Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Sound and Vibration

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

Impact of soilestructure interaction on structures with

inerter system
Qingjun Chen a, b, Zhipeng Zhao a, b, Ruifu Zhang b, *, Chao Pan c
a
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
c
College of Civil Engineering, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Until now, the influence of soilestructure interaction (SSI) on structures equipped with an
Received 17 October 2017 inerter system has been neglected in research studies. This study aims at investigating the
Received in revised form 24 June 2018 impact of SSI on the dynamic response of such structures and explores a rather effective
Accepted 4 July 2018
method for designing structures equipped with an inerter system. First, the parameters of
Available online 12 July 2018
Handling Editor: L. Huang
the inerter system were obtained using the improved fixed-point method, and the foun-
dation characteristics were derived from the classical sub-structure model. Then, dynamic
responses of the structure, both with and without the sub-structure model, were
Keywords:
Inerter system
comparatively evaluated through frequency- and time-domain analyses. It was found that
Soil-structure interaction structures with an inerter system demonstrate an increased dynamic response under the
Vibration control influence of SSI. In addition, structures equipped with an inerter system and designed
Optimization design using conventional methods are potentially unsafe. Hence, the parameter optimization of
the inerter system should be performed with due consideration of the SSI effects. The
dynamic response of structures equipped with an inerter system is found to be reduced
when new inerter parameters obtained from the simulated annealing algorithm are
applied. The results of the analyses demonstrate that SSI effects must be considered in the
case of structures equipped with an inerter system and standing on flexible soil. Consid-
ering the SSI effects, an optimization algorithm, such as the simulated annealing algorithm,
can be used to obtain design parameters of the inerter system, thereby more effectively
reducing the dynamic response of structures equipped with an inerter system.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The notations used in this study are listed in Table 1.

1. Introduction

Structural control has been proved to be an effective approach of mitigating dynamic responses, and is widely applied in
civil structures, in which, using structural control, several energy dissipation devices can be utilized efficiently [1e5]. Extant
studies have established that among energy dissipation devices, the inerter system is effective for mitigating the vibration of
structures [6e9]. In general, a typical inerter system is composed of an inerter element, damping element, and stiffness
element [9e14]. An effective mechanism for vibration reduction is as follows: The physical mass of the inerter can be

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhangruifu@tongji.edu.cn (R. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.07.008
0022-460X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15

Table 1
Notations.

Notation Definition
m Mass of the SDOF structure
m0 Mass of the foundation
c Damping coefficient of the SDOF structure
ch Damping coefficient of horizontal vibration of the foundation
c4 Damping coefficient of rotational vibration of the foundation
k Stiffness of the SDOF structure
kh Stiffness of horizontal vibration of the foundation
k4 Stiffness of rotational vibration of the foundation
Fd Output force of SPIS
md Apparent mass of the inerter
cd Damping coefficient of damping element in SPIS
kd Stiffness of the spring in SPIS
I0 Mass inertia moment of the foundation
g Acceleration due to gravity
h Height of mass in SDOF
r Density of soil
R Equivalent radius of the foundation
G Shear modulus of the soil
n Poisson's ratio of the soil
Br Mass factor of the soil
vs Shear velocity of the soil
uin , us Deformations of inerter element and spring element
u_ in , u€in Velocity and acceleration of inerter element
x0 , x4 Horizontal and rotational displacements of the foundation
x1 , x2 Displacement of the SDOF structure and deformation of spring element in SPIS
x_0 , x_4 Horizontal and rotational velocities of the foundation
x_1 , x_2 Velocity of the SDOF structure and spring element in SPIS
x€0 , x€4 Horizontal and rotational acceleration of the foundation
x€1 , x€2 Acceleration of the SDOF structure and spring element in SPIS
xST
PIS , x€ST
PIS Displacement and acceleration responses of structures equipped with an SPIS
xST , x€ST Displacement and acceleration responses of original structures
us Circular frequency of ST0
u0 , u Circular frequency of the structure and circular frequency of excitation
xs Inherent damping ratio of the SDOF structure
mr , mf Dimension ratio and mass ratio of the foundation
mk Stiffness ratio of SPIS
mc Damping ratio of SPIS
mm Inerter-mass ratio of SPIS
M, M ~ Mass matrix and dimensionless mass matrix
~
C, C Damping matrix and dimensionless damping matrix
K, K~ Stiffness matrix and dimensionless stiffness matrix
~s
M s ,M Matrix and dimensionless matrix of mass related to external excitation
_ x€
x; x; Vectors corresponding to the displacement, velocity, and acceleration response
r Vector corresponding to the influence coefficient
x€g Acceleration of ground motion
Sg ðuÞ Power spectral density of excitation
Sxx ðuÞ Power spectral density of the displacement response of Soil-SDOF-SPIS system
sx Root mean square of displacement response of Soil-SDOF-SPIS system
T Natural period of ST0
bDis ,bAcc Ratios of reduction in displacement and acceleration

amplified to an apparent mass, and simultaneously, the efficiency of the damping element for dissipating energy can be
improved using the inertial mechanism [2,15]. In order to utilize the amplification mechanism of inerter systems, a screw
viscous damper was proposed by Arakaki et al. [16], which in turn, uses the high-speed rotation of a ball screw to increase the
effectiveness of the viscous damping force. On the basis of the mechanical and circuital systems of the 'forceeelectric
simulation', Smith [2] proposed the use of inerter systems as a two-terminal element for vibration control. Further, the mass
amplification mechanism in inerter systems can be achieved through the rack-gear mechanism [2], ball-screw mechanism
[16], hydraulic mechanism [2], and other such mechanisms. Several extant studies have focused on the use of inerter systems
with different layouts for vibration mitigation [8,17e23].
Saito et al. [20,24,25] proposed the tuned viscous mass damper (TVMD), in which the tuned spring was incorporated with
the subsystem of the inerter and viscous element in series. The effectiveness of TVMD was verified by shaking table tests with
a small-scale control device [26]. By replacing the viscous damping element of the tuned mass damper with TVMD, Garrido
et al. [27] introduced an improved tuned mass damper called the rotational inertia double-tuned mass damper (RIDTMD).
Owing to the presence of the inerter in TVMD, the RIDTMD is more effective for vibration reduction than a tuned mass
damper with the same tuned mass ratio, and it has a wider suppression band of frequency. On the basis of the fixed-point
 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15 3

theory [28], Ikago et al. [6] proposed an optimal design method for TVMD. This method is fairly simple as an improved fixed-
point method and may be directly used for the parameter design of inerter systems; in fact, it is widely used as a repre-
sentative design method in practice. Taking the inherent damping ability of a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structure into
consideration, a demand-based optimal design method for a parallel-layout inerter system was proposed by Pan et al. [14] to
satisfy performance demands with minimum control costs.
As can be easily recognized, most extant studies described above were performed on a rigid base, i.e., the influence of
soilestructure interaction (SSI) on the performance and control effect of structures equipped with an inerter system was
neglected. It is well known that the structural response is affected by soil flexibility owing to the effects of SSI [29e32]. The
natural period of an SSI system is longer compared to that of a fixed-base system. The damping ratios and mode shapes are
also significantly modified by SSI effects, which lead to changes in the stiffness and energy dissipation mechanism of
structural systems [33]. SSI effects on the elastic response of SDOF and multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) systems were re-
ported in the 1970s by many researchers including Perelman et al. [34], Jennings and Bielak [35], and Veletsos [36]. Addi-
tionally, many studies [37e39] have been conducted to analyze the influence of SSI on the seismic performance of structures
that utilize different damping techniques. The influence of SSI on the design of an intelligent hybrid system containing
viscouseelastic dampers and hydraulic actuators has been investigated for buildings standing on soft soil [39]. The optimized
parameters of tuned mass dampers for tall buildings have been analyzed by considering SSI effects [37]. In those studies, the
effects of SSI were considered in the seismic analyses of structures with energy dissipation devices standing on flexible soil. As
mentioned above, the effects of SSI significantly influence the dynamic characteristics such as the natural period and damping
ratio, which are directly related to the design of an inerter system. However, the SSI effect has not yet been considered in the
design of inerter systems for structures standing on flexible soil.
To this end, the proposed study analyses the seismic performance of structures equipped with an inerter system, taking
into account the SSI effects. The representative parameters of the inerter system are obtained using the classical improved
fixed-point method [6], and the classical sub-structure model is adopted to obtain foundation characteristics. The dynamic
responses of structures, both with and without the sub-structure model, are then comparatively evaluated through fre-
quency- and time-domain analyses. To consider the effects of SSI on the design of inerter systems, the simulated annealing
method is used to evaluate the new parameters of inerter systems, thereby reducing the dynamic response of structures built
on flexible soil.

2. Theoretical analysis

2.1. Analytical models

2.1.1. Inerter system model

Fig. 1 (a) shows the schematic diagram of the series-parallel inerter system (SPIS) considered in this study. In SPIS, the
damping element is set in parallel with the inerter element to form a component, and the spring element is then connected
with the component in a serial arrangement. SPIS is an effective and widely applied inerter system that has been investigated
by many researchers [6,14,40].
The output force of the SPIS can be determined using Eq. (1).

Fd ¼ kd us ¼ cd u_ in þ md u€in ; (1)

where Fd is the output force of the SPIS; cd , kd , and md respectively denote the damping coefficient of damping element,
stiffness of the spring element, and the apparent mass of the inerter element; and uin and us respectively represent the
deformations of the inerter element (or damping element) and the spring element.
Fig. 1 (b) shows the mechanical models of an SDOF structure on a rigid base, equipped with SPIS; in this configuration, the
effects of SSI are ignored. An SDOF system with viscous damping c, stiffness k, and mass m is denoted using ST0. The height of
the mass is h. In Fig. 1 (b), ST1 represents an SDOF system equipped with SPIS, which is also defined as SDOF-SPIS system. The
mechanical model of this rigid base is suitable for structures built on hard soil, wherein the soil is assumed to execute rigid
motion, and the ground motion is directly transferred to the structure.

2.1.2. Soil-SDOF structure model

The natural period of an SSI system is longer compared to that of a fixed-base system. Therefore, the SSI effect must be
considered for conditions in which the seismic responses of the structure and vibration mitigation effect of the energy
dissipating device are strongly influenced by variations in the natural period of the structure [36]. In general, SSI analysis
methods can be classified as sub-structure and direct methods. In the sub-structure method, the soil and structure are broken
down separately and analyzed in several steps [25]. Compared to the sub-structure method, the direct method using a
complex model, the analysis of which requires greater computational effort [41]. In the sub-structure method [42], calcu-
lations for the structure and soil are performed separately and then combined to form a soilestructure model by considering
the compatibility between the contact surfaces of the soil and structure.
4 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15

Fig. 1. Mechanical model of SPIS and SDOF-SPIS system: (a) SPIS; (b) SDOF-SPIS system on rigid base (ST1).

Under horizontal ground motion, the horizontal and rocking displacements are adopted as representative movements of
the foundation. The empirical formula for the ground impedance function, proposed by Richard [42], is independent of the
frequency of external excitation; its form is simple and easy for calculation and has a wide range of applications. The
swingerocking (SR) model with a horizontal and rocking dampingestiffness system, which is based on the classical theory
proposed by Richard, is used in this study to simulate the influence of soil on the upper structure. As shown in Fig. 2(a), ST2
represents the SDOF structure on flexible soil; this structure is also defined as the Soil-SDOF system. In this case, m0 is the
mass of foundation. The damping coefficients and stiffnesses of the horizontal and rocking dampingestiffness system are ch ,
kh , and c4 , k4 , respectively. The parameters of the SR model can be determined as follows.

8GR 8GR3
kh ¼ ; k4 ¼ ; (2)
2
n 3ð1
nÞ

4:6R2 pffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:8R4 pffiffiffiffiffiffi

ch ¼ rG; c4 ¼ rG; (3)
2
n ð1
nÞð1 þ Br Þ

where R is the equivalent radius of the foundation; G, and r are the shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, and density of the soil,
respectively; Br is the mass factor, which can be determined as Br ¼ 3ð1
vÞI0 =ð8rR5 Þ; and I0 is the mass inertia moment of
the foundation. ST3, which is the mechanical model of the Soil-SDOF-SPIS obtained by incorporating SPIS with ST2 is shown
in Fig. 2(b). In this configuration of the Soil-SDOF-SPIS system, representative movements are allowed; these movements
include horizontal displacement (sway) x0 and rotation (rocking) x4 of the foundation relative to the soil, horizontal
displacement x1 of the SDOF structure relative to the foundation, and the deformation x2 of the spring element in the SPIS.

2.2. Governing equation of motion

The Soil-SDOF-SPIS system can be analyzed in both the frequency and time domains. To investigate the effects of SSI on the
seismic performance of an SDOF structure equipped with SPIS, the governing equation of motion for the ST3 configuration can
be established as follows.
Resolving the horizontal forces of concentrated mass in the ST3 configuration, we get
 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15 5

Fig. 2. Mechanical model of the SDOF structure on flexible soil: (a) Soil-SDOF system (ST2); (b) Soil-SDOF-SPIS system (ST3).

   x 
m x€0 þ hx€4 þ x€1
mg x4 þ 1 þ cx_1 þ kx1 þ md ðx€1
x€2 Þ þ cd ðx_1
x_2 Þ ¼
mx€g : (4)
h

where x€g is the acceleration of the ground motion and g is the acceleration due to gravity. Similarly, the equilibrium of output
forces in the SPIS can be written as,

md ðx€1
x€2 Þ þ cd ðx_1
x_2 Þ
kd x2 ¼ 0 (5)

Likewise, the equilibrium of the horizontal and rotational forces of the entire Soil-SDOF-SPIS system can be written as
shown in Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively.

x1
ðm þ m0 Þx€0 þ mx€1 þ mhx€4 þ ch x_0 þ kh x0
mg
mgx4 ¼
ðm þ m0 Þx€g ; (6)
h
6 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15

   
mhx€0 þ mhx€1 þ I0 þ mh2 x€4 þ c4 x_4
mgx1 þ
mgh þ k4 x4 ¼
mhx€g : (7)

On the basis of the above equations, the governing equation of motion can be expressed as follows.

Мx€ þ C x_ þ Kx ¼
Ms rx€g ; (8)

where M; Ms ; C; and K respectively represent the mass matrix, mass matrix related to the external excitation, damping
matrix, and stiffness matrix; x is the displacement vector, defined as x ¼ fx0 ; x1 ; x2 ; x4 gT ; and r ¼ f1; 0; 1; 1gT is the influence
coefficient vector. To normalize the above equations, the parameters can be defined as
rffiffiffiffiffi
k c m R
us ¼ ;x ¼ ; m ¼ 0 ; mr ¼ : (9)
m s 2mus f m h

where us and xs are, respectively, the circular frequency and inherent damping ratio of the original SDOF structure. mf and mr
are, respectively, the mass ratio and dimension ratio of the foundation. Through dimensionless processing, the following
parameters can be defined for designing SPIS

md k c
mm ¼ ; m ¼ d ; mc ¼ d : (10)
m k k c

where mm is the inerter-mass ratio, mk is the stiffness ratio, and mc is the damping ratio. Substituting the parameters in Eqs. (9)
and (10) into Eqs. (4)e(7), the governing equation of motion can be rewritten as

~ x_ þ Kx
~ x€ þ C
М ~ ¼
M
~ s rx€g ; (11)

where M;~ M ~ and K

~ s ; C; ~ are the dimensionless mass matrix, mass matrix related to the external excitation, damping matrix,
and stiffness matrix. The matrices in the above equations can be determined as follows.
2 3
1 1 þ mm
mm 1
6 7
6 0
6
mm
mm 0 7
7
~
M¼6 7; (12)
6 1 þ mr 1 0 1 7
6 7
4 5
1 2 2:
h h 0 m h þ h2:
4 r
2 3
0 2xs us ð1 þ mc Þ
2mc xs us 0
6 0 2mc xs us
2mc xs us 0 7
~ 6
C¼4 7; (13)
ch =m 0 0 0 5

0 0 0 c4 m
2 3
0 u2s
g=h 0
g
6 0 0
mk u2s 0 7
~ ¼6
K 7; (14)
4 k =m
g=h 0
g  5
h
0
g 0
gh þ k4 m
2 3
1 0 0 0
6 07
~ s ¼ 6 0 mm
M
0 7: (15)
4 0 0 1 þ mf 05
0 0 0 h

By using Newmark's algorithm, Eq. (11) representing the SR ground model and SDOF-SPIS model can easily be solved to
obtain the numerical seismic responses of the system in the time domain as solutions for structures equipped with SPIS,
taking into account the SSI effects.

2.3. Modal analysis

The vibration mitigation effect and optimal design of inerter systems have always been influenced by the natural period of
the structure. To investigate the effects of SSI on inerter systems, a modal analysis has been performed. From Eq. (11), the
eigenvalue equation can be expressed as follows.
 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15 7

 
~ ~  ¼ 0;
detK
u20 M (16)

where K ~ and M ~ can be obtained from Eqs. (12) and (14), respectively, and u0 represents the natural circular frequency, which
can be obtained from Eq. (16) and arranged in ascending order. Upon inspection of Eqs. (12), (14) and (16), it is observed that
the order of the mass and stiffness matrices are increased due to the effect of the SSI. Consequently, the periodic charac-
teristics of the SSI system change. Hence, modal analysis can be used to comprehensively compare the modal properties of the
SDOF structure equipped with SPIS with and without the consideration of SSI effects.

2.4. Stochastic analysis

As mentioned in Section 2.2, the dynamic responses in the time domain can be obtained from Eq. (11); however, these
responses vary with different earthquake excitation inputs. To overcome the arbitrary effect of the time-domain analysis
under different earthquake excitations, a stochastic analysis has been applied in this section. Considering a harmonic exci-
tation
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiwith circular frequency u and power spectral density (PSD) Sg ðuÞ, the excitation can be expressed as x€g ðtÞ ¼
Sg ðuÞeiut . The PSD of the displacement response of the Soil-SDOF-SPIS system (Sxx ðuÞ) can be calculated directly using the
pseudo excitation method [43,44]. The root mean square (RMS) value of the displacement response of ST3 can be expressed
using the following equation:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u Z∞
u
u
sx ¼ t Sxx ðuÞdu: (17)

∞

Similarly, the acceleration responses in the frequency domain for an SDOF SPIS can be obtained with and without
considering SSI effects.

3. Parametric analysis

As discussed above, the seismic performance state of a Soil-SDOF-SPIS system are in nonlinearly correlated with the
parameters of a given SDOF structure, SR model, and SPIS. To investigate the effects of SSI on the vibration mitigation effect of
an SPIS and the seismic response of an SDOF structure, parametric studies that were conducted have been described in this
section.

3.1. Effects of SSI on the vibration mitigation effect of SPIS

In this section, the RMS value of the displacement response sx is selected as the indictor to evaluate the all the responses of
ST3 and the vibration mitigation effect of an SPIS in the frequency domain. Obtaining the response and the vibration miti-
gation effect in the frequency domain have been discussed in Section 2.4. The improved fixed-point optimum design method
proposed by Ikago et al. [6] was adopted for designing the SPIS because it is easy to use. In this method, the values of mk and mc
can be calculated (based on the assumption that the additional mass ratio mm of the SPIS is pre-set) as follows.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
mm m 3mm
mk ¼ ;m ¼ m : (18)
1
mm c 2xs ð1
mm Þð2
mm Þ

Based on the improved fixed-point design method [6], a series of numerical cases were considered. In these cases, a series
of SDOF structures with an inherent damping ratio xs ¼ 0:05 are assumed to be established on flexible soil Their nature
periods on the rigid base varies from 0.01 s to 3.0 s continuously. In terms of flexible soil, mf ¼ 1 [38] and the shear velocities
considered are vs ¼ 100 m=s, 200 m=s, and 300 m=s. The inerter-mass ratios of the SPISs were pre-set to 0.10, 0.20, and 0.30.
Then, sx of the SDOF-SPIS system, Soil-SDOF system, and Soil-SDOF-SPIS system (i.e. ST1, ST2, and ST3) were obtained by
applying the stochastic analysis described Section 2.4. Fig. 3 (a)-(i) shows the trends exhibited by sx for each of the three
configurations (ST1, ST2, and ST3) and for the same range of the natural period (T) of the structures.
As shown in Fig. 3 (a), for T < 2:0, the dynamic stochastic response of ST3 is greater than that of ST1 owing to SSI effects.
When equipped with an SPIS designed by applying the improved fixed-point method, the dynamic frequency response of ST3
is found to be greater than that of ST2 implying that it is not safe to design an inerter system to support structures built on
flexible soil without consideration of SSI effects. In the narrowband whose centre is T ¼ 2:0, the dynamic stochastic response
of ST3 becomes lower than that of ST2 implying that the vibration response can be reduced effectively by the SPIS designed by
applying the improved fixed-point method while considering SSI effects. Compared to ST1, the stochastic response of ST3 is
8 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15

Fig. 3. Results of sx for ST1, ST2, and ST3: (a) vs ¼ 100 m=s and mm ¼ 0:05; (b) vs ¼ 100 m=s and mm ¼ 0:10; (c) vs ¼ 100 m=s and mm ¼ 0:20; (d) vs ¼ 200 m=s
and mm ¼ 0:05; (e) vs ¼ 200 m=s and mm ¼ 0:10; (f) vs ¼ 200 m=s and mm ¼ 0:20; (g) vs ¼ 300 m=s and mm ¼ 0:05; (h) vs ¼ 300 m=s and mm ¼ 0:10; (i)
vs ¼ 300 m=s and mm ¼ 0:20.

greater; moreover, the vibration mitigation efficiency is reduced owing to SSI effects. For 2:0 < T, the trends of sx for ST1, ST2,
and ST3 remain similar to those for T < 2:0. For 2:5 < T, the dynamic response of ST2 while considering SSI effects is smaller
than ST1 equipped with an SPIS on a rigid base. The stochastic response of ST3 is the highest that was recorded and increases
linearly as the natural period increases.
Comparing the curves of ST1, ST2, and ST3 in Fig. 3 (a)-(i), the shear velocity of the soil changing in the following order, vs ¼
100 m=s, 200 m=s, and 300 m=s. The trends of sx for ST1, ST2, and ST3 remain unaltered. Considering SSI effects, the dynamic
response of a structure cannot be suppressed effectively through the SPIS designed by the traditional (improved fixed-point)
method. As the classical design method for an inerter system, the improved fixed-point method is applicable to inerter-
system designs for structures standing on a rigid base, in which the damping influence of the base can be ignored [6].
However, in a Soil-SDOF-SPIS system, the damping influence of the soil is essential and ignoring the influence may lead to a
reduction in the vibration mitigation efficiency of an inerter system designed without considering the influence of SSI. As
such, while defining the design parameters for an inerter system, SSI effects should be considered for evaluating the vibration
mitigation efficiency of the structureeinerter system.
 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15 9

Table 2
Natural periods of ST1, ST2, and ST3 (Unit: s).

Shear velocity Modes ST1 ST2 ST3

vs ¼ 100 m=s 1st 1.1473 1.1863 1.2973
2nd 0.8269 e 0.8705
vs ¼ 200 m=s 1st 1.1473 1.1614 1.2810
2nd 0.8269 e 0.8608
vs ¼ 300 m=s 1st 1.1473 1.1569 1.2781
2nd 0.8269 e 0.8590

