Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Passive hybrid systems for earthquake protection of cable-stayed bridge

B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid ∗
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai - 400 076, India

Received 21 September 2005; received in revised form 20 March 2006; accepted 28 March 2006
Available online 24 May 2006

Abstract

The performance of passive hybrid control systems for the earthquake protection of a cable-stayed bridge under real earthquake ground motion
is presented. A simplified lumped mass finite-element model of the Quincy Bay-view Bridge at Illinois is used for the investigation. A viscous
fluid damper (VFD) is used as a passive supplemental energy dissipation device in association with elastomeric and sliding isolation systems to
form a passive hybrid control system. The effects of non-linear viscous damping of the VFD on the seismic response of an isolated cable-stayed
bridge are examined by taking different values of velocity exponent of the damper. Further, the influence of a variation in viscous damping on
the response of the isolated bridge is also investigated. The seismic response of the bridge with passive hybrid systems is compared with the
corresponding response of the bridge with only isolation systems, as well as with the uncontrolled bridge. The results of the investigation show
that the addition of supplemental damping in the form of a viscous fluid damper significantly reduces the earthquake response of an isolated
cable-stayed bridge. The non-linear viscous damping is found to be more effective in controlling the peak isolator displacement of the isolated
bridge while simultaneously limiting the base shear in towers.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cable-stayed bridge; Isolation; Viscous fluid damper; Earthquake response; Passive hybrid systems

1. Introduction because of the large displacement response of the deck, it also

Because of the flexibility of cable-stayed bridge, the deck
experiences a large displacement response when subjected
to dynamic loads such as an earthquake or wind. As a
result, the connections between the deck and the tower of
the bridge become quite vulnerable under dynamic loads.
A rigid connection between the tower and the deck will
reduce the deck displacement but increases the base shear of
the towers. The simplest way to overcome this situation is
through the use of a base isolation technique by providing
isolation bearings and supporting the deck at all locations. In
the past, a very limited amount of research work had been
done on investigating the effectiveness of seismic isolation for
cable-stayed bridges [1–3]. These studies had shown that the
isolation in cable-stayed bridges could significantly reduce the
seismically induced forces in the tower of the bridge. However,
the isolation increases the displacement response of the deck,
creating an uncomfortable condition for the traffic. Moreover,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 2572 2545; fax: +91 22 2572 3480.
E-mail address: rsjangid@civil.iitb.ac.in (R.S. Jangid).
becomes difficult to provide the required seismic gap at the
deck edges along the longitudinal direction. In such a situation,
supplemental damping, in addition to the isolation, can help
greatly to reduce displacement of the deck and the tower base
shear of the cable-stayed bridge.
There are wide varieties of passive energy dissipation
devices that can be used to control the dynamic response
of the structures, such as a metallic yield damper, friction
damper, viscous fluid damper and viscoelastic damper etc. [4].
However, the most rapid growth in the application of
supplemental damping systems to buildings and bridges has
occurred for viscous fluid dampers, primarily because of
the high-energy dissipation capacity of the dampers. There
had been several analytical and experimental investigations
conducted on a seismically isolated building and bridge
models with fluid viscous dampers [5–10]. The results of
the investigations demonstrated a simultaneous reduction
of the bearing displacement and force transmitted to the
superstructure. Iemura and Pradono [11] investigated the
effectiveness of passive linear type dampers and semi-active
variable dampers along with elastomeric bearings for the

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.034
58 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70
(a) The bridge model.
(b) Finite element model of towers.
Fig. 1. Details of the semi-harp type cable-stayed bridge model.
earthquake response control of a cable-stayed bridge. In
addition, the performance of semi-active and active hybrid
strategies for the earthquake protection of building and
bridge structures, including cable-stayed bridges, are also
investigated [12–18]. Although there are several investigations
conducted into the application of passive hybrid systems for
buildings and multi-span bridges, studies of flexible structures
like cable-stayed bridges are meager.
In the present study, the performance of passive hybrid
control systems for the earthquake protection of a cable-stayed
bridge under real earthquake ground motion is investigated. The
passive hybrid system is a combination of isolation bearings
(elastomeric as well as sliding systems) and viscous fluid
dampers (VFD) used as a supplemental energy dissipation
device. The specific objectives of the present study are
summarized as: (i) to investigate the performance of different
passive hybrid systems for the earthquake response control of
a cable-stayed bridge; (ii) to investigate the influence of non-
linear viscous damping of the VFD on the seismic response
of isolated bridge; and (iii) to arrive at the values of design
parameters of the VFD that provide optimal response control
of the isolated cable-stayed bridge.
2. The cable-stayed bridge model
The bridge model used in this study is that of the
Quincy Bay-view Bridge crossing the Mississippi River at
Quincy, Illinois. The bridge consists of two H-shaped concrete
towers, double plane semi-harp type cables and a composite
concrete–steel girder bridge deck. A detailed description of the
bridge can be found in Wilson and Gravelle [19]. A simplified
lumped mass finite-element model of the bridge considered
for seismic investigations is shown in Fig. 1(a). The bridge is
symmetrical about the vertical centroidal axes. The bridge has
a central span of 274 m flanked by two side spans of 134 m
each. The height of the towers above and below the deck is
53.7 m and 17 m, respectively. For the purpose of analysis, the
deck is divided into 29 members, and each tower is divided
into 11 members. Depending on the geometry, the towers are
divided into three parts. The finite-element model of the towers
is shown separately in Fig. 1(b). There are 28 cable members:
14 supporting the main span and 7 supporting each side span.
The cable members are spaced at 2.75 m c/c at the upper part
of the towers and are equally spaced at deck level on the side
spans as well as the main spans. The relevant properties of the
bridge deck (for equivalent steel area) and towers are given in
Table 1, while those of the cables are given in Table 2. The left
and right anchor supports are kept as roller supports. The bridge
deck is assumed to be a continuous beam, rigidly connected to
the towers such that the deck moment will not be transferred to
the tower through the deck–tower connection. The towers are
considered to be fixed at the base. For implementing seismic
isolation, the isolators are placed at each of the four supports
of the deck, replacing the conventional bearings. The VFDs
are placed along the longitudinal and transverse directions at
these locations (refer to Fig. 2), so as to provide a link between
the deck of the bridge and the abutments and towers. This
configuration is adopted to achieve effective energy dissipation
at all deck-support junctions.
 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70 59

Table 1
Properties of the deck and towers of cable-stayed bridge

Part of the Cross-sectional Moment of inertia about Moment of inertia about Moment of inertia about Young’s Mass density
structure area (m2 ) z–z axis (m4 ) y–y axis (m4 ) x–x axis (m4 ) modulus (MPa) (kg/m3 )
Deck 0.827 0.341 19.760 0.027 205 000 7850
Tower part 1 14.120 28.050 531.580 15.390 30 787 2400
Tower part 2 14.120 28.050 670.970 15.390 30 787 2400
Tower part 3 17.540 30.620 1239.400 19.760 30 787 2400
Tower part 4 35.390 32.750 1422.420 27.640 30 787 2400

Table 2 3. Seismic isolation systems

Properties for the stay cables of the cable-stayed bridge

Cable no. Cross-sectional area Young’s modulus Cable weight

3.1. High-damping rubber bearing
(m2 ) (MPa) (N/m)
The dominant features of high-damping rubber bearing
1 0.0180 205 000 1765.80
2 0.0135 205 000 1324.35
(HDRB) systems are the parallel action of a linear spring and
3 0.0107 205 000 1049.67 viscous damping. The restoring bearing forces Fx and Fy ,
4 0.0070 205 000 686.70 developed in two orthogonal horizontal directions (referred to
as the x- and y-directions), are given by the relation
       
Fx c 0 ẋb k 0 xb
= b + b (1)
Fy 0 cb ẏb 0 kb yb
where xb and yb are the displacements of the bearing in the
x- and y-directions, respectively; ẋb and ẏb are the isolator
velocities along the x- and y- directions, respectively; and
cb and kb represent the damping and stiffness of the HDRB
system, respectively. The stiffness and damping of the HDRB
system are selected to provide the specific values of the two
Fig. 2. Positions of the VFD and isolators. parameters, namely the isolation time-period (Tb ) and the
damping ratio (ξb ), defined as
A cable-stayed bridge, in general, behaves non-linearly
r
md
when loaded. The degree of non-linearity will vary with the Tb = 2π (2)
6kb
stiffness of the various members and the amount of pre-tension
6cb
in cables under self-load. However, the research on an ambient ξb = (3)
vibration survey of the cable-stayed bridge carried out by 2m d ωb
Wilson and Liu [20] demonstrated that a completely linear where m d is the mass of the deck and ωb = 2π/Tb is the
model was sufficient to get reasonably accurate results for the isolation frequency of the bearing system. The 10% damping
Quincy Bay-view Bridge. As a result, no attempts are made to in HDRB is selected for the present study.
introduce non-linearity into the model to study the effectiveness
of passive control systems. 3.2. Lead rubber bearing
The deck and the tower members are modeled as space frame
elements. The cables are modeled as linear elastic space truss Lead rubber bearings (LRB) are similar to the HDRB,
elements. The stiffness characteristics of an inclined cable can but a lead plug at the center of the bearing is inserted to
exhibit a non-linear behavior caused by cable sag. This non- increase the initial rigidity and damping capacity. For the
linear behavior can be taken into account by linearization of the present study, the model proposed by Park et al. [23] is used to
cable stiffness using an equivalent modulus of elasticity that is characterize hysteretic behavior of the LRB. The experimental
less than the true material modulus [21,22]. For the analysis verification of the model is carried out by Nagarjaiah et al. [24].
of the bridge under consideration, Wilson and Grevelle [19] The restoring forces, Fx and Fy , of the LRB system in two
found the value of equivalent modulus essentially equal to the horizontal directions are given by the relation
true modulus of elasticity. Hence, the non-linearity due to cable
       
Fx c 0 ẋb k 0 xb
sag is neglected and cables are treated as having a completely = b +α b
Fy 0 cb ẏb 0 kb yb
linear force–deformation relationship, described by the true  
y Zx
material modulus of elasticity. Moreover, cables are assumed + (1 − α)F (4)
to be capable of bearing tension as well as compression, Zy
assuming that the pre-tension in the cables will take care of the where Z x and Z y are the hysteretic displacement components
compression induced in the dynamic analysis. of restoring forces in the x- and y-directions, respectively; kb
60 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70

is the initial bearing stiffness; α is an index that represents the complicated; as a result, the frictional forces of the FPS are
ratio of post- to pre-yield stiffness; and F y is the yield force of represented by a continuous hysteretic model [25,26]. The
the bearing. frictional forces mobilized in the FPS are given by
The hysteretic displacement components Z x and Z y
satisfy the following coupled non-linear first-order differential Fsx = Fs Z x (9)
equation expressed as Fsy = Fs Z y (10)
 
Ż x where Fs is the limiting frictional force; and Z x and Z y are the
q
Ż y
" # dimensionless hysteretic displacement components satisfying
A − βsgn(ẋb )|Z x |Z x − τ Z x2 −βsgn( ẏb )|Z y |Z x − τ Z x Z y Eq. (5). The parameter q of Eq. (5) is taken to be equal to
=
−βsgn(ẋb )|Z x |Z y − τ Z x Z y A − βsgn( ẏb )|Z y |Z y − τ Z 2y 10−4 m, keeping other parameters the same as those of the
  LRB.
ẋ
× b (5)
ẏb
4. Viscous fluid dampers
where q is the yield displacement; and β, τ and A are
the dimensionless parameters selected such that the predicted A VFD dissipates energy by pushing fluid through an
response from the model closely matches the experimental orifice, producing a damping pressure, which creates a force.
results. The damping constant and the velocity exponent are the two
The LRB system is characterized by the isolation period properties that govern the selection of VFD. In a viscous
(Tb ), damping ratio (ξb ) (defined in Eq. (3)), and normalized damping model, the output of the damper (i.e. damper force)
yield strength F0 . The parameters Tb and F0 can be defined as is given by [6]

r
md
Tb = 2π (6)
6αkb
6Fy
F0 =
Wd
where αkb is the post-yield stiffness of the bearing; Wd = m d g
is the weight of the bridge deck; and F y is the yield strength of
the bearing.
The viscous damping provided by the natural rubber of the
LRB is low; hence, for the present study, the damping ratio of
the LRB, ξb , is taken as 5%. The normalized yield strength, F0 ,
and the yield displacement, q, of the bearing are taken to be
equal to 0.05, and 0.025 m, respectively. The other parameters
of the LRB system, which do not affect the peak response much,
are kept constant (i.e. β = τ = 0.5, A = 1).
3.3. Friction pendulum system
The friction pendulum system (FPS) develops a lateral force
equal to the combination of the mobilized frictional force
and the restoring force that develops because of rising of
the structure along the spherical surface. The resisting forces
provided by the FPS can be given by
      
Fx kb 0 xb F
= + sx (8)
Fy 0 kb yb Fsy
where kb is the bearing stiffness provided by virtue of the
inward gravity action at the concave surface; and Fsx and Fsy
are the frictional forces in the x- and y-directions, respectively.
The system is characterized by bearing isolation period (Tb ),
which depends on the radius of curvature of concave surface
and the friction coefficient (µ). In the present investigation, the
value of the friction coefficient is taken as 0.05.
The conventional model of FPS requires a track of sliding
and non-sliding phases, resulting in a different set of equations
in different phases of motion. This is quite cumbersome and
Fd = sgn(v̇)cd |v̇ λ |
(11)
where cd = 2ξd m d ωb is the damping coefficient of the damper;
ξd represents the damping ratio of the damper; v̇ is the velocity
(7)
across the damper; and λ is the velocity exponent. The value of
λ ranges between 0.3 and 2. A design with λ equal to 1 results
in a linear viscous damper. In the present study, the influence
of linear and non-linear viscous damping on the response of
seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge is investigated.
5. Governing equations of motion
The equations of motion of the passively controlled cable-
stayed bridge system subjected to earthquake ground motion is
expressed in the following matrix form [27]:
[M]{ü} + [C]{u̇} + [K ]{u} + [D]{F} = −[M][r ]{ü g } (12)
{u} = {x1 , y1 , z 1 , . . . , x N , y N , z N }T (13)
{ü g } = {ẍ g , ÿg , 0}
T
(14)
where [M], [K ] and [C] are the mass, stiffness and damping
matrices, respectively, of the bridge structure of order 3N ×
3N (where N is the number of degrees of freedom in a
particular direction); {ü}, {u̇}, and {u} represent structural
acceleration, structural velocity and structural displacement
vectors, respectively; [D] is the location matrix for the restoring
forces of isolators; {F} is the vector containing the restoring
forces of isolators; [r ] is the influence coefficient matrix of
order 3N ×3; {ü g } is the earthquake ground acceleration vector;
ẍ g and ÿg represent the earthquake ground accelerations in the
longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively; and xi , yi
and z i are the displacements of the ith node of the bridge in the
longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions, respectively.
The lumped mass matrix has a diagonal form. Each element
of the matrix is the sum of half of the total mass of the
adjacent segments contributing to a particular node. The
 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70
Table 3
Peak ground acceleration of various earthquake ground motions
Earthquake Recording station
Imperial Valley, 1940 El Centro
Kobe, 1995 Japan Meteorological Agency
Loma Prieta, 1989 Los Gatos Presentation Center
Northridge, 1994 Sylmar Converter Station
element stiffness matrix for the cable members is taken to be
the space truss element stiffness matrix, whereas the space
frame element stiffness matrix is adopted for the deck and tower
members. The global stiffness matrix of the whole structure
is constructed by following the standard assembly process
and static condensation is carried out to eliminate rotational
degrees-of-freedom at each node. The assumption of classical
damping may not be appropriate, as the level of damping in the
cable-stayed bridge and the isolation systems are significantly
different. The non-classical damping matrix for the system is
constructed by first evaluating the classical damping matrix
for the bridge alone (without the control systems) from the
assumed modal damping in each mode of vibration using mode
shapes and frequencies of the bridge [27]
[C] = ([M][Φ][Mg−1 ])[C g ]([Mg−1 ][Φ T ][M])
where [Mg ] is the diagonal matrix of generalized modal
masses; [C g ] is the diagonal matrix of generalized modal
damping; and [Φ] is the matrix containing mode shape vectors.
The damping matrix for the complete system is constructed
by directly assembling the damping matrices for the three
subsystems — structure, isolators and VFDs. The portion of
these matrices associated with the common degrees-of-freedom
includes contributions from the subsystems.
The solution of the equations of motion of the controlled
bridge system cannot be carried out using the classical
modal superposition technique as (i) the system is non-
classically damped because of the difference in the damping
in the control system compared to the damping in the
structure, and (ii) the force–deformation behaviour of LRB,
FPS and VFD is non-linear. Therefore, the equations of
motion are integrated numerically using Newmark’s step-by-
step technique, considering the linear variation in acceleration
over the time interval 1t. The time interval has to be kept very
small to achieve stability of Newmark’s method. For the present
study, the time interval selected is 0.02 × 10−2 s.
6. Numerical study
The seismic response of the cable-stayed bridge is
investigated under four different real earthquake ground
motions, namely (i) Imperial Valley, 1940, (ii) Kobe, 1995,
(iii) Loma Prieta, 1989, and (iv) Northridge, 1994 earthquakes.
The first one has been used widely by researchers in the past,
and the last three represent strong earthquake motion records.
Although in the present study the four seismic acceleration
records have been taken from the database, in professional
61
Applied in longitudinal direction of the Applied in transverse direction
bridge of the bridge
Component PGA (g) Component PGA (g)
N00E 0.348 N90E 0.214
N00E 0.834 N90E 0.629
N00E 0.570 N90E 0.607
N00E 0.843 N90E 0.600
applications, deeper attention should be devoted to the sample
(and its size) of the excitation time histories. The peak ground
accelerations (PGAs) of selected earthquake ground motions
are shown in Table 3. The corresponding displacement and
acceleration response spectra of the ground motions for a 2%
damping ratio are shown in Fig. 3. The maximum ordinates
of the spectral acceleration of the selected earthquake motions
occur in the range 0.3–0.6 s, implying that these ground
motions are recorded at rock or firm soil sites. These ground
motions are assumed to act uniformly at all the supports along
the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge, and soil
structure interactions at the bridge supports are neglected.
The fundamental time period of the uncontrolled bridge
is found to be 1.94 s. As damping in the bridge structure
is generally very low, therefore 2% damping is assumed in
(15) the present study. To evaluate the performance of the passive
hybrid control system, the response quantities selected are:
relative displacement in the longitudinal (xb1 ) and transverse
(yb1 ) directions of the isolators at the left abutment; relative
displacement of the isolators in the transverse direction at the
left deck–tower junction (yb2 ); absolute acceleration of the deck
in the longitudinal (ẍd ) and transverse ( ÿd ) directions at the
left abutment; and the base shear response of the towers along
the longitudinal (Vx ) and transverse (Vy ) directions at the left
tower normalized to the weight of the deck, Wd . The response
quantities are presented only for the left half of the bridge
due to the symmetrical bridge structure. In order to assess
the performance of the passive hybrid systems, the seismic
response of the bridge with a passive hybrid system is compared
with the corresponding response of an isolated and uncontrolled
bridge. For each isolation system, responses are obtained for
isolation time periods of 2 and 2.5 s.
A parametric study is performed to investigate the effect of
variation in damping of the VFD (considering linear viscous
damping, i.e. λ = 1) q on the resultant displacement response of
the isolator, xr (i.e. 2 + y 2 ) and the resultant normalized
xb1
q b1
tower base shear Vr (i.e. Vx2 + Vy2 /Wd ). The results of the
parametric study are presented in Figs. 4–9. The damping
ratio, ξd , of VFD is varied from 5% to 40% of the critical
damping, keeping the isolator parameters constant. Figs. 4 and
5 show the peak resultant response of the bridge controlled
by HDRB and VFD. It can be observed from the Fig. 4
that, for all the earthquakes except Kobe, 1995, the resultant
bearing displacement response increases as the isolation period
increases. This is in agreement with the trend in displacement
spectra of the earthquake ground motions (Fig. 3). Further,
62 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70

Fig. 3. Displacement and acceleration spectra of four earthquake ground motions applied in the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge.

