1 s2.0 S266616592200028X Main

Journal Pre-proof
Passive, semi-active, active and hybrid mass dampers: A literature review with
associated applications on building-like structures
Lefteris Koutsoloukas, Nikolaos Nikitas, Petros Aristidou
PII: S2666-1659(22)00028-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100094
Reference: DIBE 100094
To appear in: Developments in the Built Environment
Received Date: 20 July 2022

Revised Date: 19 September 2022
Accepted Date: 29 September 2022
Please cite this article as: Koutsoloukas, L., Nikitas, N., Aristidou, P., Passive, semi-active, active
and hybrid mass dampers: A literature review with associated applications on building-like structures,
Developments in the Built Environment (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100094.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1 Highlights
2 Passive, Semi-Active, Active and Hybrid Mass Dampers: A Literature Review with Associated
3 Applications on Building-Like Structures
4 Lefteris Koutsoloukas,Nikolaos Nikitas,Petros Aristidou
5 • A latest review of passive, semi-active, active and hybrid structural control is presented
6 • An up-to-date list including 208 full-scale structural control applications of building-like structures around the world
7 is included, coming from a systematic literature review approach
8 • A list of control algorithms applied on real building-like structures is compiled for first time ever
9 • As per literature evidence, more than half of the full-scale structural control applications around the world are installed
10 in Asia (120 applications (57.7%))
11 • The majority of the full-scale mass damper applications are passive tuned mass dampers (PTMDs) (63%)
f
• After 2005, the installations of hybrid mass dampers (HMDs) considerably decreased in contrast to the PTMDs where,
oo
12
13 a noticeable increase was recorded
r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Passive, Semi-Active, Active and Hybrid Mass Dampers: A Literature
Review with Associated Applications on Building-Like Structures
Lefteris Koutsoloukasa , Nikolaos Nikitasa,∗ and Petros Aristidoub
a University of Leeds, Woodhouse Ln., Leeds, LS29DY, UK
b Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, 3036, Cyprus
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, a state-of-the-art literature review is presented emphasising on the development of con-
Control Algorithms trol variants for mass damper schemes on building-like structures. Additionally, a systematic literature
Passive Control review is conducted addressing three relevant questions: What type of mass damper is preferable by
Semi-Active Control the associated industry? How are mass dampers distributed around the world? Is industry following
Active Control research? Through the systematic literature review, updated lists of mass damper implementations
Hybrid Control and control algorithm applications in real-life structures were compiled. 208 case-studies are dis-
Control Applications cussed in total. It is found that, 63% of them refer to passive tuned mass dampers, 31% to hybrid
Tall Buildings mass dampers, 4.0% to active mass dampers and only 2% to semi-active mass dampers. Regarding
f
Vibration Control control algorithms, controllers of 24 structures driving semi-active, active or hybrid mass dampers are
oo
Systematic Review presented. It is concluded that the industry considerably lags behind latest structural control research
both regarding implementations and overall management.
r
When referring to buildings, it is usually located at the top
1. Introduction
-p
45
14
floor and tuned to the fundamental frequency of the global
46
15 Over the recent years, there has been an increasing trend 47 uncontrolled structure, dissipating in this way considerable
re
16 of building high-rise structures around the world (CTBUH 48 amounts of external energy input. The PTMD is charac-
(2020)). This trend came along with the modern way of de-
terised by its mechanical simplicity, cost-effectiveness and
17
49
signing and constructing buildings, aiming to keep them sus-
lP
reliable operation Yang et al. (2021).

18
50
19 tainable and aesthetically pleasing. Ultimately, this evoked 51 The semi-active technology can be deemed as the di-
20 their slender and lightweight design. Sustainable building 52 rectly evolved energy dissipating technology from passive
design is arguably an effective design approach since, less 53 since, it integrates adaptive, rather than constant, elements
na
21
22 material is required for the construction of a project. How- 54 to improve performance and effectiveness, as shown in Fig-
ever, such structures may be vulnerable to excessive vibra-
ure 1 (b). The semi-active TMD (SATMD) capitalises on its
23
55
tions caused by dynamic loadings, i.e. wind (Simiu and Yeo
ur
adaptiveness by gathering information about the structural

24
56
25 (2019); Solari (2017); Nikitas et al. (2011)), earthquake (Jangid 57 response and adjusting damping and/or stiffness parameters
26 and Datta (1995); Xie et al. (2020)), human action (Sachse 58 in real-time using a performance optimisation strategy. The
Jo
27 et al. (2003); Živanović et al. (2005); Jones et al. (2011)) and 59 SATMDs consist of sensor(s), a control system (controller),
traffic (Avci et al. (2020)). The need for vibration control due
a stiffness and a damping device with either or both allow-
28
60
to dynamic loadings, forced the structural control research
ing adjustment of their base values. Bhaiya et al. (2019)
29
61
30 community to develop smart systems that will allow vibra- 62 state that the semi-active systems can be thought as being
31 tion mitigation in civil structures. The evolution of the smart 63 the most efficient control strategy of any alternative however,
32 control systems that are studied today, arise mainly from pas- 64 this depends on inherent limitations of SATMDs e.g. those
33 sive solutions. Amongst many, one technology that received 65 utilising magnetorheological (MR) dampers have bounds in
a great attention is the tuned mass damper (TMD). A pas-
the control force capability. Spencer and Nagarajaiah (2003)
34
66
sive TMD (PTMD) was firstly proposed by Frahm (1911)
mentioned that, appropriately installed semi-active systems
35
67
36 for decreasing the rocking motion of ships. Since then, seri- 68 have a significantly enhanced performance when compared
37 ous efforts have been made by the structural control commu- 69 to the passive equivalents and have the potential to achieve,
38 nity to enhance the performance of the PTMDs which lead 70 or surpass the performance of even fully active systems. Na-
39 to the development of semi-active, active and hybrid mass 71 garajaiah (2009) mentions that, in semi-active control, the
dampers.
variation of stiffness is considered to be more efficient since,
40
72
A PTMD consists of a constant mass, spring (stiffness
the stiffness adjustment can directly track the instantaneous
41
73
42 element), and dashpot (viscous damping element), as shown 74 tuning frequency. In the case of the damping variation, it is
43 in Figure 1 (a). This control appendix is attached to a vibrat- 75 stated that, the damping ratio needs to change extensively,
44 ing system (structure) to reduce any undesirable vibrations. 76 defeating in this way the main purpose of the TMD; the tun-
∗ Corresponding author 77 ing. Thus, the damping becomes the dominant characteristic
cn15lk@leeds.ac.uk (L. Koutsoloukas); N.Nikitas@leeds.ac.uk (N. 78 and not the tuning. The author concludes that, it is generally
Nikitas); petros.aristidou@cut.ac.cy (P. Aristidou) 79 more desirable to use the stiffness parameter as the variable
ORCID (s):
80 property rather than the damping unless, there are major con-
L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 1 of 33

Passive, Semi-Active, Active and Hybrid Mass Dampers: A Literature Review with Associated Applications on Building-Like
Structures
81 straints that need to be encountered, such as stroke length. 138 presented an overview of the state-of-the-art control systems
82 Active control systems consist of sensor(s), controller(s)139 for the response reduction of civil structures, and included
83 (with a predetermined algorithm as in Wani et al. (2022)),140 a list of 27 full-scale mass damper applications. Symans
84 and actuator(s) (seen in Figure 1) (c). An active control sys-141 and Constantinou (1999) presented a state-of-the-art review
85 tem requires a relatively large power in order to allow the142 of semi-active control systems for the protection of struc-
86 actuators to provide large control forces in real-time. Ac-143 tures under earthquake loading. Buckle (2000) presented
87 tive control systems are mainly designed to increase the ef-144 a review of the control performance passive systems under
88 fective structural damping, without any major impact in the145 seismic excitations. Nishitani and Inoue (2001) presented
89 effective structural stiffness. Their sensors can be located at146 an overview of 29 buildings equipped with active and hy-
90 different positions of the structure to measure the external147 brid control systems in Japan. Soong and Spencer (2002)
91 excitation in terms of distributed system response variables148 reviewed the development and assessment of passive, semi-
92 i.e. velocities, displacements, accelerations and the control149 active, active and hybrid control and included a list of 40
93 forces, mass damper position. The controller receives the150 full-scale implementations of mass damper control systems.
94 data from the sensors, and after analysing it, it generates a151 Spencer and Nagarajaiah (2003) reviewed the structural con-
95 control signal to drive the actuator(s). Therefore, the con-152 trol schemes and presented a list of 46 building and 15 bridge
96 troller uses a feedback function of the lagged measured data153 mass damper applications. Datta (2003) reported an updated
97 provided by the sensors and produces actuation signals. The154 review of the active control systems applied on earthquake
f
98 actuators produce appropriate forces that could naturally de-155 excited structures. Jung et al. (2004b) reviewed the dynamic
oo
99 viate from these controller signals. Such a so-called active156 models used for semi-active mass dampers with MR fluid
100 mass damper (AMD) was installed on a real high-rise build-157 dampers. Ikeda (2009) presented a a list of 52 real practi-
101 ing for the first time ever in 1989 on the Kyobashi Seiwa158 cal applications of active and semi-active control schemes
r
Building in Japan (Kobori et al. (1991)). on buildings in Japan. Fisco and Adeli (2011a) presented
-p
102 159
103 Elias and Matsagar (2017) state that a hybrid control sys-160 a state-of-the-art review of active and semi-active control
104 tem can be a combination of passive to passive, passive to161 systems and a companion paper (Fisco and Adeli (2011b))
re
105 active and alike control techniques. This type of systems162 where the same authors reviewed the hybrid control systems
106 started becoming very famous structural control options since, 163 and control strategies within the civil engineering field. Cas-
they aim to minimise negative characteristics that each sys-164 ciati et al. (2012) reviewed the theory and applications of
lP
107
108 tem has when acting independently yielding a more efficient165 active and semi-active control of civil structures. Gutierrez
109 structural control system overall. Soong and Spencer (2002)166 Soto and Adeli (2013) reviewed the PTMD research efforts
mention that, the term “hybrid” generally denotes a configu-167 and demonstrated a list of 93 real full-scale applications of
na
110
111 ration that combines passive and active control systems. Ad-168 PTMDs on civil structures. Basu et al. (2014) attempted
112 ditionally, they state that the passive part controls a portion169 to give a common frame by demonstrating the recent re-
ur
113 of the control objective and thus, less active control effort170 search and applications of structural control systems across
114 is needed, which leads to lowering the power consumed by171 Europe. Nagarajaiah and Jung (2014) reviewed the advances
the active part. It is noticed that in the literature, there is172 in smart TMDs which included active and semi-active mass
Jo
115
116 an inconsistency in the terminology of mass damper sys-173 dampers. Saaed et al. (2015) reported a review of passive,
117 tems. More specifically, researchers tend to describe their174 semi-active, active and hybrid control systems used for the
118 proposed systems as hybrid when referring to active tuned175 response control of civil engineering structures. Elias and
119 mass dampers (ATMD) since, the aforementioned system176 Matsagar (2017) presented a state-of-the-art review of civil
120 combines by default a passive and an active control system177 structures using passive TMDs. Yang et al. (2021) reported a
121 (as seen in Figure 1 (d)). Ikeda (2009) states that in Japan,178 critical review of structural control vibration dissipation us-
122 it is common to refer to an ATMD as a hybrid mass damper179 ing TMDs where they focused on TMD modifications, math-
123 (HMD) because, the ATMD is considered to be a derivation180 ematical modelling, and optimisation procedures to obtain
124 from either active control or passive control. Specifically,181 the TMD optimal parameters. They also included active and
125 Kobori (1996) mentions that the ATMD is referred to as hy-182 semi-active dampers, and TMD practical realisations.
126 brid control since, it is the alteration of a passive TMD into
127 an active one. Moreover, they add that another form of a hy-183
128 brid control system is the mounting of an AMD on a TMD.
129 Sakamoto and Kobori (1995) report that this type of hybrid184 2. Paper Contributions
130 systems is popularly called DUOX.
131 Previous reviews in the structural control field include185 This work aims to provide firstly, an exhaustive literature
132 the works of Housner et al. (1997) who included passive,186 review including advances in the area of structural control
133 semi-active, active and hybrid systems and Spencer and Sain187 using mass damper technology. Secondly, it aims to sys-
134 (1997) who reviewed the research development of structural188 tematically gather a list of real mass damper applications of
135 control systems including 24 full-scale building and 15 bridge189 building-like structures around the world and draw conclu-
136 implementations, actuator types and characteristics, and new190 sions through the application trends.
137 technological and algorithmic trends. Kareem et al. (1999)191 The explicit contributions of this work are:

Structures
f
r oo
-p
Figure 1: Illustration of mass damper options: a) PTMD, b) SATMD with variable stiffness and variable damping, c) AMD, d)
typical HMD, combining passive and active parts, ATMD
re
lP
192 1. Review the efforts that have been made by the struc-219 while Section 5 reports their limitations (categorised as hard-
193 tural control community in order to: 220 ware or software-related) as these were reported previously.
194 • Include an up-to-date detailed review of studies221 Section 6 includes the explanation of the systematic litera-
na
195 which consider passive, semi-active, active, and222 ture review approach to be pursued and emphasises on its
196 hybrid mass damper control of civil structures 223 importance. Section 7 discusses the findings of the system-
224 atic literature search regarding the real-life implementations
• Present the state-of-the-art control algorithms that
ur
197
225 of mass damper systems along with the associated control
198 proved efficient for the control of civil structures226 algorithms. Finally, Section 8 includes the conclusions of
• Identify the control system limitations, as these227 this study and puts forward suggestions for guiding future
Jo
199
200 are reported in the literature 228 research focus.

201 2. Carry out a systematic literature review to:
202 • Report an updated list of real-life applications229 4. Mass Damper Control Systems
203 of mass dampers systems on building-like struc-230 This section includes the collection of research advances
204 tures 231 for passive, semi-active, active and hybrid mass dampers. In
205 • List the control algorithms utilised on real build-232 each subsection, the studies are organised in a chronological
206 ings for the first time ever 233 order.
207 • Draw conclusions on the installation trends of
208 passive, semi-active, active and hybrid mass dampers
234 4.1. Passive Tuned Mass Dampers
235 One amongst the first methods for the parameter deter-
209 through the years
236 mination of PTMDs was attempted by Den Hartog (1956)
210 • Understand whether the research carried out in237 where, expressions for the optimum damping ratio and fre-
211 the literature was applied in real-life applications238 quency ratio of the undamped mass subjected to harmonic
212 • Identify potential gaps between the research trends 239 excitation were derived. It is worth mentioning that, the Den
213 and the needs of the associated engineering sec-240 Hartog equations are based on the assumption that the struc-
214 tor 241 tures are modelled as single degree of freedom (DOF) sys-
242 tems. To account for the damping in the main system, Falcon
243 et al. (1967) developed a graphical method which was suit-
215 3. Paper Structure
244 able for different types of structural vibration. Randall et al.
216 This work is structured as follows: Section 4 presents245 (1981) and Ayorinde and Warburton (1980) developed vari-
217 a review of studies found in the literature including the ad-246 ous design charts in order to obtain the optimum parameters
218 vances of passive, semi-active, active and hybrid mass dampers,

Structures
247 with known mass ratios and different primary system damp-304 Sadek et al. (1997) proposed a method for estimating the
248 ing. Furthermore, the optimal parameters for tuned mass305 parameters for a TMD in the case of seismic excitation. The
249 dampers under random excitations idealised by white noise306 results show that the proposed method reduces significantly
250 were then proposed by Warburton (1982). 307 the displacement and acceleration of the buildings. The au-
251 Clark (1988), studied how the use of multiple tuned mass308 thors used their proposed method for the control of single
252 dampers (MTMDs) on tall structures manage a significant309 and multi-DOF structures under seismic excitations. It was
253 response reduction under a seismic action. In contrast, it310 found that the TMDs achieved a response reduction of the or-
254 was stated that a single tuned mass damper is not recom-311 der of 50%. Concluding, the authors stated that this method
255 mended for reducing the seismic response of tall buildings.312 can be applied in the vibration control of tall buildings.
256 For many buildings, many of their modes of vibration are313 Lin et al. (2000) considered the effectiveness of TMDs
257 closely packed in the seismic excitation range. The first de-314 on the vibration control of irregular buildings. The authors
258 sign rule is to place the TMDs at the antinode locations of the315 designed multi-DOF torsionally coupled shear buildings which
259 individual mode shapes. To decide on how many modes to316 were excited by bi-directional seismic loading. Two TMDs
260 consider, one must examine the mode shape matrix, the par-317 were introduced at the building models and, to determine the
261 ticipation factors, the earthquake design response spectrum318 optimum location installation and the moving direction of
262 and the natural frequencies of the structure. 319 the TMDs, the authors used the controlled mode shape val-
263 Xu et al. (1992) conducted wind-tunnel tests and theo-320 ues. The TMDs were used to control both the translational
f
264 retical analyses to investigate the vibration mitigation per-321 responses of the building models. Their simulations showed
oo
265 formance of passive TMDs on tall buildings under wind ex-322 that the PTMDs were effective on reducing the responses of
266 citation. They used a scaled building model (1:400) of the323 the a long and a square five-storey torsionally coupled build-
267 CAARC Standard Tall Building. They tested this model324 ings under five different seismic excitations.
r
with TMDs with different parameters in a wind tunnel to in-325 Singh et al. (2002) presented an approach for the optimal
-p
268
269 vestigate the dissipation performance of the TMDs. They326 parameter selection for the design of TMDs for the control of
270 concluded that, the TMDs were effective in suppressing the327 torsional buildings under bi-directional earthquake loading.
re
271 wind-induced dynamic response of the building however, its328 A genetic algorithm was used to find the optimum param-
272 performance could be enhanced with the implementation of329 eters of four TMDs with fourteen design parameters. The
an active control system. TMDs were installed in pairs in orthogonal directions. Their
lP
273 330
274 Lin et al. (1994) examined the effectiveness of a pas-331 results demonstrated the effectiveness of the optimal param-
275 sive tuned mass damper in reducing the primary structural332 eter selection on the dynamic response control of torsional
responses under stochastic environmental loadings. It was333 systems.
na
276
277 found that the passive TMD was useful and it is more appro-334 Pinkaew et al. (2003) investigated the effectiveness of
278 priate to a structure that its fundamental frequency is less335 the TMD on the damage reduction of buildings under earth-
ur
279 than that of the input excitation. It was stated that an op-336 quake loading. The authors stated that, the effectiveness of
280 timum passive TMD can reduce both earthquake and wind337 the TMD on decreasing the displacement of the structure af-
induced structural responses. Finally, it was shown that the338 ter the yielding point is found to be insufficient thus, they
Jo
281
282 passive TMD was more effective on reducing the wind in-339 considered the damage reduction of the structure. For their
283 duced vibrations rather than those induced by an earthquake340 simulations, they developed a single-DOF equivalent system
284 and are useful for lightly-damped structures. Based on their341 of a 20-storey reinforced concrete building under harmonic
285 numerical simulations, the authors concluded that, the pas-342 and the 1985 Mexico City earthquake excitations. The au-
286 sive TMD was effective on reducing the seismic responses343 thors added different degrees of damage protection and col-
287 by 60% and it was even more efficient on reducing the accel-344 lapse prevention for the assessment of their model where, it
288 eration responses than the corresponding displacements. 345 was found that the TMD can be effective on preventing the
289 Kwok and Samali (1995) demonstrated the effectiveness346 structure from collapse and increase its yield resistance.
290 of TMDs in the dynamic response control of tall buildings347 Wang et al. (2003) studied the application of TMDs for
291 under wind excitations. The authors concluded that the pas-348 the control of train-induced vibrations on bridges. For their
292 sive TMD can achieve an additional 3-4% critical damping349 simulations, the authors modelled the railway bridge as an
293 and 40-50% response reduction. 350 Euler–Bernouli beam, and the train forces were modelled
294 Tsai (1995) studied the performance of a TMD on base351 as moving forces, moving masses, and moving suspension
295 isolated structures. The authors used a 5-storey base-isolated352 masses in order to simulate various vehicles on the bridge.
296 building equipped with a TMD under seismic loading. Their353 By using the simply supported bridges of Taiwan High-Speed
297 results showed that, during the first seconds of the simula-354 Railway (THSR) under German I.C.E., Japanese S.K.S. and
298 tion, the TMD had a very little effect on the response of355 French T.G.V. trains, the authors demonstrated the effective-
299 the building, however, it can add damping to the structure356 ness of the TMD on decreasing the vertical displacements,
300 achieving in this way a reduced structural response. Finally,357 absolute accelerations, end rotations, and train accelerations
301 it was shown that, the TMD can be more efficient when the358 during resonant speeds.
302 damping of the base-isolation system has lower damping val-359 Lee et al. (2006a) proposed a design approach for struc-
303 ues. 360 tures with TMDs by taking into account the states of the full

Structures
361 dynamic system of multi-DOF structures, multiple TMDs418 mining the optimum parameters of a TMD capable of re-
362 located on different building floors and the power spectral419 ducing the structural responses. The authors noted that, the
363 density function of the environmental excitations. To demon-420 simplicity and the desirable convergence behaviour of their
364 strate the effectiveness of their method, the authors used a421 scheme were also very important outcomes of their method-
365 single-DOF and a ten-DOF model equipped with a single422 ology.
366 TMD and a five-DOF model equipped with two TMDs. In423 Yu et al. (2013) report a reliability based robust design
367 all scenarios the feasibility of the method was shown. 424 optimisation methodology for TMDs. The authors mention
368 Avila and Gonçalves (2009) investigated the influence425 that, in contrast to conventional stochastic design optimisa-
369 of the masses of MTMDs on the main system dynamic per-426 tion, their methodology is applicable for deterministic and
370 formance using four different arrangements of double mass427 or uncertain structures and it can take into account safety
371 dampers. By using a minimax procedure, the authors showed428 and quality simultaneously. A single-DOF system was used
372 that small variations on MTMD parameters and the way that429 to test the performance of the TMD designed using the pro-
373 the masses are connected have an influence on the response430 posed methodology. When compared to a conventional stochas-
374 of the main structure. 431 tic design optimisation procedure, the effectiveness of the
375 Lackner and Mario (2010) considered the structural con-432 proposed optimisation methodology was presented.
376 trol of offshore wind turbines using TMDs. Two TMDs were433 Stewart and Lackner (2014) considered the control of
377 installed in the nacelle of the wind turbine, acting in two dif-434 offshore wind turbines subjected to external excitation, par-
f
378 ferent directions. After carrying out a parametric study to435 ticularly considering the effect of wind–wave misalignment
oo
379 obtain optimal parameters of the TMDs, the authors demon-436 on the tower loads. The authors implemented TMDs and
380 strated the effectiveness of the TMDs on response control437 showed that, they managed to decrease the side-side loads
381 of the offshore wind turbines. Finally, it was stated that the438 caused by the wind–wave misalignment by over 40%. More-
r
results show the potential for active control approaches. 439 over, they showed that the increase in the TMD mass from
-p
382
383 Bekdaş and Nigdeli (2011) studied the optimal parame-440 10,000kg to 20,000kg had little benefit on the TMD perfor-
384 ter determination of TMDs using the harmony search meta-441 mance. Concluding, the authors mentioned that the TMD is
re
385 heurestic optimisation method. The authors used the the442 a cheap and robust solution for suppressing the tower vibra-
386 peak values of first storey displacement and acceleration trans-443 tions in the offshore environment.
fer function as the optimisation criteria. To demonstrate the444 Yang et al. (2015) proposed an innovative approach for
lP
387
388 effectiveness of their methodology, a ten-DOF structure was445 the optimal design of distributed TMDs. The authors com-
389 used under the El Centro (1940) NS excitation. Moreover, a446 pared their methodology to conventional ways for the design
second example was considered with different floor proper-447 of distributed TMDs. It was found that the proposed design
na
390
391 ties. The authors compared their scheme to other methodolo-448 approach demonstrates superior performance and robustness
392 gies such as Den Hartog (1956), Warburton (1982), Sadek449 compared to the conventional methodologies, and provides
ur
393 et al. (1997), and Hadi and Arfiadi (1998) and demonstrated450 a simple and straightforward way to determine the optimum
394 the effectiveness of their scheme. 451 parameters of the distributed TMD system.
Chakraborty and Roy (2011) contacted a reliability based452 Marian and Giaralis (2015) proposed a control system
Jo
395
396 optimisation of TMD parameters for the vibration control453 which is a generalisation of the classical TMD. More specif-
397 of a structure subjected to seismic accelerations consider-454 ically, the authors designed a TMD inerter to suppress the
398 ing UBB (uncertain but bound) type system parameters. It455 oscillatory motion of a structure. It was mentioned that this
399 was found that the optimum TMD parameters and associate456 system uses the so-called "mass amplification effect" of the
400 probability of failure of the primary system have no unique457 inerter to enhance its performance compared to a conven-
401 values, and rather provides bounds. However, when consid-458 tional TMD. It was found that, an optimally designed TMD
402 ering the system parameter uncertainties, a change in the op-459 inerter outperforms the conventional TMD when tested in
403 timum parameters of the TMD and the probability of failure460 the suppression of the displacements of an undamped single-
404 of the primary structure was observed. Finally, the authors461 DOF structure excited by white-noise. When tested in multi-
405 mentioned that, if the uncertainty which affects the parame-462 DOF structures for vibration suppression, it was seen that
406 ters of the system is not considered, the TMD performance463 again, the TMD inerter was more effective on suppressing
407 is overestimated. Moreover, the the upper bound of response464 the fundamental mode of vibration compared to the classi-
408 may be used in such cases for a conservative estimate of the465 cal TMD. It was concluded that, the TMD inerter configu-
409 optimum TMD parameters. 466 ration can either replace part of the TMD vibrating mass to
410 Mohebbi and Joghataie (2012) studied the performance467 achieve lightweight passive vibration control solutions, or
411 of TMDs for the response control of nonlinear frame struc-468 improve the performance of the classical TMD for a given
412 tures subjected to seismic excitations. For the optimal pa-469 TMD mass.
413 rameter determination of the TMD, the authors implemented470 More recent studies investigate TMD parameter optimi-
414 a distributed genetic algorithm. For the performance index471 sation by using various computational and mathematical meth-
415 to be minimized, the authors derived a function of the re-472 ods. Amongst others, Elias and Matsagar (2017), devel-
416 sponse of the nonlinear structure to be controlled. It was473 oped a distributed genetic optimisation algorithm based on
417 concluded that the proposed method was efficient on deter-474 the minimisation of a performance index to find a set of

Structures
475 TMD optimal parameters, including its stiffness and damp-532 from the dynamic behaviour of the chimney by finite element
476 ing. Khatibinia et al. (2018) proposed an optimal design pro-533 modelling. In the second phase, the authors considered the
477 cedure of a TMD under continuous stationary critical exci-534 nonlinear behaviour of the masonry by using a fiber model
478 tation representing the most severe earthquake. The authors535 of the chimney. The results showed the effectiveness of the
479 mentioned that optimal parameters are obtained by minimis-536 proposed methodology for the control of slender masonry
480 ing the sum root of the mean square of story drifts defined537 structures.
481 in the frequency domain. Thus, the performance of the Im-
482 proved Gravitational Search Algorithm (IGSA) using a ten538 4.2. Semi-Active Mass Dampers
483 story shear building with a TMD was investigated. The re-539 Researchers have been investigating the performance of
484 sults showed that the IGSA converges to better solutions when 540 various algorithms and optimisation methods in order to achieve
485 compared to other algorithms. Moreover, Kang and Peng541 more efficient SATMDs.
486 (2019) studied the optimal parameters of large mass ratio542 Hrovat et al. (1983) were the first to study the perfor-
487 TMD and used numerical optimisation methods and a re-543 mance of a SATMD in the field of structural control (Spencer
488 vised formula based on a fitting technique to achieve an en-544 and Nagarajaiah (2003); Yalla et al. (2001)). The authors
489 hanced version of previously existing formulas. 545 proposed a SATMD for the control of wind excited tall build-
490 Yucel et al. (2019) used machine learning to achieve op-546 ings and compared its performance to a fully active system
491 timum TMD parameters and concluded that, their equations547 and to a traditional PTMD. It was found that the proposed
SATMD had a better performance than the PTMD and simi-
f
492 and graphs can be easily and effectively used as a tuning548
oo
493 tool for the TMD parameter determination. In this paper,549 lar dissipative performance to the active system. Actually, in
494 an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model was proposed550 some aspects, i.e. mass stroke requirements, it was superior
495 aiming to generate the tuning parameters of a passive TMD.551 to the active system without requiring high power to operate
r
For the training of the ANN, the optimum parameters of sev-552 as the active system did.
-p
496
497 eral single-DOF structures were used. The optimum values553 ABÉ (1996) investigated the performance of a SATMD
498 were determined using a flower pollination algorithm (FPA)554 whose initial displacement varies based on the feedback. Their
re
499 (i.e. optimisation method). Moreover, the ANN model was555 control algorithm was developed in a simple closed form us-
500 used to generate three basic tuning formulations which were556 ing the perturbation solutions of vibration modes. Their pro-
tested on single-DOF and multi-DOF structures. Lastly, when posed scheme was investigated using a single-DOF model
lP
501 557
502 the structures were tested under seismic excitation by con-558 equipped with the mass damper. The performance of the
503 sidering the stroke of the TMD, the parameters that occurred559 proposed SATMD was compared to a traditional PTMD un-
from the proposed model were found to be more effective560 der impulse and earthquake loadings. It was found that, in
na
504
505 than the optimum parameters that were determined from the561 both cases the SATMD outperformed the PTMD showcas-
506 existing formulations. 562 ing its capabilities.
Ricciardelli et al. (2000) proposed an empirical algorithm
ur
507 Colherinhas et al. (2019) studied the optimal parameter563

508 determination of a pendulum TMD for the control of a slen-564 for the optimisation of the SATMD performance based on
der tower under random excitation. The tower was modelled565 the measured response. The authors mention that the pro-
Jo
509
510 as a single-DOF system. The authors used a genetic algo-566 posed procedure allows for the properties of the SATMD to
511 rithm to determine the parameters (flexural stiffness/damping, 567 be updated in order to improve its vibration dissipation per-
512 mass ratio and pendulum length) of the pendulum TMD. For568 formance. The benefit of the proposed algorithm is the fact
513 their fitting function, the authors chose the minimisation of569 that the exact knowledge of the properties of the main struc-
514 the maximum frequency peaks. 570 ture is not needed neither it is bound to a particular form
515 Stanikzai et al. (2019) studied the control of base-isolated571 of excitation. The proposed algorithm requires only an es-
516 structures with TMD under seismic loading. For their sim-572 timate of the first frequency of the main structure and the
517 ulations, the authors used two-dimensional reinforced con-573 smoothness of the excitation spectrum.
518 crete multi-DOF buildings. The TMD were located on dif-574 Setareh (2002) proposed a new class of SATMDs called
519 ferent floors of the building in order to investigate its re-575 the ground-hook tuned mass dampers (GHTMDs) for the
520 sponse control performance. It was concluded that, when576 control of the floor vibrations due to human movement. To
521 the time period of the isolators was increased, the perfor-577 obtain the optimum parameters of the GHTMD, the author
522 mance of the TMD reduced. Moreover, the placement of the578 used the minimisation of the acceleration response of the
523 TMD in low-rise buildings has no significant effect while in579 floor, the mass ratios, and the damping ratios of the floors.
524 the case of larger structures, the placement of the TMD has580 When compared to a classical PTMD, it was found that the
525 a noticeable role in the overall vibration dissipation perfor-581 GHTMD had a better performance of about (14%). Lastly,
526 mance. 582 when tested in off-tuning conditions, the author concluded
527 Zucca et al. (2021) proposed a methodology for the op-583 that the GHTMD demonstrated robustness compared to its
528 timization of the TMD design for the control of a histori-584 passive counterpart.
529 cal masonry chimney located in northern Italy. The authors585 Xu et al. (2003) considered the semi-active control of
530 derived a two-phase optimization procedure where, in the586 structures using MR dampers. The authors proposed an on-
531 first phase, the TMD parameters were defined by starting587 line real-time neural network (NN) algorithm which was trained

Structures
588 on-line with the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. Their al-644 Kang et al. (2011) studied the effectiveness of a SATMD
589 gorithm was designed to account for the time-delay prob-645 equipped with MR dampers in the response of a high-rise
590 lem that may occur in semi-active control schemes. Using646 benchmark building under wind excitation. The authors de-
591 a three-DOF reinforced concrete model the authors demon-647 rived a ground-hook (GH) controller for the control of their
592 strated the effectiveness of their algorithm on the response648 proposed scheme. Their SATMD was compared to the per-
593 reduction of the structure under seismic loading. 649 formance of a PTMD, a ATMD, and a SATMD with variable
594 Nagarajaiah et al. (2004) studied the effectiveness of a650 stiffness. Their results showed that their SATMD had a sim-
595 SATMD with variable stiffness. The proposed system was651 ilar performance to the ATMD but with significantly lower
596 tested on a 76-storey building and its performance was com-652 power consumption.
597 pared to a passive TMD. The tuning frequency of the pro-653 Laflamme et al. (2011) developed a neurocontroller which
598 posed SATMD was determined based on an empirical mode654 was able to self-adapt and self-organise, and it was used in
599 decomposition and Hilbert transform instantaneous frequency 655 the semi-active control of uncertain systems. The authors
600 algorithm developed by the authors. It was found that the656 used NNs to build the controller. Using Lyapunov stability,
601 SATMD had an enhanced performance on reducing the dy-657 the adaptive rules of the controller were determined and thus,
602 namic response of the structure when compared to the un-658 the robustness of the controller was achieved. The neurocon-
603 controlled case and the case with the conventional TMD. 659 troller was assessed through various numerical simulations
604 Nagarajaiah and Varadarajan (2005) proposed a new semi- 660 for harmonic, earthquake and wind excitations. In the case
f
605 active variable stiffness SATMD which aimed to continu-661 of wind excitation, it was found that the proposed controller
oo
606 ously varying its stiffness and returning its frequency in real-662 outperformed a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) controller.
607 time. The proposed scheme implemented a short-time Fourier 663 Elhaddad and Johnson (2013) studied the implementa-
608 transform to identify the dominant frequency of response664 tion of a hybrid MPC algorithm on semi-active control appli-
r
and track its variation as a function of time to retune the665 cations. The authors stated that the hybrid MPC is more suit-
-p
609
610 SATMD. The study investigated the control performance of666 able for semi-active control since, it can accurately model
611 the proposed semi-active scheme in the case of a tall build-667 the passivity constraints by using auxiliary variables into the
re
612 ing subjected to wind excitations and compared it to a pas-668 system model. After experimenting the proposed algorithm
613 sive TMD and to the uncontrolled scenario. It was found that669 on a typical structure under seismic excitation, and compar-
the proposed system is effective in controlling the response670 ing the results to the clipped LQR algorithm, it was found
lP
614
615 of the structure when it was subjected to stiffness alterna-671 that the hybrid MPC was more consistent in the reduction
616 tions. The authors mentioned that the proposed SATMD can672 of the objective function. However, it is mentioned that the
achieve the performance of an ATMD while, using consid-673 hybrid MPC required more computational power.
na
617
618 erably less power. 674 Chung et al. (2013) proposed an innovative phase control
619 Yan et al. (2007) developed a model predictive control675 methodology for the control of a SATMD applied on a sim-
ur
620 (MPC) algorithm for semi-active control schemes with MR676 plified Taipei 101 structure model under sinusoidal and de-
621 dampers in order to reduce the non-linear earthquake response 677 sign level wind excitations. The main aim of the work was to
of high-rise buildings. The authors demonstrated the perfor-678 minimise the off-tuned problems that are associated with the
Jo
622
623 mance of their scheme on a twenty-storey benchmark build-679 conventional TMDs. The results showed that, the SATMD
624 ing and compared it to other semi-active control schemes on680 that operated with the proposed methodology demonstrated
625 the same buildings such as linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG)681 better vibration dissipation performance and robustness com-
626 by Ohtori et al. (2004), and clipped LQG by Yoshida and682 pared to the passive TMD, particularly in the off-tune sce-
627 Dyke (2004). 683 nario.
628 Lee et al. (2010) experimentally investigated the perfor-684 Aiming to enhance the proposed work in (Nagarajaiah
629 mance of four semi-active control schemes on a full-scale685 and Varadarajan (2005)), Sun and Nagarajaiah (2014) stud-
630 five storey steel frame building structure, subjected to four686 ied the performance of a semi-active control scheme, im-
631 historical earthquakes. The algorithms that were investi-687 plementing variable stiffness and damping, under seismic
632 gated within this study were; the clipped-optimal control al-688 excitation. The damping ratio of the proposed scheme was
633 gorithm (CO) proposed by Dyke et al. (1996) for control-689 designed to vary based on the measured SATMD displace-
634 ling MR dampers; Lyapunov stability theory-based control690 ment. Moreover, by using a short-time Fourier transform-
635 algorithm (LYAP) where the Lyapunov function was based691 based algorithm to analyse the tracked displacement of the
636 on Leitmann (1994), the maximum energy dissipation algo-692 structure, the stiffness of the SATMD was tuned. The au-
637 rithm (MEDA) by McClamroch and Gavin (1995); and Cost693 thors compared the proposed scheme with an optimal PTMD
638 Function-based Semiactive Neuro-control (CFNC) by Jung694 to investigate its performance. It was concluded that the
639 et al. (2004a) and Lee et al. (2006b). Their results showed695 variable stiffness and damping SATMD outperformed the
640 that the LYAP and CFNC were more efficient on reducing696 PTMD with optimal parameters. Moreover, the effect of
641 the accelerations of the structural system where, the passive697 structural damage was studied to investigate the performance
642 counterpart and MEDA had a good performance on decreas-698 of the SATMD. It was found that, the proposed scheme was
643 ing the first floor displacements. 699 able to capture the variation in the structure and thus, it re-
700 mained tuned in contrast to the PTMD which remained de-

Structures
701 tuned. 758 pecially with excitations with distinct frequencies.
702 Demetriou et al. (2015) investigated the performance of759 Park et al. (2019) investigated the performance of a SATMD
703 a SATMD equipped with a Proportional Derivative Integral760 on the vibration mitigation of offshore wind turbines. More
704 (PID) controller applied on a multi-storey structure subjected761 specifically, this study focused on the availability of a MR
705 to earthquake excitation. The numerical results showed that,762 damper model on a TMD and its effectiveness on the con-
706 the semi-active control system presented a better performance 763 trol of offshore wind turbines. The proposed scheme uti-
707 when compared with a TMD with optimum parameters. 764 lized different GH control based logics, and their perfor-
708 Miah et al. (2015) investigated the application of the LQR765 mance was studied based on the frequency response. The
709 algorithm equipped with an unscented Kalman filter (UKF)766 semi-active control scheme was compared with a PTMD for
710 observer for the real-time mitigation of structural vibration767 the vibration control of both fixed-bottom and floating off-
711 on a SATMD. When they compered the LQR-UKF perfor-768 shore wind turbines under fatigue and ultimate limit states.
712 mance with the LQG algorithm and then validated it on a769 It was found that, the semi-active control scheme outper-
713 joint state-parameter estimation problem where the system770 formed the PTMD. More specifically, the SATMD equipped
714 model was assumed uncertain and updated in real-time; it771 with a displacement-based GH controller had the best per-
715 was concluded that this method is highly promising. 772 formance by reducing the fore-aft and side-to-side damage
716 Demetriou et al. (2016) studied the performance of a773 equivalent loads by around 12% and 64% respectively.
717 SATMD with different control strategies for the control of774 Weber et al. (2020) investigated the performance of a
f
718 a high-rise structure under wind-loading. More specifically,775 tuned mass damper equipped with an inerter (TMDI). The
oo
719 the authors investigated the performance of five algorithms776 authors mentioned that the floor on which the inerter is grounded
720 namely; the GH (displacement and velocity-based), clipped777 is directly related to the performance of the TMDI. Thus,
721 optimal, BANG and PID. It was found that, the algorithms778 the total performance of the TMDI was assessed based on
r
that proved to be more efficient (clipped optimal, displacement- a function of the floor on which the inerter was grounded.
-p
722 779
723 based GH and PID) sacrificed the minimisation of the damper780 The TMDI was tested in the response reduction of a 20-
724 strokes in contrast to the velocity-based GH and the BANG781 story building model. To provide a better representation of
re
725 controllers. 782 the performance of the TMDI, the authors used the classi-
726 In their paper, Bathaei et al. (2018) investigated the per-783 cal TMD as a benchmark for their study. When they sim-
formance of a semi-active system which consisted of a TMD784 ulated for broadband and harmonic excitations of the first
lP
727
728 and an adaptive MR damper. For the control of the MR785 three bending modes, it was found that the TMDI performed
729 damper, type-1 and type-2 fuzzy controllers were used. The786 better when the inerter was grounded to the earth since, the
design of the fuzzy controllers was done by using the ac-787 inerter force was proportional to the absolute acceleration
na
730
731 celerating and decelerating movements of the 11-DOF test788 of the TMD rather than the relative acceleration of the two
732 model. From the analysis, it was concluded that, the type-2789 inerter terminals. They also mentioned that, in order for the
ur
733 controller which considered the uncertainties related to the790 TMDI to outperform the TMD, while having the inerter any-
734 input variables had a better performance than the type-1 con-791 where below the TMDs’ floor, the inerter should be installed
troller. Lastly, the authors stated that the type-2 controller792 within approximately the first third of the building’s height.
Jo
735
736 reduced the maximum displacement, acceleration and base793 Lastly, when investigating the most realistic case were the
737 shear of the structure by 11.7%, 14% and 11.2% compared794 inerter is installed on the same floor as the TMD, the TMDI
738 to the type-1 controller. 795 had worse performance than the classical TMD.
739 Liu et al. (2018) numerically applied a multi-SATMD796 Shih and Sung (2021) developed an impulsive semi-active
740 device configuration on the multi-span Poyang Lake railway797 mass damper (ISAMD) for the control of a high-rise build-
741 steel bridge aiming to increase its fatigue life for which there798 ing. The authors proposed a directional active joint as the
742 were major concerns. Each SATMD device consisted of an799 breaker to lock and unlock contact between the structure and
743 MR damper attached to a TMD, while the baseline PTMD800 damper in order to overcome the detuning effect that a PTMD
744 scenario was also considered for comparison purposes. The801 may suffer from. When the proposed scheme was tested un-
745 control strategy employed a simplest possible fixed incre-802 der seismic loading it was found that, when compared to a
746 mental control algorithm, while for the PTMD scenario the803 PTMD, the ISAMD had enhanced reduction performance on
747 extreme cases of the MR devices providing constantly their804 the maximum and root-mean-square (RMS) displacement.
748 minimum (voltage off) and maximum (voltage on) damping805 Moreover the ISAMD did not experience detuning, and has
749 capability were examined. As reported, the multi-SATMD806 a stable control effect.
750 over doubles the considered nominal lifespan and achieves807 Dai et al. (2021) considered the vortex-induced vibra-
751 more than 15% better performance than the higher damping808 tion (VIV) control on long span bridges. They mention that,
752 (MR damper voltage on) PTMD control solution. 809 even though the passive TMDs are efficient on controlling
753 Zelleke and Matsagar (2019) developed an energy-based810 the VIV, they present robustness issues especially the TMDs
754 predictive (EBP) algorithm for semi-active control systems.811 with small mass ratios. The authors proposed a SATMD
755 Their results showed that the SATMD equipped with the812 with MR dampers for the mitigation of VIV with slowly
756 EBP algorithm can reduce the vibration response and the813 time-varying frequency. The authors proposed a real-time
757 energy imparted on a structure as compared to a PTMD, es-814 tuning and mass stroke limitation methodology for the SATMD.

Structures
815 For the control command determination, a feedforward con-871 optimal control theory was used. The performance of the
816 trol named the piece-wise linear interpolation (Weber (2013))872 dampers was investigated in two cases; i) decomposing sig-
817 was adopted with a kinematic Kalman filter (Jeon and Tomizuka 873 nals into bending and torsion and ii) separating the sensor
818 (2007)). For the modal identification of the long-span bridge874 signals. It was concluded that, in both cases the HMD were
819 the authors used the analytical mode decomposition method875 effective on controlling the bending and torsion of the struc-
820 which was proposed by Chen and Wang (2012) in order to876 ture. When comparing the two cases, the case (i) was proved
821 improve the modal identification accuracy. From the simu-877 to have a better overall performance.
822 lations it was concluded that, the proposed SATMD demon-878 Suzuki et al. (1994) presented a study on the performance
823 strated robustness and superior performance against the res-879 of an AMD when controlling a real high-rise tower called
824 onant frequency uncertainty compared to the PTMD. 880 "Riverside Sumida Building". For the control of the tower,
825 Wang et al. (2021) considered the control of human-induced
881 the authors developed a controller based on control opti-
826 vibrations on footbridges using a semi-active-type mass damper.
882 mal theory. Moreover, they introduced a variable-gain al-
827 The authors mention that, the traditional PTMDs are very883 gorithm allowed for the scaling of the control force based
828 sensitive to frequency deviation and suffer from detuning884 on the magnitude of the vibration of the building in order to
829 effects. Human-induced vibrations cover a wide range of885 achieve the most effective control possible. Based on vibra-
830 frequencies and are considered to be of stochastic nature.886 tion tests and earthquake response observations, the authors
831 Moreover, they add that the human-structure interaction can887 concluded that, their control approach achieved the control
f
832 change the structural characteristics of the bridge. Thus, the888 of multiple vibration modes without causing spillover.
oo
833 authors state that, the PTMD may not be efficient on control-889 Lopez-Almansa et al. (1994, 1995) investigated the im-
834 ling the human-induced vibrations on bridges and thus, they890 plementation of predictive control on civil engineering ap-
835 proposed a semi-active mass damper with variable mass. The891 plications. However, in this case, the authors used the pre-
r
proposed system operates by using a Wavelet-transform based dicted trajectory and the control force for one time - step
-p
836 892
837 controller which identifies the instantaneous frequency of893 only, to express their objective function.
838 the bridge in real time and adjusts the mass of the control894 Nagashima and Shinozaki (1997) considered the control
re
839 scheme appropriately. The authors used a simply-supported895 of an AMD with the practical limit of the auxiliary mass
840 pedestrian bridge as a case study. The effectiveness of the896 stroke length. The authors proposed a variable-gain feed-
proposed scheme was investigated under single pedestrian897 back control algorithm combined with static output feed-
lP
841
842 periodic and stochastic walking-induced excitations, and un-898 back control. The effectiveness of the proposed hybrid con-
843 der crowd-induced stochastic excitation. Moreover, the ef-899 trol method was showcased using a single-DOF system. It
fect of the human-structure interaction was investigated in900 was found that the proposed method had a good performance
na
844
845 their schemes. It was found that, the proposed semi-active901 against both seismic and sinusoidal excitations with respect
846 control scheme had an excellent vibration control performance 902 to the mass stroke, control power and control smoothness.
ur
847 and outperformed the PTMD in all cases. Moreover, they903 Nishimura et al. (1998) investigated the control of an
848 found that, the human-structure interaction may amplify or904 active-passive composite TMD equipping an office build-
reduce the structural responses and this depends on the the905 ing in Tokyo in 1993. The proposed device was installed
Jo
849
850 type of the input loads and the pedestrian body frequencies.906 to control random disturbances such as wind and seismic
907 loadings. For the control of the proposed system, the au-
851 4.3. Active/Hybrid Control 908 thors used the acceleration feedback algorithm. Moreover,
852 Maebayashi et al. (1992) proposed a prototype HMD for909 the optimum parameters, the control force minimisation, and
853 the response control of tall buildings against strong winds910 the power and energy under various types of disturbances
854 and moderate seismic loads. The prototype HMD consists911 were obtained. The authors designed a state estimator and
855 of an auxiliary mass, multi-stage rubber bearings which sup-912 tuning adjustments were made possible electrically instead
856 port the mass, and actuators driven by AC servo motors. The913 of mechanical stiffness adjustments. The control system ap-
857 control algorithm was designed using the optimal control914 plication proved the feasibility of the control algorithm by
858 theory. The HMD was installed on a real 7-storey build-915 comparing the observed control performance to the mathe-
859 ing (30m tall) built in 1991 at the Institute of technology of916 matical simulations.
860 Shimizu Corporation in Tokyo. The authors mentioned that,917 Mei et al. (2001) in their study, focused on the general
861 the HMD keeps the control force to zero when the building918 formulation of MPC for the real-time control of structural
862 responses are below a prescribed level and, in the case of919 responses under seismic excitations. The optimisation ob-
863 strong winds and earthquakes (when the building responses920 jectives that were used in this study were; the minimization
864 increase) the actuators start to operate automatically. From921 of the difference between the predicted and desired response
865 tests and observations during strong winds, it was concluded922 trajectories, and the control effort based on selected con-
866 that the HMD is effective on suppressing the building re-923 straints. The prediction model was constructed using feed-
867 sponses during strong winds and earthquake loadings. 924 forward and feedback components to achieve maximum ef-
868 Taida et al. (1994) investigated the control of the bend-925 ficiency. The feedforward loop was designed based on the
869 ing and torsional vibrations of a six-stage structure equipped926 Kanai-Tajimi-type model for the earthquake input represen-
870 with two HMDs. For the control law of the systems, the LQ927 tation. Moreover, an auto-regressive model was used to con-

Structures
928 stantly update the earthquake ground motion based on real-985 poles of the perturbed system. These techniques were stud-
929 time on-line observations and thus, achieve predictive and986 ied on active vibration control applications. It was observed
930 adaptive nature in the control actions. After comparing the987 that the adaptive pole placement controllers are noise tol-
931 MPC scheme with H2 control strategies, it was concluded988 erant but require high actuator voltages to maintain stabil-
932 that the MPC scheme can provide effectiveness comparable989 ity. Moreover, the robust pole placement controllers require
933 to the optimal control. 990 comparatively small amplitude of control voltage to main-
934 The performance of a new HMD system which consisted991 tain stability, but they are noise sensitive.
935 of a gear-type pendulum and a linear actuator was studied992 Yang et al. (2011) aimed to reduce the number of sen-
936 by Nagashima et al. (2001). Two HMD systems were used993 sors required in real implementations by using the modified
937 to control the transverse-torsional coupled vibration of a 36-994 predictive control which was derived with the partial-state
938 storey high-rise building with a bi-axial eccentricity. A vari-995 concept of direct output feedback. The proposed scheme
939 able gain feedback (VGF) control technique was developed996 computes the control forces by determining the actual out-
940 to achieve the maximum capacity of the HMD system. It997 put measurements which are then multiplied by a designated
941 was concluded that the maximum and RMS acceleration re-998 constant output feedback gain matrix. To produce the feed-
942 sponses were reduced to 63% and 47% respectively, confirm-999 back gain in a symmetric and efficient manner, an off-line nu-
943 ing in this way the control performance of the system. 1000 merical method was introduced. Two control systems were
944 The implementation of MPC scheme in the control of1001 tested, single-controller and multiple-controller, in order to
f
945 structures under earthquake loading was again studied by1002 validate the feasibility of the modified predictive control with
oo
946 Mei et al. (2002). Their scheme used the acceleration feed-1003 direct output feedback. Moreover, the application of an AMD
947 back to estimate the states of the structure. The optimiza-1004 controlled by the proposed scheme was applied on a large-
948 tion objectives of this study included the minimisation of the1005 scale 5-story structural model. The results showed that the
r
difference between the predicted and desired response tra-1006 proposed scheme can achieve good performance under en-
-p
949
950 jectories, alongside the control effort based on specific con-1007 vironmental excitations.
951 straints. To build the prediction model, accelerations mea-1008 Banerji and Samanta (2011) in their paper investigated
re
952 surements were contained in a feedback loop. Moreover,1009 the mounting of a tuned liquid damper (TLD) on a secondary
953 the states of the system were determined by a Kalman-Bucy1010 mass which is attached to the primary structure with a spring
filter state observer. Single-story and three-story buildings1011 system. The authors state that for the hybrid mass liquid
lP
954
955 were tested using active tendon control and AMD control.1012 damper (HMLD) system, there is an optimum value of the
956 It was concluded that the MPC scheme using acceleration1013 spring connection system for which the HMLD can achieve
feedback was an effective control method. maximum efficiency. Lastly, it was concluded that a HMLD
na
957 1014
958 Mei et al. (2004) investigated the use of MPC scheme,1015 with optimum design parameters can be more effective de-
959 applied on the structural control of a benchmark building1016 vice than a standard TLD for both harmonic and broad-band
ur
960 which is subjected to wind excitations. The authors used1017 earthquake motions.
961 an explicit prediction model of the system response to min-1018 Li et al. (2011) studied the performance of a hybrid con-
imise the objective function and thus, determine the con-1019 trol system on a nonlinear structure subjected to seismic ex-
Jo
962
963 trol actions. It is mentioned that, MPC optimisation objec-1020 citation. For their hybrid system, an AMD was implemented
964 tives were the minimisation of the difference between the1021 on the top of the structure. The authors stated that, an AMD
965 predicted and desired response trajectories, and the control1022 control system can cause a magnification of the interstory
966 effort which can be limited by various constraints. More-1023 drift of a nonlinear building. This phenomenon is called in-
967 over, the MPC scheme was tested in both, with and without1024 terstory response amplification (IRA) and for its elimination,
968 constraint cases, and then it was compared to a LQG algo-1025 interstory dampers were utilised. The control algorithm that
969 rithm. The inequality constraints on the maximum control1026 was used for the AMD was a fuzzy logic-based controller.
970 force and mass damper displacement were considered on the1027 Based on the numerical simulations it was concluded that the
971 objective function. The authors concluded that, by using1028 proposed hybrid system can eliminate the IRA phenomenon
972 input/output hard constraints, optimal control force can be1029 and achieve better vibration control when compared to a sin-
973 achieved through the MPC scheme which satisfies the pre-1030 gle AMD control system or to interstory dampers alone.
974 scribed constraints. 1031 Noormohammadi and Reynolds (2013) developed a HMD
975 Kumar et al. (2007) stated that, it is a general belief that1032 for the vibration control of structures (i.e. stadia) subjected
976 the fixed parameter controllers suffer from degradation in1033 to human excitation. Their proposed HMD consisted of a
977 their performance when the system parameters are subjected1034 PTMD with an actuator attached to the TMD mass. After
978 to a change. It was noted that conventional controllers can1035 comparing the proposed HMD to a PTMD, the authors con-
979 become unstable with these parametric uncertainties. Gen-1036 cluded that the performance has considerably enhanced.
980 erally, it is desirable that the closed-loop poles of the per-1037 Mitchell et al. (2013) suggested the use of a wavelet-
981 turbed structural system remain at pre-specified locations for1038 based fuzzy neurocontrol algorithm on a hybrid control sys-
982 a range of system parameters. Their paper investigated the1039 tem for the structural control of buildings under seismic exci-
983 pole placement-based controller design techniques, aiming1040 tations. The hybrid system consisted of an actuator, a TMD
984 to obtain robust performance by manipulating the closed loop 1041 and viscous liquid dampers. The proposed algorithm was

Structures
1042 developed by integrating the discrete wavelet transform, an1099 that the PD/PID controllers performed better than the LQR
1043 ANN and a Takagi - Sugeno fuzzy controller. When com-1100 in terms of reduction of the maximum top storey displace-
1044 paring the proposed system with the performance of pas-1101 ment, maximum absolute acceleration of stories as well as
1045 sive viscous liquid dampers and an ATMD subjected to seis-1102 maximum drift of stories. Lastly, the authors concluded that,
1046 mic excitations, the effectiveness of the proposed system was1103 the PID had a better performance than the PD controller.
1047 proven. 1104 Chen et al. (2017) developed a novel fast model predic-
1048 Li et al. (2014) proposed a fuzzy sliding mode control1105 tive control algorithm (NFMPC) for the control of large scale
1049 (FSMC) method for the control of a shear frame equipped1106 civil structures. The authors state that, most of the compu-
1050 with an ATMD. The authors mention that, their algorithm1107 tation of the algorithm was done explicitly, allowing for a
1051 avoids the undue chattering effect which is the main disad-1108 small amount of on-line computation, which guarantees the
1052 vantage of conventional sliding mode controllers, without1109 efficiency of the controller. When compared to a standard
1053 losing its robustness against parameter uncertainties. When1110 MPC on a ten-storey plane frame, on a three-dimensional
1054 compared to a PTMD and an AMD, the proposed scheme1111 cable-stayed bridge, and on a forty-story three-dimensional
1055 demonstrated better response control and stability. 1112 frame, the proposed MFMPC algorithm was proved to be an
1056 A HMD aiming to reduce the resonant vibration ampli-1113 efficient control method.
1057 tude of structures was proposed by Collette and Chesné (2016).
1114 Meinhardt et al. (2017) presented the installation of a
1058 The proposed hybrid system included passive and active com- 1115 HMD with passive, semi-active and active capabilities. It
f
1059 ponents. In this case, the direct velocity feedback control1116 is interesting to note that, since the building was not com-
oo
1060 was used, and two zeros were added to the controller al-1117 pletely built by the time their work was published, the con-
1061 lowing it to interact with the poles of the plant. When the1118 trol system was only treated as a PTMD.
1062 proposed system was compared with an AMD system, it re-1119 Peng et al. (2017) demonstrated the effectiveness of their
r
quires smaller active forces and thus less energy for a better1120 proposed novel fast model predictive controller with actua-
-p
1063
1064 damping performance. 1121 tor saturation used for the control of a plane adjacent frame
1065 Demetriou and Nikitas (2016) developed an energy and1122 structure under seismic loading. When compared to a nomi-
re
1066 cost-efficient hybrid semi-active mass damper. For the de-1123 nal MPC, it was found that the proposed controller is highly
1067 sign of this hybrid system, an active and a semi-active con-1124 efficient and it is a good application for large-scale structural
trol component were used. After testing its performance on1125 dynamic control problems.
lP
1068
1069 single and multi-DOF structures, it was found that the new1126 Aiming to mitigate the stroke size of their previously pro-
1070 configuration outperformed the conventional passive and semi-1127 posed HMD system in Li and Cao (2015), Cao and Li (2018)
active systems. Moreover, it is stated that the performance1128 proposed an enhanced hybrid active tuned mass dampers sys-
na
1071
1072 of the new hybrid system was similar to the active config-1129 tem (EHATMD) in order to attenuate undesirable oscilla-
1073 uration however, it consumed considerably less energy and1130 tions of structures under ground acceleration. Their design
ur
1074 reduced actuation demands. Thus, it satisfied the strict ser-1131 consisted of two ATMDs with different mass ratios on top of
1075 viceability and sustainability requirements. The main dif-1132 each other. By employing the genetic algorithm, the effects
ference between an ATMD and the novel hybrid system pre-1133 of varying the key parameters on the optimum performance
Jo
1076
1077 sented in this research is that, the ATMD adds and dissi-1134 of the EHATMD were studied and compared to a hybrid
1078 pates energy to the system while the proposed hybrid sys-1135 mass damper (HMD) with optimum parameters. It was con-
1079 tem just dissipates. It is noted that in this study, the semi-1136 cluded that the proposed EHATMD outperforms the HMD
1080 hybrid mass damper (SHMD) device was regulated by an1137 and thus, it can be considered as a novel extension of the
1081 optimal LQR controller, while the semi-active components1138 HMD.
1082 were controlled via a direct output feedback displacement1139 Bhaiya et al. (2019) studied the hybrid control schemes
1083 based ground-hook (DBG) controller. Based on the numer-1140 using different combinations of MR and TMDs to minimise
1084 ical results it was found that, the proposed device was effec-1141 the seismic responses of buildings. To evaluate the perfor-
1085 tive in reducing both the steady-state and the peak frequency1142 mance of the proposed hybrid system, the authors used purely
1086 responses of the structural system while achieving similar1143 SATMD control systems. The responses were obtained us-
1087 performance gains to that of an ATMD-equipped structure.1144 ing four control strategies i.e. LQR with clipped algorithm,
1088 Lastly, it was shown that the successive action of active and1145 passive-on, passive-off, and velocity tracking control. It was
1089 semi-active elements allowed an improvement in efficiency1146 concluded that by using a combination of a TMD and fewer
1090 both in terms of power and actuation demands. In a later1147 number of MR dampers, a 40-45% response control can be
1091 work, Demetriou and Nikitas (2017) worked towards the op-1148 achieved.
1092 timisation of system’s performance where, strict sustainabil-1149 Chang and Sung (2019) proposed a modal-energy-based
1093 ity and serviceability requirements were satisfied, making it1150 neurocontrol algorithm (v) for the control of civil structures
1094 a practical and reliable control solution. 1151 under seismic excitations. The modal energy of the structure
1095 Etedali and Tavakoli (2017) studied the performance of1152 was used as an objective function for the controller training
1096 proportional derivative (PD) and PID controllers for the seis-1153 and the control signal and modal energy were used for min-
1097 mic control of high-rise buildings. For comparison purposes, 1154 imisation by the controller. The authors used a three-storey
1098 a LQR controller was also used. The numerical results showed 1155 nonlinear building equipped with an AMD. It was concluded

Structures
1156 that the algorithm was efficient on decreasing the structural1213 of the mass damper system, the authors developed an MPC
1157 responses and the modal energy. Lastly, nonlinear hysteretic1214 with a Kalman filter. The performance of the algorithm was
1158 behaviours occurred in the uncontrolled scenario however,1215 compared to a LQR and to a corresponding PTMD. It was
1159 in the MEBNC controlled case these nonlinear behaviours1216 concluded that, the MPC outperformed both the LQR and
1160 were almost disappeared. 1217 the PTMD.
1161 Chen and Chien (2020) proposed a machine learning based 1218 Yan et al. (2020) studied the translation and rotation re-
1162 optimal control method for the control of civil structures un-1219 sponse control of structures under earthquake loading. For
1163 der earthquake loading. The authors mentioned that, optimal1220 their simulations, the authors used a ten-storey steel build-
1164 control methods require the full state feedback which may1221 ing model equipped with two ATMD or TMD systems. For
1165 not be available on real applications and time-delay and state1222 the control of the ATMDs, the authors implemented a LQR
1166 estimation errors may affect the control performance. Thus,1223 and a fuzzy neural network (FNN) control algorithm. They
1167 they developed a multilayer perceptron (MLP) model and an1224 concluded that, the ATMD operating with both algorithms
1168 autoregressive with exogenous inputs (ARX) model in ma-1225 was more efficient on the response control of the structure
1169 chine learning. The goal was for the algorithm to learn the1226 compared to the passive TMD. Lastly, when considering the
1170 control forces generated from an LQR which was designed1227 performance of the two control algorithms, the authors con-
1171 using a symbiotic organisms search algorithm. It was con-1228 cluded that, the FNN can replace the LQR algorithm since it
1172 cluded that, when tested on a ten-storey building, both MLP1229 is efficient in controlling the system with an uncertain math-
f
1173 and ARX were able to estimate the LQR forces with accel-1230 ematical model which makes it a potential practical applica-
oo
1174 eration feedback, eliminating in this way the need for state1231 tion compared to LQR.
1175 estimators. Lastly, the machine learning approach was tested1232 Chen et al. (2021) considered the active control of struc-
1176 experimentally, with a model equipped with an AMD under1233 tures with AMD stroke limits. A variable gain state-feedback
r
seismic excitation. It was found that both MLP and ARX1234 controller was designed to limit the mass strokes and rela-
-p
1177
1178 had a good performance on emulating the LQR performance1235 tive velocities. The effectiveness of the proposed controller
1179 when compared to a LQR with a Kalman filter. 1236 was demonstrated in the control of a high-rise building and
re
1180 Mamat et al. (2020) developed an adaptive nonsingular1237 a four-storey experimental structure. It was found that, the
1181 terminal sliding mode control algorithm for the control of1238 proposed scheme can limit the mass strokes while having a
seismically excited buildings. For the control device, the au-1239 good response dissipation performance.
lP
1182
1183 thors used a hybrid control system which consists of passive1240 Ramírez-Neria et al. (2021) developed a generalised pro-
1184 and active characteristics. For their simulations, they used1241 portional integral observer-based active disturbance rejec-
the El Centro and the Southern Sumatra earthquakes and1242 tion control scheme for the control of seismically excited
na
1185
1186 compared their algorithm performance with a fuzzy logic1243 buildings. The performance of the proposed scheme was ex-
1187 controller and a sliding mode controller. It was found that,1244 perimentally investigated on a five-storey structure equipped
ur
1188 the adaptive nonsingular terminal sliding mode control algo-1245 with an AMD. The authors concluded that the proposed scheme
1189 rithm had a superior performance compared to the other two1246 demonstrated an excellent vibration dissipation performance
controllers in terms of displacement responses, performance1247 and robustness in the presence of unknown external distur-
Jo
1190
1191 indices, and the probability of building damage. 1248 bance inputs.
1192 Kayabekir et al. (2020) modified a music-inspired har-1249 Concha et al. (2021) proposed an automatic tuning algo-
1193 mony search algorithm for the parameters of an ATMD and1250 rithm for a sliding mode controller based on Ackermann’s
1194 of a PID-type controller. The authors demonstrated the ef-1251 formula. The algorithm was investigated in the control of a
1195 fectiveness of their scheme on a ten-storey shear building. It1252 seismically excited building equipped with an ATMD. The
1196 was found that, the ATMD could reduce maximum displace-1253 authors mention that, their tuning algorithm selects the slid-
1197 ment of the structure by 53.71% and had a 22.51% better1254 ing mode controller parameters in order to guarantee suffi-
1198 performance than a PTMD. 1255 ciently fast and damped transient responses of the structure
1199 Xu et al. (2020) investigated the performance of ATMDs1256 and the ATMD, and the control force and the responses of the
1200 for the control of adjacent buildings under earthquake load-1257 building and the ATMD to be within acceptable limits un-
1201 ing. The authors implemented an observer-based active vi-1258 der the frequency band of the seismic excitation. The algo-
1202 bration control law and demonstrated its performance. The1259 rithm was experimentally investigated and compared against
1203 proposed scheme performance was tested on a 10 and a 6-1260 a LQR and an optimal sliding mode controller showcasing
1204 DOFs adjacent buildings with two different actuator satu-1261 its effectiveness.
1205 rations (779kN and 1000kN). From the simulations it was1262 Zhu et al. (2021) proposed a hybrid vibration mitigation
1206 found that the proposed scheme was efficient on reducing1263 method for the control of a footbridge using a PTMD and
1207 the structural responses. Lastly, it was mentioned that, when1264 the crowd flow control theory (Carroll et al. (2012); Hel-
1208 the actuator saturation changed from 779kN to 1000kN the1265 bing et al. (2002)). The authors mentioned that, they pro-
1209 control system had an enhanced performance of 52% on the1266 posed their hybrid method to eliminate the detuning effect
1210 structural displacement reduction. 1267 and the lack of adaptability that the PTMD has which makes
1211 Koutsoloukas et al. (2020) considered the vibration con-1268 it a less efficient control method for footbridges. The crowd
1212 trol of a real high-rise tower using an ATMD. For the control1269 flow control theory can alter the pedestrians’ velocity and

Structures
1270 and walking frequency by arranging temporary or perma-1326 All the aforementioned control techniques were proven ade-
1271 nent measures on the structure in strategic positions (Hel-1327 quate on effectively controlling the responses of the consid-
1272 bing et al. (2005); Venuti and Bruno (2013)). The authors1328 ered, many time fictitious, structural systems. However, it
1273 used the eddy current technique (Liu et al. (2020)) to op-1329 is rather essential to investigate whether the aforementioned
1274 timise the mitigation performance of the PTMD. To simu-1330 ingenious control techniques are adopted in real-life applica-
1275 late the crowd load, the authors used the social force model1331 tions. To achieve that, a systematic evaluation of literature
1276 (Helbing and Molnár (1995)) which is based on the Kurt1332 is contacted in a later section of this work. Furthermore,
1277 Lewinde’s social psychology hypothesis (Billig (2015)). To1333 the mass damper technologies have a number of limitations
1278 evaluate their proposed scheme, the authors used three lay-1334 which could cause hesitation in the industry professionals
1279 outs simulating; pedestrian diversion separation; bottle neck1335 and building owners to invest on their installation.
1280 effect; and a nonlinear layout which was a combination of
1281 the first two layouts. It was found that the hybrid control1336
1282 method was efficient on limiting the peak acceleration of the
1283 long-span footbridge (case-study) within the serviceability1337 5. Limitations of the Control Systems
1284 limit to avoid human discomfort.
1285 Koutsoloukas et al. (2022a) investigated the performance1338 Aside from the promising nature of the structural control
1286 of an ATMD for the vibration control of a real high-rise1339 schemes presented in Section 4, the literature includes var-
ious control limitations that cause control systems to mal-
f
1287 tower. For the control law of the system, the authors derived1340
function. Thus, it is important for the structural control re-
oo
1288 a robust model predictive control (RMPC) algorithm. The1341
1289 proposed algorithm was compared to the well established ro-1342 search community to identify in-full the limitations that each
1290 bust controller within the structural control field, H∞ , and to1343 control system suffers from, and develop smart techniques to
r
a PTMD. To assess their robustness, four different scenar-1344 eliminate them. This section includes the limitations of the
-p
1291
1292 ios with parametric (±2% and ±10% in stiffness and damp-1345 mass damper technologies that arise in the relevant literature
1293 ing) uncertainties and actuator (±5%) uncertainty were in-1346 categorised in hardware or software-related.
re
1294 troduced. To demonstrate the capabilities of the proposed
1347 5.1. Hardware-Related Limitations
1295 scheme, the authors derived two controllers, one emphasis-
1348 Considering the PTMDs, Bachmann and Weber (1995)
ing on the vibration mitigation of the tower and one empha-
lP
1296
1349 showed that the efficiency of the TMD is much more sensi-
1297 sising on the power consumption of the system. It was con-
1350 tive to the error in the tuning of the TMD frequency than the
1298 cluded that the RMPC schemes outperformed the H∞ con-
1351 error in the tuning of its damping. Rana and Soong (1998)
troller and the PTMD in all uncertainty scenarios.
na
1299
1352 stated that, under seismic excitation, the TMD system suf-
1300 Zhou et al. (2022) studied the vibration dissipation per-
1353 fer from detuning. In their study, they concluded that, for a
1301 formance of an ATMD equipped on a 600m tall tower. For
1354 structure subjected to an earthquake motion, the effects of
ur
1302 the control of the ATMD, the authors used an LQR with vari-
1355 detuning in the parameters of the TMD became less detri-
1303 able gain algorithm. The performance of the system was in-
1356 mental with increasing the mass and/or damping ratios of
vestigated during the Super Typhoon Hato and it was proven
Jo
1304
1357 the TMD. Moreover, based on the time history analyses of
1305 efficient for the vibration mitigation of the tower.
1358 a single-DOF with a TMD system, it was observed that for
1306 Koutsoloukas et al. (2022b) investigated the performance
1359 large damping of the structure, the TMD did not give much
1307 of the reinforcement learning deep deterministic policy gra-
1360 response reduction. The problem of the TMD off-tuning (de-
1308 dient (DDPG) algorithm for the vibration dissipation of a
1361 tuning) is also reported in (Setareh (2002); Shih and Sung
1309 real high-rise tower using an ATMD. The performance of
1362 (2021); Noormohammadi and Reynolds (2013); Setareh et al.
1310 the DDPG was compared to a PTMD and to a LQR. To in-
1363 (2007); Maślanka (2019)). Gutierrez Soto and Adeli (2013)
1311 vestigate the robustness of the reinforcement learning algo-
1364 mentioned that, a disadvantage of PTMDs is that they can
1312 rithm, a scenario with parametric uncertainty was introduced
1365 only be tuned in one frequency which is subject to uncer-
1313 (−10% stiffness and damping uncertainty). It was found that,
1366 tainty or it could change during ground motions. Moreover,
1314 in both the nominal and the uncertain scenarios, the DDPG
1367 the authors add that, the TMDs require high installation and
1315 had a similar performance to the LQR and they both outper-
1368 maintenance costs. Lastly, Elias and Matsagar (2017) ad-
1316 formed the PTMD.
1369 vised that open research problems regarding the TMD and
1317 4.4. Synopsis 1370 multiple TMDs are; the off-tuning of the oscillations and the
1318 Section 4 discussed the research done by the structural1371 influence of the flexibility of the foundation.
1319 control research community for passive, semi-active, active1372 The literature shows that, despite their promising capa-
1320 and hybrid mass dampers. Figure 2 shows a summary of all1373 bilities, the active/hybrid structural control strategies are sub-
1321 the studies included within this work. When considering the1374 ject to several hardware-related problems that affect their
1322 semi-active, active and hybrid systems, various control al-1375 performance. Firstly, Elias and Matsagar (2017) state that
1323 gorithms were investigated. More specifically, the efficiency1376 the operation of the active control systems is totally depended
1324 of control techniques such as adaptive, intelligent (e.g. AI),1377 on external power supply and it requires a complex sens-
ing and signal processing system. Ahlawat and Ramaswamy
optimal, self-organised, robust and stochastic was presented.
1378
1325

Structures
f
r oo
-p
re
Figure 2: Summary of the studies included within this work.
lP
(2002) mention that, being completely depended on exter-1407 to compute the required actions, information about the states
na
1379
1380 nal power, the active systems are vulnerable to power-failure1408 of the structure in real-time is required. As explained in the
1381 which occurs often during strong earthquakes. Moreover,1409 Introduction, the semi-active, active and hybrid control sys-
due to the size of the civil engineering structures, big capac-1410 tems require sensors located on selected areas of the struc-
ur
1382
1383 ity actuators are required which translate to high costs (pur-1411 ture in order to provide essential feedback regarding the state
1384 chase and operation) and thus, limited interest. Demetriou1412 of the structure, i.e. displacements, velocities, accelerations.
Jo
1385 and Nikitas (2016) state that the active TMDs gain their flex-1413 However, it is often that the feedback is noisy or incomplete.
1386 ibility and adaptability by consuming high power and their1414 Incomplete feedback occurs when measurements are taken
1387 performance is highly depended on the actuator capacity and1415 from limited DOFs of a system. For this reason, it is some-
1388 the auxiliary mass strokes. Casciati et al. (2012) mentioned1416 times impossible for the control algorithm to identify all the
1389 that, the actuation time lags are the main reason of causing 1417
a states of the structure. To overcome this, an observer must
1390 time delay in the control loop and thus, it has been a big con-1418 be utilised since, it is capable of computing the full vector of
1391 cern in the research area of structural control. The authors1419 structural response by using limited number of states (Miah
1392 added that, this topic is currently under review by the struc-1420 et al. (2015)). Applications of observer algorithms in semi-
1393 tural control research community. The influence of time de-1421 active and active structural control can be found in (Mei et al.
1394 lay was also discussed and investigated in Teng et al. (2016).1422 (2002); Yan et al. (2007); Miah et al. (2015); Azam et al.
1395 Moreover, Bhaiya et al. (2019) mention that, a delay could1423 (2017)) where Kalman filters were utilized. Aghajanian et al.
1396 occur due to processing feedback information which makes1424 (2017), and Hillis (2010) implemented the Luenberger ob-
1397 the active control not a reliable control method. Chen et al.1425 server in their control schemes. Moreover, the use of the
1398 (2021) mention that, it is important to limit the stroke of the1426 disturbance observer can be found in the control scheme of
1399 AMDs since, when the mass damper has excessive strokes1427 Nyawako et al. (2016). Alt et al. (2000) reported that, during
1400 and its relative velocity is in the same direction as the di-1428 an earthquake, the measured signals from the sensors may
1401 rection of the strokes then, the mass could probably collide1429 deviate from the real ones and this could result to a detri-
1402 on the anti-collision device on the building resulting during1430 mental effect on the controlled structure.
1403 increased structural responses to safety problems. 1431 Being highly depended on the utilised actuators, the ac-
1432 tive and hybrid mass damper control design should also take
1404 5.2. Software-Related Limitations 1433 into account their explicit dynamic characteristics i.e. actua-
1405 It is important to note that, the control algorithm is one1434 tor dynamics (Wu and Yang (2004)). The effect of the actua-
1406 part of the control strategy. In order for the control algorithm

Structures
1435 tor dynamics can be critical in the overall performance of the1489 Kioumarsi (2021) where the application of building infor-
1436 control system (Dyke et al. (1995)). Aiming to minimise the1490 mation modelling (BIM) in the health monitoring and main-
1437 effect of the actuator dynamics and the computational phase1491 tenance processes was reviewed; in Kc and Gautam (2021)
1438 delay, Nikzad et al. (1996) developed two controllers (i.e. 1492
a where the progress in sustainable structural engineering was
1439 conventional feedforward controller and a neurocontroller)1493 investigated and; in Flah et al. (2021) where the application
1440 and investigated their performance. It was found that the1494 of machine learning algorithms in structural health moni-
1441 neurocontroller was more effective on eliminating the effect1495 toring was reviewed. Moreover, Babaei et al. (2021) used
1442 of the actuator dynamics and time delay. In their study, Dyke1496 the systematic literature review approach for reporting the
1443 et al. (1995) showcased the importance of accounting for1497 issues around the front-end of infrastructure megaprojects,
1444 the control-structure interaction and the actuator dynamics1498 Manzoor et al. (2021) systematically reviewed the influence
1445 when designing a control system. The authors showed that,1499 of artificial intelligence in civil engineering in relation to
1446 there is a natural velocity feedback interaction path in the1500 sustainable development and Medel-Vera and Ji (2015) re-
1447 case of hydraulic actuators. They concluded that, the con-1501 viewed the seismic protection technologies applied on nu-
1448 sideration of the actuator dynamics and the control-structure1502 clear power plants.
1449 interaction can lead to a considerably improved and reliable1503 To further clarify the differences between a systematic
1450 control system. However, it was mentioned that, most re-1504 literature search and a conventional literature review, the main
1451 searchers neglect the effects from the actuator dynamics. This
1505 features addressed by Kitchenham and Charters (2007) will
f
1452 can result in time lag and mismatches when generating the1506 be discussed. Firstly, the systematic literature review starts
oo
1453 control forces. 1507 by defining a search objective in order to express the search
1508 question. Moreover, the systematic reviews use a structured
1454 5.3. Reflection 1509 search strategy, that is documented to the readers, in order
r
1455 Section 5 reported several limitations of passive, semi-1510 to cover as much of the relevant literature possible. After
1456
1457
active, active and hybrid mass dampers as these were iden-1511
-p
tified in current literature. It is rather important to present1512
gathering the relevant literature a screening process should
take place. This means that, inclusion and exclusion criteria
re
1458 these limitations of each control system in order to provide1513 should be set in order to discard non-applicable studies. Fi-
1459 a clear direction on future research required by the commu-1514 nally, the information to be obtained by each primary study
nity. Besides, by recognising the control systems’ limita-1515 should be clearly specified.
lP
1460
1461 tions, more accurate conclusions may be drawn in the fol-

1462 lowing sections where, the installations of mass damper de-1516 6.1. Systematic Evaluation Objectives
vices on real building-like structures will be presented and1517 The objectives of this systematic evaluation is to firstly
na
1463
1464 investigated. 1518 search for relevant literature which includes real-life appli-
1519 cations of mass damper systems on building-like structures.
This means that, bridges, wind turbines, and experimental
ur
1520
1465 6. Systematic Evaluation of Literature with 1521 schemes applied on laboratory environments are not included
1466 Control System Applications within this application list. Control system applications that
Jo
1522
1467 The concept of systematic literature review arose from1523 are not mass-damper-based (i.e. even tuned liquid dampers
1468 the medical research field and its main use was to provide1524 (Ghisbain et al. (2021))) are also excluded. Secondly, any
1469 evidence-based medicine treatment (Kitchenham and Char-1525 algorithms used for the control of the real-life applications
1470 ters (2007)). The difference between a traditional, or expe-1526 will also be extracted from the relevant literature.
1471 riential, literature review (even in very successful examples
1472 as e.g. Kiranyaz et al. (2021); Avci et al. (2021)) and a sys-1527 6.2. Search Strategy
1473 tematic one is the fact that the latter uses a structured search1528 The database search method used herein is based on Reymert
1474 approach and formalised objectives. Reymert et al. (2022)1529 et al. (2022), and is considered to be adequate and efficient
1475 state that, systematic reviews are not common in the civil and1530 fitting the purpose of this work. The systematic literature
1476 structural research fields. The systematic search provides1531 search was conducted by using phrase search with Boolean
1477 a well-defined search methodology which helps to reduce1532 AND and OR operators. Table 1 shows how the phrase search
1478 bias and allows for generating more general conclusions (Pe-1533 was structured where, the OR operator was used between the
1479 tersen et al. (2008); Kitchenham and Charters (2007)). In1534 terms of each column and the AND operator between each
1480 this part of the current work, the use of systematic evaluation1535 column. An iterative method was used to develop the phrase
1481 literature is considered to be essential since, it will only then1536 search in order to achieve an acceptable and complete litera-
1482 allow for statistical analysis to be conducted. More specif-1537 ture search. At first, a Scopus search was conducted where, a
1483 ically, by analysing the findings of the systematic evalua-1538 broad phrase selection was used in order to assess the quan-
1484 tion, patterns and trends will be uncovered which will lead to1539 tity of the relevant data and then, progressive phrase con-
1485 several important conclusions around mass damper installa-1540 straints were added in order to achieve satisfactory precise
1486 tions on real building-like structures. Other examples of the1541 results. This study aims to provide two, as complete as pos-
1487 systematic literature review approach in the civil and struc-1542 sible, mass damper and control algorithm applications lists,
1488 tural engineering research area can be found in Panah and1543 widening previous coverage of the relevant literature data.

Structures
Table 1 1582 semi-active, active and hybrid mass dampers. It is noted that,
Search phrase structure 1583 when compared to the total number of tall structures that
1584 are being built around the world (Jafari and Alipour (2021)),
1585 the utilisation of mass damper technology is still not broadly
1586 used. Moreover, structural control applications’ maps are
1587 included in Figure 4, which show all the control system ap-
1588 plications listed in Tables 2 and 3. As it can be seen, Japan is
1589 the country with the most structures equipped with a control
1590 system (77). After Japan, the country with the most appli-
1591 cations, yet with a notable difference, is the U.S.A with 37,
1592 followed by Germany with 16, making the three countries
1593 with the most structures equipped with structural control ap-
1594 plications.
1595 From the analysis of the accumulated data, this study
1596 aims to address three questions:
1597 1. What type of mass damper system is more preferred
1598 by the engineering industry?
f
6.3. Screening Process 2. How are mass damper systems distributed around the
oo
1544 1599
1545 To gather the most relevant literature, a screening pro-1600 world?

1546 cess was conducted. Search results that were not written1601 3. Is the research done by the structural control research
in English, did not align with the objective of this system-1602
r
1547 community adopted by the engineering industry?
atic evaluation, or they were duplicates of existing results
1548
1549
1550
were excluded. Using the Table 1 phrase search approach,
a total of 424 unique results were gathered. Moreover, due -p
1603
1604
The consideration and discussion of the above-mentioned
questions are believed to be crucial for the research area of
re
1605 structural control since, they will highlight gaps and future
1551 to the uniqueness of the search subject of matter, 37 more
1606 research steps to be followed.
1552 results were gathered from cited studies within the results.
lP
1553 From the total of 461 studies, 70.5% were journal articles,1607 7.1. What type of mass damper system is more
1554 26.0% were conference papers and 3.5% were books, book
1608 preferred by the engineering industry?
chapters, and technical reports. Figure 3 shows a plot of the
As it can be seen in Figures 5-6, from the total number
1555
na
1609
unique results based on the year they were published. From
of control systems that are included in Table 2, the 131 are
1556
1610
this, one may notice that, there is an increase in the interest
PTMDs which correspond to a 63% of the total applications
1557
1611
of structural control using mass damper technology over the
included herein, the hybrid systems are 65 which correspond
1558
ur
1612
years, especially after 2009. Further to that, the figure shows
to the 31%, the AMDs are 8 which correspond to the 4%,
1559
1613
the five countries where the most documents were produced.
and the SATMDs are 4 which correspond only to 2%. The
1560
1614
Jo
As it can be seen, China, Japan, United States, Taiwan and

most applications installed in a single year were 14 in 1994.
1561
1615
Iran produced 61.5% of the documents that were gathered
Moreover, Figure 5 shows the number of application instal-
1562
1616
through the aforementioned process. In the following sec-
lations in every year since 1973 (49 years). It is observed
1563
1617
tions, the data accumulated from the 461 documents will be
that 55% of the total number of applications were installed
1564
1618
analysed and the findings will be discussed thoroughly.
within 13 years (between 1992 to 2005) which account for
1565
1619
1566
1620 the 26.5% of the total years considered. This mainly oc-
1621 curred because, as seen in Figure 5, between the years 1992
1622 and 2005, 91% of the total number of HMDs were installed.
1567 7. Literature Search Data Gathered 1623 Figure 7 shows that, between the years 1992 and 2005, there
1568 Over the last two decades, many significant efforts have1624 was an increasing trend in Japan for installing HMDs. Fig-
1569 been made to transfer theoretical structural control knowl-1625 ure 5 shows that, more applications were installed after 2005
1570 edge to real-life structures. Table 2, demonstrates the use of1626 than before 1992. It is noticed that, after 2005, only 7 HMDs
1571 structural control systems in real-life applications organised1627 were installed however, more PTMDs were installed than be-
1572 in chronological order and the colour selection is based on1628 fore 1992 (seen in Figure 5). The trend of installation of the
1573 the year of construction of each structure (i.e. different year1629 different types of mass dampers is presented in Figures 6-7.
1574 designated in different background colour). As explained in1630 As it can be seen, there is a positive trend in the installation
1575 the Introduction, there is an inconsistency with the termi-1631 of PTMDs, contrary to the AMDs and HMDs.
1576 nology used by the structural control research community
1577 for describing the different types of mass dampers. There-1632 7.2. How are mass damper systems distributed
1578 fore, the terminology used for the control type description1633 around the world?
1579 in this work is based on Soong and Spencer (2000) to keep1634 Figure 8 shows that, Asia is the leading continent for
1580 consistency. Table 2 includes 208 building-like structures1635 structural control applications with 120 applications mak-
1581 that utilise at least one type of control system i.e. passive,1636 ing the 57.7% of the total control systems around the world.

Structures
f
r oo
-p
Figure 3: Studies gathered from the systematic literature review approach.
re
America (both North and South) is the continent with the1668 15.2%. Thus, the remaining 39 systems (84.8%) were in-
lP
1637
1638 second highest number of applications with 46 (22.1%), fol-1669 stalled after 2000 (seen in Figure 10). Figure 11 shows that,
1639 lowed by Europe with 36 applications (17.3%), Australia1670 after 2005 there was a steady increase in the installation of
1640 with 5 applications (2.4%) and last Africa with 1 applica-1671 mass dampers in America resulting in a strong positive trend.
na
1641 tion (0.5%). Figure 9 shows that, 47% of the systems were1672 Asia is the continent with the most control system ap-
1642 installed before 2000 from which, 48 (49%) were PTMDs,1673 plications. More specifically, there are 120 applications lo-
41 (42%) were HMDs, 7 (7%) were AMDs, and 2 (2%) were1674 cated in Asia which make the 57.7% of the total applications
ur
1643
1644 SATMDs. From the remaining 53% of the applications that1675 around the world. As it can be seen in Figure 9, 53.7% of
1645 were installed after 2000, 83 were PTMDs corresponding1676 the systems in Asia are HMDs, 37.5% are PTMDs, 6.7% are
Jo
1646 to 75.5%, 24 were HMDs corresponding to 21.8%, 2 were1677 AMDs and 2.5% are SATMDs. It is noticed that, 58% of
1647 SATMDs corresponding to 1.8% and 1 (0.9%) was AMD. 1678 the total applications in Asia were installed before 2000. It
1648 Taking a closer look at the installation of mass damper1679 is worth noting that, 64.2% of the total applications in Asia
1649 devices in different continents, (starting the discussion in as-1680 were installed in the Japan. As seen in Figure 7, there was
1650 cending order), Africa is the continent with the fewest in-1681 a sudden increase in the installation of HMDs in Japanese
1651 stallations. As seen in Figure 9, Africa has only 1 PTMD1682 cities such as Tokyo and Osaka after 1992. Even though
1652 application which was installed in 2021 in Egypt. 1683 Asia has the most mass damper applications since 1973, Fig-
1653 Australia has only 5 mass damper applications. As it can1684 ure 11 shows that there was a sudden increase in the mass
1654 be seen in Figure 9, Australia has only PTMDs. More specif-1685 damper installations between 1992 and 2005 and after that
1655 ically, 4 applications (80%) were installed before 2000 while1686 period, the installation of mass dampers was considerably
1656 1 (20%) was installed after 2000 (seen in Figure 10). 1687 decreased.
1657 There is a total of 36 control systems located in Europe.
1658 Figure 9 shows that 94.4% are PTMDs, 2.8% are HMDs and1688 7.3. Is the research done by the structural control
1659 2.8% are SATMDs. Moreover, 18 PTMDs were installed1689 research community adopted by the
1660 before 2000 which correspond to 50% of the total systems1690 engineering industry?
1661 installed in Europe. From the remaining 50%, 44.4% are1691 It is rather important to investigate the control algorithms
1662 PTMDs and the rest 5.6% is divided between the HMDs and1692 applied within the control of real structures. This will pro-
1663 the SATMDs (seen in Figure 10). 1693 vide an understanding on how the research done by the struc-
1664 America is the second continent with the most control1694 tural control community is incorporated in real applications.
1665 system applications As it can be seen in Figure 9, 100% of1695 Table 3 includes 24 structures equipped with semi-active, ac-
1666 the applications in America are PTMDs. From the total of1696 tive and hybrid mass dampers. More specifically, the table
1667 46 systems, only 7 were installed before 2000 which is the1697 includes 2 structures equipped with SATMDs, 8 with AMDs
1698 and 14 with HMDs. The majority of the structures reported

