Experimental investigations on seismic control of cable‐stayed bridges using shape memory alloy self‐centering dampers

This paper presents the experimental investigations of a novel self‐centering damper (SCD) for controlling seismic responses of cable‐stayed bridges. The damper is fabricated employing the super‐elasticity effect and energy dissipation characteristics of shape memory alloy wires. Within super‐elastic range, a damping force model is derived and verified based on the constitutive model of shape memory alloy wires. One reduced‐scale cable‐stayed bridge model is designed to investigate its seismic control performance. Two different system configurations of the cable‐stayed bridge model are considered, including the without control state and incorporating with the SCD between the tower and the deck. Seismic behavior of different cable‐stayed bridge systems is then evaluated via shaking table tests under different ground excitations. Experimental results show the effectiveness of the SCD. The accelerations and the relative displacements of the tower reduce obviously due to the energy dissipation of the SCD. Relative displacements of the deck decline dramatically because of the connection of the SCD. Moreover, the strain responses also indicate the drop of the bending moment in the tower.

[1]  Lamine Dieng,et al.  Use of Shape Memory Alloys damper device to mitigate vibration amplitudes of bridge cables , 2013 .

[2]  Filippo Ubertini,et al.  Toward a hybrid control solution for cable dynamics: Theoretical prediction and experimental validation , 2009 .

[3]  Hirokazu Iemura,et al.  Simple algorithm for semi‐active seismic response control of cable‐stayed bridges , 2005 .

[4]  Fanis Giannopoulos,et al.  ACTIVE CONTROL OF TWO-CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE , 1979 .

[5]  André Preumont,et al.  ACTIVE TENDON CONTROL OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES , 1996 .

[6]  Hui Li,et al.  Seismic response control of a cable‐stayed bridge using negative stiffness dampers , 2011 .

[7]  Anil K. Agrawal,et al.  Passive and hybrid control systems for seismic protection of a benchmark cable‐stayed bridge , 2007 .

[8]  Lucia Faravelli,et al.  Cable vibration mitigation by added SMA wires , 2008 .

[9]  Hirokazu Iemura,et al.  Passive and semi‐active seismic response control of a cable‐stayed bridge , 2002 .

[10]  Perry H Leo,et al.  The use of shape memory alloys for passive structural damping , 1995 .

[11]  Bassem O Andrawes,et al.  Application of shape memory alloy dampers in the seismic control of cable-stayed bridges , 2009 .

[12]  Hyung-Jo Jung,et al.  CONTROL OF SEISMICALLY EXCITED CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE EMPLOYING MAGNETORHEOLOGICAL FLUID DAMPERS , 2003 .

[13]  Yozo Fujino,et al.  An experimental study on active tendon control of cable‐stayed bridges , 1993 .

[14]  K. K. Vaze,et al.  Seismic response attenuation of structures using shape memory alloy dampers , 2012 .

[15]  Sara Casciati,et al.  On the NiTi wires in dampers for stayed cables , 2014 .

[16]  Shirley J. Dyke,et al.  PHASE I BENCHMARK CONTROL PROBLEM FOR SEISMIC RESPONSE OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES , 2003 .

[17]  R. S. Jangid,et al.  Influence of high austenite stiffness of shape memory alloy on the response of base‐isolated benchmark building , 2017 .

[18]  María Ofelia Moroni,et al.  DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILEAN BRIDGES WITH SEISMIC PROTECTION , 2005 .

[19]  Min Liu,et al.  Vibration mitigation of a stay cable with one shape memory alloy damper , 2004 .

[20]  Hirokazu Iemura,et al.  Advances in the development of pseudo‐negative‐stiffness dampers for seismic response control , 2009 .

[21]  Gangbing Song,et al.  Applications of shape memory alloys in civil structures , 2006 .

[22]  Aiqun Li,et al.  Numerical and experimental investigation on cable vibration mitigation using shape memory alloy damper , 2009 .

[23]  A. K. Agrawal,et al.  CONTROL OF SEISMICALLY EXCITED CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE USING RESETTING SEMIACTIVE STIFFNESS DAMPERS , 2001 .

[24]  Erik A. Johnson,et al.  Efficient optimal design and design‐under‐uncertainty of passive control devices with application to a cable‐stayed bridge , 2017 .

[25]  Hirokazu Iemura,et al.  Application of pseudo-negative stiffness control to the benchmark cable-stayed bridge , 2003 .

[26]  Behrouz Asgarian,et al.  Application of Intelligent Passive Devices Based on Shape Memory Alloys in Seismic Control of Structures , 2016 .

[27]  A. Yawny,et al.  Self-centering and damping capabilities of a tension-compression device equipped with superelastic NiTi wires , 2015 .

[28]  Kshitij C. Shrestha,et al.  Feasibility of tension braces using Cu–Al–Mn superelastic alloy bars , 2014 .

[29]  E. J. Graesser,et al.  Shape‐Memory Alloys as New Materials for Aseismic Isolation , 1991 .

[30]  Kyu-Sik Park,et al.  Hybrid seismic protection of cable‐stayed bridges , 2004 .

[31]  C. Valente,et al.  Shaking table tests on reinforced concrete frames without and with passive control systems , 2005 .

[32]  Touraj Taghikhany,et al.  Time‐delayed decentralized H2/LQG controller for cable‐stayed bridge under seismic loading , 2013 .

[33]  Sourav Gur,et al.  Thermally modulated shape memory alloy friction pendulum (tmSMA‐FP) for substantial near‐fault earthquake structure protection , 2017 .

[34]  Ahmed M. Abdel-Ghaffar,et al.  SEISMIC ENERGY DISSIPATION FOR CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES USING PASSIVE DEVICES , 1994 .

[35]  Corneliu Cismasiu,et al.  Semi-active vibration control device based on superelastic NiTi wires , 2013 .

[36]  Kyu-Sik Park,et al.  Hybrid control systems for seismic protection of a phase II benchmark cable-stayed bridge , 2003 .

[37]  Gangbing Song,et al.  Investigation of vibration mitigation of stay cables incorporated with superelastic shape memory alloy dampers , 2007 .

[38]  Anil K. Agrawal,et al.  APPLICATIONS OF SOME SEMIACTIVE CONTROL SYSTEMS TO BENCHMARK CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE , 2003 .