Practical Design Method of Yielding Steel Dampers PDF

applied
sciences
Article
Practical Design Method of Yielding Steel Dampers in
Concrete Cable-Stayed Bridges
Yan Xu 1, *, Zeng Zeng 1 , Cunyu Cui 1 and Shijie Zeng 2
1 State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2 China Three Gorges Project Development Co., Ltd., Chengdu 610000, China
* Correspondence: yanxu@tongji.edu.cn

Received: 29 April 2019; Accepted: 15 July 2019; Published: 17 July 2019
Featured Application: A time efficient method for determining the initial yielding strength of the
yielding steel damper applied in cable stayed bridges is proposed.
Abstract: Restrained transversal tower/pier–girder connections of cable-stayed bridges may lead

to high seismic demands for tower columns when subject to earthquake excitations; however, free
transversal tower/pier–girder connections may cause large relative displacement. Using an energy
dissipation system can effectively control the bending moment of tower columns and the relative
tower/pier-girder displacement simultaneously, but repeated time history analyses are needed to
determine reasonable design parameters, such as yield strength. In order to improve design efficiency,
a practical design method is demanded. Therefore, the influence of yielding strength at different
locations is studied by using comprehensive and parametric time history analyses at first. The results
indicate that yielding steel dampers can significantly reduce the bending moment at tower columns
and the relative pier–girder displacement due to the system switch mechanism during the vibration.
Meanwhile, the yielding steel damper shows its general effect on reducing relative displacement
between all piers/tower columns and the main girder as well, with only a localized effect on controlling
seismic induced forces. Furthermore, a practical design method is proposed for engineering practices
to determine key parameters of the yielding steel damper.
Keywords: cable-stayed bridge; transversal direction; yielding steel damper; design

method; earthquake
1. Introduction
Cable-stayed bridges with a floating system (i.e., there is no connection between the tower column
and main girder) are naturally seismically isolated structures in the longitudinal direction; hence,
velocity-related viscous fluid dampers (VFDs) are commonly installed to restrain the longitudinal
displacement during strong earthquake vibration and to release the temperature stress under service
load. In the transversal direction, however, traditional tower–girder connections that restrain the
movement of the girder by using a transversally fixed but longitudinally free friction plate bearing
are commonly designed to meet the requirement of service load, such as wind and vehicles, in China.
Therefore, such structural measures may lead to a higher seismic demand on the tower columns and
the substructure under transversal intensive ground motions. According to the performance objectives
that most current seismic design codes have specified [1–3], one solution is to increase the reinforcement
ratio of tower columns by a great amount in addition to meeting its static loading demand, which
causes engineering inefficiency as well as a rising seismic demand for the substructure, such as the pile
foundation. The other is to adopt an energy dissipation system to reduce the seismic demands on the
main structure [4–7].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857; doi:10.3390/app9142857 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 2 of 24
Over the past decades, many researchers have studied the energy dissipation system and
the vibration control of cable-stayed bridges under earthquake excitations, which includes passive
control [5–15], active control [8,9,14] and semi-active control [7–10,16–18]. As we all know, passive
control does not need external energy. In comparison, active control requires external energy; on
the basis of structural response and feedback, the optimal control would be achieved by the optimal
control algorithm, and then the control force would be imposed on the controlled structure relying
on external energy. It is therefore difficult to ensure that a large amount of external energy can be
provided during an earthquake if active control is applied to the structure. Instead, passive control
may be a reasonable option.
In engineering practice, the elastomeric bearings and VFDs are usually used alone or
simultaneously to control the force and displacement responses, and their effectiveness has already
been verified in the transversal direction. However, considering that the cable-stayed bridge may
experience large displacement in a longitudinal direction under strong earthquakes, the VFD, though
proven to be effective, is difficult to use in the transversal direction [19]. The yielding steel damper
(YSD) is another kind of dissipation device, which has the advantages of a lower cost, reliable hysteretic
characteristic and a higher initial stiffness that can meet the demand of service load. It has various
shapes that can adapt to different structure forms and thus has gained increasing application in recent
years, not only in building structures but also in bridge structures [20–25]. Generally, a YSD’s specific
form can be classified as E shape [26,27], C shape [28,29], X shape [30,31], triangle shape [19–21] and
pipe shape [24,25] etc. Some new types of YSD have also been developed in recent years [22–25,32],
and their effectiveness in reducing the seismic demands of several types of bridges has also been
studied [19,21,26,30,31,33,34]. In particular, the application of YSDs in cable-stayed bridges are
investigated [19–21,28,35], and one of them has also been verified through the shake table test [19,28].
However, the seismic design of YSDs installed in the transverse direction of cable-stayed bridges
requires a time-consuming time history analysis. Additionally, the effect of their design parameters
(such as the initial yielding strength of YSD) on the seismic reduction of bridges has not been well
studied. Additionally, there exists a conflict between reducing seismically induced displacement
and seismically induced force simultaneously for cable stayed bridges [12,13,26] when the energy
dissipation system is adopted.
This paper aims to obtain a simple and practical method to design YSDs based on the influence of
their yielding strength (Fy ) on the seismic responses of the bridge at different locations longitudinally
(auxiliary pier, transition pier and tower column). Primarily, a finite element (FE) model should be
established based on a real cable-stayed bridge in China. Furthermore, it is necessary to verify the FE
model by comparing with the results of shake table test. Then, the FE model would be used to carry
out a comprehensive parametric analysis to investigate the influence of Fy on the seismic responses of
the bridge. The theoretically appropriate YSD design would be achieved according to a complicated
multivariate function analysis or a simplified single variable function analysis in terms of different
designed objectives. In order to develop a practical design method, the YSD working mechanism on
the cable-stayed bridge is further investigated, and finally a method is proposed to quickly determine
the yield strength of YSDs based on the investigation in this paper.
2. The Analytical Model and Input Ground Motions
2.1. FE Modelling of the Cable-Stayed Bridge

The bridge has two H-shaped reinforced concrete towers with a height of 93 m, and the total span
is 640 m with a main span of 380 m and two side spans of 70 m and 60 m, respectively. The elevation of
the bridge is shown in Figure 1. The dimension and section of the tower/pier are shown in Figure 2.
The major materials and their characteristics are listed in Table 1.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 3 of 24
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2019,
2019, 9,
9, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 33 of
of 25
25
Figure 1.
Figure
Figure 1. Elevation
1. Elevation of
Elevation of the
of the cable-stayed
the cable-stayed bridge
cable-stayed bridge (unit:
bridge (unit: m).
(unit: m).
m).
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Dimensions
Dimensions of
of the
the major
major structure
structure and
and their
their sections
sections (unit:
(unit: cm).
cm).
Table
Table 1. Main
Table 1.
1. Main materials
Main materials of
materials of the
of the bridge.
the bridge.
bridge.
Material and
Material
Material and Component
Component Standard
Standard
Standard Strength
Strength
Strength (MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa) Young’s
Young’s
Young’s Modulus
Modulus
Modulus (MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
Concrete
Concrete (tower)
Concrete (tower)
(tower) 32.4
32.4
32.4 3.45
3.45
3.45 × 4
× 10
× 10 1044
Concrete (transition
Concrete (transition
Concrete pier)
(transition pier) 26.8
26.8
26.8 3.25
3.25 ×× 10
× 10
3.25 41044
Concrete (auxiliary
Concrete (auxiliary pier)pier) 26.8
26.8 3.25
3.25 ×
× 10 41044
Concrete 26.8 3.25 × 10
Cable 17701770 2.05
2.05 ×
× 10 51055
Cable 1770 2.05 × 10
Rebar 400400 2.06
2.06 × ×
10 51055
Rebar 400 2.06 × 10
Note:1.1.
Note:
Note: 1.The
Thestandard
The standard
standard strength
strength
strength of concrete
concrete
of concrete
of isaxial
is theis the compressive
the axial compressive
axial compressive strength
strengthstrength of measured
of concrete
of concrete measured
concrete measured
with with
a 150 mm
with×
150
a mm
150 mm× 300
× mmmm
150 prism
× as the
300 mm standard
prism specimen,
as the and thespecimen,
standard standard strength
and themeans the strength
standard strength characteristic
means the
a 150 mm × 150 mm × 300 mm prism as the standard specimen, and the standard strength means the
value with a certain guarantee rate (95%). 2. Statistical analysis shows that the test value of the rebar and cable
strengthconforms
strength
strength characteristic
characteristic value
value
to normal with aa certain
with
distribution,certain
and theguarantee
guarantee rate (95%).
rate (95%).
standard strength 2.the
of is2. Statistical
Statistical analysis shows
analysis shows
strength characteristic valuethat
that the
the
with a
test value
value of
certain
test of the
the rebar
guarantee rebar and
rate and cable
(97.73%). cable strength
strength conforms
conforms to to normal
normal distribution,
distribution, and and the
the standard
standard strength
strength
of is
of is the
the strength
strength characteristic
characteristic value
value with
with aa certain
certain guarantee
guarantee raterate (97.73%).
(97.73%).
A three-dimensional FE model had been developed in a Structural Analysis Program 2000 version
A(SAP2000
19.0.0A three-dimensional
three-dimensional FE model
FE model
v 19.0.0) [36,37]. Thehad
had been developed
been
simulation developed in aa Structural
in
of a cable-stayed Structural Analysis
bridgeAnalysis Program
consists Program 2000
2000
of four parts,
version the
version
namely 19.0.0
19.0.0 (SAP2000
(SAP2000
girder, v 19.0.0)
v 19.0.0) [36,37].
the tower/pier, [36,37].
the cable The
The simulation
simulation
and the boundary of aa cable-stayed
of cable-stayed bridge consists
bridge
conditions. Generally, consists of four
of
the girderfouris
parts,
parts, namely
namely the
the girder,
girder, the
the tower/pier,
tower/pier, the
the cable
cable and
and the
the boundary
boundary conditions.
conditions.
equipped with a closed box section with large free torsional stiffness, and a single girder model could Generally,
Generally, the
the girder
girder
is equipped
is
be equipped with aa closed
with
adopted considering closed box
thebox section
section
axial with
with
stiffness, large free
large
bending free torsional
torsional
stiffness, stiffness,
stiffness,
torsional and aadistributed
and
stiffness, single girder
single girder
massmodel
model
and
could
could be
be adopted
adopted considering
considering the
the axial
axial stiffness,
stiffness, bending
bending stiffness,
stiffness, torsional
torsional
mass moment of inertia concentrated on the central axis. In addition, the girder would be elastic even stiffness,
stiffness, distributed
distributed
mass and
mass
under and mass moment
mass
occasionallymoment of inertia
of
occurring inertia concentrated
concentrated
earthquakes. on the
on the central
Simultaneously, centralthe
axis.
axis. In addition,
In addition,
tower/pier theelastic
the
is also girderdue
girder would
would be
be
to the
elastic
energy even
elastic even under
dissipation occasionally
under system.
occasionally occurring
occurring
Therefore, earthquakes.
earthquakes.
the girder Simultaneously,
Simultaneously,
and tower/pier could be thethe tower/pier
tower/pier
modeled is also
by aniselastic elastic
also elastic
frame
due to the energy dissipation system. Therefore, the girder and tower/pier
element which includes the effects of biaxial bending, torsion, axial deformation, and biaxial by
due to the energy dissipation system. Therefore, the girder and tower/pier could
could be
be modeled
modeled by an
an
shear
elastic frame element
elastic frame element
deformations which includes
which includes
[38]. Obviously, the effects
the effects
cables should of biaxial bending,
of biaxial bending,
be simulated torsion,
by a trusstorsion,
element, axial
axial
and deformation,
deformation,
the modulusand and
of
biaxial shear
biaxial shear
elasticity deformations
deformations
modified [38].formula
[38].
by the Ernst Obviously,
Obviously, cables
[39], cables should
should
considering bemechanical
be
the simulated properties
simulated by aa truss
by truss and
element,
element,
the sagand
and the
the
effect.
modulus
modulus
For boundaryof elasticity
of elasticity modified
modified
conditions, sincebyby thethe
the
only Ernst
Ernst formula
formula
overall [39], considering
[39],
response considering the mechanical
the
of the structure mechanical
is considered properties
properties and
and
rather than
the sag effect. For boundary conditions, since only the overall response of the structure
the sag effect. For boundary conditions, since only the overall response of the structure is considered is considered
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 4 of 24
the pile–soil effect, the node constraint of SAP2000 can be directly used to simulate the boundary
conditions; specifically, both the tower bottom and pier bottom are fixed.
In order to simulate a double-cable-stayed bridge, a rigid arm can be used to connect the girder
and the cable; thus, a spine model should be adopted. In the longitudinal and transverse directions,
the connections between the girder and the tower/pier are shown in Table 2. The FE model of SAP 2000
in this paper is shown in Figure 3. The girder, tower and pier are divided into around 4-m sections as a
unit, and the model has a total of 607 nodes and 447 units.
Table 2. The boundary condition of the bridge.
Degree of Freedom Degree of Freedom

