13 views

Uploaded by Dmitry

- Performing Steady-State Pedestrian Crowd Loading to BS en 1991-2 2003
- Chimneys - Damper Catalog
- 14exam
- Block Vibration Test
- Report 1.pdf
- Vibrations 9
- Application of Optimization Techniques in Reducing the Weight of Engine.pdf
- CH Turbine
- Shock Mount Selection
- Cigre Safe Design Tensions
- 2552
- final project of math 1060
- Week 1 Vibration Introduction
- Section Fundamentals
- New Methods of Studying Noise and Vibration and Cybernetic Diagnosis of Machines and Mechanisms
- 02introduction to Shock and vibration
- 31596898 Vibration Isolation and Transmissibility by Www Engineering Me Uk
- 1-s2.0-S0307904X13006732-main
- At - OrBAN, F. Damping of Materials and Members in Structures
- Normativ american

You are on page 1of 10

e-mail: lei.zuo@abbott.com

Phone: 847-935-0086

Abbott Laboratories,

Bldg. AP52S,

200 Abbott Park Road,

Abbott Park, IL 60064-6212

Samir A. Nayfeh

e-mail: nayfeh@mit.edu

Phone: 617-253-2407

Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Room 3-461A,

77 Massachusetts Avenue,

Cambridge, MA 02139

The Two-Degree-of-Freedom

Tuned-Mass Damper for

Suppression of Single-Mode

Vibration Under Random and

Harmonic Excitation

Whenever a tuned-mass damper is attached to a primary system, motion of the absorber

body in more than one degree of freedom (DOF) relative to the primary system can be

used to attenuate vibration of the primary system. In this paper, we propose that more

than one mode of vibration of an absorber body relative to a primary system be tuned to

suppress single-mode vibration of a primary system. We cast the problem of optimization

of the multi-degree-of-freedom connection between the absorber body and primary structure as a decentralized control problem and develop optimization algorithms based on the

H2 and H-infinity norms to minimize the response to random and harmonic excitations,

respectively. We find that a two-DOF absorber can attain better performance than the

optimal SDOF absorber, even for the case where the rotary inertia of the absorber tends

to zero. With properly chosen connection locations, the two-DOF absorber achieves

better vibration suppression than two separate absorbers of optimized mass distribution.

A two-DOF absorber with a negative damper in one of its two connections to the primary

system yields significantly better performance than absorbers with only positive

dampers. DOI: 10.1115/1.2128639

Introduction

damper TMD, or dynamic vibration absorber DVA, to attenuate vibration of a single mode of a primary system under various

conditions has been studied extensively e.g., 15. To enhance

the effectiveness and robustness of TMD systems, multiple SDOF

TMDs with frequencies tuned in the neighborhood of a mode of a

primary system have been proposed by Xu and Igusa 6 and

optimized by Zuo and Nayfeh 7. Multiple SDOF TMDs have

been used to damp more than one mode of a primary system by

tuning each TMD to an individual mode of interest in the primary

system 8,9.

Whenever an absorber is attached to a primary system, there is

potential for utilization of motion in more than one degree of

freedom of the absorber body relative to the primary system.

Dahlbe 10 numerically optimized a continuous two-segment

cantilever beam for suppression of SDOF vibration and found the

two-segment beam to be more effective than a SDOF TMD of the

same mass. Recently, Zuo and Nayfeh 1113 and Verdirame and

Nayfeh 14 have optimized the stiffness and damping in multidegree-of-freedom MDOF connections between a rigid body

and primary structure to damp as many as six modes of a structure. In these studies, one mode of vibration of the body relative to

the structure is tuned to each mode of interest in the primary

system.

In this paper, we propose that more than one mode of vibration

of a body relative to a primary structure be tuned to one natural

frequency of a primary system. Such an absorber is often easier to

construct than an SDOF TMD or multiple SDOF TMDs because

of the reduced need for guidance, and can achieve enhanced performance. We cast the design of MDOF TMD systems as decenContributed by the Technical Committee on Vibration and Sound of ASME for

publication in the JOURNAL OF VIBRATIONS AND ACOUSTICS. Manuscript received June 3,

2003; final manuscript received April 1, 2005. Assoc. Editor: D. Dane Quinn.

where the feedback gain is a block diagonal matrix composed of

the stiffness and damping parameters to be optimized.

Based on this formulation, we minimize the system response to

random excitation by adapting a gradient-based H2 optimization

technique based on Lyapunov equations. The optimal parameters

are obtained and presented in dimensionless form to be useful for

design. With properly chosen locations for the springs and dampers, the 2DOF TMD achieves better vibration suppression than

two separate TMDs with optimized mass distribution. Next, to

minimize the steady harmonic response under sinusoidal disturbances, we propose an algorithm based on decentralized H optimization, and find that the 2DOF TMD again offers performance

better than the conventional SDOF TMD or two separate TMDs.

Problem Formulation

a SDOF primary system. We take the 2DOF TMD as an example;

the general multi-DOF TMD can be handled similarly. The primary system has a natural frequency s = ks / ms and damping

ratio s = cs / 2ksms and is subject to a base excitation x0, an external disturbance force f, or both. The absorber body has two

planar degrees of freedom, translation xd and rotation d. Its mass

is md and the rotational inertia about its center of mass is Id

= md2, where is the radius of gyration. The absorber is connected to the primary system at distances d1 and d2 from its center

of mass via springs and dashpots. Our goal is to design the parameters k1, c1, k2, and c2 as well as the locations of the connections d1 and d2 in order to minimize the response of the primary

system. We consider first the case where d1 = d2 = d, then in Sec.

4.5 discuss the case where d1 d2. The effect of absorber mass md

and rotary inertia Id will also be explored in Sec. 4.

By taking the springs and dashpots as elements which feed back

locally the relative displacements and velocities, Zuo and Nayfeh

15 have cast the optimization of a wide class of mechanical

Downloaded 25 Jun 2009 to 129.49.32.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

md/2

x1

0 0 0

x1

0 0 0

x1

md/2 md/2

x2

x2

xs

+ 0 0 0

0 0 ks

x2

ms

+ 0 0 0

0 0 cs

md/2

0

xs

0

0

1

1

0

= 0 x0 + 0 x0 + 0 f + d2/2 d2/2

1

1

1

cs

ks

u1

u2

xs

or

M p p + C p p + K p p = B px0 + Bvx0 + Bd f + Buu

of the TMD system does not depend on the rotational inertia Id.

Rather, it depends on the ratio of the radius of gyration to the

distance d from the mount points to the center of mass of the

absorber.

Defining the state variables of the system as

x=

systems as zeroth-order decentralized control problems. In this

way, the role of the spring and dashpot pairs are replaced by the

control-force vector u1 , u2, where the prime denotes the matrix

transpose, as shown in Fig. 2. The control forces in this case are

given by

u1 = k1x1 xs + c1x1 xs

u2 = k2x2 xs + c2x2 xs

p

p M 1

p B vx 0

9

x = Ax + B1w + B2u

where w = f , x0 and

A=

where x1 and x2 are the displacements of the absorber in the direction of xs at the connection locations.

The equations governing the vibration of the coupled system

with small absorber rotation take the form

mdxd = u1 u2

B1 =

1

M 1

p Kp M p Cp

M 1

p Bv

1

1

M 1

p Bd M p B p C p M p Bv

B2 =

10

12

M 1

p Bu

The cost output can be taken as the absolute or relative displacement, velocity, or acceleration of the primary system, which

can be expressed in the form

z = C1x + D11w + D12u

Id d = u1d u2d

write the above governing equations in matrix form as

11

13

primary system, we write the cost as z = xs = C1x, where C1

= 0 , 0 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 0.

To complete the state-space description, we rewrite the control

force given by Eqs. 1 and 2 as a static feedback gain F multiplied by the measurement output y. That is,

u=

k1 c1 0

0

0 k2 c2

def

y = Fy

14

where y is given by

y = x1 xs,x1 xs,x2 xs,x2 xs = C2x + D21w + D22u

15

The form of C2 follows from the definition of the state given by

Eq. 8 and the matrices D22 = 0 and

D21 = C2

M 1

p Bv

16

TMD system as a decentralized control problem, as shown by the

block diagram of Fig. 3.

Based on this formulation, we use decentralized control techniques to directly optimize the stiffness and damping coefficients

of the springs and dampers to achieve performance measured by

z under the disturbance w. Decentralized H2 optimization minimizes the output variance under random excitation, and decentralized H optimization minimizes the worst-case response magniFEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 57

Downloaded 25 Jun 2009 to 129.49.32.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

F

22

subject to

KA + B2FC2 + A + B2FC2K + C1 + D12FC2C1 + D12FC2

23

=0

viewed as a system with decentralized control

will briefly review our method for decentralized H2 optimization,

and then present the results of optimization of a 2DOF TMD

under random excitation in Sec. 4. In Sec. 5, an algorithm for

decentralized H optimization is proposed along with some results for the 2DOF TMD under harmonic excitation.

where F is in the given block-diagonal form. In practice, we require that the parameters be nonnegative. So we replace F by

FdFd, where the symbol denotes multiplication entry by

entry.

Employing the Lagrange multiplier method 17 and matrix calculus, we obtain the gradient of the square of the H2 norm with

respect to Fd where FdFd is the controller gain in the form 11

H22

D12FdFdC2 + D12

C1 + B2KLC2

= 4D12

Fd

24

Fd

+ B2KB1 + B2FdFdD21D21

25

where the observability Grammian K and Lagrange multiplier matrix L are obtained by solving the two decoupled Lyapunov matrix

equations with a given matrix Fd:

KA + B2FdFdC2 + A + B2FdFdC2K + C1

+ D12FdFdC2C1 + D12FdFdC2 = 0

LA + B2FdFdC2 + A + B2FdFdC2L + B1

impulse response:

H22 =

thzwtdt

tracehzw

1

2

jHzwjd

traceHzw

17

2

zz

= lim E

T

1

T

ztztdt = H22

x = Acx + Bcw

19

z = C cx + D cw

is infinite if Ac is unstable or Dc is nonzero. Otherwise

H22 = traceBc KBc

20

where K is a symmetric matrix known as the observability Grammian which satisfies the Lyapunov equation

Ac K + KAc + Cc Cc = 0

Under the decentralized feedback u = Fy, the closed-loop system w z shown in Fig. 3 is given by

Ac Bc

Cc Dc

A + B2FC2 B1 + B2FD21

C1 + D12FC2 D12FD21

21

decentralized H2 optimal control problem becomes

58 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

27

Fd =

k/2 c/2

0

k/2 c/2

28

TMD of the same mass ratio md / ms obtained from the analytical

tuning formulas developed by Den Hartog 1 or Asani et al. 5.

18

H2 norm minimizes the RMS response of the output zt under

wide-band random excitation wt.

Based on the definition given by Eq. 17, it can be shown that

the H2 norm of an LTI system can be evaluated by solving a

Lyapunov equation 16, as summarized in the following: The H2

norm of the LTI system from w z given by

+ B2FdFdD21B1 + B2FdFdD21 = 0

such as the FBGS quasi-Newton method 18, to solve for the

matrix Fd efficiently and then obtain the stiffness and damping

parameters from controller gain FdFd. A good initial guess for

Fd is

system transfer matrix. Another interpretation of system H2 norm

is the asymptotic value of output variance under unit white noise

input. That is, if Ewt = 0 and Ewtwt + = I, then

26

the optimal parameters of k1, k2, c1, and c2 as a function of the

ratio / d. We consider initially the case where d1 = d2 = d, and

later the case where d1 d2. As for the SDOF absorber 5, the

optimal H2 norm is proportional to the square-root of the natural

frequency s of the primary system, and we therefore normalize

comprehensive study of the 2DOF TMD, taking the excitation as

the base motion x0w = x0 and the performance index as the RMS

value of the displacement xs.

4.1 Effect of / d. As pointed out following Eq. 6, the performance of the TMD system depends on the ratio of the absorbers radius of gyration to the distance d from the mount points to

the center of mass of the absorber. The solid line in Fig. 4 shows

the normalized optimal H2 norm as a function of / d for

= md / ms = 5% and s = 0.

On this plot, / d = or d = 0 corresponds to the optimal

a system equivalent to two separate SDOF TMDs with m1 = m2

= md / 2, as shown in Fig. 5. And / d = 1 / 3 is the case of a

uniform-density bar supported at its two ends. But the optimal / d

for = 5% and s = 0 is 0.780, which yields H2 = 2.0189s. The

trend is similar if the primary system is lightly damped, as indiTransactions of the ASME

Downloaded 25 Jun 2009 to 129.49.32.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

with = 5% for s = 0 solid and for s = 1% dashed

= 5% and s = 1% is 0.777. The frequency responses are compared

in Fig. 6.

Figure 4 also shows that the optimal H2 norm at / d = 0 is

smaller than that of a SDOF TMD / d = , indicating that a

2DOF TMD without rotary inertia can achieve better vibration

suppression than the SDOF TMD. This can be explained by comparison of the impedance of the 2DOF TMD with no rotary inertia

as sketched in Fig. 7a to that of the SDOF TMD sketched in Fig.

7b. The latter is given by a second-order transfer function,

whereas the former is given by a third-order transfer function,

which when optimized accounts for the improvement in

performance.

4.2 Comparison to Two TMDs With Optimal Mass

Distribution. As mentioned previously, the performance of the

optimal 2DOF TMD exceeds that of two separate TMDs with

equal masses and optimal springs and dampers. The authors 7

have also obtained the optimal H2 norm of two SDOF TMDs with

unequal mass distribution as plotted in Fig. 8 for = 5% and s

= 0.

