Control Force Characteristics of Different Control

Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark

Building Structure

Chunwei Zhang*
Institute for Infrastructure Engineering, University of Western Sydney, NSW 2751, Australia

Abstract: In accordance with the International Association of Structural Control and

Monitoring (IASCM) third generation Vibration Control Benchmark problem, two
new control strategies: structural adjacent reaction wall control (STA) and mass-semi-
active-damper (AMD-2), are proposed and systematically evaluated and compared
with the Benchmark standard-extended active control solutions as well as with the
structural interbedded (STI) control strategy. A set of innovative evaluation indices,
denoting the direction and energy relations between control forces and its velocity
and/or displacement, is proposed to study the phenomena behavior as well as intrinsic
mechanism of active control force of each control strategy. Throughout the
comparisons among different control strategies, the function of inertia mass of Active
Mass Driver/Damper (AMD) system is discussed. The AMD-2 control strategy has
been developed based on a comprehensive analysis of STA control strategy, and both
strategies are thoroughly evaluated against relevant Benchmark results. Based on a
force mechanism and inertia mass ratio impact analysis, the AMD-2 control is shown
to be capable of achieving comparable performance at a lower cost but with additional
attractive advantages. Furthermore, an improved understanding phenomena behavior
as well as the intrinsic mechanism of active control force corresponding to each
control strategy realized by different control systems may contribute to selection of
suitable control systems for application considerations.

Key words: benchmark, wind-induced vibration control, energy index, phenomena behavior of control force,
intrinsic mechanism of control force, structural adjacent reaction wall control strategy, performance evaluation.

1. BACKGROUND fuzzy logic control (FLC) based multi-objective

The International Association of Structural Control and
Monitoring (IASCM) initiated Benchmark problem for
structural control research since the late of 1990s. So
far, the 3rd generation Benchmark of the wind-induced
vibration control of the Melbourne 76-floor building
structure has attracted a number of intense research
foci. In the past few years, many different control
strategies have been proposed and evaluated based on
the Benchmark model. The followings are some
selective results: Ahlawat et al. (2004) carried out the
optimization for this Benchmark study where both the
safety and occupant comfort criteria for the building has
been considered and utilized to generate control
command of the FLC-driven ATMD system. Battaini
et al. (2004) discussed the adoption of a fuzzy controller
for the benchmark problem where a minimum of two
sensors were engaged to drive the single actuator for
wind induced vibration control. Kim et al. (2004)
proposed the sliding mode fuzzy control strategy to
address the existence of disturbances within large civil

*Corresponding Author. Email address: chunwei.zhang@uws.edu.au; Fax: +61-2-47360054; Tel: +61-2-47360182.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014 543

 Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure
infrastructure, where the controller is composed of a
compensation and a convergent part. The compensation
part uses the structural response measurement and the
disturbance measurement resulting in a feedback-feed
forward control loop which is efficient for reducing the
wind-induced vibrations. Lus et al. (2004) presented an
approach outlining the system identification and
damage detection algorithm for the linear Benchmark
76-floor structure, where a state-space model using the
Observer/Kalman filter identification algorithm and
the second-order dynamic model parameters from the
realized state space model were both investigated. It
attributed the system model from a view point of health
monitoring approach which is critical when engaging
precise state-space based system model for carrying out
active control analysis. Mei et al. (2004) proposed
the Model Predictive Control (MPC) strategy for
the Benchmark problem where the MPC is based on the
minimization of the difference between the predicted
and desired response trajectories which is also subjected
to input/output hard constraints prescribed constraints,
and the results demonstrated the effectiveness and
robustness where the building with minus/positive 15%
stiffness uncertainty was considered. Peng et al. (2004)
introduced a sinusoidal reference control strategy which
is able to realize adaptive feed-forward vibration
control, where the recursive-least-squares algorithm is
used and a higher frequency sinusoidal signal is adopted
as the reference signal. Both the numerical and
experimental results showed that the proposed strategy
can reduce structural vibration and achieve adaptability
in real-time with regard to dynamic uncertainties and
modeling errors. Pham et al. (2004) investigated
traditional Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) control
approach where a reduced order of system and a
balanced controller was designed to achieve minimizing
control cost on the order of one-third less than the
standard LQG solution together with guaranteed
stability performance. However, a higher target
performance may require a significantly larger control
effort to be exerted.
Samali et al. (2004b) established the framework of
the active tuned mass damper (ATMD) incorporated
with the fuzzy logic controller, where the inherent
robustness and ability to handle nonlinear behavior of
structure without a mathematical model has been
presented, and the results showed that the performance
of such a control strategy dealing with uncertainty in
stiffness which is similar and somewhat advantages
over LQG controller. Samali et al. (2004c) also
investigated using liquid column vibration absorbers
(LCVAs) for the Benchmark problem based on previous
successful implementations of LCVAs in similar
544
practical structures. Here the LCVA adopted is
composed of four identical columns of water. Different
configurations in the LCVA, e.g. without additional
damping enhancing mechanisms or with orifice plates
have been considered for a direct comparison.
Additionally, the robustness issue, the sensitivity of
LCVAs due to mistuning has also been investigated,
and the performance of LCVA compared against the
tuned mass damper (TMD) control strategy. The
comparable results show that the LCVA is more
attractive due to lower cost in terms of effectiveness in
the suppression of wind-induced motion of the 76-story
benchmark building as well as its robustness to
mistuning of traditional TMD.
Varadarajan et al. (2004) proposed the novel semi-
active variable stiffness-tuned mass damper (SAIVS-
TMD) and continuously retuning its frequency due to
real time control thus it is robust to changes in building
stiffness and damping. The control strategy incorporates
a Hilbert transform instantaneous frequency algorithm,
and the results show that the effectiveness is comparable
and robust, and is achieved at an order of magnitude less
power consumption than pure active control. Wu et al.
(2004) also proposed the modified sliding mode control
(MSMC) strategy using dynamic output feedback which
incorporates a pre-filter to modulate the control force
together with a Kalman–Bucy filter based observer
using limited acceleration measurements taken only at
strategic locations. The simulation results demonstrate
the control effectiveness of structural vibration as well
as its robustness. Yang et al. (2004a) proposed two
multi-objective control strategies for the Benchmark
problem, the energy-to-peak based controller and the
peak-to-peak based controller, which were used to
minimize the sum of weighted peak responses with the
constraints or penalties on the peak values of control
resources. Both the state feedback and dynamic output
feedback controllers are compared, and the simulation
results illustrate that the proposed control strategies are
advantageous compared with the linear quadratic
Gaussian controller.
In addition to the aforementioned researches
regarding the wind induced vibration control Benchmark
problem, Active Mass Driver/Damper (AMD) control
has also received intensive investigations by researchers
within structural control area. Since Yao (1972)
proposed the concept of structural active control, the
AMD control, recognized by superior control
effectiveness against control cost, has taken the lead in
various structural control aspects and become one of the
most extensively researched and applied technique in
practical applications (e.g. Soong 1990; Mita et al. 1992;
Housner et al. 1997; Spencer
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014
Chunwei Zhang
et al. 1997, 2003; Ou 2003; Zhang et al. 2010b). Several
important journals in civil engineering field, such as
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE (Issue 4,
2004), Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE (Issue 7
2003), Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
(Issue 11 in 1998; Issue 11 in 2001), reported the-state-
of-the-art of research and engineering applications of
semi-active control and active control, particularly AMD
control, including this IASCM Benchmark control
problem. Spencer and Nagarajaiah have made a
systematical overview of the applications of active
control in civil engineering (Spencer and Nagarajaiah
2003). To date, more than 50 high-rising buildings,
including television towers and nearly 15 large-scale
bridge towers have been equipped with AMD control
systems for reducing wind-induced vibrations or
earthquake-induced vibrations of the structure.
Although AMD control has achieved success, there
are still unresolved problems and issues concerning
incorporating semi-active devices into active systems
(Horvat et al. 1983; Pinkaew et al. 2001; Ou 2003;
Ricciardelli et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2010b). On one
hand, understanding the differences existing in control
strategies is essential for design and to achieve best
performance in terms of by optimizing control
effectiveness/efficiency and control cost. On the other
hand, understanding the phenomena behavior as well as
intrinsic mechanism of active control force
corresponding to each control strategy realized by
different control systems will contribute to identifying
the best suitable systems for practical applications. Ou
and Li (2010) showed that linear quadratic regulator
(LQR) based active control force can be decomposed
into an elastic restoring force component and a damping
force component. According to the analysis of the
proportions of the elastic restoring force and the damping
force that make up the total active control force, two sets
of indices were developed to quantify the damping
characteristics and the negative stiffness characteristics,
respectively. The latter issue has also been intensively
discussed by Iemura et al. (2005). These indices can be
used to quantify capability of a semi-active damping
system and a passive damping system to achieve the
performance of a full active control system. Numerical
results also indicate that negative stiffness characteristics
of an active control force exist in an active control
system, which can be successfully realized by semi-
active magnetorheological (MR) damping systems
demonstrated through a field test of a stay cable of the
Binzhou Yellow River Highway Bridge. Concurrently,
the structural interbedded active control strategy for the
IASCM Benchmark problem has also been studied,
where the behavior of active control force were found to
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014
be essentially damping force, suggesting that the active
actuators can be replaced by semi-active devices or even
passive viscous damping devices based on a proper
design. However, the phenomena behavior of active
force of AMD system was found to be case dependent,
which means that the actuator of an AMD system cannot
be simply replaced by semi-active or passive device
(Zhang et al. 2010a). The intrinsic mechanism of AMD
control force need to be investigated thoroughly,
particularly on the basis of a representative/typical civil
structure background, the IASCM Benchmark model is
shown to be most appropriate.
Based on the IASCM Benchmark control problem,
the relative advantages and restrictions within each
control strategy will be discussed and quantitatively
evaluated. To facilitate such comparisons, appropriate
modifications have been incorporated into the standard
Benchmark solution to make the problem compatible as
a test-bed for different control strategies, which will be
referred to as AMD control hereafter. Furthermore, this
paper explores phenomena behavior as well as intrinsic
mechanism of active control forces of selected control
strategies, including AMD/AMD-2, STI and STA
control strategies.
2. THE REFERENCE BENCHMARK
SOLUTIONS
Yang et al. (2004b) proposed the reference control
strategy, where the inertia mass of Hybrid Mass Damper
HMD is 500 ton, i.e. nearly 0.33% of the total structural
weight. A standard MATLAB program has also been
developed for running simulations. Under the input of
first 900 seconds of wind load acquired through wind
tunnel tests (Samali et al. 2004a; Yang et al. 2004b), the
standard solution of control facts, cost and
effectiveness, for the Benchmark problem can be
acquired based on the simulation program. The standard
analysis is conducted on a reduced order of the
structural model. However, in the current paper, the
non-reduced original structural model with 76 DOFs is
found to be more appropriate for the purposes of control
strategies comparison, which is developed based on a
thorough comparison on the impact of order reduction
of the original Benchmark problem (Zhang 2010a). In
order to exclude any potential impact attributable to
control algorithms and weight parameters, the AMD
control strategy is also examined based on three
independent algorithms: LQR, output feedback optimal
control (named as LQRY), and LQG control. As a
result, figure 1 shows the peak response at the top
structural floor under different control algorithms,
where all weighting parameters within the Q matrix are
set to be unity, except parameters corresponding to the
545
 Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure

32 65
LQR LQR
LQRY LQRY
Displacement reduction (%)

Acceleration reduction (%)

30 LQG 60 LQG

28 55

26 50

24 45

22 40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Parameter R X 10−10 Parameter R X 10−10

1.2 400
LQR LQR
LQRY LQRY
LQG LQG
1 300

Control force (kN)

Mass stroke (m)

0.8 200

0.6 100

0.4 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Parameter R X 10−10 Parameter R X 10−10

Figure 1. Parametric impact of AMD control based on the non-reduced structural model

state of inertia mass are assigned to be non-zero small
numbers. The acquired parametric impact results agree
well with the standard Benchmark solution as well as
other proposed Benchmark solutions based on
stochastic controllers (Yang et al. 2004b; Mei et al.
2004; Pham et al. 2004; Samali et al. 2004b).
Selected quantitative results of the above reference
AMD control strategy based on the non-reduced order
structural model are summarized in Table 1, which are
found to have covered the known Benchmark solutions.
Although this reference Benchmark solution is straight
forward, it establishes the link for further comparison
with reference to the known solutions.

Table 1. Results of two AMD control strategy for the wind-excited Benchmark problem

Peak reduction RMS reduction

(%) (%) Control cost

x ẍ x ẍ Control Mass
Items force (kN) stroke (cm)
Solution based on the non-reduced structural model 24~30 42~58 36~44 47~60 50~270 55~90
Benchmark standard solution (Yang et al., 2004b) 28.3 49 42.2 49.7 118 73.3
MPC solution (Mei et al., 2004) 28.4~28.8 49~70.3 – – 118 73.7~77.5

(RMS: Root Mean Square value. x is the displacement and ẍ is the acceleration.)

546 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014

Chunwei Zhang

3. STRUCTURAL INTERBEDDED ACTIVE corresponding parameter settings. As a result, one

CONTROL STRATEGY
Structural interbedded active control (STI) refers to
adding actively controlled actuators into each or
selected adjacent structural inter-story, which can be
realized by well-known approaches such as active brace
systems (ABS) or active tendon systems (ATS), where
active control force is exerted directly onto the structural
floors or column-beam joints. Under the assumption of
in-plane infinite stiffness of structural floors, the active
control force contributes to structural anti-lateral
resistance capacity during events such as earthquakes
excitations. However, for the purpose of numerical
analysis, the control force and its accompanied reaction
force should be considered simultaneously in the
equation of motion of the whole system. For example, if
the active force generated by each actuator has similar
magnitudes, owing to the reaction and quits effect, the
ultimate effect for the continuously placed actuators will
merely equal to the sum of two control forces with the
same magnitude but opposite directions, i.e. one at the
bottom floor and the other one at the top floor. It results
in an equivalent effect of an active moment or force
couple counteracting the bending deformation of the
whole structure during lateral vibrations. By
comparison, AMD control system utilizes only one
actuator with the inertia mass acting as a supporting
point for the reaction force, hence, it is different from
STI control with regard to calculation.
3.1. Comparison between STI Control and AMD
Control
Since the optimal placement of actuators for STI control
strategy is not the primary issue of concern, it is
assumed that actuators are distributed uniformly
throughout the building. Zhang et al. (2010a) have made
a detailed comparison of control algorithms as well as
weight parameters to exclude potential impact of
representative configuration is selected for further
investigation between the LQR control algorithm based
AMD and STI control strategy, where corresponding
weight parameters are summarized in Table 2. Based on
these settings, the calculated structural response, as
given in Figure 2, is shown to be controllable within the
same range by the two control strategies.
Figure 3 presents a comparison of control forces
corresponding to AMD and STI control strategies. The
upper left figure shows the time history of AMD control
force, and the lower left figure shows the time history of
STI control force at the 60th floor. Furthermore, the
right figure gives the peak and RMS control force of
each floor actuator by STI control strategy. Evidently,
STI control achieved a comparable effectiveness at the
penalty of several times the cost of the AMD control, in
terms of control force magnitudes and numbers of
devices. The specific results are: 1) For the AMD
control, the peak force is 265 kN with a RMS value of
63.5 kN; 2) For the STI control, it needs 76 actuators,
and the peak forces range from 372 kN to 527 kN with
an average of 438 kN, and the RMS force values range
from 100 kN to 150 kN with an average of 125 kN.
In addition, Ou (2003) has put forward another STI
control strategy based on the optimal placement of
actuators, where a total of 20 actuators were employed
and placed at every 4 floors from the 1st bottom floor to
the top floor. The quantitative results of the two STI
control strategies as well as AMD control strategy are
summarized in Table 3.
3.2. Force Characteristics of STI Control
Strategy
The STI control is shown to be considerably more
power intensive than AMD control in terms of force
resources cost, for example, to achieve a comparable
effectiveness the magnitude of total RMS force required

Table 2. Parameters of LQR control algorithm for AMD and STI control

Parameter AMD control STI control

[ I ]76× 76 
 
 10 −10 
Q matrix   [I]152×152
[ I ]76× 76
 
 10 −10 

R parameter/matrix r = 1×10–11 1 × 10 −13 × [ I ]76× 76 × Φ1

(Note: Φ1 is a vector corresponding to the first column of the structural flexibility matrix, which has been introduced to adjust control objective to achieve
uniform performance throughout such a high-rise building structure; [I]n×n is a unit matrix with dimensions of n×n.)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014 547

 Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure

80 80

60 60

No. of Floors
No. of Floors

40 40

20 Uncontrolled 20 Uncontrolled
AMD control AMD control
STI control STI control
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
2
Peak displacement (m) Peak acceleration (m/s )

80 80
70

60 60

No. of Floors
No. of Floors

50

40 40

30

20 Uncontrolled
20 Uncontrolled
AMD control AMD control
10
STI control STI control
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

RMS displacement (m) RMS acceleration (m/s2)

Figure 2. Comparison of structural response by AMD and STI control strategies

200 80
Peak
100 RMS
70
Force (kN)

−100
60
−200
AMD
−300 50
No. of Floors

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Time (s)
40

200
30
100
Force (kN)

0 20

−100
10
−200
STI-60th floor
−300 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (s) STI control force (kN)

Figure 3. Comparison of active control force by AMD and STI control strategies

by STI control is 150 times bigger than that of AMD quits effect between each adjacently placed actuator. In
control. Based on the phenomena observation, the terms of the entire structure, inter-story installed
primary reason can be attributed to the reaction and actuator will exert active control force to both ends of

548 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014

Chunwei Zhang

Table 3. Comparison of control results between AMD and STI control strategy

Reduction of displacement Reduction of acceleration

(%) (%) Actuator devices

Control results Peak value RMS value Peak value RMS value Peak force (kN) Quantity
AMD control 30.0 43.3 58.7 59.9 265 1
STI control (this paper) 33.2 46.5 61.3 62.7 372~527 76
STI control (Ou, 2003) 33.5 – 46.8 – 110~1500 20

the actuator and transfer to the structure with two forces Where i is the number of floor where the actuator is
with the same magnitude but different directions. For installed, ui is the control force of the corresponding
example, if the actuator is installed between the i-th and actuator, x·i is the interbedded velocity, T is the time
the (i+1)-th floor of the structure and assuming the duration, i.e. the total length of time for analysis; sgn (·) and
active force at the bottom end being pointing to the left H(·) are sign function and unit step function, respectively.
direction, then the active force at the top end will be to
the right direction. Therefore, it is not cost-effective to 1 x ≥ 0 1 x≥0
engage pure active actuators into inter-story for sgn( x ) =  ; H (x) =  (3)
vibration control of tall building structures, although the −1 x < 0  0 x<0
actuator stroke is relatively small compared with AMD
Eqn 1 defines a virtual time history of the active
actuator stroke. The following section will develop a
control force, where positive values of u*i (tj) stand for
further analysis on the intrinsic mechanism of active
the force being opposite to the actuator velocity x·i (tj) at
force corresponding to STI control.
time step tj, and vice versa. Index γ 1 defines the
proportion of active force being opposite to the relative
3.2.1. Evaluation indices
velocity. Figure 4 shows the time history of virtual force
Ou and Li (2010) proposed an index denoting the
u*i (tj) at 60th floor corresponding to STI control
direction relation between control force and velocity for
strategy.
cable damper. Furthermore, another three sets of indices
It can be seen from Figure 4 that a dominant
are defined in this paper to facilitate further analysis of
percentage of active control force is opposite to its
the relation between active control force and the
velocity by STI control. In comparison, Figure 5 gives
actuator state variables.
the time history of AMD control force based on a
(i.) Index of direction relation between active force
similar process, whereby the direction feature is no
and relative velocity
longer obvious. As a result, although achieving similar
control effectiveness, the characteristics of control
u*i (t ) = − sgn( x&i ui ) ui (t ) (1) forces by the two control strategies are completely
different from each other.
(ii.) Index of direction relation between active force
T and velocity-displacement
∫ H (− x&iui )u i (t )dt
*
γ 1,i = 0 T
(2)
u**i (t ) = −H ( xi x&i )sgn( x&i ui ) ui (t ) (4)
∫0 ui (t ) dt

500
Virtual STI control - 60th floor
400
Force (kN)

300
200
100
0
−100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (s)

Figure 4. Time history of virtual control force at 60th floor by STI control strategy

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014 549

 Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure

200
Virtual AMD control

100

Force (kN) 0

−100

−200

−300
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (s)

Figure 5. Time history of virtual control force by AMD control strategy

T 80
∫ H (− x&iui )u i (t )dt
**
γ1
γ 2 ,i = 0 T
(5) γ2
60
∫0 ui (t ) dt γopp

No. of Floors
40
where xi is the interbedded displacement of i-th
structural floor, and the other symbols have the similar
meanings with Eqn 1. 20
Eqn 4 defines a virtual time history of active control
force, where positive values of u**i (tj) stand for the force 0
being opposite to the actuator velocity x·i (tj) during 0 20 40 60 80 100
Indices (%)
which the actuator moving against its equilibrium
position. Therefore, index γ 2 defines the proportion of Figure 6. Characteristic indices of active control force by STI
active force being opposite to its relative velocity during control strategy
a particular velocity-displacement period.
(iii.) Index of vibration characteristics of actuator
80
Damping
T
∫ H (− xi x&i )dt
γ opp,i = 0 T
60
Stiffness

(6)
∫0 1dt
Floor

40

Eqn 6 defines the proportional factor of actuator

velocity which is in the opposite direction with its stroke 20

or displacement during the whole vibration duration.

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
3.2.2. Direction characteristics of active control
Peak STI force (kN)
force
Quantitative results of these indices can be given to Figure 7. Decomposition of active control force by STI control
disclose directional characteristics of active control strategy
forces by STI control strategy. From Figure 6, the first
index of each actuator was found to be γ 1,i ≥ 90% for
i = 1, 2, …, 76 which indicates that over 90% of control into damping force and stiffness force component. The
force is opposite to its velocity. The second index was damping component is shown to be dominant. The
γ 1,i ≅ 50% for i = 1, 2, …, 76, which means the active result agrees well with the results of other STI control
force is opposite to its velocity at an approximately strategy (Ou et al. 2010), where 20 actuators were
equal possibility when the actuator vibrates either employed which results in 0.06% changes in the first
against or towards its equilibrium position. The third modal frequency and 217% changes in the first modal
index was found to be γ opp,i ≅ 0.5, which means the damping ratio, respectively.
vibration of each actuator is nearly balanced. Figure 7 Furthermore, hysteresis loops of control force
shows the results of decomposing active control force versus actuator displacement or velocity are given in

550 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014

Chunwei Zhang

Figure 8 for STI control and in Figure 9 for AMD where Eopposite stands for the energy of active control
control, respectively. Again, significant difference force when it is opposite to its velocity, and Etotal stands
can be seen between the two control strategies, where for the total energy consumed by active control.
the STI control force is shown to be damping force Figure 10 shows the energy indices distributing
behavior, but the AMD control force is irregular in throughout the entire structure for STI control strategy,
terms of velocity or displacement relevant behavior. where the maximum value of γ Eopp was found to be
99.9977% with a minimum value of 99.9492%, and the
3.2.3. Energy characteristics of active control average value is 99.987%. Therefore, it can be
force concluded that nearly 100% control energy is allocated
In section 3.2.1, index γ 1 gives the directional where control force is opposite to its velocity. Based on
characteristic of active control force, which also equals the above analysis, the active control force of STI
to the area ratio of positive virtual control forces as control strategy is shown to be essential damping force.
shown in Figure 4. However, this index only considers
the force magnitudes, which does not take the 4. STRUCTURAL ADJACENT REACTION
corresponding velocity magnitudes into consideration. WALL CONTROL STRATEGY
Since energy/power is a multiplication product of force According to the previous phenomena behavior
and displacement/velocity, i.e. W = Fx or P = Fx·, the analysis, the reason for high control cost required by
index describing energy characteristics of control force STI control strategy is attributable to the active reaction
can be defined as and quits effect. It is impossible to physically eliminate
this disadvantage. However, for the purpose of
T numerical analysis, an imaginary adjacent wall with
∫ H[− x&i (t ) ⋅ ui (t )] ⋅ x&i (t ) ⋅ ui (t ) dt = Eopposite
γ Eopp = 0 infinite stiffness is introduced and placed next to the
T
(7)
Etotal structure to provide the support for reaction force for
∫0 x&i (t ) ⋅ ui (t ) dt each actuator, thus the quits effect can be numerically

400 400

200 200
STI control force (kN)

STI control force (kN)

0 0

−200 −200

−400 −400

−600 −600
−0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Inter-drift (cm) Inter-velocity (cm/s)

Figure 8. Hysteresis loops of active control force by STI control strategy

200 200
AMD control force (kN)

AMD control force (kN)

100 100

0 0

−100 −100

−200 −200

−300 −300
−100 −50 0 50 100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
Mass stroke (cm) Mass velocity (cm/s)

Figure 9. Hysteresis loops of active control force by AMD control strategy

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014 551

 Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure

100

Energy index (%)

80

60

40

20
γEopp
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
No. of Floors

Figure 10. Energy indexes of active control force by STI control strategy

excluded/ignored. Such a strategy is called structural
adjacent reaction wall (STA) control strategy. Figure 11
illustrates the concept sketch of STA control. Although
the name sounds like adjacent-structures or coupled-
structures vibration control, they are completely
different from each other, and the imaginary wall here is
stiff allowing no deformation. This STA strategy is
designed to facilitate further investigation to reveal
interactions within AMD subsystem components, e.g.
function of the inertia mass.
4.1. Comparison between STA Control and
AMD Control
Similar approach used in the analysis of STI control was
utilized to compare STA control and AMD control. Three
control algorithms: LQR, LQRY and LQG were again
Actuators
engaged in order to exclude any potential impact caused
by control algorithms and weight parameters. Table 4
summarizes the weight parameters corresponding to each
control algorithm.
Structural responses including peak and RMS
displacement and acceleration are given in Figure 12,
where the control effectiveness is comparable with
AMD control as given in Figure 2.
Figure 13 shows the control force of each actuator
corresponding to three control algorithms, where LQR
control is shown to be the lowest in terms of control
force requirement.
Quantitative structural response and control force
requirement by three control strategies: AMD, STI and
STA, are summarized in Table 5. Based on the results,
AMD control is shown to possess the highest efficiency
in terms of lower control force cost, i.e. magnitudes and
numbers of actuators. Whereas STA control requires the
minimum magnitudes of control forces with respect to
each single actuator, which is in the order of one-tenth
of AMD control in terms of force magnitude
requirement.

4.2. Analysis of Force Mechanism of STA

Control Strategy
Reaction
wall ui (t )
Similar to the indices defined in section 3.2, the
Structure evaluation indices for STA control strategy
were developed according to the variation of the
coordinate system, i.e. from structural inter-drift/velocity

Table 4. Weight parameters of control algorithms

for STA control

Control LQRY
algorithms LQR and LQG
Q matrix [I ]152×152 [I ]228×228
Figure 11. Sketch of structural adjacent reaction wall (STA)
R matrix 3×10–10×[I]76×76×Φ1
control strategy

552 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014

Chunwei Zhang

80 80

60 60
No. of Floors

No. of Floors
40 40

Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
20 STA - LQR 20 STA - LQR
STA - LQRY STA - LQRY
STA - LQG STA - LQG
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Peak displacement (m) Peak acceleration (m/s2)

80 80

60 60
No. of Floors
No. of Floors

40 40

Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
20 STA - LQR 20 STA - LQR
STA - LQRY STA - LQRY
STA - LQG STA - LQG
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

RMS displaceent (m) RMS acceleation (m/s2)

Figure 12. Structural response of STA control under different control algorithms

80 80

60 60
No. of Floors

Floor

40 40

STA - LQR STA - LQR

STA - LQRY STA - LQRY
20 20
STA - LQG STA - LQG

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 2 4 6 8
Peak control force (kN) RMS control force (kN)

Figure 13. Comparison of active control force under three algorithms by STA control strategy

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014 553

 Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure

Table 5. Comparison of control forces and structural response by three control strategies

Sum of control Reduction in Reduction in

force (kN) displacement (%) acceleration (%)

Peak RMS Peak RMS Peak RMS

Control strategy values values values values values values
AMD control 265 63.5 30.0 43.3 58.7 59.9
STI control 33288* 9500 33.2 46.5 61.3 62.7
STA control 905.7** 258.4 32.7 45.9 59.1 64.2

