Review Paper Asgari Iabse

7/28/2019 Review Paper Asgari Iabse

1/28

The performance of rubber-based control systems for

the seismic protection of cable-stayed bridges:

A state-of-the-art review

Abstract

The application of seismic control strategies to reduce the structural response of cable-stayed

bridges has increased remarkably in recent years. Recent studies show that passive control

devices rather than active or semi-active systems significantly decrease the seismically induced

forces and the displacements of cable-stayed bridges. Despite the usefulness of rubber materials

as passive seismic control devices and their cost efficiency in comparison with other control

strategies, few research works have studied the behavior of rubber-based seismic control systems

of cable-stayed bridges. In this paper, a review of the research carried out on the characteristics

of rubber materials and the performance of rubber-based seismic control devices for controlling

the displacements and the earthquake-induced forces in cable-stayed bridges are given. The

recent proposed rubber-based isolation systems and dampers are also discussed in this paper.

Different comparative studies are presented to compare the performance of rubber-based control

systems with other proposed passive devices for the earthquake protection of cable-stayed

bridges. Based on the previous research work, recommendations for future investigations are

suggested.

Keywords: Cable-stayed bridge; Viscoelastic model; Rubber-based control system; seismic

control; structural response.


2/28

1. Introduction

For many years, engineering communities have made an effort to control the earthquake input

energy in structures and thus to mitigate their structural response to the ground motions.

Innovative isolation systems and supplemental energy dissipation devices have been developed

as seismic control techniques, and they are economical alternatives to traditional earthquake

control methods. The effectiveness of the control devices and their applications to structures

have been investigated in past research works1-6. Several types of isolation and supplemental

damping systems, including passive, semi-active and active control devices, have been

developed widely for the seismic design of structures in recent decades 7-14.

Cable-stayed bridges are complex superstructures with long natural periods and low damping

properties, and thus their dynamic characteristics depend significantly on the behavior of their

structural components. Due to the sensitivity of cable-stayed bridges to the dynamic loading, the

application of control devices, which aim to lengthen the natural period or increase the energy

dissipating capability of the bridges under dynamic loads, is a promising way to mitigate the

vibration caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes. The utilization of isolation bearings

decreases the base shear and the bending moment of the towers and piers significantly; however,

they increase the displacement response of the deck during an earthquake. To overcome the

undesirable displacements and to provide energy dissipation, supplemental damper systems with

a large stroke capacity and a high damping force are required for seismic protection of long-span

cable-stayed bridges in seismically high risk areas. The first studies on the effectiveness of

seismic isolation techniques for cable-stayed bridges were performed by Ali and Abdel-

Ghaffar15,16, who proposed lead rubber bearing (LRB) devices as passive control systems. Since

then, a variety of research works have proposed different control strategies by applying


3/28

analytical or experimental approaches to reduce the transmission of the earthquake motion to the

cable-stayed bridge structure17-25. It has been observed in recent studies that the utilization of

passive isolators and dissipating devices, rather than active or semi-active devices, significantly

reduces the displacements and the seismically induced forces of cable-stayed bridges18,22. The

passive control systems provide an internal action similar to the active devices, but they are

reusable and do not require any external power.

In the field of seismic engineering, the use of rubber in structural control devices for bridges

and buildings has increased remarkably. Laminated natural rubber (NR) bearings and lead rubber

bearings (LRB) are the most commonly used isolation devices, and they effectively reduce the

seismic forces of cable-stayed bridges. More recently, high damping rubbers (HDR) with good

load-bearing ability and damping characteristics, in which the rubber composition is changed to

provide high damping properties, have been applied successfully to mitigate seismic effects on

superstructures such as cable-stayed bridges.

Despite all of the advantages of utilizing rubber materials as seismic control systems and their

cost efficiency in comparison with other control devices, few studies have investigated the

performance of rubber-based seismic control systems, and it is essential that more research be

conducted to characterize and model rubber-based isolation and damper systems for the

earthquake protection of cable-stayed bridges.

This study investigates the performance of rubber-based control devices to increase their

application for seismic protection of cable-stayed bridges. Moreover, different rubber-based

devices as seismic control systems for cable-stayed bridges are reviewed and compared with

other proposed systems to find some suggestions to improve the dynamic behavior of cable-


4/28

stayed bridges in the future; however, the detailed discussions are limited to recent systems that

have been evaluated experimentally or analytically.

2. Characterize the behavior of rubber-based control systems

Rubber is a highly elastic material; however, the stress in rubber materials depends on more than

the strain. The magnitude of the strain, the temperature, stress-softening, the strain amplitude,

and the frequency also affect the behavior of rubber in an isolation system. The behavior of

rubber is also time-dependent, which leads to a hysteresis when it is exposed to cyclic loading, in

the case of free oscillations, the energy lost will act as damping. In addition, the amount of

fillers, such as carbon black, leads to stress-softening of rubber-based systems and a

phenomenon called the .Mullins effect. that affects the mechanical properties of rubber

significantly26-29. This aspect is particularly important in the HDR-based devices used to reduce

the effect of seismic events that rarely occur.

In recent decades, some constitutive models, such as elastic models, hyperelastic models, and

viscoelastic models, have been developed to describe the mechanical behavior of rubber

materials30-34. The results of recent studies show that the viscoelastic models describe the

dynamic behavior of rubber-based isolation systems as well29, 36-39. Different experimental and

analytical works have been performed to characterize linear viscoelastic material behavior of

rubber materials40-46. However, the experimental investigations on the force-displacement

relationship of rubber-based control systems, which undergo compression and shear, show strong

nonlinearities and stiffening behavior of rubber-based materials47, 48. The nonlinear force-

displacement relation of rubber-based control systems are generally modeled by equivalent linear

elastic-viscous and bilinear hysteretic behaviors in recent studies and specifications49-54.


5/28


6/28

Fig. 1. The model presented is also applied to model high damping rubber bearings (HDRB) in

some studies52, 60, 61.

Fig. 1. Equivalent linear model

The bilinear model is recommended in specifications to represent the nonlinear inelastic

hysteretic characteristics of HDRBs and LRBs49-51. The hysteretic characteristics of LRBs can be

modeled by applying the Bounc-Wen hysteresis model58, 60, 62-64 in which the restoring force of the

LRB is described as

)5((1 )b b b b d F c x k x Q z = + + &

where is the ratio of the pre-yielding stiffness and the post-yielding stiffness; bk and are the

pre-yield stiffness and the viscous damping, respectively; x is the horizontal shear displacement

of the LRB; is the yielding load; and z is the dimensionless form of the hysteretic variation,

where |z|1.

To define the bilinear model for seismic isolation systems, the initial elastic stiffness,, the

post-yield stiffness, bk , the characteristic strength, Q, and the yield displacement, q, are required

parameters, as presented in Fig.2.


7/28

Fig. 2. Equivalent bilinear model

Although the bilinear model has been applied widely to model rubber-based isolation systems,

some research works show that the present classical bilinear model cannot represent the actual

behavior of rubber-based bearing systems as well65. Different analytical and rheological models

have been proposed to characterize the mechanical behavior of LRBs 66-70 and HDRB devices 34,

35, 37, 42, 67, 71, 72 regarding the nonlinear rate-dependent hysteresis of the rubber-based isolation

systems. Regarding the experimentally observed rate-dependent phenomena in rubber materials,

more investigations should be conducted through experimental studies and upgrading the

modeling techniques to characterize the behavior of rubber-based isolation systems.

The behavior of rubber-based dissipating devices, which undergo pure shear strain, is

different from that of the rubber-based isolators that experience strains due to compression and

shear. Very few experimental and analytical studies have focused on characterizing the behavior

of rubber-based dissipating devices that endure pure shear strain during seismic loading. Thus,

there is a lack of information on the performance of rubber and HDR-based dampers as seismic

control systems for cable-stayed bridges. DallAsta and Ragni 38 were among the first to

characterize the behavior of HDR-based dissipating devices through cyclic experimental tests.

They developed a nonlinear thermodynamically compatible rheological model to describe the

HDR behavior under pure shear. The proposed analytical model, which considers the Mullins


8/28

effect and strain-rate dependence of HDR dampers, shows good agreement with experimental

test results. However, the investigations in this subject are not adequate and there is a need for

extensive experimental and analytical studies to characterize the behavior of rubber-based

dampers.

3. Application of rubber-based seismic control systems in cable-stayed

bridges

Despite the difficulties on characterizing the complex behavior of rubber materials, different

rubber-based seismic control systems including isolation devices and supplemental dampers have

been proposed in recent years to mitigate the earthquake response of bridges and buildings.

LRBs are most widely used rubber-based isolation devices in the earthquake protection of

structures. Furthermore, HDR dampers have been developed recently as economic seismic

control devices for structures because they have a high damping force and a large stroke

capacities, which absorb large amounts of energy without an axial force 52.

Regarding the effectiveness of rubber and HDR materials in the earthquake protection, the

application of rubber-based seismic control systems in cable-stayed bridges is investigated in this

paper.

3.1. Laminated rubber bearings

Laminated rubber bearings, which consist of thin layers of natural rubber (NR) or synthetic

rubber bonded to steel plates, are the most commonly used seismic control devices for long-span

bridges. Laminated NR bearings provide a high vertical stiffness and a considerable horizontal

flexibility to accommodate the ground motion during an earthquake73, 74. However, the low


9/28

damping of NR bearings, which is typically less than 7% for the range of shear strains from 0 to

2.0, renders them less effective in comparison with other passive control systems. The rubber

bearings with high damping were developed by Malaysian Rubber Producers, an Association

(MRPRA) of United Kingdom in 1982. The application of laminated HDRBs, which possess

high damping properties, has increased remarkably in recent years. The high damping of HDR is

provided by addition of the chemical compounds (generally carbon black in seismic control

systems, which improves the stiffness, the relaxation characteristics, the creep, and the fatigue

life of the rubber) that may also affect the other mechanical properties of the NR. The flexibility

and energy absorption capability of HDR-based isolation systems result in the absorption of the

earthquake input energy before transmission to the structure and enhance the serviceability of the

structure75-78. Few studies have investigated the application of laminated HDRBs as seismic

control systems for cable-stayed bridges60, 61. However, there are further rooms for studies on the

behavior of isolated bridges with HDRB seismic control systems. The first application of

HDRBs for seismic protection of cable-stayed brides was in the Santarem Bridge in Portugal

(2000), with a 246 m main span. Fig. 3 shows the installed laminated HDRBs in under

construction Penang second cable-stayed bridge in Malaysia.

Fig. 3. HDRBs installed on the Penang second bridge in Malaysia (completion in 2013)


10/28

3.2. Lead rubber bearings (LRB)

LRB devices with high inherent damping properties were invented by Robinson79 in New

Zealand and have been widely applied as isolation systems for buildings and bridges in New

Zealand and worldwide. LRBs are laminated rubber bearings with a lead core in the center to

provide additional hysteretic damping by elastic deformation. The LRB devices possess much

higher damping than HDRBs while do not have their disadvantages such as scragging,

dependence on load history, strain history and velocity. During severe earthquakes, the lead plug

of LRB is capable of deforming through low-cycle plastic deformations 80, 81. In the case of large

displacements, the steel plates force the lead plug to deform in shear and absorb energy that may

affect the higher modes of the structure82.

Ali and Abdel-Ghaffar15, 16 were among the first to propose LRBs as seismic control systems

for cable-stayed bridges. Their studies showed that the application of LRBs significantly reduces

the moments at the pier-foundation and deck-cable connections while transmitting less force to

the abutment. More recently, few studies have discussed the effect of LRB devices on the

seismic response of cable-stayed bridges24, 58, 83, 84. The results of investigations indicated that the

LRB control systems improve the base shear and the bending moments while increase the

displacement response of the cable-stayed bridges. The lead-core rubberized metal bearings are

newly installed in Russky Island Bridge in Russia (completed in 2012) to provide energy

dissipation during earthquakes. Although different research works have illustrated the efficiency

of LRBs as control systems for structures, there are few applications of such devices for seismic

control of cable-stayed bridges. The complex nonlinear behavior of rubber-based isolators and

increasing the displacement response of the structure could have been restricted their application

as seismic control system of cable-stayed bridges.


11/28

3.3. HDR-based dampers

Laminated rubber dampers have been used extensively as wind vibration control systems for

cable-stayed bridges in recent decades, (Odawara Blueway Bridge in Japan, Meiko Nshi Bridge

in Japan, Christopher S. Bond Bridge in Missouri, Hale Boggs Memorial Bridge in Louisiana,

Bai Chay Bridge in Vietnam). However, the required damping for seismic protection is

considerably greater than that for wind vibration control. The greater intensity of the seismic

loads, which leads to greater displacements in the dampers, requires devices with very high

damping to control the deformation during the earthquake. The HDR-based dampers, as

viscoelastic systems, could be promising dissipating devices for cable-stayed bridges due to their

high damping properties and fading memory material characteristics.

Although different research works have verified the effectiveness of the viscoelastic dampers

to reduce the seismic response of cable-stayed bridges18,61, few studies have investigated the

behavior of isolated cable-stayed bridges by HDR or other rubber-based dampers. Igarashi et al.65

evaluated the performance of HDR dampers through investigating the experimentally simulated

seismic response of an isolated bridge model. The schematic configuration of the proposed

control system is presented in Fig. 4.


12/28

Fig. 4. Overview of the laminated HDR dampers of a cable-stayed bridge 65

The real-time hybrid experimental system was implemented using the concept of velocity-

based loading control to validate the response reduction performance of the laminated HDR

damper as an energy dissipation device applied to a real cable-stayed bridge (Higashi Kobe

Bridge). The displacement response of the bridge with laminated HDR dampers and without

these devices was evaluated during the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake. The application of the

laminated HDR dampers reduced the seismic response of the bridge as much as 30.6%, which is

a considerable response reduction. However, more extensive studies in future would clarify the

performance of HDR dampers as dissipating devices for cable-stayed bridges.

