Journal of Wind and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, July 2014, pp.

37-49

WIND RESPONSE CONTROL OF 76-STOREY BENCHMARK

BUILDING WITH DISTRIBUTED MULTIPLE TUNED MASS
DAMPERS

1 2
Said Elias and Vasant Matsagar
1
PhD Research Scholar at Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi,
New Delhi, India, eliasrahimi959@gmail.com or said.elias@civil.iitd.ac.in
2
Associate Professor at Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New
Delhi, India, matsagar@civil.iitd.ac.in

ABSTRACT

Wind response control of a 76-storey benchmark building installed with distributed multiple tuned
mass dampers (d-MTMDs) is investigated. The performance of the d-MTMDs is compared with all
multiple tuned mass dampers (MTMDs) placed at the topmost floor and with single tuned mass
damper (STMD) having same total mass. The MTMDs as well as STMD are placed at the topmost
floor of the benchmark building; and different mass ratios are used for the MTMDs and STMD to
reduce wind response of the building. In case of the d-MTMDs, the TMDs are placed where the
mode shape amplitude of the building is the largest/ larger in the particular mode and each tuned
with the corresponding modal frequency, while controlling first five modes. The mass ratios are
varied to achieve improved wind response control of the building. It is concluded that the MTMDs
are more effective than the STMD and further, the d-MTMDs are most effective to control wind
induced vibration of the building.

Keywords: Benchmark building, Distributed MTMDs, Mode shape, Modal frequency, TMD, Wind

INTRODUCTION

The buildings are built higher, lighter and more slender as the modern world requires, with the use of
advanced technology, knowledge of new materials, analysis software, which have assured safe
constructions and comfort to human life. In such tall buildings, wind and earthquake borne
vibrations are controlled by the use of tuned mass dampers (TMDs). The concept of a TMD
originated with the attempt made by Frahm (1909). He tried to use spring absorber to control rolling
motion in ships, wherein undamped mass-spring absorber showed ability to set the amplitude of
main system to zero for a single frequency. Later, Frahm's design was improved by Ormonddroyd
and Den Hartog (1928), who designed damped vibration absorbers for broadband excitations. Den
Hartog (1956), in his book, discussed in details the theory for TMD system attached to an
undamped main structure. Parameters for linear vibration absorber for linear damped primary
system were computationally determined by Randall et al. (1981). Tsai and Lin (1993) used
numerical search method to find the optimum values for parameters of the TMD. They reported that
TMDs are less effective in response reduction for highly damped main system.
Wind Response Control of 76-storey Benchmark Building with Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers 38

A small offset in tuning may result in decreased efficiency of a single tuned mass damper (STMD).
The concept of multiple tuned mass dampers (MTMDs) with varying dynamic characteristics was
studied by many researchers. Ayorinde and Warburton (1980) extended the concept for use in civil
engineering field. Iwanami and Seto (1984) had shown that two TMDs are more effective than
single TMD. However, the improvement in effectiveness was not significant. Xu and Igusa (1992)
proposed the use of multiple sub-oscillators with closely spaced frequencies. Kareem and Kline
(1995) had investigated the dynamic characteristics and effectiveness of the MTMDs with
distributed natural frequencies under random loading. They reported that the MTMDs were most
effective in controlling the motion of the primary system. Li (2000, 2002) had reported improved
performance of optimum MTMDs as compared to the optimum STMD. In addition, the author
showed that MTMDs are more robust as compared to the STMD. Genda and Wu (2001) studied
effects of MTMDs on the modal responses of a six-storey building to demonstrate its ineffectiveness
in seismic applications. Multistage and multi-mode TMDs had been introduced by them and several
optimal location indices were defined based on intuitive reasoning. The optimum parameters of the
MTMDs system for minimum steady state displacement of the damped main system to harmonic
base excitation were investigated by Bakre and Jangid (2004). Han and Li (2008) had reported the
effectiveness of the MTMDs with uniformly distributed natural frequencies around their mean
natural frequency. The study recommended using the MTMDs with identical stiffness and damping
coefficient but unequal mass and uniform distribution of natural frequencies. Moon (2010) had
concluded that loss of effectiveness of the MTMDs is minimal if they are distributed vertically based
on mode shape. The performance of the MTMDs installed at the top floor of the wind excited
benchmark building under across wind loads was investigated by Patil and Jangid (2011). They
found that the MTMDs are quite effective and robust in the vibration control of the benchmark
building. However, hardly any study has been seen by the authors in which both placement and
tuning of the MTMDs in buildings is done in accordance with the modal proprieties of the main
structure.

The objective of this study is to examine the placement of the MTMDs based on the mode shapes
and frequencies of the uncontrolled and controlled buildings. The MTMDs are placed where the
mode shape amplitude of the buildings is the largest/ larger in the particular mode and tuning of the
TMDs pertains to higher modal frequencies for controlling first five modes for mitigation of building
vibration under across wind load.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF BENCHMARK BUILDING

Flexible tall buildings are sensitive to wind loads. For this study, a 76-storey benchmark building is
considered, having 306.1 m height and 42 m × 42 m plan dimensions. It is sensitive to wind because
the aspect ratio (height to width ratio) is 7.3. The first storey is 10 m high; stories from 2-3, 38-40 and
74-76 are 4.5 m high; all other stories are having typical height of 3.9 m. Yang et al. (2004) have
given detailed description of the benchmark building and its model. The rotational degrees of
freedom have been removed by the static condensation procedure, only translational degrees of
freedom, one at each floor of the building is considered. Figure 1(a) shows mathematical model of
the benchmark building with MTMDs all installed at the topmost floor and Figure 1(b) shows the
Journal of Wind and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, July 2014, pp. 37-49 39

mathematical model of the benchmark building installed with distributed multiple tuned mass
dampers (d-MTMDs). In addition, the heights of various floors and configuration of the MTMDs
have also been depicted.

Figure 1. Mathematical model of 76-storey benchmark building

(a) installed with MTMDs at the topmost floor, (b) installed with the d-MTMDs.

Governing equations of motion

The governing equations of motion for the wind excited benchmark building installed with the
STMD/ MTMDs at top floor and installed with the d-MTMDs are obtained by considering equilibrium
of dynamic forces at the location of each degree of freedom under wind excitations as follows.

[ M s ]{xs }  [C s ]{x s }  [ K s ]{x s }  {Ft } (1)

Wind Response Control of 76-storey Benchmark Building with Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers 40

where [MS], [CS] and [KS] are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the building, respectively
of order (N+n) (N+n). Here, N indicates degrees of freedom for the benchmark building and n
T
indicates degrees of freedom for STMD/ MTMDs/ d-MTMDs. Moreover, {xS} = {x1, x2,...xN} , {xS} and
{xS} are the unknown relative floor displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors, respectively;
and {Ft } is the wind load vector of order (N+n). Wind load is considered acting on the N floors of the
building, however not on the TMDs. In all the three cases, STMD, MTMDs, and d-MTMDs, the mass
matrix is of order (N+n) × (N+n) with acceleration vector {xS} as given in Equation 2.
M 1 0 0  0 0 0 0  0   x1 
  
 0 M2 0  0 0 0 0  0  
 0 0 M3  0 0 0 0  0   
  
            
 0 0 0  M N -1 0 0 0  0   
M s {xs}    
 0 0 0  0 MN 0 0  0   xN  (2)
      0 m1 0  0  
  
 0 0 0   0 0 m2  0   
 
           
  
 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  mn   xn 

For the buildings installed with the STMD, MTMDs or d-MTMDs, stiffness and damping of the TMDs
were introduced into the generic stiffness matrix [Ks] and damping matrix [Cs] shown with the help of
Equations 3 and 4.
k1  k 2  kn  k2 0  0 0 0 0   kn  x1 
 k k2  k3  k3  0 0 0 0  0  
 2
 0  k3 k3  k4  0 0 0 0  0   
  
            
 0 0 0  kN 1  k N  k22  kN 0  k22  0  
Ks { xs }    
 0 0 0   kN kN  k11  k11 0  0  xN  (3)
       k11 k11 0  0  
  
 0 0 0   k22 0 0 k22  0   
 
            
 
  kn 0 0  0 0 0 0  kn  xn 

c1  c2  cn  c2 0  0 0 0 0   cn   x1 
 c c2  c3  c3  0 0 0 0  0   
 2
 0  c3 c3  c4  0 0 0 0  0   
  
            
 0 0 0  cN 1  cN  c22  cN 0  c22  0   
Cs { xs }    
 0 0 0   cN cN  c11  c11 0  0   x N 
(4)
       k11 c11 0  0  
  
 0 0 0   c22 0 0 c22  0   
 
            
 
  cn 0 0  0 0 0 0  cn   x n 
Journal of Wind and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, July 2014, pp. 37-49 41

Placement of TMDs

Locations for installation of the TMDs are identified based on the mode shapes of the uncontrolled
and controlled buildings. The TMDs are placed where the mode shape amplitude of the building is
the largest/ larger in the particular mode and each tuned with the corresponding modal frequency,
i.e. multi-mode control scheme. Large amplitude is preferred over the largest when already a TMD
has been installed on a particular floor, i.e. only one TMD is installed at a floor. Only first five modes
are controlled in this study as the total mass participation in these modes is greater than 90%.
Figure 2 shows the first five mode shapes of the uncontrolled/ controlled building and the placement
th th th
of the five TMDs as: TMD-1 at 76 floor, i.e. on the topmost floor; TMD-2 at 75 floor; TMD-3 at 74
floor; TMD-4 at 61st floor; and TMD-5 at 65th floor. Note that, while the placement of the TMDs is done
in accordance with the largest or larger amplitude of the mode shape, not more than one TMD is
placed on one floor, which would ease installation intricacies of the TMDs. In addition, placement of
subsequent TMD has been made taking into account the modified mode shape due to the addition
of the TMD in the preceding step. The first five natural frequencies of the uncontrolled building are
0.1600, 0.7651, 1.9921, 3.7899 and 6.3945 Hz, which are the tuning frequencies for the TMD-1,
TMD-2, TMD-3, TMD-4 and TMD-5, respectively controlling each of the first five modes.

The effectiveness of a TMD installed on a structure depends on mass ratio, μ  mn / M N between

in iN
the total mass of the TMDs, mn 
i 1
 
mn,i and the building, M N  M N,i . Here, the mass ratio ()
i 1
in
all the three cases of STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs is kept the same for comparison purpose. Also,
[ M s ]  diag ( m n,1 , m n,2 ,  , m n, n ,  , M N,1 , M N,2 ,  , M N, N ), whereas damping for the superstructure
of the building is taken 0.01 for first five modes and varied for higher modes (Yang et al. 2004).

Figure 2. First five mode shapes of uncontrolled and controlled benchmark building.

Tuning of TMDs

The first five modal frequencies are controlled and frequency of each TMD is calculated as,
Wind Response Control of 76-storey Benchmark Building with Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers 42

ω n,1 ω n,2 ω n,3 ω n,4 ω n,5

f1  , f2  , f3  , f4  , f5  (5)
ω N,1 ω N,2 ω N,3 ω N,4 ω N,5

where all tuning frequency ratios are : f1  f 2    f5  1 Moreover, ω n 1 to ω n,5 and ω N,1 to
ω N,5 are the frequencies of the TMD and first five natural frequencies of the building, respectively.
For design of the MTMD devices, it is more suitable to design a set of TMD units with equal stiffness,
kn,1 = kn,2 = … = kn,n, rather than identical masses. The stiffness (kn,i) of the TMDs is calculated as,

mn
k n,i  .
 1 1 1  (6)
  2  2 
 ω2 
 n,1 ω n,2 ω n,n 

Here, mn is calculated for a particular mass ratio, . The masses are used for adjusting the
frequency of each TMD unit such that,
k n,i
m n,i  . (7)
ω 2n,i

The damping ratios ( ξ d  ξ n,1  ξ n,2   ξ n,n ) of the TMDs are kept same and the damping (cn,i) of
the TMDs is calculated as,
cn,i  2 ξ d m n,i ω n,i . (8)

Solution of equations of motion

The classical modal superposition technique cannot be employed in the solution of equations of
motion, Equation 1, because (i) the system is non-classically damped owing to the difference in the
damping of the system installed with TMDs as compared to the damping of the system with no such
control measure. Therefore, the equations of motion are solved numerically using Newmark's
method of step-by-step integration, adopting a linear variation of acceleration over a small time
interval of ∆t. The time interval for solving the equations of motion is taken as ∆t = 0.1333 sec.

NUMERICAL STUDY

Wind response of 76-storey benchmark building controlled with the STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs
is investigated. The time histories of across wind loads are available on internet (SSTL 2002) and
the detailed description of the wind tunnel tests conducted at the University of Sydney is given by
Samali et al. (2004a, 2004b). The present study contains three parts as follows. (i) The STMD is
installed at the topmost floor of the building and parametric study is conducted for varied mass
ratios and damping ratios. (ii) The MTMDs are placed at the topmost floor of the building. The
number of TMDs is increased and each of them tuned to the higher modal frequencies of the
building, for first five modes. The performance of the MTMDs installed at the topmost floor of the
building is studied. (iii) In case of the d-MTMDs, the TMDs are placed at locations where the mode
Journal of Wind and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, July 2014, pp. 37-49 43

shape amplitudes of the building are the largest/ larger in the particular mode of vibration and each
tuned with the corresponding modal frequency, while controlling first five modes. In the present
study, the performance of the TMDs is studied for 3600 sec of the wind load. Wind response of
building controlled with the STMD, MTMDs all installed at the topmost floor and d-MTMDs are
compared. Tuning frequency ratio is assumed to be one in all the cases in the present study.

Response time histories for MTMDs and d-MTMDs

In Figures 3 through 6, time variations of top floor displacement and top floor acceleration are
plotted for first 900 sec for the 76-storey benchmark building under wind forces when it is controlled
by installing all MTMDs on the topmost floor and by the d-MTMDs. Comparisons of the top floor
displacement and top floor acceleration is shown in Figure 3 when 2-MTMDs and 2d-MTMDs are
installed, i.e. n = 2. It is observed that the top floor displacement is reduced in both the cases of the
MTMDs and d-MTMDs by 28% and 33%, respectively. Moreover, top floor acceleration is reduced
in both the cases of the MTMDs and d-MTMDs by 55% and 56%, respectively. Nonetheless, the
performance of the d-MTMDs is improved than the MTMDs. Subsequently, to study the
performance of the d-MTMDs the number of TMDs are increased up to five while each controlling a
specific modal response (refer Figure 2). The performance of the d-MTMDs is observed to be
improved when such multi-modes are controlled, as evident from Figures 4 through 6.

Figure 3. Time variations of top floor displacement and top floor acceleration for 76-storey
benchmark building controlled by 2-MTMDs and 2d-MTMDs under wind forces.
Wind Response Control of 76-storey Benchmark Building with Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers 44

Figure 4. Time variations of top floor displacement and top floor acceleration for 76-storey
benchmark building controlled by 3-MTMDs and 3d-MTMDs under wind forces.

-0.2

Figure 5. Time variations of top floor displacement and top floor acceleration for 76-storey
benchmark building controlled by 4-MTMDs and 4d-MTMDs under wind forces.
Journal of Wind and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, July 2014, pp. 37-49 45

Figure 6. Time variations of top floor displacement and top floor acceleration for 76-storey
benchmark building controlled by 5-MTMDs and 5d-MTMDs under wind forces.

Effect of number of dampers (n)

The peak displacement and acceleration of the topmost floor with different mass ratios and
damping ratios are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for no TMD installed, i.e. no control (NC); single
TMD installed at the topmost floor (STMD); n-TMDs all installed at the topmost floor (n-TMDs-
all.top); and n distributed TMDs (nd-MTMDs). Moreover, percentage decrease in the responses as
compared to the NC case is shown in brackets for comparison purpose. It is observed that the top
floor displacement as compared to that in the NC case is reduced by 13-30%, 20-40% and 23-50%,
respectively for the STMD, MTMDs installed at the topmost floor and the d-MTMDs for n = 2 to 5.
The top floor acceleration as compared to that in the NC case is reduced by 45-51% for the STMD
cases and 41-55% for the MTMDs cases installed at the topmost floor and the d-MTMDs for n = 2 to
5. However, for the parameters chosen here, with increased number of TMDs (n) installed, marginal
increase in the top floor acceleration is noted in case of the MTMDs and d-MTMDs as compared to
the STMD. Nevertheless, with increased number of TMDs (n) installed, the top floor displacement
has invariably reduced in all cases of the STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs. Note that, deflection
control is the main design criterion for flexible structures such as tall buildings, which is facilitated by
STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs. The MTMDs exhibit improved performance as compared to the
case of the STMD and are convenient to install because their sizes are reduced. The d-MTMDs are
Wind Response Control of 76-storey Benchmark Building with Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers 46

the most efficient alternative among the three cases because the d-MTMDs are able to effectively
control wind response of the building and are placed at various floors.

The maximum reduction in the top floor displacement is achieved when five dampers are distributed
along the height of the building as compared to when all the dampers are installed at the topmost
floor for the chosen mass ratio. Nevertheless, increasing n over 5 has not provided significant
response reduction, evidently because of the reduced mass participation in higher vibration modes.

Effect of mass ratio ()



To study the influence of parameters of the TMD, three mass ratios () such as 0.66%, 0.82% and
1% are considered, and the displacement and acceleration responses of the building are shown in
Tables 1 and 2. The top floor acceleration decreases with the increasing mass ratio,  for all
damping ratios (d) in the three cases of the STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs for n = 2 to 5. Although
the top floor displacement response is governed mainly by d, with increasing  the top floor
displacement reduces in the three cases of the STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs for n = 2 to 5.

Effect of damping ratio (d)

