
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)12963-5
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36932
e36932
Research Article
Study on unseating prevention for multi-union long simply supported girder bridges under near-fault ground motions
Li Long-Shan a
Hui Ying-Xin ningxiajiaojian@163.com
bcd⁎
Wang Jie ad
Zhang Ya-Jun bc
a Ningxia Haiping Expressway Management Co., Ltd., Zhongwei, 755200, China
b Ningxia Communications Construction Co., Ltd., Yinchuan, 750004, China
c Ningxia Engineering Technology Research Center for Maintenance, Yinchuan, 750004, China
d School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Ningxia University, Yinchuan, 750021, China
⁎ Corresponding author. Ningxia Communications Construction Co., Ltd., Yinchuan, 750004, China. ningxiajiaojian@163.com
28 8 2024
15 9 2024
28 8 2024
10 17 e3693210 12 2023
16 6 2024
24 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Girder shifting is a common form of seismic damage for girder bridges. Unseating could occur when the displacement of the girder is too large, especially for bridges near faults, because the velocity impulse effect leads to greater displacement responses of structures. Setting metal dampers between girders and piers is a useful way to control the seismic behavior and reduce the risk of unseating. Since metal dampers are inevitably exposed to the erosive service environments, their mechanical properties may degrade due to corrosion. In this paper, a U-shaped metal damper made of stainless steel instead of mild steel (i.e., U-shaped stainless steel damper, which could be named simply as USSSD) is proposed and applied to the seismic reduction design of girder bridges. First, the finite element model (FEM) of the USSSD is built by the ABAQUS, and its force-displacement relationship is obtained based on the skeleton curve, which is fitted by the trilinear kinematic strengthening model. Then, a multi-union long simply supported girder bridge is taken as an example. The FEM of the adopted bridge is established via the Midas Civil to verify the seismic mitigation effect of the proposed USSSD excited by near-fault ground motions. The numerical analyses demonstrate that the unseating may occur without the use of the USSSDs. The relative displacement between the girder and pier is effectively controlled by the USSSDs, and the reduction is more than 50 %. When the bridge is equipped with the USSSDs, both the curvature ductility coefficient of the pier bottom and the maximum drift of the pier tip increase by a limited amplitude, which do not cause additional damage to the piers.

Keywords

Bridge engineering
Seismic control
U-shaped stainless steel damper
Near-fault ground motion
Unseating prevention
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Regions prone to earthquakes have experienced significant casualties and economic losses from strong seismic events. Bridges, which play a pivotal role in lifeline projects, seriously obstruct post-earthquake rescue efforts in cases of failure [[1], [2], [3]]. This is particularly true for bridges adjacent to or traversing faults, where the velocity impulse effect can result in a substantially increased displacement response of the structure [4]. The girder bridge, which is a fundamental bridge system, primarily faces damage to superstructures, bearing connections, substructures, and foundations under seismic loading. Among these, the seismic damage to the superstructure, especially the displacement of the girder, is notably recurrent. In extreme scenarios, girders may fall from bent caps or pier tips, leading to a total halt in traffic. One such instance was the falling girder issue of the Yematan Bridge during the Maduo Earthquake in 2021 [5]. Thus, the development of effective seismic countermeasures for girder bridges to mitigate damage to superstructures and supports during earthquakes has attracted widespread attention.

Previous studies [6] have demonstrated that adopting seismic isolation systems and supplementary damping devices can effectively diminish, or even preclude, damage to bridge structures under intense seismic impacts. Lead core rubber bearings and friction pendulum bearings have been widely used in engineering practice [7]. To further increase the energy dissipation capacity for bridges, such as to cope with near-fault ground motions containing velocity pulses, dampers or energy dissipation devices can be installed between piers and girders [[8], [9], [10], [11], [12]]. The dampers compatible with bridge bearings include metal dampers, viscous dampers, and friction dampers. In Particular, metal dampers are extensively utilized in engineering projects due to their stable hysteresis performance, superior energy-dissipating capacity, and cost-effectiveness. A prime example is the U-shaped metal dampers (USMDs) developed by Nippon Steel Corporation, which boasts a consistent hysteresis loop and substantial deformation adaptability in all loading dimensions [13]. Additionally, its straightforward design ensures ease of installation, maintenance, and replacement.

The concept of the USMD was first introduced by Kelly [14]. The damper can either be installed around the bearings or used as a standalone installation [15]. Suzuki et al. [13] manufactured five U-shaped metal dampers with SN490B Nissan high ductility steel, and experimentally studied their mechanical properties. The results revealed that these dampers displayed superior hysteresis dissipation capabilities in different loading directions. Moreover, the hysteresis dissipation capabilities of these U-shaped metal dampers were not significantly affected by the loading rate and ambient temperature. Both experimental and theoretical investigations were carried out by Jiao et al. [16] to explore the low-cycle fatigue and hysteresis performance of the USMDs under different loading protocols. The results indicated that the hysteresis performance was almost not affected by the loading rate and initial temperature. In addition, they further suggested that their force-displacement relationship could be represented well using a bilinear model. Diana et al. [17] conducted static and dynamic loading tests to explore the seismic performance of a USMD during the bidirectional loading protocol. It turned out that the ultimate inelastic deformation capacity of the damper under the bidirectional loading was lower than that under the uniaxial loading, which was related to the complex interplay of loading history and displacement magnitude. To strengthen the out-of-plane mechanical performance of the USMDs, Deng et al. [18] introduced slots. Their quasi-static tests focused mainly on how the energy dissipation capacity is affected by the width of steel plate, the length of straight section, and the height of U-shaped steel element. After that, they proposed the formulas for calculating the yield displacement, yield restoring force, and ultimate restoring force of a slotted USMD based on the regression analysis and theoretical derivation. In addition, Zhao et al. [19] presented a simplified mechanical model for U-shaped metal dampers, which was further verified via numerical simulations based on the ABAQUS software.

Oh et al. [20] proposed a combined energy dissipation system (CEDS) consisting of a laminated rubber bearing and a slotted U-shaped metal damper made of high-toughness steel. Quasi-static tests demonstrated that the laminated rubber bearing could effectively sustain vertical loads. In addition, it was effective to improve the deformation and energy dissipation capacity of the USMDs by slotting and using the high-toughness steel instead. The seismic mitigation effect of the CEDS was validated through shaking table tests. Nguyen et al. [21] performed a numerical simulation on the mechanical properties of a single-branch USMD. Meanwhile, they established analytical formulas to estimate the initial stiffness, yield strength, and other pertinent parameters. These equations serve as valuable resources for the preliminary design of U-shaped metal dampers. Subsequently, a nonlinear computational model that incorporated a U-shaped metal damper combined with a natural rubber bearing, was constructed. Numerical calculations indicated that the damper helped to enhance both the initial stiffness and strength of the bearing, and substantially amplified the energy dissipation and damping ratio. Besides, the mechanical properties of the composite bearing were influenced by the size and number of supplemental dampers and were minimally affected by the damper arrangement orientation.

Since dampers are inevitably exposed to natural erosive environments, the mechanical properties of steel degrade due to corrosion, which increases the seismic failure risk of bridges with increasing service time. In view of the satisfactory corrosion resistance, toughness and ductility of stainless steel, this paper introduces the use of S304 stainless steel as a replacement for traditional carbon steel for U-shaped metal dampers. By integrating the USSSDs with isolation bearings, a modified CEDS is developed to stop the girders from falling down, which further helps to improve the seismic resilience of bridges.

2 Mechanical properties of the USSSDs

2.1 Finite element model

Fig. 1 displays the schematic diagram of the USSSDs, and the corresponding finite element model (FEM) is built via the ABAQUS software. In the actual design, no plastic deformations are allowed around the connecting parts (e.g., the bolts, steel plates, and the head of the damper), which remain elastic under the load because of their sufficient stiffness. Therefore, only the U-shaped part of the damper is considered in the numerical modeling. The single U-shaped energy dissipative plate consists of two flat sections and one circular arc section. Where L is the length of the flat section, W1 and W2 are the widths of the flat section at both ends, R is the radius of the circular arc section, T is the thickness of energy dissipative plate, and H is the damper height. Main dimensional parameters of the USSSD are shown in Table 1.Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the USSSD.

Fig. 1

Table 1 The size of the USSSD (mm).

Table 1L	H	T	R	W1	W2	
316	232	28	88	60	45	

The C3D8R element is adopted for simulating the USSSDs, which is divided into 2088 meshes with a size of 10 mm. Assume that the cross-section of the lower end of the energy dissipative plate is fully constrained, and a reference point (RP1) is coupled to the extremity of the upper energy dissipative plate. The load is applied to the RP1 position with a displacement-controlled loading protocol. The constraint in the loading direction is released while other all alternative directions are fixed [22]. Considering the diverse configurations of U-shaped dampers in engineering practice, the in-plane, out-of-plane, and bidirectional mechanical properties of the dampers are the main focus of this study, and the corresponding loading directions are 0°, 45°, and 90°, respectively.

2.2 Restoring force model

The stress-strain relationship of S304 stainless steel is simulated using the plastic constitutive model provided by Chaboche [23], which utilizes the Von Mises flow rule, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The parameters describing the stress-strain relationship of the S304 material are listed in Table 2. Where σ0 is the stress corresponding to the equivalent plastic strain equal to zero; Q∞ represents the maximum changeable value of the yield surface; biso is the rate at which the yield surface changes with increasing plastic strain; Ci (i = 1, 2, …, 4) and γj (j = 1, 2, …, 4) are constants, which can be obtained according to the experimental data; σit and σic (i = 1, 2, …, n) are the peak tensile stress and maximum elastic compressive stress limit of the ith hysteretic loop with a certain cyclic strain amplitude, respectively; and εip is the equivalent plastic strain. In addition, the parameters of the constitutive model for the S2205, Q235 and SN490B materials are summarized in Table 2 to compare the hysteretic performance of the USSSDs made of different materials.Fig. 2 Stress-strain relationship of stainless steel materials.

Fig. 2

Table 2 Constitutive model parameters of the materials of the USMD.

Table 2Material type	σ0 (MPa)	Q∞	biso	C1	γ1	C2	γ2	C3	γ3	C4	γ4	
S304	168	284	5	15894	432	9050	154	4359	52	1422	20	
S2205	319	63	5	71039	467	32098	332	12153	198	8773	98	
Q235	224	21	1.2	6013	173	5024	120	3026	32	990	35	
SN490B	310	207	4	5792	4	–	–	–	–	–	–	

Numerical simulations are employed to develop the restoring force models of the USSSD in three loading directions, i.e., 0°, 45°, and 90°. The considered displacement amplitudes range from 25 mm to 300 mm, with increments of 25 mm. Every loading stage undergoes three cycles. The calculated hysteresis curves of the USSSD are presented in Fig. 3. It reveals that the hysteresis curves for the four U-shaped damper variants in the three loading directions display commendable fullness and symmetry. Notably, the USSSD made of S304, S2205, and SN490B exhibit superior energy dissipation capacities. Considering its lower yield strength, greater strength-to-yield ratio, and stronger properties, the S304 material is adopted for the USMD. Moreover, the bidirectional characteristics of the restoring force model are mainly considered in this study, so that the energy dissipation in both transverse direction and longitudinal direction of bridge can be considered. The hysteresis performance of the S304-U-shaped damper under a 45° loading direction is selected for further study in subsequent sections, as delineated in Fig. 4(a).Fig. 3 Hysteresis curves of the USSSD.

Fig. 3

Fig. 4 Layout and restoring force model of the USSSDs.

Fig. 4

The skeleton curves are extracted from the hysteresis curves shown in Fig. 3, and fitted with the trilinear model containing kinematic hardening, as displayed in Fig. 4(b). Those key characteristic points of the restoring force model of U-shaped dampers are obtained and summarized in Table 3. Where K0 denotes the initial stiffness; K1 denotes the stiffness of the yielding transition section; K2 is the post-yield stiffness; U1 denotes the yielding displacement; U2 denotes the second yielding displacement; F1 denotes the initial yielding force; F2 denotes the stabilized yielding force; and α1 and α2 are the corresponding stiffness factors, respectively. Note that the mechanical performance parameters shown in Table 3 correspond to a single element of the USSSD.Table 3 Parameters of the restoring force model of the USSSD in the 45° loading direction.

Table 3K0 (kN/mm)	α1	α2	U1 (mm)	U2 (mm)	F1 (kN)	F2 (kN)	
K1/K0	K2/K0	
0.9	0.34	0.06	19	69	16	30	

3 Examples of engineering applications

3.1 Project overview

A 15-span simply supported girder bridge with continuous decks, which comprises three unions and extends over a total length of 600 m (3 × 5 × 40 m), is adopted as an illustrative example. The bridge is designed in accordance with the Chinese Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges (JTG/T 2231–01—2020) [24]. Fig. 5 provides a representative layout of the second union since the three unions are identical, and the bridge piers are successively numbered as Piers 5 to 10. The T-type girders are prefabricated with Grade C50 concrete (note that C50 is the grade of concrete, which means that the standard compressive strength is 50 MPa at 28 days for a concrete cube with a side of 150 mm), and exhibit varied cross-sections at the supporting points. Detailed depictions of the mid-span and end sections of the girders are presented in Fig. 6.Fig. 5 Layout of a unit of the bridge (unit: cm).

Fig. 5

Fig. 6 Section diagram of the girders (unit: cm).

Fig. 6

The cross section of the bent caps is rectangular with 1.8 m (height) × 2.2 m (width), which are cast with Grade C40 concrete, and the width is 12.4 m. Double-column piers are adopted and the height is 10 m as illustrated in Fig. 7. These piers are cast using Grade C40 concrete, and the cross section is circular with the diameter of 2 m. A total of 66 Grade HRB400 steel bars (the hot rolled ribbed bar for which the standard tensile yield strength is 400 MPa) with a diameter of 32 mm are uniformly arranged along the cross-sectional circumference. The spiral stirrups are also Grade HRB 400 and the diameter is 14 mm. In addition, the concrete cover depth is 50 mm. Note that the geometric dimensions and the reinforcement configurations of all the double-column bents are identical. A total of twelve slide plate bearings (GBZYH400 × 38 PTFE) are positioned at Pier 5 and Pier 10. For the other piers, six high damping rubber bearings (HDR(I)-d620 × 236-G1.0) are arranged for each pier. The arrangement of the bearings can be seen from Fig. 8.Fig. 7 Schematic diagram of the substructure (unit: cm).

Fig. 7

Fig. 8 Layout of the bearings.

Fig. 8

3.2 Numerical model of the adopted bridge

The Midas Civil platform is used to establish the FEM of the adopted bridge, which can be seen in Fig. 9. Elastic beam elements are utilized for the girders and bent caps since they are generally elastic under seismic loading. The elastic and shear moduli of the cross-sections of the girders are taken as 3.45 × 104 and 1.38 × 104 MPa, respectively. For the bent cap, the values are taken as 3.25 × 104 MPa and 1.30 × 104 MPa, respectively. The other parameters are shown in Table 4. Where A represents the cross-sectional areas; Ix, Iy, and Iz are the second moment of area about the local x-, y-, and z-axes, respectively.Fig. 9 Schematic diagram of the FEM of the bridge.

Fig. 9

Table 4 Characteristic parameters of the girders and bent caps.

Table 4Location	Girders	Bent caps	
Side span	Intermediate span	
Middle	End	Middle	End	
A (mm2)	1.05 × 106	1.75 × 106	1.05 × 106	1.76 × 106	4.14 × 106	
Ix (m4)	2.54 × 1010	1.58 × 1011	2.54 × 1010	1.58 × 1011	2.34 × 1012	
Iy (m4)	8.82 × 1011	1.08 × 1012	8.89 × 1011	1.09 × 1012	1.12 × 1012	
Iz (m4)	1.31 × 1011	1.62 × 1011	1.39 × 1011	1.71 × 1011	1.83 × 1012	

The bearing disengagement is not considered in this study, and the hysteresis behaviors of the GBZYH400 × 38 PTFE slide plate bearings and HDR(I)-d620 × 236-G1.0 high damping rubber bearings are modeled by the equivalent bilinear restoring force model, as illustrated in Fig. 10. Key parameters of the above two kinds of bearings are documented in Table 5. Where K1 represents the initial stiffness; K2 represents the post-yield stiffness; Kh represents the horizontal stiffness of the bearing; Fy represents the yield strength; and Dy represents the yield displacement.Fig. 10 Restoring force model of bearings.

Fig. 10

Table 5 Mechanical parameters of bearings.

Table 5Bearing type	K1 (kN/m)	K2 (kN/m)	Kh (kN/m)	Fy (kN)	
HDR(I)-d620 × 236	11440	1761	2350	146	
GBZYH400 × 38	3306	0	–	46	

The bridge piers are modeled via fiber beam-column elements. The pier bottom is fully fixed without considering the pile-soil interaction here. The mechanical property of the concrete is described by the confined constitutive model proposed by Mander et al. [25]. For the steel bars, the bilinear model is adopted to describe their hysteresis behavior. To consider the potential collisions between the girders under seismic loading, the expansion joints located at Piers 5 and 10 are simulated using gap elements, and the collision stiffness is set to 0.5 times the axial stiffness of the girder [26].

In addition, due to the differential tensile and compressive stiffness of the bridge deck pavement, they are decomposed and simulated by two parallel springs, as depicted in Fig. 11. Where D represents a gap of zero length. Only the spring with a stiffness of k2 works when the expansion joint is under tension, while for the compressive state, both springs with stiffnesses of k1 and k2 work concurrently.Fig. 11 Schematic diagram of the continuous bridge deck.

Fig. 11

To evaluate the efficacy of the system introduced in this study to prevent girders from falling down, two FEMs of the adopted bridge are built, i.e., the first one does not contain the USSSDs, and the other one does. For the second FEM, the energy dissipation capacity of the designed USSSDs should be fully used. Hence, each bearing is equipped with 8 elements of the USSSDs, and their mechanical properties in the 45° loading direction are utilized to consider both transverse direction and longitudinal and direction of bridge. The force-displacement relationship of the damper is depicted through the trilinear model containing the kinematic hardening in Fig. 4(b). Where K0 = 7.2 kN/mm, K1 = 2.448 kN/mm, K2 = 0.432 kN/mm, U1 = 19 mm, U2 = 69 mm, F1 = 128 kN, and F2 = 240 kN.

4 Seismic response analyses

4.1 Input ground motion records

To evaluate the structural behavior under seismic loading, four near-fault ground motion records obtained from soil sites are chosen for dynamic time history analyses. More detailed data for these records are listed in Table 6. Note that the selected records are representative, because their spectra are large at a wide range of frequencies (i.e., periods between 1.0 and 4.0 s) which helps to figure out the seismic failure mechanism of near-fault engineering structures. Since girders usually fall down in longitudinal direction of bridges, only the NS components of ground motion records are adopted and input along the longitudinal direction of bridges in this study. Furthermore, since the seismic mitigation after appending the USSSDs will not be significant when the intensity of ground motions is small, the peak ground accelerations (PGAs) of each record are adjusted to 0.6 g. The corresponding acceleration response spectra for these amplified ground motion records are illustrated in Fig. 12. Besides, the Rayleigh damping is adopted, and the damping ratio is 5 %.Table 6 Information on the original near-fault ground motion records.

Table 6Earthquake events	Station	Closest distance (km)	Pulse period (s)	Vs30 (m/s)	Component	PGA (g)	
ChiChi (99/9/20, Ms7.6)	TCU052	1.84	8.4	579	NS	0.42	
EW	0.35	
UP	0.24	
ChiChi (99/9/20, Ms7.6)	TCU054	4.64	10.5	461	NS	0.19	
EW	0.15	
UP	0.13	
ChiChi (99/9/20, Ms7.6)	TCU102	1.19	9.7	714	NS	0.17	
EW	0.30	
UP	0.19	
Imperial Valley (40/4/19, Ms7.2)	EC County Center FF	7.31	4.5	192	NS	0.22	
EW	0.18	
UP	0.25	

Fig. 12 Acceleration response spectrum of ground motions (PGA = 0.6 g).

Fig. 12

4.2 Seismic mitigation effect

The maximum relative displacement between the girders and bent caps (Δr, max), as well as the maximum drift ratio of the bridge pier (θmax), are used as indices to demonstrate the seismic mitigation effect after the USSSDs are installed.

Fig. 13 compares the values of Δr, max in longitudinal direction of bridges when the dampers are included and not included. It is obvious that the Δr, max for the bridge equipped with the USSSDs is larger than that for the bridge without dampers. Moreover, the Δr, max of the second union is greater than that of the other two unions, especially for the locations where the expansion joints are located (i.e., Piers 5 and 10). For example, the Δr, max at Pier 5 is 445 mm for the adopted bridge subjected to TCU102, indicating a potential risk that the girder will fall. With the introduction of the USSSDs, the Δr, max dramatically decrease by approximately 78 % (TCU052 and TCU054), 76 % (TCU102), and 73 % (EC County Center FF). Hence, it can be concluded that the seismic behavior of superstructure along its longitudinal direction can be controlled effectively after installing the USSSDs.Fig. 13 The values of Δr, max.

Fig. 13

Since the normal pressure on the bearings varies due to vertical ground motion, which may further influence the seismic response of bearings, the seismic mitigation effect of the USSSDs is also checked by considering the coupling effect of horizontal and vertical ground motions. Note that the same scaling factor is adopted for adjusting the PGAs of the UP component. The values of Δr, max are captured and compared in Fig. 14. Where the legend “L” denotes the numerical results obtained by inputting the NS component, and “L + V” denotes the numerical results obtained by inputting the NS component and UP component. Obviously, the value of Δr, max is affected negligibly by the vertical ground motions in this study.Fig. 14 Effect of vertical ground motions on Δr, max (with USSSDs).

Fig. 14

Fig. 15 compares the values of θmax in the longitudinal direction. When the USSSDs are equipped, the maximum drift ratio tends to increase, except for the excitation by TCU102. This increasing phenomenon is most significant for Piers 5 and 10 (transition piers), because installing dampers enhances the connection between the girders and bent caps and further helps to transfer the inertial force. Overall. The deployment of the USSSDs increases the displacement response of the piers. However, this increased amplitude is limited and should be accepted when the original displacement response of the piers is large (e.g., the maximum drift ratio of piers is 2 %–3 % when subjected to TCU052 and TCU102) [27,28].Fig. 15 Maximum drift ratio of the bridge pier.

Fig. 15

5 Conclusions

This study investigates the seismic mitigation effect of the USSSDs on preventing girders from falling is investigated. The hysteresis behavior of the USSSDs is first numerically explored based on the ABAQUS platform, and the restoring force model is further extracted. Then, a continuous simply supported girder bridge is selected as the illustrative example. Using the Midas Civil software, the corresponding FEMs of the bridge with and without the USSSDs are built. On the basis of nonlinear time history analyses, the maximum seismic behaviors are compared to verify the seismic mitigation effect of the USSSDs. The principal findings of this investigation are as follows.(1) Continuous simply supported girder bridges with multiple unions are susceptible to occur that girders falls down when suffering from near-fault ground motions. Introducing the proposed USSSDs can effectively decrease the relative displacement between the girders and bent caps, and the decrease can reach more than 50 %.

(2) Although the seismic response of bridge piers is enhanced after introducing the USSSDs, the increase in the amplitude of the maximum drift ratio of bridge piers is limited and within an acceptable range.

In this study, the USSSDs are designed to deform elastically in the vertical direction, and the vertical energy dissipation is not considered. In the future, the optimal design of the USSSDs will be investigated, and the seismic mitigation strategy of unseating prevention for multi-union long simply supported girder bridges will be further improved by considering the three-dimensional excitations of seismic loading.

Data availability statement

Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Long-Shan Li: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Conceptualization. Ying-Xin Hui: Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization. Jie Wang: Visualization, Validation, Investigation. Ya-Jun Zhang: Writing – original draft, Validation, Software, Investigation.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the 10.13039/501100001809 National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52268077 ) and the Key Research and Development Project in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (Grant No. 2022BEG03062 ). The authors greatly appreciate the financial supports.

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36932.
==== Refs
References

1 Cheng Hu Li Hong-Nan Wang Dong-Sheng Research on the influencing factors for residual displacements of RC bridge columns subjected to earthquake loading Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14 8 2016 2229 2257
2 Fu Jian-Yu Cheng Hu Wang Dong-Sheng Temperature-dependent performance of LRBs and its effect on seismic responses of isolated bridges under near-fault earthquake excitations Structures 41 2022 619 628
3 Cheng Hu Li Hong-Nan Yang Y.B. Seismic fragility analysis of deteriorating RC bridge columns with time-variant capacity index Bull. Earthq. Eng. 17 7 2019 4247 4267
4 Chen Xiao-Yu Wang Dong-Sheng Fu Jian-Yu State-of-the-art review on pulse characteristics of near-fault ground motions Eng. Mech. 38 8 2021 1 14+54 (in Chinese)
5 Guan Zhong-Guo Huang Yong Zhang Hao-Yun Damage characteristics and analysis of bridge engineering in M7.4 Qinghai Maduo earthquake World Earthq. Eng. 37 3 2021 38 45 (in Chinese)
6 Shi Yan Performance-based Design Method and Effect of Environmental Condition on Earthquake Response for Seismically Isolated Bridges [D] 2015 Dalian Maritime University Dalian (in Chinese)
7 Shi Yan Wang Dong-Sheng Han Jian-Ping Application status of seismic isolation for bridges and its development tendency Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics [J] 37 5 2017 118 128 (in Chinese)
8 Wright Timothy DesRoches Reginald Padgett Jamie E. Bridge seismic retrofitting practices in the central and southeastern United States J. Bridge Eng. 16 1 2011 82 92
9 Dicleli Murat Salem Milani Ali Performance based seismic design of bitlis river viaduct based on damage control using seismic isolation and energy dissipation devices [C] IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 216 2017 012053
10 Dicleli Murat Performance of seismic-isolated bridges with and without elastic-gap devices in near-fault zones Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 37 6 2008 935 954
11 Dicleli Murat Supplemental elastic stiffness to reduce isolator displacements for seismic-isolated bridges in near-fault zones Eng. Struct. 29 5 2007 763 775
12 Xie Hao-Yu Research progress of metallic dampers on bridges utilized for seismic energy dissipation Technology of Highway and Transport 36 4 2020 42 47
13 Suzuki Kazuaki Watanabe Atsush Saeki Eiichiro Development of U-shaped steel damper for seismic isolation system [R] Nippon Steel Technical Report No.92 92 2005 56 61
14 Kelly J.M. Skinner R.I. Heine A.J. Mechanisms of energy absorption in special devices for use in earthquake resistant structures Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 5 3 1972 63 73
15 Hui Ying-Xin Li Long-Shan Cheng Hu Seismic mitigation of continuous girder bridges equipped with U-shaped stainless steel dampers under near-fault earthquake excitations Structures 58 2023 105597
16 Jiao Yu Kishiki Shoichi Yamada Satoshi Low cyclic fatigue and hysteretic behavior of U-shaped steel dampers for seismically isolated buildings under dynamic cyclic loadings Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 44 10 2015 1523 1538
17 Ene Diana Kishiki Shoichi Yamada Satoshi Experimental study on the bidirectional inelastic deformation capacity of U-shaped steel dampers for seismic isolated buildings Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 45 2 2016 173 192
18 Deng Kai-Lai Pan Peng Su Yu-Kun Experimental study on lateral performance of slotted U-shaped steel damper J. Vib. Shock 34 12 2015 157 163 (in Chinese)
19 Zhao Zhen-Zhen Zhang Ai-Jun He Bin Study on mechanics formula deduction and damping performance of U-shaped metal damper Struct. Eng. 33 2 2017 143 150 (in Chinese)
20 Oh Sang-Hoon Song Sung-Hoon Lee Sang-Ho Seismic response of base isolating systems with U-shaped hysteretic dampers International Journal of Steel Structures 12 2 2012 285 298
21 Nguyen Dai Xuan Guizani Lotfi Analytical and numerical investigation of natural rubber bearings incorporating U-shaped dampers behaviour for seismic isolation Eng. Struct. 243 1 2021 112647
22 Jun-Bo Song Seismic Isolation Performance of Beam Bridge with Stainless Steel U-Shaped Damper [D] 2022 Hebei University of Technology Tianjin (in Chinese)
23 Chaboche J.L. Time independent constitutive theories for cyclic plasticity Int. J. Plast. 2 2 1986 149 188
24 JTG/T 2231–01—2020 Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges [S] 2020 Ministry of Communications of the People’s Republic of China (in Chinese)
25 Mander J.B. Priestly M.J.N. Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete J. Struct. Eng. 114 8 1988 1804 1826
26 Wang Dong-Sheng Feng Qi-Min Wang Guo-Xin Analysis model of pounding between adjacent bridge girders during earthquakes based on collinear impact berween rods Eng. Mech. 21 2 2004 157 166 (in Chinese)
27 Cheng Hu Li Hong-Nan Biondini Fabio Strain penetration effect on cyclic response of corroded RC columns Eng. Struct. 243 2021 112653
28 Cheng Hu Wang Dong-Sheng Li Hong-Nan Investigation on ultimate lateral displacements of coastal bridge piers with different corrosion levels along height J. Bridge Eng. 26 4 2021 04021015
