
>
>
>
:
0 ðl12pipnÞ
It can be observed from Equation (30) that the following properties can be drawn for a shear
building model with inertial dampers from the first story through the lth story. When allocating
the inertial damper at the (l11)th story in this model, the influence coefficient at the (l11)th
story becomes smaller than that of the original model and the influence coefficients from the first
story through the lth story become larger than those of the original model.
All the derived relations in Section 5 have been demonstrated to be correct through numerical
analysis.

6. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES OF INFLUENCE COEFFICIENT FOR MISSING

INERTIAL DAMPER
Figure 9 shows the influence coefficient vectors of 10-story models in which the inertial damper is
missing in respective story. The floor masses are uniform and each floor mass is 1.0  105 kg. The
ratio of the inertial damper to the corresponding floor mass is assumed to be zi/mi 5 0.5. The
fundamental natural period of the model without inertial damper is 1.0 s and the lowest mode of
the model without inertial damper is a straight line. This means that the interstory drift of the

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

1st damper missing 2nd damper missing 3rd damper missing 4th damper missing 5th damper missing

6st damper missing 7nd damper missing 8rd damper missing 9th damper missing 10th damper missing

Figure 9. Influence coefficient vectors of 10-story shear building models (damper is missing in respective story).

lowest eigenmode is uniform. The damping ration is 0.05. It is assumed that the stiffness of damper
supporting members is rigid. It can be observed from Figure 9 that, if the first-story damper is
missing, all the components of the influence coefficient vector are unity. This implies that the first-
story inertial damper is important for the reduction of input energy. This figure also indicates that,
if the damping is missing at upper stories, the influence coefficient vector is not affected much.

7. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES OF DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE FOR VARIOUS

INERTIAL DAMPER ALLOCATIONS

7.1. Displacement response for missing inertial damper

Consider again 10-story models in which an inertial damper is missing in the first or fifth story. As
in the previous section, the floor masses are uniform and each floor mass is 1.0  105 kg. The ratio
of the inertial damper to the corresponding floor mass is assumed to be zi/mi 5 0.5 or 2.0. The
fundamental natural period of the model without inertial damper is 1.0 s and the lowest mode of
the model without inertial damper is a straight line. The damping ratio is 0.05. It is assumed that
the stiffness of damper supporting members is rigid. For the model of zi/mi 5 0.5, the fundamental
natural periods of the models (all dampers, first story missing and fifth story missing) are all 1.006 s.
On the other hand, for the model of zi/mi 5 2.0, the fundamental natural periods of the models (all
dampers, first story missing and fifth story missing) are 1.027, 1.024 and 1.024 s, respectively.
Figure 10 shows the comparison of the transfer function amplitudes of interstory drifts at the
fundamental natural frequency [13] among the models (all dampers, first story missing and fifth
story missing) for zi/mi 5 0.5. Figure 11 illustrates the same one for zi/mi 5 2.0. It can be observed
that the transfer function amplitude of interstory drift decreases conspicuously in the story in
which the inertial damper is missing. This phenomenon is remarkable as zi/mi becomes larger.

7.2. Displacement response for different inertial damper levels

Consider 10-story models in which the inertial dampers exist in all the stories. The ratio of the
inertial damper to the corresponding floor mass is varied as zi/mi 5 0, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0. The
fundamental natural periods of the models with zi/mi 5 0, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 are 1.000, 1.006, 1.013
and 1.027 s, respectively. The other parameters are the same as in Section 7.1.
Figure 12 shows the comparison of the transfer function amplitudes of interstory drifts at the
fundamental natural frequency among the models with zi/mi 5 0, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0. It can be
observed that, as zi/mi becomes larger, the transfer function amplitudes of interstory drifts at the
fundamental natural frequency become greater toward the upper stories.

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

10
9
z/m=0.5
8
7

story number
6
5
4
all dampers
3
5th damper missing
2
1st damper missing
1
0
0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
transfer function amplitude of interstory drift (s2)
Figure 10. Comparison of the transfer function amplitudes of interstory drifts at the fundamental
natural frequency among the models (all dampers, first story missing and fifth story missing) for zi/mi 5 0.5.

