Tuned Liquid Damper Paper Final

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/262894500
Effectiveness of Tuned Liquid Damper using NSD Numerical Model Subjected

to Harmonic Ground Motion
Conference Paper · June 2012
CITATIONS READS
0 422
3 authors, including:
Sharvil Alex Faroz Mohan Murudi

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Sardar Patel College Of Engineering
8 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Seismic fragility of leakage through damaged concrete containment View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sharvil Alex Faroz on 06 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EFFECTIVENESS OF TUNED LIQUID DAMPERS USING NSD
NUMERICAL MODEL SUBJECTED TO HARMONIC GROUND
MOTION
SHARVIL ALEX FAROZ1, AMARDEEP BHOSALE2 and Dr. MOHAN MURUDI3
1
M.E. research scholar, Structural Dept., S.P.C.E
2
Ph.D. research scholar, Structural Dept., S.P.C.E
3
Professor&I/C Head of Structural Dept., S.P.C.E
ABSTRACT
The Tuned Liquid Damper (TLD) is modeled numerically as an equivalent Tuned Mass Damper having
amplitude dependent stiffness and damping parameters, previously developed by Yu (1997) for Flat bottom
TLD. These parameters were modified by Olson and Reed (2001) using new non-dimensional amplitude, for
both Slope and Flat bottom TLDs. This modified model was not coupled with a structure and hence its
performance was not tested. In this paper the TLD is coupled with the structure and structural response of SDOF
system when equipped with Flat and Sloped Bottom TLDs for linear as well as nonlinear tuning is compared.
Numerical solution algorithm and design guidelines are included.
KEY WORDS: NSD, Linear and Non-Linear tuning

INTRODUCTION
Tuned Liquid Damper with flat bottom has been used as a passive structural control
device for quite some time. The sloped bottom TLD has been investigated recently by
Gardarsson (1997) and Gardarsson et al. (2001). Its behaviour is markedly different from the
more familiar flat bottom TLD. The flat bottom TLD is a stiffness-hardening system and
displays a beating property, when the force of excitation has ceased. The motivation for the
use of the sloped bottom tank came from the desire to reduce or if possible prevent the
phenomenon of beating.
In this paper, the Tuned Liquid Damper is modeled as an equivalent solid mass damper
with amplitude dependent stiffness and damping characteristics. This concept was developed
by Yu (1997) and updated formulations were proposed by Olson and Reed (2001). This
approach has merit as a design tool.
FREQUENCY DETERMINATION
The fundamental natural frequency of water sloshing motion of a flat bottom TLD
based on dispersion relation is given by Lamb (1932) as;
√( ) ( )
Where is the frequency, is the acceleration due to gravity, is the water depth and is
the overall length of tank. In contrast, it is not possible to evaluate the dispersion relation for
sloped-bottom TLD because two different slopes viz. horizontal and inclined are involved.
Gardarsson (1997) evaluated the frequencies of the sloped-bottom tank experimentally.
These values were compared by Olson and Reed (2001) with Lamb’s Equation (1). The best
fit was provided by the wetted perimeter , defined as
Where is the length of flat part of sloped bottom tank and is the beach slope. Using the
length L1 in Lamb’s equation instead of L resulted in a fairly close estimate of natural
frequency. The only limitations of the above equation is that it is not defined for .
Figure 1 shows comparative schematic of flat and slope bottom TLD tanks.
Figure 1. Schematic of flat and slope bottom TLD tanks.
THE NONLINEAR STIFFNESS AND DAMPING (NSD) MODEL

This paper uses TMD equivalent model of Yu (1997) having nonlinear, amplitude
dependent stiffness and damping characteristics of the damper with constant water mass. This
model was updated by Olson and Reed (2001). Figure 2 provides an illustration of the NSD
model as a SDOF system with nonlinear stiffness and damping parameters and
respectively. The TLD has a mass, spring, and dashpot representation of the fluid.
Figure 2. Schematic of NSD model of TLDs.

The parameters of interest, the Fundamental Natural Frequency of the NSD model
The Damping Ratio of the NSD model is defined as
in which , the Critical Damping Co-efficient is given by . Where , the

Fundamental Natural Angular Frequency; and , and , the Mass, Stiffness and
Damping coefficients of the NSD model respectively.
It is useful to evaluate the stiffness changes through the Stiffness Hardening Ratio
defined as
in which . Where is themass of the water in the TLD tank. The

Frequency Shift Ratio( relates frequency of NSD to the Fundamental Natural Frequency of
water in TLD, it is defined as
Because we also have
The tank excitation amplitude (which is also the structural displacement amplitude) is non-
dimentionalised using the cube root of volume of water in the damper, which is given by
. is the volume of water and A is the excitation amplitude. It is to be kept in
√
mind that the relations for sloped bottom TLD are obtained from experiments on only single
model of tank (used by Gardarsson (2001)) and no other model was studied.
Figure 3 plots the damping ratio values for the sloped-bottom and flat bottom tanks
using the non-dimensional excitation amplitude ratio . For the slope data, the best fit
equation is, corresponding to a value of = 0.790
For the flat data, the best-fit equation has a value of = 0.868
Figure 3. Damping Ratio plot for flat bottom TLD ( ) and for sloped bottom TLD ( ) by
Olson and Reed (2001).
Figure 4 shows the stiffness hardening ratio values. For the sloped data, the best-fit equation
presented below has = 0.925:
For the flat data, the values are 0.364 and 0.912 for the bilinear curve, before and after the
break point A' = 0.14, respectively:
Figure 4. Stiffness Hardening Ratio plot for flat bottom TLD ( ) and for sloped bottom
TLD ( ) by Olson and Reed (2001)
TIME HISTORY NUMERICAL SOLUTION

Figure 5 shows the equivalent system in which the structure is attached with a TLD
characterised as NSD model. The coupled system is treated as a traditional 2DOF system to
evaluate the motion of the structure with the attached control system.
Figure 5. Schematic of 2DOF system showing TLD as NSD Model.

The equation of motion for the 2DOF system subjected to ground motion is written as
̈ ̇ ̈
[ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ]{ } { }
̈ ̇ ̈
In which m, c, k and x are mass, damping coefficient, stiffness constant and relative
displacement of the mass, respectively. The subscripts d and s indicate the damper and the
structure, respectively. Double over dots indicate twice differentiation w.r.t. time
(acceleration) and single over dot indicate single differentiation w.r.t. time (velocity). The
quantities , , , and are given constants for a structure. The acceleration function ̈
is evaluated at each time step of the numerical solving procedure. The damping coefficient
and the stiffness constant of the NSD model are determined using Equations (4), (8) and
(5), (9) respectively. Because the time varying excitation will influence the tank sloshing
motion of the TLD, the corresponding stiffness and damping properties of the NSD must be
continuously updated.
Figure 6 shows an arbitrary time history structural displacement to illustrate how to
determine the excitation amplitude A used in Equations (8) and (9). Each time the structural
displacement curve crosses the horizontal time axis (zero crossing point), the peak
structural displacement, during the previous half cycle is sought. The
absolute value of is assumed as the excitation amplitude in Equations (8) and (9)
during the next half cycle to calculate and . The system stiffness and damping
matrices are reformulated with new values of , and at this time step. Equation (10) is
then solved using the Central Difference Method. The numerical solution procedure by Yu
(1997) is illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 6. Schematic of an arbitrary time history structural displacement.

Figure 7. Algorithm of numerical solution scheme for the response of a SDOF structure
coupled with a TLD characterised by NSD model by Yu (1997).
TLD TUNING-Linear and Non-Linear Tuning

The water depth calculated to tune the TLD to the structure using the linear shallow
water wave theory is referred to as linear tuning of the TLD because the linear fundamental
natural frequency of the TLD is tuned to the fundamental natural frequency of the
structure . The linearly tuned water depth for the given size of the tank is calculated
from Equation (1) for flat TLD and Equation (1) and (2) for slope TLD.
However, the real (or nonlinear) natural frequency of the TLD shifts from the natural
frequency as a function of the excitation amplitude. From Equations (1) and (6) the nonlinear
fundamental natural frequency of the TLD is expressed as;
The nonlinear tuning of the TLD is defined as tuning the nonlinear fundamental natural
frequency of the TLD to the fundamental natural frequency of the structure ( ). The
nonlinearly tuned water depth for the given tank can be estimated by from Equation (11).
In this equation is a function of excitation amplitude. Thus, an iterative procedure of
Figure 8 is required for evaluating the steady state response when coupled with TLD.
SYSTEM SUBJECTED TO HARMONIC EXCITATION

When a SDOF system is subjected to harmonic ground motion the steady state peak
displacement of the structure without TLD is given as;
̈
√
The resonance condition for SDOF system is, Frequency Ratio √ .
A SDOF structural system equipped with a TLD can be modelled as a 2DOF system
by using the NSD model for the TLD as shown in Figure 5. The properties of the NSD model
( and ) are function of the peak amplitude of the structural motion as in Equations (8)
and (9). As the structure is subjected to a harmonic excitation, the peak amplitude of the
structural motion becomes constant at steady state. Consequently the TLD behaves like a
linear system at steady-state. The Effectiveness of the TLD is measured in terms of
reduction in the peak steady state displacement of the structure due to the TLD as,
{( ) }
being the peak steady state displacement of the structure equipped with a TLD.
Adopting nonlinear tuning, the linear fundamental natural frequency of sloshing at
steady state in a TLD can be obtained by combining Equations (6), (7) we have,
√
As and are functions of which is not known initially, an iterative procedure is
required to evaluate the optimum frequency of a TLD for nonlinear tuning. A simple
iteration procedure by the author1 is illustrated in Figure 8. The initial value of is set to the
peak displacement of the structure without the TLD calculated using Equation (12). Iteration
stops as the calculated converges to the actual value. In this study the convergence
criterion of 0.001% is applied.
Figure 8. Algorithm for optimum frequency of a TLD characterised by NSD model by the
author1.
TLD DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HARMONIC EXCITATIONS
In TLD design, tank size and water depth are selected based upon the requirement of
control force and construction consideration. The effectiveness of the damping device in
reducing the peak displacement of the structure is the primary objective. The suggested
design steps by the author1 are as follows:
LINEAR TUNING
1. Determine the structural properties namely Structural mass ( ), Natural frequency

( ) and Damping ratio ( ) of the structure.
2. According to the consideration of space decide the external dimensions of the tank.
3. Choose suitable mass ratio,
4. Compute the required depth of water using Equation (1)
NON-LINEAR TUNING
1. Determine the structural properties namely Structural mass ( ), Natural frequency

( ) and Damping ratio ( ) of the structure.
2. According to the consideration of space decide the external dimensions of the tank.
3. Choose suitable mass ratio.
4. For given sinusoidal exciting force compute the optimum linear frequency of the TLD
and steady state peak amplitude using the iterative procedure explained in Figure 8.
5. Compute the required depth of water using Equation (1).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Numerical relations of the NSD model were obtained from research work carried out
by Yu (1997) and Olson and Reed (2001) by conducting shake table experiments on TLD
tanks. The performance of these TLDs was not tested by coupling it with a structure. In this
paper the TLD characterized as NSD model is attached to a SDOF structure and its
performance is studied.
To study the performance of the TLD, it was coupled with structure having two
structural frequencies, three damping ratios and two values of harmonic excitation
acceleration. The structural frequencies considered are 0.80 Hz and 1.00 Hz. Damping ratio
values used are 1%, 2% and 5%. Two peak ground acceleration values viz. 0.30 m/ and
0.40 m/ are considered. In all there are 12 cases under consideration.
The results obtained are presented in tabulated form for easy comparison. Linear and
Nonlinear tuning responses are provided comparatively in the tables. Structural displacement
response with and without TLDs and effectiveness for three values of mass ratios viz. 1%, 2%
and 4% is calculated from Equation 13 and presented. Central Difference Method has been
adopted to solve the equation of motion given in Equation 10.
Following tables presents TLD performance for 12 cases as previously mentioned. The
tables are numbered from 1 to 12. Tables 1 to 6 are for 0.80 Hz structure of which tables 1 to
3 are with 0.30 m/ and tables 4 to 6 are for 0.40 m/ peak ground acceleration having
various damping and mass ratios. Tables 7 to 12 are for 1.00 Hz structure of which tables 7 to
9 are with 0.30 m/ and tables 10 to 12 are for 0.40 m/ peak ground acceleration having
various damping and mass ratios.
Observations and conclusions from these tables are presented after the tables.
Table 1 Performance of TLDs at resonance.
Structural Frequency , Structural Mass , Acceleration , Damping Ratio ( )
Response Mass Linear Tuning Nonlinear Tuning
Without Ratio Flat Bottom TLD Slope Bottom TLD Flat Bottom TLD Slope Bottom TLD
TLD ( ) μ (%) Response Effectiveness Response Effectiveness Response Effectiveness Response Effectiveness
( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 349.0968 41.20 384.2933 35.27 0.57921 326.1398 45.07 1.07983 330.7800 44.29
593.7085 2 220.0536 62.94 271.2874 54.31 0.66232 191.8125 67.69 1.02351 170.6734 71.25
4 84.1433 85.83 114.2837 75.70 0.76621 79.5073 86.61 0.91966 36.1481 93.91

( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 220.3092 25.80 230.2269 22.46 0.62989 202.4919 31.80 1.04740 198.9923 32.98
296.8988 2 153.7081 48.23 180.8523 39.09 0.70337 136.2940 54.09 0.99998 115.8309 60.99
4 71.1463 76.04 111.1158 62.57 0.76909 66.4671 77.61 0.91318 32.1296 89.18

( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 100.9200 15.11 104.7202 11.91 0.71835 95.9756 19.27 0.99937 91.0025 23.45
118.8844 2 78.0400 34.36 91.0289 23.43 0.76345 74.9163 36.98 0.96274 61.5320 48.24
4 49.9043 58.02 65.6294 44.80 0.77508 45.9574 61.34 0.90119 25.7789 78.32
( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 464.9722 41.26 516.5748 34.74 0.54729 450.0548 43.15 1.10143 460.1524 41.87
791.6113 2 312.3328 60.54 372.8431 52.90 0.62017 278.7003 64.79 1.05239 271.3951 65.72
4 136.8905 82.71 212.3636 73.17 0.74381 124.9947 84.21 0.96089 75.0828 90.52

( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 297.8480 24.76 309.9896 21.69 0.59543 278.7581 29.58 1.06897 279.5083 29.39
395.8651 2 221.8979 43.95 247.3361 37.52 0.66001 195.6486 50.58 1.02740 181.8143 54.07
4 106.8697 73.00 160.4565 59.47 0.76217 102.2577 74.17 0.95003 62.1269 84.31

( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 138.7471 12.47 140.5954 11.30 0.68000 131.0799 17.31 1.01969 127.2866 19.70
158.5126 2 113.2699 28.54 123.5745 22.04 0.73596 105.3730 33.52 0.98706 93.2653 41.16
4 73.1200 53.87 93.0423 41.30 0.76871 68.0800 57.05 0.93039 43.8580 72.33
( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 217.8650 42.66 240.1273 36.80 0.79325 194.1093 48.92 1.30453 187.3621 50.69
379.9734 2 113.6465 70.09 161.9404 57.38 0.92251 103.7225 72.70 1.21331 70.5207 81.44
4 41.5724 89.06 73.8308 80.57 0.97264 38.1487 89.96 1.05659 11.4235 96.99

( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 133.7224 29.63 144.6314 23.88 0.86119 121.6896 35.96 1.26528 112.6105 40.74
190.0152 2 79.0940 58.37 109.8760 42.18 0.95408 75.8038 60.11 1.19009 51.1056 73.10
4 36.1615 80.97 59.1935 68.85 0.97551 33.1589 82.55 1.10607 19.0049 90.00

( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 60.2771 20.78 66.2183 12.97 0.95457 58.7217 22.82 1.20880 52.6047 30.86
76.0861 2 45.8102 39.79 56.1466 26.21 0.96531 43.4283 42.92 1.15303 30.1616 60.36
4 26.7025 64.90 36.0220 52.66 0.98172 24.5162 67.78 1.07871 12.5190 83.55
( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 298.0691 41.17 326.0716 35.64 0.74711 272.8354 46.15 1.33451 273.6107 45.99
506.6312 2 178.9596 64.68 226.2665 55.34 0.85911 155.4363 69.32 1.25765 128.2626 74.68
4 66.0943 86.95 114.7191 77.36 0.96291 61.6000 87.84 1.12390 24.8076 95.10

( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 186.0890 26.55 195.3143 22.91 0.81230 169.6208 33.05 1.29412 163.9417 35.29
253.3536 2 123.0948 51.41 151.7367 40.11 0.91111 111.3156 56.06 1.22988 88.4079 65.10
4 56.4206 77.73 89.5854 64.64 0.96626 52.1977 79.40 1.11827 22.8183 90.99

( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%) ( ) (%)
1 84.1053 17.10 89.0294 12.24 0.92561 80.7724 20.38 1.23509 75.2972 25.78
101.4481 2 64.8560 36.07 76.7805 24.32 0.95813 61.9434 38.94 1.18608 48.3060 52.38
4 40.2610 60.31 53.5491 47.22 0.97332 36.9031 63.62 1.10813 19.6041 80.68
DISCUSSIONS
For linear tuning it is found that the Flat Bottom TLD is more effective than Sloped
Bottom TLD.
It has been indicated in literature that high mass ratios are desirable. From the tables
the above statement is justified, indicated by higher effectiveness.
Increase in inherent structural damping is found to decrease the effectiveness of the
TLDs.
In case of Nonlinear tuning at lower mass ratios, effectiveness of both Flat and Slope
bottom TLDs is found to be almost same. In certain cases for lower structural damping and
mass ratio and at higher value of peak ground acceleration Flat Bottom TLD performs
slightly better than Slope Bottom TLD. However at higher mass ratios performance ofSlope
Bottom TLD is highly attractive.
In Nonlinear tuning, the Slope TLD is tuned slightly higher than the structural
frequency and Flat TLD is tuned slightly lower than the structural frequency.
CONCLUSIONS
It is desirable to use higher mass ratio i.e. equal to and above 2% so as to achieve
significant reduction in response. Increase in inherent structural damping is found to decrease
the effectiveness of the TLDs. This may be compensated by increasing the mass ratio.
It is advisable to use Non-linear tuning to take advantage of more effectiveness. Use of
Sloped bottom TLD is recommended as its effectiveness is more as compared to Flat bottom
TLD at higher mass ratios.
Algorithm for numerical solution of structural displacement and optimum TLD
frequency are provided for ready reference. These can be adopted in the design procedure for
TLDs.
REFERENCES
1. Gardarsson S., (1997), “Shallow-water sloshing.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington,

Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA, 98195,160pp.
2. Gardarsson S., Yeh H. and Reed D., (2001),“Behaviour of Sloped-Bottom Tuned Liquid Dampers,”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE Vol. 127, No. 3, pp. 266-271
3. Lamb H., (1932), “Hydrodynamics,” The University Press: Cambridge, England.
4. Olson D.E., Reed D., (2001), “A nonlinear numerical model for sloped-bottom Tuned Liquid Damper,”
Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, Vol. 30, pp. 731-743.
5. Yu J.K., (1997). “Nonlinear Characteristics of Tuned Liquid Dampers,” Ph.D. thesis ,University of
Washington, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Seattle, W A,
View publication stats

Tuned Liquid Damper Paper Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuned Liquid Damper Paper Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Effectiveness of Tuned Liquid Damper using NSD Numerical Model Subjected

Conference Paper · June 2012

Sharvil Alex Faroz Mohan Murudi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seismic fragility of leakage through damaged concrete containment View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KEY WORDS: NSD, Linear and Non-Linear tuning

Figure 1. Schematic of flat and slope bottom TLD tanks.

THE NONLINEAR STIFFNESS AND DAMPING (NSD) MODEL

Figure 2. Schematic of NSD model of TLDs.

The Damping Ratio of the NSD model is defined as

in which , the Critical Damping Co-efficient is given by . Where , the

in which . Where is themass of the water in the TLD tank. The

Because we also have

TIME HISTORY NUMERICAL SOLUTION

Figure 5. Schematic of 2DOF system showing TLD as NSD Model.

Figure 6. Schematic of an arbitrary time history structural displacement.

TLD TUNING-Linear and Non-Linear Tuning

SYSTEM SUBJECTED TO HARMONIC EXCITATION

1. Determine the structural properties namely Structural mass ( ), Natural frequency

1. Determine the structural properties namely Structural mass ( ), Natural frequency

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 2 Performance of TLDs at resonance.

Table 3 Performance of TLDs at resonance.

Table 5 Performance of TLDs at resonance.

Table 6 Performance of TLDs at resonance.

Table 8 Performance of TLDs at resonance.

Table 9 Performance of TLDs at resonance.

Table 11 Performance of TLDs at resonance.

Table 12 Performance of TLDs at resonance.

1. Gardarsson S., (1997), “Shallow-water sloshing.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington,

View publication stats

You might also like