You are on page 1of 12

Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Modelling and preliminary design of a structure-TLD system
M.J. Tait ∗
Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7

article

info

Article history:
Received 1 May 2007
Received in revised form
22 January 2008
Accepted 27 February 2008
Available online 18 April 2008
Keywords:
Tuned Liquid Damper (TLD)
Vibration control
Damping
Damping screens
Liquid sloshing
Potential flow theory

a b s t r a c t
Tuned liquid dampers are cost effective dynamic vibration absorbers that are increasingly being
employed to mitigate the dynamic response of tall buildings. A significant reduction in the dynamic
response of a tall building can be achieved if the TLD is properly tuned and has sufficient inherent
damping. The required level of TLD inherent damping can be obtained by installing damping screens
inside the TLD tank. This paper develops an equivalent linear mechanical model that accounts for the
energy dissipated by the damping screens. Equivalent linear damping ratio expressions are developed
for both sinusoidal and random excitation. An equivalent linear mechanical model is subsequently
developed using an equivalent displacement variable and the linear damping ratio corresponding to the
type of excitation being applied to the structure. Experimental tests are conducted on a scaled model
structure-TLD system subjected to both sinusoidal and random excitation to validate the proposed model.
Comparisons are made between predicted and measured structural response motion and TLD free surface
response motion over a range of structural response amplitudes. A preliminary design procedure for
initial TLD sizing and initial damping screen design for a TLD equipped with damping screens is outlined.
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The ability of a Tuned Liquid Damper (TLD) to perform as an
effective passive dynamic vibration absorber (DVA) to mitigate
building accelerations to acceptable levels under wind loading has
been well established [1]. To maximize the effectiveness of a DVA,
including a TLD, it is essential to determine its optimal properties.
Optimal tuning ratio and damping ratio values, expressed in
terms of the mass ratio, have been determined for a linear
TMD attached to an undamped primary structure subjected to
sinusoidal excitation [2] and white-noise excitation [3].
Attainment of the optimal tuning ratio for a TLD requires the
liquid sloshing frequency to be properly tuned to the natural
frequency of the structure’s vibration mode to be suppressed. For
small liquid response amplitudes linear potential flow theory can
be employed to predict the liquid sloshing frequency [4]. Thus for a
particular tank geometry, the designer can determine the required
fluid depth in order to achieve the optimal tuning ratio.
The value of the TLD damping ratio relating to the energy
dissipated in the boundary layer is often significantly lower than
the value required for the TLD to operate optimally. An increase in
the TLD damping ratio value can be achieved by inserting energy
dissipating devices, such as screens, inside the tank [5–9]. The
additional inherent damping provided by these devices is often

∗ Tel.: +1 1 905 525 91; fax: +1 1 905 529 9688.
E-mail address: taitm@mcmaster.ca.
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.017

determined experimentally by conducting shake table tests on the
TLD.
In this paper generalized properties of a TLD are first
determined, including the equivalent damping provided by
screens. Warnitchai and Pinkaew [7] developed an analytical
method to determine the damping provided by a device located
at the centre of a tank for the case of sinusoidal excitation.
This work is expanded upon to include the equivalent damping
developed for the case of random excitation. The equivalent
mechanical model presented in this paper is intended to provide
an initial estimate of the TLD damping ratio for a particular fluid
response amplitude. The velocity potential, expressed in terms of
a set of generalized coordinates is used to determine the fluid
velocity at the screen location [7,10,11]. The flow-induced screen
forces are subsequently obtained by the application of Morison’s
formula [11]. Finally, using the concept of virtual work, [12] an
amplitude-dependent damping coefficient is calculated for the
screens.
The equations of motion describing the response of a structureTLD system are manipulated allowing the structure-TLD system to
be expressed as an equivalent structure-TMD system. This permits
optimization equations, developed for a linear TMD, to be applied
to a linearized structure-TLD system. For verification purposes
experimental results from scaled model structure-TLD systems
subjected to sinusoidal and random excitation are compared with
values calculated using the equivalent linearized structure-TLD
system developed in this paper.
The properties of an equivalent amplitude-dependent TMD,
having equal energy dissipation as a TLD equipped with damping
screens, have been evaluated experimentally from shake table

Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 2645 The linearized boundary condition at the free surface.J. is given as .M. η.

∂η ∂Φ .

.

= . (4) .

t)dx (7) V = ρbg 2 0 and the kinematic potential  Z 0 Z L " ∂Φ 2 1 T= 2 ρb X˙ + −h 0 ∂x ∂Φ + ∂z  2 # dx dz (8) where X˙ is the horizontal velocity of the tank [4]. As the TLD tank moves with the structure the contained fluid will exhibit a sloshing response motion. and loss coefficients. that the tank experiences (Fig. shown in Fig. Mathematical description of a TLD 2. xj . the analytical equivalent mechanical model presented in this paper can be employed to evaluate the response of a structure-TLD system prior to conducting any experimental testing. Cd and Cl values denoting inertia. inside the tank as shown in Fig. t) = qn (t) cos . The structure is modelled as a generalized singledegree-of-freedom system representing the mode of vibration being suppressed. ∂z z=0 ∂t The velocity potential which satisfies the above boundary conditions can be expressed in the general form as a sum of infinite sloshing modes h i   cosh nπ(z+h) ∞ X nπx L    . For screens having a solidity value S. constant Cm . Definition sketch for liquid sloshing in a rectangular Tuned Liquid Damper (TLD) with damping screens. Influence of damping screens A rectangular tuned liquid damper with damping screens is shown in Fig. 2(a). X (t). Consider a number of screens placed at discrete locations. at the TLD location. (5) q˙ n (t) cos Φ (x. In the derivation presented below. are assumed. . z. Employing a preliminary TLCD design procedure proposed by Vickery et al. respectively. 2. generalized co-ordinates [7]. drag.2. 1) is equivalent to the motion of the structure. . . 3. For the TLD attached to the structure. 2(a). 1. which is analogous to the damping provided by damping screens in a TLD. the horizontal motion. t) = nπ L sinh nπL h n=1 L Fig.1. tests [13] and the performance of this semi-empirical amplitudedependent model has been verified [14]. in the vibration mode to be suppressed. For a given target structural response amplitude optimal parameters have been determined for a Tuned Liquid Column Damper (TLCD) including the quadratic damping provided by an orifice [15–17]. The energy of a system of standing waves of the simple harmonic type can be expressed in terms of the gravitational potential Z L 1 η2 (x. 1 and a structure-TLD system is shown in Fig. However. (6) L n=1 The kinematic of liquid sloshing can be completely described by the set of qn (t) where n = 1. Xs (t). The free surface can be expressed as   ∞ X nπx η(x. Fluid response equations ∂Φ ∂Φ + 2 =0 ∂x 2 ∂z 2 (1) and the kinematic boundary conditions are given as . 1. The linearized equivalent mechanical model can be used to determine a suitable screen design. . defined as 2. 2. [18] and utilizing the proposed equivalent linearized structure-TLD system a method to estimate the optimal loss coefficient for a particular screen configuration is outlined.

∂Φ .

.

u(x. z.x=L = =0 . t)|x=0.

x=L ∂Φ . z. ∂x w(x. t) |z=−h = x=0.

.

= 0. ∂z .

incompressible. The assumptions of inviscid. i. The liquid sloshing motion of a tuned liquid damper equipped with damping screens is formulated using potential flow theory. which are located at or near the centre of the tank.z=−h A (9) bh where A is the area of the screen normal to the flow. a quiescent fluid depth h. and a tank width b.e. irrotational flow and negligible surface tension are made. z. The kinematic continuity of incompressible flow requires 2 S= (2) . It is also assumed that the fluid response amplitude is small compared to the fluid depth. 9. t). Φ (x. Consider the rigid rectangular tank shown in Fig. For the stated assumptions the velocity of a liquid particle relative to the tank can be expressed as a gradient of the velocity potential. the relationship between the drag and loss coefficient is given as [6.19] Cl = SCd . do not significantly alter the overall flow of the sloshing liquid. η  h and the screens. 1 having a length L.

(11) represents a virtual mass inertia force proportional to the horizontal component of the acceleration exerted on the mass of the liquid displaced by the screen. t) = ρAcs Cm ∂u xj . it does contribute to the overall kinetic energy of the sloshing liquid [7]. z. (11) indicates that the screen force is comprised of two components. (3) (10) The force exerted on a screen can be expressed as [11] f (x. this derivation could be expanded to include the contribution of the vertical velocity component to the total screen force. t). z. however. z. Inertia component of screen force The first term in Eq. (11) Eq. t) + fd (x. For screens located at or near the centre of the tank only the horizontal component of the flow is considered in the following derivation. t) = fi (x. 2. z. This conservative force dissipates no energy.1. t ∂t (12) . z. However.2. The inertia component of the screen force is given by " # fi (xj .

M. (a) Structure-TLD system and (b) equivalent mechanical linearized structure-TLD system. The resulting kinetic energy can be expressed as T= T= 1 2 1 2 Qn = − ρAcs Cm ns Z X 0 −h j=1 ρAcs Cm . where Acs denotes the cross-sectional area of the screen. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 2646 Fig. expressed as (13) Acs = htb S and tb is the dimension of the screen in the direction of the flow.J. 2.

!2 ∂Φ .

.

dz ∂x .

(17) L sinh nπL h Eq. (11) represents a drag force proportional to the square of the fluid velocity.xj ns X  sin nπxj 2 Z L j=1 0 −h (14)   cosh h sinh nπ(z+h) L  nπh L i 2 (16) A set of virtual horizontal displacements can be expressed as i h   cosh nπ(zL+h) nπxj  sin  δqn (xj . The parameter ∆1 is found to approach a value of 1/3 as h/L becomes large. The drag force resulting in additional velocity squared damping is given by h i 2  nπ(z+h)   nπxj 2 cosh 1 L     fdn (xj . . t) = δqn (t). 3. The term Ξ1 . . . The resulting equations of motion can be expressed as m∗n q¨ n (t) + cn∗ q˙ n (t) + m∗n ω2n qn (t) = γn∗ X¨ (t).2. due to the fundamental sloshing mode.2. (20) j=1 The resulting non-conservative nonlinear damping forces in the direction of qn are given as sin nπxj 3 Z L j=1 ρbL Qn = − (15) × |˙qn (t)| q˙ n (t). 4(a) shows that the damping due to the screen-induced losses related to the horizontal component of flow in the fundamental sloshing mode is dependent on the water depth to tank length ratio h/L. with values of ∆1 ranging from approximately 10 to 1 for h/L values between 0. 2. (16) and (17) into Eq. Drag component of screen force The second term in Eq. (19) Alternatively. dt ∂q˙ n ∂q n ∂q n (25) where T and V are the total kinetic energy and the total potential energy of the system and Qn are the non-conservative forces. . 2. respectively. inside the tank. the work done can be expressed in terms of Qn nonconservative forces δWnc = ns X Q n δq n . is found to reduce rapidly as the screen location is positioned away from the centre of the tank. which relates the damping to the screen position in the tank for the fundamental sloshing mode. (18) Substituting Eqs. n = 1. 1 Ξn = 1 3 ns X j=1 (22) Cl ∆n Ξn |˙qn | q˙ n + 2 sinh  sin 1  nπxj  nπh L 3 L (23)  . (18) the work done can be expressed as   ns X 1 nπxj 3 δWnc = − ρbCl sin 2 L j=1 Z 0 × −h  cosh  h sinh nπ(z+h) L  nπh L i 3   dz |˙qn | q˙ n δqn . From Fig.3. t) = ρbCl sin 2 L sinh nπL h 2 ns X × dz |˙qn | q˙ n . 3. Generalized TLD properties The corresponding Lagrange’s equations have the form   d ∂T ∂V ∂T − + = Qn .3. . (24) Fig. xj . (18) describes the virtual work done by the non-conservative drag forces as they act through the virtual displacements caused by an arbitrary set of variations in the generalized coordinates δWnc = − ns Z X 0 −h j=1 f d n δ q n dz . z. 2. . where    dzq˙ 2n . z. ρbCl  0 −h   cosh h sinh nπ(z+h) L  nπh L i 3   (21) The non-conservative nonlinear damping forces can be expressed in the following compact form 2nπ ∆n =  2.1 and 0. 4 it can be concluded that the amount of damping introduced by the insertion of screens into the tank. 4 shows the relationship between ∆1 and h/L and Ξ1 and x/L. is a function of both h/L and the location of the screen. (26) where the generalized mass is m∗n = ρbL2 1 2 nπ tanh  nπh L  the natural frequency for the nth sloshing mode is   nπg nπh ω2n = tanh L L (27) (28) . Fig. n = 1.

