Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Sound and Vibration

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsvi

Analytically optimal parameters of supplemental brace-damper

system in single-degree-of-freedom structure based on stability
maximization criterion
Kun Ye *, Yuxiang Wang
School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Luoyu Road 1037, Wuhan 430074, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, optimal parameters (i.e., optimal additional stiffness ratio α and damping ratio λ) for
Brace-damper system supplemental brace-damper system in a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structure are analyti­
Maxwell model cally derived. Different from the design formulations for supplemental brace-damper system
Optimization design
proposed by Londoño, which are essentially fitting formulae through extensive parametric study,
Stability maximization criterion
analytically optimal parameters for supplemental brace-damper system are derived by combining
the research work by Londoño and the stability maximization criterion (SMC). Similar to Opti­
mum Brace Stiffness (OBS) criterion and Optimum Damper Size (ODS) criterion proposed by
Londoño, SMC-based OBS criterion and SMC-based ODS criterion are respectively proposed to
assure a desired structural performance represented by the targeted overall damping ratio of the
considered system. Through numerical study, it is demonstrated that the seismic response of the
proposed SMC-based OBS criterion and SMC-based ODS criterion excellently agree with those of
the existing OBS criterion and ODS criterion, respectively.

1. Introduction

In order to mitigate the harmful vibrations in the engineering structures (such as excessive deformation and acceleration) due to
earthquake and winds, passive control systems made up of energy absorbing devices have attracted a great deal of attention due to
their inherent stability and reliability [2–6]. Viscous dampers have been much more widely used compared with other types of passive
control devices, such as friction dampers, metallic yielding dampers and tuned mass dampers. A classical passive control strategy based
on the viscous fluid dampers has been widely used with various configurations. To date, optimum design procedures for viscous fluid
dampers, based on different optimization formulations or criteria have been proposed so that both damper sizes and locations could be
effectively determined [7–11].
Although the importance of the brace stiffness in the brace-damper system as well as the dynamic behavior of the single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) structure with brace-damper system have been well studied by some researchers [12–18], the effect of the compliance
of supporting braces have not fully taken into consideration in the most existing optimum design procedures for viscous fluid damper.
Yamada [14] analytically obtained the eigenvalues of the SDOF structure with the brace-damper system and determined the optimal
damping values corresponding to categories of brace stiffness. Brennan et al. [15] derived the optimal damping values for the SDOF
structure with brace-damper system subjected to different types of excitation when the brace stiffness value is given. In order to address

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kun.ye@hust.edu.cn (K. Ye).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2023.117718
Received 23 February 2022; Received in revised form 2 February 2023; Accepted 10 April 2023
Available online 11 April 2023
0022-460X/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

the optimization problem related to the brace-damper system (i.e., the stiffness and damping parameters), different optimization
strategies have been proposed by several researchers. For instance, in the framework of response-spectrum analysis (RSA), Singh et al.
[19] employed the gradient-based optimization algorithms to determine the optimal distribution and brace-damper parameters so that
the desired seismic performance index could be achieved under the specific damping constraint. Park et al. [20] used a gradient–based
optimization algorithms to obtain the optimal parameters for both viscoelastic dampers and their supporting braces in structures
subjected to seismic motions. Based on the stochastic dynamic analysis, Chen and Chai [21] developed a gradient–based iterative
procedure to obtain the minimum brace stiffness and optimal damping coefficients to meet a target response reduction in terms of the
mean square of the inter-story drift, floor acceleration or base shear force. In the frequency domain analysis of a planar shear building
model, Fujita et al. [22] also proposed a gradient-based evolutionary algorithm to find the optimal distribution and parameter.
However, it should be pointed out that, due to the introduction of the brace stiffnesses as the decision variables, the aforementioned
numerical optimization procedures require much more computational overhead and are also prone to non-convergent [23].
Different from the existing iterative numerical procedures to address the brace-damper optimization problem, Londoño et al. [1]
proposed a non-iterative design procedure for simultaneously determining the damping coefficient and brace stiffness in the
brace-damper system to achieve the desired overall damping ratio. In this non-iterative design procedure, either the Optimum Damper
Size (ODS) criterion or the Optimum Brace Stiffness (OBS) criterion could be adopted. However, it should be noted that the formu­
lations for the damping coefficient and brace stiffness in the ODS and OBS criterion are approximately obtained by use of curve-fitting
technique, not exactly or analytically derived. However, it should be noted that optimum solutions of brace-damper system are
determined by meeting the targeted overall damping ratio, which is an inherent characteristic of dynamic system. In other words, the
optimum procedure proposed by Londoño et al. [15] is independent on the frequency content of external excitation, which is different
from most optimization procedures for brace-damper system based on the dynamic response affected by the frequency content of
external excitation. Later, based on the observation that the effects of the brace stiffness on the damper efficiency could be represented
by a first-order filter, Londoño et al. [24] proposed another non-iterative design methodology for the brace-damper system. In this
design methodology, the damping coefficients of dampers are first optimized by neglecting the presence of supporting braces, and the
stiffnesses of supporting braces are determined by the first-order filtering method to preserve the efficiency of the dampers. However,
in the non-iterative filtering method, the resulting stiffnesses of supporting braces are very sensitive to the level of damper efficiency,
which should be selected by the designer.
In this paper, for optimizing the supplemental brace-damper system in single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structure, closed-form
expressions for damping coefficient of the damper and stiffness of supporting brace are analytically derived by combining the work
conducted by Londoño in [1] and the stability maximization criterion (SMC). It is well known that SMC is targeted to decaying the free
vibration of the system in the minimum duration [25], which is directly related to the overall damping ratio of the system. Obviously,
the advantage of design procedure by Londoño et al. [15] unaffected by the frequency content of dynamic excitation, would be also
kept in the proposed solutions in this study. Coincidentally, for the SDOF structure with supplemental brace-damper system, the
overall damping ratio is solely dependent upon the inherent damping ratio of SDOF structure, damping coefficient of the damper and
stiffness of supporting brace in the brace-damper system. The damping given by damper in the supplemental brace-damper system is
usually much greater than the inherent damping of the SDOF structure itself. It should be noted that SMC was first proposed by
Yamaguchi [26] and has been employed to optimally design tuned mass damper (TMD) by Nishihara and Matsuhisa [27].
To present the analytically optimal parameters of the brace-damper system, in Section 0, governing equations for SDOF structure
with supplemental brace-damper system are given. In Section 0, based on the parametric investigations into the effects of damping
coefficients of damper and stiffness of supporting brace on the degree of stability, two sets of optimal analytical parameters of the
brace-damper are respectively derived based on different optimization criterion. In Section 4, numerical studies as well as comparisons
are provided and then conclusions are made in Section 5.

2. Brace-damper system in the single-degree-of-freedom structure

For the supplemental brace-damper system in the SDOF structure, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the system is viewed as the well-known
Maxwell model, where the linear viscous damper is serially connected with the supporting brace. The resisting force in the Maxwell
model could be represented by the following first-order differential equation:
cd
F(t) + Ḟ(t) = cd Δ̇d (t) (1)
kb

where F(t) is the force generated in the Maxwell model, cd is the damping coefficient of the linear viscous damper, kb is the horizontal

Fig. 1. SDOF structure with supplemental brace-damper system.

2
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

stiffness of the supporting brace, Δd is the total of deformation of the Maxwell model which is the summation of the deformation of the
supporting brace and viscous damper, and the over dot indicates differentiation with respect to time.
Subsequently, the governing equations of motion for the brace-damper-structure system excited by the ground acceleration aG are
given as follows:
mS üS (t) + cS u̇S (t) + kS uS (t) + F(t) = − mS aG (t) (2)

cd
F(t) + Ḟ(t) = cd u̇S (t) (3)
kb

where mS, cS and kS are the mass, damping coefficient and lateral stiffness of the SDOF structure, uS is the relative displacement of the
structure with respect to the ground. By introducing the following non-dimensional parameters
√̅̅̅̅̅̅
kS cS k cd
ωS = λS = α = bλ = (4)
mS 2mS ωS kS 2mS ωS

Eqs. (2) and (3) could be transformed into the following first-order differential state-space equation:
⎡ ⎤
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎨ u̇S ⎬ ⎢ 0 1 0
⎥ ⎨ uS ⎬ ⎨ 0 ⎬
ü = ⎢ − ωS − 2λS ωS
2
− 1 ⎥⋅
⎦ ⎩ u̇S ⎭ + ⎩ − 1 ⎭aG (5)
⎩ S ⎭ ⎣
Ḟ/mS 0 αω2S − αωS /(2λ) F/mS 0

where ωS and λS are respectively the natural circular frequency and inherent damping ratio of the structure, the stiffness ratio α is the
ratio of the supporting brace stiffness to the stiffness of the SDOF structure, and the additional damping ratio λ is defined as the ratio of
the damping coefficient cd to the critical damping coefficient of the structure 2mSωS. Thus, the system matrix A corresponding to state-
space Eq. (5) is written as:
⎡ ⎤
0 1 0
⎢ ⎥
A=⎢ 2
⎣ − ωS − 2λS ωS − 1 ⎥
⎦ (6)
0 αω2S − αωS /(2λ)

The eigenvalue problem |A-Z•I| results in the following third-order characteristic equation:
( )3 ( )2 ( )
Z 4λλS + α Z 2αλ + 2αλS + 2λ Z α
+ + + =0 (7)
ωS 2λ ωS 2λ ωS 2λ
Apparently, all eigenvalues solutions corresponding to Eq. (7) are made up of a pair of the complex conjugate eigenvalues and a real
eigenvalue. Moreover, according to the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, it is clear that the real parts of all eigenvalues Re(Zj), j = 1, 2 and 3, are
negative. Thus, with the three eigenvalue solutions corresponding to Eq. (7) denoted as Z1,2 = (θ ± βi)ωS and Z3 = ρωS, the charac­
teristic Eq. (7) should satisfy:
[ ][ ][ ]
Z Z Z
− ρ − (θ + βi) − (θ − βi) = 0 (8)
ωS ωS ωS

where ρ, θ and β are functions in terms of the system parameters α, λ and λS. It should be noted that the single eigenvalue ρ corresponds
to the overdamped mode and the effect of the eigenvalue ρ on the structural seismic performance is negligible because the oscillation
will vanish in the overdamped case. Thus, the overall structural damping ratio, λT, could be evaluated by using the conjugate
eigenvalues:
θ
λT = − √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (9)
θ 2 + β2
Obviously, the overall structural damping ratio λT, independent of ωS, is directly related to the structural performance. Hence, a
targeted overall structural damping ratio could be specified to attain a desired structural performance It should be noted that, if the
additional damping ratio λ is excessively large (i.e., λ > 1), all eigenvalues solutions corresponding to Eq. (7) will be three real ei­
genvalues and Eq. (9) will be not valid. Therefore, all subsequent derivation in this study is based on the assumption that the ei­
genvalues solutions corresponding to Eq. (7) should consist of a pair of the complex conjugate eigenvalues as well as a real eigenvalue,
and then the Eq. (9) would be valid. In the practical application, this assumption is obviously satisfied.

3. Optimum design based SMC

The underlying idea of SMC is to decay the free vibration of the system in the minimum duration. Accordingly, the SMC-base
optimization could be achieved by maximizing the degree of stability which is defined as the absolute value of the maximum real
part of the eigenvalues of the system. Thus, in the case of brace-damper system in the SDOF structure considered in this study, the

3
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

normalized degree of stability Λ is given by:

( )
maxRe Zj
Λ=− = − max(θ, ρ)j = 1, 2, 3 (10)
ωS
It could be noted from Eq. (10) that the normalized degree of stability is independent on ωS and dependent on the parameters θ and
ρ. Obviously, SMC reflects the inherent characteristic of dynamic system (similar to damping ratio). Therefore, greater normalized
degree of stability of dynamic system will result in much more reduction in the structural seismic performance (similar to the effect of
damping ratio).

3.1. Parametric study

A parametric study was conducted to investigate how the normalized degree of stability Λ varies when the system parameters (i.e.,
α and λ) change within the given ranges. In the parametric study, the inherent damping ratio λS of the SDOF structure is fixed as 0.05.
By solving the third-order characteristic Eq. (7), the contour plot of the normalized degree of stability Λ is shown in Fig. 2. The adopted
parametric ranges in Fig. 2 are as follows:
0.01 ≤ λ ≤ 1.000.01 ≤ α ≤ 20.0 (11)
Based on the contour plot shown in Fig. 2, the optimal additional damping ratio and stiffness ratio could be found to maximize the
normalized degree of stability. However, the optimal additional damping ratio is too large to be implemented in the practical engi­
neering application due to economic consideration. Furthermore, the following two observations from Fig. 2 could be drawn: (1) For a
given additional damping ratio λ, there exists an optimum stiffness ratio α to maximize the normalized degree of stability; (2) For a
given stiffness ratio α, there exists an optimum additional damping ratio to maximize the normalized degree of stability. Both two
observations could be respectively manifested by Figs. 3 and 4, where the variations of the normalized degree of stability versus the
stiffness ratio for a series of additional damping ratio (shown in Fig. 3) and the variation of the normalized degree of stability versus the
additional damping ratio for a series of stiffness ratio (shown Fig. 4) are given.
As discussed previously, in the following two subsections, some efforts have been devoted to derive the optimum parameters of the
brace-damper system based on the stability maximization criterion for a targeted overall structural damping ratio λT.The corre­
sponding mathematical expression for the constrained single-objective optimization problems are as follows
⎧
⎨ Findαopt or λopt
maximizeΛ (12)
⎩
SubjecttogivenλT

3.2. SMC-based optimization for the optimum stiffness ratio

Comparing coefficients of Eqs. (7) and (8), the following equations could be obtained:
4λλS + α
+ (ρ + 2θ) = 0 (13)
2λ

2αλ + 2αλS + 2λ ( )
− 2 ρθ + θ 2 + β 2 = 0 (14)
2λ
α ( )
+ ρ θ 2 + β2 = 0 (15)
2λ

Fig. 2. Contour plot of the normalized degree of stability Λ with the inherent damping ratio λs = 0.05.

4
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

Fig. 3. Variation of degree of stability versus stiffness ratio in the case of different additional damping ratio with the inherent damping ratio λs
= 0.05.

Fig. 4. Variation of degree of stability versus additional damping ratio in the case of different stiffness ratio with the inherent damping ratio λs
= 0.05.

As mentioned previously, parameters ρ, θ and β are functions in terms of the system parameters α, λ and λS, therefore, the following
equations could be obtained by partially differentiating Eqs. (13)–(15) with respect to stiffness ratio α:
( )
1 ∂ρ ∂θ
+ +2 =0 (16)
2λ ∂α ∂α
( )
λ + λS ∂θ ∂ρ ∂θ ∂β
− 2ρ + 2a + 2θ + 2β =0 (17)
λ ∂α ∂α ∂α ∂α

5
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

[ ]
1 ( ) ∂ρ ∂θ ∂β
+ θ 2 + β2 + 2ρθ + 2ρβ =0 (18)
2λ ∂α ∂α ∂α
Thus, the solutions to ∂θ/∂α, ∂β/∂α and ∂ρ/∂α could be obtained by solving the Eqs. (16)–(18) as follows:

∂ρ (ρ + λ + λS )2 + 1 − (λ + λS )2
=− [ ] (19)
∂α 2λ (θ − ρ)2 + β2

∂θ θ2 − 2θρ + β2 − 2λρ − 2λS ρ − 1

=− [ ] (20)
∂α 4λ (θ − ρ)2 + β2
( )
∂β θ3 + (2λ + 2λS − ρ)θ2 + β2 − 2λρ − 2λS ρ + 1 θ + 2λβ2 + ρβ2 + 2λS β2 − ρ
= [ ] (21)
∂α 4βλ (θ − ρ)2 + β2

