SpringerLink
Log in

Ranking of design scenarios of TMD for seismically excited structures using TOPSIS

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, design scenarios of a tuned mass damper (TMD) for seismically excited structures are ranked. Accordingly, 10 design scenarios in two cases, namely unconstrained and constrained for the maximum TMD, are considered in this study. A free search of the TMD parameters is performed using a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm for optimum tuning of TMD parameters. Furthermore, nine criteria are adopted with respect to functional, operational, and economic views. A technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is utilized for ranking the adopted design scenarios of TMD. Numerical studies are conducted on a 10-story building equipped with TMD. Simulation results indicate that the minimization of the maximum story displacement is the optimum design scenario of TMD for the seismic-excited structure in the unconstrained case for the maximum TMD stroke. Furthermore, H2 of the displacement vector of the structure exhibited optimum ranking among the adopted design scenarios in the constrained case for the maximum TMD stroke. The findings of this study can be useful and important in the optimum design of TMD parameters with respect to functional, operational, and economic perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Den Hartog J P. Mechanical Vibrations. New York: Courier Corporation, 1985

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson A G. Optimum tuning and dam** of a dynamic vibration absorber applied to a force excited and damped primary system. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1981, 77(3): 403–415

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Warburton G B. Optimum absorber parameters for various combinations of response and excitation parameters. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1982, 10(3): 381–401

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bakre S V, Jangid R S. Optimum parameters of tuned mass damper for damped main system. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2007, 14(3): 448–470

    Google Scholar 

  5. Leung A Y T, Zhang H. Particle swarm optimization of tuned mass dampers. Engineering Structures, 2009, 31(3): 715–728

    Google Scholar 

  6. Salvi J, Rizzi E. A numerical approach towards best tuning of Tuned Mass Dampers. In: The 25th International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering. Leuven, 2010, 17–19: 2419–2434

    Google Scholar 

  7. Etedali S, Mollayi N. Cuckoo search-based least squares support vector machine models for optimum tuning of tuned mass dampers. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 2018, 18(2): 1850028

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Narmashiri K, Hosseini-Tabatabai S M T. An energy dissipation device for earthquake/wind resistant buildings. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2013

  9. Giuliano F. Note on the paper “Optimum parameters of tuned liquid column-gas damper for mitigation of seismic-induced vibrations of offshore jacket platforms” by Seyed Amin Mousavi, Khosrow Bargi, and Seyed Mehdi Zahrai. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2013, 20(5): 852

    Google Scholar 

  10. Farshidianfar A, Soheili S. Ant colony optimization of tuned mass dampers for earthquake oscillations of high-rise structures including soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 51: 14–22

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kaveh A, Mohammadi S, Hosseini O K, Keyhani A, Kalatjari V R. Optimum parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic applications using charged system search. Civil Engineering (Shiraz), 2015, 39(C1): 21–40

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang H Y, Zhang L J. Tuned mass damper system of high-rise intake towers optimized by improved harmony search algorithm. Engineering Structures, 2017, 138: 270–282

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nigdeli S M, Bekdaş G, Yang X S. Optimum tuning of mass dampers by using a hybrid method using harmony search and flower pollination algorithm. In: International Conference on Harmony Search Algorithm. Singapore: Springer, 2017, 222–231

  14. Bekdas G, Nigdeli S M, Yang X S. A novel bat algorithm based optimum tuning of mass dampers for improving the seismic safety of structures. Engineering Structures, 2018, 159: 89–98

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yucel M, Bekdaş G, Nigdeli S M, Sevgen S. Estimation of optimum tuned mass damper parameters via machine learning. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019, 26: 100847

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nigdeli S M, Bekdas G. Optimum tuned mass damper approaches for adjacent structures. Earthquakes and Structures, 2014, 7(6): 1071–1091

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nigdeli S M, Bekdas G. Optimum design of multiple positioned tuned mass dampers for structures constrained with axial force capacity. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2019, 28(5): e1593

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lu Z, Li K, Ouyang Y, Shan J. Performance-based optimal design of tuned impact damper for seismically excited nonlinear building. Engineering Structures, 2018, 160: 314–327

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bekdaş G, Nigdeli S M. Metaheuristic based optimization of tuned mass dampers under earthquake excitation by considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 92: 443–461

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jabary R N, Madabhushi S P G. Structure-soil-structure interaction effects on structures retrofitted with tuned mass dampers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 100: 301–315

    Google Scholar 

  21. Etedali S, Seifi M, Akbari M. A numerical study on optimal FTMD parameters considering soil-structure interaction effects. Geome-chanics and Engineering, 2018, 16(5): 527–538

    Google Scholar 

  22. Salvi J, Pioldi F, Rizzi E. Optimum tuned mass dampers under seismic soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 114: 576–597

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shahi M, Sohrabi M R, Etedali S. Seismic control of high-rise buildings equipped with ATMD including soil-structure interaction effects. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 2018, 12(3): 1850010

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nazarimofrad E, Zahrai S M. Fuzzy control of asymmetric plan buildings with active tuned mass damper considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 115: 838–852

    Google Scholar 

  25. Etedali S, Akbari M, Seifi M. MOCS-based optimum design of TMD and FTMD for tall buildings under near-field earthquakes including SSI effects. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 119: 36–50

    Google Scholar 

  26. Etedali S. A new modified independent modal space control approach toward control of seismic-excited structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 15(10): 4215–4243

    Google Scholar 

  27. Etedali S, Rakhshani H. Optimum design of tuned mass dampers using multi-objective cuckoo search for buildings under seismic excitations. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 2018, 57(4): 3205–3218

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sadek F, Mohraz B, Taylor A W, Chung R M. A method of estimating the parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic applications. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1997, 26(6): 617–635

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hadi M N, Arfiadi Y. Optimum design of absorber for MDOF structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1998, 124(11): 1272–1280

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lee C L, Chen Y T, Chung L L, Wang Y P. Optimal design theories and applications of tuned mass dampers. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28(1): 43–53

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nigdeli S M, Bekdaş G. Optimum tuned mass damper design in frequency domain for structures. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2017, 21(3): 912–922

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bekdas G, Kayabekir A E, Nigdeli S M, Toklu Y C. Transfer function amplitude minimization for structures with tuned mass dampers considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 116: 552–562

    Google Scholar 

  33. Heidari A H, Etedali S, Javaheri-Tafti M R. A hybrid LQR-PID control design for seismic control of buildings equipped with ATMD. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2018, 12(1): 44–57

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zavadskas E K, Suūinskas S, Daniūnas A, Turskis Z, Sivilevičius H. Multiple criteria selection of pile-column construction technology. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2012, 18(6): 834–842

    Google Scholar 

  35. Caterino N, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Multi-criteria decision making for seismic retrofitting of RC structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2008, 12(4): 555–583

    Google Scholar 

  36. Caterino N, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2009, 24(6): 432–445

    Google Scholar 

  37. Billah A M, Alam M S. Performance-based prioritisation for seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge bent. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2014, 10(8): 929–949

    Google Scholar 

  38. Formisano A, Mazzolani F M. On the selection by MCDM methods of the optimal system for seismic retrofitting and vertical addition of existing buildings. Computers & Structures, 2015, 159: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  39. Terracciano G, Di Lorenzo G, Formisano A, Landolfo R. Cold-formed thin-walled steel structures as vertical addition and energetic retrofitting systems of existing masonry buildings. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2015, 19(7): 850–866

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kennedy J. Particle swarm optimization. Encyclopedia of Machine Learning. New York: Springer, 2010, 760–766

    Google Scholar 

  41. Shi Y. Particle swarm optimization: developments, applications and resources. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Seoul, 2001, 1: 81–86

    Google Scholar 

  42. Shi Y, Eberhart R. A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings. IEEE, 1998, 69–73

  43. Hwang C L, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. New York: Springer, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sianaki O A. Intelligent decision support system for energy management in demand response programs and residential and industrial sectors of the smart grid. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Perth: Curtin University, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shannon C E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 1948, 27(3): 379–423

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 2012, 39(17): 13051–13069

    Google Scholar 

  47. FEMA P-695. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  48. Keshtegar B, Etedali S. Nonlinear mathematical modeling and optimum design of tuned mass dampers using adaptive dynamic harmony search algorithm. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2018, 25(7): e2163

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, 97175-569, Iran

    Sadegh Etedali

Authors
  1. Sadegh Etedali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sadegh Etedali.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Etedali, S. Ranking of design scenarios of TMD for seismically excited structures using TOPSIS. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 14, 1372–1386 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0671-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0671-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation