Vol. 19, No.

4 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION October, 2020

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2020) 19: 985-1003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0609-3

Improving the performance of conventional base isolation systems by

an external variable negative stiffness device under
near-fault and long-period ground motions

Sandhya Nepal† and Masato Saitoh‡

Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saitama University, 255 Shimo-Okubo, Sakura-ku, Saitama, Japan

Abstract: Recent studies have shown that base-isolated objects with long fundamental natural periods are highly
influenced by long-period earthquakes. These long-period waves result in large displacements for isolators, possibly leading
to exceedance of the allowable displacement limits. Conventional isolation systems, in general, fail to resist such large
displacements. This has prompted the need to modify conventional base isolation systems. The current work focuses on the
development of an external device, comprising a unit of negative and positive springs, for improving the performance of
conventional base isolation systems. This unit accelerates the change in the stiffness of the isolation system where the stiffness
of the positive spring varies linearly in terms of the displacement response of the isolated objects. The target objects of the
present study are small structures such as computer servers, sensitive instruments and machinery. Numerical studies show
that the increase in the damping of the system and the slope of the linear function is effective in reducing the displacement
response. An optimal range of damping values and slope, satisfying the stability condition and the allowable limits of
both displacement and acceleration responses when the system is subjected to near-fault and long-period ground motions
simultaneously, is proposed.

Keywords: base isolation; near-fault earthquakes; long-period earthquakes; negative stiffness; variable stiffness

1 Introduction and others, a general rule is to limit the maximum

In recent decades, high-tech facilities and equipment,
such as computer servers, art monuments, medical
facilities and machinery, are often worth more than the
building itself (Tsai et al., 2008), and their failure may
cause massive loss (such as economic loss and data loss)
for the social communities. The failure of such critical
structural content may be due to overturning, excessive
displacement, or excessive acceleration (Lopez Garcia
and Soong, 2003a, 2003b). For example, although
modern equipment such as a hard disk drive (HDD) can
withstand up to 1.0 g (10 m/s2) (WorkSafe Technologies
Corporation), there is old equipment still in use that has
low acceleration bearing capacity up to 0.3 g (3.0 m/s2).
This equipment needs some sort of protective system
which can dampen the high acceleration response of
the isolated mass to its bearing limit or even lower.
Based on experimental studies conducted for structural
contents such as medical facilities, electronic systems
Correspondence to: Sandhya Nepal, Graduate School of Science
and Engineering, Saitama University, 255 Shimo-Okubo,
Sakura-ku, Saitama 338-8570, Saitama, Japan
Tel: +81-48-858-3560; Fax: +81-48-858-3560
E-mail: sandhyanepal2002@gmail.com
†
PhD Candidate; ‡Professor
Received April 3, 2019; Accepted December 8, 2019
horizontal acceleration to 0.3 g (3.0 m/s2) (Mizuno et al.,
1986; Tajirian, 2010). Base isolation has been popular
in recent years to protect these devices (Iemura et al.,
2007; Ismail et al., 2009; Miranda et al., 2012; Jia et al.,
2014). Recent studies show that base isolation systems
significantly reduced the acceleration transmitting to the
isolating object under near-fault ground motions; but at
the expense of large bearing displacement (Kelly, 1986;
Buckle and Mayes, 1990; Cosenza et al., 2015). For
such large displacement, sufficient clearance must be
provided around the base-isolated objects, which might
be difficult to achieve if space is limited.
To overcome the problems associated with seismic
isolation systems, researchers have proposed a varying
stiffness device (Kobori et al., 1993; Narasimhan and
Nagarajaiah, 2005; Lu et al., 2008) and variable damping
device (Walsh and Abdullah, 2006; Lu et al., 2008).
The variable stiffness system proposed by Kobori et al.
(1993) reduces the input energy from ground motion
by elongating the fundamental period of the object to
avoid possible resonance phenomenon. Narasimhan
and Nagarajaiah (2005) developed a short time Fourier
transformation (STFT) control algorithm which mitigates
the displacement with a variable stiffness system where
the angle of springs can be changed to generate variable
stiffness. Their findings indicate that varying the stiffness
and damping in real time can preserve the building in
986 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
a non-resonant state, thereby suppressing the structural
responses. These isolation systems may resonate during
the long-period ground motion (those earthquakes which
are recorded far from the fault line) (Zama, 2004; Ariga
et al., 2006; Nakashima et al., 2014; Saito, 2016); hence,
deserve investigation.
In the aftermath of the Tohoku earthquake in 2011,
it was reported that long-period ground motions were
engendered in Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka causing
damage to nonstructural elements (Saito, 2016). These
cities are located on deep layers of sediment and such
conditions can create long-period ground motions
of low frequency even though they are located far
from an earthquake epicenter. During the Tokachi-oki
earthquake in 2003, an oil storage tank was damaged due
to resonance as a result of matching periods of sloshing
liquid and the long period component of ground motion,
although, the tank was located approximately 200 km
away from the earthquake epicenter (the period of the
sloshing mode ranges from 5 to 10 s) (Zama, 2004).
Ariga et al. (2006) predicted that the long-period ground
motion due to such an earthquake has the capability to
resonate the base-isolated objects with the long period
component. The acceleration amplitude of such long-
period ground motion is mostly small, but the velocity
amplitude is fairly large. In general, it is expected that
base-isolated objects with long fundamental natural
periods are largely influenced by these long-period
motions, generating large lateral displacements. Such
displacements might result in catastrophic damage to
the isolated object due to damage in the base isolation
components such as bearings. Moreover, under long-
period ground motions, the use of conventional base
isolation systems are limited as a result of significant
large motions and collision of the critical structural
contents (Ariga et al., 2006; Cosenza et al., 2015; Saito,
2016) which can damage the base isolation components
such as bearing. A few studies have been conducted for
displacement mitigation (Jangid and Kelly, 2001; Hall
et al., 2003) but they are limited to characteristic period
of 2–3 s when compared to the long-period ground
motion anticipated in Japan with the characteristic period of
5–8 s (Kamae et al., 2004; Ariga et al., 2006). As such,
it becomes important to investigate an effective way to
mitigate displacements of critical structural contents
(i.e., the target objects of the current study) and to
protect conventional base isolation systems against
the acceleration, under both near-fault and long-period
ground motion simultaneously.
Retrofitting can be one of the possible ways to
improve the performance of a conventional base isolation
system. However, practically it might be challenging
because of the necessity to move isolated objects
under service to incorporate new devices in the system.
Additionally, space constraints to fit the new system
might be yet another challenging task. Thus, one of the
possible solutions to enhance its performance could be
applying an external device. To the best of the authors’
Vol. 19
knowledge, only a few external devices applicable
for performance improvement of conventional base
isolation systems and for mitigating displacement of
isolated objects subjected to simultaneous near-fault
and long-period ground motions have been proposed
to date. Recently, Saitoh (2014) proposed an external
rotary friction device, consisting of a rotary plate with
a shaft, a coil spring, and a ratchet switch, to mitigate
lateral displacement to both the near-fault and the long-
period ground motions. The proposed system was seen
to sufficiently decrease the displacement response,
but due to the friction, the system always showed a
residual displacement. As a result, this system lacks the
self-centering mechanism and in the aftermath of an
earthquake, there is a possibility of permanent offset of
an external rotary friction device.
The general goal of seismic isolation in order to protect
target objects is to minimize the acceleration response
of the isolated mass, while maintaining an acceptable
level of the displacement response against near-fault
and long-period ground motions simultaneously. Taking
this into account, the objectives of this study are: 1) to
introduce a new concept of base isolation system; 2)
to propose an external device (consisting of negative
and variable positive springs in series) applicable to
protect conventional base isolation under both types
of ground motions. The benefit of this combination
is that the residual deformation never occurs after an
earthquake due to linearity of the springs; 3) to show
the effectiveness of the external device parameters (such
as damping ratio and slope of linear function) on the
existing isolation system and to find appropriate values
of those parameters within practical acceptable limits
considering the displacement and acceleration responses
of the target objects and the stability condition; and 4)
to verify the performance improvement of the proposed
system by comparing it with a conventional isolation
system.
2 Concept of base isolation system to mitigate
displacement
Most of the recently proposed base isolation systems
and conventional base isolation systems are effective
mainly for ground motions with high-frequency
components. Under such circumstances, reliability of
the base isolation systems during long-period ground
motion remains questionable. The force-displacement
of the existing methods (for example, Narasimhan and
Nagarajaiah, 2005; Yarra et al., 2018) depict that with
a stiffer isolation system, the base displacements are
smaller and can be represented as shown by the dotted
line in Fig. 1. The figure shows that the stiffness of the
system surges as it experiences high displacement and
as a result of this phenomena, displacement mitigation
can be achieved under near-fault ground motions. But,
due to lower initial stiffness (which is around 2-4 s) near
No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems
the zero-displacement region, the long period structures
might show resonant behavior under the action of long-
period earthquake waves making it difficult for the
isolation systems to mitigate the displacement response.
As a result of increase in the displacement, the strain
energy also increases and both the displacement and
the acceleration responses exceed their limit. Figure 1
also shows the proposed conceptual force-displacement
relationship (solid line) which is described in the following
sections. Initially, the system stiffness is higher, which
may help to avoid the resonance under the long period
ground motions as the earthquake considered in the
present study contains long-period ground motions that
range from 3-7 s. Further, as the system experiences high
displacement, the stiffness does not surge and instead
tends to decrease due to the varying stiffness function
of the proposed system. Consequently, in this case, the
amount of the transmitting force may be controlled,
thereby reducing the acceleration during the near-fault
ground motions at large displacement as depicted by the
proposed force-displacement relationship curve. The
possibility of reducing the responses employing this
force-displacement relationship curve forms the basis
of this study. To realize the system with this conceptual
force-displacement relationship curve, a negative-
positive spring system is considered. The following
section presents a detailed description of the negative-
positive spring system.
2.1 Negative-positive spring system
2.1.1 Variation of stiffness of negative-positive spring unit
Stiffness is the internal resistance of the material
to counteract the external force. The positive stiffness
means that the deformation is in the same direction as
the applied external force and the corresponding reaction
force returns the deformed objects to their neutral
position. On the other hand, in the case of negative
stiffness, force assists the enforced deformation, due to
which the object will not return to the neutral position.
Hence, negative stiffness itself is unstable. In recent
Existing method
Conceptual idea
Force
Displacement
Fig. 1 Comparison of the force-displacement relationship of
conventional technique and the conceptual idea
987
years, many types of negative stiffness devices have
been proposed and applied in practice in large as well
as small structures (Pasala et al., 2012; Sarlis et al.,
2012; Toyooka et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019) The
devices are found to be applicable for reducing the
structural responses as well as reducing interstory drift
in multi-story buildings (Pasala et al., 2012; Sun et al.,
2017; Wang et al., 2019). The researchers focus on the
development of complex devices and the performance of
negative stiffness devices under various ground motions
and have been verified analytically and experimentally
by shaking table test (Attary et al., 2015; Sarlis et al.,
2016; Sun et al., 2017). Wang et al. (2018) proposed a
pseudo-negative stiffness device (PPNSD) for the seismic
protection of existing isolated buildings under far-field,
near-fault pulse-like and near-field non-pulse-like
ground motions. The system shows that for an isolation
period of 2-4 s, the acceleration response reduces
remarkably, even though the displacement response is
greater than 0.3 m and increases as the isolation period
increases. Taking this into account, the assumption can
be made that for isolation periods of 2-4 s and greater,
the system by Wang could resonance under far-field and
near-fault as well as for long-period ground motions
with a fundamental period of 5-10 s as anticipated in
Japan (Zama, 2004; Ariga et al., 2006; Nakashima et
al., 2014; Saito, 2016). Based on this viewpoint, both
near-fault and long-period ground motions should
be considered for the development of a base isolation
system in order to reduce displacement and acceleration
responses. Further, many researchers have used the
combination of negative and positive springs in series
for the seismic response (Sapountzakis et al., 2017; Shen
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019). This combination is
found to reduce displacement and acceleration responses
of isolated mass. Moreover, until recently, few external
devices applicable for the retrofitting of conventional
base isolation have been proposed. The characteristic
of the fusion of negative and positive springs inspired
the authors to develop an external device to protect
conventional base isolation systems.
If both the positive and negative springs with the
condition that the stiffness of the positive spring is greater
than that of the absolute value of the negative spring are
combined in series, the negative spring becomes stable
only at the initial position, i.e., when the displacement
is zero. The total stiffness of a negative spring and a
positive spring arranged in series is negative and when
displacement increases, the unit becomes unstable. To
verify this performance, a negative spring and a positive
spring arranged in series (referred as “NP unit” hereafter)
is considered as shown in Fig. 2; the relation between the
springs is given by:
kp = α kn (1)
where kn and kp are stiffnesses of the negative and the
positive springs, respectively, and α is a parameter with
988 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

