Performance of Pendulum Tuned Mass Dampers in

Reducing the Responses of Flexible Structures

A. J. Roffel 1; S. Narasimhan, M.ASCE 2; and T. Haskett 3

Abstract: The primary objective of this paper is to study the dynamic responses of a flexible multiple degree-of-freedom structure coupled
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with the three-dimensional motions of a nonlinear pendulum tuned mass damper (PTMD). The three-dimensional motions consist of both
planar and spherical motions of the PTMD. The optimal damper parameters obtained by using the three-dimensional model are compared
with those predicted by models in which PTMD motion is linearized to the planar direction. The effect of and sensitivity to frequency and
auxiliary damping detuning are considered for various levels of primary to auxiliary mass ratios. The performance of the PTMD is evaluated
by using a finite element representation of an actual tower structure equipped with a PTMD, together with the responses obtained by using the
high frequency base balance method from a boundary layer wind tunnel. The results are compared for linearized and three-dimensional
PTMDs and the effect of directional coupling introduced by the nonlinear three-dimensional PTMD on the response estimates is studied
by using the numerical model. Finally, a procedure is presented for conducting a condition assessment of existing PTMDs. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000797. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Tuned mass dampers; Pendulum dynamics; Wind engineering; Passive vibration control; Structural vibration control;
Parametric study; Structural control.

Introduction investigation that the authors have recently conducted on a structure

Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) are commonly used to attenuate
vibrations in flexible structures (Abe and Fujino 1994; Kareem
and Kijewski 1999; Kwok and Samali 1995). TMDs consist of a
relatively small auxiliary mass, a stiffness element, and a damper to
dissipate the mechanical energy as heat. Pendulum tuned mass
dampers (PTMDs) use a suspended mass instead of a sprung mass,
with a damping element to dissipate energy. When optimally tuned
to the resonant mode of interest, a TMD is effective in reducing the
dynamic response of the structure. The performance aspects of
TMDs are well understood (Sacks and Swallow 1993; Kwok and
Samali 1995; Kwok and Macdonald 1990; Kareem and Kijewski
1999), and optimal design equations for TMDs are readily available
(den Hartog 1956; Warburton and Ayorinde 1980; Rana and Soong
1998; Gerges and Vickery 2005; Bakre and Jangid 2007). Despite a
vast amount of literature and widespread full-scale applications of
TMDs, PTMDs have received relatively less attention (Gerges and
Vickery 2005; Roffel et al. 2011). Concerns related to their mod-
eling, simulation, determination of optimal design parameters, and
response analysis have not been systematically explored. This
paper aims to study these aspects and to present results from an
1
Staff II—Structures, Simpson Gumpertz and Heger, Inc., Waltham,
MA; formerly, Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
N2L 3G1.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Waterloo, 200 Univ. Ave. West, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L
3G1 (corresponding author). E-mail: snarasim@uwaterloo.ca
3
Technical Director, Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin, Inc., Guelph,
ON, Canada N1K 1B8.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 14, 2011; approved on
December 27, 2012; published online on December 29, 2012. Discussion
period open until February 13, 2014; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04013019(13)/$25.00.
located in Canada.
The study of TMDs in the literature has primarily focused on
two key aspects: (1) to determine the optimal damper parameters,
i.e., the frequency and damping of the TMD (den Hartog 1956; Ioi
and Ikeda 1978; Thompson 1981; Abe and Fujino 1994; Rana and
Soong 1998; Lee et al. 2006; Bakre and Jangid 2007; Ghosh and
Basu 2007) and to estimate the resulting performance; and (2) to
enhance the efficiency and robustness of passive TMDs by adding
adaptive stiffness and damping elements adjusted through feedback
control mechanisms (Nagarajaiah and Varadarajan 2005; Roffel
et al. 2011). The focus of this paper is on the first aspect. A wide-
spread approach of using linear or linearized models to estimate the
parameters of a TMD and their effectiveness has resulted in a large
database of information. However, systematic comparisons of
simple and linear models for more complex and realistic models,
specifically for the case of pendulum TMDs, which exhibit signifi-
cant nonlinear and three-dimensional behavior, are not readily
available in the literature.
Previous studies of pendulum-type tuned mass dampers have
considered linearized planar pendulum models coupled with a
single degree-of-freedom (DOF) primary system, described by us-
ing modal coordinates to find the optimal parameters and to predict
responses (Gerges and Vickery 2005). Such models are adequate,
for example, in analyzing the response of flexible structures in
which the dominant response is believed to be primarily in one di-
rection. When the responses in both along-wind and across-wind
directions are of concern, it is important to quantify the effect of the
PTMD in both directions. It will be shown that both the linearized
model and a three-dimensional model produce similar results for
the optimal auxiliary parameters; however, the linearized planar
model may sometimes lead to unconservative estimates in response
predictions.
The performance of TMDs is generally assessed using paramet-
ric studies of numerical models, which are excited by using
harmonic inputs (Rana and Soong 1998; Pinkaew and
Fujino 2001), earthquake time histories (Rana and Soong 1998;

© ASCE 04013019-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 Lee et al. 2006), or broadband, filtered, or band-limited white noise
(Bakre and Jangid 2007; Ghosh and Basu 2007). The performance
of PTMDs is generally overestimated when using the aforemen-
tioned conventional approaches rather than realistic wind loads
measured from a wind tunnel study (Xu and Kwok 1994). Studies
predicting the response of structures equipped with TMDs by using
synthetic wind time histories (Xu et al. 1992; Ricciardelli et al.
2000), or by directly measuring the response of TMD-equipped
structures through wind tunnel studies (Tanaka and Mak 1983;
Xu and Kwok 1994), are limited in the literature. The proposed
approach aims at quantifying the performance of the TMD by using
time history loading information from wind tunnel studies,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
combined with the popular high-frequency base balance (HFBB)
method.
This work is proposed within the context of vibration
occupancy comfort criteria for flexible buildings. A recent paper
on this topic (Kwok et al. 2009) reviewed an extensive database of
studies aimed at understanding and unifying comfort guidelines,
and presented an excellent overview of current standards in use
today. It is generally accepted that within the lower frequency
range less than 1 Hz, human perception threshold reduces with
increasing frequency. For structures with well separated lateral
frequencies, a PTMD designed to satisfy comfort performance
requirements in one direction may have a significant impact in
the other direction. As a consequence, it may not meet the
overall performance objectives in a given situation. Hence, it is
critical that the response for structures equipped with PTMDs
be estimated with a good degree of accuracy to ascertain its
overall performance.
With this background, the primary objectives of this paper are
summarized as follows. First, the optimal parameters are deter-
mined for a pendulum TMD by simulating the nonlinear three-
dimensional motions of the damper connected to a flexible
structure. The parameters are compared with existing values from
the literature. This is undertaken to shed new light on the impact of
simplified modeling assumptions. Next, the performance of the
PTMD when optimally tuned is evaluated by using wind tunnel
measurement data combined with the HFBB method. The impact
of simplifying assumptions on the response estimates is studied
in detail. Comparisons are made to the response predictions by
Fig. 1. Schematic geometry of the PTMD mass with auxiliary damper and spring: (a) isometric view; (b) x direction; (c) y direction
© ASCE 04013019-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019
linearized unidirectional models. This investigation is conducted
by using model tests on an airport control tower located in Toronto,
Canada, combined with a high-fidelity numerical model of the
same structure.
Dynamic Response of a Flexible Structure Coupled
with a PTMD
A system of equations that couples the dynamics of the flexible
structure with the motion of the PTMD is developed first. Civil
engineering structures are complex, and the use of overly simplified
systems to represent their dynamic behavior may lead to significant
errors in the estimation of their response. Furthermore, the coupled
nature of the nonlinear equations of motion of the PTMD impacts
the responses of the structure in both lateral directions. Therefore,
the ensuing study seeks to model the dynamic response of a multi-
ple degree of freedom (MDOF) structure in three dimensions,
equipped with a PTMD in the time domain, by using Lagrangian
mechanics.
The origin of the system is set up to coincide with the initial
suspension point of the pendulum mass. The vectors u, v, and
w are the displacements of the suspension point in the x, y, and
z directions, respectively. The angle θ is the angle of swing away
from the vertical line passing through the origin, also known as the
planar angle. The angle φ is the angle of the auxiliary mass rotating
about the vertical line, also known as the spherical angle; φ ¼ 0
corresponds to the positive x direction. All of the aforementioned
parameters vary with time. La is the length of the pendulum and ma
is the auxiliary pendulum mass. Fig. 1 shows a schematic geometry
of the pendulum mass.
A linear auxiliary viscous damper and linear spring are intro-
duced and fixed along the suspension length of the pendulum
and to the same DOF of the suspension point. The viscous damper
has damping coefficients cx in the x direction and cy in the y di-
rection. The linear spring has spring constants kx in the x direction
and ky in the y direction. The damper and spring are connected to
the pendulum length at distances hx and hy from the suspension
point in the x and y directions, respectively. It is assumed that
the auxiliary spring and damper remain horizontal.
J. Struct. Eng.
 The kinetic energy of the auxiliary mass is where Δ _ ¼ f u_ v_ w_ Δ _ r gT = velocity vector of the primary
system; u,_ v,
_ and w_ = nodal velocities of the suspension point;
1 _ r = velocities of the remainder of the DOFs for the primary
T a ¼ ma vvT and Δ
2 structure. Similarly, the subscript r in the global mass matrix
1
¼ ma ½ðu_ þ La cos θ cos ϕθ_ − La sin θ sin ϕϕÞ
_ 2 represents the remainder of the rows or columns of the mass matrix.
2 The potential (strain) energy of the primary system is
þ ðv_ þ La cos θ sin ϕθ_ þ La sin θ cos ϕϕÞ
_ 2 8 9T 2 38 9
>
> u >
> kuu kuv kuw Kur > > u >>
_ 2