Structures
1699 on the table are located in Japan (17), 5 are located in China,1755 demonstrate issues that make them ineffective. One may find
1700 1 in South Korea and 1 in Austria. The first thing to notice in1756 articles discussing the application of active, semi-active and
1701 this section is the lack of studies discussing the implementa-1757 hybrid mass dampers on real structures however, there is lack
1702 tion of advanced mass damper systems (semi-active, active1758 of information on how the systems perform, what their pos-
1703 and hybrid) in real applications. More specifically, from the1759 sible malfunctions are, and what their operational and man-
1704 total of 77 semi-active, active and hybrid mass damper ap-1760 agement costs rise to. So, this makes it difficult to confi-
1705 plications included in Table 2, the implementation of only1761 dently reason the decrease in the use of active and hybrid
1706 24 (31%) was presented in the literature. This demonstrates1762 technologies.
1707 the scarcity of studies that present the real challenges that1763 Based on the analysis that was presented in Section 7.2,
1708 arise during and after the implementation of advanced mass1764 one of the questions that comes up is, "why the technolog-
1709 damper systems on real applications. 1765 ically advanced continent with the second highest number
1710 On the algorithmic side, the majority of controllers that1766 of control applications includes only passive systems?" The
1711 their performance was studied on real structures are based1767 basis of the answer to this question can probably be found
1712 on the optimal control theory. Moreover, the 𝐻∞ and the1768 in Spencer and Nagarajaiah (2003). In their discussion they
1713 sliding mode controller were also fairly considered. As dis-1769 mentioned that, the civil engineering sector and construc-
1714 cussed in Section 4.4, the structural control research commu-1770 tion industry in the U.S.A. (the country with the most ap-
1715 nity studied and demonstrated the performance of adaptive,1771 plications in America) can be described as conservative and
f
1716 intelligent (AI), optimal, self-organised, robust and stochas-1772 not open to the utilisation of new technologies. Moreover,
oo
1717 tic controllers. These controllers were proven to be efficient1773 it is noted that the lack of research and development ex-
1718 on controlling the vibrations of civil structures under wind,1774 penditure by the construction industry along with the min-
1719 earthquake and human-induced excitations. However, it is1775 imal to none verified analysis and design approaches make
r
noticed that the industry professionals seem to prefer algo-1776 the implementation of semi-active, active and hybrid con-
-p
1720
1721 rithms which are well-established in the broadest area of1777 trol systems in the U.S.A. almost impossible. In contrast to
1722 control engineering. The readers are also referred to the1778 the U.S.A., the Japanese construction industry invests heav-
re
1723 study of Spencer and Nagarajaiah (2003) where, the algo-1779 ily in the research and development of new technologies.
1724 rithms employed on structural control of bridges were re-1780 However, even in Japan, it is noticed that the purely active
viewed. From their work, it is noticed that, the majority of al-1781 and semi-active control schemes remain in modest numbers.
lP
1725
1726 gorithms implemented for the control of bridges are 𝐻∞ and1782 This demonstrates that there are still open challenges with
1727 optimal/sub-optimal based. The rest are fuzzy controllers,1783 regards to the semi-active and purely active systems in or-
variable-gain direct velocity feedback controllers, and feed-1784 der to gain acceptance by the construction industries all over
na
1728
1729 back controllers. Again, this demonstrates that the civil en-1785 the world. Nishitani and Inoue (2001) state that, after the
1730 gineering sector is conservative in the implementation of1786 Kobe earthquake (1995), the use of active technology on
ur
1731 new control techniques for mass damper applications and in-1787 civil structures in Japan was dramatically decreased in con-
1732 stead they tend to show trust on long-established controllers1788 trast to the base isolation devices (≥700 installations). The
for which, their performance was more widely investigated1789 authors explain that the reason for this was that after the
Jo
1733
1734 and verified. 1790 earthquake, the Japanese engineering community was seek-
1791 ing immediate solutions on how to provide mitigation strate-
1735 7.4. Discussion 1792 gies for severe disasters. At the time, the active technol-
1736 From Section 7.1, one may conclude that, the industry1793 ogy did not prove to be capable of controlling structures
1737 does not show trust to the active and hybrid technology and1794 under severe natural hazards and thus, the local engineer-
1738 chooses the more conventional PTMDs. Despite the enhanced 1795 ing community did not re-consider it. The authors com-
1739 performance of active and hybrid mass dampers, the reason1796 mented that, the semi-active technology is very promising
1740 that the industry does not trust them more over the PTMDs1797 and could be inspiring the next-generation control systems.
1741 after 2005 may be related to their high power consumption1798 In this study, it is shown that, indeed this statement could be
1742 or extra costs due to the need for high-capacity actuators.1799 true when facing the development of purely actives systems
1743 There is also the possibility that the active and hybrid sys-1800 (i.e. AMDs). As seen in Figure 7, the installations of AMDs
1744 tems that were installed, misperformed in real-life compared1801 were considerably decreased after 1995 however, the instal-
1745 to the expected performance from the simulations. If this1802 lation of HMDs prospered until 2005. Spencer and Nagara-
1746 was the case, the active and hybrid systems may have expe-1803 jaiah (2003) mentioned that, it is a challenging task to de-
1747 rienced issues related to the installed actuators (e.g. actua-1804 velop control strategies for the semi-active control schemes
1748 tion delays, maintenance etc). Additionally, robustness is-1805 due to their intrinsically nonlinear nature. Therefore, de-
1749 sues may have occurred due to parametric uncertainties that1806 spite their potential effectiveness and benefits they provide,
1750 usually arise from modelling errors, environmental effects1807 their full-scale implementation is difficult. This study shows
1751 and structural damage. The robustness issues are directly re-1808 that, to date, the full-scale installation of SATMDs remains
1752 lated to the deployed control algorithm in each case. How-1809 in very low levels (only 4). This demonstrates that the ad-
1753 ever, there is no substantial evidence in the literature that1810 vantages of the SATMDs are still not fully recognised and
1754 even indicates that the installed active and hybrid systems1811 realised.

Structures
1812 Trying to grasp the bigger picture, one may refer to Soong 1867 2. 47% of the total applications were installed before 2000
1813 and Spencer (2002) who stated that, the acceptance of the1868 3. the large majority of mass damper installations were
1814 control systems is based on a combination of their enhanced1869 PTMDs with 131 applications (63% of the total num-
1815 performance and their installation, maintenance and future1870 ber systems) where, the second most used system is
1816 costs. It is evident that, the structural control research com-1871 the HMD with 65 applications (31% of total number
1817 munity mainly emphasises on enhancing the performance of1872 of systems)
1818 the different types of control systems without considering1873 4. 55% of the total applications were installed between
1819 any related costs and practicalities. Additionally, based on1874 the years 1992 and 2005 which is due to the sudden
1820 the findings of Section 7.3, the literature lacks of studies dis-1875 increase in the installation of HMDs in Japan
1821 cussing the application of advanced mass damper systems1876 5. after 2005 the installation of the HMDs has consider-
1822 on real civil structures. This demonstrates that the commu-1877 ably decreased and a preference in PTMDs was shown
1823 nity does not share experience which would be beneficial on1878 even though there was an increase in HMDs research
1824 tackling the challenges that arise. Moreover, it is evident1879 (as seen in Figure 2)
1825 that there are no strict methodologies to be followed for the1880 6. despite the high quality research done by the structural
1826 installation of mass damper systems on real structures. On1881 control community (demonstrated in Section 4), the
1827 the contrary, it was noticed that, the studies considering the1882 algorithms utilised on real applications of semi-active,
1828 implementation of mass damper technologies on real struc-1883 active and hybrid mass dampers were mostly based on
f
1829 tures were focusing explicitly on very custom approaches. It1884 the optimal theory, 𝐻∞ and continuous sliding mode
oo
1830 is possible that, the current hesitation on the installation of1885 control, most likely due to their successful establish-
1831 such technologies may be the result of the absence of solid1886 ment in many control applications outside civil engi-
1832 guidelines. Finally, the lack of training of civil engineering1887 neering
r
professionals in the area of control is identified as a bottle-1888 7. the structural control literature lacks of experience shar-
-p
1833
1834 neck and as a major reason for the hesitation in implement-1889 ing with regards to the installation and management of
1835 ing advanced mass dampers within latest vibration control1890 advanced mass damper technologies (i.e. semi-active,
re
1836 practices. 1891 active and hybrid) on real applications
As discussed in Section 7.4, to date there are open chal-
lP
1892
1837 8. Conclusions 1893 lenges considering the active and semi-active control sys-
1838 In this work, an up-to-date literature review of studies1894 tems that causes scepticism in the engineering industries around
considering mass damper technology was carried out. Stud-1895 the world when considering their implementation on real-life
na
1839
1840 ies that investigated passive, semi-active, active and hybrid1896 structures. The decrease in the installation of HMDs demon-
1841 control using mass dampers were included and their findings1897 strates that there are potential issues with their installation
were discussed. New innovative control approaches pro-1898 which were discussed in Section 7.2. Thus, the research
ur
1842
1843 posed by the structural control community even up to this1899 community should understand the real problems that arise
day were presented. Moreover, the limitations of each type1900 from the active, semi-active and hybrid mass dampers, and
Jo
1844
1845 of control system were reported in order to highlight the re-1901 provide confidence to the industry that the aforementioned
1846 search gaps that have to be tackled. 1902 systems are more reliable and truly superior over PTMDs.
1847 In Section 6, a systematic literature search was conducted 1903 Based on the findings of this work, future research should
1848 in order to gather mass damper applications on building-like1904 focus on:
1849 structures in order to provide an image of real-life applica-
1850 tions and identify potential gaps and future research needed.1905 • Development of an experience-sharing culture within
1851 Eventually, a most complete table with real-life control ap-1906 the research community regarding the installation and
1852 plications is presented. The table includes 208 structures1907 management of advanced mass damper systems for
1853 around the world. The applications were analysed based on1908 decreasing the self-learning practice that currently oc-
1854 where they are located and when they were implemented.1909 curs
The studies considering the control of real building-like struc-
• Provision of information about the performance of al-
1855
1910
tures were also gathered and presented in a tabulated form.
ready installed systems and their possible performance
1856
1911
In addition to that, a novel list of control algorithms utilised
gaps in order to form necessary new research initia-
1857
1912
on real-building like structures was devised. The main find-
tives and allow the community to tackle real practical
1858
1913
ings of this work are:
issues
1859
1914
1860 1. Asia is the continent with the most structural control1915 • Use of realistic control system specifications (e.g. mass
1861 applications (120) with around 3 times more appli-1916 size, actuator capacity, etc) and realistic (and severe)
1862 cations than the second continent with most applica-1917 excitations within research studies
1863 tions (America with 46). The third continent with the
1864 most structural control applications is Europe with 36,1918 • Large-scale experimental and analytical investigation
1865 fourth is Australia with 5 and last is Africa with only1919 of the performance of mass dampers should be en-
1866 1 application 1920 hanced

Structures
1921 • Consideration of the short and long-term cost associ-
1922 ated with the control system and, methods to decrease
1923 it
1924 • Development of energy harvesting methods which will
1925 lead to a new generation of adaptive structural control
1926 systems with minimal, or even zero, energy require-
1927 ments
1928 • Design optimally (e.g. reducing section sizes) by mak-
1929 ing mass damper systems a starting point in the design
1930 process rather than a final step add-on
1931
1932
f
1933
oo
1934
r
1935
1936
-p
re
1937
lP
1938
na
ur
Jo

Structures
Table 2
Summary of structural control applications around the world in a chronological order.
Structure Year Location Type of Control

C N Tower 1973 Toronto PTMD
John Hancock 1977 Boston PTMD
Citicorp Building - 601 Lexington 1977 New York PTMD
City Corp Center 1978 New York PTMD
Sydney Tower 1980 Sydney PTMD
Al Khobar Chimney 1980 Saudi Arabia PTMD
Ruwais Utilities Chimney 1982 Abu Dhabi PTMD
Deutsche Bundespost Cooling
1982 Nurnberg PTMD
Tower
f
oo
Yanbu Cement Plant Chimney 1984 Saudi Arabia PTMD
Hydro-Quebec Wind Generator 1985 Canada PTMD
Metropolitan Tower 1985 New York City PTMD
r
Chiba Port Tower 1986 Chiba PTMD
BMW Factory floor
Arc de 124.5° Steel Scuplture
1988
1988 -p Munich
Berlin
PTMD
PTMD
re
Bin Qasim Thermal Power Station 1988 Pakistan PTMD
Tiwest Rutile Plant Chimney 1989 Cataby PTMD
lP
Fukuoka Tower 1989 Fukuoka PTMD

Henckels Zwillingwerke, Factory
1989 Solingen PTMD
Floor
na
Higashiyama Sky Tower 1989 Nagoya PTMD

Kyobashi Seiwa Building 1989 Tokyo AMD
Kajima Research Lab. # 21 1990 Tokyo SATMD
ur
Fernsehturm Tower 1990 Berlin PTMD

Crystal Tower 1990 Osaka PTMD
Jo
Huis Ten Bosch Domtoren 1990 Nagasaki PTMD

Hibikiryokuchi Sky Tower 1991 Kitakyushu PTMD
Shimizu Tech. Lab 1991 Tokyo AMD
HKW Chimney 1992 Frankfurt PTMD
BASF Chimney 1992 Antwerp PTMD
Siemens Power Station 1992 Killingholme PTMD
Sendagaya INTES Building 1992 Tokyo AMD
Chifley Tower 1992 Sydney PTMD
Applause Tower 1992 Osaka HMD
ORC 200 Bay Tower 1992 Osaka HMD
Kansai Int’l Airport 1992 Osaka HMD
Rokko Island P and G 1993 Kobe PTMD
Al Taweeiah Chimney 1993 Abu Dhabi PTMD
KS Project 1993 Kanasawa HMD
Babcock, Steel Structure 1993 Munich PTMD
Long Term Credit Bank 1993 Tokyo HMD

Structures
Ando Nishikicho Building 1993 Tokyo HMD

NTT Kuredo Motomach Building 1993 Hiroshima HMD
Nishimoto Kosan Nishikicho
1993 Tokyo HMD
Building
Yokohama Landmark Tower 1993 Yokohama HMD
Akita Tower 1994 Akita PTMD
J City Tower 1994 Tokyo HMD
Penta-Ocean Exp. Building 1994 Tokyo HMD
Shinjuku Park Tower 1994 Tokyo HMD
Dowa Fire & Marine Ins. 1994 Osaka HMD
Hikarigaoka Office Building 1994 Tokyo HMD
Göttingen Stack 1994 Göttingen PTMD
f
Porte Kanazawa 1994 Kanazawa AMD
oo
Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. 1994 Yokohama HMD
Hamamatsu ACT Tower 1994 Hamamatsu HMD
Riverside Sumida 1994 Tokyo AMD
r
Hotel Ocean 45 1994 Miyazaki HMD
RIHGA Royal Hotel
Hikarigaoko J City Building
1994
1994 -p Hiroshima
Tokyo
HMD
HMD
re
Osaka WTC Building 1995 Osaka HMD
Dowa Kasai Phoenix Tower 1995 Osaka HMD
lP
Sea Hawk Hotel and Resort 1995 Fukuoka PTMD

Rinku Gate Tower Building 1995 Osaka HMD
Hirobe Miyake Building 1995 Tokyo HMD
na
Nissei Dowa Sonpo Phoenix Tower 1995 Osaka HMD

Plaza Ichihara 1995 Chiba HMD
ur
Regensburg Siemens Building 1996 Regensburg PTMD

Hamburg Stack 1996 Hamburg PTMD
Nanjing Communication Tower 1996 Nanjing AMD
Jo
Artwork The Asylum 1996 Rotterdam PTMD

Rinku Gate Tower 1996 Izumisano HMD
Herbis Osaka 1997 Osaka AMD
Nisseki Yokohama Building 1997 Yokohama HMD
Karlsruhe Building 1997 Karlsruhe PTMD
T & C Tower 1997 Kaohsiung HMD
Washington National Airport Tower 1997 Washington PTMD
Petronas Twin Towers 1997 Kuala Lumpur PTMD
Itoyama Tower 1997 Tokyo HMD
Otis Shibyama Test Tower 1998 Chiba HMD
Bunka Gakuen 1998 Tokyo HMD
Oasis Hiroba 21-Oasis Tower 1998 Oita HMD
Sendai AERU 1998 Sendai PTMD
Kaikyo Messe Yume Tower 1998 Tokyo HMD
Yoyogi 3-Chrome Kyodo Building 1998 Tokyo HMD
Cooling Tower Fans 1998 Scholven Gelsenkirchen PTMD

Structures
Odakyu Southern Tower 1998 Tokyo HMD

Kajima Shizuoka Building 1998 Shizuoka SATMD
Sotetsu Takashimaya Kyoto
1998 Yokohama HMD
Building
Burj Al-Arab 1999 Dubai PTMD
JR Central Towers 1999 Nagoya HMD
Emirates Towers 1999 Dubai PTMD
Shinagawa Intercity Building 1999 Tokyo HMD
Century Park Tower 1999 Tokyo HMD
Millennium Dome 1999 London PTMD
La Hague, SGN, Stack 1999 France PTMD
Reichstag Spectator Balconies 1999 Berlin PTMD
f
TC Tower 1999 Kaoshiung HMD
oo
Steel Chimney 1999 Bangkok PTMD
Shin-Jei Building 1999 Taipei HMD
Osaka Airport Control Tower 2000 Osaka HMD
r
Cerulean Tower 2000 Tokyo HMD
Stakis Metropole
Sarlux Cooling Tower Fan
2000
2000 -p London
Sardinia
PTMD
PTMD
re
Ube Stack 2000 Ube PTMD
Park Tower 2000 Chicago, IL PTMD
lP
Incheon International Airport

2001 Incheon HMD
Control Tower
The Trump World Tower 2001 New York PTMD
MS Deutschland, Cruise Liner 2001 Germany PTMD
na
Nykredit´s New Domicil floor 2001 Denmark PTMD

One Wall Centre Tower 2001 Vancouver PTMD
ur
Hotel Nikko Bayside Osaka 2001 Osaka HMD

Dentsu Head Office Building 2001 Tokyo HMD
Izumi Garden Tower 2002 Tokyo HMD
Jo
Prudential Tower 2002 Tokyo HMD

Spire of Dublin 2003 Dublin PTMD
Nihon Terebi Tower 2003 Tokyo HMD
Shiodome Tower 2003 Tokyo HMD
Shiodome Media Tower 2003 Tokyo HMD
Refab2 2003 Brazil PTMD
Al Rostamani Tower 2003 Dubai PTMD
Neue Terassen, Floor Slabs 2003 Dresden PTMD
Bergen Gym Floor 2003 Bergen PTMD
21st Century Tower 2003 Dubai PTMD
Highcliff 2003 Hong Kong PTMD
Roppongi T-Cube 2003 Tokyo HMD
Kochi Airport Control Tower 2003 Kochi HMD
Taipei 101 2004 Taipei PTMD
Takamatsu Symbol Tower 2004 Takamatsu HMD
Bloomberg Tower 2004 New York PTMD

Structures
DoCoMo Telecommunications
2004 Osaka PTMD
Tower
New Kanden Building 2004 Osaka HMD
Central Japan Airport Control
2005 Aichi HMD
Tower
NEC Tamagawa Renaissance City 2005 Kawasaki HMD
Araucano Park 2005 Santiago de Chile PTMD
Theatro Diana Spectator Balconies 2005 Guadalajara PTMD
Bright Start Tower (Millennium
2005 Dubai PTMD
Tower)
f
Radar Tower 2005 Bilbao PTMD
oo
Refinery Tower 2005 Budapest PTMD
Meteorological Radar Tower 2005 Catalunya Province PTMD
Triumph Palace 2005 Moscow PTMD
r
Akasaka Intercity 2005 Tokyo HMD
Toranomon Towers Residence
United States Air Force Memorial
2006
2006 -p Tokyo
Virginia
HMD
PTMD
re
Anzen Building 2007 Tokyo HMD
Grand Canyon Skywalk 2007 Arizona PTMD
Aspire Tower 2007 Doha PTMD
lP
Villa Magura Odobesti 2008 Odobesti PTMD

Al Mas Tower 2008 Dubai PTMD
Jacky Wellhead 2008 UK PTMD
na
Toronto Art Gallery Ceiling 2008 Toronto PTMD

Shanghai World Financial Center 2008 Shanghai HMD
Comcast Center 2008 Philadelphia, PA PTMD
ur
ShenZhen WuTong Mountain

2009 ShenZhen PTMD
Tower
Jo
Lanxess Chemical Plant 2009 Ontario PTMD

Shanghai Expo Area Galleries 2009 Shanghai PTMD
QEEC floor 2009 Doha PTMD
Almas Tower 2009 Dubai PTMD
Estela de la Luz 2010 Mexico City PTMD
Danube City Tower 2010 Vienna SATMD
Goldman Sachs Headquarters 2010 New York PTMD
LAX Theme Building 2010 Los Angeles PTMD
Offshore Windpark Belwind, OHVS
2010 Belgium PTMD
Station
Chimney Ramla 2010 Israel PTMD
Singapur Skypark 2010 Singapur PTMD
The Austonian 2010 Austin PTMD
Canton Tower 2010 Guangzhou HMD
Alphabetic Tower 2011 Batumi SATMD
Kingkey Finance Tower 2011 Shenzhen AMD
Civic Center 2011 New York PTMD

Structures
Tokyo Skytree 2012 Tokyo PTMD

Ivanpah Solar Tower 2012 California PTMD
ArcelorMittal Orbit Tower 2012 London PTMD
Windseeker-Carrowinds 2012 North Carolina PTMD
23 Marina 2013 Dubai PTMD
Giant Wheel - High Roller 2013 Las Vegas PTMD
Shanghai Tower 2014 Shanghai PTMD
Olympic Flame Monument 2014 Sochi PTMD
Flagpole 2014 Wisconsin PTMD
Abeno Harukas 2014 Osaka HMD
Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower 2015 Delhi PTMD
432 Park Avenue 2015 New York PTMD
f
Las Vegas Control Tower 2016 Las Vegas PTMD
oo
Socar Tower 2016 Baku PTMD
Rottweil Test Tower 2017 Rottweil HMD
r
Ping An Finance Centre 2017 Shenzhen HMD
150 North Riverside
Nan Shan Plaza
111 Murray Street
2017
2018
2018
-p Chicago
Taipei
New York
PTMD
PTMD
PTMD
re
50 West 2018 New York PTMD
lP
100 East 53rd Street 2018 New York PTMD

Muscat International Airport 2018 Oman PTMD
Madison Square Park Tower 2018 New York PTMD
na
30 Hudson Yards 2019 New York PTMD

53 West 53rd 2019 New York PTMD
220 Central Park South 2019 New York PTMD
ur
The Centrale 2019 New York PTMD

Jo
The Address Residence Sky View

2019 Dubai PTMD
Tower 1
Crown Sydney Hotel and Resort 2020 Sydney PTMD
One Vanderbilt Avenue 2020 New York PTMD
Central Park 2020 New York PTMD
Flagpole 2021 Egypt PTMD
Turkevi Center 2021 New York PTMD
111 West 57th Street 2021 New York PTMD
Greenwich 2022 New York PTMD
The One UC Toronto PTMD
M3 at M City UC Mississauga PTMD
Jeddah Tower UC Jeddah PTMD

Structures
Table 3
Algorithms considered on real building-like structures
Structure Type of Control Algorithm Reference
Kyobashi Seiwa Building AMD LQ Optimal theory-based Kobori et al. (1991)
Sakamoto et al. (1992)
Yokohama Landmark Tower HMD LQ Optimal theory-based Yamazaki et al. (1992)
Riverside Sumida Building AMD Optimal Feedback-VG Suzuki et al. (1994)
LQR, 𝐻∞ Smith and Chase (1996)
Ando Nishikicho Building HMD Velocity-feedback optimal Sakamoto and Kobori (1995)
Shinjuku Park Tower HMD LQ Optimal theory-based Tanida et al. (1994)
Nanjing Communication Tower AMD LQR, Cao et al. (1998)
f
Nonlinear Feedback Control
oo
Continuous Sliding Mode Wu and Yang (1997)
LQG, 𝐻∞ , Wu and Yang (1998)
Continuous Sliding Mode
r
LQG Wu and Yang (2000)
ORC 200 Bay Tower
Hotel Ocean 45
HMD
HMD -p Optimal State-Feedback GS
Optimal State-Feedback GS
Saito et al. (2001)
Saito et al. (2001)
re
Kajima Shizuoka Building SATMD LQR-based Kurata et al. (1999)
Sendagaya INTES Building AMD LQ Optimal theory-VG Yamamoto et al. (2001)
Applause Tower AMD LQ Optimal theory-based with VG Yamamoto et al. (2001)
lP
Porte Kanazawa AMD LQ Optimal theory-based with VG Yamamoto et al. (2001)

Herbis Osaka AMD LQ Optimal theory-based with VG Yamamoto et al. (2001)
Hikarigaoka Office Building HMD 𝐻∞ , VG Fujinami et al. (2001)
na
Hirobe Miyake Building HMD LQ Optimal theory-based Nakamura et al. (2001)

with
Active-Passive SM
ur
Bunka Gakuen HMD LQ Optimal theory-based Nakamura et al. (2001)

with
Active-Passive SM
Jo
Oasis Hiroba 21-Oasis Tower HMD 𝐻∞ -based Nakamura et al. (2001)

with
Active-Passive SM
Dentsu Head Office Building HMD LQR Yamanaka and Okuda (2005)
Incheon International Airport Control Tower HMD 𝐻∞ with a bilinear transform Park et al. (2006)
Canton Tower HMD LQR, 𝐻∞ Tan et al. (2012)
Shanghai World Financial Center Tower HMD LQ Optimal theory-based Lu et al. (2014)
with
Active-Passive SM
Danube City Tower SATMD Adaptive nonlinear control Weber et al. (2016)
Kingkey Finance Tower AMD LQR, PA, FNN, VG Teng et al. (2014)
VG state feedback Chen et al. (2021)
Ping An Finance Centre HMD LQR, VG Zhou et al. (2022)
with
Active-Passive SM
Abbreviations: LQ=Linear Quadratic, VG=Variable Gain, SM=Switching Mode, LQR=Linear Quadratic Regulator,
LQG=Linear Quadratic Gaussian, GS=Gain Scheduling, PA=Poll Assignment, FNN=Fuzzy Neural Networks

1
16 1
5 16
1
1
2
7 1 1
2 2
2 9
37
1 1
1
1
Jo
77
2
1
1 5
1
ur
L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier

1
1 1
na
2
1
3
5
lP
1
Structures
11
re
1
5
1
17
-p
r 1
00
oo
Structural Control Applications’ Map f
Control Algorithm Applications’ Map
Figure 4: Maps of mass damper applications and control algorithms on real building-like structures.
Page 27 of 33
Structures
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 5: Total control system applications as per the literature.

Structures
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 6: Control system application trend as per the literature.

Structures
Toronto
Boston
New York
Sydney
Saudi Arabia
Abu Dhabi
Nurnberg
Canada
New York City
Chiba
Munich
Berlin
Pakistan
Cataby
Fukuoka
Solingen
Nagoya
Tokyo
Osaka
Nagasaki
Kitakyushu
Frankfurt
Antwerp
Killingholme
Kobe
Kanasawa
Hiroshima
Yokohama
Akita
Göttingen
Kanazawa
Hamamatsu
Miyazaki
Regensburg
Hamburg
f
Nanjing
oo
Rotterdam
Izumisano
Karlsruhe
Kaohsiung
Washington
Kuala Lumpur
r
Oita
Sendai
Scholven Gelsenkirchen
Shizuoka
Dubai
London
France -p
re
Kaoshiung
Bangkok
Taipei
Sardinia
Ube
lP
Chicago, IL
Incheon
Germany
Denmark
Vancouver
Dublin
na
Brazil
Dresden
Bergen
Hong Kong
Kochi
Takamatsu
ur
Aichi
Kawasaki
Santiago de Chile
Guadalajara
Bilbao
Jo
Budapest
Catalunya Province
Moscow
Virginia
Arizona
Doha
Odobesti
UK
Shanghai
Philadelphia, PA
ShenZhen
Ontario
Mexico City
Vienna
Los Angeles
Belgium
Israel
Singapur
Austin
Guangzhou
Batumi
Shenzhen
California
North Carolina
Las Vegas
Sochi
Wisconsin
Delhi
Baku
Rottweil
Shenzhen
Chicago
New York
Oman
Egypt
Mississauga
Jeddah
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 UC
Year
PTMD HMD AMD SATMD
Figure 7: Control system applications around the world as per the literature.

Structures
f
r oo
-p
re
Figure 8: Control system applications in different continents as per the literature.
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 9: Break up of applications in different continents as per the literature.

Structures
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 10: Control system applications in different continents before and after 2000 as per the literature.

Structures
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 11: Control systems installation over the years in different continents as per the literature.

Structures
1939 References 2007 12074.

2008 Buckle, I.G., 2000. Passive control of structures for seismic loads. The
1940 ABÉ, M., 1996. Semi-Active Tuned Mass Dampers for Seismic Protec- 2009 12th world conference on earthquake engineering , 2825–2838doi:10.
1941 tion of Civil Structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy- 2010 5459/bnzsee.33.3.209-221.
1942 namics 25, 743–749. doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-9845(199607)25:7<743:: 2011 Cao, H., Reinhorn, A.M., Soong, T.T., 1998. Design of an active mass
1943 aid-eqe579>3.3.co;2-j. 2012 damper for a tall TV tower in Nanjing, China. Engineering Structures
1944 Aghajanian, S., Amini, F., Moaveni, B., 2017. Luenberger observer ap- 2013 20, 134–143. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00072-2.
1945 plication in decentralised control of civil structures. Proceedings of the
2014 Cao, L., Li, C., 2018. Enhanced hybrid active tuned mass dampers for
1946 Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings 170, 765–773. 2015 structures. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 25, 1–13. doi:10.
1947 doi:10.1680/jstbu.16.00159. 2016 1002/stc.2067.
1948 Ahlawat, A.S., Ramaswamy, A., 2002. Multi-objective optimal de- 2017 Carroll, S.P., Owen, J.S., Hussein, M.F., 2012. Modelling crowd-bridge
1949 sign of FLC driven hybrid mass damper for seismically excited struc- 2018 dynamic interaction with a discretely defined crowd. Journal of Sound
1950 tures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31, 1459–1479. 2019 and Vibration 331, 2685–2709. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.
1951 doi:10.1002/eqe.173. 2020 2012.01.025, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2012.01.025.
1952 Alt, T.R., Jabbari, F., Yang, J.N., 2000. Control design for seismically 2021 Casciati, F., Rodellar, J., Yildirim, U., 2012. Active and semi-active con-
1953 excited buildings: Sensor and actuator reliability. Earthquake En- 2022 trol of structures-theory and applications: A review of recent advances.
1954 gineering and Structural Dynamics 29, 241–257. doi:10.1002/(SICI) 2023 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23, 1181–1195.
1955 1096-9845(200002)29:2<241::AID-EQE903>3.0.CO;2-Z. 2024 doi:10.1177/1045389X12445029.
1956 Avci, O., Abdeljaber, O., Kiranyaz, S., Hussein, M., Gabbouj, M., Inman, 2025 Chakraborty, S., Roy, B.K., 2011. Reliability based optimum design of
1957 D.J., 2021. A review of vibration-based damage detection in civil struc- 2026 Tuned Mass Damper in seismic vibration control of structures with
1958 tures: From traditional methods to machine learning and deep learning bounded uncertain parameters. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 26,
f
2027
applications. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 147, 107077. 215–221. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2010.07.007,
oo
1959
2028
1960 doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107077. 2029 doi:10.1016/j.probengmech.2010.07.007.
1961 Avci, O., Bhargava, A., Nikitas, N., Inman, D.J., 2020. Vibration annoyance 2030 Chang, S., Sung, D., 2019. Modal-Energy-Based Neuro-Controller for Seis-
1962 assessment of train induced excitations from tunnels embedded in rock. 2031 mic Response Reduction of a Nonlinear Building Structure. Applied
r
1963 Sci. Total Environ. 711, 134528. 2032 Sciences (Switzerland) 9, 4443.
1964
1965
1966
Avila, S.M., Gonçalves, P.B., 2009. Optimal configurations of composite
ety of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 31, 75–81. doi:10.1590/ -p

multiple mass dampers in tall buildings. Journal of the Brazilian Soci-
2033
2034
Chen, C.J., Li, Z.H., Teng, J., Wu, Q.G., Lin, B.C., 2021. A variable gain
state-feedback technique for an AMD control system with stroke limit
and its application to a high-rise building. Structural Design of Tall and
re
2035
1967 S1678-58782009000100011. 2036 Special Buildings 30, 1–16. doi:10.1002/tal.1816.
1968 Ayorinde, E.O., Warburton, G.B., 1980. Minimizing structural vibrations 2037 Chen, G., Wang, Z., 2012. A signal decomposition theorem with Hilbert
1969 with absorbers. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 8, 219– transform and its application to narrowband time series with closely
lP
2038
1970 236. 2039 spaced frequency components. Mechanical Systems and Signal Pro-
1971 Azam, S.E., Chatzi, E., Papadimitriou, C., Smyth, A., 2017. Experimental 2040 cessing 28, 258–279. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2011.
1972 validation of the Kalman-type filters for online and real-time state and 2041 02.002, doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2011.02.002.
input estimation. JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control 23, 2494–2519.
na
1973
2042 Chen, P.C., Chien, K.Y., 2020. Machine-learning based optimal seismic
1974 doi:10.1177/1077546315617672. 2043 control of structure with active mass damper. Applied Sciences (Switzer-
1975 Babaei, A., Locatelli, G., Sainati, T., 2021. What is wrong with the front- 2044 land) 10. doi:10.3390/APP10155342.
1976 end of infrastructure megaprojects and how to fix it: A systematic liter- Chen, Y., Zhang, S., Peng, H., Chen, B., Zhang, H., 2017. A novel fast
ur
2045
1977 ature review. Project Leadership and Society 2, 100032. URL: https:// 2046 model predictive control for large-scale structures. JVC/Journal of Vi-
1978 doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2021.100032, doi:10.1016/j.plas.2021.100032. 2047 bration and Control 23, 2190–2205. doi:10.1177/1077546315610033.
Bachmann, H., Weber, B., 1995. Tuned Vibration Absorbers for “Lively”
Jo
1979
2048 Chung, L.L., Lai, Y.A., Walter Yang, C.S., Lien, K.H., Wu, L.Y., 2013.
1980 Structures. Structural Engineering International 5, 31–36. doi:10.2749/ 2049 Semi-active tuned mass dampers with phase control. Journal of Sound
1981 101686695780601457. 2050 and Vibration 332, 3610–3625. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.
1982 Banerji, P., Samanta, A., 2011. Earthquake vibration control of struc- 2051 2013.02.008, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2013.02.008.
1983 tures using hybrid mass liquid damper. Engineering Structures 33, 2052 Clark, A.J., 1988. Multiple passive tuned mass dampers for reducing earth-
1984 1291–1301. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01.0062053 , quake induced building motion. Proceedings of the Ninth World Con-
1985 doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01.006. 2054 ference on Earthquake Engineering 5, 779–784.
1986 Basu, B., Bursi, O.S., Casciati, F., Casciati, S., Del Grosso, A.E., Do- 2055 Colherinhas, G.B., de Morais, M.V.G., Shzu, M.A.M., Avila, S.M., 2019.
1987 maneschi, M., Faravelli, L., Holnicki-Szulc, J., Irschik, H., Krommer, 2056 Optimal Pendulum Tuned Mass Damper Design Applied to High Tow-
1988 M., Lepidi, M., Martelli, A., Ozturk, B., Pozo, F., Pujol, G., Rakice- 2057 ers Using Genetic Algorithms: Two-DOF Modeling. International
1989 vic, Z., Rodellar, J., 2014. A European Association for the Control 2058 Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics , 1950125doi:10.1142/
1990 of Structures jointperspective. Recent studies in civil structural control
2059 s0219455419501256.
1991 across Europe. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 21, 1414– 2060 Collette, C., Chesné, S., 2016. Robust hybrid mass damper. Journal of
1992 1436. doi:10.1002/stc. 2061 Sound and Vibration 375, 19–27. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
1993 Bathaei, A., Zahrai, S.M., Ramezani, M., 2018. Semi-active seismic control 2062 jsv.2016.04.030, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2016.04.030.
1994 of an 11-DOF building model with TMD+MR damper using type-1 and 2063 Concha, A., Thenozhi, S., Betancourt, R.J., Gadi, S.K., 2021. A tuning al-
1995 -2 fuzzy algorithms. JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control 24, 2938– 2064 gorithm for a sliding mode controller of buildings with ATMD. Mechan-
1996 2953. doi:10.1177/1077546317696369. 2065 ical Systems and Signal Processing 154, 107539. URL: https://doi.
1997 Bekdaş, G., Nigdeli, S.M., 2011. Estimating optimum parameters of 2066 org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107539, doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107539.
1998 tuned mass dampers using harmony search. Engineering Structures 33, 2067 CTBUH, 2020. CTBUH Year in Review: Tall Trends of 2019. CTBUH
1999 2716–2723. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.05.0242068 , Journal , 42–49.
2000 doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.05.024. 2069 Dai, J., Xu, Z.D., Gai, P.P., Xu, Y.W., 2021. Mitigation of Vortex-Induced
2001 Bhaiya, V., Bharti, S.D., Shrimali, M.K., Datta, T.K., 2019. Hybrid seismic 2070 Vibration in Bridges Using Semiactive Tuned Mass Dampers. Journal
2002 control of buildings using tuned mass and magnetorheological dampers. 2071 of Bridge Engineering 26, 05021003. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.
2003 doi:10.1680/jstbu.18.00090. 2072 0001719.
2004 Billig, M., 2015. Kurt Lewin’s Leadership Studies and His Legacy to So- 2073 Datta, T., 2003. A state-of-the-art review on active control of structures.
2005 cial Psychology: Is There Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory? Jour- 2074 ISET Journal of earthquake technology 40, 1–17.
2006 nal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 45, 440–460. doi:10.1111/jtsb.

Structures
2075 Demetriou, D., Nikitas, N., 2016. A novel hybrid semi-active mass damper 2143 Helbing, D., Farkas, I., Molnar, P., 2002. Simulation of pedestrian crowds
2076 configuration for structural applications. Applied Sciences 6. doi:10. 2144 in normal and evacuation situations. Pedestrian and evacuation . . . URL:
2077 3390/app6120397. 2145 http://tu-dresden.de/vkiwv/vwista/publications/evacuation.pdf.
2078 Demetriou, D., Nikitas, N., 2017. Hybrid Semi-Active Mass Dampers in 2146 Helbing, D., Molnár, P., 1995. Social force model for pedestrian dynam-
2079 Structures; Assessing and Optimising Their Damping Capacity. Proce- 2147 ics. Physical Review E 51, 4282–4286. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.51.4282,
2080 dia Engineering 199, 3103–3108. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.571. 2148 arXiv:9805244.
2081 Demetriou, D., Nikitas, N., Tsavdaridis, K.D., 2015. Semi active tuned 2149 Hillis, A.J., 2010. Active motion control of fixed offshore platforms using
2082 mass dampers of buildings: A simple control option. American Journal 2150 an extended state observer. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
2083 of Engineering and Applied Sciences 8, 620–632. doi:10.3844/ajeassp. 2151 Engineers. Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering 224, 53–
2084 2015.620.632. 2152 63. doi:10.1243/09596518JSCE847.
2085 Demetriou, D., Nikitas, N., Tsavdaridis, K.D., 2016. Performance of 2153 Housner, G.W., Bergman, L.A., Caughey, T.K., Chassiakos, A.G., Claus,
2086 fixed-parameter control algorithms on high-rise structures equipped with
2154 R.O., Masri, S.F., Skelton, R.E., Soong, T.T., Spencer, B.F., Yao, J.T.P.,
2087 semi-active tuned mass dampers. The Structural Design of Tall and Spe- 2155 1997. Structural Control: Past, Present, and Future. Journal of Engineer-
2088 cial Buildings 25, 340–354. doi:10.1002/tal1261. 2156 ing Mechanics 123, 897–971. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(1997)123:
2089 Den Hartog, J.P., 1956. Mechanical Vibrations. 4 ed., McGraw-Hill, New 2157 9(897).
2090 York, NY, USA. 2158 Hrovat, D., Barak, P., Rabins, M., 1983. Semi-Active versus Passive or Ac-
2091 Dyke, S.J., Spencer, B.F., Quast, P., Sain, M.K., 1995. Role of control- 2159 tive Tuned Mass Dampers for Structural Control. Journal of Engineer-
2092 structure interaction in protective system design. Journal of Engineer-2160 ing Mechanics 109, 691–705. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(1983)109:
2093 ing Mechanics 121, 322–338. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1995)121: 2161 3(691).
2094 2(322). 2162 Ikeda, Y., 2009. Active and semi-active vibration control of buildings in
Dyke, S.J., Spencer, B.F., Sain, M.K., Carlson, J.D., 1996. Modeling and Japan—Practical applications and verification. Structural Control and
f
2095 2163
control of magnetorheological dampers for seismic response reduction. Health Monitoring 16, 703–723. doi:10.1002/stc.
oo
2096 2164
2097 Smart Materials and Structures 5, 565–575. doi:10.1088/0964-1726/5/5/ 2165 Jafari, M., Alipour, A., 2021. Methodologies to mitigate wind-induced vi-
2098 006. 2166 bration of tall buildings: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Building
2099 Elhaddad, W.M., Johnson, E.A., 2013. Hybrid MPC: An Application to 2167 Engineering 33, 101582. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.
r
2100 Semiactive Control of Structures, in: Topics in Dynamics of Civil Struc-
2168 101582, doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101582.
2101
2102
tures. volume 4, pp. 27–36. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6555-3.
-p 2169
Elias, S., Matsagar, V., 2017. Research developments in vibration control of

structures using passive tuned mass dampers. Annual Reviews in Control
2170
Jangid, R., Datta, K., 1995. Seismic behaviour of base-isolated buildings:
a state-of-the-art review 110, 186–203.
Jeon, S., Tomizuka, M., 2007. Benefits of acceleration measurement in
re
2103 2171
2104 44, 129–156. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.09.0152172 , velocity estimation and motion control. Control Engineering Practice
2105 doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.09.015. 2173 15, 325–332. doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2005.10.004.
Etedali, S., Tavakoli, S., 2017. PD/PID Controller Design for Seismic Jones, C.A., Reynolds, P., Pavic, A., 2011. Vibration serviceability of sta-
lP
2106 2174
2107 Control of High-Rise Buildings Using Multi-Objective Optimization: A 2175 dia structures subjected to dynamic crowd loads: A literature review.
2108 Comparative Study with LQR Controller. Journal of Earthquake and 2176 Journal of Sound and Vibration 330, 1531–1566. URL: http://dx.doi.
2109 Tsunami 11, 1–23. doi:10.1142/S1793431117500099. 2177 org/10.1016/j.jsv.2010.10.032, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2010.10.032.
na
2110 Falcon, K., Stone, B., Simcock, W., Andrew, C., 1967. Optimization of 2178 Jung, H.J., Lee, H.J., Yoon, W.H., Oh, J.W., Lee, I.W., 2004a. Semiac-
2111 Vibration Absorbers: A Graphical Method for Use on Idealized Systems 2179 tive Neurocontrol for Seismic Response Reduction Using Smart Damp-
2112 with Restricted Damping. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 2180 ing Strategy. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 18, 277–280.
9, 374–381. doi:10.1243/JMES. doi:10.1061/(asce)0887-3801(2004)18:3(277).
ur
2113 2181
2114 Fisco, N.R., Adeli, H., 2011a. Smart structures: Part I - Active and semi-2182 Jung, H.J., Spencer, B.F., Ni, Y.Q., Lee, I.W., 2004b. State-of-the-art of
2115 active control. Scientia Iranica 18, 275–284. URL: http://dx.doi.org/ 2183 semiactive control systems using MR fluid dampers in civil engineer-
Jo
2116 10.1016/j.scient.2011.05.034, doi:10.1016/j.scient.2011.05.034. 2184 ing applications. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 17, 493–526.
2117 Fisco, N.R., Adeli, H., 2011b. Smart structures: Part II - Hybrid con- 2185 doi:10.12989/sem.2004.17.3_4.493.
2118 trol systems and control strategies. Scientia Iranica 18, 285–295. 2186 Kang, J., Kim, H.S., Lee, D.G., 2011. Mitigation of wind response of a tall
2119 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2011.05.035, doi:10.1016/j. 2187 building using semi-active tuned mass dampers. The Structural Design
2120 scient.2011.05.035. 2188 of Tall and Special Buildings 20, 552–565. doi:10.1002/tal.
2121 Flah, M., Nunez, I., Ben Chaabene, W., Nehdi, M.L., 2021. Machine 2189 Kang, Y.J., Peng, L.Y., 2019. Optimisation Design and Damping Effect
2122 Learning Algorithms in Civil Structural Health Monitoring: A Sys- 2190 Analysis of Large Mass Ratio Tuned Mass Dampers. Shock and Vibra-
2123 tematic Review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 2191 tion 2019. doi:10.1155/2019/8376781.
2124 28, 2621–2643. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09471-92192 , Kareem, A., Kijewski, T., Tamura, Y., 1999. Mitigation of motions of tall
2125 doi:10.1007/s11831-020-09471-9. 2193 buildings with specific examples of recent applications. doi:10.12989/
2126 Frahm, H., 1911. Device for damping vibration of bodies. 2194 was.1999.2.3.201.
2127 Fujinami, T., Saito, Y., Morishita, M., Koike, Y., Tanida, K., 2001. A hy-2195 Kayabekir, A.E., Bekdaş, G., Nigdeli, S.M., Geem, Z.W., 2020. Opti-
2128 brid mass damper system controlled by H∞ control theory for reducing 2196 mum design of PID controlled active tuned mass damper via modi-
2129 bending torsion vibration of an actual building. Earthquake Engineering2197 fied harmony search. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 10. doi:10.3390/
2130 and Structural Dynamics 30, 1639–1653. doi:10.1002/eqe.85. 2198 APP10082976.
2131 Ghisbain, P., Mendes, S., Pinto, M., Malsch, E., 2021. Innovative Liquid 2199 Kc, S., Gautam, D., 2021. Progress in sustainable structural engineering: a
2132 Damper for Wind-Induced Vibration of Buildings : Performance after 2200 4 review. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions 6, 1–23. URL: https://doi.
2133 Years of Operation, and Next Iteration. International Journal of High- 2201 org/10.1007/s41062-020-00419-3, doi:10.1007/s41062-020-00419-3.
2134 Rise Buildings 10, 117–121. 2202 Khatibinia, M., Gholami, H., Kamgar, R., 2018. Optimal design of tuned
2135 Gutierrez Soto, M., Adeli, H., 2013. Tuned Mass Dampers. Archives 2203 mass dampers subjected to continuous stationary critical excitation. In-
2136 of Computational Methods in Engineering 20, 419–431. doi:10.1007/ 2204 ternational Journal of Dynamics and Control 6, 1094–1104. URL: https:
2137 s11831-013-9091-7. 2205 //doi.org/10.1007/s40435-017-0386-7, doi:10.1007/s40435-017-0386-7.
2138 Hadi, M.N., Arfiadi, Y., 1998. Optimum design of absorber for MDOF 2206 Kiranyaz, S., Avci, O., Abdeljaber, O., Ince, T., Gabbouj, M., Inman, D.J.,
2139 structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 124, 1272–1280. 2207 2021. 1d convolutional neural networks and applications: A survey.
2140 Helbing, D., Buzna, L., Johansson, A., Werner, T., 2005. Self-organized 2208 Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 151, 107398. doi:doi.org/
2141 pedestrian crowd dynamics: Experiments, simulations, and design solu- 2209 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107398.
2142 tions. Transportation Science 39, 1–24. doi:10.1287/trsc.1040.0108. 2210 Kitchenham, B., Charters, S., 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic

Structures
2211 Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report. doi:10.
2279 life of railway steel bridges by using intelligent control. Construction
2212 1109/ACCESS.2016.2603219. 2280 and Building Materials 168, 532–546. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.
2213 Kobori, T., 1996. Future direction on research and development of seismic- 2281 02.125.
2214 response-controlled structures. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure 2282 Liu, S., Lu, Z., Li, P., Ding, S., Wan, F., 2020. Shaking table test and numer-
2215 Engineering 11, 297–304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.1996.tb00444.x. 2283 ical simulation of eddy-current tuned mass damper for structural seismic
2216 Kobori, T., Koshika, N., Yamada, K., Ikeda, Y., 1991. Seismic-response- 2284 control considering soil-structure interaction. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.
2217 controlled structure with active mass driver system. Part 1: Design. 2285 2020.110531.
2218 Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics 20, 133–149. doi:10.1002/ 2286 Lopez-Almansa, F., Andrade, R., Rodellar, J., Reinhorn, A.M., 1994.
2219 eqe.4290200204. 2287 Modal predictive control of structures. II: Implementation. Jour-
2220 Koutsoloukas, L., Nikitas, N., Aristidou, P., 2022a. Robust structural con- 2288 nal of Engineering Mechanics 120, 1761–1772. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
2221 trol of a real high-rise tower using a hybrid mass damper. The Structural2289 0733-9399(1994)120:8(1743).
2222 Design of Tall and Special Buildings 31. doi:10.1002/tal.1941. 2290 Lopez-Almansa, F., Andrade, R., Rodellar, J., Reinhorn, A.M., 1995.
2223 Koutsoloukas, L., Nikitas, N., Aristidou, P., 2022b. Structural Control of 2291
a Modal predictive control of structures. I: Formulation. Journal of Engi-
2224 Real High-Rise Tower Using Reinforcement Learning. Submitted . 2292 neering Mechanics 120, 1743–1760.
2225 Koutsoloukas, L., Nikitas, N., Aristidou, P., Meinhardt, C., 2020. Control 2293 Lu, X., Li, P., Guo, X., Shi, W., Liu, J., 2014. Vibration control using
2226 law and actuator capacity effect on the dynamic performance of a hybrid 2294 ATMD and site measurements on the Shanghai World Financial Center
2227 mass damper; the case of rottweil tower. Proceedings of the International2295 Tower. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 23, 105–
2228 Conference on Structural Dynamic , EURODYN 1, 1422–1432. doi:10. 2296 123. doi:10.1002/tal.
2229 47964/1120.9115.19241. 2297 Maebayashi, K., Shiba, K., Mita, A., Inada, Y., 1992. Hybrid Mass damper
2230 Kumar, R., Moinuddin, Singh, S., Bedi, S.S., Kumar, S., 2007. Pole place- 2298 system for response control building. Tenth World Conference on Earth-
ment techniques for active vibration control of smart structures: A fea- quake Engineering , 2359–2364.
f
2231 2299
sibility study. Turkish Acoustical Society - 36th International Congress Mamat, N., Yakub, F., Shaikh Salim, S.A.Z., Mat Ali, M.S., 2020. Seis-
oo
2232 2300
2233 and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, INTER-NOISE 2007 IS- 2301 mic vibration suppression of a building with an adaptive nonsingular
2234 TANBUL 4, 2230–2240. doi:10.1115/1.2748474. 2302 terminal sliding mode control. JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control
2235 Kurata, N., Kobori, T., Takahashi, M., Niwa, N., Midorikawa, H., 1999. Ac- 2303 26, 2136–2147. doi:10.1177/1077546320915324.
r
2236 tual Seismic Response Control Building with Semi-Active Damper Sys- 2304 Manzoor, B., Othman, I., Durdyev, S., Ismail, S., Wahab, M.H., 2021. In-
2237
2238
tem. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 28, 1427–1447.2305
Kwok, K.C., Samali, B., 1995. Performance of tuned mass dampers un-
der wind loads. Engineering Structures 17, 655–667. doi:10.1016/ -p 2306
fluence of Artificial Intelligence in Civil Engineering toward Sustainable
Development-A Systematic Literature Review. Applied System Innova-
tion 52, 1–17.
re
2239 2307
2240 0141-0296(95)00035-6. 2308 Marian, L., Giaralis, A., 2015. Optimal design of a novel tuned
2241 Lackner, M.A., Mario, R.A., 2010. Passive structural control of offshore 2309 mass-damper-inerter (TMDI) passive vibration control configuration for
wind turbines. Wind Energy 14, 373–388. doi:10.1002/we. stochastically support-excited structural systems. Probabilistic Engi-
lP
2242 2310
2243 Laflamme, S., Slotine, J.J., Connor, J.J., 2011. Wavelet network for semi- 2311 neering Mechanics 38, 156–164. doi:10.1016/j.probengmech.2014.03.
2244 active control. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 137, 462–474. doi:10. 2312 007.
2245 1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000248. 2313 Maślanka, M., 2019. Optimised semi-active tuned mass damper with accel-
na
2246 Lee, C.L., Chen, Y.T., Chung, L.L., Wang, Y.P., 2006a. Optimal design 2314 eration and relative motion feedbacks. Mechanical Systems and Signal
2247 theories and applications of tuned mass dampers. Engineering Structures 2315 Processing 130, 707–731. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.05.025.
2248 28, 43–53. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.06.023. 2316 McClamroch, N.H., Gavin, H.P., 1995. Electrorheological dampers and
Lee, H.J., Jung, H.J., Moon, S.J., Lee, S.K., Park, E.C., Min, K.W., 2010. semi-active structural control. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
ur
2249 2317
2250 Experimental investigation of MR damper-based semiactive control al- 2318 Decision and Control 4, 3528–3533. doi:10.1109/cdc.1995.479131.
2251 gorithms for full-scale five-story steel frame building. Journal of In- 2319 Medel-Vera, C., Ji, T., 2015. Seismic protection technology for nuclear
Jo
2252 telligent Material Systems and Structures 21, 1025–1037. doi:10.1177/ 2320 powerplants a systematic review. Journal of Nuclear Science and Tech-
2253 1045389X10374162. 2321 nology 52, 607–632.
2254 Lee, H.J., Yang, G., Jung, H.J., Spencer, B.F., Lee, I.W., 2006b. Semi- 2322 Mei, G., Kareem, A., Kantor, J.C., 2001. Real-time model predictive con-
2255 active neurocontrol of a base-isolated benchmark structure. Structural 2323 trol of structures under earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Struc-
2256 Control and Health Monitoring 13, 682–692. doi:10.1002/stc.105. 2324 tural Dynamics 30, 995–1019. doi:10.1002/eqe.49.
2257 Leitmann, G., 1994. Semiactive control for vibration attenuation. Journal 2325 Mei, G., Kareem, A., Kantor, J.C., 2002. Model predictive control of struc-
2258 of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 5, 841–846. doi:10.1177/ 2326 tures under earthquakes using acceleration feedback. Journal of Engi-
2259 1045389X9400500616. 2327 neering Mechanics 128, 574–585. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)
2260 Li, C., Cao, B., 2015. Hybrid active tuned mass dampers for structures 2328 128:5(574).
2261 under the ground acceleration. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2329 Mei, G., Kareem, A., Kantor, J.C., 2004. Model Predictive Control of
2262 22, 757–773. doi:10.1002/stc. 2330 Wind-Excited Building: Benchmark Study. Journal of engineering me-
2263 Li, L., Song, G., Ou, J., 2011. Hybrid active mass damper (AMD) vibration 2331 chanics , 459–465URL: http://link.aip.org/link/?JENMDT/130/1195/1,
2264 suppression of nonlinear high-rise structure using fuzzy logic control 2332 doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130.
2265 algorithm under earthquake excitations. Structural Control and Health 2333 Meinhardt, C., Nikitas, N., Demetriou, D., 2017. Application of a 245
2266 Monitoring 19, 698–709. doi:10.1002/stc. 2334 metric ton Dual-Use Active TMD System. Procedia Engineering 199,
2267 Li, Z., Zuo, S., Liu, Y., 2014. Fuzzy sliding mode control for smart structure
2335 1719–1724. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.384,
2268 with ATMD. Proceedings of the 33rd Chinese Control Conference, CCC 2336 doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.384.
2269 2014 , 21–25doi:10.1109/ChiCC.2014.6896589. 2337 Miah, M.S., Chatzi, E.N., Weber, F., 2015. Semi-active control for vibra-
2270 Lin, C.C., Hu, C.M., Wang, J.F., Hu, R.Y., 1994. Vibration control ef- 2338 tion mitigation of structural systems incorporating uncertainties. Smart
2271 fectiveness of passive tuned mass dampers. Journal of the Chinese 2339 Materials and Structures 24, 55016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/
2272 Institute of Engineers, Transactions of the Chinese Institute of En- 2340 0964-1726/24/5/055016, doi:10.1088/0964-1726/24/5/055016.
2273 gineers,Series A/Chung-kuo Kung Ch’eng Hsuch K’an 17, 367–376. 2341 Mitchell, R., Kim, Y., El-Korchi, T., Cha, Y.J., 2013. Wavelet-neuro-
2274 doi:10.1080/02533839.1994.9677600. 2342 fuzzy control of hybrid building-active tuned mass damper system under
2275 Lin, C.C., Ueng, J.M., Huang, T.C., 2000. Seismic response reduction of ir- 2343 seismic excitations. Journal of Vibration and Control 19, 1881–1894.
2276 regular buildings using passive tuned mass dampers. Engineering Struc- 2344 doi:10.1177/1077546312450730.
2277 tures 22, 513–524. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00054-6. 2345 Mohebbi, M., Joghataie, A., 2012. Designing optimal tuned mass dampers
2278 Liu, J., Qu, W., Nikitas, N., Ji, Z., 2018. Research on extending the fatigue2346 for nonlinear frames by distributed genetic algorithms. The Structural

Structures
2347 Design of Tall and Special Buildings 21, 57–76. doi:10.1002/tal. 2415 Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M., 2008. Systematic map-
2348 Nagarajaiah, S., 2009. Adaptive passive, semiactive, smart tuned mass 2416 ping studies in software engineering. 12th International Conference
2349 dampers: identification and control using empirical mode decomposi- 2417 on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2008
2350 tion, hilbert transform, and short-term fourier transform. Structural Con-
2418 doi:10.14236/ewic/ease2008.8.
2351 trol and Health Monitoring 16, 800–841. doi:10.1002/stc. 2419 Pinkaew, T., Lukkunaprasit, P., Chatupote, P., 2003. Seismic effectiveness
2352 Nagarajaiah, S., Jung, H.J., 2014. Smart tuned mass dampers: recent de- 2420 of tuned mass dampers for damage reduction of structures. Engineering
2353 velopments. Smart Structures and Systems 13, 173–176. 2421 Structures 25, 39–46. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00115-3.
2354 Nagarajaiah, S., Varadarajan, N., 2005. Short time Fourier transform al- 2422 Ramírez-Neria, M., Morales-Valdez, J., Yu, W., 2021. Active vibration
2355 gorithm for wind response control of buildings with variable stiffness 2423 control of building structure using active disturbance rejection con-
2356 TMD. Engineering Structures 27, 431–441. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct. 2424 trol. Journal of Vibration and Control , 107754632110093doi:10.1177/
2357 2004.10.015. 2425 10775463211009377.
2358 Nagarajaiah, S., Varadarajan, N., Asce, M., 2004. Wind Response Control 2426 Rana, R., Soong, T.T., 1998. Parametric study and simplified design of
2359 of Building with Variable Stiffness Tuned Mass Damper Using Empir- 2427 tuned mass dampers. Engineering Structures 20, 193–204. doi:10.1016/
2360 ical Mode Decomposition/ Hilbert Transform. Journal of Engineering 2428 S0141-0296(97)00078-3.
2361 Mechanics 130, 451–458. doi:10.1061/ÍŚASCEÍŠ0733-9399ÍŚ2004ÍŠ130: 2429 Randall, S.E., Halsted, D. M., I., Taylor, D.L., 1981. Optimum Vibration
2362 4ÍŚ451ÍŠ. 2430 Absorbers for Linear Damped Systems. Journal of Mechanical Design
2363 Nagashima, I., Maseki, R., Asami, Y., Hirai, J., Abiru, H., 2001. Perfor- 2431 103, 908–913. doi:10.1115/1.3255005.
2364 mance of hybrid mass damper system applied to a 36-storey high-rise 2432 Reymert, S., Rönnquist, A., Øiseth, O., 2022. Systematic Metadata Anal-
2365 building. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 30, 1615– 2433 ysis of Wind-Exposed Long-Span Bridges for Road Vehicle Safety As-
2366 1637. doi:10.1002/eqe.84. 2434 sessments. Journal of Bridge Engineering 27, 1–7. doi:10.1061/(asce)
Nagashima, I., Shinozaki, Y., 1997. Variable gain feedback control tech- be.1943-5592.0001822.
f
2367 2435
nique of active mass damper and its application to hybrid structural con- Ricciardelli, F., Occhiuzzi, A., Clemente, P., 2000. Semi-active tuned
oo
2368 2436
2369 trol. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 26, 815–838. 2437 mass damper control strategy for wind-excited structures. Journal of
2370 doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199708)26:8<815::AID-EQE678>3.0.CO;2-E2438 . Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 88, 57–74. doi:10.1016/
2371 Nakamura, Y., Tanaka, K., Nakayama, M., Fujita, T., 2001. Hybrid mass 2439 S0167-6105(00)00024-6.
r
2372 dampers using two types of electric servomotors: AC servomotors and 2440 Saaed, T.E., Nikolakopoulos, G., Jonasson, J.E., Hedlund, H., 2015. A
2373
2374
linear-induction servomotors. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 30, 1719–1743. doi:10.1002/eqe.89.
Nikitas, N., Macdonald, J.H., Jakobsen, J.B., 2011. Identification of -p 2441
2442
state-of-the-art review of structural control systems. JVC/Journal of Vi-
bration and Control 21, 919–937. doi:10.1177/1077546313478294.
Sachse, R., Pavic, A., Reynolds, P., 2003. Human-structure dynamic in-
re
2375 2443
2376 flutter derivatives from full-scale ambient vibration measurements of 2444 teraction in civil engineering dynamics: A literature review. Shock and
2377 the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Wind and Structures 14, 221–238. 2445 Vibration Digest 35, 3–18. doi:10.1177/0583102403035001624.
doi:10.12989/was.2011.14.3.221. Sadek, F., Mohraz, B., Taylor, A.w., Chung, R.M., 1997. A method of
lP
2378 2446
2379 Nikzad, K., Ghabouss, J., Paul, S.L., 1996. Actuator Dynamics and Delay 2447 estimating the parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic applica-
2380 Compensation Using Neurocontrollers. Journal of Engineering Mechan- 2448 tions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 26, 617–635.
2381 ics 122, 966–975. 2449 doi:10.1093/biomet/37.1-2.173.
na
2382 Nishimura, I., Yamada, T., Sakamoto, M., Kobori, T., 1998. Control perfor- 2450 Saito, T., Shiba, K., Tamura, K., 2001. Vibration control characteristics
2383 mance of active-passive composite tuned mass damper. Smart Materials 2451 of a hybrid mass damper system installed in tall buildings. Earthquake
2384 and Structures 7, 637–653. doi:10.1088/0964-1726/7/5/008. 2452 Engineering and Structural Dynamics 30, 1677–1696. doi:10.1002/eqe.
Nishitani, A., Inoue, Y., 2001. Overview of the application of ac- 87.
ur
2385 2453
2386 tive/semiactive control to building structures in Japan. Earthquake En- 2454 Sakamoto, M., Kobori, T., 1995. Research, development and practical ap-
2387 gineering and Structural Dynamics 30, 1565–1574. doi:10.1002/eqe.812455 . plications on structural response control of buildings. Smart Materials
Jo
2388 Noormohammadi, N., Reynolds, P., 2013. Experimental investigation of 2456 and Structures 4. doi:10.1088/0964-1726/4/1A/008.
2389 dynamic performance of a prototype hybrid tuned mass damper under 2457 Sakamoto, M., Sasaki, K., Kobori, T., 1992. Active structural response
2390 human excitation. Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated 2458 control system. Mechatronics 2, 503–519.
2391 Systems 2013 8688, 86880W. doi:10.1117/12.2010656. 2459 Setareh, M., 2002. Floor vibration control using semi-active tuned mass
2392 Nyawako, D., Reynolds, P., Hudson, E., 2016. Incorporating a disturbance 2460 dampers. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 29, 76–84. doi:10.
2393 observer with direct velocity feedback for control of human-induced vi- 2461 1139/l01-063.
2394 brations. Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated Systems 2462 Setareh, M., Asce, M., Ritchey, J.K., Murray, T.M., Koo, J.h., 2007.
2395 2016 9799, 97991W. doi:10.1117/12.2219383. 2463 Semiactive Tuned Mass Damper for Floor Vibration Control. Journal
2396 Ohtori, Y., Christenson, R.E., Spencer, B.F., Dyke, S.J., 2004. Bench- 2464 of Structural Engineering © Asce 133, 242–250. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
2397 mark Control Problems for Seismically Excited Nonlinear Buildings. 2465 0733-9445(2007)133:2(242).
2398 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 366–385. doi:10.1061/(asce) 2466 Shih, M.H., Sung, W.P., 2021. Seismic resistance and parametric study of
2399 0733-9399(2004)130:4(366). 2467 building under control of impulsive semi-active mass damper. Applied
2400 Panah, R.S., Kioumarsi, M., 2021. Application of building information 2468 Sciences (Switzerland) 11. doi:10.3390/app11062468.
2401 modelling (BIM) in the health monitoring and maintenance process: A 2469 Simiu, E., Yeo, D., 2019. Wind effects on structures. Modern structural
2402 systematic review. doi:10.3390/s21030837. 2470 design for wind. 4 ed., Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1243/pime_proc_1970_
2403 Park, S., Lackner, M.A., Pourazarm, P., Rodríguez Tsouroukdissian, A., 2471 185_038_02.
2404 Cross-Whiter, J., 2019. An investigation on the impacts of passive and 2472 Singh, M.P., Singh, S., Moreschi, L.M., 2002. Tuned mass dampers for
2405 semiactive structural control on a fixed bottom and a floating offshore 2473 response control of torsional buildings. Earthquake Engineering and
2406 wind turbine. Wind Energy , 1451–1471doi:10.1002/we.2381. 2474 Structural Dynamics 31, 749–769. doi:10.1002/eqe.119.
2407 Park, W., Park, K.S., Koh, H.M., Ha, D.H., 2006. Wind-induced response 2475 Smith, H.A., Chase, J.G., 1996. Comparison of LQR and H∞ algorithms
2408 control and serviceability improvement of an air traffic control tower. 2476 for vibration control of structures in seismic zones. Structures Congress
2409 Engineering Structures 28, 1060–1070. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005. 2477 - Proceedings 2, 1164–1171.
2410 11.013. 2478 Solari, G., 2017. Wind Loading of Structures: Framework, Phenomena,
2411 Peng, H., Li, F., Zhang, S., Chen, B., 2017. A novel fast model predic- 2479 Tools and Codification. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2017.09.008.
2412 tive control with actuator saturation for large-scale structures. Com- 2480 Soong, T.T., Spencer, B.F., 2000. Active, semi-active and hybrid control
2413 puters and Structures 187, 35–49. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. 2481 of structures. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake En-
2414 compstruc.2017.03.014, doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.03.014. 2482 gineering 33, 387–402.

Structures
2483 Soong, T.T., Spencer, B.F., 2002. Supplemental energy dissipation: State- 2551 0964-1726/22/4/045012.
2484 of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Engineering Structures 24, 243– 2552 Weber, F., Huber, P., Borchsenius, F., Braun, C., 2020. Performance of tmdi
2485 259. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00092-X. 2553 for tall building damping. Actuators 9, 1–13. doi:10.3390/act9040139.
2486 Spencer, B.F., Nagarajaiah, S., 2003. State of the Art of Structural Con- 2554 Weber, F., Huber, P., Distl, H., Braun, C., 2016. Real-Time Controlled TMD
2487 trol. Journal of Structural Engineering 129, 845–856. doi:10.1061/ 2555 of Danube City Tower. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat ,
2488 (asce)0733-9445(2002)128:8(965). 2556 1145–1152.
2489 Spencer, B.F., Sain, M.K., 1997. Controlling Buildings: A New Frontier in 2557 Wu, J.C., Yang, J.N., 1997. Continuous sliding mode control of a TV trans-
2490 Feedback. IEEE Control Systems Magazine on Emerging Technology 2558 mission tower under stochastic wind. Proceedings of the American Con-
2491 17, 19–35. doi:10.1002/cber.190904203162. 2559 trol Conference , 883–887.
2492 Stanikzai, M.H., Elias, S., Matsagar, V.A., Jain, A.K., 2019. Seismic 2560 Wu, J.C., Yang, J.N., 1998. Active Control of Transmission Tower under
2493 response control of base-isolated buildings using tuned mass damper. 2561 Stochastic Wind. Journal of Structural Engineering 124, 1302–1312.
2494 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 20, 310–321. URL: 2562 doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1998)124:11(1302).
2495 https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2019.1635307, doi:10.1080/13287982. 2563 Wu, J.c., Yang, J.N., 2000. LQG control of lateral-torsional motion of Nan-
2496 2019.1635307. 2564 jing TV transmission tower. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-
2497 Stewart, G.M., Lackner, M.A., 2014. The impact of passive tuned mass 2565 namics 29, 1111–1130.
2498 dampers and wind-wave misalignment on offshore wind turbine loads. 2566 Wu, J.C., Yang, J.N., 2004. Modified Sliding Mode Control for Wind-
2499 Engineering Structures 73, 54–61. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. 2567 Excited Benchmark Problem 130, 499–504.
2500 engstruct.2014.04.045, doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.045. 2568 Xie, Y., Ebad Sichani, M., Padgett, J.E., DesRoches, R., 2020. The promise
2501 Sun, C., Nagarajaiah, S., 2014. Study on semi-active tuned mass damper 2569 of implementing machine learning in earthquake engineering: A state-
2502 with variable damping and stiffness under seismic excitations. Structural 2570 of-the-art review. Earthquake Spectra 36, 1769–1801. doi:10.1177/
Control and Health Monitoring 21, 890–906. doi:10.1002/stc. 8755293020919419.
f
2503 2571
Suzuki, T., Kageyama, M., Nobata, A., Yoshida, O., Inaba, S., 1994. Active Xu, L., Cui, Y., Wang, Z., 2020. Active tuned mass damper based vibration
oo
2504 2572
2505 Vibration Control System Installed In A High-Rise Building. Proc. 1st 2573 control for seismic excited adjacent buildings under actuator saturation.
2506 World Conf. on Struct. Control , 3–11. 2574 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135, 106181. URL: https:
2507 Symans, M.D., Constantinou, M.C., 1999. Semi-active control systems for 2575 //doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106181, doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.
r
2508 seismic protection of structures: A state-of-the-art review. Engineering 2576 106181.
2509
2510
Structures 21, 469–487. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00225-3.
-p
Taida, K., Koike, Y., Mutaguchi, M., Kakutani, T., Tachibana, T., Arai, Y.,
1994. Control of Bending-Torsion Structural Vibration Using a Pair of
2577
2578
Xu, Y.L., Kwok, K.C., Samali, B., 1992. Control of wind-induced tall build-
ing vibration by tuned mass dampers. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics 40, 1–32. doi:10.1016/0167-6105(92)90518-F.
re
2511 2579
2512 Hybrid Mass Dampers. JSME International Journal 37, 477–481. 2580 Xu, Z.D., Shen, Y.P., Guo, Y.Q., 2003. Semi-active control of structures
2513 Tan, P., Liu, Y., Zhou, F.L., Teng, J., 2012. Hybrid mass dampers for canton 2581 incorporated with magnetorheological dampers using neutral networks.
tower. CTBUH Journal , 24–29. Smart Materials and Structures 12, 80–87. doi:10.1088/0964-1726/12/1/
lP
2514 2582
2515 Tanida, K., Mutaguchi, M., Koike, Y., Murata, T., Kobori, T., Ishii, K., 2583 309.
2516 Takenaka, Y., Arita, T., 1994. Development of V-shaped hybrid mass 2584 Yalla, S.K., Kareem, A., Kantor, J.C., 2001. Semi-active tuned liquid col-
2517 damper and its application to high-rise buildings. Journal of Robotics 2585 umn dampers for vibration control of structures. Engineering Structures
na
2518 and Mechatronics 6, 249–255. 2586 23, 1469–1479. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00047-5.