a value greater than 1 for the stability of the negative
spring. The total stiffness (k*) of the ‘NP unit’ can be
written as:
kn kp α
= k *
= kn
kn + kp 1 − α
Equation (2) shows that for every α value of (>1),
negative and positive springs arranged in series generate
negative stiffness that is always less than kn as seen in
Fig. 3. The figure shows that a variation of negative
stiffness can be achieved by varying the parameter α of
the NP unit.
Methodologies used in recently developed active
control systems such as fuzzy logic control with
displacement and velocity feedback (Lin et al., 2015),
semi-active controllable damper (Liu et al., 2008), semi-
active control method (Lu et al., 2008), and changing
spring angle to generate variable stiffness (Narasimhan
and Nagarajaiah, 2005) could be possible options to
effectively realize the variable stiffness spring. The
negative spring with constant stiffness (linear force-
kn kp
Fig. 2 Negative-Positive spring unit (NP unit)
α
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 transmissions.
-1
-2
k*/|kn|
displacement relationship) has been used in the NP unit.
Saitoh (2019) could potentially realize the constant
negative spring.
2.1.2 Base isolation system with NP unit
(2) In this section, an external device using the NP
unit is proposed for enhancing the performance of the
conventional base isolation system. A conventional base
isolation system is shown in Fig. 4(a). The spring constant
and damping coefficient of the base isolation system are
denoted by ks and cs, respectively. Figure 4(b) shows a
base isolation system incorporating the proposed device
(referred to as ‘Model I’). This device consists of the NP
unit arranged in parallel with a positive spring (ka) and a
damper (ca). The positive spring stabilizes the proposed
device under a solitary state due to the fact that the NP
unit has negative stiffness and is not stable on its own.
The damper indicates intrinsic damping such as friction
in the mechanical components or additional damping for
active functioning of the system.
With the foregoing discussions that a NP unit
shows a change in negative stiffness, it is interesting to
speculate how the variation of the parameter α works for
mitigating the acceleration and displacement responses
against various earthquake waves. In the current study,
it is assumed that the variation of the parameter α is
a function of the relative displacement of the isolated
object with respect to the base. The reasons for this
assumption are: (a) stiffness of a base isolation system
is directly related to its natural period, which affects the
acceleration and displacement responses at each position
of the isolated object; and (b) the position of an isolated
object can easily be captured in both active and passive
control systems through electrical sensors or mechanical
In the following sections, numerical simulation
is used to verify the performance of the base isolation
system with the proposed device in response to near-
fault and long-period ground motions. In the verification

-3 process, responses to the following base isolation

systems are computed and compared: (i) a conventional
-4
base isolation system, as shown in Fig. 4(a); and (ii) a
-5 base isolation system with the proposed device (Model
I), as shown in Fig. 4(b). The proposed device consists
-6 of varying positive spring (ka) and an additional damper
Fig. 3 Relationship between stiffness of NP unit and parameter α (ca). To understand the performance of the proposed

External device
u u
ca
ms
ka
ms

ks
cs
ks kn kp
cs
(a) (b)
Fig. 4 Models of base isolations systems: (a) conventional base isolation system; (b) model I
No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems 989

device (Model I) without any additional damper and parameter α. The total stiffness kn-p-a of the proposed
without varying stiffness of the system, two additional device is given by:
models are considered as follows: (i) a base isolation
system with the proposed device without a damper (ca) kn-p-a= ka + k * (6)
arranged in parallel (referred to as ‘Model II’); and (ii) a
base isolation system with the proposed device without
the variation of the parameter α, i.e., without varying where ka > k * for stability of the NP unit. Equation (6)
positive spring (kp) (referred to as ‘Model III’). can be rewritten as follows:
α
ωn-p-a
2
=ωa2 − ωn-p
2
=ωa2 + ωn2
3 Base isolation models 1−α

