ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 283

Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark

Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional
Modes of Vibration

K. T. Tse1,*, K. C. S. Kwok2, P. A. Hitchcock1, B. Samali3 and M. F. Huang2

1CLP Power Wind/Wave Tunnel Facility, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
2Department of Civil Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
3Faculty of Engineering, The University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

(Received: 28 August 2006; Received revised form: 29 January 2007; Accepted: 27 February 2007)

Abstract: This paper describes a proposed wind-excited benchmark tall building

incorporating three-dimensional lateral-torsional modes of vibration, which is typical
of a significant number of modern tall buildings. A series of wind tunnel pressure tests
were conducted on a 1:400 scale model to determine the translational and torsional
wind forces acting on the benchmark building. A finite element model was also
constructed and mass, damping, and stiffness matrices were subsequently formulated
as an evaluation model for numerical analysis. The evaluation model was further
simplified to a state reduced-order system (ROS) using the state order reduction
method. A numerical vibration control example was conducted to demonstrate the
suppression of the wind-induced three-dimensional lateral-torsional motions using
a bi-directional tuned mass damper (TMD) incorporating two magnetorheological
(MR) dampers, one in each orthogonal direction, to act as a semi-active control
system, referred to as a smart tuned mass damper (STMD). The optimal control forces
generated by the MR dampers were obtained through the linear quadratic regulator
(LQR) to minimize the storey accelerations. The formulation details, methodology and
numerical simulation results are outlined in this paper.

Key words: wind-excited benchmark building, evaluation model, reduced-order system, performance criteria,
Smart Tuned Mass Damper (STMD), Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR).

1. INTRODUCTION The first generation wind-excited benchmark building

Over the years, there have been significant achievements
in developing structural control algorithms and devices
(e.g. Samali et al. 1985; Ankireddi and Yang 1996; Cao
et al. 1997; Yang et al. 1997; Spencer 2002; Kobori et
al. 2003). Each algorithm and device has its own merits
and was developed for particular applications. To make
direct comparisons between these algorithms and
devices, structural control benchmark problems have
been developed for earthquake and wind excitations,
respectively (Spencer et al. 1998; Yang et al. 1998).
is a 76-storey, 306 meter tall concrete office tower with
square cross-section, and it is chamfered at two diagonal
corners. Its axes of shear centre and mass centre coincide,
therefore essentially avoiding coupled lateral-torsional
motion. For further simplicity, all rotational degrees of
freedom were eliminated by static condensation,
resulting in only the lateral degrees of freedom being
retained (Yang et al. 2001). Hence, the model is
amenable to research aimed at suppressing sway
modes of vibration, such as the studies of Samali et al.

*Corresponding author. Email address: timtse@ust.hk; Fax: +852-22430040; Tel: +852-23580170.

Associate Editor: YL Xu

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007 283

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 284
Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration
(2004a, 2004b) for liquid column vibration absorbers and
active control using a fuzzy controller. The sway motions
of the benchmark building were also shown to be
mitigated successfully using sliding mode control
(Kim et al. 2004; Wu and Yang 2004). Recognising the
limitations of the first generation benchmark building,
in which only sway modes of vibration were
considered, a wind-excited benchmark tall building is
proposed that deliberately incorporates three-
dimensional (3D) lateral-torsional motions, similar to a
large number of modern tall buildings.
A series of wind tunnel pressure tests were conducted
at the CLP Power Wind/Wave Tunnel Facility (WWTF)
at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
(HKUST) to determine the translational and torsional
wind loads experienced by the building in a suburban
terrain. A finite element model was also constructed and
was used for the determination of an evaluation model,
including mass, damping and stiffness matrices. To save
computational time, the evaluation model was
subsequently condensed into a model with less degrees of
freedom while retaining the key dynamic properties,
referred to as a reduced-order system (ROS), from which
damping devices may be designed and control algorithms
evaluated. A bi-directional tuned mass damper (TMD)
integrated with a magnetorheological (MR) damper in
two orthogonal directions, acting as a semi-active
system and referred to as a smart tuned mass damper
(STMD), was employed to illustrate the mitigation of
wind-induced 3D lateral-torsional motions of the
benchmark building. The linear quadratic regulator
(LQR) was utilized to establish the target control forces,
aiming to minimize the storey accelerations, while the
MR dampers were commanded with an inverse dynamic
model to generate accurately the control forces. The
details of the formulation of the ROS, control algorithm
and inverse dynamic model, and the numerical
simulation results are presented in this paper.
2. PROPOSED BENCHMARK BUILDING
The proposed benchmark building is a 60-storey, 240
metre tall reinforced concrete structure with a uniform
rectangular cross-section of 72 m by 24 m throughout its
height, hence a corresponding aspect ratio (H:W:D) of
10:3:1, as shown in Figure 1. The total mass of the
building is almost 130,000 tonnes, resulting in a mass
density of slightly above 300 kg/m3 with a building
volume of more than 410,000 m3.
The reinforced concrete building comprises two
identical reinforced concrete cores, reinforced concrete
frames, and two steel out-rigger trusses. The reinforced
concrete perimeter frames are composed of columns at
regular spacing of 12 m, resulting in 16 perimeter
284
72 m 24 m
8m 236 m
17 Floors @ 4 m
226 m
Link beam
214 m
202 m
186 m
8m
170 m
154 m
17 Floors @ 4 m
138 m
122 m
Steel out
rigge truss
106 m
90 m
8m
70 m
17 Floors @ 4 m
Core
46 m
h h
22 m
12 m
0m
x y
Figure 1. The proposed wind-excited benchmark building.
columns on each storey, with 7 columns on each side of
the wide face and 3 columns on each side of the narrow
face of the building. The two identical reinforced concrete
cores are connected by lintel beams and were designed to
resist lateral loading such as wind. The two additional
steel out-rigger trusses, connecting the core to the outer
columns, are employed as a stabilization system at refuge
floors located at approximately one-third and two-thirds
of building height. The out-rigger trusses, which mobilize
the exterior columns to provide further resistance to
lateral loads, increase the effective structural depth of the
building in the narrow direction (i.e. along the y-axis as
shown in Figure 1). Core setbacks at the two refuge floors
cause a significant shift of mass without significantly
altering stiffness, resulting in eccentricities between
the level-by-level shear centre, mass centre and the
geometrical centre over the building height. The
asymmetrical structural configuration along the x-axis and
the associated eccentricities cause the building to
experience 3D modes of vibration.
A finite element model (FEM) was constructed using
SAP2000 to model the structural system and mass
distribution. The peripheral concrete frame members
and lintel beams connecting the cores were modelled as
space frame elements with rectangular cross-sections,
while the outrigger steel members and the concrete core
walls were modelled as truss and shell elements,
respectively. For ease of construction, the initial sizes of
concrete members were grouped into four zones as high-
rise level, mid-rise level, low-rise level and near ground
level, for which the typical dimensions of the outer colu-
mns were 1500 mm × 1000 mm, 1200 mm × 1000 mm,
1000 mm × 1000 mm, and 1000 mm × 800 mm
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007
ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 285

K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

1st mode 2nd mode 3rd mode 1.8

250
1.5
Gust wind speed
1.2 Turbuence intensity
200

z/h
0.9
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 Cat. 3
0.6

150 0.3
Height (m)

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
100 a) Normalized wind characteristics

