Optimum design and evaluation of tuned mass damper performance in nonlinear structures according to FEMA-P58

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

3 Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Univerity of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

Abstract

In this paper, a new and efficient performance-based method is introduced for the optimal design of the tuned mass damper (TMD) to control the response of nonlinear structures. In this method, the FEMA-P58 probabilistic evaluation framework is used in the design and evaluation of TMD performance in order to reduce the repair cost and time caused by structural and non-structural damages. For this purpose, an innovative objective function has been defined based on structural responses resulting from different earthquakes, which is compatible with the probability of the repair cost and time exceeding a certain value in the FEMA-P58 method. Uncertainties due to earthquake records are directly considered in the introduced objective function. The genetic algorithm is used for the optimal design of TMD based on the proposed objective function. Also, due to the fact that considering the uncertainties in the input earthquake records leads to increasing the calculation time, therefore the artificial neural network technique is used as a fast estimator of the nonlinear dynamic response of the structure to reduce the calculation time. The probabilistic evaluation of the performance of the structure equipped with the proposed TMD shows the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed design procedure in reducing the expected repair cost and time. So that the expected repair cost and time in the structure equipped with the proposed TMD under the design earthquake have been reduced by about 29% compared to the uncontrolled structure.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Yang, F. Sedaghati, and R. Esmailzadeh, and E. (2022). Vibration suppression of structures using tuned mass damper technology: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Vibration and Control, 28 (7-8), 812-836. doi:10.1177/1077546320984305.
[2] Rahimi, F. and Aghayari, R. and Samali, B. (2020). Application of Tuned Mass Dampers for Structural Vibration Control: A State-of-the-art Review. Civil Engineering Journal, 6, 1622-1651. doi:10.28991/cej-2020-03091571.
[3] Spencer, BF. and Nagarajaiah, S. (2003). State of the Art of Structural Control. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 129 (7), 845–856.  doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:7(845).
[4] Jin, C., Chung, W. C., Kwon, D. S., & Kim, M. (2021). Optimization of tuned mass damper for seismic control of submerged floating tunnel. Engineering Structures, 241, 112460.
[5] Den Hartog, J.P. (1956). Mechanical Vibration. 4th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 86-93.
[6] Warburtun, G.B. (1982). Optimum absorbers Parameters for various combinations of response and excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10(3), 381-401.
[7] Villaverde, R. and Koyama, L.A. (1993). Damped resonant appendages to increase inherent damping in buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22(6), 491-507.
[8] Sadek, F. and Mohraz, B. and Taylor, A.W. and Chung, R.M. (1997). A Method of Estimating the Parameters of Tuned Mass Dampers for Seismic Applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 26(6), 617–635.
[9] Joghataie, A. and Mohebi, M. (2007). Design and Assesment of Optimal TMDs for Nonlinear Structures Under Earthquakes. In 10th World Conference on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibrations Control of Structures. Istanbul.
[10] Mohebbi, M. and Joghataie, A. (2012). Designing optimal tuned mass dampers for nonlinear frames by distributed genetic algorithms. Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 21(1), 57-76.
[11] Kaveh, A., Javadi, S. M., & Moghanni, R. M. (2020). Optimal structural control of tall buildings using tuned mass dampers via chaotic optimization algorithm. Structures 28, 2704-2713.
[12] Soheili, S., Zoka, H., & Abachizadeh, M. (2021). Tuned mass dampers for the drift reduction of structures with soil effects using ant colony optimization. Advances in Structural Engineering, 24(4), 771-783.
[13] Zuo, H., Bi, K., Hao, H., & Ma, R. (2021). Influences of ground motion parameters and structural damping on the optimum design of inerter-based tuned mass dampers. Engineering Structures, 227, 111422.
[14] Fahimi Farzam, M., Charkhtab Basim, M., & Maroofiazar, R. (2022). Efficiency and Robustness of Optimally Designed Tuned Mass Dampers for Mid-and High-Rise Buildings Under Far and Near-Field Earthquakes. Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies, 1-21.
[15] Papadimitriou, C. and Katafygiotis, L.S. and Au, S.K. (1997). Effects of structural uncertainties on TMD design: a reliability-based approach. Journal of Structural Control, 4(1), 65–88.
[16] Chakraborty, S. and Roy, B.K. (2011). Reliability based optimum design of tuned mass damper in seismic vibration control of structures with bounded uncertain parameters. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics. 26(2), 215–221.
[17] Yu, H. and Gillot, F. and Ichchou, M. (2013). Reliability based robust design optimization for tuned mass damper in passive vibration control of deterministic/uncertain structures. Sound and Vibration, 332(9), 2222–2238.
[18] Bakhshinezhad, S and Mohebbi, M. (2021). Multiple failure function based fragility curves for structures equipped with TMD. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. 20. 471-482. 10.1007/s11803-021-2032-9.
[19] Shakeri, K. and Mohebbi, M. and Alizadeh, G. (2015). Optimal Tuned Mass Damper for Nonlinear Structure under Different Earthquakes. Computational Methods in Engineering, 34, 45-62. Doi: 10.18869/acadpub.jcme.34.1.45
.[20] Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2018). FEMA P-58-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 - Methodology. California: Washington, D.C.
[21] Kiureghian, A.D. (2005).  Non-ergodicity and PEER's framework formula. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(13), 1643-1652. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.504.
[22] Steneker, P. and Filiatrault, A. and Wiebe, L. and Konstantinidis, D. (2020). Integrated Structural-Nonstructural Performance Based Seismic Design and Retrofit Optimization of Buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 146(8), DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002680
[23] Filiatrault, A. and Perrone, D. and Merino, R.J. and Calvi, G.M. (2021). Performance-Based Seismic Design of Nonstructural Building Elements. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 25(2), 237-269.
[24] Pengzhen, L. and Chen, S. and Zheng, Y. (2012). Artificial Intelligence in Civil Engineering. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2012(145974). https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/145974.
[25] Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2018). Building the performance you need: A guide to state-of-the-art tools for seismic design and assessment: FEMA P-58-7. California: Washington, D.C.
[26] Applied Technology Council. (1985). Earthquake damage evaluation data for california: ATC-13. Redwood City, California: Washington, D.C.
[27] Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1992).  A benefit-cost model for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings-volume 1: a user’s manual: FEMA-227. California: Washington, D.C.
[28] Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Division. (2013). Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology-earthquake model: HAZUS-MH-2.1, technical manual. California: Washington, D.C.
[29] American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). ASCE/SEI 41-17. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.
[30] Hamburger, R.O. (2006). The ATC-58 project: development of next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering design criteria for buildings. In: Structures Congress 2006. Missouri, United States: Public Saf, 1–8.
[31] FEMA. P-58-2. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 2 - Implementation Guide. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2018.
[32] Yang, T.Y. and Moehle, J. and Stojadinovic, B. and Der Kiureghian, A. (2009). Seismic Performance Evaluation of Facilities: Methodology and Implementation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(10), 1146–1154. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2009)135:10.
[33] Mirfarhadi, S.A. and Estekanchi, H.E. and Sarcheshmehpour, M. (2020). On optimal proportions of structural member cross-sections to achieve best seismic performance using value based seismic design approach. Engineering structures, 231(3), DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111751.
[34] Kumar, V. and Chhabra, J.K. and Kumar, D. (2014). Parameter adaptive harmony search algorithm for unimodal and multimodal optimization problems. Journal of Computational Science, 5(2), 144–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocs.2013.12.001.
[35] Bonabeau, E. and Dorigo, M. and Theraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm intelligence: from natural to artificial systems. New York: Oxford University Press, 307.
[36] Michalewicz, Z. (1996) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[37] Shakeri, K., Shayanfar, M. A., & Moghadam, A. S. (2007, June). An efficient method for optimum combination of modes required for pushover analysis. In Proceedings of the ninth Canadian conference on earthquake engineering.
[38] Ahadi, P., Mohebbi, M., & Shakeri, K. (2012). Using optimal multiple tuned liquid column dampers for mitigating the seismic response of structures. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2012.
[39] Shakeri, K. (2013). Optimum weighted mode combination for nonlinear static analysis of structures. International Journal of Optimization in Civil Engineeringc, 3(2), 259-270.‎
[40] Mohebbi, M., Shakeri, K., Ghanbarpour, Y., & Majzoub, H. (2013). Designing optimal multiple tuned mass dampers using genetic algorithms (GAs) for mitigating the seismic response of structures. Journal of Vibration and Control, 19(4), 605-625.
[41] Mohebbi, M., Dabbagh, H. R., Moradpour, S., Shakeri, K., & Tarbali, K. (2015). DGA-based approach for optimal design of active mass damper for nonlinear structures considering ground motion effect. Smart Materials and Structures, 24(4), 045017.
[42] McCulloch, W. and Pitts, W. (1943). A Logical Calculus of Ideas Immanentin Nervous Activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics,  5, 115-133.
[43] Broomhead, D.S. and Lowe, D. (1988). Multivariable Functional Interpolation and Adaptive Networks. Complex Systems, 2, 321-355.
[44] MathWorks, (2012). Bioinformatics Toolbox: User's Guide (R2012a). Available at:  https://www.mathworks.com/help/deeplearning/ug/radial-basis-neural-networks.html
[45] Han, H. and Chen, Q. and Qiao, J. (2010). Research on an online self-organizing radial basis function neural network. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 19, 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-009-0323-6.
[46] McKenna, F. and Fenves, G.L. and Scott, M.H. (2006). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
[47] Gupta, A. and Krawinkler, H. (1999). Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures. Stanford: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, 132 , 342-359.
[48] Shin, H. and Singh, M.P. (2017). Minimum life-cycle cost-based optimal design of yielding metallic devices for seismic loads. Engineering Structures, 144(1), 174–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.04.054.
[49] Shakeri, K., Khansoltani, E., & Pessiki, S. (2018). Ground motion scaling for seismic response analysis by considering inelastic response and contribution of the higher modes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 110, 70-85.
[50] Shakeri, K., Khansoltani, E. (2019). Scaling of ground motion records based on the nonlinear behavior of structures. Sharif Journal of Civil Engineering, 34-2(4.1), 55-68.
[51] Somerville PG, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. (1997). Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. SAC background document, report no. SAC/BD 97/04.
Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 8 - Serial Number 73
November 2023
Pages 111-140

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 31 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 04 December 2022
  • Accept Date: 16 January 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics