Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic performance of optimal Multi-Tuned Liquid Column

Damper-Inerter (MTLCDI) applied to adjacent high-rise buildings
Qinhua Wang a, b, Haoshuai Qiao a, Dario De Domenico c, *, Zhiwen Zhu a, d, Yi Tang e
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shantou University, Shantou, 515063, PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Structure and Wind Tunnel of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, Shantou, 515063, PR China
c
Department of Engineering, University of Messina, 98166, Messina, Italy
d
Guangdong Engineering Center for Structure Safety and Health Monitoring, Shantou University, Shantou, 515063, PR China
e
China Academy of Building Research, Beijing, 100013, PR China

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

Keywords: Conventional vibration absorbers, e.g., a classical tuned mass damper, may be not efficient in simultaneously
Multi-tuned liquid column damper-inerter controlling the seismic response of adjacent high-rise buildings. In this paper, a novel passive vibration control
Adjacent high-rise buildings system, denoted as Multi-Tuned Liquid Column Damper-Inerter (MTLCDI), is developed to control the seismic
Seismic design
response of adjacent high-rise buildings. Two different configurations of this system, namely inter-story MTLCDI
Parametric optimization
(IS-MTLCDI) and inter-building MTLCDI (IB-MTLCDI), are proposed, and related mathematical models are
developed to investigate the seismic performance of MTLCDI. A case study project comprising two adjacent high-
rise buildings equipped with the proposed system and subjected to ten earthquake records with various fre­
quency characteristics is considered. Performance-based parametric optimization of the MTLCDI systems is
performed through two distinct constrained multi-objective optimization problems via genetic algorithms,
wherein peak absolute accelerations and inter-story drift ratios of the two adjacent buildings are selected as
performance indexes. The mitigation effects of optimum IS-MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI on earthquake-induced
vibrations are scrutinized, with emphasis placed on the effects of natural frequency ratios between the two
host structures. The results indicate that, when the two buildings have distinct natural frequencies, both IS-
MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI outperform inter-building single TLCDI as well as other vibration absorbers in terms
of seismic vibration control of absolute acceleration and inter-story drift ratios. Under most natural frequency
ratios, the IS-MTLCDI achieves a larger response reduction than IB-MTLCDI. Nevertheless, when the differences
between natural frequencies of adjacent buildings are significant, applying an IB-MTLCDI may be preferable due
to its satisfactory mitigation effects combined with ease of installation.

1. Introduction employed to link adjacent buildings with structural control purposes.

Due to limited land for building construction in densely populated
urban areas, high-rise buildings tend to be built closely to each other [1,
2]. Under dynamic excitations, excessive response is likely to be expe­
rienced by slender high-rise buildings. It is of upmost importance to
control the wind-induced and earthquake-induced vibrations in order to
guarantee occupants’ comfort [3] and, at the same time, avoid potential
damage of non-structural components mainly induced by floor accel­
erations [4] and severe structural damage mainly induced by inter-story
drift ratios.
In the field of seismic design of adjacent high-rise buildings, various
passive [2,5–10] and semi-active control devices [11–13] have been
Zhu et al. [7] utilized viscoelastic damper and fluid viscous damper to
connect parallel structures under seismic excitations. Their results
indicated that the two kinds of dampers share desirable seismic per­
formance, and considerable reduction on both the earthquake-induced
responses and the vibration energy of the adjacent structures is
achieved.
Benefitting from the considerable mass amplification [14] and
damping enhancement effect [15], inerter device has recently attracted
great interest in the field of structural vibration control [16–24]. A va­
riety of inerter-based vibration absorbers (IVAs), e.g. Tuned Mass
Damper-Inerter (TMDI) [16,17,25–31] and Tuned Inerter Damper (TID)
[20,32–34], have been proposed and proven to achieve better

* Corresponding author. University of Messina, Italy.

E-mail address: dario.dedomenico@unime.it (D. De Domenico).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106653
Received 7 September 2020; Received in revised form 11 January 2021; Accepted 6 February 2021
Available online 20 February 2021
0267-7261/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Wang et al.
wind-resistance or seismic performance than conventional vibration
absorbers with even lower device mass. It is widely recognized that IVAs
could achieve better mitigation effects when their two terminals expe­
rience larger relative motions, which is currently realized by adopting a
multi-story topology of inerter [16,22] or installing the IVA to consec­
utive softened floors [35]. Of particular relevance to the present study,
an IVA is also expected to be fully engaged when it is used to link
adjacent structures having markedly different dynamic features [2,9,
36]. Palacios-Quiñonero et al. [9] investigated the seismic performance
of inerter-based multi-actuator systems with inter-building and
inter-story layouts on vibration control of adjacent structures. By
assessing the mitigation effects of optimum tuned mass-inerter damper
(TMID) in terms of inter-story drift, the results demonstrated the supe­
riority of TMID in both vibration control and robustness. Considering a
more practical implementation of multi-TMDI to high-rise buildings, De
Domenico et al. [2] applied a multi-TMDI (MTMDI) system to mitigate
the seismic response of adjacent high-rise buildings in a real case study
project. The corridors between the adjacent buildings were utilized to
connect the individual TMDIs in the MTMDI system with the floors on
the opposite building, which aims at amplifying the inerter effectiveness
due to the large relative motions experienced by the two buildings. The
mitigation effects of the MTMDI were assessed in terms of displacement,
inter-story drift ratio, and absolute acceleration under 44 recorded
ground motions. The results indicated that MTMDI can achieve a
considerable reduction in acceleration responses, while it cannot effec­
tively mitigate the displacement responses.
Inerter-based multi-actuator and MTMDI have been proven to be
effective in suppressing the seismic vibrations of adjacent high-rise
building. However, these implementations, despite implying a signifi­
cant reduction of attached mass compared to TMD alternatives, require
metal blocks having hundreds of tons of weight to achieve a reasonable
mass ratio for high-rise buildings. In this regard, combining the advan­
tages of the inerter device with the conventional Tuned Liquid Damper
(TLD) [37,38] and Tuned Liquid Column Damper (TLCD) [39–41], two
alternatives were proposed, i.e., Tuned Liquid Inerter System (TLIS)
[42] and Tuned Liquid Column Damper-Inerter (TLCDI) [43,44],
respectively. In these cases, more practical applications of the liquid
mass of the TLIS and TLCDI can be exploited, such as a fire-proof water
tank. Recently, Wang et al. [44] applied the TLCDI to control the seismic
vibration of adjacent high-rise buildings. The TLCDI was equipped with
an inter-story layout to exploit the large relative acceleration between
the two buildings. Similar to the results shown in Ref. [2], it was found
that the inter-building TLCDI can effectively reduce the
earthquake-induced acceleration responses but fails to achieve consid­
erable mitigation on inter-story drift ratio.
Despite the application of the recently proposed TLCDI has shown its
efficiency in the seismic control of adjacent high-rise buildings, some
issues in the previous research work still deserve further investigation:
(i) regarding the results in the previous study [2], better mitigation ef­
fects may be achieved by employing a multi-IVAs system rather than a
single IVA; (ii) only the dependency on excitation was investigated,
while the performance of vibration absorbers is also
structure-dependent; (iii) from practical design perspectives, the single
inter-building TLCDI can hardly perform as a fire-proof water tank for
both buildings.
Based on these motivations, the present work extends the previous
research by introducing Multi-Tuned Liquid Column Damper-Inerter
(MTLCDI) system for seismic design of adjacent high-rise buildings.
The issues mentioned above are investigated through the following
novel contributions: (i) inter-building TLCDI (IB-TLCDI) is extended to
inter-story MTLCDI (IS-MTLCDI) and inter-building MTLCDI (IB-
MTLCDI), and comparisons on the mitigation effects among these three
vibration absorbers are made; (ii) in addition to investigating the control
performance depending on excitation frequency characteristics, the
seismic performance of MTLCDI is here analyzed also in terms of
structural dynamics features, i.e., natural frequency ratio of the two
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
buildings, in order to draw more comprehensive conclusions from the
numerical analyses; (iii) the liquid containers (two or even more) of
TLCDIs in the MTLCDI system can be separately installed on two
buildings to perform as water tanks for both daily and firefighting usage.
The paper is organized as follows. Firstly, the motion equations of the
seismically excited multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) structures equip­
ped with IS-MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI are established. Subsequently,
performance-based parametric optimization of the MTLCDI systems is
carried out with reference to a practical case study project involving two
high-rise buildings. The seismic response of these two adjacent high-rise
buildings equipped with optimum MTLCDI systems are then analyzed
considering ten natural earthquake records. Furthermore, the effect of
variation of natural frequencies of buildings on the resulting mitigation
performance of MTLCDI system is carried out. Finally, two practical
concerns towards the implementation of IS-MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI are
investigated.
2. MTLCDI-equipped MDOF structures
2.1. Motion equations
Adjacent high-rise buildings are usually connected to each other by a
multi-storey corridor, which may be used to facilitate daily passage from
one building to the other. The multi-storey corridor can be exploited for
the linkage of the IB-MTLCDI system analyzed in this paper, by intro­
ducing a roller support on one end of the corridor to avoid excessive
reaction forces transferred to the buildings.
The specific MTLCDI system analyzed in this paper comprises two
TLCDI subsystems. The lumped mass models of adjacent buildings
equipped with IS-MTLCDI and IB- MTLCDI are presented in Fig. 1 (a)
and (b), respectively. In Fig. 1, Building-1 and -2 have i and j DOFs,
respectively. Each TLCDI in the MTLCDI system comprises a U-shape
liquid container, a linear spring having stiffness coefficient kt, a viscous
dashpot element having damping coefficient ct, and an inerter having
inertance coefficient b, as displayed in Fig. 2 (b). To be more specific, the
U-shape container has a total mass MC, a horizontal dimension B, and a
cross-section area A. The coefficient of head loss is denoted as ξ and is
inherently controlled by the opening ratio of the orifice inside the
container [45,46]. The liquid column inside the container has total
length L and density ρ. As the inertance (unit in kg) of the inerter device
can be thousands time its device mass [19,47], the device mass of each
TLCDI can be evaluated to be mt = MC+ρAL, disregarding the negligible
mass of the inerter. Under earthquake excitation the movement of the
host structure is transferred to the TLCDI through the inerter, the
dashpot element, and the spring, thereby triggering the motion of the
water column. Subsequently, two energy dissipation elements, i.e. the
dashpot element having damping coefficient of ct and the orifice inside
the liquid container having head loss coefficient of ξ, can generate
damping force to dissipate the energy absorbed by the TLCDI.
Assuming the dynamic behavior of the host structures to be linear,
when the MTLCDI system comprises two TLCDIs, the motion equations
of buildings equipped with IS-MTLCDI or IB-MTLCDI can be formulated
in the same matrix form as
MÜ(t) + CU̇(t) + ΚU(t) = − Mphy J z̈g (t), (1)
where z g (t) denotes the ground motion acceleration at time t, and
¨
J∊ℝ(i+j+4)×1 is the influence vector, whose all elements are one. Ü(t),
U̇(t), and U(t)∊ℝ(i+j+4)×1 are the acceleration, velocity, and displace­
ment response vectors of all DOFs relative to the ground at arbitrary
time t, respectively. As an example, the response vector U(t) includes the
following terms
[ ]T
U(t) = X1 (t)T , X2 (t)T , y1 (t), y2 (t), u1 (t), u2 (t) , (2)
where X1(t)∊ℝi×1 and X2(t)∊ ℝj×1 are the displacement response vectors
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

Fig. 1. Sketches of buildings equipped with (a) IS-MTLCDI and (b) IB-MTLCDI.

