Research Article: Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers For Wind Vibration Response Control of High-Rise Building
Research Article: Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers For Wind Vibration Response Control of High-Rise Building
Research Article: Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers For Wind Vibration Response Control of High-Rise Building
Journal of Engineering
Volume 2014, Article ID 198719, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/198719
Research Article
Distributed Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers for Wind Vibration
Response Control of High-Rise Building
Copyright © 2014 S. Elias and V. Matsagar. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
Multiple tuned mass dampers (MTMDs) distributed along height of a high-rise building are investigated for their effectiveness in
vibration response control. A 76-storey benchmark building is modeled as shear type structure with a lateral degree of freedom
at each floor, and tuned mass dampers (TMDs) are installed at top/different floors. Suitable locations for installing the TMDs and
their tuning frequencies are identified based, respectively, on the mode shapes and frequencies of the uncontrolled and controlled
buildings. Multimode control strategy has been adopted, wherein each TMD is placed where the mode shape amplitude of the
building is the largest or large in the particular mode being controlled and tuned with the corresponding modal frequency.
Newmark’s method is used to solve the governing equations of motion for the structure. The performance of the distributed MTMDs
(d-MTMDs) is compared with single tuned mass damper (STMD) and all the MTMDs placed at top floor. The variations of top
floor acceleration and displacement under wind loads are computed to study the effectiveness of the MTMDs in vibration control
of the high-rise building. It is concluded that the d-MTMDs are more effective to control wind induced vibration than the STMD
and the MTMDs placed at top floor.
x1 x2 xn x1 x2
m1 x3
m1 m2 mn m2
m3
k1 k2 kn k1 k2
k3
c1 c2 cn c1 c3
X76 c2 L 76 X76
4.5 m L 76 4.5 m
L 75 X75 L 75 X75
4.5 m L 74 4.5 m L 74 X74
X74
xn
34 floors @
34 floors @
kn m4
cn
k4 L 65 X65
c4
L 61 X61
35 floors @
4.5 m L3 X3 4.5 m L3 X3
4.5 m L2 X2 4.5 m L2 X2
10 m L1 X1 10 m L1 X1
42 m 42 m
(a) (b)
Figure 1: Model of 76-storey benchmark building installed with (a) MTMDs all at top floor, (b) d-MTMDs along height of the building.
investigated the dynamic characteristics and effectiveness in seismic applications. They reported that the MTMDs
of the MTMDs with distributed natural frequencies under are more effective in suppressing the accelerations at lower
random loading. They reported that the MTMDs were most floors than at upper floors. In addition, the researchers
effective in controlling the motion of the primary system. In reported that the MTMDs do not appear advantageous over
addition, they reported that the MTMDs require less space a conventional STMD for displacement control. Bakre and
for an individual damper than one massive STMD, which Jangid [14] studied the optimum parameters of the MTMD
improves their constructability and maintenance. Jangid [10] system, wherein the damping ratio and tuning frequency
investigated the optimum parameters of the MTMDs for bandwidth were obtained using the numerical searching
undamped main system. He reported that by increasing the technique for different values of number and mass ratio of
number of TMDs the optimum damping ratio of the MTMDs the MTMDs. Han and Li [15] had reported the effective-
decreases and the damping increases with increase in the ness of the MTMDs with their natural frequencies being
mass ratio. In addition, he reported that optimum bandwidth uniformly distributed around their mean natural frequency.
of the MTMD system increases with the increase of both of The study recommended using the MTMDs with identical
the mass and number of MTMDs. Further, it was showed stiffness and damping coefficient, however with unequal
that optimum tuning frequency increases with the increase mass and uniform distribution of natural frequencies. Lin et
in the number of MTMDs and decreases with the increase al. [16] showed the effectiveness of the optimum MTMDs
in the mass ratio. Li [11, 12] reported improved performance with limited stroke length. They showed with the help of
of optimum MTMDs as compared to the optimum STMD. experimental results that the MTMDs were not only effective
In addition, the researcher showed that the MTMDs are in mitigating the building responses but also successful in
more robust as compared to the STMD. Chen and Wu [13] suppressing its stroke. Moon [17] had concluded that loss of
studied the effects of a TMD on the modal responses of a six- effectiveness of the MTMDs is minimal if they are distributed
storey building to demonstrate the damper’s ineffectiveness vertically based on mode shape. A study reported by Patil
Journal of Engineering 3
60 60 60
50 50 50
Floor numbers
Floor numbers
Floor numbers
40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
0 0 0
−1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1
Normalized amplitude Normalized amplitude Normalized amplitude
70 70
TMD-5@65th
60 TMD-4@61st 60
50 50
Floor numbers
Floor numbers
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
Mode 4 Mode 5
0 0
−1 0 1 −1 0 1
Normalized amplitude Normalized amplitude
NC T4 = 0.26 s NC T5 = 0.16 s
STMD T4 = 0.26 s STMD T5 = 0.16 s
5d-MTMDs T4 = 0.25 s 5d-MTMDs T5 = 0.15 s
(d) (e)
Figure 3: First five mode shapes of uncontrolled and controlled 76-storey benchmark building.