0.0
λL = 250 m
50

log (n.S(n)/var u)
x –1.0
y
z
0
–1 0 1 –1 0 1 –1 0 1 Measured spectrum
–2.0
Figure 2. Mode shapes of the benchmark building. Harris - von Karman spectrum

respectively. The range of thickness of the core walls
varied from 200 mm to 750 mm, while the cross-
sectional areas of steel out-rigger members were 0.5 m2.
The compressive strength of concrete was assumed to be
60 MPa and the elasticity modulus was 34 GPa.
Dynamic properties such as natural frequencies of
vibration and mode shapes were determined by
executing a classical eigenvalue analysis and were
subsequently used to develop a numerical evaluation
model which can be employed to design damping
devices and to compare control algorithms. The
development and simplification of the numerical
evaluation model are discussed comprehensively later in
this paper. The mode shapes corresponding to the first
three modes of vibration, associated with storey mass
centre along the height, are displayed in Figure 2. It
should be noted that the torsional mode shapes are
multiplied by the overall radius of gyration of the
building to maintain consistent dimensions for the three
(x, y, z) components.
As intended, the first mode is a 3D lateral-torsional
mode with dominance along the y-axis, due to the
eccentricity of shear centre from mass centre along the
x-axis. The dominant mode shape was found to have a
double-curvature with contraflexure noted at mid-
height, which is a typical deflected shape of an
outrigger-core structural system. The second mode is
essentially a translational mode along the x-axis,
attributable to the symmetry of structural system in that
direction. The third mode is predominantly torsional
with a modest contribution of translation along the
y-axis. The corresponding natural frequencies are 0.116,
0.213, and 0.229 Hz, respectively.
–3.0
–2 –1 0 1 2
b) Log (n/u)
Figure 3. Wind characteristics and longitudinal wind spectrum.
3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND WIND LOADS
In order to use wind tunnel results to predict wind forces
acting on a prototype-scale structure, the characteristics
of the natural wind should be satisfactorily modelled in
the wind tunnel. The following variables are of
particular importance: (1) mean longitudinal wind
velocity at height z, U(z); (2) turbulence intensity at
height z, Iu(z); (3) power spectral density of the velocity
fluctuations, Su(n); and (4) length scale associated with
the modelled building and natural wind, λL.
For this study, a boundary layer wind model
corresponding to an open terrain (Category 3) in the
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 (Australian/New Zealand Standard
2002), was simulated using a combination of solid wooden
fences and roughness elements over a 21 m fetch length at
WWTF. The fluctuating wind velocity was measured at
various heights at the centre of the working section using a
hot-wire anemometer. Measured and target gust wind
speed profiles were normalized with respect to the value at
building height and are presented in Figure 3(a) together
with the measured and target turbulence intensity profiles.
The wind tunnel results are reasonably consistent with the
profiles suggested by the AS/NZS 1170.2:2002, with the
difference generally not exceeding 5%. It can also be seen
from Figure 3(b) that the corresponding spectrum of
longitudinal wind speed at building height is comparable to
a Harris-von Karman spectrum with a longitudinal
turbulence length scale of approximately 250 m at
prototype scale.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007 285

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 286
Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration
Figure 4. Pressure-tapped benchmark building model inside
wind tunnel.
A 1:400 scale rigid model of the benchmark building,
as shown in Figure 4, was constructed and tested at
WWTF to measure building surface pressure, from
which the alongwind, crosswind, and torsional wind
loads were determined and building responses were
estimated numerically in conjunction with the
evaluation model. The rigid model was installed with 14
layers of pressure-taps over its height with 32 pressure-
taps in each layer. The elevations of the 14 layers are
presented in Figure 1. Each pressure-tap was connected
to one of 16 ports of an ESP-16HD pressure scanner with
a 750 mm single lumen PVC tube of 1.5 mm internal-
diameter, without any restrictor. The amplitude and
phase distortion due to the tubing system were
compensated by numerical post-processing.
In order to satisfy the requirement on the minimum
Reynolds number of 5 × 104 for a building model with
sharp edges, as recommended by AWES-QAM-1-2001
(Australasian Wind Engineering Society 2001), the tests
were carried out at a mean wind speed of approximately
13 m/s at the model height, resulting in a velocity scale of
approximately 1:4 and a time scale of approximately
1:100. Surface pressures were measured at a sampling
frequency of 400 Hz, which was sufficient to measure
pressure fluctuations with frequencies of up to 2 Hz at
prototype scale, which is significantly higher than the
natural frequencies of the first 6 modes of vibration. The
pressure data were recorded for 36 s, which is equivalent
to approximately 1 hour at prototype scale. Measurements
were taken for five different incident wind angles at 22.5°
286
increments from 0° to 90°, where 0° corresponds to wind
normal to the wide face of the building.
External pressures were measured and normalized
with respect to the mean wind speed at building height.
Instantaneous pressure coefficients were determined at
each pressure-tap location and subsequently analyzed
to determine maximum, minimum, mean, and standard
deviation Cp’s. Figure 5 displays the mean pressure
coefficients measured on the surfaces of the
benchmark building model due to flow normal to the
wide face (i.e. 0°) and narrow face (i.e. 90°). Three-
dimensional flow is noted at the building top for the 0°
incident wind angle, resulting in a stagnation point at
about 80% of the building height and the pressure
distribution is symmetrical about the centreline of the
windward face. As expected for a symmetrical
building, the pressure distribution is nearly identical
for the side faces.
Eqn 1 was used subsequently to convert the measured
pressure coefficients into 14 layers of prototype scale
external wind forces,
1
Wi (t) = ρU 2 ∑ Cpij (t)∆A ij
(1)
2 j
where ρ is the density of air in kgm–3; U is the prototype
scale mean wind speed at building height in ms–1; Cpij(t)
is the pressure coefficient time history measured in the
wind tunnel at pressure-tap j in layer i; and ∆A ij is the
corresponding tributary area in m2. In this study, a 10 year
return period serviceability mean wind speed of 36.6 ms–1
at building height was used for a building located in a
coastal cyclone region, in accordance with AS/NZS
1170.2:2002. For alternative locations, the external
wind forces may be adjusted by multiplying with
U 2d / 36.62 , where U d is the desired prototype mean
wind speed at building height. Consequently, the 36 s of
recorded data were converted into equivalent 1 hour
duration, prototype scale wind forces with appropriate
time scaling, and those external wind forces were used
in the evaluation of building responses, damper design,
and control algorithms.
In view of the mode shapes computed by the FEM,
the development of the numerical evaluation model and
formulation of the equations of motion, the translational
and torsional wind forces were determined at the mass
centre of the corresponding floor. The distributed mean
wind forces along the building height are presented in
Figure 6 for incident wind angles of 0° and 90°. It is
noted that, due to the symmetrical cross-section of the
building and the simulated wind field, the mean
crosswind suction forces on the side faces are very
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007
ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 287

K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

0.7 0.6

–0

8.0
.6

– 0 0.2
220 220

6.0

– 0.– 0.2
–0.5
–0.6
0.8

–0

–
–0.6

.22

6
– 0.5
–0

3
– 0..4
– 0.6

.8
0.06

0.5

–0.7
–0

–0.7

.2

–0
– .58
0.9

–0

– 0.8
200 200

–0
.62

– 0 0.5

–0.4
.62

–0.3
.5 6

– 0.64
180 4 180
– 0.66

–0.2
0.80.7
160 160

0.66

.5

–0.52
Height (m)

Height (m)
–0
140 140
–0.64

–0.4

0.7
0.7
–0.6

6
–0.4
8
0.60.7

120 120
– 0 .58
–0
0.8

.6

0.62

–0
100 100

.18
0.6

– 0.2
0.4 0.5 0.3

80 80

–0.3
–0.5
–0.4
–0.6
0.3 0.50.4
–0.62

– 0.4 – 0.65
.5
–0.

– 0.

–0.7
–0
0.64

– 0.7
0.6
58

60 60

– 0.2
– 0.3
0.5
4
.5

40 40
–0

Side Front Side Back Front Side Back Side

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Mean pressure coefficients on the benchmark building surface for (a) incident wind angle of 0°, and (b) incident
wind angle of 90°.

Alongwind Cross-wind Torque Alongwind Cross-wind Torque

front
back resultant
220 right 220
side resultant
left
side
150 150
Height (m)

Height (m)

front

back
100 100

left
50 side 50 right
side

0 0
–50 0 50 100 – 10 0 0 100 – 50 0 50 –50 0 –50 0 50
kN/m kN/m kN-m/m kN/m kN/m kN-m/m
(a) (b)

Figure 6. Distributed mean wind forces about mass centres of the benchmark building for (a) incident wind angle of 0°, and (b) incident
wind angle of 90˚.

similar over the building height, resulting in a mean 4. MODIFICATION OF THE BENCHMARK
crosswind force essentially equal to zero. The BUILDING
alongwind force increases gradually with the increasing The wind pressure measured from the wind tunnel test
mean wind speed over the building height, reflecting was applied to the benchmark building and the
the approach wind profile. The magnitudes of the alongwind deflection at the roof level was found to
predicted torques decrease significantly at approximately significantly exceed the allowable overall drift
one-third and two-thirds of building height, suggested in BS8110 (1997), and the standard deviation
corresponding to the core set-back at those two levels. It of acceleration of the highest habitable floor exceeded
can be readily shown that the torsional wind forces values suggested in ISO6897 (1984). Although the
decrease as the mass centre offsets towards the benchmark building was deliberately designed to have
centreline while pressure distributions are symmetrical low lateral stiffness and large wind-induced responses
about the centreline as well. so that vibration control is essential, the building

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007 287

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 288
Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration
responses were so large that only a special/super control
device could suppress the motions to an acceptable
level. Therefore, the structure of the benchmark
building was modified using appropriate structural
optimization techniques.
Strength checking was performed at the outset with
the sizes of core walls ranging from 300 mm to 600 mm.
The natural frequencies of the first three modes of
vibration were consequently increased from 0.116,
0.213, and 0.229 Hz to 0.140, 0.224, and 0.262 Hz,
respectively. However, the overall stiffness of the
building system was still relatively low as only the
strength requirements were considered. Steel “belt”,
trusses were hence employed at the outriggers levels to
also mobilize other peripheral columns and improve the
overall lateral stiffness as well as torsional rigidity. A
size optimized design, which aims to satisfy the overall
drift criteria of H/400, was then carried out by
employing a drift optimization method (Chan, 1997 and
2001). Correspondingly, the natural frequencies were
increased to 0.231, 0.429 and 0.536 Hz, respectively. The
deflection at roof level was successfully reduced to a
reasonable level while vibration control was still
required to suppress accelerations to satisfy occupant
comfort criteria. The first six mode shapes of the
modified benchmark building are displayed in Figure 7.
The first mode is still a 3D lateral-torsional mode while
the second mode is no longer purely translation as the
structural system is not symmetrical after the sizing
optimization.
5. EVALUATION MODEL
The evaluation model employed to design damping
devices and to compare control algorithms in this study
is a mathematical representation of the benchmark
building with the same structural dynamic properties of
the FEM, such as mass and stiffness distributions,
natural frequencies of vibration, and mode shapes. The
evaluation model was determined based on quantities
output from the finite element software, SAP2000. The
mass and stiffness matrices were resolved in an indirect
way as SAP2000 does not provide a function to output
those matrices. The stiffness matrix K180×180 in N/m or
N⋅m/rad was firstly determined by computing the
inverse of a flexibility matrix Flex as following:
K = Flex–1 = [f1, f2, …, f179, f180]–1 (2)
in which fi = [x1, x2,…, x59, x60, y1, y2,…, y59, y60, θ1,
θ2,…, θ59, θ60]’ is the output displacement vector in
metres or radians due to the application of a unit
translational load or unit torque acting at the ith degree
of freedom, where xj, yj, are the jth storey displacements
along the x-, y-axes, respectively, and θj are the
288
rotations about the jth storey mass centre.
The mass matrix M180×180 in kg or kg⋅m2 was
determined by solving the characteristic equation:
MIΩ2 = KI (3)
where I180×180 = [I1 I2 … I180] is the modal matrix with
Ii being the ith mode shape output from SAP2000. The
diagonal matrix Ω2 is the so-called spectral matrix
containing eigenvalue elements which are the square of
the building’s natural frequencies in radians per second.
The proportional damping matrix C180×180 in N⋅s/m or
N⋅s⋅m/rad was calculated by assuming a damping ratio
of 1.0% of critical for the first six modes of vibration
using Rayleigh’s approach. It should be emphasized that
only the principal equations and procedures are outlined,
as the actual computer programming is complicated with
a large range of values (e.g. 10–5 for mode shape, and
1012 for stiffness quantities) being handled, sometimes
resulting in significant round-off error.
6. STATE REDUCED-ORDER SYSTEM
The equation of motion of the evaluation model of the
benchmark building under wind excitation can be
expressed as:
&& + Cx& + Kx = GW
Mx (4)
in which x = [x1, x2,…, x59, x60, y1, y2,…, y59, y60,
θ1,θ2,…, θ59, θ60]’ is the displacement vector in metres
or radians, W is the wind excitation vector in N or N⋅m
and G is a dimensionless excitation influence matrix
indicating the locations of wind loads. In state space
form, Eqn 4 becomes:
Z& = AZ + BW (5)
'
where Z360×360 = x' , x& '  is the state vector, A is a
system matrix and B is a location vector.
Eqn 5 is referred to as the full-order system (FOS) and
usually involves a large number of degrees of freedom. The
numerical simulation of a FOS may be computationally
expensive and time-consuming, and hence a reduced-order
system (ROS) was derived through a state reduced-order
scheme (SROS) such that the eigen properties of the
selected states and selected modes of the FOS are retained
(Wu et al. 1998). The state reduced-order scheme was
selected above other available schemes because the
retained states in the ROS maintain the physical meaning
of the FOS (e.g. storey displacement responses: xi, yi, and
θi) and hence can be measured directly by the sensors.
Eqn 5 can be rearranged and partitioned as:
&   A A  Z  B 
Z
& =    +  W
r rr re r r
(6)
Ze   A er A ee  Ze  Be 
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007
ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 289

K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

1st mode 2nd mode 3rd mode

250 250 250
y z x x y z y x z

200 200 200

Height (m)

Height (m)

Height (m)
150 150 150

100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
–1 –0.5 0 0.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 –0.5 0 0.5 1

4th mode 5th mode 6th mode

250 250 250
y z x x y z y x z

200 200 200

Height (m)

Height (m)

Height (m)
150 150 150

100 100 100

50 50 50
FOS
O ROS
0 0 0
–1 0 1 –1 0 1 –1 0 1

Figure 7. Mode shapes of FOS and ROS models of the benchmark building.

in which Zr is the state vector being retained in the implies the modal coordinates Yi of the ROS differ from
ROS. If it is assumed that only the first n modes those of the FOS. However, identical modal coordinates
contribute significantly to the response, the state vector can be preserved by modifying Eqn 9 as:
can be approximated as:
& = A* Z + B* W
Z (10)
 Zr   I rr I re   Yr   I rr  r r r r

 =    ≈   Yr (7)
Ze  I er I ee  Ye  I er 
(
A*r = Ar + Are I er I rr−1 ; )
where Irr and Ier are sub-matrices of the first n mode
shape vectors re-arranged in accordance with the
retained states and Yr is the modal coordinate vector of B*r = I rr S1' S'2 K S'n  B (11,12)
the first n modes. The modal coordinate vector in Eqn 7
was eliminated, resulting in:
where Si is the ith row vector of I–1.
The ROS for the benchmark building has been derived
Z e = I er I rr−1Z r (8) '
with Zr = x 'r , x& 'r  being the 84-dimensional retained
Substituting Eqn 8 into Eqn 6, the state equation for the state vector and x 'r = [xj, yj, θj] for values of j corres-
ROS was evaluated as: ponding to the 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 39th,

( )
43rd, 47th, 51st, 54th, 57th, and 60th storeys. The
& = A + A I I −1 Z + B W
Z (9) refuge floors at the 20th and 39th storeys and the roof
r r re er rr r r
were intentionally retained because damping devices are
It is noteworthy that the approximation made in Eqn 7 generally installed at those locations to avoid occupying

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007 289

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 290
Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration
rentable floor space. Additional storeys were selected in
order to achieve smooth mode shapes that were
comparable to those obtained from the FOS. Fourteen
storeys were selected so that they were distributed over
the building height and hence the first 42 modes (i.e.
14
3DOF) were retained in the ROS.
To validate the accuracy and possibility of
substitution of ROS for FOS, one can start by
comparing the natural frequencies of vibration and
mode shapes between the models. Further comparison
of the frequency response function and statistical values
of building responses, such as peak and standard
deviation displacements and accelerations, can be made
through numerical simulations. The first six natural
frequencies of vibration of FOS and ROS were found to
be nearly identical, as expected, and the mode shapes of
both models are presented in Figure 7.
To further examine the accuracy of the ROS model
for the wind-excited benchmark building, an impulse
(delta-function input) load was applied to both models
to obtain the unit-impulse response function, from
which the frequency response function was subsequently
determined through Fourier Transformation. The
frequency response function, which represents the
dynamic properties of a physical system in the frequency
domain, is generally a complex quantity with the
magnitude referred to as the system gain factor. The gain
factors of ROS and FOS are virtually identical for both
models and are presented in Figure 8.
Finally, numerical simulations were conducted to
evaluate the dynamic responses of both models under
the same wind loads obtained from the wind tunnel
pressure test, with proper conversion to prototype scale.
The displacement and acceleration responses at the roof
level of the building are presented in Figures 9 and 10
for incident wind angles of 0° and 90°, respectively. It
can be seen from Figures 9 and 10 that the responses of
the ROS and FOS models are nearly identical, validating
the ROS model for use in the design of damping devices
and the comparison of control algorithms while reducing
the computational workload.
Peak and standard deviation displacements and
accelerations of selected storeys of the FOS model are
tabulated in Table 1 for an incident wind angle of 0°. It
should be noted that the twist responses in radians were
multiplied by the distance from the furthest corner to the
storey mass centre to represent the torsional responses at
the corner in length units. The percentage errors of the
wind-induced responses of ROS to those of FOS are
also tabulated in Table 1 for further comparison. The
maximum displacement response of 262 mm and
acceleration response of 53 milli-g were observed in the
alongwind direction. The responses in the crosswind
290
direction are considerably smaller because of the
building orientation. The large torsional responses at the
corner are due to the significant 3D lateral-torsional
motion that was introduced deliberately to the building.
It is more meaningful to consider the resultant
responses of these lateral-torsional dynamic motions,
with contributions due to translational motion in x- and
y-directions and torsional motion, such as the roof
level resultant response traces at a corner, as shown in
Figure 11. The maximum displacement and acceleration
of the uncontrolled building, represented by the
magnitude of the vectors in Figure 11, are 295 mm and
62 milli-g, respectively.
7. DESIGN OF CONTROL DEVICE
7.1. Smart Tuned Mass Damper (STMD)
Passive control devices, such as tuned mass damper
(TMD), tuned liquid damper (TLD), and tuned liquid
column damper (TLCD), have been shown by many
researchers as being capable of mitigating the dynamic
motions of civil structures and having the advantages of
reliability and comparatively low operating and
maintenance costs (Spencer and Sain 1997). For example:
Kwok and Samali (1995) have studied the performance of
both passive and active TMDs under wind loads through
parametric studies and full-scale measurements; two
identical TMDs were designed to be installed on a 492 m
high super tall building using wind tunnel high-
frequency-force-balance (HFFB) data and the wind-
induced responses were shown to be considerably
mitigated (Tang and Gu 2006); Tamura et al. (1996) have
confirmed the efficiency of TLD by measuring the wind-
induced responses of the 77.6 m high Tokyo International
Airport Tower with and without TLDs; the optimal head-
loss coefficient and damping ratio for TLCD were also
investigated and can be computed in a single step for a
given level of wind (Yalla and Kareem 2000). However,
the performance of a passive device is very difficult to
optimize due to uncertainties in the structural dynamic
properties and the excitation, as they are generally
designed for a specific condition (Housner et al. 1997).
In contrast, semi-active control devices have the
potential to address this challenge as they accommodate
the reliability of passive devices and the adaptability
of a fully active system, but with lower input energy
demands than a fully active system (Spencer and Sain
1997). One example of a semi-active control device is to
equip a TMD with a magnetorheological (MR) damper
to provide variable stiffness and damping, referred to as
smart tuned mass damper (STMD). Ni et al. (2004) and
Wang et al. (2005) have devised a semi-active tuned
liquid column damper using magnetorheological
fluid (MR-TLCD) for wind-induced vibration mitigation
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007
ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:20 am Page 291

K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

Frequency response function

100
ROS
Spectrum magnitude 10–2 FOS
10–4
10–6
10–8
10–10
10–12
10–14
10–16
0.1 1 2
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 8. Frequency response functions of FOS and ROS models of the benchmark building.

Tip translational response in X-direction Tip translational response in X-direction

30 15
FOS
20 10
Acceleration (milli-g)

ROS
Displacement (mm)

10 5

0 0

–10 –5

–20 –10

–30 –15
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Tip translational response in Y-direction Tip translational response in Y-direction

300 60

200 40
Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

100 20

0 0

–100 –20

–200 –40

–300 –60
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Tip twist response at corner Tip twist response at corner

40 20
Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

20 10

0
0

–20 –10

–40 –20
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 9. Tip displacement and acceleration responses of FOS and ROS of the wind-excited benchmark building for an incident wind
direction of 0°.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007 291

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 292

Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration

Tip translational response in X-direction Tip translational response in X-direction

20 10
FOS

Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

10 ROS 5

0 0

–10 –5

–20 –10
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Tip translational response in Y-direction Tip translational response in Y-direction

300 40

200
Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

20
100

0 0

–100
–20
–200

–300 –40
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Tip twist response at corner Tip twist response at corner

50 40
Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

20 20

0 0

–25 –20

–50 –40
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 10. Tip displacement and acceleration responses of FOS and ROS of the wind-excited benchmark building for an incident wind
direction of 90°.

300 60

200 40
Y-acceleration (milli-g)
Y-displacement (mm)

100 20

0 0

–100 –20

–200 –40

–300 –60
–300 –200 –100 0 100 200 300 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60
X-displacement (mm) X-acceleration (milli-g)

Figure 11. Tip displacement and acceleration response traces of FOS and ROS of the wind-excited benchmark building.

292 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 293

K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

Table 1. Numerical simulation responses at selected aeroelastic effects are known to produce aerodynamic
storeys of FOS of wind-excited benchmark stiffness and damping, causing variations of building
building and the percentage error of ROS dynamic properties. Evidently, the STMD has the
advantage of real-time tuning of its frequency and hence
Displacement (mm)
it is more robust to the uncertainties of building stiffness
Standard and damping due to inaccuracies in the analytical
deviation Peak estimation or wind-induced aeroelastic effects, and
changes in excitation characteristics.
Storey No. FOS error (%) FOS error (%)
MR damper, a newly developed variable stiffness
X (crosswind) 5 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 device, has shown great promise for civil engineering
20 1.2 0.0 5.5 0.1 applications. This type of damper utilizes special
characteristics of a MR fluid that possesses
39 2.9 0.0 13.8 0.0
magnetically controllable yield strength and can
60 5.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 reversibly change from free-flow to semi-solid in milli-s.
Y (alongwind) 5 1.2 0.1 4.3 0.1 Recognizing the significant potential of MR-based
20 13.6 0.0 48.3 0.0
control devices, a number of researchers have
undertaken studies to investigate vibration mitigation
39 39.8 0.0 141.1 0.0 using such devices (e.g. Dyke et al. 1996, 1998; Hansen
60 73.9 0.0 261.9 0.0 et al. 1997; Spencer et al. 1997; Yang 2001; Chang and
Z (torsion) 5 0.7 0.1 2.7 0.3 Zhou 2002; Tse 2002; Ni et al. 2004; Christenson et al.
2006). Furthermore, Yoshida and Dyke (2003, 2005)
20 4.0 0.0 16.7 0.0
have investigated the performance of MR dampers to
39 7.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 mitigate the coupled lateral and torsional motions in
60 8.3 0.0 36.4 0.0 model scale and subsequently extended that research to
experiments on full-scale 9-storey building models.
A 20 tonne MR damper, which was built at the
Acceleration (milli-g)
University of Notre Dame to study its possible
Standard application to real structures (Yang 2001, 2002), was
deviation Peak mounted in each orthogonal direction of a bi-directional
TMD as a semi-active system to numerically illustrate
Storey No. FOS error (%) FOS error (%)
the vibration control of the benchmark building.
X (crosswind) 5 0.1 5.7 3.6 1.4 The schematic diagram of the STMD to be installed on the
20 0.6 0.4 6.5 0.7 benchmark building roof is shown in Figure 12, and
comprises a bi-directional TMD with an inertial mass of
39 1.7 0.0 8.1 0.0
520 tonnes in parallel with a MR damper in each
60 3.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 orthogonal direction of operation to provide additional
Y (alongwind) 5 0.4 0.1 2.5 1.7 controllable damping (forces). The effective mass of the
20 2.6 0.6 9.9 2.3
STMD is about 0.4% of the total mass of the building,
and its undamped natural frequency in the y-direction
39 7.5 0.0 28.3 0.0 and x-direction are set at 0.22 Hz and 0.42 Hz,
60 14.0 0.0 53.4 0.0 respectively. The damping ratios of the STMD for both
Z (torsion) 5 0.3 7.8 2.3 –0.9 directions are 5% of critical. The STMD’s undamped
natural frequencies are slightly less than the first two
20 1.7 0.3 7.3 1.9
fundamental natural frequencies of vibration of the
39 3.6 0.0 16.8 0.0 benchmark building, which are 0.231 Hz and 0.429 Hz,
60 4.9 0.0 28.5 0.0 so that the MR dampers provide additional controllable
stiffness and damping forces to optimize the natural
frequencies of the STMD when operating in its passive
and analysis results showed that MR-TLCD with mode. Because the benchmark building undergoes 3D
optimal parameters can achieve much better vibration lateral-torsional motions, the STMD was offset from the
mitigation capability than a conventional TLCD system. geometrical centre of the building at a distance of 32 m
For the wind-induced responses of a wind-sensitive in the x-direction and 8 m in y-direction, as shown in
structure such as the proposed benchmark building, Figure 12, to suppress both translational and torsional