10
9
z/m=2.0
8
7
story number

6
5
4
3 all dampers
2 5th damper missing
1st damper missing
1
0
0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
transfer function amplitude of interstory drift (s2)
Figure 11. Comparison of the transfer function amplitudes of interstory drifts at the fundamental natural
frequency among the models (all dampers, first story missing and fifth story missing) for zi/mi 5 2.0.

10
9 z /m=0
8
z /m=0.5
7
story number

z /m=1.0
6
z /m=2.0
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
transfer function amplitude of interstory drift (s2)
Figure 12. Comparison of the transfer function amplitudes of interstory drifts at the fundamental natural
frequency among the models with zi/mi 5 0, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0.

8. EARTHQUAKE INPUT ENERGY TO SHEAR BUILDING MODEL UNDER

IDEALIZED IMPULSIVE EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION WITH CONSTANT
FOURIER AMPLITUDE
The mechanism of earthquake response reduction is also discussed from the viewpoint of
earthquake input energy. A lot of fruitful results have been accumulated on the topics of
earthquake input energy to structures (for example, [14–19]). In some countries, the earthquake
input energy has been incorporated as an earthquake input demand.

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

time-domain frequency-domain
formulation formulation
−A

constant
−A
Fourier
amplitude
−A spectrum

U g (ω)
−A
A
−A
ω
initial
velocity

Figure 13. Dual domain evaluation of input energy to structure subjected to impulsive loading.

It can be shown that the response of the structure with inertial dampers subjected to an

impulsive acceleration input u€ g ðtÞ ¼ AdðtÞ with a constant Fourier spectrum A is equivalent to

the free vibration of the structure with initial velocity f_xg ¼ fZgA([20,21], see Figure 13). This
initial velocity can be obtained by integrating the response acceleration f€xg ¼ fZg€ug ðtÞ. The
earthquake input energy EI to this model subjected to this impulsive acceleration input can be
expressed by
EI ¼ 12 f_xgT ð½M1½ZÞf_xg ¼ 12 fZgT ð½M1½ZÞfZgA 2 ¼ 12 f1gT ½MfZgA 2 ð31Þ

This implies that the earthquake input energy under this special input depends on fZg. The effect
of stiffness of members supporting the inertial dampers will further be clarified later.
It can be derived from Equation P (31) that the decreased input energy of the model with
inertial dampers from that ð1=2ÞA 2 ni¼1 mi of the model without inertial dampers can be
expressed by
A 2 X
n
DEI ¼ mi ð1  Zi Þ ð32Þ
2 i¼1

It can be shown from Equation (16) that 1  Zi X0 and then DEI X0.
Consider next the effect of adding an inertial damper consecutively on the change of the input
energy. When adding an inertial damper zl11 ð6¼ 0Þ in the (l11)th story to the original model with
inertial dampers z1 6¼ 0; . . . ; zl 6¼ 0; zl11 ¼ 0, the decreased input energy can be derived as
follows.

DEI jl!l11 2 X
l11
¼ fEI ðlÞ  EI ðl11Þg ¼ mi DZi jl!l11
A 2
2
A 2 i¼1
j1 Al1 j
¼  ml11 f1  Zl11 ðl11Þg1ml ml11 f1  Zl11 ðl11Þg
j1 A0l j
" ! #
Xl1
1 Yl
1 mi f1  Zl11 ðl11Þgj1 Ai1 j zj ml11
i¼2
j1 A0l j j¼i11
!
1 Y l
1 0 m1 f1  Zl11 ðl11Þg zj ml11
j1 Al j j¼2
" ( !)
ml11 f1  Zl11 ðl11Þg X
l1 Y
l
0
¼ j1 Al j  ml j1 Al1 j  mi j1 Ai1 j zj
j1 A0l j i¼2 j¼i11
!#
Yl
m1 zj ð33Þ
j¼2

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

The expression in [ ] in the last equation of Equation (33) can be modified into the following
form.
( !) !
X
l1 Y
l Y
l
0
ðj1 Al j  ml j1 Al1 jÞ  mi j1 Ai1 j zj  m1 zj
i¼2 j¼i11 j¼2
( !) !
X
l1 Y
l Y
l
¼ fðml 1zl Þj1 Al1 j  z2l j1 Al2 jg  ml j1 Al1 j  mi j1 Ai1 j zj  m1 zj
i¼2 j¼i11 j¼2
( !) !
X
l1 Y
l Y
l
¼ zl ðj1 Al1 j  zl j1 Al2 jÞ  mi j1 Ai1 j zj  m1 zj
i¼2 j¼i11 j¼2

¼ zl ½fðml1 1zl1 1zl Þj1 Al2 j  z2l1 j1 Al3 jg  zl j1 Al2 j

( !) !
X
l1 Yl Yl
 mi j1 Ai1 j zj  m1 zj
i¼2 j¼i11 j¼2
( !) !
X
l1 Y
l Y
l
¼ zl fðml1 1zl1 Þj1 Al2 j  z2l1 j1 Al3 jg  mi j1 Ai1 j zj  m1 zj
i¼2 j¼i11 j¼2
( !) !
X
l1 Y
l Y
l
¼ zl j1 A0l1 j  mi j1 Ai1 j zj  m1 zj
i¼2 j¼i11 j¼2
( !) !
X
l2 Y
l Y
l
¼ zl ðj1 A0l1 j  ml1 j1 Al1 jÞ  mi j1 Ai1 j zj  m1 zj ð34Þ
i¼2 j¼i11 j¼2

The expression in [ ] in the last equation of Equation (33) can finally be modified into the
following form.
( !) !
X
l1 Y
l Y
l
0
ðj1 Al j  ml j1 Al1 jÞ  mi j1 Ai1 j zj  m1 zj
i¼2 j¼i11 j¼2
! !
Y
l Y
l
¼ zj j1 A01 j  m1 zj
j¼2 j¼2
! !
Y
l Y
l
¼ zj ðm1 1z1 Þ  m1 zj
j¼2 j¼2

Y
l
¼ zj ð35Þ
j¼1

Substituting Equation (35) into Equation (33) provides

DEI jl!l11 ¼ 12 ml11 f1  Zl11 ðl11Þgf1  Zl ðlÞgA 2 40 ð36Þ
Equation (36) implies that, when adding an inertial damper zl11 ð6¼ 0Þ in the (l11)th story to the
original model with inertial dampers z1 6¼ 0; . . . ; zl 6¼ 0; zl11 ¼ 0, the input energy to the shear
building model subjected to an impulsive acceleration input u€ g ðtÞ ¼ AdðtÞ  with a constant

Fourier spectrum A becomes smaller.

9. MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE FOR RECORDED GROUND MOTIONS

Consider a 12-story model in which inertial dampers exist in all the stories. The floor masses are
uniform and each floor mass is 1.0  105 kg. The ratio of the inertial damper to the
corresponding floor mass is zi/mi 5 2.0. The fundamental natural period of the model with

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

inertial dampers is 1.22 s and that of the model without inertial dampers is 1.20 s. The lowest
mode of the model without inertial dampers is a straight line. The damping ratio is 0.05.
Figure 14 shows the maximum distributions of interstory drift, horizontal displacement,
horizontal velocity and absolute horizontal acceleration for the models without and with inertial
dampers under El Centro NS 1940. It can be observed that the inertial dampers are effective
especially for the reduction of the maximum absolute horizontal acceleration of floors. This fact
corresponds well with the property that the inertial dampers are effective for relative
acceleration between two masses. The maximum horizontal displacement and horizontal
velocity are also decreased to some extent. However, some of the maximum interstory drifts may
be increased.
Figure 15 illustrates the corresponding distributions for the models without and with inertial
dampers under Taft EW 1952. The observations similar to those for El Centro NS 1940 can be
made for Taft EW 1952.
Figure 16 shows the corresponding distributions for the models without and with inertial
dampers under Hachinohe NS 1968. The observations similar to those for El Centro NS 1940
and Taft EW 1952 can be made also for Hachinohe NS 1968.