þ ðw_ þ La sin θθÞ 1 T 1 < = 6 kvu kvv kvw Kvr 7< v =
v 6 7
V m ¼ Δ KΔ ¼
1 2 2>> w > 4 kwu kwv kww Kwr 5> w>
_ a cos θ cos ϕθ_
¼ ma ½u_ 2 þ v_ 2 þ w_ 2 þ L2a θ_ 2 þ L2a ϕ_ 2 sin2 θ þ 2uL : > ; : >
> ;
2 Δr Kru Krv Krw Krr Δr
_ a sin θ sin ϕϕ_ þ 2vL
− 2uL _ a cos θ sin ϕθ_ þ 2_vLa sin θ cos ϕϕ_ ð5Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

þ 2La w_ θ_ sin θ
ð1Þ where Δ ¼ f u v w Δr gT = displacement vector of the pri-

mary system; u, v, and w = nodal displacements of the suspension
The potential (strain) energy of the auxiliary mass is point; and Δr = displacements of the remainder of the DOFs for
1 1 the primary structure. Similarly, the subscript r in the global stiff-
V a ¼ kx r2p;x þ ky r2p;y þ ma gðw − La cos θÞ ness matrix represents the remainders of the rows or columns of the
2 2
stiffness matrix.
1 1
¼ kx hx sin θcos2 φ þ ky h2y sin2 θsin2 φ þ ma gðw − La cos θÞ
2 2 The Raleigh dissipation function for the primary mass is
2 2 8 9T 2 38 9
ð2Þ >
> u_ >
> cuu cuv cuw Cur > > u_ >>
1 _T _ <
1 v_ = 6 cvu cvv cvw Cvr 7< v_ =
F m ¼ Δ CΔ ¼ 6 7
A Raleigh dissipation function for the auxiliary system is intro- 2 2>
> w_ > 4 cwu cwv cww Cwr 5> w_ >
:_ > ; :_ >
> ;
duced. The auxiliary dissipation factor is Δr Cru Crv Crw Crr Δr
1 1 ð6Þ
F a ¼ cx v2p;x þ cy v2p;y
2 2
1
¼ cx ðh2x cos2 θcos2 φθ_ 2 − 2h2x cos θ cos φθ_ sin θ sin φφ_ Lagrange’s Equation
2
Lagrange’s equation (Meirovitch 1970), including the Raleigh dis-
þ h2x sin2 θsin2 φφ_ 2 Þ sipation function and the generalized forces, is
1
þ cy ðh2y cos2 θsin2 φθ_ 2 þ 2h2y cos θ cos φθ_ sin θ sin φφ_ d ∂T ∂T ∂V ∂F
2 − þ þ ¼ Qr ð7Þ
dt ∂ q_ r ∂qr ∂qr ∂ q_ r
þ h2y sin2 θcos2 φφ_ 2 Þ ð3Þ
where T , V, and F = sum of the primary and auxiliary kinetic
Consider the flexible primary MDOF structure with three trans- energy, potential energy, and Raleigh dissipation functions,
lational degrees of freedom in each orthogonal direction for each respectively; and the variables qr and q_ r = generalized coordinates
floor mass. Mn×n is the global mass matrix, Cn×n is the global and velocities of the system. For the combined primary struc-
damping matrix, and Kn×n is the global stiffness matrix, where ture and PTMD system, the general coordinates are u, v, w,
n is the number of DOFs. The upper left 3 × 3 matrix of the ma- θ, φ, and Δr and the generalized velocities are u, _ v_ , w, _ φ,
_ θ, _
trices corresponds to the DOF from which the PTMD is suspended. and Δ _ r . For the MDOF system, the generalized forces are
This is typically the top floor, although the equations can be modi- Q ¼ ½ Pu Pv Pw Pr 0 0
, where Pu , Pv , and Pw are the
fied to account for a PTMD suspended at a different location. arbitrary forces applied to the primary structure at the location
The kinetic energy of the primary system is of the suspended mass in the x, y, and z directions, respectively;
1 _T _ Pr is the arbitrary force excitation for the remainder of the
Tm¼ Δ MΔ DOF of the primary structure. Substituting the relevant quan-
2
8 9T 2 38 9 tities into Eq. (7) produces the differential equations of mo-
> u_ >
> > muu muv muw Mur > u_ >
< >
>
1 < v_ = 6 = tion for the primary MDOF structure coupled with the PTMD
6 mvu mvv mvw Mvr 7
7 v_
¼ 4 mwu 5 ð4Þ dynamics.
2>> w_ > mwv mww Mwr > w_ >
:_ > ; :_ >
> ; The equations of motion corresponding to the translational
Δr Mru Mrv Mrw Mrr Δr DOFs of the primary MDOF structure for forced vibration are

8 2 398 9 8 9 8 9
>
> ma 0 0 0 > > >
> ü >
> >
> u_ >> >
> u >
< 6 0 ma 0 0 7 = < = < = < > =
v̈ v_ v
Mþ6 4 0
7 þ C þ K ¼ ma La
>
> 0 ma 0 5> > > ẅ > > w_ > > w>
: ;> : > ; >
:_ > ; >
: > ;
0 0 0 0 Δ̈r Δr Δr
8 _ 2 _ 9 8 9 ð8Þ
> − cos θ cos φθ̈ þ sin θ cos φθ þ 2 cos θ sin φθ φ_ þ sin θ sin φφ̈ þ sin θ cos φφ_ 2 > > Pu >
>
< >
= <P >
> =
− cos θ sin φθ̈ þ sin θ sin φθ_ 2 − 2 cos θ cos φθ_ φ_ − sin θ cos φφ̈ þ sin θ sin φφ_ 2 v
× þ
>
>
: − sin θθ̈ − cos θθ_ − La
2 g >
; >
> > Pw >
: >
;
0 Pr

© ASCE 04013019-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 where M, C, and K are described in Eqs. (4)–(6). The equation 1
jH j ðωÞj2 ¼   ω 2
2 2ωζ j 2 ð13Þ
of motion corresponding to the planar (θ-DOF) motion of the 1 − ωj þ ωj
pendulum is

La θ̈ − La sin θ cos θφ_ 2 þ cos θ cos φü þ cos θ sin φv̈ þ sin θẅ H j ðωÞ = mechanical admittance function; ζ j = modal damping;
K j = generalized stiffness; and Swj ðωÞ = power spectral density of
kx h2x ky h2y the generalized wind forces.
þ g sin θ þ sin θ cos θcos2 φ þ sin θ cos θsin2 φ
ma La ma La The accuracy of the HFBB method depends on the effect of
cx h2x higher order modes. The HFBB method assumes that the general-
þ ðcos2 θcos2 φθ_ − cos θ cos φ sin θ sin φφÞ
_ ized forces are proportional to the measured base moments for
ma La
structures with uncoupled mode shapes that are approximately
cy h2y
þ ðcos2 θsin2 φθ_ þ cos θ cos φ sin θ sin φφÞ
_ ¼0 ð9Þ linear. The response of the structure to the wind excitation is
ma La determined by solving the generalized form of the equations of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

motion. The primary advantage of the HFBB method is that,

The equation of motion corresponding to spherical (φ-DOF) under the simplifying assumptions of mode shape linearity
motion of the pendulum is and broadband stationary excitation, the response of the structure
can be solved in closed form by using random vibration theory.
La sin θφ̈ þ 2La cos θθ_ φ_ − sin φü þ cos φv̈ For nonlinear and coupled mode shapes, correction factors
kx h2x − ky h2y can be applied (Holmes 1987; Yip and Flay 1995; Zhou
− ðsin θ sin φ cos φÞ et al. 2002; Chen and Kareem 2005; Lam and Li 2009; Tse
ma La
et al. 2009). However, applying the modes that uncouple the
cx h2x
þ ð− cos θ cos φ sin φθ_ þ sin θsin2 φφÞ
_ primary system from the PTMD controlled system does not
ma La allow the overall system of equations to be solved in the fre-
cy h2y quency domain. Hence, the solution to the case of the structure
þ ðcos θ cos φ sin φθ_ þ sin θcos2 φφÞ
_ ¼0 ð10Þ equipped with a PTMD is pursued in the time domain, as
ma La
explained next.
Eqs. (8)–(10) are the integrated finite-element representation of The equations of motion for the flexible structure coupled
a MDOF flexible structure with coupled dynamics of a PTMD for with a planar-spherical PTMD [Eqs. (8)–(10)] are adapted in
forced vibration. If the motion of the primary structure is restricted the generalized form to include rotation about the vertical axis
to the x direction, and the PTMD begins from at-rest initial and translation in each horizontal direction. It is assumed that
conditions, then φ ¼ φ_ ¼ φ̈ ¼ 0, v ¼ v_ ¼ v̈ ¼ 0, and w ¼ w_ ¼ the mode shapes of the primary structure are not affected by
ẅ ¼ 0. For small angle displacements, sin θ and cos θ can be ap- the addition of the PTMD and that the mode shapes for the pri-
proximated by θ and 1, respectively. Neglecting the nonlinear term mary translational modes remain linear. To account for the
θθ_ 2 , the equations of motion reduce to coupling between the pendulum and the primary structure in
the physical domain, the modal responses for the primary

      
ma 0 ü u_ u structure are transformed back into the physical domain at
Mx þ þ Cx þ Kx each time step and the control force is calculated. The control
0 0 Δ̈r;x _ r;x
Δ Δr;x
force is transformed into modal coordinates and applied to the
 
Pu − ma La θ̈ structure, together with the generalized force measured by using
¼ ð11aÞ HFBB. The equations of motion in the modal domain for the jth
Pr;x
mode are

ma L2a θ̈ þ cx h2x θ_ þ ðma gLa þ kx h2x Þθ þ ma La ü ¼ 0 ð11bÞ M j ÿj ðtÞ þ Cj y_ j ðtÞ þ K j yj ðtÞ ¼ uj ðtÞ þ wj ðtÞ ð14Þ

where Mx , Cx , and Kx = mass, damping, and stiffness matrices where

when all except the terms corresponding to translation in the x 8 2 39
direction are removed. >
> ma 0 0 0 >>
< 6 0 =
6 ma 0 077 ϕj
M j ¼ ϕj M þ 4
T ð15Þ
>
> 0 0 0 0 5>
>
: ;
High Frequency Base Balance Method 0 0 0 0

The HFBB method is commonly adopted for predicting the re- The first three DOFs of the mass matrix correspond to the
sponse of structure to wind excitations. The premise of the method translation in the x and y directions and rotation about the
is that the base overturning and torsional moments measured on a z direction of the rigid diaphragm mass to which the PTMD is
lightweight rigid scale model in a wind tunnel can be used to es- fixed. The PTMD is assumed to be connected to the structure
timate the generalized forces exerted on the structure (Tschanz and by using a frictionless hinge that cannot transfer rotations about
Davenport 1983; Kareem 1992). Once the generalized wind forces the z axis. Similarly, Cj ¼ ϕTj Cϕj , where C is the proportional
are estimated from the measurements, the following expression is damping matrix of the primary system, and K j ¼ ϕTj Kϕj . The
used to calculate the SD of the modal response (for the jth mode) mass moment of inertia of the pendulum about its own axis is
(Tse et al. 2009) neglected.
Z 1=2 The generalized wind force, wj ðtÞ, is measured directly from the
1 ∞
2 HFBB model:
σj ¼ jHj ðωÞj Swj ðωÞdω ð12Þ
Kj 0
My ðtÞ M ðtÞ
wj ðtÞ ¼ X jx ϕj1 − X jy ϕj2 x þ X jzz ϕj3 Mz ðtÞ ð16Þ
where h h

© ASCE 04013019-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 where M x , M y , and Mz = base moments about the x, y, and z axis,
respectively; and h = height of the structure; the coefficients ϕj1 ,
ϕj2 , and ϕj3 ¼ x, y, and θz components of the mode shape
coefficients at the top of the building for the jth mode. The com-
monly used mode shape correction factors of X jx ¼ X jy ¼ 1 and
X jzz ¼ 0.7 (Tse et al. 2009) are introduced to account for nonideal
mode shapes, specifically because the torsional mode shape is not
constant.
The control force exerted on the structure by the PTMD is trans-
formed into the modal domain by using

 T  
ϕ1j _2 __ _2
uj ðtÞ ¼ ma La − cos φθ̈ þ θ cos φ_θ2 þ 2 sin φ_θ φ þθ sin φφ̈ þ θ cos φφ2 ð17Þ
ϕ2j − sin φθ̈ þ θ sin φθ − 2 cos φθ φ_ −θ cos φφ̈ þ θ sin φφ_
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

