Arch Comput Methods Eng (2013) 20:419–431

DOI 10.1007/s11831-013-9091-7

Tuned Mass Dampers

Mariantonieta Gutierrez Soto · Hojjat Adeli

Received: 29 August 2013 / Accepted: 29 August 2013 / Published online: 19 October 2013
© CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain 2013

Abstract A review of representative research on tuned
massed dampers (TMD) reported in journals in recent years
is presented. TMDs are divided into four categories: con-
ventional TMDs, pendulum TMDs (PTMDs), bi-directional
TMDs (BTMDs), and tuned liquid column dampers (TL-
CDs).
review of tuned mass dampers (TMDs). TMDs are divided
into four categories: conventional TMDs, pendulum TMDs
(PTMDs), bi-directional TMDs (BTMDs), and tuned liquid
column dampers (TLCDs).
2 Conventional Tuned Mass Dampers

1 Introduction The equations representing a single-degree-of-freedom

(SDOF) system equipped with a tuned mass damper (Fig. 1)
Vibration control of structures can be divided into pas- are [13]
sive, active, semi-active, hybrid systems. Passive control is p
the most established technology dating back to 1909 when (1 + μ)ẍ + 2ξs ωs ẋ + ωs2 x = − μü
md
Frahm received a U.S. patent for Dynamic Vibration Ab-
(Primary system) (1)
sorber [18]. A large number of articles have been published
on passive control of structures subjected to earthquake ü + 2ξd ωd u̇ + ωd2 u = −ẍ
loading in recent years [6]. Also, there has been a significant (TMD system) (2)
amount of activities in the areas of active and semi-active md
control of structures [11, 34, 43]. Fisco and Adeli [16] pre- μ= (3)
ms
sented a state-of-the-art review of journal articles on active
ks
control of structures including active tuned mass dampers ωs2 = (4)
(ATMD) up to 2010. Fisco and Adeli [17] presented a review ms
of journal articles on hybrid vibration control of structures kd
ωd2 = (5)
and improved or new control strategies developed for civil md
structures including. Sirca and Adeli [53] present a review cd
of journal articles in the area of structural system identifi- ξd = (6)
2ωd md
cation. More recently El-Khoury and Adeli [14] presented cs
recent advances on vibration control of structures under dy- ξs = (7)
2ωs ms
namic loading. The purpose of this article is to present a
ωd
γ= (8)
ωs
M. Gutierrez Soto · H. Adeli (B) where μ represents the ratio of the TMD mass (md ) to struc-
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geodetic Engineering, tural mass (ms ), ks and cs are the stiffness and damping
The Ohio State University, 470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil
Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
coefficient of the structure, kd and cd are the stiffness and
e-mail: adeli.1@osu.edu damping coefficient of the damper, ξs is the damping ratio
420 M. Gutierrez Soto, H. Adeli

Fig. 1 SDOF system with a

Tuned Mass Damper (TMD)

of the structure, ξd is the damping ratio of the TMD and γ is

the ratio of the frequency of the TMD (ωd ) to the frequency
of the structure (ωs ), x is displacement of the structure, and
u is the displacement of the TMD, and p the external exci-
tation acting on the primary system.
One of the first applications of TMD was the 244 m 60-
story John Hancock building in Boston in 1977 [15] to re-
duce response to wind vibrations. It has two 300-ton TMDs
each consisting of a 5.2 m × 5.2 m square and 1-m deep
lead-filled steel box riding on a 9 m long steel plate. They
are placed at the two ends of the 58th floor, 67-m apart and
are tuned to a vibration frequency of 0.13 Hz (the estimated
fundamental frequency of the structure).
Since then TMDS have been deployed in over 50 struc-
tures in several countries including U.S., Japan, China
and Korea. A list of 31 structures (13 Buildings, 9 tow-
ers, 6 chimneys and 3 bridges) where passive and active
TMDs have been employed up to 1994 can be found in
the web site: http://nisee.berkeley.edu/prosys/tuned.html.
Holmes [22] provides tables of structures including bridges
where passive and active damping devices were used. An
updated version of these lists excluding the bridges is pre-
sented in Table 1. Other important recent examples include Fig. 2 Taipei 101 high-rise building (Courtesy of Tina Hsu)
the Citicorp Building in New York City, the 101-story Taipei
101 in Taipei (Fig. 2), the Aspire Tower in Doha, Qatar Huang et al. [24] use cost optimization [4, 28, 49–51] to
(Fig. 3) and Shanghai World Financial Center in Shanghai, compare structural material redistribution and implementa-
China (Fig. 4). tion of a TMD for a 60-story benchmark reinforced concrete
Kareem and Kline [27] study the effectiveness of multi- structure with steel belt trusses subjected to wind loading.
ple TMDs attached to the roof of regular 186 m-tall square They conclude that a standard redesign of the building to
(31 m × 31 m in plan) rectangular (31 m × 155 m in satisfy interstory drift and peak acceleration would require
plan) buildings subjected to wind and earthquake excita- an increase of 14 % of the initial material cost, while using
tions. They conclude that using multiple dampers can help a tuned mass damper requires an increase of only 3.6 % of
the system to be effective over a range of frequencies and the initial structural material cost.
therefore is more practical for implementation especially Patil and Jangid [44] study the performance of sin-
since smaller size TMDs are used in place of a much larger gle and multiple TMDs (MTMDs) when located at the
single TMD. top of a 76-story benchmark building subjected to wind
Lin et al. [35] use a translation-rotation coupled TMD for loading using sensitivity analysis and minimization of per-
vibration reduction of a 2D frame and three eight-story 24 m formance criteria. The authors advocate the use of MT-
by 15 m 3D frames asymmetric in plan modeled with vary- MDs for practical applications because they (a) facilitate
ing torsional rigidities from rigid to flexible and subjected the installation of smaller devices instead of a large mass,
to earthquake loading. The authors use min-min-max opti- (b) can be designed/tuned for various natural frequencies,
mization and take into account the first two modes of the and (c) can handle structural stiffness uncertainties better
primary structure for tuning of their damper device. compared with a single TMD.
Tuned Mass Dampers 421

Table 1 Buildings and towers with TMD applications in chronological orders

Name Type of Structure Height No. Location Year TMD Type/Characteristics

(Building/Tower) Floors completed

CN Tower Tower 553 m – Toronto, Canada 1976 2 PTMD

Weight = 18 ton
John Hancock Building 241 m 60 Boston, MA, USA 1976 4 TMD
0.14 Hz
Weight = 2×300 ton
Citycorp Center Building 278 m 59 New York, USA 1978 TMD
0.16 Hz
Weight = 370 ton
Sydney Tower Tower 305 m – Sydney, Australia 1980 2 TMD
0.10, 0.50 Hz
Weight = 220 ton (180 t/40 t)
Al Khobar 2 Chimneys 120 m – Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia 1982 TMD
0.44 Hz
Weight = 7 tons
Ruwais Utilities Chimney – Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. 1982 TMD
0.49 Hz
Weight = 10 tons
Deutsche Bundespost Tower 278 m – Nurnberg, Germany 1982 TMD
0.67 Hz
Weight = 1.5 tons
Chiba Port Tower Tower 125 m 4 Chiba, Japan 1986 TMD
0.43–0.44 Hz
Weight = 10 and 15 ton
Yanbu Cement Plant Chimney 81 m – Yanbu, Saudi Arabia 1984 TMD
0.49 Hz
Weight = 10 tons
Yokohama Marine Tower Tower 101.3 – Yokohama, Japan 1987 TLCD
Weight = 1.7 ton
Gold Tower Tower 158 m Chiba, Japan 1988 16 TLCDs
Weight = 10 ton
Tiwest Rutile Plant Chimney 43 m – Cataby, Australia 1989 TMD
0.92 Hz
Weight = 0.5 tons
Fukuoka Tower Tower 234 m 2 Fukuoka, Japan 1989 2 TMD
0.31–0.33 Hz
Weight = 25–30 tons
Higashiyama Sky Tower Tower 134 m 2 Nagoya, Japan 1989 Active PTMD
0.49–0.55 Hz
Weight = 20 tons
Kyobashi Center Building 33 m 11 Tokyo, Japan 1989 2 TMD
Weight = 5 ton
Fernsehturm Tower Television Tower 368 m – Berlin, Germany 1990 1 TMD
Weight = 1.5 ton
Huis Ten Bosch Domtoren Tower 105 m – Nagasaki, Japan 1990 1 TMD
0.65 Hz
Weight = 7.8 ton
Crystal Tower Building 157 m 37 Osaka, Japan 1990 PTMD
0.24–0.28 Hz
Weight = 540 ton
Shimizu Tech Lab Building 30 m 7 Tokyo, Japan 1990 TMD
Weight = 4.3 ton
Shin-Yokohama Prince Hotel Building 149 m 42 Yokohama, Japan 1991 30 TLCD
Circular sloshing-type
Weight = 83.5 tons
422 M. Gutierrez Soto, H. Adeli

Table 1 (Continued)

