期刊文献+

Comparative Study on Structural Redundancy of Cable-Stayed and Extradosed Bridges Through Safety Assessment of Their Stay Cables 被引量:5

下载PDF
导出
摘要 This study provides new insights into the comparison of cable-stayed and extradosed bridges based on the safety assessment of their stay cables.These bridges are often regarded as identical structures owing to the use of inclined cables;however,the international standards for bridge design stipulate different safety factors for stay cables of both types of bridges.To address this misconception,a comparative study was carried out on the safety factors of stay cables under fatigue and ultimate limit states by considering the effects of various untoward and damaging factors,such as overloading,cable loss,and corrosion.The primary goal of this study is to describe the structural disparities between both types of bridges and evaluate their structural redundancies by employing deterministic and nondeterministic methods.To achieve this goal,three-dimensional finite-element models of both bridges were developed based on the current design guidelines for stay cables in Japan.After the balanced states of the bridge models were achieved,static analyses were performed for different safety factors of stay cables in a parametric manner.Finally,the first-order reliability method and Monte Carlo method were applied to determine the reliability index of stay cables.The analysis results show that cable-stayed and extradosed bridges exhibit different structural redundancies for different safety factors under the same loading conditions.Moreover,a significant increase in structural redundancy occurs with an incremental increase in the safety factors of stay cables.
出处 《Engineering》 SCIE EI 2021年第1期111-123,共13页 工程(英文)
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献37

  • 1Agarwal, J., England, J., Blockley, D., 2006. Vulnerability analysis of structures. Structural Engineering Interna- tional, 16(2): 124-128.
  • 2Alashker, Y., E1-Tawil, S., Sadek, F., 2010. Progressive col- lapse resistance of steel-concrete composite floors. Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(10):187-196 [doi:] 0. ] 06 ]/(AS(3 E )ST. ] 943-541 X.0000230].
  • 3ASCE-7, 2002. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA.
  • 4Astaneh-Asl, A., 2008. Progressive Collapse of Steel Truss Bridges, the Case of 1-35W Collapse. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Steel Bridges, Guimarges, Portugal.
  • 5v Bao, Y., Kunnath, S.K., E1-Tawil, S., Lew, H.S., 2008. Macromodel-based simulation of progressive collapse: RC frame structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(7): 1079-1091.
  • 6Buscemi, N., Marjanishvili, S., 2005. SDOF Model for Pro- gressive Collapse Analysis. Proceedings of the Structures Congress and the Forensic Engineering Symposium, New York.
  • 7DOD (Department of Defense), 2009. Unified Facilities Cri- teria (UFC): Design of Structures to Resist Progressive Collapse. Washington, DC.
  • 8Ellingwood, B., Leyendecker, E., 1978. Approaches for design against progressive collapse. Journal of the Structural Division, 104(3):413-423.
  • 9EN 1993-1-1:2005. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures- Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Euro- pean Committee for Standardization, rue de Stassart, 36,B-1050 Brussels.
  • 10FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitations of Buildings (FEMA-273). Building Seismic Safety Coun- cil, Washington, DC.

共引文献9

同被引文献64

引证文献5

二级引证文献7

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部