Performance-based seismic loss assessment of isolated simply-supported highway bridges retrofitted with different shape memory alloy cable restrainers in a life-cycle context
Source abstract
Abstract
Shape memory alloy cables have emerged as an alternative to conventional steel cable restrainers for preventing the bridge spans from unseating during an extreme earthquake. Feasibility of high-cost NiTi shape memory alloy restrainers in retrofitting the bridges has been numerically investigated, and promising results have been published; however, considering the economic impacts, the effect of different types of shape memory alloy such as Cu-based and Fe-based shape memory alloy restrainers has not been discussed yet. The objective of this study is to address this problem in detail in order to propose the most cost-effective shape memory alloy restrainer suitable for bridge engineering applications. Seismic fragility and life-cycle loss (both direct and indirect) assessments are analytically performed on an isolated simply-supported highway bridge retrofitted by four types of shape memory alloy restrainers (i.e. NiTi, FeNiCoAlTaB, CuAlMn, and FeMnAlNi). Results showed that for all retrofitted bridges performed in the range of design displacement, the effect of type of shape memory alloy is significant on the damage probability and long-term seismic loss of the bridges. All the bridges retrofitted with shape memory alloy restrainers have a very low probability of collapse (less than 7%). It is also found that the bridge retrofitted with Fe-based shape memory alloy restrainers (SMA-II and SMA-IV) performed better as compared to the other cases. Compared to the bridge without restrainers and with NiTi shape memory alloy restrainers, Fe-based shape memory alloy restrainers can reduce the long-term loss by about 87% and 11%, respectively, at the design earthquake event specified in CHBDC-2014. The probabilistic risk analysis of highway bridges retrofitted with shape memory alloy restrainers can aid in paving the way toward widespread application of such smart materials in structural applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis · Shape Memory Alloy Transformations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of Ministry of Education, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, P.R. China
School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada
Parsons Inc., Burnaby, BC, Canada
Funding
Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province · National Natural Science Foundation of China · natural sciences and engineering research council of canada · fundamental research funds for the central universities
References (65)
Show source-provided references
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) · 2012
2. 10.12989/sss.2008.4.3.36710.12989/sss.2008.4.3.367 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.02510.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.025 ↗
4. Anderson DR · 2003
5. 10.1088/0964-1726/14/3/00810.1088/0964-1726/14/3/008 ↗
6. 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:6(700)10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:6(700) ↗
7. ASTM · 2006 · 01
8. CHBDC · 2014
9. Environment Canada (2019) Weather data–Vancouver UBC. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment.html
10. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) · 2006
11. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) · 2015
12. 10.1193/1.400008910.1193/1.4000089 ↗
13. Billah AHMM · 2015
14. 10.1193/112512EQS337M10.1193/112512EQS337M ↗
15. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) · 2013
16. Chen LS · 2012
17. 10.1177/1045389X1880639310.1177/1045389X18806393 ↗
18. 10.1080/13669877.2011.57178910.1080/13669877.2011.571789 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00098-010.1016/S0141-0296(01)00098-0 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.05010.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.050 ↗
21. 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.000088310.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000883 ↗
22. 10.1002/eqe.228110.1002/eqe.2281 ↗
23. Eurocode 8 · European Committee for Standardisation · 2005
24. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.04910.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.049 ↗
25. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) · 2003
26. 10.2183/pjab.94.00810.2183/pjab.94.008 ↗
27. 10.1007/s11803-012-0110-810.1007/s11803-012-0110-8 ↗
28. 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.000135210.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001352 ↗
29. 10.1088/0964-1726/22/4/04501310.1088/0964-1726/22/4/045013 ↗
30. 10.1088/0964-1726/25/7/07503910.1088/0964-1726/25/7/075039 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.03610.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.036 ↗
32. 10.1023/B:JMSC.0000011492.88523.d310.1023/B:JMSC.0000011492.88523.d3 ↗
33. Hwang H · 2001
34. 10.1080/13632469.2011.57553110.1080/13632469.2011.575531 ↗
35. 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.000123110.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001231 ↗
36. 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.000100810.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001008 ↗
37. McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH (2000) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley, CA: University of California. Available at: http://opensees.berkeley.edu
38. Mander JB · 1999
39. Naumoski N · 1988
40. 10.1002/eqe.65510.1002/eqe.655 ↗
41. 10.1126/science.120223210.1126/science.1202232 ↗
42. 10.1002/eqe.102210.1002/eqe.1022 ↗
43. 10.1088/0964-1726/20/1/01500310.1088/0964-1726/20/1/015003 ↗
44. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2011) PEER ground motion database. Available at: http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/site
45. 10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.10.00310.1016/j.strusafe.2009.10.003 ↗
46. Padgett JE, Ghosh J, Dennemann K (2009) Sustainable infrastructure subjected to multiple threats. In: Proceedings of the ASCE TCLEE 2009: lifeline earthquake engineering in a multi-hazard environment, pp. 703–713. Available at: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/41050%28357%296710.1061/41050(357)67 ↗
47. 10.1002/eqe.78210.1002/eqe.782 ↗
48. 10.3141/2202-2110.3141/2202-21 ↗
49. 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2001)6:5(307)10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2001)6:5(307) ↗
50. 10.1080/15732479.2016.117015510.1080/15732479.2016.1170155 ↗
51. 10.1088/0964-1726/22/2/02502510.1088/0964-1726/22/2/025025 ↗
52. 10.3390/infrastructures202000710.3390/infrastructures2020007 ↗
53. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:4(372)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:4(372) ↗
54. 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1999)5:3(95)10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1999)5:3(95) ↗
55. 10.1126/science.118316910.1126/science.1183169 ↗
56. USGS (2017) Unified hazard tool. Available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
57. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.10958410.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109584 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.09110.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.091 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.12110.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.121 ↗
60. 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.000100910.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001009 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.01710.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.017 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.01410.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.014 ↗
63. 10.1080/15732479.2018.155826910.1080/15732479.2018.1558269 ↗
64. 10.1007/s10518-018-0510-x10.1007/s10518-018-0510-x ↗
65. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.10.03110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.10.031 ↗