Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Computational study demonstrates height-dependent performance of passive energy dissipation systems in reinforced concrete buildings, highlighting tailored damper selection for seismic protection.
The aim of this study is to compare the seismic response of reinforced concrete (RC) symmetric buildings, with a varied number of stories, strengthening with three types of passive energy dissipation systems, as tuned mass dampers, viscous dampers, and friction dampers. The paper presents an overview of design optimization with the object of minimizing certain functions: (i) the maximum displacement at the top of the structures, (ii) the base shear loads, and (iii) the maximum interstory drift. The objective functions were evaluated in three residents’ buildings (a four-story building, a nine-story building, and a sixteen-story building) subjected to seven (real and artificial) seismic recorded accelerograms. For this purpose, 94 nonlinear dynamic analyses were carried out. The effects of each strengthening solution are presented, and from this innovative comparison (optimal design, three different passive energy systems, three different story numbers), further useful results were observed. The outcomes of the study show the effectiveness of a tuned mass damper (TMD) system, and how it might be better for tall and flexible structures than for stiffer structures. However, the response of the pendulum tuned mass damper (TMD) configuration is better than the conventional one because it acts in all directions. The viscous dampers (VDs) provide a significant reduction for mid-rise buildings, while friction dampers (FDs) boost the performance of all structures under seismic action, especially in terms of displacement, and they are more suitable for low-rise buildings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mrad et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: