Analytical parameters for equal mode

damping ratio inducing TMDs for seismic

response reduction

Julio C. Miranda

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Official Publication of the European
Association for Earthquake Engineering

ISSN 1570-761X

Bull Earthquake Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10518-020-00996-9

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00996-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Analytical parameters for equal mode damping ratio

inducing TMDs for seismic response reduction

Julio C. Miranda1

Received: 4 June 2020 / Accepted: 23 October 2020

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
This paper’s objective is to obtain exact analytical parameters for Tuned Mass Dampers
(TMDs) that derive their efficiency for controlling the seismic response by inducing two
modes with equal damping ratios, when affixed to single-degree-of-freedom mechanical
systems. The parameters that are derived are intrinsic to the systems and are independent
of the ground motion. It is seen that for TMDs tuned with this criterion, as damping is
increased a critical condition of multiplicity of eigenvalues is reached. The damping pro-
vided by the TMDs calibrated in this manner is effective only in the sub-critical range. As
the critical and supercritical conditions are reached, the TMDs lose their efficiency, and are
not adequate to reduce the response to seismic excitation. Nevertheless, in this paper the
exact analytical parameters are provided for all conditions. It is shown that at the critical
condition the derivation of parameters results in a commonly referenced work by others,
who also proposed using TMDs for the purpose of seismic response abatement. Finally,
some calculations in the frequency and time domains are presented to illustrate the utiliza-
tion of the parameters that are derived, and to illustrate the effect of the TMD mass on the
seismic response.

Keywords  Passive control · Energy dissipation · Seismic design · Tuned mass dampers ·
Building technology

1 Introduction

As reflected in the pertinent literature, current research on TMDs, suggests that the use of
this innovative technology is a practical and efficient method for the control of the struc-
tural response due to seismic loading. If proper tuning is achieved, significant energy may
be transferred from the structure to the TMD, followed by its subsequent dissipation due to
the high damping furnished by the device. The idea of using TMDs to mitigate the struc-
tural effects of strong ground motions can be traced to Villaverde (Villaverde (1985)), and
later to Sadek et  al. (Sadek et  al. 1997). Villaverde proposed to install small, but heav-
ily damped, flexible masses on the roof of buildings, calibrated to be resonant with the

* Julio C. Miranda
julio.miranda@jacobs.com
1
Jacobs, 1737 N. First Street, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95112, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

dominant structural mode. With this approach, the resulting damping ratio for the two
modes that result due to the splitting of the structural mode, is approximately equal to the
average of the damping ratios of the masses and the damping ratio of the resonant mode.
Further to this work, Sadek et  al. also proposed to affix damped masses on the roof of
structures but calibrated to induce two complex modes with equal frequency and damp-
ing ratios. Using this approach, the resulting damping ratios for such modes exceed the
average of the damping furnished by both the masses and the structure. Continuing along
this line of thought, Miranda (Miranda 2005, 2015), presented several modalities to cali-
brate TMDs, proposing analytical expressions for TMDs parameters that are system intrin-
sic. Further, Miranda (Miranda 2013) derived a method of calibrating TMDs resulting in
equal and high modal damping ratios for the two structural modes concerned. The pro-
posed methodology employed numerical procedures, as well as real mode based, and thus
approximated, analytical procedures. Moutinho (Moutinho 2012), made similar consid-
erations, and presented numerical data for calibration of TMDs resulting in equal modal
damping ratios, such as to minimize the dynamic amplification factors for the structural
displacement.
It will be noted that some of the numerical calculations included in this paper, consider
high ratios between the mass of the TMD and that of the structure. Such motivation stems
from the work by Hoang et  al. (2007), De Angelis et  al. (2012), Chey et  al. (2010a, b,
2015a, b), among others, who have identified that using large mass ratio TMDs results in
a more robust definition of the parameters leading to seismic response reduction. It would
seem that sufficiently large TMD masses would be more effective in dissipating energy
than lighter masses. This very important observation has enabled to extend the applica-
bility of TMDs to systems for which portions of the structure itself may be mobilized to
protect the complete structural assembly in case of seismic occurrence. As illustrated in
Fig. 1, new or existing buildings could be implemented with additional floors over a later-
ally flexible damped interface. Likewise, Fig. 2 illustrates the insertion of laterally flexible
damped interfaces between architecturally convenient parts of buildings. The feasibility of

Fig. 1  Schematics of added floors for seismic self-protection

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 2  Schematics of segregation of building portions for seismic self-protection

using these protective configurations has been discussed by Reggio and Angelis (2015).
Recently, and as a generalization of the approach depicted in these figures, Anajafi and
Medina ( 2017, 2018), have considered partial mass isolation systems that through isolat-
ing different portions of story masses can provide a building with multiple inherent vibra-
tion suppressors. These authors have shown, using numerical modelling, that implementing
such a strategy, the resulting systems could perform as effectively as an equivalent TMD
system, or as a base isolation system.
Therefore, in view of the promising results that are being obtained, it is pertinent to
continue studying the modalities of calibration. With such objective, and extending previ-
ous work by Miranda (2013), this paper starts by obtaining exact analytical expressions
for the tuning, mode damping ratios, and modal frequencies of TMDs while at the stage
of equal modal damping ratios, which will be referred to as the pre-multiplicity condition.
This is important in several ways: the expressions show that tuning is not only a func-
tion of the mass ratio, but also of the damping ratios of the TMD and the structure. Fur-
ther, the expressions illustrate the contribution of the mass ratio, of the damping ratios of
the TMD and the structure, to the equal mode damping. Finally, the expressions for the
modal frequencies show the participation of the mass ratio, and of the damping ratios of
the TMD and the structure. These considerations are followed by obtaining similar analyti-
cal expressions at a singular condition in which the mechanical system presents one equal
pair of coefficients of damping, and one equal pair of frequencies. This condition will be
referred to as the multiplicity stage. Finally, analytical expressions are obtained at a post-
multiplicity stage in which due to large damping increasingly provided by the TMDs, the
two masses fuse into one, consistent with mechanical systems behaving as physical one-
degree-of-freedom systems. The derivation of the exact analytical expressions is valuable
as it enables deeper studies on the efficiency of TMDs in reducing the seismic response of
structures implementing them.
The methodology used to derive the analytical parameters is based on a comparative
study of the characteristic equations of the systems expressed both in structural and modal
formats. To reach this goal, TMDs with damping lower than a certain critical value are
nitially considered, yielding parameters associated with equal modal damping ratios. Then,
the TMDs damping is increased to a critical value for which the damping and frequencies
of the mechanical systems become equal for both modes. Knowledge of this condition is
important as it is related to a stage in which the energy dissipation by the TMDs starts

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

decreasing due to excessive damping. Effectively, the relative velocity between the two
ends of the TMDs dashpots will decrease beyond a specific damping. As this critical stage
is considered, it will be seen that the well-known tuning and damping equations originally
proposed by Sadek et al. (1997) are obtained as a particular case of the general procedures
developed in this paper. Further increase of the TMDs damping will eventually result in the
post-multiplicity stage resulting in the lock-up of the dashpots.
To validate the correctness of the expressions proposed in this paper, the pertinent
parameters are obtained using rigorous numerical procedures, and compared with the
results provided by the exact analytical expressions. In addition, frequency response
curves are plotted for illustration of the behavior of both the upper and lower masses of the
mechanical systems, at pre-multiplicity, multiplicity, and post-multiplicity stages. Finally,
representative response values are obtained in the time domain with the goal of illustrating
the utilization of the parameters derived.
The theoretical model used in this paper considers a two-degree-of-freedom system as
shown in Fig.  3. Although simplistic at first glance, this model has nevertheless enabled
many studies, including the works by Den Hartog (1985), and Warburton (1982). The
study of such system lends itself to complex modal analysis, and as such in this paper the
modal parameters are, as appropriate, doubly sub-indexed to signify derivation through
such methodology. The reader is referred to Miranda (2005, 2015), for tuning based on
conditions of relative modal energy, resonance, or proportional to the participation factors,
as used in the numerical examples presented at the end of this paper.

2 Theoretical development

Let’s consider the two-degree-of-freedom mechanical system depicted in Fig. 3. The upper
portion, which constitutes the TMD, is characterized by its mass MU, its damping constant
CU, and its spring stiffness KU. The lower portion is characterized by a mass ML, a damp-
ing constant CL, and a spring with stiffness KL. The latter parameters represent the effective
properties for the structural mode under consideration and are presumed to be known.
For a ground acceleration a(t), the equation of motion for the system thus described is:
M ẍ (t) + Cx(t)
̇ + Kx(t) = −Mra(t) (1)

Fig. 3  Two-degree-of-freedom
mechanical system

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

where x(t) is a vector of relative displacements, with components xU and xL for the upper
and lower mass respectively. The influence vector r is a vector of ones for the structure and
ground motion being considered in this paper. M, C, and K, are the mass, damping, and
stiffness matrices of the system, that are written as follows:
[ ]
MU 0
M=
0 ML (2)

[ ]
CU −CU
C=
−CU CU + CL (3)

[ ]
KU −KU
K=
−KU KU + KL (4)

The damping matrix is not presumed to be proportional to either the mass or the stiff-
ness matrices. The following parameters are now defined:
KU
𝜔2U = (5)
MU

KL
𝜔2L = (6)
ML

𝜔U
Ω=
𝜔L (7)

MU
𝜇= (8)
ML

C
𝜉U = √ U (9)
2 KU MU

C
𝜉L = √ L (10)
2 KL ML

Equation (5) provides the circular frequency for the upper portion of the system when
considered independently. Equation (6) provides the circular frequency for the lower por-
tion when considered independently. Equation (7) represents the tuning ratio between the
frequencies of the upper and lower portions. Equation  (8) is the ratio of the upper mass
to the lower mass. Equations (9) and (10) represent the damping coefficients as fractions
of the critical values, for the upper and lower masses, respectively. These two values are
assumed constants and represent equivalent damping. In this paper, Eq. (1) will be referred
to as the structural properties equation of motion, since it is written using such properties.
Let’s consider Eq. (1) under free vibration, and search for a solution of the form:
x(t) = Z exp(𝜆t) (11)

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

where Z is a complex amplitude, and λ is a complex frequency. Replacing Eq. (11) into.

Equation (1), the characteristic equation of the system may then be written as:

𝜆4 + 𝜆3 [2(1 + 𝜇)𝜉U 𝜔U + 2𝜉L 𝜔L ] + 𝜆2 [(1 + 𝜇)𝜔2U + 𝜔2L + 4𝜉U 𝜉L 𝜔U 𝜔L ]

(12)
+ 𝜆(2𝜉U 𝜔U 𝜔2L + 2𝜉L 𝜔L 𝜔2U ) + 𝜔2U 𝜔2L = 0

or symbolically as:

𝜆4 + f3 𝜆3 + f2 𝜆2 + f1 𝜆 + f0 = 0 (13)

where the fj factors are written as:

f3 = 2(1 + 𝜇)𝜉U 𝜔U + 2𝜉L 𝜔L (13.a)

f2 = (1 + 𝜇)𝜔2U + 𝜔2L + 4𝜉U 𝜉L 𝜔U 𝜔L (13.b)

f1 = 2𝜉U 𝜔U 𝜔2L + 2𝜉L 𝜔L 𝜔2U (13.c)

and

f0 = 𝜔2U 𝜔2L (13.d)

A change of coordinates is performed now on Eq. (1), for the system undergoing free vibra-
tions, such that:
x(t) = Xjj qjj (t) for j = 1 and 2 (14)
where the Xjj are complex normal modes, and the qjj are complex modal coordinates. These
complex modes are obtained through a state-space decomposition as described, for exam-
ple, by Hurty and Rubinstein (Hurty and Rubinstein 1964). Replacement of Eq. (14) into
Eq. (1) while in free vibration conditions, yields:
MX11 q̈ 11 (t) + CX11 q̇ 11 (t) + KX11 q11 (t) = 0 (15.a)

MX22 q̈ 22 (t) + CX22 q̇ 22 (t) + KX22 q22 (t) = 0 (15.b)

Pre-multiplying Eq. (15.a) by the transposed conjugated of mode X11, and pre-multiplying
Eq. (15.b) by the transposed conjugated of X22, it may be written:
∗ ∗ ∗
M11 q̈ 11 (t) + C11 q̇ 11 (t) + K11 q11 (t) = 0 (16.a)

∗ ∗ ∗
M22 q̈ 22 (t) + C22 q̇ 22 (t) + K22 q22 (t) = 0 (16.b)
where
T
Mjj∗ = X jj MXjj (17)