3.2. Time domain analysis

To illustrate the effects of SSI on the seismic performances of ST1, ST2, and ST3 in the time domain, the time history
analysis is conducted for the SDOF structure subject to different earthquake excitations. The parameters of the SR model are
the same as those described in Section 3.1. For the SDOF structure, the inherent damping ratio is xs ¼ 0:05 and the nature
period on the rigid base is 1.00 s. The inerter-mass ratio of SPIS is taken to be mm ¼ 0:1, which is a typical value for common
SPIS [6]. Substituting these parameters into Eq. (16), the natural periods of ST1, ST2, and ST3 are obtained and listed in Table 2.
As can be seen in Table 2, under the given soil shear velocities, the natural periods of ST2 are found to be 1.1863 s, 1.1614 s,
and 1.1569 s, which are longer compared to the above-mentioned ST0 value of 1.00 s. This prolongation is because of the
influence of SSI. With an increase in vs , the extent of prolongation is reduced. This implies that the influence of SSI is greater
when the soil is more flexible. The prolongation of the natural period of a structure due to SSI effects could affect the design of
inerter systems and the corresponding vibration mitigation effect.
Several seismic waves recorded on a soft soil base have been modeled as external excitations for the time-domain analysis.
For conducting a time history analysis of the three types of SDOF systems, four natural phenomenadthe Coalinga earthquake
(1983), the Morgan Hill earthquake (1984), the Chi-Chi earthquake (1999), and the Kocaeli earthquake (1999)dwere chosen.
The corresponding data were obtained from the ground motion database of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Centre (PEER) [27,45,46], and is summarized in Table 3. The acceleration spectrums for these earthquakes with a 5% damping
ratio are plotted in Fig. 4.
The dynamic responses (displacement and acceleration) for ST1, ST2, and ST3 configurations for different excitations are
calculated using Eq. (11) and the results are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. To provide a more detailed expression for the vibration
mitigation effect of an SPIS, the displacement reduction ratio bDis and acceleration reduction ratio bAcc are defined as follows:

maxðxST
PIS Þ
maxðxST Þ maxðx€ST
PIS Þ
maxðx€ST Þ

bDis ¼ ; bAcc ¼ ; (19)
maxðxST Þ maxðx€ST Þ

where xST
PIS and x€ST
PIS represent the displacement and acceleration responses, respectively, of structures equipped with an
SPIS (ST1 or ST3); xST and x€ST are the displacement and acceleration responses, respectively, of the original structures (i.e., ST0
or ST2). The corresponding values of bDis and bAcc of ST1 and ST3 are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
As shown in Fig. 5, the maximum displacement responses of ST3 under excitations due the four aforementioned earth-
quakes are greater than those of ST1 because of the influence of SSI. The values of bDis for ST3 with regard to the four
aforementioned earthquakes are larger than those of ST1. It is exemplified that the vibration control effect of SPIS designed
using the improved fixed-point method is reduced if SSI effects are considered. Moreover, SPIS design without consideration
for SSI effects is inappropriate. In the response phase of the steady-state for the excitations caused by the four aforementioned
earthquakes, the responses of ST3 are greater than those of ST1, resulting in a larger structural energy accumulation and
insecurity.
In Fig. 6, the acceleration responses of ST3 are seen to be greater than those corresponding to ST1 for the excitations caused
by the Coalinga, Morgan Hill, and Chi-Chi earthquakes. The values of bAcc of ST3 for the aforementioned earthquakes are
larger than those of ST1. This implies that the acceleration mitigation effects of the structure equipped with SPIS are reduced
owing to the SSI effects. This stresses the fact that SSI effects must be considered in order to achieve acceleration control of
structures equipped with inerter systems on flexible soil. The overall acceleration responses of ST3 under steady-state
conditions are greater than those corresponding to ST1, when the influence of SSI is considered. However, for the excita-
tion caused by the Morgan Hill earthquake, the acceleration responses of ST3 are almost the same as the responses for ST1,
owing to SSI effects. Therefore, in most instances, the vibration mitigation effect of ST3 is lower than ST1, owing to SSI effects.
From the above, it can be concluded that the results of the time-domain analysis are in good agreement with those ob-
tained from the stochastic analysis. The dynamic responses, especially the displacement responses of ST3 are larger than the
responses of ST1. Considering that the displacement response is the main concern during the vibration mitigation of a given
structure, it is inappropriate to apply the improved fixed-point method for structures built on flexible soil that are equipped
with inerter systems designed without considering SSI effects.
To evaluate the effects of SSI on the energy dissipation efficiency of SPIS, an energy response analysis is conducted based
on the dynamic responses of ST1 and ST3 in the time domain. The representative energy curves of ST1 and ST3 under the
10 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15

Table 3
Details of the natural earthquake records.

RSN Year Event Station Magnitude vs ðm=sÞ Direction

334 1983 Coalinga Parkfield 6.36 178.3 NS
452 1984 Morgan Hill Foster City - APEEL 1 6.19 116.4 NS
1147 1999 Kocaeli Ambarli 7.51 175.0 NS
1247 1999 Chi-Chi CHY107 7.62 175.7 NS

Fig. 4. Normalized acceleration spectrum of the recorded earthquakes.

Fig. 5. Displacement responses of ST1, ST2, and ST3 configurations under different seismic waves: (a) Coalinga; (b) Morgan Hill; (c) Kocaeli; (d) Chi-Chi.

excitation produced by the Coalinga earthquake are depicted in Fig. 7. By comparing the curves in Fig. 7 (a) and (b), the
following conclusions can be drawn. In comparison to ST1, the energy input to ST3 is increased by a greater margin. As
discussed in the parametric analysis in Section 3, the increased dynamic response of ST3 (designed using improved fixed-
point method) can lead to an increase in external input energy integration. In Fig. 7 (b), more energy is dissipated by
inherent damping of the SDOF structure in the ST3 configuration due to SSI effect. This indicates that the inerter system
designed without considering SSI effects is inefficient in absorbing and dissipating the excess energy that is dissipated by
inherent damping of SDOF structure.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from the energy analysis performed when considering excitations produced by the
Morgan Hill, Kocaeli, and Chi-Chi earthquakes. In most instances, the energy input to the structure increases owing to the
influence of SSI effects. Given that the nature of earthquakes experienced by a structure is random, SSI effects must be
considered during the design of inerter systems to ensure the safety of the main structure that is built on flexible soil.
 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15 11

Fig. 6. Acceleration responses of ST1, ST2, and ST3 configurations under different seismic waves: (a) Coalinga; (b) Morgan Hill; (c) Kocaeli; (d) Chi-Chi.

Fig. 7. Energy curves of ST1 and ST3 for excitations by the Coalinga earthquake: (a) ST1; (b) ST3.

Table 4
Results for displacement reduction ratio bDis .