θ and φ and their first and second time derivatives are found by
solving the corresponding equations of motion [Eqs. (9) and (10)
with ẅ ¼ 0; ü and v̈ are found by transforming the modal responses
back into physical coordinates at each time step with the following
transformation:
X
N closed-form solutions are only possible for the special case of an
ü ¼ ϕj1 ÿ
j¼1
X
N in structures has been demonstrated by approximating the fixed
v̈ ¼ ϕj2 ÿ
j¼1
These transformations are necessary because the calculation of
the control forces, according to Eq. (17), depends on the physical
coordinates. At each time step, the following operations are con-
ducted. First, the primary structure dynamic analysis is conducted
in the modal domain, because the generalized force is directly
measurable from the HFBB model. Second, the directional cou-
pling of the PTMD is captured in physical domain by first trans-
forming the acceleration responses for the suspension point (ü and
v̈) into the physical coordinates at each time step and subsequently
transforming the control force exerted by the PTMD on the primary
structure back into modal coordinates. In doing so, the HFBB
method can be adapted to solve the nonlinear PTMD equations
in the time domain.
the RMS displacement response of the primary system by using
closed-form solutions that are documented in the literature (Gerges
and Vickery 2005). The approach relies on the presence of fixed
point frequencies, in which the transmissibility of the vibration
is independent of the auxiliary damping; for structures that exhibit
main mass damping, these frequencies no longer exist. Therefore,
ð18aÞ undamped primary structure (Gerges and Vickery 2005; Rana and
Soong 1998; Bakre and Jangid 2007), although close agreement
with numerical results for low to moderate main mass damping
ð18bÞ point frequencies (Ghosh and Basu 2007). A popular approach
to determine the optimal parameters for a PTMD is to calculate
the theoretical values for equivalent linear systems and parameters
(that is, stiffness and damping). Subsequently, the equivalent pen-
dulum length is calculated. As will be shown in this paper, such
methods are satisfactory for the calculation of the design parame-
ters; however, they may lead to unconservative estimates predicting
the response of the controlled system.
The second approach, which is necessary for structures with a
damped primary system, involves a numerical search. The optimal
values for the parameters are determined by using simulations of
the coupled response of the primary and auxiliary systems. Results
have been demonstrated by several researchers for conventional
translational TMDs (Ioi and Ikeda 1978; Warburton and Ayorinde
1980; Thompson 1981; Bakre and Jangid 2007) and PTMDs
(Gerges and Vickery 2005). Even in numerical approaches, many
researchers have utilized linearized equations. Hence, the concerns
in accurately predicting the responses still remain.

Optimum Design Parameters

The optimal design parameters consist of the optimal mass ratio,
μopt ; frequency ratio, f r;opt ; and auxiliary damping ratio, β a;opt .
These quantities represent the ratio of the auxiliary parameters
to their corresponding primary structure parameters. The mass ra-
tio, μ, is a ratio of the auxiliary mass, ma , to the primary effective
modal mass, Mn , for the mode to be controlled (typically the fun-
damental mode of vibration). The frequency ratio is the ratio of the
frequency of the PTMD to the natural frequency of the primary
system and is directly related to the pendulum length, La . Similarly,
the damping ratio, the ratio of the auxiliary damping coefficient to
the critical auxiliary damping, is directly related to the auxiliary
damping coefficients, cx and cy .
Values for the optimal frequency ratio and auxiliary system
damping ratio under random main mass excitation are calculated
by using two primary approaches. The first seeks to minimize
Planar Pendulum Tuned Mass Damper Model
Consider an SDOF system with a pendulum-type TMD (Fig. 1).
The equations of motion given in Eqs. (11a) and (11b) are simpli-
fied for a mixed two DOF system, one translational (primary) in the
modal domain and one rotational (auxiliary):
M n ẍðtÞ þ Cn x_ ðtÞ þ K n xðtÞ þ ma ẍðtÞ þ ma La θ̈ðtÞ ¼ Fn ðtÞ ð19Þ
and
_ þ ðma gLa þ ks h2 ÞθðtÞ þ ma La ẍðtÞ ¼ 0
ma L2a θ̈ðtÞ þ ca h2 θðtÞ
ð20Þ
where M n , Cn , K n , and Fn ðtÞ = generalized mass, damping,
stiffness, and force of the primary system for the mode to be con-
trolled. Here, the primary system is modelled as an SDOF with a

© ASCE 04013019-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 translational modal coordinate xðtÞ. The auxiliary system has a ro-
tational DOF, θðtÞ; auxiliary mass, ma ; and pendulum length, La ;
and h is the distance between the suspension point and the spring/
damper attachment point. The auxiliary stiffness is comprised of
the inherent stiffness of the pendulum, ma gLa , and the auxiliary
spring with stiffness ks (previously kx in Fig. 1); ca is the damping
of the auxiliary damper (previously cx in Fig. 1).
The damping ratio for a PTMD is defined as
displacement) of the primary mass was used as the performance
index, because the PTMD is usually designed to reduce this re-
sponse within acceptable serviceability criteria limits (Xu and
Kwok 1994). Using standard curve fitting techniques, the following
relationships were found for the optimal frequency and auxiliary
damping ratios:
fr;opt ¼ −0.64μ − 0.23ζ p þ 0.99 ð25aÞ

ca h 2 β a;opt ¼ −4.89μ2 þ 1.89μ þ 0.018 ð25bÞ

βa ¼ ð21Þ
2ma L2a ω2

where the circular natural frequency of the auxiliary system is

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

given by
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ma gLa þ ks h2
ω2 ¼
ma L2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
which simplifies to ω2 ¼ g=La for the case in which there is no
auxiliary spring. Optimum tuning parameters for pendulum-type
TMDs have been presented in the literature that minimize the
RMS displacement response of the primary system, for the case
of the undamped primary system (Gerges and Vickery 2005).
The optimal frequency ratio for force excited primary mass with
a PTMD in which the mass is assumed to be lumped at the free
end of the pendulum length is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiμffi
ω2opt 1þ2
f r;opt ¼ ¼ ð23Þ
ω1 1þμ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where ω1 ¼ K n =M n = undamped circular natural frequency of
the primary system, The optimal auxiliary damping ratio is
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
μ þ 3μ4
β a;opt ¼
4 þ 6μ þ 2μ2
Various numerical simulations were performed and averaged for
primary mass damping ratios of ζ p ¼ 1 to 5% and auxiliary to pri-
mary mass ratios varying from μ ¼ 0.01 to 0.15. The equations of
motion were implemented in Simulink by using state-space repre-
sentation and the numerical integration was performed by using
Runge-Kutta method. The RMS acceleration response (rather than
The proposed design equations for the planar PTMD are plotted
in Fig. 2 for 1, 3, and 5% damping ratios, together with the closed-
form solutions for no primary mass damping [Eqs. (23) and (24)].
The maximum error between the results from the design equations
ð22Þ
developed by using standard curve fitting techniques and the results
from the numerical search are also shown in Fig. 2. These results
are deemed applicable only for the limited range of mass and damp-
ing ratios presented here.
Optimal Frequency and Damping Ratios for the
Three-Dimensional Case
To determine the optimal damper parameters from the combined
planar-spherical PTMD model, a numerical search method is em-
ployed by using an SDOF model with x, y, and z translational
degrees of freedom in addition to θ and φ. Several simulation
trials are performed by using a broadband white noise primary mass
excitation, and a cost function is evaluated each time, based on
the RMS acceleration response in both horizontal directions.
The optimal frequency and damping ratios are determined for
various primary structure damping ratios and auxiliary to primary
mass ratios.
ð24Þ
There are a few important considerations when selecting the
auxiliary to primary mass ratio. It is desirable to reduce the aux-
iliary to primary mass ratio because this reduces the overall weight
of the materials and the size of the dampers; however, higher
mass ratios offer better performance. Although it is well known
that the performance of a TMD increases with increasing mass
ratio, the mass ratio is often determined by other design consider-
ations and project constraints. Hence, the ensuing study assumes

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Optimal frequency ratio and auxiliary damping ratio for planar PTMD: (a) frequency ratio; (b) damping ratio

