Semi-active seismic control of an 11-DOF building model with TMD+MR damper using type-1 and -2 fuzzy algorithms

Abstract

Nowadays, vibration control of structures is considered as a challenging field among scientists and engineers. Structural damage and financial losses due to recent earthquakes in different countries have more than ever before accentuated the importance of controlling earthquake-induced vibrations. In recent years, semi-active control has been introduced as an efficient and reliable type of structural control which provides the reliability of passive control and flexibility of active control systems at the same time. In this study, the performance of a semi-active tuned mass damper (TMD) with adaptive magnetorheological (MR) damper is investigated using type-1 and -2 fuzzy controllers for seismic vibration mitigation of an 11-degree of freedom building model. The TMD is installed on the roof and the MR damper is located on the 11th story. The MR damper has a capacity of producing a 1000 kN control force. The fuzzy system is designed based on the acceleration and velocity of the top floor determining the input voltage needed to produce the control force based on accelerating or decelerating movements of structure. The seismic performance of semi-active type-2 controller, which considers the uncertainties related to input variables, is higher than that of the type-1 fuzzy controller. The type-2 fuzzy controller is capable of reducing further the maximum displacement, acceleration, and base shear of the structure by 11.7, 14, and 11.2%, respectively, compared to the type-1 fuzzy controller.

Statistical seismic performance assessment of tuned mass damper inerter

“…9 Many researchers have acknowledged these drawbacks, and in order to compensate these well-known shortcomings, abundant research has been devoted to improve the control capability with and without adding supplemental weight to the TMD. Some of the recently proposed methods to overcome these deficiencies include but are not limited to using unusual mass ratio, 7 active TMD (ATMD), 10 semi-active TMD (SATMD), 11,12 hybrid TMDs, 13 and multiple TMDs (MTMD), 8 with their pros and cons being debated extensively. 6 F I G U R E 1 (a) Basic concept of classic TMD, 3 (b) basic concept of TMDI, 4 and (c) ideal inerter, inertance constant b, and its relationship to force 5 One of the more recent alternatives is TMD with inerter (TMDI) depicted in Figure 1b.…”

Life‐cycle cost optimization of semiactive magnetorheological dampers for the seismic control of steel frames

“…The fuzzy control inputs were considered to be interstory drift ratio and floor velocities for the first try and interstory drift ratio and floor accelerations for the second one composition surface for both fuzzy logics. The first and second fuzzy controls were inspired by Yan et al and Bathaei et al [19,32] However, the rules were modified with error and trial so that the results would improve.…”

Semi‐active algorithm for energy‐based predictive structural control using tuned mass dampers

“…In addition, unlike the ATMDs, they can operate with minimal power requirement (Hrovat, Barak, & Rabins, 1983;Kang, Kim, & Lee, 2011;Varadarajan & Nagarajaiah, 2004). Owing to these advantages and the practical demand, the SATMDs are gaining more popularity and attention for conducting research in various application areas (Bathaei, Zahrai, & Ramezani, 2017;Chung, Lai, Yang, Lian, & Wu, 2013;Demetriou & Nikitas, 2016;Demetriou, Nikitas, & Tsavdaridis, 2015;Demetriou et al, 2015;Gao, Xiang, Liu, & Zhou, 2018;Zemp, de la Llera, & Almazan, 2011). Numerous algorithms have been proposed by different researchers for applications on structures fitted with SATMDs (Abe, 1996;Cha & Agrawal, 2010;Gutierrez Soto & Adeli, 2017;Kang et al, 2011;Nagarajaiah & Sonmez, 2007;Pinkaew & Fujino, 2001;Ricciardelli, Occhiuzzi, & Clemente, 2000;Runlin, Xiyuan, & Xihui, 2002;Setareh, 2001).…”