WIND RESPONSE CONTROL OF WIND-EXCITED TALL BUILDINGS

INSTALLED WITH DISTRIBUTED MULTIPLE TUNED MASS

DAMPERS
Said Elias1 and Vasant Matsagar2
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, HauzKhas, New Delhi - 110 016, India.

ABSTRACT

Wind response control of wind-excited tall buildings installed with distributed multiple tuned

mass dampers (DMTMDs) is presented. 76-storey benchmark buildings is modeled as shear

type structure with lateral degree-of-freedom at each floor, and tuned mass damper(s)

(TMD/s) are installed at top/ different floors. The coupled differential equations of motion for

the system are derived and solved using Newmark’s step-by-step iteration method. The

modal frequencies and mode shapes of the buildings are also determined. Based on the mode

shapes of the uncontrolled and controlled building optimal locations are identified. The

TMDs are placed where the mode shape amplitude of the buildings is the largest/large in the

particular mode and each tuned with the corresponding modal frequency, while controlling

first five modes. The variation of performance criteria under wind forces computed to study

the effectiveness of DMTMDs, MTMDs and single tuned mass damper (STMD). The detail

parametric studied conducted to compare the effectiveness of the three systems. Damping

ratios of the devices, mass ratios and number of TMDs are the parameters which considered

to be varied. It is observed that the MTMDs exhibit improved performance as compared to

the case of STMD and are convenient to install because their sizes are reduced. The

DMTMDs are the most efficient alternative among the three cases because DMTMDs are

able to effectively control wind response of the building and are placed at various floors.

Keywords: Benchmark building; distributed MTMDs; multiple TMDs; single tuned mass

damper; wind forces; tall building.

1
Research Scholar; Phone: +91-965-053-7137 (e-mail: said.elias@civil.iitd.ac.in)
2
Associate Professor

1
1. INTRODUCTION

Engineers and researchers achieved significant progress in structural control against natural

hazards, such as earthquakes and strong winds. Japanese researchers [e.g., Housner and Masri

(1994); and Kobori et al. (1998)] have been implemented, active control systems to reduce

the acceleration response under wind excitations. While several researchers [e.g., Yang and

Samali (1983); Samali et al. (1985); Suhardjo et al. (1992); Ankireddi and Yang (1996); Cao

et al. (1997); Wu and Yang (1997a, b); et al. Yang et al. (1997); Wu et al. (1998); Wu and

Yang (1998, 2000); and Caughey (2001)] have been proposed various control methods for

applications to active response control of tall buildings and towers subject to wind loads.

Systematic study needs to focus the future efforts in the most effective direction. Therefore, it

was felt necessary to compare the results of different control systems when implemented on

the same structural model under the same wind loads. Thus, the concept of benchmark

buildings came into picture. Therefore, based on realistic problems two structural control

problems have been introduced one for earthquake and another for wind excitations (Yang et

al. 2004). Passive dampers are the simplest control devices among all different control

systems. Patil and Jangid (2011) investigated the wind response control of the 76-story

benchmark building by installing the linear viscous dampers (LVD). They found that a

considerable amount of economy is achieved by optimization of location of dampers. Further,

the researchers found out that the tuned mass damper (TMD) is the simplest controller among

all passive devises. TMD is a classical engineering device consisting of a mass, spring and a

viscous damper attached to a vibrating main system in order to attenuate any undesirable

vibration. The concept of a TMD has been originated since the attempt made by Frahm

(1909). He tried to use spring absorber to control rolling motion in ships, and undamped

mass-spring absorber shown ability to set the amplitude of main system to zero for a single

frequency. Thus, Frahm’s design has been improved by Ormonddroyd and Den Hartog

2
(1928) as they designed damped vibration absorber for broadband attenuation. Detailed

theory for designing of TMD system attached to undamped main structure is presented by

Den Hartog (1956). The optimum control of absorbers continued over the years and different

approaches have been proposed by investigators. The TMDs are most effective when the first

mode contribution to the response is dominant has been reported by Soong and Dargush

(1997). This is generally the case for tall, slender structural systems. The concept of multiple

tuned mass dampers (MTMDs) with varying dynamic characteristics has been evaluated and

desirable results were achieved by many researchers and practicing engineers. The small

offset in tuning can result in decreased efficiency of a single tuned mass damper (STMD).

The concept of MTMD was explicitly used in mechanical engineering and allied fields till

late seventies. Ayorinde and Warburton (1980) extended them to use in civil engineering

field. Iwanami and Seto (1984) had shown that two TMDs are more effective than single

TMD. However, the improvement on the effectiveness was not significant. Xu and Igusa

(1992) proposed the use of multiple sub-oscillators with closely spaced frequencies. Their

study confirmed the effectiveness of the system for most damping values. They can be

appropriately used where the damping of the oscillator is limited to low values. Their study

showed that the optimally designed MTMD are more effective and more robust than an

optimally designed single TMD of equal total mass. Genda and Wu (2001) studied effects of

a TMD on the modal responses of a six-storey building to demonstrate the damper’s

ineffectiveness in seismic applications. Jangid (2004) studied the optimum parameters of the

MTMD system, and he used numerical technique to compute the optimum value for the

damping ratio, tuning frequency bandwidth, number and mass ratio of the MTMD. Li and Du

(2004) demonstrated robustness of MTMD to perturbation in structural stiffness and mass.

Patil and Jangid (2011) shown the performance of the MTMDs installed on top floor of the

76-story benchmark building. It was shown that MTMDs are placed at top floor and

controlling the fundamental frequency of the building will be more robust comparing to

3
STMD. In addition they showed that the MTMDs are having better performance in wind

response control of the building comparing to STMD. Moon (2010) had concluded that loss

of effectiveness of the MTMDs is minimal if they are distributed vertically based on mode

shape. However, hardly any study is conducted on wind response control of buildings

wherein placement and tuning of the MTMDs in buildings are made in accordance with the

modal proprieties of the uncontrolled/controlled buildings. The objectives of this study are to

study effective placement of TMDs based on the mode shapes and frequencies of the

uncontrolled and controlled buildings. The TMDs are placed where the mode shape

amplitude of the buildings is the largest/large in the particular mode and tuning of the TMDs

to higher modal frequencies. The numbers of modes to be controlled depend on summation of

their modal masses. At least ninety percent of the total mass should be included in those

controlled modes for mitigation of building vibration under across wind load.

2. STRUCTURAL MODEL

76-storey benchmark building, having 306 m height and 42 × 42 m plan dimension is

considered for this study. 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 and 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 the elevation of

benchmark building installed with MTMDs all installed at top floor and Figure 1(b) shows

the elevation of benchmark building installed with distributed MTMDs. In addition, the

heights of various floors and configuration of MTMDs has also been depicted. Following

assumptions are made for the structural system under consideration:

1. The superstructure is considered to remain within the elastic limit during the wind

excitation.

4
2. The floors are assumed to be rigid in their own plane and the mass is supposed to be

lumped at each floor level.

3. The system is subjected to single horizontal (uni-direction) component of the across wind

forces.

4. The effects of soil-structure-interaction are not taken into consideration.

5. The frequency ratio of the TMDs to the building assumed to be always equal to one.

6. At least ninety percent of total mass included in the controlled modes.

For the system under consideration, the governing equations of motion for wind excited

benchmark building installed with MTMDs at top floor and installed with DMTMDs are

obtained by considering the equilibrium of forces at the location of each degree of freedom

during wind excitations.

(1)

where , and are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the building,

respectively of order (N+n) (N+n). N indicates degrees of freedom (DOF) for the benchmark

building and n indicates degrees of freedom for MTMDs/STMD. ,

and

are the unknown relative floor displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors, respectively ;

and is the wind load column vector of order (N+n). Wind load is considered acting on the N

floors of the building but not on the 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 buildings is the largest/large in the

particular mode and each tuned with the corresponding modal frequency. Large amplitude is

preferred over the largest when already a TMD is installed on a particular floor. Only first

five modes are controlled in this work as they predominantly influence the total dynamic

response; their modal mass ( ) participation being at least ninety percent. For the building

5
considered herein, ninety percent of mass of the building participated in the first five modes.

Figure 2 shows the procedure of optimization process followed for locating the DMTMDs

and the optimization of parameters of the DMTMDs. Figure 3 shows the first five mode

shapes of the uncontrolled/ controlled building and the placement of the five TMDs as: TMD-

1 at 76th floor, i.e. at the topmost floor; TMD-2 at 75 th floor; TMD-3 at 74th floor; TMD-4 at

61st floor; and TMD-5 at 65th floor. Note that, while the placement of the TMDs is in

accordance with the largest or large 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 in to 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 were the

tuning frequencies for the TMD-1, TMD-2, TMD-3, TMD-4, and TMD-5, respectively

controlling each mode. Efficacy of the DMTMD is established by comparing three cases: (i)

placing one TMD at the topmost floor - STMD; (ii) placing five TMDs at the topmost floor -

MTMDs; and (iii) the abovementioned pattern of five distributed TMDs on different floors -

DMTMDs. Figure 2 shows the distributed MTMDs in accordance with the mode shapes.

2.1. PARAMETERS FOR STMD/MTMDS/DMTMDS

Figure 1(a) and 1(b) shows the 76-story benchmark building installed with MTMDs and

DMTMDs respectively. The TMDs are placed all on the top floor of the building and the

TMDs are placed where the mode shape amplitude of the buildings is the largest/large

respectively. In both cases each TMD tuned with correspondence modal frequency, while

controlling first five modes. The effectiveness of TMD installed on a structure depends on

mass ratio, between the total mass of the TMDs, and the building,

. Here, the mass ratio () in all the three cases are kept the same for comparison

6
purpose. The masses of TMDs, all taken equal, as well as masses

of floors of the building, are taken equal. In all the three cases,

STMD, MTMDs, and DMTMDs, the mass matrix is of order (N+n)×(N+n) with acceleration

vector as given in Equation 2.

(2)

For the buildings installed with the STMD, MTMDs or DMTMDs, stiffness and damping of

the TMDs were input in the generic stiffness matrix and damping matrix shown

with the help of Equations 3 and 4.

(3)

7
 (4)

2.2. TUNING OF TMDS

The first five modal frequencies are controlled and frequency of each TMD is calculated from

Equation 8.

(5)

where all tuning frequencies ratios are, . to and to

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,3 = … = kn,N, rather than identical masses. The masses

are used for adjusting the frequency of each TMD unit based on the Equation 7. The damping

of the TMDs can be calculated by Equation 7.

(6)

(7)

3. SOLUTION OF EQUATIONS OF MOTION

8
Classical modal superposition technique cannot be employed in the solution of equations of

motion here because (i) the system is non-classically damped owing to the difference in the

damping in system with TMDs as compared to the damping in the system with no control.

Therefore, the equations of motion are solved numerically using Newmark’s method of step-

by-step integration; adopting linear variation of acceleration over a small time interval of t...

The time interval for solving the equations of motion is taken as 0.1333/133.3 sec (i.e. t. =

0.001 sec).

4. NUMERICAL STUDY

Wind response of 76-story benchmark building controlled with STMD, MTMDs, and

DMTMDs is investigated under deterministic wind forces. The detailed description of the

wind tunnel tests conducted at the University of Sydney is given in Samali et al. (2004a,

2004b) and the time histories of across wind loads are available at the website (SSTL 2002).

This study contains three parts as described ahead. (i) The STMD is installed at the top of the

building and optimum parameters such as damping ratio for several mass ratios are obtained

by numerical procedure. (ii) The MTMDs are placed at top of the building. The numbers of

TMDs are increased and each of them controlled the higher frequencies of the building. The

performance of MTMD installed at the top of the building is studied and the optimum

parameters such as damping ratio and numbers of TMDs for several mass ratios are obtained.

(iii) In the DMTMDs, TMDs are placed at locations where the mode shape amplitude of the

buildings is the largest/large in the particular mode and each tuned with the corresponding

modal frequency, while controlling first five modes. In the present study, the performance of

the dampers is studied only up-to the duration of 900 sec. To simplify the direct comparisons

and to show the performance of various devices a set of 12 performance criteria are proposed.

To measure the reduction in root mean square (RMS) response quantities of the wind excited

benchmark building, the performance criteria J1 to J4 are defined. These quantities are to

9
measure the controlled by normalizing them by the response quantities of the uncontrolled

building. To find the peak response of controlled structure normalized by the peak response

of the uncontrolled building, the performance criteria J7 to J10 are defined. Because the study

is passive system of control, thus there is no need to consider the other four performance

criteria J5, J5, J11, and J12 which represent the performance of the actuator. However, Yang et

al. (2004) defined all these performance criteria, for the wind excited benchmark building.

4.1 PERFOMANCE OF STMD IN RESPONSE REDUCTION

In this section, a comparison of wind responses of structure controlled with the STMD, are

made for linear model systems. The critical parameters for designing of the STMD are:

damping ratio and mass ratio. To find out the optimum parameters of the STMD, various

mass ratios (0.18%, 0.32%, 0.5%, 0.66%, 0.82%, 1%, 1.16%, and 1.32%) are considered. The

damping ratio is varied from 0.01 to 0.2 with an increment of 0.01. Then the minimization of

the eight performance criteria carried out. The optimum values of the parameters are given in

Tables 1 through 4.

4.1.1 OPTIMUM DAMPING RATIO

The variation of performance criteria J1, to J4 and J7, to J10 with damping ratio of STMD for

different values of mass ratio are presented in Figures 3 and 4. Tuning frequencies ratios were

remained to be one in all parameter changes during this study. The stiffness and damping of

the STMD are calculated based on the mass of the STMD for the corresponding mass ratios

and the frequency of the STMD. From the Figures 3 and 4, it is can be observed that optimum

damping ratios will increase by increasing the mass ratios. The performance of the STMD is

improved to minimize the performance criteria by increasing the mass ratios. It is also

observed that optimum damping ratios are exist for maximizing the wind response reduction

of the building.

4.1.2 OPTIMUM PARAMETRS OF STMD

10
The variation of the performance criteria with damping ratio for several values of mass ratio

are presented in Tables 1 through 4. The optimum values of performance criteria J1 and J2 are

reduced as the mass ratio increases as shown in Table 1. To minimize the performance criteria

J3and J4 similar trend can be seen in Table 2. Table 3 shows the maximum reduction for the

performance criteria J7 and J8 are to be achieved by having the mass ratio equal to1.16 %.

Whereas for minimizing the performance criteria J9 and J10 the mass ratio equal to 0.5% gives

the minimum values of the performance criteria as shown in Table 4. However, there are

fewer differences in values of the performance criteria J7 and J8 for the mass ratio 0.5%

through 1.16%. Therefore, the mass ratio of 0.5% has to be considered as the optimum mass

ratio of the STMD.

4.2 PERFOMANCE OF MTMDs AND DMTMDs IN RESPONSE REDUCTION

MTMDs are recommended to be better in responses reduction of the structures as compared

to the STMD. The present study is focus to show the better performance of the DMTMD

comparing to MTMDs and STMD. The MTMDs exhibit improved performance as compared

to the case of STMD and are convenient to install because their sizes are reduced. The

DMTMDs are the most efficient alternative among the three cases because MTMDs are able

to effectively control wind response of the building and are placed at various floors. In

Figures 5 through 12, variation of performance criteria for 76-story benchmark building

under wind forces are plotted for the cases of (i) controlled by installing MTMDs on top floor

of the benchmark building, and (ii) controlled by DMTMDs. Figures 5 through 8 shows the

variation of the performance criteria with damping ratio of DMTMDs/MTMDs for different

values of mass ratio. Figures 9 through 12 shows the minimization of the performance criteria

as the number of DMTMDs/MTMDs are increased for the different mass ratios. After

evaluating the performance of STMD to minimize the eight performance criteria of the

benchmark building, the performance criteria minimized and most optimum parameters

obtained for MTMDs and DMTMDs.

11
4.2.1 OPIMUM DAMPING RATIO

The variation of performance criteria of the building installed with DMTDs and MTMDs by

increasing the damping ratios for the selected several mass ratios are shown in Figures 5

through 8. Figures 5 and 7 are showing the minimized performance criteria for RMS and

peak responses of the building controlled by DMTMDs and MTMDs. From both Figures it

can be seen that by increasing the mass ratios the performance criteria minimized. In addition

it is also observed that in both cases optimum damping ratios are exist. However, from these

figures can also be observed that the performance of the DTMDs and MTMDs for

minimizing the J1, J2, J7 and J8 are similar but improved comparing to the case of STMD. The

better performance of the DMTMDs comparing to the case of MTMDs and STMD can be

observed from Figures 6 and 8.

4.2.2 OPTIMAL NUMBERS OF DTMDs/MTMDs

To consider the control performance and constructional utility the optimal number of

dampers, n should be determined. The variations of the performance criteria with number of

dampers for various mass ratios are shown in Figures 9 through 12. From Figures 9 and 11 it

can be observed that the performance criteria J1, J2, J7 and J8 in both cases of DMTMDs and

MTMDs are minimized significantly. The variation of the performance criteria by increasing

the number of dampers in both cases of DMTMDs and MTMDs are observed to be similar.

The better performance of the DMTMDs comparing to the case of MTMDs and STMD can

be observed from Figures 10 and 12. It can be observed from Figures 9 through 12 that

DMTMDs are offering better performance to control the RMS and peak displacement of the

building comparing to the cases of MTMDs and STMD. To show the better performance of

the DMTMDs the numbers of TMDs are increased up to five and each one is controlling

different modal response. The maximum reductions in the performance criteria J3, J4, J9 and

J10 are generally enhanced when five dampers are used in the DMTMDs as compared to that

12
of the MTMDs all at top floor. However, increasing n over 5 does not provide significant

response reduction.