Fig. 2. (a) The schematic view and (b) the analytical model of an individual TLCDI.

of all DOFs in Building-1 and -2 at time t, respectively; y1(t) and u1(t) ⎡ ⎤

K1,s 0 0
denote the horizontal displacement of the container and the vertical ∑2 ( )
K=⎣0 K2,s 0 ⎦+ kt,k 1i,k 1Ti,k − 1i,k 1Ti+j+k − 1i+j+k 1Ti,k
elevation of the liquid column of TLCDI-1 at time t (as shown in Fig. 2
0 0 KMTLCDI k=1
(b)), respectively, and y2(t) and u2(t) are corresponding displacement
(3c)
responses of those of TLCDI-2. The superscript T denotes the transpose
operator. ⎡ ⎤
M1,s 0 0
The mass, stiffness, damping, and physical mass matrices in Eq. (1) Mphy = ⎣ 0 M2,s 0 ⎦ (3d)
can be expanded as follows. 0 0 Mdm
⎡ ⎤
M1,s 0 0 ∑ 2 ( ) In Eqs. (3a) to (3d), the terms Ml,s ∈ ℝi×i or j×j ,Cl,s ∈ ℝi×i or j×j , and
М= 0 ⎣ M2,s 0 ⎦+ bk 1a,k 1Ta,k − 1a,k 1Ti+j+k − 1i+j+k 1Ta,k
0 0 MMTLCDI k=1 Kl,s ∈ ℝi×i or j×j represent the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the
uncontrolled Building-l (l = 1,2), respectively. In particular, the damp­
(3a)
ing matrix Cl,s ∈ ℝi×i or j×j is established based on the modal damping
⎡
C1,s 0 0
⎤
( ) matrix Cl,mod as follows
∑2
C=⎣0 C2,s 0 ⎦+ ct,k 1i,k 1Ti,k − 1i,k 1Ti+j+k − 1i+j+k 1Ti,k ( )− 1
0 0 CMTLCDI k=1 Cl,s = ΦTl Cl,mod (Φl )− 1 , (4a)
(3b) ( )
Cl,mod (r, r) = 2ζl,r ωl,r ϕTl,r Ml,s ϕl,r ; r = 1, 2, …, i or j, (4b)

where Φl ∈ ℝi×i or j×j

is the mode shape matrix of the Building-l. ζl,r, ωl,r ,

3
Q. Wang et al.
and ϕl,r are the damping ratio, the natural circular frequency and the
mode shape of the rth mode of the Building-l, respectively.
By introducing the location vector 1m ∈ ℝ(i+j+4)×1 , the parameters of
MTLCDI are assigned to the corresponding elements of the matrices in
Eq. (3). Only the mth element in the location vector 1m is equal to 1, and
the others are zeros. The subscript a,k and i,k in Eq. (3a) and Eqs. (3b)-
(3c) represent the numbers of DOFs which the inerter of the kth (k = 1,2)
TLCDI is attached to and the container is installed on, respectively.
Equation. (1) can describe the seismic motion of buildings equipped
with IS-MTLCDI or IB-MTLCDI under certain combinations of a,k and i,k
(k = 1,2). When the DOFs represented by a,k and i,k of the kth TLCDI
belong to the same building, an IS-MTLCDI is obtained. As an example,
in the IS-MTLCDI shown in Fig. 1 (b), the TLCDI-1 in the IS-MTLCDI
system is installed on the (j-1)th floor of Building-2 (corresponding to
the i+(j-1)th DOF of the coupled system), and its inerter is attached to the
(j-3)th floor of Building-2 (corresponding to the i+(j-3)th DOF of the
coupled system), thus, the values of i,1 and a,1 are i+(j-1) and i+(j-3),
respectively. Similarly, the values of i,2 and a,2 are i-2 and i-3, respec­
tively. It is worth noting that the above-described analytical formulation
of IS-MTLCDI allows for general inerter topologies spanning more than
two consecutive floors, which might be realized by adopting a pendulum
layout as shown in Fig. 1 (a). This configuration was intuitively moti­
vated by the authors [22,48] and by other researchers [16] considering
that the motion of two non-consecutive floors is seemingly less corre­
lated. Therefore, the inerter is likely to undergo higher relative accel­
erations at its two terminals than if it were installed between two
consecutive floors. On the other hand, for the IB-MTLCDI scheme, the a,
k and i,k of the individual TLCDI correspond to DOFs on different
buildings. Considering the IB-MTLCDI example in Fig. 1 (b), the corre­
sponding values of i,1, a,1, i,2, and a,2 are i+(j-1), i-1, i-2, and i+(j-2),
respectively.
The sub-matrices in Eq. (3), i.e. MMTLCDI , CMTLCDI , KMTLCDI , and Mdm ∈
ℝn×n , are defined in Eqs. (5a) to (5d), respectively.
⎡ ⎤
ρA1 L1 + MC 1 + b1 0 ρ A1 B1 0
⎢0 ρA2 L2 + MC 2 + b2 0 ρ A2 B2 ⎥
MMTLCDI = ⎢ ⎣ ρ A1 B1
⎥
⎦
0 ρA1 L1 0
0 ρ A2 B2 0 ρA2 L2
( ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒)
1 ⃒ ⃒ 1 ⃒ ⃒
CMTLCDI = diag ct1 , ct2 , ρA1 ξ1 ⃒⃒u̇1 (t)⃒⃒, ρA2 ξ2 ⃒⃒u̇2 (t)⃒⃒
2 2
KMTLCDI = diag(kt1 , kt2 , 2ρA1 g, 2ρA2 g)
Mdm = diag(mt1 , mt2 , ρA1 B1 , ρA2 B2 )
where the ‘diag’ operator indicates that the latter three sub-matrices are
diagonal matrices, and the elements in the bracket are the diagonal
entries. Due to the presence of the two nonlinear entries, i.e.
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
(ρA1 ξ1 ⃒⃒u̇1 (t)⃒⃒)/2 and (ρA2 ξ2 ⃒⃒u̇2 (t)⃒⃒)/2 in Eq. (5b), the coupled Eq. (1) is
nonlinear. To solve this nonlinear problem with reasonable computa­
tional cost, direct step-by-step numerical integration of the nonlinear
equations of motion is used to compute the seismic response of the
structure. Equivalent linearization methods [49,50] require iterations to
obtain the two equivalent damping terms and are used in this work only
for the analyses in the frequency domain.
After solving Eq. (1), the peak absolute accelerations ẍAmax,l and
inter-story drift ratios Δmax,l of the Building-l (l = 1,2), which are
selected to be the main engineering demand parameters as well as
performance indexes in the present study, can be calculated as
(⃒ ⃒)
ẍAmax, l = max ⃒ẍl + Jl zg ⃒ , (6a)
Δmax, l = max(|Δxl . / hl |),
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
where Xl , Δxl (l = 1,2) are the time histories of acceleration of each DOF
and inter-story displacement between consecutive DOFs of the Building-
l, respectively. Jl∊ℝ(i or j)×1 is the above-defined influence vector. hl is
the inter-story heights vector of the Building-l.
2.2. Equivalent linearization technique and frequency response functions
To further investigate the effects of employing MTLCDI on the
structural dynamic characteristics of host structure in terms of frequency
response function (FRF), the nonlinear motion equations require to be
linearized by adopting equivalent linearization techniques [45,49,51,
52]. In the authors’ previous research works [43,44], an equivalent
linearization method targeting at minimizing the mean square damping
force was adopted and has been proven to be valid.
Following the same linearization procedure, the linearized submatrix
CMTLCDI can be rewritten as
( )
CMTCLDI = diag ct1 , ct2 , 2ρA1 Cp1 , 2ρA2 Cp2 , (7)
where Cp1 and Cp2 are expressed in terms of the standard deviations of
the liquid column elevation velocity of the TLCDI-1 and TLCDI-2, i.e.,
σ u̇1 and σ u̇2 , respectively, as follows.
σ u̇ ξ σu˙ ξ
Cp1 = √1̅̅̅̅̅1 and Cp2 = √2̅̅̅̅̅2 . (8)
2π 2π
Based on the linearized motion equations of MTLCDI-equipped
adjacent buildings, the FRFs for displacement responses HU (ω) ∈
R(i+j+4)×1 of the coupled system at arbitrary radius frequency ω can be
obtained as
[ ]− 1 ( )
HU (ω) = − ω2 M + iωC + Κ − Mphy J . (9)
Furthermore, the corresponding FRFs for the absolute acceleration of
all DOFs and the inter-story drift ratio of the kth DOF at frequency ω, i.
e. HU (ω) ∈ R(i+j+4)×1 and HΔ,k (ω) ∈ R1×1 , respectively, can be formulated
¨
as
HÜ (ω) = − ω2 HU (ω) + J, (10a)
(5a)
HU,k (ω) − HU,k− 1 (ω)
HΔ,k (ω) = , (10b)
hk
(5b)
where HU,k (ω) denotes the FRF for displacement response of the kth DOF
(5c) at frequency ω, and hk is the inter-story height between the (k-1)th floor
and the kth floor.
(5d)
3. Case study: parametric optimization and numerical results
3.1. Buildings and earthquake excitations
In the present research, two adjacent high-rise buildings having the
same height of 153.3 m and 36 floors are taken as case study. A seven-
story interbuilding corridor (spanning from the 23rd floor to the 29th
floor) links the twin buildings. One terminal of the corridor is connected
to the mainframe by a sliding support. The finite element model (FEM)
of the structure (built up in ETABS©) and its simplified sketch are shown
in Fig. 3.
Based on the FEM, the lumped mass and lateral stiffness distribution
along the corridor spanwise, i.e. along the x-axis, are extracted. After­
ward, the lumped mass model of the uncontrolled structures was
established in MATLAB©, and all of the following analyses are per­
formed based on the lumped mass model. Although the two buildings
share a symmetric architectural appearance and identical dynamic
properties, it can be rationally expected that the IB-MTLCDI could only
achieve poor mitigation effects, as the two buildings will vibrate in-
(6b)
phase, and the inerter device cannot fully exert its energy-absorbing
and damping enhancement effects. However, the live loads of both
4
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

buildings probably vary due to the variation in their practical building

functions, e.g. serving as a hotel, an apartment, or a shopping mall, and
no longer an office building. Such variation in real-life usage directly
changes the distribution of live loads and has a significant effect on the
distribution of lumped masses. Once the dynamic characteristics of the
two buildings become different, the IB-MTLCDI can be expected to
achieve more comparable mitigation effects to those of IS-MTLCDI.
Based on this consideration, in the present research the lumped
masses of Building-2 are artificially scaled to different times their orig­
inal values with those of Building-1 remain the same.
As an example, to artificially modify the natural frequencies of
Building-2 to be 0.8 times those of Building-1, according to Eq. (11)
expressed below

M−l,s1 K l,s ϕl,r = ω2l,r ϕl,r , (11)

it can be deduced that the lumped masses of Building-2 should be

correspondingly scaled to 1/0.802 times their original values. For this
case, the distribution of lumped masses along the floors are shown in
Fig. 4.
Including the first three order natural frequencies, the total mass and
the assumed first order damping ratio of this modified set of the build­
ings are listed in Table 1. It can be seen that the natural frequencies of
Building-2 are 0.8 times that of Building-1.
It is worth noting that this assumption of scaling the natural fre­
quencies of Building-2 to be 0.8 times those of Building-1 aims at
improving the performance of IB-MTLCDI to achieve comparable miti­
gation effects as those of IS-MTLCDI. The following Sections 3.3~3.4 are
based on this set of assumed host structures, and the performance of
optimal IS-MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI on seismic control of the host
structures with various natural frequencies is scrutinized in Section 3.5.
To evaluate the mitigation effects achieved by the novel MTLCDI
system, ten orthogonal components of five recorded ground motions are
adopted to be the seismic input. These ten components are selected from
the FEMA P695 far-field record set [53] by covering various frequency
characteristics and relatively short length of records.
The main seismological characteristics of the ten times histories of
selected ground motions, e.g. Mw, sample length, duration, and unscaled
peak ground acceleration (PGA), are listed in Table 2.
To show the diversity of the frequency characteristics of the ten
ground motion records, their individual and median response spectra
and power spectrum densities (PSDs) are shown in Fig. 5.
In the present research work, the PGAs of the selected records are
scaled to be 0.1 g taking the following aspects into account: (i) the dy­
namic behavior of structural members should remain to be elastic under

Fig. 3. (a) FEM and (b) simplified sketch of the buildings.

Fig. 4. Distribution of the lumped mass along floors.

5
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

Table 1 of the liquid column B in two TLCDIs can be fixed to be 0.9 times its total
Main dynamic features of the buildings. length L following the configurations in the previous researches [43,45].
Building Total Mass First three order First-order damping ratio Thus, eighteen parameters left for two TLCDIs in the IS-MTLCDI system
(t) natural frequencies (assumed) need to be optimized. Taking TLCDI-1 as an example, the nine param­
(rad/s) eters to be optimized can be listed in a design vector θ1∊ℝ1×9 as follows:
1 124038 1.92 5.05 8.00 1.5%
θ1 = [γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, p1 ], (12)
2 193810 1.53 4.04 6.40 1.5%

the considered earthquake excitations, in order to be consistent with the
assumption of Eq. (1); (ii) the scaled ground motions potentially ensure
the validity of the motion equations related to the liquid column in Eq.
(1). Indeed, one end of the liquid column may be in the horizontal part of
the U-shape container under stronger ground motions, and the corre­
sponding motion equations would be no longer valid under this
circumstance; (iii) the seismic hazard of the installation site of the
buildings is consistent with a PGA of 0.1 g.
3.2. Performance-based parametric optimization of the MTLCDI
where γb1 = b1/Ml is the inertance ratio of the TLCDI-1, and Ml repre­
sents the total mass of the building-l (l = 1,2) on which the TLCDI-1 is
installed. ξ1, L1, MC1, A1, i,1, and p1 are the head loss of orifice, length of
the liquid column, mass of the container, cross-section area of the
container, the installation location index of the container, and the
number of the floors the inerter span downward, respectively. Two
dimensionless design parameters, i.e., frequency ratio υC1 and damping
ratio ζC1 , are defined in Eq. (13), where ωl,1 represents the first-order
natural frequency of the TLCDI-1-equipped Building-l.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ /
kt1 ct1
υC1 = ω1,l , ζC1 = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (13)
mt1 + b1 2 kt1 (mt1 + b1 )

After introducing the definitions of the eighteen parameters to be

Two groups of performance-based parametric optimizations for IS-
optimized, their corresponding range of optimization can be determined
MTLCDI, IB-MTLCDI, and IB-TLCDI (the latter comprising just one
referring to both practical design considerations (e.g., the geometric size
TLCDI rather than two) are individually performed aimed at minimizing
of the cross-section of the building) and previous researches [43,44]. It is
the average maximum absolute acceleration (i.e., ẍAmax,1 and ẍAmax,2 ) and
of great importance to note that the motion equation of the liquid col­
inter-story drift ratios (i.e., Δmax,1 and Δmax,2 ) of the two buildings under
umn is valid only if the ratio of the horizontal dimension B to the
ten ground motion records. These two performance indexes are inher­
characteristic dimension of cross-section (e.g., the diameter of a round
ently related to the serviceability and survivability design criteria,
cross-section) is large enough [54]. Thus, the determination of the upper
respectively, which are set as objectives of optimizations in many other
bound of the cross-section area A should not only consider the practical
researches [2,9,44].
space limitation of the host structure but also the preset range of the
Taking the IS-MTCDI as an example, according to Eqs. (3) and (5),
horizontal dimension B (indirectly constrained by B = 0.9L, L∈[0.1,50]).
total twenty-two parameters for the proposed IS-MTLCDI system
Particularly, i,1 and p1 are discrete design parameters. It is well recog­
comprising two TLCDIs (eleven parameters for each TLCDI) are sup­
nized that the mitigation effects of IVA get better when its inerter spans
posed to be optimized simultaneously. Among these parameters, the
more floors downward [16,22], although some difficulty exists in the
density of the liquid ρ can be determined to be the same as that of water
realization of downward multi-story topology (p1≥1). At current stage,
(997 kg/m3) for practical considerations, and the horizontal dimension

Table 2
Main seismological information of ten selected ground motion records.
Record No. Mw Year Name File Name Sample length Duration (s) Unscaled PGA (9.81 m/s2)

01 7.0 1992 Cape Mendocino CAPEMEND/RIO270 1800 36.00 0.55

02 7.0 1992 Cape Mendocino CAPEMEND/RIO360 1800 36.00 0.55
03 6.7 1994 Northridge NORTHR/LOS000 1999 19.99 0.48
04 6.7 1994 Northridge NORTHR/LOS270 1999 19.99 0.48
05 7.3 1992 Landers LANDERS/YER270 2200 44.00 0.24
06 7.3 1992 Landers LANDERS/YER360 2200 44.00 0.24
07 6.5 1987 Superstition Hills SUPERST/B-POE270 2230 22.30 0.45
08 6.5 1987 Superstition Hills SUPERST/B-POE360 2230 22.30 0.45
09 7.4 1990 Manjil, Iran MANJIL/ABBAR–T 2300 46.00 0.51
10 7.4 1990 Manjil, Iran MANJIL/ABBAR–L 2676 53.52 0.51

Fig. 5. (a) Response spectra and (b) PSDs of the ten selected ground motion records [44].

6
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

one of the more practical realization approaches is to adopt a
pendulum-like IVA spanning multiple non-consecutive stories with
opening slabs [22], as schematically shown in Fig. 1 (a). Since opening
in slabs imply additional realization costs and architectural shortcom­
ings, the number of floors which the TLCDI-1 spans is constrained within
three, i.e. p1=(i,1-a,1)≤3, for practical considerations.
Taking the MTLCDI device mass [16,22] into consideration, which is
directly related to the economic concern and construction difficulty, the
device mass ratio of MTLCDI μMTLCDI can be evaluated and constrained
as
μMTLCDI=(mt1+mt2)/Mtot≤0.5%,
where Mtot is the total mass of the adjacent buildings.
Following the above conditions, two constrained multi-objective
optimization problems (CMOPs) for IS-MTLCDI, individually aimed at
minimizing the two performance indexes, can be defined in Eqs. (15)
and (16), respectively.
where the superscript k indicates the kth ground motion record. In Eqs.
(15) and (16), the number of installation floor, i.e. i,1 and (i,2–36), may
be less than the value of downward topologies, i.e. p1 and p2, which
indicates that the inerter is directly connected to the ground. If so, the
Eq. (1) for this special case is no longer valid, and another mathematical
model for this specific case will be adopted as clarified in Appendix A. In
this manner, a range of installation configurations of IVAs is considered
in this study, including the consideration of grounded inerter devices.
Besides the parametric optimization for IS-MTLCDI, the CMOPs for
parameters of IB-MTLCDI and its special case, i.e. IB-TLCDI [44], are
considered in the present research and defined in Appendix B. In addi­
(14)
tion to IB-TLCDI, the MTLCDI can degenerate into various types of vi­
bration absorbers under the certain configurations as well, e.g.
inter-building MTMDI [2], as expressed in Eq. (17). Thus, the process
of parametric optimization for MTLCDI is also a comparison among
different control strategies in terms of mitigation effects.

⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ minimize f1 (γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, p1 , γ b2 , ξ2 , L2 , υC2 , ζC2 , A2 , MC2 , i, 2, p2 ) = ẍAmax,1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑10
/
⎪
⎪ ẍkAmax,1 10
⎪
⎪ =
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f2 (γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, p1 , γb2 , ξ2 , L2 , υC2 , ζC2 , A2 , MC2 , i, 2, p2 ) = ẍAmax,2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ∑10
/
= ẍkAmax,2 10 (15)
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ s.t. μMTLCDI = (mt1 + mt2 )/Mtot ≤ 0.5%
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ γb1 ∈ [0, 1], ξ1 ∈ [0, 4000], L1 ∈ [0.1, 50], υC1 ∈ [0.1, 10], ζC1 ∈ [0, 40%],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ A1 ∈ [0.1, 60], MC1 ∈ [10, 100000], i, 1 ∈ [1, 36], p1 ∈ [0, 3]
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ γb2 ∈ [0, 1], ξ2 ∈ [0, 4000], L2 ∈ [0.1, 50], υC2 ∈ [0.1, 10], ζC2 ∈ [0, 40%],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ A2 ∈ [0.1, 60], MC2 ∈ [10, 100000], i, 2 ∈ [37, 72], p2 ∈ [0, 3]
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩

⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ minimize f1 (γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, p1 , γ b2 , ξ2 , L2 , υC2 , ζC2 , A2 , MC2 , i, 2, p2 ) = Δmax,1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑10
/
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ = Δkmax,1 10
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f2 (γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, p1 , γb2 , ξ2 , L2 , υC2 , ζC2 , A2 , MC2 , i, 2, p2 ) = Δmax,2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ∑10
/
= Δkmax,2 10 (16)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ s.t. μMTLCDI = (mt1 + mt2 )/Mtot ≤ 0.5%
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ γb1 ∈ [0, 1], ξ1 ∈ [0, 4000], L1 ∈ [0.1, 50], υC1 ∈ [0.1, 10], ζC1 ∈ [0, 40%],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ A1 ∈ [0.1, 60], MC1 ∈ [10, 100000], i, 1 ∈ [1, 36], p1 ∈ [0, 3]
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ γ b2 ∈ [0, 1], ξ2 ∈ [0, 4000], L2 ∈ [0.1, 50], υC2 ∈ [0.1, 10], ζ C2 ∈ [0, 40%],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ A2 ∈ [0.1, 60], MC2 ∈ [10, 100000], i, 2 ∈ [37, 72], p2 ∈ [0, 3]
⎪
⎩

7
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

Fig. 6. Flow chart of the performance-based optimization.

Table 3
Optimal parameters of IS-MTLCDI, IB-MTLCDI, and IB-TLCDI.
Control strategy No. of TLCDI γb ξ L (m) υC ζC A (m2) MC (t) Installation floor Attached floor

IS-MTLCDIAcc 1 0.23 3727 11.7 4.86 39.6% 51.0 58.5 B1 B1

35th floor 32nd floor
2 0.14 3906 19.2 8.16 39.6% 51.3 40.0 B2 B2
28th floor 25th floor
IS-MTLCDIID 1 0.99 552 16.8 1.15 39.0% 36.8 37.7 B1 B1
29th floor 26th floor
2 0.46 2817 17.3 3.98 39.0% 59.5 0.3 B2 B2
4th floor 1st floor
IB-MTLCDIAcc 1 0.36 3149 17.3 3.48 38.3% 1.1 10.0 B1 B2
28th floor 28th floor
2 0.95 544 25.5 1.12 16.7% 59.9 36.0 B1 B2
25th floor 25th floor
IB-MTLCDIID 1 0.99 3818 36.7 0.52 34.6% 42.2 65.6 B1 B2
23rd floor 23rd floor
2 0.11 2859 0.33 3.25 39.3% 6.0 3.4 B1 B2
28th floor 28th floor
IB-TLCDIAcc \ 0.55 2376 31.6 2.19 35.7% 42.3 74.4 B1 B2
28th floor 28th floor
IB-TLCDIID \ 0.71 1229 27.1 0.84 39.1% 28.7 25.6 B2 B1
27th floor 27th floor

Notes: B1 and B2 indicate that the vibration absorber is installed on or attached to the floor of Building-1 and -2, respectively; the subscripts Acc and ID indicate that the
control strategy is optimized to minimize the average maximum acceleration and inter-story drift ratio responses, respectively.

Table 4
Comparisons of objective values, total device mass, and inertance ratio among three control strategies.
Control strategy ẍAmax (M/S2) Δmax (%) TOTAL DEVICE MASS (TON) TOTAL INERTANCE RATIO (%)

Building-1 Building-2 Building-1 Building-2

Uncontrolled 1.99 1.74 0.180 0.213 \ \

IS-MTLCDIAcc 1.31 1.16 0.176 0.233 1678.2 37
IS-MTLCDIID 1.53 1.42 0.143 0.168 1678.5 145
IB-MTLCDIAcc 1.43 1.23 0.173 0.178 1588.6 131
IB-MTLCDIID 1.53 1.30 0.151 0.166 1613.7 110
IB-TLCDIAcc 1.50 1.34 0.191 0.176 1407.7 55
IB-TLCDIID 1.57 1.48 0.153 0.180 800.2 71

⎧
⎪ TLCDI, when γb1 = 0, MC 1 ≈ 0, L1 ≈ 0 or A1 ≈ 0, other parameters of TLCDI − 2 are non − zero,
⎪
⎪
⎨ or γ b2 = 0, MC 2 ≈ 0, L2 ≈ 0 or A2 ≈ 0, other parameters of TLCDI − 1 are non − zero;
MTLCDI⇒ MTMDI, when γ b1 and b2 ∕
= 0, MC 1 and C2 ∕
= 0 , L1 and 2 ≈ 0 or A1 and 2 ≈ 0; (17)
⎪
⎪ MTMD, when γb1 and b2 = 0, MC 1 and C2 ∕
= 0 , L1 and 2 ≈ 0 or A1 and 2 ≈ 0;
⎪
⎩
etc.

The CMOPs of IS-MTLCDI, IB-MTLCDI, and IB-TLCDI are solved by
using the MATLAB® in-built ‘gamultiobj’ function, which is based on the
widely used Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) [55].
The main assumptions and key steps of the performance-based optimi­
zation scheme adopted in this research are depicted in the flow chart of
Fig. 6. The six sets of optimal parameters are selected from the
corresponding Pareto fronts [22,48] and listed in Table 3.
From Table 3, besides the TLCDI-2 in IB-MTLCDIID which de­
generates into a TID scheme (the optimal values of MC, A, and L
approach zeros), the non-zero values of optimum parameters indicate
that better mitigation effects can be achieved by employing MTLCDI and
TLCDI rather than other vibration absorbers considered in Eq. (17) in the

8
Q. Wang et al.
Fig. 7. Time histories of absolute acceleration at the 36th floor of (a) Building-1 and (b) Building-2 under the excitation of LANDERS/YER270 earthquake (Record
No. 05).
present case. It could be rationally inferred that, under condition of
limited space, Multi-Tuned Inerter Damper (MTID) and MTMDI may
turn out to be better choices for vibration control as a larger space
occupation is required by TLCDI due to the low density of water in
comparison to concrete and metal. The non-zero optimal inertance ra­
tios prove the vibration control improvements obtained by inerter de­
vices. The optimal frequency ratios of most of the vibration absorbers
aimed at controlling acceleration responses are larger than those of vi­
bration absorbers aimed at mitigating inter-story drift ratios. This can be
attributed to the fact that the higher modes contribute more to the ac­
celeration responses, while the lower modes dominate the displacement-
related responses, which leads to the results that a vibration absorber
tuned to a higher frequency may achieve better mitigation effects on
acceleration responses. The optimal installation floors of the IB-MTLCDI,
the IB-TLCDI, and the first three individual TLCDIs of IS-MTLCDI sys­
tems are on the upper portion of Building-1 and -2, except for the TLCDI-
2 of IS-MTLCDIID, which is consistent with the conclusion reported in
other researches [2,22,44,48], i.e., inerter-based vibration absorbers
installed on the upper-portion section of the high-rise structure could
result in better mitigation effects. All optimal attached floors are three
floors downward the installation floor of corresponding individual
TLCDI in IS-MTLCDI (the upper bound of preset intervals of p1 and p2 are
reached), which is consistent with the previously recognized conclusion
Fig. 8. Profiles of the peak absolute acceleration along the floors of (a) Building-1 and (b) Building-2.
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
that better mitigation effects are typically achieved by IVAs spanning
more floors [16,22].
The corresponding responses of the controlled host structures are
listed in Table 4, with two additional arrays showing the requirement for
total device mass and inertance ratio.
From Table 4, the highest reduction on the acceleration responses of
both buildings is achieved by employing IS-MTLCDIAcc. For the inter-
story drift ratio, the IS-MTLCDIID and IB-MTLCDIID can achieve the
best mitigation on the responses of Building-1 and Building-2, respec­
tively. Overall, both MTLCDIs outperform IB-TLCDI on seismic perfor­
mance. To quantify these reduction effects, IS-MTLCDIAcc can decrease
the ẍAmax of Building-1 and -2 from 1.99 and 1.74 m/s2 to 1.31 and 1.16
m/s2, respectively, corresponding to reduction ratios of 34.2 and 33.3%.
As for the Δmax of Building-1 and -2, the largest reduction ratios are 20.6
and 22.1%, respectively, achieved by employing IS-MTLCDIID and IB-
MTLCDIID. It is worth noting that while IB-MTLCDI cannot achieve more
reduction than IS-MTLCDI on the peak response, the IB-MTLCDI system
achieves a balanced mitigation of acceleration responses and inter-story
drift ratios. In general, the best mitigation effects on one type of response
achieved by the IS-MTLCDI is usually accompanied by performance loss
on the other type of response.
Apart from the comparisons in terms of vibration control perfor­
mance, the MTLCDI system also has advantages in the realization of its
Q. Wang et al.
Fig. 9. Variation of maximum absolute acceleration of (a) Building-1 and (b) Building-2 under different earthquake excitations.
required device mass. From the sixth column of Table 4, the total device
mass of four MTLCDI schemes is similar to that of the IB-TLCDIacc and is
about two times higher than that of IB-TLCDIID. It is worth noting that
the MTLCDI is comprised of two TLCDIs in the present case, hence the
requirement for total device mass can be distributed into two parts and
realized with less implementation difficulty. The minimal total inertance
ratio is required by IS-MTLCDIacc, which achieves the best mitigation
effects on acceleration responses at the same time. The total inertance
ratios requirement of other MTLCDI schemes is larger than that of IB-
TLCDI, but this can be also realized by setting several parallel inerter
devices.
As the IS-MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI have, in principle, comparable
mitigation effects when applied to two identical buildings in the present
structure, the assessments of their mitigation effects are comparatively
scrutinized in the following sections 3.3 and 3.4.
3.3. Assessment on mitigation effects of MTLCDI on acceleration
responses
By solving Eq. (1), the time histories of acceleration responses of the
uncontrolled structures, structures controlled by IB-MTLCDIAcc, and
structures controlled by IS-MTLCDIAcc under the excitations of the ten
earthquake records can be obtained. The maximum absolute accelera­
tion of both buildings occurs at the top floors under the excitation of
Landers earthquake records (Record No. 05), and segments of absolute
acceleration time histories are shown in Fig. 7.
In Fig. 7, it is clear that both IB-MTLCDIAcc and IS-MTLCDIAcc can
considerably decrease the absolute acceleration responses of the host
structures after 15 seconds. The peak responses of the uncontrolled
Building-1 and -2 are 2.78 and 2.82 m/s2, respectively. By employing
the IB-MTLCDIAcc and IS-MTLCDIAcc, the responses of the uncontrolled
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
Building-1 can be decreased to 1.95 and 1.56 m/s2, respectively. For the
controlled Building-2, the corresponding peak responses are 1.81 and
1.59 m/s2, respectively. In addition to the peak values, the amplitudes of
the time histories of MTLCDI-equipped structures decrease rapidly in the
following seconds, which is directly related to the added damping ratios
provided by the MTLCDI.
Further, the distributions of individual and mean maximum accel­
eration responses along floors of Building-1 and -2 are shown in Fig. 8
(a) and (b), respectively. The notations OS and IS-MTLCDIAcc stand for
the original structures and the structures controlled by IS-MTLCDIAcc,
respectively.
In Fig. 8, a considerable reduction on the mean values of maximum
responses on the upper floors of both buildings can be observed. In
contrast, only minor decrease in responses of the middle and lower
floors are achieved by employing the IS-MTLCDIAcc. This phenomenon is
closely related to the performance indexes selected in the CMOPs, as the
IS-MTLCDIAcc is optimized to primarily control the maximum responses
that usually occur at the top floors. Moreover, a distinct twist can be
observed from the 31st floor to the 35th floor of Building-1 in Fig. 8 (a).
Similarly, a point of contraflexure at the 24th floor can be observed in
Fig. 8 (b). These variations in curves are attributed to the installation of
the IS-MTLCDIAcc having a three-story topology.
Fig. 9 displays the variations of the maximum acceleration responses
under the excitation of each individual earthquake record. Both IB-
MTLCDIAcc and IS-MTLCDIAcc can significantly decrease the maximum
responses of the two host structures under all selected earthquakes
having various frequency components. With the employment of IS-
MTLCDIAcc, the highest and lowest reduction ratios on the responses of
Building-1 are 43.9 and 21.8%, respectively, under the excitations of
LANDERS/YER270 (Record No. 05) and MANJIL/ABBAR—L (Record
No. 10) earthquakes. For Building-2, the corresponding values are 43.9
Q. Wang et al.
Fig. 10. (a) PSDs of the LANDERS/YER270 and MANJIL/ABBAR—L earthquakes (Record Nos. 05 and 10); FRFs for absolute acceleration responses at the top floor of
(b) Building-1 and (c) Building-2.
and only 0.2%, respectively, under the same earthquake excitations. The
performance of IB-MTLCDIAcc is overall slightly worse than that of IS-
MTLCDIAcc, but the highest reduction ratios on responses of Building-1
and -2 can still reach desirable values of 47.8 and 43.5%, respectively,
under the SUPERST/B-POE360 (Record No. 08) and the NORTHR/
LOS270 (Record No. 04) earthquakes. Both MTLCDIs fail to control the
seismic vibration of the Building-2 under the excitation of MANJIL/
ABBAR—L earthquake. This can be explained by the fact that the host
structures are not excited to excessive vibrations under this earthquake
excitation, thus, the relative motions between the vibration absorbers
11
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
and the floor are not significant. Consequently, the vibration absorbers
cannot effectively exert their energy absorbing and dissipation effects
[2], which entails negligible mitigation effects.
From Fig. 9, it is clear that distinct mitigation effects are achieved by
employing the MTLCDI under different earthquake excitations, which
can be attributed to the various frequency characteristics of the ten
earthquake records. For instance, a significant and a minor reduction
can be observed under the excitations of LANDERS/YER270 (Record No.
05) and MANJIL/ABBAR—L (Record No. 10) earthquakes, respectively.
From this aspect, the PSDs of these two ground motion records along
Q. Wang et al.
Fig. 11. Time histories of inter story drift ratio at the 29th floor of (a) Building-1 and (b) Building-2 under the excitation of LANDERS/YER360 earthquake (Record
No. 06).
Fig. 12. Profiles of the peak inter-story drift ratio along the floors of (a) Building-1 and (b) Building-2.
with the FRFs for the absolute acceleration responses at the top floor of
the two buildings are displayed in Fig. 10 for further analyses in the
frequency domain.
As expected, the frequencies where the main energy of the
LANDERS/YER270 earthquake distribute overlap those of the second
and the third peaks of FRFs of the uncontrolled host structures, which
rationally triggers significant responses. On the contrast, the peaks of the
PSDs of the MANJIL/ABBAR–L earthquake are not close to the fre­
quencies where the first three peaks of the FRFs of the host structures lie
(within 1–7 rad/s), and thus, the host structures are not excited to large
responses, and the passive vibration absorbers cannot exert their miti­
gation effects. Contributed to the installation of IS-MTLCDIAcc and IB-
MTLCDIAcc, the second and the third peaks of the FRFs of both buildings
are considerably decreased. Between the two MTLCDI strategies, IS-
MTLCDI achieves slightly larger reductions on the values of FRFs
within 4–8 rad/s, where the main energy of the earthquake excitation is
concentrated, and this is in line with the results shown in Fig. 9, i.e. IS-
MTLCDI achieves better mitigation effects under the LANDERS/YER270
earthquake.
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
3.4. Assessment on mitigation effects of MTLCDI on inter-story drift ratio
In addition to the acceleration responses, the mitigation effects on
the inter-story drift ratio is also assessed. Firstly, Fig. 11 shows the
segments of time histories of the inter-story drift ratio. The segments
shown below are selected from the time histories at the 29th floor of
Building-1 and -2 under the excitation of the LANDERS/YER360
earthquake (Record No. 06), where the maximum inter-story drift ratio
responses occur.
In Fig. 11, both IS-MTLCDIID and IB-MTLCDIID can effectively miti­
gate the inter-story drift ratios of both buildings, and the IB-MTLCDIID
can lead to a faster decrease of the amplitudes of responses after the peak
values take place. To be more specific, the maximum responses of the
uncontrolled Building-1 and -2 are 0.350 and 0.441%, respectively.
After the installation of IS-MTLCDIID, the maximum responses can be
decreased to 0.252 and 0.341%. The corresponding values are 0.279 and
0.306% with the installation of IB-MTLCDIID. In addition to the
maximum value, the standard deviation (STD) of the response is also
evaluated to analyze the mitigation effect over the entire time history.
From this aspect, the STDs of responses of IS-MTLCDIID-equipped and IB-
Q. Wang et al.
Fig. 13. Variation of maximum inter-story drift ratio of (a) Building-1 and (b) Building-2 under different earthquake excitations.
MTLCDIID-equipped Building-1 are 2.98 × 10− 4 and 1.99 × 10− 4,
respectively. The corresponding STDs of Building-2 are 4.24 × 10− 4 and
2.96 × 10− 4, respectively. The evaluation results of STDs are in good
agreement with the trends observed in Fig. 11, and this phenomenon can
be also spotted on the responses of Building-1 under seven of ten
earthquake excitations and on the responses of Building-2 under eight of
ten earthquake excitations.
In Fig. 12, a considerable reduction on the mean values of maximum
responses on the middle-upper portions of both building is observed by
employing IS-MTLCDIID. Differently from the trends related to acceler­
ation responses shown in Fig. 8, IS-MTLCDIID can also effectively
decrease the mean maximum inter-story drift ratios along most of the
floors of both buildings. Similarly, distinct twists can be observed from
the 26th floor to the 29th floor of Building-1 in Fig. 12 (a) and can be
also spotted from the 1st floor to the 4th floor of Building-2 in Fig. 12 (b),
which is due to the installation of the IS-MTLCDIID.
Fig. 13 shows the variations of the maximum inter-story drift ratios
under the ten earthquake excitations. IB-MTLCDIID and IS-MTLCDIID can
effectively reduce the maximum responses of the buildings under most
selected earthquakes, especially when the host structures are excited to
relatively large responses, e.g. under the excitations of the LANDERS/
YER270 (Record No. 05) and LANDERS/YER360 (Record No. 06)
earthquake records. In comparison to the reduction ratios achieved on
the acceleration responses, the decrease in the inter-story drift ratios is
relatively minor. The best and the worst mitigation effect of IS-
MTLCDIID on the responses of Building-1 are achieved under the
13
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
excitations of LANDERS/YER270 and NORTHR/LOS000 (Record No.
03) earthquakes, respectively, which correspond to reduction ratios of
37.2 and − 1.5% (the negative values implies amplification effect). For
Building-2, the best and the worst reduction achieved by IS-MTLCDIID
are 29.6 and 4.8%, respectively, under the NORTHR/LOS270 (Record
No. 04) and SUPERST/B-POE360 (Record No. 08) earthquake
excitations.
Similar to the dynamic analyses conducted in the frequency domain
in Section 3.3, the PSDs of the LANDERS/YER360 (Record No. 06) and
SUPERST/B-POE270 (Record No. 07) ground motion records, where the
host structures are excited to relatively large and minor responses,
respectively, are shown in Fig. 14 (a). The FRFs for the inter-story drift
ratio of the 29th floor of both buildings are displayed in Fig. 14 (b) and
(c).
In Fig. 14, the energy of the LANDERS/YER360 earthquake is
concentrated in the frequency interval of 4–7 rad/s, while the energy of
SUPERST/B-POE270 earthquake is not significant in the concerned
frequency range. Both IS-MTLCDIID and IB-MTLCDIID can effectively
decrease the second and third peaks of the FRFs. Differently, IB-
MTLCDIID can significantly lower the first peaks of FRFs of both build­
ings, while no reduction on the first peak of FRF of Building-2 is
observed when IS-MTLCDIID is employed. Comparing with Fig. 10, it can
be seen that both MTLCDIs generally achieve more reduction on the first
peaks of FRFs of both buildings along with considerable decrease on
latter peaks. This difference can be attributed to the fact that the first-
order mode of the high-rise buildings contributes more to the
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

Fig. 14. (a) PSDs of the LANDERS/YER360 and SUPERST/B-POE270 earthquakes (Record Nos. 06 and 07); FRFs for inter-story drift ratio at the 29th floor of (b)
Building-1 and (c) Building-2.

Table 5
Amax of the uncontrolled structures, structures controlled by optimum IS-MTLCDI, IB-MTLCDI, and IB-TLCDI considering five natural frequency ratios.

ω2,1 ẍAmax,1 (m/s2) ẍAmax,2 (m/s2)

ω1,1
Uncontrolled structure IS-MTLCDI IB-MTLCDI IB-TLCDI Uncontrolled structure IS-MTLCDI IB-MTLCDI IB-TLCDI

0.80 1.99 1.31 1.43 1.50 1.74 1.16 1.23 1.34

0.85 1.99 1.31 1.51 1.58 1.93 1.18 1.47 1.53
0.90 1.99 1.31 1.71 1.76 1.84 1.18 1.76 1.79
0.95 1.99 1.31 1.87 1.93 1.98 1.24 1.84a 1.92
1.00 1.99 1.31 1.90 1.98 1.99 1.31 1.91a 1.96

Note: IS-MTLCDI, IB-MTLCDI, and IB-TLCDI indicate IS-MTLCDI-equipped structures, IB-MTLCDI-equipped structures, and IB-TLCDI-equipped structures,
respectively.
a
The parametric optimization results imply that the marked TLCDI degenerates into a conventional TLCD to achieve the most reduction.

14
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

Table 6
..xmax of uncontrolled structures, structures controlled by optimum IS-MTLCDI, IB-MTLCDI, and IB-TLCDI under the five natural frequency ratios.
ω2,1 Δmax,1 (%) Δmax,2 (%)
ω1,1
Uncontrolled structure IS-MTLCDI IB-MTLCDI IB-TLCDI Uncontrolled structure IS-MTLCDI IB-MTLCDI IB-TLCDI

0.80 0.180 0.143 0.151 0.153 0.213 0.168 0.166 0.180

0.85 0.180 0.143 0.155 0.165 0.223 0.153 0.175 0.178
0.90 0.180 0.143 0.170 0.175 0.201 0.142 0.172 0.177
0.95 0.180 0.143 0.173a 0.182 0.195 0.143 0.174 0.181
1.00 0.180 0.143 0.173a 0.177 0.180 0.143 0.170a 0.178
a
The parametric optimization results imply that the marked TLCDI degenerates into a conventional TLCD to achieve the most reduction.

MTLCDI, IB-MTLCDI, and IB-TLCDI, the seismic responses, i.e. ẍAmax and
Table 7
Minimum requirements for the height of container (units in m).
Δmax , of the uncontrolled structures, structures controlled by optimum
IS-MTLCDI, IB-MTLCDI, and IB-TLCDI considering five sets of buildings
IS-MTLCDIAcc(ID) IB-MTLCDIAcc(ID)
ω2,1 /
are listed in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
ω1,1
hU,1 (m) hU,2 (m) hU,1 (m) hU,2 (m) From Table 5, the optimum IS-MTLCDI achieves the best mitigation
0.80 0.64(0.97) 1.03(0.90) 0.93(1.93) 1.31(0.03) effects on the acceleration responses among all five natural frequency
0.85 0.64(0.97) 0.90(1.04) 0.52(1.06) 1.74(0.96) ratios. It can be observed that the mitigation effects of IS-MTLCDI on
0.90 0.64(0.97) 0.82(0.93) 0.24(0.25) 1.24(1.39) responses of Building-1 do not vary among different cases. This is due to
0.95 0.64(0.97) 0.63(0.52) 0.63(1.03a) 2.17a (0.71)
the fact that the natural frequencies of Building-1 remain constant, and
1.00 0.64(0.97) 0.64(0.97) 0.02(0.65a) 2.26a (1.82a)
consequently, the same optimal parameters of TLCDI-1 in IS-MTLCDI
Note: the values in the brackets are corresponding indexes of IS-MTLCDIID and systems is obtained under any combination of ω2,1 /ω1,1 . As for the vi­
IB-MTLCDIID. bration control of responses of Building-2, with decreasing ω2,1 /ω1,1 , the
a
The parametric optimization results imply that the marked TLCDI de­
variation in the performance of IS-MTLCDI is not so significant.
generates into an individual TLCD to achieve the most reduction.
In contrast, with increasing differences between ω2,1 and ω1,1 , the
vibration control performance of IB-MTLCDI and IB-TLCDI becomes
displacement responses, while higher modes usually dominate the ac­ much better. This can be attributed to the fact that the adjacent build­
celeration responses. ings vibrate in phase under the same earthquake excitation when they
own the same natural frequencies and assumed damping ratios. When
ω2,1 /ω1,1 = 1.00, there is no relative motion between the floors of two
3.5. Effects of natural frequencies of the host structures on the mitigation
buildings at the same height, thus, the inerter devices incorporated in IB-
effects of MTLCDI
MTLCDI and IB-TLCDI cannot exert its mass amplification [14] and
damping enhancement effect [15]. With increasing differences between
Since the mitigation effects of MTLCDI have been proven to be
the natural frequencies of two buildings, the responses of the floors on
excitation-dependent in Figs. 9 and 13, from the perspective of struc­
two buildings at the same height are seemingly less correlated, thus the
tural dynamic characteristics, it is also valuable to explore the effects of
inerter devices are prone to experience higher engagement [2,16,44]
natural frequencies of the host structures on the mitigation effects of
(larger output forces for equal inertance value b), and better mitigation
MTLCDI. To this aim, the natural frequencies of the individual Building-
effects can be achieved by IB-MTLCDI and IB-TLCDI as a result.
2 are artificially changed by scaling the lumped masses of Building-2 to
From Table 6, similar trends of the performance of three considered
specific values, which can be regarded as variation on total mass due to
vibration absorbers as those in Table 5 can be observed. Differently, as
live loads, and five different ratios of natural frequencies of the buildings
for the responses of Building-2, when the natural frequencies get
are obtained.
smaller, the inter-story drift ratios of the uncontrolled Building-2 in­
By denoting the natural frequencies of Building-1 and -2 as ω1,1 and
crease gradually, while the acceleration responses listed in Table 5
ω2,1 , respectively, the five ratios of natural frequencies of the buildings decrease. This phenomenon is attributed to the fact that the Building-2
can be associated with natural frequency ratios ω2,1 /ω1,1 of 0.80, 0.85, becomes more flexible with increasing lumped masses, which are
0.90, 0.95 and 1.00, respectively. After solving the same CMOPs for IS- rationally excited to larger displacement responses and minor acceler­
ation responses. When ω2,1 /ω1,1 = 0.80, the mitigation effects on inter-
Table 8 story drift ratios of Building-2 achieved by IB-MTLCDI are even slightly
Stroke of the IS-MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI for different sets of host structure better than those achieved by IS-MTLCDI. Inferring from the trends of
(united in millimetre). variations of mitigation effects found in Tables 5 and 6, IB-MTLCDI
ω2,1 / IS-MTLCDIAcc(ID) IB-MTLCDIAcc(ID) probably owns particular superiority on seismic vibration control for
ω1,1
y R1
̂ y R2
̂ y R1
̂ y R2
̂ adjacent buildings whose dynamic features are significantly different
from each other.
0.80 9.6(31.1) 6.1(10.2) 11.7(75.5) 41.9(25.9)
0.85 9.6(31.1) 17.9(8.5) 9.3(51.2) 23.4(121.9)
0.90 9.6(31.1) 12.5(9.3) 18.3(44.9) 22.0(96.3)
0.95 9.6(31.1) 8.1(8.3) 1.5(135.8a) 230.3a (25.8) 3.6. Practical designs for IS-MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI
1.00 9.6(31.1) 9.6(31.1) 0.4(154.6a) 61.7a (82.7a)

Note: the values in the brackets are corresponding indexes of IS-MTLCDIID and
IB-MTLCDIID.
a
The parametric optimization results imply that the marked TLCDI de­
generates into an individual TLCD to achieve the most reduction.
After investigating the mitigation effects of IS-MTLCDI and IB-
MTLCDI on responses of host structures with various dynamic charac­
teristics under ten earthquake excitations, it is of utmost importance to
evaluate the realization difficulty of practical designs for the optimally
designed MTLCDIs. In this section, two practical considerations for IS-

15
Q. Wang et al.
MTLCDI and IB-MTLCDI, namely the minimum requirement for the
height of the liquid container and the horizontal stroke of the liquid
container, are calculated and assessed.
3.6.1. Minimum requirement for the height of liquid container
Following the authors’ previous research [44], for MTLCDI system
whose individual TLCDI owns the geometry displayed in Fig. 2, the
minimum requirement for the height of liquid container of the kth
TLCDI in MTLCDI system, i.e. hU,k, can be evaluated by Eq. (18) as
expressed below
[
( )
] subjected to ten natural earthquake excitations having different fre­
(1 − Bk /Lk )
hU,k = max Lk + max umk (t) , (18)
2
where Bk and Lk are the horizontal dimension and the total length of
liquid column, respectively. um k (t) represents the time history of the
liquid column elevation of the kth TLCDI in MTLCDI system under the
mth (m = 1, …,10) earthquake excitation.
For the five natural frequency ratios of the buildings in section 3.5,
under the excitations of ten considered earthquakes, the minimum re­
quirements for the height of liquid containers are summarized in
Table 7.
From Table 7, the maximum value of the requirement for the height
of the container is 2.26 m when ω2,1 /ω1,1 equals 1.00. Such value is
adequate for the installation of liquid containers regarding the inter-
story height of the buildings, i.e. 4.2 m for the floors above the 3rd
floor. It is worth noting that, for MTLCDI, the optimal length of the
liquid column (i.e. corresponding to the former term of Eq. (18)) dom­
inates the values of hU,k (k = 1,2), while the maximum elevation of the
liquid column (i.e. corresponding to the latter term of Eq. (18)) is rela­
tively minor, which share the same trends with the previous work [44].
For instance, when ω2,1 /ω1,1 = 0.80, the optimal liquid columns lengths
L of the TLCDI-1 and TLCDI-2 in IB-MTLCDIAcc system are 17.3 and 25.5
m, respectively, as listed in Table .3. Following Eq. (18), as the ratio of Bk
by Lk is assumed to be 0.9, the requirement for the height of container
the TLCDI-1 and -2 can be calculated as hU,1=(0.05 × 17.3) m +0.06 m
≈ 0.93 m and hU,2=(0.05 × 25.5) m+0.03 m ≈ 1.31 m, respectively. In
contrast, the vertical elevation of the liquid column of TLCD contributes
more to the values of hU,k (k = 1,2). When ω2,1 /ω1,1 = 1.00, the TLCDI-2
in IB-MTLCDIAcc degenerates into a conventional TLCD (as marked in
Table 7), and the corresponding latter term of Eq. (18) contributes 0.46
m to the hU,2 = 2.26 m. This difference indicates that, from the
perspective of vertical space occupation, the MTLCDI can be more easily
implemented to different buildings by flexibly adjusting the design
lengths of liquid columns without paying much attention to the minor
elevation responses of liquid column inside.
3.6.2. Horizontal stroke of the liquid container
To avoid the potential collision between the liquid container and the
host structures, a minor stroke would be desirable for IS-MTLCDI and IB-
MTLCDI. The stroke of the liquid container is evaluated in terms of the
average relative displacement between the container and the floor it is
installed on under ten earthquake excitations, i.e. ̂ y Rk = max(Um i,k (t) −
m m m
yk (t)), where Ui,k (t) and yk (t) are the displacement responses of the
installation floor and the liquid container of the kth TLCDI under the
excitation of the mth earthquake, respectively, as listed in Table 8.
In Table 8, the top three values of stroke of the vibration absorber are
230.3, 154.6, and 135.8 mm, which are all achieved when the corre­
sponding TLCDIs of IB-MTLCDIs degenerate into TLCDs. For IS-MTLCDI
and IB-MTLCDI, most values of the strokes are significantly smaller than
the previous three values achieved by TLCD, which is in good agreement
with previous research, for which the employment of inerter device can
effectively decrease the stroke of conventional vibration absorbers [16,
20,21,48]. Particularly, the maximum stroke occurs when ω2,1 / ω1,1 =
16
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
0.85 and IB-MTLCDIID is employed. The corresponding value of the
stroke is only 121.9 mm, which can effectively prevent the potential
pounding between the liquid container and the host structure.
4. Concluding remarks
In this paper, two types of MTLCDIs, namely IS-MTLCDI and IB-
MTLCDI, are employed to control the seismic response of adjacent
high-rise buildings. The mitigation effects of the MTLCDIs are assessed
considering a case study comprising two adjacent high-rise buildings
quency characteristics. The effects of structural natural frequencies on
the mitigation effects of MTLCDIs are investigated. The main findings of
the present research are summarized below.
● The results of parametric optimizations have verified the superiority
of employing an IS-MTLCDI or an IB-MTLCDI for seismic response
control. Both MTLCDIs outperform optimal IB-TLCDI and other
considered vibration absorbers which can be retrieved under the
specific configuration of parameters (e.g. TLCD) when the two
adjacent buildings have distinct natural frequencies.
● Considering two adjacent buildings whose frequency ratio is 0.80, a
comparison between the mitigation effects of IS-MTLCDI and IB-
MTLCDI has been conducted. IS-MTLCDI can achieve reduction ra­
tios of 34.2 and 33.3% in terms of peak acceleration responses (on
average) of Building-1 and -2, respectively, and the corresponding
values of those of IB-MTLCDI are 28.1 and 29.3%, respectively. The
reductions on inter-story drift ratios of Building-1 and -2 achieved by
IS-MTLCDI are 20.6 and 21.1%, respectively. When IB-MTLCDI is
employed, the corresponding reduction ratios are 16.1 and 22.1%,
respectively. Despite IS-MTLCDI can achieve a more considerable
reduction on seismic responses than IB-MTLCDI, the inter-building
layout IB-MTLCDI can achieve a better trade-off on simultaneously
reducing the acceleration and inter-story drift ratios, while the IS-
MTLCDI usually achieves the highest reduction on one kind of
response with an undesirable performance loss on the other kind of
response. Besides, considering the implementation difficulty, the IB-
MTLCDI becomes more convenient as a potentially larger relative
motion between the two terminals of the vibration absorber can be
expected due to the excessive inter-building vibration. As for the IS-
MTLCDI, multi-story topologies can be only implemented by
adopting slabs with opening, which may imply certain architectural
issues and construction difficulty.
● The mitigation effects of IB-MTLCDI highly rely on the differences
between natural frequencies of the adjacent high-rise buildings.
When the two buildings share similar natural frequencies, an IS-
MTLCDI is recommended for effective seismic control. Neverthe­
less, when the two adjacent buildings have well separated natural
frequencies, benefitting from the potentially larger relative motions
between the two buildings, the mitigation effects of IB-MTLCDI can
be significantly enhanced.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by Key Laboratory of Structure and Wind
Tunnel of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes. This support is
gratefully acknowledged.
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

Appendix A. Mathematical model of IS-MTLCDI equipped structure when the inerters of IS-MTLCDI are connected to the ground

When the inerters of both TLCDIs in IS-MTLCDI system are directly connected to the ground as shown in Fig. A1, the output forces generated by
inerter devices will no longer act on the floors.

Fig. A1. Sketch of buildings equipped with IS-MTLCDI whose inerters are connected to the ground

Under this circumstance, the Eq. (3a) need to be revised into the following forms
⎡ ⎤
M1,s 0 0
М=⎣0 M2,s 0 ⎦, (A1)
0 0 MMTLCDI

Similarly, when only one TLCDI in IS-MTLCDI is connected to the ground, e.g. TLCDI-1 in IS-MTLCDI is connected to the ground while TLCDI-2 is
connected to a certain floor, the Eq. (3a) can be expressed below.
⎡ ⎤
M1,s 0 0 ( )
М= 0⎣ M2,s 0 ⎦ + b2 1a,2 1T − 1a,2 1T
a,2
T
i+j+2 − 1i+j+2 1a,2 , (A2)
0 0 MMTLCDI

Appendix B. CMOPs for IB-MTLCDI

In the present research, the inter-building layout of MTLCDI system is realized by attaching inerter device from the liquid container to the floor on
the opposite building by the horizontal corridor, as shown in Fig. 1 (b). Thus, the installation floor of the container is limited by the real-life design of
the seven-story corridors, which span from the 23rd floor to the 29th floor as displayed in Fig. 3 (b).
Different from the CMOPs defined in Eqs. (10) and (11), for IB-MTLCDI, the installation location indexes i,1 and i,2 are constrained within the
range from 1 to 14 corresponding to the fourteen floors to which the terminals of seven-story corridor attach. For instance, i,1 = 1 or 7 indicates that
the container of TLCDI-1 is installed on the 23rd or 29th floor of building-1, respectively, and i,1 = 8 represents the container is installed on the 23rd
floor of building-2. Once the installation floor is determined, the corresponding attached location of inerter can be further determined to be the same
floor on the opposite building, as the corridor must be horizontal for practical usages, e.g. daily convenient transporting. Thus, there is no need to
optimize the attached locations of inerters for IB-MTLCDI.
Combined with the previous statements of CMOPs for IS-MTLCDI in section 3.2, total sixteen parameters need to be optimized for IB-MTLCDI, and
the corresponding CMOPs for IB-MTLCDI can be defined in Eqs. (B1) and (B2).

17
Q. Wang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653

⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ minimize f1 (γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, γ b2 , ξ2 , L2 , υC2 , ζC2 , A2 , MC2 , i, 2) = ẍAmax,1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑10
/
⎪
⎪ ẍkAmax,1 10
⎪
⎪ =
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f2 (γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, γ b2 , ξ2 , L2 , υC2 , ζC2 , A2 , MC2 , i, 2) = ẍAmax,2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ∑10
/
= ẍkAmax,2 10 (B1)
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ s.t. μMTLCDI = (mt1 + mt2 )/Mtot ≤ 0.5%
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ γb1 ∈ [0, 1], ξ1 ∈ [0, 4000], L1 ∈ [0.1, 50], υC1 ∈ [0.1, 10],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ζC1 ∈ [0, 40%], A1 ∈ [0.1, 60], MC1 ∈ [10, 100000], i, 1 ∈ [1, 14]
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ γ b2 ∈ [0, 1], ξ2 ∈ [0, 4000], L2 ∈ [0.1, 50], υC2 ∈ [0.1, 10],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ζC2 ∈ [0, 40%], A2 ∈ [0.1, 60], MC2 ∈ [10, 100000], i, 2 ∈ [1, 14]
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩

⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ minimize f1 (γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, γ b2 , ξ2 , L2 , υC2 , ζC2 , A2 , MC2 , i, 2) = Δmax,1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑10
/
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ = Δkmax,1 10
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f2 (γb1 , ξ1 , L1 , υC1 , ζC1 , A1 , MC1 , i, 1, γ b2 , ξ2 , L2 , υC2 , ζC2 , A2 , MC2 , i, 2) = Δmax,2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ∑10
/
= Δkmax,2 10 (B2)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ s.t. μMTLCDI = (mt1 + mt2 )/Mtot ≤ 0.5%
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ γ b1 ∈ [0, 1], ξ1 ∈ [0, 4000], L1 ∈ [0.1, 50], υC1 ∈ [0.1, 10],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ζC1 ∈ [0, 40%], A1 ∈ [0.1, 60], MC1 ∈ [10, 100000], i, 1 ∈ [1, 14]
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ γ b2 ∈ [0, 1], ξ2 ∈ [0, 4000], L2 ∈ [0.1, 50], υC2 ∈ [0.1, 10],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ζ C2 ∈ [0, 40%], A2 ∈ [0.1, 60], MC2 ∈ [10, 100000], i, 2 ∈ [1, 14]
⎪
⎩

In addition, the corresponding CMOPs for IB-TLCDI can be retrieved from Eqs. (B1) and (B2) by setting parameters of TLCDI-1 or -2 in IB-MTLCDI
to be zeros.

Appendix C. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106653.

