Tuned Mass Damper and Base Isolation: A Unitary

Approach for the Seismic Protection of

Conventional Frame Structures
Cristiano Fabrizio, Ph.D. 1; Andrea M. de Leo, Ph.D. 2; and Angelo Di Egidio, Ph.D. 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Taking inspiration from the basic two-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) models usually adopted to study base isolation (BI) and tuned
mass damper (TMD), a unique main archetype 2-DOF model is here introduced to describe the behavior of general multi-degree-of-freedom
(MDOF) frame systems, in which a stiffness discontinuity (disconnection), such as the one that can be identified in BI or TMD, may be
inserted. With the aim to evaluate the dynamic enhancement following from such a discontinuity for the two masses of the model, two
reference schemes (TMD scheme and BI scheme) are introduced and two particular mean gain parameters are associated with them. These
represent the main subject of the parametric analyses presented in this work, based on variable mass and stiffness ratios. These analyses
are carried out considering groups of earthquake records collected on the basis of a specific criterion (spectrum compatibility). The results of
the parametric analyses are arranged by means of mean gain maps and surfaces that can be directly related to a reference response spectrum.
The mean gain maps provide a description of the dynamic performance of the archetype model. In order to extend the results obtained for
the archetype models to general MDOF frame systems, a specific equivalence procedure is then introduced. Using such an approach, it is
possible to define values of mass and stiffness ratio for a general MDOF systems, and then to use the maps to design the characteristics of the
disconnection. The results expressed by the mean gain maps have been confirmed by several simulations carried out with reference to
a 6-story shear-type frame, thus showing some practical implications of the research. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001581.
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Base isolation (BI) and tuned mass damper (TMD) represent
two widely known techniques conceived to reduce vibrations in
structures. Both these techniques have been extensively studied
in recent years, and awareness of their behavior has reached a level
of maturity sufficient to allow numerous applications in real civil
structures.
Aside from specific aspects related to the damping, from a
kinetic standpoint, both these techniques may be associated with
the concept of disconnection, hereby interpreted as a sudden varia-
tion (discontinuity) of stiffness within a structure. In BI, the isola-
tion layer holds generally a lower stiffness than the upper structure
so as to offer the possibility of a “seismic energy deflection” (Kelly
1995) due to low values of participating factors for higher modes,
beyond the enlarging of the fundamental period of vibration. On
the other hand, in classical TMD applications, a disconnection is
introduced between a main structure to be protected and a supple-
mental vibrating damping mass. In this case, a stiffness variation
is needed to tune the damping mass, usually much lower than that
1
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile-Architettura e Ambientale,
Univ. of L’Aquila, L’Aquila 67100, Italy.
2
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile-Architettura e Ambientale,
Univ. of L’Aquila, L’Aquila 67100, Italy.
3
Associate Professor, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile-
Architettura e Ambientale Univ. of L’Aquila, L’Aquila 67100, Italy
(corresponding author). Email: angelo.diegidio@univaq.it
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 12, 2018; approved on
September 7, 2018; published online on January 18, 2019. Discussion
period open until June 18, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399.
of the structure, to the circular frequency of the main structure con-
sidered alone.
Besides this analogy in operating principle, two substantial dif-
ferences may be identified between the two techniques: the location
of the disconnection within the structural system and the nature of
the masses, the latter being related to the source of the mass and/or
its function (protecting or to be protected). In BI, the disconnec-
tion stands underneath the main structure that is to be protected.
In TMD, the disconnection is usually placed between an upper con-
trolling mass (whether supplemental or deriving from the structure
itself) and a lower controlled structure.
Among all the others, an important difference between the two
techniques is their seismic effectiveness. As widely recognized, BI
shows a good performance when adopted in rather stiff structures,
whereas TMD’s effectiveness under earthquake excitation seems to
be uncertain and less established than under wind excitation (Kaynia
et al. 1981; Casciati and Giuliano 2009). Nevertheless, it should be
recalled that, according to various studies, TMD may represent an
efficient vibration-reducing system against earthquakes too, espe-
cially in the case of a high mass ratio (Wirsching and Campbell
1973; Wirsching and Yao 1973; Jagadish et al. 1979; Villaverde
1985; Adam and Furtmüller 2010).
Due to their different features, BI and TMD have been widely
analyzed as two distinct approaches for the reduction of vibrations
in structures. In recent years, however, researchers have started to
analyze various modifications to the classical arrangement of the
two techniques, thus introducing more complex configurations and
even proposing their combined use.
Tsai (1995) and Taniguchi et al. (2008), for example, studied the
reduction of the base displacement in a base-isolated structure, fol-
lowing from the use of a TMD placed on the first floor above the
isolation layer, and Di Matteo et al. (2017) adopted a tuned liquid
column damper analogously. The same objective has been lately

© ASCE 04019011-1 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 pursued by De Domenico and Ricciardi (2018) and De Domenico
et al. (2018b) by means of a revised and more complex version of
the classical TMD, named a tuned mass damper inerter (TMDI).
For this latter version, an analysis of possible applications in
seismically excited structures was undertaken by Giaralis and
Taflanidis (2018).
Other interesting examples are represented by some papers that
have proposed the idea to turn part of the mass of the structure to
be protected (the roof) into a vibrating damper, such as Villaverde
and Mosqueda (1999), Villaverde et al. (2005), and Matta and
De Stefano (2009). Feng and Mita (1995) and Sadek et al. (1997)
converted entire sections of the structure (the substructures) into
vibrating masses by means of a uniform disconnection along the
building’s height with respect to the rest of the structure (the super-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
structure). An analogous concept can be found in the partial mass
isolation technique presented by Anajafi and Medina (2018).
Chey et al. (2013) added 2–4 new stories to the rooftop of an
existing 12-story building, along with an isolation layer, in order
to make them act as a TMD system to reduce the vibration of
the lower structures. A similar approach was tried by Reggio and
De Angelis (2015) by introducing interstory isolation into a build-
ing structure, thus creating an upper TMD. Wang et al. (2011, 2012,
2013) presented an analytical and experimental analysis of the re-
sponse of building structures equipped with an isolation layer
placed mainly above the first floor (midstory isolation).
Regarding the possibility of disconnecting the structure at dif-
ferent levels to improve its overall dynamic response, it would be of
interest to wonder if the disconnection works mainly as a tuned
mass damper for the lower structure (enhancement for the lower
substructure deriving from the dynamics of the upper substructure)
or it works mainly as base isolation for the upper structure
(enhancement for the upper substructure deriving from the dynam-
ics of the lower substructure).
A primary, although meaningful, study of the disconnection
has been then developed on the basis of a simple two-degree-of-
freedom (2-DOF) model. Actually, such an approach derives from
Den Hartog (1956), Kelly (1990), Rana and Soong (1998), and
Miranda (2005) and most of the aforementioned works, where
both BI and TMD were first studied using a reference basic 2-DOF
model.
An archetype model, constituted by a simple 2-DOF system, has
been then taken as representative of structures where a discontinu-
ity is introduced. The system has a constant total mass (because the
isolation base or the tuned mass damper are intended to derive from
the structure itself), whereas stiffness and mass ratios are taken as
variable parameters. Two parameters capable of evaluating the ef-
ficiency of the structural discontinuity, called gain parameters, are
introduced. One on these is capable of evaluating the efficiency of
the discontinuity when it is designed as a tuned mass damper; the
other evaluates the performances of the structure when the discon-
tinuity works as a base isolation system. Instead of pursuing an
optimization approach, these gain parameters express the efficiency
of TMD and BI by means of a comparison of kinematic quantities,
referred to two limit cases achievable with the same archetype
model. Such a framework collects many features already defined
by Fabrizio et al. (2017), but different from their study in which
base harmonic excitation was exclusively considered, the present
study is focused on the case of earthquake base motions.
The seismic response of the system under several earthquake
registrations selected by means of the spectrum-compatibility cri-
terion (De Domenico et al. 2018a) is then evaluated. Two different
types of behavior maps referring to the two gain parameters are
obtained. They are able to account for the seismic performances of
the discontinuity in the whole parameter plane. In these gain maps,
© ASCE 04019011-2
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011
the regions where a base isolation or a tuned mass damper sys-
tem works properly are well recognizable, and it is also possible
to point out some other regions of the parameters plane where
both systems work well. Within these latter ones, double control
over the two substructures is possible, and a unitary approach to the
dynamic enhancement following from the disconnection can there-
fore be achieved. In order to use the gain maps for multiple-degree-
of-freedom (MDOF) structures, an equivalence criterion among
MDOF and 2-DOF systems is proposed, as by Basili and De
Angelis (2007).
Some numerical simulations based on shear-type systems are
performed to confirm the results provided by the archetype model.
As will be shown, because the equivalence criterion extends to
MDOF systems, the results provided by the maps and the trends
and values portrayed in these latter ones can be utilized for the se-
lection of the characteristics of a disconnection within a real struc-
tural model. Based on such an aspect, the gain maps can be viewed
as a sort of preliminary design tool for disconnected systems,
offering therefore some practical interest.
Analytical Modeling of the Disconnection
Archetype 2-DOF Model
This research took inspiration from two basic models used to de-
scribe two renowned techniques to reduce vibrations in structures:
the TMD and BI. With reference to Fig. 1, it is possible to observe
that within these basic models, the aforementioned concept of dis-
connection can be recovered because both models are characterized
by a sudden variation of stiffness (discontinuity). Clearly, the two
techniques are intended to protect the lower (TMD) and upper (BI)
mass differently.
Aside from specific linear characteristics that may be assigned
to springs and dashpots portrayed in Fig. 1, it is possible to observe
that the two 2-DOF models in the same figure are equivalent. This
particular aspect has then suggested the possibility to describe both
the basic models for TMD and BI with a unique 2-DOF model.
Because a single (generalized) degree of freedom may describe,
in an approximate way, the response of a multi-degree-of-freedom
system, then it can be supposed that a 2-DOF model could be used
to analyze general MDOF systems in which a substantial variation
in stiffness (disconnection), between two parts of a global structure
may be identified. Therefore a 2-DOF model (Fig. 2), hereby called
the main archetype model (Fabrizio et al. 2017) (the term main is
used to distinguish it from the auxiliary models presented here-
after), is introduced with the aim to analyze general MDOF systems
in which a disconnection is present.
In this main archetype model, whose total mass m is supposed
to remain constant, the stiffness variation can be represented exclu-
sively by a physical subdivision (Fig. 2), depicted by an ideal cut-
ting plane (discontinuity plane) that divides the system in two parts
Fig. 1. Basic models for TMD and BI (gray masses are the ones to be
protected).
J. Eng. Mech.
 will be set, thus obtaining x~ i ¼ xi ; ði ¼ 1; 2Þ. The substitution of
the variable t with the dimensionless variable τ makes possible to
Variable
write ẋi ðtÞ ¼ ω1 ẋi ðτ Þ and ẍi ðtÞ ¼ ω21 ẍi ðτ Þ ði ¼ 1; 2Þ, where the dot
discontinuity plane stands for derivation with respect to both time variables t and τ .
The dimensionless equations of motion [Eq. (2)] then read

  " pffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffi # 
1 0 ẍ1 ðτ Þ 2ξ 1 þ 2ξ 2 ρμ~ −2ξ 2 ρμ~ ẋ1 ðτ Þ
þ pffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 μ~ ẍ2 ðτ Þ −2ξ 2 ρμ~ 2ξ 2 ρμ~ ẋ2 ðτ Þ

 
  
1 þ ρ −ρ x1 ðτ Þ 1 0 1
þ − ag ðτ Þ ð4Þ
−ρ ρ x2 ðτ Þ 0 μ~ 1

where ag ðτ Þ = dimensionless seismic excitation. In Eq. (4), the

following dimensionless quantities have been used:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 2. Main 2-DOF archetype system.
k1 k2
ω1 ¼ ; ω2 ¼ ð5Þ
m1 m2

(lower and upper substructures) with mass m1 and m2 , each one c1 c2

ξ1 ¼ ; ξ2 ¼ ð6Þ
associated with the 2-DOF of the model. However, within this con- 2ω1 m1 2ω2 m2
text, it is worth remarking that in real MDOF structures, a stiffness
discontinuity may not correspond to a proper physical subdivision, m2 μ
¼ ¼ μ~ ð7Þ
as in the BI model in Fig. 1, for which, nevertheless, the aforemen- m1 1 − μ
tioned definition of disconnection still applies. sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffi
Two dimensionless parameters, one of which related to the po- ω2 k2 m1 ρ
sition of the discontinuity plane, characterize the archetype system. ¼ ¼ ð8Þ
ω1 k1 m2 μ~
They are
m2 m2 k2 where ω1 , ω2 , ξ 1 , and ξ 2 = natural circular frequencies and
μ¼ ¼ ; ρ¼ ð1Þ
m m1 þ m2 k1 damping ratios evaluated considering the two masses of the main
2-DOF model, together with their linking devices as standalone,
where μ = mass ratio to which the height of the discontinuity plane respectively.
can be associated and ρ = stiffness ratio. Although unusual for
classic TMD applications, the specific definition of the mass ratio
has been adopted because the global mass m has been supposed to Dimensionless External Seismic Excitation
be constant; therefore, the parameter μ is contained in the range The previous dimensionless approach applied to the base acceler-
μ ∈ ½0.1; 0.9. ation leads to the following relation of the dimensionless expres-
Recalling the fact that the archetype model has been introduced sion ag ðτ Þ as function of the dimensional one ag ðtÞ:
as a unique representation of both TMD and BI applications, then  2  
with reference to Fig. 1, higher values for μ and ρ describe the stan- 1 T1 2π
ag ðτ Þ ¼ 2 ag ðω1 tÞ ¼ ag t ð9Þ
dard BI scheme, whereas lower values for μ an ρ can be associated ω1 2π T1
with the standard TMD scheme.
It is worth observing that the dimensionless external excitation
depends on ω1 and equivalently on the period T 1 ¼ 2π=ω1 of the
Dimensionless Formulation lower substructure [Eq. (5)]. This means that as the characteristics
With reference to Fig. 2, the Newton’s equations of motion for the of the lower part vary, different dimensionless expressions of the
main 2-DOF model can be directly written and expressed in the same waveform have to be used.
following matrix form: Considering that a seismic acceleration is generally available in a

 
  discrete form, by means of a set of couples ½tj ; aðtj Þ (instant, accel-
m1 0 ẍ1 ðtÞ c1 þ c2 −c2 ẋ1 ðtÞ eration) where j ¼ 1; 2; : : : , represents the sampling points index,
þ
0 m2 ẍ2 ðtÞ −c2 c2 ẋ2 ðtÞ the nondimensional accelerogram data set used in this work has

 
  been obtained by applying the transformation of Eq. (9) as follows:
k1 þ k2 −k2 x1 ðtÞ m1 0 1
þ ¼− ag ðtÞ ð2Þ  
−k2 k2 x2 ðtÞ 0 m2 1 ag ðtj Þ
ðtj ; ag ðtj ÞÞ ⇒ ω1 tj ; 2 ⇒ ðτ j ; ag ðτ j ÞÞ ð10Þ
ω1
where ag ðtÞ = external base excitation. Such excitation will be
further described by means of real seismic records.
In order to analyze whole classes of dynamically equivalent Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of the
mechanical systems, a nondimensionalization of Eq. (2) is per- Disconnection
formed. The following dimensionless time τ and displacements
x~ i ; ði ¼ 1; 2Þ are introduced: In order to evaluate the enhancement following from the disconnec-
x x tion, two reference comparative single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
τ ¼ ω1 t; x~ 1 ¼ 1 ; x~ 2 ¼ 2 ð3Þ systems are introduced.
~l l~ Different from Igusa and Xu (1994), Sadek et al. (1997), Hoang
where l~ = length. Because the problem at hand is discrete, any value and Warnitchai (2005), and Lee et al. (2006), who generally sought
of l~ can be chosen. For the sake of simplicity, in the following l~ ¼ 1 optimization by the minimization of a functional, most of the time

© ASCE 04019011-3 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011


(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Auxiliary single-degree of freedom systems: (a) System 1; and
(b) System 2.
represented by some energy of the system, here a comparative way
is followed instead. Therefore, some kinematic quantities such as
the displacements of the masses or their drifts deriving from the
main 2-DOF model are compared with the ones obtained by two
reference cases, named System 1 and System 2. This comparison
will be expressed by means of two mean gain parameters that have
been analyzed through an extensive parametric analysis based on
the variation of the main reference parameters μ and ρ [Eq. (1)] that
mainly characterize the system. The trend of the mean gain param-
eters as function of μ and ρ represents the main objective of the
parametric analysis, whose results will be portrayed in the follow-
ing sections by means of specific gain maps and gain surfaces.
Auxiliary SDOF Systems
System 1 [Fig. 3(a)] is obtained from the main 2-DOF system by
connecting through a rigid link the upper mass m2 to the bottom
mass m1 . Hence, the system works as single degree of freedom
of total mass m ¼ m1 þ m2 . It can be interpreted as the original
system of total mass m before the intermediate disconnection
is performed. With reference to Fig. 3, the equation of motion of
System 1 then reads
mẍS1 ðtÞ þ c1 ẋS1 ðtÞ þ k1 xS1 ðtÞ ¼ −mag ðtÞ
With the aim to obtain a dimensionless form, the same variable τ
of Eq. (3) is used together with the dimensionless displacement
~ with l~ ¼ 1 (discussed in the preceding section). In
x~ S1 ¼ xS1 =l,
such a case, x~ S1 ¼ xS1 , then the dimensionless equation of motion
reads [more details have been given by Fabrizio et al. (2017)]
ẍS1 ðτ Þ þ 2ξ 1 ð1 − μÞẋS1 ðτ Þ þ ð1 − μÞxS1 ðτ Þ ¼ −ag ðτ Þ
System 2 [Fig. 3(b)] is obtained by the main 2-DOF system by
connecting the bottom mass m1 directly to the ground through a
rigid link. The system also works as a single degree of freedom of
mass m2 . This system represents the part of the structure right
above the discontinuity supposed on a fixed base. The equation of
motion for System 2 is
m2 ẍS2 ðtÞ þ c2 ẋS2 ðtÞ þ k2 xS2 ðtÞ ¼ −m2 ag ðtÞ
Once again, following the dimensionless approach described
~ with l~ ¼ 1 (discussed
previously, it is possible to write x~ S2 ¼ xS2 =l,
in the preceding section). In such a case, x~ S2 ¼ xS2 ; then the dimen-
sionless equation of motion reads
© ASCE
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011
rffiffiffi
ρ ρ
ẍS2 ðτ Þ þ 2ξ 2 ẋ ðτ Þ þ xS2 ðτ Þ ¼ −ag ðτ Þ ð14Þ
μ~ S2 μ~
However, despite the convenient distinction between the main
model and Systems 1 and 2, the auxiliary SDOF models represent
the main 2-DOF system in two limit conditions for which k2 → ∞
and k1 → ∞, respectively.
A first attempt to quantify the dynamic improvement deriv-
ing from the disconnection for the archetype model of Fig. 2
was carried out by Fabrizio et al. (2017) by introducing two gain
parameters α1 and α2 . On the basis of Figs. 2 and 3, these param-
eters have been defined as α1 ¼ maxjx1 j=maxjxS1 ðtÞj and α2 ¼
maxjx2 ðtÞ − x1 ðtÞj=maxjxS2 ðtÞj. The first parameter refers to TMD
scheme (the model where the disconnection is intended to protect
the lower substructure), and it expresses the enhancement for the
lower substructure deriving from the dynamics of the upper sub-
structure. The second one refers to the BI scheme (model where the
disconnection is intended to protect the upper substructure), and it
indicates the enhancement for the upper substructure deriving from
the dynamics of the lower substructure.
Spectrum-Compatible Sets of Earthquake Registrations
As stated previously, the main objective of the seismic parametric
analysis is to build gain maps, similar to the ones of Fabrizio et al.
(2017) but instead based on a seismic excitation. However, the use
of a single natural seismic record would produce maps of limited
interest due to their strict relation with the frequency content of the
specific registration. Therefore, in order to have maps of wider and
more general significance, the analysis has been carried out consid-
ering groups of different earthquake records somehow related to
each other. This kind of relation has been identified in the spectrum-
compatibility criterion, defined for a code-based design response
spectrum. Thus, in this context, the aim of the analysis is to create,
different from Fabrizio et al. (2017), gain maps related to a specific
design spectrum, not given base seismic excitation.
Two different sets of seven natural nonscaled seismic registra-
tions (total of 14) have been hence considered. Each set of seven
records has been selected to be spectrum-compatible with the elastic
design spectrum for the site of L’Aquila (Italy), provided by the Ital-
ian Seismic Code (ISC) (Decreto del Ministero delle Infrastrutture
e Trasporti 2008). Specifically, this design spectrum is related to
ð11Þ the life safety limit state (SLV), and it is based on an exceedance
probability of 10% in 50 years, equivalent to a return period of
475 years. Moreover it should be specified that the design spectrum
refers to Site class A and Topographic category T1, according to ISC
definitions.
The spectrum compatibility requires that for each period and in
a specific range, the mean value of the spectral ordinates obtained
ð12Þ from a group of seismic registrations must not be lower than 10% of
the design spectrum (target spectrum); there is no upper tolerance.
The minimum number of seven records for each set allows, accord-
ing to ISC, one to consider for a specific result (e.g., displacements
or forces) the mean value of the maxima coming from the different
earthquake records.
The selection of the seven signals for each set has been per-
formed using the software Rexel version 3.5 (Iervolino et al.
2010). Besides the parameters described previously (e.g., return
ð13Þ period and site class), the selection has been carried out by also
considering particular ranges of magnitude and epicentral distance,
consistent with the seismic hazard of the specific site. Using this
software, it has been possible to obtain two different sets of signals
that do not share any seismic event. Meanwhile, in each set, more
than one record comes from different registrations of the same
04019011-4 J. Eng. Mech.
 spectra of the seismic registrations
target spectrum Aq-475-A-T1
average spectrum of the registrations

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Spectra of the seismic excitation: (a) first set of seven earthquakes (Set 1); and (b) second set of seven earthquakes (Set 2).

Table 1. Characteristics of the two sets of registrations

Epicentral
Waveforms Earthquake Station Scale Fault distance
Set identifier identifier identifier Earthquake name Date (Mw) mechanism (km)
01 0198 93 ST 64 Montenegro April 15, 1979 06.09 Thrust 21
0287 146 ST 93 Campano Lucano November 23, 1980 06.09 Normal 23
0665 286 ST 238 Umbria Marche September 29, 1997 06.00 Normal 21
0294 146 ST 100 Campano Lucano November 23, 1980 06.09 Normal 26
7142 2309 ST 539 Bingol May 1, 2003 06.03 Strike slip 14
4674 1635 ST 2486 South Iceland June 17, 2000 06.05 Strike slip 5
6277 1635 ST 2558 South Iceland June 17, 2000 06.05 Strike slip 15
02 0055 34 ST 20 Friuli May 6, 1976 06.05 Thrust 23
6341 2142 ST 2497 South Iceland (aftershock) June 21, 2000 06.04 Strike slip 20
6336 2142 ST 2563 South Iceland (aftershock) June 21, 2000 06.04 Strike slip 24
5270 1338 ST 2486 Mount Vantafjoll May 25, 1987 — Oblique 25
7187 2322 ST 3311 Avej June 22, 2002 06.05 Thrust 28
6332 2142 ST 2483 South Iceland (aftershock) June 21, 2000 06.04 Strike slip 6
6349 2142 ST 2558 South Iceland (aftershock) June 21, 2000 06.04 Strike slip 5

earthquake. In Fig. 4 the spectra of the two sets of seismic registra- following analyses a minimum number of seven records has been
tions are shown. In particular, in this figure, the spectra of the single always adopted, a new definition of the gain indicators has been
earthquake (thin lines), the target spectrum (thick line), and average conceived
spectrum of the seven registrations (dashed thick line) are reported.
In the Table 1 the main characteristics of the earthquakes of the two jδ̄1max j jδ̄2max j
αM1 ¼ ; αM2 ¼ ð15Þ
sets are reported. jx̄S1max j jx̄S2max j

Mean Gain Parameters
On the basis of the limited interest of the gain maps related to a
single accelerogram, the need to extend the parametric analysis to
groups of records has been recognized. Such an approach, however,
requires necessary an adjustment of the definition of the gain
parameters previously mentioned (Fabrizio et al. 2017) so as to
make them able to collect more information about various displace-
ments deriving from various base motions. A suggestion for a
modified definition of the gain indicators has been provided by the
ISC. In fact, as stated previously, the use of a minimum number of
seven records in the analyses allows the evaluation of the response
in terms of the mean of the maximum values deriving from time
histories. On the basis of this provision and specifying that in the
where δ̄ 1max ðtÞ ¼ x̄1max ðtÞ is the mean of the maxima displace-
ments of the lower part of the 2-DOF system obtained for the
group of spectrum-compatible earthquake registrations; δ̄ 2max ðtÞ ¼
ðx2 ðtÞ − x1 ðtÞÞmax is the mean of the maxima drifts of the upper
mass with respect to the lower one of the same 2-DOF system
(Fig. 2); x̄S1max = mean of the maxima displacements evaluated in
System 1 [Fig. 3(a)]; x̄S2max = mean of the maxima displacements
evaluated in System 2 [Fig. 3(b)].
Similarly to the parameters α1 and α2 recalled previously, it is
possible to assert that αM1 and αM2 can express a measure of the
effectiveness of the two mitigation strategies, namely the TMD
scheme and BI scheme, respectively. Clearly, the lower is the value
of αMi ði ¼ 1; 2Þ with respect to unity, the higher is the performance

© ASCE 04019011-5 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 of the relevant protecting strategy. Specifically, αM1 indicates the
possibility to get a benefit by subdividing the structural mass of the
frame and utilizing part of it as a TMD instead of considering it as a
whole. On the other hand, αM2 indicates a comparison between the
drifts related to a frame where the superstructure one is placed,
respectively, on a fixed or isolated base.
Gain Surfaces
The parameters αM1 and αM2 can be portrayed as a function of μ
and ρ within specific gain surfaces. These latter ones describe the
performances of the structural disconnection for the TMD scheme
(αM1 gain surface) and BI scheme (αM2 gain surface).
Even if the importance of damping in the evaluation of optimal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
design parameters in this kind of problems is well-known in the lit-
erature, here the damping of the system is always taken as constant
and it never plays the role of a variable parameter. As a matter of
fact, the primary aim of the paper is to obtain information about the
dynamic enhancement deriving from a stiffness discontinuity, focus-
ing mainly on kinetics aspects rather than damping. In this context,
however, as long as the damping holds values sufficiently lower than
the critical one, in linear dynamic problems, it does not change the
qualitative behavior scenario of the system but only has quantitative
effects. All computations in the paper are obtained for fixed values
of the damping ratios ξ 1 ¼ ξ 2 ¼ 0.05. However, a deeper discussion
on this aspect has been provided by Fabrizio et al. (2017).
By remembering that the dimensionless seismic registration de-
pends on the period T 1 of the lower part of the structure, each value
of T 1 corresponds a specific gain surface. Therefore, in Fig. 5, the
gain surfaces of the two gain parameters defined in Eq. (15) are
Fig. 5. Gain surfaces of the two sets of seismic records.
© ASCE 04019011-6
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011
shown for each set of seismic registrations and for three different
values of the period T 1 . The surfaces appear quite similar. The
small differences between correspondent surfaces can be attributed
to the small difference between the mean spectra of the two sets of
seismic registrations (Fig. 4). Due to the linearity of the problem
at hand, remembering the meaning of the spectrum compatibility
and taking into account that the two sets of seven records are com-
patible with the same spectrum, the gain parameters defined in
Eq. (15) provide almost the same gain surfaces for each set. In fact,
they are defined using the mean of the maximum responses, just as
happens in the construction of the average spectrum.
Seismic Analysis
The gain surfaces of Fig. 5 offer an interesting summary of the
behavior of the mean gain parameters and allow a direct compari-
son of the results derived from the two different sets of records.
Obviously, such a kind of representation is far from being adopt-
able for design purposes. Nevertheless, an alternative and more
useful representation of αM1 and αM2 can be found by means of
the contour plots of the gain surfaces, hereby defined as mean gain
maps. As will be shown subsequently, these maps can represent a
sort of design tool.
Spectrum of Mean Gain Maps
The contour plots of the gain surfaces of Fig. 5 can be obtained by
projecting them in the plane μ − ρ. In Fig. 6, the mean gain maps of
the first set of earthquake waveforms and for different values of T 1
J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Seismic mean gain maps for Set 1 of waveforms related to Aq-475-A-T1 (location-return period-site class-topographic category) code spec-
trum for different periods T 1 with reference points adopted in the seismic simulations.