1 1
3.1 Conventional base isolation model =Tn-p-a = (7)
1 1 α 1 1
− 2 +
A conventional base isolation system is represented Ta2 Tn-p 1 − α Tn2 Ta2
by the simple model as shown in Fig. 4(a). The isolation
system has lateral stiffness ks and damping cs where the
base-isolated object is assumed to have a lumped mass where ωn-p (= k * / ms ) is the natural circular frequency
ms. For small structures, this assumption has frequently of the NP unit, ωn (= kn / ms ) and ωa (= ka / ms )
been used in recent studies (Furukawa et al., 2005; are the natural circular frequencies of the negative
Saitoh, 2012, 2014) to represent the fundamental rigid spring and the additional spring, respectively; Tn-p and
body mode of a base isolation system in earthquake Tn-p-a is a representative natural period of the NP unit
vibration. The isolation models of the current work are and the proposed device respectively; Tn =2π / ωn ; and
the mechanical system comprising the coil springs and Ta =2π / ωa .
mechanical dampers. Both the springs and dampers The response of this isolation system, when excited
can be assumed to be elastic linear and linear viscous by ground acceleration, ug is derived from the following
damper, respectively. Displacement of the lumped mass equation:
ms relative to the base is denoted as u. The response of
the conventional base isolation system, when excited by (8)
ms (u + ug ) + (cs + ca )u + kn-p-a u + ks u =
0
ground acceleration, ug can be written as:
Equation (8) can be rewritten as follows:
ms (u + ug ) + cs u + ks u =
0 (3)

Equation (3) can be rewritten as follows: α −κ u

u+（2hsωs + 2ha ωs )u + ( 0
u + 2hsωs u + ωs2 u =
−ug (4)
where ωs = ks / ms is the natural circular frequency
of the base isolation system and hs = cs / 2 ms ks is the
damping constant of the system.
3.2 Proposed models
Figure 4(b) shows a base isolation system for
performance improvement of a conventional base
isolation system using the proposed device comprised
of the NP unit (having variable positive spring stiffness)
with an additional spring/damper element arranged in
parallel. As per the aforementioned assumptions, the
variation of the parameter α is a function of the relative
displacement u of the isolated object with respect to the
base. The parameter α is expressed as:
α =α 0 − κ u (5)
where α0 is a parameter which defines the initial value of
kp, and κ (≥0) is the slope for changing the value of the
ωn2 + ωa2 + ωs2 )u =
−ug
1 − α0 + κ u
(9)
where ha = ca / 2 ms ks . The equation of motion for
Model II can be derived by substituting ha = 0 in Eq. (9).
Similarly, the equation of motion for Model III can be
derived by substituting κ = 0 in Eq. (9).
3.3 Basic properties and principle of isolation system
with proposed external device
In this section, the fundamental properties of the
proposed system are discussed in detail. In addition to
this, the functioning of the proposed device based on the
fundamental equations and important concepts need to
account for those who deal with the production of the
proposed device are also elaborated.
3.3.1 Fundamental parameters of proposed systems
The fundamental parameters of the proposed
isolation systems are summarized in this section. The
total stiffness kt of the system as shown in Fig. 4(b) is
given by:
k= ks + kn-p-a (10)
t
990 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

The restoring force due to the spring components in ratio ht. This is because the maximum displacement
the system is expressed as follows: response umax of the isolated object decreases with the
increase in the damping ratio. Equation (15) shows
P = kt u (11) that the slope κ is inversely proportional to umax , i.e.,
κ ∝ 1 / umax . Therefore, with the variation in the values
And, the natural period of the proposed system of the parameter ht, the parameter κ also varies. Thus,
(Fig. 4(b)) Tt can be written as: to enhance the performance of the proposed device,
choosing the parameters α0, ht and κ is important.
2π 3.3.2 Functioning and principle for production of
Tt = (12)
α0 − κ u proposed device
ωn2 + ωa2 + ωs2
1 − α0 + κ u Based on Eqs. (6) and (10), the performance of
the proposed device deals with the change in stiffness
of the base isolation system. The change in stiffness
Further, the total damping ratio ht of the proposed further depends upon different parameters such as Ta
system (Fig. 4(b)) is and Tn-p. Thus, for designing the proposed system to
generate significant change in the stiffness, the following
assumptions are made:
cs +ca k (13) Assumption 1: Tn-p is close to and greater than Ta,
ht
= = (hs + ha ) s
ct kt
i.e., ka > k * and ka ≈ k * .
Assumption 2: The stiffnesses k * and ka should be
where ct is the critical damping coefficient. Furthermore, much stiffer than the stiffness ks, i.e., ka and | k * | ks .
the stability of the system is determined by the potential These assumptions are made due to the fact that with
energy in the latter part. The potential energy Us of the the stiffer NP unit k * and ka , the amount of difference
proposed system (Fig. 4(b)) is given by,
in the stiffness ( ka − k * ) is much easier to influence
when compared to the stiffness ks. Further, varying the
u
U s = ∫ P(u )du (14) stiffness of the positive spring of the NP unit, although
o the difference ka − k * decreases by very small amount,
the proposed device stiffness varies from a stiffer range
Equation (2) indicates that k* is negative because to a softer range. Thus, even with a small amount of
α 1 difference in the stiffness of the proposed device, a very
α >1. For this, the term in Eq. (7) is negative.
1-α Tn 2 significant change in the total stiffness is generated.
Hence, for the validity of Eq. (7), the following criteria Varying the stiffness, using the above conditions,
should be met: shows the transmitting force (due to the proposed
external device Fn-p-a) and displacement of the isolated
object relationship as shown by a solid line in Fig. 5
1 α 1 which is compared without varying stiffness shown by
>
Ta 2
1 − α Tn 2 dashed line. It shows that with varying the stiffness kp,
force increases with an increase in the displacement of the
isolated object up to certain value and then it decreases as
Now, substituting the relationship of α from Eq. (5), the stiffness of the NP unit k * approaches to the stiffness
the above relation becomes: ka. The transmitting force due to the external device with
varying stiffness deviates from the transmitting force
without varying stiffness. An increase in the transmitting
1 α 0 − κ umax 1 force helps during long-period earthquakes as it makes
>
Ta2 α 0 − κ umax − 1 Tn2 isolated objects difficult to move and the deviation of
the transmitting force helps during near-fault ground
 Tn2  Tn2
−
 2  0 1 α − motion as it reduces acceleration of the isolated object
 Ta  Ta2 by elongating the period. The combination of negative
∴κu < (15)
 Tn2
 and positive springs of the proposed external device,
 2 − 1 are the key elements for showing the above-described
 Ta  relationship, which is also the key feature of the
proposed external device. Although, the total stiffness of
where umax is the maximum relative displacement response the external device is positive, it might not be possible
of the base-isolated object. The limitation represented to generate the required force-displacement relationship
by Eq. (15) not only depends upon the parameter Tn, as shown in Fig. 5 by only varying the single positive
Ta, α0 and umax but also depends on the total damping spring linearly, while comparing it the combination of
No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems 991

negative and positive springs.
The stability of the proposed isolation system
(external device incorporated with a conventional base
isolation system) is also one of the key factors which
needs to be discussed. The stability of the mechanical
system with springs can be judged by the potential
energy. The potential energy function of the system for
the force-displacement relationship as shown in
Fig. 5 can be represented by Fig. 6. The system is said
to be in equilibrium when it maintains the state of stable
equilibrium. For the system to be in stable equilibrium,
the derivative of the potential energy should be zero or the
potential energy should be minimum. Figure 6 illustrates
that for large displacement, the potential energy of the
system tends to decrease. For the displacement beyond
the local maximum of the potential energy, the system
can be in unstable equilibrium. The proposed system
with varying stiffness can be unstable around the larger
displacement so to know the stability, the potential
energy of the proposed system has been obtained and is
discussed in Section 5.
device which varies its stiffness. The time history
responses of the proposed models are performed by
numerical integration using the Newmark-beta method
(β = 1/6), with a time interval ∆t of 0.001 s. The
Newton-Rapson method is implemented for obtaining
the converged responses.
The following extreme earthquake records: (i) Kobe
NS 1995 (referred to as Kobe), (ii) Ojiya EW 2004
(referred to as Ojiya), (iii) Shin-Tokai EW (referred to
as Shin-Tokai), and (iv) Tomakomai EW 2003 (referred
to as Tomakomai) are employed as ground acceleration
ug to the systems. The time histories of the earthquake
records are shown in Fig. 7. The elastic acceleration
and displacement response spectra of the earthquakes
for 5% damping are shown in Fig. 8. Data for the Kobe
earthquake was recorded at the Japan Metrological
Agency (JMA) station in Kobe city in 1995 and
represents the response to the near-fault ground motion.
Kobe has the largest maximum acceleration amplitudes,
9 Maximum acceleration (8.17825 m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)

6
4 Method of numerical simulation 3
0
-3
The isolated object or structure is controlled by the -6
base isolation system proposed above with an external -9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
(a)
Without varying stiffness Maximum acceleration (13.079 m/s2)
15
Acceleration (m/s2)

Varying stiffness
10
5
0
-5
Fn-p-n

Fn-p-n -10
-15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
(b)
Displacement, u
4 Maximum acceleration (1.859 m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)

-2

-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fig. 5 Comparison of the transmitting force due to proposed Time (s)
external device Fn-p-a of systems with and without varying (c)
stiffness
1.2 Maximum acceleration (0.7294 m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)

0.8
0.4
0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Us

Time (s)
(d)
Fig. 7 Time histories of the earthquake waves used for time
Displacement, u history analyses: (a) Kobe NS 1995, (b) Ojiya EW2004,
Fig. 6 Potential energy function of the proposed external device (c) Shin-Tokai EW, and (d) Tomakomai EW 2003
 992 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

Kobe NS 1995
HKD129/K-NET station in Tomakomai city during 2003
Ojjya EW 2004 Tokachi-Oki earthquake located 200 km away from
Acceleration response spectra (m/s2)

100
Shin-Tokai EW the epicenter. The response spectra of the earthquake
Tomakomai EW 2003
ground motion show peaks ranging from 4 to 10 s with
a maximum around 7 s. It was reported that during the
10 earthquake, the oil storage tanks located at Tomakomai
City strongly oscillated due to the long-period ground
motion because of the sloshing of the contained liquid
1 (the resonant period of the sloshing mode ranges from
5 to 10 s, in general) (Zama, 2004). The Shin-Tokai is
an artificial earthquake ground motion simulated for
0.1 a scenario of the Tokai-Tonankai earthquake by the
0.1 1 10 Chubu Regional Bureau, Aichi Prefecture, and Nagoya
Period (s)
(a)
City, Japan (Nakata et al., 2004). The earthquakes are
recommended by (Saitoh, 2012, 2014) for the study of
10
Kobe NS 1995 a base isolation system under near-fault and long-period
Ojjya EW 2004 ground motions.
Displacement response spectra (m)

Shin-Tokai EW
Tomakomai EW 2003
1 5 Results of numerical simulation

5.1 Numerical model and parameters

0.1
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed base
isolation system (Section 3.2), the model shown in Fig. 4
is studied numerically in this section. The performance of
0 the proposed model with an external device (Model I) is
0.1 1 10
Period (s)
compared with a conventional base isolation model and
(b) with Models II and III. The parameters of the proposed
Fig. 8 (a) Acceleration response spectra and (b) displacement
models are chosen to satisfy the allowable limits for both
response spectra for both types of earthquake ground
the displacement and acceleration responses (u<0.3 m
motions
and u <3.0 m/s2). These values are assumed based on the
aspects of the allowable clearance and the safety of the
target objects against the acceleration.
the Ojiya EW was recorded at the No. NIG019/K-NET Table 1 summarizes the numerical values of
station located at a near-fault site, which is 7 km away parameters of conventional base isolation and proposed
from the epicenter of the Niigata prefecture Chuetsu models. For the conventional base isolation system, the
earthquake of 2004. Ojiya contains a wide range of damping constant hs = 0.05 and the natural frequency
frequency components with sharp maxima and minima in fs = 0.25 Hz are assumed. Generally, for the large-
the acceleration record. For long-period ground motion, scale structures with additional mechanical dampers,
a few ground motions are available such as Shin-Tokai high damping rubber, or lead-filled rubber bearing, the
and Tomakomai. Tomakomai was recorded at the No. damping constant of base isolation systems may range

Table 1 Values of parameters for numerical simulation

System Item Value
Conventional base isolation model Frequency (fs (= ωs/2π )) 0.25 Hz
Damping ratio (hs) 5%
Proposed Models Frequency (fa (= ωa/2π )) 2 Hz
Natural period of NP unit (Tn-p-a) 2s
α0 20
Slope (κ) Model I
κ = 35
Model II
κ = 12
Total damping ratio of system (ht) 15%
No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems 993

from 15% to 25%. In comparison to the large-scale between the negative and positive springs of a NP unit.
structures, the small-scale structures effective damping Damping is also one of the parameters which affects the
tends to be smaller and sometimes the base isolation responses of the isolated object. The effects of damping
function can be enhanced by damping less than 5%. Thus, are discussed in the next paragraph. To investigate
the applied 5% damping is within the possible range of the behavior of the parameter α0, different values of ht
damping of small-scale structures for conventional base and κ are used. In this section, only the behavior of α0
isolation systems. For the conventional base isolation for ht= 0.15 and κ = 35 are presented and discussed.
system, the period ranges from 2-4 s (Warn and Ryan, Figure 9 shows that for a small value of α0, although the
2012; Kotrotsou et al., 2015). Thus, the natural frequency displacement and acceleration responses reduce to the
of a conventional base isolation system is chosen 0.25 Hz allowable range for both types of earthquake excitations
in the current study. Further, these values are also chosen (i.e., near-fault and long-period), the node displacement
in some past studies for time history analysis (Saitoh, is still unacceptable for the near-fault ground motion. On
2012, 2014). the other hand, for a larger value of α0, the displacement
Parameter α0 defines the displacement of the node and acceleration responses and the node displacement
tend to decrease as shown in Fig. 9(c). Based on the
parametric study, to minimize the node displacement, α0
4 should be greater than 15 and for this study, α0 = 20 is chosen.
Kobe
Ojjya Figures 10 and 11 depict the effect of parameter κ;
Shin-Tokai
i.e., slope determining the value of α that enhance the
Absolute acceleration (m/s2)

Tomakomai
3
performance of Model I. These figures show the relative
displacement and absolute acceleration of the isolated
2 object for Model I with varying slope κ and total damping
ratio ht. Increasing the total damping ratio ht, decreases
the displacement and acceleration responses for both
1 types of earthquake excitations. Figures 10(c) and 11(c)
(ht=0.15) show that with an increase in the slope (κ),
0
displacement and acceleration responses decrease in the
α0 = 5.8 α0 = 8 α0 = 15 α0 = 20 α0 = 30 case of near-fault ground motion. In the case of long-
(a) period ground motion, displacement response tends to
0.5
Kobe
increase steadily but acceleration response is almost the same.
Ojjya The change in the displacement is not noticeable but
Relative displacement (m)

Shin-Tokai
0.4 Tomakomai the decrease in the acceleration response with an increase
in the slope (κ) for near-fault is almost half that of κ =0
0.3 when compared with κ = 35, which is the parameter
that defines the effectiveness of Model I. These figures
0.2 indicate that for κ >20, both the relative displacement
and absolute acceleration are within the allowable
0.1
ranges. It is very important to know the stability of the
proposed isolation system; thus, to confirm the stability,
potential energy Us has been calculated. Potential energy
0
α0 = 5.8 α0 = 8 α0 = 15 α0 = 20 α0 = 30 is obtained when the proposed system is excited by
(b) earthquakes as previously mentioned. Potential energy
0.5
Kobe
is obtained when the proposed system is excited by
Ojjya the Ojiya record due to the fact that it has maximum
Shin-Tokai
0.4 Tomakomai displacement (Fig. 10(c)) and acceleration responses
Node displacement (m)

(Fig. 11(c)). Figure 12 depicts the potential energy

0.3 function of the system for various values when excited
by Ojiya. It shows that potential energy (Us) increases
0.2 as the displacement of isolated mass increases; i.e., the
stable equilibrium of the system is always maintained at
0.1
u = 0 for all the values of κ. The figure also shows that,
although with an increase in κ values potential energy
tends to decrease, there is only one point of equilibrium
0
α0 = 5.8 α0 = 8 α0 = 15 α0 = 20 α0 = 30 (i.e., at u = 0) which is a point of stable equilibrium.
(c) Thus, the system is stable and in the current study, κ = 35
Fig. 9 (a) Maximum absolute acceleration (b) maximum
is chosen.
relative displacement and (c) node displacement for
For Model II, due to the absence of intrinsic damping
various α0 when ht = 15% for Model I
of the external device, when it is incorporated with
994 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

0.6
Kobe Kobe
Ojjya 6
Shin-Tokai Ojjya
0.5 Shin-Tokai

Absolute acceleration (m/s2)

Relative displacement (m)

Tomakomai 5 Tomakomai
0.4
4
0.3 3

0.2 2

0.1 1

0
0 κ=0 κ=5 κ = 10 κ = 15 κ = 20 κ = 24
κ=0 κ=5 κ = 10 κ = 15 κ = 20 κ = 24
(a)
(a)
0.6
Kobe Kobe
Ojjya 6 Ojjya
0.5 Shin-Tokai Shin-Tokai
Relative displacement (m)

Absolute acceleration (m/s2)

Tomakomai 5 Tomakomai
0.4
4
0.3
3
0.2 2

0.1 1

0 0
κ=0 κ=5 κ = 10 κ = 20 κ = 25 κ = 29 κ=0 κ=5 κ = 10 κ = 20 κ = 25 κ = 29
(b) (b)

