Semi‐active tuned mass damper building systems: Design

Chey, Min-Ho; Chase, J. Geoffrey; Mander, John B.; Carr, Athol J.

doi:10.1002/eqe.934

Cited by 64 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a given structural configuration, the connections between the segregated (upper) structure and main (lower) structure can be semi-active resetable device for a 12-story SATMD building system, and the design of resetable device is based on the previous results of the system design [17]. For these cases, the maximum device forces are set at 644kN and 1,573kN, which represent the value of 13.8% [26] of the structural weight multiplied by mass ratios of 0.244 (10+2) and 0.594 (8+4), respectively.…”

Section: Dynamic Characteristics Of Resetable Devicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semi‐active tuned mass damper building systems: Application

Chey

Chase

Mander

et al. 2009

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYSeismic performance attributes of multi-story passive and semi-active tuned mass damper (PTMD and SATMD) building systems are investigated for 12-story moment resisting frames modeled as '10+2' stories and '8+4' stories. Segmented upper portion of the stories are isolated as a tuned mass, and a passive viscous damper or semi-active resetable device is adopted as energy dissipation strategy. The semi-active approach uses feedback control to alter or manipulate the reaction forces, effectively re-tuning the system depending on the structural response. Optimum TMD control parameters and appropriate matching SATMD configurations are adopted from a companion study on a simplified two-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) system. Statistical performance metrics are presented for 30 probabilistically scaled earthquake records from the SAC project. Time history analyses are used to compute response reduction factors across a wide range of seismic hazard intensities. Results show that large SATMD systems can effectively manage seismic response for multi-degree-of freedom (MDOF) systems across a broad range of ground motions in comparison to passive solutions. Specific results include the identification of differences in the mechanisms by which SATMD and PTMD systems remove energy, based on the differences in the devices used. Additionally, variability is seen to be tighter for the SATMD systems across the suites of ground motions used, indicating a more robust control system. While the overall efficacy of the concept is shown the major issues, such as isolation layer displacement, are discussed in details not available in simplified spectral analyses, providing further insight into the dynamics of these issues for these systems.

show abstract

Section: Dynamic Characteristics Of Resetable Devicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a separate part of the present research, simplified PTMD and SATMD building models were presented and implemented in a system design simulation [17]. In the trade-off parametric study of this approach, the efficiency of spreading stiffness between resetable devices and rubber bearings was illustrated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semi‐active tuned mass damper building systems: Application

Chey

Chase

Mander

et al. 2009

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially, the authors of this study suggested the TMD principle-based design of the "TMD (passive and semiactive) building systems" and its seismic performances were evaluated over three probabilistically scaled suites of earthquake records parameters [16][17][18]. The results showed that the suggested TMD modified systems provide more effective and robust response mitigation over a range of ground motions within each earthquake suite.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The design parameters for the smart isolation layer are basically based on and derived from the previous linear design and application studies [16][17][18]. For example, the tuning ratio for this multi-degree-of freedom (MDOF) system is nearly equal to the tuning ratio for a two-degreeof freedom (2-DOF) system for a mass ratio of μΦ, where Φ is the amplitude of the first mode of vibration for a unit modal participation factor computed at the location of the upper isolated stories.…”

Section: Design Of the Isolation Layermentioning

confidence: 99%

Aseismic smart building isolation systems under multi-level earthquake excitations: Part I, conceptual design and nonlinear analysis

Chey

Chase

Mander

et al. 2015

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a novel structural control strategy, tuned mass damper (TMD) inspired passive and semi-active smart building isolation systems are suggested to reduce structural response and thus mitigate structural damage due to earthquake excitations. The isolated structure's upper stories can be utilized as a large scaled TMD, and the isolation layer, as a core design point, between the separated upper and lower stories entails the insertion of rubber bearings and (i) viscous dampers (passive) or (ii) resettable devices (semi-active). The seismic performance of the suggested isolation systems are investigated for 12-story reinforced concrete moment resisting frames modeled as "10 + 2" stories and "8 + 4" stories. Passive viscous damper or semi-active resettable devices are parametrically evaluated through the optimal design principle of a large mass ratio TMD. Statistical performance metrics are presented for 30 earthquake records from the three suites of the SAC project. Based on nonlinear structural models, including P-delta effects and modified Takeda hysteresis, the inelastic time history analyses are conducted to compute the seismic performances across a wide range of seismic hazard intensities. Results show that semi-active smart building isolation systems can effectively manage seismic response for multi-degree-of freedom (MDOF) systems across a broader range of ground motions in comparison to uncontrolled case and passive solution.

show abstract

“…"|tQH Qo = Q}t w xR=U pt=W |O= R; |xHQO wO |xv=t=U "1 pmW [12] "Ov=xOW xO=iDU= xRQru}tR Q@=Q@ QO =yxR=U p=ai pQDvm xR=U pQDvm x@ u=vJty 'ODi}@ Q=m R= sy lQLt Qo = |DL 'OQ=O p=aiQ}e w p=ai <= RH= [13] "OQm Oy=wN |v=}=W ltm O}=@ 'OQ}o Q= Qk xO=iDU= OQwt xR=U CmQL Vy=m |= Q@ 'p=ai pQDvm |xv=t=U Qo = QO QwmPt |xv=t=U uOW|}= QH= R= 'lQLt u=wD C}OwOLt "OwW O}rwD |oQR@ |wQ}v p=ai |xv=oOvJ |tQH |=yQo= Q}t 'wQ u}= R= "Ovm|t |Q}owrH |ak=w |=yu=tDN=U uQ=kDt=v |=yxR=U |= Q@ p=ai |xv=oOvJ |tQH |=yQo= Q}t OQmrta w [14] '|iQat 'p=ai |xv=oOvJ |tQH |=yQo= Q}t |wQ Q@ |D=ar=]t u}vJty [15] "CU= xOW |UQQ@ [16] "CU= xOW s=Hv= xR=U w l=N VvmQOv= [17] "CU= xDiQo Q= Qk |UQQ@ OQwt Q}eDt |DNU =@ p=aixt}v |tQH l} R= u; QO xm 'CU= xOW |iQat 2010 p=U QO p=aixt}v |tQH |=yQo= Q}t R= [18] "CU= xOW xO=iDU= xR=U |SQv= hqD= |xr}Uw u=wvax@ lQLDt x=ox}mD =@ Qvi = Q wQ}v Q=OQ@ u=wD|t 'OW=@ u}tR CmQL CLD xR=U Qo [22] "OvDUy |]N ?=DW w u}ov=}t Q=O}=B 9 |x]@= Q <= R= x@ lQ=tw}v VwQ [23] "CU= xOW xO=iDU= 'CU= Qo}O VwQ [22] %CU= [23] "lQ=tw}v VwQ "1 pwOH…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%