Vol.8, No.

4 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION December, 2009

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2009) 8: 547-560 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-009-9115-3

Optimal design theories of tuned mass dampers with

nonlinear viscous damping
Lap-Loi Chung1, Lai-Yun Wu2, Hsu-Hui Huang2, Chung-Hsin Chang2* and Kuan-Hua Lien2+

1. Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE), Chinese Taipei

2. Department of Civil Engineering, Taiwan University, Chinese Taipei

Abstract: Optimal design theory for linear tuned mass dampers (TMD) has been thoroughly investigated, but is still
under development for nonlinear TMDs. In this paper, optimization procedures in the time domain are proposed for
design of a TMD with nonlinear viscous damping. A dynamic analysis of a structure implemented with a nonlinear
TMD is conducted first. Optimum design parameters for the nonlinear TMD are searched using an optimization method
to minimize the performance index. The feasibility of the proposed optimization method is illustrated numerically by
using the Taipei 101 structure implemented with TMD. The sensitivity analysis shows that the performance index is less
sensitive to the damping coefficient than to the frequency ratio. Time history analysis is conducted using the Taipei 101
structure implemented with different TMDs under wind excitation. For both linear and nonlinear TMDs, the comfort
requirements for building occupants are satisfied as long as the TMD is properly designed. It was found that as the
damping exponent increases, the relative displacement of the TMD decreases but the damping force increases.

Keywords: optimal design theory; tuned mass damper (TMD); nonlinear; performance index; sensitivity analysis;
Taipei 101

1 Introduction Taipei 101 Tower (101 stories, 504 m high) (Haskett et

The TMD system was first proposed in 1909 to
reduce the mechanical vibration induced by monotonic
harmonic forces by Frahm (1911). It is found that if a
secondary system composed of a mass, damping device,
and spring is implemented on a primary structure and
its natural frequency is tuned to be very close to the
dominant mode of the primary structure, a large reduction
in the dynamic responses of the primary structure can be
achieved. The Center-point Tower (305 m) in Sydney,
Australia was the first structure in which a TMD was
installed to reduce the wind-induced motions of the
structure. Since then, there have been a considerable
number of successful structural implementations of the
TMD worldwide, including the Citicorp Center (279 m
high), New York; John Hancock Tower (457 m high),
Boston; Funade Bridge Tower, Osaka; CN Tower (535
m high), Toronto (McNamara., 1977; Luft., 1979; Soong
and Dargush, 1997) and the tallest building in the world,
Correspondence to: Lap-Loi Chung, Center for Research on
Earthquake Engineering(NCREE), 200, Sec. 3, HsinHai
Rd., Chinese Taipei, 106
Tel: +886-2-66300800; Fax: +886-2-66300858
E-mail: chung@ncree.org.tw
al., 2003), Taiwan. From field vibration measurements, it
has been proven that a TMD is an effective and feasible
system to use in structural vibration control against high
wind loads.
Although the basic design concept of the TMD
is quite simple, the parameters (mass, damping, and
stiffness) of the TMD system must be obtained through
optimal design procedures to attain a better control
performance. Therefore, the determination of optimal
design parameters of the TMD to enhance the control
effectiveness has become very crucial. Den Hartog
(1956) first proposed an optimal design theory of the
TMD for an undamped primary system subjected to
sinusoidal excitation. A single degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) structure implemented with a linear TMD
subjected to white-noise base excitation was analyzed
by random vibration (Crandall and Mark, 1973). If the
natural frequencies of a structure were well separated,
it could be considered as a SDOF structure when
determining the optimum parameters of the attached
linear TMD (Warburton and Ayorinde, 1980; Warburton,
1982). Expressions of the optimum TMD parameters
were derived for an undamped structure subjected to
various excitations. The effect of structural damping

Research Fellow and Adjunct Professor; Professor; PhD;
*
Master; +PhD Candidate
Supported by: Science Council(NSC), Chinese Taipei
Received August 8, 2009; Accepted September 1, 2009
was also investigated. For the case of a damped
primary structure, it is difficult to obtain the closed-
form solutions for the optimum TMD parameters. The
design parameters of a linear TMD for a linear damped
548 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
primary structure were optimized based on minimum-
maximum amplitude criteria (Randall et al., 1981).
Computational graphs were presented to determine the
optimal linear TMD. The tuning ratio of the linear TMD
attached to a viscously damped structure was optimized
by the frequency locus method (Thompson, 1981). The
optimum damping ratio of the linear TMD could be found
directly once the optimum tuning ratio was obtained.
Using the perturbation technique, design formulas of
optimum parameters were derived for a linear TMD
under various types of loadings (Fujino and Abe, 1993).
Using a numerical searching technique, the optimum
damping and tuning frequency ratio of the linear TMD
attached to a viscously damped SDOF main system
under external force and base acceleration modeled as
Gaussian white-noise random process was obtained
to minimize various mean square responses. Explicit
formulae for damper damping, tuning frequency and the
corresponding minimized response were derived using a
curve-fitting technique (Bakre and Jangid, 2007).
In the papers mentioned above, the damping of
TMD was assumed to be linear. However, nonlinear
dampers may be cost effective in fabrication and
maintenance. Friction dampers acting transversely to
the direction of the motion were proposed as a means
for energy dissipation of TMD (Inaudi and Kelly, 1995).
Subjected to white-noise support excitation, the mean
square structural responses, estimated by statistical
linearization, were minimized to obtain the optimum
parameters of TMD. The results were justified by Monte
Carlo simulation. TMD with dry friction damping
were investigated based on an understanding of the
behavior of the system (Ricciardlli and Vickery, 1999).
Under harmonic excitation, closed-form expressions
for optimum TMD parameters and system responses
were derived by the balance of work and energy.
Optimum design parameters were determined from
the level of excitation and the target system response.
Design parameters of a TMD with a nonlinear power
law viscous damper under white noise excitation were
optimized by statistical linearization such that the
variance of structural displacement was minimized
(Rudinger, 2006). Contrary to the linear TMD, the
optimal parameters for the nonlinear TMD depended
on the structural damping and excitation intensity. The
approximate solution from statistical linearization was
w(t)
ks
xs
cs
ms
Fig. 1 System model of nonlinear TMD attached to SDOF structure.
Vol.8
confirmed by stochastic simulation.
In addition to passive TMD, active TMD (Chang
and Soong, 1980; Soong, 1990) and semi-active TMD
(Hrovat et al., 1982; Abe, 1996; Abe and Igusa, 1996;
Ricciardellia et al., 2000; Yalla et al., 2001; Nagarajaiah
and Varadarajan, 2005) have been proposed. Although
active and semi active TMDs possess higher
performance in vibration suppression, they must have
control algorithms, sensors, external power and higher
maintenance cost.
In this paper, an optimal design of a TMD with
nonlinear viscous dampers implemented on a SDOF
structure is investigated. The dynamic equation of the
system is expressed in discrete-time state space. The
sufficient and necessary conditions for the optimal
design parameters of the nonlinear TMD are derived
from the minimization of a performance index. Since
the sufficient and necessary conditions are nonlinear,
the method of steepest gradient is adopted. The
design parameters are updated with the optimal step
obtained from a golden section search. The design
parameters keep updating until the difference between
the performance indices of two consecutive iterations
is small enough. The feasibility of the proposed
optimization method is illustrated numerically by
using the Taipei 101 structure implemented with
TMD. By varying the design parameters around the
optimal values, the sensitivity of design parameters to
the performance index is studied. The performance of
TMDs with different damping power law exponents
implemented on Taipei 101 are compared.
2 Equation of motion of structure with
nonlinear TMD
The primary structure is modeled as a SDOF
structure with ms, cs, ks and w(t) being the generalized
mass, damping, stiffness and external disturbance,
respectively. Its equation of motion can be described as
xs (t ) + cs x&s (t ) + ks xs (t ) = w(t )
ms && (1)
After a nonlinear TMD is attached to the SDOF
structure, as shown in Fig. 1, it becomes a two-degree-
of-freedom (2DOF) system. The equation of motion
of the nonlinear system can be expressed as
fr
xd
md
fd
No.4 Lap-Loi Chung et al.: Optimal design theories of tuned mass dampers with nonlinear viscous damping 549

&&(t ) + Cx& (t ) + Kx (t ) = bc f d (t ) + bc f r (t ) + ec w(t )

