Vibration Control by Tuned Mass Damper

and Tuned Liquid Damper

Bridge Mellichamp
Department of Physics and Mathematics
Colby College
7154 Mayflower Hill
Waterville, ME 04901-8871
6021 Jocelyn Hollow Rd.
Nashville, TN 37205-3209
BridgeMellichamp@gmail.com
Mentors: Dr.Yahui Zhang and Miss Liu Xiao Hui
State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment
Dalian University of Technology
Dalian, China 116024

Abstract
This paper investigates the feasibility of improving and implementing passive
dampers onto jacket platforms in the Bohai Bay as a means to mitigate ice-induced
vibrations. Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs) are currently the most widely used devices for
vibration control of the Bohai Seas jacket platforms. The parameters of the TMD are
optimized using MATLAB. The optimal TMD applied to the JZ20-2 MUQ oil platform
in the Bohai Bay has parameters of tuning frequency ratio, f = 0.985 and the TMD
coefficient of damping, d = 0.065, which corresponds to a stiffness of, kd = 329633.4
N/m, and a damping of, cd =7.91*10-7 Ns/m. The Tuned Liquid Damper (TLD) is a
second type of passive vibration mitigation. The theory of applying a TLD is relatively
new and is still under development. Unlike the TMDs simple linear force, the TLD
responds in a complicated fashion, making it difficult to create a mathematical model to
predict accurately the TLDs behavior. Testing was done to calculate the sloshing force
as well as to compare the experimental data to predicted standard theory. While the
theory and the experimental data differ significantly on the extremes of the applied
frequency range (0.94 to 1.04Hz), both have a maximum force in the vicinity of 0.98 to
0.99Hz. Currently, the TMD is the preferred choice of damper for ice-induced vibration
mitigation, though it can be continually improved as the research of TLD application is
simultaneously furthered.

Introduction
The worlds need for resources continues to grow at a rapid rate, resulting in a
diminished supply of petroleum resources. As technology develops alternative means of
energy production, it is imperative to improve simultaneously the assessment of current
reserves, focusing on efficiency, safety, and environmental protection. It is believed that
the Bohai Bay contains approximately 20.5 billion tons or 1.5 billion barrels of offshore

oil reserves, which will allow China to rely predominantly on domestically produced
energy one of its primary goals. However, access and extraction of oil in the Bohai
Sea is complicated by the presence of sea ice. The Bohai Sea, the southernmost sea in
the Northern Hemisphere, contains substantial amounts of sea ice every winter. Sea ice,
moved by ocean currents, pushes against the offshore oil platforms causing structural
vibration that results in discomfort for human occupants, equipment malfunction, and
potential structural failure.
To limit damage, conical shells are placed around the structures legs to reduce the
force imparted by the breaking sea ice. While the imparted force is lessened, it is
periodic, which results in another problem. The general problems associated with the
exertion of ice forces on structures has been subject of scientific interest for a number of
years, beginning when Korzhavin initially addressed the issue in a comprehensive study
of ice strength under dynamic loading (Nadreau 1987). A significant portion of the
concern exists because the ice failure frequency is nearly identical to the resonant
structural frequency of the jacket platform, which amplifies the effect of ice-induced
vibrations and increases the risk of structural failure (Yue & Liu 2003 and Wang 2002).
Various techniques of vibration mitigation have been implemented worldwide to
decrease the effects of wind, seismic, and ice-induced vibrations. There are various
types of dampers passive, semi-active, and active. Tuned Mass Dampers and Tuned
Liquid Dampers are both types of passive auxiliary damping devices, which depend on
adding an auxiliary mass to increase the level of damping and require no external source
of energy. Auxiliary dampers are often used when inherent damping is insufficient.
They are particularly useful because they provide a predictable, adjustable, and reliable
method of damping that can be adjusted or added after the structure is complete, often
necessary as the actual structural damping is unknown until construction of the structure
is complete (Kareem 1999). Similarly, passive damping systems are advantageous due
to their simplicity and cost effectiveness. They are adjusted easily, can be retrofitted,
and require little maintenance. TMDs and TLDs add only a small amount of mass to the
structure and can reduce their acceleration responses from to of the undamped
response (Maebayashi, 1993).
The Bohai Sea platforms are different from other platforms that are also subject to
ice-induced vibrations. Unlike the oil fields along the Alaskan coast, the Bohai Sea is
considered a marginal oil field, making the efficiency with which oil is extracted highly
important because there only a small amount of oil can be extracted. In the Bohai Sea,
platforms have been inadequately constructed because the presence of ice was not
considered, resulting in the collapse of several platforms. To increase the cost efficiency
of exploiting oil, mitigate structural fatigue, and reduce the possibility of failure, it is vital
to develop and implement an optimal method to mitigate the effects of ice-induced
vibrations, most poignantly by adding auxiliary passive dampers such as Tuned Mass
Dampers or Tuned Liquid Dampers to the jacket platforms.

