See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314164150

Semi-active seismic control of an 11-DOF building model with TMD+MR

damper using type-1 and -2 fuzzy algorithms

Article  in  Journal of Vibration and Control · January 2017

DOI: 10.1177/1077546317696369

CITATIONS READS

39 911

3 authors:

Akbar Bathaei Seyed Mehdi Zahrai

University of Tehran University of Tehran
9 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    252 PUBLICATIONS   935 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Meysam Ramezani
International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
13 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Semi-active Seismic Control of an 11-DOF Building Model with TMD+MR Damper View project

Friction dampers in steel buildings having masonry infills View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Akbar Bathaei on 30 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of Vibration and Control
1–16

Semi-active seismic control of an 11-DOF ! The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
building model with TMDþMR damper DOI: 10.1177/1077546317696369
journals.sagepub.com/home/jvc
using type-1 and -2 fuzzy algorithms

Akbar Bathaei, Seyed Mehdi Zahrai and Meysam Ramezani

Abstract
Nowadays, vibration control of structures is considered as a challenging field among scientists and engineers. Structural
damage and financial losses due to recent earthquakes in different countries have more than ever before accentuated the
importance of controlling earthquake-induced vibrations. In recent years, semi-active control has been introduced as an
efficient and reliable type of structural control which provides the reliability of passive control and flexibility of active
control systems at the same time. In this study, the performance of a semi-active tuned mass damper (TMD) with
adaptive magnetorheological (MR) damper is investigated using type-1 and -2 fuzzy controllers for seismic vibration
mitigation of an 11-degree of freedom building model. The TMD is installed on the roof and the MR damper is located on
the 11th story. The MR damper has a capacity of producing a 1000 kN control force. The fuzzy system is designed based
on the acceleration and velocity of the top floor determining the input voltage needed to produce the control force
based on accelerating or decelerating movements of structure. The seismic performance of semi-active type-2 controller,
which considers the uncertainties related to input variables, is higher than that of the type-1 fuzzy controller. The type-2
fuzzy controller is capable of reducing further the maximum displacement, acceleration, and base shear of the structure
by 11.7, 14, and 11.2%, respectively, compared to the type-1 fuzzy controller.

Keywords
Semi-active control, tuned mass damper, magnetorheological damper, type-1 and -2 fuzzy controllers, incremental
dynamic analysis, seismic control

different mechanical properties to compensate for the

1. Introduction
In recent years, vibration control of structures sub-
jected to wind and earthquake loading has been
widely studied by many researchers. Accordingly, vari-
ous types of control devices and algorithms have been
developed and employed. Among these devices, the
tuned mass damper (TMD) invented by Frahm (1911)
is considered one of the easiest and most reliable con-
trol devices. This device comprises parts that include
the mass, spring, and a viscous damper usually attached
to the top floor of a structure. When the frequency and
damping parameters of the device are well-tuned, it can
effectively reduce the vibrations of structures
(Warburton, 1982; Spencer and Nagarajaiah, 2003).
However, the use of a TMD has its own inherent limi-
tations such as limited frequency range coverage and
sensitivity to parameter settings. Therefore, researchers
suggested using multiple TMDs (MTMD) with
frequency restrictions (Abe and Fujino, 1994; Li, 2000;
Li and Qu, 2006). Another idea could be that of apply-
ing a force to the mass damper system in order to con-
trol its vibrations so that it can move in the opposite
phase with respect to structures (Chang and Soong,
1980; Ankireddi and Yang, 1996; Kim et al., 2015).
One of the semi-active control methods is to use
magnetorheological (MR) dampers. These dampers
utilize MR fluid, which can produce an excessively
large force in the damper. The force produced by a
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Tehran, Iran
Received: 24 June 2016; accepted: 7 February 2017
Corresponding author:
Seyed Mehdi Zahrai, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering,
The University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran.
Email: mzahrai@ut.ac.ir
2 Journal of Vibration and Control
piston and cylinder system shows a high level of stabil-
ity and reliability. The mechanical properties of the
fluid used in the damper can change quickly when the
input voltage varies. Today, various control algorithms
have been proposed to be applied to MR dampers. The
first type of control algorithms has been developed
considering the structural response and based on con-
ventional optimization strategies such as LQR/LQG.
However, the demerits of such methods are complica-
tions related to creating the mathematical model of MR
damper for simulating the actual behavior of structures
subjected to severe dynamic forces. In addition, another
problem arises from the nonlinear dynamic behavior of
MR dampers. The approach taken to overcome these
problems is to utilize the fuzzy controller, which is a
simple and powerful framework for nonlinear control
laws and can adapt to prevailing uncertainties and
complexities. Due to its inherent abilities to deal with
nonlinear problems and uncertainty, researchers have
paid attention to fuzzy logic control of structures in
recent years.
Despite these remarkable advantages, one may face
some problems while using this controller. A fuzzy
system needs to make decision based on a perfect pre-
determined understanding of the dynamic behavior of
the system. In addition, to effectively reduce the seismic
response of civil engineering structures, it is often
required to use a number of MR dampers at the same
time causing more complexities (Yan and Zhou, 2006).
Spencer et al. (1996) employed an MR damper for
vibration control of a three-story building. They mod-
ified the model proposed by Chen in 1989 and applied a
mono-directional excitation to it. They installed an MR
damper between the first floor and the ground. The
results revealed the excellence of MR dampers com-
pared to passive devices. Liu et al. (2000) studied the
application of MR dampers in vibration control of a
bridge. They exerted a harmonic load and the El
Centro (1940) record on the bridge model and con-
cluded that the MR dampers can effectively reduce the
deck relative displacement and acceleration. Jung et al.
(2002) studied the semi-active control of dual bridges
(dual deck) using MR dampers. Exposing their model
to the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquake rec-
ords, they stated that using MR damper culminates in a
reduction in deck displacement. Xu et al. (2003)
employed the neural network algorithm for semi-
active control of structures using MR dampers. They
concluded that using this method, MR dampers can
remarkably reduce the response of the structure. Jung
et al. (2003) investigated the application of MR dampers
for semi-active vibration control of a suspension bridge
under earthquake loads. Dyke et al. (2003) simulated
the benchmark problem for Cape Girardeau cable-
stayed bridges in Missouri according to ASCE
specification. They used 24 MR dampers with a capacity
of 1000 kN in four different parts of the bridge. The
dampers were placed between the deck and the piers.
Applying three earthquakes to the bridge including the
El Centro (1940), Mexico City (1985), and Gebze
(Turkey, 1989) they showed that MR dampers are
very beneficial for vibration mitigation of bridges. For
instance, MR dampers reduced the base shear of the
bridge by up to 28%.
Sodeyama et al. (2003) erected two MR dampers
with a capacity of 20 and 200 kN and determined the
damping characteristics of these dampers both experi-
mentally and analytically. Renzi and Serino (2004)
tested a four-story structure equipped with MR dam-
pers on a shaking table. These researchers concluded
that using MR damper reduces the displacement by
30–35% compared to the passive system. Ze-bing
et al. (2004) investigated the semi-active control of
cable-stayed bridges under multi-support excitation.
They employed four MR dampers with a capacity of
1000 kN and simulated the mechanical behavior of
MR dampers using a Bouc–Wen model. The results
showed that MR dampers are beneficial for cable-
stayed bridges. Liu et al. (2005) utilized MR dampers
for semi-active control of bridges. They conducted an
experimental study for the bridge at a scale of 1:12 on
a shaking table and used two MR dampers and
performed the test with four semi-active control
algorithms. Their results revealed that all control
algorithms reduced the root mean square (RMS)
value of deck displacement. Xu et al. (2005) modeled
a 12-story structure with MR dampers. Applying
the El Centro earthquake on the model, they con-
cluded that using semi-active control system decreases
the RMS displacement and acceleration by 60–70%
and 25–34% compared to uncontrolled and passive
systems, respectively. Yoshida and Dyke (2005) exam-
ined the application of MR dampers for vibration
control of two irregular three-dimensional structures
under seismic loadings. Kim and Kang (2012) investi-
gated the semi-active control of tall buildings sub-
jected to wind load and using semi-active TMD with
an optimal multi-objective fuzzy controller. They
created a model for a benchmark 76-story structure
which was widely considered for evaluating the
performance of control system to reduce the wind-
induced vibrations. In this study, Kim and Kang
employed fuzzy controllers in order to adjust the
mechanical properties of MR dampers because of
the inherent strength and ability to deal with non-
linear problems and uncertainty. Zahrai and Salehi
(2014) studied the application of MR dampers to
improve the seismic behavior of structures and
approved the acceptable performance of MR dampers
in various structures.
Bathaei et al. 3