Mx (2) The damping force fd[k] obeys a nonlinear viscous
damping law and the restoring force fd[k] obeys a
linear law. They are, respectively, given by
x d (t )
where x 21 (t ) = is the displacement vector
x s (t ) f d [k ] = c d x& d [k ] x& s [k ] sgn( x& d [k ] x& s [k ]) =
m 0 0 0
of the 2DOF system; M 22 = d , C 22 = c d D 2 z[k ] sgn( D 2 z[k ]) (7a)
0 ms 0 c s
0 0
and K 22 = are the mass, damping and
0 k s f r [k ] = k d ( x d [k ] x s [k ]) = k d D1 z[k ] (7b)
stiffness matrices of the system, respectively; xd(t)
and xs(t) are displacements of the TMD and the SDOF where cd is the damping coefficient of the TMD with
structure, respectively; md is mass of the TMD; fr(t) dimension of mass.length1-.time-2; is the damping
and fd(t) are, respectively, the restoring force and power law exponent of the TMD; kd is the stiffness
the nonlinear damping force provided by the TMD; of the TMD; (D1)14 = [1 1 0 0] and (D2)14 =
( bc ) 21 = [ 1 1] and ( e c ) 21 = [0 1] are the TMD
T T
[0 0 1 1] are, respectively, the output matrices for
internal loading and the primary structural external the displacement and velocity of the TMD relative to
loading vectors, respectively. the structure. After Eqs. (7a) and (7b) are substituted
The equation of motion (Eq. (2)) is conveniently into Eq. (6), the discrete-time state equation can be
expressed as a first-order differential equation in state rewritten as
space,

z&(t ) = Az (t ) + bf d (t ) + bf r (t ) + ew(t ) (3) z[k + 1] = Ad z[k ] + cd bd D2 z[k ] sgn( D2 z[k ]) +
kd bd D1 z[k ] + ed w[k ] (8)
x (t ) 0 I
where z 41 (t ) = , A44 = ,

x& (t )
1
M K M 1C
3 Derivation of optimal design theory for
0 0 nonlinear TMD
b41 = 1 and e 41 = 1 .
M bc M ec
The optimal design parameters for nonlinear
The solution of Eq. (3) is
TMD, cd and kd, can be obtained such that a
certain performance index is minimized. The most
z (t1 ) = e A(t1 t 0 ) z (t 0 ) + appropriate performance index J is the sum of square
t1 of an interested structural response y[k],
e A(t1 ) {bf d ( ) + bf r ( ) + ew( )} d (4)
t0 k1
J = y 2 [k ] (9)
In the interval between two consecutive sampling k =0
instants, t 0 = k t and t1 = (k + 1)t , it is assumed
that the nonlinear damping force f d ( ) , the restoring where k1 is the instant at which external loading
force f r ( ) and the external force w( ) are piecewise is terminated. The structural response y[k] is a
constant, combination of structural states and external force,

f d ( ) = f d (k t ) y[k ] = Dz[k ] + Ew[k ] (10)

f r ( ) = f r (k t ) for k t < (k + 1)t (5)
w( ) = w(k t ) where D14 and E are constant with appropriate

dimensions. When the above equation is substituted
where t is the sampling period. into Eq. (9), the performance index J can be rewritten
Under the assumption mentioned above, the as
solution (Eq. (4)) can be expressed in discrete-time
fashion as a first-order difference equation, k1
J = z T [k ]D T Dz[k ] + 2 z T [k ]D T Ew[k ] + E 2 w2 [k ] (11)
k =0

z[k + 1] = Ad z[k ] + bd f d [k ] + bd f r [k ] + ed w[k ] (6)

Since the state vector z[k] in the above equation
should satisfy the state equation (Eq. (8)), Eq. (8)
where z[k ] = z (k t ) , ( Ad )44 = e , ( bd )41 = A ( Ad I )b ,
At 1
is the equality constraint to the performance index.
( ed )41 = A1 ( Ad I )e , f d [k ] = f d (k t ) , f r [k ] = f r (k t ) After incorporation of the equality constraint, the
and w[k ] = w(k t ) . performance index becomes
550 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.8

k1
J = z T [k ]D T Dz[k ] + 2 z T [k ]D T Ew[k ] + E 2 w2 [k ] converged. If the step s is too small, convergence is
k =0 guaranteed but the number of iterations may be very
large. Therefore, a golden section search method is
{ }
k1
+ T [k ] Ad z[k ] + cd bd D2 z[k ] sgn( D2 z[k ]) + kd bd D1z[k ] + ed w[k ] z[k + 1]

k =0
adopted to find the optimal step of increment (Lewis.,
(12) 1986; Lee et al., 2006). The iteration procedures are
repeated until the tolerance between two consecutive
where 41 [ k ] is the Lagrange multiplier vector. Since iterations is acceptable (Fig. 2).
the performance index J' is a function of the state
vector z[k], the co-state vector [k], the TMD damping 4 Numerical verifications and sensitivity
coefficient cd and the TMD stiffness kd, the sufficient analysis
and necessary conditions for the minimization of the
performance index J' are In this paper, the mass md and the stiffness kd
of the TMD are normalized to be dimensionless as,
J respectively,
= Ad z[k ] + cd bd D2 z[k ] sgn( D2 z[k ]) + kd bd D1 z[k ] +
[k ] md
Rm = (15a)
ed w[k ] z[k + 1] = 0, z[0] = z0 (13a) ms

