Structures 27 (2020) 962–974

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Torsional response reduction of plan-asymmetric vertical seismic isolation T

by appropriate distribution of viscous and viscoelastic dampers
⁎
Reza Milanchiana, , Mahmood Hosseinib
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Mahabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mahabad, Iran
b
Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this article, torsional control has been studied in the plan-mass asymmetric vertical seismic isolation (VSI)
Vertical seismic isolation system considering the three-dimensionally analytical model. In the 3D VSI, a structure is partitioned by vertical
Torsional control isolation planes into two inner and outer substructures interconnected by links for lateral response reduction. In
Non-classical damping an ideal analytical model of plan-mass asymmetric VSI, plan-wise distribution of damping and stiffness have
Viscous and visco-elastic dampers
been provided for more torsional control. Seismic responses of the non-classically 3D VSI were obtained by
Runge-Kutta method
Response history analyses
Runge-Kutta numerical method, considering a large number of isolation ratios. In this investigation, the mass
and stiffness ratios of substructures are defined with respect to the original structure which provides a novel
method of graphic presentation for analysis results. In this manner, contour graphs create comprehensive and
worthwhile insight into the 3D VSI behavior and can also serve as a design tool for the preliminary design of the
system. The results show that in the case that the inner substructure is the flexible one, torsional control is nearly
effective in both substructures satisfactorily, regardless of plan-wise damping distribution. However, in the
second case that is the outer flexible substructure, torsional control is nearly effective in the stiff substructure
while the response in flexible substructure is satisfactory just in a limited range of isolation ratios.

1. Introduction
The viscous dampers have been considered as preferred supple-
mentary energy dissipating devices for structural vibration control,
especially in innovative lateral displacement control strategies. The
feasibility of installing these dampers in different locations and im-
plementing those in new seismic design approaches have made these
dampers widespread in the building industry. In the vertical seismic
isolation (VSI), an individual structure is partitioned intentionally into
two dynamically different substructures interconnected by viscous or
viscoelastic links. In this way, lateral response decreases in each sub-
structure when compared to the original non-partitioned structure and
the performance of substructures is improved. So, we can expect that
both substructures meet at least higher performance level than the
considered one for the original structure.
In a previous study by the authors, a comprehensive investigation
was performed on the displacement control features of the VSI im-
plementing viscous and viscoelastic links [1]. That study was limited to
planar structures, however, in practice, in seismic design of building
structures torsion is a serious concern. To apply the idea of VSI to three-
dimensional (3D) buildings, with consideration of torsional effects,
either viscous or viscoelastic dampers can be used in the story plan in
an appropriate layout. Torsional control in the 3D VSI and the effects of
the plan-wise distribution of damper parameters is the issue that has
investigated analytically in this study. For this purpose, by assigning
non-symmetric interconnecting damper parameters it has been tried to
reduce the torsional effects as well as excessive resulting displacement.
In this investigation, the mass and stiffness ratios of substructures have
been defined with respect to the original structure which provides a
novel method of graphic presentation for analysis results. In this
manner, contour graphs create comprehensive and worthwhile insight
into the 3D VSI behavior and can also serve as a design tool for the
preliminary design of the system. For seismic analyses, accelerograms
of six selected earthquakes have been employed.
Before presenting the main body of the study, first in the following
section a literature review is presented with regard to a) the use of
dampers for seismic torsional response reduction, b) seismic response
reduction through interconnecting two adjacent structures by dampers,
and a special state of that, called ‘mass isolation’. Then the analytical
model for the 3D plan-asymmetric VSI system is introduced, and the
governing equations of motion are developed. In the next stage seismic
response analyses of the 3D VSI, with various mass and stiffness ratios

