APSS The University of Tokyo July 19, 2010

Wind-induced Response of Buildings and Control Techniques

Yukio Tamura
Wind Engineering Research Center

Strong Wind Events

Monsoon Extratropical Cyclone Tropical Cyclone (Typhoon, Hurricane, Cyclone) Tornado Downburst Dust Devil Gravity Wind (Katabatic Wind) etc.

Wind Climates

Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes, Typhoons)

Wind Climates

Downburst
www.nemas.net/edu/thunderstorms

Wind Climates

Tornado

Wind Climates

Downburst

Wind Climates

Dust Devil

Wind Climates

Gravity Wind (Katabatic Wind)

Wind Climates

Gravity Wind (Katabatic Wind)

Cape Town, South Africa (courtesy of A. Goliger)

Strong Wind Events

Monsoon Extratropical Cyclone Tropical Cyclones (Typhoon, Hurricane, Cyclone) Tornado Downburst Dust Devil Gravity Winds etc.

Background

Wind-induced Damage to Tall Buildings

Shitennoji 5-story Pagoda 47.8m-high (Wooden Structure)

Central Pillar in the 5-story Pagoda

Central pillar (Shinbashira)

32.56m

Horyuji (The 7th Century) World Oldest Wooden Building

Central Pillar
Repeated contact and separation from the tower structure Gate-bar Effect
(Ishida,1996)

Contribution to the pagodas stabilization Increase in damping

Wind-induced Damage to Tall Buildings

Shitennoji 5-story Pagoda 47.8m-high (Wooden Structure) (Osaka, Japan, 1934)
ASAHI NEWS PAPER

Tyhpoon Muroto Sep. 21, 1934. Max Peak 60m/s

Wind-induced Damage to Tall Buildings

Mole Antonelliana (Turin, Italy, 1953)
LA DOMENICA DEL CORRIERE

The Mole Antonelliana collapses. An extraordinary wind storm occurred in Turin on May 23, 1953, breaking off the spire of the famous monument, and causing the collapse of a 45-meter length. The Mole Antonelliana was the tallest masonry building in Europe (167.5m)

Development of Design & Construction Methods for Tall Buildings

A record of fights with strong winds Gustave Alexandre Eiffel (1832-1923)

Eiffel Tower drawn by G.A.Eiffel (Davenport, 1975)

Kobe Earthquake (January 17, 1995)

Magnitude Max. Ground Acceleration Fatalities Injured Damaged Buildings (Engineered Buildings10%) Burned Down Buildings Economic Loss 7.2 818 cm/s2 6,432 35,000 512,800 7,000 150 Billion USD (estimated)

Kobe Earthquake (January 17, 1995)

Magnitude Max. Ground Acceleration Fatalities Injured 7.2 818 cm/s2 6,432 35,000

Chuetsu Earthquake (October 23, 2004)

Magnitude Max. Ground Acceleration Fatalities Injured 6.8 1,308 cm/s2 51 4,496

Kobe Earthquake (January 17, 1995)

s e k a u q h t r a E e G October 23, 2004) Chuetsu Earthquake ( 1 m e r t x d n E u Magnitude cc Gro 6.8 A Acceleration 1,308 cm/s Max. Ground
2

Magnitude Max. Ground Acceleration Fatalities Injured

7.2 818 cm/s2 6,432 35,000

Fatalities Injured

51 4,496

Damage due to Typhoon Winds

Damages in Miyakojima due to Typhoon Maemi, Sept. 11, 2003

Damage to a roof of a gymnasium

Damages in Miyakojima due to Typhoon Maemi, Sept. 11, 2003

Damages in Miyakojima due to Typhoon Maemi, Sept. 11, 2003

Damage due to wind borne debris

Typhoon Maemi, Sept. 11, 2003

Miyakojima Island Meteorological Station (Okinawa Pref., Japan) Maximum Mean Wind Speed : 34.8 m/s : 74.1 m/s Maximum Peak Gust (10th highest in Japan) : 912 hPa Lowest Pressure ( 8th lowest in Japan) Miyakojima Self-Defense Force : 87.0 m/s Maximum Peak Gust Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd : > 90 m/s Maximum Peak Gust