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007 293

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 294

Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration

72 m

4m

Building
roof

24 m 4m

MR damper

spring
M
dashpot

Building perimeter

Figure 12. Schematic diagram of the plan view of a STMD installed on the benchmark building roof.

motions. It should be noted that it was assumed that the through a reduced-order observer (Shahian and
STMD did not induce any additional wind forces on the Hassul 1993) for computing the control forces. The
building although it was installed on the roof. state-space realization for the dynamic system and
the measurement of the building model installed with
7.2. Control Algorithm the control device was expressed as,
In this study, the linear-quadratic regulator (LQR) was & = AZ + BW + Ef
Z c (14)
used for the semi-active control. The control force fc was
determined by minimizing the following quadratic cost
function over a period of time (t), Y = CZ + DW + Ffc (15)
∞
J = ∫0 ( Z' NZ + fc ' Rfc )dt (13) where Z and Y are the state vector and the measured
output, respectively. W is the wind excitation vector in
where N and R are the weighting matrices and Z is the state
N or N-m. The matrices A, B, E, C and D, F are,
vector. By adjusting these weighting matrices, one can
reduce the structural responses with different objectives,  0 I   0   0 
such as the tip displacement, the tip acceleration, or the A= −1 
; B =  −1  ; E =  M −1Λ ;
−1
− M K − M C  M Γ   
inter-storey drifts, with regards to the maximum available
control force generated by the damping device. This (16a-c)
means R should be chosen appropriately so that the control
force is reasonable, or even minimized.
−1
In principle, accelerations and velocities of all C = C − M −1K − M −1C  ; D = C  M Γ  ;
floors can be measured although this is likely to be
impractical and unnecessary in a real application.
Therefore, in the current study, it was assumed that F = C  M −1Λ  (16d-f)
only the accelerations in x- and y-directions at the
corner of the refuge floors and the roof were available where C is the measurement (i.e. accelerometers)
for computing the feedback control forces. The res- location matrix; M and K are the mass and stiffness
ponse state vector of the building model, including matrices, respectively; Γ and Λ represent the wind load
displacement and velocity vectors, was first estimated and control device location matrices, respectively.

294 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 295

K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

Under the condition that the dimension of Y is smaller The coupled Eqns 22 and 23 are the final form of the
than Z, an arbitrary matrix T can be assumed such that reduced-order observer where the state estimate Ẑ can
C  is nonsingular and be obtained by inputting the measured output Y, the
T  control forces fc and the wind loads W. This state
 
estimate can then be used to calculate the control forces,
Y − Ffc  C  fc = −kẐ (25)
  =  Z (17)
 x  T 
where k is the feedback gain matrix and is manipulated
where x is the observer vector. Estimates of Z, Ẑ can from the cost function of the LQR in Eqn 13 with the
then be formed as, weighting matrix N a diagonal matrix with
components [1, 1, 1, …, 300, …] and R also a diagonal
ˆ = P ( Y − Ff ) + Mxˆ
Z c (18) matrix with components [9 × 10–2, 9 × 10–2] for this study.

7.3. An Inverse Model for Control Application

−1
C  One of the challenges in vibration control, particularly
P M  =   (19) semi-active and active control, is to assure the control
T  device generates the target control force determined
from the control algorithm. The failure of control force
where x̂ are the estimates of x and can be designed as,
generation could result in unfavourable building
x&ˆ = A 22 xˆ +  A 21 ( Y − Ffc ) + E 2 fc + B2 W 
responses. It has been suggested (Jung et al. 2004) that
the force generated by a MR damper cannot be directly
commanded. Only the voltage (v) supplied to the current
& − Ff − A ( Y − Ff ) − A xˆ − E f − B W  (20)
+ L Y driver for the MR damper can be arbitrarily changed.
c 11 c 12 1 c 1  Tse and Chang (2004) proposed an inverse dynamic
model, in which the damper force f is simplified as,
with
(c1a + c1b u)
A11 = CAP ; A12 = CAM ; f≅
(c0a + c1a ) + (c0b + c1b )u
(26)
(α a + α b u) zu + (c0 + c0 u) x& + k0 x 
A 21 = TAP ; A 22 = TAM ; (21a-d)  a b 
+ k1 ( x − x 0 )

E1 = CE ; E 2 = TE ; B1 = CG ; B2 = TG (21e-h)
1n 1n
The matrix L in Eqn 20 should be properly chosen so as  A   A 
z ≅ z u = sgn( x& − y& )  ≅ sgn( x& )  (27)
to place the observer eigenvalues arbitrarily in the left-  γ + β   γ + β 
hand side of the complex plane. Let Q = xˆ − L(Y − Ffc ) ,
where c0, c1, k0, k1, α, A, γ, and β are the damper
then Eqns 18 and 20 can be re-written as,
parameters (Spencer et al. 1997). Eqn 26 can be
rearranged to a quadratic function in u:
Zˆ = MQ + (P + ML)( Y − Ffc ) (22)

(α c zu ) u 2 + (α b zu + c0 x& ) u + (α a zu + c0 x& + k0 x − f ) = 0
b a
& = VQ + H( Y − Ff ) + If + J&&s
Q (23)
c c g
(28)
where
Evidently, u at any time instance can be solved rather
V = A 22 − LA12 ; H = FL + A 21 − LA11 ; (24a,b) easily in terms of f, which is the desired control force
from Eqn 25 based on the feedback LQR algorithms.
Consequently, the corresponding command voltage (v)
I = E 2 − LE1 ; J = B2 − LB1 (24c,d) can be obtained numerically from

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007 295

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 296
Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration
W
TMD fD Benchmark yi
+ Building
MR
y1, y1
fD
V Inverse fC Control
Observer
model algorithm
Figure 13. Block diagram of the control methodology of the wind-
excited benchmark building.
. which is attributed to the combined effect of the
v = u + u /η (29)
Figure 13 shows a block diagram illustrating how the
inverse model was used in the control application. The
measured outputs, comprising the accelerations in x-
and y-directions at the refuge floors and the roof, were
used to estimate the building responses of other floors
with an observer. The desired control force based on the
LQR algorithm was then established with the knowledge
of the building response estimates and the instant-
aneous actual force generated by the control device. A
voltage was subsequently calculated with the inverse
dynamic model, with which the MR damper can
generate forces considerably closer to the desired
control force.
7.4. Numerical Results
The state-space realization for the dynamic system and
the measurement of the building model installed with
the control device was numerically simulated. The
structural responses (i.e. accelerations at refuge floors
and roof), the observer to estimate other response state
vectors of the building model, and the controller
comprising a control algorithm and an inverse model
were digitally implemented with a time step of 0.001 s.
To make the simulation realistic, measurement noises
modelled as Gaussian rectangular pulse processes were
introduced to the building responses and a computational
time-delay of 1 milli-s was considered for the building
responses simulation.
For the wind-induced responses of a wind-sensitive
structure such as the proposed benchmark building,
aerodynamic stiffness and aerodynamic damping are
motion-induced effects that have the potential to cause
variations of building dynamic properties. Such
aeroelastic effects were taken into account in this study
to investigate the robustness of the STMD to
296
uncertainties in the dynamic properties of the building,
by considering variations to the stiffness and damping
matrices of ±20%. The response quantities of all cases
without control are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3 for wind
directions of 0° and 90°, respectively.
It can be seen from Tables 2 and 3 that the wind-
induced responses, such as standard deviation and
peak values of displacement and acceleration,
increase for the cases in which the stiffness matrix or
damping matrix was reduced by 20%. This is because
the structure becomes slightly more flexible due to
the reduction of stiffness, resulting in lower natural
frequencies. Therefore, the displacement responses at
the building roof increase by nearly 20% while the
corresponding accelerations increase by only 5%,
simultaneously lower natural frequency and higher
displacement response (i.e. x&& = ω 2 x ). Furthermore,
the reduction of damping increases the displacement
and acceleration responses by around 10% because
the natural frequency remains unchanged. In contrast,
the building’s displacement and acceleration
responses both decrease as the stiffness matrix or
damping matrix is increased by 20%, owing to the
rise in natural frequency and energy dissipation
capacity.
The building responses with control were compared
with the uncontrolled responses, as shown in Figures
14 and 15, and the ratios of the controlled response to
that of uncontrolled response are tabulated in Tables 4
and 5. In general, the STMD shows its capability to
mitigate the wind-induced orthogonal translation
responses as well as the torsion responses. The reduction
of acceleration responses are more pronounced than the
displacement responses as the LQR was designed to
compute control forces to minimize the acceleration
responses in this study. In other words, the STMD is
also capable of reducing the displacement responses,
if the LQR is designed for that purpose, by changing
the values of the weighting matrix, N. It is noteworthy
that the magnitudes of the response ratios
corresponding to the cases in which the stiffness or
damping were varied are of similar magnitudes to the
building with original stiffness and damping matrices,
indicating the robustness of the STMD and the
necessity of MR dampers to provide variable stiffness
and damping.
To quantify the control effectiveness, the following
performance indices are established:
J1 = max(σ xi&& )/σ xTip
&& ; J 2 = max(σ xi )/σ xTip ;
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007
 Table 2. Numerical simulation responses at selected storeys of the benchmark building for an incident wind angle of 0ο