Fig. 4. Effect of variation in damping of the VFD on the peak resultant bearing displacement of the bridge with HDRB (λ = 1 and ξb = 0.1).

it can be seen from the Fig. 4 that, with increasing damping
of the VFD, the displacement response reduces reasonably.
It is observed from Fig. 5 that the tower base shear reduces
with an increase in damping up to a certain level, giving an
optimum value for all earthquakes except the Northridge, 1994
earthquake, for which no optimum value of the damping of the
isolators is found, up to the 40% damping considered for the
investigation.
Figs. 6 and 7 represent the results of the parametric study
performed for the passive hybrid system consisting of LRB with
 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70 63

Fig. 5. Effect of variation in damping of the VFD on the peak resultant tower base shear response of the bridge with HDRB (λ = 1 and ξb = 0.1).

Fig. 6. Effect of variation in damping of the VFD on the peak resultant bearing displacement of the bridge with LRB (λ = 1, ξb = 0.1 and F0 = 0.05).

VFD. It can be observed from the Fig. 6 that, with an increase from Fig. 7 that the optimal damping of VFD is found for the
in damping of the VFD, the displacement response reduces Imperial Valley, 1940 and the Loma Prieta, 1989 earthquakes.
significantly. For the tower base shear response, it is observed For the Kobe, 1995 earthquake, the base shear increases with
64 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70

Fig. 7. Effect of variation in damping of the VFD on the peak resultant tower base shear response of the bridge with LRB (λ = 1, ξb = 0.1 and F0 = 0.05).

Fig. 8. Effect of variation in damping of the VFD on the peak resultant bearing displacement of the bridge with FPS (λ = 1 and µ = 0.05).

an increase in damping of VFD, but at a slower rate. For the
Northridge, 1994 ground motion, the tower base shear reduces
with an increase in ξd for the variation range considered.
The results of the parametric study performed for the passive
hybrid system consisting of FPS with VFD are presented in
Figs. 8 and 9. The trend of the results plotted in Fig. 8 indicates
that the resultant displacement response reduces remarkably
with an increase in the damping of VFD. Further, as depicted
from the Fig. 9, the tower base shear response increases, but at
a much slower rate with increasing ξd for all the earthquakes
 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70
Fig. 9. Effect of variation in damping of the VFD on the peak resultant tower base shear response of the bridge with FPS (λ = 1 and µ = 0.05).
except the Northridge, 1994 earthquake, for which the resultant
tower base shear goes on reducing.
Thus, the results of the parametric study performed by
varying ξd suggest that the use of VFD as a supplemental
damping device along with the isolation is beneficial for the
reduction in seismic response of the cable-stayed bridge. It is
observed that passive hybrid systems are capable of controlling
the resultant displacement response of the isolators while
simultaneously limiting the resultant base shear response of the
towers.
The results of time history analyses along the longitudinal
and transverse directions are presented in Figs. 10–12 for the
bridge with different passive hybrid systems for the cases with
an isolation time period of 2.0 s under the Imperial Valley, 1940
earthquake. The results obtained for a bridge with isolation
systems only and with a passive hybrid system are plotted in the
same graph for the purpose of comparison. Since the optimum
value of ξd varies with the earthquake ground motions, the
damping ratio of the VFD is judiciously selected as 30% of
the critical damping, which yields a maximum reduction in the
bearing displacement of the isolated bridge without hampering
the significant gain achieved in the base shear response with
the help of isolation. It is observed from the time variation
plots that the reduction in the displacement response of the
isolators is remarkable for a bridge with a passive hybrid
system. Moreover, it is observed that there is little or no increase
in the absolute acceleration of the deck and the base shear
response of the tower in both horizontal directions.
Further, to investigate the influence of non-linear viscous
damping of VFD on the seismic response of a cable-stayed
bridge, the response of the bridge is obtained by taking λ to
be equal to 0.4, 0.7 and 1.0 with 30% viscous damping. The
65
parameters of the isolators are kept unchanged. The peak values
of the response quantities for VFD with HDRB, LRB and FPS
are presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The results are
compared with the responses of an uncontrolled as well as an
isolated bridge.
The analytical investigation indicates that the results
obtained with a passive hybrid system are much better
compared to that of isolation alone. The large displacement
responses of the isolators are significantly reduced, with little
or no increase in the tower base shear by the use of a passive
hybrid system. Further, the response with non-linear viscous
damping is found to be better than that with linear viscous
damping. The value of the velocity exponent, λ = 0.4, is found
to be more effective in controlling the response of the bridge.
While VFD is acting with HDRB (Table 4), the maximum and
minimum reductions in the tower base shear response along the
longitudinal direction are around 85% and 62%, respectively.
However, along the transverse direction, the reduction observed
in the tower base shear is less and in the range of 16%–55%.
The displacement of the HDRB in the longitudinal direction at
the abutment is found to be reduced by up to 65%, whereas
longitudinal and transverse displacements at the deck–tower
junction are found to be reduced by up to 70%. Compared with
the results for Tb equal to 2 s, those for Tb equal to 2.5 s are
not much better, since the reduction in the tower base shear
response is nominal and the displacement of the isolators is
greater.
Similar results are found for passive hybrid systems
composed of VFD with LRB (Table 5) and VFD with FPS
(Table 6). Numerical studies performed for all the passive
hybrid systems indicate that the system with FPS is more
effective in controlling the seismic response of the bridge. For
66 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70

Fig. 10. Time variation of acceleration, base shear and displacement along the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge with HDRB and a passive hybrid
system under the Imperial Valley, 1940 earthquake motion (Tb = 2 s).