© ASCE 04019011-7 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 are shown. In Fig. 6(a), the maps refer to the gain indicator αM1,
whereas in Fig. 6(b), the maps refer to the gain indicator αM2.
In these gain maps, inside the dark gray regions, the values of αM1
and αM2 exceed unity; thus, no advantages from the use of the dis-
continuity on the system are obtainable. On the contrary, inside the
light-gray regions, the gain parameters are less than unity and an
advantage in the use of the discontinuity of the system is encoun-
tered. It is possible to observe that for a fixed T 1 , in wide common
ranges both gain parameters αM1 and αM2 are less than unity. Small
values of μ (μ ≅ 0.1–0.2) and values of ρ less than the unity
(ρ < 1.0) refer to the classical applications based on the TMD
scheme. On the contrary, a large value of μ (μ ≅ 0.8–0.9) and val-
ues of ρ sufficiently far away from the unity (ρ ≫ 1.0) refer to
the classical applications based on the BI scheme. All the inter-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mediate values of the parameters are also considered to understand
the correlations between the two schemes. As general comment,
it is possible to assert that in both the gain maps of the TMD
and BI schemes, the gain regions expand for higher values of the
period T 1 .
In the αM1 maps, is possible to observe that the effective gain
zones are located within a corner-shaped strip whose vertex stands
in the bottom right corner of the μ–ρ plane. According to the values
of the level curves, at this vertex, the lower values of αM1 are
obtained. Therefore it can be concluded that for the TMD scheme,
in order to achieve a better performance of the disconnection, very
low values of ρ should be adopted together with higher values of μ,
provided that this last parameter is not conditioned by practical
needs.
On the other hand, the effectiveness of the BI scheme expressed
by αM2 appears to increase for large values of T 1 (indicated by the
level curves in the maps in Fig. 6). This fact can be explained by
remembering that T 1 is the period of structure below the disconti-
nuity plane. A structure with a large T 1 is as if it was isolated be-
cause the use of this protection method consists of increasing of the
period of the lower substructure with respect the that of the upper
substructure, which is the part to be protected.
The set of maps of the αM1 and αM2 gain parameters can be
interpreted as spectrum of maps. It is well-known that in conven-
tional structures, the design spectrum associates the maximum re-
sponse (displacement, velocity, or acceleration) of an archetype
one-degree-of-freedom system with its fundamental period. In this
case there is an association between the gain maps that represent the
maximum response of an archetype two degrees of freedom and a
period characterizing the system. In particular, this last one is the
period of the lower part of the archetype system. It is evident that
the use of the spectrum of maps in the design of a real MDOF struc-
ture requires the definition of a correct way to describe the MDOF
through the reduced 2-DOF archetype model. This aspect will be
treated in the “Simulations” subsection.
Minimization Loci
If a vibration-reducing method is used during the design process, it
would be useful to take into account the information given by the
two different gain maps. As an example, if a TMD scheme is used
in a structure to improve its behavior, the map of the first gain
parameter αM1 ensures that a reduction of the amplitude of the dis-
placement components x1 occurs. This means that the structure to
which a tuned mass damper system is applied undergoes oscilla-
tions of lower amplitude. If the parameters characterizing the sys-
tem μ and ρ were also inside the light-gray zone of the map of the
second gain indicator αM2 [Fig. 6(b)], then further advantages
could be obtained. Specifically, because the indicator αM2 refers
to the drift of the upper oscillator (i.e., stroke length of the
© ASCE 04019011-8
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011
TMD) that represents the disconnected upper part of the structure,
a reduction of the relative displacement between the lower and the
upper part of the structure with respect to a fixed base configuration
for the latter also occurs. In this last case, it could be said that the
lower part of the structure works as an isolation base for the upper
part of the structure (TMD system).
On the other hand, if a BI scheme is used in a structure to im-
prove its behavior, the map of the second gain indicator αM2 should
be used to assure a reduction of the drift x2 − x1 with respect to a
fixed base configuration. This means that the structure to which a
base isolation system is applied undergoes oscillations of lower am-
plitude. Also in this case, if the parameters μ and ρ were inside the
light-gray zone of the map of the first gain indicator αM1 [Fig. 6(a)],
then further advantages could be obtained. Because the parameter
αM1 refers to the displacement of the lower oscillator (isolation
base), a reduction of the displacement of the oscillating base com-
pared with a rigid body configuration (usually adopted for prelimi-
nary design of the isolation layer) also occurs. In this last case, it
could be said that the upper part of the structure works as a tuned
mass damper for the oscillating base of the structure (BI system).
According to the aspects described here, the proposed method
seems to allow then a sort of double control over the two parts
of the model, which results in a unitary approach to the dynamic
enhancement by means of a disconnection.
Because the gain surfaces are not completely smooth but rather
marked by a succession of dips and rises, then by linking the points
at the bottom of the dips (relative minima) in both gain maps, some
particular relative minimum curves can be recognized. Design
parameters chosen based on these minimum curves would provide
the best performances of the system where an intermediate discon-
tinuity is introduced. A numerical procedure is developed in order
to individuate the relative minima of both the gain parameters in-
side each map of specific period T 1 . In Fig. 7, these minimum
points are shown in the αM1 and αM2 maps relative to the two peri-
ods T 1 ¼ 0.5 s and T 2 ¼ 1.0 s for the first set of seismic registra-
tions (Table 1). These maps have been already shown in Fig. 6.
Because it possible to observe the two gain parameters in both
maps, the minimum points draw regular families of curves. It is
worth observing that in a design process, the choice of the param-
eters characterizing the structural discontinuity along these mini-
mum curves makes it possible to obtain the best performances of
the structure, at least around an initial couple of tentative param-
eters μ and ρ. As it happens for the maps, the shape of these mini-
mum curves is not strictly related to the seismic records but can be
associated to the target spectrum. This means that similar minimum
curves would be obtained if the second set of registrations (Table 1)
was used to build the gain maps.
As stated previously, particular advantages could be obtained
if the parameters of the structural discontinuity were chosen
inside the advantage ranges of both the maps, regardless of the
working method of the discontinuity (as TMD or BI). In Fig. 8,
the minimum curves of the αM1 and αM2 parameters of Fig. 7
are reported in a single graph. The two graphs in Fig. 8 refer to
the two different periods T 1 of the maps in Fig. 7 (T 1 ¼ 0.5 s
and T 2 ¼ 1.0 s). In the two graphs, it can be seen that the minimum
curves of the αM1 parameter (solid curves) and the minimum
curves of the αM2 parameter (dashed curve) intersect each other
at several point (dots). These intersection points assumes a relevant
importance because if the design parameters were chosen in
these points, they would be able to get the best benefits on both
the maps, at least around the initial couple of tentative parameters
μ and ρ.
The thickest dash-dotted curves in Fig. 8 are the absolute mini-
mum curves of the αM2 parameter. These curves have been obtained
J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Gain maps with minimum loci.

by linking the points where αM2 reaches its minimum values within
the adopted range of ρ for each value of μ. Therefore, for a
given mass ratio, the best performance for the BI scheme follows
from a stiffness ratio calibrated according to such a curve. An attempt
to identify an analytic expression for the αM2 absolute minimum
curve has been performed by retrieving the equation of the minimi-
zation curve CBI defined by Fabrizio et al. (2017) for harmonic base
excitation. Such an approach resulted in the following equation:
ω2
¼β ð16Þ
ω1
where β ¼ T 1 =T α ; and T α = unknown period that should vary in
order to fit the absolute minimum curve.
Eq. (16) has demonstrated a good approximation, provided that
a numerical calibration of the period T α has to be performed,
although no specific formulation has been identified for this. How-
ever, the following considerations have allowed the definition of
a bounding range for T α. With reference to Fig. 9(b), it has been
observed that the absolute minimum curves (thick solid lines) lay
inside regions of the parameters plane [gray zones in Fig. 9(b)]
bounded by two curves that are described by Eq. (16) as well, for
which T α is equal to two reference periods. Specifically, each boun-
dary curve refers to one of the two periods T B and T C at the
extremes of the constant acceleration part of the design spectrum
[Fig. 9(a)]. Such a result has been observed for different sets of
spectrum-compatible seismic records related to different code spec-
tra shapes as in Fig. 9(a). It could then be deduced that T B ≤
T α ≤ T C . Because the periods T B and T C are associated with a
specific spectrum, it can be then supposed that T α depends on the
chosen design spectrum. However, for a given code spectrum, the
values of T α associated with different sets of records appeared to
vary sensibly by remaining in the range ½T B ; T c . Further statistical
analyses, which are out of the scope of this article, should be then
used to determine a reliable formulation for T α.
Simulations
Some simulations have been performed to check whether the re-
sults obtained for the archetype system are good for real structures
as well. A 6-story shear-type frame [Fig. 10(a)] is used as a basic
structure for which a dynamic improvement by means of a struc-
tural discontinuity is to be evaluated. The initial shear-type frame
used for the simulations is composed of six equal stories (N ¼ 6),
each one having the same lumped mass m ~ j ¼ 2.04 × 105 kg and
~ 8
same stiffness kj ¼ 3.45 × 10 N=mðj ¼ 1; : : : ; NÞ.

© ASCE 04019011-9 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 relative minimum curves
relative minimum curves
absolute minimum curves

10 10

8 8

6 6

4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 2

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fig. 8. Intersection points among minimum TMD and BI curves.

50 50

40 40 2
0.6
0.5 1

0.4 30 30
2
0.3
1
0.2 20 20 2
0.1
1
0.0 10 10
0 1 2 3 4 2

1
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Absolute minimum curve of the αM2 parameter: (a) design spectrum (L’Aquila, Italy); and (b) absolute minimum curve for T 1 ¼ 0.5 s and
T 1 ¼ 1.0 s (β B ¼ T 1 =T B , β C ¼ T 1 =T C ).

Equivalence between Archetype Model and a Real
Structure
In order to establish the correspondence between MDOF and
2-DOF systems, starting from a given MDOF system, once a level
of potential discontinuity Ld has been defined, a 2-DOF equivalent
model may be created according to the procedure hereby proposed.
Within the considered ranges of μ and ρ, there are values that may
not correspond to a proper discontinuity (sudden change in stiff-
ness); therefore the 2-DOF archetype model of Fig. 2 may represent
connected systems as well.
The shear-type model of Fig. 10(a) is taken as representative of
general MDOF systems. It presents N levels, each one character-
ized by a lumped mass m ~ j and stiffness k~ j ðj ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; NÞ, where
the tilde is used to differentiate the parameters referring to the
MDOF model from those used for the equivalent 2-DOF model.
It is assumed that the dynamic response of the MDOF system
can be described by the single first mode, with circular frequency
ω~ 1 , shape ϕ~ ¼ fϕ~ 1 ; ϕ~ 2 ; : : : ; ϕ~ j ; : : : ; ϕ~ N gT , and associated floor dis-
placements x~ j [Fig. 10(b)]. By the choice of the discontinuity level
Ld, two reference displacements should be identified in the upper
part and lower part of the structure, respectively. The following two
components are taken as reference displacements:
x~ Ld ðtÞ ¼ ϕ~ Ld qðtÞ
~
x~ N ðtÞ ¼ ϕ~ N qðtÞ
~ ð17Þ
~
where qðtÞ = specific normal coordinate. An equivalent 2-DOF
model (Fig. 2) can be then defined assuming that