J d kd
= 2 D T Dz[k ] + 2 D T Ew[k ] + AdT [k ] + Rf = = (15b)
z[k ] s k s Rm
1
cd D2 z[k ] bdT [k ] + kd D1T bdT [k ]
where Rm is the ratio of the TMD mass md to the first
[k 1] = 0 , [k1 ] = 0 (13b) structural modal mass mS; Rf is the ratio of the TMD
frequency d to the first structural modal frequency
s.
k The structural response y[k] reduced by the
J 1

= T [k ]bd D 2 z[k ] sgn( D 2 z[k ]) = 0 (13c) application of TMD may be the displacement xs[k],
c d k =0 the velocity x& s [k ] and the acceleration &&
x s [k ] of the
k structure,
J 1

=
k d k =0
T [k ]bd D1 z[k ] = 0 (13d)
y[k ] = Dz[k ] + Ew[k ] =
xs [k ], D = [ 0 1 0 0] , E = 0.
where z[0]=z0 is the initial condition for the state (16)
equation (Eq. (13a)) and [k1]=0 is the terminal x&s [k ], D = [ 0 0 0 1] , E = 0.
condition for the co-state equation (Eq. (13b)).
xs [k ], D = 0 s2 0 2ss , E = 1 ms .
&&
The sufficient and necessary conditions
represented by Eq. (13a) to (13d) for the optimal In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the TMD,
design parameters of TMD are so complex that the the performance indices are, respectively, normalized
closed-form solution cannot be obtained. In this as the displacement ratio Rd, the velocity ratio Rv, and
paper, the steepest gradient method is adopted. the acceleration ratio Ra,
The initial guess for the TMD damping coefficient
and the TMD stiffness are assigned as cd(0) = 0 and
( J xs ) with TMD
kd(0) = md (2fs ) 2 , respectively. The state vector z[k] Rd = (17a)
and co-state vector [k] are, respectively, solved from ( J xs ) without TMD
Eqs. (13a) and (13b) in sequence. The gradients of the
TMD damping coefficient and the TMD stiffness in
Eqs. (13c) and (13d) usually will not vanish and they ( J x& s ) with TMD
are used to update the parameters, Rv = (17b)
( J x& s ) without TMD

J ( 0)
c d(1) = c d( 0) s (14a)
c d ( J &&xs ) with TMD
Ra = (17c)
( J &&xs ) without TMD
J ( 0)
k d(1) = k d( 0) s (14b)
k d where Rd, Rv and Ra are, respectively, the ratios of the
root mean square of the structural displacement xs,
where s is the step of increment for design parameters. velocity x& s and acceleration &&
x s with TMD to those
If the step s is too large, the solution may not be without TMD.
No.4 Lap-Loi Chung et al.: Optimal design theories of tuned mass dampers with nonlinear viscous damping 551

Fig. 2 Flow-chart of iteration procedures

4.1 Numerical verifications
The external wind force, w(t), is assumed to be
white noise as shown in Fig. 3. With mass ratio Rm
1.25%, the optimal design parameters c dopt and Rfopt
are computed by the proposed optimization procedures
for damping exponent, = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 such that
the performance indices, Rd, Rv and Ra are minimized
(Table 1). Furthermore, the 3-D variation of the
performance indices, Rd, Rv and Ra against the TMD
design parameters, cd and Rf, are plotted as shown
in Figs. 4-6. As listed in Table 1, the TMD design
parameters with the lowest performance index from the
3-D graphs are close to the optimal design parameters
from the optimization procedure. Therefore, the
proposed method for the optimal design parameters of
TMD is feasible. Table 1 shows that: (1) the higher the
damping exponent , the larger the optimal damping
coefficient c dopt ; (2) the optimal frequency ratio Rfopt
changes slightly for different damping exponents ;
and (3) the optimal displacement ratio R dopt and
acceleration ratio Raopt remain almost the same for
different damping exponents .
552 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.8

1
w (103kN)

-1

-2
0 200 400 600
Time (s)
Fig. 3 External white-noise wind force

Table1 Numerical verifications for Rm = 1.25%

0.5 1.0 2.0
opt
R Rf 0.9961 0.9916 0.9873
d

cd (kN ( s m ) )

