TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES...........................................................................................3

TABLE OF TABLES.............................................................................................3

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION....................................................................4

1.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS...................................................4

1.1.1 Active Control.................................................................................5
1.1.2 Passive Control...............................................................................5
1.1.3 Semi-Active Control.......................................................................6
1.1.4 Hybrid Control...............................................................................6
1.2 TUNED LIQUID COLUMN DAMPERS (TLCD)......................7
1.2.1 Advantages of TLCD......................................................................7

CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF LITERATURE...............................................10

2.1 RELATED LITERATURE.........................................................10

2.2 NEED FOR THE RESEARCH...................................................24
2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH.......................................24

CHAPTER 3 - ANALYTICAL & NUMERICAL STUDY..........................26

3.1 STRUCTURES WITH TLCD SUBJECTED TO HARMONIC

LOADING.....................................................................................26
3.2 STRUCTURES WITH TLCD SUBJECTED TO FAR FIELD
RECORDED EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATIONS...............30
3.3 STRUCTURES WITH TLCD SUBJECTED TO
ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED GROUND MOTIONS.........30
3.4 SOLUTION OF EQUATIONS OF MOTIONS........................33
3.5 NUMERICAL STUDY................................................................33

REFERENCES 41

ACKNOLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................46

1
2
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Block diagram of working of Active Control System..........................8
Figure 1-2: Block diagram of working of Passive Control System.........................8
Figure 1-3: Block diagram of working of Semi-active Control System..................9
Figure 2-1: Mathematical model and working of a TLCD....................................25
Figure 3-1: Intensity shaping function for artificially generated ground motions.37
Figure 3-2: Time history of Displacement of Type 2 structure subjected to
harmonic ground motion with PGA = 0.25g.......................................38
Figure 3-3: Time history of Displacement of Type 2 structure subjected to
harmonic ground motion with PGA = 0.25g.......................................38
Figure 3-4: Time history of Displacement of Type 2 structure subjected to El-
Centro ground motion (PGA=0.319g)................................................39
Figure 3-5: Time history of Acceleration of Type 2 structure subjected to El-
Centro ground motion (PGA=0.319g)................................................39

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Characteristics of various sets of artificially generated ground motions
.............................................................................................................33
Table 3-2: Properties of Structures........................................................................34
Table 3-3: Properties of TLCD..............................................................................34
Table 3-4: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures
subjected to harmonic ground motion with PGA 0.25g......................34
Table 3-5: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures
subjected to El-Centro ground motion (PGA=0.319g).......................35
Table 3-6: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures
subjected to El-Centro ground motion (PGA=0.319g).......................35
Table 3-7: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures
subjected to Mexico city ground motion (PGA =0.101g)...................36
Table 3-8: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures
subjected to Northridge ground motion (PGA =0.843g)....................36
Table 3-9: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures
subjected to Taft ground motion (PGA =0.178g)...............................37

3
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Three decade before, Vibration control is the term which is commonly used in
mechanical engineering especially in problems related to aerospace. Recent
infrastructural development in civil engineering demands faster construction rate
and high-rise structures. This involves use of innovative and high strength
materials. The number of high-rise buildings being built is increasing day by day.
These high-rise structures are very flexible and having low natural damping.
Besides increasing various failure possibilities, it may damage cladding and
partitions and can cause problems from service point of view therefore, to ensure
functional performance of tall building, it is important to keep the amplitude of
objectionable vibration below threshold.

The past earthquakes such as Kobe (Japan 1995) and Northridge (California 1994)
have demonstrated the vulnerability of structures when subjected to earthquakes.
Total collapse or severe damage of structures has been recorded during these
earthquakes. Severe damage has also been observed in Indian earthquakes such as
Latur (1993), Jabalpur (1997), Chamoli (1999) and the Bhuj (2001).

Two approaches can be taken to help buildings withstand seismic excitations. The
first involves designing the structure with sufficient strength, stiffness and
inelastic deformation capacity to withstand an earthquake. This can be done by
combining structural components such as shear walls, braced frames, moment
resisting frames, diaphragms, and horizontal trusses, to form lateral load resisting
systems. This approach also considers the shape of the building, since square or
rectangular buildings perform better than other shapes, such as L, U, or T. The
choice of material used in construction is also important, since ductile materials,
such as steel, were found to perform better than brittle ones, such as concrete. The
soil beneath the structure is yet another factor that greatly influences structural
vibration characteristics and amount of damage sustained. Because this approach

4
relies on the inherent strength of the structure to dissipate the seismic energy
generated, a certain level of deformation and damage has to be accepted.

The second approach consists in using control devices to reduce the forces acting
on the structure. Their objective is to reduce all structural responses, that is, floor
accelerations, velocities and displacements and thereby internal forces. They are
categorized according to their energy consumption as active, passive, semi-active
and hybrid.

1.1.1 Active Control

Active control devices require considerable amount of external power, in the order
of tens of kilowatts to operate actuators that supply a control force to the structure.
They use measured structural responses to determine the desired control force.
Unfortunately, due to their capacity to add energy to the system, they are also able
to destabilize it. They are more effective than passive devices because of their
ability to adapt to different loading conditions and to control different modes of
vibration. However, since the large amount of power required for their operation
may not always be available during seismic events, they are not as reliable. Cost
and maintenance of such systems is also significantly higher than that of passive
devices. Figure 1.1 indicates the block diagram of working of active control
system.

1.1.2 Passive Control

Devices that do not require power to operate are named passive control devices.
Systems in this category are very reliable since they are unaffected by power
outages, which are common during earthquakes. They dissipate energy using the
structure’s own motion to produce relative movement within the control device or
by converting kinetic energy to heat. Since they do not inject energy into the
system, they are unable to destabilize the structure. Another advantage of such
devices is their low maintenance requirements. Examples of passive devices
include, among others, base isolation, tuned mass dampers (TMD), tuned liquid

5
dampers (TLD),tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) metallic yield dampers,
viscous fluid dampers and friction dampers. Figure 1.2 indicates the block
diagram of working of passive control system.

1.1.3 Semi-Active Control

Semi-active control devices cannot inject energy into the controlled system, but
have mechanical properties that can be adjusted to improve their performance.
Changes in the system’s mechanical properties are based on feedback from
measured responses and/or ground excitation. Since external power is only used to
change device’s properties such as damping or stiffness, and not to generate a
control force, power requirements are very low (in the order oftens of watts).
Advantages of this class of devices include better performance than passive
control, versatility and adaptability of active devices without the large power
requirements, inherent stability, and reliability, since they function as passive
devices in case of power failure. In addition, semi-active devices were found to
even outperform active systems in some instances. Devices in this category
include, among others, variable-orifice dampers, variable stiffness control devices,
semi-active tuned mass dampers, adjustable tuned liquid column dampers and
controllable fluid dampers. Figure 1.3 indicates the block diagram of working of
semi-active control system.

1.1.4 Hybrid Control

The common usage of the term “hybrid control” implies the combined use of
active & passive control systems. For example, a structure equipped with
distributed visco-elastic damping supplemented with an active mass damper on or
near the top of the structure, or a base isolated structure with actuators actively
controlled to enhance the performance.
The selection of a particular type of vibration control device is governed by a
number of factors which include efficiency, compactness and weight, capital cost,
operating cost, maintenance requirements and safety.

6
1.2 TUNED LIQUID COLUMN DAMPERS (TLCD)

Tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) is Passive Energy absorbing damper like
Tuned liquid dampers (TLD) for controlling vibrations of structures under
different dynamic loading conditions. TLDs consist of rigid tanks filled with
shallow liquid where the sloshing motion absorbs the energy and dissipates it by
the viscous action of the liquid, wave braking, and auxiliary damping
appurtenances such as baffles, nets or floating beads. TLCDs consist of tube-like
containers filled with liquid where energy is dissipated by the movement of the
liquid through an orifice. Both the devices have proved effective in reducing the
response of structures to structural vibrations and have been installed in structures.
The TLCD system exerts a damping force by passage of the liquid through an
orifice. They are relatively easy to install in new and existing buildings. They do
not interfere with vertical and horizontal load paths as other passive devices do. It
is easy to adjust their frequencies, and they can be combined with active control
mechanisms to function as hybrid systems. Unlike tuned mass dampers, TLCDs
do not require a large space for stroke lengths. Furthermore TLCDs can be used to
dissipate energy in two directions by using bi-directional U-tubes. The
configuration consists of partitioning the container with a block that that results in
stacked U-tubes in both directions with a common base.