Table 4
Peak responses of bridge installed with HDRB, and VFD along with HDRB

Earthquake Response Uncontrolled HDRB HDRB + VFD HDRB HDRB + VFD

quantity response Tb = 2 s λ = 1.0 λ = 0.7 λ = 0.4 Tb = 2.5 s λ = 1.0 λ = 0.7 λ = 0.4
Vx /Wd 0.846 0.176 0.152 0.142 0.128 0.179 0.155 0.145 0.134
Vy /Wd 0.411 0.275 0.266 0.274 0.289 0.276 0.262 0.269 0.285
Imperial Valley, xb1 (mm) – 174.628 112.597 90.983 68.255 241.993 132.818 107.798 82.397
1940 yb1 (mm) – 68.749 34.346 22.354 18.949 63.733 37.097 25.012 23.358
yb2 (mm) – 203.702 141.194 111.45 66.857 263.897 173.968 139.674 87.570

Vx /Wd 1.339 0.434 0.386 0.380 0.371 0.364 0.348 0.354 0.355
Vy /Wd 1.365 0.618 0.614 0.615 0.606 0.626 0.610 0.611 0.606
Kobe, 1995 xb1 (mm) – 357.114 201.909 192.39 178.542 330.969 214.85 200.582 189.003
yb1 (mm) – 135.634 94.409 93.262 95.756 117.124 92.249 91.414 95.860
yb2 (mm) – 236.828 147.985 125.812 109.354 254.654 159.813 142.668 124.618

Vx /Wd 2.297 0.446 0.383 0.382 0.377 0.366 0.391 0.393 0.395
Vy /Wd 0.663 0.535 0.556 0.56 0.557 0.534 0.551 0.555 0.549
Loma Prieta, 1989 xb1 (mm) – 611.689 338.426 333.761 330.653 636.636 399.132 381.305 366.276
yb1 (mm) – 119.201 63.531 54.648 43.512 122.961 66.145 59.224 51.568
yb2 (mm) – 209.731 118.156 99.715 78.649 223.856 151.264 126.985 92.635

Vx /Wd 1.290 0.644 0.508 0.498 0.488 0.589 0.501 0.500 0.486
Vy /Wd 0.909 0.715 0.713 0.708 0.696 0.699 0.704 0.702 0.693
Northridge, 1994 xb1 (mm) – 565.568 352.751 353.4 353.563 609.196 404.693 405.087 404.554
yb1 (mm) – 147.744 80.284 68.162 52.008 141.781 87.171 76.441 65.383
yb2 (mm) – 416.184 265.705 225.553 163.903 422.913 288.057 257.941 206.029
 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70 67

Fig. 11. Time variation of acceleration, base shear and displacement along the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge with LRB and a passive hybrid
system under the Imperial Valley, 1940 earthquake motion (Tb = 2 s).

Table 5
Peak responses of bridge installed with LRB and VFD along with LRB

Earthquake Response Uncontrolled LRB LRB +VFD LRB LRB +VFD

quantity response Tb = 2 s λ = 1.0 λ = 0.7 λ = 0.4 Tb = 2.5 s λ = 1.0 λ = 0.7 λ = 0.4
Vx /Wd 0.846 0.175 0.157 0.148 0.136 0.174 0.158 0.151 0.144
Vy /Wd 0.411 0.273 0.270 0.277 0.285 0.260 0.267 0.272 0.281
Imperial Valley, xb1 (mm) – 142.440 94.520 76.773 59.524 164.936 100.391 83.554 66.991
1940 yb1 (mm) – 62.347 34.114 22.465 17.150 64.394 36.232 25.258 20.036
yb2 (mm) – 174.060 121.329 93.725 56.541 211.913 140.109 108.790 68.325

Vx /Wd 1.339 0.448 0.387 0.382 0.374 0.381 0.359 0.361 0.357
Vy /Wd 1.365 0.608 0.613 0.611 0.603 0.615 0.608 0.610 0.601
Kobe, 1995 xb1 (mm) – 373.031 204.243 193.538 178.888 307.551 196.217 189.126 181.959
yb1 (mm) – 142.965 99.111 98.037 100.851 121.06 96.431 96.706 101.640
yb2 (mm) – 218.555 135.854 124.512 110.622 218.255 144.179 133.371 122.166

Vx /Wd 2.297 0.443 0.381 0.379 0.374 0.361 0.388 0.389 0.393
Vy /Wd 0.663 0.536 0.557 0.562 0.558 0.537 0.551 0.555 0.554
Loma Prieta, 1989 xb1 (mm) – 619.224 339.076 333.888 331.974 624.183 362.987 349.665 357.893
yb1 (mm) – 118.736 66.243 57.425 44.702 117.388 61.680 55.355 48.760
yb2 (mm) – 209.704 114.514 97.277 77.819 204.788 140.617 119.607 90.387

Vx /Wd 1.290 0.661 0.509 0.510 0.502 0.595 0.507 0.506 0.493
Vy /Wd 0.909 0.712 0.711 0.707 0.699 0.701 0.704 0.702 0.696
Northridge, 1994 xb1 (mm) – 585.198 358.654 360.027 360.192 604.691 397.564 398.363 396.613
yb1 (mm) – 141.368 75.630 64.872 51.400 142.312 76.996 67.351 56.882
yb2 (mm) – 418.588 256.418 214.610 151.425 422.224 271.887 238.321 183.97
68 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70

Fig. 12. Time variation of acceleration, base shear and displacement along the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge with FPS and a passive hybrid
system under the Imperial Valley, 1940 earthquake motion (Tb = 2 s).

Table 6
Peak responses of bridge installed with FPS and VFD along with FPS

Earthquake Response Uncontrolled FPS Tb = 2 s FPS +VFD FPS FPS +VFD

quantity response λ = 1.0 λ = 0.7 λ = 0.4 Tb = 2.5 s λ = 1.0 λ = 0.7 λ = 0.4
Vx /Wd 0.846 0.162 0.144 0.135 0.134 0.16 0.145 0.138 0.132
Vy /Wd 0.411 0.284 0.280 0.285 0.297 0.274 0.280 0.284 0.293
Imperial Valley, xb1 (mm) – 125.676 84.085 67.223 50.964 139.046 92.264 76.281 60.197
1940 yb1 (mm) – 54.676 28.593 22.968 13.310 47.964 31.589 27.357 15.599
yb2 (mm) – 142.408 98.688 75.876 46.262 167.964 113.163 88.241 57.454

Vx /Wd 1.339 0.448 0.389 0.383 0.376 0.392 0.359 0.361 0.362
Vy /Wd 1.365 0.609 0.620 0.616 0.606 0.614 0.614 0.616 0.608
Kobe, 1995 xb1 (mm) – 362.418 193.671 181.868 169.775 295.58 185.854 182.821 175.231
yb1 (mm) – 151.928 100.413 99.841 103.965 121.944 98.489 99.385 105.948
yb2 (mm) – 199.133 127.73 120.682 109.247 203.657 141.275 132.633 124.734

Vx /Wd 2.297 0.426 0.383 0.382 0.375 0.367 0.393 0.393 0.393
Vy /Wd 0.663 0.541 0.566 0.570 0.564 0.536 0.564 0.566 0.563
Loma Prieta, 1989 xb1 (mm) – 618.754 334.119 327.918 322.793 635.626 360.643 350.14 357.056
yb1 (mm) – 119.399 58.323 49.887 38.39 102.12 57.507 50.766 44.035
yb2 (mm) – 195.756 113.191 95.235 76.114 217.865 143.282 119.727 88.634

