Abstract
Inertial mass controllers, including passive, semi-active and active strategies, have been extensively used for canceling human-induced vibrations in lightweight pedestrian structures. Codes to check the vibration serviceability and current controller design approaches assume that both excitation forces and controller forces are the same on a flexible structure and on a rigid structure. However, this fact may not be assumable since interaction phenomena arise even for moderately lightweight structures. Analyzing two case studies in this paper, interaction phenomena involved in the frequency-domain-based design of passive and active inertial mass dampers are discussed. Thus, a general vibration control problem including the interaction phenomena is set hereby. Concretely, this paper deeply discusses the following issues: (i) how the structure to be controlled is affected when human-structure interaction is presented for deterministic and stochastic conditions, (ii) the closed-loop transfer function of the controlled structure including a passive inertial mass damper, and (iii) the closed-loop transfer function of the controlled structure including an active inertial mass damper. In addition, the performed analysis considers the actuator dynamics and the actuator-structure interaction.
Highlights
Inertial vibration controllers have been extensively used for canceling human-induced vibrations
Most of the applications are based on the so-called Tuned Vibration Absorber (TVA) (Elias and Matsagar, 2017), which is an inertial vibration controller working passively
This paper takes a coupled human-structure model, which is convenient for practical applications, and studies theoretically and numerically the interaction phenomena presented when dealing with the control of humaninduced vibration in very lightweight structures
Summary
Inertial vibration controllers have been extensively used for canceling human-induced vibrations. In this plot, CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function) curves of the H∞ norm for the set of 1000 stochastic samples are presented. The latter value has been chosen according to the analysis carried out in Section “Real Actuator Without HIS.”. The selection of the control gain value should represent a trade-off between overall structural damping and punctual response at the resonant frequency associated to actuator In this case, HSI is omitted but the full ASI is accounted for (see Eq 22). The incorporation of the latter in the studied FRP footbridge leads to a much larger overall reduction of the H∞ norm
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
