Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 77&78 (1998) 269—281

Viscoelastic damping for wind-excited motion

of a five-story building frame
Kang-Pyo Cho *, Jack E. Cermak , Ming-Lai Lai
, Edmond J. Nielsen

Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA

The 3M Company, Building 201-1N-35, St. Paul, MN 55144, USA

Abstract

A 1/12 scale five-story full aeroelastic building model equipped with viscoelastic dampers is
designed and tested in a boundary layer wind tunnel to investigate the effectiveness of
viscoelastic dampers in suppressing wind-induced building motion. The degree of reduction in
free-decaying curves and RMS accelerations is used as a measure of effectiveness of added
viscoelastic dampers. Two different target damping levels, namely, 10% and 15% were pursued
by different dimensions but the same kind of viscoelastic material. Experimental results show
that significant improvement of structural performance under wind load can be realized with
addition of viscoelastic dampers. Also the result of damper property tests show that when
viscoelastic dampers are applied to wind-excited buildings or structures, in particular the
number of loading cycles and strain range during a severe wind event must be taken into
account.  1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Viscoelastic dampers; Vibrational energy; Wind tunnel

1. Introduction

Even though most building structures do not have safety problems during strong
winds, wind-excited motion may result in excessive accelerations of buildings that can
cause discomfort to building occupants. Furthermore, excessive motion can create
noise, crack partitions, damage curtain walls, reduce fatigue life, and cause malfunc-
tion of elevators. Because of these adverse effects on building performance, much
attention is being given to reduction of dynamic response by addition of damping
systems.
Conventional building design relies on strategies of high stiffness and ductility to
control wind-induced motions, which requires large structural members and heavy

* Corresponding author.

0167-6105/98/$ — see front matter  1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 4 9 - 4
270 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281

structural detailing. A strategy for substantially increasing the damping forces of

buildings, and consequently reducing the structural vibrations [6—12], has been
investigated. In this study, viscoelastic dampers were utilized to carry out the strategy.
Viscoelastic dampers as an energy dissipation device can be used to increase the
overall damping of buildings and structures, and accordingly to reduce the wind-
induced building vibrations. Basically, a viscoelastic damper is a device consisting of
viscoelastic layers bonded to steel or aluminum plates (see Fig. 1). When a building
vibrates under wind action, relative motion between floors causes the viscoelastic
damper to experience shear deformation and the vibration energy of the building is
dissipated by the viscoelastic material.
The viscoelastic dampers to reduce vibration were first utilized in 1969 on the Twin
World Trade Center Tower, New York [1]. In recent years, viscoelastic dampers have
been used to reduce wind-induced vibration of tall buildings and structures such as
the Columbia SeaFirst (1982) and Two Union Square (1988), Seattle; and the Chien-
Tan railroad station roof, Taipei (1994). It is difficult and expensive to provide
accurate assessment of the effectiveness of viscoelastic dampers using prototype
structures partly due to insufficient wind data and disallowance of the building
owners. To efficiently apply viscoelastic dampers to wind-sensitive structures, a sys-
tematic study is necessary using a full aeroelastic model in the boundary layer wind
tunnel. In the wind-tunnel study, a quantitative comparison of the responses of the
building between the undamped and damped cases can be accurately provided.
The experimental study was conducted in two phases: (1) damper property tests for
wind load application; and (2) wind-tunnel tests using a model structure with vis-
coelastic dampers installed. Two different damping levels (10% and 15% critical

Fig. 1. Test setup of damper with dimensions of viscoelastic material.

 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281 271

damping ratios) were pursued by using different damper dimensions but utilizing the
same kind of viscoelastic material. These damping levels were designated as type
A and B dampers, respectively. The dampers were made of viscoelastic material
(3M-ISD 112) provided by the 3M Company. To investigate the effectiveness of
viscoelastic dampers in suppressing wind-induced vibration, a series of wind-tunnel
tests of a full aeroelastic building model with added viscoelastic dampers was conduc-
ted in the Meteorological Wind Tunnel (MWT) of Colorado State University.

