Seismic Performance Improvement of Base-Isolated Structures Using A Semi-Active Tuned Mass Damper

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/363643936
Seismic performance improvement of base-isolated structures using a semi-

active tuned mass damper
Article in Engineering Structures · September 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114963
CITATIONS READS
0 64
4 authors, including:
Liangkun Wang Satish Nagarajaiah

Tongji University Rice University
15 PUBLICATIONS 319 CITATIONS 301 PUBLICATIONS 11,752 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Weixing Shi
OBESITY INSTITUTE, GEISINGER CLINIC
30 PUBLICATIONS 551 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development of Next Generation Adaptive Seismic Protection Systems. View project
Data-driven Structural Dynamics & System Identification with Sparse Representation & Low-rank Modeling View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Liangkun Wang on 18 September 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Wang L, Nagarajaiah S, Shi W, Zhou Y. Seismic performance improvement of base-isolated structures
using a semi-active tuned mass damper. Engineering Structures. 2022, 271: 114963.
Seismic performance improvement of base-isolated structures

using a semi-active tuned mass damper
Liangkun Wang1, Satish Nagarajaiah2, 3, *, Weixing Shi1, Ying Zhou1, 4

1
Department of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092,
China
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, 77005,
USA
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Rice University, Houston,
TX, 77005, USA
4
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University,
Shanghai, 200092, China
Email: wangliangkun@tongji.edu.cn, satish.nagarajaiah@rice.edu, swxtgk@tongji.edu.cn,
yingzhou@tongji.edu.cn
* Corresponding author: satish.nagarajaiah@rice.edu.
ABSTRACT
Base isolation can achieve a reduction in floor acceleration and inter-story drift. However,
it may suffer from excessive displacements under near-fault and far-field earthquakes. To
improve the aseismic performance of passive base-isolated structures, in this paper, a
semi-active tuned mass damper (STMD) with variable stiffness and damping is presented. A
combined control algorithm based on output signals only is developed for the STMD first.
Then, the STMD is applied to an eight-story linear base-isolated structure and also a nonlinear
one. As for the linear model, which represents a theoretical benchmark, an optimized passive
TMD (PTMD) is used for comparison. As for the nonlinear model, lead rubber bearing (LRB)
is considered and simulated using the well-known Bouc-Wen model. Eight earthquakes with
different spectral characteristics and peak ground amplitudes are chosen, and two PTMDs are
optimized for comparison, while one is tuned to the pre-yield period of the base-isolated
model and the other is tuned to the post-yield period of the base-isolated model. Numerical
results show that, generally, STMD has the best control effect in both linear and nonlinear
models. For displacement responses, because STMD can vary its stiffness and damping, it can
mitigate the structural first-mode response effectively, and can achieve both top story and
isolated level responses reduction. As for acceleration responses of the top story, STMD
achieves excellent performance in the structural second-mode acceleration response
mitigation. Therefore, STMD can improve both displacement and acceleration performances
of both linear and nonlinear base-isolated structures effectively.
KEY WORDS: Semi-active tuned mass damper; Base isolation; Variable stiffness; Variable
damping; Response mitigation; Nonlinear dynamics.
1. INTRODUCTION
Base isolation is one of the most implemented seismic protection systems in real
1
applications [1]. It can reduce the natural frequency of a structure, and therefore floor
acceleration and inter-story drift. However, it may suffer from excessive displacements in the
isolation level and top story under near-fault and far-field earthquakes [2].
Active and semi-active base isolators can improve performances of base isolation
systems effectively [3]. Suresh et al. [4] proposed a fault-tolerant adaptive base isolator for
nonlinear base isolation systems. Narasimhan and Nagarajaiah [5] presented a short time
Fourier transform (STFT) based semi-active variable stiffness isolation system. Mehrkian et
al. [6] applied magnetorheological (MR) dampers for a benchmark base-isolated irregular
structure. Yu et al. [7] proposed a MR elastomer base isolator for a linear structure. Gu et al.
[8] presented a shaking table test of a MR elastomer base isolation structure. Pan et al. [9]
proposed a semi-active friction pendulum base isolation system. It has been shown in these
references that active and semi-active base isolators can improve the performance of a passive
base isolation system to a great degree.
Besides, an alternative choice is adding structural control devices to a base-isolated
structure. A tuned mass damper (TMD), which is actually a single degree of freedom (SDOF)
vibration absorber, is an effective way to mitigate the displacement response of a
base-isolated structure. Taniguchi et al. [10] proposed a TMD for a linear base-isolated
structure on displacement demand. Hessabi et al. [11] presented TMDs for seismic
performance improvement of nonlinear base isolation systems. Stanikzai et al. [12] applied
multiple TMDs for both linear and nonlinear base-isolated structures. Shi et al. [13] proposed
second-mode TMDs in base-isolated structures. From these references, it can be seen that a
well-tuned passive TMD (PTMD) can have a good aseismic performance improvement in a
base isolation structure. However, to achieve a satisfactory control effect, the PTMD should
be optimized specifically. Besides, the nonlinear element in a base isolator can hinder the
parameter optimization of PTMD. Further, it is also well-known that a PTMD is sensitive to
the frequency deviation. Therefore, it is meaningful to investigate a more effective controller
for the base-isolated structure.
Further, different passive structural controllers have been implemented at base-isolated
structures. Inerter can improve the performance of a traditional TMD. Matteo et al. [14]
presented a simplified analytical solution for a linear base isolated structure coupled with a
TMDI. Qian et al. [15] optimized TIDs for linear base isolated structures. Domenico and
Ricciardi optimized TMDIs for linear base isolation systems [16], and nonlinear base isolation
systems [17]. Pietrosanti et al. proposed a nonlinear inerter vibration absorber for a base
isolation system through a shaking table test [18]. The negative stiffness device (NSD) is a
new approach for structural control [19, 20]. Sarlis et al. [21] proposed a shaking table test of
a base-isolated structure with an NSD. Sun et al. [22] proposed a novel NSD and applied it to
the smart base isolated benchmark model. Wang et al. [23] applied a passive pseudo-negative
stiffness device to a linear base-isolated structure. Besides, Wang et al. [24] proposed a
two-phased nonlinear energy sink (NES) for a nonlinear base-isolated structure with LRB.
Furtmüller et al. [25] proposed an experimental study of a tuned liquid column damper
(TLCD) for a linear base-isolated shear frame. It can be known from the reviewed controllers
in this paragraph that generally, they can all improve the performance of a base-isolated
structure effectively. However, they should be specifically optimized before the application,
and full model information is needed in the optimization, which is difficult to be fully
2
obtained in a real project. Meanwhile, the frequency sensitivity analysis and robustness
analysis of these novel passive dampers need further researches.
From the above literature review, it can be known that optimized passive dampers can
have a good displacement mitigation in base-isolated structures. However, passive dampers
lack the adaptability generally, and PTMDs are sensitive to the frequency deviation [26-28].
Besides, the lack or wrong-estimation of model information will hinder the effective
optimization of passive dampers. Further, dynamic responses of a nonlinear base-isolated
structure also depend on the peak ground amplitude (PGA) of base excitations, which makes
it even more challenging. Meanwhile, it was highlighted in [13] that the first-mode TMD had
little effect in acceleration responses mitigation and therefore, a second-mode TMD was
proposed. Though the second-mode TMD can control acceleration responses of a
base-isolated structure effectively, it has little effect in displacement responses which are
dominated by the first-mode. It is worthwhile to improve the performance of a traditional
PTMD, and propose a novel TMD which can control structural displacement and acceleration
responses simultaneously.
Semi-active TMDs (STMDs) have the adaptability compared to PTMDs, and have the
inherent stability compared to active TMDs but need much less power [29, 30]. Recently, a
high-performance vibration isolation technique was proposed in [31], which could achieve an
active isolation performance through the joint use of a negative stiffness spring and
semi-active device with variable damping. Li and Zhu [32] investigated and compared several
electromagnetic shunt dampers with tunable behavior to achieve an advanced vibration
isolation performance. However, performance improvements for nonlinear base-isolated
structures are absent in these references. Further, it will be better to propose an output signal
based semi-active control algorithm when both linear and nonlinear base-isolated structures
are considered.
Recently, Wang et al. [33] proposed a semi-active eddy current pendulum tuned mass
damper (SAEC-PTMD). The pendulum length was adjusted according to the Hilbert-Huang
transform (HHT) based algorithm, and the eddy current damping was adjusted according to
the linear-quadric Gaussian (LQG) based algorithm. However, the LQG method is based on
the linear stochastic optimal control theory and is not suitable for nonlinear structures.
Nagarajaiah and Varadarajan [34] invented a semi-active independent variable stiffness -
TMD (SAIVS-TMD), and applied it to the wind-sensitive benchmark building. The
SAIVS-TMD could track the structural instantaneous frequency based on the structural
displacement signal only according to the STFT. Then, Sun and Nagarajaiah [35] added the
variable damping function to SAIVS-TMD. Though it is an important contribution, the base
isolation issue is not considered in [36].
In this study, a new combined variable stiffness and variable damping control algorithm
based on output signals only is developed for a STMD first. Then, the STMD is applied to an
eight-story linear base-isolated structure and a nonlinear one. As for the linear model, which
represents a theoretical benchmark because there are no linear base isolators (LRBs and
friction pendulums are highly nonlinear devices), an optimized PTMD is used for comparison.
As for the nonlinear model, LRB is considered and simulated using the well-known
Bouc-Wen model, and two PTMDs are optimized for comparison, while one is tuned to the
pre-yield period of the base-isolated model and the other is tuned to the post-yield period of
3
the base-isolated model.
2. SEMI-ACTIVE TMD AND CONTROL ALGORITHM
2.1 Semi-active TMD
To protect a base-isolated (BI) structure from excessive dynamic responses under

earthquake excitations, a semi-active TMD (STMD) is applied to it and is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Semi-active TMD with variable stiffness and damping.
In Figure 1, the angle  (t ) of the diamond spring can be adjusted in real time t to
retune the frequency. It can provide smooth variation of the level of force due to stiffness and
damping by varying  (t ) , and the semi-active force Fd (t ) provided by the STMD can be
written as:
Fd (t )  ke cos 2  (t )  x (t )  cs (t )v (t ) cos  (t ) (1)
where ke and cs (t ) are the constant stiffness of every spring and the semi-active damping
coefficient respectively, x(t ) is the displacement of joint 2 in X direction while v (t ) is the
velocity of joint 2 in X direction. It should be noted that cs (t ) is based on the switching rule
which will be introduced in next section, and is just a function of time. The semi-active
stiffness of the device in Figure 1 is dependent on the angle  (t ) of the diamond spring,
while cs (t ) is independent of  (t ) . Equation (1) shows the semi-active control force in the
numerical simulation.
The system proposed in Figure 1 can control stiffness and damping independently. When
the diamond stiffness device in Figure 1 is fully closed (θ = 0), it has the maximum stiffness;
when it is fully open (θ = π/2), it has the minimum stiffness which can be zero in an ideal
situation. Therefore, STMD can vary its frequency continuously through adjusting the angle
 (t ) in real time between the maximum and minimum.
4
A scaled model experiment of the semi-active device with variable stiffness and damping
shown in Figure 1 was proposed in [36]. To better understand its working principle, provide
validation to the force characteristics and analytical model, the scaled model test is introduced
briefly here.
In [36], a scaled semi-active device was tested for two representative positions, which
were  =10° (closed) and  =77° (open) respectively. To obtain the force-displacement
relationship of the device, it was excited by a 2.0 Hz sinusoidal excitation whose amplitude
was 0.40 in. Results were shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Experimental results of the semi-active device.
It could be seen in Figure 2 that at t =5 s, the semi-active device was switched from
 =10° (closed) to  =77° (open), while continually excited by the 2.0 Hz sinusoidal
excitation.
Equation (1) was used to simulate the semi-active force corresponding to the device
positions as shown in Figure 2. Experimental and simulated force-displacement relationship
for the semi-active device at  =10° (closed) and  =77° (open) was compared in Figure 3. It
5
could be found that numerical results agreed well with experimental results.
Figure 3. Comparison of experimental and analytical results for the semi-active device.
It should be noted that the proposed device in Figure 1 is a semi-active damper but not
active, that's because it has no direct energy input to the primary structure. The proposed
STMD can achieve a better control effect through varying its stiffness and damping in real
time. Therefore, it has a better stability and needs much less energy consumption than an
active TMD.
2.2 Control algorithm
To track the structural instantaneous frequency under earthquake excitation, wavelet

transform (WT) is used to deal with structural displacement signals. After identifying the
structural instantaneous frequency in each time segment, because the mass has a constant
value, the stiffness of STMD can be adjusted according to Equation (1) to match the identified
frequency. Detailed information about the using of WT to identify the instantaneous
frequency can be found in [37-40].
After the structural vibrational frequency is tracked by WT, in Figure 1 and Equation (1),
it can be seen that ke is the constant stiffness of every spring, while the semi-active stiffness
coefficient ks (t )  ke cos  (t ) in X direction is proposed by the variation of the angle  (t )
2
of the diamond spring. Therefore, as the mass of STMD is a constant value, k s (t ) can be
calculated easily according to the instantaneous frequency. Then, the linear electromechanical
actuator will move in Y direction to retune  (t ) , and achieve the stiffness adjustment in
STMD.
In [35], Sun and Nagarajaiah adjusted the semi-active damping according to
displacement signals of the main structure and TMD. Another output only variable damping
algorithm is based on the relative velocity and absolute acceleration signals, as shown in
Equation (2). Ferreira et al. [41] applied it to a semi-active TMD for lateral human-induced
6
vibration control.
 ( x2  x1 ) x1  0   s (t )  0
 (2)
x1  0   s (t )   max
( x2  x1 ) 
where x2 and x1 are velocities of STMD and the structure, respectively; the first term
inside the bracket is the relative velocity that the damper of STMD experiences (generating
the dissipative force); x1 represents the acceleration of the structure itself;  s (t ) and  max
indicate the damping ratio of STMD and maximum damping ratio of STMD respectively;
 max  2 opt , where  opt represents the passive TMD optimal damping ratio.
The damping switching rule proposed in Equation (2): (1) maximizes the energy
dissipation force in one stage — if the relative velocity that the damper experiences and
structural acceleration are in phase; or (2) minimizes it—if they are out of phase. After trial, it
is found that the variable damping ratio range [0, 2 opt ] has the best effect. Therefore, it is
determined as the variable damping ratio range.
Therefore, in this study, the frequency of STMD is retuned according to the WT - based
algorithm [37-40], and damping coefficient is adjusted according to Equation (2). The
proposed combined control algorithm is summarized in Figure 4. Then, it can also be seen
that the combined semi-active control algorithm is mainly based on output signals, little
model information is needed, which is also suitable for nonlinear control.
Figure 4. Semi-active control method.
3. CASE STUDY
In this study, both linear and nonlinear base-isolated (BI) models are considered.
3.1 Linear model
For the linear model, three different control cases are considered and shown in Figure 5.
An optimal passive TMD (PTMD) is used for comparison in this section. It should be noted
7
that the linear base-isolated building represents a theoretical benchmark because there are no
linear base isolators (LRBs and friction pendulums are highly nonlinear devices).
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. Linear model. (a) BI; (b) BI with an optimal PTMD at the top story; (c) BI with a
STMD at the top story.
In Figure 5, mb , kb and cb mean the mass, stiffness and damping coefficient of the
isolated level respectively; mi , ki and ci represent the mass, stiffness and damping
coefficient of the ith story respectively, and n means the total number of floors; ms , ks and
cs indicate the mass, stiffness and damping coefficient of the PTMD respectively, and ks (t )
and cs (t ) are semi-active stiffness and damping coefficient of STMD respectively, STMD
has the same mass as PTMD; xb , xi and xs are the relative displacement of the isolated
level, the ith story and TMD respectively; xg is the base excitation.
The dynamic equation of a linear BI structure with a STMD is written as:
Mx
  Cx  Kx  m*
xg (3)
where M , C and K represent the mass, damping and stiffness matrices respectively.
In Equation (3), M , C , K , x and m * can be written as:
 mb 
 
 m1 
M   (4)
 
 mn 
 m 
 s
 cb  c1 c1 
 
 c1 c1  c2 c2 
C c2    (5)
 
  cn  cs (t ) cs (t ) 
 cs (t ) cs (t ) 

8
 kb  k1  k1 
 
  k1 k1  k2 k2 
K  k2    (6)
 
  kn  k s (t )  k s (t ) 
  k s (t ) k s (t ) 

x   xb xs 
T
x1  xn (7)
m*   mb ms 
T
m1  mn (8)
3.2 Nonlinear model
As for the nonlinear BI structure, LRB is considered at the isolated level, and is
simulated using the Bouc-Wen model. Four different control cases are considered and shown
in Figure 6. Two passive TMDs (PTMDs), one is tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI
model while the other is tuned to the post-yield period of the BI model, are used for
comparison. They are all arranged on the top story of the structure and have the same mass
but different frequencies. Therefore, their stiffness is different. According to the parameter
optimization formula in next section, their damping ratio is the same, however, their damping
coefficient is different. Meanwhile, it can be predicted that the stiffness and damping
coefficient of the previous TMD are larger than the latter one.
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6. Nonlinear model. (a) BI; (b) BI with a PTMD tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI
model; (c) BI with a PTMD tuned to the post-yield period of the BI model; (d) BI with a
STMD at the top story.
In Figure 6, ks1 and cs1 represent the stiffness and damping coefficient of the PTMD
which tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI model respectively; while k s 2 and cs 2 mean
the stiffness and damping coefficient of the PTMD which tuned to the post-yield period of the
9
BI model respectively.
The LRB can be simulated according to Equation (9) and (10).
Rp  kb xb  (1)kb xy z(t) (9)
n 1 n
z(t )  ( Axb   xb z(t ) z(t )   xb z(t ) ) / xy (10)
where Rp is the hysteretic force of LRB,  is the factor of linear force as a percentage of
total hysteretic force; z (t ) and xb represent the stress proportional displacement and
relative displacement respectively; A ,  , n and  are hysteretic parameters of the
Bouc-Wen model respectively. xy is the yield displacement of the isolation level.
3.3 Simulated models
The simulated eight-story superstructure with an isolated level is based on the

North-South (NS) direction of the base-isolated University of Southern California (USC)
hospital [42-44], as shown in Figure 7.
The USC hospital building is an eight story (seven floors above the ground and a
basement) steel-braced frame base-isolated structure. The total dimensions of the building
plan are 92.35 m long and 77.11 m wide. The building has 10 compartments in the East-West
(EW) direction and 12 compartments in the NS direction. As can be seen in Figure 7, the floor
plan is asymmetrical, with the wings connected by a neck-down area of the floor/basement.
All concrete floors are supported by metal panels and a grid of steel beams. Superstructure
supports are located around the perimeter of the building. The steel superstructure is
supported by reinforced concrete floor plates. Below are reinforced concrete beams, with the
drop slabs under each column integrated into the concrete bottom plate. The isolator is
connected between the pulldown plate and the base plate below. For safety, a reinforced
concrete base is provided and supported on the base. The isolation system is composed by 149
isolators, including 68 lead rubber isolators outside the building and 81 rubber isolators inside
the building.
Figure 7. USC hospital building (1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm): elevation, plan, sensor
locations. [44]
10
According to the NS direction of the base-isolated USC hospital [43, 44], masses of each
story are 1766.9 t, 1538.9 t, 1408.9 t, 1405.0 t, 1385.6 t, 1045.0 t, 976.0 t and 730.0 t
respectively. The mass of the isolated level is 13280 t. As for the Bouc-Wen model of LRB, in
Equation (9),  is 0.1 in this study. Therefore, when the pre-yield stiffness is 89461.0 kN/m,
its post-yield stiffness is 8946.1 kN/m, and with a 20% damping ratio. A,  , n and  in
Equation (10) are 1, 0.5, 2 and 0.5 respectively in this study, meanwhile, xy is 15 mm. A 5%
damping ratio is assumed for the superstructure, and a complex eigenvalue analysis is
proposed. As for the pre-yield period of the BI model, the first two modal frequencies are
0.4008 Hz and 1.6622 Hz respectively, and the first two modal frequencies of the post-yield
period of the BI model are 0.1302 Hz and 1.6306 Hz respectively. It should be noted that only
the pre-yield stiffness is considered in the linear model whose numerical results are proposed
in section 4.
In this study, TMD mass ratio is chosen to be 10%. Through the modal analysis, it can be
found that for both pre-yield and post-yield models, the mass participation coefficient of the
first mode is greater than 99%. Therefore, the TMD mass ratio is calculated by the TMD mass
over the entire isolated building mass. The two PTMDs are optimized according to [45].
1 
fopt  (1  p ) (11)
1  1 
p 
 opt   (12)
1  1 
where f opt and  opt represent the TMD optimal frequency ratio and damping ratio
respectively;  and  p are the TMD mass ratio and structural modal damping ratio
respectively.
As a result, frequencies of two PTMDs are 0.3589 Hz and 0.1166 Hz respectively, and
the optimal damping ratio is 34.70%. It should be noted that only the 0.3589 Hz PTMD is
considered in the linear model.
STMD has the same mass, and it has a variable damping ratio range [0,  max ], where
 max  2 opt . As for the linear model, the STMD has a variable frequency range of ±10%
structural first order frequency (0.4008 Hz) and is [0.3607 Hz, 0.4409 Hz] in this study. As for
the nonlinear model, the upper frequency of STMD is +10% pre-yield structural first order
frequency (0.4008 Hz) and is 0.4409 Hz, while the lower frequency of STMD is -10%
post-yield structural first order frequency (0.1302 Hz) and is 0.1172 Hz.
As for the frequency range, the basic idea is that a TMD is a frequency-dependent
absorber, and the resonance can dominate the structural response. When the excitation
frequency is close to the natural frequency of the structure, the response of the structure will
increase sharply; when they are far away, the response will decrease sharply. The resonance
frequency band of the structure is narrow, usually with a variable frequency range of ±5% ~
±10% structural natural frequency. Therefore, after trial, in this study, a variable frequency
range of ±10% structural natural frequency is chosen.
The variable frequency range of STMD is [0.1172 Hz, 0.4409 Hz]. As the mass is 2353.6
t, its variable stiffness range is [1.28×106 N/m, 1.81×107 N/m]. In Equation (1), it is assumed
that  is 10º when it achieves the upper frequency. Therefore, it can be calculated that the
11
constant stiffness ke is 1.87×107 N/m, and when it achieves the lower frequency,  is
around 75º. The lower limit of damping coefficient is 0, while it achieves the upper limit
when the frequency is 0.4409 Hz, and the result is 9.06×106 N·s/m.
Eight earthquakes with different spectral characteristics and peak ground amplitudes are
chosen and shown in Table 1. They are downloaded from [46].
Table 1 Earthquake excitations.

Earthquake PGA
No. Year Station Name Magnitude Component
Name (g)
Imperial
1 1940 El Centro Array #9 6.95 IMPVALL.I_I-ELC270 0.211
Valley-02
Imperial
2 1979 Delta 6.53 IMPVALL.H_H-DLT262 0.238
Valley-06
3 Kobe_ Japan 1995 Kakogawa 6.90 KOBE_KAK000 0.251
4 Loma Prieta 1989 LGPC 6.93 LOMAP_LGP000 0.966
Imperial
5 1979 El Centro Array #8 6.53 IMPVALL.H_H-E08230 0.454
Valley-06
Imperial
6 1979 Bonds Corner 6.53 IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230 0.775
Valley-06
Chi-Chi_
7 1999 TCU129 7.62 CHICHI_TCU129-N 0.634
Taiwan
Northridge - 17645
8 Northridge-01 1994 6.69 NORTHR_STC090 0.342
Saticoy St
Six evaluation indexes are used for comparison of control effects, which are maximum
and root-mean-square (RMS) displacements of the top story ( J1 and J 2 ), maximum and
RMS displacements of the isolated level ( J 3 and J 4 ), and maximum and RMS accelerations
of the top story ( J 5 and J 6 ). These six indices are defined as following:
J1  max abs( x n )  (13)
J 2  rms( xn ) (14)
J 3  max abs( xb )  (15)
J 4  rms( xb ) (16)
J 5  max abs( xn )  (17)
J 6  rms( xn ) (18)
12
3. RESULTS OF THE LINEAR MODEL
4.1 Displacement responses of the linear model
Displacement responses comparison of the linear model in Figure 5 under 8 earthquake

excitations are shown in Table 2, 3 and Figure 8 respectively. It should be noted that in this
section, PTMD is optimized to the pre-yield period of the BI model. As for the reduction
when compared to the case without TMD, it can be calculated by 100%×(BI-STMD)/BI. As
for the reduction when compared to the PTMD case, it can be calculated by
100%×(PTMD-STMD)/PTMD.
Table 2 Maximum and RMS displacements of the top story
Maximum (cm) RMS (cm)
Earthquake
BI PTMD STMD BI PTMD STMD
IMPVALL.I_I-ELC270 28.164 29.534 21.707 6.323 5.768 3.628
IMPVALL.H_H-DLT262 30.194 31.176 22.268 6.096 6.213 4.606
KOBE_KAK000 16.878 13.461 10.266 3.942 3.799 2.872
LOMAP_LGP000 96.271 101.602 75.716 28.791 27.921 21.053
IMPVALL.H_H-E08230 41.785 46.705 34.524 8.930 10.064 7.255
IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230 20.946 19.702 14.645 5.865 5.212 3.897
CHICHI_TCU129-N 23.494 22.887 19.547 4.106 4.257 3.244
NORTHR_STC090 22.862 21.867 18.091 9.521 8.186 6.431
Table 3 Maximum and RMS displacements of the isolated level

Earthquake
IMPVALL.I_I-ELC270 24.188 22.239 21.696 5.342 4.287 3.614
IMPVALL.H_H-DLT262 25.245 22.939 22.274 5.145 4.594 4.592
KOBE_KAK000 14.627 10.572 10.079 3.330 2.889 2.833
LOMAP_LGP000 81.156 75.834 75.483 24.252 20.361 21.087
IMPVALL.H_H-E08230 34.288 34.242 34.488 7.532 7.398 7.262
IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230 15.187 13.899 14.604 4.814 3.858 3.888
CHICHI_TCU129-N 21.211 17.843 19.510 3.464 3.173 3.244
NORTHR_STC090 19.377 16.416 17.831 8.047 6.082 6.406
(a) (b)
13
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
Figure 8. Displacement control effects comparisons of the linear model. (a) & (b) Maximum
displacement of the top story and reduction of STMD; (c) & (d) RMS displacement of the top
story and reduction of STMD; (e) & (f) Maximum displacement of the isolated level and
reduction of STMD; (g) & (h) RMS displacement of the isolated level and reduction of
STMD.
From the above results presented in Table 2, 3 and Figure 8, it can be seen that under the
excitation of different ground motions, the displacement response of the structure can have a
great difference, and the reduction of STMD varies a lot for different seismic inputs as well.
The type of earthquake is an important factor. The BI structure usually has a low natural
frequency, and is sensitive to near-fault records including long period components and
far-field earthquakes because of the resonance. The reduction in the displacement of the
isolation layer subjected to a near-fault earthquake (such as Northridge earthquake) may be
different from the one subjected to a far-field earthquake (such as Chi-Chi earthquake). From
reductions illustrated in Figure 8, it is clear that the STMD has the best maximum
displacement reduction for the Imperial Valley-02 earthquake, and has the best RMS
displacement reduction for the Kobe earthquake. Generally, STMD can achieve a great
14
response reduction and performs better than the optimized PTMD.
Besides, it also can be known that reductions of STMD in the top story are better than
the isolated level. Then, compared to the maximum response, STMD performs better in RMS
response reduction. In the isolated level, STMD performs similarly to PTMD, while STMD
performs much better than PTMD in the top story.
When the drift ratios between the top floor and isolation layer are calculated, in the linear
model, the maximum drift ratios of the case without TMD, with a PTMD and with a STMD
are 0.424%, 0.723% and 0.007% respectively. It is shown that the PTMD may have a negative
effect in the drift ratio, while it is quite obvious that the STMD can completely eliminate the
drift ratio.
Structural displacement responses are the maximum under earthquake N4
(LOMAP_LGP000), take it as an example, time history and Fourier spectra comparisons are
proposed in Figure 9.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 9. Displacement comparisons of the linear model under earthquake N4. (a) Time
history comparison of the top story; (b) Frequency spectrum comparison of the top story; (c)
Time history comparison of the isolated level; (d) Frequency spectrum comparison of the
isolated level.
From Figure 9 (a) and (c), it can be seen that STMD has excellent displacement
reductions both for the top story and the isolated level. It has been shown in Figure 9 (b) and
(d) that structural first-mode dominates the displacement response, and compared to the
isolated level, STMD has a better response mitigation for the top story. Instantaneous
frequency and damping ratio of STMD are shown in Figure 10.
15
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Instantaneous frequency and damping ratio of STMD of the linear model under
earthquake N4. (a) Frequency; (b) Damping ratio.
STMD tracks the structural instantaneous frequency according to Figure 10 (a), and also
dissipates the vibrational energy according to Figure 10 (b). Therefore, STMD has a better
performance that the optimized PTMD.
4.2 Acceleration responses of the linear model
Acceleration responses comparison of the linear model in Figure 5 under 8 earthquake

excitations are presented in Table 4 and Figure 11 respectively.
Table 4 Maximum and RMS accelerations of the top story
Maximum (m/s2) RMS (m/s2)
Earthquake
IMPVALL.I_I-ELC270 6.270 5.128 3.921 1.038 0.923 0.778
IMPVALL.H_H-DLT262 7.002 5.520 4.734 1.032 0.961 0.796
KOBE_KAK000 7.879 5.681 4.617 1.166 0.963 0.806
LOMAP_LGP000 15.594 14.354 10.916 4.389 4.007 3.050
IMPVALL.H_H-E08230 12.045 10.904 9.654 1.284 1.158 0.979
IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230 24.024 16.422 13.662 2.885 2.490 1.761
CHICHI_TCU129-N 11.111 11.694 10.533 1.561 1.345 1.216
NORTHR_STC090 8.632 8.099 7.340 1.709 1.563 1.395
(a) (b)
16
(c) (d)
Figure 11. Acceleration control effects comparisons of the linear model. (a) & (b) Maximum
acceleration of the top story and reduction of STMD; (c) & (d) RMS acceleration of the top
story and reduction of STMD.
As shown in Table 4 and Figure 11, under different seismic waves, the acceleration
response of the structure and the control effect of TMD are different in a great degree. In the
previous section, the displacement response of the structure under earthquake N4
(LOMAP_LGP000) is the largest, while the displacement under earthquake N6
(IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230) is much smaller. However, much different from it, the
acceleration response of the structure under earthquake N6 (IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230) is the
largest, and the control effect of STMD is also the best at this time.
From numerical results, it is obvious that STMD has an excellent acceleration response
mitigation. Compared to the case without TMD, it has a performance improvement of about
30%, while it is around 20% when compared to the optimized TMD. Therefore, it can be
concluded that STMD can control acceleration responses of the top story to a great degree and
has the best performance.
Under earthquake N6 (IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230), structural acceleration responses are
the maximum, and time history and Fourier spectra comparisons are shown in Figure 12.
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Acceleration comparisons of the linear model under earthquake N6. (a) Time
history comparison of the top story; (b) Frequency spectrum comparison of the top story.
It is presented in Figure 12 (a) that STMD can decrease the maximum acceleration
response and attenuate vibration effectively. This is because that the structural second-mode
dominates the acceleration response, while STMD has an excellent performance in the
structural second-mode response mitigation in acceleration Fourier spectrum, as presented in
17
Figure 12 (b).
From section 4.1 and 4.2, as for the linear model, it can be found that STMD has the best
performance improvement in both displacement and acceleration responses. In the nonlinear
model as shown in section 5, two PTMDs with different frequencies are used for comparison.
5. RESULTS OF THE NONLINEAR MODEL
5.1 Displacement responses of the nonlinear model
Displacement responses comparisons of the nonlinear model in Figure 6 under 8

earthquake excitations are presented in Table 5, 6 and Figure 13 respectively. It should be
noted that in this section, PTMD1 means the PTMD tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI
model, and PTMD2 is tuned to the post-yield period of the BI model.
Table 5 Displacement comparisons of the top story

Earthquake Without Without
PTMD1 PTMD2 STMD PTMD1 PTMD2 STMD
TMD TMD
IMPVALL.I_I-ELC270 13.787 12.843 12.537 11.638 3.637 3.578 3.429 3.309
IMPVALL.H_H-DLT262 15.817 14.279 13.904 12.636 3.137 3.113 2.703 2.552
KOBE_KAK000 6.353 6.067 6.246 5.021 1.955 1.556 1.720 1.291
LOMAP_LGP000 38.074 37.914 35.912 33.115 10.757 10.514 9.660 9.273
IMPVALL.H_H-E08230 30.492 29.999 25.685 23.138 6.604 6.870 5.462 5.113
IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230 12.067 11.889 10.512 9.685 2.813 2.753 2.507 2.342
CHICHI_TCU129-N 14.848 16.091 13.717 12.683 2.677 2.749 2.319 2.150
NORTHR_STC090 9.778 9.091 8.660 8.198 3.439 3.292 3.114 2.810
Table 6 Displacement comparisons of the isolated level

TMD TMD
IMPVALL.I_I-ELC270 12.868 11.332 11.328 11.597 3.521 3.342 3.271 3.282
IMPVALL.H_H-DLT262 15.076 12.944 13.007 12.626 2.968 2.761 2.466 2.549
KOBE_KAK000 5.903 5.103 5.469 5.011 1.839 1.300 1.557 1.288
LOMAP_LGP000 36.842 34.506 33.978 33.043 10.381 9.706 9.134 9.257
IMPVALL.H_H-E08230 28.519 27.088 23.547 23.097 6.443 6.488 5.194 5.092
IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230 10.915 10.226 9.093 9.668 2.531 2.410 2.159 2.337
CHICHI_TCU129-N 14.637 15.259 12.458 12.660 2.542 2.501 2.107 2.148
NORTHR_STC090 9.447 8.086 8.298 8.190 3.234 2.871 2.826 2.799
18
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
Figure 13. Displacement control effects comparisons of the nonlinear model. (a) & (b)
Maximum displacement of the top story and reduction of STMD; (c) & (d) RMS
displacement of the top story and reduction of STMD; (e) & (f) Maximum displacement of
the isolated level and reduction of STMD; (g) & (h) RMS displacement of the isolated level
and reduction of STMD.
From numerical results proposed in Table 5~6 and Figure 13, it can be known that
considering the actual behavior of the nonlinear isolator, it can significantly reduce the roof
19
displacements compared to the results shown section 4.1. In the nonlinear model, the PTMD
tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI model has little control effect in displacement
responses, while the other PTMD performs better, and STMD has the best displacement
mitigation. In general, its performance improvement in RMS response is better, and
reductions in the top story are better than the isolated level.
In the nonlinear model, when the drift ratios between the top floor and isolation layer are
calculated, the maximum drift ratios of the case without TMD, with a PTMD tuned to the
pre-yield period of the BI structure, with a PTMD tuned to the post-yield period of the BI
structure and with a STMD are 0.055%, 0.096%, 0.060% and 0.002% respectively. Therefore,
it can be seen that, first, the previous PTMD can have a negative effect in the drift ratio;
second, the latter PTMD has a similar result compared to the case without TMD; at last, the
STMD has the best mitigation and can nearly completely eliminate the drift ratio.
Meanwhile, compared to the case without TMD, generally, as for the maximum
displacement, the reduction of STMD is between 10%~20%; as for the RMS displacement,
the reduction is between 10%~30%, which shows an excellent effect of STMD in controlling
excessive displacements.
The same as section 4.1, under earthquake N4 (LOMAP_LGP000), structural
displacement responses are the maximum. Time history and Fourier spectra comparisons
under earthquake N4 are presented in Figure 14.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 14. Displacement comparisons of the nonlinear model under earthquake N4. (a) Time
history comparison of the top story; (b) Frequency spectrum comparison of the top story; (c)
Time history comparison of the isolated level; (d) Frequency spectrum comparison of the
isolated level.
In Figure 14, it is shown that the PTMD tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI model
20
has very little effect in the top story, and achieves a little reduction in the isolated level. The
PTMD tuned to the post-yield period of the BI model has a better displacement reduction,
while STMD has the best control effect in displacement responses in the nonlinear model.
Instantaneous frequency and damping ratio of STMD under earthquake N4 are illustrated in
Figure 15.
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Instantaneous frequency and damping ratio of STMD of the nonlinear model under
earthquake N4. (a) Frequency; (b) Damping ratio.
It can be seen in Figure 14(b) and (d) that the dominate frequency of displacement
response is between the first order frequency of the pre-yield period of the BI model (0.4008
Hz) and post-yield period of the BI model (0.1302 Hz). The STMD can vary its frequency
according to Figure 15(a), and adjust the damping ratio according to Figure 15(b). Therefore,
STMD achieves the best displacement reduction.
Force-displacement hysteretic curve comparisons of the isolated level under earthquake
N4 and N6 are illustrated in Figure 16.
(a) (b)
Figure 16. Hysteretic curve comparisons of the isolated level under different earthquakes.
(a) Earthquake N4; (b) Earthquake N6.
In Figure 16(a), maximum base shears of the case without TMD, the PTMD tuned to the
pre-yield period of the BI model, the PTMD tuned to the post-yield period of the BI model
and STMD are 450.364 N, 429.470 N, 424.750 N and 406.452 N respectively. Compared to
the previous three cases, STMD has a reduction in the maximum base shear of 9.75%, 5.36%
and 4.31% respectively. In Figure 16(b), maximum base shears of the four cases are 218.419
N, 212.254 N, 202.122 N and 199.403 N respectively. Compared to the previous three cases,
21
STMD has a reduction of 8.71%, 6.05% and 1.35% respectively. Therefore, STMD can
control the maximum base shear effectively as well.
5.2 Acceleration responses of the nonlinear model
Acceleration responses comparison of the nonlinear model in Figure 6 under 8

earthquake excitations are shown in Table 7 and Figure 17 respectively.
Table 7 Acceleration comparisons of the top story

Maximum (m/s2) RMS (m/s2)
TMD TMD
IMPVALL.I_I-ELC270 2.684 2.577 2.743 1.979 0.442 0.429 0.444 0.364
IMPVALL.H_H-DLT262 2.943 3.055 3.265 2.472 0.473 0.466 0.482 0.400
KOBE_KAK000 2.473 2.573 2.608 2.506 0.463 0.455 0.469 0.400
LOMAP_LGP000 7.443 6.593 6.747 5.767 1.972 1.824 1.926 1.390
IMPVALL.H_H-E08230 5.079 5.259 5.374 4.289 0.575 0.551 0.565 0.505
IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230 8.719 8.029 8.487 6.995 1.306 1.230 1.301 0.964
CHICHI_TCU129-N 6.315 6.081 6.107 5.434 0.670 0.652 0.660 0.577
NORTHR_STC090 3.800 3.514 3.566 3.061 0.741 0.730 0.747 0.623
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 17. Acceleration control effects comparisons of the nonlinear model. (a) & (b)
Maximum acceleration of the top story and reduction of STMD; (c) & (d) RMS acceleration
of the top story and reduction of STMD.
As can be seen in Table 7 and Figure 17, compared to numerical results proposed in
22
section 4.2, it can be found that the nonlinear behaviour of LRB isolator can reduce the
acceleration response to a great degree as well. It is clear that STMD has the best acceleration
response mitigation in the nonlinear model.
The PTMD tuned to the post-yield period of the BI model has little control effect in
structural acceleration response, which even has a negative effect in a half of chosen
earthquakes. The other PTMD has a better acceleration response reduction, because its
frequency (0.3589 Hz) is closer to the structural second-mode (1.6306 Hz). It is contrary to
the conclusion about the effect of displacement control in section 5.1. Therefore, it can be
known that a PTMD can only control the structural displacement or acceleration response, but
cannot control them simultaneously. Meanwhile, STMD has the best acceleration response
mitigation, and can achieve the best displacement and acceleration response improvement at
the same time.
To see it more clearly, under earthquake N6 (IMPVALL.H_H-BCR230) whose structural
acceleration responses are the maximum, time history and Fourier spectra comparisons are
illustrated in Figure 18.
(a) (b)
Figure 18. Acceleration comparisons of the nonlinear model under earthquake N6. (a) Time
history comparison of the top story; (b) Frequency spectrum comparison of the top story.
It is shown in Figure 18 that both in time domain and frequency domain, as for the
nonlinear model, the PTMD tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI model has a better
acceleration control effect than the other PTMD, it is because the second-mode dominates the
structural acceleration response. STMD can decrease the second modal responses in the
acceleration spectrum to a great degree and therefore achieves the best acceleration reduction.
From section 5.1 and 5.2, it can be concluded that in the nonlinear model, as for the two
PTMDs, the one tuned to the post-yield period of the BI model performs better in
displacement responses, while the other one tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI model
performs better in acceleration responses, though their control effects are not significant.
Because STMD can vary its stiffness and damping ratio in real time, it has the best
performance improvement in both displacement and acceleration. For displacement responses,
STMD can mitigate the structural first-mode response effectively, and for acceleration
responses of the top story, STMD has an excellent performance in the structural second-mode
response mitigation.
23
6. CONCLUSIONS
Base isolation can achieve a reduction in floor acceleration and inter-story drift. However,
it may suffer from excessive displacements under near-fault and far-field earthquakes. To
improve the aseismic performance of both linear and nonlinear base-isolated structures, in this
paper, a semi-active tuned mass damper (STMD) with variable stiffness and damping is
proposed.
Wavelet transform (WT) is used to track the structural instantaneous frequency under
earthquake excitations, and the stiffness of STMD is adjusted to retune itself. The damping
ratio of STMD is adjusted based on the velocity and acceleration signals. Therefore, the
combined semi-active control algorithm needs output signals only, no model information is
needed, which is also suitable for nonlinear structures.
The STMD is applied to an eight-story linear/nonlinear base-isolated structure. As for the
linear model, which represents a theoretical benchmark, an optimized passive TMD (PTMD)
is used for comparison. As for the nonlinear model, lead rubber bearing (LRB) is considered
and simulated using the well-known Bouc-Wen model. Two PTMDs are optimized for
comparison, while one is tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI model and the other is tuned
to the post-yield period of the BI model. Through a series of numerical simulations, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) STMD has the best control effect in both linear and nonlinear model, in both displacement
and acceleration responses. In general, its performance improvement in RMS response is
better than the maximum response, and reductions in the top story are better than the
isolated level;
(2) In the nonlinear model, the PTMD tuned to the post-yield period of the BI model performs
better in displacement responses, but has very little control effect in acceleration responses.
While the other PTMD tuned to the pre-yield period of the BI model performs better in
acceleration responses, but it cannot control displacement responses effectively.
(3) Because STMD can vary its stiffness and damping ratio in real time, for displacement
responses, it can mitigate the structural first-mode response effectively, and can achieve
both top story and isolated level responses reduction. As for acceleration responses of the
top story, STMD achieves excellent performance in the structural second-mode
acceleration response mitigation.
In summary, STMD can improve both displacement and acceleration performances of both
linear and nonlinear base-isolated structures effectively.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant no. 52025083).
REFERENCE
1. Spencer BF, Nagarajaiah S. State of the art of structural control. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 2003, 129(7): 845-856.
2. Ramallo JC, Johnson EA, Spencer BF. ‘‘Smart’’ base isolation systems. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 2002, 128(10): 1088-1099.
3. Nagarajaiah S, Narasimhan S, Johnson E. Structural control benchmark problem: Phase
24
II-Nonlinear smart base-isolated building subjected to near-fault earthquakes. Structural
Control and Health Monitoring. 2008, 15(5): 653-656.
4. Suresh S, Narasimhan S, Nagarajaiah S, et al. Fault-tolerant adaptive control of nonlinear
base-isolated buildings using EMRAN. Engineering Structures. 2010, 32: 2477-2487.
5. Narasimhan S, Nagarajaiah S. A STFT semiactive controller for base isolated buildings
with variable stiffness isolation systems. Engineering Structures. 2005, 27: 514-523.
6. Mehrkian B, Bahar A, Chaibakhsh A. Semiactive conceptual fuzzy control of
magnetorheological dampers in an irregular base-isolated benchmark building optimized
by multi-objective genetic algorithm. Structural Control and Health Monitoring. 2019,
26(3): e2302.
7. Yu Y, Royel S, Li J, et al. Magnetorheological elastomer base isolator for earthquake
response mitigation on building structures: modeling and second-order sliding mode
control. Earthquakes and Structures. 2016, 11(6): 943-966.
8. Gu X, Li J, Li Y. Experimental realisation of the real-time controlled smart
magnetorheological elastomer seismic isolation system with shake table. Structural
Control and Health Monitoring. 2020, 27(1): e2476.
9. Pan P, Zhang D, Zeng Y, et al. Development of a tunable friction pendulum system for
semi-active control of building structures under earthquake ground motions. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2018, 47(8): 1706-1721.
10. Taniguchi T, Kiureghian AD, Melkumyan M. Effect of tuned mass damper on
displacement demand of base-isolated structures. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30:
3478–3488.
11. Hessabi RM, Mercan O, Ozturk B. Exploring the effects of tuned mass dampers on the
seismic performance of structures with nonlinear base isolation systems. Earthquakes and
Structures, 2017, 12(3): 285-296.
12. Stanikzai MH, Elias S, Matsagar VA, et al. Seismic response control of base‐isolated
buildings using multiple tuned mass dampers. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 2019, 28(3): e1576.
13. Shi Y, Saburi K, Nakashima M. Second-mode tuned mass dampers in base-isolated
structures for reduction of floor acceleration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics. 2018, 47(12): 2519-2538.
14. Matteo AD, Masnata C, Pirrotta A. Simplified analytical solution for the optimal design of
Tuned Mass Damper Inerter for base isolated structures. Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 2019, 134: 106337.
15. Qian F, Luo YF, Sun HX, et al. Optimal tuned inerter dampers for performance
enhancement of vibration isolation. Engineering Structures, 2019, 198: 109464.
16. Domenico DD, Ricciardi G. An enhanced base isolation system equipped with optimal
tuned mass damper inerter (TMDI). Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
2018, 47(5): 1169-1192.
17. Domenico DD, Ricciardi G. Optimal design and seismic performance of tuned mass
damper inerter (TMDI) for structures with nonlinear base isolation systems. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2018, 47(12): 2539-2560.
18. Pietrosanti D, De Angelis M, Giaralis A. Experimental seismic performance assessment
and numerical modelling of nonlinear inerter vibration absorber (IVA)-equipped base
25
isolated structures tested on shaking table. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics. 2021, 50(10): 2732-2753.
19. Pasala DTR, Sarlis AA, Nagarajaiah S, et al. Adaptive negative stiffness: New structural
modification approach for seismic protection. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2013,
139(7): 1112-1123.
20. Sarlis AA, Pasala DTR, Constantinou MC, et al. Negative stiffness device for seismic
protection of structures. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2013, 139(7): 1124-1133.
21. Sarlis AA, Pasala DTR, Constantinou MC, et al. Negative stiffness device for seismic
protection of structures: Shake table testing of a seismically isolated structure. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 2016, 142(5): 04016005.
22. Sun T, Lai Z, Nagarajaiah S, et al. Negative stiffness device for seismic protection of
smart base isolated benchmark building. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2017,
24(11): e1968.
23. Wang M, Sun F, Jin HJ. Performance evaluation of existing isolated buildings with
supplemental passive pseudo-negative stiffness devices. Engineering Structures, 2018,
177: 30-46.
24. Wang JJ, Li HB, Wang B, et al. Development of a two-phased nonlinear mass damper for
displacement mitigation in base-isolated structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 2019, 123: 435-448.
25. Furtmüller T, Matteo AD, Adam C, et al. Base-isolated structure equipped with tuned
liquid column damper: An experimental study. Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 2019, 116: 816-831.
26. Nagarajaiah S. Adaptive passive, semiactive, smart tuned mass dampers: identification
and control using empirical mode decomposition, hilbert transform, and short-term fourier
transform. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2009, 16(7-8): 800-841.
27. Rezazadeh H, Amini F, Dogani Aghcheghloo P, Khansefid A. Effects of geometrical
nonlinearity on the performance of bidirectional tuned mass dampers. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2021, 50(12): 3220-3242.
28. Nagarajaiah S, Sonmez E. Structures with semiactive variable stiffness single/multiple
tuned mass dampers. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2007, 133(1): 67-77.
29. Lin G-L, Lin C-C, Chen Yu-J, Hung Ta-C. Experimental verification of electromagnetic
multiple tuned mass dampers for energy harvesting and structural control. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2021, 50(13): 3483-3504.
30. Tavakolinia M, Ch. Basim M. Performance-based optimum tuning of tuned mass dampers
on steel moment frames for seismic applications using the endurance time method.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2021, 50(13): 3646-3669.
31. Shi X, Zhao F, Yan Z, et al. High-performance vibration isolation technique using passive
negative stiffness and semi-active damping. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering. 2021. 36:1034-1055.
32. Li J, Zhu S. Advanced vibration isolation technique using versatile electromagnetic shunt
damper with tunable behavior. Engineering Structures. 2021. 242: 112503.
33. Wang L, Shi W, Zhou Y, Zhang Q. Semi-active eddy current pendulum tuned mass
damper with variable frequency and damping. Smart Structures and Systems, 2020, 25(1):
65-80.
26
34. Nagarajaiah S, Varadarajan N. Short time Fourier transform algorithm for wind response
control of buildings with variable stiffness TMD. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27(3):
431-441.
35. Sun C, Nagarajaiah S. Study on semi-active tuned mass damper with variable damping
and stiffness under seismic excitations. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2014,
21(6), 890-906.
36. Nagarajaiah S, Narasimhan S. Seismic control of smart base isolated buildings with new
semiactive variable damper. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2007,
36(6): 729-749.
37. Wang L, Shi W, Li X, et al. An adaptive-passive retuning device for a pendulum tuned
mass damper considering mass uncertainty and optimum frequency. Structural Control
and Health Monitoring, 2019, 26(7): e2377.
38. Wang L, Nagarajaiah S, Shi W, et al. Study on adaptive-passive eddy current pendulum
tuned mass damper for wind-induced vibration control. The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings. 2020, 29(15): e1793.
39. Wang L, Nagarajaiah S, Shi W, et al. Semi-active control of walking-induced vibrations in
bridges using adaptive tuned mass damper considering human-structure-interaction.
Engineering Structures, 2021, 244: 112743.
40. Wang L, Shi W, Zhou Y. Adaptive-passive tuned mass damper for structural aseismic
protection including soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.
2022, 158: 107298.
41. Ferreira F, Moutinho C, Cunha A, et al. Use of semi-active tuned mass dampers to control
footbridges subjected to synchronous lateral excitation. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
2019, 446: 176-194.
42. Nagarajaiah S, Sun XH. Response of base-isolated USC hospital building in Northridge
earthquake. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2000, 126(10): 1177-1186.
43. Nagarajaiah, S., Reinhorn, A. M., and Constantinou, M. C.,(1991) "Nonlinear dynamic
analysis of 3D-base isolated structures," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 117(7),
2035-2054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:7(2035)
44. Nagarajaiah S, Dharap P. Reduced order observer based identification of base isolated
buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. 2003, 2(2): 1-8.
45. Den Hartog, J.P. Mechanical Vibrations; McGraw-Hill/Dover: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
46. PEER Ground Motion Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu.
27
View publication stats

Seismic Performance Improvement of Base-Isolated Structures Using A Semi-Active Tuned Mass Damper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Performance Improvement of Base-Isolated Structures Using A Semi-Active Tuned Mass Damper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Seismic performance improvement of base-isolated structures using a semi-

Article in Engineering Structures · September 2022

Liangkun Wang Satish Nagarajaiah

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Development of Next Generation Adaptive Seismic Protection Systems. View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Seismic performance improvement of base-isolated structures

Liangkun Wang1, Satish Nagarajaiah2, 3, *, Weixing Shi1, Ying Zhou1, 4

2. SEMI-ACTIVE TMD AND CONTROL ALGORITHM

2.1 Semi-active TMD

To protect a base-isolated (BI) structure from excessive dynamic responses under

Figure 1. Semi-active TMD with variable stiffness and damping.

Figure 2. Experimental results of the semi-active device.

2.2 Control algorithm

To track the structural instantaneous frequency under earthquake excitation, wavelet

Figure 4. Semi-active control method.

3.1 Linear model

(a) (b) (c)

3.2 Nonlinear model

(a) (b) (c) (d)

3.3 Simulated models

The simulated eight-story superstructure with an isolated level is based on the

Table 1 Earthquake excitations.

J 3  max abs( xb )  (15)

J 5  max abs( xn )  (17)

J 6  rms( xn ) (18)

4.1 Displacement responses of the linear model

Displacement responses comparison of the linear model in Figure 5 under 8 earthquake

Table 3 Maximum and RMS displacements of the isolated level

4.2 Acceleration responses of the linear model

Acceleration responses comparison of the linear model in Figure 5 under 8 earthquake

5. RESULTS OF THE NONLINEAR MODEL

5.1 Displacement responses of the nonlinear model

Displacement responses comparisons of the nonlinear model in Figure 6 under 8

Table 5 Displacement comparisons of the top story

Table 6 Displacement comparisons of the isolated level

5.2 Acceleration responses of the nonlinear model

Acceleration responses comparison of the nonlinear model in Figure 6 under 8

Table 7 Acceleration comparisons of the top story

View publication stats

You might also like