An irregular, wedge-shaped TSD tank was used in this project in China, as shown during construction (left) and from
the inside before water was poured (middle). At right is the TSD schematic
design. Many TSDs usually have concrete walls and floor and roof slabs; however, on this particular project, the client requested an all-steel tank.
the system should also be included in the simulations. The result is a
sufficiently robust design that will provide a steady level of supplemental
damping across a wide range of as-built conditions for the tall building.
Full scale measurements are performed once the TMD is installed and
tuned to demonstrate that the TMD performs as designed.
One downside of a simple pendulum system is that it could necessitate
a very tall room due to the cable length requirement. For example, a
tall building with a 6-second period requires approximately 30 feet
of cable length—equivalent to about three stories. To account for
variability in building frequency, this cable length may need to be
increased to approximately 36 feet—equivalent to almost four stories
tall. A solution has been developed and successfully implemented to
resolve this issue: the use of an opposed-pendulum type of system. One
example of this is the 111 West 57th TMD in New York City; some
details of this TMD have been presented in a New York Times article.
An opposed-pendulum TMD consists of a simple pendulum system
attached to an inverted pendulum (a secondary mass suspended from
the floor via steel columns). The TMD frequency is determined by
proper configuration of the ratio between the two masses and the cable
length and column height. For the 111 West 57th TMD, the required
height of the TMD room would have increased four-fold had a simple
pendulum TMD been implemented.
While opposed pendulum systems require the least amount of space,
they do require slightly more engineering and higher costs. If space
is not as much of a concern, especially if the required supplemental
damping and therefore damper mass is not too high, TLD systems
may be considered. However, only 60% to 80% of the water in TLD
tanks actually participates as dynamic mass within the mass damper
system. On one project, a 1000-ton TMD was required, but the client
opted for a less expensive TSD alternative that, in the end, held nearly
2,000 tons of water!
On one project in Australia though, where the damper mass require-
ment was only in the order of approximately 200 tons, a TSD was the
perfect solution for the client. An earlier consultant recommended
a three-tank TLCD system, but by using performance-based design
principles, constant coordination with the client, and full-scale build-
ing frequency measurements during construction, the project ended
up employing just a one-tank TSD system that allowed the client to
introduce a new penthouse apartment unit that more than made up for
the cost of the TSD implementation. One key factor in the success of
such a TSD design is that the water TSD tank was incorporated into
the fire suppression water storage system. In short, the tank served
dual purposes: as a TSD and as fire suppression water storage. During
14 STRUCTURE magazine
commissioning of the TSD system, full scale measurements were done
and analysis of the data reveal that the TSD is performing as expected.
However, not all projects can accommodate a rectangular, box-shaped
TSD tank. Again, as part of a performance-based design approach,
coordination with clients reveals that only an irregular shaped tank
can be accommodated in some projects. The numerical modelling
used in the performance-based analysis and design of TSDs is veri-
fied using data collected from scale-model testing in the laboratory.
For irregular tanks, the same approach is used. One project in China
has used a triangular, wedge-shaped tank. Certain types of spire-like
structures on buildings or on-ground have used annular-shaped (i.e.
“donut-shaped”) tanks. On one super tall building in New York City,
the building could only accommodate a tank that wrapped around the
concrete core— effectively requiring a “square bagel”-shaped tank (i.e. a
rectangle with a smaller rectangle cutout in the middle). By employing
a performance-based design approach, it is possible to employ a wide
variety of tank shapes that can still achieve the performance objectives.
Summary and Conclusion
Various damping technologies are available that provide a reliable level
of damping, meet performance requirements, and fit within the project’s
space constraints. Successful examples of TMD and TSD systems for
wind response control have been implemented in tall building projects
across the globe, where performance-based design principles were used
and in-situ performance verification has been demonstrated.■
Full references are included in the online version of the article
at STRUCTUREmag.org.
Ron Aquino is a Senior Engineer for Applied Structural Dynamics with Motioneering, Inc. in
Guelph, Ontario, Canada. He is a licensed professional engineer in Ontario, Canada and
in the Philippines.
Shayne Love is a Technical Director for Applied Structural Dynamics, also with Motioneering,
Inc. He is a licensed professional engineer in Ontario, Canada and in Michigan, USA.
Jamieson Robinson is a Vice President for Operations, also with Motioneering, Inc. He is a
licensed professional engineer in Ontario, Canada.
structuralDESIGN
Interstory Drift Performance of Mass
Timber Beam-to-Column Connections
Meeting seismic performance requirements in mass timber structures contains challenges and opportunities.
By Dong Han, PhD, Mohammad H. Mehrabi, MS, and Lori Koch, MS, PE

T he past decade has witnessed an increasing adoption of mass timber

buildings in North America. These innovative structures primarily
feature large, engineered wood products, such as glued-laminated timber
(glulam) and cross-laminated timber (CLT). Recognized for their sustain-
ability, these materials align well with the growing emphasis on sustainable
building methods. In addition to their environmentally friendly attributes,
mass timber structures offer pleasing aesthetics and reduced construction
timelines, setting them apart from conventional alternative materials.
Despite their advantages, mass timber buildings, as a new entrant, face
design challenges that traditional construction methods have largely over-
come during their decades-long evolution. Many of these challenges arise,
in part, from a lack of prescriptive connection options, as well as testing and
standardization of system solutions, for mass timber. Engineering costs may
rise when additional time is necessary to design, specify, and detail custom
solutions for every new mass timber project.
The 2024 International Building Code (IBC) references ASCE/SEI 7-22
Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures for seismic drift requirements, with 2% being a common drift
limit for Risk Category I or II structures. The most reliable method for
quantifying the in-service drift performance of a given connection requires
rigorous testing. Some municipal jurisdictions mandate cyclic deformation
tests conducted at a drift of up to 4%, surpassing levels specified in national
codes and standards. Significant challenges persist in accurately predicting
drift performance for entire mass timber systems.
Common assumptions used in the design process may not always fully
reflect real-world conditions, which can influence drift performance.
In mass timber construction, most connections are modeled as pinned
connections. In reality, these connections exhibit varying degrees of
fixity, allowing them to resist rotation. As a result, factors like beam
depth, lever arm length, and the gap between primary and secondary
members can significantly influence connection performance. For
example, the relative connector placement will influence the length of
the lever arm created by the eccentricity between the extreme tension
or compression face and the center of gravity of the connector. An
increase in the length of the lever arm will intensify the prying effect
at the connection and could lead to undesired deflections or failure of
the connection (Figure 1).
Moreover, seismic drift, in tandem with other considerations such as grav-
ity loading and fire protection, plays a vital role in determining the ideal
placement of the connector on the beam section that minimizes fracture
development perpendicular to the grain under loading, especially in deep
cross sections facing an elevated risk of cracking. Simultaneously addressing
multiple concerns—a necessity in many cases—requires reinforcement, often
achieved by incorporating reinforcing screws (Figure 2). While effective in
many scenarios, this method has limitations.
Custom-Designed or Pre-Engineered
Connectors?
In many current mass timber buildings, structural elements are linked
through custom-made connectors—connectors designed based on
the requirements specified in standards such as the National Design
Specification for Wood Construction (NDS). The NDS design approach
is generally considered conservative, often resulting in low material
utilization efficiency. On the other hand, the present dearth of testing
hinders a comprehensive understanding of real-world connector per-
formance in various aspects, including capacity and seismic resilience.
An increasingly common alternative involves the use of pre-engineered
beam hangers (PEBHs), an off-the-shelf product whose performance
has been validated through manufacturer testing. (Not all PEBHs are
rated for seismic drift, and they should be carefully selected based on
the manufacturer’s specifications.)
Through full-scale monotonic and quasi-static cyclic pushover testing,
a study at Oregon State University examined the seismic performance
of three beam-to-column connections: one employing a PEBH and two
featuring custom solutions, a bearing plate and a notched column (referred
to as PEBH, BP, and N connections, respectively) (Figure 3). Of these
tested configurations, the PEBH can resist shear and axial forces, whereas
the two custom connections only provide bearing support without lateral

Figure 1. The impact of seismic drift on tension at a beam-to-
column connection is illustrated: (a) Absence of seismic drift;
(b) Unaffected prying effects at the connection due to a
lack of a direct load path between the column and the CLT
panel; and (c) Intensified prying effects at the connection
resulting from the contribution of the CLT panel.
Figure 2. Optimal connector positions are shown Figure 3. Shown are (a) PEBH, (b) BP, and (c) N connections.
considering (a) gravity loading, (b) fire protection, and (c)
seismic drift in a simplified beam-to-column connection
model. Note that contributions from other structural
elements may alter these ideal placements.

JUNE 2024 15