© ASCE 04019011-10 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 Γ~
ag ðtÞ ¼ a~ ðtÞ ð24Þ
Γ g
where ag = base acceleration of Eq. (2) equivalent to the real base
acceleration a~ g ; and Γ and Γ~ = first mode participating factors for
a 2-DOF and MDOF system, respectively. From Eqs. (18), (23),
and (24), it is then possible to evaluate all the equivalent parameters
needed to use the gain maps.
As a general approach, once the level Ld has been defined on
the basis of practical needs, the parameter μ is determined and
hence, the search for a dynamic enhancement via structural discon-
tinuity may be performed by selecting a proper maps (i.e., selected
T 1 ) and varying the parameter ρ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)
TMD Scheme
Fig. 10. Basic shear-type frame: (a) main definitions; and (b) displace-
ments. The first set of simulations regards the introduction of an intermedi-
ate discontinuity in which the schemes portrayed in Fig. 11 have
been considered. Therefore, the last two stories of the shear-type
frame of Fig. 10 are used as TMD in order to improve the seismic
X
Ld behavior of the lower part of the structure (i.e., reduce the reference
m1 ¼ ~j
m displacement of the higher mass of the lower substructure). Hence,
j¼1 the reference levels are Ld ¼ 4 and N ¼ 6. The schemes of Fig. 11
X
N have been used to evaluate the mean gain parameters α~ M1 and α~ M2
m2 ¼ ~j
m ð18Þ of the original MDOF system, and the parameters αM1 and αM2
j¼Ldþ1 refer to the 2-DOF equivalent system [Eq. (15)]. Regarding the first
couple, the definition of the seismic mean gain parameters for the
and for the displacements resulting from the first mode, it is MDOF models can be written on the basis of Fig. 11 and of Eq. (15)
assumed as follows:
x1 ðtÞ ¼ x~ Ld ðtÞ x2 ðtÞ ¼ x~ N ðtÞ ð19Þ PNa
ia¼1 jx~ Ld;ia ðtÞjmax
α~ M1 ¼ PNa ð25Þ
and finally, for the first mode’s circular frequency, it is assumed ia¼1 jx~ SLd;ia ðtÞjmax
PNa
ω1 ¼ ω~ 1 ð20Þ jðx~ ðtÞ − x~ Ld ðtÞÞia jmax
α~ M2 PNaN
¼ ia¼1 ð26Þ
~ SN;ia ðtÞjmax
ia¼1 jx
Therefore, the 2-DOF equivalent model is able to represent
the dynamic response resulting from the first mode of the MDOF where ia = index of seismic records belonging to a specific set;
model in term of two characteristics displacements. For the 2-DOF and Na = maximum number of records of the set (in the adopted
system, the displacements resulting from the first mode shape ϕ ¼ simulations, Na ¼ 7).
fϕ1 ; ϕ2 gT can be expressed as x1 ðtÞ ¼ ϕ1 qðtÞ and x2 ðtÞ ¼ ϕ2 qðtÞ, On the basis of the equivalence procedure described previously,
where qðtÞ is a specific normal coordinate. Following the constant the conceptual steps followed to perform the seismic simulations
ratio of the two reference displacements x~ Ld and x~ N and the inde- are here summarized with reference to Fig. 6. The stiffness k1 and
termination of the amplitude of the mode shapes, it can be written k2 of the equivalent 2-DOF models have been first evaluated by the
proposed equivalence method for the initial condition of Fig. 6
ϕ1 ¼ ϕ~ Ld (labeled 0). The same procedure has been adopted for two discon-
nected configurations (Fig. 11) labeled A and B, by conveniently
ϕ2 ¼ ϕ~ N ð21Þ
calibrating the disconnection stiffness k~ D . Point A has been chosen
so as to investigate a condition for which only the TMD scheme
The vector ϕ can be effectively considered the first eigenvector
gets an advantage from the disconnection, whereas Point B express
of the 2-DOF system provided that
an enhancement for both the schemes. The values of the equiv-
Kϕ − ðω1 Þ2 Mϕ ¼ 0 ð22Þ alent stiffnesses and reference parameters related to the equivalent
2-DOF archetype models are reported in Table 2, and the values of
where K and M are, respectively, the stiffness and mass matrix of k~ D are reported in Table 3.
the archetype model introduced in Eq. (2). Taking into account The stiffnesses in the initial MDOF system have been calibrated
Eqs. (20) and (21), it is then possible to obtain from Eq. (22) the so as to have the period of the stand-alone lower part of the equiv-
equivalent elastic stiffness alent 2-DOF system T 1 ¼ 0.5 s, whereas the mass ratio is μ ¼ 0.33
due to the fact that the disconnection is performed on the two upper
ω~ 21 ðm1 ϕ~ Ld þ m2 ϕ~ N Þ ω~ 21 m2 ϕ~ N stories of the frame. For Conditions A and B, the calculated values
k1 ¼ ; k2 ¼ ð23Þ
ϕ~ Ld ϕ~ N − ϕ~ Ld of T 1 are slightly different from 0.5 (Table 2). Nevertheless the
maximum relative difference is almost 6.5% and hence the use
where m1 and m2 are evaluated using Eq. (18). of a single map (T 1 ¼ 0.5 s) appears to be acceptable.
Considering Eqs. (17), (19), and (21) and low values of the After having traced Point 0 on the mean gain maps (Fig. 6),
mode damping ratio from uncoupled equations of motions of the the two conditions labeled A and B have been identified along
first mode, then for both systems the vertical line passing through Point 0. Then the calibration of the

© ASCE 04019011-11 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 6 6

4
4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11. TMD scheme: (a) MDOF reference systems; and (b) 2-DOF archetype models.

Table 2. Equivalent parameters for the 2-DOF model (main system)

Condition μ k1 ðN=mÞ k2 ðN=mÞ ρ ω1 ðs−1 Þ T 1 ðsÞ
0 0.333 1.28571 × 108 2.34544 × 108 1.82424 12.55639 0.50040
A 0.333 1.13361 × 108 4.53462 × 107 0.40001 11.79020 0.53291
B 0.333 1.21617 × 108 9.73036 × 107 0.80008 12.21200 0.51451
C 0.833 8.03403 × 106 6.09628 × 107 7.58807 6.27749 1.00091
D 0.833 8.00614 × 106 7.20611 × 107 9.00073 6.26659 1.00265

Table 3. Disconnection stiffness
Condition k~ D ðN=mÞ
A 4.5560 × 107
B 9.8450 × 107
C 7.8500 × 106
D 7.8500 × 106
disconnection stiffness k~ D has been performed. Finally, the mean
gain parameters α~ M1 and α~ M2 of the MDOF systems and αM1 and
αM2 of the equivalent 2-DOF systems have been evaluated by per-
forming a numerical integration of the relative equations of motion.
It should be specified that the analyses have been performed con-
sidering the two sets of spectrum-compatible records defined in the
previous section.
The results of the analyses are reported in Table 4, where a com-
parison has been carried out for various conditions between results
derived from MDOF models and archetype systems, and between
results obtained from the two sets of earthquake records. A first
interesting aspect of the results is represented by the agreement
among the mean gain parameters derived from MDOF models and
equivalent archetype systems. In this context, the only exception is
represented by αM2 values for Condition 0; this is most likely due to
the fact that the archetype models are not able to catch the dynamics
of the upper substructure within the non-disconnected system.
Therefore, this underlines the validity of the proposed equivalence
method that, as a matter of fact, offers a practical interest for the
maps. Regarding this aspect, a graphic comparison of the time his-
tories of reference displacements deriving from MDOF models
and equivalent archetype models are shown in Figs. 13 and 14 for
various conditions and various seismic waveforms. The good agree-
ment among the curves demonstrates, once more, the validity and
the consistency of the proposed equivalence method. Moreover, the
similarity among the mean gain parameters (maximum relative dif-
ference ≃ 20%) obtained from the two sets of earthquake records
confirms that the maps depend quite exclusively on the chosen
seismic design spectrum.
The other interesting aspect concerns the correctness of the in-
formation provided by the maps. For example, as shown in Fig. 6,
Design point A lays inside the gain region (light gray) of the only
αM1 map. This fact is confirmed by the results provided by the
MDOF models and equivalent 2-DOF systems because both α~ M2
and αM2 present a value higher than the unity, whereas α~ M1 and
αM1 are both lower than unity. The same apply for Condition B