the d-MTMDs. The modal analysis is conducted to find the are optimized by assuming their stiffness to be the same. The
natural frequencies [Ω𝑖 , 𝜔𝑗 ], mode shapes {𝜙𝑖,𝑗 }, and modal masses of TMDs are calculated from the known frequencies
mass contribution [𝑀𝑟 ] of the uncontrolled and controlled and stiffness of the TMDs. The mass ratio, 𝜇 = 𝑚𝑛 /𝑀𝑁, is
building using its stiffness [𝐾𝑠 ] and mass [𝑀𝑠 ] matrices for assumed to be 0.0082 as recommended by Patil and Jangid
(𝑁+𝑛) degrees of freedom (DOF). The first TMD is located at [18], and this value is kept the same in all cases of 𝑛 TMDs
the largest amplitude in first mode shape, 𝜙1 : top floor in this for comparison purpose. Thus, the effectiveness of TMD
installed on a structure will depend on mass ratio (𝜇) between
building. The number of modes to be controlled is based on at 𝑗=𝑛
least 90% of the total mass of the building contributing in the the total mass of the TMDs, 𝑚𝑛 = ∑𝑗=1 𝑚𝑗 , and the building,
modal response. Subsequently, the parameters of the TMDs 𝑀𝑁 = ∑𝑖=𝑁
𝑖=1 𝑀𝑖 . The total mass of the STMD, MTMDs, and
Journal of Engineering 5
Start
No cj = 2𝜉d mj 𝜔j , j = 1 : n
N If j = n
n = count if ∑ i=1 Mr ≤ 0.9 MN
No
Yes
Yes mj = kj /𝜔2j , j = 1 : n
End
Yes
If n ≥ 2
No
No
If d-MTMDs
No kj = mn / (1/𝜔21 + 1/𝜔22 + · · · 1/𝜔2n
(
Yes
Location optimizer
Parameter (m j , kj , cj optimizer
(
Figure 4: Flowchart for optimizing location and design parameters of d-MTMDs for wind response control of 76-storey benchmark building.
d-MTMDs is kept the same for comparison purpose in all the d-MTMDs, the mass matrix is of order (𝑁 + 𝑛) × (𝑁 + 𝑛) as
cases investigated. In the three cases, STMD, MTMDs, and follows:
𝑀1 0 0 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 0 0 0 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 0
[ 0 𝑀2 0 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 0 0 0 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 0 ]
[ ]
[ 0 0 𝑀3 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 0 0 0 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 0 ]
[ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ]
[ ]
[
[ . . . d . . . . d .. ] ]
[ 0 0 0 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 𝑀𝑁−1 0 0 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 0 ]
[ ]
[𝑀𝑠 ] = [
[
0 0 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 0 𝑀𝑁 0 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 0 ].
