MATLAB-based Seismic Response Control of A Cable-Stayed Bridge: Cable Vibration

STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING
Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:109–143

Published online 11 July 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/stc.87
MATLAB-based seismic response control of a cable-stayed

bridge: cable vibration
Chin-Hsiung Loh*,y,1 and Chia-Ming Chang2

Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
SUMMARY
This paper presents the cable vibration problem of structural control for a cable-stayed bridge. The goal of
this study is not only to provide a test for development of strategies for control of cable vibration, but also
to examine the effect of cable vibration on control of the structure itself. Based on the detailed drawings of
the Gi-Lu bridge, a three-dimensional numerical model has been developed to represent complex behavior
of the full-scale bridge. Differential motion at multiple supports and cable flexibility are included in the
analysis. A MATLAB-based structural analysis tool has been developed that considers of geometrically
nonlinear behavior of beam elements that represent the cables. The dynamic characteristics of cables are
verified using field experiments, a commercial finite element code, and the MATLAB program. Evaluation
criteria are presented for the design problems that are consistent with the goal of control of seismic
response control of a cable-stayed bridge. Control devices are assumed to be installed either between the
deck and the end-abutment and/or between the deck and cables. Passive and active devices are used to
study behavior of the model. A comparison of the control responses using truss elements or using
geometrically nonlinear beam elements to represent the cable is also presented. Copyright # 2005 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: cable-stayed bridge; active control algorithms; stayed cable; vibration
INTRODUCTION
In the past few decades, cable-stayed bridges have found wide application throughout the world.
The main spans of these bridges have reached a length of 900 m, leading to very long stayed
cables. The control of flexible bridge structures, such as cable-stayed bridges, is viewed as a
unique and challenging problem with many complexities in modeling, control design, and
implementation. Long-span cables are especially susceptible to vibration with large amplitude
under wind/rain loading or support excitations due to their high flexibility, relatively small mass
*Correspondence to: Chin-Hsiung Loh, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
y
E-mail: lohc0220@ccms.ntu.edu.tw
1
Professor.
2
Research Assistant.
Contract/grant Sponsor: Taiwan National Science Council; Contract Grant Number: NSC 93-2211-E-002-005
Received 5 January 2005

Revised 16 March 2005
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 2 May 2005
110 C.-H. LOH AND C.-M. CHANG
and very low inherent damping [1,2]. Therefore, cable-stayed bridges might be vulnerable to
dynamic loading such as earthquakes and strong wind loads. In 1993 Warnitchai et al. [3]
experimentally and analytically studied active tendon control of cable-stayed bridges, subjected
to a vertical sinusoidal force. They utilized a simple cable-supported cantilever beam as a model.
Up to now, many research efforts have been focused on the interaction of cables with the deck
and attenuation of the cable movement [4–6]. Other research efforts have been aimed at
understanding the overall dynamic behavior of cable-stayed bridges and developing finite
element models [7,8]. The working group on bridge control within the ASCE Committee on
Structural Control recently posted a first-generation benchmark structural control problem
based on the Cape Girardeau Bridge [7,8]. This problem focus on one-dimensional ground
acceleration applied in the longitudinal direction that is uniformly and simultaneously applied
at all supports. In the work of Moon et al. [9,10], a semi-active system for the benchmark bridge
employing MR dampers in conjunction with a LDG/clipped optimal control (LQG/MR) and a
sliding mode semi-active control system (SMC/MR) was studied. In addition, a hybrid base
isolation system employing semi-active control devices (using MR-dampers), often termed
‘smart’ dampers, has been suggested to control the damping force of bridge structure [11]. In the
design of modern feedback control systems, the question of uncertainties in the models and the
excitations, within the context of robust control, is becoming an important issue. For example,
an active scheme that uses active tendons via feedback of the states of the system for vibration
control of a cable-stayed bridge under seismic loads has also been proposed by Rodellar et al.
[12]. While different approaches have been adopted for robust control of civil engineering
structures, such as H1 and related tools [13], neural networks and fussy logic [14], and sliding
mode control [15,16], the use of these approaches to control of cable-stayed bridges has been
limited so far.
In the ASCE phase II benchmark control problem, a three-dimensional evaluation model has
been developed to represent complex behavior of the multi-support and transverse excitations of
the Cape Girardeau Bridge [17]. The benchmark problem and a sample control design have been
made available in the form of a set of MATLAB equations.
In this research the control of cable-stayed bridge is studied. Based on the detailed information
of the Gi-Lu cable-stayed bridge in Taichung County, Taiwan, a three-dimensional numerical
model has been developed to represent the complex behavior of the full-scale bridge. Dynamic
behavior of the cable including sag geometry, pre-stress tension force, and nonlinear response are
considered in this analysis. The formulation of the cable stiffness is carried out both in ABAQUS
and in MATLAB equations for consistency. This paper is focused on the following issues:
1. A three-dimensional evaluation model is developed in a realistic way to represent complex

behavior of a full-scale cable-stayed bridge. Nonlinear beam elements are used to represent
each cable. A comparison of the dynamic response of the bridge is made by using a truss
model or nonlinear beam element model for the cables.
2. A comparison of the control effectiveness is discussed for: (a) using active control strategy
by employing actuators between the bridge deck and the end-abutments; or (b) using both
viscous dampers between the cables and the bridge deck and actuators between the deck
and the end-abutments.
3. Based on the different evaluation criteria the control effectiveness between two different
control algorithms, active and hybrid, is examined.
4. A MATLAB-based model for control of a cable-stayed bridge is developed.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:109–143
MATLAB-BASED SEISMIC RESPONSE CONTROL 111
MODELING OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE
The cable-stayed bridge used for this study is the Gi-Lu bridge, located at Nantou County,
Taiwan. It is a modern, pre-stressed concrete cable-stayed bridge, which crosses the
Juosheui River in Taiwan. As shown in Figure 1(a) the bridge has a single pylon constructed
with reinforced concrete (58 m above the deck), two rows of harped cables (68 cables in total),
Figure 1. (a) Top view and side view of Gi-Lu bridge; and (b) cross-section of Gi-Lu bridge.
Table I. Material properties of Gi-Lu bridge.

Element Young’s Area (m2) Moment of Poisson’s Density
modulus (N/m2) inertia (m4) ratio (kg/m3)
Main girder (deck) 2:77 1010 12.27 9.77, 334.55 0.2 3202
Plate (deck) 2:77 1010 4 334.55, 334.55 0.2 0.001
Side span 2:77 1010 8.121 6.66, 84.29 0.2 2400
Pier 2:77 1010 8.121 6.66, 84.29 0.2 2400
Cable (1) 2:04 1011 0.005163 0.515 105, 0.515 105 0 8000
Cable (2) 2:04 1011 0.006 0.45 105, 0.45 105 0 8000
Cable (3) 2:04 1011 0.00756 0.67 105, 0.67 105 0 8000
Pylon 2:77 1010 8.67–0.07 6.85–63.63, 14.18–69.02 0.2 2400
Varying cross-section.
and a streamline-shape single box girder, as shown in Figure 1(b). With depth 2.75 m and
width 24 m, the box girder rigidly connects with the pylon and spans 120 m to each side span.
17 pairs of near parallel pre-stressed steel cables extending from each side of the pylon
were developed. The material properties of the bridge are shown in Table I. The sag of each
cable is shown in Table II. Cables 1 and 2 indicate the shortest cables and cables 33 and 34 are
the longest cables. R and L indicate the left-hand and right-hand sides of the pylon. The
vibration frequency of each cable was also estimated from vibration test (Table III). The density
of the cable ranges from 0.410 to 0.613 kg/cm and the design cable force ranges from 220 to
290 ton.
Dynamic characteristics of the cable

