Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-021-00369-w

ORIGINAL PAPER

Random response analysis of adjacent structures connected

with friction damper
C. C. Patel1 

Received: 22 November 2020 / Accepted: 13 April 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
The response behavior of two adjacent single-degree-of-freedom structures connected with Friction damper is investigated.
The ground motion acceleration is modeled as non-stationary random process as well as stationary white-noise random
excitation. The governing equations of motion of the connected structures are formulated and root mean square responses
(relative displacement and absolute acceleration) are obtained. The responses are obtained considering 500 ground motion
realization using Monte Carlo simulation. An optimum value of the damper slip force for which the root mean square response
attains a minimum value is observed. The influence of parameters such as frequency ratio and mass ratio of the connected
structures on performance of the damper is investigated. The closed-form expressions for the optimum damper slip force
and corresponding mean square responses of the undamped coupled structures under stationary white-noise excitation are
derived using equivalent linearization technique.

Keywords  Adjacent structures · Friction damper · Optimization · Random response · Seismic effect

Introduction can retrofit or strengthened effectively by structural control

The conventional design approach of designing the struc-
ture allows inelastic cyclic deformations in specially detailed
regions of the structure. The structure must attenuate the
effects of transient input by combination of ductility,
strength and flexibility. It provides the minimum level of
protection to the structure. The damping capacity of conven-
tional elastic structural system is very small, and therefore
the energy dissipation during transient vibration is also very
low. Earthquake ground motion transmits additional energy
input to structures and sometime structure becomes more
susceptible to inelastic deformation. The inelastic deforma-
tion leads to non-structural as well as structural damage and
sometimes catastrophic failure. The use of energy dissipa-
tion devices and control mechanisms into the structure is
another approach for seismic protection of structures. These
control strategies can modify dynamically the response of
the structure in a desirable manner, termed as protective sys-
tem, for the new structures. Moreover, existing structures
* C. C. Patel
drccmpatel@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Marwadi Education
Foundation Group of Institution, Rajkot 360003, India
to withstand future seismic event. Commonly used passive
energy dissipation devices are viscous dampers, visco-elastic
dampers, friction dampers, metallic yielding dampers, lead
extrusion dampers, tuned liquid dampers and tuned mass
dampers. The current status of passive control of build-
ings in Japan Kasai, Nakai, et al. (2008), Full-scale damper
tests and analysis in 5 story steel frame Kasai, Ooki, et al.
(2008) and other past studies confirm that the passive control
devices are found to be effective for seismic response control
of structures Kasai et al. (1998).
The friction dampers is one of the potential passive
energy dissipation device developed for seismic protec-
tion of a structure. Earlier, friction dampers developed
manufactured for railway application by Sumitomo Metal
Industries of Japan, was further extended to structural pro-
tection against seismic effect. The friction dampers are dis-
placement dependent control devices dissipates the energy
through frictional work. The force developed from the rela-
tive motion of two friction interfaces is the source of energy
dissipation. The friction dampers exhibits non-linear behav-
ior, and is nearly unaffected by the number of applied load-
ing cycles, loading amplitude and temperature Reinhorn and
Valles (1995). The characteristics of friction damper such
as simple mechanism, low cost, less maintenance, powerful

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

energy dissipation capacity as compared to other devices,
and insensitivity to the frequency content of excitation make
it more suitable choice for design of new structures as well
as existing structures also can retrofitted or strengthened
effectively for future seismic activity. The friction damp-
ers have used for braced frames, buildings with shear walls
and low-rise buildings to control the large deformations
caused by environmental loads (Colajanni & Papia, 1995;
Pall & Marsh, 1982). Mulla and Belev (2002) carried out the
experimental study of dynamic response of single-story steel
frames to lateral harmonic excitation, equipped with fric-
tion damper device. Lopez et al. (2004) analyzed the energy
dissipation of a friction damper by analytical study of a one
degree-of-freedom system. The energy dissipated per cycle
is determined as a function of the system parameters. Mon-
tuori et al. (2014) presented the seismic resistance system of
moment-resisting frame with bracing system equipped with
friction damper. Bagheri et al. (2019) presented the seismic
reliability analysis of RC frames rehabilitated by glass fiber-
reinforced polymers. Jahangir et al. (2020) presented the
cyclic behavior assessment of steel bar hysteretic dampers
using multiple non-linear regression approach. Jahangir and
Bagheri (2020) presented the evaluation of seismic response
of concrete structures reinforced by shape memory alloys.
Some other studies also confirm the performance of fric-
tion damper for seismic response mitigation of the structure
(Constantinou, 1990; Jangid, 2008; Papageorgion, 1990;
Raut & Jangid, 2014).
Due to different dynamic properties, vibration of adja-
cent structures creates relative displacement problems. For
the structures sharing a common vertical support, the col-
lapse can occur when distance between them increases,
like falling of bridge decks from supports (Jennings &
Wood, 1971); falling of floor deck from shared bearing
walls of adjacent buildings. Structural pounding can
occur when the distance between the vibrating structures
decreases. Structural pounding is dangerous condition
during an earthquake and adjacent buildings made dam-
age and sometimes caused total collapse of the buildings
(Bertero, 1986; Kasai & Maison, 1992). Malhotra et al.
(1994) reported that the severe puling between the adja-
cent structures could occur through the restrainer, when
adjacent structures are provided with restrainer to limit
the separation distance. They also reported the undesir-
able transfer of inertia force between adjacent segment of
bridge and/or local failure of the restrainer. Thus, the inter-
actions between existing neighboring inadequately sepa-
rated structures are frequently recurrent problems during
the strong earthquake. Connecting adjacent structures with
suitable mechanism (when possible) is an alternate tech-
nique for seismic response mitigation. The mechanism is
working on the concept of exerting control force upon one
another to reduce the overall response of the connected
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
structures. In certain situations, the free space between
adjacent structures can effectively utilize for installation of
the control devices. But it alters the dynamic characteris-
tics of the unconnected structures. It enhances undesirable
torsional response when the structures have asymmetric
geometry and increase the base shear of the stiff structure.
Luco and De Barros (1998) presented the two adjacent
structures of different heights interconnected by passive
dampers with optimal values for the distribution. Matsagar
and Jangid (2005) presented the seismic response analysis
of base-isolated adjacent buildings connected with visco-
elastic dampers. The analysis results shows that for the
existing under-designed fixed base structures, the base iso-
lation of both or one of the adjacent building found advan-
tageous in the retrofitting works. Bhaskararao and Jangid
(2006a, b) presented the dynamic response of two single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structures connected with a
friction damper under harmonic ground acceleration.
They also presented the closed-form expressions in terms
of system parameters and excitation for necessary condi-
tion to initiate the stick-stick and slip-slip modes. Bhaska-
rarao and Jangid (2006c) presented the seismic response
of adjacent multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structures
connected with friction dampers having same slip force as
well as different slip force. The parametric study also con-
ducted to investigate the optimum slip force of the damper
as well as optimal placement of the dampers. Patel and
Jangid (2011) presented the dynamic response analysis of
adjacent SDOF structures connected by friction damper.
Zhu et al. (2011) presented the optimized parameter of
connecting damper between two adjacent structures. The
optimization criteria are minimizing the vibration energy
of both the structure as well as minimizing the vibration
energy of the primary structure. The above studies and
some other studies confirm the effectiveness of passive
energy dissipation devices connecting adjacent structures
for seismic response mitigation (Patel 2015a, b, 2019).
An earthquake phenomenon is random in nature, so
probabilistic analysis of the energy dissipation device
connected adjacent structure system subjected to random
process gives more appropriate results. In this paper, the
response behavior of adjacent SDOF structures connected
by friction damper subjected to a non-stationary random
process is investigated. The responses of the coupled
structure subjected to non-stationary as well as stationary
random process are analyzed. The effect of frequency ratio
and mass ratio of the connected structures on performance
of damper is evaluated. The closed-form expression for
optimum slip force of friction damper considering total
vibration energy of the couple system, and correspond-
ing mean square responses under stationary white-noise
random excitation have derived.
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Adjacent structures connected by friction Let mass ratio ( 𝜂 ) and frequency ratio ( 𝛽  ) of the connected
damper structure defined as
m1
The two adjacent SDOF structures connected with a friction 𝜂=
m2 (1)
damper as shown in Fig. 1, referred to as Structure 1 and 2,
respectively, are considered. The coupled structures have
𝜔2
symmetry with their symmetric planes in the alignment. The 𝛽= (2)
𝜔1
ground motion is to occur in the direction of the symmet-
ric planes of the structures. The ground acceleration under
both the structures assumed to be the same. The considered The connected structures remain in the non-slip mode
adjacent structures modeled as linear SDOF system and due until the frictional force in the damper is less than the limit-
to the significant increase of energy absorbing capacity, the ing friction force fs , also termed as slip force. The condition
structures could retain elastic and linear properties under the of slippage is initiated when force in friction damper attains
ground motion excitation. The effect of soil-structure inter- to the limiting slip force. The mode of vibration, non-slip
action is neglected. Let m1 , k1 , c1 and m2 , k2 , c2 be the mass, mode or slip mode depends upon the system parameters and
stiffness and damping coefficient
√ of the Structure
√ 1 and 2, excitation level. Assuming the friction damper remain in slip
respectively. Let 𝜔1 = k1 ∕m1 and 𝜔2 = k2 ∕m2 be the mode, the governing equations of motion for the coupled
circular frequencies and 𝜉1 = c1 ∕2m1 𝜔1 and 𝜉2 = c2 ∕2m2 𝜔2 system can written as
be the damping ratios of Structures 1 and 2, respectively. ( )
m1 ü 1 + c1 u̇ 1 + k1 u1 + fs sgn u̇ 1 − u̇ 2 = −m1 ü g (3)

( )
m2 ü 2 + c2 u̇ 2 + k2 u2 − fs sgn u̇ 1 − u̇ 2 = −m2 ü g (4)
Friction
damper where u1 and u2 are displacement response relative to the
ground of Structure 1 and 2, respectively; over dot represent
Structure 1 Structure 2 time derivative and ü g is ground acceleration. The structural
control criteria reckon on the nature of dynamic loads and
the response quantities of interest. In case of stiff structure,
acceleration is of more concern generating higher inertia
force in the structure, should be mitigated, whereas, in case
of flexible structure, displacement is predominant that needs
to be controlled. Thus, minimizing relative displacement
and/or absolute acceleration of the system are considered
(a) as the control objective. In view of this, the study aims to
evaluate the performance of friction damper for minimizing
exclusively displacement as well as acceleration responses
u1 u2 of coupled structure.
fs
m1 m2
Ground motion excitation
k1 c1 k2 c2
Earthquake ground motions are multidimensional and ran-
dom in nature. Various kinds of stochastic ground motion
models, stationary or non-stationary have been developed,
which describe the uncertainties characterizing earthquake
ground motion time histories. The stationary white-noise
earthquake models proposed earlier. The stationary filtered
u¨ g white-noise models suggested by Kanai (1957) and Tajimi
(b)

Fig. 1  Two adjacent structures connected with friction damper and its

mathematical model

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

(1960) describes the dominant frequency and local site prop-

erties in the ground motion. It was used extensively in ran- 4

Ground acceleration(g)
dom vibration analysis of structures. The stationary models
fail to reproduce amplitude non-stationarity (time-varying
intensity) typical of real earthquake ground motion time his-
tories. Therefore, different kinds of time-modulating func- 0
tions have introduced to produce various non-stationarity
ground motion models. If the evolution of the frequency
content with time can be neglected, the amplitude non-sta-
tionarity of ground motion is modeled by product of station- -4
ary Gaussian random process with zero mean and deter-
ministic modulating function also called envelop function.
The modulating function capture the non-stationary trend
observed in earthquake ground motion excitation. Amin and 4

Ground acceleration(g)
Ang (1968) proposed modulating function initially increas-
ing parabolic, remain constant during strong motion dura-
tion, and decaying exponentially. The earthquake excitation
ü g (t) is expressed as 0
ü g (t) = A(t)ü f (t) (5)

where A(t) is a deterministic modulating function; and ü f (t)

is a stationary random process. The evolutionary power -4
spectral density function (PSDF) of the earthquake excita-
tion is given by 0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
Sü g (𝜔) = |A(t)|2 Sü f (𝜔) (6)
Fig. 2  Typical non-stationary and stationary ground motion realiza-
where Sü f (𝜔) is stationary PSDF of the earthquake ground tion
motion. In the present study, the PSDF of the earthquake expressed by Eq. (7). Jangid (2004) presented the non-sta-
excitation ü f (t) is considered as Clough and Penzien (1993) tionary response of SDOF system for different shapes of

⎛ � � �2 ⎞⎛ � � �4 ⎞
⎜ 1 + 4𝜉s2 𝜔 𝜔s ⎟⎜ 𝜔 𝜔f ⎟
Sü f (𝜔) = S0 ⎜ � (7)
� � �2 �2 � � �2 ⎟⎜ � � � �2 �2 � � � ⎟
⎜ 1− 𝜔 𝜔 + 4𝜉 2 𝜔 𝜔 ⎟⎜ 1 − 𝜔 𝜔 + 4𝜉 2
𝜔 𝜔
2⎟
⎝ s s s ⎠⎝ f f f ⎠

where S0 is constant PSDF of input white-noise random modulating function having the same energy content. In the
process; and 𝜔s , 𝜉s , 𝜔f and 𝜉f are ground filter parameters. present study, the non-stationary earthquake excitation ü g (t)
The 𝜔s and 𝜉s generally represent the predominant frequency is the non-stationary random process ü f (t) to be obtained
and damping ratio of soil strata, respectively. The different considering input white-noise random process ü 0 (t) , and
values of the parameters 𝜔f and 𝜔s are considered to model modulating function A(t) , proposed by Amin and Ang
the various shape of the PSDF of earthquake excitation. The (1968) expressed as
random process ü f (t) is considered as the response of two
linear filters subjected to white-noise excitation as ⎧ (t∕t1 )2 (0 ≤ t ≤ t1 )
⎪
( ) A(t) = ⎨ 1 (t1 ≤ t ≤ t2 ) (10)
ü f (t) + 2𝜉f 𝜔f u̇ f (t) + 𝜔2f uf (t) = − ü s (t) + ü 0 (t) (8) ⎪ e−c(t−t2 )
⎩ (t ≥ t2 )

ü s (t) + 2𝜉s 𝜔f u̇ s (t) + 𝜔2s us (t) = −̈u0 (t)
where ü 0 (t) is input white-noise random process with the
constant intensity of the PSDF S0 . The Eqs. (8) and (9)
provide the stationary PSDF of the response ü f (t) as that
(9) where c is constant. A typical non-stationary ground motion
realization with parameters t1 = 5 s, t2 = 25 s, strong motion
duration t2–t1 = 20 s, and c = 0.5 ­s−1 and stationary ground
motion realization are shown in Fig. 2.

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Friction damper force
The various mathematical description of friction which
mostly different in the way the stick phase modeled have
proposed by many researchers.
Coulomb friction model
The simple mathematical model of friction force is Coulomb
friction model. The friction force is a function of coefficient
of friction ( 𝜇 ) between the friction interface and normal
reaction N to the friction surface. The Coulomb friction
model gives constant value of coefficient of friction. The
damper force considering equal static and dynamic friction
coefficient considered for the present study is given as
fs = 𝜇N (11)
In the present study, the friction damper connecting the
two adjacent structures, the normal reaction will be the
clamping force of the friction interfaces. The normal reac-
tion considered as m1 g and friction damper force fs = 𝜇m1 g ,
which is helpful to simplify the solution of the equation of
motion of connected structures. As the Coulomb friction
damper gives constant value of coefficient of friction, and
at zero sliding velocity, it gives zero damper force value,
whereas, practically it has found that friction damper gives
20% of the maximum force ( i.e. force at 1 m/s velocity
value) at zero sliding velocity.
Velocity‑dependent coefficient of friction
The coefficient of friction on Teflon-steel interfaces found
to exhibits a significant dependence on the bearing pressure,
sliding velocity and condition of interfaces (Constantinou
1987; Mokha et al. 1988, 1990). The coefficient of sliding
friction of Teflon-steel interfaces which is velocity-depend-
ent can expressed by the equation:
𝜇(u̇ r ) = 𝜇max − Df . exp(−a||u̇ r ||) (12)
where 𝜇min = 𝜇max − Df represent the friction coefficient
value at essentially zero sliding velocity; 𝜇max is the maxi-
mum value of friction coefficient attained at large value of
sliding velocities; a is constant, and u̇ r is the sliding veloc-
ity of the damper. Mokha et al. (1988, 1990) presented the
physical explanation of variation of the sliding coefficient
of friction with dependency on velocity and pressure as
well as the values of 𝜇max , Df and a for different condition
of interface and pressure. During experimental investiga-
tions, they observed that the mobilized frictional force is
reduces with the decrease in the sliding velocity, and con-
cluded that less force is needed to maintain the motion. The
motion continues with almost complete lack of stick–slip
tendencies, and the probability of sticking is to be negligible.
Constantinou et al. (1987) confirmed the same behavior in
shake table tests of the model structures which is well justi-
fied by the assumption of continuous sliding. The damper
force by slip velocity-dependent coefficient of friction model
is given as
fs = 𝜇(u̇ r )N (13)
As it is assumed that the time intervals over which stick-
ing occurs are of such a small duration, the probability of
sticking is considered to be negligible.
Viscoplasticity model
The viscoplasticity model also called as hysteretic model is a
continuous model of the friction force proposed by Constan-
tinou et al. (1990) using the Wen’s equation. This model is
based on the principles of the theory of viscoplasticity which
make the use of a model that accounts for sticking and sliding
by itself. The friction force mobilized in the damper is given as
f1 = 𝜇NZ (14)
where Z is a non-dimensional hysteretic component satisfy-
ing the following non-linear first-order differential equation
given as
q
dZ
= B(u̇ 1 (t) − u̇ 2 (t)) − 𝛾 ||u̇ 1 (t) − u̇ 2 (t)||Z|Z|𝛼−1 − 𝜆(u̇ 1 (t) − u̇ 2 (t))|Z|𝛼
dt
(15)
where q is the yield displacement; 𝛾, 𝜆 and B are non-dimen-
sional parameters of the hysteresis loop, control the shape of
the loop and are selected such that to provide a rigid-plastic
behavior. The parameter 𝛼 is an integer which controls the
smoothness of the transition from elastic to plastic response.
The condition of reattachment and separation has accounted
for by Eq. (15). During sliding, Z takes value ±1 and during
sticking, the absolute value of Z is less than unity.
Numerical study
Two adjacent SDOF structures with identical mass (i.e. mass
ratio 𝜂 = 1 ) connected at floor level by friction damper is
considered. The lateral stiffness of each structure is chosen
in such a way that the fundamental circular frequency of
Structure 1 is 𝜋 rad/sec and that of Structure 2 is 2𝜋 rad/
sec. Thus, Structure 1 is considered as a relatively flexible
structure and Structure 2 as a stiff structure. The frequency
ratio 𝛽 of the coupled structure becomes 2, (i.e. dynamically
well-separated structures). The damping ratio of both the
structure is considered 𝜉1 = 𝜉2 = 0.05 . The friction damper
13

parameters 𝜇max = 0.059; Df  = 0.0485 and a = 0.197 are con-
sidered. The various parameter 𝜔f = 𝜋∕2 rad/s, 𝜔s = 3𝜋
rad/s, 𝜉s = 0.6 , 𝜉f = 0.6 and S0 = 0.05 ­m2/s3 are used. Con-
sidering 500 realization of the input process and using
ensemble averages, the root mean square (RMS) responses
are obtained using extensive Monte Carlo simulation which
is based on the equation of motion (i.e. Eqs. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9
and 12) of the connected structure. The time variation of
RMS relative displacement and RMS absolute acceleration
of Structure 1 and 2 for non-stationary ground excitation
(Clough and Penzien model, C – P model) with damper and
without damper are shown in Fig. 3. It is observed that the
stationary response is achieved in a short time. The RMS
response of adjacent connected structures is decreased when
they are connected with friction damper. Similar behavior
also observed in Fig. 4, which shows the time variation of
RMS relative displacement and RMS absolute acceleration
of coupled structure subjected to stationary ground motion
excitation. Considering the average value of RMS response
during the strong motion duration phase as a response quan-
tity, the percentage reduction in response quantities of the
connected structure is shown in Table 1. It is observed that
the percentage reduction in the response quantities under
non-stationary earthquake ground motion is quite compara-
ble with that of the stationary response.
The variation of the RMS displacement response and
RMS acceleration
/ response against the normalized slip force
f  ( f = fs m1 g , g is an acceleration due to gravity) is shown
in Fig. 5. It is observed that with increase in the slip force
Fig. 3  Time variation of root
mean square displacement and
root mean square accelera-
tion for non-stationary ground
excitation
0.2
σu1
0.0
0.2
σ a1
0.0
0 10 20 30
Time (sec)
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
f  , the RMS responses reduces up to certain value of f after
which they increase. Thus, there is some optimum value
of f for which RMS response quantity attains a minimum
value. The optimum f value for displacement as well as the
acceleration response of both the structure is different. But,
at the optimum f value of any one response quantity, the
other responses also decrease. The optimum value of f for
one response quantity is close to the optimum value f of the
other response quantity and in the vicinage of it, the other
responses do not vary significantly. It is also observed that
the behavior of the responses of both the structures under
non-stationary as well as stationary excitation is almost simi-
lar nature. The variation of non-stationary RMS responses
against frequency ratio 𝛽 for different value of mass ratio
( 𝜂 = 1, 1.5 and 2) is shown in Fig. 6. It is observed that
with increase in frequency ratio 𝛽  , the RMS displacement
response of both the structure as well as RMS acceleration
response of Structure 1 is decrease. Whereas, with increase
in frequency ratio 𝛽  , the RMS acceleration response of
Structure 2 is reduced up to certain value of frequency ratio
after which it is increases.
The effect of mass ratio 𝜂 on RMS displacement responses
of both the structure and RMS acceleration response of Struc-
ture 1 is marginal, whereas, the RMS acceleration response
of Structure 2 is affected by the mass ratio of the connected
structures. Thus, RMS acceleration response of stiff structure
is sensitive to the mass ratio of connected structures. The
similar behavior also observed in Fig. 7, which shows the
variation of the RMS responses against frequency ratio 𝛽
0.15 Unconnected
Clough and Penzien
White-noise
σu2
0.00
0.3
σ a2
0.0
40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 4  Time variation of root

mean square displacement and
0.2 Unconnected
root mean square acceleration Clough and Penzien
for stationary ground excitation
0.2 White-noise

σu 2
σu 1
0.0 0.0

0.2 0.3
σa1

σ a2
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Table 1  Comparison of non-stationary and stationary responses of adjacent structures connected by friction damper ( 𝜂 = 1, 𝛽 = 2, 𝜉1 = 𝜉2 = 0.05,
𝜇max = 0.059; Df  = 0.0485, a = 0.197 and S0 = 0.05 ­m2/s3)
Model of PSDF of earthquake excitation Response quantity Stationary response Non-stationary response

Clough and Penzien model with RMS displacement u1 (mm) Unconnected 0.2493 0.2401
𝜔f = 𝜋∕2 rad/s and 𝜔s = 3𝜋 rad/s
Connected 0.1402 (43.75)* 0.1397 (41.82)
RMS displacement u2 (mm) Unconnected 0.1049 0.1034
Connected 0.0796 (24.11) 0.0795 (13.11)
RMS acceleration ü a1 (g) Unconnected 0.2521 0.2429
Connected 0.1660 (36.53) 0.1657 (31.73)
RMS acceleration ü a2 (g) Unconnected 0.4243 0.4181
Connected 0.3018 (28.87) 0.3012 (27.96)
White-noise model RMS displacement u1 (mm) Unconnected 0.2213 0.2141
Connected 0.1195 (46.00) 0.1195 (34.13)
RMS displacement u2 (mm) Unconnected 0.0802 0.0791
Connected 0.0622 (22.44) 0.0623 (21.24)
RMS acceleration ü a1 (g) Unconnected 0.2238 0.2166
Connected 0.1431 (36.09) 0.1432 (34.36)
RMS acceleration ü a2 (g) Unconnected 0.3244 0.3201
Connected 0.2281 (29.70) 0.228 (18.74

*Quantity in parenthesis indicates percentage reduction in response for damper connected structure

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 5  Variation of root mean

square responses against the 0.3 C - P model 0.3
normalized slip force of the W - N model
friction damper ( 𝛽 = 2, 𝜂 = 1,
𝜉1 = 𝜉2 = 0.05)

σ u1

σ u2
0.0 0.0
0.6
σa1 0.6

σ a2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 _ 0.4 0.0 0.2 _ 0.4
fs fs

Fig. 6  Variation of root mean

square responses against the η=1
frequency ratio 𝛽 for different
mass ratio under non-stationary 1.5
0.2 0.2
excitations ( 𝜉1 = 𝜉2 = 0.05)
2
σu2
σu1

0.0 0.0

0.2 0.3
σa1

σa2

0.0 0.0
1 2 1 β 2
β

for different mass ratio value under stationary white-noise
ground motion excitation. From Table1, it is observed that
the percentage reduction in the response quantities under
non-stationary earthquake ground motion is quite compa-
rable with that of the stationary response. The response of
the considered structures to such non-stationary excitation
involves lengthy calculation and much time-consuming.
Thus, to simplify the analysis, all subsequent results are pre-
sented considering the friction damper connected adjacent
structures subjected to white-noise earthquake excitation.

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 7  Variation of root mean

square responses against the η=1
frequency ratio 𝛽 for different
mass ratio under stationary 1.5
0.2 0.2
excitations ( 𝜉1 = 𝜉2 = 0.05)
2

σu2
σu1
0.0 0.0

0.2 0.3
σa1

σa2
0.0 0.0
1 2 1 β 2
β

Response to stationary white‑noise random where 𝜎u̇ r is root mean square of relative velocity u̇ r  . The
excitation velocity-dependent coefficient of friction depends on bearing
pressure, sliding velocity and condition of interface, involves
The equations of motion of structures connected with fric- more parameters in Eq. (18). Considering Df = 0 , it results
tion damper are non-linear, even supposing that the struc- to Coulomb friction model and the equivalent constant can
ture behaves linearly, the whole system, friction damper given as
connected structures system has non-linear properties. √ √
The response of connected structures due to earthquake 𝜇max .N 𝜋2 2
𝜋 s
f
(19)
excitation is random in nature. Using the equivalent lin- ce =
𝜎u̇ r
=
𝜎u̇ r
earization technique (statistical linearization technique) by
Robert and Spanos (1990), the corresponding equivalent The equivalent constant ce has expressed in the normal-
linearized equations can given as ized form as
( )
m1 ü 1 + c1 u̇ 1 + k1 u1 + ce u̇ 1 − u̇ 2 = −m1 ü g (16) ce
𝜉e =
2m1 𝜔1 (20)
( )
m2 ü 2 + c2 u̇ 2 + k2 u2 − ce u̇ 1 − u̇ 2 = −m2 ü g (17) where 𝜉e is the equivalent normalized constant, it is not a
damping ratio of damper. From Eqs. (16) and (17), the abso-
where ce is the equivalent constant. lute acceleration response ü a1 and ü a2 of the Structure 1 and
The equivalent constant ce is obtained by minimizing 2, respectively expressed as
the mean square error between linear and non-linear terms ( ) ( ) ( / )( )
of Eqs. (3) and (16) (considering velocity-dependent coef- ü a1 = ü 1 + ü g = − c1 ∕m1 u̇ 1 − k1 ∕m1 u1 − ce m1 u̇ 1 − u̇ 2
ficient of friction model) and given as (21)
( ) ( ) ( / )( )
� � �3 ü a2 = ü 2 + ü g = − c2 ∕m2 u̇ 2 − k2 ∕m2 u2 + ce m2 u̇ 1 − u̇ 2
⎛ 2 ⎞
⎜ 𝜇max 𝜎
𝜋 u̇ r
− 2.Df . a1 ⎟ (22)
ce = N ⎜ ⎟ (18)
⎜ 𝜎u2̇ ⎟ The connected structures are subjected to the base
⎝ r
⎠ acceleration ü g , modeled as Gaussian white-noise random
process with constant power spectral density S0 . The mean

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

∞
square displacement response 𝜎u1 2
and 𝜎u2
2
of Structure 1
and 2, respectively, are expressed as (Nigam, 1983)
2
𝜎a2 = |ü (i𝜔)|2 S d𝜔 (26)
∫ | a2 | 0
∞ −∞

2
𝜎u1 = |u (i𝜔) S d𝜔
|2 (23) where ü a1 (i𝜔) and ü a2 (i𝜔) are the harmonic transfer function
∫ | 1 | 0
−∞ of acceleration response, ü a1 and ü a2 , respectively, obtained
from Eqs. (21) and (22). The variation of mean square dis-
and placement and mean square acceleration responses of the
∞ two structures against the equivalent normalized damping
|u (i𝜔)|2 S d𝜔 constant 𝜉e is shown in Fig. 8 for different damping ratios of
(24)
2
𝜎u2 =
∫ | 2 | 0
the connected structures (i.e. 𝜉1 = 𝜉2 = 0 , 0.02 and 0.05).
−∞
The variations of the responses are similar nature as it has
where u1 (i𝜔) and u2 (i𝜔) are the harmonic transfer function of observed in Fig. 5. Further, it is observed that the optimum
displacement response, u1 and u2 respectively, obtained from 𝜉e for connected damped system lies very close to that of
Eqs. (16) and (17). The mean square acceleration response connected undamped system and a slight variation in the
2
𝜎a1 and 𝜎a2
2
of Structure 1 and 2, respectively, are expressed optimum 𝜉e does not have much effect on the minimum value
as (Nigam, 1983). of the mean square responses. It is also observed that the
∞ difference in resulting response of damped system consid-
ering (i) actual optimum 𝜉e and (ii) 𝜉e corresponding to the
2
𝜎a1 = |ü (i𝜔)|2 S d𝜔 (25)
∫ | a1 | 0 undamped system is almost negligible. Thus, optimum 𝜉e for
−∞ connected undamped system can also be used for connected
and damped system.

Fig. 8  Variation of mean square

45
responses against normalized
equivalent constant for different
15 ξ1=ξ2=0
σu (πS0/2ω2 )
σu (πS0/2ω1 )

3
3

value of damping in connected

structures ( 𝛽 = 2, 𝜂 = 1) 0.02
0.05
2
2

2
1

0 0
30 Structure 1 30 Structure 2
σa (2πS0ω1)

σa (2πS0ω2)
2

2
1

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 ξe 1.0
ξe

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

[ ( )2 ( )2 ]
Optimum e and responses for undamped 𝛽 2 𝛽 2 − 1 + 4(1 + 𝜂) 𝛽 2 + 𝜂 𝜉e2
connected system 2
𝜎a2 = 2𝜋S0 𝜔2 ( )2 (34)
2𝛽 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂𝜉e
Let us consider the friction damper connected adjacent
It is shown that the time-averaged total energy of the
structures with structural damping ratio 𝜉1 = 𝜉2 = 0 . The
structure under white-noise excitation is given as (Cremer
harmonic transfer function for relative ( velocity of damper
) and Heckle 1973)
ends u̇ r (i𝜔) = u̇ 1 (i𝜔) − u̇ 2 (i𝜔) = (i𝜔) u1 (i𝜔) − u2 (i𝜔) can
expressed as
( )
(i𝜔) 𝜔21 − 𝜔22
u̇ r (i𝜔) = ( ) ( ) ( ) (27)
(i𝜔)4 + (i𝜔)3 Δd + (i𝜔)2 𝜔21 + 𝜔22 + (i𝜔) +𝜔21 Δd2 + 𝜔22 Δd1 + 𝜔21 𝜔22