T
Cjj∗ = X jj CXjj (18)

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

T
Kjj∗ = X jj KXjj (19)

Equations (17), (18), and (19) are the generalized mass, generalized damping, and general-
ized stiffness, respectively, corresponding to the jth complex mode. The bar over the Xjj vec-
tor denotes the complex conjugated vector. Since the matrices M, C, and K, are symmetrical,
these values are real. Due to their format, Eqs. (16) will be referred to as the modal properties
equation of motion. For a solution similar to (11), the characteristic equation for the expres-
sions in (16) can still be written per Eq. (13), with the understanding that now modal proper-
ties are being used in this expression. Thus, the fj factors are now written as follows:
f3 = 2𝜉11 𝜔11 + 2𝜉22 𝜔22 (20.a)

f2 = 𝜔211 + 𝜔222 + 4𝜉11 𝜉22 𝜔11 𝜔22 (20.b)

f1 = 2𝜉11 𝜔11 𝜔222 + 2𝜉22 𝜔22 𝜔211 (20.c)

f0 = 𝜔211 𝜔222 (20.d)

where ωjj and ξjj are the circular frequencies and the damping coefficients corresponding to
the jth mode, respectively, which are written as:
√
√ ∗
√ Kjj
𝜔jj = √ ∗ (20.e)
Mjj

and
Cjj∗
𝜉jj = (20.f)
2𝜔jj Mjj∗

Now, the specifics of the problem considered in this paper can be dealt with as follows:

(A) Parameters Prior to Multiplicity of Eigenvalues

The existence of a dynamic state at which there is multiplicity of eigenvalues is postulated.

But prior to such state being reached, let’s investigate a dynamic state at which the modal
damping ratios for each of the two pairs of complex conjugated modes are equal.
Since the frequencies are invariants, the factors in Eqs.  (13) and (20) can be equated
term to term. Thus, from the equality of Eqs. (13.a) with (20.a), of (13.c) with (20.c), and
of (13.d) with (20.d), it may be written that:
(1 + 𝜇)𝜔U 𝜉U + 𝜔L 𝜉L
𝜉11 = 𝜉22 = 𝜉EM = (21.a)
𝜔11 + 𝜔22

and
𝜔L 𝜉U + 𝜔U 𝜉L
𝜉11 = 𝜉22 = 𝜉EM = (21.b)
𝜔11 + 𝜔22

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

where the subscript EM denotes the sought equality of modal damping, and the term ξEM is
defined as the coefficient of equal mode damping. From the equality of the last two expres-
sions, the corresponding tuning, Ω, is found as:
𝜉U − 𝜉L
Ω= (22)
(1 + 𝜇)𝜉U − 𝜉L

It will be noted that tuning is a function not only of the mass ratio, but also of the TMD
and structural damping ratios. It may be noted that this equation is the same one that was
derived by Miranda (Miranda 2013) using real modes. Thus, as far as the tuning of the
system, the same result is obtained whether real or complex modes are used. Proceeding
now with the equality of expressions (13.b) and (20.b), and in view of the equality of (13.d)
with (20.d), it may be written that:

𝜔11 𝜔22 2
( )
+ = (1 + 𝜇)Ω2 + 1 + 4Ω𝜉U 𝜉L + 2Ω − 4Ω𝜉EM 2
(23)
𝜔L 𝜔L

From the last equation, and taking into consideration Eqs. (21), the equal modal damp-
ing ratios are obtained as:
� √
𝜇Ω2 + (1 + Ω)2 + 4Ω𝜉U 𝜉L − [𝜇Ω2 + (1 + Ω)2 + 4Ω𝜉U 𝜉L ]2 − 16Ω[(1 + 𝜇)Ω𝜉U + 𝜉L ]2
𝜉EM =
8Ω
(24.a)
or also as
� √
𝜇Ω2 + (1 + Ω)2 + 4Ω𝜉U 𝜉L − [𝜇Ω2 + (1 + Ω)2 + 4Ω𝜉U 𝜉L ]2 − 16Ω(𝜉U + Ω𝜉L )2
𝜉EM =
8Ω
(24.b)
The last two equations indicate the incidence on the modal damping, of the mass ratio,
the tuning, and of the damping ratios of the TMD and the structure. Let’s proceed now to
calculate the circular frequencies of the system. Thus, let’s write Eq. (23) as:

𝜔11 𝜔22 2
( )
+ =Δ (25)
𝜔L 𝜔L

where

Δ = 𝜇Ω2 + (1 + Ω)2 + 4Ω𝜉U 𝜉L − 4Ω𝜉EM (26)

2

From the last equation and given the equality of Eqs. (13.d) with (20.d), it is possible to
write the modal frequencies, normalized with respect to the structural frequency, as:
√ √
𝜔11 Δ − Δ − 4Ω
= (27.a)
𝜔L 2

and
√ √
𝜔22 Δ + Δ − 4Ω
= (27.b)
𝜔L 2

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Table 1  Analytical and (1) (2) (3)

numerical results for two-
degree-of-freedom systems with
(1) ξU 0.1 0.2
μ = 0.05, ωL = 20π, and ξL = 0.03.
Pre-multiplicity stage (2) Ω 0.9333 0.9444
(3) ξEM 0.0659 0.1172
(4) *ξEM 0.0659 0.1172
(5) ω11 54.5352 56.9411
(6) ω22 67.5647 65.4802
(7) *ω11 54.5352 56.9412
(8) *ω22 67.5647 65.4801

Table 2  Analytical and (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

numerical results for two-degree-
of-freedom systems with μ = 0.5,
(1) ξU 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
ωL = 20π, and ξL = 0.03. Pre-
multiplicity stage (2) Ω 0.5833 0.6296 0.6429 0.6491 0.6528
(3) ξEM 0.0719 0.1302 0.1896 0.2508 0.3147
(4) *ξEM 0.0719 0.1302 0.1896 0.2508 0.3147
(5) ω11 33.0703 35.3858 36.7395 38.4433 41.2492
(6) ω22 69.6368 70.2451 69.0783 66.6601 62.4755
(7) *ω11 33.0703 35.3858 36.7394 38.4433 41.2492
(8) *ω22 69.6368 70.2451 69.0783 66.6601 62.4757

Thus, exact analytical expressions are obtained for the TMD tuning corresponding to
equal modal damping ratios using Eq. (22); also, exact expressions for the modal damping
ratios are obtained from Eqs. (24); and exact expressions for the modal circular frequencies
are calculated from Eqs. (27). As the TMD damping is increased, these equations will enter
into a condition of multiplicity, as will be discussed later.
Now, proceeding with numerical examples, consider the system depicted in Fig.  3,
assuming it has values of μ equal to 0.05 and 0.5, with ωL equal to 20π radians/second,
and with a lower portion damping ratio ξL equal to 0.03. The TMDs are assigned damp-
ing ratios ξU ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 with increments of 0.1. The calculations using the
analytical expressions contained in this paper are carried out with a pocket calculator,
whereas a computer-based eigenproblem solver performing a state-space decomposition
for the system shown on Fig. 3 was used for the numerical calculation of the parameters.
Thus, the results shown in Tables 1 and 2 are obtained: Lines (1) show the damping ratios
assumed for the TMDs, while the tuning Ω per Eq. (22) is shown in lines (2). The equal
modal damping ratios ξEM calculated from either of Eqs. (24) are shown of lines (3). Lines
(4), show the equal damping ratios *ξEM as calculated with the eigenproblem solver. The
modal frequencies ω11 and ω22 as calculated from Eqs. (27) are shown on lines (5) and (6).
Lines (7) and (8) show the corresponding frequencies *ω11 and *ω22 as calculated with
the eigenproblem solver. As seen from Table I and II, the analytical values calculated for
damping coefficients and frequencies, as derived from the proposed tuning ratio equation,
corresponding to conditions prior to multiplicity of eigenvalues and eigenvectors, match
the rigorous values furnished by the numerical procedures. Finally, it is seen from Tables 1

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

and 2, that the induced modal damping ratios exceed the average of the TMDs damping
ratio plus the structural damping ratios. This is the most important reason for proposing the
use of this innovative technology for abating the response of structures subjected to strong
ground motion, in particular for low damped structures.

(B) Parameters at Multiplicity of Eigenvalues

Now, a dynamic state is sought, in which the mechanical system depicted in Fig.  3 dis-
plays a state of multiplicity of frequencies and damping coefficients. Thus, at such condi-
tions it may be written that:
𝜔11 = 𝜔22 = 𝜔M (28.a)
and that
𝜉11 = 𝜉22 = 𝜉M (28.b)
where the subscript M denotes the state of multiplicity. Again, since the frequencies are
invariants, the factors in Eqs. (13) and (20) can be equated term to term. If that is done for
Eqs. (13.d) and (20.d), and with consideration of Eq. (28.a), it may be written that:
√
𝜔M = 𝜔L Ω (29.a)

also, from the equality of Eqs. (13.a) with (20.a), and the equality of Eq. (13.c) with (20.c),
and considering Eq. (28.b),
√ the modal damping ratio may be written as:
𝜉M = 12 [(1 + 𝜇) Ω𝜉U + √L ] (29.b) or also as
𝜉
Ω

1 𝜉U √
𝜉M =
2
( √ + Ω𝜉L ) (29.c)
Ω

As these two expressions are equated, the corresponding tuning, Ω, is obtained as:
𝜉U − 𝜉L
Ω= (29.d)
(1 + 𝜇)𝜉U − 𝜉L

It is noted that the last equation is the same as Eq. (22), although it only applies to a spe-
cific value of ξU. Further, from the equality of Eqs. (13.b) and (20.b) and using (29.a) and
(29.c) the following equation is obtained:

(29.e)
√
𝜉U = 𝜇Ω2 + (1 − Ω)2 + Ω𝜉L

It is seen in expressions (29.e) that Ω and ξU are interrelated. Therefore, an iterative

solution for the pertinent parameters will be required, as discussed below:
(a) Given known values of μ and of ξL, let’s assume an initial value of ξU and calculate
Ω from Eq. (29.d); (b) Calculate an updated value for ξU per Eq. (29.e), and recalculate Ω;
(c) Calculate a new value for ξU, and compare its value derived at the i + 1 cycle with that
obtained at the i cycle; (d) If the difference of consecutively calculated values of ξU is less
that a set tolerance, stop the iterations and proceed to Eqs. (29.a), and (29.b) or (29.c), to
calculate the circular frequency, and the modal damping ratio; (e) Otherwise, continue with
the iterations until convergence is achieved.
For prompt access to estimates of ξU and Ω at the condition of multiplicity, or to obtain
values of parameters for a first cycle of iterations, it is noted that the structures that are

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

likely to use TMDs would have values of ξL that are significantly lower than the damp-
ing values contributed by the TMDs. Under such conditions, Eq.  (29.d) may be initially
approximated by:
1
Ω= (30)
1+𝜇

value which replaced into Eq. (29.e) results in:

√
𝜉L 𝜇
𝜉U = + (31)
1+𝜇 1+𝜇

From Eq. (31) and Eq. (29.d), the following improved approximation for tuning is, thus,
obtained:
( √ )
1 𝜇
Ω= 1 − 𝜉L (32)
1+𝜇 1+𝜇

It is remarkable that Eqs. (31) and (32) recover the empirical equations that Sadek et al.
(Sadek et  al. 1997) have proposed to fit their numerical data. Indeed, their expressions
coincide with the exact ones, and are consistent with an initial cycle of the iterative solu-
tion proposed in this paper at the condition of multiplicity. Thus, it has been demonstrated
that the TMD tuning and damping at the multiplicity condition is calculated iteratively
from Eqs.  (29.d) and (29.e); that after convergence of such iterations the corresponding
modal damping ratio is calculated from Eq. (29.b) or from Eq. (29.c); and that the modal
frequencies are calculated from Eq. (29.a).
Continuing with the numerical examples initiated above, consider again the system
depicted in Fig. 3, this time at exactly the dynamic state of multiplicity of eigenvalues. As
before, the values of μ are taken as 0.05 and 0.5, with ωL equal to 20π radians/second, and
with a lower portion damping ratio ξL equal to 0.03. The resulting parameters are shown
on Tables 3 and 4. Thus, lines (1) of such tables are obtained by performing iteration with
Eqs.  (29.d) and (29.e), and show the values of ξU converged to, whereas lines (2) show
the corresponding tuning value. Lines (3) of the tables show the modal damping ratio at
the multiplicity condition, from either Eq.  (29.b) or (29.c). Lines (4) and lines (5) show
the values of *ξ11 and of *ξ22 which are the modal damping ratios obtained with the com-
puter based eigenproblem solver. Lines (6) in Table 3 and 4, show the circular frequency
of the system at the sought state of multiplicity, calculated from Eq. (29.a). Lines (7) and