Background

There are multiple designs of Tuned Mass Dampers. Usually, the TMD system
contains a mass, a spring, and a damper. The TMD is applied to the structure at the
location of maximum dynamic response, typically at the top. The spring and damping
components are tuned to a specific frequency, resulting in the TMDs control being
limited to a single structural mode. A spring and a damping mechanism cause the
energy to dissipate resulting in the reduction of the structures dynamic response through
which the TMD transfers inertial force to the building. To effectively absorb energy, the
TMDs natural frequency is tuned to the structures and operates based on a phase shift.
There are two categories of Tuned Liquid Dampers - Tuned Liquid Column Dampers
(TLCD) and Tuned Sloshing Dampers (TSD). Tuned Sloshing Dampers can be further
sub-divided into two categories based on the depth of water contained in the tank.
TSDs rely on the amplitude of fluid motion and wave breaking pattern to provide
damping, while gravity provides the restoring force. The experiments use a shallow water
TSD, which dissipates energy through viscous action and wave breaking that occurs
primarily at the boundary. The natural frequency of a TLD can be adjusted easily since
the depth of the water and the dimensions of the container determine it. When practical
limitations result in an inadequate natural frequency of the TLD, it is possible to apply a
spring mechanism that will adjust the frequency of the sloshing motion if the building
experiences a change in dynamic characteristics (Shimitzu 1994).
TLDs are
investigated as a possible alternative or addition to the implementation of TMDs, to
mitigate the dynamic response of the jacket platforms. They are considered because
they require no extra energy from an actuator and, furthermore, there is no mechanical
friction. The resulting system is effective enough to control the slightest vibrations, the
period is easy to adjust, and the system is easy and inexpensive to maintain (Noji 1991).
However, research on Tuned Liquid Dampers is complicated because unlike the TMDs,
which have a linear response, that of TLDs is highly nonlinear due to the fluid motion.
This characterization of TLDs is very important both analytically and experimentally.
The majority of research focuses on a better understanding of the waters motion within a
tank through physical experimentation, although some mathematical models have been
developed.

Procedure
TMD Parameter Optimization
Tuned Mass Dampers respond to the dynamic motion of the structure in a linear
manner. A single degree of freedom (SDOF) structure and the absence of damping in
the primary structure were assumed to simplify the structure to facilitate parameter
optimization.

md

u + ud
kd
2

kd
2

cd

P(t )

u
m
k
2

k
2

Figure 1: Singe Degree of Freedom System with TMD. Labels with a subscript d correspond to the
TMD and those with no subscript correspond to the structure. The variables presented can be found
in Table 1.

Table 1: Definition of Variables for TMD Optimization

m : mass of the platform

c : damping of the platform

(kg)
Ns

m
N

m

k : stiffness of the platform

rad
k

=
m ; natural frequency s
of the platform
c
=
2m ; damping ratio of the platform
u : displacement of the platform

: load frequency
f =

d
; Tuning frequency ratio

(m)
rad

m d : mass of the TMD

c d : damping of the TMD

kd : stiffness of the TMD
kd
d =
md ; natural frequency

(kg)
Ns

m
N

m
rad

of the TMD
cd
d =
2 md d ; damping ratio of the TMD
ud : relative displacement of the
(m)
TMD to that of the platform
m
m= d
m

The goal of the optimization is to determine the values of kd and cd that result in the
minimal amplitude of the TMD and platform system while keeping the parameters of the
TMD (m, c, and k) constant, as well as md, which is defined. Based on the harmonic
force given in Eq.1, the equations of motion follow

P (t) = P?e it

(1)

mu&& + cu& + ku c d u& d k d u d = P

md u&&d + c d u& d + k d u d md u&&&d = 0,

(2)

(3)
where Eq. 2 gives the motion of the system of the TMD and the Platform and Eq. 3 refers
to that of the TMD alone. The displacements can be calculated using Cramers rule to
find that the displacement of the platform and the relative displacement of the TMD to
the platform given respectively by
P?(md 2 + ic d + kd )
,
(m2 + ic + k)(md 2 + ic d + kd ) md 2 (ic d + k d )
P?md
.
u?d =
2
2
(m + ic + k)(md + ic d + kd ) md 2 (ic d + k d )

u? =

(4)
(5)

The program relied upon nested loops to perform multiple iterations as , d, and f
were varied. Within the innermost loop, Eq. 5 was solved for and the maximum value
of s range was calculated for all possible combinations of the TMDs damper ratio and
the tuning frequency ratio on the intervals specified in Table 2. The method used to
determine the optimal parameters is the min-max method, which consists of minimizing
the maximum dynamic response.
Table 2: Specifications for Optimization of TMD Applied to Jacket Platform

= 8.164 rad/s
k = 13330179.2 N/m
c = 65312 Ns/m
P? = 133301.792
0.5 2.0

m = 200,000.0 kg
= 0.02
m = 0.01
0.5 f 1.5 rad/s
0.0 d 1.0

TLD Experimental Setup & Procedure

The difficulty in developing mathematical models capable of representing the

complex motions of the liquid and force of the Tuned Liquid Damper necessitates
physical experimentation. Experimentation is relied upon heavily to characterize the
TLDs behavior and investigate its ability to mitigate structural vibrations. The
experiments strive to quantify the behavior of the TLD and establish the accuracy of
mathematical models. The purpose of this experiment is to directly measure the
sloshing force of the TLD. Determining the sloshing force will allow the size of the
liquid tank to be optimized without the presence of a sliding table capable of handling a
scale model. Previous experiments conducted at Dalian University of Technology have
determined the fundamental natural frequency of the water sloshing motion through a
swept experiment to be 1.00Hz. These tests measured the response of the TLD under
harmonic excitation and utilized the experimentally determined dynamic response of the

structure to determine the accuracy of mathematical models.

Table 3: Definition of Variables for TLD

m = mass of the structure, including (kg)

the empty tank
mi = mass of the solid
(kg)
F1 = force applied using Setup I
(N)
L = length of container
(m)
w = width of container
(m)
= coefficient of friction

m d = mass of the water in the tank

(kg)

u(t) = the displacement of the table

F2 = force applied using Setup II
ht = height of the container
hw = depth of the liquid in container

(m)
(N)
(m)

f =

d
: resonance frequency

The width of the TLD container was selected to ensure the moving table in the
laboratory could accommodate the TLD and the height of the container was chosen to
ensure that the water was not lost due to sloshing out of the tank. Based on the principle
of resonance, it is known that the frequency of the TLD as well as the natural frequency
of the structure should be approximately equal, meaning that the tuning frequency ratio
should be equal to 1.0, which can be seen graphically in Fig. 2, and is defined as
fw =

1
2

tanh

hw
,
L

(6)

where g is gravity and the remaining variables are defined above in Table 3.

