Passive and Hybrid Control Systems For Seismic Protection of A Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge

STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING
Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:1–26

Published online 4 May 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/stc.81
Passive and hybrid control systems for seismic protection

of a benchmark cable-stayed bridge
Wan-Long He and A. K. Agrawal*,y

Department of Civil Engineering, The City College of New York, New York, NY 10031, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
In this paper, the effectiveness of passive dampers and a hybrid control system consisting of passive viscous
dampers installed in parallel with semi-active dampers is investigated. Recently, the authors proposed an
analytical model for long-period pulses in near-field ground motions. The effectiveness of passive dampers is
investigated using the analytical pulses model and 44 recorded near-field ground motions. Numerical results
show that the pulse model successfully captured the behavior of the bridge subject to near-field ground motions
with pulse periods in the vicinity or larger than the fundamental period of the bridge. For this condition,
passive dampers are quite effective. However, their effectiveness degrades significantly when the period of
pulses is significantly smaller than the fundamental period of the bridge. A nonlinear semi-active controller
based on optimal polynomial control theory has been developed for the proposed hybrid control system. In the
proposed hybrid control systems, passive dampers continuously reduce the vibration of the bridge. Semi-active
dampers are triggered only when the required control force to meet vibration control objectives exceeds the
capacity of passive dampers installed in the bridge. Hence, the proposed hybrid control system not only reduces
response quantities, but also protects passive dampers by reducing force demand on passive dampers during
very strong earthquakes. The performance of the proposed hybrid control system has been investigated using 3
prescribed and 50 other ground motions. Numerical simulation results show that the proposed hybrid control
system is quite effective in reducing peak response quantities of the bridge subject to impulsive type near-field
ground motions. Simulation results also show that semi-active dampers are triggered only a few times during
near-field ground motions. For far-field or long-period ground motions, e.g. Mexico earthquakes, only passive
dampers are adequate to meet control objectives. Hence, notable advantages of the proposed hybrid control
systems are the reduced use of external energy, lesser heating of the control devices and protection of passive
system hardware during strong earthquakes. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: passive dampers; hybrid control systems; benchmark cable-stayed bridge; pulse-type ground
motion
1. INTRODUCTION
One important aspect of flexible structures, such as cable-stayed bridges, is the large
displacement response of the deck when subject to dynamical loads. Due to their flexibility,
*Correspondence to: A. K. Agrawal, Department of Civil Engineering, The City College of New York, New York, NY
10031, U.S.A.
y
E-mail: anil@ce.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Contract/grant sponsor: National Science Foundation; contract/grant number CMS 0099895, EEC-9701471
Received 28 April 2004

Revised 14 January 2005
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 19 January 2005
2 W.-L. HE AND A. K. AGRAWAL
such long-period structures tend to have a degree of natural seismic isolation, since most of the
earthquake spectral accelerations typically occur at short periods (typically less then 0.5 s).
However, long-period pulses in ground motions recorded near fault rupture in the fault normal
direction can cause large displacement response to cable-stayed bridges. The type of connection
between the bridge deck and tower is one of the most important factors that affect the response
of cable-stayed bridges. A rigid connection between the tower and the deck will reduce the
displacement of the deck. However, it will transmit the inertia force of superstructure to the base
of the tower during seismic excitation, thus increasing the base shear and moment of towers. On
the other hand, the displacement of the deck will be excessive if weak connections between the
deck and towers are used. Hence, the design of the connection between the deck and the tower is
of vital importance for their safety and serviceability. Some researchers have considered various
connection devices between the deck and the tower in existing and recently constructed
cable-stayed bridges, such as a longitudinal elastic cable restrainer [1], spring shoes [2], etc.
More recently, the first generation of benchmark structural control problem for seismically
excited cable-stayed bridges has been developed under the coordination of the ASCE
Subcommittee on Benchmark Problems to investigate the effectiveness of various
seismic mitigation strategies [3,4]. The benchmark cable-stayed bridge problem has been
investigated in detail by various researchers, e.g. decentralized active control [5], active and
passive control [6], semi-active negative stiffness control [7], H2 based hybrid control [8], hybrid
control systems [9], and resetting semi-active stiffness control [10,11]. Among these control
systems, passive linear viscous dampers are of particular interest, owing to their reliability and
ease of implementation. Likewise, semi-active devices that can combine the versatility of active
control systems and reliability of passive control systems have better potential to protect bridges
during near-field strong earthquakes because of their adaptability to the characteristics of
ground motions.
Generally, passive damping systems are designed by assuming that their response reduction
capability is independent of ground motion characteristics. It has been observed from ground
motion records of recent earthquakes that near-field ground velocity records contain distinct
high-velocity and long-period pulses. He [12] and He and Agrawal [13] have proposed an
analytical model of ground velocity pulses and have demonstrated that the performance of
passive damping systems depends significantly on the characteristics of these pulses. In fact,
passive damping systems are most effective when the period of ground motion pulses is close to
the natural period of the structure, and their effectiveness decreases as the pulse period increases
or decreases beyond the natural period of structures [12,13]. In such situations, a combination of
passive and semi-active damping systems may be most effective.
The advantages of combining passive and semi-active control systems may be justified
considering the characteristics of ground motions, and safety and reliability of device hardware.
When structures are subject to far-field or low-intensity excitations, passive damping systems
can protect the structure adequately. However, when subject to stronger earthquakes, the
required forces may exceed the limit of passive damping systems during such earthquakes and
semi-active systems can be triggered to limit peak dynamic response quantities. This will not
only minimize the dependence of the combined system on external energy supply and avoid
excessive heating problems in damper hardware, but also protect passive damping systems when
the required force capacity exceeds the capacity of passive dampers installed.
In this paper, the performance of the benchmark cable-stayed bridge subject to near-field
ground motions is investigated using both the analytical pulse model and several recorded
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:1–26
PASSIVE AND HYBRID CONTROL SYSTEMS 3
ground motions. Then, a hybrid passive/semi-active control system consisting of semi-active

dampers installed in parallel with the passive linear viscous dampers is proposed for seismic
protection of the benchmark bridge. While passive viscous dampers continuously dissipate
energy during low-level excitations, semi-active controllers are triggered only when the required
force exceeds the capacity of passive viscous dampers during strong earthquakes. To control
semi-active controllers effectively, a semi-active controller based on optimal polynomial control
theory is designed. The controller is subject to device constraints and limitations of a typical
semi-active device, i.e. semi-active forces are applied only when the control force and velocity
across the damper are in the opposite directions. A polynomial semi-active controller is capable
of building up the required force fast when the bridge is subject to sudden pulse type of
excitations. To demonstrate the performance the proposed hybrid control system, 28 strong
near-field ground motions and 22 long-duration ground motions are also used in this study in
addition to three ground motions defined in the benchmark problem. Simulation results
demonstrate that the proposed hybrid control system is quite effective in limiting peak response
quantities of the bridge to a level comparable to active control systems.
2. BENCHMARK CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE
Dyke et al. [3] have presented the benchmark model for a cable-stayed bridge to investigate the
effectiveness of various types of protective systems during prescribed earthquakes. A brief
description of the benchmark bridge and its model is presented in the following. For detailed
information, the reader is suggested to refer to Dyke et al. [3] and Caicedo et al. [4].
The benchmark cable-stayed bridge is the Missouri 74-Illinois 146 bridge spanning the
Mississippi River near Cape Girardeau, Missouri, designed by HNTB Corporation. Figure 1
shows a schematic drawing of the bridge. The bridge is composed of two towers, 128 cables, and
12 additional piers in the approach bridge from the Illinois side. It has a total length of 1205.8 m.
The main span is 350.6 m in length, the side spans are 142.7 m in length, and the approach on the
Illinois side is 570 m. The bridge has four lanes plus two narrower bicycle lanes, for a total width
of 29.3 m (96 ft). The deck is composed of steel beams and prestressed concrete slabs. The 128
cables are made of high-strength, low-relaxation steel (ASTM A882 grade 270). The smallest
cable area is 38.7 cm2 (6.00 in2) and the largest cable area is 76.3 cm2 (11.83 in2). The H-shaped
towers have a height of 100 m (328 ft) at pier 2 and 105 m (344.5 ft) at pier 3. Each tower
Figure 1. Cape Girardeau Bridge [3].
supports a total 64 cables. The towers are constructed with 37.92 MPa (5.5 ksi) reinforced
concrete.
The finite element model developed by Dyke et al. [3] and Caicedo et al. [4] has a total
of 579 nodes, 420 rigid links, 162 beam elements, 134 nodal masses and 128 cable elements.
The towers are modeled using 50 nodes, 43 beam elements and 74 rigid links. Constraints
are applied to restrict the deck from moving in the lateral direction at piers 2, 3 and 4.
Boundary conditions restrict the motion at pier 1 to allow only longitudinal displacement
X and rotations about the Y and Z axes. Because the attachment points of the cables to the
deck are above the neutral axis of the deck, and the attachment points of the cables to the tower
are outside the neutral axis of the tower, rigid links are used to connect the cables to the
tower and the deck. The use of the rigid links ensures that the length and inclination angle
of the cables in the model agree with the drawings. Additionally, the moment induced in the
towers by the movement of the cables is taken into consideration in this approach. In the case of
variable sections, the average of the section is used for the finite element. The cables are modeled
with truss elements. In the finite element model, the nominal tension is assigned to each cable.
Note that the Illinois approach is not included in this model. Because the bearing at pier 4 does
not restrict longitudinal motion and rotation about the X axis of the bridge, the Illinois
approach was found to have a negligible effect on the dynamics of the cable-stayed portion of
the bridge.
A linear evaluation model of the benchmark bridge has been developed [3,4]. However, the
stiffness matrices used in the linear model are those of the structure determined through a
nonlinear static analysis corresponding to the deformed state of the bridge with dead load.
Additionally, the bridge is assumed to be attached to bedrock, and the effects of soil–structure
interactions are neglected. One-dimensional ground acceleration is assumed to be applied
longitudinally and acts simultaneously at all supports.
The FEM model of the uncontrolled bridge corresponds to the case when connections
between the deck and towers are fixed. Four axial stiff beam elements are used to force the deck
to move with the tower in the longitudinal direction. For this case, the first ten frequencies of the
bridge are 0.2899, 0.3699, 0.4683, 0.5158, 0.5812, 0.6490, 0.6687, 0.6970, 0.7102, and 0.7203 Hz,
respectively. A linear evaluation model has been developed [3,4] by allowing researchers replace
longitudinal connections between the deck and the tower by protective systems. In this case, the
first ten frequencies are 0.1618, 0.2666, 0.3723, 0.4545, 0.5015, 0.5650, 0.6187, 0.6486, 0.6965,
and 0.7094 Hz, respectively. The various protective systems can be installed in the longitudinal
direction between the deck and the towers to investigate their effectiveness. This model is termed
as the evaluation model and is used as a basis for comparison of the results using various
protective systems. Detailed information about the cable-stayed bridge, including its modeling
and the FEM package for benchmark study is available [3,4].
To evaluate the effectiveness of various control systems and algorithms, evaluation criteria
J1–J18 have been presented [3,4]. Evaluation criteria J1–J6 are related to peak response
quantities, where J1=the peak base shear of towers, J2=the peak shear force of towers at the
deck level, J3=the peak overturning moment at the bases of towers, J4=the peak moment of
towers at the deck level, J5=the peak deviation in cable tension, and J6=the peak displacement
of the deck at the abutment. Evaluation criteria J7–J11 are related to normed response quantities
corresponding to response quantities for J1–J6. Evaluation criteria J12–J16 are related to control
system information; J12=the peak control force, J13=the peak device stroke, J14=the peak
power, J15=the total power and J16=the number of control devices. The evaluation criteria
J17–J18 are the number of sensors and the dimension of the compensator (controller in discrete
domain), respectively.
3. PASSIVE/SEMI-ACTIVE HYBRID CONTROL SYSTEM
3.1. Optimal polynomial controller

The controller for the hybrid control system is designed based on the following reduced order
model of the benchmark cable-stayed bridge [3,4]:
x’ r ¼ Ar xr þ Br u þ E r x. g ð1Þ
y ¼ C y xr þ Dy u þ F y x. g þ v ð2Þ
z ¼ C z xr þ Dz u þ F z x. g ð3Þ
where xr is the reduced-order state vector with a dimension of 30; x. g is the ground acceleration;
u is 8 1 control input; y and z are the measured output and the controlled output vectors,
respectively; v is a measurement noise vector; and Ar, Br, Er, Cy, Dy, Fy, Cz, Dz, Fz are
appropriate matrices.
The optimal polynomial controller for the linear system in Equations (1)–(3) can be obtained
by minimizing a polynomial performance index [14,15]
Z 1" X
K
#
J¼ xTr Qxr þ uT Ru þ ðxTr M i xr Þi1 ðxTr Qi xr Þ þ h% ðxr Þ dt ð4Þ
0 i¼2
in which
" # " #
XK X
K
h% ðxr Þ ¼ ðxTr M i xr Þi1 xTr M i B r R1 BTr ðxTr M i xr Þi1 M i xr ð5Þ
i¼2 i¼2
where Q and Qi, i=2, 3,. . .,k, are positive semi-definite state weighting matrices, R is a (8 8)
positive definite weighting matrix, and Mi, i=2,3,. . .k are positive-definite matrices. The first
two terms in Equation (4) are the classical quadratic terms, whereas the third term in the
summation is a polynomial in xr of different orders higher than the quadratic term. The last
term is added such that a simple analytical solution can be obtained. Owing to the nonlinear
nature of the controller, it is difficult to construct appropriate weighting matrices Q and Qi for z.
Hence Q and Qi are chosen by neglecting the contributions of u and x. g in z as follows:
Q ¼ C Tz Qd C z ; Qi ¼ C Tz Qdi C z ; i ¼ 2; 3; . . . ; k ð6Þ
where Qd and Qdi are (9 9) diagonal weighting matrices. Elements of the matrices Qd and Qdi
should be chosen by considering the relative importance of the elements in z.
An optimal polynomial control law is obtained analytically by minimizing the performance
index as [14,15]:
X
K
uðtÞ ¼ R1 BTr Pxr ðtÞ R1 B Tr ðxTr M i xr Þi1 M i xr ð7Þ
i¼2
where P and Mi are the solutions of algebraic Riccati matrix and Lyapunov equations in the
following
PAr þ Ar T P PBr R1 Br T P þ Q ¼ 0 ð8Þ
Mi ðAr Br R1 Br T PÞ þ ðAr Br R1 Br T PÞT Mi þ Qi ¼ 0; i ¼ 2; 3; . . . ; k ð9Þ

The implementation of the optimal polynomial controller in Equation (7) requires the
knowledge of the reduced order vectors xr. The Kalman–Bucy filter will be used in
approximation to estimate the reduced-order states from the measured output vector y as
follows:
x#’ r ¼ Ar x# r þ Br u þ L0 ðy Cy x# r Dy uÞ ð10Þ
where x# r is the estimated state and L0 is the observer gain matrix. For on-line integration, the
observer in Equation (10) can be written as:
x’# r ¼ ðAr L0 Cy Þx# r þ ðBr Dy Þu þ L0 y ð11Þ
Since the polynomial controller is nonlinear, the on-line implementation of the observer in
Equation (11) requires not only the measurement vector y but also the control force u. It should
be mentioned that the Kalman–Bucy filter is applicable only to the LQG controller in which the
separation principle holds. For the polynomial controller considered herein, the Kalman–Bucy
filter is used for approximation only.
3.2. Passive/semi-active hybrid control system

In order to design the hybrid control system for the benchmark cable-stayed bridge, control
devices with equal capacities are installed at eight locations indicated in Figure 2 by HCS. Each
hybrid control system consists of one passive linear damper and two semi-active dampers. The
2 HCS 4 HCS HCS 4 HCS 2

(1PA+2 SA) (1PA+2 SA) (1PA+2 SA) (1PA+2 SA)
Protective Devices Illinois Approach
HCS HCS HCS HCS

2 (1PA+2 SA) 4 (1PA+2 SA) (1PA+2 SA) 4 (1PA+2 SA) 2
Bent 1 Pier 2 Pier 3 Pier 4
HCS: Hybrid Control System

PA: Passive Dampers
SA: Semi-Active Dampers
? Number of Actuators in Sample Active Controller
Figure 2. Locations of protective devices in the cable-stayed bridge.
viscous dampers are used since they are very effective for structures subject to long-duration
ground motions, i.e. the Mexico City ground motion. The semi-active dampers in the hybrid
control system are installed in parallel to viscous dampers and they are triggered only when the
bridge is subject to strong ground motions or near-field ground motions with large and long-
period velocity pulses. The control force of the semi-active damper is regulated according to the
nonlinear second term of the optimal polynomial controller in Equation (7), whenever the
required control force exceeds a certain threshold.
The performance and implementation of nonlinear polynomial controllers of the form in
Equation (7) has been investigated by several investigators [14–18]. It has been shown that
nonlinear controllers are effective in limiting peak dynamic response of structures subject to
strong earthquakes. However, direct implementation of the nonlinear controller in Equation (7)
will require a fully active system, resulting in excessive external power supply. The stability of
the structural system with these controllers may also be jeopardized during sensor/actuator
malfunction and time delay. An alternative approach to implement the controller in Equation
(7) may be through a combination of the proposed hybrid control system.
It is observed from Equation (7) that the first part of the controller is linear function of the
states of the structure. This part can be implemented by an equivalent passive viscous damper.
Since the first part of Equation (7) depends on the Riccati matrix P that is solved from Equation
(8), the weighting matrix Q can be selected such that only velocity terms are predominant. Then,
a passive viscous damper can be designed by neglecting displacement feedback gain terms such
that the first part of the controller is approximated as UL ¼ R1 BTr Pxr ’ cx: ’ Alternatively,
output feedback approach can be used to directly design an equivalent viscous damper [19,20].
Then, the nonlinear part of the controller can be implemented by a semi-active damper as
8
>
> 0 if jUfn j5U1
>
>
>
< u UL ’
if U1 4jUfn j4U2 and Ufn : sgnðxÞ50
Ufn ¼ ð12Þ
>
> ’ if jUfn j > U2 and Ufn :sgnðxÞ50
U2 sgnðxÞ ’
>
>
>
:
0 ’ >0
if Ufn :sgnðxÞ
where U1 is the lower threshold value at which the semi-active controller is activated, U2 is the
upper threshold of the semi-active device capacity, UL is the force applied by passive viscous
dampers (the linear part of the polynomial controller), and x’ is the velocity across the damper.
In Equation (12), lower and upper thresholds U1 and U2 are designed by numerical simulations
considering the whole spectrum of ground motions for a site. It is observed from Equation (12)
that the nonlinear control force U fn is zero for jUfn j5U1 in which case only the passive viscous
dampers are utilized to reduce the vibration of the structure. When |Ufn| exceeds the device
capacity U2, the nonlinear control force is saturated at the U2 level. Unlike the active controller
that always applies the force on the structure, the proposed semi-active controller applies force
’
only when Ufn :sgnðxÞ50: In application of controller in Equation (12) to the benchmark bridge,
the dynamics of the device model is neglected, i.e. the device is assumed to apply the desired
force according to Equation (12) at all time instants. The proposed hybrid control system in
Equation (12) can be implemented by any of the semi-active damper devices, e.g. semi-active
friction damper [21].
4. NEAR-FIELD GROUND MOTION PULSES
In addition to three prescribed earthquakes in the benchmark problem package, 28 near-field

ground motions measured at rock and soil site condition and 22 typical long-duration ground
motions are also used in the this study to investigate the performance of the proposed passive/
semi-active hybrid control system. These ground motions are described in Table I.
To investigate the performance of passive viscous dampers, an analytical model of near-field
ground motion pulses proposed by He [12] and He and Agrawal [13] has been used. In this
model, ground velocity pulse is modeled as:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u’ p ðtÞ ¼ C tn eat sin bt; a ¼ zp op ; b ¼ op 1 z2p ð13Þ
In Equation (13), it is assumed that the velocity pulse is an enveloped sinusoidal function. The
parameters a and n in Equation (13) determine the shape of the pulse envelop. The parameter fp
is the decaying factor, xp is the pulse frequency and C is the amplitude constant of the pulse.
Detailed properties of the pulse model in Equation (13) have been investigated [12,13].
Differentiating Equation (13), the acceleration u. p of the pulse is obtained as
hn i
u. p ðtÞ ¼ C tn eat a sin bt þ b cos bt ð14Þ
t
The displacement up of the pulse can be obtained by integrating Equation (14). However, its
explicit form is difficult to obtain if n is a real number. If n is an integer, the integration of
Equation (14) is obtained as:
Xn
ð1Þr n!tnr ð1Þn n!
up ðtÞ ¼ C eat sin ½bt ðr þ 1Þa þ C sin ½ðn þ 1Þa ð15Þ
r¼0
rrþ1 ðn rÞ! rnþ1
where r and a are given by

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r¼ a2 þ b2 ; r cos a ¼ a; r sin a ¼ b ð16Þ
The displacement of ground motion up, Equation (15) can be rewritten as the following for the
special case of n=0,
eat ða sin bt þ b cos btÞ þ b
up ðtÞ ¼ C ð17Þ
a2 þ b2
A comparison between the fault-normal component of 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake at El
Centro Station Array 6 and North-South component of 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake at TCU068
station with those of analytical model is shown in Figure 3. It is observed that the ground
motion time-histories of the analytical model match well with those of recorded ground
motions.
For the pulse model in Equation (13), the pulse period Tp is defined as Tp ¼ 2p=op ; where op
is defined in Equation (13). For recorded ground motions, the predominant period of the
ground motion Tg is defined as the period at which the peak of the velocity response spectra for
the recorded ground motion occurs. Through a detailed comparison between the analytical
pulse model and 28 near-field ground motions [12,13], it has been shown that the damped pulse
period 2p=b is highly correlated to the predominant period Tg of ground motions and the
agreement between the analytical pulse model and most of the recorded ground motions is
similar to that in Figure 3. Hence, in the following discussions, the predominant period of
Table I. Ground motions used for the hybrid control system.
Type Ground motion recordings PGA (g)
1 Typical 1940, El Centro, Mw=7.0, El Centro Array 9, El Centro 0.348
2 1985 Mexico City, Mexico 0.143
3 1999 Turkey Earthquake, Gebze 0.265
4 Near-field ground motions 1995 Kobe Earthquake, Mw=6.9, JMA Station, KJM000 0.817
5 1995 Kobe Earthquake, Mw=6.9, JMA Station, KJM090 0.618
6 1992 Landers Earthquake, Mw=7.2, Lucerne Station, LCN000 0.805
7 1992 Landers Earthquake, Mw=7.2, Lucerne Station, LCN275 0.727
8 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake, Mw=7.0, Cape Mendocino Station, CPM000 1.497
9 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake, Mw=7.0, Cape Mendocino Station, CPM090 1.039
10 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Mw=6.9, LGPC station, LGP000 0.570
11 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Mw=6.9, LGPC station, LGP090 0.607
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

12 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake, Mw=6.6, Superstition Station, SUP-135 0.894
13 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Mw=7.6, TCU084 Station, TCU084EW 1.009
14 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Mw=7.6, CHY080 Station, CHY080NS 0.902
15 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Mw=7.6, CHY080 Station, CHY080EW 0.968
16 1978 Tabas Earthquake, Mw=7.4, Tabas Station, TAB-LN 0.836
17 1978 Tabas Earthquake, Mw=7.4, Tabas Station, TAB-TR 0.852
18 1995 Kobe Earthquake, Mw=6.9, Takatori Station, TAK000 0.612
19 1995 Kobe Earthquake, Mw=6.9, Takatori Station, TAK090 0.649
20 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake, Mw=7.0, Petrolia Station, PET000 0.590
21 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake, Mw=7.0, Petrolia Station, PET090 0.662
22 1999 Duzce, Turkey Mw=7.1, Duzce Station, DZC270 0.535
23 1992 Erzincan, Turkey Mw=7.1, Duzce Station, ERZ-NS 0.515
24 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Mw=6.7, New Hall Fire Station, NWH360 0.590
25 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Mw=6.7, Rinaldi Receiving Station, RRS228 0.799
PASSIVE AND HYBRID CONTROL SYSTEMS
26 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Mw=6.7, Sylmar Converter Station, CSC052 0.613

27 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Mw=6.7, Sylmar Converter Station, CSC142 0.897
28 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Mw=7.6, TCU065 Station, TCU065NS 0.603
30 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Mw=7.6, TCU068 Station, TCU068NS 0.462
32 Long-duration ground motions 1985 Chile Earthquake, Llollelo Station, Llolleio010 0.712
33 1985 Chile Earthquake, Llollelo Station, Llolleio100 0.445
34 1985 Chile Earthquake Vina Del Mar 200 0.363
35 1985 Chile Earthquake, Vina Del Mar 290 0.237
36 1985 Michoacan Earthquake, Calteta De Campos 00 0.141
37 1985 Michoacan Earthquake, Calteta De Campos 90 0.141
9

10
Table I (continued)
Type Ground motion recordings PGA (g)
38 1940 Imperial valley, NS 0.349

39 1940 Imperial valley, EW 0.214
40 1968 Hachinohe Earthquake, EW 0.210
41 1968 Hachinohe Earthquake, NS 0.318
42 1985 Michoacan Earthquake, Occt 1 0.021
43 1985 Michoacan Earthquake, Occt 2 0.055
44 1978 Miyagi-oki Earthquake. E41S 0.226
45 1978 Miyagi-oki Earthquake, N41E 0.211
46 1949 Olympia Earthquake, 182 0.068
47 1949 Olympia Earthquake, 282 0.067
48 1985 Michoacan Earthquake, Tacy EW 0.034
49 1985 Michoacan Earthquake, Tacy NS 0.035
W.-L. HE AND A. K. AGRAWAL
50 1952 Taft Lincoln Tunnel N21E 0.156

51 1952 Taft Lincoln Tunnel S69E 0.179
52 1985 Chile Earthquake, Valparaiso 070 0.176
53 1985 Chile Earthquake, Valparaiso 160 0.165

El Centro Array #6 –230° TCU068 NS

&u&g(g) 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5
0 10 20 30 20 40 60 80
3
1
u&g(m/s)
0 0
Recorded
Pulse approximation
-1
-3
0 10 20 30 20 40 60 80
1 6
3
ug(m)
0 0
-3
-1 -6
0 10 20 30 20 40 60 80
(a) T (sec) (b) T (sec)
Figure 3. Acceleration, velocity and displacement time histories of recorded ground motions and pulse
model: (a) E06230 recorded at El Centro Station Array 6 during 15 October 1979 Imperial Valley
earthquake; and (b) NS component of TCU068 during 20 September 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake.
ground motions is used to characterize both recorded ground motions and the analytical pulse
model.
5. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
5.1. Performance of passive dampers using analytical pulse model

Three passive dampers are installed at each of the 8 locations shown in Figure 2, i.e. a total of 24
linear viscous dampers are installed. A case of supplemental viscous damping coefficient,
C=1750 kN (m/s)1, is considered. In order to illustrate the performance of linear viscous
damper for the benchmark cable-stayed bridge, the suite of 40 near-field ground motions
developed for the SAC project is used. When neither control devices nor dynamically stiff shock
transmission devices are used between the deck and towers, the fundamental period of the
bridge is 6.18 s, which is larger than the predominant period of any of the near-field ground
motions recorded before the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. To study the effects of ground motions
with predominant periods around or larger than fundamental period of the cable-stayed bridge,
ground motions recorded during 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake are also used for this example. These
ground motions are TCU065 N–S component (Tg=6.4 s), TCU065 E–W component
(Tg=4.5 s), TCU068 N–S component (Tg=8.0 s) and TCU068 E–W component (Tg=8.8 s).
To compare the response quantities of the bridge with and without passive viscous dampers,
criteria reduction factors RJi are defined as
Ji ðBÞ
RJi ¼ ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 6 ð18Þ
Ji ð3%Þ
where Ji(z) and Ji(3%) are ith evaluation criteria of the bridge with passive dampers and the
uncontrolled bridge ( no control devices or dynamic shock transmission between the towers and
the deck), respectively. Note that the inherent damping ratio of the fundamental mode of the
bridge is 3%. It is mentioned that Ji (3%) in Equation (18) is defined for the uncontrolled bridge
without any rigid link between the tower and the deck, which is different than the uncontrolled
bridge in the benchmark definition problem. The benchmark problem defines uncontrolled
bridge without any control system, but with rigid links between the deck and the tower. In
Equation (18), Ji (3%) is defined for the uncontrolled bridge without any rigid links between the
tower and the deck so that effectiveness of installing passive dampers in place of rigid links can
be done.
Figures 4–9 show the plots of the criteria reduction factors of the cable-stayed bridge with
passive viscous dampers as a function of the predominant period Tg of each ground motion. It is
observed from Figure 4 that the peak deck displacement reduction factor RJ6 is highly
correlated with the predominant period of the near-field ground motions. The supplemental
viscous dampers achieve the best performance for ground motions whose predominant period
Tg is in the vicinity of or longer than the fundamental natural period of the cable-stayed bridge.
1.5
Recorded motions
Regression of Records
Decaying pulses
1.0
RJ6
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tg
Figure 4. Criteria reduction factor RJ6 for the peak deck displacement using supplemental viscous damper
with damping coefficient C=1750 kN s/m.
1.5
1.0
RJ1
0.5
Recorded motions
Decaying pulses
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tg
Figure 5. Criteria reduction factor RJ1 for the peak shear force at the tower base using supplemental linear
viscous damper with damping coefficient C=1750 kN s/m.
1.5
Recorded motions
Decaying pulses
1.0
RJ2
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tg
Figure 6. Criteria reduction factor RJ2 for the peak deck shear force in towers using supplemental linear
viscous dampers with damping coefficient C=1750 kN s/m.
For example, for TCU065 N–S component of the Chi-Chi earthquake, whose predominant
period is Tg=6.4 s, the deck displacement reduction factor is 0.21. For earthquakes with
predominant periods around 2 s, the deck displacement reduction factor degrades significantly
to values greater than 0.50 for different earthquakes.
The criteria reduction factors for the bridge have also been investigated using the proposed
pulse model with n=0, decaying ratio fp=20%, Tp=Tg varying from 0.4 to 10 s. Figures 4–9
also show criteria reduction factors obtained using the analytical pulse model by dashed lines.
Curves obtained by regression of the criteria reduction factors for the recorded ground motion
1.5
Recorded motions
Decaying pulses
1.0
RJ3
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tg
Figure 7. Criteria reduction factor RJ3 for the peak moment of towers at deck level using supplemental
linear viscous dampers with damping coefficient C=1750 kN s/m.
1.5
Recorded motions
Decaying pulses
1.0
RJ4
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tg
Figure 8. Criteria reduction factor RJ4 for the peak moment of towers at deck level using supplemental
linear viscous dampers with damping coefficient C=1750 kN s/m.
have been shown by solid lines in these figures. It is observed from Figure 4 that the curves of
the deck displacement reduction factor RJ6 using the analytical pulse model match well to the
regression curve of recorded ground motions.
The criteria reduction factors for peak shear force at tower base RJ1 and peak shear force of
the tower at the deck level RJ2 are plotted in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. It is observed that the
correlation between the predominant period Tg of ground motions and criteria reduction
factors RJ1 and RJ2 corresponding to recorded ground motions is worse than that of RJ6 : This
may be due to the reason that both the shear forces at tower base and deck level depend directly
1.5
Recorded motions
Decaying pulses
1.0
RJ5
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tg
Figure 9. Criteria reduction factor RJ5 for the peak deviation of cable in tension using supplemental linear
viscous dampers with damping coefficient C=1750 kN s/m.
on the absolute accelerations. The recorded ground motions contain high-frequency (low-
period) components besides the pulse of period Tg : As a result, criteria reduction factors for a
particular value of Tg vary widely for recorded ground motions. Figures 5 and 6 also show plots
of criteria reduction factors obtained using the pulse model and the regression of responses
obtained using the recorded ground motions. Because of wide variation among results for
recorded ground motions, there is poor agreement between the regression curve and the pulse
model curve. However, criteria reduction factors RJ1 and RJ2 tend to be closer to the results for
the pulse model for long-period ground motions. Figures 7 and 8 plot the criteria reduction
factors for peak overturning moment at tower base RJ3 and peak moment of the tower at deck
level RJ4 ; respectively. It is observed from these figures that these two criteria reduction factors
are strongly correlated to the predominant period Tg of ground motions, since both the
moments of towers at tower base and at deck level depend on the peak deck displacement. The
peak displacement of the bridge deck depends on the long-period component of recorded
ground motions, as shown previously. Overturning bending moment at the tower base and at
deck level increase because of increased level of cable tension caused by larger deck
displacements. In particular, RJ4 is more directly dependent on the peak deck displacement
than RJ3 ; since the former is caused by cable tension forces while the later is caused not only by
the cable tension forces but also by the inertia force of the deck transmitted to the towers at deck
level. Figures 7 and 8 also show curves for criteria reduction factors obtained using the pulse
model. Although there is wide variation between criteria reduction factors RJ3 and RJ4 for
recorded ground motions and the pulse model at low periods (high frequencies) because of
presence of high-frequency components in recorded ground motions, the general trend of curves
for recorded ground motions is the same as that of the pulse model for longer periods.
Figure 9 shows the plots of criteria reduction factor for peak cable deviation RJ5 : As
mentioned earlier, since the peak cable tension depends on the peak deck displacement as well as
the displacement of the tower at anchorage point of the cable, the correlation between the peak
cable tension and the predominant period Tg of the ground motion is strong and similar to that
of peak deck displacement. Again the general trend of curves for recorded ground motions is
similar to the pulse model. It is also observed that the peak cable tension has the largest
reduction when the predominant period of the near-field ground motions is close to the
fundamental period of the bridge.
5.2. Performance of hybrid control system using prescribed earthquakes

The following three earthquake records have been prescribed for the numerical simulations the
bridge response: (i) El Centro NS (1940); (ii) Mexico City (1985); and (iii) Gebze N–S (1999).
The Mexico City earthquake is selected because the Cape Girardeau region is geologically
similar to the Mexico City. The El Centro and Gebze earthquakes are used to investigate the
performance of different control strategies for earthquakes with different characteristics. The
peak accelerations of these earthquakes are 3.4170 m/s2, 1.4068 m/s2, and 2.5978 m/s2,
respectively. The response spectra of a SDOF structure with 3% damping ratio (same as the
damping ratio of the FEM model of the cable-stayed bridge) subject to these three earthquakes
are shown in Figure 10. It is observed from Figure 10 that: (i) the El Centro earthquake has a
longer duration and a predominant period of approximately 0.95 s; (ii) the Gebze record is a
typical near-fault ground motion with a short duration and a long predominant period of
1.0 1.5
El c ent ro
Me x ic o
Displacement (m)
Velocity (m/s)
Gebz e 1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0 0.0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
T (s) T (s)
1.5 1.5
Input Energy (J)
Acceleration (g)
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
T (s) T(s)
Figure 10. Response spectra of SDOF structure subject to El Centro, Mexico and Gebze ground motions.
approximately 4.2 s; and (iii) the Mexico City record is a typical long-duration ground motion
on soft soil with a predominant period of 2.1 s.
The peak displacement of the deck of the uncontrolled bridge (no connection and control
devices between the deck and towers in longitudinal direction) for the El Centro, Mexico City
and Gebze earthquakes are 36.26, 18.41, and 77.34 cm, respectively. The peak displacements of
a SDOF structure with a natural period of T=6.18 s (the first natural period of the uncontrolled
bridge) subject to these three earthquake are 37, 20 and 82 cm, respectively. These results
indicate that the response of the bridge is dominated by the first mode of vibration during these
earthquakes.
In the sample active controller for the benchmark bridge model [3,4], actuators are installed at
eight locations shown by numbers in circles in Figure 2. Four actuators are installed at each
location between the girder and two piers symmetrically (a total of four locations), and two
actuators are installed at each location between the girder and abutment at two edges of the
bridge (a total number of four locations).
In the proposed hybrid control system, a total of eight passive linear viscous dampers with
equal capacities are placed at eight locations indicated by PA in Figure 2. The coefficient of the
linear viscous damper is C=3500 kN (m/s)1. Note that the passive viscous dampers with a
maximum force capacity of 8000 kN are commercially available. To construct the proposed
hybrid control system, two semi-active dampers (with control force capacity of 1000 kN) are
placed in parallel with the passive fluid damper at each location. The distribution of the passive
or semi-active dampers at each location is indicated in Figure 2, where passive dampers are
indicated by PA and semi-active by SA. The total control force generated by the semi-active
dampers at each location varies between the limits of U1=1000 kN and U2=2000 kN.
The hybrid control system is designed in such as a manner that the linear part of the
polynomial controller is implemented by a linear viscous damper and the nonlinear part is
implemented by a semi-active damper. Theoretically, the linear part of the optimal polynomial
controller is the linear combination of the state of the structure. This part can be represented
using a linear viscous damper. The hybrid control system is designed based on the cubic order
polynomial controller using the following parameters: R=I8 8, Q=5000I4 4, and Q2 ¼
C Tz QC z =15: The measurement noise from sensors is assumed to be the same as that used in Dyke
et al. [3] and Caicedo et al. [4]. Figure 11 shows the linear and nonlinear portions of control
forces of the hybrid control system and control force for passive dampers for the three typical
ground motions. It is observed from this figure that linear part of the optimal polynomial
controller can be represented by a linear viscous damper well. Further, the nonlinear part of
polynomial control force is required only at a few instances during the entire earthquake
duration. For long-duration or weak ground motions, the nonlinear part is not triggered.
The evaluation criteria of the sample active control system, the passive viscous damping
system and the proposed hybrid control system are presented in Tables II–V. The definition of
the uncontrolled system for this part is the same as the benchmark problem, i.e. rigid links are
installed between the deck and tower of the uncontrolled bridge. Note that the peak control
force in these tables is that of a single device for each control system and the total peak control
force of the hybrid control system at each location is similar to that of the sample active control,
while the semi-active part of the hybrid control system is only required at few instances during
the earthquake. In Tables II–V, evaluation criteria J14, J15 and J18 are not discussed. Evaluation
criteria J14 and J15 deal with power requirement of control system and depend on actual model
of the damper device. Since the semi-active component of the proposed hybrid control system is
2000 800 2000

linear part linear part linear part
Control Force (KN)
passive damper passive damper passive damper
1000 400 1000
0 0 0
-1000 -400 -1000
-2000 -800 -2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
2000 400 2000

Semi-active damper Semi-active damper Semi-active damper
Control Force (KN)
1000 200 1000
0 0 0
-1000 -200 -1000
-2000 -400 -2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) t (s) (b) t (s) (c) t (s)
Figure 11. Control force time-history of the hybrid control system subject to three typical ground motions.
Column: (a) El Centro; (b) Mexico; and (c) Gebze.
Table II. Evaluation criteria for El Centro Earthquake.

Sample Linear viscous Hybrid
Criterion Uncontrolled active C=3500 kN (m/s)1 control system
J1 (peak base shear) 0.456 0.386 0.416 0.420
J2 (peak deck shear of towers) 1.367 1.090 1.264 1.251
J3 (peak base moment of towers) 0.388 0.295 0.348 0.340
J4 (peak deck moment of towers) 0.968 0.587 0.600 0.642
J5 (peak cable deviation) 0.245 0.192 0.222 0.213
J6 (peak deck displacement) 3.716 1.220 1.103 1.100
J7 (normed base shear) 0.270 0.225 0.226 0.226
J8 (normed shear of towers at deck level) 2.007 1.120 1.107 1.092
J9 (normed base moment of towers) 0.636 0.274 0.242 0.239
J10 (normed deck moment of towers) 2.779 0.867 0.765 0.753
J11 (normed deviation in cable tension) 0.042 0.028 0.024 0.023
J12 W (peak control force, kN) 760 1948 PA: 1911
SA: 1000
J13 (peak damper stroke) 0.800 0.724 0.722
J16 (number of control devices) 24 8 24
J17 (number of sensors) 5 5
triggered at only a few time instants of an earthquake, the power requirement during actual
implement is not significant compared to fully semi-active systems. Evaluation criteria J18 is the
same order as the sample active control system for all cases in Tables II–V.
It is observed from Tables II–V that: (i) the performance of the hybrid control system is better
than that of the sample active control in terms of the normalized evaluation criteria, and it is
worse in terms of the peak evaluation criteria for the El Centro Earthquake; (ii) the semi-active
Table III. Evaluation criteria for Mexico City Earthquake

Sample Linear viscous Hybrid control
Criterion Uncontrolled active C=3500 kN (m/s)1 system
J1 (peak base shear) 0.556 0.454 0.497 0.497
J12W (peak control force, kN) 292 694 PA: 694
SA: 0
Table IV. Evaluation criteria for Gebze Earthquake.

J1 (peak base shear) 0.405 0.458 0.439 0.448
J12W (peak control force, kN) 862 1930 PA: 1849
SA: 1000
damper is not activated during the Mexico Earthquake since it has relatively smaller
displacement, acceleration, velocity and input energy spectra as shown in Figure 10; and (iii)
the hybrid control system is superior to the sample active control for most of the evaluation
criteria during the Gebze earthquake. The Gebze ground motion is a typical near-field ground
motion with long period velocity pulse (predominant period is approximately 4.2 s), which
induces very large displacement demand on the bridge deck, as shown in Figure 10. In such
Table V. Evaluation criteria for the Three Earthquakes.

J1 (peak base shear) 0.556 0.458 0.497 0.497
J12W (peak control force) 862 1948 PA: 1911
SA: 1000
situations, the proposed hybrid control system is more effective in reducing the peak deck
displacement. Moreover, since the controller is used only during a few instances of the entire
earthquake duration, potential problems related to overheating of the damper, and durability
are avoided. Since the proposed hybrid control system is a combination of passive and semi-
active systems, it is inherently stable and it always dissipates energy. By comparison of
controllers in Table V, it is observed that the overall performances of sample active and
proposed hybrid control systems are quite comparable. The hybrid control system is much more
effective in reducing peak deck displacement than the sample active controller. The total force
for 24 active devices is 20 688 kN, it is 16 000 kN for the semi-active part and 15 288 kN for the
passive part of the hybrid control system. Since the semi-active controllers are triggered only at
few instants during the entire earthquake episode, the proposed hybrid control system is quite
energy efficient compared with a structure with fully active or fully semi-active systems.
5.3. Robustness
It was demonstrated in the previous section that the proposed hybrid control system is designed
such that semi-active dampers are activated only when the bridge is subject to strong pulse-like
earthquakes. To verify the robust of the proposed hybrid control system, additional 28 near-
field ground motions measured at rock and soil site condition and 22 typical long duration
ground motions in Table I are also used in the this study. Detailed information on these ground
motions is available [12].
Figure 12 shows the histogram of the peak deck displacement of the bridge with only passive
and hybrid (combination of passive and semi-active) control systems subjected to 53 ground
motions. It is observed that the peak deck displacement of the bridge with passive viscous
dampers is excessive for earthquakes such as TCU068NS and TCU068EW. In fact, the peak
deck displacement is almost 1.4 m for the bridge with passive viscous dampers for the
PEAK DECK DISPLACEMENT (m) 1.5
PASSIVE
HYBRID SYSTEM (2000 KN)
1.0 HYBRID SYSTEM (5000 KN)
0.5
0.0
Lands Lcn000
Lands Lcn275
Cape CMP00
Cape CMP90
Loma LGP00
Loma LGP90
Kobe JMA00
Kobe JMA90
Sup. Hill 135
Chil Vina200
Kobe TAK00
Kobe TAK90
Chile Vlp070
Chile Vlp160
Olympia 182
Olympia 282
Erzincan NS
Newhall 360
Chl Vina290
Imperial EW
CHY080EW
TCU084EW
TCU065EW
TCU068EW
Mex. Cal 00
Mex. Cal 90
Sylmar 142
Chile LL010
Chile LL100
Mex. TacyN
Cape Pet00
Cape Pet90
Mex. TacyE
Imperial NS
CHY080NS
Miya. N41E
TCU065NS
TCU068NS
Mex. Octt 1
Mex. Octt 2
Sylmar 052
Miya.E41S
Duzce 270
Hach. EW
Taft N21E
Taft S69E
Tabas TR
Tabas LN
Hach. NS
El Centro
Mexico
Rinaldi
Gebze
Figure 12. Peak deck displacement of the bridge with passive dampers and hybrid control system.
TCU068NS earthquake. For the case of hybrid control system, the peak deck displacement
of the bridge is shown by considering two cases of upper limits on device capacities, i.e.
U2 ¼ 2000 and 5000 kN. It is observed from Figure 12 that: (i) the proposed hybrid control
system is capable of achieving the control objectives according to the magnitude of excitations.
The semi-active damper is activated only for 38 strong ground motions, and only passive viscous
dampers are utilized for the remaining 15 long duration and small ground motions; and (ii)
decreasing the force capacity of the semi-active damper U2 from 5000 to 2000 kN at each
location has less effect on the deck displacement for most the ground motions except ground
motions with very long predominant periods such as TCU068NS, TCU068EW TCU065NS,
TCU065EW, TCU068NS, TCU068EW, LCU275 and TABAS-TR earthquakes. This plot
shows clearly that the control objective can be achieved by properly designing the capacity of
control devices. If the force capacity of the semi-active dampers at each location is 5000 kN, the
peak deck displacement of bridge subject to the overall 53 ground motions can be reduced
effectively to 65 cm. Meanwhile, the overall maximum peak bending moment of towers at deck
level reduces from 7.9 105 kN m (for TCU068NS earthquake) to 4.2 105 kN m (for
TCU068EW earthquake) as shown in Figure 15. In the following, the performance of the
hybrid control system is demonstrated assuming that the force capacity of the semi-active
damper U2 ; is set to 5000 kN.
Figure 13 shows the histogram of the peak base shear of the bridge with only passive and
hybrid control systems. It is observed that the peak base shear of the bridge with the proposed
hybrid control system is higher than that with passive viscous dampers for some earthquakes.
This happens because the nonlinear semi-active controller induces high-frequency dynamics,
resulting in an increase of the absolute acceleration of the bridge. These dynamics can be
removed either by using a boundary layer around the controller [21] or by using experimental
model of the damper dynamics. On the other hand, it has been observed that the hybrid control
system is capable of reducing the peak shear of the towers at the deck level significantly for
22
PEAK OVERTURN MOMENT (KN.m) PEAK BASE SHEAR (KN)
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1e+006
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
El Centro El Centro
Mexico Mexico
Gebze Gebze
Kobe JMA00 Kobe JMA00
Lands Lcn000 Lands Lcn000
Cape CMP00 Cape CMP00