In this study, a TMD is utilized in order to control Table 1. The overall characteristics of the studied 11-DOF
the seismic vibrations of an 11-degree of freedom building model, as presented by Pourzeynali et al. (2007).
(DOF) building model and, at the same time, an MR
Story Story lumped Story stiffness
damper installed in the highest story is employed to number mass (kg) (kN/m)
promote the seismic performance of the structure and
also to evaluate the performance of the type-1 and type- 1 215,370 4.68105
2 fuzzy controllers accounting for uncertainties related 2 201,750 4.76105
to input variables. Previous studies related to type-2 3 201,750 4.68105
fuzzy controllers are discussed in following paragraph. 4 200,930 4.5105
Liang and Mendel (2000) used fuzzy adaptive filters 5 200,930 4.5105
in order to homogenize the time-varying channels and 6 200,930 4.5105
the results showed that the performance of type-2 fuzzy 7 203,180 4.5105
algorithms is meaningfully higher than the type-1 coun-
8 202,910 4.37105
terpart. Liang et al. (2000) also used the fuzzy control-
9 202,910 4.37105
lers of type-2 for controlling the ATM networks. John
et al. (2000) used the type-2 fuzzy algorithm for classi- 10 176,100 4.37105
fication of leg injuries in sport competitions. Liang and 11 66,230 3.12105
Mendel (2001) employed the type-2 fuzzy controller for
modeling and classification of films comprised of
MPEG-bit variables and observed its better perform-
ance. Innocent et al. (2001) utilized the type-2 fuzzy
2. Modeling of the structure
controller for imaging the lung instead of providing
pulmonary embolism. Hagras (2004) proposed the In present study, the dampers are installed on an 11-
type-2 fuzzy intervals to control robots. The prominent story structure simplified as an 11-DOF model as ori-
point about his research is that even a type-2 fuzzy ginally presented by Pourzeynali et al. (2007) in order
controller with fewer rules was always better than a to evaluate the performance of fuzzy controllers. This
type-1 counterpart. Shariatmadar and coworkers uti- 11-story structure is modeled in OpenSees as a lumped
lized the fuzzy controller of type-2 for producing mass multiple DOF system, and the structural behavior
active control force in ATMD (Shariatmadar et al., during seismic analysis is assumed to be elastic. The
2014; Shariatmadar and Golnargesi, 2015). In their natural period of the structure is equal to 0.89 s and
study, fuzzy logic control system was designed by vel- structural damping is considered to be 2% according to
ocity and displacement between the structure and the Rayleigh assumptions. Structural characteristics of the
mass damper. They found that type-2 fuzzy controller building are presented in Table 1 and the lumped mass
considers the uncertainty and consequently makes a model is shown in Figure 1.
more remarkable reduction in response of structure
compared with type-1 counterpart. 3. Vibration control of structure
Most researchers have used type-1 fuzzy controllers
using TMD
for producing the semi-active control force by MR
dampers. These controllers can operate under limited One of the most effective ways of controlling the vibra-
conditions and cannot account for uncertainties related tions of structures is to use passive TMDs. The dam-
to input data, noise, and time lag. They also include pers have a mass of about 1–5% of the total weight of
constant membership functions with limited abilities, the structure and usually are connected to a point of the
while type-2 fuzzy controllers include membership structure with largest displacement using a spring and
functions with intervals which cover the uncertainty damper. The mass dampers are usually tuned to the
in input variables, uncertainty in the nature of earth- fundamental frequency of the main structure. When
quakes, and uncertainties related to behavioral and this frequency is excited, the movement of mass
vocal issues in fuzzy rule-bases and determine the con- damper is almost 90 out of phase with respect to the
trol force more meticulously. In this paper, the type-2 movement of the main structure. This movement leads
fuzzy system determines the desired control force based to absorption and damping of input seismic energy. It is
on accelerating or decelerating movements of the struc- important to note that the maximum capacity of active
ture considering the uncertainties. A TMD and an MR and passive mass dampers can be attained only if their
damper installed in the highest story are utilized to con- mechanical properties are optimal. In this study, a mass
trol the seismic vibrations of a structure employing ratio of 2% for TMD is used for vibration control of
type-1 and type-2 fuzzy controllers accounting for structures. The optimal values of damping and
involved uncertainties. frequency of TMD are obtained using the following
4 Journal of Vibration and Control
equations proposed by Pastia and Luca (2013)
f1
fTMD ¼
1þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3
opt ¼ ð2Þ
8ð1 þ Þ3
where fTMD and f1 are the frequency of the TMD and
the natural frequency of the main structure, respect-
ively,  denotes the mass ratio, and opt is the optimal
damping ratio of TMD. The overall mass of the struc-
ture is equal to 2,072,990 kg and the mass of TMD is
equal to 41,459.1 kg. The natural frequency of the
structure is 1.12 Hz and the TMD frequency is 1.1 Hz.
The optimal damping ratio of the TMD is 8.4%.
Figure 1. The lumped mass simplified 11-DOF model of the
structure together with the TMD and MR damper.
Figure 2. Overall layout of fuzzy inference system of type-1.
4. Vibration control of structure using
TMD and MR damper
ð1Þ
Today, a large number of semi active-control algo-
rithms have been suggested, such as the sky-hook con-
trol algorithm, Lyapunov algorithm, and so on. These
algorithms decide between the maximum and minimum
amounts of input voltage and do not consider an inter-
mediate level between the two states. On the other
hand, a drastic change in input voltage can cause the
structural response to increase abruptly, which results
in localized damage in parts of the structure. Thus,
a control algorithm is required to gradually change
the input voltage. Gradual changes in voltage between
zero and the maximum state facilitate the design of a
control system for a medium mode. Fuzzy logic control
is an effective method for structural control, which is a
simple and powerful framework for making decisions
despite the prevailing uncertainties in complex non-
linear systems. Rather than using complex mathemat-
ical relationships, a fuzzy controller uses vocal
expressions in order to map some inputs to desired out-
puts. Due to inherent power and simplicity of a fuzzy
controller, the controller has been of interest to many
researchers. In this study, the fuzzy logic control algo-
rithm is employed to adjust the input voltage required
for producing the control force by an MR damper. The
basic configuration of the type-1 and -2 fuzzy control-
lers are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
The output process of a type-2 fuzzy system includes
type reduction and defuzzification. Type reduction is
where an interval type-2 fuzzy set is reduced to an inter-
val-valued type-1 fuzzy set. In this study, the toolbox
provided by Wu and Mendel (2007) is used in order to
perform the type-2 fuzzy procedure.
The design of a fuzzy control system consists of sev-
eral stages. The first step is fuzzification, which includes
the conversion of input crisp values to fuzzy linguistic
values through membership functions assigned to each
input and output. The next step is to apply a set of if–
then rules. In this part, the fuzzy rules-base is created in
order to establish a relationship between input and
output variables. Using a fuzzy inference mechanism,
Bathaei et al.
fuzzy rules are evaluated in order to create an output
based on input values. The final stage, defuzzification,
aims to convert fuzzified output variables to a crisp
values. The performance of a fuzzy controller depends
on different design parameters such as the definition of
membership functions and fuzzy rules. In addition,
devising effective and reliable fuzzy rules is another
important factor in order to attain a desirable
performance.
In this paper, two MR dampers are installed on the
11th floor of the structure and the seismic behavior of
structure is investigated. Also, the acceleration and vel-
ocity of the 11th floor are used in order to produce
the required control force in each time step during the
earthquakes. Acceleration and relative velocity of
the 11th floor are regarded as input variables and the
output is determined based on the rules defined in fuzzy
inference system. The output is actually the input volt-
age required for MR damper to produce the control
force. MR damper force is controlled by applying a
voltage to it. The triangular fuzzy membership func-
tions for input and output variables for a type-1 fuzzy
Figure 3. Overall layout of fuzzy inference system of type-2.
Figure 4. Triangular membership functions for acceleration as an input variable of a type-1 fuzzy system.
5
controller are shown in Figures 4 to 6. This system
acts in a way that if the product of acceleration and
velocity for eleventh floor is positive it means that the
structure is accelerating and the control force is deter-
mined based on the rule-base and is exerted on the
structure. If the product is negative, the structure is
decelerating and therefore the minimum force is
required to be exerted.
The surface demonstration of fuzzy rules is provided
in Figure 7. Figure 8 also illustrates the triangular
membership functions for acceleration as an input in
a type-2 fuzzy system.
The membership functions for velocity as an input
and the voltage as an output in a type-2 fuzzy system
are identical to those defined for a type-1 fuzzy system
except for taking the uncertainty related to acceleration
into consideration.
The linguistic variables used for fuzzy input and
output values are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respect-
ively. The fuzzy rules used in control systems are also
demonstrated in Table 4. For velocity as an input vari-
able, P and N stand for positive and negative values.
6 Journal of Vibration and Control

