Modified Tuned Liquid Dampers for Seismic Protection of Buildings Considering Soil–Structure Interaction Effects

  • Reza KamgarEmail author
  • Fatemeh Gholami
  • Hamed Reza Zarif Sanayei
  • Heisam Heidarzadeh
Research Paper


Considering the effect of soil–structure interaction in dynamic analysis of structures can change their responses. It is generally assumed that the structure is located on a rigid foundation and the flexibility effect of the soil is not considered. Researches on the soil–structure interaction show that the dynamic response of the structures located on a soft and flexible soil is completely different from the dynamic response of the same structure located on a stiff soil. In this paper, the effect of the soil–structure interaction on the response of a single-degree-of-freedom system (Nagasaki airport tower) that is controlled by a modified tuned liquid damper is investigated. The soil effect is modeled using an approximate cone method based on the semi-infinite boundary conditions. First, the governing equations for describing the fluid sloshing obtained with shallow water wave theory are solved by Lax’s finite-difference scheme. Then, the dynamic equilibrium equations for a structure controlled with a modified tuned liquid damper are obtained by considering the effect of soil–structure interaction using Lagrange’s method. These equations are solved numerically by Newmark’s method. The controlled structural responses are calculated in different time steps and compared with the responses of the uncontrolled structure. Results show that the seismic design of the modified tuned liquid damper system can be more effective to reduce the structural responses. Also, this system can reduce efficiently the maximum responses of the structures considering soil–structure interaction effect during a near-fault earthquake.


Optimization Soil–structure interaction Modified tuned liquid damper Gray wolf optimization algorithm Seismic protection 



The authors would like to show their appreciation to HPC center (Shahr-e-Kord University, Iran) for their collaboration in offering computational clusters, which was a great help to complete this work.


This study has not been funded.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alavi A, Rahgozar R (2018) Optimal stiffness distribution in preliminary design of tubed-system tall buildings. Struct Eng Mech 65(6):731–739Google Scholar
  2. Alavi A, Rahgozar P, Rahgozar R (2018) Minimum-weight design of high-rise structures subjected to flexural vibration at a desired natural frequency. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 27(15):e1515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerji P, Murudi M, Shah AH, Popplewell N (2000) Tuned liquid dampers for controlling earthquake response of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(5):587–602Google Scholar
  4. BHRC (2014) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, standard 2800 road. Housing and Urban Development Research Center, IranGoogle Scholar
  5. Bigdeli Y, Kim D (2016) Damping effects of the passive control devices on structural vibration control: TMD, TLC and TLCD for varying total masses. KSCE J Civ Eng 20(1):301–308Google Scholar
  6. Chang Y, Noormohamed A, Mercan O (2018) Analytical and experimental investigations of modified tuned liquid dampers (MTLDs). J Sound Vib 428:179–194Google Scholar
  7. Di Matteo A, Iacono FL, Navarra G, Pirrotta A (2015) Innovative modeling of tuned liquid column damper motion. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 23(1–3):229–244Google Scholar
  8. Fitzgerald B, Basu B (2016) Structural control of wind turbines with soil structure interaction included. Eng Struct 111:131–151Google Scholar
  9. Gholizadeh S, Salajegheh E (2010) Optimal seismic design of steel structures by an efficient soft computing based algorithm. J Constr Steel Res 66(1):85–95Google Scholar
  10. Gholizadeh S, Davoudi H, Fattahi F (2017) Design of steel frames by an enhanced moth-flame optimization algorithm. Steel Compos Struct 24(1):129–140Google Scholar
  11. Gholizadeh S, Razavi N, Shojaei E (2018) Improved black hole and multiverse algorithms for discrete sizing optimization of planar structures. Eng Optim 1:1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heidarzadeh H, Oliaei M (2018a) Development of a generalized model using a new plastic modulus based on bounding surface plasticity. Acta Geotech 13(4):925–941Google Scholar
  13. Heidarzadeh H, Oliaei M (2018b) An efficient generalized plasticity constitutive model with minimal complexity and required parameters. KSCE J Civ Eng 22(4):1109–1120Google Scholar
  14. Huo L, Shen W, Li H, Zhang Y (2013) Optimal design of liquid dampers for structural vibration control based on GA and H∞ Norm. Math Probl Eng 2013:1–10zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Imanzadeh S, Marache A, Denis A (2017) Influence of soil spatial variability on possible dysfunction and failure of buried pipe, case study in Pessac city, France. Environ Earth Sci 76(5):212Google Scholar
  16. Imanzadeh S, Hibouche A, Jarno A, Taibi S (2018) Formulating and optimizing the compressive strength of a raw earth concrete by mixture design. Constr Build Mater 163:149–159Google Scholar
  17. Jahanshahi M, Rahgozar R (2013) Optimum location of outrigger-belt truss in tall buildings based on maximization of the belt truss strain energy. Int J Eng Trans A Basics 26(7):693–700Google Scholar
  18. Javdanian H, Heidari A, Kamgar R (2017) Energy-based estimation of soil liquefaction potential using GMDH algorithm. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 41(3):283–295Google Scholar
  19. Jia J (2017) Modern earthquake engineering: offshore and land-based structures. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamgar R, Khatibinia M (2017) Multi-objective optimization design of tuned mass damper system subjected to critical excitation. Modares Civ Eng J 17(4):153–164Google Scholar
  21. Kamgar R, Rahgozar R (2016) A simple method for determining the response of linear dynamic systems. Asian J Civ Eng 17(6):785–801Google Scholar
  22. Kamgar R, Hatefi SM, Majidi N (2018a) A fuzzy inference system in constructional engineering projects to evaluate the design codes for RC buildings. Civ Eng J 4(9):2155–2172Google Scholar
  23. Kamgar R, Samea P, Khatibinia M (2018b) Optimizing parameters of tuned mass damper subjected to critical earthquake. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 27(7):e1460Google Scholar
  24. Kamgar R, Babadaei Samani MR, Heidarzadeh H (2019a) Optimization of nonlinear viscous damper characteristics to reduce the response of concrete structures with linear and nonlinear behaviours. J Struct Constr Eng. Persian) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamgar R, Khatibinia M, Khatibinia M (2019b) Optimization criteria for design of tuned mass dampers including soil–structure interaction effect. Int J Optim Civ Eng 9(2):213–232Google Scholar
  26. Khatibinia M, Gholami H, Kamgar R (2018) Optimal design of tuned mass dampers subjected to continuous stationary critical excitation. Int J Dyn Control 6(3):1094–1104MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee SC, Reddy D (1982) Frequency tuning of offshore platforms by liquid sloshing. Appl Ocean Res 4(4):226–231Google Scholar
  28. Li Z-S, Derfouf F-EM, Benchouk A, Abou-Bekr N, Taibi S, Fleureau J-M (2018) Volume change behavior of two compacted clayey soils under hydraulic and mechanical loadings. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 144(4):04018013Google Scholar
  29. Lu M, Popplewell N, Shah A, Chan J (2004) Nutation damper undergoing a coupled motion. J Vib Control 10(9):1313–1334zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Malekghasemi H (2011) Experimental and analytical investigations of rectangular tuned liquid dampers (TLDs). Master of Applied Science, University of Toronto, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  31. Malekinejad M, Rahgozar R, Malekinejad A, Rahgozar P (2016) A continuous–discrete approach for evaluation of natural frequencies and mode shapes of high-rise buildings. Int J Adv Struct Eng 8(3):269–280zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Mirjalili S (2015) How effective is the Grey Wolf optimizer in training multi-layer perceptrons. Appl Intell 43(1):150–161Google Scholar
  33. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 69:46–61Google Scholar
  34. Mirjalili S, Saremi S, Mirjalili SM, Coelho LDS (2016) Multi-objective grey wolf optimizer: a novel algorithm for multi-criterion optimization. Expert Syst Appl 47:106–119Google Scholar
  35. Najafzadeh M, Zeinolabedini M (2018) Derivation of optimal equations for prediction of sewage sludge quantity using wavelet conjunction models: an environmental assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(23):22931–22943Google Scholar
  36. Oliaei M, Manafi E (2015) Static analysis of interaction between twin-tunnels using discrete element method (DEM). Sci Iran Trans A Civ Eng 22(6):1964Google Scholar
  37. Papadopoulos M, Van Beeumen R, François S, Degrande G, Lombaert G (2018) Modal characteristics of structures considering dynamic soil–structure interaction effects. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 105:114–118Google Scholar
  38. Preumont A, Seto K (2008) Active control of structures. Wiley, LononGoogle Scholar
  39. Rahgozar P (2015) Effects of soil–structure interaction on adjacent buildings. M.Sc. thesis, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, IranGoogle Scholar
  40. Rao SS, Yap FF (2011) Mechanical vibrations. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  41. Rostami S, Shojaee S (2018) Development of a direct time integration method based on quartic B-spline collocation method. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 1:21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Samanta A, Banerji P (2010) Structural vibration control using modified tuned liquid dampers. IES J Part A Civ Struct Eng 3(1):14–27Google Scholar
  43. Shimizu T, Hayama S (1987) Nonlinear response of sloshing based on the shallow water wave theory: vibration, control engineering, engineering for industry. JSME Int J 30(263):806–813Google Scholar
  44. Soliman I, Tait M, El Damatty A (2017) Modeling and analysis of a structure semi-active tuned liquid damper system. J Struct Control Health Monit 24(2):e1865Google Scholar
  45. Soong TT, Dargush GF (1997) Passive energy dissipation systems in structural engineering. Willey, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Stewart J, Crouse C, Hutchinson TC, Lizundia B, Naeim F, Ostadan F (2012) Soil–structure interaction for building structures. National Institute of Standards and Technology and NEHRP Consultants Joint VentureGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun LM, Fujino Y, Pacheco BM, Isobe M (1989) Nonlinear waves and dynamic pressures in rectangular tuned liquid damper (TLD)—simulation and experimental verification. JSCE Struct Eng Earthq Eng 6(2):251s–262sGoogle Scholar
  48. Sun L, Fujino Y, Koga K (1995) A model of tuned liquid damper for suppressing pitching motions of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24(5):625–636Google Scholar
  49. Vancliver J, Mitome S (1979) Effect of liquid storage tanks on the dynamic response of offshore platform. Appl Ocean Res 1(1):67–74Google Scholar
  50. Veletsos AS, Meek JW (1974) Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(2):121–138Google Scholar
  51. Verdugo R, Ishihara K (1996) The steady state of sandy soils. J Jpn Geotech Soc Soils Found 36(2):81–91Google Scholar
  52. Wolf J (1985) Dynamic soil–structure interaction. Prentice hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Wolf JP, Deeks AJ (2004) Foundation vibration analysis: a strength of materials approach. Elsevier, Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  54. Yamamoto K, Kawahara M (1999) Structural oscillation control using tuned liquid damper. Comput Struct 71(4):435–446Google Scholar
  55. Zhang Z, Staino A, Basu B, Nielsen SR (2016) Performance evaluation of full-scale tuned liquid dampers (TLDs) for vibration control of large wind turbines using real-time hybrid testing. Eng Struct 126:417–431Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringShahrekord UniversityShahrekordIran

Personalised recommendations