Available

Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 00
00 (2017)
(2017) 000–000
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 1568–1573

X International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2017

Control of Adjacent Buildings Using Shared Tuned Mass

Damper
Z. Guenidiaa, M. Abdeddaima,a,*, A. Ounisaa, M.K. Shrimalibb, T.K. Dattabb
a
a LARGHYDE
LARGHYDE Laboratory,
Laboratory, Department
Department ofof civil
civil engineering
engineering and
and hydraulics,
hydraulics, Faculty
Faculty of
of sciences
sciences and
and technology
technology Mohamed
Mohamed Khider
Khider University,
University, BP
BP
145
145 RP,Biskra
RP,Biskra 07000,
07000, Algeria
Algeria
bb
Center
Center of
of disaster
disaster mitigation
mitigation and
and management,
management, Malaviya
Malaviya National
National Institute
Institute of
of Technology
Technology Jaipur,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
Rajasthan 302017,
302017, India
India

Abstract
Abstract

Seismic
Seismic control
control of
of adjacent
adjacent buildings
buildings has has received
received considerable
considerable attention
attention in
in recent
recent years
years because
because of of two
two reasons:
reasons: i)i) for
for the
the control
control
of
of the
the response
response of of the
the two
two buildings
buildings simultaneously
simultaneously by by aa single
single control
control device
device and
and ii)
ii) for
for the
the reduction
reduction of of the
the possibility
possibility of of
interaction
interaction between
between the the two
two buildings.
buildings. Various
Various types
types of
of coupling
coupling devices
devices have
have been
been introduced
introduced and and their
their effectiveness
effectiveness in in
controlling
controlling thethe responses
responses of of the
the adjacent
adjacent building
building isis studied.
studied. Out
Out of of the
the different
different types
types of
of the
the coupling
coupling devices,
devices, MR MR damper
damper is is one
one
which
which is is widely
widely investigated.
investigated. In In this
this paper,
paper, the
the responses
responses of of the
the two
two buildings
buildings areare controlled
controlled byby using
using two
two strategies:
strategies: i)i) aa shared
shared
tuned
tuned mass
mass damper
damper (TMD)(TMD) andand ii)
ii) aa hybrid
hybrid system
system using
using both
both aa TMD
TMD and and aa MR
MR damper.
damper. The The shared
shared TMD
TMD is is mounted
mounted suchsuch that
that
it
it can
can effectively
effectively control
control the
the responses
responses of of both
both buildings
buildings and
and it
it is
is tuned
tuned toto the
the fundamental
fundamental frequencies
frequencies of of (i)
(i) the
the coupled
coupled structure
structure
and
and (ii)
(ii) the
the two
two adjacent
adjacent buildings
buildings vibrating
vibrating separately.
separately. The
The shared
shared TMD TMD has has the
the obvious
obvious advantage
advantage that
that the
the two
two separate
separate TMDs
TMDs
are
are not required to control the two buildings separately. The response control includes the control of the top story displacement,
not required to control the two buildings separately. The response control includes the control of the top story displacement,
base
base shear
shear andand maximum
maximum drift.drift. Results
Results ofof the
the study
study show
show thatthat i)
i) aa shared
shared TMDTMD cancan provide
provide adequate
adequate response
response reduction
reduction
compared
compared to to that
that obtained
obtained byby using
using twotwo TMDs
TMDs separately,
separately, ii)
ii) the
the frequency
frequency ratio
ratio between
between thethe two
two adjacent
adjacent building
building isis the
the most
most
important
important parameter
parameter which
which dictates
dictates the
the response
response reduction,
reduction, iii)
iii) the
the hybrid
hybrid control
control provides
provides aa significant
significant improvement
improvement in in response
response
reduction
reduction over
over that
that obtained
obtained byby aa shared
shared TMD
TMD alone.
alone.
©
© 2017
2017 TheThe Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
© 2017 The Authors.
Peer-review Published by
under responsibility of Elsevier Ltd. committee of EURODYN 2017.
the organizing
Peer-review
Peer-review underunder responsibility
responsibility of of the organizing committee
the organizing committee of of EURODYN
EURODYN 2017. 2017.
Keywords:
Keywords: Adjacent
Adjacent buildings;
buildings; shared
shared tuned
tuned mass
mass damper;
damper; pounding;
pounding; hybrid
hybrid control.
control.

*
* Corresponding
Corresponding author.
author. Tel.:
Tel.: +213-797-11-07-77;
+213-797-11-07-77; fax:
fax: +213-54-31-92.
+213-54-31-92.
E-mail
E-mail address:
address: m.abdeddaim@univ-biskra.dz
m.abdeddaim@univ-biskra.dz

1877-7058
1877-7058 ©© 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the organizing
organizing committee
committee of
of EURODYN
EURODYN 2017.
2017.

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.059
 Z. Guenidi et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 1568–1573 1569
2 Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Introduction

In recent years, major earthquakes around the world have caused a large range of damages in structures, which
reveal the importance of structural control systems for seismic hazard mitigation. Several after effects occur during
strong earthquakes. Usually, they are more dangerous and destructive in nature than the earthquake itself. In a cluster
of buildings the mutual impacts between adjacent buildings known as pounding or hammering is an after effect
phenomenon of strong earthquakes, this has been observed during Mexico City earthquake, 1985, Loma Prieta
earthquake, 1989, Kobe earthquake, 1995, and recently Christchurch earthquake, 2011, which enhance the
importance of employing a control strategy for adjacent buildings.
Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) are considered as one of the most used passive control devices; it consists of a mass
connected to the primary structure by a spring and a viscous damper. TMDs have been employed in a large number
of structures around the word [1]. The formulation for a classic TMD design is described by Den Hartog [2].
A shared TMD was first proposed by Abdullah, Hanif [3], it consists of connecting two adjacent buildings with a
TMD to reduce both the structure vibration and pounding hazard. However, this strategy can be limited in case of
detuning condition occurrence. The formulation of a shared TMD assumes that the natural frequency and mass of the
controlled structures are known. However, the estimated natural frequency and mass can differ from the real ones
due to estimation errors. Those effects will result in a suboptimal shared TMD tuning or even a mistuning, and
thereby a loss of damping in the controlled structure [4].
Magneto-rheological (MR) dampers are considered as semi-active devices and are widely used in structural
vibration control in both civil and mechanical fields [5-7]. The efficiency of MR damper was proved through many
research works under different control strategies [8-14]. MR damper and TMD have been combined to form both
hybrid and semi-active control strategies. The conventional MR-STMD consists of mass, spring and MR damper,
assembled to form a semi-active unit, not many literatures exist on the subject. A new semi-active control device
combining classic TMD and MR damper was proposed by Lin, Chung [15], it was observed that STMD can improve
the efficiency of TMD. Weber, Boston [16] presented a new adaptive TMD whose stiffness and damping can be
tuned in real time to the controlled structure frequencies, and this can be achieved by replacing the traditional oil
damper in the TMD by MR damper.
The positive results obtained using a combination of a MR damper and TMD motivated the use of such
combination in a shared TMD configuration presented in this study. Hence, a shared TMD is used to control seismic
vibration in two adjacent buildings using a classical shared TMD and a hybrid combination of a shared TMD and a
MR damper. Results of each control strategy are compared in terms of top floor displacement, maximum base shear,
maximum drift and minimum seismic gap required to avoid pounding. Results show that a hybrid control strategy
performs better than a classical sharing TMD strategy. It is also shown that a hybrid sharing TMD is very effective
for a large range of frequency ratios.

Fig. 1. Structural configuration of adjacent buildings with (a) Separated TMD; (b) Shared TMD and (c) Hybrid Shared MR-TMD
1570 Z. Guenidi et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 1568–1573
Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

2. Theoretical formulation

In this study, two ten (10) story adjacent buildings were modeled as shear frames, to test the efficiently of the
proposed control strategy three structural configurations were proposed as shown in Fig.1;
a) two separated TMDs were mounted on each building (Fig.1.a) the equation of motion for this configuration
can be expressed as follow

  M rxg 
 M x  C x   K x  (1)

Where [M], [C] and [K] are the global system matrices consisting of the diagonal assembly of building (1)
and (2) matrices, the matrices are of a [22 ×22] size. x, x and x are the global system acceleration, velocity
and displacement vectors, respectively, of a [22 ×1] size. r is the seismic influence vector and  xg  is the
ground acceleration vector.
b) Building (1) was equipped with a TMD and the TMD was shared with building (2) using a passive viscous
damper (Fig.1.b). Two tunings are proposed for this TMD a global tuning that takes in consideration the
global parameters of the coupled system and separate tuning that tunes the TMD to the building (1)
parameters and tunes the viscous damper to the building (2) parameters. The equation of motion for this case
is the same Eqs.1, However, the matrices dimension will be changed since the TMD was removed from
building (2). The [M], [C] and [K] size will be [21 ×21] and the x, x and x vectors size will be [21 ×1].
c) In this case the shared TMD will be hybridized by adding a MR damper between the TMD and the Building
(1) as it can be seen in Fig.1.c. the equation of motion in this case can be expressed as follow:

