EFFECTIVE STAY CABLE DAMPER DESIGN

Simon HOFFMANN
DYWIDAG Systems International – Siemensstr. 8, 85716 Unterschleissheim – Germany
Simon.Hoffmann@dywidag-systems.com

Johann DISTL
Maurer Söhne – Frankfurter Ring 193, 80807 Munich – Germany
distl@mchn.maurer-soehne.de

Introduction

Longer and more exposed stay cable bridges challenge not only the design of the bridge structure, but
as well the design of the stay cable dampers. This contribution discusses the parameters allowing an
efficient and finally economic design of stay cable dampers.

CAUSES FOR STAY CABLE VIBRATION

Cable vibrations due to wind or traffic excitation are a serious problem for cable stayed structures.
Numerous examples of cable vibrations worldwide have shown that this is still a very urgent problem
to deal with. Several countermeasures have been designed so far reaching from simple cable
connectors, advantageous design of HDPE protective surface up to semi-active damping devices.
Main target of these systems is to reduce vibration amplitudes of the stay cables effectively. High
vibration amplitudes may cause damage to the cable itself, the anchorage construction and/or the
whole bridge as the worst case. In principle the service life of the structure is reduced if large cable
vibrations occur. Prominent examples have shown that even the traffic will be shut down due to
extensive vibration problems.
From field observations it is obvious that the main part of stay cable vibrations are primarily induced
by rain-wind effects originated by the combination of light rain and moderate wind speeds. These
vibrations are in general caused by the low intrinsic structural damping of the cables unable to
neutralize the negative aerodynamic damping according to figure 1. Other forms of excitation such as
parametric excitation due to wind and traffic loads or galloping can occur and has to be kept in mind.

2.0 FL FL
FD FD
α α
M M
1.5
Steady Wind Force Coefficients C D, CL & CM

U U
d/D = 0.1 d/D = 0.2
CD
CD
1.0

0.5

CM
0
CL
CM

-0.5 Re = 2.7x104 Re = 2.7x104

CL
-90 -60 -30 0 30 -90 -60 -30 0 30
Angle of Attack α (deg.) Angle of Attack α (deg.)
Fig. 1 Development of aerodynamic parameter [1]
CABLE DAMPERS

In principle there exist two different ways to control these rain-wind-induced vibrations namely
aerodynamic countermeasures and the installation of mechanical mitigation devices. The aerodynamic
measures comprise different surface treatments for protective pipes of the cables such as helical
strakes, dimples, elliptical, or circular rings to increase the aerodynamic damping of the cable and to
prevent the formation of water rivulet at the underside of the stay cable. Mechanical vibration
mitigation devices for example may be cable cross-ties or dampers. Cross-ties basically shift the
frequency, while additional dampers get down to the root of the problem by increasing the damping of
the very low intrinsic damping capacity of high strength stay cables.

Cable damper specification

In many cases the specification for cable dampers of a cable stayed bridge will refer only to a
minimum logarithmic decrement δ of the cable including the damper derived according equation (1)
from the damping ratio ζ.

δ = 2 ∗π ∗ζ (1)

In general the damping ratio provided by the cable itself is very low compared to the one of a damper
connected to the cable. Consequently the damping ratio of the cable is neglected for most cable
damper designs.
The instance, that cable dampers are provided in most cases only for stay cables longer than 80 m
points to the dependency of an effective cable damper design on the geometric conditions. Such
limitation to lengths above 80 m is given by a required minimum affinity of the cable for excitation to
severe vibration. Most shorter cables provide eigenfrequencies, which are too high for rain-wind-
induced or vortex-shedding- induced vibration.
Other geometrical constraints influence the aerodynamic behaviour of the cable. These constraints can
be changed to a certain degree favourable by special surface design of the sheathing by applying e.g.
dimples or helical strakes mentioned before. Especially for longer cables a full suppression of the
cables affinity to severe vibration by such measurement is impossible. Nevertheless the affinity shall
be quantified for an efficient cable damper design to include the risk of such vibration in the design.
The most common way to evaluate such affinity especially for vortex-shedding is given by the so
called Scruton number Sc. Its most common definition among others is given by equation (2).

ζ ∗ me (2)
Sc =
ρ ∗ D2

Where me is the equivalent mass per unit length (in general the total mass of the cable per meter), ρ is
the air density (value of 1.2 kg/m³ at 20°C) and D the outer diameter of the duct. According to Dyrbye
and Hansen [2], no risk of lock-in effects causing severe vibration due to vortex-shedding exists for Sc
values greater than 20. On the contrary, the risk of lock-in is very significant if Sc is less than 10. The
specification of a detailed limit for Sc needs an evaluation for each project of specific detailed
geometrical and environmental conditions initiating vibration. Therefore such limits might be
discussed while considering the damping ratio and dominant influences like the length of the cable.
Adding a limit in terms of cable lengths at which dampers will be required seems essential and should
consider environmental conditions and specific system details of the cable system like enhanced
damping by additional supports. The application of Sc ≥ 10 for standard cables and Sc ≥ 5 to 7 for stays
with a particular surface to suppress rain-wind-induced vibration provides a link between affinity of
the system to vibration and required damping - see FHWA report [3].
Orientation of the cable damper

It is reported in literature that most of the vibration phenomena occurs in-plane [4] and it may be
assumed that to provide damping against rain-wind-induced vibration only in the vertical direction is
sufficient [3].
This does not mean that damping in horizontal direction is not important, but in many cases the stays
are already installed with a rubber protection close to anchorage providing a certain amount of
damping. Measured damping on a stay cable factory test without rubber element showed a logarithmic
damping of δ = 0.001 to 0.002 while the same cable after installation in the structure provides a
damping of δ = 0.006 to 0.009 depending on mode shape. Additionally, the aerodynamic damping
coefficient under buffeting forces is twice along the wind i.e. out-of-plane direction, than across the
wind i.e. in-plane direction [4]. Finally it has to be considered, that all vibration causes an elliptical
movement instead of a pure linear oscillation. Consequently additional in plane only damping will
always reduce even out of plane dominated vibration.
Recent experiences on exposed structures like the Dubrovnik Bridge and Sutong Bridge, both
equipped with in-plane only dampers confirm this approach.

Efficiency of the damper

Small curvature, bending stiffness of the cable and non linearity of the damper can reduce the
efficiency of a damper in a wide range. Furthermore temperature and frequency dependency as well as
deterioration and wear of the damper can vary with the type of damper. Sun et. al. [5] proved by full
size tests with different types of dampers, that this reduction can cause a practical efficiency of a
damper of the order of 50% to 70% of that assumed in the theory. A general evaluation of such basic
effectiveness of the damper is impossible as it depends much on the applied stay cable system and the
type and specific design of the dampers. Another severe influence to the efficiency of the damper is its
flexibility and especially the flexibility of the damper support [4]. In order to keep the reduction of
efficiency less than 5% the following ratio η of stiffness k of the support and distance xc of the damper
to the anchorage versus the cable force H shall be kept higher than 19 [4]:

k ∗ xc
η= (3)
H

External damper benefit in this regard from their support on the bridge deck with only negligible
reduction in stiffness. Their single components are basically subject to axial forces and normally do
not suffer from bending effects. Such bending effects can cause significant reduction in stiffness in
case of an internal damper, which transmit their damping force to the recess pipe of the cable in many
cases. The loss in efficiency by dampers supported in such a way is discussed in the following chapter
by means of the example of the Dubrovnik bridge.
Equation (3) demonstrates as well, that the ratio respective efficiency increases with higher distance of
the damper to the anchorage. This seems trivial as more energy can be dissipated by the damper as
closer it is located to the vertex of the mode shape. Geometrical, aesthetical and economical reasons
limit this distance normally to 5% of the total length of the cable.
In case of most common viscous dampers the most effective design of the damper itself has to
consider the optimum damper coefficient c, which varies for the different modes of a stay cable. In
most cases only the first few modes are relevant for rain-wind-induced or vortex-shedding- induced
vibration. Consequently the optimization has to cover all of these relevant modes together by means
of simple or weighted combination. The process has to be chosen for the specific project, but will lead
to an optimum total efficiency lower than the theoretical maximum for a single mode. The effect will
be discussed more in detail in the following chapters by means of the example of the Dubrovnik
Bridge and advanced cable dampers, which allow overcoming this effect to a large extend.
STAY CABLE DAMPER DESIGN

The design of stay cable dampers requires in general the following steps:

1. Specification of the required damping and Scruton number for the stay
2. Specification of the maximum acceptable amplitude
3. Specification of the modes to be damped
4. Specification of environmental conditions
5. Definition of the type of damper and required damper efficiency
6. Definition of the optimized damping coefficient in case of passive dampers
7. Calculation of the minimum damper position while considering the damper support
8. Calculation of the maximum amplitude of the damper
9. Calculation of the force capacity of the damper

Step 1 and 4 are linked to each other and will follow design guidelines like [6] or specifications
elaborated for a single project. They give the basis for the design of the damper, but do not offer
details for the efficiency of the damper according step 5 in regards of the damping of the cable stay.
The following provides some considerations by means of a real project in order to allow a more
practical discussion of the parameters influencing the efficiency of stay cable dampers.

Bridge across Rijeka Dubrovcka (Dubrovnik Bridge)

The Bridge across Rijeka Dubrovcka (Dubrovnik Bridge), shown in figure 2, lends itself for the
discussion of effective stay cable dampers, as it has proven its need for additional damping when in
spring 2005 and 2006 strong storms combined with wet snow lead to estimated mid span amplitudes
of the stay cable of up to 2 m. Furthermore later installation of adaptive external cable dampers
supplied by Maurer Söhne and detailed modal analysis of the structure is presented in many
publications like by Weber et. al. [7] and Savor [8].
In late 2006, 30 cables of the in total 38 cables were equipped with external dampers and have been
not subject to severe vibration since then. Apart from the specific wind conditions at the bridge
favouring induced vibration, the bridge is a rather typical construction for a stay cable bridge of this
size. The stay cable system of the bridge is based on a DYNA Bond® anchorage for 27 and 61 strands
supplied by DYWIDAG Systems International. The cable length varies between 72 and 222 m and the
relevant cable force between 1800 and 6751 kN.

Fig. 2: Design of the Bridge across Rijeka Dubrovacka [8]

Considering different modes

As an example the longest cable is chosen for the following calculation considering different aspects
of efficient stay cable damper design. This cable is characterised by the following parameters:

• Type: DYNA Bond ® with 61 strands (150 mm² cross section and 1770 MPa tensile strength)
• Tensile force: N = 6751 kN
• Length: L = 222.3 m
• Mass per unit length: m = 77.5 kg/m
• Sheathing outer diameter: D = 0.225 m
• Distance of damper connection to anchorage: a = 7.044 m

Based on these parameters a curve can be evaluated for each mode giving the damping ratio ζ and
Scruton number Sc dependent on the damping coefficient of the damper e.g. according to Main and
Jones [9]. Figure 3 shows the results for the first five modes based on the assumption of full
theoretical efficiency (100 %) of a viscous damper without flexibility of the damper or the support of
the damper and negligible damping as well as bending stiffness of the cable.
The maximum achievable damping ratio results to 1.584% and Scruton number to 20.2 for all modes.
Defining the damping coefficient of the damper according the optimum of 230 kN/(m/s) for the first
mode will result in a damping ration of 1.268 and Scruton number of 16.0 for the second mode. The
third mode shows for this damping coefficient a damping ratio of 0.951% and Scruton number of
12.0. These results demonstrate that the optimization of the damper for a single mode might not be
able to cover required efficiency for other modes in case these can cause relevant vibration.
The following considers the intersection of the curves for the first and the second mode as design
point for the choice of the damping coefficient. Likewise the example presented in figure 3 results for
the first two modes to a damping ratio of 1.494 and Scruton number of 18.9 at a damping coefficient
of 162 kN/(m/s). This leaves a damping ratio of 1.223 and Scruton number of 15.5 for the third mode.
In many cases more sophisticated optimizations including the third and higher modes are applied,
which will not be taken as a basis for the examples in this contribution for sake of clarity.
Assuming an efficiency of the damper of 70% at the chosen damping coefficient will finally result in a
damping ratio of 1.046% and Scruton number of 13.2 for the first and second mode and damping ratio
of 0.856% and Scruton number of 10.9 for the third mode.

Fig. 3: Damping ration ζ and Scruton number Sc dependent on the damping coefficient for mode 1 to 5
Considering different locations of the cable damper

The calculations demonstrated on the basis of figure 3 are based on a distance of 7.044 m for the
connection of the external damper, which complies with 3.17% of the total cable length. Figure 4
presents the linear correlation for an external damper (“External max”) of the achievable maximum
damping ratio and Scruton number based again on the same assumptions, but for a distance of up to
5% of the total cable length. In addition the damping ratio and Scruton number optimized for the first
and second mode (“External opt”) shows a linear correlation with slightly lower gradient. For such
external dampers the assumption of negligible flexibility of the damper and especially of the damper
support is justifiable.
Internal dampers normally connected to the recess pipe of the anchor suffer from the flexibility of this
support. On the example of the discussed longest cable of the Dubrovnik Bridge the recess pipe has a
diameter of 394 mm and plate thickness of 10 mm. Considering simplified a full restraint of the recess
pipe it can be calculated as simple cantilever with the length depending on the location of the damper.
Likewise the flexibility of the support by the recess pipe changes with the distance of the damper to
the anchorage. The results presented in figure 4 for such internal damper for the maximum achievable
(“Internal max”) and for the first and second mode optimized (“Internal opt”) damping ratio and
Scruton number show a significant deviation from the linear regression. Consequently the achievable
efficiency of the damping by an internal damper is much more limited as demonstrated using the
following example calculation.
The flexibility increasing with the length of the recess pipe causes for a location analogue the
executed one with a distance of 2.55 m (equal to 1.15% of the total cable length) to the anchorage an
optimized damping ratio of 0.467% and Scruton number of 5.91 instead of damping ratio of 0.541%
and Scruton number of 6.84 for the non flexible supported external damper. For the executed location
of the external damper such comparison results to an optimized damping ratio of 0.839% and Scruton
number of 10.61 for the internal damper complying with app. 56% efficiency of the non flexible
external damper.
All these calculations are based on the current design of the recess pipe. The application of an internal
damper to a cable of such length will be not a solution to be found in practice. In addition in most
cases of internal dampers applied to stay cables the recess pipe are reinforced in order to provide more
stiffness. Nevertheless this calculation demonstrates the necessity of considering the stiffness of the
stay cable dampers support by including for the calculation the flexibility of the support.

