Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for the wind excited benchmark building/Optimalus mases slopintuvai vejo veikiamuose aukstybiniuose pastatuose.
Patil, Veeranagouda B. ; Jangid, Radhey Shyam
1. Introduction
Passive control devices dissipate energy due to the motion of the
structure (Housner et al. 1997) itself. Matsagar and Jangid (2005)
studied the vibration control of adjacent buildings connected by
visco-elastic dampers subjected to earthquake ground motion. Tuned Mass
Damper (TMD) is a classical engineering device consisting of a mass, a
spring and a viscous damper attached to a vibrating main system in order
to attenuate any undesirable vibration. The natural frequency of the
damper system is tuned to a frequency near to the natural frequency of
the main system, the vibration of the main system causes the damper to
vibrate in resonance, and as a result, the vibration energy is
dissipated through the damping in the tuned mass damper. The main
disadvantage of a single TMD is its sensitivity of the effectiveness to
the error in the natural frequency of the structure and/ or that in the
damping ratio of the TMD. This is due to following reasons. Errors in
predicting or identifying the natural frequency of the structure and the
errors in fabricating TMD are ineviTable to some degree. Therefore, in
practical design, the optimum values of parameters of TMD are not
maintained. The damping of the TMD is intentionally made higher than the
optimal value such that TMDs become less sensitive to tuning errors.
This results in increase in the mass of the TMD to meet the design
requirement. All these uncertainties can be reduced by use of MTMD. Use
of MTMD has been proposed to increase the robustness of the vibration
control system to various uncertainties in the structures and/ or TMD.
The basic configuration of MTMD consists of large number of small
oscillators whose natural frequencies are distributed around the natural
frequency of the controlled mode of the structure. It is now well
established that an optimal MTMD is more effective and robust than
optimal TMD (Li 2000). Ayorinde and Warburton (1980) extended the
application of MTMDs to civil engineering structures. Iwanami and Seto
(1984) had shown that two TMDs are more effective than single TMD.
However, the improvement on the effectiveness was not significant. Xu
and Igusa (1992) proposed use of multiple sub-oscillators with closely
spaced frequencies. Multiple tuned mass dampers with distributed natural
frequencies were also studied by Yamaguchi and Harnpornchai (1993). The
optimum parameters of MTMD installed on an undamped SDOF subjected to
harmonic base excitation is studied by Jangid (1999). Lewandowski and
Grzymislawska (2009) studied the possibility of reduction of vibrations
of a multi-storey frame with MTMDs tuned to different modes.
Due to advancement in the technology of materials, taller and
slender buildings could be designed and constructed. However, such
buildings pose the problems of excessive vibrations due to dynamic loads
like earthquake or wind. To mitigate the seismic and wind effects on the
high rise buildings, various structural control systems/ devices are
being developed in the field of Civil Engineering. Therefore, it is felt
necessary to compare the results of different control systems when
implemented on the same structural model subjected to same loads. Thus,
the concept of benchmark building comes into picture. Therefore, based
on realistic problems two structural control problems have been
selected- one for earthquake and another for wind excitations (Yang et
al. 2004). The wind excited benchmark building is tall and slender and
hence it is wind sensitive. Wind tunnel tests (Samali et al. 2004a) for
the 76-storey building model have already been conducted at the
University of Sydney; and the results of across-wind data for a duration
of 3600 s are also provided for the analysis of the benchmark problem.
Performance of various dampers like tuned liquid column dampers (Min et
al. 2005), liquid column vibration absorbers (Samali et al. 2004b),
hybrid viscous-tuned liquid column damper (Kim, Adeli 2005), variable
stiffness tuned mass damper (Varadarajan, Nagarajaiah 2004) on the
benchmark building have been studied. The above literature review has
revealed that the performance of MTMD on the wind excited benchmark
building is not studied so far. Hence, it will be interesting to install
MTMD on the slender building.
The present study evaluates the performance of MTMDs on the wind
excited benchmark building. The specific objectives of the present study
may be summarized as: (i) to compare the performance criteria of the
wind excited benchmark building installed with MTMD with those of the
uncontrolled building; (ii) to obtain the optimum parameters of TMD for
the minimization of various performance criteria of the benchmark
building; (iii) to compare the performance criteria of the wind excited
benchmark building installed with MTMD with those of the building with
TMD; (iv) to obtain the optimum parameters of MTMD for the minimization
of various performance criteria of the benchmark building and (v) to
study the variation of the performance criteria with the number of
dampers in MTMD.
2. Benchmark building
Generally, tall buildings are flexible and hence, they experience
excessive wind induced vibrations. The wind excited benchmark building
considered for the study is 306 m high and 42x42 m in plan. Therefore,
the aspect ratio (height to width ratio) is 7.3 and hence, the building
is wind sensitive. The typical story height is 3.9 m except the first
floor which has a height of 10 m and stories 38 to 40 and 74 to 76 which
have a height of 4.5 m. As the rotational degrees of freedom have been
removed by the static condensation procedure, only translational degrees
of freedom, one at each floor of the building is remaining. The building
is modeled as a cantilever beam (Bernoulli-Euler beam). The detailed
description of the benchmark building and its model can be found in Yang
et al. (2004). The front view of the wind excited benchmark building
installed with MTMD at the top floor is shown in Fig. 1. In this figure,
the heights of various floors of the building and configuration of MTMD
can be seen. The building is proposed for an office tower at Melbourne,
Australia.
3. Governing equations of motion
The wind excited benchmark building is supported by N number of
TMDs with different dynamic characteristics as shown in Fig. 1. The
parameters of the j1 TMD are mass [m.sub.j], damping [c.sub.j] and
stiffness [k.sub.j] Natural frequencies of the MTMD are uniformly
distributed around their average frequency. The natural frequency,
[[omega].sub.j] (i.e. [square root of [k.sub.j]/[m.sub.j]) of the jth
TMD is expressed by:
[[omega].sub.j] = [[omega].sub.T][1 + (j - N+1/2)[beta]/N-1]; (1)
[[omega].sub.T] = [N.summation over
([phi]=1)][[omega].sub.[phi]]/N; (2)
[beta] = [[omega].sub.N] - [[omega].sub.1]/[[omega].sub.T], (3)
where: [[omega].sub.T] is the average frequency of all MTMD, [beta]
is the non-dimensional frequency band-width of the MTMD system.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
As suggested by Xu and Igusa (1992) that the manufacturing of the
MTMD with uniform stiffness is simpler than that with the varying
stiffness. As a result, the distribution of natural frequencies of the
MTMD is obtained by keeping the stiffness constant but varying the mass
of each TMD (i.e., [k.sub.1] = [k.sub.2] = ... [k.sub.N] = [k.sub.T]).
The damping constant of the jth TMD is expressed as:
[c.sub.j] = [2m.sub.j][[zeta].sub.T][[omega].sub.j], (4)
where [[zeta].sub.T] is the damping ratio kept constant for all the
MTMD.
Total mass of the MTMD system is expressed by the mass ratio
defined as:
[mu] = [N.summation over (j=1)][m.sub.j]/[m.sub.s], (5)
where [mu] is the mass ratio of the MTMD system and ms is the mass
of the structure.
Tuning frequency ratio of the MTMD system is expressed by:
f = [[omega].sub.T]/[[omega].sub.s], (6)
where [[omega].sub.s] is the fundamental frequency of the main
system.
For the wind excited benchmark building along with MTMD, the
governing equations of motion are obtained by considering the
equilibrium of forces at the location of each DOF during wind
excitations. Therefore, the governing equations of motion for the
controlled building structure model subjected to wind excitations can be
written as:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (7)
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (8)
[m.sub.T] = diag[[m.sub.1][m.sub.2] ... [m.sub.n]]; (9)
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (10)
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (11)
where the mass matrix M, stiffness matrix K, and damping matrix C
each of the order of (76x76) are constructed for the finite element
model of the uncontrolled building and provided for the analysis. The
mass matrix of the building installed with MTMD/TMD ([M.sub.d]) is
constructed by appending the masses of dampers in MTMD diagonally to the
mass matrix (M) as given in Eq. (8). Similarly, the stiffness matrix
([K.sub.d]) and the damping matrix ([C.sub.d]) of the structure with
MTMD/TMD are constructed by expressing the set of equations of motion in
the matrix form (refer Eqs 10 and 11). The first five natural
frequencies of the uncontrolled structure (i.e. without dampers) are
calculated as 0.1600, 0.7651, 1.9921, 3.7899 and 6.3945 Hz. x is
displacement vector of order (m+N) where m is the degree of freedom
(DOF) of the building, N is the number of dampers in MTMD, x and x the
first and second time derivatives and [F.sub.d] is the wind load vector
of order (m+N). The first m elements are the wind loads at the m floors
of the building and remaining N elements are zeros as there is no wind
load on dampers.
The set of Eqs (7) is expressed as a set of first order
differential equations as:
[??] = Az + E[F.sub.d], (12)
where: z is the state vector of structure along with MTMD/TMD, and
contains displacement and velocity of each floor and also of dampers in
MTMD/TMD; A denotes the system matrix composed of mass matrix of the
structure with MTMD/TMD, damping and stiffness matrices; and E
represents the distributing matrices for excitation.
The Eq. (12) is discretized in the time domain and excitation force
is assumed to be constant within any time interval and can be written
into a discrete-time form (Lu 2004):
z [k +1] = [A.sub.d]z[k] + [E.sub.d][F.sub.d][k], (13)
where:
[A.sub.d] = [e.sup.A[DELTA]t]. (14)
It represents the discrete time system matrix with [DELTA]t as the
time interval.
The system matrix A is defined as follows:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], (15)
whereas, coefficient matrix [E.sub.d] is given by:
[E.sub.d] = [A.sup.-1]([A.sub.d] - I)E, (16)
where:
E = [0/[M.sub.d.sup.-1]. (17)
4. Numerical study
The mass matrix and the stiffness matrix, each of the order of
(76x76) are constructed from the finite element model (FEM) of the
building. The damping ratio [zeta] = 1% is assumed for the first five
modes to construct the damping matrix of the order (76x76) using
Rayleigh's approach (Yang et al. 2004). The first five natural
frequencies of the uncontrolled structure are calculated as 0.1600,
0.7651, 1.9921, 3.7899 and 6.3945 Hz. Thus the wind excited benchmark
building is completely characterized by the parameters. The performance
of TMD installed on the wind excited benchmark building is studied. To
know the effectiveness and robustness of MTMD, the response of the wind
excited benchmark building by using MTMD is also investigated. The
detailed description of the wind tunnel tests conducted at the
University of Sydney is given in Samali et al. (2004 a, b) and the time
histories of across wind loads are available at the website (SSTL 2002).
To facilitate the direct comparison and to evaluate the
capabilities of various protective devices and algorithms, a set of 12
performance criteria are proposed. These performance criteria are
defined in Yang et al. (2004). The performance criteria [J.sub.1] to
[J.sub.4] are defined to measure the reduction in RMS response
quantities of the wind excited benchmark building, evaluated by
normalizing the response quantities by the corresponding response
quantities of the uncontrolled building; [J.sub.7] to [J.sub.10] are
based on the peak responses calculated by normalizing the peak response
quantities by the corresponding peak response quantities of the
uncontrolled building. Among the 12 criteria, only eight criteria
[J.sub.1] to [J.sub.4] and [J.sub.7] to [J.sub.10] are used in this
work, because the other four criteria ([J.sub.5], [J.sub.6], [J.sub.11],
and [J.sub.12]) represent the performance of the actuator.
