Performance-based seismic loss assessment of isolated simply-supported highway bridges retrofitted with different shape memory alloy cable restrainers in a life-cycle context
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2020
Performance-based seismic loss assessment of isolated simply-supported highway bridges retrofitted with different shape memory alloy cable restrainers in a life-cycle context
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.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2012) Guide Specifications for LRFD Bridge Design Specifications–LRFDUS-6. 6th ed.Washington, DC: AASHTO.
2.
AlamMSNehdiMYoussefMA (2008a) Shape memory alloy-based smart RC bridges: overview of state-of-the-art. Smart Structures and Systems4(3): 367–389.
3.
AlamMSYoussefMANehdiM (2008b) Analytical prediction of the seismic behaviour of superelastic shape memory alloy reinforced concrete elements. Engineering Structures30(12): 3399–3411.
4.
AndersonDRSweeneyDJWilliamsTA (2003) Modern Business Statistics With Microsoft Excel. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Pub.
5.
AndrawesBDesRochesR (2005) Unseating prevention for multiple frame bridges using superelastic devices. Smart Materials and Structures14(3): S60–S67.
6.
AndrawesBDesRochesR (2007) Comparison between shape memory alloy seismic restrainers and other bridge retrofit devices. Journal of Bridge Engineering12(6): 700–709.
7.
ASTM (2006) Standard Specification for Structural Steel for Bridges, A 709/A 709M-05, Annual Book of ASTM Standards. vol. 01.04. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
8.
CHBDC (2014) Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code–CAN/CSA-S6-14. Ottawa, ON, Canada: National Research Council of Canada.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2006) Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1–Bridges. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA.
11.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2015) National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Database. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA.
12.
BhuiyanMARAlamMS (2012) Seismic vulnerability assessment of a multi-span continuous highway bridge fitted with shape memory alloy bars and laminated rubber bearings. Earthquake Spectra28(4): 1379–1404.
13.
BillahAHMM (2015) Performance-based seismic design and assessment of concrete bridge piers reinforced with shape memory alloy rebar. PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
14.
BillahAHMMAlamMS (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloy. Earthquake Spectra31(3): 1515–1541.
15.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) (2013) Seismic Design Criteria. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
16.
ChenLSZuangWZhaoH, et al. (2012) Report on Highways’ Damage in the Wenchuan Earthquake. Beijing, China: China Communications Press.
17.
ChowdhuryMARahmzadehAMoradiS, et al. (2019) Feasibility of using reduced length superelastic shape memory alloy strands in post-tensioned steel beam–column connections. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures30(2): 283–307.
18.
DecòAFrangopolDM (2011) Risk assessment of highway bridges under multiple hazards. Journal of Risk Research14(9): 1057–1089.
19.
DesRochesRDelemontM (2002) Seismic retrofit of simply supported bridges using shape memory alloys. Engineering Structures24(3): 325–332.
20.
DongYFrangopolDM (2015) Risk and resilience assessment of bridges under mainshock and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties. Engineering Structures83: 198–208.
21.
DongYFrangopolDM (2016) Probabilistic time-dependent multihazard life-cycle assessment and resilience of bridges considering climate change. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities30(5): 1–12.
22.
DongYFrangopolDMSaydamD (2013) Time-variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics42(10): 1451–1467.
23.
Eurocode 8 (2005) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 2: bridges. EN1998-2:2005+A2. European Committee for Standardisation.
24.
FangCZhengYChenJ, et al. (2019) Superelastic NiTi SMA cables: thermal-mechanical behavior, hysteretic modelling and seismic application. Engineering Structures183: 533–549.
FujinoY (2018) Vibration-based monitoring for performance evaluation of flexible civil structures in Japan. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B94(2): 98–128.
27.
GuoAZhaoQLiH (2012) Experimental study of a highway bridge with shape memory alloy restrainers focusing on the mitigation of unseating and pounding. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration11(2): 195–204.
28.
GuoJZhongJDangX, et al. (2019) Influence of multidirectional cable restrainer on seismic fragility of a curved bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering24(3): 04019001.
Hedayati DezfuliFAlamMS (2016) Seismic vulnerability assessment of a steel-girder highway bridge equipped with different SMA wire-based smart elastomeric isolators. Smart Materials and Structures25(7): 075039.
31.
Hedayati DezfuliFLiSAlamMS, et al. (2017) Effect of constitutive models on the seismic response of an SMA-LRB isolated highway bridge. Engineering Structures148: 113–125.
32.
HornbogenE (2004) Review: thermo-mechanical fatigue of shape memory alloys. Journal of Materials Science39(2): 385–399.
