Robust optimization criterion for vibration passive control devices under uncertain bounded parameters

Giuseppe Carlo MARANO

Department of Environmental Engineering and Sustainable Development, Technical University of Bari, Viale Del Turismo, 1074100, Taranto, Italy, email: gmarano@poliba.it.

ABSTRACT An improved robust optimization for passive vibration control devices is presented for situations when is unavoidable uncertain affect on system parameters knowledge. Typically approaches used for dealing with this problem consider that nature of dynamic loads is the only source of uncertainty; differently in this paper a robust criterion is developed, considering that also system and input parameters are non deterministic ones, such as in many real cases. With this aim uncertain parameters are represented as bounded random parameters, that means random variables with finite variation range. The probability density functions description is defined by mathematical laws related to knowledge level, and neglecting their tails, the evaluation of structural responses statistical moments is available by standard numerical methods. Thus a multi-criteria optimization problem formulation is considered for robust design problem where statistical moments of Objective Functions (OF) and Constraints are numerically obtained by using standard integration tools. The proposed methodology is introduced for general applications, and applied to two specific and diffuse applications, that are single Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) and Base Isolation (BI) for a single linear system subject to base random acceleration. A sensitivity analysis is carried out on robust solutions in both cases to assess the characteristics and differences of robust optimization instead of conventional deterministic one. Some empiric criteria to increase the robustness of the optimum designed TMD and BI are finally explored.
Keywords: Tuned mass dampers, Base Isolation, random vibrations, uncertain bounded parameters, structural optimization

G. C. Marano

1.

Introction

In last few decades a strong development in Structural Optimization (SO) approaches takes place, noteworthy due to the growing demands for light weight and efficient structures. Structural Optimization can be defined as the collection of decisional rules supporting engineers in planning and designing structural configuration, topology and sizing able to minimize resources necessary to guarantee required performances. However, most of developments in structural optimization procedure is in the deterministic framework without considering the effect of uncertainties, both in loads and resistances. But uncertainty is bound to occur in all real structural engineering applications, and its effect should be extremely important just in extreme structures, such as those designed using optimization methodologies. The cost optimization of a structure, with deterministic tools, may lead to improper designs whose consequences invite catastrophe, due to the disregard of uncertainty. Actually, the parameters involved in structural problems are only partially known quantities, or simply they have an intrinsic uncertain nature, so that above mentioned hypothesis is a too poor physic oversimplification. For this reason it is widely accepted in the engineering profession that the existence of uncertainty cannot be avoided in the optimum design of structures. The acceptance of the load and resistance factors design concept by the world community attests to the above statement. Conceptually, the development of optimum design procedures in presence of uncertainty can be studied in three broad categories: the performance based design optimization (PBDO); the reliability based design optimization (RBDO) the robust design optimization (RDO). The PBDO minimizes the mean value of the performance function disregarding the presence of uncertainty and its limitation is quite obvious. The RBDO incorporates statistical information of the input variables to optimize the objective function by satisfying an accepted level or a prescribed probability of failure [12]. The RBDO brings specified reliability for a particular limit state. But it may be sensitive to specific variations of the design variables (DVs) and design parameters (DPs). In RDO, the robustness of the objective function addresses the system performance to be least sensitive to the variation of uncertain variables whereas the feasibility robustness ensures that the design stays within its constraints with a probability set by the designer. Fundamentally, the RDO is concerned with minimizing the effect of uncertainty in DVs and DPs. A RDO, as a measure of the performance [11], can be considered as a design procedure that is insensitive (or less sensitive) to the changes in the input decision variables within a range of interest while satisfying the safety requirements. The RDO is in fact a multi-objective extension of RBDO, where the variance of the objective is also minimized in addition to the expected value of the objective. Concepts of RDO have been developed independently in different scientific disciplines and development in recent past is noteworthy for example in Zang et al. [2005], Park et al. [2006], Beyer

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

and Sendhoff [2007]. The present work focuses on the RDO applied to design of passive vibration control devices for structures subject to base vibration accelerations, that is a problem widely present in many engineering areas. Specifically in this paper will be treated a modified the RDO where a "robust" evaluation of optimization indexes (OF and constrains) are defined by using their first two statistical moments. The problem here treated deals with structural dynamics, where optimization strategies for vibration control plays a central role in many applications. In this field anyway a widely used simplification concerns the assumption that dynamic loads are the only source of uncertainty. In structural design this approach leads to the Conventional Stochastic Structural Optimization (CSSO), where the objective functions and the constraints may concern the system response processes or related quantities. The first CSSO problem was formulated by Nigam [2], leading to a standard nonlinear constrained problem, where constraints were defined by some probabilistic structural response quantities and the OF by the structural weight. Use a stochastically defined objective function was subsequently adopted in many different circumstances (see for example [3-9]). In all above cited studies it was implicitly assumed that the uncertainties in the structural systems have negligible effects on system response; but this should be an oversimplification of many real problems. However, it has been reported that the uncertainty of structural parameters may have an equal or greater influence on the response than the uncertainty of excitation [10]. Application of RDO to such problems means to optimize simultaneously the selected performance index, both in term of mean value and of variability due to environmental uncertainty. In this way one can obtain solutions with a lower sensitivity to parameters variations. A common practice in those problems is in using a random representation of uncertain parameters and evaluating means and variances of structural responses by approximate methodologies. For instance, in [] a method has been proposed for the robust design of vibration absorbers for a system whose mass and stiffness were assumed uncertain quantities. The robust optimization has been obtained by minimizing simultaneously the objective function OF mean and variance, defined by means of an approximate direct first order perturbation method. A similar approach, i.e. the reliability-robust optimization, has been introduced in 0, by using a statistical description of the uncertain parameters. Moreover one of the main problem is analytically evaluation of statistical moments, that are obtained by using analytical approximations. This is a nontrivial question because of it is well known that those methods are too poor in conditions with a strong data uncertain contamination. But this is not the only open question regarding this procedure. An important aspect deals with probability density functions associated to each involved variables. As well known using different lows induce strong differences in distribution tails. With reference to this aspect, it should be posed in a methodological way, because of there are cases with a poor knowledge of problem parameters; these are conditions for which there is no reason to use "by default" a specific probability density functions. The reason is simply because there are no way to define the more appropriate ones,