2. Application of viscoelastic dampers

2.1. Damper property tests

The properties and damping mechanism of viscoelastic dampers are briefly present-
ed below. The main purpose of the damper property tests was to obtain the shear
storage modulus, G, shear loss modulus, G, and loss factor, g ("G/G) and to
determine their variation with change in the shear strain and the number of loading
cycles. These properties are a function of temperature, excitation frequency, loading
cycles, and shear strain [2]. In this test, however, the ambient temperature was set to
room temperature (24°C), excitation frequency 5.0 Hz, and loading cycles 3000. When
the viscoelastic damper is applied to wind-excitation, the number of loading cycles
must be taken into account. According to Chang et al. [2] as the number of cycles
increases the temperature within the viscoelastic material increases and consequently
the damper properties may be changed. The 3000 cycles came from the assumption
that a hurricane in the field lasts for 1 h. Therefore, the time scale was calculated as
follows:

¸ 1 » 1 ¹ j 1
j " " , j " " , j " " * " ,
* ¸ 12 4 » 2 2 ¹ j 6
   4
where j , j , and j are length scale, velocity scale, and time scale, respectively. The
* 4 2
calculation for ¹ gives the following result: ¹ "¹ /6"3600/6"600 s. Consider-

ing that the fundamental frequency is about 5.0 Hz the number of cycles is
600;5"3000.
A typical damper was used in the testing program. Shear deformation of the
viscoelastic material was monitored by a linear variable differential transformer
(LVDT) which is attached to the testing machine. Tests were carried out on a MTS
closed-loop feedback hydraulic testing machine with a 2446 N capacity range of low
force load cell, and the LVDT was connected through the ram control panel to the
data acquisition computer unit. One thermocouple monitored the environmental
temperature. The testing machine was set for displacement control. In this mode,
the signal was recorded from a function generator which was set to deliver a sine
function with four different amplitudes, namely, each amplitude of 0.10, 0.14, 0.20, and
0.24 cm and a loading frequency of 5.0 Hz. Fig. 1 shows the damper dimension and
test setup.
272 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281

The results obtained from these tests were in the form of hysteresis loops, expressing
force versus displacement, as shown in Fig. 2, when undergoing harmonic deforma-
tion. It was observed that energy dissipation capacity decreases as the shear goes up. It
is implied that temperature rise within the viscoelastic material is closely related to
shear strain, especially in large number of loading cycles. From these loops, the
properties of viscoelastic damper were calculated and listed in Table 1. The calcu-
lation is described in greater detail in Refs. [3,4].

Fig. 2. Force—displacement hysteresis loops (5.0 Hz, 24°C). (a) Shear strain of 21%, (b) shear strain of
30%, (c) shear strain of 43%, (d) shear strain of 52%.

Table 1
The properties of viscoelastic damper (5.0 Hz, 24°C)

Shear strain No. of cycles ¼ (N/cm) K (N/cm) G (N/cm) G (N/cm) Loss factor

21% First cycle 21.32 973.05 32.86 32.60 0.99

3000th cycle 11.87 582.58 20.96 18.13 0.87
30% First cycle 40.65 952.86 32.34 31.76 0.98
3000th cycle 18.07 445.29 15.79 14.12 0.89
43% First cycle 83.22 947.03 31.82 31.89 1.00
3000th cycle 25.56 367.38 14.47 9.80 0.68
52% First cycle 119.11 932.35 31.05 31.67 1.02
3000th cycle 31.83 314.69 12.35 8.46 0.69
 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281 273

Fig. 3 shows a typical out-of-phase effect of the viscoelastic damper (21% shear
strain) in the first few cycles of force—displacement time series. Although the force
amplitude is proportional to that of displacement, force leads displacement by a phase
angle
/u. This phase difference causes the damping effect. The force and the
displacement were normalized by their maximum amplitudes to show the phase on
the same graph.

