Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation of the advantages of friction TMD over conventional TMD

  • Technical paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The seismic performance of conventional tuned mass damper (TMD) has been often improved when more TMD mass ratio is utilized. One limitation in using higher TMD mass ratios for tall buildings is the challenges of designers from the practical point of view. So far, conventional TMD has been more uneconomical. The research on the seismic performance of friction tuned mass dampers (FTMD) is still going on. This paper aimed at evaluating the advantages of the optimal design of friction TMD over conventional TMD for tall structures. For this aim, an optimal design was developed based on a multi-objective cuckoo search optimization algorithm to find the optimal TMD and FTMD parameters, including mass, damping, frequency ratios, and the friction coefficient. Here, the seismic performances of a 40-storey tall building were evaluated and compared from structural responses and energy. Results showed that both dampers could significantly reduce the maximum floor displacement, drift, and acceleration. Furthermore, the FTMD system exhibited a better performance in reducing the roof displacement against the TMD system when the mass ratio was less than 0.03. These advantages are considered to be very important from a practical point of view.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kamgar R, Shojaee S, Rahgozar R (2015) Rehabilitation of tall buildings by active control system subjected to critical seismic excitation. Asian J Civ Eng 16:819–833

    Google Scholar 

  2. Khatibinia M, Gholami H, Kamgar R (2018) Optimal design of tuned mass dampers subjected to continuous stationary critical excitation. Int J Dyn Control 6:1094–1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-017-0386-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fahimi Farzam M, Kaveh A (2020) Optimum design of tuned mass dampers using colliding bodies optimization in frequency domain. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 44:787–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-019-00296-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaveh A, Fahimi Farzam M, Hojat Jalali H, Maroofiazar R (2020) Robust optimum design of a tuned mass damper inerter. Acta Mech 231:3871–3896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00707-020-02720-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kaveh A, Farzam MF, Maroofiazar R (2020) Comparing H2 and H∞ algorithms for optimum design of tuned mass dampers under near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions. Periodica Polytech Civ Eng 64:828–844. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.16389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. De Domenico D, Ricciardi G (2018) Earthquake-resilient design of base isolated buildings with TMD at basement: application to a case study. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 113:503–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.06.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoang N, Fujino Y, Warnitchai P (2008) Optimal tuned mass damper for seismic applications and practical design formulas. Eng Struct 30:707–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Novo T, Varum H, Teixeira-Dias F, Rodrigues H, Silva MF, Costa AC, Guerreiro L (2014) Tuned liquid dampers simulation for earthquake response control of buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 12:1007–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9528-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Frahm, H, Device for damping vibrations of bodies. 1911, Google Patents

  10. Den Hartog, JP (1985) Mechanical Vibrations. Courier Corporation

  11. Sadek F, Mohraz B, Taylor AW, Chung RM (1997) A method of estimating the parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic applications. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:617–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199706)26:6%3c617::AID-EQE664%3e3.0.CO;2-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Marano GC, Greco R, Chiaia B (2010) A comparison between different optimization criteria for tuned mass dampers design. J Sound Vib 329:4880–4890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2010.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kamgar R, Gholami F, Zarif Sanayei HR, Heidarzadeh H (2020) Modified tuned liquid dampers for seismic protection of buildings considering soil–structure interaction effects. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 44:339–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-019-00302-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kamgar R, Samea P, Khatibinia M (2018) Optimizing parameters of tuned mass damper subjected to critical earthquake. Struct Des Tall Special Build 27:e1460. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Etedali S, Seifi M, Akbari M (2018) A numerical study on optimal FTMD parameters considering soil-structure interaction effects. Geomech Eng 16:527–538. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2018.16.5.527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pall AS, Marsh C (1982) Response of friction damped braced frames. J Struct Eng 108:1313–1323