The damping ratio (d) of the TMDs is varied from 0.01 to 0.06 with an increment of 0.01, and the
displacement and acceleration responses of the building are shown in Tables 1 and 2. With
increasing damping ratio, d the top floor acceleration decreases in all the cases of the STMD,
MTMDs and d-MTMDs for the parameters chosen here. However, the top floor displacement
decreases in case of the STMD, whereas it increases in cases of the MTMDs and d-MTMDs with
increasing damping ratio, d.
 Table 1. Peak top floor displacement of uncontrolled and controlled 76-storey benchmark building installed with
STMD, MTMDs or d-MTMDs
Top floor displacement (m) as compared with top floor displacement in case of NC = 0.323 m
Model Mass ratio, µ = 0.66%; varied damping ratio d Mass ratio, µ = 0.82%;; varied damping ratio, d Mass ratio, µ = 1%;; varied damping ratio, d
 d = 1% d = 2% d = 3% d = 4%  d = 5% d = 6% d = 1% d = 2% d = 3% d = 4% d = 5% d = 6% d = 1% d = 2% d = 3% d = 4% d = 5% d= 6%
0.267 0.264 0.260 0.255 0.261 0.265 0.268 0.265 0.261 0.251 0.245 0.250 0.281 0.272 0.267 0.252 0.247 0.241
STMD
(17.3) (18.3) (19.5) (21.1) (19.2) (18.0) (17.0) (18.0) (19.2) (22.3) (24.1) (22.6) (13.0) (15.8) (17.3) (22.0) (23.5) (25.4)
0.249 0.242 0.241 0.245 0.250 0.251 0.250 0.248 0.240 0.230 0.243 0.247 0.256 0.253 0.249 0.243 0.238 0.240
2-MTMDs-all.top
(22.9) (25.1) (25.4) (24.1) (22.6) (22.3) (22.6) (23.2) (25.7) (28.8) (24.8) (23.5) (20.7) (21.7) (22.9) (24.8) (26.3) (25.7)
0.243 0.236 0.231 0.235 0.238 0.245 0.245 0.238 0.228 0.219 0.226 0.235 0.249 0.241 0.238 0.235 0.232 0.237
2d-MTMDs (24.8) (26.9) (28.5) (27.2) (26.3) (24.1) (24.1) (26.3) (29.4) (32.2) (30.0) (27.2) (22.9) (25.4) (26.3) (27.2) (28.2) (26.6)
0.232 0.231 0.230 0.232 0.233 0.237 0.233 0.230 0.225 0.227 0.227 0.230 0.235 0.235 0.232 0.234 0.237 0.239
3-MTMDs-all.top
(28.2) (28.5) (28.8) (28.2) (27.9) (26.6) (27.9) (28.8) (30.3) (29.7) (29.7) (28.8) (27.2) (27.2) (28.2) (27.6) (26.6) (26.0)
0.215 0.210 0.209 0.210 0.213 0.217 0.209 0.205 0.200 0.203 0.206 0.210 0.231 0.227 0.223 0.223 0.229 0.230
3d-MTMDs
(33.4) (35.0) (35.3) (35.0) (34.1) (32.8) (35.3) (36.5) (38.1) (37.2) (36.2) (35.0) (28.5) (29.7) (31.0) (31.0) (29.1) (28.8)
4-MTMDs-all.top 0.210 0.210 0.212 0.215 0.220 0.225 0.198 0.198 0.201 0.207 0.210 0.215 0.212 0.210 0.217 0.220 0.223 0.229
(35.0) (35.0) (34.4) (33.4) (31.9) (30.3) (38.7) (38.7) (37.8) (35.9) (35.0) (33.4) (34.4) (35.0) (32.8) (31.9) (31.0) (29.1)
0.186 0.187 0.190 0.195 0.212 0.215 0.179 0.178 0.180 0.182 0.201 0.201 0.183 0.182 0.185 0.187 0.214 0.219
4d-MTMDs
(42.4) (42.1) (41.2) (39.6) (34.4) (33.4) (44.6) (44.9) (44.3) (43.7) (37.8) (37.8) (43.3) (43.7) (42.7) (42.1) (33.7) (32.2)
0.203 0.205 0.210 0.211 0.215 0.218 0.193 0.197 0.198 0.199 0.200 0.201 0.206 0.194 0.211 0.216 0.218 0.206
5-MTMDs-all.top (37.2) (36.5) (35.0) (34.7) (33.4) (32.5) (40.2) (39.0) (38.7) (38.4) (38.1) (37.8) (36.2) (39.9) (34.7) (33.1) (32.5) (36.2)
0.175 0.179 0.184 0.185 0.187 0.194 0.167 0.171 0.175 0.176 0.183 0.186 0.170 0.166 0.172 0.180 0.181 0.185
5d-MTMDs
(45.8) (44.6) (43.0) (42.7) (42.1) (39.9) (48.3) (47.1) (45.8) (45.5) (43.3) (42.4) (47.4) (48.6) (46.7) (44.3) (44.0) (42.7)

Table 2. Peak top floor acceleration of uncontrolled and controlled 76-storey benchmark building installed with
STMD, MTMDs or d-MTMDs.
Top floor acceleration(m/s2) as compared with top floor acceleration in case of NC = 0.317 m/s2
Model Mass ratio, µ = 0.66%; varied damping ratio, d Mass ratio, µ = 0.82%; varied damping ratio, d Mass ratio, µ = 1%; varied damping ratio, d
d = 1% d = 2% d = 3% d = 4% d = 5% d = 6% d = 1% d = 2% d = 3% d = 4% d = 5% d = 6% d = 1% d = 2% d = 3% d = 4% d = 5% d = 6%
0.179 0.173 0.172 0.169 0.161 0.160 0.175 0.170 0.165 0.157 0.155 0.150 0.174 0.166 0.159 0.155 0.154 0.153
STMD (43.5) (45.4) (45.7) (46.7) (49.2) (49.5) (44.8) (46.4) (47.9) (50.5) (51.1) (52.7) (45.1) (47.6) (49.8) (51.1) (51.4) (51.7)
Journal of Wind and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, July 2014, pp. 37-49

0.160 0.158 0.155 0.151 0.150 0.149 0.180 0.173 0.153 0.144 0.143 0.142 0.182 0.180 0.179 0.177 0.175 0.170
2-MTMDs-all.top
(49.5) (50.2) (51.1) (52.4) (52.7) (53.0) (43.2) (45.4) (51.7) (54.6) (54.9) (55.2) (42.6) (43.2) (43.5) (44.2) (44.8) (46.4)
0.158 0.155 0.150 0.147 0.146 0.145 0.181 0.171 0.152 0.140 0.143 0.142 0.184 0.183 0.178 0.174 0.172 0.171
2d-MTMDs
(50.2) (51.1) (52.7) (53.6) (53.9) (54.3) (42.9) (46.1) (52.1) (55.8) (54.9) (55.2) (42.0) (42.3) (43.8) (45.1) (45.7) (46.1)
0.170 0.172 0.173 0.177 0.181 0.187 0.179 0.178 0.169 0.165 0.163 0.160 0.184 0.163 0.157 0.155 0.149 0.145
3-MTMDs-all.top
(46.4) (45.7) (45.4) (44.2) (42.9) (41.0) (43.5) (43.8) (46.7) (47.9) (48.6) (49.5) (42.0) (48.6) (50.5) (51.1) (53.0) (54.3)
0.153 0.156 0.157 0.158 0.159 0.163 0.177 0.171 0.152 0.151 0.150 0.152 0.189 0.184 0.182 0.167 0.149 0.145
3d-MTMDs
(51.7) (50.8) (50.5) (50.2) (49.8) (48.6) (44.2) (46.1) (52.1) (52.4) (52.7) (52.1) (40.4) (42.0) (42.6) (47.3) (53.0) (54.3)
0.176 0.177 0.179 0.181 0.185 0.190 0.170 0.157 0.154 0.152 0.151 0.149 0.168 0.156 0.152 0.151 0.150 0.148
4-MTMDs-all.top (44.5) (44.2) (43.5) (42.9) (41.6) (40.1) (46.4) (50.5) (51.4) (52.1) (52.4) (53.0) (47.0) (50.8) (52.1) (52.4) (52.7) (53.3)
0.160 0.161 0.170 0.175 0.176 0.177 0.157 0.157 0.156 0.154 0.152 0.150 0.155 0.153 0.149 0.148 0.147 0.146
4d-MTMDs
(49.5) (49.2) (46.4) (44.8) (44.5) (44.2) (50.5) (50.5) (50.8) (51.4) (52.1) (52.7) (51.1) (51.7) (53.0) (53.3) (53.6) (53.9)
0.182 0.183 0.185 0.187 0.189 0.192 0.179 0.165 0.155 0.148 0.145 0.143 0.174 0.161 0.153 0.147 0.144 0.142
5-MTMDs-all.top
(42.6) (42.3) (41.6) (41.0) (40.4) (39.4) (43.5) (47.9) (51.1) (53.3) (54.3) (54.9) (45.1) (49.2) (51.7) (53.6) (54.6) (55.2)
0.181 0.182 0.185 0.185 0.186 0.188 0.178 0.168 0.161 0.149 0.148 0.143 0.178 0.167 0.160 0.148 0.145 0.142
5d-MTMDs
(42.9) (42.6) (41.6) (41.6) (41.3) (40.7) (43.8) (47.0) (49.2) (53.0) (53.3) (54.9) (43.8) (47.3) (49.5) (53.3) (54.3) (55.2)
47
Wind Response Control of 76-storey Benchmark Building with Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers 48

CONCLUSIONS

Wind response control of a 76-storey benchmark building installed with distributed multiple tuned
mass dampers (d-MTMDs) is presented. Further, comparison of the response of the building
installed with multiple TMDs (MTMDs) at the topmost floor and that distributed along the height of
the buildings is made. In addition, the effects of various parameters of the TMDs are investigated.
From the trends of the results of the present study, the following conclusions are drawn.

1. The top floor displacement and top floor acceleration are reduced when MTMDs and d-
MTMDs are installed, in general; however, the performance of the d-MTMDs is better than the
MTMDs when such multi-modes are controlled. The d-MTMDs are the most efficient
alternative as they are able to effectively control wind response of the building and can be
conveniently placed at various floors.
2. Marginal increase in the top floor acceleration occurs for some specific parameters of the
MTMDs and d-MTMDs as compared to the single TMD. Nevertheless, with increased number
of dampers installed, the top floor displacement is reduced significantly in all cases of the
STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs which is the governing parameter for design of tall buildings.
3. The top floor acceleration decreases with the increasing mass ratio between mass of the
dampers and the building; whereas, the top floor displacement reduces in all the three cases
of the STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs for increased mass ratio.
4. With increasing damping ratio of the dampers, the top floor acceleration decreases in all the
cases of the STMD, MTMDs and d-MTMDs. However, the top floor displacement decreases
in case of the STMD, whereas it increases in cases of the MTMDs and d-MTMDs with
increasing damping ratio.

REFERENCES

1. Ayorinde, E. O., and Warburton, G. B., (1980) “Minimizing structural vibrations with
absorbers”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 8(3), 219-236.
2. Bakre, S. V., and Jangid, R. S., (2004) “Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for base
excited damped main system”, Structural Stability and Dynamics, 4(5), 527-542.
th
3. Den Hartog, J. P., (1956) “Mechanical vibrations”, 4 Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA
4. Frahm, H., (1909) “Device for damping vibration of bodies”, US Patent, 989958.
5. Genda, C., and Wu, J., (2001) “Optimal placement of multiple tuned mass dampers for
seismic structures”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(9), 1054-1062.
6. Han, B., and Li, C., (2008) “Characteristics of linearly distributed parameter-based multiple-
tuned mass dampers”, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 15(6), 839-856.
7. Iwanami, K., and Seto, K., (1984) “Optimum design of dual tuned mass dampers and their
effectiveness”, Japan Society of Mechanical Engineering, 50(1), 44-52.
Journal of Wind and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, July 2014, pp. 37-49 49

8. Kareem, A., and Kline, S., (1995) “Performance of multiple tuned mass dampers under
random loading”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 121(2), 348-361.
9. Li, C., (2000) “Performance of multiple tuned mass dampers for attenuating undesirable
oscillations of structures under the ground acceleration”, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 29(9), 1405-1421.
10. Li, C., (2002) “Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for structures under the ground
acceleration based on DDMF and ADMF”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
31(4), 897-919.
11. Moon, K. S., (2010) “Vertically distributed multiple tuned mass dampers in tall buildings:
performance analysis and preliminary design”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 19(3), 347-366.
12. Ormondroyd, J., and Den Hartog, J. P., (1928) “The theory of the dynamic vibration absorber”,
Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 50, A9-A22.
13. Patil, V. B., and Jangid, R. S., (2011) “Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for the wind
excited benchmark building”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 17(4), 540-557.
14. Randall, S. E., Halsted, D. M., and Taylor, D. L., (1981) “Optimum vibration absorbers for
linear damped systems”, Mechanical Design, 103(12), 908-913.
15. Samali, B., Kwok, K. C. S., Wood, G. S., and Yang, J. N., (2004a) “Wind tunnel tests for wind-
excited benchmark building”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(4), 447-450.

16. Samali, B., Mayol, E., Kwock, K. C. S., Mack, A., and Hitchcock, P., (2004b) “Vibration control
of the wind-excited 76-storey benchmark building by liquid column vibration absorber”,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(4), 478-485.
17. Smart Structures Technology Laboratory (SSTL), (2002) “Structural control: benchmark
comparisons”, Available on internet: http://sstl.cee.illinois.edu/benchmarks/index.html.
(Accessed on 13th April 2014)
18. Tsai, H., and Lin, G., (1993) “Optimum tuned mass dampers for minimizing steady state
response of support excited and damped systems”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 22(4), 957-973.
19. Xu, K., and Igusa, T., (1992) “Dynamic characteristics of multiple substructures with closely
spaced frequencies”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 21(12), 1059-1070.
20. Yang, J. N., Agrawal, A. K., Samali, B., and Wu, J. C., (2004) “Benchmark problem for
response control of wind-excited tall buildings”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(4),
437-446.