Typhoon Maemi, Sept. 11, 2003

s e n o l c y C l s / a c i m p 0 o 9 r T s / e m m 0 e 8 r t x E V

Miyakojima Island Meteorological Station (Okinawa Pref., Japan) Maximum Mean Wind Speed : 34.8 m/s : 74.1 m/s Maximum Peak Gust (10th highest in Japan) : 912 hPa Lowest Pressure ( 8th lowest in Japan) k a e Miyakojima Self -Defense Force p s 3 : 87.0 m/s Maximum Peak Gust Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd : > 90 m/s Maximum Peak Gust

Seismic Force & Wind Force

Base Shear Seismic Force

Wind Force

200 300 m

Building Height

Seismic Force & Wind Force

- Seismic ForceInertial Force Light Weight & Flexible - Wind Force Surface Pressure Massive & Stiff

Tall Buildings

Seismic ForceWind Force (H < 200m)

Buildings in Japan are basically designed against seismic force. Vulnerable to Daily Wind Auxiliary Damping Devices Ex. in Japan

Pedestrian Level Winds

.and we can save 700 lira by not conducting soil tests.

Courtesy of Adam Goliger

Can we save 100, 000USD by not conducting wind tunnel tests ?

.and we can ignore wind effects. Nobody will ever notice them.

Courtesy of Adam Goliger

Wind Environment for Pedestrians and Surrounding Buildings

Then, we can enjoy strong winds around the tall building !

Courtesy of Adam Goliger

Monroe Effect

.. but I said I dont wish to pay much more in the future.

Municipal Bylaws on Environmental Assessment

e.g. The Metropolis of Tokyo For buildings higher than 100m and with a total floor area larger than 105 m2 - Wind tunnel tests or CFD predictions edict - Evaluation by given assessment methods assessm - Field measurements before and after construction (at least 1 year each)

An Example of Steps for Pedestrians and Surrounding Buildings

NEC HQ Office

Habitability to Building Vibrations

Probabilistic Human Perception Threshold

50 Acceleration Amplitude (cm/s2) 20 10 5 2 1 , 2000, 0.5 Denoon Average value (Full-scale) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 10% Jeary et al., 1988 (Full-scale) 90% 99% 90% 50% 10% 2% 1%

2% 10

0.5 1 2 5 Frequency (Hz)

Tamura (1998)

AIJ Guidelines 2004

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Habitability to Building Vibration

20 Annual Peak Acceleration 10 5 2 1

(cm/s2)

H-90 H-70 H-50 H-30 H-10

0.5 0.1 0.2

0.5 1 2 Frequency (Hz)

Deterministic Evaluation Method

Annual Maximum Acceleration (cm/s2) (cm/s )
100 100

AIJ Guidelines 2004

High-rise Residences Offices Hotels Detached Houses

10 10

H-90
H30 H10

H-50 H-10

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.2

0.5 1 2 1 Frequency (Hz)

(Hz)

10 10

Bases for design of structures Serviceability of buildings and (cm/s2) walkways against vibration 50 Annual Peak Acceleration

ISO10137 (2007)

20 10 5

Offices Residences

2 0.06 0.1

0.2 0.5 1 2 1st Natural Frequency f0

5 Hz

Bases for design of structures Serviceability of buildings and (cm/s2) walkways against vibration 50 Annual Peak Acceleration

ISO10137 (2007)

20 10 5

s e c i v e D g n i p Dam
H- 9 0 H- 7 0 H-5 0 H- 3 0 H-1 0

Offices Residences

2 0.06 0.1

0.2 0.5 1 2 1st Natural Frequency f0

5 Hz

Various Types of Wind-induced Vibrations

Periodic Shedding of Karman Vortices

(Taneda)

Vortex-Resonance
Circular Chimney

High-speed Vortex-Resonance
due to vortices shed from the top end

Circular Observatory Tower

Ovalling
Circular Chimney

Vortex-Resonance
Circular Pipe Beams
Karman Vortex

Periodic Shedding of Karman Vortices

Vortex-Resonance
Rectangular Prism
Karman Vortex

Galloping
Transmission Lines

Snow-stuck to Electric Wire due to Wind

snow wind snow wind

Galloping and Torsional Flutter

Tacoma Narrows Bridge

Mechanism of Torsional Flutter

Pressure distribution enhances the motion ! Vortex

Vortex

Rain-Wind-induced Vibration
Suspension Bridge Cables

Rain-Wind-induced Vibration
Suspension Bridge Cables without rain with rain

rivulet

Characteristics of Wind-induced Response

Wind-induced Responses of Tall Buildings

Along-wind Displacement

Crosswind Displacement

Torsional Displacement
(at the corner)

