Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - July 2016 pp. 169-178

No. 43-16

Design of TMD with nonlinear viscous fluid dampers with varying damping for
6-Storey building with two different structural damping
K. Rama Raju*,, M. Deepthi*, R.R. Aathish Narayanan* and V. Bhaskar Desai**
Email: krraju@serc.res.in

*CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR-Campus, Taramani, Chennai - 600113, India.

**Department of civil Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Anantapuramu College of Engineering, Anantapuramu - 515 002, India.
Received: 14 July 2015;Accepted: 03 August 2015

Dampers have become more popular for vibration control of structures, because of their safe, effective and economical
design. Tuned mass damper (TMD) is the most popular passive type of control system especially for buildings subjected
to earthquake/ high winds. The properties of the TMD required for optimum performance depends on stiffness, mass
and damping distribution of the structure/building or their components need to be isolated from vibrations. From
experimental results, the optimum parameters such as optimum tuning ratio (f) and optimum damping ratios (d) for
TMD were derived by two types of analytical formulations. A 6-Storey steel framed building with TMD is modeled in
3D using SAP2000. The 6-Storey building model is reduced to 6 DOF system and optimum parameters of TMD are
computed using the methods by two types of formulations. Two analytical formulation are found to give same optimum
tuning ratio, but optimum effective damping ratio are found to be differing. With the optimum tuning ratio and the
parameters of TMD obtained by the two methods, the damping in TMD is varied using nonlinear viscous fluid dampers
(NVFD) for finding the responses of building in X-direction subjected to one near field earthquake excitation (El Centro
with PGA of 4.417 m/s2) and two far field earthquake excitations (Northridge, Kobe with PGA of 8.2676 and 8.1782 m/s2
respectively) with their PGA normalized to 0.35g. The effectiveness of the TMD in reducing the responses of structures
for two different structural damping of 2% and 5% by increasing effective damping of NVFD in TMD from 0.05 to 0.25
is found.
Keywords: TMD; time histories; optimum tuning parameters; peak responses.

One of the main challenges faced by the structural

engineering, of the present decade is the necessity
to develop innovative design methods to protect the
civil engineering structures from damages, including
the material contents and human occupants, from the
hazards of strong earthquake and high wind loads.
Under these external excitations, undesirable vibrations
in a structure can be reduced by means of vibration
control systems.
Strong earthquakes cause damage to structures
and infrastructure. To reduce this seismic risk various
types of structural control technologies have been
developed to solve the safety and functional problems

for structures under the excitation of external forces.

The vibration control methods include passive, active,
semiactive, and the factors that affect the selection of a
particular type of vibration control device are efficiency,
compactness and weight, capital cost and safety. This
makes earthquake actions fundamentally different
from any other imposed loads. Generally structures
have small stiffness and possess low inherent structural
damping. Due to excessive vibrations which may result
in fatigue, damage or even failure of structures and leads
to overall failure of structure. The primary objective
of earthquake resistant design is to prevent building
collapse during earthquakes. Thus minimizing the risk
Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

169

of death or injury to people in or around those buildings.

Conventional seismic design of structures relies on the
inherent ductility of the structure to dissipate seismicgenerated vibration energy while accepting a certain
level of structural damage. Recent R&D efforts are
directed to develop methods to enhance the structural
energy absorption capacity while avoiding/minimizing
damage in structural components.
Passive dampers have become more popular
recently for vibration control of structures, because of
their safe, effective and economical design. TMD is
one of the most popular passive type of control system
especially for buildings subjected to earthquake/wind
loads. TMD is a passive energy absorbing device
consisting of a mass, a spring and a viscous damper
attached to a structure in order to reduce the dynamic
response of the structure. The inertial, resilient, and
dissipative elements in TMD are mass, spring and
dashpot (or material damping) for linear applications
and their rotary counterparts in rotational applications.
Depending on the application, these devices are sized
from a few grams to many tons. Other configurations
such as pendulum absorbers/dampers, and sloshing
liquid absorbers/dampers have also been realized for
vibration mitigation applications.
The TMD concept was first applied by Frahm1 in
1909 to reduce the rolling motion of ships as well as
ship hull vibrations. A theory for the TMD was presented
later in the paper by Ormondroyd and Den Hartog2 in
1928 and a detailed discussion of optimal tuning and
damping parameters was given by Den Hartog3. The
natural frequency of the damper is tuned to a frequency
near to the natural frequency of main system. The
vibration of main system causes the TMD to vibrate in
resonance and results in vibration energy dissipation
through damping of TMD. Taniguchi et al.4 investigated
the effectiveness of tuned mass damper on base
isolated structure to reduce displacement demand and
determines optimal parameters for the design of Tuned
Mass Dampers (TMD). Both base isolated structure
and TMD are modeled as single degree of freedom
and linear oscillators. To determine the response of
base isolated structure with and without TMD when
it is subjected to white noise base acceleration using
stochastic analysis is used. Stochastic dynamic analysis
reveals that depending on mass, damping and frequency
characteristics of TMD, displacement demand on the
170

Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

base isolated structure can be reduced by 15-25%. It is to

be shown that TMD is more effective for lightly damped
isolators. Time history analysis is also carried out for far
and near field ground motions of base isolated structure
with and without TMD. Variation of accelerations and
displacements for six different types of earthquakes are
shown for far and near field ground motions. Results
shows that the effectiveness of TMD for far field ground
motion is similar to that predicted by stochastic analysis.
For near field ground motions, the effectiveness of TMD
is not more than 10%. Jangid and Datta5 presented
the dynamic response behavior of structure which is
torsionally coupled with Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers
(MTMD) subjected to lateral seismic excitations that
is modeled as broad band stationary random process.
It describes that Multiple Tuned Mass Damper is
more advantageous than single TMD because of its
sensitivity to error in calculating natural frequency. The
effectiveness of a TMD is reduced significantly by not
tuning to optimum damping in TMD. Objective of their
study is to differentiate between dynamic behaviors of
torsionally coupled and uncoupled system with MTMD,
to investigate how the optimum frequency bandwidth
for translational and torsional responses of torsionally
coupled system varies. A simple eccentric model is
considered having 2DOF and parametric study is also
considered to investigate the effectiveness of MTMD
on reducing the response of torsionally coupled system.
It is shown that effectiveness of MTMD in controlling
translational response is less for an asymmetric system
than symmetric system, if it is designed without
considering the effects of torsional coupling, since, the
effectiveness of MTMD is overestimated. Optimum
frequency bandwidth of MTMD changes with change in
eccentricity of asymmetric system, if it is computed by
ignoring torsional coupling may not control the response
of asymmetric building. The increase in damping of
MTMD decreases optimum frequency bandwidth which
leads to reduction in the effectiveness of MTMD.
In the present study, a design methodology is
presented for the design of TMD using NVFD for a
6-Storey 3D steel building using SAP2000 (Fig. 1). The
building 3D model (Fig. 2) is reduced to MDOF system
with 6 degrees of freedom (Fig. 3). The mass ratio () of
the tuning damper is assumed to be 0.01. The optimum
parameters of TMD for the model, tuning ratio (f) and
damping ratio (d) are computed using the methods

given by Tsai et al.6 and Sadek et al.7 with structural

damping () 0.02 and 0.05. From these parameters,
corresponding, mass of the TMD (md), frequency of
damper (d), stiffness of damper (kd) and damping
of damper (cd) are found by the two methods. Except
damping ratio (opt) all other parameters with both the
methods are found to be almost equal. Even through the
Optimum damping ratio (opt) obtained by two methods
are varying, for structural damping (), 0.02 and 0.05
the tuning ratio, mass of the damper, frequency of the
damper, stiffness of TMD are found to be almost same for
both the methods (Tables 1-2). The PGA of the 6-storey
building where building located is assumed to be 0.35. In
the present study, the effective damping ratio of TMD is
varied in NVFD from 0.05 to 0.25 base shears are found
using nonlinear modal time history analysis of 6-Storey
building in X-direction is subjected the two near field
earthquake excitation (El Centro with PGA of 4.417 m/
s2) and two far field earthquake excitations (Northridge,
Kobe with PGA of 8.2676 and 8.1782 m/s2 respectively)
with PGA normalized to 0.35g using SAP2000. It is
observed that, the base shear reduction beyond effective
damping 0.25 is negligible. The peak responses such as
displacement, acceleration and inter-storey drifts along
the height of the building with TMD with effective
damping of 0.25 are found. The percentage of reduction
in peak displacements, accelerations and inter-storey
drifts in 6-Storey building in X-direction with structural
damping 0.02 and 0.05 subjected to the one near field
earthquakes (El Centro) and two far field earthquake
excitation (Northridge, Kobe) with PGA normalized to
0.35 in X- direction using NVFD with effective damping
of 0.25 are compared.
DESIGN OF TMD FOR 6-STOREY BUILDING
WITH 0.02 AND 0.05 STRUCTURAL DAMPING
A 6-Storey steel building as bare frame/with pendulum
type TMD taken from Tuned Mass Damper is taken
for study9. A 6-Storey steel building frame with Tuned
Mass Damper (TMD) is simplified as multiple degree
of freedom (6 DOF) system with (TMD) as shown in
Fig. 38,9. Since, earthquake accelerations are taken in
X-direction, the properties of the building corresponding
to translation mode corresponding to X-direction are
taken, i.e., fourth mode in 3D model for modelling the
6 DOF building model. The plan and elevation of 3D
model are shown in Fig. 1.

