Technical Note

Study on Wind-Induced Vibration Control of a Long-Span

Cable-Stayed Bridge Using TMD-Type Counterweight
Chenxi Xing1; Hao Wang, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE2; Aiqun Li, Ph.D.3; and Yan Xu4

Abstract: It has been widely acknowledged that a tuned mass damper (TMD) can effectively control the wind-induced vibration of the main
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deck of long-span bridges. However, the unfavorable effect on static characteristics of the increased dead load cannot be avoided if the TMD is
installed straight on the main deck. A TMD-type counterweight is designed in this paper, where the counterweight originally designed for re-
ducing the live load–induced displacements at the central span are taken as the mass block in the TMD. The Sutong Cable-Stayed Bridge (SCB),
with a main span of 1,088 m, is taken as an example. The buffeting responses of the bridge with the stationary counterweight and the proposed
TMD-type counterweight are compared, and the control performance of the bridge with and without auxiliary piers is also investigated. Results
indicate that the TMD has notable effects on reducing the vibration of the main deck without auxiliary piers, whereas the impact is not significant
for the presence of the auxiliary piers on the bridge. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000500. © 2014 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Sutong Cable-Stayed Bridge; Tuned mass damper (TMD); Wind-induced vibration; Cable-stayed bridge; Buffeting
response.

Introduction forward a concept of a semiactive control lever-type TMD of

With the increment in bridge span and flexibility, dynamic problems
of long-span bridges have become increasingly significant. The
sensitivity to dynamic wind actions enhances with the reduction of
modal frequencies. Thus, wind has become the primary control load
in designing superlarge-span bridges. In recent years, a great amount
of long-span cable-supported bridges are being constructed or under
planning. In the Jiangsu Province alone, there are many world-famous
long-span bridges, including Sutong Cable-Stayed Bridge (SCB),
Runyang Suspension Bridge, Jiangyin Suspension Bridge, Taizhou
Suspension Bridge, Nanjing No. 2 Yangtse River Bridge, and
Nanjing No. 3 Yangtse River Bridge, among others.
The tuned mass damper (TMD) can effectively control the wind-
induced vibration of the main deck of long-span bridges. Fujino and
Yoshida (2002) applied TMDs on a 10-span continuous steel box-
girder bridge, and they performed well in controlling vortex-induced
vibration. Gu et al. (2001) studied the buffeting control of the
Yangpu Bridge using a TMD system concerning the control effi-
ciency. Based on their former research, Gu et al. (2002) then put
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vir-
ginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061; formerly, Ph.D. Student, School of
Civil Engineering, Southeast Univ., No. 2 Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
2
Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed
Concrete Structure of Ministry of Education, Southeast Univ., No. 2
Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China (corresponding author). E-mail:
wanghao1980@seu.edu.cn
3
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast Univ., No. 2
Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
4
Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast Univ.,
No. 2 Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 13, 2012; approved on
April 30, 2013; published online on May 2, 2013. Discussion period
open until June 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Bridge Eng-
ineering, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 1, 2014. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2014/
1-141–148/$25.00.
wind-induced vibration of long-span bridges together with a related
case study. Lin et al. (2005) designed a TMD system on a railway
bridge to alter dynamic characteristics to avoid resonances. Li (2000)
investigated optimum parameters of the TMD on effectiveness and
robustness by comparing two sorts of TMDs with a single TMD.
Chen and Kareem (2003) examined the efficacy of a TMD in con-
trolling self-excited motion resulting from negative damping, and the
effectiveness and limitation in controlling multimode bridge flutter.
Because the augment of the dead load on the bridge deck can
perform some unfavorable effects on its working performance, the
application of a TMD on the bridge deck is seriously limited. On the
other hand, to maintain the geometric configuration of the main
girder, massive counterweights are commonly installed at the side
span and near the auxiliary piers to keep the tower straight and to
reduce the displacement at the central span when the side span/main
span ratio is relatively small in cable-stayed bridges. In this study,
the massive counterweights installed near the auxiliary piers are
transformed into a TMD. The merit of the TMD-type counter-
weights is their capability to reduce structural response under dy-
namic loading, such as wind, while maintaining its original function
as a counterweight. In taking the SCB as an example, the control
performances of the TMD-type counterweight of the bridge with
and without auxiliary piers at the side span are investigated.
Descriptions of the SCB
Connecting Suzhou and Nantong City, the SCB is the second-longest
cable-stayed bridge in the world with a main span of 1,088 m, as
shown in Fig. 1. Moreover, the bridge has three other records in the
world, including the main tower’s height of 300.4 m, the stayed-
cable length of 580 m, and the group pile foundation’s plane size of
113:75 3 48:1 m. The bridge construction was initiated in June 2003
and opened to traffic on May 25, 2008.
The SCB is a steel box-girder cable-stayed bridge. A streamlined
flat steel box girder, with the overall width including two wind
fairings of 41.0 m and the height at the centerline of 4.0 m, is used.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 141

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 141-148

 The two main towers are inverted-Y shaped and include upper,
middle, and lower columns and lower beams. As for the tower,
230.41 m of the total height is above the main girder. To increase the
safety against the buckling instability of the bridge, eight fluid
viscous dampers equipped with restrainers are utilized as longitu-
dinal supports at the junction of the deck and towers. The restraining
force is 9,870 kN each (Zhang and Chen 2010). Parallel wire cables
with intervals of 16 m on the deck and 2 m on the towers are adopted,
and the total number of cables is 4 3 34 3 2 5 272. Among them, the
length of the longest cable is 577 m with the largest size of PES7–313.
One hundred and thirty-one bored piles with the inner diameter of
steel tubes being 2.8 m are constructed to support each tower.
The length of the piles is 117 m, and the layout is quincunx. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dumbbell-shaped pile caps are 51:35 3 48:1 m, with the thickness
increasing from 5.0 to 13.3 m. There is a connection beam with the
size of 11:05 3 28:1 m and a thickness of 6 m between the two pile
caps. To balance the weight of the main span, the iron bricks are
Fig. 1. The SCB (image by Hao Wang)
Fig. 2. Configurations of the SCB: (a) elevation (meters); (b) cross section of the steel box girder (millimeters)
142 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 141-148
applied to the two side spans as the counterweights. The mass of
the iron bricks is 4,327 t at each side, including those on the
auxiliary and anchor piers. The configuration of the bridge is
schematically shown in Fig. 2.
Finite-Element Model and Dynamic Characteristics
of the SCB
Finite-Element Modeling of the SCB
The three-dimensional (3D) finite-element (FE) model of the SCB is
established based on ANSYS (Swanson Analysis Systems 2004), as
shown in Fig. 3. In this model, the steel girders, transverse dia-
phragms, towers, and piers are simulated by conventional 3D two-
node beam elements (Beam 4 in ANSYS) with six degrees of freedom
(DOFs) at each node. The girder is discrete based on the suspended
points of the stayed cables. The section area and density of the steel
box girder of the SCB are 1:91 m2 and 13:0366 3 103 kg=m3 , re-
spectively. The 3D tension-only truss elements (Link 10) are used for
stayed cables. The fluid viscous dampers installed at the junction of
the deck and towers are simulated by a two-node spring-damper
element (Combin 14). The damping coefficient is 3,750 kN=ðm=sÞ,
and the rigidity is 100 MN=m. The nonlinearity of the stayed cable
stiffness due to gravity is approximated by the linearized stiffness
using the Ernst equation of equivalent modulus of elasticity (Ernst
1965). The translational degrees of transverse diaphragms and piers
are coupled in vertical and transverse directions. The piers and
towers are fixed to the foundation.
Dynamic Characteristics
The long-span cable-stayed bridge is a flexible structure, which
exhibits prominent geometric nonlinearity. To obtain the frequen-
cies and mode shapes of the SCB, the prestressed modal analysis is
 performed following a large deflection static analysis based on
ANSYS (Swanson Analysis Systems 2004). The first 200 natural
frequencies and vibration modes of the SCB are calculated using
the subspace method. The first 20 modal frequencies have been
extracted and reported by Wang et al. (2013), the modes of the SCB
with the original counterweights mostly relevant to this study are
provided in Table 1, and Fig. 4 shows some typical vibration modes.
In long-span cable-stayed bridges, the auxiliary piers are used to
bear tension and pressure mainly caused by live loads and to im-
prove the rigidity of the side span. To conduct comparative analysis
and investigate the feasibility of a TMD-type counterweight in
wind-induced vibration control of long-span cable-stayed bridges,
the dynamic characteristics of the SCB without auxiliary piers are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
also provided in Table 1. The section area of the stayed cables is
adjusted when the auxiliary piers are removed; therefore, the deck
deflections of the two bridge systems under the dead load are the
same. In Table 1, f1 and f2 are the frequency with and without the
auxiliary piers, respectively.
Table 1 and Fig. 4 illustrate that the lateral bending mode appears
earlier than the vertical bending vibration because the wide span
ratio of the bridge is smaller than that of the general cable-stayed
bridges. Because the wind-induced vertical displacement of
the main deck is relatively large, the S-V-1 and S-V-2 (where S
5 symmetrical and V 5 vertical) vibration modes are selected to be
controlled by the TMD in this study. In comparison with the original
bridge, the modal frequencies associated with the lateral and tor-

sional modes are smaller, but those of the vertical modes are re-
markably reduced if the auxiliary piers have been removed.

Design of the TMD-Type Counterweight

Conception of the TMD-Type Counterweight

The TMD is a system consisting of a mass block and a spring and
damper (S&D). When it is attached to a main structure and properly
tuned, the vibration direction of mass block in TMD system is
opposite to that of the main structure, the mass block can always
provide an inertia force, which is opposite to the movement of the
main structure through connecting the springs. The TMD system
will considerably reduce the structural dynamic response. In the
long-span cable-stayed bridge, the counterweight is always used at
the two side spans when the side span/main span ratio is relatively
Fig. 3. Spatial FE model of the SCB small. The SCB belongs to this type of bridge since its side span/
main span ratio is less than 0.5. The typical section of the steel box
girder of the SCB with the counterweight is shown in Fig. 5.
Table 1. Some Typical Modes and Frequencies of the Bridge Fig. 5 shows that the counterweight is installed directly on the
bottom plate of the steel box girder in the SCB. Obviously, it can be
f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz) Mode shape
transformed into the TMD system, as shown in Fig. 6. Because the
0.0622 0.0617 Longitudinal floating S-V-1 and S-V-2 vibration modes are selected to be controlled in this
0.0998 0.0955 S-L-1 study, the design parameters of the TMD are calculated accordingly.
0.182 0.146 S-V-1 Fig. 6 shows that the TMD system consists of equivalent mass,
0.224 0.180 A-V-1 a S&D, and an upper and bottom connecting plate. The equivalent
0.287 0.263 A-L-1 mass, which is located between the upper and bottom plates, is
0.325 0.307 S-V-2 connected to the plates by the S&Ds. The total mass of the TMD
0.583 0.575 S-T-1 system is equal to the original mass of the counterweight on the
0.632 0.611 A-T-1 auxiliary pier. The diaphragm plates, which are situated on both
Note: A 5 asymmetrical; L 5 lateral; S 5 symmetrical; T 5 torsional; sides of the TMD system, are connected with the bridge deck and
V 5 vertical. connecting plates of the TMD system by high-strength bolts on both

Fig. 4. Some typical vibration modes of the SCB: (a) longitudinal floating vibration; (b) S-L-1 vibration; (c) S-V-1 vibration; (d) S-T-1 vibration;
S 5 symmetrical; L 5 lateral; V 5 vertical; T 5 torsional

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 143

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 141-148

 Fig. 5. Typical section of steel box girder of the SCB with counterweight
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Cross section of TMD-type counterweight

Fig. 7. Mass distributions of the TMD in ANSYS (meters)

the upper and bottom plates. Distributed symmetrically on two sides Table 2. Parameters of TMDs
of the centerline of the steel box girder, the equivalent mass blocks Spring Damper
should be placed far away from the symmetry axis to aggrandize Mass rigidity Frequency coefficient
arm of control force toward lateral bending and torsional vibration. Key section (t) (kN=m) (Hz) (kN×s=m)
On the pier near shore side 451.20 622.821 0.186 24.782
Parameters of the TMD-Type Counterweight On the pier near deck center 273.92 1025.909 0.308 40.822
According to the structural characteristics and mass-distribution
principles of the TMD, the mass blocks are distributed in the steel
box girder of the SCB, as shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7 describes only one modal mass of the TMDs are 900.864 and 677.276 t, respectively,
side span because the other half is symmetrically distributed. the mass ratios corresponding to the two controlled modes are
As shown in Fig. 7, there are four TMDs on the pier near 0.0425 and 0.0342, respectively. For the convenience of con-
the shore side and five TMDs on the pier near the deck center. ducting comparison analysis, the frequencies of the TMD were
The parameters of the two types of TMDs are shown in Table 2. kept unchanged with and without auxiliary piers.
The mass of every TMD in Table 2 is calculated according to the
counterweight, and the spring rigidity and damper coefficient of
Finite-Element Modeling of the TMD-Type
the TMD are obtained through classic formulation and parameter
Counterweight in ANSYS
sensitivity analysis (Rana and Soong 1998). Ambient vibration test
results are considered during the design of the frequencies of the Because the spine girder FE model has been applied in modeling the
TMDs. Specifically, the TMDs on the pier near the shore side are main deck of the SCB, the mass blocks are simplified into individual
designed to control the S-V-1 vibration, and the TMDs on the pier masses by element Mass21 in ANSYS and symmetrically arranged
near the deck center are designed to control the S-V-2 vibration of along the longitudinal axis. The S&D are simulated by the Com-
the steel box girder. The modal masses of these two controlled bin14 element in ANSYS, as shown in Fig. 8. The element has three
modes are 21,196.8 and 19,803.4 t, respectively. Because the DOFs for each node, which can compress and tense in the axis

144 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 141-148

 direction. The bending and torsion are not considered in this element
(Swanson Analysis Systems 2004).
Performance of the TMD-Type Counterweight in
Buffeting Displacement Control
Buffeting Analysis Method and Its Realization in ANSYS
During the time-domain buffeting analysis, the modeling of un-
steady self-excited force usually requires the flutter derivatives to
express the indicial functions or rational functions (Chen et al.
2000). Because the procedure cannot be easily implemented in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ANSYS, a simplified method is used to consider the effect of un-
steady self-excited forces (Namini 1991). The self-excited forces
on the bridge girder are modeled by the Matrix27 element in ANSYS
(Hua et al. 2007). The properties of the Matrix27 element are spec-
ified by stiffness, mass, and damping coefficients in the form of
symmetrical or asymmetrical element matrices (Swanson Analysis
Systems 2004). Fig. 9 shows the coefficient matrix of the asym-
metrical Matrix27 element.
Fig. 9 shows that the asymmetrical Matrix27 element has 144
coefficients. If the aeroelastic stiffness and damping coefficients are
obtained, the element can simulate the self-excited forces (Wang
et al. 2011). The flutter derivatives of the SCB are from a wind-tunnel
Fig. 8. Combin14 element in ANSYS
Fig. 9. Coefficient matrix of asymmetrical Matrix27 element
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 145
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 141-148
test conducted in the State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in
Civil Engineering at Tongji University (Chen et al. 2005).
Prior to the buffeting response analysis, nonlinear static analysis
under the dead load of the bridge is carried out. First, a large de-
flection nonlinear static analysis is performed based on ANSYS. The
effects of the stress stiffness and large deflection are, therefore,
obtained through the nonlinear static analysis. After these effects are
activated and then added to the stiffness matrix of the structural
system, the time-domain buffeting analysis is then started with the
deformed shape of the bridge under its dead load.
Design Wind Speed
According to the long-term recorded wind data at the SCB spot and
the current specifications (Xiang et al. 2004) in China, the design
wind speed of 28:6 m=s at a height of 7.1 m in a hundred-year re-
turn period is adopted. The relationship between design wind speed
and height is
 a
Z2
VZ2 ¼  VZ1 (1)
Z1
where the ground roughness coefficient a 5 0:12; and Vz1 and
Vz2 5 wind speeds at heights Z1 and Z2 , respectively. As for the
SCB, the height of the main deck center is 76.0 m, and the height of
the tower top is 300.4 m. Based on Eq. (1), the wind speed is 38:0 m=s
at the main deck and 44:8 m=s at the tower top. These wind speeds
are used during the following analysis.
Comparison of Buffeting Time-History Displacements
To investigate the influence of the TMD-type counterweight on
wind-induced dynamic responses of different bridge systems, four
cases are compared: (1) the original design with auxiliary piers and
without the TMD, (2) the TMD installed together with auxiliary
piers, (3) neither the TMD nor auxiliary piers, and (4) the TMD
installed without auxiliary piers. The original counterweight has
been included in Conditions 1 and 3. First, the 3D turbulence wind
field is simulated based on the design wind speed and the Kaimal
spectrum suggested by the current specification (Xiang et al. 2004).
Second, time histories of the buffeting forces are calculated based on
the previously mentioned buffeting analysis method. The buffeting
displacements under the four cases are then calculated, as shown in
Fig. 10.
Fig. 10 shows that the vertical displacement of the main deck is
largest among all displacement responses of the SCB. As shown in
Figs. 10(c, d, and g), the TMD will take very small effects when the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Buffeting displacements of the SCB under four cases: (a) vertical displacement of the main deck center without piers; (b) vertical displacement
of the side span center without piers; (c) vertical displacement of the main deck center with auxiliary piers; (d) vertical displacement of the side span
center with auxiliary piers; (e) longitudinal displacement at the tower top without piers; (f) vertical displacement at the tower top without piers;
(g) longitudinal displacement at the tower top with auxiliary piers