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ricciardelli F, Vickery BJ (1999) Tuned vibration absorbers with dry friction damping. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:707–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199907)28:7%3c707::AID-EQE836%3e3.0.CO;2-C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee J-H, Berger E, Kim JH (2005) Feasibility study of a tunable friction damper. J Sound Vib 283:707–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2004.05.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gewei Z, Basu B (2011) A study on friction-tuned mass damper: harmonic solution and statistical linearization. J Vib Control 17:721–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546309354967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pisal AY, Jangid RS (2014) Seismic response of multi-story structure with multiple tuned mass friction dampers. Int J Adv Struct Eng IJASE 6:46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-014-0046-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Farshidianfar A, Soheili S (2013) Ant colony optimization of tuned mass dampers for earthquake oscillations of high-rise structures including soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 51:14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chopra AK (2020) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall Inc., USA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gholizadeh S, Salajegheh E (2010) Optimal seismic design of steel structures by an efficient soft computing based algorithm. J Constr Steel Res 66:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kamgar R, Khatibinia M, Khatibinia M (2019) Optimization criteria for design of tuned mass dampers including soil–structure interaction effect. Int J Optim Civ Eng 9:213–232

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kaveh A, Mohammadi S, Hosseini OK, Keyhani A, Kalatjari V (2015) Optimum parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic applications using charged system search. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 39:21–40. https://doi.org/10.22099/IJSTC.2015.2739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yazdi H, Saberi H, Saberi H, Hatami F (2016) Designing optimal tuned mass dampers using improved harmony search algorithm. Adv Struct Eng 19:1620–1636. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433216646018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang X-S, Deb S (2009) Cuckoo search via Lévy flights. 2009 World congress on nature & biologically inspired computing (NaBIC). Coimbatore, India, pp 210–214

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Rajabioun R (2011) Cuckoo optimization algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 11:5508–5518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Etedali S, Akbari M, Seifi M (2019) MOCS-based optimum design of TMD and FTMD for tall buildings under near-field earthquakes including SSI effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 119:36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.12.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rakhshani H, Rahati A (2017) Snap-drift cuckoo search: a novel cuckoo search optimization algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 52:771–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.09.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rakhshani H, Rahati A (2017) Intelligent multiple search strategy cuckoo algorithm for numerical and engineering optimization problems. Arab J Sci Eng 42:567–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-016-2270-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rakhshani H, Dehghanian E, Rahati A (2016) Hierarchy cuckoo search algorithm for parameter estimation in biological systems. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 159:97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2016.10.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rakhshani H, Rahati A, Dehghanian E (2015) Cuckoo search algorithm and its application for secondary protein structure prediction. In: 2nd international conference on knowledge-based engineering and innovation (KBEI), Tehran, Iran, 412–417

  34. Yang X-S, Deb S (2013) Multiobjective cuckoo search for design optimization. Comput Oper Res 40:1616–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.09.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yang X-S (2010) Engineering optimization: an introduction with metaheuristic applications. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang X-S, Deb S (2010) Engineering optimisation by cuckoo search. Int J Math Model Numer Optim 1:330–343

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kamgar R, Rahgozar R (2015) Determination of critical excitation in seismic analysis of structures. Earthq Struct 9:875–891. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.4.875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. FEMA-P695, Quantification of building seismic performance factors. 2009, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington D.C.

  39. Kanai K (1961) An empirical formula for the spectrum of strong earthquake motions. Bull Earthq Res Inst 39:85–95

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mohebbi M, Shakeri K, Ghanbarpour Y, Majzoub H (2013) Designing optimal multiple tuned mass dampers using genetic algorithms (GAs) for mitigating the seismic response of structures. J Vib Control 19:605–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546311434520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tajimi H (1960) A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earthquake. In: 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 781–797

  42. Wu J, Chen G, Lou M (1999) Seismic effectiveness of tuned mass dampers considering soil–structure interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:1219–1233. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199911)28:11%3c1219::AID-EQE861%3e3.0.CO;2-G

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to show their appreciation to the HPC center (Shahr-e-Kord University, Iran) for their collaboration in offering computational clusters, which was a great help to complete this work.

Funding

This study has not been funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran

    Mitra Salimi, Reza Kamgar & Heisam Heidarzadeh

Authors
  1. Mitra Salimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reza Kamgar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heisam Heidarzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Kamgar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animal/human participants performed by authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salimi, M., Kamgar, R. & Heidarzadeh, H. An evaluation of the advantages of friction TMD over conventional TMD. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 6, 95 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00473-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00473-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation