This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 24 December 2014, At: 04:16

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

SEISMIC RESPONSE CONTROL OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE

USING DIFFERENT CONTROL STRATEGIES
a a
CHIA-MING CHANG & CHIN-HSIUNG LOH∗
a
Department of Civil Engineering , National Taiwan University , Taipei, Taiwan
Published online: 04 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: CHIA-MING CHANG & CHIN-HSIUNG LOH∗ (2006) SEISMIC RESPONSE CONTROL OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE
USING DIFFERENT CONTROL STRATEGIES, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 10:4, 481-508, DOI: 10.1080/13632460609350606

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460609350606

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 10, No. 4 (2006) 481-508
@ Imperial College Press

SEISMIC RESPONSE C O N T R O L OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE

U S I N G D I F F E R E N T C O N T R O L STRATEGIES

CRIA-MING CHANG and CHIN-HSIUNG LOH*

Department of Civil Engineering
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

'iohc02200ccms.ntu.edu.tw

Received 22 April 2005

Reviewed 15 November 2005
Accepted 10 January 2006

The goal of this research is to study the effect of cable vibration through a number
of control cases of a cable-stayed bridge. In order to consider the complicated dynamic
behaviour of the fuli-scale bridge, a three-dimensional numerical model of the MATLAB-
based analysis tool has been developed by the complete simulation of the Gi-Lu bridge.
The dynamic characteristics of cables in the cable-stayed bridge are verified between the
field experiment and the result from numerical simulation using geometrically nonlinear
beam elements in MATLAB program. Three types of control devices are selected to
reduce the response of the bridge deck which includes: actuators, viscouselastic dampers
with large capacity, and base isolations. Moreover, two types of control devices, MR
dampers and viscous dampers, are installed either between the deck and cables and/or
between two neighbouring cables for controlling the cable vibration. A modified bi-
viscous model combined with convergent rules is used to describe the behaviour of MR
dampers. Finally, through evaluation criteria the control effectiveness on the cable-stayed
bridge using different control strategies is examined.

Keywords: Cable-stayed bridge; cable vibration; MR damper; active control algorithm.

1. Introduction
The control of flexible bridge structures, such as cable-stayed bridges, is viewed
as a unique and challenging problem with many complexities in modelling, control
design, and implementation. Long-span cables are especially susceptible to vibration
with large amplitude under windIrain loading or support excitations due to their
high flexibility, relatively small mass and very low inherent damping [Virlogcux,
19981. In 1993 Warnitchai et al. experimentally and analytically studied active ten-
don control of cablestayed bridges, subjected to a vertical sinusoidal force. They
utilised a simple cable-supported cantilever beam as a model. Up till now, many
research efforts have been focused on the interaction of cables with the deck and
attenuation of the cable movement [Fujino et d.,1993; Fujino and Susumpow, 1994;

'Corresponding author. Fax: +886-2-2362-5044

 482 C.-M.Chang t3 C.-H. Loh

Gattulli and Paolone, 19971. Other research efforts have been aimed at understand-
ing the overall dynamic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges and developing finite
element models [Dyke et al.. 20001. The working group on bridge control within the
ASCE Committee on Structural Control recently posted a first-generation bench-
mark.stru_ctur~co~ltrqlp r o b l e ~k e d-on the Cape Girardeau Bridge [Dyke e t al.,
20001. This problem focuses on one-dimensional gyour;h accel6ration applied in
the longitudinal direction that is uniformly and simultaneously applied at all sup-
ports. In the work of Moon [2001, 20031, a semi-active system for the benchmark
bridge employing MR dampers in conjunction with a LDG/clipped optimal control
(LQGIMR) and a sliding mode semi-active control system (SRIC/MR) was studied.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

In addition, a hybrid base isolation system employing semi-active control devices

(using MR-dampers), often termed "smart" dampers, has been suggested to control
the damping force of bridge structure [Nagarajaiah e t al., 20001. In the design of
modern feedback control systems, the question of uncertainties in the models and
the excitations, within the context of robust control, is becoming one of the impor-
tant issues. For example, an active scheme that uses active tendons via feedback of
the states of the system for vibration control of cable-stayed bridge under seismic
loads has also been proposed by Rodellar e t al. [2002]. While different approaches
have been adopted for robust control of civil engineering structures, such as H ,
and related tools [Main and Jones, 20011, neural networks and fussy logic [Yu and
Xu, 19981, and sliding mode control [Johnson e t al., 1991; KO et al., 20021, the use
of these approaches for the control of cable-stayed bridges has been limited so far.
In the ASCE phase I1 benchmark control problem. a three-dimensional evaluation
model has been developed to represent complex behaviour of the multi-support
and transverse excitations of the Cape Girardeau Bridge [Caicedo et al., 20031. The
benchmark problem and a sample control design have been made available in the
form of a set of MATLAB equations.
In this research the control of cable-stayed bridge is studied. Based on the
detailed design information of the Gi-Lu cable-stayed bridge in Taichung County,
Taiwan,
. - a 3-dimensional
- --- -
n~unerical
--
model has been developed to represent the com-
-

plex behiviour of the full-scale bridge.- DjTGriiiE-5GhaTioui of-thEable-including- -

sag geometry, prestress tension force, and nonlinear response are considered in this
analysis. The formulation of the cable stiffness is carried out both in ABAQUS and
in MATLAB equations and verified through field experiment for consistency. This
paper is focused on the examination of control effectiveness of the bridge and cable
vibration using different control strategies during earthquake excitation..

