Cited by 20Vibration Control and Rheological FluidsSeismic Performance and AnalysisSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings

Seismic effectiveness and robustness of tuned mass dampers versus nonlinear energy sinks in a lifecycle cost perspective

Open access
Matta, Emiliano·2021·Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Abstract

Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) and nonlinear energy sinks (NESs) are two viable options for passively absorbing structural vibrations. In seismic applications, a trade-off exists in their performance, because TMDs’ effectiveness varies with the structural stiffness while NESs’ effectiveness varies with the earthquake intensity. To investigate this trade-off systematically, a lifecycle cost- (LCC-) oriented robust analysis and design method is here proposed, in which the effectiveness of a solution is measured by the reduction it entails in the expected cost of future seismic losses. In it, structural stiffness variability is modelled using a worst-case approach with lower and upper bounds, while seismic intensity variability is inherently captured by the incremental dynamic analyses underlying every LCC evaluation. The resulting worst-case lifetime cost provides a rational metric for discussing pros and cons of TMDs and NESs, and becomes the objective function for their robust optimization. The method is applied to the design of TMDs and NESs on a variety of single- and multi-story linear building models, located in a moderate-to-high seismic hazard region. Mass ratios from 1 to 10% and structural stiffness reductions up to 4 times are considered. Results show that TMDs are consistently more effective than NESs even in the presence of large stiffness reductions, provided that structural stiffness uncertainty is considered in design. They also show that a conventional robust H∞ design provides for TMDs a solution which is very close to that obtained by minimizing the proposed LCC metric.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10518-020-00973-2

Cites

50 of 50 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matta, E.
Affiliations
Politecnico di Torino (IT)
Corresponding author
Matta, Emiliano
Venue
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
Published
2020-10-19
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
513-551
ISSN
  • 1570-761X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1456
OpenAlex
W3094549890
Cited by
20
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PORTO@Iris (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Politecnico di Torino
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, nonlinear energy sink, seismic vibration control, life cycle cost, robust optimization, incremental dynamic analysis, H-infinity control, multi-storey buildings, mass ratio

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