THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build.

20, 151163 (2011) Published online 12 May 2009 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.519

Effect of dominant ground frequency and soil on multiple tuned mass dampers
Chunxiang Li1*, and Bingkang Han2
1

Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China 2 College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

SUMMARY Using the proposed model of earthquake ground motions, the parametric study is performed to examine the effects of the DGF and SC on the performance of the MTMD with identical stiffness and damping coefcient but unequal mass. Examination on the optimum parameters of the MTMD is conducted through minimization of the minimum values of the maximum displacement dynamic magnication factors of the structure with the MTMD. The optimum parameters of the MTMD include the optimum frequency spacing measuring the robustness, average damping ratio and tuning frequency ratio. Minimizing the minimum values of the maximum displacement dynamic magnication factors, non-dimensionalized by the maximum displacement dynamic magnication factors of the structure without the MTMD, is used to measure the effectiveness of the MTMD. Likewise, an evaluation is made on the stroke displacement of the MTMD through assessing the maximum displacement dynamic magnication factors of each TMD in the MTMD. The results indicate that DGF and SC, in particular, the former, have signicant effects on the optimum parameters, effectiveness and stroke displacement of the MTMD. Nonetheless, the MTMD may be used to reduce the seismic response of the structure with controlled natural frequency less than DGF. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

NOMENCLATURE ATF = Acceleration Transfer Function ADMF = acceleration dynamic magnication factors of the structure with the MTMD cs = mode-generalized damping coefcient of the structure cTj = damping coefcient of the jth TMD in the MTMD DDMF = displacement dynamic magnication factors of the structure with the MTMD DGF = dominant ground frequency DGFR = dominant ground frequency ratio DGP = dominant ground period f = tuning frequency ratio of the MTMD ks = mode-generalized stiffness of the structure kTj = spring stiffness of the jth TMD in the MTMD MTMD = multiple tuned mass dampers ms = mode-generalized mass of the structure mTj = mass of the jth TMD in the MTMD n = total number of the MTMD REF = obtained results based on the harmonic-base acceleration hypothesis of earthquake ground motions RI = minimization of the minimum values of the maximum dynamic magnication factors (DDMF) of the seismic structure with the MTMD

*Correspondence to: C. Li, Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai University, No. 149 Yan Chang Road, Shanghai 200072, China E-mail: li-chunxiang@vip.sina.com Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

152

C. LI AND B. HAN

RII = minimization of the minimum values of the maximum dynamic magnication factors, nondimensionalized by the maximum displacement dynamic magnication factors of the seismic structures without the MTMD RIIIj = maximum dynamic magnication factors of the jth TMD in the MTMD S0 rj = ratio of the natural frequency of the jth TMD to the structural natural frequency SC = soil classication S0 = constant power spectral density of the bedrock white noise excitation, measuring the intensity of the bedrock white noise excitation TMD = tuned mass damper Tras(iw) = transfer function of the absolute acceleration of the seismic structure with the MTMD Tryj(iw) = transfer function of the displacement of the MTMD relative to the seismic structure Trys(iw) = transfer function of the displacement of the seismic structure with the MTMD relative to the ground w (t) = white noise xb(t) = bedrock lter response xf (t) = output of the rst lter xg(t) = output of the second lter, namely the free eld ground motion x g(t) = ground acceleration s = absolute acceleration of the seismic structure x g(t) + y g (iw) = acceleration transfer function of earthquake ground motions X yj = displacement of the jth TMD with respect to the seismic structure ys = displacement of the seismic structure with reference to the ground l = ratio of the external excitation frequency to the structural frequency corresponding to the vibration mode being controlled, which is set within the range from 0.4 to 3.4 lh = ratio of the dominant ground frequency to the dominant bedrock frequency xf = damping coefcient of the second lter xg = damping coefcient of the rst lter s = structural damping ratio, which is set equal to 0.02 xT = average damping ratio of the MTMD xTj = damping ratio of the jth TMD in the MTMD mT = total mass ratio of the MTMD mTj = mass ratio of the jth TMD w = external excitation frequency wh = dominant bedrock frequency ws = structural natural frequency corresponding to the vibration mode being controlled wT = average natural frequency of the MTMD wTj = natural frequency of the jth TMD in the MTMD

