Comparative Seismic Fragility Assessment of an Existing Isolated Continuous Bridge Retrofitted with Different Energy Dissipation Devices

被引:71
作者
Xiang, Nailiang [1 ,2 ]
Alam, M. Shahria [2 ]
机构
[1] Nagoya Inst Technol, Dept Civil Engn, Showa Ku, Gokiso Cho, Nagoya, Aichi 4668555, Japan
[2] Univ British Columbia, Sch Engn, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Energy dissipation devices; Seismically isolated bridge; Lead rubber bearing; Seismic fragility; Comparative analysis; Self-centering performance; LAMINATED RUBBER BEARINGS; SHAPE-MEMORY ALLOYS; HIGHWAY BRIDGES; NEAR-FAULT; UNSEATING PREVENTION; INTENSITY MEASURES; DEMAND MODELS; PERFORMANCE; EARTHQUAKE; DAMAGE;
D O I
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001425
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Seismic isolation is a commonly adopted approach for designing bridges against earthquakes. However, the period elongation in an isolated bridge will generally lead to a large superstructure displacement, which may result in pounding, bearing unseating, or even span collapse. This study focuses on the implementation of energy dissipation devices for retrofitting an existing bridge isolated by lead rubber bearings (LRBs). Four different retrofit measures, namely yielding steel cables (YSCs), viscous dampers (VDs), friction dampers (FDs), and superelastic shape memory alloy cables (SMAs) were considered in this study. Fragility analyses were performed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of these devices in minimizing the seismic vulnerability of the bridge. The results indicate that all the devices show comparable performance in reducing the probability of damage of the isolation bearings without imposing much additional vulnerability on the bridge piers. The SMAs are the most effective in mitigating the seismic vulnerability of the bridge system at all the damage states, followed by FDs, VDs, and YSCs. Due to the superior self-centering capacity, the SMAs retrofitted bridge exhibits better recentering performance with a reduced residual displacement of superstructure compared with the bridges with other retrofit measures. (c) 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 56 条
[1]   Multiaxial behaviors of laminated rubber bearings and their modeling. I: Experimental study [J].
Abe, M ;
Yoshida, J ;
Fujino, Y .
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE, 2004, 130 (08) :1119-1132
[2]   Seismic Fragility of Retrofitted Multispan Continuous Steel Bridges in New York [J].
Agrawal, A. K. ;
Ghosn, M. ;
Alampalli, S. ;
Pan, Y. .
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING, 2012, 17 (04) :562-575
[3]   Utilizing shape memory alloys to enhance the performance and safety of civil infrastructure: a review [J].
Alam, M. S. ;
Youssef, M. A. ;
Nehdi, M. .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2007, 34 (09) :1075-1086
[4]  
Alam MS, 2012, B EARTHQ ENG, V10, P1885, DOI 10.1007/s10518-012-9381-8
[5]   Unseating prevention for multiple frame bridges using superelastic devices [J].
Andrawes, B ;
DesRoches, R .
SMART MATERIALS & STRUCTURES, 2005, 14 (03) :S60-S67
[6]   Comparison between shape memory alloy seismic restrainers and other bridge retrofit devices [J].
Andrawes, Bassem ;
DesRoches, Reginald .
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING, 2007, 12 (06) :700-709
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2013, THESIS U MALAYA
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2014, S614 CSA
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2017, PEER Ground Motion Database
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2003, NIBS 2003 MULT LOSS