13.62 59.34 988.96
Rd 0.5915 0.5721 0.5600
opt
R Rf 0.9983 0.9942 0.9893
v

cd (kN ( s m ) )

13.70 59.74 999.70
Rv 0.5857 0.5671 0.5561
opt
R Rf 0.9936 0.9886 0.9842
a

cd (kN ( s m ) )

13.60 59.09 980.43
Ra 0.8271 0.82059 0.8164

0.75 0.75
0.70 0.70
0.65 0.65
Rd
Rd

0.60 0.60
0.55 0.55
0.50 0.50
1.06 1.06
1.02 25 30 1.02 100 120
0.98 20 0.98 80
60
Rf
0.94 5 10 15 Rf
0.94 20 40
cd (kN ( s m ) ) cd (kN ( s m ) )

(a) = 0.5 (b) = 1.0

0.75
0.70
0.65
Rd

0.60
0.55
0.50
1.06
1.02 2000
1600
Rf 0.98 1200
0.94 400 800
cd (kN ( s m ) )

(c) = 2.0
Fig. 4 3-D variation of displacement ratio Rd
No.4 Lap-Loi Chung et al.: Optimal design theories of tuned mass dampers with nonlinear viscous damping 553

0.75 0.75

0.65 0.65

Rv
Rv

0.55 0.55
1.06 1.06
1.02 25 30 1.02 100 120
0.98 20 0.98 80
Rf 15 Rf 60
0.94 5 10 0.94 20 40
cd (kN ( s m ) ) cd (kN ( s m ) )

(a) = 0.5 (b) = 1.0

0.75

0.65
Rv

0.55
1.06
1.02 2000
1600
Rf 0.98 1200
0.94 400 800
cd (kN ( s m ) )

(c) = 2.0
Fig. 5 3-D variation of velocity ratio Rv

0.90 0.90

0.86 0.86
Ra
Ra

0.82 0.82
1.06 1.06
1.02 25 30 1.02 100 120
0.98 20 0.98 80
60
Rf
0.94 5 10 15 Rf
0.94 20 40
cd (kN ( s m ) ) cd (kN ( s m ) )

(a) = 0.5 (b) = 1.0

0.90

0.86
Ra

0.82
1.06
1.02 2000
1600
Rf 0.98 1200
0.94 400 800
cd (kN ( s m ) )

(c) = 2.0
Fig. 6 3-D variation of acceleration ratio Ra

4.2 Sensitivity analysis

acceleration ratio Raopt is about 0.82 for damping
When the mass ratio Rm is 1.25%, the optimal exponent = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 (Figs. 7 and 8). When
displacement ratio R dopt is about 0.58 and the optimal the optimal damping coefficient c dopt varies by 10%,
554 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.8

the displacement ratio Rd changes by 0.4205%,
0.2796% and 0.1257% for damping exponent
= 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 , respectively, and the acceleration
ratio Ra changes by 0.098%, 0.059% and 0.026% for
damping exponent = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 , respectively.
The performance indices Rd and Ra are less sensitive
to the damping coefficient cd. When the optimal
frequency ratio Rfopt varies by 10%, the displacement
ratio Rd changes by 21.7986%, 22.7732% and
25.5797% for damping exponent = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 ,
respectively, and the acceleration ratio Ra changes
by 5.4726%, 5.3299% and 5.6728% for damping
exponent = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 , respectively. The
performance indices Rd and Ra are very sensitive to the
frequency ratio Rf . In other words, the performance
index is more sensitive to the frequency ratio Rf than
to the damping coefficient cd.

0.50% 0.10%
= 0.5 = 0.5
= 1.0 0.08% = 1.0
0.40%
= 2.0 = 2.0
[Rd(Rd)opt]/(Rd)opt

[Ra(Ra)opt]/(Ra)opt
0.30% 0.06%

0.20% 0.04%

0.10% 0.02%

0 0
0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10
Cd/(Cd)opt Cd/(Cd)opt
Fig. 7 Sensitivity of displacement ratio Rd (left) and acceleration ratio Ra (right) to damping coefficient (cd)

30% 6%
= 2.0 = 2.0
= 1.0 = 1.0
= 0.5 = 0.5
[Rd(Rd)opt]/(Rd)opt

[Ra(Ra)opt]/(Ra)opt

20% 4%

10% 2%

0 0
0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10
Rf /(Rf)opt Rf /(Rf)opt

Fig. 8 Sensitivity of displacement ratio Rd (left) and acceleration ratio Ra (right) to frequency ratio (Rf)

5 Analysis example
The Taipei 101 structure holds the title of world's
tallest building (for now) at 508 m, shown in Fig. 9.
The superstructure is made of steel and the boxed
cross section columns in the lower stories are filled
with concrete. The excavation depth is 22.25 to 22.95
m. The foundation constitutes a huge reinforced
concrete slab 3.0 to 4.7 m in thickness. Underneath
the concrete slab, there are 380 friction piles, 15 to
33 m in length, down to the bed rock. The total floor
area is about 374,000 m2 including the floor area
about 30,277 m2 of the basement under the ground.
The underground structure is made of RC-SRC. There
are eight mega columns which are filled with concrete
of strength 68.9 MPa.
Because the TMD is hung in the 92th floors, in order
to turn the structure into SDOF structure, the first mode
shape is normalized such that the component at the 92th
floor is unity (Wu et al., 2005; Johnston, 2006). After
No.4 Lap-Loi Chung et al.: Optimal design theories of tuned mass dampers with nonlinear viscous damping 555

model reduction, the first modal mass ms is 52696.5 t, is 1.25% (md = 658.71 t). The spherical mass is
the first modal frequency fs is 0.14251 Hz, and the supported by a sling of eight steel cables. Eight
first modal stiffness ks = ms (2fs ) 2 is 42250.0 kN/m. viscous dampers act like shock absorbers when the
It is assumed that the first modal damping ratio s is sphere shifts as shown in Fig. 10. The viscous damper
2% so that the first modal damping coefficient can be is nonlinear of damping power law exponent = 2.0
obtained as cs = 2ms (2fs ) = 1513.2 kN s/m . with damping coefficient cd = 1,000 kN.(s/m)2. Each
The mass of TMD for Taipei 101 is 660 t, the damper is 3.1m in length and inclines 60 degrees with
heaviest in the world, so that the mass ratio Rm the floor. It can provide at most 1,000 kN of damping
force. The mass is able to move 1.5 m in any direction.
This gold-colored orb is on view from restaurants,
bars and observation decks between the 88th and
92nd stories. A bumper ring prevents the ball from
10000 7200 45800=23200 53400=17000

swaying too far, should that much swaying ever need

to occur. The length of the pendulum for the TMD is
determined from the TMD stiffness, which is in turn is
determined by the frequency ratio. The frequency ratio
Rf is 0.9855, computed from the equation proposed by
Sadek (Sadek et al., 1997).
The Taipei 101 structure is excited by external
wind force with a return period of half a year as
shown in Fig. 11 (Wu et al., 2005). In addition to
the original TMD implemented on the Taipei 101
structure, optimal designs of TMD with a minimum
acceleration ratio Ra for damping exponents =
0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 are also investigated. The design
parameters are listed in Table 2. The frequency ratio
Rf for the original TMD and the optimal frequency
ratio Rfopt for the TMD with = 2.0 are 0.9855 and
0.9768, respectively. They are different by 0.89%. The
damping coefficient cd for the original TMD and the
844200=352800

opt
448000

optimal damping coefficient c d for the TMD with

= 2.0 are 1000.0 and 903.17 kN(s/m)2, respectively.
They are different by 10.72%. Since the performance
is less sensitive to the damping coefficient cd than to
the frequency ratio Rf , the acceleration ratios Ra for
46300=25200
8400
4200 4500
5600
19400
33100=9300

(a) Side view (b) Plane view

Fig. 9 Structure of Taipei 101 (Wu et al., 2005)
556 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.8

the two cases are close to each other. No matter what

the damping exponents are, the acceleration ratios
Ra are similar and lie between 0.6662 and 0.6992.
When no TMD is implemented on the Taipei 101
structure, the peak structural displacement xs max
and acceleration && xs max are 7.850 cm and 6.501
cm/s2, respectively, (Table 2 and Figs. 12-13). With
the implementation of TMDs, the peak structural
displacement xs max is reduced to the range from
5.555 cm (optimal TMD with = 2.0) to 5.775
cm (optimal TMD with =1.0) (Fig. 12) and the
peak structural acceleration && xs max is reduced to
the range from 4.423 cm/s2 (optimal TMD with
= 1.0) to 4.575 cm/s2 (optimal TMD with = 2.0)
(Fig. 13). All the TMDs match the requirement of
comfort. In order to realize the reduction in structural
Fig. 10 Tuned mass damper (TMD) attached to Taipei 101 response, the peak TMD relative displacement
(Wu et al., 2005) xs xd max is in the range from 22.72 cm (original

1.5

1.0

0.5
w (103kN)

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
0 200 400 600
Time (s)
Fig. 11 External wind force with return period of half a year

Table 2 Analysis results for Taipei 101

Without Original TMD

0.5 1.0 2.0
TMD (2.0)
Rfopt 0.9855 1.0042 0.9964 0.9768

cdopt (kN ( s m ) )

1000.0 16.73 65.69 903.17

Raopt 0.6992 0.6662 0.6794 0.6980

xs max
(cm) 7.850 5.710 5.708 5.775 5.555

xs
&& max
(cm / s 2 ) 6.501 4.592 4.285 4.423 4.575

xs xd max
(cm) 22.72 26.95 25.61 23.37

fd max
(kN) 42.24 23.59 30.64 40.31

TMD) to 25.61 cm (optimal TMD with = 1.0)
(Fig. 14) and the peak TMD damping force f d max
is in the range from 30.64 kN (optimal TMD with
= 1.0) to 42.24 kN (original TMD) (Fig. 14).
The higher the damping exponent , the smaller
the peak TMD relative displacement xs xd max but
the larger the peak TMD damping force f d max . The
hysteretic loops of the TMD damping forces fd versus
the corresponding TMD relative displacements (xs xd)
are plotted as shown in Fig. 14. When the damping
exponent is = 1.0, the hysteretic loop is a circle
or ellipse. It is close to a rectangle and an eye shape
when = 0.5 and = 2.0, respectively.
No.4 Lap-Loi Chung et al.: Optimal design theories of tuned mass dampers with nonlinear viscous damping 557

0.09
Displ. of main system (m)

Without TMD
0.06
0.03
0
-0.03
-0.06
-0.09 0 200 400 600

0.09 Original TMD

Displ. of main system (m)

0.06
0.03
0
-0.03
-0.06
-0.09
0 200 400 600

0.09
Displ. of main system (m)

Optimal TMD with = 0.5

0.06
0.03
0
-0.03
-0.06
-0.09
0 200 400 600

0.09
Displ. of main system (m)

Optimal TMD with = 1.0

0.06
0.03
0
-0.03
-0.06
-0.09
0 200 400 600

0.09
Displ. of main system (m)

Optimal TMD with = 2.0

0.06
0.03
0
-0.03
-0.06
-0.09
0 200 400 600
Time (s)

Fig. 12 Structural displacement time histories of Taipei 101

558 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.8
Acc. of main system (m/s2)

0.08
Without TMD
0.04

-0.04

-0.08
0 200 400 600
Acc. of main system (m/s2)

0.08
Original TMD
0.04

-0.04

-0.08
0 200 400 600

0.08
Acc. of main system (m/s2)

Optimal TMD with = 0.5

0.04

-0.04

-0.08
0 200 400 600
Acc. of main system (m/s2)

0.08
Optimal TMD with = 1.0
0.04

-0.04

-0.08
0 200 400 600

0.08
Acc. of main system (m/s2)

Optimal TMD with = 2.0

0.04

-0.04

-0.08
0 200 400 600
Time (s)

Fig. 13 Structural acceleration time histories of Taipei 101

No.4 Lap-Loi Chung et al.: Optimal design theories of tuned mass dampers with nonlinear viscous damping 559

45 Original TMD 45
Optimal TMD with = 0.5
30 30
Damping force (kN)

Damping force (kN)

15 15

0 0

-15 -15

-30 -30

-45 -45
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Rel. displ. of main system (m) Rel. displ. of main system (m)

45 Optimal TMD with = 2.0

45
Optimal TMD with = 1.0
30 Damping force (kN) 30
Damping force (kN)

15 15

0 0

-15 -15

-30 -30

-45 -45
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Rel. displ. of main system (m) Rel. displ. of main system (m)

Fig. 14 Hysteretic loops of TMDs for Taipei 101

of comfort for building occupants is satisfied as

6 Conclusions
In this paper, an optimal design for a TMD with
nonlinear viscous damping is developed. Numerical
procedures are proposed to systematically and
efficiently determine the optimal design parameters
for nonlinear TMD such that a certain performance
index is minimized. The feasibility of the proposed
optimization method is illustrated numerically by
using the Taipei 101 structure implemented with
TMD. From the results of the sensitivity analysis, the
performance index is less sensitive to the damping
coefficient than to the frequency ratio. The higher the
damping power law exponent, the performance index
becomes more sensitive to the frequency ratio, and
less sensitive to the damping coefficient. Time history
analysis was conducted for the Taipei 101 structure
implemented with different TMDs and subjected to
wind loads with a return period of half a year. For
both linear and nonlinear TMDs, the requirement
long as the TMD is properly designed. It was found
that as the damping exponent increases, the relative
displacement of the TMD decreases but the damping
force increases.
References
Abe M (1996), Semi-active Tuned Mass Dampers for
Seismic Protection of Civil Structures, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25: 743749.
Abe M and Igusa T (1996), Semi-active Dynamic
Vibration Absorbers for Controlling Transient
Response, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 198:
547569.
Bakre SV and Jangid RS (2007), Optimum Parameters
of Tuned Mass Damper for Damped Main System,
Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 14: 448470.
Chang JCH and Soong TT (1980), Structural Control
Using Active Tuned Mass Dampers, Journal of
560 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Engineering Mechanics, 106(6): 10911098.
Crandall SH and Mark WD (1973), Random Vibration in
Mechanical Systems, NY: Academic Press.
Den Hartog JP (1956), Mechanical Vibrations. 4th ed.
NY: McGraw Hill.
Frahm H (1911), Device for Damping Vibration of
Bodies. U.S. Patent No. 989958.
Fujino Y and Abe M (1993), Design Formulas for
Mass Dampers Based on a Perturbation Technique,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 22:
83354.
Haskett T, Breukelman B, Robinson J and Kottelenberg
J (2003), Tuned Mass Dampers under Excessive
Structural Excitation, Report of the Motioneering Inc.
Guelph, Ontario, Canada NIK 1B8.
Hrovat D, Barak P and Rabins M (1982), Semi-active
Versus Passive or Active Tuned Mass Damper for
Structural Control, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
109(3): 691705.
Inaudi JA and Kelly JM (1995), Mass Damper Using
Friction-dissipating Devices, Journal Engineering
Mechanics, 121(1): 142149.
Johnston B (2006), Project Spotlight: Taipei 101: The
experience, Elevator World, 54(6): 26132
Lee CL, Chen YT, Chung LL and Wang YP (2006),
Optimal Design Theories and Applications of Tuned
Mass Dampers, Engineering Structures; 28: 4353.
Lewis FL (1986), Optimal Control, New York: Wiley.
Luft RW (1979), Optimal Tuned Mass Dampers for
Building, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
105: 27662772.
McNamara RJ (1977), Tuned Mass Dampers for
Building, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
103: 19851998.
Nagarajaiah S and Varadarajan N (2005), Short Time
Fourier Transform Algorithm for Wind Response
Control of Buildings with Variable Stiffness TMD,
Engineering Structures, 27: 431441.
Randall SE, Halsted DM and Taylor DL (1981),
Vol.8
Optimum Vibration Absorbers for Linear Damped
Systems, Journal of Mechanical Design, 103: 908913.
Ricciardellia F, Occhiuzzib A and Clementec P (2000),
Semi-active Tuned Mass Damper Control Strategy for
Wind-excited Structures, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 88: 5774.
Ricciardlli F and Vickery BJ (1999), Tuned Vibration
Absorbers with Dry Friction Damping, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 28: 707723.
Rudinger F (2006), Optimal Vibration Absorber with
Nonlinear Viscous Power Law Damping and White
Noise Excitation, Journal Engineering Mechanics,
132(1): 4653.
Sadek F, Mohraz B, Taylor AW and Chung RM
(1997), A Method of Estimating the Parameters of
Mass Dampers for Seismic Applications, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 26: 617635.
Soong TT (1990), Active Structural Control: Theory and
Practice, New York: Longman Scientific Tech.
Soong TT and Dargush GF (1997), Passive Energy
Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering, New
York: Wiley.
Thompson AG (1981), Optimum Tuning and Damping
of a Dynamic Vibration Absorber Applied to a Force
Excited and Damped Primary System, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 77: 403415.
Warburton GB (1982), Optimal Absorber Parameters
for Various Combinations of Response and Excitation
Parameters, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamic, 10: 381401.
Warburton GB and Ayorinde EO (1980), Optimum
Absorbers for Simple Systems, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamic, 8: 197217.
Wu LY, Chung LL, Chen JC and Huang GL (2005),
Control Simulation for Taipei 101 with Wind
Excitation, 7th Conf. on Structural Engineering,
Taiwan. (in Chinese).
Yalla SK, Kareem A and Kantor J C (2001), Semi-active
Tuned Liquid Column Dampers for Vibration Control of
Structures, Engineering Structures, 23:14691479.