1. INTRODUCTION The TMD is one of the simplest and the most reliable control devices, which consists of a mass, a spring and a viscous damper attached to the structure. Its mechanism of attenuating undesirable oscillations of a structure is to transfer the vibration energy of the structure to the TMD and to dissipate the energy through the damping of the TMD. In order to enlarge the dissipation energy in the TMD, it is very important to determine the optimum parameters of the TMD. It is known, however, that the TMD has a main drawbackits performance may worsen due to mistuned frequency or off-optimum damping. A possible remedy to this is using more than one TMD with different dynamic characteristics. The MTMD with distributed natural frequencies were then proposed by Igusa and Xu (1992). The MTMD were also investigated by, for example, Yamaguchi and Harnpornchai (1993), Abe and Fujino (1994), Kareem and Kline (1995), Jangid (1999), Li (2000), Park and Reed (2001), Gu et al. (2001), Chen and Wu (2003), Yau and Yang (2004a,b), Kwon and Park (2004), Lin et al. (2005), Hoang and Warnitchai (2005), Bakre and Jangid (2004), Li and Zhang (2005), Li and Li (2006), Han
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF DGF AND SC ON MTMD

153

and Li (2006) and Li (2006). The MTMD has been shown to be more effective in the mitigation of the oscillations of structures with respect to the TMD. The review shows that signicant strides have been made in recent years in terms of the development of the MTMD for vibration control of structures. However, it is worth pointing out that good performance in the case of the harmonic-base acceleration may not necessarily translate into good performance during earthquakes using the MTMD (Li and Liu, 2002). Using the Kanai-Tajimi and Clough-Penzien spectrums and the pseudo-excitation algorithm in the frequency domain, the parametric study is performed to examine the effect of the dominant frequency of ground motion on the optimum parameters and effectiveness of the MTMD with identical stiffness and damping coefcient but with unequal mass (Li and Liu, 2004). The present paper is mainly to aim at examining the effects of both the DGF and the SC on the performance of the MTMDs with the identical stiffness and damping coefcient but unequal mass. 2. ATF OF EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS The stationary ltered white noise models of Kanai-Tajimi (Liu and Jhaveri, 1969) and CloughPenzien (Clough and Penzien, 1993) have been the two favourite models for many researchers and engineers. In the present study, the bedrock lter, as shown in Figure 1, is introduced in developing the model of earthquake ground motions to more accurately reect the bedrock characteristics. The g(t)] can then be formulated as follows: transformation of the white noise w(t) to the ground motion [x xg (t ) + 2 f f xg (t ) + 2 f x g ( t ) = x f ( t ) + uR ( t )
2 x f (t ) + uR (t ) + 2g g x f (t ) + g x f (t ) = 0

(1) (2) (3) (4)

u R ( t ) = h xb ( t ) xb ( t ) + h xb ( t ) = w ( t )

where xg(t) is the free eld ground motion, which is the output of the second lter; xf (t) is the output of the rst lter; uR(t) denotes the output of the bedrock lter; xb(t) represents the bedrock lter response; w(t) represents the white noise; wf, xf, wg, xg and wh are, respectively, the lter coefcients for the second, rst and bedrock lters representing the soil characteristics. Let it be supposed that xf = xg and wf = 0.1 wg, in which wg and xg (including wh) are given in Table 1 (Wu et al., 1999). Let w (t ) = [W ( i )] e it
xg(t) Second Filter (wf and xf) x f (t ) First Filter (wg and xg) uR(t) Bedrock Filter (wh)

(5)

w (t)

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the soil lters divided into the bedrock lter, rst lter and second lter.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

154

C. LI AND B. HAN

Table 1. Model parameters of earthquake ground motions for the Ith, IIth, IIIth and IVth sorts of soil. SC
xg wg (rad/s) wh (rad/s)

I
0.64 41.89 25.13

II
0.72 31.42 25.13

III
0.80 25.13 25.13

IV
0.90 16.75 25.13

S0 = [W ( i )][W ( i )]*

(6)

in which S0 is the intensity of the white noise and * represents the complex conjugate of the complex g (iw)] can be derived function. The acceleration transfer function of earthquake ground motions [X in terms of Equations (1)(4) by setting: xb(t ) = [ X b( i )] e it uR (t ) = [U R ( i )] e it x f (t ) = [ X f ( i )] e it xg (t ) = [ X g ( i )] e it X g ( i ) = ( i ) [ X g ( i )]
2 2 1 h g + ( i ) 2g g = [ 2W ( i )] 2 2 2 2 ( ( ( ) ) ) + + i i i + 2 2 g h f f f g g

(7) (8) (9) (10)

(11)

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA OF THE MTMD When the relative displacements of the structure (ys) and each TMD (yj) with respect to their supports are introduced, the equations of motion of the MTMD structure system under earthquake ground motions can be formulated as follows: ms[ xg (t ) + ys ] + cs ys + ks ys = ( cTj y j + kTj y j )
j =1 n

(12) (13)

mTj [ xg (t ) + ys + y j ] + cTj y j + kTj y j = 0

For the sake of generality and convenience, introduce the parameters: i = ki mi and xi = ci/2miwi (i = s, Tj). It is assumed that the frequencies of the MTMD are uniformly distributed around their n mean frequency T = j =1[ Tj n ]; the frequency of the jth TMD in the MTMD can then be derived as follows: n +1 Tj = f 1 + j s 2 n 1

(14)

in which b is the frequency spacing of the MTMD dened as b = (wTn wT1)/wT; and f represents the tuning frequency ratio of the MTMD dened as f = wT /ws. Dening rj = Tj s
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(15)
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF DGF AND SC ON MTMD

155

For the MTMD with the identical stiffness and damping coefcient but unequal mass, the total mass n n ratio T = j =1 Tj and the average damping ratio T = j =1[Tj n ] can be, respectively, expressed in the following form with the mass ratio mTj = mTj /ms and damping ratio of the jth TMD in the MTMD (Li, 2000, 2002).

T = Tj rj2 [1 rj2 ]
j =1

(16) (17)

T = f Tj rj

In terms of the derived acceleration transfer function of earthquake ground motions, the transfer functions of the relative displacements and the absolute acceleration of the MTMD structure system Trys(iw), Tryj(iw) and Tras(iw) can be determined in terms of Equations (12) and (13) by setting: ys = [Trys ( i )] e it y j = [Try j ( i )] e it xg (t ) = [ X g ( i )] e it xg (t ) + ys = [Tras ( i )] e it (18) (19) (20) (21)

Dening the displacement and acceleration dynamic magnication factors of the structure with the MTMD as follows:
2 DDMF = s [Trys ( i )] 2 DDMFj = s [Try j (i )]

(22) (23) (24)

ADMF = Tras ( i )

the performance assessment of the MTMD can then be implemented using the following three particular criteria: RI = min.min.max.DDMF = min.min.max. S0 E ( ) DDMF RII = min.min.max.DDMF max. S0 E ( ) RIII j S0 in which E ( ) = [ E1( )][ E2( )][ E3( )][ E4( )]
2 2 2 2 2 E1( ) = 100 g 1 + 4g g 1 2

(25) (26)

(1 ) + 4s2 2
2 2

min.min.max.[ E ( ) DDMF ] max. E ( )

(1 2 ) + 4s2 2
2

max.DDMFj S0

E ( ) ADMF = max. 2 2 4 2 rj f (rj2 2 ) + 4 2T

(27)

(28) (29)

2 2 2 2 2 E2 ( ) = (1 g ) + 4g g 2

(30)

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

156

C. LI AND B. HAN

2 2 2 2 2 E3( ) = (1 100 g ) + 400 f g 2 2 2 2 E4( ) = (1 + g h ) 1 2

1 2

(31) (32)

with denitions of lg = ws/wg, referred to as the DGFR, lh = wg/wh and l = w/ws, set within the range from 0.4 to 3.4. Details of DDMF and ADMF in Equations (25)(27) may be found in Li (2002).

4. EVALUATION OF THE MTMD Displayed in Figures 26 are the numerical results of the present research, in which the damping ratio of the structure is set equal to 0.02. The superscript opt denotes the optimum values and I, II, III and IV represent the Ith, IIth, IIIth and IVth sorts of soil, respectively. The variation of the optimum frequency spacing of the MTMD, measuring the robustness of the MTMD, with respect to DGFR is presented in Figure 2, in which the REF curve represents the optimum frequency spacing of the MTMD obtained based on the harmonic-base acceleration hypothesis of earthquake ground motions. It is important to observe that for either case of lesser total mass ratio (such as 0.01 and below) or DGFR below unity (including unity), the optimum frequency spacing of the MTMD is practically equal to that obtained based on the harmonic-base acceleration hypothesis of earthquake ground motions. It is noted, however, that wider optimum frequency spacing of the MTMD is required with higher total mass ratio (such as 0.03 or 0.05) in situations where DGFR is beyond unity. Also, a much wider optimum frequency spacing of the MTMD is needed with both higher total mass ratio and larger total number. In general terms, with the exception of both higher total mass ratio and larger total number, SC does not have a signicant effect on the optimum frequency spacing of the MTMD in situations where DGFR is above unity. Figure 3 shows the variation of the optimum average damping ratio of the MTMD with regard to DGFR. It is worth noting that for either case of lesser total mass ratio (such as 0.01 and below) or DGFR below unity (including unity), the optimum average damping ratio of the MTMD approximately equals that obtained based on the harmonic-base acceleration hypothesis of earthquake ground motions. It is seen, however, that higher optimum average damping ratio of the MTMD is needed with respect to the optimum average damping ratio obtained based on the harmonic-base acceleration hypothesis of earthquake ground motions with higher total mass ratio (such as 0.03 or 0.05) in situations where DGFR is beyond unity. For the case of much higher total mass ratio (such as 0.05 and above), SC will result in a signicant effect on the optimum average damping ratio of the MTMD in situation where DGFR is beyond unity. Figure 4 shows the variation of the optimum tuning frequency ratio of the MTMD with regard to DGFR. It is seen that the effect of DGFR on the optimum tuning frequency ratio of the MTMD increases with the increase of the total mass ratio. With the increase of DGFR, the effect of DGFR on the optimum tuning frequency ratio of the MTMD has an initial increase, and then becomes mild. For large total mass ratio, SC will bring about signicant effect on the optimum tuning frequency ratio of the MTMD. The effect of DGFR on the optimum tuning frequency ratio of the MTMD is more signicant with reference to that on the optimum frequency spacing and average damping ratio of the MTMD. Figure 5 shows the variation of the value of RII with reference to DGFR. It is clearly seen that the value of RII approximately reaches that obtained based on the harmonic-base acceleration hypothesis of earthquake ground motions in situation where DGFR is less than or equal to unity. This indicates that DGFR does not have a signicant effect on the effectiveness of the MTMD in this case, irrespective of both the total mass ratio and total number. It is seen, however, that the effectiveness of the MTMD reduces with the increasing of the total mass ratio in situation where DGFR is above unity. With the increase of DGFR, the effect of DGFR on the effectiveness of the MTMD has an initial increase, and then becomes mild. It is worth noting that SC will result in signicant effect on the effectiveness of the MTMD with higher total mass ratio (such as 0.05 and above).
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF DGF AND SC ON MTMD

157

0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10

opt
I III REF. II IV

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0 g

0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10

opt
I III REF. II IV

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

(a) n=5 and T=0.01

(b) n =15 and T=0.01

opt
0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.5 1.0
opt

opt
I III REF. II IV

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.5 1.0
opt

I III REF.

II IV

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

(c) n=5 and T=0.03

(d) n=15 and T=0.03

0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10

0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.5

I III REF.

II IV

I III REF.

II IV

g
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

g
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

(e) n=5 and T=0.05

(f) n=15 and T =0.05

Figure 2. Variation of the MTMD optimum frequency spacing with respect to DGFR for various soil conditions.

Summing up the above results, the MTMD can be applied only to the seismic response control of the structure with the controlled natural frequency less than DGF. Likewise, the MTMD may be designed directly using the optimum parameters of the MTMD obtained based on the harmonic-base acceleration hypothesis of earthquake ground motions. For the structure with the controlled natural frequency larger than DGF, however, the total mass ratio range available of the MTMD is rather limited (i.e., 0.01 and below). Even for this range, the MTMD cannot be used to reduce the seismic response of structures too, as will be demonstrated next, due to signicant reduction of the stroke displacement of the MTMD in situation where DGFR is beyond unity. Figure 6 shows the variation of the maximum displacement dynamic magnication factor (see Equation (12) ) of every TMD in the MTMD with respect to DGFR with the total mass
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

158

C. LI AND B. HAN

0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01

opt T

0.13 I III REF. II IV 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03

opt T

I III REF.

II IV

g 0.01
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

g
(b) n=15 and T=0.01
opt T

0.5

(a) n=5 and T=0.01

0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
opt T

0.13 I III REF. II IV 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 I III REF. II IV

g 0.01
0.5 1.0
opt T

g
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

(c) n=5 and T=0.03

0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
opt T

(d) n=15 and T=0.03

0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03

I III REF.

II IV

I III REF.

II IV

g 0.01

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

(e) n =5 and T=0.05

(f) n=15 and T=0.05

Figure 3. Variation of the MTMD optimum average damping ratio with respect to DGFR for various soil conditions.

ratios of 0.01 and 0.03 for various soil conditions. It is noticed that the value of RIII j S0 rapidly reduces until DGFR achieves a value of 1.5, regardless of the total mass ratio and SC. After that, however, the gradients of the reduction in the value of RIII j S0 become signicantly small, irrespective of the total mass ratio and SC. In light of this, DGFR has a large effect on the maximum stroke displacement of the MTMD, consequently affecting the effectiveness of the MTMD. Therefore, in order to ensure the reliable operation of the MTMD, the MTMD can be applied only to the structure with the controlled natural frequency less than DGF. In other words, the MTMD can be applied only to the structure with the fundamental period higher than the DGP.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF DGF AND SC ON MTMD

159

f
0.99 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.5

opt

f
0.99 0.97 0.95 I III REF. II IV 0.93 0.91

opt

I III REF.

II IV

g 0.89
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

g
(b) n=15 and T=0.01

(a) n=5 and T=0.01

f
0.99 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.5

opt

f
0.99 0.97 0.95

opt

I III REF. 1.0 1.5 2.0

II IV

0.93 0.91 I III REF. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 II IV

g 0.89
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
3.0 3.5 4.0

g
(d) n=15 and T=0.03

(c) n=5 and T=0.03

f
0.99 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.5

opt

f
I III REF. II IV
0.99 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.91

opt

I III REF.

II IV

g 0.89
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

g
(f) n=15 and T=0.05

(e) n=5 and T=0.05

Figure 4. Variation of the MTMD optimum tuning frequency ratio with respect to DGFR for various soil conditions.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

160

C. LI AND B. HAN

R II
0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 I III REF. II IV 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.20

R II

I III REF.

II IV

g 0.17
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

g
(b) n=15 and T =0.01

(a) n=5 and T =0.01

R II
0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 I III REF. II IV 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.20

R II
I III REF. II IV

g 0.17
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

g
(d) n=15 and T =0.03

(c) n=5 and T =0.03

R II
0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 I III REF. II IV 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.20

R II
I III REF. II IV

g 0.17
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

g
(f) n=15 and T =0.05

(e) n=5 and T =0.05

Figure 5. Variation of the RII value of the structure with the MTMD with respect to DGFR for various soil conditions.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF DGF AND SC ON MTMD

161

R III j
50 40 30 20 10 0 0.5

S0
25
TMD1 TMD3 TMD5 TMD2 TMD4

R III j

S0
TMD1 TMD3 TMD5 TMD2 TMD4

20 15 10 5 0

1.5

2.5 g

0.5

1.5

2.5 g

(a) T =0.01 for the I th sort of soil

R III j S0
TMD1 TMD3 TMD5 TMD2 TMD4

(b) T =0.03 for the I th sort of soil

R III j S0
TMD1 TMD3 TMD5 TMD2 TMD4

50 40 30 20 10 0

25 20 15 10 5

g
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

g
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(c) T =0.01 for the II th sort of soil

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(d) T =0.03 for the II th sort of soil

25

R III j

S0
TMD1 TMD3 TMD5 TMD2 TMD4

R III j

S0
TMD1 TMD3 TMD5 TMD2 TMD4

20 15 10 5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(e) T =0.01 for the III th sort of soil

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(f) T =0.03 for the III th sort of soil

25

R III j

S0
TMD1 TMD3 TMD5 TMD2 TMD4

R III j

S0
TMD1 TMD3 TMD5 TMD2 TMD4

20 15 10 5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(g) T =0.01 for the IV th sort of soil