] (2)
[ .. .. .. .. ]
[ . . . ⋅⋅⋅ . 0 𝑚1 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 0 ]
[ ]
[ .. ]
[ 0 0 0 ⋅⋅⋅ . 0 0 𝑚2 ⋅⋅⋅ 0 ]
[ ]
[ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ]
[ . . . d . . . . d . ]
[ 0 0 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 0 0 0 0 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 𝑚𝑛 ]
6 Journal of Engineering
For the building installed with the STMD, MTMDs, or d- the generic stiffness matrix [𝐾𝑠 ] and damping matrix [𝐶𝑠 ] as
MTMDs, stiffness and damping of the TMDs were input in follows:
The above mentioned [𝑀𝑠 ], [𝐶𝑠 ], and [𝐾𝑠 ] matrices of the [𝐶𝑁]𝑁×𝑁 [0]𝑁×𝑛 {𝑋̇ 𝑖 }𝑁×1
[𝐶𝑠 ] {𝑥𝑠̇ } = [ ]{ }
building are obtained when rotational degrees of freedom [0]𝑛×𝑁 [0]𝑛×𝑛 {0}𝑛×1
at each floor level are ignored as presented earlier by Elias
and Matsagar [23]. However, in the tall building considered [𝐶 ] − [𝐶𝑛 ]𝑁×𝑛 {𝑋̇ 𝑖 }𝑁×1
+ [ 𝑛 𝑁×𝑁 ]{ },
here it is recommendable to consider the rotational degrees − [𝐶𝑛 ]𝑛×𝑁 [𝐶𝑛 ]𝑛×𝑛 {𝑥𝑗̇ }
of freedom at each floor level. Nevertheless, the rotational 𝑛×1
0.4
0.323
0.2
displacement (m)
Top floor
0.0
−0.2
0.279
−0.4 0.193
0.167
−0.6
0.6
Top floor acceleration
0.4
0.317
0.2 0.179
(m/s2 )
0.0
−0.4
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (s)
NC 5MTMDs-all.top
STMD 5d-MTMDs
Figure 5: Time variation of top floor displacement and top floor acceleration for 76-storey benchmark building under wind forces.
Here, 𝑚𝑛 is calculated for a particular mass ratio, 𝜇. The mass under wind forces are plotted for the cases of (i) uncon-
(𝑚𝑗 ) is used for adjusting the frequency of each TMD unit trolled (NC), (ii) controlled by single-TMD (STMD), (iii)
such that controlled by installing five MTMDs on top floor of the
𝑘𝑗 benchmark building (5MTMDs-all.top), and (iv) controlled
𝑚𝑗 = for 𝑗 = 1 to 5. (8) by five distributed MTMDs (5d-MTMDs). The mass ratio for
𝜔𝑗2 the STMD is assumed to be 0.0082 of the total mass of the
building, and total mass of the MTMD is taken equal to mass
The damping ratios (𝜉𝑑 = 𝜉1 = 𝜉2 = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 𝜉𝑛 ) of the TMDs are
of the STMD. The peak top floor displacements for these four
kept the same and the damping (𝑐𝑗 ) of the TMDs is calculated
cases are 0.323 m, 0.279 m, 0.193 m, and 0.167 m, respectively;
as
and the peak top floor accelerations are 0.317 m/s2 , 0.155 m/s2 ,
𝑐𝑗 = 2𝜉𝑑 𝑚𝑗 𝜔𝑗 for 𝑗 = 1 to 5. (9) 0.179 m/s2 , and 0.178 m/s2 , respectively. It is observed that the
maximum reduction of top floor displacement is achieved
3. Solution of Equations of Motion when the d-MTMDs are installed as per the optimized
location and design parameters (Figure 4). As compared to
Classical modal superposition technique cannot be employed the uncontrolled structure (NC), the top floor displacements
in the solution of equations of motion here because the are reduced by around 15%, 40%, and 50%, respectively, when
system is nonclassically damped owing to the difference STMD, all MTMDs at top floor, and d-MTMDs are installed.
in the damping in system with TMDs as compared to The top floor acceleration is also reduced in all controlled
the damping in the system with no control. Therefore, the cases significantly as compared to the NC case; nevertheless,
equations of motion are solved numerically using Newmark’s maximum reduction in the acceleration is achieved in case
method of step-by-step integration, adopting linear variation of the STMD installation. As compared to the uncontrolled
of acceleration over a small time interval of Δ𝑡. The time structure (NC), the top floor accelerations are reduced by
interval for solving the equations of motion is taken as around 50%, 45%, and 45%, respectively, when STMD, all
0.1333/100 s. MTMDs at top floor, and d-MTMDs are installed.
