Effect of Supplemental Hysteretic and Viscous Damping

on Rocking Response of Free-Standing Columns

Nicos Makris, M.ASCE 1; and Mehrdad Aghagholizadeh, S.M.ASCE 2

Abstract: This paper investigated the nonlinear, rocking seismic response of slender, free-standing columns when equipped along their sides
(or at their pivoting points) with vertical energy dissipation devices which offer either hysteretic or viscous (linear or nonlinear) dissipation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The paper derived the nonlinear equations of motion and then revisited the transverse response of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge. The
analysis showed that the 72-m-tall stepping bridge piers exhibit remarkable seismic performance even when excited with recorded ground
motions that are much stronger than the known strong motions at the time of the design of the bridge. Subsequently, the paper showed that
there are isolated examples of earthquake excitations in which the response of the rocking bridge pier when damped with either hysteretic or
viscous dampers is more aggravated than the undamped response. This phenomenon may also manifest when idealized mathematical pulses
are used. The paper concluded that the effectiveness of supplemental hysteretic or viscous damping in suppressing rocking response depends
strongly on the local kinematic characteristics of the ground motion. Whenever the damped response exceeds the undamped response the
exceedance is marginal, and in most cases the damped response is lower than the undamped response. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-
7889.0001596. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction of torsionally yielding steel-beam dampers with a yield capacity

The concept of allowing a tall, slender structure to uplift and rock
was first advanced and implemented in modern civil engineering in
the late 1960s in New Zealand with the design and construction of
the stepping piers of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge (Beck and
Skinner 1972, 1973; Kelly 1993; Skinner et al. 1993). This unique
(at the time) design emerged out of necessity because the height of
the piers of the South Rangitikei Bridge reached 72 m (Skinner
et al. 1980); therefore, the resulting axial forces along the legs
of the piers and overturning moments at the foundations of the piers
from a traditional capacity design were too large. Instrumental to
the analysis and design of the stepping South Rangitikei Rail
Bridge (Fig. 1) was the Physics and Engineering Laboratory of
the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) in
New Zealand (Beck and Skinner 1972, 1973; Skinner et al. 1993)
in which a material science group was conducting research on the
use of plastically deforming metals (steel and lead) for developing
hysteretic energy dissipation devices. Their efforts were joined in
1971 by Professor J. M. Kelly, who visited DSIR during a 1-year
leave from the University of California, Berkeley, and resulted
in the development of the torsionally yielding steel-beam damper
that was used to enhance the energy dissipation at the base of the
stepping piers of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge (Kelly et al.
1972; Skinner et al. 1974, 1980).
According to its final design, the 72.7 × 13.5 m center piers
of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge are allowed to uplift and
rock. The rocking response of each pier is damped with a pair
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern
Methodist Univ., Dallas, TX 75275 (corresponding author). Email:
nmakris@smu.edu
2
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern
Methodist Univ., Dallas, TX 75275.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 12, 2018; approved on
October 8, 2018; published online on February 26, 2019. Discussion period
open until July 26, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
© ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399.
2 × 450 kN (Skinner et al. 1980). The torsionally yielding steel-
beam dampers were installed to control the serviceability state
of the bridge (small rotations) because the connection of the
dampers has a stopper that restrains uplift to 12.5 cm (Beck and
Skinner 1973). Accordingly, the maximum allowed rotation is
tan θstop ¼ 0.125m=13.5m ¼ 0.0092. By accounting for the weight
of the deck that is resting on the center piers, the dynamic slender-
ness of the center piers is tan α ¼ 0.147, therefore, θstop =α ≈
tan θstop = tan α ≈ 0.063, which is less than 7% of the ultimate
rotation at the verge of overturning. Although the slenderness of
these piers along the transverse direction of the bridge is only
α ¼ 8.27° (tan α ¼ 0.147), it is well understood by now that these
large free-standing structures, although slender, enjoy ample seis-
mic stability because their immense rotational inertia cannot be
fully mobilized even by the strongest physically realizable ground
motion (Makris 2014b).
The remarkable seismic stability of tall, free-standing columns
was first studied systematically in the seminal paper by Kirkpatrick
(1927). That work advanced the two key quantities other than the
peak ground acceleration that are responsible for the stability of a
slender, free-standing column: (1) the size of the column, which
enters the equations via the moment of inertia; and (2) the duration
of the period of the excitation. Kirkpatrick (1927), after correctly
deriving the minimum acceleration amplitude of a harmonic
excitation that is needed to overturn a free-standing column with
a given size and slenderness, presented the first minimum-
acceleration overturning spectrum [Fig. 6 of Kirkpatrick (1927)]
and showed that as the period of the excitation decreases, a
larger acceleration is needed to overturn a free-standing column.
Kirkpatrick worked in Hawaii, and it appears that his contributions
were not known in Japan. Nevertheless, Ikegami and Kishinouye
published two important papers, one following the December 21,
1946 Nankai Earthquake (1947) and the other following the
December 26, 1949 Imaichi Earthquake (1950). Those two papers
confirmed Kirkpatrick’s theoretical findings on the rocking re-
sponse of free-standing columns, because they indicated that
the static threshold, gðwidth=heightÞ, is too low and is not able

© ASCE 04019028-1 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. (a) View of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge in New Zealand; (b) close-up view of the rocking interface, in which the piers are allowed to
uplift by 12.5 cm and the rocking motion is controlled by torsionally yielding steel-beam dampers; (c) detail of the torsionally yielding steel-beam
damper installation at the base of the stepping piers atop the pile cap that delivers a yield force of 2 × 45 kN; and (d) schematic of the torsionally
yielding steel-beam damper.

to explain the observed stable response of slenderer yet larger
tombstones: “In our field investigations, we often met with cases
where gravestones had not overturned because of their large dimen-
sions in spite of the small value of the ratio between width and
height” (Ikegami and Kishinouye 1950).
Muto et al. (1960) built upon the work of Ikegami and
Kishinouye (1947, 1950) and showed explicitly that the dynamic
response of a rocking column is governed by a negative stiffness.
Therefore, its free-vibration response is not harmonic; rather, it is
described by hyperbolic sines and cosines.
The pioneering work of Kirkpatrick (1927) in association with
the systematic work conducted in Japan on rocking and overturning
during the first half of the 20th century matured the knowledge on
this subject to the extent that Housner (1963), after introducing the
concept of pulse excitations, elucidated a size–frequency scale ef-
fect that explained why (1) the larger of two geometrically similar
blocks can survive an excitation that will topple the smaller block,
and (2) of two pulses with the same acceleration amplitude, the
pulse with longer duration is more capable of inducing overturning.
Following Housner (1963), a small number of publications stud-
ied the rocking response of free-standing blocks and columns (Yim
et al. 1980; Aslam et al. 1980; Ishiyama 1982; Spanos and Koh
1984; Hogan 1989, 1990; Tso and Wong 1989; Wong and Tso
1989, among others). More recently, the dynamics of rocking ob-
jects has received increasing attention by investigation of the multi-
ple modes of overturning (Zhang and Makris 2001), the effects of a
deformable base (Chatzis and Smyth 2012), the response of
multiple stacked free-standing blocks (Kounadis et al. 2012;
Chatzis et al. 2018), and the effect of three-dimensional response
(Konstantinidis and Makris 2007; Garini et al. 2015; Vassiliou
et al. 2017, among others). The dynamics of anchored rocking
structures received increasing attention in late 1990s, after the