Table 3  Analytical and (1) (2)

numerical results for two-
degree-of-freedom systems with
(1) ξU 0.246695777
μ = 0.05, ωL = 20π, and ξL = 0.03.
Multiplicity stage (2) Ω 0.946143478
(3) ξM 0.141400403
(4) *ξ11 0.141414358
(5) *ξ22 0.141386444
(6) ωM 61.11648495
(7) *ω11 61.11554103
(8) *ω22 61.11742933

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Table 4  Analytical and (1) (2)

numerical results for two-
degree-of-freedom systems with
(1) ξU 0.597177038
μ = 0.5, ωL = 20π, and ξL = 0.03.
Multiplicity stage (2) Ω 0.655116196
(3) ξM 0.381045373
(4) *ξ11 0.381054643
(5) *ξ22 0.381036111
(6) ωM 50.85562974
(7) *ω11 50.85612884
(8) *ω22 50.85513008

(8) show *ω11 and *ω22 which are the circular frequencies at multiplicity as calculated
with the eigenproblem solver. It is noted that the parameters calculated with the analytical
expressions match the corresponding numerical parameters calculated by the eigenproblem
solver. However, it is also noted that the TMD damping ratio and tuning had to be calcu-
lated with nine decimals digits in order to reach equality of the eigenvalues within three
decimals digits. This indicates the difficulty, and very likely the impossibility of controlling
the TMD damping and tuning such that an exact match of both eigenvalues at the multi-
plicity condition is obtained. This observation has already been made by Miranda (Miranda
2013), and by Moutinho (Moutinho 2012). Thus, TMDs should be calibrated with tuning
and damping ratios at a lower level than those corresponding to the state of multiplicity.
The procedures proposed in this section of the paper have enforced the equality of mode
frequencies and damping. That is, the system’s two equal pairs of complex conjugated
eigenvalues have been calculated. However, as it is not pertinent to the purposes stated,
no effort has been dedicated to the calculation of the two corresponding pairs of complex
eigenvectors.

(C) Parameters at Post-Multiplicity of Eigenvalues

Although this range of behavior will not result in practical TMD applications, it is of aca-
demic interest to provide the corresponding analytical expressions. Thus, it is observed that
the multiplicity of frequencies continues to hold. Therefore, Eq. (29.a) may be written as:
√
𝜔PM = 𝜔L Ω (33)

where the subscript PM denotes the stage of post-multiplicity of eigenvalues. From equal-
ity of Eq. (13.a) with Eq. (20.a), it is obtained that:
√ 𝜉
𝜉11 + 𝜉22 = (1 + 𝜇) Ω𝜉U + √L (34.a)
Ω

And from the equality of Eq.  (13.c) with (20.c), plus the equality of Eq.  (13.d) with
(20.d) it is obtained that:
𝜉 √
𝜉11 + 𝜉22 = √U + Ω𝜉L (34.b)
Ω

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

From the equality of Eqs. (34), it is found that:

𝜉U − 𝜉L
Ω= (35)
(1 + 𝜇)𝜉U − 𝜉L

It is noted that Eq. (35) provides the same tuning that was previously found at the pre-
multiplicity and multiplicity stages, Eqs. (22) and (29.d), but applicable to the post-mul-
tiplicity range of damping. It may be noticed that from Eqs.  (29.b) and (29.c), and from
Eqs.  (34.a) and (34.b), the coefficient of damping at multiplicity and the coefficients of
modal damping at post-multiplicity stage are related by the expression:
𝜉11 + 𝜉22
𝜉M = (36)
2
From equality of Eqs. (13.b) with (20.b), and after some manipulation accounting for
Eqs. (33), (13.d) and (20.d), is may be shown that:

𝜇Ω2 + (1 − Ω)2 + 4Ω𝜉U 𝜉L

𝜉11 𝜉22 = =𝜃 (37)
4Ω
From Eq. (34.a) and Eq. (37) it may be written that:
�
1
� √ 𝜉L √ 𝜉
𝜉11 = [(1 + 𝜇) Ω 𝜉U + √ ] − [(1 + 𝜇) Ω𝜉U + √L ]2 − 4𝜃 } (38.a)
2 Ω Ω

and
�
1
� √ 𝜉 √ 𝜉
𝜉22 = [(1 + 𝜇) Ω 𝜉U + √L ] + [(1 + 𝜇) Ω𝜉U + √L ]2 − 4𝜃 } (38.b)
2 Ω Ω

Alternatively, from Eq. (34.b) and Eq. (37), it may be written that:

�
1 𝜉U √ 𝜉 √
𝜉11 = [ √ + Ω𝜉L − ( √U + Ω𝜉L )2 − 4𝜃] (38.c)
2 Ω Ω

and also that. �

√ √
Ω𝜉L + ( √U + Ω𝜉L )2 − 4𝜃] (38.d) Clearly, in this range the modal
𝜉 𝜉
𝜉22 = 21 [ √U +
Ω Ω
damping ratios are different, with the higher damping ratio associated with the second
mode.
Thus, it has been demonstrated that the TMD tuning at the post-multiplicity condi-
tion is calculated per Eq. (35); that the corresponding modal damping ratios are calcu-
lated from the corresponding Eqs. (38); and that the modal frequency is calculated from
Eq. (33).
The numerical examples initiated above are continued, considering the system
depicted in Fig. 3 at the stage of post-multiplicity of eigenvalues. The resulting param-
eters are shown on Tables  5 and 6: Lines (1) indicate the assigned damping ratios for
the TMDs, ξU, ranging from 0.3 to 0.9 with increments of 0.1. Lines (2) of such tables
is the tuning, Ω, obtained from Eq.  (35). Lines (3) show the modal damping ratio for
the first mode, ξ11 calculated from either of Eqs.  (38,a) or (38.c). Lines (4) shows the