© ASCE 04013019-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 that the designer has the ability to select an auxiliary mass
based on such constraints and focuses on determining the
optimal auxiliary damping and pendulum length for a range of
mass ratios.
The damping in the primary structure is considered to be 1 to
5% critical. Auxiliary to primary mass ratios range from 0.005 to
0.125. To simplify the analysis, the auxiliary damping in the x and y
directions are assumed to be equal (cx ¼ cy ). Also, the damper at-
tachment point coincides with the pendulum length (hx ¼ hy ¼ L).
Finally, no additional auxiliary stiffness is introduced in the form
of auxiliary springs (kx ¼ ky ¼ 0). The optimal frequency ratio
found by using the numerical search method is shown in Fig. 3,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
together with the closed-form solution for no primary mass damp-
ing [Eq. (23)]. The optimal frequency ratio results demonstrate
less sensitivity to mass ratio than that predicted by the closed-form
solutions and the numerical search of the planar PTMD model.
Furthermore, varying the primary mass damping has the effect of
changing the sensitivity of the frequency ratio to the mass ratio.
For the primary mass damping ratios under consideration, the sen-
sitivity of the results indicate that the primary system damping and
auxiliary to primary mass ratio do not play significant roles in the
selection of the optimal frequency ratio.
The optimal damping ratio found by using the numerical search
method is shown in Fig. 3, together with the closed-form solution
for no primary mass damping [Eq. (24)]. The numerical search
of the planar-spherical system results in slightly greater damping
ratios than the closed-form optimal auxiliary damping equations.
For mass ratios of less than approximately 3%, optimal auxiliary
damping ratios decrease with increasing primary mass damping
ratios and increase with increasing mass ratios for mass ratios
greater than approximately 3%. As the mass ratios moves into
the upper range of the values considered, the disparity between
the closed-form optimal auxiliary damping and the planar-spherical
prediction grows, with the latter producing greater optimal aux-
iliary damping.
By using standard curve fitting techniques, the following rela-
tionships are found for the optimal frequency and auxiliary damp-
ing ratios:
fr;opt ¼ ð4.2ζ p − 0.15Þμ þ 0.15ζ p þ 0.99 ð26aÞ
(a)
Fig. 3. Optimal frequency and damping ratios for planar-spherical PTMD: (a) frequency ratio; (b) damping ratio
© ASCE 04013019-7
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019
β a;opt ¼ ð−45ζ p − 2.4Þμ2 þ ð9.7ζ p þ 1.5Þμ − 0.22ζ p þ 0.05
ð26bÞ
The maximum errors between the design equations developed
by using standard curve fitting techniques and the results from the
numerical search are shown in Fig. 3. Once the frequency and
damping ratios are calculated, they can be converted into the ap-
propriate physical parameters through the following procedure.
When no auxiliary springs are included (kx ¼ ky ¼ 0), the optimal
pendulum length is related to the frequency ratio by the following
relationship (Gerges and Vickery 2005)
g
Lopt ¼ ð27Þ
f 2r;opt ω21
The optimal auxiliary damping is related to the damping ratio by
the following relationship
cd;opt ¼ 2β a;opt ma f r;opt ω1 ð28Þ
Effect of Mass Ratio on Detuning
The detuning of a TMD occurs when the TMD parameters do
not coincide with the corresponding optimal parameters. For
practical applications, it is important to understand the conditions
under which the effect of detuning will become important. In
this study, this concern is specifically addressed from the stand-
point of detuning versus the auxiliary to primary mass ratio of
the PTMD.
To evaluate the effect of the mass ratio on the optimal auxiliary
parameters f r;opt and β a;opt , a mass, free to translate in each direc-
tion, coupled with a planar-spherical PTMD is considered.
Primary mass damping is fixed at 2% for illustration purposes
(it has previously been shown that this parameter is not critical
for the range of values under consideration), and mass ratios of
μ ¼ 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, and 0.09 are considered. The sys-
tem is excited in both horizontal directions by Gaussian white
noise. The auxiliary damping coefficient and pendulum length
are varied and the RMS of the acceleration response in the horizon-
tal plane is used as the performance indicator. The results are
(b)
J. Struct. Eng.
 averaged over many realizations of the input. Fig. 4 shows the
variation in the optimal auxiliary damping coefficient at various
mass ratios for a fixed pendulum length and the change in optimal
pendulum length at various mass ratios for a fixed level of auxiliary
damping.
Several observations can be made regarding the optimal param-
eters as the mass ratio is increased. First, the optimal pendulum
length decreases slightly with increasing mass ratio. Second, the
sensitivity to detuning reduces as the mass ratio increases, indicated
by the flattening of the curves in Fig. 4. This implies that selection
of optimal damper parameters for higher mass ratios is less critical.
The optimal pendulum length curves (Fig. 4) become flatter in both
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

directions with increasing mass ratio, meaning that a similar per-

formance is expected for a PTMD that has a pendulum length away Fig. 5. Apron Tower at Pearson International Airport in Toronto,
from the optimal length, regardless of whether it is shorter or longer Ontario, Canada (photograph courtesy of Aaron J. Roffel)
than optimal length. The optimal auxiliary damping coefficient also
is less susceptible to detuning as the mass ratio increases, but only
for damping greater than the optimal level. Therefore, in selecting
the level of auxiliary damping for higher mass ratios, it is critical
that the damping coefficient is at least optimal.

Full-Scale Study: Application to the Apron Tower

To investigate the effectiveness of the proposed design equations

and simulation model, the Apron Tower at Pearson International
Airport in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, is considered as the test
bed. The Apron Tower, shown in Fig. 5, rises 49 m above the fourth
level of Terminal 1, with a total height above grade of 68.5 m. Con-
structed in 2000, the tower is a steel structure with composite steel
deck and concrete floors. The structure has 10 core levels, primarily
consisting of a scissor stairwell, elevator, and service shafts. The
upper five levels contain mechanical, electrical, and communica-
tion service equipment, office space, and areas for controllers to
work performing apron management tasks. The structure is sup- Fig. 6. PTMDs installed on the Pearson Apron Tower (photograph
ported by six primary steel columns resting on transfer girders courtesy of Aaron J. Roffel)
at the terminal roof level. Lateral loads are transferred to a
combination of braced and moment frames through rigid dia-
phragm action in the composite floors. The structure is augmented ratio, one hypothetical case of a 9,050-kg tuned mass is also se-
with two pendulum-type tuned mass dampers, each 25,000 kg lected, corresponding to mass ratios of 2.00 and 2.25% in the
(ma ¼ 50,000 kg), supported at the roof level within the steel truss two lateral modes.
roof system (Fig. 6). The corresponding mass ratios in the first two To estimate the generalized forces, a scaled model of the Apron
lateral modes are 12.4 and 11.1%. In addition to the actual mass Tower is built and tested in the Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Sensitivity of tuning parameters for auxiliary to primary mass ratio: (a) for auxiliary damping coefficient, ca ; (b) for pendulum length, La

© ASCE 04013019-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 (RWDI) boundary layer wind tunnel facility in Guelph, Ontario, Table 1. Optimal Parameters for Apron Tower from Design Equations
Canada. The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 7. The generalized Optimal parameter Closed form Planar Planar-spherical
forces thus calculated are subsequently used in the previously de-
Eqs. (23) Eqs. (25a) Eqs. (26a)
scribed numerical simulations. In addition to wind tunnel tests, a
Parameter Units and (24) and (25b) and (26b)
vibration measurement program is performed to determine the
natural frequencies and primary mode shapes. The identified mode μ ¼ 12.4%
shapes are subsequently used as inputs for the HFBB method. In fr;opt 0.917 0.913 0.975
addition, the identified primary structure damping is used on β a;opt 0.169 0.178 0.204
Lopt m 0.659 0.663 0.582
prediction simulations. The instrumentation program consists of in-
cd;opt N s=m 65.1 × 103 68.4 × 103 83.5 × 103
stallation and monitoring of 12 high-sensitivity seismic accelerom- μ ¼ 2.25%
eters to measure the responses of the structure. The responses are fr;opt 0.984 0.978 0.987
processed by using a hybrid time frequency blind source separation β a;opt 0.074 0.058 0.081
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