Note: * This is the summation of forces by 76 actuators, where minimum and maximum force by a single actuator ranges from 372 kN to 527 kN. ** This is
the summation of forces by 76 actuators, where minimum and maximum force by a single actuator ranges from 4.6 kN to 21.5 kN.

to relative displacement/velocity with respect to the earth 80

ground. Therefore, the corresponding indices can be γ1
g

expressed as
γ g2
60
γ opp
T
∫0 H(− ui y&i )sgn(ui y&i ) ui (t ) dt
No. of Floors
γ gEopp
γ g1,i = − T
(8)
40
∫0 ui (t ) dt

20
T

γ g 2 ,i = −
∫0 H(−ui y&i ) H( yi y&i )sgn(ui y&i ) ui (t ) dt (9)
T 0
∫0 ui (t ) dt 0 20 40 60 80 100
Indices (%)

Figure 14. Characteristic indexes of active control force by STA

T

γ opp,i =
∫0 H (− yi y&i )dt control strategy

T
(10)
∫0 1dt 80

where yi and y· i are displacement and velocity of the i-th

structural floor relative to the earth ground, and the 60

other symbols maintain the same meanings as defined

No. of Floors

previously.
In addition, the corresponding energy characteristic 40

index of force can be expressed as

T 20
∫0 H[− y&i (t ) ⋅ ui (t )] ⋅ y&i (t ) ⋅ ui (t ) dt Damping
g
γ Eopp = T
(11) Stiffness
∫0 y&i (t ) ⋅ ui (t ) dt 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 14 presents the STA indices corresponding to Peak control force (kN)
Eqns 8 to 11. Based on the results of γ 1g and γ Eoppg, the Figure 15. Decomposition of active control force by STA control
control force is nearly 100% opposite to its velocity. In strategy
addition, Figure 15 shows the results of decomposing
active control force into damping force and stiffness
force, where the damping force is again shown to be the velocity for STA control strategy. Based on the results,
dominant component. Figure 16 gives the hysteresis the force is obviously shown to be essential damping
loops between control force and displacement as well as force.

554 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014

Chunwei Zhang

20 20

10 10
Control force (kN)

Control force (kN)

0 0

−10 −10

−20 −20
−20 −10 0 10 20 −10 −5 0 5 10
Displacement (cm) Velocity (cm/s)

Figure 16. Hysteresis loops of active control force by STA control strategy

5. NEW CONTROL STRATEGY FOR THE
BENCHMARK PROBLEM
The STA control is evaluated to require the minimum
magnitudes of control forces with damping force
behavior. Whereas, AMD control requires pure active
control force which can either pull/drag or push the
inertia mass as determined by control algorithm. Both
AMD control and STA control require additional
components, i.e. a moving inertia mass or an imaginary
fixed mass, which do not belong to the original
structural components. The similarities as well as
differences between these two control strategies need
further discussion.
As shown in Figures 12 and 13, significantly larger
control forces are required by several lower structural
floors corresponding to LQRY/LQG control cases. The
results indicate that control forces within those lower
structural floors are less effective as compared with that
of upper floors in terms of suppressing global structural
vibrations. Therefore, it is more efficient to assign
control devices into higher level floors as well as to
reduce actuator resources. Intensive optimal assignment
of actuator will not be discussed in the current paper,
however, one extreme case can be designed for further
comparison, where only one actuator is assigned to the
top floor of structure. In this case, STA control looks
like AMD control, but still requires an imaginary fixed
wall for supporting reaction force of the actuator. The
comparative case is the actuator only with inertia mass
based AMD system, i.e. without damper and spring. To
facilitate numerical comparison, only LQR control
algorithm is considered with corresponding weight
parameters given in Table 6.
Figure 17 shows the similar phenomena behavior of
AMD control force and STA control force, which
results in similar controlled structural response, but the
motion of the reaction force supporting point is
different. The AMD control force is generated by the
actuator with the reaction force being supported by
the inertia mass, which results in the cyclic oscillation of
the mass subsystem on the top floor of the structure.
Whereas, for STA control, the imaginary wall is
assumed to be infinity in stiffness, therefore the stroke
of the actuator is equal to the relative displacement of
the top structural floor, which is smaller than the mass
stroke of AMD control system.
In order to further study the inertia mass ratio impact
on characteristics of control force, the following

Table 6. Parameters of LQR control algorithm by AMD control and STA control strategies

