Similar articles

Abstract: This paper presents a semi-active strategy for seismic protection of a benchmark cable-stayed bridge with consideration of multiple-support excitations. In this control strategy, Magnetorheological (MR) dampers are proposed as control devices, a LQG-clipped-optimal control algorithm is employed. An active control strategy, shown in previous researches to perform well at controlling the benchmark bridge when uniform earthquake motion was assumed, is also used in this study to control this benchmark bridge with consideration of multiple-support excitations. The performance of active control system is compared to that of the presented semi-active control strategy. Because the MR fluid damper is a controllable energy-dissipation device that cannot add mechanical energy to the structural system, the proposed control strategy is fail-safe in that bounded-input, bounded-output stability of the controlled structure is guaranteed. The numerical results demonstrated that the performance of the presented control design is nearly the same as that of the active control system; and that the MR dampers can effectively be used to control seismically excited cable-stayed bridges with multiple-support excitations.

[1] Aly, S.N., 1992. Effects of ground motion spatial variability on the response of cable-stayed bridges.Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics,21(1):1-20.

[2] Aspasia, Z., 1990. Response of multi-span beams to spatially incoherent seismic ground motions.Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics,19(5):819-832.

[3] Caicedo, J.M., Dyke,S.J., Moon, S.J., Bergman, L.A., Turan, G., Hague, S., 2002. Phase II benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges (http://wusceel.cive.wustl.edu/quake/).

[4] Dyke, S.J., Spencer, B.F., Sain, M.K., Carlson, J.D., 1996. Modeling and control of magnetorheological dampers for seismic response.Smart Materials and Structures,5:565-575.

[5] Dyke, S.J., Turan, G., Caicedo, J.M., Bergman, L.A., Hague, S., 2000. Benchmark Control Problem for Seismic Response of Cable-Stayed Bridges (http://wusceel.civewustl.edu/quake/).

[6] Jansen, L.M., Dyke, S.J., 2000. Semi-active control strategies for MR dampers: comparative study.Journal of engineering Mechanics, ASCE,126(8):795-803.

[7] Jung, H.J., Spencer, B.F., Lee, I.W., 2001. Benchmark Control Problem for Seismically Excited Cable-stayed Bridges using Smart Damping Strategies. Conference on Cable-supported Bridges. Seoul, Korea, p.256-267.

[8] Magana, M.E., Volz, P., Miller, T. 1997. Nonlinear decentralized control of a flexible cable-stayed beam structure.ASME Journal of Vibration and Acoustics,119(4):523-526.

[9] Ni, Y.Q., Spencer, B.F., 2000. Active/semiactive Seismic Response Control of Cable-supported Bridges: Current Research Status and Key Issues. Proceedings of the China-U.S. Millennium Symposium of Earthquake Engineering: Earthquake Engineering Frontiers in the New Millennium. Netherlands, p.229-304

[10] Spencer, B.F., Dyke, S.J., Sain, M.K. Carlson, J.D., 1997. Phenomenological model of a magnetorheological damper.Journal of Engineering Mechanics,ASCE,123(3):230-238.

[11] Wilson, J., Gravelle, W., 1991. Modelling of a cable-stayed bridge for dynamic analysis.Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,20(4):707-721.

[12] Yang, G., Spencer, B.F., Carlson, J.D., Sain, M.K., 2002. Large-scale MR fluid dampers: modeling, and dynamic performance considerations.Engineering structures,30(3):309-323

[13] Yozo, F., 2002. Vibration, control and monitoring of long-span bridges-resent research, developments and practice in Japan.Journal of Constructional Steel Research,58(1):71-97.