3 views

Uploaded by ferasalkam

Olney Metwally Report Copy

save

You are on page 1of 23

for Experimental Structural Dynamics SS2011

**Mohammed Metwally (101102)
**

Peter Olney (100783)

Supervisor: Dr.-Ing. Volkmar Zabel

July 12, 2011

Contents

1 Introduction

2

2 Numerical Modeling

2.1 Simplified Hand Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2 SLANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3 SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

3

3

4

3 Experimental Test 1

3.1 MACEC Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

4

4 Preliminary TLD Design

4

5 Experimental Test 2

6

6 TLD re-Design

6.1 Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

7

7 Experimental Test 3

8

7.1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7.2 Modal Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

8 Numerical Model Calibration

15

8.1 Modeling of TLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

9 Conclusions

17

A Test 3 with Excitation Frequency of 3.23 Hz

20

List of Figures

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Test Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Simplified Lumped Mass Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Test 1 Sensor Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Description of a TLD ( from [5] ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TLD frequency plotted over b = 2a [m] and h [m] . . . . . . . . . .

Test 2 Sensor Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Test 2 - Channel 1 Accelerations [g] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Test 2 - Channel 1 Accelerations Zoom [g] . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TLD Dimensions ( for use with [6] ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TLD Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dynamic Amplification Function for Equivalent System . . . . . . .

Test 3 Sensor Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calibrated Dynamic Amplification Function . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calibrated Dyn. Amp. Function Zoomed to 20.29 rad/sec (3.23 Hz)

Structure Excited at 2.9 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structure Excited at 2.9 Hz with TLD C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structure Excited at 2.9 Hz with TLD C Zoom . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent TMD Modeling Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SAP Acceleration Response at the Top Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SAP Response Spectrum (FRF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

10

11

11

12

13

13

15

15

16

17

18

18

. . . It was also developed to give us a better idea of what to expect from the experimental results and which mode shapes and frequencies to look for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAC between SLANG and SAP . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 9 12 14 14 14 14 16 Introduction Our task for Experimental Structural Dynamics consisted of the design and implementation of a Tuned Liquid Damper (TLD) for a laboratory structural model. . . . . . . The structural model under consideration was a 5 story steel moment frame building as depicted in Figure 1. . . . The purpose of this modeling was to serve as a baseline of comparison for our experimental tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . TLD Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . MAC between MACEC and SAP . . . . . Figure 1: Test Structure 2 Numerical Modeling The task began with numerical modeling of the structure shown in Figure 1. . . . . Modified Parameters for Model Calibration . . . . . Observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Predicted vs.List of Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TLD Effectiveness . . . . MAC between MACEC and Simplified Calculations MAC between MACEC and SLANG . . . . Frequencies of the Structure [Hz] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 2 shows this simple model along with the first two normalized mode shapes. ([K] − ωk2 [M ]){ϕk } = {0} (1) det([K] − ωk2 [M ]) = 0 (2) 1 m5 m4 m3 -1 m2 m1 simplified model 1st mode normalized 2nd mode normalized Figure 2: Simplified Lumped Mass Model 2. We will begin with a discussion of our SLANG analysis followed by SAP2000 in the next section. Table 1: Material Properties Steel Mass Density Elastic Modulus 1 Poisson’s Ratio 3 7850 kg/m3 210 GPa 0.1 Simplified Hand Calculations We began our numerical modeling by simplifying the structure into a lumped mass system with 5 DOFs. SLANG and SAP2000. we wrote a set of code that does a simplified dynamic analysis based upon the FEM to obtain the stiffness matrix of the structure. After assembling the active global stiffness matrix and forming the lumped mass matrix.2. Using Matlab. we began a simultaneous rigorous analysis with two commercial software packages. The material properties used for the analysis are summarized in Table 1.2 . and the corresponding mode shapes. The simplified calculations served as the baseline whereas the commercial package models were intended to produce results closer to reality. ωk .2 SLANG After completing the simplified calculations as described above. the eigenvalue problem given by equation (1) was solved by means of the non-trivial solution given by (2) to obtain the circular frequencies. {ϕk }.

Our goal was to design the damper for the first mode of the structure as found from the MACEC analysis. The discretization used was five nodes per section. a frequency of 3. 2. height of 5 mm and ‘e h’ eccentricity of 5 mm.23 Hz or circular frequency of 20. We also checked the animated mode shapes as produced by MACEC and concluded that they were also comparable to the numerical ones. five nodes were used along each edge (0. each piece of the structure was modeled in SAP2000 using beam elements.3 SAP2000 The strategy for the SAP2000 modeling was similar to that of the SLANG analysis as described above. 4 . we excited the structure two times for each setup. additional nodes were placed at each floor instead of using a special element type as was done in SLANG. These were to be used to calibrate our numerical models and to design a TLD to the proper frequency. For the floors. The diagonal braces also had five nodes. The results of this analysis are summarized with the others in Table 2. In order to achieve the proper separation between the double floor plates around the perimeter. In order to achieve the proper separation between the double floor plates around the perimeter. the MACEC Matlab tool was used to anaylize our data and complete a modal analysis. The goal was to have detailed models with similar assumptions so that the results could be compared. This way two elements could be drawn around the perimeter.2 m). channels 1 and 2.Each piece of the structure was modeled in SLANG using beam elements. The first was a noise base excitation in the x direction and the second was with a hammer in the x direction at the top floor at the node next to the reference sensor. Table 2 contains the modes we were able to extract from our data using MACEC along with a comparison of those found by numerical analysis as described in section 2. To be able to extract the modes from the experimental data. This means that for the columns five nodes equated to one story (0.3 m). Except for the fifth mode. with a width of 60 mm. The sensor placement for this test is shown in Figure 3. two stringer elements were used per edge. 4 Preliminary TLD Design Our preliminary TLD design was based upon equations (3) and (4) along with Figure 4 from [5] for a given liquid. where ν is the viscosity. our extracted modes seemed reasonable and comparable to the ones obtained from the numerical models. 3. Similar to the SLANG modeling. shown in red. The floor braces were regular rectangular elements with a width of 60 mm and height of 5 mm. The columns were modeled as 2. 3 Experimental Test 1 The main goal of our first experiment was to obtain the modes and mode shapes of the structure.29 rad/sec.5 mm radius rod elements. with the reference sensors. liq.1 MACEC Analysis Following our first experiment.

15 14.69 19.97 rad/sec or a frequency of 3. It is clear from Figure 5 that to obtain the desired frequency.03 31.33 9.23 9.31 16.69 SLANG 3.81 SAP2000 3. b = 2a. b must be less than 8 cm.74 23. h.88 23.78 15.9 mPa·s). The TLD we decided to use was a plastic food container found at a local store with a height of 18 cm. and an effective damper mass equal to the mass of the volume of water. and a width of 7.18 Hz.5 cm. small enough to meet our desired frequency with a given water height.19 16. water at 25◦ C as our liquid (ν = 0.10 20.Figure 3: Test 1 Sensor Placement Table 2: Frequencies of the Structure [Hz] Modes Method 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th MACEC 3.55 20.81 ωliq = ξliq v u u πg t πh tanh 2a 2a 1 =√ 2h s ! ν h 1+ ωliq b (3) ! (4) Plotting equation (3) for a range of liquid heights. large enough to prevent water from splashing everywhere.49 10.25 20. Using this procedure. produces Figure 5. As can be seen in the plot. we calculated a required damper circular frequency ωd to be 19. and container widths. We decided to follow the TMD design procedure as given by Zabel [7] and adapt it with equations (3) and (4) for a TLD.14 23.53 10. Based on these calculations as 5 .12 Simplified Calculations 3. h has a limited influence on the obtainable frequency range since the limit of tanh is 1.

%./(-0(0--1)/&23*4(5(6##*7*4( ( 898(:(8. To test the TLD.#%5*?CBEBD*'%&*?CBFBD*=.#()* #9* 8<..*6#%8'.>$.#%*DM.!"#$%&'()*+$.%6)*#9*8<.&*8#*A.&* 8#* '* <#(.*5$(9'6.78.*&'@7.56(.++.91*NO2PE*J* our data with the missing DOFs to obtain more complete mode shapes in MACEC.*7(.* 5$(9'6.23 Hz.(*=#(&5J* TLD. The goal of Rour TLD was to reduceº the amplification of the structure º " Q ½ ªZ ! -4' R "Q ½ ° 0 1 .%5* described above.*.#%*#9*'*:. we loaded the Q shown Q in § Figure * Q ¸ K* ?@AB(CB.68'%/$+'(*6#%8'.&*A)*8<.*5'@.* frequency.&*.5*'55$@.5J* * 5 Experimental Test S3 S+· §2 K* Z 8'%< $2$0 !$ ?@AB(CB. where the solid blue curve represents the accelerations ! I* ' !%[ $2$0 Zwithout % Z $2$0 I* % U $2$0 !the $)+ accelerations 8<.* %'8$('+* ?.5*A(.* >D 7I =I 1 E *./$(.&*.*6#$7+.56#5.L7(.$*9.%.*9+$..#%* 9(. our container needed a water height of 5 cm to obtain the desired 6#%8.8D [ $2$0 ¨ structure with a sinusoidal base ) ¹at the natural frequency obtained from !+ Zexcitation $2$0 © MACEC.%8* 7D1E1* F8* .((#8'8.88.55.@.55.*.&* 8<'8* 8<. 3.(*.6<* be seen) *.&8<*#9*8<.(* +) !$ 74 -.%/8<*.78<*+1*:<.A('8.<( = 7 K + "#$%&'()*+').(*'*(.*.* 9(.%.%$#$5*D%#*='?.*&.#%'+1*:<.&*#9*?.&-.*=')*'5*.*=(.5* 5$AB.8<*'*+.5*9(.C#%8'+* &.(*#9*+.4* * * Q *'%&*#9* .8)* Figure 4: Description of a TLD ( from [5] ) '?.*'%&*. The results from using the container as described in section 4 can .*=.%*.%*#8<.(I* 8<.* 012E1* H66#(&.L'68+)* in Figures 7 and 8..@'.%*=<.'(* 8<.&.(*8<.68.#%5*#9*8<. These plots show that our TLD was ineffective at reducing the amplitudes of acceleration.%/*9'68#(*@')*A.* A#$%&'()* +').5*8<.%/* 8#* 8<.>$.57+'6. D9.&*5)58.%/E*'%&*8<'8*8<.9D ¨ ¸ © !$ ¹ Our main tasks for the second experimental test were to test the TLD and complete :<.%*.*'77(#'6<.8*$5*6#%5.*8'%G1*:<.'G.('/.55$(.*012*3*4./$(.A+. The sensor layout for this is + · 6.@*'(.* +.5*6#%58'%8*#?.>$'8.>$'8.8<* $2$0 I* G with the TLD and the dotted black curve represents the .&*=.*9+$.%6#@7(.* (.5* '55$@.

