Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Review article

Vibration attenuation in high-rise buildings to achieve system-level T

performance under multiple hazards
⁎
Suvash Chapain, Aly Mousaad Aly
Windstorm Impact, Science and Engineering (WISE) Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803,
United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Rapid population growth and economic development in urban areas have greatly increased the potential of
Vibration attenuation exposure to multiple hazards that may cause damage and business interruption in civil engineering structures,
Viscous dampers such as high-rise buildings. To alleviate these issues, fluid viscous dampers are employed under both wind and
Wind loads earthquake loads. The optimum number and location of dampers are selected based on modal drifts, and tar-
Earthquake loads
geted values of response. Displacement, acceleration, inter-story drift ratio, shear force, and base bending mo-
High-rise buildings
ment are considered along with other concise set of system-level performance criteria that are easily understood
Performance-based design
Multiple hazards by decision-makers and/or stakeholders of diverse technical backgrounds. Placement of viscous dampers with a
Occupants’ comfort lever mechanism shows that higher reductions in responses can be achieved with smaller damping devices.
Nonstructural damage Stiffness uncertainty and damper failure are considered to check the robustness of the mitigation system. The
Structural safety study shows that viscous dampers are a viable solution for vibration attenuation in high-rise buildings suscep-
tible to wind and earthquake loads, which permits the minimization of structural and nonstructural damage by
counteracting multi-hazard forces in real-time. Viscous dampers show their potential to enhanced dynamic
performance of buildings under multiple hazards and can directly promote community resiliency.