Power spectra of wind forces acting on a high-rise building model

Along-wind Crosswind fv B S= U CD

f S( f ) / (qHBH)2

f S( f ) / (q HBH)2

Force balance Pressure

Strouhal Number

S
fB /U

fB /U

(2H/3, Wind tunnel, Kikuchi & Hibi 1995)

Nakano Denden Building

Wind Tunnel Wind Tunnel

Full-scale

Full-scale

Fujimoto et al., 1980

Nagasaki Huis Ten Bosch Domtoren

el

max

max

rms Along-wind

rms Crosswind

Typhoon 9121

Wind tunn el

Win dt

u nn

H= 99.4m

Variation of Responses with Mean Wind Speed

Acceleration Responses Along-wind : XMAX U 2.5 Crosswind : YMAX U 3.7 Displacement Responses Along-wind : XMAX U 2.1 Crosswind : YMAX U 3.1
(Mean component U 2)
Example !!

Generalized Force Spectra

Crosswind Force

Along-wind Force

Resonant Component F2 f0 SF ( f0) AR = 2 4 K F 2

Torsional Moment
|H(i f)|2

SF ( f0)
U increase of wind speed

Mechanical Admittance

fB

fB

1 0

f0 B

Along-wind Response & Crosswind Response

Along-wind Crosswind

Crosswind Along-wind

Along-wind : X(t) = Xm + x(t) Crosswind : zero mean Y(t) = y(t)

Along-wind Response & Crosswind Response

Along-wind Y X Wind Crosswind Wind Crosswind Y X 20m40m Category II U0=35m/s 100y-recurrence Along-wind

X-dir. Along-wind Crosswind Y-dir. Along-wind Crosswind

> Crosswind > Along-wind > Crosswind > Along-wind

H < 85m H > 85m H < 150m H > 150m

Along-wind Response & Crosswind Response

Along-wind Crosswind Wind

Crosswind Along-wind

Wind

20m40m Category II U0=35m/s 100y-recurrence

0 < H < 150m: 150m < H < 250m: H > 300m:

Max. Wind Load = Along-wind Max. Wind Load = Crosswind Max. Wind Load = Crosswind

Responses obtained by Accelerometer and GPS

cm/s 2 20 10 0 -10 -20 6 4 2 0 0 5 Acceleration

Accelerometer

cm Displacement

Resonant component

RTKGPS Static component Quasi-static component

10 Time 15 20 25 30

Dynamic Characteristics of Buildings

Japanese Damping Database

Number of Buildings and Structures 285 Steel Encased Reinforced Tower-Like Steel Reinforced Concrete Non-Building Buildings Concrete Buildings (Steel) Structures Buildings (RC) (RC) (S) (SRC) (SRC) 137 43 25 80 HAve.= 101m HAve.= 60m HAve.= 124m
15.5m 282.3m 11.6m167.4m 10.8m129.8m 9.1m226.0m

Office : 99 Hotel : 25 Others : 13

Apartment : Office : School : Others :

35 20 4 9

Chimney : Lattice : Tower : Others :

26 24 23 6

Fundamental Natural Period (Steel Buildings)

7 Natural Period T (s) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Building Height H (m) 300 T 0.020 H, r 0.94
1

f1 = 50/H

Fundamental Natural Period (RC/SRC Buildings)

3 Natural Period T (s) T 0.015 H, r 0.94
1

f1 = 67/H

1 RC SRC

50 100 150 Building Height H (m)

200

Higher Translational Mode Natural Periods (Steel Buildings)

Natural Period T , T , T (s) 3

T2 0.33T1 , r 0.99 T3 0.18T1 , r 0.95 2 T4 0.13T1 , r 0.91

f2 = 150/H f3 = 280/H 2nd f4 = 380/H

Mode

3rd Mode

1
4th Mode

1 2 3 4 5 6 Fundamental Natural Period T (s)

1

Torsional Mode Natural Periods (Steel Buildings)

Torsional Natural Period T (s) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fundamental Natural Period T (s)
1 T

T 0.75 T , r 0.94
T 1

fT = 67/H

Damped Free Oscillation (Full-scale)

0.08 Amplitude (cm) 0.04 0 -0.04 -0.08 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time (s) Damping Ratio = 0.93%

Damping Ratios & Natural Periods

(Steel Buildings)

(JDD)

Damping Ratios & Natural Periods

(RC/SRC Buildings)
0.1 Damping Ratio

(JDD)

0.01
1st 2nd 3rd

Mode Mode Mode

0.001 0.05

0.1

0.2 0.5 1 Natural Period T (s)

Damping in Buildings
Estimation of damping - no theoretical method - based on full-scale data significant scatter

Dispersion of Damping Data

Structural Materials Soil & Foundations Architectural Finishing Joints Non-structural Members Vibration Amplitude Non-stationarity of Excitations Vibration Measuring Methods Damping Evaluation Techniques etc.