4. Discussions

The detailed literature review reveals that the application of rubber-based control systems

significantly controls the structural responses of cable-stayed bridges during earthquakes.

However, few research works have been conducted to compare the performance of rubber-based

isolators and dampers with other control strategies. Saha and Jangid60 presented a comparative


13/28

performance study to investigate the earthquake response of the phase-I benchmark cable-stayed

bridge86 with different isolation systems consisting of HDRBs, LRBs, friction pendulum systems

(FPS), and resilient-friction base isolators (RFBI). The evaluation criteria J1 to J18 were defined

to evaluate the effectiveness of various control systems for the El Centro (1940), Mexico City

(1985) and Gebze (1999) earthquakes (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Evaluation criteria for different control systems 86

Based on the numerical simulation results, all types of isolation systems were effective to

control the seismic responses of the bridge for three earthquake ground motions.

However, the LRBs had more consistent performance and were more effective than the other

isolators to reduce the transmitted loads by different ground motions (Fig. 6). Moreover, it was

found from the parametric study that LRB is more robust than other isolators.


14/28

Fig. 6. Comparison of different control systems according to evaluation criteria (dimensionless)

It was also observed in this study that the earthquake ground motions and the parameters of

the control systems (the isolation time period for all control devices, the damping ratio for

HDRB, the normalized yield strength for LRB and the frictional coefficient for both FPS and R-

FBI) significantly affect the seismic response of the structure.


15/28

More recently, Soti and Saha61 reviewed the effectiveness of passive seismic control devices,

such as LRBs, HDRBs, FPS, viscoelastic dampers, and elastoplastic dampers on structural

responses of the phase-I benchmark cable-stayed bridge. The application of viscoelastic

dampers, which couple the isolating properties of the elastic parts with the dissipating properties

of the viscous materials such as rubber, was found to be one of the best strategies to reduce the

displacements and dissipate the seismic energy in cable-stayed bridges (Fig. 7). The detailed

information about the properties of the studied control systems can be found in the literature.

Fig. 7. Comparison of maximum deck displacement related to different damper systems in different

earthquake records (El Centro, Mexico City, and Gebze earthquakes)

The results of this study also indicated that the application of HDRBs and LRBs increase the

displacement response of the deck in different ground motions rather than other isolation

systems. Different research works have made efforts to find a solution to reduce the earthquake-

induced displacements of isolated bridges. Hybrid control systems have been developed in recent

decades for the seismic protection of cable-stayed bridges which can alleviate some of the

previous restrictions of protection strategies. A hybrid control system is defined as a combination

of a passive control system, to mitigate the seismic forces in the structure, with an active, semi-

active or other passive control device, to further reduce the deck displacement of cable-stayed


16/28

bridges. During the severe earthquakes, the passive control system provides protection even if

the active control device fails to operate. The application of LRBs and HDRBs as passive control

devices of hybrid systems have been increased in recent years. Park et al. 25presented LRB-based

hybrid control systems for seismic protection of a phase-II benchmark cable-stayed bridge 87.

LRBs were used as passive control devices to reduce the earthquake-induced forces in the bridge

and hydraulic actuators (HA) or magnetorheological fluid dampers (MFD) were used as

additional control devices to further reduce the bridge responses, especially deck displacements.

The numerical simulations in this study demonstrated that the proposed hybrid control systems

could effectively control the structural responses of cable-stayed bridges in different earthquake

records (El Centro, Mexico City, and Gebze earthquakes) as shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Comparison of maximum deck displacement for three earthquakes (X-direction, Incidence angle =15)

Jung et al. 21proposed a hybrid control strategy combining LRBs as passive isolation devices,

and semi-active dampers as supplemental damping devices. The comparative investigations of

their study indicated that the performance of the hybrid control systems were nearly the same

overall as the passive control systems (consisting LRBs and viscous dampers) and were slightly

better than active control systems and the hybrid control system using LRBs and active devices

(Fig. 9).


17/28

Fig. 9. Comparison of maximum deck displacement related to different control systems for three earthquakes

In recent years, different research works have emphasized the efficiency of LRB-based hybrid

control systems based on numerical studies23, 84. However, it seems that there are limited

investigations in applying rubber-based hybrid control systems for cable-stayed bridges and

accurate experimental studies are required in future to verify the performance of rubber-based

Hybrid systems as seismic control strategy for cable-stayed bridges.

5. Conclusions and remarks

The utilization of appropriate control strategies to mitigate the seismic responses of cable-stayed

bridges requires accurate knowledge of the cost efficiency, the simplicity, requirements,

maintenance, dynamic range, and other factors of the control devices. Regarding the reusability,

cost efficiency and durability of rubber materials a detailed review on the rubber-based passive

control systems is presented in this paper in terms of their effectiveness to control the structural

responses of cable-stayed bridges. The following aspects can be found from different research

works on this subject:


18/28

According to all research on the behavior of rubber-based seismic control systems, the

selection of the analytical model for control devices affects the structural responses of the

isolated bridges significantly. The behavior of rubber-based control systems is strongly

nonlinear during the seismic loading. Although the equivalent linear and bilinear models have

been applied widely to model the nonlinear characteristics of rubber-based isolation devices,

recent studies illustrate that more accurate analytical models are required to represent the rate-

dependent behavior of rubber-based isolation systems. In terms of rubber-based dissipating

devices, few research works have focused on characterizing the behavior of rubber and HDR

dampers. More extensive experimental and analytical studies should be conducted to

characterize the behavior of rubber-based isolation systems and dissipating devices to increase

the application of rubber materials as control systems particularly for seismic protection of

cable-stayed bridges.

Despite all the advantages of HDRB and LRB control systems and their wide application

as seismic isolation of bridges, some difficulties such as their complex behavior, being robust

in comparison with other isolators, and increasing the displacement response of the deck have

restricted their application as control devices of cable-stayed bridges. Conducting accurate

analytical and experimental investigations would help to find some aspects to improve the

performance of rubber-based isolation systems and overcome the limitations in their

application as seismic control devices of cable-stayed bridges.

The comparison of the seismic isolation systems in the literature shows that the LRBs

have more consistent performance in different ground motions and are more effective than

other isolators for controlling the earthquake-induced forces of cable-stayed bridges.

However, the application of LRBs increases the displacement of the deck and there is a need


19/28

to find a solution to control the displacement response of isolated bridges. The application of

LRB-based hybrid control systems has been shown to be an efficient strategy to control the

seismic-induced responses of cable-stayed bridges, particularly deck displacements. However,

the studies on this subject are very limited hence experimental studies are required to

characterize the behavior of hybrid systems and to verify the performance of rubber-based

hybrid seismic control systems of cable-stayed bridges.

Numerical studies show that laminated HDR dampers reduce the earthquake-induced

responses of cable-stayed bridges significantly. However, the performance of HDR dampers

in seismic control of cable-stayed bridges should be compared with other dissipating systems

in future studies to verify their efficiency. The performance of rubber-based dampers located

in different places of cable-stayed bridges would be one of the future challenges in this

subject.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all previous researchers that their studies have been reviewed

in this paper. The research reported in this paper is sponsored by remarked GRA research grants

(UKM-HEJIM-INDUSTRI-07-2010) funded by the National University of Malaysia (UKM) and

(FRGS/1/2011/TK/UKM/02/13) founded by Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia.

References

[1] Kelly J.M, Skinner R.I. and Heine A.J. Mechanisms of energy absorption in special devices for

use in earthquake resistant structures. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for

Earthquake Engineering; 1972 (5), 78-89.


20/28

[2] Kelly J.M. and Tsztoo D.F. Energy absorbing devices in structures under earthquake loading. 6th

World Conference on the Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, India, 1977; 1369-1374.

[3] Buckle I.G. and Mayes R.L. The application of seismic isolation to bridges. Structures

Congress: Seismic Engineering:Research and Practice,ASCE, NY, 1989; 633-642.

[4] Housner G. W, Bergman L. A, Caughey T. K, Chassiakos A. G. , Claus R. O, Masri S. F, Skelton

R. E, Soong T. T, Spencer J. B. F. and Yao J. T. P. Structural control: past, present and future.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 1997; 123(9), 897-971.

[5] Koh C. G. and Kelly J. M. Application of fractional derivatives to seismic analysis of based-

isolated models.Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 1990; 19, 229-241.

[6] Soong T. T. and Spencer J. B. F. Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-practice.

Engineering Structures, 2002; 24(3), 243-259.

[7] Graesser E. J. and Cozzarelli, F. A. Shape memory alloys as new materials for a seismic isolation.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 1991;117, 590-608.

[8]Nagarajaiah S. Semi-active control of structures. Proceedings of Structures Congress XV,ASCE,

Portland, U.S.A, 1997;15741578.

[9] Symans M. D. and Constantinou M. C. Semi-active control systems for seismic protection of

structures: a state-of-the-art review.Engineering Structures, 1999; 21, 469-487.

[10] Kawashima K. and Unjoh S. Seismic response control of bridges by variable dampers.

Journal of Structural Engineering, 1994; 120, 25832601.

[11] Kunde M.C. and Jangid R.S. Reduction of structural vibrations by multiple-mode liquid

dampers.Engineering Structures, 1995; 17, 122-128.

[12] Kunde M.C. and Jangid R.S. Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: A-state-of-the-art

review.Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 2003; 3, 142-170.


21/28

[13] Ha D. H, Park K. S, Park W. and Pyeon M. W. Improvement of seismic performance of

long-span bridges using complex dampers. Earthquake Engineering. Soc. of Korea, 2007; 13(3),

53-62.

[14] Ha D. H, Park K. S, Park W, Park J. H. and Choo J. F. Optimization of Complex

Dampers for the Improvement of Seismic Performance of Long-span Bridges. KSCE Journal of

Civil Engineering, 2010; 14, 33-40.

[15] Ali H. E, Abdel - Ghaffar A.M. Seismic Energy Dissipation for Cable-Stayed Bridges

Using Passive Devices.Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1991; 23, 877 893.

[16] Ali H-E, Abdel - Ghaffar A.M. Modelling the Nonlinear Seismic Behaviour of Cable-

Stayed Bridges with Passive Control Bearings. Computers & Structures, 1995; 54(3), 461 492.

[17] He W, and Agrawal A. K. Passive and hybrid control systems for seismic protection of a

benchmark cable-stayed bridge. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2007; 14, 01-026.

[18] Bontempi F, Casciati F, and Giudici M. Seismic response of a cable-stayed bridge:

active and passive control systems (Benchmark Problem). Journal of Structural Control, 2003;

10,169-185.

[19] Iemura H, and Pradono M. H. Application of pseudo-negative stiffness control to the

benchmark cable-stayed bridge.Journal of Structural Control, 2003; 10, 187-203.

[20] Agrawal A. K, Yang J. N. and He W. L. Applications of Some Semiactive Control

Systems to Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2003;

129, 884-894.

[21] Jung H. J, Park K. S, Spencer J. B. F. and Lee I. W. Hybrid seismic protection of cable-

stayed bridge. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2004; 33, 795-820.

[22] Sharabash A. M. and Andrawes B. O. Application of shape memory alloy dampers in the

seismic control of cable-stayed bridges.Journal of Engineering Structures, ASCE, 2009; 31, 607-

616.


22/28

[23] Soneji B.B. and Jangid R.S. Passive hybrid systems for earthquake protection of cable-

stayed bridge.Engineering Structures,ASCE, 2007; 29, 5770.

[24] Park K, Jung H, and Lee I. Hybrid control strategy for seismic protection of benchmark

cable-stayed bridge.Engineering Structures, 2003a; 25, 405-417.

[25] Park K, Jung H, Spencer B. F. and Lee I. Hybrid control systems for seismic protection

of a phase II benchmark cable-stayed bridge.Journal of Structural Control, 2003; 10, 231247.

[26] Bueche, F. Mullins effect and rubberfiller interaction. Journal of Applied Polymer

Science, 1961; 5, 271281.

[27] Mullins L. Softening of rubber by deformations. Rubber Chemistry and. Technology,

1969; 42, 339-362.

[28] Ogden R.W. and Roxburgh D.G. An energy-based model of the Mullins effect.

Proceedings of the First European Conference on Constitutive Models for Rubber, Vienna; 1999.

[29] Guo Z. and Sluys L.J. Computational modelling of the stress-softening phenomenon of

rubber-like materials under cyclic loading. European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids, 2006; 25,

877-896.

[30] Bever A.D. Towards the computation of the dynamic behaviour of rubber materials. M.

S. Thesis Department of Engineering Science, University of Technology, Netherlands; 1992.

[31] Boyce M.C. and Arruda E.M. Constitutive models of rubber elasticity: a review. Rubber

Chem. Technol, 2000; 73, 504523.

[32] Besdo D. and Ihlemann J. Properties of rubberlike materials under large deformations

explained by self organizing linkage patterns. International Journal of Plasticity, 2003a; 19,

10011018.


23/28

[33] Besdo D. and Ihlemann J. A phenomenological constitutive model for rubberlike

materials and its numerical applications. International Journal of Plasticity, 2003b; 19, 1019

1036.

[34] Amin A.F.M.S, Lion A, Sekita S. and Okui Y. Nonlinear dependence of viscosity in

modeling the rate-dependent response of natural and high damping rubbers in compression and

shear: Experimental identification and numerical verification. International Journal of Plasticity,

2006; 22, 1610-1657.

[35] Hwang J.S, Wu J.D, Pan T.C. and Yang G. A mathematical hysteretic model for

elastomeric isolation bearings. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 2002; 31, 771-

789.

[36] Hwang J.S. and Tseng Y.S. Design formulations for supplemental viscous dampers to

highway bridges.Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 2005; 34, 1627-1642.

[37] Tsai C.S, Chiang T. C, Chen B. J. and Lin S.B. An advanced analytical model for high

damping rubber bearings. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 2003; 32, 1373-

1387.

[38] DallAsta A. and Ragni L. Experimental tests and analytical model of high damping

rubber dissipating devices.Engineering Structures, 2006; 28, 1874-1884.

[39] DallAsta A. and Ragni L. Nonlinear behavior of dynamic systems with high damping

rubber devices.Engineering Structures, 2008; 30, 3610-3618.

[40] Lodhia B.B. and Esat I.I. Vibration simulation of systems incorporating linear

viscoelastic mounts using Prony series formulation. Engineering system design and analysis

conference, ASME, 1996; 81(9), 171-176.

[41] Betz E. and Spanier J. Spring and dashpot models and their applications in the study of

the dynamic properties of rubber.Mechanical and Chemical Engineering Transactions; 1996.


24/28

[42] Hwang J. S. and Ku S. W. Analytical Modeling of High Damping Rubber Bearings.

Journal of Structural Engineering,ASCE, 1997; 123(8), 1029-1036.

[43] Hwang J.S. and Wang J.C. Seismic response prediction of HDR bearings using fractional

derivatives Maxwell model.Engineering Structures, 1998; 20, 849856.

[44] Berg, M. A. Non linear rubber spring model for rail vehicle dynamics analysis. Vehicle

System Dynamics, 1998; 30, 197-212.

[45] Brackbill C.R, Lesieutre G.A, Smith E.C. and Ruhl L.E. Characterization and modelling

of the low strain amplitude and frequency-dependent behavior of elastomeric damper materials.

Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 2000; 45(1), 34-42.

[46] Koh H.M, Song J. and Ha D.H. Cost effectiveness of seismic isolation for bridges in low

and moderate seismic region. Proceedings of 12th World Conf. onEarthquake Engineering, New

Zealand, 2000; Paper No. 1100.

[47] Calvi G. M, Kawashima K, Billings I, Elnashai A, Nuti, C, Pecker A, Pinto, P. E,

Priestley N. M. J. and Rodriguez, M. Seismic bridge design and retrofit - structural solutions.

State of art report,fibBulletin, 2007; 39.

[48] Imai T, Bhuiyan M. K, Razzaq A. R, Okui Y. and Mitamura H. Experimental studies of

rate-dependent mechanical behavior of laminated rubber bearings. Joint conference proceedings,

7CUEE, 5ICEE, 2010, Tokyo, Japan.

[49] American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2000.

Guide Specification for Seismic Isolation Design, 2/e.

[50] Japan Road Association, (JRA 2002). Specifications for highway bridges, Part V:

Seismic design, Tokyo, Japan.


25/28

[51] Japan Road Association, (JRA 2004). A manual of support bearings for highway bridges,

Marizen, Tokyo (in Japanese).

[52] Iemura H, Igarashi A. and Toyooka A. Development of an innovative seismic damper for

large-scale bridges and sub-structured hybrid earthquake loading tests. 4th Int. Conf. on Bridge

Maintenance,Safety and Management (IABMAS08), Seoul, Korea, 2008.

[53] Razzaq M. K, Bhuiyan A. R, Okui Y, Mitamura H. and Imai T. Effect of rubber bearings

modeling on seismic response of base isolated highway bridge. Joint conference proceedings,

7CUEE, 5ICEE, Tokyo, Japan, 2010.

[54] Haque M. N, Bhuiyan A. R. and Alam M. J. Seismic response analysis of base isolated

highway bridge: Effectiveness of using laminated rubber bearings. IABSE-JSCE Joint

Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-II, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2010.

[55] Pagnini L.C, Ballio, and Solari G. Modeling and nonlinear seismic analysis of bridges

with aseismic devices.European Earthquake Engineering, 1998; 12, 19-29.

[56] Matsagar V. A. and Jangid R. S. Influence of isolator characteristics on the response of

base-isolated structures.Engineering Structures, 2004; 26, 1735-1749.

[57] Gomase O.P. and Bakre S.V. Performance of Non-Linear Elastomeric Base-Isolated

building structure. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 2011, 2 (1), 280-

291.

[58] Casciati F, Cimellaro G. P. and Domaneschi M. Seismic reliability of a cable-stayed

bridge retrofitted with hysteretic devices. Computers and Structures, 2008; 86, 17691781.

[59] Guan Z. Li J. and Xu Y. Performance Test of Energy Dissipation Bearing and Its

Application in Seismic Control of a Long-Span Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE,

2010; 15, 622-630.


26/28

[60] Saha P. and Jangid R. S. (2008). .Comparative Performance of Isolation Systems for

Benchmark Cable-stayed Bridge.International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 6(2),

111-139.

[61] Soti P. R. and Saha P. Review of various passive control devices for seismic control of

benchmark cable stayed bridge. International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 2011;

4, 6, 726-731.

[62] Bouc R. Modle mathmatique d'hystrsis: application aux systmes un degr de

libert. (in French)Acustica, 1971; 24, 1625.

[63] Wen Y. K. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems, Journal of the

Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 1976; 102(2) 249-263, 1976.

[64] Chen L, Jiang L Long W. and Wang L. Research on seismic response and damping effect

for high-speed railway seismic isolated bridge. The Civil Engineering Journal, 2011; 5, 163-167.

[65] Grant D. N Fenves G. L. and Auricchio F. Bridge isolation with high-damping rubber

bearings- Analytical modeling and system response. 13th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, no. 1002, 2004.

[66] Kikuchi M. and Aiken I.D. An analytical hysteresis model for elastomeric seismic

isolation bearings.Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1997; 26, 215-231

[67] Abe M, Yoshida J. and Fujino Y. Multi-axial behaviors of laminated rubber bearings and

their modeling II: Modeling.Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2004; 130, 1133-1144.

[68] Doudoumis I.N Gravalas F. and Doudoumis N.I. Analytical modeling of elastomeric

lead-rubber bearings with the use of finite element micromodels. 5th GRACM International

Congress on Computational Mechanics, 2005; Limassol, Cyprus.


27/28

[69] Bhuiyan A.R, Razzaq M.K, Okui Y, Mitamura H. and Imai T.A simplified rheology

model of natural and lead rubber bearings for seismic analysis. Proceedings of the 64th JSCE

Annual Conference, 2009a; Fukuoka, Japan.

[70] Bhuiyan A.R, Okui Y, Mitamura H. and Imai T. A rheology model of high damping

rubber bearings for seismic analysis: identification of nonlinear viscosity. International Journal

of Solids and Structures, 2009b; 46, 1778-1792.

[71] Sano T. and Di Pasquale G. A constitutive model for high damping rubber bearings.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 1995; 117, 5357.

[72] Amin A.F.M.S Alam M.S. and Okui Y. An improved hyperelasticity relation in modeling

viscoelasticity response of natural and high damping rubbers in compression: experiments,

parameter identification and numerical verification.Mechanics of Materials, 2002; 34, 7595.

[73] Ghobarah A. and Ali H.M. Seismic performance of highway bridges. Engineering

Structures, 1988; 10, 157-166.

[74] Jangid R.S. Seismic response of isolated bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering,ASCE,

2004; 9,156-166.

[75] Simo J. C. and Kelly J. M. The analysis of multi-layer elastomeric bearings. Journal of

Applied Mechanics,ASME, 1984b; 51,25662.

[76] Simo J. C.and Kelly J. M. Finite element analysis of the stability of multilayer

elastomeric bearings.Engineering Structures, 1984a; 6(3), 162-174.

[77] Kelly J.M. Earthquake resistant design with rubber. 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag Berlin

Heidelberg, 1997; New York.

[78] Chang, C. H. Modeling of laminated rubber bearings using an analytical stiffness matrix.

International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2002; 39, 6055-6078.


28/28

[79] Robinson W.H. Lead-rubber hysteretic bearings suitable for protecting structures during

earthquakes.Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1982; 10, 593-604.

[80] Turkington D.H, Carr A.J, Cooke, N. and Moss P.J. Seismic design of bridges on lead-

rubber bearings.Journal of Structural Engineering, 1989a; 115, 3000-3016.

[81] Turkington D.H, Carr A.J, Cooke, N. and Moss P.J. Design methods for bridges on lead-

rubber bearings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1989b; 115, 3017-3030.

[82] Abrishambaf A. and Ozay G. Effects of isolation damping and stiffness on the seismic

behavior of structures. World Scientific and Engineerring Academy and Society (WSEAS 2010),

ISBN: 978-960-474-251-6.

[83] Abdel Raheem S. E. Hayashikawa T. and Dorka U. Ground motion spatial variability

effects on seismic response control of cable-stayed bridges. Earthquake Engineering and

Engineering Vibration, 2011; 10, 37-49.

[84] Yang J. and Zhang Y. Analysis of Seismic Response of the Single Tower Cable-stayed

Bridge with Seismicity Mitigation and Energy Dissipation Devices. Applied Mechanics and

Materials, 2012;166-169.

[85] Igarashi A, Sanchez F, Fujii K, Iemura H. and Toyooka A. (2009). .Real-time hybrid

testing of laminated rubber dampers for seismic retrofit of bridges. 3rd International Conference

on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, San Francisco, USA.

[86] Dyke S. J, Caicedo J. M, Turan G, Bergman L. A, and Hague S. (2003). .Phase I

benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, 129,857-872.

[87] Caicedo J. M Dyke S. J, Moon S. J, Bergman L. A, Turan G. and Hague S. (2003). .Phase

II benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. Journal of Structural

Control, 10, 137168.

Documents

Review Paper Asgari Iabse