Location
(without YSDs) (with YSDs)
UX UY UZ RX RY RZ UX UY UZ RX RY RZ
Tower 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 YSD (2) 1 0 0 0
Auxiliary pier 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 YSD (2) 1 0 0 0
Transition pier 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 YSD (2) 1 0 0 0
Note: 1. “1” means fixed, “0” means free; yielding steel dampers (YSDs) are installed between the girder and
the substructure, and numbers in () are the quantities of YSDs used on each side of the bridge. 2. X means the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FORlongitudinal
PEER REVIEW direction, Y means the transverse direction, and Z means the vertical direction. 5 of 25
Figure 3. Finite Figure

element Finite
3.(FE) element (FE) model.
model.
It is necessary to note that ordinary constraints and steel dampers are simulated in different ways.
An elastic link element with large stiffness would be employed when the girder is fixed in the transverse
direction at the tower locations. By contrast, the simulation of steel damper is relatively complex.
As shown in Figure 4, the YSD is connected at the bottom of the deck through the sliding groove to
accommodate the deck movement longitudinally. The YSDs are arranged symmetrically on the two
sides of the bridge, and their connections at longitudinal locations on the bridge are shown in Figures 4
and 5. The YSD is designed according to the design criterion for steel dampers [29,40,41]. For the wind
load and normal traffic loads,
Figure the YSDsteel
4. C-shaped remains elastic
damper and provides enough transverse stiffness. During
group.
the earthquake, the YSD starts to deform and dissipate seismic energy inelastically, thus protecting the
tower columns and piers. Oh et al. [42] and Domaneschi et al. [7] performed the cyclic tests of the
YSD, showing that it has stable hysteretic behavior, and the hysteretic curve is assumed as the bilinear
response (Figure 6), regardless of the specific form [19–21,24–26,30,32]. Therefore, the YSD is simulated
Figure 5. One applied YSD and its connection.

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 5 of 24
by Plastic Wen units in SAP2000, which are bilinear constitutive models. There are four parameters in
damper design, namely the yielding strength Fy , yielding displacement ∆y , the ratio of post-yielding
stiffness to pre-yielding stiffness and ultimate deformation ∆u , while the ultimate strength Fu is not an
independent parameter. Normally, the ∆y is set to 10 mm and the ratio of post-yielding stiffness to
pre-yielding stiffness is set as 0.6% (less than 5% depending on the different shapes of products), which
can provide good hysteretic performance according to related studies [19–21,24–26,30,32]. Therefore,
Fy is the key parameter which needs to be determined in this bilinear model. It is notable that the
ultimate deformation ∆u reaches a certain amount in a fabricated YSD product; however, the maximum
deformation of the bilinear model is assumed to be unlimited in the analysis so that the influence of Fy
Figure 3. Finite
Figure 3. Finite element
element (FE)
(FE) model.
model.
on the relative displacement between the super- and sub-structures can be observed.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Figure C-shaped
4. C-shaped steel
C-shaped steel damper
steel damper group.
damper group.
group.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Figure One applied
One applied
5. One YSD
applied YSD and
YSD and its
and its connection.
its connection.
connection.
Fu
FFuu
F
FFyyy K =αK
KK111=αK
=αK00
0
K
KK000
Experiment
Experiment
Experiment
Bilinear
Bilinear
Bilinear
Δ Δu
ΔΔyyy ΔΔuu
Figure 6. Simplified
Figure 6. Simplified model
model of
of the
the YSD.
YSD.
In addition, it is more accurate to use complex a FE model such as shell elements or fiber elements
to better consider the dynamic mechanical behavior of the girder instead of a simplified spine model.
However, according to some recent studies [4,28], acceptable dynamic behavior and corresponding
seismic responses can be obtained, and we use this model to carry out our comprehensive parametric
study of the proper yielding strength of the applied steel dampers for time efficiency.
2.2. FE Model Validation

Additionally, a shake table test of the bridge model with a scale factor of 1/20 was conducted [27].
Before the parameter analysis of the yield strength of the YSD, it is necessary to prove the correctness
of the model without YSDs; therefore, the numerical results were compared with the shaking table
test results.
2.2. FE Model Validation
2.2. Additionally,
FE Model Validation a shake table test of the bridge model with a scale factor of 1/20 was conducted
[27]. Before the parameter
Additionally, a shake table analysis
testofof the
the yield
bridgestrength
model with of thea scale
YSD, factor
it is necessary
of 1/20 was to prove
conducted the
correctness of the model without YSDs; therefore, the numerical
[27]. Before the parameter analysis of the yield strength of the YSD, it is necessary to prove the results were compared with the
shaking
Appl. table9,
Sci. 2019,
correctness oftest
theresults.
2857 model without YSDs; therefore, the numerical results were compared with 6 ofthe
24
As is well known,
shaking table test results. whether a dynamic analysis or static analysis of cable-stayed bridges is
conducted,
As is wellnonlinear
known, geometric
whethereffects must be
a dynamic taken or
analysis into consideration,
static analysis ofincluding
cable-stayed the bridges
cable-sagis
effect, As is well
P-Δ effect, known,
and large whether a
displacementdynamic analysis
effect be
[43]. or
The into static analysis
gravity-nonlinear of cable-stayed bridges is
conducted, nonlinear geometric effects must taken consideration,static analysis
including theshould
cable-sag be
conducted,
conducted nonlinear geometric effects must be taken into consideration, including the cable-sag effect,
effect, P-Δbefore
effect, dynamic
and largeanalysis, because
displacement there
effect would
[43]. The be large tension forces
gravity-nonlinear staticinanalysis
the cables due to
should be
P-∆
dead effect,
load, and
which large displacement
would prevent effect
the [43].
cables The
from gravity-nonlinear
becoming slack static
under analysis
seismic should
loads be
and conducted
influence
conducted before dynamic analysis, because there would be large tension forces in the cables due to
before
the dynamic
structural analysis,
stiffness. becausedirect
Nonlinear there integration
would be large withtension
the Newmarkforces in the cables
iterative methoddue [44]to dead
has load,
been
dead load, which would prevent the cables from becoming slack under seismic loads and influence
which
employed would prevent
in nonlinear the cables from becoming slack under seismic loads and influence the structural
the structural stiffness. time-history
Nonlinear direct analysis. Two key
integration with parameters
the Newmark for this method,
iterative gamma
method [44]and
hasbeta,
been
stiffness.
are 0.5 and Nonlinear
0.25, direct
respectively. integration
In with
addition, the Newmark
Rayleigh damping iterative
[44] method
has been [44] has
adopted been
to employed
consider thein
employed in nonlinear time-history analysis. Two key parameters for this method, gamma and beta,
nonlinear
structural time-history
damping, analysis.
and the mass Two key parameters
proportional for
coefficient this method,
and[44]
stiffnessgamma and
proportional beta, are
coefficient0.5 and
are 0.5 and 0.25, respectively. In addition, Rayleigh damping has been adopted to considerare the
0.25, and
0.082 respectively.
0.0084, In addition, Rayleigh damping [44] has been adopted to consider the structural
respectively.
structural damping, and the mass proportional coefficient and stiffness proportional coefficient are
damping, and the mass proportional coefficient
used and stiffness proportional coefficient are table
0.082test,
and
0.082Figure 7 shows
and 0.0084, the seismic
respectively. time history in the numerical calculation and shaking
0.0084,
whileFigure respectively.
Figures 8–10 show the displacement response
7 shows the seismic time history used in thetime historycalculation
numerical of key location of thetable
and shaking bridge.
test,
Figure
Obviously, 7
they shows
coincidethe seismic
with each time history
other, but used
there isina the
large numerical
deviation calculation
in the range and
of 8 shaking
s~10 s, table
which
while Figures 8–10 show the displacement response time history of key location of the bridge.
test,
is while Figures
probably due 8–10 show the displacement response time history of key location ofdifficult
the bridge.
Obviously, theytocoincide
the strongwithnonlinear
each other,effect
butcaused
there isbya thelarge structural
deviation damage, making
in the range of 8its~10 s, whichfor
Obviously,
the numerical they coincide
calculation with
to beeach other,
accurate. but there
Generally, is a
thislarge deviation
shake-table in
test the range
verified of
the 8 s~10 s, which
correctness of
is probably due to the strong nonlinear effect caused by the structural damage, making it difficult for
is
the probably due to the strong nonlinear effect caused by the structural damage, making it difficult for
theFE model. calculation to be accurate. Generally, this shake-table test verified the correctness of
numerical
the numerical calculation to be accurate. Generally, this shake-table test verified the correctness of the
the FE model.
FE model. 0.15
0.10
0.15
0.05
Acceleration[g]
0.10
0.00
0.05
Acceleration[g]
-0.05
0.00
-0.10
-0.05
-0.15
-0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.15 Time[s]
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time[s]
Figure 7. The seismic time history.
15
1015
Displacement[mm]
510
Displacement[mm]
05
-50
Measured
-10-5
Numerical
Measured
-15
-10
0 2 4 6 8 Numerical 10
-15 Time[s]
0 2 4 6 8 10
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 25
Time[s]
Figure 8. The displacement of the middle span.
15
10
Displacement[mm]
-5
Measured
-10
Numerical
-15
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time[s]
Figure 9. The displacement of the top tower.

15
10
]
-15
0 2 4 6 8Numerical 10
-15
Time[s]
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time[s]

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 7 of 24
15
15
10
Displacement[mm]
105
Displacement[mm]
50
0-5
Measured
-5
-10
Measured
Numerical
-10
-15
0 2 4 6 8Numerical 10
-15
Time[s]
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time[s]
Figure 10. The displacement of the middle tower.

Figure 10. The displacement of the middle tower.
2.3. Input Ground
2.3. Input Ground Motions
Motions
2.3. Input
The Ground Motions
The peak
peak ground
ground acceleration
acceleration (PGA)
(PGA) ofof the
the design
design level
level ground
ground motions
motions isis 0.3
0.3 gg according
according toto the
the
site
site earthquake
earthquake risk
risk assessment,
assessment, and seven artificial ground motions are produced from
from the
the design
The peak ground accelerationand seven
(PGA) artificial
of the designground motions
level ground are
motionsproduced
is 0.3 g according design
to the
spectrum
spectrum specified
specified in bridge
bridge seismic codes, as
as the
the input. Figure 11
11 shows the
the acceleration response
site earthquake risk in seismic
assessment, codes,artificial
and seven input.
groundFigure
motions shows acceleration
are produced from theresponse
design
spectra with
spectra with a 5% damping
a 5% damping ratio. The following study uses the averaged result of the seven artificial
spectrum specified in bridgeratio.
seismicThecodes,
following
as thestudy uses
input. the averaged
Figure 11 showsresult of the sevenresponse
the acceleration artificial
ground motions.
groundwith
motions.
spectra a 5% damping ratio. The following study uses the averaged result of the seven artificial
ground motions.
1.2
Design Spectrum Artificial-1
1.2
1.0 Artificial-2 Artificial-3
Design Spectrum Artificial-1
[g] [g]
1.0
0.8 Artificial-4
Artificial-2 Artificial-5
Artificial-3
Acceleration
Artificial-6
Artificial-5
0.8
0.6
Acceleration
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.0
0 1 2 3 4Period [s]
5 6 7 8 9
Period [s]
Figure 11.
Figure 11. Acceleration
Acceleration response
response spectra of the
spectra of the artificial
artificial ground
ground motions.
motions.
Figure 11. Acceleration response spectra of the artificial ground motions.
3. The Influence
3. The Influence of of the
the FFyy of
of YSD
YSD
3. TheInInfluence
order to of thethe
to select
select Fy of YSDYSD at different locations—the YSD yielding strength installed at
In order the FFy yofofYSD at different locations—the YSD yielding strength installed at the
the auxiliary
auxiliary
In order pier
pierto (Fthe
(Fselect
ya), ),transition
yathethe
Fytransition
of YSD at pier
pier (F yp) (F yp )the
and
different andtower
the tower (Fytis)—it
(Fyt)—it
locations—the YSD is necessary
necessary
yielding toinstalled
determine
to determine
strength theat the
effect
the
effect
of all of
auxiliary all
these these
pier (Fya),parameters,
parameters, resulting
resulting
the transition in(F
pier in
the the structural
structural
yp) and
response
response
the tower (Fyt)—it as
asis aternary
ternaryfunction;
anecessary function;
to itit is
determine isthe
therefore
therefore
effect
necessary
necessary
of to carry
all thesetoparameters,out a detailed
carry out a detailed three-variable
resultingthree-variable
in the structural function
function analysis.
analysis.
response as a ternary function; it is therefore
necessary to carry out a detailed three-variable function analysis.
3.1. Determining the Scope of Analysis
The range of Fy should be considered firstly when a multivariate function is used. In fact,
the seismically induced force of the substructure includes two parts: one is transmitted by the inertial
force of the girder, and the other is generated by the self-vibration. Therefore, as shown by the above
formula, the value of Fy should be determined according to the designed section capacity (Mu ) and
self-vibration (Msv ) as well.
Taking the bridge prototype in this paper as an example (Figure 12), on the one hand, the Mut is
around 500,000 kN·m, and Mup (or Mua ) is around 300,000 kN·m, while the H is around 40 m. Therefore,
Fy1t could be 12,500 kN at maximum, and Fy1p (or Fy1a ) could be 7500 kN at maximum. On the other
hand, α is around 0.3, which can be verified in the chart of subsequent calculation. Therefore, the upper
limits of the YSD yielding strength Fymax set at the auxiliary pier, the transition pier and the tower are
5000 kN, 5000 kN, and 9000 kN, respectively.
Taking the bridge prototype in this paper as an example (Figure 12), on the one hand, the Mut is
around 500,000 kN·m, and Mup (or Mua) is around 300,000 kN·m, while the H is around 40 m.
Therefore, Fy1t could be 12,500 kN at maximum, and Fy1p (or Fy1a) could be 7500 kN at maximum. On
the other hand, α is around 0.3, which can be verified in the chart of subsequent calculation.
Therefore,
Appl. the
Sci. 2019, 9, upper limits of the YSD yielding strength Fymax set at the auxiliary pier, the transition
2857 8 of 24
pier and the tower are 5000 kN, 5000 kN, and 9000 kN, respectively.
Mu M
Fy1 = ,Fy2 = sv ,M sv = αM u ,Fymax = Fy1 - Fy2 = ( 1- α ) Fy1
H H
Mass of superstructure H —height of tower / pier
FI M u —designed section capacity
Fy1 —the maximum transmissible force
Tower/Pier M sv —the moment due to the self -vibration
Fy2 —the equivalent force due to the self -vibration
H
Fymax —the upper limit of the YSD yielding strength

Bottom of tower/pier
α —the proportion of the self -vibration response to the total
Figure
Figure 12.12. Mechanical
Mechanical diagram.
diagram.
InIn addition,
addition, thethe lower
lower limits
limits of of
FyaF,yaF, yp
Fypand
andFF are00kN,
ytytare kN,00kNkNand
and1000
1000kN,
kN,respectively,
respectively,because
because
the
the girder–pier
girder–pier cancanbebe free
free butbutthe
thegirder–tower
girder–towermust mustbeberestrained
restrainedtotomeet
meetthe
theservice
serviceload
loadfunction.
function.
Thus,
Thus, 441
441 cases
cases inin total
total areare analyzed
analyzed inin order
order toto find
find thethe most
most appropriate
appropriate design
design value
value of of
FyFaty at each
each
location; i.e., F varies from
location; i.e., Fya varies from 0
ya 0 kN to 5000 kN, F varies from 0 kN to 5000 kN and F varies
kN, Fyp varies from 0 kN to 5000 kN and Fyt varies from
yp yt from 1000
kNkN
1000 to 9000 kNkN
to 9000 with an interval
with of 1000
an interval of 1000 kN,kN,
respectively.
respectively.
3.2.
3.2.Multivariate
MultivariateFunction
FunctionAnalysis
Analysis
Figures
Figures13a, 14a and
13a–15a show15a the
show the of
effect effect
the of the yielding
yielding strength
strength Fy on
Fy on the the relative
relative displacement
displacement (RD) of
(RD)
the of the auxiliary
auxiliary pier,
pier, the the transition
transition pier andpier
theand the bridge
bridge towerthe
tower with with the increase
increase of otheroftwo
other two
yielding
yielding strengths, which share the same characteristics. On one hand, there are distinct
strengths, which share the same characteristics. On one hand, there are distinct layers between the layers between
the
RDRD surfaces
surfaces atat
eacheach location,
location, indicating
indicating that
that thetheRDRD decreases
decreases rapidly
rapidly toto a stable
a stable small
small value
value with
with the
the increase of the yielding strength of
increase of the yielding strength of the YSD the YSD at its own
own location. On the other hand, each surface isa a
location. On the other hand, each surface is
subduction
subduction surface,
surface,which
which indicates
indicates that
thatthe yielding
the yielding strengths
strengths ofof
the YSDs
the YSDs atat
the
theother
othertwo
two locations
locations
have
havea significant
a significant impact
impact ononthetheRDRDonly
only when
when their
theirvalues
valuesare
aresmall.
small.Therefore,
Therefore, inin
order
order totouse steel
use steel
dampers efficiently, the yielding strength of YSDs at each location should not
dampers efficiently, the yielding strength of YSDs at each location should not be too large. be too large.
It can be seen from Figures 13b, 14b and 15b that there are obvious layers between the ratio of
capacity to demand (RCD) surfaces, and each RCD surface is an approximate horizontal plane, which
means that the RCD at each location is only affected by the yielding strength of the YSD at its own
location but not by the yielding strength of YSDs at the other two locations. Therefore, the yielding
strength of YSDs at each location can be decided independently according to this observation.
As for RCD, there is a common feature at each location: it increases at first and then decreases
with the increasing yielding strength of YSD at its own location. The reason for this is the coupling
effect of the installation of YSDs, which restrains the self-vibration of piers and produces the inertial
force of the main girder. The former effect is significant when the yielding strength is relatively small,
while the latter will become dominant with the increase of yielding strength.
Based on the above analysis, two designed objectives—i.e., the RCD is large and uniform or the
RD is small and uniform—are set to determine the YSD yielding strength at each location.
To achieve the two designed objectives above, the standard deviations of the RCD at different
locations need to be calculated. As shown in Figures 16 and 17, the minimum of standard deviation is
obtained when Fya = 4000 kN, Fyp = 4000 kN and Fyt = 1000 kN (layout 1 in Table 3).
Appl.Appl.
Sci. Sci.
2019,2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
9, 2857 9 of 2524
9 of
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
Figure 13. Responses of the auxiliary pier with varying Fya and Fyt. (a) Relative displacement, (b) ratio
Figure yt. (a) Relative displacement, (b) ratio
Figure 13. 13. Responses
Responses of of
thethe auxiliary
auxiliary pierwith
pier withvarying
varyingFFyaya and
and FFyt . (a) Relative displacement, (b) ratio
of capacity to demand (RCD).
(a)
(a)
Figure 14. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 10 of 24
(b)
(b)
Figure 14. Responses of the transition pier with varying Fyp and Fyt. (a) Relative displacement, (b) ratio
of capacity
Figure to demand.
Figure 14.14. Responses
Responses ofofthe
thetransition
transition pier
pierwith
withvarying
varyingFypFand Fyt. (a) Relative displacement, (b) ratio
yp and Fyt . (a) Relative displacement, (b)
of capacity to demand.
ratio of capacity to demand.
(a)
(a)
(b)
Figure 15. Responses of the tower column with varying

(b) Fya and Fyp . (a) Relative displacement; (b) ratio
of capacity to demand.
while
RD the latter
is small andwill become dominant
uniform—are with the the
set to determine increase of yielding
YSD yielding strength.
strength at each location.
Based on the above analysis, two designed objectives—i.e., the
To achieve the two designed objectives above, the standard deviations RCD is large and
of the RCDuniform or the
at different
RD is small and uniform—are set to determine the YSD yielding strength at each location.
locations need to be calculated. As shown in Figures 16 and 17, the minimum of standard deviation
To achieve
is obtained whenthe Fyatwo designed
= 4000 kN, Fypobjectives
= 4000 kNabove,
and Fytthe standard
= 1000 deviations
kN (layout of the3).RCD at different
1 in Table
locations need to be calculated. As shown in Figures 16 and 17, the minimum of standard deviation
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 11 of 24
is obtained when Fya = 4000 kN, Fyp = 4000 kN and Fyt = 1000 kN (layout 1 in Table 3).
Figure 16. Standard deviation of RCD.

Figure 17.Contour
Figure17. Contourof
ofstandard
standarddeviation RCD(F(Fyaya == 4000
deviationofofRCD 4000 kN).
kN).
Table 3. Key response comparison.
Figure 17. Contour of standard deviation of RCD (Fya = 4000 kN).
Bridge YSD Layout RCD at RCD at RCD at RD at RD at RD at Tower Mid-Span
System Plan Tower TP AP Tower TP AP TD Lateral Drift
A Without YSDs 0.59 2.04 1.99 0 417 235 173 515
Designed
1.21 1.19 1.19 189 108 69 174 312
layout 1 (M)
B Designed
1.17 1.02 1.99 118 125 125 168 227
layout 2 (M)
Designed
1.25 1.15 1.24 126 106 53 169 235
layout 3 (S)
Designed
1.18 1.14 2.02 125 135 131 164 209
layout 4 (S)
Note: 1. TP means the transition pier, AP means the auxiliary pier, TD means top drift, M means multi-variable
analysis, and S means single variable analysis. Designed layout 1: Fya = 4000 kN, Fyp = 4000 kN and Fyt = 1000 kN
(designed for a large and uniform RCD), designed layout 2: Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 5000 kN and Fyt = 4000 kN
(designed for a small and uniform RD), designed layout 3: Fya = 4000 kN, Fyp = 4000 kN and Fyt = 2000 kN (designed
for a large and uniform RCD), designed layout 4: Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 4000 kN and Fyt = 4000 kN (designed for a
small and uniform RD). 2. The unit of displacement is mm, and RCD is a dimensionless constant.
In the same way, as shown in Figures 18 and 19, the minimum of the standard deviation of RD is
obtained when Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 2000 kN and Fyt = 3000 kN or Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 5000 kN and
Fyt = 4000 kN. Recalling Figures 13–15, the RD of the latter is smaller, so Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 5000 kN
and Fyt = 4000 kN is preferable (layout 2 in Table 3).
In the
Appl. Sci. 2019,same way,
9, x FOR asREVIEW
PEER shown in Figures 18 and 19, the minimum of the standard deviation 12 ofofRD25
is obtained when Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 2000 kN and Fyt = 3000 kN or Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 5000 kN and
Fyt = In
4000thekN.
same way, asFigures
Recalling shown 13–15,
in Figures 18 and
the RD 19,latter
of the the minimum
is smaller,ofsothe
Fyastandard deviation
= 1000 kN, of RD
Fyp = 5000 kN
is obtained when Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 2000 kN and Fyt = 3000 kN or Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 5000 kN and
Fyt = 4000 kN. Recalling Figures 13–15, the RD of the latter is smaller, so Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 5000 kN
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 12 of 24
Figure 18. Standard deviation of relative displacement (RD).

Figure 19. Contour of standard deviation of RD (Fya = 1000 kN).

Figure 19. Contour of standard deviation of RD (Fya = 1000 kN).
3.3. Single Variable Function Analysis
3.3. Single Variable Function FigureAnalysis
19. Contour of standard deviation of RD (Fya = 1000 kN).
As shown above, although we can achieve the designed layout of the bridge system by carrying
out As
3.3.aSingle shown above,
Variable
comprehensive although
Function we
Analysis
parametric can achieve
analysis, the designed layout
it is time-consuming. of the bridge
Considering the system by carrying
result that the RD
out
at a comprehensive
each location decreases parametric
with theanalysis,
increaseit isoftime-consuming. Considering
the yielding strengths at anythe result that
location, the RD
but the RCD at
As showndecreases
above, although we can achieve the designed layout of the bridge system by carrying
is only influenced by the yielding strength of its own location, we can make the analysis easier byis
each location with the increase of the yielding strengths at any location, but the RCD
out
onlyausing
comprehensive
influenced by the parametric
yielding analysis,ofitits
strength is time-consuming.
own we Considering the result easier
that the RD at
only a one-variable function; that is, two of location,
the variables can
(Fytmake
and theFyp analysis
or Fyt and Fya byor only
Fyp
each
using location decreases with the increase of the yielding strengths at any location, but the RCD is
and Fyaa)one-variable function; that
can remain unchanged is, twothe
to study of the variables
influence (Fytother
of the and Fvariable
yp or Fyt and Fya or Fyp and Fya) can
(Fyt or Fyp or Fya ) on the
only
remain influenced
unchanged by the yielding
to study thestrength
influence of of
its the
ownother
location, we can make the analysis easier by only
structure’s seismic response. Consequently, three series ofvariable
cases are(Fanalyzed:
yt or Fyp or Fya) on the structure’s
(1) Fya varies from 0 kN
using
seismic a one-variable
response. function;
Consequently, that is,
three two of
series the
of variables
cases are (Fyt and Fyp or Fyt and Fya or Fyp and Fya) can
analyzed: (1) Fya varies from 0 kN to 5000
to 5000 kN, while Fyt and Fyp remain constant; (2) Fyp varies from 0 kN to 5000 kN, while Fya and Fyt
remain
kN, while unchanged
Fyt and toremain
Fyp study the influence
constant; (2) Fof the other variable (Fyt or Fyp or Fya) on the structure’s
yp varies from 0 kN to 5000 kN, while Fya and Fyt remain
remain constant; and (3) Fyt varies from 1000 kN to 9000 kN, while Fya and Fyp remain constant. In fact,
seismic
constant; response.
and (3) FConsequently, three series of cases are analyzed: (1) Fya varies from 0 kN to 5000
yt varies from 1000 kN to 9000 kN, while Fya and Fyp remain constant. In fact, it is
it is required that the others should remain when analyzing the influence of yielding strength of the
kN, while F yt and Fyp remain constant; (2) Fyp varies from 0 kN to 5000 kN, while Fya and Fyt remain
required location.
that the For
others should remain when
specified illustration purposes, 2000analyzing
kN was set.the influence of yielding strength of the
constant;
specified and (3) Fyt
location. Forvaries from 1000
illustration kN to 9000
purposes, 2000 kN,
kN while
was Fya and Fyp remain constant. In fact, it is
set.
It can be seen from Figures 20a, 21a and 22a that when the yielding strength is relatively small,
required that the others should remain when analyzing the influence of yielding strength of the
with the increase of Fy , the girder–pier/column RD at the auxiliary pier, transition pier and tower
specified location. For illustration purposes, 2000 kN was set.
column decrease significantly. However, when the yielding strength is relatively large, the Fy only
affects the displacement at its own location without a significant change at the other two locations.
As shown in Figures 20b, 21b and 22b, with the increase of Fy , there is a significant fluctuation of the
RCD curve at its own location, but the RCD curves at the other two locations are approximately flat.
In addition, the RCD curve at each location increases first and then decreases, indicating that a peak
decrease significantly. However, when the yielding strength is relatively large, the Fy only affects the
displacement at its own location without a significant change at the other two locations. As shown in
Figures 20b–22b, with the increase of Fy, there is a significant fluctuation of the RCD curve at its own
location, but the RCD curves at the other two locations are approximately flat. In addition, the RCD
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 13 of 24
curve at each location increases first and then decreases, indicating that a peak must exist. Obviously,
this result is consistent with that of the multivariate function analysis but much more concise. In
must exist.
addition, Obviously,
according this result
to Figures is consistent
20b–22b, with thatTable
the following of the4multivariate function
can be obtained analysisthe
to verify butcorrectness
much
more concise. In addition, according to Figures
of the proportion of the above natural vibration response. 20b, 21b and 22b, the following Table 4 can be obtained
to verify the correctness of the proportion of the above natural vibration response.
300
Auxiliary Pier
Relative Displacement[mm] 250 Transition Pier
Tower
200
150
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fya[kN]
(a)
3.00
Auxiliary Pier
Ratio of Capacity to Demand
2.50 Transition Pier

Tower
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fya[kN]
(b)
Figure 20. 20.
Figure Seismic responses
Seismic responseswith
withvarying Fya
varying F ya.. (a) Relativedisplacement
(a) Relative displacement (unit:
(unit: mm);
mm); (b) ratio
(b) ratio of of
capacity to demand.
capacity to demand.
As a matter of fact, the overall shear force transferred to the column end consists of two parts: one
is from the inertial force developed by the girder and the other is from the self-vibration of the column
300
Auxiliary Pier
itself. In order to determine the scope of parameter analysis, it is necessary to determine the proportion
Relative Displacement[mm]
250
that the self-vibration response would take. Figures 16–18 can beTransition
obtained Pier after the possible range
Tower
of this proportion is determined,
200 and one of the cases is taken as an example to illustrate that this
self-vibration ratio is indeed
150
around 0.3.
It can be approximated that the increase of Fy generally constrains the RDs of piers or towers,
100
and only has a significant impact on its own location compared to the other two. Therefore, it can be
considered that the selection50 of Fya , Fyp and Fyt is independent and not coupled.
According to Figures0 20b, 21b and 22b, the tower has the minimal RCD curve compared with
other piers; to achieve one of 0 the designed
1000 2000
objectives as3000
mentioned 4000in multivariable
5000 analysis (large
and uniform RCDs), Fyt should be set to its peakFyp[kN] value of 2000 kN as shown in Figure 22b. Then,
on the grounds of the intersection of the RCD curves of the auxiliary pier and of the tower in
Figure 20b, Fya should be 4000 kN, and Fyp should(a) be approximately 4000 kN. Therefore, Fya = 4000 kN,
Fyp = 4000 kN and Fyt = 2000 kN (layout 3 in Table 3) is one of the reasonable solutions obtained
through single variable function analysis.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 14 of 24
Table 4. Proportion of the above natural vibration responses.
M of α of
Fyt M1 Msv of Tower Fyp /Fya M2 M of TP M of AP Msv of TP Msv of AP α of TP α of AP
Tower Tower
9000 360000 508542 148542 0.29 5000 200000 272719 256396 72719 56396 0.27 0.22
Note: 1. M1 means the moment of the tower due to the YSD, M2 means the moment of the pier due to the YSD, Msv means the moment due to self-vibration, α means the proportion of the
self-vibration response to the total, TP means the transition pier, and AP means the auxiliary pier. 2. The unit of bending moment is kN·m, and α is a dimensionless constant.
Appl. Appl.
Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR
Sci. 2019, PEER REVIEW
9, 2857 14 of 25
15 of 24
300
Auxiliary Pier
250 Transition Pier
Tower
200
150
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fyp[kN]
(a)
3.00
Auxiliary Pier

Tower
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fyp[kN]
(b)
Figure 21. 21.
Figure Seismic responses
Seismic with
responses varying
with varyingFF . .(a)(a)Relative
ypyp Relativedisplacement;
displacement; (b) (b) ratio
ratio ofofcapacity
capacity to
to
demand.demand.
In terms of Figures 20a, 21a and 22a, it is difficult to obtain a set of reasonable yielding strengths
directly. Therefore, it is necessary to draw the standard deviation curve varying with each yielding
strength and assume that the three curves are independent of each other. As shown in Figure 23,
300
the reasonable range of Fya , Fyp and Fyt is 1000 kN~2000 kN, 1000 kN~4000 Auxiliary Pier
kN and 2000 kN~4000 kN,
250 Transition Pier

respectively. In order to achieve the other designed objective (i.e., a small and uniform RD), the yielding
Tower
200 as possible; therefore, Fya = 1000 kN, Fyp = 4000 kN and Fyt = 4000 kN is
strengths should be as large
the other reasonable solution
150
(layout 4 in Table 3).
100
3.4. Comparison of the Designed Results
50
Based on the above analysis, we can obtain four designed layouts as shown in Table 3 accordingly.
We can observe that the 0designed result is different according to different designed objectives.
Comparing the results of the 1000two2000 3000methods,
analysis 4000 5000 6000
it is obvious7000 8000results
that the 9000 are quite similar; the
Fyt[kN]
one-variable analysis results only differ slightly from those of the multi-variable function analysis.
The reason is that one-variable analysis cannot fully consider the influence of three yielding strengths
on structural response and assumes that the three variables
(a) are independent from each other. Therefore,
they are not exactly the same but generally consistent. However, as seen in Table 3, it is easy to
determine that using YSDs 3.00 can effectively improve the bridge’s seismic performance at key locations
Auxiliary Pier
overall, irrespective of which

2.50 designed objective is used. Transition Pier
Tower
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Fyt[kN]
(b)
Figure 21. Seismic responses with varying Fyp. (a) Relative displacement; (b) ratio of capacity to
demand.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 16 of 24
300
Auxiliary Pier
250
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Transition Pier 17 of 25
Tower
200
As a matter of fact, the overall shear force transferred to the column end consists of two parts:
150
one is from the inertial force developed by the girder and the other is from the self-vibration of the
100
column itself. In order to determine the scope of parameter analysis, it is necessary to determine the
50
proportion that the self-vibration response would take. Figures 16b–18b can be obtained after the
possible range of this proportion 0 is determined, and one of the cases is taken as an example to
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
illustrate that this self-vibration ratio is indeed around 0.3.
Fyt[kN]
It can be approximated that the increase of Fy generally constrains the RDs of piers or towers,
and only has a significant impact on its own location compared to the other two. Therefore, it can be
considered that the selection of Fya, Fyp and Fyt is independent (a) and not coupled.
According to Figures 20b–22b,
3.00 the tower has the minimal RCD curve compared with other piers;
Auxiliary Pier
to achieve one of the designed objectives as mentioned in multivariable analysis (large and uniform

RCDs), Fyt should be set to its peak value of 2000 kN as shown in Figure 22b. Then, on the grounds
Tower
2.00
of the intersection of the RCD curves of the auxiliary pier and of the tower in Figure 20b, Fya should
be 4000 kN, and Fyp should1.50 be approximately 4000 kN. Therefore, Fya = 4000 kN, Fyp = 4000 kN and Fyt
= 2000 kN (layout 3 in Table 1.00 3) is one of the reasonable solutions obtained through single variable
function analysis. 0.50

In terms of Figures 20a–22a,
0.00
it is difficult to obtain a set of reasonable yielding strengths directly.
1000
Therefore, it is necessary to draw the 2000 standard
3000 4000 5000 6000
deviation curve 7000 8000 with
varying 9000 each yielding strength
Fyt[kN]
and assume that the three curves are independent of each other. As shown in Figure 23, the
reasonable range of Fya, Fyp and Fyt is 1000 kN~2000 kN, 1000 kN~4000 kN and 2000 kN~4000 kN,
respectively. In order to achieve the other designed (b) objective (i.e., a small and uniform RD), the
yielding strengths
Figure 22. 22.
Figure should
Seismic be as large
responses
Seismic responses withwithas possible;
varying
varying therefore,
FytF.yt(a)
. (a)Relative Fdisplacement;
Relative ya = 1000 kN, F
displacement; (b) yp =Ratio
4000ofof
Ratio kN and Fytto
capacity
capacity = 4000
kN isdemand.
thetoother reasonable solution (layout 4 in Table 3).
demand.
Table Deviation
Standard 3. Key response comparison.
of Relative Displacement
Bridge YSD Layout RCD at
100 RCD at RCD RD at RD at RD at Tower Mid-Span
Standard Deviation Curve (Changing Fya)
System Plan Tower TP at AP Tower TP AP TD Lateral Drift
Standard Deviation Curve (Changing Fyp)
Standard Deviation
80
A Without YSDs 0.59 2.04 1.99 0 417 235 173 515
Standard Deviation Curve (Changing Fyt)
Designed 60
1.21 1.19 1.19 189 108 69 174 312
layout 1 (M) 40
Designed
B 201.17 1.02 1.99 118 125 125 168 227
layout 2 (M)
Designed 0
1.25 1.15 1.24 126 106 53 169 235
layout 3 (S) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Fy[kN]
Figure
Figure23.
23.Standard
Standarddeviation
deviation of RD(changing
ofRD (changing
FyaFor
ya or
FypFor
yp or
FytF
).yt).
It is obvious
3.4. Comparison of thethat the designed
Designed Resultslayouts 2 and 4 can obtain a better seismic performance overall if
other factors, such as tower top drift and girder displacement, are included. It is worth noting that
Based
the on the large
comparable above
RCD analysis, we can
at the auxiliary pierobtain four designed
from layouts layouts
2 and 4 is almost theas
sameshown
as thatinof Table
the 3
accordingly. We can
bridge system observe
without YSDs,that the indicates
which designedtheresult is design
seismic different according
capacity of the to different
auxiliary pierdesigned
can
objectives. Comparing
essentially the for
be decreased results of the two analysis methods, it is obvious that the results are quite
cost efficiency.
similar; the one-variable analysis results only differ slightly from those of the multi-variable function
analysis. The reason is that one-variable analysis cannot fully consider the influence of three yielding
strengths on structural response and assumes that the three variables are independent from each
other. Therefore, they are not exactly the same but generally consistent. However, as seen in Table 3,
it is easy to determine that using YSDs can effectively improve the bridge’s seismic performance at
key locations overall, irrespective of which designed objective is used.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 17 of 24
4. Dynamic Vibration of Bridge Systems with and without YSDs

As mentioned above, Table 3 shows the averaged maximum response comparison of the two
bridge systems with and without YSDs. Firstly, the RCD of the tower column significantly jumps to
around 1.2 from 0.59, which means that the internal force of the tower column is significantly reduced
and thus meets seismic performance after using the YSDs. Secondly, the RDs were reduced by 59%~75%
and 35%~77% at the transition pier and auxiliary pier, respectively. Meanwhile, the yielding strength
of each YSD can be designed, making the RCD large and uniform or the RD small and uniform.
This phenomenon can be explained by the system switch during the vibration, which is caused
by the yielding of YSDs when the peak acceleration of the ground motion occurs. By investigating
the first two dominant transversal modes of the two systems (Table 5), it can be seen that there are
three main characteristics of the system switch: (1) the lateral deformation of the girder becomes
uniform, which avoids the extremely large lateral drift in the mid-span and girder’s two ends; (2) the
uncoupled girder–tower deformation, which reduces the inertia force transmitted from the deck,
and consequently decreases the bending moment of tower below the deck and the tower top drift; and
(3) the delay of the period of post-yielding dominant transversal mode (transversal swing) until around
7.41s, resulting away from the predominant periods (3–4 s) of the ground motion, which restrains the
girder displacement after yielding. Therefore, this dynamic behavior also shows why a better seismic
performance will be achieved when we adopt the designed result based on the designed objective RD.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 18 of 24
Appl.
Appl.
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Appl. 2019,
2019,
Sci.
Sci.
Sci.
Sci. 9,
2019,
2019,
2019,
2019,
Sci. 2019,9,x9,
9,9, xxFOR
x9,
9, xFOR
xFOR
FOR PEER
FOR
xFORPEERREVIEW
PEER
PEER
PEER
PEER
FOR REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 19
19
19
19 of
19
19of25
of
of
19 25
of
of
2525
of 25
25
25
Table 5. Dominant transversal modes of the cable-stayed bridge.

Table
Table
Table
Table 5.
Table
Table
Table 5.Dominant
5.5. Dominant
5.
5.Dominant
Dominant
5. transversal
Dominant
Dominant
Dominant transversal modes
transversal
transversal
transversal modes
transversal of
of
modes
modes
modes
modes
transversal the
of
ofof
of
modes the
the
of cable-stayed
the
the cable-stayed
the bridge.
cable-stayed
cable-stayed
cable-stayed
cable-stayed
the bridge.
bridge.
bridge.
bridge.
bridge.
cable-stayed bridge.
YSD System (After Yielding)
Conventional System
YSD
YSD
YSD
YSD
YSD
YSD
YSDSystem
System
System
System
System
System
System (After
(After
(After
(After
(After
(After
(AfterYielding)
Yielding)
Yielding)
Yielding)
Yielding)
Yielding)
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional System
System
System
System
System
System layout 3Yielding) layout 4
Conventional System Top View Side View layout
layout 3
layout33333 layout
layout4444444
layout
layout
layout
layout 3
layout layout
layout
layout
Top View Side View MPMR Period Top Top
Top
Top View
Top
Top
TopView
View
View
View
View
View Side
Side
Side
Side
Side
SideSideView
View
View
View
View
View
View MPMR MPMR layoutPeriod
Period
Top
Top
Top
Top View
Top
Top
TopView
View
View
View
View
View Side
Side
Side
Side View
Side
Side
Side View MPMR
View
View
View
View
View MPMR Period
MPMR
MPMR
MPMR
MPMR
MPMR Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period MPMR
MPMR
MPMR
MPMR
MPMR
MPMR Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
MPMR Period MPMR
MPMR
MPMR
MPMR
MPMR
Period MPMR
MPMR Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
10.8%
10.8%
10.8%
10.8%
10.8%
10.8%
10.8%
10.8% 3.42
3.42
3.42
3.42
3.42 ssssssss
3.42
3.42
3.42 48.0%
48.0%
48.0%
48.0%
48.0%
48.0%
48.0%
48.0% 7.30
7.30sssssss 48.4%
7.30
7.30
7.30
7.30
7.30
7.30 48.4%
48.4%
48.4%
48.4%
48.4%
48.4%
48.4% 7.52
7.52ssssssss
7.52
7.52
7.52
7.52
7.52
7.52
53.5%
53.5%
53.5%
53.5%
53.5%
53.5%
53.5%
53.5% 1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18 ssssssss
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18 19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0% 0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95 ssssssss 19.0%
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95 19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0% 0.95
0.95sssssss
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Note:
Note:
Note:
Note: MPMR
Note:
Note:
Note:MPMR
MPMR
MPMR means
MPMR
MPMR
MPMRmeans
means
means the
means
means
means the
the
the modal
modal
the
themodal
modal
the participating
participating
modal
modalparticipating
participating
modal mass
participating
participatingmassratio
mass
mass
mass
mass
participating ratioin
ratio
ratio
ratio
mass in
ratio
in
in
ratio the
inthe
in
the
in transversal
the
the
the transversaldirection.
transversal
transversal
transversal
the direction.
transversal direction.
direction.
direction.
direction.
transversal direction.
Note: MPMR means the modal participating mass ratio in the transversal direction.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 19 of 24
5. Equal Yielding Strength Analysis

5. Equal Yielding Strength Analysis
According to the above analysis, designing by using one-variable analysis is relatively simple,
According to the above analysis, designing by using one-variable analysis is relatively simple, but
but the yielding strengths of the YSDs at each location are often unequal, which means various
the yielding strengths of the YSDs at each location are often unequal, which means various specifications
specifications of YSDs are needed. Meanwhile, the system switch actually demonstrates the
of YSDs are needed. Meanwhile, the system switch actually demonstrates the effectiveness of the
effectiveness of the YSDs is according to the delay of the period of the post-yielding dominant
YSDs is according to the delay of the period of the post-yielding dominant transversal mode, which
transversal mode, which restrains the girder displacement after yielding. Therefore, an equal yielding
restrains the girder displacement after yielding. Therefore, an equal yielding strength, which means
strength, which means Fya = Fyp = Fyt may be reasonable for engineering practice. Additionally, the
Fya = Fyp = Fyt may be reasonable for engineering practice. Additionally, the calculated cases were
calculated cases were greatly reduced from 441 to 5.
greatly reduced from 441 to 5.
Figure 24 and table 6 show that the RCD can be large and uniform when the yielding strength is
Figure 24 and Table 6 show that the RCD can be large and uniform when the yielding strength is
3000 kN, and the RD can be small and uniform when the yielding strength is 2000 kN.
3000 kN, and the RD can be small and uniform when the yielding strength is 2000 kN.
350
Auxiliary Pier
300
Transition Pier
250
Tower
200
150
100
50
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fy[kN]
(a)
3.50
Auxiliary Pier
3.00
Transition Pier
2.50
Tower
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fy[kN]
(b)
Figure 24. Seismic
Figure 24. Seismicresponses
responses with
with varying
varying Fy.Relative
Fy . (a) (a) Relative displacement;
displacement; (b)ofratio
(b) ratio of capacity
capacity to
to demand.
demand.
Table 6. Key response comparison (Units: mm).
Bridge YSD Layout RCDTable

of RCD 6. Key
of response
RCD of comparison
RD of (Units:
RD of mm).RD of Tower Mid-Span
System Plan Tower TP AP Tower TP AP TD Lateral Drift
Bridge YSD Layout RCD of RCD of RCD RD of RD of RD of Tower Mid-Span
System Without
Plan Tower 2.04 TP 1.99 of AP 0 Tower 417 TP
A 0.59 235AP TD
173 Lateral
515 Drift
YSDs
A Without YSDs 0.59 2.04 1.99 0 417 235 173 515
Designed
Designed layout 1.24 1.30 1.44 124 130 80 164 198
B layout 5 1.24 1.30 1.44 124 130 80 164 198
5
Designed
B 1.28 1.70 1.66 189 170 152 165 245
Designed
layout 6layout
1.28 1.70 1.66 189 170 152 165 245
6
Note: TP means the transition pier, AP means the auxiliary pier, and TD means top drift. Designed layout 5:
Fya = 3000
Note: TP means
kN, Fypthe= 3000
transition Fyt =AP
kN andpier, means
3000 the auxiliary
kN (designed pier, and
for a large anduniform
TD means topdesigned
RCD), drift. Designed
layout 6:
F ya = 2000 kN, F yp = 2000 kN and F yt = 2000 kN (designed for a small and uniform RD).
layout 5: Fya = 3000 kN, Fyp = 3000 kN and Fyt = 3000 kN (designed for a large and uniform RCD),
designed layout 6: Fya = 2000 kN, Fyp = 2000 kN and Fyt = 2000 kN (designed for a small and uniform
Compared with Table 3, the equal yielding strength can also achieve a significant effect in terms of
RD).
reducing the seismic responses of the bridge in terms of RCD or RD. RD values are reduced by 59%
of reducing the seismic responses of the bridge in terms of RCD or RD. RD values are reduced by
59% and 35% at the transition pier and auxiliary pier for layout 6, respectively, whereas they are
reduced by 68% and 44% for layout 4. Meanwhile, the RCD of the tower column increases to around
1.25 from 0.59 for both layouts 5 and 6, which agrees well with the results of the layouts 1 and 3 by
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857
comprehensive multi-variable and one-variable analysis in Table 3. Remembering layout 3 in20Table
of 24
3, Fyt = 2000 kN is also the designed result by single-variable analysis in terms of RCD at the tower–
girder location, and so layout 6 is preferable.
and 35% at the transition pier and auxiliary pier for layout 6, respectively, whereas they are reduced by
In fact, the yielding strength of YSDs is closely related to the mass of the superstructure, so the
68% and 44% for layout 4. Meanwhile, the RCD of the tower column increases to around 1.25 from 0.59
approximate yielding strength can be quickly determined according to the mass of the
for both layouts 5 and 6, which agrees well with the results of the layouts 1 and 3 by comprehensive
superstructure. The results (Figure 25 and Table 7) show that there is an approximately constant ratio
multi-variable and one-variable analysis in Table 3. Remembering layout 3 in Table 3, Fyt = 2000 kN
relationship between the total yielding strength of YSDs and the weight of the superstructure, at
is also the designed result by single-variable analysis in terms of RCD at the tower–girder location,
around 10%.
and so layout 6 is preferable.
Therefore, in the preliminary analysis, the yielding strength of YSD can be determined by the
In fact, the yielding strength of YSDs is closely related to the mass of the superstructure, so the
weight of the superstructure, and the RCD is large and uniform or the RD is small and uniform. At
approximate yielding strength can be quickly determined according to the mass of the superstructure.
this time, the calculated cases were greatly reduced from 5 to 1, which greatly improves the efficiency
The results (Figure 25 and Table 7) show that there is an approximately constant ratio relationship
of bridge design.
between the total yielding strength of YSDs and the weight of the superstructure, at around 10%.
Standard Deviation of Ratio of Capacity to Demand

0.7
0.6 1.0mass 1.5mass 2.0mass
Standard Deviation
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fy[kN]
(a)
Standard Deviation of Relative Displacement

70
60 1.0mass 1.5mass 2.0mass
Standard Deviation
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fy[kN]
(b)
Figure 25.
Figure 25. Standard
Standard deviation
deviation with
with varying
varying FFyy.. (a)
(a) Standard
Standard deviation of RCD;
deviation of RCD; (b)
(b) standard
standard deviation
deviation
of RD.
of RD. Note:
Note: 1.0
1.0 mass
mass means
means the
the original
original weight
weight of of the
the main
main girder,
girder, 1.5
1.5 mass
mass means
means 1.5
1.5 times
times the
the
original weight, 2.0 mass means 2.0 times the original weight.
original weight, 2.0 mass means 2.0 times the original weight.
Table7.7. The
Table The ratio
ratio between
between the
the yield
yield strength
strength of
of YSDs
YSDs and
and the
the weight
weight of
of the
the superstructure
superstructure (unit:
(unit: kN).
kN).
For a Large
For Largeand
andUniform
UniformRCD
RCD For For a Small
a Small and and Uniform RD
Uniform RD
Yield Strength Weight Ratio Yield Strength Weight Ratio
1.0 mass 12Yield
× 3000Strength 280,000
Weight Ratio
13% Yield
12 ×Strength
2000 Weight
280,000 Ratio
9%
1.5 1.0
massmass 12 ×12 × 3000
4000 280,000
420,000 13%
11% 12 ××3000
12 2000 280,000
420,000 9%9%
1.5
2.0 massmass 12 ×
12 × 4000 4000 420,000
560,000 11%
9% 12 ××4000
12 3000 420,000
560,000 9%9%
2.0 mass 12 × 4000 560,000 9% 12 × 4000 560,000 9%
Therefore, in the preliminary analysis, the yielding strength of YSD can be determined by the
weight of the superstructure, and the RCD is large and uniform or the RD is small and uniform. At this
time, the calculated cases were greatly reduced from 5 to 1, which greatly improves the efficiency of
bridge design.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 21 of 24
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2019,
2019, 9,
9, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 22
22 of
of 25
25
For
For illustration,
illustration, the
the time
time histories
histories of
of the
the bending
bending moment
moment at at the
the bottom
bottom of
of the
the tower
tower and
and the
the RD
RD
between the girder and the transition pier (under the artificial-1) are illustrated in Figures 26
between the girder and the transition pier (under the artificial-1) are illustrated in Figures 26 and 27.and 27.
This
This shows
shows that
that the
the application
application of
of YSDs
YSDs with
with equal
equal yielding
yielding strengths
strengths of of 2000
2000 kN
kN does
does reduce
reduce the
the
moment
moment at the tower bottom and the girder–pier RD effectively, especially during the time when
at the tower bottom and the girder–pier RD effectively, especially during the time steps steps
the
whenground motions
the ground become
motions intensive.
become intensive.
600000
600000
System
System with
with YSD
YSD
400000
400000
System
System without
without YSD
YSD
Moment[kN·m]
Moment[kN·m]
200000
200000
00
-200000
-200000
-400000
-400000
-600000
-600000
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 70
70
Time[s]
Time[s]
Figure 26.
Figure 26. Time
Time history of the
history of the tower
tower bottom
bottom moment.
moment.
0.3
0.3
System
System with
with YSD
YSD
displacement[m]
0.2
Relativedisplacement[m]
0.2
System
System without
without YSD
YSD
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
Relative
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 70
70
Time[s]
Time[s]
Figure
Figure 27.
27. Time
Time history
history of
of the
the relative
relative displacement
displacement between
between the transition pier
the transition pier and
and girder.
girder.
6. Practical Method
6. Practical Method of
of YSD
YSD Design
Design
Based
Based onon the
the above
aboveanalysis,
analysis,aamore
morepractical
practicalmethod
methodtotodetermine
determinethe theyielding
yielding strength
strengthof of
YSDYSD is
proposed
is proposed(Figure
(Figure28).28).
Obviously,
Obviously,unequal yielding
unequal strength
yielding analysis
strength is accurate
analysis but complicated,
is accurate while
but complicated,
equal
while yielding strengthstrength
equal yielding analysis can not only
analysis canachieve
not onlytheachieve
design goal but is also
the design goalrelatively simple,
but is also and so
relatively
the latterand
simple, is more
so thesuitable
latterfor
is engineering
more suitable practice. In addition,
for engineering according
practice. In to the calculation,
addition, accordingthere
to is
the a
ratio relationship
calculation, therebetween
is a ratiothe reasonable between
relationship yielding strength of YSDsyielding
the reasonable and the strength
weight ofofthe mainand
YSDs girder,
the
which
weightisofaround
the main 10%girder,
for a medium-span
which is around cable-stayed
10% for abridge. Therefore,
medium-span the total yielding
cable-stayed bridge. strength
Therefore, of
the total
YSDs canyielding
be obtained strength of the
quickly, YSDs can bestrength
yielding obtainedof quickly, the yielding
YSD is equally appliedstrength of YSD isand
in each location, equally
then
applied
the in each location,
key indicators and then
are checked, theRD
such as keyandindicators
RCD. If itare checked, to
is necessary such as RD
adjust the and RCD.
yielding If it is
strength,
necessary
the yielding to strength
adjust the yielding
analysis strength,
range can bethe yielding strength
determined using the analysis
methodrange can be3.1,
in Section determined
and then
using
the the yielding
equal method in Sectionanalysis
strength 3.1, and can
thenbethe equalout
carried yielding strength
with the analysis
method can be
in Section carried
5 to out with
determine the
the method
yielding in Section
strength of YSD.5 to
Thedetermine
flowchartthe yielding
of this strength
practical designof method
YSD. The flowchart
is shown of this28.
in Figure practical
design method is shown in Figure 28.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 22 of 24
Preliminary Calculate the weight of The total yield strength of YSDs is YSDs are arranged with Calculate the Check RD
bridge design the main girder 10% of the weight of the main girder equal yield strength section capability and RCD
No
Yes
Calculate the maximum The self-vibration response The upper limit of yield Yield strength of YSD
transmissible force calculated by time history strength of YSD Try a few cases is determined according Finished
Fy1=Mu/H Fy2=Msv/H, Msv=aMu F=Fy1-Fy2 to RD and RCD
Figure 28. Practical design method.

Figure 28. Practical design method.
7. 7.Conclusions
Conclusions
Using
UsingYSDs
YSDscancaneffectively
effectively improve bridge’sseismic
improve a bridge’s seismicperformance
performanceatat key
key locations
locations overall.
overall. The
The influence of the yielding strength on the
influence of the yielding strength on the seismic seismic responses of a medium-span cable-stayed bridge
of a medium-span cable-stayed bridge is is
investigated
investigatedthrough
throughcomprehensive
comprehensive parametric analysis,
parametric and reasonable
analysis, layouts of
and reasonable YSDs are
layouts of achieved
YSDs are
according
achievedtoaccording
two different
to twodesign objectives
different designby unequalby
objectives yielding
unequalstrength analysis
yielding strengthand equal yielding
analysis and equal
strength
yieldinganalysis.
strength Then, a more
analysis. Then,practical method to
a more practical quickly
method determine
to quickly the effective
determine yielding
the effective steel
yielding
damper parameter
steel damper is proposed
parameter for engineering
is proposed practice.
for engineering Conclusions
practice. can be drawn
Conclusions as follows:
can be drawn as follows:
11 The
Theincrease
increaseofofthe
theyielding
yieldingstrength
strengthcancaneffectively
effectivelyreduce
reducethetheRDRDatateach
eachlocation,
location,but
butitsits
efficiency
efficiencydecreases
decreaseswith
withthe
theincrease
increaseofofthe
theyielding
yieldingstrength.
strength.For
Forcurrent
currentengineering
engineeringpractice,
practice,
the
theseismic
seismicdesign
designcapacity
capacityofofthe
theauxiliary
auxiliarypierpiercan
canessentially
essentiallybebedecreased
decreased for cost
for efficiency.
cost efficiency.
22 Equal
Equalyielding
yieldingstrength
strengthanalysis
analysisisismuch
muchsimpler
simplerthanthanunequal
unequalyielding
yieldingstrength
strengthanalysis;
analysis;
however,
however, it may not be the most appropriate result theoretically, but it is effective enoughfor
it may not be the most appropriate result theoretically, but it is effective enough for
engineering
engineeringpractices.
practices.
33 Thepractical
The practical design
design method
method using using
equalequal yielding
yielding strength
strength analysisanalysis canreduce
can greatly greatly
thereduce
analysisthe
analysis
cases and cases
henceand hencethe
improve improve the of
efficiency efficiency
seismic of seismic analysis.
analysis.
ItItshould
shouldbebenoted
notedthat
thatthe
theyielding
yieldingstrengths
strengthsachieved
achievedininthis
thisstudy
studymight
mightnotnotwork
workfor
forother
other
cases.
cases.However,
However, wewe
provide a practical
provide procedure
a practical to quickly
procedure achieve
to quickly the proper
achieve yielding
the proper strength
yielding and
strength
layout of steelofdampers
and layout (not only
steel dampers theonly
(not shapetheused in the
shape study
used butstudy
in the also other shapes)
but also otherbyshapes)
simply by
running
simply
a few time ahistory
running analysis
few time cases
history insteadcases
analysis of carrying
insteadout
of comprehensive parametric study,
carrying out comprehensive which might
parametric study,
cause
whichless theoretically
might accurate
cause less valuesaccurate
theoretically but is time-efficient
values but isintime-efficient
engineering practice.
in engineering practice.
Author
Author Contributions:Conceptualization,
Contributions: Conceptualization,methodology
methodologyand andwriting—review
writing—reviewand
andediting,
editing,Y.X.;
Y.X.;validation,
validation,
analysis and writing—original draft preparation, Z.Z.; software and investigation, C.C.; investigation and data
analysis and writing—original draft preparation, Z.Z.; software and investigation, C.C.; investigation and data
curation, S.Z.
curation, S.Z.
Funding: This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Plan, China, grant number
Funding: This research
2017YFC1500702 was funded
and the National by Foundation
Science National Key of Research andnumber
China, grant Development Plan, China, grant number
51878492.
2017YFC1500702 and the National Science Foundation of China, grant number 51878492.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Reference
1. Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges; China Communications Press: Beijing, China, 2008.
2. 1. Guidelines
Code for Seismic
for Seismic Design ofDesign
UrbanofBridges;
Highway Bridges;
China China Communications
Architecture Press:
& Building Press: Beijing,
Beijing, China,
China, 2008.
2011.
3. 2. Code for Seismic
Eurocode8: Design of Urban
Design Provisions Bridges; Resistance
for Earthquake China Architecture & (Draft
of Structures Building Press: Beijing,BSI
for Development); China, 2011.
Group: London,
3. Eurocode8:
UK, 1998. Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures (Draft for Development); BSI Group: London,
4. UK, X.;
Duan, 1998.
Xu, Y. Seismic Design Strategy of Cable Stayed Bridges Subjected to Strong Ground Motio. J. Comput.
4. Duan, X.;
Theor. Nanosci.Xu,2012,
Y. Seismic Design
9, 946–951. Strategy of Cable Stayed Bridges Subjected to Strong Ground Motio. J.
[CrossRef]
5. Comput.
Ali, H.E.M.; Theor. Nanosci. 2012,
Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M. 9, Seismic
946–951.energy dissipation for cable-stayed bridges using passive devices.
5. Ali, H.E.M.;
Earthq. Abdel-Ghaffar,
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1994,A.M. Seismic energy
23, 877–893. dissipation for cable-stayed bridges using passive devices.
[CrossRef]
6. Earthq.
Ali, H.M.;Eng. Struct. Dyn.A.M.
Abdel-Ghaffar, 1994,Modeling
23, 877–893.
the nonlinear seismic behavior of cable-stayed bridges with passive
6.control bearings.
Ali, H.M.; Comput. Struct.
Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M.1995, 54, 461–492.
Modeling [CrossRef]
the nonlinear seismic behavior of cable-stayed bridges with
7. Domaneschi, M.; Martinelli,
passive control L. Extending
bearings. Comput. Struct.the benchmark
1995, cable-stayed bridge for transverse response under
54, 461–492.
7.seismic
Domaneschi, J. Bridge
loading.M.; Eng. L.
Martinelli, 2014, 19, 04013003.
Extending [CrossRef]
the benchmark cable-stayed bridge for transverse response under
seismic loading. J. Bridge Eng. 2014, 19, 04013003.
8. Caicedo, J.M.; Dyke, S.J.; Moon, S.J.; Bergman, L.A.; Turan, G.; Hague, S. Phase ii benchmark control
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 23 of 24
8. Caicedo, J.M.; Dyke, S.J.; Moon, S.J.; Bergman, L.A.; Turan, G.; Hague, S. Phase ii benchmark control problem
for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. J. Struct. Control 2003, 10, 137–168. [CrossRef]
9. Dyke, S.J.; Caicedo, J.M.; Turan, G.; Bergman, L.A.; Hague, S. Phase i benchmark control problem for seismic
response of cable-stayed bridges. J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 129, 857–872. [CrossRef]
10. Agrawal, A.K.; Yang, J.N.; He, W.L. Applications of some semiactive control systems to benchmark
cable-stayed bridge. J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 129, 884–894. [CrossRef]
11. Domaneschi, M.; Martinelli, L. Performance comparison of passive control schemes for the numerically
improved asce cable-stayed bridge model. Earthq. Struct. 2012, 3, 181–201. [CrossRef]
12. Soneji, B.B.; Jangid, R.S. Passive hybrid systems for earthquake protection of cable-stayed bridge. Eng. Struct.
2007, 29, 57–70. [CrossRef]
13. Soneji, B.; Jangid, R. Response of an isolated cable-stayed bridge under bi-directional seismic actions.
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 6, 347–363. [CrossRef]
14. Casciati, F.; Cimellaro, G.P.; Domaneschi, M. Seismic reliability of a cable-stayed bridge retrofitted with
hysteretic devices. Comput. Struct. 2008, 86, 1769–1781. [CrossRef]
15. Saha, P.; Jangid, R. Seismic control of benchmark cable-stayed bridge using passive hybrid systems. IES J.
Part A Civ. Struct. Eng. 2009, 2, 1–16. [CrossRef]
16. Jung, H.-J.; Spencer Billie, F.; Lee, I.-W. Control of seismically excited cable-stayed bridge employing
magnetorheological fluid dampers. J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 129, 873–883. [CrossRef]
17. Iemura, H.; Pradono, M.H. Application of pseudo-negative stiffness control to the benchmark cable-stayed
bridge. J. Struct. Control 2003, 10, 187–203. [CrossRef]
18. Moon, S.-J.; A Bergman, L.; Asce, M.G.; Voulgaris, P. Sliding mode control of cable-stayed bridge subjected to
seismic excitation. J. Eng. Mech. 2003, 129. [CrossRef]
19. Zhou, L.; Wang, X.; Ye, A. Shake table test on transverse steel damper seismic system for long span
cable-stayed bridges. Eng. Struct. 2019, 179, 106–119. [CrossRef]
20. Shen, X.; Camara, A.; Ye, A. Effects of seismic devices on transverse responses of piers in the sutong bridge.
Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2015, 14, 611–623. [CrossRef]
21. Shen, X.; Wang, X.; Ye, Q.; Ye, A. Seismic performance of transverse steel damper seismic system for long
span bridges. Eng. Struct. 2017, 141, 14–28. [CrossRef]
22. Deng, K.; Pan, P.; Wang, C. Development of crawler steel damper for bridges. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 85, 140–150.
[CrossRef]
23. Ismail, M.; Rodellar, J.; Ikhouane, F. An innovative isolation device for aseismic design. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1168–1183.
[CrossRef]
24. Maleki, S.; Bagheri, S. Pipe damper, part i: Experimental and analytical study. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2010, 66, 1088–1095.
[CrossRef]
25. Maleki, S.; Bagheri, S. Pipe damper, part ii: Application to bridges. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2010, 66, 1096–1106.
[CrossRef]
26. Guan, Z.; Li, J.; Xu, Y. Performance test of energy dissipation bearing and its application in seismic control of
a long-span bridge. J. Bridge Eng. 2010, 15, 622–630. [CrossRef]
27. Parducci, A.M. Seismic isolation of bridges in italy. Bull. N. Z. Natl. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 1992, 25, 193–202.
28. Xu, Y.; Wang, R.; Li, J. Experimental verification of a cable-stayed bridge model using passive energy
dissipation devices. J. Bridge Eng. 2016, 21, 04016092. [CrossRef]
29. Agostino, M. Development of a new type of hysteretic damper for the seismic protection of bridges. Spec. Publ.
1996, 164, 955–976.
30. Zhu, B.; Wang, T.; Zhang, L. Quasi-static test of assembled steel shear panel dampers with optimized shapes.
Eng. Struct. 2018, 172, 346–357. [CrossRef]
31. Xiao-xian, L.I.U.; Jian-zhong, L.I.; Xu, C. Effects of x-shaped elastic-plastic steel shear keys on transverse
seismic responses of a simply-supported girder bridge. J. Vib. Shock 2015, 34, 143–149.
32. Pan, P.; Yan, H.; Wang, T.; Xu, P.; Xie, Q. Development of steel dampers for bridges to allow large displacement
through a vertical free mechanism. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2014, 13, 375–388. [CrossRef]
33. Vasseghi, A. Energy dissipating shear key for precast concrete girder bridges. Sci. Iran. 2011, 18, 296–303.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857 24 of 24
34. Wang, H.; Zhou, R.; Zong, Z.; Wang, C.; Li, A. Study on seismic response control of a single-tower
self-anchored suspension bridge with elastic-plastic steel damper. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2012, 55, 1496–1502.
[CrossRef]
35. Ismail, M.; Casas Joan, R. Novel isolation device for protection of cable-stayed bridges against near-fault
earthquakes. J. Bridge Eng. 2014, 19, A4013002. [CrossRef]
36. SAP2000; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1996.
37. CSI Aanalysis Reference Manual; Computers & Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2016.
38. Bathe, K.-J.; Wilson, E.L. Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
USA, 1976.
39. Ernst, H.J. Der e-modul von seilen unter beruecksichtigung des durchhanges. Der Bauing. 1965, 40, 52–55.
40. Battaini, M.M. Base isolation of allied join force command headquarters naples. In Proceedings of the 10th
World Conference on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibrations Control of Structures,
Istanbul, Turkey, 27–30 May 2007.
41. Priestley, M.J.N.; Seible, F.; Calvi, G.M. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridge; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 1996.
42. Oh, S.-H.; Song, S.-H.; Lee, S.-H.; Kim, H.-J. Seismic response of base isolating systems with u-shaped
hysteretic dampers. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2012, 12, 285–298. [CrossRef]
43. Martins, A.M.B.; Simões, L.M.C.; Negrão, J.H.J.O. Optimization of cable forces on concrete cable-stayed
bridges including geometrical nonlinearities. Comput. Struct. 2015, 155, 18–27. [CrossRef]
44. Anil, K.C. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering; Pearson Education, Inc.:
London, UK, 2012.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Practical Design Method of Yielding Steel Dampers PDF

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

Practical Design Method of Yielding Steel Dampers PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Abstract: Restrained transversal tower/pier–girder connections of cable-stayed bridges may lead

Keywords: cable-stayed bridge; transversal direction; yielding steel damper; design

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2857; doi:10.3390/app9142857 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

2. The Analytical Model and Input Ground Motions

2.1. FE Modelling of the Cable-Stayed Bridge

Table 2. The boundary condition of the bridge.

Degree of Freedom Degree of Freedom

Figure 3. Finite Figure

Figure 5. One applied YSD and its connection.

2.2. FE Model Validation

Figure 9. The displacement of the top tower.

Figure 9. The displacement of the top tower.

Figure 10. The displacement of the middle tower.

Fymax —the upper limit of the YSD yielding strength

Figure 15. Responses of the tower column with varying

Figure 16. Standard deviation of RCD.

Figure 18. Standard deviation of relative displacement (RD).

Figure 19. Contour of standard deviation of RD (Fya = 1000 kN).

2.50 Transition Pier

Table 4. Proportion of the above natural vibration responses.

2.50 Transition Pier

250 Transition Pier

overall, irrespective of which

2.50 Transition Pier

function analysis. 0.50

4. Dynamic Vibration of Bridge Systems with and without YSDs

Table 5. Dominant transversal modes of the cable-stayed bridge.

5. Equal Yielding Strength Analysis

Bridge YSD Layout RCDTable

Standard Deviation of Ratio of Capacity to Demand

Standard Deviation of Relative Displacement

Figure 28. Practical design method.

You might also like