Alexandria Engineering Journal (2018) 57, 3205–3218

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

Optimum design of tuned mass dampers using

multi-objective cuckoo search for buildings under
seismic excitations
Sadegh Etedali a,*, Hojjat Rakhshani b

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, Iran
b
Department of Computer Science, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran

Received 29 July 2016; revised 2 December 2017; accepted 15 January 2018

Available online 15 November 2018

KEYWORDS
Structural control;
Seismic excitations;
Tuned mass damper;
Multi-objective optimisation;
Cuckoo search;
Optimum design
Abstract This study focuses on the problem of optimum selection of tuned mass dampers (TMDs)
parameters for buildings under seismic excitations. Vibration control of structure under seismic
excitations for reduction of structural damages and comfort/serviceability considerations is
addressed by employing a design process based on multi-objective cuckoo search (MOCS) for
simultaneous reduction of seismic responses of the structures in the terms of displacement and
acceleration of stories and tuning of TMD with a smaller mass ratio. The numerical studies are car-
ried out on two benchmark buildings. In comparison with several other documented methods, the
performance of the MOCS for the optimal design of TMDs is evaluated. The results show that the
MOCS performs better than other strategies in term of the simultaneous reduction of maximum dis-
placements and accelerations of the structures subjected to different seismic excitations. Further-
more, the feasibility of MOCS to choose a smaller mass, stiffness, and damping is assessed. The
simulation results confirm that the MOCS is able to present a solution leading to a more practical
and economic selection of TMD parameters with a choice of a smaller mass, stiffness, and damping
so that it is capable of maintaining the desired level of the reduction of structural responses in dif-
ferent earthquake excitations.
Ó 2018 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

TMDs are one of the oldest and most used vibration control
devices. They can be easily attached to the main system with-
* Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Birjand out any renovation. A TMD system consists of a mass, an elas-
University of Technology, P.O. Box 97175-569, Birjand, Iran. tic spring and a viscous (or hysteretic) damper. The parameters
E-mail addresses: etedali@birjandut.ac.ir (S. Etedali), rakhshani@pgs. of TMDs have a direct effect on the response of the main struc-
usb.ac.ir (H. Rakhshani). tural system. Therefore, tuning the parameters of TMDs is one
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria of the important issues for designers. In order to select optimal
University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.01.009
1110-0168 Ó 2018 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
3206 S. Etedali, H. Rakhshani

parameters of TMDs for a single degree of freedom (SDOF) 2. The governing equation of motion for a linear structure
main system under harmonic and white noise random excita- equipped with TMD
tions, several closed-form expressions have been introduced
[1–3]. Thompson [4] applied a frequency locus method to the The equation of motion of an N-degree-of-freedom linear
optimisation of the spring and damper rates for a dynamic shear-type building without TMD, subjected to earthquake
vibration absorber. Chang [5] derived formulas in closed forms ground acceleration, €
xg ðtÞ, can be written as:
for the design of TMDs subjected to both wind and earth-
quake loadings. Lin et al. [6] applied an extended random €s ðtÞ þ Cs x_ s ðtÞ þ Ks xs ðtÞ ¼ Ms rs €
Ms x xg ðtÞ ð1Þ
decrement method to reduce the dynamic responses of an where Ms , Cs and Ks are N  N mass, damping and stiffness
MDOF system subjected to a seismic load. matrices, respectively. Also, xs ðtÞ, x_ s ðtÞ and x €s ðtÞ refer to
A wide application of genetic algorithm (GA) for the tuning N  1 displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors, respec-
of TMD parameters was found in the literature [7–9]. Bakre
tively. Furthermore, rs ¼ ½1; 1;    ; 1T , is N  1 seismic influ-
and Jangid [10] used a numerical search method to find more
ence vector. By attaching a TMD on the top floor of the
effective TMD parameters. Leung et al. [11] used a particle
structure, the degree-of-freedom of the structure is increased
swarm optimisation (PSO) technique for optimal estimation
by one. The equation of motion of the structure equipped with
of TMD parameters in seismic- excited structures. Also, Leung
TMD, installed on the top storey, can be written as follows:
and Zhang [12] used the PSO technique for optimum tuning of
TMD for an SDOF main system. Unlike previous studies on xðtÞ þ Cx_ ðtÞ þ KxðtÞ ¼ Mrx€g ðtÞ
M€ ð2Þ
the optimal tuning of TMD where the TMD mass ratio was
where M, C and K refer to ðN þ 1Þ  ðN þ 1Þ mass, damping
a preselected parameter, Marano et al. [13] optimized the
and stiffness matrices, respectively. Furthermore, xðtÞ, x_ ðtÞ
TMD mass ratio along with the other parameters on a main €ðtÞ are ðN þ 1Þ  1 displacement, velocity and accelera-
and x
system idealized as an SDOF. Assuming a harmonic load
tion vectors of storeys and TMD system, respectively. The
applied to the main system in the optimisation process, a har-
M, C, K matrices and xðtÞ vector are given by Eqs. (3)–(6).
mony search algorithm was applied to tune the optimal param-
eters of TMDs in [14]. Salvi and Rizzi [15] developed a M ¼ diag½m1 m2  mN md  ð3Þ
Minimax optimisation method for tuning of TMD parameters. 2 3
Considering the seismic applications. c1 þ c2 c2 0   0
6 ..7
Recently, a new metaheuristic search algorithm, called 6 c c2 þ c3 c3  .7
6 2 0 7
cuckoo search (CS), has been developed to solve optimisation 6 .. .. .. 7
6 7
problems. Despite the good performance of CS in solving sev- 6 0 c3 . . 0 . 7
C¼6
6 .
7
7 ð4Þ
eral engineering optimisation problems [16–22], there is no
6 .. .. .. ..
research work on the optimal tuning of the TMD system using 6 . . . cn 0 77
6 . .. .. 7
CS for random excitation. Moreover, considering previous 6 . 7
4 . . . cn cn þ cd cd 5
studies in the literature review, it is observed that the optimum
design problem of TMD is treated as a single objective optimi- 0   0 cd cd
sation problem; however, it is actually a multi-objective opti- 2 3
misation problem. To the best knowledge of the authors, k1 þ k2 k2 0   0
6 7 ..
there is no study on employing the multi-objective 6 k k2 þ k3 k3  7 .
6 2 0 7
optimisation techniques for the optimum design of TMDs in 6 .. .. 7..
6 7
literature. 6 0 k3 . . 0 7 .
K¼6
6
7
7 ð5Þ
Considering this fact, a multi-objective cuckoo search is 6 .. .. .. ..
employed to find the optimum parameters of TMD for build- 6 . . . . kn 0 77
6 . .. .. 7
ings under seismic excitations. Time history analyses are car- 6 .. 7
4 . . kn kn þ kd kd 5
ried out on two benchmark buildings subjected to different
0   0 kd kd
seismic excitations. Compared with the other approaches, the
performances of the present approaches in the estimation of T
the optimal parameters of TMD are evaluated. x ¼ ½x1 x2    xN xd  ð6Þ
This paper is divided into six sections in addition to the where mi , ci , ki and xi ði ¼ 1; 2;    ; NÞ present the mass, damp-
introduction. The equation of motion of a linear structure ing coefficient, stiffness and horizontal displacement of the ith
equipped with TMD, subjected to an earthquake excitation, storey of the structure. Also, md , cd , kd and xd are the mass,
is introduced in Section 2. An overview of MOCS is described damping coefficient, stiffness and horizontal displacement of
in Section 3. Optimum design problem of TMD parameters is the TMD, respectively. Furthermore, r is ðN þ 1Þ  1 seismic
described in Section 4. The MOCS is also developed for the influence vector. In the case of a MDOF primary structure,
optimal design of TMD in buildings under seismic excitations mass ratio l and tuning frequency ratio f are defined as
in Section 4. Numerical studies are carried out on two follows:
benchmark buildings in Section 5. In comparison with other md
methods, the performance of MOCS in the estimation of the l¼ T ð7Þ
US;I Ms US;I
optimal parameters of TMD is also evaluated in
Section 5. At the end, the concluding remarks are presented xd
in Section 6. f¼ ð8Þ
xS;I
Optimum design of tuned mass dampers
where UTS;I is the first mode shape of the primary structure, nor-
malized to have a unit component at the top story and xS;I is
the angular fundamental frequency of the primary structure
which is considered for the first mode of vibration. Also, xd
and nd are the angular frequency and the damping ratio of
the TMD and defined as:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi cd
xd ¼ kd =md ; nd ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð9Þ
2 kd m d
3. Multi-objective cuckoo search
Cuckoo search (CS) is a new metaheuristic optimisation algo-
rithm introduced by Yang and Deb [23]. The CS idea is formed
on the obligate brood parasitism of some cuckoo species, com-
bined with Lévy flight. CS applies Lévy flights, which are far
more efficient than the simple random walks. Lévy flight has
infinite mean and variance. Therefore, it can explore search
space better than the standard Gaussian process and is useful
to larger moves for a global search where the new moves can
cover much more extensive regions. Also, a balance between
local search and global search exploration is restored by CS.
These features make its superiority over the other metaheuris-
tic optimisation algorithms. The advantages of CS in terms of
ease of implementation, few parameters to tune and the fast
convergence rate provide a better performance of CS in com-
passion with the existing algorithms, such as PSO and GA
[24]. Also, Civicioglu and Besdok [17] have been reported that
more robust results than PSO and artificial bee colony algo-
rithms are given using CS. The CS algorithm has already been
successfully applied to a wide variety of engineering optimisa-
tion problems [16–22]. In comparison with other optimisation
algorithms, the CS has fewer algorithm-dependent parameters.
The population size n, switching probability pa, step-size a and
the Lévy flights exponent b are configurable parameters of CS.
The population size and the switching probability are variable
and have great effects on the algorithm performance. A bal-
ance between local and global optimisation is restored by the
switching probability. With reducing pa, the probability for
global optimisation is increased and vice versa [23].
In the multi-objective Cuckoo Search [21], the following
idealized rules are used for optimizing a problem with K differ-
ent objectives:
 Each cuckoo puts k eggs at a time and dumps them in a ran-
domly chosen nest. Egg k represents the solution for the kth
objective.
 The best nests with high quality will be transferred to the
next generations.
 A host can discover an alien egg with a probability pa
2[0,1]. In this case, a new nest with k eggs will be built with
respect to the similarities/differences of the eggs.
The first rule simulates a randomization process. A new
solution can be randomly generated by Lévy flight. In multi-
objective optimisation problems, a diverse range of solutions
should be explored which is ensured by Lévy flights in MOCS
[21]. For each nest, there can be K solutions, which are gener-
ated according to Eq. (10). The first rule also performs a local-
ized random permutation and can be considered as a form of
crossover. In the second rule, the best solutions are transferred
3207
to the next generation using the so-called Pareto front to
ensure the proper convergence of the algorithm. To do so,
MOCS algorithm uses the Pareto-optimal front diagram which
indicates the nature of the trade-off between the conflicted
objective functions. The Pareto front is defined in terms of
dominated and non-dominated solution (Please see the origi-
nal study [21] for more information about the Pareto front).
Hence, the second rule corresponds to elitism. In the third step,
the worst solutions are thrown away with a probability and
new solutions are generated, according to the similarity of
solutions to the other solution. Therefore, it can play the role
of mutation. For cuckoo i, new solution xtþ1
i can be generated
using Lévy flight as follows:
xitþ1 ¼ xti þ a  LevyðbÞ ð10Þ
The product  means entry wise multiplications and b is
Lévy flights exponent. Also, a is the step size and can be
express as a ratio of constant a0 .
 
a ¼ a0  xtj  xti ð11Þ
where xtj and xti are two different randomly selected solutions.
The generation of step size s samples is not trivial using Lévy
flights. A simple scheme is summarized in Eq. (12).
    u
s ¼ a0  xtj  xti  LevyðbÞ ¼ 0:01 xtj  xti 1 ð12Þ
jvjb
In addition, u and v are given by the normal distributions as
shown in Eq. (13).
   
u  N 0; r2u ; v  N 0; r2v ð13Þ
where rv and rv are as follows.
( )1=b
Gð1 þ bÞsinðpb=2Þ
ru ¼ ; rv ¼ 1 ð14Þ
G½ð1 þ bÞ=2b2ðb1Þ=2
In this equation, G is the standard Gamma function.
In essence, the second rule is an elitism strategy and passes
the best solutions onto the next generation. This strategy helps
the algorithm to accelerate its converge speed. Finally, the
third rule is a mutation operator and discards the worst solu-
tions with a probability. Eq. (15) shows how a new solution
xitþ1 is generated using a simple random walk.
 
xitþ1 ¼ xti þ a0  Hðpa  Þ  xtj  xtk ð15Þ
where His the Heaviside function, a0 is the step size scaling fac-
tor, and  is a random number with uniform distribution [22].
The basic steps of the MOCS can be summarized as the pseudo
code shown in Fig. 1.
4. Optimum design problem of TMD parameters
4.1. Optimum design problem of TMD parameters in the
literature
In the previous studies in the literature, optimum design prob-
lem of TMD was considered as a single objective optimisation
problem. For example, Hadi and Arfiadi [7] considered the H2
norm of the transfer function of the structure as an objective
function and applied GA to solve the optimum design problem
of TMD parameters. Lee et al. [25] considered a performance
3208
Fig. 1 The basic steps of the MOCS algorithm.
index of structural response in the frequency domain as a sin-
gle objective function and proposed a numerical method for
searching the optimum design parameters of TMD. Sadek
et al. [26] proposed an approach based on minimizing the dif-
ference between the damping of the first two modes of the
structure equipped with TMD for optimal design of TMD
parameters. Kaveh et al. [27] defined a weighted sum of the
normalized responses in terms of maximum displacement of
the first story and acceleration transfer function as optimisa-
tion criteria. They utilized the charged system search (CSS)
optimisation algorithm to find the optimum parameters of
TMD.
4.2. Optimum design of TMD parameters using MOCS
The optimum design problem of TMD parameters is a multi-
objective optimisation problem. Vibration control of struc-
tures under seismic excitation for reduction of structural dam-
ages and comfort/serviceability considerations is directly and
closely related to the displacements and accelerations of sto-
ries. Therefore, an effective tuning of a TMD system for the
seismic control of structures should be considered as having
two main objectives. The non-structural elements including
the architectural components (bearing walls, partitions, infill
walls, parapets, veneers, ceilings, door and window panes,
glasses, racks, etc.), mechanical components (boilers and fur-
naces, chimneys and smokestacks, tanks and pressure vessels,
machinery, piping systems, etc.) and electrical components
(communication systems, electrical wire ducts, electrical
motors, transformers, lighting fixtures, fire and smoke detec-
tion systems, etc.) represent a major portion of the total cost
of buildings. Loss or failure of these elements can affect the
safety of the occupants of the building and safety of others
who are immediately outside the building. It is notable that
the MOCS2 is proposed to achieve a practical and economical
design of free parameters of TMD (rather than a design based
on preselected mass ratio of TMD) with smaller mass, stiff-
ness, and damping so that it is capable of maintaining the
desired level of the reduction of the above mentioned struc-
tural responses in different earthquake excitations. Also, in
order to achieve a more practical and economic selection of
TMD parameters, a free parameter of TMD (rather than a
S. Etedali, H. Rakhshani
design based on the preselected mass ratio of TMD) with smal-
ler mass, stiffness, and damping is proposed in this study. In
this case, the TMD mass is considered as another objective
function. In this case, TMD mass is optimized along with other
parameters, so the design process is capable result in the
desired level of the reduction of the above mentioned struc-
tural responses in different earthquake excitations. Moreover,
physical space for moving of TMD is a limit, therefore, from a
practical standpoint; it is desirable to limit the maximum dis-
placement of TMD. This limitation can be considered as a con-
straint in the defined optimisation problem. Multi-objective
optimisation algorithms are able to create a suitable trade-
off between the conflicting objectives and generate a set of pos-
sible solutions for designers which form the so-called Pareto
front. This advantage provides the possibility to choose the
best solution from among the presented solutions. In other
words, the designer can select a possible solution that better
agrees with the designer’s own decisions. In this paper, two
multi-objective optimisation problems, MOCS1 and MOCS2,
have been defined for optimum design of TMD parameters.
For MOCS1, two non-commensurable objective functions,
I1 and I2, are defined. I1 is the maximum roof displacement of
the controlled structure normalized to its corresponding value
in the uncontrolled structure. Similarly, I2 presents the maxi-
mum roof acceleration of the controlled structure normalized
to its corresponding value in the uncontrolled structure. The
controlled structure is the structure equipped with TMD pas-
sive control device and the uncontrolled structure is the pri-
mary structure without TMD. These objective functions are
defined by the following equation.
maxt jjxr ðtÞjj maxt jjar ðtÞjj
I1 ¼ ; I2 ¼ ð16Þ
maxt jjb
x r ðtÞjj maxt jjb
a r ðtÞjj
in which maxt jjxr ðtÞjj and maxt jjar ðtÞjj are the maximum roof
displacement and acceleration of the structure equipped with
TMD, respectively. Also, maxt jjb x r ðtÞjj and maxt jjb
a r ðtÞjj are
the corresponding responses in the structures without TMD.
For a pre-selected TMD mass, the optimal parameters of
TMD include the stiffness kd and damping cd of TMD are
tuned in MOCS1. To achieve a practical design, a number of
constraints should be considered on the TMD parameters
Optimum design of tuned mass dampers 3209

and maximum TMD displacement. Thus, the following opti- for each building. A general code is written in MATLAB soft-
misation problem is defined for MOCS1: ware [30] to carry out the time history analyses on the build-
Find : cd and kd ings subjected to seismic excitation.

Minimize I1 ; I2 5.1. Case study 1

8
>
< cd ðcd Þmax A ten-story shear frame with uniform mass, damping, and
Subjected to kd ðkd Þmax ð17Þ stiffness for all stories, taken from [31] has been considered.
>
: A TMD is attached to the top floor of the building. It is
xmax ðTMDÞ XL
assumed that the structural system is a linear system and that
where ðcd Þmax and ðkd Þmax present the predefined restraint con- no nonlinearities are incorporated in this model. The building
ditions for stiffness and damping of TMD and XL is the max- parameters have slightly been modified in [7]. The mass of each
imum stroke length of TMD. story is equal to 360 tonne. Furthermore, the damping coeffi-
The smaller optimal TMD mass provides an economical cients and stiffness of each story are 6.2 MNs/m and 650 MN/
and practical solution for tuning of TMD. Unlike the previ- m, respectively. The fundamental frequency and damping ratio
ous studies on the optimal tuning of TMD where the TMD of the building are 1.01 Hz and 3.03%, respectively. Hadi and
mass ratio was a preselected parameter, to evaluate the feasi- Arfiadi [7] and Lee et al. [25] only considered the optimum
bility of choosing the smaller optimal TMD mass using stiffness and damping of TMD for a preselected md = 108
MOCS, the following optimisation problem is defined for tonne. Therefore, for comparison purposes, optimum stiffness
MOCS2. and damping of TMD are tuned in MOCS1 methodology for a
preselected mass of md = 108 tonne. Considering (kd)-
Find : md ; cd and kd
max = 5000 kN/m and (cd)max = 1000 kNs/m, the practical

Minimize md ; I1 ; I2 ranges of stiffness and damping for the TMD system are
assumed. Also, the maximum stroke length of the TMD is
8 adopted as 150 cm. Considering the buildings subjected to
>
<cd ðcd Þmax
ground artificial acceleration excitation, described in Section 5,
Subjected to kd ðkd Þmax ð18Þ
>
: the MOCS is employed to find the optimum parameters of
xmax ðTMDÞ XL TMD.
In order to reduce the structural responses in different Fig. 2 shows the Pareto-optimal front diagram of structural
earthquake excitations, the proposed strategies must be sub- case study 1 subjected to the band limited white noise excita-
jected to different earthquakes well. Therefore, a ground arti- tion in the case of MOCS1. It is obvious from this figure that
ficial acceleration is simulated in the optimisation procedure two objective functions, I1 and I2, are in conflict with each
by passing a Gaussian white noise process through a modified other. An appropriate trade-off between two conflicting objec-
form of the Kanai-Tajimi filter [28] with power spectral density tives is provided using MOCS. Each member of the Pareto
function as follows [29]: front can be represented by a vector in the design space. In
MOCS1, the vector that has the shortest distance to the origin,
4ng xg x I, is taken as the best tuning of TMD.
sðx Þ ¼ ð19Þ
x2 þ 2ng xg x þ x2g
where ng and xg are the ground damping and frequency,
respectively. In this study, ng ¼ 0:3 and xg ¼ 2p rad/s have
been used for numerical simulations. The output of this filter
simulates the earthquake which has been used in the optimisa-
tion procedure.