A three-dimensional finite element model of the Gi-Lu bridge was developed in MATLAB.
A linear evaluation model is used in this cable-stayed bridge model. The finite element
model employs beam elements and rigid links. Due to large deformation of the cables
and their sag, geometric nonlinearity of beam elements needs to be considered in this
analysis. Analytical solutions of geometrically nonlinear beam element are available for
several special cases; for instance, a fixed beam subjected to concentrated loads.
Generally, conventional linear two-dimensional beam elements cannot consider the effect
of axial stresses due to large bending deformation. It is necessary to represent an
appropriate nonlinear behavior of beam. In this study, by using an energy method a
geometrically nonlinear beam element was generated that includes the nonlinear terms
plus the terms from the conventional linear beam element. Therefore, a geometric stiffness
matrix can be derived based on energy methods from Euler-Bernoulli equation as shown
follows [18]:
Fext ¼ ðKlinear þ Knonlinear Þu ð1Þ
Table II. Left-hand side four columns indicate the sag of each cable (middle node) and right-hand side
four columns indicate the 1st natural frequency of each cable (R** means west-side cables, L** means east-
side cables).
Sag (maximum) (m) 1st natural frequency (Hz) Abutment
Pier No.3
0.51839 R33 L33 0.51839 0.75823 R33 L33 0.75823 (Gi-Lu side)
0.52236 R31 L31 0.52236 0.75513 R31 L31 0.75513
0.4723 R29 L29 0.4723 0.79146 R29 L29 0.79146
0.29116 R27 L27 0.29116 0.99956 R27 L27 0.99956
0.23382 R25 L25 0.23382 1.111 R25 L25 1.111
0.23022 R23 L23 0.23022 1.1161 R23 L23 1.1161
0.16688 R21 L21 0.16688 1.3042 R21 L21 1.3042
0.13945 R19 L19 0.13945 1.4196 R19 L19 1.4196
120 m
0.091567 R17 L17 0.091567 1.7411 R17 L17 1.7411
0.072009 R15 L15 0.072009 1.9493 R15 L15 1.9493
0.070109 R13 L13 0.070109 1.9581 R13 L13 1.9581
0.058809 R11 L11 0.058809 2.1138 R11 L11 2.1138
0.049284 R9 L9 0.049284 2.2756 R9 L9 2.2756
0.033323 R7 L7 0.033323 2.7106 R7 L7 2.7106
0.022885 R5 L5 0.022885 3.1737 R5 L5 3.1737
0.018332 R3 L3 0.018332 3.3889 R3 L3 3.3889
Pylon &
0.011206 R1 L1 0.011206 4.0191 R1 L1 4.0191 Pier No.2
0.010133 R2 L2 0.010133 4.0193 R2 L2 4.0193
0.016358 R4 L4 0.016358 3.3891 R4 L4 3.3891
0.020243 R6 L6 0.020243 3.1738 R6 L6 3.1738
0.029262 R8 L8 0.029262 2.7108 R8 L8 2.7108
0.043072 R10 L10 0.043072 2.2758 R10 L10 2.2758
0.051267 R12 L12 0.051267 2.114 R12 L12 2.114
0.060964 R14 L14 0.060964 1.9582 R14 L14 1.9582
0.062502 R16 L16 0.062502 1.9493 R16 L16 1.9493 120 m
0.07934 R18 L18 0.07934 1.741 R18 L18 1.741
0.12064 R20 L20 0.12064 1.4193 R20 L20 1.4193
0.14422 R22 L22 0.14422 1.3037 R22 L22 1.3037
0.19876 R24 L24 0.19876 1.1149 R24 L24 1.1149
0.20176 R26 L26 0.20176 1.11 R26 L26 1.11
0.25108 R28 L28 0.25108 0.99808 R28 L28 0.99808
0.40785 R30 L30 0.40785 0.78728 R30 L30 0.78728
0.45105 R32 L32 0.45105 0.75068 R32 L32 0.75068 Abutment
0.44722 R34 L34 0.44722 0.75464 R34 L34 0.75464 (Pier No.1)
(Lu-Ku side)
Table III. Comparison on the estimated cable vibration frequencies from vibration measurement, from ABAQUS and from B code using
114
nonlinear beam elements.

Analyze natural frequency of cables (R1, R17, R34)
R1 (shortest) R34 (longest)
Elements 1000 15 50 100 200 Elements 1000 15 50 100
Method ABAQUS MATLAB MATLAB MATLAB MATLAB Method MEASURE ABAQUS MATLAB MATLAB MATLAB
Mode Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Mode Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz
1 4.12 4.1301 4.1238 4.1237 4.1237 1 0.769 0.769 0.75119 0.75974 0.75956
2 8.43 8.1687 8.1566 8.1568 8.1569 2 1.499 1.496 1.4885 1.5062 1.5054
3 12.97 12.027 12.023 12.025 12.026 3 2.248 2.247 2.2266 2.2576 2.2565
4 17.93 15.622 15.671 15.682 15.685 4 2.997 2.999 2.9552 3.0067 3.0052
5 23.26 18.884 19.078 19.109 19.117 5 3.751 3.755 3.6689 3.753 3.7512
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

21.763 22.245 22.31 22.327 6 4.511 4.514 4.3602 4.4957 4.4938
24.236 25.189 25.307 25.338 7 5.279 5.278 5.0201 5.2342 5.2321
8 6.044 6.047 5.6376 5.9677 5.9657

R17 (middle)
Elements 1000 15 50 100 9 6.833 6.822 6.2036 6.6956 6.694

10 7.591 7.604 6.7041 7.4171 7.4162
Method MEASURE ABAQUS MATLAB MATLAB MATLAB
Mode Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz 11 8.386 8.393 7.132 8.1316 8.132
1 1.7327 1.7325 1.7318 1.7208 1.7202 12 9.176 9.19 7.4739 8.8384 8.8407
C.-H. LOH AND C.-M. CHANG
2 3.4628 3.4629 3.454 3.4342 3.433 13 9.978 9.996 7.7248 9.5368 9.5421
3 5.1923 5.2001 5.1587 5.1349 5.1331 14 10.802 10.81 7.881 10.226 10.235
4 6.9496 6.9435 6.8349 6.816 6.8139 15 11.631 11.63 15.761 10.906 10.921
5 8.7043 8.696 8.4706 8.4711 8.4695 16 12.455 12.47 15.766 11.575 11.597
6 10.476 10.459 10.052 10.094 10.095 17 13.303 13.32 15.829 12.233 12.264
7 12.2541 12.236 11.564 11.679 11.685 18 14.167 14.18 15.846 12.88 12.922
8 14.0303 14.028 12.99 13.22 13.235 19 15.021 15.05 15.934 13.514 13.571
9 15.8487 15.837 14.312 14.713 14.743 20 15.907 15.93 15.967 14.136 14.21
10 17.6494 17.665 15.509 16.152 16.206 21 16.821 16.83 14.744 14.839
11 19.5359 19.515 16.557 17.534 17.621 22 17.733 17.74 15.338 15.458
12 21.3985 21.387 17.428 18.856 18.987 23 18.635 18.67 15.916 16.067
Note: (a) R1, R17, and R34 indicate the shortest, middle, and longest cables, respectively; (b) translational and transverse degrees-of-freedom of each cable node
are locked.

or
2 EA 3
6 L 7
2 3 66
7
7
Fx1 6 0 12EI 7
6 7 6 L3 7
6 Fy1 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 0 6EI 4EI 7
6 Mz1 7 66
7
7
6 7 6 L2 L 7
6 7 ¼6 7
6 Fx2 7 6 EA EA 7
6 7 6 0 0 7
6 7
6 Fy2 7 6 L L 7
4 5 66
7
7
6 0 12EI 6EI 12EI 7
Mz2 6 3 0 7
6 L L2 L3 7
4 5
6EI 2EI 6EI 4EI
0 0 2
L2 L L L
2 3
0
6 72 3
6 6 7 x
60 7 1
6 5L 76 7
6 76 7
6 7 6 y1 7
6 1 2L 76 7
60 76 7
6 10 15 76 f 1 7
þ N66
76 7
76 7 ð1aÞ
60 0 0 0 76 x2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 6 1 6 7 4 y2 5
60 0 7
6 5L 10 5L 7
6 7 f2
4 1 L 1 2L 5
0 0
10 30 10 15
where E is the Young’s modulus, A is the cross-sectional area, I is the moment inertia, L is the
length of the element, F is the force, M is the moment, x and y are the translational deformation
of both ends of the element, and j is the rotational deformation of both ends of the element.
Subscripts (1 and 2) indicate the two ends of the beam, the first term of the stiffness matrix is the
linear stiffness matrix, the second term is due to nonlinearity, and N is related to the axial force
due to large deformation:
EA 0
N¼ ðL LÞ ð2Þ
L
in which L0 is the actual length along the center line of the beam. However, to deal with the
complex behavior of cables, the computational procedures must be modified. In development of
the initial cable stiffness is important to obtain the actual pre-tensioned values (not designed
values) and to include correct element properties (modulus of elasticity, moment inertia of cross-
sectional area, length of taut cables, and Poisson’s ratio). The procedures for developing the
initial cable stiffness are shown below:
1. Assume that Poisson’s ratio equals zero.
2. Choose how many elements to use in the formulation, and transform Equation (1) into a
three dimensional nonlinear beam element.
3. Use the initial length to generate the stiffness matrix where N equals the pre-tensioned
value.
4. Divide the external force (self-weight of cables) into an appropriate number of equal parts
n.
5. Use Newton–Raphson (see Figure 1) iterations to solve ½KfDg ¼ fFext g by appropriate
conditions of convergence.
6. Calculate the present length due to large lateral deformation and re-formulate the cable
stiffness matrix where N is still the pre-tensioned value.
7. Repeat Step 5 until the total steps equal to n (in Step 4).
From these procedures, stiffness matrices of the cables can satisfy effects of sag and measured
natural frequencies.
In order to evaluate the dynamic characteristics of the stayed-cable in this model, the
vibration frequencies of each stayed-cable in the Gi-Lu bridge were examined from three
different approaches: (1) experiments; (2) ABAQUS; and (3) MATLAB equations. For example,
for the longest cables (33 and 34), it is described as: (i) angle of elevation 268; (ii) designed length
126.42 m; (iii) length density 47.9 kg/m; (iv) Young’s modulus 1:83 1011 N=m2 ; (v) cross
sectional area 0.0060 m2; and (vi) gravity 9.81m/sec2. The FEM model developed using
ABAQUS has 1000 beam elements and considers the cable structure to be subjected to gravity
and to have fixed-end boundary conditions. The cable force and moment of inertia were
identified by matching the 21 vibration frequencies of the cables to those obtained from the field
experiment. Through an optimally iterative process, the identified cable force is 1:66 106 N;
and the identified moment of inertia is 5:0 106 m4 : This information is used to formulate
equations in MATLAB for the stiffness matrix of the cable system. The vibration frequency of
each cable predicted by MATLAB is verified using field experiments. The configuration of
Cables R1, R17 and R34 is shown in Figure 2, and the identified cable force is only 91.4%
(1:66 106 =1:81 106 N) of the force estimated by string vibration theory. Comparison
between the identified vibration frequencies of the cable R1, R17 and R34 using MATLAB and
ABAQUS is shown in Table III. The vibration modes of cable R34 (longest) and cable L17 are
shown in Figure 3. To catch the dynamic characteristics of the cable 1000 beam elements are
used in ABAQUS to analyze the detail of the dynamic characteristics of a single cable, but on
Figure 2. Configuration of Cable-R34 and the identified.
Figure 3. The first six mode shapes: (a) cable R34; and (b) cable R17.
the contrary, only 9 nodes were used to form a single cable which is sufficient to involve the low-
frequency dynamic behavior (0.7–4 Hz) as in relating to the whole bridge system.
DESCRIPTION OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The finite element model of the cable-stayed bridge, as shown in Figure 4, has a total of 1009
nodes. The pylon is modeled by 90 nodes with 540 degrees of freedom (DOF) (25 nodes are
above the deck, 5 nodes are below the deck, and 60 nodes are near the anchors). The deck is
modeled by 729 nodes with 4374 DOFs. Pier 2 (under the pylon) is modeled by 5 nodes
(including the node attached to the ground). Pier 1 (North side) and pier 3 (South side) have 4
nodes for each (including the node attached to the ground) with a total of 56 DOFs. The cable is
Figure 4. Model for cable-stayed bridge (Gi-Lu bridge) with the span length of 318.9 m, the pylon height
of 58 m from deck, and the deck width of 24 m.
modeled with 9 nodes for each cable and total of 612 nodes for 64 cables with 3672 DOFs. The
mass matrix is formed by a lumped mass approach. The proportional damping formulation is
used in each element and then to form the full damping matrix is formed with the same
procedure as is used to form the stiffness matrix. The damping ratio for deck, pylon and piers
(including all supports) is assumed to be 5% and for cables is assumed to be 1%. Constraints are
applied to restrain the both ends of the deck (boundary conditions). All DOFs at the bottom of
both piers are fixed. As for the boundary condition of the bridge structure, all translational
DOFs and torsion DOF at the side spans connected to the embankment are fixed. The
transverse and vertical degrees of freedom at Piers 1 and 3, and at the side spans of the bridge
deck deform consistently (i.e. y- and z-directions are constraint, and x-, fx-, fy-, fz}directions
are free to move).
EVALUATION MODEL
The control system of the cable-stayed bridge includes: evaluation model, sensor processor,
controller and control devices. Based on the above-mentioned finite element model the
formulation of the model is described first.
Problem formulation
Since a precise mathematical model for analyzing the dynamic behavior of cable-stayed bridges
is very complicated, appropriately reduced methods were used to formulate the equation of
motion for the Gi-Lu bridge. The reduced methods use static condensation and quasi-static
reduction. Consider the general equation of motion for a structural system subjected to seismic
loads
. þ Ctotal U
Mtotal U ’ þ Ktotal U ¼ Pext ð3Þ
where system matrices can be written as
" # " # " #
Mcdp Mcoup Ccdp Ccoup Kcdp Kcoup
Mtotal ¼ Ctotal ¼ Ktotal ¼ ð3aÞ
T T T
Mcoup Msp Ccoup Csp Kcoup Ksp
where subscript cdp indicates DOFs of cables, deck and pylon, subscript sp indicates the DOFs
for support from piers and side spans and subscript coup indicates coupled terms between
supports and others; U is the displacement response vector; Mtotal, Ctotal, Ktotal are the mass,
damping and stiffness matrices respectively of the whole structural system, and Pext is the vector
of external forces.
Model reduction (static condensation and quasi-static reduction)

The finite element formulation of the bridge model has a large number of degrees of freedom.
Static condensation is applied to reduce the redundant DOFs and retain the main DOFs. The
main DOFs is taken here to include the nodes of the main girder, pylon, piers, side span, and
cables including the nodes connecting the cables to the deck and pylon. The redundant DOFs
refers to the other nodes of the deck since these nodes are used to analyze static behavior. It is
assumed that the total displacement can be divided into two parts: active DOFs (main nodes)
and dependent DOFs (redundant nodes). Therefore, the equation for the static condensation
can be formed as
" #" # " #
Kaa Kad Ua Pa
¼ ð4Þ
T
Kad Kdd Ud 0
where the subscript a denotes the active DOFs and d denotes dependent DOFs. Then the total
displacement vector can be transformed into
" # " #
Ua I Ua
¼ Ua or ¼ ½TRUa ð5Þ
Ud 1 T
Kdd Kad U d
where [TR] is the transformation matrix of the static condensation. Consequently, the system
total mass, damping, and stiffness matrices can be changed as follows:
_ _ _
M total ¼ TRT Mtotal TR; Ctotal ¼ TRT Ctotal TR; K total ¼ TRT Ktotal TR ð6Þ
To consider the seismic excitation of the multiple-supported system both quasi-static and
dynamic analyses must be employed. By using the transformation matrix of the static
condensation Equation (1) can be re-arranged as follows:
_ _ _
. a þ Ctotal U
M total U ’ a þ K total Ua ¼ TRT Pext ð7Þ
where the active DOFs of Ua represent two components: Ua,cdp, the DOFs from cables, deck
and pylon, and Ua,sp, the DOFs from piers and side spans (supports). The total displacement
Ua,cdp can also be separated into the displacement Usa,cdp due to static application of the ground
motion, and the dynamic displacement Uda,cdp relative to the quasi-static displacement. The
relationship between these displacement components is
" # " s # " d #
Ua;cdp Ua;cdp Ua;cdp
¼ þ ð8Þ
Ua;sp Ua;sp 0
By neglecting the dynamic terms in Equation (7), the quasi-static solution can be obtained
from the following equation
" #" s # " #
Ka;cdp Ka;coup Ua;cdp 0
¼ ð9Þ
T
Ka;coup Ka;sp Ua;sp Psext
Solving Equation (9) for quasi-static displacement leads to

s 1
Ua;cdp ¼ Ka;cdp Ka;coup Ua;sp
or
s
Ua;cdp ¼ Rs Ua;sp ð10Þ
Substituting Equations (8) and (10) into (7), one can obtain the dynamic equation of motion
of the structure as follows:
_ _ _
. da;cdp þ C a;cdp U
M a;cdp U ’ da;cdp þ K a;cdp Ua;cdp
d
_ _ _ _
. a;sp ðCa;cdp Rs þ C a;sp ÞU
¼ ðM a;cdp Rs þ M a;sp ÞU ’ a;sp ð11Þ
To solve for the dynamic response of a cable-stayed bridge the state-space formulation is
used. A condition for convergence of the discrete state space calculation is that the following
criteria must be satisfied:
p
DT4 ð12Þ
o
where o is the highest modal frequency (rad/sec) that is considered. In this study the first 400
modes of vibration are used for the analysis. Since the sampling time for the input ground
motion is 0.005 s, the convergence condition of Equation (12) is satisfied.
After the model has been reduced the equation of motion for the damped structural system
results from Equation (11):
_ _
% a;cdp Y. þ C
M . a;sp
% a;cdp Y’ þ K% a;cdp Y ¼ FT ðM a;cdp Rs þ M a;sp ÞU
_ _
’ a;sp
FT ðC a;sp Rs þ C a;sp ÞU ð13Þ
where
_ _ _
d
Y ¼ FUa;cdp ; % a;cdp ¼ FT M a;cdp F;
M % a;cdp ¼ FT C a;cdp F;
C K% a;cdp ¼ FT K a;cdp F
and F is the modal matrix. A state space form for the cables, deck and pylon is as follows:
" # " #" #
Y’ 0 I Y
x’ ¼ ¼ Ax þ Euext ¼
Y. M % 1 % % 1 %
a;cdp K a;cdp M a;cdp C a;cdp Y’
2 3" #
0 0 . a;sp
U
þ4 _ _
5 ð14Þ
% 1 T _ _
% 1 T ’ a;sp
M a;cdp F ðMa;cdp Rs þ Ma;sp Þ M a;cdp F ðC a;cdp Rs þ C a;sp Þ U
Figure 5. (a) The first six vibration modes of the cable-stayed bridge. Its corresponding modal frequencies
are 0.51487, 0.73124, 0.75022, 0.75069, 0.75393, and 0.75464 Hz, respectively; (b) the 31st (f ¼ 1:506 Hz),
64th (f ¼ 1:4456 Hz), 97th (f ¼ 1:756 Hz), 102nd (f ¼ 1:8941 Hz) and 115th (f ¼ 2:0378 Hz) vibration
modes of the cable stayed bridge; and (c) first six mode shapes of cable-stayed bridge using truss elements
to simulate the cable behavior (the vibration frequencies of the first six modes are: 0.42152, 0.44952,
0.80013, 1.3695, 1.4455, and 1.5871 Hz).
Figure 5. Continued.
Through static condensation the final reduced model for the pylon and the deck reduce from
90 to 85 nodes and from729 to 243 nodes, respectively; the number of nodes for the pier and
cable remain the same.
Based on this formulation the mode shapes of the cable-stayed bridge are calculated. Figure 5(a)
shows the first six vibration modes of the cable-stayed bridge. The corresponding modal
frequencies are 0.51487, 0.73124, 0.75022, 0.75069, 0.75393, and 0.75464 Hz, respectively. It is
found that the first fundamental mode is mainly dominated by the vibration of deck, and that
the following five modes are dominated by vibration of the cables. In addition, the 31st
(f ¼ 1:506 Hz), 64th (f ¼ 1:4456 Hz), 97th (f ¼ 1:756 Hz), 102th (f ¼ 1:8941 Hz) and 115th
(f ¼ 2:0378 Hz) vibration modes of the cable stayed bridge are also shown in Figure 5(b),
contributions from both cable and deck vibration to these higher modes are observed. Since the
implementation of geometric stiffness matrix to simulate the cable using beam element, then the
sag behavior of cable can be truly reflected. Besides, the cable vibration in transverse direction
and the pre-stressed force in the cable can also be used. Figure 5(c) shows the calculated lowest
six vibration modes of the cable-stayed bridge that are calculated using truss element to simulate
the cable (the vibration frequencies of the first six modes are: 0.42152, 0.44952, 0.80013, 1.3695,
1.4455, and 1.5871 Hz). Therefore, a significant difference between the bridge vibration modes is
obtained if the cable is modeled using truss elements instead of dynamics of geometrically
nonlinear beam elements. A comparison of the acceleration and displacement response in the
longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions at the top of the pylon is shown in Figure 6. It
can be observed that larger displacement and acceleration responses occur in the transverse
Figure 6. Comparison of estimated acceleration and displacement response at the top of pylon using truss
elements for cables and nonlinear beam elements for cables.
direction at the top of pylon when the truss model is used for the cable; by contrast, the
longitudinal direction at the top of the pylon has the most significant responses when using the
nonlinear beam elements. Figure 7 compares the acceleration and displacement response at
the northern end of the bridge deck when using truss elements for the cables (blue line) and
nonlinear beam elements for the cables (red line). It is found that use of the truss model for the
cables induces larger acceleration response at both ends of the bridge deck. For estimation of
transverse direction at both ends of the bridge, a larger displacement is observed by using the
nonlinear beam element model for the cables. It is believed that use of nonlinear beam elements
to model for the cables is a reasonable and necessary approach for predicting behavior of the
stayed cables. Therefore, in what follows only the modeling of the bridge cables using the
nonlinear beam elements for the cables is used to evaluate the control effectiveness. It is believed
that using truss elements to model the cable for the cable-stayed bridge may induce significant
bias on the response calculation.
CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN
In this study a controller is designed to serve as an active control system for the equivalent linear
cable-stayed bridge model. Readings from acceleration and displacement transducers are fed
back to the control algorithm. The sample control system employs a total of 12 hydraulic
actuators located at both ends of the bridge between the deck and the top of each pier (6
actuators for each pier); actuators are oriented to apply forces longitudinally (X-direction). It is
assumed that each actuator can provide up to 1500 kN.
A total of 19 sensors are used to collect the response of the bridge and are used for control
purposes. The locations of these sensors are specified as follows:
(a) four sensors: acceleration and displacement sensors at the northern end of the deck (in
both longitudinal (x) and transverse (z) directions;
(b) four sensors: acceleration and displacement sensors at the southern end of the deck (in
both longitudinal (x) and transverse (z) directions;
(c) four sensors: acceleration and displacement sensors at the middle node of the deck
(in both longitudinal (x) and transverse (z) directions;
(d) four sensors: acceleration and displacement sensors at the top of the pylon (in both
longitudinal (x) and transverse (z) directions;
(e) three sensors: displacement sensors located at the top of all three piers in the longitudinal
direction.
Both sensors from bridge and cables are measured. In the present study the cable sensors
sometimes are and sometimes are not connected to the controller. This is done to study the effect
of the control on the bridge as well as on the vibration of the cables.
CONTROL DESIGN PROBLEM
A test bed for development of effective control strategies for a cable-stayed bridge has also been
developed with emphasis on nonlinear behavior of the stayed-cable. This sample active control
design study defines the excitation, evaluated model, devices, sensors, and control algorithms. A
Figure 7. Comparison of estimated acceleration and displacement response at the northern end of the
bridge deck using truss elements for cables and nonlinear beam elements for cables.
Figure 8. Modified SIMULINK block diagram with active control.
SIMULINK block diagram for this active control study is shown in Figure 8. It is patterned for
SIMULINK block diagram provided by Dyke et al. [7] and Caicedo et al. [17]. A detailed
description of the SIMULINK block diagram is now given.
Excitation
The earthquake record from the Chi-Chi earthquake can be selected as the excitation to this
cable-stayed bridge. Each earthquake record contains three-dimensional acceleration and
velocity data (from integration of acceleration data). To consider the spatial variation of
earthquake excitation, uniform input with a phase delay was specified (4 km/s apparent wave
velocity was assumed).
Evaluation model
The evaluation model in SIMULINK contains two input ports and six output ports (Figure 9).
The excitation input port includes nine acceleration values and nine velocity values to describe
the multi-support problem in three-dimensional and the time-delayed excitation. The input port
of the control force is developed from the design of actuators or dampers. The evaluated output
serves to determine the control efficiency of various control criteria. The output port of sensors
gives the predicted responses of the deck or the pylon (or piers). At the same time, the output of
Figure 9. SIMULINK block: evaluation model.
sensors is used to estimate the control forces which include a Kalman filter estimator for
feedback control. The output port of cable sensors gives the responses of the cables. If the
control algorithm focuses on the cables, these cable sensors can also be used to determine the
feedback control. The device sensors provide the responses of actuators or dampers between
connections. The output port of tension estimates the variation of cable tensile force using the
deformation of cables. The cable deformations are selected to consider the dimensionless
responses at the middle node of each cable.
Sensor processor
The sensor processor converts the responses of the bridge to the voltage signal. The converter
for each sensor has a range of 10 V: Each of the measured responses contains a noise level
with an rms value of 0.01 V. Measurement noises are modeled with Gaussian rectangular pulses
that have a pulse width equal to the integration step. Figure 10 shows the SIMULINK block of
the sensor processor.
Controller
The controller contains a signal converter and a force estimator. The signal converter mainly
transforms the sensors signal into real responses with a constraint. The constraint within the
signal converter has an upper bound (þ10 V) and a lower bound (10 V). In regard to the force
estimator, it follows with H2 control algorithm and Kalman estimator for use of actuators.
First, an appropriate design model must be developed. The design model is formed from the
evaluation model by choosing suitable modes of the system. In this case, in order to use
actuators to control the responses between the deck and piers (end-abutments), the piers (1 and 3)
or abutments are selected to apply the control devices. The control design model contains 44
modes that significantly affect responses of the deck and piers. Originally, the first 100 modes of
Figure 10. SIMULINK block: sensor processor.
the whole bridge system were used to obtain the control gain using H2 control theory. In real
applications, it may waste much time to calculate the optimal control forces if the matrix of the
control gain has a large dimension. However, there are some modes from the first 100 modes
which do not directly and strongly contribute to control the system. Therefore, these modes with
minor contributions in control gain are eliminated and remain the 44 modes which can be used
to generate the optimal control force.
The measured outputs focus on the sensor outputs (responses of the deck and the pylon). The
state-space (discrete form) system of the control design model is represented as follows
" #
x. g ½n
x½n þ 1 ¼ Adcon x½n þ Bdcon u½n þ Edcon ð15Þ
x’ g ½n
" #
x. g ½n
ys ½n ¼ Cdcon x½n þ Ddcon þ Fdcon u½n ð16Þ
x’ g ½n
where x is the state vector, and y is a vector of sensor outputs. The controller employs an H2
control algorithm to estimate the appropriate control force. To obtain the optimal control force,
the external disturbances, such as the ground excitations, are assumed to be independent with
respect to the control force. First, the objective function is defined as
X
k!1
J2 ¼ xT ½kQx½k þ uT ½kRu½k ð17Þ
k¼k0
where R is a weighting matrix related to the optimal control force, Q is a weighting matrix
related to the system of the design model, and k0 is the initial time. Through the computation of
the variation method, the optimal control force can be obtained as
ATdcon P½kAdcon ATdcon P½kBdcon ð2R þ BTdcon P½kBdcon Þ1 BTdcon P½kAdcon þ 2Qjk!1 ¼ 0 ð18Þ
u½k ¼ ð2R þ BTdcon PBdcon Þ1 BTdcon PAdcon x½k ¼ Gx½k ð19Þ
Figure 11. SIMULINK block: controller.
where Equation (18) is the Riccati equation, P in Equation (19) is the solution of Equation (18),
and G is the optimal control gain. Although the control gain can be obtained from Equation
(19), the optimal control force needs the full state vector of the design model. Therefore, the full
state vector must be computed from the Kalman estimator, given by
_ _ _
x ½k þ 1 ¼ Adcon x ½k þ Bdcon u½k þ Lðys ½k Cdcon x ½k Fdcon u½kÞ ð20Þ
where L is the Kalman gain solved from the Ricatti equation. The optimal control force
combined with the estimator (Equation 20) can be obtained as
_
u½k ¼ G x ½k ð21Þ
and the completed controller can be expressed as

_ _
x ½k þ 1 ¼ ðAdcon þ Bdcon G LCdcon LDdcon GÞ x ½k þ Lys ½k ð22Þ
_
u½k þ 1 ¼ G x ½k þ 1 ð23Þ
A SIMULINK block form of the controller is shown in Figure 11.
Control devices
The block of control devices, as shown in Figure 12, contains a converter for the actuators
(forces to voltages) and a real output force. The converter for the actuators transforms
command forces into corresponding voltages for single actuators. The real output force is
indicated by the force from single actuator multiplied by number of control devices. The
connection between the command forces and the output forces is limited by bounds on the
capacity of the device, which is 1500 kN per actuator and the minimum force is 1500 kN per
actuator.
Two kinds of control devices are employed for the vibration Gi-Lu Bridge. The first type of
control device is the actuator, and the other kind of control device is the viscous damper. Two
strategies are used to arrange the locations of the control devices:
Strategy 1: actuators are placed at the top of the Piers 1 and 3 in connection with the deck. Six
actuators are placed between the deck and piers at each location. The voltage command for each
actuator with respect to the output control force is 10 V per 1500 kN. The limitation of actuators
between the control force and the desired force is bounded from 1500 to 1500 kN.
Figure 12. SIMULINK block: control devices (Strategy 1).
Figure 13. SIMULINK block: control devices (case B).
Strategy 2: besides using the Strategy 1 dampers are also implemented between cables and the
bridge deck (which is placed between cables and the deck with 1 piece at each cable). Each
damper is connected at the lowest nodal point of the cable relative to the deck. Based on the
uncontrolled responses of the Gi-Lu Bridge to six specified excitations, four types of viscous
dampers are selected. The damping coefficient of all types of dampers is: 120 000 (N s/m) for
cable 1 through 10, 42 857 (N s/m) for cable 11 and 12, 30 000 (N s/m) for cable 13 and 14, and
7500 (N s/m) for cable 15 through 17, respectively. The input used to drive the dampers is the
relative velocity response between the connecting cables and the deck.
Figure 13 shows the SIMULINK block of the strategy 2 control devices. Figure 14 shows the
schematic diagram of the locations of actuators and viscous dampers for control strategies 1 and
2. On the practical implementation of the dampers in stayed cable will discuss later.
Figure 14. (a) Location of actuators between deck and abutment; and (b) location of viscous damper
between deck and cable.
Evaluation criteria
To evaluate the performance of the control algorithm used in this study, the shear forces and
moments in the pylon and piers induced by earthquake excitation must be considered. Thus,
these evaluation criteria must consider the ability of the controller to reduce the peak responses,
the normalized responses over the entire time record, and the control requirements. For this
purpose, a set of 45 criteria have been employed to evaluate the ability of each control strategy.
Shear forces and moments at each pier, including the base of the pylon, are considered in the
evaluation criteria. Other criteria contain the displacements at the top node of the pylon, the
middle node on the deck, and the north and south ends of the deck. Additionally, the behavior
of the cable tension force and the deformation of the middle node of each cable are important to
observe. Because the earthquake is assumed to have three-dimensional components at a
specified incidence angle, several criteria are evaluated in both the X (longitudinal) and Z
(transverse) directions. These evaluation criteria are listed and shown in Table V.
CASE STUDY OF CONTROL EVALUATION
The basic problem for control of the Gi-Lu cable-stayed bridge in this study focuses on
modeling of the stayed cables. Both truss and nonlinear beam elements are selected to model the
cable. The effect of cable modeling on the seismic response of cable-stayed bridge is examined
first. Earthquake ground motion data from the Chi-Chi earthquake from recorded station
TCU089 is selected as the excitation (PGA in the EW direction is 244 gal, in the NS direction
324 gal and in vertical direction 190 gal). In this study a uniform input motion with three
components (two horizontal and one vertical component) is used. Figure 15 shows the
acceleration response spectrum of the recorded data. Before the evaluation of control
effectiveness of this bridge is considered response of uncontrolled case using different models
is examined first.
As discussed earlier there are two cases of control devices in this study, control strategy 1:
using actuators only and control strategy 2: using actuators at both ends of the deck and
Table IV. Comparison of the control effectiveness using two different control systems: Case A: putting
actuators between the abutments (both ends) and the bridge deck; Case B: besides the actuators (in Case A)
viscous dampers were also added on the cables.
Case A Case B
J1 1.044 0.848
J2 0.937 0.921
J3 0.926 0.825
J4 1.0 0.999
J5 0.999 0.999
J6 1.0 0.999
J7 1.067 0.882
J8 1.0 0.998
J9 1.0 0.999
J10 1.0 0.999
J11 1.0 0.999
J12 0.921 0.879
J13 0.922 0.868
J14 0.911 0.694
J15 1.0 0.999
J16 1.010 0.846
J17 0.956 0.755
J18 1.011 0.844
J19 0.950 0.750
J20 0.999 0.999
J21 1.0 1.001
J22 0.999 0.999
J23 0.995 0.789
J24 0.999 1.030
J25 1.0 0.999
J26 1.0 1.004
J27 1.0 0.999
J28 0.721 0.443
J29 0.970 0.756
J30 0.721 0.444
J31 0.999 1.030
J32 0.995 0.789
J33 0.802 0.807
J34 0.814 0.750
J35 1.0 0.999
J36 0.878 0.894
J37 0.893 0.739
J38 0.999 1.001
J39 0.878 0.773
J40 0.872 0.700
J41 1.0 0.999
J42 0.961 0.811
J43 0.888 0.783
J44 0.999 1.001
J45 1.0 1.0
Figure 15. Plot of acceleration response spectrum of ground motion data collected from Station TCU089,
Chi-Chi earthquake.
attaching viscous dampers to the cables. Figure 16 compares the displacement and acceleration
responses at the north end of the deck for the uncontrolled case and the case of using control
strategy 1. The proposed control devices are shown to effectively reduce the longitudinal
displacement response of the deck. If control strategy 2 is used, an improved level of control can
be observed, as shown in Figure 17. This is the case because viscous dampers are added between
deck and cables in control strategy 2, which affords a significant reduction in the response of the
cables as is clearly shown in Figure 18.
Based on the proposed 45 evaluation criteria the performance indices are evaluated for the
controlled and uncontrolled cases. On the left of Figure 19(a) shows the evaluation criteria with
respect to different indices for control strategy 1. The majority of the evaluation criteria have
values less than one, except for indices J1 (longitudinal shear force at the first pier) and J7
(longitudinal shear force at the base of the pylon). This means that by putting actuators at both
ends of the deck, the pylon base shear force is larger than for uncontrolled case. The right hand
side of Figure 19(a) shows the estimated value of the normalized displacement at the midpoint
of each cable for control case A. For control strategy 2 the evaluation criteria and the estimated
normalized displacement at the midpoint of each cable is shown in Figure 19(b). It is observed
that control strategy 2 provides an improved level of control effectiveness not only for the
response of the bridge itself but also for the stayed cables. Most of the displacement at the
midpoint of the cable is reduced after control. Table IV compares the normalized displacement
(with respect to the uncontrolled case) of the evaluation criteria for both control cases A and B.
Figure 20 shows the acceptable cable tension between the provided ranges after the control (for
control strategy 2).
Figure 16. Comparison of the estimated displacement and acceleration responses between uncontrolled
and controlled case using strategy 1: (a) longitudinal responses at northern end of the deck; (b) longitudinal
responses at southern end of the deck; and (c) longitudinal responses at the top of pylon.
DISCUSSIONS ON CONTROL STRATEGY
In control strategy 2 dampers were attached between cable and the bridge deck. Because only
eight nonlinear beam elements were modeled for cable and the lowest nodal point was used to
connect the damper to the bridge deck, considering the height of the lowest nodal point of the
cable it is impractical to implement the damper for such a location (almost 6.9 m above the deck
level) under control strategy 2. Therefore an alternative control strategy, control strategy 3, was
used to implement the dampers for the cable. Instead of installing the damper between the cable
and the bridge deck, forty dampers are placed between the deck and cables through cable 1 to
cable 10 at each side. Remaining dampers are placed at the middle of the cable connecting two
neighboring cables through cable 10 to cable 17 at each side, as shown in Figure 21. In this case,
three types of MR dampers are selected to control cable vibration. Type I of MR dampers is
used to position between cable 4 to cable 9 and the deck. Type II MR dampers are used between
cables 1–3 and the deck, between cable 10 and the deck, and between cable 10–12. Type III MR
dampers are positioned between cables 13–17.
Figure 17. Comparison on the estimated displacement and acceleration responses between uncontrolled
and controlled case of strategy 2: (a) longitudinal responses at northern end of the deck; (b) longitudinal
responses at southern end of the deck; and (c) longitudinal responses at the top of pylon.
The model of the MR damper for use in structural control of this study combines the
modified bi-viscous model and the bilinear model [19]. The command voltage is sent to the
modified bi-viscous model with the states as input and then generates the corresponding force.
The voltage command ranged from 0 to 1.2 V. A constraint function of voltage with a second-
order polynomial function is used to obtain the lower bound of the force. If the corresponding
force is greater than the lower bound, the output force is still the force generated by the modified
bi-viscous model. On the contrary, the output force is changed to obtain the bilinear model.
There are three types of MR dampers including: (1) 120 mm stroke, 350 mm/s maximum
velocity, and 30 kN force capacity; (2) 120 mm stroke, 1050 mm/s maximum velocity, and
30 kN force capacity; and (3) 240 mm stroke, 3500 mm/s maximum velocity, and 30 kN force
capacity.
Figure 22 shows the comparison on the 45 evaluation criteria of three different control
systems. It is found that J1, J2, J3, and J7 are larger for strategy 3 using the input motion from
TCU089. But the other indices are all smallest for using strategy 3 and the control of cable
Figure 18. Responses of cable (EN-1): (a) longitudinal displacement; (b) vertical displacement; (c)
transverse displacement; (d) longitudinal acceleration; (e) vertical acceleration; and (f) transverse
acceleration.
Figure 19. Plot of evaluation criteria with respect to different index, and the normalized displacement of
middle point of all cables: (a) for case A control; and (b) for case B control. (Note: The number of D
indices for 1–17: R1, R3,. . ., R31, R33; for 18–34: R2, R4,. . ., R32, R34; for 35–51: L1, L3,. . ., L31, L33;
for 52–68: L2, L2,. . ., L32, L34).
vibration the strategy 3 provides much better results than others. Figure 23 shows the
comparison on the cable vibration. It is also found that with the control strategy 3 the vibration
of cable was significantly reduced.
Table V. Summary of evaluation criteria.
138

maxm;t jFpmx ðtÞj
Jm ¼ 0x;m
; m ¼ 13 Fpmx indicates the longitudinal (x-direction) shear force at mth
Fmax 0x;m
pier; Fmax is the maximum uncontrolled shear force at mth pier;
m ¼ 1 (north pier), 2 (pier below pylon), 3 (south pier).
maxm;t jFpmz ðtÞj
Jn ¼ 0z;m
; n ¼ 426 Fpmz indicates the transverse (z-direction) shear force at mth pier;
Fmax 0z;m
Fmax is the maximum uncontrolled shear force at mth pier.

maxt jFdx ðtÞj
J7 ¼ 0dx
Fdx is the longitudinal (x-direction) shear force at the deck level of
Fmax 0dx
the pylon; Fmax indicates the maximum uncontrolled shear force
at the deck level of the pylon.
maxt jFdz ðtÞj
J8 ¼ 0dz
Fdz is the transverse (z-direction) shear force at the deck level of
0dz

Fmax the pylon; Fmax indicates the maximum uncontrolled shear force
at the deck level of the pylon.
maxm;t Mpmx ðtÞ
Jl ¼ 0x;m
; l ¼ 911 Mpmx indicates the longitudinal (x-direction) moment at mth pier;
Mmax 0x;m
Mmax is the maximum uncontrolled moment at mth pier.

maxm;t Mpmz ðtÞ
Jk ¼ 0z;m
; k ¼ 12214 Mpmz indicates the transverse (z-direction) moment at mth pier;
Mmax 0x;m
Mmax is the maximum uncontrolled moment at mth pier.

maxt Mdx ðtÞ
J15 ¼ 0dx
Mdx indicates the longitudinal (x-direction) moment at the deck
Mmax 0dx
level of the pylon; Mmax is the maximum uncontrolled moment at
C.-H. LOH AND C.-M. CHANG
the same location.

maxt Mdz ðtÞ
J16 ¼ 0dz
Mdz indicates the transverse (z-direction) moment at the deck level
Mmax 0dz
of the pylon; Mmax is the maximum uncontrolled moment at the
same location.
normm;t ðjFpmx ðtÞjÞ 0x;m
Ji ¼ 0x;m
; i ¼ 17219 Fnorm is the normed value of uncontrolled shear forces in
Fnorm the longitudinal (x-direction) direction at mth pier; where
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ptf 2
normðÞ ¼ t¼t0 ðtÞ :
normm;t ðjFpmz ðtÞjÞ 0z;m
Jj ¼ 0z;m
; J ¼ 20222 Fnorm is the normed value of uncontrolled shear forces in the
Fnorm transverse (z-direction) direction at mth pier.

normt ðjFdx ðtÞjÞ 0dx
J23 ¼ 0dx
Fnorm is the normed value of uncontrolled shear forces of the
Fnorm pylon in the longitudinal (x-direction) direction at the deck level.

normt ðjFdz ðtÞjÞ 0dz
J24 ¼ 0dz
Fnorm is the normed value of uncontrolled shear forces of the
Fnorm pylon in the transverse (z-direction) direction at the deck level.

normm;t ðjMpmx ðtÞjÞ 0x;m
Jw ¼ 0x;m
; ðw ¼ 25227Þ Mnorm is the normed value of uncontrolled moments in the
Mnorm longitudinal (x-direction) direction at mth pier.

normm;t ðjMpmz ðtÞjÞ 0z;m
Js ¼ 0z;m
; ðs ¼ 28230Þ Mnorm is the normed value of uncontrolled moments in the
Mnorm transverse (z-direction) direction at mth pier.

normt ðjMdx ðtÞjÞ 0dx
J31 ¼ 0dx
Mnorm is the normed value of uncontrolled moments of the pylon
Mnorm in the longitudinal (x-direction) direction at the deck level.

normt ðjMdz ðtÞjÞ 0dz
J32 ¼ 0dz
Mnorm is the normed value of uncontrolled moment of the pylon in
Mnorm the transverse (z-direction) direction at the deck level.

maxt jxp1x ðtÞj maxt jxp1y ðtÞj maxt jxp1z ðtÞj
J33 ¼ ; J34 ¼ 0y;1
; J35 ¼ Subscript (1) indicates the north end of the deck displacements at
x0x;1
max xmax x0z;1
max the north end of the deck level (at the top of Pier 1), and x0;1
max is
x: longitudinal, y: vertical, z: transverse the maximum displacement of the uncontrolled response.

J36 ¼ ; J37 ¼ 0y;2
; J38 ¼ Subscript (2) indicates the middle node of the deck displacements
x0x;2
max xmax x0z;2
max at the middle node of the deck level (at the bottom of the pylon).
MATLAB-BASED SEISMIC RESPONSE CONTROL

J39 ¼ ; J40 ¼ 0y;3
; J41 ¼ Subscript (3) indicates the southern end of the deck displacements
x0x;3
max xmax x0z;3
max at the southern end of the deck level (at the top of pier 3).

maxt jxtpx ðtÞj maxt jxtpy ðtÞj maxt jxtpz ðtÞj
J42 ¼ 0x;tp
; J 43 ¼ 0y;tp
; J44 ¼ Subscript (tp) indicates the top of the pylon displacements at the
xmax xmax x0z;tp
max top of the pylon.

maxt;v ðFcon;v ðtÞÞ
J45 ¼ ; Fcon,capacity = the capacity of control devices The maximum control force normalized to the capacity of control
Fcon;capacity devices (capacity of control devices is assumed to be 1500 kN).
139

Figure 20. Variation of cable tension force for un-controlled case and control case B.
MR Damper with
constant Voltage
•
• •
•
VE Dampers
Figure 21. Schematic diagram of the location of dampers in the middle point of cables (Line 10–17) and
between deck and cable (Line 1–10).
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a detailed study of structural control for a seismically excited cable-
stayed bridge. The goal of this paper is to develop an evaluation model for control that portrays
salient features of the structural system, particularly the sag cables and their pre-tension
forces. To this end, a MATLAB-based computer program has been developed to simulate a
three-dimensional cable-stayed bridge; the code includes the nonlinear beam elements that
represent the sag cables. Both active control and hybrid-control algorithms are given to
illustrate some of the design challenges of the problem. Evaluation criteria are presented for the
design problems that are consistent with the goals of seismic response control of a cable-stayed
bridge.
Figure 22. Comparison of evaluation criteria of three different control systems.
Through this study the following conclusions are made:

(a) A comparison is made between simulation results using either truss elements or nonlinear
beam elements to represent dynamic behavior of the stayed cable of the Gi-Lu bridge.
Significant differences in the dynamic characteristics of cable-stayed bridge are estimated
using different models. To form the stiffness matrix of the cable the truss element can only
consider the linear system with the basic properties (Young’s modulus, cross-sections and
length of elements) for formulation. On the contrary, the nonlinear beam elements not only
use the conventional linear stiffness system (partially same as truss elements), but also
include the geometrically nonlinear beam elements to form the stiffness matrix and the self-
weight of the cable and the pre-tension force in the cable can be implemented. Using data
from field tests it is believed that the nonlinear beam elements to simulate the stayed cable
in a realistic manner.
(b) Comparison on the responses of the cable-stayed bridge, as shown in Figures 6 and 7,
cannot prove that using the nonlinear beam element to represent the cable is more
reasonable than using the truss element. But there are some defects associated with using
the truss element for cable, e.g., using truss elements cannot obtain the bridge out-plane
responses and underestimates the cable tensile force.
(c) The simulation results show that use of the actuators as control devices between the bridge
deck and both end-abutments is not very effective for controlling the vibration of the bridge
deck, pylon, and the stayed cables.
(d) Instead of using an active control method, hybrid control devices are applied to the
structure to control response due to seismic excitation. Because nonlinear beam elements
are used to simulate the stayed cable, it is a relatively simple matter to add dampers between
cables and the deck. It is shown that adding viscous dampers to each cable can provide
Figure 23. Comparison of the normalized displacement at the middle point of all cables: (a) North-West;
(b) South-West; (c) North-East; and (d) South-East sides.
good control effectiveness, that not only the reduces the deck and pylon response, but also
the response of the cables.
(e) With implementation of extra viscous dampers between the deck and the stayed cables, the
displacement at the top of the pylon (J42 and J43) in both longitudinal and transverse
directions and shear force at the bottom of pylon (J7) and at the top of the pier 3 (J3) in the
longitudinal direction are significantly reduced. For practical consideration the control
strategy 3 can also provide good control effectiveness in most of the evaluation criteria.
(f) In this study the inherent damping ratio for cable is assumed 1% and with the
supplementation of damping ratio from the viscous damper in the cable (1.3–20% from
damper) the damping ratio for cable is ranging from 2.3% (longest cable) to 21% (shortest
cable).
(g) A formulation of the structural model and a simple control design has been made in the
form of a set of MATLAB equations. This code can provide another type of benchmark
structural control problem for cable-stayed bridges. The numerical results from use of a
hybrid control system look promising; however, a number of practical aspects not
considered here need to be tackled in further studies in order to gain a deeper evaluation of
the potential effectiveness for mitigation of vibration.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express their thanks to Dr Z. K. Lee (Associate Research Fellow of NCREE) to
provide experimental data of Gi-Lu bridge for this study and the support from National Science Council
under Grant NSC93-2211-E-002-005 is also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Virlogcux M. Cable vibration in cable-stayed bridge. In: Larsen A, Esdahl S (eds) Bridge Aerodynamics. Balkema:
Rotterdam, 1998, 213–233.
2. Pacheco BM, Fujino Y, Sulekh A. Estimation curves for modal damping in stay cables with viscous dampers. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering 119(6);1961–1979.
3. Warnitchai P, Fujino Y, Pacheco BM, Agret R. Experimental study on active tendon control of cable-stayed
bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993; 22(2):93–111.
4. Fujino Y, Warnitchai P, Pacheco BM. Active stiffness control of cable vibration. ASCE Journal of Applied
Mechanics 1993; 60:948–953.
5. Fujino Y, Susumpow T. An experimental study on active control of planner cable vibration by axial support motion.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:1283–1297.
6. Gattulli V, Paolone A. Planar motion of a cable-supported beam with feedback controlled action. Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 1997; 8:767–774.
7. Dyke JS, Caicedo JM, Turan G, Bergman LA, Hague D. Benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-
stayed bridge. http://wusceel.cive.wustl.edu/quake/benchmark/2000
8. Schemmann AG, Smith HA. Vibration control of cable-stayed bridge. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1998; 27:811–843.
9. Moon SJ, Bergman LA, Voulgaris PG. Application of MR-dampers to control of a cable-stayed bridge subject to
seismic excitation. Technical Report, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001.
10. Moon SJ, Bergman LA, Voulgaris PG. Sliding mode control of cable-stayed bridge subjected to seismic excitation.
ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics 2003; 129:71–77.
11. Nagarajaiah S, Sahasrabudhe S, Iyer I. Seismic response of sliding isolated bridges with smart dampers subjected to
near source ground motion. Proceedings of the 14th Analysis and Computational Speciality Conference, Philadelphia,
2000; CD-ROM.
12. Rodellar J, Manosa V, Monroy C. An active tendon control scheme for cable-stayed bridges with model
uncertainties and seismic excitation. Journal of Structural Control 2002; 9:75–94.
13. Schmitendorf WE, Jabbari F, Yang JN. Robust control techniques for building under earthquake excitations.
14. Kim DH, Lee IW. Neuro-control of seismically excited steel structures through sensitivity evaluation scheme.
15. Luo N, Rodeller J, de la Sen M. Composite robust active control of seismically excited structures with actuator
dynamics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 27:301–311.
16. Yang JN, Wu JC. Sliding mode control for nonlinear and hysteretic structures. ASCE Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 1995; 121:1330–1339.
17. Caicedo JM, Dyke SJ, Moon SJ, Bergman LA, Turan G, Hague S. Phase II benchmark control problem for seismic
response of cable-stayed bridges. Journal of Structural Control 2003; 10:137–168.
18. Przemieniecki SP. Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1968.
19. Loh CH, Chang CM. Vibration control assessment of ASCE benchmark model of cable-stayed bridge. Journal of
Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2005.

MATLAB-based Seismic Response Control of A Cable-Stayed Bridge: Cable Vibration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MATLAB-based Seismic Response Control of A Cable-Stayed Bridge: Cable Vibration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING

Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:109–143