Vol. 19, No.

2 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION April, 2020

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2020) 19: 483-497 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0575-9

A simplified design method for metallic dampers used in the transverse

direction of cable-stayed bridges
Niu Jiantao1†, Ding Yang1, 2‡, Shi Yundong1, 2§ and Li Zhongxian1, 2‡
1. School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

2. Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structures Safety of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

Abstract: The aseismic design of cable-stayed bridges in the transverse direction with newly proposed metallic dampers
that can accommodate both longitudinal and transverse movement of the deck has recently been considered. This work
focuses on developing a simplified method to design an appropriate metallic damper. The seismic performance of cable-
stayed bridges with different damper stiffness, main span lengths, tower shapes and types of deck in the transverse direction
are investigated. The transverse displacement of the deck of a cable-stayed bridge increases significantly with the increment
of the damper stiffness, which proves that the design of the damper stiffness is crucial. A simplified model considering
the damper stiffness, cable system and tower in the transverse direction is developed to evaluate the period and lateral
displacement of a complicated cable-stayed bridge. Based on the simplified model, a design method is proposed and assessed
using two cable-stayed bridges as examples. The results show that metallic dampers can be designed with high efficiency, and
the optimal ductility of the damper can be selected.

Keywords: cable-stayed bridge; aseismic design; simplified model; metallic damper; transverse direction