Optimum number of dampers, 𝑛, should be determined
4. Numerical Study for improving control performance, economy, and construc-
tional feasibility. To facilitate direct comparisons and to
A comparison of wind responses is made for the linear show the performance of various devices a set of twelve
model of the 76-storey benchmark building installed with performance criteria are proposed by Yang et al. [19] for the
the STMD, MTMDs all on top floor, and d-MTMDs. In 76-storey benchmark building. To measure the reduction in
Figure 5, time variation of top floor displacement and top root mean square (RMS) response quantities of the wind
floor acceleration for the 76-storey benchmark building excited benchmark building, the performance criteria 𝐽1 to 𝐽4
8 Journal of Engineering
0.55
Number of stories, N = 76
0.50
0.6
0.5
Maximum normalized Average normalized Maximum normalized Average normalized
RMS displacement (J3 ) RMS displacement (J4 ) peak displacement (J9 ) peak displacement (J10 )
0.4
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Numbers of dampers, n Numbers of dampers, n Numbers of dampers, n Numbers of dampers, n
Figure 6: Variation of performance criteria 𝐽1 to 𝐽4 and 𝐽7 to 𝐽10 with number of d-MTMDs and MTMDs.
are defined. These response quantities with control measures The third and fourth evaluation criteria are the ability
are normalized by the response quantities of the uncontrolled of the controller to reduce the top floor displacements. The
building. normalized forms of the criteria are given as follows:
The first evaluation criterion for the controllers is their
ability to reduce the maximum floor RMS acceleration. A
nondimensional form of this performance criterion is given
(𝜎𝑋76 )
by 𝐽3 = ,
(𝜎𝑋76o )
(12)
(𝜎𝑋1̈ , 𝜎𝑋30
̈ , 𝜎𝑋50
̈ , 𝜎𝑋55
̈ , 𝜎𝑋60
̈ , 𝜎𝑋65
̈ , 𝜎𝑋70
̈ , 𝜎𝑋75
̈ ) 1 (𝜎 )
𝐽1 = max , 𝐽4 = ∑ 𝑋𝑖 , for 𝑖 = 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 76,
𝜎𝑋75o
̈ 7 𝑖 (𝜎𝑋𝑖𝑜 )
(10)
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
−0.5 −0.5
0.649
0.643
0.669
TMD-1@topfloor
−1.0 −1.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (s) Time (s)
STMD d-MTMDs
MTMDs-all.top
(a) (b)
0.6 0.6
0.459
0.480 0.447 0.396
0.3 0.3
Stroke of TMD (m)
0.0 0.0
−0.3 −0.3
TMD-2@75 TMD-3@74
−0.6 −0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
0.4 0.4
0.375 0.360 0.351 0.367
0.2 0.2
Stroke of TMD (m)
0.0 0.0
−0.2 −0.2
TMD-4@61 TMD-5@65
−0.4 −0.4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (s) Time (s)
(e) (f)
Figure 7: Time variation of the strokes of the STMD, MTMDs, and d-MTMDs.
10 Journal of Engineering
The performance in terms of the peak response quantities signifying effectiveness of the latter. It can therefore be
is also important in design of the system. This set of concluded that the TMDs installed to control higher modes
nondimensional performance criteria is defined as follows: are effective.
max (𝑋̈ 𝑝1 , 𝑋̈ 𝑝30 , 𝑋̈ 𝑝50 , 𝑋̈ 𝑝55 , 𝑋̈ 𝑝60 , 𝑋̈ 𝑝65 , 𝑋̈ 𝑝70 , 𝑋̈ 𝑥75
̈ )
𝐽7 = , 5. Conclusions
(𝑋̈ 𝑝75𝑜 )
Wind response control of a 76-storey benchmark building
1 (𝑋̈ 𝑝𝑖 ) installed with nondistributed and distributed MTMDs as
𝐽8 = ∑ , for 𝑖 = 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75,
6 𝑖 (𝑋̈ 𝑝𝑖𝑜 ) per modal frequencies and mode shapes is investigated. A
comparison of the response of the buildings installed with
(𝑋𝑝76 ) the TMDs all at top floor and distributed along the height
𝐽9 = , of the building (d-MTMDs) with optimized location and
(𝑋𝑝76o ) parameters is made. From the trends of the results of the
present study, the following conclusions are drawn.
1 (𝑋𝑝𝑖 )
𝐽10 = ∑ , for 𝑖 = 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 76,
7 𝑖 (𝑋𝑝𝑖𝑜 ) (1) The installation of d-MTMDs is effective in signif-
icantly reducing the peak top floor displacement of
(13)
the building under the wind excitation. The acceler-
where 𝑋𝑝𝑖 and 𝑋𝑝𝑖𝑜 = peak displacements of the 𝑖th floor with ation response is also controlled effectively by the d-
and without control; 𝑋̈ 𝑝𝑖 and 𝑋̈ 𝑝𝑖𝑜 = peak accelerations of MTMDs as compared to the STMD and MTMDs.
the 𝑖th floor with and without control; for instance, 𝑋𝑝76𝑜 = (2) The installation of d-MTMDs in accordance with
0.323 m and 𝑋̈ 𝑝75𝑜 = 0.317 m/s2 . the modal properties, that is, modal frequencies and
The variations of the performance criteria with increased mode shapes, is more effective than the STMD and all
number of TMDs for a chosen mass ratio are shown in TMDs installed on top floor.
Figure 6. It can be observed that the performance criteria
(3) The peak displacement response reductions in case of
for normalized peak acceleration, 𝐽1 , 𝐽2 , 𝐽7 , and 𝐽8 in both
the STMD, MTMDs all at top floor, and d-MTMDs,
cases, MTMDs and d-MTMDs, have improved significantly.
respectively, are 15%, 40%, and 50%. The peak accel-
Improved performance is achieved by installing the d-
eration response reductions in case of the STMD,
MTMDs as compared to the STMD and MTMDs installa-
MTMDs all at top floor, and d-MTMDs, respectively,
tions; however, the variations of the performance criteria by
are 50%, 45%, and 45%.
increasing the number of TMDs in two cases of MTMDs
and d-MTMDs for acceleration are observed to be similar.
Most significant advantage of installing the d-MTMDs in Conflict of Interests
improving performance is to control the RMS and peak
displacement of the building as compared to when MTMDs The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
and STMD are installed (Figure 6). regarding the publication of this paper.
To study the performance of the d-MTMDs the number
of TMDs is increased up to five, with each controlling References
different modal response. The improvement in the perfor-
mance criteria 𝐽3 , 𝐽4 , 𝐽9 , and 𝐽10 is achieved when five [1] H. Frahm, “Device for damping vibration of bodies,” US Patent
modes are controlled in the d-MTMDs with their optimized 989958, 1909.
locations and parameters (Figure 4), as compared to that of [2] S. E. Randall, D. M. Halsted III, and D. L. Taylor, “Optimum
the MTMDs all installed at the top floor. vibration absorbers for linear damped systems,” Journal of
From (7) and (8), it may be inferred that TMD-1 will Mechanical Design, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 908–913, 1981.
be more effective as compared to TMD-2, TMD-3, TMD-4, [3] H.-C. Tsai and G.-C. Lin, “Explicit formula for optimum
and TMD-5 in the systems, MTMDs-all.top and d-MTMDs. absorber parameters for force excited and viscously damped
The effectiveness of each TMD can be studied by calculating systems,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 176, no. 5, pp. 585–
stroke, such that a TMD unit with higher stroke is more 596, 1994.
effective. Therefore, strokes of the TMDs in the three systems, [4] T. T. Soong and G. F. Dargush, Passive Energy Dissipation Sys-
STMD, 5MTMDs-all.top, and 5d-MTMDs, are calculated and tems in Structural Engineering, John Wily and Sons, Chichester,
shown in Figure 7. It is observed that STMD and TMD-1 in UK, 1st edition, 1997.
both the systems exhibit largest strokes. Thereby, substantial [5] K. Iwanami and K. Seto, “Optimum design of dual tuned mass
amount of energy of the wind load will be dissipated in dampers and their effectiveness,” Japan Society of Mechanical
the first mode control. In addition, it is also evident from Engineering, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 44–52, 1984.
the figure that the performance of the MTMDs-all.top and [6] K. Xu and T. Igusa, “Dynamic characteristics of multiple
d-MTMDs is improved as compared to the STMD case. substructures with closely spaced frequencies,” Earthquake
Moreover, the strokes in case of MTMDs-all.top are lower Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1059–
marginally than those in case of the d-MTMDs, thereby 1070, 1992.
Journal of Engineering 11
Rotating
Machinery
International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of
Journal of
Control Science
and Engineering
Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of
International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014