In the first part of the study, TMD is installed at the top of the
building and optimum parameters such as tuning frequency ratio, damping
ratio for various mass ratios are obtained by numerical procedure. In
the second part of the study, the performance of MTMD installed at the
top of the building is studied and the optimum parameters are obtained.
In the present study, the performance of dampers is studied only up-to
the duration of 900 s.
4.1. TMD at the top of the benchmark building
In this part of the study, the performance criteria obtained with
TMD installed at the top of the building are studied. The tuning
frequency ratio, damping ratio and mass ratio are the critical
parameters in the design of TMD. To know the optimum parameters of TMD,
the mass ratio of TMD are varied as 0.16%, 0.33%, 0.5%, 0.66%, 0.82%,
1%, 1.16% and 1.33%. The frequency ratio is varied from 0.1 to 1.00 with
an increment of 0.1 and the damping ratio is varied from 0.01 to 0.1
with an increment of 0.01. Then the minimization of the performance
criterion [J.sub.1] is carried out. The optimum parameters obtained by
the minimization of [J.sub.1] (listed in Table 1) are used to know the
variation of the criteria [J.sub.2], [J.sub.3] and [J.sub.4]. Later on,
each performance criterion is minimized to know the most optimum
parameters.
4.1.1. Optimal tuning frequency ratio
In this section, optimal tuning frequency ratios are obtained for
the various values of mass ratios. The mass ratio ([mu]) is the ratio of
the TMD to the mass of the structure. For an undamped system with a TMD,
closed form solutions for optimum tuning frequency ratio and damping
ratio can be obtained with regard to mass ratio (Soong, Dargush 1997).
But the optimal parameters of a TMD for damped system like the benchmark
building can not be given in the closed form, and they can be determined
only by numerical methods.
Variation of performance criteria [J.sub.2] to [J.sub.4] with
tuning frequency ratio for different values of mass ratio are presented
in Fig. 2. The damping ratio that minimizes [J.sub.1] is selected. For
this purpose, the damping ratio of damper (listed in Table 1
corresponding to the column '[J.sub.1]') obtained by the
minimization of the performance criterion [J.sub.1] for a value of mass
ratio is selected, to get the optimum tuning frequency ratio for that
mass ratio. And the stiffness of TMD is calculated based on the mass of
TMD for the corresponding mass ratio and the angular frequency of damper
required for the corresponding frequency ratio. It can be seen from the
Fig. 2, that the optimal value of tuning frequency ratio that minimizes
performance criteria is close to 1, and it approaches 1 as the mass
ratio decreases. Performance is improved and the sensitivity of
performance criteria to frequency ratio is reduced with increasing [mu].
However the performance improvement becomes negligible if [mu]>0.82%.
4.1.2. Optimal damping ratio
Variation of performance criteria with damping ratio for various
values of mass ratio are presented in Fig. 3. Tuning frequency ratio
that minimizes [J.sub.1] is selected. And the stiffness of TMD is
calculated based on the mass of TMD for the corresponding mass ratio and
the angular frequency of damper required for the corresponding frequency
ratio. From this Figure, it is can be seen that the optimum value of
damping ratio increases with mass ratio. Performance is improved with
the increasing mass ratio and the sensitivity of the performance
criteria to damping ratio is also reduced with increase in mass ratio.
4.1.3. Optimum parameters of TMD
Optimum parameters of TMD for the minimization of various
performance criteria are presented in Table 1. From the Table 1, it is
seen that when the performance criterion [J.sub.1] is minimized, optimum
tuning frequency ratio decreases with increase in mass ratio whereas
optimum damping ratio ([[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T]) increases. The optimum
value of [J.sub.1] decreases with increase in the mass ratio. Similar
trend is seen when the criteria [J.sub.2], [J.sub.3] and [J.sub.4] are
optimized. From the Table, it is implied that while minimizing
[J.sub.7], (with different mass ratios) the mass ratio of 1.16% gives
the minimum value of [J.sub.7], where as while minimizing [J.sub.9] and
[J.sub.10], the mass ratio of 0.82 gives the minimum values. However,
there is no much difference in the values of [J.sub.7] for [mu] = 0.82
and [mu] = 1.16%. Hence, the mass ratio of the TMD may be maintained as
0.82. It can be also noticed that there is no much difference in the
optimum values obtained by the minimization of the criteria [J.sub.1] to
[J.sub.4] for [mu] = 0.82 and higher values. Therefore the optimum
parameters that are obtained by the minimization of [J.sub.1] with [mu]
= 0.82 may be maintained.
4.2. MTMD at the top of the benchmark building
MTMD offers the advantages of portability and ease of installation
(because of the reduced size of an individual damper), which makes it
attractive not only for new installation, but also for temporary use
during construction or for retrofitting existing structures. The design
parameters of MTMDs are the number of dampers, the frequency band width,
tuning frequency ratio, mass ratio and damping ratio. It is reported
that tuning the frequencies of every TMD to the fundamental mode in the
MTMD is more effective than tuning it to different modes (Kareem, Kline
1995). Accordingly, the frequency of the MTMD is tuned to the
fundamental mode in this study. Initially, the performance indices for
RMS responses are considered by minimizing [J.sub.1], similarly to the
case for determining the optimal parameters of a single TMD. And later
on, each of the eight performance criteria is minimized and the most
optimum parameters are obtained.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
4.2.1. Optimal number of dampers
The optimal number of dampers, N, should be determined to consider
the control performance and the constructional efficiency. Fig. 4 shows
the variation of performance criteria with number of dampers for various
mass ratios of MTMD. Other parameters like frequency band width, damping
ratio and central tuning frequency are maintained as those required to
minimize the performance criteria [J.sub.1]. It is observed that larger
mass ratio results in better control performance. Further, it can be
seen that the performances are generally enhanced when 5 dampers are
used in MTMD compared to that of a single TMD. However, increasing N
over 5 does not provide significant response reduction. Accordingly, N =
5 will be used in the subsequent sections.
