Structural Dynamics Mini Project Report, 2020.

Lecturer: Professor Pei-Ching Chen

Mini Project Report

Halim, A1, Wijaya, Y.S2

ABSTRACT
Highrise building is popularly built nowadays. Two main problem of the high-rise buildings are earthquake and
strong winds. Many strategies offered to resolve this problem, one of them is by using dampers. There are many
types of dampers that has been invented, one of them is tuned mass damper. The behaviour of an SDOF structure
attached with a tuned mass damper are studied in this project. The controlled variable is the mass ratio of the tuned
mass damper. The structure is exciting with a sinusoidal wave with various natural frequency. The maximum
response of the structure is observed in each mass ratios and natural frequency of the excitation. To observed the
behaviour the structure, a graph with the maximum response of the structure in respect of the natural frequency
ratio of the excitation and the structure is plotted. It is concluded that by using a higher mass ratio of the tuned
mass damper, can significantly reduce the maximum response of the structure. Other than that, it is seen that the
maximum response has two peaks of maximum response while the bare model (without the tuned mass damper)
just has one peak.

KEYWORDS: Highrise building; tuned mass damper; mass ratio; natural frequency; maximum response

1. INTRODUCTION

Needs of the high-rise building is increasing nowadays. Due to the lack of vacant lands and expensive cost to
create a building in the city centers of a developed country, the high-rise buildings became a solution to the needs
of building. It is observed that the even though the high-rise buildings may become a solution to the needs of
building in the city Centre, it also came with numerous problems. It is well-known that the high-rise building is
susceptible to wind loads and earthquake loads. Numerous strategies are offered to resolve these problems. One
of the most common nowadays are the usage of a Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) In Taipei, Taiwan a high-rise
building called Taipei 101 was built in 2003 (Li et al., 2011). Due to the problems discussed, the Taipei 101 is
installed with a 660-tonnes TMD installed in floor 87-91. The Sydney tower located at the heart of the Australia,
Sydney is known as the one of the first buildings with the installation of TMD (Kwok, 1983). As the name of TMD
implies, the damper is consisting of a mass that is tuned or adjusted in such a way damped the building deformation.
Therefore, this study is conducted to study the behavior of a structure attached with a TMD.

2. METHODOLOGY

In this study, the response of an SDOF structure attached with a TMD is observed. The illustration of the SDOF
structure attached with a TMD structure can be seen on Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Modelling of a structure with a TMD

TMD has been recognized as an effective passive energy absorbing device to reduce the undesirable oscillation of
the attached vibrating system (or primary system) subjected to harmonic excitation (Sadek et al., 1997). There 3
important parameters that determine the effectiveness of a TMD, tuning ratio (𝑓𝑓), mass ratio (𝜇𝜇), and damping
ratio (𝜉𝜉). Literature study is taken to determine the parameters. The general equation of the parameters can be
seen Error! Reference source not found.:
Structural Dynamics Mini Project Report, 2020.
Lecturer: Professor Pei-Ching Chen

𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐
𝑓𝑓 =
𝜔𝜔 (2.1)
𝑚𝑚𝑐𝑐
𝜇𝜇 =
𝑚𝑚 (2.2)

𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝜉𝜉𝑐𝑐 = (2.3)
2𝑚𝑚𝑐𝑐 𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐

Where 𝜔𝜔 and 𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐 are the natural frequency of the structure and TMD, respectively; 𝜉𝜉𝑐𝑐 is the damping ratio of
TMD. For this case of study, Sadek’s approach is taken to determine the optimum tuning and damping radio of
TMD. The equation of the parameters can be expressed as:

1 𝜇𝜇
𝑓𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 1 = �1 − 𝜉𝜉 � �
1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 (2.4)

𝜉𝜉 𝜇𝜇
𝜉𝜉𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 1 = +� (2.5)
1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇

Where subscript “1” is considering the first optimum tuning ratio and damping ratio that will be discuss in this
study. For Comparison, in this study we are also considering other resources regarding the plot of the frequency
response. Where the plot is using the following equations:

2 2 2
��1 − 𝑔𝑔12 � + 4 �𝜉𝜉𝑑𝑑 𝑔𝑔1 �
𝑋𝑋 𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓
(2.6)
=
𝑋𝑋𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑍𝑍
1
2 2 2
𝑔𝑔14 𝑔𝑔12 4𝜁𝜁𝜁𝜁𝑑𝑑 𝑔𝑔12 2𝜁𝜁𝑔𝑔13 2𝜁𝜁𝑑𝑑 𝑔𝑔13 2𝜁𝜁𝑑𝑑 𝑔𝑔1 (2.7)
𝑍𝑍 = �� 2 − 2 − 𝑔𝑔12 (1 + 𝜇𝜇) − + 1� + � + (1 + 𝜇𝜇) − − 2𝜁𝜁𝑔𝑔1 � �
𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓

1 2 − 𝜇𝜇
𝑓𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 2 = �� �
1 + 𝜇𝜇 2 (2.8)

3𝜇𝜇 2
𝜉𝜉𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 2 = � �� � (2.9)
8(1 + 𝜇𝜇) 2 − 𝜇𝜇