with Δ1 = c1 ∕m1 ; Δ2 = c2 ∕m2 ; Δd1 = ce ∕m1 ; Δd2 = ce ∕m2 ; 1 1

E = Ek + Ep = m⟨u̇ 2 ⟩ + k⟨u2 ⟩ (35)
Δd = Δd1 + Δd2. 2 2
The mean square relative velocity 𝜎u2̇ for undamped cou- where Ek is the kinetic energy and Ep is the potential energy
r
pled system subjected to stationary white-noise excitation is of the structure. For the considered connected structure, the
given as time-averaged total energy is given as
∞ [ ] [ ]
E = Ek + Ep 1 + Ek + Ep 2 . (36)
𝜎u2̇ = |u̇ (i𝜔)|2 S d𝜔 (28)
∫ | r | 0
For the undamped connected system,
r
−∞
�� �2 � � �
Solving the above integral gives 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂 + 2(1 + 𝜂)2 1 + 𝛽 2 + 2𝜂 𝜉e2
E = 𝜋S0 m1 � �2
𝜋S0 (1 + 𝜂)2 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂𝜉e 𝜔1
𝜎u2̇ = (29) �
r Δe 𝜂 ⎡ � 2 �2 2
� 2
� 2� ⎤
⎢ 𝛽 𝛽 − 1 + 2(1 + 𝜂) 𝜂 + 𝛽 (2 + 𝜂) 𝜉e ⎥
From the Eqs. (19), (20) and (29), the normalized equiva- +𝜋S0 m2 ⎢ � �2 ⎥
lent constant and slip force can expressed as ⎢ 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂𝜉e 𝜔2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
(37)
fs2
𝜉e = ( ) (30) [( ) 2 ( ) ( ) ]
𝜋 2 m1 𝜔1 S0 m1 + m2 𝛽 2 − 1 1 + 𝜂 2 + 4(1 + 𝜂)3 𝛽 2 + 𝜂 𝜉e2
E = 𝜋S0 m1 ( )2 .
𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂 2 𝜉e 𝜔1
The mean square displacement response 𝜎u1
2
and 𝜎u2
2
of
(38)
Structure 1 and 2, respectively, given as
[( ] The value of the optimum equivalent constant for mini-
)2
2𝜋S0 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂 + 4(1 + 𝜂) 𝜉e2
3 mum total energy of the coupled system can be obtained by
(31)
2
𝜎u1 = ( )2 differentiating the total energy expression with respect to
𝜔31 2 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂𝜉e
equivalent constant and equate it to zero, i.e. d𝜉
dE
= 0 . Solving
e
the equation yields the optimum 𝜉e for the coupled system
� �
⎡ � 2 �2 2 3 2 ⎤ and after simplification, the optimum equivalent constant is
2𝜋S0 ⎢ 𝛽 𝛽 − 1 + 4𝛽 (1 + 𝜂) 𝜉e ⎥ given as
(32)
2
𝜎u2 = ⎢ � �2 ⎥
𝜔32 ⎢ 2 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂𝜉e ⎥ � 2 �√
⎣ ⎦ 𝛽 − 1 1 + 𝜂2
opt
𝜉e =
3 √ (39)
The mean square acceleration response 𝜎a1 2
and 𝜎a2
2
of 2(1 + 𝜂) ∕2 𝛽 2 + 𝜂
Structure 1 and 2, respectively, given as
[( )2 ( )2 ] and the corresponding optimum slip force in friction damper
𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂 + 4(1 + 𝜂) 𝛽 2 + 𝜂 𝜉e2 can be expressed as
(33)
2
𝜎a1 = 2𝜋S0 𝜔1 ( )2 �
�
2 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂𝜉e � S 𝜔 �𝛽 2 − 1�√1 + 𝜂 √1 + 𝜂 2
� 0 1
fs = 𝜋m1 �
opt
� �√ (40)
2 𝜂 + 𝜂2 𝛽 2 + 𝜂

13


13
Table 2  Effect of damping in structures on optimum value of damper slip force f and mean square displacement response
opt
𝜂 Damp-ing Optimum equivalent normalized constant f Mean square displacement
ratio
𝛽 = 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 𝛽 = 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0
*
S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2

0.5 0.00 0.076 0.076 0.105 0.105 0.127 0.127 0.144 0.144 0.2486 0.2682 0.1664 0.1658 1310 0.1194 0.1117 0.0929
0.02 0.061 0.045 0.095 0.077 0.147 0.104 0.177 0.115 0.1995 0.1947 0.1433 0.1317 0.1139 0.0985 0.0964 0.0781
(0.203)# (0.204) (0.144) (0.137) (0.115) (0.101) (0.099) (0.079)
0.05 0.064 0.03 0.098 0.055 0.160 0.061 0.170 0.070 0.1609 0.1469 0.1222 0.1052 0.0998 0.0809 0.0855 0.0649
(0.164) (0.152) (0.123) (0.115) (0.103) (0.087) (0.088) (0.069)
1.0 0.00 0.053 0.053 0.075 0.075 0.091 0.091 0.104 0.104 0.2611 0.2369 0.1742 0.1455 0.1384 0.1055 0.1179 0.0818
0.02 0.045 0.036 0.082 0.048 0.114 0.065 0.154 0.074 0.2076 0.1818 0.1483 0.1228 0.1184 0.0905 0.1001 0.0719
(209) (0.191) (0.151) (0.128) (123) (0.095) (0.107) (0.075)
0.05 0.042 0.019 0.083 0.039 0.106 0.045 0.140 0.053 0.1673 0.1440 0.1289 0.1018 0.1062 0.0778 0.0910 0.0623
(0.169) (0.152) (0.130) (0.114) (0.108) (0.086) (0.096) (0.068)
1.5 0.00 0.044 0.044 0.063 0.063 0.077 0.077 0.088 0.088 0.2773 0.2297 0.1856 0.1418 0.1460 0.1031 0.1244 0.0804
0.02 0.045 0.026 0.072 0.041 0.101 0.055 0.121 0.055 0.2163 0.1798 0.1567 0.1195 0.1256 0.0891 0.1061 0.0701
(0.218) (0.191) (0.269) (0.129) (0.130) (0.095) (0.113) (0.075)
0.05 0.038 0.016 0.063 0.029 0.098 0.037 0.124 .043 0.1733 0.1428 0.1348 0.1002 0.1120 0.0765 0.0966 0.0615
(0.175) (0.160) (0.136) (0.117) (0.115) (0.088) (0.101) (0.070)
2.0 0.00 0.039 0.039 0.056 0.056 0.069 0.069 0.80 0.80 0.2945 0.2307 0.1956 0.1430 0.1531 0.1044 0.1312 0.0819
0.02 0.033 0.022 0.062 0.035 0.089 0.041 0.113 0.046 0.2249 0.1778 0.1648 0.1189 0.1321 0.0884 0.1113 0.0699
(0.228) (0.190) (0.167) (0.131) (0.136) (0.098) (0.119) (0.077)
0.05 0.035 0.012 0.060 0.026 0.081 0.028 0.109 0.033 0.1782 0.1425 0.1405 0.1003 0.1175 0.0764 0.1014 0.0609
(0.180) (0.159) (0.142) (0.121) (0.119) (0.092) (0.105) (0.070)

#
 The value within the parenthesis indicates the response when f corresponding to zero structural damping ratio is considered
S1 = Structure 1, S2 = Structure 2
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
 Table 3  Effect of damping in structures on optimum value of damper slip force f and mean square acceleration response
opt
𝜇 Damp-ing Optimum equivalent normalized constant f Mean square absolute acceleration
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

ratio

𝛽 = 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 𝛽 = 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0

*
S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2

0.5 0.00 0.076 0.076 0.105 0.105 0.127 0.127 0.144 0.144 0.2985 0.4020 0.2369 0.3488 0.2183 0.3364 0.2134 0.3385
0.02 0.045 0.070 0.059 0.095 0.071 0.125 0.072 0.154 0.2314 0.2930 0.1906 0.2763 0.1727 0.2765 0.1627 0.2819
(0.241) (0.298) (0.202) (0.279) (0.201) (0.278) (0.207) (0.283)
0.05 0.034 0.048 0.051 0.076 0.055 0.103 0.058 0.102 0.1902 0.2214 0.1660 0.2236 0.1535 0.2289 0.1470 0.2366
(0.202) (0.230) (0.180) (0.229) (0.200) (0.234) (0.201) (0.240)
1.0 0.00 0.053 0.053 0.075 0.075 0.091 0.091 0.104 0.104 0.2920 0.3444 0.2172 0.2915 0.1913 0.2805 0.1800 0.2793
0.02 0.036 0.036 0.051 0.070 0.065 0.084 0.072 0.098 0.2326 0.2667 0.1904 0.2463 0.1683 0.2426 0.1580 0.2469
(0.242) (0.271) (0.199) (0.249) (0.181) (0.245) (0.174) (0.248)
0.05 0.029 0.029 0.047 0.052 0.054 0.069 0.056 0.087 0.1916 0.2133 0.1665 0.2089 0.1531 0.2109 0.1432 0.2178
(0.205) (0.221) (0.174) (0.215) (0.172) (0.215) (0.160) (0.221)
1.5 0.00 0.044 0.044 0.063 0.063 0.077 0.077 0.088 0.088 0.3020 0.3250 0.2192 0.2717 0.1873 0.2603 0.1726 0.2603
0.02 0.036 0.036 0.051 0.055 0.062 0.065 0.064 0.088 0.2389 0.2568 0.1927 0.2366 0.1698 0.2317 0.1575 0.2361
(0.243) (0.260) (0.198) (0.239) (0.176) (0.235) (0.016) (0.237)
0.05 0.020 0.023 0.041 0.042 0.050 0.054 0.053 0.072 0.1939 0.2102 0.1688 0.2019 0.1542 0.2046 0.145 0.2103
(0.208) (0.220) (0.181) (0.211) (0.166) (0.211) (0.150) (0.216)
2 0.00 0.039 0.039 0.056 0.056 0.069 0.069 0.08 0.08 0.3162 0.3180 0.2247 0.2641 0.1885 0.2526 0.172 0.2544
0.02 0.030 0.030 0.048 0.046 0.056 0.062 0.064 0.068 0.2453 0.2551 0.1968 0.2315 0.1722 0.2274 0.1584 0.2316
(0.251) (0.260) (0.201) (0.238) (0.176) (0.232) (0.164) (0.236)
0.05 0.023 0.017 0.037 0.039 0.046 0.051 0.053 0.053 0.1964 0.2080 0.1708 0.1992 0.1557 0.2019 0.1457 0.2078
(0.202) (0.214) (0.181) (0.212) (0.165) (0.213) (0.157) (0.218)

13

The mean square displacement responses corresponding
to optimum normalized constant 𝜉e is obtained as
⎡ (1 + 𝜂)3∕2 �1 + 𝜂 �𝛽 2 + 2𝜂 �� ⎤
� 2𝜋S 0 ⎢� ⎥
2
𝜎u1 � = � √ √ (41)
�opt 𝜔31 ⎢ 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂 𝛽 2 + 𝜂 1 + 𝜂 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
3∕ � � ��
2 � 2𝜋S0 ⎡⎢ 𝛽(1 + 𝜂) 2 𝜂 + 𝛽 2 2 + 𝜂 2 ⎤⎥
𝜎u2 � = � � √ √ (42)
�opt 𝜔31 ⎢ 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂 𝛽 2 + 𝜂 1 + 𝜂 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
The mean square acceleration responses corresponding to
optimum normalized constant 𝜉e is obtained as
�√
� � � � �� �
� 𝛽 2 + 𝜂 𝛽 2 1 + 𝜂 2 + 2𝜂 1 + 𝜂 + 𝜂 2
2
𝜎a1 � = 2𝜋S0 𝜔1 � � √ √ increase in frequency ratio of the connected structures
�opt 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂 1 + 𝜂 1 + 𝜂2
(43)
�√ � � �� �
𝛽 2 + 𝜂 𝜂 + 𝜂 3 + 2𝛽 2 1 + 𝜂 + 𝜂 2
2 �
𝜎a2 � = 2𝜋S0 𝜔2 � � √ √ and acceleration response of flexible structure is marginal,
�opt 𝛽 𝛽 2 − 1 𝜂 1 + 𝜂 1 + 𝜂2
(44)
To use the Eqs. (31) to (44), the frequency ratio, 𝛽 shall
always be more than 1. This condition can always be achieved
by keeping the Structure 1 as flexible among the two struc-
tures. In case the right side structure (i..e. Structure 2) of the
connected system is flexible, then the two connected structures
shall have to rotate by 180 degree so that the left structure
become flexible and right side structure as stiff structure and
calculate the system parameters accordingly.
The optimum values of damper slip force f and correspond-
ing mean square responses for different system parameters
(frequency ratio 𝛽 and mass ratio 𝜂 ) of the connected struc-
tures subjected to stationary white-noise random excitation
using Monte Carlo simulation are given in Tables 2 and 3 for
mean square displacements and accelerations, respectively.
The RMS responses also calculated corresponding to opti-
mum slip force considering zero structural damping ratios
(using Eq. 40). It is seen from the results that mean square
responses, when optimum slip force of friction damper corre-
sponding to zero structural damping ratio is considered, is not
varying much compared with that of the actual values. Thus,
the derived close-form expressions for optimum slip force can
satisfactorily use for the initial design of friction damper con-
necting damped structures also in practice.
Conclusions
The response behavior of two adjacent SDOF structures
connected with friction damper is investigated under non-
stationary and stationary random excitations, assuming a
linear elastic behavior of the structures. The responses are
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
obtained using extensive Monte Carlo simulation. The
effect of parameters like normalized slip force, frequency
ratio and mass ratio on the response behavior of the con-
nected structures is evaluated. Closed-form expression for
optimum slip force of the friction damper and corresponding
mean square responses have derived. From the trends of the
results of present study, the friction damper found effec-
tive for response control of connected adjacent structures
under non-stationary as well stationary excitations. For the
considered connected structures, there exists an optimum
slip force for which the displacement and absolute accelera-
tions of the connected structures attain the minimum value.
The increase in frequency ratio of the connected structures
decreases the displacement response of both the structures
as well as acceleration response of flexible structure. The
decreases the acceleration response of stiff structure up to
certain value, then after it further increases. The effect of
mass ratio on displacement response of both the structure
whereas, the acceleration response of stiff structure is sensi-
tive to the mass ratio of connected structures. The derived
closed-form expressions can be used for initial design of
friction damper connecting adjacent structures.
Acknowledgements  There is no any financial support was received
for conducting this study.
Data availability  Some or all data, models, or code generated or used
during the study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only
be provided with restrictions.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The author states that there is no conflict of inter-
est.
References
Amin, M., Ang, AHS. (1968). Non-stationary stochastic model of
earthquake motion. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, (ASCE),
94, 559–583.
Bagheri, M., Chahkandi, A., & Jahangir, H. (2019). Seismic reliability
analysis of RC frames rehabilitated by glass fiber-reinforced poly-
mers. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 17, 1785–1797
Bertero, V. V. (1986). Observation of structural pounding., Proc. Inter-
national conference The Maxico Earthquake – 1985, ASCE New
York, N.Y. 264–278.
Bhaskararao, A. V., & Jangid, R. S. (2006a). Harmonic response of
adjacent structures connected with a friction damper. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 292, 710–725
Bhaskararao, A. V., & Jangid, R. S. (2006b). Seismic analysis of struc-
tures connected with friction dampers. Engineering Structures
USA, 28, 690–703
Bhaskararao, A. V., & Jangid, R. S. (2006c). Seismic response of
adjacent buildings connected with friction dampers. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering Italy, 4, 43–64
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Clough, R. W., & Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures.
McGraw-Hill.
Colajanni, P., & Papia, M. (1995). Seismic response of braced frames
with and without friction dampers. Engineering Structures, 17,
129–140
Constantinou, M. C. (1990). Stochastic response of practical sliding
isolation system. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 5(1),
27–34
Constantinou, M. C., Caccese, J., & Harris, H. G. (1987). Frictional
characteristics of Teflon-steel interfaces under dynamic condi-
tions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15,
751–759
Constantinou, M. C., Mokha, A., & Reinhorn, A. M. (1990). Teflon
bearings in base isolatin Part 2: Modeling. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 116(ST2), 455–474
Cremer, L., & Heckl, M. (1973). Structure Born Sound. Springer.
Jahangir, H., & Karamodin, A., (2015) Structural behavior investiga-
tion based on adaptive pushover procedure. In: 10th International
Congress on Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz. Iran.
Jahangir, H., & Bagheri, M. (2020). Evaluation of seismic response of
concrete structures reinforced by shape memory alloys. Interna-
tional Journal of Engineering, 33(3), 410–418. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
5829/​IJE.​2020.​33.​03C.​05
Jahangir, H., Bagheri, M., & Delavari, S. M. J. (2020). Cyclic behavior
assessment of steel bar hysteretic dampers using multiple nonlin-
ear regression approach. Iranian Journal of Science and Technol-
ogy, Transactions of Civil Engineering, 1–25
Jangid, R. S. (2004). Response of SDOF system to non-stationary
earthquake excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 33, 1417–1428
Jangid, R. S. (2008). Stochastic response of bridges seismically isolated
by friction pendulum system. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Jennings, P. C., & Wood, J. H. (1971). Earthquake damage to freeway
structures. Engineering features of the san Fernando Earthquake
EERL 71–02 P C Jennings ed. Earthquake engineering Res. Lab.
California Inst. Of Technology Pasadena Calif.
Kanai, K. (1957). Semi-imperical formula for the seismic characteris-
tics of the ground. Univ. Tokyo Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Tokyo
Japan, 35, 309–325
Kasai, K., & Maison, B. F. (1992). Dynamics of pounding when two
buildings collide. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynam-
ics, 21, 771–786
Kasai, K., Nakai, M., Nakamura, Y., Asai, H., Suzuki, Y., & Ishii, M.
(2008a). Current status of building passive control in Japan. In:
The 14th World conference on earthquake engineering. Beijing
China
Kasai, K., Ooki, Y., Ishii, M., Ozaki, H., Ito, H., Motoyui, S., Hikino,
T., & Sato, E. (2008b). Value-added 5-story steel frame and its
components: Part-1 Full-scale damper tests and analysis. The 14th
World conference on earthquake engineering Beijing China
Kasai, K., Yaomin, Fu., & Atsushi, W. (1998). Passive control for
seismic damage mitigation. Journal of Structural Engineering
(ASCE), 124(5), 501–512
Lopez, I., Busturia, J. M., & Ninimeijer, H. (2004). Energy dissipa-
tion of a friction dampe. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 278,
539–561
Luco, J. E., & De Barros, F. C. P. (1998). Control of the seismic
response of a composite tall building modeled by two intercon-
nected shear beams. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 27, 205–222
Malhotra, P. K., Huang, M. J., & Shakal, A. F. (1994). Interaction at
separation joints of a concrete bridge during 1992 earthquakes in
California. Proceedings of 5th U S National Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Oakland Calif.
Matsagar, V. A., & Jangid, R. S. (2005). Viscoelastic damper connected
to adjacent structures involving seismic isolation. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, X, I(4), 309–322
Mokha, A., Constantinou, M. C., & Reinhorn, A. M. (1988). Teflon
bearings in aseismic base isolation: experimental studies and
mathematical modeling. Technical report NCEER-88–0038.
Mokha, A., Constantionou, M. C., & Reinhorn, A. M. (1990). Teflon
bearings in base isolation Part 1: Testing. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 116(ST2), 438–454
Montuori, R., Nastri, E., & Piluso, V. (2014). Theory of plastic mecha-
nism control for the seismic design of braced frames equipped
with friction dampers. Mechanics Research Communication, 58,
112–123
Mualla, I. H., & Belev, B. (2002). Performance of steel frames with
a new friction damper device under earthquake excitation. Engi-
neering Structures, 24, 365–371
Nigam, N. C. (1983). Introduction to Random Vibration. (1st ed.). MIT
Press.
Pall, A. S., & Marsh, C. (1982). Response of friction damped braced
frames. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, 108, 1313–1323
Papageorgion, A. S. (1990). Response of sliding structures with restor-
ing force to stochastic excitation. Probabilistic Engineering
Mechanics, 5(1), 19–26
Patel, C. C. (2015a). Random response analysis of adjacent structures
connected by viscous damper. Advances in Structural Engineer-
ing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​81-​322-​2193-7_​88
Patel C. C. (2015b). Dynamic response of adjacent structures coupled
by nonlinear viscous damper. Advances in Structural Engineer-
ing., DOI,10:1007/978-81-322-2193-7_85
Patel, C. C. (2019). Random response analysis of parallel structures
connected with Maxwell dampers. ISET Journal of Earthquake
Technology, 56(3), 57–75
Patel, C. C., & Jangid, R. S. (2011). Dynamic response of adjacent
structures connected by friction damper. Earthquake and Struc-
tures, 2(2), 149–169
Raut, B. R., & Jangid, R. S. (2014). Seismic analysis of benchmark
building installed with friction dampers. The IES Journal Part A,
Civil & Structural Engineering, 7(1), 20–37
Reinhorn, A. M., & Valles, R. E. (1995). Damage evaluation in ine-
lastic response of structures: A deterministic approach, Report
No. NCEER-95. National Centre for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Robert, J. B. & P. D. Spanos. (1990). Random Vibration and Statistical
Linearization, Wiley, New York
Tajimi, H. (1960). A statistical method of determining the maximum
response of a building structure during an earthquake. Proceeding
of 2nd World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering Vol II, 781–798.
Zhu, H. P., Ge, D. D., & Huang, X. (2011). “Optimum connecting
dampers to reduce the seismic responses of parallel structures.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 330, 1931–1949
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13