Figure 5. Triangular membership functions for velocity as an input variable of a type-1 fuzzy system.

Figure 6. Triangular membership functions for voltage as an output variable of a type-1 fuzzy system.

The Bouc–Wen model is used to simulate the mech-

anical behavior of the MR damper. Since no specific
material for Bouc–Wen is available in OpenSees, the
control force is included in the model rather than mod-
eling the element. The Bouc–Wen model is comprised of
a Bouc–Wen element in parallel with a viscous damper,
as shown in Figure 9. Full-scale tests on MR dampers
have proved that this model can effectively simulate the
real behavior of MR dampers (Jung et al., 2003).
In this model, the force F exerted by the MR fluid
damper can be obtained through the following
equations

F ¼ C0 x_ þ z ð3Þ

z_ ¼  jxjzjz_jn1 x_ jzjn þAm x_ ð4Þ

Figure 7. Surface demonstration of a type-1 fuzzy rule-base.
Bathaei et al. 7

Figure 8. Triangular membership functions for acceleration as an input variable of a type-2 fuzzy system.

Table 2. The linguistic variables for input values of type-1 and - Table 4. The fuzzy rules defined for type-1 and -2 fuzzy
2 fuzzy controllers. systems.
Linguistic variable Velocity and displacement Acceleration

NVL Negative very large NVL NL NM NS NVS PVS PS PM PL PVL

NL Negative large Vel P ZO ZO ZO ZO ZO VS S M L VL
NM Negative medium N VL L M S VS ZO ZO ZO ZO ZO
NS Negative small
NVS Negative very small
PVS Positive very small
PS Positive small
PM Positive medium
PL Positive large
PVL Positive very large

Table 3. The linguistic variables for output values of type-1 and

-2 fuzzy controllers.

Linguistic variable Voltage

VL Very large
L Large Figure 9. The Bouc–Wen model for a MR damper (Ok et al.,
M Medium 2007).
S Small
VS Very small
ZO Zero
following equations

 ¼  ð uÞ ¼  a þ ab u ð5Þ

where x is the displacement of the damper and z is the C0 ¼ C0 ðuÞ ¼ C0a þ C0b u ð6Þ
evolutionary variable. The parameters Y, , n, and Am
are constant values obtained from test. C0 and  are where u is the applied control voltage and parameters
determined based on the control voltage u through the a , b , C0 a, and C0 b are constant.
8 Journal of Vibration and Control
Table 5. The mechanical properties of the MR damper.
Parameter Value Parameter
5 5
a 1:0872  10 ðN=cmÞ C0b
ab 4:9616  105 ðN=cm=VÞ Am
 
C0a 4:40 N s =cm n 1
Figure 10. The control force versus the relative velocity across
the MR damper for command voltages of 0, 5, and 10 V.
According to the internal mechanism of MR dam-
pers, the dampers are not able to apply the command
voltage instantaneously. In other words, it takes a
moment for the damper to apply the command voltage.
Therefore, the following equation is employed in order
to consider a time-lag in the response of the device to
the changes in the command voltage
u_ ¼ ðu  vÞ
where v is the command voltage applied to the control
circuit and  is the time constant of the first-order filter.
Therefore, the Bouc–Wen model can be created know-
ing nine constant parameters (Ok et al., 2007).
In this study, two MR dampers with a capacity of
1000 kN are utilized. The input voltage of the MR
dampers can vary between 0 and 10 V and the
damper stroke is 25 cm. The sensor is mounted on
the 11th floor where the MR dampers are installed.
The mechanical properties of the MR damper are pre-
sented in Table 5. Also, Figure 10 shows the control
voltage versus the relative velocity across the damper
for command voltages of 0, 5, and 10 V.
As the structural model of the building is created in
OpenSees and the fuzzy algorithm is applied using
Matlab, it is required to make a connection between
these two programs. One of the facilities provided by
the TCL/TK programming language is to create a
Value Parameter Value
   
44:0  10 N s =cm=V  3:0 cm1
 
1:2  3:0 cm1
 1 
 50 s
network connection between some servers and clients
using a TCP/IP service. The ‘‘socket’’ command is used
for this work. This command creates a communication
network through which servers can communicate with
clients. This communication is done through certain
networks that can transmit information. During this
process, the OpenSees domain remains open and calls
the control force from Matlab and exerts it on the
structure in each step of analysis. This process con-
tinues during the analysis until the last step. The overall
layout of the analysis procedure is shown in Figure 11.
5. Earthquake records used for time-
history analysis
In order to investigate the seismic behavior of the struc-
ture, the model is subjected to 10 earthquake records,
including the El Centro, Kern County, Duzce, Hector
Mine, Kocaeli, Kobe, Northridge, Cape Mendocino,
Irpinia, and Loma Prieta earthquakes. In order to
examine the seismic behavior under near-field and far-
field earthquakes, the El Centro, Kern County, Duzce,
Hector Mine, and Kocaeli as far-field earthquakes and
the Kobe, Northridge, Cape Mendocino, Irpinia, and
Loma Prieta as near-field earthquakes are applied to
the structure. Table 6 presents the details for earth-
quakes records applied to the building model.
ð7Þ
6. Numerical results and discussion
To evaluate the performance of control systems, the
structure is analyzed under the effect of the earthquakes
presented in Table 6. Dynamic time-history analyses
are conducted for peak ground accelerations (PGAs)
from 0.1g to 1.0g. To evaluate the effectiveness of the
damper, the displacement and acceleration of the 11th
floor and the base shear and moment are investigated.
For this purpose, eight performance criteria are used.
The first four criteria are related to proportion of max-
imum responses of controlled system to that of uncon-
trolled system. The criteria for evaluating the
performance of the control system are presented in
Table 7.
In addition to the four criteria presented in Table 7,
four others are also defined based on the RMS of dis-
placement and acceleration of the 11th floor as well as
the base shear and moment.
Bathaei et al. 9

Figure 11. The procedure of dynamic analysis.

Table 6. The details for earthquake records used for time-his- system has better performance compared to both
tory analysis. type-1 fuzzy and passive TMD control systems.
A fuzzy control system designed with acceleration
Earthquake Type Station PGA (g)
and velocity inputs creates the ability to make decisions
El Centro Far-field El Centro 0.35 and allocate proper control force to most structures
Kern County Far-field 1095 Taft 0.23 since the values of acceleration scope and intended vel-
Lincoln School ocity can cover different structures considering involved
Duzce, Turkey Far-field Bolu 0.82 uncertainties. In order to enhance the performance of
Hector Mine Far-field Hector 0.34 the proposed control system to other structures, it can
Kocaeli, Turkey Far-field Duzce 0.36 be used to optimize parameters.
Kobe Near-field KJM 0.83 The values of the aforementioned criteria are pre-
Northridge Near-field Sylmar-Olive 0.84
sented in Table 10. Comparing the performance criteria
of different control systems, it is understood that the
Cape Mendocino Near-field Petrolia 0.63
control system comprised of TMD with MR damper
Irpinia, Italy-01 Near-field Sturno 0.31
and type-2 fuzzy controller shows a higher performance
Loma Prieta Near-field Saratoga - Aloha 0.38 compared to the system with type-1 fuzzy controller.
PGA: peak ground acceleration. Moreover, the semi-active control systems are more
efficient than the passive one.
Bearing in mind that the structural behavior is con-
sidered to be elastic, it is reasonable for performance
Table 7. The performance criteria as ratio of maximum criteria to remain constant when the PGA varies.
responses of controlled system to that of uncontrolled system. According to performance criteria presented in
Table 10, the reason behind the higher performance
Criterion Relationship Title
  of type-2 fuzzy system is that some strips are considered
max xc ðtÞ in membership function of acceleration reducing the
J1   Displacement of 11th story
max xu ðtÞ response by exerting a larger control force compared
 
max x€ c ðtÞ to that of the type-1 fuzzy controller.
J2   Acceleration of 11th story
max x€ u ðtÞ On average in evaluation criteria of J1, type-1 and
 
max Vc ðtÞ type-2 fuzzy control systems are better than passive
J3   Base shear
max Vu ðtÞ control system by 10% and 21.7%, respectively. Also,
 
max Mc ðtÞ the criteria of type-2 fuzzy control system are 11.7%
J4   Base moment
max Mu ðtÞ more desirable than type-1 fuzzy control system.
Comparison of other criteria and control systems rela-
tive to each other has been presented in Figure 12. As a
result, except for the criteria of acceleration in type-1
Tables 8 and 9 present the maximum values for dis- fuzzy control system, the performance of the proposed
placement response of the roof under various, respect- control system is suitable for all evaluating criteria
ively, far- and near-field earthquakes, while the values parameters.
of improvement using different control systems are also To illustrate the seismic behavior for different con-
indicated. According to these amounts, it was found trol systems, the roof displacements are shown for four
out that a type-1 fuzzy control system is better than a earthquake records with a PGA of 0.5g (Figures 13
passive control system, while a type-2 fuzzy control to 16). The records include the El Centro and Kern
10 Journal of Vibration and Control

Table 8. Peak response of displacement for different control systems under five far-field earthquake excitations.

Peak response of displacement (cm) Response reduction percentage (%)

PGA (g)
Uncontrolled TMD FLC T1 FLC T2 TMD FLC T1 FLC T2

El Centro
0.1 5.7159 3.7574 4.5804 3.9849 34.2638 19.8657 30.2832
0.2 11.4319 7.5149 6.7808 5.8992 34.2635 40.6852 48.3961
0.3 17.1479 11.2724 10.0873 8.7759 34.2636 41.1747 48.8220
0.4 22.8639 15.0299 13.3412 11.6068 34.2636 41.6495 49.2350
0.5 28.5799 18.7873 16.5748 14.4200 34.2639 42.0054 49.5446
0.6 34.2958 22.5448 19.6405 17.0872 34.2636 42.7320 50.1768
0.7 40.0118 26.3022 22.4994 19.5744 34.2638 43.7680 51.0782
0.8 45.7278 30.0597 25.5011 22.1859 34.2638 44.2328 51.4825
0.9 51.4438 33.8172 29.3462 25.5311 34.2638 42.9548 50.3707
1 57.1597 37.5746 32.5334 28.3040 34.2638 43.0833 50.4824
Kern County
0.1 4.7842 2.8730 2.7549 2.3967 39.9484 42.4173 49.9030
0.2 9.5685 5.7460 5.1582 4.4876 39.9484 46.0915 53.0996
0.3 14.3528 8.6190 7.6020 6.6137 39.9484 47.0343 53.9199
0.4 19.1371 11.4921 10.0493 8.7428 39.9485 47.4878 54.3144
0.5 23.9213 14.3651 12.4898 10.8661 39.9485 47.7879 54.5755
0.6 28.7056 17.2382 15.0605 13.1026 39.9483 47.5346 54.3551
0.7 33.4899 20.1112 17.6646 15.3682 39.9484 47.2539 54.1109
0.8 38.2741 22.9842 20.1653 17.5438 39.9484 47.3134 54.1627
0.9 43.0584 25.8572 22.7863 19.824 39.9485 47.0804 53.9600
1 47.8427 28.7303 25.3192 22.0277 39.9484 47.0782 53.9580
Duzce
0.1 5.0698 4.3217 3.5909 3.1241 14.7565 29.1707 38.3785
0.2 10.1397 8.6434 7.2132 6.2755 14.7563 28.8611 38.1091
0.3 15.2096 12.9652 10.8443 9.4345 14.7564 28.7009 37.9698
0.4 20.2795 17.2869 14.6312 12.7291 14.7567 27.8522 37.2314
0.5 25.3493 21.6086 18.3206 15.9389 14.7566 27.7273 37.1228
0.6 30.4192 25.9304 21.8980 19.0512 14.7564 28.0125 37.3709
0.7 35.4891 30.2521 25.3828 22.0830 14.7566 28.4771 37.7751
0.8 40.5589 34.5738 29.1205 25.3348 14.7565 28.2019 37.5357
0.9 45.6288 38.8955 32.6362 28.3934 14.7566 28.4745 37.7728
1 50.6987 43.2173 36.2096 31.5023 14.7565 28.5788 37.8635
Hector Mine
0.1 3.6237 2.7131 2.9808 2.5933 25.1299 17.7423 28.4358
0.2 7.2475 5.4262 6.0025 5.2222 25.1297 17.1779 27.9447
0.3 10.8713 8.1393 8.7811 7.6396 25.1300 19.2262 29.7268
0.4 14.4950 10.8525 11.5408 10.0405 25.1293 20.3808 30.7313
0.5 18.1188 13.5656 14.1334 12.2960 25.1297 21.9959 32.1364
0.6 21.7425 16.2787 16.7674 14.5876 25.1295 22.8819 32.9072
0.7 25.3663 18.9918 19.3737 16.8551 25.1298 23.6242 33.5531
0.8 28.9901 21.7049 22.0504 19.1838 25.1299 23.9381 33.8262
0.9 32.6138 24.4180 24.8190 21.5925 25.1298 23.9003 33.7932
1 36.2376 27.1311 27.0286 23.5148 25.1299 25.4128 35.1091
(continued)
Bathaei et al. 11

Table 8. Continued

Peak response of displacement (cm) Response reduction percentage (%)

PGA (g)
Uncontrolled TMD FLC T1 FLC T2 TMD FLC T1 FLC T2

Kocaeli
0.1 4.5829 4.1923 4.5443 3.9535 8.5235 0.8431 13.7335
0.2 9.1659 8.3846 8.1657 7.1041 8.5234 10.9122 22.4936
0.3 13.7489 12.5770 11.8888 10.3432 8.5235 13.5290 24.7703
0.4 18.3318 16.7693 15.2346 13.2541 8.5234 16.8952 27.6988
0.5 22.9148 20.9617 19.0285 16.5548 8.5233 16.9597 27.7550
0.6 27.4978 25.1540 22.8478 19.8775 8.5235 16.9104 27.7120
0.7 32.0807 29.3463 26.5069 23.0610 8.5235 17.3743 28.1156
0.8 36.6637 33.5387 30.3561 26.4098 8.5234 17.2039 27.9674
0.9 41.2466 37.7310 33.9261 29.5157 8.5233 17.7481 28.4408
1 45.8296 41.9233 36.8745 32.0808 8.5235 19.5399 29.9997
TMD: tuned mass damper; FLC T1: Fuzzy Logic Control Type 1; FLC T2: Fuzzy Logic Control Type 2.

Table 9. Peak response of displacement for different control systems under five near-field earthquake excitations.

Peak response of displacement (cm) Response reduction percentage (%)

PGA (g)
Uncontrolled TMD FLC T1 FLC T2 TMD FLC T1 FLC T2

Kobe
0.1 6.7317 5.8189 5.3523 4.6565 13.5598 20.4912 30.8274
0.2 13.4636 11.6379 10.5270 9.1584 13.5602 21.8114 31.9759
0.3 20.1954 17.4569 15.4224 13.4174 13.5600 23.6340 33.5616
0.4 26.9272 23.2759 20.7991 18.0952 13.5598 22.7580 32.7994
0.5 33.6589 29.0948 25.9058 22.5380 13.5598 23.0343 33.0398
0.6 40.3907 34.9138 30.6001 26.6220 13.5598 24.2397 34.0885
0.7 47.1225 40.7328 35.3956 30.7941 13.5597 24.8859 34.6508
0.8 53.8543 46.5517 40.2715 35.0362 13.5599 25.2213 34.9426
0.9 60.5861 52.3707 45.3517 39.4559 13.5598 25.1450 34.8761
1 67.3179 58.1897 50.6766 44.0886 13.5598 24.7204 34.5068
Northridge
0.1 3.1417 2.9305 2.8663 2.4937 6.7202 8.7633 20.6241
0.2 6.2834 5.8611 5.0104 4.3591 6.7203 20.2586 30.6250
0.3 9.4251 8.7917 7.6058 6.6170 6.7204 19.3025 29.7932
0.4 12.5669 11.7223 10.2448 8.9129 6.7208 18.4779 29.0757
0.5 15.7086 14.6529 12.7398 11.0836 6.7205 18.8992 29.4423
0.6 18.8503 17.5835 15.5241 13.5059 6.7203 17.6453 28.3514
0.7 21.9920 20.5140 18.1227 15.7667 6.7206 17.5941 28.3068
0.8 25.1337 23.4446 20.6652 17.9787 6.7204 17.7789 28.4676
0.9 28.2754 26.3752 23.3309 20.2978 6.7203 17.4869 28.2136
1 31.4171 29.3058 25.9641 22.5887 6.7202 17.3567 28.1004
Cape
0.1 5.7101 4.7312 4.2676 3.7128 17.1438 25.2628 34.9786
0.2 11.4203 9.4624 8.5742 7.4596 17.1436 24.9208 34.6811
0.3 17.1305 14.1937 12.8254 11.1581 17.1436 25.1312 34.8641
(continued)
12 Journal of Vibration and Control

Table 9. Continued

Peak response of displacement (cm) Response reduction percentage (%)

PGA (g)
Uncontrolled TMD FLC T1 FLC T2 TMD FLC T1 FLC T2

0.4 22.8407 18.9249 17.1751 14.9423 17.1439 24.8048 34.5802

0.5 28.5509 23.6561 21.4512 18.6625 17.1441 24.8668 34.6341
0.6 34.2610 28.3874 25.6520 22.3172 17.1436 25.1277 34.8611
0.7 39.9712 33.1186 29.7664 25.8967 17.1438 25.5303 35.2114
0.8 45.6814 37.8498 34.0169 29.5947 17.1439 25.5344 35.2149
0.9 51.3916 42.5810 38.4646 33.4642 17.1440 25.1539 34.8839
1 57.1017 47.3123 42.7199 37.1663 17.1438 25.1862 34.9120
Irpinia
0.1 3.9155 3.6224 3.4763 3.0243 7.4863 11.2173 22.7591
0.2 7.8310 7.2448 6.7112 5.8387 7.4863 14.3001 25.4410
0.3 11.7466 10.8672 9.9799 8.6825 7.4864 15.0394 26.0842
0.4 15.6621 14.4896 13.2181 11.4997 7.4862 15.6045 26.5759
0.5 19.5777 18.1120 16.3064 14.1865 7.4865 16.7093 27.5371
0.6 23.4932 21.7344 19.3522 16.8364 7.4864 17.6263 28.3349
0.7 27.4087 25.3568 22.1392 19.2611 7.4863 19.2256 29.7263
0.8 31.3242 28.9792 25.6660 22.3294 7.4862 18.0633 28.7151
0.9 35.2398 32.6016 28.7614 25.0224 7.4864 18.3837 28.9938
1 39.1553 36.2240 31.8318 27.6936 7.4863 18.7037 29.2722
Loma Prieta
0.1 2.9272 2.4310 2.0191 1.7566 16.9502 31.0237 39.9906
0.2 5.8545 4.8621 3.7650 3.2755 16.9502 35.6902 44.0505
0.3 8.7818 7.2932 5.7764 5.0255 16.9501 34.2225 42.7736
0.4 11.7091 9.7243 8.0457 6.9997 16.9503 31.2866 40.2193
0.5 14.6364 12.1555 9.9924 8.6934 16.9502 31.7287 40.6040
0.6 17.5636 14.5866 12.1270 10.5504 16.9498 30.9537 39.9298
0.7 20.4909 17.0176 14.2544 12.4013 16.9504 30.4354 39.4788
0.8 23.4182 19.4487 16.4487 14.3103 16.9504 29.7610 38.8921
0.9 26.3454 21.8798 18.4533 16.0543 16.9502 29.9562 39.0619
1 29.2727 24.3109 20.2820 17.6453 16.9502 30.7136 39.7208

County as far-field and the Kobe and Northridge as
near-field earthquakes.
Adding two MR dampers to the 11th floor enhances
the performance of the control system. The TMD with
MR damper shows a higher performance in compari-
son with passive TMD. The type-2 fuzzy controller is
more competent than the type-1 controller because the
type-2 fuzzy system includes the uncertainty of acceler-
ation and applies a larger control force to the structure.
The behavior of the TMD with MR damper looks
better for far-field earthquakes than that of near-field
ones. It is observed from Figure 17 that the control
systems act more effectively for far-field earthquakes.
Figure 17 illustrates the higher performance of type-
2 fuzzy controllers compared to type-1, based on J1.
According to Figure 17, the graphs show that J1
decreases when PGA values get smaller and for large
values of PGA, J1 almost remains constant. The reason
behind the reduction in J1 for smaller PGA values is the
smaller force produced by control system. In other
words, when the PGA gets larger, the control force
increases and J1 remains approximately constant.
This approves the high level of adaptability of fuzzy
systems to the behavior of structures. Moreover, the
type-1 fuzzy control system has a lower adaptability
with uncertainty than its type-2 counterpart. This
advantage of type-2 fuzzy control system is due to its
ability to consider uncertainty by membership func-
tions with interval for the inputs, whereas type-1 con-
trol system employs linear membership functions for
input variables and obtains the command voltage
of MR damper using these memberships. Hence,
Bathaei et al. 13

Table 10. The performance criteria for different control systems used in the structure.

