EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.249)

Experimental study on multiple tuned mass dampers to reduce

seismic responses of a three-storey building structure
Genda Chen1; ; and Jingning Wu 2
1 Department
2 HBE

of Civil Engineering; University of Missouri-Rolla; Rolla; MO 65401; U.S.A.

Corporation; 11330 Olive Street Road; St. Louis; MO 63141; U.S.A.

SUMMARY
In this study, several mass dampers were designed and fabricated to suppress the seismic responses
of a 14 -scale three-storey building structure. The dynamic properties of the dampers and structure were
identi
ed from free and forced vibration tests. The building structure with or without the dampers
was, respectively, tested on a shake table under the white noise excitation, the scaled 1940 El Centro
earthquake and the scaled 1952 Taft earthquake. The dampers were placed on the building oors using
the sequential procedure developed by the authors in previous studies. Experimental results indicated
that the multiple damper system is substantially superior to a single tuned mass damper in mitigating
the oor accelerations even though the multiple dampers are sub-optimal in terms of tuning frequency,
damping and placement. These results validated the sequential procedure for placement of the multiple dampers. The structure was also analysed numerically based on the shake table excitation and
the identi
ed structure and damper parameters for all test cases. Numerical and experimental results
are in good agreement, validating the dynamic properties identi
ed. Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:

multiple tuned mass dampers; optimum tuning frequency; optimal placement; shake table
test; seismic performance

INTRODUCTION
Tuned mass dampers (TMD) have been extensively studied and applied to suppress windinduced vibrations of building structures since the 1970s [14]. Much of the eorts were
devoted to developing the design procedure and optimizing the TMD parameters for improved
performance. In most applications, only a single TMD is installed on the top oor and is tuned
to the fundamental frequency of the structure.
Correspondence

to: Genda Chen, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla,

MO 65401, U.S.A.
gchen@umr.edu

E-mail:

Contract=grant sponsor: University of Missouri Research Board, the Intelligent System Centers at the University of
Missouri-Rolla, and National Science Foundation; contract=grant number: CMS9733123.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 3 January 2001

Revised 10 June 2002
Accepted 15 August 2002

794

G. CHEN AND J. WU

However, several investigations [5; 6] have indicated that a single TMD often is not as
eective in reducing seismic responses. There are mainly two reasons. First, earthquake loads
are typically impulsive and reach the maximum values rapidly. A TMD, subjected to a dynamic load
ltered by the building structure, usually is not set into signi
cant motion in such
a short period. Second, earthquake ground motions include a wide spectrum of frequency
components and often induce signi
cant vibration in both the fundamental and higher modes
of a tall building structure. A single damper tuned to the fundamental frequency of a structure is unable to suppress the vibration of higher modes. In fact, it was reported that the
single damper could even amplify the higher-mode responses due to coupling between the
fundamental and higher modes [5].
Recognizing the above shortcomings of a single TMD, several investigators introduced
multiple tuned mass dampers (MTMD) that are tuned to dierent modes and placed at various
locations to enhance the dampers seismic performance [6; 7]. Besides the improvement in
performance, such systems often do not require any dedicated space to house the distributed
small dampers. Therefore, engineers can make full use of the spare space at dierent oors
and design the TMD system in a cost-eective way. Owing to their light weight, malfunction
of any damper will not cause detrimental eects on the structural responses so that the MTMD
system can be more robust.
MTMD systems were also studied by other investigators [812]. However, these studies
were mainly focused on the vibration control of a single mode or closely spaced modes of a
structural system under a wide-band random input. Under certain circumstances, these systems
are equivalent to a larger TMD [8].
Recently the study on MTMD systems for seismic applications was furthered by the authors [13; 14]. In these studies, a MTMD system was divided into several groups, each corresponding to one mode and consisting of several oscillators distributed on dierent oors.
An approximate closed-form solution was derived for the optimal damper mass distribution
among the vibration modes and can provide general conclusion on the performance improvement by using the MTMD system rather than a single TMD. A sequential procedure has been
developed to sub-optimally place the dampers on the structure using acceleration reduction as
an optimization objective.
In this study, the performance of MTMD systems is compared with that of TMD systems
through shake table tests on a model structure. Several TMD systems were designed and
fabricated in the laboratory. Their dynamic properties such as damping and frequency and the
models structure were identi
ed using free and forced vibration. Both white-noise process
and scaled earthquake records were used in the shake table tests to experimentally verify the
seismic eectiveness of the MTMD system.

STRUCTURE-MTMD SYSTEM AND TEST FACILITIES

The experimental structure used in this study is a 14 -scale, three-storey steel frame structure (48

length 24

width 100

height) mounted on the shake table at the University of
Missouri-Rolla as shown in Figure 1(a). This structure was originally designed for active
structural control tests with a steel bracing supporting a hydraulic actuator installed on the 1st
oor [15]. For this study, the actuator is disconnected and the bracing has no eect on the
structural behavior.
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

795

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS

48"

30"

Damper base

30"

40"

Shaking Table
(a)

(b)

Figure 1. Three-storey steel frame structure: (a) overview; (b) schematics.

Figure 2. Tuned mass dampers (two in parallel).

Each tuned mass damper consists of a mass block, a set of extension springs and a sliding
dual shaft bearing. Either one or two damper(s) can be installed on a steel damper base shown
in Figure 2 for the two-damper con
guration. Supported on the bearing, the mass block is
connected to the wall of the damper base through the extension springs and it can move along
the dual shafts only. The natural frequency of the damper can be adjusted by using dierent
types of springs. Since no damping element was intentionally added to the damper system,
the friction action between the bearing and the shafts constitutes the main part of the system
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

796

G. CHEN AND J. WU

damping. A total of three damper bases were fabricated, one on each oor as schematically
shown in Figure 1(b).
The MTS dynamic testing facilities include the shake table, shown in Figure 1, the MTS436
control unit and the MTS406 controller. The 4
7
shake table can generate vibration in the
longitudinal direction with a maximum payload of 20 tons, an eective frequency range of
0.0110 Hz and a maximum stroke of 1:0

. The MTS436 control unit was used to generate
displacement signals of harmonic waveforms. Based on the displacement signals received, the
MTS406 controller commands the shake table for the required motion at the base of the tested
structure. Random displacement signals such as white noise or earthquake ground motions were
externally generated with a HP1415 workstation and directly sent to the MTS406 controller.
The measurement system includes a HP1415 workstation, 4 accelerometers and 3 LVDTs.
The HP1415 can provide simulated earthquake ground motion signals and simultaneously
record the measured responses of the structure up to 64 channels. Accelerometers are deployed
at each oor and at the structural base (shake table). Three LVDTs are used to measure the
displacement of each damper relative to its supporting oor.
PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION OF STRUCTURE AND DAMPERS
Structural parameters
The structure shown in Figure 1(b) is regarded as the uncontrolled structure and the dynamic
parameters in the longitudinal direction are of interest to this study. The lumped masses of the
1st, 2nd and top oors are, respectively, estimated as 445 kg (981 lbs), 394 kg (868 lbs) and
388 kg (855 lbs). Each lumped mass accounts for the oor members, columns and additional
weights on the oor.
Forced vibration tests were conducted to identify the dynamic parameters of all three modes.
These tests were carried out in two steps. First of all, several swept-sine tests were performed
to approximately identify the natural frequencies of the structure. A series of harmonic tests
were then conducted with the excitation frequency varying around the natural frequencies of
the tested structure. The transfer function of oor accelerations can therefore be constructed experimentally in dierent frequency ranges [16]. By expressing the harmonic table acceleration,
xg (t), and the absolute acceleration, xk (t), of the kth oor as
xg (t) = Xg (!)e j!t

and

xk (t) = Xk (!)e j!t

(1)

the acceleration transfer function HXk (!) can be de
ned as

Xk (!) = HXk (!)Xg (!)

(k = 1; 2; 3)

(2)

in which j = 1 is a complex unit; ! and t are, respectively, the excitation frequency

and the time instance; Xg (!) and Xk (!) denote the Fourier transform of the table and oor
accelerations, respectively.
On the other hand, the acceleration transfer functions of a three-storey structure with normal
modes can be theoretically derived as
X (!) =

3

1 + 2
i i j
i i Xg (!)
1

i2 + 2
i i j
i=1

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(3)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

797

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS

Table I. Modal parameters identi
ed from forced vibration tests.

Mode no. i
Frequency fi (Hz)
Normalized mode shape i
Damping ratio
i (%)
Participation factor i

2.743
0:0186

9.45
0:0352

18.84
0:0268

0:0356

0:0299

0:0316

0:0123

0:0158

0.48
33.904

1.15
8.293

2:863

Orthogonality with respect

to mass matrix T MS 

0:0385
1.45

1:0
0:001
0:013
0:001
1:0
0:039
0:013 0:039
1:0

where X (!) = {X1 (!) X2 (!) X3 (!)}T ; i = !=!i ; !i ,
i , i , and i are, respectively, the
circular frequency, damping ratio, modal vector and modal participation factor of the ith
mode. For lightly damped structures of sparsely spaced frequencies, the contribution of nonresonant modes to the total responses at resonance (! !i ) is negligible and Equation (3)
can be simpli
ed into
X (!)

1 + 2
i i j
i i Xg (!)
1 i2 + 2
i i j

(4)

Both the natural frequency and modal damping ratio of the structure can then be determined
from the experimental transfer functions, |HXk (!)|, using the half-power method [17]. The
mode shapes can also be determined from the transfer functions with the phase information
retrieved from the corresponding time histories. Since the structural damping is very small,
the oor accelerations are either in phase or 180 out of phase at the resonant frequencies.
The modal parameters identi
ed from the forced vibration tests are presented in Table I. It
can be seen that the identi
ed mode shapes satisfy the orthogonality requirement in terms of
the lumped mass matrix.
With the complete modal parameters, the stiness and damping matrix of the structure can
be calculated from the following equations:
KS = (1 )T 1

and

CS = (1 )T 1

(5)

where  is the modal matrix;  and  are two diagonal matrices whose ith diagonal elements
are, respectively, !i2 and 2
i !i . The damping and stiness matrices identi
ed, together with
the estimated mass matrix, are summarized in Table II.
Damper parameters
Six types of extension springs of dierent constants were used during the shake table tests. For
each type, three randomly selected samples were tested to determine their spring constants.
To eliminate the slack eect on the springs, a pre-load ranging from 6.0 to 23.0 pounds
was applied to each spring. With the speci
ed pre-load, all the tested springs were shown
perfectly linear up to 1.01:5 in [16]. Both the manufacturers nominal and the measured
spring constants are listed in Table III. Their dierences are within 10% tolerance.
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

798

G. CHEN AND J. WU

Table II. Structural property matrices.

Mass Ms (kg)

445
0
0

0
394
0

Damping Cs (102 N sec=m)

7:770 4:683 0:257

4:683 8:594 4:224
0:257 4:224 4:057

0
0
388

Stiness Ks (106 N=m)

2:669 2:118 0:452

2:118 3:397 1:645
0:452 1:645 1:260

Table III. Springs constants.

McMasterCarr no.

9654K302
9654K157
9654K274
9628K46
94135K34
9654K324

Outside dia.
(in)

23=32
27=32
5=8
13=16
27=32
9=16

Length
(in)

4
4
4
4
4
4-1=8

Spring constant (lbs.=in)

Nominal

30.78
18.34
70.00
42.80
15.95
14.21

Measured
1

30.74
20.09
66.89
42.08
15.32
14.23

29.21
19.99
65.24
41.06
15.91
13.80

31.50
20.06
67.16
42.42
15.63
13.94

It was planned in this study that only the
rst two modes of the structure would be controlled. Therefore, two types of dampers were fabricated, one tuned into the fundamental
frequency and the other into the natural frequency of the second mode. They are referred
to as the 1st- and 2nd-mode TMD, respectively. The weight of each damper consists of a
sliding bearing, steel plate(s), and accessories such as threaded rods and nuts as shown in
Figure 2. Two plates and four springs were used in the 1st-mode TMD, and one plate and
eight springs were used for the 2nd-mode TMD. For each damper, the change in frequency
is implemented through dierent combinations of springs. Based on the estimated masses and
the nominal spring constants given in Table III, the natural frequencies of the dampers and
their corresponding ratios between these frequencies and the 1st or 2nd natural frequency of
the structure are listed in Table IV with various combinations of selected springs.
To identify the damper parameters, one damper base was placed on the level ground and a
damper was assembled with the springs preloaded so that the initial extension is about 50%
of the elastic range. For each combination of springs in Table IV, three free vibration tests
were conducted to ensure the repeatability of test data. Shown in Figure 3 is an example
of the acceleration attenuation curve of the 1st-mode damper. It is observed that the peak
acceleration decreases almost linearly at the beginning and exponentially towards the end of
the vibration. When the TMD undergoes signi
cant movement, the system damping mainly
comes from the friction between the dual shafts and the sliding bearing. Accordingly, the free
vibration attenuates linearly [17]. As the vibration damps out, the friction eect from other
joints as well as the spring material also contributes to the total damping. As a result, the
system motion further attenuates exponentially and can be modeled with the viscous damping
mechanism. To simplify the analysis, the viscous damping mechanism is assumed for the
TMD system regardless of the level of vibration. Obviously, the damping ratio will depend
on the response amplitude. In general, the larger response amplitude used for calculation
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

799

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS

Table IV. Nominal frequencies of TMD with dierent combinations of springs.

1st-mode TMD
m = 39:3 kg (86:5 lbs:)
Springs

Frequency
! TMD (Hz)

1

Springs

Frequency
! TMD (Hz)

2

2.53
2.68
2.87

0.92
0.98
1.05

4 9654K274 + 4 9654K157
4 9654K274 + 4 9654K302
4 9654K274 + 4 9628K46

8.66
9.25
9.79

0.92
0.98
1.04

4 9654K324
4 94135K34
4 9654K157


i:

2nd-mode TMD
m = 20:9 kg (46:0 lbs:)

tuning frequency ratio = ! TMD =!i .

0.4

Acceleration (g)

0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0

10

Time (sec)

Figure 3. Free vibration of the 1st-mode TMD (Springs: 4 94135K34).

Table V. TMD parameters identi
ed from free vibration tests.
1st-mode TMD
m = 39:3 kg (86:5 lbs:)
Springs
4 9654K324
4 94135K34
4 9654K157


i:

2nd-mode TMD
m = 20:9 kg (46:0 lbs:)

Frequency
! TMD (Hz)

1

(%)

Springs

Frequency
! TMD (Hz)

2

(%)

2.55
2.72
3.0

0.93
0.99
1.09

1.5
1.4
1.1

4 9654K274 + 4 9654K157
4 9654K274 + 4 9654K302
4 9654K274 + 4 9628K46

8.3
8.8
9.5

0.88
0.93
1.01

1.7
1.6
1.6

tuning frequency ratio = ! TMD =!i .

results in the smaller damping ratio. To be conservative, only the
rst ten cycles were used
for the prediction of damping ratios. The identi
ed damping ratios are presented in Table V
along with the identi
ed frequencies. The dierence between the measured frequencies and
their nominal values in Table IV is within 5%.

THEORETICAL PREDICTION ON OPTIMAL DAMPER LOCATION

Three sliding bearings (three dampers) were used for the shake table tests. Since each damper
base can accommodate one or two bearing(s), three dampers can be installed either on any
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

800

G. CHEN AND J. WU

60
Mass (kg)

Total damper mass: 60kg

40
1st mode
20

2nd mode

0
1

(a)

Floor

Mass (kg)

80
Total damper mass: 80kg

60
40
20
0

(b)

Floor
120

Mass (kg)

Total damper mass: 120kg

80
40
0

(c)

Floor

Figure 4. Sub-optimal damper placement (!g = ! 2 ): (a) total mass = 60 kg;

(b) total mass = 80 kg; (c) total mass = 120 kg.
Table VI. Optimum dampers parameters with a total mass of 60, 80, and 120 kg.
Mode no.