Causes of Damping in Buildings

(Damping Devices) TMD, HMD, TLD, AMD (Wind Forces) AERODYNAMIC DAMPING

Vibration
(Structural Frames) INTERNAL FRICTION DAMPING (Non-elastic Behavior) HYSTERETIC DAMPING

(Damping Devices) HYSTERETIC, VISCOUS, VISCO-ELASTIC, FRICTION, AVS etc.

Stick-Slip Behavior of Contact Surfaces

(Secondary Structural Members, Non-load-bearing Walls, Cladding) FRICTION DAMPING

Soil-Structure Interaction

(Foundation) (Ground) INTERNAL FRICTION DAMPING (Ground) RADIATION DAMPING

Amplitude Dependency
An Observatory Building (H=99m)
Damping Ratio 1
Natural Frequency f 1(Hz) 0.03 Damping Ratio 1 0.665 0.66 0.655 0.02

Natural Frequency f1

0.65 0.645

0.01 0 1 2 3 4 5
-2

0.64 6
2

Acceleration Amplitude (10 m/sec )

Stick-slip Model for Damping in Buildings

Q Qc x k
1 0

x xc

Stick
xc x
Friction

Slip
Friction

Q = kx < Qc

Q = Qc

Stick-slip Model for Damping in Buildings

Increase of amplitude Increase of number of slipping joints Increase of friction damping & Decrease of stiffness Sum of a lot of frictional damping effects Viscous damping
+ + + =

Full-scale Fundamental Natural Periods & Their Design Values

(Steel Buildings)
Measured Natural Period T (s) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Design Natural Period T (s)
d m

T 0.80 T , r 0.94
m d

20%

Proposed Damping Predictor in AIJ 2000 RC buildings : 1/(0.015H) 1 = 0.0143 f1 + 470(xH /H) 0.0018 Steel buildings : 1 = 0.013 f1 + 400(xH /H) + 0.0029
1/(0.020H)

xH /H < 2105, 30m < H < 100m

xH /H < 2105, 30m < H < 200m

Proposed Damping Predictor in AIJ 2000

Soil-StructureInteraction Term AmplitudeDependent Term

xH /H < 2105, 30m < H < 100m

RC buildings : 1 = 0.93/H + 470(xH /H) 0.0018 Steel buildings : 1 = 0.65/H + 400(xH /H) + 0.0029

xH /H < 2105, 30m < H < 200m

Validity of Proposed Damping Predictor

(Tamura et al., 2000)
0.1 Full-Scale Damping Ratio 1

RC Buildings
0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0

r 0.88

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Predicted Damping Ratio by Proposed Eq.(8) Predictor

(Tamura 2000)

Design Damping Ratios (Steel)

(Tamura et al., 2000)
Habitability Height H (m) Safety Damping Ratio Damping Ratio Natural Natural Frequency Frequency 1 (%) 1 (%) f1 (Hz) f1 (Hz) Rec. Standard Rec. Standard 30 1.7 1.8 2.5 1.4 2 3 40 1.3 1.5 2 1.0 1.8 2.5 50 1.0 1 1.5 0.83 1.5 2 60 0.83 1 1.5 0.69 1.5 2 70 0.71 0.7 1 0.60 1.5 2 80 0.63 0.7 1 0.52 1 1.5 90 0.56 0.7 1 0.46 1 1.5 100 0.50 0.7 1 0.42 1 1.5 150 0.33 0.7 1 0.28 1 1.5 200 0.25 0.7 1 0.21 1 1.5 "Rec." : "Recommended" values. f1 = 10.020H (Habitability), f1 = 10.024H (Safety) Safety : Elastic Range

Design Damping Ratios (RC)

(Tamura et al., 2000)
Habitability Safety Natural Damping Ratio Natural Damping Ratio Height Frequency H (m) Frequency 1 (%) 1 (%) f1 (Hz) f1 (Hz) Rec. Standard Rec. Standard 30 2.2 2.5 3 1.9 3 3.5 40 1.7 1.5 2 1.4 2 2.5 50 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.1 2 2.5 60 1.1 1.2 1.5 0.93 1.5 2 70 0.95 0.8 1 0.79 1.5 2 80 0.83 0.8 1 0.69 1.2 1.5 90 0.74 0.8 1 0.62 1.2 1.5 100 0.67 0.8 1 0.56 1.2 1.5 "Rec." : "Recommended" values. f1 = 10.015H (Habitability), f1 = 10.018H (Safety) Safety : Elastic Range

Mitigation of Wind-induced Responses

Suppression of Wind-Induced Response (Buffeting)

MS + CSY + KSY = (1/2)U 2B2CW(t) +FC (t)
MS : Mass, CS : Damping Factor, KS : Stiffness, Y : Displacement, U : Mean Wind Speed, : Air-density, CW(t) : Aerodynamic Coefficient, FC(t) : Control Force

* +2S Y* +

S : Damping Ratio, Y * = Y /B : Reduced Displacement, U* = U/SB : Reduced Velocity, n* = B 3/ 2MS : Mass Ratio, S = 2fS : Buildings Natural Circular Frequency,
FC*(t*) : Non-dimensional Control Force for Unit Mass

Y* = n*U*2 CW(t*) +FC*(t*)

Suppression of Wind-Induced Responses

Aerodynamic Means - change in sectional shape - shear layer control Structural Design - increase in mass - increase in stiffness Auxiliary Damping Devices - increase in damping - vibration control

Aerodynamic Design
Wind Roses

Sapporo

Tokyo

Aerodynamic Design
Wind Direction (Building Orientation) B = 20m, D = 40m, H = 40m
Max. Acceleration 63% Max. Displacement 50% 100%

100%

Periodic vortices shed from a square prism (Streak Lines, CFD)

K. Shimada

Aerodynamic Design

Basic

Fins

Vented Fins Helical Shroud Strakes

Slotted Corners

Chamfered Corner Corners Cutting Slats

Kareem et al., 1999

From Compulsory to Free Style

From Compulsory to Free Style

Square Rectangle 1:2 Circle Ellipse 1:2 Chamfered Corne r cut

Base

Corner

Tilted

Snaking

2-Tapered

4-Tapered

Setback

Inverse 4-Tapered

Drum

Tilted

Tapered

Helical Square 90o

Helical Helical Helical Square 180o Square 270o Square 360o

Helical Rectangle 180o

Helical Ellipse180o

Helical Circle + Ellipse 180o

HFFB Model

Helical

Cross Void

Cross Void

Cross Void

Oblique Void

Oblique Void

Oblique Void

3-Circle

Void
Void Void Void Void Void Void Void

Corne r cut Helical

Corne r cut Helical Tapered

Setback Corne r cut

Setback Helical

Composite

SMPMS Pressure Model

Power Spectrum of Crosswind Base Moment V500yV1y Square

2)2 f SML (f) / (qHfS BH/(q 2 BH2)

0.1 Square Corner cut 4-Tapered Tapered Setback 90 Helical 180 Helical 4 Tapered
90Helical
o o

0.001

ML

Corner Cut

0.01

180Helical

0.0001 0.001

0.01

fB/UH

Setback 0.1

Wind-induced Responses
Corner Cut
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
20 16 12 8 4 0

500-year-rec. for Structural Safety

(cm/s )2) Peak Acc. (cm/s

2 Peak Acc. (cm/s (cm/s ) 2)

1-year-rec. for Habitability

Helical
9 10

Inverse four Tapered

four-Tapered

two-Tapered

Chamfered

Corner cut

Setback

Helical

Square

Tilted

Void

Strouhal Peaks of Local Crosswind Forces

Square
1 0.9 0.8 0.7
180o Helical Setback

z /H 0.5
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 00

0.6

0.05

0.1

0.15

90 oHelical

0.2

0.25

fpeakB/UH

Aerodynamic Design

Vertical variation of sectional shape

Aerodynamic Design

Vertical variation of sectional shape

Suppression of Wake Buffeting by Rotors

Suppression of Wake Buffeting by Rotors

Vortex Shedding Frequency

fv = D Rotors are not rotating.