In order to maximize the normalized degree of stability Λ = -max(θ, ρ) with respect to α, either ∂ρ/∂α or ∂θ/∂α should be equal to
zero. However, it could be concluded from Eq. (19) that ∂ρ/∂α is always less than zero because the sum of λS and λ should be less than
one in the practical engineering application. Therefore, the maximum normalized degree of stability Λ would be uniquely determined
by imposing the condition ∂θ/∂α = 0. Thus, by setting ∂θ/∂α = 0, the following equation is obtained as:

θ2 − 2θρ + β2 − 2λρ − 2λS ρ − 1 = 0 (22)

Solving coupled Eqs. (13)–(15) and (22), the optimum stiffness ratio αopt for a given additional damping ratio λ could be obtained
as:
( )
2λ 1 + λ2 − λ2S
αopt = [ ] (23)
(λ + λS ) 1 − (λ + λS )2

Then, the maximum value of the normalized degree of stability Λ could be given as follows:
( )
(λ + λS ) 1 − λλS − λ2S
Λmax = − θ = (24)
1 − (λ + λS )2
And the associated parameters β and ρ could be respectively determined as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( ) ( ) ( ) ̅
− 1 + λ2S λ4 − 4λ3S λ3 − 1 − 6λ2S + 6λ4S λ2 − 4λS 1 − 2λ2S + λ4S λ + 1 − 3λ2S + 3λ4S − λ6S
β= (25)
1 − (λ + λS )2

1
ρ=− (26)
λ + λS
In the case of the damping ratio λ and inherent damping ratio λS respectively equal to 0.20 and 0.05, the optimal stiffness ratio αopt
and the corresponding Λmax can be respectively calculated as 1.7707 and 0.2633 according to Eqs. (23) and (24). As demonstrated in
Fig. 3(b), these analytically optimum parameters are the same as the numerically optimum parameters. Therefore, the accuracy of Eqs.
(23) and (24) is verified. As suggested by Londoño [1], a targeted overall structural damping ratio λT is more preferable in the practical
engineering application. Consequently, by substituting Eqs. (24) and (25) into Eq. (9), the analytical expression for the targeted overall
structural damping ratio λT in terms of λ and λS are obtained as:
( )
(λ + λS ) 1 − λλS − λ2S
λT = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )[ ] (27)
1 + λ2 − λ2S 1 − (λ + λS )2

If regarding the targeted overall damping ratio λT as a pre-specified and known value, the additional damping ratio λ could be
solved by reformulating Eq. (27) as the following fourth-order polynomial equation:
( 2 ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( )2
λT + λ2S λ4 + 2λS λ2T + 2λ2S − 1 λ3 + 6λ4S − 6λ2S + 1 λ2 + 2λS 1 − λ2S 1 + λ2T − 2λ2S λ − λ2T − λ2S 1 − λ2S = 0 (28)

Once the desired overall damping ratio λT of the SDOF structure with inherent damping ratio λS is specified, the additional damping
ratio λ could be determined through Eq. (28), and then the optimum stiffness ratio αopt of supporting brace and the maximum
normalized degree of stability Λmax are respectively given by Eqs. (23) and (24). Herein, the optimization design procedure by use of
Eqs. (23), (24) and (28) for the supplemental brace-damper system is named SMC-based optimum brace stiffness (SMC-based OBS)
criterion, which is similar to the Optimum Brace Stiffness (OBS) criterion proposed by Londoño [1]. In the OBS criterion proposed by
Londoño, the values of the pair of stiffness ratio and additional damping ratio for the desired overall damping ratio is evaluated by the
following formulae [1]:

6
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

⎧ 2
⎪
⎨ λ = 1.02(λT − λS ) − 0.17(λT − λS )
0.04λS + 0.98 (29)
⎪
⎩
α = − 53.0(λT − λS ) + 64.4λ(0.04λS + 0.98) + 0.03
It should be pointed out that, in contrast to the numerically fitted design formulae in the OBS criterion proposed by Londoño [1],
the design formulae in the SMC-based OBS criterion proposed in this study are analytically derived with the help of stability maxi­
mization criterion. Comparisons of the additional damping ratios and stiffness ratios determined by OBS criterion and SMC-based OBS
criterion corresponding to different targeted overall damping ratios in the case of the inherent damping ratio λS equal to 0.05 are
presented in Fig. 5. As shown in Fig. 5a, considerable difference between the stiffness ratios determined by the OBS criterion and
SMC-based OBS criterion could be found. Particularly, there exists a critical value for the targeted overall damping ratio λT, beyond this
critical value, the required stiffness ratio corresponding to the SMC-based OBS criterion is less than that corresponding to OBS cri­
terion, otherwise, the required stiffness ratio corresponding to the SMC-based OBS criterion is greater than that corresponding to OBS
criterion. However, it is observed from Fig. 5b that there is no significant difference between the additional damping ratios determined
by the OBS criterion and SMC-based OBS criterion. In other words, the choice between the SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion
can be made in terms of this critical value. The OBS criterion is a more reasonable choice due to more smaller stiffness ratio in the case
of the targeted overall damping ratio less than this critical value, otherwise, the SMC-base OBS criterion is a more reasonable choice.