(h) T =0.03 for the IV th sort of soil

Figure 6. Variation of the RIII j

S0 value of the jth TMD in the MTMD with respect to DGFR with

n = 5.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

162

C. LI AND B. HAN

5. CONCLUSIONS A model of earthquake ground motions has been developed in this study to more accurately reect the bedrock characteristics. With the derived acceleration transfer function of earthquake ground motions, extensive parametric studies are conducted on the MTMD to provide a reference to designing the MTMD for reducing the seismic response of structures. The numerical results indicate that if DGFR is less than unity, the MTMD may be designed directly using the optimum parameters of the MTMD obtained based on the harmonic-base acceleration hypothesis of earthquake ground motions. Otherwise, the total mass ratio range available is rather limited (i.e., 0.01 and below). This is because DGFR and SC have signicant effect on the optimum parameters and effectiveness of the MTMD with higher total mass ratio in situation where DGFR is larger than unity. The change of the maximum stroke displacement of the MTMD with DGFR further shows that the MTMD can be applied only to the structure with the controlled natural frequency less than DGF. In other words, the MTMD can be applied only to the structure with the fundamental period higher than DGP. Therefore, good performance in the case of the harmonic-base acceleration may not necessarily translate into good performance during earthquakes using the MTMD.

REFERENCES
Abe M, Fujino Y. 1994. Dynamic characterization of multiple tuned mass dampers and some design formulas. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 23(8): 813835. Bakre SV, Jangid RS. 2004. Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for base-excited damped main system. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 4(4): 527542. Chen G, Wu J. 2003. Experimental study on multiple tuned mass dampers to reduce seismic responses of a three-storey building structure. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 32(5): 793810. Clough RW, Penzien J. 1993. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill: New York. Gu M, Chen SR, Chang CC. 2001. Parametric study on multiple tuned mass dampers for buffeting control of Yangpu Bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89(1112): 9871000. Han B, Li C. 2006. Evaluation of multiple dual tuned mass dampers for structures under ground acceleration. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 6(1): 5975. Hoang N, Warnitchai P. 2005. Design of multiple tuned mass dampers by using a numerical optimizer. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(2): 125144. Jangid RS. 1999. Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for base-excited undamped system. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28(9): 10411049. Kareem A, Kline S. 1995. Performance of multiple mass dampers under random loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 121(2): 348361. Kwon S-D, Park K-S. 2004. Suppression of bridge utter using tuned mass dampers based on robust performance design. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 92(11): 919934. Li C. 2000. Performance of multiple tuned mass dampers for attenuating undesirable oscillations of structures under the ground acceleration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 29(9): 14051421. Li C. 2002. Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for structures under the ground acceleration based on DDMF and ADMF. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31(4): 897919. Li C. 2006. Estimation of dual-layer multiple tuned mass dampers for structures under ground acceleration. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 6(4): 541557. Li C, Li QS. 2005. Evaluation of the lever-type multiple tuned mass dampers for mitigating harmonically forced vibration. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 5(4): 641664. Li C, Liu Y. 2002. Active multiple tuned mass dampers for structures under the ground acceleration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31: 10411052. Li C, Liu Y. 2004. Ground motion dominant frequency effect on the design of multiple tuned mass dampers. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(1): 89105. Li C, Zhang J. 2005. Evaluation of arbitrary integer based multiple tuned mass dampers for structures. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 5(3): 475488. Lin CC, Wang JF, Chen BL. 2005. Train-induced vibration control of high-speed railway bridges equipped with multiple tuned mass dampers. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE 10(4): 398414. Liu SC, Jhaveri DP. 1969. Spectral simulation and earthquake site properties. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Division, ASCE 95(5): 11451168. Park J, Reed D. 2001. Analysis of uniformly and linearly distributed mass dampers under harmonic and earthquake excitation. Engineering Structures 23(7): 802814. Wu J, Chen G, Lou M. 1999. Seismic effectiveness of tuned mass dampers considering soil-structure interaction. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28(11): 12191233.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF DGF AND SC ON MTMD

163

Xu K, Igusa T. 1992. Dynamic characteristics of multiple substructures with closely spaced frequencies. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 21(12): 10591070. Yamaguchi H, Harnpornchai N. 1993. Fundamental characteristics of multiple tuned mass dampers for suppressing harmonically forced oscillations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 22(1): 5162. Yau JD, Yang YB. 2004. A wideband MTMD system for reducing the dynamic response of continuous truss bridges to moving train loads. Engineering Structures 26(12): 17951807. Yau JD, Yang YB. 2004. Vibration reduction for cable-stayed bridges traveled by high-speed trains. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 40(3): 341359.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 151163 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal