4.7 Article

Robust design of tuned mass damper with hybrid uncertainty

期刊

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/stc.2803

关键词

evidence theory; hybrid uncertainty; parallel-EGO; robust design; tuned mass damper

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51178337]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai [17ZR1431900]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2017YFC0703607]
  4. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [SLDRCE19-B-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A robust design method for a tuned mass damper (TMD) is proposed in this study, which combines aleatory and epistemic uncertainties to minimize worst system response and improve the robustness of the primary structure through global optimization. Case studies validate the effectiveness of the designed TMD in reducing seismic responses.
The robust design of a tuned mass damper (TMD) with hybrid aleatory and epistemic uncertainties is proposed in this study. In this method, the aleatory uncertainty involved in the external excitation is represented with the white noise in stochastic theory. The epistemic uncertainties derived from fragmentary statistical data and incomplete preknowledge of structural model and site condition are fully captured with the discrete multi-intervals in evidence theory. In order to overcome the computational bottleneck related to the uncertainty propagation of epistemic uncertainties, a parallel-efficient global optimization (parallel-EGO) method is proposed to approximate the bounds of structural response for joint focal elements. Then, a robustness objective function, with the aim to minimize the worst system response of the primary structure, is presented to search the optimal parameters of TMD. Finally, case studies for a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system and a multi-degree-freedom (MDOF) system validate that the designed TMD not only significantly reduces the worst seismic responses but also improves the robustness of the primary structure.

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