International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering
Published by Chaoyang University of Technology

Purnachandra Saha and R. S. Jangid1

Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400 076, India.


 

Download Citation: |
Download PDF


ABSTRACT


Earthquake response of benchmark cable-stayed bridge with different isolation systems is investigated. The selected isolation system consists of high damping rubber bearing (HDRB), lead-rubber bearing (LRB), friction pendulum system (FPS) and resilient-friction base isolator (R-FBI). Considering the phase-I benchmark problem, the ground acceleration is only applied in the longitudinal direction acting simultaneously at all supports. The seismic response of the benchmark bridge is obtained by solving the governing equations of motion of bridge by Newmark’s step-by-step integration method. A comparative performance study among the selected isolators for seismic response control of bridge is carried out. A parametric study for investigating the effectiveness is also performed with variation of important isolator parameters. Varying the different parameters of the isolators, evaluation criteria of the benchmark cable stayed bridge problem are found out. Significant reduction in base shear, overturning moment and other responses are observed by using the control systems by seismic isolator. Comparing the evaluation criteria of the benchmark problem, it is observed that the performance of LRB and R-FBI are better than that of the HDRB and FPS. Further, increase in the bearing damping ratio reduces both device displacement and base shear for HDRB and LRB. The effects of device isolation period on structure depend on the isolator as well as the type of selected input earthquake motion.


Keywords: Benchmark cable-stayed bridge; HDRB; LRB; FPS; R-FBI; seismic response; base isolation


Share this article with your colleagues

 


REFERENCES


  1. [1] 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.

  2. [2] Ali, H. M., and Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M. 1994. Seismic energy dissipation for cable-stayed bridges using passive devices. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23:877-893.

  3. [3] Iemura, H., and Pradono, M. H. 2003. Application of pseudo-negative stiffness control to the benchmark cable-stayed bridge. Journal of Structural Control, 10:187-203.

  4. [4] Park, K., Jung, H., and Lee, I. 2003. Hybrid control strategy for seismic protection of benchmark cable-stayed bridge. Engineering Structures, 25:405-417.

  5. [5] Jung, H. J., Park, K. S., Spencer, Jr, B. F. and Lee, I. W. 2004. Hybrid seismic protection of cable-stayed bridge. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 33:795-820.

  6. [6] Bontempi, F., Casciati, F., and Giudici, M. 2003. Seismic response of a cable-stayed bridge: active and passive control systems (Benchmark Problem). Journal of Structural Control, 10:169-185.

  7. [7] He, W., and Agrawal, A. K. 2007. Passive and hybrid control systems for seismic protection of a benchmark cable-stayed bridge. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 14:01-026.

  8. [8] Jangid, R. S. 2002. Parametric study of base-isolated structures. Advances in Structural Engineering, 5:113-122.

  9. [9] Naeim, F., and Kelly, J. M. 1999. “Design of seismic isolated structures”. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Canada.

  10. [10] Robinson, W. H., and Tucker, A. G. 1977. A lead-rubber shear damper. Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 8:187-191.

  11. [11] Robinson, W. H. 1982. Lead-rubber hysteretic bearings suitable for protecting structures during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10:593-604.

  12. [12] Wen, Y. K. 1976. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 102:249-263.

  13. [13] Zayas, V. A., Low, S. S., and Mahin, S. A. 1990. A simple pendulum technique for achieving seismic isolation. Earthquake Spectra, 6:317–333.

  14. [14] Jangid, R. S. 2005. Computational numerical models for seismic response of structures isolated by sliding systems. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 12:117-137.

  15. [15] N., and Khodaverdian, M. 1987. Dynamics of resilient-friction base isolator (R-FBI). Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15:379-390.

  16. [16] The Math Works Inc. 1997. Natick, Massachusetts.

  17. [17] The Math Works Inc. 2002. Natick Massachusetts.


ARTICLE INFORMATION




Accepted: 2008-12-27
Publication Date: 2008-11-01


Cite this article:

Saha, P., Jangid, R.S. 2008. Comparative performance of isolation systems for benchmark Cable-stayed bridge. International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 6, 111–139.https://doi.org/10.6703/IJASE.2008.6(2).111


We use cookies on this website to improve your user experience. By using this site you agree to its use of cookies.