Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Comparison Between Different Bearing Devices for Cable-Stayed Bridge Using Financial - Comparative Approach

(*) Corresponding author

Authors' affiliations

DOI's assignment:
the author of the article can submit here a request for assignment of a DOI number to this resource!
Cost of the service: euros 10,00 (for a DOI)


Sometimes, in designing and constructing bridges, we have to choose a particular structure from different structural variants. One of the essential approaches forbridgesis the seismic risk assessment, by which a judgment can be made by considering damage losses alongside initial project design costs. In cable-stayed bridges, for instance,  passive seismic control is performed by placing bearing devices where the deck and pylons connect to eachother. Owners, however, usually refuse to implement more expensive bearing devices despite their superior seismic behavior. As a case study, Mashhad cable-stayed bridge which is located in Iran, uses Pot Bearing device which is not very effective in terms of seismic behavior. Thus, in this paper, implementation of different bearing devices in Mashahd Bridge are comprehenssively compared using seismic risk assessment considering Financial-Comparative approach. Moreover, this paper tries to suggest a more effective, yet  economically justified, passive seismic control device than the current Pot Bearing.To do this, we have to design the bridge using different bearing devices including Pot Bearing (PB), Elastomeric Bearing (EB), and Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB), and analyze the seismic behavior of the bridge.  Then, the seismic risk assessment can be developed using the proposed method of Cost-Loss-Benefit (CLB) with the Financial-Comparative approach, and the three cases can be compared by defining the Benefit Ratio (BR) as a profitability measure.It can be deduced from the final results that, compared to the current Pot Bearings, both of the alternative bearing devices decrease the losses and increase the costs. However, the BR coefficient indicates the profitability of the use of Lead Rubber Bearings by simultaneously considering costs and losses in the studied bridge.
Copyright © 2015 Praise Worthy Prize - All rights reserved.


Cable-Stayed Bridge, Bearing Device, Financial-Comparative Approach, Seismic Risk Assessment, Cost – Loss – Benefit (CLB) Method

Full Text:



Chang KC, Mo YL, Chen CC, Lai LC and Chou CC (2004), Lessons learned from the damaged Chi-Lu cable-stayed bridge, J. Bridge Eng., 9(4): 343–352.

Barnawi, W. and Dyke, S. (2014), “Seismic fragility relationships of a cable-stayed bridge equipped with response modification systems”, J. Bridge Eng.19(SPECIAL ISSUE: Recent Advances in Seismic Design, Analysis, and Protection of Highway Bridges), A4013003.

Casciati, F., Cimellaro, G. P., and Domaneschi, M. (2008), “Seismic reliability of a cable-stayed bridge retrofitted with hysteretic devices”, Comput. Struct.,86(17), 1769–1781.

Khan, R. A., and Datta, T. K. (2010), “Probabilistic risk assessment of fan type cable-stayed bridges against earthquake forces”, Journal of Vibration and Control, 16(6), 779-799.

Agrawal AK, Ghosn M, Alampalli S and Pan Y (2012), Seismic fragility of retrofitted multispan continuous steel bridges in New York, J. Bridge Eng., 17(4): 562–575.

Wang, B. and Yuan, W. (2009), “Risk- and performance-based seismic analysis for long-span cable-stayed bridges”, In TCLEE 2009: Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in a Multihazard Environment, Oakland, California, United States, June 28-July 1.

Li, H., Liu, J., and Ou, J. (2009). “Investigation of seismic damage of cable-stayed bridges with different connection configuration”.Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 3(03), 227-247.

Ren, W. X., and Obata, M. (1999), “Elastic-plastic seismic behavior of long span cable-stayed bridges”, J. Bridge Eng., 3(194), 194-203.

Nazmy AS and Abdel-Ghaffar AM (1990), Three-dimensional nonlinear static analysis of cable-stayed bridges, Comp. and Struct., 34(2): 257–271.

Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988), “Theoretical stress-strain model for confinedconcrete”, J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804–1826.

Caltrans, S. D. C. (2004), Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria version 1.3, California Department ofTransportation, Sacramento, California.

Akhoondzade-Noghabi, V., Bargi, K., Heidary-Torkamani, H., Seismic Fragility Assessment of Cable-Stayed Bridge Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis and Uniform Design Method, (2014) International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Hazard Mitigation (IREHM), 2(3), pp. 80-88.

Mander, J. B., Dhakal, R. P., Mashiko, N., and Solberg, K. M. (2007), “Incremental dynamic analysis applied to seismic financial risk assessment of bridges”,Engineering Structures, 29(10), 2662-2672.

Padgett, J. E., Dennemann, K., andGhosh, J. (2010), “Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost–benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment”, Structural Safety, 32(3), 165-173.

Jara, J. M., Galván, A., Jara, M., and Olmos, B. (2013), “Procedure for determining the seismic vulnerability of an irregular isolated bridge”, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(6), 516-528.

Kim, D., Yi, J. H., Seo, H. Y., and Chang, C. (2008), “Earthquake risk assessment of seismically isolated extradosed bridges with lead rubber bearings”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 29(6), 689-707.

Calvi, G. M., Sullivan, T. J., and Villani, A. (2010), “Conceptual Seismic Design of Cable-Stayed Bridges”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 14(8), 1139-1171.

Aviram, A., Mackie, K. and Stojadinovic, B. (2008), “Guidelines for nonlinear analysis ofbridge structures in California)TechincalReport(”, Pacific Earthquake Engineering ResearchCenter)PEER), University of California, Berkeley.

OladimejiFasheyi, A. (2012). Bridge Bearings: Merits, Demerits, M.ScThesis., Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden

Makris, N. and Zhang, J. (2002), “Structural characterization and seismic response analysis of a highway overcrossing equipped with elastomeric bearings and fluid dampers: A case study )Techincal Report(”, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER, University of California, Berkeley.

Tang M. (1992), Guidelines for the design of cable-stayed bridges. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Kawashima, K., Unjoh, S., and Tunomoto, M. (1993), “Estimation of damping ratio of cable‐stayed bridges for seismic design”, J. Struct. Eng., 119(4), 1015–1031.

Fang, K. T., Lin, D. K., Winker, P., and Zhang, Y. (2000), “Uniform design: theory and application”, Technometrics, 42(3), 237-248.

Nielson BG and DesRoches R (2007), Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component level approach, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 36(6): 823–839.

Gholipour, Y., Bozorgnia Y., Rahnamaa M., and BerberianM .(2008), “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, phase I-Greater Tehran Regions (Technical Report)”, College of Engineering, University of Tehran.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Please send any question about this web site to
Copyright © 2005-2024 Praise Worthy Prize