In this curve, m1 / m1 + m2 = 0.5 corresponds to the case of

equal masses, and m1 / m1 + m2 = 1 corresponds to the case of a

single SDOF TMD. The optimal mass distribution is m1 / m1

system

= 5% and s = 0: / d = 0.780 solid, two separate TMDs dash,

uniform bar supported at two ends dash-dot, and SDOF TMD

dot

only 0.02% less than that of two SDOF TMDs with equal masses,

and is larger than the H2 norm of the 2DOF TMD with optimal

/ d. Thus the performance of the 2DOF TMD generally exceeds

that of two separate SDOF TMDs, even if the mass is distributed

optimally among them.

4.3 Negative Damping. Figure 4 shows two sharp corners in

the dependence of the optimal H2 norm on / d. This is because at

these values of / d the constraint ci 0 become active. That is,

Fig. 7

among two SDOF TMDs for = 5% and s = 0

Table 1 Comparison of designs obtained with and without the constraint that the parameters

remain nonnegative for / d = 0.2, = 5%, cs = 0, ms = 1, and ks = 1

the constraint is active for / d greater than about 1.25 or less than

0.751. An interesting set of designs are found beyond these two

values if we do not constrain the parameters to be positive.

Take as an example the case of / d = 0.2, = 5%, and s = 0

with the stiffness ks and mass ms of the primary system normalized to one. We optimize the parameters of stiffness and damping

using the algorithm of Sec. 3 which guarantees that ki 0 and

ci 0 and list as the first entry in Table 1 the optimal parameters,

the poles of the coupled absorber and primary system, and the

poles of the absorber mounted to ground. With the parameters

constrained to be nonnegative, we see that for this value of / d,

one of the modes of the absorber is tuned close to s, but the other

is over damped. The Bode plot of xss / x0s is shown as a dashed

line in Fig. 9.

If we modify the algorithm to allow negative stiffness and

damping, we obtain the results shown as the second entry of Table

1 and indicated by the solid line in Fig. 9. From Table 1, we see

that although there is a negative damper in the system, the coupled

absorber and primary system are stable. Moreover, the performance of this system is significantly better than that of the system

with the dampers constrained to be non-negative. Such a design

could readily be implemented in an active absorber, though there

would be potential for instabilities in the presence of modeling

uncertainties.

It may be suggested that a different configuration of springs and

dampers could attain the same performance without resort to

negative dampers. For this particular example, it can be shown

algebraically that it is not possible to find positive values of k1, k2,

c1, and c2 that yield the same dynamics, even if their locations are

allowed to vary independently. However, it may be possible to

obtain improved performance in passive systems by considering a

somewhat more general configuration e.g., including torsional

springs and dampers.

4.4 Optimal Parameters. The optimal normalized modal frequencies undamped 1 / s and 2 / s, and modal damping ratios 1 and 2 of the TMD subsystem attached to ground for

= 5% and s = 0 are shown in Fig. 10 as functions of / d. As we

have observed in the foregoing, for small / d, we can only tune

one of the natural frequencies of the TMD close to s and the

other mode is over damped.

To provide results more readily used for design, in Fig. 11 we

give the optimal parameters in the form of dimensionless fre 1 / s and

2 / s and damping factors 1 and 2

quencies

1 = k1/md,

= c /2m k ,

1

1

d 1

2k2/md

= c /2m k

2

1

d 1

These are convenient dimensionless parameters, but they do not

correspond to the resonant frequencies or damping ratios of the

modes of the TMD subsystem.

Next, we minimize the H2 norm of xs / x0 as the mass ratio is

varied. Figure 12 shows the optimal / d for different values of .

The achieved minimal H2 norms of 2DOF TMD system with

optimal / d are shown in Fig. 13 and compared with those of the

SDOF TMD and two separate TMDs. The corresponding optimal

tuning of stiffness and damping for the optimal / d are given in

1 / s,

2 / s,

Fig. 14 in terms of the dimensionless parameters

, and . Figures 13 and 14 can be used to design the optimal

1

2

2DOF TMD for a given mass ratio. Comparing the curves in Fig.

13, we see that the optimal 2DOF TMD whose mass is 5% of that

of the primary system provides roughly the same performance as

the optimal SDOF absorber whose mass is 6% of that of the

primary system.

Fig. 9 Bode plots of xss / x0s for / d = 0.2, = 5%, and s = 0: original system

dot, optimized with nonnegative constraint dashed, optimized without nonnegative constraint solid

Fig. 10 Optimal modal frequencies and damping ratios of the 2DOF TMD subsystem as a function for / d for = 5% and s = 0

maintained the symmetry of the locations of the connections between the TMD and primary system by holding d1 = d2 = d. In this

subsection, we relax this constraint and examine the H2 optimal

2DOF TMD allowing d1 and d2 to vary independently. The design

method is the same as before: For a given d1 and d2, we use

decentralized control techniques to optimize the stiffness and

damping values.

The achievable performance is a function of / d1 and / d2.

Figure 15 shows the minimal normalized H2 norm for = 5% and

s = 0 attained by optimizing k1, k2, c1, and c2 for a range of / d1

and / d2. From this figure, we see that the optimal / d1 = / d2

= 0.780 for symmetric connections is a saddle point and that we

can attain better performance by allowing d1 and d2 vary independently. The contour plot indicates that the global minimum for a

mass ratio of 5% is attained when / d1 tends to zero and / d2

is approximately 3. To avoid a singular computation, we take

/ d1 = 0.01 and find the corresponding best / d2 to be 3.055. The

corresponding optimal parameters and closed-loop poles are

shown in Table 2 and compared with those of the optimal symmetric case. The corresponding frequency responses are compared

in Fig. 16.

Decentralized H Optimization

We now turn to the problem of minimizing the worst-case response to sinusoidal inputs of the primary system with a 2DOF

TMD. For single-input-single-output LTI systems, the H norm is

the peak of the magnitude of the frequency-response. For multiinput-multi-output LTI systems, it is the supremum of the largest

singular value over all frequencies:

2

jHzwj 29

H2 = sup max

Hzwj = sup maxHzw

value and eigenvalue of their arguments. We see that the H norm

is the steady magnitude response under worst-case sinusoidal excitation. Note that Den Hartogs design formulas for an SDOF

TMD mounted to a SDOF primary system yield a close approximation to the H optimal design.

For an SDOF TMD attached to multi-DOF primary system, the

efficient algorithms for optimization of centralized static output

feedback proposed by El Ghaoui et al. 19 or by Geromel et al.

20 can be used. However, as we have seen in Sec. 2, the optimization of an MDOF TMD is equivalent to decentralized optimal

control with static output feedback.

Decentralized H optimization has been investigated by many

researchers in the controls community, and various techniques

such as alternative linear matrix inequalities LMIs 21, homotopy 22,15, and LMI iteration 23 have been proposed. But

none of these algorithms can be guaranteed to converge to a local

optimum or a stationary point. Our experience is that these methods generate sequences that decrease quickly when the controller

gain is far from the optimum, but become very inefficient when

the sequences come close the optimum. In the engineering application of structural optimization, a commonly used frequency-

Fig. 15 Contour map of normalized minimal H2 norm for various values of / d1 and / d2 for = 5% and s = 0

Fig. 12 Optimal ratio / d of the radius of gyration to the connection spacing d versus mass ratio for s = 0

domain optimization method is based on the evaluation of a transfer function at discrete frequencies e.g., 24,10. To capture the

maximal magnitude response, the frequencies have to be closely

spaced and hence the method is also computationally inefficient.

We therefore develop a method with better efficiency for minimization of the peak of the frequency response. It is based on

these two points: 1 The peak of the frequency response, or the

H norm of a LTI system, can be computed very efficiently using

-iteration. 2 Finite differences can be used to approximate the

gradient, and the computational efficiency should be much better

than direct search if the objective function is easy to evaluate. The

-iteration algorithm is based on this fact: For the stable LTI

system of Eq. 19 assuming that Dc = 0, H if and only if

the Hamiltonian matrix

s = 0: 2DOF TMD with optimal / d solid, two separate TMDs

dashed, and SDOF TMD dotted

Ac

1

B B

c c

1

Cc Cc

Ac

and a lower bound we can use a bisection algorithm to calculate

the system H norm i.e., the value of that makes the above

Hamiltonian matrix have an imaginary eigenvalue. A similar

Hamiltonian matrix exists for the case Dc 0; details can be

found in the text 16. Standard routines for -iteration, such as

the Matlab function normhinf in the Robust Control Toolbox, are

available.

The algorithm for minimization of the worst-case response to

harmonic excitation is summarized as follows:

Fig. 14 Parameters of the optimal 2DOF TMD as a function of the mass ratio

for s = 0

ms = 1, and ks = 1

c1, and c2. To ensure that we obtain nonnegative parameters, we take controller gain as FdFd.

Step 2: Evaluate the H norm J using the Matlab function

normhinf or any other -iteration routine 16 for a given

matrix Fd and Fd + Fd. Then approximate the gradient

J / Fd using the finite difference J / Fd. If the decrease of

J is small enough, stop; otherwise go to Step 3.

Step 3: Based on the gradient J / Fd, calculate a search

direction DF e.g., the FBGS quasi-Newton direction 18.

Choose a proper step size using the Armijo rule, or any other

rule 18. Update Fd with Fd + DF. Go to Step 2.

Note that the system H norm is a nonsmooth function of the

matrix Fd and therefore, at some points in the design space,

J / Fd may approximate a mixture of subgradients. Such a

mixture might not yield a true descent direction, in which case, we

can either provide a slight perturbation to the current iterate, or

choose a descent direction directly from the finite difference.

Using this algorithm, we minimize the H norm of the 2DOF

TMD system to obtain the optimal stiffness and damping parameters for harmonic excitation. Figure 17 shows the minimal H

norms achieved using a 2DOF absorber of mass ratio = 5% attached to a primary system with initial damping s = 0 and s

= 1% as a function of / d. The trend is similar to that obtained for

H2 optimal design as shown in Fig. 4. The optimal values of / d

for = 5% are, respectively, 0.751 and 0.747 with s = 0 and s

= 1%, which are close to the optimal values of 0.780 and 0.777 for

the H2 optimal designs with = 5%. As in the case of H2 optimal

design, the frequency peak of the optimal 2DOF TMD without

rotary inertia / d = 0 is smaller than that of the optimal SDOF

with symmetric and asymmetric connection locations for

= 5% and s = 0: / d1 = / d2 = 0.780 solid, / d1 = 0.010 and / d2

= 3.055 dashed, SDOF TMD dotted

optimal 2DOF TMD, SDOF TMD, and two SDOF TMDs are

compared in Fig. 18. It is seen that the 2DOF TMD attains much

better performance than either the SDOF TMD or two SDOF

TMDs.

In Fig. 17 the two sharp corners of the curve are again the result

of the constraint that the parameters of stiffness and damping

remain non-negative. Without taking the feedback gain F to be

FdFd, the forgoing algorithm can also be used to minimize the

s = 0 solid and for s = 1% dashed

design for = 5% and s = 0: optimal / d = 0.751 solid, two

separate TMDs dashed, uniform bar supported at two ends

dashed-dotted, and SDOF TMD dotted

Fig. 19 Bode plots of xss / x0s for / d = 0.2, = 5%, and s = 0 obtained by H

optimization: original system dotted, optimized with non-negative constraint

dashed line, peak magnitude of 6.071, optimized without nonnegative constraint solid line, peak magnitude of 3.384

attention must be paid to the step size to avoid a destabilizing

design. The frequency responses obtained with and without the

constraint that the parameters remain nonnegative are compared in

Fig. 19. As in H2 optimization, decentralized H optimization

yields significant improvement with one damper allowed to be

negative, and the total system is still stable.

To better understand the physics of the 2DOF TMD, it is useful

to examine the apparent mass of the TMD, i.e., the transfer func-

tion from the acceleration s2xs of the primary system to the force

F exerted upon it by the TMD. Figure 20 gives the normalized

apparent mass F / s2mdxs for three designs of the 2DOF TMD.

The total apparent mass denoted by the solid lines is the sum of

contributions from the two modes of the TMD denoted by dashed

lines. The total normalized apparent mass at zero frequency must

be unity and is equal to the sum of the residues of the two modes.

From Fig. 20a, we see that the two modes of the optimum

Fig. 20 Normalized apparent mass F / s2mdxs of various H optimal 2DOF absorbers obtained without parameters constraints: a / d = 1, b / d = 0.751, and c / d = 0.2. The solid

lines denote the total apparent mass and the dashed lines denote the contribution of each

absorber mode

design with / d = 1 have equal residues and are tuned to frequencies just below and just above the resonance frequency of the

primary system. This is in contrast to the absorber obtained with

/ d = 0.751, shown in Fig. 20b, in which the residue of the first

mode is slightly larger than unity and that of the second mode is

negative. In this case, most of the vibration suppression arises

from the first absorber mode. The difference in the contribution of

the absorber modes is even more pronounced when / d = 0.2 and

a parameter is allowed to be negative, as shown in Fig. 20c.

Here the residue of the first mode is approximately three and that

of the second mode is approximately negative two. The first mode

acts to suppress vibration and is tuned close to the resonance of

the primary system, whereas the second mode magnifies vibration

and is tuned to a significantly higher frequency.

Conclusions

mode of primary system and show that, for a given mass, an

optimal 2DOF TMD performs better than a traditional SDOF

TMD or two separate TMDs with optimal mass distribution. We

cast the parameter optimization of MDOF TMD systems as a

decentralized control problem, where the block-diagonal controller gain is directly composed of the stiffness and damping parameters of the connections between the absorber and primary system.

Based on this formulation, we adapt decentralized H2 and H

optimization techniques to optimize the system response under

random and harmonic excitation, respectively.

First, we employ gradient-based decentralized H2 optimization

to minimize the RMS response under random excitation and provide a comprehensive study of the performance of a 2DOF TMD

attached to a SDOF primary system. Design charts for passive

TMD implementation in which all of the springs and dampers are

required to be positive are provided. We then discuss the case

where the dampers are allowed to be negative, and find that the

performance is considerably improved. This suggests that an effective reaction-mass actuator can be constructed with a 2DOF

reaction mass.

We propose an algorithm for decentralized H optimization to

minimize the peak of the frequency response under harmonic excitation. The maximal response is obtained efficiently using

-iteration and finite differences are used to approximate its gradient with respect to the design parameters. We then optimize the

2DOF absorber and find that its frequency-domain performance

is again better than that of the SDOF absorber or two SDOF

absorbers.

References

1 Den Hartog, J. P., 1947, Mechanical Vibration, McGraw-Hill, New York.

2 Brock, J., 1946, A Note on the Damped Vibration Absorber, ASME J. Appl.

3 Snowdon, J. C., 1968, Vibration and Shock in Damped Mechanical Systems,

Wiley, New York.

4 Warburton, G., 1982, Optimum Absorber Parameters for Various Combinations of Response and Excitation Parameters, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,

10, pp. 381401.

5 Asani, T., Nishihara, O., and Baz, A. M., 2002, Analytical Solutions to H

and H2 Optimization of Dynamic Vibration Absorber Attached to Damped

Linear Systems, J. Vibr. Acoust., 124, pp. 6778.

6 Xu, K., and Igusa, T., 1992, Dynamic Characteristics of Multiple Substructures With Closely Spaced Frequencies, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21,

pp. 10591070.

7 Zuo, L., and Nayfeh, S., 2005, Optimization of the Individual Stiffness and

Damping Parameters in Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers, ASME J. Vibr.

Acoust., 127, pp. 7783.

8 Kitis, L., Wang, B. P., and Pilkey, W. D., 1983, Vibration Reduction Over a

Frequency Range, J. Sound Vib., 89, pp. 559569.

9 Rice, H. J., 1993, Design of Multiple Vibration Absorber Systems Using

Modal Data, J. Sound Vib., 160, pp. 378385.

10 Dahlbe, T., 1989, On Optimal Use of the Mass of a Dynamic Vibration

Absorber, J. Sound Vib., 132, pp. 518522.

11 Zuo, L., 2002, Optimal Control With Structure Constraints and its Application

to the Design of Passive Mechanical Systems, Masters thesis, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.

12 Zuo, L., and Nayfeh, S., 2002, Design of Multi-Degree-of-Freedom TunedMass Dampers: A Minimax Approach, in 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC

Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA 2002

1283.

13 Zuo, L., and Nayfeh, S., 2004, Minimax Optimization of Multi-Degree-ofFreedom Tuned-Mass Dampers, J. Sound Vib., 272, pp. 893908.

14 Verdirame, J., and Nayfeh, S., 2003, Design of Multi-Degree-of-Freedom

Tuned Mass Dampers Based on Eigenvalue Perturbation, in 44th AIAA/

ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA 20031686.

15 Zuo, L., and Nayfeh, S., 2002, Design of Passive Mechanical Systems via

Decentralized Control Techniques, in 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC

Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA 2002

1282.

16 Zhou, K., Doyle, J. C., and Glover, K., 1995, Robust and Optimal Control,

Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

17 Mendel, J. M., 1974, A Concise Derivation of Optimal Constant Limited

State Feedback Gains Systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-19, pp.

447448.

18 Bertsekas, D. P., 1995, Nonlinear Programming, Athena Scientific.

19 El Ghaoui, L., Oustry, F., and AitRami, M., 1997, A Cone Complementarity

Linearization Algorithm for Static Output-Feedback and Related Problems,

IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 428, pp. 11711176.

20 Geromel, J., de Souza, C., and Skelton, R., 1998, Static Output-Feedback

Controllers: Stability and Convexity, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 431, pp.

120125.

21 Goh, K. C., Turan, L., and Safonov, M. G., 1994, Bilinear Matrix Inequality

Properties and Computational Methods, in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp. 850855.

22 Zhai, G., Ikeda, M., and Fujisaki, Y., 2001, Decentralized H Controller

Design: A Matrix Inequality Approach Using a Homotopy Method, Automatica, 37, pp. 565572.

23 Cao, Y.-Y., Sun, Y.-X., and Mao, W.-J., 1998, Output Feedback Decentralized

Stabilization: ILMI Approach, Syst. Control Lett., 35, pp. 183194.

24 Kitis, L., Pilkey, W., and Wang, B., 1984, Optimal Frequency Response

Shaping by Appendant Structures, J. Sound Vib., 95, pp. 161175.

- Performing Steady-State Pedestrian Crowd Loading to BS en 1991-2 2003Uploaded byMilind Gupta
- Chimneys - Damper CatalogUploaded byMarco Foglieri
- 14examUploaded bySon Tran
- Block Vibration TestUploaded byMehedi Hasan
- Report 1.pdfUploaded byTharindu Gangenath
- Vibrations 9Uploaded bySoumya Civil S
- Application of Optimization Techniques in Reducing the Weight of Engine.pdfUploaded bynorazlan
- CH TurbineUploaded bykensoi
- Shock Mount SelectionUploaded byadithegrea83
- Cigre Safe Design TensionsUploaded bysathishp3186
- 2552Uploaded byNilma Rosa Barsallo Pacheco
- final project of math 1060Uploaded byapi-253307919
- Week 1 Vibration IntroductionUploaded bySaya Santorno
- Section FundamentalsUploaded byShrikrishna Birajdar
- New Methods of Studying Noise and Vibration and Cybernetic Diagnosis of Machines and MechanismsUploaded bygluckspilz fliegenpilz
- 02introduction to Shock and vibrationUploaded bykostarica123
- 31596898 Vibration Isolation and Transmissibility by Www Engineering Me UkUploaded byqwertyui12345wert
- 1-s2.0-S0307904X13006732-mainUploaded byssm_ssm
- At - OrBAN, F. Damping of Materials and Members in StructuresUploaded byHenrique Lima
- Normativ americanUploaded byBuzea Elena
- Question BankUploaded byBALAGURU IYYAPPAN
- Brief Review of Linear Vibration Theory_BhargavUploaded byBhargav
- fivUploaded bymustafa
- VIVUploaded byAr Da
- Daniel Turkosz MSthesisUploaded byJohn Bruzzo
- 1234Uploaded byFrancisco Andres Muñoz
- structuralUploaded byMajid Khorsand Vakilzadeh
- Vibration MeasurementsUploaded byOmnaath Guptha
- Tesis en InglesUploaded byDiego Ficalora
- must readUploaded bythabiso87

- Amadeus Altea Departure Control Flight ManagementUploaded byMik Aeil
- Data Comm & Comp Networks Mcqs_solvedUploaded bypeterbanda
- A511 96.pdfUploaded byJohano Araújo
- Fishtailing Instabilities in Emergency Towing of Disabled TankersUploaded bySudheesh Ramadasan
- SICK MagazineUploaded byNicuVisan
- Chapter 5 Wireline LoggingUploaded byitalo ramirez
- 3021 Design ProjectUploaded byKit Amiel Tumulak
- Chemcad 6 User GuideUploaded byerhan ünal
- Automatic Speech Recognition and its ApplicationsUploaded byIRJET Journal
- COO Engineering Strategic Planning In USA Resume Richard ThompsonUploaded byRichardThompson1
- Waste MinUploaded bykjlcsi
- Huawei OTN Pre-Sales Training.pdfUploaded bySergio Sanchez
- CD4006Uploaded byscooby_maximo
- final report on the retail - Harish food zoneUploaded byKumar Swami
- SMA-2012 Special Session on Sustainable Supply Chains in Hospitality by Babu George, Tony Henthorne, Alvin WilliamsUploaded byBabu George
- PricingUploaded bysmohapatra001
- Sourcing Strategy ChinaUploaded byfdafaf
- SAP1 SolutionsUploaded byJohn Edwin Ibe
- 4 Watt RF Power Amplifier for 2 GHz_2Uploaded byKrisna Givari
- AW139 EASA Operational Evaluation Board Report Rev 4- 15_10_2012 AWTAx.pdfUploaded by060533
- Ph Azir Tools Installation GuideUploaded byyakumo1234
- JKR-Bridge-Design.pdfUploaded bySyamil Dzulfida
- Ssr With Facts StatcomUploaded byArun Joseph
- DDS_DSPFUploaded byapi-3743824
- Novel Chaotic System for Color Image Encryption Using Random PermutationUploaded byNAJOUA SOUAD LAGMIRI
- PROTHERM ManualUploaded byAlina Maria Ionita
- Joseph Plazo -Deconstructing XMLUploaded byJoseph Rinoza Plazo
- (CHAPTER 10) GE Smst 2_CV and LetterUploaded byarpah
- ISEF Based Identification of RCT/Filling in Dental Caries of Decayed ToothUploaded byAI Coordinator - CSC Journals
- Layer 3 Air InterfaceUploaded byTammam Hazzory