Control efficiency optimization and Sobol’s sensitivity indices of MTMDs design parameters for buffeting and flutter vibrations in a cable stayed bridge

Research Article

Abstract

This paper studies optimization of three design parameters (mass ratio, frequency ratio and damping ratio) of multiple tuned mass dampers MTMDs that are applied in a cable stayed bridge excited by a strong wind using minimax optimization technique. ABAQUS finite element program is utilized to run numerical simulations with the support of MATLAB codes and Fast Fourier Transform FFT technique. The optimum values of these three parameters are validated with two benchmarks from the literature, first with Wang and coauthors and then with Lin and coauthors. The validation procedure detected a good agreement between the results. Box-Behnken experimental method is dedicated to formulate the surrogate models to represent the control efficiency of the vertical and torsional vibrations. Sobol’s sensitivity indices are calculated for the design parameters in addition to their interaction orders. The optimization results revealed better performance of the MTMDs in controlling the vertical and the torsional vibrations for higher mode shapes. Furthermore, the calculated rational effects of each design parameter facilitate to increase the control efficiency of the MTMDs in conjunction with the support of the surrogate models.

Keywords

MTMDs power spectral density fast Fourier transform minimax optimization technique Sobol’s sensitivity indices Box-Behnken method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. Guido Morgenthal and Prof. Dr. Tom Lahmer, for their continuous support in providing guidance and consultancy relating to this research study at the faculty of civil engineering at Bauhaus Universitat Weimar, Germany.

References

  1. 1.
    Zi G, Rabczuk T, Wall WA. Extended meshfree methods without branch enrichment for cohesive cracks. Computational Mechanics, 2007, 40(2): 367–382MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Application of particle methods to static fracture of reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Fracture, 2006, 137(1–4): 19–49MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Zi G. A three-dimensional meshfree method for continuous multiplecrack initiation, nucleation and propagation in statics and dynamics. Computational Mechanics, 2007, 40(3): 473–495MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bordas S, Rabczuk T, Zi G. Three-dimensional crack initiation, propagation, branching and junction in non-linear materials by extrinsic discontinuous enrichment of meshfree methods without asymptotic enrichment. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75 (5): 943–960Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A geometrically nonlinear three dimensional cohesive crack method for reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75 (16): 4740–4758Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Zi G. On three-dimensional modelling of crack growth using partition of unity methods. Computers & Structures, 2010, 88(23–24): 1391–1411Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G. A meshfree method based on the local partition of unity for cohesive cracks. Computational Mechanics, 2007, 39 (6): 743–760MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(37–40): 2437–2455MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rabczuk T, Areias P M A, Belytschko T. A meshfree thin shell method for nonlinear dynamic fracture. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2007, 72(5): 524–548MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen-Thanh N, Valizadeh N, Nguyen M N, Nguyen-Xuan H, Zhuang X, Areias P, Zi G, Bazilevs Y, De Lorenzis L, Rabczuk T. An extended isogeometric thin shell analysis based on Kirchhoff-Love theory. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2015, 284: 265–291MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amiri F, Milan D, Shen Y, Rabczuk T, Arroyo M. Phase-field modeling of fracture in linear thin shells. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 69: 102–109Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T. Finite strain fracture of plates and shells with configurational forces and edge rotation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2013, 94(12): 1099–1122MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chau-Dinh T, Zi G, Lee P S, Song J H, Rabczuk T. Phantom-node method for shell models with arbitrary cracks. Computers & Structures, 2012, 92–93: 242–256Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen-Thanh N, Kiendl J, Nguyen-Xuan H, Wuchner R, Bletzinger K U, Bazilevs Y, Rabczuk T. Rotation free isogeometric thin shell analysis using PHT-splines, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2011, 200(47–48):3410–3424MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nguyen-Thanh N, Rabczuk T, Nguyen-Xuan H, Bordas S. A smoothed finite element method for shell analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2008, 198(2): 165–177MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thai H C, Nguyen-Xuan H, Bordas S, Nguyen-Thanh N, Rabczuk T. Isogeometric analysis of laminated composite plates using the higher-order shear deformation theory. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, 2015, 22(6): 451–469Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thai C H, Ferreira A J M, Bordas S, Rabczuk T, Nguyen-Xuan H. Isogeometric analysis of laminated composite and sandwich plates using a new inverse trigonometric shear deformation theory. European Journal of Mechanics. A, Solids, 2014, 43: 89–108Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phan-Dao H, Nguyen-Xuan H, Thai-Hoang C, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. An edge-based smoothed finite element method for analysis of laminated composite plates. International Journal of Computational Methods, 2013, 10(1): 1340005MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thai C H, Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen-Thanh N, Le T H, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. Static, free vibration and buckling analysis of laminated composite Reissner-Mindlin plates using NURBS-based isogeometric approach. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2012, 91(6): 571–603MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen-Xuan H, Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Debongnie J F. A smoothed finite element method for plate analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2008, 197(13–16): 1184–1203MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Budarapu P R, Javvaji B, Sutrakar V K, Mahapatra D R, Zi G, Rabczuk T. Crack propagation in Graphene. Journal of Applied Physics, 2015, 118: 064307Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang S W, Budarapu P R, Mahapatra D R, Bordas S, Zi G, Rabczuk T. A meshless adaptive multiscale method for fracture. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96B: 382–395Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Budarapu P R, Sudhir Sastry Y B, Javvaji B, Mahapatra D R. Vibration analysis of multi-walled carbon nanotubes embedded in elastic medium. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2014, 8(2): 151–159Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Budarapu P R, Narayana T S S, Rammohan B, Rabczuk T. Directionality of sound radiation from rectangular panels. Applied Acoustics, 2015, 89: 128–140Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Budarapu P R, Gracie R, Yang S W, Zhaung X, Rabczuk T. Efficient coarse graining in multiscale modeling of fracture. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 69: 126–143Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Budarapu P R, Gracie R, Bordas S, Rabczuk T. An adaptive multiscale method for quasi-static crack growth. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(6): 1129–1148MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhuang X, Augarde C, Mathisen K. Fracture modelling using meshless methods and level sets in 3D: framework and modelling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2012, 92: 969–998MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cai Y, Zhu H, Zhuang X. A continuous/discontinuous deformation analysis (CDDA) method based on deformable blocks for fracture modelling. Frontiers of Structural & Civil Engineering, 2014, 7: 369–378Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rabczuk T, Gracie R, Jeong-Hoon S, Belytschko T. Immersed particle method for fluid–structure interaction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2010, 81: 48–71MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–2799MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rabczuk T, Eibl J, Stempniewski L. Simulation of high velocity concrete fragmentation using SPH/MLSPH. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2003, 56(10): 1421–1444MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rabczuk T, Eibl J, Stempniewski L. Numerical analysis of high speed concrete fragmentation using a meshfree Lagrangian method. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2004, 71: 547–556Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rabczuk T, Eibl J. Modeling dynamic failure of concrete with meshfree particle methods. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2006, 32(11): 1878–1897Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rabczuk T, Samaniego E, Belytschko T. Simplied model for predicting impulsive loads on submerged structures to account for fluid-structure interaction. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2007, 34(2): 163–177Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rabczuk T, Areias P, Belytschko T. A simplied meshfree method for shear bands with cohesive surfaces. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2007, 69(5): 993–1021MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rabczuk T, Samaniego E. Discontinuous modelling of shear bands using adaptive meshfree methods. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2008, 197(6–8): 641–658MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rabczuk T, Gracie R, Song J H, Belytschko T. Immersed particle method for fluid-structure interaction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2010, 81(1): 48–71MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Cracking particles: a simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(13): 2316–2343MATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T, Xiao S P. Stable particle methods based on Lagrangian kernels. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2004, 193(12–14): 1035–1063MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rabczuk T, Akkermann J, Eibl J. A numerical model for reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2005, 42(5–6): 1327–1354MATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rabczuk T, Eibl J. Numerical analysis of prestressed concrete beams using a coupled element free Galerkin/nite element method, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2004, 41 (3-4): 1061–1080MATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Adaptivity for structured meshfree particle methods in 2D and 3D. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2005, 63(11): 1559–1582MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Talebi H, Silani M, Rabczuk T. Concurrent multiscale modelling of three dimensional crack and dislocation propagation. Advances in Engineering Software, 2015, 80: 82–92Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Talebi H, Silani M, Bordas S, Kerfriden P, Rabczuk T. A computational library for multiscale modelling of material failure. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(5): 1047–1071MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Talebi H, Silani M, Bordas S P A, Kerfriden P, Rabczuk T. Molecular dynamics/XFEM coupling by a three-dimensional extended bridging domain with applications to dynamic brittle fracture. International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering, 2013, 11(6): 527–541Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ghorashi S, Valizadeh N, Mohammadi S, Rabczuk T. T-spline based XIGA for fracture analysis of orthotropic media. Computers & Structures, 2015, 147: 138–146Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Areias P, Msekh M A, Rabczuk T. Damage and fracture algorithm using the screened Poisson equation and local remeshing. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2016, 116–143Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Camanho P P. Finite strain fracture of 2D problems with injected anisotropic softening elements. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 50–63Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Dias-da-Costa D. Element-wise fracture algorithm based on rotation of edges. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2013, 110: 113–137MATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Camanho P P. Initially rigid cohesive laws and fracture based on edge rotations. Computational Mechanics, 2013, 52(4): 931–947MATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Amiri F, Anitescu C, Arroyo M, Bordas S, Rabczuk T. XLME interpolants, a seamless bridge between XFEM and enriched meshless methods. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(1): 45–57MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nguyen B H, Tran H D, Anitescu C, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. An isogeometric symmetric galerkin boundary element method for elastostatic analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 306: 252–275MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Quoc T T, Rabczuk T, Meschke G, Bazilevs Y. A higher-order stress-based gradient-enhanced damage model based on isogeometric analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 304: 584–604MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chen L, Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Liu G R, Zeng K Y, Kerfriden P. Extended finite element method with edge-based strain smoothing (Esm-XFEM) for linear elastic crack growth. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2012, 209–212(4): 250–265MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhao X, Gouder K, Limebeer D J N, Graham J M R. Experimental flutter and buffet suppression of a sectional suspended-bridge. 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Los Angeles, California, USA, 15–17 December 2014Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Starossek U, Aslan H. Passive Control of Bridge Deck Flutter Using Tuned Mass Dampers and Control Surfaces. 7th European Conference on Structural Dynamics (EURODYN 2008), Southampton, UK, 7–9 July, 2008Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Valdebenito G E, Aparicio A C. Seismic Behaviour of Cable Stayed Bridges: A State of The Art Review. 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, China, 12–13 October, 2006Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Flamand O, De Oliveira F, Stathopoulos-Vlamis A, Papanikolas P, Panagis A. Using non continuous records from full scale monitoring system for fatigue assessment. 7th EuropeanWorkshop on Structural Health Monitoring, La Cité, Nantes, France, 8–11 July, 2014Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yuh-Yi L, Chii-Ming C, Sun D. Wind-induced vibration control of long-span bridges by multiple tuned mass dampers. Tamkang Journal of Science and Engineering, 2000, 3(1): 1–13Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chen S R, Cai C S. Control ofWind-Induced Coupled Vibration of Long-span Bridges with Tuned Mass Dampers. 11th International Wind Engineering Conferences, Lubbock, Texas, US, June, 2003, 853–860Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Qin H, Liao H, Lin M, Sun Y. Vortex-Induced Vibration of continuous Beam Bridge and Its Mitigation. The Eighth Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, Chennai, India, 10–14 December, 2013Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ubertini F, Comanducci G, Laflamme S. A parametric study on reliability based tuned mass damper design against bridge flutter. Journal of Vibration and Control, 2015, 1–22Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kam-Hang T. Tuned Mass Dampers for Flutter and Buffeting Control of Long-Span Suspension Bridges. Master Thesis, Hong Kong: Department of Mechanical Engineering. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 1997Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Starossek U, Aslan H. A Novel Aero-Elastic Damper for Long-Span Bridges. 12th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Cairns, Australia, 1–6 July, 2007Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lin Y Y, Cheng C M, Lee C H. Multiple tuned mass dampers for controlling coupled buffeting and flutter of long span bridges. Wind and Structures, 1999, 2(4): 267–284Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ding Q, Lee P K K. Computer simulation of buffeting actions of suspension bridges under turbulent wind. Computers & Structures, 2000, 76: 787–797Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Patil A S. Mitigation of Vortex Induced Response in Long Span Bridges. Master Thesis, Florida: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The Florida State University, 2010Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Budarapu P R, Sudhir Sastry Y B, Natarajan R. Design concepts of an aircraft wing: composite and morphing airfoil with auxetic structures. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2016 (in Press)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sudhir Sastry Y B, Budarapu P R, Madhavi N, Krishna Y. Buckling analysis of thin wall stiffened composite panels. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96B: 459–471Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sudhir Sastry Y B, Budarapu P R, Krishna Y, Devaraj S. Studies on ballistic impact of the composite panels. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 2–12Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chen X. Optimization and Estimation Routine for Tuned Mass Damper. Master Thesis, Karlskrona, Sweden: Department of Mechanical Engineering. Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2010Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pourzeynali S, Esteki S. Optimization of the TMD Parameters to Suppress the Vertical Vibrations of Suspension Bridges Subjected to Earthquake Excitations. IJE Transactions B: Applications, 2009, 22(1): 23–34Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kubo Y. Prospects for the Suppression of Aeroedynamic Vibrations of a Long-Span Bridge Using Boundary-Layer Control. Journal of Vibration and Control, 2004, 10: 1359–1373Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Karoumi R. Modeling of Cable-stayed Bridges for Analysis of Traffic Induced Vibrations. 18th International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC XVIII), 2000, 842–848Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yang F. Optimal Vibration Suppression of Beam-Type Structures using Passive and Semi-Active Tuned Mass Dampers. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, Montreal: Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Concordia University, 2008Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gua M, Chen S R, Chang C C. Control of wind-induced vibrations of long-span bridges by semi-active lever-type TMD. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2002, 90: 111–126Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Chen S R, Cai C S. Coupled vibration control with tuned mass damper for long-span bridges. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2004, 278: 449–459Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Feldmann M, Heinemeyer C. Human induced vibration of steel structures, Design of Footbridges. HIVOSS, RFS2-CT-00033, 2007Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Chen S. Dynamic Performance of Bridges and Vehicles under Strong Wind. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, Louisiana, USA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, 2004Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chen X, Kareem A. Efficiency of tuned mass dampers for bridge flutter control. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2003, 129(10): 1291–1300Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Andersson A, O Connor A, Karoumi R. External damping of stay cables using adaptive and semi-active vibration control. 8th International Cable Supported Bridge Operators Conference, Edinburgh, UK, 3–5 June, 2013Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Zivanovic S, Pavic A, Reynolds P.Vibration serviceability of footbridges under human-induced excitation: a literature review. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2005, 279(1–2): 1–74Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Xing C, Wang H, Li A, Xu Y. Study on wind induced vibration control of a long span cable stayed bridge using TMD type counterweight. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2014, 19(1): 141–148Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lin Y Y, Cheng C M, Lee C H. A tuned mass damper for suppressing the coupled flexural and torsional buffeting response of long-span bridges. Engineering Structures, 2000, 22: 1195–1204Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hsiang-Chuan T, Guan-Cheng L. Optimum tuned mass damper for minimizing steady state response of support-excited and damped system. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1993, 22: 957–973Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ghasemi H, Brighenti R, Zhuang X, Muthu J, Rabczuk T. Optimum fiber content and distribution in fiber-reinforced solids using a reliability and NURBS based sequential optimization approach. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2015, 51 (1): 99–112MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ghasemi H, Rafiee R, Zhuang X, Muthu J, Rabczuk T. Uncertainties propagation in metamodel-based probabilistic optimization of CNT/polymer composite structure using stochastic multi-scale modeling. Computational Materials Science, 2014, 85: 295–305Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ghasemi H, Brighenti R, Zhuang X, Muthu J, Rabczuk T. Optimization of fiber distribution in fiber reinforced composite by using NURBS functions. Computational Materials Science, 2014, 83(15): 463–473Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Hamdia K, Msekh M A, Silani M, Vu-Bac N, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. Uncertainty quantification of the fracture properties of polymeric nanocomposites based on phase field modeling. Composite Structures, 2015, 133: 1177–1190Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Vu-Bac N, Silani M, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A unified framework for stochastic predictions of mechanical properties of polymeric nanocomposites. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 520–535Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Vu-Bac N, Rafiee R, Zhuang X, Lahmer T, Rabczuk T. Uncertainty quantification for multiscale modeling of polymer nanocomposites with correlated parameters. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2014, 68: 446–464Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhang Y, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic predictions of interfacial characteristic of carbon nanotube polyethylene composites. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2014, 59: 80–95Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Keitel H, Zhao J, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic predictions of bulk properties of amorphous polyethylene based on molecular dynamics simulations. Mechanics of Materials, 2014, 68: 70–84Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Nanthakumar S, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Zi G, Rabczuk T. Detection of material interfaces using a regularized level set method in piezoelectric structures. Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, 2016, 24(1): 153–176MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Nanthakumar S, Valizadeh N, Park H, Rabczuk T. Surface effects on shape and topology optimization of nanostructures. Computational Mechanics, 2015, 56(1): 97–112MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hamdia K, Zhuang X, He P, Rabczuk T. Fracture toughness of polymeric particle nanocomposites: Evaluation of Models performance using Bayesian method. Composites Science and Technology, 2016, 126: 122–129Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A softwarefram ework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Zhang R. Seismic Isolation and Supplemental Energy Dissipation. Bridge Engineering Handbook, Ed. Wai-Fah Chen and Lian Duan Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Fujino Y, Siringoringo D M, Nagayama T, Su D. Control, simulation and monitoring of bridge vibration–Japan’s recent development and practice. IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-II, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 8–10 August, 2010Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Guo P. Damping System Designs using Nonlinear Frequency Analysis Approach. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, Sheffield, UK: Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield, 2012Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Huang L. Experimental Study on Bridge Stay Cable Vibration Mitigation Using External Viscous Damper. Master Thesis, Windsor, Canada: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of Windsor, 2011Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Casalotti A, Arena A, Lacarbonara W. Flutter Suppression in Long-Span Suspension Bridges by Arrays of Hysteretic Tuned Mass Dampers. XXI AIMETA Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Torino, Italy, 17–20 September, 2013Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Abdel Raheem Sh E, Hayashikawa T. Vibration and damping characteristics of cable-stayed bridges tower control. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 2008, 8: 30–37Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Huang M H. Dynamic Characteristics of Slender Suspension Footbridges. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, Brisbane, Australia: Faculty of Built Environmental and Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, 2006Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Caruso G, Mekki O B, Bourquin F. Modeling and experimental validation of a new electromechanical damping device. Journal of Vibroengineering, 2009, 11(4): 1–9Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Bernd-Arno B, Krimm R, Hasselbusch T. Tuned Mass Damper with Piezoelectrically Tunable Damping. 20th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV20), Bangkok, Thailand, 7–11 July, 2013Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Samani F Sh. Vibration Reduction on Beams Subjected to Traveling Loads Using Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic Absorbers. PhD [dissertation]. Kerman, Iran: Department of Mechanical Engineering. Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman; 2010.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Webster A C, Vaicaitis R.Application of Tuned Mass Dampers to Control Vibrations of Composite Floor Systems. Engineering Journal/American Institute of Steel Construction 2003, 116–124Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Mishra R. Application of Tuned Mass Damper for Vibration Control of Frame Structures Under Seismic Excitations. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, Rourkela, India: Department of Civil Engineering. National Institute of Technology; 2011.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Wang H, Tao T, Cheng H, He X. Simulation study on train-induced vibration control of a long-span steel truss girder bridge by tuned mass dampers. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014, 1–12Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Shetty R S, Prashanth M H, Channappa T M, Ravikumar C M. Vibration suppression of steel truss railway bridge using tuned mass dampers. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 2013, 4(1): 63–71Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Thamasungkeeti W. Suppression of Aerodynamic Responses of IRR Cable-Stayed Bridge by Tuned Mass Dampers and Aerodynamic Appendages. Master Thesis, Bangkok, Thailand: Department of Civil Engineering. Thammasat University, 2009Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Miyata T. Historical view of long-span bridge aerodynamics. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2003, 91: 1393–1410Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kumar A. Investigation of the Dynamic Performance of a Cable stayed Footbridge. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, Trento, Italy: School of Civil Engineering and Mechanical Structural Systems, University of Trento, 2011Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Tran D A. Numerical Investigation into the Suppression Mechanism of Vortex-Induced Vibration for Box Girder in the Presence of Flap. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, Kanagawa, Japan: Urban Innovation Faculty, Yokohama National University, 2014Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Wen Q, Xu-gang H, Zheng-qing C. Field validation on vibration control of a cable-stayed footbridge with tuned mass dampers. 11th International Workshop on Advanced Smart Materials and Smart Structures Technology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA, 1–2 August, 2015Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Valizadeh N, Natarajan S, Gonzalez-Estrada O A, Rabczuk T, Tinh Q B, Bordas S. NURBS-based finite element analysis of functionally graded plates: static bending, vibration, buckling and flutter. Composite Structures, 2013, 99: 309–326Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Wang H, Tao T Y, Cheng H Y, Li A Q. A simulation study on the optimal control of buffeting displacement for the Sutong Bridge with multiple tuned mass dampers. Journal of Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng), 2014, 15(10): 798–812Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Bandivadekar T P, Jangid R S. Mass distribution of multiple tuned mass dampers for vibration control of structures. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 2012, 3(1): 70–84Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Chunxiang L, Li Q S. Evaluation of the lever-type multiple tuned mass dampers for mitigating harmonically forced vibration. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 2005, 5(4): 641–664Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Chen Q, Xiang H. The vibration suppressing performance of the multiple tuned mass damper (MTMD) and its control over the buffeting of bridges. Journal of Tongji University Natural Science, 1998, 28(2): 125–133Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Gua M, Chen S R, Chang C C. Parametric study on multiple tuned mass dampers for buffeting control of Yangpu Bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2001, 89: 987–1000Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Lin Y Y, Cheng CM. Performance of multiple tuned mass dampers for suppressing buffeting response and increasing flutter speed of long span bridges. Journal of Chinese Institute of Engineers, 2001, 24(3): 273–288Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Estrada A P, Hong H P. Sensitivity analysis of the effectiveness of tuned mass dampers to reduce the wind-induced torsional responses. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 2015, 12: 2520–2538Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Karmakara D, Ray-Chaudhuri S, Shinozuka M. Conditional simulation of non-Gaussian wind velocity profiles: Application to buffeting response of Vincent Thomas suspension bridge. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 2012, 29: 167–175Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Glen G, Isaacs K. Estimating Sobol sensitivity indices using correlations. Journal of Environmental Modelling and Software, 2012, 37: 157–166Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Nossent J, Elsen P, Bauwens W. Sobol sensitivity analysis of a complex environmental model. Journal of Environmental Modelling and Software, 2011, 26: 1515–1525Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Zhang X Y, Trame M N, Lesko L J, Schmidt S. Sobol Sensitivity Analysis: A Tool to Guide the Development and Evaluation of Systems Pharmacology Models. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology, 2015, 4: 69–79Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Saltelli A. Global sensitivity analysis: An introduction. European Commission, Joint Research Centre of Ispra, Italy, 2004Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Wainwright H M, Finsterle S, Jung Y, Zhou Q, Birkholzer J T. Making sense of global sensitivity analyses. Computers & Geosciences, 2014, 65: 84–94Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Pasma S A, Daik R, Maskat M Y, Hassan O. Application of Box-Behnken design in optimization of glucose production from oil palm empty fruit bunch cellulose. International Journal of Polymer Science, 2013, 104502: 1–8Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Qiu P, Cui M, Kang K, Park B, Son Y, Khim E, Jang M, Khim J. Application of Box–Behnken design with response surface methodology for modeling and optimizing ultrasonic oxidation of arsenite with H2O2. Central European Journal of Chemistry, 2014, 12(2): 164–172Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Ferreira S L C, Bruns R E, da Silva E G P, dos Santos W N L, Quintella C M, David J M, de Andrade J B, Breitkreitz M C, Jardim I C S F, Neto B B. Statistical designs and response surface techniques for the optimization of chromatographic systems. Journal of Chromatography A, 2007, 1158: 2–14Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Tekindal M A, Bayrak H, Ozkaya B, Genc Y. Box-Behnken experimental design in factorial experiments: The importance of bread for nutrition and health. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 2012, 17(2): 115–123Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Amenaghawon N A, Nwaru K I, Aisien F A, Ogbeide S E, Okieimen C O. Application of Box-Behnken design for the optimization of citric acid production from corn starch using Aspergillus niger. British Biotechnology Journal, 2013, 3(3): 236–245Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Ferreira S L C, Santos W N L, Quintella C M, Neto B B, Boque-Sendra J M. Doehlert Matrix: a chemometric toll for analytical chemistry review. Talanta, 2004, 63(4): 1061–1067Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Souza A S, dos Santos W N L, Ferreira Sergio L C. Application of Box–Behnken design in the optimization of an on-line preconcentration system using knotted reactor for cadmium determination by flame atomic absorption spectrometry. Spectrochimica Acta. Part B, Atomic Spectroscopy, 2005, 609: 737–742Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Massart D L, Vandeginste B G M, Buydens LMC, Jong S D, Lewi P J, Smeyers J V. Handbook of chemometrics and qualimetrics Part A. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2003.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Kannan N, Rajakumar A, Rengasamy G. Optimization of process parameters for adsorption of metal ions on straw carbon by using response surface methodology. Environmental Technology, 2004, 25: 513–522Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Rana P, Mohan N, Rajagopal C. Electrochemical removal of chromium from wastewater by using carbon aerogel electrodes. Water Research, 2004, 38(28): 11–20Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Kincl M, Turk S, Vrecer F. Application of experimental design methodology in development and optimization of drug release method. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2005, 291: 39–49Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Zhao J, Tiede C. Using a variance-based sensitivity analysis for analyzing the relation between measurements and unknown parameters of a physical model. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 2011, 18: 269–276Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Khuri A I, Mukhopadhyay S. Response surface methodology. WIREs Comp Stat, 2010, 2, DOI: 10.1002/wics.73Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Aslan N, Cebeci Y. Application of Box-Behnken design and response surface methodology for modeling of some Turkish coals. Fuel, 2007, 86: 90–97Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Kwak J S. Application of Taguchi and response surface methodologies for geometric error in surface grinding process. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 2005, 45: 327–334Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Annadurai G, Sung S S, Lee D L. Optimisation of floc characteristics for treatment of highly turbid water. Separation Science and Technology, 2004, 39: 19–42Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Gunaraj V, Murugan N. Application of response surface methodologies for predicting weld base quality in submerged arc welding of pipes. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 1999, 88(1–3): 266–275Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Ren H, Zhuang X, Cai Y, Rabczuk T. Dual-Horizon Peridynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2016, 453–474Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Nguyen V P, Anitescu C, Bordas S, Rabczuk T. Isogeometric analysis: An overview and computer implementation aspects, Mathematics and Computers in Simulations, 2015, 117(4190): 89–116Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Valizadeh N, Bazilevs Y, Chen J S, Rabczuk T. A coupled IGAmeshfree discretization of arbitrary order of accuracy and without global geometry parameterization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2015, 293: 20–37MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Structural Mechanics, School of Civil EngineeringBauhaus University WeimarWeimarGermany

Personalised recommendations