Name Type of Structure Height No. Location Year TMD Type/Characteristics

(Building/Tower) Floors completed

BASF Chimney 100 m – Antwerp, Belgium 1992 TMD

0.34 Hz
Weight = 8.5 tons
HKW Chimney 120 m – Frankfurt, Germany 1992 TMD
0.86 Hz
Weight = 10 tons
ORC 2000 Symbol tower Building 188 m 50 Osaka, Japan 1992 2 ATMD
0.21 Hz
Weight = 200 ton
Applause Tower Building 162 m 34 Osaka, Japan 1992 1TMD
Weight = 480 ton
Sendagaya INTES Building 58 m 11 Tokyo, Japan 1992 2 TMD
Weight = 72 ton
Mount Wellington Broadcasting Tower Tower 104 m – Hobart, Australia 1992 TLCD
80 circular units
Weight = 0.6 ton
Atsugi TYG Building Building 59 m 16 Atsugi, Japan 1992 TLCD
720 donut-type
Weight = 18.2 ton
Rokko Island Procter and Gamble Building 117 m 36 Kobe, Japan 1993 ATMD
0.33–0.62 Hz
Weight = 270 tons
Yokohama Landmark Tower Building 296.3 m 73 Yokohama City, Japan 1993 2 active TMDs
0.185 Hz
Weight = 340 ton
Chifley Tower Building 209 m 53 Sydney, Australia 1993 1 TMD
Weight = 400 ton
Al Taweelah Chimney 70 m – Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. 1993 1 TMD
1.4 Hz
Weight = 1.35 ton
Kansai International airport Tower 86 m 7 Osaka, Japan 1993 2 ATMD
0.8 Hz
Weight = 10 ton
C Office Tower Building 130 m 32 Tokyo, Japan 1993 ATMD
0.34 Hz
Weight = 200 ton
KS Project Tower 121 m – Kanasawa, Japan 1993 ATMD
Weight = 100 ton
Ando Nishikicho Building 68 m 14 Tokyo, Japan 1993 TMD and ATMD
0.68 Hz–0.72 Hz
MKD8 Hikarigaoka Building 100 m 30 Tokyo, Japan 1993 ATMD pendulum
0.44 Hz
P&G Japan Headquarters Building 131 m 31 Kobe, Japan 1993 3 TMD
Weight = 270 ton
Tokyo International Airport Tower Tower 77.6 m – Tokyo, Japan 1993 TLCD
1400 small units
Weight = 0.025 ton
Narita Airport Tower Tower 87 m – Narita, Japan 1993 TLDs
2310 circular units
Weight = 16.5 tons
Akita Tower Tower 112 m – Akita, Japan 1994 1TMD
0.41 Hz
Riverside Sumida Building 133 m 33 Tokyo, Japan 1994 2 AMD
0.29 Hz
Weight = 30 ton
Tuned Mass Dampers 423

Table 1 (Continued)

Name Type of Structure Height No. Location Year TMD Type/Characteristics

(Building/Tower) Floors completed

Act City Building 213 m 45 Hamamatsa, Japan 1994 Active/Passive

TMD
0.21 Hz
Weight = 180 ton
Shinjuku Park Tower Building 227 m 33 Tokyo, Japan 1994 3 ATMD
Weight = 330 ton
Building M Building 30.4 m 9 Osaka, Japan 1994 2TMD
1.33 Hz (x)
1.54 Hz (y)
Hotel Cosima (Hotel Sofitel) Building 106.2 m 26 Tokyo, Japan 1994 TLCD
Weight = 58 ton
Hyatt Hotel Building 112.4 m 28 Osaka, Japan 1994 TLD
Haneda Airport Tower 78 m – Tokyo, Japan 1993 TLD
Weight = 21 tons
Sea Hawk Hotel and Resort Building 143 m 36 Fukuoka, Japan 1995 TMD
Weight = 132 tons
Regensburg Siemens Building Building Regensburg, Germany 1996 11 TMD
Weight = 0.17 each
Hobart Tower Tower 131 m – Hobart, Tasmania 1996 80 TLCDs
Karlsruhe Building Building Karlsruhe, Germany 1997 24 TMDs
Weight = 0.55 each
Hotel Burj-Al-Arab (7-star) Building 321 m 60 Dubai, U.A.E. 1997 11 TMDs
Frequency = .8–2 Hz
Weight = 11 × 5.00 ton
Petronas Twin Towers Building 451.9 m 88 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1997 12 TMDs (3 TMD per
skybridge leg, 4 total)
0.13, 0.17, 2.22 Hz
Weight = 0.08 ton each
Itoyama Tower Building 89 m 18 Tokyo, Japan 1997 1 TMD
Weight = 48 ton
TC Tower Building 348 m 85 Kau-Shon, Taiwan 1997 2 TMD
Weight = 100 ton
Kaikyo-messe Dream Tower Tower 153 m – Yamaguchi, Japan 1998 1 TMD
Weight = 10 ton
Otis Shibayama Test Tower Building 154 m 39 Chiba, Japan 1998 1 TMD
Weight = 61 ton
Emirates Towers Tower 355 m 54 Dubai, UAE 1999 6 TMD
0.9 Hz
Weight = 1.2 tons
each
Steel Chimney Chimney 90 m – Bangkok, Thailand 1999 PTMD
Frequency = 0.8 Hz
Weight = 4 ton
Century Pak Tower Building 170 m 54 Tokyo, Japan 1999 4 TMD
Weight = 440 ton
Nanjing Tower Tower 310 m – Nanjing, China 1999 1 AMD
Weight = 60 ton
Shinagawa Intercity A Building 144 m 32 Tokyo, Japan 1999 2 TMD
Weight = 150 ton
Park Tower Building 252.2 m 67 Chicago, IL, USA 2000 TMD
Weight = 300 ton
Stakis Metropole Hotel Building 60 m 20 London, UK 2000 7 TMD
4.4 Hz
Weight = 4.5 ton
424 M. Gutierrez Soto, H. Adeli

Table 1 (Continued)

