Optimum Design of Passive Control Devices For Reducing The Seismic Response of Twin Tower Connected Structures

Journal of Earthquake Engineering
ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Optimum Design of Passive Control Devices for

Reducing the Seismic Response of Twin-Tower-
Connected Structures
Qiaoyun Wu, Jianzhou Dai & Hongping Zhu
To cite this article: Qiaoyun Wu, Jianzhou Dai & Hongping Zhu (2018) Optimum Design of
Passive Control Devices for Reducing the Seismic Response of Twin-Tower-Connected Structures,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 22:5, 826-860, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1264332
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264332
Accepted author version posted online: 31

Jan 2017.
Published online: 01 Mar 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 134
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2018, VOL. 22, NO. 5, 826–860
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264332
Optimum Design of Passive Control Devices for Reducing the

Seismic Response of Twin-Tower-Connected Structures
Qiaoyun Wua,b, Jianzhou Daia, and Hongping Zhub
a
School of Resource and Civil Engineering, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan, China; bSchool of Civil
Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Based on the 3-single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model of twin- Received 12 April 2016
tower structures linked by the sky-bridge and passive control devices, Accepted 3 November 2016
the frequency functions and the vibration energy expressions of the KEYWORDS
structures are derived by using the stationary white noise as the Twin-Tower-Connected
seismic excitation. The analytical formulas for determining the con- Structures; Sky-Bridge;
necting optimum parameters of viscoelastic damper (VED) repre- Viscoelastic Damper; Viscous
sented by the Kelvin model and the viscous fluid damper (VFD) Fluid Damper; Analytical
represented by Maxwell model are proposed using the principle of Formula; Optimum
minimizing the average vibration energy of either the single tower or Parameters; Seismic
the twin tower. Three pairs of representative numerical examples of Response; White Noise
twin-tower-connected structures are used to verify the correctness of
the theoretical approach. The optimum parametric analysis demon-
strates that the control performance is not sensitive to damper
damping ratio of VED and relaxation time of VFD. The effectiveness
of the proposed control strategies based on the 3-SDOF models is
also proved to be applicable to multi-degree-of-freedom systems.
The theoretical analysis and numerical results indicate that the seis-
mic response and vibration energy of the twin-tower-connected
structures are mitigated greatly under the two types of dampers.
The presented control strategies of VED and VFD can help engineers
in application of coupled structures.
1. Introduction
The twin-tower structures (symmetrical or unsymmetrical) that are horizontally con-
nected by the sky-bridge are favored by architects because of their unique shape and
facilitation of the connection between the towers. While they also bring challenges to
structural engineers, the energy dissipation design of the twin-tower structures achieves
more and more attention. At present, the research on using the conjoined parts to realize
the energy dissipation and seismic mitigation of the twin-tower or multitower structures is
less. Most studies focused on the non-conjoined adjacent structures [Zhu and Iemura,
2000; Zhu and Xu, 2005; Basili and Angelis, 2007; Ok et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2011;
Quinonero et al., 2012; Huang and Zhu, 2013; Quinonero et al., 2014; Park and Ok, 2015].
However, the sky-bridge with flexible connections, to a certain extent, playing a similar
role in tuned mass damper system [Hoang et al., 2008; Wong and Cheung, 2008; Ikago
CONTACT Hongping Zhu hpzhu@mail.hust.edu.cn School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong
University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 827
et al., 2012; Lv et al., 2012; Tigli, 2012; Chung et al., 2013; Matta, 2013; Miranda, 2013],
will reduce the seismic response of the towers if connected with the optimal connecting
parameters, i.e., linking stiffness and damping coefficient. Wang et al. [2014] proposed a
new conjoined structure with energy dissipation mechanism for high-rise asymmetrical
conjoined buildings by taking into account the pros and cons of the strong connection and
weak connection and the drawbacks of setting the damper damping structures at the end
support. Lin [2015] adopted dampers to control seismic vibration on high-rise connected
structures. First, the equations of motion for the controlled structures which were installed
fluid viscous dampers between the main tower and the sky-bridge were derived. And then
through the numerical simulation, taking a real project as a prototype and trying to
replace the brace between the sky-bridge and the main tower with the viscous fluid
dampers (VFDs), the seismic responses of the controlled and uncontrolled structures
were compared under different seismic excitations. Chen and Chen [Chen and Chen,
2014] interconnected the tower and sky-bridge with the rubber isolation bearings in order
to mitigate the adverse effect of the increase of the tower seismic force and the torsional
deformation caused by the common vibration of the tower and the sky-bridge when
subjected to earthquakes. Lee et al. [2012] studied the coupling-control effect of the twin-
tower structures linked by the sky-bridge by applying the lead rubber bearing (LRB) and
the linear motion bearings between the sky-bridge and the towers, and proposed a suitable
connection system through the research of different bearing forms. Kim et al. [2006]
studied the effectiveness of the arrangement of the viscous dampers between the towers
and sky-bridge on mitigating the structural response caused by the seismic action and
proposed that the viscous dampers exist in a certain size that can make the dynamic
response of the tower reach the minimum by parametric analysis.
In fact, there are some other researches that focus on the link-induced coupling. For
instance, Lim’s group investigated the effect of the link-induced structural coupling on
frequencies of twin buildings connected by a link, using a simplified six-degree-of-freedom
model [Lim and Bienkiewicz, 2007; Lim, 2009; Lim et al., 2011; Lim and Bienkiewicz, 2014].
Furthermore, the effects of the structural coupling on the modal properties and wind-
induced responses of linked building system have also been examined systematically in a
number of previous studies [Song and Tse, 2014; Tse and Song, 2015; Song et al., 2016].
The seismic response and the damping effect of the twin-tower structures depend on
the parameter settings of the connecting devices, and the optimization of the connection
parameters that are closely related to the tower frequency ratio, the tower mass ratio, the
mass ratio of the sky-bridge with the main tower, and the location of the sky-bridge.
Currently, the passive control devices of Kelvin and Maxwell model-defined dampers have
been found in many applications of mitigating wind or seismic-induced response of large
civil engineering, especially adjacent structures [Zhu and Iemura, 2000; Zhu and Xu, 2005;
Basili and Angelis, 2007; Lee et al., 2012; Quinonero et al., 2012; Huang and Zhu, 2013;
Lin, 2015]. However, no general analytical formulas are given for the optimum parameters
of the two types of dampers connecting the twin-tower structures linked by the sky-bridge.
This study thus aims to derive the analytical formulas for the optimum parameters of
viscoelastic damper (VED) represented by Kelvin model and VFD represented by Maxwell
model, which are used to connect the towers and the sky-bridge. Firstly, the twin-tower
structures linked by the sky-bridge are modeled as 3-single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
models. The general expressions of the vibration energy for the structures that are
828 Q. WU ET AL.
connected by the passive energy dissipation devices under the white-noise excitation
are deduced. Based on the principle of minimizing the average vibration energy of either
the single tower or the twin tower, the analytical formulas for determining the optimum
parameters of VED and VFD are proposed. The optimum parametric analysis indicates
that the control performance is not sensitive to damper damping ratio of VED and
relaxation time of VFD. The effectiveness of the proposed control strategies is finally
examined by three pairs of representative numerical results.
2. Modeling of the Twin-Tower-Connected Structures

2.1. Fundamental Assumptions
Figure 1 displays the unsymmetrical twin-tower-connected structures composed of two
adjacent high-rise buildings of n1 and n2 (n1 n2 ) stories, respectively, connected by a
sky-bridge. The dampers are located at the two ends of the sky-bridge. The location of the
sky-bridge will directly affect the controlled effectiveness of the towers; three arrangement
positions are possible: the ground floor, the middle floor, and the top floor of the shorter
tower, as shown in Fig. 1. It is assumed that the two towers are symmetric with their planes
coincided with each other. The earthquake acceleration is considered to be input in the
direction of the symmetric planes. Both structures are assumed to be excited by the same
acceleration, and the spatial effect of ground motion is neglected. The story heights of the
two towers are uniform. The twin-tower-connected structures are assumed to remain at the
stage of linear elasticity because the connected dampers strengthen the seismic resistance
and energy absorption of the structures. Each structure is simplified as a linear multi-degree-
of-freedom (MDOF) flexible shear type of model (the sky-bridge is simplified as a linear
SDOF flexible shear type of model) with lumped mass at the floor levels.
2.2. Calculation Model of Connecting Dampers

2.2.1. Viscoelastic Damper
The VED dissipates energy through shear deformation of polymeric material. Each damper
may be represented by the classical Kelvin model, which is composed of a linear and elastic
spring and a viscous dashpot in parallel (Fig. 2). The output force can be given as
_ i ðt Þ
fi ðt Þ ¼ k Δxi ðtÞ þ c Δx (1)
where k is the stiffness and c is the damping coefficient of the damper. Δxi ðt Þ and Δx_ i ðt Þ
are the relative displacement and velocity between the ends of the ith damper, respectively.
2.2.2. Viscous Fluid Damper

A VFD dissipates energy by forcing a fluid to flow through orifices, causing a pressure
difference and thereby force. Constatinou and Symans [1993] show that the fluid damper
can be described by the first-order Maxwell model, in which a dashpot and a spring are
combined in series (Fig. 2). The force–deformation relationship can be defined by a first-
order differential equation, and the damper force can be written as
Tower 1 Tower 1
mn1,1 mn1,1
kn1,1 cn1,1 kn1,1 cn1,1

Tower 2 Tower 2
mn1-1,1 mn2,2 mn1-1,1 mn2,2
kn1-1,1 cn1-1,1 kn2,2 cn2,2 kn1-1,1 cn1-1,1 kn2,2 cn2,2
mn1-2,1 mn2-2,2 mn1-2,1 mn2-2,2
ki,1 ci,1 ki,2 ci,2 ki,1 ci,1 ki,2 ci,2
mi-1,1 mi-1,2 mi-1,1 mi-1,2
k2,1 c2,1 k2,2 c2,2 k2,1 c2,1 k2,2 c2,2
m1,1 m1,2 m1,1 m1,2
k1,1 c1,1 k1,2 c1,2 k1,1 c1,1 k1,2 c1,2
g g
Tower 1
mn1,1
kn1,1 cn1,1
Tower 2
mn1-1,1 mn2,2
kn1-1,1 cn1-1,1 kn2,2 cn2,2
mn1-2,1 mn2-2,2
ki,1 ci,1 ki,2 ci,2
mi-1,1 mi-1,2
k2,1 c2,1 k2,2 c2,2
m1,1 m1,2
k1,1 c1,1 k1,2 c1,2
Figure 1. Calculation models of twin-tower-connected structures: (a) sky-bridge at the ground floor,
(b) sky-bridge at the middle floor, and (c) sky-bridge at the top floor.
(a) k (b)
k c0
Fd Fd Fd Fd
c
Figure 2. Calculating models of the connecting dampers: (a) visco-elastic damper of Kelvin model, and
(b) viscous fluid damper of Maxwell model.
830 Q. WU ET AL.
(a) Visco-elastic Visco-elastic (b) Viscous fluid Viscous fluid

damper damper damper damper
m1 k01 m3 k02 m2 m1 k01 c01 m3 k02 c02 m2
Tower 1 Tower 2 Tower 1 Tower 2
c01 Sky-bridge c02 Sky-bridge
k1 c1 k2 c2 k1 c1 k2 c2
üg üg
Figure 3. Calculation models of twin-tower-connected structures: (a) linked by Kelvin model-defined

VED and (b) linked by Maxwell model-defined VFD.
dfi ðt Þ _ i ðt Þ
¼ c0 Δx
fi ðt Þ þ λ (2)
dt
where c0 is the linear damping constant at zero frequency. k is the stiffness coefficient. λ is
_ i ðtÞ is the velocity between the ends of the ith damper.
the relaxation time, and λ ¼ c0 =k. Δx
2.3. Calculation Models of the Twin-Tower-Connected Structures

The twin-tower structures linked by the sky-bridge are modeled as 3-SDOF systems, which are
connected by springs and dampers. The calculation models of the twin-tower-connected
structures that are linked by the VED and VFD are shown in Fig. 3. m1 , m2 , and m3 are the
total mass of Tower 1, Tower 2, and sky-bridge, respectively. k1 , c1 and k2 , c2 are the stiffness
and damping of Tower 1 and Tower 2, respectively. k01 , c01 and k02 , c02 are the stiffness
coefficients and damping coefficients of the dampers, which, respectively, are located at the
two ends of the sky-bridge. The tower whose stiffness is greater is always called the main tower
or the primary tower, and the other is the auxiliary tower.
2.4. Equations of Motion

2.4.1. The Equations of Motion of VED-Coupled Structural System
The equations of motion of VED-coupled structural system (Fig. 3a) subjected to seismic
excitation can be expressed as
m1 €x1 þ ðc1 þ c01 Þx_ 1 c01 x_ 3 þ ðk1 þ k01 Þx1 k01 x3 ¼ m1 €xg (3a)
m2 €x2 þ ðc2 þ c02 Þx_ 2 c02 x_ 3 þ ðk2 þ k02 Þx2 k02 x3 ¼ m2 €xg (3b)
m3 €x3 þ ðc01 þ c02 Þx_ 3 c01 x_ 1 c02 x_ 2 þ ðk01 þ k02 Þx3 k01 x1 k02 x2 ¼ m3 €xg (3c)
where m1 , c1 and k1 denote the mass, damping coefficient, and stiffness of Tower 1,
respectively. x1 ðtÞ is the horizontal relative displacement of Tower 1 with respect to the
ground. m2 , c2 and k2 denote the mass, damping coefficient, and stiffness of Tower 2,
respectively. x2 ðtÞ is the horizontal relative displacement of Tower 2 with respect to the
ground. m3 is the mass of the sky-bridge, and €xg ðt Þ is the horizontal ground acceleration,
which is assumed to be a white-noise random process with a constant spectral density
of Sgg .
Since the structural damping ratio in the original twin-tower structures is small
compared with that generated by the VED, the structural damping is assumed to be
zero in the derivation of the formulas. The displacement responses of the two towers in
frequency domain can be obtained from Eq. (3) as
α1 ðiωÞ α2 ðiωÞ
x1 ðiωÞ ¼ €xg ðiωÞ; x2 ðiωÞ ¼ €xg ðiωÞ (4a; b)
DðiωÞ DðiωÞ
where
8
< D ¼ a0 ðiωÞ6 þ a1 ðiωÞ5 þ a2 ðiωÞ4 þ a3 ðiωÞ3 þ a4 ðiωÞ2 þ a5 ðiωÞ þ a6
α ¼ b14 ðiωÞ4 þ b13 ðiωÞ3 þ b12 ðiωÞ2 þ b11 ðiωÞ þ b10 (5a; b; c)
: 1
α2 ¼ b24 ðiωÞ4 þ b23 ðiωÞ3 þ b22 ðiωÞ2 þ b21 ðiωÞ þ b20
in which
a0 ¼ 1
a1 ¼ 2ω01 01 þ 2ω02 02 þ 2μ01 ω01 01 þ 2μμ01 ω02 02

a2 ¼ ω21 þ ω22 þ ω201 þ ω202 þ μ01 ω201 þ μμ01 ω202 þ 4ω01 01 ω02 02 μ01 þ μμ01 þ μμ201

a3 ¼ 2ω21 ω01 01 þ ω02 02 þ μμ01 ω02 02 þ 2ω22 ω01 01 þ ω02 02 þ μ01 ω01 01

þ 2ω202 ω01 01 μ01 þ μμ01 þ μμ201 þ 2ω201 ω02 02 μ01 þ μμ01 þ μμ201

a4 ¼ ω21 ω22 þ μ01 ω201 ω22 þ μμ01 ω202 ω21 þ μ01 ω201 ω22 þ ω201 ω21 þ ω22 þ ω202 ω21 þ ω22

þ ω201 ω202 μμ01 þ μμ201 þ 4ω01 01 ω02 02 μ01 ω22 þ μμ01 ω21

a5 ¼ 2ω21 ω22 ðω02 02 þ ω01 01 Þ þ 2ω201 ω02 02 μμ01 ω21 þ μ01 ω22

þ 2ω202 ω01 01 μμ01 ω21 þ μ01 ω22

a6 ¼ ω21 ω22 ω201 þ ω202 þ ω201 ω202 μμ01 ω21 þ μ01 ω22
b14 ¼ 1
b13 ¼ 2ω01 01 þ 2ω02 02 þ 2μ01 ω01 01 þ 2μμ01 ω02 02

b12 ¼ ω201 þ ω202 þ μ01 ω201 þ μμ01 ω202 þ 4 μ01 þ μμ01 ω01 01 ω02 02 þ 4μμ201 ω01 01 ω02 02 þ ω22

b11 ¼ 2ω201 ω02 02 μ01 þ μμ01 þ 2ω202 ω01 01 μ01 þ μμ01 þ 2μμ201 ω01 01 ω202 þ ω201 ω02 02

þ 2ω22 ω01 01 þ ω02 02 þ μ01 ω01 01

b10 ¼ ω201 ω202 μμ201 þ μ01 þ μμ01 þ ω22 ω201 þ ω202 þ μ01 ω201
b24 ¼ 1
b23 ¼ 2ω01 01 þ 2ω02 02 þ 2μ01 ω01 01 þ 2μμ01 ω02 02

b22 ¼ ω201 þ ω202 þ μ01 ω201 þ μμ01 ω202 þ 4ω01 01 ω02 02 μ01 þ μμ01 þ 4μμ201 ω01 01 ω02 02 þ ω21
832 Q. WU ET AL.

b21 ¼ 2ω201 ω02 02 μ01 þ μμ01 þ 2ω202 ω01 01 μ01 þ μμ01 þ 2μμ201 ω01 01 ω202 þ ω201 ω02 02

þ 2ω21 ω01 01 þ ω02 02 þ μμ01 ω02 02

b20 ¼ ω201 ω202 μμ201 þ μ01 þ μμ01 þ ω21 ω201 þ ω202 þ μμ01 ω202
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where ω1 ¼ k1 =m1 , 1 ¼ c1 =2m1 ω1 and ω2 ¼ k2 =m2 , 2 ¼ c2 =2m2 ω2 are the natural
frequencies and damping ratios of the two towers, respectively. The natural frequencies
and damping ratios of the left and right VEDs of the sky-bridge are defined as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ω01 ¼ k01 =m3 , 01 ¼ c01 =2m3 ω01 and ω02 ¼ k02 =m3 , 02 ¼ c02 =2m3 ω02 , respectively.
The mass ratios of Tower 1 to Tower 2 and the sky-bridge to Tower 1 are defined as μ ¼
m1 =m2 and μ01 ¼ m3 =m1 , respectively. The tower frequency ratio and connection fre-
quency ratio are defined as β ¼ ω2 =ω1 and β01 ¼ ω01 =ω1 , β02 ¼ ω02 =ω1 , respectively.
Defining the relative vibration energy of the two towers under the white-noise ground
excitation as
1 ¼ 1 m1 hx_ 12 i þ 1 k1 hx12 i; E
E 2 ¼ 1 m2 hx_ 22 i þ 1 k2 hx22 i (6a; b)
2 2 2 2
The time-averaged total relative energy of the some structures under the white noise
ground excitation is [Cremer and Heckl, 1973]
ð1
_ 1
E ¼ MhX ðtÞi ¼ M
2
SX_ X_ ðiωÞdω (7)
2π 1
where SX_ X_ ðiωÞ is the power spectral density of the velocity response of the structure.
Substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (7), the average relative vibration energy of Tower 1 and
Tower 2 can be expressed as
ð1
1
E1 ¼ m1 hx_ 1 ðtÞi ¼ m1
2
Sx_ 1 x_ 1 ðωÞ dω
ð 1 2π 1
m1 Sgg ððiωÞα1 ðiωÞÞ ððiωÞα1 ðiωÞÞ
¼ dðiωÞ (8a)
2πi 1 DðiωÞ D ðiωÞ
ð1
2 ¼ m2 hx_ 22 ðtÞi ¼ 1 m2
E Sx_ 2 x_ 2 ðωÞ dω
ð 1 2π 1
m2 Sgg ððiωÞα2 ðiωÞÞ ððiωÞα2 ðiωÞÞ
¼ dðiωÞ (8b)
2πi 1 DðiωÞ D ðiωÞ
where
ðiωα1 ðiωÞÞ ðiωα1 ðiωÞÞ ¼ b0 ðiωÞ10 þ b1 ðiωÞ8 þ b2 ðiωÞ6 þ b3 ðiωÞ4 þ b4 ðiωÞ2 þ b5 (9a)
ðiωα2 ðiωÞÞ ðiωα2 ðiωÞÞ ¼ d0 ðiωÞ10 þ d1 ðiωÞ8 þ d2 ðiωÞ6 þ d3 ðiωÞ4 þ d4 ðiωÞ2 þ d5 (9b)
in which
b0 ¼ b214 ;
b1 ¼ b213 2b12 b14 ;

b2 ¼ 2b11 b13 2b10 b14 b212 ;

b3 ¼ b211 2b10 b12 ;
b4 ¼ b210 ;
b5 ¼ 0;
d0 ¼ b224 ;
d1 ¼ b223 2b22 b24 ;
d2 ¼ 2b21 b23 2b20 b24 b222 ;
d3 ¼ b221 2b20 b22 ;
d4 ¼ b220 ;
d5 ¼ 0:
The solutions of Eq. (8) can be obtained as follows [Cremer and Heckl, 1973]:
1 ¼ m1 Sgg M61 ; E

E 2 ¼ m2 Sgg M62 (10a; b)
2a0 Δ6 2a0 Δ6
where

M61 ¼ b0 a0 a3 a5 a6 þ a0 a4 a25 a21 a26 þ 2a1 a2 a5 a6 þ a1 a3 a4 a6

a1 a24 a5 a22 a25 a2 a23 a6 þ a2 a3 a4 a5

þ a0 b1 a1 a5 a6 þ a2 a25 þ a23 a6 a3 a4 a5

þ a0 b2 a0 a25 a1 a3 a6 þ a1 a4 a5

þ a0 b3 a0 a3 a5 þ a21 a6 a1 a2 a5

þ a0 b4 a0 a1 a5 a0 a23 a21 a4 þ a1 a2 a3
a0 b5 2 2
þ a0 a5 þ a0 a1 a3 a6 2a0 a1 a4 a5 a0 a2 a3 a5 þ a0 a23 a4
a6

a21 a2 a6 þ a21 a24 þ a1 a32 a5 a1 a2 a3 a4

M62 ¼ d0 a0 a3 a5 a6 þ a0 a4 a25 a21 a26 þ 2a1 a2 a5 a6 þ a1 a3 a4 a6

a1 a24 a5 a22 a25 a2 a23 a6 þ a2 a3 a4 a5

þ a0 d1 a1 a5 a6 þ a2 a25 þ a23 a6 a3 a4 a5

þ a0 d2 a0 a25 a1 a3 a6 þ a1 a4 a5

þ a0 d3 a0 a3 a5 þ a21 a6 a1 a2 a5

þ a0 d4 a0 a1 a5 a0 a23 a21 a4 þ a1 a2 a3
a0 d5 2 2
þ a0 a5 þ a0 a1 a3 a6 2a0 a1 a4 a5 a0 a2 a3 a5 þ a0 a23 a4
a6

a21 a2 a6 þ a21 a24 þ a1 a32 a5 a1 a2 a3 a4
834 Q. WU ET AL.
Δ6 ¼ a20 a35 þ 3a0 a1 a3 a5 a6 2a0 a1 a4 a25 a0 a2 a3 a25 a0 a33 a6 þ a0 a23 a4 a5

þ a31 a26 2a21 a2 a5 a6 a21 a3 a4 a6 þ a21 a24 a5 þ a1 a22 a25 þ a1 a2 a23 a6 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
(11a; b; c)
The total time-average energy of the twin-tower structures linked by the VED subjected
to the white-noise ground excitation can be obtained by adding Eqs. (10a) and (10b),
that is
2 ¼ m1 Sgg M61 m2 Sgg M62 ¼ μm2 Sgg M61 m2 Sgg M62
1 þ E
E
2a0 Δ6 2a0 Δ6 2a0 Δ6 2a0 Δ6
μM61 þ M62
¼ m2 Sgg (12)
2a0 Δ6
2.4.2. The Equations of Motion of VFD-Coupled Structural System

The equations of motion of VFD-coupled structural system (Fig. 3b) subjected to seismic
excitation can be expressed as
m1 €x1 ðt Þ þ c1 x_ 1 ðt Þ þ k1 x1 ðt Þ fΓ1 ðt Þ ¼ m1 €xg ðt Þ (13a)
m2 €x2 ðt Þ þ c2 x_ 2 ðt Þ þ k2 x2 ðt Þ fΓ2 ðt Þ ¼ m2 €xg ðt Þ (13b)
m3 €x3 ðt Þ þ fΓ1 ðt Þ þ fΓ2 ðt Þ ¼ m3 €xg ðt Þ (13c)
dfΓ1 ðtÞ
fΓ1 ðt Þ þ λ01 ¼ c01 ðx_ 3 ðtÞ x_ 1 ðt ÞÞ (13d)
dt
dfΓ2 ðtÞ
fΓ2 ðt Þ þ λ02 ¼ c02 ðx_ 3 ðtÞ x_ 2 ðt ÞÞ (13e)
dt
Similarly, ignoring the damping of the structures, that is x2 ¼ αD2 €xg , the displacement
responses of the two towers in frequency domain can be obtained from Eq. (13) as
α1 ðiωÞ α2 ðiωÞ
x1 ðiωÞ ¼ €xg ðiωÞ; x2 ðiωÞ ¼ €xg ðiωÞ (14a; b; c)
DðiωÞ DðiωÞ
where
8
< D ¼ a0 ðiωÞ5 þ a1 ðiωÞ4 þ a2 ðiωÞ3 þ a3 ðiωÞ2 þ a4 ðiωÞ þ a5
α ¼ b15 ðiωÞ5 þ b14 ðiωÞ4 þ b13 ðiωÞ3 þ b12 ðiωÞ2 þ b11 ðiωÞ þ b10 (15a; b; c)
: 1
α2 ¼ b25 ðiωÞ5 þ b24 ðiωÞ4 þ b23 ðiωÞ3 þ b22 ðiωÞ2 þ b21 ðiωÞ þ b20
in which
a0 ¼ μ01 λ01 λ02
a1 ¼ μ01 ðλ01 þ λ02 Þ
a2 ¼ Δ02 λ01 þ Δ01 λ02 þ Δ01 λ02 μ01 þ μ01 þ ω22 λ01 λ02 μ01 þ ω21 λ01 λ02 μ01 þ Δ02 λ01 μμ01
a3 ¼ ω22 λ01 μ01 þ ω22 λ02 μ01 þ Δ01 þ Δ01 μ01 þ ω21 λ01 μ01 þ Δ02 μμ01 þ Δ02 þ ω21 λ02 μ01
a4 ¼ ω22 Δ01 μ01 λ02 þ μ01 ω21 þ μ01 ω22 þ ω22 Δ02 λ01 þ Δ01 Δ02 þ ω22 Δ01 λ02 þ ω21 Δ01 λ02
þ ω21 Δ02 λ01 þ μΔ01 Δ02 þ ω21 Δ02 μμ01 λ01 þ ω21 ω22 λ01 λ02 μ01 þ Δ01 Δ02 μμ01
a5 ¼ ω22 Δ01 μ01 þ ω21 Δ01 þ ω22 Δ01 þ ω21 ω22 λ01 μ01 þ ω21 Δ02 þ ω21 μμ01 Δ02 þ ω22 Δ02
þ ω21 ω22 λ02 μ01
a6 ¼ ω21 ω22 Δ01 λ02 þ ω21 ω22 Δ02 λ01 þ ω21 μΔ01 Δ02 þ ω22 Δ01 Δ02 þ μ01 ω21 ω22
a7 ¼ ω21 ω22 Δ01 þ ω21 ω22 Δ02

b15 ¼ μ01 λ01 λ02
b14 ¼ μ01 ðλ01 þ λ02 Þ
b13 ¼ Δ01 λ02 þ Δ02 λ01 þ μ01 λ01 λ02 ω22 þ μ01 Δ01 λ02 þ μμ01 Δ02 λ01 þ μ01
b12 ¼ Δ01 μ01 þ Δ01 þ Δ02 þ μ01 ω22 λ02 þ μ01 ω22 λ01 þ Δ02 μμ01
b11 ¼ ω22 Δ01 λ02 þ ω22 Δ02 λ01 þ Δ01 Δ02 þ ω22 Δ01 μ01 λ02 þ μ01 ω22 þ Δ01 Δ02 μ þ Δ01 Δ02 μ01 μ
b10 ¼ Δ01 μ01 ω22 þ Δ02 ω22 þ Δ01 ω22

1 1
E1 ¼ m1 x_ 12 þ k1 x12
2 2
b24 ¼ μ01 ðλ01 þ λ02 Þ
b23 ¼ μ01 λ01 λ02 ω21 þ Δ01 λ02 þ Δ02 λ01 þ μμ01 Δ02 λ01 þ μ01 Δ01 λ02 þ μ01
b22 ¼ Δ02 þ ω21 λ01 μ01 þ Δ02 μ01 μ þ ω21 λ02 μ01 þ Δ01 μ01 þ Δ01
b21 ¼ Δ01 Δ02 μ01 μ þ ω21 Δ01 λ02 þ μ01 ω21 þ Δ01 Δ02 þ μΔ01 Δ02 þ ω21 Δ02 λ01 þ ω21 Δ02 λ01 μμ01
ðiωα1 Þ ¼ b13 ðiωÞ4 þ b12 ðiωÞ3 þ b11 ðiωÞ2 þ b10 ðiωÞ
In this section, the ratios of linking damping to the mass of Tower 1 for the left and
right VFDs of the sky-bridge are defined as Δ01 ¼ c01 =m1 and Δ02 ¼ c02 =m1 , respectively.
The damping coefficient ratio of the VFDs is defined as η ¼ c02 =c01 ¼ Δ02 =Δ01 . The
definitions of μ, μ01 and β are shown in Section 2.4.1.
Similarly, the time-averaged energy of the two towers can be obtained as [Cremer and
Heckl, 1973]
1 ¼ m1 Sgg M71 ; E

E 2 ¼ m2 Sgg M72 (16a; b)
2a0 Δ7 2a0 Δ7
where
M71 ¼ b0 m0 þ a0 b1 m1 þ a0 b2 m2 þ a0 b3 m3 þ a0 b4 m4 þ a0 b5 m5 þ a0 b6 m6
M72 ¼ d0 m0 þ a0 d1 m1 þ a0 d2 m2 þ a0 d3 m3 þ a0 d4 m4 þ a0 d5 m5 þ a0 d6 m6 (17a; b)
in which
836 Q. WU ET AL.
b0 ¼ b215 , b1 ¼ 2b13 b15 b214 , b2 ¼ 2b11 b15 2b12 b14 þ b213 , b3 ¼ 2b10 b14 þ
2b11 b13 b12 , b4 ¼ 2b10 b12 þ b11 ,b5 ¼ b10 , b6 ¼ 0. d0 ¼ b25 , d1 ¼ 2b23 b25 b224 ,
2 2 2 2
d2 ¼ 2b21 b25 2b22 b24 þ b223 , d3 ¼ 2b20 b24 þ 2b21 b23 b222 , d4 ¼ 2b20 b22 þ b221 ,
d5 ¼ b220 , d6 ¼ 0. Δ7 and mi ði ¼ 1; 2:::7Þ are the functions of ai ði ¼ 0; 1:::7Þ.
The total time-average energy of the twin-tower structures linked by the VFD subjected
to the white-noise ground excitation can be obtained by adding Eqs. (16a) and (16b), that is
2 ¼ m1 Sgg M71 m2 Sgg M72 ¼ μm2 Sgg M71 m2 Sgg M72
1 þ E
E
2a0 Δ7 2a0 Δ7 2a0 Δ7 2a0 Δ7
μM71 þ M72
¼ m2 Sgg (18)
2a0 Δ7
3. Optimum Parameter Analysis of Dampers

To examine the control effects of the linking dampers, the control effectiveness indices of
Tower 1, Tower 2, and the two towers are defined as
1 =E
R1 ¼ E 01 ; R2 ¼ E
2 =E
02 ; R ¼ E
1 þ E
2 =E
01 þ E
02 (19)
where E 1 and E2 denote the relative vibration energies of Tower 1 and Tower 2, respec-
tively, linked by the sky-bridge under white-noise ground motion. E 01 and E
02 denote the
relative vibration energies of the towers subjected to the same ground motion but without
sky-bridge connection, i.e., E0i ¼ mi Sgg =ð4ωi i Þ(i ¼ 1; 2). Three optimization criteria are
selected to minimize the relative vibration energies of Tower 1, Tower 2, and the two
towers together, respectively, in this work.
3.1. Optimum Parameter Analysis of VED

For VED, the optimum design problem is to search for a set of linking damper para-
meters, i.e., linking damping c01 , c02 and linking stiffness k01 , k02 , which can minimize the
vibration energy of the two towers.
3.1.1. Linking Stiffness

The damping ratios of the two towers are set to be 1 ¼ 2 ¼ 0:05. The variations of the
control effectiveness indices R1 , R2 and R against linking frequency ratios β01 and β02
(representing the linking stiffness) with the linking damping ratios 01 ¼ 02 ¼ 0:1, and
mass ratio μ ¼ 1:0 are deployed in Figs. 4 and 5. The impact of the mass ratio μ01 and
tower frequency ratio β (Only when β 1 is considered. For the case of β > 1, it can swap
the Tower 1 and 2) on the control effect of the twin-tower structures is investigated.
Figure 4 shows that the control effectiveness of the two towers significantly depends on
the linking frequency ratio β01 . For control criterion 1 in Fig. 4a, when the value of β01 is
in a particular area (0.05–0.2), the VEDs have control effect on Tower 1, and the control
effectiveness does not depend on the frequency ratio β02 . For control criteria 2 and 3 in
Fig. 4b and c, the control effect of VEDs is initially getting better (when β01 is in the area
of 0.01–0.1) and then getting worse (when β01 is in the area of 0.2–0.5) with the increase of
β01 . Moreover, the optimal value (between 0.05 and 0.1) of linking frequency ratio β02
basically does not depend on the variations of β01 .
1
(a) (b)
1.1 0.9
Control effectiveness, R2
1 0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5 0.4
0.4 0.3
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Linking frequency ratio, β02 Linking frequency ratio, β02
2
(c)
β =0.01
01
Control effectiveness, R
β =0.05
1.5 01
β =0.1
01
β =0.2
01
1 β =0.3
01
β =0.4
01
β =0.5
01
0.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Linking frequency ratio, β02
Figure 4. Control effectiveness indices with various linking frequency ratios (μ01 ¼ 10, β ¼ 0:5):
(a) control criterion 1, (b) control criterion 2, and (c) control criterion 3.
Figure 5 displays that the control effectiveness indices R1 and R highly depend on the
mass ratio μ01 , and with the increase of μ01 , the control effectiveness improves. For control
criterion 1, the control effectiveness is very insensitive to the tower frequency ratio β and
the linking frequency ratio β02 as shown in Fig. 5a. For control criterion 2, it can be
discovered from Fig. 5b that the control effectiveness index R2 basically does not depend
on the variations of μ01 and β, but the optimum linking frequency ratio β02 increases with
the increase of β and decreases with the increase of μ01 . However, the control effectiveness
index R significantly depends on both the tower frequency ratio β and the mass ratio μ01 .
With the increase of β, the control effectiveness deteriorates. Figure 5c also shows that the
optimum linking frequency ratio β02 increases with the increase of β and decreases with
the increase of μ01 .
Above all, to minimize the relative vibration energy of Tower 1 (control criterion 1),
the value of linking stiffness k02 for VEDs will not affect the control effectiveness. For
control criteria 2 and 3, the evaluation of k02 basically does not depend on the linking
stiffness k01 but significantly depend on the mass ratio μ01 and the tower frequency ratio β.
In order to achieve prominent control effect, it should increase μ01 and decrease β.
838 Q. WU ET AL.
2 1
(a) (b)
1.8 0.9
1.6
Control effectiveness, R 1
Control effectiveness, R 2
0.8
1.4
0.7
1.2
0.6
1
0.5
0.8
0.6 0.4
0.4 0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Linking frequency ratio, β02 Linking frequency ratio, β02
1
(c)
μ01=3,β =0.3
0.9 μ01=5,β =0.3
μ01=8,β =0.3
0.8 μ01=10,β =0.3

μ01=3,β =0.5
0.7 μ01=5,β =0.5
μ01=8,β =0.5
0.6
μ01=10,β =0.5
μ01=3,β =0.7
0.5
μ01=5,β =0.7
0.4 μ01=8,β =0.7

μ01=10,β =0.7
0.3
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Linking frequency ratio, β 02
Figure 5. Variations of control effectiveness indices against linking frequency ratios (with various mass
ratios μ01 and tower frequency ratios β, and β01 ¼ 0:1): (a) control criterion 1, (b) control criterion 2,
and (c) control criterion 3.
3.1.2. Linking Damping

In this section, the linking damping ratios of the left and right connections of the sky-
bridge are the same, and only the symmetrical connections are considered. The varia-
tions of the control effectiveness indices R1 , R2 and R against linking damping ratios 01
and 02 (representing the linking damping) with the mass ratio μ ¼ 1:0 are displayed in
Figs. 6 and 7. The impact of linking frequency ratios β01 and β02 (representing the
linking stiffness), mass ratio μ01 , and tower frequency ratio β on the linking damping is
discussed.
Figure 6 shows that the control effectiveness under the three control criteria will be
deeply influenced by the linking frequency ratio β01 ðβ02 Þ of VED, and when
β01 ðβ02 Þ 0:1, the control effect increases with the increase of β01 ðβ02 Þ, and when
β01 ðβ02 Þ > 0:1, the control effect decreases with the increase of β01 ðβ02 Þ. Figure 6 also
presents that the optimum linking damping ratios 01 ð02 Þof VEDs are nearly insensitive
3 3
(a)
(b)
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Linking damping ratio,ξ01 Linking damping ratio,ξ 01
3
(c)
2.5 β =β =0.01
01 02
β =β =0.03
2 01 02
β =β =0.05
01 02
1.5 β =β =0.08
01 02
β =β =0.1
01 02
1 β =β =0.3
01 02
β =β =0.5
0.5 01 02
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Linking damping ratio,ξ01
Figure 6. Variations of control effectiveness indices against linking damping ratios (with various
linking frequency ratios and μ01 ¼ 10:0): (a) control criterion 1, (b) control criterion 2, and
(c) control criterion 3.
to the linking frequency ratios β01 ðβ02 Þ, and the optimal 01 ð02 Þ can be nearly any value
larger than 0.2.
Figure 7 plots that the control effectiveness indices R1 , R2 and R basically depend on the
mass ratio μ01 and the tower frequency ratio β, and the optimum linking damping ratio
01 ð02 Þ basically does not change with the variations of μ01 and β.
The optimum parameter analysis of VED indicates that the optimization design of
VED between the twin-tower-connected structures is a complicated issue, and the
control performance is not sensitive to damper damping ratio but relatively more
dependent on the linking stiffness, especially for control criteria 2 and 3. Figures 4–7
also demonstrate that the optimum parameters of VED highly depend on the mass
ratio (μ01 ) of the sky-bridge to Tower 1 and the frequency ratio (β) of the two towers.
As to simplify the design procedure, the VEDs which are connected at the two ends
of the sky-bridge are assumed to have symmetrical arrangement in the following
discussions, i.e., ordering β01 ¼ β02 and 01 ¼ 02 .
840 Q. WU ET AL.
1 1
(a) (b)
0.9 0.9
Control effectiveness, R 1 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Linking damping ratio, ξ01 Linking damping ratio, ξ01
1
(c)
0.9 μ =3,β=0.5
01
0.8 μ =5,β=0.5
01
μ =8,β=0.5
01
0.7
μ =3,β=0.7
01
0.6 μ =5,β=0.7
01
0.5 μ =8,β=0.7
01
μ =3,β=0.9
01
0.4
μ =5,β=0.9
01
0.3
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Linking damping ratio, ξ01
Figure 7. Variations of control effectiveness indices against linking damping ratios (with various
mass ratios μ01 and tower frequency ratios β and β01 ¼ β02 ¼ 0:1): (a) control criterion 1, (b) control
criterion 2, and (c) control criterion 3.
3.2. Optimum Parameter Analysis of VFD

For VFD, the optimum design problem is to search for a set of linking damper parameters,
i.e., linking damping c01 , c02 and linking relaxation times λ01 , λ02 , which can minimize
the vibration energy of the two towers. The linking damping ratio at zero frequency and
the linking damping coefficient ratio of the VFDs between the towers and the sky-bridge
are defined as χ ¼ Δ01 =2ω1 ¼ c01 =2m1 ω1 and η ¼ Δ02 =Δ01 ¼ c02 =c01 , respectively.
3.2.1. Linking Damping

The damping ratios of the two towers are set to be 1 ¼ 2 ¼ 0:05. The variations of the
control effectiveness indices R1 , R2 and R against linking damping ratio χ (representing the
linking damping) with the linking relaxation time λ01 ¼ λ02 ¼ 0:01 are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
The impact of the mass ratios μ, μ01 and tower frequency ratio β and linking damping
coefficient ratio η on the control effectiveness of the twin-tower structures is examined.
1.2
(a) 1.2 (b)
1 1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Linking damping ratio, χ Linking damping ratio, χ
(c) μ =0.1,β=0.3
1.4 01
μ =0.1,β=0.5
01
1.2 μ =0.1,β=0.7
01
μ =0.5,β=0.3
1 01
μ =0.5,β=0.5
01
0.8 μ =0.5,β=0.7
01
μ =1.0,β=0.3
01
0.6
μ =1.0,β=0.5
01
0.4 μ =1.0,β=0.7
01
μ =1.0,β=0.9
01
0.2
0.5 1 1.5
Linking damping ratio, χ
Figure 8. Variations of control effectiveness indices against linking damping ratio (with various
mass ratios μ01 and tower frequency ratios β, and μ ¼ 1,η ¼ 0:5): (a) control criterion 1, (b) control
Figure 8 shows that the tower frequency ratio β has a significant influence on the
control effectiveness indices R1 , R2 and R, and with the increase of β, the control
effectiveness of VFD decreases drastically, especially for control criteria 2 and 3. The
mass ratio μ01 has less impact on control effectiveness indices R2 and R, especially when β
is a relatively small value, and with the increase of β, the difference between R2 and R
under different μ01 increases. However, the control effectiveness index R1 relatively is
more dependent on μ01 , and with the increase of μ01 , the control effectiveness increases.
Figure 8 also shows that the changes of the mass ratio μ01 and the tower frequency ratio β
have little effect on the optimum linking damping ratio χ of VFD for R2 and R, which is
about 0.4–0.5. In contrast, the optimum linking damping ratio χ for R1 greatly depends on
the mass ratio μ01 and the tower frequency ratio β, and with the increase of μ01 and β, the
optimum linking damping ratio χ decreases, which is about 0.2–0.5.
It is seen from Fig. 9 that the optimal control effectiveness and the optimal value χ is less
dependent on the mass ratios μ and the linking damping coefficient ratio η. The optimum
linking damping ratio χ for the control effectiveness indices R1 , R2 and R is about 0.5, except
842 Q. WU ET AL.
2.2 2
(a) (b)
2 1.8
1.8 1.6
Control effectiveness, R1 1.6 1.4
1.4 1.2
1.2 1
1 0.8
0.8 0.6
0.6 0.4
0.4 0.2
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Linking damping ratio, χ Linking damping ratio, χ
(c)
1.8 μ=0.5, η=0.3
1.6 μ=1.0, η=0.3
μ=5.0, η=0.3
1.4 μ=0.5, η=0.5
1.2 μ=1.0, η=0.5
μ=5.0, η=0.5
1 μ=0.5, η=1.0
0.8 μ=1.0, η=1.0
μ=5.0, η=1.0
0.6 μ=0.5, η=1.5
0.4 μ=1.0, η=1.5
0.2
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Linking damping ratio, χ
Figure 9. Variations of control effectiveness indices against linking damping ratio (with various mass
ratios μ and damping coefficient ratios η, and μ01 ¼ 0:1,β ¼ 0:5): (a) control criterion 1, (b) control
for a larger value of η or μ as χ takes a smaller value because of the definition of these
parameters (η ¼ Δ02 =Δ01 ¼ c02 =c01 ,μ ¼ m1 =m2 χ ¼ Δ01 =2ω1 ¼ c01 =2m1 ω1 ).
3.2.2. Linking Relaxation Time

The damping ratios of the two towers are still set to be 1 ¼ 2 ¼ 0:05. The mass ratio of
the two towers is μ ¼ 1, and the mass ratio of the sky-bridge with Tower 1 is μ01 ¼ 0:5.
The variations of the control effectiveness indices R1 , R2 and R against different linking
relaxation times λ01 , λ02 are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The influence of the tower
frequency ratio β and linking damping ratio η and χ on the control effectiveness of the
twin-tower structures is explored in this section.
Figure 10 shows that the optimal control effectiveness of VFD significantly depends on the
tower frequency ratio β, and with the increase of β, the control effectiveness decreases,
especially when β exceeds 0.7, the VFDs have nearly no control effect for control criteria 2
and 3. Figure 10 also shows that the changing of the relaxation time λ02 has little impact on the
control effectiveness indices R1 , R2 and R, especially when the tower frequency ratio β is
relatively small. With the increase of β, the optimal control effectiveness of VFD decreases
1 2.5
(a) (b)
0.8 2
0.6 1.5
0.4 1
0.2 0.5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Relaxation time, λ01 Relaxation time, λ01

2
(c)
λ =0.0001, β=0.3
02
λ =0.01, β=0.3
1.5 02
λ =0.1, β=0.3
02
λ =0.0001, β=0.5
02
1
λ =0.01, β=0.5
02
λ =0.1, β=0.5
02
0.5 λ =0.0001, β=0.7
02
λ =0.01, β=0.7
02
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Relaxation time, λ01
Figure 10. Variations of control effectiveness indices against linking relaxation time (with various tower
frequency ratios β, and η ¼ 0:5): (a) control criterion 1, (b) control criterion 2, and (c) control criterion 3.
slightly with the increase of λ02 , which implies that the smaller the λ02 is, the better the control
effectiveness is. Therefore, the optimum value of λ02 can be chosen as zero. In addition, for
control criteria 2 and 3 that are depicted in Fig. 10b and c, the control effectiveness indices R2
and R basically increase with the increase of relaxation time λ01 , and when λ01 approaches
zero, the control effectiveness is optimal. Similar conclusion can be drawn from Fig. 11b and c.
For control effectiveness index R1 , the optimum relaxation time λ01 is ranging between 0.4 and
0.6 with the increase of tower frequency ratio β.
Figure 11 plots the variations of control effectiveness indices against the linking
relaxation time λ01 of VFD with various linking damping and a very small relaxation
time λ02 ¼ 0:00001 (nearly closes to zero). It is seen that the linking damping (different η
and χ) has little effect on the control effectiveness, i.e., the changing of the linking
damping of VFD has nearly no influence on the linking relaxation time λ01 .
Based on the above analysis from Figs. 10 and 11, the optimum value of relaxation time λ02 is
zero. To simplify the calculation, the optimum value of relaxation time λ01 is also taken as zero.
4. Formulas for Optimum Parameters

4.1. Formulas for Optimum Parameters of VED
To simplify the optimum procedure of VED, the symmetric arrangement of the left and
right connections of the sky-bridge is used. The formulas of Eq. (19) can be obtained
844 Q. WU ET AL.
1.4 (a) 1.4 (b)
1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Relaxation time, λ01 Relaxation time,01λ
1.4 (c) η=0.4, χ=0.4

η=0.7, χ=0.4
1.2 η=1.0, χ=0.4
η=1.5, χ=0.4
1 η=0.4, χ=0.5
η=0.7, χ=0.5
0.8 η=1.0, χ=0.5
η=1.5, χ=0.5
0.6 η=0.4, χ=0.6
η=0.7, χ=0.6
0.4 η=1.0, χ=0.6
η=1.5, χ=0.6
0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Relaxation time, λ01
Figure 11. Variations of control effectiveness indices against linking relaxation time (with various
linking damping ratio η and χ, and λ02 ¼ 0:00001): (a) control criterion 1, (b) control criterion 2, and
(c) control criterion 3.
m61 m62 μm61 þ m62

R1 ¼ ; R2 ¼ ;R ¼ (20)
δ δ δ
in which

m6i ¼ β01 14 f14i ðμμ01 βÞ01
2
þ g14i ðμμ01 βÞ01
4

þ β01 12 f12i ðμμ01 βÞ012
þ h12i ðμμ01 βÞ01 6

þ β01 10 f10i ðμμ01 βÞ012
þ h10i ðμμ01 βÞ01 6
þ k10i ðμμ01 βÞ01
8

þ β01 8 f8i ðμμ01 βÞ012
þ g8i ðμμ01 βÞ84 þ h8i ðμμ01 βÞ01 6
þ k8i ðμμ01 βÞ01 8

þ β01 6 f6i ðμμ01 βÞ012
4
þ h6i ðμμ01 βÞ016

þ β01 4 f4i ðμμ01 βÞ012
4
þ β01 2 f2i ðμμ01 βÞ012
ði ¼ 1; 2Þ
(21a)

δ ¼ β01 11 u11 ðμμ01 βÞ01
3
þ v11 ðμμ01 βÞ01
5

þ β01 9 u9 ðμμ01 βÞ013
5
þ w9 ðμμ01 βÞ01
7

þ β01 7 u7 ðμμ01 βÞ013
5
þ w7 ðμμ01 βÞ01
7
(21b)

þ β01 5 u5 ðμμ01 βÞ013
5
þ β01 3 u3 ðμμ01 βÞ01

3
where, hðÞ, g ðÞ, hðÞ, kðÞ and uðÞ, vðÞ, wðÞ are the functions of μ, μ01 , and β.
Taking R1 , R2 and R minimum as the control criteria, the optimum linking parameters

β01 β02 and 01 ð02 Þ of VED can be calculated by Eq. (20).
4.2. Formulas for Optimum Parameters of VFD

The optimum parameter analysis of VFD in Section 3.2 explored that the linking relaxa-
tion time of the dampers has nearly no effect on the control effectiveness under each
control criteria. Therefore, taking λ01 ¼ λ02 ¼ 0, Eq. (19) can be expressed in the following
forms
m51 m52 μm51 þ m52
R1 ¼ ; R2 ¼ ;R ¼ (22)
δ δ δ
in which
m5i ¼ h6i ðημμ01 βÞχ 6 þ h4i ðημμ01 βÞχ 4 þ h2i ðημμ01 βÞχ 2 þ h0i ðημμ01 βÞði ¼ 1; 2Þ (23a)
δ ¼ g4 ðΔ01 ημμ01 βÞχ 4 þ g2 ðΔ01 ημμ01 βÞχ 2 þ g0 ðΔ01 ημμ01 βÞ (23b)

where hðÞ is the function of μ, μ01 , η and β.g ðÞ is the function of Δ01 , μ, μ01 , η and β.
Taking R1 , R2 and R minimum as the control criteria, the optimum linking parameters
χ and η of VFD can be calculated by Eq. (22).
5. Applications
The applicability of the analytical formulas of the optimum parameters of VED and VFD
for the symmetrical or unsymmetrical twin-tower-connected structures subjected to
white-noise excitation and a seismic wave record will be examined in this section. Three
pairs of twin-tower-connected structures with different structural parameters and different
structural stories are selected as examples for application. In the first and third examples,
two buildings with the same height are connected. The first natural frequencies in the first
example depart from each other, representing two low-rise buildings of different dynamic
properties, while the first natural frequencies in the third example are relatively close to
each other, representing two high-rise buildings of similar dynamic properties. In the
second example, two buildings with different heights are connected, and the dynamic
properties are very different from each other. A total of four buildings are used altogether,
and the structural parameters for each are listed in Table 1. The parameters are used to
determine the properties of the stiffness and damping elements between connected
structures in each design example as listed in Table 2.
846 Q. WU ET AL.
Table 1. Building model parameters

Building Number of floors Damping ratio (%) Floor mass (kg) Floor stiffness (N/m) Natural frequency (Hz)
1 10 2 1:60 10 6
5:4 10 9 8.68
2 10 2 1:60 106 1:5 109 4.58
3 20 2 1:29 106 4:0 109 4.27
4 20 2 1:29 106 2:0 109 3.02
Table 2. Connected building parameters

Examples Connected buildings Mass ratio μ Mass ratio μ01 Frequency ratio β
1 1–2 1.0 0.1 0.527
2 4–2 1.61 0.2 1.517
3 3–4 1.0 0.3 0.707
5.1. Optimum Parameters

5.1.1. Optimum Parameters of VED
The above four buildings are equivalent to generalized SDOF structures, and the optimum
parameters of VED that are used to interconnect the twin-tower structures and the sky-
bridge using the proposed analytical formulas are calculated for the case of the white-noise
ground motion. Table 3 lists the symmetrical arranged optimum parameters of the linking
frequency ratios β01 or β02 ðβ01 ¼ β02 Þ and linking damping ratios 01 or 02 ð01 ¼ 02 Þ of
the left and right connections of the sky-bridge, which are obtained from Eq. (20) based
on the three optimization criteria. Based on the calculation given in Table 3, the linking
damping c01 or c02 ðc01 ¼ c02 Þ and linking stiffness k01 or k02 ðk01 ¼ k01 Þ of the dampers at
the two ends of the sky-bridge can be calculated as listed in Table 4. Then, the optimum
parameters are used to compute the control effectiveness indices R1, R2 and R for each pair
of the twin-tower-connected structures, and the results are listed in Table 5.
Table 5 reveals that the control effectiveness indices R1, R2 and R are all basically much
less than one, which means that the seismic responses of the twin-tower-connected
structures can be significantly reduced as the VEDs of the optimum parameters are
used no matter under which optimization criteria, especially in Examples 1 and 2, as
the natural frequencies of the two buildings depart from each other. While in Example 3,
some control effectiveness indices, i.e., R2 and R which are bold, are relatively high, which
Table 3. The optimum parameters of the VEDs in the three examples