1 Introduction Lu bridge during the Chi-Chi earthquake (Chang et al.,

Cable-stayed bridges have been built worldwide
because of their elegant shape, economic construction
and excellent seismic behavior. They usually have better
seismic performance than girder and arch bridges because
the superstructure is isolated from ground excitations
by cables, which can minimize seismic forces (Soneji
and Jangid, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014). However, cable-
stayed bridges are highly susceptible to wind due to their
inherent flexibility (Xue et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2014;
Guo et al., 2015). The deck must be fixed to the tower in
the transverse direction with wind-resistant supports to
avoid excessive vibration under wind loads (Camara and
Efthymiou, 2016). The bending moment and shear in the
tower are inevitably increased due to the fixed support
condition. Previous research shows that the lateral
seismic response is even more destructive than that in
the longitudinal direction in this condition (Camara
and Astiz, 2014). The damage to the tower of the Chi-
Correspondence to: Shi Yundong, School of Civil Engineering,
Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
Tel: +86-13820996563
E-mail: yundong@tju.edu.cn
†
PhD student; ‡Professor; §Associate Professor
Supported by: National Key Research and Development Program
of China under Grant No. 2011CB013606. The financial
support from the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grant No. 51378343
Received April 12, 2019; Accepted December 15, 2019
2004), which is one of the most severely damaged cable-
stayed bridges ever reported, enhances the significance
of research focusing on the lateral seismic performance
of cable-stayed bridges.
Devices installed at the tower-deck and pier-deck
connection in the transverse direction are expected to
resist wind load in service conditions and to isolate the
superstructure under an earthquake. These devices should
also have the ability to accommodate a large longitudinal
displacement of the deck. New types of isolation devices
have been designed in the last two decades. A seismic
protection system comprising fuse restraints and viscous
dampers acting in parallel was implemented for the Rion-
Antirion Bridge in Greece (Pecker, 2004). However, the
structure is too complex to be popularized. Guan et al.
(2010), Guo et al. (2012), Zhou and Peng (2009), Wang
et al. (2016), Camara (2011), Shen et al. (2014), Shen et
al. (2015) and You and Guan (2017) introduced various
types of metallic dampers to cable-stayed bridges. The
yielding mechanism was utilized, and an adequate
configuration was designed to accommodate longitudinal
displacements. Ismail and Casas (2013) designed a
novel isolation system, namely, the roll-n-cage isolator,
which incorporated isolation, energy dissipation, buffer
and inherent gravity-based restoring force mechanisms
in a single unit. All these devices mentioned above can
be simplified as having a bilinear mechanical property.
They can remain elastic to provide a high stiffness to
resist wind load during service conditions and can yield
484 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
or slide under earthquakes to provide a low stiffness.
Since many types of metallic dampers with different
stiffness and damping characteristics have been invented,
a simplified model to estimate the dynamic behavior of
cable-stayed bridges is helpful for engineers to rapidly
select and design dampers among the variety of different
types in the early stages of design (Han et al., 2018).
With a simplified model, dynamic responses induced by
seismic, wind and traffic loads can be easily evaluated, and
the geometry can be easily changed. Several simplified
models of cable-stayed bridges have been developed.
The transverse vibration mode was approximated by a
continuous beam with the same span arrangement (Khan
et al., 2005). Iemura and Pradono (2002) developed
a simplified model consisting of a set of massless bar
elements and one vibrating concentrated mass, focusing
on the floating mode in the longitudinal direction. Zhang
et al. (2017) proposed simplified formulas to calculate
the first-order longitudinal natural vibration period
using the Rayleigh energy method. Camara and Astiz
(2014) provided analytical expressions in terms of the
mechanical and geometrical properties of cable-stayed
bridges to estimate the first vibration period considering
the influence of tower flexibility. All the simplified
models mentioned above did not consider the metallic
dampers installed at the tower-deck connection in the
transverse direction. Camara et al. (2017) presented a
simplified model to obtain the optimum design of the
transverse metallic dampers in cable-stayed bridges,
and a multi-objective response factor that accounted for
the energy dissipation, peak damper displacement and
low-cycle fatigue was introduced to select the optimum
ductility and the damper configuration.
Cable-stayed bridges built near or across bodies of
water use transitional piers instead of abutments due to
the limitation of the site conditions. The strength and
stiffness of piers are much lower than abutments. The
dimensions and the stiffness of the dampers installed at
the deck-pier connection should be limited; otherwise
excessive inertia force of the deck will transfer into
the piers and its foundation. Therefore, the transverse
displacement at the end of the deck cannot be decreased
efficiently by the existing method. Generally, the
damping ratio, displacement capacity and yielding
strength are of concern in the design of a metallic
damper. The stiffness is determined afterwards, and its
influence on the seismic response is normally ignored.
However, compared to conventional structures, the
lateral floating stiffness of the deck of a cable-stayed
bridge is very small, and is primarily determined by
the damper stiffness. Thus, the damper stiffness has a
significant influence on the vibration period of the deck
and high stiffness will increase the seismic response
of cable-stayed bridges. Therefore, a simplified model
that considers the stiffness characteristics of metallic
dampers in cable-stayed bridges using transitional piers
instead of abutments is needed.
This work starts by investigating the seismic
Vol. 19
performance of cable-stayed bridges with different main
spans, tower types and stiffnesses of the metallic damper.
The stiffness provided by the metallic damper, cable
system and tower in the transverse direction is simplified
as a single spring. Then, a simplified model is developed
to calculate the vibration period and lateral displacement
of the deck. An appropriate equivalent linear method to
consider the nonlinear mechanical properties of dampers
is selected and assessed. Based on the simplified model,
a design method is proposed and assessed using two
constructed cable-stayed bridges.
2 Seismic response of bridges with various
damper stiffnesses
To verify the necessity of designing the damper
stiffness, seismic responses in the transverse direction
of cable-stayed bridges with various damper stiffnesses
are studied, and the response dominating in the design
is clarified. To obtain a more general conclusion, the
bridges summarized by Camara (2011), which are
taken from a compilation of a database of constructed
cable-stayed bridges, are adopted. The bridges have a
conventional symmetric configuration, and nearly all the
parameters are defined in terms of the main span length
(LP).
The value of LP determines the sectional dimension
of a bridge and hence significantly influences its
vibration property. It is set to 300 m, 500 m, 700 m
and 900 m, considering that most cable-stayed bridges
have a main span length between 300 and 900 m. The
lateral stiffness of the tower is influenced primarily by
the angle of the lateral leg of the tower (Camara and
Efthymiou, 2016). Normally, a larger angle will lead
to a stiffer tower. Therefore, cable-stayed bridges with
an H-shaped tower (H-CSB) and an inverted Y-shaped
tower (Y-CSB), which have the smallest and largest
lateral leg angles among all tower shapes, are chosen
to evaluate the influence of tower stiffness. A steel box
deck and a composite deck are considered, and their
cross-sections are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The cross-
section of the composite deck summarized by Camara
(2011) is adopted. The breadth of the two types of deck
is 35 m. The height of the steel box deck is 3.3 m, 4.0 m,
4.7 m and 5.4 m for cable-stayed bridges with main span
length of 300 m, 500m, 700 m and 900 m.
This study focuses on cable-stayed bridges using
transitional piers instead of abutments. The support
condition of the deck is shown in Fig. 3. The deck is
released in the longitudinal and vertical directions from
the tower, and is fixed on piers in the vertical direction.
Dampers are installed at the deck-transitional pier, and
deck-tower connection in the transverse direction. The
deck is released from the auxiliary piers in the transverse
direction. The effective stiffness of the deck-tower
connection in the transverse direction is set to 1-100 kN/mm.
The effective stiffness of the deck-transitional pier
No. 2 Niu Jiantao et al.: A simplified design method for metallic dampers used in the transverse direction of cable-stayed bridges 485
35
Fig. 1 Cross-section of steel box deck
35
Fig. 2 Cross-section of composite deck
Fig. 3 Support condition of the cable-stayed bridge
connection is set to 40% of that of the deck-tower
connection. Higher stiffness is not applicable because
the strength of the pier is relatively low compared with
that of the tower.
Finite-element models of the adopted eight cable-
stayed bridges are developed with Abaqus. The towers,
deck and piers are simulated by beam elements, and
their dimension is referenced from the works of Camara
(2011). The elastic moduli of the steel and concrete are
210 and 32.5 GPa, respectively. Each cable is defined by
a single truss element. The elastic modulus of the cables
is 195 GPa, which should be deducted by the Ernst
formula to consider the sag effect, and Poisson’s ratio is
0.3. The modified Penzien model proposed by Chen et.al
(2015) is applied to simulate the pile–soil interaction.
Geometric nonlinearities are included in all the analyses,
and the material nonlinearities are only considered for
metallic dampers.
Figure 4 shows the shapes of modes D1 and S1,
which represent the first-order symmetric floating
response of the deck and the flexural response of the side
span of the deck in the transverse direction, respectively.
The two modes have a large effective mass and govern
the seismic response. To examine the influence of the
damper stiffness on the vibration period, the vibration
periods of modes D1 and S1 for different stiffnesses are
studied and shown in Fig. 5. The labels in Fig. 5 consist
of three terms, e.g., H-300-D1, which represent the tower
shape, the main span length, and the mode, respectively.
The vibration period of mode S1 remains almost the
same for different stiffnesses, whereas the vibration
period of mode D1 decreases rapidly with increasing
damper stiffness, especially when the stiffness is less
than approximately 20 kN/mm.
Modal response spectrum analysis (MRSA), which
can represent the linear elastic seismic response by mode,
is adopted in this study due to its fast calculation speed
(Jia et al., 2013). According to the theory of MRSA, the
transverse displacement is calculated as follows:
m
u = ∑ γ nΨ n Sd (T ) (1)
n =1
where Ψn is the transverse displacement of the nth
mode of the deck, Sd(T) is the displacement response
spectrum corresponding to period T, and γn is the modal
participation factor of the nth mode and can be expressed
as:
+∞
m ∫Ψ ( x) d x + ∑ miΨ i
Ψ T mι
γ= = i =1
(2)
Ψ T mΨ +∞
m ∫Ψ ( x) d x + ∑ miΨ
2 2
i
i =1
where Ψ(x) is the transverse displacement along the
length of the deck, Ψ is the column vector of Ψ(x), ι is
the unit column vector, and m and mi are the uniformly
distributed mass and ith concentrated mass of the deck,
respectively. The concentrated mass is introduced to
consider the concentrated balance weight in the side
span of the deck.
The seismic performance of a cable-stayed bridge
in the transverse direction is considered in this study.
Therefore, the spectrum and the earthquake records are
only applied in the transverse direction. The contribution
of the first 100 modes is computed to guarantee that the
transverse effective mass coefficient is greater than 90%.
The response spectrum should be properly chosen since
the vibration period of the considered modes can be longer
than 10 s, as shown in Fig. 5. Because most standards do
not provide the spectral value in the long period range,
the spectrum defined by Eurocode 8 (2004) in soft soil
conditions is adopted. The adopted acceleration spectrum
and the corresponding displacement spectrum are shown
in Figs. 6(a) and (b), respectively. The peak ground
acceleration (PGA) is chosen as 0.5 g, and the damping
ratio is 4% considering the low damping characteristic
of cable-stayed bridges. Six recorded ground motions
are selected from the PEER database based on the site
condition and shown in Table 1. The term “RSN” in Fig. 6
is an abbreviation for record sequence number, and the
dashed lines are the mean spectra of the selected records.
The seismic force at the bottom of the tower and the
displacement at the end of the deck are crucial among
all responses in the transverse direction of cable-stayed
bridges. Excessive force at the bottom of the tower may
induce brittle failure, and excessive lateral displacement
at the end of the deck may induce deck impaction and
failure of the expansion joint. Twenty-six values of
stiffness are considered, and the seismic responses are
calculated and shown in Fig. 7. The labels in Fig. 7 consist
of three terms, e.g., H-300-MRSA, which represent the
486 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

U, U2 U, U2
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.7
0.7 0.6
0.7 0.4
0.6 0.3
0.5 0.2
0.4 0
0.3 -0.1
0.3 -0.3
0.2 -0.4
0.1 -0.6
0 -0.7

(a) Mode D1 (b) Mode S1

Fig. 4 Modes D1 and S1

40 40 40

30 30 30
Period (s)

Period (s)
Period (s)

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 0 20 20 40 40 60 60 80 80 100100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective
Damper stiffness
effective (kN/mm)
stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) Periods of H-CSB (b) Periods of Y-CSB
Fig. 5 Vibration periods of cable-stayed bridges with various damper effective stiffnesses

1.2
Displacement spectrum (m)

2
Acceleration spectrum (g)

0.9

0.6
1

0.3

0 00
0 2 4 6 8 10 4 8 12 16 20
Vibration period (s) Vibration period (s)
(a) Acceleration spectrum (b) Displacement spectrum
Fig. 6 Seismic spectrum of the selected ground motions

2.0 1.6
Displacement at the end of deck (m)

Displacement at the end of deck (m)

1.6
1.2

1.2
0.8
0.8

0.4
0.4

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) H-CSB (b) Y-CSB
Fig. 7 Displacement of the end of the deck obtained using MRSA
No. 2 Niu Jiantao et al.: A simplified design method for metallic dampers used in the transverse direction of cable-stayed bridges 487
tower shape, main span length, and adopted method,
respectively.
The displacement at the end of deck in the transverse
direction is the smallest when the deck is completely
released, and increases rapidly as the damper stiffness
increases. The displacements increase to large values
at relatively low damper stiffnesses. Since the capacity
of the metallic damper needs to be sufficiently large to
resist the wind force, the corresponding damper stiffness
is relatively high. A damper with a higher stiffness would
induce a larger displacement, as shown in Fig. 7. Thus,
the damper stiffness needs to be carefully designed.
Time history analysis (THA) is also employed in
this study to validate the MRSA results. The Hilber–
Hughes–Taylor implicit algorithm implemented in
Abqus is used, with maximum and minimum admissible
time-steps of 10-2 and 10-6 s, respectively. An inherent
structural damping ratio of 4% is adopted and is defined
by a Rayleigh damping distribution. The THA results
are set to the mean value of the results obtained from
the six records and shown in Fig. 8. It indicates that the
displacement is minimal when the deck is completely
released and increases to a large value even at a relatively
low damper stiffness.
The variations in the bending moment and shear at
the bottom of the tower with damper stiffness are similar.
The moments calculated by MRSA and THA are shown in
Fig. 9. Both results show that the moments vary slightly
Table 1 Detail of the selected earthquake records
Record sequence
number
RSN759
RSN1114
RSN1203
RSN1244
RSN5665
RSN8123
1.2
Displacement at the end of deck (m)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0
0 20
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
with different damper stiffnesses. Considering that the
damper stiffness mainly affects the displacements,
designing the damper stiffness based exclusively on the
requirement of mitigating the lateral displacement of the
deck is reasonable.
3 Simplified model for lateral displacement
3.1 Governing mode for lateral displacement
The contribution ratio of the governing mode should
be sufficiently large to develop a simplified model with
satisfactory accuracy. Mode D1, which is the first-order
transverse floating mode of the deck, has the maximum
effective mass among all modes. The contribution ratio
of this mode is studied with MRSA and shown in Fig. 10.
The figures show that the contribution ratio of mode D1
are greater than 90% in most cases. However, in some
special ranges (i.e., when the damper stiffness is equal
to 30 kN/mm for H-500, 20 kN/mm for H-700 and 10 kN/mm
for H-900) in which the periods of modes D1 and S1
are similar, the contribution ratio is less than 90%. This
phenomenon occurs because mode S1 is also excited
and its influence is not negligible in these ranges. There
is coupling between modes D1 and S1, and the shapes
of the two modes are partly changed, which vary with
different damper stiffnesses. The contribution ratio of
mode D1 when coupling occurs decreases as the main
span increases. Since the contribution ratio of mode D1
is low when coupling occurs, the accuracy of a simplified
Earthquake name Station model of a cable-stayed bridge based on mode D1 cannot
be guaranteed. Moreover, the coupling may induce a
Loma Prieta (USA) Foster City APEEL 1
large seismic response, and the influence of the coupling
of modes D1 and S1 still needs to be clarified. Therefore,
Kobe (Japan) Port Island
the coupling effect should be avoided in design.
Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY036
(China) 3.2 Simplified model of mode D1
Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY101
(China) A simplified model is developed based on modes
Iwate (Japan) MYG006
D1 and S1, as shown in Fig. 11. The simplified model
consists of a deck with uniformly distributed mass m
Christchurch (New Christchurch
and bending stiffness EI, a uniformly distributed load q
Zealand) Resthaven
1.4
Displacement at the end of deck (m)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) H-CSB (b) Y-CSB
Fig. 8 Displacement of the end of the deck obtained using THA
488 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

140 120
Bending moment at the bottom

Bending moment at the bottom

120 100
of tower (108 kN.m)

of tower (108 kN.m)

100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) Moments of H-CSB using MRSA (b) Moments of Y-CSB using MRSA

120 120
Bending moment at the bottom

Bending moment at the bottom

100 100
of tower (108 kN.m)

of tower (108 kN.m)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(c) Moments of H-CSB using THA (d) Moments of Y-CSB using THA
Fig. 9 Bending moment at the bottom of the tower obtained using MRSA and THA

1.0 1.0
Contribution ratio of mode D1

Contribution ratio of mode D1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) H-CSB (b) Y-CSB
Fig. 10 Contribution ratio of mode D1 compared with the total displacement

and two linear springs. The load q refers to the inertia with a single spring KC as shown in Fig. 12. The stiffness
force of the deck in the transverse direction. Ψ refers to K can be computed with a simplified model, as shown in
the lateral deflection of the deck. The spring stiffness K Fig. 13(a), which was proposed by Iemural and Pradono
represents the transverse floating stiffness of the deck. (2002), and focuses on the longitudinal direction of the
The transverse stiffness of the spring at the deck-pier cable-stayed bridge. The md in Fig. 13(a) is the total
is αK, and α is a coefficient of less than one since the effective mass of the deck, and KL, KT, KD and KC refer
strength of the pier is relatively low. The transverse to the stiffnesses provided by the lower part of the tower,
floating stiffness of the deck includes the stiffness the upper part of the tower (divided by the location of
provided by the damper, cable system and tower. It is the deck), the metallic damper and the cable system in
difficult to consider the influence of every cable since the transverse direction, respectively. The system in
there are so many of them. Since the stiffness of the Fig. 13(a) can be further reduced as shown in Fig. 13(b),
cable is much lower than KD and has less influence on in which the contributions of KT and KC are represented
the distribution of the transverse bending moment of by the stiffness KTC, and the stiffness K can be computed
the deck, the stiffness of the cable-system is represented as follows:
No. 2 Niu Jiantao et al.: A simplified design method for metallic dampers used in the transverse direction of cable-stayed bridges 489

q have an empirical value instead of a calculated value by

αK K K αK
pushover analysis without inducing remarkable errors.
EI m The simplified model of modes D1 and S1 shown
Ψ in Fig. 11 is hyperstatic. The reaction force of the
(a) Mode D1 connection between the tower-deck and tower-pier is
q obtained by structural mechanics, and is calculated as
EI m follows:
Ψ
K K