© ASCE 04019011-12 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 Table 4. Comparison of results deriving from MDOF models and because values α~ M1 and α~ M2 are both lower than unity because the
archetype systems for the two sets of earthquake records, for various representative point is inside the light-gray regions of both the maps
conditions (derived from Set 1) for T 1 ¼ 0.5 s.
Condition Parameter Set 1 Set 2 ΔSet (%)
0 α~ M1 0.930038 0.898169 3.43 BI Scheme
αM1 0.970142 0.937863 3.33
Δ1;Eq (%) −4.13 −4.23 — The second set of simulations regards the introduction of an inter-
α~ M2 0.974819 0.895219 8.17 mediate discontinuity working as base isolation, which has been
αM2 0.767562 0.695784 9.35 studied again on the basis of Fig. 12. The schemes portrayed in
Δ2;Eq (%) 27.00 28.66 — this figure have been used to evaluate the mean gain parameters for
A α~ M1 0.611384 0.736547 −20.47 both MDOF systems and archetype models according to Eqs. (25)
αM1 0.675814 0.785307 −16.20
and (26). The adopted discontinuity is foreseen at the base of the
Δ1;Eq (%) −9.53 −6.21 —
α~ M2 1.163240 1.209700 −3.99
frame, thus implying a value μ ¼ 0.833.
αM2 −17.66 A brief description of the conceptual steps followed in the seis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.124290 1.322790
Δ2;Eq (%) 3.46 −8.55 — mic case for the BI scheme are summarized hereafter, with refer-
B α~ M1 0.817408 0.831659 −1.74 ence to Fig. 12. By choosing an isolated period of the structure T D ,
αM1 −3.86 ~
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffikffi D ¼ k1 of the base disconnec-
0.875581 0.909377 it is possible to obtain the stiffness
Δ1;Eq (%) −6.64 −8.55 —
α~ M2 0.898603 1.051710 −17.04 tion, considering T D ¼ 2π m2 =k~ D , in which the upper part of the
αM2 0.843561 0.995316 −17.99 structure is considered rigidly linked to the lower (isolation base).
Δ2;Eq (%) 6.52 5.67 — The characteristics of the 2-DOF equivalent system can be then
C α~ M1 0.925537 0.949867 −2.63 obtained by using the proposed equivalence procedure. From the
αM1 0.899618 0.935375 −3.97
equivalent stiffness k1 , it is possible to evaluate the period T 1 of
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
Δ1;Eq (%) 2.88 1.55 —
α~ M2 0.387982 0.400163 −3.14 the lower part of the equivalent 2-DOF system (T 1 ¼ 2π m1 =k1 ).
αM2 0.431788 0.452210 −4.73 The knowledge of T 1 allows the determination of the αM2 map by
Δ2;Eq (%) −10.15 −11.51 — which the design will be performed. In the presented simulation,
D α~ M1 0.935356 0.959307 −2.56 the characteristics of the frame have been chosen in order to have
αM1 0.913722 0.946891 −3.63 T 1 ¼ 1.0 s.
Δ1;Eq (%) 2.37 1.31 — For the T 1 ¼ 1.0 s, αM2 map (Fig. 6), it is possible to select a
α~ M2 0.326912 0.382059 −16.87 design point along the vertical line passing through the fixed mass
αM2 0.407106 0.413675 −1.61
ratio μ ¼ 0.833. The disconnection at the base, performed by only
Δ2;Eq (%) −19.70 −7.64 —
choosing an isolated period T D greater than the first period of the

6 6

1 1

(a)

(b)

Fig. 12. BI scheme: (a) MDOF reference systems; and (b) 2-DOF archetype models.

© ASCE 04019011-13 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 294xa_EQ146

Cond.
0

665xa_EQ286
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cond.
A

294xa_EQ146

Cond.
B

7142xa_EQ2309

Cond.
C

198xa_EQ93

Cond.
D

~
x Ld (solid) vs x1 (dashed) xN - ~
~ xLd (solid) vs x 2 -x1 (dashed)

Fig. 13. Comparison of reference displacement time histories evaluated with main MDOF system and 2-DOF equivalent model for various conditions
and various seismic records.

© ASCE 04019011-14 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 294xa_EQ146

Cond.
0

665xa_EQ286
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cond.
A

294xa_EQ146

Cond.
B

7142xa_EQ2309

Cond.
C

198xa_EQ93

Cond
D.

~ ~x (solid) vs x (dashed)
x SLd (solid) vs x S1 (dashed) SN S2

Fig. 14. Comparison of reference displacement time histories evaluated with MDOF models (Systems 1 and 2) and equivalent archetype models for
various conditions and various seismic records.