2. Modelling of Cable-Stayed Bridge

The cable-stayed bridge used for this study is the Gi-Lu bridge, located at Nantou
County, Taiwan. I t is a modern, prestressed concrete cable-stayed bridge, which
crosses the Juosheui River in Taiwan. The bridge (see Fig. l(a)) consists of a single
pylon with 58m above the deck, two rows of harped cables including 68 cables
 Seismic Response Contml of Cable-Stayed Bridge 483
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

(b)
Fig. 1. (a) Top view and side view of Gi-Lu bridge, (b) Cross-section of Gi-Lu bridge.

in total, and a streamline-shape single box girder (see Fig. l ( b ) ) . With a 2.75 m
in depth and 24m in width: the box girder rigidly connects with the pylon and
spans 120 metres to each side span. The vibration frequency of each cable was
also estimated from the forced vibration test of the cable. The density of the cable
ranges from 0.410-0.613 kg/cm and the design cable force ranges from 22G290 ton.

2.1. Dynamic chanacteristacs of the cable

A three dimensional finite element model of the Gi-Lu bridge which employs beam
elements and rigid links was developed in MATLAB. A linear evaluation model
 484 C.-M. Chang €4 C.-H.Loh

is used in this cable-stayed bridge model. Due to large deformation of the cable
and its sag, the geometrically nonlinearity of beam element needs to be considered.
Using energy method a geometrically nonlinear beam element was generated that
includes the nonlinear terms plus the terms from the conventional linear beam
element. Therefore,-a geometric-stiffness-matrix -can -be -
derived based on energy
methods from Euler-Bernoulli equation as shown follows:
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

where E is the Young's modulus, A is the area of the cross section, I is the moment
inertia, L is the length of the element, F is the force, M is the moment, x and y are
--the-translational deformation-of both ends.of_theele_mentt and v is-the rotational -

deformation of both ends of the element. Subscripts (1 and 2) indicate the two ends
of the beam, the first term of the stiffness matrix is the linear stiffness matrix, the
second term is due to nonlinearity, and N is related to the axial force due to large
deformation:
EA
N = -(L1 - L), (2)
L
in which Lr is the actual length along the centreline of the beam. However, to
deal with the complex behaviour of cables, the computational procedures must be
modified. In development of the initial cable stiffness it is important to obtain the
actual pre-tensioned values (not designed values) and to include correct element
properties (modulus of elasticity, moment inertia of cross-sectional area, length of
taut cables, and Poisson's ratio). The procedures for developing the initial cable
 Sezsrnzc Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 485

stiffness are shown below:

(1) Choose how many elements to use in the formulation, then transform Eq. (1)-
into a three-dimensional nonlinear beam element. It is assumed that Poisson's
ratio equals zero.
(2) Use the initial length to generate the stiffness matrix n-here N equals the pre-
tensioned value, then divide the self-weight of cables into an appropriate number
of equal parts (n).
(3) Use Newton-Raphson iteration scheme to solve [ K ] { D = ) {F,,t) by appropri-
ate conditions of convergence.
(4) Calculate the present length due to large lateral deformation and re-formulate
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

the cable stiffness matrix where N is still the pre-tensioned value.

(5) Repeat Step (5) until the total steps equal to n (in Step (4)).
From these procedures, stiffness matrices of the cables can satisfy effects of sag and
measured natural frequencies.
The vibration frequencies of each stayed-cable in the Gi-Lu bridge were exam-
ined from three different approaches: (I) experiments, (2) ABAQUS, and (3) MAT-
LAB equations. For example, for the longest cables (No. 33 and No. 34), it described
as: (i) angle of elevation 26', (ii) designed length 126.42m: (iii) length density
47.9 kg/m, (iv) Young's modulus 1 . 8 3 ~ 1~1 / m (v) ~ ,cross section area 0.0060m2
and (vi) gravity 9.81 m/sec2. The FEM model developed using ABAQUS has one
thousand beam elements and considers the cable structure to be subjected to gravity
and to have fixed-end boundary conditions. The cable force and moment of iner-
tia were identified by matching the 21 vibration frequencies of the cables to those
obtained from the field experiment. Through an optimally iterative process, the
identified cable force is 1.66E6N, and the identified moment of inertia is 5.OE - 6 m4.
This information is used to formulate equations in MATLAB for the stiffness matrix
of the cable system. The vibration frequency of each cable p;edicted by ABAQUS
and MATLAB are verified using field experiments. The identified cable force is
only 91.4% (1.66E6N/l.81E6N) of the force estimated by string vibration theory.
Comparison between the identified vibration frequencies of the cable R1, R17 and
R34 using MATLAB and ABAQUS is shown in Table 1. Cables 1 and 2 indicate
the shortest cables, and cables 33 and 34 are the longest cable, R and L indicate
the west and east sides of the pylon. To catch the dynamic characteristics of the
cable 1000 beam elements are used in ABAQUS to analyse the detail of the dynamic
characteristics of a single cable, but on the contrary, only 9 nodes were used to form
a single cable which is sufficient to involve the low-frequency dynamic behaviour
(0.7Hz to 4Hz) as in relating to the whole bridge system.