algorithm to determine the modal characteristics. The three lowest
frequencies identified are 0.67, 0.83, and 1.44 Hz, and the
corresponding damping ratios are 0.85, 1.92, and 2.70%, critical.
The details of the instrumentation and identification studies are
documented elsewhere (Hazra 2010); the details are not repeated
here for the sake of brevity. The mode shapes obtained from the
finite-element model of the tower are used for the analysis and
closely correspond to the identified modes.
Comparison of the Optimal PTMD Parameters between
Various Methods
To investigate the approach that best predicts the optimal auxiliary
parameters, f r;opt and β a;opt are evaluated by using the three ap-
proaches described earlier: the closed-form equations in Eqs. (23)
and (24) (Gerges and Vickery 2005); the design equations in
Eqs. (25a) and (25b), which are found by using a numerical search
approach of a planar PTMD excited by using Gaussian white noise
(planar); and the design equations in Eqs. (26a) and (26b), which
are found by a numerical search of the planar-spherical PTMD
model, also excited using Gaussian white noise (planar-spherical).
Table 1 shows the predicted optimal frequency ratio, f r;opt , and
damping ratio, β a;opt , and the optimal pendulum length and aux-
iliary damping coefficient, found by using Eqs. (27) and (28)
for both the current in-service mass ratio of 12.4%, and a mass ratio
of 2.25%.
Each method predicts slightly varying pendulum lengths when a
structure equipped with a PTMD is considered. For the 2.25% mass
ratio, the variation is a nominal 1.1 cm. For the 12.4% mass ratio,
the difference is 8.1 cm; however, this is expected to have a limited
effect on the actual response because it has been demonstrated that
Lopt m 0.572 0.579 0.568
cd;opt N s=m 5.57 × 103 4.33 × 103 6.05 × 103
the sensitivity to detuning is less pronounced for higher mass ratios.
The 0° (also 360°) degree wind direction corresponds to a wind
coming from the north. The direction proceeds clockwise, so a
90° heading is an east wind. Because the varying nature of the wind
excitation, the performance of the PTMD will vary depending on
the wind direction. Therefore, a numerical search is performed for
each wind direction to determine the optimal auxiliary parameters.
The optimal pendulum length and auxiliary damping coefficient for
each wind direction are presented in Table 2. For the sake of brev-
ity, only the critical wind direction results are shown; however, the
average and SD are calculated by using the data for all of the wind
directions.
Table 2 shows a greater variation in the damper parameters for
the higher mass ratio. The optimal pendulum length varies by ap-
proximately 3.4 cm for the 2.25% mass ratio and 7.8 cm for the
12.4% mass ratio. The difference in the average pendulum length
between both mass ratios is negligible. The planar-spherical predic-
tion approach best captures the negligible difference in optimal
pendulum length for the two mass ratios.
The optimal auxiliary damping coefficient varies considerably
for both mass ratios and for both cases of excitations in Tables 1
and 2. The planar-spherical prediction approach better predicts the
optimal auxiliary damping than the numerical search results using
the HFBB method; the optimal damping coefficient is 12% greater
than the best prediction for the 2.25% mass ratio and 15% less for
the 12.4% mass ratio. It is hypothesized that the assumption of
equal lateral natural frequencies in the orthogonal directions results
in an uncertain estimate of the auxiliary damping coefficients. The
effect of lateral frequency ratio on the optimal parameter estimates
needs to be investigated further.

Table 2. Optimal Damper Parameters from Apron Tower Model, Excited

by Using HFBB Data
Optimal damper parameters
Reference
μ ¼ 2.25% μ ¼ 12.4%
wind
Wind velocity La ca La ca
direction (km=h) (m) (×103 N s=m) (m) (×103 N s=m)
260 129 0.553 4.84 0.539 77.4
270 129 0.543 5.69 0.523 73.7
280 126 0.537 4.74 0.523 79.7
290 122 0.557 5.28 0.532 82.1
300 116 0.556 4.32 0.536 80.4
Fig. 7. Wind tunnel study model of Pearson Apron Tower (image Average 0.554 4.90 0.555 72.9
SD 0.007 0.69 0.016 29.5
courtesy of Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc.)

© ASCE 04013019-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 To evaluate the performance of the parameter prediction meth-
ods, the responses are calculated by using the HFBB approach for
all three auxiliary parameter settings for each wind direction. The
wind time histories for each angle are scaled to a one-year mean
recurrence interval. The RMS response are provided for each wind
direction, together with the corresponding reduction when com-
pared to the bare structural system lacking the PTMD. The results
for the responses in the north-south (y) direction for a 2.25% tuned
mass are provided in Table 3; the responses in the east-west (x)
direction are provided in Table 4. Only the data for the critical wind
directions (260 to 300°) are shown, for the sake of brevity.
Tables 3 and 4 show that the 260° wind direction produces a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
separated. The auxiliary damper parameters, particularly the pen-
dulum length, are tuned to the fundamental mode and provide little
improvement, and in some cases, may degrade the performance, in
the other lateral direction. The critical response of the uncontrolled
system is the y direction response; for the controlled structure, this
shifts to the x direction. The optimally tuned results are found by
numerical search based on a cost function of reducing the combined
x and y direction RMS response; therefore, a greater x direction
response occurs in several the wind directions when the lateral
responses are considered separately.
A means of overcoming this inherent weakness in PTMD design
is to increase the mass ratio, μ. As discussed earlier, an increased

critical response in the y direction for the uncontrolled system.
For the structure equipped with the PTMD, this result shifts slightly
to the 270° wind direction. Several observations regarding the op-
timal auxiliary parameter predictions can be made. First, the planar-
spherical prediction slightly outperforms the others, whereas the
planar numerical search predictor performs slightly worse. Across
all wind directions, the optimal parameters obtained from the
planar-spherical prediction model provides very similar perfor-
mance to those obtained from the closed-form parameter prediction
method. Second, the various methods are reasonably accurate in
predicting the actual optimal parameters (determined by numerical
search by using the HFBB excitations).
In general, the optimal parameters obtained by the planar-
spherical prediction model result in marginally better performance
for the x direction response when tuned to the y direction lateral
mode. Therefore, the reduced effect of the PTMD on the x direction
responses shown in Table 4 is expected. The critical wind direction
for the x direction response is 280° for the structure without the
PTMD. This shifts to the 270° wind direction for the PTMD-
equipped structure, in which degraded performance compared to
the bare structure is experienced. This highlights a critical weak-
ness in a PTMD with a low auxiliary to primary mass ratio when
the orthogonal lateral frequencies of the primary structure are well
mass ratio decreases the overall RMS response of the primary sys-
tem. Also, according to Fig. 4, the sensitivity to detuning for higher
mass ratios is reduced. Therefore, it is expected that the x direction
response will experience an improved RMS response when
equipped with the 12.4% tuned mass as a result of the reduced sen-
sitivity to detuning, although the PTMD is tuned to the first lateral
mode in the y direction. The y direction roof RMS acceleration
responses for the structure without the PTMD are compared with
a structure equipped with a 12.4% tuned mass. Additionally, vari-
ous parameter prediction approaches, together with the optimal
auxiliary parameters, are presented in Table 5. The results for
the x direction responses are given in Table 6.
For all wind directions, an increased reduction in the roof RMS
acceleration response is experienced for y direction motion com-
pared with the 2.25% tuned mass. On average, this reduction is
22%; for the winds in the vicinity of the critical wind direction
(260 to 300°), the average performance improvement is 26%.
There is a significant performance improvement for the 12.4%
tuned mass in the x direction compared with the 2.25% tuned mass
(22% reduction), particularly in the vicinity of the critical wind di-
rection (260 to 300°). The performance improvement is twofold.
First, PTMD performance increases with larger mass ratios.
Second, the increased mass ratio results in a reduced sensitivity