5. Numerical studies

As previously mentioned, the MOCS algorithm is used to find

the optimum parameters of TMD. A different range of effec-
tive parameters of CS including population size n and the dis-
covery probability pa is tested for the given optimum design
problem. The best values of the parameters are given n = 20,
pa = 0.25. Also, Lévy flights exponent b and step-size scaling
factor a0 are set to 1.5 and 0.1, respectively.
In order to evaluate the performance of MOCS in the opti-
mum estimation of TMD parameters in comparison with sev-
eral other documented methods, two benchmark buildings are
chosen for numerical studies. To make a fair comparison Fig. 2 The Pareto-optimal front diagram of case study 1
among different methods, the same constraints were consid- subjected to the band limited white noise excitation in the case
ered for the optimum design problem of TMD parameters of MOCS1.
3210 S. Etedali, H. Rakhshani

firms that the MOCS is able to choose smaller mass, stiffness

Fig. 3 (a) The Pareto-optimal front diagram of case study 1
subjected to the band limited white noise excitation in the case of
MOCS2 (b) select the best optimal tuning of TMD from the
Pareto-optimal front diagram.
The Pareto-optimal front diagram of structural case study 1
in the case of MOCS2 is illustrating in Fig. 3(a). Also, Fig. 3(b)
illustrates the strategy used in the case of MOCS2 to find the
best optimal tuning of TMD from the Pareto-optimal front
diagram. This figure shows the TMD mass-versus-I which I
is defined as I = (I1 + I2)0.5. The red box in this figure indi-
cates the optimal solutions which provide a value of I smaller
than that obtained in the case of MOCS1. The best optimal
tuning of TMD is selected for the optimal solutions, in the
red box, that has the smallest mass of TMD. This figure con-
and damping so that the same level of the reduction of struc-
tural responses is given. The optimum TMD parameters
obtained using other optimisation processes, MOCS1 and
MOSC2, are listed in Table 1.
To investigate the influences of ground frequency and
damping values of the artificial earthquake excitation on the
optimum parameters of TMD, the design processes based on
MOCS1 and MOCS2 are conducted on the case study 1 for
different values of ng and xg . Fig. 4 illustrates the effects of
the ground damping and frequency ground values of the arti-
ficial earthquake excitation on optimum frequency fopt and
damping ratio noptd of TMD for case study 1. The optimisation
results show that the ground damping ng has a negligible effect
on the optimum frequency and damping ratio obtained by
MOCS1 and MOCS2. In addition, it is found that there is
not a significant difference between the optimum frequencies
of the TMD for different ground frequencies. In other words,
the optimum frequency of the TMD is not influenced by the
predominant frequency of the filtered white-noise excitation.
In addition, there is a slight decreasing trend in the optimum
damping ratio with increasing the ground frequency. Gener-
ally, it is concluded that white-noise excitation instead of fil-
tered white-noise excitation can be used to achieve an
approximately optimal solution for the design of TMD.
The time history analyses are carried out on the structure
subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake. The time his-
tory analysis of top story displacement and acceleration are
illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6 for the two cases, MOCS1 and
MOCS2. The reduction of the maximum top floor displace-
ment and acceleration are 35.11% and 31.73% for MOCS1.
Similarly, the percent of reductions are given as about
34.74% and 28.52% in terms of the maximum top floor dis-
placement and acceleration for MOCS2.
For comparison purposes, the maximum displacement and
acceleration of the stories obtained using the other optimisa-
tion approaches, i.e. GA [7], the proposed method in [25]
and CSS [27] in the literature, MOCS1, and MOCS2, are listed
in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The peak responses of the sto-
ries for the building without TMD are also listed in the tables.
Also, the percentages of reduction in maximum story
responses are listed in these tables. It can be seen that the tun-
ing of TMD using GA, the approach proposed by Lee et al.,
CSS and MOCS1 resulted in a 36.97%, 34.38%, 37.57% and
37.72 average reductions in the maximum displacements of
the stories, respectively.
Moreover, the tuning of TMD using GA, the approach
proposed by Lee et al., CSS and MOCS1 resulted in a
28.65%, 28.29%, 30.49% and 30.68% average reduction in
the maximum accelerations of the stories, respectively. There-
fore, the MOCS1 performs better than other strategies in term

Table 1 The optimum TMD parameters for different optimisation approaches (case study 1).
Optimum parameters GA [7] Lee et al. [25] CSS [27] MOCS1 MOCS2
md (tonne) 108 108 108 108 74.4154
cd (kNs/m) 151.5 271.79 88.697 160.5 69.3987
kd (kN/m) 3750 4126.93 4207.735 4428.7 2954.244
Optimum design of tuned mass dampers 3211

MOCS1 MOCS2
1.02 1.02

f opt 1.015 1

f opt
1.01
0.98
1.005
0.96
1
pi 2pi 3pi 4pi 5pi pi 2pi 3pi 4pi 5pi
ω (rad/s) ω (rad/s)
g g
MOCS1 MOCS2
0.12 0.085

0.08
ξ opt

ξ opt
0.115
d

d
0.075

0.11 0.07
pi 2pi 3pi 4pi 5pi pi 2pi 3pi 4pi 5pi
ω (rad/s) ω (rad/s)
g g

Fig. 4 The effect of the ground damping and frequency values of the artificial earthquake excitation on the optimum frequency and
damping ratio of TMD for the case study 1.

Fig. 5 Time history of the top floor displacement and acceler- Fig. 6 Time history of the top floor displacement and acceler-
ation subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake in the case ation subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake in the case
of MOCS1 (Case study 1). of MOCS2 (Case study 1).
3212 S. Etedali, H. Rakhshani

Table 2 Maximum displacements of stories subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake (case study 1).
Maximum displacement (m) Percentage of reduction
Story Without TMD GA [7] Lee et al. [25] CSS [27] MOCS1 MOCS2 GA [7] Lee et al. [25] CSS [27] MOCS1 MOCS2
1 0.031 0.019 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.019 38.71 35.48 40.32 38.71 37.17
2 0.060 0.037 0.039 0.036 0.037 0.038 38.33 35.00 39.67 38.33 36.53
3 0.087 0.058 0.057 0.053 0.053 0.055 33.33 34.48 39.65 39.08 36.39
4 0.112 0.068 0.073 0.068 0.068 0.071 39.29 34.82 39.11 39.29 36.65
5 0.133 0.082 0.087 0.083 0.082 0.085 38.35 34.59 37.97 38.35 35.81
6 0.151 0.094 0.099 0.095 0.093 0.098 37.75 34.44 37.09 38.41 35.06
7 0.166 0.104 0.108 0.106 0.104 0.109 37.35 34.94 36.39 37.35 34.59
8 0.177 0.113 0.117 0.114 0.112 0.117 36.16 33.90 35.65 36.72 33.91
9 0.184 0.119 0.123 0.120 0.118 0.123 35.33 33.15 35 35.87 33.04
10 0.188 0.122 0.126 0.123 0.122 0.126 35.11 32.98 34.84 35.11 32.74
TMD – 0.358 0.282 0.493 0.408 0.557 – – – – –
The mean value of the reduction 36.97 34.38 37.57 37.72 35.19

Table 3 Maximum acceleration of stories subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake (case study 1).
Maximum acceleration (m/s2) Percentage of reduction
Story Without TMD GA [7] Lee et al. [25] CSS [27] MOCS1 MOCS2 GA [7] Lee et al. [25] CSS [27] MOCS1 MOCS2
1 2.89 2.70 2.67 2.64 2.66 2.63 6.57 7.61 8.65 7.96 8.83
2 3.97 3.03 3.10 2.80 2.85 3.06 23.68 21.91 29.47 28.21 22.80
3 4.93 3.53 3.64 3.35 3.31 3.54 28.40 26.17 32.05 32.86 28.24
4 5.68 3.94 3.99 3.94 3.88 4.00 30.63 29.75 30.63 31.69 29.65
5 6.14 4.08 4.12 4.05 4.02 4.13 33.55 32.90 34.04 34.53 32.79
6 6.55 3.83 4.14 3.72 3.72 4.05 41.53 36.79 43.21 43.21 38.17
7 6.71 4.39 4.26 4.30 4.27 4.45 34.58 36.51 35.92 36.36 33.71
8 7.01 5.05 4.95 4.99 4.96 5.16 27.96 29.39 28.82 29.24 26.37
9 7.84 5.53 5.44 5.44 5.41 5.67 29.46 30.61 30.61 30.99 27.66
10 8.32 5.81 5.72 5.70 5.68 5.95 30.17 31.25 31.49 31.73 28.52
TMD – 13.94 11.66 19.04 15.54 21.69 – – – – –
The mean value of the reduction 28.65 28.29 30.49 30.68 27.67

Table 4 The percentage of reduction of the structural responses subjected to different earthquake excitations for different tuning
strategies (case study 1).
Earthquakes* Ij (j = 1, 2, 3) GA Lee et al. CSS MOCS1 MOCS2
Sylmar (1994) I1 1.26 9.50 0.23 9.39 4.22
FP component I2 8.08 17.51 8.09 19.59 11.15
I3 4.11 8.14 5.65 6.42 3.27
Sylmar (1994) I1 0.44 1.88 0.90 0.85 1.60
FN component I2 4.55 3.33 4.32 6.56 5.38
I3 5.87 5.54 6.65 7.42 5.69
Newhall (1994) I1 10.61 9.40 12.15 18.11 11.41
FP component I2 6.86 8.66 7.29 9.51 6.30
I3 10.39 9.62 11.84 12.09 9.29
Newhall (1994) I1 3.13 0.15 1.37 2.19 2.07
FN component I2 11.43 7.72 8.06 9.32 8.29
I3 8.35 5.07 5.17 5.37 5.03
Kobe (1995) I1 13.10 13.52 15.14 19.30 12.00
NS component I2 10.74 13.41 11.85 18.88 11.17
I3 16.91 18.52 18.56 19.70 14.85
Optimum design of tuned mass dampers 3213

Table 4 (continued)
Earthquakes* Ij (j = 1, 2, 3) GA Lee et al. CSS MOCS1 MOCS2

Kobe (1995) I1 12.04 10.69 13.56 21.51 11.25

EW component I2 11.51 12.17 12.95 19.44 14.31
I3 12.40 11.97 13.84 16.65 12.69
Chichi (1999) I1 1.18 0.77 5.33 0.18 0.85
NS component I2 7.49 8.08 5.05 9.09 4.41
I3 3.11 3.54 0.58 6.47 2.89
Chichi (1999) I1 2.82 1.45 0.41 2.22 2.14
EW component I2 5.23 1.63 3.45 7.35 2.70
I3 5.87 2.35 4.65 4.20 3.31
Erzincan (1992) I1 5.06 4.20 5.14 6.58 4.37
NS component I2 8.50 9.99 9.14 12.05 8.61
I3 10.21 9.84 10.23 14.00 10.40
Erzincan (1992) I1 11.90 8.33 13.33 16.45 10.25
EW component I2 15.43 14.47 17.56 19.95 15.91
I3 12.21 9.44 13.99 13.65 10.70
Rinaldi (1994) I1 14.45 11.49 16.48 14.09 13.32
FP component I2 14.61 13.67 17.05 18.03 14.00
I3 12.17 12.78 12.33 11.82 11.03
Rinaldi (1994) I1 12.93 10.23 14.28 14.22 10.81
FN component I2 26.09 25.91 26.64 29.50 24.77
I3 13.06 11.58 14.60 16.43 11.09
Mean I1 7.00 6.12 7.08 10.39 6.88
I2 10.88 11.38 10.95 14.94 10.58
I3 8.87 9.03 8.80 11.19 8.35

27.67% average reduction in the maximum displacements

Fig. 7 The Pareto-optimal front diagram of case study 2
subjected to the band limited white noise excitation in the case
of MOCS1.
of the simultaneous reduction of maximum displacements and
accelerations of stories. Also, considering the structural
responses to the top story, the best results are given using
MOCS1.
The simulation results, inserted in Tables 2 and 3, show that
the tuning of TMD using MOCS2 resulted in a 35.19% and
and accelerations of stories. Although the mean reduction is
slightly more than those obtained for other optimisation
approaches, the smaller values for TMD mas, damping and
stiffness can support this improvement. An average of the
results illustrated in Fig. 4 can be achieved a new multi-
objective optimum design of TMD parameters for differnt
earthquake excitations. A set of fault-parallel (FP) and fault-
normal (FN) components of Sylmar, Newhall, Rinaldi and a
set of east-west (EW) and north-south (NS) components of
Kobe, Chi-Chi, Erzincan are adopted for this purpose.
The percentage of reduction of the responses of the struc-
ture equipped with TMD, in the term of maximum displace-
ment of the top storey, maximum acceleration of the top
story and maximum inter-storey drift, in comparison with
the structure without TMD, which are respectively represented
as I1, I1 and I3, are given in Table 4. It can be seen that the
MOCS1 performs better than other optimisation procedures,
in the reduction of the structural responses of the studied
structure, for most earthquakes. Considering the results
obtained for MOCS2, it can be seen that the reduction of seis-
mic responses of the structure is maintained at an acceptable
level and similar to other methods in all earthquakes. These
results are obtained in a tuning of TMD with a choice of smal-
ler mass, stiffness, and damping. This means that the MOCS2
is able to present a solution leading to a more practical and
economic selection of TMD parameters with a choice of smal-
ler TMD parameters so that it is capable of maintaining the
desired level of reduction of structural responses in earthquake
excitations. Considering the mean value of the reduction for all
3214 S. Etedali, H. Rakhshani

5.2. Case study 2

For further numerical verification of the MOCS, the second

Fig. 8 (a) The Pareto-optimal front diagram of case study 2
subjected to the band limited white noise excitation in the case of
MOCS2 (b) select the best optimal tuning of TMD from the
Pareto-optimal front diagram.
earthquakes, MOCS1 reduces the maximum displacement of
top story about 48%, 70% and 47% more than GA, the pro-
posed approach by Lee et al. and CSS. Similarly, these values
are about 37%, 31% and 36% in terms of maximum
acceleration of top story, respectively. Also, MOCS2
provides the same performance with GA with having the
advantage of smaller mass, stiffness, and damping in compar-
ison with GA.
example, which is a linear ten-story building with different
parameters for all the stories, is selected. The masses for the
ten stories are 179, 170, 161, 152, 143, 134, 125, 116, 107 and
98 tonne. Furthermore, the stiffnesses of the storeys are
62.47, 52.26, 56.14, 53.02, 49.91, 46.79, 43.67, 40.55, 37.43,
and 34.31 MN/m, respectively. The damping matrix is taken
proportional to the stiffness matrix as C = 0.0129 K. The fun-
damental frequency and damping ratio of the building are
0.5072 Hz and 2.06%, respectively. No upper band and lower
band are assumed for the damping and stiffness of TMD in the
optimisation problem. Considering this example, Sadek et al.
[26] obtained the optimum TMD parameters, including the
stiffness and damping of TMD, for a preselected md = 55.45
tonne. Also, for this example, Hadi and Arfiadi [7] and Kaveh
et al. [27] obtained the optimum stiffness and damping of
TMD using GA and CSS, respectively. For comparison pur-
poses with the results given by the researchers, optimum stiff-
ness and damping of TMD are tuned using the MOCS1
methodology for a preselected mass of md = 55.45 tonne.
The maximum stroke length of TMD is adopted as 150 cm.
Moreover, in order to achieve more practical and economic
selection of TMD parameters, the optimum value of the
TMD mass has also been sought along with the stiffness and
damping in MOCS2 methodology. Figs. 7 and 8 show the
Pareto-optimal front diagrams for the structure subjected to
the band limited white noise for the cases of MOCS1 and
MOCS2, respectively.
The best optimal tuning of TMD is selected based on the
employed methods for case study 1. The optimum TMD
parameters obtained using other optimisation processes;
MOCS1 and MOSC2 are summarized in Table 5. As can be
seen, the optimum TMD parameters of the proposed methods
are smaller than those obtained by GA and the proposed
method by sadek et al.
The influences of ground frequency and damping on the
optimum parameters of TMD for the case study 2 are shown
in Fig. 9. It is concluded that the optimum frequency values
of the TMD are independent of the ground frequency and
damping values of the artificial earthquake excitation. How-
ever, the damping ratio of TMD is slightly sensitive to the
ground frequency values and it often experiences a slightly
decreases with increasing the ground frequency values of the
artificial earthquake excitation.
The time history analysis of the top story displacement and
acceleration of the structure under the El Centro (1940) NS

Table 5 The optimum TMD parameters for different optimisation approaches (case study 2).
Optimum parameters Sadek et al. [26] GA [7] CSS [27] MOCS1 MOCS2
md (tonne) 55.45 55.45 55.45 55.45 24.44
cd (kNs/m) 104.4 47.90 30.234 20.144 12.08
kd (kN/m) 464.1 437.90 355.758 377.80 156.41
Optimum design of tuned mass dampers 3215

MOCS1 MOCS2
0.8
0.84 0.795
f opt

f opt
0.79
0.82
0.785

0.8 0.78
pi 2pi 3pi 4pi 5pi pi 2pi 3pi 4pi 5pi
ω (rad/s) ω (rad/s)
g g

MOCS1 MOCS2
0.075
0.1
0.07
ξ opt

ξ opt
d

d
0.095
0.065

0.06 0.09
pi 2pi 3pi 4pi 5pi pi 2pi 3pi 4pi 5pi
ω (rad/s) ω (rad/s)
g g

Fig. 9 The effect of the ground damping and frequency values of the artificial earthquake excitation on the optimum frequency and
damping ratio of TMD for the case study 2.

earthquake is illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11. A peak displace-

Fig. 10 Time history of the top floor displacement and accel-
eration subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake in the
case of MOCS1 (case study 2).
ment and acceleration reduction of 25.64% and 32.15% has
been achieved in MOCS1. Similarly, the percent reductions
are given at about 25.78% and 21.382% for MOCS2,
respectively.
The maximum displacements and accelerations of stories
obtained using three optimisation approaches in the literature,
MOCS1, and MOCS2, are listed in Tables 6 and 7, respec-
tively. The peak responses of the stories for the building with-
out TMD are also listed in the tables. Comparing the
simulation results shows that the MOCS1, on average, results
in a smaller response, compared to other strategies, in terms of
the simultaneous reduction of maximum displacements and
the accelerations of stories. On average, a suitable percentage
of reduction of structural responses especially in terms of the
maximum acceleration of stories is given in MOCS2. Further-
more, the maximum acceleration of roof in the MOCS2
approach is smaller than the results of Sadek et al. and GA,
while the optimum mass of TMD given by MOCS2 is very less
(about half) than those obtained by other approaches.
Similar to the design process described for case study 1, the
optimum TMD parameters can be obtained using the results
of Fig. 9. The simulation results of the structure subjected to
different earthquake excitations are listed in Table 8. The
results show that MOCS1 provides the best performance in
the reduction of the seismic responses of the structure under
different earthquake excitations. Considering the results
obtained for MOCS2, it can be seen that the MOCS is able
to give a suitable tuning of TMD with smaller mass, stiffness,
and damping while providing an acceptable level of reduction
in structural responses. Considering the mean value of the
reduction for all earthquakes, MOCS2 performs better than
Sadek et al. in the term of maximum roof
displacement and it results in more reduction in the term of
maximum roof acceleration in comparison with CSS.
3216 S. Etedali, H. Rakhshani

Optimum tuning of TMDs with smaller mass ratio provides

the achieving economic designs of TMD, especially in a system
consisting of multi TMD. It is notable that TMDs are effective
passive devices in a narrow range of load frequencies. There-
fore, they may not perform well in some earthquake. In order
to overcome this shortcoming, multiply tuned mass damper,
active and semi-active TMD are offered which are demanded
a complicated design [32,33].

6. Conclusions

In the previous studies in the literature, optimum design prob-

Fig. 11 Time history of the top floor displacement and accel-
eration subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake in the
case of MOCS1 (case study 2).
lem of TMD was considered as a single objective optimisation
problem, whereas the optimum design problem of TMD
parameters is a multi-objective optimisation problem. The pur-
pose of this paper was to use a new multi-objective optimisa-
tion method, so-called MOCS, for optimum design problem
of TMD in buildings under seismic excitations. The proposed
methods, MOCS1 and MOCS2, considered this problem as
two and three objective optimisation design problem, respec-
tively. In order to achieve a practical and economical design,
the tuning of smaller optimal mass, stiffness, and damping of
TMD was also investigated in MOSC2. Considering seismic
events as probabilistic events, it was required several time-
history analyses to access reliable tuning. In the stochastic
analysis, spectral density function can be used instead of a col-
lection of input time histories; therefore, a ground artificial
acceleration was simulated by passing a Gaussian white noise
process stochastic analysis method for modeling earthquakes
in the optimisation procedure. Considering several different
earthquakes, numerical studies were carried out on two bench-
mark buildings. It is concluded that MOCS1 was highly effec-
tive for optimum design problem of TMD so that it performed
well in terms of the simultaneous reduction of maximum dis-
placements and accelerations of the stories of the structures.
Furthermore, the results confirmed that the MOCS2, com-
pared with the other strategies, was able to present a tuning
of smaller mass, stiffness, and damping of TMD so that it

Table 6 Maximum displacement of stories subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake (case study 2).
Maximum displacement (m) Percentage of reduction
Story Without Sadek et al. [26] GA [7] CSS MOCS1 MOCS2 Sadek et al. [26] GA [7] CSS MOCS1 MOCS2
TMD [27] [27]
1 0.041 0.036 0.034 0.031 0.030 0.035 12.20 17.07 25.37 25.71 14.64
2 0.088 0.077 0.072 0.066 0.065 0.075 12.50 18.18 25.56 25.95 14.63
3 0.129 0.113 0.105 0.095 0.094 0.109 12.40 18.60 26.67 27.28 15.41
4 0.166 0.145 0.134 0.121 0.119 0.140 12.65 19.28 27.4 28.17 15.79
5 0.197 0.172 0.160 0.143 0.141 0.165 12.69 18.78 27.41 28.18 16.06
6 0.222 0.194 0.184 0.163 0.162 0.185 12.61 17.12 26.35 26.96 16.46
7 0.252 0.219 0.210 0.186 0.186 0.199 13.10 16.67 26.06 26.20 20.91
8 0.286 0.245 0.236 0.209 0.210 0.215 14.34 17.48 26.61 26.60 24.74
9 0.313 0.266 0.258 0.228 0.230 0.231 15.02 17.57 26.54 26.46 26.14
10 0.327 0.281 0.272 0.241 0.243 0.243 14.07 16.82 25.78 25.64 25.78
TMD – 0.456 0.635 0.639 0.778 0.761
The mean value of the reduction 13.16 17.76 26.30 26.71 19.06
Optimum design of tuned mass dampers 3217

Table 7 Maximum acceleration of stories subjected to the El Centro (1940) NS earthquake (case study 2).
Maximum acceleration (m/s2) Percentage of reduction
Story Without Sadek et al. [26] GA [7] CSS MOCS1 MOCS2 Sadek et al. [26] GA [7] CSS MOCS1 MOCS2
TMD [27] [27]
1 3.06 3.06 3.05 3.01 3.00 3.01 0.00 0.33 1.63 1.80 1.57
2 2.77 2.66 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.70 3.97 5.05 4.69 4.42 2.48
3 2.98 2.71 2.78 2.78 2.79 2.81 9.06 6.71 6.71 6.39 5.56
4 2.76 2.71 2.7 2.65 2.64 2.62 1.81 2.17 3.99 4.22 5.05
5 2.93 2.69 2.67 2.61 2.61 2.61 8.19 8.87 10.92 11.00 10.94
6 3.14 2.95 2.85 2.67 2.63 2.84 6.05 9.24 14.97 16.33 9.44
7 2.92 2.45 2.34 2.15 2.10 2.51 16.10 19.86 26.37 28.10 13.98
8 3.68 2.71 2.7 2.49 2.50 2.91 26.36 26.63 32.34 32.07 20.96
9 4.7 3.25 3.2 3.00 2.98 3.74 30.85 31.91 36.17 36.52 20.38
10 5.36 3.99 3.86 3.61 3.64 4.21 25.56 27.99 32.65 32.15 21.38
TMD – 3.74 5.00 4.70 5.68 5.71
The mean value of the reduction 12.80 13.88 17.04 17.30 11.17

Table 8 The percentage of reduction of the structural responses subjected to different earthquake excitations for different tuning
strategies (case study 2).
Earthquakes* Ij (j = 1, 2, 3) Sadek et al. GA CSS MOCS1 MOCS2
Sylmar (1994) I1 12.52 19.68 26.76 28.75 24.71
FP component I2 1.66 2.20 3.59 5.38 4.19
I3 30.62 38.10 42.42 44.87 35.84
Sylmar (1994) I1 13.52 15.08 15.35 15.79 14.46
FN component I2 10.03 9.72 8.60 0.69 4.70
I3 23.73 22.73 21.72 23.60 21.35
Newhall (1994) I1 16.96 23.63 25.64 26.63 23.05
FP component I2 2.65 5.53 6.44 2.04 1.41
I3 22.42 21.00 22.66 22.58 20.24
Newhall (1994) I1 23.99 25.91 25.55 26.20 24.98
FN component I2 19.80 13.71 10.01 10.65 14.60
I3 17.87 16.51 14.64 15.50 13.48
Kobe (1995) I1 38.43 41.82 38.35 41.06 38.26
NS component I2 4.94 1.17 0.01 4.77 3.02
I3 3.18 0.70 2.49 1.39 0.35
Kobe (1995) I1 13.51 14.75 14.58 14.87 13.43
EW component I2 0.09 3.27 4.59 5.22 1.88
I3 22.26 18.54 16.42 16.64 14.56
Chichi (1999) I1 38.64 39.39 28.57 28.70 21.15
NS component I2 27.89 27.36 26.10 27.26 21.43
I3 43.22 42.67 28.88 28.47 25.05
Chichi (1999) I1 5.87 9.77 8.36 8.85 7.99
EW component I2 17.63 16.35 13.47 16.40 11.15
I3 13.49 13.29 10.83 11.56 10.60
Erzincan (1992) I1 17.75 25.52 25.16 27.96 22.91
NS component I2 26.96 24.61 23.28 24.84 19.69
I3 13.71 16.24 16.15 17.08 15.62
Erzincan (1992) I1 10.96 14.76 15.76 16.94 12.00
EW component I2 12.72 11.68 10.62 14.55 8.45
I3 24.57 25.32 23.90 24.35 20.29
Rinaldi (1994) I1 0.70 14.26 25.20 28.82 21.76
FP component I2 17.21 22.20 20.92 23.96 20.14
I3 20.91 33.85 36.36 36.89 33.00
(continued on next page)
3218 S. Etedali, H. Rakhshani

Table 8 (continued)
Earthquakes* Ij (j = 1, 2, 3) Sadek et al. GA CSS MOCS1 MOCS2

Rinaldi (1994) I1 7.13 7.73 7.03 7.38 6.95

FN component I2 8.72 6.08 4.28 6.86 4.97
I3 6.81 6.94 6.14 7.36 5.79
Mean I1 16.55 21.02 21.36 22.66 19.72
I2 11.79 10.52 9.15 11.89 9.32
I3 20.23 21.21 19.80 20.63 17.96

was capable of maintaining the desired level of reduction of
structural responses in different earthquake excitations. In
other words, MOCS2 was able to present a solution leading
to a more practical and economic selection of TMD
parameters.
References
[1] J. Den Hartog, Mechanical Vibrations, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1947.
[2] G. Warburton, Optimum absorber parameters for minimizing
vibration response, Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 9 (3) (1981) 251–262.
[3] G. Warburton, Optimum absorber parameters for various
combinations of response and excitation parameters, Earthq.
Eng. Struct. D 10 (3) (1982) 381–401.
[4] A. Thompson, Optimum tuning and damping of a dynamic
vibration absorber applied to a force excited and damped
primary system, J. Sound Vib. 77 (3) (1981) 403–415.
[5] C. Chang, Mass dampers and their optimal designs for building
vibration control, Eng. Struct. 21 (5) (1999) 454–463.
[6] C.-C. Lin, J.-F. Wang, J.-M. Ueng, Vibration control
identification of seismically excited mdof structure-PTMD
systems, J. Sound Vib. 240 (1) (2001) 87–115.
[7] M.N. Hadi, Y. Arfiadi, Optimum design of absorber for MDOF
structures, J. Struct. Eng. – ASCE 124 (11) (1998) 1272–1280.
[8] M.P. Singh, S. Singh, L.M. Moreschi, Tuned mass dampers for
response control of torsional buildings, Earthq. Eng. Struct. D
31 (4) (2002) 749–769.
[9] N.B. Desu, S. Deb, A. Dutta, Coupled tuned mass dampers for
control of coupled vibrations in asymmetric buildings, Struct.
Control Hlth. 13 (5) (2006) 897–916.
[10] S. Bakre, R. Jangid, Optimum parameters of tuned mass damper
for damped main system, Struct. Control Hlth. 14 (3) (2007)
448–470.
[11] A.Y. Leung, H. Zhang, C. Cheng, Y. Lee, Particle swarm
optimization of TMD by non-stationary base excitation during
earthquake, Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 37 (9) (2008) 1223–1246.
[12] A. Leung, H. Zhang, Particle swarm optimization of tuned mass
dampers, Eng. Struct. 31 (3) (2009) 715–728.
[13] G.C. Marano, R. Greco, B. Chiaia, A comparison between
different optimization criteria for tuned mass dampers design, J.
Sound Vib. 329 (23) (2010) 4880–4890.
[14] G. Bekdasß, S.M. Nigdeli, Estimating optimum parameters of
tuned mass dampers using harmony search, Eng. Struct. 33 (9)
(2011) 2716–2723.
[15] J. Salvi, E. Rizzi, D. Moens, S. Jonckheere, A numerical
approach towards best tuning of tuned mass dampers, in: Proc.
of 25th Int. Conf. on Noise and Vibration Engineering (ISMA
2012), Leuven, Belgium, 2012, p. 19.
[16] A.A. Zamani, S. Tavakoli, S. Etedali, Fractional order PID
control design for semi-active control of smart base-isolated
structures: a multi-objective cuckoo search approach, ISA
Trans. 67 (2017) 222–232.
[17] P. Civicioglu, E. Besdok, A conceptual comparison of the
Cuckoo-search, particle swarm optimization, differential
evolution and artificial bee colony algorithms, Artif. Intell.
Rev. 39 (4) (2013) 315–346.
[18] A.A. Zamani, S. Tavakoli, S. Etedali, Control of piezoelectric
friction dampers in smart base-isolated structures using self-
tuning and adaptive fuzzy proportional–derivative controllers, J.
Intell. Mater. Syst. 28 (10) (2017) 1287–1302.
[19] S. Etedali, S. Tavakoli, M.R. Sohrabi, Design of a decoupled
PID controller via MOCS for seismic control of smart
structures, Earthq. Struct. 10 (5) (2016) 1067–1087.
[20] S. Etedali, A new modified independent modal space control
approach toward control of seismic-excited structures, Bull.
Earthq. Eng. 15 (10) (2017) 4215–4243.
[21] X.-S. Yang, S. Deb, Multiobjective cuckoo search for design
optimization, Comput. Ind. Eng. 40 (6) (2013) 1616–1624.
[22] X.-S. Yang, S. Deb, Cuckoo search: recent advances and
applications, Neural Comput. Appl. 24 (1) (2014) 169–174.
[23] X.-S. Yang, S. Deb, Cuckoo search via Lévy flights, IEEE, 2009,
pp. 210–214.
[24] R. Rajabioun, Cuckoo optimization algorithm, Appl. Soft
Comput. 11 (8) (2011) 5508–5518.
[25] C.-L. Lee, Y.-T. Chen, L.-L. Chung, Y.-P. Wang, Optimal
design theories and applications of tuned mass dampers, Eng.
Struct. 28 (1) (2006) 43–53.
[26] F. Sadek, B. Mohraz, A.W. Taylor, R.M. Chung, A method of
estimating the parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic
applications, Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 26 (6) (1997) 617–636.
[27] A. Kaveh, S. Mohammadi, O.K. Hosseini, A. Keyhani, V.
Kalatjari, Optimum parameters of tuned mass dampers for
seismic applications using charged system search, IJST-T Civ.
Eng. 39 (C1) (2015) 21.
[28] K. Kanai, An empirical formula for the spectrum of strong
earthquake motions, 1961.
[29] S. Nagarajaiah, S. Narasimhan, Smart base-isolated benchmark
building. Part II: phase I sample controllers for linear isolation
systems, Struct. Control Hlth. 13 (2–3) (2006) 589–604.
[30] MATLAB, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts,
United States, 2000.
[31] M. Singh, E. Matheu, L. Suarez, Active and semi-active control
of structures under sesimic excitation, Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 26
(2) (1997) 193–213.
[32] S. Etedali, S. Tavakoli, PD/PID controller design for seismic
control of high-rise buildings using multi-objective optimization:
a comparative study with LQR controller, J. Earthq. Tsunami
11 (1) (2017) 1–23.
[33] S. Etedali, M.R. Sohrabi, S. Tavakoli, An independent robust
modal PID control approach for seismic control of buildings, J.
Civil. Eng. Urban 3 (5) (2013) 279–291.