SV

Suppression of Wake Buffeting by Rotors

Vortex Shedding Frequency

Rotors are rotating.

fv = D

SV

Structural Design
Increasing Stiffness KS
- natural frequency fS increases non-dimensional wind speed U* decreases - member stress reduces

Increasing Mass MS
- air/building mass ratio n* decreases - natural frequency fS decreases non-dimensional wind speed U* increases no change in n*U*2

*+2

* + Y* = n*U*2 C (t*) +F *(t*) Y S W C

Structural Design
Increasing Stiffness KS
- natural frequency fS increases non-dimensional wind speed U* decreases - member stress reduces

r - air/building mass ratio n* decreases o f S C r e b y - natural frequency fS decreases t m i l u i b N i t n s o n t I u c r non-dimensional wind speed U* increases i c m S a n y d 2 o no change in n*U* Ae r

Increasing Mass MS

*+2

* + Y* = n U C (t*) +F *(t*) Y S W C

M S S C * *2

 Increase of Natural Frequency f1

100 Peak Acceleration(cm/s2) Peak Displacement (cm)
ISO10137 Offices Residences

Increase of Stiffness KS

0.1 0.01 0.1 1 (Hz) : Damping Ratio Natural Frequency f1

 Increase of Natural Frequency f1

100 Peak Acceleration(cm/s2) Peak Displacement (cm)
ISO10137 Offices Residences

Increase of Stiffness KS

Building Response Acceleration =1% Acceleration =5% Increase in Damping

1
Displacement =1%

0.1 0.01 0.1 1 (Hz) : Damping Ratio Natural Frequency f1

Steel Buildings and Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Steel Reinforced Concrete

1 S
A X
A X
MAX,1yr MAX,100yr

f1

1 1 1 1 1

: : : : :

1.2 1.3 2.0 0.36 0.32

1 S

f1

MAX

MAX

: Natural Frequency (1st mode) : Damping Ratio (1st mode) : Building Mass per Unit Volume ,1yr : Maximum Wind-Induced Acceleration (1yr rec.) ,100yr : Maximum Wind-Induced Displacement (500yr rec.)

Damping Devices
Hysteretic Dampers

Passive Damping Systems

Steel Dampers, Lead Dampers, Friction Dampers, Visco-Elastic Dampers Viscous Fluid Dampers Viscous Damping Walls, Oil Dampers Mass Dampers Tuned Mass Dampers, Tuned Liquid Dampers

Mass Dampers Active Mass Dampers, Hybrid Mass Dampers Gyro Dampers Active Gyro Stabilizer Non-Resonant Systems Active Variable Stiffness Others Semi-active Oil Damper, Active-damping Bridge

Active Control Systems

Uncertainty in Structural Damping

C.O.V 70% (Havilland, 1974)
S = 2 % 0.6% ~ 3.4% (5.7 times difference)
2.4 times difference of windinduced acceleration

artificially: = S + add 4.6% ~ 7.4% (1.6 times difference) 1.3 times difference of windinduced acceleration

If a certain damping (e.g. add = 4 %) is added

improves structural design reliability

TV Shizuoka Media City

TMD (Chiba Port Tower, 1986)

H = 125m fx1 = 0.44Hz

x1 = 0.51%
fy1 = 0.43Hz

y1 = 0.53%

TMD (Chiba Port Tower, 1986)

mDx = 10t mDy = 15t

D = 20%

TLD Vessels installed in Yokohama Marine Tower (June 1987)

Crosswind Accelerations of Yokohama Marine Tower With/Without TLDs

Crosswind r.m.s. Accelerations of Yokohama Marine Tower With/Without TLDs

Shin-Yokohama Prince Hotel Employing TLDs (March 1992)

H = 149m

TLD Vessels Installed on Roof of Shin-Yokohama Prince Hotel

Tokyo International Airport Tower Employing TLDs (1993)

H = 77.6m

TLD Vessels Installed in Tokyo International Airport Tower

Kyobashi Seiwa Building (1989)

Wind-induced Responses of Kyobashi Seiwa Building With/Without AMD Operation

(Sakamoto et al.,1993)

Osaka ORC Symbol Tower Building (H=200m) Employing HMD and TMD [Maebayashi, 1993]

Wind-induced Responses With/Without HMD Operation(Osaka ORC Symbol Tower Building)

[Maebayashi, 1993]

Active Gyro Damper

Toshiba Elevator Tower

Active Gyro Damper

(by courtesy of Taisei Corporation)

