Seismic effectiveness and robustness of tuned mass dampers versus nonlinear energy sinks in a lifecycle cost perspective

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.

A review on nonlinear energy sinks: designs, analysis and applications of impact and rotary types

“…The performance of the track SSVI NES in [132] was found outperforming the TMD performance in the considered 2-story lab structure subjected to various intensity impulsive and seismic excitation inputs. However, compared with stiffnessbased Type I NES, the TMD stays more efficient in seismic mitigation [254]. In the DSVI NES, the linear coupling element was replaced by a nonlinear cubic restoring element in [255] to broaden the efficient energy absorption range of VI NESs.…”

Optimal design and assessment of tuned mass damper inerter with nonlinear viscous damper in seismically excited multi-storey buildings

“…Ricciardelli and Vickery 1999;Bagheri and Rahmani-Dabbagh 2018) and nonlinear connection elements (e.g. Lu et al 2018;Matta 2021), among various alternatives. Still, such approaches increase the complexity of TMD tuning, design, and installation without necessarily reducing requirements for accommodating large additive secondary masses.…”