Table 3. Roof RMS Acceleration Response in the y Direction and Corresponding Reduction for the Apron Tower Equipped with a PTMD Tuned to μ ¼
2.25% for the Critical Wind Directions
RMS acceleration response in y direction
With PTMD tuned by using method
Without PTMD Closed form Planar Planar-spherical Optimally tuned
Wind direction mg mg % mg % mg % mg %
260 11.53 5.56 52 5.74 50 5.52 52 5.49 52
270 11.19 5.63 50 5.86 48 5.58 50 5.51 51
280 11.06 5.49 50 5.66 49 5.43 51 5.36 52
290 9.85 4.73 52 4.89 50 4.69 52 4.64 53
300 11.25 4.10 64 4.08 64 4.13 63 4.03 64

Table 4. Roof RMS Acceleration Response in the x Direction and Corresponding Reduction for the Apron Tower Equipped with a PTMD Tuned to μ ¼
2.25% for the Critical Wind Directions
RMS acceleration response in x direction
With PTMD tuned by using method
Without PTMD Closed form Planar Planar-spherical Optimally tuned
Wind direction mg mg % mg % mg % mg %
260 6.69 5.79 13 5.92 11 5.74 14 5.80 13
270 6.83 5.88 14 6.02 12 5.83 15 5.76 16
280 6.98 6.03 14 6.18 11 5.98 14 5.99 14
290 6.10 5.71 6 5.87 4 5.65 7 5.71 6
300 6.41 5.83 9 6.03 6 5.75 10 5.95 7

© ASCE 04013019-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 Table 5. Roof RMS Acceleration Response in the y Direction and Corresponding Reduction for the Apron Tower Equipped with a PTMD Tuned to μ ¼
12.4% for the Critical Wind Directions
RMS acceleration response in y direction
With PTMD tuned by using method
Without PTMD Closed form Planar Planar-spherical Optimally tuned
Wind direction mg mg % mg % mg % mg %
260 11.53 3.88 66 3.88 66 3.73 68 3.70 68
270 11.19 3.92 65 3.92 65 3.75 66 3.72 67
280 11.06 3.86 65 3.86 65 3.67 67 3.63 67
290 9.85 3.35 66 3.35 66 3.21 67 3.19 68
300 11.25 3.03 73 3.02 73 2.92 74 2.91 74
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 6. Roof RMS Acceleration Response in the x Direction and Corresponding Reduction for the Apron Tower Equipped with a PTMD Tuned to μ ¼
12.4% for the Critical Wind Directions
RMS acceleration response in x direction
With PTMD tuned by using method
Without PTMD Closed form Planar Planar-spherical Optimally tuned
Wind direction mg mg % mg % mg % mg %
260 6.69 4.58 32 4.53 32 4.17 38 4.11 39
270 6.83 4.56 33 4.51 34 4.18 39 4.12 40
280 6.98 4.65 33 4.60 34 4.20 40 4.04 42
290 6.10 4.05 34 4.02 34 3.67 40 3.53 42
300 6.41 3.45 46 3.44 46 3.17 51 3.06 52

Table 7. Comparison of Roof RMS Acceleration Response Predictions and Corresponding Reduction for the Apron Tower Equipped with a PTMD Tuned to
μ ¼ 2.25% Using Planar-Spherical and Planar Models for the Critical Wind Directions
Without PTMD Planar-spherical PTMD Planar PTMD
x y x y x y
Wind direction mg mg mg % mg % mg % mg %
260 6.69 11.53 5.80 13 5.49 52 5.70 15 5.41 53
270 6.83 11.19 5.76 16 5.51 51 5.72 16 5.46 51
280 6.98 11.06 5.99 14 5.36 52 5.91 15 5.35 52
290 6.10 9.85 5.71 6 4.64 53 5.46 11 4.57 54
300 6.41 11.25 5.95 7 4.03 64 5.81 9 4.01 64

to detuning; therefore, a significant improvement is realized in the x
direction response, although the PTMD is tuned to the first lateral
mode in the y direction.
As observed for the 2.25% tuned mass, the evaluation of the
various parameter prediction approaches finds nominal perfor-
mance improvement of the planar-spherical over the closed-form
prediction or planar prediction model for the response in the
y direction. This is of particular interest, because the different
methods predict relatively different auxiliary frequency ratios
(fr;opt ¼ 0.913 to 0.975). This underscores the fact that increasing
the mass ratio dramatically reduces the sensitivity of the system to
detuning. For the responses in the x direction, the planar-spherical
model better predicts the optimal auxiliary parameters than the
2.25% mass ratio, demonstrating an increasing lateral coupling
effect for higher mass ratios.
Comparison of Planar and Planar-Spherical Model RMS
Acceleration Responses
After investigating the effect of optimal parameters calculated by
using the various approaches, attention is now given to the
ability of the planar PTMD model to predict the structural re-
sponses when compared to the planar-spherical model described
earlier. The PTMD is tuned to the fundamental mode in the y
direction.
Table 7 outlines the RMS acceleration of the roof for the critical
wind directions, evaluated by combining the planar PTMD model
(with 2.25% tuned mass) coupled with the effective modal mass,
stiffness, and damping for the primary system for each mode of
vibration. The results for all wind directions are summarized in
Fig. 8. The input excitation is the generalized force for each
mode, which is directly measured from the HFBB model. The
RMS response of the planar model is compared with the previously
described planar-spherical HFBB model. The auxiliary damper
parameters are set to their optimal values, given previously in
Table 2.
There is very little discrepancy in the roof RMS responses be-
tween the two methods for motion in the y direction. For motion in
the east-west direction, the RMS response simulated by each model
varies by as much as 9%, with the more simplistic model predicting
greater reductions in RMS responses (4% in the critical wind di-
rection range). The results for a 12.4% mass ratio are presented in

© ASCE 04013019-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 Table 8 for the critical wind directions. The data are summarized in
Fig. 8 for all wind directions.
The performance of the planar model for predicting the RMS
response of the structure equipped with a 12.4% tuned mass is
worse than that for the 2.25% tuned mass. Unlike the 2.25% tuned
mass, there is also discrepancy in the results for the y direction re-
sponse. Up to 14% difference in RMS responses (8% unconserva-
tively) are reported for the y direction; within the critical wind
direction, errors of up to 14% are reported, although the linearized
planar model is more conservative. For the response in the x direc-
tion, the planar model predicts up to a 20% lower response than the
more complex model, with up to 16% difference in the critical wind
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
acceptance threshold for occupant comfort decreases with increas-
ing frequency within the 0–1 Hz range (ISO 6897) (1984). Hence, it
is important to quantify the effect of TMD tuned to the dominant
mode on higher modes, because they may not meet the perfor-
mance requirements.
Conclusions
The following primary conclusions can be drawn from this study.
Increasing the auxiliary to primary mass ratio results in a reduced
sensitivity to detuning. The planar-spherical model predicted a neg-

direction and with the linearized planar model predicting better per-
formance. For the larger auxiliary mass, the coupling effect of the
PTMD on the primary structural response is more pronounced.
This is an important conclusion that has implications with respect
to the design of PTMDs. Specifically, for the higher modes, the
(a)
ligible change in the optimal pendulum length for an increased
mass, which was later confirmed by comparing the response to
wind load generated from a HFBB wind tunnel test for tuned
masses of 2.25 and 12.4%. Therefore, the simple closed-form
design equations reported in the literature are adequate for design
purposes.
Subsequent investigation compares the ability of the planar
PTMD model to predict the primary structural response when com-
pared to the planar-spherical model. The responses are investigated
for a finite-element representation of an actual structure and com-
pared for tuned masses of 2.25% and 12.4%. It is found that for the
lower mass ratio, the planar model accurately predicts the response
in the same direction as the fundamental lateral mode, to which the
PTMD was tuned. However, for the other direction, the planar
model has errors of 9%. For the higher mass ratios, the performance
of the planar model deteriorates in predicting the primary structure
RMS acceleration response. Errors of up to 12% in the direction of
the fundamental lateral mode, to which the PTMD was tuned, are
reported, in addition to up to 20% difference for the response in the
orthogonal direction. These conclusions are applicable for the
range of mass ratios and primary structure damping studied here.
For low frequency structures, this can have a significant impact on
the design, because the occupancy comfort thresholds have been
shown to reduce with increasing frequency.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Natural Sciences and Engineering

(b)
Fig. 8. Comparison of roof RMS acceleration response predictions by
using planar-spherical and planar PTMD models: (a) for 2.25% tuned
mass; (b) for 12.4% tuned mass
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Ontario Centres of
Excellence (OCE) for providing the financial support to conduct
this study. The authors also thank Greater Toronto Airports Author-
ity (GTAA) and Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. (RWDI) who
serve as the industrial partners in this collaborative project. Special
thanks to Mr. Greg Thompson, Mr. Scott Gamble, and Dr. Peter
Irwin of RWDI for providing valuable insights into the practical
design aspects of TMDs.

Table 8. Comparison of Roof RMS Acceleration Response Predictions and Corresponding Reduction for the Apron Tower Equipped with a PTMD Tuned to
μ ¼ 12.4% Using Planar-Spherical and Planar Models for the Critical Wind Directions
Without PTMD Planar-spherical PTMD Planar PTMD
x y x y x y
Wind direction mg mg mg % mg % mg % mg %
260 6.69 11.53 4.11 39 3.70 68 3.95 41 4.23 63
270 6.83 11.19 4.12 40 3.72 67 3.78 45 3.99 64
280 6.98 11.06 4.04 42 3.63 67 3.74 46 3.85 65
290 6.10 9.85 3.53 42 3.19 68 3.32 46 3.32 66
300 6.41 11.25 3.06 52 2.91 74 3.00 53 2.95 74

© ASCE 04013019-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019

 References
Abe, M., and Fujino, Y. (1994). “Dynamic characterization of multiple
tuned mass dampers and some design formulas.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dynam., 23(8), 813–835.
Bakre, S. V., and Jangid, R. S. (2007). “Optimum parameters of tuned mass
damper for damped main system.” Struct. Control Health Monit., 14(3),
448–470.
Chen, X., and Kareem, A. (2005). “Coupled dynamic analysis and equiv-
alent static wind loads on buildings with three-dimensional modes.”
J. Struct. Eng., 131(7), 1071–1082.
den Hartog, D. B. (1956). Mechanical vibrations, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Gerges, R. R., and Vickery, B. J. (2005). “Optimum design of pendulum-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNB - Universidade de Bras?lia on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
type tuned mass dampers.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 14(4),
353–368.
Ghosh, A., and Basu, B. (2007). “A closed-form optimal tuning criterion
for TMD in damped structures.” Struct. Control Health Monit., 14(4),
681–692.
Hazra, B. (2010). “Hybrid time and time-frequency blind source separation
towards ambient system identification of structures.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Holmes, J. D. (1987). “Mode shape corrections for dynamic response to
wind.” Eng. Struct., 9(3), 210–212.
ISO. (1984). “Guidelines for the evaluation of the response of occupants of
fixed structures, especially buildings and off-shore structures, to low-
frequency horizontal motion (0.063 to 1 Hz).” ISO 6897, Geneva.
Ioi, T., and Ikeda, K. (1978). “On the dynamic vibration damped absorber
of the vibration system.” Bull. JSME, 21(151), 64–71.
Kareem, A. (1992). “Dynamic response of high-rise buildings to stochastic
wind loads.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 42(1–3), 1101–1112.
Kareem, A., and Kijewski, T. (1999). “Mitigation of motions of tall build-
ings with specific examples of recent applications.” Wind Struct., 2(3),
201–252.
Kwok, K., Hitchcock, P. A., and Burton, M. D. (2009). “Perception of
vibration and occupant comfort in wind-excited tall buildings.” J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerod., 97(7–8), 368–380.
Kwok, K. C. S., and Macdonald, P. A. (1990). “Full-scale measurements of
wind-induced acceleration response of Sydney Tower.” Eng. Struct.,
12(3), 153–162.
Kwok, K. C. S., and Samali, B. (1995). “Performance of tuned mass damp-
ers under wind loads.” Eng. Struct., 17(9), 655–667.
Lam, K., and Li, A. (2009). “Mode shape correction for wind-induced dy-
namic responses of tall buildings using time-domain computation and
wind tunnel tests.” J. Sound Vib., 322(4–5), 740–755.
Lee, C.-L., Chen, Y.-T., Chung, L.-L., and Wang, Y.-P. (2006). “Optimal
design theories and applications of tuned mass dampers.” Eng. Struct.,
28(1), 43–53.
© ASCE 04013019-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(12): 04013019
Meirovitch, L. (1970). Methods of analytical dynamics, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Nagarajaiah, S., and Varadarajan, N. (2005). “Semi-active control of wind
excited building with variable stiffness TMD using short-time fourier
transform.” Eng. Struct., 27(3), 431–441.
Pinkaew, T., and Fujino, Y. (2001). “Effectiveness of semi-active tuned
mass dampers under harmonic excitation.” Eng. Struct., 23(7),
850–856.
Rana, R., and Soong, T. T. (1998). “Parametric study and simplified design
of tuned mass dampers.” Eng. Struct., 20(3), 193–204.
Ricciardelli, F., Occhiuzzi, A., and Clemente, P. (2000). “Semi-active tuned
mass damper control strategy for wind-excited structures.” J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod., 88(1), 57–74.
Roffel, A. J., Lourenco, R., Narasimhan, S., and Yarusevych, S. (2011).
“Adaptive compensation for detuning in pendulum tuned mass
dampers.” J. Struct. Eng., 137(2), 242–251.
Sacks, M. P., and Swallow, J. C. (1993). “Tuned mass dampers for towers
and buildings.” Proc., Symp. on Structural Engineering in Natural
Hazards Mitigation, SEI Structures Congress, Irvine, CA, 640–645.
Simulink [Computer software]. MathWorks, Natick, MA.
Tanaka, H., and Mak, C. Y. (1983). “Effect of tuned mass dampers on wind
induced response of tall buildings.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 14(1–3),
357–368.
Thompson, A. G. (1981). “Optimum tuning and damping of a dynamic
vibration absorber applied to a force excited and damped primary
system.” J. Sound Vib., 77(3), 403–415.
Tschanz, T., and Davenport, A. G. (1983). “The base balance technique for
the determination of dynamic wind loads.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod.,
13(1–3), 429–439.
Tse, K. T., Hitchcock, P. A., and Kwok, K. C. S. (2009). “Mode shape
linearization for HFBB analysis of wind-excited complex tall build-
ings.” Eng. Struct., 31(3), 675–685.
Warburton, G. B., and Ayorinde, E. O. (1980). “Optimum absorber param-
eters for simple systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 8(3),
197–217.
Xu, Y., Kwok, K., and Samali, B. (1992). “The effect of tuned mass damp-
ers and liquid dampers on cross-wind response of tall/slender struc-
tures.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 40(1), 33–54.
Xu, Y. L., and Kwok, K. C. S. (1994). “Semianalytical method for
parametric study of tuned mass dampers.” J. Struct. Eng., 120(3),
747–764.
Yip, D. Y. N., and Flay, R. G. J. (1995). “A new force balance data analysis
method for wind response predictions of tall buildings.” J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod., 54–55, 457–471.
Zhou, Y., Kareem, A., and Gu, M. (2002). “Mode shape corrections for
wind load effects.” J. Eng. Mech., 128(1), 15–23.
J. Struct. Eng.