Frequency Adjustment And Other Ideas

Full-scale Fundamental Natural Periods & Their Design Values

(Steel Buildings)
Measured Natural Period T (s) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Design Natural Period T (s)
d m

T 0.80 T , r 0.94
m d

20%

Fundamental Natural Frequency of Sloshing Motion of Water Inside a Circular Cylindrical Vessel

TLCD with a Frequency Adjustable System

Hotel Cosima

(Teramura, 1995)

TLCD with a Frequency Adjustable System

Hotel Cosima

(Teramura, 1995)

Shinjuku Park Tower employing HMD

H=226.5m, MS=130,000103kg (Kajima)

Shinjuku Park Tower employing V-shaped HMD

H=226.5m, MS=130,000103kg (Kajima)

Tanida et al. (1993)

Multiple-pendulum HMD
Yokohama Landmark Tower

(170103kg)
M L/3
Yamazaki et al., 1993

Utilization of Existing Mass

Heat Storage Tanks
L.T.C. Bank of Japan: 200 103 kg AMD x-, y-dirs.

Sendagaya INTES: 36 10 kg 2 AMD Crystal Tower: x-dir. 90 103 kg 4 TMD y-dir. 90 103 kg 2

Ice Thermal Storage Tanks 3 Water Supply Tanks

Hotel Cosima:

49 103 kg T L D

Heliport Decks
Hankyu Chayamachi Building: 480 103 kg AMD

LTC Bank of Japan employing AMD

H = 130m, MS=39,800103kg

Kitamura et al. (1995)

AMD utilizing 200103kg (2 dirs.) Heat Storage Tanks

H =130m, MS=39,800103kg

Kitamura et al. (1995)

Hankyu Chayamachi Building Employing AMD

H=160m, MS=14,000103kg

Higashino et al. (1993)

AMD utilizing a Heliport Deck

Hankyu-Chayamachi Bldg, H=160m 480103kg

Higashino et al. (1993)

Recent Trends

Combinations of Four Different Devices

Nippon TV Office (H = 192.8m)
TMD (2: Habitability to
Wind-induced Vibrations)

Unbonded Brace
192.8m
(64: Extreme Earthquakes)

(312: Extreme Earthquakes)

Link Beam

Unbonded Brace Oil Damper

(32: Wind-induced Vibrations, Weak, Medium & Extreme Earthquakes)

AMD & Honeycomb Damper

Kyodo News Service (H = 172.4m)
AMD (Habitability to Wind-induced
Vibrations)

Honeycomb Damper (Extreme Earthquakes)

Unbonded Brace & Semi-active Oil Damper

Roppongi Hills (H = 238m)
Unbonded Brace Semi-active Oil Damper Unbonded Brace Semi-active Oil Damper

(356: Extreme Earthquakes))

(192: Wind-induced Vibration & Extreme Earthquakes)

Unbonded Braces (Low-yeild stress steel) & Active-Damping Bridge

Harumi Island Triton Square Office Y (H = 175m)
195m

X
175m

Y Z
155m

Active-Damping Bridge
for Habitability under Wind-induced Vibrations
Tower X (H=195m) Tower Z (H=155m)

Tower Y (H=175m)

Stroke: 0.1m (clamped in) 2.4m (unclamped) Max. actuating force: 340kN ADB Mass: 80 ton

Unbonded Braces
(Low-yield Stress Steel)
Unbonded Braces Tower Y

2840 UBs

The Marunouchi Building (2002)

Anti-seismic Shaft in the Marunouchi Building (Inada et al., 2002)

Anti-seismic Shaft in the Marunouchi Building (Inada et al., 2002)

Anti-seismic shafts Central pillar

Low-yield-strength Steel Anti-seismic shaft (close-up view)

Anti-seismic Shaft in the Marunouchi Building

Low-yield Strength Steel

Vinod J. Modi Inventor of Tuned Liquid Damper

(Nutation Damper, 1980)

Vinod J. Modi (1929-2003)

Vinod J. Modi often quoted the following sentences:

No equation will ever be able to reveal the secret innocence of a childs smile, the elegant effortless glide of a seagull, or the gentle murmuring of the hinoki cypress at dawn. Knowledge is but a small island surrounded by a vast ocean of ignorance. No matter how far we progress, we will always remain at the shores of that uncharted world.

Who is this !

Thank You !