Optimum parameters
Damping ratio (%)

1
2

Frequency ratio

60 kg

80 kg

120 kg

60 kg

80 kg

120 kg

13
8

16
8

18
11

0.97
0.97

0.94
0.96

0.91
0.95

two oors or all three oors at the same time. The minimum and maximum total mass of
any three dampers de
ned in Table IV are about 60 and 120 kg, respectively.
The sequential procedure developed by the authors [14] was used to determine the suboptimal damper locations when the dominant frequency (!g ) of the excitation is near the
2nd frequency of the structure. The seismic excitation is represented by the KanaiTajimi
spectrum [18]. Considering a 2-mode MTMD system with each oscillator weighing 20 kg, the
sub-optimal damper placement is presented in Figure 4 and, the optimum damping ratio and
frequency are given in Table VI for three total mass levels: 60, 80 and 120 kg. For example,
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS

801

Normalized RMS
acceleration

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1

2
Floor

MTMD: 60kg

MTMD: 80kg

MTMD: 120kg

TMD: 60kg

TMD: 80kg

TMD: 120kg

Figure 5. Floor acceleration of the controlled structure (!g = ! 2 ).

placing two 2nd-mode dampers on the 1st oor and two 1st-mode dampers on the top oor
results in the maximum square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squared reduction in oor accelerations
when a total damper mass of 120 kg is considered. The root-mean-square (RMS) acceleration
responses of the controlled structure normalized with those of the uncontrolled structure are
plotted in Figure 5. The normalized RMS accelerations of the structure controlled with a
single TMD at the top oor are also presented in the
gure. As one can see, the optimal
2-mode MTMD is superior to the single TMD in mitigating the overall oor accelerations.
The MTMD can reduce the 1st oor RMS acceleration response by an additional 20%. It is
noted that the 2nd oor acceleration only decreases slightly from TMD to MTMD control.
This is because the second oor is near the node of the second mode. Installing the 2nd-mode
dampers on the structure would not aect the second oor acceleration signi
cantly.
The above performance is achieved with a MTMD system of optimum frequency, damping
and mass distribution. Since the optimum damping given in Table VI is considerably higher
than any TMD described in Table V can provide, this experimental study is mainly focused
on damper placement and frequency tuning. At the 60 kg level, the optimal MTMD system
was implemented with one 1st-mode TMD (39:3 kg) at the top oor and one 2nd-mode TMD
(20:9 kg) at the 1st oor.

EARTHQUAKE EXCITATION AND SHAKE TABLE TEST PROCEDURE

Shake table output
Three types of simulated earthquake records were used in this study. They include the white
noise acceleration process (WA), the S00E Component of the 1940 El Centro earthquake
(EA), and the S69E Component of the 1952 Taft earthquake (TA). The time scales of the El
Centro and Taft earthquakes are, respectively, compressed to 12 and 34 so that their dominant
frequencies are around the fundamental frequency of the structure. To avoid structural damage,
the magnitude of each record is also scaled down to the level corresponding to a maximum
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

802
Acceleration (g)

G. CHEN AND J. WU

0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06

10
Time (sec)

15

20

10
Time (sec)

15

20

10
Time (sec)

15

20

Acceleration (g)

(a)
0.06
0.03
0
-0.03
-0.06

Acceleration (g)

(b)
0.06
0.03
0
-0.03
-0.06

(c)

Figure 6. Measured table accelerations: (a) white noise input (WA); (b) scaled El
Centro earthquake (EA); (c) scaled Taft earthquake (TA).

voltage=displacement signal of 4 volts generated with the HP1415 workstation. Therefore,

there are a total of three loading cases. The absolute accelerations measured at the shake
table are presented in Figure 6.
The MTS shake table is a displacement-controlled facility. It is composed of several mechanical and electrical components. Each component has its own dynamic characteristics.
Therefore, the shake table as a whole can
lter out the high-frequency components in the
input voltage=displacement signals. It was observed that, without compensation, the expected
shake table accelerations obtained by dierentiating the input displacement signals could be
quite dierent than those measured at the shake table [16]. However, the dierence among
the repeatedly measured table accelerations is insigni
cant. To accurately predict the seismic
responses of the building structure controlled with TMD or MTMD, the measured table acceleration time history will be used as the input in numerical simulation for each loading
case.
Test procedure
The 14 -scaled building structure was tested on the shake table with or without the presence of
TMD=MTMD in three steps. They are (i) to test the building structure (uncontrolled) under the
three excitations, and measure its oor accelerations; (ii) to install on the structure one or more
single-mode dampers assembled with various extension springs and test the controlled structure
to determine the optimal tuning frequency ratio; and (iii) to replace the single-mode dampers
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

803

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS

Table VII. Damper placement plan.

Damper
type

Placement
case no.

Location
1st Fl.

2nd Fl.

Total mass
(kg)

3rd Fl.

1st mode 2nd mode 1st mode 2nd mode 1st mode 2nd mode
1st-mode
2nd-mode

2-modes

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Y
2Y
Y
Y

X
2X
X

Y
Y
2Y
Y

X
X
X
X
2X

Y
Y
Y
Y

39.3
78.6
117.9
20.9
41.8
41.8
62.7
60.2
81.1
60.2
81.1
99.5

X = one 1st-mode damper (39:3 kg),

Y = one 2nd-mode damper (20:9 kg), 2X=2Y = two dampers.

with the optimally located two-mode MTMD and repeat the test in Step (ii). To ensure the
repeatability of test data, three identical runs were conducted for each input and step.
Twelve damper placement cases were considered in a series of tests. They are summarized in Table VII, in which X and Y represent one 1st-mode damper and one 2nd-mode
damper, respectively, and 2X or 2Y means two dampers. The total mass of all dampers for
each placement is listed in the last column of Table VII. Cases 1, 2, 4 and 5 represent the
conventional single-mass dampers tuned into the fundamental and second frequencies of the
structure, respectively. Case 10 is designed to simulate the optimally placed MTMD system
described in Figure 4 and Table VI.

TEST RESULTS AND NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS

The seismic performance of TMD=MTMD is investigated mainly based on the measured
structural responses in this study. Numerical simulations were carried out to indirectly verify
the accuracy of the identi
ed parameters of the structure and dampers.
Uncontrolled structure
The building structure as shown in Figure 1 was subjected to the three simulated ground motions. The absolute accelerations at the table and three oors were measured. Their peak
values for each test and the corresponding average of all three tests are summarized in
Table VIII. Each test result is generally within 10% dierence from the average acceleration. Numerical analysis was also conducted to calculate the structural response with the
measured table accelerations as seismic inputs. The measured and the numerically simulated
acceleration time histories of the structure under the scaled El Centro earthquake ground
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

804

G. CHEN AND J. WU

Table VIII. Peak oor accelerations of the uncontrolled structure.

Input

Test
cases

Location
1st Fl.

2nd Fl.

Input
3rd Fl.

Test
cases

Location
1st Fl.

Peak acceleration (g)

WA-1

EA-1

TA-1

1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.

0.0567
0.0487
0.0497
0.0517
0.0680
0.0745
0.0696
0.0707
0.0478
0.0525
0.0551
0.0518

0.0628
0.0544
0.0599
0.0590
0.0848
0.0974
0.0931
0.0918
0.0705
0.0681
0.0717
0.0701

2nd Fl.

3rd Fl.

Peak acceleration (g)

0.0776
0.0645
0.0700
0.0707
0.0920
0.0943
0.0965
0.0943
0.0778
0.0790
0.0786
0.0785

WA-2

EA-2

TA-2

1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.

0.0960
0.1369
0.1057
0.1129
0.1427
0.1370
0.1251
0.1349
0.0962
0.0806
0.0900
0.0889

0.1201
0.1342
0.1198
0.1247
0.1992
0.1905
0.1888
0.1928
0.1230
0.1182
0.1178
0.1197

0.1457
0.1841
0.1507
0.1602
0.2109
0.2051
0.2024
0.2061
0.1494
0.1363
0.1380
0.1412

Acceleration (g)

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4

Measured
0

(a)

10
Time (sec)

Simulated
15

20

Acceleration (g)

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

Measured
0

(b)

10
Time (sec)

Simulated
15

20

Figure 7. Responses of the uncontrolled structure under the EA excitation:

(a) third oor (top); (b)
rst oor.

motion are presented in Figure 7. It is clearly shown that both results are in excellent agreement, indicating high accuracy in the identi
cation of structural parameters.
1st-Mode TMD e
ect
To
nd the optimal tuning frequency of a 1st-mode TMD, the building structure with
damper(s) installed according to the
rst three cases in Table VII was tested. The nominal
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

805

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS

Table IX. Average acceleration reduction at 3rd oor: Placement Cases 1 3.

Frequency ratio 1 = ! TMD =!1

Input
0.92

0.98

1.05

0.92

Case 1

0.98

1.05

0.92

Case 2

0.98

1.05

Case 3

Acceleration reduction (%)