Where 𝑔𝑔1 in Eq (2.6) and (2.7) is natural frequency ratio (𝛽𝛽) and Eq (2.8) and (2.9) are the optimum tuning ratio
and damping ratio used in the paper (Rana and Soong, 1998). The structural parameters of the building are given
such as 𝑚𝑚 = 1,000 kN-s2/m, c=84 kN-s/m, and k=17,546 kN/m, which are the mass, damping coefficient and the
stiffness of the structure, respectively. In addition, seven mass ratios (𝜇𝜇) are used to see how the damper’s mass
effect the structure response. The seven mass ratios used are 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%. For the
control specimen we add another mass ratio that is 0.00001 to be the structure with a very small TMD or with the
hope that the behaviour is similar to the bare structure without TMD attached. The structure will be excited with
sinusoidal waves with various natural frequency. To observed the behavior of the structure, a graph with the
maximum response of the structure in respect of the natural frequency ratio of the excitation and the structure will
be plot. The response of the structure are calculated using numerical method, named central difference method
(Chopra, 2011). Followings are the equation used in the calculating the response of the structure:
First, we need to calculate the eigenvalue of the structure and find the mode shape matrix (Φ)
𝑚𝑚 0
𝑴𝑴 = � �
0 𝑚𝑚𝑐𝑐 (2.10)
Structural Dynamics Mini Project Report, 2020.
Lecturer: Professor Pei-Ching Chen

𝑐𝑐 + 𝑐𝑐 −𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑪𝑪 = � −𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �
𝑐𝑐 (2.11)

𝑘𝑘 + 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 −𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐
𝑲𝑲 = � �
−𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 (2.12)

The equation of motion (EOM) of the structure with a TMD can be express as

𝑴𝑴𝒖𝒖̈ + 𝑪𝑪𝒖𝒖̇ + 𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲= 𝑷𝑷(𝒕𝒕) (2.13)

For the central difference method, there are some step for the calculation. There are some equations, that need to
be solved for the initial calculations.

𝐏𝐏𝟎𝟎 − 𝑪𝑪𝒖𝒖̇ 𝟎𝟎 − 𝑲𝑲𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎

(Δ𝑡𝑡)2
𝒖𝒖−𝟏𝟏 = 𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎 − Δ𝑡𝑡𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎̇ + 𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎̈ (2.15)
𝟐𝟐
𝑴𝑴 𝑪𝑪
�=
𝒌𝒌 +
(Δ𝑡𝑡)2 2Δ𝑡𝑡 (2.16)

𝑴𝑴 𝑪𝑪
𝒂𝒂 = −
(Δ𝑡𝑡) 2 2Δ𝑡𝑡 (2.17)

𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
𝒃𝒃 = 𝑲𝑲 − (2.18)
(Δ𝑡𝑡)2

After computing the initial calculations, there are some repetitive equations that computer for every time step i

�𝒊𝒊 = 𝑷𝑷𝒊𝒊 − 𝒂𝒂𝒖𝒖𝒊𝒊−𝟏𝟏 − 𝒃𝒃𝒖𝒖𝒊𝒊

�𝒊𝒊
𝒑𝒑
𝒖𝒖𝒊𝒊+𝟏𝟏 = (2.20)
�
𝒌𝒌

After a specific set of natural frequency of an excitation and mass ratios, we should take the maximum
displacement response of the structure to compare it at each natural frequency of excitation and mass ratios. The
calculation stop after all the natural frequency of the excitation and mass ratios are completely computed.

3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The calculation in this project considering a natural frequency ratio (𝛽𝛽) from 0,1 to 10 with the increment of 0,1.
The calculation is done by using Microsoft Excel. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 are illustrate the structure response
for each mass ratio from 1st optimum tuning ratio and damping ratio that we calculate by ourself and the structure
response generated from the equation from Rana and Soong paper, respectively. From this figure, we can see the
effect of mass of the damper to the structure response. It can be seen on both graph, that at the bare structure, the
response will be at the peak when 𝛽𝛽 equals to 1. That means that when the excitation frequency and the natural
frequency of the bare model is the same, that’s when the response is maximum. For the rest of the mass ratios, it
can be seen that the pattern is the same. The bigger the mass of the damper, the lower maximum displacement
occurred. From our observation, for the 1%, 2% and 5% the peak of the response is still having one peak, but after
10% of the mass ratios, it shows two peaks of response. It is suspected that reason is for 1%, 2% and 5% is a very
small ratios to affect the behaviour of the structure significantly. However if compared with the structure response
from Rana and Soong paper we can see the result is different, We think maybe there were mistake in our calculation
but from this study we can still see the effect of the tuned mass damper, in each graph, and see the similarity that
by using larger mass for the TMD will make the response smaller.
Structural Dynamics Mini Project Report, 2020.
Lecturer: Professor Pei-Ching Chen

Figure 3.1 The structure response for each mass ratios and β with the 𝑓𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 1 and 𝜉𝜉𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 1

Figure 3.2 The structure response from the Rana and Soong paper

REFERENCES

1. Chopra, A. (2011) Dynamic of Structures Chopra. 4th Editio. New Jersey: PEARSON Prentice Hall.
2. Kwok, K. C. S. (1983) ‘DAMPING INCREASE IN BUILDING WITH TUNED-MASS DAMPER’, in, pp.
323–326. doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(1984)110:11(1645).
3. Li, Q. S. et al. (2011) ‘Dynamic Behavior of Taipei 101 Tower: Field Measurement and Numerical
Analysis’, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(1), pp. 143–155. doi: 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-
541x.0000264.
4. Rana, R. and Soong, T. T. (1998) ‘Parametric study and simplified design of tuned mass dampers’,
Engineering Structures, 20(3), pp. 193–204. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00078-3.
5. Sadek, F. et al. (1997) ‘A Method of Estimating the Parameters of Tuned Mass Dampers for Seismic
Application’, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 26(6), pp. 617–635. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199706)26:6<617::AID-EQE664>3.0.CO;2-Z.