Premium
Characteristics of linearly distributed parameter‐based multiple‐tuned mass dampers
Author(s) -
Han Bingkang,
Li Chunxiang
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
structural control and health monitoring
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.587
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1545-2263
pISSN - 1545-2255
DOI - 10.1002/stc.222
Subject(s) - tuned mass damper , stiffness , damping ratio , vibration , natural frequency , mode (computer interface) , mass ratio , control theory (sociology) , damper , structural engineering , distribution (mathematics) , minification , work (physics) , mass distribution , mathematics , mathematical optimization , computer science , engineering , mathematical analysis , physics , acoustics , control (management) , mechanical engineering , aeronautics , quantum mechanics , galaxy , operating system , artificial intelligence
Five multiple‐tuned mass damper (MTMD) models with their natural frequencies being uniformly distributed around their mean natural frequency and eight MTMD models with the system parameters being uniformly distributed around their average values, respectively, have been recently presented by the second author. In order to further seek the MTMD models with high performance, the present paper will extend the above‐mentioned work in terms of the simultaneously uniform distributions of three‐ or two‐system parameters. Consequently, highlighted in this paper are four other MTMD models, referred to as general linearly distributed parameter‐based multiple‐tuned mass dampers (general LDP‐MTMD). The structure is represented by the mode‐generalized system corresponding to the specific vibration mode that needs to be controlled. The main objective of the present‐study, thus is to estimate the performance with general LDP‐MTMD with respect to the MTMD with identical damping coefficient and damping ratio but unequal stiffness and uniform distribution of masses (UM‐MTMD3) by resorting to minimization of the minimum values of the maximum dynamic magnification factors (i.e. Min.Min.Max.DMF) of structures with these four LDP‐MTMD models. It is again manifested in terms of the simulation results presented that it is preferable to select the optimum UM‐MTMD3 or the optimum MTMD with identical stiffness and damping coefficient but unequal mass and uniform distribution of natural frequencies. Notwithstanding this, in comparison with the UM‐MTMD3 when the total mass ratio is smaller than or equal to 0.02, due to significantly smaller strokes as well as almost the same effectiveness and robustness levels, the LDP‐MTMD3 is also preferable with larger total number of dampers. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.