Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Development of passive viscoelastic damper to attenuate excessive
floor vibrations
I. Saidi
a,
, E.F. Gad
a,b
, J.L. Wilson
a
, N. Haritos
b
a
Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
b
Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Melbourne University, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 July 2009
Received in revised form
3 May 2011
Accepted 12 May 2011
Available online 28 July 2011
Keywords:
Floor vibrations
Viscoelastic materials
Tuned mass dampers
a b s t r a c t
Recent changes in the construction of building floors have included the use of light material composite
systems and long span floor systems. Although these changes have many advantages, such floor systems
cansuffer fromexcessive vibrationdue to humanactivities. This problemis exacerbatedinoffice buildings
due to the reduction in inherent damping associated with modern fit outs. Excessive floor vibrations are
often realised after the completion of construction or following structural modifications and normally
arise due to inadequate knowledge of the damping values in the design process. Thus rectification
measures are normally required to reduce floor accelerations. This paper proposes a new innovative
passive viscoelastic damper to reduce floor vibrations. This damper canbe easily tunedto the fundamental
frequency of the floor and can be designed to achieve various damping values. The paper discusses the
analytical development of the damper withexperimental results presentedona prototype to demonstrate
its effectiveness.
Crown Copyright 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Building floors are subjected to dynamic loads from people
when they walk, run, dance or engage in aerobics activities. Such
excitation forces cannot be easily isolated from the structure and
they occur frequently [1]. Typical pacing rates for walking are
between 1.6 and 2.4 Hz (slow to fast walk) whilst for jogging
the rate is about 2.5 Hz and running occurs at rates up to about
3 Hz.
Although the excitation from pedestrians is dominated by the
pacing rate, it also includes higher harmonic components with
frequencies corresponding toaninteger multiple of the pacing rate.
Since annoying vibration amplitudes are caused by a coincidence
of the natural frequency of the floor (f
1
) with one of the harmonics
of the walking excitation, the problem may be avoided by keeping
these frequencies away fromeach other. For this reason, engineers
may aim to design floor systems to have a fundamental frequency
greater than three times the walking frequency (i.e. above about
6 Hz) [2]. This is a simple and effective approach for design but
it does not necessarily guarantee acceptable floor performance
since it does not take account of damping. Indeed composite
floors with very low damping (2%), can experience high levels
of vibration even if their fundamental natural frequency is above
7.5 Hz [3].

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: isaidi@swin.edu.au (I. Saidi).
The reaction of people who experience floor vibration depends
on the activity they are engaged in, as reflected in the commonly
used acceptance criteria as illustrated in Fig. 1. For example, offices
and residences are normally designed to have a maximum peak
acceleration of about 0.5% gravity (g) whereas pedestrian bridges
can be designed for acceleration levels 10 times greater (5% g) [4].
In addition to acceleration amplitude, peoples perception is also
affected by the characteristics of the vibration response including
frequency and duration [1]. Comfort studies for automobiles
and aircraft have found that humans are especially sensitive to
vibration in the frequency range of 48 Hz. This is explained by
the fact that many organs in the human body resonate at these
frequencies [5] whilst outside this frequency range, people accept
higher vibration acceleration levels [4] as shown in Fig. 1.
There are several design models for predicting the maximum
response of a floor due to walking excitation. One of the most
commonly used method is that documented in the American
Institute of Steel Construction Design Guide 11 (AISC DG11) [5,4].
This is the most popular method used by Australian designers.
This method is based on reducing the floor structure to a Single
Degree of Freedom(SDOF) system. The peak acceleration response
is calculated using Eq. (1) (the full derivation of this expression can
be found in [4]).
a
p
g
=
P
0
Exp(0.35f
1
)

