4.7 Article

Optimal design of brace-viscous damper and pendulum tuned mass damper using Particle Swarm Optimization

期刊

APPLIED OCEAN RESEARCH
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2021.102706

关键词

Offshore jacket platform; Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO); ANSYS; Pendulum tuned mass damper (PTMD); Brace-viscous damper system (BVDS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study applied Particle Swarm Optimization to determine the optimal performance of brace-viscous damper system and pendulum tuned mass damper system in mitigating the dynamic response of a jacket platform. Through numerical simulation and optimization algorithm, the optimal arrangement and parameter configurations were obtained.
We implemented Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) to determine the most optimal properties of the braceviscous damper system (BVDS), pendulum tuned mass damper (PTMD), and combined BVDS-PTMD system in mitigation of dynamic response of a jacket platform. To do this, a scaled prototype of an offshore jacket is numerically simulated in ANSYS subjected to ocean waves. Concerning BVDS, at each story, the variables being optimized are (1) BVDS configuration such as chevron, toggle, diagonal; (2) damping coefficient, and (3) brace area. The properties of PTMD being optimized are the damping ratio (xi d), frequency ratio (beta), structural excitation frequency ratio (alpha), and mass ratio (m). To do the optimization, the results of ANSYS are exploited to calculate the PSO cost function (standard deviation of deck displacements (sigma sd)). Regarding the deck displacement and base shear force, the optimization results proved that the optimal BVDS-PTMD combined system outperforms the optimal BVDS and the optimal BVDS performance is better than that of the PTMD system. Both in the optimal BVDS and integrated BVDS-PTMD, the chevron configuration for the top floor and toggle configuration for the first to third floors are evaluated as the optimum arrangement by the optimization algorithm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据