0.6
Kobe 6 Kobe
Ojjya Ojjya
0.5 Shin-Tokai Shin-Tokai
Relative displacement (m)

Absolute acceleration (m/s2)

Tomakomai 5 Tomakomai
0.4
4
0.3 3

0.2 2

0.1 1

0 0
κ=0 κ = 10 κ = 20 κ = 30 κ = 35 κ=0 κ = 10 κ = 20 κ = 30 κ = 35
(c) (c)

Fig. 10 Maximum amplitudes of response of relative Fig. 11 Maximum amplitudes of response of absolute
displacement for Model I (a) total damping ratio acceleration of Model I (a) total damping ratio
ht = 5%, (b) total damping ratio ht = 10%, (c) total ht = 5%, (b) total damping ratio ht = 10%, (c) total
damping ratio ht = 15% damping ratio ht = 15%

the conventional base isolation system, the damping
ratio of the system decreases remarkably, so both the
displacement and acceleration are beyond the allowable
limits. Varying the stiffness with the parameters α0 = 20 and
ht = 0.15, due to the limitation of κ (Eq. (15)), numerical
analysis cannot perform when κ is chosen beyond 17,
i.e., κ >17. In order to compare the performance of the
external device without damping, κ = 12 is assumed
for Model II, based on the minimum displacement of
isolated mass from a range κmin = 0 to κmax = 17.
Based on the parametric studies for Model I, α0
should be greater than 15 and damping (ht) greater than
or equal to 15% enhanced the base isolation function.
Finally, the optimal damping value (ht) and slope (κ) are
found to be 15% and 35, respectively, for α0 = 20.
5.2 Time history responses of proposed models
subjected to near-fault ground motion
The time histories of the relative displacement u
with respect to the ground and the absolute acceleration
u + ug of the base-isolated object is plotted for the Ojiya
record (Fig. 13), where the response of the models
using the NP unit are compared with the responses of
the conventional base isolation system. The maximum
amplitudes of the responses are indicated in parenthesis.
This figure shows that for Model II (ha = 0), both the
maximum displacement and acceleration responses
increase when compared to the conventional base
isolation system. The increase in responses occurs due
to the absence of the damper in the proposed device,
No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems 995

which initially decreases the damping of the system.
This indicates that damping might play an important role
in mitigating the responses. The maximum displacement
and acceleration responses of the Model III reduced by
38% and 7% of Model II, respectively. The decrease in
responses of Model III is due to the presence of damping
on the proposed device, which increases the damping of
the system. Furthermore, although a notable degradation
of maximum displacement response is achieved, the
0.5
κ = 25
κ = 30
κ = 35
0.4
0.3
Us (N.m)
maximum acceleration response markedly increases
in the model when compared to the conventional base
isolation system.
In Model I, the maximum displacement response
decreases to almost 2/3 compared to that achieved in
the conventional base isolation system. Similarly, when
compared with Model II, Model I reduces the maximum
acceleration response by 47% of Model II. Accordingly,
the maximum acceleration response increases when
compared to the conventional base isolation system, but
the maximum acceleration is almost 2.5 m/s2 (0.25 g),
which is still within an allowable range in practice.
Figure 14(a) shows the relationship between the
ratio of the restoring force by mass of the isolated
object (P/ms) with the relative displacement response
u of Model I, Model II and Model III when excited
by the Ojiya record. Figures 14(b) and 14(c) shows

the relationship between Tn-p-a and Tt with the relative

0.2 displacement response u, respectively. This indicates
that although the maximum displacement response does
0.1
not reduce sufficiently while comparing Model I and
Model III, the acceleration response reduces (Fig. 14(a))
significantly for Model I with the increase in the period
0 of the system to 3.5 s (Fig. 14(c)). Figure 14(d) shows
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Displacement (m) the relationship between the total damping ratio with the
Fig. 12 Potential energy function of the proposed system for displacement response. It shows that the decrease in the
various κ values when excited by Ojiya stiffness of the system leads to a decrease in the critical

Conventional isolation model (0.42 m) 8 Conventional isolation model (1.073 m/s2)

0.6 Model I (0.299 m) 6 Model I (2.591 m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)
Displacement (m)

0.4 4
0.2 2
0
0
-2
-0.2 -4
-0.4 -6
-0.6 -8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s) Time (s)

Conventional isolation model (0.42 m) 8 Conventional isolation model (1.073 m/s2)

0.6 Model II (4.63 m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)

Model II (0.538 m)
Displacement (m)

6
0.4 4
0.2 2
0 0
-2
-0.2 -4
-0.4 -6
-0.6 -8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s) Time (s)

Conventional isolation model (0.42 m) Conventional isolation model (1.073 m/s2)

0.6 Model III (0.314 m) 8
Model III (4.381 m/s2)
Displacement (m)

6
Acceleration (m/s2)

0.4
4
0.2
2
0 0
-0.2 -2
-0.4 -4
-6
-0.6 -8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 13 Comparison of time history responses of relative displacements (left) and response accelerations (right) between the
conventional base isolation system and the proposed models excited by Ojiya EW 2004
 996 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

5 8
Model I
7 Model II
3 Model III
6
p/ms (m/s2)

Tn-p-a (s)
5

-1 4
3
Model I
-3 Model II 2
Model III
-5 1
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(a) (b)

3.5 0.3
Model I Model I
Model II Model II
3.0 Model III Model III
0.2
Tt (s)

ht
2.5
0.1
2.0

1.5 0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(c) (d)
Fig. 14 Relationship between (a) restoring force by mass of isolated object, (b) period of proposed device, (c) period of the system
and (d) damping ratio of the system with relative displacement for Model I, Model II and Model III excited by Ojiya

1.2 8
Conventional isolation model (0.675 m) Conventional isolation model (1.677 m/s2)
0.8 Model I (0.213 m) 6 Model I (1.872 m/s2)
Displacement (m)

Acceleration (m/s2)

4
0.4
2
0 0
-0.4 -2
-4
-0.8 -6
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Time (s) Time (s)

8
1.2 Conventional isolation model (1.677 m/s2)
Conventional isolation model (0.675 m) 6 Model II (4.135 m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)

0.8 Model II (0.432 m) 4

Displacement (m)

2
0.4
0
0 -2
-0.4 -4
-6
-0.8 0 100 200 300
0 100 200 300 Time (s)
Time (s)

1.2 8
Conventional isolation model (0.675 m) Conventional isolation model (1.677 m/s2)
6 Model III (2.065 m/s2)
Model III (0.162 m)
Acceleration (m/s2)

0.8
Displacement (m)

4
0.4 2
0 0
-2
-0.4 -4
-0.8 -6
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 15 Comparison of time history responses of relative displacements (left) and response accelerations (right) between the
conventional base isolation system and the proposed models excited by Shin-Tokai EW
No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems 997

damping coefficient of the system, which increases the
damping ratio of the system by 50% of the initial damping
ratio and decreases the displacement response for Model
I. Based on the potential energy curve (Fig. 11), the
proposed system is stable beyond the local maximum
of the force-displacement relationship (Fig.14(a)) unless
the force become less than or equal to zero.
5.3 Time history responses of proposed models
subjected to long-period ground motion
Figure 15 shows the time histories of the isolated
object when excited by the Shin-Tokai record. It
shows that the maximum displacement is 0.675 m,
for conventional base-isolation system because of
the resonance. The maximum displacement response
decreases by approximately 35%, in Model II when
compared to the response of the conventional base
isolation system. The system shows a resonance despite
its large stiffness and its response spectra (Fig. 7)
show peaks ranging from 2.5 to 4 s. The maximum
acceleration response increased remarkably, exceeding
0.4 g. This increase in the acceleration response is due
to the decrease in the initial damping ratio of the system
(due to the proposed device without damper).
Model III shows a further reduction of both the
maximum displacement and acceleration responses when
compared with Model II. In contrast to the conventional
base isolation system, Model III and Model I reduce the
maximum displacement response by 72% (on average).
However, the maximum acceleration response increases
slightly for both models.
Figure 16 indicates that for long-period ground
motions, varying the stiffness slightly increases the
displacement response with a slight reduction in
acceleration response (Fig. 16(a)), which increase the
period of the system to 2.2 s (Fig. 16(c)) for Model I.
Figure 16(d) shows that the decrease in the stiffness of
the system leads to a decrease in the critical damping
coefficient, which increases the damping ratio of the
system about 25% that of the initial damping ratio for
Model I.
5.4 Time history responses for different earthquake
ground motions
In the previous sections, the time history responses
of the proposed models were computed and evaluated
in detail for the Ojiya (near-fault) and Shin-Tokai
(long-period) earthquakes. In this section, to enhance
the validity of the proposed models, different ground
motions (Kobe and Tomakomai) were used to calculate
the maximum displacement and acceleration responses,
which are summarized in Fig. 17 including those
discussed in the previous sections. The result shows that
the reductions in the maximum displacement responses
for Model I (with the proposed device) compared to
Model III (proposed device without varying stiffness) are
19% for Kobe, 5% for Ojiya, with the exception of Shin-
Tokai, which increases slightly, and for Tomakomai it is
the same as Model III. Similarly, the reductions in the
maximum acceleration response for Model I compared
to Model III are 41% for Kobe and Ojiya, 9% for Shin-
Tokai and 7% for Tomakomai. Although Model I shows