Name Type of Structure Height No. Location Year TMD Type/Characteristics

(Building/Tower) Floors completed

The Trump World Tower Tower 262.4 m 72 New York, NY, USA 2001 1 TMD
Weight = 600 ton
Cerulean Tower Tokyo Hotel Building 184 m 5 Tokyo, Japan 2001 2 TMD
Weight = 210 ton
Triton Square office complex Building 195 m Tokyo, Japan 2001 4 ATMD
Weight = 35 ton
each
Hotel Nikko Bayside Osaka Building 138 m 33 Osaka, Japan 2002 2 TMD
Weight = 124 ton
Dentsu New Headquarter Building 210 m 48 Tokyo, Japan 2002 4 TMD
Weight = 440 ton
Incheon International Tower 100.4 m 22 Incheon, Korea 2001 2 ATMD & TMD
Airport Control Tower 0.71 Hz
Weight = 11&13 tons
Placement = 19th floor
Spire of Dublin Monument 121.2 m – Dublin, Ireland 2003 TMD
Refab2 Building Brazil 2003 4 TMD
Weight = 55 ton each
Highcliff Building 252.4 m 73 Hong Kong, China 2003 TMD
Al Rostamani Tower Tower 67 m 16 Dubai, UAE 2003 2 TMD at Masts
1.05 Hz
Weight = 0.5 tons
Taipei 101 Building 449 m 101 Taipei, Taiwan 2004 2 TMD
0.15 Hz
Weight = 730 ton, 4.5 ton
Bloomberg Tower Building 245.6 m 54 New York, USA 2004 TMD
Weight = 600 ton
DoCoMo Telecommunications Tower 198.5 m 12 Osaka, Japan 2004 1 TMD
Tower
Bright Start Tower Mast 284 m 60 Dubai, UAE 2005 TMD
(Millennium Tower) 0.95 Hz
Weight = 0.3 tons
Araucano Park Building 60 m 20 Santiago de Chile, Chile 2005 4 TMD
Weight = 170 tons
Air Traffic Control Tower Tower 57 m – Edinburgh, Germany 2005 ATMD
1.7–2.0 Hz
Weight = 14 tons
Meteorological Radar Tower Tower 50 m – Catalunya Province, Spain 2005 Ring damper TMD
4.2 Hz
Weight = 8 tons
Aspire Tower Tower 300 m 36 Doha, Qatar 2007 Pendulum TMD
0.22 Hz
Weight = 140 ton
Comcast Center Building 297.1 m 57 Philadelphia, PA, USA 2008 TMD
Weight = 1,300 tons
Shanghai World Financial Center Building 492 m 101 Shanghai, China 2008 ATMD
Placement at 90th floor
Al Mas Tower Building 361m 68 Dubai, UAE 2008 2 TMD
1.6 & 3,2 Hz
Weight = 2 tons
each (Masts)
Magura Odobesti Tower 112 m – Villa Magura 2008 2 TMD
Odobesti, Romania 2.2 Hz and 0.7 Hz
Weight = 0.3 and
2.85 tons
Tuned Mass Dampers 425

Table 1 (Continued)

Name Type of Structure Height No. Location Year TMD Type/Characteristics

(Building/Tower) Floors completed

Hangzhou Bay Bridge Tower Tower 130 m – Jiaxing, China 2009 1 TMD
0.3 Hz
Weight = 110 tons
Lanxess, Chemical Plant Building 2 Ontario, Canada 2009 4 TMDs
Weight = 3ton
each
ShenZhen WuTong Tower 198 m – ShenZhen, China 2009 Adaptive PTMD
Mountain Tower
Canton Tower Tower 600 m 85 Guangzhou, China 2010 ATMD & TMD
(Guangzhou TV Tower) Weight = 50 ton & 600 ton
Placement at 85th floor
Estela de la Luz Tower 104 m – Mexico City, Mexico 2010 8 TMD
0.3 Hz
Weight = 3 tons
Tokyo Skytree Tower 634.0 m – Tokyo, Japan 2012 TMD
Weight = 100 tons

Wong and Harris [56] study the effectiveness of TMDs in

Fig. 3 The Aspire Tower (Courtesy of Travis Hydzik)
Mohebbi and Joghataie [40] use a genetic algorithm [10,
12, 23, 25, 38] to obtain parameters of a TMD located on top
of an 8-story nonlinear shear frame subjected to white-noise
excitations with the goal of minimizing the story drift and
damper’s accumulated energy. They report that the perfor-
mance of TMD improves with an increase in the maximum
stroke length, and in most cases increasing the mass ratio
improves the TMD performance.
reducing structural response of a six-story 3-bay moment-
resisting steel frame subjected to 100 simulated non-statio-
nary Gaussian ground motions, and conclude that: “a TMD
can enhance the structure’s ability to dissipate energy at
low levels of earthquake shaking, while less effective during
moderate to strong earthquakes, which can cause a signifi-
cant period shift associated with major structural damage.
This ‘de-tuning’ effect suggests that an extremely sizable
TMD is not effective in reducing damage of a structure.”
Almazan et al. [8] study the performance and placement
of one or more TMDs in asymmetric buildings using four
different examples including a 15-story RC 3D structure
with plan irregularity subjected to seismic loading with the
goal of minimizing the inter-story displacement or drift.
They use the Kanai-Tajimi spectrum to model the seismic
excitation and place 1 or 2 TMDs on the roof. For asym-
metric structures, they conclude that the optimum TMD fre-
quency and location on the roof depend on structural lateral
and torsional stiffness, eccentricity between centers of mass
and rigidity and the frequency content of the ground motion,
and the optimum location is near the geometric center of the
plan. They also conclude: “if the uncertainty associated to
the dynamic parameters of the main structure is ignored, a
significant improvement would not be obtained by adding a
second TMD.”
Amini et al. [9] use the particle swarm optimization tech-
nique [45, 46] in combination with a wavelet filter [21, 26,
36, 55, 57] and LQR controller [2, 3] to obtain parameters
of an active TMD located on top of a 10-story shear build-
ing subjected to earthquake loading to minimize drift and
damper’s energy demand.
426
Fig. 4 Shanghai World Financial Center (Courtesy of Arkadi Panitch)
M. Gutierrez Soto, H. Adeli
Lavan and Daniel [33] propose a two-step performance-
based design methodology to investigate the performance
of multiple TMDs in 3D 8-story RC frame structures with
asymmetric setback subjected to earthquake loading. They
note that the same reduction can be achieved using multi-
ple TMDs compared with a single TMD, but a single TMD
requires a larger mass.
3 Pendulum Tuned Mass Dampers
Conventional mass & spring TMD damper requires a large
mass and a large space for installation thus creating archi-
tectural constraints [41]. An alternative solution is using a
pendulum TMD (PTMD) configuration consisting of a mass
and a cable shown in Fig. 5. When a building is subjected to
an earthquake motion the PTMD will create a force in the
opposite direction of the floor movement.
The primary system equation of motion is given by
Eq. (1). Assuming θ is small u = L sin θ ≈ Lθ , and the ten-
sion in the cable, T ≈ md g. The equation of motion for a
PTMD is written as [13]
md g
md ü + (u) = −md ẍ (9)
L
The spring stiffness is calculated as
md g
kd = (10)
L
The natural frequency is obtained from
kd g
ωd2 = = (11)
md L
As such, the tuning parameters of a PTMD are the mass md
and the length L.
A cable-supported PTMD is advantageous over the con-
ventional TMD for highrise buildings because its frequency
can be re-tuned by changing the cable length. PTMD has
been used in a number of high-rise buildings such as the
37-story 157 m-high Crystal Tower located in Osaka, Japan,
built in 1990, and shown in Fig. 6 to reduce wind-induced
displacements by 50 % [42]. The fundamental periods of the
structure in two principal directions are 4.7 and 4.3 seconds.
The building holds 2 PTMDs of weight 180 tons and 360
tons on the top story.
Gerges and Vickery [19] study the performance of a
SDOF system equipped with a PTMD subjected to base ac-
celeration excitations. They present design charts for the op-
timum tuning parameters. Setareh et al. [52] present analyt-
ical and experimental results for control of floor vibrations
due to human movements. Matta and De Steffano [39] de-
scribe a rolling-pendulum TMD consisting of a steel cylin-
der sandwiched between two identical cylindrical steel cir-
cular cavities in conjunction with a roof-garden TMD.
Tuned Mass Dampers 427

Fig. 5 (a) PTMD in an SDOF

system, (b) Motion of a PTMD,
(c) Properties of a PTMD

a friction damper connected to the mass from the bottom

(Fig. 7).

5 Tuned Liquid Column Damper (TLCD)

A tuned liquid damper (TLD) or a tuned liquid column

damper (TLCD) is a type of TMD where the single mass
is replaced with liquid, usually water. The water can be in a
tube with an orifice in the horizontal segment or a tank with
a gate in the middle and a slit in the gate. The sloshing of the
water in the tube or the tank counter-balances the effects of
external vibrations. The concept behind TLCD is not new;
it has been used to stabilize ship structures for many years
but its application in buildings was first proposed by Sakai
et al. [47].
The equations of motion for a single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) system equipped with a TLCD shown in Fig. 8 are
[58],
 
ms + ρA(Lh + Lv ) ẍ + cs ẋ + ks x
Lh
=p− ρA(Lh + Lv )ü (Primary structure) (12)
Lv
ρAζ
ρA(Lh + Lv )ü + |u̇|u̇ + 2gρAu
2
Lh
= μp − ρA(Lh + Lv )ẍ (TLCD System) (13)
Lv
where ρ is the density of the fluid, A is the cross-sectional
area, ζ is the head loss coefficient, and Lh and Lv are the
Fig. 6 The Crystal Tower in Osaka, Japan (Courtesy of Takashi Kas-
sai)
horizontal and vertical lengths. The TLCD mass and damp-
ing are defined by,

4 Bidirectional Tuned Mass Damper mT = ρA(Lh + Lv ) (14)

ρAζ
cT = |u̇| (15)
Almazan et al. [7] proposed a bidirectional TMD (BTMD) 2
device and applied it to control vibrations of a 25-story re- The orifice inside the horizontal tube controls the flow of
inforced concrete 3D regular frame and an 80-m by 3-m liquid from one side to the other, which is tuned according
diameter thin-walled cylindrical steel structure subjected to to a specific frequency. In a semi-active or active TLCD sys-
seismic loading. This device is a combination of two cables tem, the size of the orifice can be changed in real time so that
forming a Y-shape connecting to the mass at the middle, and the head loss factor can be adapted to a range of frequencies.
428 M. Gutierrez Soto, H. Adeli