WA
EA
TA

34.2

11:5
45:8

35.7

20:5
7:2

37.2
17.6
42.0

54.7

16:1
21:5

27.8

1:5

17.3

48.1
4.3
30.0

51.1

24:5
14:0

13.7

37.6

9:2

4:4

9.1

35.8

damper frequency ratios (1 = ! TMD =!1 ; ! TMD is the frequency of the mass damper) for each
case are, respectively, chosen to be 0.92, 0.98 and 1.05. The average reduction in peak acceleration at the top oor is summarized in Table IX for three tuning frequency ratios.
Under the white noise excitations, all three damper con
gurations exhibit excellent performance in suppressing oor acceleration. For example, the top oor acceleration can generally
be reduced by 3555% when 1 = 0:92. The optimum frequency ratio 1 to minimize the
acceleration of the fundamental mode can be determined theoretically using the formula derived by Warburton [4] based on the modal mass ratio. For the three damper con
gurations:
Cases 13, it is, respectively, estimated to be 0.94, 0.92 and 0.89. The experimental results
presented in Table IX indicates that Case 2 with 1 = 0:92 is most eective, thus validating
the theoretical expectation under the white noise excitation. It is also observed from the experimental results that Case 2 can reduce the top oor acceleration more than Case 1 due to
the increase in damper size (mass). However, Case 3 leads to a larger acceleration than Case
2 even though its total mass is 50% larger. This is mainly because the dampers in Case 3
are not optimally placed on the structure.
For all three con
gurations, dampers with 1 = 1:05 are signi
cantly more eective when
the building structure is subjected to the Taft earthquake than subjected to the El Centro
earthquake. The maximum acceleration under the Taft earthquake can be reduced by 3042%.
The test results also indicate that a damper of 1 = 1:05 rather than the theoretical optimum
frequency ratio (1 0:92) leads to the minimal acceleration at the top of the building. The
discrepancy in optimum frequency of the damper and the signi
cant dierence in performance
are mainly attributable to the impulsive nature of the earthquake excitation. Unlike the white
noise excitation, the EA excitation reaches its maximum within a short period and has a
short duration of strong motion as illustrated in Figure 6. The rapid increase in magnitude
of the excitation makes the dampers unable to respond to the structural response and thus
the damper performance degrades substantially. The short duration eect on the structural
response is equivalent to an additional structural damping. As a result of increased damping,
a higher frequency of the damper is required to minimize the acceleration responses [19].
Compared to the El Centro earthquake, the peak acceleration of the Taft earthquake increases
much slowly and therefore, the dampers performance is improved under this loading.
Table IX also implies that a damper system could even amplify the oor acceleration up to
40% if improperly tuned and placed on a building in earthquake applications. This result may
be due in part to the non-optimum damping property of the dampers. For a classical shock
absorber used to control the harmonic responses of an undamped structure [20], the optimum
frequency of the absorber is determined to make two
xed points of the transfer function
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

806

G. CHEN AND J. WU

Table X. Average acceleration reduction at 1st oor: Placement Cases 4 7.

Frequency ratio 2 = ! TMD =! 2

Input
0.92

0.98

0.92

Case 4

0.98

0.92

Case 5

0.98

0.92

Case 6

0.98

Case 7

Acceleration reduction (%)

WA
EA
TA

27.2
0.4
18.2

21.1
0.7
22.0

34.3
8.3
31.6

33.0
9.9
33.1

40.6
3.2
26.8

38.6
3.3
29.2

48.0
12.6
32.0

46.6
9.9
31.2

equal in height. The optimum damping of the absorber is chosen to minimize the two peaks
of the function. Controlled with the optimal absorber, the transfer function of the structure
varies with the excitation frequency very slowly around the peaks and no ampli
cation will
be observed. However, the TMD system used in this study is lightly damped. The transfer
function is expected to reveal two sharp peaks. Consequently, the structural response may be
ampli
ed when the dominant frequency component of the excitation corresponds to the peaks.
In the following tests on MTMD systems, the frequency ratio for those dampers tuned to the
fundamental mode of the structure is selected as 0.92 under the white noise excitations and
1.05 under the El Centro and Taft earthquakes.
2nd-Mode TMD e
ect
Four damper con
gurations were considered as de
ned in Table VII, Cases 47. The performance of the TMD systems under various excitations is compared in Table X at two
frequencies ratios, 2 (= ! TMD =! 2 ) = 0:92 and 0.98. Since the 1st oor of the building structure corresponds to the largest contribution of the 2nd vibration mode, Table X only gives
the reduction in maximum acceleration of the 1st oor.
Unlike the 1st-mode TMD, dampers nearly tuned to the second natural frequency of the
structure can suppress the 1st oor acceleration for every damper con
guration considered.
This result indicates the eectiveness of controlling higher vibration modes with mass dampers
and the necessity to introduce multiple dampers for reduction of earthquake-induced responses.
The optimum frequency ratios can be estimated theoretically using the modal mass ratio of
the 2nd mode [4]. For the four damper con
gurations, the optimum frequency ratios are 0.97
for Case 4 and 0.95 for Cases 5 to 7, respectively. The test results listed in Table X show that
the two tuning frequency ratios lead to almost the same response of the controlled structure.
There are two possible reasons for this. First, the fundamental mode constitutes a large, usually
the largest, portion of the structural response. The structural responses are less sensitive to
the change in dynamic characteristics of the 2nd mode than those of the 1st mode. Secondly,
the seismic excitation used in the tests has a dominant frequency equal to the fundamental
frequency of the structure, resulting in more uniform energy distribution around the second
natural frequency of the structure. Therefore, the sensitivity of oor acceleration to the change
in frequency ratio is lower for the 2nd-mode TMD. In the following tests on MTMD systems,
2 = 0:98 is chosen as the frequency ratio for dampers tuned into the 2nd vibration mode.
It can be clearly observed from Table X that all dampers perform signi
cantly better when
the building structure is subjected to the white noise excitation or the scaled Taft earthquake
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

807

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS

Table XI. Average acceleration reduction at 1st and 3rd oors: Placement Cases 8 12.
Input

Damper placement
Case 8
1st Fl.

3rd Fl.

Case 9
1st Fl.

Case 10

3rd Fl.

1st Fl.

3rd Fl.

Case 11
1st Fl.

Case 12

3rd Fl.

1st Fl.

3rd Fl.

52.7
20.3
45.7

53.6
10.3
37.7

42.5
5.4
28.1

Acceleration reduction (%)

WA
EA
TA

52.2
25.9
47.8

50.9
16.5
48.3

58.9
34.7
45.3

56.9
24.2
46.1

61.8
22.6
45.4

55.0
17.3
45.5

58.8
27.3
45.5

for the same reasons as discussed for the 1st-mode dampers. The 1st-oor acceleration can be
reduced by 2047% under these loadings. Table X also implies that the damper con
guration
in Case 5 (equivalent to a single TMD) generally results in smaller acceleration than in
Case 4 due to the increase in damper mass and the uniformly-placed dampers in Case 7
perform slightly better than in Case 6 for the same reason.
Two-mode MTMD e
ect
To illustrate the eect of damper location on control performance,
ve damper con
gurations were considered in this investigation: Cases 812. Case 10 represents the theoretically
predicted optimal placement. The reductions in maximum accelerations at the 1st and 3rd
oors are shown in Table XI. It is observed from the table that all damper con
gurations
are signi
cantly more eective under the white noise excitation and the scaled Taft earthquake. The accelerations at the 1st and 3rd oors can be reduced by 4560% except for
Case 12. Under the scaled El Centro earthquake, however, the maximum reduction in oor
accelerations becomes less than 35% due to the impulsive nature of the earthquake input.
For various loadings, all damper con
gurations except Case 12 lead to comparable reductions
in maximum acceleration. Since the dampers in Cases 8 and 10 (60:2 kg) are substantially
lighter than the dampers in Cases 9 and 11 (81:1 kg), Cases 8 and 10 are more eective. Both
damper con
gurations signify the simultaneous control of the
rst two vibration modes. The
comparable ecacy of these damper con
gurations is due to the fact that the values of the
second vibration mode of the structure are close at the
rst and top oors as listed in Table I.
Even though Case 12 has dampers that are heavier than for other cases, the reduction in oor
accelerations is smaller due to its non-optimal placement.
The measured and the numerically simulated response time histories of the structure controlled with Case 10 are compared in Figure 8. In general, they are in good agreement. In
comparison with Figure 7, the
rst peak acceleration of the uncontrolled structure is suppressed at the
rst and top oors. This result indicates the eectiveness of the theoretically
optimal damper con
guration in reducing the
rst peak.
The advantage of using multiple dampers can be seen from the comparison of the seismic
eectiveness of various con
gurations under the same number of dampers. The performance
of the damper con
gurations of Cases 2, 5, and 10 are presented in Table XII. As indicated
in the table, Case 10 can mitigate all oor accelerations signi
cantly more than Case 5. It
also performs better than Case 2 even though the former is lighter. Another comparison to
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

808

G. CHEN AND J. WU

Acceleration (g)

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4

Measured
0

Simulated

10
Time (sec)

(a)

15

20

Acceleration (g)

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

Measured
0

Simulated

10
Time (sec)

(b)

15

20

Figure 8. Responses of the controlled structure with optimal damper con
guration Case 10 under the
EA excitation: (a) top oor; (b)
rst oor.
Table XII. Comparison of average acceleration reductions: Placement Case 2, 5 and 10.
Input

Damper placement
Case 2

Case 5

Case 10

Acceleration reduction
at 1st Fl. (%)
WA
EA
TA

47.1
10.9
32.3

33.0
9.9
33.1

61.8
22.6
45.4

Case 2

Case 5

Case 10

Case 2

Acceleration reduction
at 2nd Fl. (%)
51.6
17.0
30.0

10.5
14.1
26.5

49.7
31.2
43.9

Case 5

Case 10

Acceleration reduction
at 3rd Fl. (%)
54.7
4.3
30.0

17.5
11.9
27.0

55.0
17.3
45.5

Table XIII. Comparison of average acceleration reductions: Placement Case 3, 7, 9 and 11.
Input

Damper placement
Case 3

Case 7

Case 9

Case 11

Acceleration reduction at 1st Fl. (%)

WA
EA
TA

46.3
7.3
32.6

46.6
9.9
31.2

58.9
34.7
45.3

58.8
27.3
45.5

Case 3

Case 7

Case 9

Case 11

Acceleration reduction at 3rd Fl. (%)

51.1

4:4

35.8

32.7
11.7
23.6

56.9
24.2
46.1

52.7
20.3
45.7

show the superiority of the multiple dampers is made in Table XIII among Cases 3, 7, 9,
and 11. Both cases of 9 and 11 can reduce the
rst oor acceleration by 1015% more and
the top oor acceleration by 510% more than Case 3 even though their masses are 30%
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS

809

smaller. They can even suppress the top oor acceleration up to 24% more than for Case 7.
Therefore, it can be concluded that MTMD is superior to the conventional TMD strategy.
The eectiveness of multiple dampers can also be illustrated by the performance comparison
of various damper con
gurations of the same mass. The maximum accelerations at the 1st
and 3rd oors are, respectively, compared among the con
guration cases of 2, 9 and 11. It
is observed from Tables XI and XII that Cases 9 and 11 can reduce the 1st and 3rd oor
accelerations by 1322% under the EA and TA earthquakes and up to 12% under the WA
excitation more than Case 2 can. Although the total mass of Cases 9 and 11 (81:1 kg each)
is slightly larger than that of Case 2 (78:6 kg), the performance of the dampers is improved
with the two-mode MTMD system. Similarly, the maximum accelerations at the 1st and 3rd
oors of the structure controlled with Cases 7, 8 and 10 are, respectively, compared between
Table XI and XIII. Cases 8 and 10 can reduce the 1st and 3rd oor accelerations by 523%
more than Case 7 even though the former is 2:5 kg lighter than the latter. This result clearly
indicates that the seismic performance of dampers can be enhanced with application of the
two-mode MTMD system.
CONCLUSIONS
The seismic eectiveness of a two-mode MTMD system is studied on a 14 -scale, 3-storey
steel frame structure through shake table tests. With the structural and damper parameters
identi
ed, the sequential procedure proposed in our previous study is applied to design the
MTMD system for control of the model structure. Several tuned mass dampers were fabricated
and installed on the structure. The control performance of various dampers of dierent tuning
frequency and placement is investigated under three simulated ground motions. Based on the
experimental study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Using the identi
ed structural and damper parameters and the measured table acceleration, numerical simulations can accurately predict the responses of the uncontrolled and
TMD=MTMD-controlled structures.
2. Under the white-noise excitation, the TMD=MTMD systems can eectively reduce the
structural responses up to 62%. The theoretical optimum TMD parameters give rise to
the best performance of the damper systems.
3. When the structure is subjected to real earthquake excitations, the optimum TMD tuning
frequency ratio (1 = 0:92) derived from the case of stationary white-noise excitations
may not lead to the minimal structural response. The structural response can even be
ampli
ed with the installation of such a single-mode damper. Experimental results indicate that the optimum tuning frequency ought to be 1 = 1:05 under the scaled El Centro
and Taft earthquakes.
4. The performance of a 2nd-mode TMD is less sensitive to the change in tuning frequency ratio than a 1st-mode TMD. The 2nd-mode TMD can eectively mitigate the
oor acceleration of structures, especially at lower oors.
5. Although the MTMD system used in the test is sub-optimal in terms of frequency,
damping and mass, it is signi
cantly superior to a conventional single-mode TMD in
acceleration control under dierent excitations. Even when the dominant frequency of
the excitation coincides with the fundamental frequency of the structure, the structural
responses can be further reduced by the MTMD system.
Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810

810

G. CHEN AND J. WU

6. The sequential procedure proposed in the previous study is validated to render the suboptimal design of MTMD systems. It is straightforward and easy for engineers to follow
in practical applications. The optimally placed MTMD system has better performance
than other non-optimum systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported in part by the University of Missouri Research Board, the Intelligent System Centers at the University of Missouri-Rolla, and National Science Foundation under Grant No.
CMS9733123 with Drs Shih-Chi Liu and Peter Chang as Program Directors. These sponsorships are
greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Wirsching PH, Campbell GC. Minimal structural response under random excitation using the vibration absorber.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1974; 2:303 312.
2. McNamara RJ. Tuned mass dampers for buildings. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1977; 103(9):
1785 1798.
3. Luft RW. Optimal tuned mass dampers for buildings. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1979;
105(12):2766 2772.
4. Warburton GB. Optimal absorber parameters for simple systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1982; 8:197 217.
5. Chowdhury AH, Iwuchukwu MD, Garske JJ. The past and future of seismic eectiveness of tuned mass dampers.
In Leipholz HHE (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Structural Control. Martinus
Nijho Publishers: Dordrecht, 1987; 105 127.
6. Clark AJ. Multiple passive tuned mass dampers for reducing earthquake induced building motion. Proceedings
of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2 9 August, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, V, 1988;
779 784.
7. Chen G. Multi-stage tuned mass damper. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996; Paper No. 1326.
8. Xu K, Igusa T. Dynamic characteristics of multiple substructures with closely spaced frequencies. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1992; 21:1059 1070.
9. Igusa T, Xu K. Vibration control using multiple tuned mass dampers. Journal of Sound and Vibration 1994;
175(4):491 503.
10. Abe M, Fujino Y. Dynamic characteristics of multiple tuned mass dampers and some design formulas.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23(8):813 836.
11. Kareem A, Kline S. Performance of multiple mass dampers under random loading. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1995; 121(2):348 361.
12. Abe M, Igusa T. Tuned mass dampers for structures with closely spaced natural frequencies. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1995; 24(2):247 261.
13. Wu J, Chen G. Optimization of multiple tuned mass dampers for seismic response reduction. Proceedings of
the 2000 American Control Conference, 28 30 June, Chicago, IL, 2000.
14. Wu J, Chen G. Optimal mass distribution of multiple tuned mass dampers. Proceedings of the 14th Engineering
Mechanics Conference, 21 24 May, Austin, TX, 2000.
15. Tian P. Generalized optimal control of elastic and inelastic structures subjected to earthquake excitation. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Missouri-Rolla, 1997.
16. Wu J. Seismic performance, design and placement of multiple tuned mass dampers in building applications.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri-Rolla, 2000.
17. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Clis, NJ, 2001.
18. Kanai K. Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bulletin of the Earthquake
Research Institute, Tokyo University 1957; 35(2).
19. Ioi T, Ikeda K. On the dynamic vibration damped absorber of the vibration system. Bulletin of the Japanese
Society of Mechanical Engineering 1978; 21(151):64 71.
20. Den Hartog JP. Mechanical Vibrations (4th edn). McGraw-Hill, NY, 1956.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:793810