3.0
4.5 Model I
Model II
2.5 Model III
p/ms (m/s2)

2.5
Tn-p-a (s)

0.5

-1.5 2.0
Model I
-3.5 Model II
Model III
-5.5 1.5
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(a) (b)

2.5 0.2
Model I
Model II
Model III
Model I
Tt (s)

0.1
ht

2.0 Model II
Model III

1.5 0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(c) (d)
Fig. 16 Relationship between (a) restoring force by mass of isolated object, (b) period of proposed device, (c) period of the system
and (d) damping ratio of the system with relative displacement for Model I, Model II and Model III excited by Shin-Tokai
998 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

good performance for both types of ground motions, for are selected to develop response spectra of the proposed
long-period ground motion, both the proposed Model base isolation system to demonstrate the robustness
I and III perform well. From the numerical analysis, of the NP unit. The acceleration history of the type-A
it can be concluded that the proposed Model I is able cycloidal pulse is given by,
to effectively suppress both the displacement and the

acceleration responses to allowable limits for both types
Vp
of earthquake excitations simultaneously. =ug (t ) ωp sin(ωp t ) 0 < t < Tp (16)
2
5.5 Response spectra of proposed model for general
ground motions where Tp =2π/ωp is a predominant period of the pulse
and Vp is the amplitude of the velocity pulse. The
The near-fault ground motions have a large variation acceleration history of the type-B cycloidal pulse is
which make a consistent evaluation of near-fault effects given by,
difficult. Physical realizable cycloidal pulses have been
introduced, and resemblance to the actual near-fault =ug (t ) ωpVp cos(ωp t ) 0 ≤ t ≤ Tp (17)
ground motions has been examined in past studies
(Makris, 1997; Makris and Chang, 2000a, 2000b).
The cycloidal pulses are also used to approximate the where Tp =2π/ωp is a predominant period of the pulse
earthquake ground motion with long duration cycles in and Vp is the amplitude of the velocity pulse. The
the displacement history (Panchal and Jangid, 2008). acceleration history of the type-Cn cycloidal pulse is
In the present study, for generalizing the effectiveness given by,
of the proposed device subjected to various ground
motions, response spectra are developed using cycloidal
1 ϕ
pulses. The type-A, type-B and type-Cn cycloidal pulses ug (t ) ωpVp cos(ωp t + ϕ )
= 0 ≤ t ≤ (n + − )Tp (18)
2 π
where Tp =2π/ωp is a predominant period of the pulse and
0.9
Kobe Vp is the amplitude of the velocity pulse. The value of the
0.8 Ojjya phase angle, φ, for a type-C1 pulse (n = 1) is φ=0.0679π;
Shin-Tokai
0.7 whereas, for a type-C2 pulse (n = 2) is φ=0.0410π are
Relative displacement (m)

Conv. Tomakomai
0.6 taken (Makris and Chang, 2000b). In order to exhibit the
Model II trend of response spectrum for general ground motions,
0.5
Model II Model II response spectra for the type-A pulse and type-B pulse
0.4 Conv. Conv.
with amplitude of velocity pulse Vp as 0.5 m/s and type-
Conv. Model III
0.3 Model III Model I
C2 pulse with amplitude of velocity pulse Vp as 0.4 m/s
0.2 Model II Model I
Model I are presented in the following section.
Model III Figure 18 shows the displacement, velocity and
0.1 Model III
Model I acceleration response spectra plots of Model I, Model
0 III and Conventional (conv.) base isolation system using
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Peak ground acceleration (m/s2)
type-A pulse, type-B pulse and type-C2 pulse. These
(a) figures show that Model I and Model III reduced the
displacement amplitude of the isolated object remarkably
7
Kobe when compared with the conventional base isolation
6 Ojjya system for ground motion with a predominant period
Absolute acceleration (m/s2)

Shin-Tokai
Tomakomai ranging from 0-10 s. On the other hand, acceleration
5
Model II amplitude increases for Model I and Model III when
Model II Model III
4 Model II compared to the conventional base isolation system.
Model III
Model III exceeds the acceleration amplitude than
3
Model I
allowable limit for ground motion with a predominant
2
Model II Model III Model I period ranging from 1-2 s in the case of type-B and
Model I
Conv. type-C2, but Model I reduces the acceleration amplitude
1 Conv. Conv. to within the allowable limit. The spectrum trend for all
Model III Conv.
Model I type-A, type-B and type-Cn pulses are similar. In the
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 case of the near-fault ground motion, it can be seen that
Peak ground acceleration (m/s2) variation of the stiffness (Model I) is needed to reduce the
(b) acceleration response to the allowable limit. Whereas, in
Fig. 17 (a) Relative displacement response, (b) absolute the case of long-period ground motion, initial stiffness of
acceleration response for Kobe, Ojiya, Shin-Tokai the system is important for mitigating displacement and
and Tomakomai earthquake excitations acceleration responses. A similar spectrum trend is also
 No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems 999

1.0 1.4 4

Acceleration amplitude (m/s2)

Model I
Displacement amplitude (m)

Model I Model I

Velocity amplitude (m/s)

Model III 1.2 Model III Model III
0.8 Conv. Conv. 3 Conv.
1.0
0.6 0.8
2
0.4 0.6
0.4 1
0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Period, Tp (s) Period, Tp (s) Period, Tp (s)
(a)
1.0 1.4 4

Acceleration amplitude (m/s2)

Model I
Displacement amplitude (m)

Model I Model I
Velocity amplitude (m/s)

Model III 1.2 Model III Model III

0.8 Conv. Conv. 3 Conv.
1.0
0.6 0.8
2
0.4 0.6
0.4 1
0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Period, Tp (s) Period, Tp (s) Period, Tp (s)
(b)
1.0 1.4 4

Acceleration amplitude (m/s2)

Model I
Displacement amplitude (m)

Model I Model I
Velocity amplitude (m/s)

Model III 1.2 Model III Model III

0.8 Conv. Conv. 3 Conv.
1.0
0.6 0.8
2
0.4 0.6
0.4 1
0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Period, Tp (s) Period, Tp (s) Period, Tp (s)
(c)

Fig. 18 Displacement, velocity and acceleration response spectra of Model I, Model III and conventional (conv.) base isolation
systems using (a) type-A, (b) type-B and (c) type-C2 pulse

observed by increasing the amplitude velocity of pulse allowable limit (u<0.3 m) since the response spectra (Fig.
Vp. Hence, response spectra are also one of the factors 7) of Shin-Tokai shows peaks ranging from 2.5 to 4 s
which determines the effectiveness of the NP unit. with a maximum around 3 s and for Ojiya, the response
spectra contains a wide range of frequency components.
Thus, varying the stiffness (increasing the period) of
6 Discussion the system, attribute to the resonant characteristics of
the model. For T n-p-a= 4 s (T t0 = 2.828 s), Model I
For the effectiveness of the proposed device, reduces the relative displacement for both near-fault and
appropriate selection of its natural period is of great long-period ground motion (on average, 30% decrease
importance. The robustness of the proposed device can for near-fault and 70% for long-period) to an allowable
be verified by selecting the natural periods (Tn-p-a) as 6 s, 4 s, limit, except for Ojiya, where it exceeds the allowable
and 2 s. This makes the corresponding initial period of limit. Similarly, for Tn-p-a = 2 s (Tt0 = 1.789 s), Model I
the system Tt0=3.328 s, 2.828 s and 1.789 s, respectively. reduces the relative displacement for both near-fault
The maximum displacement and acceleration responses and long-period ground motion to the allowable limit.
are computed for all the proposed models and compared These figures also show that the stiffer device (Tn-p-a= 2 s)
against the conventional base isolation system. Figure increases the acceleration response for near-fault ground
19 shows the maximum amplitude of displacement and motions when compared to the device with natural
acceleration responses for Model I with the above selected periods Tn-p-a = 4 s and Tn-p-a = 6 s and the displacement
natural periods of the device. These figures show that for response (for Ojiya) decreases to the allowable limit as
Tn-p-a= 6 s (Tt0 = 3.328 s), Model I reduces the relative discussed above. For long-period ground motions, the
displacement when compared to the conventional base acceleration response decreases with the stiffer device
isolation system for all earthquakes. Note that in the when compared to the softer device.
case of the Ojiya and Shin-Tokai records, it exceeds the
1000 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

