Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Variable dampers for earthquake protection of benchmark highway bridges

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2009 Smart Mater. Struct. 18 115011

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/18/11/115011)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 129.89.24.43
This content was downloaded on 06/06/2014 at 03:33

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011 (18pp) doi:10.1088/0964-1726/18/11/115011

Variable dampers for earthquake

protection of benchmark highway bridges
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai,
Mumbai 400 076, India

E-mail: rsjangid@civil.iitb.ac.in

Received 5 May 2009, in final form 8 July 2009

Published 11 September 2009
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/18/115011

Abstract
The dynamic behaviour of benchmark highway bridges using variable dampers under six
bidirectional earthquake ground motions is presented. A viscous damper is used as a passive
control device and a variable damper, developed from an MR (magnetorheological) damper, is
used as a semi-active control device. The study is based on the simplified lumped-mass
finite-element model of the 91/5 highway bridge in Southern California. The prime aim of the
study is to investigate the effectiveness of viscous dampers and variable dampers with a
friction-type damping force scheme and a two-step viscous damping force scheme, with
important parametric variation. Velocity-and displacement-dependent models of a variable
damper are used. Numerical simulations are conducted by installing the devices between the
deck and abutments of the bridge. The seismic response of the bridge is compared with the
corresponding uncontrolled case, and controlled by alternative sample control strategies. The
results of the investigation clearly indicate that the base shear and mid-span displacement are
reduced substantially by these protective devices. It is concluded that variable dampers are quite
effective in considerably reducing the large bearing displacements, thereby eliminating the
isolator damages. The control effect of a viscous damper, and the two pre-set damping schemes
of a variable damper in particular, is quite satisfactory in reducing the peak response quantities
of the bridge to a level comparable to or better than that of the sample passive, semi-active and
active controllers.

1. Introduction mid-height. As a result, for the past several years research

Highway bridges are lifeline structures and hence the reduction
of seismic vibration response is considered to be vital from the
point of view of their safety and serviceability. Spectacular
failure of bridges due to the complete collapse of their piers has
been observed in every major seismic event. The Northridge
(January 17, 1994) and Kobe (January 17, 1995) earthquakes
are typical examples of large scale damage to bridges.
Extensive damage to highway and railway bridges occurred in
the Kobe earthquake, including the 18-span bridge at Fukae,
Hanshin Expressways. Near-field ground accelerations with
long pulses, one of the strongest ever recorded in the period
ranging from 0.8 to 1.5 s, induced the damage. The failure
of bridges in the Northridge earthquake was primarily due to
large deck and bearing displacements. In highway bridges,
damage of piers occurred from premature shear failure at
1 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
has focused on finding out more rational and substantiated
solutions for the protection of bridges from severe earthquake
attacks. Conventional methods of providing strong rigid
connections between the deck and the substructure reduce the
deck displacement but increase the pier base shear. Hence,
strength alone would not be sufficient for the safety of bridges.
A wide variety of passive energy dissipation devices have been
studied and implemented in bridges worldwide to mitigate
the seismic response, as documented in the literature (Kunde
and Jangid 2003). In seismic isolation, the fundamental
frequency is lowered and kept away from the predominant
frequency range of the earthquake ground motions. Although
with decreasing frequency, the mid-span deck accelerations are
reduced, helping to limit the structural damage, the increased
displacement at mid-span and at the isolation level calls for the
necessity of accommodating the large bearing displacement.
The seat dimensions of isolators in the case of seismically

0964-1726/09/115011+18$30.00 1 © 2009 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
isolated bridges are therefore more than those of the bridges
with conventional elastomeric bearings. Semi-active protective
systems combine the features of active and passive control
to reduce the response to seismic loading. A significant
amount of research and development has been conducted on
these devices because of their relatively high performance and
low energy requirement. To compare the performance and
effectiveness of various control systems in protecting bridges
from earthquakes, a benchmark problem on highway bridges
has been recently developed by Agrawal et al (2005). In phase
I of the problem, the bridge deck is fixed to the outriggers and
in phase II, the bridge deck is isolated from the outriggers. The
present study is based on phase I.
Tan et al (2005) presented sample passive, semi-active
and active control system designs for the seismically excited
benchmark highway bridge. Choi et al (2006) developed
a smart passive system, consisting of an MR damper and
an electromagnetic induction (EMI) system. The results of
the numerical simulations show that the control system is
beneficial in reducing seismic response of the benchmark
highway bridge. The performance of fuzzy logic control
systems for the earthquake protection of the bridge is also
investigated (Reigles and Symans 2006, Ali and Ramaswamy
2006). Kawashima and Unjoh (1994) used a displacement-
dependent damping model of a variable fluid damper.
Analytical results and shake table tests of a 30 m long
bridge indicated that there was significant reduction in deck
displacement and deck acceleration. Spencer et al (1997)
demonstrated that MR fluid dampers can be controlled with
small power supplies and the dynamic range of damping force
level is quite large. Due to high energy dissipation capacity,
MR dampers were considered appropriate for developing
variable dampers. MR dampers of 500 kN capacity have
been designed and fabricated. Also MR dampers of capacity
200–400 kN have been successfully used for civil engineering
applications in Japan (Weilian and Jianwei 2009). Variable
dampers of capacity 500 kN using viscous dampers and MR
dampers, with a pre-set algorithm of damping force have
been developed (Kawashima and Unjoh 1994, Ruangrassamee
and Kawashima 2001, 2003, Ruangrassamee et al 2004).
The simulation results for a five-span continuous bridge have
demonstrated their superior performance compared to passive
dampers. Previous investigations have demonstrated the
effectiveness of variable dampers in reducing the response
quantities of a benchmark cable-stayed bridge (Ruangrassamee
and Kawashima 2006). Therefore, it would be interesting
to investigate the application of protective devices, such as
viscous dampers and variable dampers, in reducing the mid-
span deck displacement as well as base shear and moments at
the base of the piers of the benchmark highway bridge.
This paper investigates the performance of viscous
dampers and variable dampers for the earthquake protection
of the benchmark highway bridge under real earthquake
ground motions through numerical simulations. The analytical
study puts forth a simplified use of the MR damper as
a variable damper. The specific objectives of this study
are to: (i) investigate the performance of viscous dampers;
(ii) investigate the performance of variable dampers by
2
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
modelling the damping force with a friction-type damping
force scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme;
(iii) study the effects of variation of large (Cd1 ) and small
(Cd2 ) damping coefficients of the two-step viscous damping
force scheme and (iv) make a systematic comparison of the
response of viscous and variable dampers with the sample
control strategies provided in the problem definition.
2. The benchmark highway bridge model
The bridge model used for the benchmark study is that of the
91/5 highway overcrossing in Southern California. Seismic
considerations were strongly considered in the design of this
bridge, as it is located very close to two major faults and in its
critical role as a principal overcrossing. A brief description
of the benchmark bridge and its model is presented herein.
A detailed description of the bridge can be found in Agrawal
et al (2005). The superstructure of the bridge consists of a
two-span continuous cast-in situ pre-stressed concrete (PC)
three-cell box-girder and the substructure is in the form of
PC outriggers. Each span of the bridge is 58.5 m long,
spanning a four-lane highway, with two skewed abutments.
The width of the deck is 12.95 m along the east and 15 m
along the west direction. The total mass of the benchmark
highway bridge is 4237 544 kg and the mass of the deck is
3278 404 kg. The deck is supported by a 31.4 m long and
6.9 m high PC outrigger, resting on pile foundations. The
ratio of the mass of the piers to the mass of the deck of
the bridge is 0.293. In the actual bridge, four conventional
elastomeric bearings are provided at each abutment and four
passive fluid dampers are installed between each abutment and
the deck-end. In the evaluation model, lead rubber bearings
(LRBs) are used in place of the elastomeric bearings. The
uncontrolled structure, used as a basis of comparison for the
controlled system, corresponds to the model, isolated with
four LRBs at each deck-end. The model resulting from the
finite-element formulation has a large number of degrees of
freedom. To make it manageable for dynamic simulation,
while retaining the fundamental behaviour of the bridge, an
extensive evaluation model of the bridge with 430 ( N ) degrees
of freedom (DOFs) has been developed in ABAQUS. It is
considered to portray the actual dynamics of the bridge and
it has been used by many researchers as a basis of comparison
of results using various protective systems. Figure 1 shows
the simplified lumped-mass finite-element model considered
for seismic investigations. Transverse (referred to as the x
direction) is north–south and the longitudinal (referred to as
the y direction) is east–west. For the purpose of analysis, the
model is divided into 108 nodes.
The bridge superstructure is represented by 3D beam
elements and modelled by the B31 element in ABAQUS. Rigid
links are used to connect the control devices between the deck-
end and abutments. The effects of soil–structure interaction
at the abutments and approach embankments are taken into
consideration (Makris and Zhang 2002). Each column of
the bent is modelled by a B31 element as a stiff column
cap, elastic column segments and nonlinear column segments.
The bearings are modelled as a shear element by taking the
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Figure 1. 3D Finite-element model of the benchmark highway
bridge.
vertical axial stiffness as infinite, and their torsional rigidity
and bending stiffness are assumed to be zero. The bearings are
idealized by a bidirectional bilinear plasticity model (Makris
and Zhang 2002). The pre-yield shear stiffness of bearings
(kb1 ) is 4800 kN m−1 and the post-yield shear stiffness (kb2 )
is 600 kN m−1 . The yield displacement of bearings ( y P ) is
0.015 m and the yield force of the lead core versus weight of
the deck ( Q d /W ) ratio is 0.05.
3. Modelling of damper control force
Viscous dampers are used as passive control devices for
a large number of structures. The viscous material is in
the form of either liquid (silicone or oil) or solid (special
rubbers or acrylics). The magnetic damper functions on
the principle of magnetism of fluid particles as seen in the
MR dampers. With a small power supply, MR fluid can
provide a large dynamic range of damping force. Hence, MR
dampers are appropriate for developing the variable damper
(Ruangrassamee and Kawashima 2003). The parameters of
MR dampers of 200 kN can be scaled up to 1000 kN capacity
(Hyung-Jo et al 2003). Hence, it is possible to use variable
dampers of 1000 kN capacity.
In the present study, an MR damper is realized as a
variable damper under two pre-set control force schemes. In
a variable damper, the damping force can be pre-set as a
function of the stroke or velocity of the damper. Larger energy
dissipation and effective performance of a variable damper
can be achieved by properly designing the control schemes.
A friction-type damping force scheme and two-step viscous
damping force scheme is proposed for a variable damper in
dynamic response analyses of bridges (Ruangrassamee and
Kawashima 2002). In the present study, the effectiveness of
a variable damper with these schemes is investigated for the
benchmark highway bridge. For the purpose of comparison,
the response is also found out for a viscous damper. Figure 2
shows the schematic diagram of a typical variable damper. As
the piston moves in a hydraulic cylinder, a variable damper
provides an adaptable damping force by adjusting the size of
the orifice through which a viscous fluid flows.
3.1. Viscous damper
Viscous dampers are typically used as supplemental energy
dissipating devices in highway bridges. The force generated
3
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of variable damper.
in a viscous damper consists of a damping force component,
which can be represented by a dashpot element. The damping
force is essentially proportional to the relative velocity of the
piston head with respect to the damper casing. Hence the
damping force Fd can be expressed as
Fd = cu̇ (1)
where u̇ is the relative velocity across the damper and the over-
dot denotes the derivative with respect to time. The coefficient
of the viscous damper is denoted by c. The damping force
Fd is restricted to ±1000 kN. The viscous damper is simply
modelled by a linear viscous element. Figure 3 shows the
viscous element, force–displacement loop and force–velocity
variation of a typical viscous damper.
3.2. Variable damper with friction-type damping force scheme
In a viscous damper, the damping force is linearly proportional
to the damper velocity and it becomes zero at the maximum
stroke, reducing the energy dissipation. The response of the
bridge can be effectively reduced and the energy dissipation
can be increased by providing a constant friction-type damping
force, Fd , for the entire range of the stroke. In conventional
friction dampers, the damping force is realized by slippage
between two materials under a normal force. However, because
of the roughness of contact surfaces, a smooth friction force
is difficult to obtain. Also, the friction force generated by a
friction damper depends on the coefficient of friction between
the two surfaces in contact.
An MR damper can be used to generate the friction-type
damping force Fd . The range of velocity acts a controller to
the restoring damping force. The control law for the force is
velocity-dependent:
⎧
⎪
⎪ fd ; u̇ > u̇ t
⎪ 
⎨ fd
Fd = u̇; −u̇ t < u̇  u̇ t (2)
⎪ u̇ t
⎪
⎪
⎩
− fd ; u̇  −u̇ t
where f d is the friction force, u̇ is the relative velocity between
the two connecting points of the damper and u̇ t is the tolerance
of the relative velocity, which allows computation of the
response at the transition of the sign of u̇ . The damping
force changes every time the velocity of the damper changes
its magnitude. The dominant feature of the scheme is its
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011 S N Madhekar and R S Jangid

Figure 3. (i) Viscous element, (ii) force–displacement loop and (iii) force–velocity relationship of linear viscous damper.

Figure 4. (i) Mathematical model, (ii) force–displacement loop and (iii) force–velocity relationship of friction-type damping force scheme of
variable damper.

simplicity in modelling. The limitation of the scheme is

that the sudden change of the controlled damping force may
generate shocks in the device. Figure 4 shows the mathematical
model, force–displacement loop and force–velocity variation
of a friction-type damping force scheme for a variable damper.

3.3. Variable damper with two-step viscous damping force

scheme
A typical viscous damper may not provide a maximum
reduction in response. Also, the amount of energy dissipation
is smaller, compared to a friction-type damper, resulting
in large deck displacement and isolator displacement in a
bridge. To improve the performance of a viscous damper,
a variable damper with a two-step viscous damping force
scheme was developed using an MR damper (Ruangrassamee
and Kawashima 2001). It is designed such that their damping
coefficient Cd can be controlled during a dynamic event as a
function of stroke and velocity of the damper. The control law
is expressed as
 equipped with protective devices. For application of the
Cd1 ; u d u̇ d > 0
Cd = (3)
Cd2 ; u d u̇ d  0
where u d is the stroke of the damper and u̇ d is the velocity of
the damper. When the structure is moving apart from its centre
position, the damping coefficient is set to a larger value Cd1 to
reduce the response and when the structure is moving back to
its centre position, the damping coefficient is set to a smaller
value Cd2 . The control law of a two-step viscous damping force
scheme of a variable damper is represented in figure 5. Further,
the damping force is calculated from
Fd = Cd u̇
where Cd = Cd1 or Cd2 are according to equation (3).
Figure 5. Control law of two-step viscous damping force scheme of
variable damper.
The parameters of the three devices depend on the
characteristics of earthquakes used. Optimal design of
dampers for a particular earthquake may not be optimal for
other earthquakes. The benchmark highway bridge package
provides simulation blocks using the MATLAB environment
for simulation of the time-history response of the bridge
three control strategies, the Simulink models of a benchmark
highway bridge are modified appropriately.
4. Governing equations of motion
For the benchmark highway bridge, the governing equations
of motion are obtained by considering the equilibrium of
forces at the location of each DOF during seismic excitations.
Under strong earthquake excitations, highway bridges exhibit
strong nonlinear hysteretic behaviour caused by inelastic
deformation of piers and soil–structure interaction. The degree
(4)
of nonlinearity varies with the stiffness of various members.
Hence, a nonlinear response-history analysis in the time

4
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
domain is employed. The nonlinear finite-element model of the
bridge is considered excited under two horizontal components
of earthquake ground motion, applied along the two orthogonal
directions, acting simultaneously at all supports. The responses
in both directions are considered to be uncoupled and there
is no interaction of forces. The equations of motion of the
evaluation model are expressed in the following matrix form:
[M]{ü(t)} + [C]{u̇(t)} + [K (t)]{u(t)} = −[M]{η}{ü g (t)}
+ [b]{F(t)}
{u(t)} = {x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . , x N , y1 , y2 , y3 , . . . , y N } T
ẍ g
{ü g } =
ÿg
where [M], [C] and [K (t)] are the mass, damping and
stiffness matrix, respectively, of the bridge structure of the
order of 2 N × 2 N ; {ü(t)}, {u̇(t)} and {u(t)} are structural
acceleration, structural velocity and structural displacement
vectors, respectively, of size N × 1; {ü g (t)} is the vector
of earthquake ground accelerations acting in two horizontal
directions; ẍ g and ÿg represent the earthquake ground
accelerations (m s−2 ) in the transverse and longitudinal
directions, respectively; x i and yi denote displacements of the
i th node of the bridge in transverse and longitudinal directions,
respectively; {F(t)} is the vector of control force inputs; {η} is
the vector of zeros and ones relating the ground acceleration to
the bridge DOFs and {b} is the vector defining how the forces
produced by the control devices enter the structure.
The element mass matrix and stiffness matrix obtained in
ABAQUS are added at the nodal masses to assemble global
stiffness and mass matrices in MATLAB. The lumped mass
matrix [M] has a diagonal form. Each element of the matrix
is the sum of half of the total mass of the adjacent segments
contributing to a particular node. The stiffness matrix [K (t)]
is the combination of [K L + K N (t)], where K L is the linear
part of the stiffness matrix and K N (t) is the nonlinear part. The
nonlinear moment–curvature behaviour of the centre columns
is modelled by a bilinear hysteresis model, consisting of linear
and elasto-plastic components. The elastic behaviour does
not change. The moments and shears of the elasto-plastic
member are a combination of the end forces of the components
depending on the state of yield. The stiffness of some elements
is likely to change during some calculation steps, disturbing
the equilibrium of the new configuration. This problem is
overcome by using an iterative procedure for automatically
adjusting time-stepping based on the half-step residual. The
global damping matrix [C] is expressed as a combination
of the distributed inherent damping in the structure and soil
radiation damping. The damping of LRBs is neglected. The
inherent damping of the superstructure is assumed to be a
function of the mass and initial elastic stiffness matrix of
the superstructure. The Rayleigh damping parameters are
computed by assuming a 5% modal damping ratio in the first
two modes of vibration. It is assumed that the properties of
the system remain constant during the time step of analysis.
A MATLAB-based nonlinear structural analysis tool has been
developed, written as an S-function and is incorporated into
the Simulink model of the benchmark bridge. The classical
modal superposition technique cannot be employed in the
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
solution of the equations because the system is non-classically
damped due to the difference in damping in the isolation
system as compared to the damping in the superstructure of
the seismically isolated bridge as well as the supplemental
damping devices. Therefore, the governing equations of
motion are solved using the S-function by the Newmark-
β iterative method of step-by-step integration, adopting the
average acceleration over a small time interval of t . The
parameters for Newmark’s technique are selected as α = 1/4
(5) and  = 1/2. The time interval for solving the equations of
(6) motion is taken as 0.002 s. At each time instant, the response
is obtained in the form of performance indices.
(7)
5. Numerical study
The seismic response of the benchmark highway bridge using
a viscous damper and variable damper is investigated for
the six specified real earthquake ground excitations, namely
(i) North Palm Springs (1986), (ii) TUC084 component of Chi-
Chi earthquake, Taiwan (1999), (iii) El Centro component of
1940 Imperial Valley earthquake, (iv) Rinaldi component of
Northridge (1994) earthquake, (v) Bolu component of Duzce,
Turkey (1999) earthquake and (vi) Nishi-Akashi component of
Kobe (1995) earthquake. For excitation of the longitudinal
direction of the bridge, the EW component of the time
history is used, and for excitation of the transverse direction,
the NS component of the time history is used. The peak
ground accelerations (PGA) of the earthquake ground motions
are shown in table 1. Four near-fault ground motions are
selected, because of the location of the bridge near major
faults. The ground motions with full intensity are assumed
to act uniformly at all the supports, along the longitudinal
and transverse direction of the bridge. The fundamental
time period of the uncontrolled bridge is 0.813 s. Under
strong ground excitations, the bridge may experience flexural
hysteretic behaviour at plastic hinges of piers and pounding
between the deck and abutments. To control the response, at
each junction of deck and abutment, eight dampers of 1000 kN
capacity each are installed, four each along the longitudinal
and transverse directions to apply control forces on the deck
and the abutment during earthquakes. The configuration
of sixteen dampers is adopted to achieve effective energy
dissipation in both directions. Under dynamic loads, these
devices are extremely stiff and are assumed to behave as rigid
links. The multi-degree-of-freedom finite-element model of
the benchmark highway bridge is used, with a viscous damper
and the two pre-set control force schemes of a variable damper,
namely a friction-type viscous damping force scheme and a
two-step viscous damping force scheme.
The critical response is related to the structural integrity
of the bridge, rather than the serviceability considerations. To
facilitate direct comparison and to evaluate the capabilities
of various protective devices and algorithms, a set of 21
evaluation criteria has been developed. The evaluation criteria
J1 – J8 are defined to measure the reduction in peak response
quantities of the benchmark highway bridge, evaluated by
normalizing the response quantities by the corresponding
response quantities for the uncontrolled bridge; J9 – J14 are
5
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011 S N Madhekar and R S Jangid

Table 1. Peak ground accelerations of six selected earthquake ground motions.

PGA (g) PGA(g) Peak velocity Peak velocity

Earthquake Type EW NS EW (m s−1 ) NS (m s−1 )
North Palm Springs (1986) Far field 0.492 0.612 0.733 0.338
Chi-Chi (1999) Near fault 1.157 0.417 1.147 0.456
El Centro (1940) Far field 0.313 0.215 0.298 0.302
Northridge(1994) Near fault 0.838 0.472 1.661 0.73
Turkey (1999) Near fault 0.728 0.822 0.564 0.621
Kobe (1995) Near fault 0.509 0.503 0.373 0.366

Table 2. Evaluation criteria J1 to J4 for sample passive, semi-active and active control strategy, viscous damper, friction-type damping force
scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme of variable dampers for North Palm Springs 1986, Chi-Chi 1999, El Centro 1940,
Northridge 1994, Turkey 1999 and Kobe 1995 earthquakes. (Note: bold number indicates minimum value; Max indicates maximum of the six
control strategies.)
Response quantity Control strategy N Palm Springs Chi-Chi El Centro Northridge Turkey Kobe Max
Peak base shear, J1 Passive 1.224 0.763 0.636 0.775 0.776 0.860 1.224
Semi-active 0.962 0.842 0.779 0.886 0.904 0.817 0.962
Active 0.950 0.877 0.790 0.896 0.912 0.789 0.950
Viscous 0.977 0.808 0.785 0.827 0.888 0.839 0.977
Friction-type 1.526 0.642 0.661 0.684 0.912 0.995 1.526
2-step viscous 0.998 0.815 0.855 0.844 0.906 0.883 0.998
Peak base moment, J2 Passive 0.633 0.959 0.576 0.960 0.879 0.549 0.960
Semi-active 0.748 0.978 0.708 0.979 0.979 0.666 0.979
Active 0.770 0.966 0.742 0.978 0.978 0.704 0.978
Viscous 0.733 0.967 0.716 0.969 0.977 0.693 0.977
Friction-type 0.791 0.949 0.361 0.938 0.555 0.501 0.949
2-step viscous 0.778 0.965 0.782 0.970 0.981 0.777 0.981
Peak mid-span Passive 0.642 0.713 0.653 0.703 0.587 0.632 0.713
displacement, J3 Semi-active 0.802 0.785 0.775 0.857 0.717 0.663 0.857
Active 0.823 0.799 0.779 0.867 0.746 0.704 0.867
Viscous 0.790 0.763 0.796 0.776 0.718 0.700 0.796
Friction-type 0.533 0.576 0.373 0.568 0.375 0.505 0.576
2-step viscous 0.815 0.837 0.868 0.814 0.799 0.785 0.868
Peak mid-span Passive 1.296 0.954 0.940 0.901 0.937 1.072 1.296
acceleration, J4 Semi-active 0.981 0.876 0.896 0.899 0.801 0.986 0.986
Active 0.794 0.875 0.883 0.844 0.798 0.899 0.899
Viscous 1.021 0.966 0.955 0.923 0.864 0.942 1.021
Friction-type 1.562 0.908 0.956 0.858 1.143 1.234 1.562
2-step viscous 1.039 1.029 1.022 0.957 0.945 0.878 1.039

based on the norm responses, calculated by normalizing the
norm response quantities by the corresponding norm of the
uncontrolled bridge and J15 – J21 are related to the controller.
The evaluation criteria are listed in tables 2–5. The normed
value of the response, denoted ·, is defined as · =

criteria are compared for all earthquakes; however, the time-
history response for each control scheme is plotted for the
Chi-Chi (1999) earthquake in the longitudinal and transverse
directions of the bridge. The results for only the dampers
located between the east deck-end and abutments are presented
 tf herein, since the dampers on the west side exhibit a similar
1
tf 0
(·)2 dt , where t f is the time required for the response
response. The main response quantities of interest are the
to attenuate. In the present study, 16 evaluation criteria,
base shear in piers ( J1 ), mid-span deck displacement ( J3 ),
namely J1 – J16 , are considered. The evaluation criteria J17
bearing (abutment) deformation ( J5 ) and their corresponding
and J18 are related to the power of the device and are not
norm values ( J9 , J11 and J13 , respectively). The base shear
significant in this study as the power required by the variable
in the piers indicates the forces exerted in the bridge due to
dampers is very low. The number of control devices, J19 , is earthquake ground motion. On the other hand, the relative
16. Since the variable dampers use velocity and displacement displacement of the control devices is crucial from the design
measurements, J20 and J21 related to control resources and point of view of the control system.
sensors are not discussed in the numerical results. In order
to access the performance, the seismic response of the bridge
5.1. Parametric study on viscous damper
with a viscous damper, friction-type damping force scheme
and two-step viscous damping force scheme is compared with The performance of the viscous dampers depends on the
the corresponding uncontrolled (with LRBs) response and the damping coefficient. Likewise, the performance of the variable
sample passive, semi-active and active controllers. Evaluation dampers depends on the damping force, transitional velocity

6
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011 S N Madhekar and R S Jangid

Table 3. Evaluation criteria J5 to J8 for sample passive, semi-active and active control strategy, viscous damper, friction-type damping force
scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme of variable dampers for North Palm Springs 1986, Chi-Chi 1999, El Centro 1940,
Northridge 1994, Turkey 1999 and Kobe 1995 earthquakes. (Note: bold number indicates minimum value; Max indicates maximum of the six
control strategies.)
Response quantity Control strategy N Palm Springs Chi-Chi El Centro Northridge Turkey Kobe Max
Peak bearing Passive 0.397 0.671 0.344 0.661 0.542 0.275 0.671
displacement, J5 Semi-active 0.812 0.765 0.566 0.853 0.674 0.512 0.853
Active 0.937 0.803 0.643 0.883 0.714 0.586 0.937
Viscous 0.604 0.725 0.452 0.745 0.680 0.339 0.745
Friction-type 0.170 0.526 0.132 0.511 0.316 0.174 0.526
2-step viscous 0.649 0.797 0.493 0.784 0.752 0.415 0.797
Peak ductility, J6 Passive 0.633 0.598 0.576 0.585 0.194 0.549 0.633
Semi-active 0.748 0.696 0.708 0.828 0.372 0.666 0.828
Active 0.770 0.743 0.742 0.852 0.463 0.704 0.852
Viscous 0.733 0.657 0.716 0.688 0.358 0.693 0.733
Friction-type 0.791 0.412 0.361 0.369 0.122 0.501 0.791
2-step viscous 0.778 0.784 0.782 0.742 0.556 0.777 0.784
Peak dissipated Passive 0 0.226 0 0.333 0 0 0.333
energy, J7 Semi-active 0 0.468 0 0.567 0.236 0 0.567
Active 0 0.512 0 0.624 0.332 0 0.624
Viscous 0 0.408 0 0.436 0.128 0 0.436
Friction-type 0 0.034 0 0.119 0 0 0.119
2-step viscous 0 0.554 0 0.563 0.290 0 0.563
Maximum plastic Passive 0 0.667 0 0.75 0 0 0.75
connections, J8 Semi-active 0 0.667 0 1 0.333 0 1
Active 0 0.667 0 1 0.333 0 1
Viscous 0 0.667 0 1 0.333 0 1
Friction-type 0 0.333 0 0.5 0 0 0.5
2-step viscous 0 0.667 0 1 0.333 0 1

Table 4. Evaluation criteria J9 to J12 for sample passive, semi-active and active control strategy, viscous damper, friction-type damping force
scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme of variable dampers for North Palm Springs 1986, Chi-Chi 1999, El Centro 1940,
Northridge 1994, Turkey 1999 and Kobe 1995 earthquakes. (Note: bold number indicates minimum value; Max indicates maximum of the six
control strategies.)
Response quantity Control strategy N Palm Springs Chi-Chi El Centro Northridge Turkey Kobe Max
Norm base Passive 1.031 0.747 0.518 0.709 0.738 0.746 1.031
Shear, J9 Semi-active 0.779 0.846 0.597 0.829 0.840 0.691 0.846
Active 0.743 0.885 0.676 0.867 0.894 0.739 0.894
Viscous 0.853 0.836 0.655 0.795 0.838 0.729 0.853
Friction-type 1.245 0.525 0.541 0.584 0.827 0.828 1.245
2-step viscous 0.824 0.882 0.729 0.830 0.896 0.804 0.896
Norm base moment, J10 Passive 0.529 0.747 0.393 0.718 0.366 0.515 0.747
Semi-active 0.662 0.798 0.559 0.838 0.502 0.656 0.838
Active 0.696 0.834 0.643 0.878 0.532 0.713 0.878
Viscous 0.682 0.789 0.623 0.809 0.511 0.689 0.809
Friction-type 0.615 0.572 0.274 0.751 0.229 0.435 0.751
2-step viscous 0.770 0.839 0.697 0.850 0.689 0.762 0.850
Norm mid-span Passive 0.557 0.645 0.410 0.650 0.442 0.544 0.650
displacement, J11 Semi-active 0.683 0.753 0.580 0.777 0.573 0.675 0.777
Active 0.703 0.784 0.656 0.805 0.607 0.729 0.805
Viscous 0.708 0.731 0.642 0.724 0.568 0.718 0.731
Friction-type 0.414 0.417 0.235 0.516 0.273 0.358 0.516
2-step viscous 0.790 0.790 0.717 0.784 0.643 0.792 0.792
Norm mid-span Passive 1.017 0.765 0.743 0.777 1.008 1.059 1.059
acceleration, J12 Semi-active 0.789 0.807 0.690 0.818 0.809 0.837 0.837
Active 0.723 0.791 0.685 0.796 0.795 0.798 0.798
Viscous 0.890 0.842 0.734 0.830 0.899 0.896 0.899
Friction-type 1.231 0.630 0.793 0.731 1.152 1.206 1.231
2-step viscous 0.873 0.924 0.820 0.896 0.903 0.925 0.925

and the maximum and minimum damping coefficient. Hence, linear viscous damper is varied from 600 to 1600 kN s m−1 .
extensive numerical simulations are conducted to determine Figure 6 shows variation of peak base shear, mid-span
the optimal parameters. The damping coefficient c of a deck displacement, bearing (abutment) deformation and their

7
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011 S N Madhekar and R S Jangid

Table 5. Evaluation criteria J13 to J16 for sample passive, semi-active and active control strategy, viscous damper, friction-type damping force
scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme of variable dampers for North Palm Springs 1986, Chi-Chi 1999, El Centro 1940,
Northridge 1994, Turkey 1999 and Kobe 1995 earthquakes. (Note: bold number indicates minimum value; Max indicates maximum of the six
control strategies.)
Response quantity Control strategy N Palm Springs Chi-Chi El Centro Northridge Turkey Kobe Max
Norm bearing Passive 0.251 0.616 0.248 0.616 0.291 0.196 0.616
displacement, J13 Semi-active 0.454 0.746 0.393 0.774 0.405 0.355 0.774
Active 0.483 0.784 0.484 0.821 0.521 0.472 0.821
Viscous 0.333 0.710 0.416 0.700 0.384 0.278 0.710
Friction-type 0.097 0.386 0.111 0.474 0.170 0.104 0.474
2-step viscous 0.355 0.766 0.465 0.758 0.442 0.323 0.766
Norm ductility, J14 Passive 0.529 0.657 0.393 0.994 0.035 0.515 0.994
Semi-active 0.662 0.693 0.559 0.771 0.220 0.656 0.771
Active 0.696 0.648 0.643 0.827 0.239 0.713 0.827
Viscous 0.682 0.618 0.623 0.616 0.223 0.689 0.689
Friction-type 0.615 0.681 0.274 1.218 0.022 0.435 1.218
2-step viscous 0.770 0.506 0.697 0.717 0.521 0.762 0.770
Maximum control Passive 0.012 0.024 0.010 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.024
force, J15 Semi-active 0.011 0.023 0.008 0.023 0.016 0.010 0.023
Active 0.010 0.024 0.006 0.023 0.015 0.008 0.024
Viscous 0.009 0.022 0.006 0.020 0.014 0.009 0.020
Friction-type 0.024 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024
2-step viscous 0.011 0.024 0.007 0.021 0.016 0.010 0.024
Maximum device Passive 0.382 0.642 0.317 0.602 0.537 0.271 0.642
stroke, J16 Semi-active 0.782 0.732 0.521 0.777 0.669 0.505 0.782
Active 0.902 0.769 0.592 0.804 0.708 0.578 0.902
Viscous 0.582 0.694 0.416 0.679 0.674 0.334 0.694
Friction-type 0.164 0.504 0.121 0.465 0.313 0.172 0.504
2-step viscous 0.624 0.763 0.453 0.714 0.745 0.409 0.763

corresponding norm values. Base shear decreases with
increase in the damping coefficient for all earthquakes, except
for North Palm Springs. The mid-span displacement and
the bearing displacement are found to reduce as the damping
coefficient increases. Large capacity viscous dampers are
capable of achieving a greater level of vibration reduction.
However, for c > 600 kN s m−1 , the control force exceeds
the capacity of the device (1000 kN). For c = 600 kN s m−1 or
lower, the control force for all earthquakes is within the device
capacity. Hence for most effective use of a linear viscous
damper, the optimum damping coefficient c is considered to
be 600 kN s m−1 .
5.2. Parametric study on friction-type damping force scheme
of variable damper
A parametric study is carried out to investigate the effect of
variation in the friction damping force Fd and the transitional
velocity u̇ t of the friction-type damping force scheme of a
variable damper on the response quantities of interest. Initially,
u̇ t is assumed as 0.2 m s−1 and the friction-type damping force
of the damper is varied from 100 to 1000 kN, i.e. the total
damping force is varied from about 0.3% to 3% of the deck
weight, respectively. The results are presented in figure 7. It
is observed that the pier base shear reduces with an increase
in the damping force for all earthquakes, except for North
Palm Springs. Further, it can be seen that, with an increase
in the damping force, the displacement response reduces
significantly. Hence, for further numerical simulations, the
damping force of a variable damper for a friction-type damping
force scheme is considered as 1000 kN. This is also equal to
the control force capacity of MR dampers used in the design
of sample semi-active controllers. Considering 16 control
devices, the total damping force provided is 48.8% of the
weight of the deck. Further, the transitional velocity u̇ t is varied
from 0.05 to 1 m s−1 . The results of the study are presented in
figure 8. The trend of the results indicates that the base shear
response decreases drastically with an increase in the u̇ t for the
North Palm Springs, Turkey and Kobe earthquakes. Further,
the base shear increases marginally for the Chi-Chi, El Centro
and Northridge earthquakes. However, a lower value of u̇ t is
favourable for all earthquakes, considering the displacement
response. To study the force–velocity variation, graphs were
plotted for u̇ t = 0.05, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1 m s−1 for all
earthquakes. It is observed that, for 0.25  u̇ t  1.0, the
graphs do not follow the required pattern, as shown in figure 4,
for all earthquakes. Hence by increasing u̇ t beyond 0.25 m s−1
does not give the required variation of force with velocity.
As the control force is less than 1000 kN for this range of
transitional velocities, the horizontal portion of the graph is
absent and the graphs are similar to the force–velocity variation
of linear viscous dampers. The exact pattern of graphs is
obtained for u̇ t = 0.15 and 0.20 m s−1 . Thus, the optimized
parameters for the friction-type damping force scheme of a
variable damper are judiciously selected as Fd = 1000 kN and
u̇ t = 0.15 m s−1 , which yield a maximum reduction in the
displacement of the deck and abutment bearings of the bridge,
without hampering the significant gain achieved in the base
shear response.

8
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Figure 6. Variation of J1 , J3 , J5 , J9 , J11 and J13 with damping coefficient of viscous damper.
5.3. Parametric study on two-step viscous damping force
scheme of variable damper
For the two-step viscous damping scheme of a variable damper,
different combinations of Cd1 (large damping coefficient) and
Cd2 (small damping coefficient) are considered. Three values
of ( CCd1d2 ) are considered, namely 2, 3 and 4. The response
is found to improve for higher values of Cd1 , as it yields a
maximum damping force: however, the control force exceeds
the device capacity for Cd1 > 650 kN s m−1 . At Cd1 =
650 kN s m−1 , the control force of the variable damper is
less than 1000 kN for all earthquakes. Further trials to
decide Cd2 are carried out with Cd1 = 600 kN s m−1 . Six
different values of the ratio ( CCd1d2 ) are considered. The results
of the selected evaluation criteria are presented in figure 9.
The criteria are found to increase with the increase in the
ratio. A smaller value of the ratio is preferred for improved
response and also for maximum energy dissipation, as depicted
9
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
in figure 10. However, to provide a smaller damping force
when the stroke and velocity of the damper have opposite
signs, the ratio should be higher. Force–displacement loops are
plotted for Cd1 = 600 kN s m−1 and different Cd2 . To get an
optimal compromise between the response reduction, energy
dissipation and the damper capacity, Cd1 = 600 kN s m−1 and
Cd2 = 300 kN s m−1 are considered to be the optimum.
The results of the analytical parametric study performed
on the viscous damper, friction-type damping force scheme and
two-step viscous damping force scheme of a variable damper
prove that these devices are beneficial for seismic response
reduction of the benchmark highway bridge. Optimum
selection of the device parameters largely governs the response
of the bridge. For all control strategies, the parameters should
be selected to achieve two objectives. First, the response of
the bridge is required to remain elastic under the action of
small earthquakes, wind and braking forces. Second, during
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Figure 7. Variation of J1 , J3 , J5 , J9 , J11 and J13 with damping force Fd of friction-type damping force scheme of variable damper.
severe seismic events, the level of the forces and displacements
is required to remain within acceptable limits to ensure that
the bridge continues to function. It is observed that a variable
damper with a simple controlling mechanism of damping
force, based on the stroke and velocity of the device, is
capable of controlling the displacement response of the deck
and bearings at abutments, while simultaneously limiting the
base shear response of the piers.
5.4. Time-history analyses
The results of time-history analyses along the transverse and
longitudinal directions are presented in figure 11 for a viscous
damper, friction-type damping force scheme and two-step
viscous damping force scheme of a variable damper under
the Chi-Chi, 1999 earthquake. The results obtained with
an LRB isolation system only (uncontrolled response) are
plotted in the same graph for the purpose of comparison.
10
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
It is observed that there is no increase in the pier base
shear response in both directions. Performance of a viscous
damper and a two-step viscous damping force scheme is
comparable in both directions, with about 20% reduction in
the response. A friction-type damping force scheme performs
well in the longitudinal direction, with 31% reduction in the
base shear. A similar trend of results is observed for the
mid-span displacement response, as depicted from figure 12.
The response in the transverse direction is reduced to 80%
by all three control strategies. However, in the longitudinal
direction, the mid-span displacement is substantially (42%)
reduced due to a friction-type damping force scheme of
a variable damper, compared to 22% for the two viscous
strategies. It is observed from the time variation plots shown
in figure 13 that the reduction in the displacement response
of the bearings at the abutments is remarkable for the bridge
with a friction-type damping force scheme of a variable
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Figure 8. Variation of J1 , J3 , J5 , J9 , J11 and J13 with transitional velocity u̇ t of friction-type damping force scheme of variable damper.
damper. The bearing displacements are dramatically reduced
to only 7% in the transverse direction and to 55% in the
longitudinal direction. The reduction by viscous strategies is
50% in the transverse direction and 23% in the longitudinal
direction.
5.5. Force–deformation behaviour
The force–deformation behaviour in the transverse and
longitudinal directions for a viscous damper, friction-type
damping force scheme and two-step viscous damping force
scheme of a variable damper is plotted in figure 14. The energy
dissipating capability is characterized by the plot of damper
force versus deformation across the device, i.e. the hysteresis
loop. The stroke of the damper in the transverse direction for
a viscous damper is 0.05 m with a control force of 263 kN,
for a friction-type damping force scheme it is 0.01 m, with a
control force of 540 kN, and for a two-step viscous damping
11
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
force scheme it is 0.08 m with a control force of 400 kN. The
dampers oriented along the longitudinal direction of the bridge
require a control force in the range of 900–1000 kN, with a
device stroke in the range of 0.16–0.24 m. From the size of the
hysteresis loops it is observed that dampers oriented along both
directions dissipate substantial amounts of seismic energy.
5.6. Force–velocity variation
The force–velocity variations are shown in figure 15. For
a viscous damper, the variation of damping force with the
velocity of the damper is linear in both directions. However,
the friction-type damping force scheme shows linear variation
in the transverse direction and, as per the control law shown
in figure 4, in the longitudinal direction. For the two-step
viscous force scheme, the loops are bow-shaped, with a clip
at the centre.
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Figure 9. Variation of J1 , J3 , J5 , J9 , J11 and J13 with ratio ( CCd1
d2
5.7. Evaluation criteria
The performance of viscous and variable dampers is
investigated by subjecting the bridge to six types of
earthquakes. The peak values of various response quantities of
interest under different earthquake motions for sample passive,
semi-active and active; and a viscous damper, friction-type
damping force scheme and two-step viscous damping force
scheme of a variable damper are presented in tables 2–5. The
response quantities for sample passive, semi-active and active
controllers are from the basic reference paper by Tan et al
(2005). The evaluation criteria are based on the optimum
parameters of the control devices. For a linear viscous damper,
the damping coefficient c is considered to be 600 kN s m−1 .
For the friction-type damping force scheme of a variable
damper, Fd = 1000 kN and u̇ t = 0.15 m s−1 ; and for a
two-step viscous damping force scheme of a variable damper,
Cd1 = 600 kN s m−1 and Cd2 = 300 kN s m−1 are considered.
12
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
) of two-step viscous damping force scheme of variable damper.
In table 2, evaluation criteria J1 to J4 are compared for
all six earthquakes. In general, for near-fault earthquakes, a
friction-type force scheme is the most effective in reducing the
peak base shear. For all earthquakes viscous dampers and the
two-step viscous scheme perform on a par with the sample
semi-active and active controllers. The peak base moment
response is best controlled by the friction-type damping force
scheme of a variable damper. The response is substantially
improved over the sample controllers. The performance of
viscous dampers and a two-step viscous damping force scheme
are comparable to each other and also to the sample semi-active
and active controllers.
Bearing displacement is a quantity of prime interest in the
design of isolated bridges because, if it exceeds certain limits,
the bearing may fail, resulting in the collapse of the bridge.
The friction-type control force scheme performs very well
for all earthquakes in reducing the displacements of bearings
located at the abutments, thus minimizing the possibility of
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Figure 10. Force–displacement loops for C d1 = 600 kN s m−1 and Cd2 = 150, 200 and 300 kN s m−1 for two-step viscous damping force
scheme of variable damper.
the pounding of the deck with the abutments. Also, the
reduction in peak bearing displacement prevents the isolation
damage arising due to instability at large displacements during
earthquakes. The significant response reduction obtained
confirms the effectiveness of the friction-type damping force
scheme. The results of analytical investigations clearly indicate
that the performance of the friction-type damping force scheme
is much superior, compared to the sample control strategies.
Thus, variable dampers can be effectively used for large
displacement response reduction of the benchmark highway
bridge, with little or no increase in the pier base shear.
Further, viscous dampers provide a better response
compared to the two-step viscous damping force scheme
and equivalent response to the semi-active and active control
systems. The trend of results obtained also shows the seismic
response reduction, particularly in reducing the excessive
displacements at the isolation level associated with an increase
13
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
of mid-span deck acceleration. The dampers are found to be
more effective in reducing bearing displacement, as compared
to the mid-span acceleration. The friction-type damping
force scheme of a variable damper is not very effective in
reducing the mid-span acceleration. Only for the near-fault
earthquakes Chi-Chi and Northridge does it give improved
results over the passive controller. This is because the rapid
fluctuation of damping force according to the control law
increases the dynamic response of the bridge, causing an
increase in the absolute acceleration. With the two-step viscous
damping force scheme, the mid-span acceleration is found
to increase marginally for the selected damping coefficient
values. Acceleration response is not greatly influenced by
the variable dampers. Thus, with the two schemes of
variable damper, the earthquake forces transmitted to the
bridge system can be reduced at the expense of increasing mid-
span acceleration.
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011 S N Madhekar and R S Jangid

Figure 11. Time history of base shear along the longitudinal and transverse direction with a viscous damper, friction-type damping force
scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme of a variable damper under the Chi-Chi, 1999 earthquake motion.

Figure 12. Time history of mid-span displacement along the longitudinal and transverse directions with viscous damper, friction-type
damping force scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme of variable damper under the Chi-Chi, 1999 earthquake motion.

Similar observations of a reduction in seismic response
can be made from table 3 for evaluation criteria J5 to
J8 . The friction-type damping force scheme of a variable
damper substantially reduces the peak bearing displacement
for all earthquakes. For near-fault earthquakes, namely Chi-
Chi and Northridge, the bearing displacement is reduced to
half and to one-third for the Turkey earthquake. Viscous
dampers and the two-step viscous damping force scheme show
improved/comparable performance over the semi-active and
active controllers. A smaller ductility factor indicates reduction
in the curvature of the central bent columns. Performance of
the two-step viscous damping force scheme is comparable to
that of the active controllers. Minimum dissipated energy of
curvatures at the end of members and the minimum number of
plastic hinges formed indicate that the moment at any section
of piers of the bridge is less than the fully plastic moment.

14
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Bearing displacement (m)
Bearing displacement (m)
Figure 13. Time history of bearing displacement along the longitudinal and transverse directions with viscous damper, friction-type damping
force scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme of variable damper under the Chi-Chi, 1999 earthquake motion.
Comparison of evaluation criteria J9 to J12 is presented
in table 4. The friction-type damping force scheme works
well in reducing the norm base shear. The two-step viscous
damping force scheme shows almost the same reduction for
all earthquakes. For the norm base moment, the friction-
type damping force scheme shows improved response over the
semi-active and active strategies. Viscous dampers perform
marginally superior to the active controllers. For norm
mid-span displacement, the performance of the friction-type
damping force scheme is much superior to all the sample
control strategies, with 50%–75% response reduction implying
that the friction-type damping force scheme is effective for the
aseismic design of bridges. The two-step viscous damping
force scheme of variable dampers performs equally well for
all earthquakes. Variable dampers are not very effective in
reducing the norm mid-span acceleration. Viscous dampers
and the two-step viscous scheme show marginal reduction in
the norm mid-span acceleration.
Table 5 present evaluation criteria J13 to J16 . For
improving the norm bearing displacement, the friction-type
damping force scheme performs very well. The amount of
displacement is substantially smaller to have any possible
impact of the deck with the abutments in the longitudinal
direction or with the bent piers in the transverse direction.
Viscous dampers perform well, compared to the semi-active
and active controllers. From the trend of results it is observed
that the two-step viscous damping force scheme is more
efficient than the active controller in reducing the norm bearing
displacement. Maximum control force is the least by viscous
dampers and the maximum device stroke is the smallest by
the friction-type damping force scheme. There is substantial
response reduction, compared to the sample controllers as well
15
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
as to the viscous dampers and the two-step viscous damping
force scheme. The maximum response reduction is 88%,
compared to 42% of active, 50% of semi-active and 73% of
passive controllers.
The last column of tables 2–5 presents the maximum
response of the control strategies. It is observed that the
performance of the variable dampers is superior to that of
the active controllers in terms of peak as well as normed
response reductions, namely in peak bearing displacement
J5 , peak ductility J6 , peak dissipated energy J7 , norm base
moment J10 , norm mid-span displacement J11 , norm bearing
displacement J13 and maximum device stroke J16 . The
peak bearing displacement is smallest using the friction-type
damping scheme of a variable damper and it is a maximum
using active controllers. The force requirement J15 , in the
case of variable dampers, is the same as that for the active
controller. Variable dampers require only a minimal power
supply and can be operated by a battery; on the other hand,
an active controller requires an external power supply. This
is a significant advantage of variable dampers over active
controllers. Also, their performance is better than the passive
viscous dampers in reducing displacement response quantities.
The results of the investigation demonstrate that viscous
dampers and variable dampers with the friction-type damping
force scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme are
capable of controlling the peak displacement response of the
bridge, isolated with LRBs, and thus reducing the length of
expansion joints. Furthermore, except for the North Palm
Springs earthquake, the peak base shear is also controlled
effectively. In general, the evaluation criteria are smaller than
one, indicating that the control strategies presented herein are
capable of reducing the response of the benchmark highway
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011 S N Madhekar and R S Jangid

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

Figure 14. Force–displacement loop in the longitudinal and transverse directions for (i) viscous damper, (ii) friction-type damping force
scheme and (iii) two-step viscous damping force scheme of variable damper.

bridge for a wide variety of earthquake records. In addition,
the effectiveness of the control strategies for the isolated
benchmark highway bridge is significantly influenced by the
time history of an earthquake excitation. The results have
clearly shown that the viscous and variable dampers are
quite effective in protecting the integrity of the benchmark
highway bridge subjected to near-field earthquakes. Hence,
the use of variable dampers as supplemental damping devices
largely solves the problem of superstructure displacement of
an isolated benchmark highway bridge, along with controlling
the seismically induced forces in the bridge.
6. Conclusions
The response of a simplified model of the 91/5 highway bridge
in Southern California with a viscous damper and two pre-
set control force schemes for a variable damper, subjected to
strong earthquake ground motions, is investigated. The seismic
response is studied under two horizontal components of six
real earthquake ground motions. The seismic responses of
the bridge with the friction-type damping force scheme and
two-step viscous damping force scheme are evaluated using
standard numerical techniques and the developed Simulink
models. The comparison of seismic response of the bridge
controlled with viscous and variable dampers and the sample
controllers is made in order to verify their effectiveness.
The results of the simulations show the advantage of using
seismic isolation combined with passive viscous dampers and
semi-active variable dampers. Variable dampers are able
to reduce the isolator and mid-span displacements, without
greatly increasing the mid-span accelerations. From the trend
of the results of the present study the following conclusions are
drawn:

16
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Figure 15. Force–velocity variation for viscous damper, friction-type damping force scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme of
variable damper.
(1) There exist optimum values of parameters for the viscous
damper, friction-type damping force scheme and two-step
viscous damping force scheme of a variable damper for
controlling the base shear, mid-span displacement and
bearing displacement response.
(2) The supplemental damping in the benchmark highway
bridge using semi-active variable dampers helps to reduce
the displacement response substantially. However, the
acceleration response of the deck increases marginally.
(3) There is very little or no increase in the pier base shear
response of the bridge with variable dampers, compared
to that of the isolation system alone and the response by
the sample controllers.
(4) The friction-type damping force scheme of variable
dampers is found to be significantly controlling the
peak displacement response of the deck and abutment
bearings, while simultaneously limiting the pier base
shear response. Average reduction in the peak bearing
displacement is substantial, compared with the active
controllers.
(5) The two-step viscous damping force scheme decreases the
deck response and the hysteretic behaviour of the piers.
However, the friction-type damping force scheme yields
more reduction in the response than the two-step viscous
damping force scheme.
(6) The variable dampers with both the friction-type damping
force scheme and two-step viscous damping force scheme
are effective in reducing seismic response, confirming that
MR dampers can be effectively used to realize the two pre-
set control force schemes.
(7) The friction-type damping force scheme tends to provide
the best overall performance, minimizing both the mid-
span displacement and pier base shear, without causing
large displacements in the isolation devices.
17
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
References
Agrawal A K, Tan P, Nagarajaiah S and Zhang J 2005 Benchmark
structural control problem for a seismically excited highway
bridge, part I: problem definition http://www-ce.engr.ccny.
cuny.edu/People/Agrawal,2005
Ali S F and Ramaswamy A 2006 Benchmark control problem for
highway bridge based on FLC Proc. ASCE Structures Congr.
2006 (St. Louis, MI, May 2006)
Choi K, Jung H, Cho S and Lee I W 2006 Application of smart
passive damping system using MR damper to highway bridge
benchmark problem MOVIC 2006: The 8th Int. Conf. on Motion
and Vibration Control (Korea, Aug. 2006)
Hyung-Jo J, Spencer B F Jr and Lee M 2003 Control of seismically
excited cable-stayed bridge employing magnetorheological fluid
dampers J. Struct. Eng. 129 873–83
Kawashima K and Unjoh S 1994 Seismic response control of bridges
by variable dampers J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 120 2583–601
Kunde M C and Jangid R S 2003 Seismic behaviour of isolated
bridges: a state-of-the-art review Electron. J. Struct. Eng. 3
140–70
Makris N and Zhang J 2002 Seismic response analysis of highway
overcrossings including soil-structure interaction Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 31 1967–91
Reigles D G and Symans M D 2006 Response modification of
highway bridge benchmark structure using supervisory fuzzy
control of smart seismic isolation system Proc. ASCE Structures
Congr. 2006 (St. Louis, MO, May 2006)
Ruangrassamee A and Kawashima K 2001 Experimental study on
semi-active control of bridges with use of magnetorheological
damper J. Struct. Eng., JSCE A 47 639–50
Ruangrassamee A and Kawashima K 2002 Seismic response control
of a benchmark cable-stayed bridge by variable dampers Proc.
Am. Control Conf. (Anchorage, AK) pp 3064–9
Ruangrassamee A and Kawashima K 2003 Control of nonlinear
bridge response with pounding effect by variable dampers Eng.
Struct. 25 593–606
Ruangrassamee A and Kawashima K 2006 Seismic response control
of a cable-stayed bridge by variable dampers J. Earthq. Eng.
10 153–65
Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 115011
Ruangrassamee A, Nakamura G and Kawashima K 2004 A model
test and analysis on seismic response control of bridges by MR
dampers Proc. 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering
(Vancouver, BC) Paper No.893
Spencer B, Dyke S J, Saint M K and Carlson J 1997
Phenomenological model of a magnetorheological damper
J. Eng. Mech., ASCE 123 230–8
18
S N Madhekar and R S Jangid
Tan P, Agrawal A K, Nagarajaiah S and Zhang J 2005 Benchmark
structural control problem for a seismically excited highway
bridge, part II: sample control designs http://www-ce.engr.ccny.
cuny.edu/People/Agrawal,2005
Weilian Q U and Jianwei T U 2009 Theoretical and experimental
study on seismic response control on top of Three-Gorges ship
lift towers using magnetorheological intelligent isolation system
and its key technique Front. Archit. Civil Eng. China 3 32–41