Fig. 7 (a) BTMD in an SDOF

structure, (b) 3D view of
BTMD, (c) x-z motion and
properties of a BTMD, (d) y-z
motion and properties of a
BTMD

Fig. 8 (a) TLCD in a SDOF

structure, (b) Motion and
properties of a TLCD
Tuned Mass Dampers 429

Kim and Adeli [31] present a hybrid control system for

control of three-dimensional (3D) irregular building struc-
tures under various seismic excitations through integration
of a passive supplementary damping system with a semi-
active TLCD system with the goal of increasing reliability
and maximizing the operability during power failure. They
apply a novel wavelet-hybrid feedback LMS (least mean
square) control algorithm [1, 29] to find the optimum con-
trol forces. Simulation results for control of two multistory
moment-resisting space structures with vertical and plan ir-
regularities show that the hybrid damper-TLCD control sys-
tem reduces the responses of 3D irregular buildings sub-
jected to various earthquake ground motions significantly.
Kim and Adeli [32] investigate the effectiveness of a
semi-active TLCD system and the hybrid viscous fluid
damper-TLCD control system for control of wind-induced
motion of a 76-story high-rise building subjected to wind
tunnel test data and stochastic wind loads. It is shown that
the semi-active TLCD control system performs comparable
to a sample ATMD system and thus is an attractive alterna-
tive to the ATMD system. The hybrid damper-TLCD system
is robust in terms of the stiffness modeling error for control
of both displacement and acceleration responses. The sim-
ulation results show that the proposed hybrid viscous fluid
damper-TLCD system can perform effectively under various
wind loading conditions.
Tait et al. [54] present a parametric study of different con-
figurations of unidirectional and bidirectional tuned liquid
dampers (TLD) systems subjected to random excitations ex-
perimentally and numerically such as the out-of-tuned TLDs
and the influence of the height- to-length ratio. They present
charts for the initial design of a TLD when the fundamental
frequency of the structure is not known exactly.
Over the last few years modifications to the conventional Fig. 9 The 48-story One Wall Centre in Vancouver, Canada (Courtesy
TLCD have been researched. Al-Saif et al. [5] study the per- of Edward Lee)
formance of a modified TLCD by addition of a metal ball
immersed in the horizontal tube and placed on a SDOF sys-
Love and Tait [37] study the influence of orientation of
tem subjected to harmonic excitations. The authors study
the TLD tank on the behavior of a 2D structure equipped
the effect of viscosity of the fluid and the diameter of the
with a TLD system employing a linearized equivalent model
ball and determine that optimal ball diameter ratio to be 0.8
for the sloshing fluid. They conclude that the performance of
when the ball is submersed in water.
the TLD is insensitive to small changes in the TLD orienta-
Ghaemmaghami et al. [20] investigate the performance
tion.
of an annular TLD in reducing the vibration of a wind tur-
bine tower with a height of 150 m consisting of a concrete
shaft and a steel mast subjected to harmonic vibrations for 6 Final Remarks
different mass and frequency ratios and displacement am-
plitudes. They conclude that “the annular TLD is effective An advantage of the conventional TMD is that it is an es-
when the amplitude of excitation is small.” tablished technology and implemented in a good number of
Sarkar and Gudmestad [48] study the performance of a buildings including very tall structures such as Taipei 101 as
pendulum-type TLCD system experimentally. The system described in the introduction. A disadvantage is that it can
differs from the conventional TLCD by having a compound be tuned only for a given frequency of vibration and this fre-
U-shape in a pendulum configuration. They suggest that the quency is subject to uncertainty and can even change during
proposed system is feasible for tower-type structures such as strong ground motions. Another disadvantage of the con-
wind turbines and chimneys. ventional TMD is its initial and maintenance costs because
430
Fig. 10 The 58-story Comcast Center in Philadelphia, USA (Courtesy
of Hanne Therkildsen & Orla Schantz)
it requires special floor installations and various mechanical
components such as springs, viscous dampers, and activa-
tion mechanisms.
Among the passive systems reviewed in this paper, TLCD
seems to be the most promising. Passive TLCDs have re-
cently been implemented in a number of buildings. The first
M. Gutierrez Soto, H. Adeli
building with a TLCD used to control the wind vibrations
was the 48-story One Wall Centre (aka Sheraton Vancou-
ver Wall) in Vancouver, Canada, completed in 2001 (Fig. 9).
The first building in the U.S. with a TLCD system was the
58-story Comcast Center, the tallest building in Philadelphia
(Fig. 10). Both buildings are narrow in one direction and a
TLCD is used to control the vibrations due to the wind in
the narrow direction.
A passive TLCD can be turned into a semi-active sys-
tem through the introduction of a robust control algorithm
that will control the size of the orifice as demonstrated by
Kim and Adeli [30, 31]. Another advantage of TLCD is low
maintenance. Also, the water in the tank can be used for
other emergencies such as putting out a fire. In contrast, the
weight of a conventional TMD system serves no other pur-
pose.
References
1. Adeli H, Kim H (2004) Wavelet-hybrid feedback least mean
square algorithm for robust control of structures. J Struct Eng
130(1):128–137
2. Adeli H, Saleh A (1997) Optimal control of adaptive/smart bridge
structures. J Struct Eng 123(2):218–226
3. Adeli H, Saleh A (1999) Control, optimization, and smart
structures—high-performance bridges and buildings of the future.
Wiley, New York
4. Adeli H, Sarma K (2006) Cost optimization of structures—fuzzy
logic, genetic algorithms, and parallel computing. Wiley, West
Sussex
5. Al-Saif KA, Aldakkan KA, Foda MA (2011) Modified liquid col-
umn damper for vibration control of structures. Int J Mech Sci
53(7):505–512
6. Aldemir U, Yanik A, Bakiogl MU (2012) Control of structural
response under earthquake excitation. Comput-Aided Civ Infras-
truct Eng 27(8):620–638
7. Almazan JL, De la Llera JC, Inaudi JA, Lopez Garcia D,
Izquierdo LE (2007) A bidirectional and homogeneous tuned mass
damper: a new device for passive control of vibrations. Eng Struct
29:1548–1560
8. Almazan JL, Espinoza G, Aguirre JJ (2012) Torsional balance
of asymmetric structures by means of tuned mass dampers. Eng
Struct 42:308–328
9. Amini F, Khanmohammadi HN, Abdolahi RA (2013) Wavelet
PSO-based LQR algorithm for optimal structural control using
active tuned mass dampers. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng
28(7):542–557
10. Baraldi P, Canesi R, Zio E, Seraoui R, Chevalier R (2011) Genetic
algorithm-based wrapper approach for grouping condition moni-
toring signals of nuclear power plant components. Integr Comput-
Aided Eng 18(3):221–234
11. Bitaraf M, Hurlebaus S, Barroso LR (2012) Active and semi-
active adaptive control for undamaged and damaged building
structures under seismic load. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng
27(1):48–64
12. Chabuk T, Reggia JA, Lohn J, Linden D (2012) Causally-guided
evolutionary optimization and its application to antenna array de-
sign. Integr Comput-Aided Eng 19(2):111–124
13. Connor JJ (2003) Introduction to structural motion control. Pren-
tice Hall/Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River
Tuned Mass Dampers
14. El-Khoury O, Adeli H (2013) Recent advances on vibration con-
trol of structures under dynamic loading. Arch Comput Methods
Eng (accepted)
15. ENR (1977) Tuned mass dampers steady sway of skyscrapers in
wind. Eng News-Rec 18:28–29
16. Fisco NR, Adeli H (2011) Smart structures: part I—active and
semi-active control. Sci Iran, Trans A, Civ Eng 18(3):275–284
17. Fisco NR, Adeli H (2011) Smart structures: part II—hybrid con-
trol systems and control strategies. Sci Iran, Trans A, Civ Eng
18(3):285–295
18. Frahm H (1909) Device for damping vibrations of bodies. U.S.
Patent 0989958
19. Gerges RR, Vickery BJ (2005) Optimum design of pendulum-type
tuned mass dampers. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 14:353–368
20. Ghaemmaghami A, Kianoush R, Yuan XX (2013) Numerical
modeling of dynamic behavior of annular tuned liquid dampers for
applications in wind towers. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng
28(1):38–51
21. Ghodrati Amiri G, Abdolahi Rad A, Khorasani M (2012) Genera-
tion of near-field artificial ground motions compatible with median
predicted spectra using PSO-based neural network and wavelet
analysis. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 27(9):711–730
22. Holmes JD (1995) Listing of installations. Eng Struct 17(9):608–
683
23. Hsiao FY, Wang SS, Wang WC, Wen CP, Yu WD (2012) Neuro-
fuzzy cost estimation model enhanced by fast messy genetic al-
gorithms for semiconductor hookup construction. Comput-Aided
Civ Infrastruct Eng 27(10):764–781
24. Huang MF, Tse KT, Chan CM, Lou WJ (2011) Integrated struc-
tural optimization and vibration control for improving wind-
induced dynamic performance of tall buildings. Int J Struct Stab
Dyn 11(6):1139–1161
25. Jafarkhani R, Masri SF (2011) Finite element model updating us-
ing evolutionary strategy for damage detection. Comput-Aided
Civ Infrastruct Eng 26(3):207–224
26. Jiang X, Ma ZJ, Ren WX (2012) Crack detection from the slope
of the mode shape using complex continuous wavelet transform.
Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 27(3):187–201
27. Kareem A, Kline S (1995) Performance of multiple mass dampers
under random loading. J Struct Eng 121(2):348–361
28. Kim H, Adeli H (2001) Discrete cost optimization of compos-
ite floors using a floating point genetic algorithm. Eng Optim
33(4):485–501
29. Kim H, Adeli H (2004) Hybrid feedback-least mean square algo-
rithm for structural control. J Struct Eng 130(1):120–127
30. Kim H, Adeli H (2005) Hybrid control of smart structures using
a novel wavelet-based algorithm. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct
Eng 20(1):7–22
31. Kim H, Adeli H (2005) Hybrid control of irregular steel highrise
building structures under seismic excitations. Int J Numer Meth-
ods Eng 63(12):1757–1774
32. Kim H, Adeli H (2005) Wind-induced motion control of 76-story
benchmark building using the hybrid damper-tuned liquid column
damper system. J Struct Eng 131(12):1794–1802
33. Lavan O, Daniel Y (2013) Full resources utilization seismic design
of irregular structures using multiple tuned mass dampers. Struct
Multidiscip Optim 48(3):517–532
34. Lei Y, Wu DT, Lin Y (2012) A decentralized control algorithm for
large-scale building structures. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng
27(1):2–13
35. Lin J-L, Tsai K-C, Yu Y-J (2010) Coupled tuned mass dampers for
the seismic control of asymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Spectra
26(3):749–778
36. Lin CM, Ting AB, Hsu CF, Chung CM (2012) Adaptive control
for MIMO uncertain nonlinear systems using recurrent wavelet
neural network. Int J Neural Syst 22(1):37–50
431
37. Love JS, Tait MJ (2013) The influence of tank orientation an-
gle on a 2D structure-tuned liquid damper system. J Vib Acoust
135(1):38–51
38. Marano GC, Quaranta G, Monti G (2011) Modified genetic al-
gorithm for the dynamic identification of structural systems us-
ing incomplete measurements. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng
26(2):92–110
39. Matta E, DeStefano A (2009) Robust design of mass-uncertain
rolling-pendulum TMDs for the seismic protection of buildings.
Mech Syst Signal Process 23:127–147
40. Mohebbi M, Joghataie A (2012) Designing optimal tuned mass
dampers for nonlinear frames by distributed genetic algorithms.
Struct Des Tall Spec Build 21(1):57–76
41. Nagase T (2000) Earthquake records observed in tall buildings
with tuned pendulum mass damper. In: Proceedings from the
12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand
42. Nagase T, Hisatoku T (1992) Tuned-pendulum mass damper in-
stalled in Crystal Tower. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 1:35–56
43. Nigdeli SM, Boduroğlu MH (2013) Active tendon control of tor-
sionally irregular structures under near-fault ground motion exci-
tation. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruc Eng 28(9):718–736
44. Patil VB, Jangid RS (2011) Optimum multiple tuned mass
dampers for wind excited benchmark building. J Civ Eng Manag
17(4):540–557
45. Plevris V, Papadrakakis M (2011) A hybrid particle swarm—
gradient algorithm for global structural optimization. Comput-
Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 26(1):48–68
46. Putha R, Quadrifoglio L, Zechman E (2012) Comparing ant
colony optimization and genetic algorithm approaches for solv-
ing traffic signal coordination under oversaturation conditions.
Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 27(1):14–28
47. Sakai F, Takaeda S, Tamaki T (1989) Tuned liquid column
damper—new type device for suppression of building vibrations.
In: Proceedings of international conference on high-rise buildings,
Nanjing, China, vol 2, pp 926–931
48. Sarkar A, Gudmestad OT (2013) Pendulum type liquid columns
damper (PLCD) for controlling vibrations of a structure—
theoretical and experimental study. Eng Struct 49:221–233
49. Sarma K, Adeli H (2000) Fuzzy discrete multicriteria cost opti-
mization of steel structures. J Struct Eng 126(11):1339–1347
50. Sarma KC, Adeli H (2001) Bi-level parallel genetic algorithms
for optimization of large steel structures. Comput-Aided Civ In-
frastruct Eng 16(5):295–304
51. Sarma KC, Adeli H (2002) Life-cycle cost optimization of steel
structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 55(12):1451–1462
52. Setareh M, Ritchey JK, Baxter AJ, Murray TM (2006) Pendu-
lum tuned mass dampers for floor vibration control. J Struct Eng
20(1):64–73
53. Sirca GF Jr., Adeli H (2012) System identification in structural
engineering. Sci Iran, Trans A, Civ Eng 19(6):1355–1364
54. Tait MJ, Isyumov N, Damatty AA (2008) Performance of tuned
liquid dampers. J Eng Mech 134(5):417–427
55. Tao H, Zain JM, Ahmed MM, Abdalla AN, Jing W (2012)
A wavelet-based particle swarm optimization algorithm for dig-
ital image watermarking. Integr Comput-Aided Eng 19(1):81–91
56. Wong KKF, Harris JL (2012) Seismic damage and fragility analy-
sis of structures with tuned mass dampers based on plastic energy.
Struct Des Tall Spec Build 21(4):296–310
57. Xiang J, Liang M (2012) Wavelet-based detection of beam cracks
using modal shape and frequency measurements. Comput-Aided
Civ Infrastruct Eng 27(6):439–454
58. Yalla S, Kareem A (2000) Optimum absorber parameters for tuned
liquid column dampers. J Struct Eng 126(8):906–915