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

net/publication/279223608

Seismic Design of a Long-Span Cable-Stayed Bridge with Fluid Viscous Dampers

Article  in  Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction · June 2015

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000262

CITATIONS READS
6 374

4 authors, including:

Jin Zhu Wei Zhang

Southwest Jiaotong University University of Connecticut
16 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   310 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Fatigue Damage Prognosis of Coastal Slender Bridges View project

Fluid Structure Interactions and its applications on Wind Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jin Zhu on 01 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Seismic Design of a Long-Span Cable-Stayed Bridge
with Fluid Viscous Dampers
Jin Zhu, S.M.ASCE1; Wei Zhang, M.ASCE2; K. F. Zheng3; and H. G. Li4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: As a passive energy dissipation device, the fluid viscous damper (FVD) is effective for mitigating wind or seismic load-induced
vibrations. In this paper, the effects of FVDs for a cable-stayed bridge under randomly generated earthquake excitation are investi-
gated. The FVD is modeled as a simplified Maxwell model, which consists of a linear spring in series with a nonlinear dashpot. The
pile is modeled as a beam on the nonlinear Winkler foundation, and the soil–pile interactions are simulated by using continuously
distributed hysteretic springs and viscous dashpots placed in parallel. Three random ground motions are generated from the earthquake
risk assessment based on the seismotectonics and seismicity analysis of the bridge location. The seismic response of the cable-stayed
bridge with FVD considering soil–structure interactions (SSIs) is obtained by solving the equations of motion in the time domain
using a direct integration method. Parametric studies are conducted for the two key parameters in the simplified Maxwell model, namely,
the damping coefficient C and the damping exponent α. The results indicate that the FVD is very efficient in reducing the displace-
ment response of the cable-stayed bridge and the bending moment of the tower while simultaneously limiting the shear force in the
tower. Compared with the linear FVD, the nonlinear FVD has a better performance in reducing the seismic response of the cable-stayed
bridge. The maximum displacement response of the deck and the tower, when implementing the nonlinear FVD, could be reduced up
to 79 and 77%, respectively, whereas the maximum reduction of the corresponding displacement response with the linear FVD drops to
51 and 50%, respectively. The reduction of the bending moment of the tower using nonlinear FVD could be up to 56%, whereas the
maximum reduction of the corresponding response using linear FVD is 40%. After the parametric study, an optimal design of the FVD is
chosen and implemented in the final bridge design. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000262. © 2015 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Cable-stayed bridge; Fluid viscous damper (FVD); Soil–structure interaction (SSI); Parametric study; Seismic
response; Passive energy dissipation.

Introduction have been proposed to achieve better structural performances

Cable-supported bridges, including cable-stayed bridges and sus-
pension bridges, are typically used for long-span bridges. A major
portion of the earthquake energy can be dissipated owing to the
flexibility and slenderness of long-span bridges, which help pro-
tect the structures during earthquakes (Constantinou and Symans
1992). However, during strong earthquakes, long-span bridges
will have large displacements owing to the weak restrictions in the
longitudinal direction, and the base shear force and the base
bending moment cannot be ignored (Soneji and Jangid 2007). The
large displacements and forces might cause local structural
damages such as the failure of the expansion joints and might
endanger the pedestrians and the moving vehicles. Many methods
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269.
2 design, FVD can raise the structural damping to 10–25% and the
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269 (corresponding author). E-mail:
wzhang@engr.uconn.edu
3
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong Univ.,
Chengdu, Sichuan 610031, China.
4
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong
Univ., Chengdu, Sichuan 610031, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 1, 2014; approved on
April 10, 2015; published online on June 10, 2015. Discussion period
open until November 10, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/
04015006(11)/$25.00.
subjected to earthquake excitation. In the conventional seismic
design, the strength, deformability, and energy absorption of the
structures were improved and the structures are protected at the
expense of localized structural damage (Constantinou and Symans
1993). To mitigate the seismic damages more effectively, alter-
native vibration control systems to dissipate the input energy were
proposed and have been widely used, such as the passive control
system, the semiactive control system, and the active control
system. Among these three systems, the passive one has been
widely used because it does not need external power supply
(Makris and Constantinou 1990; Constantinou and Symans 1993).
Among the typical passive control systems, the fluid viscous
damper (FVD) is very efficient in reducing the displacements of
bridges by introducing an extra damping into the structural system
without adding extra stiffness (Constantinou and Symans 1992).
Compared with the damping ratio of 1–3% for a typical undamped
input energy from the dynamic loads can be effectively dissipated.
Fluid viscous dampers can be applied to many types of structures,
such as bridges, building, towers, etc. and the structural damages
could be greatly reduced [D. P. Taylor and D. A. Lee, “Frictionless
damper,” U.S. patent No. 4815574A (1989)].
Owing to the efficiency in reducing the displacements, axial
forces, shear forces, and bending moments of the structures, FVD
has been used in seismic design and retrofit for many bridges
especially for long-span bridges. As the first application of FVD
in a long-span bridge, FVD was installed on the Golden Gate
Bridge as a retrofit strategy to improve the bridge’s seismic

© ASCE 04015006-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

 (a)
Fig. 1. Typical FVD: (a) typical longitudinal cross section of FVD; (b) fluidic control orifice
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
performance in 1995 (Aiken 1995; Thorkildsen and Wang 1995).
Later, Infanti et al. (2004) designed and tested a seismic protection
system for the Rion–Antirion cable-stayed bridge and its approach
viaducts; this bridge is located in a very active seismic region. The
seismic protection system consists of fuse restraints and FVDs,
and the results of the extensive full-scale testing indicated that the
devices can protect the bridge under extreme dynamic conditions.
Soneji and Jangid (2007) investigated the efficacy of a passive
hybrid damper in a cable-stayed bridge subjected to strong
earthquake ground motions. The passive hybrid damper includes a
FVD and a sliding isolation system. In addition, the effects of the
damping exponent α of the FVD on the earthquake response were
also investigated. Vader and McDaniel (2007) investigated the
seismic response of a cable-stayed bridge and a self-anchored
suspension bridge implemented with FVDs and concluded that the
FVDs can be used in the new design to improve the seismic
performance of a cable supported bridge in seismic events. The
Messina Strait Bridge, which will be the world’s longest
suspension bridge with a center span of 3,300 m, is designed to
span the Strait of Messina and is located at an area with strong
earthquake activity and intense wind velocity. In the preliminary
design of the restraint system for the towers and the anchorages,
special types of FVDs, as a crucial component of the restraint
system, were proposed to control the vibration induced by traffic
braking loads, wind loads, and seismic actions (Colato et al. 2008).
Martínez-Rodrigo et al. (2010) investigated the dynamic responses
of two short simply supported existing railway bridges with FVDs
under the circulation of high-speed traffic, and the results showed
that the maximum vertical acceleration can be reduced 35%.
Recently, Lavado et al. (2014) investigated the application of a
retrofitted strategy with FVDs to reduce the severe transverse
vibrations that railway bridges may experience under resonant
conditions. The results indicated that reductions up to 80% of the
main beam’s vertical accelerations were reached.
Because the performance of a FVD depends on its damping
coefficient C and damping exponent α, it is necessary to optimize
these two parameters for a better structural performance. In the
present study, the effectiveness of the FVD is evaluated for
controlling the displacements, shear forces, and bending mo-
ments of a cable-stayed bridge under earthquake excitation. The
outline of this paper is as follows. After a brief introduction of
FVDs and their mathematical modeling, a finite-element model
of a cable-stayed bridge is established, and the seismic response
with FVD considering soil–structure interactions (SSIs) is ob-
tained by solving the equations of motion in the time domain
using a direct integration method. Later, the effects of damper
parameters on seismic response of the cable-stayed bridge under
ground motion are presented. Finally, the optimized design
parameters of the FVD, which are used in the final bridge design,
are presented.
© ASCE 04015006-2
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
(b)
Fluid Viscous Damper
Components of the Damper and Its Operational
Mechanism
A typical FVD consists of a stainless steel piston, a bronze orifice
head, and an accumulator housed in a telescopic cylinder. The
damper is filled with silicone oil, a compressible viscous fluid that
is non-toxic, inert, environmentally safe, and thermally stable
(typically − 40 to 70°C or − 40°F to 160°F) for a significantly
long period of time (Constantinou and Symans 1992). The orifices
contained in the piston head are designed with a series of specially
shaped passages to alter flow characteristics with the fluid speed.
In addition, the orifice properties can also be changed in order to
achieve desirable damper properties. Figs. 1(a and b) show a ty-
pical longitudinal cross section of FVD and a fluidic control or-
ifice, respectively.
The pressure difference across the piston head generates the
damping force of the FVD, which acts oppositely to the direction
of the input motion as a resistive force. As the piston head travels
back and forth, the fluid volume, as a product of travel and piston
rod area, is changed accordingly. Because the fluid is compres-
sible, this change in fluid volume is accompanied with the deve-
lopment of a spring-like restoring force. This is prevented by
the use of the accumulator. Because of the inherent out-of-phase
response output, the FVD is capable of controlling the vibration of
structures subjected to dynamic loads.
Mathematical Modeling
The Maxwell viscoelastic model, also called as the fractional-
derivative Maxwell force–displacement model, which consists of a
linear spring in series with a nonlinear dashpot, is a widely used
mathematical model for FVDs (Makris and Constantinou 1991;
Narkhede and Sinha 2013). This model can be used to predict the
mechanical characteristics of the FVD. The spring element reflects
the elasticity of the device and introduces the frequency dependent
characteristics in the model, and the dashpot element represents its
damping properties. The Maxwell viscoelastic model can be
expressed by the following equation:
d γ fD (t) du(t)
fD (t) + λγ =C (1)
dt γ dt
where fD = damping force; λ = relaxation fractional time; γ =
order of fractional derivative; C = damping coefficient; and u =
piston displacement. The damper parameters can be either
experimentally determined or estimated from material properties
and the simplified analytical model.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Schematic plan of the left half of Jiangshun Bridge
The solution of Eq. (1) has an excellent agreement with the
experimental data over the entire range of frequencies. However,
the solution is difficult to obtain. To address this problem, Makris
et al. (1993) simplified the model by replacing the fractional-order
derivatives with the first-order derivatives. Therefore, Eq. (1) is
reduced to Eq. (2), which could capture the frequency dependence
within the interested frequency domain through experimental
validations:
dfD (t) du(t)
fD (t) + λ =C
dt dt
Makris et al. (1993) also found that the relaxation time λ for a
cut off frequency below 4 Hz is very small, which suggests that the
term λ½dfD (t) / dt is insignificant for low rates of damping force.
Therefore, the term λ½dfD (t)/ dt in Eq. (2) can be neglected for
typical structural applications, and the final equation represents a
linear viscous dashpot model.
Noticing that Eq. (2) can only represent linear characteristics of
an FVD, which indicates that Eq. (2) is invalid because the FVD
behaves nonlinearly. To incorporate the nonlinear characteristics
into Eq. (2), the simplified Maxwell model that describes both the
linear and nonlinear behavior of the FVD is presented and expe-
rimentally verified by Constantinou and Symans (1992, 1993). In
this model, damping exponent α is introduced to fully capture the
linear and nonlinear characteristics of the FVD. When α = 1, the
FVD behaves linearly; otherwise, the FVD behaves nonlinearly.
The ideal damping force, fD , is proportional to a fractional power-
law of the velocity, which is expressed in Eq. (3):
α structure, the piles and soil will behave like a rigid unit and
fD (t) = Csgnðu_ Þju_ j (0 < α ≤ 1)
where α = damping exponent; u_ = relative velocity between the
two ends of the damper; and sgn() = signum function. The
damping exponent α determines the shape of the damping force
hysteresis loop, whereas the damping coefficient C decides the
energy dissipation capacity of the FVD. In the present study, the
simplified Maxwell model is used.
Numerical Simulations
Bridge Model
Jiangshun Bridge, located in Guangzhou Province, China, is a
cable-stayed bridge, which spans the Xijiang River connecting
Jiangmen City and Foshan City. Construction began in 2011. The
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Jiangshun Bridge has a five-span semifloating system, which in-
cludes continuous hybrid girders, two H-shaped concrete towers,
and a double plane–type cable system. The bridge structure is
asymmetric because of its asymmetrical foundations. The total
length of the bridge is 1,172 m (3,845 ft) with a span arrangement
of 60 + 176 + 700 + 176 + 60 m (197 + 577 + 2296 + 577 + 197 ft).
Prestressed concrete box girders are used for the two end side
spans, and steel box girders are used for the other spans.
The height of the towers above and below the deck is 158.6 m
(520.3 ft) and 24.4 m (80.1 ft), respectively. A total of 176 cables,
(2)
with 88 supporting the main span and 88 supporting the side
spans, are used. Elastomeric bearings mounted at each of the six
supports of the bridge deck allow the bridge to slide longitudinally
only, and tie-down links at each of the deck–pier conjunctions
prevent the deck from being pulled up from the piers. To reduce
the dynamic response of the bridge under seismic loads, FVDs are
designed to dissipate energy. Two FVDs are implemented along
the longitudinal direction at each location between the deck and
the towers. The positions of the FVDs are shown in Fig. 2. The
schematic plan of the left half of Jiangshun Bridge and its finite-
element model are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
In the present study, the Ernst equation is used to consider the
geometric nonlinearity due to the change of the stiffness with
respect to the cable sag by using an equivalent modulus of elas-
ticity. In the finite-element model, the cables are modeled as elastic
space-truss elements, which can only take tensile forces. The deck
and the tower members are modeled as space-beam elements.
The bridge towers are supported on rigidly capped pile groups
embedded in deep, multilayered soil overlying rigid bedrock.
When the piles are closely grouped together beneath the super-
(3)
therefore can be viewed as a single equivalent upright beam
(Randolph 1981; Velez et al. 1983). Hence, in the present study,
the rigidly capped pile groups under towers and piers are all
treated as a single equivalent upright beam.
Soil–Structure Interaction
The dynamic SSI can potentially have a large impact on the
seismic behavior of cable-stayed bridges, especially when the
bridges are constructed on relatively soft ground (Soneji and
Jangid 2008). Studies show that SSI tends to prolong the natural
periods of bridge–foundation–soil systems, and it can significantly
affect internal forces in structure members and displacement
responses of bridges (Takemiya and Kai 1983; Spyrakos 1990;
Zheng and Takeda 1995). Besides, the effects of SSI on the
seismic behavior of bridges vary according to the conditions of the
04015006-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Finite-element model of Jiangshun Bridge

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Schematic of dynamic BNWF model in layerd soil strata: (a) BNWF model; (b) layered soil

bridge–foundation–soil system, suggesting a necessity to perform
detailed case studies.
Over the last few decades, several numerical and analytical
methods have been developed to simulate soil–pile interactions,
among which the nonlinear Bouc–Wen (BNWF) model has emer-
ged as a versatile and computationally economic option (Soneji
and Jangid 2008). In this model, the soil–pile interaction is
idealized as a BNWF on a nonlinear Winkler foundation using
continuously distributed nonlinear springs and dashpots placed in
parallel, which is shown in Fig. 4. It has been verified that, for
static and quasi-static (zero-frequency limit) loading, the BNWF
model can effectively predict the response of a variety of soil–pile
systems (Wen 1976; Trochanis et al. 1991). The detailed descrip-
tions of the BNWF model are available in the literature (Roesset
and Angelides 1979; Gazetas and Dobry 1984).
In the present paper, the BNWF model is used to simulate soil–
pile interaction. The soils surrounding the pile foundation are
considered as layers of different thickness resting on rock, with
increasing stiffness and decreasing damping with depth. The
length of the pile foundation of the left and right tower are 80 m
(262 ft) and 50 m (164 ft), respectively. In the BNWF model, the
pile foundation is discretized into several segments with the same
length of 10 m (33 ft), and the soil springs are distributed at the
center of each segment. The dynamic properties of the soils, such
as shear modulus, mass density, Poisson’s ratio, etc., which vary
with the depth, are summarized in Table 1 (Wolf 1997). In
Table 1, the layered soil types surrounding the pile foundation of
the left and right tower are soft and medium, respectively.
Earthquake Ground Motion
The seismic response of the bridge depends directly on the input
earthquake ground motions. Therefore, it is important to select
proper earthquake ground motions for seismic design; these in-
clude the peak ground acceleration, spectral characteristic, and
duration. Typically, four methods are used to obtain earthquake
ground motions:
1. To use recorded real earthquake ground motions, such as the
Loma Prieta, 1989; Kobe, 1995; Northridge, 1994; and El
Centro, 1940 earthquakes.
2. To use real earthquake ground motions at or near the location
of the structures. This is usually impractical because the re-
cord of real earthquake motion at the engineering site does not
exist in many cases.

© ASCE 04015006-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

 Table 1. Dynamic Properties of Different Types of Layered Soils Surrounding the Pile Foundation of the Left and Right Tower
Shear modulus Gs (MN / m2 ) Mass density ρs (mg / m3 ) Poisson’s ratio (μ) Damping ratio (ξs ) Shear strength τs (kN / m2 )
Depth h (m) Lefta Righta Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right
0–10 50 350 2 2.1 0.4 0.35 0.07 0.04 15 35
10–20 90 550 2 2.1 0.4 0.35 0.07 0.04 23 50
20–30 140 1,100 2 2.2 0.4 0.35 0.06 0.04 30 80
30–40 200 1,700 2.1 2.2 0.4 0.35 0.06 0.04 42 140
40–50 260 2,200 2.1 2.2 0.4 0.35 0.06 0.04 50 220
50–60 380 — 2.1 — 0.4 — 0.05 — 62 —
60–70 520 — 2.2 — 0.4 — 0.05 — 74 —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

70–80 700 — 2.2 — 0.4 — 0.05 — 100 —

a
Left and right represent the layered soils surrounding the pile foundation of the left and right tower, respectively.

1.5
1.0 Ground motion 1
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Acceleration (m.s-2)

-1.5
1.0 Ground motion 2
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
1.5
1.0 Ground motion 3
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time period (s)
Fig. 5. Time history of three random earthquake ground motions (longitudinal) with 5% probability of occurrence in a 50-year period

3. To simulate artificial earthquake ground motions using an
acceleration response spectrum curve, which can be obtained
from codes or specifications in civil engineering.
4. To use simulated random earthquake ground motions, which
are obtained from the earthquake risk assessment (ERA). In
ERA, the performance of structures under potential future
earthquakes is evaluated using the seismotectonics and seis-
micity on or near the construction site. The ERA method
could be relatively accurate at a high computational and
economic cost.
In the present study, Method 4 is conducted to obtain the
earthquake ground motions. The typical process of ERA consists
of three stages. First, all the available data including the historical
seismicity, crustal geology, and tectonic process of the target re-
gion (often referred to as the region on or near the construction
site) are collected. Second, the potential seismic source areas are
identified, after comprehensive detailed analyses of the collected
data based on the theory of probability and statistics. Finally,
summaries and maps highlighting the spatial distribution of po-
tential damage and casualties within the region are concluded
(Ellingwood 2001).
In stage two, for each potential seismic source area, the seismic
activity coefficients, the delay relation of seismic intensity and the
seismic acceleration are determined. Then the ground motions
with different seismic intensities and dynamic strength of bedrock
under different probability levels are given. The probability level
is referred to as the probability of occurrence in a given period (the
likelihood) for a future earthquake. In the present study, on the
basis of the ERA, three random earthquake ground motions
(longitudinal) with 5% probability of occurrence in a 50-year
period are generated as the excitation input for the seismic analysis
of the cable-stayed bridge; these are shown in Fig. 5.
In the present study, only the longitudinal earthquake ground
motions are used as input for the seismic design of the cable-
stayed bridge with FVD, which is owing to the following two
reasons. First, on the basis of the ERA, the peak vertical accel-
eration is 0:05g, which is only one-third of the peak horizontal
acceleration. The preliminary study showed that that the vertical
seismic response including the vertical displacement and the
bending moment can meet the design requirements without any
supplemental vibration mitigation measures, such as FVDs (Zhu
2012). The ratio of the vertical seismic response to the horizontal
one is only 3%. Second, as discussed in the section titled “Bridge
model,” elastomeric bearings are installed in the tower–deck
conjunction to restrain the bridge deck from sliding transversely,
while allowing it to slide freely in the longitudinal direction. Zhu
(2012) investigated the seismic response of the cable-stayed bridge
under both transverse and longitudinal earthquake excitations. The
results indicated that the seismic responses including displacement
response, bending moment and shear force under transverse
earthquake excitation are well below (almost 50% less than) the
corresponding response when subjected to longitudinal earthquake

© ASCE 04015006-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

 Table 2. Applications of Fluid Viscous Dampers on Several Long-Span Bridges for Seismic Design and Retrofit
Total Maximum damping force
Bridge, Country numbera (kN/kip) Stroke (mm/in.) C (kN  m −α  sα / kip  in: −α  sα ) α
b
New Gerald Desmond Bridge, United States 16 3,670/ 825 ± 1,016/ 40 3,930/ 884 0.3
3,670/ 825 ± 813 / 32 3,930/ 884 0.3
3,225/ 725 ± 508 / 20 3,470/ 780 0.3
Oakland Bay Bridge, United States (Konstantinidis 100 3,115/ 700 ± 178 / 7 3,793/ 853 0.3
et al. 2011)
2,000/ 450 ± 483 / 19 1,591/ 358 0.3
2,446/ 550 ± 584 / 23 1,912/ 430 0.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Richmond–San Rafael Bridge, United States 28 2,225/ 500 ± 508 / 20 1,060/ 238 0.3
1,000/ 225 ± 965 / 38 184/ 41:4 0.5
Jiangyin Bridge, China 4 1,000/ 225 ± 1,000/ 39 1,522/ 342 0.3
Sutong Bridge, China 8 3,025/ 680 ± 750/ 29:5 3,750/ 843 0.4
6,580/ 1,480 ± 850/ 33:5 3,750/ 843 0.4
Xihoumen Bridge, China 4 1,000/ 225 ± 1,000/ 39 1,522/ 342 0.3
Jiangshun Bridge, China 4 2,750/ 618 ± 700/ 27:6 2,500/ 562 0.3
Rion–Antirion Bridge, Greece (Infanti et al. 16 3,500/ 787 ± 900/ 35:4 3,000/ 674 0.15
2004)
a
The total number refers to the total number of the all the FVDs installed on the bridge.
b
The New Gerald Desmond Bridge is under construction.

excitation. The reason is that the transverse restraint provided by
the elastomeric bearings can control the transverse displacement of
the bridge effectively. Because the elastomeric bearings, as an
energy dissipation device, can also absorb a portion of the input
energy during the earthquake, the bending moment and shear force
of the bridge can also be controlled at a lower level. In addition,
when the bridge is subjected to longitudinal earthquake excitation,
excessive longitudinal displacement response of both deck and
tower occur, which might cause local structure damages (such as
expansion-joint damage) due to no constraints along the longi-
tudinal direction. Therefore, only the longitudinal earthquake
excitation is considered in the present study, and the FVDs are
designed to reduce the horizontal seismic response.
In the preliminary analysis, the three generated random earth-
quake ground motions are used as the excitation input for the
seismic analysis. Ground Motion 1 results in the largest dis-
placement responses (tower and deck) and the largest bending
moments and shear forces (tower) as well, compared with the other
two ground motions. It is also worth mentioning that the difference
of the resultant structural responses including displacement,
bending moment, and shear forces due to each of these three input
ground motions are all within 7%. With similar seismic response
trends, only the results from Ground Motion 1 for different para-
meters of the FVDs are discussed in detail in the present study.
Large-size structures such as long bridges can be subjected to
large, different motions along their length owing to the spatial
variability of the input seismic motion. The spatial variation of the
seismic ground motion can be a result of a combination of three
different phenomena, namely, the traveling wave (also referred to as
wave propagation) effect, the incoherent effect, and the local effect
(Wang et al. 2003). It is often assumed that the spatial variability can
be attributed only to the traveling wave effect, owing to an
insufficient knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the spatial
variability of the ground motion. In the preliminary study, the
influence of the traveling wave effect on the seismic response of
Jiangshun Bridge was investigated (Zhu 2012). Compared with the
seismic response under uniform excitation, the seismic response due
to traveling wave effect was reduced owing to the incomplete
synchronization of the excitation. Considering the fact that the
reduction of all the seismic responses is within 10%, and that
the main focus of this paper is to study the effect of FVDs on the
earthquake protection of the cable-stayed bridge, the traveling wave
effect is not considered here.
Therefore, in the present study, the ground motion is applied
simultaneously and uniformly at all supports along the long-
itudinal direction when performing the parametric study of the
FVD for earthquake protection of the cable-stayed bridge. In ad-
dition, all the statistics and discussions hereafter are based on the
results using Ground Motion 1 as excitation input.
Results and Discussion
Owing to the bridge’s asymmetry caused by its asymmetric foun-
dations, the responses from both halves of the bridge are obtained.
The responses include the absolute longitudinal displacement of the
deck at the left and right deck–tower junction (xd1 , xd2 ), the absolute
longitudinal displacement at the left and right tower tip (xd3 , xd4 ), the
absolute acceleration of the deck at left and right deck–tower junc-
tion in the longitudinal direction (€x d1 , €x d2 ), the base shear of the left
and right tower along the longitudinal direction (Vx1 , Vx2 ), the
bending moment rotating with the transverse axis at the left and right
tower bottom (M y1 , M y2 ), and the damping force at the left and right
deck–tower junction ( f D1 , f D2 ).
It is worth mentioning that FVD is used to dissipate energy from
seismic loads and the displacements and forces can be reduced. The
dynamic responses due to earthquakes for different bridges with
varied bridge type, material, bridge site, etc., could be different.
Without a careful design for the FVDs, the design requirement of the
bridges might not be met. To find appropriate ranges for the para-
meters of the FVDs, a literature review is carried out, and the design
parameters for several long-span bridges for either seismic design or
retrofit are listed in Table 2. In the table, the damping exponent α
usually varies from 0.3 to 0.5 (except for the Rion–Antirion Bridge,
α = 0:15) and the damping coefficient C usually varies from 1,000 to
5,000 kN  m −α  sα (except for one type of FVDs used in the
Richmond–San Rafael Bridge, C = 184 kN  m −0:5  s0:5 ). Therefore,
in the present study, before theparametric study, the damping ex-
ponent α is assumed to be within 0.2–1.0 and the damping coeffi-
cient C to be within 1,500–3,500 kN  m −α  sα .
Table 3 shows 25 different combinations of damping exponent
α and damping coefficient C, with α and C varying from 0.2 to 1.0

© ASCE 04015006-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

 and 1,500 to 3,500 (kN  m −α  sα ), respectively. The results of the
parametric study are plotted in Figs. 6–10.
As shown in Figs. 6 and 7, the displacement of the deck and the
tower of both halves of the bridge are almost the same for each
case. For the left half of the bridge, the peak displacement in-
creases as α increases when C remains constant. For each given C,
as α increases to 1.0, which means the FVD turns from nonlinear
to linear, the FVD is most ineffective in controlling the displace-
ment. When C = 3,500, the linear FVD can reduce the maximum
displacement of the deck and the tower to 51 and 49%, respec-
tively, and the nonlinear one can reduce the corresponding re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
decreases as well. Therefore, the displacement can be reduced
significantly when a smaller α and a larger C are adopted. The
maximum and minimum reductions in displacement of the deck
are 79 and 38%, respectively, and those for the displacement of
tower are 75 and 31%, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 8, the base shear forces are not necessarily
reduced if FVD is implemented compared with those without
FVD. For a larger C and a smaller α, such as C = 3,500 and
α = 0:2 and 0.3, the base shear forces in the bridge with FVD
could be larger than the case without FVD. For a larger C and a
smaller α, the damping forces become very large (Fig. 9). As a

sponse up to 79 and 77%. The difference between the percentages result, those large damping forces will increase the base shear
of the reduction of the displacement for linear and nonlinear FVDs forces by exerting counteracting forces on the bridge tower. When
becomes even larger as C becomes smaller. It is also noticed that C = 3,500 and α = 0:2, the left and right base shear forces are
as C increases while keeping α as a constant, the displacement 9,112 MN and 9,027 MN, which are 15 and 23% higher than those
without damping, respectively. The corresponding damping force
Table 3. Different Combinations of Damping Coefficient C and Damping at the left and right tower–deck conjunctions are 2,551 MN and
Exponent α 2,542 MN, respectively, which contribute 28% of the total base
shear forces in the left and right tower–deck conjunctions.
Damping coefficient C (kN  m −α  sα )a Damping exponent α
As C decreases and α increases, the damping force decreases
1,500 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 accordingly and the base shear force remains below the base line
2,000 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 (the base shear force without FVD) despite a fluctuation. There
2,500 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 exists an optimum α that yields the minimum base shear for each
3,000 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 curve (C is a constant) in Fig. 8, although the optimum α may
3,500 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 differ from one curve to another. For the left and right base shear
a
For the sake of brevity, the unit of the damping coefficient C here and forces, the corresponding optimum α for each C (C varies from
hereafter is kN  m −α  sα , unless otherwise specified. 1,500 to 3,500 with a 500 increment) is 0.3, 0.3, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5 and

40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
xd1 (cm)

xd2 (cm)

20 20
15 15
10 C=1500 C=2000 10 C=1500 C=2000
5 C=2500 C=3000 5 C=2500 C=3000
C=3500 Without VFD C=3500 Without VFD
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a)  (b) 

Fig. 6. Effect of damping coefficient C and damping exponent α on the peak longitudinal displacement of the deck at the (a) left deck–tower
junction; and (b) right deck–tower junction

45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
xd3 (cm)

xd4 (cm)

25 25
20 20
15 15
10 C=1500 C=2000 10 C=1500 C=2000
5 C=2500 C=3000 5 C=2500 C=3000
C=3500 Without VFD C=3500 Without VFD
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a)  (b) 

Fig. 7. Effect of damping coefficient C and damping exponent α on the peak longitudinal displacement at the (a) left tower tip; and (b) right
tower tip

© ASCE 04015006-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

 9.5 9.5
C=1500 C=2000 C=1500 C=2000
9.0 C=2500 C=3000 9.0 C=2500 C=3000
C=3500 Without VFD C=3500 Without VFD
8.5 8.5
Vx1 (MN)

Vx2 (MN)
8.0 8.0

7.5 7.5

7.0 7.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6.5 6.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a)  (b) 

Fig. 8. Effect of damping coefficient C and damping exponent α on the peak longitudinal base shear force of the (a) left tower; and (b) right tower

3.0 3.0
C=1500 C=2000 C=1500 C=2000
2.5 C=2500 C=3000 2.5 C=2500 C=3000
C=3500 C=3500
2.0 2.0
fD1 (MN)

fD2 (MN)
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a)  (b) 

Fig. 9. Effect of damping coefficient C and damping exponent α on the peak damping force at the (a) left deck–tower junction; and (b) right deck–
tower junction

4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0
My1 (102 MN.m)

My2 (102 MN.m)

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5
C=1500 C=2000 C=1500 C=2000
1.0 C=2500 C=3000 1.0 C=2500 C=3000
C=3500 Without VFD C=3500 Without VFD
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a)  (b) 

Fig. 10. Effect of damping coefficient C and damping exponent α on the peak longitudinal bending moment at the bottom end of the (a) left tower;
and (b) right tower

0.3, 0.3, 0.5, 0.5, 0.7. The maximum reductions of left and right
base shears are 15 and 6%, respectively. Therefore, the base shear
force with FVD can either increase by 28% or decrease by 15%,
depending on the parameters C and α.
The damping forces plotted in Fig. 9 indicate that the damping
forces increase as C increases and α decreases, i.e., as the energy
dissipation capacity of the FVD. Take f D1 as an example, when
α = 0:2, the maximum nonlinear damping force for each C
(C varies from 1,500 to 3,500 for a 500 increment) is 1.103, 1.470,
1.845, 2.204, and 2.551 MN, respectively. As α keeps increasing
to 1.0, which means the FVD turns from nonlinear to linear, the
corresponding linear damping force for each C is 0.364, 0.477,
0.590, 0.700, and 0.860 MN, respectively. Therefore, for each C,
the percentage of linear damping force (α = 1:0) with respect to the
corresponding nonlinear damping force (α = 0:2) is only 33, 32,
32, 32, and 34%. This clearly demonstrates that the ability of

© ASCE 04015006-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

 With VFD
0.3 Without VFD

xd1 (m)
0.099
0.0

-0.3
-0.380
0.4

0.2
xd2 (m) 0.111
0.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-0.2

-0.4 -0.417
1.0
xd1 (m.s-2)

0.5
0.0
··

-0.5
-1.0
-1.319 -1.235
7.918
7.329
5
Vx1 (MN)

-5

366
300
My2 (MN.m)

184

-300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s)

Fig. 11. Time variation of displacement, acceleration, base shear, and base bending moment of the left half of bridge with and without FVD
(α = 0:3, C = 2,500 kN  m −0:3  s0:3 )

energy dissipation decreases sharply as the FVD turns from non-
linear (α = 0:2) to linear (α = 1:0).
Fig. 10 clearly demonstrates that the bending moment of both
towers for each case is well below the base line (the bending
moment without FVD). The minimum bending moment lies where
α is approximately 0.3–0.5, for each curve (C is constant). The
maximum and minimum reductions of the bending moment for the
left and right tower are 50, 20% and 56, 21%, respectively.
Fluid viscous damper, as a passive energy-dissipation device, is
found to be very effective for controlling the seismic response of
the cable-stayed bridge according to the present study. Fluid vis-
cous damper can significantly reduce the longitudinal displace-
ment of the deck and the tower and the bending moment of the
tower by over 50% at a cost of a maximum increase of base shear
force of 28%. The nonlinear FVD is found to be more effective
than the linear one. For a given C such as C = 2,500, The non-
linear FVD (α = 0:2) can reduce the longitudinal displacement of
the deck and tower and the bending moment of the tower up to 78,
76, and 46%, respectively, whereas the linear one (α = 1:0) is only
able to reduce the corresponding responses up to 51, 44, and 31%,
respectively. For a smaller damping exponent α such as 0.2 and
0.3, more damping of the FVD can be provided to the bridge with
more energy dissipation capabilities.
As discussed early in this paper, the minimum values of the
seismic responses are obtained with α ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 and
C ranging from 2,000 to 3,000. It is noteworthy that C = 3,500 is
not considered here because it results in large base shear forces
and damping forces, which can cause local damages to the in-
stallation position. In addition, for bridge engineering in seismic
design and retrofit applications discussed previously, the value of
the damping exponent α usually varies from 0.3 to 0.5, and a
smaller α (such as α = 0:3) is often adopted to increase the energy
dissipation ability of FVD more effectively (Makris et al. 1993;
Soong and Constantinou 1994). Therefore, the final values for the
damping exponent α and the damping coefficient C for the
Jiangshun Bridge are chosen as 0.3 and 2,500, respectively, to
achieve the best performance for the FVD.
Under such a combination of α = 0:3 and C = 2,500 kN  m −0:3
 s0:3 (562 kip  in: −α  sα ), the FVD is as effective as the optimum
case in controlling the seismic responses, including the displace-
ment of the deck and tower, the shear force of the tower, and the
bending moment of the tower. The time history of the seismic
response of the left half of the bridge under such a combination is
shown in Fig. 11. As shown in Fig. 11, for the left half of the
bridge, the peak displacement of the deck drops 74% from 0.38 m
(1.25 ft) to 0.10 m (0.33 ft); the peak displacement of the tower

© ASCE 04015006-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

 2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
fD1 (MN)

fD2 (MN)
0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-2.0 -2.0
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
(a) xd1 (m) (b) xd3 (m)

Fig. 12. Dynamic force–displacement loop of nonlinear FVD at the (a) left deck–tower junction; and (b) right deck–tower junction (α = 0:3,
C = 2,500 kN  m −0:3  s0:3 )

6 6
Soft soil Medium soil
4 4

2 2
Fs (MN)

Fs (MN)
0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
(a) Displacement (mm) (b) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 13. Dynamic force–displacement loop for the nonlinear soil spring near pile head of the (a) left tower foundation; and (b) right tower
foundation (α = 0:3, C = 2,500 kN  m −0:3  s0:3 )

drops 74% from 0.42 m (1.38 ft) to 0.11 m (0.36 ft); the peak base
shear force drops 7% from 7.918 MN (1,780 kip) to 7.329 MN
(1,648 kip); and the peak bending moment of the tower drops
50% from 366 MN·m (2:70 × 108 lbs  ft) to 184 MN·m (1:36
× 108 lbs  ft). For the right half of the bridge, the FVD is as
effective as that in the left half. Therefore, the FVD with α = 0:3
and C = 2,500 kN  m −0:3  s0:3 effectively reduces the longitudinal
displacement and the bending moment while simultaneously
controlling the base shear of the cable-stayed bridge.
The dynamic force–displacement loop for the nonlinear FVD
with the optimum α and C under Ground Motion 1 is shown in
Fig. 12. The area within a loop represents the energy dissipated
during this loop. As the loop becomes larger, more energy is
dissipated by the FVD and the input energy exerted on the bridge
is greatly reduced, and thus the seismic response is reduced to
ensure the bridge’s safety.
Fig. 13 shows the dynamic force–displacement loop for the
nonlinear soil spring near the pile head of the tower foundations
under Ground Motion 1. For softer soil strata (the layered soils
surrounding pile foundation of the left tower), the displacement
responses are larger and the spring forces are less. As the soil strata
turn from soft to medium, the spring stiffness increases and the
inclination of the loop also increases with the increase of the
spring force and the decrease of displacement. Therefore, as in-
dicated by Fig. 13, the nonlinear behavior of soil strata can be
captured by using the Bouc–Wen model for hysteresis system.
For different bridges with varied numbers and types of FVDs
installed, the ratio of the FVDs’ cost to the total cost could vary
greatly. In the present study, the cost of the four FVDs used is
approximately 0.6% of the total cost of the bridge. Meanwhile,
FVDs can be equipped with labyrinth seals that can reduce mecha-
nical friction and allow an enormous number of cycles before
replacement. The maintenance costs could be reduced drastically
and lead to a low lifecycle cost compared with other energy
dissipative devices on the basis of friction or yielding. Therefore,
FVDs could be an ideal seismic mitigation device with low initial
cost and maintenance cost for bridges (Aiken 1995; Priestley et al.
1996; Lavado et al. 2014).
Concluding Remarks
In the present study, the performance study of FVD is carried out
for seismic design of a long-span cable-stayed bridge. A para-
metric study is conducted to investigate the effects of the FVD in
controlling the seismic response of a cable-stayed bridge under
randomly generated earthquake excitation. The FVD is idealized
using a simplified Maxwell model consisting of a linear spring in
series with a nonlinear dashpot. The SSI is included in the present
study by modeling the pile as a beam on the nonlinear Winkler
foundation and simulating the SSI by using continuously dis-
tributed hysteretic springs and viscous dashpots placed in parallel.

© ASCE 04015006-10 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

 The seismic response of the bridge is obtained by solving the
equations of motion in the time domain using a direct integration
method. On the basis of the present study, the following conclu-
sions are drawn:
1. Fluid viscous dampers are effective in controlling the seismic
response of a long-span cable-stayed bridge. They can sig-
nificantly reduce the displacement and the base bending
moment.
2. The nonlinear FVD is more effective in controlling the seis-
mic response compared with a linear one. A nonlinear FVD
with a smaller damping exponent α can provide additional
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
damping to the bridge, thus dissipating more seismic energy.
3. On the basis of the parametric study and practical appli-
cations, an optimum value for damping exponent α and
damping coefficient C for the FVD can be achieved. In
the present study, under the combination of α = 0:3 and
C = 2,500 kN  m −0:3  s0:3 , the seismic response of the
Jiangshun Bridge is minimized.
The successful application of the FVDs in the seismic design of
the Jiangshun Bridge could provide useful information for bridge
designers, practitioners, or researchers in understanding the effect
of FVDs on seismic design and retrofit. However, in the present
paper, the material of the cable-stayed bridge under seismic load is
assumed to be only in an elastic range. For a more violent earth-
quake events, the structural materials could possibly turn into
plastic and make the problem become elastic–plastic. In addition,
the large damping forces could bring damages to the local com-
ponents of the bridge (where the FVDs are installed) during severe
earthquakes. Therefore, detailed structural analysis on local com-
ponents under the damping forces should be carefully studied.
These can be further discussed in a future study.
References
Aiken, L. D. (1995). “Pre-qualification testing of viscous dampers for
Golden Gate Bridge seismic rehabilitation project.” A Report to T.Y.
Lin International, Inc. and the Golden Bridge District, Rep. EERC-STI/
95-03, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Colato, G. P., Infanti, S., and Castellano, M. G. (2008). “Special fluid
viscous dampers for the Messina Strait Bridge.” AIP Conf. Proc.,
New York, 1020(1), 1374–1380.
Constantinou, M. C., and Symans, M. D. (1992). “Experimental and ana-
lytical investigation of seismic response of structures with supplemental
fluid viscous dampers.” Technical Rep. NCEER-90-0032, National Center
for Earthquake Engineering and Research, Buffalo, NY.
Constantinou, M. C., and Symans, M. D. (1993). “Experimental study of
seismic response of buildings with supplemental fluid dampers.”
Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 2(2), 93–132.
Ellingwood, B. R. (2001). “Earthquake risk assessment of building
structures.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 74(3), 251–262.
Gazetas, G., and Dobry, R. (1984). “Horizontal response of piles in
layered soils.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)
110:1(20), 20–40.
Infanti, S., Papanikolas, P., Benzoni, G., and Castellano, M. G. (2004).
“Rion-Antirion Bridge: Design and full-scale testing of the seismic
protection device.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Konstantinidis, D., Kelly, J. M., and Makris, N. (2011). “In-situ monitor-
ing of the force output of fluid dampers: Experimental investigation.”
PEER Rep. 2011/103, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Cen-
ter, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
© ASCE 04015006-11
View publication stats Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Lavado, J., Doménech, A., and Martínez-Rodrigo, M. D. (2014). “Dy-
namic performance of existing high-speed railway bridges under re-
sonant conditions following a retrofit with fluid viscous dampers
supported on clamped auxiliary beams.” Eng. Struct., 59, 355–374.
Makris, N., and Constantinou, M. C. (1990). “Viscous dampers: Testing,
modeling and application in vibration and seismic isolation.” Technical
Rep. NCEER-90-0028, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
and Research, Buffalo, NY.
Makris, N., and Constantinou, M. C. (1991). “Fractional-derivative model
for viscous dampers.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1991)117:9(2708), 2708–2724.
Makris, N., Constantinou, M. C., and Dargush, G. F. (1993). “Analytical
model of viscoelastic fluid dampers.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1993)119:11(3310), 3310–3325.
Martínez-Rodrigo, M. D., Lavado, J., and Museros, P. (2010). “Dynamic
performance of existing high-speed railway bridges under resonant
conditions retrofitted with fluid viscous dampers.” Eng. Struct., 32(3),
808–828.
Narkhede, D. I., and Sinha, R. (2013). “Behavior of nonlinear fluid
viscous dampers for control of shock vibrations.” J. Sound Vib., 333
(1), 80–98.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic design and
retrofit of bridges, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Randolph, M. F. (1981). “Response of flexible piles to lateral loading.”
Géotechnique, 31(2), 247–59.
Roesset, J. M., and Angelides, C. (1979). “Dynamic stiffness of piles.”
Proc., Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, London,
75–81.
Soneji, B. B., and Jangid, R. S. (2007). “Passive hybrid systems for earth-
quake protection of cable-stayed bridge.” Eng. Struct., 29(1), 57–70.
Soneji, B. B., and Jangid, R. S. (2008). “Influence of soil-structure
interaction on the response of seismically isolated cable-stayed
bridge.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 28(4), 245–257.
Soong, T. T., and Constantinou, M. C. (1994). Passive and active struc-
tural vibration control in civil engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14260.
Spyrakos, C. C. (1990). “Assessment of SSI on the longitudinal seismic
response of short span bridges.” Constr. Build. Mater., 4(4), 170–175.
Takemiya, H., and Kai, S. (1983). “Seismic analysis of a multi span
continuous elevated bridge on deep pile foundations.” Proc. Jpn. Soc.
Civ. Eng., 332, 1–10.
Thorkildsen, E., and Wang, G. (1995). “Suspension bridges unplugged.”
Civ. Eng., 69(3), 56–59.
Trochanis, A. M., Bielak, J., and Christiano, P. (1991). “Simplified model
for analysis of one or two piles.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1991)117:3(448), 448–466.
Vader, T. S., and McDaniel, C. C. (2007). “Influence of dampers on
seismic response of cable-supported bridge towers.” J. Bridge Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:3(373), 373–379.
Velez, A., Gazetaz, G., and Krishnan, R. (1983). “Lateral dynamic response
of constrained-head piles.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1983)109:8(1063), 1063–1081.
Wang, J., Carr, A., Cooke, N., and Moss, P. (2003). “Wave-passage effect
on the seismic response of long bridges.” Pacific Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 50.
Wen, Y. K. (1976). “Method for random vibration for hysteretic systems.”
J. Engrg. Mech. Div., 102(2), 249–263.
Wolf, J. P. (1997). “Spring-dashpot-mass models for foundation vibra-
tions.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26(9), 931–949.
Zheng, J. Z., and Takeda, T. (1995). “Effects of soil-structure interaction
on seismic response of PC cable-stayed bridge.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng., 14(6), 427–437.
Zhu, J. (2012). “Research on seismic response of hybrid girder cable-
stayed bridge of 700 m main span and its parameter optimization for
fluid viscous dampers.” Master’s thesis, Southwest Jiaotong Univ.,
Sichuan, China (in Chinese).
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.