4.2.2. Optimal frequency band width
Frequency band width is one of the important parameters of MTMD
which depends on [[omega].sub.1] and [[omega].sub.N] where
[[omega].sub.1] and [[omega].sub.N] are the frequencies of first and N
TMD, respectively. The variation of performance criteria with frequency
band width ([beta]) is shown in Fig. 5. The frequency ratio and damping
ratio are maintained that are required for minimization of [J.sub.1]. It
is seen from the figure that for the lower values of mass ratios
performance criteria increase with ([beta]), whereas there exists an
optimum value of ([beta]) for the higher mass ratios. It is also
observed that with the increase in mass ratio the optimum value of
[beta] increases.
4.2.3. Optimal tuning frequency ratio
The variation of performance criteria with tuning frequency ratio
is shown in Fig. 6. Number of dampers is maintained as 5. Damping ratio
is maintained that required for minimizing the criteria [J.sub.1].
Similar to single TMD, it can be seen that optimum tuning frequency is
close to 1 and it becomes closer to 1 with decrease in mass ratio. The
control performance can be enhanced by increasing mass ratio and
sensitivity can be reduced with increase in mass ratio.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
4.2.4. Optimal damping ratio
The variation of performance criteria with damping ratio is shown
in Fig. 7. Other parameters like frequency band width and frequency
ratio are maintained those required for the minimization of [J.sub.1]
The number of dampers in MTMD is maintained as 5. From the Figure it is
depicted that there exists an optimum damping ratio for the performance
criteria.
4.2.5. Robustness of MTMD
Robustness of MTMDs is also the most important features of damping
devices. Since the value of f is critical in the control performance of
TMDs, the variation of the frequency of the structure due to the
measurement or calculation error and the variation of mass or stiffness
may cause significant performance deterioration. For these reasons, the
MTMDs have been proposed for enhancing the robustness of TMDs. In this
section, the robustness of TMDs is discussed by evaluating the control
performance when uncertainty exists in the stiffness of the structure.
A comparison of the performance criteria of a single TMD and MTMD
is given in Table 2. Although the performance of the MTMD is almost
equivalent to that of a single TMD, when there exists no uncertainty
(i.e., [DELTA]K = 0), the MTMD shows superior performance to the single
TMD when stiffness uncertainty exists (i.e., [DELTA]K = [+ or -] 15%)
with the exception of [J.sub.1] and [J.sub.2]. As expected, robustness
could be guaranteed by using an MTMD.
4.2.6. Optimum parameters of MTMD
In this section, intensive numerical simulations have been carried
out by minimizing [J.sub.1] to [J.sub.4] and [J.sub.7] to [J.sub.10]
separately, to know the optimum parameters of MTMD. The corresponding
optimum parameters obtained by the minimization of each performance
criteria are presented in Tables 3 to 10.
From discussions in the above sections, it is clear that increasing
the number of dampers beyond 5 will not provide any further reduction in
response. The sensitivity of the performance criteria beyond the mass
ratio ([mu]) = 1% is sufficiently low.
From Table 3, it can be seen that while minimizing [J.sub.1], for
[mu] = 1% and N = 5, the optimum damping ratio is 0.03 whereas the
corresponding value of [[zeta].sub.T] for TMD is 0.1. Similar trend is
seen for other values of mass ratio also. From Tables 4-10, it is can
also be observed that same trend is continued while minimizing other
performance criteria also (except for few cases of mass ratio for
[J.sub.9] and [J.sub.10]). Thus, in general the optimum damping ratio of
MTMD system is found to be less than that of TMD.
From Table 3, for the minimization of the performance criterion
[J.sub.1], the optimum frequency band width, frequency ratio and damping
ratio are 0.3, 1.00 and 0.03 respectively, when the number of dampers is
maintained as 5 and the mass ratio is 1.00%. Exactly the same values of
optimum parameters are obtained for the minimization of the criteria
[J.sub.2], [J.sub.3] and [J.sub.4] also. On the other hand, when the
criteria [J.sub.7] and [J.sub.8] are minimized these optimum parameters
are 0.4, 1.00 and 0.02 respectively. The dimensionless quantities
[J.sub.7] and [J.sub.8] are based on the peak acceleration quantities of
the selected floors. These values are also near the optimum parameters
obtained by the minimization of the criteria [J.sub.1] to [J.sub.4].
And, by the minimization of the criteria [J.sub.9] and [J.sub.10], the
optimum parameters are 0.1, 0.93 and 0.05, respectively. The
dimensionless quantities [J.sub.9] and [J.sub.10] are based on peak
displacement quantities of the selected floors. However, the maximum
peak acceleration quantity for the human comfort level is 0.02 g (20
cm/[s.sup.2]) and the maximum peak displacement quantity is H/500 (i.e.,
61.2 cm). The peak acceleration and the peak displacement quantities of
the top floor are 12.59 cm/[s.sup.2] and 22.26 cm respectively, when the
optimum parameters are maintained to minimize the criteria [J.sub.1] to
[J.sub.4]. Thus, the optimum parameters of 0.3, 1.00 and 0.03 may be
maintained for the maximum advantage with 5 dampers in MTMD with a mass
ratio of 1% (i.e., total mass of MTMD as 1500 Ton, i.e. of 300 Ton
each).
5. Conclusions
Numerical study of wind excited benchmark building with TMD/MTMD at
the top floor of the benchmark building is carried out under the
deterministic across wind load. Optimum parameters of TMD are obtained
by numerical procedure. The robustness of MTMD is investigated. The
effects of design parameters such as mass ratio, damping ratio, number
of dampers, tuning frequency and frequency band width is investigated.
From the trends of the numerical results of the present study, the
following conclusions may be drawn:
1. It is found that the optimal value of tuning frequency ratio is
close to 1, and the value becomes closer to 1 as the mass ratio
decreases in cases of both TMD and MTMD.
2. The sensitivity of performance to the tuning frequency ratio is
reduced with increasing mass ratio in cases of both TMD and MTMD.
3. The optimum value of damping ratio increases with mass ratio for
TMD.
4. In general the optimum damping ratio of MTMD system is found to
be less than that of TMD.
5. There exists an optimum damping ratio of MTMD for the
performance criteria.
6. The sensitivity of the performance to the damping ratio of TMD
decreases with increase in mass ratio.
7. Looking at the overall performance of TMD on the wind excited
benchmark building, the optimum parameters that are obtained by the
minimization of [J.sub.1] may be maintained with [mu] = 0.82.
8. Increasing number of dampers (N) in MTMD beyond 5 does not
provide significant response reduction.
9. For the lower values of mass ratio the performance criteria
increase with frequency band width ([beta]). However, for higher values
of mass ratio there exists an optimum value of [beta]. With the increase
in the mass ratio the optimum value of [beta] increases.
10. The design parameters like frequency band width, frequency
ratio and damping ratio may be maintained as 0.3, 1.0 and 0.03,
respectively with 5 dampers and the mass ratio of 1% for MTMD on the
benchmark building.
11. It is found that the performance of an MTMD is almost
equivalent to that of a single TMD when there exists no uncertainty in
stiffness, whereas an MTMD shows superior performance to a single TMD
when stiffness uncertainty exists.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3846/13923730.2011.619325
References
Ayorinde, E. O.; Warburton, G. B. 1980. Minimizing structural
vibrations with absorbers, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 8(3): 219-236. doi:10.1002/eqe.4290080303
Housner, G. W.; Bergman, L. A.; Caughey, T. K.; Chassiakos, A. G.;
Claus, R. O.; Masri, S. F.; Skelton, R. E.; Soong, T. T.; Spencer, B.
F.; Yao, J. T. P. 1997. Structural control: Past, Present and Future,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 123(9): 897-971.
doi:0.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1997)123:9(897)
Iwanami, K.; Seto, K. 1984. Optimum design of dual tuned mass
dampers and their effectiveness, in Proc. of the Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineering 50: 44-52.
Jangid, R. S. 1999. Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for base
excited undamped system, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 28(9): 1041-1049. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<1041::AID EQE853>3.0.CO;2-E
Kareem, A.; Kline, S. 1995. Performance of multiple mass dampers
under random loading, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 121(2):
348--361. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:2(348)
Kim, H.; Adeli, H. 2005. Wind-induced motion control of 76-storey
benchmark building using the hybrid damper TLCD system, Journal of
Structural Engineering ASCE 131(12): 1794-1802.
Lewandowski, R.; Grzymislawska, J. 2009. Analysis of structures
with multiple tuned mass dampers, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 15(1): 77-86. doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.77-86
Li, C. 2000. Performance of multiple tuned mass dampers for
attenuating undesirable oscillations of structures under the ground
acceleration, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 29(9):
1405-1421. doi:10.1002/1096-9845
(200009)29:9<1405::AID-EQE976>3.0.CO;2-4
Lu, L.-Y. 2004. Predictive control of seismic structures with
semi-active friction dampers, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 33(5): 647-668. doi:10.1002/eqe.371
Matsagar, V. A.; Jangid, R. S. 2005. Visco-elastic damper connected
adjacent structures involving seismic isolation, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 11(4): 309-322.
Min, K.-W.; Kim, H.-S.; Lee, S.-H.; Kim, H.; Ahn, S. K. 2005.
Performance evaluation of tuned liquid column dampers for response
control of a 76-storey benchmark building, Engineering Structures 27(7):
1101-1112. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.008
Samali, B.; Kwok, K. C. S.; Wood, G. S.; Yang, J. N. 2004a. Wind
tunnel tests for wind-excited benchmark building, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics ASCE 130(4): 447-450.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:4(447)
Samali, B.; Mayol, E.; Kwock, K. C. S.; Mack, A.; Hitchcock, P.
2004b. Vibration Control of the Wind-Excited 76-Storey Benchmark
Building by Liquid Column Vibration Absorber, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics ASCE 130(4): 478-485.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:4(478)
Smart Stuctures Technology Laboratory (SSTL). 2002. Structural
control: Benchmark comparisons [accessed 14 May 2010]. Available from
Internet: <http://www.nd.edu/ ~quake/benh.html>.
Soong, T. T.; Dargush, G. F. 1997. Passive energy dissipation
systems in structural engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
368 p.
Varadarajan, N.; Nagarajaiah, S. 2004. Wind response control of
building with variable stiffness tuned mass damper using empirical mode
decomposition/Hilbert transform, Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE
130(4): 451-458. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:4(451)
Xu, K.; Igusa, T. 1992. Dynamic characteristics of multiple
substructures with closely spaced frequencies, Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics 21(12): 1059-1070. doi:10.1002/eqe.4290211203
Yamaguchi, H.; Harnpornachai, N. 1993. Fundamental characteristics
of multiple tuned mass dampers for suppressing harmonically forced
oscillations, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 22(1):
51-62. doi:10.1002/eqe.4290220105
Yang, J. N.; Agrawal, A. K.; Samali, B.; Wu, J.-C. 2004. Benchmark
problem for response control of wind-excited tall buildings, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics S 130(4): 437--446.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:4(437)
Veeranagouda B. Patil (1), Radhey Shyam Jangid (2)
Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai
-400076, India
E-mails: (1) vbpatil.iitb@gmailcom (corresponding author); (2)
rsjangid@civiliitb.acin
Received 24 Jun. 2010; accepted 07 Dec. 2010
Veeranagouda B. PATIL. Professor in B.V.B. College of Engineering
and Technology, Hubli, Karnataka State, India. obtained his Ph.D. degree
in Civil Engineering Department, I.I.T. Bombay, Mumbai, India. He is a
Life member of Indian concrete Institute, India. He is also a life
member of Institute of Engineers, India.
Radhey Shyam JANGID. Professor at the Department of Civil
Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India. He received
B.E. (Hons.) in Civil Engineering from the University of Jodhpur, India
in 1989, and his M. Tech. and Ph.D. in Structural Engineering from
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India in 1991 and 1993,
respectively. His research interest includes the aseismic design of
structures using active and passive control devices and the dynamic
analysis of non-classically damped systems. His recent research
contribution includes the base isolation for near-fault motions and its
application to the bridges and tanks, multiple tuned mass dampers for
vibration control and active control of torsionally coupled structures.
Table 1. Variations of optimum parameters of TMD with mass ratio for
the minimization of the performance criteria
Mass of Performance criterion optimized
TMD (Ton) [J.sub.1] [J.sub.2] [J.sub.3]
250 [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.99 0.98
([mu] = 0.16%) [[zeta].sup. 0.03 0.03 0.03
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5028 0.5001 0.6163
500 [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.98
([mu] = 0.33%) [[zeta].sup. 0.04 0.04 0.04
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.4353 0.4320 0.5715
750 [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.97
([mu] = 0.5%) [[zeta].sup. 0.06 0.06 0.05
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.4066 0.4029 0.5537
1000 [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97 0.96
([mu] = 0.66%) [[zeta].sup. 0.07 0.07 0.07
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.3883 0.3846 0.5430
1250 [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97 0.95
([mu] = 0.82%) [[zeta].sup. 0.08 0.08 0.08
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.3741 0.3702 0.5354
1500 [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97 0.95
([mu] = 1%) [[zeta].sup. 0.10 0.10 0.09
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.3619 0.3579 0.5295
1750 [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97 0.94
([mu] = 1.16%) [[zeta].sup. 0.10 0.10 0.10
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.3515 0.3474 0.5249
2000 [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97 0.94
([mu] = 1.32%) [[zeta].sup. 0.10 0.10 0.10
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.3434 0.3391 0.5249
Mass of Performance criterion optimized
TMD (Ton) [J.sub.4] [J.sub.7] [J.sub.8]
250 [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.99 1.00
([mu] = 0.16%) [[zeta].sup. 0.03 0.03 0.02
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.6181 0.4911 0.5087
500 [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.97 0.98
([mu] = 0.33%) [[zeta].sup. 0.04 0.06 0.07
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5735 0.4434 0.4702
750 [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.94 0.95
([mu] = 0.5%) [[zeta].sup. 0.05 0.09 0.09
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5559 0.4280 0.4546
1000 [f.sup.opt] 0.96 0.92 0.94
([mu] = 0.66%) [[zeta].sup. 0.07 0.10 0.10
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5453 0.4175 0.4479
1250 [f.sup.opt] 0.96 0.92 0.94
([mu] = 0.82%) [[zeta].sup. 0.08 0.10 0.10
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5377 0.4175 0.4438
1500 [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.91 0.93
([mu] = 1%) [[zeta].sup. 0.09 0.10 0.10
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5318 0.4126 0.4353
1750 [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.91 0.91
([mu] = 1.16%) [[zeta].sup. 0.10 0.10 0.10
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5272 0.4118 0.4256
2000 [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.91 0.91
([mu] = 1.32%) [[zeta].sup. 0.10 0.10 0.10
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5234 0.4157 0.4193
Performance
Mass of criterion optimized
TMD (Ton) [J.sub.9] [J.sub.10]
250 [f.sup.opt] 1.00 1.00
([mu] = 0.16%) [[zeta].sup. 0.01 0.01
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.6915 0.6916
500 [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97
([mu] = 0.33%) [[zeta].sup. 0.02 0.02
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.6072 0.6135
750 [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.95
([mu] = 0.5%) [[zeta].sup. 0.05 0.04
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5987 0.6002
1000 [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.94
([mu] = 0.66%) [[zeta].sup. 0.06 0.05
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5789 0.5864
1250 [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.94
([mu] = 0.82%) [[zeta].sup. 0.06 0.06
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5770 0.5852
1500 [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.93
([mu] = 1%) [[zeta].sup. 0.06 0.07
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5834 0.5868
1750 [f.sup.opt] 0.92 0.92
([mu] = 1.16%) [[zeta].sup. 0.05 0.06
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5864 0.5902
2000 [f.sup.opt] 0.91 0.91
([mu] = 1.32%) [[zeta].sup. 0.07 0.07
opt.sub.T]
[J.sup.opt] 0.5872 0.5889
Table 2. Performance criteria of TMD and MTMD
[mu] = 1%
[DELTA]K = +15% [DELTA]K = -0% [DELTA]K = -15%
Performance
criteria
minimize N = 1 N = 5 N = 1 N = 5 N = 1 N = 5
[J.sub.1] 0.3542 0.3600 0.3619 0.3558 0.3855 0.3649
[J.sub.2] 0.3504 0.3566 0.3579 0.3511 0.3806 0.3596
[J.sub.3] 0.4565 0.4503 0.5295 0.5267 0.6499 0.6313
[J.sub.4] 0.4583 0.4526 0.5318 0.5289 0.6524 0.6340
[J.sub.7] 0.4170 0.4021 0.4126 0.3790 0.4260 0.3995
[J.sub.8] 0.4470 0.4140 0.4353 0.4056 0.4384 0.4151
[J.sub.9] 0.5627 0.5496 0.5834 0.5714 0.6955 0.6861
[J.sub.10] 0.5698 0.5547 0.5868 0.5778 0.7035 0.6879
Table 3. Variations of optimum parameters with the number of dampers
in MTMD for the minimization of the performance criterion [J.sup.1]
Mass of N 1 3 5
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.03 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.5028 0.4956 0.4813
500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 1.0 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.04 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.4353 0.4294 0.4298
750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.06 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.4066 0.4069 0.4058
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.2
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.98 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.07 0.06 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3883 0.3884 0.3862
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.2
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.08 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3741 0.3703 0.3701
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.1 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3619 0.3549 0.3558
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.1 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3515 0.3425 0.3418
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.1 0.06 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3434 0.3329 0.3310
Mass of N 7 9 11
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.4807 0.4807 0.4806
500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.4297 0.4298 0.4299
750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.04 0.05 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.4058 0.4058 0.4057
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.2 0.2 0.2
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.04 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3878 0.3879 0.3879
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3648 0.3684 0.3666
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3485 0.3522 0.3505
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.02 0.03 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3371 0.3396 0.3396
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sup.T] 0.03 0.03 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.1] 0.3286 0.3298 0.3298
Table 4. Variations of optimum parameters with the number of dampers
in MTMD for the minimization of the performance criterion [J.sub.2]
Mass of N 1 3 5
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta.sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.03 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.T] 0.5001 0.4928 0.4787
500 [[beta.sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.T] 0.4320 0.4258 0.4264
750 [[beta.sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.T] 0.4029 0.4034 0.4022
1000 [[beta.sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.2
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9700 0.98 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.0700 0.06 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.T] 0.3846 0.3846 0.3823
1250 [[beta.sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.2
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.08 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.T] 0.3702 0.3660 0.3659
1500 [[beta.sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9700 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1000 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.T] 0.3579 0.3504 0.3511
1750 [[beta.sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.T] 0.3474 0.3378 0.3369
2000 [[beta.sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9700 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1000 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.T] 0.3391 0.3281 0.3259
Mass of 7 9 11
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.4781 0.4780 0.4779
500 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.4262 0.4263 0.4265
750 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.04 0.05 0.05
0.4022 0.4022 0.4021
1000 0.2 0.2 0.2
([mu] = 0.66%) 1 1 1
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.3839 0.3840 0.3841
1250 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 0.82%) 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.3603 0.3642 0.3624
1500 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1%) 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.3437 0.3477 0.3460
1750 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1.16%) 1 1 1
0.02 0.03 0.03
0.3320 0.3348 0.3348
2000 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1.32%) 1 1 1
0.03 0.03 0.03
0.3235 0.3249 0.3249
Table 5. Variations of optimum parameters with the number of dampers
in MTMD for the minimization of the performance criterion [J.sub.3]
Mass of N 1 3 5
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9800 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.0300 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.6163 0.6120 0.6008
500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9800 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.0400 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5715 0.5683 0.5677
750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9700 0.96 0.97
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.0500 0.03 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5537 0.5510 0.5513
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9600 0.96 0.96
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.0700 0.05 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5430 0.5409 0.5412
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.2
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.95 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.08 0.06 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5354 0.5340 0.5342
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9500 0.99 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.0900 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5295 0.5272 0.5267
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5249 0.5215 0.5194
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.98 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1000 0.04 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5249 0.5215 0.5194
Mass of N 7 9 11
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.6006 0.6006 0.6006
500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.03 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5677 0.5676 0.5675
750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97 0.97
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5515 0.5516 0.5517
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.3
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.96 0.96 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.05 0.05 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5414 0.5415 0.5412
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5301 0.5315 0.5304
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.98 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5219 0.5227 0.5230
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5170 0.5168 0.5168
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.03 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5170 0.5168 0.5168
Table 6. Variations of optimum parameters with the number of dampers
in MTMD for the minimization of the performance criterion [J.sup.4]
Mass of N 1 3 5
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.03 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.6181 0.6137 0.6027
500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5735 0.5702 0.5697
750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.96 0.97
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.05 0.03 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5559 0.5534 0.5535
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.96 0.96 0.96
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.07 0.05 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5453 0.5433 0.5435
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.2
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9600 0.96 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.0800 0.06 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5377 0.5364 0.5364
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.99 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.09 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5318 0.5295 0.5289
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
[mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5272 0.5237 0.5218
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.3 0.3
[mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9400 0.98 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1000 0.04 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5234 0.5187 0.5166
Mass of N 7 9 11
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.6025 0.6025 0.6025
500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.03 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5697 0.5697 0.5696
750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97 0.97
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5537 0.5538 0.5539
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.3
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.96 0.96 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.05 0.05 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5437 0.5439 0.5436
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5324 0.5339 0.5329
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.98 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5242 0.5252 0.5254
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
[mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5192 0.5194 0.5194
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.3 0.3
[mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.03 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.4] 0.5160 0.5155 0.5155
Table 7. Variations of optimum parameters with the number of dampers
in MTMD for the minimization of the performance criterion [J.sub.7]
Mass of N 1 3 5
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.03 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4911 0.5149 0.4964
500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.98 0.96
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.02 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4434 0.4433 0.4388
750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.2
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.94 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.09 0.07 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4280 0.4228 0.4203
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.3
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.92 0.92 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.10 0.1 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4175 0.4145 0.4099
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.3
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.92 0.91 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1 0.09 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4175 0.4107 0.3945
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.4 0.4
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 0.97 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1 0.06 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4126 0.4062 0.3790
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.4 0.4
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 0.97 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1 0.08 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4118 0.4026 0.3763
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.5 0.5
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 0.96 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.10 0.07 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4157 0.3983 0.3703
Mass of N 7 9 11
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4915 0.4924 0.4903
500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.97 0.97
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4396 0.4401 0.4403
750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.2 0.1 0.2
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.94 0.94
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.08 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4257 0.4248 0.4225
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.3 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.91 0.91
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.1 0.1
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.4120 0.4132 0.4132
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.4 0.4 0.2
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 0.91
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.02 0.1
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.3897 0.4017 0.4108
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.4 0.4 0.5
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.99 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.3744 0.3931 0.3990
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.4 0.5 0.5
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.3769 0.3753 0.3753
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.5 0.5 0.5
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.7] 0.3749 0.3655 0.3655
Table 8. Variations of optimum parameters with the number of dampers
in MTMD for the minimization of the performance criterion [J.sub.8]
Mass of N 1 3 5
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 1 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.5087 0.5141 0.4760
500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.07 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4702 0.4632 0.4634
750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.2 0.2
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.95 1 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.09 0.02 0.06
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4546 0.4425 0.4503
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.3 0.3
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.10 0.03 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4479 0.4344 0.4351
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.3 0.4
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 1 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.10 0.05 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4438 0.4292 0.4230
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.4 0.5
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.93 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.10 0.06 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4353 0.4249 0.4056
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.4 0.5
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1 0.08 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4256 0.4183 0.3943
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.4 0.5
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.1000 0.08 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4193 0.4135 0.3917
Mass of N 7 9 11
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 0.99 0.99
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4832 0.4808 0.4794
500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4642 0.4646 0.4648
750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.2 0.2 0.2
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.95 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.07 0.07
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4498 0.4500 0.4499
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.2 0.2 0.2
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.93 0.93 0.93
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.09 0.09 0.09
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4389 0.4387 0.4388
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.4 0.4 0.4
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.03 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4299 0.4281 0.4314
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.4 0.5 0.5
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 1 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.03 0.02 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4202 0.4217 0.4233
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.5 0.5 0.5
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4087 0.4081 0.4081
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.5 0.5 0.5
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.99 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.8] 0.4046 0.3996 0.3996
Table 9. Variations of optimum parameters with the number of dampers
in MTMD for the minimization of the performance criterion [J.sup.9]
Mass of N 1 3 5
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 1.00 0.97 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.6915 0.6765 0.6743
500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.96 0.96
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.6072 0.5957 0.5944
750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.96 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.05 0.02 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5987 0.5746 0.5772
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.95 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.03 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5789 0.5714 0.5747
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.94 0.94
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5770 0.5717 0.5695
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.3 0.1
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 1 0.93
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.02 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5834 0.5724 0.5714
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.4 0.1
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.92 1 0.91
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.05 0.02 0.07
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5864 0.5546 0.5774
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.4 0.1
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 1 0.91
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.07 0.02 0.06
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5872 0.5736 0.5887
Mass of N 7 9 11
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.6598 0.6636 0.6645
500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.96 0.96 0.96
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5978 0.5989 0.5996
750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.2 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.96 0.95 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5820 0.5848 0.5847
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.94 0.94
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.05 0.05 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5745 0.5742 0.5740
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.94 0.94
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.04 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5688 0.5699 0.5696
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.93 0.93 0.93
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.05 0.05 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5713 0.5713 0.5713
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.92 0.92 0.92
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.06 0.06
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5754 0.5740 0.5740
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 0.91 0.91
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.06 0.06
[J.sup.opt.sub.9] 0.5861 0.5848 0.5848
Table 10. Variations of optimum parameters with the number of dampers
in MTMD for the minimization of the performance criterion [J.sub.10]
Mass of N 1 3 5
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] -- 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 1.00 0.97 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.6916 0.6849 0.6797
500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.97 0.96 0.96
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.6135 0.6012 0.5999
750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.96 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.02 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.6002 0.5816 0.5829
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.95 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.0500 0.03 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5864 0.5787 0.5773
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.94 0.94 0.94
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5852 0.5786 0.5765
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.5 0.1
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.93 0.99 0.93
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.07 0.02 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5868 0.5751 0.5778
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.4 0.1
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.92 1 0.91
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.02 0.07
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5902 0.5623 0.5852
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.4 0.5
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 1 1
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.07 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5889 0.5817 0.5941
Mass of N 7 9 11
MTMD/TMD
(Ton)
250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.98 0.98 0.98
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.01 0.01 0.01
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.6668 0.6706 0.6715
500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.33%) [f.sup.opt] 0.96 0.96 0.96
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.02 0.02 0.02
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.6034 0.6047 0.6055
750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.5%) [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.95 0.95
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.03 0.03 0.03
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5844 0.5858 0.5869
1000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 0.66%) [f.sup.opt] 0.95 0.94 0.94
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.03 0.05 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5799 0.5812 0.5810
1250 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1000 0.1
([mu] = 0.82%) [f.sup.opt] 0.9400 0.94 0.94
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.04 0.04 0.04
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5758 0.5757 0.5760
1500 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 1%) [f.sup.opt] 0.93 0.93 0.93
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.05 0.05 0.05
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5777 0.5777 0.5777
1750 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 1.16%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 0.92 0.92
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.07 0.06 0.06
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5844 0.5832 0.5832
2000 [[beta].sup.opt] 0.1 0.1 0.1
([mu] = 1.32%) [f.sup.opt] 0.91 0.91 0.91
[[zeta].sup.opt.sub.T] 0.06 0.06 0.06
[J.sup.opt.sub.3] 0.5953 0.5940 0.5940