Inerter-mass ratio Coalinga Morgan Hill Kocaeli Chi-Chi

mm ¼ 0:10 ST1(%)
46.40
60.75
40.09
31.79
ST3(%)
35.58
40.02
16.64
18.71
mm ¼ 0:15 ST1(%)
50.31
64.65
51.33
41.59
ST3(%)
41.20
47.71
29.30
26.61
mm ¼ 0:30 ST1(%)
63.65
70.73
62.88
55.27
ST3(%)
52.63
56.82
49.46
42.31

3.3. Parametric analysis of SPIS

The effects of SSI on the seismic responses of the Soil-SDOF-SPIS system have been analyzed on the basis of an SPIS with a
constant inerter-mass ratio. For a more comprehensive analysis on the effects of SSI on a Soil-SDOF-SPIS system, a series of
12 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15

numerical cases are considered. In these numerical cases mm is assumed to be 0.10, 0.15, and 0.30. The corresponding
displacement reduction ratio bDis is calculated using Eq. (19) for each case and the results are listed in Table 4.
From Table 4, it can be observed that that the value of bDis for ST3 is greater than that of ST1. This is consistent with the
result of the stochastic analysis. This consistency implies that the vibration mitigation effect of SPIS is reduced if the influence
of SSI is considered. The negative effects of the reduced efficiency of the inerter system owing to the influence of SSI cannot be
ignored. Comparing the bDis values for ST1 and ST3 for varying mm values, it is seen that the vibration mitigation effect be-
tween SPIS in ST1 and ST3 decreases as mm increases.

4. Optimization design for soil-SDOF-SPIS system

The current method is restricted by limitations of the fixed-point theory, which ignores the influence of the inherent
damping of SDOF structures and increased damping due to the influence of SSI. Considering SSI effects, the seismic responses
of ST3 are greater than those of ST1. Additionally, when compared to SPIS in ST1, SPIS in ST3 also demonstrates a reduced
vibration mitigation effect of SPIS. This is in line with the above analysis. Therefore, the SPIS must be designed optimally by
considering the effects of SSI.

4.1. Parameter introduction

For the Soil-SDOF-SPIS system, the application of SPIS is aimed at reducing the displacement response with high efficiency.
To provide an evaluation index, the RMS value of displacement response sx was chosen as the objective function to evaluate
the seismic performance of the structure.
The key parameters for SPIS design are the inerter-mass ratio mm , damping ratio mc , and stiffness ratio mk ; these rations
determine the specific configurations of inerter, damping, and spring elements, respectively, and can be calculated from Eq.
(10). From Eqs. (11)e(15) it can be observed that the process of designing the SPIS with due consideration for SSI effects
involves accounting for the influence of horizontal and rocking dampingestiffness systems. In order to determine the op-
timum inerter system parameters, a mature randomization algorithm, such as the simulated annealing algorithm, can be used
as it simultaneously considers the changes in multiple parameter.

4.2. Optimum design method based on the simulated annealing algorithm

Optimization of the SPIS while considering SSI effects is to search the minimum dynamic response of the SDOF structure
by optimizing the three parameters (i.e. mc ; mm ; and mk ). The optimization of SPIS in Soil-SDOF-SPIS system can be expressed
mathematically by the following equation:

minimize sx ðmc ; mm ; mk Þ
mm 2ð0; 0:5Þ : (20)
subject to
mc ; mk 2ð0; 3Þ

This nonlinear problem described by Eq. (20) can be solved numerically using the simulated annealing algorithm. The
simulated annealing algorithm is a widely studied randomization algorithm which is applied to consider the influence of SSI
in the SPIS design. The simulated annealing algorithm [47] is a global optimization algorithm proposed for solving complex
combinational optimization problems while avoiding a locally optimal solution. Different from the traditional random
searching methods, simulated annealing not only uses random factors but also uses the natural annealing mechanism of a
given physical system. In an iterative process that uses the simulated annealing algorithm, non-solution of an objective
function is accepted to a certain extent; thereby, avoiding the plight of falling into a locally optimal solution. By using the
simulated annealing algorithm, the dynamic response of the Soil-SDOF-SPIS system can be minimized and the optimal design
method of SPIS can be employed to fully account for SSI effects.

4.3. Design cases

This section describes the application of the design method based on the simulated annealing algorithm to design SPIS for
the Soil-SDOF-SPIS system. ST3 represents the Soil-SDOF-SPIS system with an SPIS designed using the improved fixed-point
method. Further, ST4 represents the Soil-SDOF-SPIS system, wherein the SPIS is designed using the simulated annealing

Table 5
Parameters of structure models in this study.

Parameters ST0 ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4

Structure SDOF SDOF SDOF SDOF SDOF
SSI e e SR model SR model SR model
Inerter system e Improved fixed-point method e Improved fixed-point method Simulated annealing algorithm
 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15 13

Table 6
Design parameters of SPIS in ST3 and ST4.

mm mc mk
ST3 ST4 ST3 ST4
0.05 0.142 0.186 0.053 0.696
0.10 0.419 0.343 0.111 0.998
0.15 0.802 0.478 0.176 1.597

Fig. 8. Displacement responses of ST3 and ST4: (a) mm ¼ 0:05; (b) mm ¼ 0:10; (c) mm ¼ 0:15.

algorithm. Further, the parameters corresponding to ST0, ST1, ST2, ST3, and ST4 were listed in Table 5. By using the numerical
case in Section 3.2, a series of cases were considered, wherein mm ¼ 0:05, 0:10, and0:15. Substitute the value of mm into design
equation in Eq. (20), optimization parameter values of SPIS can be obtained by setting the gradient and range of cooling in the
simulated annealing process. In addition, the optimized parameters of SPIS were found to be stable with different initial
values and have been adopted as design parameters for the inerter system.
Table 6 summarized the SPIS parameters determined by the improved fixed-point method and the simulated annealing
algorithm. In addition, the corresponding PSD curves of the displacement responses of ST3 and ST4 are plotted in Fig. 8.
By inspecting Fig. 8, it can be found that the maximum and RMS value of displacement responses of ST4 are lower
compared to those of ST3, which indicates that the dynamic response of Soil-SDOF-SPIS system considering SSI effects can be
effectively reduced by use of the inerter system designed by simulated annealing algorithm. The simulated annealing al-
gorithm is verified to be effective for designing SPIS to fully account for the SSI effects. By accepting the non-optimal solution
to a certain extent during the optimization process, global optimal results (i.e., the minimum displacement response of the
Soil-SDOF-SPIS system) can be obtained by the simulated annealing method, which is in line with the design objectives.