12 12

10 10

8 8
story number

story number

6 6

4 4

2 2
with inertial damper with inertial damper
without inertial damper without inertial damper
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
interstory drift (m) horizontal displacement (m)

12 12

10 10

8 8
story number

story number

6 6

4 4

2 2 with inertial damper

with inertial damper without inertial
without inertial damper damper
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
horizontal velocity (m/s) absolute horizontal acceleration (m/s2)
Figure 14. Maximum distributions of interstory drift, horizontal displacement, horizontal velocity and
absolute horizontal acceleration for El Centro NS 1940.

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

12 12

10 10

8 8
story number

story number
6 6

4 4

2 2
with inertial damper with inertial damper
without inertial damper without inertial damper
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
interstory drift (m) horizontal displacement (m)

12 12

10 10

8 8
story number

story number

6 6

4 4

2 2
with inertial damper with inertial damper
without inertial damper without inertial damper
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
horizontal velocity (m/s) absolute horizontal acceleration (m/s2)
Figure 15. Maximum distributions of interstory drift, horizontal displacement, horizontal velocity and
absolute horizontal acceleration for Taft EW 1952.

Table III presents the maximum base shears in the models without and with inertial dampers.
It can be observed that the inertial dampers are also effective for the reduction of the maximum
base shears. The reduction of the maximum base shear corresponds well with the reduction
characteristic of input energy shown in the previous sections.

10. CONCLUSIONS
The fundamental characteristics have been investigated about the earthquake response
reduction in building structures with inertial dampers, which are effective with respect to
relative acceleration between two nodes. The principal results may be summarized as:
(1) The influence of inertial dampers on the ground-motion input can be expressed by the
influence coefficient vector fZg ¼ ð½M1½ZÞ1 ½Mf1g to be multiplied on the ground-
motion acceleration in the right-hand side of the equations of motion.
(2) In order to reduce the influence coefficient Zi at a floor level, it is necessary to allocate the
inertial dampers at all the stories below that floor level.

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

12 12

10 10

8 8
story number

story number
6 6

4 4

2 2
with inertial damper with inertial damper
without inertial damper without inertial damper
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
interstory drift (m) horizontal displacement (m)

12 12

10 10

8 8
story number

story number

6 6

4 4

2 2
with inertial damper with inertial damper
without inertial damper without inertial damper
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
horizontal velocity (m/s) absolute horizontal acceleration (m/s2)
Figure 16. Maximum distributions of interstory drift, horizontal displacement, horizontal velocity and
absolute horizontal acceleration for Hachinohe NS 1968.

Table III. Maximum base shear in models without and with inertial dampers.
Without inertial damper (N) With inertial damper (N)
6
El Centro NS 1940 3.04  10 2.69  106
Taft EW 1952 1.42  106 1.18  106
Hachinohe NS 1968 2.32  106 2.16  106

(3) When an inertial damper is taken out from one story, the influence coefficient Zi above
that story becomes 1. This means that, if an inertial damper is taken out from one story,
the inertial dampers above that story do not influence the input acceleration above that
story. In other words, when there exists a story in which the inertial damper is not
allocated, the allocation of inertial dampers above that story does not affect the influence
coefficient vector. This observation is supported by the newly derived closed-form
expression of the influence coefficient vector fZg.
(4) The earthquake input energy to the shear building model subjected to an acceleration
input with a constant Fourier spectrum depends clearly and simply on fZg. Therefore,

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 I. TAKEWAKI ET AL.

the earthquake input energy under this special input can be characterized by fZg and the
earthquake input energy can be reduced certainly by adding the inertial dampers
consecutively from the bottom. In other words, when there exists a story in which the
inertial damper is not allocated, the allocation of inertial dampers above that story does
not affect the earthquake input energy to a shear building model under an idealized
impulsive earthquake ground-motion model with a constant Fourier amplitude.
(5) Consider a shear building model with inertial dampers from the first story through the
lth story. When allocating the inertial damper at the (l11)th story in this model, the
following results can be drawn. (i) The influence coefficient at the (l11)th story becomes
smaller than that of the original model with inertial dampers from the first story through
the lth story. (ii) The influence coefficients from the first story through the lth story
become larger than those of the original model. (iii) The earthquake input energy to this
shear building model under an idealized impulsive earthquake ground-motion model
with a constant Fourier amplitude becomes smaller than that of the original model.
(6) The transfer function amplitudes of interstory drifts at the fundamental natural
frequency decrease conspicuously in the story in which the inertial damper is missing.
(7) A 12-story model has been subjected to three representative recorded ground motions.
It has been shown that the inertial dampers are effective for the reduction of the
maximum absolute horizontal acceleration of floors and the maximum base shear. The
maximum horizontal displacement and horizontal velocity are also decreased to some
extent. However, some of the maximum interstory drifts may be increased.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 21360267) in Japan. This
support is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering. Wiley: Chichester, 1997.
2. Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A. Principle of Passive Supplemental Damping and Seismic Isolation. IUSS Press,
University of Pavia: Italy, 2006.
3. Takewaki I. Building Control with Passive Dampers: -Optimal Performance-based Design for Earthquakes. Wiley
(Asia): Singapore, 2009.
4. Smith MC. Synthesis of mechanical networks: the inerter. IEEE Transactions of Automatic Control 2002;
47(10):1648–1662.
5. Furuhashi T, Ishimaru S. Mode isolation by inertial mass; Study on response control by inertial mass No. 1.
Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (AIJ) 2004; 576:55–62 (in Japanese).
6. Furuhashi T, Ishimaru S. Response control of multi-degree system by inertial mass; Study on response control by
inertial mass No. 2. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (AIJ) 2004; 601:83–90 (in Japanese).
7. Pradono MH, Iemura H, Igarashi A, Kalantari A. Application of angular-mass dampers to base-isolated
benchmark building. Structural Control Health Monitoring 2008; 15(5):737–745.
8. Kida H, Nakaminami S, Saito K, Ikago K, Inoue N. A seismic control system with multi-tuning viscous mass
damper and its design method. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (AIJ) 2009; 643:1575–1583 (in
Japanese).
9. Furuhashi T, Hata I, Ishimaru S. Response control design method by making use of dynamic mass. Proceedings of
the Fifth World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring, Tokyo, Paper No.278, 2010.
10. Isoda K, Hanzawa T, Tamura K. A study on response characteristics of an SDOF model with rotating inertia mass
dampers. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (AIJ) 2009; 642:1469–1476 (in Japanese).
11. Isoda K, Hanzawa T, Tamura K. A study on earthquake energy input to the structure with rotating inertial mass
dampers. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (AIJ) 2010; 650:751–759 (in Japanese).
12. Tamura K, Isoda K, Nakamura Y. Response characteristics of a structure with a vibration control system using
inertia damper. Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring, Tokyo, Paper
No.268, 2010.
13. Takewaki I. Optimal damper placement for minimum transfer functions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1997; 26(11):1113–1124.
14. Housner GW. Behavior of structures during earthquakes. Journal of Engineering Mechanical Division (ASCE) 1959;
85(4):109–129.

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM OF STRUCTURES WITH INERTIAL DAMPERS

15. Zahrah TF, Hall WJ. Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF structures. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE)
1984; 110(8):1757–1772.
16. Akiyama H. Earthquake Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings. University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo, Japan, 1985.
17. Takewaki I. Frequency domain modal analysis of earthquake input energy to highly damped passive control
structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33(5):575–590.
18. Takewaki I. Bound of earthquake input energy. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2004; 130(9):1289–1297.
19. Takewaki I. Earthquake input energy to two buildings connected by viscous dampers. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 2007; 133(5):620–628.
20. Takewaki I, Fujita K. Earthquake input energy to tall and base-isolated buildings in time and frequency dual
domains. Journal of the Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2009; 18(6):589–606.
21. Takewaki I, Tsuji M. Fundamental properties of earthquake input energy to two structures connected by passive
dampers. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (AIJ) 2007; 616:81–87 (in Japanese).

Copyright r 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/stc