Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Conventional optimization of inerter systems (IS), such as the tuned inerter damper (TID) and tuned viscous mass damper (TVMD), is typically confined to the stiffness-damping space, potentially overlooking superior solutions. This study systematically derives and compares closed-form H<sub>2</sub>&#xa0;optimal solutions for TID and TVMD across three distinct parameter spaces: stiffness-damping (Set I), stiffness-inerter (Set II), and damping-inerter (Set III). A comprehensive analysis evaluates parameter trends, frequency responses, robustness, and time-domain performance.</p> Methods <p>Closed-form H<sub>2</sub>&#xa0;optimal parameters are analytically derived for TID and TVMD within each of the three parameter spaces. Comparative evaluations are conducted through parametric trend analysis, frequency response functions, robustness assessment under stiffness and mass variations, and time-domain simulations under seismic excitation.</p> Results <p>The choice of parameter space influences control efficacy. For TVMD, Set III proves most effective for minimizing peak displacement, whereas Set I is optimal for minimizing RMS displacement. For TID, Set I achieves balanced control of both displacement and acceleration, while Set III fails to provide optimal acceleration mitigation. Set II consistently produces the largest damping stroke, exhibiting the most significant damping enhancement effect; however, this may render it unsuitable for stroke-constrained applications, though it offers substantial damping amplification that could reduce engineering costs. Robustness analysis reveals no universally superior set: Sets I and II perform better under stiffness variations, while Sets II and III show greater robustness to mass changes. Under varied seismic excitation parameters, Set III demonstrates superior vibration mitigation stability.</p> Conclusion <p>No single parameter space universally outperforms others across all criteria. A systematic comparison of the three optimization sets enables more specific and differentiated design strategies for ISs, allowing them to be tailored to different engineering scenarios and structural performance demands. Set I is recommended for RMS displacement control (TVMD) or balanced response control (TID), Set III for peak displacement minimization (TVMD) or stable seismic performance (both), and Set II for applications requiring significant damping amplification where stroke constraints are relaxed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analytical Optimization of Inerter Systems for Stochastic Structural Vibration Control in Different Parameter Spaces

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月27日

查看全文
  • Ruoyu Zhang,
  • Xiaodong Wen,
  • Ming Zhou,
  • Yifan Song

摘要

Purpose

Conventional optimization of inerter systems (IS), such as the tuned inerter damper (TID) and tuned viscous mass damper (TVMD), is typically confined to the stiffness-damping space, potentially overlooking superior solutions. This study systematically derives and compares closed-form H2 optimal solutions for TID and TVMD across three distinct parameter spaces: stiffness-damping (Set I), stiffness-inerter (Set II), and damping-inerter (Set III). A comprehensive analysis evaluates parameter trends, frequency responses, robustness, and time-domain performance.

Methods

Closed-form H2 optimal parameters are analytically derived for TID and TVMD within each of the three parameter spaces. Comparative evaluations are conducted through parametric trend analysis, frequency response functions, robustness assessment under stiffness and mass variations, and time-domain simulations under seismic excitation.

Results

The choice of parameter space influences control efficacy. For TVMD, Set III proves most effective for minimizing peak displacement, whereas Set I is optimal for minimizing RMS displacement. For TID, Set I achieves balanced control of both displacement and acceleration, while Set III fails to provide optimal acceleration mitigation. Set II consistently produces the largest damping stroke, exhibiting the most significant damping enhancement effect; however, this may render it unsuitable for stroke-constrained applications, though it offers substantial damping amplification that could reduce engineering costs. Robustness analysis reveals no universally superior set: Sets I and II perform better under stiffness variations, while Sets II and III show greater robustness to mass changes. Under varied seismic excitation parameters, Set III demonstrates superior vibration mitigation stability.

Conclusion

No single parameter space universally outperforms others across all criteria. A systematic comparison of the three optimization sets enables more specific and differentiated design strategies for ISs, allowing them to be tailored to different engineering scenarios and structural performance demands. Set I is recommended for RMS displacement control (TVMD) or balanced response control (TID), Set III for peak displacement minimization (TVMD) or stable seismic performance (both), and Set II for applications requiring significant damping amplification where stroke constraints are relaxed.