Comparative Performance of Isolation Systems for Benchmark Cable-stayed Bridge

Earthquake response of benchmark cable-stayed bridge with different isolation sys- tems 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 se- lected isolators for seismic response control of bridge is carried out. A parametric study for in- vestigating 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 iso- lation period on structure depend on the isolator as well as the type of selected input earthquake motion.

[1]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

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

[3]  Y. Wen.  Method for Random Vibration of Hysteretic Systems , 1976 .

[4]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  A Simple Pendulum Technique for Achieving Seismic Isolation , 1990 .

[5]  W. H. Robinson,et al.  A LEAD-RUBBER SHEAR DAMPER , 1977 .

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

[7]  William Robinson,et al.  Lead‐rubber hysteretic bearings suitable for protecting structures during earthquakes , 1982 .

[8]  Farzad Naeim,et al.  Design of seismic isolated structures , 1999 .

[9]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[10]  Franco Bontempi,et al.  Seismic response of a cable-stayed bridge: Active and passive control systems (benchmark problem) , 2003 .

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

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

[13]  Kang-Min Choi,et al.  Hybrid Control Strategies for Seismic Protection of a Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge , 2002 .

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

[15]  R. S. Jangid.  Computational numerical models for seismic response of structures isolated by sliding systems , 2005 .

[16]  R. S. Jangid.  Parametric Study of Base-Isolated Structures , 2002 .

[17]  M. Khodaverdian,et al.  Dynamics of resilient‐friction base isolator (R‐FBI) , 1987 .

[18]  Kyu-Sik Park,et al.  HYBRID CONTROL STRATEGY FOR SEISMIC PROTECTION OF BENCHMARK CABLE-STAYE BRIDGE , 2002 .