Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Seismic reliability of a cable-stayed bridge retrotted

with hysteretic devices
Fabio Casciati a,*, Gian Paolo Cimellaro b, Marco Domaneschi a
b

a
Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Bualo, The State University of New York, Bualo, NY 14260, USA

Received 18 May 2007; accepted 24 January 2008

Available online 21 March 2008

Abstract
This study evaluates the fragility curves of a cable-stayed bridge by an analytical approach based on time history analysis. The presentation of the vulnerability information in the form of fragility curves is a widely practiced approach when several uncertain sources are
involved. The ASCE benchmark problem of a cable-stayed bridge is considered as a case study. A passive control technique is adopted
and results are compared in term of fragility curves. In order to consider the uncertainties related to the ground motion 24 ground
motion time history are considered, corresponding to four dierent hazard levels, while the uncertainties in the structural characteristics
are introduced by dening the dierent performance thresholds as random variables. The fragility evaluation shows how important a
correct estimation of the limit state is for the comparison of dierent retrot techniques.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Benchmark; Bridge control; Cable-stayed bridges; Fragility; Passive control; Random variables

1. Introduction
In the past few decades, cable-stayed bridges have found
wide application throughout the world [1]. The increasing
popularity of contemporary cable-stayed bridges among
bridges engineers can be attributed to (i) the appealing
esthetics; (ii) the full and ecient utilization of structural
materials; (iii) the increased stiness over suspension
bridges; (iv) the ecient and fast mode of construction;
(v) the relatively small size of the bridge elements.
The central span length of cable-stayed bridges has now
reach length of 1000 m or longer, leading to very long
stayed cables. Long-span cables due to their exibility,
small mass and very low inherent damping [2], are susceptible to vibration with large amplitude under earthquake,
wind, trac and rain loadings. Therefore, cable-stayed
*

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fabio@dipmec.unipv.it (F. Casciati), gpc2@bualo.
edu (G.P. Cimellaro), domaneschi@stru.polimi.it (M. Domaneschi).
0045-7949/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2008.01.012

bridges due to the peculiarity of their structural behavior

are vulnerable to dynamic loadings such as earthquakes,
strong wind loads and trac loads.
It is a widely practiced approach to develop vulnerability information in the form of fragility curves (FC) [3] for
bridges [4], since they are structures of relevant importance.
A large number of methods have been proposed to compute fragility functions in the last 20 years, ranging from
expert judgment, to data analysis on observed damage
[5], to fully analytical approaches [6]. Karim and Yamakazi
[7] developed an analytical approach to construct fragility
curves for the piers of specic bridges, using the dynamic
response of an equivalent nonlinear single degree of freedom system.
Other authors have used records of damage resulting
from past earthquakes to develop empirical fragility
curves. Bazon and Kiremidjian [8], using observations
on bridge damage after the Northridge earthquake,
developed empirical fragility curves by logistic regression.
Shinozuka et al. [9] developed empirical fragility curves

1770

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

assuming that the fragility curves can be expressed in the

form of two-parameter lognormal distribution functions.
The location and scale parameters of the distribution
have been estimated by the maximum likelihood method
using the observed damage data from the 1995 Hyogoken Nambu (Kobe) earthquake. Tanaka et al. [10] used
a two-parameter normal distribution function instead of
using a cumulative lognormal distribution to t the fragility curve. 3683 bridges are grouped into ve classes
and the damage is ranked into ve levels. These eld
data were used to determine the two unknown parameters of the distribution.
Many other works can be found in literature and this literature survey is by no mean comprehensive, it is presented
here to highlight several distinct techniques.
Disadvantages related to all these approaches are that
their fragility curves are related to specic structural models and cannot be used to assess the fragility of other structures of the same type, unless in a very crude way. Another
disadvantage is that these models cannot be veried by laboratory testing, since this requires multiple physical models
brought to failure, which are too expensive and time consuming. In addition, not all these models consider all the
uncertainties involved in fragility analyses. For example,
the performance limit threshold is usually considered as a
crisp quantity, whereas it should be modeled as a random
variable as well.
This study develops analytical fragility curves of a
cable-stayed bridge using Monte Carlo simulations. The
performance threshold is modelled as a random variable
assuming a lognormal distribution. The fragility curves
evaluated for the passive control techniques are compared
with the fragility curves estimated for the uncontrolled
case.
2. Description of the methodology
The methodology described in this section aims at computing fragility functions of cable-stayed bridge modelling
the performance threshold as a random variable. Fragility
curves are functions that represents the probability that the
response R(x, I, t)={R1, . . ., Rn} of a specic structure (or
family of structures) exceeds a given threshold rlim(x, I, t)={rlim1, . . ., rlimn}, associated with a given limit state,
conditional on earthquake intensity parameter I (Pga, Pgv,
Return period, Sa, Sd, MMI, etc.). Response R and
response thresholds rlim are functions of the structural
properties of the system x, the ground motion intensity I
and the time t. However, in this formulation it is assumed
that the response threshold rlim(x) does not depend on the
ground motion history and so it does not depend on time,
while the response R(x, I, t) of the generic ith component
is replaced by its maximum value over the duration of the
response history Ri(x, I). In the following, the dependence
of the response R(x, I) on x and I, and the dependence of
the response threshold rlim(x) on x will be omitted for convenience. With these assumptions, the general denition of

fragility can be written in the following form when the

number of parameters to be checked is n:
(
)
n
[
Ri P rlimi
F P
i1

n
[

)
Ri P rlimi =I i P I i

i1

where the conditional probability of exceeding P is given

by the following equation:
(
)
n
[
P
Ri P rlimi =I
i1

n
X

P Rj P rlimj =I

j1

n X
n
X
i1

P Ri P rlimi Rj P rlimj =I

j2

n X
n X
n
X
i1

P Ri P rlimi Rj P rlimj Rk P rlimk =I   

j2 k3

1n P R1 P rlim1 R2 P rlim2 . . . Rn P rlimn

where (Ri P rlimi), i = 1,2, . . . , n, are arbitrary events. Ri is

the response measure that can be either a deformation
quantity like deck displacements, or a force quantity like
bending moment or shear forces in bridge members or
any other measure of damage for which adequate capacity
models exist. ri,lim is the response threshold related to a certain quantity that is correlated with damage and I is the
earthquake intensity. P(I = i) is the probability that the
seismic input experienced is level i. The evaluation of fragility necessitates the denition of the performance threshold that is given through a generalized formula that allows
considering in the same formulation multiple limit states
related to dierent quantities. Details about the general
description of the methodology can be found in Cimellaro
et al. [11,12]. The relation among dierent limit states can
be determined through an opportune choice of the parameters that allows dierent shapes of performance threshold,
and they can be estimated using probabilistic analysis and
engineering judgment. In this framework, limit states can
be linear or nonlinear, dependent or independent, random
or deterministic. All these options can be formulated as
particular cases of the main general one with a suitable
choice of the parameters involved.
The generalized formula for multidimensional performance limit threshold can be formulated as:
Ni
n 
X
ri lim
Lrlim
1
3
ri lim;0
i1
where ri lim is the dependent response threshold parameter
(deformation, force, velocity, etc.), that is correlated with
damage, ri lim,0 is the independent response threshold
parameter and Ni are the interaction factors determining
the shape of n-dimensional surface.

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

1771

The development of the analytical fragility curves of the

cable-stayed bridge are illustrated in the following steps:

combining fragility curves of dierent members to obtain

the global fragility curve of the bridge.

Step 1: Compute the maximum piers shear forces and

moment, decks displacement and cable tension
for each earthquake record consistent with a given
hazard level.
Step 2: Estimate the probability density function (PDS) of
the response distribution assumed lognormal
from the values of the mean and the standard
deviation.
Step 3: Generate a larger ensemble of random numbers
lognormally distributed.
Step 4: Count the number of times Nf that the maximum
response R exceeds a given performance threshold
rlim and divide by the total number of trials N
related to the respective hazard level, so the probability Pf of reaching or exceeding the performance limit state is Pf = Nf/N. As N approaches
innity, Pf approaches the true probability of
reaching or exceeding a limit state.
Step 5: The probability Pf of exceeding the limit state is
evaluated for dierent hazard levels (four in the
case study considered), so in the plane probability
of exceedance vs. earthquake intensity as many
points as the number of considered hazard levels
can be located;
Step 6: Fragility curves are plotted showing the probability of reaching or exceeding a limit state vs. the
corresponding return period. Experimental data
points corresponding to the dierent hazard levels
in the probability of exceedance vs. earthquake
intensity plane are transformed into a fragility
curve by assuming that the response of the structural system is lognormally distributed. Fragility
curves in a more compact form are described by
the following equation:


1
F Y y U lny=hY
yP0
4
b

2.1. Uncertainties of the limit states and failure modes

where U is the standardized cumulative normal distribution function, hy is the median of y, and b is
the standard deviation of the natural logarithm
of y [13]. A straightforward optimization algorithm
based on chi-squared v2 goodness-of-t test obtains the estimation of the optimal parameters of
the lognormal distribution (hy and b) [11].
Step7: The procedure is repeated for every selected member of the cable-stayed bridge and fragility curves
are constructed. Then, performance levels of different bridge elements are combined using Eq.
(3) and the global fragility curve of the cablestayed bridge is evaluated.
The advantage of this proposed methodology is that it
allows considering dependences among dierent limit states
and the uncertainties of dierent limits, but it also allows

Engineers usually make their recommendations using

fragility curves based on deterministic performance limit
states obtained from design provisions, public policies documents, engineering judgment, experimentation, etc. The
denition of performance limit states (PLSs) plays an
important role in the construction of fragility curves
because their values have a direct eect.
Therefore, a crisp description of PLSs can be inappropriate. Instead, PLSs should be modeled as random variables although often are described by crisp quantities
(because the uncertainty in the earthquake load is considerably larger than the uncertainty in the PLSs
themselves).
In this study, the performance limit states are considered
as random variables, and are dened in terms of decks displacement, shear forces and moment at the base and deck
level of the tower and cable tensions, since they govern
the behavior and failure modes of the cable-stayed bridge.
One damage state threshold has been considered that
corresponds at the elastic limit state of bridge members
(e.g. piers or towers). Bridge piers are designed to remain
in the elastic range even during strong earthquakes, so
the possibility that the piers exhibit plastic behavior has
been assumed like bridge failure. A cable-stayed bridge
usually has many possible ways to reach collapse and many
failures modes that are dependent each other. In fragility
analysis, it is essential to specify the failure modes for the
structural system considered, because the purpose of fragility curves is to predict which component will fail and how,
and with what probability. A rened fragility analysis
requires a good description of failure modes and their
uncertainties.
There are many uncertainties that should be considered
in fragility analysis of a cable-stayed bridge to obtain accurate results. However, in this paper a balance is found
between cost and accuracy of the analysis, so dependency
between failure modes has been neglected. Uncertainties
of the structural model are here considered through a random description of performance limit states. The choice of
an ensemble of cable-stayed bridges with dierent structural characteristics could have been done, but in this case,
the model should have been simplied reducing the computational time of each model, but this may not guarantee the
accuracy of the nal analysis.
3. The structural problem
To verify the eectiveness of the fragility analysis
described above, the ASCE benchmark problem has been
selected [1417]. The bridge is the Bill Emerson Memorial
Bridge, located in the USA, spanning the Missisipi River
near Cape Girardeau. It is a fan-type, medium-span,

