Cited by 47Vibration Control and Rheological FluidsSeismic Performance and AnalysisSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings

Lifecycle cost optimization of tuned mass dampers for the seismic improvement of inelastic structures

Open access
Matta, Emiliano·2018·Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics

Abstract

Summary: The seismic performance of tuned mass dampers (TMDs) on structures undergoing inelastic deformations may largely depend on the ground motion intensity. By estimating the impact of each seismic intensity on the overall cost of future seismic damages, lifecycle cost (LCC) proves a rational metric for evaluating the benefits of TMDs on inelastic structures. However, no incorporation of this metric into an optimization framework is reported yet. This paper presents a methodology for the LCC‐optimal design of TMDs on inelastic structures, which minimizes the total seismic LCC of the combined building‐TMD system. Its distinctive features are the assumption of a mass‐proportional TMD cost model, the adoption of an iterative suboptimization procedure, and the initialization of the TMD frequency and damping ratios according to a conventional linear TMD design technique. The methodology is applied to the seismic improvement of the SAC‐LA benchmark buildings, taken as representative of standard steel moment‐resisting frame office buildings in LA, California. Results show that, despite their limited performance at the highest intensity levels, LCC‐optimal TMDs considerably reduce the total LCC, to an extent that depends on both the building vulnerability and the TMD unit cost. They systematically present large mass ratios (around 10%) and frequency and damping ratios close to their respective linearly designed optima. Simulations reveal the effectiveness of the proposed design methodology and the importance of adopting a nonlinear model to correctly evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of TMDs on ordinary structures in highly seismic areas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eqe.2987

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LCC-optimal TMD design systematically introduces large mass ratios around 10% and frequency and damping ratios near their respective linearly designed optima.

    “They systematically introduced large mass ratios (around 10%) and frequency and damping ratios near to their respective linearly designed optima.”
  • Simulations show the effectiveness of the proposed LCC design methodology and the importance of accepting a nonlinear model to correctly measure the cost-effectiveness of TMDs on ordinary structures in highly seismic areas.

    “Simulations disclose the effectiveness of the proposed design methodology and the importance of acceptance a nonlinear model to correctly measure the cost-effectiveness of TMDs on ordinary structures in highly seismic areas.”
  • Despite limited performance at the highest intensity levels, LCC-optimal TMDs considerably reduce total lifecycle cost, to an extent depending on building vulnerability and TMD unit cost.

    “Results show that, despite their limited performance at the highest intensity levels, LCC-optimal TMDs considerably reduce the total LCC, to an extent that depends on both the building vulnerability and the TMD unit cost.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matta, E.
Affiliations
Politecnico di Torino (IT)
Corresponding author
Matta, Emiliano
Venue
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-11-02
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
714-737
ISSN
  • 0098-8847 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9845
OpenAlex
W2765802617
Cited by
47
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PORTO Publications Open Repository TOrino (Politecnico di Torino) (submittedVersion)
  • PORTO@Iris (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Vibration Control and Rheological Fluids
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Seismic Performance and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Seismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Keywords
tuned mass damper, inelastic structures, seismic retrofitting, steel moment-resisting frames, nonlinear structural response

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review