G. C. Marano

especially where there are only pieces of information about "mean" value, but really nothing concerning its scatter, expressed as standard variations. In those cases using a Gaussian or any other types of distribution is just a position that hasn't any analytical or numerical support. Moreover at this regards must be observed that in nature all random parameters should be seen as bounded once, because of the existence of maximum and minimum possible values that should be associated with any design parameters. This is an intuitive and natural considerations for every structural designer, that are able to give a bound of variation to each structural parameters. Based on this considerations, there are some other formulations for reliability analysis and structural optimization in case of uncertainty, that instead of standard random approach, are based on combination of stochastic randomness and interval/convex models, such as Zhan Kang, Yangjun Luo. Reliability-based structural optimization with probability and convex set hybrid models. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. DOI: 10.1007/s00158-009-0461-6 (online available since 2009.12.22) and Yangjun Luo, Zhan Kang, Alex Li. Structural reliability assessment based on probability and convex set mixed model. Computers and Structures. 2009, 87(21-22):1408-1415. Based on above mentioned considerations, in this work an optimum design criterion for selection of mechanical parameters of vibration control devices is developed; coherently with conditions with a low level of knowledge about some parameters involved in the problem, it is assumed a probabilistic description, but with values lying in a finite range. Even if, conceptually, this approach should appear similar to the interval analysis, it shows a better quality of available information. At this purpose two considerations can be made: firstly, in nature all random parameters are bounded, and secondly the uniform distribution is a model for the poorest information level. In this latter circumstance, sometimes, the normal distribution or similar is adopted, in relation to the fact that in nature there are events that are characterized by some kinds of mean value associated with a high probability, whereas events away from the mean value are less probable. In addition, if an unbounded normal distribution is adopted in a probabilistic analysis, this often does not cause problems, because the probability associated with realization in the tails are negligible. One should also consider that the use of the bounded probability density function reduces the computational complexity, and allows to a numeric but exact evaluation of statistical moments, due to tails absence. Moreover in this work a RDO approach is used, quantifying both constraints and OF as the "worst" value due to scatter induced by input parameters uncertainty. It is obtained expressing this representation of optimization indices as the sum of their mean values and standard deviation, that is multiplied for a weight factor that controls the "robustness" of the procedure. In this way the method should be used for a multiobjective approach obtaining a pareto front, by varying the weight factor; in fact it represent effects of uncertainty that designers will take into account for designing passive vibration devices. The strategy is thus applied to two different widely studied cases of passive devices used in vibration mitigation, unconstraint and constraint: linear Tuned Mass Dampers (unconstrained) and Base Isolation system (constrained). The application of the

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

proposed procedure concerns the case of a main system, modelled as a linear single degree of freedom, subject to base accellerations. In both two cases the base acceleration is represented by a stationary filtered stochastic process, and is assumed that some main system parameters are uncertain and then are described as random variables characterized by bounded independent probability density functions. Though the treated example has only a single DOF, the significance of the non-deterministic considerations in the design problem could still be demonstrated, using such problems as illustrative examples, since the graphic representation of the comparison between different optimal solutions is difficult for problems in higher dimensions.

2. proposed robust optimization criteria

1. deterministic problem formulation For vibrating structures designers main goal aims generally to limit or reduce structural vibration effects. A widely used strategy utilizes passive devices such as absorbers, base isolators or tuned mass dampers, whose main purpose is to reduce the vibrations levels according to some specific design requirements. Thus the optimization problem is generally posed as a standard nonlinear programming one, whose general form is: Find b b (1)
Which Minimizes Subject to

OF ( b, t )

(2)

gi ( b ) 0

i = 1,.., ng j = 1,.., nh

(3) (4)

hj (b) = 0

g ( b) h (b) where b is the design vector defined in the space Wb , i and j are inequality and equality constraints, whereas ng and nh are constraint numbers. Previous functions can be represented by stochastic quantities, like the statistical or the spectral moments. The OF could be defined either in a standard deterministic way (e.g., the total structural weight or the volume of the elements) or in a stochastic one. In the latter case, the response statistics of the variables of interest could be used. The structural reliability is usually adopted for defying the constraint in the following form: Pf ( b ) Pfadm (5)

where the reliability constraint imposes that the possible design vectors must guarantee a Pfadm Pf ( b ) failure probability smaller than a given maximum acceptable value . Anyway for seek of simplicity, because of equalities in equation 4 are easily writable in terms od disequalities, so that in next paper steps constraints will be expressed only by eq. 3. 2. Structural response statistical moment evaluation in case of bounded random parametersy

G. C. Marano

Moreover in the above mentioned optimization approach all the parameters are deterministic quantities except, generally, for the loads. In this hypothesis, the structural response is completely defined by statistical moments which are deterministic quantities. On the contrary in structural engineering the involved parameters evaluation is quite far from a univocally defined value. For example, in buildings or bridges subject to wind or earthquake loads, the exact evaluation of the real stiffness depends on many additional non structural elements, whose characteristics and presence are extremely uncertain. For example, this is the case of structural non permanent masses which have a strong variable nature. And so it is necessary to obtain, especially in optimization process, information about structural responses by properly taking into account uncertain effects. In all these cases, the probability theory has been the most used way to model uncertainty due to its strong mathematical background and deep knowledge of all scientists in last fifty years. In this way uncertain parameters are assumed random variables, and are characterized by standard joint probability density functions. Even if this approach is intuitive, it offers some hard analytical and numerical difficulties. A common simplification consists in assuming that all the variables have independent, normal, lognormal, or other conventional distributions. Some alternative nonprobabilistic approaches, usually called possibilistic , including the convex modelling , the fuzzy set theory and, finally, the interval analysis can be utilized. For example, the interval analysis is based on the assumption that the uncertain parameters lie on a finite hyper-rectangle, totally known only by its vertices position. A different and intermediate approach consists in the probabilistic description of the uncertain parameters by using some finite bounded distributions, where the bound limits can be assigned through the experience and/or the physical evidences. The method can be associated to the uniform probability distribution in absence of any experimental or analytical information about the mean and the variance of the bounded variables. In this case, the probability density function is 1/ , where is the range where the random variable is defined. This is the simplest and the least accurate way to treat the uncertainty with the bounded probability density function, but it is also the simplest way for engineering to describe the unknown parameter value. Anyway, the use of a probability density function bounded on a finite interval causes a significant simplification for the evaluation of structural response statistic moments. Particularly, the nth statistic moment r ( b, d ) mn of the generic characteristic of structural response , where the vector d contains all the uncertain parameters and b is the design vector, is evaluated by relation: m n ( b ) = r n ( b , d ) pD ( d ) d ( d ) Wd (6) p (d) where Wd is the definition domain of the vector d and D is its probability density function. It is evident that the use of standard distributions (for example lognormal or normal) makes inaccessible the analytical solution and therefore it needs approximate numerical methods, that have been developed with different levels of difficulty and

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

accuracy 0, 0,0. A bounded domain of Wd , on the contrary, gives the possibility of using standard numerical methods, which are less onerous and surely stable. The goal of the optimum design of mechanical systems with random parameters and subject to random dynamic actions aims, generally, to minimize the mean value of the objective function expressed by (6), where n=1. The optimum solutions obtained in this way are more stable with respect the conventional approaches which are developed only minimizing the deterministic OF and neglecting the involved uncertainties 0. On the contrary, robust optimal solutions consider the objective function as a random variable, whose complete description needs the probability density function knowledge. It is clear that this is a difficult way and only in few cases it could be found with an analytical method. To overcome this limitation, the complete OF (objective function) statistical description is replaced by the knowledge of its few first statistic moments, typically the mean and the variance. They should be evaluated by the following two equations: mOF (b) = OF ( b d ) pD ( d ) d ( d ) (7)
Wd

(8) Numerically, the mean value of the objective function and the variance can be directly evaluated by solving the two integrals:
Wd

2 2 2 s OF ( b) = (OF ( b d ) ) pD ( d ) d ( d ) - mOF (b)

mOF (b) =

U d1 d U 2

L d1

L d2

dU n

L d nd

(OF ( b d ) ) p ( d ) p ( d )K p
d

D1

D2

Dn

( d ) d ( d )d ( d ) K d ( d
nd

nd

)
(9)

s 2 ( b) =
OF

U d1 d U 2

d 1L d 2L

dU n

L d nd

2 2 OF ( b d ) p D1 ( d1 ) p D2 ( d 2 ) K pD d n d (d1 )d (d 2 ) K d ( d nd ) - mOF ( b) nd d

( )

(10)

d d where, nd is the number of the uncertain parameters, and i and i are, respectively, the lower and the upper interval limits for each uncertain parameter. The integrals in (9) and (10) must be evaluated through a standard numerical technique without any conceptual approximation and by setting the integration method and the numerical parameters opportunely. For constrained problems the same approach has to be used in evaluating mean and g ( b, d ) variance of each functions i , so that is possible, by numerical standard m (b) s ( b) integration as done in (9) and (10), define gi and gi . 3. robust problem formulation

Now the question is how use statistical evaluation of OF and constraints functions (when present) to develope a robust optimization criteria for designing of passive vibration devices. A common way for robust optimum design is through a multi-criteria measure of the goal performance. By means of this formulation, the proposed problem is transformed in a vectorial minimization, in which the two conflicting criteria are the OF

G. C. Marano

mean and standard deviation. The first one indicates the solution performance, while the second the solution scatter; they are generally conflicting, so that increasing the first decreases the second. The optimization problem, for an unconstained problem, can so be formulated as follows: Find b Wb (11)

{m ( b ) , s OF ( b )} (12) Which Minimizes the OF vector OF In these situations, it is not possible to define a universally approved criterion of the optimum , as in the single objective optimization. Instead of aiming to find a single solution one can try to produce a set of good compromises. In a typical minimization-based Multi-Objectives Optimization Problem, given two {b j , b k } candidate solutions , if "i {1,..., m} , OFi ( b j ) OFi ( bk ) $i {1,..., M } : OFi ( b j ) < OFi ( bk ) (13)where m is the objective number, and defined the two objective vectors: v ( b j ) = OF1 ( b j ) ,..., OFm ( b j ) (14) v ( b k ) = {OF1 ( b k ) ,..., OFm ( b k )} (15) v (b j ) v ( b j ) p v ( bk ) v ( bk ) the vector is said to dominate the vector (in symbols ). v (b j ) v b Moreover, if no feasible solution ( k ) which dominates the solution exists, then v (b j ) is classified as a non-dominated or Pareto optimal solution. The collection of all Pareto optimal solutions are known as the Pareto optimal set or the Pareto efficient set, instead the corresponding objective vectors are described as the Pareto front or the Trade-off surface. Moreover in this paper a different way is used to define a robust approach. It is partially inspired by the common approach that replace the OF vector with a scalar function obtained as linear combination of its elements. In more details assuming that design has to be done by properly considering scatter afflicting both OF and constraints, the proposed formulation express both two quantities as an opportune "possible "wost" values, expressed as OF rob ( b ) = mOF ( b, d ) + c OF s OF ( b, d )

girob ( b ) = m gi ( b, d ) + c gi s gi ( b, d )

where the values cOF and gi depend on the level of robustness required, and in general should be different and defined by engineers in a pre design stage. Therefore the robust optimization problem should be expressed as Find b b (16)

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

OF rob ( b ) Which Minimizes (17) Subject to g irob ( b ) 0 i = 1,.., ng (18) h j ( b ) = 0 j = 1,.., nh (19)

g ( b) h (b) where b is the design vector defined in the space Wb , i and j are inequality and equality constraints, (20) In this way the robust optimization does not directly minimize the performance, but on the contrary its worst value. The worst value evaluation is more preventive how much great it c . In detail, if c = 0 the optimization aims to minimize mOF only, without

considering the OF standard deviation. If c increases, it is possible to look for some optimum solutions obtained through a weighed reduction of the two quantities, mean and standard deviation. In next section the previous formulations are applied to the case of the robust optimization of a passive vibration control system, i.e. the TMD.

APPLICATION OF ROBUST OPTIMIZATION CRITERION TO LINEAR TMD AND BASE ISOLATION DEVICES The method here proposed is thus applied to the optimization of two well known passive vibration devices, that are the Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) and the Base Isolation (BI). They are two of the simplest and more reliable passive strategies devices used for the vibration control in a wide range of applications. The main principle of this two devices is strongly different. For TMDs it consists in an additional mass connected to a main system by a spring and a damper, so that it works transferring some of the structural vibration energy to the TMD, which dissipates it through its damping. The TMD offers many advantages, such as simplicity, reliability, effectiveness and low cost. The first application of the TMD dates back to 1909 0. Since Den Hartog 0 proposed an optimal design for the TMD under harmonic conditions, optimization of these devices has been further studied under various kinds of excitations. The majority of those efforts were devoted to develop the design procedure optimizing the TMD parameters in a CSSO way (0 0) Differently in case of Base Isolation an additional devices is interposed between the main structure and the vibrating support; because of its reduced lateral stiffness and relatively high damping ratio it is able to decouple support-main structure movement and additionally dissipate an amount of input energy. In the next section, a standard way for the TMD and BI is reassumed. More details should be found in 0. The mechanical model used in both problems is a two degree of freedom subject to a base vibration phenomena, as in figure 1. For this system excited by a stationary base acceleration (Figure 1), the dynamic response is obtained by solving the dynamic equilibrium system equations:

G. C. Marano
2 & & &&2 = -(1 + g )2x 2w2 x2 - (1 + g )w2 x2 + -2x1w1 x1 - w12 x1 x 2 2 & & y &&1 = -2x1w1 x1 - w1 x1 + g 2x2w2 x2 + gw2 x2 - &&b x

(21)

Figure 1: Mechanical scheme of a linear TMD system

c2 c1 k1 k m x1 = w2 = 2 x2 = g= 2 2 m2 k2 2 m1k1 m1 m2 m1 . where , , , and && The base acceleration yb (t ) is treated as a stationary random process, to preserve the inner stochastic random nature that typically those excitation presents. It is s assumed to be as a filtered white noise stochastic process, expressed as: && & Y f (t ) + 2x f w f Y f + w 2 Y f = - w(t ) f && 2 && & Yb (t ) = Y f (t ) + w(t ) = - ( 2x f w f Y f + w f Y f ) (22) w(t ) is a stationary Gaussian zero mean white noise process whose intensity is where

w1 =

w x given by S 0 , f is the filter frequency and f the filter damping ratio.

2 &&b = &&f + w = -(2xbwb x f + wg x f ) & y x 2 & && f + 2x gwg x f + wg x f = - w x Now combining all equations we have that 2 & & &&2 = -(1 + g )w2 x2 + w12 x1 - (1 + g )2x2w2 x2 + 2x1w1 x1 x 2 2 2 & & & x &&1 = +gw2 x2 - w1 x1 + g 2x2w2 x2 - 2x1w1 x1 + 2xbwb xb + wg xb 2 & x &&b = -2xbwb xb - wb xb - w(t )

&& & && MY (t ) + CY (t ) + KY (t ) = ryb (t ) And in the space state T & & & Y (t ) = ( x2 x1 yb x2 x1 yb ) We have & Y = AY + F Where the system matrix is 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A= 2 2 0 -(1 + g )2x2w2 -(1 + g )w2 +w1 2 2 2 +gw2 -w1 +wb +g 2x2w2 2 0 0 -wb 0

0 1 0 +2x1w1 -2x1w1 0

0 1 0 +2xbwb -2xbwb 0

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

And the forcing vector is T F ( t ) = ( 0 0 0 0 0 w (t ) )

(23)

The space state covariance matrix R ZZ in stationary conditions is calculated through the solution of the Lyapunov s equation: AR ZZ + R ZZ AT + B = 0 (24) The 6x6 matrix B has all null elements, except the last on the main diagonal: [ B]6,6 = 2p S0 . (25) APPLICATION TO TMD OPTIMIZATION For a system equipped with a TMD system and excited by a stationary base acceleration, the dynamic response is obtained by solving the dynamic equilibrium system equations above described, where the prefix 1 is for the main system ( X S = X 1 )and 2 is for tuned

mass damper ( X T = X 2 ). It means that regarding main system, its main frequency and damping ratio are: c1 k wS = 1 xS = 2 m1k1 m1 , and g is the ratio between the tuned damper and main system masses, usually smaller than 0.1. The unconstrained optimization of the TMD mechanical parameters consists in b = (wT , xT ) evaluating the best DV able to minimize an opportunely selected OF, where c2 k xT = wT = 2 2 m2 k 2 m2 the TMD frequency and damping ratio are respectively and . The criterion selected for the optimization is the minimization of ratio between the displacement of the protected system and the unprotected one. This function represents a direct stochastic index of the vibration protection efficiency, which will be more effective as its value decreases from one. At the same time, a value close to one will indicate a practically negligible efficiency of the vibration control strategy. In the case of the conventional optimum design, where it is assumed that all the parameters involved in the problem are deterministic, the unconstrained problem can be formulated as follows: b = (wT , xT ) b Find (26) Which Minimizes s X (b) OF = S s X0 S (27)

G. C. Marano

where

s X (b )
S

is the standard deviation of the displacement of the unprotected system. The result of this deterministic optimum design can be observed in Figure 2, where the

sX

is the standard deviation of the displacement of the protected system and

0 S

rT =
optimum solution is plotted in the space

frequency to the system one), and xT . Input parameters are and w f = 9.42( rad / sec) . The system has a frequency wS = 6.28 (rad/sec) and a damping ratio x S = 0.05 . The mass ratio is g T = 0.025 .

wT wS (that is the ratio of the TMD x f = 0.4

Figure 2: Conventional optimum solution in the design space

T,

T.

This section deals with the optimization problem of the TMD assuming that some parameters are afflicted by uncertainty. More precisely, these are: the main system frequency wS , the main system damping ratio x S and the mass ratio g . Thus, the uncertain vector d is: d = (ws x s g T ) . (28) This selection derives from some real problem considerations. Actually, with reference

to wS , it is known the difficulty to predict it accurately. Really, its value is usually determined by some full-scale measurements after those the main structure has been realised; this circumstance is especially due to differences regarding construction with respect the original design. For this reason, in many real applications the natural

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

frequency of the TMD has been designed as tuneable on site. In addition one should consider that the main system masses may be afflicted by a significant variation during the service activities. This is evident in the presence of time variable masses, where the additional weight varies during use, as for civil buildings or bridges. For this reason, it is more realistic to assume the mass ratio as an uncertain quantity, instead of a deterministic parameter. Finally, in this study also the uncertainty of the main system damping ratio has been considered. In fact, in many cases it is evaluated with a limited or a low level of accuracy, and sometimes only some conventional values are used for its quantifications. Moreover, it plays a fundamental role in the elastic systems response, being the most important actor of the energy dissipation during the vibrations. Nevertheless, different authors 0observed that it has a very limited influence on the optimal TMD parameters. On the other hand, it must be noticed that it has a strong influence on the TMD efficiency in the vibrations reduction 0; increasing the main system damping, the TMD efficiency significantly decreases, and hence for a realistic robust optimization criterion this parameter has to be modelled as uncertain. A bounded stochastic representation is assumed for the random variables which represent uncertain parameters. In details, the parameters d i are uniformly distributed over a bounded range and are also statistically independent. This could be seen as the simplest and less accurate way to describe their knowledge. R Assuming that each interval is centred in a reference nominal value d i , the probability density function is 1 D D if d i d iR - di , d iR + di R 2 2 pdi d i , D di = D di otherwise 0 (29) D where d i is variability range and where the lower and upper limits are: Dd d iL = d iR - i 2 (30) D di d U = d iR + i 2 (31) Figure 3 shows the mean (3a) and the standard deviation (3b) of the OF evaluated by

means of equations (9) and (10). The results are plotted in the DV space rT - xT . The deterministic and uncertain values adopted are reported in tables 1 and 2.
Deterministic parameters Input filter damping ratio Symbol Deterministic value 0.4

xf

G. C. Marano

Input to main system frequency ratio

yw =
S0

wf wSR

1.5

Input White Noise intensity

1 (cm2/sec3)

Table 1. Deterministic problem parameters

Uncertain parameters
Main system frequency nominal value Main system frequency band amplitude Mass ratio nominal value Mass damping ratio band amplitude Main system damping ratio nominal value Main damping ratio band amplitude

Symbol

value 2(rad/sec) 8,706 (rad/sec) 0,05 0,017 0.05 0,017

wR
S

DwS

gR
Dg

xR
S

Dx S

Table 2. Uncertain problem parameters

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

Figure 3: mOF (on the left, 3a) and s OF (on the right, 3b) in the space of the design variables

rT and xT .
From figure 3 one can observe that conventional solution evaluated by equation (27), and pointed out by the yellow point, does not correspond to the absolute minimum of the mean of the objective function (3a) red dot. In addition, the conventional solution has a standard deviation which lies between the peaks (3b) and it is greater than those corresponding to the minimum of mOF (red point).

This example well illustrates that OF and OF show in general an opposite trend. This means that the solutions which increase the TMD mean performance, have also a greater standard deviation. In the next, the results of a sensitivity analysis will be showed in order to compare robust and conventional solutions, and to point out how they differ in terms of efficiency, scattering and optimal values. The investigation will concern the uncertainty level, the adopted weight factor and, finally, the excitation frequency content. A first analysis is carried out assuming a given level of uncertainty: each uncertain variable d i has a single reference value d iR whereas the bounded interval is defined by D the dimensionless ratio r di = di . This factor has a direct engineering meaning, because d iR assuming a reference value d iR , the interval band depends on the confidence level on the assigned value d iR . Therefore, when the consistency that the designer has on this value decreases, the band amplitude increases. In the following analyses it has been assumed

G. C. Marano
R R for each parameter. The reference values are wS = 12.57 (rad/sec), x S = 0.05 and g R = 0.025 , whereas the bonded intervals are:
i

r d = 0.2

L U [wS , wS ] = [11.30,13.82] L T U T

(32)

[g , g ] = [0.0225,0.0275] (33) [x sL , x sU ] = [0.045,0.055] Different input configurations have been considered varying the filter frequency. It is well known in fact that the TMD effectiveness and the optimum solution also depend on this parameter [10] . (34)

yw =

Numerical analyses have been carried out considering different values of the x = 0. 4 in the range 0.5 2.5, and assuming a damping ratio f . The results of this sensitivity analysis are shown in Figures 4 and 5, where the mean

wf w SR

value and the standard deviation of the objective function are plotted versus y w , considering three values of c , respectively 0, 3 and 6. The results are compared with thoses obtained through the theoretical conventional optimization in deterministic hypothesis (blue outlined line) whose solution is denoted by bopt . It is evident that the conv objective function values are lower than the other solutions and therefore the conventional solution seems to give more performances. Moreover, the green curve represents the most probable value that the conventional optimization furnishes when the uncertainty is considered. One can immediately point out that the conventional-theoretical and the more probable values of the objective function differ, also sensibly, from each other, being the theoretical solutions always smaller (so having greater performances) than the correspondent mean values. In Figure 3 and 4 the optimum solution performed by the robust approach is also shown, assuming three values for the parameter c . The plot which corresponds to c = 0 represents the solution obtained by performing the minimization only of the objective function mean value. It is clear that the efficiency evaluated in terms of mean value is greater if compared with other plots in case of robust optimization, even if the differences are quite limited. For c = 3 a little reduction of the efficiency takes place,

but considering c = 6 some reductions of the estimated performance can be noticed in comparison to the other robust solutions. In Figure 5 the values of the standard deviation of the objective function are plotted in function of y w . They are shown in the case of conventional solution and for the robust cases. It is possible to observe that for y w <1 the standard deviation evaluated through the conventional optimization is less than the one obtained by means of robust method assuming c = 0 . This result depends on the fact that the robust solution developed with

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

c = 0 takes into account only of the mean value of the objective function and not of the variance. On the contrary, if c = 3 or 6 the optimum robust solution always presents
standard deviation values which are also quite smaller than the ones of the conventional solution.

Figure 4: Objective Function versus frequency ratio

yw

G. C. Marano

Figure 5: Standard deviation of Objective Function evaluated with different criteria, versus frequency ratio

yw

In Figure 6 the scalar values of the objective function, which correspond to worst possible values, are shown, and are compared with the ones obtained evaluated by
OF b con

conventional optimization. They are expressed both in the hypothetical way con both as worst values mOF ( bopt ) + cs OF ( bopt ) , related to the conventional solutions bopt . con con

( ),
opt

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

Figure 6 :Scalar value of the robust OF versus frequency ratio of

yw

It is possible to notice that the differences between the worst TMD performance evaluated with a conventional approach and the ones obtained with a robust method increases when c increase also. In particular, the difference is larger in the most preventive case ( c =6), and for y w > 1 .

Figure 7: Optimal TMD parameters evaluated with conventional and robust criteria.

G. C. Marano

Figure 7 shows the solutions in the space [ rT , xT ] . They are represented by some curves obtained connecting the points bopt ( Y w ) which are obtained varying the frequency ratio

y w in the interval [0.5,2.5]. The values attained with the conventional method (blue
line) and the robust approaches are shown together. With regard to conventional solution varying the ratio y w it is possible to notice a change in the tuning ratio in the range [0.91,0.96]. The damping ratio variation is more bounded and varies in the range [0.075 0.085]. Robust solutions shows the tendency to give greater damping ratio values in comparison to those required in the conventional approach. Moreover, one can notice that the damping ratio varies in more ample ranges. Both these tendencies are more marked when c increases. In addition, optimum value of damping ratio achieved with the robust approach assumes results almost equal to the double of those obtained by conventional method. Finally, a sensitivity analysis has been developed on the robust solution, varying the uncertainty level. Two values of the ratio Yw - 0.75 and 1.5- are been considered, whereas three uncertainty levels are supposed, assuming di equal to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3. The data are reported in table 3, being the others the same of previous example.

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

Configurations

Dx 0
[0.0475,0.0525] [0.045,0.055] [0.425,0.0575]

Dg
[0.0238,0.0263] [0.0225,0.0275] [0.021,0.0288]

D ws
[5.9690,6.5973] [5.65,6.91] [5.34,7.23]

rd = 0.1

r d = 0.2
rd = 0.3

Table 3. Range of variation of uncertain parameters

Figure:8 Optimum scalar OF evaluated for different uncertain configurations; it is assumed

y w = 1.5 .

From Figure 8 one can deduce that optimum solutions are strongly influenced by the level of uncertainty. The worst possible values of the objective function monotonically increase with di , independently from the frequency ratio. Moreover, it clearly increases varying c ; besides, this increase is faster as the uncertainty grows up. In fact, one can observe that the blue curves have a gradient lower than the green ones and so on. The variation of the optimum solution when the uncertainty level varies is more evident in Figure 9, where the Pareto fronts are represented for the above considered cases. By analyzing these plots, one can deduce that the amplitude of the front quickly grows increasing the uncertainty level and this happens independently from the value of Yw . For

rd

=0.1, the front dimension is very small and the conventional solution is very

G. C. Marano

near to it. For a larger uncertainty level,

rd r

=0.2, a small change in the Pareto fronts can

be noticed; it becomes more evident for di =0.3. From Figure 9 other results can be deduced. The first concerns the performances worsening estimated on both the front indices: the green fronts are dominated by the blue ones, both in terms of mean and standard deviation. It is also possible to note an extension of the fronts, which demonstrates the existence of an ample range of possibilities to define an optimum solution in the. The points corresponding to the conventional optimization move away more and more as the uncertainty level increases. Besides, they are controlled by the same front.

Figure 9: Pareto fronts in the

mOF - s OF space, evaluated for different uncertainty configurations compared with conventional
solutions.

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

Figure 10: Optimum TMD solutions evaluated for different uncertainty configurations. Continues lines are for dotted lines are for

y w = 1.50 ,

y w = 0.75 .

In Figure 10 optimum solution is showed in the space of design variables. In this Figure the conventional solution is presented together the robust ones assuming three levels of uncertainty. One can point out that the front becomes larger as the uncertainty level increases and at the same time the distance between conventional and robust solution become larger. Anyway, one should point out that the robust solutions generally present greater damping ratio with respect the conventional one, meanwhile the TMD optimal frequency does not change significantly, so that a first indication to improve the robustness starting from a conventional solution is by increasing its damping. APPLICATION TO BASE ISOLATION OPTIMIZATION Base Isolation strategy (BI) is, like TMD, one of the more used strategies in reducing induced vibration in structural systems induced by base vibration actions. It simply consists in linking the main system to the vibrating support with a "deformable" connection. This is the case of subsystems located on a vibrating mechanical support, as motor devices, airplane structures, seismic isolated building and similar. There is a wide spectrum of mechanical solutions for those devices, but mainly their effectiveness depends on capacity in decoupling structure and support motion; the reduction of induced vibration is obtained by shifting far from support resonance the "modified" main system characteristics. Moreover an additional protection should be gotten by energy dissipation, that is obtained mainly by using non linear devices.

G. C. Marano

Anyway this strategies has a main drawbacks, because of an excessive deformations that are induced in the support, and for this reason, differently from TMD case that has been formulated as an unconstrained problem, the BI optimization must be formulated as a constrained one. Its main goal is to reduced main system vibrations and to control maximum structural displacements between base and linked element, that must be smaller than an acceptable value. In this model the main system is modeled as a SDoF linear system with an given parameters ms, ks and cs. Base acceleration is here modeled as a stationary filtered white noise process, as just done for TMD example with equation XX. The optimal mechanical base isolator characteristics are evaluated modeling this device as a simple flexible viscous elastic element connecting the vibrating base with the supported mass For the mechanical description of this BI system excited by a stationary base acceleration (like in the TMD example), the dynamic response is obtained by solving the dynamic equilibrium system equations above described, where the prefix 1 is for the Base Isolation device main system ( X BI = X 1 )and 2 is for main system ( X S = X 2 ). It means that regarding main system, its main frequency and damping ratio are: k c2 wS = 2 , x BI = m2 2 m2 k2 and g is the ratio between the main system and BI device masses, usually greater than 1. The constrained optimization of the BI mechanical parameters consists in evaluating the best DV b = (wBI , x BI ) able to minimize an opportunely selected OF, where the BI frequency and damping ratio are respectively wBI =
k1 c1 and x BI = , that lie on m1 2 m1k1

the possible admissible domain b . The optimal DV must be able to minimize an OF that must express a protection efficiency index: it tends to a null value for a complete system-base decoupling, and tends to unit for a system rigid connection with the vibrating base. With reference to the unprotected system deformation standard variance

sX

, the conventional OF definition is: s X (b ) conv OFBI ( b ) = S

0 S

(35). Moreover, still speaking of conventional optimization, we have to considered constraints. In a stochastic way the constrained function should be correctly expressed in terms of max probability Pf that BI lateral maximum displacement X BI will exceed a given
adm admissible value X BI during a given time period T. exceeded a given design value Pfadm in an and therefore:

sX

0 S

This probability will not be

conv adm g BI ( b ) = Pf X BI , b - Pfadm 0

(36)

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

adm max adm Pf X BI , b = P X BI ( b ) X BI t [ 0, T ]

Where (37) In case of rare failure events, the Poisson hypothesis could be reasonably used for Pf evaluation [1], so that: adm adm Pf ( X BI , b ) = 1 - e -n ( X BI ,b )T (38) where the unconditioned mean crossing rate is:.
adm n = ( X BI , b ) =

p sX
(

& 1 s X BI
BI

adm 2 1 X - BI 2 s X BI

(39)

Finally one obtains:

conv g BI ( b ) = 1 - e

adm -n BI X BI ,b Ttot

+ Pfadm

)
( )

Finally one obtains that:

p s X (b ) max adm 2 adm BI g conv ( b ) = X BI ( b ) - X BI = -2s X BI ( b ) ln ln 1 - Pfadm - X BI 0 BI T s X (b ) & BI The constrained problem is thus formulated in a conventional way, assuming different admissible maximum values. They are 7 and varies from the minimum value of 10 cm to the maximum of 40 using a step of 5 cm. The constraint parameters used are respectively:
symbol values

Ttot (hours)
3

Pfadm
0.05

adm X BI (cm)

[5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40]

G. C. Marano

Figure 3: deterministic approach for BI constrained optimization problem. Yellow points are optimal solutions for different admissible maximum displacements (from 10 to 40 cm)

Results are reported in figure XX, where optimal points for different admissible BI lateral displacement are reported as yellow points. The colored surface is for OF values, adm and black lines represents boundary domains for each X BI value. As widley presumable, all optimal solutions lie on those lines. Now the robust optimization problem has to be posed in the following way, where both OF and constrained function must be evaluated in terms of uncertain parameters: rob OFBI ( b, d ) = mOF ( b, d ) + c OF s OF ( b, d ) (40) (41) Both OF and constraint present a greater value than conventional approaches, as must be
BI BI BI

adm g rob ( b, d ) = m X max ( b, d ) + c X max s X max ( b, d ) - X BI 0 BI

seen in figure XX (Comparison between conventional and robust OF, c OF =1) and figure XX (Comparison between conventional and robust maximum BI displacement m X max ( b, d ) + c X max s X max ( b, d ) c X BI BI BI , max =1)

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

Figure 1:

OF conventiona (continuos) and robust (dotted)

Figure 4: Conventional (continuos) and robust (dotted) maximum displacements

The uncertain parameters vector d consists in main system frequency, damping and mass ratio. Both tree parameters are assumed uniformly distributed over a bounded range and statistically independent. Assuming that each interval is centered in a reference nominal R value di , the probability density function is the same used in TMD example.

G. C. Marano

The deterministic and uncertain values adopted are reported in tables 1 and 2.
Deterministic parameters Input filter damping ratio Input to main system frequency ratio Symbol Deterministic value 0.4

xf

yw =
S0

wf wSR

2.0

Input White Noise intensity

100 (cm2/sec3)

Table 1. Deterministic problem parameters

Nondeterministic parameters Main system frequency nominal value Main system frequency band amplitude Mass ratio nominal value Mass damping ratio band amplitude Main system damping ratio nominal value Main damping ratio band amplitude

Symbol

wR
S

2(rad/sec) 8,706 (rad/sec) 0,05 2,00 0.05 0,017

DwS

gR
Dg

xR
S

Dx S

Table 2. Uncertain problem parameters

CONCLUSIONS In this work a criterion for robust optimization of vibrating systems, subject to random vibrations has been proposed. It is assumed that some parameters involved in the problem are uncertain and then are modeled as random variables. Differently from the approaches proposed till now, the definition domain of uncertain variable has been assumed finite. The specific probability density which characterized them is function of

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

the knowledge level. As specific case of study the optimum robust design of a TMD applied to a linear system has been examined. The dynamic input is represented by a random base acceleration, modelled by a stationary filtered stochastic process. The main system is represented by a single linear degree of freedom one; its mass, stiffness and damping are supposed to be affected by the uncertainty and are represented by bounded random variables. Assuming that a limited level of knowledge is available, these parameters are represented by independent uniform probability density functions and for each one of range of variation is centred on a reference value. The performance index used for the objective function definition is the ratio between the protected and unprotected standard deviation of displacement of the main system. Therefore, the mean and standard deviation of the objective function are evaluated under these hypotheses by a simple numerical integration. The robust optimization is formulated as a multi objective optimization problem, in which both the mean and the standard deviation of the objective function are minimized, in this way finding some solutions with a smaller sensitivity to the system parameters variation. Some interesting conclusions can be drawn with regard the obtained results. First of all, the attained results have showed an improvement in the evaluation of the TMD performance. In fact, the obtained robust solutions are able to reduce the final dispersion of the objective function, by limiting the standard deviation and consequently the worst possible value. Moreover, results have pointed out that the deterministic solution is opt underestimated if compared with its mean value obtained by adopting bconv (conventional solution) and then carrying out the optimization considering the uncertainty in the system parameters. Moreover, if the uncertainty which affects the parameters of the system is not considered, the TMD performance is overestimated, and the real application of this device could have sometimes very limited real effects. Another important indication is that the robust solutions generally present greater damping ratio whit respect to conventional ones, meanwhile the TMD optimal frequency does not change significantly; so that a first indication to improve the TMD robustness starting from a conventional solution is by increasing its damping. The proposed method can potentially be suitably used when more accurate information about the uncertain parameters are known; for instance, by using different probability distributions such as beta. Finally, the number of uncertainty sources can be incremented to take into account more parameters, also if it could increase the computational costs.

G. C. Marano

REFERENCES LUTES LD, SARKANI S. RANDOM VIBRATIONS, BUTTERWORTH-HEINEMANN, OXFORD, UK, 2001. NIGAM NC, STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION IN RANDOM VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, 1972, PP. 551-53. CONSTANTINOU MC, TADJBAKHSH IG. OPTIMUM DESIGN OF A FIRST STORY DAMPING SYSTEM, COMPUTERS AND STRUCTURES, NO. 2, 17(1983)305-10. TAKEWAKI I. AN APPROACH TO STIFFNESS-DAMPING SIMULTANEOUS OPTIMIZATION, COMPUTER METHODS IN APPLIED MECHANICS AND ENGINEERING, NO. 2, 189(2000)641-50. PARK KS, KOH HM, HAHM D. INTEGRATED OPTIMUM DESIGN OF VISCO-ELASTICALLY DAMPED STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS, ENGINEERING STRUCTURES, 26(2004)581-91. MARANO GC, TRENTADUE F, GRECO R. STOCHASTIC OPTIMUM DESIGN CRITERION FOR LINEAR DAMPER DEVICES FOR BUILDING SEISMIC PROTECTION, STRUCTURAL AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY OPTIMIZATION, NO. 6, 33(2007)441-55. RUNDINGER F. OPTIMAL VIBRATION ABSORBER WITH NONLINEAR VISCOUS POWER LAW DAMPING AND WHITE NOISE EXCITATION , JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS, ASCE, NO. 1, 132(2006)46-53. HOANG N, WARNITCHAI P. DESIGN OF MULTIPLE TUNED MASS DAMPERS BY USING A NUMERICAL OPTIMIZER, EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, NO. 2, 34(2005)125-44. MARANO GC, TRENTADUE F, CHIAIA B. STOCHASTIC RELIABILITY BASED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LINEAR STRUCTURE SUBJECT TO RANDOM VIBRATIONS, PROCEEDINGS OF ESDA 2006 - 8TH BIENNIAL ASME CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING SYSTEMS DESIGN AND ANALYSIS, TORINO, ITALY, 2006. MARANO G. C., GRECO R., TRENTADUE F., CHIAIA B.; CONSTRAINED RELIABILITY-BASED OPTIMIZATION OF LINEAR TUNED MASS DAMPERS FOR SEISMIC CONTROL. 2007; 44 (22-23), PP. 73707388, ISSN: 0020-7683, DOI:10.1016/J.IJSOLSTR.2007.04.012. IGUSA T, KIURGHIAN AD. RESPONSE OF UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS TO STOCHASTIC EXCITATION. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS, ASCE, 114(1988)812-32. SIDDALL JN. A NEW APPROACH TO PROBABILITY IN ENGINEERING DESIGN AND OPTIMISATION, ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANIC, TRANSMISS, 106(1984)5-10. DOLTSINIS I, KANG Z. ROBUST DESIGN OF STRUCTURES USING OPTIMIZATION METHODS, COMPUTER METHODS IN APPLIED MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING, 193(2004)221-37. ZANG C, FRISWELL MI, MOTTERSHEAD JE. A REVIEW OF ROBUST OPTIMAL DESIGN AND ITS APPLICATION IN DYNAMICS, COMPUTERS AND STRUCTURES, 83(2005)315-26. PAPADIMITRIU C, BECK JL, KATAFYGIOTIS LS. ASYMTOTIC EXPANSION FOR RELIABILITY AND MOMENTS OF UNCERTAINLY SYSTEMS, JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS, NO. 12, 123(1997) 1219-29. LANGLEY R.S., (2000), UNIFIED APPROACH TO PROBABILISTIC AND POSSIBILISTIC ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS , JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS (ASCE) , NO. 11(126), 1163-1172. MARANO, G.C. AND QUARANTA, G.; (2008); Fuzzy-based robust structural optimization , International Journal of Solids
and Structure, Vol 45, pp. 3544-3557.

XIAOPING M, XIAOLEI L, GUANG M, TONG F. EVOLUTIONARY EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF UNCERTAIN STRUCTURE WITH BOUNDED RANDOM PARAMETER, PROBABILISTIC ENGINEERING MECHANICS, 19(2004)239-46.

ROBUST OPTIMIZATION FOR TMD WITH UNCERTAIN BOUNDED...

KOYOLUOGLU HU. STATISTICAL

RESPONSE AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES WITH RANDOM

PROPERTIES AND SUBJECT TO STATIONARY RANDOM EXCITATION,

REP., DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS RESEARCH, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON, NY, 1995. P PAPADIMITRIOU C, KATAFYGIOTIS LS, SIU-KUI A. EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL UNCERTAINTIES ON TMD DESIGN: A RELIABILITY-BASED APPROACH, JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL CONTROL, NO. 1, 4(1997)65-88.
G.C. MARANO, R. GRECO, "Robust Optimum design of TMD in high rise buildings under moderate earthquakes", The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Vol (17), 2008, DOI 10.1002/Tal462 (IN PRESS) V. Pareto. Manuale di Economica Politica. Societa Editrice Libraria, Milano, Italy, 1906. Schwier, A. S., Manual of Political Economy, Macmillan, New York, 1971 (English translation).

C. A. COELLO COELLO, HANDLING PREFERENCES IN EVOLUTIONARY MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION: A SURVEY , IEEE NEURAL NETWORKS COUNCIL (ED.), PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2000 CONGRESS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION (CEC 2000) VOL. 1, IEEE SERVICE CENTER, PISCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY, PP. 30 -37, 2000. G. C. LUH, C. H. CHUEN, MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TRUSS STRUCTURE WITH IMMUNE ALGORITHM , COMPUTERS AND STRUCTURES, VOL. 82(11-12), PP. 829-844, 2004. C. M. FONSECA, P. J. FLEMING, GENETIC ALGORITHMS FOR MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION: FORMUALTION, DISCUSSION AND GENERALIZATION , GENETIC ALGORITHMS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE (S. FORREST, ED.) SAN MATEO, PP. 413-423, CA: MORGAN KAUFMANN, JULY 1993. N. SRINIVAS, K. DEB, MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION USING NONDOMINATED SORTING IN GENETIC ALGORITHMS , JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 2 (3), PP. 221-248, 1994.
G.C. MARANO, S. SGOBBA, R. GRECO, M. MEZZINA. Robust optimization of Tuned Mass Dampers , International Journal of Sound and Vibrations, Vol.313 (3-5) pp.472-492, 2008.

T.T. SOONG, G.F. DARGUSH, PASSIVE ENERGY DISSIPATION SYSTEMS IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, WILEY, CHICHESTER, ENGLAND, 1997. J.P. DEN HARTOG, MECHANICAL VIBRATIONS, FOURTH ED., MCGRAW-HILL, NEW YORK, 1956 P.H. WIRSCHING, G.W. CAMPBELL, MINIMAL STRUCTURAL RESPONSE UNDER RANDOM EXCITATION USING THE VIBRATION ABSORBER, EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS 2 (4) (1974) 303 312. A.G. THOMPSON, OPTIMUM TUNING AND DAMPING OF A DYNAMIC VIBRATION ABSORBER APPLIED TO A FORCE EXCITED AND DAMPED PRIMARY SYSTEM, JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION 77 (3) (1981) 403 415. S.E. RANDALL, D.M. HALSTED, D.L. TAYLOR, OPTIMUM VIBRATION ABSORBERS FOR LINEAR DAMPED SYSTEMS, JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN TRANSCTIONS OF THE ASME 103 (1981) 908 913. G.B. WARBURTON, E.O. AYORINDE, OPTIMUM ABSORBER PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLE SYSTEMS, EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS 8 (3) (1980) 197 217. G.B. WARBURTON, OPTIMUM ABSORBER PARAMETERS FOR VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF RESPONSE AND EXCITATION PARAMETERS, EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS 10 (3) (1982) 381 401. H.C. TSAI, G.C. LIN, OPTIMUM TUNED-MASS DAMPERS FOR MINIMIZING STEADY-STATE RESPONSE OF SUPPORT-EXCITED AND DAMPED SYSTEMS, EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS 22 (11) (1993) 957 973.

G. C. Marano

Y. FUJINO, M. ABE, DESIGN FORMULAS FOR TUNED MASS DAMPERS BASED ON A PERTURBATION TECHNIQUE, EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS 22 (10) (1993) 833 854. ANKIREDDY S, YANG TY. SIMPLE ATMD CONTROL METHODOLOGY FOR TALL BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO WIND LOADS, JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, NO. 1, 22(1996)3-91.