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

net/publication/259263295

The TLCD Passive Control: Numerical Investigations vs. Experimental Results

Conference Paper · November 2012

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2012-86568

CITATIONS READS

15 270

4 authors:

Giacomo Navarra Alberto Di Matteo

Kore University of Enna Università degli Studi di Palermo
70 PUBLICATIONS   515 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   776 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francesco Lo Iacono Antonina Pirrotta

Kore University of Enna Università degli Studi di Palermo
54 PUBLICATIONS   426 CITATIONS    268 PUBLICATIONS   2,373 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research Project - PRIN: PROGETTI DI RICERCA DI RILEVANTE INTERESSE NAZIONALE – Bando 2017 - Prot. 2017XYM8KC “Urban safety, sustainability, and resilience: 3
paving solutions, 4 sets of modules, 2 platforms.” Acronym: USR342. View project

SMARTI - Sustainable Multifunctional Automated Resilient Transport Infrastructures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giacomo Navarra on 12 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
THE TLCD PASSIVE CONTROL:
NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS VS EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Alberto Di Matteo
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale,
Aerospaziale, dei Materiali, University of Palermo
Palermo, Italy
Giacomo Navarra
Facoltà di Ingegneria, Architettura e delle Scienze
Motorie, University of Enna “Kore”
Enna, Italy
giacomo.navarra@unikore.it
ABSTRACT
Very recently the tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) is
receiving an increasing interest from researchers concerned
with vibration control, to be considered an alternative device
with respect to the tuned mass damper (TMD), since the former
has low cost, easy adjustment, flexible installation.
However, in recent studies the authors [1] have pointed out
that for TMD the analytical formulation provides results that
are in good agreement with the experimental ones, while for
TLCD it has been deducted that the analytical formulation
needs further investigation.
In fact using the classical formulation of the problem,
numerical results are very different from the experimental
results obtained by the authors using the facilities at the
experimental dynamic laboratory of University of Palermo.
In particular it has been shown that the total liquid length
should be corrected in an effective one, but in a different way
from what has been done in literature, where only the variation
of section of the vessel has been taken into account. On the
other hand, from experimental investigations it is seen that the
liquid moves more in the central area of the tube and less in the
area in contact with the side walls. This aspect plays a
fundamental role for capturing the real performance of TLCD.
In fact, being the TLCD a special type of auxiliary damping
device which relies on the inertia of liquid column in a U-tube
to counteract the forces acting on the structure, then it is
necessary to identify the effective moving liquid mass. To aim
at this, in this paper the authors differentiate the total liquid
IMECE2012
November 9-15, 2012, Houston, Texas, USA
IMECE2012-86568
Francesco Lo Iacono
Facoltà di Ingegneria, Architettura e delle Scienze
Motorie, University of Enna “Kore”
Enna, Italy
francesco.loiacono@unikore.it
Antonina Pirrotta
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale,
Aerospaziale, dei Materiali, University of Palermo
Palermo, Italy
antonina.pirrotta@unipa.it
mass into a liquid dead mass and a liquid dynamic mass, then
introducing these values into a properly modified mathematical
formulation numerical results match the experimental ones for
all tests.
INTRODUCTION
In vibration control passive systems, where a device is
attached to a main system to be controlled and reduces the
responses without external power supply, are simpler than the
active system where external forces are needed together with an
expensive feedback or feedforward control. The Tuned Mass
Damper (TMD), is undoubtedly the most widely used device
for reducing structural vibrations, but the Tuned Liquid Column
Damper (TLCD) represents now an interesting alternative for
some of its particular characteristics as low cost, easy
implementation, lack of required maintenance, no need to add
mass to the structure if you can use the liquid as water supply.
The TLCDs dissipate structural vibrations by means of a
combined action which involves the motion of the liquid mass
within the tube. The restoring force, in particular, is produced
by the force of gravity acting on the liquid and the damping
effect is generated by the hydrodynamic head losses that arise
during the motion of the liquid inside the TLCD and through its
passage through orifices inside the vessel.
While the TMD has been largely investigated
experimentally and theoretically, since 1928 when Den Hartog
[2] proposed a study of a vibration absorber, the TLCD
appeared for the first time in 1989 [3] and since then is
1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
receiving a growing interest among researchers concerned with x (t)
vibration control.
The TLCDs have been studied for the control of the wind
excited structures by Balendra et al. [4], Chang [5] and Wu et
al. [6]. Further studies were done to determine the optimal
parameters of these passive control vibration devices by Gao M
and Kwok [7], Chang and Hsu [8], Chang [5], Yalla and
Kareem [9] and Wu et al. [10]. The performance of the TLCD
for applications to seismic excited structures were instead
investigated by Won et al. [11] and Sadek et al. [12], Wu et al.
[13], Farshidianfar and Oliazadeh [14].
Experimental studies on this device have been conducted
for the first time by the same Sakai et al. [3] testing the
performance of a TLCD installed in a small model of a pylon of
a cable-stayed bridge. Balendra et al. [4] have conducted tests
on the TLCDs with shaking tables, to study the effect of
different inner orifice opening ratios on the motion of the ..
xg (t)
liquid.
Xue et al. [15] have presented an experimental study on the
application of TLCDs for the reduction of the pitching motion
of the structures and have carried out some tests in order to
outline the influence of the different parameters of the damper Figure 1: Main structure shear-type model.
on the performance of the TLCD.
Colwell et al. [16] have studied the use of different liquids Lh
in TLCDs, testing the effect of viscosity on the properties of the
control system, showing how the increase of this parameter
worsened the performance of the TLCD.
Recently Chaiviriyawong et al. [17] presented an
experimental study showing that, in the case of TLCD with
large transition zones, there is poor agreement between the
numerical results based on the classical formulation in
existence and the experimental values of the frequency
responses and displacement of the liquid. In this case, the y (t)
variation in liquid velocity in the relatively large transition zone
between the vertical columns and the horizontal part cannot be Lv
ignored.
In this paper the above considerations are shared and it has x (t)
been stressed that focusing on the experimental tests performed
with different kind of ground motions, the liquid moves more in
the central area of the tube and less in the area in contact with u p p e r p la te
the side walls. To take into account this phenomenological
aspect it is necessary to identify the effective moving liquid
mass. The latter is related to the identification of an effective
liquid length through experimental tests, and it is stressed that Figure 2: Main structure with TLCD
this effective length does not depend on the kind of the
excitation but it is slightly influenced by the total liquid inside, The governing equation system for the motion of this
that establishes the own TLCD frequency. controlled structure is
Then, once the effective moving liquid mass has been
identified, and properly introduced into the proposed modified Mx   ALx  Cx  Kx   ALh 
y   Mxg   ALxg (1a)
formulation, all numerical results highly match the
experimental ones.
1
 ALy   ALh 
x  Ay y  2  gAy    ALh 
xg (1b)
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION 2
Let it be assumed that the motion of a main structure (Fig.1)
characterized by a shear type system of single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) is mitigated by using a TLCD (Fig. 2)

2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

in which M , C and K are the mass, damping and stiffness The main structure (uncontrolled system) is a small scale
constants for the main structure, respectively, xg represents the single degree of freedom (SDOF) shear-type frame (Fig. 3)
composed by two steel columns and two nylon rigid plates as
ground acceleration, x and y are the displacements of the
base and floor respectively, whose dimensions are reported in
frame and of the liquid in the vertical columns, respectively, Fig. 4. The total mass model is 4.5027 kg, of which 0.408 kg
 ,  and g represent the density of the liquid inside the takes into account the dead weight of the tube mass of TLCD.
TLCD, the coefficient of head loss and the acceleration due to
gravity, respectively.
In Eq. (1a) and (1b), considering an uniform cross sectional
area A of the horizontal and vertical part, the total liquid length
L can be defined in terms of the horizontal width Lh and the
vertical height Lv of the liquid inside the TLCD as follows:

L  Lh  2 Lv (2)

In particular, in Eq. (1b), the first term represents the inertial

force opposed to the motion of the structures, with a
corresponding total liquid mass equal to  AL , the third term
represents the damping effect, and the last term represents the
liquid mass restoring force, since the difference in piezometric
head between the two free surfaces is 2 y (t ) .
It is worth stressing that this is the classical formulation
widely used in literature [3, 7].

EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND DATA ACQUISITION

In order to assess the TLCD control efficiency, it has been
built up the main structure and its control TLCD device, in the
Experimental Dynamics Laboratory of the University of
Palermo.

Figure 4: Main Structure model dimensions.

The TLCD device, is the U–shaped Plexiglass cylinder tube

(whose dimensions are reported in Fig. 5), of diameter 54 mm,
with a constant cross section A  22.9 cm 2 , rigidly connected
to the upper plate of the main structure (Fig. 6), to create a
simple TLCD controlled system. The tube has been filled with
water (   1000 g / dm3 ), and tuned by changing own
frequency L  2 g L rad/s varying the liquid column length
in the tube as detailed in the next section.

Figure 3: Picture of the main structure shear-type model.

3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

 The acceleration responses, at the base and at the storey of
both uncontrolled and controlled systems, have been acquired
using Miniature DeltaTron Accelerometers Bruel & Kjær –
Type 4507-002 piezoelectric accelerometers. In order to
condition and amplify current signals coming from
accelerometers before being acquired and saved, a conditioning
amplifiers, the Brüel&Kjær Nexus Range Of Conditioning
Amplifier – Type 2693A014, has been used. Voltage signals
have been acquired by means of a National Instruments NI-
PCI-4472 Analogical-Digital (A-D) Acquisition Board and then
processed using a self-developed signal processing software in
Labview and MATLAB environment.
Both uncontrolled and controlled models have been excited
at the base through a shaking table model Quanser Shake Table
II. Figure 7 shows the schematic experimental setup.
Signal processing

Accelerometers
#2

Experimental
model A/D conv.
Figure 5: TLCD dimensions. Signal conditioner
and amplifier

#1 D/A conv.
Shake Shaker
Table amplifier

Figure 7: Acquisition system for Shake Table test.

TEST PROCEDURE
First of all, the dynamic parameters of the main structure
(uncontrolled system) were determined by exciting the structure
with sweep sine tests in the frequency range: 0.1 - 4 Hz. Four
series of data were recorded and, using the acceleration signals,
the mean Frequency Response Functions (FRF) was computed.
By means of the experimental single degree of freedom peak
amplitude modal analysis procedure [18] the natural frequency
and the damping ratio were measured as s  10.49 rad / s
( f s  1.67 Hz ) and   0.015 respectively.
Further, the control performance of TLCD has been
checked, considering several ground motions and different set
up of the TLCD itself.
More precisely, a value of 1 mm of the amplitude of the
ground acceleration has been selected and 10 different values of
excitation frequency have been considered, from 1.30 Hz up to
1.75 Hz with a step of 0.5 Hz including the resonance
frequency of 1.65 Hz. Each ground motion has been applied on
the main uncontrolled structure and on the controlled one,
taking into account four different tuned set up TLCD device
(Table 1), characterized by four frequency L close to the
natural frequency of the main system as suggested in literature
[7].
Figure 6: Picture of the TLCD controlled system.

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

 In that respect, water has been poured inside the TLCD tube Lv = 4 cm Lv = 4.5 cm Lv = 5 cm Lv = 5.5 cm
0.6
to four different level from the centerline of the base tube,
starting from 4 cm, up to 5.5 cm, with a step of 0.5 cm, 0.4

Acceleration [m/s2]
equivalent to a total liquid length from 18.5 cm, to 21.5 cm as 0.2
reported in Table 1 together with the correspondent frequency
L . 0

-0.2

Table 1: Four tuned set up of TLCD device. -0.4

-0.6
Lv [cm] L [cm] L [rad/s] 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time [s]
26 27 28 29 30

4 18.5 10.29 Figure 9: Experimental acceleration for sinusoidal ground

4.5 19.5 10.03 motion with 1 mm of amplitude and frequency of 1.65 Hz.
5 20.5 9.78
uncontrolled controlled with TLCD
5.5 21.5 9.55 0.5

0.4

0.3

Acceleration [m/s2]
0.2
All experimental results in terms of acceleration at the base 0.1
and at the storey of the model have been recorded and 0

analyzed. For saving space, only acceleration record at the -0.1

storey of the main structure (uncontrolled model) and the -0.2

controlled one (with a vertical liquid height of 4 cm) driven by -0.3

-0.4
a sinusoidal ground motion at resonance, are compared in Fig. -0.5
8. It is apparent that at resonance the TLCD is very effective 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time [s]
26 27 28 29 30

and this is fundamental for vibration control, since acceleration
of the main system is reduced of about 67%.
Moreover, there is no remarkable difference between all the
experimental recorded acceleration of the different controlled
systems, with respect to the liquid level in the vertical TLCD
columns from 4 cm to 5.5 cm, as shown in Fig. 9.
As expected, from the experimental investigation, it may be
pointed out that, in some cases the TLCD does not reduce the
acceleration response. For instance, considering a sinusoidal
ground motion of frequency 1.4 Hz, the controlled system
presents accelerations of about 0.45 m/s2 while the uncontrolled
one presents acceleration of about 0.25 m/s2 (Fig. 10).
uncontrolled controlled with TLCD
1.5
1 Lh and considering as excitations the recorded signals at the
Acceleration [m/s2]
Figure 10: Experimental acceleration for sinusoidal ground
motion with 1 mm of amplitude and frequency of 1.4 Hz.
Previous considerations are reported just to describe the
general behavior of the TLCD device, but of course, the
performance control is not compromised, since the maximum
value of the uncontrolled acceleration is never exceeded.
EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS NUMERICAL RESULTS
AND REMARKS
All experimental results have been contrasted with
numerical results obtained by solving system Eq. (1a, 1b)
(using Mathematica and MATLAB software) particularized
with the identified or measured values of M, C, K, ξ, A, L and
base of the controlled model for each experimental test.

0.5
For instance, considering as excitation the recorded signal
0 in the test with sinusoidal ground motion with amplitude 1 mm
-0.5
and frequency 1.65 Hz (resonance case) numerical results in
x(t ) (red dotted line) are depicted in Fig.
terms of acceleration 
-1
11 for TLCD controlled system and contrasted with the
-1.5
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 experimental ones (solid black line) for a liquid height of 4 cm.
Time [s]
Figure 8: Experimental acceleration for sinusoidal ground
motion with 1 mm of amplitude and frequency of 1.65 Hz.

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

 experimental numerical (classical formulation)
0.5
Regarding the numerical values of both dead masses, these
0.4

0.3
have been derived from really weighting all liquid inside the
tube ( PL ), and the liquid in the horizontal part only ( PLh ).
Acceleration [m/s2]

0.2

0.1
These values, for each selected liquid level, are reported
0

-0.1

-0.2
Table 2: Dead Masses.
-0.3 Lv [cm] mL [g] mLh [g]
-0.4

-0.5
4 416.2 367.6
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 11: System controlled with
Time [s] TLCD: experimental and 4.5 440.8 367.6
numerical results (classical formulation) for Lv = 4 cm and 5 467.2 367.6
excitation frequency 1.65 Hz.
5.5 485.3 367.6
Looking at the latter figure it is apparent that the numerical
formulation for TLCD provides results that are quite different
from the experimental ones, especially with respect to the Regarding the dynamic mass, it is apparent that it should be
amplitude response (in Fig. 11 a difference of about 50% linked to the real moving liquid length, say effective
between experimental and numerical results is shown). length Leff , through md   ALeff . The proposed effective
Analogous considerations may be deducted observing all other liquid length may be related to the total liquid length L by the
results of all tests, here not reported for brevity sake. following relation
This last aspect has prompted us to perform numerous tests
on the TLCD system, considering other values of amplitude and Leff  pL (4)
frequency of harmonic excitation, other kinds of excitation as
seismic records (Tolmezzo, El Centro), filtered white noise and
etc. From all these tests it was always understood that the
results of the classical formulation differ to the experimental The authors used Eq. (4) to identify the effective length
ones. On the other hand, from experimental investigations it is from the experimental results by means of an optimization
seen that the liquid moves more in the central area of the tube procedure. In particular the final value selected for each liquid
and less in the area in contact with the side walls. Furthermore level, was identified finding the mean value of p that
it has also been demonstrated in literature [16] that in cases minimizes the error between numerical and experimental
where the diameter of the tube is comparable with the results for each excitation frequency.
dimensions of the TLCD, it is not possible to ignore the Following these considerations, setting the parameters
variation of the velocity of the liquid in the transition zone reported in Tables 2 and 3 into the modified formulation Eq.
between the vertical and horizontal segments. (3a, 3b), numerical results for TLCD system are in excellent
In these cases, the liquid in the lower corners of the agreement with the experimental results, as depicted in Fig. 12.
transition zones and in contact with the boundary walls, does
not affect the vibrations of the whole structural system, so it is
apparent the need to differentiate between a liquid dead mass experimental numerical (modified formulation)
and a liquid dynamic mass. In particular, it has been considered 0.5

as the dead masses the total liquid mass mL and the horizontal 0.4

0.3

liquid mass mLh correspondent to the terms  AL (in Eq. (1a))

Acceleration [m/s2]

0.2

and  ALh (in Eq. (1a) and (1b)), respectively, while the
0.1

dynamic mass md corresponds to the term  AL in Eq. (1b). -0.1

-0.2
Based on the above considerations, the resulting proposed -0.3
governing equations for the motion of the controlled system -0.4
return as -0.5
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Time [s]

Mx  mL 
x  Cx  Kx  mLh 
y   Mxg  mL 
xg (3a) Figure 12: System controlled with TLCD: experimental and
numerical results (modified formulation) for Lv = 4 cm and
excitation frequency 1.65 Hz.

1 Table 3. Dynamic Mass.

y  mLh 
md  x  Ay y  2  gAy  mLh 
xg (3b)
2 Lv [cm] L [cm] p Leff [cm] md [g]

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

 4 18.5 0.557 10.30 235.9
classical formulation modified formulation (p = 0.612) experimental DMF modified formulation (p = 0.59)
4.5 19.5 0.567 11.06 253.2 1.2

5 20.5 0.612 12.55 287.3 1

5.5 21.5 0.627 13.48 308.7 0.8

DMF
0.6

0.4
It is worth stressing that the value of p is the same for all
0.2
tests with different amplitudes or frequencies of the excitation
even for different kind of excitation itself, provided the same 0
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1

quantity of liquid inside the tube. This is a very remarkable
result, because, once identified this value by performing only Figure 15: DMF of the controlled system with Lv = 5 cm.
one experimental test the behavior of the controlled system may
be predicted by using the modified formulation for any kind of
excitations. Moreover, observing that the value of p is slightly classical formulation
1.2
modified formulation (p = 0.627) experimental DMF modified formulation (p = 0.59)

influenced by the total liquid inside the TLCD (Table 3), 1

numerical results are obtained also by using the mean value of
p  0.59 , as shown in the Fig. 13 to 16, where the 0.8

DMF
experimental Dynamic Magnification Factor (DMF) (black 0.6

line), which is the ratio of the displacement of the controlled 0.4

system to the maximum displacement of the uncontrolled one

versus  (the ratio of the excitation frequency to the natural
0.2

0
frequency of the system), is compared with the numerical DMF 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9

0.95 1 1.05 1.1

found with the classical formulation (blue line), with the Figure 16: DMF of the controlled system with Lv = 5.5 cm.
modified formulation for the value of p reported in Table 4
(red line) and with the modified one for p  0.59 (green line),
for each liquid level Lv . CONCLUSIONS
The control performance of the TLCD system has been
investigated, theoretically and experimentally. However, in this
paper it has been outlined that the classical theoretical
classical formulation modified formulation (p = 0.557) experimental DMF modified formulation (p = 0.59)
1.2 formulation provides results that are not in good agreement
1
with the experimental ones. In particular it has been shown that
during an experimental test, the liquid moves more in the
0.8
central area of the tube and less in the area in contact with the
DMF

0.6 side walls. This aspect plays a fundamental role for capturing
0.4
the real performance of TLCD and the classical formulation
does not take into account. Thus, in this paper the authors
0.2
differentiate the total liquid mass into a liquid dead mass and a
0
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1
liquid dynamic mass, then, once the effective moving liquid
 mass has been identified, and properly introduced into the
Figure 13: DMF of the controlled system with Lv = 4 cm. proposed modified formulation, all numerical results highly
match the experimental ones.
Moreover, it is worth stressing that the value of liquid dynamic
classical formulation
1.2
modified formulation (p = 0.557) experimental DMF modified formulation (p = 0.59) mass is related to a coefficient named p that is the same for all
tests with different amplitudes or frequencies of the excitation
1
even for different kind of excitation itself, provided the same
0.8
quantity of liquid inside the tube. This is a very remarkable
DMF

0.6 result, because, once identified this value by performing only

0.4
one experimental test the behaviour of the controlled system
may be predicted by using the modified formulation no matter
0.2
the kind of excitations.
0
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1

Figure 14: DMF of the controlled system with Lv = 4.5 cm.

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

REFERENCES
[1] Di Matteo A., Lo Iacono F., Navarra G., Pirrotta A., 2012,
The control performance of TLCD and TMD: experimental
investigation, 5th European Conference on Structural Control,
18 – 20 June, Genoa, Italy.
[2] Den Hartog, J.P., 1949, Mechanical Vibrations, 2nd. ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
[13] Wu J. C., Chang C. H., 2006, Design table of optimal
parameters for tuned liquid column damper responding to
earthquake, 4th International Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 12-13 October.
[14] Farshidianfar A., Oliazadeh P., 2009, Closed form optimal
solution of a tuned liquid column damper responding to
earthquake, World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 59, 159-164.

[3] Sakai F., Takeda S., Tamaki, T., 1989, Tuned liquid column
damper- new type device for suppression of building vibrations,
Proceedings of the international conference on highrise
buildings, 926-931.
[4] Balendra T., Wang C. M., Cheong H. F., 1995, Effectiveness
of tuned liquid column dampers for vibration control of towers,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 17, No. 9, 668-675.
[15] Xue S. D., Ko J. M., Xu Y. L., 2000, Tuned liquid column
damper for suppressing pitching motion of structures,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, 1538–1551.
[16] Colwell S., Basu B., 2008, Experimental and Theoretical
Investigations of Equivalent Viscous Damping of Structures
with TLCD for Different Fluids, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 1, 154-163.

[5] Chang C. C., 1999, Mass dampers and their optimal designs
for building vibration control, Engineering Structures, Vol. 21,
454-463.
[6] Wu J. C., Shih M. H., Lin Y. Y., Shen Y. C., 2005, Design
guidelines for tuned liquid column dampers for structures
responding to wind, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, 1893-
1905.
[17] Chaiviriyawong P., Webster W. C., Pinkaew T.,
Lukkunaprasit P., 2007, Simulation of characteristics of tuned
liquid column damper using a potential-flow method,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, 132-144.
[18] Ewins D. J., 1984, Modal Testing: Theory and Practice.
Research Studies Press, Taunton, Somerset, England.

[7] Gao H., Kwok K.C.S., 1997, Optimization of tuned liquid

column dampers, Engineering Structures, Vol. 19, No. 6, 476-
486.

[8] Chang C. C., Hsu C. T., 1998, Control performance of

liquid column vibration absorbers, Engineering Structures, Vol.
20, No. 7, 580-586.

[9] Yalla S. K., Kareem A., 2000, Optimum absorber

parameters for Tuned Liquid Column Dampers, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 8, 906-915.

[10] Wu J. C., Chang C. H., Lin Y. Y., 2009, Optimal design of

non-uniform tuned liquid column dampers in horizontal
motion, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 326, 104–122.

[11] Won A. Y. J., Pirest J. A., Haroun M. A., 1997,

Performance assessment of tuned liquid column dampers under
random seismic loading, International Journal of Non-Linear
Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 4, 745-758.

[12] Sadek F., Mohraz B., Lew H. S., 1998, Single and multiple
tuned liquid column dampers for seismic applications,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural dynamics, Vol. 27, 439-
463.

8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

View publication stats