Table 1
Range of parameters considered in the
present study
Structure Type

Steel Framed Structure

No. of storey

G+5

Typical storey height

3m

Seismic zone

Soil Type

Medium
Material Properties

Young modulus of concrete, Ec

25 106kN/m2

Poissons Ratio concrete

0.2

Density of Concrete

24 kN/m3

Young modulus of steel, Es

2 108 kN/m2

Poissons Ratio steel

0.3

Density of Steel

76.8 kN/m3

Section Properties
Primary beam

W27102

Secondary beam

W1430

Column

W14193

Thickness of slab (shell)

250mm

Thickness of wall (shell)

250mm

Thickness of plank (membrane)

250mm

Thickness of deck (membrane)

88.9mm

The properties of the TMD required for optimum

performance depends on stiffness, mass and damping
distribution of the structure/building or their components
need to be isolated from vibrations. The performance
of the building with TMD vary with the characteristics
of the excitations such as frequency of excitations and
near field and far field. From experimental results, the
optimum parameters such as optimum tuning ratio (f)
and optimum damping ratios (d) for TMD were derived
by Tsai et al.6 and Sadek et al.7 are used and results are
tabulated in Table 2. Using these formulations, for a 6
DOF model of the building9, the optimum parameters
such as optimum tuning ratio (f) and optimum damping
ratios (d) for TMD are found. The optimum tuning
(frequency) ratio for two structural damping ratios ()
is almost same, but optimum damping ratio for Sadek
et al. for effective structural damping () 0.02 and 0.05
are found to be more in comparison with Tsai et al6.
Only for deriving optimum parameters for TMD, 6
DOF the model given in Fig. 2 is used8. The damping
matrix C in Eq. (3) is required, if the responses of 6
DOF system are required. Since, response calculations
Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

171

are calculated with optimum damping parameters

obtained by two method by varying damping using
NLVD using 3D model, the damping matrix C in Eq.
(3) is not used.
Secondary
beam (W14 30)
Main
Beam (W27 102)

Instead of using optimum damping ratios, damping

ratios with variation from 0.05 to 0.25 with an increment
of 0.05 is applied using NVFD. The response ratios
of base shear with increasing effective damping for
the 3D model of building subjected to one near field
earthquake excitation (El Centro and Taft) and one far
field excitation (Northridge) reduced to PGA of 0.35g
in X-direction are shown in Fig. 4. At effective the
excitations damping of 0.25 the reduction in base shear
for both is maximum.

c2
u1+ug

p3

k3

m2

m3

c3
u2+ug

p4

k4

c4
u3+ug

p5

k5

m4

c5
u4+ug

p6

k6

m5

c6
u5+ug

kd

m6

cd
u6+ug

md

u6+ug+ud

6DOF system with TMD

Fig. 3 6-Storey building model with TMD

Plan

Note: m1, m2, m3, m4, m5 and m6 = Mass of each storey; k1,
k2, k3, k4, k5 and k6 = Stiffness of each storey; c1, c2, c3, c4,
c5 and c6 = Damping of each storey; p1, p2, p3, p4, p5 and p6
= Force acting on primary mass.

2@6m

6@3m
Column section
(W14 193)

Elevation

Fig. 1 Plan and elevation view of six storey building

Fig. 2 3D model of 6-Storey building with TMD

172

c1

p2

k2

m1
ug

2@6m

p1

k1

2@6m

Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

At effective damping of TMD, 0.25, the response

reductions in roof displacement, acceleration responses
of the 6-Storey building in X-direction with and without
TMD with optimum tuning frequency subjected to
three different ground excitations, i.e., El Centro, Kobe
and Northridge in X-direction with PGA normalized to
0.35g and compared the same using the two damping
ratios of structure (0.02 and 0.05). The methodology
involves the nonlinear time history modal analysis of
building with/without TMD with NVFD.
Mass of each storey, m = 56650 kN-s2/m
Column Section = W14193
Elastic modulus of steel = 2.07 108 kNm2
Moment of inertia of section = 0.0009984m4
Length of each storey = 3m
Number of columns in each storey (n) = 9
Stiffness of each storey, k = n 12EI/L3 = 826700.6
kN/m
Masses of first 5 storey (m1, m2, m3, m4 and m5) are
assumed to be m and mass of six floor (m6) is assumed
to be half the other storey, i.e., m/2;
All storey have the same stiffness of all storey (k1,
k2, k3, k4, k5 and k6) are assumed to be equal to k; Mass
and stiffness matrix of 6-Storey building [M] and [K]
are as given below:

 m1

0
0
M
0
0

0
0

m2
0
0
0
0

m3
0
0
0

0
0
0
m4
0
0

0
0
0
0
m5
0

0
0
0
0
0

m6

(1)

Structural effective damping of the building assumed

to be two types, they are 1 = 0.05 and 1 = 0.02;
Damping is assumed to be proportional to stiffness,
T
cx = K and where, 1 ; For two cases, is varied

as 0.02 and 0.05.

All stories (c1, c2, c3, c4, c5 and c6) have the
same damping for two types of structural damping
considered; Corresponding structural damping matrix
is found using Eq. (3)

(2)

1 + 2
2
0
=
0
0
0

Time period in first mode, T1 = 0.2075s

1.00

0.90
0.85

0
3
3 + 4
4
0
0

NR

0
0
4
4 + 5
5
0

EL

0
0
0
5
5 + 6
6

0
0
0
0
6
6

(3)

KO

0.98

0.95

Structural damping(2%)
NR
EL

0.80
0.05

0.10

0.15

KO

0.20

Base shear response ratio

Base shear response ratio

1.00

2
2 + 3
3
0
0
0

0.96
0.94
0.92
Structural damping(5%)

0.90
0.05

0.25

Effective Damping of TMD ( d )

Base shear response ratio vs effective damping
for =0.02

0.15

0.20

0.25

Base shear response ratio vs effective damping

for =0.05

5000

3600

Structural damping(2%)

4500

0.10

Effective Damping of TMD ( d )

NR

3400

EL

KO

3200
Base shear (kN)

Base shear (kN)

4000
3500
3000

NR

EL

KO

2500

3000
2800

Structural damping(5%)

2600
2400
2200
2000

2000
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Effective Damping of TMD ( d )

Base shear vs effective damping for =0.02

0.00

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Effective Damping of TMD ( d )

Base shear vs effective damping for =0.05

Fig. 4 Variation of base shear and base shear response ratios with different effective dampings (d) in TMD

Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

173

Floor

4
3
2
1
0

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

Displacement RR_ 0.02

Displacement RR_ 0.05

Floor

WD_0.05
BF_0.05
WD_0.02
BF_0.02

6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.0

Peak Displacement (m) at =0.25

BF_0.02
BF_0.05
WD_0.02
WD_0.05

Floor

4
3

Accleration RR_0.02
Acceleration RR_0.05

5
4

Floor

3
2

1
0

5
10
15
Peak acceleration (m/s2 ) at = 0.25

20

0.00

Floor

3
2

0.80

1.00

1.20

0
0.004

0
0.034

0.60

5
4

0.024

0.40

0.014

0.20

Acceleration response ratio at = 0.25

BF_0.02
BF_0.05
WD_0.02

Floor

1.0

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Displacement (m) at = 0.25

0.044

Peak inter -storey drifts(m)

DRIFT RR_0.02
DRIFT RR_0.05

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

Peak inter -storey drift response ratio

at = 0.25

Fig. 5 Peak response and response ratios (RR) at d = 0.25

Properties of six storey frame:

Mass ratio () = 0.01; Damping ratios considered
for the structure () =0.02 and 0.05
First mode of the 6 DOF corresponds to translation
bending mode in X-direction (4th mode) of 3D model
of the building SAP2000 model, the natural frequencies
of the same are given in Table 2.
Mode shape, 1 = [(0.002 0.0038 0.0053 0.0065
0.0073 0.0075)]T
174

Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

Modal participation factor = Pk

mi
163.012
mi2

Modified mode shape, mod = Pk 1 = [(0.326

0.6194 0.8640 1.0596 1.19 1.2226)]T
Table 2
natural frequency of structure in first
mode, 1
SAP 3D-Model
30.3 rad/s

4.82 Hz

6 DOF Model
31.28 rad/s

4.98 Hz

mod corresponds to maximum unit modal

m mod
participation factor, Pk
1
2
m mod
First mode maximum amplitude, max = 1.2226
(maximum or dinote in fmod)

Tuning ratio, f

TMD design for damped structure

md
The damper parameters, Mass ratio, ; Mass of
M
T

mod M mod

damper md M
First mode maximum amplitude = max; Frequency
of damper, d = fi, where i = mode number, Stiffness
of damper, kd = md d2; Damping of damper, cd = 2d
d m d
Tsai and Lin6 suggest equations for the optimal
parameters i.e., frequency ratio (f) and damping ratio
(d) of TMD for SDOF is determined by curve fitting
schemes by Eqs. (4) and (5)8,
1 0.5

1 2 1
2.375 1.034 0.426

used to obtain the optimum parameters is to select for

a given mass ratio, tuning ratio, damping ratio which
would result in equal and large modal damping in the
first two modes of vibration. For a damped SDOF
structure, the approximate equations for TMD,

Damping ratio, d

3.73 16.903 20.496

For finding tuning ratio (f) for MDOF, is replaced

with max in Eq. (4) and the damping ratio (d) in
Eq. (5) is multiplied with max, the parameters are
modified as given in Eqs. (6-7).

1 0.5
max
2

1
2
1

1
max

3.73 16.903 max 20.496 max 2 max (6)

3
0.151 0.170 2

d max 8 1 1 0.5
(7)
0.163 4.98 2

Sadek et al4 proposed the optimum parameters

of TMD which results in considerable reduction in
response of structures to seismic loading. The criteria

(9)

(11)
Damping ratio, d max

1 1
Table 3
Optimum parameters of TMD of 6-Storey
Building
Mass
ratio ()

Optimum
tuning
ratio (f)

Optimum
damping
ratio,
opt

max

Tsai et
al.6

0.01

0.9643

0.0862

1.222

Sadek et
al.7

0.01

0.9858

0.1459

1.222

Tsai et
al.6

0.01

0.9149

0.1008

1.222

Sadek et
al.7

0.01

0.9825

0.1822

1.222

Structural
Methods
damping
()

0.02

2.375 1.034 max 0.426 max

max

1
1

The damping ratio of TMD for MDOF is also found

by multiplying the damping ratio computed for a SDOF
system (Eq. (9)) by max,

(4)

3
0.151 0.170 2

d 8 1 1 0.5
(5)

0.163 4.98 2

(8)

The approximate equations for TMD for damped

MDOF structure, the tuning ratio (f), is replaced with
max in Eq. (8)

max
1
Tuning ratio, f
1
(10)
1 max
1 max

1

1

1
1

0.05

The Optimum damping ratio, opt obtained by

two methods6,7 for structure with 0.02 and 0.05
effective damping are differing as shown in Table 3.
The effective damping ratio (d) in TMD is varied
by using NVFD from 0.05 to 0.25 and corresponding
damping coefficients are not differing much as given in
Table 3. The above parameters are used for designing
Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