Fig. 4: Damping ration ζ and Scruton number Sc dependent on the position and kind of damper
ADVANCED CABLE DAMPERS

Advanced Cable dampers can adapt their damping force to the optimum independently from mode-
shape, temperature or other influences. This makes the device first choice for long stays and exposed
bridges. The first application of such a damper was for a test campaign at a bridge close to Kampen
(NL) demonstrated in figure 5. Meanwhile this type of damper is applied to bridges like the presented
Dubrovnik Bridge as well as long and exposed bridges like the Sutong (China) and Alamillo (Spain)
Bridge.

Fig. 5: Left - stay cable bridge Kampen (NL) and Right - installed advanced cable damper (ACD)

Figure 6 relates for the longest cable of the Dubrovnik Bridge the theoretical achievable maximum
damping ratio of a passive viscous damper optimized for the first mode versus the semi-active
dampers installed. While for a passive damper the effective damping ratio decreases with higher mode
the ACD damper adjusts itself to the required damping force. This adoption is regulated by an
electronic control and requires only a small amount of power. Nevertheless, the damper has a fail safe
strategy and provides a minimum damping in case of any failure in the control loop.

2.0%

1.6%
Cable damping ζ

1.2% passiv opt for mode 1

semi-active (off)
0.8% semi activ (on)
max, theoretical
0.4%

0.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Mode i
Fig. 6: Comparison of Semi-active and passive viscous damper
CONCLUSION

Longer and more exposed bridges require high efficiency dampers for the stay cables. The main
parameters influencing this efficiency of the dampers have been discussed and rated. Specific details
of the stay cable dampers design like the stiffness of their support showed significant influence as was
demonstrated by means of an executed project and parameter studies.
Consequently especially for longer stay cables external dampers offering a support of negligible
flexibility provide the highest efficiency. Many years of experience and recent applications like for the
Sutong Bridge with the world longest stay cables validate this outcome. Moreover these applications
validate the effectiveness of external dampers in plane only direction, which can be anticipated from
observations and theoretical considerations.
Still the adjustment and optimization of passive dampers to more than one mode challenges the design
and sets limits to the efficiency of the damping system. Most applications will allow such limits given
by passive dampers. In cases where such limitations are not tolerable adaptive cable dampers (ACD)
with semi-active control can be brought into use. These devices are able to adjust themselves to an
optimum for the relevant mode and provide a maximum damping for the stay.

REFERENCES

[1] Geier, R. 2004, Brückendynamik – Schwingungsuntersuchungen von Schrägseilen, Verlag BOD

GmbH., Norderstedt, Deutschland, 1-228.

[2] Dyrbye, C. and Hansen, S. 1997, Wind load on Structures, John Wiley &, Sons, Chichester,
United Kingdom, 1-244.

[3] Kumarasena, S., Jones, N. P., Irwin, P., Taylor, P. 2007, Wind induced Vibration of Stay Cables,
FHWA/ HNTB Report RDT 05-083, 1-281.

[4] Caetano, E. 2007, Cable Vibrations in Cable-Stayed Bridges, International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering IABSE, 1-188.

[5] Sun, L. Shi, C. Zhou, H. And Zhou, Y. 2005, “Vibration mitigation of long stay cable using
dampers and cross-ties” Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Cable Dynamics,
Charleston, 433-450.

[6] fib 2005 Acceptance of stay cable systems using prestressing steels, fib-recommendation, bulletin
30, 1-77.

[7] Weber, F., Distl, H. Huber, P., Nützel, O., Motavalli, M. 2007, "Design, Implementation and
Field Test of the Adaptive Damping System of the Franjo Tudjman Bridge nearby Dubrovnik,
Croatia", Proceedings International association of for bridge and structural engineering
Symposium, Weimar, 414-415.

[8] Savor, Z., Radic, J., Prpic, V. 2003, "Bridge Across Rijeca Dubrovvacka, Croatia", Structural
Engineering International SEI. vol. 13, Number 3, 190-192.

[9] Main, J., Jones, N. 2004, "Evaluation of viscous dampers for stay cable vibration Mitigation",
Journal of Bridge Engineering ASCE. vol. 6, Number 6, 385-397.