enhance the base isolation function when external device

Kobe
0.6
Ojjya is associated with a conventional base isolation system.
Shin-Tokai
Tomakomai The capability of the models, in successfully
Displacement response (m)

mitigating the increase in displacement during long-

0.4
period ground motions and increase in the acceleration
responses under near-fault ground motion of isolated
mass, has been illustrated by numerical analysis,
0.2
stability of the external device using potential energy
function and the response spectra. Among the three
models, Model I exhibits a significant decrease in the
0
relative displacement of the isolated mass with respect
Tn-p-a = 6 s Tn-p-a = 4 s Tn-p-a = 2 s Conv. to the base for both types of earthquake excitations. The
(a) maximum displacement of the isolated object decreases
4 by almost 30% and more than 70% when subjected to
Kobe
Ojjya near-fault and long-period ground motions, respectively,
Shin-Tokai when compared with the conventional base isolation
Acceleration response (m/s2)

3 Tomakomai
2 proposed Model I is almost 2.5 m/s2, while the maximum
1 large response accelerations when subjected to strong
0
Tn-p-a = 6 s Tn-p-a = 4 s Tn-p-a = 2 s Conv.
(b)
Fig. 19 Maximum amplitudes of (a) response of relative
displacement, and (b) response of absolute acceleration
of Model I with various natural period of the
proposed device
Thus, it can be inferred that the proposed device with
the period of Tn-p-a= 2 s is effective in reducing both the
displacement and acceleration responses to allowable
limits eluding the system to resonant for both near-fault
and long-period earthquakes simultaneously.
7 Conclusions
In this study, a new external device for enhancing
the performance of conventional base isolation systems
has been proposed and the dynamic responses of base
isolation systems incorporating the new device are
investigated for reducing lateral displacement. To
examine the robustness of the external device, three
models are considered. Parametric studies are performed
and the maximum displacement and acceleration
responses with various α0, ht and κ are computed for
varying the robustness of models. The result shows that
for a small value of α0 with various κ values, there is
larger node displacement (NP unit node) than large values
of α0. The parameters α0 and κ have many combinations
that satisfy the performance of the proposed model; this
study considers the optimal values of α0 and κ as 20 and
35, respectively, to enhance the performance of a base
isolated object. Further, damping ht=15% is found to
system. The results show that the maximum achieved
absolute acceleration of the base-isolated object with the
relative displacement is less than 0.3 m for both types of
earthquake ground motions. Model II tends to generate
ground motions due to a decrease in the initial damping
with an increase in the stiffness when the proposed device
without any damper is linked to the conventional base
isolation system. Moreover, this model also increases
the displacement response of base isolation systems
for near-fault earthquake waves. Model III is effective
for long-period ground motions; however, the model is
unable to sufficiently reduce the absolute acceleration
for near-fault earthquake waves. Due to these drawbacks
of Models II and III, the rationale behind varying kp and
additional damper ca in Model I seems valid.
The recently proposed external rotary friction
device (Saitoh, 2014) also limits displacement and
acceleration responses to 0.3 m and 3.0 m/s2; however,
due to presence of the friction, the system always shows
a residual displacement. The proposed external device in
the current study consists of elastic linear compression
springs which prevent any permanent offset of the
external device. This is one of the key elements of the
current external device. Helical or coil springs have been
used in vibration control concepts for decades (Huffman,
1985; Karayel et al., 2017). Moreover, the proposed
isolation system is mainly for small scale structures such
as a computer server or art monument, whose mass are
much less than for large-scale structures. Based on this,
the authors believe that the proposed Model I can be
realized physically using regular springs.
Finally, although an extreme earthquake cannot be
predicted, based on the recorded ground motions and
artificial waves used in the numerical study presented
herein that includes having the extreme characteristics
(such as long fundamental natural period, ground motions
containing wide range of frequency component, large
acceleration amplitudes and large velocity amplitudes
etc.) and both the near-fault and long-period ground
motions, the authors believe that the proposed model
No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems
might be stable under extreme earthquakes. The current
study focuses on the development of the base isolation
system considering the general location. Furthermore,
to consider the effect of near-fault ground motion, the
response spectrum for the proposed model (Model I) is
developed using cycloidal pulses and is compared with
Model III and the conventional base isolation system.
These response spectra exhibit the effectiveness of the
proposed model by showing its applicability for a wide
range of ground motions, which also helps to determine
the effectiveness of the proposed system under ordinary
ground motions.
Theoretical studies have been conducted to develop
an external device using negative stiffness for retrofitting
conventional base isolation systems to achieve both
displacement and acceleration responses within
allowable limits, avoiding the system to resonant under
both near-fault and long-period earthquakes. Thus, to
achieve the objective of the current work, parametric
studies are conducted, optimal values of the parameters
are found, numerical analysis is performed and response
spectra of the proposed model is obtained to verify
the performance of the proposed isolation system. In
practice, many researchers have proposed stiffness
controllable isolation systems (Lu et al., 2008; Lin et al.,
2015) where the stiffness was controlled based on the
displacement response of the isolated objects. (Pasala
et al., 2012) proposed an adaptive negative stiffness
system for reducing structural responses. (Saitoh, 2019)
proposed that a negative spring with constant stiffness
(linear force-displacement relationship), which consists
of ordinary springs and sliders, could potentially
realize constant negative stiffness. Based on the results
presented herein and past research, the realization of the
proposed isolation system is left for future work and is
beyond the scope of this study.
References
Ariga T, Kanno Y and Takewaki I (2006), “Resonant
Behaviour of Base-Isolated High-Rise Buildings Under
Long-Period Ground Motions,” The Structural Design
of Tall and Special Buildings, 15(3): 325–338.
Attary N, Symans M, Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn AM,
Constantinou MC, Sarlis AA, Pasala DT, and Taylor
DP (2015), “Experimental Shake Table Testing of an
Adaptive Passive Negative Stiffness Device Within a
Highway Bridge Model,” Earthquake Spectra, 31(4):
2163–2194.
Buckle IG and Mayes RL (1990), “Seismic Isolation:
History, Application, and Performance-A World View,”
Earthquake spectra, 6(2): 161–201.
Cosenza E, Di Sarno L, Maddaloni G, Magliulo G,
Petrone C and Prota A (2015), “Shake Table Tests for
the Seismic Fragility Evaluation of Hospital Rooms,”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
44(1): 23–40.
1001
Furukawa T, Ito M, Izawa K and Noori MN (2005),
“System Identification of Base-Isolated Building Using
Seismic Response Data,” Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 131(3): 268–275.
Hall JF, Heaton TH, Halling MW and Wald DJ (2003),
“Near‐Source Ground Motion and Its Effects on Flexible
Buildings,” Earthquake Spectra, 11(4): 569–605.
Huffman GK (1985), “Full Base Isolation for Earthquake
Protection by Helical Springs and Viscodampers,”
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 84: 331–338.
Iemura H, Taghikhany T and Jain SK (2007), “Optimum
Design of Resilient Sliding Isolation System for Seismic
Protection of Equipment,” Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, 5(1): 85–103.
Ismail M, Rodellar J and Ikhouane F (2009), “An
Innovative Isolation Bearing for Motion-Sensitive
Equipment,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 326(3–5):
503–521.
Jangid RS and Kelly JM (2001), “Base Isolation for
Near-Fault Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 30(5): 691–707.
Jia G, Gidaris I, Taflanidis AA and Mavroeidis GP
(2014), “Reliability-Based Assessment/Design of Floor
Isolation Systems,” Engineering Structures, 78: 41–56.
Kamae K, Kawabe H and Irikura K (2004), “Strong
Ground Motion Prediction for Huge Subduction
Earthquakes Using A Characterized Source Model
and Several Simulation Techniques,” Proceedings
of the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
Karayel V, Yuksel E, Gokce T and Sahin F (2017),