175

TMD, which involves finding the mass of damper (md),

frequency of damper(d), stiffness of damper (kd) and
damping of damper (cd) as mentioned in Eqs. (4)-(7)
are given in Table 3.
From Table 3, it is observed that the parameters
obtained for TMD i.e., md, d, kd, cd by the methods
Tsai et al. and Sadek et al. are almost equal. The damper
force is calculated using the equation, F = cd V, where,
=0.04. Further response studies are carried out using
nonlinear modal time history analysis of 6-Storey
building subjected to time histories of El Centro, Kobe
and Northridge normalized to 0.35g using SAP2000.
Since, base shear is found to be minimum at
d=0.25, all the responses like peak displacement,
peak acceleration and peak drifts are found at effective
damping d = 0.25. The peak responses to be used
for performance evolution are storey displacements,
accelerations, drifts are found from the following way.
Peak response ratio, x peak

Max
El Centro
Kobe
Northridge

max
t ,i

xi t

(12)

Here, the variable xpeak can be storey peak

displacement, peak acceleration and peak drifts. In
Eq. (12), the time, t with time steps varying from 1
to number of time steps (n) in each of the earthquake
time histories considered, i represents the number of
storey along the height of the structure. The variation
of peak displacement, acceleration and drift response

Table 5
Percentage of Reduction for responses for
= 0.02 & 0.05
%R

Displacement (%)

SD

=0.02

=0.05

=0.02

=0.05

=0.02

=0.05

EC

15.61
to
15.95

3.61
to
4.33

2.05
to
15.16

-0.18
to
4.08

14.18
to
16.75

1.76
to
4.27

KO

15.91
to
16.27

9.91
to
10.55

13.69
to
16.65

8.47
to
9.53

14.08
to
16.53

7.41
to
11.35

5.44 to
5.74

-3.03
to
3.402

-3.6
to
2.55

4.26
to
6.11

4.65
to
5.74

5.19
NR

to
5.8

Acceleration
(%)

Drift (%)

Note: %: Percentage of reduction; SD: Structural Damping;

maximum and minimum reduction in bold letters.

ratios along height of the building and base shear along

X-direction with different ground excitations i.e., El
Centro, Kobe and Northridge earthquakes with PGA
normalized to 0.35 are found to be significant for
effective structural damping of 0.02 and insignificant
(some times higher) for effective structural damping
of 0.05 as given in Table 4. The performance of the
building with TMD vary with the characteristics of the
excitations such as frequency of earthquake excitations
and their nature such as near field and far field. From
the studies carried out, it is found that the optimum
damping proposed by Tsai et al. and Sadek et al are

Table 4
The parameters of TMD used study of 6-Storey building
Structural
damping ()

0.02

0.05

md (kg-s/m2)
Tsai et al

265.53

265.53

Sadek et al

265.46

265.46

d (rad/s)
Tsai et al

30.16

28.62

Sadek et al

30.83

28.23

kd (t/m)
Tsai et al

241.32

217.53

Sadek et al

252.5

250.45

cd (kg-s/m)
Tsai et al.

Sadek et al.

0.05

801.2

818.7

0.10

1602

1637.3

0.15

2403

2456.2

0.20

3204.1

3274

0.25

4005.1

4093

0.05

760.3

816

0.10

1520

1631.9

0.15

2280.1

2447.9

0.20

3040.1

3263.8

0.25

3800.1

4079.8

Note: md is mass, d is frequency, kd is stiffness, d is damping ratios and cd is corresponding damping coefficients of nonlinear
viscous damper of TMD

176

Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

not useful while designing the TMD with NDFD for

different types earthquakes. The performance of the
building with TMD vary with the characteristics of the
excitations such as frequency of earthquake excitations
and their nature such as near field and far field. It is
observed that for far field earthquakes the TMD is not
as effective of near field earthquake.
CONCLUSIONS
The properties of the TMD required for optimum
performance depends on stiffness, mass and damping
distribution of the structure/building or their
components need to be isolated from vibrations. From
experimental results, the optimum parameters such as
optimum tuning ratio (f) and optimum damping ratios
(d) for TMD were derived6,7. A 6-Storey steel framed
building with TMD is modeled in 3D using SAP2000.
The 6-Storey building model is reduced to 6 DOF
system and optimum parameters of TMD are computed
using two different methods. In the present study these
formulations are used, for a 6 DOF building model of
the building, the optimum parameters such as optimum
tuning ratio (f) and optimum damping ratios (d) for
TMD are found. The optimum tuning (frequency) ratio
for two structural damping ratios () is almost same,
but optimum damping ratio obtained using the model
proposed by Sadek et al. for effective structural damping
() 0.02 and 0.05 are found to be more in comparison
with damping ratio obtained using the model proposed
by Tsai et al. Only for deriving optimum parameters for
TMD, 6 DOF the model are used in the present study.
Two methods are found to give same optimum tuning
ratio, but optimum effective damping ratios are found
to be differing. With the optimum tuning ratio and the
parameters of TMD obtained by the two methods, the
damping in TMD is varied using nonlinear viscous fluid
dampers (NVFD) for finding the responses of building
in X-direction subjected to one near field earthquake
excitation (El Centro with PGA of 4.417 m/s2) and
two far field earthquake excitations (Northridge, Kobe
with PGA of 8.2676 and 8.1782 m/s2 respectively) with
their PGA normalized to 0.35g. The effectiveness of
the TMD in reducing the responses of structures for
two different structural damping of 2% and 5% by
increasing effective damping of NVFD in TMD from
0.05 to 0.25 is found.