Displacement (mm)
ASE 10-3-6 Tse

Standard deviation Peak

Storey No. Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20% Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20%
X (crosswind) 5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.8
12/6/07

20 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.1 1.2 5.5 4.2 8.0 5.4 5.7
39 2.9 2.3 3.8 2.7 3.1 13.8 10.1 19.9 13.4 14.3
60 5.0 4.0 6.6 4.7 5.3 23.7 17.2 34.2 23.0 24.7
8:21 am

Y (alongwind) 5 1.2 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.3 4.3 4.1 6.9 4.0 4.7
20 13.6 10.4 16.1 12.7 14.9 48.3 48.0 74.8 44.7 52.7
39 39.8 30.2 47.1 37.0 43.6 141.1 140.2 212.4 130.4 154.0
Page 297

60 73.9 56.1 87.5 68.6 81.2 261.9 256.6 388.5 241.9 286.2

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007

Z (torsion) 5 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 2.7 2.7 4.3 2.6 2.9
20 4.0 3.1 4.8 3.8 4.3 16.7 16.0 26.7 16.1 18.3
39 7.0 5.4 8.6 6.6 7.6 29.9 28.6 46.8 28.8 33.0
60 8.3 6.4 10.2 7.8 9.1 36.4 32.1 56.2 34.6 40.1
K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

Acceleration (milli-g)

Standard deviation Peak

Storey No. Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20% Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20%
X (crosswind) 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.6
20 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 6.5 6.2 6.5 6.3 6.5
39 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.8 8.1 5.8 8.5 5.8 8.5
60 3.0 2.8 3.2 2.7 3.3 11.0 10.1 11.6 10.5 11.8
Y (alongwind) 5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.5
20 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.9 9.9 8.4 10.5 9.4 10.2
39 7.5 6.6 7.8 6.8 8.4 28.3 25.3 23.0 26.1 31.0
60 14.0 12.4 14.9 12.7 15.8 53.4 48.1 60.5 48.8 58.9
Z (torsion) 5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.3 2.2 3.5 2.4 4.1
20 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.9 7.3 6.1 8.5 7.0 10.5
39 3.6 3.3 3.8 3.2 4.0 16.8 12.4 17.5 15.7 22.4

297
60 4.9 4.5 5.2 4.5 5.5 28.5 17.4 29.9 26.7 30.5
 Table 3. Numerical simulation responses at selected storeys of the benchmark building for an incident wind angle of 90ο

Displacement (mm)

298
Standard deviation Peak
ASE 10-3-6 Tse

Storey No. Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20% Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20%
X (alongwind) 5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5
12/6/07

20 1.0 0.7 1.3 0.9 1.0 4.2 2.6 5.9 4.0 4.4
39 2.5 1.9 3.3 2.3 2.6 10.9 6.6 15.7 10.5 11.5
60 4.3 3.3 5.8 4.1 4.6 19.3 11.5 27.3 18.4 20.3
8:21 am

Y (crosswind) 5 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.4 5.1 4.1 5.8 4.8 5.3
20 14.2 11.0 17.3 13.2 15.6 55.8 47.6 66.5 52.8 59.2
39 41.5 32.3 50.6 38.5 45.7 160.8 140.7 197.1 152.0 170.8
Page 298

60 77.2 60.1 94.1 71.5 85.2 296.0 262.6 368.9 279.4 314.7
Z (torsion) 5 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8 2.9 2.5 3.7 2.8 3.1
20 4.7 3.6 6.1 4.4 5.1 19.1 16.1 26.0 18.0 20.9
39 8.9 6.8 11.7 8.4 9.6 37.8 29.0 54.1 35.6 41.1
60 11.1 8.4 14.9 10.4 12.0 48.7 35.9 71.4 45.8 53.1

Acceleration (milli-g)

Standard deviation Peak

Storey No. Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20% Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20%
X (alongwind) 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.9 2.7 2.9 1.1 2.9
20 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 3.7 3.4 3.7 2.0 3.9
39 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.6 5.3 4.1 6.8 5.0 5.5
60 2.5 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.8 9.3 7.4 12.1 8.9 9.7
Y (crosswind) 5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.4
20 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.5 3.1 10.5 9.8 13.2 10.0 11.4
39 8.0 7.4 8.3 7.3 9.0 29.5 26.9 29.7 26.2 30.1
60 15.1 13.9 15.9 13.7 16.9 54.2 51.7 57.2 51.4 57.5
Z (torsion) 5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.4 3.9
20 2.8 2.4 3.3 2.5 3.1 9.5 9.3 14.3 9.3 15.9
39 5.8 5.1 7.0 5.3 6.4 30.7 21.7 42.6 29.4 32.1

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007

Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration

60 8.0 7.1 9.7 7.3 9.0 43.0 30.4 63.0 41.3 44.9
ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 299

K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

Tip translational response in X-direction Tip translational response in X-direction

30 15
Uncontrol

Acceleration (milli-g)
10
Displacement (mm)

20 STMD
10 5

0 0
–10 –5
–20 –10
–30 –15
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Tip translational response in Y-direction Tip translational response in Y-direction

300 60

Acceleration (milli-g)
200 40
Displacement (mm)

100 20

0 0

–100 –20

–200 –40

–300 –60
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Tip twist response at corner Tip twist response at corner

40 20
Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

20 10

0 0

–20 –10

–40 –20
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 14. The uncontrolled and controlled tip displacement and acceleration responses of the wind-excited benchmark building for an
incident wind angle of 0°.

J3 = σ xTMD /σ xTip
J 4 = max( x&&ˆi )/ x&&ˆTip ; J5 = max( xˆi )/ xˆTip ;
J6 = xˆTMD /xˆTip
where σẍi and σẍTip are the standard deviation
accelerations of the ith storey at the corner having the
largest responses and the roof level without control,
respectively. σ xi , σ xTip and σ xTMD are the standard
deviation displacements of the ith storey at the most
severe corner, roof level without control and tuned mass
damper, respectively. The first index (J1) is associated
(30-32) with the storey acceleration as the control device was
installed to reduce the acceleration, and hence improve
occupant comfort. The second (J2) and third (J3) indices
represent the capability of the control device to reduce
the displacement response and the control effort in terms
of device stroke. The fourth (J4), fifth (J5) and sixth (J6)
indices are the peak response counterparts of J1, J2 and
(33-35)
J3. The performance indices shown in Table 6 confirm
the ability of the control device to mitigate wind-
induced vibrations. The standard deviation accelerations
and displacements with control were reduced by over
50% and the peak responses were also reduced by about
25%. The maximum control force generated was 476
kN and the maximum stroke was 526 mm, which are
within the typical range that can be achieved
practically.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007 299

ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 300

Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration

Tip translational response in X-direction Tip translational response in X-direction

20 10
Uncontrol

Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

STMD
10 5

0 0

–10 –5

–20 –10
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Tip translational response in Y-direction Tip translational response in Y-direction

300 40

200
Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

20
100

0 0

–100
–20
–200

–300 –40
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Tip twist response at corner Tip twist response at corner

50 40
Acceleration (milli-g)
Displacement (mm)

25 20

0 0

–25 –20

–50 –40
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 15. The uncontrolled and controlled tip displacement and acceleration responses of the wind-excited benchmark building for an
incident wind angle of 90°.

8. CONCLUSIONS A numerical vibration control example was conducted

A wind-excited benchmark tall building with complex
lateral-torsional motions is proposed in this paper. A series
of wind tunnel pressure tests were conducted to determine
the wind loads experienced by the benchmark building. A
finite element model of the benchmark building was also
constructed and an evaluation model was determined. The
evaluation model was further simplified to a state ROS
using the state order reduction method. Under wind loads
obtained from the wind tunnel pressure test, the building
responses obtained using the ROS were found to be
identical to those determined using the FOS. Therefore, the
ROS developed in this study is a useful tool that can be
used to design damping devices and to compare and
evaluate control algorithms and devices.
to illustrate the suppression of the complex motions of the
wind-excited benchmark building using a bi-directional
TMD integrated with two MR dampers, one in each
orthogonal operation direction. The bi-directional TMD
was designed with natural frequencies slightly less
than the building’s first two natural frequencies and
equipped with MR dampers to provide additional
controllable damping forces to significantly mitigate
both the acceleration and displacement responses in the
translation directions and slightly smaller reductions in
torsion. The maximum generated control forces were
35 kN with a maximum stroke of 42 mm in x-direction
and 476 kN with a maximum stroke of 526 mm in
y-direction. Correspondingly, the standard deviation

300 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007

 Table 4. Controlled to uncontrolled response ratios at selected storeys of the benchmark building for an incident wind angle of 0ο

Displacement (%)

Standard deviation Peak

ASE 10-3-6 Tse

Storey No. Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20% Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20%
X (crosswind) 5 81.0 85.2 50.4 84.0 77.1 92.9 85.4 43.9 95.9 89.3
12/6/07

20 76.4 82.6 47.5 79.9 72.1 94.3 91.0 42.7 97.1 91.0
39 73.4 81.0 45.6 77.1 68.8 92.7 94.3 41.8 95.6 89.3
60 71.8 80.2 44.4 75.7 67.1 92.4 95.8 41.7 95.4 88.9
8:21 am

Y (alongwind) 5 64.2 76.4 44.3 68.7 59.0 88.8 75.4 45.7 95.6 81.6
20 61.5 74.5 42.8 66.1 56.2 82.9 72.8 43.7 89.6 76.0
39 60.2 73.7 42.0 64.8 54.9 78.9 72.2 42.6 85.4 72.3
Page 301

60 59.6 73.6 41.5 64.2 54.3 76.9 73.4 42.0 83.3 70.4
Z (torsion) 5 77.2 86.9 50.8 81.6 71.7 92.8 72.4 44.7 90.7 85.5

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007

20 76.6 87.5 50.1 81.5 70.8 95.0 76.1 45.6 91.6 85.8
39 78.7 90.2 50.6 84.0 72.4 89.5 82.4 47.2 93.3 86.6
60 84.7 97.0 52.4 90.5 77.8 92.3 92.1 48.9 97.4 89.3
K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang

Acceleration (%)

Standard deviation Peak

Storey No. Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20% Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20%
X (crosswind) 5 65.6 78.9 67.4 70.7 59.8 98.2 98.8 98.6 97.9 95.5
20 49.5 68.3 52.5 53.8 44.7 97.1 98.0 97.9 96.6 92.3
39 47.5 67.2 50.4 51.7 42.8 61.9 76.0 66.6 64.5 58.5
60 47.4 67.6 50.1 51.6 42.8 58.3 77.7 64.7 61.3 54.5
Y (alongwind) 5 88.8 93.9 90.7 91.1 85.7 97.0 99.1 99.2 97.0 94.0
20 44.6 65.9 53.4 49.0 39.8 96.0 97.9 98.0 96.1 91.2
39 40.0 62.6 49.7 44.1 35.6 59.7 66.8 73.6 64.8 54.5
60 40.2 63.1 49.5 44.3 35.8 47.8 60.7 60.1 52.2 43.3
Z (torsion) 5 85.5 90.3 86.0 92.4 77.6 94.3 95.7 96.1 96.0 94.1
20 82.8 89.0 83.0 90.9 74.0 94.4 95.9 96.4 96.1 91.3
39 83.8 89.4 83.8 92.1 74.8 82.2 91.5 73.7 88.0 76.3

301
60 85.1 91.0 84.3 93.4 75.9 83.4 91.4 72.6 88.9 77.9
 Table 5. Controlled to uncontrolled response ratios at selected storeys of the benchmark building for an incident wind angle of 90°

Displacement (%)

302
Standard deviation Peak
ASE 10-3-6 Tse

Storey No. Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20% Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20%
X (alongwind) 5 78.9 86.8 60.6 82.3 74.6 68.1 73.8 56.5 71.2 64.7
12/6/07

20 76.0 85.5 58.2 79.7 71.4 65.6 84.2 49.9 68.5 62.5
39 74.2 84.7 56.6 78.1 69.4 65.4 87.1 48.7 68.3 62.3
60 73.4 84.5 55.8 77.3 68.5 64.1 87.3 49.4 66.9 61.0
8:21 am

Y (crosswind) 5 62.1 75.1 51.8 66.7 56.6 76.9 64.9 68.4 81.0 72.8
20 60.1 73.7 50.3 64.7 54.6 76.1 60.9 65.6 80.4 71.8
39 58.9 73.0 49.4 63.5 53.5 75.7 59.1 63.4 80.1 71.2
Page 302

60 58.3 72.9 48.8 63.0 52.9 75.8 58.5 62.2 80.3 71.3
Z (torsion) 5 77.5 87.8 60.4 82.5 71.5 92.6 69.5 72.3 96.5 85.2
20 79.9 90.0 61.3 85.0 73.7 92.0 75.0 67.3 97.5 84.3
39 83.5 93.3 62.7 88.8 77.1 90.8 89.0 62.4 96.4 83.5
60 88.4 98.7 64.2 94.1 81.5 94.1 98.8 62.6 99.5 86.5

Acceleration (%)

Standard deviation Peak

Storey No. Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20% Original k + 20% k – 20% c + 20% c – 20%
X (alongwind) 5 76.4 90.0 73.6 81.0 70.8 91.7 99.3 76.4 77.7 80.1
20 49.6 73.2 49.7 54.2 44.4 95.5 99.1 75.5 76.1 85.4
39 47.8 72.6 48.3 52.4 42.8 56.8 98.3 57.6 59.4 54.6
60 47.6 72.9 47.8 52.1 42.6 56.1 94.2 54.8 58.6 53.9
Y (crosswind) 5 76.4 85.4 77.0 80.8 71.0 95.7 89.4 68.4 68.9 67.1
20 47.7 67.4 52.8 52.4 42.5 93.2 86.6 64.3 65.2 61.8
39 42.6 64.3 49.0 46.8 37.9 62.5 72.2 65.4 66.7 58.0
60 42.9 64.8 48.9 47.2 38.2 66.1 77.2 66.5 69.7 62.3
Z (torsion) 5 88.2 95.1 78.7 95.9 79.6 87.6 81.8 63.1 90.1 90.6
20 87.2 95.4 76.1 95.4 78.2 95.3 86.4 65.1 93.3 94.0
39 87.3 94.9 75.8 95.6 78.2 90.8 68.8 67.3 94.9 86.8

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007

Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration

60 88.0 96.5 76.3 96.3 78.8 89.4 81.9 62.5 93.1 85.6
ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 303
K. T. Tse, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, B. Samali and M. F. Huang
Table 6. Performance indices
J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6
0.402 0.596 1.726 0.479 0.769 2.011
and peak responses were reduced by over 50% and
about 25%, respectively.
The results of this study clearly demonstrate that the
three-dimensional motions of the benchmark building
can be effectively mitigated with a control device
operating within a practical operational range. The
proposed STMD system serves as a practical application
while acknowledging that it was more effective in
controlling translational motions. Future works by the
authors and other researchers will investigate the
possibility of using other or additional control systems
and algorithms with a view to reducing the torsional
response in addition to translational responses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research project is funded by a Research Grants
Council of Hong Kong Central Allocation Grant
(Project PolyU1/02C-CA02/03.EG03) and a HKUST
High Impact Areas Grant (HIA02/03.EG01).
REFERENCES
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., (1986). Manual of
Steel Construction-load and Resistance Factor Design, Chicage,
IL, First Edition. 1
Ankireddi, S. and Yang, H.T.Y. (1996). “Simple ATMD control
methodology for tall buildings subject to wind loads”, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, pp. 83–91.
Australian/New Zealand Standard, Structural Design Actions Part 2:
Wind Actions, AS/NZS 1170.2:2002.
Cao, H., Reinhorn, A.M. and Soong, T.T. (1997). “Design of an
active mass damper for wind response of nanjing TV tower”,
Engineering Structure, Vol. 20, pp. 134–143.
Chan, C.M. (1997). “How to optimize tall steel building
frameworks”, Guide to Structural Optimization, ASCE Manuals
and Reports on Engineering Practices No.90, American Society
of Civil Engineers, pp.165–195.
Chan, C.M. (2001). “Optimal lateral stiffness design of tall buildings
of mixed steel and concrete construction”, Journal of Structural
Design of Tall Buildings, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 155–177.
Chang, C.C. and Zhou, L. (2002). “Neural network emulation of
inverse dynamics for a MR damper”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp. 231–239.
Christenson, R.E., Spencer Jr., B.F. and Johnson, E.A. (2006).
“Experimental verification of smart cable damping”, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 3, pp. 268–278.
Dyke, S.J., Spencer, Jr. B.F., Sain, M.K. and Carlson, J.D. (1996).
“Modeling and control of magnetorheological dampers for
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007
seismic response reduction”, Smart Materials and Structures,
Vol. 5, pp. 565–575.
Dyke, S.J., Spencer, Jr. B.F., Sain, M.K. and Carlson, J.D. (1998).
“Experimental study of MR dampers for seismic protection”,
Smart Materials and Structures: Special Issue on Large Civil
Structures, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 693–703.
Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Response of Occupants of Fixed
Structures, Especially Buildings and Off-shore Structures, to Low-
frequency Horizontal Motion (0.063 to 1Hz), ISO pp. 1897–1984.
Hansen, B.C., Gordaninejad, F., Saiidi, M. and Chang, F.K. (1997).
“Control of bridges using magneto-rheological fluid dampers”,
Structural Health Monitoring, Fu-Kuo Chang, ed., Technomic
Publishing Co., pp. 81–90.
Housner, G.W., Bergman, L.A., Caughey, T.K., Chassiakos, A.G.,
Claus, R.O., Masri, S.F., Skelton, R.E., Soong, T.T., Spencer,
B.F. and Yao, J.T.P. (1997). “Structural control: pass, present,
and future”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 123,
No. 9, pp. 897–971.
Jung, H.J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Ni, Y.Q. and Lee, I.W. (2004). “State-
of-the-art of semiactive control systems using MR fluid dampers
in civil engineering applications”, Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 17, pp. 493–526.
Kim, S.B., Yun, C.B. and Spencer Jr., B.F. (2004). “Vibration
control of wind-excited tall buildings using sliding mode fuzzy
control”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 111,
pp. 505–510.
Kobori, T. (2003). “Past, present and future in seismic response
control in civil engineering structures”, Proceedings of 3rd World
Conference on Structural Control, Wiley, New York, pp. 9–14.
Kwok, K.C.S. and Samali, B. (1995). “Performance of tuned mass
dampers under wind loads”, Journal of Engineering Structures,
ASCE, Vol. 17, pp. 655–667.
Ni, Y.Q., Ying, Z.G., Wang, J.Y., Ko, J.M. and Spencer Jr., B.F.
(2004). “Stochastic optimal control of wind-excited tall buildings
using semi-active MR-TLCDs”, Probabilistic Engineering
Mechanics, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 269–277.
Samali, B., Yang, J.N. and Yeh, C.T. (1985). “Control of lateral-
torsional motion of wind-excited buildings”, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 111, pp. 777–796.
Samali, B., Al-Dawod, M., Kwok, K.C.S. and Naghdy, F. (2004a).
“Active control of cross wind response of 76-storey tall building
using a fuzzy controller”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 492–498.
Samali, B., Mayol, E., Kwok, K.C.S., Mack, A. and Hitchcock, P.
(2004b). “Vibration control of the wind-excited 76-storey
benchmark building by liquid column vibration absorbers”, Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 478–485.
Shahian, B and Hassul, M. (1993). Control System Design Using
Matlab, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Spencer, Jr. B.F., Christenson, R.E. and Dyke, S.J. (1998). “Next
generation benchmark control problem for seismically excited
buildings”, Proceeding of 2nd World Conference on Structural
Control, Vol. 2, pp.1351–1360, John Wiley & Sons, NY.
303
ASE 10-3-6 Tse 12/6/07 8:21 am Page 304
Vibration Control of a Wind-Excited Benchmark Tall Building with Complex Lateral-Torsional Modes of Vibration
Spencer, Jr., B.F., Dyke, S.J., Sain, M.K. and Carlson, J.D. (1997).
“Phenomenological model for magnetorheological dampers”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No.3, pp.
230–238.
Spencer, Jr., B.F. and Sain, M.K. (1997). “Controlling buildings: a new
frontier in feedback”, Special Issue of the IEEE Control Systems
Magazine on Emerging Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 19–35.
Spencer, Jr., B.F., (2002). “Civil engineering applications of smart
damping technology”, Proceeding of 5th International Conference
on Vibration Engineering, Nanjing, China, pp. 771–782.
Structural Use of Concrete: Part 2. Code of Practice for Design and
Construction, BS8110–1997.
Tang, Y. and Gu, M. (2006). “Analysis on control of wind induced
vibration of a super-tall building with TMD”, Journal of
Vibration and Shock, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 16–19.
Tse, T. (2002). Design and modelling of magnetorheological
damper, MPhil Thesis, The Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology, HK.
Tse, T. and Chang, C.C. (2004). “Shear-mode rotary magneto-
rheological damper for small-scale structural control experiments”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, pp. 904–911.
Wu, J.C. and Yang, J.N. (2004). “Modified sliding mode control for
wind-excited benchmark problem”, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 499–504.
Wu, J.C., Yang, J.N. and Schmitendorf, W.E. (1998). “Reduced-
order H and LQR control for wind-excited tall buildings”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 222–236.
Yalla, S.K and Kareem, A. (2000). “Optimum absorber parameters
for tuned liquid column dampers”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 8, pp. 906–915.
Yang, G.Q. (2001). Large-scale Magnetorheological Fluid Damper
for Vibration Mitigation: Modelling, Testing and Control, PhD
304
Thesis, The University of Notre Dame, Indiana, US.
Yang, G., Spencer Jr., B.F., Carlson, J.D. and Sain, M.K. (2002).
“Large-scale MR fluid dampers: modelling and dynamic
performance considerations”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 24,
No. 3, pp. 309–323.
Yang, J.N., Agrawal, A.K., Samali, B. and Wu, J.C. (2001). “A
benchmark problem for response control of wind-excited tall
buildings”, Proceeding of the International Modal Analysis
Conference - IMAC., Vol. 1, pp. 151–157.
Yang, J.N., Wu, J.C., Agrawal A.K. and Hsu, S.Y. (1997). “Sliding
mode control with compensators for wind and seismic response
control”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 26, pp. 1137–1156.
Yang, J.N., Wu, J.C. Samali, B. and Agrawal, A.K. (1998). “A
benchmark problem for response control of wind-excited tall
buildings”, Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on
Structural Control, John Wiley & Sons, NY, pp. 1407–1416.
Yoshida, O. and Dyke, S.J. (2003). “Experimental verification of
torsional response control of asymmetric buildings using MR
dampers”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 13, pp. 2085–2105.
Yoshida, O. and Dyke, S.J. (2005). “Response control of full-scale
irregular buildings using magnetorheological dampers”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.131, No. 5, pp.
734–742.
Wang, J.Y., Ni, Y.Q., Ko, J.M. and Spendcer Jr., B.F. (2005).
“Magneto-rheological tuned liquid column dampers (MR-
TLCDs) for vibration mitigation of tall buildings: modelling and
analysis of open-loop control”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 83,
No. 25–26, pp. 2023–2034.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 10 No. 3 2007