146 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 141-148

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. (Continued.)

auxiliary piers exist. The existence of auxiliary piers notably
decreases the efficiency of the TMD by restraining the vertical
displacement of the deck. However, Figs. 10(a, b, and e) illustrate
that the controlling effect of the TMD is remarkable without aux-
iliary piers. The vertical displacement of the bridge deck and lon-
gitudinal displacement at the tower top drop greatly when TMD is
installed.
Because the movement of the tower is greatly influenced by that
of the deck, longitudinal displacement at the tower top decreases
observably by the TMD without auxiliary piers. However, the TMD
does not take effect in transverse and vertical displacements be-
cause of the relatively large rigidity of the tower.
Comparison of the Buffeting Response RMS Values
To conduct further analysis, the buffeting displacement RMS values
of key sections of the SCB under the four cases are calculated based
on MATLAB 7.10.0. Table 3 represents RMS values of the SCB with
and without the TMD and auxiliary piers.
The comparison demonstrates better efficiency of the TMD
controlling function as the RMS reaches the minimum value with the
TMD without auxiliary piers. In a typical example, the vertical
displacement at the main deck center with the auxiliary pier drops
from 1.478 to 0.182 m with the effect of the TMD. The auxiliary
piers limit the controlling performance of the TMD as it restricts the
necessary movement. Data from the tower top reflect the same result

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 147

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 141-148

 Table 3. Comparison of the Structure’s RMS Value with and without the TMD (Meters)
Key section Without TMD
Vertical displacement at 0.250
main deck center 1.478
Vertical displacement at side 0.315
span center 0.548
Tower top displacements 0.137
(with auxiliary pier) 0.02845
0.0021846
Tower top displacements 0.5470
(without auxiliary pier) 0.03205
0.020739
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
that the RMS values diminish with the TMD installed. In addition,
the auxiliary pier can greatly influence the wind-induced response of
the SCB.
Conclusions
1. The designed TMD-type counterweight has proved to be an
efficient method in controlling the buffeting response of the
SCB and could function as a counterweight at the same time. It
is reasonable to broadly apply the TMD-type counterweight in
long-span cable-stayed bridges in the future. This conclusion
is based on the simplified analysis when the auxiliary piers are
removed, and a careful bridge design should be conducted in
real application.
2. The controlling effect of the TMD is remarkable at both the
main deck and side span of the bridge when the auxiliary piers
are removed. Nevertheless, the existence of the auxiliary piers
restrains the efficiency of the TMD significantly. A better
control effect can be achieved when the TMD is used in the
cable-stayed bridge without auxiliary piers.
3. Similar to the deck, longitudinal displacement at the tower top
decreases observably by the TMD without auxiliary piers, and
only reduces slightly when the auxiliary piers exist. The reason
is that the longitudinal displacement at the tower top is closely
related to the vertical displacement of the deck. Because of the
relatively large rigidity of the bridge tower, the TMD makes
little function in transverse and vertical displacement of the
main tower.
Acknowledgments
The support of the National Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 51278104, 51378111), the Basic Scientific and Research Fund
of Southeast University (Grant No. Seucx201106), the Teaching and
Scientific Research Fund for Excellent Young Teachers of Southeast
University, and the Priority Academic Program Development Foun-
dation of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions is gratefully ac-
knowledged. The authors thank the fruitful work provided by the
Sutong Bridge Construction Commanding Department of Jiangsu
Province.
148 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 141-148
With TMD Difference (%) Descriptions
0.240 4.0 With auxiliary pier
0.182 87.7 Without auxiliary pier
0.265 15.9 With auxiliary pier
0.193 64.8 Without auxiliary pier
0.127 7.3 Longitudinal direction
0.02696 5.2 Transverse direction
0.0021814 0.15 Vertical direction
0.2397 56.2 Longitudinal direction
0.03012 6.0 Transverse direction
0.020714 0.12 Vertical direction
References
Chen, A. R., You, Q. Z., Zhang, X. G., Ma, R. J., and Zhou, Z. Y. (2005).
“Aerodynamic problems of a super-long span cable-stayed bridge.”
IABSE Symp. Rep., International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 74–81.
Chen, X., and Kareem, A. (2003). “Efficacy of tuned mass dampers for
bridge flutter control.” J. Struct. Eng., 129(10), 1291–1300.
Chen, X., Matsumto, M., and Kareem, A. (2000). “Time domain flutter and
buffeting response analysis for bridges.” J. Eng. Mech., 126(1), 17–26.
Ernst, H. J. (1965). “Der e-modul von seilen unter berücksichtigung des
durchhanges.” Der Bauingenieur, 40(2), 52–55 (in German).
Fujino, Y., and Yoshida, Y. (2002). “Wind-induced vibration and control of
Trans-Tokyo Bay Crossing Bridge.” J. Struct. Eng., 128(8), 1012–1025.
Gu, M., Chen, S. R., and Chang, C. C. (2001). “Parametric study on multiple
tuned mass dampers for buffeting control of Yangpu Bridge.” J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 89(11–12), 987–1000.
Gu, M., Chen, S. R., and Chang, C. C. (2002). “Control of wind-induced
vibrations of long-span bridges by semi-active lever-type TMD.” J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 90(2), 111–126.
Hua, X. G., Chen, Z. Q., Ni, Y. Q., and Ko, J. M. (2007). “Flutter analysis of
long-span bridges using ANSYS.” Wind and Structures, 10(1), 61–82.
Li, C. X. (2000). “Performance of multiple tuned mass dampers for at-
tenuating undesirable oscillations of structures under the ground ac-
celeration.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 29(9), 1405–1421.
Lin, C. C., Wang, J. F., and Chen, B. L. (2005). “Train-induced vibration
control of high-speed railway bridges equipped with multiple tuned
mass dampers.” J. Bridge Eng., 10(4), 398–414.
MATLAB 7.10.0 [Computer software]. Natick, MA, MathWorks.
Namini, A. H. (1991). “Analytical modeling of flutter derivatives as finite
elements.” Comp. Struct., 41(5), 1055–1064.
Rana, R., and Soong, T. T. (1998). “Parametric study and simplified design
of tuned mass dampers.” Eng. Struct., 20(3), 193–204.
Swanson Analysis Systems. (2004). ANSYS user’s manual, version 8.0,
Swanson Analysis Systems, Houston.
Wang, H., Hu, R. M., Xie, J., Tong, T., and Li, A. Q. (2013). “Comparative
study on buffeting performance of Sutong Bridge based on design and
measured spectrum.” J. Bridge Eng., 18(7), 587–600.
Wang, H., Li, A. Q., and Hu, R. M. (2011). “Comparison of ambient vi-
bration response of the Runyang Spension Bridge under skew winds
with time-domain numerical predictions.” J. Bridge Eng., 16(4), 513–526.
Xiang, H. F., Bao, W. G., Chen, A. R., Lin, Z. X., and Liu, J. X. (2004).
Wind-resistant design specification for highway bridges, China Com-
munications, Beijing.
Zhang, X. G., and Chen, A. R. (2010). Kilometer-scale cable stayed bridge-
structural system, performance and design, China Communication,
Beijing.