The variation of peak displacement, acceleration and

drift response ratios with increase in damping in TMD
along height of the building in X-direction subjected
to one near field earthquake excitation (El Centro
with PGA of 4.417 m/s2) and two far field earthquake
excitations (Northridge, Kobe with PGA of 8.2676 and
8.1782 m/s2 respectively) with their PGA normalized
to 0.35g and base shear are found to be significant for
effective structural damping of 0.02 and insignificant
(some times higher in accelerations) for effective
structural damping of 0.05. Thus, the effectiveness
of increasing effective damping in TMD up to 0.25 is
more effective in structures with low structural damping
(2%) than high structural damping (5%). The reduction
in responses in near field earthquake excitation (El
Centro) are significant in comparison with responses
with far field earthquake excitations (Northridge,
Kobe). The variation of base shear and base shear
response ratio for different effective damping of TMD
for the three earthquakes considered are found. The
variations of peak displacement, peak acceleration and
peak inter-storey drifts for the bare frame and for the
frame with TMD with damping ratio of 0.25 for the two
structural damping considered and respective response
ratios are compared. From the studies carried out, it is
found that the optimum damping proposed by Tsai et
al. and Sadek et al are not useful while designing the
TMD with NDFD for different types of earthquakes.
The performance of the building with TMD vary with
the characteristics of the excitations such as frequency
of earthquake excitations and their nature such as near
field and far field.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is being published with the kind permission
of Director, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research
Centre, Chennai-600113, India. The authors are very
much thankful to Dr. P. Kamatchi, Principal Scientist
for her help to enhance the quality of paper and
Ms. D. Nisha, Project Assistant, Vibration Control
Group, CSIR-Structural Engineering research Centre
for her help and support while carrying out this work.
REFERENCES
1.

Frahm, H., Device for damping vibrations of

bodies, US Patent, 989958, 1909.

Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

177

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

178

Ormandroyd, J., and Den Hartog, J.P., The Theory

of the Dynamic Vibration Absorber. Trans. ASME,
APM-50-7, 1928, pp 922.
Den Hortog, J.P., Mechanical vibrations, 2nd
edition, Mc Graw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, NY., 1940.
Taniguchi, T., Kiureghian, A,D., and Melkumyan,
M., Effect of tuned mass damper on displacement
demand of base isolated structure, Engg. Structs.,
2008, pp 34783488.
Jangid, R.S., and Datta, T.K., Performance of
multiple tuned mass dampers for torsionally
coupled system, Earthquake Engg. and Struct.
Dyn., Vol. 26, 1997, pp 307317..
Tsai, H.C., and Lin, G.C., Optimum tuned mass
dampers for minimizing steady state response of
support-excited and damped systems. Earthquake

Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016

7.

8.

9.

Engg. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 22, 1993, pp 957

973.
Sadek, F., Mohraz, B., Taylor, A.W., and Chung,
R.M., A method of estimating the parameters of
tuned mass dampers for seismic applications,
Earthquake Engg. and Struct. Dyn., Vol 26, 1997,
pp 617635.
Connor, J.J., and Klink, B.S.A., Introduction
to Motion based Design, Computat. Mech.
Publications, 1996, pp 145-187.
Mike, A., An overview of the tuned-mass damper
and guidelines for modeling the device, from
https//:wiki.csiamerica.com/display/tutorials/tune
mass + damper, Auguest 2012.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
September 30, 2016)