0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

10 просмотров18 страниц© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

10 просмотров18 страниц© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

for wind-excited structures

Francesco Ricciardellia, Antonio Occhiuzzib,*, Paolo Clementec

a

Dipartimento di Analisi e Progettazione Strutturale,Universita` di Napoli Federico II, via Claudio 21,

80125 Napoli, Italy

c

ENEA, Centro Ricerche della Casaccia, Rome, Italy

Received 18 October 1999; accepted 12 May 2000

Abstract

Uncertainties in the main structure dynamic properties as well as those in the characteristics

of the excitation may cause a deterioration of the performance of Tuned Mass Dampers.

This may happen because the choice of tuning and damping ratio of the auxiliary system,

based on the expected values of the dynamic properties of the main structure and on a simple

excitation pattern, may prove away from the optimum. An empirical algorithm is presented in

this paper which allows the performance of the TMD to be optimised, based on the measured

response. The algorithm relies on two assumptions: the smoothness of the spectrum of

excitation and the availability of an estimate of the dynamic properties of the main structure.

As an example the algorithm is applied to a 64-story building subjected to turbulence

buffeting. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tuned mass damper (TMD); Semi-active control; Wind-excited structures

1. Introduction

Classical Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs) made their way into practical Civil

Engineering applications in the 1970 s. The first major buildings featuring a TMD in

the USA were the John Hancock Tower in Boston, MA, completed in 1975 and the

Citicorp Center in New York, NY, completed in 1976. In both cases the devices were

aimed at mitigating the response induced by wind action. At that time the theory of

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-081-7683162; fax: +39-081-7683406.

E-mail address: icp@unina.it (A. Occhiuzzi).

0167-6105/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 4 - 6

58

TMDs had already set criteria for the preliminary design of the devices. The vast

literature on the topic provides, in fact, closed-form expressions for the TMD

mechanical parameters that minimise the response of the main structure under either

an harmonic or a white noise excitation. These expressions are usually derived by

modelling the structure as a linear SDOF system (generally representing the first

mode of vibration) and assuming a linear behaviour for the TMD. The optimum

TMD parameters are a function of the modal parameters of the structure and of the

nature of excitation.

On the other hand, a constraint on the maximum allowable displacement of the

auxiliary mass has to be considered in the design of the TMD. To limit the stroke of

the TMD, an overdamping of the auxiliary system may therefore be necessary, which

results in a larger response of the primary system, and thus in a lower efficiency of

the device. A possible solution to the problem is that of controlling the TMD stroke

by applying control forces between the auxiliary mass and the primary system. This

solution was implemented on the TMD installed on the Citicorp Center, and is

described by Petersen [1]. The TMD stroke is controlled by an active servohydraulics

mechanism. An appropriate feedback algorithm for the device is shown by Lund [2].

In the last few years, a remarkable effort has been made in Japan both to design

and to build a new generation of TMDs, allowing for efficient control of the stroke

of the auxiliary mass. Sakamoto et al. [3] show significant data from theoretical and

experimental observations of the response of different buildings under actual

earthquakes and strong winds. A first structure was considered, having a PassiveActive Mass Damper (PAMD) made up of two parts: the first being a passive TMD

tuned according to the main structure dynamic properties, whereas the other is a

secondary mass damper connected to the first by a servo motor. The control activity

of the servo motor is based on a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) fed by the main

structure, TMD and AMD states. The goal is to achieve the required control effect

and to limit the stroke within an allowable range. A second structure was considered,

equipped with a V-shaped pendulum mass damper [4]. The V-shaped variable

geometry of the pendulum supporting rails allows a compact and tunable control

device to be obtained. Again, the control algorithm of the pendulum mass damper is

based on a LQR scheme, fedback by a selected number of main structure and

auxiliary mass state parameters.

A slightly different control scheme is presented by Tamura et al. [5]. In this case,

the gain matrix of the LQR is time variant to account for the effective behaviour of

the main structure. In particular, the authors refer to four different sets of matrices

selected according to the structural predominant modes in a short time period before

the activation of the control action.

The design of a TMD based on classical theory is quite straightforward, but the

results have to be checked out for a number of reasons.

59

First, Civil Engineering structures are generally quite complex, and the use of a

simplified SDOF system to represent their behaviour can lead to significant errors in

the estimation of the response. In addition, the use of either an harmonic or a flat

spectrum input may lead to a wrong estimation of the optimum TMD parameters

and of the system response. The problem of the evaluation of the optimum TMD

parameters and that of the response of complex structures to a realistic wind-induced

excitation was presented by Ricciardelli [6].

Second, the knowledge of the primary system properties is not always accurate

and these in many cases have to be treated on a probabilistic basis. This is due to two

main reasons: first, the structural properties are only known with a degree of

uncertainty [7] and, second, they can vary with time. The latter variation may arise

both from the deterioration of the structure, leading to a decrease in the natural

frequency and an increase in the damping, and from the variation of the mass,

related to the variation of the carried loads. The uncertainties in the primary system

properties can be taken into account by optimising the TMD parameters in a

probabilistic sense, as suggested by Jensen et al. [8], but this approach does not allow

for the time variation of the structural properties.

Third, the excitation is generally neither harmonic nor a white noise, and its

characteristics vary with the wind direction. These characteristics are related to the

upwind terrein topography and roughness, to the aerodynamics of the structure, to

the contribution of vortex shedding to the total excitation and to the interference

with neighbour structures. In addition, if the first lateral and torsional frequencies

are close to one another, a change in the direction of incidence may result in a change

of the most excited mode.

To show the effects of the uncertainties on the structural properties and on the

excitation, an exercise was undertaken. A slender building 257 m tall, with a square,

26.50 m 26.50 m plan was designed using the wind loads prescribed by the Italian

Loading Code [9], with a reference wind speed of 28 m/s at 10 m of elevation and a

roughness z0 0:05 m. A drag coefficient CD 1:4 was used for a wind direction

orthogonal to a face of the building, and a dynamic amplification coefficient

cd 1:2. The peak tip displacement of the building was evaluated through a static

finite element analysis, and it turned out to be 0.80 m (Table 1). The modal

properties of the building were also estimated using a Finite Element model. The first

Table 1

Main structure and TMD displacements (m)

Italian

Loading

Code

x1

x^1

x~1

x^2

0.80

White noise

KaimalSimiu spectrum

o1 0:9o1;

without

TMD

with

TMD

without

TMD

with

TMD

without

TMD

with

TMD

without

TMD

with

TMD

0.36

0.81

0.15

0.36

0.62

0.07

1.63

0.36

0.70

0.12

0.36

0.62

0.08

1.48

0.44

0.97

0.16

0.44

0.94

0.14

1.49

0.36

0.69

0.11

0.36

0.69

0.09

1.55

est

o1 1:1o1;

est

60

modal mass and natural frequency of 14.7 106 kg and 0.92 rad/s were obtained, and

a modal damping of 1% of critical was considered in the calculations.

To mitigate the resonant part of the dynamic response of the structure a TMD was

added, located at the tip of the building. The TMD had a mass of 1% of the first

modal mass of the building, and the tuning and damping ratio were chosen using the

criterion set by Luft [10] for the case of a white noise excitation. The TMD tuning

and damping ratio were 0.99 and 0.05, respectively.

Sixty-four DOF and 65 DOF finite element models were used for the evaluation

of the response of the system without and with the TMD, by integration of

the equations of motion. The model was acted upon by 16 time-varying forces,

applied to the centre of every fourth floor (i.e., acting at elevations of

16, 32, . . . , 256 m).

In the first stage, a fully coherent white noise dynamic excitation was considered

superimposed on a mean excitation consistent with the mean wind profile used in

the design of the structure. The dynamic excitation was associated with a uniform

intensity of turbulence Iu 0:08. Each of the 16 time histories of the excitation,

synthetically generated using a standard white noise signal generator, had a

length of 1200 s and a time step of 0.25 s. The results of the simulation are presented

in Table 1, and appear to be in good agreement with the design predictions. For

the uncontrolled structure a peak tip displacement of 0.81 m was obtained, made up

of a mean and an RMS displacement of 0.36 and 0.15 m, respectively (a gust factor

of 3.0 arose from the calculations). For the controlled structure the peak and RMS

tip displacement were reduced to 0.62 and 0.07 m, respectively (a gust factor of 3.7

was calculated in this case). A TMD efficiency parameter is defined as the

complement to unity of the ratio between the RMS responses of the controlled

and the uncontrolled structure, which for the arrangement considered had a value

of 0.53.

In the second stage, a more realistic excitation was considered, having the same

static component as the previous. The dynamic part, however, was generated

consistent with the KaimalSimiu turbulence spectrum [11] and with the coherence

function suggested by Vickery [12], with an exponential decay coefficient cz 10. A

uniform intensity of turbulence equal to 0.08 was considered. Sixteen time histories

which were 55 min long were considered with a time step of 0.2 s, synthetically

generated using an autoregressive filter of order 12. In this case, the peak and RMS

tip displacement of the uncontrolled structure (Table 1) were 0.70 and 0.12 m,

respectively (giving rise to a gust factor of 2.8), while those of the controlled

structure were 0.62 and 0.08 m (with a gust factor of 3.2). The efficiency of the TMD

in this case reduced to 0.33.

In the third stage, the effect of an error in the estimation of the first natural

frequency of the building on the performance of the TMD was analysed. Two cases

were considered in which the actual frequency of the building was 10% lower or

higher than the estimated value. In the first case the error arose from overestimating

the building stiffness by 21%, and in the second it arose from overestimating the

masses by the same amount. In the first case the overestimation of the system

stiffness caused an underestimation of the building static and dynamic response, that

61

the simulation revealed to be higher than expected. Mean, peak and RMS tip

displacements of the uncontrolled structure were calculated as 0.44, 0.97 and 0.16 m,

respectively (Table 1), corresponding to a gust factor of 3.3. On the other hand, in

both cases the efficiency of the TMD dramatically dropped, to 0.12 in the first case

and to a bare 0.08 in the second case. In addition, the peak displacement of

the controlled structure was only 3% lower than that of the uncontrolled structure in

the first case, while the two values even coincided in the second case.

The fact that the modal parameters of the building are known only with a degree

of uncertainty can be accounted for by using a probabilistic approach for the choice

of the mechanical parameters of the TMD. This technique was introduced by Jensen

et al. [8], and is based on the evaluation of the optimum TMD parameters as those

that minimise the expected value of the displacement of the primary system subjected

to a white noise input. A different solution is that suggested by Kareem et al. [13],

who introduce the idea of the multiple mass damper (MMD). The proposed device is

made of a number of auxiliary masses, each tuned to a different frequency in a range

around the expected resonant frequency of the structure. Being a range of

frequencies controlled by the device, the efficiency in the case in which there are

uncertainties in the frequency of the main structure is higher than that of a TMD

with equal total mass. The drawback of the proposed device is the higher complexity,

and thus higher costs with respect to the TMD.

The alternative proposed in this paper is a semi-active TMD, whose frequency and

damping can be varied with time to keep the performance of the device always close

to its optimum. Such a device would accomodate not only the uncertainties on the

parameters of the main structure, but also their variation, as well as the variation of

the excitation. The advantage of a semi-active device with respect to an active device

is the lower amount of energy required for the control [14]. External energy is in this

case required only to change the parameters of the device, but no control forces are

applied to the system. The semi-active device can be obtained from a passive TMD

equipped with pneumatic springs and hydraulic dampers, when the stiffness and

damping can be automatically varied with time.

The properties of the semi-active TMD have to be changed only on the basis

of the system measured response, since there are uncertainties in both the main

structure parameters and the excitation. An optimisation criterion based only on the

measured response is thus needed. In the remainder of this paper an empirical

criterion is proposed, linked to the hypothesis of a white noise excitation. The

criterion is then applied to the case of a real wind excitation to check its

performance.

In the hypotheses that the structural mode of vibration to be controlled is the first,

and that the higher modes give a negligible contribution to the total response, the

structure with the TMD can be modelled as the 2DOF system of Fig. 1. The

62

8

< x 2x o x_ 2x o mx_ x_ o2 x O2 o2 mx x 1 qt

1

1

2

1

2

1 1 1

2 1

1 1

1

;

m1

:

2 2

x2 2x2 o1 x_ 2 x_ 1 O o1 x2 x1 0;

where o1 and x1 are the first natural frequency and damping ratio of structure and x2

is the damping ratio of the TMD, and where:

m

m2

;

m1

o2

o1

In the case in which the excitation is a white noise, the power spectrum of the

displacement x1 of the structure coincides with the squared modulus of the first row

first column term of the transfer matrix of the system of Eq. (1):

jH11 o

j2

Sx1 o

2

2

2

2 4x22 O2 o

O o

2

2

2

2 O2 4 x1 O2 x2 O x2 O x1 mx2 Oo

4 O 4x1 x2 O 1 mO2 o

2

2 o

o

3

o=o1 .

where o

For values of the tuning ratio close to 1, Eq. (3) can be represented as shown in

Fig. 2. The addition of a TMD, in fact, transforms the lowly damped first mode of

the uncontrolled structure into two coupled and highly damped modes of the 2DOF

system. Different criteria can be found in the literature [6] to define the optimum

TMD parameters Oopt and xopt

2 . Generally speaking the goal is that of minimising the

RMS of the structural response, i.e., minimising the area under the curve of Fig. 2.

By integration of Eq. (3) it is possible to estabilish a relation between the TMD

parameters and the variance of the response [15]. This, however, does not allow

expressions to be easily derived for the optimum tuning and TMD damping ratio.

On the other hand, even if that were possible, the results would depend on the

63

knowledge of the main structure parameters and to the hypothesis of white noise

excitation.

The semi-active control strategy proposed in this paper is based on a trial-anderror procedure. Tentative parameters are given to the TMD, calculated on

the basis of any optimum criterion in the literature, applied to the expected values

of the structure modal parameters. The measured response of the structure is then

used to determine the behaviour of the device and to change its parameters in order

to improve its performances. However, a different criterion from that of minimising

the RMS of the response has to be established in this case, since knowledge of

the RMS of the response does not contain any information on the performance

of the device, nor on how to improve it. On the other hand, it was observed that the

knowledge of the spectral values y1, y2 and y3 in Fig. 2 can be used to understand

whether the device is close to its optimum performance or not, and in the latter

case to decide how to change its tuning and damping ratio to improve its

performances.

A first parametric analysis was carried out to assess the influence of tuning on the

RMS of the response of the main structure and on the spectral values y1 and y3. By

considering a number of combinations of the main structure damping x1 , of the mass

ratio m and of the TMD damping ratio x2 , the system response was evaluated for

different values of the tuning O . This allowed the tuning to be found to which the

minimum RMS response is associated and to relate the response of main structure to

the spectral values y1 and y3. This was done for values of the damping ratio of the

main structure x 1 in the range 0.0020.05, values of the mass ratio m in the range

0.0050.10 and values of the damping ratio of the TMD x2 in the range 0.030.15. It

was found that if the criterion of the minimum RMS response is substituted by the

following:

Oopt O: y1 y3

the RMS displacement of the structure with a TMD with the optimum tuning

exceeds the minimum value by no more than 0.6%.

64

The criterion of Eq. (4) allows the optimum tuning to be reached by correcting the

actual tuning through a factor q, which is a function of the spectral values y1 and y3:

Oopt qy1 ; y3 O:

The function qy1 ; y3 , on the other hand, depends on the system parameters x1 , m

and x2 , i.e., for every choice of the system parameters x1, m e x2 a function qy1 ; y3

can be found that satisfies Eq. (5). The dependance of q on y1 and y3 is well expressed

through the dependance on the parameter

y1 y3

;

6

t

y1 y3

which is a measure of the unbalance between the peaks P1 and P3 .

The parameter t can span the open interval ( 1, 1), and the function qt has to

satisfy the conditions

8

< t ! 1 ) q ! 1;

qt:

t 0 ) q 1;

7

:

t ! 1 ) q ! 1:

The following expression will be used for q:

qt 1 k tanat

and x2 .1

The parametric analysis showed that the dependance of a and k on x2

is quite weak and can be neglected therefore. The dependance on x1 and m is

expressed as:

k k0 ma

a a0 mb

where k0, a 0, a and b are functions of x 1. The values of k0, a 0, a and b are given in

Table 2, and for k0 the following interpolating expression can be used:

k0 1:07x0:22

1 :

10

As an example, Fig. 3 shows the function q(t) for x1 0:002 and m =0.02, and for

different values of the TMD damping. In the figure, the results of the parametric

analysis are shown, together with Eq. (8).

Once the correction factor is evaluated from Eq. (8), the optimum tuning is given

to the system by multiplying the stiffness of the TMD by the square of q.

As a second step, a similar procedure is used to find the optimum TMD damping

ratio x 2. It was found that the minimum response of the main structure is generally

achieved when y2=12 y1=12 y3. In Fig. 4, for x1 0:01 and for different values

of m , the ratio between the RMS response and its minimum value is plotted as a

function of y2 =y1 . As anticipated, the minimum response is always obtained for

y1 =y2 2.

1

In order to satisfy Eq. (7) it should be a = p /2, however different values will be used to better

interpolate the results of the parametric analysis.

65

Table 2

Values of the parameters of Eq. (9)

x1

k0

a0

0.002

0.005

0.010

0.020

0.050

0.29

0.33

0.38

0.46

0.58

0.86

0.91

0.73

0.61

0.36

0.53

0.56

0.53

0.52

0.42

0.073

0.071

0.116

0.168

0.273

Fig. 4. RMS structural response vs. the ratio between the spectral values y1 and y2.

1

xopt

2 x2 : y2 4y1 y3 :

11

As for the tuning, the optimum TMD damping ratio is obtained from the actual

value through the correction

xopt

2 px2 ;

12

66

s

y1 y3

:

2y2

13

The parameter s has to be a positive number and the dependancy of p on s such that

p2 1. The following expression is considered:

p p0 s c ;

14

where p0 and c are functions only of the main structure damping x1, being the

dependancy on the mass ratio m negligible. The following expressions were found

for p0 and c:

;

p0 0:74x0:0084

1

15

c px1 0:1:

As an example, in Fig. 5 the function ps is shown for x1 0:01 and for different

values of the mass ratio m. In the figure, the results of the parametric analysis are

shown, together with Eq. (14).

The procedure shown is effective for a system subjected to a white noise excitation,

and allows for the direct calculation of the optimum values of the TMD tuning and

damping ratio from the knowledge of the actual values of these parameters, based on

the system measured response. For a system subjected to a broad-band excitation, it

is assumed that the corrected values of the TMD tuning and damping ratio obtained

from Eqs. (5), (8)(10), (12), (14) and (15), though not necessarily the optimum, are

better than those before the correction, i.e., bring about a lower response of the

main structure. If this is true, the procedure shown can be used in an iterative way, to

improve the performance of a non-optimum TMD. Moreover, if changes arise in the

excitation or in the main structure properties, the procedure can accomodate for the

variations by updating the TMD parameters.

The possibility of implementing the iterative procedure in the case of a system with

varying parameters, subjected to a broad-band excitation is considered in the next

section.

67

4. Numerical application

The control scheme shown in the previous sections was applied in a numerical

example. A slender structure with a braced frame was designed and its behaviour

in the along-wind direction analysed. The design was based on the Italian Loading Code [9]. The 64-story building was 257 m tall and had a square plan

(26.5 m 26.5 m). The total mass was equal to 57.9 103 kg. Both dead and live

loads were the same at all floors, but the structural mass of columns and bracings

decreases with the height. Figs. 6 and 7 show, respectively, a schematic elevation and

a structural plan. Table 3 shows the cross-sections adopted for columns and braces.

At the corners, compound columns made up by four welded beams were used. The

68

Table 3

Cross-sections of structural members

Floors

Columns cross-section

Braces cross-section

112

1324

2536

3748

4960

6164

HSH 600/828

HSH 500/631

HSH 500/640

HSH 400/297

HSH 400/150

HE 360 B

HSH 400/407

HSH 400/407

HSH 400/191

HSH 400/191

HE 360 B

dynamic properties of the structure without the damper were evaluated using a FEM

model and are shown in Table 4 for the first three modes. The FEM model was made

up by 3748 beam elements connected in 1664 nodes. The SAP90 programme was

used to compute eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The damping ratio corresponding to

each mode was set to 1%.

69

Table 4

Calculated dynamic properties of the building

Mode

Period (s)

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (rad/s)

1

2

3

6.822

1.724

0.986

0.1466

0.5802

1.014

0.9211

3.645

6.369

A reduced model of the controlled building was created including only the first

three longitudinal sway modes of the uncontrolled frame and the TMD as shown in

Ref. [6]. The TMD is characterised by a constant mass m2 and variable stiffness k2 and

damping c2. The tuning and TMD damping were chosen following the criterion

presented by Luft [10], derived for an undamped system subjected to a white noise

excitation:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

1

;

16

Oopt

1 1:5m

xopt

2

1pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

m1 0:75m;

2

17

where m was set to 1% of the estimated structural mass associated with the first

mode. However, in order to test the control scheme, we positively introduced

estimation errors in computing Eqs. (16) and (17). In particular, the building stiffness

was underestimated by 10% and the mass overestimated by 10%. Therefore, the

initial parameters of the TMD, which were affected by these errors, are

m2 162103 kg;

k2 109:16 kN m1 ;

c2 13:24 kN m1 s:

18

The stiffness and the damping of the TMD were subsequently updated to optimise

the structural response, as will be shown in the following.

As a first step, the natural frequency f0 of the structure with the TMD locked to

the main structure was evaluated from the PSDF of the top floor displacement.

Subsequently the TMD was released and the PSDF of the top floor displacement

plotted. In the latter case the PSDF had two peaks, corresponding to the frequencies

f1 and f3 , around f0 f1 5f0 5f3 and a local minimum located between them. In

order to identify the peaks, the following procedure was used. The spectrum was

scanned in order to locate its maximum value at the frequency fmax . If fmax 5f0 , then

f1 fmax , otherwise f3 fmax . Then the local maximum point greater than f1 (less

than f3) was found, which located f3 ( f1). The frequency f2 was then set equal to the

minimum point in the open interval [ f1, f3 ]. If a local maximum point greater than f1

(less than f3) could not be found, it was set f3=f0( f1=f0). However, this would

happen only if the tuning were quite away from its optimum value, i.e., if the initial

70

avoid identifying a peak in the background range, the spectrum was scanned only in

a selected window around f0.

The procedure provided the spectral coordinates y1, y2 and y3 needed to use

the empirical optimisation criterion introduced in the previous section. The

numerical procedure, however, needed a high resolution in the spectrum and,

therefore, a relatively long duration of the displacement records. In the subsequent

application, 55 min long records, with a sampling frequency of 5 Hz were

adopted. The spectra were calculated by dividing the time histories into subrecords 820 s long, with an overlap of 205 s, to obtain a spectrum resolution of

0.00122 Hz.

The numerical procedure started by calculating the structural response for about

55 min. In this phase, the TMD was not active, i.e., it was locked to the main

structure. At the end of this stage, it was possible to identify the natural frequency f0 .

In the second phase the TMD was unlocked and the structural response was

calculated for the same time interval. From the spectrum of the top floor

displacement, the frequencies f1 and f3 were identified, as well as the corresponding

spectral values. By applying Eqs. (8)(10) the stiffness of the TMD could finally

be updated. The procedure was then iterated as many times as needed to satisfy

Eq. (4).

Once the stiffness update was completed, the spectrum of the top floor displacement was then used to identify the frequency f2 and the associated spectral

value y2. By applying Eqs. (12), (14) and (15), the damping coefficient of the TMD

was updated and then the new structural response measured. The procedure was

then again iterated, as many times as needed to satisfy Eq. (11).

At the end of the damping update, however, Eq. (4) might not be satisfied

anymore. Therefore it might be necessary to alternatively update the stiffness and the

damping of the TMD.

Table 5 shows the results of the iterative procedure described above. Looking

at the first two rows, we notice that even a TMD designed according to an erroneous

estimation of stiffness and mass of the main structure has an efficiency of about

24%. Fig. 8 shows the PSDFs corresponding to the along-wind displacement of

the upper floor. Iterations from 1 to 8 represent the structural responses during

the stiffness updating cycle. Eq. (4) is practically satisfied at iterations 7 and 8.

Fig. 9 shows the PSDFs corresponding to the initial set up of the TMD and

to iterations 1 and 8. During the stiffness update phase, the RMS of the top

floor displacement decreases and is 34% lower compared to the case of building

with the TMD locked. Iterations 9 to 13 refer to the damping update cycle.

Eq. (11) is practically satisfied at iteration 13, where the standard deviation of the top

floor displacement is 2% higher than that of iteration 8. However, the standard

deviation of the TMD displacement is 19% lower than that of iteration 8. Once the

damping cycle was completed, the stiffness update procedure was repeated. Iteration

14, however, shows no significant variations of the response either for the main

structure or for the TMD. Fig. 10 shows the PSDFs corresponding to iterations

8 and 14.

