Abstract

Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) and nonlinear energy sinks (NESs) are two viable options for passively absorbing structural vibrations. In seismic applications, a trade-off exists in their performance, because TMDs’ effectiveness varies with the structural stiffness while NESs’ effectiveness varies with the earthquake intensity. To investigate this trade-off systematically, a lifecycle cost- (LCC-) oriented robust analysis and design method is here proposed, in which the effectiveness of a solution is measured by the reduction it entails in the expected cost of future seismic losses. In it, structural stiffness variability is modelled using a worst-case approach with lower and upper bounds, while seismic intensity variability is inherently captured by the incremental dynamic analyses underlying every LCC evaluation. The resulting worst-case lifetime cost provides a rational metric for discussing pros and cons of TMDs and NESs, and becomes the objective function for their robust optimization. The method is applied to the design of TMDs and NESs on a variety of single- and multi-story linear building models, located in a moderate-to-high seismic hazard region. Mass ratios from 1 to 10% and structural stiffness reductions up to 4 times are considered. Results show that TMDs are consistently more effective than NESs even in the presence of large stiffness reductions, provided that structural stiffness uncertainty is considered in design. They also show that a conventional robust H∞ design provides for TMDs a solution which is very close to that obtained by minimizing the proposed LCC metric.

Highlights

  • Dynamic vibration absorbers (DVAs) are passive control devices widely used in vibration mitigation of civil structures (Housner et al 1997)

  • Co∗pt obtained for the Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) is 0.90 times the value obtained for the nonlinear energy sinks (NESs)

  • If d = 4 were a credible option, this value might be incorporated in the design, and the grey bands would move even further to the right. These results definitely prove that, in all the cases examined in this paper, the TMD is more convenient than the NES for seismic purposes, even under large fluctuations of the structural stiffness

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Dynamic vibration absorbers (DVAs) are passive control devices widely used in vibration mitigation of civil structures (Housner et al 1997). Seismic applications are less common, mainly because the efficacy of passive absorption diminishes with the impulsiveness of the input and with the excursions of the. Considerable effort has been made in the last decades to assess the seismic effectiveness of DVAs and to enhance it through improving existing types of device and their optimal design criteria (Luo et al 2014a; Greco et al 2016; Lu et al 2018; Matta 2019a). A DVA is a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) mass-spring-damper system appended to the primary structure. Driven by the motion of its structural support, the DVA absorbs vibration energy from the structure and locally dissipates it. Various types of DVA exist, characterized by different types of spring and damper components

Objectives
Results
Conclusion

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.