(b) Mode S1 qL q 2 Lα K (−2Ls 4 + 20Ls3 L − 2Ls L3 − L4 ) − 48qLα EI (5a)

Rp = −
Fig. 11 Simplified model of modes D1 and S1 2 2qα K (32 L3s L − 12 L2s L2 − L4 ) − 96EI (1 + α )

φ
θ
Ki
qL q 2 Lα K (−2Ls 4 + 20Ls3 L − 2Ls L3 − L4 ) − 48qLα EI
Rt = − (5b)
Cable Tower
Li 2 2qα K (32 L3s L − 12 L2s L2 − L4 ) − 96EI (1 + α )
Kc
Lci
Ψi
(a) Cable system (b) Angle 24α qEI ( L − 4 Ls ) − α q 2 KLs ( L − 4 Ls )(14 LLs 2 − 15Ls 3 − L3 )
Fig. 12 Simplification of the cable system Rp = (6a)
4α qFp Ls K ( Ls 3 + 7 Ls 2 L +3Ls L2 − L3 ) − 48 Fp EI (1 + α )

24α qEI ( L − 4 Ls ) − α q 2 KLs ( L − 4 Ls )(14 LLs 2 − 15Ls 3 − L3 )

Rt = +
4α qFp Ls K ( Ls 3 + 7 Ls 2 L +3Ls L2 − L3 ) − 48 Fp EI (1 + α )
L
q ( − 2 Ls ) (6b)
2

Based on the relationship between the moment and

(a) (b) rotation of the deck, the lateral deflection of the deck (Ψ)
Fig. 13 Simplified model of the lateral stiffness can be calculated as:

1
ψ1
= [2qx 4 − 8Fp x3 + (6 Fp L2 − qL3 ) x +
K K K ( K + K TC ) 48EI
K TC = T C , K = L D (3) 48EIFt
KT + KC K L + K D + K TC qLs ( L3 − 2 L3s ) + Fp Ls (8L2s − 6 L2 )+ ] (7a)
K

KL and KT can be computed by the pushover method

with a single tower model. The simplification of the cable 1
ψ2
= [2qx 4 − 8( Fp + Ft ) x3 + 48Ft Ls x 2 +
system is shown in Fig. 12. The transverse displacement 48EI
Ψi is considered as shown in Fig. 12(b). The stiffness KC (6Ft L2 − 24Ft Ls L − qL3 + 6Fp L2 ) x + qLs ( L3 − 2 L3s )+
can be calculated as following 48EIFt
Fp Ls (8L2s − 6 L2 ) − 2Ft L3 + ] (7b)
K
n
Fi n
Fi
KC =∑ sin ϕi = ∑ (4) ψ 1=
1
{ − 2qx 4 + 8 Fp x3 +
ψi
=i 1 = i 1 Li 48EI
[q (16 L3s − L3 + 12 Ls L2 − 24 L2s L) + Ft (24 L2s + 6 L2 − 24 Ls L)
where Fi and Li are the internal force and length of the ith −6 Fp L2 ]x + qLs ( L3 − 14 L3s − 12Ls L2 + 24 Ls L)+
cable, respectively, Ψi is the lateral displacement of the 48EIFt
deck at the position of the ith cable, and φi is the angle
Ft Ls (24 Ls L − 24 L2s − 6 L2 ) + Fp Ls (6 L2 − 8L2s ) + } (8a)
K
between the ith cable and plane of the tower and deck.
The stiffnesses of the tower KL and KT are much
1
larger than those of the damper KD and cable KC, which =ψ2 {2qx 4 + 8( Fp − Ft − 2qLs ) x3 +
48EI
means that the total stiffness K is primarily determined
24(qL2s + Ft Ls ) x 2 − [qL3 + 6 L2 ( Fp − Ft − 2qLs ) +
by KD and KC. For example, according to Eq. (3), the
value of K only increases 0.6% on average when KL 24 Ls L(qLs + Ft )]x +qLs ( L3 − 20 L3s − 12Ls L2 +24L2s L)+
and KT increase to five times the original values for all 48EIFt
Ft Ls (24Ls L − 16L2s − 6L2 ) + Fp Ls (6L2 − 8L2s ) + } (8b)
bridge models. Therefore, KL and KT can be assumed to K
490 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

where Ψ1(x) and Ψ2(x) are the lateral deflection of the side
span and main span of the bridge, respectively, x is the
distance to the left end of the deck, and L and Ls are the
lengths of the entire deck and the side span of the deck.
The circular frequency of mode D1 can be evaluated
with the energy method. The external work and kinetic
energy of the deck can be expressed as shown in Eqs. (9)
and (10), respectively.
1  l 
Emax = ω 2  ∫ mΨ 2 ( x ) dx + ∑ miΨ 2 ( xi ) 
2  0
i 
1 l 1 is small, which leads to a small transverse displacement
U max = ∫ q ( x)Ψ ( x)dx + ∑ PjΨ ( x j )
2 0 2 j
where ω is the circular frequency, q(x) is the uniformly
distributed load, and Pj is the jth concentrated load.
Because the section of the deck is uniform, m(x) is
simplified as a constant m and q(x) is simplified as q. As
the external work and kinetic energy are equivalent, the
circular frequency ω can be calculated by:
l
∫ qΨ ( x)dx + ∑ PΨ ( x )
0
j
j j
ω = 2
l (11)
∫ mΨ 2 ( x ) dx + ∑ miΨ 2 ( xi )
0
i Figure 15 shows a comparison of the lateral
To assess the accuracy of the simplified model, the
vibration periods of mode D1 calculated by the finite
element model and the simplified model are compared
in Fig. 14. The errors are less than 8% in all cases for
bridges with different tower shapes and various damper
stiffnesses. Thus, the simplified model has a high
accuracy in predicting the period of mode D1 of the
cable-stayed bridge.
The simplified model of mode S1 is also developed
to calculate the stiffness Kco, which is the value of the
damper stiffness KD inducing the coupling effect. The
directions of the movement of the main span and side
(9) span of the deck are opposite, as shown in Fig. 4(b),
which means that the directions of the inertia force are
also opposite. Therefore, the total inertia force of the deck
(10) at the location of the damper, and the effective mass
of mode S1 is also small, which leads to a negligible
contribution ratio of mode S1 in normal conditions.
The periods of modes D1 and S1 with various
damper stiffness can be calculated rapidly with the
proposed simplified model. The stiffness when the
curves of the periods of modes D1 and S1 intersect is the
stiffness when coupling occurs, and this stiffness should
be avoided in design.
3.3 Simplified model to evaluate the displacement of
the deck
displacements of bridges with the H-shaped tower
calculated by the finite element model and the simplified
model using the spectrum method. Figure 15(b) shows

40 40

30 20
Period of mode D1 (s)

Error of period (%)

20 0

10 -20

0 -40
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) Periods of H-CSB (b) Errors of H-CSB

40 40
Period of mode D1 (s)

Error of period (%)

30 20

20 0

10 -20

0 0 -40
20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(c) Periods of Y-CSB (d) Errors of Y-CSB
Fig. 14 Comparison of periods of mode D1 computed by the FEM and SM
No. 2 Niu Jiantao et al.: A simplified design method for metallic dampers used in the transverse direction of cable-stayed bridges 491

that the maximum difference between the results of the Hence, the periods of mode S1 and other flexural modes
finite element model and the simplified model is less are shorter. However, Fig. 17 shows that the type of
than 20%. Note that the error increases as the main deck does not significantly influence the displacement
span increases. This is because the contribution ratio of variation and the accuracy of the simplified model. The
mode D1 when coupling occurs decreases as the main maximum error is approximately 21%.
span increases as shown in Fig. 10. The mode S1 has
a higher contribution at the same time. Errors increase
accordingly since the contribution of mode S1 and the 4 Consideration of the bilinear property of
coupling are ignored in the simplified model. metallic dampers

3.4 Influence of the tower shape The metallic dampers must remain elastic under
service conditions and yield when an earthquake occurs.
Figure 16 shows a comparison of the lateral A bilinear hysteretic model is commonly adopted for
displacements of bridges with the Y-shaped tower metallic dampers (Manuel and Joan, 2006). To use
calculated by the finite element model and the simplified the simplified model developed based on linear theory
model. The stiffness of the cable and tower (KC, KL, (MRSA), an equivalent linear method should be applied
and KT) of Y-CSB are normally larger than those of for metallic dampers. Many equivalent linear models
H-CSB due to the larger angle of the cable and the leg have been proposed (Rosenblueth and Herrera, 1964;
of the tower in the transverse direction. As discussed in Hwang and Chiou, 1996). The secant stiffness is adopted
Section 2, the stiffness of the tower has less influence on in this study to represent the effective stiffness of the
the total transverse stiffness K. The maximum error is metallic dampers:
approximately 19%.
1 + ηµ − η
3.5 Influence of the type of the deck K ef = K y =λ K y (12)
µ
The lateral displacements of cable-stayed bridges
equipped with a composite deck are shown in Fig. 17. 2 (1 − η )( µ − 1)
The composite deck shown in Fig. 2 has a higher flexural ξeq = +ξ 0 (13)
stiffness than the steel deck due to the expanded section. π ( µ − ηµ + ηµ 2 )
Displacement at the end of deck (m)

2.0 60

40
Error of displacement (%)

1.6
20
1.2
0
0.8
-20
0.4
-40
0 -60 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) Displacements of H-CSB (b) Errors of H-CSB
Fig. 15 Comparison of displacements computed by the FEM and SM
Displacement at the end of deck (m)

2.0 60

40
Error of displacement (%)

1.6
20
1.2
0
0.8
-20
0.4
-40
0 -60 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) Displacements of H-CSB (b) Errors of H-CSB
Fig. 16 Influence of the tower shape
492 Displacement at the end of deck (m)
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0 -60 0
0 20
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) Displacements
where Kef, ξeq, and Ky are the effective stiffness, equivalent
damping ratio and elastic stiffness of a damper,
respectively. λ is the stiffness ratio, defined as the ratio
of effective stiffness Kef and elastic stiffness Ky. μ is the
ductility factor, defined as the ratio of the maximum
displacement and yielding displacement of a damper. η
is the post-yielding stiffness ratio, defined as the ratio of
the post-yielding stiffness and elastic stiffness, and ξ0 is
the inherent viscous damping ratio of a bridge.
The total equivalent damping ratio of a bridge
ξtot is calculated based on the theory of the composite
damping ratio. The contribution of the damping ratio of
a structural component to the overall system damping
ratio is equal to the damping ratio of each structural
component weighted by its strain energy ratio:
(ξ ) + (ξ ) ( R )
ξ tot =
where (ξs)i is the damping ratio of the ith component
of the bridge, and (Rs)i is the stiffness ratio of the ith
component of the bridge.
A reduction factor β to deduct the elastic displacement
spectrum is adopted to consider the influence of damping:
 0.07 
β =
 0.02+ξ tot 
According to Eqs. (12)-(15), the effective stiffness
Kef and the reduction factor β are functions of the
displacement ductility ratio μ, post-yielding stiffness
ratio α, and stiffness ratio Rs. Since the stiffness of a
metallic damper is much lower than that of a tower, the
value of Rs is much less than 1, and hence, the influence
of Rs is limited. The post-yielding stiffness ratio η is an
inherent property of a specific damper. Therefore, the
equivalent damping ratio is determined exclusively by
the ductility ratio μ.
To assess the accuracy of the adopted equivalent
linear method, the lateral displacements of H-300,
H-500, Y-700, and Y-900 are computed. The proposed
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19
60
40
Error of displacement (%)
20
0
-20
-40
40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(b) Errors
Fig. 17 Influence of the type of deck
simplified model with the equivalent linear method and
MRSA method is adopted, and the finite element model
with the THA method is adopted for comparison, which
considers the bilinear characteristic of the metallic
damper directly. The metallic damper is modelled by an
equivalent elastoplastic material with a linear kinematic
hardening rule that captures the Bauschinger effect. The
post-yielding stiffness ratio η is 0.08. The six selected
seismic records shown in Table 1 are adopted in the THA,
and the corresponding spectra of the selected records are
employed in the simplified model. The yielding force of
dampers is designed to be greater than the wind force
that the deck may sustain. The wind force is expressed
as:
1
FH = ρVg2 CH H (16)
eq i s i s i
(14) 2
1 + ( Rs )i
where FH is the wind force sustained by the deck per unit
length, ρ is the density of air, Vg is the design wind speed,
CH is the resistance coefficient, and H is the height of the
deck. The total wind force Fw is calculated for bridges
with four different main span lengths LP, as shown in
Table 2. The basic wind speed is 30 m/s.
The results are shown in Table 3. The average
0.35 displacements calculated by the simplified model are
larger (at most 17.8%) than THA, which means that the
 (15)
simplified model leads to a conservative result.
5 Design of dampers with the simplified model
5.1 Design method of dampers
The MRSA is adopted in the proposed design
method. Both the stiffness and damping characteristics
of a metallic damper have a significant influence on the
seismic response of a bridge. The influence of stiffness
can be calculated by the proposed simplified model, and
the influence of damping is considered by deducting the
response spectrum using the reduction factor β.
The proposed design procedure is illustrated in
Fig. 18. To start the design procedure, the design
No. 2 Niu Jiantao et al.: A simplified design method for metallic dampers used in the transverse direction of cable-stayed bridges 493
Table 2 Total wind forces on the deck
LP (m) Fw (kN)
300 1410
500 2950
700 4610
900 7820
1. Set the design displacement Dd and calculate the
transverse displacement
2. Set the target ductility of damper and obtain
the reduction factor β
3. Obtain the maximum admissible stiffness Km
4. Update the total damping based the
damper ductility
5. Design the dampers
6. Select the optimal ductility
Fig. 18 Proposed design procedure
displacement Dd should be determined considering the
deformation capacity of the expansion joint and the
demand to prevent falling or impaction of the deck
in step 1. The lateral displacements of bridges with
various stiffnesses can be calculated with the proposed
simplified model shown in step 2. After a series of trial
damper ductility are determined, the assumed total
damping ratio ξtot* can be obtained with Eq. (14), and the
reduction factor β can be obtained with Eq. (15). Then
the transverse displacement can be reduced with β. The
lateral displacement at the end of the deck should be
smaller than the design displacement Dd. The maximum
admissible effective stiffness Km can be obtained with
it in step 3. The total damping ratio should be updated
after the actual damper ductility is obtained in step 4. If
the error between the assumed damping ratio (ξtot*) and
the calculated damping ratio (ξtot) is larger than 10%, the
damping ratio ξtot* should be updated by ξtot, and steps
2‒4 should be repeated. When the error is less than 10%,
the damper can be designed with the above parameters
in step 5.
Some restrictions in the design of the dampers
exist in step 5. The elastic stiffness Ky of the metallic
dampers should be sufficiently large to prevent excessive
displacement caused by strong wind or traffic load. The
yielding force of the metallic dampers should be larger
than the wind force, and the displacement capacity of
the metallic dampers should be sufficiently large. The
design requirements are summarized as follows:
Kn ≤ K y

 K ef ≤ K m
F ≥ F
 y w
(17)

 µd ≤ µ m
µ D ≥ D
 d y d
 K ef ≠ K co
where Fy, Dy, Ky and Kef are the yielding force, yielding
displacement, elastic stiffness and effective stiffness of
the metallic dampers, respectively. Kn is the stiffness
requirement to prevent excessive displacement in service
conditions, and Kco is the damper stiffness that induces
the coupling effect. Dd is the design displacement, and
μd and μm are the design value and maximum value of
ductility factor μ, respectively.
Large values of the ductility factor lead to large
dissipation levels of the seismic energy, but also lead to a
higher risk of low-cycle fatigue. The performance factor
proposed by Camara et al. (2017), which accounted for
the energy dissipation, peak damper displacement and
low-cycle fatigue, is adopted to choose the optimum
ductility in step 6. The performance factor FRd is
expressed as:
Ω u max
WΩ + Wu max + ∑ WPM ,i PM i
Ωadm uadm
FRd = i
(18)
WΩ + Wu + ∑ WPM ,i
i
where WΩ, Wu and WPM,i are the weightings related to
energy dissipation, peak displacement of the dampers at
the towers (umax), and low-cycle fatigue factor at the ith
damper (PMi), respectively. The value of the weightings
is considered equal to one in this study. The sub-index
“adm” refers to the maximum admissible value of the
response. The values of Ω are considered equal to zero,
because the transverse displacement of the deck is the
focus of this study. Therefore, the energy dissipation of
the tower is ignored and set to zero.
5.2 Application of the proposed design method
Triangular plates (TADAS) are adopted to provide
an example of the proposed design method. The
triangular plates are composed of triangular steel plates
and semisphere force-conducting units (Camara, 2011;
Shen et al., 2015). The design parameters of TADAS can
be expressed as follows:
494 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 19

Table 3 Displacements calculated by MRSA and the SM

Serial number of historical ground motions
Average
Bridge Method RSN1063 RSN1084 RSN1087 RSN1120 RSN1602 RSN5992 (m)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
H-300 THA 0.286 0.235 0.431 0.387 0.104 0.452 0.316
SM 0.383 0.251 0.612 0.356 0.14 0.492 0.372
H-500 THA 0.452 0.293 0.512 0.215 0.148 0.601 0.370
SM 0.409 0.296 0.634 0.342 0.197 0.674 0.425
Y-700 THA 0.321 0.373 0.468 0.404 0.235 0.656 0.410
SM 0.415 0.402 0.477 0.374 0.238 0.561 0.411
Y-900 THA 0.595 0.416 0.647 0.432 0.359 0.832 0.547
SM 0.533 0.419 0.634 0.491 0.344 0.833 0.542

Table 4 Parameters of two cable-stayed bridges

Nc
1 (20c)
Material PM i = ∑
Lp Ls B Nf
(tower/ m m
(m) (m) (m)
deck)
North branch of the 406 175 33.8 Concrete/ where Nf is the number of cycles to failure given by the
Runyang Yangtze Steel Coffin-Manson rule in a steel specimen; Δεp is the plastic
River Bridge strain amplitude; ε′f is the failure strain for a single
(Model-1) reversal, and set to 11.1% in this study; c is the fatigue
Shanghai Yangtze 730 350 51.5 Concrete/ ductility exponent and set to -0.55; εi(t) is the plastic
River Bridge Steel strain transformed for the displacement time-histories of
(Model-2) the dampers (ud,i); t and H are the thickness and height
Lp: main span length; Ls: side span length; B: breadth of deck of a triangle plate; PMi represents the low-cycle fatigue
failure risk (PMi≥1 means failure) in the ith TADAS; Nc
is the number of cycles with plasticity at the dampers;
Nσ y Bt 2 σyH 2 and Nf|m is the number of cycles to failure if the plastic
NEBt 3
=Fy = , Dy = , Ky (19) strain range amplitude of the mth cycle is kept constant.
6H Et 6H 3 To start the design procedure, the design displacement
Dd is 0.5 m, and the transverse displacement at the end
where σy, E and N are the yielding stress, elasticity of deck is calculated with the simplified model as shown
modulus and number of triangular plates, respectively. in Fig. 19(a). The ductility of TADAS is selected from
H, B and t are the height, width and thickness of a the range of values μ= [2,3,4,5,6,8]. Then the damping
triangular plate, respectively. The post-yielding stiffness ratio ξtot* can be calculated and ξtot is updated as shown
ratio η is 0.08. in Table 5. The displacements adjusted by the reduction
Two constructed cable-stayed bridges built in the factor β with the ductility μ equal to 2 and 8 are shown
Yangtze river basin are chosen to verify the effectiveness in Fig. 19(b).
of the simplified design method. The parameters of the The stiffness requirement Km is the effective stiffness
two bridges are listed in Table 4. The north branch of the when the displacement calculated by the simplified
Runyang Yangtze River Bridge is referred to as Model-1, model is equal to the design displacement. Since the
and the Shanghai Yangtze River Bridge is referred to transverse displacement at the end of the deck increases
as Model-2. The site conditions and the corresponding rapidly as the damper effective stiffness increases, the
response spectra for the two bridges are considered to be damper effective stiffness should be designed to be lower
the same as above. than Km. The stiffness requirement Km can be obtained as
The factor PMi focused on the TADAS proposed by the value at which the displacement curve intersects with
Camara et al. (2017) is introduced and expressed as: the dotted line corresponding to the design displacement,
as shown in Fig. 19(b). The effective stiffness of the red
1/ c dot in Fig. 19(b) is Km.
1  ∆ε p 
Nf =   (20a) The yielding strength and elasticity modulus of
2  2ε f′  the plates is 500 MPa and 210 GPa, respectively. The
thickness of the plates is 20 mm in all cases. The wind
t force Fw is calculated as 1700 kN and 4290 kN for
ε i (t ) = ud,i (20b) Model-1 and Model-2, respectively. The stiffness and
H2
No. 2 Niu Jiantao et al.: A simplified design method for metallic dampers used in the transverse direction of cable-stayed bridges 495

strength of the TADAS installed at the deck-transitional finite element model analysis, and the damper can be
pier connection is 40% of that of the deck-tower designed within a few minutes.
connection. The parameters of TADAS installed at deck- The parameters are validated by the finite element
tower connection are shown in Table 5. The breadth B model and THA method. The six earthquake records
and height H of TADAS installed at the deck-transitional shown in Table 1 are adopted, and the THA results are set
pier connection is the same as the value in Table 5, and to the average result of the six records. The displacement
the number of plate N and the elastic stiffness Ky is 40% of TADAS at the deck-tower and deck-transitional pier
of the value in Table 5. Both the curves in Fig. 19 and connection are shown in Table 6. The displacements
the dimensions of the dampers can be calculated without calculated by THA are lower than the corresponding

1.6 1.0
Displacement at the end of deck (m)

Displacement at the end of deck (m)

Model-1 Model-1 μ = 2
Model-2 Model-2 μ = 2
Model-1 μ = 8
1.2 Model-2 μ = 8

0.8 0.5

0.4

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm) Damper effective stiffness (kN/mm)
(a) Transverse displacement (b) Stiffness Km
Fig. 19 Calculation of the transverse displacement and the stiffness Km

Table 5 TADAS design parameters

Km B H Ky
μ ξ tot
*
ξtot N
(kN/mm) (m) (m) (kN/mm)
Model-1 2 0.16 0.12 13.96 44 1.2 1.45 4.86
3 0.20 0.15 16.95 36 1.2 1.18 7.32
4 0.22 0.17 18.17 31 1.2 1.02 9.81
5 0.24 0.17 19.59 28 1.2 0.93 11.79
6 0.26 0.18 21.43 26 1.2 0.84 14.46
8 0.30 0.19 27.62 22 1.2 0.73 19.14
Model-2 2 0.16 0.11 29.13 67 2 1.45 12.2
3 0.20 0.14 31.88 54 2 1.18 18.5
4 0.23 0.16 34.41 46 2 1.02 24.7
5 0.24 0.17 35.17 43 2 0.93 29.7
6 0.27 0.18 36.25 39 2 0.84 36.5
8 0.31 0.19 38.43 34 2 0.73 48.3

Table 6 Validation of the design method and selection of the optimum ductility

The displacement of deck- The displacement at deck-

μ FRd
tower connection (m) pier connection (m)
Model-1 2 0.343 0.354 0.70
3 0.330 0.335 0.69
4 0.321 0.326 0.68
5 0.305 0.313 0.68
6 0.298 0.309 0.71
8 0.292 0.301 0.81
Model-2 2 0.352 0.473 0.72
3 0.351 0.459 0.74
4 0.345 0.451 0.73
5 0.343 0.443 0.76
6 0.339 0.437 0.81
8 0.340 0.424 0.95
496 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
design displacement Dd in all cases, which proves that
the simplified design method is safe. The optimal value
of the ductility is selected as the one for which FRd is
minimized. Thus, when the ductility is equal to 4 and 5
for Model-1, and to 2 for Model-2, it is considered to be
the optimal ductility, as shown in Table 6.
With the simplified design method, the design of
metallic dampers can be rapidly conducted within a few
minutes, which is about one hundred times shorter than
when using the traditional finite element model. The
optimum ductility of the damper can be selected with
the adopted method.
6 Conclusion
This work focuses on a method to choose and design
an appropriate metallic damper for cable-stayed bridges
in the transverse direction. The seismic performance of
cable-stayed bridges with different damper stiffnesses,
main spans, tower shapes and types of deck are
investigated. A simplified model to evaluate the period
of the dominant mode and lateral displacement of the
deck is developed. The secant stiffness and equivalent
damping ratio are adopted to consider the nonlinear
properties of metallic dampers. A simplified method
to design the dampers is proposed and assessed by
using two cable-stayed bridges as examples. The main
conclusions are summarized as follows:
1. For cable-stayed bridges using transitional piers
instead of abutments, the transverse displacement of the
deck increases rapidly with the increment of the damper
stiffness and can reach a large value at a relatively low
damper stiffness. The design of the damper effective
stiffness is crucial to control the deformation of the
deck. Forces at the bottom of the tower are only slightly
affected by the stiffness, and thus, designing the damper
based exclusively on the displacement requirement is
reasonable.
2. The contribution ratio of the first-order symmetric
floating response of the deck is greater than 90% under
different support conditions for bridges with main span
lengths from 300 m to 900 m in most cases. A simplified
model considering the stiffness provided by the metallic
damper, cable system and tower in the transverse
direction is established. The model can calculate the
period and transverse displacement of the target mode
with errors of less than 8% and 21%, respectively.
3. With the simplified design method, the design of
various types of dampers can be efficiently performed,
and the results are conservative. The optimum ductility
of the damper can be selected considering the seismic
response and the risk of low-cycle fatigue.
Acknowledgement
This work is sponsored by the National Key Research
and Development Program of China under Grant No.
Vol. 19
2011CB013606. The financial support from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.
51378343 is also greatly appreciated.
References
Camara A (2011), “Seismic Behaviour of Cable-Stayed
Bridges: Design, Analysis and Seismic Devices, PhD
Thesis, Technical University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid.
Camara A and Astiz MA (2014), “Fundamental
Mode Estimation for Modern Cable-stayed Bridges
Considering the Tower Flexibility,” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 19(6): 213‒226.
Camara A and Efthymiou E (2016), “Deck-Tower
Interaction in the Transverse Seismic Response of
Cable-stayed Bridges and Optimum Configurations,”
Engineering Structures, 124: 494‒506.
Camara A and Astiz MA (2014), “Analysis and Control
of Cable-Stayed Bridges Subject to Seismic Action,”
Structural Engineering International, 24(1): 27‒36.
Camara A, Cristantielli R, Astiz MA and Málaga-
Chuquitaype C (2017), “Design of Hysteretic Dampers
with Optimal Ductility for the Transverse Seismic Control
of Cable-Stayed Bridges,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 46: 1811‒1833.
Chang KC, Mo YL, Chen CC, Lai LC and Chou CC
(2004), “Lessons Learned from the Damaged Chi-Lu
Cable-stayed Bridge,” Journal of Bridge Engineering,
ASCE, 9(4): 343‒352.
Chen Y, LI ZX and LI N (2015), “Seismic Damage
Analysis of Coastal Continuous Rigid-Framed
Bridges Considering Multiple Mediums,” China Civil
Engineering Journal, 48(10): 91‒98. (in Chinese)
Eurocode 8 (2004), Design of Structures for Earthquake
Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and
Rules for Buildings, European Standard EN 1998-1:2004
Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
Guan ZG, Li JZ and Xu Y (2010), “Performance Test
of Energy Dissipation Bearing and Its Application in
Seismic Control of a Long-Span Bridge,” Journal of
Bridge Engineering, 15(6): 622‒630.
Guo AX, Xu YL and Li H (2015), “Dynamic Performance
of Cable-Stayed Bridge Tower with Multi-Stage
Pendulum Mass Damper under Wind Excitations—I:
Theory,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 6(3): 295‒306.
Guo AX, Zhao QJ and Li H (2012), “Experimental
Study of a Highway Bridge with Shape Memory Alloy
Restrainers Focusing on the Mitigation of Unseating and
Pounding,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 11(2): 195‒204.
Han Q, Wen JN, Du XL, Zhong ZL and Hao H (2018),
“Simplified Seismic Resistant Design of Base Isolated
Single Pylon Cable-Stayed Bridge,” Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 16(10): 5041‒5059.
No. 2 Niu Jiantao et al.: A simplified design method for metallic dampers used in the transverse direction of cable-stayed bridges 497
Hwang JS and Chiou JM (1996), “An Equivalent Linear
Modal of Lead-Rubber Seismic Isolation Bearings,”
Engineering Structures, 18(7): 528‒536.
Iemura H and Pradono MH (2002), “Passive and Semi-
Active Seismic Response Control of a Cable-Stayed
Bridge,” Structural Control and Health Monitoring,
9(3): 189‒204.
Ismail M and Casas JR (2013), “Novel Isolation Device
for Protection of Cable-Stayed Bridges against Near-
Fault Earthquakes,” Journal of Bridge Engineering,
19(8).
Jia HY, Zhang DY, Zheng SX, Xie WC and Pandey
MD (2013), “Local Site Effects on a High-pier Railway
Bridge under Tridirectional Spatial Excitations:
Nonstationary Stochastic Analysis,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 52(6): 55‒69.
Khan RA, Datta TK and Ahmad S (2005), “A Simplified
Fragility Analysis of Fan Type Cable Stayed Bridges,”
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
4(1): 83‒94.
Manuel J and Joan RC (2006), “A Direct Displacement-
Based Method for the Seismic Design of Bridges on
Bi-Linear Isolation Devices,” Engineering Structures,
28(6): 869‒879.
Pecker A (2004), “Design and Construction of the Rion
Antirion Bridge,” Proceedings of the Geotechnical
Engineering for Transportation Projects, GSP, 126,
Washington, DC, 216‒240.
Rosenblueth E and Herrera I (1964), “On a Kind of
Hysteretic Damping,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Division (ASCE), 90(1): 37‒48.
Shen X, Camara A and Ye AJ (2015), “Effects of Seismic
Devices on Transverse Responses of Piers in the Sutong
Bridge,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 14(4): 611‒623.
Shen X, Ni XB and Ye AJ (2014), “A New Type of
Metallic Damper for Bridges′ Aseismic Performance in
Transverse Direction,” Journal of Vibration and Shock,
33(21): 96‒101. (in Chinese)
Soneji BB and Jangid R (2008), “Effectiveness of Seismic
Isolation for Cable-Stayed Bridges,” International
Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 6(1):
77‒96.
Wang H, Chen CC, Xing CX, and Li AQ (2014), “Influence
of Structural Parameters on Dynamic Characteristics and
Wind-Induced Buffeting Responses of a Super-Long-
Span Cable-Stayed Bridge,” Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration, 13(3): 389‒399.
Wang RL, Xu Y and Li JZ (2016), “Transverse Seismic
Behavior Studies of a Medium Span Cable-stayed
Bridge Modal with Two Concrete Towers,” Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 21(1): 151‒168.
Xue SD, Ko JM and Xu YL (2002), “Wind-Induced
Vibration Control of Bridges Using Liquid Column
Damper,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 1(2): 271‒280.
You H and Guan ZG (2017), “Elastoplastic Cable
Pair and Viscous Damper Used in the Lateral Seismic
Isolation of Cable-Stayed Bridges,” Journal of Vibration
and Shock, 36(14): 183‒188. (in Chinese)
Zhang WX, Kou WQ, Chen Y and Du XL (2017),
“Simplified Calculation of First-Order Longitudinal
Natural Vibration Period of Cable-stayed Bridges Based
on Energy Method,” China Journal of Highway and
Transport, 30(7): 50‒57. (in Chinese)
Zheng SX, Zhang J, Jia HY, Zhang KY and Kang R
(2014), “Stochastic Seismic Response Analysis of
Large-span Cable-stayed Bridge Subjected to Multi-
Dimensional and Multi-Support Excitations,” Journal
of Southwest Jiaotong University, 49(5): 747‒753. (in
Chinese)
Zhou XY and Peng LY (2009), “A New Type of Damper
with Friction-Variable Characteristics,” Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(4): 507‒520.