A

Seminar Report on
Challenges in designing the world’s tallest structures
SUBMITTED UNDER THE COURSE
OF
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

SUBMITTED BY

Jai G Thakkar (P17ST003)

GUIDED BY

Dr. A.K. Desai

Prof., Applied Mechanics Department

SVNIT, Surat

APPLIED MECHANICS DEPARTMENT

Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the seminar report entitled

“Challenges in designing the world’s tallest structures”
Submitted by

Jai G Thakkar (P17ST003)

In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree

in MASTER OF
TECHNOLOGY IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING of SARDAR VALLABHBHAI NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SURAT is recorded of his own work carried out under the
supervision and guidance. The matter enclosed here is not been submitted elsewhere for
award of any degree or diploma.

Date: 6/12/2018

Dr. A.K. Desai Dr. S.A.VASANWALA

Professor (Guide) Professor
AMD HOD, AMD
SVNIT, SURAT SVNIT, SURAT
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2. STRUCTURES DISCUSSED ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. STATUE OF UNITY.......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2. REDUNDANCY, ROBUSTNESS, AND DURABILITY ................................................................... 5
2.1.3. STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOADS .......................................................................... 6
2.1.4. WIND LOAD DETERMINATION .............................................................................................. 7
2.1.5. CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERMEABLE CLADDING. ................................................................ 10
2.1.6. SEISMIC LOAD DETERMINATION......................................................................................... 11
2.1.7. DYNAMIC PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................ 12
2.1.8. SUPPLEMENTAL DAMPING ................................................................................................. 13
2.1.9. FOUNDATION ...................................................................................................................... 14
2.1.10. LOGISTICS AND MATERIALS ................................................................................................ 15
2.2. BURJ KHALIFA .............................................................................................................................. 16
2.2.1. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 16
2.2.2. DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOAD ................................................................................................ 17
2.3. TAIPEI TOWER 101 ...................................................................................................................... 20
2.3.1. DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOAD ................................................................................................ 20
3. TUNED MASS DAMPER ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.1. WORKING MECHANISM OF A TUNED MASS DAMPER................................................................ 22
3.2. TMD’s APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................................. 26
4. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 28
5. REFERENCES AND LINKS:..................................................................................................................... 29

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: BIM and Structural finite element analysis models. ...................................................................... 4
Figure 2: BIM and structural Finite Element analysis model ........................................................................ 5
Figure 3: BIM and structural Finite Element analysis model ........................................................................ 6
Figure 4: Graph of Indian standards seismic and wind comparisons. .......................................................... 7
Figure 5: Rhino modelling for wind loads ..................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Graph of wind storey shear ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 7: Facade to space frame connection part elevation. ..................................................................... 10
Figure 8: Statue mode shapes..................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 9: Site condition ............................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 10: Bailey's Bridge ............................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 11: Typical floor plan ........................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 12: Aeroelastic wind tunnel model and Reynolds number Testing ................................................. 17
Figure 13: Plan view of Tower..................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 14: Tower wind behavior ................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 15: Location of Taipei 101's Tuned Mass Damper. .......................................................................... 20
Figure 16: Tuned mass damper in Taipei 101 ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 17: Schematic diagram of Tuned mass damper ............................................................................... 22
Figure 18: Building without Tuned mass damper ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 19: Building with Tuned mass damper............................................................................................. 24
Figure 20: Graph of comparison of acceleration with and without TMD. .................................................. 25
Figure 21: Some of the Locations of Burj Al Arab 5-Ton TMD (GERB Vibration Control systems) ............. 26
Figure 22: 1.2-ton TMD of Emirates Towers Spire (GERB Vibration control systems) ............................... 27

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Key wind load design parameters comparison ............................................................................... 8
Table 2: Key seismic design parameter comparisons ................................................................................. 11
Table 3: Dynamic properties ....................................................................................................................... 12

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 2

 1. INTRODUCTION

Tall buildings have become a prominent solution for increasing density in major cities around
the world.

The trend of last so many years is to build taller, slimmer and lighter structure.

However, these lighter systems could lead to structures more prone vibrations, which can cause
discomfort, damages, and eventually, structural failure.

On a very breezy day, the tallest skyscrapers can sway up to three feet on each side. The
building may be fine, but that amount of movement can be profoundly uncomfortable to its
occupants.

So engineers have to come up with some novel solutions for minimizing this unwelcome
vacillation.

Many major cities are threatened by a variety of extreme events such as earthquakes and strong
winds, therefore motion control of tall buildings should take into consideration both static and
dynamic loads.

The following case study will demonstrate the design process and philosophy utilized in the
design of super tall structures, by highlighting specific challenges faced by the design team,
and by explaining how the latest material, construction, and analysis technologies assisted in
successfully overcoming these challenges.

One of the method is installation of auxiliary damping devices.

The design of super tall buildings is typically governed by their

Interaction with lateral winds and gravity loads. Selection of the building shaping and
structural system can greatly affect the wind and gravity behavior of the structure.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 3

 2. STRUCTURES DISCUSSED
2.1. STATUE OF UNITY
The statue of unity, a statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, is slated to be the world’s tallest
statue at 182 meters in height. It is constructed at the Sadhu-Bet Island, 3.5 kilometers
south of Sardar Sarovar Dam at Kevadia in the Narmada district of Gujarat, India.

2.1.1. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

The key challenge of the structural system was to determine a structural system that could
minimize large and undesirable movements inherent to the structure due to the shape and
slenderness of the statue’s core, as well as adequately resist loads due to gravity, wind, and
earthquakes while still allowing the legs and feet to be seen
Considering the varying form, the slenderness ratio varies between 16 and 19, which is
significantly higher than the generally accepted norm of limiting slenderness ratios of tall
buildings, which are generally between 8 and 14.
Most statues have relatively wide bases for lateral stability and to resist loads due to wind
and earthquakes, which is not the case in statue of unity.
After considering various options, including options for steel framing only and non-
composite cores with a steel space frame, the current system, and comprising two semi-
joined, cylindrical, composite concrete cores, surrounded by a structural steel space frame
to support the exterior cladding was decided on.
The concept for the semi-joined cores was a result of the exposed legs of the statue, while
coupled for most of the height, cores remain separate (uncoupled) when passing through
the exposed legs.

Figure 1: BIM and Structural finite element analysis models.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 4

 2.1.2. REDUNDANCY, ROBUSTNESS, AND DURABILITY

The robustness and durability of the structure were primary concerns resulting in an initial
design that was understandably conservative.
The statue’s structure is inherently robust and redundant. The cylindrical core wall are
robust in that the stresses due to gravity are relatively low, and considering an accidental
event, would likely only do localized damage to the wall, with the loads redistributed
around the damaged area accordingly.
For example, in the figures below, a wall panel at the highly stressed “ankle” level has been
removed from the cylindrical cores. For gravity loads and even code design lateral loads,
the stresses surrounding the missing panel less than 6 kpa (less than one-tenth of the
concrete compressive design strength at that level).Additionally the coupling walls above
the ankle provide additional redundancy.

Figure 2: BIM and structural Finite Element analysis model

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 5

 Figure 3: BIM and structural Finite Element analysis model

2.1.3. STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOADS

In following the design philosophy utilized in the Narmada dam and as required by the
authorities during the initial design, the lateral load strength design philosophy was generally
conservative, utilizing the more stringent of Indian Standards (IS) and international standards,
using increased importance factors, considering an increased design life span, and adopting a
“code + 1” approach for seismic and wind lateral load design were based on geographic
parameters. Additionally, a site-specific seismic response spectrum was developed and
incorporated into the seismic design. The JV team expects that the “code + 1” philosophy will
be reconsidered as the EPC team design progresses.
The statue base was raised above the design flood level of 56+ meters to prevent
against flood loads that would arise from monsoon rains or a surge due to a sudden
release from the Narmada dam upstream. Additionally flood loads to 63+ meters
were also considered, but were found to be insignificant to the overall structural
lateral design.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 6

 2.1.4. WIND LOAD DETERMINATION

Although independent of the final design and wind tunnel analysis, the initial analysis results
demonstrated that wind loading, and not seismic actions, governed the lateral load design of
the statue. This had to do with the relatively high code-prescribed wind speeds and the statue
being a relatively low-mass (mostly hollow) structure with a large wind sail area. To determine
this, seismic and wind forces prescribed by Indian Standards were compared with ASCE7 10
based wind forces for the design criteria wind speed of 50 meters/second as seen in Graph 1.

Figure 4: Graph of Indian standards seismic and wind comparisons.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 7

 As shown in Table 1 the following comparisons, the wind loads will govern the lateral load
design of the statue. Wind story shears were found to be approximately 2.5 times greater than
those from earthquake loads and overturning moments similarly are greater by a factor of
approximately 1.5 comparing wind to seismic forces. The following figures, also demonstrate
the relative conservativeness of the IS standards as considered in the initial design, and in
particular for assumed 50 m/s wind speed.
Wind loads were calculated based on IS 875: Part 3 – Code of Practice for Design Loads for
Buildings and Structures. Although the project site is on the cusp of the 44 meters/ second to
39 meters/second wind speed range, considering the final geometry and cladding are still to be
refined, a conservative, basic wind velocity of 50 meters/second (three-second gust, 50 years
return period) was considered (refer to the wind map of India). The more severe of the two
estimates using the static method of load estimation (which implies a steady wind speed) as
well as the gust factor method (which includes dynamic wind components) of IS 875 were
considered for the design.
Modification factors to modify the basic wind velocity to take into account the effects of
terrain, local topography, size, etc., have been included as shown below. Wind design
parameters for the design are shown below.

Key Wind Load Design Parameters Adopted Values Remarks

Basic Wind Speed V = 50m/s Basic wind velocity for

Gujarat coastal zones

Probability Factor k1 = 1.0 For general buildings &

structures
Terrain Factor K2 = 1.27 @ top For Category 2 Terrain
& Class C structure

Topographic Factor K3 = 1.0 For terrain slope less than

3o

Table 1: Key wind load design parameters comparison

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 8

 Considering the atypical surface geometry, and without the benefit of a wind tunnel test, in
order to capture the unique parameters for wind loading, the initial design utilized the code
based wind loads incorporated into an approximate surface model from various windward
angles using Rhinoceros 5.0 and Grasshopper along with custom components.

Figure 5: Rhino modelling for wind loads

The wind force distribution, on the broad (Y-direction) and narrow (X-direction) profiles of
the statue, as seen in Graph, resulted in a logical distribution considering the statue shape.

Figure 6: Graph of wind storey shear

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 9

 2.1.5. CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERMEABLE CLADDING.

With wind being the dominant lateral load, due consideration was given to
incorporating porous or permeable cladding and also to considering the inherent
porosity of the cladding system (conceived as overlapping panels with open joints).
Thus, that wind might flow through the cladding and space frame to reduce wind
loads was considered. However, after consulting reputable wind tunnel consultants
and researching structures with permeable cladding (Robertson, 2002), this tact for
attempting to reduce the global wind loads was abandoned. As the design further
evolves, however, given the oblong plan shape of the statue, crosswind acceleration is
expected to be captured during the wind tunnel testing. Where crosswind effects
might exceed the primary windward effects, providing air-permeable cladding in some
locations may benefit the performance.
The statue is built to withstand winds of up to 220 kmph and earthquakes measuring
6.5 on the Richter scale which are at a depth of 10 km and within a radius of 12 km
of the statue. This is aided by the use of two 250-tonne tuned mass dampers which
ensure maximum stability.

Figure 7: Facade to space frame connection part elevation.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 10

 2.1.6. SEISMIC LOAD DETERMINATION

Per Indian Standard IS 1893:2002, the statue site is regarded as a moderate seismicity
region and is specified as Zone
III. Additionally, the initial geotechnical and seismic hazard assessment classify the IS
seismic Zone Factor as III, however, following the “code + 1” philosophy, a Zone
Factor of IV has been conservatively
Incorporated into the design. Coincidentally, the Zone IV peak ground acceleration
(0.24 x g = 2.354 m/s2) is essentially the same of as the 2.36 m/s2 value specified in
the site- specific seismic hazard analysis report, seen in Table 2 (Choudhury, 2011).

As mentioned, due to the relatively high code prescribed wind speeds and the statue
being a relatively low-mass structure with a large wind sail area, wind loading, not
seismic actions, governed the lateral load design.

Additionally, international standards for spectral accelerations from the USGS were
also considered as design check. However, the Ss’ and S1 values of 0.11g and 0.04g,
respectively (for both UFC and EU Code), also indicated that this was a low seismic
risk area.

Key Seismic Load Design Adopted Values Remarks

Parameters
Seismic Zone 4 High Zone
Zone Factor Z = 0.24 "Effective peak ground
acceleration in ‘g’;
≈ to Report PGA = 2.36m/s2 "

Importance Factor I = 1.5 For general buildings &

structures
Type of Soil Type I Hard Soil
Response Reduction Factor R=3 Ordinary RC shear wall
lateral system

Table 2: Key seismic design parameter comparisons

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 11

 2.1.7. DYNAMIC PROPERTIES

The primary lateral load resisting system is the two composite concrete cores.
Whichever way the cores move, so will the rest of the statue. The mode shapes and
dynamic periods roughly relate to those of a building of similar height, rationalized
for the differences in mass.

The first three natural periods and mode shapes of the statue were tabulated. Similar
to tall buildings, the first two modes are predominantly in translation, with some
degree of coupled secondary rotation, while the third mode is in torsion. Secondary
rotations in the first two modes are manifestations of the irregular nature of the
structure.

Mode Time Period (s) Remark

Mode 1 3.5 Predominant Y-Translation

Mode 2 1.75 Predominant – X Translation

Mode 3 0.81 Rotation

Table 3: Dynamic properties

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 12

 Figure 8: Statue mode shapes

2.1.8. SUPPLEMENTAL DAMPING

Although the initial lateral drift responses on the order of H/600 would indicate
otherwise, the use of passive or active damping was considered as a possibility
during the
Initial design (subject to the wind tunnel analyses). Therefore, space was been
allotted in head and neck region of statue for a damper should one be needed as
determined by the EPC contractor

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 13

 2.1.9. FOUNDATION

As the mat sits atop strong rock, piling was not required, but grouted rock anchors to
take the localized tensions are required.
There are significant tensions in the foundation due to overturning moments from the
lateral loads.
These will be resisted by rock anchors socketed into the rock and tensioned at the
foundation level. Additionally, measures to stabilize the fracture planes found in the
geotechnical investigation, such as grouting and anchor rods across the planes, were
also considered.

Based on the site investigation results carried out in 2010 and again in 2013
(WAPCOS, 2013) the average bearing strength of the rock was found to be 2300
kN/m2, which is more than sufficient to support the statue and the associated lateral
forces. As this is bearing on rock, settlements were expected to be inconsequential.

Figure 9: Site condition

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 14

 2.1.10. LOGISTICS AND MATERIALS

In the case of the statue, considering the relatively remote location (a four-hour drive
from Ahmedabad or a two- hour drive from Baroda, the nearest airports) and that the
statue will be constructed atop a small hillock in a river basin just downstream from
the Narmada dam material delivery, staging, and erection also posed unique
challenges.
Access to the island is passed via two methods. Primarily, a built-up rock bridge which
was constructed at the normal flood level, and then a bailey bridge was constructed in
high flood levels.
The Bailey bridge will have two lanes, one dedicated to vehicle and material
movement, and the second dedicated to worker access.
Materials were delivered to the island via the Bailey bridge and placed via two tower
cranes and several mobile cranes.

Figure 10: Bailey's Bridge

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 15

 2.2. BURJ KHALIFA

Burj Khalifa Tower, known as the Burj Dubai prior to its inauguration in 2010, is a
skyscraper in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. With a total height of 829.8 m(2722 ft.)
and a roof height (exceeding antenna) of 828 m(2717 ft.), the Burj Khalifa has been
the tallest structure and building in the world since its topping out in late 2008

2.2.1. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

The floor plan of the Tower consists of a tri-axial, “Y” shaped plan, formed by having
three separate wings connected to a central core (Figure 3). As the Tower rises, one
wing at each tier sets back in a spiraling pattern, further emphasizing its height (Figure
4). The Y-shape plan is ideal for residential and hotel usage, in that it allows the
maximum views outward, without overlooking a neighboring unit.
In addition to its aesthetic and functional advantages, the spiraling “Y” shaped plan
was also utilized to shape the structural concrete Burj Dubai to reduce the wind forces
on the tower, as well as to keep the structure simple and foster constructability.
The structural system can be described as a “buttressed” core, and consists of high
performance concrete wall construction. Each of the wings buttress the others via a
six-sided central core, or hexagonal hub. This central core provides the torsional
resistance of the structure, similar to a closed pipe or axle. Corridor walls extend from
the central core to near the end of each wing, terminating in thickened hammer head
walls.

Figure 11: Typical floor plan

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 16

 2.2.2. DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOAD

For a building of this height and slenderness, wind forces and the resulting motions in
the upper levels become dominant factors in the structural design. An extensive
program of wind tunnel tests and other studies were undertaken in RWDI’s 2.4m x
1.9m, and 4.9m x 2.4m boundary layer wind tunnels in Guelph, Ontario. The wind
tunnel testing program included rigid-model force balance tests, a full aeroelastic
model study, measurements of localized pressures, and pedestrian wind environment
studies (Figure 10). These studies used models mostly at 1:500 scale; however, the
pedestrian wind studies utilized a larger scale of 1:250 for the development of
aerodynamic solutions aimed at reducing wind speeds. Since some Reynolds number
dependency (scale effect) was seen in the aeroelastic model and force balance results,
high Reynolds number tests were also undertaken on a much larger rigid model, at
1:50 scale, of the upper part of the tower in the 9m x 9m wind tunnel at the National
Research Council facility in Ottawa (Figure 11). Wind speeds up to 55 m/s could be
obtained in the 9 m x 9 m wind tunnel.

Figure 12:
AMD, S V National Institute Aeroelastic wind tunnel model and Reynolds number Testing
of Technology Page 17
To determine the wind loading on the main structure, wind tunnel tests were undertaken
early in the design using the high-frequency-force balance technique. The wind tunnel
data were then combined with the dynamic properties of the tower in order to compute
the tower’s dynamic response and the overall effective wind force distributions at full
scale. For the Burj Dubai, the results of the force balance tests were used as early input
for the structural design and allowed parametric studies to be undertaken on the effects of
varying the tower’s stiffness and mass distribution.
The building has essentially six important wind directions (Figure 12). Three of the
directions are when the wind blows directly into a wing - the wind is blowing into the
“nose” or cutwater effect of each wing (Nose A, Nose B and Nose C). The other three
directions are when the wind blows in between two wings, termed as the “tail “directions
(Tail A, Tail B and Tail C). It was noticed that the force spectra for different wind
directions showed less excitation in the important frequency range for winds impacting
the pointed or nose end of a wing than from the opposite direction (tail). This was kept in
mind when selecting the orientation of the tower relative to the most frequent strong wind
directions for Dubai: northwest, south and east.

Figure 13: Plan view of Tower

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 18

Several rounds of force balance tests were undertaken as the geometry of the Tower
evolved, and as the Tower was refined architecturally. The three wings set back in a
clockwise sequence with the A wing setting back first. After each round of wind tunnel
testing, the data was analyzed and the building was reshaped to minimize wind effects
and accommodate unrelated changes in the Client’s program. In general, the number and
spacing of the setbacks changed as did the shape of wings. This process resulted in a
substantial reduction in wind forces on the tower by “confusing” the wind, by encouraging
disorganized vortex shedding over the height of the Tower (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Tower wind behavior

Towards the end of design more accurate aeroelastic model tests were initiated. An
aeroelastic model is flexible in the same manner as the real building, with properly scaled
stiffness, mass and damping. The aeroelastic tests were able to model several of the higher
translational modes of vibration. These higher modes dominated the structural response
and design of the Tower except at the very base where the fundamental modes controlled.
Based on these results, the predicted building motions are within the ISO standard
recommended values without the need for auxiliary damping.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 19

 2.3. TAIPEI TOWER 101

Taipei 101 is an iconic skyscraper located in the city of Taipei, in Taiwan. It rises to
509 meters and consist of exactly 101 floors. At the time of its construction in 2004,
it was the tallest building in the world – a title it held on to until the Burj Khalifa
came into being in 2010.

2.3.1. DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOAD

Sitting just 660 ft. from a major fault line, Taipei 101 is prone to earthquakes and
fierce winds common in its area of the Asia-Pacific. The engineers had to design a
structure that could withstand gale winds up to 216 km/h and the strongest
earthquakes. Typically Skyscraper must be flexible in strong winds yet remain rigid
enough to prevent large sideways movement. Flexibility prevents structural damage
while resistance ensures comfort for the occupants and protection of glass, curtain
walls and other features. Most designs achieve the necessary strength by enlarging
critical structural elements such as bracing, but the height of Taipei 101 combined
with the demands of its environment called for additional innovations.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology

Figure 15: Location of Taipei 101's Tuned Mass Damper. Page 20
 To achieve stability and lessen the impact of violent motion, a gigantic tuned mass
damper was designed. The damper consist of a steel sphere 18 feet across and
weighing 728 ton, suspended from the 92nd to the 87th floor. Acting like a giant
pendulum, the massive steel ball sways to counteract the building’s movement
caused by strong gusts of wind. Eight steel cables form a sling to support the ball,
while eight viscous dampers act like shock absorbers when the sphere shifts. The
ball can move 5 ft. in any direction and reduce sways by 40 percent. Two additional
tuned mass dampers, each weighing 7 tons, installed at the tip of the spire provide
additional protection against strong wind loads.

Figure 16: Tuned mass damper in Taipei 101

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 21

 3. TUNED MASS DAMPER

A Tuned Mass Damper (TMD), also called a “harmonic absorber”, is a device mounted to a
specific location in a structure, so as to reduce the amplitude of vibration to an acceptable level
whenever a strong lateral force such as an earthquake or high winds hit. There are two basic
types of TMD; the Horizontal TMD which is normally found in slender buildings,
communication towers, spires and the like. The other type is the Vertical TMD, which is usually
applied in long span horizontal structures such as bridges, floors and walkways. Both types have
similar functions, though there might be slight differences in terms of mechanism.

3.1. WORKING MECHANISM OF A TUNED MASS DAMPER

A TMD essentially has a mass, spring and a damping device which dispels the energy caused
by the motion of the mass itself. The mechanism can be illustrated by the schematic diagrams
below:

Figure 17: Schematic diagram of Tuned mass damper

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 22

 To further explain the mechanism of TMD in layman’s terms, we will try to assess its function
using the following schematic diagrams

Figure 18: Building without Tuned mass damper

The figure above illustrates a typical building without a TMD. When a lateral force (e.g.
seismic or wind) hits the structure, the building will become excited and displaced (x1),
generating kinetic force (K1) due to its mass and consequent acceleration. The building will
then swing back to another displacement (x2) on the other side. In theory, x1 will be greater
than x2 and x2 will be greater than the next displacement of the next swing (i.e. x3) which
means there will be a time when displacement will soon come to zero. This scenario is due to
the inherent damping ratio of the building. Damping ratio is a dimensionless parameter that
measures how a certain oscillation subsides after a certain disturbance or excitation.

The time it took for the building to complete one round of swing (left to right and then right to
left) is the so called “time period” of the structure. This means the higher the period the longer
it takes for the building to go back to its original position. This is where the feelings of
discomfort come from, as the building occupants start to feel the movement due to the
noticeable time span of building sway. This is one of the reasons why structural engineers pay
attention to the period of the structure during analytical model analysis.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 23

 Similarly, since frequency is the inverse of time period (1/s or Hertz, Hz) this means the higher
the period, the lesser the frequency of the building and the more prone it is to uncomfortable
building acceleration. Structural engineers also limit the acceleration of the building to an
acceptable range, the exact value of which depends on the type of building occupancy (e.g.
residential, office etc.).

Now, what will happen if we introduce a TMD to the same building mentioned above? The
new schematic diagram will be as per below:

Figure 19: Building with Tuned mass damper

In theory, the main objective of a TMD is to act as a “counteragent” and absorb the kinetic
energy (K1, K2) developed during building excitation. When the structure starts to sway,
thereby generating the kinetic energy K1, the TMD is set into motion by means of the
spring/pendulum and forces the building to the opposite direction by the counteracting force
(D1). The same scenario happens when the building sways in the other direction (K2 vs. D2).
As an effect, comparing the two diagrams above, it can be observed that displacements x1
and x2 for Schematic B are smaller than those of Schematic A. This result is due to the
counteracting force offered by the TMD whenever the building tries to sway in either
direction. This will also mean that the building will stop oscillating within a shorter time
frame and will stabilize faster; a characteristic which structural engineers want to see in their
serviceability assessments.
AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 24
 To summarize, the main idea of the system is to match the frequency of the TMD to the
inherent frequency of the structure itself, that is to say, if the structure’s frequency is 0.2 Hz
for example, the TMD should be designed to a frequency that is exactly the same or close to
this value, hence “tuned”. If this is achieved, then the TMD will be effective and the
vibration of the structure will be controlled, likewise, acceleration will subside more
efficiently. If not, then the structure may either be inadequate in serviceability when the
TMD’s frequency is higher or may cause detrimental effects when the TMD’s frequency is
lower than that of the structure itself.