Linking frequency ratio β01 ðβ02 Þ Linking damping ratio 01 ð02 Þ
Examples Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3
1 1.611 1.684 1.649 1.396 2.837 2.244
2 1.2206 0.9338 1.1277 1.8363 0.8374 1.5567
3 0.6725 0.3738 0.6478 0.590 0.2043 1.1205
Table 4. Optimal linking damping and stiffness of the VEDs in the three examples
Linking damping c01 ðc02 Þ Linking stiffness k01 ðk02 Þ
1 7:197 106 1:529 107 1:184 107 3:129 108 3:419 108 3:278 108
2 6:986 107 2:437 107 5:471 107 7:011 107 4:104 107 5:985 107
3 2:623 107 5:048 106 4:798 107 6:382 107 1:972 107 5:922 107
Table 5. Control effectiveness indices under VED

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3
R1 R2 R R1 R2 R R1 R2 R
Criterion 1 0.179 0.251 0.227 0.384 0.326 0.367 0.227 0.489 0.381
Criterion 2 0.192 0.219 0.210 0.447 0.289 0.402 0.286 0.853 0.618
Criterion 3 0.209 0.202 0.205 0.419 0.213 0.359 0.302 0.675 0.521
Note. For explanation of bolded numbers, please see Section 5.1.1.
means that the control effectiveness is not very good. Because of the similar dynamic
characteristics ðβ ¼ 0:707Þof the two towers in Example 3, the control effectiveness of the
dampers is slightly poor. In general, the first and third optimization criteria lead to slightly
larger response reduction of Tower 1, and the total responses of the two towers are
compared with that of the second optimization criterion.
5.1.2. Optimum Parameters of VFD

Based on the equivalent generalized SDOF systems, the optimum parameters of VFD that
are used to interconnect the twin-tower structures and the sky-bridge using the proposed
analytical formulas are calculated for the case of the white-noise ground motion. Table 6
lists the nondimensional optimum parameters of the damping coefficient ratio
η(η ¼ Δ02 =Δ01 ¼ c02 =c01 ) of VFDs at the two ends of the sky-bridge and the linking
damping ratio χ(χ ¼ Δ01 =2ω1 ¼ c01 =2m1 ω1 ) at zero frequency obtained from Eq. (22),
which is based on the three optimization criteria. It can be seen from Table 6 that the
optimum parameters χ of the VFDs are generally around 0.4 or 0.5, in conformity with the
former optimum parametric analysis in Section 3.2.
The optimal damping coefficients c01 and c02 of the Maxwell model-defined fluid
dampers under the three optimization criteria are computed based on the optimum
parameters of η and χ, which are listed in Table 6, and the values are tabulated in
Table 7. The relaxation times λ01 and λ02 of the VFDs under each optimization criterion
are supposed to be zero. It is observed that the damping coefficient c01 of the fluid damper
that is connected with Tower 1 is always bigger than c02 that is connected with Tower 2.
Then, the optimum parameters are used to compute the control effectiveness indices
R1, R2 and R for each pair of the twin-tower structures, and the results are listed in
Table 6. The optimum parameters of the VFDs in the three examples

η χ
1 0.513 0.441 0.485 0.481 0.423 0.452
2 0.443 0.348 0.398 0.506 0.431 0.479
3 0.673 0.508 0.519 0.252 0.342 0.316
Table 7. Optimal linking damping of the VFDs in the three examples

Linking damping c01 (N s=m) Linking damping c02 (N s=m)
1 1:336 10 8
1:175 10 8
1:255 10 8
6:854 10 7
5:181 10 7
6:089 107
2 7:885 107 6:716 107 7:464 107 3:493 107 2:337 107 2:971 107
3 5:552 107 7:535 107 6:962 107 3:737 107 3:828 107 3:614 107
848 Q. WU ET AL.
Table 8. Control effectiveness indices

R1 R2 R R1 R2 R R1 R2 R
Criterion 1 0.250 0.108 0.157 0.265 0.318 0.280 0.308 0.269 0.285
Criterion 2 0.254 0.104 0.156 0.242 0.267 0.293 0.344 0.286 0.310
Criterion 3 0.268 0.113 0.156 0.299 0.349 0.281 0.333 0.281 0.302
Table 8. Table 8 reveals that the seismic responses of the twin-tower structures can be
significantly reduced as the VFDs of the optimum parameters are used no matter under
which optimization criteria. Similarly, the first and third optimization criteria lead to
slightly larger response reduction of Tower 1, and the total responses of the two towers are
compared with the second optimization criterion.
5.2. Seismic Response Under the Kobe Excitation

The analytical formulas of the optimum parameters for VED and VFD determined based
on the white-noise ground excitation are further applied to link the twin-tower structures
and the sky-bridge subjected to the Kobe earthquake to examine the applicability. The
peak acceleration of the Kobe earthquake is scaled to 0.2 g. The Newmark-β method is
adopted in the time history analysis.
5.2.1. Results of 3-SDOF

First, the twin-tower structures linked by the sky-bridge are equivalent to generalized
3-SDOF models. Using MATLAB program, the time history analysis based on Newmark-β
is carried out on the 3-SDOF models.
The time histories of top floor displacement and relative vibration energy of the two
towers in Example 1 for different control criteria that are with and without sky-bridge and
different dampers are plotted in Figs. 12–15.
The significant reductions of the relative displacement response and relative vibration
energy of the two towers can be observed from Figs. 12 to 15 with the use of VFD
(Maxwell model) and VED (Kelvin model) of optimum parameters to link the twin-tower-
connected structures. The control effectiveness of VFD is always better than that of VED
under different control criteria, except at the initial vibration stage for Tower 1.
Comparison of Figs. 12 and 14 reveals that the control effect of both VEDs and VFDs
on the relative displacement response of the two towers under control criterion 1 and 3 is
very close. However, for the control of vibration energy of the two towers, as shown in
Figs. 13 and 15, the VEDs have better control effectiveness under control criterion 3 than
criterion 1.
Figure 16 shows the time histories of relative displacement and absolute acceleration
responses and base shear responses of the two towers in Example 3 using control criterion
3. More significant reductions of relative displacement response and base shear of the two
towers can be found for VFD than VED. The control effectiveness of both VED and VFD
on the acceleration response of Tower 2 is relatively poor, which can be attributed to the
relationship between the mass and stiffness of the connected buildings. In Example 3,
Tower 1 is stiffer than Tower 2 and has the same mass. Therefore, the response of Tower 1
will tend to dominate the response of the connected system. As a result, the softer building
time history of Tower 1 (m)

0.1
Top floor displacement

(a)
Uncontrol
0.05 Control-Maxwell
Control-Kelvin
-0.05
-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
0.2
(b) Uncontrol
Control-Maxwell
0.1 Control-Kelvin
-0.1
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
Figure 12. Top floor displacements of the two towers under Kobe earthquake (Example1, Control
criterion 1): (a) Tower 1 and (b) Tower 2.
of Tower 2 is subjected to higher accelerations. Figure 16 also displays that the two types
of dampers whose parameters are optimal and calculated by the proposed control strate-
gies have the same control effectiveness on the seismic responses of Tower 1. For the limit
of space, the time history responses of both the towers in Example 2 for the uncontrolled
and controlled systems are not given here.
5.2.2. Results of MDOF

Then, the twin-tower-connected structures are simplified by MDOF adjacent shear models
linked by sky-bridge. The calculation models of the twin-towers structures are displayed in
Fig. 1. The location of the sky-bridge has important influence on the structural response of
the two towers. Figure 17 shows the time domain responses of top floor displacement of
the two towers with the same height and different sky-bridge arrangements, which are
controlled by VFD and VED in Example 1 using the optimization criterion 1. The
numbers “1, 3, 5, 7, 9,” represent that the sky-bridge is located at the first, third, fifth,
seventh, and ninth floors, respectively.
For VFD, when the sky-bridge is located closer to the middle floor of the (shorter) tower,
the seismic mitigation effectiveness is better for both towers. When the sky-bridge is located
at the fifth floor (i.e., the middle floor) of the structures (the two towers are the same
height), both the towers have the best control effectiveness as shown in Fig. 17a and b. For
VED, the higher the elevation position of the sky-bridge is, the better the seismic mitigation
effectiveness that can be obtained for both towers. When the sky-bridge is located at the
ninth floor (i.e. the top floor) of the structures, both the towers have the best control
effectiveness as shown in Fig. 17c and d. Figure 17 indicates that the location of the sky-
bridge (i.e., the location of the dampers) has significant influence on the controlled effec-
tiveness of the two towers. The best location of the sky-bridge for VFD is the middle floor of
850 Q. WU ET AL.
6 6
x 10 x 10
7 Uncontrol 7 Uncontrol
(a) Control-Maxwell (b) Control-Maxwell
6 Control-Kelvin 6
Vibration energy of Tower 1 (J)

Control-Kelvin
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s) Time (s)
6
x 10
12 Uncontrol
Total vibration energy of the two towers (J)
(c) Control-Maxwell
10 Control-Kelvin
0
0 10 20 30
Time (s)
Figure 13. The vibration energy of the two towers under Kobe earthquake (Example1, Control
criterion 1): (a) Tower 1, (b) Tower 2, and (c) Tower 1 and Tower 2.
the shorter tower and the top floor of the shorter tower for VED. The following analysis on
Examples 2 and 3 under different control criteria can also come to the same conclusion.
Because of the limit of the space, only some of these results are given.
Figures 18 and 19 display the time history responses of the two towers in Example 1
when the sky-bridge is located at the middle floor for VFD and top floor for VED. The
figures illustrate that the optimum parameters of the Maxwell model-defined fluid dam-
pers (VFDs) and Kelvin model-defined dampers (VEDs) calculated by the 3-SDOF models
also have obvious control effects on the MDOF models, which verifies the validity of the
theoretical expressions of the two types of dampers in the application of the MDOF
models. The time history responses of relative top floor displacement and absolute
acceleration in Fig. 18 reveal significant control effectiveness for both the VFD and
VED, and the control effectiveness for the two types of dampers is closer. Figure 19
indicates that when the towers are linked by VFD or VED as the optimum parameters of
the dampers are calculated by the proposed formulas, the vibration energy of the two

0.1
(a)
Uncontrol
Control-Maxwell
0.05 Control-Kelvin
-0.05
-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
0.2
(b)
Uncontrol
0.1 Control-Maxwell
Control-Kelvin
-0.1
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
Figure 14. Top floor displacements of the two towers under Kobe earthquake (Example1, Control
criterion 3): (a) Tower 1 and (b) Tower 2.
6 6
x 10 x 10
7 Uncontrol 7
(a) Uncontrol
Control-Maxwell (b) Control-Maxwell
6 Control-Kelvin 6
Control-Kelvin
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s) Time (s)
6
x 10
12
Uncontrol
(c)
Control-Maxwell
10 Control-Kelvin
0
0 10 20 30
Time (s)
Figure 15. The vibration energy of the two towers under Kobe earthquake (Example1, Control
criterion 3): (a) Tower 1, (b) Tower 2, and (c) Tower 1 and Tower 2.
852 Q. WU ET AL.
0.2
(a)

Uncontrol

Control-Maxwell
0.1 Control-Kelvin
-0.1
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
0.2
(b)
Uncontrol
0.1 Control-Maxwell
Control-Kelvin
-0.1
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
time history of Tower 1 (m/s2)
4
(c)
Top floor acceleration
2
0
-2 Uncontrol
Control-Maxwell
-4 Control-Kelvin
-6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
4
(d)
0
Uncontrol
-2 Control-Maxwell
Control-Kelvin
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
8
x 10
Base shear of Tower 1 (N)
1
(e) Uncontrol
Control-Maxwell
0.5
Control-Kelvin
-0.5
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
7
x 10
Base shear of Tower 2 (N)
4
(f) Uncontrol
Control-Maxwell
2 Control-Kelvin
-2
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
Figure 16. Seismic responses of the two towers under Kobe earthquake (Example 3, Control criterion 3):
(a) relative displacement response of Tower 1, (b) relative displacement response of Tower 2,
(c) acceleration response of Tower 1, (d) acceleration response of Tower 2, (e) base shear of Tower 1,
and (f) base shear of Tower 2.
0.15

(a)
0.1
Uncontrol
0.05 Control-1
Control-3
Control-5
0
Control-7
Control-9
-0.05
-0.1
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
0.2
(b)
0.1 Uncontrol
Control-1
0 Control-3
Control-5
Control-7
-0.1 Control-9
-0.2
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
0.15
(c)
0.1 Uncontrol
Control-1
0.05 Control-3
Control-5
0 Control-7
Control-9
-0.05
-0.1
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
0.2
(d)
0.1 Uncontrol
Control-1
Control-3
0 Control-5
Control-7
-0.1 Control-9
-0.2
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
Figure 17. Top floor displacements of the two towers with varying sky-bridge elevation positions
(Example 1, Control criterion 1): (a) Tower 1 controlled by VFD, (b) Tower 2 controlled by VFD, (c) Tower
1 controlled by VED, and (d) Tower 2 controlled by VED.
towers and the total vibration energy can be significantly controlled. For Tower 1, the
VEDs have the better control effectiveness. For Tower 2, the VFDs have the better control
effectiveness, and for the total vibration energy of the two towers, the two types of
dampers have the same control effectiveness.
Figures 20 and 21 give the top floor displacement responses of the two towers under
generalized 3-SDOF and MDOF models, and the optimum parameters of the dampers are
calculated based on the equivalent 3-SDOF models. It can be seen that the optimum
parameters of both VFD and VED calculated by the equivalent 3-SDOF models are also
applicable to the MDOF models, and the top floor displacement time history responses fit
854 Q. WU ET AL.
0.15

(a)

Uncontrol
0.1 Control-Maxwell
Control-Kelvin
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
0.2 Uncontrol
(b)
Control-Maxwell
0.1 Control-Kelvin
-0.1
-0.2
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
10 Uncontrol
(c) Control-Maxwell
Control-Kelvin
5
-5
-10
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
10
(d) Uncontrol
Control-Maxwell
5 Control-Kelvin
-5
-10
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
Figure 18. Seismic responses of the two towers under Kobe earthquake (Example 1, Control criterion 3):
(a) relative displacement response of Tower 1, (b) relative displacement response of Tower 2,
(c) acceleration response of Tower 1, and (d) acceleration response of Tower 2.
to each other well under different models, which verify the validity and feasibility of the
proposed control strategies of this paper.
It can be found from the above analysis that the seismic mitigation effectiveness for one
tower with symmetrical connections of VEDs is almost the same to that with the
unsymmetrical connections of VFDs, which greatly simplifies the design process.

6 6
x 10 x 10 x 10
8 5 14
(a) (b) (c)

7 12
4
6
10
5 3 8
4
Uncontrol
2 6 Uncontrol
3 Control-Maxwell
Uncontrol Control-Maxwell
Control-Kelvin
2
Control-Maxwell 4 Control-Kelvin
Control-Kelvin
1
1 2
0 0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 19. Vibration energy of the two towers under Kobe excitation (Example 1 and Criterion 3):
(a) vibration energy of Tower 1, (b) vibration energy of Tower 2, and (c) vibration energy of the two
towers.
0.15
(a)
Uncontrol
0.1 Control-Maxwell-3SDOF
Control-Maxwell-MDOF
Control-Kelvin-3SDOF
0.05 Control-Kelvin-MDOF
-0.05
-0.1
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
0.2
(b) Uncontrol
Control-Maxwell-3SDOF
0.1 Control-Maxwell-MDOF
Control-Kelvin-MDOF
0
-0.1
-0.2
5 10 15 20
Time (s)
Figure 20. Comparison of control effectiveness for 3-SDOF models and MDOF models (Example 1 and
Criterion 3): (a) relative displacement response of Tower 1, (b) relative displacement response of
Tower 2.
Table 9 lists the percentage reduction of root mean square of seismic responses of the
two towers in the three examples compared with those of the structures without control.
For VFD, all the sky-bridges are located at the middle floor of the shorter buildings
between the twin-tower structures. For VED, all the sky-bridges are located at the top
856 Q. WU ET AL.
0.2
(a) Uncontrol

Control-Maxwell-3SDOF

0.1 Control-Maxwell-MDOF
Control-Kelvin-MDOF
0
-0.1
-0.2
5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)
0.2
(b) Uncontrol
0.15 Control-Maxwell-3SDOF
Control-Maxwell-MDOF
0.1 Control-Kelvin-3SDOF
Control-Kelvin-MDOF
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)
Figure 21. Comparison of control effectiveness for 3-SDOF models and MDOF models (Example 3 and
Criterion 3): (a) relative displacement response of Tower 1, (b) relative displacement response of
Tower 2.
floor of the shorter buildings between the twin-tower structures. It is observed that the
seismic responses of both the towers under the two types of controlled dampers are
mitigated by more than 30%. For example, the largest percent reduction in the peak
relative displacement responses can get to be 66.85% (82.84%) for Tower 2 in Example 2,
criterion 1. The largest percent reduction in the top floor velocity responses can get to be
71.2% (69.52%) for Tower 1 in Example 1, criterion 2, and so on. The control effectiveness
for VFD of both the towers in Example 1 is better than that of VED. In Example 2, except
for base shear force, the control effectiveness of VED is better than that of VFD, and both
types of dampers have preferable control effects on Tower 2, which is the stiffer structure
compared with Tower 1. When the dynamic properties are close to each other, such as
Example 3, the VFDs have worse control effects on the softer structure, i.e., Tower 2, while
the VEDs have comparable control effects on both towers. It can be concluded from
Table 9 that the control strategies for the two types of dampers proposed by this paper all
have significant control effectiveness.
6. Conclusions
By means of theoretical analysis and numerical exploration, the optimal parameters of
VED and VFD are obtained for different optimization criteria, by modeling the twin-
Table 9. Percentage reduction of root mean square (RMS) of seismic responses under Kobe excitation
RMS of seismic response Tower 1 Tower 2 Tower 1 Tower 2 Tower 1 Tower 2
Top floor displacement Criterion 1 65.25% (57.34%) 65.20% (54.25%) 29.52% (59.75%) 66.85% (82.84%) 55.31% (64.82%) 31.93% (53.74%)
Criterion 2 65.97% (64.39%) 65.85% (58.70%) 34.14% (56.50%) 63.90% (82.83%) 54.60% (46.92%) 27.65% (44.18%)
Criterion 3 65.70% (62.32%) 65.67% (57.16%) 31.54% (59.18%) 65.97% (83.46%) 55.00% (47.22%) 28.89% (44.78%)
Top floor velocity Criterion 1 70.58% (61.10%) 53.44% (43.13%) 33.87% (50.70%) 60.92% (75.30%) 53.72% (63.40%) 30.71% (50.64%)
Criterion 2 71.20% (69.52%) 55.75% (48.04%) 36.74% (48.72%) 58.38% (69.72%) 53.78% (43.50%) 27.89% (37.47%)
Criterion 3 70.92% (66.90%) 54.60% (46.44%) 35.07% (50.54%) 60.15% (74.56%) 53.90% (43.38%) 28.85% (37.30%)
Top floor acceleration Criterion 1 67.13% (58.88%) 38.87% (25.64%) 44.00% (54.50%) 42.92% (56.99%) 43.61% (53.69%) 38.77% (49.68%)
Criterion 2 67.54% (67.65%) 42.34% (32.97%) 44.88% (54.15%) 41.91% (46.15%) 42.95% (33.22%) 37.78% (30.77%)
Criterion 3 67.37% (64.86%) 40.50% (30.67%) 44.29% (54.85%) 42.69% (55.04%) 43.10% (32.74%) 38.05% (30.12%)
Base shear force Criterion 1 61.11% (55.79%) 73.01% (19.05%) 58.78% (38.21%) 65.02% (48.96%) 52.18% (69.64%) 50.48% (59.53%)
Criterion 2 61.92% (66.59%) 72.12% (28.23%) 61.38% (30.60%) 62.56% (40.01%) 49.92% (46.94%) 46.32% (43.48%)
Criterion 3 61.63% (63.06%) 72.83% (25.33%) 60.08% (36.74%) 64.35% (48.53%) 50.71% (46.08%) 47.07% (42.77%)
Note: The data outside and inside the brackets denote the control results of VFDs and VEDs, respectively.
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
857
858 Q. WU ET AL.
tower-connected structures as 3-SDOF models. The optimum parameters of the two types
of dampers can be expressed as the functions of the frequency and mass ratios of the two
towers and the mass ratio of the sky-bridge with Tower 1. It can be found that the optimal
parameters of the linking dampers strongly depend on the first natural circular frequencies
of the two towers. When the two towers’ frequency ratios are β 1, with the increase of β,
the control effectiveness of the two types of dampers decreases, which implies that, the
bigger difference vibration characteristics of the two towers is, the better control effec-
tiveness of the dampers is.
The numerical results from the three pairs of twin-tower-connected structures manifest
that the optimum parameters of VED and VFD determined by the equivalent 3-SDOF
models are also applicable to the MDOF models and can significantly reduce the structural
responses of the two towers. However, the control effectiveness closely relates to the
location of the sky-bridge. Generally, the optimal position of the sky-bridge is at the
middle floor of the shorter building between the two towers for VFD but the top floor of
the shorter building between the two towers for VED.
The seismic mitigation effectiveness for one tower with symmetric connections of
VEDs is almost the same to that with the unsymmetrical connections of VFDs, which
indicates that designing the VEDs as a symmetrical arrangement is both effective and can
greatly simplify the design process.
Both the control strategies of VED and VFD proposed by this paper have significant
control effectiveness, and the control performance is not sensitive to the damping ratio of
VED and relaxation time of VFD, which is beneficial to the practical application of the
two types of damping devices.
Funding
The authors are grateful to the National Nature Science Foundation of China (51408443 and
51178203).
References
Basili, M. and Angelis, M. D. [2007] “Optimal passive control of adjacent structures interconnected
with nonlinear hysteretic devices,” Journal of Sound and Vibration 301(1–2), 106–125.
Chen, J. R. and Chen, J. K. [2014] “Research on seismic performance of multi-tower connected
structure with isolation bearings,” Building Structure 44(5), 50–57. (in Chinese)
Chung, L. L., Wu, L. Y., Yang, C. S., Lien, K. H., Lin, M. C. and Huang, H. H. [2013] “Optimal
design formulas for viscous tuned mass dampers in wind-excited structures,” Structural Control
and Health Monitoring 20(3), 320–336.
Constantinou, M. C. and Symans, M. D. [1993] “Experimental study of seismic response of
buildings with supplemental fluid dampers,” Structural Design of Tall Buildings 2(2), 93–132.
Cremer, L. and Heckl, M. [1973] Structure Borne Sound, Springer Verlag, New York.
Hoang, N., Fujino, Y. and Warnitchai, P. [2008] “Optimal tuned mass damper for seismic applica-
tions and practical design formulas,” Engineering Structures 30(3), 707–715.
Housner, GW. [1955] “Properties of strong ground motion earthquakes,” Bulletin of Seismological
Society of America 53(3), 197–218.
Huang, X. and Zhu, H. P. [2013] “Optimal arrangement of viscoelastic dampers for seismic control
of adjacent shear-type structures,” Journal of Zhejiang University, Science A 14(1), 47–60.
Ikago, K., Saito, K. and Inoue, N. [2012] “Seismic control of single-degree-of-freedom structure
using tuned viscous mass damper,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41(3), 453–
474.
Kim, J., Ryu, J. and Chung, L. [2006] “Seismic performance of structures connected by viscoelastic
dampers,” Engineering Structures 28, 183–195.
Lee, D. G., Kim, H. S. and Ko, H. [2012] “Evaluation of coupling-control effect of a sky-bridge for
adjacent tall buildings,” Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 21, 311–328.
Lim, J. [2009] “Structural coupling and wind-induced response of twin tall buildings with a sky-
bridge,” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., Colorado State University, Colorado State.
Lim, J. and Bienkiewicz, B. [2007] “Wind induced response of structurally coupled twin tall
building,” Wind and Structures 10, 383–393.
Lim, J. and Bienkiewicz, B. [2014] “Wind tunnel investigation of correlation and coherence of wind
loading on generic tall twin buildings in close proximity,” Wind and Structures 18, 443–456.
Lim, J., Bienkiewicz, B. and Richards, E. [2011] “Modeling of structural coupling for assessment of
modal properties of twin tall buildings with a sky-bridge,” Wind and Structures 99, 615–623.
Lin, J. [2015] “Vibration control of connected high-rise structure with viscous damper subjected to
earthquake excitation,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics 35(2), 181–185. (in
Chinese)
Lin, Y.K. and Yan, Y. [1987] “Evolutionary Kanai-Majimi earthquake models,” Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, American Society of Civil Engineers 113(8), 197–218.
Lv, X. L., Ding, K., Shi, W. X. and Weng, D. [2012] “Tuned mass dampers for human-induced
vibration control of the Expo Culture Center at the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai, China,”
Structural Engineering and Mechanics 43(5), 607–621.
Matta, E. [2013] “Effectiveness of tuned mass dampers against ground motion pulses,” Journal of
Structural Engineering 139(2), 188–198.
Miranda, J. C. [2013] “A method for tuning tuned mass dampers for seismic applications,”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42(7), 1103–1110.
Ok, S. Y., Song, J. and Park, K. S. [2008] “Optimal design of hysteretic dampers connecting adjacent
structures using multi-objective genetic algorithm and stochastic linearization method,”
Engineering Structures 30(5), 1240–1249.
Park, K. S. and Ok, S. Y. [2015] “Hybrid control approach for seismic coupling of two similar
adjacent structures,” Journal of Sound and Vibration 349, 1–17.
Quinonero, F., Massegu, J. R., Rossell, J. M. and Karimi, H. R. [2012] “Semiactive-passive structural
vibration control strategy for adjacent structures under seismic excitation,” Journal of the
Franklin Institute 349(10), 3003–3026.
Quinonero, F., Massegu, J. R., Rossell, J. M. and Karimi, H. R. [2014] “Vibration control for
adjacent structures using local state information,” Mechatronics 24, 336–344.
Richardson, A., Walsh, K. K. and Abdullah, M. M. [2013] “Closed-form equations for coupling
linear structures using stiffness and damping elements,” Structural Control and Health
Monitoring 20, 259–281.
Song, J. and Tse, K. T. [2014] “Dynamic characteristics of wind-excited linked twin buildings based
on a 3-dimensional analytical models,” Engineering Structures 79, 169–181.
Song, J., Tse, K. T., Tamura, Y. and Kareem, A. [2016] “Aerodynamics of closely spaced buildings:
with application to linked buildings,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
149, 1–16.
Tigli, O. F. [2012] “Optimum vibration absorber (tuned mass damper) design for linear damper
systems subjected to random loads,” Journal of Sound and Vibration 331(13), 3035–3049.
Tse, K. and Song, J. [2015] “Modal analysis of a linked cantilever flexible building system,” Journal
of Structural Engineering 141(10), 04015008-1-12.
Wang, Z., Yang, C., Xu, W. J., Wang, H.; Liu, G. and China Institute of Building Standard Design
and Research [2014] “Energy-dissipated analysis of buckling restrained members for high-rise
asymmetric connected structures,” Building Structures 44(18), 89–93. (in Chinese)
860 Q. WU ET AL.
Wong, W. O. and Cheung, Y. L. [2008] “Optimal design of a damped dynamic vibration absorber
for vibration control of structure excited by ground motion,” Engineering Structures 30(1),
282–286.
Zhu, H. P. and Iemura, H. [2000] “A study of response control on passive coupling element between
parallel structures,” Engineering Structures and Mechanics 9(4), 383–396.
Zhu, H. P. and Xu, Y. L. [2005] “Optimal parameters of Maxwell model-defined dampers used to
link adjacent structures,” Journal of Sound and Vibration 279, 253–274.
Zhu, H. P., Ge, D. D. and Huang, X. [2011] “Optimum connecting dampers to reduce the seismic
response of parallel structures,” Journal of Sound and Vibration 330, 1931–1949.

Optimum Design of Passive Control Devices For Reducing The Seismic Response of Twin Tower Connected Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimum Design of Passive Control Devices For Reducing The Seismic Response of Twin Tower Connected Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Optimum Design of Passive Control Devices for

Qiaoyun Wu, Jianzhou Dai & Hongping Zhu

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264332

Accepted author version posted online: 31

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 134

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Optimum Design of Passive Control Devices for Reducing the

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

2. Modeling of the Twin-Tower-Connected Structures

2.2. Calculation Model of Connecting Dampers

2.2.2. Viscous Fluid Damper

kn1,1 cn1,1 kn1,1 cn1,1

kn1-1,1 cn1-1,1 kn2,2 cn2,2 kn1-1,1 cn1-1,1 kn2,2 cn2,2

mn1-2,1 mn2-2,2 mn1-2,1 mn2-2,2

ki,1 ci,1 ki,2 ci,2 ki,1 ci,1 ki,2 ci,2

mi-1,1 mi-1,2 mi-1,1 mi-1,2

k2,1 c2,1 k2,2 c2,2 k2,1 c2,1 k2,2 c2,2

m1,1 m1,2 m1,1 m1,2

k1,1 c1,1 k1,2 c1,2 k1,1 c1,1 k1,2 c1,2

kn1-1,1 cn1-1,1 kn2,2 cn2,2

ki,1 ci,1 ki,2 ci,2

k2,1 c2,1 k2,2 c2,2

k1,1 c1,1 k1,2 c1,2

(a) Visco-elastic Visco-elastic (b) Viscous fluid Viscous fluid

Figure 3. Calculation models of twin-tower-connected structures: (a) linked by Kelvin model-deﬁned

2.3. Calculation Models of the Twin-Tower-Connected Structures

2.4. Equations of Motion

b1 ¼ b213 2b12 b14 ;

b2 ¼ 2b11 b13 2b10 b14 b212 ;

1 ¼ m1 Sgg M61 ; E

Δ6 ¼ a20 a35 þ 3a0 a1 a3 a5 a6 2a0 a1 a4 a25 a0 a2 a3 a25 a0 a33 a6 þ a0 a23 a4 a5

2.4.2. The Equations of Motion of VFD-Coupled Structural System

m2 €x2 ðt Þ þ c2 x_ 2 ðt Þ þ k2 x2 ðt Þ fΓ2 ðt Þ ¼ m2 €xg ðt Þ (13b)

m3 €x3 ðt Þ þ fΓ1 ðt Þ þ fΓ2 ðt Þ ¼ m3 €xg ðt Þ (13c)

a7 ¼ ω21 ω22 Δ01 þ ω21 ω22 Δ02

b14 ¼ μ01 ðλ01 þ λ02 Þ

b10 ¼ Δ01 μ01 ω22 þ Δ02 ω22 þ Δ01 ω22

ðiωα1 Þ ¼ b13 ðiωÞ4 þ b12 ðiωÞ3 þ b11 ðiωÞ2 þ b10 ðiωÞ

1 ¼ m1 Sgg M71 ; E

3. Optimum Parameter Analysis of Dampers

3.1. Optimum Parameter Analysis of VED

3.1.1. Linking Stiﬀness

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

0.8 μ01=10,β =0.3

0.4 μ01=8,β =0.7

3.1.2. Linking Damping

Control effectiveness, R 1 0.8 0.8

3.2. Optimum Parameter Analysis of VFD

3.2.1. Linking Damping

3.2.2. Linking Relaxation Time

Relaxation time, λ01 Relaxation time, λ01

4. Formulas for Optimum Parameters

1.4 (a) 1.4 (b)

1.4 (c) η=0.4, χ=0.4

m61 m62 μm61 þ m62

þ β01 3 u3 ðμμ01 βÞ01

4.2. Formulas for Optimum Parameters of VFD

δ ¼ g4 ðΔ01 ημμ01 βÞχ 4 þ g2 ðΔ01 ημμ01 βÞχ 2 þ g0 ðΔ01 ημμ01 βÞ (23b)