5. Conclusion

To study the effects of SSI on the seismic performance of structures equipped with an inerter system, the dynamic re-
sponses of structures, both with and without the consideration of SSI effects, were comparatively evaluated. The classic sub-
structure model was used to represent a Soil-SDOF-SPIS system. The structural performance whilst considering SSI effects
was evaluated by incorporating the inerter system designed by the improved fixed-point method with the Soil-SDOF system.
Vibration mitigation efficiency of the inerter system for the concerned configuration was analyzed in the frequency and time
domains. To consider the effects of SSI on the design of an inerter system, a parameter optimization exercise was then
performed utilizing the simulated annealing algorithm. Based on the discussion presented above, the following conclusions
can be made.

(1) Through modal analysis, it was found that when SSI effects are considered, the natural period of a structure controlled
by an inerter system is prolonged and its dynamic characteristics are altered. The more flexible the soil, the greater is
the impact of SSI on a structure equipped with an inerter system.
(2) Under the influence of the SSI effects, vibration mitigation efficiency of inerter system designed by improved fixed-
point method was reduced. With increase in the apparent mass of the inerter system, the degree of reducing vibra-
tion mitigation effect was gradually reduced. Based on the energy analysis, the vibration energy input to the structure
from earthquakes increases under the influence of SSI, which requires high energy-dissipation ability on the part of the
main structure and the inerter system.
(3) It is potentially unsafe to use the improved fixed-point method without due consideration of the SSI effects in case of
structures built on flexible soil with an inerter system. Inerter systems designed using the traditional improved fixed-
14 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15

point method demonstrate an increased acceleration and displacement responses for structures built on flexible soil
compared to those built on a rigid base.
(4) Vibrations in structures built on flexible soil can be effectively controlled by inerter systems designed using optimized
parameters derived from the simulated annealing algorithm. However, development of simpler and more practical
design methods for optimizing the parameters of inerter systems used in vibration control of structures built on flexible
soil must be investigated in future research endeavours.

Data statement

No additional data are available.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 51778489, the Shanghai
Pujiang Program under Grant No. 17PJ1409200, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No.
22120180064, a collaborative research project with the International Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering
under Grant No. ILEE-IJRP-P1-P3-2016, and the Sichuan Department of Science and Technology under Grant No. 2016JZ0009.

References

[1] G.W. Housner, L.A. Bergman, T.K. Caughey, A.G. Chassiakos, R.O. Claus, S.F. Masri, R.E. Skelton, T.T. Soong, B.F. Spencer, J.T.P. Yao, Structural control: past,
present, and future, J. Eng. Mech. 123 (9) (1997) 897e971. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1997)123:9(897).
[2] M.C. Smith, Synthesis of mechanical networks: the inerter, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 47 (10) (2002) 1648e1662.
[3] L.F. Hao, R.F. Zhang, Structural safety redundancy-based design method for structure with viscous dampers, Struct. Eng. Mech. 59 (5) (2016) 821e840,
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2016.59.5.821.
[4] H. Shen, R.F. Zhang, D.G. Weng, C. Gao, H. Luo, C. Pan, Simple design method of structure with metallic yielding dampers based on elasticeplastic
response reduction curve, Eng. Struct. 150 (2017) 98e114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.047.
[5] L.F. Hao, R.F. Zhang, K. Jin, Direct design method based on seismic capacity redundancy for structures with metal yielding dampers, Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dynam. 47 (2) (2018) 515e534, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2977.
[6] K. Ikago, K. Saito, N. Inoue, Seismic control of single-degree-of-freedom structure using tuned viscous mass damper, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 41 (3)
(2012) 453e474.
[7] I.F. Lazar, S.A. Neild, D.J. Wagg, Vibration suppression of cables using tuned inerter dampers, Eng. Struct. 122 (2016) 62e71.
[8] H. Luo, R.F. Zhang, D.G. Weng, Mitigation of liquid sloshing in storage tanks by using a hybrid control method, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 90 (2016)
183e195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.08.037.
[9] P. Brzeski, T. Kapitaniak, P. Perlikowski, Novel type of tuned mass damper with inerter which enables changes of inertance, J. Sound Vib. 349 (2015)
56e66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2015.03.035.
[10] C. Papageorgiou, N.E. Houghton, M.C. Smith, Experimental testing and analysis of inerter devices, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control-Trans. ASME 131 (1)
(2009) 101e116. https://doi.org/01100110.1115/1.3023120.
[11] Y.L. Hu, M.Z.Q. Chen, Z. Shu, L.X. Huang, Analysis and optimisation for inerter-based isolators via fixed-point theory and algebraic solution, J. Sound Vib.
346 (2015) 17e36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2015.02.041.
[12] M. Zilletti, Feedback control unit with an inerter proof-mass electrodynamic actuator, J. Sound Vib. 369 (2016) 16e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.
2016.01.035.
[13] D. Pietrosanti, M. De Angelis, M. Basili, Optimal design and performance evaluation of systems with tuned mass damper inerter (TMDI), Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dynam. 46 (8) (2017) 1367e1388. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2861.
[14] C. Pan, R.F. Zhang, H. Luo, C. Li, H. Shen, Demand-based optimal design of oscillator with parallel-layout viscous inerter damper, Struct. Contr. Health
Monit. 25 (1) (2018) e2051. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2051.
[15] M.Z.Q. Chen, Y.L. Hu, L.X. Huang, G.R. Chen, Influence of inerter on natural frequencies of vibration systems, J. Sound Vib. 333 (7) (2014) 1874e1887.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.11.025.
[16] T. Arakaki, H. Kuroda, F. Arima, Y. Inoue, K. Baba, Development of seismic devices applied to ball screw: Part 1 Basic performance test of RD-series, J.
Techn. Des. 8 (1999) 239e244.
[17] M.C. Smith, F.C. Wang, Performance benefits in passive vehicle suspensions employing inerters, Veh. Syst. Dyn. 42 (4) (2004) 235e257. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00423110412331289871.
[18] S. Evangelou, D.J.N. Limebeer, R.S. Sharp, M.C. Smith, Mechanical steering compensators for high-performance motorcycles, J. Appl. Mech.-Trans. ASME
74 (2) (2007) 332e346. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2198547.
[19] J.S. Hwang, J. Kim, Y.M. Kim, Rotational inertia dampers with toggle bracing for vibration control of a building structure, Eng. Struct. 29 (6) (2007)
1201e1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.08.005.
[20] K. Saito, N. Inoue, A study on optimum response control of passive control systems using viscous damper with inertial mass: substituting equivalent
nonlinear viscous elements for linear viscous elements in optimum control systems, J. Techn. Des. 13 (26) (2007) 457e462.
[21] M.C. Smith, Force-controlling mechanical device, Cambridge University Technical Services, Ltd., Cambridge, GB, 2008.
[22] Y.L. Hu, M.Z.Q. Chen, Z. Shu, L.X. Huang, Vibration analysis for isolation system with inerter, in: 33rd Chinese Control Conference (CCC 2014), 2014, pp.
6687e6692. Nanjing, China.
[23] A. Gonzalez-Buelga, L.R. Clare, S.A. Neild, J.Z. Jiang, D.J. Inman, An electromagnetic inerter-based vibration suppression device, Smart Mater. Struct. 24
(5) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/24/5/055015.
[24] K. Saito, S. Kurita, N. Inoue, Optimum response control of 1-DOF system using linear viscous damper with inertial mass and its Kelvin-type modeling,
J. Struct. Eng. 53 (2007) 53e66.
[25] K. Saito, Y. Sugimura, S. Nakaminami, H. Kida, N. Inoue, Vibration tests of 1-story response control system using inertial mass and optimized soft spring
and viscous element, in: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.
[26] T. Arai, T. Aburakawa, K. Ikago, N. Hori, N. Inoue, T. Arai, T. Aburakawa, K. Ikago, N. Hori, N. Inoue, Verification on effectiveness of a tuned viscous mass
damper and its applicability to non-linear structural systems, Journal of Structural & Construction Engineering 645 (74) (2009) 1993e2002.
[27] H. Garrido, O. Curadelli, D. Ambrosini, Improvement of tuned mass damper by using rotational inertia through tuned viscous mass damper, Eng. Struct.
56 (2013) 2149e2153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.044.
[28] J.P. Den Hartog, Mechanical Vibrations, fourth ed., Dover, New York, 1956.
 Q. Chen et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 433 (2018) 1e15 15