Vx /Wd 1.290 0.679 0.520 0.521 0.512 0.601 0.515 0.514 0.500
Vy /Wd 0.909 0.710 0.711 0.706 0.717 0.701 0.705 0.702 0.706
Northridge, 1994 xb1 (mm) – 615.431 362.834 363.096 359.759 667.574 405.232 405.924 402.297
yb1 (mm) – 139.244 65.644 54.087 43.589 163.303 74.485 63.022 51.552
yb2 (mm) – 423.360 243.197 200.11 135.872 425.446 266.983 232.354 176.128
 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70
the combination of VFD and FPS, the displacement of the
isolators at the abutment in the longitudinal direction is found
to be a minimum (50.964 mm) for the Imperial Valley, 1940
earthquake and a maximum (359.759 mm) for the Northridge,
1994 earthquake. Moreover, the displacement of the isolators
at the deck–tower junction in the transverse direction is found
to be a minimum (46.262 mm) for the Imperial Valley, 1940
earthquake and a maximum (135.872 mm) for the Northridge,
1994 earthquake. The amount of displacement is quite small
to have any possible impact of the deck with the towers in the
transverse direction.
The results of the investigation demonstrate that the non-
linear damping of VFD is capable of controlling the peak dis-
placement response of the isolated bridge, and thus reducing the
required length of expansion joints. Furthermore, as the VFD
gives out-of-phase response output, the peak value of the tower
base shear is also controlled effectively. Hence, the use of VFD
as supplemental damping with isolation largely solves the prob-
lem of superstructure displacement of an isolated bridge, along
with controlling the seismically induced forces in the bridge.
7. Conclusions
The efficacy of passive hybrid mechanisms in protecting
a cable-stayed bridge subjected to strong earthquake ground
motions has been investigated and presented. The hybrid
system consists of combinations of elastomeric and sliding
isolation systems in association with a viscous fluid damper.
The seismic response of a simplified model of the Quincy
Bay-view Bridge at Illinois is studied under two horizontal
components of real earthquake motion. The seismic responses
of the bridge with isolation systems alone and with passive
hybrid systems have been evaluated. From the dynamic
analytical investigation of the bridge with passive hybrid
control systems, the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. The seismic isolation in the cable-stayed bridge helps to
reduce the acceleration response and the base shear response
substantially. However, the displacement response of the
deck increases significantly with isolation.
2. The addition of supplemental damping, in the form of a
viscous fluid damper, controls the earthquake response of
the isolated bridge significantly. Specifically, a viscous fluid
damper having non-linear viscous damping with a velocity
exponent equal to 0.4 is found to be more efficient in
controlling the displacement response of the isolated bridge.
3. With passive hybrid control systems, a reduction in the
displacement response of the isolated bridge by up to about
65% in the longitudinal direction, as well as in the transverse
direction, can be achieved.
4. There exists an optimum amount of damping of viscous
fluid dampers for controlling the tower base shear response.
Optimum values are found for all the earthquakes except the
Northridge, 1994 earthquake. However, for the displacement
response, no such optimum values are found, as the bearing
displacement reduces with an increase in damping of the
viscous fluid damper.
5. There is very little or no increase in the tower base
shear response of the bridge with a passive hybrid system
69
compared to that of the isolation system alone. This is
because of the inherent out-of-phase response output of the
viscous fluid damper.
6. A passive hybrid system consisting of FPS and VFD is found
to be more effective in controlling the peak displacement
response of the deck while simultaneously limiting the peak
tower base shear response.
References
[1] Ali HM, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Seismic energy dissipation for cable-stayed
bridges using passive devices. Earthquake Engng Struct Dynam 1994;23:
877–93.
[2] Wesolowsky MJ, Wilson JC. Seismic isolation of cable-stayed bridges
for near-field ground motions. Earthquake Engng Struct Dynam 2003;32:
2107–26.
[3] Soneji BB, Jangid RS. Effectiveness of seismic isolation for cable-stayed
bridges. Int J Struct Stab Dynam 2006;6:1–20.
[4] Soong TT, Spencer Jr BF. Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-
art and state-of-the-practice. Engng Struct 2002;24:243–9.
[5] Makris N, Constantinou MC. Viscous dampers: Testing, modeling and
application in vibration and seismic isolation. Technical report NCEER-
90-0028. Buffalo (NY): National Center for Earthquake Engineering and
Research; 1990.
[6] Constantinou MC, Symans MD. Experimental study of seismic response
of buildings with supplemental fluid dampers. Struct Design Tall Buildg
1993;2:93–132.
[7] Constantinou MC, Symans MD, Tsopelas P, Taylor DP. Fluid viscous
dampers in applications of seismic energy dissipation and seismic
isolation. In: Proc ATC 17-1 on seismic isolatikon, energy dissipation and
active control, vol. 2. 1993. p. 581–91.
[8] Constantinou M. Application of fluid viscous dampers to earthquake
resistant design. Report on research accomplishments 1986–1994.
Buffalo: National Center for Earthquake Engineering and Research; 1994,
p. 73–80.
[9] Tsopelas P, Constantinou MC, Okamoto S, Fujii S, Ozaki D.
Experimental study of bridge seismic sliding isolation systems. Engng
Struct 1996;18:301–10.
[10] Makris N, Chang S. Effect of viscous, viscoplastic and friction damping
on the response of seismic isolated structures. Earthquake Engng Struct
Dynam 2000;29:85–107.
[11] Iemura H, Pradono MH. Passive and semi-active seismic response control
of a cable-stayed bridge. J Struct Control 2002;9:189–204.
[12] Symans MD, Kelly SW. Fuzzy logic control of bridge structures using
intelligent semi-active seismic isolation systems. Earthquake Engng
Struct Dynam 1999;28:37–60.
[13] Yoshioka H, Ramallo JC, Spencer Jr BF. “Smart” base isolation strategies
employing magnetorheological dampers. J Engng Mech ASCE 2002;128:
540–51.
[14] Ramallo JC, Johnson EA, Spencer Jr BF. “Smart” base isolation systems.
J Engng Mech ASCE 2002;128:1088–100.
[15] Park K, Lee I, Jung H, Park J. Integrated passive-active system for seismic
protection of a cable-stayed bridge. J Earthquake Engng 2003;7:615–33.
[16] Park K, Jung H, Lee I. Hybrid control strategy for seismic protection of a
benchmark cable-stayed bridge. Engng Struct 2003;25:405–17.
[17] Park K, Jung H, Spencer Jr BF, Lee I. Hybrid control systems for seismic
protection of a phase II benchmark cable-stayed bridge. J Struct Control
2003;10:231–47.
[18] Jung H, Park K, Spencer Jr BF, Lee I. Hybrid seismic protection of cable-
stayed bridges. Earthquake Engng Struct Dynam 2004;33:795–820.
[19] Wilson JC, Gravelle W. Modeling of a cable-stayed bridge for dynamic
analysis. Earthquake Engng Struct Dynam 1991;20:707–21.
[20] Wilson JC, Liu T. Ambient vibration measurements on a cable-stayed
bridge. Earthquake Engng Struct Dynam 1991;20:723–47.
[21] Ernst HJ. Der e-modul von seilen unter berücksiehtigung des durchanges.
Der Bauingenieur 1965;40:52–5 [in German].
70 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 57–70

[22] Gimsing NJ. Anchored and partially anchored stayed bridges. In: Proc
international symposium on suspension bridges. 1966.
[23] Park YJ, Wen YK, Ang AHS. Random vibration of hysteretic systems
under bi-directional motions. Earthquake Engng Struct Dynam 1986;14:
543–57.
[24] Nagarjaiah S, Reinhorn AM, Constantinou MC. Non-linear dynamic
analysis of 3-D base isolated structures. J Struct Engng ASCE 1991;1:
729–48.
[25] Nagarjaiah S, Reinhorn AM, Constantinou MC. Experimental study of
sliding isolated structures with uplift restraint. J Struct Engng, ASCE
1992;118:1666–82.
[26] Jangid RS. Computational numerical models for seismic response of
structures isolated by sliding systems. Struct Control Health Monit 2005;
12:117–37.
[27] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall of India; 2003.