4.2.3 OPTIMUM PARAMETER OF DMTMDs/MTMDs

In this section the optimum parameters of DMTMDs and MTMDs determined to minimize

the performance criteria J1 to J4 and J7 to J10. These optimum parameters to minimize the

performance criteria are presented in Tables 1 through 4. It was clear from above discussion

that optimal numbers of dampers are generally five dampers. From Tables 1 through 4 it is

implied that by increasing the number of TMDs the optimum damping ratios are reduced in

case of the MTMDs and DMTMDs. The optimum mass ratio for the cases of the DMTMDs

and MTMDs are to be equal to 0.66%. Moreover, increased mass ratio results in better

minimization of performance criteria. From above results and discussion it is concluded that

the RMS and peak of the accelerations responses are reduced by 30-56%, for STMD and 40-

60%, for the cases of all MTMDs at top floor, and DMTMDs. The RMS and peak of the

displacement has also reduced in all the cases significantly. It is reduced by 24-40% for the

case of STMD and 40-55% for the case of MTMDs all at top floor. It is also seen that the

maximum reduction is with DMTMDs 45-60%. Thus, it can be achieve by this study that the

performance of DMTMD will be better compare to the case of MTMDs all placed at top floor

and STMD.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Wind response control of a 76-storey benchmark building installed with distributed multiple

tuned mass dampers (DMTMDs) is investigated. A comparison of the response of the

buildings installed with TMDs all at top floor and distributed along the height of the

buildings is made. In addition, the effect of increasing the number of TMDs and mass ratio of

TMDs to the main buildings on the wind response of the structures are also investigated.

From the trends of the results of the present study, the following conclusions are drawn.

13
1. The installation of STMD is effective in reducing the performance criteria of the building

under the wind excitation by about 24-56%.

2. The DMTMDs in accordance with the modal properties are more effective than the

STMD and all MTMDs installed at top floor.

3. The peak displacement response reduction in case of STMD, MTMDs all installed at top

floor and distributed MTMDs respectively are 24-40%, 40-55%, and 45-60%.

4. Optimum value of damping ratios will reduce by increasing the number of dampers.

5. Optimum value of damping ratio will increase by increasing mass ratios in case of

STMD.

References

Ankireddi, S., and Yang, H. T. Y. (1996), ‘‘Simple ATMD control methodology for tall

buildings subject to wind loads.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,122(1), 83-91.

Ayorinde, E. O., and Warburton, G. B. (1980) “Minimizing structural vibrations with

absorbers”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 8(3), 219-236.

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.

Cao, H., Reinhorn, A. M., and Soong, T. T. (1997), ‘‘Design of an active mass damper for

wind response of Nanjing TV tower.’’ J. Eng. Struct., 20(3), 134-143.

Caughey, T. K. (2001), ‘‘Practical applications of active and semi-active structural control

systems to actual civil engineering structures.’’ Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 30(11), 1697-

1717.

Den Hartog, J. P., (1956) “Mechanical vibrations”, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York,

USA.

Frahm, H. (1909) “Device for damping vibration of bodies”, US Patent, 989958.

Genda, C., and Wu, J. (2001) “Optimal placement of multiple tuned mass dampers for

seismic structures”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(9), 1054-1062.

14
Housner, G. W., and Masri, S. F., (1994), Proc., 1st World Conference on Structural Control,

International Association for Structural Control, USC publication, Los Angeles.

Iswanami, K., and Seto, K. (1984) “Optimum design of dual tuned mass dampers and their

effectiveness”, Japan Society of Mechanical Engineering, 50(1), 44-52.

Kobori, T., Inoue, Y., Seto, K., Iemura, H., and Nishitani, A., (1998), Proc., 2nd World

Conference on Structural Control, Wiley, New York.

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.

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.

Patil, V. B., and Jangid, R. S. (2011) “Response of wind-excited benchmark building

installed with dampers”, Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build, 20, 497-514.

Samali, B., Yang, J. N., and Yeh, C. T. (1985), ‘‘Control of lateral torsional motion of wind-

excited buildings.’’ J. Eng. Mech., 111(6), 777-796.

Samali, B.; Kwok, K. C. S.; Wood, G. S.; Yang, J. N. (2004a), “Wind tunnel tests for wind-

excited benchmark building”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 130(4), 447-450.

Samali, B.; Mayol, E.; Kwock, K. C. S.; Mack, A.; Hitchcock, P. (2004b), “Vibration Control

of the Wind-Excited 76-Storey Benchmark Building by Liquid Column Vibration Absorber”,

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 130(4), 478-485.

Smart Structures Technology Laboratory (SSTL). (2002), “Structural control: Benchmark

comparisons”, [accessed 14 May 2010]; Available from Internet,

http://www.nd.edu/quake/benh.html.

Suhardjo, J., Spencer, B. F., and Kareem, A. (1992). ‘‘Frequency domain optimal control of

wind-excited buildings.’’, J. Eng. Mech., 118(12), 2463-2481.

Wu, J. C., and Yang, J. N. (1997a), ‘‘Continuous sliding mode control of a TV transmission

tower under stochastic winds.’’ Proc., 1997 American Control Conf., Vol. 2, 883–887.

15
Wu, J. C., and Yang, J. N. (2000), ‘‘LQG control of lateral-torsional motion of Nanjing TV

transmission tower.’’ Earthquake Eng. Struct.Dyn., 29, 1111-1130.

Wu, J. C., and Yang, J. N., (1997b). ‘‘LQG and H-infinity control of a TV transmission tower

under stochastic winds.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Structural Safety and Reliability, A. A.

Balkema, Brookfield, 1031-1038.

Wu, J. C., and Yang, J. N., (1998), ‘‘Active control of transmission tower under stochastic

wind.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 124(11), 1302-1312.

Wu, J. C., Yang, J. N., and Schmitendorf, W. (1998), ‘‘Reduced-order H-infinity and LQR

control for wind-excited tall buildings.’’, J. Eng. Struct., 20(3), 222-236.

Wu, J. C., Yang, J. N., and Schmitendorf, W. (1998). ‘‘Reduced-order H-infinity and LQR

control for wind-excited tall buildings,’’ J. Eng. Struct., 20(3), 222–236.

Xu, K. and Igusa, T. (1992) “Dynamic characteristics of multiple substructures with closely

spaced frequencies”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 21(12), 1059-1070.

Yang, J. N., Agrawal, A. K., Samali, B., Wu, J.-C. (2004) “Benchmark problem for response

control of wind-excited tall buildings”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(4), 437-446.

Yang, J. N., and Samali, B. (1983), ‘‘Control of tall buildings in along wind motion.’’ J.

Struct. Eng., 109(1), 50-68.

Yang, J. N., Wu, J. C., Agrawal, A. K., and Hsu, S. Y. (1997), ‘‘Sliding mode control with

compensators for wind and seismic response control.’’, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26,

1137-1156.

LIST OF FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. Model of 76-story benchmark building (a) installed with MTMDs at top floor, (b)

installed with distributed MTMDs.

Figure 2. Optimization flowchart for locating and designing of d-MTMD for wind response

control of 76-story benchmark building.

Figure 3. First five mode shapes of uncontrolled and controlled benchmark building.

16
Figure 4. Variation of performance criteria J1, J2, J3, and J4 with damping ratio of STMD for

different values of mass ratio.

Figure 5. Variation of performance criteria J7, J8, J9, and J10 with damping ratio of STMD for

different values of mass ratio.

Figure 6. Variation of performance criteria J1, and J2, with damping ratio of

DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio.

Figure 7. Variation of performance criteria J3, and J4, with damping ratio of

DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio.

Figure 8. Variation of performance criteria J7, and J8, with damping ratio of

DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio.

Figure 9. Variation of performance criteria J9, and J10, with damping ratio of

DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio.

Figure 10. Variation of performance criteria J3, J1, J2, and J4, with numbers of TMDs in the

set of DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio.

Figure 11. Variation of performance criteria J7, J8, J9, and J10, with numbers of TMDs in the

set of DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio.

LIST OF TABLE CAPTIONS

Table 1 Variation of performance criteria J1, and J2, with numbers of TMDs in the set of

DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio and optimum damping

ratios.

Table 2 Variation of performance criteria J3, and J4, with numbers of TMDs in the set of

DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio and optimum damping

ratios.

Table 3 Variation of performance criteria J7, and J8, with numbers of TMDs in the set of

DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio and optimum damping

ratios.

17
Table 4 Variation of performance criteria J9, and J10, with numbers of TMDs in the set of

DMTMDs/MTMDs for different values of mass ratio and optimum damping

ratios.

18