Seismic control of concrete buildings with nonlinear behavior, considering soil structure interaction using AMD and TMD

被引:8
|
作者
Mortezaie, Hamid [1 ]
Zamanian, Reza [2 ]
机构
[1] TVU, Fac Hamedan, Hamedan Branch, Dept Civil Engn, Hamadan, Hamadan, Iran
[2] Tarbiat Modares Univ, Dept Earthquake Engn, Jalal Al Ahmad St, Tehran 14115111, Iran
关键词
active mass damper; soil-structure interaction; non-linear analysis; concrete high-rise structures; openSees; MATLAB; TUNED MASS DAMPERS; ACTIVE CONTROL; FUZZY-LOGIC; VIBRATION CONTROL; PERFORMANCE; SUPPRESSION; SYSTEMS; DESIGN; ENERGY;
D O I
10.12989/sem.2021.77.6.721
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
The seismic analysis of structures without applying the effects of soil can undermine functional objectives of structure so that it can affect all the desired purposes at the design and control stages of the structure. In this research, employing OpenSees and MATLAB software simultaneously and developing a definite three-dimensional finite element model of a highrise concrete structure, designed using performance-based plastic design approach, the performance of Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) and Active Mass Damper (AMD) is both examined and compared. Moreover some less noted aspects such as nonlinear interaction of soil and structure, uplift, nonlinear behavior of structure and structural torsion have received more attention. For this purpose, the analysis of time history on the structural model has been performed under 22 far-field accelerogram records. Examining a full range of all structural seismic responses, including lateral displacement, acceleration, inter-story drift, lost plastic energy, number of plastic hinges, story shear force and uplift. The results indicate that TMD performs better than AMD except for lateral displacement and inter-story drift to control other structural responses. Because on the one hand, nonlinear structural parameters and soil-structure interaction have been added and on the other hand, the restriction on the control force applied that leads up to saturation phenomenon in the active control system affect the performance of AMD. Moreover, the control force applied by structural control system has created undesirable acceleration and shear force in the structure. The seismic analysis of structures without applying the effects of soil can undermine functional objectives of structure so that it can affect all the desired purposes at the design and control stages of the structure. In this research, employing OpenSees and MATLAB software simultaneously and developing a definite three-dimensional finite element model of a highrise concrete structure, designed using performance-based plastic design approach, the performance of Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) and Active Mass Damper (AMD) is both examined and compared. Moreover some less noted aspects such as nonlinear interaction of soil and structure, uplift, nonlinear behavior of structure and structural torsion have received more attention. For this purpose, the analysis of time history on the structural model has been performed under 22 far-field accelerogram records. Examining a full range of all structural seismic responses, including lateral displacement, acceleration, inter-story drift, lost plastic energy, number of plastic hinges, story shear force and uplift. The results indicate that TMD performs better than AMD except for lateral displacement and inter-story drift to control other structural responses. Because on the one hand, nonlinear structural parameters and soil-structure interaction have been added and on the other hand, the restriction on the control force applied that leads up to saturation phenomenon in the active control system affect the performance of AMD. Moreover, the control force applied by structural control system has created undesirable acceleration and shear force in the structure. Keywords: active mass damper; soil-structure interaction; non-linear analysis; concrete high-rise structures; openSees;
引用
收藏
页码:721 / 734
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] On the Nonlinear Behavior of Composite Structures under Multiple Earthquakes Considering Soil-Structure Interaction
    Chorafa, Elissavet
    Skrapalliou, Eumorfia
    Katsimpini, Panagiota
    CIVILENG, 2024, 5 (03): : 673 - 693
  • [42] Experimental study on seismic vibration control of an offshore wind turbine with TMD considering soil liquefaction effect
    Lin, Ging-Long
    Lu, Lyan-Ywan
    Lei, Kai-Ting
    Liu, Kuang-Yen
    Ko, Yung-Yen
    Ju, Shen-Haw
    MARINE STRUCTURES, 2021, 77
  • [43] Seismic Response of Vertical Hybrid Concrete/Steel Frames Considering Soil-Structure Interaction
    Katsimpini, Panagiota S.
    BUILDINGS, 2024, 14 (04)
  • [44] Damping dissipation analysis of damped outrigger tall buildings with inerter and negative stiffness considering soil-structure-interaction
    Wang, Meng
    Liu, Chao
    Zhao, Mi
    Sun, Fei-Fei
    Nagarajaiah, Satish
    Du, Xiu-Li
    JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING, 2024, 88
  • [45] Seismic behaviour of plan irregular reinforced concrete buildings considering soil effects
    Dhakal S.
    Chaulagain H.
    Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 2023, 8 (1)
  • [46] Resilient seismic design of reinforced concrete framed buildings with metallic fuses including soil-structure interaction effects
    Tena-Colunga, Arturo
    de Jesus Nangullasmu-Hernandez, Horacio
    SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2023, 164
  • [47] Optimal TMD design for torsional balance of asymmetrical 3D structures considering soil-structure interaction
    Espinoza, Gilda
    Casanova, Euro
    Benedetti, Franco
    Mena, Richard
    Luis Almazan, Jose
    STRUCTURAL CONTROL & HEALTH MONITORING, 2022, 29 (01):
  • [48] Multiobjective optimal placement of active tendons to control irregular multistory buildings with soil-structure interaction
    Nazarimofrad, Ebrahim
    Farahani, Sina
    Zahrai, Seyed Mehdi
    STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS, 2019, 28 (04):
  • [49] Effect of friction damper on seismic response of structure considering soil-structure interaction
    Sanghai, Sanket S.
    Pawade, Prashant Y.
    GRADEVINAR, 2020, 72 (01): : 33 - 44