we decided to@'55* focus&'@7.5* 5<.(.%/*9(.%* ! r @#&.)* =.6#%&'()*#56.68.'(* 1 ν 2h ζw = 1+ + SC (6) 2h 2ω b 8ρbL2 πh meq = tanh 3 π L H(IJ1/$(K(.+&*#9*$5.* 8#=.&*&'@7.#%5*D01!RE* solving the problem of our ineffective TLD rather than completing our MACEC '%&*D01!QE*5.&5*8#*A.#%* 5<#=5* '%'+#/)*never 8<'8* 6'%* .&* 9#(* 8<.%5.*6#@7+.&/.* DT'7'%EI* .* A(.*8$%. :)7.&* '%&* '*on 8$%.&/.L.* FG$6<.(*8#*&'@7.I* %#* 9##8A(.&*7(#A+.5*'%'+#/)*#%+)*@'G.>$.*<#(.'+.L7(.&1* :<.&*8#*=#(G*.*01/$ Following the procedures of Tait [6].5* .%6)*='5*R1!OO*VC1** an additional mass for the structure to vibrate with as was shown in the previous section.%58'++.& 4'@75*5. but these results show that « » « » % ¾TLD just increased the « P ! P[ $2$0 Z $2$0 ¼ ¯ " ! ¿ ¬ R P »¼ ¯ "! ¿ ¬ R Z ! $2$0 ¼ ¯ " ! ¿ ° R ° ¬ ¿ ¯ amplification.?.++'8#(1** H5* #77#5.*8#*8<.A('8. we used equations (5).(#$5* <.8=.&* .*?'+.>$'8.58* A.*#9*8<.L.*9+$.5'&?'%8'/.+.5.*7)+#%51*:<.5* tanh (5) L L W.5* 4.#%5*#9*8<.%* '* 8$%.%/*9'68#(1*F%*(.(* our energy :<.&/.>$.>$.%*8<.@*.5*@#(.&. we decided to investigate our TLD design and consider redesigning it.*(.6* ! πh πg -.&*@'55*='5*U22R*G/*'%&* Since our TLD turned out to be more of a tuned liquid amplifier.C#%8'+*?. (6) and (7).(1*:<.56#S.* ω 2 = H&?'%8'/.D ªQ P P º "Q ½ ª![ -4' Z -4' ® ¾ ® ¾ ® ¾ ®our at its natural frequency.+'58.(I* 6#%5.(.L*&$.99L( 6 ! (7) .I* <#=.%8*7$+5'8.68*8#*8<.#%*'%&*&'@7.*8#8'+*9+$.8)*#9*8<..&.*5$AB.*9. !"#$%$&'()*+*.* <'5* <'&* 8$%.&*%'8$(.(5* TLD re-Design 9+$.?'+./$.*. ½° K*?@AB(CB.*5.*$5. or more generally 8<.5*5. Since the computers for performing the MACEC analysis were in high demand and 8<.-..8)I*8<.('+* X. 6#$7+..%* #(&.()*+.* seemingly available.(5I* 8#* #$(* G%#=+.#%*#9*8<.5#+$8.(* W.* mode shapes.&*'5*.&* +.?.&* 6 &'@7.&* 8#* %$@.*#9*&'@7./<S(.55..88+.

It is also clear to see that the more important factor.15 h 0. Along with these equations.8 6 4 2 0 0.15 b 0. after the tank length. L.25 0. and V was the volume of water in the damper. is slightly different from (4). we could determine the mass ratio. which is a surface contamination factor and can be considered as unity according to Tait [6].05. (6). The new equation for damping. In reality. b. 6. required to achieve the target structural response level. which is usually fixed by the desired frequency. It shows that increasing the liquid depth.05 0. which would satisfy ζef f . 981 kg/m3 . ζef f = 0. given in equation (9). The importance of the container width also becomes clear from equation (7). where ρ was density of water. The calculations for our new TLD design are summarized in the following section.3 0 0. and includes an additional term.2 0.1 0.3 Figure 5: TLD frequency plotted over b = 2a [m] and h [m] These equations are similar to the ones we used before (see section 4) with slightly different variable definitions. is the width.04. Ωopt . From equation (8). SC. opt ζef f v u 1 u µ + µ2 = t 4 1 + 3µ 4 7 (8) . This was not a factor in any of our equations before and it helps to explain why our first TLD showed poor results. Equation (5) is identical to (3). Tait [6] also includes a TLD design procedure which draws on similarities to TMD design. h. Having determined µ to be 0.25 0. Before. only a portion of the total liquid mass acts in the system [4]. of the container. (7). we were able to Ms0 calculate the optimal tuning ratio. which we used before to calculate the frequency of the first sloshing mode.05 0. The new equation. we took the mass of the damper to be ρV .1 Calculations We began with an effective damping. describes the effective mass of the liquid damper.2 0. has only a limited increase on the effective mass when 0 < h < L and nearly no increase when h > L.1 0. eq µ= m . which are shown in Figure 9.

it quickly became evident that our design was insufficient.9711. Using this in Ω = ωωa0 . L = 7. we were able to come up with four reasonable configurations. Using this along with our fixed container length from before.71 rad/sec. We realized that our container had a tight lid with a good seal so we could rotate it and let the former height become the width. We also realized that by increasing the water depth we could benefit from lower effective damping. Since our initial TLD test was such a huge failure and to confirm our conclusions about proper TLD design. we decided to test all four configurations in the next test. it is clear to see that TLD C should produce the best results. Based upon iterating through our available containers. since we purchased the ones with the smallest length with reasonable height. we obtained s a desired TLD sloshing frequency of 19.2 cm from equation (5). we calculated meq to be 0.Figure 6: Test 2 Sensor Placement q Ω opt 1+ = µ 2 (9) 1+µ We found the optimal tuning ratio to be 0. we determined the required water height to be. Finally.5 cm. This would allow us to achieve a much greater effective mass. We needed more effective mass and lower effective damping. 7 Experimental Test 3 The main task of test 3 was to check our new TLD calculations to see if we could obtain damping of the structure when it is excited at its first natural frequency. Comparing this with the optimal mass ratio and required effective damping. b. h = 4. These configurations are shown in Figure 10 with the relevant design parameters in Table 3. Figure 11 was obtained by plotting the dynamic amplification function as described in Zabel [7] for a system with and without dampers with these configurations. while not changing the frequency of the first sloshing mode by much. To 8 . using equation (7) and our container vertically. L was fixed by the containers that we had available.146 kg. From this plot.

5 7.445 0.Channel 1 Accelerations [g] Table 3: TLD Design Parameters TLD L [cm] h [cm] b [cm] ω A B C D 7. The summary of what we found in both parts of our third test follows.5 4 4 6 4 11 18 18 27 h rad sec i 19.795 0.5 7.23 Hz.5 8.146 0.08 ζw [%] meq [kg] ρV [kg] 16.253 0.530 0. Plots of these results can be found in appendix A.5 14.7 10.1 Results If we calibrate the dynamic amplification function for the structure without a damper from Figure 11 using the amplification of acceleration from the base to the 9 . even though it was designed towards damping a frequency of 3.324 0.57 20. with the frequency of 3. During the test.239 0.23 Hz. therefore at the natural frequency of the structure. We changed the frequency until we arrived at the highest amplification of accelerations. under the assumption that we had performed our MACEC analysis incorrectly and that the first natural frequency was actually a bit lower than 3. 7.9 Hz. We then tested TLD C once more at this frequency.3 0.14 18. We then experimented with the excitation frequency.Figure 7: Test 2 . to see if we would obtain better results.3 14. we used a sinusoidal base excitation again.23 Hz and a sensor configuration shown in Figure 12.57 19. This frequency was approximately 2.901 do this. it could be seen from the real-time data that the TLDs were not decreasing the amplitudes of the acceleration by much.

This is confirmed by a zoom of the dynamic amplification function in Figure 14 and with the experimental results found in appendix A. we decided to see what reduction in amplitudes could be acheived by using our best damper from the previous tests.29 rad/sec). It is clear from this figure that our TLDs were not properly tuned for the structural frequency of 2. 3. Figure 15 shows amplification of the acceleration amplitudes when the structure is excited at this frequency. when the structure is excited at 2. if visible at all.Channel 1 Accelerations Zoom [g] top of the structure when excited at its natural frequency (2.9 Hz and that when the system is excited at a higher frequency. then the effect of the dampers would be very limited.23 Hz (20. TLD C.9 Hz. we determine that structural damping must be 4% instead of 1.Figure 8: Test 2 .85% as obtained from MACEC and we obtain the dynamic amplification functions shown in Figure 13.9 Hz). where the blue line is a sensor at the di r ex ci n of ect i o n tatio h b L Figure 9: TLD Dimensions ( for use with [6] ) 10 . As a final test.

The subscript r represents the mode under investigation and ψ ∗ is the complex 11 .9 Hz with an amplitude of 0.1 m/s2 at the base caused erratic sloshing. we decided to check our extracted mode shapes from MACEC with the Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC). A summary of predicted and achieved results for all four TLDs can be found in Table 4.2 Modal Validation Since it became clear that our natural frequency was not extracted properly from the test 1 experimental data.Figure 10: TLD Configurations 30 without TLD TLD A TLD B TLD C TLD D 25 amplification 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 omega 20 25 30 Figure 11: Dynamic Amplification Function for Equivalent System top of the structure and the black line is a sensor at the base. where {ψ} represents the modal vectors to be compared. The result of adding TLD C to the system can be seen in Figure 16. this was the best result that we were able to achieve. distinguished by the subscripts c and d. possibly beyond the assumptions behind the TLD equations. The tabulated effectiveness is the amplification with a specific TLD divided by the amplification without any TLD. Figure 17 is a zoom of this plot to show the effect of TLD C more clearly. where the plot is of acceleration at the top of the structure and black represents without a TLD while blue represents with TLD C. 7. Equation (10) is one way of writing the modal assurance criterion as found in [2]. Allemang [2] gives a brief overview of performing a MAC test for a pair of modal vectors. Even though the frequency of 2.

13 at 3.79 0.73 0.89 0.91 0.9 Hz A B C D 0.79 0.Predicted vs.9 Hz Observed TLD Fig.73 conjugate of ψ.50 0.Figure 12: Test 3 Sensor Placement Table 4: TLD Effectiveness .86 0.62 0.54 0.23 Hz Observed Predicted for 2.97 0.14 0. Observed Predicted for 3. 11 Fig. 13 at 2.81 0.95 0.99 1.23 Hz Fig.60 0.79 0. M ACcdr = .

2 .

.

∗ .

}.

.

“The function of the modal assurance criterion (MAC) is to provide a measure of consistency (degree of linearity) between estimates of a modal vector. These rough calculations show that our first mode from MACEC was a bit off.{ψcr }T {ψdr ∗ }{ψ }T {ψ ∗ } {ψcr }T {ψcr dr dr (10) We wrote a Matlab function from this equation to perform the check. Since this is a comparison of only 4 DOFs.” The range of MAC is from 0 to 1. and the results are a bit 12 . we did a preliminary comparison of the modal vectors from MACEC and our simplified Matlab calculations. These results are summarized in Table 5. where 1 represents consistent modal vectors and 0 inconsistent modal vectors.” [2] He goes on to write that this measure can be used as. and that in general our extracted modes weren’t very good. especially in the y direction. In our case. Allemang states. we compared our modal vectors from our numerical FEM modeling with the modal vectors from the MACEC analysis of the test 1 data. “a method of easily comparing estimates of modal vectors originating from different sources. Since relating DOFs between results from MACEC and a computer simulation is time consuming and because our mode shapes from MACEC are missing the 4th floor DOFs.

the MAC was computed comparing SAP and SLANG for 120 DOFs. there is no real reason why the first mode is in one direction and the second in the other.3 4. we decided to adapt our code to compare MACEC and SLANG with all 17 experimental DOFs. the MAC test was repeated comparing the first from SAP with the second from SLANG and vice versa. These results.9 3. shown in Table 8.1 4 3.7 3.4 4. Finally. On this basis.6 Figure 14: Calibrated Dyn. Function Zoomed to 20. 13 . Amp.5 19. where the last two columns represent MAC between comparable modes denoted by (ψM ACEC .14 without TLD TLD A TLD B TLD C TLD D 12 amplification 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 omega 20 25 30 Figure 13: Calibrated Dynamic Amplification Function without TLD TLD A TLD B TLD C TLD D 4.6 19.4 20. therefore. The same procedure was repeated for the modes obtained from SAP with the results give in Table 7.2 amplification 4.29 rad/sec (3. The structure is symmetric.6 3.8 20 20.23 Hz) better than expected for the x direction. The first and second mode shapes from SAP and SLANG should be identical and produce a result near to 1.8 3.2 omega 20. This is shown in the second set of row data in Table 8 and gives a result very near to 1. The values obtained initially of 0 show that these first two modes shapes are perpendicular.ψSLAN G ). These results can be found in Table 6. prove that the MAC test is prone to errors from different signs.

0097 0.0300 0.1) (1.0421 0.5) 0.9754 0.0143 0.6675 (1.0122 0.9914 0. sensors x y x y left left right right 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 0.9671 0.0421 0.1) (2.0406 0.0219 0.0336 0.8024 0.0143 0.9795 0.8620 0.0864 0.0297 0.0016 0.8273 0.0097 0.6667 (1.5935 y 0.3413 0.9867 0.1) (2.9858 0.ψSLAN G ) 4th 5th both 0.9849 0.8581 0.0187 0.9993 0.0249 0.3) (5.Table 5: MAC between MACEC and Simplified Calculations Mode Shapes dir.0020 0.3635 Table 7: MAC between MACEC and SAP Mode Shapes dir.4) 0.4) 0.7886 0.2) (3.1407 x 0.1148 0.0572 0.ψSAP ) 4th 5th both 0.5627 0.8620 0.5632 0.4) (4.9714 0.3209 0.2192 0.9877 0.0361 0.0020 0.8581 0.1157 0.3209 0.0407 0.5955 x 0.9671 14 .0282 0.3544 Table 8: MAC between SLANG and SAP Mode Shapes initial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 0 0 0.9817 0.9484 0.6925 0.4556 0.ψSAP ) switched (2.9817 0.9993 0.0298 MAC(ψSLAN G . 1st 2nd 3rd MAC(ψM ACEC . 1st 2nd 3rd MAC(ψM ACEC .9808 0.3840 0.1058 Table 6: MAC between MACEC and SLANG Mode Shapes dir.1386 0.5980 y 0.9754 0.0016 0.0706 0.

7 0. 5 Ch.8 0.2 0.15 0 0.8 0.1 Ch.5 t [sec] 0.05 −0.1 −0.9 1 Figure 16: Structure Excited at 2.3 0.1 0. we were able to keep the changes in reasonable limits and still obtain the observed natural frequency.6 0. 1 0. Reducing the stiffness by decreasing the modulus of elasticity by 15% This is a compromise between changing only one parameter.05 acceleration [g] 0 −0.05 −0. the model was calibrated by: 1.7 0.1 −0. Increasing the mass by 22% can be justified mostly by considering the mass of the sensors.15 0 0. In order to obtain the same first eigen frequency as the experimentally observed value (2.9 Hz).1 noDamp Damp 0.4 0.9 Hz with TLD C 8 Numerical Model Calibration For calibration of the numerical models.6 0.9 Hz Measurment 10 vs 12 0.1 0.2 0.Measurment 10 0. Only increasing the mass or only decreasing the stiffness would result in percentage changes that could not be justified. we decided to only update the SAP model.3 0. Increasing the mass by 22% 2.4 0.05 acceleration [g] 0 −0.9 1 Figure 15: Structure Excited at 2. By changing both parameters.5 t [sec] 0. Our 15 .

TLD C could be modeled. with the main ones being meq and ζw . members remain perpendicular. Decreasing the stiffness by 15% also can be justified because originally the system was modeled as a completely rigid moment frame.09 0.Measurment 10 vs 12 0.1 Steel without calibration with calibration unit weight [N/m3 ] Elastic Modulus [GPa] 76973 200 93907 170 Modeling of TLD The tuned liquid damper (TLD) can be modeled in SAP by considering an equivalent tuned mass damper (TMD).05 0. The additional parameter necessary for modeling the equivalent TMD is the equivalent stiffness.46 0.06 0. 16 . rotations are nonzero. “A TMD can be modeled in SAP2000 using a combination of friction isolator link and a viscous damper link in series” [3].38 0. The original and updated values of the mass and the elastic modulus can be found in Table 9.1 noDamp Damp 0. The moment frame assumption is that rotations at the joints are zero.4 0.42 0.44 t [sec] 0. While it is hard to quantify this lower stiffness. i.08 acceleration [g] 0.e. Based upon this and using the calculated TLD parameters. Figure 18 shows a schematic of this modeling. Most of the used parameters for modeling TLD C are already summarized in Table 3.03 0. an equivalent TMD model can be used. Following the example models given on the CSI webpage [3] and considering the different characteristics of the links related to the effective TMD parameters.9 Hz with TLD C Zoom estimation is that they would account for most of this 22%. CSI Berkeley confirms that. Tait [6] establishes equivalences between TLD and TMD parameters.04 0.48 0.5 Figure 17: Structure Excited at 2. In reality. Table 9: Modified Parameters for Model Calibration 8.07 0. It is well know that less rigidity exists in steel moment connection systems than in idealized models [1]. we accept this percentage decrease because it achieves the calibration while keeping the mass increase reasonable.02 0.

Our initial calculations proved that the length of the container in the direction of desired damping. Since the container length in the direction of desired damping.1 m/s2 . The calculated keq for use in modeling TLD C was 102. ωd . 17 . becomes the crucial parameter for obtaining enough effective mass. L. Figure 19 shows the results to this excitation with and without the TLD.keq .9 Hz and amplitude 0. with and without TLD. Fortunately in our case.6 N/m. this is comparable 1 to our dynamic amplification functions plotted in earlier sections. the same as the final experimental test. which is a response spectrum using a damping of 4% for both models. considering base excitation dynamic action. we were also able to generate Figure 20. It was also seen that the effective damping of a liquid is largely influenced by it viscosity and its depth. Our failed initial TLD design proved that this wasn’t the only crucial parameter. b. With SAP. L. is usually set by the required frequency of the damper. Since a response spectrum is the plot of a frequency response function. which is also given by Tait as equation (11). ωd . 9 Conclusions The first conclusion that can be drawn from this project is that certain parameters are essential in proper tuned liquid damper design. sets a major parameter in the TLD design. The base excitation used was a sin function of frequency 2. Effective mass was discovered to be just as important as described by Meskouris [4] and Tait [6]. the perpendicular dimension. Friction Isolator Link Damper Link Tuned Mass Figure 18: Equivalent TMD Modeling Schematic 8ρbLg πh keq = tanh2 2 π L ! (11) Nonlinear time history analysis has been conducted on both of the calibrated models.

For this reason.5 5 Figure 20: SAP Response Spectrum (FRF) damping screens weren’t required to obtain additional damping in the liquid. we tried to increase the water depth so that we might decrease the damping of the TLD and bring it into a more desirable configuration.5 frequency [Hz] 3 3.5 without TLD with TLD 1 acceleration [m/s2] 0. On the contrary.5 1 1.5 2 2. We still question the MAC numbers obtained 18 .5 2 2. modal validation via the MAC test was studied.9 Hz.5 4 4. This error can be attributed to an improper extraction of modes from the experimental data and not realizing that these modes were wrong because of an eyeball check of mode shapes and misleading proximity to numerical frequencies.5 0 0. It could be seen for our MAC results that the mode shapes obtained from MACEC didn’t entirely match the numerical ones.5 −1 −1.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 time [t] 3 3. our TLDs in the third test designed to damp a frequency of 3. While our TLD in the second test showed bad results because of an improper design. The second major conclusion from this project is that proper TLD design is meaningless if the frequency which the system is being designed to damp is incorrectly identified.5 5 Figure 19: SAP Acceleration Response at the Top Floor 16000 without TLD with TLD 14000 psuedo spectral acceleration 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0.1.5 0 −0.23 Hz where nearly ineffective since the natural frequency of the structure was actually 2.

Examples. 2011. [7] Volkmar Zabel. [5] S´etra. With the complexity of relating DOFs between models. Universit¨at Weimar. [2] Randall J. especially when those modes factor into design.csiberkeley. 19 Bauhaus- . Engineering Structures. Tait. The modal assurance criterion . The last major conclusion from this project is that numerical calculations can achieve successful results. Tuned mass damper. https://wiki. 2006. 13th edition.J. Allemang. Winter Semester 2010/11. Sound and Vibration. Modelling and preliminary design of a structure-tld system. or somewhere in between.twenty years of use and abuse. It could be seen from the results that simple sign differences can have a drastically adverse effect on the MAC number. Inc. perpendicular. [4] Konstantin Meskouris. Ernst and Sohn. 2003. 2000. References [1] AISC. 30(10):2644–2655. the degree of accuracy of the results remain unclear when simple sign errors could exist. Comparable results could be seen in the prediction of amplification from simplified models and in the complex calibrated SAP systems. American Institute of Steel Contruction. [6] M.because the unidirectional results produced reasonable numbers. [3] CSI Berkeley. Steel Construction Manual. MAC has its own limitations and difficulties. Methods. October 2008. Structural Dynamics: Models. 2005. We can conclude that a check must be done of extracted modes from experimental data. MAC is a purely mathematical check and can only give an idea if two vectors are parallel.com/display/ tutorials/Tuned+mass+damper. It was also proven that the effectiveness of TLDs could be predicted.. Lecture notes for: Structural Dynamics. Footbridges: Assessment of vibrational behaviour of footbridges under pedestrian loading. However.

Test 3 with Excitation Frequency of 3.1 0.8 0.5 t [sec] 0.01 −0.02 −0.4 0.02 acceleration [g] 0.1 0.02 0.03 0.01 acceleration [g] A 0 −0.03 0.6 0.04 Without Damper Damper 4x18 Damper 6x18 Damper 6x27 Damper 4x11 0.6 0.01 0 −0.01 −0.02 −0.2 0.03 −0.04 0 0.2 0.9 1 Channel 3 0.04 0.7 0.7 0.9 1 0.3 0.03 −0.5 t [sec] 20 .23 Hz Channel 1 0.04 0 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.

4 0.7 0.7 0.9 1 Channel 1 0.43 0.44 .015 0 0.1 0.42 0.005 −0.5 t [sec] 0.3 0.37 0.03 0.Channel 7 0.8 0.4 0.4 t [sec] 21 0.02 −0.015 0. 5 Ch.04 0 0.5 t [sec] 0. 7 acceleration [g] 0.38 0.8 0.01 0 −0.04 0.03 −0.39 0.6 0.01 −0.36 0.03 acceleration [g] 0.01 −0.6 0. 6 Ch.01 0.41 0.1 0.2 0.9 1 Base Excitation 0.01 Ch.035 Without Damper Damper 4x18 Damper 6x18 Damper 6x27 Damper 4x11 0.3 0.02 0.025 0.005 0.2 0.02 acceleration [g] 0.005 0 −0.

7 8 7 6 acceleration [g] acceleration [g] 0.035 acceleration [g] 0.37 0.36 0.03 0.39 0.015 0.39 −3 9 0.015 0.38 0.02 0.01 0.35 t [sec] 22 0.37 0.41 0.42 0.38 0.01 0.03 5 4 3 2 1 0.42 0.36 0.37 0.32 0.41 0.Channel 3 0.38 .44 0.4 t [sec] Base Excitation x 10 Ch. 5 Ch.43 0.02 0.035 0. 6 Ch.43 0.4 t [sec] 0.025 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.025 0.44 Channel 7 0.

- MECH215-Week02Lecture3-MeasurementSystemBehavior-partII.pdfUploaded byBima Richardo Sihombing
- DRM SolutionsUploaded byCésar Tapia
- Design Spectrum According to Eurocode 8Uploaded byBN NG
- 1-s2.0-S0307904X13006732-mainUploaded byssm_ssm
- Vibration SixUploaded byBon Voyage
- structureUploaded byMajid Khorsand Vakilzadeh
- Lab02 Simulink TutorialUploaded byIshanSane
- Dynamics 70 WorkshopsUploaded byNono_geotec
- Wind SpecUploaded byMathew Simon
- Structural Dynamics Lecture 1Uploaded bymian
- Column Removal AnalysisUploaded byrutgers_v
- Chapter 02Uploaded bywestly_castro
- What is the Basic Concept of VibrationUploaded byVimal Woosye
- Case Study1Uploaded bylankymalnad
- FEM 16Node 37MemUploaded byJan Alexis Monsalud
- lab 3Uploaded byMujahid
- 53045_350_4_Paper (JEDDAH)Uploaded byNguyen Chau Lan
- Mechanics NotesUploaded byroystaggers
- AA V1 I4 Flexible Multibody DynamicsUploaded bylibertykull
- Introduction to Nonlinear Mechanics - MinorskyUploaded bymtichyscribd
- DOM,ku-QBUploaded bysathyadally
- Space Structures Principles and PracticeUploaded byBoby culius
- BRIAUD Introduction to Soil ModuliUploaded byhmap80
- SHM feb 13saUploaded byAnonymous BOreSF

- Quantifying Uncertainty in Modal ParametersUploaded byferasalkam
- Understanding Digital Signal ProcessingUploaded byferasalkam
- GAMUploaded byferasalkam
- GOLLER_2011_Investigation of Model Uncertainties in Bayesian Structural Model UpdatingUploaded byferasalkam
- Paper_uncertainty Quantification in the Assessment of Progressive Damage in a Seven-story Full-scale Building SliceUploaded byferasalkam
- A Bayesian Approach to Targeted Experiment DesignUploaded byferasalkam
- High Order Limit State Functions in the Response Surface Method for Structural Reliability Analysis 2008 Structural SafetyUploaded byferasalkam
- 006006_Gramatik2-LoesungenUploaded byferasalkam
- The Finite Element Model UpdatingUploaded byferasalkam
- Uncertainty Quantification and Optimization of Structural Response Using Evidence Theory HAE ROK (1)Uploaded byferasalkam
- An Introduction to Structural Reliability TheoryUploaded byferasalkam
- Simple Methods for Calculating the Structural Reliability for Different Knoledge LevelsUploaded byferasalkam
- Verfication Validation and Predictive Capapility in Computational Enginnering and PhysicsUploaded byferasalkam
- Reliability Engineering Old Problems and New ChallengesUploaded byferasalkam
- Structural Reliability Handbook 2015 (1)Uploaded byferasalkam
- Monte Carlo Simulation of Markov Unreliability ModelsUploaded byferasalkam
- ProbabilityUploaded byferasalkam
- ens1Uploaded byferasalkam