the linearized generalized damping coefficient is determined for both random and sinusoidal excitation. the damping ratio calculated using Eq. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 the generalized stiffness is given as k∗n = ρbLg (29) 2 (1 − cos(nπ)) (nπ)2 (30) and the modal participation factor is   γ∗ 2 nπh . Cs . (43) does not permit the direct application of linear TMD design procedures for a specified target structural response amplitude. and equations of motion analogous to those given by Eq. Additionally.1. (42). The above equivalent damping accounts for the losses due to the addition of damping screens. (43) 0 k∗ q 0 Eq.4. between the actual damping force and the linearized generalized damping force [20]. The nonlinear damping force expressed in Eq. 3.3. However. analogous to the structure-TLD system shown in Fig.J.M. For thin slat screens the term Acs /bL  1. (22) can be replaced by a linearized generalized damping term by minimizing the error. (32) The ratio of the virtual added mass for multiple screens is given as     2nπh   ns X m∗n-virtual Acs nπxj 2 L     (33) = C 1 + sin m m∗n bL L sinh 2nLπh j=1 which is in agreement with Warnitchai and Pinkaew [7] for the special case of a single damping device located at the centre of a tank. (40) ζeq = Cl 3π L L For the special case of a single vertical flow damping device located at the centre of the tank. a TLD can be expressed as an equivalent TMD by introducing a displacement variable. The linearized generalized damping force is obtained from Eq. 3(a) are given by          C 0 X˙ s K 0 Xs X¨ s (Ms + m) m + s + s m m 0 c x˙ r 0 k xr x¨ r   F (t) = (42) 0 where Ms . for small h/L values. Equivalent two-degree-of-freedom system 3. and therefore. 2π (34) Minimizing the error. Ξ∆ 2π E q˙ 2 distribution [20]. The corresponding generalized damping ratio can be expressed as s   2 πh σq ∗ ζeq = Cl tanh ∆Ξ . The energy dissipation associated with the liquid viscosity can be estimated as  s   1 2h ν ζw = 1+ + SC (41) 2h 2 ωn b ∗ ceq = Cl where ν is the viscosity of water and SC is a surface contamination factor often taken as unity [22]. it is assumed that the individual cycles are sinusoidal in form with the amplitude varying slowly in time and the distribution of the amplitude can be sufficiently represented by a Rayleigh where σq is the RMS (root mean square) motion of the fluid response in the fundamental sloshing mode. However. results in the following set of equations #    "  Cs 0 X˙ s X¨ s (Ms + ρbhL) γ ∗ + ∗ 0 ceq γ∗ m∗ q¨ q˙      K 0 Xs F (t) + s = . For the case of random excitation. Linearization of damping term for the fundamental sloshing mode (n = 1) As TLDs are typically designed to operate as a dynamic vibration absorber in their fundamental sloshing mode the following derivation considers this mode exclusively. The linearized generalized damping coefficient is found to be s 2 ρbL ∗ Ξ∆σq ω (37) ceq = Cl π π the equation for the excitation factor is expressed as γn∗ = ρbL2 2647 (36) ∗ As the value of ceq is excitation dependent. (38) π L L For the case of sinusoidal excitation the linearized generalized damping coefficient value is given by 4ρbL ∆Ξ qω (39) 3π2 and the corresponding generalized damping ratio can be expressed as   πh q 4 ∗ tanh ∆Ξ . . the additional virtual mass can often be ignored. ε. the damping coefficient related to higher sloshing modes could be determined using the method presented in this section. (35) as  2 ∗ ceq = Cl ρbL E |˙q| q˙  . For practical applications the additional damping due to the liquid viscosity is often significantly less than the damping resulting from the screens and as result can usually be neglected in initial design calculations [23]. (40) agrees with that obtained by Warnitchai and Pinkaew [7] and the solution derived by Isaacson and Premasiri [21] for a vertical baffle. Γn = n∗ = (1 − cos (nπ)) tanh mn nπ (31) L The additional virtual mass added to the nth generalized sloshing mode is found to be ∗ mn-virtual = Cm ρAcs ns X j=1  sin nπxj 2 L  L 4  sinh  2nπh  L nπ sinh  + nπh L  nπh 2 2   . and Ks are the mass. the following condition should be satisfied  2 ∂E ε ∗ ∂ceq =0 (35) where E() denotes the expected value. The error is expressed as ε = Cl ρbL ∗ ∆Ξ1 |˙q| q˙ − ceq q˙ . which leads to equivalent (or effective) TLD properties. damping and stiffness of the structure. 2(a). Structure-TMD/ TLD equations of motion The equations of motion for a linear structure-TMD system as shown in Fig. Application of Langrange’s equations to a structure equipped with a continuous vibration absorber [24]. 2. the influence of the virtual mass on the natural sloshing frequency of the fluid is typically less than the influence of the nonlinear hardening behaviour that occurs in TLDs having h/L values less than approximately 0. respectively.

J. The equivalent mass and stiffness representing the sloshing fluid in a rectangular tank are given by [17. The variable. is introduced as q = Γ xr (44) where q is the generalized coordinate relating to the free surface motion and is also a measure of relative motion with respect to the horizontal motion of the structure.2. This enables the direct application of optimized structure-TMD design parameters to this equivalent structure-TLD system for a specified structural response amplitude. xr . Equivalent TLD properties The equivalent mass. (43) the following set of equations are obtained #     " Cs 0 X¨ s X˙ s (Ms + mw ) meq + ∗ 0 ceq Γ γ∗ γ∗ x¨ r x˙ r      K 0 Xs F (t) + s = .2648 M. TLDs are often designed with low h/L values in order to maintain a high normalized equivalent mass value. which develops dynamic forces equal to the forces exerted by the sloshing fluid. Fig. xr . keq = tanh π2 L 3 (48) (49) Fig. and stiffness. 2(b) to the actual free surface response amplitude of the fundamental sloshing mode. given by Eq. Equivalent displacement variable and equivalent TMD properties An equivalent displacement variable.2. From Fig. making TLDs with large h/L values more challenging to tune in situ. 5(b) shows the modal participation factor. (45) 0 k∗ Γ x r 0 Multiplying the second row in the above set of equations of motion by Γ and modifying the mass of the structure to account for the non-participating component of the liquid associated with the fundamental sloshing mode as follows [25]  Ms0 = Ms + ρbhL − meq (46) permits Eq. 5(b) it can be seen that q ≈ xr when h/L is approximately 1/3. 5(a) shows normalized values of the equivalent mass and stiffness as a function of h/L. Variation of (a) ∆1 with h/L and (b) Ξ1 with x/L. Fig. (45) to be expressed in the following form #    0   " Ms + meq meq C 0 X¨ s X˙ s + s meq meq 0 c eq x˙ r x¨ r      K 0 Xs F (t) = + s 0 keq xr 0 (47) which describes the motion of the equivalent structure-TMD system shown in Fig. . 2(b). The normalized equivalent mass indicates the amount of fluid that participates in the sloshing motion. the normalized stiffness value approaches the normalized mass value indicating the natural sloshing frequency becomes independent of the water depth. The value of Γ is also used in this paper to relate the relative motion of the equivalent mechanical system shown in Fig. (31) for the fundamental sloshing model as a function of h/L. 3. is the motion associated with the effective properties of the TLD. are used to represent an equivalent mechanical system.26] meq = 8ρbL2  tanh πh  π L   8ρbLg π h 2 . corresponding to the fundamental sloshing mode. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 Fig. 3. Γ1 . 4. (a) Linear structure-TMD system and (b) equivalent SDOF system with effective damping. damping.1. As h/L is increased. Substituting xr into Eq. 3. For h/L values less than 1/3 the free surface response is less than the value of xr .