© ASCE 04019028-2 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

 1994 Northridge, California and 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquakes,
which were responsible for the overturning of a wide range of elec-
tric substation equipment (Makris and Zhang 2001; Makris and
Black 2002).
At that time, the most common approach to prevent overturning
of slender, rigid equipment was the use of restrainers (hold-downs);
however, a large amount of restrained equipment overturned by
failing the restrainers with strengths comparable to the weight of
the equipment. Makris and Zhang (2001) and Makris and Black
(2002) analyzed the rocking stability of rigid blocks when anchored
with brittle and ductile restrainers and concluded that on several
occasions the restrainers worked against the stability of the block—
that is, free-standing blocks can be more stable than restrained
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

blocks.
The counterintuitive findings of Makris et al. were confirmed by
Dimitrakopoulos and DeJong (2012), who studied the rocking
stability of a slender column with supplemental linear and nonlin-
ear viscous damping at the pivoting points. Contrary to the counter-
intuitive finding that is reached when supplemental hysteretic
dissipation is offered by yielding and fracturing the ductile
restrainers (Makris and Black 2002; Makris and Zhang 2001), Fig. 2. Geometric quantities pertinent to the dynamic analysis of a
Dimitrakopoulos and DeJong (2012) concluded that supplemental rocking column with additional energy dissipators.
viscous (linear or nonlinear) dissipation invariably enhances the
stability of slender rocking columns.
Because of the growing interest in rocking isolation (Makris
2014a and references therein) in association with the wide accep- qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
tance of supplemental energy dissipation devices and buckling- δ 1 ¼ S1 1 þ cos2 φ1 − 2 cos φ1 cosðφ1  θÞ ð3Þ
restrained braces (BRBs) (Kimura et al. 1976; Wada et al. 1989;
Black et al. 2002, 2003, 2004), this paper first revisits the seismic and by using e1 ¼ δ 1 − l, the elongation of the damper is
response of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge and subsequently qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
presents a comprehensive study of the rocking seismic response e1 ðtÞ ¼ S1 1 þ cos2 φ1 − 2 cos φ1 cosðφ1  θÞ − sin φ1 ð4Þ
of a tall, slender column equipped along its sides with vertical
energy dissipation devices with finite length which offer either
viscous (linear or nonlinear) or hysteretic dissipation (e.g., from The time derivative of the elongation e1 ðtÞ is expressed in terms
the use of vertical BRBs). of the independent variable θ and its time derivative, θ̇

Kinematic Relations in Rocking Column with
Vertical Energy Dissipators
This study examined the dynamic response of a free-standing col-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
umn of size R ¼ b þ h2 , slenderness tan α ¼ b=h, mass m, and
2 where
moment of inertia about the pivoting (stepping) points O and O 0 of
I ¼ ð4=3ÞmR2 (Fig. 2). Vertical energy dissipation devices are
mounted to the rocking column at a distance d from the pivoting
points of the column (Fig. 2) (Kelly et al. 1972; Skinner et al.
1974). During the rocking motion of the column, the upward dis-
placement v1 of the damper attached to the side of the column
across the pivoting point is
S1 cos φ1 θ̇ sinðφ1  θÞ
ė1 ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð5Þ
1 þ cos2 φ1 − 2 cos φ1 cosðφ1  θÞ
Similarly, the contraction of the dampers attached to the side of
the column that is stepping on the pivoting point is e2 ¼ l − δ 2 ,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
δ 2 ¼ S2 1 þ cos2 φ2 − 2 cos φ2 cosðφ2 ∓θÞ ð6Þ
and by using e2 ¼ l − δ 2 , the contraction of the damper is
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
e2 ðtÞ ¼ S2 ½sin φ2 − 1 þ cos2 φ2 − 2 cos φ2 cosðφ2 ∓θÞ ð7Þ

v1 ¼ S1 ½sinðϕ1  θÞ − sin ϕ1  ð1Þ
whereas the downward displacement v2 of the damper attached to
the side of the column that is stepping on the pivoting point is
v2 ¼ S2 ½sin ϕ2 − sinðϕ2 ∓θÞ ð2Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where S1 ¼ ð2b þ dÞ2 þ l2 ; S2 ¼ d2 þ l2 ; sin ϕ1 ¼ l=S1 ;
and sin ϕ2 ¼ l=S2 .
In Eqs. (1) and (2), whenever there is a double sign (e.g., ), the
top sign is for θ > 0 and the bottom sign is for θ < 0.
The elongation of the damper, e1 , attached at the side of the
column across the pivoting point is e1 ¼ δ 1 − l, where δ1 is offered
by the cosine rule
The time derivative of the contraction e2 ðtÞ is expressed in terms
of the independent variable θ and its time derivative, θ̇
S2 cos φ2 θ̇ sinðφ2 ∓θÞ
ė2 ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð8Þ
1 þ cos2 φ2 − 2 cos φ2 cosðφ2 ∓θÞ
Constitutive Laws of Nonlinear Viscous and
Hysteretic Dissipation Devices
The energy dissipation devices attached to the rocking column
(Fig. 2) can be either linear or nonlinear fluid dampers
(Constantinou et al. 1998; Soong and Dargush 1999; Symans
et al. 2008) or hysteretic (yielding) dampers such as buckling

© ASCE 04019028-3 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

 Fig. 3. (a) Reduction of the lever arm r1 of the damping force across the pivoting point; and (b) lever arm of the damping force next to the pivoting
point as a function the column rotation θ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

restrained braces (Wada et al. 1989; Chang and Makris 2000; Black sinðφ1 þ θÞ
et al. 2002, 2003, 2004). r1 ¼ S1 cos φ1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ≈ 2b þ d;
2
1 þ cos φ1 − 2 cos φ1 cosðφ1 þ θÞ
When nonlinear fluid dampers are used, their constitutive law is
given by Constantinou et al. (1998) and Soong and Dargush (1999) for small θ ð13Þ

Fd ¼ Cq jėðtÞjq sgn½ėðtÞ ð9Þ sinðφ2 − θÞ

r2 ¼ S2 cos φ2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi≈d
2
1 þ cos φ2 − 2 cos φ2 cosðφ2 − θÞ
where 0 < q < 1 is the exponent of the damper; Cq = damping con-
for small θ ð14Þ
stant with units ½m½Lð1−qÞ ½Tðq−2Þ ; sgn½· = signum function; and
eðtÞ = stroke of the damper that is given by Eq. (4) when the Fig. 3 shows how lever arms r1 and r2 depend on the rotation, θ
damper is in elongation [eðtÞ ¼ e1 ðtÞ] and by Eq. (7) when the of the rocking column. Throughout this analysis, subscript 1 de-
damper is in contraction [eðtÞ ¼ e2 ðtÞ]. When q ¼ 1, Eq. (9) notes the damper across the pivoting point and subscript 2 denotes
reduces to a linear viscous law: Fd ¼ c1 ėðtÞ. the damper next to the pivoting point. By defining the frequency
When torsionally yielding steel-beam dampers, buckling re- pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
strained braces, or other yielding devices are used, their constitutive parameter of the column, p ¼ mgR=I , Eq. (12) assumes the form
law can be expressed by the Bouc–Wen model (Bouc 1967; Wen  
2
üg Fd1 r1 Fd2 r2
1976; Baber and Wen 1981) θ̈ ¼ −p sinðα − θÞ þ cosðα − θÞ þ þ ð15Þ
g mg R mg R
Fd ¼ akd eðtÞ þ ð1 − aÞkd uy zðtÞ ð10Þ
Case 2: θ < 0
where kd = preyielding stiffness of the device; uy = yield displace-
ment; a = postyielding:preyielding stiffness ratio; and −1 ≤ zðtÞ ≤ For negative rotation (θ < 0), following the same reasoning as for
1 is a dimensionless internal variable described by Case 1, the equation of motion is
 
üg Fd r Fd r
1 θ̈ ¼ −p2 − sinðα þ θÞ þ cosðα þ θÞ þ 1 1 þ 2 2 ð16Þ
żðtÞ ¼ ½ėðtÞ − β ėðtÞjzðtÞjn − γjėðtÞjzðtÞjzðtÞjn−1  ð11Þ g mg R mg R
uy
By virtue of the signum function, sgnðθÞ, Eqs. (15) and (16) can
where eðtÞ = stroke of the hysteretic device that is given by Eq. (4) be expressed in the compact form
when the damper is in elongation [eðtÞ ¼ e1 ðtÞ] and by Eq. (7)  
when the damper is in contraction [eðtÞ ¼ e2 ðtÞ]; constants β, üg Fd r Fd r
γ, and n = model parameters which are discussed subsequently. θ̈ ¼ −p2 sinðαsgnθ − θÞ þ cosðαsgnθ − θÞ þ 1 1 þ 2 2
g mg R mg R
ð17Þ
Equation of Motion of Rocking Column with Vertical in which Fd1 and Fd2 are expressed either by Eq. (9) or Eq. (10) and
Energy Dissipators r1 and r2 are the respective lever arms given by Eqs. (13) and (14). In
the special case of a zero-length damper (l ¼ ϕ1 ¼ ϕ2 ¼ 0) attached
Case 1: θ > 0 at the corner of the column (d ¼ 0, S1 ¼ 2b, and S2 ¼ 0), Eq. (17)
reduces to the equation of motion presented by Dimitrakopoulos
For positive rotations (θ > 0), dynamic equilibrium of the rocking and DeJong (2012) for the case of viscous dampers.
column with mass m equipped with vertical dampers installed on
each of its sides (Fig. 2) gives
Review of Transverse Rocking Response of South
I θ̈ ¼ −mgR sinðα − θÞ − müg R cosðα − θÞ − Fd1 r1 − Fd2 r2
Rangitikei Rail Bridge
ð12Þ
Statement of Problem
in which Fd1 and Fd2 = damping forces from the dampers; and r1
and r2 = respective moment arms of the damping forces about the Before examining the role of supplemental damping, either hyster-
pivoting points etic or viscous, for a wide range of slender free-standing columns

© ASCE 04019028-4 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic of the stepping center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge; and (b) geometric parameters needed for planar dynamic
response analysis.

and bridge piers, this section revisits the planar (transverse) rocking For the configuration of the hysteretic steel dampers of the
response of one of the center piers of the South Rangitikei Rail South Rangitikei Rail Bridge [Figs. 1(c and d)], l ¼ ϕ1 ¼ ϕ2 ¼
Bridge (Fig. 4). Although the bridge piers are free to rock atop their d ¼ S2 ¼ 0 and S2 ¼ 2b; therefore, Eqs. (4) and (13) simplify to
foundation (Fig. 1), they are rigidly connected with the box-girder
deck that runs atop the piers. Therefore, the free-standing pier in pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffi b sin θ
Fig. 4 is merely an idealization of the actual system that supports e1 ¼ 2 2b 1 − cos θ and r1 ¼ 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð18Þ
the weight of the deck with a finite transverse stiffness. Never- 1 − cos θ
theless, given the feeble transverse stiffness of the 56-m-long deck
span, the immense size of the bridge piers controls the dynamics of For small rotations, cos θ ¼ 1 − θ2 =2 and sin θ ¼ tan θ ¼ θ;
the structural system and the solitary, free-standing pier idealiza- therefore, Eq. (18) further simplifies to
tion shown in Fig. 4(b) becomes realistic (Beck and Skinner 1972,
1973). sin θ
The prestressed concrete single-box girder deck is of uniform e1 ¼ 2b tan θ and r1 ¼ 2b ≈ 2b ð19Þ
cross section, 3.9 m deep and 3.0 m wide with a uniform thickness θ
of 0.35 m. By assuming a weight density of concrete of 24 kN=m3 ,
the weight of the 56-m span-deck that is supported by each center The full nonlinear equation of the stepping pier with zero-length
pier is approximately 6,000 kN. The legs of the piers of the bridge hysteretic dampers at its pivoting points is
are hollow tubes of uniform rectangular 2.79- × 2.03-m cross sec-
tion with a uniform thickness of 0.3 m. Together with the weight of 
üg
the shear crossbeams, the weight of the center pier alone is esti- θ̈ ¼ −p2 sinðαsgnðθÞ − θÞ þ cosðαsgnðθÞ − θÞ
g
mated to be in the vicinity of 13,000 kN. Accordingly, the entire 
weight that reaches the rocking interface of the stepping piers pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffi kd b pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ 2 sin α 1 þ cos θ 2 2a 1 − cos θ
is W ¼ mg ≈ 13,000 kN þ 6,000 kN ¼ 19,000 kN. mg
At the same time, the yield force from each torsionally yielding 
kd u y
steel beam damper is Fy ¼ 450 kN (Skinner et al. 1980); therefore, þ ð1 − aÞ zðtÞ ð20Þ
mg
the combined yield force from a pair of dampers is 2Fy ¼
kd uy ¼ 2 × 450 kN ¼ 900 kN. Accordingly, 2Fy =W ¼ kd uy =mg ¼
900 kN=19,000 kN ¼ 0.047. which for small rotation simplifies to