CRediT author statement

Qinhua Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft, Funding acquisition.
Haoshuai Qiao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data curation, Writing – Original Draft.
Dario De Domenico: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing.
Zhiwen Zhu: Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Yi Tang: Supervision, Funding acquisition.

References [7] Zhu HP, Ge DD, Huang X. Optimum connecting dampers to reduce the seismic
responses of parallel structures. J Sound Vib 2011;330(9):1931–49.
[8] Tubaldi E. Dynamic behavior of adjacent buildings connected by linear viscous/
[1] Al-Kodmany K. Skyscrapers in the twenty-first century city: a global snapshot.
viscoelastic dampers. Struct Contr Health Monit 2015;22(8):1086–102.
Buildings 2018;8(12):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8120175.
[9] Palacios-Quiñonero F, Rubió-Massegú J, Rossell JM, et al. Design of inerter-based
[2] De Domenico D, Qiao H, Wang Q, et al. Optimal design and seismic performance of
multi-actuator systems for vibration control of adjacent structures. J Franklin Inst
Multi-Tuned Mass Damper Inerter (MTMDI) for applications to coupled high-rise
2019;356(14):7785–809.
buildings. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2020:e1781.
[10] Gattulli V, Potenza F, Di Sabatino U. Dissipative coupling for the seismic
[3] Kwok K, Hitchcock P, Burton M. Perception of vibration and occupant comfort in
enhancement of adjacent structures, vol. 199. Engineering Structures; 2019.
wind-excited tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2009;97(7–8):368–80.
ArticleNumber: 109520.
[4] Lopez Garcia D, Soong TT. Sliding fragility of block-type non-structural
[11] Bharti SD, Dumne SM, Shrimali MK. Seismic response analysis of adjacent
components. Part 1: unrestrained components. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2003;32
buildings connected with MR dampers. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2122–33.
(1):111–29.
[12] Al-Fahdawi OAS, Barroso LR, Soares RW. Semi-active adaptive control for
[5] Xu YL, He Q, Ko JM. Dynamic response of damper-connected adjacent buildings
enhancing the seismic performance of nonlinear coupled buildings with smooth
under earthquake excitation. Eng Struct 1999;21(2):135–48.
hysteretic behavior. Eng Struct 2019;191:536–48.
[6] Basili M, Angelis M. Optimal passive control of adjacent structures interconnected
with nonlinear hysteretic devices. J Sound Vib 2007;301:106–25.

18
Q. Wang et al.
[13] Al-Fahdawi OAS, Barroso LR, Soares RW. Simple adaptive control method for
mitigating the seismic responses of coupled adjacent buildings considering
parameter variations. Eng Struct 2019;186:369–81.
[14] Ikago K, Saito K, Inoue N. Seismic control of single-degree-of-freedom structure
using tuned viscous mass damper. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2012;41(3):453–74.
[15] Zhang R, Zhao Z, Pan C, et al. Damping enhancement principle of inerter system.
Struct Contr Health Monit 2020;27(5):e2523.
[16] Giaralis A, Petrini F. Wind-induced vibration mitigation in tall buildings using the
tuned mass-damper-inerter. J Struct Eng 2017;143(9):11. ArticleNumber:
04017127.
[17] Marian L, Giaralis A. Optimal design of a novel tuned mass-damper-inerter (TMDI)
passive vibration control configuration for stochastically support-excited structural
systems. Probabilist Eng Mech 2015;38:156–64.
[18] Zhang R, Zhao Z, Pan C. Influence of mechanical layout of inerter systems on
seismic mitigation of storage tanks. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;114:639–49.
[19] Pan C, Zhang R, Luo H, et al. Demand-based optimal design of oscillator with
parallel-layout viscous inerter damper. Struct Contr Health Monit 2018;25(1):
e2051.
[20] De Domenico D, Impollonia N, Ricciardi G. Soil-dependent optimum design of a
new passive vibration control system combining seismic base isolation with tuned
inerter damper. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;105:37–53.
[21] De Domenico D, Ricciardi G. An enhanced base isolation system equipped with
optimal tuned mass damper inerter (TMDI). Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2018;47(5):
1169–92.
[22] Wang Q, Qiao H, De Domenico D, et al. Wind-induced response control of high-rise
buildings using inerter-based vibration absorbers. Appl Sci 2019;9(23):5045.
[23] De Domenico D, Ricciardi G. Improving the dynamic performance of base-isolated
structures via tuned mass damper and inerter devices: a comparative study. Struct
Contr Health Monit 2018;25(10):e2234.
[24] De Domenico D, Deastra P, Ricciardi G, et al. Novel fluid inerter based tuned mass
dampers for optimised structural control of base-isolated buildings. J Franklin Inst
2019;356(14):7626–49.
[25] De Domenico D, Ricciardi G. Optimal design and seismic performance of tuned
mass damper inerter (TMDI) for structures with nonlinear base isolation systems.
Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2018;47(12):2539–60.
[26] Cao LY, Li CX. Tuned tandem mass dampers-inerters with broadband high
effectiveness for structures under white noise base excitations. Struct Contr Health
Monit 2019;26(4):e2319.
[27] Cao LY, Li CX, Xu C. Performance of multiple tuned mass dampers-inerters for
structures under harmonic ground acceleration. Smart Struct Syst 2020;26:49–61.
[28] Zhu Z, Lei W, Wang Q, et al. Study on wind-induced vibration control of linked
high-rise buildings by using TMDI. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2020;205.
ArticleNumber: 104306.
[29] Di Matteo A, Masnata C, Pirrotta A. Simplified analytical solution for the optimal
design of Tuned Mass Damper Inerter for base isolated structures. Mech Syst Signal
Process 2019;134:106337. ArticleNumber: 106337.
[30] Zhang RF, Zhao ZP, Dai KS. Seismic response mitigation of a wind turbine tower
using a tuned parallel inerter mass system. Eng Struct 2019;180:29–39.
[31] Zhao Z, Zhang R, Pan C, et al. Input energy reduction principle of structures with
generic tuned mass damper inerter. Struct Contr Health Monit 2020;28(1):e2644.
[32] Lazar IF, Neild SA, Wagg DJ. Using an inerter-based device for structural vibration
suppression. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2014;43(8):1129–47.
[33] Lazar IF, Neild SA, Wagg DJ. Vibration suppression of cables using tuned inerter
dampers. Eng Struct 2016;122:62–71.
[34] Qian F, Luo Y, Sun H, et al. Optimal tuned inerter dampers for performance
enhancement of vibration isolation, vol. 198. Engineering Structures; 2019.
ArticleNumber: 109464.
19
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106653
[35] Wang Z, Giaralis A. Top-storey softening for enhanced mitigation of vortex
shedding induced vibrations in wind-excited optimal tuned mass damper inerter
(TMDI)-equipped tall buildings. J Struct Eng 2020;147(1). ArticleNumber:
04020283.
[36] Zhao ZP, Chen QJ, Zhang RF, et al. Interaction of two adjacent structures coupled
by inerter-based system considering soil conditions. J Earthq Eng 2020:1–21.
[37] Fujino Y, Pacheco BM, Chaiseri P, et al. Parametric studies on tuned liquid damper
(TLD) using circular containers by free-oscillation experiments. Structure
Engineering/Earthquake Engineering. JSCE 1988;5(2):177–87.
[38] Banerji P, Murudi M, Shah AH, et al. Tuned liquid dampers for controlling
earthquake response of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2000;29(5):587–602.
[39] Sakai F, T S, Tamaki T. Tuned liquid column damper—new type device for
suppression of building vibration. In: Proceedings of international conference on
high-rise buildings; 1989. Nanjing, China.
[40] Di Matteo A, Furtmueller T, Adam C, et al. Optimal design of tuned liquid column
dampers for seismic response control of base-isolated structures. Acta Mech 2018;
229(2):437–54.
[41] Furtmüller T, Di Matteo A, Adam C, et al. Base-isolated structure equipped with
tuned liquid column damper: an experimental study. Mech Syst Signal Process
2019;116:816–31.
[42] Zhao Z, Zhang R, Jiang Y, et al. A tuned liquid inerter system for vibration control.
Int J Mech Sci 2019;164. ArticleNumber: 105171.
[43] Wang Q, Tiwari ND, Qiao H, et al. Inerter-based tuned liquid column damper for
seismic vibration control of a single-degree-of-freedom structure. Int J Mech Sci
2020;184. ArticleNumber: 105840.
[44] Wang Q, Qiao H, De Domenico D, et al. Seismic response control of adjacent high-
rise buildings linked by the Tuned Liquid Column Damper-Inerter (TLCDI). Eng
Struct 2020;223. ArticleNumber: 111169.
[45] Sonmez E, Nagarajaiah S, Sun C, et al. A study on semi-active Tuned Liquid Column
Dampers (sTLCDs) for structural response reduction under random excitations.
J Sound Vib 2016;362:1–15.
[46] Wu J-C, Shih M-H, Lin Y-Y, et al. Design guidelines for tuned liquid column damper
for structures responding to wind. Eng Struct 2005;27:1893–905.
[47] Ikago K, Saito K, Inoue N. Seismic control of single-degree-of-freedom structure
using tuned viscous mass damper. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2012;41(3):453–74.
[48] Wang Q, Qiao H, Li W, et al. Parametric optimization of an inerter-based vibration
absorber for wind-induced vibration mitigation of a tall building. Wind Struct
2020;31(3):241–53.
[49] Xu YL, Samali B, Kwok KCS. Control of along-wind response of structures by mass
and liquid dampers. J Eng Mech 1992;118(1):20–39.
[50] Di Matteo A, Lo Iacono F, Navarra G, et al. Direct evaluation of the equivalent
linear damping for TLCD systems in random vibration for pre-design purposes. Int J
Non Lin Mech 2014;63:19–30.
[51] Caughey TK. Equivalent linearization techniques. J Acoust Soc Am 1963;35(11):
1706–11.
[52] Shum K, Xu Y. Multiple tuned liquid column dampers for reducing coupled lateral
and torsional vibration of structures. Eng Struct 2004;26:745–58.
[53] P695 F. In: Agency FEM, editor. Quantification of building seismic performance
factor; 2009. Washington,D.C.
[54] Di Matteo A, Lo Iacono F, Navarra G, et al. Innovative modeling of tuned liquid
column damper motion. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 2015;23(1–3):
229–44.
[55] Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, et al. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic
algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6(2):182–97. ArticleNumber:
Pii s 1089-778x(02)04101-2.