PGA (g)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

TMD J1 0.8155 0.8155 0.8155 0.8155 0.8155 0.8155 0.8155 0.8155 0.8155 0.8155
J2 0.9309 0.9309 0.9309 0.9309 0.9309 0.9309 0.9309 0.9309 0.9309 0.9309
J3 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102
J4 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102 0.8102
J5 0.6768 0.6768 0.6768 0.6768 0.6768 0.6768 0.6768 0.6768 0.6768 0.6768
J6 0.7585 0.7585 0.7585 0.7585 0.7585 0.7585 0.7585 0.7585 0.7585 0.7585
J7 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762
J8 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762 0.6762
FLC T1 J1 0.7932 0.7392 0.7330 0.7328 0.7282 0.7263 0.7218 0.7220 0.7237 0.7196
J2 0.9518 0.9336 0.9370 1.0491 1.0489 0.9673 1.0097 1.0539 1.0406 1.0842
J3 0.6992 0.6994 0.7016 0.7052 0.6963 0.6929 0.6897 0.6902 0.6941 0.6933
J4 0.6992 0.6994 0.7016 0.7052 0.6963 0.6929 0.6897 0.6902 0.6941 0.6933
J5 0.5629 0.5420 0.5437 0.5464 0.5473 0.5487 0.5494 0.5505 0.5519 0.5524
J6 0.7655 0.6630 0.6463 0.6484 0.6523 0.6478 0.6535 0.6598 0.6612 0.6661
J7 0.5389 0.5245 0.5294 0.5343 0.5361 0.5385 0.5396 0.5410 0.5429 0.5440
J8 0.5389 0.5245 0.5294 0.5343 0.5361 0.5385 0.5396 0.5410 0.5429 0.5440
FLC T2 J1 0.6900 0.6431 0.6377 0.6375 0.6336 0.6319 0.6279 0.6287 0.6296 0.6260
J2 0.8280 0.8122 0.8158 0.9127 0.9125 0.8416 0.8784 0.9169 0.9053 0.9433
J3 0.6083 0.6085 0.6104 0.6135 0.6058 0.6028 0.6001 0.6005 0.6039 0.6031
J4 0.6083 0.6085 0.6104 0.6135 0.6058 0.6028 0.6001 0.6005 0.6039 0.6031
J5 0.4897 0.4716 0.4730 0.4754 0.4762 0.4773 0.4780 0.4789 0.4801 0.4806
J6 0.6659 0.5768 0.5622 0.5641 0.5675 0.5636 0.5686 0.5740 0.5752 0.5795
J7 0.4688 0.4563 0.4606 0.4648 0.4664 0.4685 0.4694 0.4707 0.4723 0.4733
J8 0.4688 0.4563 0.4606 0.4648 0.4664 0.4685 0.4694 0.4707 0.4723 0.4733

Figure 12. The improvement percentages of proposed fuzzy system compared to TMD .
14 Journal of Vibration and Control

Figure 13. The roof displacement for the structure under the Figure 16. The roof displacement for the structure under the
El Centro earthquake, PGA ¼ 0.5g. Northridge earthquake, PGA ¼ 0.5g.

Figure 14. The roof displacement for the structure under the
Kern County earthquake, PGA ¼ 0.5g. Figure 17. The average evaluate of J1 under the all
earthquakes.

