Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011 G.

De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. M uller (eds.) ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4

1124

Use of TMDs to Mitigate the Vibration of a Curved Steel Bridge

A. Pozos-Estrada1, A. D.Garcia-Soto1, R. Gomez1, R. Sanchez1, J. A. Escobar1 Instituto de Ingeniera, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Ciudad Universitaria, 04360, Mxico D.F., Mxico. email: APozosE@iingen.unam.mx, AGarciaSo@iingen.unam.mx, RGomezM@iingen.unam.mx, RSanchezG@iingen.unam.mx, jess@pumas.iingen.unam.mx

ABSTRACT: Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs) have shown to be powerful tools to mitigate vibration on structures subjected to external loads (i.e., moving, wind or earthquake loads) due to their robustness, reliability and low cost of maintenance. TMDs have been installed on the superstructure and substructure of bridges, tall buildings, chimneys, monuments, among other special structures. Design of a TMD involves the dynamic analysis of the structure where the TMD is to be attached, and the optimization of the parameters that characterize it. Selection of the mechanical configuration of the TMD depends on the space available to install it and the type of response to be reduced; for these reasons, the implementation of a TMD-system in reducing structural vibration is not straightforward, and needs to be carefully evaluated for the problem at hand. The main objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of TMDs installed underneath the superstructure of a curved steel bridge to control its vibration. For the analyses, a three dimensional finite element model with and without TMDs is built and tested under the action of dynamic loading. The results of the analysis are used to compare the structural behavior of the bridge with and without TMDs and to evaluate the effectiveness of the TMD-system considered. Further, the impact of using TMDs that fail to reduce effectively the structural response of the bridge to the maximum is discussed. KEY WORDS: Tuned mass damper; dynamic analysis; wind-induced vibration. 1 INTRODUCTION frequency and coefficient of damping such that the response of the main structure is reduced to the maximum. Several researchers have proposed expressions to estimate the optimum parameters of TMD systems [4, 5], some of these formulations relay on the assumption that the character of the excitation is of the sinusoidal or white noise type [6]. However, if a more realistic representation of the character of the excitation is desired, other formulations and methodologies have been proposed in the literature [7, 8]. The main purpose of this work is to study the behavior of a curved steel bridge under dynamic loading without and with TMDs. For the analysis, a three dimensional finite element model of the bridge is developed and subjected to wind loading. A comparison of the response of the bridge, in terms of displacements and accelerations, is carried out for the cases of the bridge alone and the bridge fitted with TMDs. The methodology suggested by [8] for the estimation of the optimum parameters of the TMDs is adopted. The effectiveness of the TMDs for reducing the structural response of the bridge is discussed in detail and the use of optimally tuned TMDs is emphasized. 2 2.1 DESCRIPTION SYSTEM OF THE BRIDGE AND TMD

External actions, such as moving, wind or earthquake loads, induce vibration in civil structures. In certain circumstances, such vibration can exceed predefined thresholds, which affects the serviceability of a structure. Several alternatives to mitigate such excessive vibration are available; one popular approach is the use of energy dissipation devices (EDD), which have been used to mitigate the unwanted vibration induced by natural loads or machinery in civil structures. A great diversity of EDD is available for use in real structures, and based on the type of interaction, these could be catalogued as passive, active, semi-active or hybrid. The selection of an EDD depends on the problem at hand. Because of its robustness, reliability and low cost of maintenance, a popular passive energy dissipation device is the TMD. This type of device can be installed practically in any kind of structure, for example: superstructure and substructure of bridges, tall buildings, chimneys, monuments, among other special structures. Typical examples of the use of the TMD system are the City Corp Center in New York [1], the CN tower in Canada [2] and more recently the Taipei 101 building [3]. TMD systems remove kinetic energy from the structure (usually referred as the main structure); which is dissipated by dashpots connecting the TMD system and the main structure. In order to provide stiffness to the TMD system, springs are also used to join the TMD and the main structure. The TMD system is more efficient when it is optimally tuned to the mode of vibration of the main structure whose response is to be reduced. In certain cases, it is possible to reduce the contribution of the response of several modes of vibration. Optimal tuning of TMD systems consists in finding the mass,

Description of the bridge

The bridge has a horizontal curved alignment with a total length of 500m (Figure 1). The superstructure of the bridge consists of two steel box sections joined by horizontal diagonals (Figure 2). Diaphragms are also used to stiff the superstructure system. The bridge is supported by 15 columns of circular section and 2 abutments. A general view of the bridge is shown in the next figure.

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

1125

The simulation of the dynamic loading and the mathematical modeling of the bridge and the bridge with TMDs are described in the following section 3 3.1 SIMULATION OF DYNAMIC LOADING (WIND LOADING) AND MATHEMATICAL MODEL Mathematical modeling

Figure 1. General view of the bridge.

C L 6.2

A spine three dimensional finite element model of the bridge was developed in ANSYS [10], using the Ansys Parametric Design Language (APDL). The model was used to determine the dynamic properties and evaluate the dynamic response of the bridge without and with TMDs. Figure 4 shows some of the modal shapes of the bridge without TMDs. Some other dynamic properties of the bridge are summarized in Table 1.

1.6

1.35

Dimensions in m

Figure 2. Cross section of the superstructure system (diaphragms are not shown). Because of the horizontal alignment, the use of this type of system is aim at increasing the torsional capacity of the deck, which might be of concern in curved bridges [9]. 2.2 Description of the TMD system
Mode 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 4. Modal shapes. Table 1. Dynamic properties of the bridge.

Frequency Effective mass factors (Hz) X Y Z 1.93 0.5194 0.0001 0.013 2.49 0.0015 0.0844 0.003 3.27 0.0010 0.4120 0.006 3.71 0.1970 0.0161 0.021 4.27 0.2612 0.0023 0.093

Description
Bending Bending Bending Bending Bending (lateral) (lateral) (lateral) (lateral) (lateral)

The TMD system consists of masses made of steel blocks, springs and viscous dampers which are located beneath the deck and between the box sections, as shown in Figure 3.

c k

TMD system

Figure 3. TMD system. Mechanical parameters of the TMD (i.e., mass (m), stiffness (k) and damping (c)) are estimated based on the dynamic properties of the main structure. The total number of TMDs must be associated to the level of reduction desired, and depends on the type of response that needs to be mitigated.

As expected, it is observed in this table a dominant contribution of the first X mode of vibration in the lateral direction, as shown in Figure 4. This fact is advantageous since the TMDs were provided to reduce the response in the X-direction, consequently, the TMD-system can be tuned to the first mode of vibration or close to it. It is noted that only the response of first mode of vibration is to be reduced and no attempt is made to reduce multiple modes. Based on the geometry of the bridge, a total of 8 identical TMDs are located at piers 5 to 12. Note that the ordinates of these piers are almost over the Y-axis or very close to it, as shown in Figure 5. The TMD arrangement selected is convenient, since it allows the TMDs to vibrate in the X-direction when the first mode of the bridge is excited.

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

1126

Abutment 17

Pier 16 Pier 15 Pier 14 Pier 13 Pier 12 Pier 11 Pier 10 Y

To estimate the coefficients {i} and {i}, it is necessary to define the power spectral density function (PSDF) as well as the coherence function of the turbulent wind. The PSDF used is the one proposed by Kaimal [14] and the coherence function employed is the one given by Davenport [15]. The functional forms of these expressions are written respectively as:

fS ( f , z )
2 v

Location of the TMDs

Pier 9 Pier 8 Pier 7 Pier 6 Pier 5 Pier 4 Pier 3 Pier 2

22 z V (z )

(1 + 33 fz V (z )) 3

(2)

coh y i , z i , y j , z j , f

f C 2 y zi z j 2 + C 2 z zi z j = exp V (z i ) + V z j 2

[ (

( ) ]

)2 ]

(3)

Abutment 1

Figure 5. Location of the TMDs. TMDs are modeled in the program ANSYS with a combination of the elements COMBIN14 and MASS21. The element COMBIN14 allows the representation of a linear or nonlinear viscous damper in parallel with an elastic spring, and the element MASS21 can be used to represent lumped masses. The following figure depicts the mathematical modeling of a TMD.
c m

2 where v is the variance of the turbulent wind, V (z ) is the variation of the mean wind speed with height, Cy and Cz are coefficients that describe the relative effect of separation in the y- and z-direction. Samples of {vn(z,t)}, simulated with equations (1) to (3), are used to estimate samples of turbulent wind forces with the following equation:

FD (z , t ) = C D AV (z )v(z, t )

(4)

where is the air density, CD is a drag coefficient, A is an exposed area, and v(z, t ) is the turbulent wind speed for a
2 value. given v The simulated wind forces are applied to the mathematical model with and without TMDs, at the nodes of the superstructure, as shown schematically in Figure 7.
Dynamic loading FN(t)

k
COMBIN14

MASS21

Figure 6. Mathematical modeling of a TMD. 3.2 Simulation of dynamic loading (wind loading) Wind loading is the only dynamic loading considered in this study. Because of the length of the bridge, it is necessary to take into account the spatial variation of the wind. An approach to simulate turbulent wind loading considering spatial variation is the use of Autoregressive and Moving Average methods (ARMA methods); although, some other simulation techniques can be used [11, 12 and 8]. The ARMA approach considers the combination a Gaussian white noise vector, {i}, with the moving average and autoregressive coefficients denoted respectively by {i} and {i}, with the purpose of simulating a sample of a stochastic stationary process [13]. Based on the ARMA coefficients and the white noise vector, the following expression can be used to simulate samples of turbulent wind velocities:

F1(t)

Figure 7. Application of wind forces. 4 PARAMETRIC ANALYSES A set of parametric analyses were carried out to estimate the optimum parameters of TMDs. These parameters are: the mass ratio, the frequency ratio and ratio of damping, expressed respectively as:
nTMD i =1 2 ni mi ,TMD * Mn

p q v n ( z , t ) = i v n ( z , t it ) + i i i =1 i =1

[ ]{

[ ]{ }

(1)

where {vn(z,t)} is a vector of normalized wind velocities for any time t and different heights z with zero mean and unit variance. The orders of the auto regression and moving average are denoted by p and q, respectively.

(5)

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

1127

rf =

f TMD fn

(6) (7)

cTMD = 4mTMD f TMD

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of TMDs, the 0 wind forces are scaled to obtain specified values of E D

where ni is the modal deflection of mode n at point i, mi,TMD is the mass of the i-TMD, Mn* is the generalized mass of the mode n, i = 1,2,,total number of locations with TMDs; fTMD and fn are the frequency of the TMD and the frequency of mode n, respectively; and cTMD and mTMD are the coefficient of viscous damping and the total mass of the TMD-system. The approach adopted to estimate the optimum parameters of the TMDs consisted in the minimization of the following response rations, for specific values of , rf and :

0 . The response at the top of pier number 9 is used and E A 0 and as reference value. The following figure shows E D 0 for different number of simulations. For each EA simulation, a new set of wind forces is determined.

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

TMD ] E[D 0] RD = E[D TMD E A 0 RA = E A

(8) (9)

] [ ]

where RD and RA are the response ratios associated with the ), ) and peak acceleration ( A peak displacement ( D respectively; E[] denotes the expected value of its argument, and the sub-indexes TMD and 0 indicate that the structure was fitted with TMDs or without TMDs, respectively. More specifically, the steps followed to determine the optimum parameters are: 1) Sample the wind loading with the model defined in Eq. (1); 2) Apply the wind loading and evaluate the time history of the structure with and without TMDs; 3) Evaluate the peak responses of the time histories of the structure with and without TMDs; 4) Repeat steps 1) to 3) n times to estimate the response ratios defined in Eqs. (8) and (9); 5) Select the , rf and values that minimizes RD and RA (these values represent the optimum parameters of the TMDs). A detail procedure to find the optimum parameters can be found in [8]. 5 NUMERICAL ANALYSES For the analyses, wind forces are simulated with a home-made program written in MATLAB. These forces are applied to the mathematical model with the aid of a script written in an APDL code, which allows carrying out systematic analysis of the mathematical model without and with TMDs. The following table summarizes the parameters used in the analyses. Table 2. Parameters used in the analyses. Structure Modal damping ratio (Rayleigh damping): TMDs Total number of TMDs: values within: rf values within: values within: 1% 8 (linear) 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 0.95-1.02 0.5%-20%

0 . 0 and E A Figure 8. Stability of E D

It is observed from the figure that the use of 15 simulations is 0 . 0 and E A enough in order to attain stable values of E D

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

For the rest of the analyses, a total of 15 simulations are considered. Values of , rf and are selected within suitable ranges to determine the optimum parameters of the TMDs. A surface fitting exercise, using the results of the analysis (points in the figure), was carried out to smooth the surface RD--rf [16]. Figure 9 shows the variation of RD with rf and . It is observed that the pair that minimizes RD to the maximum is approximately equal to (0.075,0.965). This pair represents the optimum values of the TMD-system. The minimum value of RD attained with the use of the TMD-system was about 0.48.

Figure 9. Variation of RD with rf and . It is also observed from the figure that large values of do not necessarily lead to a better performance of the TMD-system,

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

1128

and that a mistuning of the TMD-system do not effectively reduces RD. Figure 10 depicts the variation of RA with rf and . The surface representing this variation was also smoothed.

was investigated. A total of eight identical TMDs were used to reduce the lateral response of the bridge. The results showed that if the TMDs are tuned to the first mode of vibration of the bridge, the peak displacement and acceleration are effectively reduced. More specifically, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1) The optimum parameters depend on the type of response to be mitigated; 2) The maximum effectiveness of the TMDs is obtained when they are optimally tuned; 3) A mistuning of the TMD-system do not effectively reduces the peak response, if RD is considered; 4) An increase in the mass ratio of the TMD-system produces a decrease in the response of the structure. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Figure 10. Variation of RA with rf and . Similar conclusions can be drawn from Figure 10 to those observed in Figure 9, except that the optimum parameters are approximately equal to (0.15,0.98). The difference in the optimum parameters, based on the type of response to be mitigated, has also been observed by other researchers [17]. It is also noted that the TMD-system selected is more effective for a wide range of rf values. The minimum RA value observed was about 0.6. In order to show the impact of using different values of the parameter , Figure 11 shows the variation of the response ratios (i.e., RD and RA) with rf and . For the results shown in the figure, the optimum values of the ratio of damping for the response ratios were used. It is observed that an increase in the values produces a decrease in the response ratios.
0.35

The financial support received from the Institute of Engineering of UNAM is gratefully acknowledged. The first author would like to thank the financial support provided by Consejo Tcnico de la Investigacin Cientfica de la UNAM. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] Wiesner, K.B. Tuned Mass Dampers to reduce building wind motions, A.S.C.E., preprint 3510, ASCE Convention, Boston, April 2-6, 1979. Isyumov, N, Davenport, A.G., Monbaliu, J. CN Tower, Toronto: Model and Full Scale Response to Wind, IABSE 12th Congress, Vancouver, B.C., September 3-7, 1984. Chung L.L., Wu, L.Y., Huang, H.H., Chang, C.H., Lien, K.H. Optimal design theories of tuned mass dampers with nonlinear viscous damping, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 8, No.4, 547560, 2009. Warburton, G., Ayorinde, E. Optimum absorber parameters for simple systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 8, 197217, 1980. Warburton, G. Optimum absorber parameters for various combinations of response and excitation parameters. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 10, 381- 401, 1982. Fujino, Y., Abe, M. Design formulas for tuned mass dampers based on a perturbation technique. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 22, 833-854, 1993. Mattei, M. and Ricciardelli, F. Mathematical model for design of mass dampers for wind excited structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 128(9), 979-988, 2002. Pozos-Estrada, A. Reliability of wind-sensitive buildings: A serviceability design consideration. PhD Thesis, The University of Western Ontario, Canada, 2009. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Horizontally Curved Steel Girder Highway Bridges with Design Examples for I-Girder and Box-Girder Bridges, 1993. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS release 11. Shinosuka, M. Monte Carlo solution of structural dynamics. Technical report No. 19, Columbia University, New York, 1972. Di Paola M. Digital simulation of wind field velocity, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 74-76, 91-109, 1998. Pourahmadi, M. Foundations of Time Series Analysis and Prediction Theory, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 409 pp, 2001. Kaimal J.K., and Finnigan, J.J. Atmospheric boundary layer flows, New York: Oxford University Press. 289pp, 1994. Davenport A.G. The dependence of wind load upon meteorological parameters, In proceedings of the International Research Seminar on Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 19-82, 1968. Sgobba, S., Marano, G.C. Optimum design of linear tuned mass dampers for structures with nonlinear behaviour, Mechanical systems and signal processing, Vol. 24, 1739-1755, 2010. Vickery, B.J., Galsworthy, J.K., Gerges R. The behavior of simple nonlinear tuned mass dampers, Habitat, Melbourne, Australia, February 26 to March 2, 2001.

[4] [5] [6]

0.30

RD

[7] [8]

Response ratio

0.25 RA 0.20 = 0.1 = 0.05 0.15 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.03

[9] [10] [11] [12]

rf

[13] [14] [15]

Figure 11. Variation of response ratios with . It is worth mentioning that although an increase of the mass ratio causes a decrease in the peak response, reinforcement of the structure at the location of the TMDs might be necessary. 6 FINAL COMMENTS The use of TMDs to mitigate the response, in terms of peak responses, of a curved steel bridge subjected to wind loading

[16] [17]