Figure 20: Graph of comparison of acceleration with and without TMD.

Notice the difference between the two acceleration graphs of Schematic A and B. It can be
observed that the initial and succeeding oscillations of the structure with a TMD are much
lower than the other which doesn’t have one. Acceleration with a TMD also subsides within a
faster timeframe due to negating effect of the pendulum damper. The same theory applies in
TMD’s in actual buildings and structures.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 25

 3.2. TMD’s APPLICATIONS

There are a number of famous structures in the UAE where TMD’s are adopted. One of these
is the iconic 7-star hotel, the Burj Al Arab. We may never have seen this famous hotel exactly
the way it appears today if not through the help of a TMD. Because of the building’s proximity
to the sea and its geometry being susceptible to vortex shedding of wind, its exoskeleton bow
features have been challenged by critically high vibration. The initial idea was to change the
shape of the building, though the architect strongly refuted the proposal as it would be
detrimental to the original conceptual image of the building. The issue was resolved through
the use of eleven 5-ton horizontal TMD’s scattered throughout the external features of the
building.

Figure 21: Some of the Locations of Burj Al Arab 5-Ton TMD (GERB Vibration Control systems)

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 26

 Another well-known structure in UAE that uses the TMD would be the Emirates Towers near
Sheikh Zayed Road. The towers have six 1.2-ton horizontal tuned mass dampers equipped on
the top spires to control vibration due to slenderness.

Figure 22: 1.2-ton TMD of Emirates Towers Spire (GERB Vibration control systems)

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 27

 4. CONCLUSIONS:

The Statue of unity, Burj khalifa and Taipei 101 are an excellent example of a successful
collaboration between the requirements of structural systems, wind engineering, and
architectural aesthetics and function, which is essential for a super tall project. Additionally,
the Tower represents a significant achievement in terms of utilizing the latest design,
material, and construction technology and methods, in order to provide an efficient, rational
structure, to rise to heights never seen before.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 28

 5. REFERENCES AND LINKS:

1. Aaron Levy & Nivethan Thambirajah, Tuned mass damper of Taipei 101 tower, EPSC
330.

2. Case Study-Burj Al Arab/Chetna Shaktawat et. al.

3. David Da-Wei Lee; Martin Ng Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat/2010
Journal/Issue 4.

4. Dennis Poon; Shaw-Song Shieh; Leonard Joseph; Ching Chang-Chang, Structural design
of Taipei 101, The World’s tallest building/Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

5. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a14564/the-121-story-
tower-that-never-sways/

6. https://gizmodo.com/5019046/how-a-730-ton-ball-kept-the-second-tallest-building-from-
falling-during-the-chinese-earthquake

7. Introduction to Structural Motion Control/Chapter 4/Tuned Mass Dampers

8. Super Tall Building Design Approach/Hi Sun Choi/March 6, 2009

9. Tuned Mass Dampers for Buildings, Bridges and Other Tall Structures/GERB Vibration
Control Systems

10. William F. Baker; James J. Pawlikowski; Bradley S. Young; The Challenges in Designing
the World’s tallest structure: The Burj Dubai Tower/research gate publication.

11. William Howell; Jairam Panch; Mandar Nadkarni; James Wisniewski, Logistical and
structural design challenges of the world’s tallest statue/Council on Tall Buildings and
Urban Habitat,2015

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 29

 12. Standard, I., 2000. IS-456. 2000. Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice”, Bureau
of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, 9.

13. IS (1987), IS 875 (Part 2). Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
buildings and structures‖, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

14. Standard, I., 1893:2002. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of
Structures Part 1: general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.

15. Standard, I., 1893:2016. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of
Structures Part 1: general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.

16. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS 13920: 2016, “Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete
structures subjected to seismic forces-Code of Practice”, New Delhi, India

17. Council on Tall buildings and Urban Habitat, (1995). Structural Systems for Tall Buildings,
McGraw-HILL.

18. Smith, B.S. and Coull, A. (1991). Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

AMD, S V National Institute of Technology Page 30