LQR control algorithm AMD control strategy STA control strategy

[ I ]76× 76 
 
 10 −10 
Q matrix   [I]152×152
[ I ]76× 76
 
 10 −10 
R parameter r = 1×10–11

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014 555

 Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure
300
200
Control force (kN)
100
−100
−200
−300
0 100 200
Figure 17. Time history comparison of active control force between AMD control and STA control
analysis is conducted with the mass ratio ranging from
0.1% to 10%, which covers the ranges of reasonable
mass ratio for passive/active/hybrid control. As shown
in Figure 18, AMD-1 stands for the Benchmark active
control system with damper and spring, whereas AMD-2
stands for an actuator-mass system which excludes
damper and spring from the standard AMD
configuration. The purpose of introducing terms of
AMD-1 and AMD-2 is purely for the simplicity of
expression in the following figures and context.
According to the Benchmark problem definition, AMD-1
is the Active Tuned Mass Damper (ATMD), AMD-2 is
defined as a comparable control strategy which is
composed of an inertia mass and a controllable actuating
device, such as an actuator or a semi-active damper.
Based on the quantitative energy index, the behavior of
active control force corresponding to the AMD-1 (or
namely ATMD) strategy as given in Figure 9, is shown
to be changing toward the damping force characteristics
with respect to the increasing of ratio of inertia mass.
However, significant difference exists between AMD-1
and AMD-2 especially within lower mass ratio region.
This concludes actuator of ATMD system can’t be
100
80
γE
60
40
0 2 4 6
Mass ratio (%)
Figure 18. Relation between mass ratio and energy index of active
control force
556
STA control
AMD control
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (s)
simply replaced by any other non-active device, but the
STA control strategy can be realized with AMD-2
configuration where an actuator can be replaced by a
semi-active damper provided the inertia mass achieves
significant ratios with respect to the entire structural
mass. For comparison purposes, the energy index of
control force corresponding to STA strategy is
calculated to be 99.9993% according to Eqn 11, as
shown in Figure 18 denoted with blue circle markers.
Based on the results, when the inertia mass ratio
increases up to 2% and beyond, energy index indicates
that the AMD-2 force is nearly 100% damping force
which is exactly the same as STA control force, in
terms of both wave forms as shown in Figure 17 and
the intrinsic mechanism. Therefore, AMD-2 can be
viewed as the simplest equivalent realization of STA
control. Besides, based on the force mechanism, the
active actuator can also be completely replaced by a
semi-active controlled damping device, e.g. a
magnetorheological fluid (MR) damper where the
damping force can be regulated according to
optimization procedure to trace active control force so
as to fully realize active control performance (Ou et al.
2010). The AMD-2 can be viewed as a new control
strategy for the Benchmark problem derived from the
in-depth analysis of STA control strategy. It requires
only a mass and a semi-active damper configuration,
where the inertia mass ratio should be significant
enough. In the current example, the 2% inertia mass
ratio criteria are acquired based on the Benchmark
problem specifications. The results will be dependent
on different structures and situations, but the approach
AMD-1
AMD-2
can be the same. According to the trend of energy
STA control index of active control force given in Figure 18, the
new control strategy is promising and applicable to
8 10
any structure provided with allowable structural
strength and stiffness as well as enough space to
accommodate a significant additional inertia mass
(Zhang et al. 2010b).
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014
Chunwei Zhang

40 70

Reduction (%) 35 60

Reduction (%)
30 50

25 40

20 30

15 AMD-1 20 AMD-1
AMD-2 AMD-2
10 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Mass ratio (%) Mass ratio (%)

(a) Peak displacement at the top floor (b) Peak displacement at the top floor

0.6 250
AMD-1 AMD-1
AMD-2 AMD-2
0.5 200

Peak force (kN)

Mass stroke (m)

0.4 150

0.3 100

0.2 50

0.1 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Mass ratio (%) Mass ratio (%)
(c) Inertia mass strokes (d) Peak values of active control force

Figure 19. Impact of inertia mass ratio on control performance by AMD control strategies

As a further discussion, the inertia mass ratio impact
on active control performance, i.e. effectiveness against
control effort, for both the new control strategy, referred
to as AMD-2, and the reference Benchmark control
strategy, referred to as AMD-1, will be evaluated and
compared.
Based on the results given in Figure 19, there is an
upper limit in control effect corresponding to AMD-2
strategy, which is 10%~30% less than AMD-1 strategy.
The control forces and mass strokes required by AMD-
2 are also higher than that of AMD-1 strategy. However,
the most attractive aspect is that only one semi-active
controllable damper device is needed by AMD-2
control, which makes the control system simple, low
cost, power-fail safe, reliable and energy dissipative
rather than consumptive as required by pure active
control. With regard to AMD-1 control, increasing
inertia mass ratio may contribute to achieving higher
control performance. For example, there are different
optimal mass ratios range according to different
categories of criteria, which is 2~6% in terms of
controlling structural displacement and acceleration
response, 3~8% in terms of mass strokes and 4~10% in
terms of peak control forces, respectively. As given in
Figure 18, the AMD-1 control force is shown to be
intrinsically different from that of AMD-2 control
strategy. All these differences also reveal the impact of
damper and spring element within the standard
configuration of AMD control system, where the
ultimate control performance is determined by the
interactions among actuator, damper, spring and inertia
mass.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This research has been based on the rigorous model of
the IASCM Benchmark problem of wind-induced
vibration control of the 76-storey Melbourne building.
Two new control strategies: STA and Mass-semi-active-
damper (AMD-2), have been proposed and compared
with Benchmark extended AMD control as well as STI
control strategies. Phenomena behavior as well as
intrinsic mechanism of control forces has been
investigated. The main conclusions are summarized as
follows:
(1) A set of innovative evaluation indices, denoting
the direction and energy relations between
control force and its velocity and/or
displacement, have been proposed to study the

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014 557

 Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure
intrinsic mechanism of active force of each
control strategy. Based on the analysis results,
the active control force of STI and STA and
AMD-2 strategies were all shown to be essential
damping force. However, the mechanism of
AMD control force was shown to be versatile,
which can either push or pull the inertia mass to
exert active control energy into structures.
(2) Due to the quits effect, STI control was shown
to be ineffective in terms of active energy
exertion. STA control requires minimum
magnitudes of control forces with respect to
each single actuator. Further investigation also
revealed the homogenous property between
STA and actuator-mass based AMD control
strategies. The impact of inertia mass ratio has
also been analyzed and evaluated with an
emphasis on the intrinsic mechanism of active
force corresponding to standard-extended AMD
control strategy.
(3) A new control solution for the Benchmark
problem has been developed based on
comprehensive analysis of STA control
strategy, which is to engage a bigger inertia
mass with a semi-active controllable damper
device. Based on the force mechanism and
inertia mass ratio impact analysis, the results
indicated that the Mass-semi-active-damper
control system is capable of achieving
comparative performance at lower cost with
other attractive advantages, compared with
Benchmark solutions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is partly supported by the University of
Western Sydney Research Partnerships Program and the
Research Grant Scheme.
REFERENCES
Ahlawat, A.S. and Ramaswamy, A. (2004). “Multiobjective optimal
fuzzy logic control system for response control of wind-excited
tall buildings”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol.
130, No. 4, pp. 524–530.
Battaini, M., Casciati, F. and Faravelli, L. (2004). “Controlling wind
response through a fuzzy controller”, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 486–491.
Horvat D., Barak P. and Rabin, M. (1983). “Semi-active versus
passive or active tuned mass dampers for structural control”,
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 3,
pp. 691–705.
Housner, G.W., Bergman, L.A., Caughey, T.K., Chassiakos, A.G.,
Claus, R.O., Masri, S.F., Skelton, R.E., Soong, T.T., Spencer,
B.F. and Yao, J.T.P. (1997). “Structural control: past, present,
558
and future”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 123,
No. 9, pp. 897–971.
Iemura, H. and Pradono, M.H. (2005). “Simple algorithm for semi-
active seismic response control of cable-stayed bridges”,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34, No.
4–5, pp. 409–423.
Kim, S.B., Yun, C. and Spencer, B.F. (2004). “Vibration control of
wind-excited tall buildings using sliding mode fuzzy control”,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4,
pp. 505–510.
Lus, H., Betti, R., Yu, J. and De Angelis, M. (2004). “Investigation
of a system identification methodology in the context of the
ASCE benchmark problem”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 71–84.
Mei, G., Kareem, A. and Kantor, J.C. (2004). “Model predictive
control of wind-excited building: Benchmark study”, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 459–465.
Mita, A. and Kaneko, M. (1992). “Hybrid versus tuned or active
mass dampers for response control of tall buildings”, The 1st
International Conference on Motion and Vibration Control,
Yokohama, Japan, pp. 304–309.
Ou, J.P. (2003). Structural Vibration Control: Active, Semi-Active
and Smart Control, Science Press, Beijing, China.
Ou, J.P. and Li, H. (2010). “Analysis of capability for semi-active or
passive damping systems to achieve the performance of active
control systems”, Structural Control and Health Monitoring,
Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 778–794.
Peng, F., Gu, M. and Niemann, H. (2004). “Study on sinusoidal
reference strategy-based adaptive feedforward control applied to
benchmark wind-excited building”, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 518–523.
Pham, K.D., Jin, G., Sain, M.K., Spencer Jr, B.F. and Liberty, S.R.
(2004). “Generalized linear quadratic Gaussian techniques for the
wind benchmark problem”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 466–470.
Pinkaew, T. and Fujino, Y. (2001). “Effectiveness of semi-active
tuned mass dampers under harmonic excitation”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 850–856.
Ricciardelli, F., Pizzimenti, A.D. and Mattei, M. (2003). “Passive
and active mass damper control of the response of tall buildings
to wind gustiness”, Engineering structures, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp.
1199–1209.
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, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4,
pp. 447–450.
Samali, B., Al-Dawod, M., Kwok, K.C.S. and Naghdy, F. (2004b).
“Active control of cross wind response of 76-story tall building
using a fuzzy controller”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 492–498.
Samali, B., Mayol, E., Kwok, K.C.S., Mack, A. and Hitchcock, P.
(2004c). “Vibration control of the wind-excited 76-story
benchmark building by liquid column vibration absorbers”,
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014
Chunwei Zhang

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, Zhang, C.W. and Ou, J.P. (2010a). “Control force characteristics of
pp. 478–485. structural active mass driver systems”, Journal of Vibration
Soong, T.T. (1990). Active Structure Control Theory and Practice, Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1–6.
Longman Scientific & Technical, New York, USA. Zhang, C.W. and Ou, J.P. (2010b). Mass Inertia Effect Based
Spencer Jr., B.F. and Sain, M.K. (1997). “Controlling buildings: a Vibration Control Systems for Civil Engineering Structure and
new frontier in feedback”, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Infrastructure, Vibration Control (Mickael Lallart Ed.), Sciyo,
Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 19–35. Rijeka, Croatia, pp. 105–158.
Spencer Jr., B.F. and Nagarajaiah, S. (2003). “State of the art of
structural control”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, NOTATION
Vol. 129, No. 7, pp. 845–856. u active control force by actuator
Varadarajan, N. and Nagarajaiah, S. (2004). “Wind response control xi, x·i inter-floor/storey or interbedded relative
of building with variable stiffness tuned mass damper using displacement, velocity
empirical mode decomposition/Hilbert transform”, Journal of T, tj time duration, time step
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 451–458. u*i(tj),u**i(tj) virtual control force based on direction
Wu, J. and Yang, J.N. (2004). “Modified sliding mode control for modifications
wind-excited benchmark problem”, Journal of Engineering γ 1,i,γ 2,i,γ opp,i direction index of force with inter-
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 499–504. floor/storey velocity and/or displacement
Yang, J.N., Lin, S. and Jabbar, F. (2004a). “Linear multiobjective W, P work/energy, power
control strategies for wind-excited buildings”, Journal of Eopposite energy of active control when it is
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 471–476. opposite to its velocity
Yang, J.N., Wu, J.C., Samali, B. and Agrawal, A.K. (1998). “A Etotal total energy consumed by active control
g
benchmark problem for response control of wind-excited tall γ Eopp, γ Eopp energy characteristic index of control
buildings”, Proceedings of 2nd World Conference on Structural force
Control, San Francisco, USA, pp. 1408–1416. yi, y·i, displacement and velocity of the i-th
Yang, J.N., Agrawal, A.K., Samali, B. and Wu, J. (2004b). floor relative to the earth ground
g g g
“Benchmark problem for response control of wind-excited tall γ 1,i, γ 2,i, γ opp,i direction index of force with relative
buildings”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, velocity and/or displacement
No. 4, pp. 437–446. R, Q control algorithm weight parameter or
Zhang, C.W. and Ou, J.P. (2008). “Control structure interaction of matrix
electromagnetic mass damper system for structural vibration Φ1 the first column vector of the structural
control”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134, flexibility matrix
No. 5, pp. 428–437. [ I ]n×n unit matrix with the dimension of n × n

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 17 No. 4 2014 559