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Table 5  Analytical and (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

numerical results for two-
degree-of-freedom systems with
(1) ξU 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
μ = 0.05, ωL = 20π, and ξL = 0.03.
Post-Multiplicity stage (2) Ω 0.9474 0.9487 0.9495 0.9500
(3) ξ11 0.0857 0.0656 0.0567 0.0515
(4) ξ22 0.2517 0.3743 0.4857 0.5934
(5) *ξ11 0.0857 0.0656 0.0567 0.0515
(6) *ξ22 0.2517 0.3743 0.4857 0.5934
(7) ω11 61.1560 61.2000 61.2246 61.2409
(8) ω22 61.1560 61.2000 61.2246 61.2409
(9) *ω11 61.1560 61.2000 61.2246 61.2409
(10) *ω22 61.1560 61.2000 61.2246 61.2409

Table 6  Analytical and (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

numerical results for two-degree-
of-freedom systems with μ = 0.5,
(1) ξU 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
ωL = 20π, and ξL = 0.03. Post-
Multiplicity stage (2) Ω 0.6551 0.6569 0.6581 0.6591
(3) ξ11 0.3475 0.2222 0.1818 0.1573
(4) ξ22 0.4181 0.6659 0.8287 0.9756
(5) *ξ11 0.3475 0.2222 0.1818 0.1573
(6) *ξ22 0.4181 0.6659 0.8287 0.9756
(7) ω11 50.8578 50.9234 50.9721 51.0097
(8) ω22 50.8578 50.9234 50.9721 51.0097
(9) *ω11 50.8578 50.9234 50.9721 51.0097
(10) *ω22 50.8578 50.9234 50.9721 51.0097

modal damping ratio for the second mode, ξ22, from either Eq. (38.b) or (38.d). Lines
(5) and lines (6) show the values of *ξ11 and of *ξ22 which are the modal damping ratios
obtained with a computer based eigenproblem solver. Lines (7) and (8) in Tables 5 and
6, show the circular frequency of the system at the stage of post-multiplicity, calculated
from Eq. (33). Finally, lines (9) and (10) show *ω11 and *ω22 which are the post-multi-
plicity circular frequencies for the first and second mode, as calculated with the eigen-
problem solver. It is noted that the parameters calculated with the analytical expressions
match the corresponding numerical parameters calculated with the eigenproblem solver.
In the limit, as the TMD damping ratio, ξU, reaches an infinite value, the masses will
lock-up. At such condition, the apparent tuning per Eq. (35) becomes:
1
Ω= (39)
1+𝜇

It is simple to demonstrate that the frequency of the single-degree-of-freedom system

at this condition can be written as:
𝜔
𝜔∞ = √ L (40)
1+𝜇

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

where the subscript ∞ emphasizes that the frequency is calculated at lock-up. Thus, it may
be written that:
√
𝜔∞ = 𝜔L Ω (41)

Further, it is quickly demonstrated that the corresponding system damping at this condi-
tion, is written as:
1
𝜉∞ = (42)
1+𝜇

where again, the subscript ∞ indicates that the damping ratio corresponds to the lock-up
condition. It is seen in this equation, that due to excessive TMD damping, the two masses
are physically fused into one, and no response reduction benefit from the device is obtained
under these circumstances.
It is noted, that for any of the tuning Eqs. (22), (29.d), or (35), as the structural damping
vanishes, the tuning is also provided by Eq. (39). Thus, this particular expression consti-
tutes an upper boundary for the tuning parameter of the systems considered in this paper.

(D) Frequency Response Curves

Since the ultimate use of the expressions derived above would be for seismic response
reduction, it is instructive to derive the frequency response curves for ground motion.
Assume thus, that the ground motion, ­xg, is of the form:

xg (t) = Dei𝜔t (43)

with D being the amplitude, and 𝜔 being the forcing frequency. Replacing Eq.  (43) into
Eq. (1), it may be written:

̇ + Kx(t) = 𝜔 DMrei𝜔t
M ẍ (t) + Cx(t)
2
(44)

For a solution of the form:

{ }
xU
x(t) =
xL
ei𝜔t (45)

it may be shown that the frequency response curve for the upper mass is written as:
√
xU a2U + b2U
= 𝛽2 (46)
D c2 + d 2

where

aU = −𝛽 2 + 1 + (1 + 𝜇)Ω2 (47.a)

bU = 2𝛽[(1 + 𝜇)Ω𝜉U + 𝜉L ] (47.b)

c = 𝛽 4 − 𝛽 2 [1 + (1 + 𝜇)Ω2 + 4Ω𝜉U 𝜉L ] + Ω2 (47.c)

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

d = −2𝛽 3 [(1 + 𝜇)Ω𝜉U + 𝜉L ] + 2𝛽Ω(𝜉U + Ω𝜉L ) (47.d)

with β being the ratio between the forcing frequency 𝜔 and the frequency of the structure
𝜔L . Similarly, the frequency response curve for the lower mass is written as:
√
xL a2L + b2L
= 𝛽2 (48)
D c2 + d 2

where

aL = −𝛽 2 + (1 + 𝜇)Ω2 (49.a)

bL = 2𝛽(1 + 𝜇)Ω𝜉U (49.b)

All the other variables in Eqs. (49) have been already defined. Hence, plotting results
from Eqs.  (46) and (48); Figs.  4 and 5 depict typical frequency response curves for the
upper and lower masses of a system at the pre-multiplicity stage, with a mass ratio μ equal
to 0.05, upper damping ratio ξU equal to 0.10, and lower damping ratio ξL equal to 0.03.
Two peaks are observed. As damping is increased, the two peaks converge, until at a coeffi-
cient of damping ratio of ξU equal to 0.246695777, corresponding to the multiplicity stage,
see line 1 of Table 3, the two peaks merge into one as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7. As the ratio
ξU increases beyond the damping corresponding to multiplicity stage, the single peaks are
maintained. However, it is observed that as the locking-up of the masses starts developing,
the damping provided by the TMD is not effective for the lower mass as mainly the lower
portion damping is mobilized. This has the effect of increasing the amplitude of the fre-
quency response for the lower mass, as shown in Fig. 8. Finally, as shown in Fig. 9, at this
stage the amplitude reduction for the upper mass is not significant, even for high values of
the damping ratio ξU.

25
UPPER MASS

20

15
Xu/D

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
FREQUENCY RATIO β

Fig. 4  Frequency response for the upper mass, at pre-multiplicity stage, for μ = 0.05, ξU = 0.10, and
ξL = 0.03

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

16
UPPER MASS
14

12

10
Xu/D

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
FREQUENCY RATIO β

Fig. 5   Frequency response for the upper mass, at multiplicity stage, for μ = 0.05, ξU = 0.246695777, and
ξL = 0.03

16
UPPER MASS
14

12

10
Xu/D

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
FREQUENCY RATIO β

Fig. 6   Frequency response for the upper mass, at post multiplicity stage, for μ = 0.05, ξU = 0.50, and
ξL = 0.03

E) Some Numerical Results for Seismic Excitation.

To illustrate the response of the two-degree-of-freedom systems to seismic excitation,
consider a 300 Tons mass and assign to it a circular frequency of 5.1302 radians per sec-
ond, and a damping coefficient of 0.0245. This mass is assumed to behave as a single-
degree-of-freedom. Assume that for self-protection purposes in case of a seismic event,
the mass is divided into a lower mass of 285.7143 Tons having a circular frequency of 2π
radians/second and a damping coefficient ξL of 0.03, plus an upper mass of 14.2857 Tons
with a damping coefficient ξU of 0.3. It is required to calibrate the frequency of the upper

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

6
LOWER MASS
5

4
Xl/D

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
FREQUENCY RATIO β

Fig. 7  Frequency response for the lower mass, at pre-multiplicity stage, for μ = 0.05, ξU = 0.10, and
ξL = 0.03

7
LOWER MASS
6

4
Xl/D

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
FREQUENCY RATIO β

Fig. 8   Frequency response for the lower mass, at multiplicity stage, for μ = 0.05, ξU = 0.246695777, and
ξL = 0.03

portion such that the tuning and damping induce a reduction of the displacement of the
lower mass during an earthquake represented by the response spectrum depicted in Fig. 10.
Using the software SIMQKE, (Gasparini and Vanmarcke 1976), the spectrum compatible
time history shown on Fig. 11 was generated, and the responses of the two-degree-of-free-
dom systems shown in Table  7 were obtained. In this table, xU and xL represent the dis-
placements of the upper and lower mass respectively. These components are also presented
in Fig. 12. The values for Ω that are considered correspond in increasing order to: tuning
for equal modal damping using Eq. (22); tuning for modal damping proportional to the par-
ticipation factors; tuning for perfect balance of modal strain energy; tuning at resonance;

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

10
9 LOWER MASS
8
7
6
Xl/D

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
FREQUENCY RATIO β

Fig. 9  Frequency response for the lower mass, at post multiplicity stage, for μ = 0.05, ξU = 0.50, and
ξL = 0.03

Fig. 10  Response Spectrum

and tuning for perfect balance of modal kinetic energy. Other than tuning per Eq. (22), the
other tuning modalities assume classical damping. For the development of the correspond-
ing tuning equations, see Miranda (Miranda 2005, 2015).

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 11  Response Spectrum Compatible Artificial Time History

Table 7  Response of two-degree- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

of-freedom systems for tuning
and mass ratio as noted, with
(1) µ Ω xU (cm) xL (cm) Comment (cm)
ξU=0.3 and ξL = 0.03 
(2) 0.05 0.9474 18.11 9.61 Equal mode
(3) 0.05 0.9630 18.31 9.57 Proportional
(4) 0.05 0.9759 18.46 9.54 Equal strain
(5) 0.05 1.0000 18.73 9.49 Resonance
(6) 0.05 1.0260 19.00 9.45 Equal kinetic

20
18
16
MASS DISPLACEMENTS (cm)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 1.01 1.02 1.03
TUNING

Upper Mass Lower Mass

Fig. 12  Maximum Response Upper and Lower masses

From Table 7 and Fig. 12, it is seen that tuning with Eq. (22) results in a lower mass dis-
placement of 9.61 cm. As the tuning increases this displacement decreases very slightly. How-
ever, for practical purposes and for the range of tuning values considered, it remains approxi-
mately the same with an average displacement of about 9.53 cm. As for the upper mass, it
deflects 18.11 cm. As the tuning increases this displacement increases slightly to a maximum
of 19 cm. On the other hand, the original single mass would displace about 16.78 cm. Note
that this value accounts for a magnification ratio of 0.05/0.0245 to the power of 0.45, since the
response spectrum is defined for 0.05 damping. Thus, there is a reduction of about 43% on the

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Table 8  Response two-degree- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

of-freedom systems for tuning
and mass ratio as noted, with
(1) µ Ω xU (cm) xL (cm) Comment (cm)
ξU=0.3 and ξL = 0.03 
(2) 0.5 0.5500 11.01 6.61 Auxiliary point
(3) 0.5 0.6429 12.32 6.24 Equal mode
(4) 0.5 0.7359 12.80 6.11 Proportional
(5) (5) 0.5 0.8165 13.46 6.03 Equal strain
(6) 0.5 1.0000 15.31 8.77 Resonance
(7) 0.5 1.4142 16.75 12.39 Equal kinetic

18
16
MASS DISPLACEMENTS (cm)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
TUNING
Upper Mass Lower Mass

Fig. 13  Maximum Response Upper and Lower masses

motion of the lower mass, which validates the idea of using TMDs for the purpose of seismic
response reduction. However, in this example the use of the TMD does not reduce the motion
of the lower mas in an incisive manner for the range of tuning considered. These results indi-
cate that for a broadband excitation, larger TMD masses are required to effectively dampen the
system as desired for the control of the lower mass, as will be seen in a subsequent numerical
example.
Assuming now, that the original 300 Tons mass is divided into a lower mass of 200 Tons,
always having a circular frequency of 2π radians/second and damping coefficient ξL of 0.03,
plus an upper mass of 100 Tons with a damping coefficient ξU of 0.3. Once again, it is required
to calibrate the frequency of the upper portion in order to reduce the displacement of the lower
mass to the seismic motion characterized by the response spectrum depicted in Fig. 10. Using
the spectrum compatible time history, the responses for the two-degree-of-freedom systems
shown in Table 8 are generated. Again, in this table, xU and xL represent the displacements of
the upper and lower mass respectively. These components are also presented in Fig. 13. The
values for Ω that are considered correspond in increasing order to: tuning using an auxiliary
point; tuning for equal modal damping using Eq. (22); tuning for modal damping proportional

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

to the participation factors; tuning for perfect balance of modal strain energy; tuning at reso-
nance; and tuning for perfect balance of modal kinetic energy. For the definition of the tuning
under these conditions, see Miranda (Miranda 2005, 2015).
From Table 8 and Fig. 13, it is seen that tuning with Eq. (22) results in a lower mass dis-
placement of 6.24  cm. As the tuning increases this displacement decreases to 6.03  cm for
tuning at perfect balance of strain energy. As for the upper mass, it suffers displacements from
12.32 cm up to 16.75 cm. Thus, the original single mass displacing about 16.58 cm would
experience a displacement reduction of about 62%, when tuning per Eq.  (22) is used. It is
noted that the tuning used at perfect balance of strain energy, and at proportionality with the
participation factors are approximations, whereas the values furnished with the procedure
developed in this paper are exact, which is the primary objective of this writing.
From the calculations shown on Table  7 it will be noted that using a mass ratio of
5% is not sufficient to mobilize sufficient damping, and hence the tuning criteria to be
applied is indifferent. On the contrary, from the calculations shown on Table  8, for a
mass ratio of 50% the relevance of the tuning criteria to use has a bearing on the dis-
placement reduction. Similar observation has also been made by Hoang et  al. (Hoang
et  al. 2007), De Angelis et  al. (Angelis et  al. 2012), Chey et  al. (Chey et  al. 2010a)
(Chey et al. 2010b), and Chey et al.(Chey et al. 2015a) (Chey et al. 2015b), who have
identified that using large mass ratio TMDs results in a more robust definition of the
parameters leading to seismic response reduction. For this high mass ratio, it will also
be noted that for the condition of resonance, or for the condition of equal kinetic energy,
the displacement of the lower mass increases significantly.

3 Conclusions

This paper provides exact analytical expressions for the tuning of TMDs, as well as for
the modal damping ratios and modal frequencies for mechanical systems damped at sub-
critical, critical, and post-critical stages. At the subcritical stage, the TMDs derive their
efficiency by inducing equal modal damping ratios exceeding the average of the TMD and
structural damping ratios. As the TMD damping is increased, these equations reflect a con-
dition of multiplicity, in which the system’s two pairs of complex conjugates eigenvalues
become a single pair. Thus, at this condition the paper offers TMD parameters using exact
analytical equations. Such considerations have led to the analytical derivation of the well-
known tuning and damping ratio empirical equations previously proposed by Sadek et al.
(Sadek et  al. 1997). Further increase of damping beyond the critical condition, and into
the post-multiplicity range, results in un-equal modal damping ratios, and will eventually
lead to a lock-up of the masses, with the system becoming a physical single-degree-of-free-
dom. Comparison of representative results using, at all stages, the analytical expressions
obtained in this paper, with the rigorous numerical calculations using an eigenproblem
solver, show complete agreement, validating thus the proposed equations.
For illustration of typical results, frequency response curves are presented for both the
upper and lower mass, at the pre-multiplicity, multiplicity, and post-multiplicity stages.
Finally, some results in the time domain are presented to illustrate the use of the expres-
sions that are obtained at the equal mode damping, subcritical stage. From the latter cal-
culations it is seen that a sufficiently large mass is required in order to efficiently activate

13
 Author's personal copy
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

the energy dissipative function of the TMD when excited by a broad band seismic motion.
Similar results have been reported by other as indicated earlier in the paper.

Acknowledgements  The findings, procedures, and opinions expressed in this paper are the sole responsibil-
ity of the author, and do not necessarily represent the practice of his employer, JACOBS.

References
Anajafi H, Medina R (2017) Partial mass isolation system for seismic vibration control of buildings. Struc-
tural Control Health Monitoring. https​://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2088|
Anajafi H, Medina R (2018) Comparison of the seismic performance of a partial mass isolation technique
with conventional TMD and base-isolation systems under broad-band and narrow-band excitations.
Eng Struct 158:110–123
De Angelis M, Perno S, Reggio A (2012) Dynamic response and optimal design of structures with large
mass ratio TMD. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 41:41–60
Chey MH, Chase JG, Mander JB, Carr AJ (2010b) Semi active tuned mass damper building systems: appli-
cation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 39:69–89
Chey MH, Chase JG, Mander JB, Carr AJ (2010a) Semi active tuned mass damper building systems: design.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 39:119–139
Chey MH, Chase JG, Mander JB, Carr AJ (2015a) 2015, Aseismic smart building isolation systems under
multi-level earthquake excitations: Part I, conceptual design and nonlinear analysis. Front Struct Civ
Eng 9:286–296
Chey MH, Chase JG, Mander JB, Carr AJ (2015b) Aseismic smart building isolation systems under multi-
level earthquake excitations: Part II, energy-dissipation and damage reduction. Front Struct Civ Eng
9:297–306
Gasparini D.A., Vanmarcke E.H., 1976. Simulated earthquake motions compatible with prescribed response
spectra. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Publication o. R76-4
Hartog JPD (1985) 1956, Mechanical Vibrations, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (Reprinted by Dover,
New York)
Hoang N, Fujino Y, Warnitchai P (2007) Optimal tuned mass damper for seismic applications and practical
design formulas. Eng Struct 30:707–715
Hurty W.C., Rubinstein M.F., 1964. Dynamics of Structures. Prentice Hall.
Miranda JC (2005) On tuned mass dampers for reducing the seismic response of structures. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dynam 34:847–865
Miranda JC (2013) A method for tuning tuned mass dampers for seismic application. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dynam 42:1103–1110
Miranda JC (2015) Discussion of system intrinsic parameters of tuned mass dampers used for seismic
response reduction. Struct Control Health Monitoring 23:49–368
Moutinho C (2012) An alternative methodology for designing tuned mass dampers to reduce seismic vibra-
tions in building structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 41:2059–2073
Reggio A, De Angelis M (2015) Optimal energy-based seismic design of non-conventional Tuned Mass
Damper (TMD) implemented via inter-story isolation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 44:1623–1642
Sadek F, Mohraz B, Taylor A, Chung R (1997) A method of estimating the parameters of tuned mass damp-
ers for seismic applications. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 26:617–635
Villaverde R (1985) Reduction in seismic response with heavily-damped vibration absorbers. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dynam 13:33–42
Warburton GB (1982) Optimum absorber parameters for various combinations of response and excitation
parameters. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 10:381–401

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13