2.2. Description of finite element model

The finite element model of the cable-stayed bridge has a total of 1009 nodes. The
pylon is modeled by 90 nodes with 540 degrees-of-freedom (25 nodes are above the
 Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

3
9
19
i '2
I
Table 1. Comparison of cable vibration natural frequencies from vibration measurement, ABAQUS and MATLAB predictions with nonlinear beam .
1 c,
elements.
1 s:
I
R1 (shortest) R17 R34 (longest) ,

Mcthod ABAQUS MATLAB! Measurement ABAQUS MATLAB Measurement ABAQUS MATLAB

~~ement 1000 - 1000 50 - lono 50
Mode No. Hz 2 i Hz Hz Hz 1 iz I Iz I-liz
1 4.12 1.7327 1.7325 1.7208 0.769 . 0.769 0.75974
2 8.43 8.1566
4'1238 / 3.4628 3.4629 3.4342 1.499 1.496 ' 1.5062
3 12.97 12.023 5.1953 5.2001 5.1349 2.248 2.247 2.2576
4 17.93 15.671 ! 6.9496 6.9435 6.816 2.997 2.999 3.0067
5 23.26 19.078 ! 8.7043 8.696 8.471 1 3.751 3.755 3.753
6 - - I 10.476 10.459 10.094 4.511 4.514 4.4957
7 .- - I 12.2541 12.236 11.679 5.279 5.278 5.2342
- I 14.0303 14.028 13.22 6.044 6.047 5.9677
8
9 - -
- 1
' 15.8487 15.837 14.713 6.833 6.822 , 6.6956
10 - - I 17.6494 17.665 16.152 7.591 7.604 7.4171
Note: (a) R1, R17, and R34 indicate the shortest, middle, and longest cables, respectively.
(b) 'ha~~slationill
and transverse d.o.fti of each cablc node arc lockcd.
I
i
 Seismic Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 487

deck, 5 nodes are below the deck. and 60 nodes are near the anchors). The deck is
modelled by 729 nodes with 4374 DOFs. Pier 2 (under the pylon) is modelled by
5 nodes (including the node attached to the ground). Pier 1 (North side) and Pier 3
(south side) have 4 nodes for each (including the node attached to the ground) with
a total of 56 DOFs. The cable is modelled with 9 nodes for each cable and total of
612 nodes for 64 cables with 3672 DOFs. The mass matrix is formed by a lumped
mass approach. The proportional damping formulation is used in each element and
then to form the full damping matrix is formed with the sanie procedure as is
used to form the stiffness matrix. The damping ratio for deck, pylon and piers
(including all supports) is assumed to be 5% and for cables is assumed to be 1%.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

Constraints are applied to restrain the both ends of the deck (boundary conditions).
All DOFs at the bottom of both piers are fixed. As for the boundary condition of
the bridge struct-ure, all translational DOFs and torsion DOF at the side spans
connected to the embankment are fixed. The transverse and vertical degrees of
freedom at piers 1and 3, and at the side spans of the bridge deck deform consistently
(i.e. y- and z-directions are constraint, and x-, 4,-, I#,-? @,-directions are free to
move).

3. Evaluation Model
Based on the above-mentioned finite element model the formulation of the model
is described.

3.1. Problem formulation

Since a precise mathematical model for analysing dynamic behaviour of cable-stayed
bridges is very complicated, appropriately reduced methods were used to formulate
the equation of motion for the Gi-Lu bridge. The reduced methods use static con-
densation and quasi-static reduction. Consider the general equation of motion for
a structural system subjected to seismic loads

where subscript (cdp) indicates DOFs of cables, deck and pylon, subscript (sp) indi-
cates the DOFs for support from piers and side spans and subscript (coup) indicates
coupled terms between supports and others; U is the displacement response vector;
n/ltotal, Ct,tal, are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices respectively of
the whole structural system, and PeZtis the vector of external forces.
 488 C.-M. Chang & C.-H. Loh

3.2. Model reduction (static condensation a n d quasi-static

reduction)
Because the bridge model has a large number of degrees of freedom, static conden-
sation is applied to reduce the redundant DOFs and retain the main DOFs. The
main DOFs is taken hereto include the no-desof the main girder. pylon, piers,side--
, span, and cables including the nodes connecting the cables to the deck and pylon. It
is assumed that the total displacement can be divided into two parts: active DOFs
(main nodes) and dependent DOFs (redundant nodes). Therefore, the equation for .
the static condensation can be formed as
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

where the subscript a denotes the active DOFs and d denotes dependent DOFs.
The total displacement vector can then be transformed into

where [TR] is the transformation matrix of the static condensation. By using the
transformation matrix of the static condensation, Eq. ( l a ) can be re-arranged as
follows:

where f i t o t a l = TR T Mtotal TR, Etotal = TRTC't0tai TR, K t o t a l = TRTKtotal TR,

and the active DOFs of Ua represent two components: Ua,cdp,the DOFs from cables,
deck and pylon, and U,,,,, the DOFs from piers and side spans (supports). The
total displacement Ua,cdpcan also be separated into the displacement U,9,cdpdue to
static application of the ground motion, and the dynamic displacement u & rela- ~ ~
tive to the quasi-static dispIacement. The relationship between these displacement
--- -
components is: --- --- - .. - - - - .- -- - - -

By neglecting the dynamic terms of Eq. (7), the quasi-static U,",,,, can be deter-
mined.