“Spring Tube Braces for Seismic Isolation of Buildings,”
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
16(1): 219–231.
Kelly JM (1986), “Aseismic Base Isolation: Review
and Bibliography,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 5(4): 202–216.
Kobori T, Takahashi M, Nasu T, Niwa N and Ogasawara
K (1993), “Seismic Response Controlled Structure
with Active Variable Stiffness System,” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22(11): 925–941.
Kotrotsou E, Aktas Y, Hill M and Ioannou I (2015),
“Seismic Reliability of Elastomeric Base Isolators,”
SECED 2015 Conference: Earthquake Risk and
Engineering Towards a Resilient World, Cambridge UK.
Lin TK, Lu LY and Chang H (2015), “Fuzzy Logic
Control of a Stiffness-Adaptable Seismic Isolation
System,” Structural Control and Health Monitoring,
22(1): 177–195.
Liu Y, Matsuhisa H and Utsuno H (2008), “Semi-Active
Vibration Isolation System with Variable Stiffness and
Damping Control,” Journal of Sound and Vibration,
313(1–2): 16–28.
Lopez Garcia D and Soong TT (2003a), “Sliding
Fragility of Block-Type Nonstructural Components. Part
1002 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
1: Unrestrained Components,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 32(1): 111–129.
Lopez Garcia D and Soong TT (2003b), “Sliding
Fragility of Block-Type Nonstructural Components. Part
2: Restrained Components,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 32(1): 131–149.
Lu LY, Lin GL and Kuo TC (2008), “Stiffness
Controllable Isolation System for Near-Fault Seismic
Isolation,” Engineering Structures, 30(3): 747–765.
Makris N (1997), “Rigidity - Plasticity - Viscosity:
Can Electrorheological Dampers Protect Base-Isolated
Structures from Near-Source Ground Motions?”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
26(5): 571–591.
Makris N and Chang SP (2000a), “Response of Damped
Oscillators to Cycloidal Pulses,” Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 126(February): 123.
Makris N and Chang SP (2000b), “Effect of Viscous,
Viscoplastic and Friction Damping on the Response of
Seismic Isolated Structures,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 29(1): 85–107.
Miranda E, Mosqueda G, Retamales R and Pekcan G
(2012), “Performance of Nonstructural Components
during the 27 February 2010 Chile Earthquake,”
Earthquake Spectra, 28(S1): S453–S471.
Mizuno H, Iiba M, Yamaguchi N and Okano H (1986),
“Shaking Table Testing on Earthquake Resistance of
Medical Equipment,” Report of the Building Research
Institute, Building Research Institute, Ministry of
Construction, No. 108. (in Japanese)
Nakashima M, Lavan O, Kurata M and Luo Y (2014),
“Earthquake Engineering Research Needs in Light of
Lessons Learned from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake,”
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
13(1): 141–149.
Nakata T, Fukuwa N, Fujikawa S, Dan K, Sato T,
Shibata A, Shirase Y and Saito K (2004), “Strong
Motion Prediction for Retrofit of Buildings in the
Sannomaru District of Nagoya City: Part 1: Project
Summary,” Summaries of Technical Studys of Annual
Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan B-2, Structures
II, Structural dynamics nuclear power plants, AIJ. (in
Japanese)
Narasimhan S and Nagarajaiah S (2005), “A STFT
Semiactive Controller for Base Isolated Buildings with
Variable Stiffness Isolation Systems,” Engineering
Structures, 27(4): 514–523.
Panchal VR and Jangid RS (2008), “Variable Friction
Pendulum System for Seismic Isolation of Liquid
Storage Tanks,” Nuclear Engineering and Design,
238(6): 1304–1315.
Pasala DTR, Sarlis AA, Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn AM,
Constantinou MC and Taylor D (2012), “Adaptive
Negative Stiffness: New Structural Modification
Approach for Seismic Protection,” Journal of Structural
Vol. 19
Engineering, 139(7): 1112–1123.
Saito T (2016), “Response of High-Rise Buildings Under
Long Period Earthquake Ground Motions,” International
Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research,
5(4): 308–314.
Saitoh M (2012), “On the Performance of Gyro-Mass
Devices for Displacement Mitigation in Base Isolation
Systems,” Structural Control and Health Monitoring,
19(2): 246–259.
Saitoh M (2014), “An External Rotary Friction Device
for Displacement Mitigation in Base Isolation Systems,”
Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 21(2): 173–
188.
Saitoh M (2019), “Elastic mechanism,” U.S. Patent
Application No. 15/757,413.
Sapountzakis EJ, Syrimi PG and Antoniadis IA (2017),
“KDamper Concept in Seismic Isolation of Bridges with
Flexible Piers,” Engineering Structures, 153: 525–539.
Sarlis AA, Pasala DTR, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn
AM, Nagarajaiah S and Taylor DP (2012), “Negative
Stiffness Device for Seismic Protection of Structures,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(7): 1124–1133.
Sarlis AA, Pasala DTR, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn
AM, Nagarajaiah S and Taylor DP (2016), “Negative
Stiffness Device for Seismic Protection of Structures:
Shake Table Testing of a Seismically Isolated Structure,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(5).
Shen Y, Peng H, Li X and Yang S (2017), “Analytically
Optimal Parameters of Dynamic Vibration Absorber
with Negative Stiffness,” Mechanical Systems and
Signal Processing, 85: 193–203.
Sun T, Lai Z, Nagarajaiah S and Li HN (2017), “Negative
Stiffness Device for Seismic Protection of Smart Base
Isolated Benchmark Building,” Structural Control and
Health Monitoring, 24(11): e1968.
Tajirian FF (2010), “Seismic Vulnerability of Data
Centers,” Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing
Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 686–695.
Toyooka A, Motoyama H, Kouchiyama O and Iwasaki
Y (2015), “Development of Autonomous Negative
Stiffness Damper for Reducing Absolute Responses,”
Quarterly Report of RTRI, 56(4): 284–290.
Tsai CS, Lin YC and Chen WS (2008), “Seismic
Behavior of High-Tech Facility Isolated with a Trench
Friction Pendulum System,” ASME 2006 Pressure
Vessels and Piping/ICPVT-11 Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 175–179.
Walsh KK and Abdullah MM (2006), “Adaptive
Base-Isolation of Civil Structures Using Variable
Amplification,” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 5(2): 223–233.
Wang M, Sun FF and Jin HJ (2018), “Performance
Evaluation of Existing Isolated Buildings with
Supplemental Passive Pseudo-Negative Stiffness
No. 4 Sandhya Nepal and Masato Saitoh: Variable negative stiffness for base isolation systems
Devices,” Engineering Structures, 177: 30–46.
Wang M, Sun FF, Yang J and Nagarajaiah S (2019),
“Seismic Protection of SDOF Systems with a Negative
Stiffness Amplifying Damper,” Engineering Structures,
190: 128–141.
Wang M, Sun FF and Nagarajaiah S (2019), “Simplified
Optimal Design of MDOF Structures with Negative
Stiffness Amplifying Dampers Based on Effective
Damping,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 28(15): e1664.
Warn GP and Ryan KL (2012), “A Review of Seismic
Isolation for Buildings: Historical Development and
Research Needs,” Buildings, 2(3): 300–325.
WorkSafe Technologies Corporation. Available from:
http://www.worksafetech.com/pages/isotest.html.
Yarra S, Gordaninejad F, Behrooz M, Pekcan G, Itani
AM and Publicover N (2018), “Performance of a Large-
Scale Magnetorheological Elastomer–Based Vibration
Isolator for Highway Bridges,” Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures, 29(20): 3890–3901.
Zama S (2004), “Seismic Hazard Assessment for Liquid
Sloshing of Oil Storage Tanks due to Long-Period Strong
Ground Motions in Japan,” 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering Conference Proceedings.
Nomenclature
α : Parameter defining value of positive spring
of NP unit
ca : Damping coefficient of additional spring/
damper unit
1003
cs : Damping coefficient of conventional isolation
system
fs : Natural frequency of conventional isolation
system
Fn-p-a : Restoring force of proposed external device
hs : Damping constant of conventional isolation
system
ht : Total damping constant of base isolation
system
ka : Stiffness of additional spring/damper unit
kn : Stiffness of negative spring of NP unit
kn-p-a : Combine stiffness of NP unit with additional
spring
kp : Stiffness of positive spring of NP unit
kt : Total stiffness of the system
k* : Total stiffness of NP unit
κ : Slope of changing α
ms : Mass of base-isolated object
P : Restoring force of the system
Tn : Fundamental period of negative spring
Tn-p-a : Fundamental period of proposed device
Tt : Natural period of the system
Tp : Predominant period of the pulse
u : Displacement response of base-isolated object
with respect to base
Us : Potential energy of proposed isolation system
ug : Ground acceleration
Vp : Amplitude of velocity pulse
ωs : Natural circular frequency of conventional
isolation system
ωa : Natural circular frequency of additional spring
ωn : Natural circular frequency of negative spring
ωn-p : Natural circular frequency of NP unit
ωn-p-a: Natural circular frequency of proposed device