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Milanchian@iau-mahabad.ac.ir (R. Milanchian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.07.009
Received 16 December 2019; Received in revised form 27 June 2020; Accepted 4 July 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini
are presented, and finally, the concluding remarks are expressed.
2. Review of the related literature
2.1. Seismic torsional response reduction
Several studies have been conducted so far on control of torsion by
employing dampers in an individual non-partitioned structure. Goel [2]
studied the effects of supplemental damping on the edge deformations
in asymmetric-plan systems. He identified the parameters that char-
acterize supplemental viscous damping and its plan-wise distribution,
and then investigated the effects of these parameters on edge de-
formations, and showed that supplemental damping reduces the edge
deformations to about one-third of the original building. That study was
limited to one-story buildings subjected to a single input earthquake. In
continuation of that study, Goel [3] investigated the response of single-
story asymmetric-plan buildings with supplemental viscous damping to
harmonic ground motion using modal analysis techniques and showed
that most modal parameters, except dynamic amplification factors, are
affected insignificantly by the plan-wise distribution of supplemental
damping.
Lin and Chopra [4] examined the plan-wise distribution of fluid
viscous dampers on the response of linearly elastic, one-story, asym-
metric-plan systems. They showed that asymmetric distributions of
supplemental damping would be more effective, around two times for a
fixed damping ratio, in reducing the response compared to symmetric
distribution. Although the results of that study are widely applicable to
an ensemble of ground motions characterized by the selected design
spectrum, they are restricted to elastic one-story systems subjected to a
single component of ground motion. Lin and Chopra [5] investigated
the earthquake response of asymmetric one-story elastic systems with
nonlinear viscous and viscoelastic dampers. The findings of that in-
vestigation indicate that the earthquake response of the asymmetric
systems with nonlinear viscous or viscoelastic dampers can be esti-
mated with sufficient accuracy for design applications by analyzing the
same asymmetric systems with all nonlinear dampers replaced by en-
ergy-equivalent linear viscous dampers.
Kim and Bang [6] proposed a strategy for finding the appropriate
plan-wise distribution of viscoelastic dampers based on the modal
characteristics of a structure-damper system to minimize the torsional
responses of the structure. They found that appropriate plan-wise dis-
tribution of supplemental dampers can effectively reduce the torsional
response of an asymmetric structure and that the viscoelastic dampers
turn out to be more effective than viscous dampers. García et al. [7]
investigated the torsional balance of elastic asymmetric structures with
viscoelastic dampers. In that work, the analytical and experimental
response of stiffness and mass-eccentric structures subjected to different
ground motions were studied. They observed that optimal damper ec-
centricity values tend to increase linearly as the stiffness or mass ec-
centricities increase, and that response reduction factors ranging from
1.5 to 3 are possible with a small capacity damper. Moreover, viscoe-
lastic dampers are equally effective in controlling lateral–torsional
coupling of torsionally flexible as well as stiff structures.
2.2. Seismic response reduction in the VSI
In this section, the studies related to the interactional effects of
connected structures is presented. This idea was first introduced by
Klein et al. [8] for the purpose of wind-induced vibration reduction in
large structures. Since then, numerous studies have been performed to
investigate connection strategies for reducing the response of adjacent
structures. Xu et al. [9] have determined the optimal values for viscous
dampers connecting two adjacent structures of different heights
through parametric analysis. An extensive parametric study was carried
out to find optimum damper properties for adjacent buildings of dif-
ferent stiffness ratios and different heights. Zhang and Xu [10,11] used
963
Structures 27 (2020) 962–974
the complex modal superposition method to determine dynamic char-
acteristics, mainly modal damping ratio, and modal frequency, of
linked adjacent buildings by discrete visco-elastic and viscous dampers.
Parametric studies were performed to identify optimal parameters of
dampers for achieving the maximum modal damping ratio or the
maximum response reduction of adjacent buildings. The analytical
formulas for determining optimum parameters of Maxwell model-de-
fined fluid dampers used to link two adjacent structures were derived
using the principle of minimizing the averaged vibration energy of ei-
ther the primary structure or the two adjacent structures under a white-
noise ground excitation [12]. A large body of work on coupled building
control is based primarily on determining optimal parameters of con-
necting elements. Patel and Jangid [13] utilized numerical approaches
to determine the optimal parameters for connection elements.
Sharma and Jangid [14] investigated seismic responses of base-
isolated benchmark building with hysteretically modeled variable
sliding isolators. They showed that variable sliding isolators performed
better than conventional friction pendulum systems due to their varying
characteristic. Bharti et al. [15] examined the effectiveness of MR
damper for seismic response mitigation of adjacent multistory buildings
under coupled building control scheme, involving passive-off, passive-
on, and semi-active control strategies. Zhu et al. [16] selected two
optimization criteria to minimize the vibration energy of the primary
structure and to minimize the vibration energy of both structures.
Closed-form equations were derived for solving the vibration control
problem of connecting two adjacent structures where they were cou-
pled via stiffness and damping elements connected in parallel by Ri-
chardson et al. [17]. Nigdeli and Bekdas [18] studied using optimally
Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD) to decrease the displacement vibrations of
structures in adjacent structures and two different designs of TMD were
investigated. A specific type of VSI called ‘mass isolation’ has been
proposed by Ziyaeifar [19], in which the structural system is divided by
a vertical isolation plane into two parts. One of them is called the mass
subsystem, which contains the majority of the system’s mass, and the
other is called the stiffness subsystem, which contains the majority of
the system's stiffness. Ziyaeifar et al. [20] introduced two degrees of
freedom model to improve the accuracy of the structural mechanism
that supports the reaction forces of large energy dissipating devices.
That model was an extension of the Maxwell three-element type model
in structural dynamics. Behnamfar et al. [21] proposed a method for the
rapid estimation of the dynamic response of connected structures based
on the concepts of kinematic and inertial interactions. They could re-
duce the time of design process by analyzing the structures separately
considering the effect of the adjacent system. Zhao et al. [22] in-
vestigated the energy‐dissipating performance of dampers between
adjacent retrofitted buildings. They indicated that the en-
ergy‐dissipating approach can reduce the seismic response, as a result,
decrease the strengthening cost and time. Milanchian and Hosseini [23]
thoroughly studied the VSI technique with the nonlinear viscous dam-
pers regarding to substructure displacement and acceleration response
reduction. The results did not indicate a preferable performance of
nonlinear viscous dampers over linear viscous dampers.
3. Analytical model of the 3D mass-asymmetric VSI
In the 3D VSI, the original structure is partitioned by vertical planes
three-dimensionally into two interactional inner and outer sub-
structures. The interconnection is carried out by a set of viscoelastic
links in the longitudinal and transversal direction as shown in an
idealized model of the 3D VSI in Fig. 1. The Kelvin model is employed
to represent the viscoelastic damper for which the stiffness and the
damping coefficients are kli and cli respectively.
It is assumed that the original structure is a square plan single-story
building of side d , with mass asymmetry in the Y direction, and parti-
tioning takes place in a symmetric manner so that the side size of the
inner substructure is d1. Assuming m , m1 and m2 are the masses of the
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini Structures 27 (2020) 962–974

Fig. 1. The plans of a single-story original structure and its mass-asymmetric 3D VSI.

original, the inner and the outer substructures respectively, vertical ⎡ m1 0 − m1. e1⎤ ⎡ m2 0 − m2 . e2 ⎤
isolation leads to m = m1 + m2 in which m1 = αm1 m and M1 = ⎢ 0 m1 0 ⎥, M2 = ⎢ 0 m2 0 ⎥
m2 = (1 − αm1) m . The masses of the two substructures are assumed to ⎢− m1. e1 0 IO1 ⎥ ⎢− m2 . e2 0 IO2 ⎥ (3)
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
be proportional to the isolated plan areas, and therefore, the mass ratio
of the inner substructure αm1 = (d1/ d )2 . It is noted that subscripts 1 and where IO1 and IO2 are the torsional mass moment of inertia of the roof of
2 denote the inner and outer substructures from now on. The global the two substructures, which are calculated as IO1 = I 'O1 + m1. e12 and
coordinate system is considered to have its origin at the center of the IO2 = I 'O2 + m2 . e22 . I'O1 and I'O2 are the mass moment of inertia relative
building plan before applying the earthquake excitations. In the ori- to the corresponding center of mass. System stiffness matrix attributed
ginal structure, lateral stiffness in X and Y directions are provided to isolated substructures can be written as:
symmetrically by the exterior frames as k x = k y = k , and applying
vertical isolation leads to k = k1 + k2 , in which k1 = αs1 k and K 0⎤ ⎡ k1 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ k2 0 0 ⎤
K=⎡ 1 , K1 = ⎢ 0 k1 0 ⎥, K2 = ⎢ 0 k2 0 ⎥
k2 = (1 − αs1) k , where αs1is the stiffness ratio of the inner substructure. ⎣ 0 K2 ⎦ ⎢0 0 k ⎥ ⎢0 0 k ⎥
In the considered 3D model (Fig. 1), the linking dampers are placed ⎣ θ1 ⎦ ⎣ θ2 ⎦ (4)
between the internal sides of the outer substructure and the external where kθ1 and kθ2 are the rotational stiffness of the substructures, in
sides of the inner substructure. Besides, it is assumed that the system is which elements providing the lateral stiffness are assumed to be dis-
subjected to earthquake excitation in the X direction, so that different tributed symmetrically in the plan, and their values are calculated as
damping properties can be assigned to the dampers in this direction for kθ1 = 4. (k1/2). (d1/2)2 and kθ2 = 4. (k2/2). (d/2)2 . Stiffness matrix related
torsional control of substructures, that is, clx1 + clx 2 = cl and to viscoelastic link dampers, KL , is given by:
klx1 + klx 2 = kl . Whereas in the Y direction dampers with identical
properties are used symmetrically, that is cly1 = cly2 = cl/2 and ⎡ klx 0 klxθ ⎤
d d
kly1 = kly2 = kl/2 . KL = ⎡ K d − Kd ⎤, K d = ⎢ 0 kly 0 ⎥
Assuming the roof as a rigid diaphragm, there will be two transla- ⎢
⎣ − K K ⎥
⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ klθx 0 klθ ⎦ (5)
tional and one rotational DOFs for each one of the substructures. So, the
displacement vector for the 3D VSI will be as Viscoelastic links provide rotational stiffness coefficient about the Z
u = {u x1, u y1, uθ1, u x 2 , u y2 , uθ2 }T . The mass eccentricity of both inner -axis which is equal to klθ = 4(kl/2)(d1/2)2 . klθx and klxθ are the values of
and outer substructures is considered to be only in the Y direction rotational-translational stiffness coefficients due to the asymmetric of
(ex = 0, e y ≠ 0 ). It is considered that the eccentricities for the sub- viscoelastic links, which are calculated as klθx = (klx1 − klx 2 )(d1/2) .
structures (e1, e2 ) remain the same concerning their plan dimensions. System damping matrix based on inherent Rayleigh damping of the
The governing equation of motion of the multi-story 3D VSI subjected substructures, C , and damping matrix attributed to viscoelastic links,
to earthquake excitations is described by: CL , are expressed as:

Mu¨ + (C + CL ) u̇ + (K + KL ) u = −Mru¨ g (t ) (1) Cin − 1 0 ⎤ Cd − Cd ⎤

C=⎡ , CL = ⎡
⎢
⎣ 0 Cin −2 ⎥
⎦ ⎢
⎣ C
− d Cd ⎥⎦ (6)
where M , K , and C are respectively the mass, stiffness and damping
matrices of the system with the size of 6n , which n is the number of in the aforementioned matrices, C d is a diagonal matrix and is defined
stories of the 3D VSI. CL and KL are also damping and stiffness matrices in accordance with viscoelastic links as:
related to visco-elastic added link dampers. u¨ g (t ) is the ground accel-
eration vector and r is the earthquake influence vector for the hor- ⎡ clx 0 clxθ ⎤
izontal excitation. For the case of 1-story 3D VSI, the influence vector is C d = ⎢ 0 cly 0 ⎥
⎢c ⎥
as r = {1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0}T . System mass matrix can be expressed as: ⎣ lθx 0 clθ ⎦ (7)

M 0 ⎤ in which clθ is the value of rotational damping coefficient, resulting

M=⎡ 1 from links’ damping in X and Y directions about the Z -axis and is
⎣ 0 M2 ⎦ (2)
calculated as clθ = 4(cl/2)(d1/2)2 . clθx and clxθ are the values of damping
in which M1 and M2 are the mass matrices of substructures, which by coefficients, resulting from the asymmetry of viscoelastic links about
considering DOFs at the center of stiffness of the two substructures, and the center of rotation and are calculated as
e1 and e2 as their eccentricities, are expressed as: clxθ = clθx = (clx1 − clx 2 )(d1/2) .

964
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini
4. Seismic response of the 3D VSI
4.1. Basic features of the 3D VSI
To clarify the basic concepts of the 3D VSI, a model of the 1-story
torsional building is considered. In this mass-asymmetric sample model,
the story mass has been assumed to be 100 ton and the lateral stiffness
to be 10,000 kN/m in longitudinal and transverse directions. This
stiffness value has been assigned such that the maximum drift, de-
termined by the static equivalent lateral force procedure in the high
seismic zone, is limited to the seismic design code specified value. To
study the seismic performance of the 1-story 3D VSI, it was subjected to
different earthquake excitations and its response histories were ob-
tained by a series of time history analysis (THA) cases. In this paper,
features of the 3D VSI are studied assuming the linear elastic behavior
of isolated structures. The maximum displacement of the mass center of
the rigid roof, 〈Xmax 〉, as well as its rotation about the Z -axis, 〈θmax 〉,
were considered as the main seismic performance measures of the 3D
VSI in series of THA.
Comparisons of maximum responses of each substructure of the 3D
VSI, with those of the original structure, were considered as the seismic
performance evaluation criteria. Referring to definitions of αm1 and αs1it
can be stated that in all cases in which αm1 > αs1 the inner substructure
is the flexible one and the outer substructure is the stiff one, and vice
versa. For monitoring the displacement and rotation of the two flexible
and stiff substructures Eqs. (8) and (7) were used respectively for dis-
placement and rotation response ratios.
〈Xmax 〉Stiff 〈Xmax 〉Flexible
RXS = RXF =
〈Xmax 〉Original 〈Xmax 〉Original
〈θmax 〉Stiff 〈θ 〉
R θS = RθF = max Flexible
〈θmax 〉Original 〈θmax 〉Original
For a comprehensive study, different mass and stiffness ratios were
assigned to either substructure of the 3D VSI, and the analyses were
carried out for different parameters of the connecting links. This in-
vestigation was mainly focused on the plan-wise distribution of links’
damping and stiffness values for torsional control. For the mass-asym-
metric system, shown in Fig. 1, two parameters were considered for
damping and stiffness distribution of the longitudinal links as:
cl x1 kl x1
ud = , us =
cl x kl x
The values of ud = 0.5 and us = 0.5 are expressing the symmetric
damping and stiffness distribution in links in the X direction at either
side of the roof. The values other than 0.5 for ud and us result in
asymmetric damping and stiffness of the links in the X direction, which
Fig. 2. Spectral accelerations of the selected short-period earthquakes, (a), and long-period earthquakes, (b).
Structures 27 (2020) 962–974
indicates unequal values for clx1 and clx2 as well as klx1and klx2 , respec-
tively above and below the X -axis in Fig. 1. Values less than 0.5 for ud
and us shift the center of damping and stiffness of the links above the X-
axis to proximity of the center of mass.
Apparently, ranges of the link parameters, including damping and
stiffness should be reasonable. These parameters for a linear viscoe-
lastic link can be expressed in a more appropriate manner with respect
to the original structure specifications as:
cl kl
ξl = , βl =
2mωn k (11)
in which cl , kl are the sum of link damping coefficients and stiffness
values, respectively in the longitudinal and transversal direction, and ξl
and βl are the damping and stiffness ratios which are defined in terms of
critical damping and lateral stiffness of the original structure. In
structures with added devices, it is generally accepted that the max-
imum added damping is a value of 25% of the structure critical
damping (Lee and Taylor [24]). In the previous studies conducted by
the authors, it was indicated that by a damping ratio in the range of
5% ≤ ξl ≤ 20%, the VSI could lead to acceptable results. On this basis, a
moderate damping ratio of ξl = 10% was considered as an added
damping parameter in the present study.
It should be noted that in the 3D VSI by viscous or viscoelastic links,
the damping matrix is of non-classically damped type and assumption
of Rayleigh damping is no longer valid. In the obtained mass-asym-
metric governing equation of motion, it is obvious that the torsional
response of the substructures is related to the features clθx and klθx of
viscoelastic links. Therefore, it seems possible to control the torsional
(8) response of the 3D VSI by appropriate distribution of links’ damping in
the plan of the structure. In this study, since the ordinary modal time
history analysis cannot be used due to the non-classical nature of the
(9) damping, to solve numerically the governing coupled differential
equations of motion, a program was developed by the authors in
MATLAB environment based on the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method.
To reduce the order of governing differential equations the State Space
Vector technique was used in the developed program.
Regarding that the characteristics of input earthquakes are influ-
ential in the results of any response history analysis, so a wide range of
earthquakes was selected. The earthquakes were selected in such a way
that their peak spectral accelerations fall in various time periods. As
shown in Fig. 2, these records have been classified into two different
groups as the ones whose peak spectral accelerations lay in the period
(10)
range of less than 0.5 s, as short-period earthquakes, called Group-1
form now on, and those ones whose peak spectral accelerations lay in
the period range of greater than 0.5 s, as long-period earthquakes,
called Group-2 from now on. All the selected earthquakes were scaled
with respect to peak ground acceleration to the value of 0.35 g, which is
965
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini
the design base acceleration in a very high seismic hazard zone ac-
cording to the Iranian code of practice (Standard 2800).
4.2. Performance states of the 3D VSI
For investigating the performance of 3D VSI a set of values from
0.05 to 0.95 with an increment of 0.05 was considered for the stiffness
and mass ratios, αs1 and αm1. For each pair of these two ratios (total of
361 pairs) a series of THA were conducted by using six selected ac-
celerograms. Also in each case, three different values of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5
were assigned to distribution parameters of links, in two states of vis-
cous and viscoelastic. On this basis in total 361 × 6 × 6 = 12,996
analysis cases were conducted. The output of these analysis cases for
the two substructures, including the displacement and rotation ratios,
defined by Eqs. (7) and (8), involves plenty of numerical results which
their presentation needs some special means. In a previous work of the
authors [1], a novel method of graphic presentation was suggested for
illustrating the large volume of results, called Vertical Isolation Con-
tour/Color Graph (VICG), which uses the Cartesian coordinate system
as its skeleton. In this article, only the two response ratios, particularly
rotational response ratios have been focused on.
In the suggested VICG the horizontal and vertical axes of the
Cartesian coordinate system are considered respectively for presenting
the values of stiffness and mass ratio, respectively, and the color con-
tour graphs demonstrate the seismic response or any other desired
output. In such graphs, the results corresponding to the stiff sub-
structure are in central symmetry with those of the flexible sub-
structure, as the center point of the graph corresponds to αm = 0.5 and
αs = 0.5. To describe the main features of the introduced VICGs the
results of displacement response control case of the 3D VSI, including
RXF and RXS , are presented for a case of the mass symmetric plan
(ex = 0, e y=0) . In this case, the damping distribution parameters of links
was selected as ud = 0.5, so that the considered damping was dis-
tributed equally between the dampers at either side of the roof, and
therefore, no torsional response was expected in this case. In Figs. 3 and
4 the displacement response ratios of isolated structures interconnected
by viscous links are demonstrated in the VICG presentations.
For brevity, in the case of short-period earthquakes, the results are
presented for a low damping value of ξl = 5% (Fig. 3) and in the case of
long-period earthquakes, the results are presented for a moderate
damping value of ξl = 10% (Fig. 4). One of the main advantages of this
presentation is creating the possibility of observing the results of both
stiff and flexible isolated substructures in one individual graph. Regions
in the VICG in which response ratio is less than unity (shown in light to
dark blue in the figures) represent the mass and stiffness ratios by which
response reduction is achieved.
By looking at the VICGs, one can get worthwhile insight into the 3D
VSI. In all of the presented graphs, the main diagonal that separates the
results of flexible and stiff substructures from each other is independent
Fig. 3. Displacement response ratios of isolated structures interconnected by viscous links with ξl = 5% for the three earthquakes of Group-1.
966
Structures 27 (2020) 962–974
of the link parameters, and it is also recognized by the response ratio of
unity. In the lower triangle area of the graph, that is related to the stiff
substructure, response ratios are considerably less than unity almost in
all earthquakes and the majority of mass and stiffness ratios. So, it is
certain that the vertical isolation is effective in the stiff substructure,
and the response ratio for this substructure is less dependent on the
links’ parameters. In the upper triangle area of the graph which is re-
lated to the flexible substructure, response ratios are more dependent
on mass and stiffness ratios and also the links’ parameters. On this basis,
from now on the majority of discussion on the 3D VIS is focused on the
flexible substructure.
According to the figures, three states can be differentiated in the
seismic behavior of the 3D VSI, which can be called ‘interactional’,
‘mass isolation’ and ‘control mass’. From the VICGs, it can be realized
that for the low and moderate link damping values, the area which
corresponds to the response ratios less than unity is first formed in the
middle band of the upper triangle parallel to the main diagonal. The
trend of formation of the middle band with minimum response ratios
indicates the proper performance of interactional state in response re-
duction of the 3D VSI. By increasing the interconnecting links’
damping, the area with response ratios less than unity spreads toward
the vertical and horizontal edges of the upper and lower triangle. As the
area corresponding to the minimum response ratios approaches the
mentioned edges, mass isolation state evolves. Finally, there is a small
area of interactional states at the left lower corner of the upper triangle
(little values of αs1 and αm1), which could be interpreted as control mass
state. Results show that by using the 3D VSI technique, displacement
response reduction is achievable; up to 50% in flexible substructure and
also even more in stiff substructure.
4.3. Torsional control in the 3D VSI with viscous links
The torsional moments at floor levels of a 3D VSI are developed due
to the eccentricities of mass centers with respect to stiffness centers of
two substructures. In the present study, these eccentricities were as-
sumed to be e y = 20% in the original as well as the isolated structures.
With this specified eccentricity the system will have plan torsional ir-
regularities according to most of the common codes of practice.
Response calculations were conducted for three different damping
distribution parameters i.e. ud = 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5. It is also noted that
ud = 0.5 is the symmetric damping distribution case and ud = 0.3 is the
asymmetric case in which the center of mass coincides with the center
of links’ damping.
It was mentioned in the previous section that in the VICGs, the re-
sults corresponding to the stiff substructure are in central symmetry
with those of the flexible substructure, as the center point of the graph
corresponds to αm = 0.5 and αs = 0.5. However, it must be noted that
this symmetry is true only in the case in which there is no eccentricity
of mass and stiffness in the original structure as well as both inner and
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini Structures 27 (2020) 962–974

Fig. 4. Displacement response ratios of isolated structures interconnected by viscous links with ξl = 10% for the three earthquakes of Group-2.

Fig. 5. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscous links with ud values in IFOS case subjected to RSN88_SFERN earthquake.

Fig. 6. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscous links with ud values in IFOS case subjected to RSN165_IMPVALL earthquake.

outer substructures. In fact, in the defined mass-asymmetric 3D VSI,
although each pair of points corresponding to commutative mass and
stiffness ratios are in central symmetry in the VICG, the property of
torsional dynamic characteristics of two inner and outer substructures,
corresponding to that pair of points, is not commutative. So, the re-
sponse ratios of two substructures cannot be presented in one single
VICG. Actually, the case in which the inner and outer substructures are
respectively the flexible and stiff ones (inner flexible and outer stiff -
IFOS case) is quite different from the case in which the inner sub-
structure is stiff and the outer one is flexible (ISOF case). In Figs. 5–7,
rotational response ratios related to the IFOS case are presented in
VICGs for only three ones of the six selected earthquakes for brevity.
It is observed in Figs. 5–7, contrary to displacement response ratios,
the main diagonal that separates the results of flexible and stiff sub-
structures from each other is not recognized by the response ratio of
unity. This fact can be clarified by paying attention to the explanation
given above on the asymmetry of the VICGs for the case of torsional
response ratios of the inner and outer substructures. Regions in the plot
area in which response ratio is less than unity represent the mass and
stiffness ratios by which rotational response is decreased in comparison
with the original structure. It is observed that, as expected, by assigning
more damping to the dampers which are closer to the centers of mass
more torsional response reduction is achieved (ud = 0.3 compared to
ud = 0.5). By comparing the VICGs in Figs. 5–7, it is evident that the
torsional response is not so much different from one input earthquake
to another. Going through the graphs, there are some common

967
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini
Fig. 7. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscous links with ud values in IFOS case subjected to RSN1044_NORTH earthquake.
recognizable features better to be considered. For the close values of αs1
and αm1 (areas of the VICGs laying in the main diagonal), in which the
dynamic characteristics of the two inner and outer substructures are
almost the same, the response ratios are all more than unity. This im-
plies that applying close values of αs1 and αm1 leads to the improper
performance of the 3D VSI in torsional buildings. Accordingly, using
distant values for αs1 and αm1 (areas far from the main diagonal of the
VICGs) is more appropriate for the 3D VSI in torsional buildings.
Figs. 8–10 demonstrate the response ratios in the mass asymmetric
3D VSI in the ISOF case.
An overview of the VICGs, presented in Figs. 8–10 clarifies that the
torsional control in the ISOF case is not as effective as the IFOS case. In
the symmetric distribution of damping which was specified by ud = 0.5,
and at the lower triangle area which relates to the inner or stiff sub-
structure results, it is observed that response reduction and torsional
control are effective for the majority of mass and stiffness ratios. While,
in the upper triangle which relates to the outer or flexible substructure,
response ratios vary in different regions and only in the limited area
attributed to mass control the torsional response reduction is notice-
able.
Looking at Figs. 8–10, one can also recognize that the asymmetric
plan-wise distributions of damping (ud = 0.3 and ud = 0.4 ) have dif-
ferent influences on the responses of the two substructures. Torsional
response reduction by appropriate plan-wise damping distribution has
been more effective in the flexible substructure than the stiff sub-
structure. According to the VICGs, the plan-wise damping distribution
has led the area range with the desired level of response reduction
extends to the upper triangle, yet it has caused the desired area in the
lower triangle to be limited. Based on the results shown in Figures
Figs. 8–10 it can be claimed that by plan-wise appropriate distribution
Fig. 8. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscous links with ud values in ISOF case subjected to RSN88_SFERN earthquake.
968
Structures 27 (2020) 962–974
of damping the area corresponding to control mass is grown sig-
nificantly by that one can use this concept more easily. In this idea, a
smaller portion of the building can act as the control mass for the other
larger portion. These VICGs have been assessed Quantitatively in Sec-
tion 5.
4.4. Torsional control in the 3D VSI with viscoelastic links
Torsional control in the mass asymmetric 3D VSI with viscoelastic
links is investigated in this section (Figs. 11–16). Similar to viscous
links, the eccentricity of mass to the center of stiffness is assumed to be
e y = 20% in both original and isolated structures. The moderate prac-
tical values of damping and stiffness ratios, which are ξl = 10% and
βl = 0.05, have been introduced as viscoelastic links parameters in both
directions of the structures. Seismic response history analyses have
been conducted for three different links damping and stiffness dis-
tribution parameters of ud = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and us = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5. Assess-
ment of the torsional performance of the mass asymmetric 3D VSI has
been performed in two cases of ISOF and IFOS.
Observing the torsional control of the two inner and outer sub-
structures in the presented VICGs indicates that the general trend in the
response of the mass asymmetric 3D VSI with viscoelastic links is si-
milar to the one with viscous links. However, it is not expected to have
more effective torsional control by using viscoelastic dampers. As it was
stated in the investigation of the isolated structures displacement re-
sponse, large link stiffness values generally decrease the efficiency of
the linking dampers [1]. This issue is also valid in the mass asymmetric
3D VSI.
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini Structures 27 (2020) 962–974

Fig. 9. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscous links with ud values in ISOF case subjected to RSN165_IMPVALL earthquake.

Fig. 10. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscous links with ud values in ISOF case subjected to RSN1044_NORTH earthquake.

Fig.11. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscoelastic links with ud values in IFOS case subjected to RSN88_SFERN earthquake.

5. Quantitative investigation of the 3D VSI for practical purposes
Although the VICGs provide informative and useful insight into the
behavior and response control of the 3D VSI qualitatively, for practical
purposes the quantitative and numerical analysis of isolation behavior
is of great importance. Actually, response ratios in the VICGs are scat-
tered in ranges both larger and less than unity, thus, for every presented
VICG, the pair values of α s1 and α m1 were considered in such a way that
the response ratios would be less than unity in both substructures. Since
in this study the values of these two ratios varied between 0.05 and
0.95 with an increment of 0.05 (19 values for each ratio), the total
number of combination pairs of the two ratios was 19×19 = 361. Out
of this number only (361 − 19)/2 = 171 are the independent combi-
nations indeed.
A comparison of the number of desired isolation ratios combinations
with the total number of considered ones is an appropriate criterion for
evaluating the efficiency of the 3D VSI. This criterion is called
Acceptance Ratio in this study and is defined as follows:
〈No. of desired isolation ratios combinations〉
Acceptance Ratio =
〈Total no. of independent combinations〉
(12)
Summary of the results related to the mass asymmetric 1-story 3D
VSI with viscous dampers, obtained from the conducted analyses for all

969
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini Structures 27 (2020) 962–974

Fig. 12. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscoelastic links with ud values in IFOS case subjected to RSN165_IMPVALLearthquake.

Fig. 13. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscoelastic links with ud values in IFOS case subjected to RSN1044_NORTH earthquake.

Fig. 14. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscoelastic links with ud values in ISOF case subjected to RSN88_SFERN earthquake.

selected earthquakes, are presented in Table 1 for the IFOS case of
isolation and in Table 2 for ISOF case.
These results include the average values of isolation ratios as well as
the mean and Standard Deviation values of the satisfactory response
ratios in both stiff and flexible substructures for different link para-
meters. The average values of the response ratios, corresponding to the
desired combination pairs is a good measure of seismic response re-
duction. Moreover, the Standard Deviation of isolation ratios is an in-
dication of the VSI reliability, thereby, a larger value provides a wide
range of isolation ratios selection for the VSI.
According to presented results, it is observed that in the IFOS case
by the plan-wise distribution of damping, the torsional response in
average can be decreased up to 20 percent in the flexible substructure
in comparison to the symmetric distribution, while in the ISOF case this
response reduction is around 10 percent in average. However, for the
stiff structure, no significant torsional response reduction is achieved by
the plan-wise distribution of damping, even though the response values
in stiff substructure are always satisfactory.
By looking at AR values in the tables, it is evident that in most of the
applied earthquakes the plan-wise distribution of damping and stiffness
has not led to significant torsional response reduction in comparison to
symmetric distribution, and the torsional control in the 3D VSI can be
considered effective even with a symmetric distribution of damping and
stiffness. This matter is one of the main features of the 3D VSI.

970
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini Structures 27 (2020) 962–974

Fig. 15. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscoelastic links with ud values in ISOF case subjected to RSN165_IMPVALL earthquake.

Fig. 16. Rotational response ratios of isolated structures, interconnected by viscoelastic links with ud values in ISOF case subjected to RSN1044_NORTH earthquake.

Table 1
Resulting Acceptance Ratio (AR) and mean and Standard Deviation values of the desired response ratios in IFOS case.
RSN88_SFERN RSN1197_CHICHI

ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR

0.3 mean 0.31 0.70 0.58 0.45 0.84 0.3 mean 0.33 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.94
SD 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.24 SD 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.28
0.4 mean 0.32 0.70 0.64 0.42 0.83 0.4 mean 0.34 0.69 0.57 0.44 0.94
SD 0.21 0.20 0.11 0.24 SD 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.27
0.5 mean 0.32 0.71 0.73 0.41 0.83 0.5 mean 0.34 0.70 0.62 0.41 0.91
SD 0.21 0.19 0.11 0.24 SD 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.27

RSN160_IMPVALL RSN165_IMPVALL

ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR

0.3 mean 0.32 0.70 0.49 0.48 0.84 0.3 mean 0.30 0.70 0.59 0.45 0.80
SD 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.27 SD 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.25
0.4 mean 0.32 0.71 0.54 0.46 0.82 0.4 mean 0.31 0.71 0.66 0.41 0.77
SD 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.27 SD 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.23
0.5 mean 0.33 0.73 0.61 0.43 0.79 0.5 mean 0.31 0.71 0.66 0.41 0.71
SD 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.26 SD 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.23

RSN1231_CHICHI RSN1044_NORTH

ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR

0.3 mean 0.31 0.72 0.75 0.47 0.75 0.3 mean 0.30 0.71 0.61 0.43 0.77
SD 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.19 SD 0.21 0.20 0.17 0.24
0.4 mean 0.31 0.74 0.83 0.42 0.57 0.4 mean 0.30 0.72 0.69 0.39 0.74
SD 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.20 SD 0.22 0.20 0.14 0.23
0.5 mean 0.38 0.78 0.86 0.41 0.23 0.5 mean 0.31 0.75 0.79 0.33 0.67
SD 0.33 0.20 0.09 0.24 SD 0.22 0.17 0.10 0.20

971
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini Structures 27 (2020) 962–974

Table 2
Resulting Acceptance Ratio (AR) and mean and Standard Deviation values of the desired response ratios in ISOF case.
RSN88_SFERN RSN1197_CHICHI

ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR

0.3 mean 0.18 0.53 0.77 0.64 0.40 0.3 mean 0.28 0.64 0.68 0.57 0.84
SD 0.11 0.19 0.18 0.22 SD 0.17 0.22 0.16 0.22
0.4 mean 0.20 0.53 0.81 0.63 0.36 0.4 mean 0.30 0.65 0.72 0.54 0.87
SD 0.16 0.21 0.15 0.22 SD 0.19 0.22 0.14 0.24
0.5 mean 0.23 0.53 0.85 0.62 0.30 0.5 mean 0.31 0.65 0.76 0.51 0.88
SD 0.22 0.24 0.12 0.21 SD 0.20 0.22 0.12 0.25

RSN160_IMPVALL RSN165_IMPVALL

ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR

0.3 mean 0.28 0.65 0.71 0.61 0.85 0.3 mean 0.12 0.50 0.70 0.58 0.29
SD 0.18 0.22 0.19 0.24 SD 0.07 0.18 0.21 0.25
0.4 mean 0.29 0.66 0.75 0.57 0.87 0.4 mean 0.11 0.48 0.76 0.54 0.24
SD 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.25 SD 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.25
0.5 mean 0.30 0.66 0.79 0.54 0.88 0.5 mean 0.09 0.46 0.79 0.49 0.17
SD 0.20 0.22 0.14 0.27 SD 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.23

RSN1231_CHICHI RSN1044_NORTH

ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR ud QTY αs1 αm1 RFlex. R Stiff AR

0.3 mean 0.11 0.40 0.74 0.69 0.19 0.3 mean 0.18 0.55 0.75 0.62 0.30
SD 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.18 SD 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.24
0.4 mean 0.10 0.39 0.81 0.65 0.13 0.4 mean 0.21 0.55 0.81 0.60 0.27
SD 0.13 0.18 0.14 0.20 SD 0.21 0.24 0.17 0.24
0.5 mean 0.30 0.51 0.89 0.71 0.08 0.5 mean 0.25 0.58 0.83 0.53 0.17
SD 0.34 0.32 0.10 0.15 SD 0.26 0.27 0.13 0.20

Fig. 17. Partitioning of the 3D 5-story structure into inner and outer substructures using viscous link dampers.

Table 3 6. Application to a realistic multi-story torsional building with

Dynamic characteristics of the original and isolated substructures in the 5-story irregular plan
building model.
Mode/Story No. T (sec ) M (ton) M  (ton) K  (kN / m) αs αm In the realistic multi-story presented model, the 3D VSI concept was
investigated. As previously mentioned, in this study the efficiency of the
Original Structure 1.038 2536 1954 71,634 – – VSI technique is inspected in comparison to the original structure. So,
Outer Structure 0.96 1798 1383 58,704 0.82 0.71 the original steel moment frame structure has been designed according
Inner Structure 1.41 737 560 11,099 0.155 0.287
to AISC 360-10 provisions. It was assumed the considered building was
located in a very high seismic hazard zone with the design base ac-
celeration of 0.35 g according to the Iranian code of practice (Standard
2800). Gravity loadings were applied for a building with residential
occupancy. The box sections were considered for the column elements
and the I sections for beam elements as well.

972
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini Structures 27 (2020) 962–974

Table 4
Response values of original and isolated substructures in the realistic 5-story 3D VSI model and the corresponding response ratios.
RSN88_SFERN

Original Inner Outer RFlex. RStiff

Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. Rot. Dis. Rot.

Story-5 7.09 0.0033 6.02 0.0026 5.90 0.0022 0.85 0.79 0.83 0.68
Story-4 5.76 0.0027 4.85 0.0021 4.86 0.0019 0.84 0.77 0.84 0.69
Story-3 4.10 0.0020 3.42 0.0015 3.51 0.0014 0.84 0.78 0.86 0.72
Story-2 2.45 0.0012 1.99 0.0009 2.12 0.0009 0.81 0.76 0.86 0.73
Story-1 0.88 0.0004 0.67 0.0003 0.75 0.0003 0.76 0.73 0.85 0.75

RSN160_IMPVALL

Original Inner Outer RFlex. RStiff

Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. Rot. Dis. Rot.

Story-5 13.21 0.0066 10.55 0.0043 8.66 0.0034 0.80 0.65 0.66 0.51
Story-4 11.01 0.0054 7.74 0.0028 7.33 0.0028 0.70 0.52 0.67 0.52
Story-3 8.08 0.0039 5.05 0.0028 5.46 0.0021 0.62 0.72 0.68 0.52
Story-2 4.81 0.0024 3.23 0.0021 3.42 0.0013 0.67 0.88 0.71 0.53
Story-1 1.60 0.0008 1.22 0.0008 1.31 0.0005 0.76 0.93 0.82 0.53

RSN1197_CHICHI-E

Original Inner Outer RFlex. RStiff

Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. Rot. Dis. Rot.

Story-5 ‘ 0.0127 15.17 0.0070 15.60 0.0078 0.72 0.55 0.74 0.61
Story-4 16.36 0.0105 12.50 0.0053 12.56 0.0064 0.76 0.51 0.77 0.61
Story-3 11.06 0.0079 8.37 0.0043 9.27 0.0050 0.76 0.54 0.84 0.63
Story-2 6.69 0.0050 4.94 0.0029 5.60 0.0032 0.74 0.57 0.84 0.64
Story-1 2.40 0.0018 1.78 0.0011 1.98 0.0012 0.74 0.58 0.83 0.64

RSN165_IMPVALL

Original Inner Outer RFlex. RStiff

Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. Rot. Dis. Rot.

Story-5 23.73 0.0171 18.40 0.0102 16.41 0.0095 0.78 0.59 0.69 0.56
Story-4 20.04 0.0146 15.21 0.0076 12.87 0.0080 0.76 0.52 0.64 0.55
Story-3 14.87 0.0108 10.82 0.0054 9.25 0.0060 0.73 0.50 0.62 0.55
Story-2 9.24 0.0067 6.19 0.0032 5.77 0.0038 0.67 0.48 0.62 0.56
Story-1 3.34 0.0024 1.98 0.0011 2.11 0.0014 0.59 0.45 0.63 0.57

RSN1231_CHICHI

Original Inner Outer RFlex. RStiff

Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. (cm) Rot. (rd) Dis. Rot. Dis. Rot.

Story-5 33.70 0.0296 25.96 0.0124 29.69 0.0176 0.77 0.42 0.88 0.60
Story-4 27.78 0.0245 20.48 0.0100 23.94 0.0145 0.74 0.41 0.86 0.59
Story-3 20.15 0.0178 13.93 0.0075 16.95 0.0106 0.69 0.42 0.84 0.60
Story-2 12.30 0.0108 7.91 0.0046 10.07 0.0065 0.64 0.43 0.82 0.60
Story-1 4.38 0.0039 2.75 0.0017 3.57 0.0023 0.63 0.43 0.82 0.60

In an irregular plan structure, the isolation planes are applied to
partition the building into two inner and outer substructures. In this 3D
VSI both of the substructures remain irregular. For this special model
case, the properties of the frame elements are assumed to be unchanged
after applying vertical isolation planes. Consequently, the inner and
outer substructures include respectively the flexible and stiff sub-
structures. Yet, in the preliminary practical design of the 3D VSI, it is
applicable to assign intentionally the main stiffness to the inner and
outer substructures for appropriate performance according to the pre-
sented VICGs. Providing vertical isolation between two newly designed
inner and outer adjacent structures and implementing links properly to
the system interactively are indeed engineering issues. Various methods
can be raised for applying vertical isolation considering practical mat-
ters, here as shown in Fig. 17, the isolation planes were set in the mid of
the smallest spans of the plan, converting each cut-off beam into two
separate cantilevers in both substructures. This approach provides a
situation for implementing the dampers in the beneath of the cut-off
beams. From the practical point of view, it is necessary to consider
sufficient space in the cut-off points for the movement of two sub-
structures.
The dynamic characteristics of the 5-story building model and iso-
lated substructures neglecting the interconnecting links are shown in
Table 3. According to the calculated periods, the inner substructure is
the flexible one and the defined mass and stiffness ratios were obtained
as (αs1 = 0.155 and αm1 = 0.287 ). The isolation ratios imply that the in-
teractional state is the dominant performance of the 3D VSI. According
to previously conducted studies, employing the links with an inter-
mediate of practical damping values has led to the desired response
reduction in the interactional state of the VSI performance [1]. In the
multi-story model, similar to the method employed in the 1-story

973
R. Milanchian and M. Hosseini
model, estimation of the practical values of links damping and stiffness
were taken into account in terms of effective modal mass, M ∗ and ef-
fective modal stiffness, K ∗, in the first mode of the vibration. So, the
moderate practical modal damping value of about 10% of the original
5-story model was calculated as ccr = 2M1∗ ω1, and thus
c = 2 × 1954 × 6.054 × 0.1 = 2365.9(kNsec/m) . The specified damping
value distributed symmetrically among the implemented dampers in
each reference direction. Partitioning of the 3-D 5-story structure using
viscoelastic link dampers has been demonstrated in Fig. 17.
Response history calculations for the selected earthquakes have
been conducted for the original and isolated structures. The maximum
story displacement and torsion in response history of each multi-story
VSI system and that of the original structure together were the basis for
calculating the response ratio and evaluation of the structural perfor-
mance. The results of response ratios for flexible and stiff substructures
in different stories are presented in Table 4.
From the results in Table 4, it can be indicated that the 3D VSI
decreases the torsion and displacement response of substructures ef-
fectively in the irregular plan building. Torsional control up to 50
percent in the stiff substructure and 30 percent in the flexible one could
be achieved. The results show that the response ratios in a realistic
multi-story building conform with the response ratios obtained from the
VICGs in the corresponding isolation ratio of the multi-story model and
so the VICGs could be used as a design tool for the preliminary design of
the VSI system.
7. Conclusion
In this study, an ideal 3-dimensional plan-mass asymmetric 3D VSI
model was used to investigate the displacement and torsional control of
the isolated structures. In the presented model, plan-wise distribution of
visco-elastic dampers parameters was provided. Considering the ob-
tained equation of motion, it was differentiated whether the flexible
structure is the inner substructure or the outer one. The response his-
tory analyses conducted in different parameters and mass and stiffness
ratios for several earthquakes and the VICGs implemented to explore
the torsional behavior of the 3D VSI. Besides, the efficiency of the 3D
VSI on the torsional control of multi-story buildings was examined in a
5-story realistic model. On this basis, the following remarks can be
stated as the conclusions of this study:
- In the 3D VSI, it is practical to select a wide variety of mass and
stiffness ratios with different link damping values. By using larger
values of link's damping, the sensitivity of isolation ratios to input
earthquakes characteristics decreases. Applying this technique, dis-
placement response reduction up to 50% in flexible substructure and
even more in stiff substructure is achievable.
- The 3D VSI can be generally considered an effective isolation
technique for torsional response control as well as displacement
response control. The interaction between two inner and outer
connected substructures has been led to satisfactory performance.
- In the first case that the inner substructure is flexible one (IFOS
case), torsional control is nearly effective in both viscous and vis-
coelastic link dampers and almost in the majority of isolation ratios.
The torsional response could be controlled up to 50 percent in the
stiff substructure and 30 percent in the flexible one.
- In the second case that the outer substructure is flexible one (ISOF
case), torsional control is nearly effective in the stiff substructure
while the response in flexible substructure is satisfactory just in a
limited range of isolation ratios.
- The plan-wise distribution of links damping and stiffness has not led
to significant torsional response reduction in comparison to sym-
metric one and even with the symmetric distribution of damping
974
Structures 27 (2020) 962–974
and stiffness, the torsional control in the 3D VSI can be considered
effective.
- Large link stiffness generally decreases the damping effects of link
dampers. This issue is also valid in the plan-mass asymmetric 3D VSI
as the torsional control has not been improved by the viscoelastic
dampers.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The PEER Ground Motion Database was very useful in selecting the
desired ground motion, so the writers acknowledge the Pacific
Earthquake Research Center for their valuable help to the academic
community.
References
[1] Milanchian R, Hosseini M, Nekooei M. Vertical isolation of a structure based on
different states of seismic performance. Earthquakes Struct 2017;13(2):103–18.
[2] Goel RK. Effects of supplemental viscous damping on seismic response of asym-
metric-plan systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1998;27(2):125–41.
[3] Goel RK. Seismic behaviour of asymmetric buildings with supplemental damping.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29(4):461–80.
[4] Lin WH, Chopra AK. Understanding and predicting effects of supplemental viscous
damping on seismic response of asymmetric one-storey systems. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dyn 2001;30(10):1475–94.
[5] Lin WH, Chopra AK. Asymmetric one-storey elastic systems with non-linear viscous
and viscoelastic dampers: Earthquake response. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2003;32(4):555–77.
[6] Kim J, Bang S. Optimum distribution of added viscoelastic dampers for mitigation of
torsional responses of plan-wise asymmetric structures. Eng Struct
2002;24(10):1257–69.
[7] García M, Juan C, Almazán JL. Torsional balance of plan asymmetric structures with
viscoelastic dampers. Eng Struct 2007;29(6):914–32.
[8] Klein R, Todaro A, Finne I. Investigation of a method to stabilize wind induced
oscillations in large structures. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1972.
[9] Xu Y, He Q, Ko J. Dynamic response of damper-connected adjacent buildings under
earthquake excitation. Eng Struct 1999;21(2):135–48.
[10] Zhang W, Xu Y. Dynamic characteristics and seismic response of adjacent buildings
linked by discrete dampers. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1999;28(10):1163–85.
[11] Zhang W, Xu Y. Vibration analysis of two buildings linked by Maxwell model-de-
fined fluid dampers. J Sound Vib 2000;233(5):775–96.
[12] Zhu H, Xu Y. Optimum parameters of Maxwell model-defined dampers used to link
adjacent structures. J Sound Vib 2005;279(1):253–74.
[13] Patel C, Jangid R. Seismic response of dynamically similar adjacent structures
connected with viscous dampers. IES J Part A: Civ Struct Eng 2010;3(1):1–13.
[14] Sharma A, Jangid R. Seismic response of base-isolated benchmark building with
variable sliding isolators. J Earthquake Eng 2010;14(7):1063–91.
[15] Bharti S, Dumne S, Shrimali M. Seismic response analysis of adjacent buildings
connected with MR dampers. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2122–33.
[16] Zhu H, Ge D, Huang X. Optimum connecting dampers to reduce the seismic re-
sponses of parallel structures. J Sound Vib 2011;330(9):1931–49.
[17] Richardson A, Walsh KK, Abdullah MM. Closed-form equations for coupling linear
structures using stiffness and damping elements. Struct Control Health Monit
2013;20(3):259–81.
[18] Nigdeli SM, Bekdas G. Optimum tuned mass damper approaches for adjacent
structures. Earthquakes Struct 2014;7(6):1071–91.
[19] Ziyaeifar M. Method of mass isolation in seismic design of structures. Proceeding of
the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper. 2000.
[20] Ziyaeifar M, Gidfar S, Nekooei M. A model for mass isolation study in seismic design
of structures. Struct Control Health Monit 2012;19(6):627–45.
[21] Behnamfar F, et al. A method for rapid estimation of dynamic coupling and spectral
responses of connected adjacent structures. Struct Des Tall Spec Build
2016;25(13):605–25.
[22] Zhao X, Bao L, Xue B. An energy-dissipating approach for adjacent retrofitted
structures. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2018;27(15):e1508.
[23] Milanchian R, Hosseini M. Study of vertical seismic isolation technique with non-
linear viscous dampers for lateral response reduction. J Build Eng 2019.
[24] Lee D, Taylor DP. Viscous damper development and future trends. Struct Des Tall
Build 2001;10(5):311–20.