© ASCE 04019011-15 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011

 structure, assures a good working of the base isolation. The pro-
cedure described here provides the possibility to improve, or better,
to optimize the isolation, by selecting a point on the map that cor-
responds to a smaller value of the αM2 . The points labeled C and D
have been used in the simulation in order to check the validity of the
proposed method.
From the value of the stiffness ratio ρ of Points C and D, the new
stiffness of the superstructure k2 able to improve the performance
of the isolation system has been calculated. This procedure has
been carried out by leaving the stiffness of the base disconnection
fixed so that the design process can be performed on the same
T 1 ¼ 1.0 s, αM2 map. The change of k2 can be achieved, for ex-
ample, by stiffening the superstructure of the frame. However, an-
other design way can be followed. With the aim to leave unchanged
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the characteristics of the superstructure, only a modification of the
stiffness of the base isolation can be performed. This fact requires a
change of the αM2 gain map because a modification of the period of
the lower structure T 1 occurs. Therefore, the search of the lowest
αM2 along the fixed vertical line μ ¼ 0.833 has to be done in differ-
ent maps. Once the design point is chosen, the period T 1 that char-
acterize the map provides the possibility to obtain the stiffness of
the base disconnection. Following these steps, the reference equiv-
alent parameters given in Tables 2 and 3 have been calculated.
The results, which are similar to those of the TMD scheme, are
given in Table 4. Even in this case, the closeness among the mean
gain parameters deriving from MDOF and equivalent archetype
models systems assures, once again, the good performance of the
proposed equivalence method. Such an agreement is portrayed in
Figs. 13 and 14, with reference to Conditions C and D. The mean
gain parameters appear to be quite similar even in the case of a
comparison of results deriving from the two sets of seismic records.
Therefore, it has also been confirmed for the BI case that the seis-
mic mean gain maps depend only on the chosen design spectrum.
Finally, it can be observed that information provided by the maps
for the archetype models can be correctly extended for real appli-
cations regarding MDOF structural systems.
Conclusions
The improvement of the seismic response of structures by means
of a disconnection has been studied in the present paper. Such a
concept, related to a stiffness discontinuity, has been borrowed
from the basic models of the TMD and BI. Hence, with the aim of
formulating a unitary approach to seismic enhancement of struc-
tures, techniques of TMD and BI have both been incorporated into
a unique 2-DOF archetype system intended to provide a simplified
representation of more complex disconnected structures. The per-
formance of the archetype system against ground shaking has been
studied through an extensive parametric analysis based on the hy-
pothesis of constant global mass and by variation of stiffness and
mass ratios. Several earthquake records, selected by means of the
spectrum-compatibility criterion, have been adopted with the aim
to relate the results of the parametric analysis directly to a given
code spectrum instead of a single seismic signal.
Following a similar approach adopted in a previous work
(Fabrizio et al. 2017), the results of the parametric analysis have
been expressed by means of two mean gain parameters that form
an attempt to evaluate the improvement following the disconnec-
tion. These parameters, whose definitions are strictly related to the
code spectrum matching selection of seismic records, are associ-
ated with two reference schemes (TMD and BI), and they express
the performance of the disconnection for the two portions of the
archetype model. The mean gain parameters have been portrayed
© ASCE 04019011-16
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011
by means of mean gain surfaces and maps. Although such an ap-
proach was already adopted in a previous work (Fabrizio et al.
2017), the gain maps in this paper do not refer to a single base
excitation but to a given code spectrum that contains, in principle,
many different signals. Some interesting trends over these maps
have been observed as well. Because the maps are able to account
for the seismic performances of the discontinuity in the whole
parameters plane, it has been demonstrated that the mean gain
maps provide a unitary approach to the seismic protection of
structures because they portray the improvement that each part
of a disconnected structure earns from each other part’s dynamics.
In order to use the gain maps for MDOF structures, an equiv-
alence criterion among MDOF and 2-DOF systems has been pro-
posed. Several numerical simulations have been performed on
shear-type 6-DOF systems in order to confirm the results provided
by the archetype model. The results have shown the good efficiency
of the proposed method to investigate the seismic advantage de-
riving from the introduction of an intermediate discontinuity in a
structure.
References
Adam, C., and T. Furtmüller. 2010. “Seismic performance of tuned mass
dampers.” In Mechanics and model-based control of smart materials
and structures, edited by H. Irschik, M. Krommer, K. Watanabe,
and T. Furukawa. Vienna, Austria: Springer.
Anajafi, H., and R. Medina. 2018. “Comparison of the seismic performance
of a partial mass isolation technique with conventional TMD and base-
isolation systems under broad-band and narrow-band excitations.” Eng.
Struct. 158: 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.018.
Basili, M., and M. De Angelis. 2007. “A reduced order model for optimal
design of 2-MDoF adjacent structures connected by hysteretic damp-
ers.” J. Sound Vib. 306 (1–2): 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv
.2007.05.012.
Casciati, F., and F. Giuliano. 2009. “Performance of multi-TMD in the
towers of suspension bridges.” J. Vib. Control 15 (6): 821–847. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1077546308091455.
Chey, M., J. Chase, J. B. Mander, and A. Carr. 2013. “Innovative seismic
retrofitting strategy of added stories isolation system.” Front. Struct.
Civ. Eng. 7 (1): 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-013-0195-9.
Decreto del Ministero delle Infrastrutture e Trasporti, 14 gennaio 2008.
2008. Approvazione delle nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni.
[In Italian.] Serie Generale n. 29 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 30. Rome:
Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana.
De Domenico, D., G. Falsone, and G. Ricciardi. 2018a. “Improved
response-spectrum analysis of base-isolated buildings: A substructure-
based response spectrum method.” Eng. Struct. 162: 198–212. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.037.
De Domenico, D., N. Impollonia, and G. Ricciardi. 2018b. “Soil-dependent
optimum design of a new passive vibration control system combining
seismic base isolation with tuned inerter damper.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng. 105: 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.11.023.
De Domenico, D., and G. Ricciardi. 2018. “An enhanced base isolation
system equipped with optimal tuned mass damper inerter (TMDI).”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 47 (5): 1169–1192. https://doi.org/10
.1002/eqe.3011.
Den Hartog, J.-P. 1956. Mechanical vibrations. 4th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Di Matteo, A., T. Furtmüller, C. Adam, and A. Pirrotta. 2017. “Optimal
design of tuned liquid column dampers for seismic response control
of base-isolated structures.” Acta Mech. 229 (2): 437–454. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s00707-017-1980-7.
Fabrizio, C., A. de Leo, and A. Di Egidio. 2017. “Top disconnection versus
base disconnection in structures subjected to harmonic base excitation.”
Eng. Struct. 152: 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.09
.041.
J. Eng. Mech.
 Feng, M., and A. Mita. 1995. “Vibration control of tall buildings using
mega subconfiguration.” J. Eng. Mech. 121 (10): 1082–1088. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1995)121:10(1082).
Giaralis, A., and A. Taflanidis. 2018. “Optimal tuned mass-damper-inerter
(TMDI) design for seismically excited MDOF structures with model
uncertainties based on reliability criteria.” Struct. Control Health Monit.
25 (2): e2082. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2082.
Hoang, N., and P. Warnitchai. 2005. “Design of multiple tuned mass
dampers by using a numerical optimizer.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
34 (2): 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.413.
Iervolino, I., C. Galasso, and E. Cosenza. 2010. “Rexel: Computer aided
record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis.” Bull. Earth-
quake Eng. 8 (2): 339–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1.
Igusa, T., and K. Xu. 1994. “Vibration control using multiple tuned mass
dampers.” J. Sound Vib. 175 (4): 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 01/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.1994.1341.
Jagadish, K. S., B. K. Raghu Prasad, and P. Vasudeva Rao. 1979. “The
inelastic vibration absorber subjected to earthquake ground motions.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 7 (4): 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1002
/eqe.4290070403.
Kaynia, A., J. Biggs, and D. Veneziano. 1981. “Seismic effectiveness of
tuned mass dampers.” J. Struct. Div. 107 (8): 1465–1484.
Kelly, J. 1995. “Base isolation: Linear theory and design.” Earthquake
Spectra 6 (2): 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585566.
Lee, C.-L., Y.-T. Chen, L.-L. Chung, and Y.-P. Wang. 2006. “Optimal
design theories and applications of tuned mass dampers.” Eng. Struct.
28 (1): 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.06.023.
Matta, E., and A. De Stefano. 2009. “Robust design of mass-uncertain
rolling-pendulum TMDS for the seismic protection of buildings.” Mech.
Syst. Sig. Process. 23 (1): 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp
.2007.08.012.
Miranda, J. C. 2005. “On tuned mass dampers for reducing the seismic
response of structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34 (7): 847–865.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.461.
Rana, R., and T. Soong. 1998. “Parametric analysis and simplified design of
tuned mass damper.” Eng. Struct. 20 (3): 193–204. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0141-0296(97)00078-3.
Reggio, A., and M. De Angelis. 2015. “Optimal energy-based seismic
design of non-conventional tuned mass damper (TMD) implemented
via inter-story isolation.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44 (10):
1623–1642. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2548.
© ASCE 04019011-17
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(4): 04019011
Sadek, F., B. Mohraz, A. W. Taylor, and R. M. Chung. 1997. “A method
of estimating the parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic
applications.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26 (6): 617–635. https://doi
.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199706)26:6<617::AID-EQE664>3.0
.CO;2-Z.
Taniguchi, T., A. D. Kiureghian, and M. Melkumyan. 2008. “Effect of tuned
mass damper on displacement demand of base-isolated structures.” Eng.
Struct. 30 (12): 3478–3488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05
.027.
Tsai, H.-H. 1995. “The effect of tuned-mass dampers on the seismic
response of base-isolated structures.” Int. J. Solid Struct. 32 (8/9):
1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(94)00150-U.
Villaverde, R. 1985. “Reduction in seismic response with heavily-damped
vibration absorbers.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 13 (1): 33–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290130105.
Villaverde, R., M. Aguirre, and C. Hamilton. 2005. “Aseismic roof isola-
tion system built with steel oval elements.” Earthquake Spectra 21 (1):
225–241. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1850528.
Villaverde, R., and G. Mosqueda. 1999. “Aseismic roof isolation system:
Analytic and shake table studies.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28 (3):
217–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199903)28:3<217::
AID-EQE813>3.0.CO;2-G.
Wang, S.-J., K.-C. Chang, J.-S. Hwang, J.-Y. Hsiao, B.-H. Lee, and Y.-C.
Hung. 2012. “Dynamic behavior of a building structure tested with base
and mid-story isolation systems.” Eng. Struct. 42 (2): 420–433. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.035.
Wang, S.-J., K.-C. Chang, J.-S. Hwang, and B.-H. Lee. 2011. “Simplified
analysis of mid-story seismically isolated buildings.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 40 (2): 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1004.
Wang, S.-J., J.-S. Hwang, K.-C. Chang, M.-H. Lin, and B.-H. Lee. 2013.
“Analytical and experimental studies on midstory isolated buildings
with modal coupling effect.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (2):
201–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2203.
Wirsching, P., and G. Campbell. 1973. “Minimal structural response
under random excitation using the vibration absorber.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2 (4): 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe
.4290020402.
Wirsching, P., and J. Yao. 1973. “Safety design concepts for seismic struc-
tures.” Comput. Struct. 3 (4): 809–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045
-7949(73)90060-6.
J. Eng. Mech.