2519 Teng, J., Xing, H.B., Lu, W., Li, Z.H., Chen, C.J., 2016. Influence analysis 2587 Yamamoto, M., Aizawa, S., Higashino, M., Toyama, K., 2001. Practical
2520 of time delay to active mass damper control system using pole assign- 2588 applications of active mass dampers with hydraulic actuator. Earthquake
ment method. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 80, 99–116. Engineering and Structural Dynamics 30, 1697–1717. doi:10.1002/eqe.
ur
2521 2589
2522 doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.04.008. 2590 88.

2523 Teng, J., Xing, H.B., Xiao, Y.Q., Liu, C.Y., Li, H., Ou, J.P., 2014. Design 2591 Yamanaka, M., Okuda, H., 2005. Dentsu head office damping systems,
Jo
2524 and implementation of AMD system for response control in tall build. 2592 Tokyo, Japan. Structural Engineering International: Journal of the In-
2525 Smart Structures and Systems 13, 235–255. 2593 ternational Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE)
2526 Tsai, H.C., 1995. The effect of tuned-mass dampers on the seismic response 2594 15, 44–47. doi:10.2749/101686605777963369.
2527 of base-isolated structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures
2595 Yamazaki, S., Nagata, N., Abiru, H., 1992. Tuned active dampers installed
2528 32, 1195–1210. doi:10.1016/0020-7683(94)00150-U. 2596 in the Minato Mirai (MM) 21 Landmark Tower in Yokohama. Journal
2529 Venuti, F., Bruno, L., 2013. Mitigation of human-induced lateral vibra- 2597 of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 41-44, 1937–1948.
2530 tions on footbridges through walkway shaping. Engineering Structures 2598 doi:10.1299/jsmec1993.37.450.
2531 56, 95–104. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.0192599 , Yan, G., Sun, B., Lü, Y., 2007. Semi-active model predictive control
2532 doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.019. 2600 for 3rd generation benchmark problem using smart dampers. Earth-
2533 Wang, J.F., Lin, C.C., Chen, B.L., 2003. Vibration suppression for high- 2601 quake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 6, 307–315. doi:10.1007/
2534 speed railway bridges using tuned mass dampers. International Jour- 2602 s11803-007-0645-2.
2535 nal of Solids and Structures 40, 465–491. doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(02) 2603 Yan, X., Xu, Z.D., Shi, Q.X., 2020. Fuzzy neural network control algo-
2536 00589-9. 2604 rithm for asymmetric building structure with active tuned mass damper.
2537 Wang, L., Nagarajaiah, S., Shi, W., Zhou, Y., 2021. Semi-active con- 2605 JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control 26, 2037–2049. doi:10.1177/
2538 trol of walking-induced vibrations in bridges using adaptive tuned mass 2606 1077546320910003.
2539 damper considering human-structure-interaction. Engineering Struc- 2607 Yang, C.S.W., Chung, L.L., Wu, L.Y., Chung, N.H., 2011. Modified predic-
2540 tures 244, 112743. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021. 2608 tive control of structures with direct output feedback. Structural Control
2541 112743, doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112743. 2609 and Health Monitoring 18, 922–940. doi:10.1002/stc.
2542 Wani, Z.R., Tantray, M., Farsangi, E.N., Nikitas, N., Noori, M., Samali, B., 2610 Yang, F., Sedaghati, R., Esmailzadeh, E., 2015. Optimal design of dis-
2543 Yang, T.Y., 2022. A critical review on control strategies for structural 2611 tributed tuned mass dampers for passive vibration control of structures.
2544 vibration control. Annu. Rev. Control. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2022. 2612 Structural Control and Health Monitoring 22, 221–236. doi:10.1002/stc.
2545 09.002. 2613 Yang, F., Sedaghati, R., Esmailzadeh, E., 2021. Vibration suppres-
2546 Warburton, G.B., 1982. Optimum absorber parameters for various combi- 2614 sion of structures using tuned mass damper technology: A state-of-
2547 nations of response and excitation parameters. Earthquake Engineering 2615 the-art review. JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control doi:10.1177/
2548 and Structural Dynamics 10, 381–401. doi:10.1002/eqe.4290100304. 2616 1077546320984305.
2549 Weber, F., 2013. Bouc-Wen model-based real-time force tracking scheme 2617 Yoshida, O., Dyke, S.J., 2004. Seismic Control of a Nonlinear Benchmark
2550 for MR dampers. Smart Materials and Structures 22. doi:10.1088/ 2618 Building Using Smart Dampers. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130,

Structures
2619 386–392. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(2004)130:4(386). 2648
2620 Yu, H., Gillot, F., Ichchou, M., 2013. Reliability based robust design opti-
2621 mization for tuned mass damper in passive vibration control of determin-
2622 istic/uncertain structures. Journal of Sound and Vibration 332, 2222–
2623 2238. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2012.12.014.
2624 Yucel, M., Bekdaş, G., Nigdeli, S.M., Sevgen, S., 2019. Estimation of
2625 optimum tuned mass damper parameters via machine learning. Journal
2626 of Building Engineering 26, 100847. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2627 jobe.2019.100847, doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100847.
2628 Zelleke, D.H., Matsagar, V.A., 2019. Energy-based predictive algorithm for
2629 semi-active tuned mass dampers. Structural Design of Tall and Special
2630 Buildings , 1–20doi:10.1002/tal.1626.
2631 Zhou, K., Zhang, J.W., Li, Q.S., 2022. Control performance of active
2632 tuned mass damper for mitigating wind-induced vibrations of a 600-m-
2633 tall skyscraper. Journal of Building Engineering 45, 103646. URL:
2634 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103646, doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2021.
2635 103646.
2636 Zhu, Q., Yang, W., Zhang, Q., Du, Y., 2021. A hybrid vibra-
2637 tion mitigation method based on the crowd flow control and tuned
2638 mass damper on a footbridge. Engineering Structures 245, 112972.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112972, doi:10.1016/
f
2639
j.engstruct.2021.112972.
oo
2640
2641 Živanović, S., Pavic, A., Reynolds, P., 2005. Vibration serviceability of
2642 footbridges under human-induced excitation: A literature review. Jour-
2643 nal of Sound and Vibration 279, 1–74. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2004.01.019.
r
2644 Zucca, M., Longarini, N., Simoncelli, M., Aly, A.M., 2021. Tuned Mass
2645
2646
Damper Design for Slender Masonry Structures: A Framework for Lin-
ear and Nonlinear Analysis. Applied Sciences 11, 3425. doi:10.3390/
app11083425.
-p
re
2647
lP
na
ur
Jo

Structures
Lefteris Koutsoloukas studied Civil & Structural 2649
Engineering in the University of Leeds and gradu-

ated with a 1st class honours. In 2019, he has been
awarded a prestigious Leeds Doctoral Scholarship
to pursue doctoral studies. Currently, he is a 2nd
year PhD student working with Dr Nikolaos Niki-
tas and Dr Petros Aristidou. His research work lies
within the area of structural dynamics where, he
focuses in the Active/Hybrid Control of civil engi-
neering structures.
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Structures
Nikolaos Nikitas graduated Civil Engineering 2650
from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,

Greece and subsequently received a PhD on Struc-
tural Mechanics from the University of Edinburgh,
UK and a PhD on Aerodynamics of Bridges from
the University of Bristol, UK. He is currently work-
ing as an Associate Professor in Structural Dynam-
ics and Engineering in the University of Leeds,
UK with research interest spanning from Structural
Health Monitoring to wind and earthquake engi-
neering.
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Structures
Petros Aristidou received a Diploma in Electri-
cal and Computer Engineering from the National
Technical University of Athens, Greece, in 2010,
and a Ph.D. in Engineering Sciences from the Uni-
versity of Liège, Belgium, in 2015. He is currently
a Lecturer at the Cyprus University of Technology.
His research interests include sustainable energy,
control, and simulation.
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Type of Control Specification Results
“High Rise”
“Mass Damper” “Skyscraper”
Scopus
“Practical Application” 424

“Mass Driver” “Building Application”
“Real Application”
Other
37
Sum
461
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Type of
Structure Year Location
Control
C N Tower 1973 Toronto PTMD
John Hancock 1977 Boston PTMD
Citicorp Building - 601
1977 New York PTMD
Lexington
City Corp Center 1978 New York PTMD
Sydney Tower 1980 Sydney PTMD
Al Khobar Chimney 1980 Saudi Arabia PTMD
Ruwais Utilities Chimney 1982 Abu Dhabi PTMD
Deutsche Bundespost Cooling
1982 Nurnberg PTMD
Tower
Yanbu Cement Plant Chimney 1984 Saudi Arabia PTMD
f
oo
Hydro-Quebec Wind Generator 1985 Canada PTMD
Metropolitan Tower 1985 New York City PTMD
Chiba Port Tower 1986 Chiba PTMD
r
BMW Factory floor
Arc de 124.5° Steel Scuplture
1988
1988
-p Munich
Berlin
PTMD
PTMD
re
Bin Qasim Thermal Power
1988 Pakistan PTMD
Station
lP
Tiwest Rutile Plant Chimney 1989 Cataby PTMD

Fukuoka Tower 1989 Fukuoka PTMD
Henckels Zwillingwerke, Factory
na
1989 Solingen PTMD

Floor
Higashiyama Sky Tower 1989 Nagoya PTMD
ur
Kyobashi Seiwa Building 1989 Tokyo AMD

Kajima Research Lab. # 21 1990 Tokyo SATMD
Jo
Fernsehturm Tower 1990 Berlin PTMD

Crystal Tower 1990 Osaka PTMD
Huis Ten Bosch Domtoren 1990 Nagasaki PTMD
Hibikiryokuchi Sky Tower 1991 Kitakyushu PTMD
Shimizu Tech. Lab 1991 Tokyo AMD
HKW Chimney 1992 Frankfurt PTMD
BASF Chimney 1992 Antwerp PTMD
Siemens Power Station 1992 Killingholme PTMD
Sendagaya INTES Building 1992 Tokyo AMD
Applause Tower 1992 Osaka HMD
ORC 200 Bay Tower 1992 Osaka HMD
Kansai Int’l Airport 1992 Osaka HMD
Rokko Island P and G 1993 Kobe PTMD
Al Taweeiah Chimney 1993 Abu Dhabi PTMD
KS Project 1993 Kanasawa HMD
Babcock, Steel Structure 1993 Munich PTMD
Long Term Credit Bank 1993 Tokyo HMD
Ando Nishikicho Building 1993 Tokyo HMD
NTT Kuredo Motomach Building 1993 Hiroshima HMD
Nishimoto Kosan Nishikicho
1993 Tokyo HMD
Building
Yokohama Landmark Tower 1993 Yokohama HMD
Akita Tower 1994 Akita PTMD
J City Tower 1994 Tokyo HMD
Penta-Ocean Exp. Building 1994 Tokyo HMD
Shinjuku Park Tower 1994 Tokyo HMD
Dowa Fire & Marine Ins. 1994 Osaka HMD
Hikarigaoka Office Building 1994 Tokyo HMD
Göttingen Stack 1994 Göttingen PTMD
Porte Kanazawa 1994 Kanazawa AMD
f
Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. 1994 Yokohama HMD
oo
Hamamatsu ACT Tower 1994 Hamamatsu HMD
Riverside Sumida 1994 Tokyo AMD
r
Hotel Ocean 45 1994 Miyazaki HMD
RIHGA Royal Hotel
Hikarigaoko J City Building
1994
1994
-p Hiroshima
Tokyo
HMD
HMD
re
Osaka WTC Building 1995 Osaka HMD
Dowa Kasai Phoenix Tower 1995 Osaka HMD
lP
Sea Hawk Hotel and Resort 1995 Fukuoka PTMD

Rinku Gate Tower Building 1995 Osaka HMD
na
Hirobe Miyake Building 1995 Tokyo HMD

Nissei Dowa Sonpo Phoenix
1995 Osaka HMD
Tower
ur
Plaza Ichihara 1995 Chiba HMD

Regensburg Siemens Building 1996 Regensburg PTMD
Jo
Hamburg Stack 1996 Hamburg PTMD

Nanjing Communication Tower 1996 Nanjing AMD
Artwork The Asylum 1996 Rotterdam PTMD
Rinku Gate Tower 1996 Izumisano HMD
Herbis Osaka 1997 Osaka AMD
Nisseki Yokohama Building 1997 Yokohama HMD
Karlsruhe Building 1997 Karlsruhe PTMD
T & C Tower 1997 Kaohsiung HMD
Washington National Airport
1997 Washington PTMD
Tower
Petronas Twin Towers 1997 Kuala Lumpur PTMD
Itoyama Tower 1997 Tokyo HMD
Otis Shibyama Test Tower 1998 Chiba HMD
Bunka Gakuen 1998 Tokyo HMD
Oasis Hiroba 21-Oasis Tower 1998 Oita HMD
Sendai AERU 1998 Sendai PTMD
Kaikyo Messe Yume Tower 1998 Tokyo HMD
Yoyogi 3-Chrome Kyodo
1998 Tokyo HMD
Building
Scholven
Cooling Tower Fans 1998 PTMD
Gelsenkirchen
Odakyu Southern Tower 1998 Tokyo HMD
Kajima Shizuoka Building 1998 Shizuoka SATMD
Sotetsu Takashimaya Kyoto
1998 Yokohama HMD
Building
Burj Al-Arab 1999 Dubai PTMD
JR Central Towers 1999 Nagoya HMD
Emirates Towers 1999 Dubai PTMD
Shinagawa Intercity Building 1999 Tokyo HMD
Century Park Tower 1999 Tokyo HMD
Millennium Dome 1999 London PTMD
La Hague, SGN, Stack 1999 France PTMD
f
oo
Reichstag Spectator Balconies 1999 Berlin PTMD
TC Tower 1999 Kaoshiung HMD
Steel Chimney 1999 Bangkok PTMD
r
Shin-Jei Building
Osaka Airport Control Tower
1999
2000
-p Taipei
Osaka
HMD
HMD
re
Cerulean Tower 2000 Tokyo HMD
Stakis Metropole 2000 London PTMD
lP
Sarlux Cooling Tower Fan 2000 Sardinia PTMD

Ube Stack 2000 Ube PTMD
Park Tower 2000 Chicago, IL PTMD
na
Incheon International Airport

2001 Incheon HMD
Control Tower
ur
The Trump World Tower 2001 New York PTMD

MS Deutschland, Cruise Liner 2001 Germany PTMD
Jo
Nykredit´s New Domicil floor 2001 Denmark PTMD

One Wall Centre Tower 2001 Vancouver PTMD
Hotel Nikko Bayside Osaka 2001 Osaka HMD
Dentsu Head Office Building 2001 Tokyo HMD
Izumi Garden Tower 2002 Tokyo HMD
Prudential Tower 2002 Tokyo HMD
Spire of Dublin 2003 Dublin PTMD
Nihon Terebi Tower 2003 Tokyo HMD
Shiodome Tower 2003 Tokyo HMD
Shiodome Media Tower 2003 Tokyo HMD
Refab2 2003 Brazil PTMD
Al Rostamani Tower 2003 Dubai PTMD
Neue Terassen, Floor Slabs 2003 Dresden PTMD
Bergen Gym Floor 2003 Bergen PTMD
21st Century Tower 2003 Dubai PTMD
Highcliff 2003 Hong Kong PTMD
Roppongi T-Cube 2003 Tokyo HMD
Kochi Airport Control Tower 2003 Kochi HMD
Taipei 101 2004 Taipei PTMD
Takamatsu Symbol Tower 2004 Takamatsu HMD
Bloomberg Tower 2004 New York PTMD
DoCoMo Telecommunications
2004 Osaka PTMD
Tower
New Kanden Building 2004 Osaka HMD
Central Japan Airport Control
2005 Aichi HMD
Tower
NEC Tamagawa Renaissance
2005 Kawasaki HMD
City
Araucano Park 2005 Santiago de Chile PTMD
Theatro Diana Spectator
2005 Guadalajara PTMD
Balconies
Bright Start Tower (Millennium
2005 Dubai PTMD
f
Tower)
oo
Radar Tower 2005 Bilbao PTMD
Refinery Tower 2005 Budapest PTMD
r
Meteorological Radar Tower 2005 Catalunya Province PTMD
Triumph Palace
Akasaka Intercity
2005
2005
-p Moscow
Tokyo
PTMD
HMD
re
Toranomon Towers Residence 2006 Tokyo HMD
United States Air Force
2006 Virginia PTMD
lP
Memorial
Anzen Building 2007 Tokyo HMD
Grand Canyon Skywalk 2007 Arizona PTMD
na
Aspire Tower 2007 Doha PTMD

Villa Magura Odobesti 2008 Odobesti PTMD
ur
Al Mas Tower 2008 Dubai PTMD

Jacky Wellhead 2008 UK PTMD
Jo
Toronto Art Gallery Ceiling 2008 Toronto PTMD

Shanghai World Financial
2008 Shanghai HMD
Center
Comcast Center 2008 Philadelphia, PA PTMD
ShenZhen WuTong Mountain
2009 ShenZhen PTMD
Tower
Lanxess Chemical Plant 2009 Ontario PTMD
Shanghai Expo Area Galleries 2009 Shanghai PTMD
QEEC floor 2009 Doha PTMD
Almas Tower 2009 Dubai PTMD
Estela de la Luz 2010 Mexico City PTMD
Danube City Tower 2010 Vienna SATMD
Goldman Sachs Headquarters 2010 New York PTMD
LAX Theme Building 2010 Los Angeles PTMD
Offshore Windpark Belwind,
2010 Belgium PTMD
OHVS Station
Chimney Ramla 2010 Israel PTMD
Singapur Skypark 2010 Singapur PTMD
The Austonian 2010 Austin PTMD
Canton Tower 2010 Guangzhou HMD
Alphabetic Tower 2011 Batumi SATMD
Kingkey Finance Tower 2011 Shenzhen AMD
Civic Center 2011 New York PTMD
Tokyo Skytree 2012 Tokyo PTMD
Ivanpah Solar Tower 2012 California PTMD
ArcelorMittal Orbit Tower 2012 London PTMD
Windseeker-Carrowinds 2012 North Carolina PTMD
23 Marina 2013 Dubai PTMD
Giant Wheel - High Roller 2013 Las Vegas PTMD
Shanghai Tower 2014 Shanghai PTMD
Olympic Flame Monument 2014 Sochi PTMD
Flagpole 2014 Wisconsin PTMD
f
oo
Abeno Harukas 2014 Osaka HMD
Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower 2015 Delhi PTMD
r
Las Vegas Control Tower
Socar Tower
2016
2016
-p Las Vegas
Baku
PTMD
PTMD
re
Rottweil Test Tower 2017 Rottweil HMD
Ping An Finance Centre 2017 Shenzhen HMD
lP
150 North Riverside 2017 Chicago PTMD

Nan Shan Plaza 2018 Taipei PTMD
111 Murray Street 2018 New York PTMD
na

50 West 2018 New York PTMD
ur
100 East 53rd Street 2018 New York PTMD

Muscat International Airport 2018 Oman PTMD
Jo
Madison Square Park Tower 2018 New York PTMD

53 West 53rd 2019 New York PTMD
220 Central Park South 2019 New York PTMD
The Centrale 2019 New York PTMD
The Address Residence Sky
2019 Dubai PTMD
View Tower 1
Crown Sydney Hotel and Resort 2020 Sydney PTMD
One Vanderbilt Avenue 2020 New York PTMD
Central Park 2020 New York PTMD
Flagpole 2021 Egypt PTMD
Turkevi Center 2021 New York PTMD
111 West 57th Street 2021 New York PTMD
Greenwich 2022 New York PTMD
The One UC Toronto PTMD
M3 at M City UC Mississauga PTMD
Jeddah Tower UC Jeddah PTMD
f
oo
r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

1 s2.0 S266616592200028X Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S266616592200028X Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Lefteris Koutsoloukas, Nikolaos Nikitas, Petros Aristidou

To appear in: Developments in the Built Environment

Received Date: 20 July 2022

© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

13 a noticeable increase was recorded

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

reliable operation Yang et al. (2021).

adaptiveness by gathering information about the structural

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 1 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 2 of 33

200 are reported in the literature 228 research focus.

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 3 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 4 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 5 of 33

507 Colherinhas et al. (2019) studied the optimal parameter563

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 6 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 7 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 8 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 9 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 10 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 11 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 12 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 33

1461 tions, more accurate conclusions may be drawn in the fol-

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 15 of 33

1545 To gather the most relevant literature, a screening pro-1600 world?

As it can be seen, China, Japan, United States, Taiwan and

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 16 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 17 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 18 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 19 of 33

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 20 of 33

Structure Year Location Type of Control

Fukuoka Tower 1989 Fukuoka PTMD

Higashiyama Sky Tower 1989 Nagoya PTMD

Fernsehturm Tower 1990 Berlin PTMD

Huis Ten Bosch Domtoren 1990 Nagasaki PTMD

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 21 of 33

Ando Nishikicho Building 1993 Tokyo HMD

Sea Hawk Hotel and Resort 1995 Fukuoka PTMD

Nissei Dowa Sonpo Phoenix Tower 1995 Osaka HMD

Regensburg Siemens Building 1996 Regensburg PTMD

Artwork The Asylum 1996 Rotterdam PTMD

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 22 of 33

Odakyu Southern Tower 1998 Tokyo HMD

Incheon International Airport

Nykredit´s New Domicil floor 2001 Denmark PTMD

Hotel Nikko Bayside Osaka 2001 Osaka HMD

Prudential Tower 2002 Tokyo HMD

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 23 of 33

Villa Magura Odobesti 2008 Odobesti PTMD

Toronto Art Gallery Ceiling 2008 Toronto PTMD

ShenZhen WuTong Mountain

Lanxess Chemical Plant 2009 Ontario PTMD

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 24 of 33

Tokyo Skytree 2012 Tokyo PTMD

100 East 53rd Street 2018 New York PTMD

30 Hudson Yards 2019 New York PTMD

The Centrale 2019 New York PTMD

The Address Residence Sky View

L Koutsoloukas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 25 of 33