1. Introduction
With a growing worldwide trend of interest in a better life, thou-
sands of people are moving from remote villages to urban cities. At the
same time, the population growth surge is at its peak, and its density in
urban communities is increasing rapidly. The concept of high-rise
buildings was introduced to accommodate large number of people in a
small area. High-rise buildings are also a symbol of progress and civi-
lization. 4000 years ago, the Egyptians built the tallest Pyramid of Giza,
which was considered the highest and the first construction built based
on scientific calculations. In modern times, there have been renewed
interest in constructing taller and taller buildings. Early in 1930, the
282.5 m Bank of Manhattan tower was built in New York City. Within a
span of two years, the 319 m Chrysler Building and the 381 m Empire
State Building were built. Nowadays, there is a continuous competition
among countries to build taller and taller skyscrapers. Hundreds of tall
buildings are being built in the world (currently Burj Khalifa, located in
Dubai, is the world’s highest man-made structure, with a height of
829.8 m). Japan, China, United States, United Arab Emirates and
Australia are some of the countries dominating the world in tall
buildings’ construction. Due to requirements of lateral strength and
stiffness, as well as the deformation under high wind and earthquakes,
along with compounding gravity and construction issues, economic
construction of high-rise buildings is a challenge.
From a structural point of view, lateral forces resulting from
earthquake and wind loads play a major role in the design process [1].
High-rise buildings’ construction is one of the most challenging en-
gineering projects and the design completely depends on analytical and
scale modelling. The economic viability of tall buildings depends
strongly on serviceability and occupant comfort, among other factors.
Tall buildings generally have issues due to environmental loads brought
by, for instance, hurricanes and earthquakes, which can decrease the
serviceability and may even lead to catastrophic failure, if such loads
and associated responses are not properly accommodated. Tall build-
ings designed to resist wind loads are considered to be safe under small
and moderate earthquakes, however, their design in seismically active
regions can be varied drastically from region to region depending on
the local seismicity [2]. The typical approach used to mitigate un-
desirable behavior of these buildings is to alter the dynamic char-
acteristics under excitation loads, which further leads to systematically
tuning structural properties or structural control. In a structural control
process, the performance depends upon various factors including the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aly@LSU.edu (A.M. Aly).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109352
Received 20 March 2019; Received in revised form 27 June 2019; Accepted 27 June 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
type of excitation (e.g., earthquake or wind) and the characteristics of
the structure (e.g., degrees-of-freedom, damping, natural frequency at
various modes, and structural nonlinearity). The performance also de-
pends on the nature and design of the control system [3].
Most vibration mitigation methods in tall buildings consider either
wind or earthquake loads separately, which does not account for the
increased risk of the combination of hazards. Similarly, design codes
treat these loads as two independent events that undermine the possible
combination of these hazards. A structural designed for earthquake may
not be adequate for wind and vice versa. Thus, it is crucial to develop
mitigation methods that can address both hazards [4]. In this paper,
vibration control of a 76-story benchmark building by using viscous
dampers with a lever mechanism/bracing system is studied under both
wind and earthquake loads, and performance measures are evaluated. A
brief review of vibration mitigation methods for high-rise buildings is
also presented. Section 2 discusses the dynamic properties and typical
uncertainties in the design of tall buildings. An overview of multi-ha-
zard loads that may impact high-rise buildings is presented in Section 3.
Section 4 presents a brief review of mitigation methods suitable for
vibration suppression in tall buildings. Section 5 introduces the physical
and dynamic properties of a 76-story benchmark building along with
state-space modeling and viscous dampers placement with a lever
mechanism/bracing system. Section 6 presents general performance
criteria under wind and earthquake loads to check the effectiveness of
the mitigation system. Improvements in the responses of the building
after the implementation of viscous dampers with a lever mechanism
are discussed in Section 7. The concluding remarks are articulated in
Section 8.
2. Dynamic characteristics and response uncertainties
High-rise buildings possess complex dynamic characteristics and
one property usually depends on the other. The most common prop-
erties that have captivated the attention of structural engineers and
researchers are damping, natural frequency, and motion amplitude. The
evidence of amplitude dependency and contribution of secondary
members to the dynamic characteristics reveal that increased motion
amplitude leads to increased damping and decreased natural frequency
[5]. This comportment is attributed to contribution from secondary
structural members as well as their stick-slip process. When the am-
plitude of vibration is small, joints, connections and contact surface of
different building components stick together. However, under increased
amplitudes of vibration, these components begin to slip, leading to
increased friction and decreased stiffness [5].
Damping Uncertainty: Quantification of damping in a tall building
is not an easy task as there is no straightforward method for that, which
makes real-world measurements indispensable. Satake [6] presents full-
scale damping data of modern high-rise buildings, with no strong cor-
relation between structural damping and building’s height, as the data
are scattered, however, there is somehow clear pattern in which data
are aligned. Intrinsic damping in buildings becomes lower and con-
sistent as height increases, and an accurate formula can be fitted.
Structural damping may become less than or equal to 1% for buildings
above 250 m. Nevertheless, the risk in buildings’ design rises with in-
creased variability and uncertainty of damping [7]. Recently, the
damping ratio of 14 buildings with heights of twenty stories and above,
subjected to earthquakes, was evaluated by using a parametric modal
system identification technique. The study was done in California
where a total of 41 measured seismic responses were investigated. The
damping ratio of the fundamental mode decreases with increased
building height; however, height dependency of the damping ratio is
slightly different than previous studies. It was recommended for the
damping ratio to be less than 2.5% for buildings higher than 150 m. In
addition, amplitude and frequency dependency on higher modes were
examined for steel and concrete buildings [8,9].
Occupants’ Comfort Uncertainty: A procedure for occupant limit
2
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
state has not been strictly developed, compared to those for design
based on strength. The situation becomes more complicated due to
uncertainty in the parameters used to determine occupants’ comfort,
such as, wind speed, damping ratio, and other criteria based on accel-
eration and its human perception, as well as occupants’ reaction to
motion. However, numerous studies that have been conducted for re-
sponse control under wind loads are deterministic, which does not ex-
actly represent the practical scenario. There is a considerable un-
certainty associated with wind loads which is used to evaluate the
induced responses. There are several factors causing variability in the
wind paradigm, such as aerodynamic uncertainty, uncertainty due to
scale effects, uncertainty in transforming aerodynamic loads to struc-
tural load effects, observational error, and more [10]. There are some
efforts to develop the tools that can predict damping based on measured
response at full-scale. However, due to significant scatterings in the
damping data, lack of buildings with significant heights where the re-
sonant component is dominant, damping estimation is arduous. The
uncertainty in structural damping is closely tied to the acceleration
response and thus has significant influence on the ability to meet the
criteria for occupants’ comfort [11]. Similarly, uncertainty in the stiff-
ness of tall buildings should be considered in the design. The stiffness of
buildings may deteriorate due to small and medium earthquakes as well
as microtremor. Earthquake observations and a series of microtremor
measurements taken on a twelve-story steel reinforced concrete
building show marked stiffness deterioration over a five-year period.
Aging effects and stiffness reduction depend on the response amplitude
[12]. Stiffness deterioration due to earthquake, aging, and other factors
should be considered in the design of buildings for other hazards such
as windstorm.
3. Multi-hazard design for wind and earthquake loads
There is no such area in the world which is free from natural ha-
zards. Earthquake, tsunami, landslides, tropical storm, flooding, and
coastal inundation are some examples of natural hazards whose oc-
currence depends mostly on the geographical location. Due to climate
change, among other factors, the frequency of natural hazards occur-
rence is spurred, which threatens life and wellbeing. Certain urban and
coastal regions in the world may face not only one hazard, but the
combination of two or more hazards, which elevates the risk.
Earthquake and tsunami, fire following an earthquake, wind and
earthquake, and earthquake and explosion are some examples of multi-
hazard combinations [4]. In this paper we focus mainly on earthquake
and wind loads and their impact on high-rise buildings.
While literature shows extensive investigations of high-rise build-
ings under a single individual hazard, there is a paucity of studies ad-
dressing multiple hazards. Although the stressors brought by earth-
quakes and windstorms are different in nature, both hazards have
significant societal and economic impact, and they bring paramount
concern to the structural design of high-rise buildings. The lack of
consideration of multiple hazards in the design process, in regions with
high probabilities of their occurrence, may lead to conservative designs
and significant economic losses. Efficient and sustainable design of
high-rise buildings for multiple hazards is challenging because the de-
sign approaches for strong wind and earthquakes are different. On one
hand, wind resistant design demands for higher stiffness, on the other
hand, earthquake resistant design demands for ductility. Potra and
Simiu [13] used a numerical method to obtain optimized design vari-
ables for areas susceptible to wind and earthquakes individually as well
as concurrently. The risk of exceedance of limit state associated with
multiple hazards is quite higher than the risk of exceedance considering
one single hazard. A numerical method for the optimization of the
designed variables for sites exposed to both wind and earthquake loads
has been developed [14].
Kostarev [15] proposes a new design method to reduce vibration in
power plant containment due to the combination of seismic, wind, and
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
explosion loads. Highly viscous dampers have been suggested to de-
crease floor response. The overall risk that results from hurricane and
earthquake is assessed by Li and Ellingwood [16]. They present a
probability of damage that accounts for different levels of earthquake
and hurricane intensities in Charleston, South Carolina, as a function of
the return period [4]. For wind loads, terrain exposure and wind in-
tensity for different building locations are considered governing para-
meters. For earthquakes, the zone factor, which depends on location,
kind of structural system, importance of a building, the period coeffi-
cient that accounts for building’s dimension, the soil coefficient, and the
weight of the building are considered governing parameters. Since
seismic design depends on more factors than wind design, it leads to
more variation in the associated response. When earthquakes govern
the design, ductile frames are generally recommended for high-rise
buildings [17].
3.1. Wind impact on tall buildings
High-rise buildings are wind sensitive structures, and usually lateral
wind loads are a governing design factor. The situation becomes more
complicated when the frequency of oncoming wind coincides with the
dominant frequency of a building. The pattern in which wind flows
around a building is distorted by mean flow, flow separation, vortices
formation, and wake development. The combination of these effects
results in aerodynamic pressure on the structural system which imposes
intense fluctuating forces on the façade and hence transferred to the
main force resisting system with a potential to excite the whole building
in the rectilinear directions, as well as in torsion [18].
The response of a building in the along wind direction has two
components: (1) mean component that is proportional to the mean
wind speed, and (2) fluctuating component due to buffeting. This is the
basic principle of the “gust-factor” approach and it is considered in
several design codes. The mean wind load component is determined
from the mean wind speed using pressure and load coefficients.
However, the fluctuating component can be evaluated separately by
allowing for size reduction effects, turbulence intensity, and dynamic
amplification. Prediction of the response in the along wind direction
can be achieved with a reasonable level of accuracy using the gust
factor approach, when there is no significant interference effect [18].
Cross-wind oscillations can be excessive in a building with low
damping. Cross-wind excitations are closely correlated to “Vortex
Shedding” [19]. Buildings are bluff bodies that separate flow from
surface causing asymmetric pressure distribution around a cross-sec-
tion. There can be a situation of resonance if the vortex shedding fre-
quency and the natural frequency of the building coincide, causing
excessive oscillation in the transverse direction. Possible aerodynamic
coupling is responsible for the torsional motion of a building. The tor-
sional response is sensitive to the ratio of transverse to torsional fre-
quencies [20]. However, it is fundamental to perform wind tunnel
testing for precise evaluation of along-wind, cross-wind and torsional
responses of tall buildings [18].
In this study, wind tunnel data obtained from the boundary layer
wind tunnel facility at University of Sydney, Australia, are used. Wind
forces acting on the building in the cross-wind direction were de-
termined from a wind tunnel test. The rigid model of the building was
built with a length scale of 1:400, a velocity scale of 1:3, and a time
scale of 1:133. 27 s wind data were recorded, corresponding to 1 h of
prototype data. The results from the wind tunnel were in the form of
pressure coefficients and these coefficients were converted into wind
loads [21]. Fig. 1 shows time history and spectrum of the overall cross-
wind loads at the base of the building.
3.2. Earthquake impact on tall buildings
Ground acceleration is a main parameter for the determination of
seismic loads on a building. However, the duration of an earthquake is
3
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
another important criterion that should be considered. If an earthquake
with a moderate ground acceleration sustained for a long time, it may
bring more damage to buildings, compared to short shocks with larger
peaks. Long period earthquakes weaken the structure and highly reduce
its durability. Strong-motion duration is often called “bracketed dura-
tion” [22]. It is the duration of shaking above a threshold acceleration
value (which is 0.05 g) and defined as the duration between the first
and last peaks of oscillation that exceeds the prescribed value. Strong
motion in Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquake lasted for about 10 s
and in San Francisco earthquake, the motion lasted for about 45 s [22].
In addition to the duration, there are two other measures of wave
motion (velocity and displacement) that have a direct relation to the
acceleration and can be calculated mathematically. There are two types
of waves that can be triggered by a seismic activity: S-waves and P-
waves. P-waves travel at a velocity of 3000 m/s to 8000 m/s and S-
waves travel at a velocity of 2000 m/s to 5000 m/s [22]. The velocity of
ground motion on surface is very low, compared to the velocity of
waves in earth. The surface velocity varies from 0.02 m/s to 0.6 m/s.
Another measure of wave motion is displacement, defined as the change
in the position of the specific point on the ground with respect to its
original position due to wave. The displacement varies with distance
from the epicenter. Considering the case of Northridge earthquake,
where a parking structure located 29 km from the epicenter, the dis-
placement was found to be 0.04 m at the roof at an acceleration of
4.6 m/s2 and the Olive View Hospital, 12 km from the epicenter re-
corded a roof displacement of 0.34 m at an acceleration of 14.7 m/s2
[22].
With the increase in distance from the epicenter, the effect of
earthquake decreases. In earthquakes, the values of these parameters
(displacement, velocity, and acceleration) depend on the frequency and
intensity of wave motion, among other factors including soil char-
acteristics. In high-frequency waves (> 10 Hz) the acceleration ampli-
tude is large and displacement amplitude is small [22,23]. The seismic
sensitivity of a geographic area is usually described in hazard maps. El
Centro earthquake occurred in 1940 in the Imperial Valley of southern
California is considered in this study. The earthquake was 6.9 in mag-
nitude which resulted in the death of 9 people and damaged nearly 80%
of buildings in the exposed area. It was the first major earthquake re-
corded by a strong-motion seismograph located next to a fault rupture.
Time history and spectrum of the ground acceleration are shown in
Fig. 2.
During an earthquake, vibration of a building takes place due to
inertia forces that may cause excessive stresses in weak walls, columns,
beams, and/or joints, resulting in partial damage or even complete
collapse. The type of ground motion and the corresponding structural
response depend on the location of the building and its physical prop-
erties including mass, stiffness, and damping. High-rise buildings tend
to amplify the motion of longer periods when compared to low-rise
buildings, which brings risk to structural and nonstructural components
[24].
Nonstructural Damage due to Earthquake: From history of earth-
quake engineering, there are tremendous research studies focused on
structural performance and damage mitigation. Due to increased
structures in seismic zones, researchers are concerned with developing
comprehensive earthquake standards for improved seismic perfor-
mance. However, there is a need for higher level earthquake protection
to make structures more cost effective in the long term. Most methods
followed to reduce earthquakes’ impact on buildings are based on ul-
timate limit state, to prevent collapse. Earthquake effects are usually
quantified in form of inter-story drift ratio, and mitigation methods are
focused on bringing that value within a limit prescribed in design
standards and codes. However, it was observed from past earthquakes
that loss of life and huge property damage could result due to non-
structural damage, even when a building is satisfying strength re-
quirements. Structural components of a commercial building account
for about fifteen to twenty-five percent of total cost, and nonstructural
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
Fig. 1. Overall external cross-wind force: (a) time history, and (b) power spectrum.
components such as mechanical, electrical plumbing and architectural
elements account for the rest 75–85%. Cost analysis shows that for most
commercial tall buildings the largest part of capital investment goes to
nonstructural components and content [25]. The performance of non-
structural components of a building during an earthquake and the de-
gree to which it can sustain damage rely on several factors. The extent
of damage depends on components’ location, dynamic characteristics,
ground motion, structural system of the building, among other factors.
Nonstructural damages due to earthquakes are categorized as life
safety, property loss, and functional loss. This highlights the importance
of vibration attenuation in buildings for safety, occupants’ comfort, and
protection of nonstructural components.
4. Vibration attenuation schemes for high-rise buildings
The concept of structural control was introduced more than
100 years ago, when an Engineering professor in Japan demonstrated
the concept of base isolation by building a wooden house placed on ball
bearings for seismic response reduction. The structural engineering
community accepted that concept and implemented it in the 1960s.
Base isolation is proved to be effective for vibration reduction in low- to
medium-rise buildings; however, it is not suitable for slender high-rise
buildings, especially under wind loads. During the Second World War,
many vibration absorption, isolation, and damping techniques were
developed and implemented in the aircraft industry. Later, those
Fig. 2. Ground acceleration: (a) time history, and (b) power spectrum.
4
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
techniques were introduced to civil engineering structures [26]. For
flexible structures, like high-rise buildings that are susceptible to strong
wind, supplemental damping devices have been found to be effective.
Vibration absorbing devices, for instance tuned mass dampers, viscoe-
lastic dampers, viscous dampers, friction dampers, and Magnetorheo-
logical (MR) dampers can significantly dissipate energy and counter-
balance external forces and hence reduce the motion. However, the
performance of these devices depends on the type and magnitude of
loading. The fundamental concept behind structural control in civil
structures is to reduce vibration produced by external forces such as
earthquake and wind, by different means such as modifying stiffness,
mass, damping and/or shape. Structural control systems employed in
civil engineering structures such as high-rise buildings can be classified
in four major categories: active, semi-active, hybrid, and passive.
4.1. Active systems
Active control schemes may be used to attenuate structural vibra-
tions under both external and internal excitation forces brought by
wind, earthquake, machines, or human activities, where safety or oc-
cupants’ comfort is a concern. Active control uses variety of actuators
driven by external power, which makes the system susceptible to power
failure, particularly during strong earthquakes and hurricanes. Active
control systems exert forces in a prescriptive manner, to add or release
energy to/from a primary structure [26]. The forces are applied by
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
hydraulic or electromechanics actuators directed by a control algo-
rithm. The control system can be closed loop (feedback), open loop
(feedforward), or closed-open loop (feedback- feedforward). The main
differences among these systems are that in a closed loop control forces
are calculated based on measured feedback response of the structure,
but in open loop, control forces are based on the external excitation
while in a closed-open loop, control forces are determined by both
measured external excitation and structural response. For instance, in
an active mass damper (AMD), the actuator works on an auxiliary mass
in a pendulum form or in a sliding form to counterbalance the motion of
a building. Even though, these systems require small damper mass and
have great efficiency, they have high operating and maintenance cost
and sometimes reliability concerns [27]. An AMD was installed for the
first time in Kyobashi Siewa Building by Kajima Corporation in August
of 1989. There are two AMDs, one for the control of large oscillation
and tremors (4 tons) and the other for the control of torsional vibration
(1 ton), driven by servo-hydraulic actuators [28].
4.2. Semi-active schemes
Active control systems require a huge power source to operate. On
the other side, passive control systems require no energy supply but
they cannot adapt to structural change and varying loading conditions
[29]. A compromise between passive and active control systems is
presented in the form of a semi-active control scheme, which takes
advantages of the best features of both systems and requires small
amount of external power [30]. Semi-active devices do not add energy
to the primary structure, thus the assurance of bonded input and output
stability is obtained. A semi-active control system utilizes the motion of
the structure to develop control forces which is obviously the major
advantage a passive system, offering feasible means of securing civil
engineering structures such as high-rise buildings against wind and
earthquakes [3,31]. The variable orifice concept in a conventional hy-
draulic fluid damper showed its effectiveness to achieve optimum
damping [32].
MR dampers are semi-active vibration control devices that contain
controllable MR fluids. MR fluids are the magnetic analog to electro-
rheological fluids and consist of magnetically polarizable micron-sized
iron particles diffused in a carrier medium. Under a magnetic field, in
few milliseconds, rheological equilibrium can be reached that allows
the construction of devices with high bandwidth. Several mechanical
models for controllable fluid dampers have been proposed for vibration
suppression. The phenomenological model was proposed for control
algorithm development and system evaluation. This model is based on
the Bouc-Wen hysteresis model [33]. The relative efficiency of a semi-
active control strategy to active and passive control is normally pro-
portionate [34]. The use of bracing with MR dampers in supertall
buildings is shown to be effective. Lever mechanism and outer bracing
offer an attractive way to control high-rise buildings with MR dampers
[29,35,36].
4.3. Hybrid systems
In a hybrid control system, active and passive schemes are com-
bined for better performance. Since multiple devices are working at the
same time, this eliminates the restrictions and limitations of a single
device. Application examples include the hybrid mass damper (HMD)
and hybrid base isolation [37,38]. The HMD is commonly used in full-
scale (actuators with a tuned mass damper (TMD)). The energy re-
quirement for operating a typical HMD is much less than that required
for AMD, under same performance. Three units of V-shaped HMDs
whose fundamental period can be adjusted easily are used in the
Shinjuku Park Tower, Japan [38,39]. An HMD is implemented in the
Nanjing Tower, China, with a height of 340 m, where the system
combines actuators with a passive tuned liquid damper to suppress
wind-induced vibrations. The Osaka ORC200 Building, Osaka, Japan
5
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
(1992) with a height of 200 m and the Yoyogi 3-Chrome Kyodo
Building (1998) with a height of 89 m are equipped with HMDs [38].
In hybrid base isolation, control actuators combined with passive
isolators buttress the performance. Base isolation being a passive con-
trol is not able to readjust for changing demands of the structure. The
addition of an active control device to a base isolated building can re-
sult in a higher level of performance, without significant increase in
cost. At the expense of higher absolute displacement at the base of the
structure, base isolation systems reduce inter-story drift and absolute
acceleration by a great extent. Thus, hybrid base isolation can reduce
both inter-story drift ratio and maximum base displacement by using a
single set of control forces. Robust control of a base isolated building
proved its effectiveness to reduce vibration induced by earthquake
[38,40]. However, base isolation systems are not suitable for slender
and supertall buildings.
4.4. Passive schemes
Passive control systems use auxiliary devices to dissipate energy,
triggered by strong earthquakes and high winds, without the need for
external power supply. A variety of passive control mechanisms have
been suggested by researchers and engineers including viscous dam-
pers, friction dampers, tuned mass dampers, and tuned liquid dampers
[26,41–43].
Tuned Mass Dampers: The TMD was first introduced in 1947 by
Den Hartog for civil engineering applications. It consists of a secondary
mass attached to a primary structure by appropriately tuned spring and
a damping element that provides a frequency-dependent hysteresis with
increased damping [27]. It is a well-established passive device com-
monly used to suppress vibrations under wind loads. Several practical
demonstrations and numerical simulation studies have been carried out
to validate the effectiveness of the TMD. TMDs are proved to be ef-
fective when the frequency of excitation resonates with the tuning
frequency, which is the scenario of high-rise buildings under wind
loads. In case of earthquake loads, that excite higher modes, TMDs have
very low performance [44]. The concept of multiple TMDs along with
optimization procedure has been suggested to overcome the frequency
related limitation of the single TMD [45]. Another limitation of the
TMD is its sensitivity to parametric variation of the structural system.
The structural parameters may change due to material degradation,
structural damage or even environmental variation, resulting in re-
duced vibration attenuation capacity [46]. In order to address the issue
of uncertainty in natural frequencies of tall buildings that could result
in a detuned device, a robust TMD was proposed for which a numerical
approach was used to predetermine optimum parameters. Those para-
meters were used to estimate robust parameters, taking into account the
uncertainty in the stiffness [27]. In 1981 the first TMD was installed in
the Centerpoint Tower in Sydney, Australia. Hancock Tower in Boston
with a height of 244 m has two TMDs installed at opposite ends of the
58th floor with each unit of 300 tons. Another application of TMD is the
Citicorp Building in New York, where a huge concrete block is installed
at the 63rd floor. Two spring damper mechanisms are used with a 410
tons concrete block to reduce the response in the north-south direction
and east-west direction. Due to high slenderness ratio and dynamic
feature of the building, the TMD system was included in the original
design of the building [28].
Tuned Liquid Dampers: Tuned Liquid Dampers (TLDs) are passive
energy absorbing devices, recommended for vibration attenuation
under various dynamic loads. A TLD consists of rigid tank filled with
liquid to reduce vibration in a primary structure. The sloshing fre-
quency of the TLD is tuned to the natural frequency of the primary
structure causing floundering and breaking waves at resonant fre-
quencies of a combined TLD-structure system to disspiate energy
[47,48]. A properly designed rectangular TLD can be a virtuous solu-
tion for bi-directional demand of a structure [49]. Bauer [50] was first
to propose a damping device with two immiscible liquids filled in a
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
rectangular container in which the interface motion is able to dampen
the structure effectively. Some limitations of TMDs are alleviated in
TLDs. An activation mechanism is not required in TLDs because the
restoring force is provided based on the simple physical concept that
eventually minimizes maintenance cost. For TMDs, an activation me-
chanism should be set to a certain level of minimum excitation, while
TLDs are all time active eliminating potential problems due to in-
adequate activation. TLDs gained increased popularity due to their ef-
fectiveness in reducing low-frequency wind-induced vibrations, besides
being cost effective and easy to maintain and implement [49]. Real-
world applications of TLDs include the Gold Tower, with a height of
158 m, in Japan, where 16 liquid units (10 tons) were installed, leading
to 50% response reduction. The Hobert Tower in Tasmania, Austrailia,
is equipped with 80 TLDs [28].
Friction Dampers: Friction has been used for several years in au-
tomatic breaks due to its excellent mechanism to dissipate energy. A
friction damper has a simple mechanical configuration and ordinary
material thus can be used in multi-story buildings. It is crucial to
minimize the stick-slip phenomenon, while designing friction dampers,
to avoid triggering high-frequency excitation. Construction materials
for the device should be able to maintain consistent frictional coeffi-
cient over its expected life [26]. The pall friction damper is one of the
most widely used damping elements and can be installed in ‘X’ braced
frames [43]. The design of the damper is such that it will not slip during
windstorm or moderate earthquakes. However, under extreme forces, it
will slip at optimum predetermined load ahead of yielding of any
principle structural members. There are numerous real-world applica-
tions of friction dampers for improved seismic protection in new and
retrofit structures. Pall devices are frequently used in Canada whereas
Sumitomo friction dampers are used for seismic protection of multi-
story buildings in Japan. In Concordia University Library complex with
10 stories, 143 friction dampers are installed to protect the structure
against earthquakes [51]. Friction dampers provide maintenance-free
performance at a convenient cost. A combination mechanism, which
combines friction dampers for high energy excitation such as severe
earthquakes and viscoelastic dampers for low energy excitation, such as
wind forces or moderate ground movements, is an attractive topic for
investigation [26].
Viscous Dampers: Dissipative analysis shows that high-rise build-
ings lack damping and the best vibration mitigation method should
focus on damping enhancement, rather than stiffness augmentation.
Fluid can be used to dissipate energy in a structure. Numerous devices
with different configurations have been proposed over few decades.
Immersion of a cylindrical piston in a viscoelastic medium to dissipate
energy has been studied analytically and experimentally [52]. A viscous
fluid damper which was widely used in military applications during the
cold war has been adopted for civil engineering structural applications
[53]. These devices possess certain characteristics for the achievement
of a linear viscous response for a wide range of frequencies, add to that
their less sensitivity to temperature change and compactness [54].
Previous uses of viscous dampers (VDs) in military applications include
attenuation of weapon-grade shocks, aircrafts, ships and underwater
detonation. In 1991 a cooperative effort with Taylor Devices, Inc. began
to adopt this defense technology in buildings [55]. In a VD, the friction
force acts 90 degrees out of phase with displacement of the primary
structure [54,56]. A typical viscous damper with details of its parts is
shown in Fig. 3.
Various analytical and experimental studies have been conducted
for the effective application of VDs in high-rise buildings. A study on a
39 story building shows that the application of VDs reduced wind-in-
duced accelerations by 35% and found to be a cost-effective method
[57]. The imperial building in India with 10 stories was studied, 2/3 of
the energy induced by wind and small earthquakes found to be released
by VDs [58]. A supertall 62 story building with 245.75 m height was
studied for wind-induced response reduction by VDs, where there was a
significant reduction in displacement and acceleration [59]. VDs were
6
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
put into practice for the first time in 1984 by North American Air De-
fense Command to reduce the effect of possible nuclear attacks [54].
Several countries are practicing the use of VDs in tall buildings in-
cluding Hong Kong, China, Japan, and the United States. The Sato
Building (1992) and Shimura Dormitory (1993) in Japan are vivid ex-
amples of application [28]. Zhang [60] studied the Hefei Tower (339 m
high), equipped with VDs to reduce wind-induced vibration. The peak
acceleration at the top of the building was reduced by 43.4%. VDs are
characterized by a resisting force which depends on the relative velo-
city of motion, fluid viscosity and the orifice size of the piston. The
damping force is given by:
F (t ) = Cd v α sign(v ) (1)
where v is the relative velocity of the two ends of the damper; Cd is the
damping coefficient; and α is an exponent whose value depends on fluid
properties, as well as the piston shape and size. The value of α can be
less than or equal to 1. α = 1 represents a linear viscous damper
whereas α < 1 characterizes a non-linear damper that is more effective
in minimizing high-velocity shocks [55,61]. Several recent studies show
that viscous dampers are effective devices for seismic protection of low-
and high-rise buildings [62-66]. Recently, structural improvements
under wind loads was achieved by various means such as height re-
duction, steel belts, TMDs, VDs and change of the global layout of the
building that provided a fair evaluation of the effectiveness of each
mitigation method [67].
5. Building modeling with viscous dampers and lever mechanism
To investigate the performance of viscous dampers in protecting
high-rise buildings against wind and earthquake loads, a 76-story
building with a height of 306 m is considered. It is a proposed office
tower with an aspect ratio of 7.3 in Melbourne, Australia. The building
has square plan with two cut corners as shown in Fig. 4. The height of
the building is distributed uniformly among floors with few exceptions.
Although the regular story height is 3.9 m, a few stories are of different
heights, such as the first story which has a height of 10 m. Stories 38–40
and 74–76 have heights of 4.5 m. The total mass of the building is
153,000 tons including heavy machinery. The natural frequencies of
the building for the first five modes are 0.160, 0.765, 1.992, 3.789, and
6.394 Hz and the corresponding mode shapes are shown in Fig. 5. The
damping ratio for the first five modes is assumed to be 1% [68].
VDs with lever mechanism are installed in the building from top
floor to the 52nd floor as shown in Fig. 6, where the dampers are be-
tween 52 and 55, 55–58, 58–61, 61–64, 64–67, 67–70, 70–73 and
73–76 floors. The performance of VDs with lever mechanism is in-
vestigated by comparing uncontrolled and controlled wind-induced
response. Similarly, same VDs and bracing configuration are employed
to attenuate earthquake-induced responses. To account for multi-ha-
zard effects, uncertainties in the stiffness of the primary structure and
potential failure of VDs are considered, as per the fact that one hazard
may produce damage that will affect the performance under the other
hazard.
5.1. State space modeling of the building with viscous dampers
The latest trend in engineering systems is more complex and chal-
lenging than before, mainly due to the complexity of tasks where time-
varying multiple inputs and multiple outputs are involved, in addition
to the demand for more accurate results. Modern control theory which
is based on the concept of state has been developed since 1960 to ad-
dress stringent requirement on performance. While the conventional
control theory deals with linear invariable systems with single-input
and single-output, the modern control theory has the capacity to deal
with nonlinear, time-varying, multiple-input and multiple-output sys-
tems [69].
A state is the smallest set of variables in the dynamic system, where
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of a typical viscous oil damper.

comprehension of those variables at t = t0 , along with the knowledge of
the input fort ≥ t0 , can completely establish the nature of the system for
anytime, t ≥ t0 . A state variable makes the smallest variable set that can
regulate the state of the dynamic system. For example, if n variable
x1,x2, x3 , ⋯x n are required to fully describe the dynamic behavior of the
system, these variables are called the set of the state variable. If the
initial state is known and input is given for t ≥ t0 , a subsequent state
x1,x2, x3 , ⋯x n can be established. Consequently, the space with n
dimension having coordinate axis is called ‘state space.’ Each state is
represented by a point in the state space. The state space equation for
state variable × and input u for time t can be written as:
ẋ (t) = f (x , u, t ) ⎫
,
y (t) = g (x , u, t ) ⎬⎭ (2)
where the first term is the state equation and the second is the output
equation. If time is explicitly involved in vector functions f and g, then it

Fig. 4. Top view of the building under consideration.

7
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

Fig. 5. Mode shapes: (a) first mode — 0.16 Hz, (b) second mode — 0.765 Hz, (c) third mode —1.992 Hz, (d) fourth mode — 3.789 Hz, and (e) fifth mode — 6.394 Hz.

is a time-varying system [69]. Linearizing Eq. (2), we obtain the fol-

lowing form:

ẋ (t) = A (t) x (t) + B (t) F (t) ⎫

,
y (t) = C (t) x (t) + D (t) F (t) ⎬⎭ (3)
in which A(t) is the state matrix, B(t) is the input matrix, C(t) is the
output matrix, and D(t) is the direct transmission matrix [69]. The
building’s motion in the cross-wind direction can be written as:
M 76¨x + C 76x ̇ + K 76x = −F + Λf (4)
whereC76, K 76 and M76 are building damping, stiffness, and mass
matrices. F is the external load due to wind or earthquake and f is a
vector containing control force and Λ is a matrix that determines lo-
cations of dampers. State space method explained above is used to solve
Eq. (4). State space modeling of the control system is shown in Fig. 7.
The state space model has been widely used in the design of vibration
control systems. Experimental validation of the state space model can
be found in Wu and Pan [70], where scaled (1/300) aeroelastic model
of the 76-story benchmark building was built and tested in a wind
tunnel. The state space model was used in the system identification and
modeling of building equipped with active control system. The nu-
merical model has been validated by the experimental results [70].

5.2. Design approach

There are two general approaches of structural analysis, one is de-

terministic, and the other is probabilistic. In the deterministic ap-
proach, the properties of the structure and external loadings are fully

Fig. 6. Placement of viscous dampers with bracings.

Fig. 7. Block diagram of a linear control system in state space.

8
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

determined, and can be calculated using different tools with sufficient

accuracy. The deterministic approach is based on the principle of total
discounting of the contingency of failure. Designers in the deterministic
method assume that relevant quantities are properly chosen, admissible
levels would never exceeded, structure is resistant to failure and will
survive indefinitely. Although deterministic design has reached the
high level of sophistication, problems of structural design always in-
volve an element of uncertainty, which makes it impossible to predict
the structural behavior with perfect accuracy. This approach is mostly
limited to analytical and numerical solutions, and does not allow for
transparent analysis of reliability functions that depends on the inter- Fig. 8. Details of a viscous damper installation with bracing and lever me-
action of several random variables [71]. In the probabilistic approach, chanism.
the chance of failure of structural component exposed to variable load
combinations can be assessed where one might consider the contribu- /2)
tion of variable geometrical properties such as stiffness, and random
imperfections. It should be noted that failure does not necessarily mean
the collapse of structure, it is the inability of a structure to perform at
desired level. There has been some progress towards the incorporation
of uncertainty inherent in civil engineering structures into control de-
sign. To ensure the control system robustness, uncertainties should be
incorporated directly into the control design [72].
In this paper, a deterministic approach is used to test and evaluate
the performance of the idea of implementing viscous dampers with a
lever mechanism in a high-rise building, as it is faster, and requires less
computational effort compared to the probabilistic approach. However,
uncertainties in building stiffness ( ± 15%) and damper failure (num-
bers of damper) are considered to evaluate the robustness of the control /2)
system. In future work, we will test the control mechanism using a
reliability-based approach, where wind load, earthquake load, building /2

stiffness, bracing stiffness, and damper failure will be considered as

random variables. Further investigation of the proposed control me-
chanism using the reliability-based approach would explore the ro-
bustness of the control mechanism and its applicability in engineering
structures.
5.3. Placement of viscous dampers with a lever mechanism
High-rise buildings are made up of stiff stories, so the relative dis-
placement between adjacent stories is usually very small. In this sce-
nario placement of a viscous damper between two successive floors
results in small response reduction, which is obviously not preferred.
The proper method of investigating drifts in tall buildings is by con-
sidering the first lateral mode shape in the direction necessary to damp
the vibration. From modal analysis, it is found that the building has
higher drift over height, thus dampers may be placed between floors in
the upper part with internal bracing. Initially, dampers were considered
starting from the ground and upward, however it was not effective
because large number of dampers with high damping coefficients were
required for response reduction. VDs are considered in the top twenty-
four floors (76th to 52nd) at a three-story interval. To magnify the
displacement across the damper, the lever mechanism can be used. The
magnification factor (MF) is defined by
L2 x Ff
MF = = d = ,>1
L1 xf Fd (5)
Fig. 9. Details of the lever mechanism connection.
the brace. This mechanism has two direct advantages: (1) it increases
the performance of the VDs by increasing the velocity across the
damper consequently increasing the energy dissipation per cycle, and
(2) it can reduce the number of VDs required or VDs with smaller
damping coefficients can be used. In this case, the MF is taken as 2.
However, control force in the bracing system will be increased due to
magnification which requires a strong bracing connection.
To model the damper and bracing connection, bracing members are
considered as circular steel bars. For the given allowable stress and
bracing length, the corresponding bracing stiffness can be calculated.
Fmax EAb E F
kb = = = ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ max ⎞
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
δ Lb ⎝ b ⎠ ⎝ σall ⎠
L (6)
where kb is bracing stiffness, Fmax is the maximum working force, Lb is
the length of bracing, E is the elastic modulus of steel, and σall is the
allowable working stress.
σall Lb
δ=
E (7)
here δ is the deformation produced in the bracing as a function of
working stress.

where L1and L2 are lengths of two arms of lever; x d is the displacement
between two ends of damper, x f defined by x f = Xf cos(θ) is the hor-
izontal component of drift, and Xf is the drift between the floors con-
nected to dampers, θ is the inclination angle of the diagonal bracing, Ff
andFd are force acting along the diagonal bracing and damper respec-
tively [36]. L2 should be greater thanL1, for the effectiveness of the
lever mechanism. Figs. 8 and 9 show the damper location in the
building and details of the lever mechanism connection, respectively. It
should be kept in mind that all the braces are pre-tensioned, so the
buckling of the brace can be avoided when control force acts through
5.4. Damper-bracing modeling
The assembly of VDs with bracing is like a Maxwell spring-damper
model since a real bracing exhibits some elastic behavior. The Maxwell
model consists of a spring element and a damper element connected in
series. The element is massless and uniaxial that does not account for
bending torsion. Since the damper and bracing are in series, the force in
bracing is equal to the force in the damper, which can be written as:
F = Fb = MF ∗ Fd = kb ∗ xb = MF ∗ C ∗ ẋd (8)

