Tuned Mass Dampers in Tall Buildings: A Practical Performance-Based Design Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) are increasingly being used to reduce the motion of tall buildings during common wind events. Despite TMDs receiving extensive theoretical research for many decades, dissemination of the practical aspects of designing and installing these devices is severely lacking. Since they are relatively new to the high-rise construction industry, TMD installations may be viewed by design and construction teams as having considerable risk. This paper describes the process of implementing a TMD in a tall building to demystify the devices for practicing structural engineers, architects, general contractors, and owners. It is hoped that this demystification will help these parties understand and control the real and perceived risks associated with TMD implementations. Since prescriptive, code-based procedures are unsuitable for TMD design, a performance-based design approach must be used to ensure the TMD attains specified performance objectives. The TMD implementation process is described in four phases: concept design, detailed design, fabrication and installation, and tuning and commissioning. This paper does not present new theoretical or experimental research but instead provides a broad, practical overview of real-world TMD installations for practitioners. The content of this paper has been obtained from the design and installation of dozens of TMDs in tall buildings around the world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it