1
W
(1)
where a
p
/g is estimated peak acceleration in units of gravity
acceleration (g), f
1
is the fundamental frequency of the floor
0141-0296/$ see front matter Crown Copyright 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.05.017
3318 I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328
Fig. 1. Acceptance criteria for floor vibrations.
structure, P
0
is a constant force based on a persons weight and
taken as 0.29 kN,
1
is the damping ratio of the floor and W is
the effective weight of the floor which oscillates because of the
walking. The a
p
/g value has to satisfy the values in Fig. 1 for
satisfactory performance.
Other methods for calculating the floor peak response and as-
sessing the performance include the recently published European
Commission guide [68]. In this method, the total damping of the
floor is taken as the sumof contributions fromstructural damping,
furnishing and finishes. Similar to the AISC DG11, this method di-
rectly relates the peak response to the total damping which has to
be assumed during the design phase. However, damping in prac-
tical structures is seldom fully understood as it cannot be deter-
mined directly based on the structural properties, as is the case for
stiffness and mass. Damping is generally determined based on ex-
perimental and historical data. Therefore, in applying assessment
methods design engineers have to estimate the damping based on
available knowledge during the design phase. However, the de-
signers in many cases may not knowthe details of the fit out which
are specified by the client or architect. Consequently, overestima-
tion of damping or altering the fit out of the floor can lead to ex-
cessive vibrations.
2. Control of floor vibrations
There are a fewremedial options available to rectify a floor with
excessive levels of vibration, including increasing the stiffness and
hence the frequency or increasing the damping. The installation
of tuned mass dampers can be performed more cheaply than
structural stiffening, and often offer the only practical means of
vibration control in existing structures [9]. In new constructions
viscoelastic materials can be incorporated within the floor system
to increase its damping. Both embedded viscoelastic materials and
tuned mass dampers represent typical passive damping options
whilst more sophisticatedandexpensive solutions may include the
addition of active dampers.
2.1. Viscoelastic materials
Embedded viscoelastic materials (VEM) offer the advantage of
reducing vibrations over a broad range of frequencies compared
with TMDs. However, viscoelastic damping works optimally only
Fig. 2. Illustration for Resotec product in composite floor (after [11]).
for a specific mode of vibration. Nevertheless use of VEMs is a
cheap method of increasing the damping if incorporated during
construction [10].
An example of viscoelastic damping is the Resotec system
which is illustrated in Fig. 2. This product comprises a thin layer
of high-damping viscoelastic material with an overall thickness
of about 3 mm. Resotec is sandwiched between the top flange of
the floor steel beams and concrete slab for a proportion of the
beam near each end where the shear stresses are the greatest. It is
reported that the damping of a fitted out floor is typically doubled
by the incorporation of Resotec [11]. However, this product needs
to be incorporated within the floor during construction and is not
suitable as a rectification measure.
2.2. Tuned mass dampers (TMD)
The principle of a TMD was initially utilised when Den Hartog
in 1947 reintroduced the dynamic absorber invented by Frahm in
1909 [1214]. Generally, a TMD consists of a mass, spring, and
dashpot and is tuned to the natural frequency of the primary
system. When the primary system begins to oscillate it excites
the TMD into motion and hence the TMD absorbs energy from
the vibrating floor [15]. The TMD inertia forces produced by this
motion are anti-phase to the excitation force. The first use of a TMD
for floor vibration application was reported by Lenzen [16] who
used small TMDs with a total mass of about 2% of the floor mass.
The TMDs were made of steel hung by springs and dashpots from
the floor beams. Lenzen reported floors with annoying vibration
characteristics became satisfactory by tuning the TMDs to a natural
frequency of about 1.0 Hz less than that of the floor and using
a damping ratio of 7.5% [17]. An example of a more recent TMD
is a Pendulum Tuned Mass Damper (PTMD) shown in Fig. 3.
Experiments were undertakento test the performance of the PTMD
and it is reported that the damper reduced the floor vibrationin the
range of 50%70% [17].
Floor vibrations due to walking excitation typically produce
very small floor displacements which are generally less than
0.1 mm. A TMD would typically have a maximum displacement
around ten times larger than the floor (i.e. in the order of 1 mm).
In reality, it is difficult to produce a practical viscous damper
that provides a reasonable level of damping given this very
small displacement. Viscous dampers were used in some floor
applications such as in the Terrace on the Park building in New
York (1992). This problematic floor was cantilevered with a low
natural frequency of 2.3 Hz and responded to footfall vibrations
with 7% g acceleration and 3.3 mm maximum displacement. In
this application the damper used was large and extended fromthe
lower floor to the point of maximum response of the problematic
floor. Indeed such access is not always available for office floors.
Other applications for viscous TMDcanbe foundinstadia. However
such structures tend to have long span cantilevers with larger
displacements associated with crowd activities especially from
I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328 3319
Fig. 3. Pendulum tuned mass damper for floor vibrations (after [17]).
concerts. Therefore viscous dampers can be effective in these cases
due to the large motion associated with vibrations and in turn
energy can be dissipated through their typical dashpot systems.
For floor retrofitting applications there are usually physical
limitations associated with access and presence of mechanical
services attached to the soffit of the slab and beams. Hence for a
floor damper to be practical, it needs to be sufficiently small to
be accommodated in the available ceiling space and it should also
allowfor easy adjustment of frequency for tuning. Given the above
mentioned limitations, an alternative novel viscoelastic damper
specifically for floor vibration is proposed in this paper.
3. Fundamentals of a tuned mass damper
In floor design, it is common to idealise the floor as a single
degree of freedom (SDOF) system. A floor can be represented with
an equivalent mass (m
1
), stiffness (k
1
) and damping (c
1
) by a
SDOF system as shown in Fig. 4. The maximum response occurs
when the frequency of the excitation force coincides with the
natural frequency of the system, hence the maximumacceleration
response is given by Eq. (2) [18]:
|

X
1
| =
F
0
2
1
m
1
. (2)
The addition of a TMD converts the floor into a two degrees of
freedomsystemas illustrated in Fig. 5. In such a systemthe damper
mass (m
2
) and its spring stiffness (k
2
) are tuned so that the TMD
has the same natural frequency as the primary (floor) system.
The addition of damping (c
2
) to the TMD reduces the overall
response of the combined system as shown in Fig. 6. One method
to assess the efficiency of the TMD is to compare the response of
the original SDOF system and the two degrees of freedom system.
The formulation of response of a generic two degrees of freedom
system is presented in Section 3.2.
TMDs are typically effective over a narrow frequency band and
must be tuned to a particular natural frequency. They are not
effective if the structure has several closely spaced frequencies and
they can potentially increase the vibration if they are off-tuned
[9]. A TMD splits the natural frequency of the primary system
into a lower (f

1
) and higher frequency (f

2
) as shown in Fig. 6. If
there is zero damping then resonance occurs at the two undamped
resonant frequencies of the combined system (f

1
& f

2
). The other
extreme case occurs when there is infinite damping, which has the
effect of locking the spring (k
2
). In this case the system becomes
one degree of freedomwithstiffness of (k
1
) anda mass of (m
1
+m
2
).
Using anintermediate value of damping suchas optimumdamping
(
opt
), it is possible to control the vibration of the primary system
Fig. 4. Schematic of an SDOF system.
Fig. 5. Schematic of a two DOF system.
Fig. 6. Example showing the effects of attaching a TMD to an SDOF system.
over a wider frequency range [19]. In the optimum damper the
values of the dampers natural frequency and damping ratio (
opt
)
are specified to obtain minimum and equal height peaks at f

1
&
f

2
[20].
3.1. Properties of an optimum damper
The first step in the design of a TMD is to determine the desired
mass ratio () as defined by Eq. (3):
=
m
2
m
1
. (3)
The larger the mass of the damper (m
2
) the larger the separation
between the two new frequencies (f

1
& f

2
in Fig. 6) which
are created by the damper. This would normally increase the
effectiveness of the damper over a broader range of frequencies
and also decreases the vibration level of the primary system.
3320 I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328
However, there are normally some structural and physical
limitations on the size of the damper and its mass. For most
practical cases a mass ratio of 0.010.02 is recommended.
The optimumnatural frequency of the damper (f
2
) is defined by
Eq. (4):
f
2
=
f
1
1 +
(4)
where f
1
is the natural frequency of the primary system, which can
be obtained from Eq. (5):
f
1
=
1
2
_
k
1
m
1
. (5)
The optimum damping ratio of the damper
2
=
opt
(is where
response peaks at f

1
& f

2
are equal) can be found using Eq. (6) [13]:

2
=
_
3
8(1 + )
. (6)
3.2. Response of retrofitted system
To determine the response of the two DOF system, the equation
of motion as expressed in Eq. (7) needs to be solved. The values of
m
2
, k
2
and
2
of the damper are obtained from optimum damper
equations (3)(6).
_
m
1
0
0 m
2
_ _
x
1
x
2
_
+
_
c
1
+ c
2
c
2
c
2
c
2
_ _
x
1
x
2
_
+
_
k
1
+ k
2
k
2
k
2
k
2
_ _
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
F
1
(t)
0
_
(7)
where c
1
= 2
1

k
1
m
1
and c
2
= 2
2

k
2
m
2
.
Eq. (7) consists of two coupled second-order ordinary differen-
tial equations. There are several approaches to solve this equation,
and a convenient method of solving this system is to use vectors
and matrices. This method requires the damping matrix to satisfy
Eq. (8). Otherwise for the case of arbitrary damping one of two
options needs to be considered. The first is to assume the modal
damping based on experience and the second is to convert the
damping matrix to a proportional damping model using a propor-
tional method [21].
[C] =
1
[M] +
2
[K] (8)
where [C], [M] and K are damping, mass and stiffness matrices
respectively, and
1
&
2
are mass and stiffness multipliers
respectively.
The two splitting frequencies (f