9
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

where F is the force developed in the spring-damper system, Fb is the the control mechanism optimized for wind loads is tested against
force developed in bracing, Fd is the force induced in the damper, xb is seismic loads.
the displacement in the bracing and ẋd is velocity across the damper.
Due to the series connection the following relation is valid for the
spring- damper system 6.2. Performance criteria under wind loads
x = xb + x d & x ̇ = xḃ + x ḋ (9)
Significant number of research studies have been performed con-
By combining Eqs. (8) and (9) we get sidering relevant physiological and psychological parameter that affects
MF ∗ C ∗ x ḋ = kb ∗ xb = kb ∗ (x − x d ) (10) occupant perception to motion. Many factors are such as expectancy
and experience of occupants, visual and acoustic cures, orientation and
Now by arranging Eq. (10), the following transfer function is ob- body posture, amplitude and frequency, along with acceleration for
tained which will provide the displacement and velocity across the translational as well as rotational motions. For the current benchmark
damper. building, allowable peak acceleration of 15 cm/s2 and standard devia-
kb tion value of 5 cm/s2 is considered for the office use [68]. Limits for
TF = wind deflection or inter-story drift are also specified in many design
kb + MF ∗ Cs (11)
codes (e.g. Canadian code, NBCC, New Zealand Code, NZS 4203). The
Using this transfer function in SIMULINK [73], the control force is specification of wind load drift limits is to prevent nonstructural da-
determined. mage such as partitions and interior finishes. The recommended value
for the maximum inter-story drift subjected to serviceability limit wind
6. Performance criteria speed is h/500 [18]. Nevertheless, in this benchmark building accel-
eration, displacement, inter-story drift, shear force and bending mo-
6.1. Performance based design ment are analyzed along with the criteria set up in the benchmark
problem.
Performance based design (PBD) is a method of designing buildings Non-dimensional ratios are used as performance criteria(J ) to assess
with predictable load induced performance rather than the perspective the capabilities of the mitigation system. Here, benchmark study per-
based code specifications. PBD has been well accepted in professional formance criteria are defined in problem definition for reduced order
practice for the design of buildings under earthquake loads. Numerous system. But in this study same criteria are determined for full order
attempts have been made to extend the idea of PBD to other hazards system (i.e. 76 degrees of freedom). Although twelve performance cri-
such as wind, fire, and seismic pounding. PBD method is built on the teria were defined in the benchmark problem, only eight criteria are
definition of target system performance level associated with different considered for the performance of viscous dampers. Initial six perfor-
hazard intensities [74,75]. mance measure (i.e., J1 to J6 ) standard deviation responses of the floor
Four different target performance levels are usually defined in PBD and actuator and next six measures (i.e. peak response of floor and
for earthquake engineering, which are fully operational, operational, actuator). Criteria J1 to J4 and J7 to J10 are used in this study, since re-
life safety, and near collapse. To estimate the target performance level, maining four criteria represent the performance of the control actuator.
highest acceptable value of engineering demand parameters such as
drift, acceleration, and ductility are selected as a thresholds and com- max(σ x¨1, σ x¨2 σ x¨3 ⋯ . σ x¨74, σ x¨75 )
J1 = σ x¨750
for i = 1, 2⋯75⎫
pared with the structural response [76]. Inter-story drift performance of ⎪
1 σ x¨i ⎪
tall buildings is an important measure of structural and non-non- J2 = 26
Æ©iσ for i = 50, 51, ⋯75
x¨i0
structural damage of buildings under seismic loadings. The inter-story J3 = σx 76/ σx 760 ⎬
drift performance has become the principal design consideration in ⎪
1 σx
J4 = Æ©i σ i for i = 50, 51⋯76 ⎪
PBD. Based on the Universal Building Code, for long period buildings, a 27 xi0
⎭ (12)
threshold value of 2% inter-story drift ratio is adapted in this paper
[77]. where, σẍi = standard deviation acceleration at the ith floor.
Target performance level for wind induced motion of high-rise σẍ 750 = standard deviation acceleration of 75th floor for an uncontrolled
buildings has been published in some international standards. case, which value is around 11.26 cm/s2. σxi0 = uncontrolled standard
Serviceability guidelines are introduced by the Architectural Institute of deviation acceleration of ith floor.σxi = standard deviation displacement
Japan based on the proportion of building occupants that will likely of the ith floor, and σx 760 = uncontrolled standard deviation displace-
perceive the motion, as a function of the first natural frequency. ment of the 76th floor, which is 12.51 cm.**
According to those specifications, depending upon the natural fre-
quency of the building, the annual maximum acceptable accelerations J7 = max(x¨ p1, x¨ p2 x¨ p3⋯.¨x p74 x¨ p75)/ x¨ p750 for i = 1, 2⋯75⎫
vary between 1 mg and 20 mg [78]. In North American countries, 1 x¨ p ⎪
10–15 mg for residential buildings, and 20–25 mg for office buildings J8 = 26
Æ©i x¨ i for i = 50, 51, ⋯75 ⎪
pi0
are assumed as a peak acceleration for real design purposes [28]. In this J9 = x p76 / x p760 ⎬
paper, 5 cm/s2 root-mean square (RMS) value, and 15 cm/s2 peak value 1 xp ⎪
J10 = Æ©i x i for i = 50, 51⋯76 ⎪
of acceleration are considered for the design against wind load as de- 27 pi0
⎭ (13)
fined in the benchmark problem.
Once the performance objective is selected, the numbers, the ca- where ẍ pi = controlled peak acceleration of ith floor and ẍ pi0 = un-
pacity, and the location of damping devices are designed. The numer- controlled peak acceleration of the ith floor. x pi = peak displacement of
ical simulation in the time domain is carried out for both wind and the ith floor with control and x pi0 = peak displacement of the ith floor
earthquake loadings. Peak and RMS values of acceleration at the top without control. x p760 = peak displacement of the 76th floor without
floor of the building under wind loads are recorded and compared with control, which is 39.86 cm.
corresponding threshold values. Similarly, the inter-story drift ratio Besides the criteria set up in benchmark problem, shear force,
along the height of the building due to earthquake load is recorded and bending moment and inter-story drift ratio induced due to wind load
compared with the threshold value of drift ratio. The numbers, location, are evaluated. Shear force, bending moment, and drift ratio are com-
and capacity of the dampers are designed through an iterative proce- pared with uncontrolled building and controlled building with viscous
dure until the target performance is achieved under wind loads. Finally, damper.

10
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
6.3. Performance criteria under earthquake loads
VDs have been used in civil engineering structure for more than
30 years to mitigate the effects of the earthquake. The use of VDs in
high-rise building in the seismic is a challenge for designers since they
are supposed to reduce the vibration induced by both strong winds and
earthquakes and optimal behavior of the damper in these two situations
is not usually the same. For the reduction of projected motion levels,
TMD and TSLDs were studied by many researchers including cost and
impact of the project. Both TMDs and TSLDs take valuable space in the
building, so these are expensive. However, VDs are proved to be the
least space intensive as well as cost effective especially for office
buildings [79]. Since VDs can work for controlling the motion of
structure over the high-frequency band, it is effective in controlling the
vibration induced by the earthquake which excites the higher mode of
the structure.
The North-South component of El Centro earthquake of May 18,
1940 [80] is considered to check the performance of VDs. Six evalua-
tion criteria (i.e. J1 toJ6 ) which are based on the building response are
evaluated in this study, and first three criteria are based peak inter-
story drift ratio(J1), level acceleration ( J2 ), and base shear(J3) :
|d (t )|
max i ⎫ higher acceleration in a short period, so the effect of VDs in the building
hi
J1 = δmax ⎪
⎪ under earthquake is quite different from the wind. Response spectra of
max|¨x ai (t)|
J2 =
x¨amax ⎬
max | Æ©i mi x¨ai (t)| ⎪
J3 = max
Fb ⎪ of the structure. Displacement is contributed mainly by the first three
⎭ (14)
Over the rangei = [1, 76], wheredi (t ) = inter-story drift over the
time history of earthquakehi = height of each story, δ max = maximum
inter-story drift ratio of the uncontrolled building, ẍ ai (t) and
ẍamax = absolute acceleration of the ith level with and without control,
Fbmax = maximum shear force of the uncontrolled structure. The other
three criteria are evaluated depending upon the normalized response of
the building. The inter-story drift ( J4 ), level acceleration ( J5 ), and base
shear ( J6 ), are defined in terms of normed value as follow:
|d (t )|
max i ⎫
J4 =
hi
|δmax| ⎪
⎪ (peak and STD) is highly increased in upper floors for both controlled
max|¨x ai (t)|
J5 = |¨xamax | ⎬ and uncontrolled cases due to the soft story effects as shown in Figs. 22
max|Æ©i mi x¨ai (t)| ⎪
J6 = |Fbmax | ⎪
⎭ (15)
|δ max| = maximum normalized inter-story drift ratio, | ẍamax | = max-
imum absolute acceleration, and|Fbmax | = maximum base shear for the
uncontrolled structure excited by an earthquake. All evaluation criteria
selected for the analysis of building response are found to be small.
Nevertheless, place of the VDs at the upper part of the tall building
resulted in larger response reduction in the wind response as compared
to the earthquake.
7. Results and discussion
7.1. Damper placement and response reduction
Wind-Induced Response: Significant reduction in wind-induced re-
sponse is achieved using VDs with lever mechanism in the slender
building. Reponses are analyzed by installing sixteen VDs from top to
52nd floor (24 floors from top). Spectra of controlled and uncontrolled
response of the 76th floor is shown in Fig. 10. The results show that VDs
have capabilities to control the structure up with higher modes. Sig-
nificant reduction of the response is observed for the first five modes
(see Fig. 10(b)). It can also be inferred that displacement is contributed
mainly by the first mode, but acceleration is contributed not only by
first mode but also by the higher modes (up to 5th mode). Peak ac-
celeration at top floor is reduced by 68.61% while standard deviation
11
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
(STD) acceleration is reduced by 76.65%. Time history of the responses
at 76th and 70th floor is presented in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. Peak
acceleration at 75th floor is reduced to 12.08 cm/s2 (< 15 cm/s2 for
office use) and STD acceleration of the same floor is reduced to
2.69 cm/s2 (< 5 cm/s2), which means the designed mitigation system
satisfies the comfort criteria for the building. The peak displacement at
the top floor is reduced by 63.05% whereas the STD displacement of the
same floor is reduced by 53.58%. Figs. 13 and 14 show the reduction of
displacements and accelerations of different floors along the height of
building in terms of peak and STD value, both responses have the linear
variation over the height of the building. Shear force induced at each
floor and base shear force in the building are shown in Figs. 15 and 16.
The standard deviation (STD) of base shear is reduced by 47.56% and
the peak base shear is reduced by 32.82%. Substantial reduction in the
inter-story drift ratio and base moment of the building can be seen in
Figs. 17 and 18, where maximum drift ratio is reduced by 42.75% and
the maximum base moment is reduced by 35.26%. Table 1 lists the
performance criteria defined in section 6.1 for the wind load, smaller
the values of criteria better the performance of the mitigation system.
Earthquake-Induced Response: Responses are evaluated under
earthquake load for the same number and configuration of damper-
bracing system. Unlike wind loading, earthquake excites structures at
the 76th floor for both controlled and uncontrolled case is presented in
Fig. 19. In Contrary to the wind load, earthquake excites higher modes
modes; however significant contribution is coming from the first mode
(see Fig. 19(a)). Although the acceleration is contributed by first five
modes, major contribution is coming from second, third and fourth
modes (see Fig. 19(b)). VDs bring notable response reduction over the
first five modes. This property of a VD makes it capable to control vi-
bration against multi-hazard load (wind and earthquake) in tall build-
ings. It can be inferred that VDs are more suitable for multi-hazard
compared to traditional TMD. Since a classical single TMD controls
mainly first mode of a structure, it has poor performance under earth-
quake loads that excite higher modes. Displacement and acceleration of
76th and 70th floors are shown in Figs. 20 and 21. The acceleration
and 23. Also, acceleration responses under the earthquake load are
nonlinear over height which implies that acceleration is mainly con-
tributed by the excitation of higher modes of the building. The max-
imum displacement at the top floor is reduced by 65.51% and STD of
displacement at the same floor is decreased by 77.83%. However, ac-
celeration responses are not reduced as much as displacement re-
sponses. The Peak and STD acceleration are reduced by 20.12% and
44.55% respectively. In literature, there is no standard value of the
permissible acceleration of the building to prevent nonstructural da-
mage under earthquake. In fact, it depends on many factors including
the type of structure, type of foundation, soil type, joints between the
structural members and many other parameters. Story shear and base
shear of the building are shown in Figs. 24 and 25 for both controlled
and uncontrolled cases, where the maximum base shear is reduced by
22.14% which is significantly low compared to wind loads. Never-
theless, STD base shear is reduced by 51.78%. The main performance
criterion that many researchers agreed on for tall buildings under
earthquakes is the inter-story drift ratio. The inter-story drift ratio is
increased approximately linearly with the height of the building (see
Fig. 26). But, the maximum inter-story drift ratio at the top story is only
0.51% which is smaller than the maximum limiting value mentioned in
codes (2% for long period structures [77]). These results may imply that
high-rise buildings designed for wind could be safe under moderate to
strong earthquakes. However, the use of VDs reduced the maximum
inter-story drift ratio by 37.4%. In this scenario, the proposed control
system has a potential to prevent the structure from failure, if the
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
Fig. 10. Uncontrolled and controlled response spectra of the 76th floor under the wind loads: (a) displacement, and (b) acceleration.
Fig. 11. Time histories of the responses of the 76th floor under wind loads: (a)
displacement, and (b) acceleration.
Fig. 12. Time histories of the responses of the 70th floor under wind loads: (a)
displacement, and (b) acceleration.
building was unsafe (inter-story drift ratio greater than 2%) under
earthquake. As dampers are distributed along the height, the viscous
force will be distributed on each floor resulting in less stress at the
bracing-column connection. However, this research is focused mainly
on the design of the control system rather than modeling of original
structure, unsafe building under earthquake loading could not be
tested. The potential of the designed control system for the unsafe
building under earthquake needs to be further explored. It is worthy to
mention that even if the inter-story drift ratio in a tall building is re-
latively small, without significant risk issues for the main force resisting
system of the building, nonstructural elements may present a high
percentage of loss exposure of building to earthquakes (for e.g. ceiling,
piping, and partition). The base bending moment is shown in Fig. 27,
12
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
the maximum base moment is decreased by 16.04% and STD base
moment is reduced by 50.53%. Performance criteria defined for
earthquake loading in Section 6.2 are listed in Table 2.
7.2. Effect of uncertainties, bracing stiffness, and damper location
Most of the mitigation methods developed so far to control the vi-
bration induced by dynamic loads in civil engineering structures are
based on a deterministic approach and the same concept is used in the
current study. However, there are several parameters related to the
building and the mitigation system that are not actually deterministic.
Uncertainties related to building parameters, as well as control systems,
are discussed in Section 2. Variation of original stiffness of the building
by ± 15% is taken to check the robustness of the designed control
system and failure of four dampers at different locations are also con-
sidered to account for the uncertainty of the control system. Although
there is a probability that certain dampers may not perform well against
the loading, it cannot be predicted which damper is going to fail. To
simplify this issue, two different simulations were run taking four
damper failures (25% of total) each time from different locations. Re-
sults are listed in Tables 3 and 4 for wind and earthquake respectively.
In Tables 3 and 4, ‘0% stiffness’ corresponds to building with original
stiffness, ‘+15% stiffness’ corresponds to the building with 15% in-
crease in the original stiffness, and ‘-15% stiffness’ corresponds to the
building with 15% reduction in the original stiffness, whereas ‘4 from
top’ means damper failure between the 76th and the 73rd floors, and ‘4
from bottom’ means damper failure between 52nd and 55th floor.
The results show that the mitigation system is more robust under
wind loads, compared to seismic loads. Under wind loads, the evaluated
responses are below the limit for occupant comfort, however under
earthquake loadings larger variation in responses is observed. The ef-
fect of damper malfunction is considered to take an account of the
uncertainty of the mitigation system. Failure of dampers at upper floors
has more adverse effects than failure of dampers at lower floors for both
wind and earthquake loads. Nonetheless, damper malfunction has more
effects under earthquake load than wind load considering that dampers
fail at the same location.
The induced damping force is relatively higher in earthquake load
compared to wind load since relative velocity between adjacent floors
caused by earthquake is larger compared to those brought by wind.
Since the control system is designed to work under both wind and
earthquake, earthquake load governs the stiffness of the bracing system
because higher control force is developed in the bracing due to earth-
quake load relative to wind load. Because of the lever mechanism, in-
duced force would be magnified when transferred to the bracing. A MF
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