Substituting Eqs. (7) and (8) into ( 6 ) , one can obtain the dynamic equation of
motion of the structure as follows:
 Seismic Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 489

To solve for the dynamic response of a cable-stayed bridge the state-space formu-
lation is used. A condition for convergence of the discrete state space calculation is
that the following criteria must be satisfied:

where w is the highest modal frequency (radlsec) that is considered. In this study
the first 400 modes of vibration are used for the analysis. Since the sampling time
for the input ground motion is 0.005 (sec), the convergence condition of Eq. (10) is
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

satisfied.
After model has been reduced the equation of motion for the damped structural
system in a state space form for the cables, deck and pylon is shown below [Loh
and Chang, 20051:

-
where Y = @Ut,cdp,a a , c d p = aTGa,cdp@,Ca,cdp = @TCa,cdp@,&,cdp = @T
-
Ka,cdp@and @ is the modal matrix Through static condensation the final reduced
model for the pylon and the deck reduce from 90 nodes to 85 nodes and from 729
nodes t o 243 nodes, respectively: the number of nodes for the pier and cable remain
the same.
Based on the above-mentioned formulation the mode shapes of the cable-stayed
bridge are calculated. Figure 2 shows the first six vibration modes of the cable-
stayed bridge. The corresponding modal frequencies are 0.51487Hz, 0.73124Hz,
0.75022 Hz, 0.75069Hz, 0.75393Hz, and 0.75464 Hz, respectively. It is found that
the first fundamental mode is mainly dominated by the vibration of deck, and
that the following five modes are dominated by vibration of the cables. In addi-
tion, the 31st (f = 1.506Hz), 64th (f = 1.4456Hz), 102th (f = 1.8941Hz) and
115th (f = 2.0378 Hz) vibration modes of the cable stayed bridge are also shown
in Fig. 2; contributions from both cable and deck vibration to these higher modes
are observed. Due to the implementation of geometric stiffness matrix to simu-
late the cable using beam element, the sag behaviour of cable can aho be truly
reflected.
 490 C.-M. Chang & C.-H. Loh

1'' mode 0.51487Hz 2nd mode 0.7'3124Hm

3rdmode 0.75022Hz 41h mode 0.75069Hz

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

5th mode 0.75393Hz

31ndmode 1.O5O5Hz

(b)
Fig. 2. The first six vibration modes of the cable-stayed bridge. Its corresponding modal frequen-
cies are 0.51187 Hz, 0.73124 Hz, 0.75022 Hz, 0.75069 Hz, 0.75393 Hz, and 0.75464 Hz, respectively,
also shown the 31st (f = 1.506Hz), 64th (f = 1.4456Hz), 102th (f = 1.8941Hz) and 115th
(f = 2.0378 Hz) vibration modes of the cable stayed bridge.
 Seismic Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 491

A test bed for deveiopnient of effective control strategies for cable-stayed bridge
has been developed with emphasis on nonlinear behaviour of the stayed-cable. A
corupleted control circuit of the system includes the excitation, evaluated model,
devices, sensors, and control algorithms. A SIMULINK block diagram for this con-
trol system study is shown in F i g 3. It is patterned for SIMULINK block diagram
provided by Dyke et al. [2000] and Caicedo et al. [2003]. A detailed description of
the SIMULINK block diagram for this analysis is described as follows [Loh and
Chang, 20051.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

Earthquake record fro'm the Chi-Chi earthquake was selected as the excitation to
this cable-st ayed bridge. Each earthquake record cont ains 3D acceleration data and
3D velocity data (from integration of acceleration data). To consider the spatial
variation of earthquak:e excitation, uniform input with a phase delay was specified
(4 km/s apparent wave velocity was assumed).

valuation model
The evaluation model coiitains two input ports and six output ports. The excita-
tion input port includes 9 acceleration values and 9 velocity values to describe the

Benchmark Control Problem (Version I) for Gi-Lu Bridge

C.M.Chang , C.H.Loh

Fig. 3. Modified SIUULINK block diagram with active control.

 492 C.-M. Chang & C.-H. Loh

multi-support problem in 3D and the time-delayed excitation. Tilt: input port of the
control force is generated from the design of control devices. The evaluated output
serves to determine the control efficiency of various control criteria. It contains 19
sensors locating as follows: '

- - (a)--Acceleration-and-displacement- sensorsa t - t h e nor t hern- end-and-sout hern-end- - -

of the deck, at the middle node of the deck, and at the top of the pylon (in
both longitudinal (x) and transverse (2) directions, a total of 16 sensors.
(b) Displacement sensors located at the top of all three piers in the longitudinal
direction, a total of 3 sensors.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

The.output port of cable sensors gives the responses of the cables including accel-
eration and displacement measurements of the deck or the pylon (or piers). The
device sensors provide the responses of control systems between connections. The
output port of tension estimates the variation of cable tensile force using the defor-
mation of cables. The cable deformations are selected to consider the dimensionless
responses at the middle node of each cable.

4.3. Sensor processor

The sensor processor converts the responses of the bridge to the voltage signal. The
converter for each sensor has a range of f10 V. Each of the measured responses con-
tains a noise level with an rms value of 0.01 V. Measurement noises are modelled with
Gaussian rectangular pukes that have a pulse width equal to the integration step.

4.4. Controller

The controller contains a signal converter and a force estimator. The signal con-
verter mainly transforms the sensors signal into real responses with a constraint.
The constraint within the signal converter has an upper bound (+10V) and a
lower bound (-10 V). With reiard to the force estimator, it fo~lo&swith Hacontrol
algorithm and Kalman estimator for use - of actuators.
-- -First,
a -
an appropriate design
-

model must be developed. The design model is formed from the evaluation model
by choosing suitable modes of the system. In this study. one case uses actuators to
control the responses between the deck and piers so the controIler must combine
with a force estimator as above-mentioned description. Notice that the controller
in other cases contains a signal converter only. The control design model contains
44 modes that significantIy &ect the responses of the deck and piers. The mea-
sured outputs focus on the sensor outputs (responses of the deck and the pylon).
The Hz control algorithm is used and the state-space (discrete form) formulation is
developed. To obtain the optimal control force, the external disturbances, such as
the ground excitations, are assumed to be independent with respect to the control
force. First, the objective function is defined as
 Seismic Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 493

where R is a weighting matrix related to the optimal control force, Q is a weighting

matrix related to the system of the design model. Through the computation of the
variation method, the optimal control force can be obtained. Therefore, the full
state vector must be conlputed from the Kalman estimator, given by

where L is the Kalman gain solved from the Ricatti equation. The optimal control
force combined with the estimator can be obtained as
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

4.5. Control devices

Five different hybrid control systems are employed for simulations. Three types of
control devices are used to reduce the response of the deck which includes actua-
tors, viscous-elastic dampers, and base isolators. Two types of control devise, MR
dampers and viscous dampers, are used to mitigate cable vibratidn. A total of five
hybrid control systems (as shown in Table 2) are designed and was described as
follows:

Case A: Two sets of actuators are placed between the deck and piers (Pier I and
Pier 3) (see Fig. 4a). Each set of actuators contains six hydraulic active
control devices with bounds on f1500kN per actuator. The voltage com-
mand for each actuator with respect to the output control force is 10 Volt
per 1500 kN. Sixty-eight viscous dampers are employed between the deck
and each cable (see Fig. 4b). Four types of damper capacity are seIected
for these viscous dampers due to considering the characteristics of different
cables. The damping coefficient of all types of dampers is: 120,000(N-s/m)
for cable 1 through 10,42,857 (N-s/m) for cable 11 and 12,30,000 (N-s/m)
for cable 13 and 14. and 7500 (N-s/m) for cable 15 through 17, respectively.
Case B: Two sets of huge visco-elastic dampers are placed at locations similar
to the locations of actuators in Case A . Each set of dampers contains
six passive control devices with stiffness (50,000 kN/m per damper) and '

Table 2. Type of control strategies on bridge deck and stayed cables.

Control of bridge structure Control of cable

Case A Use actuators Use viscous dampers
Case B Use visco-elastic dampers Place MR dampers at the bottom
(close to the deck)
Case C Use isolators Place MR dampers at the bottom
(close to the deck)
Case D Use visco-elastic dampers Place MR dampers in the middle
position of cable
Case E Use isolators Place MR dampers in the middle
position of cable
 494 C.-M. Chang t3 C.-H. Loh

Bridge Girder
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

(b)

MR Damper with

Fig. 4. (a) Location of actuators between deck and abutment, (b) location of viscous damper
between deck and cable and (c) schematic diagram on the location of dampers in the middle point
of cables (Line 10-17) and between deck and cable (Line 1-10),

damping coefficient (2500kN-s/m per damper). To control cable vibra-

tion, 6 8 h 4 ~ - d a m ~ eare
r s employed in the bridge. There are three types
---- of MR dampers including:
--- -(1) -- -120mm for stroke, 350mm/s
-- for maximum
velocity, and 30kN for force capacity, (2) 120mm for stroke, 1050mm/s
for maximum velocity, and 30 kN for force capacity, and (3) 240 mm for
stroke, 3500 mm/s for maximum velocity, and 30 kN for force capacity. The
location of all types of MR dampers is played between the deck and the
cable. Type I damper is selected for cable 4-9, type I1 damper is selected
for cable 1-3 and 10-12, and Type 111dampers is selected for cable 13-17.
Each type of MR dampers has the voltage range from OV to 1.2V. In
this case, three levels of voltage of MR dampers are used ranging from 0 V
(passive-off), 0.6 V, and 1.2V (passive-on).
Case C: Two isolators are placed between the deck and the top of piers including
pier 1 and pier 3. The elastic stiffnes of the isolator is ass~unedas 2E6
(kN/m) and the post-yield stiffness is assumed as 3E5 (kN/m). Addition-
ally, 68 MR dampers are also employed similarly to Case B.
 Seismic Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 495

Case D: Huge viscous-elastic dampers are utilised siniilarly to Case B. At the

same time, 68 hlR dampers are employed in this case. Forty of these
MR dampers are placed between the deck and cables through cable 1
to cable 10 at each side. The remaining MR dampers are placed at the
middle of the cable connecting two neighboring cables through cable 10
to cable 17 at each side (as shown in Fig. 4c). In this case, three types
of MR dampers similar to Case B are selected to control cable vibration.
Type I of MR dampers is used to position between cable 4 to cable 9 and
the deck. Type I1 of AIR dampers is used to position between cable 1-3
and the deck, between cable 10 and the deck, and between cable 10-12.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

Type I11 of MR dampers are positioned between cable 13-17. Three lev-
els of voltage of hIR dampers are chosen to evaluate control performance
similarly to Case B.
Case E: Two isolators are placed at both ends of the bridge below the deck as
Case B. The property of isolators is also same as Case B. Sixty-eight
MR dampers are employed as Case D including the locations, types, and
volt age commands.

In Case B the location of AIR dampers or viscous dampers is connected to the lowest
nodal point of cables relative to the deck and in Case D and Case E, MR dampers
are located at the middle-nodd points of cables and connect between neighboring
cables side by side.
The evaluation criteria must consider the ability of the controller to reduce
the peak responses, the normaIised responses over the entire time record, and the
control requirements. For this purpose, a set of 45 criteria have been employed to
evaluate the ability of each control strategy (as shown in Appendix A). Maximum
shear forces and moments at each pier including the base of the pylon are considered
in the evaluation criteria. Other criteria contain the displacements at the top node
of the pylon, the middle node on the deck, and the north and south ends of the
deck. Additionally, the behaviour of the cable tension force and the deformation of
the middle node of each cable are important to observe.

5 . Modelling of MR-Damper

To develop the model of MR-damper, an experimental prototype of a MR damper

was provided with the capacity for device force, stroke, and velocity are given by
7 kN, 120 mm, and 380 mm/s, respectively [Loh et al., ,20031. The voltage com-
mand ranged from 0 Volt to 1.2Volt. The hysteretic behaviour of the damper, the
force-displacement and force-velocity hysteretic loops are generated using sinusoidal
displacement command (120mm) and fixed frequency (0.5 Hz), as showu in Fig. 5.
Seven levels of constant voltages (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2V) are applied
to demonstrate the relation between the yield force and the voltage command. The,
 496 C.-M. Chang & C.-H. Loh

(a)hyment8 loop
L r
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

Fig. 5. Sinusoidal testing for the I\IH damper which shows force-stroke and force velocity
relationships.

force

velocity

- -

Fig. 6 . Modified bi-viscous model.

model of the MR damper for use in structural control of this study combines the
modified bi-viscous model and the bilinear model.
The use of modified bi-viscous model (see Fig. 6) is to improve on the original
hysteretic bi-viscous model. The modified bi-viscous model contains six parameters:
the pre-yield viscous damping C., the post-yield viscous damping Cp,l and Cpo2,
 Seismic Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 497

the two yield forces f l and fi, and yield velocity respect to the high yield force vl.
The data of sinusoidal test is used to define the polynomial order of all parameters
with respect to voltage, and a random test under constant frequency is processed
to determine the polynomial coefficients of all model parameters. The first-order
polynomial function to fit two post-yield darnping(s) and two yield velocity with
respect to voltage are used. The behaviour of the bilinear model is divided into two
parts: the pre-yield and the post-yield conditions. The pre-yield damping C,, is
assumed to be much greater than the post yield damping Cp,, in order to ensure
the yield force obtained a t low velocity. Figure 7 shows the bilinear model scheme
in which there are four independent parameters. The four independent parameters
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

f,, f,, vy, and u, of bi-viscous model are identified with first-order polynomial
functions, but yield velocity uses a second-order polynomial function with respect
to voltage. I t is important to mention that the bilinear model used in this study
consists of three stroke divisions (35mm, 35 mm-70 mm, and above 70 mm) so that
there are three sets of parameters in this model.
By adopting the combined bi-viscous and bilinear model the command voltage
is sent to the modified bi-viscous model with the states as input and then generates
the corresponding force. A constraint function of voltage with a second-order poly-
nomial function is used to obtain the lower bound of the force. If the corresponding
force is greater than the lower bound, the output force is still the force generated
by the modified bi-viscous model. On'the contrary, the output force is changed to
obtain the bilinear model. The model follows the rules as described above is shown
in Fig. 8. Therefore, this model combines the characteristics of two models that can
be effective to describe the behaviour of MR dampers and improve convergence.

Fig. 7. Bilinear model.

 498 C.-M. Chang d C.- H. Loh

Constraint
(Lower Bound) Greater

- el-
than
MR damper force
lower
M&fiedbiviscous - bound ' - --

model bound
-
voltage
t 1
Smaller than
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

lower bound Bilinear model

Fig. 8. Flowchart of MR damper model

6. Control Evaluation: Case Study

Earthquake ground motion data from the Chi-Chi earthquake from recorded sta-
tion TCU071 is selected as the excitation. In this study a uniform input motion
with three components (two horizontal and one vertical component) is used. Peak
ground accelerations of three components are 703gal for E W direction, 489 gal for
N-S direction, and 416gal for Vertical direction, respectively. Figure 9 shows the
acceleration response spectrum of the recorded data.
AS discussed earlier there are five cases of hybrid control systems in this study,
and the capacity of MR dampers is adjusted by using three types of voltages. The
model of MR dampers in simulation is also followed from the previous description
but the maximum resisting force is amplified to 30kN. Figure 10(a) shows the
comparison on iongitudinal displacement responses at the end of the deck for case B
and case D. It is observed that using isolator will have a better control effectiveness
--
than using --
visco-elastic
-
damper
- .
on the
_
control of deck vibration. Through numerical
- - -- -- ---
study they show that all of the four hybrid control systems can redrce-the-seismic'
response of the bridge deck at both ends effectively. As for the installation of MR
dampers on the cables, the vibration reduction of the deck response is not so obvious
with such an installation. Only minor contribution on the reduction of deck response
is observed by using such a hybrid control system. The other goal for this control
issue is to compare the control effectiveness of the cable response. Figure 10(b)
shows the comparison on the longitudinal displacement responses of the longest
cable by using control case B and case D. To improve the stability of cable vibration
the installation of MR dampers between two neighbouring cables is recommended.
Based on the 45 evaluation criteria the performance indices are evaluated among
the controlled and uncontrolled cases. Figure 11 shows the evaluation criteria with
respect to different indices for all control cases. Every group inhcates different
control systems including different voltage levels of MR dampers in each control
 Seismic Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 499

TCUO7l -Spectrum
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Period (sec)

Fig. 9. Plot of acceleration response spectrum of ground motion data collected from Station
TCU071,Chi-Chi earthquake.

system. Most of the evaluation criteria have values less than one, except for indices
J15(longitudinal moment at the deck level of the pylon), J24 (transverse shear force
of the pylon), and J31(normetl longitudinal moment of the pylon). This means that
by adding control devices as actuators, isolators, or viscouselastic dampers, the
pylon base shear force or moment is larger than the uncontrolled case. Therefore,
by installation of control systems at both ends of the bridge is not an effective
way of control system for the cable-stayed bridge designed as Gi-Lu bridge (rigid
connection between pylon and the deck). As for the cable vibration under such
five cases of hybrid control systems, as shown in Fig. 12, the in-plane displacement
of either shorter cables or longer cables can be effectively reduced by using all
different cases, while the out-of-plane displacement of mid-long and long cables (the
transverse response) can not be reduced even all hybrid control systems are used.

7. Conclusions
This paper presents a detailed study on the control of a seismically excited cable-
stayed bridge. Five different hybrid control systems are employed for simulations.
 500 C.-M. Chang d C.-H. Loh

Case B Case D

0.04
Peak reduction = 31.0968%
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

Fig. 10(a). Displacement response at the north end of the deck using control systems of Case B
(left hand side) and Case D (right hand side) with voltage levels of (a) 0. V, (b) 0.6V, (c) 1.2V,
(d) 0. V, (e) 0.6V, (f) 1.2V, respectively.

--- -- ._ - ----- --
Three types of control devices are used to reduce the response oftEe-deck-which-- --

include devices as actuators, viscous-elastic dampers, and base isolators. Two types
of control devise, MR dampers and viscous dampers, are used to mitigate cable
vibration. A total of five hybrid control systems (as shown in Table 2) are designed
and the control effectiveness among them is discussed. Through this study the
following conclusions are made:

(a) Instead of using an active control method, hybrid control devices are applied to
the structure to control response due to seismic excitation. Because nonlinear
beam elements are used to simulate the stayed cable, it is a relatively simple
matter to add dampers between cables and the deck. It is shown that adding
viscous dampers to each cable can provide good control effectiveness, that can
reduce the response of the cables.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014
 502 C.-M. Chang €4 C.-H. Loh

CaseC 0.W
CassB 0.W 0CaseC 1.2V

.- . ..
- .

33 36 39 42 450 33 36 39 42 45
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

Number of J indices Number of J indices

" 33 36 39 42 45
Number of J indices Number of J indices

Fig. ll(a). J indices of peak displacement responses.

9 11 13 15 9 11 13 15
Number of J inaices Number of J indices

Fig. l l ( b ) . J indices of peak moment responses.

 Seismic Response Contml of Cable-Stayed Bridge 503

Case8 OV 1
m-Case0-0.W o
0 Case0 1 .ZV 0.8 2
L

0.6 $
V)

0.4 %
d
0.2

0
1 3 5- 7.
Number of J indices Number of J indices
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

1
g
0.8 9
;
L

0.6
V)

0.4
a
0.2

0
1 3 5 7
Number of J indices Number of J indices

Fig. l l ( c ) . J indices of peak shear force responses.

18 20 22 24 " 18 20 22 24-
Number of J indices Number of J indices --

I8 20 22 24
Number of J indices Nrpnber of J indices

Fig. l l ( d ) . J indices of normed moment responses.

 504 C.-M. Chang H C.-H. Loh

CaseB OV
Case6 0 . W
1

0.8 u

0.6
0

2
2
1
0
CaseC OV
CaseC 0 . W
CaseC 1.N

. ~- .-
u

0.2 =
n
25 26 28 30 32
Number of J indices Number of J indices
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

CaseD 0 . W CaseE 0 . W
0CaseE 1.N

"
25 26 28 30 32
Number of J indices

Fig. l l ( e ) . J indices of norm value of shear force responses.

E[ CaseD 0 . W ---.-.
CaseE OV
CaseE 0.W

Nmbw of Cables at N-W side N W of Cables at N-W side

Fig. 12. Comparison on the normalised displacement of cable at the northwest side of the bridge
for all five control cases.
 Seismic Response Contml of Cable-Stayed Bridge 505

studies in order to gain a deeper evaluation of the potential effectiveness for

mitigation of vibration.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their thanks to Dr. Z. K. Lee (Associate Research
Fellow of NCREE) in providing the experimental data of Gi-Lu bridge for this
study. The support from National Science Council under Grant NO. NSC94-2211-
E002-049 is also acknowledged.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

Appendix A

m =1 - 3 Fp, indicates the longitudinal

(x-direction) shear force at rnth pier; FFAm
is the maximum uncontrolled shear force at
rnth pier; m = l(north pier), 2 (pier below
pylon), 3(south pier).
la = 4 -- 6 . F,,, indicates the transverse (2-direction)
shear force at rnth pier; FFAm is the
maximum uncontrolled shear force a t rnth
pier.
Fdz is the longitudinal (x-direction) shear
force at the deck level of the pylon; ~ 2 %
indicates the maximum uncontrolled shear
force at the deck level of the pylon.
Fdz is the transverse (r-direction) shear
force at the deck level of the pylon; FZZ
indicates the maximum uncontrolled shear
force at the deck level of the pylon.
1=9 - 11 MpmZindicates the longitudinal
(x-direction) moment at rnth pier; MFAm is
the maximum uncontrolled moment at rnth
pier.
Ic = 12 .u 14 Mm, indicates the transverse (2-direction)
moment a t rnth pier; M2&m is the
maximum uncontrolled moment at rnth
pier.
Mdz indicates the longitudinal (x-direction)
moment at the deck level of the pylon;
M~Z is the maximum uncontrolled
moment at the same location.
 506 C.-M. Chang d C.-H. Loh

Mdr indicates the transverse (z-direction)

moment at the deck level of the pylon; &fie
is the maximum uncontrolled moment at the
- same -location. - . . .- ... ..

F,O,": is the normed value of uncontrolled

shear forces in the longitudinal (2-direction)
direction at mth pier; where norm(.) =
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

norm(lFp,:(t)l)
F:;: is the normed value of uncontrolled
shear forces in the transverse (z-direction)
j = 20 to 22 direction at mth pier.

F::& is the norrned value of uncontrolled

shear forces of the pylon in the longitudinal
(x-direction) direction at the deck level.
no:m(lr;h*(t)l)
J24 = F,"$~ is the norrned value of uncontrolled
F,Dk"
shear forces of the pylon in the transverse
(2-direction) direction at the deck level.

h/l:~;gis the normed value of uncontrolled

moments in the longitudinal (x-direction)
(w: 25-27)
direction at m-th pier

M::;: is the normed value of uncontrolled

- - moments--in-the-transverse- (z-direction)- - - --
(s: 28-30)
direction at m-th pier

IIL?:&, is the normed value of uncontrolled

moments of the pylon in the longitudinal (x-
direction) direction at the deck level.

J32 =
nyrn( lMdz(t)l)
fit%", - > is the normed value of uncontrolled
moment of the pylon in the transverse (2-
direction) direction at the deck level.
 Seismic Response Control of Cable-Stayed Bridge 507

displacements at the north end of the deck

level (at the top of Pier l ) , and xE& is the
maximum displacement of the uncontrolled
response.

x: longitudinal d , y: vertical dir.,

z: transverse dir. Subscript (1) indi-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

cates the north end of the deck

displacements at the middle node of the deck

level (at the bottom of the pylon).

J38 = ( m*= 12P2.

z-:
(t)l
)
Subscript (2) indicates the middle
node of the deck

displacements at the southern end of the

deck ievel (at thetop of pier 3).

.I=(
m,ax Ixp3=(t)l
I",";: )
Subscript (3) indicates the southern
end of the deck

displacements at the top of the pylon.

J44= (
m,=
U
I x t p a (t)l
.&~P ).
Subscript ( t p ) indicates the top of
the pylon

the maximum control force normalised to the

capacity of control devices (capacity of con-
Fcon,capocity = the capacity of
trol devices is assumed 1500kn).
control devices
 508 C.-M. Chang d C.-H. Loh

References
Caicedo, J. M., Dyke, S. J., Moon, S. J., Bergman, L. A., Turan, G. and Hague, S. [2003]
"Phase I1 benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges,"
J. of Strvctumi Control 10, 137-168.
Dyke, J. S., Caicedo, J. M., Turan, G., Bergman, L. A. and Hague, D. [2_OOO]
Beizchmark--Control -Problem-lfor ~eis%ic ~ G n s e$ Cable-stayed Bridge,
http://wusceel.cive.wustl.edu/quake/benchrnark/.
Fujino, Y . , Warnitchai, P. and Pacheco, B. M. [I9931 "Active stiffness control of cable
vibration," ASCE J. of Applied Mechanics 60, 948-953.
Fujino, Y.and Susumpow, T . [1994) "An experimental study on active control of planner
cable vibration by axial support motion," Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 04:16 24 December 2014

Dynamics 23, 1283-1297.

Gattulli, V. and Paolone, A. [199?] "Planar motion of a cable-supported beam with feed-
back controlled action," J. Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 8 , 767-774.
Johnson, E. A., Spencer, Jr. B. F. and Fujino, Y. [I9991 "Semiactive damping of stay
cables: a preliminary study," Pmce~dingsof the 17th International Modal Analysis
Conference (IMAC XVII),Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, Connecticut,
pp. 417423.
KO, J. M., Ni, Y. O., Chen, 2. Q. and Spencer, Jr. B. F. [2002] "Implementation of
magneterheological dampers to Dongting Lake Bridge for cable vibration mitiga-
tion," Proc. 3d In!. Conf. Structuml Control, Como, Italy.
Loh, C. H. Wu, L. Y. and Ljn, P. Y. (20031 "Displacement control of isolated structures
with semi-active control devices," J. of Structural Control 10, 77-100.
Loh, C.H.and Chang, C. M. [2005] "MATLAB-based seismic response control of cable-
stayed bridge: considering cable vibration," J. of Structural Control & Health Monf
toring (accepted).
Main, J . A. and Jones, N. P. [2001) "Evaluation of viscous dampers for stay-cable vibration
mitigation," Journal of Bridge Engineering 6 , 385-397.
Moon, S. J., Bergrnan, L. A. and Voulgaris, P. G. [2001] Application of MR-dampers
to Control of a Cable-stayed Bridge Subject to Seismic Excitation, Technical Report
Univ. of Illinois at ~ r b a n a - c h a m p i & , Ill.
Moon, S. J., Bergman, L. A. and Voulgaris, P. G. [2003] "Sliding mode control of cable-
stayed bridge subjected to seismic excitation," ASCE, J. of Engineeri7ig Mechanics
129, 71-77.
Nagrgajaiah,.S,,S_ah.asr_abudhe: .S .~and.Iyer,1.~[200O]~'!Seismic
.response-of-sliding-isolated-----
bridges with smart dampers subjected to near source ground motion," 14th Analysis
& Computational Specialty Conf. Pnxeedgngs, Structural Congress and Exposition,
Philadelphia.
Rodellar, J., Manosa, V. and Monroy, C. I20021 "An active tendon control scheme for
cable-stayed bridges with model uncertainties and seismic excitation," J. of Strvctuml
Control 9 , 75-94.
Virlogcux, M. (19981 "Cable vibration in cable-stayed bridge," Bridge Areodynamics, eds.
A. Larsen and S. Esdahl, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 2143-2233.
Warnitchai, P., Fujino, Y., Pacfieco, 8. M. and Agret, R. [I9931 "Experimental study on
active tendon control of cable-stayed-bridges," Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 22(2), 93-1 11.
Yu, 2. and Xu, Y. L. [I9981 "Mitigation of threedimensional vibration of inclined sag
cable using discrete oil dampesI. Formulation," Journal of Sound and Vibmtion
214, 659-673.