KawashimaKUnjohSHoshikumaJI, et al. (2011) Damage of bridges due to the 2010 Maule, Chile, earthquake. Journal of Earthquake Engineering15(7): 1036–1068.
35.
LiSHedayati DezfuliFWangJQ, et al. (2018) Displacement-based seismic design of steel, FRP, and SMA cable restrainers for isolated simply supported bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering23(6): 04018032.
36.
LiSZhangFWangJQ, et al. (2016) Effects of near-fault motions and artificial pulse-type ground motions on super-span cable-stayed bridge systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering22(3): 04016128.
37.
McKennaFFenvesGLScottMH (2000) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley, CA: University of California. Available at: http://opensees.berkeley.edu
38.
ManderJB (1999) Fragility curve development for assessing the seismic vulnerability of highway bridges. Technical report. New York: University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
39.
NaumoskiNTsoWKHeidebrechtAC (1988) A selection of representative strong motion earthquake records having different A/V ratios. EERG report 88-01. Hamilton, ON: Earthquake Engineering Research Group, McMaster University.
40.
NielsonBGDesRochesR (2007) Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component level approach. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics36(6): 823–839.
41.
OmoriTAndoKOkanoM, et al. (2011) Superelastic effect in polycrystalline ferrous alloys. Science333: 68–71.
42.
OzbulutOEHurlebausS (2010) Optimal design of superelastic-friction base isolators for seismic protection of highway bridges against near-field earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics40(3): 273–291.
43.
OzbulutOEHurlebausS (2011) Seismic assessment of bridge structures isolated by a shape memory alloy/rubber-based isolation system. Smart Materials and Structures20(1): 015003.
PadgettJEGhoshJDennemannK (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%2967
47.
PadgettJENielsonBGDesRochesR (2008) Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics37(5): 711–725.
48.
RamanathanKDesRochesRPadgettJE (2010) Analytical fragility curves for multi-span continuous steel girder bridges in moderate seismic zones. Journal of the Transportation Research Board22(2): 173–182.
49.
SaiidiMRandallMMaragakisE, et al. (2001) Seismic restrainer design methods for simply supported bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering6(5): 307–315.
50.
ShresthaBHaoHBiK (2017) Devices for protecting bridge superstructure from pounding and unseating damages: an overview. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering13(3): 313–330.
51.
ShresthaKCArakiYNagaeT, et al. (2013) Feasibility of Cu–Al–Mn superelastic alloy bars as reinforcement elements in concrete beams. Smart Materials and Structures22(2): 025025.
52.
SiddiqueeKAlamMS (2017) Highway bridge infrastructure in the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada. Infrastructure2(2): 7.
53.
SongJEllingwoodBR (1999) Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames with welded connections. Journal of Structural Engineering125(4): 372–384.
54.
SteinSMYoungGKTrentRE, et al. (1999) Prioritizing scour vulnerable bridges using risk. Journal of Infrastructure Systems5(3): 95–101.
WangCLGaoYChengX, et al. (2019a) Experimental investigation on H-section buckling-restrained braces with partially restrained flange. Engineering Structures199: 109584.
58.
WangJQLiSHedayati DezfuliF, et al. (2019b) Sensitivity analysis and multi-criteria optimization of SMA cable restrainers for longitudinal seismic protection of isolated simply supported highway bridges. Engineering Structures189: 509–522.
59.
XiangNAlamMSLiJ (2018) Shake table studies of a highway bridge model by allowing the sliding of laminated-rubber bearings with and without restraining devices. Engineering Structures171: 583–601.
60.
XieYZhangJ (2016) Optimal design of seismic protective devices for highway bridges using performance-based methodology and multiobjective genetic optimization. Journal of Bridge Engineering22(3): 04016129.
61.
ZhangJHuoY (2009) Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Engineering Structures31(8): 1648–1660.
62.
ZhangNZhangYGaoY, et al. (2019) Site amplification effects of a radially multi-layered semi-cylindrical canyon on seismic response of an earth and rockfill dam. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering116: 145–163.
63.
ZhangQAlamMS (2019) Performance-based seismic design of bridges: a global perspective and critical review of past, present and future directions. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering15(4): 539–554.
64.
ZhengYDongY (2018) Performance-based assessment of bridges with steel-SMA reinforced piers in a life-cycle context by numerical approach. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17(3): 1667–1688.
65.
ZhengYDongYLiY (2018) Resilience and life-cycle performance of smart bridges with shape memory alloy (SMA)-cable-based bearings. Construction and Building Materials158: 389–400.