Figure 15. The roof displacement for the structure under the Figure 18. The membership functions of the type-2 control
Kobe earthquake, PGA ¼ 0.5g. system.
Bathaei et al.
the type-1 fuzzy control system cannot efficiently derive
the command voltage of the MR damper with uncer-
tainty effect. This problem results in a decrease in per-
formance of control system.
As observed in Figure 18, the membership functions
of the type-2 fuzzy control system can be nonlinear
within considered input range and thus the type-2 con-
trol system can obtain the control voltage properly. In
Fig. 18, the horizontal axis is the fuzzy variables and
the vertical axis is the degree of membership function.
The gray area reflects the footprint of uncertainty
(FOU). The type-2 fuzzy control system defined as
non-linear function in the uncertainty area can decide
for input data. Therefore the type-2 of the fuzzy infer-
ence system has a more appropriate function than the
type-1.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, the performance of a semi-active tuned
mass system with adaptive MR damper was investigated
using type-1 and -2 fuzzy controllers for vibration miti-
gation of an 11-DOF building model. The structural
model of the building was created in OpenSees and
semi-active control algorithms were applied in Matlab.
The connection between the two programs was made
through the TCP/IP service. The design of fuzzy
system was carried out based on accelerating or deceler-
ating movements of the structure. Incremental dynamic
analysis was performed using 10 earthquake records for
PGAs ranging from 0.1g to 1.0g. The results showed that
the performance of the type-2 semi-active controller,
which considers the uncertainties related to input vari-
ables, is higher than that of a type-1 fuzzy controller.
For instance, the type-2 fuzzy controller is capable of
further reducing the mean values of maximum displace-
ment, acceleration, and base shear by 11.7, 14, and
11.2%, compared to those of the type-1 fuzzy controller.
The results also showed that the design of control system
based on input variables of velocity and acceleration,
and using control algorithms for determining the com-
mand voltage based on accelerating and decelerating
movements of structure, is effective for vibration mitiga-
tion of structure. Moreover, the proposed control system
with TMD and MR damper is effective against both
near-field and far-field earthquakes.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
15
References
Abe M and Fujino Y (1994) Dynamic characterization of
multiple tuned mass dampers and some design formulas.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 23(8):
813–835.
Ankireddi S and Yang HTY (1996) Simple ATMD control
methodology for tall buildings subject to wind loads.
Journal of Structural Engineering 122(1): 83–91.
Chang JC and Soong TT (1980) Structural control using
active tuned mass dampers. Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division 106(6): 1091–1098.
Dyke SJ, Caicedo JM, Turan G, et al. (2003) Phase I bench-
mark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed
bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering 129(7): 857–872.
Frahm H (1911) Device for damping vibrations of bodies.
Patent 989: 958, USA.
Hagras HA (2004) A hierarchical type-2 fuzzy logic control
architecture for autonomous mobile robots. IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 12(4): 524–539.
Innocent PR, John RI, Belton I, et al. (2001) Type 2 fuzzy
representations of lung scans to predict pulmonary emboli.
In: Joint 9th IFSA world congress and 20th NAFIPS inter-
national conference, Vancouver, BC, 25–28 July 2001,
pp.1902–1907. Vancouver, BC, Canada: IEEE.
John RI, Innocent PR and Barnes MR (2000) Neuro-fuzzy
clustering of radiographic tibia image data using type 2
fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 125(1): 65–82.
Jung BH, Ruangrassamee A, Kawashima K, et al. (2002)
Seismic protection of nonlinear coupled bridge systems
using semi-active control strategy. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering: Structural Engineering 6(1): 47–60.
Jung HJ, Spencer BF Jr and Lee IW (2003) Control of seis-
mically excited cable-stayed bridge employing magnetor-
heological fluid dampers. Journal of Structural Engineering
129(7): 873–883.
Kim HS and Kang JW (2012) Semi-active fuzzy control of a
wind-excited tall building using multi-objective genetic
algorithm. Engineering Structures 41: 242–257.
Kim HS, Chang C and Kang JW (2015) Control performance
evaluation of semi-active TMD subjected to various types
of loads. International Journal of Steel Structures 15(3):
581–594.
Li C (2000) Performance of multiple tuned mass dampers for
attenuating undesirable oscillations of structures under the
ground acceleration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 29(9): 1405–1421.
Li C and Qu W (2006) Optimum properties of multiple tuned
mass dampers for reduction of translational and torsional
response of structures subject to ground acceleration.
Engineering Structures 28(4): 472–494.
Liang Q and Mendel JM (2000) Equalization of nonlinear
time-varying channels using type-2 fuzzy adaptive filters.
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 8(5): 551–563.
Liang Q and Mendel JM (2001) MPEG VBR video traffic
modeling and classification using fuzzy technique. IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 9(1): 183–193.
Liang Q, Karnik NN and Mendel JM (2000) Connection
admission control in ATM networks using survey-based
type-2 fuzzy logic systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
16
Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews
30(3): 329–339.
Liu Y, Gordaninejad F, Evrensel CA, et al. (2000) Semiactive
control of a two-span bridge using field-controllable mag-
neto-rheological dampers. In SPIE’s 7th annual inter-
national symposium on smart structures and materials,
Location?, 20 April 2000, pp.199–206. Newport Beach,
California: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
Liu Y, Gordaninejad F, Evrensel CA, et al. (2005)
Comparative study on vibration control of a scaled
bridge using fail-safe magneto-rheological fluid dampers.
Journal of Structural Engineering 131(5): 743–751.
Ok SY, Kim DS, Park KS, et al. (2007) Semi-active fuzzy
control of cable-stayed bridges using magneto-rheological
dampers. Engineering Structures 29(5): 776–788.
Pastia C and Luca SG (2013) Vibration control of a frame
structure using semi-active tuned mass damper. Buletinul
Institutului Politehnic din lasi. Sectia Constructii,
Arhitectura 59(4): 31.
Pourzeynali S, Lavasani HH and Modarayi AH (2007) Active
control of high rise building structures using fuzzy logic
and genetic algorithms. Engineering Structures 29(3):
346–357.
Renzi E and Serino G (2004) Testing and modelling a semi-
actively controlled steel frame structure equipped with
MR dampers. Structural Control and Health Monitoring
11(3): 189–221.
Shariatmadar H and Golnargesi S (2015) Structural control
with active tuned mass damper by type 2 fuzzy logic con-
troller for seismic excitations. Sharif Journal of Civil
Engineering 31(2): 21–32.
Shariatmadar H, Golnargesi S and Akbarzadeh-Tb MR
(2014) Vibration control of buildings using ATMD against
earthquake excitations through interval type-2 fuzzy logic
controller. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC)
15(3): 321–338.
Sodeyama H, Sunakoda K, Fujitani H, et al. (2003) Dynamic
tests and simulation of magneto-rheological dampers.
View publication stats
Journal of Vibration and Control
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering
18(1): 45–57.
Spencer BF Jr and Nagarajaiah S (2003) State of the art of
structural control. Journal of Structural Engineering
129(7): 845–856.
Spencer BF, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, et al. (1996) Nonlinear iden-
tification of semi-active control devices. In: Engineering
Mechanics. ASCE, pp.164–167.
Warburton GB (1982) Optimum absorber parameters for
various combinations of response and excitation param-
eters. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
10(3): 381–401.
Wu D and Mendel JM (2007) Uncertainty measures for inter-
val type-2 fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 177(23):
5378–5393.
Xu YL, Chen J, Ng CL, et al. (2005) Semi-active seismic
response control of buildings with podium structure.
Journal of Structural Engineering 131(6): 890–899.
Xu ZD, Shen YP and Guo YQ (2003) Semi-active control of
structures incorporated with magnetorheological dampers
using neural networks. Smart Materials and Structures
12(1): 80.
Yan G and Zhou LL (2006) Integrated fuzzy logic and genetic
algorithms for multi-objective control of structures using
MR dampers. Journal of Sound and Vibration 296(1):
368–382.
Yoshida O and Dyke SJ (2005) Response control of full-scale
irregular buildings using magnetorheological dampers.
Journal of Structural Engineering 131(5): 734–742.
Zahrai SM and Salehi H (2014) Semi-active seismic control of
mid-rise structures using magneto-rheological dampers
and two proposed improving mechanisms. Iranian
Journal of Science and Technology: Transactions of Civil
Engineering 38(C1): 21–36.
Ze-bing DAI, Huang J and Wang H (2004) Semi-active con-
trol of a cable-stayed bridge under multiple-support exci-
tations. Journal of Zhejiang University: Science A 5(3):
317–325.