3.3. SMC-based optimization for optimum additional damping ratio

Similarly, the following equations could be given by differentiating Eqs. (13)–(15) with respect to λ:
( )
α ∂ρ ∂θ
− 2+ +2 =0 (30)
2λ ∂λ ∂λ
( )
αλS ∂θ ∂ρ ∂θ ∂b
− 2
− 2ρ + 2θ + 2θ + 2β =0 (31)
λ ∂λ ∂λ ∂λ ∂λ
[ ]
α ( ) ∂ρ ∂θ ∂β
− + θ 2 + β2 + 2ρθ + 2ρβ =0 (32)
2λ2 ∂λ ∂λ ∂λ
Thus, the solutions to ∂θ/∂λ, ∂β/∂λ and ∂ρ/∂λ could be obtained by solving the Eqs. (30)–(32) as:

∂ρ α ρ2 + 2λS ρ + 1 α (ρ + λS )2 + 1 − λ2S
= ⋅[ ]= 2⋅ [ ] (33)
∂λ 2λ2 (θ − ρ)2 + β2 2λ (θ − ρ)2 + β2

∂θ α θ2 − 2θρ + β2 − 2λS ρ − 1
= 2⋅ [ ] (34)
∂λ 4λ (θ − ρ)2 + β2
( )
∂β α θ3 + (2λS − ρ)θ2 + β2 − 2λS ρ + 1 θ + ρβ2 + 2λS β2 − ρ
=− [ ] (35)
∂λ 4βλ2 (θ − ρ)2 + β2

In order to maximize the normalized degree of stability Λ = -max(ρ, θ) with respect to λ, either ∂ρ/∂λ or ∂θ/∂λ should be equal to

Fig. 5. Comparisons of stiffness ratios and additional damping ratios between different optimum criteria with the inherent damping ratio λs = 0.05.

7
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

zero. However, it could be inferred from Eq. (33) that ∂ρ/∂λ is always greater than zero because λS is always less than one in the
practical engineering application. Therefore, the maximum normalized degree of stability Λ with respect to λ is solely obtained by
imposing the condition ∂θ/∂λ = 0. Thus, by setting ∂θ/∂λ = 0, the following equation could be obtained as:

θ2 − 2θρ + β2 − 2λS ρ − 1 = 0 (36)

Solving coupled Eqs. (30)–(32) and (36), the optimum additional damping ratio λopt for a given stiffness ratio α could be obtained
as:
α(1 − λS )
λopt = (37)
α + 2(1 − λS )
Then, the maximum value of the normalized degree of stability Λ could be given as follows:
α + 4λS (1 − λS )
Λmax = − θ = (38)
4(1 − λS )
At the same time, the associated parameters β and ρ could be respectively calculated as
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
− α2 + 8(1 − λS )2 α + 16(1 + λS )(1 − λS )3
β= (39)
4(1 − λS )

ρ=− 1 (40)
In the case of the damping ratio α and inherent damping ratio λS respectively equal to 0.20 and 0.05, the optimal stiffness ratio λopt
and the corresponding Λmax can be respectively calculated as 0.0905 and 0.1026 according to Eqs. (37) and (38). As demonstrated in
Fig. 4(b), these analytically optimum parameters are the same as the numerically optimum parameters. Therefore, the accuracy of Eqs.
(37) and (38) is verified. Similarly to the manipulation in the previous subsection, by substituting Eqs. (38) and (39) into Eq. (9), the
analytical expression for the overall damping ratio in terms of are obtained as:
α + 4λS (1 − λS )
λT = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (41)
8(1 − λS )[α + 2(1 − λS )]

Regarding the targeted overall damping ratio λT as a pre-specified and known value, the stiffness ratio α could be solved from Eq.
(41) as:
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
α = 4(1 − λS ) λ2T + λ4T − 2λS λ2T + λ2T − λS (42)

Once the desired overall damping ratio λT of the SDOF structure with inherent damping ratio λS is specified, the stiffness ratio α
could be evaluated through Eq. (42), and then the optimum additional damping ratio λopt and the maximum normalized degree of
stability Λmax are respectively given by Eqs. (37) and (38). Herein, the optimization design procedure by use of Eqs. (37), (38) and (42)
for the supplemental brace-damper system is named SMC-based Optimum Damper (SMC-based ODS) criterion, which is similar to the
Optimum Damper Size (ODS) criterion proposed by Londoño [1]. In the ODS criterion proposed by Londoño [1], the values of the pair of
stiffness ratio and additional damping ratio for the desired overall damping ratio is evaluated by the following formulae:

Fig. 6. Comparisons of stiffness ratios and additional damping ratios between different optimum criteria with the inherent damping ratio λs = 0.05.

8
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

⎧ 2
⎨ α = 3.9(λT − λS ) + 4.0(λT − λS )
⎪
2.81(λT − λS ) − 0.314α + 0.017 (43)
⎪
⎩λ =
0.04λS + 0.98
In contrast to the numerically fitted design formulae in the ODS criterion proposed, the design formulae in the SMC-based ODS
criterion proposed in this study are also analytically derived with the help of stability maximization criterion. Comparisons of the
additional damping ratios and stiffness ratios determined by ODS and SMC-based ODS corresponding to different targeted overall
damping ratios in the case of the inherent damping ratio λS equal to 0.05 are presented in Fig. 6. Although there is no significant
difference between the additional damping ratios determined by the ODS criterion and SMC-based ODS criterion as shown in Fig. 6(a),
considerable difference between the stiffness ratios determined by the ODS criterion and SMC-based ODS criterion could be found in
Fig. 6(b), where the required additional damping ratio corresponding to the SMC-based ODS criterion is greater than those by the ODS
criterion and the difference between them would be enlarged with the increase of the overall damping ratio λT.

3.4. Discussion

The analytical derivations presented above give the optimization results for the brace-damper system in the SDOF structure based
on the stability maximization criterion. Fig. 7 presented the effect of four different optimization strategies (i.e., SMC-based OBS cri­
terion, SMC-based ODS criterion, OBS criterion and ODS criterion) on the maximum normalized degree of stability Λmax. It could be
observed that, for a given targeted overall damping ratio λT, Λmax obtained from SMC-based ODS criterion is highest, then in sequence
are ODS criterion and SMC-based OBS criterion, OBS criterion lead to the lowest normal degree of stability.
It should be noted that the design parameters defined by Eqs. (29) and (43) respectively corresponding to OBS and ODS criteria are
derived by assuming the damper in the brace-damper system placed horizontally. As a matter of fact. The brace-damper system would
be not horizontally installed in some occasions and the effect of the installation angle of the brace-damper system with respective to the
horizontal direction, denoted as ϕ on the design parameters should be considered. It could be easily demonstrated that the effect of
installation angel ϕ could be taken into account by multiplying the design parameters defined by Eqs. (29) and (43) with 1/cosϕ.
In the course of implementing the design formulae corresponding to either SMC-based OBS criterion or SMC-based ODS criterion, it
should be noted that the strength and stability of the brace should be checked in order to sustain the maximum compression and
tension forces generated by the damper.

4. Numerical study

In the numerical study, an SDOF structure with fundamental period of 0.5 s and inherent critical damping ratio λS equal to 5.0% is
considered, and the targeted overall damping ratio λT of the SDOF structure after adding a brace-damper system is supposed to be
increased to 25%.
According to SMC-based OBS criterion, the value for the additional damping ratio λ = 0.1995 could be solved by Eq. (28) and then
the stiffness ratio α = 1.7689 could be calculated by Eq. (23), therefore, the corresponding normalized degree of stability Λ = 0.2627
could be obtained from Eq. (24). Similarly, in the case of SMC-based ODS criterion, the value for the stiffness ratio α = 0.9795 could be
determined by Eq. (42) and then the additional damping ratio λ = 0.3232 could be obtained by Eq. (37), thus, the corresponding
normalized degree of stability Λ = 0.3078 could be obtained from (38). For the purpose of comparison, considering the OBS criterion
by Londoño [1], the additional damping ratio λ = 0.1972 and the stiffness ratio α = 2.1297 could be determined by Eqs. (29), thus, the

Fig. 7. Comparisons of the maximum normalized degree of stability Λmax versus targeted overall damping ratios.

9
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

associated normalized degree of stability Λ = 0.2595 could be numerically determined; considering the ODS criterion by Londoño [1],
the stiffness ratio α = 0.9560 and the additional damping ratio λ = 0.2788 could be determined by Eqs. (43), thus, associated
normalized degree of stability Λ = 0.2964 could be numerically obtained as well. Table 1 lists the values of α and λ as well as the
resulting natural frequency ω for different optimization strategies.
Since the aim of SMC is to make the free vibration response decay in the minimum duration, it is meaningful to compare the free
vibration response of the SDOF structure with the supplemental brace-damper system optimized by the abovementioned optimization
strategies. For this numerical study, both Fig. 8(a) and (b) compare the time-history results of uS corresponding to different optimi­
zation strategies, which are obtained by solving Eq. (5) with the following initial conditions:
uS (0) = 0.1m; u̇S (0) = 0.0m / s (44)
It should be noted that the time range of Fig. 8(a) is limited to 0.0~3.0 s and the time range of Fig. 8(b) is reduced to 0.0~0.50 s in
order to better distinguish the decaying rates with respect to different optimization strategies. Obviously, the decaying rates could be
not only qualitatively compared from Fig. 8(b) but also quantitively measured by the time elapse from the initial condition to the final
state at rest defined as Telapse. From both Fig. 8(a) and (b), it could be observed that the decaying rate of free vibration corresponding to
SMC-based ODS criterion is fastest (Telapse = 2.332 s), then in sequence are ODS criterion (Telapse = 2.433 s), SMC-based OBS criterion
(Telapse = 2.761 s), and OBS criterion (Telapse = 2.790 s) lead to the slowest decaying rate, which is in agreement with the values of the
normalized degree of stability corresponding to optimization strategies. Moreover, Fig. 9 shows the magnitude curves of transfer
function from ground accelerations to the absolute acceleration of the SDOF structure. It can be observed from this figure that
magnitude curve of the transfer functions of absolute acceleration for SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion are nearly com­
parable, similarly, this observation is reasonable to the case of both SMC-based ODS criterion and ODS criterion.
Moreover, the comparisons of different optimization strategies could be made by conducting the time-history analysis under three
unscaled seismic records from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center ground motion database. The selected three
unscaled seismic records, also adopted in [28], are Kern County (TAF111 in 1952), Kobe (KAK000 in 1995), and Landers (BRS000 in
1992), which represent three kinds of earthquakes (i.e., short-period random phase type, mid-long-period pulse type, and long-period
fling step type, respectively). Two performance indices are employed to measure the mitigation effect achieved by each optimization
strategy for the three seismic records. The first performance index is defined as the ratio of the peak displacement of SDOF structure
with supplement brace-damper system to the corresponding response without brace-damper system J1 = uS,max/uS0,max; The second
performance index is defined as the ratio of the peak absolute acceleration of SDOF structure with supplement brace-damper system to
the corresponding response without brace-damper system J2 =aS,max/ aS0,max. Table 1 presents the performance indices for different
optimization strategies. As shown in Table 1, the mitigation effect achieved by SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion are nearly
the same, similarly, this observation also applies to the case of both SMC-based ODS criterion and ODS criterion. Moreover, it should be
pointed out that, although the aforementioned optimization strategies are valid for any kind of seismic excitation, the mitigation effect
achieved by these optimization strategies are dependent upon the frequency content of seismic excitation. In this numerical example,
the mitigation effect of both SMC-based ODS criterion and ODS criterion are better than that of SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS
criterion in the case of short-period random phase type and long-period fling step type seismic excitations; however, under the
mid-long-period pulse type seismic excitation, the mitigation effect of both SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion are better than
that of SMC-based ODS criterion and ODS criterion.
Fig. 10 shows the displacement responses of the SDOF structure subjected to KAK000 ground motion. Particularly, Fig. 10(e)
presents the response of the structure without brace-damper system but with an inherent structural damping of 25% to verify whether
the design target could be attained. These plots show that both SMC-based OBS criterion and SMC-based ODS criteria could provide
effective mitigation solutions and are comparable with OBS and ODS criterion by Londoño. Furthermore, it could be observed that
SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion almost perfectly follow the dynamic response of the system with damping ratio of 25%,
which indicates that the proposed optimization solution is nearly close to optimality.
J1 spectra for different optimization criteria under the mid-long pulse type ground motion (KAK000) is presented Fig. 11. As shown
in this figure, for the short-period SDOF structure (TS ≤ 0.75 s), the J1 performance indices for these four optimization criteria are
comparable; for the medium-period SDOF structures (0.75 s < TS ≤ 2.0 s), the J1 performance indices of SMC-based ODS criterion and
ODS criterion are slight better than those of SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion; for the long-period SDOF structures (TS > 2.0
s), the J1 performance indices of SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion are slight better than those of SMC-based OBS criterion
and OBS criterion. Therefore, the SMC-based ODS criterion and ODS criterion is preferable for the medium-period SDOF structures,
whereas, the SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion are preferable for the long-period SDOF structures.

Table 1
Performance indices for different optimization strategies.
Optimization Strategy А λ ω (rad/s) J1 J2

TAF111 KAK000 BRS000 TAF111 KAK000 BRS000

SMC-based OBS 1.7689 0.1995 13.217 0.621 0.482 0.604 0.716 0.568 0.691
SMC-based ODS 0.9795 0.3232 15.471 0.583 0.434 0.627 0.770 0.627 0.788
OBS 2.1297 0.1972 13.084 0.618 0.481 0.603 0.706 0.559 0.683
ODS 0.9560 0.2788 14.886 0.608 0.452 0.621 0.773 0.618 0.757

10
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

Fig. 8. Comparisons of free vibration responses among different optimization criterion.

Fig. 9. Magnitude curves of transfer functions of absolute acceleration for different optimization criteria.

5. Conclusions

For the SDOF structure with supplemental brace-damper system, to achieve the desired structural performance represented, two
different optimization criteria (i.e., the Optimum Brace stiffness criterion and Optimum Damper Size criterion) have been proposed by
Londoño, which are essentially fitting formulae through extensive parametric study. In this study, analytically optimal parameters of
supporting brace stiffness and linear viscous damping are derived by incorporating the maximum stability criterion into the existing
work by Londoño. Based on the parametric studies of the effects of stiffness ratio and additional damping ratio on the normalized
degree of stability Λ, two different sets of analytically optimal parameters, respectively corresponding to SMC-based OBS and SMC-
based ODS criteria, are formulated to meet the desired structural performance represented by the targeted overall damping ratio.
Based on the numerical results of free vibration, it is shown that the optimal parameters delivered by SMC-based ODS criterion lead to
the fasting decaying rate in the free vibration for a given targeted overall damping ratio. According to the numerical results of time-
history analysis subjected different types of seismic ground motions, it is observed that seismic performance of both SMC-based ODS
criterion and ODS criterion are better than that of SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion in the case of short-period random phase
type and long-period fling step type seismic excitations; under the mid-long-period pulse type seismic excitation, the seismic per­
formance of both SMC-based OBS criterion and OBS criterion are better than that of SMC-based ODS criterion and ODS criterion.
Moreover, it is demonstrated that the proposed SMC-based OBS criterion and SMC-based ODS criterion excellently agree with the
existing OBS criterion and ODS criterion, respectively.
The new contributions of the study to the field can be summarized as follows:

• Stability maximization criterion (SMC) has been applied to the optimal design of brace-damper system.

11
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

Fig. 10. Seismic response of the structure with brace-damper system. (a) SMC-based OBS criterion; (b) SMC-based ODS criterion; (c) OBS criterion;
(d) ODS criterion; and (e) comparison with structure without brace-damper system but inherent damping ratio of 25%.

• Two different sets of analytically optimal parameters, respectively corresponding to SMC-based Optimum Brace Stiffness (OBS) and
SMC-based Optimum Damper Size (ODS) criteria, are formulated to meet the desired structural performance represented by the
targeted overall damping ratio.

Dear Editor,
We confirm that all authors (Kun Ye and Yuxiang Wang) named in the manuscript are aware of the submission and have agreed for
the paper to be submitted to Journal of Sound and Vibration. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely yours, Kun
Ye and Yuxiang Wang

12
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

Fig. 11. J1 spectra for different optimization criteria under the mid-long period pulse type ground motion (KAK000).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Kun Ye: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Yuxiang Wang: Writing – original draft,
Software, Validation.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge support given to them by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number:
52078234).

References

[1] J.M. Londoño, S. Neild, D. Wagg, A noniterative design procedure for supplemental brace-damper systems in single-degree-of-freedom systems, Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 42 (2013) 2361–2367.
[2] S.T.M.C. Constantinou, G.F. Dargush, passive energy dissipation systems for structural design and retrofit. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, New York, 1998.
[3] B.F. Spencer, S. Nagarajaiah, State of the art of structural control, J. Struct. Eng. 129 (2003) 845–856.
[4] Y. Hu, J. Wang, M.Z.Q. Chen, Z. Li, Y. Sun, Load mitigation for a barge-type floating offshore wind turbine via inerter-based passive structural control, Eng.
Struct. 177 (2018) 198–209.
[5] Y. Hu, T. Hua, M.Z.Q. Chen, S. Shi, Y. Sun, Inherent stability analysis for multibody systems with semi-active inerters, J. Sound Vib. 535 (2022), 117073.
[6] C. Liu, L. Chen, H.P. Lee, Y. Yang, X. Zhang, A review of the inerter and inerter-based vibration isolation: theory, devices, and applications, J. Franklin Inst. 359
(2022) 7677–7707.
[7] O. Lavan, R. Levy, Optimal design of supplemental viscous dampers for linear framed structures, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 (2006) 337–356.
[8] R.H. Zhang, T.T. Soong, Seismic design of viscoelastic dampers for structural applications, J. Struct. Eng. 118 (1992) 1375–1392.
[9] C.H. Loh, P.Y. Lin, N.H. Chung, Design of dampers for structures based on optimal control theory, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 29 (2000) 1307–1323.
[10] N. Gluck, A.M. Reinhorn, J. Gluck, R. Levy, Design of supplemental dampers for control of structures, J. Struct. Eng. 122 (1996) 1394–1399.
[11] I. Takewaki, Optimal damper placement for minimum transfer functions, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26 (1997) 1113–1124.
[12] Y. Fu, K. Kasai, Comparative study of frames using viscoelastic and viscous dampers, J. Struct. Eng. 124 (1998) 513–522.
[13] Y. Ribakov, A.M. Reinhorn, Design of amplified structural damping using optimal considerations, J. Struct. Eng. 129 (2003) 1422–1427.
[14] K. Yamada, Dynamic characteristics of SDOF structure with Maxwell element, J. Eng. Mech. 134 (2008) 396–404.
[15] M.J. Brennan, A. Carrella, T.P. Waters, V. Lopes, On the dynamic behaviour of a mass supported by a parallel combination of a spring and an elastically
connected damper, J. Sound Vib. 309 (2008) 823–837.
[16] S. Li, Y.T. Chen, Y.H. Chai, B. Li, Effects of brace stiffness and nonlinearity of viscous dampers on seismic performance of structures, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 21
(2021), 2150188.
[17] M. Zhang, H. Pang, Analysis of damping performance of frame structure with viscoelastic dampers, Eng. Comput. 38 (2021) 913–928 (Swansea, Wales).
[18] M. Wang, Y.W. Li, S. Nagarajaiah, Y. Xiang, Effectiveness and robustness of braced-damper systems with adaptive negative stiffness devices in yielding
structures, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 51 (2022) 2648–2667.
[19] M.P. Singh, N.P. Verma, L.M. Moreschi, Seismic analysis and design with Maxwell dampers, J. Eng. Mech. 129 (2003) 273–282.

13
K. Ye and Y. Wang Journal of Sound and Vibration 556 (2023) 117718

[20] J.H. Park, J. Kim, K.W. Min, Optimal design of added viscoelastic dampers and supporting braces, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 33 (2004) 465–484.
[21] Y.T. Chen, Y.H. Chai, Effects of brace stiffness on performance of structures with supplemental Maxwell model-based brace-damper systems, Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 40 (2011) 75–92.
[22] K. Fujita, A. Moustafa, I. Takewaki, Optimal placement of viscoelastic dampers and supporting members under variable critical excitations, Earthqu. Struct. 1
(2010) 43–67.
[23] D. Losanno, J.M. Londono, S. Zinno, G. Serino, Effective damping and frequencies of viscous damper braced structures considering the supports flexibility,
Comput. Struct. 207 (2018) 121–131.
[24] J. Londoño, D. Wagg, S. Neild, Supporting brace sizing in structures with added linear viscous fluid dampers: a filter design solution, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43
(2014) 1999–2013.
[25] P. Xiang, A. Nishitani, Optimum design and application of non-traditional tuned mass damper toward seismic response control with experimental test
verification, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44 (2015) 2199–2220.
[26] H. Yamaguchi, Damping of transient vibration by a dynamic absorber, Nihon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu C 54 (1988) 561–568.
[27] O. Nishihara, H. Matsuhisa, Design optimization of passive gyroscopic damper, JSME Int. J. Ser. C 40 (1997) 643–651.
[28] K. Ye, S. Shu, L. Hu, H. Zhu, Analytical solution of seismic response of base-isolated structure with supplemental inerter, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 48 (2019)
1083–1090.

14