1772

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

cable-stayed bridge (the main span length is 350.6 m). The

bridge is composed of two towers, 128 cables, and 12 additional piers. It has a total length of 1205.8 m. The side
spans are 142.7 m in length, and the approach on the other
side is 570 m. The 128 cables are made of high-strength,
low-relaxation steel. The smallest cable area is 28.5 cm2
and the largest cable area is 76.3 cm2. The damping matrix
is developed by assigning 3% of critical damping to each
mode. Sixteen 6.67 MN shock transmission devices are
installed at the connection between towers and the deck
in the uncontrolled conguration. The devices allow the
elongation of the deck due to temperature change, but rigidly connect the tower and the deck under a strong motion.
A three-dimensional nite element model of the bridge
was developed in MATLAB (1997) [14], that allows to
include the torsional eects and the torsional mode of
vibration. The model of the structure is pseudo-linear,
because the stiness matrix used in this model is determined through a nonlinear static analysis corresponding
to the deformed state of the bridge with dead loads. This
is a standard procedure [18] applied also from other
researchers [19] in dierent bridges in China.
The nonlinear static analysis was performed using the
commercial nite element program ABAQUS, giving the
model tangent stiness matrix at the (deformed) equilibrium position. The B31 beam element was used for the
structural beam element, and the element T3D2 (it is a
3D truss element with two nodes) was used for the cable
elements. Rigid links were used to connect the cables to
the tower. Then, the element mass and stiness matrices
obtained with ABAQUS are output to MATLAB for
assembly. Subsequently, the constraints are applied, and
a reduction is performed to reduce the size of the model
to something more manageable. Finally, the rst 10
undamped frequencies of the evaluation model are
0.2899, 0.3699, 0.4683, 0.5158, 0.5812, 0.6490, 0.6687,
0.6970, 0.7102, and 0.7203 Hz. Phase II of the benchmark
[16] considers the horizontal directions for the seismic excitation and its coupling with the snow action, respect to
benchmark phase I. Since the bridge is supported by bedrock, the soilstructure interaction eects are neglected
[17]. The ground motion is assumed identical at each support, but it is not applied simultaneously. It is assumed that
when the rst support undergoes a specied ground
motion, the motion at the other three supports is only
delayed proportionally to the ratio of the distance between
adjacent supports and the speed of the L-wave (3 km/s).
More details about the description of the structural model
and the structural members can be found in Caceido et al.
[17].

earthquake, so that the seismic analysis should start from

the deformed equilibrium conguration due to dead loads.
In a cable-stayed bridge, Ren and Obota [19], but also
Fleming and Egeseli [20] and Nazmy and Abdel-Ghaar
[21], found that there is only small dierence between linear
and geometrically nonlinear seismic time-history analysis
under strong ground motions, when the analysis starts
from the deformed equilibrium conguration due to dead
loads. Ren and Obota also found that the elasto-plastic
eects tend to reduce the seismic responses of the bridge
that depend highly on the characteristic of the earthquake
records and the dynamic properties of the bridge. Based on
this considerations, it has been used a pseudo-linear structure in order to avoid the huge computational aord necessary to run a nonlinear nite element model with a much
bigger DOFs, that will make the fragility analysis based
on Monte Carlo simulation very long and not practical.
Therefore, towers and cables are assumed with a linear
elastic behavior, while the girder is connected to the bent
and the piers by orthogonal independent passive devices
which are modeled using the Bouc-Wen model.
3.2. Ultimate load-carrying capacity and safety evaluation
The yield moment, yield shear and yield curvatures of
piers are obtained using a ber section analysis (Kent-Park
model is used for concrete and a bilinear model for steel).
In Table 1 are shown the values of the yielding curvature
and ultimate curvature together with their respective forces
both in the longitudinal and transversal direction for the
two cross sections of the piers at the base level (section
E) and at the deck level (section D). Performance thresholds are modeled as random variables using a coecient
of variation of 50% for the piers while a coecient of variation of 10% is assumed for the yielding forces of cables.
This value of the coecient of variation for steel is in agreement with the results of Ellingwood et al. [22] that suggested coecient of variation for steel between 10% and
30%. Indeed, the random strength-constant stiness model
adopted for steel cables appears to be a reasonable model,
because the elastic modulus of steel that determines the
stiness have little uncertain, whereas steel strength is less
certain. The lower bound of the values of the coecient
of variation proposed by Ellingwood has been chosen
(10%), because cables are high-strength, low-relaxation

Table 1
Yield and ultimate curvatures and moment of the piers sections
My (kN m)

3.1. Nonlinear considerations and safety evaluation

An important feature of cable-stayed bridges is the eect
of the dead load that may contribute to 8090% to total
bridge loads. Dead loads are usually applied before the

Section E
Base level
Section D
Deck level

Trans.
Long.
Trans.
Long.

Hy
[1/1000]

Mu (kN m)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2160
63,447
43,000
6330

4.13
5.29
0.41
0.76

2370
63,447
43,500
6920

61.74
65.17
6.17
5.58

Hu
[1/1000]

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

steel tested in laboratory, so it is reasonable to assume a

reduced uncertainty.
3.3. Cables sag eects
There are three main sources of geometrically nonlinear
behavior of cable-stayed bridges: (i) the beam-column
eect; (ii) the large displacements (known as P-D) eect;
(iii) the cable sag eect [23]. It is generally accepted that
the latter is the most relevant of those and, consequently,
even in this simplied model adopted to evaluate fragility
of the case study considered the sag eect has been
included.
In the last decades, several nite elements have been proposed for cable modelling [24,25]. Gambhir and Batchelor
[26] developed a two-node curved nite element, using
cubic polynomial interpolation functions, and used for
the static and dynamic analysis of three-dimensional (3D) prestressed cable nets. Ozdemir [27] developed another
two-node curved nite element using Lagrangian functions
for the interpolation of element geometry. Ali and Ghaar
[28] used a four-node iso-parametric cable element for
modelling cables in cable-stayed bridges.
Despite the complexity and accuracy of all these models,
the Ernst method [29] or modied elastic modulus method
has been used in this analysis, given its capability to
account for the sag eect and the easy of use. The method
assumes a parabolic instead of a catenary shape for the
cable, which is acceptable only for moderate curvatures,
typical of highly tensioned cables.
The cable element is modeled as a large-displacement
truss element that has a modied modulus of elasticity,
Eeq, given by
Eeq

Ec

wLx 2 Ac Ec
12T 3c

where Ac is area of the cross-section, Tc is the tension in the

cable, w is its unit weight, Lx is the projected length in the
XZ plane, and Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the
material.
The cable elements are modeled as truss elements in
ABAQUS, and their equivalent elastic modulus are used
in the nonlinear static analysis. The cable stiness contribution to the global stiness matrix is only applied when the
cable is under tension and is omitted otherwise:
(
Eeq A
; ui > 0
L
Kc
6
0;
ui < 0
It has been shown [24] that the equivalent modulus approach results in softer cable response as it accounts for
the sag eect, but does not account for the stiening eect
due to large displacements.
Furthermore, the eect of dynamic interaction with deck
and towers is also important in the seismic response of
cable-stayed bridge [30] and cables play an important role
in amplication or attenuation of structural response. In

1773

particular amplication was noticed when a narrow band

excitation is applied, that can excite the higher cable modes
and induce contribution to higher-order global mode of the
structure, causing high frequency vibration to occur [31].
However to take in account this eect, it is necessary to
model each cable with multiple nodes [32,33] including a
large number of DOFs, that increase the computational
time of the analysis based on Monte Carlo simulations.
Still, for some cases, e.g. for short and medium span
cable-stayed bridges, linear analysis utilizing the equivalent
modulus approach is often sucient [34,23], so cables has
been model in this way in order to nd a balance between
accuracy and computational time.
3.4. Characterization of input ground motion
The bridge is located in the New Madrid seismic zone
(Cape Girardeau: Lat. 37.2971N Long. 89.5163W) for
which no strong motion records from similar historical
earthquakes exists. Hence, synthetic accelerograms are
used. The synthetic accelerograms are generated by the
program SMSIM_TD version 2.10 [35]. SMSIM_TD uses
a stochastic method and assumes a point source. Sixty
accelerograms corresponding to a given return period are
obtained from the most likely (magnitude M, distance R)
event (modal event) that is determined from the seismic
hazard deaggregation maps of US Geological Survey
[36]. The modal (R, M) pair corresponds to an earthquake
that is more likely than any other pair to produce a given
ground-motion exceedance in the future. The deaggregation maps are discrete surfaces that show the probability
of occurrence of given event expressed in term of magnitude M and distance R for dierent return periods. Four
dierent hazard levels are considered in this study: 20%
in 50 years (return period Tr = 224 years), 10% in 50 years
(Tr = 475 years), 5% in 50 years (Tr = 975 years) and 2% in
50 years (Tr = 2475 years). The uniform hazard response
spectrum is derived according to FEMA 356 [37] and using
the information provided by U.S.G.S [36]. Each of the
records is scaled so that the ground motion expressed in
term of pseudo spectra acceleration (SA) with 5% damping
at the period of 2 s is equal to the SA of the target spectrum
related to a given probability of exceedance (PE). Among
the 60 accelerograms corresponding to a given return period, a subset of 6 accelerograms has been selected whose
response spectra most closely match an approximate uniform hazard response spectrum over most of its domain.
The sampling frequency is 200 Hz and the duration is
81.9 s. In Fig. 1, six response spectra corresponding to
two return periods (475 years and 2475 years) are plotted
and compared with the corresponding uniform hazard
spectrum. The original benchmark problem uses three
recorded accelerograms with dierent characteristics to
compare the various control strategies, but it does not
allow considering the problem using a probabilistic
approach, as it should be due to the uncertainties of the
input ground motion.

1774

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

Response Spectrum (10 %PE; Tr=475 yrs) matching point: T=2sec

A1-A6 [R=41.7km; M=7.7]

UHS 2002 - Target Spectrum
Median spectrum

1.0

a (g)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

t (sec)
Response Spectrum (2%PE; Tr=2475 yrs) matching point: T=2sec

A19-A24 [R=16.7km;M=7.7]
UHS 2002 - Target Spectrum
Median Spectrum

a (g)

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

t (sec)
Fig. 1. Comparison among response spectra of synthetic accelerograms and uniform hazard response spectrum for two return periods: (a) 475 years; (b)
2475 years.

In Fig. 2, the two uniform hazard spectra corresponding

to the return period of 475 years and 2475 years are shown
and compared with the response spectra of the benchmark.
It is observed a close matching of the response spectrum at
larger periods, in particular when it is considered the rst
natural mode of the bridge (T0 = 3.44 s). On the contrary,
there are big discrepancies at the higher frequency region.
Therefore, it is also possible to consider the eects of the
higher modes of the bridge, using the proposed set of synthetic accelerograms. Besides, using 24 accelerograms
instead of three, it is possible to approach the problem in
a statistic way.
4. Retrot strategy
Passive control has been implemented in bridges worldwide since 1970s [3840]. In particular, the seismic isolation, with limited increase of a natural period to limit
displacement, which is known as the Menshin Design,
has been widely accepted in highway bridges in Japan after
the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake. A passive control
system based on elastomeric leadrubber bearings has been
adopted as retrot strategy, because it limits the transfer of
the input seismic energy to the structure. In this way, most
of the displacements occur across the device, while the

superstructure deforms pretty much as a rigid body. The

passive control strategy for the mitigation of seismic eects
implemented by the present work was developed using the
benchmark bridge model in literature [39]. Dierent typologies of elasto-plastic passive devices are located in eight
positions along the bridge, symmetric respect the longitudinal axis, between deck, piers and bents. They are able to
dissipate energy on the horizontal plane in longitudinal
and transversal direction (Fig. 3).
In the benchmark model, the structure is analyzed only
for two horizontal components of ground motion. Under
such seismic excitation, which neglects the vertical component, the response of the bridge deck was investigated and
it results as a rigid body motion in the horizontal plane
with unimportant vertical displacements (Fig. 4). For the
reasons above, the vertical dissipative contribution of the
control devices was not implemented.
The devices behaviour is modeled in each orthogonal
direction using the Bouc-Wen endochronic hysteretic
model [41,42] in the form:
n

n1

z_ A_x  b_xjzj  cj_xjzjzj

V 1  akz akx c_x

where z is the auxiliary variable controlling the hysteretic

behavior. V is the lateral force expressed by the sum of

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

1775

Uniform hazard spectrum vs. benchmark accelerograms response spectra

2.5
El Centro
Gebze
Mexico
UHS 2002 (Tr=475yrs)
UHS 2002 (Tr=2475 yrs)

a (g)

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

t (sec)
first mode -T0 =3.44sec

0.4

a (g)

0.3

0.2

El Centro
Gebze
Mexico
UHS 2002 (Tr=475 years)
UHS 2002 (Tr=2475 years)

0.1

0.0
3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

t (sec)
Fig. 2. Comparison between UHS and benchmark response spectra.

Fig. 3. Position of the passive devices.

three terms acting in parallel; a = k2/k, the ratio between

post and pre-yielding stiness; A, b, c, n are time invariant
parameters dening the amplitude and the shape of the cycles, c is the damping and x and x_ are the relative displacement and velocity. The viscous damping component is
often very small, so, in this formulation the term c_x is
neglected.
The lateral yielding force Vy for value A = 1 and a close
to zero assumes the following form:

Vy

k
c b

1=n

Literature is rich of devices modeled by the Bouc-Wen

model [42], like magnetorheological dampers [43], metallic
dampers [44,45], rubber bearings [46], electroinductive devices [47], etc. No formal optimization algorithm has been
adopted, so parametric analysis has been performed in order to obtain the optimal values of the yielding forces and

1776

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

Deck Displacement (10-3 m)

-1

-2
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time (sec)
Fig. 4. Vertical displacement of the deck to the pier 2. The seismic record
has a return period of 2475 years.

the post-yield stiness k2 by considering as objective function the moments of the piers and the displacement of the
deck. Table 2 summarizes the adopted parameters, with the
initial stiness k assigned, dierent values of the yielding
force Vy and the post-yield stiness k2 has been considered
in order to optimize the response reduction.
5. Numerical results of the bridge response
Dynamic analyses were performed using 24 synthetic
earthquakes and fragility curves were developed before
and after retrotting. The adopted passive control solutions (Table 2) were analyzed and results compared in term
of fragility curves with the uncontrolled case. Note that the
reference structure used for comparison of the passive control strategy is the bridge with shock transmission devices
installed. In each case considered, the following time-history seismic responses are recorded: (i) shear and moment
at the base of the piers and at the deck level; (ii) displacement of the deck; (iii) cable tension time history response.
All results are obtained starting from the deformed equilibrium conguration due to dead loads. The reference variables in building the fragility curves are the moments and
the shears at the base of the piers and at the deck level
respectively; the tension in the cables and the displacements
of the deck, however only part of the results are shown in
Table 2
Device parameters
A

Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Vy (kN)

b=c

(1)

(2)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

0.02
0.02
0.02
1E5
0.02
0.02
1E5
0.02
0.02

1000
2000
5000
5000
250
1
1
500
4000

40
20
8
8
160
40,000
40,000
80
10

80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000

k (kN/m)

this paper. Fig. 5 shows details of the time response for the
base moment and base shear of pier 2 for the uncontrolled
and controlled case, but also the tension in one of the
cables and the displacement response at bent 1. The passive
control adopted is leading to a reduction in term of forces
in the structural members, with a small increase of deck
displacements that is within the acceptable limits. In fact,
the expansion joints of the deck level are constrained in
the relative vertical movements, while they allow horizontal
movements. The maximum allowed relative movements
between adjacent decks are 15 cm.
Fig. 6 depicts the hysteretic loops in the transversal and
longitudinal direction at pier 2. It is worth noting the dierence in the energy dissipated by the two orthogonal independent devices, the transversal one seems unnecessary.
Fig. 7 shows the Fourier transforms of the moment at
the deck level and the base shear of pier 2 in the longitudinal direction, for the uncontrolled and passive case. In both
signals it is clear the rst natural frequency of the bridge in
the uncontrolled case (f = 0.2899 Hz).
In Table 3 the mean of the maximum values of the base
shear at pier 2 in the longitudinal direction are tabulated
for three dierent values of the yielding force and four different hazard levels, assuming an angle of incidence u of
the seismic action of 15. This pier has been selected
because it receives more forces respect to the other piers,
while the angle of 15 has been selected because it is the
more demanding for the pier in question. This conclusion
has been addressed after a sensitivity analysis observing
dierent angle of incidence of the seismic action.
Tables 4 and 5 are similar to Table 3, but related to the
base moment of pier 2 and to displacement of bent 1
respectively. Type 8 in Table 1, shows better reduction in
term of base shear and moment compared to the other
two types, but the displacements of the deck compared to
type 1 are bigger. Type 2 is able to reduce the displacements
of the deck for higher hazard levels, but denitely, it performs worse in term of displacement at the lower hazard
level (Fig. 8). Besides in term of shear and moment the type
1 performs better compared to type 2 (Tables 3 and 4). In
Fig. 9 the fragility curves for pier 2 are plotted considering
as reference variable the base moment. The graphs want to
show the inuence of the uncertainties in the limit threshold using the coecient of variation m = r/l dened as
ratio between the standard deviation and the mean
[11,12]. The retrot technique adopted is very eective in
term of fragility curves as shown from the shift of the fragility curves to the right (Fig. 7). Fragility curves are very
sensitive to the uncertainties of the performance threshold
expressed using the coecient of variation m. The uncertainties of the performance threshold increase the probability of exceedance; however even with this increase, the
retrot technique chosen is still very eective.
It is interesting to mention that instead when the uncertainties of the limit threshold of the deck displacement are
considered the fragility curves of type 1 are not sensitive to
this dispersion.

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

Base Moment (Mz) at Pier 2 in long. dir. X - A7

Base Shear Force (Vz) at Pier 2 in long. dir. X - A7

15

Base Shear Force (103 kN)

Base Moment (103 kN m)

300
200
100
0
-100
-200

Uncontrolled
Controlled

10

Uncontrolled
Controlled

5
0
-5

-10

-300
25

30

-15
25

35

30

Time (sec)

Tension Force in cable 81 - A7

60

Tension Force ( kN)

1550
1500
1450
1400
1350

Uncontrolled
Controlled

1300
25

35

Time (sec)

Deck Displacement (10-3 m)

1600

1777

30

40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
20

35

Displacement at Bent 1 in long. dir. X - A7

Uncontrolled
Controlled

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

0.2

0.1

Force (103 kN)

Force (10 3 kN m)

Fig. 5. Time history responses of the bridge: (a) base moment; (b) base shear; (c) cable tension; (d) displacement of bent 1.

-1

-2
-0.4

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

displacement (m)

-0.2
-4

-2

-3

displacement (10 m)

Fig. 6. Hysteretic cycles of the transversal device (a) and the longitudinal one (b). The seismic record has a return period of 2475 years. The devices are
located at the pier 2. Dierent scale resolution.

6. Directivity eects of seismic action on fragility curves

Synthetic earthquake accelerograms have two horizontal components X (longitudinal) and Z (transverse). The
arrival times to the piers are [0 0.05 0.16 0.20] s for an
angle of incidence of 15, while for an angle of incidence
of 45 the arrival times are [0 0.03 0.12 0.15] s. The incidence angle is dened between the longitudinal direction
of the bridge and the NS wave of the earthquake. The
earthquakes with the angle of incidence of the seismic

action inclined of 15 are more demanding than the

earthquakes with angle of incidence of 45. This can be
seen by looking at the fragility curves for the uncontrolled and controlled cases for base shear and moment
of pier 2 (Fig. 10). In fact, the probability of exceeding
the performance threshold is higher for the angle of incidence of 15. In addition, deck displacements with an
angle of incidence of 45 in the longitudinal direction
are one order of magnitude lower than for the angle of
incidence of 15 (Table 6).

1778

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

FT Base Shear V z Pier 2 in long. dir. X - A7

FT Moment (Mz ) at deck level Pier 2 in long. dir. X - A7

1200
Uncontrolled
Passive

2.0e+4

Magnitude (103 kN sec)

Magnitude (103 kN m t)

2.5e+4

1.5e+4
1.0e+4
5.0e+3
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Uncontrolled
Passive

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0

1.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

0.8

1.0

Fig. 7. Representative Fourier transform of the bridge: (a) longitudinal ground acceleration to moment at the deck level before and after retrot; (b)
longitudinal ground acceleration to base shear before and after retrot.

Table 3
Mean of the maximum base shear at pier 2
Max. base shear pier 2 (kN)

Tr = 224 years

Uncontrolled
Type 1 (Vy = 1000 kN)
Type 2 (Vy = 2000 kN)
Type 8 (Vy = 500 kN)

Tr = 475 years

Tr = 975 years

Tr = 2475 years

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

3087.0
2511.0
2941.8
2186.1

%
18.6
4.7
29.2

10362.0
6525.4
7200.6
6226.7

%
37.0
30.5
39.9

25320.0
14427.0
15189.0
13749.0

%
43.0
40.0
45.7

52793.0
28783.0
29220.0
28543.0

%
45.5
44.6
45.9

Longitudinal direction; u = 15; no snow.

Table 4
Mean of the maximum base moment at pier 2
Max. base moment pier 2 (kN m)

Uncontrolled
Type 1 (Vy = 1000 kN)
Type 2 (Vy = 2000 kN)
Type 8 (Vy = 500 kN)

Tr = 224 years

Tr = 475 years

Tr = 975 years

Tr = 2475 years

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

59458.0
48184.0
61659.0
36622.0

%
18.9
-3.7
38.4

190600.0
111520.0
136600.0
107660.0

%
41.5
28.3
43.5

466830.0
247590.0
255640.0
261920.0

%
46.9
45.2
43.9

973060.0
501690.0
482010.0
517410.0

%
48.4
50.5
46.8

Longitudinal direction; u = 15; no snow.

Table 5
Mean of the maximum displacement at bent 1
Max. displ. bent 1 (m)

Type 1 (Vy = 1000 kN)

Type 2 (Vy = 2000 kN)
Type 8 (Vy = 500 kN)

Tr = 224 years

Tr = 475 years

Tr = 975 years

Tr = 2475 years

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

0.0234
0.0293
0.0202

%
25.2
13.4

0.0645
0.0671
0.0740

%
4
14.8

0.1723
0.1539
0.2104

%
10.6
22.1

0.3679
0.2602
0.4781

%
29.2
29.9

Longitudinal direction; u = 15; no snow.

7. Fragility curves for cables

One of the important aspects of cable-stayed bridge is
the determination of tension force in the cable, which is
directly related to forces in the tower and the girder. Control on the tension force in cables is critical. In most cases,
cables are tensioned to about 40% of their ultimate strength
under permanent load condition.

The passive control technique adopted is able to keep

the tension in the cable within the limits for all the four
hazard levels chosen, when the angle of incidence of the
seismic action is of 15. However using an angle of incidence for the seismic action of 45 the tension in some cable
is not able to remain within the acceptable limits for the
highest risk level (Tr = 2475 years). This is shown by the
fragility curves for two cables (81 and 114) for the uncon-

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

0.8

0.6

2%

5%

Uncontrolled

(y=996 yrs =0.05)

Passive - Type 1

(y=2130 yrs =0.37)

Passive - Type 8

(y=2046 yrs =0.37)

Passive - Type 2

(y=2170 yrs =0.37)

DISPLACEMENT BENT 1
PE in 50 years
20% 10%

1.0

2%

5%

0.8

Pexceed

20% 10%

1.0

Pexceed

PIER 2 BASE SHEAR [=50%]

PE in 50 years

1779

0.4

0.6

0.4
Passive - Type 1 (y =665 yrs =0.57)
Passive - Type 2 (y =710 yrs =0.71)

0.2

0.2

Passive - Type 8 (y =590 yrs =0.37)

My=444915 kN*m
0.0

0.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

500

1000

Return Period (yrs)

1500

2000

2500

Return Period (yrs)

Fig. 8. Comparison between the best passive devices in term of fragility using uncertainties of the performance threshold using a coecient of variation of 50%.

PIER 2 BASE MOMENT

PE in 50 years
20% 10%

2%

5%

1.0

Pexceed

0.8

0.6
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled

=50%

Uncontrolled

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

=0.57)
=0.77)

(y=783 yrs

=0.22)

(y=1610 yrs

=0.39)

=0% det. (y=515 yrs

=0.22)

Passive type 1 =50%

0.2

0.0

=100% (y=667 yrs

Passive type 1 =100% (y=1241 yrs

0.4

Passive type 1 =0% det. (y=1675 yrs =0.38)

Return Period (yrs)

Fig. 9. Comparison between dierent values of dispersions of the performance threshold and the passive retrot technique adopted.

PIER 2 BASE SHEAR [=100%]

PE in 50 years
20% 10%

PIER 2 BASE MOMENT [=100%]

PE in 50 years
20% 10%

2%

5%

1.0

2%

5%

1.0

My=444915kN*m
0.8

Pexceed

Pexceed

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

500

1000

Return Period (yrs)

=150 Uncontr.

(y=800yrs

=0.58)

=15 Uncontr.

=45 Uncontr.

(y=1966yrs =0.74)

=45 Uncontr.

(y=1486yrs =0.77)

=15 Type 1

(y=2602yrs =0.03)

=45 Type 1

=15 Type 1
=45 Type 1

1500

2000

Return Period (yrs)

0

(y=668 yrs = 0.57)

(y=1744 yrs = 0.75)

(y= 1241yrs = 0.77)

(y=2602 yrs = 0.03)

Fig. 10. Inuence of the angle of incidence u of the seismic action on fragility curves.

2500

1780

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

Table 6
Mean of the maximum displacement at bent 1
Max. displ. bent 1 (m)

Tr = 224 years

Tr = 475 years

Tr = 975 years

Tr = 2475 years

Type1 u = 15
Type1 u = 45

0.0234
0.0019

0.0645
0.0058

0.1723
0.0142

0.3679
0.0338

Longitudinal direction; u = 15/45; no snow.

CABLE 81 =10% =45

PE in 50 years
20% 10%

CABLE 114 =10% =45

PE in 50 years
20% 10%

2%

5%

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

Pexceed

Pexceed

1.0

0.4

0.2

2%

5%

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Return Period (yrs)

Uncontrolled

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Return Period (yrs)

(y=1037yrs =0.03)

Uncontrolled

Passive Type 1 (y=1610yrs =0.28)

(y=1710yrs =0.38)

Passive Type 1 (y=2602yrs =0.05)

Fig. 11. Fragility curves of cable 81 and 114 for an angle of incidence u = 45 and uncertainties of the limit threshold of m = 10%.

trolled and controlled cases (Fig. 11). The uncertainty of

the performance threshold in this case is chosen equal to
m = 10% because the ultimate strength of the cables are
more accurately dened than the ultimate load of the pier
sections made of concrete, for which uncertainties equal
to m = 100% have been chosen.

8. Remark and conclusions

This study evaluates the fragility curves of a cablestayed bridge using an analytical approach based on time
history analysis. The bridge is located in USA spamming
the Mississippi river near Cape Girardeau, and is a part
of the benchmark problem phase II that, with respect to
phase I, includes the bi-directional eects of the seismic
action. Passive control devices are modelled using the
Bouc-Wen hysteretic model. The passive control is compared with the uncontrolled case in term of fragility curves.
The uncertainty related to the ground motion has been
considered using four dierent hazard levels, while the
uncertainty of the structural model has been considered
by modelling the dierent performance thresholds as random variables. Fragility curves were developed at the base
of the pier and at the deck level, considering both moments
and shears, but they also were developed in the cables considering the tension and in the deck considering the displacements. The paper shows how important is a correct

evaluation of the performance threshold of structural

members, because they can aect signicantly the results
in term of fragility curves. Control strategy should be chosen in order to overcome the eect of uncertainties.
Acknowledgements
The second author wants to acknowledge his advisor
Professor A.M. Reinhorn and Professor T.T. Soong for
their discussion and teaching in the eld of structural control, along with their guidance and encouragement that has
been essential in the completion of this work and are gratefully acknowledged. The second author wants also to
acknowledge the support of MCEER, which is supported
by the National Science Foundation. A research grant
from the University of Pavia is acknowledged to support
the contribution of the other two authors.
References
[1] Evangelista L, Petrangeli MP, Traini G. The cable-stayed bridge over
the PO river. In: IABSE symposium on structures for high-speed
railway transportation, Antwerp, August 2003.
[2] Pacheco BM, Fujino Y, Sulekh A. Estimation curves for modal
damping in stay cables with viscous damper. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1993;119(6):196179.
[3] Casciati F, Faravelli L. Fragility analysis of complex structural
systems. Taunton, Somerset, England: Research Studies Press Ltd;
1991.

F. Casciati et al. / Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 17691781

[4] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T. Statistical analysis of
fragility curves. J Eng Mech, ASCE 2000;126(12):122431.
[5] Singhal A, Kiremidjian A. Bayesian updating of fragilities with
application to RC frames. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1998;124(8):9229.
[6] Cornell AC, Jalayer F, Hamburger R, Foutch D. Probabilistic basis
for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guide-lines. J Eng
Mech, ASCE 2002;128(4):52633.
[7] Karim KR, Yamazaki F. Eect of earthquake ground motions on
fragility curves of highway bridge piers based on numerical simulation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2001;30(12):183956.
[8] Basoz N, Kiremidjian AS. Risk assessment of bridges and highway
systems from the Northridge earthquake. In: Proceedings of the
national seismic conference on bridges and highways: progress in
research and practice. Sacramento (CA); 1997. p. 6579.
[9] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H, Kim S. Non linear static procedure
for fragility curve development. J Eng Mech, ASCE
2000;126(12):128795.
[10] Tanaka S, Kameda H, Nojima N, Ohnishi S. Evaluation of seismic
fragility for highway transportation systems. In: Proceedings of the
12th world conference on earthquake engineering. Upper Hutt, New
Zealand. Paper No. 0546; 2000.
[11] Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn, AM, Bruneau M, Rutenberg A. Multidimensional fragility of structures: formulation and evaluation.
MCEER Technical Report MCEER-06-0002, University at Bualo,
The State University of New York, Bualo, NY; 2006.
[12] Cimellaro GP, Kafali C. Fragility based life estimation methodology
for critical facilities. In: Topping BHV, editor. Proceedings of the
tenth international conference on civil, structural and environmental
engineering computing. Stirling, United Kingdom: Civil-Comp Press;
2005 [paper 223].
[13] Soong TT. Fundamental of probability and statistics for engineers. John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
[14] Dyke SJ, Turan G, Caceido JM, Bergman LA, Hauge S. Benchmark
control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. Washington University in St. Louis; 2000.
[15] Bontempi F, Casciati F, Giudici M. Seismic Response of a cablestayed bridge: active and passive control systems (Benchmark
problem). J Struct Contr 2003;10(34):16985.
[16] Caceido JM, Dyke SJ, Moon SJ, Bergman LA, Turan G, Hague S.
Phase II benchmark control problem for seismic response of cablestayed bridges. J Struct Contr 2003;10:13768.
[17] Caceido JM, Dyke SJ, Moon SJ, Bergman L, Turan G, Hague S.
Phase II benchmark control problem for seismic response of cablestayed bridges. http://wusceel.cive.wustl.edu/quake/; 2003.
[18] Wilson J, Gravelle W. Modelling of a cable-stayed bridge for
dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1991;20:70721.
[19] Ren WX, Obata M. Elasticplastic behavior of long span cablestayed bridges. J Bridge Eng, ASCE 1999:194203.
[20] Fleming JF, Egeseli EA. Dynamic behavior of a cable-stayed bridge.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1980;8:116.
[21] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Ghaar AM. Non-linear earthquake response
analysis of long-span cable-stayed bridges: theory. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dynam 1990;19:4562.
[22] Ellingwood B, Galambos TV, MacGregor JG, Cornell CA. Development of a probabilistic-based load criterion for American National
Standard A58. National Bureau of Standards 1980, Washington
(DC). 222pp.
[23] Kanok-Nukulchai W, Yiu PKA. Mathematical modelling of cablestayed bridges. Struct Eng Int 1992;2:10813.
[24] Karoumi R. Some modeling aspects in the nonlinear nite element
analysis of cable supported bridges. Comput Struct 1999;71:397412.
[25] Freire AMS, Negrao JHO, Lopes AV. Geometric nonlinearities on
the static analysis of highly exible steel cable-stayed bridges.
Comput Struct, doi:10.1016/j.compstruc. 2006.08.047; 2006.
[26] Gambhir ML, Batchelor B. A nite element for 3-D prestressed
cablenets. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1977;11:1699718.
[27] Ozdemir H. A nite element approach for cable problems. Int J
Solids Struct 1979;15:42737.

1781

[28] Ali HM, Abdel-Ghaar AM. Modeling the nonlinear seismic

behavior of cable-stayed bridges with passive control bearings.
Comput Struct 1995;54:46192.
[29] Ernst HJ. Der E-Modul von Seilen unter Beruecksich-tigung des
Durchhanges. Der Bauingenieur 1965;40:525.
[30] Abdel-Ghaar AM, Khalifa M. Importance of cable vibration in
dynamics of cable-stayed bridges. J Eng Mech, ASCE
1991;117(11):257189.
[31] Caetano E, Cunha A, Taylor CA. Investigation of dynamic cabledeck interaction in a physical model of a cable-stayed bridge: Part I
modal analysis; Part II seismic response. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dynam 2000;29(4):481521.
[32] Loh C-H, Chang C-M. MATLAB-based seismic response control of
a cable-stayed bridge: cable vibration. J Struct Contr Health Monitor
[in press], published on-line in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) doi:10.1002/stc.87.
[33] Loh CH, Chang CM. Vibration control assessment of ASCE
benchmark model of cable-stayed bridge. J Struct Contr Health
Monit; 2006, published online 16 February 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). doi:10.1002/stc.62.
[34] Karoumi R. Dynamic Response of cable-stayed bridges subjected to
moving vehicles. Licentiate thesis, TRITA-BKN Bulletin 22, Department of structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm; 1996.
[35] Boore D. SMSIM-Fortran programs for simulating ground
motions from earthquakes: version 2.0 A revision of OFR 9680-A. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF 00-509.55p;
2000.
[36] United States Geological Survey, National Seismic Hazards Mapping
Project, version 2002, http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/lookup-2002interp.html; 2000.
[37] FEMA, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation
of buildings, Report No. FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC); 2000.
[38] Buckle I, Mayes R. History and application of seismic isolation to
highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the 1st USJapan workshop on
earthquake protective systems, NCEER 92-4, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research. University at Bualo, the State
University of New York, NY, USA; 1992. p. 2740.
[39] Casciati F, Domaneschi M. 2004. Connement of vibration applied
to a benchmark problem. In: Proceedings of the second European
workshop on structural health monitoring, Monaco (D), July 79;
2004. p. 8118.
[40] Kawashima K. A perspective of Menshin design for highway bridges.
In: Proceedings of the 1st USJapan workshop on earthquake
protective systems, NCEER 92-4, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research. University at Bualo, The State University of
New York, NY, USA; 1992. p. 326.
[41] Bouc R. Forced vibration of mechanical systems with hysteresis.
In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on nonlinear oscillations;
1967.
[42] Ikhouane F, Rodellar J. On the hysteretic Bouc-Wen model: part I
and II. Nonlinear Dynam 2005;42:6395.
[43] Spencer Jr BF, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Phenomenological
model for magnetorheological dampers. J Eng Mech
1997;123(3):2308.
[44] Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive energy dissipation systems in
structural engineering. London: Wiley; 1997.
[45] Casciati F, Domaneschi M, Faravelli L. Some remarks on the drift of
elasto-plastic oscillators under stochastic excitation. In: Spence Jr
BF, Johnson EA, editors. Stochastic structural dynamics. Indiana,
USA: Notre Dame; 1998. p. 54550. August 68.
[46] Spencer BF. On the reliability of nonlinear hysteretic structures
subjected to broadband random excitation. In: Brebbia CA, Orszag
SA, editors. Lecture notes in engineering, vol. 21. New
York: Springer; 1996.
[47] Casciati F, Domaneschi M. Semi-active electro-inductive devices:
characterization and modelling. J Vib Contr 2007;13(6):81538.