[29] M.L. Lou, H.F. Wang, X. Chen, Y.M. Zhai, Structureesoilestructure interaction: literature review, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 31 (12) (2011) 1724e1731.
[30] D. Pitilakis, M. Dietz, D.M. Wood, D. Clouteau, A. Modaressi, Numerical simulation of dynamic soilestructure interaction in shaking table testing, Soil
Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 28 (6) (2008) 453e467.
[31] L.M. Star, M.J. Givens, R.L. Nigbor, J.P. Stewart, Field testing of structure on shallow foundation to evaluate SSI effects, Earthq. Spectra 31 (4) (2015)
2511e2534.
[32] H.Y. Zhuang, X. Yu, C. Zhu, D.D. Jin, Shaking table tests for the seismic response of a base-isolated structure with the SSI effect, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng.
67 (2014) 208e218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.013.
[33] A.K. Chopra, J.A. Gutierrez, Earthquake response analysis of multistorey buildings including foundation interaction, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 3 (1)
(2010) 65e77.
[34] D.S. Perelman, R.A. Parmelee, S.L. Lee, Seismic response of single-story interaction systems, J. Struct. Div. 94 (1968) 2597e2608.
[35] P.C. Jennings, J. Bielak, Dynamics of building-soil interaction, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 63 (1) (1973) 9e48.
[36] A.S. Veletsos, Dynamics of Structure-foundation Systems, Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ), 1977.
[37] A. Farshidianfar, S. Soheili, Ant colony optimization of tuned mass dampers for earthquake oscillations of high-rise structures including soilestructure
interaction, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 51 (3) (2013) 14e22.
[38] S.K. Lee, S.H. Lee, K.W. Min, B.W. Moon, K.J. Youn, J.S. Hwang, Performance evaluation of an MR damper in building structures considering
soilestructure interaction effects, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 18 (1) (2009) 105e115.
[39] X.Z. Zhang, F.Y. Cheng, H.P. Jiang, Hybrid actuatoredamperebracing control (HDABC) system with intelligent strategy and soilestructure interaction,
Eng. Struct. 28 (14) (2006) 2010e2022.
[40] C. Pan, R.F. Zhang, Design of structure with inerter system based on stochastic response mitigation ratio, Struct. Contr. Health Monit. 25 (6) (2018)
e2169. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2169.
[41] J.P. Stewart, G.L. Fenves, R.B. Seed, Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. I: analytical aspects, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125 (1) (1999)
26e37.
[42] F.E. Richard, R.E. Woods, J.R. Hall Jr., Vibration of Soils and Foundations, Prentice Hall, New York, 1970.
[43] J.H. Lin, W.S. Zhang, F.W. Williams, Pseudo-excitation algorithm for nonstationary random seismic responses, Eng. Struct. 16 (4) (1994) 270e276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(94)90067-1.
[44] Y.L. Xu, W.S. Zhang, J.M. Ko, J.H. Lin, Pseudo-excitation method for vibration analysis of wind-excited structures, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 83 (1e3)
(1999) 443e454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(99)00092-6.
[45] C. Pan, R.F. Zhang, H. Luo, H. Shen, Target-based algorithm for baseline correction of inconsistent vibration signals, J. Vib. Contr. 24 (12) (2018)
2562e2575. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546316689014.
[46] C. Pan, R.F. Zhang, H. Luo, H. Shen, Baseline correction of vibration acceleration signals with inconsistent initial velocity and displacement, Adv. Mech.
Eng. 8 (10) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814016675534.
[47] S. Bandyopadhyay, S. Saha, U. Maulik, K. Deb, A simulated annealing-based multiobjective optimization algorithm: AMOSA, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
12 (3) (2008) 269e283.