Without TMD

With TMD

Iteration 1

Iteration 2

Iteration 3

Iteration 4

Iteration 5

Iteration 6

Iteration 7

Iteration 8

Iteration 9

Iteration 10

Iteration 11

Iteration 12

Iteration 13

Iteration 14

Table 5

Numerical results

13.24

13.24

13.24

13.24

13.24

13.24

13.24

13.24

13.24

19.22

22.84

25.50

27.30

28.45

28.45

(KN/(m/s))

(KN/m)

109.16

115.16

116.67

118.86

122.04

124.90

126.44

127.40

128.03

128.03

128.03

128.03

128.03

128.03

126.75

c2

k2

0.891

0.915

0.921

0.930

0.942

0.953

0.959

0.963

0.965

0.965

0.965

0.965

0.965

0.965

0.960

4.98%

4.85%

4.82%

4.77%

4.71%

4.65%

4.63%

4.61%

4.60%

6.67%

7.93%

8.85%

9.48%

9.88%

9.93%

x2

0.36

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

(m)

x1

0.80

0.71

0.69

0.68

0.68

0.66

0.66

0.65

0.65

0.65

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.67

0.67

(m)

x^1

0.129

0.098

0.093

0.091

0.090

0.087

0.086

0.086

0.085

0.085

0.086

0.086

0.087

0.088

0.088

0.088

(m)

x~1

1.29

1.30

1.31

1.38

1.48

1.53

1.55

1.56

1.56

1.28

1.15

1.06

1.01

0.98

0.98

(m)

x^TMD

0.378

0.400

0.405

0.411

0.417

0.422

0.425

0.426

0.427

0.356

0.325

0.306

0.295

0.288

0.288

(m)

x~TMD

0.148

0.144

0.146

0.146

0.146

0.133

0.133

0.133

0.133

0.133

0.140

0.140

0.140

0.140

0.140

0.140

(Hz)

f1

2

5.991

0.309

0.561

0.499

0.417

0.401

0.438

0.447

0.450

0.451

0.466

0.520

0.553

0.573

0.585

0.556

(m /t)

y1

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

0.150

(Hz)

f3

2

1.910

1.423

1.288

1.092

0.825

0.618

0.522

0.469

0.436

0.457

0.477

0.492

0.503

0.510

0.542

(m /t)

y3

0.145

0.148

0.148

0.148

0.145

0.145

0.145

0.145

0.145

0.145

0.145

0.145

0.145

0.145

0.145

(Hz)

f2

0.255

0.536

0.469

0.383

0.106

0.086

0.078

0.074

0.072

0.133

0.177

0.212

0.238

0.255

0.257

(m2/t)

y2

71

72

Fig. 9. PSDF of the tip displacement. Initial values of TMD parameters and iterations 1 and 8.

5. Feasibility considerations

The control scheme shown in the previous sections is based on the measure of the

structural response for time intervals lasting about 1 h and on the assumption that

stiffness and damping of the TMD can be varied in a reasonably short time. In

73

Refs. [16,1] a comprehensive description of the technology used to design and build

the TMD applied to the Citicorp Building in New York in 1976 can be found. Even

though it is a classical, passive TMD, the manufacturer had to design a device

with time varying properties. The elastic connection between the TMD and the

building is made up by a series of pneumatic springs with a geometric compensation

of the inherent non-linearity of adiabatic gas compression in a closed vessel. The

pressure can be varied 6% around the nominal value. The damping ratio of the

hydraulic damper between the TMD and the main structure can be changed by a

special servovalve from 8% to 14% of the critical. In addition, a locked position

of the servovalve allows a damping ratio of about 70%. The time needed to update

stiffness and damping is below 5 min. From Table 5 it appears that the control

scheme proposed in this paper needs a stiffness variation of about 8% around the

initial value and a damping ratio variable in the range 410% of critical. Therefore,

it can be concluded that the technology needed to implement the Semi-Active TMD

proposed is practically already available, and that the adoption of a semi-active

control scheme adds no major costs in buildings already designed to host a Tuned

Mass Damper.

6. Conclusions

In this paper an empirical algorithm for the optmisation of the properties of

Tuned Mass Dampers based on the measured response of the main structure is

presented. The algorithm does not need the exact knowledge of the main structure

mechanical properties, nor it is bound to any particular form of excitation. For its

implementation only an estimate of the main structure first frequency is required,

together with the smoothness of the spectrum of the excitation. The procedure allows

the properties of the TMD to be up-dated in order to improve its performance, and

is thus effective not only in the case in which there are uncertainties in the main

structure properties and in the excitation, but also in the case in which either the

structural properties or the excitation vary with time.

A numerial example showed the effectiveness of the procedure in optimising

the TMD tuning for a structure for which there is no exact knowledge of the

natural frequencies. On the other hand the optimisation of the TMD damping

did not bring any reduction of the main structure response, but rather to a

reduction of the displacement of the added mass. This can be explained by the low

sensitivity of the response of the main system to the TMD damping. The

possibility, however, of reducing the response of the TMD without decreasing its

effectiveness seems attractive. As a future development, an optimisation

criterion accounting for both the structure and the TMD responses seems to be of

interest.

Finally, the semi-active control strategy presented in the paper does not need any

technology significantly more sophisticated, thus more expensive, than that used for

many of the existing Tuned Mass Dampers.

74

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Prof. Mario DApuzzo, under

whose supervision the work was started.

The authors also wish to express their gratitude to Prof. Gianni Bartoli of the

University of Florence, who provided them with the wind speed time series used in

the simulations.

References

[1] N.R. Petersen, Using servohydraulics to control hi-rise building motion the citicorp TMD system,

Proceedings of National Conference on Fluid Power, Chicago, IL, USA, 1981.

[2] R.A. Lund, Active damping of large structures in winds, in: H.H.E. Leipholz (Ed.), Structural

Control, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.

[3] M. Sakamoto, T. Kobori, T. Yamada, M. Takahashi, Practical applications of active and hybrid

response control systems and their verifications by earthquake and strong wind observations,

Proceedings of First World Conference on Structural Control, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1996.

[4] Y. Koike, T. Murata, K. Tanida, M. Mutaguchi, T. Kobori, K. Ishii, Y. Takenaka, T. Arita.

Development of V-shaped hybrid mass damper and its application to high-rise buildings, Proceedings

of First World Conference on Structural Control, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1996.

[5] K. Tamura, K. Shiba, Y. Inada, A. Wada. Control gain scheduling of a hybrid mass damper system

against wind response of a tall building, Proceedings of First World Conference on Structural

Control, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1996.

[6] F. Ricciardelli, A linear model for structures with tuned mass dampers, Wind Struct. 2 (3) (1999)

151172.

[7] G. Solari, Gust-excited vibrations, in: H. Sockel (Ed.), Wind-Excited Vibrations of Structures,

Springer, Berlin, 1996.

[8] H. Jensen, M. Setereh, R. Peek, TMDs for vibration control of systems with uncertain properties,

J. Struct. Div. ASCE 118 (1992) 32853296.

[9] D.M. LL. PP. 16.01.1996, Norme tecniche relative ai criteri generali per la verifica di sicurezza delle

costruzioni e dei carichi e sovraccarichi (in Italian).

[10] R.W. Luft, Optimal tuned mass dampers for buildings, J. Struct. Div. ASCE 105 (1979) 27662772.

[11] E. Simiu, R.H. Scanlan, Wind Effects on Structures: an Introduction to Wind Engineering, Wiley,

New York, 1986.

[12] B.J. Vickery, On the reliability of gust loading factors, C.E. Trans., Inst. Aust. Soc. Civ. Eng. (1)

(1971) 93104.

[13] A. Kareem, S. Kline, Performance of multiple mass dampers under randon loading, J. Struct. Eng.

ASCE 121 (2) (1995) 348361.

[14] G.W. Housner, L.A. Bergman, T.K. Caughey, A.G. Chassiakos, R.O. Claus, S.F. Masri, R.E.

Skelton, T.T. Soong, B.F. Spencer, J.T.P. Yao, Structural control: past, present and future, J. Eng.

Mech. 123 (9) (1997) 897971.

[15] S.H. Crandall, W.D. Mark, Random Vibration in Mechanical Systems, Academic Press, New York,

1963.

[16] N.R. Petersen, Design of large scale tuned mass dampers, Proceedings of ASCE National

Convention, Boston, MA, 1979.