Optimal Placement of Viscous Dampers for Seismic Building Design - Design Optimization of Active and Passive Structural Control Systems - page 48

While all methods investigated were effective,
the three optimal placement techniques studied,
the SSSA, Takewaki and Lavan methods, all of-
fered greater reductions in interstory drifts than
the uniform and stiffness-proportional schemes.
It is therefore evident that there is benefit to be
gained from the additional effort of implementing
an iterative scheme, in terms of further response
reductions for a given outlay. It is notable that
this benefit of the advanced schemes is not so
evident when considering peak absolute floor
accelerations, which do not reveal large differ-
ences between any of the added damper schemes,
apart from consistently smaller acceleration
distributions in the upper floors for the standard
placement methods.
Of all the advanced placement techniques
tested here, the Lavan method achieves the best
performance with the least complexity and time
expended to achieve the damper distribution
scheme. However, the differences between the
advanced techniques should not be exaggerated,
as all three produced similar placement schemes
and extremely similar drift and acceleration results.

Gluck, N., Reinhorn, A. M., Gluck, J., & Levy,
R. (1996). Design of supplemental dampers
for control of structures. Journal of Structural
Engineering , 122 (12), 1394-1399. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:12(1394)

Lavan, O., & Levy, R. (2006). Optimal peripheral
drift control of 3D irregular framed structures
using supplemental viscous dampers. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering , 10 (6), 903-923.
doi:10.1080/13632460609350623

Lavan, O., & Levy, R. (2009). Simple iterative
use of Lyapunov's solution for the linear opti-
mal seismic design of passive devices in framed
buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering ,
13 , 650-666. doi:10.1080/13632460902837736

Levy, R., & Lavan, O. (2006). Fully stressed de-
sign of passive controllers in framed structures for
seismic loadings. Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimisation , 32 (6), 485-498. doi:10.1007/
s00158-005-0558-5

Levy, R., & Lavan, O. (2009). Quantitative com-
parison of optimization approaches for the design
of supplemental damping in earthquake engineer-
ing practice. Journal of Structural Engineering ,
135 (3), 321-325. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2009)135:3(321)

REFERENCES

Cheng, F. Y., & Pantelides, C. P. (1988). Optimal
placement of actuators for structural control .
Technical Report NCEER-88-0037, National
Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
University of New York, Buffalo, N.Y.

Liu, W., Tong, M., & Lee, G. (2005). Optimization
methodology for damper configuration based on
building performance indices. Journal of Structur-
al Engineering , 131 (11), 1746-1756. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:11(1746)

CSI. (2009). SAP2000, version 11 . Berkeley, CA:
Computers and Structures, Inc.

Lopez-Garcia, D. (2001). A simple method for
the design of optimal damper configurations in
MDOF structures. Earthquake Spectra , 17 (3),
387-398. doi:10.1193/1.1586180

FEMA. (2000). FEMA 356: Prestandard and
commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings . Washington, DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.

Lopez-Garcia, D., & Soong, T. T. (2002). Ef-
ficiency of a simple approach to damper alloca-
tion in MDOF structures. Journal of Structural
Control , 9 , 19-30. doi:10.1002/stc.3