2.2. Design of viscoelastic dampers

The following brief discussion of the design procedure of viscoelastic dampers is

taken from Ref. [5]. Viscoelastic dampers were designed by the selection of the
required damping ratio, damper stiffness, and loss factor. In general, the required
damping ratio can be estimated by using the response spectra of the design wind with
various damping ratios. In this study, it was selected as 10 and 15% critical damping
ratios. The selection of damper stiffness and loss factor can be made by trial and error
procedure or based on the principle that the added stiffness from the viscoelastic
dampers be proportional to the distribution of the total structural stiffness in each
floor. This can be obtained by modifying the modal strain energy method for each
story as

2f
k" k, (1)
 g!2f 

where k is the structural stiffness without added dampers at each story, k is the
 
effective damper stiffness contribution to each story, and f is the desired damping
ratio. Since two dampers were used in each story, the required damper stiffness, k was

determined to be one half of the value calculated from Eq. (1). Once a viscoelastic
material with known G and G at the designed frequency and temperature is selected,
the thickness t, of the viscoelastic material can be chosen to be large enough to ensure

Fig. 3. Out-of-phase effect of viscoelastic damper (21%).

274 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281

that the expected maximum strain in the viscoelastic material is smaller than the
ultimate strain. The total area, A, of the damper can be calculated as:

kt
A" , (2)
G

where k is the damper stiffness equal to k /cos h. The angle h, between the bracing

member and the floor is 23.5° and 33.1° in the x-direction and y-direction, respective-
ly. Since the damper has two viscoelastic layers, the area of each layer will be one half
of the value calculated from Eq. (2). For the type A damper, it was designed as 1.90 cm
long, 1.27 cm wide, and 0.46 cm thick. The type B damper has the same width and
thickness but is 4.05 cm long.

3. Experimental set-up and procedure

A five-story full aeroelastic building model (Fig. 4) was designed and constructed
using the scaling factors shown in Table 2. It was made of brass and its beams and
columns were connected with gas tungsten-arc welding (referred as TIG welding). The
model is 117.0 cm high, 50.0 cm wide, and 33.3 cm deep. Each column section is
1.80 cm;1.04 cm, y-direction beam section is 1.24 cm;0.74 cm, and x-direction
beam section is 1.17 cm;0.48 cm. Floor masses were simulated with brass plates
which match concrete blocks on the full-scale building. The mass is 11.40 kg for the

Fig. 4. Building frame model.

 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281 275

Table 2
Aeroelastic scaling

Property Modeling parameters Value used

Length ¸ /¸ 1/12

Velocity » /» 1/2

Time ¹ /¹ "» ¸ /» ¸ 1/6
  
Density o /o 1

Mass m /m "o ¸ /o ¸ 5.79;10\
  
Frequency N /N 6

Force F /F "o ¸ ¹/o ¸¹ 1.736;10\
   
Inertia J /J "o ¸ /o ¸ 4.018;10\
  
Stiffness K /K "o ¸ ¹/o ¸¹ 2.08;10\
   
Moment M /M "o ¸ ¹/o ¸¹ 1.447;10\
   
Damping f /f 1

Note: m, model quantity; p, prototype quantity.

first floor, 11.20 kg for the second through fourth floors and 11.06 kg for the top floor.
The cladding was simulated with coated-cloth that added a small increase in damping.
The model was mounted on the turntable which is supported on a steel pipe that is
very stiff compared to the model. As previously mentioned, two damping levels were
pursued to investigate the effectiveness of viscoelastic dampers in reducing the
dynamic response of the building. The dampers were designed with damper properties
in the 3000th cycle to consider the number of loading cycles. Twenty dampers for each
type damper were installed as bracing members of the model. When the building
vibrates during a severe wind event, the viscoelastic dampers undergo fluctuating
strains. The viscoelastic material within the dampers experience the shear deformation
and consequently dissipate the vibration energy of the building. The heat generated in
the viscoelastic material is dissipated through the steel plates of the damper. The
dampers were connected with machine screws at both ends.
Three accelerometers manufactured by Entran devices, Inc. (EGA-125*-50D) were
mounted at the top of the model. Two accelerometers were placed in the center to
measure two horizontal accelerations and one on the edge of the x-direction beam to
measure a torsional acceleration (see Fig. 5). The signals from the accelerometers were
filtered and amplified prior to being stored on the computer hard disk. The acceler-
ometers and signal conditioning equipment were calibrated at the start of the experi-
ment. Acceleration signals were sampled and analyzed using the Lab VIEW
environment in conjunction with a DaqBook/200 data acquisition board. The experi-
ments were performed in the MWT of the Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Laboratory
at Colorado State University, Fort Collins. The test area has a cross section of
2 m;2 m and a length of 26.8 m. In order to compare the acceleration responses
between the damped and undamped cases, mean wind speed was fixed to 15 m/s. The
mean wind speed was measured using a pitot tube probe in the test section of the
MWT.
276 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281

Fig. 5. Location of accelerometers.

4. Experimental results

Free vibration tests were conducted with the model fixed on the turntable before
testing in the wind tunnel began. The results of free vibration tests were analyzed to
give the dynamic properties of the model. In addition to free vibration tests, degree of
reduction in real-time acceleration histories, RMS accelerations, and acceleration
response spectra is used as a measure of effectiveness of added viscoelastic dampers.
Effect of angle of wind attack on the effectiveness of the dampers is also presented.

4.1. Free vibration tests

Free vibration tests were carried out by pulling and suddenly releasing the model
structure. Fig. 6 shows free vibration decaying curves for the damped and undamped
cases. The test results were analyzed to give the dynamic properties of the model. The
fundamental frequencies and damping ratios were calculated by the logarithmic
decrement method.
The free-decaying curves show that the model structure was highly damped by
addition of viscoelastic dampers. It implies that the viscoelastic dampers absorbed
and dissipated some of the vibration energy of the model. It is also observed that the
fundamental frequency was increased due to the added stiffness from the viscoelastic
dampers. It is interesting to note that the measured damping ratios were in good
agreement with the designed damping ratios.

4.2. Acceleration time histories

Fig. 7 shows along-wind acceleration time series for a wind of 15 m/s blowing
normal (h"0°) to the wide face of the model. The reductions in standard deviation of
acceleration responses were generally in the range of 65—80% depending on the wind
 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281 277

Fig. 6. Free-decaying vibrations of the building model. (a) No dampers, (b) Type A damper, (c) Type
B damper.

Fig. 7. Along-wind acceleration time series (h"0°). (a) No dampers (RMS"0.033 g), (b) Type A damper
(RMS"0.017 g), (c) Type B damper (RMS"0.010 g).
278 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281

direction. Fig. 8 shows cross-wind acceleration time series when wind blew to the wide
face of the model. Such a significant decrease in cross-wind responses also demon-
strate the effectiveness of the viscoelastic dampers on the wind excitation mechanism.

4.3. Normalized acceleration response spectra

Acceleration spectra at the top of the building model with and without viscoelastic
dampers are shown in Fig. 9. They were obtained by fast Fourier transform of the
recorded acceleration response signals. The spectra were normalized by p for
V
along-wind spectra and by p for cross-wind spectra, in which p and p are the
W V W
along-wind standard deviation and cross-wind standard deviation of accelerations of
the model without dampers.
Both along-wind spectra and cross-wind spectra indicated that the vibration energy
of the building model was dissipated by the viscoelastic dampers used. The first mode
energy in both spectra was shifted to a higher frequency compared to that of the
model without dampers. As seen in free vibration tests, this was caused by the addition

Fig. 8. Cross-wind acceleration time series (h"0°). (a) No dampers (RMS "0.066 g), (b) Type A damper
(RMS "0.020 g), (c) Type B damper (RMS "0.013 g).
 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281 279

Fig. 9. Normalized acceleration response spectra. (a) Along-wind response, (b) cross-wind response.

Fig. 10. Effect of angle of wind attack on the structural dynamic responses.

of stiffness from the viscoelastic dampers. The cross-wind spectrum reveals that the
dampers are not as effective in damping energy at the vortex shedding frequency
(3.8 Hz) as for other frequencies. This finding is the result of well organized vortex
shedding from the isolated model building and will not be a dominant effect for
buildings surrounded by many other buildings.

4.4. Effect of angle of wind attack

In the design of tall buildings, strong wind from all possible wind directions must be
considered. Fig. 10 shows the effect of angle of wind attack on the structural dynamic
responses. Wind direction was changed in 10° increments. It was obvious that the
effectiveness of the viscoelastic dampers was maintained at all angles of concern. It is
shown that wind-induced motions were already suppressed in the 10% damping level.
When the wind approached normal to the face of the model, there was a big
cross-wind response due to vortex shedding. The most severe case was when the wind
was normal to the wide face of the model.
280 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281

5. Conclusions

Damper property tests were carried out for wind applications prior to the wind-
tunnel tests. The test results showed that the number of loading cycles must be taken
into account under large deformation of viscoelastic dampers in wind applications.
Two different damping levels were studied that gave the 10 and 15% critical damping
ratios for the building. It is interesting to note that the measured damping ratios were
in good agreement with the designed damping ratios.
The preliminary wind-tunnel test results imply that the 10% damping level can
almost suppress the vibration of the model under low turbulence intensity. The effect
of very high turbulent intensity and large scale such as for concentrations of tall
buildings in downtown areas on the effectiveness of the viscoelastic dampers requires
further study. The reductions in standard deviations of acceleration responses were
generally in the range 65—80%, depending on the angle of wind attack. The effec-
tiveness of the viscoelastic dampers was maintained at all wind angles.
The free vibration tests and the acceleration response spectra showed that the
viscoelastic dampers experienced shear deformation during motion of the model and
effectively dissipated some of the vibrational energy. It was also observed that there is
a shift of the fundamental frequency to higher frequency. Increase in the fundamental
frequencies indicated that the building model stiffness was increased by addition of the
viscoelastic dampers.
Finally, it may be concluded that the viscoelastic dampers are very effective in
suppressing the wind-induced vibration of buildings or structures. In wind-excited
application, the change of damper properties due to temperature increase within the
viscoelastic material may be reduced by a device, which can quickly transfer heat
generated in the material to the outside, such as aluminium rods embedded in
viscoelastic material or bonding to aluminum plates instead of steel plates.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the 3M Company for supplying the viscoelastic dampers
used in these experiments. The financial support provided by the 3M Company under
Grant No. 5-3 6873 is also gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1] P. Mahmoodi, L.E. Yontar, M.C. Moy, S.L. Feld, Performance of viscoelastic damper in World Trade
Center Towers, Proc. Struct. Cong., Orlando, FL, August 1987, pp. 632—644.
[2] K.C. Chang, T.T. Soong, S.T. Oh, M.L. Lai, Seismic response of a 2/5 scale steel structure with added
viscoelastic dampers, Technical Report NCEER-91-0012, State University of New York, Buffalo,
1991.
[3] P. Mahmoodi, Structural dampers, J. Struct. Div. ASCE 95 (ST8) (1972) 1661—1672.
[4] R.H. Zhang, T.T. Soong, P. Mahmoodi, Seismic response of steel frame structures with added
viscoelastic dampers, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 18 (3) (1989) 389—396.
 K.-P. Cho et al./J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 77&78 (1998) 269–281 281

[5] S.T. Oh, K.C. Chang, M.L. Lai, E.J. Nielsen, Seismic response of viscoelastically damped structure
under strong earthquake ground motions, Proc. 10th World Conf. of Earthquake Engineering,
Madrid, Spain, 1992.
[6] R.C. Lin, Z. Liang, T.T. Soong, R.H. Zhang, An experimental study on seismic behavior of viscoelasti-
cally damped structures, Eng. Struct. 13 (1991) 75—84.
[7] R.E. Whitbread, Model simulation of wind effects on structures, Proc. Conf. on Wind Effects on
Buildings and Structures, vol. 1, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK, 1963, pp. 284—301.
[8] J.S. Bendat, A.G. Piersol, Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures, Wiley/Interscience,
New York, 1971.
[9] J.E. Cermak, Advances in physical modeling for wind engineering, J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 113 (5) (1971)
737—756.
[10] S.L. Feld, Superstructure for 1350 ft World Trade Center, Civil Eng. ASCE (1971) 66—70.
[11] T. Goto, Studies on wind-induced motion of tall buildings based on occupants reactions, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 13 (1983) 241—252.
[12] C.J. Keel, P. Mahmoodi, Performance of viscoelastic structural dampers for the Columbia Center
Building, Building Motion Wind ASCE (1986) 83—107.