Figure 2. Graphical Representation of Eq. 6. The graph shows the relationship of how the
frequency changes as the TLDs parameters- water depth and tank length- vary.

When the frequency ratio is valued at 1.0, Eq. 6 simplifies to a relationship of the two
remaining unknowns- the depth of the water in the tank and its length, which can be seen

graphically in Fig. 3.

Figure 3. Relationship Between Tank Length and Water Depth for a Frequency of 1 Hz. The
relationship is based on Eq. 6 when fw = 1.0. Shown on the graph is the water depth, 0.2m and tank
length, 0.6m used in the experiment.

Using Eq. 6 and practical limitations, the containers length and corresponding water
depth were selected to maintain nearly resonant frequencies as outlined in Table 4.
Table 4: Specifications of TLD Experiment

mi = 0.06 kg
w = 0.5 m

m d = 0.06 kg

L = 0.6 m

hw = 0.2 m
fw = 1.007 Hz

ht = 0.5 m

The experimental apparatus consists of a moving table, dSPACE control system,

hydraulic actuator, sensors, and a mass system. The mass system can either be the TLD
constructed and filled with water to specifications given in Table 4 or a mass block with
mass equal to the mass of water contained in the TLD. A harmonic force is converted
into its corresponding displacement to the system since it is potentially dangerous to
apply a raw force when its repercussions are unknown. The displacement is applied to
the moving table by sending an electronic signal via the hydraulic actuator. The
displacement used during these experiments was x = 0.002sin(t), where is the
frequency and t is the time. The harmonic displacement was applied with different
frequencies, ranging from 0.94 to 1.04 Hz. The frequencies in this range that were used
were 0.94, 0.97, 0.98, 0.99, 1.00, 1.01, and 1.04 Hz. The sensors are placed on the mass
system and can be set to read displacement, velocity or acceleration. The downfall of
using a single sensor to read three types of data is that they are generally less effective
than a sensor designed to read only one type of data. During the experiment, the sensors
are set to either acceleration or displacement. An Analogue Digital Converter (ADC)
converts the response signals collected by the sensors from analogue to digital signals.
After they are converted, they are input into the dSPACE computer program where the
data is read and then stored in MATLAB.
Data is collected for two different scenarios. The first is shown in Fig. 4, where the

TLD is placed on top of the moving table. The second case is shown in Fig. 5, where a
block with equal mass to the water contained in the TLD is placed on top of the moving
table.

Figure 4. Tuned Liquid Damper Experimental Setup I. The apparatus above is shown with the tank
of liquid, which may be substituted for a solid of equal mass as seen in Fig. 5. Variables are defined
in Table 3.

Figure 5. Tuned Liquid Damper Experimental Setup II. The apparatus above is shown with the
solid mass in the place of the TLD. Variables are defined in Table 3.

In order to calculate either the damping or sloshing force of the TLD, it is necessary
to perform preliminary experimental tests to accurately determine and calibrate the
equipment used in the experiment. The force of friction cannot be assumed as
negligible due to the small size of the sloshing force. For this reason, the experimental
set up shown in Fig. 5 is used and the harmonic force is applied to the table. The
equation of motion governing this stage of the experiment is
(m + mi )u&& = F2 (m + mi ) g.

(7)

Secondly, the solid mass is replaced with the TLD according to the specifications listed in
Table 4. The same forces were applied to the moving table and the data was collected.
Similarly, the equation of motion governing this stage of the experiment is

mu&&1 = F1 (m + md ) g FTLD .

(8)

Eqs. 7 and 8 can be manipulated to determine the force of the TLD, which is given as

FTLD = F1 F2 + md u&&,
(9)
such that the sloshing force is F1 - F2. The force of the TLD consists of two forces.
The most dominant is the sloshing force, which was calculated experimentally. The
second is the inertial force of the TLD, given as the third term of the governing equation,
Eq. 9.

Results and Discussion

TMD Parameter Optimization

The optimal parameters of the TMD based on specifications found in Table 2 were
calculated using a MATLAB program. The program performed many iterations using
small step sizes. However, for the purpose of presentation, the small step size will not
be used. Instead, a larger step size is shown in the subsequent figures, neglecting many
of the data sets produced by the program.
Initially, the tuning frequency ratios were held constant to compute the relationship
between the maximum displacement and the damping ratio of the TMD.
When tuning
frequencies that varied by a very small step were considered, they appeared to have a
maximum displacement that did not vary with the TMDs damping ratio. However,
when the step size was increased so the effect of the tuning frequency could be seen, it
became evident that, many of the curves did have a clear-cut minimum as opposed to a
function similar to the inverse of the natural log. For tuning frequency ratios slightly
above or below 1.00, a minimum was seen clearly. From Fig. 6 below, it is easy to see
that the minimum of the maximum displacement occurs around f =1.00 and d = 0.05.

Figure 6: Maximum Displacement vs. TMDs Damping Ratio. The figure shows the relationship of
the maximum displacement as a function of the damping ratio of the TMD for five different values of
the tuning frequency ratio. The tuning frequency ratios shown on this graph vary from 0.50 to 1.50
in increments of 0.25.

To verify that the loop was executed correctly, the maximum displacement was
plotted as a function of the tuning frequency ratio for various values of d. The value d
= 0.00 is included in the simulation to further ensure that the TMDs behavior is
predictable and is similar to previously created dynamic response curves. As Fig. 7
shows, when d = 0.00, there is no minimization of the maximum displacement other than
that due to the structural damping. Negative damping was not considered in this case
and, therefore, it is confirmed that the absence of damping is the worst scenario in
dynamic response mitigation.

Maximum Dispacement (m)

Maximum Displacement vs. Tuning Frequency Ratio

0.5
Vd =0.00

0.4

Vd =0.05

0.3

Vd =0.20

0.2

Vd =0.30
Vd =0.50

0.1

Vd =0.10

0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Tuning Frequency Ratio

Figure 7: Maximum Displacement vs. Tuning Frequency Ratio. The figure shows the relationship of
the maximum displacement as a function of the tuning frequency ratio various values of d on the
range of 0.00 to 0.50. Please note that in the legend, Vd refers to d.

The maximum displacement is minimized when the TMD efficiently counteracts a

force with a frequency slightly less than the structures natural frequency. For this
reason, the optimal design of a TMD is only possible when the frequency of the induced
force is known. When the excitation frequency is unknown, it is impossible to design
an effective, let alone optimal, TMD to control the vibrations. Fig. 7 confirms what
Fig. 6 found: the optimal parameters for the specified TMD are in the vicinity of f =1.00
and d = 0.05.
Upon further iteration with increasingly smaller step size as the vicinity of f and d
was focused in on, the optimal parameters for a Tuned Mass Damper were found to be f =
0.985 and d = 0.065. Manipulating the equations in Table 1, the optimally designed TMD
was found to have stiffness, kd = 329633.4 N/m, and damping cd = 7.91*10-7 Ns/m.

Structural Displacement (m)

Displacement of the Structure

0.3
0.25
0.2
With TMD

0.15

Without TMD

0.1
0.05
0
0.5

1.5

f , theload - natural structure frequency ratio

Figure 8: Maximum Displacement of the Structure with and without an Optimally Designed TMD as a
Function of f, the Load to Natural Structure Frequency Ratio
Structural Displacement vs. Time
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1

10

15

20

with TMD
Without TMD

-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Time (s)

Figure 9. Maximum Displacement as a Function of Time when the Load Frequency, = 8 rad/s.

The dynamic response of the structure with and without the TLD is shown above to demonstrate the
relative effectiveness of the TMD.

Figs. 8 and 9 graphically show the effectiveness of the TMD when applied to reduce the
effects of a harmonic ice load. Using the data shown in Fig. 8, the absolute smallest
maximum displacement the structure undergoes was determined as well as the
corresponding ice load frequency. These were found to be when 1.0, which
corresponds to = 8.0 rad/s. A TMD optimally designed to counteract a force with a
frequency of 8.0 rad/s will offer the maximum amount of dynamic response mitigation.
The effects of an 8.0 rad/s ice-load frequency on the structures displacement with and
without an optimally designed TMD are shown in Fig. 9.
TLD Experiment

This TLD experiment and data analysis deals with the very initial stages of the
research. The sloshing force of the TLD was calculated by manipulating Eqs. 7, 8, and
9. At the current time, the primary goal is to observe the variances in the sloshing force
as the frequency of the induced force varies, which is shown in Figs. 10 to 16.
Experimental Sloshing Force vs. Ti
applied frequency of 0.94Hz.

200

200

100

100

Experimental Sloshing Force vs. Time for

Applied Frequency of 0.97Hz.

-100

-100

-200

-200
0

10 12 14 16

Figure 10: Experimental Sloshing Force vs.

Time for an Applied Frequency of 0.94 Hz.

100
0
-100
-200

10

Experimental Sloshing Force vs. Time for

an Applied Frequency of 0.99Hz.

Experimental Sloshing
Force

Experimental Sloshing
Force

200

Figure 11: Experimental Sloshing Force vs.

Time for an Applied Frequency of 0.97 Hz.

Experimental Sloshing Force vs. Time for

an Applied Frequency of 0.98Hz.

time (s)

time (s

10

12

time (s)

Figure 12: Experimental Sloshing Force vs.

200
100
0
-100
-200

10 12 14 16

time (s)

Figure 13: Experimental Sloshing Force vs.

Time for an Applied Frequency of 0.98 Hz.

Time for an Applied Frequency of 0.99 Hz.

Experimental Sloshing Force vs. Time for
an Applied Frequency of 1.01Hz.
Experimental Sloshing Force

Experimental Sloshing Force

Experimental Sloshing Force vs. Time for

an Applied Frequency of1.00Hz.
200
100
0
-100
-200

10 12 14 16 18

time (s)

Figure 14: Experimental Sloshing Force vs.

Time for an Applied Frequency of 1.00 Hz.

200
100
0
-100
-200
0

8 10 12 14 16 18
time (s)

Figure 15: Experimental Sloshing Force vs.

Time for an Applied Frequency of 1.01 Hz.

Experimental Sloshing Force

Experimental Sloshing Force vs. Time for an

Applied Frequency of 1.04Hz.

200
100
0
-100
-200

8 10 12 14 16 18
time (s)

Figure 16: Experimental Sloshing Force vs.

Time for an Applied Frequency of 1.04 Hz.

From the graphs, it is clear that the sloshing force is harmonic and varies with the
frequency of the applied force. Both the amplitude and the period of the sloshing force
are different for each given case. Presently, the greatest concern is whether the TLD can
produce a force large enough to mitigate the dynamic response of the structure. The
largest theoretical force produced occurs when the frequency is set to 0.99Hz. The
maximum amplitude calculated for the sloshing force is 191.406N. It is important to
note that the sloshing force is not symmetrical directionally. The case with the most
symmetry is when the frequency is 1.01Hz. In the future, this will be an important
factor to consider when determining how to optimally design and implement the TLD.
Ultimately, the goal of the TLD, as is the case with any damper, is to consistently
counteract as opposed to augment the dynamic response of the structure.
Modeling a fluid motion is a complex task.

This task is further complicated by the

introduction of boundaries, such as the sides of the TLD and, as a result, it is difficult to
determine precisely how the contained fluid will respond. It is essential to investigate
how the fluid will respond in order to design a TLD that will effectively mitigate the
dynamic response of the structure. Current theory maintains that the force of the TLD is
given by

(10)

&&(t ) + w w(t ) = &x&(t ) ,

w

where the variables and relationships are defined in Table 5.

Table 5: Definition of Relationships and Variables the Theoretical TLD Force

n = (2n 1) ,
an =

2
n

t = time (s)
= 1000kg / m 3 , density of water

x(t) = 0.002sin(t) , TLD displacement(m)

fn =

tanh(

h n
),
L

h n
M = LBh , mass of the water (kg)

L= 0.6m, length of the tank

B = 0.5m, width of the tank

h = 0.2m, depth of the water
&&(t ) + w w(t ) = &x&(t ) , defining equation for
= 0.94 1.04, frequency of applied w
harmonic displacement
displacement
w n = 0.985 Hz
The theory governing the force of the TLD is based on an infinite number of
iterations, as n is varied from 1 to infinity. However, in calculating the force of the TLD
in these experiments, only the maximum is considered. For this reason, the only case
considered is n = 1. Using the relationships in Table 5 and Eq. 10, the maximum force
of the TLD was calculated for the frequencies of 0.94 to 1.04Hz, which were increased in
0.01Hz increments. Based on the theoretical model, the maximum force of the TLD is
352.9263N, which occurs when the frequency is 0.99Hz. The peak appears to occur
when the frequency is in the vicinity of 0.98 to 0.99Hz. Similarly, the experimental
peak occurs at a frequency of 0.98 and 0.99Hz, when the maximum TLD force range is
328.125N. This can be seen plotted in Fig. 17. It should be noted that the
experimentally calculated force is the sloshing force, which lacks the inertial force
component, which differentiates it from the TLD force.

Maximum Sloshing Force vs. Frequency

400
350
300
250
Theory
Experiment

200
150
100
50
0
0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.02

1.04

1.06

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 17: Maximum Sloshing Force vs. Frequency. The solid line shows the maximum theoretical
TLD force. The maximum sloshing force representing the experimental data is represented by the
dotted line, and represents the range of the experimentally calculated sloshing force to account for the
lack of symmetry.

Fig. 17 shows that the maximums of the experimentally obtained sloshing force and
the theoretical TLD force are similar, in general shape only on the region of frequency
from 0.97 to 1.00 Hz, which is only a small portion of the region considered. The shape
is substantially different for the outlying data, with the experimental data consistently
larger than the theory predicts. The explanation is unknown, but can most likely be
attributed to equipment that picks up a significant amount of noise and is sufficiently
sensitive. The high amplitude liquid impact or slamming phenomena may play a role in
damping as well, but require further investigation since they were not considered in the
experimentation (Yalla & Kareem 1999). Another possible cause for the difference is
that, in the case of a TLD with small dimensions like the one used in this experiment, the
frictional force is much larger than that of the slosh, making it difficult to determine
accurately the force and motion of the water sloshing within the TLD.

Conclusions
Research on the most effective and practical methods of dynamic response
mitigation remains a work in progress. In the area of ice-induced vibrations, a
significant area remains unexplored, although a good starting point is past research based
on wind-induced and seismic vibration mitigation. The Tuned Mass Damper has proven
effective at mitigating the dynamic response of structures, including the JZ20-2 MUQ oil
platform in Bohai Bay. Numerical analysis was performed in MATLAB to better design
the TMD to mitigate vibrations for this specific oil platform. The optimally designed

TMD will have parameters: tuning frequency ratio, f = 0.985 and the TMD coefficient of
damping, d = 0.065, which relates to a stiffness, kd = 329633.4 N/m, and a damping of,
cd =7.91*10-7 Ns/m. An alternative to the TMD or an option to supplement the TMD is
the Tuned Liquid Damper, which uses the sloshing motion of a liquid against boundaries
to provide a force capable of counteracting that of the induced force. Should a scale
structure not be present to test the effects of the TLD on dynamic response mitigation, the
sloshing force can be directly calculated using only the TLD. The maximum force of
the TLD is found when the applied force has a frequency of 0.98 to 0.99Hz. The data
found experimentally for the maximum sloshing force only roughly corresponds to that
predicted by the theory, and further investigation is required. Overall, the TLD is a
viable option for dynamic response mitigation, though research must first be furthered in
order to reduce accurately the effects of ice-induced vibrations.

Future Research
Future research will use the data collected in the TLD experimentation to determine
the efficiency of the TLD by a method that has yet to be developed. One of the
criterions is the TLDs ability to diminish as opposed to augment the dynamic response of
the structure. In addition, random ice loads and a time history of actual ice forces taken
in the field will be applied and tested. The goal of this research is to ultimately
determine an optimal design of a TLD to mitigate ice-induced vibrations as an alternative
or in conjunction with TMDs. Research was simultaneously conducted with the TMD
using a half simulation and half experimental approach to investigate the TMDs ability to
reduce the effects of an ice-induced vibration on the jacket platforms.

Acknowledgements
The author would expresses appreciation to Professor Zhang Yahui for his assistance
and support during this project, as well as graduate students Liu Xiao Hui and Zhang Li
for their assistance and allowing her to be a part of their research project. The author
also thanks Dr. Hayley Shen and Dr. Hung Tao Shen for coordinating this research
experience.
This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant No. OISE-0229657. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this
material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.

References
Den Hartog, J.P., (1956). Mechanical Vibrations, 4th ed., Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
Kareem, Ahsan, Kijewski, Tracy and Tamura, Yukio, (1999). Mitigation of Motions of

Tall Buildings with Specific Examples of Recent Applications.

Korzhavin, K.N., (1962). Action of Ice on Engineering Structures. Novosibirsk, Akad.
Nauk, USSR, English Translation (1971), CRREL, Hanover, N.H
Maebayashi, K., Tamura, K., Shiba, K., Ogawa, Y., and Y. Inada, (Dec. 1993).
Performance of a Hybrid Mass Damper System Implemented in a Tall Building,
Proceedings of Internatonal Workshop on Structural Control: 318-328.
Modi, V.J. and F. Welt., (1987). Vibration Control Using Nutation Dampers,
International Conference on Flow Induced Vibrations, London, England: 369-376.
Nadreau, Jean-Pail. Ice-Induced Dynamic Behavior of Structures. (1987) Centre for
Cold Ocean Resources Engineering, Memorial University, St-Johns, Canada.
Noji, T., J., Tatsumi, E., Kosaka, H., and H. Hagiuda, (1991). Verification of
Vibration Control Effect in Actual Structure (Part 2), Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering, Transactions of the AIJ: 145-152 (in Japanese).
Peyton, H.R., (1968). Ice and marine structures, Ocean Industry, Sept., pp. 59-65, Dec.,
pp. 51-58.
Peyton, H.R., (1966). Sea Ice Strength. University of Alaska Geophysical Institute
Report 182.
Shimizu, K. and A. Teramura, (1994). Development of Vibration control system using
U-shaped tank, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop and Seminar of Steel
Structures in Seismic Areas, Timisoara, Romania: 7.25-7.34.
Soong, T.T., and Dargush, G.F., (1997). Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural
Engineering. John Wiley and Sons. Chicester.
Tamura, Y., Fuji, K.M. Sato, T., Wakahara, T. and M. Kosugi, (1988), Wind Induced
Vibration of Tall Towers and Practical Applications of Tuned Sloshing Dampers,
Proceedings of Symposium/Workshop on the Serviceability of Buildings, Ottawa,
Canada, 1: 228-241.
Wang, Shuquing, Li, Huajun, Chunyan, Ji, and Guiying, Jiao, (2002). Energy Analysis
for TMD-Structure Systems Subjected to Impact Loading. China Ocean
Engineering. Vol. 16. No. 3. pp. 301-310.
Yalla, S.K. and A. Kareem, (1999). Modeling Tuned Liquid Dampers as
Sloshing-Slamming Dampers, Proceedings of 101CWE, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Yue, Q., and Liu L., (2003). Ice Problems in Bohai Sea Oil Exploitation. Proc. Of the
Seventeenth International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic

Conditions. Vol. 1. 151-163.