1
& f

2
) in Fig. 6 can be calculated
using Eq. (9) (see Box I) [22].
The response acceleration of the primary system|

X
1
| can be found
by solving Eq. (7) using the Mechanical Impedance Method (x
1
=
X
1
e
it
, x
2
= X
2
e
it
and F
1
(t) = F
0
e
it
), resulting in the expression
presented by Eq. (10) (see Box II):
The system resonates at both splitting frequencies and the
maximumacceleration can be calculated using Eq. (10) (see Box II)
by substituting either = 2f

1
or = 2f

2
as obtained from
Eq. (9) (see Box I).
4. Equivalent viscoelastic damper
In Section 3 of the paper, the required properties of a typical
viscous TMD to dampen floor vibration are discussed. From
Section 3, the values of classical mass, spring stiffness and dashpot
Fig. 7. Typical sandwich beam.
are determined. In this section of the paper, the equivalent
properties are developed for a viscoelastic TMDrather than viscous
TMD. The proposed viscoelastic TMD is in the form of a cantilever
beam with a sandwiched rubber layer.
The use of viscoelastic materials in reducing the effect of
vibrations is common in mechanical engineering applications
especially in machine vibration. Recently it also became a solution
for floor vibrations as illustrated in Fig. 2. Indeed an effective
way to increase damping and reduce transient and steady state
vibration is to add a layer of viscoelastic material, such as rubber,
to an existing structure. The combined systemwould have a higher
damping level and thus reduces unwanted vibration [23].
The simplest form of a viscoelastic damper is a constrained
viscoelastic layer ina beam. This couldbe made of two constraining
metal plates bonded together with high damping rubber. In this
composite sandwich beam, the viscoelastic material experiences
considerable shear strain as it bends, dissipating energy and
attenuating vibration response [24]. The proposed damper in this
paper has the form of a sandwich beam.
There are many factors which affect the damping performances
of viscoelastic materials in sandwich beams including material
type, thickness, temperature and bonding. The viscoelastic damper
proposed in this paper is for internal use so variation in the
temperature is not significant. The resinusedfor bonding the layers
can be easily designed so that it does not allowa slip to occur at the
interfaces of the layers. Hence the two mainremaining factors to be
taken into account for the design of the damper are the viscoelastic
material type and thickness.
In order for the viscoelastic sandwich beam (as shown in
Fig. 7) to be used as a damper its natural frequency and damping
need to be estimated. There are two methods for obtaining a
solution, normally, an exact solution and an approximate method
as discussed below.
4.1. Exact solution
The equation of motion for sandwich beams has been consid-
ered by a number of researchers. Kerwin [25] analysed the three
layer system and derived an expression for flexural stiffness of
sandwich beams DiTaranto [26] derived a sixth order differential
equation governing the motion of sandwich beams. In contrast,
Eq. (11) was derivedby MeadandMarkus [27] for a sandwichbeam
with arbitrary boundary conditions subjected to forced vibration.
The solution of Eq. (11) is complex as it involves solving a sixth
order differential equation. This solution can be complicated fur-
ther by boundary conditions such as the addition of an end mass to
the tip of the cantilever. Classical exact solutions are discussed by
Mead and Markus [28,29].
W
vi
n
g

(1 + j) (1 + Y) W
iv
n

2
n
(1 + j
n
)

_
A
D
t
_
_
W
ii
n
g

W
n
(1 + j)
_
= 0 (11)
I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328 3321
f

1,2
=
1
2
_
m
1
k
2
+ m
2
(k
1
+ k
2
)
_
[m
1
k
2
+ m
2
(k
1
+ k
2
)]
2
4k
1
k
2
m
1
m
2
2m
1
m
2
(9)
Box I.
|

X
1
| =
2
F
0

_

2
c
2
2
+ (k
2

2
m
2
)
2

2
_
c
2
k
1
+ c
1
k
2

2
(c
1
m
2
+ c
2
(m
1
+ m
2
))
_
2
+
_
k
1
k
2
(c
1
c
2
+ k
1
m
2
+ k
2
(m
1
+ m
2
))
2
+ m
1
m
2

4
_
2
(10)
where F
0
is the excitation force and is the excitation force circular frequency.
Box II.
where W, n, g

, , Y, , , , A and D
t
are mode shape function,
mode number, shear parameter, viscoelastic material loss factor,
geometric parameter, circular natural frequency, overall dissipa-
tion loss factor, density, cross-sectional area of the beamand flexu-
ral rigidity of the constraining layers respectively, while j =

1.
Eq. (11) is based on the following realistic assumptions related
to the behaviour of the damper:
(i) the viscoelastic core resists shear but not direct flexural stress;
(ii) shear strains in the constraining plates are negligible;
(iii) transverse direct strains in both core and constraining plates
are neglected; and
(iv) no slip occurs at the interfaces of the core and constraining
plates.
4.2. Approximate analytical method
In this alternative approximate analytical method developed by
Mead [30], the flexural rigidity EI
total
and the overall dissipation
loss factor of the composite system are estimated based on
the dissipation loss factor of the viscoelastic material , thickness
of viscoelastic layer, geometric parameters and Young moduli of
the top and bottom plates constraining the viscoelastic material.
This method can be applied to any composite beam configuration
such as simply supported or cantilever beams as illustrated in the
following subsections.
4.2.1. Flexural rigidity (EI
total
) of viscoelastic cantilever beam
The flexural rigidity EI
total
of the viscoelastic cantilever beamcan
be calculated using Eq. (12) together with Eqs. (13)(15) [30];
EI
total
=
_
1 +
g

Y(1 + g

(1 +
2
))
1 + 2g

+ g

2
(1 +
2
)
_
_
E
1
I

1
+ E
3
I

3
_
(12)
where is the dissipation loss factor of the rubber and Y is a
geometric parameter calculated using Eq. (13):
Y =
(E
1
A
1
)(E
3
A
3
)d
2
(E
1
A
1
+ E
3
A
3
)(E
1
I