© ASCE 04019028-5 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

  According to the final design, the installation of the torsionally
2
üg
θ̈ ¼ −p sinðα − θÞ þ cosðα − θÞ
g
 stopper that limits the uplift of each leg to 12.5 cm. Consequently,
2 sin α
þ ½2akd b tan θ þ ð1 − aÞkd uy zðtÞ ð21Þ
mg
During the oscillatory rocking motion of a free-standing rigid
column (no dampers), energy is lost only during impact, when
the angle of rotation reverses. When the angle of rotation re-
verses, it is assumed that the rotation continues smoothly from
points O2 to O1 and that the impact force is concentrated at the
new pivot point O1 . With this idealization, the impact force
applies no moment about O1 ; hence, the angular momentum is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
conserved. Conservation of angular momentum about point O1
just before the impact and immediately after the impact means
that the angular velocity after the impact, θ̇a , is only η times
the angular velocity before the impact, θ̇b , where η depends
solely on geometry
θ̇a 3 ping piers (Fig. 1). The heavy solid line in Fig. 5(a) shows the
η¼ ¼ 1 − sin2 α ð22Þ
θ̇b 2 rocking response of the center pier of the South Rangitikei
The result of Eq. (22) is merely the minimum energy dissi-
pation required during impact for a column with slenderness α
to engage in rocking motion (not to jump). Occasionally, the
mechanical energy lost during the impacts of rocking slender
columns is close to the amount demanded by Eq. (22), and this
is why rocking materializes. However, this energy loss is too little
to suppress rocking vibrations, and slender structures have a ten-
dency to rock free for repeated cycles. Accordingly, additional
energy dissipation is required, as was implemented in the case
of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge with torsional yielding steel-
beam dampers (Fig. 1) (Kelly et al. 1972; Skinner et al. 1974,
1980).
Time History Response Analysis of South Rangitikei
Rail Bridge
In the late 1960s when the design of the stepping South Rangitikei
Rail Bridge was conceived, a handful of strong earthquake records
were available, such as the N–S component of the 1940 El Centro,
California Earthquake and the CO2=065 record from the 1966
Parkfield, California Earthquake. These motions were considered
strong at that time, merely because of their high peak ground
acceleration (PGA), and were used for the dynamic response
analysis during the preliminary design of the South Rangitikei
Rail Bridge (Beck and Skinner 1972, 1973). The concept of coher-
ent acceleration pulses radiating from a rapidly slipping fault was
in its infancy at that time and started receiving attention only
after the 1971 San Fernando, California earthquake (Bolt 1971,
1975; Bertero et al. 1976, 1978). Accordingly, in this section
we first present results of the planar rocking response of the center
pier (together with the weight of its corresponding deck) of
the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge when subjected to pre-1971
known strong records; subsequently we present the bridge’s
response when subjected to pulselike near-source ground motions
containing coherent, long-duration acceleration pulses which
are particularly destructive to a variety of structures. The elevated
center of mass of the center pier due to the weight of the
deck (wdeck ¼ 6,000 kN) that is supported by the pier is at
hp ¼ 45.87 m; therefore the dynamic slenderness of the pier is
tan α ¼ 0.5 × 13.5 m=45.87 m ¼ 0.147ðα ¼ 8.372°Þ (Fig. 4). Its
moment of inertia about the pivoting points O1 and O2 is approx-
imately I o ¼ ð4=3ÞðW p =gÞR2p þ ðW d =gÞR2d ¼ 5.2 × 106 Mg · m2.
© ASCE 04019028-6
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028
yielding steel-beam dampers at the base of the stepping piers have a
the maximum allowed rotation is tan θstop ¼ 0.125 m=13.5 m ¼
0.0092; therefore, θstop =α ¼ tan θstop = tan α ¼ 0.063.
Fig. 5(a) plots with a thin solid line the rotation and angular
velocity time histories of the undamped center pier of the South
Rangitikei Rail Bridge by including the 6,000-kN weight of its
corresponding deck at the pier head when subjected to the
N–S component of the 1940 El Centro, California recorded
ground motion [Fig. 5(a)]. The center pier underwent small
rotations which were less than 1=3 of the peak allowed rotation
(θstop =α ¼ 0.063) before the stopper engaged. Although the rota-
tions were small, the amount of damping given by Eq. (22)—The
minimum damping needed for the pier to engage in rocking
motion—Was too small, and the rocking pier experienced re-
peated cycles [Fig. 5(a)] for the undamped response. It is these
repeated cycles that motivated the design and installation of the
torsionally yielding steel-beam dampers at the base of the step-
Bridge when the torsionally yielding steel-beam dampers were
engaged [as described by Eqs. (20) or (21)], where ðkd uy Þ=mg ¼
5% and ðkd bÞ=mg ¼ 67.5 (we assumed that the yield dis-
placement of the torsionally yielding steel-beam damper is
uy ¼ 5 mm ¼ 0.005 m, whereas b ¼ 13.5 m=2 ¼ 6.75 m). The
postyielding∶preyielding stiffness ratio, a, of the torsionally
yielding steel-beam dampers was assumed to be 5% (a ¼ 0.05)
after observing recorded hysteretic loops from tests of scale
models presented in Fig. 10 of Kelly et al. (1972). The numerical
integration of the nonlinear equation of motion given by Eq. (20)
shows that the center pier underwent very small rotations
(θmax =α ¼ 0.013) which were less than 1=4 of the peak allowed
rotations, θstop , and the hysteretic dampers were effective in sup-
pressing the successive rocking cycles. The force-displacement
loops of the torsionally yielding steel-beam dampers are shown
in Fig. 5(c).
Fig. 5(b) plots the same response quantities discussed for
Fig. 5(a) when the pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge
was subjected to the CO2/065 ground motion recorded during
the 1966 Parkfield, California earthquake. The center pier under-
went small rotations (θmax =α ¼ 0.022—that is, the bridge enjoys
a factor of safety FS ¼ 1=0.022 ¼ 45), which were less than
half the peak allowed rotations (θstop =α ¼ 0.063). The heavy
solid lines show the response when hysteretic dampers with
kd uy =ðmgÞ ¼ 5% were engaged, whereas the force-displacement
loops of the torsionally yielding steel-beam dampers are shown
in Fig. 5(d).
Scholia
Fig. 5 reveals that when the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge was
excited along the transverse direction by the strongest records
available at the time of its design (late 1960s–early 1970s), the
nonlinear response of this 72.7-m-tall stepping bridge is
precisely what was predicted during its design and the bridge does
exactly what was intended to do (Beck and Skinner 1972, 1973;
Kelly et al. 1972; Skinner et al. 1974, 1980, 1993; Kelly 1993).
Its peak rotation was somewhere between 1.5% and 2.5% of its
slenderness α—that is, the ultimate rotation of the verge of over-
turning (a factor of safety of 40 and above)—and the 900-kN-
capacity hysteretic dampers installed at the base of each leg of
the stepping piers effectively dissipated the rocking vibration of
these immense stepping piers. The stopper of the base of the pier
J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. (a) Rotation and angular velocity time histories of the 72.7-m-tall center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge subjected to the
North–South component of the El Centro ground motion recorded during the 1940 Imperial Valley, California earthquake; (b) rotation and
angular velocity time histories of the 72.7-m-tall center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge subjected to the CO2/064 ground motion
recorded during the 1966 Parkfield, California earthquake; and (c and d) force-displacement loops of the 900-kN hysteretic dampers installed
at each leg of the pier. Positive rotation is clockwise. Thin lines denote no dampers. Heavy solid lines denote hysteretic dampers with
kd uy =ðmgÞ ¼ 5%.

is wisely gauged at 12.5 cm of uplift—that is, 2.8 times larger
than the computed peak uplift demands (Fig. 5). Therefore the
analysis, design, and construction of the South Rangitikei Rail
Bridge is a remarkable engineering accomplishment in modern
times.
The innovative design of the stepping South Rangitikei Rail
Bridge was a seminal moment in seismic isolation by introducing
the implementation of response modification devices for seismic
protection of structures (Kelly et al. 1972; Skinner et al. 1974).
Furthermore, the innovative design of the rocking bridge is in
accordance with current engineering concepts of resilient engineer-
ing in which recentering of the structures is achieved invariably due
to gravity without the bridge experiencing any damage even when
excited by the most violent earthquakes. Despite its remarkable
design and its half-century-long outstanding seismic performance,
the stepping design of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge has not
received the attention it deserves because even at present the design
of nearly all tall valley bridges remains entrenched in capacity
design, leading to disproportionally large and expensive pile or
caisson foundations.
Response of South Rangitikei Rail Bridge to
More-Violent Earthquake Records
As the design of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge was underway,
the 1971 San Fernando earthquake occurred on February 9 in the
foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in southern California.
Damage was severe in the northern San Fernando Valley, including
the spectacular failure of several major freeway bridges and the
Olive View Hospital (Bertero et al. 1976, 1978).
Fig. 6(a) shows rotation and angular velocity time histories of
the planar rocking response of the 72.7-m-tall center pier of the
South Rangitikei Rail Bridge when subjected to Pacoima Dam/
164 ground motion recorded some 3 mi east of the well-engineered
(at that time) Olive View Hospital, which reached the verge of col-
lapse by developing a soft first-story failure. The Pacoima Dam
record [Fig. 6(a)] is a well-known record in the literature because
from 2 to 4 s it contains a distinguishable acceleration pulse
that imposes severe deformation demands on structures (Bertero
et al. 1976, 1978). This distinguishable more-than-1-s acceleration
pulse was approximated with an antisymmetric Ricker wavelet

© ASCE 04019028-7 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. (a) Rotation and angular velocity time histories of the 72.7-m-tall center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge subjected to the Pacoima
Dam/164 ground motion recorded during the 1971 San Fernando, California earthquake; (b) rotation and angular velocity time histories of the
72.7-m-tall center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge subjected to the North–South component of the ground motion recorded during the
1992, Erzincan, Turkey earthquake; and (c and d) force-displacement loops of the 900-kN hysteretic dampers installed at each leg of the pier. Positive
rotation is clockwise. Thin lines denote no dampers. Heavy solid lines denote hysteretic dampers with kd uy =ðmgÞ ¼ 5%.

shown with a heavy dark line (Vassiliou and Makris 2011; Kampas
and Makris 2012; Makris and Vassiliou 2012) and is used
subsequently.
Despite the most devastating kinematic characteristics of the
1971 Pacoima Dam record [Fig. 6(a)], the damped 72.7-m-tall
center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge underwent small
rotations (θmax =α ¼ 0.0497) which were still less than the peak al-
lowed rotation (θstop =α ¼ 0.063). The 900-kN-capacity torsionally
yielding steel-beam dampers were very effective in suppressing the
overall response, and all the response results in Fig. 6(a) demon-
strate that the stepping bridge performed remarkably well (essen-
tially, the bridge performed at a serviceability level) even when
excited by the 1971 Pacoima Dam record which may induce col-
lapse in most code-compliant structures designed with the ductile
capacity philosophy.
Fig. 6(b) plots the same response quantities as in Fig. 6(a) when
the 72.7-m-tall pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge was sub-
jected to the most violent North–South component of the ground
motion recorded during the 1992 Erzincan, Turkey earthquake,
which contained a distinguishable acceleration pulse that was
approximated with the symmetric Ricker wavelet shown with
a heavy dark line. The rotations of the stepping pier when the
hysteretic dampers were engaged exceeded the threshold rotation
from the stoppers (θstop =α ¼ 0.063), yet they were below 10% of
the slenderness α—that is, a factor of safety FS ≥ 1=0.098 ≈ 10%.
Furthermore, the damped motion shown with a heavy solid line was
systematically inferior to the undamped motion shown with a thin
solid line.
Unexpected Combination of Gravity, Inertia, and
Hysteretic Forces
In the previous section we computed the nonlinear response of the
center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge and showed that
the hysteretic damping offered by the torsionally yielding steel
beam-dampers (kuy =mg ¼ 0.05, a ¼ 0.05, and uy ¼ 0.5 cm) in-
variably suppress the rocking response; whereas the overall dy-
namic response of the bridge is precisely what was predicted
during its original design (Beck and Skinner 1972, 1973; Kelly
et al. 1972; Skinner et al. 1974, 1980).

© ASCE 04019028-8 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Rotation and angular velocity time histories of the 72.7-m-tall center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge subjected to the Newhall/360
ground motion recorded during the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake: (a) hysteretic dampers with kd uy =ðmgÞ ¼ 5% (heavy solid line); (b) linear
viscous dampers with C=ðmpÞ ¼ 5.7 (heavy solid line); (c) force-displacement loops of the 900-kN hysteretic dampers installed at each leg of the
pier; and (d) force-displacement loops of the 900-kN linear viscous dampers installed at each leg of the pier. Positive rotation is clockwise. Thin lines
denote no dampers.

Fig. 7(a) plots with a thin solid line the rotation and angular
velocity time histories of the undamped stepping center pier
of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge when subjected to the
Newhall/360 ground motion recorded during the 1994 Northridge,
California earthquake. With this particular ground motion, when
hysteretic damping was added [ðkd uy Þ=mg ¼ 5%], the peak re-
sponse of the damped pier, θmax =α ¼ 0.030, exceeded the peak
response of the undamped pier, θmax =α ¼ 0.024. This difference
is insignificant, but although the hysteretic damping forces may
reduce the rotations when the pier is rocking in one direction
(the damped pier is leaning back less than the undamped pier), dur-
ing the next half cycle of the ground acceleration, the damped pier
that is leaning backward less may be more prone to rotate forward
than the undamped pier.
are used, this section examines whether this unfavorable combina-
tion of gravity, inertia, and hysteretic forces also happens when
viscous dissipation is used.
We first consider that the installation of viscous dampers is sim-
ilar to the installation of the torsionally yielding hysteretic dampers
at the bottom of the stepping piers of the South Rangitikei Rail
Bridge. This configuration is essentially the configuration studied
by Dimitrakopoulos and DeJong (2012) and corresponds to zero-
length elements (l ¼ ϕ1 ¼ ϕ2 ¼ 0) at the pivoting points of the
stepping pier (d ¼ S2 ¼ 0 and S1 ¼ 2b). In this case, Eqs. (4)
and (13) simplify to Eq. (18), whereas the time derivative of the
stroke is given by
pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ė1 ðtÞ ¼ 2bθ̇ 1 þ cos θ ð23Þ

Rocking Response with Viscous Dampers

which for small rotations simplifies to ė1 ðtÞ ¼ 2bθ̇. The full non-
Because of the unexpected amplification of the response of the linear equation of the stepping pier with zero-length viscous (linear
stepping bridge [Fig. 7(a)] when hysteretic energy dissipators or nonlinear) dampers at its pivoting points is

© ASCE 04019028-9 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

  When the pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge was subjected
2
üg
θ̈ ¼ −p sinðα − θÞ þ cosðα − θÞ to the 1994 Newhall/360 record, the peak angular velocity θ̇max ¼
g
pffiffiffi  0.015 rad=s [Fig. 7(a)]. According to Eq. (26), for the pair of tor-
2 sin α pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi q sionally yielding steel-beam dampers with yield capacity kd uy ¼
þ 1 þ cos θCq j 2bθ̇ 1 þ cos θ j sgn½θ̇ ð24Þ
mg 900 kN, the corresponding damping constant C1 for linear viscous
dampers (q ¼ 1) is C1 ¼ 900 kN=½ð13.5 mÞð0.015 rad=sÞ ¼
which for small rotations simplifies to 4,444.4 kNs=m ¼ 4,444.4 Mg=s and C1=2 for nonlinear viscous
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  dampers (q ¼ 1=2) is C1=2 ¼ 900 kN= ð13.5 mÞð0.015 rad=sÞ ¼
üg 2 sin α
θ̈ ¼ −p2 sinðα − θÞ þ cosðα − θÞ þ Cq j2bθ̇jq sgn½θ̇ 2,000 kNs1=2 =m1=2 ¼ 2,000 Mg m1=2 s−3=2 .
g mg
Fig. 7(b) compares the undamped and viscously damped
ð25Þ response of the stepping center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail
Bridge subjected to the Newhall/360 ground motion recorded dur-
Comparing the right hand-side of Eqs. (21) and (25), a peak damp- ing the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake. As in the case in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing force from the viscous dampers Cq ½2bθ̇max q will match the yield which hysteretic dampers were used [Figs. 7(a and b)], for the rock-
capacity of the torsionally yielding hysteretic dampers when ing response of the pier equipped at each pivot point with a linear
viscous damper with damping constant C ¼ 4444.4 kNs=m ¼
kd u y
Cq ¼ ð26Þ 4444.4 Mg=s, the damped response was more aggravated than
ð2bθ̇max Þq the undamped response.

Fig. 8. Rotation and angular velocity time histories of the 72.7-m-tall center pier of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge subjected to the REHS ground
motion recorded during the 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake: (a): hysteretic dampers with kd uy =ðmgÞ ¼ 5% (heavy solid line); (b) linear
viscous dampers with C=ðmpÞ ¼ 4.3 (heavy solid line); (c) force-displacement loops of the 900-kN hysteretic dampers installed at each leg of the
pier; and (d) force-displacement loops of the 900-kN linear viscous dampers installed at each leg of the pier. Positive rotation is clockwise. Thin lines
denote no dampers.

© ASCE 04019028-10 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Peak rotation as a function of the size of free-standing columns with slenderness tan α ¼ 1=6 ¼ 0.167 with zero-length supplemental
hysteretic dampers appended at the pivoting points (d ¼ 0) excited by the six strong ground motions presented in this paper.

The remarkable seismic performance of the South Rangitikei
Rail Bridge along the transverse direction is shown in Fig. 8,
which plots rotation and angular velocity time histories of the un-
damped and damped center pier when subjected to the Lyttleton
REHS ground motion recorded during the 2011 Christchurch,
New Zealand earthquake (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011). The
peak rotation of the undamped pier when excited by this most
violent motion was θmax =α ¼ 0.1225—a factor of safety FS ¼
α=θmax larger than 8. Fig. 8 shows that when either the hysteretic
damper {ðkd uy Þ=ðmgÞ ¼ 5% [Fig. 8(a)]} or its equivalent viscous
damping {C=ðmpÞ ¼ 4.3 [Fig. 8(b)]} was added, the damped re-
sponse was slightly inferior than the undamped response.
Rocking Response Diagrams
Because of the unexpected findings in Fig. 7, which were due to the
nonlinear dynamics of rocking, the peak rocking response of free
standing columns with supplemental hysteretic or viscous dampers
is summarized in the rocking response diagrams in Figs. 9–12,
which for a given ground motion plot the normalized to the slender-
ness peak rotation as the size of the column increases. The upper
bound of the rocking diagrams, θ=α¼ 100 ¼ 1, was at the verge of
the column overturning.
Fig. 9 plots rocking response diagrams for free-standing col-
umns with increasing size R and constant slenderness tan α ¼
1=6 ¼ 0.166, with zero-length supplemental hysteretic dampers
with normalized yield-strength ðkd uy Þ=ðmgÞ ¼ 5% and 10%,
which were attached at the pivoting points (d ¼ 0).
The first observation is that as the size of the column, R, in-
creases, the free-standing columns become remarkably stable.
For instance, even when excited by the 1971 Pacoima Dam record,
or the 1994 Newhall/360 record, any column with tan α ¼ 1=6 that
is taller than 40 m (e.g., a pier of a valley bridge) experiences a peak
rotation θmax that is less than α=10. Fig. 9 also indicates that the
effectiveness of hysteretic supplemental damping in suppressing
the rocking response depends strongly on the kinematic character-
istics of the ground motion. Whenever the damped response

© ASCE 04019028-11 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Peak rotation as a function of the size of free-standing columns with slenderness tan α ¼ 1=6 ¼ 0.167 with zero-length supplemental viscous
dampers (q ¼ 1) attached at the pivoting points (d ¼ 0) excited by the six strong ground motions presented in this paper.

exceeded that undamped response, the exceedance was marginal
and in most cases the damped response was lower than the un-
damped response. The same trends are shown in Fig. 10, which
plots rocking response diagrams for free-standing columns with
slenderness tan α ¼ 1=6 with zero-length supplemental viscous
dampers with normalized damping constant C=ðmpÞ ¼ 5 and
10 which are attached at the pivoting points of the stepping
column (d ¼ 0).
There are several situations in which it is suitable to place the
supplemental energy dissipation devices along the sides of rocking
columns or rocking walls (Kelly et al. 1972; Skinner et al. 1974)
(Fig. 2). In this case, two additional parameters appear in the analy-
sis, the distance d of the connection of the dissipation device from
the pivoting point, and the length l of the dissipation device.
Fig. 11 plots rocking response diagrams for free-standing
columns with slenderness tan α ¼ 1=6 with finite-length supplemen-
tal hysteretic dampers (e.g., buckling-restrained braces) with l=h ¼
0.2, b=d ¼ 0.1, and normalized yield-strength ðkd uy Þ=ðmgÞ ¼ 5%
and 10%; whereas Fig. 12 plots rocking response diagrams for
free-standing columns with slenderness tan α ¼ 1=6 with finite-
length supplemental viscous (q ¼ 1) dampers with l=h ¼ 0.2,
b=d ¼ 0.1, and normalized damping constant C=ðmpÞ ¼ 5 and 10.
Figs. 11 and 12 show similar trends as those discussed for the
corresponding Figs. 9 and 10; the additional lever arm d ¼ 0.1b
appears to have a marginal effect on the peak response, in particular
for taller columns.
Response to Mathematical Pulses
In an effort to better understand the origin of the occasional cross-
ing of the rocking response diagrams in Figs. 9–12, this study
examined the response of supplementally damped rocking columns
to smooth mathematical pulses that can approximate the coherent,
distinguishable pulses of recorded strong ground motions (Fig. 6).
Such mathematical acceleration pulses can be either simple

© ASCE 04019028-12 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Peak rotation as a function of the size of free-standing columns with slenderness tan α ¼ 1=6 ¼ 0.167 with supplemental hysteretic dampers
with length l ¼ 0.2h installed along the sides of the rocking columns at a distance d ¼ 0.1b excited by the six strong ground motions presented in this
paper.

rectangular pulses (Hall et al. 1995; Alavi and Krawinkler 2001), its first zero-crossing. Similarly, the heavy dark line in Fig. 6(a)
trigonometric pulses (Veletsos et al. 1965; Makris 1997; Makris and which approximates the long-period acceleration pulse of the
Chang 2000), or more sophisticated wavelet functions (Mavroeidis Pacoima Dam motion recorded during the February 9, 1971 San
and Papageorgiou 2003; Vassiliou and Makris 2011). Fernando, California earthquake is a scaled expression of the third
The heavy dark line in Fig. 6(b) that approximates the coherent, derivative of the Gaussian function
long-period acceleration pulse of the N2-13S component of the
 
1992 Erzincan, Turkey record is a scaled expression of the second ap 4π2 2πt 2 2 2
2
derivative of the Gaussian function, e−t =2 , known in the seismo- ψðtÞ ¼ 2
− 3 pffiffiffi e−ð1=2Þð4π t Þ=ð3T p Þ ð28Þ
β 3T p 3T p
logical literature as the symmetric Ricker wavelet (Ricker 1943;
Ricker 1944)
where β is a factor equal to 1.3801 that enforces Eq. (28) to have a
  maximum equal to ap .
2π2 t2 −ð1=2Þð2π2 t2 Þ=ðT 2p Þ
ψðtÞ ¼ ap 1 − 2 e ð27Þ Fig. 13 plots rocking spectra of free-standing columns with con-
Tp stant slenderness tan α ¼ 1=6 as a function of ωp =p ¼ 2π=ðpT p Þ
pffiffiffi with zero-length supplemental hysteretic damping [Figs. 13(a and c)]
The value of T p ¼ 2π=ωp ¼ π 2s is the period that maximizes with normalized yield-strength ðkd uy Þ=ðmgÞ ¼ 5% and 10% and
the Fourier spectrum of the symmetric Ricker wavelet, whereas the linear viscous dampers [Figs. 13(b and d)] with normalized damp-
time scale s is the time from the peak acceleration of the wavelet to ing constant C=ðmpÞ ¼ 5 and 10 which were attached at the

© ASCE 04019028-13 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Peak rotation as a function of the size of free-standing columns with slenderness tan α ¼ 1=6 ¼ 0.167 with supplemental viscous dampers
(q ¼ 1) with length l ¼ 0.2h installed along the sides of the rocking columns at a distance d ¼ 0.1b excited by the six strong ground motions
presented in this paper.

pivoting points of the stepping column (d ¼ 0). Figs. 13(a and b)
are for symmetric Ricker pulses with acceleration amplitude
ap ¼ 0.35g, whereas Figs. 13(c and d) are for stronger symmetric
Ricker pulses with acceleration amplitude ap ¼ 0.5g. Fig. 13 indi-
cates that the rocking spectra due to a symmetric mathematical
pulse are ordered in terms of the amount of damping without show-
ing any crossings. In contrast, Fig. 14, which plots rocking spectra
of damped free-standing columns subjected to the antisymmetric
Ricker wavelet of Eq. (28), shows that there are situations in which
the response with higher values of damping exceeds the response
with lower damping.
Conclusion
This paper investigated the nonlinear rocking seismic response of
slender, free-standing columns equipped along their sides (or at
their pivoting points) with vertical energy dissipation devices which
offer either hysteretic or viscous (linear or nonlinear) dissipation.
The paper first revisited the transverse response of the center
piers of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge in New Zealand and con-
cluded that this 72-m-tall stepping bridge exhibits remarkable seis-
mic performance even when excited with recorded ground motions
that are much stronger than the known strong ground motions at the
time of the design of the bridge.
The paper determined that although in most cases, supplemental
hysteretic or viscous damping suppresses the seismic rocking re-
sponse of tall free-standing columns, there are isolated examples,
such as the case of the Newhall/360 ground motion recorded during
the 1994 Northridge earthquake, in which the response of the rock-
ing column damped with either hysteretic or viscous dampers
exceeds the undamped response. This phenomenon may also mani-
fest when idealized mathematical pulses are used, as in the case of
the antisymmetric Ricker wavelet.

© ASCE 04019028-14 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Rocking spectra of free-standing columns with slenderness, tan α ¼ 1=6 with various levels of supplemental damping attached at their
pivoting points subjected to a symmetric Ricker wavelet with acceleration amplitude: (a and b) ap ¼ 0.35g; and (c and d) ap ¼ 0.5g.

Fig. 14. Rocking spectra of free-standing columns with slenderness, tan α ¼ 1=6 with various levels of supplemental damping attached at their
pivoting points subjected to an antisymmetric Ricker wavelet with acceleration amplitude: (a and b) ap ¼ 0.35g; and (c and d) ap ¼ 0.5g.

