Comparison of Passive and Active Tuned Mass Dampers for Structures Subjected to Earthquake Excitations

Introduction

Firstly, a tuned mass damper (TMD) alike device was patented by Frahm (1911) and this device was modified with viscous damper by Ormondroyd and Den Hartog (1928) to control structures subjected to vibrations with varying frequencies. To use these devices effectively, the need for optimization is understood. Following the basic equations of Den Hartog (1947), several formulations have been proposed (Bishop and Welbourn, 1952; Snowdon, 1959; Ioi and Ikeda, 1978; Warburton, 1982; Sadek et al., 1997). These formulations are for a single degree of freedom (SDOF) main systems. For general optimization of TMDs, metaheuristics such as harmony search (Bekdaş and Nigdeli, 2011), artificial bee colony (Farshidianfar and Soheili, 2013), bat algorithm (Bekdaş et al., 2018) and Jaya algorithm (Bekdaş et al., 2019) have been proposed.

Since 1990, the number of studies about the active control of structures has been increasing. In active control, the control force is generated via control algorithms such as parallel-vector algorithm (Saleh and Adeli, 1994; Saleh and Adeli, 1996; Adeli and Saleh, 1997), H₂/H_∞ control (Lu and Skelton, 1998; Chang and Lin, 2009), linear quadratic regulator (Amini et al., 2013; Heidari, 2018), proportional-derivative integral (PID) (Ulusoy et al., 2021; Heidari, 2018; Guclu and Yazıcı, 2008; Kayabekir et al. 2021; Kayabekir et al., 2020a; 2020b) and fuzzy logic (Nomura et al., 2007; Pourzeynali et al., 2007; Guclu and Yazıcı, 2008; Soleymani and Muscat Razavi, 2014) controllers. Metaheuristics that use different inspirations as shown in Table 1 were also used in tuning the control algorithm in addition to the optimum tuning of system parameters including active tuned mass dampers (ATMDs) (Pourzeynali et al., 2007; Kayabekir et al. 2021; Kayabekir et al., 2020a; 2020b).