8 shows the experimental set-up used in this testing program. Eqs. the normalized damping ratio is found to decrease as h/L is increased. 4. q.1. 6(b). Normalized linearized (a) equivalent damping ratio and (b) generalized damping ratio corresponding to sinusoidal excitation. The same behaviour is observed in Figs. s   16ρbL 32 πh 3 ceq = Cl tanh ∆Ξ ωσr (50) 3 3 π s ζeq = Cl 32 π3 π 2 tanh L  πh L  ∆Ξ σr L .2. 6 and 7 show the normalized generalized and equivalent damping ratio values corresponding to sinusoidal and random excitation. Therefore. Fig.J. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 2649 Fig. xr /L. 6. (50) and (51) are expressions for the amplitude-dependent equivalent damping coefficient and damping ratio. (a) Normalized meq (solid) and keq (dashed) for the fundamental sloshing mode and (b) modal participation factor Γ for the fundamental sloshing mode. respectively. (47) allows direct application of TLD design tools. for a given target response amplitude and corresponding relative response motion. (51) For the case of sinusoidal excitation Eqs. 3. (53) 3π L L Figs. Equivalent TLD damping The amplitude-dependent equivalent damping coefficient and equivalent damping ratio are determined for random or sinusoidal excitation for a given value of σr or xr .M. the required screen properties and placement can be estimated in order to achieve the optimal TLD damping ratio. for random excitation. respectively. (52) and (53) can be used to determine the amplitude-dependent equivalent damping coefficient and damping ratio. 5. Experimental set-up Experimental tests were performed to validate the proposed model. Fig. This trend is more pronounced when plotted as a function of the free surface response amplitude.   256ρbL πh 3 ceq = Cl tanh ∆Ξ ωxr (52) 3π 5 L   16 πh xr ζeq = Cl 2 tanh2 ∆Ξ . The 1:10 scaled model structure had a mass Ms = . respectively.2. 6(a). As shown in Fig. Model verification 4. for a given relative response amplitude. as seen in Fig. 7(a) and 7(b) for the normalized damping ratio corresponding to the free surface RMS relative motion resulting from random excitation. The equivalent system described by Eq.

stiffness Ks = 49 656 N/m and coefficient of damping Cs = 14 N s/m. However. Using the closed form solution for a structure-TMD .966 m and width b = 0.8 N and 47. The solution was found to converge rapidly. The response accelerations of the structure-TLD system to these particular excitation amplitudes were found to be representative of expected wind-induced serviceability response accelerations. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 2650 Fig. (6) and (44) with n = 1. In general. 4. In addition. and forcing frequency ratio β β= f fs (54) where f is the forcing frequency and fs is the natural frequency of the structure. Structure-TLD system response — random excitation The structure-TLD system was subjected to band-limit whitenoise excitation. A rectangular tank with length L = 0. (52) for two excitation amplitudes. Eqs. To properly tune the TLD to the structure. the free surface response data was digitally filtered to remove the presence of higher harmonics in order to directly compare the measured fundamental sloshing motion to predicted values. Fig.874 m constructed of 0. the tank was partially filled with water to a depth of h = 0. having a loss coefficient. RMS excitation amplitudes. as its solution contains the amplitude-dependent equivalent damping coefficient given by Eq. The structure-TLD system was tested under both sinusoidal and random excitation to investigate its response behaviour under different types of excitation. (47) for a given excitation amplitude Fo . Fig.9 N. 8. respectively.019 m thick acrylic was used. The excitation force F (t) was applied to the structure through a driving spring attached to a hydraulic actuator. The largest deviation between the predicted and measured results is found to occur at the lower frequency ratio peak. The free surface amplitude. Figs.6 N. respectively. 7. resulted in peak average hourly acceleration values representative of target serviceability response acceleration values. Normalized linearized (a) equivalent damping ratio and (b) generalized damping ratio corresponding to random excitation. respectively. The maximum predicted free surface response amplitude values were found to be within 5% of the measured values corresponding to the fundamental sloshing mode. can be determined at any location inside the tank for the fundamental sloshing mode using the calculated value of xr .2. which is strongly dependent on the dynamic response of the fluid sloshing motion. 10(a) and 10(b) compare the predicted and measured normalized free surface response motion as a function of the forcing frequency ratio. 9(a) and (b) show the normalized structural response amplitude for a range of frequency ratio values for Fo = 11.3. The model was found to underestimate the maximum free surface response amplitude by 36% and 44%. An iterative procedure was employed to determine the value of xr . the model is unable to account for the free surface motions associated with higher sloshing harmonics and as a result underestimates the maximum free surface response amplitude.16. Cl = 2.M.7 N and Fo = 22. The TLD was equipped with two damping screens located at 0. Structure-TLD system response — sinusoidal excitation The magnitude of xr . respectively. A more detailed discussion of this experimental test apparatus can be found elsewhere [23]. σF . of 23. Measured response parameters included structural acceleration. (52). structural displacement and the free surface response motion of the TLD. can be calculated using for Eq.J. Figs.119 m. 4. good agreement is found between the predicted and measured response displacement amplitudes over the range of frequency ratio values tested. Structure-TLD experimental test set-up.6L. η. The maximum predicted structural response amplitude was found to be within 4% of the measured value for the test results shown. 4040 kg. with an error between consecutive solutions less than 1−10 set as the required convergence limit.4L and 0. 9 and 10 compare experimentally measured results to predicted values obtained using the effective damping coefficient given by Eq.

system [27] and Eq.4. 12(a) and (b) compare the predicted and measured frequency response functions. Structure-TLD effective damping and relative motion — random excitation Ω = Utilizing linear TMD theory.M. |H(f )| and TLD free surface |Hη (f )| were determined using the equivalent damping ratio corresponding to the calculated σr value and the equations developed for a structure-TMD system [27]. for a given mass ratio. 9. Fig. 4 + 6µ + 2µ2 (56) Using Eq. respectively.7 N and (b) Fo = 22. 11(a) and (b) compare the predicted and measured frequency response of the structure for two different excitation amplitudes. Comparison of measured and predicted frequency response of normalized structural displacement for sinusoidal excitation of (a) Fo = 11. Subsequently. 10. the mass ratio can be expressed as µ= meq Ms0 (57) the tuning ratio as ωa ω0s (58) and absorber damping ratio as ζa = ζeq + ζw . optimal absorber parameters exist [3]. Fig.J. primary structure subjected to random white-noise excitation the optimal tuning ratio is expressed as [3] q 1 + µ2 opt Ω = (55) 1+µ 4. For the special case of an undamped and the optimal absorber damping ratio as v u 2 u µ + 3µ4 t opt ζa = . |Hη (f )| of the free surface. the frequency response functions for the structure. (59) . µ. Comparison of measured and predicted frequency response of normalized free surface amplitude for sinusoidal excitation of (a) Fo = 11.9 N. (47) to model a structure-TLD system.7 N and (b) Fo = 22. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 2651 Fig.9 N. The model is able to predict both the structural response displacement and the free surface response displacement over a range of excitation amplitudes. Figs. 11 and 12 compare the predicted and measured frequency response functions for the structure and TLD free surface. Predicted values of σs were found to be in excellent agreement with the measured values for a broad range of excitation amplitudes. (50) the value of σr was determined for a given σF value using the iterative procedure and convergence conditions described in the previous section. Fig.

Fig. 12.M. 3(a).6 N. TMD or TLD. The performance of a vibration absorber.8 N and (b) σF = 47. For the case of white-noise excitation. Fig. 11. that when added to the existing structural damping.6 N.J. is commonly measured by the amount of effective damping. Effective damping is defined here as the amount of additional damping.8 N and (b) σF = 47. the effective damping is expressed as [28] ζeff = πfs 4 Z 0 ∞ . will result in an equivalent response of this primary system to the actual response of the structure-TMD system shown in Fig. 3(b) shows an equivalent single-degreeof-freedom primary structure with effective damping. 3(a) shows a linear structureTMD system and Fig. shown in Fig. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 2652 Fig. ζeff that it adds to the primary structure. Comparison of measured and predicted frequency response function of free surface amplitude for random excitation of (a) σF = 23. 3(b). Comparison of measured and predicted frequency response function of structural displacement for random excitation of (a) σF = 23.

.

.

.

.

H(f )2 .

(47) and the primary structure to the motion of the structure. respectively over a range of normalized RMS structural response amplitudes. R is defined as R= σr . the corresponding relative motion ratio for an optimally designed absorber is found to be Ropt = q 1+µ 2µ + 3µ 2 2 . 13(a) and (b) compare measured and predicted values of effective damping and relative TLD motion. the relative motion ratio between the TLD free surface and the primary structure is found to be Rη = Γ R = ση . (44) into Eq. σs (62) For the case of random excitation. σs (64) Fig. If optimal tuning ratio and absorber damping ratio parameters are assumed for the absorber. (61) 4 1 + 34µ The ratio of the relative motion between the absorber. (63) Substituting Eq. respectively. df −1 − ζs (60) where fs and |H(f )| are the natural frequency and frequency response function of the structure. which is represented by the equivalent linear mechanical model expressed by Eq. The value of σs-target is taken as the structural response amplitude which . (62). the resulting effective damping value can be calculated as v u 1u µ + µ2 opt ζeff = t .

(61) that is required to reach a target structural response amplitude. Ω opt and ζaopt can be estimated for the selected mass ratio using Eqs. The measured response was digitally filtered in order to compare the free surface response associated with the fundamental sloshing mode. relative response of the equivalent linear mechanical model. Additionally. does not take into account the nonlinear behaviour of the TLD. ζeq . First. Setting Eq. Conclusions 5. TLD base shear forces and damping screen forces. Predicted structural response amplitudes and TLD free surface response amplitudes corresponding to the .M. has also been investigated. (60) and the relative TLD free surface motion ratio was calculated by substituting measured values of ση and σs into Eq. 13. as the design procedure employs an equivalent linear model. covering the range of typical serviceability limit response accelerations. deviation between the predicted and measured response values was found to increase with increased fluid response amplitude. Furthermore. σr . The measured effective damping was calculated by substituting |H(f )|. has been presented by Tait and Isyumov [29] and the sensitivity of TLD performance to changes in various design parameters. The number of screens. A more detailed structure-TLD design should be completed through nonlinear numerical modelling and model scale experimental testing. the required equivalent damping. It is evident from Fig. The equivalent linearized damping ratio was found to depend on the response amplitude of the TLD. σs . into Eq. µ. The adaptability range of various TLD design parameters. is selected in order to achieve a specified level of effective damping. 14 shows a TLD design procedure summary for a structureTLD system subjected to random white-noise excitation. can be estimated from ση . (64). Fig. the mass ratio. Using Eqs. ση can be estimated using Eq. screen location and screen loss coefficient for a TLD can be rapidly completed using the proposed equivalent linear model presented in this paper. the water depth. tank length. The measured average peak hourly accelerations for the tests shown in Fig. As expected.J. 13(a) and (b) ranged between 5 mg and 35 mg. Optimal absorber parameters. 6. and (b) relative TLD free surface motion ratio. determined from experimental testing. Comparison of measured and predicted (a) effective damping. Fig. It is important to highlight that the rapid design procedure described above is limited to preliminary TLD sizing and damping screen selection. for the specified target structural response amplitude. and as such. Expressions for an equivalent linearized damping ratio to model the energy dissipated by the damping screens were developed for both sinusoidal and random excitation. 13(a) indicates that the proposed model can accurately predict the effective damping provided by the TLD to the structure over a large range of structural response amplitudes. 13(b). (63) and (62) the This paper presents an equivalent linear mechanical mathematical model of a TLD equipped with multiple damping screens. σs . Experimental studies have been carried out to validate the theoretical model and investigate the effectiveness of a TLD equipped with damping screens over a range of excitation amplitudes for both sinusoidal and random excitation. Rη . given by Eq. which develop from the fluid sloshing motion. The equations of motion for a structure-TLD system were expressed in the same form as that of a structure-TMD system by means of an equivalent displacement variable. obtained by placing damping screens in the TLD. including µ and h/L. (51) based on the calculated value of σr corresponding to an optimally designed system. (58) and (28) in order to properly tune the TLD to the structure. However. results in the highest level of effective damping for this particular structure-TLD system. the equivalent linear model underestimates the free surface response motion ratio as seen in Fig. their location inside the tank and the screen loss coefficient can be selected using Eq. (55) and (56). 13(b) that the linear model can accurately predict the TLD free surface response motion ratio corresponding to the fundamental sloshing mode. including Ω and ζa . The following design procedure demonstrates how the proposed model can be employed to estimate preliminary TLD parameters. (59) equal to the calculated value of ζaopt . the largest difference between predicted and measured free surface response motion ratio was found to be approximately 13%. can be calculated. Preliminary design procedure Initial tank sizing. (64) to ensure that sufficient freeboard is available. can be calculated. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 2653 Fig. It should be noted that floor space restrictions often limit the tank length. over the range of tests considered. Due to the nonlinear free surface response behaviour of the TLD. damping screen location and damping screen loss coefficient. Using the computed value of Ω opt the parameter h/L is selected using Eqs. permitting direct application of TMD design theory to the preliminary design of a TLD for a specified target structural response amplitude. ζeff . determination of required water depth. respectively.

[4] Lamb H. Ohtsuki T. However. Engineering Structures 1995. Kohsaka R. New York (NY.17: 609–21.J. fundamental sloshing mode were found to be in good agreement with experimentally measured values. Hydrodynamics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1982. This method permits initial TLD sizing and damping screen selection. and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). USA): McGraw-Hill Book Company. Wakahara T. 1932. Mechanical vibrations. the linear model was unable to simulate the nonlinear response behaviour of the TLD and as a result was unable to predict the maximum free surface response amplitude. The author would also like to acknowledge the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory at the University of Western Ontario. 14. . Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 Fig. TLD design procedure summary for a structure-TLD system subjected to random white-noise excitation.10: 381–01. [2] Den Hartog JP. Acknowledgements This research was supported by McMaster University’s Centre for Effective Design of Structures. The simple design procedure allows a designer to apply well-known TLD design theory to a TLD equipped with damping screens. Fujii K. References [1] Tamura Y. Effectiveness of tuned liquid damper under wind excitation. [3] Warburton GB. London (England): Cambridge University Press.2654 M. 1956. funded trhough the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund (ORCDF). Optimum absorber parameters for various combinations of response and excitation parameters. A rapid preliminary design procedure was outlined for a specified target structural response amplitude corresponding to wind-induced serviceability level accelerations.

[7] Warnitchai P. Li A. Optimal cantilever dynamic vibration absorbers. Isyumov N. Peterson EG. Vandiver JK.28:608–16. Ishikawa M. Siddique MR.13:138–41. Journal of Structural Engineering 2000. An Investigation of the behaviour in wind of the proposed centrepoint tower.103:1785–98.157:251–62. Tait / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2644–2655 [5] Noji T. The efficiency and robustness of a unidirectional tuned liquid damper and modelling with an equivalent TMD. Caughey TK. Mitome S. Tatsumi E. Cheng W. In: Proceedings of the second world conference on structural control.1:25–32. Vickery BJ. Equivalent linearization techniques. Rodriguez AM. The characteristics of fuel motion which affect airplane dynamics. Unified dynamic absorber design formulas for wind-induced [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] 2655 vibration control of tall buildings. Modelling of liquid sloshing in rectangular tanks with flow-dampening devices. Kim SD. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2001. Journal of Engineering for Industry 1977. London (Ontario. [11] Morison JR.D. Numerical flow models to simulate tuned liquid dampers (TLD) with slat screens.J. Graham EW. [10] Yu YK. El Damatty AA. Kareem A. Performance of a tuned sloshing water damper. Journal of the Structural Division 1977. Jacquot RG. 2001. p. Applied Ocean Research 1979. In: Twelfth international conference on wind engineering. Kosaka H. Isyumov N. Miles JW.20:593–600.M. Engineering Structures 1998. The behaviour of simple non-linear tuned mass dampers. Effect of liquid storage tanks on the dynamic response of offshore platforms. Schaaf SA. In: Proceedings of the sixth world congress of the council on tall buildings and urban habitat. O’Brien MP. [9] Tait MJ.189:149–54. Foster JE.19:476–86.7:215–34. Yoon SW.20:1007–23. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 1967. Tuned mass dampers for building.19:381–8. Vickery BJ. Journal of Fluids and Structures 2005. [17] Chang CC. [13] Tait MJ. Gerges R.35:1706–11. Pinkaew T. 2007.126:906–15. [6] Fediw AA. Yoshida H. Hydrodynamic damping due to baffles in a rectangular tank. Engineering Structures 1997.37:557–66. Canada): The University of Western Ontario. Vickery BJ. Johnson JW. Petroleum Transactions AIME 1950. Kwok KCS. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 1999. An investigation of flow through screens. Wind and Structures. 121–30. Study on vibration control damper utilizing sloshing of water. Baines WD. Isyumov N. Modeling of tuned liquid damper with submerged nets. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1963. An International Journal 2004. Isaacson M. Sydney (Australia): 1970. Experimental evaluation of a tuned liquid damper system. El Damatty AA. 2004. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1952. Hagiuda H. Galsworthy JK.7:235–50.56: 237–47. [14] Tait MJ. thesis. Isyumov N. An International Journal 2004. Optimum absorber parameters for tuned liquid column dampers. Research report BLWT-1-70. Tait MJ. [16] Yalla SK. The structural design of tall buildings 1998. Mcnamara RJ. Structures and Buildings 2004. Davenport AG. Isyumov N. Wind and Structures. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 1995. 1998. Testing of tuned liquid damper with screens and development of equivalent TMD model. Tait M. . Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 1988.73:467–79. The force exerted by surface waves on piles. [15] Gao H. Effectiveness of tuned liquid dampers in reducing windinduced structural response. Qu WL. Parametric study of TLDs with baffles.297:459–75.7:147–66.121:334–43. Transactions of the ASME 1951. Premasiri S. El Damatty AA. [12] Cai D. Optimization of tuned liquid column dampers. Ph. Surface wave damping in closed basins. The performance of 1-D and 2-D tuned liquid dampers. [8] Kaneko S.