© ASCE 04019028-15 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028

 Finally, the paper introduced the rocking response diagrams and
concluded that the effectiveness of supplemental hysteretic or vis-
cous damping in suppressing rocking response depends strongly on
the local kinematic characteristics of the ground motions. When-
ever the damped response exceeded the undamped response, the
exceedance was marginal and in most cases the damped earthquake
response was lower than the undamped response.
References
Alavi, B., and H. Krawinkler. 2001. Effects of near-fault ground motions on
frame structures. Stanford, CA: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineer-
ing Center, Stanford Univ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Aslam, M., D. T. Scalise, and W. G. Godden. 1980. “Earthquake rocking
response of rigid bodies.” J. Struct. Div. 106 (2): 377–392.
Baber, T., and Y.-K. Wen. 1981. “Random vibration of hysteretic degrading
systems.” J. Eng. Mech. Div. 107 (EM6): 1069–1087.
Beck, J. L., and R. Skinner. 1972. The seismic response of a proposed
reinforced concrete railway viaduct. Rep. No. 369. New Zealand:
Physics and Engineering Laboratory, Dept. of Scientific and Industrial
Research.
Beck, J. L., and R. Skinner. 1973. “The seismic response of a reinforced
concrete bridge pier designed to step.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
2 (4): 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290020405.
Bertero, V. V., R. Herrera, and S. Mahin. 1976. “Establishment of design
earthquakes—Evaluation of present methods.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on
Earthquake Structural Engineering. St. Louis.
Bertero, V. V., S. A. Mahin, and R. A. Herrera. 1978. “Aseismic design
implications of near-fault san fernando earthquake records.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 6 (1): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe
.4290060105.
Black, C. J., I. D. Aiken, and N. Makris. 2002. Component testing, stability
analysis, and characterization of buckling-restrained unbonded
braces (tm). Rep. No. PEER 2002/08. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
Black, C. J., N. Makris, and I. Aiken. 2003. “Component testing and
modeling of buckling restrained unbonded braces.” In Proc., Conf.
on Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas–Stessa, 141–145.
Naples, Italy.
Black, C. J., N. Makris, and I. D. Aiken. 2004. “Component testing, seismic
evaluation and characterization of buckling-restrained braces.” J. Struct.
Eng. 130 (6): 880–894. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(2004)130:6(880).
Bolt, B. A. 1971. “The San Fernando Valley, California, earthquake of
February 9 1971: Data on seismic hazards.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
61 (2): 501–510.
Bolt, B. A. 1975. “The San Fernando earthquake, 1971.” Chap. 21 in Mag-
nitudes, aftershocks, and fault dynamics: Bulletin 196. Sacramento,
CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.
Bouc, R. 1967. “Forced vibration of mechanical systems with hysteresis.”
In Proc., 4th Conf. on Non-Linear Oscillation. Prague, Czechoslovakia.
Bradley, B. A., and M. Cubrinovski. 2011. “Near-source strong ground
motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake.”
Seismol. Res. Lett. 82 (6): 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82
.6.853.
Chang, S., and N. Makris. 2000. “Effect of various energy dissipation
mechanisms in suppressing structural response.” In Proc., 12th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering Tokyo: International Association for
Earthquake Engineering.
Chatzis, M., M. García Espinosa, C. Needham, and M. Williams. 2018.
“Energy loss in systems of stacked rocking bodies.” J. Eng. Mech.
144 (7): 04018044. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889
.0001443.
Chatzis, M., and A. Smyth. 2012. “Robust modeling of the rocking prob-
lem.” J. Eng. Mech. 138 (3): 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
EM.1943-7889.0000329.
Constantinou, M. C., T. T. Soong, and G. F. Dargush. 1998. Passive energy
dissipation systems for structural design and retrofit. Rep. Buffalo, NY:
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
© ASCE 04019028-16
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028
Dimitrakopoulos, E. G., and M. J. DeJong. 2012. “Overturning of retrofit-
ted rocking structures under pulse-type excitations.” J. Eng. Mech.
138 (8): 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889
.0000410.
Garini, E., G. Gazetas, and I. Anastasopoulos. 2015. “3-dimensional
rocking and sliding case histories in the 2014 Cephalonia, Greece earth-
quakes.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
1–4. Christchurch, New Zealand.
Hall, J. F., T. H. Heaton, M. W. Halling, and D. J. Wald. 1995. “Near-source
ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings.” Earthquake
Spectra 11 (4): 569–605. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585828.
Hogan, S. 1989. “On the dynamics of rigid-block motion under harmonic
forcing.” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 425 (1869): 441–476. https://doi.org/10
.1098/rspa.1989.0114.
Hogan, S. 1990. “The many steady state responses of a rigid block under
harmonic forcing.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 19 (7): 1057–1071.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290190709.
Housner, G. W. 1963. “The behavior of inverted pendulum structures
during earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 53 (2): 403–417.
Ikegami, R., and F. Kishinouye. 1947. “A study on the overturning of rec-
tangular columns in the case of the Nankai earthquake on December 21,
1946.” Bull. Earthquake Res. Ins. 25 (1): 49–55.
Ikegami, R., and F. Kishinouye. 1950. “The acceleration of earthquake mo-
tion deduced from overturning of the gravestones in case of the Imaichi
earthquake on Dec. 26, 1949.” Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ.
28 (1): 121–128.
Ishiyama, Y. 1982. “Motions of rigid bodies and criteria for overturning by
earthquake excitations.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 10 (5): 635–650.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290100502.
Kampas, G., and N. Makris. 2012. “Time and frequency domain identifi-
cation of seismically isolated structures: Advantages and limitations.”
Earthquake Struct. 3 (3–4): 249–270. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas
.2012.3.3_4.249.
Kelly, J. M. 1993. Earthquake-resistant design with rubber. London:
Springer.
Kelly, J. M., R. Skinner, and A. Heine. 1972. “Mechanisms of energy
absorption in special devices for use in earthquake resistant structures.”
Bull. NZ Soc. Earthquake Eng. 5 (3): 63–88.
Kimura, K., K. Yoshioka, T. Takeda, Z. Fukuya, and K. Takemoto. 1976.
“Tests on braces encased by mortar in-filled steel tubes.” In Vol. 1041 of
Proc., Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, 1–42.
Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.
Kirkpatrick, P. 1927. “Seismic measurements by the overthrow of
columns.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 17 (2): 95–109.
Konstantinidis, D., and N. Makris. 2007. “The dynamics of a rocking block
in three dimensions.” In Proc., 8th Hellenic Society of Theoretical and
Applied Mechanics Int. Congress on Mechanics. Athens, Greece:
Hellenic Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.
Kounadis, A. N., G. J. Papadopoulos, and D. M. Cotsovos. 2012. “Over-
turning instability of a two-rigid block system under ground excitation.”
ZAMM-J. Appl. Math. Mech. 92 (7): 536–557. https://doi.org/10.1002
/zamm.201100095.
Makris, N. 1997. “Rigidity-plasticity-viscosity: Can electrorheological
dampers protect base-isolated structures from near-source ground mo-
tions?” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26 (5): 571–591. https://doi.org/10
.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199705)26:5<571::AID-EQE658>3.0.CO;2-6.
Makris, N. 2014a. “A half-century of rocking isolation.” Earthq. Struct.
7 (6): 1187–1221. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.6.1187.
Makris, N. 2014b. “The role of the rotational inertia on the seismic resis-
tance of free-standing rocking columns and articulated frames.”
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 104 (5): 2226–2239. https://doi.org/10.1785
/0120130064.
Makris, N., and C. J. Black. 2002. “Uplifting and overturning of equipment
anchored to a base foundation.” Earthquake Spectra 18 (4): 631–661.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1515730.
Makris, N., and S.-P. Chang. 2000. “Response of damped oscillators to
cycloidal pulses.” J. Eng. Mech. 126 (2): 123–131. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:2(123).
Makris, N., and M. F. Vassiliou. 2012. “Sizing the slenderness of free-
standing rocking columns to withstand earthquake shaking.” Arch.
J. Eng. Mech.
 Appl. Mech. 82 (10–11): 1497–1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419
-012-0681-x.
Makris, N., and J. Zhang. 2001. “Rocking response of anchored blocks
under pulse-type motions.” J. Eng. Mech. 127 (5): 484–493. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:5(484).
Mavroeidis, G. P., and A. S. Papageorgiou. 2003. “A mathematical repre-
sentation of near-fault ground motions.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93 (3):
1099–1131. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020100.
Muto, K., H. Umemura, and Y. Sonobe. 1960. “Study of the overturning
vibrations of slender structures.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 2nd World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, 1239–1261. Tokyo: Association for Science
Documents Information.
Ricker, N. 1943. “Further developments in the wavelet theory of seismo-
gram structure.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 33 (3): 197–228.
Ricker, N. 1944. “Wavelet functions and their polynomials.” Geophysics
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
9 (3): 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1445082.
Skinner, R., J. Kelly, and A. Heine. 1974. “Hysteretic dampers for
earthquake-resistant structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 3 (3):
287–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290030307.
Skinner, R., W. Robinson, and G. McVerry. 1993. An introduction to
seismic isolation. New York: Wiley.
Skinner, R., R. Tyler, A. Heine, and W. Robinson. 1980. “Hysteretic
dampers for the protection of structures from earthquakes.” Bull.
New Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 13 (1): 22–36.
Soong, T., and G. Dargush. 1999. “Passive energy dissipation and active con-
trol.” In Structural engineering handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Spanos, P. D., and A.-S. Koh. 1984. “Rocking of rigid blocks due to
harmonic shaking.” J. Eng. Mech. 110 (11): 1627–1642. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1984)110:11(1627).
Symans, M., F. Charney, A. Whittaker, M. Constantinou, C. Kircher,
M. Johnson, and R. McNamara. 2008. “Energy dissipation systems
for seismic applications: Current practice and recent developments.”
© ASCE 04019028-17
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(5): 04019028
J. Struct. Eng. 134 (1): 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(2008)134:1(3).
Tso, W., and C. Wong. 1989. “Steady state rocking response of rigid blocks
part 1: Analysis.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 18 (1): 89–106. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290180109.
Vassiliou, M. F., S. Burger, M. Egger, J. A. Bachmann, M. Broccardo, and
B. Stojadinovic. 2017. “The three-dimensional behavior of inverted
pendulum cylindrical structures during earthquakes.” Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 46 (14): 2261–2280. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2903.
Vassiliou, M. F., and N. Makris. 2011. “Estimating time scales and length
scales in pulselike earthquake acceleration records with wavelet analy-
sis.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101 (2): 596–618. https://doi.org/10.1785
/0120090387.
Veletsos, A., N. Newmark, and C. Chelapati. 1965. “Deformation spectra
for elastic and elastoplastic systems subjected to ground shock and
earthquake motions.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 3rd World Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, 663–682. Tokyo: International Association for
Earthquake Engineering.
Wada, A., E. Saeki, T. Takeuchi, and A. Watanabe. 1989. Development of
unbonded brace. Rep. No. 115. Tokyo: Nippon Steel.
Wen, Y.-K. 1976. “Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems.”
J. Eng. Mech. Div 102 (2): 249–263.
Wong, C., and W. Tso. 1989. “Steady state rocking response of rigid blocks
part 2: Experiment.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 18 (1): 107–120.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290180110.
Yim, C., A. K. Chopra, and J. Penzien. 1980. “Rocking response of rigid
blocks to earthquakes.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 8 (6): 565–587.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290080606.
Zhang, J., and N. Makris. 2001. “Rocking response of free-standing blocks
under cycloidal pulses.” J. Eng. Mech. 127 (5): 473–483. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:5(473).
J. Eng. Mech.