 M x  C x   K x   fmr    M rxg  (2)

In this case the matrices dimensions will be same as the case (b) and the MR damper force vector will be
represented by  f mr  and the damper force distribution vector will be represented by   in Eqs (2).

3. Numerical study results

The system of two adjacent buildings described in the previous section is considered. The adjacent buildings
were subjected to El Centro earthquake record, 1940 with a PGA of 0.34g. Four control strategies were used and
results were compared with the uncontrolled response of the adjacent buildings. The three control strategies used
can be listed as follow
 Each building was equipped with a TMD directly tuned (mass, rigidity and damping) to the dynamic properties
of the building on which it is mounted.
 Building (1) was equipped with a TMD tuned to the average dynamic properties of building (1) and (2),
respectively. The TMD was shared with the building (2) using a viscous damper.
 Building (1) was equipped with a TMD tuned to the dynamic properties of the building (1). The TMD was
shared with the building (2) using a dashpot.
 Building (1) was equipped with a hybrid MR-TMD tuned to the dynamic properties of the building (1). The
MR-TMD was shared to the building (2) using a dashpot.
For the three proposed configurations the TMD was tuned using Den Hartog [2] method. The responses
quantities investigated are the maximum top floor displacement (Δmax), the maximum base shear (Vbase) and the
maximum drift (Dmax). For the pounding hazard mitigation the minimum seismic gap required was evaluated under
the four control strategies used. The results of the numerical study are shown in tables 1-4.
From table 1, it can be seen that using a single TMD shared between two adjacent buildings can results in similar
reduction obtained using a TMD in each building. Thus, it is possible to reduce the coast by equipping only one
building with a TMD instant of two. Tuning the TMD to the global system’s dynamic properties can be more
effective than tuning it to each system separately. The use of a hybrid shared TMD can result in a significant
reduction in both adjacent buildings with an advantage for the building equipped with the MR-TMD damper. The
 Z. Guenidi et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 1568–1573 1571
4 Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

maximum percentage reduction average between building (1) and (2) is 37.23%, this percentage reduction is
obtained using a hybrid shared MR-TMD system.

Table 1: Top floor Displacement [cm] (percentage reduction)

Shared TMD
Separated Hybrid
Earthquake Building Uncontrolled Tuned
TMDs Tuned globally shared MR-TMD
separately
El Centro (1) 15.44 11.22 (27,33) 09.95 (35.62) 10.11 (34.53) 08.60 (44.33)
1940 (2) 10.41 06.05 (41.87) 07.01 (32.67) 07.34 (29.50) 07.28 (30.13)
Percentage reduction average 34.60% 34.14% 32.01% 37.23%

Table 2: Maximum base shear [N] (percentage reduction)

Shared TMD
Separated Hybrid
Earthquake Building Uncontrolled Tuned
TMDs Tuned globally shared MR-TMD
separately
8 8
El Centro (1) 2.59×10 2.11×10 (18.53) 2.27×108 (12.35) 2.37×108 (08.49) 2.34×108 (09.65)
1940 (2) 1.32×108 0.98×108 (25.75) 0.99×108 (25.00) 1.00×108 (24.24) 0.99×108 (25.00)
Percentage reduction average 22.14% 18.67% 16.36% 17.32%

Table 2 shows the maximum base shear for buildings (1) and (2) respectively, it can be observed that sharing a
TMD between two adjacent buildings can affect the maximum base shear in the building equipped with the shared
TMD, which is due to the high accelerations occurring in the TMD during the seismic excitation. Thus, it can lead to
a less reduction in the maximum base shear. Meanwhile, the reduction in building (2) is relatively constant for all
control strategies investigated in this study. The reduction average shows that it is important to tune the shared TMD
on the global system instant of tuning it separately.

Table 3: Maximum drift [cm] (percentage reduction)

Shared TMD
Separated Hybrid
Earthquake Building Uncontrolled Tuned
TMDs Tuned globally shared MR-TMD
separately
El Centro (1) 02.35 01.57 (33.19) 01.50 (36.17) 01.53 (34.89) 01.30 (44.68)
1940 (2) 01.55 00.93 (39.93) 00.97 (37.41) 01.04 (32.90) 01.04 (32.90)
Percentage reduction average 36.56% 36.79% 33.89% 38.79

The maximum drift is shown in table 3; results follow the same shape of the top floor displacement results. The
hybrid shared MR-TMD is relatively giving better results than the classical shared TMD.

Table 4: Minimum gap required to avoid pounding [cm] (percentage reduction)

Shared TMD
Separated Hybrid
Earthquake Uncontrolled Tuned
TMDs Tuned globally shared MR-TMD
separately
El Centro
17.89 09.81 (45.16) 08.99 (49.74) 09.34 (47.79) 08.41 (52.99)
1940

The minimum seismic gap required to avoid pounding between the adjacent buildings is shown in table 4.
Significant reduction of the seismic gap in obtained for all used strategies with an advantage for the hybrid shared
TMD. The reduction in seismic gap induces a reduction in the pounding hazard between the adjacent buildings.

3.1 frequency ratio effect

To study the natural frequency effect of the adjacent building, the dynamic parameters of the two adjacent
buildings were varied in such a way to create six combinations of adjacent structures connected with a shared hybrid
 1572 Z. Guenidi et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 1568–1573
Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

MR-TMD. The six study cases are defined by a frequency ratio ( ) between the natural frequencies of building (1)
and (2). The study cases are listed as follow:
 Less flexible building (1) coupled with very flexible building (2) (  = 1.29),
 Rigid building (1) coupled with very flexible building (2) (  = 1.75),
 Less flexible building (1) coupled with semi-flexible building (2) (  = 1.20),
 Rigid building (1) coupled with semi-flexible building (2) (  = 1.62),
 Less flexible building (1) coupled with flexible building (2) (  = 1.12),
 Rigid building (1) coupled with flexible building (2) (  = 1.51).

Table 5 shows the variable natural frequencies of the buildings used in this study.
Table 5. Frequency
Building (1) Building (2)
Frequency [Hz]
Less flexible Rigid Very flexible Semi-flexible flexible
f1 1.00 1.35 0.77 0.83 0.89
f2 2.98 4.02 2.30 2.49 2.66
f3 4.88 6.59 3.78 4.08 4.37
f4 6.67 8.99 5.16 5.58 5.96
f5 8.29 11.1 6.42 6.93 7.41

The buildings were subjected to El Centro earthquake and the results were represented in Fig.2. A reduction in
the response is denoted with a negative sign while an increase of the response is denoted with a positive sign.

Top floor displacement Maximu base base

Maximu shearshear Maximum DriftDrift
Maximum
-50 -50 -50 -50 -50 -50 -50

-40 -40

-40 -30 -30 -40 -40 -40 -40

Percentage variation

Percentage variation
Percentage variation

Percentage variation
Percentage variation
-20 -20
Percentage variation
Percentage variation

-30 -10 -10 -30 -30 -30 -30

0 0

-20 10 10 -20 -20 -20 -20

20 20

(1) -10 Building (1) 30 30 Building (1) (1)

Building -10 -10 Building
Building
(1) (1) -10 -10
(2) Building (2) Building
Building (2) (2) Building (2) (2)
Building
40 40

0 50 50 0 0 0 0
1,7 1,8 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,1 1,1
1,2 1,2
1,3 1,3
1,4 1,4
1,5 1,5
1,6 1,6
1,7 1,7
1,8 1,8 1,1 1,1
1,2 1,2
1,3 1,3
1,4 1,4
1,5 1,5
1,6 1,6
1,7 1,7
1,8 1,8 1,1 1,1
1,2

Frequency ratio Frequency

Frequency
ratioratio Frequency
Frequency
ratioratio

Fig. 2. Percentage variation in (Δmax) , (Vbase) and (Dmax) with respect to frequency ratio under El Centro earthquake, 1940.

In Fig. 2, it can be seen that from almost all the frequency ratios investigated a significant reduction can be obtained
for the three parameters studied in this work. However, for two particular frequencies (1.29 and 1.75) ratio the
response of building (1) undergoes less reduction even amplification; this can be explained resonance between the
building frequency and the earthquake predominant frequency. In general, it was shown that for a large interval of
frequency ratios the hybrid sharing of a TMD can be very effective with respect to the earthquake frequency
content.

4. Conclusion

The effectiveness of sharing a TMD between two adjacent buildings for seismic response reduction is
investigated in this study. Thus, two configurations of shared TMD were proposed, a classical shared TMD known
in the literature and a hybrid shared MR-TMD proposed in this study. The results show that a better reduction can be
obtained using a hybrid shared MR-TMD. The following conclusion can be drawn:
 Z. Guenidi et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 1568–1573 1573
6 Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

- The effect of a TMD can be shared from a building to another. Thus, a reduction can be obtained in both
buildings which represents an economic strategy to control two adjacent buildings with one shared device.
- The sharing can be accomplished using a passive shared TMD or hybrid shared TMD by combining a MR
damper with a TMD. However, the results obtained using a hybrid shared TMD are more significant than those
obtained using a classical shared TMD.
- The pounding hazard can be clearly mitigated by sharing a TMD between two adjacent buildings, thus the
seismic gap was considerably reduced.
- For a large range of adjacent building frequencies the effectiveness of the hybrid shared TMD is always
obtained with respect to the earthquake predominant frequencies.

References

1. Djedoui, N., A. Ounis, and M. Abdeddaim. Active Vibration Control for Base-Isolated Structures Using a
PID Controller against Earthquakes. in International Journal of Engineering Research in Africa. 2016.
Trans Tech Publ.
2. Den Hartog, J.P., Mechanical vibrations. 1985: Courier Corporation.
3. Abdullah, M.M., et al., Use of a shared tuned mass damper (STMD) to reduce vibration and pounding in
adjacent structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 30(8) (2001) p. 1185-1201.
4. Li, C. and Y. Liu, Further characteristics for multiple tuned mass dampers. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 128(10) (2002) p. 1362-1365.
5. Dyke, S., et al., An experimental study of MR dampers for seismic protection. Smart materials and
structures, 7(5) (1998) p. 693.
Top Top
6.displacementYang, G., et al., Large-scale MR fluid dampers: modeling and dynamic performance considerations.
floorfloor
displacement
Engineering Structures, 24(3) (2002) p. 309-323.
7. Choi, K.M., et al., Semi‐active fuzzy control for seismic response reduction using magnetorheological
dampers. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 33(6) (2004) p. 723-736.
8. Carlson, J. and B. Spencer Jr. Magneto-rheological fluid dampers for semi-active seismic control. in Proc.
of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Motion and Vibr. Control. 1996.
9. Sahasrabudhe, S. and S. Nagarajaiah, Experimental study of sliding base-isolated buildings with
magnetorheological dampers in near-fault earthquakes. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(7) (2005) p.
1025-1034.
10.Building Mevada, S.V. and R. Jangid, Seismic response of torsionally coupled system with semi-active variable
Building
(1) (1)
(2)dampers.
Building
Building (2) Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16(7) (2012) p. 1043-1054.
11. Cha, Y.-J., et al., Performance validations of semiactive controllers on large-scale moment-resisting frame
2 1,2
1,3 1,3
1,4 1,41,5 1,51,6 1,6 equipped
1,7 1,7
1,8 1,8 with 200-kN MR damper using real-time hybrid simulations. Journal of Structural Engineering,
Frequency
Frequency
ratioratio
140(10) (2014) p. 04014066.
12. Abdeddaim, M., et al., Reduction of Pounding Between Buildings Using Fuzzy Controller. Asian journal of
civil engineering, 7(17) (2016) p. 958-1005.
13. Azimi, M., et al., Improved semi-active control algorithm for hydraulic damper-based braced buildings.
Structural Control and Health Monitoring, (2016) p.
14. Abdeddaim, M., et al., Pounding hazard mitigation between adjacent planar buildings using coupling
strategy. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 6(3) (2016) p. 603-617.
15. Lin, P., L. Chung, and C. Loh, Semiactive control of building structures with semiactive tuned mass
damper. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 20(1) (2005) p. 35-51.
16. Weber, F., C. Boston, and M. Maślanka, An adaptive tuned mass damper based on the emulation of
positive and negative stiffness with an MR damper. Smart materials and structures, 20(1) (2010) p.
015012.