1.2.1 Advantages of TLCD

 The required level of damping can be readily achieved and controlled through
the orifice/valve, making it suitable not only for passive control systems but
also for semi-active control systems.
 When there are changes in the dynamic characteristics of the main structure
after construction is completed or after the occurrence of an earthquake, the
TLCD parameters (frequency and mass) can be easily tuned by adjusting the
height of the liquid in the tube.

7
 The liquid in the system is easily mobilized at all levels of the structural
motion, thereby eliminating the activation mechanism required in the
conventional TMD system where a certain level of threshold excitation must
be set.
 Water contained in the tube can be utilized as a secondary water source for an
emergency such as fire.
 It provides configuration and space flexibilities as one can design one large
tube or a group of smaller tubes.

Controller

Heavy
Power
Source
Sensors Sensors

Active Control System

Feedforward Feedback
Loop Loop

Excitation Structure Response

Figure 1-1: Block diagram of working of Active Control System

Passive Control System

Feedback
Loop

Excitation Structure Response

8
 Figure 1-2: Block diagram of working of Passive Control System

Controller

Low
Power
Source
Sensors Sensors

Semi-active Control System

Feedforward Feedback
Loop Loop

Excitation Structure Response

Figure 1-3: Block diagram of working of Semi-active Control System

9
1.1.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 RELATED LITERATURE

A TLCD is a U-shaped tube of uniform cross-section, containing liquid, and its

natural frequency is tuned in general to the first natural frequency of the structure.
Vibrational energy is transferred from the structure to the TLCD through the
motion of the rigid TLCD container exciting the TLCD liquid. The vibrations of
the structure are reduced by the TLCD through the gravitational restoring force
acting on the displaced TLCD liquid and the energy is dissipated by the viscous
interaction of the TLCD liquid and the rigid TLCD container.

In general a Tuned liquid column damper is characterized by

 Mass ratios (µ)
 Tuning ratio (f),
 Ratio of tube width to the liquid length (α) and
 Orifice opening ratio ()

Energy dissipation in the water column is due to the passage of the liquid through
an orifice with inherent head-loss characteristics. Figure 2.1 shows the
mathematical model and working of a TLCD.

Since 1950s dampers utilizing liquid is being used in anti-rolling tanks for
stabilizing marine vessels against rocking and rolling motions. In 1960s, the same
concept is used in Nutation Dampers used to control wobbling motion of a
satellite in space. However, the idea of applying TLDs to reduce structural
vibration in civil engineering structures began in mid 1980s, by Bauer, who
proposed the use of a rectangular container completely filled with two immiscible
liquids to reduce structural response to a dynamic loading. Modi & Welt, Fujii et
al., Kareem, Sun et al., and Wakahara et al. were also among the first to suggest

10
the use of dampers utilizing liquid motion for civil engineering structures. The
principles of operation of all of these dampers were based on liquid sloshing, for
which these are sometimes referred as Tuned Sloshing Damper (TSDs). Sakai et
al. [1] introduced TLCD first time for response reduction of the structure.

Marcel Duijvendijk, et al. [2] found that using the TLCD, a lightweight system is
developed to reduce vibrations in wind turbines. The use of a modular system as
well as the application of a liquid makes the installation process easy, fast and
cheap. Collision with the tower wall is not possible. Furthermore the TLCD can
be tuned after installation to optimize the damping characteristic to the site-
specific needs of the turbine. The functionality of the system was verified with
measurements and found that a TLCD with a damping mass ratio of only 2% of
the total relevant turbine mass can facilitate in a 6% reduction of the tower. This
way, application of a TLCD in wind turbines can lead to significant cost
reductions.

M. Reiterer, et al. [3] analyzed a single degree of freedom (SDOF) basic system
with a TLCD attached under horizontal and vertical base excitations in order to
prove its sensitivity with respect to the vertical parametrical forcing. The scaled
Friuli 1976 earthquake was applied horizontally and vertically to an SDOF-shear
frame with optimally tuned TLCD. It was verified that the vertical component of
the earthquake load remains ineffective and TLCD is stable. In conclusion, the
vertical excitation can be neglected at all with respect to the TLCD-performance.

H. Gao [4] investigated characteristics of multiple tuned liquid column dampers

(MTLCD) in suppressing structural vibration. A parametric study involving the
effects of frequency range, coefficient of head loss, number of TLCDs and central
frequency on the performance of MTLCD was carried out through a numerical
procedure which reflects the nonlinear character of the liquid motion. It was found
that the frequency range and the coefficient of head loss have significant effects
on the performance of a MTLCD; increasing the number of TLCDs can enhance
the efficiency of the MTLCD, but no further significant enhancement is observed

11
when the number of TLCDs is over five. The investigation also confirmed that the
sensitivity of an optimized MTLCD to its central frequency ratio is not much less
than that of an optimized single TLCD to its frequency ratio and an optimized
MTLCD is even more sensitive to the coefficient of head loss (or damping).
However, it was found that to maintain the same level of efficiency as an
optimized single TLCD, a MTLCD offers much wider choices in both frequency
ratio and coefficient of head loss. These conclusions were drawn from the
harmonic force situation.

K.M. Shum [5] gave a closed form optimal solution of a tuned liquid column
damper for suppressing harmonic vibration of structures due to harmonic force.
He aimed to develop a closed form solution scheme of TLCD-structure systems
and the optimum parameters of TLCD that lead to the maximum vibration
reduction of building structure, so as to facilitate the design of dampers. The
developed closed form solution of TLCD-structure system was verified by
comparing results obtained from the conventional iterative method. After having a
satisfactory verification, the existence of the invariant points of a TLCD-structure
system for the case of undamped primary structure was demonstrated. Explicit
design formulas of TLCD for the case of undamped primary structures were
obtained by optimizing the response at the two invariant points. The optimum
parameters of TLCD for the case of damped primary structures were also
investigated numerically. An approach for determining the optimum head loss
coefficient of TLCD was proposed and an example was given to illustrate the
design procedures of TLCD for suppressing harmonic type vibrations

A. Farshidianfar, et al. [6] tried to give closed form optimal solution of a tuned
liquid column damper responding to harmonic earthquake. By linearization of the
equation of motion of the single degree of freedom structure equipped with the
TLCD, the closed form solutions of the TLCD-structure system were derived. To
find the reliability of the analytical method, the results were compared with other
researchers and found good agreement. Further, the effects of optimal design
parameters such as length ratio and mass ratio on the performance of the TLCD

12
for controlling the responses of a structure were investigated by using the
harmonic type of earthquake excitation. Finally, the Citicorp Center which has a
very flexible structure was used as an example to illustrate the design procedure
for the TLCD under the earthquake excitation.

Michael Reiterer, et al. [7] tried to investigate the application of more efficient
and more economic tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) for suppressing the
pedestrian induced vibration of footbridges. In order to study the damping
effectiveness of optimal tuned TLCDs a small scale bridge model was constructed
in the laboratory. They modally tuned the TLCD to the fundamental frequency of
the bridge, whose corresponding mode has a dominant horizontal response, which
was similar to the vibration characteristics of London’s Millenium Bridge. It was
found that the optimal tuned TLCD reduces the resonant peak of the first vibration
mode by 65%. So he concluded that the experimentally investigated TLCD is an
effective damping device for the undesired pedestrian induced footbridge
vibrations.

Jong-Cheng Wu, et al. [8] proposed useful design tables for designing tuned liquid
column dampers (TLCD) for damped single-degree-of-freedom structures under a
white noise type of broad-banded earthquake loading as quick guidance for
industrial practice. The design tables provide a list of necessary optimal
parameters including frequency tuning ratio, head loss coefficient as well as the
corresponding reduced response to be used as the design reference. The solutions
of optimal parameters in design tables were obtained through numerical
optimization search, by which he also found that for a given mass ratio and
horizontal length ratio, using uniform cross-section for all columns can always
achieve the best performance.

Jong-Cheng Wu, et al. [9] gave some useful guidelines for designing tuned liquid
column dampers (TLCDs) for damped single-degree-of-freedom structures under
a white noise type of wind excitation as quick guidance for industrial practice.
These guidelines contain two major parts that serve two respective purposes. One

13
is the design table that provides the list of necessary optimal parameters as well as
the corresponding response reduction to be used as the design reference. The other
is the empirical formula for reliably predicting the basic properties of TLCDs,
especially for head loss coefficients, to ensure the design objectives can be
achieved. In the first part, the solutions of optimal parameters in the design table
are obtained through numerical optimization, by which it is also found that for a
given mass ratio and horizontal length ratio, using a uniform cross-section for all
columns can always achieve the best performance. To construct the prediction
formula in the second part, TLCD property tests using free vibration and
harmonic forced vibration techniques via a shake table were performed and the
experimental results thus calibrated are used. Consequently, a modified formula to
predict head loss coefficients for TLCDs with sharp-edged elbows is proposed as
a guideline for designers.

Emmerich Simoncsics [10] in his work of “Disaster Mitigation of Debris Flows,

Slope Failures and Landslides” studied tuned liquid column dampers (TLCD) for
high rise buildings and found that plane TLCDs are very promising in mitigating
flexural vibrations whereas torsional TLCDs are used to reduce torsional or
coupled flexural torsional vibrations.

T. Balendra, et al. [11] studied effectiveness of tuned liquid column dampers

(TLCD) in controlling the wind-induced vibration of towers. The nonlinear
governing equation of the TLCD was linearized to obtain the stochastic response
of the towers due to along-wind turbulence. Through parametric studies, the
optimum parameters for maximum reduction in acceleration and displacement
were presented for a wide range of towers. He found that for any tower of
practical interest, almost the same amount of reduction in acceleration can be
obtained by choosing an appropriate opening ratio of the orifice in the TLCD as
that for maximum reduction in displacement. He stated that, the opening ratio
needs to be varied between 0.5 and 1.0, with smaller opening ratios for shorter
towers.

14
T. Balendra, et al. [12] examined the effectiveness of using the TLCD for
vibration
control of various structural systems under random wind loadings. The
effectiveness was indicated by the percentage reduction in acceleration and
displacement of the building. The structural systems included were frame; shear
wall and frame-shear wall systems. A wide range of building heights was
considered. These buildings were modeled as shear-flexure cantilever beams,
taking into account the effects of the higher modes. The sensitivity of the TLCD
to changes in structural periods (which are assumed to be proportional to the
structural heights) and damping ratios was also examined. Unlike commonly used
lumped-mass studies, a continuous formulation was adopted which allows for
response quantities to be determined along the entire length of the structure. It was
found that for buildings with similar stiffness, the TLCD when installed on a
shear-wall system provides greater acceleration reduction than when placed on a
rigid frame system. The displacement reduction ratio was found to be constant
along the height of the building whereas the acceleration reduction ratio increases
to a maximum somewhere between 0.85H and 0.7H and then drops rather sharply.
The acceleration reduction was found to be independent of the structural periods
which are proportional to the structural heights, whereas the displacement
reduction is smaller for structures with smaller periods. Also the performance of
the TLCD was found to be very sensitive to its position for a purely flexural
building and rather insensitive for a shear building.

Jong-Cheng Wu [13] conducted the experimental investigation to systematically

calibrate the basic properties of tuned liquid column damper (TLCD). Under
harmonic excitation, he derived the exact solution of the liquid response in TLCD
and used it in the experimental calibration. Both the free vibration and harmonic
forced vibration tests via shake table were performed. Consequently, an empirical
formula to predict head loss coefficients for TLCD was constructed and proposed
as a quick reference for designers. His experimental investigation also confirmed
the fact that the size of liquid mass and the difference of the ratio of horizontal

15
column length versus total column length have no effect on the natural frequency
and head loss as well.

M. J. Smith, et al. [14] presented combined theoretical, numerical and

experimental study of liquid oscillations in an asymmetric U-tube. The
configuration under investigation is analogous to that of the tuned liquid-column
damper used to suppress oscillatory motion in large semi-supported structures.
The liquid motion was described by a second-order ordinary differential equation
that is nonlinear when the widths of the two vertical columns are unequal. It was
shown that this asymmetry can be used as a tuning parameter to determine the
natural frequency of free oscillations in the system, in addition to the known
tuning effect of the connecting chamber height. The effects of viscous damping
and periodic forcing were considered, leading to a description of probable initial
and long-term resonance behavior in a practical asymmetric device.

K.M. Shum, et al. [15] explored the use of MTLCD for reducing the coupled
lateral and torsional vibration for long span bridges under harmonic excitation,
white noise excitation, and wind excitation. They formulated equations of motion
of the coupled MTLCD and bridge systems under different excitations. Extensive
parametric studies on the MTLCD for a long span bridge under harmonic
excitation and white noise excitation were carried out based on the formulation
developed. The results obtained revealed that there exists an optimal water mass
distribution between the two dampers, which depends on the relative importance
of torsional response reduction to lateral response reduction. To achieve the
maximum reduction of displacement response, the value of a liquid length ratio
should be as large as possible provided that the water is retained in the horizontal
part of the container. The performance of MTLCD in reducing lateral and
torsional displacement responses depends on the head-loss coefficient and the
tuning ratio. The investigation on demonstrates that the MTLCD can reduce both
the lateral and torsional vibrations of the bridge, and the bridge response reduction
increases with increasing mean wind speed.

16
Jorge L.P. Felix, et al. [16] considered a portal frame with concentrated mass on
the horizontal beam and two identical columns assumed as linear elastic and with
negligible mass, one non-ideal source (DC motor of limited power supply and
unbalanced) and a TLCD mounted on the structural frame. They concluded that
the effectiveness of the TLCD depends on the variation of parameters coefficient
of head loss of the orifice ξ; liquid column length ratio α and mass ratio μ.

Jong-Cheng Wu, et al. [17] proposed non iterative analytical response solution for
structure with TLCD subjected to harmonic loading. From both analytical and
numerical inspections they concluded that (i) the optimal head loss is inversely
proportional to excitation amplitude; while the optimal frequency tuning ratio is
independent of the excitation level; (ii) the minimal peak amplitude of the
structure over all possible frequencies occurs when the two resonant peaks in the
structural response are equal, and this applies to both damped and undamped
structures; (iii) a uniform TLCD is always the best choice under the same
condition of structural damping, mass ratio and horizontal length ratio of the
TLCD; and (iv) the optimal performance is the same for the cases with reciprocal
cross-section ratios. They presented design tables containing lists of optimal
parameters for non- uniform and uniform TLCDs as quick guidelines for practical
use under a white-noise type of loading. A design example is also used to
demonstrate the use of these design tables.

Anoushirvan Farshidianfar, et al. [18] derived analytical formulas of the optimum

TLCD parameters for the undamped structure which were found to have good
agreement with other researchers and their results. Further, the optimal design
parameters such as tuning frequency ratio, length ratio and mass ratio were
obtained by using the white noise type of wind excitation and the performance of
the TLCD for controlling the wind induced responses of a 75-story flexible sky
scraper is investigated. Their conclusions were (i) for a given length and damping
ratio the optimal value of the tuning frequency ratio is close to 1 and it became
closer to 1 as the mass ratio decreases and by increasing the tuning frequency ratio
the effective length of the TLCD became larger; (ii) The performance of the

17
TLCD also depends on length ratio. It is shown, by increasing the length ratio, the
better results in control performance can be achieved. However, a TLCD with
very large length ratio does not work properly; thus, there is a threshold for length
ratio of a TLCD. (iii) By increasing the mass ratio the displacement variance of
the structure reduced. However a larger mass ratio does not always guarantee
superior results in general and it is impossible to use μ ≥ 3%. They also concluded
the TLCDs with uniform cross section always perform better than non-uniform
cross sections.
H. Gao, et al. [19] presented optimum parameters of the TLCD for maximum
reduction of peak structural response to harmonic excitations in a wide frequency
range for a wide range of flexible structures. It was found that an increase in
cross-sectional area ratio (vertical/horizontal) can greatly reduce the length
requirement of a TLCD making it more attractive to flexible structures. A new
type V-shaped TLCD is also investigated. It was found that this type of TLCD can
suppress stronger vibrations such as those caused by strong wind. It was observed
that the optimum coefficient of head loss will depend on the intensity of the
excitation with smaller coefficient of head loss associated with stronger excitation.

Alexandros A. Taflanidis, et al. [20] studied effectiveness under optimal design of

a Tuned Liquid Column Damper (TLCD) and a Liquid Column Vibration
Absorber (LCVA), in suppressing structural rotational vibrations under white
noise excitation. The results show that the position of the damper relative to the
rotational axis plays a significant role in determining the rotational vibration
reduction, and that the LCVA is more adaptable with regards to its position
relative to the structure, through the proper selection of the area of vertical to
horizontal tube section ratio.

Rama Debbarma, et al. [21] studied the TLCD parameters optimization to control
vibration of structures subjected to stochastic earthquake load under uncertain
system parameters modeled as uncertain but bounded type. With the aid of matrix
perturbation theory using first order Taylor series expansion and interval
extension of the dynamic response function, the vibration control problem is

18
transformed to appropriate deterministic optimization problems yielding the lower
and upper bound solution. Numerical study is performed to elucidate the effect of
parameter’s uncertainties on the optimization of damper parameters and the
performance of TLCD.

S. D. Xue, et al. [22] derived analytical formulas of the optimum TLCD

parameters for the undamped structure. The optimum peak amplitudes for the
structure and the liquid are also obtained. Based on the developed analytical
formulas, the practical solution procedures for finding the optimum parameters
are proposed. Their presented example indicates that the optimum TLCD
parameters can be easily calculated from the developed formulas.

Swaroop K. Yalla, et al. [23] developed a new approach using the TLCD theory
and the equivalent linearization scheme that helps to compute the optimum head
loss coefficient for a given level of wind or seismic excitation in a single step,
without resorting to iterations. They also presented optimal damping coefficient
and tuning ratio of a TLCD using a single degree of freedom system under the
white noise and a set of filtered white noise excitations representing wind and
seismic loadings. Optimum values of damping have also been investigated for
multiple TLCDs. An example is presented to demonstrate the performance of
multiple TLCDs in controlling multiple modes under wind excitation.

Adrian Y. J. Won, et al. [24] investigated performance of tuned liquid column

dampers (TLCDs) for the passive control of flexible structures under random
seismic loading using random vibration analysis. An equivalent linearization
technique is used to account for the nonlinear damping force in the TLCD. They
Illustrated examples using SDOF and MDOF shear beam structural models, and
two stochastic input ground motions representing short-duration and long-duration
ground motions with low frequency content. A parametric study was also
conducted to investigate the effects of the mass ratio, coefficient of head loss for
the damper, and loading intensity on the TLCD performance.

19
Kyung-Won Min, et al. [25] evaluated the performance of tuned liquid column
dampers (TLCDs) for controlling wind induced responses of a 76-story
benchmark building. The optimal design parameters such as head loss coefficient,
tuning ratio, and mass ratio were numerically obtained by using the white noise
and harmonic load. They also investigated the robustness of multiple TLCDs, and
the effects of mass ratio, the number of dampers, central tuning frequency ratio,
and the frequency range on the performance of multiple TLCDs. Finally, the
effectiveness of equivalent linear system for the benchmark building with
nonlinear TLCDs is investigated. It was found out that MTLCD shows superior
performance to a single TLCD.

H. Adeli, et al. [26] studied resent advances and motion control of bridges and
high rise buildings under extreme wind and earthquakes and found TLCD most
adventitious. They compared it with Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) and found that
TLCD is effective in giving space flexibility.

Aparna Ghosh, et al. [27] explored the possibility of the application of the liquid
column damper (LCD) for the seismic vibration control of short period structures.
They modeled a structure as a linear, viscously damped single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) system. A stochastic equivalent linearization technique is used to
linearize the nonlinear orifice damping in the LCD. Numerical studies are carried
out to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed system and the additional
damping in terms of equivalent viscous damping introduced by this damper into
the primary structure is studied. Their numerical study demonstrates that
significant response reduction, to the tune of 56 –66%, in the the displacement of
the structure, is possible by the use of the proposed damper system. Also, results
from a study on the equivalent viscous damping of this structure–damper system
indicate that the supplemental damping due to the spring-connected LCD is
considerable for lightly damped structures.

P. Chaiviriyawong, et al. [28] investigated numerical panel method, which is well

known and widely accepted in the naval industry and in aerospace for calculating

20
potential flows to simulate flows in the TLCDs and LCVAs. They found out that
the prediction of the characteristics of TLCDs and LCVAs based on the panel
method is accurate over a wide range of damper configurations, which is crucial
in control problems. They achieved significant improvement by using the
numerical panel method with a discrepancy of not greater than 3.4% between the
predicted natural frequencies and the experimental results, compared with a
discrepancy of about 7.5% or more in the conventional analysis. They concluded
that this numerical panel method is a versatile and powerful tool for the analysis
and design of liquid column dampers.

P. Chaiviriyawong, et al. [29] found that the numerical panel method is too
complicated to formulate and it cannot give the empirical form for TLCDs’
characteristics. As a result, they proposed elliptical flow path estimation method
to simulate the TLCDs’ vibration characteristics. The results obtained from the
numerical model were compared with those obtained from the tests on the shake
table. A significant improvement in the model accuracy was obtained.

Hojjat Adeli, [30] mentioned TLCD as the most effective passive damper for
smart structures. By optimally adjusting the head loss coefficient, he found that
the semi-active TLCD system can achieve a significant improvement over passive
TLCD system.

S.M. Zahrai, et al. [31] investigated the possible effects of seismic excitation
characteristics, such as frequency content and soil condition, on the seismic
performance of TLCDs, using nonlinear time-history analyses. For this purpose, a
ten-story building was modeled as an elastic MDOF structure and used for
numerical analyses. Their results concluded that these parameters play substantial
role in performance of TLCDs and they should be, accordingly, considered in the
designing of TLCDs. They at last concluded that the displacement reduction
capacity of TLCDs is highly dependent on excitation characteristics, while the
acceleration reduction capacity is not that sensitive.

21
Franz Ziegler, [32] worked out geometric analogy between the classical tuned
mass damper (TMD) and the tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) with emphasis
on the modal tuning process. He found out that the applications of the TLCD with
a sealed U-shaped piping system to tall buildings and slender bridges effectively
reduce dominating horizontal vibrations, equally as well as an increase of the
modal structural damping. Simulations and laboratory model testing proved that a
TLCD attached to the tip of the cantilevered bridge supplies sufficient damping
and thus allows longer spans.

Lin-Sheng HUO, et al. [33] investigated the control performance of Circular

Tuned
Liquid Column Dampers (CTLCD) to torsional response of structure excited by
ground motions. The optimal parameters were derived from stochastic process.
The influence of these parameters was analyzed with purely torsional vibration
and translational-torsional coupled vibration, respectively. Their results showed
that Circular Tuned Liquid Column Dampers (CTLCD) is an effective torsional
response control device.

S.D. Xue, et al. [34] investigated the possibility and effectiveness of applying
TLCD to suppress pitching motion of structures. Both theoretical and
experimental investigations were carried out. A mathematical model of tuned
liquid column damper for suppressing structural pitching vibration was developed.
A close agreement was obtained between the experimental results and theoretical
simulation. Both theoretical and experimental studies showed that TLCD can
efficiently reduce structural pitching motion.

K. A. Al-Saif, et al. [35] studied the effect of coated steel ball instead of orifice in
horizontal column of tuned liquid damper. They named it as Tuned Liquid Ball
Damper (TLBD) and proposed it as passive vibration control device for structures
oscillating at low frequencies such as towers and high rise buildings. They studied
effect of harmonic excitation. The results showed an improvement of the vibration
suppression capability of the proposed version that exceeds 65% reduction.

22
Anooshirvan Farshidianfar, et al. [36] applied He’s homotopy perturbation
method (HPM) and variational iteration method (VIM) to find better approximate
solution for the structure-TLCD equations. This new method is utilized to solve
the equation of motion of a building modeled as a single degree of freedom
(SDOF) system coupled with the equation of motion of the liquid in the column of
the TLCD and subjected to a harmonic type of wind excitation. They concluded
that the new technique achieved more reliable solution for the TLCD design.

T. Balendra, et al. [37] investigated the effectiveness of the TLCD in reducing the
along-wind response of tall buildings. They studied variety of buildings with
different mass stiffness distributions (e.g. uniform, linear, abrupt variation)
modeled as shear wall and rigid frame systems. They adopted continuum
formulation, which provided response statistics along the entire height of the
structure. The performance of the TLCD is discussed with respect to the mode
shapes of buildings. A numerical example was also presented, illustrating that a
second damper could greatly improve the overall response of certain type of
buildings.

Jong-Cheng Wu, et al. [38] investigated both theoretically and experimentally

wind induced interaction between a tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) and a
structure (bridge deck) in pitching motion. Non-uniform cross-sections in TLCDs
are considered in general. Theoretically, the interacted equations of motion under
wind excitation were derived for a single degree of freedom rotational structure
equipped with a TLCD based on energy principles. An addition term, which had
never been revealed in existing literature, was discovered. Comparison results
showed that analytical responses with the additional term included can represent
the actual interaction more closely than those without the additional term. So they
concluded that the inclusion of the additional term in pitching interaction
equations is essential.

23
K.M. Shum, et al. [39] explored the possibility of using multiple pressurized tuned
liquid column dampers to reduce wind-induced vibration of long span cable-
stayed bridges. They found out that by implementing a static pressure inside two
sealed air chambers at two ends of a traditional tuned liquid column damper
(TLCD), a pressurized tuned liquid column damper (PTLCD) is formed and its
natural frequency can be adjusted by not only the length of its liquid column but
also the pressure inside its two air chambers. The performance of multiple
PTLCD for suppressing combined lateral and torsional vibration of a real long
span cable stayed bridge was numerically assessed. The investigations showed
that the multiple PTLCD not only provides great flexibility for selecting liquid
column length but also significantly reduces the lateral and torsional displacement
responses of the long span bridge under wind excitation.

2.2 NEED FOR THE RESEARCH

Amongst the properties of TLCD, the properties of this orifice play an important
role in the behaviour of TLCD. Major research has been carried out by assuming
the properties of this orifice as the orifice opening ratio and very little
experimentation has been done on these properties. Therefore the research will be
carried out on these orifice properties instead of the conventional parameter as
orifice opening ratio.

As seen from the review in the previous section, a lot of research work on
effectiveness of TLCDs in controlling wind response of structure has been carried
out and it is shown that they are effective in controlling such a wind induced
response, but less effective in controlling the response due to earthquake. Also
very few studies are carried out in context with the Indian conditions, as far as
design of structures along with TLCD is concern. No experimentation is carried
out with different fluids of TLCD with special fluid properties. Therefore, there is
a need of studying the behavior of TLCD.

2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

24
One of the prime objectives of the present work therefore is to study the
effectiveness of a TLCD in reducing the earthquake response of structures of
various natural time periods and structural damping ratio. Furthermore, an attempt
will be made to define appropriate design parameters of the TLCD that is effective
in controlling the earthquake response of a structure. These parameters include
Mass ratios (µ), Tuning ratio (f), Ratio of tube width to the liquid length (α) and
properties of orifice and the properties of fluid inside TLCD.

For numerical simulations, harmonic ground motion, actual ground motions and
artificial ground motions (different sets defining different frequency content and
bandwidth of the ground motions) will be considered.

The specific objectives of the present study are as follows:

 To develop a finite element formulation for earthquake response analysis of
SDOF (shear structure) with TLCD with following parameters.
 Mass ratios (µ)
 Tuning ratio (f),
 Ratio of tube width to the liquid length (α)
 Properties of orifice i.e. orifice opening ratio and coefficient of discharge
of orifice
 Properties of fluid in TLCD i. e. Viscosity, coefficient of friction, density
of fluid
 To carry out experiment on TLCD
 To identify the important design parameters of TLCD
 To investigate the effectiveness of TLCD for controlling the earthquake
response of structure, when the structure is subjected to different types of
ground motions.
 To study the application of TLCD to match the codal provisions of IS 1893-
2002 and thereby defining a new earthquake resistant system as per Indian
standards.

25
 Figure 2-4: Mathematical model and working of a TLCD

1.1.3 ANALYTICAL & NUMERICAL STUDY

3.1 STRUCTURES WITH TLCD SUBJECTED TO HARMONIC

LOADING

As shown in Figure 2-1, when the damper-structure system experiences a

vibration, the liquid column tube will have the same horizontal translational
motion as the structure, and the liquid column will experience a relative motion
with respect to the tube. Let h and B denote the density, vertical length and
horizontal length of the liquid column, respectively, and A denote the cross-
sectional areas of the liquid column, respectively. Using energy principles, the
incremental total energy of the system should equal the work done by the external
force. The kinetic energy of the entire system in figure 1 can be expressed as
T =T fluid +T structure
...3.1

Where
1 1 1
T fluid=
2V
∫ ρ( ẏ 2+¿ ẋ 2S )dV + ∫ ρ ( ẋ S + ẏ )2 dV + ∫ ρ( ẏ 2 +¿ ẋ 2S )dV ¿ ¿
2V 2V ...3.2
1 2 3

26
Where V 1 V2 and V3 are the volumes of the fluid in the left column, horizontal
portion and right column of the U-tube,
x S is the displacement of the structure, and
y is the displacement of surface of the fluid.

Performing the integration leads to,

1
T fluid= ρAh ( ẏ + ẋ S ) + ρBA ( ẋ S + ẏ )
2 2 2
...
2
3.3

Where (L-B) is undistributed length of the liquid in the vertical column and is
equal to h/2 and B is the length of the horizontal section of the U-tube.
The kinetic energy of the structure is
1
T S= m2S ẍ 2S
2
...3.4
Where m S is the fundamental modal mass of the structure.

The substitution of equations 3.3 and 3.4 into equation 3.1 leads to the kinetic
energy of the entire system as
1 2 2 1
T = mS ẍ S + ρAh ( ẏ + ẋ S ) + ρBA ( ẋ S + ẏ)
2 2 2
...3.5
2 2

The potential energy of the fluid can be expressed as

U f =∫ g zρdV +∫ g zρdV
V1 V3

...3.6

Performing the integration one obtains

1 1
U f = ρ g A (h− y)2 + ρ g A (h+ y )2 ...3.7
2 2

Where g is gravitational acceleration.

27
Including the potential energy of the structure, the total potential energy of the
entire system is
1 2 2 2
U = k S x S + ρA g(h + y ) ...3.8
2

Where k S is the fundamental modal stiffness of the structure.

To use Lagrange’s equations, one needs to obtain the generalize forces, which are
those not already contained in the potential energy U (i.e. damping and external
forces). Therefore, the generalized forces associated with the coordinates x S and y
respectively, can be expressed as:

Q1=f ext ( t )−c S ẋ S ...3.9

Q2=− ρ g A ( ˙ ẏ
δ∨ y ∨
2 )
...3.10

Where f ext = Feiωt is the external excitation force acting on the structure, which is
assumed to be harmonic of amplitude F and excitation frequency ω,
Cs is viscous damping coefficient of the structural system,
δ is head loss coefficient due to the orifice.

The equations of motion of the system can be derived from the following
Lagrange’s equations

dt [
d ∂(T −U )
∂ qi
−
∂
∂ qi ]
(T −U)=Qi i = 1, 2 ...3.11

With q1 = xS, q2 = y and t is the time

The equations of motion of the structure with liquid column damper are given by
mS ( 1+ μ ) ẍ S +c S x S +k S x S +α mf ÿ =f ext (t) ...3.12
1 ˙ ẏ +2 ρ g Ay+ α mf ẍ S=0
mf ÿ + ρAδ∨ y ∨ ...3.13
2

28
Under the condition
L−B s
y≤ − ...3.14
2 2

Where m S is the mass of the structure;

mf =ρAL is mass of the fluid with
L=2 h+ B is the total length of the fluid in the tube;
s is thickness of liquid column and
α =b / L (length ratio);
ξ S is the damping ratio of the structure;
ω f =√ 2 g/ L is the natural frequency of the liquid;
x S is the lateral displacement of the structure;
y is the relative motion of the liquid column inside the TLCD to the container;
ρ is the liquid density in the TLCD;
A is the cross-sectional area of liquid column in the TLCD;
μ is the mass ratio of liquid column to the structure.

The inherent non linear damping of liquid motion could be replaced by a linear
equivalent damping ratio.
4
c eq =2 mf ω f ξ d= ρAδω∨ y∨¿ ...3.15
3π
Where ξ d is the equivalent damping ratio of the liquid;
y∨¿ is the steady state response amplitude of liquid displacement;

δ is the head loss coefficient of TLCD.

The equation of motion of TLCD-structure can be written into the matrix form as

[ α mf mf ][ ] [
mS ( 1+ μ ) α mf ẍ 2mS ω S ξ S
ÿ
+
0
0 ẋ
2mf ωf ξ d ẏ ][ ]
+
[ mS ω2S
0
0
][ ] [ ]
2
mf ω f
x
y
=
F
0
...3.16

29
The steady state responses of both the structure and the liquid motion of the
TLCD under the harmonic forces excitation are given by
[ x y ]T= [ x T
y ] eiωt ...3.17

Substituting Equation 3.17 into Equation 3.16, it yields the steady state response
amplitudes of both the structure and the liquid as

F ( λ −β + 2 λβ ξ d i )
2 2

X= ...3.18
mS ωS { [−( 1+ μ ) β +2 β ξ S i+1 ] ( λ −β + 2 λβ ξ d i ) −μ α β }
2 2 2 2 2 4

F ( αβ )
2
Y= ...3.19
mS ω S {[ −( 1+ μ ) β +2 β ξ S i+1 ] ( λ −β +2 λβ ξd i ) −μ α β }
2 2 2 2 2 4

The goal is to minimize the resonant amplitude of structure displacement ¿ x∨¿

by selecting a set of optimum parameters λ and ξ d .

3.2 STRUCTURES WITH TLCD SUBJECTED TO FAR FIELD

RECORDED EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATIONS

The standard earthquake motions are considered to study the behaviour of the
structure subjected to real earthquake ground motions in the far field and to
investigate the effectiveness of TLCD in controlling the seismic response of the
structure. Five ground motions recorded at different sites for different earthquakes
are also considered here. These motions are distinguished by their different
intensity levels. These earthquake motions are
1. NS component of the El Centro ground motion, Imperial Valley 1940
earthquake (peak acceleration of 0.319g).
2. S69E component of the Taft ground motion, Kern County 1952 earthquake
(peak acceleration of 0.178g).
3. NS component of the SCT ground motion, Mexico City 1985 earthquake
(peak acceleration of 0.101g).
4. Northridge earthquake (peak acceleration of 0.843g).

30
5. Kobe earthquake (peak acceleration of 0.834g).

3.3 STRUCTURES WITH TLCD SUBJECTED TO ARTIFICIALLY

GENERATED GROUND MOTIONS

There is a difficulty with studying the effectiveness of TLCD for individual

ground motions, which typically have uneven response spectra. This can be
overcome by evening out the response spectra over a frequency spectrum. This
is achieved by taking a significant number of artificially generated
accelerograms and considering the mean structural response. The advantage of
this approach is that the frequency content and bandwidth of the earthquake
ground motion can be varied to represent an ensemble of ground motions for
different types of soil conditions. In the present study, same approach has been
followed to study the effectiveness of TLCD for controlling seismic response
of a structure. In this approach different sets of 20 accelerograms are generated
and the mean response of the structure for each set is considered. A numerical
procedure is used to generate digital records of pseudo-earthquakes. First,
samples of white noise with a flat power spectral density over the range of
frequencies of interest are constructed. Then these samples are shaped and
passed through a second order filter to provide the sample waveforms
representing ground acceleration time histories. The second order linear filter
used is as proposed by Kanai-Tajimi. Therefore, the power spectral density
function of the filtered white noise process is given by
2
2 ωg
1+4 ξ g 2
ω
S ü ( ω ) = S 0

( )
2
g
ω2 2 ω
2
1 − g2 + 4 ξ g g2
ω ω 3.20

where
S0 = white noise intensity
wg = frequency associated with the second order Kanai-Tajimi filter.
xg = damping associated with the second order Kanai-Tajimi filter.

31
The random fluctuations observed in records of strong-motions earthquakes
usually follow general patterns. Typically, the recorded earthquake ground
motions begin with small amplitudes, which increase with time until a period of
strong motion occurs. When the strong motion is over, the amplitudes decay
steadily until the motion ends. To reflect this character of actual ground motion,
the intensity shaping function chosen is as shown in Figure 3.1. This has an initial
parabolic build up function from time 0 to ti, then it is constant of value unity for a
time duration tsd, and finally has an exponential decay function till the end of the
duration of the ground motion td. Mathematically this intensity shaping function
can be expressed as

(t/ti)2 0 £ t £ ti
I (t) = 1 ti £ t £ ti + tsd 3.21
−c ( t − t i − t sd )
e ti + tsd £ t £ td

In the above expressions, c is an exponential decay constant. Finally, baseline

corrections are applied to individual records to eliminate large drifts in the ground
displacements, as it is usually done with records of real earthquake motions.
Following the procedure outlined as above, sets of twenty artificial accelerograms
are generated, using the software PSEQGN, from the time-modulated Kanai-
Tajimi spectrum by defining particular values for its frequency parameter wg and
damping parameter xg.

Initially, three different sets of accelerograms are generated using three different
Kanai-Tajimi filters, corresponding to a base white noise ground motion filtered
through hard (or shallow), medium, and soft (or deep) soil layers, respectively.
The set of motions filtered through hard soil has a frequency content centered at
2.5 Hz (wg = 5p rad/s) with a large bandwidth (xg = 0.6). The set filtered through
medium soil has a frequency content centered at 1.5 Hz (wg = 3p rad/s) with a
medium bandwidth (xg = 0.4). The set filtered through soft soil has a frequency
content centered at 0.5 Hz (wg = p rad/s) with a small bandwidth (xg = 0.2). Each
set, however, has the same mean peak ground acceleration of 0.35g,

32
approximately corresponding to the peak of the previously defined El Centro
motion. For all these three sets of motions, the values of t i, tsd and td taken are
respectively are 4, 11 and 30 seconds.

A further six sets of artificial accelerograms have been generated in order to study
the effect of ground motion parameters on the TLCD to control the earthquake
response of a structure. The filter parameters and shaping function time
parameters for these sets of ground motions are given in Table 3.1. Note that the
datum ground motion is set I motion, corresponding to wg =2 p rad/s, xg = 0.4, ti =
2 s, tsd = 11 s, and td = 30 s. All other sets are variations of this set as illustrated in
Table 3.1.

3.4 SOLUTION OF EQUATIONS OF MOTIONS

The equations of motions of structure are coupled. Therefore these equations have to
be solved simultaneously to obtain the response of the structure with and without
TLCD. In the present study, an iterative numerical procedure (Newmark’s Beta
method) is used to compare the response of the structure.

3.5 NUMERICAL STUDY

The seismic response of a single degree of freedom structure subjected to

harmonic ground motion, various recorded earthquake motions (El-Centro, Kobe,
Mexico city, North Ridge, Taft) and artificially generated earthquake
accelerations is investigated for structures without TLCD and with TLCD. The
parametric study involves 4 different structures with different fundamental time
periods. The structures are classified into four systems namely Type 1, Type 2,
Type 3 and Type 4 on the basis of natural time period of the structures. Each
structure is studied for various earthquake motions such as Harmonic ground
motion, El-Centro, Kobe, Mexico city, North Ridge, Taft. The properties of these
structures are given in table 3.2. The properties of TLCD considered in the
analysis are presented in table 3.3

33
 The effectiveness of seismic isolation is studied for parameters such as maximum
displacement and maximum acceleration.

Each structure is analysed first without TLCD and then with TLCD subjected to
earthquake accelerations. The results of maximum displacements and
accelerations of structures with and without TLCD and percentage reductions in
displacement and accelerations of structures with TLCD compared with reference
to structures without TLCD are presented in table 3.4 to table 3.9. A typical
representation of time history of displacement and acceleration of type 2 structure
with TLCD and without TLCD subjected to harmonic and El-Centro earthquake
ground motion is shown in figure 3-2 to figure 3-5

Table 3-1: Characteristics of various sets of artificially generated ground

motions
Set No. g (rad/s) g tsd (s) PGA (g)

I 1.5 0.4 11 0.35

II 2.0 0.2 11 0.35
III 2.0 0.4 4 0.35
IV 2.0 0.4 11 0.35
V 2.0 0.6 11 0.35
VI 3.0 0.4 11 0.35

Table 3-2: Properties of Structures

Structure Type - 1 Type - 2 Type - 3 Type - 4
Mass of the structure (tonnes) 2736 3363 2647 18000
Stiffness of the structure (kN/m) 238550 238560 11104.6 18200
Natural time period (sec) 0.672 0.745 3.067 6.248

34
 Table 3-3: Properties of TLCD
Liquid in TLCD Water
Density of liquid ( ρ ) 1000 kg/m3
Head loss coefficient (δ) 0.5
Liquid Length Ratio (α) 0.6
Mass Ratio (µ) 0.025
Frequency Tuning Ratio (λ) 1

Table 3-4: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures

subjected to harmonic ground motion with PGA 0.25g
Maximum Maximum
Time displacement % Reduction acceleration in % Reduction
Period (m) in (m/s2) in
Structure
(Sec) Without With Displacement Without With Acceleration
TLCD TLCD TLCD TLCD
Type - 1 0.62 1.33 0.28 78.6 116.8 23.38 79.99
Type - 2 0.75 1.63 0.34 78.8 116.5 23.48 79.86
Type - 3 3.07 16.73 6.01 64.1 70.11 24.48 65.08
Type - 4 6.24 40.66 22.10 45.6 41.14 21.78 47.06

Table 3-5: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures

subjected to El-Centro ground motion (PGA=0.319g)
Maximum Maximum
Time displacement % Reduction acceleration in % Reduction
Period (m) in (m/s2) in
Structure
(Sec) Without With Displacement Without With Acceleration
TLCD TLCD TLCD TLCD

35
Type - 1 0.62 0.12 0.05 55.1 11.04 5.43 50.8
Type - 2 0.75 0.11 0.04 60.28 7.89 4.53 42.6
Type - 3 3.07 0.43 0.2 54.5 3.82 2.26 40.9
Type - 4 6.24 0.49 0.34 30.8 3.07 2.76 10.1

Table 3-6: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures

subjected to El-Centro ground motion (PGA=0.319g)
Maximum Maximum
displacement % Reduction acceleration in % Reduction
Time
(m) in (m/s2) in
Structure Period
Without With Displacement Without With Acceleration
TLCD TLCD TLCD TLCD
Type - 1 0.62 0.45 0.24 46.2 40.07 20.53 48.8
Type - 2 0.75 0.33 0.18 46.5 25.13 12.43 50.5
Type - 3 3.07 0.40 0.19 51.9 8.99 4.55 49.4
Type - 4 6.24 0.25 0.12 52.0 8.39 4.26 49.2

Table 3-7: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures

subjected to Mexico city ground motion (PGA =0.101g)
Maximum Maximum
Time displacement % Reduction acceleration in % Reduction
Period (m) in (m/s2) in
Structure
(Sec) Without With Displacement Without With Acceleration
TLCD TLCD TLCD TLCD
Type - 1 0.62 0.06 0.02 61.4 5.07 1.99 60.8

36
Type - 2 0.75 0.03 0.01 52.2 2.24 1.04 53.8
Type - 3 3.07 0.15 0.08 48.7 1.41 0.71 49.5
Type - 4 6.24 0.36 0.18 50.0 0.99 0.60 39.4

Table 3-8: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures

subjected to Northridge ground motion (PGA =0.843g)
Maximum Maximum
Time displacement % Reduction acceleration in % Reduction
Period (m) in (m/s2) in
Structure
(Sec) Without With Displacement Without With Acceleration
TLCD TLCD TLCD TLCD
Type - 1 0.62 0.16 0.09 45.3 19.43 9.60 50.6
Type - 2 0.75 0.19 0.10 47.7 18.13 8.59 52.6
Type - 3 3.07 0.94 0.48 49.0 10.05 5.38 46.5
Type - 4 6.24 0.52 0.26 49.5 4.73 4.73 462

Table 3-9: % reduction in displacement and acceleration of different structures

subjected to Taft ground motion (PGA =0.178g)
Maximum Maximum
Time displacement % Reduction acceleration in % Reduction
Period (m) in (m/s2) in
Structure
(Sec) Without With Displacement Without With Acceleration
TLCD TLCD TLCD TLCD
Type - 1 0.62 0.06 0.02 62.7 5.37 2.00 62.7

37
Type - 2 0.75 0.05 0.03 41.8 3.77 2.42 35.7
Type - 3 3.07 0.14 0.07 48.6 2.08 1.04 50.0
Type - 4 6.24 0.26 0.16 37.7 1.80 0.90 49.8

Figure 3-5: Intensity shaping function for artificially generated ground

motions

38
 2

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

Without TLCD with TLCD

Figure 3-6: Time history of Displacement of Type 2 structure subjected to

harmonic ground motion with PGA = 0.25g

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-50

-100

-150

Without TLCD With TLCD

Figure 3-7: Time history of Displacement of Type 2 structure subjected to

harmonic ground motion with PGA = 0.25g

39
 0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

Without TLCD With TLCD

Figure 3-8: Time history of Displacement of Type 2 structure subjected to

El-Centro ground motion (PGA=0.319g)

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

Without TLCD With TLCD

Figure 3-9: Time history of Acceleration of Type 2 structure subjected to

El-Centro ground motion (PGA=0.319g)

40
REFERENCES

1 Sakai F., Takaeda S., and Tamaki T., (1989), “Tuned Liquid Column
Damper–New Type Device for Suppression of Building Vibrations,” Proc.
Of International conference on High-rise Buildings, Vol. 2, Nanjing, China
2 Marcel Duijvendijk, and Van Mecal, (1999) “Application of Tuned Liquid
Column Dampers in Wind Turbines” Applied Mechanics BV, Wind energy
product development, Netherlands.
3 Reiterer M. and Ziegler F.(1985) “Bi-axial Seismic Activation of Civil
Engineering Structures Equipped with Tuned Liquid Column Dampers”
Proc. 3rd European conf. on Structural Control, Schriftenreihe der TU-Wien,
(in Press), ISBN-3-901167, S6-16-19.
4 Gao H., Kwok K. S. C., and Samali B. (1997), “Characteristics of Multiple
Tuned Liquid Column Dampers in Suppressing Structural Vibration”
Engineering Structures Vol. 21, 316–331
5 Shum K. M. (2008), “Closed Form Optimal Solution of A Tuned Liquid
Column Damper for Suppressing Harmonic Vibration of Structures”,
Engineering Structures 31, 84-92
6 Farshidianfar A., and Oliazadeh P. (2008), “Closed Form Optimal Solution
of A Tuned Liquid Column Damper Responding to Earthquake”,
Engineering and Technology 59.
7 Michael Reiterer, Markus J. Hochrainer (2007), “Damping of Footbridge
Vibrations By Tuned Liquid Column Dampers: A Novel Experimental
Model Set-Up”, Institute of Rational Mechanics 14
8 Jong-Cheng Wu and Cheng-Hsin Chang (2006), “Design Table of Optimal
Parameters for Tuned Liquid Column Damper Responding to Earthquake” 4th
International Conference on Earthquake Engineering Taipei, Taiwan, Paper
no.165

41
9 Jong-Cheng Wu, Ming-Hsiang Shih, Yuh-Yi Lin, and Ying-Chang Shen,
(2005), “Design Guidelines for Tuned Liquid Column Damper for Structures
Responding to Wind”, Engineering Structures 27,1893-1905
10 Emmerich Simoncsics (2006), “Development Of Earthquake- and Landslide-
Proof Public Buildings and Their Transformation into Shelters in Case of
Emergency”, disaster mitigation of debris flows, slope failures and
landslides, 729-732
11 Balendra T., Wang C. M. and Cheong H. F. (1995), “Effectiveness of Tuned
Liquid Column Dampers for Vibration Control of Towers”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 17, No. 9, pp. 668-675
12 Balendra T. ,Wang C. M., and Rakesh G.(1997), “Effectiveness of TLCD On
Various Structural Systems”, Engineering Structures 21, 291–305
13 Jong-Cheng Wu (2005), “Experimental Calibration and Head Loss
Prediction of Tuned Liquid Column Damper” Tamkang Journal of Science
and Engineering, Vol. 8, No 4, 319-325
14 Smith M. J. , Kobine J. J., And Davidson F. A. (2008), “Free and Forced
Motion in an Asymmetric Liquid Column Oscillator” Proc. R. Soc. A- 464,
905– 922
15 Shum K. M., and Xu Y. L.(2004), “Multiple Tuned Liquid Column Dampers
for Reducing Coupled Lateral and Torsional Vibration of Structures”
Engineering Structures 26, 745–758
16 Jorge L.P. Felix, Jose´ M. Balthazar, Reyolando M.L.R.F. Brasil, (2004),
“Tuned Liquid Column Dampers Mounted on A Structural Frame under A
Non-Ideal Excitation”, Journal Of Sound And Vibration 282, 1285-1292
17 Jong-Cheng Wu, Cheng-HsingChang, and Yuh-Yi Lin, (2008), “Optimal
Designs for Non-Uniform Tuned Liquid Column Dampers in Horizontal
Motion” Journal of Sound and Vibration 326, 104–122
18 Anoushirvan Farshidianfar, Pouria Oliazadeh, and Hamid Reza Farivar
(2009), “Optimal Parameter’s Design in Tuned Liquid Column Damper”,
17th Annual (International) Conference on Mechanical Engineering-
ISME2009

42
19 Gao H., Kwok K. C. S. and Samali B. (1997), “Optimization of Tuned
Liquid Column Dampers”, Engineering Structures, Elsevier Vol. 19, No. 6,
pp. 476-486
20 Alexandros A. Taflanidis􀗛, Demos C. Angelides, and George C. Manos
(2005), “Optimal Design and Performance of Liquid Column Mass Dampers
for Rotational Vibration Control of Structures under White Noise Excitation”
Engineering Structures 27, 524–534
21 Debbarma R., Chakraborty S., and Ghosh S. K. (2010), “Optimum Design of
Tuned Liquid Column Dampers under Stochastic Earthquake Load
Considering Uncertain Bounded System Parameters” International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences 52, 1385–1393
22 Xue S. D., Ko J. M. And Xu Y. L.(2000), “Optimum Parameters of Tuned
Liquid Column Damper for Suppressing Pitching Vibration of an Undamped
Structure” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 235(4), 639-653
23 Yalla S. K., and Kareem A(2000), “Optimum Absorber Parameters for
Tuned Liquid Column Dampers” ASCE
24 Adrian Y. J. Won, Jose A. Pirest and Medhat A. Harount (1997),
“Performance Assessment of Tuned Liquid Column Dampers under Random
Seismic Loading”, J. Non-Linear Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 745-758.
25 Kyung-Won Mina, Hyoung-Seop Kim, Sang-Hyun Lee, Hongjin Kim, and
Sang Kyung Ahn (2005), “Performance Evaluation of Tuned Liquid Column
Dampers for Response Control of A 76-Story Benchmark Building”,
Engineering Structures 27, 1101–1112
26 Adeli H. and Kim H. (2006), “Recent Advances and Novel Concepts for
Motion Control of Bridges and High-rise Buildings under Extreme Winds
and Earthquakes”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and
Housing) Vol. 7, No. 4 , Pages 335-342
27 Ghosh A, and Basu B.(2004), “SEISMIC VIBRATION CONTROL
OFSHORT PERIOD STRUCTURES USING THE LIQUID COLUMN
DAMPER”, Engineering Structures 26, 1905–1913

43
28 Chaiviriyawong P., Webster W. C. , Pinkaew T., and Lukkunaprasita P.
(2007), “Simulation of Characteristics of Tuned Liquid Column Damper
using A Potential-Flow Method”, Engineering Structures 29, 132–144
29 Chaiviriyawong P., Limkatanyu S. and Pinkaew T. (2008), “Simulations of
Characteristics of Tuned Liquid Column Damper using An Elliptical Flow
Path Estimation Method” The 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China.
30 Hojjat Adeli (2008), “Smart Structures and Building Automation in the 21 st
Century” The 25th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction
31 Zahrai S. M. and Kavand A., “Strong Ground Motion Effects on Seismic
Response Reduction by TLCDs”, Scientia Iranica, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp 275-
285
32 Franz Ziegler(2007), “The Tuned Liquid Column Damper as A Cost
Effective Alternative for the Mechanical Damper in Civil Engineering
Structures”, Center of Mechanics and Structural Dynamics, Vienna
University of Technology
33 Lin-Sheng Huo and Hong-Nan Li (2004), “Torsionally Coupled Response
Control of Structures using Circular Tuned Liquid Column Dampers”, 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada
August 1-6, Paper No. 1560
34 Xue S. D., Ko J. M. , and Xu Y. L.(2000), “Tuned Liquid Column Damper
for Suppressing Pitching Motion of Structures” Engineering Structures 23,
1538–1551
35 Al-Saif K. A. , Aldakkan K. A., Foda M. A.(2010) “Vibration Suppression of
A Structure Using A Liquid Column Ball Damper” Canadian Journal on
Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 1, No. 2
36 Farshidianfar A. , and Oliazadeh P. (2010), “Vibration Control of Super Tall
Buildings by Tuned Liquid Column Damper”, The 17th international
congress on sounds and vibration.

44
37 Balendra T., Wang C. M., and Rakesh G.(1999), “Vibration Control of
Various Types of Buildings Using TLCD” , Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics 83, 197-208
38 Jong-Cheng Wu, Yen-Po Wang, Chien-Liang Lee, Pei-Hsuan Liao and Yi-
Hsuan Chen(2008), “Wind-Induced Interaction of A Non-Uniform Tuned
Liquid Column Damper and A Structure In Pitching Motion” Engineering
Structures 30, 3555-3565
39 Shum K. M. , Xu Y. L. , and Guo W. H(2008), “Wind-Induced Vibration
Control of Long Span Cable-Stayed Bridges using Multiple Pressurized
Tuned Liquid Column Dampers”, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics 96, 166–192
40 Clough R. W., Penzien J. (1982), “Dynamics of Structures” McGraw-Hill.
41 Chopra A. K. (1996), “Dynamics of Structures”, Prentice-Hall of India, New
Delhi.

45