This study evaluates the effectiveness of a Nonlinear Tuned Mass Damper Inerter (NTMDI) in mitigating wind-induced vibrations in wind turbines, with explicit consideration of soil–structure interaction (SSI). Kinetic energy is selected as the primary response metric, supported by nacelle displacement, total structural energy, soil energy absorption, acceleration reduction, and residual soil energy to provide a comprehensive assessment. A detailed numerical model is developed in OpenSees, incorporating SSI effects and subjected to turbulent wind loads generated using the Shinozuka method. NTMDI parameters are optimized using the Multi-Objective Cuckoo Search Algorithm (MOCS) to balance kinetic-energy minimization, displacement suppression, and soil-energy management. The results show that NTMDI implementation achieves approximately 45% reduction in total kinetic energy, 20% reduction in nacelle displacement, and 25% reduction in tower acceleration relative to the uncontrolled system. When SSI is considered, the NTMDI further improves performance by reducing soil energy demand by an additional 15–20%, highlighting the importance of absorber–soil coupling. Compared with traditional TMDIs, the NTMDI exhibits superior adaptability and efficiency, particularly for flexible foundations. These findings confirm NTMDIs as an effective passive control strategy for enhancing wind-turbine stability.
KareemA. Mitigation of wind induced motion of tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod1983; 11: 273–284.
2.
KareemAKijewskiTTamuraY. Mitigation of motions of tall buildings with specific examples of recent applications. Wind Struct1999; 2: 201–251.
3.
TuanAYShangGQ. Vibration control in a 101-Storey building using a tuned mass damper. Journal of Applied Science and Engineering2014; 17: 141–156.
4.
EliasSMatsagarV. Optimum Tuned Mass Damper for Wind and Earthquake Response Control of High-Rise Building. In: MatsagarV. (ed) Advances in Structural Engineering. New Delhi: Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2193-7_113.
5.
RanaRSoongTT. Parametric study and simplified design of tuned mass dampers. Eng Struct1998; 20: 193–204.
6.
ArazOEliasSKablanF. Seismic-induced vibration control of a multi-story building with double tuned mass dampers considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng2023; 166: 107765.
7.
ArazOKahyaV. Design of series tuned mass dampers for seismic control of structures using simulated annealing algorithm. Arch Appl Mech2021; 91: 4343–4359.
8.
ArazO. Effect of basic parameters defining principal soil-structure interaction on seismic control of structures equipped with optimum tuned mass damper. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng2025; 189: 109085.
9.
Alibabaei ShahrakiMKamgarRHeidarzadehH. Damage-based design of multiple tuned mass dampers to improve the seismic performance of steel frame structures. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng2023; 173: 108062.
10.
XuKIgusaT. Dynamic characteristics of multiple substructures with closely spaced frequencies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn1992; 21: 1059–1070.
11.
JoshiASJangidRS. Optimum parameters of multiple tuned mass dampers for base-excited damped systems. J Sound Vib1997; 202: 657–667.
12.
SmithMC. Synthesis of mechanical networks: the inerter. IEEE Trans Automat Contr2002; 47: 1648–1662.
13.
BagheriSRahmani-DabbaghV. Seismic response control with inelastic tuned mass dampers. Eng Struct2018; 172: 712–722.
14.
Alibabaei ShahrakiMKamgarRHeidarzadehH. Assessing the seismic behavior of structures controlled with a novel elastoplastic-tuned mass damper inerter considering the effects of soil-structure interactions. Structures2023; 57: 105265.
15.
ShahrakiMAChaleshtoriSAH. Comparative analysis of novel nonlinear tuned mass damper inerter and traditional tuned mass dampers in steel shear frame structures. Int J Str Stab Dyn2025: 2650141.
16.
RoozbahanMJahaniE. Optimal design of elastic and elastoplastic tuned mass dampers using the Mouth Brooding Fish algorithm for linear and nonlinear structures. Structures2022; 43: 1084–1090.
17.
Alibabaei ShahrakiM. Response mitigations of adjacent structure with MPTMD under real and stochastic excitations. Discov Geosci2025; 3: 47.
18.
RoyTMatsagarV. Probabilistic assessment of steel buildings installed with passive control devices under multi-hazard scenario of earthquake and wind. Struct Saf2020; 85: 101955.
19.
GaurSEliasSHöbbelT, et al.Tuned mass dampers in wind response control of wind turbine with soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng2020; 132: 106071.
20.
BhattacharyaSNikitasGAranyL, et al. Soil–structure interactions for offshore wind turbines. Engineering & Technology Reference. 2017; 1: 1–24.
21.
EliasSMatsagarVDattaTK. Distributed multiple tuned mass dampers for wind response control of chimney with flexible foundation. Procedia Eng2017; 199: 1641–1646.
22.
EliasSMatsagarVDattaTK. Along-wind response control of chimneys with distributed multiple tuned mass dampers. Struct Control Health Monit2019; 26: e2275.
23.
EliasSMatsagarV. Distributed multiple tuned mass dampers for wind vibration response control of high-rise building. J Eng2014; 2014: 1–11.
24.
LiCCaoL. Active tuned tandem mass dampers for seismic structures. Earthquakes and Structures2019; 17: 143–162.
25.
CaoLLiXHuangY, et al.High robust eddy current tuned tandem mass dampers-inerters for structures under the ground acceleration. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng2025; 188: 109040.
26.
AljundiAMohamedOAbu ElhaijaW. Calibration of parameters and predictive control strategy of a wind turbine for improvement of energy harvesting. Proc Inst Mech Eng A J Power Energy2025; 239: 653–668.
27.
FuBZhaoJLiB, et al.Fatigue reliability analysis of wind turbine tower under random wind load. Struct Saf2020; 87: 101982.
28.
WangHGramstadOSchärS, et al.Comparison of probabilistic structural reliability methods for ultimate limit state assessment of wind turbines. Struct Saf2024; 111: 102502.
29.
SkandalosKChakrabortySTesfamariamS. Seismic reliability analysis using a multi-fidelity surrogate model: example of base-isolated buildings. Struct Saf2022; 97: 102222.
30.
De RisiRGodaKTesfamariamS. Multi-dimensional damage measure for seismic reliability analysis. Struct Saf2019; 78: 1–11.
31.
FarshidianfarASoheiliS. Ant colony optimization of tuned mass dampers for earthquake oscillations of high-rise structures including soil–structure interaction. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng2013; 51: 14–22.
32.
RahaiARSaberiHSaberiH. A discussion of the paper: “Ant colony optimization of tuned mass dampers for earthquake oscillations of high-rise structures including soil–structure interaction” [Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 51 (2013) 14–22]. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng2017; 102: 263–265.
33.
MurtaghPJBasuBBroderickBM. Along-wind response of a wind turbine tower with blade coupling subjected to rotationally sampled wind loading. Eng Struct2005; 27: 1209–1219.
34.
ZhaoXMaißerP. Seismic response analysis of wind turbine towers including soil-structure interaction. Proc Inst Mech Eng - Part K J Multi-body Dyn2006; 220: 53–61.
35.
MurtaghPJGhoshABasuB, et al.Passive control of wind turbine vibrations including blade/tower interaction and rotationally sampled turbulence. Wind Energy2008; 11: 305–317.
36.
AvilaSMBarcelosMShzuAM, et al.Vibration control of the set tower and wind turbine under the wind influence. In: Proceedings of 20th International Congress of Mechanical Engineering (COBEM). Gramado, Brazil. 2009.
37.
HarteMBasuBNielsenSRK. Dynamic analysis of wind turbines including soil-structure interaction. Eng Struct2012; 45: 509–518.
38.
JabaryRNMadabhushiSPG. Tuned mass damper effects on the response of multi-storied structures observed in geotechnical centrifuge tests. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng2015; 77: 373–380.
39.
ShahrakiMARoozbahanM. Evaluating the seismic performance of advanced tuned mass dampers considering soil–structure interaction effect. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng. 2025; 50: 1–20.
40.
Alibabaei ShahrakiM. Optimization of NTMDI parameters using metaheuristic algorithms and spectral analysis for seismic response mitigation. Discov Civ Eng2025; 2: 164.
41.
Alibabaei ShahrakiMBasiliM. Reduction of pounding between adjacent structures with NTMDI: energy-oriented approach. Innov Infrastruct Solut2025; 10: 290.
42.
ChopraAK. Dynamics of structure. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, 2006.
43.
MarianLGiaralisA. Optimal design of a novel tuned mass-damper–inerter (TMDI) passive vibration control configuration for stochastically support-excited structural systems. Probab Eng Mech2014; 38: 156–164.
44.
KavehAFahimi FarzamMHojat JalaliH, et al.Robust optimum design of a tuned mass damper inerter. Acta Mech2020; 231: 3871–3896.
45.
WolfJP. Spring-dashpot-mass models for foundation vibrations, 1997, pp. 931–949.
46.
PioldiFSalviJRizziE. Refined FDD modal dynamic identification from earthquake responses with Soil-Structure Interaction. Int J Mech Sci2017; 127: 47–61.
47.
KaimalJCWyngaardJCIzumiY, et al.Spectral characteristics of surface-layer turbulence. Q J R Meteorol Soc1972; 98: 563–589.
JmJButterfieldSMusialW, et al.Definition of a 5MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2009.
50.
BanerjeeAChakrabortyTMatsagarV. Stochastic dynamic analysis of an offshore wind turbine considering frequency-dependent soil–structure interaction parameters. Int J Str Stab Dyn2017; 18: 1850086.