Loma LGP00 Loma LGP00

Sup. Hill 135 Sup. Hill 135
TCU084EW TCU084EW
CHY080NS
CHY080NS
CHY080EW
CHY080EW

Tabas LN
Tabas LN
Tabas TR
Tabas TR
Kobe TAK00
Kobe TAK00
Kobe TAK90
Kobe TAK90
Cape Pet00
Cape Pet00
Cape Pet90
Cape Pet90
Duzce 270
Duzce 270
Erzincan NS
Erzincan NS
Newhall 360
Newhall 360
Rinaldi
Rinaldi
Sy lmar 052
Sylmar 052
Sy lmar 142
Sylmar 142
TCU065NS
TCU065NS TCU065EW
TCU065EW
TCU068NS
TCU068NS
TCU068EW
TCU068EW Chile LL010
Chile LL010 Chile LL100
W.-L. HE AND A. K. AGRAWAL
dampers and hybrid control system.

Chile LL100 Chil Vina200
Chil Vina200 Chl Vina290
Chl Vina290 Mex. Cal 00
Mex. Cal 00 Mex. Cal 90
Mex. Cal 90
Imperial NS
Imperial NS Imperial EW
Imperial EW Hach. EW
Hach. EW Hach. NS
Hach. NS Mex. Octt 1
Mex. Octt 1 Mex. Octt 2
Mex. Octt 2 Miy a.E41S
Miy a.E41S Miy a. N41E
PASSIVE
Miy a. N41E Oly mpia 182
PASSIVE
Oly mpia 182 Oly mpia 282
Oly mpia 282 Mex. Tacy E
HYBRID SYSTEM
Mex. Tacy E Mex. Tacy N
Figure 14. Peak overturning moment at the tower bases for the bridge with passive
HYBRID SYSTEM
Mex. Tacy N Taf t N21E
Figure 13. Peak base shear of the bridge with passive dampers and hybrid control system.
Taf t N21E Taf t S69E

Taf t S69E Chile Vlp070
Chile Vlp070 Chile Vlp160
Chile Vlp160
and hybrid control systems. It is observed that the hybrid control system is effective in reducing
several earthquakes, although this quantity increase slightly for few other earthquakes. Results
moment at the tower base drastically for some earthquakes, such as TABAS-TR, TCU068NS.
moment at the tower base of the bridge with the only passive and hybrid control systems. It is
observed that the proposed hybrid control system is capable of reducing the peak overturning
for this are not presented because of space limitation. Figure 14 shows the peak overturning
Figure 15 shows the peak bending moment of the tower at deck level for the bridge with passive

PEAK MOMENT AT DECK LEVEL (KN.m)
PEAK CABLE DEVIATION
0
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
defined as
El Centro
Mexico El Centro
Gebze Mexico
Kobe JMA00 Gebze
Lands Lcn000 Kobe JMA90
Cape CMP00 Lands Lcn275
Loma LGP00 Cape CMP90
Sup. Hill 135 Loma LGP90
TCU084EW Sup. Hill 135
CHY080NS TCU084EW
CHY080EW CHY080NS
Tabas LN CHY080EW

Tabas TR Tabas LN
Kobe TAK00 Tabas TR
Kobe TAK90 Kobe TAK00
Cape Pet00 Kobe TAK90
Cape Pet90 Cape Pet00
Duzce 270 Cape Pet90
i;t
Erzincan NS Duzce 270

Newhall 360 Erzincan NS
Jdev ¼ max

Rinaldi Newhall 360

Sylmar 052 Rinaldi
Sylmar 142 Sylmar 052
TCU065NS Sylmar 142
T0i
TCU065EW
TCU065NS
TCU068NS TCU065EW
TCU068EW TCU068NS
Chile LL010

Tai ðtÞ T0i

TCU068EW
Chile LL100 Chile LL010
Chil Vina200 Chile LL100
Chl Vina290
dampers and hybrid control system.

Chil Vina200
Mex. Cal 00 Chl Vina290
Mex. Cal 90 Mex. Cal 00
PASSIVE AND HYBRID CONTROL SYSTEMS
Imperial NS Mex. Cal 90

Imperial EW
Imperial NS
Hach. EW Imperial EW
Hach. NS Hach. EW
Mex. Octt 1
Hach. NS
Mex. Octt 2 Mex. Octt 1
Miy a.E41S Mex. Octt 2
Miy a. N41E
Miya.E41S
PASSIVE
Oly mpia 182
Miya. N41E
Oly mpia 282
PASSIVE
Oly mpia 182

Mex. Tacy E
Oly mpia 282
HYBRID SYSTEM
Mex. Tacy N Mex. TacyE
Taf t N21E
HYBRID SYSTEM
Mex. TacyN
Figure 16. Peak cable tension deviation using passive dampers and hybrid control system.
Taf t S69E
Figure 15. Peak bending moment of the towers at deck level for the bridge with passive
Taft N21E
Chile Vlp070
Taft S69E
Chile Vlp160
Chile Vlp070
Chile Vlp160
bridge with only passive dampers and with hybrid control system. The peak cable deviation is
the peak bending moment of the towers at deck level for most of the near-field earthquakes.
TCU068EW earthquakes. Figure 16 presents histogram of the peak cable deviation for the
ð20Þ
However, the performance of the hybrid control system is remarkable for TCU068NS and
23

Tfi
1
PASSIVE
HYBRID SYSTEM
0.8
PEAK CABLE TENSION
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Lands Lcn000
Lands Lcn275
Cape CMP00
Cape CMP90
Kobe JMA00
Kobe JMA90
Chile Vlp070
Chile Vlp160
Oly mpia 182
Oly mpia 282
Loma LGP00
Loma LGP90
Erzincan NS
Sup. Hill 135
Mex. Cal 00
Mex. Cal 90
Newhall 360
Chil Vina200
Sylmar 142
Mex. TacyN
Mex. TacyE
Kobe TAK00
Kobe TAK90
CHY080EW
Imperial EW
Mex. Octt 1
Mex. Octt 2
Chl Vina290
Miya. N41E
Chile LL010
Chile LL100
Cape Pet00
Cape Pet90
Imperial NS
CHY080NS
TCU084EW
TCU065EW
TCU068EW
Sylmar 052
TCU065NS
TCU068NS
Duzce 270
Miya.E41S
Taft S69E
Taft N21E
Hach. EW
Hach. NS
Tabas LN
Tabas TR
El Centro
Mexico
Rinaldi
Gebze
Figure 17. Peak cable tension of the bridge with passive dampers and the hybrid control system.
where T0i is the nominal pretension in the ith cable and Tai(t) is the actual tension in
the cable as a function of time. It is observed from Figure 16 that the peak cable deviation
for the bridge with the proposed hybrid control system decreases whenever the
semi-active damper is triggered for near-field ground motions. Figure 17 shows the maximum
and minimum cable tensions in terms of the ultimate cable tension of the ith cable, Tfi. The
acceptable range of the cable tension is specified as 0.2 Tfi to 0.7 Tfi. It is observed from Figure
17 that the peak cable tension falls below the minimum cable tension of 0.2 Tfi for 15 ground
motions when passive dampers are used in the bridge. On the other hand, the maximum cable
tension falls below 0.2 Tfi for only 5 ground motions when the hybrid control system is used in
the bridge.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, performances of passive dampers and hybrid control system consisting of passive
viscous dampers installed in parallel with semi-active dampers are investigated for seismic
protection of the benchmark cable-stayed bridge. It is observed that passive dampers are quite
effective in reducing response quantities of the bridge whenever predominant period of ground
motions is close to the fundamental natural period of the bridge. Passive dampers are
significantly less effective when the predominant periods of pulse-type ground motions are far
from the fundamental period of the bridge.
A nonlinear control method based on an optimal polynomial controller is proposed for
designing both passive and semi-active components of the hybrid control system. The semi-
active damper is triggered when the required control force exceeds a certain lower threshold
value and the control force is saturated at an upper threshold value representing the device
capacity. Results of extensive numerical simulation demonstrate that:
1. The proposed hybrid control system is very effective in reducing the displacement of the
structure to a certain value for a broad spectrum of ground motions. The performance of
the proposed hybrid control system is similar to that of the sample active control system.
The peak control force of the semi-active damper is impulsive in nature and is required
during a few instances of the entire seismic episode. The semi-active damper can be
designed to satisfy device limitations and the response reduction objectives.
2. The hybrid control system is particularly effective in reducing the response quantity of the
cable-stayed bridge subject to ground motions with large predominant periods. The peak
deck displacement and the peak bending moment of tower at deck level decrease
significantly if the semi-active dampers are used in additional to the passive viscous
damping system alone. As a result, the overall performance of the cable-stayed bridge with
the hybrid control system is improved significantly over that of the bridge with the passive
damping system alone.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported jointly by the National Science Foundation Grant CMS 0099895 and the
Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation under NSF
Award EEC-9701471 to the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Any opinions,
findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
1. Takahashi M. Earthquake resistance design of the Meiko Nishi Bridge. Proceedings of the 1st US–Japan Bridge
Engineering Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, 1984.
2. PWRI (Public Works Research Institute). Seismic design procedure of cable-stayed bridge: part I, dynamic
characteristics of cable-stayed bridges based on field vibration test results. Technical report, Tsukuba, Japan, 1986 (in
Japanese).
3. Dyke SJ, Caidedo JM, Turan G, Bergman LA, Hague S. Phase I Benchmark control problem for seismic response of
cable-sated bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2003; 129(7):857–872.
4. Caicedo JM, Dyke SJ, Moon SJ, Bergman LA, Turan G, Hague S. Phase II benchmark control problem for seismic
response of cable-stayed bridges. Journal of Structural Control 2003; 10(3–4):137–168.
5. Luo N, Rodellar J, De la Sen M, Vehi J. Decentralized active control of a class of uncertain cable-stayed flexible
structure. International Journal of Control 2002; 75(4):285–296.
6. Bontempi F, Casciati F, Giudici M. Seismic response of a cable-stayed bridge: active and passive control systems
(Benchmark problem). Journal of Structural Control 2003; 10(3–4):169–185.
7. Iemura H, Pradono MH. Application of pseudo-negative stiffness control to the benchmark cable-stayed bridge.
Journal of Structural Control 2003; 10(3–4):187–203.
8. Yang JN, Lin S, Jabbari F. H2-based control strategies for civil engineering structures. Journal of Structural Control
2003; 10(3–4):205–230.
9. Park KS, Jung HJ, Spencer BF, Lee IW. Hybrid control systems for seismic protection of a phase II benchmark
cable-stayed bridge. Journal of Structural Control 2003; 10(3–4):231–247.
10. He WL, Agrawal AK, Mahmoud K. Control of seismically excited cable-stayed bridge using resetting semi-active
stiffness dampers. Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE) 2001; 6(6):376–384.
11. Agrawal AK, Yang JN, He WL. Applications of some semiactive control systems to Benchmark cable-stayed bridge.
Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2003; 129(7):884–894.
12. He WL. Smart energy dissipation systems for protection of civil infrastructures from near-field earthquakes.
Dissertation, City University of New York, 2003.
13. He W-L, Agrawal AK. An analytical model for near-field ground motion pulses for the design of smart protective
systems. Accepted for publication in the Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2005.
14. Agrawal AK, Yang JN. Nonlinear optimal polynomial control for linear and nonlinear structures. Technical Report
NCEER-95-0019. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 11 December, 1995.
15. Agrawal AK, Yang JN. Optimal polynomial control of seismic-excited linear structures. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics (ASCE) 1996; 122(8):753–761.
16. Soong TT, Wu Z. Design and implementation of nonlinear control strategies. Proceedings of 14th Structures
Congress, Chicago, IL, 15–18 April, 1996, 1147–1154.
17. Wu ZG, Gattulli V, Lin RC, Soong TT. Implementable control law for peak response reduction. Proceedings of the
1st World Conference on Structural Control 1994, TP2-50–TP2-59.
18. Tomasula DP, Spencer BF, Sain MK. Nonlinear structural control for limiting extreme dynamic responses. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE) 1996; 122(3):218–229.
19. Agrawal AK, Yang JN. Static output polynomial control for linear structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
(ASCE) 1997; 123(6):639–643.
20. Agrawal AK, Yang JN. Design of passive energy dissipation systems based on LQR methods. Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures 1999; 10(12):933–944.
21. He WL, Agrawal AK, Yang JN. A novel semi-active friction controller for linear structures against earthquakes.
Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2003; 129(7):941–950.

Passive and Hybrid Control Systems For Seismic Protection of A Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Passive and Hybrid Control Systems For Seismic Protection of A Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING

Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:1–26