Fig. 13. Floor displacement and acceleration under wind loads: (a) standard deviation (STD) of displacement, and (b) standard deviation (STD) of acceleration.

Fig. 14. Peak floor responses under wind loads: (a) displacement, and (b) acceleration.

Fig. 15. Maximum shear force under wind loads: (a) individual floor shear force, and (b) overall shear force at the base of each floor.

13
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

Fig. 16. Standard deviation (STD) shear force under wind loads: (a) individual floor shear force, and (b) overall shear force at the base of each floor.

Fig. 17. Inter-story drift ratio under wind loads: (a) maximum drift ratio, and (b) STD drift ratio.

Fig. 18. Overturning moment at the base of each floor under wind loads: (a) maximum moment, and (b) STD moment.

of 2 is used here, so the force in the bracing is twice the force developed the control system acts as the pure VDs, however, it does not reflect the
in the damper (Eq. (5)). Total deflection in the bracing system is used practical situation. By reducing the bracing stiffness, deflection across
for the indication of bracing stiffness. When ideal bracing with infinite the bracing can be increased. In this study 9 mm deflection of bracing
stiffness is used, there will be no deflection in the bracing. In this case, under the earthquake loading which corresponds to 75 MPa allowable

14
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

Table 1
The performance criteria against wind loading.
J1 J2 J3 J4 J7 J8 J9 J10

0.233 0.232 0.464 0.468 0.314 0.320 0.369 0.371

stress is used. Since the stiff bracing system is considered, deflection of

the bracing caused by wind load is small. Thus, the effect of bracing
stiffness is checked for the earthquake loading with respect to the re-
sponse of the building.
Real bracing refers to the practical value of bracing stiffness
whereas ideal bracing refers to the bracing with approximately infinite
stiffness value. The purpose of the study of the ideal bracing is to un- Fig. 20. Time history of earthquake-induced response of the 76th floor: (a)
derstand the influence of bracing elasticity (flexibility) on the perfor- displacement, and (b) acceleration.
mance of the control system, and its role in reducing the high accel-
eration, if the damper forces were to be applied suddenly. In this study,
the bracing stiffness is proved to cause time delay that reduced the
shock effects. This was conducted to understand stiffness effect on
triggering high-frequency excitations.
With an ideal bracing system (infinite stiffness), the peak accelera-
tion under earthquake loading is reduced by extra 12% and STD of the
acceleration is reduced by extra 10%, compared to a real bracing. At the
same time peak displacement is reduced by extra 1% and the STD
displacement at the top floor is also reduced by extra 1%. Thus, higher
bracing stiffness resulted in better performance to control the accel-
eration response under earthquake. Fig. 28 shows the comparison of
spectral acceleration of 76th floor for real bracing and ideal bracing. It
is seen from the figure that using ideal bracing over real bracing, higher
modes of the building are controlled and no significant difference in Fig. 21. Time history of earthquake-induced response of the 70th floor: (a)
control is observed for the 1st mode. As higher modes contribute to displacement, and (b) acceleration.
acceleration, extra reduction (12% peak and 10% STD) in acceleration
is achieved using ideal bracing. Control of the first mode (contribute to The location of VDs in tall buildings for effective reduction of re-
displacement) of building with real and ideal bracing is almost the sponse induced by both wind and earthquake is not straightforward as
same. Thus, only extra 1% reduction in displacement is achieved. This both loads have different nature and structural demands. Various con-
result is attributed to time delay effects. When very stiff bracing is used, figuration of VDs in the building results in different response reduction.
VDs comes in to action immediately providing the control force on the Favorable damper distribution for wind loads may result in poor per-
floors without significant time delay. But in case of relatively low stiff formance against earthquake and vice versa. Thus, there can be a good
bracing, control force is not readily available due to delay in time that compromise between two favorable cases to achieve optimum design.
results in poor performance. However, the opposite was true for the MR In this study, several simulations were run considering different dis-
damper using decentralized bang-bang controller where ideal bracing tribution of damper, initially dampers were connected between ad-
stiffness resulted in higher peak acceleration. The reason for that is the jacent floors from the top of the building. However, due to small drift
shock caused by the damper as the decentralized bang-bang controller between each floor for wind load, response reductions were very small.
tends to change the input voltage from 0 to maximum value. Such effect Therefore, for better performance, dampers are connected between
can be reduced with flexible bracing, as per delay in the application of every third floors as shown in Fig. 4, and the corresponding response
the control force to the building [36]. reduction are explained in Section 7.1. Nonetheless, simulations were

Fig. 19. Uncontrolled and controlled response spectra of the 76th floor under earthquake loads: (a) displacement, and (b) acceleration.

15
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
Fig. 22. Peak floor responses under earthquake loads: (a) displacement, and (b) acceleration.
run for the placement of dampers from the bottom of the building with
exact number and configuration as on the top. But this configuration
was rejected because it increased the maximum acceleration by 8.8%
and reduced the maximum displacement by 16.5% under the earth-
quake load. Dampers at the upper part of the building are more effec-
tive in reducing the response for both loadings as it can be seen from the
effects of damper failure in the response of the building (see Tables 3
and 4). It is worth noting that a recent study considering fluid viscous
dampers degradation shows that the remaining dampers can still pro-
tect the structure, which is the case in the current study [62]. However,
optimum placement of damper can be obtained by running numerous
simulations for various numbers and distribution of dampers con-
sidering both wind and earthquake loads. The current study shows that
the inter-story modal drift is a key parameter for optimum location of
dampers. This is valid for the case of low-rise buildings excited by
earthquakes, where damping devices are more effective in lower floors,
with higher drift [81].
8. Conclusions
Multi-hazard loadings brought by wind and earthquakes lead to
significant vibration in tall buildings, which threatens safety, service-
ability, and functionality of the structure. Tall buildings designed
Fig. 23. Standard deviation (STD) of floor responses under earthquake loads: (a) displacement, and (b) acceleration.
16
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
considering a single hazard may not perform well against another ha-
zard – wind impact on a base isolated building may lead to unfavorable
displacements, compared to its response under seismic loads. In the
quest of finding optimal solution for multi-hazard impact on high-rise
buildings, the use of viscous dampers with lever mechanism leads to the
following conclusions:
• The proposed mitigation system is not only able to suppress wind-
induced vibrations (peak and STD accelerations) below the defined
comfort limits, but also substantially reduces the responses under
earthquake loads. The performance of the mitigation system is in-
vestigated in terms of reduction of displacement, acceleration, base
shear, bending moment, and inter-story drift ratio. Comparison of
controlled and uncontrolled responses demonstrates the effective-
ness of the proposed vibration attenuation system.
• Wind loads excite lower modes whereas earthquake loads excite
lower and higher modes. Under wind loads, the displacement re-
sponse is mainly contributed by the first mode, however, a major
contribution to the acceleration is coming from the first three modes
of the building. Nevertheless, under earthquake loads, displacement
is largely contributed by the first three modes and the acceleration is
primarily contributed by the first five modes. A viscous damper can
attenuate the responses significantly both at low and high modes.
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
Fig. 24. Maximum shear force under earthquake loads: (a) shear force at each floor, and (b) overall shear force exerted at the base of each floor.
This crucial feature of viscous dampers makes the proposed miti-
gation system attractive for vibration suppression under both wind
and earthquake loads.
• The mitigation system has better performance in reducing accel-
eration, compared to reducing displacement under wind loads;
however, the exact opposite scenario is observed under seismic
loads. Under wind loads, the peak acceleration of all floors is re-
duced by 68% and STD acceleration at the top is reduced by 76%,
but peak displacement is decreased by 43% and STD displacement at
the top is decreased by 53%. In contrast, under seismic loads, peak
acceleration is reduced by 21% and STD acceleration at the top is
reduced by 44% whereas peak displacement is decreased by 65%
and STD displacement is reduced by 77%.
• Significant reductions in base shear and base moment are achieved
under both loads. Reduction in base shear by 33% (peak), 47%
(STD), and base moment by 35% (peak), 48.50% (STD) is achieved
under wind loads. But under earthquake loads, base shear is reduced
by 23% (peak), 52% (STD) and base moment is reduced by 16%
(peak), 50% (STD).
• The lever mechanism with high magnification factor reduces both
size and number of viscous dampers. However, higher magnification
factor demands higher bracing stiffness. Usually, bracing stiffness is
governed by the seismic load as the damping force is relatively high
Fig. 25. Standard deviation (STD) of building shear forces under earthquake loads: (a) story shear, and (b) overall shear force exerted at the base of each floor.
17
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
in seismic loads compared to wind loads.
• Using an ideal bracing system under seismic loads, the peak accel-
eration is reduced by extra 12% and STD acceleration is reduced by
extra 10%, but less than 1% extra reduction in displacement (peak
and STD) is observed, compared to real elastic bracing. No sig-
nificant difference in responses is observed for wind loading with
ideal bracing compared to real bracing because of high stiffness of
the real bracing system. The main reason behind this behavior is the
time delay which depends on the bracing stiffness (higher the
stiffness, lower the time delay). VDs with stiff bracing can attenuate
accelerations from higher modes under seismic loads, as the
damping force becomes immediately available. Thus, VDs with a
lever mechanism/stiff bracing system are recommended for vibra-
tion attenuation in high-rise buildings under multi-hazard loads.
• A parametric study was conducted to find the optimal placement of
viscous dampers with bracings. It is shown that dampers installed in
upper floors are more effective in reducing the responses under both
wind and earthquake loads, compared to lower floors. This is be-
cause, lower floors of the case study building are more rigid, with
minimal inter-story displacements, compared to upper floors.
• The mitigation system is more robust under wind loads, compared to
seismic loads. Considering an uncertainty in the original building
stiffness of ± 15%, responses are evaluated. Under wind loads,
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

Fig. 26. Inter-story drift ratio under earthquake loads: (a) maximum drift ratio, and (b) STD drift ratio.

Fig. 27. Overturning moment under the earthquake loads: (a) maximum moment, and (b) STD moment.

Table 2 evaluated responses are below the limit for occupant comfort,
The performance criteria against earthquake loading. however under earthquake loadings larger variation in responses is
observed.
•
J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6
The effect of damper malfunction is considered to account for the
0.5433 0.9213 0.7816 0.2208 0.5545 0.4825 uncertainty of the mitigation system. Failure of dampers at upper
floors has more adverse effects than failure of dampers at lower
floors for both wind and earthquake loads. Nonetheless, damper

Table 3
Response of building under wind load considering the uncertainty of stiffness and damper failure.
Criteria Uncontrolled Controlled Failure of damper (4 Failure of damper (4
from top) from bottom)

+0% stiffness −15% stiffness +15% stiffness +0% stiffness −15% stiffness +15% stiffness +0% stiffness +0% stiffness

STD accel. (mg) 11.75 8.797 7.920 2.742 2.846 2.605 3.0617 3.384
Peak accel. (mg) 39.255 29.031 27.278 12.324 13.506 11.508 14.475 13.44
STD displ. (m) 0.1251 0.1176 0.0799 0.0581 0.0694 0.0499 0.0704 0.0615
Peak displ. (m) 0.3987 0.3184 0.2367 0.1473 0.1779 0.1216 0.1846 0.1605
STD base shear (N) 8.5720 × 106 6.9687 × 106 6.4584 × 106 4.4949 × 106 4.5781 × 106 4.4312 × 106 4.6208 × 106 4.6767 × 106
Peak base shear (N) 2.8406 × 107 2.7686 × 107 2.4085 × 107 1.9083 × 107 1.888 × 107 1.9225 × 107 1.8922 × 107 1.9953 × 107
STD base moment 3.4827 × 107 2.8209 × 107 2.6111 × 107 1.7936 × 107 1.8276 × 107 1.767 × 107 1.8453 × 107 1.8696 × 107
(N.m)
Peak base moment 1.164 × 108 1.1094 × 108 9.7794 × 107 7.5354 × 107 7.4084 × 107 7.5972 × 107 7.5046 × 107 7.8918 × 107
(N.m)
STD drift ratio (%) 0.061 0.0771 0.03874 0.02763 0.0329 0.0237 0.0335 0.0293
Peak drift ratio (%) 0.1938 0.21 0.151 0.111 0.126 0.09874 0.131 0.12

18
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352

Table 4
Response of building under seismic load considering the uncertainty of stiffness and damper failure.
Criteria Uncontrolled Controlled Failure of damper (4 Failure of damper (4
from top) from bottom)

+0% stiffness −15% stiffness +15% stiffness +0% stiffness −15% stiffness +15% stiffness +0% stiffness +0% stiffness

STD accel. (g) 0.2099 0.2208 0.2739 0.1164 0.1104 0.1272 0.1568 0.140
Peak accel. (g) 1.243 1.49 1.423 0.993 0.9143 1.146 1.20 1.139
STD displ. (m) 0.3963 0.2637 0.2618 0.0878 0.0892 0.0811 0.0926 0.0918
Peak displ. (m) 0.7853 0.5188 0.5912 0.2708 0.2561 0.2715 0.2936 0.2892
STD base shear (N) 5.8761 × 107 5.7541 × 107 7.9725 × 107 2.8329 × 107 2.6543 × 107 3.3141 × 107 3.6261 × 107 3.2398 × 107
Peak base shear (N) 2.8689 × 108 3.2685 × 108 4.2092 × 108 2.2337 × 108 2.2343 × 108 2.3624 × 108 2.4251 × 108 3.2096 × 108
STD base moment 2.2996 × 108 2.3672 × 108 3.1556 × 108 1.1375 × 108 1.0872 × 108 1.3369 × 108 1.4431 × 108 1.2905 × 108
(N.m)
Peak base moment 1.1272 × 109 1.3719 × 109 1.6987 × 109 9.4631 × 108 9.7276 × 108 9.8356 × 108 1.0264 × 109 9.8318 × 108
(N.m)
STD drift ratio (%) 0.204 0.1479 0.1572 0.0526 0.0534 0.05132 0.05872 0.05627
Peak drift ratio (%) 0.485 0.3857 0.4808 0.2606 0.2596 0.2886 0.3136 0.2925

Fig. 28. Spectra of the 76th floor’s acceleration under earthquake loads for two cases: real and ideal bracings.

malfunction has more effects under earthquake loads than wind 09.012.
loads, considering that dampers fail at the same location. [4] Li Y, Ahuja A, Padgett JE. Review of methods to assess, design for, and mitigate

•
The reductions in the maximum inter-story drift ratio are 43% and
37% under wind loads and seismic loads, respectively. It is found
that the building is safe under earthquake loading, considering the
main force resisting system, as the uncontrolled inter-story drift
ratio due to earthquake is only 0.51%. However, the proposed
control system will reduce the chances of nonstructural damage
under seismic loads (e.g., pipes, ceiling, partition, etc.).
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the Louisiana Board of Regents (RCS
Program, LEQSF(2016-19)-RD-A-02) and the NSF EPSCoR, through
Louisiana State University Graduate School Program, Economic
Development Assistantships (EDAs), and a Faculty Grant.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109352.
References
[1] Farouk A. High Rise Buildings and How They Affect Countries Progression. E-
LEADER, Zagreb: 2011.
[2] Willford M, Whittaker A, Klemencic R. CTBUH Recommendations for the Seismic
Design of High-Rise Buildings. 2008. 10.13140/RG.2.1.2798.8085.
[3] Thenozhi S, Yu W. Advances in modeling and vibration control of building struc-
tures. Ann Rev Contr 2013;37:346–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2013.
multiple hazards. J Perform Constr Facil 2011;26:104–17.
[5] Tamura Y, Suganuma S. Evaluation of amplitude-dependent damping and natural
frequency of buildings during strong winds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn
1996;59:115–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(96)00003-7.
[6] Satake N, Suda K, Arakawa T, Sasaki A, Tamura Y. Damping evaluation using full-
scale data of buildings in Japan. J Struct Eng 2003;129:470–7. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003) 129:4(470).
[7] Smith RJ, Willford MR. The damped outrigger concept for tall buildings. Struct Des
Tall Spec Build 2007;16:501–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.413.
[8] Cruz C, Miranda E. Evaluation of damping ratios for the seismic analysis of tall
buildings. J Struct Eng 2017;143:04016144. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.
1943-541X.0001628.
[9] Cruz C, Miranda E. Evaluation of damping ratios for the seismic analysis of tall
buildings. J Struct Eng 2016;143:04016144. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.
1943-541X.0001628.
[10] Bashor R, Kijewski-Correa T, Kareem A. On the wind-induced response of tall
buildings: the effect of uncertainties in dynamic properties and human comfort
thresholds. Proc. Am. Conf. Wind Eng 2005.
[11] Bashor R, Kareem A. Probabilistic performance evaluation of buildings: an occupant
comfort perspective. Proc 12th Int Conf Wind Eng 2007:1335–42.
[12] Minami T. Stiffness deterioration measured on a steel-reinforced concrete building.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1987;15:697–709. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
4290150604.
[13] Duthinh D, Simiu E. Safety of structures in strong winds and earthquakes: multi-
hazard considerations. J Struct Eng 2010;136:330–3. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000108.
[14] Potra FA, Simiu E. Multihazard design: structural optimization approach. J Optim
Theory Appl 2009;144:120–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-009-9586-4.
[15] Volant P, Orbovic N, Dunand F. Seismic evaluation of existing nuclear facility using
ambient vibration test to characterize dynamic behavior of the structure and mi-
crotremor measurements to characterize the soil: a case study. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2002;22.
[16] Li Y, Ellingwood BR. Framework for multihazard risk assessment and mitigation for
wood-frame residential construction. J Struct Eng 2009;135:159–68. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009) 135:2(159).

19
S. Chapain and A.M. Aly
[17] Heiza KM, Tayel M. Comparative study of the effects of wind and earthquake loads
on high-rise buildings. Concr Res Lett 2012;3:386–405.
[18] Mendis P, Ngo T, Haritos N, Hira A, Samali B, Cheung J. Wind loading on tall
buildings. EJSE Spec Issue Load Struct 2007;3:41–54.
[19] Hansen SO. Vortex-induced vibrations of structures. Struct. Eng. World Congr.,
Bangalore, India: 2007.
[20] Kareem A. Wind induced torsional loads on structures. Eng Struct 1981;3:85–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(81)90033-X.
[21] Yang JN, Agrawal AK, Samali B, Wu J. Benchmark problem for the response control
of wind-excited tall building. J Eng Mech 2004;130:437–46.
[22] FEMA. Designing for Earthquakes. 2006. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-
data/20130726-1556-20490-5679/fema454_complete.pdf.
[23] Klemencic R. Why are tall buildings often considered safer than low-rise buildings
during earthquakes? CTBUH J 2014:58.
[24] Aly AM, Abburu S. On the design of high-rise buildings for multihazard: funda-
mental differences between wind and earthquake demand. Shock Vib
2015;2015:148681. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/148681.
[25] Perry C, Phipps M, Hortacsu A. Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake
damage. Improv Seism Perform Exist Build Other Struct 2009:674–85. https://doi.
org/10.1061/41084(364)62.
[26] Housner GW, Bergman LA, Caughey TK, Chassiakos AG, Claus RO, Masri SF, et al.
Structural control: past, present, and future. J Eng Mech 1997;123:897–971.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1997)123:9(897).
[27] Aly AM. Vibration control of high-rise buildings for wind: a robust passive and
active tuned mass damper. Smart Struct Syst 2014;13:473–500. https://doi.org/10.
12989/sss.2014.13.3.473.
[28] Kareem A, Kijewski T, Tamura Y. Mitigation of motion of tall buildings with specific
examples of recent applications. Wind Struct 2007:201–51. https://doi.org/10.
12989/was.1999.2.3.201.
[29] Aly AM. Control of wind-induced motion in high-rise buildings with hybrid TM/MR
dampers. Wind Struct An Int J 2015;21:565–95. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.
2015.21.5.565.
[30] Dyke SJ, Spencer Jr BF, Sain MK, Carlson JD. An experimental study of MR dampers
for seismic protection. Smart Mater Struct 1998;7:693–703. https://doi.org/10.
1088/0964-1726/7/5/012.
[31] Dyke SJ, Spencer BF, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Modeling and control of magne-
torheological dampers for seismic response reduction. Smart Mater Struct
1996;5:565–75. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/5/5/006.
[32] Symans M, Constantinou MC. Semi-active control of earthquake induced vibration.
Elev World Conf Earthq Eng 1996http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/11_95.
PDF.
[33] Spencer BFJ, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Phenomenological model for magne-
torheological dampers. J Eng Mech 1997;123:230–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9399(1997) 123:3(230).
[34] Aly AM, Christenson RE. On the evaluation of the efficacy of a smart damper: a new
equivalent energy-based probabilistic approach. Smart Mater Struct 2008;17.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/17/4/045008.
[35] Aly AM, Zasso A, Resta F. On the dynamics of a very slender building under winds:
response reduction using MR dampers with lever mechanism. Struct Des Tall Spec
Build 2011;20. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.647.
[36] Aly AM. The use of bracing systems with MR dampers in super tall buildings. Int J
High-Rise Build 2016;5:31–41. https://doi.org/10.21022/IJHRB.2016.5.1.31.
[37] Spencer Jr BE, Carlson J, Sain MK, Yang G. On the current status of magne-
torheological dampers: seismic protection of full-scale structures. Am. Control Conf.
Proc. 1997 1997;1(1997):458–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.1997.611840.
[38] Spencer BF, Sain MK. Controlling buildings: a new frontier in feedback. IEEE
Control Syst Mag 1997;17:19–35. https://doi.org/10.1109/37.642972.
[39] Dyke SJ, Spencer BF, Quast P, Kaspari DC, Sain MK. Implementation of an active
mass damper using acceleration feedback control. Microcomput Civ Eng
1996;11:305–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.1996.tb00445.x.
[40] Kelly JM, Leitmann G, Soldatos AG. Robust control of base-isolated structures under
earthquake excitation I. J Optimiz Theory Applic 1987;53:159–80.
[41] Rezaee M, Aly AM. Vibration control in wind turbines for performance enhance-
ment: a comparative study. Wind Struct An Int J 2016;22:107–31. https://doi.org/
10.12989/was.2016.22.1.107.
[42] Aly AM. Proposed robust tuned mass damper for response mitigation in buildings
exposed to multidirectional wind. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2014;23. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tal.1068.
[43] Pall A, Marsh C. Response of friction damped braced frames. J Struct Div Proc Am
Soc Civ Eng CASCE 1982;108.
[44] Spencer BF, Nagarajah S. State of the art of structural control. J Struct Eng
2003;129:845–56. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003) 129.
[45] Clark AJ. Multiple passive tuned mass damper for reducing earthquake induced
building motion. Proc 9th World Conf Earthq Eng, Tokyo 1988:779–84.
[46] Nagarajaiah S, Basu B. Output only modal identification and structural damage
detection using time frequency & wavelet techniques. Earthq Eng Eng Vib
2009;8:583–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-009-9120-6.
[47] Silva MJF, Costa AC. Experimental Studies On The Characteristics Of Tuned Liquid
Dampers For Reducing Vibration In Structures. 14th World Conf Earthq Eng. 2008.
[48] Novo T, Varum H, Teixeira-Dias F, Rodrigues H, Silva MF, Costa AC, et al. Tuned
liquid dampers simulation for earthquake response control of buildings. Bull Earthq
Eng 2014;12:1007–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9528-2.
[49] Fujino BY, Sun L, Pacheco BM, Member A, Chaiseri P. Liquid sloshing in a closed
basin has been studied in many engineering fields such as coastal engineering [ e . g
., Chester (1968) and Miles (1967)]; aerospace engineering (Abramson 1966), and
20
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109352
earthquake engineering . Compared with the aforemention 2017;118:pp.
2017–2030.
[50] Bauer HF. Oscillations of immiscible liquids in a rectangular container: a new
damper for excited structures. J Sound Vib 1984;93:117–33. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0022-460X(84)90354-7.
[51] Pall A, Pall R. Friction-Dampers for Seismic Control of Buildings – A Canadian
Experiance. Elev. World Conf. Earthq. Eng., Acapulco, Mexico: 1996.
[52] Makris N, Constantinou MC, Dargush GF. Anal Model Viscoelastic
1994;119:3310–25.
[53] Taylor Devices Inc. Using Modern Technology for the Prevention of Earthquake
Damage in Buildings and Bridges. Taylor Devices Inc, 2019. http://www.
taylordevices.com/pdf/2013-dampers/Change%2012.pdf.
[54] Constantinou MC, Symans MD. Seismic response of structures with supplemental
damping. Struct Des Tall Build 1993;2:77–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.
4320020202.
[55] Constantinou M. Application of fluid viscous dampers to earthquake resistant de-
sign 1994.
[56] Liya M, Prabha C. Effect of fluid viscous dampers in multi-storeyed buildings. Int J
Res Eng Technol 2014;2:59–64.
[57] McNamara RJ, Taylor DP, Duflot P. Fluid Viscous Dampers to reduce Wind-induced
Vibrations in Tall Buildings 2019:pp. 1–8. http://www.taylordevices.eu/pdfs/tall-
building_1.pdf.
[58] Kumar PS, Naidu MV, Mohan SM, Reddy SS. Application of Fluid Viscous Dampers
In Multi-Story Buildings 2016:17064–9. 10.15680/IJIRSET.2016.0509089.
[59] Ding K, Zhao X, Yang Y, Ye L. Application of Viscous Dampers for Super Tall
Residential Buildings in High-Wind Strong-Seismic Area. Proc. 2016 World Congr.
Adv. Civil, Environ. Mater. Res., Jeju Island, South Korea. 2016http://www.i-asem.
org/publication_conf/structures16/8.ASMM16/M4I.1.SM552_0543F1.pdf.
[60] Zhang Z, Li A, He J, Wang J. Wind-induced vibration control of Hefei TV tower with
fluid viscous damper. Front Archit Civ Eng China 2009;3:249–54. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11709-009-0038-x.
[61] Ras A, Boumechra N. Study of nonlinear fluid viscous dampers behaviour in seismic
steel structures design. Arab J Sci Eng 2014;39:8635–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13369-014-1460-5.
[62] Ataei H, Kalbasi Anaraki K. A proposed structural design method considering fluid
viscous damper degradations. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2018:e1512.
[63] Chen X, Li J, Cheang J. Seismic performance analysis of Wenchuan hospital
structure with viscous dampers. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2010;19:397–419.
[64] Halperin I, Ribakov Y, Agranovich G. Optimal viscous dampers gains for structures
subjected to earthquakes. Struct Control Heal Monit 2016;23:458–69.
[65] Tubaldi E. Dynamic behavior of adjacent buildings connected by linear viscous/
viscoelastic dampers. Struct Control Heal Monit 2015;22:1086–102.
[66] Wang S, Mahin SA. Seismic retrofit of a high-rise steel moment-resisting frame using
fluid viscous dampers. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2017;26:e1367.
[67] Longarini N, Cabras L, Zucca M, Chapain S, Aly AM. Structural Improvements for
Tall Buildings under Wind Loads : Comparative Study 2017; 2017.
[68] Yang JN, Agrawal AK, Samali B, Wu J. Benchmark problem for response control of
wind-excited tall buildings. J Eng Mech, 130. 2004. p. 437–46.
[69] Ogata K, Yang Y. Modern Control Engineering. Prentice Hall; 2002.
[70] Wu J, Pan B. Wind tunnel verification of actively controlled high-rise building in
along-wind motion. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2002;90:1933–50.
[71] Elishakoff Issac. Probabilistic methods in the theory of structures. World Scient
2017. https://doi.org/10.1142/10274.
[72] Spencer BF, Kaspari DC, Sain MK. Structural control design: a reliability-based
approach. Am. Control Conf, IEEE 1994:1062–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.
1994.751910.
[73] Attaway Stormy. Matlab: A practical introduction to programming and problem
solving. Butterworth-Heinemann: 2013.
[74] Huang MF, Chan CM, Lou WJ. Optimal performance-based design of wind sensitive
tall buildings considering uncertainties. Comput Struct 2012;98(99):7–16. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.01.012.
[75] Tubaldi E, Barbato M, Ghazizadeh S. A probabilistic performance-based risk as-
sessment approach for seismic pounding with efficient application to linear systems.
Struct Saf 2012;36(37):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.01.002.
[76] Laflamme S, Micheli L, Alipour A, Laflamme S, Sarkar P. Performance-based design
with life-cycle cost assessment for damping systems integrated in wind excited tall
buildings performance-based design with life-cycle cost assessment for damping
systems integrated in wind excited tall buildings. Eng Struct 2019;195:438–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.009.
[77] International Code Council. UBC 1997 Vol 2 - Structural Engineering Design
Provisions. vol. 2. 1997.
[78] Tamura Y, Kawai H, Uematsu Y, Okada H. Documents for wind resistant design of
buildings in Japan, 2004. In Workshop on Regional Harmonization of Wind Loading
and Wind Environmental Specifications in Asia-Pacific Economies (APEC-WW)(pp.
61–84). Retrieved from http://www.wind.arch.t-kougei.ac.jp/APECWW/Report/
2004/JAPANa.pdf.
[79] Taylor D, Constantinou M. Fluid dampers for application of seismic energy dis-
sipation and seismic isolation. New York: Taylor Devices Inc.; 2010. http://www.
taylordevices.com/Tech-Paper-archives/literature-pdf/42-FluidDampers.pdf.
[80] Irvine T. Vibrationdata El Centro Earthquake Page 2018. http://www.
vibrationdata.com/elcentro.htm.
[81] Aly AM. Vibration control of buildings using magnetorheological damper: a new
control algorithm. J Eng (United States) 2013 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2013/596078.