1
+ E
3
I

3
)
(13)
E
1
and E
3
are the moduli of elasticity of the top and bottom
constraining plates, A
1
and A
3
are the cross-sectional area of the
top and bottom constraining plates, I

1
and I

3
are the moment of
inertia of top and bottom constraining plates about their neutral
respective axes and d is the distance between their respective
centroids.
The shear parameter g

is calculated using Eq. (14):

g

=
Gb
h
2
K
2
B
_
1
E
1
A
1
+
1
E
3
A
3
_
(14)
where G, b and h
2
are shear modulus, width and thickness of the
viscoelastic core respectively and K
B
is the wave number of the
beam.
When the core shear stiffness is very low, the constraining
layers dominate the flexural stiffness of the beamandthe sandwich
beam vibrates in the same mode as a EulerBernoulli beam [27].
The wave number for a cantilever sandwich beam without an
end mass can be calculated using Eq. (15) [23]:
K
B
= 1.875/L (15)
where L is the length of the viscoelastic cantilever beam.
4.2.2. Viscoelastic cantilever beam with an end mass
The mass of the damper for a given mass ratio must satisfy
Eq. (3). Therefore, an end mass would normally be required to
attain the mass ratio of the optimum damper.
The natural frequency of a viscoelastic cantilever beamdamper
can be estimated as:
f
2
= 2
_
k
2
m
2
(16)
where k
2
and m
2
are the effective stiffness and effective mass of
the cantilever beam respectively.
The stiffness k
2
can be calculated based on basic beamtheory as
shown in Eq. (17):
k
2
=
3EI
total
L
3
(17)
where EI
total
and L are the flexural rigidity obtained from Eq. (16)
and the length of the viscoelastic cantilever beamrespectively. The
effective mass of a uniform viscoelastic cantilever beam can be
calculated from Eq. (18):
m
2
=
33
140
AL + m
end
(18)
where and A are total mass density and total cross-sectional area
of the viscoelastic cantilever beamrespectively and m
end
is the end
mass. The addition of an end mass at the free tip of the cantilever
allows easy adjustment of the mass ratio and fundamental
frequency of the damper in order to achieve optimum design.
The addition of the end mass will change the wave number as a
result of corresponding change in the system natural frequency as
shown in Eq. (19) [30,31]:
K
2
B
= 2f
2
_
A
EI
total
(19)
where and A are mass density and overall cross-sectional area of
the sandwich beam, respectively.
Substitution of Eq. (19) into Eq. (14) yields:
g

e
=
Gb
2h
2
f
2
_
EI
total
A
_
1
E
1
A
1
+
1
E
3
A
3
_
(20)
where g

e
is the shear parameter for the viscoelastic cantilever beam
with end mass.
3322 I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328
Finally, the overall dissipation loss factor of the viscoelastic
damper (viscoelastic cantilever sandwich beam) can be estimated
using Eq. (21). The dissipation loss factor is equal to two times the
critical damping ratio of the damper , and is directly proportional
to the material dissipation loss factor .
= 2 =
g

e
Y
1 + g

e
(2 + Y) + g
2
e
(1 + Y)(1 +
2
)
. (21)
4.3. Design of viscoelastic damper
Having developed a mathematical solution for determining the
dynamic properties of the viscoelastic damper, a simple procedure
for the design of an optimum damper can now be specified as
follows.
(i) Determine the basic dynamic properties of the primary
system (floor) to be retrofitted with a damper (i.e. f
1
,
1
and
k
1
for an equivalent SDOF system). The properties are to be
based on the as built conditions.
(ii) Determine a suitable mass ratio (Eq. (3)) for the damper
based on given physical limitations and the required
reduction in the response of the primary system. Amass ratio
of 1%2% is practical in most cases.
(iii) The optimum natural frequency of the TMD, f
2
, can be
calculated using Eq. (4).
(iv) The optimum damping ratio of the damper
2
can now be
calculated using Eq. (6).
(v) Trial dimensions for the damper can be proposed to suit
any physical limitations (i.e. h
1
, h
2
, h
3
, L and b illustrated
in Fig. 7). In addition, the material properties for the
constraining layers and viscoelastic material need to be
specified (E
1
& E
3
for the constraining layers and & G for
the viscoelastic material). For simplicity the top and bottom
layers can be of the same material (i.e. E
1
= E
3
).
(vi) Calculate the overall flexural rigidity (EI
total
) of the beam
without an end mass using Eqs. (12)(15).
(vii) Calculate the natural frequency of the damper with an end
mass using Eqs. (16)(18). The damper frequency is critical
in reducing the overall floor vibrations and the end mass can
be used to fine tune the damper frequency.
(viii) Calculate the overall dissipation loss factor and then the
estimated damping ratio
2
of the damper using Eqs. (12),
(20) and (21).
This procedure is required to be repeated by altering the
material and dimensions of the viscoelastic damper until the
optimum damper properties are achieved.
One of the main factors that affect the performance of a
viscoelastic damper is the material dissipation loss factor . This
material property needs to be established for the type of rubber to
be used which is discussed in the following section.
5. Determination of viscoelastic material properties
Many types of commercially available rubbers do not have ad-
equate technical specifications concerning their material proper-
ties and consequently it becomes necessary to undertake specific
tests on the acquired rubber to determine the shear modulus G and
loss factor . This can be achieved using one of two types of tests,
(i) by direct measurements using a Dynamic Mechanical Analyser
(DMA) [32,33] or (ii) by back calculation from experimental re-
sults performed on a prototype damper. These methods were both
utilised to find the properties of the rubber used in developing the
viscoelastic cantilever damper proposed in this paper.
Dynamic mechanical analysis is a testing technique that
measures the mechanical properties of materials as a function
of time, temperature and frequency. In DMA testing, a small
deformation is applied to a sample in a cyclic manner with
the measured response providing information on the stiffness
and damping properties for the material. For the rubber used in
developing the damper presented in this paper, three samples
measuring 35 10.8 5.2 mm were tested. The average loss
factor () was 0.12 and the average measured shear modulus (G)
was 690 kPa based on the assumption that E = 3G for elastomeric
materials [31].
The rubber dissipation loss factor can also be back calculated
from vibration tests if access to a Dynamic Mechanical Analyser is
not available. This method requires the construction of a prototype
sandwich beam damper with the designed rubber. This is then
tested to obtain the overall damping ratio of the damper (
2
) and
the total flexural rigidity (EI
total
) frombasic vibration testing. These
two measured properties along with the geometric parameters
and other material properties of the damper are substituted into
Eqs. (12)(21) to back calculate the and G values of the rubber.
The flexural rigidity EI
total
can be obtained from the measured
natural frequency using Eqs. (16)(18). The damping ratio
2
of
the viscoelastic beam can be estimated from the time domain of
the excited viscoelastic beam using the Logarithmic Decrement
Method (LDM). As a comparison, based on this back calculation
method the estimated average values of Gand of the rubber were
found to be 640 kPa and 0.10 respectively which were in very good
agreement with the values of 690 kPa and 0.12 obtained from the
DMA test.
It should be noted that the dissipationloss factor of the rubber
is the factor that determines the upper limit of overall dissipation
loss factor of the composite system. In other words, the value
(=2 ) of the composite system cannot exceed the value of the
rubber [33,31].
6. Validation of damper properties
The analytical model described in Section 4.2 for determining
the viscoelastic dynamic properties of the damper was then
validated by experimental testing as well as by comparison with
finite element (FE) results.
6.1. Experimental test
Two prototype viscoelastic cantilever dampers of length 500
and750mmwere constructedwithout anendmass andtwo others
with an end mass. For all four dampers, the constraining layers
were 1 mm thick steel plates and the rubber core was either 12 or
32 mm thick. Tables 1 and 2 show the details of the four dampers
along with their predicted fundamental frequency and damping
ratio. The rubber loss factor and shear modulus were obtained
using a Dynamic Mechanical Analyser (DMA) machine discussed
in Section 5. Each cantilever was fixed at one end to a rigid support
and subjected to pluck tests. A non-contact accelerometer was set
to measure the time domain response of the excited viscoelastic
cantilever beam. Using the recorded response time history, the
damping ratio was calculated using the log decay method while
the natural frequency was obtained from Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT) analysis.
One of the key influencing properties of the damper is its natural
frequency as this affects its performance as a TMD. As can be seen
from Tables 1 and 2, the approximate analytical model predicted
the natural frequency well with an average error of approximately
8%. The error is larger for the cases withendmass due to the greater
approximation for the wave number K
B
in Eq. (19). The average
error in damping ratio between the predicted and measured values
was in the vicinity of 12%.
I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328 3323
Table 1
Dynamic properties of a damper without an end mass as obtained from analytical model, FE analysis and experimental testing.
Dimensions (mm) Analytical FE model Experiment
h
1
h
2
h
3
b L f
2
(Hz)
2
(%) f
2
(Hz)
2
(%) f
2
(Hz)
2
(%)
1 32 1 25 750 10.2 5.8 9.1 5.5 10.4 4.9
1 12 1 25 500 12.2 5.5 10.6 4.5 12.0 4.5
Table 2
Dynamic properties of a damper with an end mass as obtained from analytical model, FE analysis and experimental testing.
Dimensions (mm) Analytical FE model Experiment
h
1
h
2
h
3
b L f
2
(Hz)
2
(%) f
2
(Hz)
2
(%) f
2
(Hz)
2
(%)
1 32 1 25 750 4.8 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.7 5.3
1 12 1 25 500 4.1 4.8 4.1 4.9 4.6 5.3
6.2. Damper FE models
For the FE modelling, the commercially available software
package ANSYS was used. The constraining layers and rubber core
were modelled with solid elements. The constraining layers were
assumed to be linear elastic, while the rubber layer was assumed
to be hyperelastic. Modal analysis was performed using ANSYS
to obtain the vibration natural frequencies and corresponding
mode shapes. The damping was modelled for each material as a
stiffness multiplier. In addition to the modal analysis, harmonic
and transient dynamic analyses were performed so that the
performance of the damper could be investigated in both the time
and frequency domains.
The overall damping of the damper was obtained from the
FE analysis using the conventional methods of logarithmic decay
in the time domain and the half power bandwidth method in
the frequency domain. The damping values from the FE analyses
obtained from the two methods were in very good agreement.
Logarithmic decay values are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for both
the FE model and the experimental tests. The FE results for both
frequency and damping are in good agreement with analytical
and experimental results. This indicated that the approximate
analytical method for determining the damper properties can be
used with confidence. Furthermore, FE models can also be utilised
for determining damper properties with good accuracy.
7. Application of viscoelastic TMD
Prototypes of the proposed viscoelastic damper were con-
structed to demonstrate the application of the new damper and
illustrate its efficiency. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses were per-
formed to examine the performance of the damper if it were not to
have optimum properties.
Two case studies are presented below which cover both
experimental and analytical work.
7.1. Case study 1steel beam
This case study is for a 3 m long simply supported steel beam
having properties as shown in Table 3. This beam was initially
tested as a bare beam. The beam was then retrofitted with a
viscoelastic cantilever damper as shown in Fig. 8 with a mass ratio
of 1%. The aim of these tests was to examine the effectiveness of
the designed viscoelastic cantilever damper.
7.1.1. Bare steel beam test
The effective mass and natural frequency of the steel beam
were calculated using standard classical expressions for simply
Table 3
Simply supported steel beam properties for Case Study-1.
Length (mm) 3000
Width (mm) 100
Thickness (mm) 25
Natural Frequency f
1
(Hz) 6.3
Damping ratio
1
0.3%
supported beams. The total mass of the steel beam was approxi-
mately 59 kg, hence the effective mass of the beam is 29.5 kg (50%
of the total mass) and the stiffness of the beam can be calculated
using Eq. (22) [34]:
K =
6144EI
125L
3
. (22)
The natural frequency of the steel beam was obtained as 6.3 Hz
using Eq. (5).
In order to measure the natural frequency and the damping
ratio of the steel beam experimentally, the bare beam was
subjected to pluck tests to record the free vibration of the steel
beam. The natural frequency of the steel beam was then extracted
from the time history using the Fast Fourier Transform technique.
It was found that the natural frequency was in excellent agreement
with value obtained fromEq. (5). The damping ratio obtained from
the pluck tests using the log decay method was about 0.3%.
Harmonic excitation was imposed using a mechanical shaker
located at a distance of about one third of the span from one of
the ends to measure the maximumresponse of the steel beam. The
response of the steel beamdue tothis excitationinthe time domain
is shown in Fig. 9.
7.1.2. Retrofitted steel beam test
The optimum damper properties were obtained from Eqs. (3)
(6) and a viscoelastic damper was designed according to the
procedure outlined in Section 4.3. The damper was attached at
the mid-span of the simply supported beam using a rigid bracket.
The mass, stiffness, and damping properties of the cantilever were
tuned to satisfy the optimum design, with the properties listed in
Table 4 including
opt
= 6%. It should be noted that the bending
moment due to additionof the damper at the mid-spanof the beam
is negligible because it just produces an additional moment of
about 1% of the bending moment produced by the primary system.
The responses of the bare and retrofitted beam were predicted
fromEqs. (2) and (10) (see Box II for Eq. (10)) using a force of 1 Nas
shown in Fig. 10. The predicted reduction factor fromthe analytical
model was about 12.5.
The bare and retrofitted beams were experimentally tested
with a harmonic excitation using a mechanical shaker located
at a distance of about one third of the span from one of the
ends. Fig. 9 shows the acceleration responses of the bare and
3324 I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328
Fig. 8. Viscoelastic damper attached to a vibrating beam.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Fig. 9. Case Study 1steel beam response with and without damper attached.
Table 4
Viscoelastic damper properties for Case Study 1.
Length (L) 500 mm
Width (b) 25 mm
Thickness of steel top constraining layer (h
1
) 1 mm
Thickness of rubber (h
2
) 12 mm
Thickness of steel bottom constraining layer (h
3
) 1 mm
Dissipation loss factor of rubber () 0.12
Rubber shear modulus 690 kPa
End mass (m
end
) 220 g
Natural frequency of damper (f
2
) 6.2 Hz
Damping ratio (
2
) of damper 5.4%
Fig. 10. Steel beamresponse in the frequency domain (Eqs. (2) and (10)) (see Box II
for Eq. (10)).
the retrofitted beams. It is clear that the response of the beam
is reduced by a factor of 10 which is in good agreement with
the predicted reduction factor of about 12.5. The overall damping
of the retrofitted system was estimated using the half power
bandwidth method using curve fitting [35] and was found to be
about 3%, which is a significant increase from the original 0.3%
damping.
7.1.3. Finite element model
The bare steel beam and retrofitted beam with the TMD were
both modelled in ANSYS using the method described in Section 6.2.
The properties of the damper were as built with rubber properties
being the same as described earlier with G = 690 kPa and =
0.12. In order to assess the effects of the damper, a harmonic
excitation was imposed on each beam and the peak response
compared.
The FE results for the cases with and without dampers showed
that the peak acceleration response would be reduced by a factor
of 12 due to the TMD. This reduction factor is in good agreement
with experimental results (reduction factor of 10). This further
demonstrates that an FE analysis can be used for predicting the
performance of the proposed damper which would be particularly
useful for complex floor systems.
7.1.4. Sensitivity analysis
Investigations of the performance of the viscoelastic damper
due to variation in damping ratio, mass ratio and location of the
damper along the steel beam were undertaken analytically and
experimentally.
In order to assess the effectiveness of the damper for when it
does not have the optimum damping value, the damper damping
ratio (
2
) was varied from approximately 1%9%. The optimum
damping value
opt
was calculated earlier to be 6%. Fig. 11 shows
the predicted reduction factor in the acceleration response of the
steel beamfor this range of
2
. It canbe seenthat the damper canbe
quite effective over the range of 4.5%7.5% for
2
. This corresponds
to a variation of approximately 25% from the optimum value.
However, it shouldbe notedthat if the damping ratio of the damper
is not at the optimum the response amplitude at the two split
frequencies (f

1
& f

2
) would not be equal as shown in Fig. 12.
The sensitivity to damper performance of the variation in the
dampers point of attachment along the length of the beam was
investigated as shown in Fig. 13(a). The study indicates that the
damper would remain effective in reducing the vibration if it is
located within the central one third of the length of the beam.
Another experimental sensitivity analysis was performed to in-
vestigate the effect of variation of the damper end mass and hence
damper frequency on the system response. The experimental re-
sults are summarised in Fig. 13(b) and clearly show that a varia-
tion in the end mass of up to 20% (10% of the damper frequency)
from the optimum value has little effect on the efficiency of the
viscoelastic damper due to the very low damping of the primary
system. The natural frequency of the damper due to the varia-
tion in the end mass was also calculated using Eqs. (16)(18). It
was foundthat a frequency within10%of the optimumfrequency
does not degrade the effectiveness of the damper.
I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328 3325
Fig. 11. Calculated response reduction factor for retrofitted steel beamwith a TMD
having different damping ratio (Eq. (10), see Box II).
Fig. 12. Steel beam response with a TMD having different damping ratios when
subjected to harmonic excitation (Eq. (10), see Box II).
7.2. Case study 2reinforced concrete T beam
In order that the effectiveness of the new viscoelastic damper
could be fully assessed another prototype was developed for an
Fig. 14. RC T-beam cross-section.
experimental floor. The experimental floor used in this case study
is essentially a segment of a reinforcedconcrete floor systemwitha
reinforced concrete beam and composite slab. The cross section of
the experimental floor is shown in Fig. 14 and is referred to herein
as a T beam.
7.2.1. Bare reinforced concrete T beam
The T beamhas a span of 9.5 m, a total weight of 6000 kg and is
simply supported at the ends. The long span of the T beam and its
geometry, makes it relatively flexible and easily excited by foot fall
excitation. Hence the T beamwas a prime candidate for retrofitting
using the newly developed viscoelastic damper. Prior to the design
of the damper, the T beam floor was tested using various forms of
excitation including heel drop, walking and impulse loading using
a modal impact hammer. From the tests, the natural frequencies,
mode shapes and damping ratios were determined using modal
analysis. In addition, simpler assessment techniques which would
normally be used in the field such as log decay and half power
bandwidth were used to estimate the apparent overall damping.
Based onthe experimental results it was found that the T beamhad
a fundamental natural frequency of 4.2 Hz, and apparent damping
of 2.9%. The higher than expected damping is simply due to the
presence of cracks in the beam because of earlier load tests.
The reduction in the response of the T beamdue to the addition
of the damper was predicted to be around a factor of 2 using
Eqs. (2) and (10).
7.2.2. Viscoelastic damper design
For a simply supportedbeamwitha uniformly distributedmass,
the effective mass is half of the total mass. Hence, for the equivalent
SDOF system, the effective mass of the T beam can be taken as
3000 kg. For a tuned mass viscoelastic damper, with a mass ratio
Fig. 13. Results from sensitivity analysis for steel beam in Case Study 1: (a) Effect of location of damper along the beam. (b) Effect of change of mass of damper.
3326 I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328
Fig. 15. Response of T beam due to the variation in damping ratio of the TMD
(Eq. (10)).
Fig. 16. Tuned mass viscoelastic cantilever damper attached to the experimental
T beam.
of 1%, the required mass is 30 kg. Using Eqs. (8)(11) (see Box I for
Eq. (9) and Box II for Eq. (10)) the optimum damper is required to
have a natural frequency of 4.2 Hz and damping ratio of 6%.
A commercial rubber with a dissipation loss factor of 0.15
was used to develop the viscoelastic damper. The geometry and
natural frequency of the damper were obtainedfromEqs. (13)(21)
and the resulting damper properties are listed in Table 5. It should
be noted that the dissipation loss factor of this rubber is not
sufficient to provide the optimum damping ratio of 6% for the
TMD with the given thickness, width and length of the rubber and
plates. A rubber with a higher dissipation loss factor would be
needed to increase the damping (such rubbers can be sourced from
specialist suppliers but are not readily available). However a less
than optimumdamper can still provide a major improvement [36].
The sensitivity of damper performance to the damping ratio was
investigated using Eq. (14) and Fig. 15 shows that the coupled
system is not very sensitive to the damping ratio of the damper
in the range 4.5%7.5% as discussed previously in Section 7.1.4.
The viscoelastic damper was attached to the T beam as shown
in Fig. 16 and tuned to the natural frequency of the optimum
damper. The effectiveness of the damper was thentestedaccording
to the response of the T beam due the heel drop and walking
excitations.
7.2.3. Performance of the damper due to heel drop excitation
Fig. 17 shows the response of the T beam in the frequency
domain due to heel drop excitation for both cases with and without
damper. The value of reduction in the acceleration is about 2.
Table 5
Viscoelastic damper properties for Case Study 2.
Length (L) 510 mm
Width (b) 100 mm
Thickness of top constraining layer (steel) 6 mm
Thickness of rubber (h
2
) 38 mm
Thickness of bottom constraining layer (steel) 6 mm
Dissipation loss factor of rubber () 0.15
Rubber shear modulus 637 kPa
End mass (m
end
) 29 kg
Natural frequency of damper 4.2 Hz
Damping ratio (
2
) of damper 4.5%
Fig. 17. T beam response due to heel drop excitation.
Fig. 18. Time domain decay due to heel drop excitation for cases of T beam with
and without damper.
Fig. 18 clearly shows the increase of damping in the time history
response of the T beam, the overall damping ratio of the T beam
with damper was found to be 6.1% using the logarithmic method.
The bare T beam and the T beam with the attached damper
were also modelled using ANSYS as discussed in Section 6. Based
on the ANSYS results the expected reduction factor acceleration
response was predicted to be 1.9 which is in good agreement with
the experimental reduction factor of 2.
7.2.4. Performance of the damper due to walking excitation
The effectiveness of the damper in reducing the T beam
response due to walking excitation was also investigated in this
experiment. It was found that the reduction factor was about 1.4
as shown in Fig. 19. This apparent reduction in the effectiveness
of the damper for walking excitation compared with heel drop is
due to the fact that the T beam did not reach the full steady state
resonant motion [4].
I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328 3327
Fig. 19. T beam response due to walking excitation based on averaging of 24
records for each of the two cases.
Fig. 20. Sensitivity of the damper due to variation in its natural frequency by 10%
from the optimum value.
The averaged maximum acceleration of the T beam for 24 time
history samples due to walking excitation was about 3.6% g as
shown in Fig. 19. The maximumacceleration obtained fromEq. (1)
using Design Guide 11 assessment method [4] was about 3.8% g. It
is quite evident that the value of maximum acceleration obtained
from experiment is in good agreement with value obtained from
Eq. (1). Clearly, the damper will perform better if the T beam
were to be excited to full steady state resonance which condition
may not happen in floors for office use. However the damper is
still effective in producing a reasonable reduction in the T beam
response. An option to further reduce the T beam response would
be to specify a higher mass ratio for the damper.
7.2.5. Sensitivity of the damper performance to its natural frequency
and damping ratio of the T beam
In order to assess the sensitivity of the viscoelastic damper to
variation in its natural frequency, the end mass of the damper was
experimentally changed to alter its natural frequency by 10%
from its optimum frequency. The T beam with damper was sub-
jected to heel drop tests for each newfrequency. The experimental
results shown in Fig. 20 illustrate that the efficiency of the damper
was considerably reduced. This highlights the importance of tun-
ning the damper to its optimum natural frequency. It should be
noted that the efficiency of the damper due to the variation in the
frequency (10% change fromthe optimumfrequency) in this case
is quite different fromthat of the steel beam(Case Study 1) because
the damping ratio of the T beam is significantly higher.
In addition to the experimental results presented in Fig. 20, an
analytical analysis was also performed. In this sensitivity analysis
using Eqs. (2) and (10), two parameters were investigated. The
natural frequency of the damper was changed in the range of 10%
Fig. 21. Effect of T beam damping ratio on the performance of damper with
different damper natural frequency (Eqs. (2) and (10)).
from the optimum value and the damping ratio of the T beam was
also changed from 0.5% to 5%. The damping ratio of the damper
itself was kept constant at 6%. The results from this study are
presented in Fig. 21. It is clear fromFig. 21 that the effectiveness of
the damper is significantly degraded when the natural frequency
of the damper departed fromthe optimumvalue. The investigation
indicates that the damper has to be tuned in order to attain the
optimum performance. This is particularly important for floor
systems which have relatively high damping. For floor systems
with low damping (<1.5%) an off tune damper would still reduce
the floor response significantly as shown by Fig. 21.
8. Concluding remarks
This paper has presented a summary of the development of a
new viscoelastic tuned mass damper for floor applications. The
proposed damper is based on the concept of a sandwich beamwith
the energy dissipated by shearing of a constrained rubber layer.
Two viscoelastic dampers were developed according to a
procedure presented in this paper. The two prototypes were built
for use on a steel beam with a 3 m span and a reinforced concrete
T beam floor segment with a 9.5 m span. An analytical model
was used to predict the required optimum damper for the steel
beam and the RC T beam. The predicted values were in excellent
agreement with the test results in terms of the natural frequency
and damping ratio of the prototype damper.
With the addition of the viscoelastic damper to the steel beam,
the damping ratio was increased from 0.3% to about 3%. The
departure of the viscoelastic damper from its optimum position
did not appear to degrade its effectiveness. The response reduction
factor was found to be insensitive to the variations in position of
damper location within the middle third of the span. Systematic
variation in the end mass of the viscoelastic damper also appeared
to have no significant effect on the performance of the damper
because of the low damping ratio of the steel beam. A 20% change
in end mass (a 10% change from the optimum frequency) was
observed to have a minimal effect on the response reduction factor.
The T beam was tested under heel drop and walking excitation
with and without the viscoelastic damper. Without the damper,
the T beam had a measured damping ratio of 2.9%. The overall
response was halved with a corresponding increase in overall
damping to 6.1% with the addition of the viscoelastic damper. The
system was found to be more sensitive to the variation in the
damper frequency because of the highdamping ratioof the T beam.
The measured reduction in response due to the damper was found
to be in excellent agreement with that predicted by the analytical
as well as from the FE analysis.
3328 I. Saidi et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33173328
The developed viscoelastic damper can be easily tuned to given
properties and optimised to fit in available spaces. The testing
and analyses conducted demonstrate clear advantages of such a
viscoelastic damper over conventional viscous dampers for floor
vibration applications where displacements are small. By using
several dampers in one location or in a distributed system a large
frequency range of effectiveness can be addressed.
References
[1] HanaganLM, Murray TM. Active control approachfor reducing floor vibrations.
J Struct Eng 1997;123(11):1497505.
[2] Bachmann H, Ammann WJ, Deischl F, Eisenmann J, Flogel I, Hirsch GH, et al.
Vibration problems in structures: practical guidelines. Berlin: Birkhauser
Verlag; 1995.
[3] Haritos N, Gad E, Wilson J. Evaluation the dynamic characteristics of
floor system using dynamic testing ACAM2005, Melbourne, Australia: 2005,
p. 22530.
[4] Murray TM, Allen DE, Ungar EE. Floor vibrations due to human activity.
Chicago, Ill: American Institute of Steel Construction; 1997.
[5] Alvis SR. An experimental and analytical investigation of floor vibrations.
Master thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University; 2001.
[6] European Commission, Human-induced vibration of steel structures Hivoss,
2010.
[7] Hechler O, Feldmann M, Heinemeyer C, Galanti F. Design guide for floor
vibrations Eurosteel, Austria, 35 September 2008. Graz University of
Technology: Institute for Steel Structures and Shell Structures, 2008.
[8] Willford M, Young P. Adesignguide for footfall induced vibrationof structures.
CCIP-016. The Concrete Centre. Camberley, UK; 2006.
[9] Webster AC, Vaicaitis R. Application of tuned mass dampers to control
vibrations of composite floor systems. Eng J AISC 1992;29(3):11624.
[10] Ljunggren F, gren A. Development of a new damper to reduce resonant
vibrations in lightweight steel joist floors. Appl Acoust 2002;63(11):126780.
[11] Willford M, Young P, Algaard WH. A constrained layer damping system for
composite floors. The Struct Eng 2006;84(4).
[12] Hartog JPD. Mechanical vibrations. Mcgraw-Hill; 1956.
[13] Rana R, Soong TT. Parametric study and simplified design of tuned mass
dampers. Eng Struct 1998;20(3):193204.
[14] Silva CWD. Seismic base isolationandvibrationcontrol. Taylor &Francis; 2005.
[15] Lee C-L, Chen Y-T, Chung L-L, Wang Y-P. Optimal design theories and
applications of tuned mass dampers. Eng Struct 2006;28(1):4353.
[16] Lenzen KH. Vibration of steel joist-concrete slab floors. AISC 1966;3(3):1336.
[17] Setareh M. Floor vibration control using semi-active tuned mass dampers.
Canad J Civil Eng 2002;29(1):7684.
[18] Thorby D. Structural dynamics and vibration in practice: An engineering
handbook. Amsterdam, London: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2008.
[19] Smith. Vibration of structures: applications in civil engineering design.
London, New York: Chapman and Hall; 1988.
[20] Puksand H. Optimum conditions for dynamic vibration absorbers for variable
speed systems with rotating or reciprocating unbalance. The International J
Mech Eng Edu 1975;3:14552.
[21] Angeles J, Ostrovskaya S. The proportional-damping matrix of arbitrarily
damped linear mechanical systems. J Appl Mech 2002;69(5):64956.
[22] Irvine M. Structural dynamics for the practising engineer. London: Allen &
Unwin Ltd.; 1986.
[23] Inman DJ. Engineering vibration. Prentice-Hall Inc.; 1996.
[24] Mace M. Damping of beam vibrations by means of a thin constrained
viscoelastic layer: evaluation of a new theory. J Sound Vibration 1994;172(5):
57791.
[25] Kerwin JEM. Damping of flexural waves by a constrained viscoelastic layer. J
Acoust Soc Amer 1959;31(7):95262.
[26] DiTaranto RD. Theory of vibratory bending for elastic and viscoelastic layered
finite length beams. J Appl Mech 1965;8816.
[27] Mead DJ, Markus S. Loss factor and resonant frequency of encastre damped
sandwich beam. J Sound Vibration 1970;12(1):99112.
[28] Mead DJ. The measurement of the loss factors of beams and plates with
constrained and unconstrained damping layers: a critical assessment. J Sound
Vibration 2007;300(35):74462.
[29] Mead DJ, Markus S. The forced vibration of a three-layer, damped sandwich
beam with arbitrary boundary conditions. J Sound Vibration 1969;10(2):
16375.
[30] Mead DJ. Vibration control (I). In: White RG, Walker JG, editors. Noise and
vibration. Ellis Horwood Limited; 1982.
[31] Nashif AD. Vibration damping. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1985.
[32] DMA2980, 2002, Dynamic mechanical analyzer, Operators manual, TA
instruments-waters LLC.
[33] Menard KP. Dynamic mechanical analysis a practical introduction. Boca Raton,
Fla: CRC Press; 1999.
[34] Buchholdt HA. Structural dynamics for engineers. London: Telford; 1997.
[35] Haritos N. Implementationof a low-cost structural dynamics investigative sys-
tem ninth international conference on computational structures technology.
Stirlingshire, Scotland: Civil Comp Press; 2008.
[36] Saidi I, Gad EF, Wilson JL, Haritos N. Innovative passive viscoelastic damper to
suppress excessive floor vibrations AEES Conference 2008. Ballarat, Victoria,
Australia, 2123 November, Australian Earthquake Engineering Society;
2008.