Advances in Civil Engineering | Volume 2018 ,2018-04-02 |
Novel Crashworthy Device for Pier Protection from Barge Impact | |
Research Article | |
W. Wang ^{1} G. Morgenthal ^{1} | |
Show affiliations | |
DOI：10.1155/2018/9385643 | |
Received 2017-08-22, accepted for publication 2018-01-10, Published 2018-01-10 | |
摘要
Barge impact is a potential hazard for bridge piers located in navigation waterways. Protective structures of different types, for example, dolphin structures, artificial islands, and guiding structures, have been widely used in bridge designs against barge impact. However, such structures often imply high cost and suffer from difficulties in installation as well as maintenance challenges. This paper aims to devise and investigate a new type of crashworthy device which is comprised of vertically supported impact cap connected to the bridge pier using a series of steel beams in a frame-type arrangement. This sacrificial steel structure is designed to form plastic hinges for energy dissipation whilst limiting the force transmitted to the protected pier. The dynamic analysis of the proposed crashworthy device subjected to barge impact is conducted using a simplified impact model previously developed by the authors. The parametric studies in this paper show that the proposed device has a large energy dissipation capacity and that the magnitude of impact force transmitted to the bridge pier can be dramatically reduced. In addition, an optimization model is proposed in this paper to achieve the cost-optimized design of the crashworthy device for a given impact scenario with constraints as per the prescribed design requirements.
授权许可
Copyright © 2018 W. Wang and G. Morgenthal. 2018
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
图表
The structure connecting the cap and the bridge pier using steel beams of I cross section for a sample bridge pylon foundation.
Configuration of (a) the cap steel beam structure and (b) I cross section of steel beams. Nbu: number of beam units in one plane; lsb: length of each single steel beam; mc: cap mass.
Configuration of (a) the cap steel beam structure and (b) I cross section of steel beams. Nbu: number of beam units in one plane; lsb: length of each single steel beam; mc: cap mass.
Transformation of FBIM (left) into CMM (right).
General shape of barge bow force-deformation curve. , curve 1; , curve 2; , curve 3.
Bilinear spring model (a) and triangular spring model (b) used in MSM [8].
Bilinear spring model (a) and triangular spring model (b) used in MSM [8].
Simplified impact model based on CMM for dynamic analysis of the proposed device subjected to barge impact.
Time histories of energy absorbed by the device (a) corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions and the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy, respectively, versus MCbi (b). , Wdisscsb (MCbi = 0.8); , Wdisscsb (MCbi = 1.0); , Wdisscsb (MCbi = 1.2); , Wtotal; , the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy.
Time histories of energy absorbed by the device (a) corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions and the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy, respectively, versus MCbi (b). , Wdisscsb (MCbi = 0.8); , Wdisscsb (MCbi = 1.0); , Wdisscsb (MCbi = 1.2); , Wtotal; , the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) MCbi = 0.8; (b) MCbi = 1.0; (c) MCbi = 1.2.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) MCbi = 0.8; (b) MCbi = 1.0; (c) MCbi = 1.2.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) MCbi = 0.8; (b) MCbi = 1.0; (c) MCbi = 1.2.
Moment-curvature relationships of the I cross sections (a) and moment-rotation relationships of single steel beams (b) corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions. , MCbi = 0.8; , MCbi = 1.0; , MCbi = 1.2.
Moment-curvature relationships of the I cross sections (a) and moment-rotation relationships of single steel beams (b) corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions. , MCbi = 0.8; , MCbi = 1.0; , MCbi = 1.2.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions, and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus MCbi (c). , without the device; , MCbi = 0.8; , MCbi = 1.0; , MCbi = 1.2.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions, and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus MCbi (c). , without the device; , MCbi = 0.8; , MCbi = 1.0; , MCbi = 1.2.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different beam cross-section dimensions, and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus MCbi (c). , without the device; , MCbi = 0.8; , MCbi = 1.0; , MCbi = 1.2.
Time histories of energy absorbed by the device (a) corresponding to different yielding strengths of beam steel and the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy, respectively, versus yielding strength of beam steel fybs (b). , Wdisscsb (fybs = 250.0 MPa); , Wdisscsb (fybs = 350.0 MPa); , Wdisscsb (fybs = 450.0 MPa); , Wtotal; , the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy.
Time histories of energy absorbed by the device (a) corresponding to different yielding strengths of beam steel and the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy, respectively, versus yielding strength of beam steel fybs (b). , Wdisscsb (fybs = 250.0 MPa); , Wdisscsb (fybs = 350.0 MPa); , Wdisscsb (fybs = 450.0 MPa); , Wtotal; , the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different yielding strengths of beam steel (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) fybs = 250.0 MPa; (b) fybs = 350.0 MPa; (c) fybs = 450.0 MPa.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different yielding strengths of beam steel (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) fybs = 250.0 MPa; (b) fybs = 350.0 MPa; (c) fybs = 450.0 MPa.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different yielding strengths of beam steel (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) fybs = 250.0 MPa; (b) fybs = 350.0 MPa; (c) fybs = 450.0 MPa.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different yielding strengths of beam steel and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus yielding strength of beam steel fybs (c). , without the device; , fybs = 250.0 MPa; , fybs = 350.0 MPa; , fybs = 450.0 MPa.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different yielding strengths of beam steel and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus yielding strength of beam steel fybs (c). , without the device; , fybs = 250.0 MPa; , fybs = 350.0 MPa; , fybs = 450.0 MPa.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different yielding strengths of beam steel and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus yielding strength of beam steel fybs (c). , without the device; , fybs = 250.0 MPa; , fybs = 350.0 MPa; , fybs = 450.0 MPa.
Time histories of energy absorbed by the device (a) corresponding to different beam unit numbers and the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy, respectively, versus beam unit number in one plane Nbu (b). , Wdisscsb (Nbu = 1); , Wdisscsb (Nbu = 2); , Wdisscsb (Nbu = 3); , Wtotal; , the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy.
Time histories of energy absorbed by the device (a) corresponding to different beam unit numbers and the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy, respectively, versus beam unit number in one plane Nbu (b). , Wdisscsb (Nbu = 1); , Wdisscsb (Nbu = 2); , Wdisscsb (Nbu = 3); , Wtotal; , the ratio of energy absorbed by the device after impact to the total impact energy.
Time histories of cap displacement corresponding to different beam unit numbers (a) and maximum cap displacement Dcapmax versus beam unit number in one plane Nbu (b). , Nbu = 1; , Nbu = 2; , Nbu = 3.
Time histories of cap displacement corresponding to different beam unit numbers (a) and maximum cap displacement Dcapmax versus beam unit number in one plane Nbu (b). , Nbu = 1; , Nbu = 2; , Nbu = 3.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different beam unit numbers (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) Nbu = 1; (b) Nbu = 2; (c) Nbu = 3.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different beam unit numbers (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) Nbu = 1; (b) Nbu = 2; (c) Nbu = 3.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the structures during impact and deflections of the structures after impact corresponding to different beam unit numbers (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device. (a) Nbu = 1; (b) Nbu = 2; (c) Nbu = 3.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different beam unit numbers, and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus beam unit number Nbu (c). , without the device; , Nbu = 1; , Nbu = 2; , Nbu = 3.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different beam unit numbers, and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus beam unit number Nbu (c). , without the device; , Nbu = 1; , Nbu = 2; , Nbu = 3.
Impact force time histories on the bridge pier for the whole impact process (a), for the first 0.10 s of impact process (b) corresponding to different beam unit numbers, and the reduction ratio of maximum impact force versus beam unit number Nbu (c). , without the device; , Nbu = 1; , Nbu = 2; , Nbu = 3.
The total number of beam units Nbutotal and the total mass of beam steel msb used by the optimum device versus barge impact energy Wtotal (Npl=2).
The total number of beam units Nbutotal and the total mass of beam steel msb used by the optimum device versus barge impact energy Wtotal (Npl=2).
Maximum cap displacement Dcapmax (a) and maximum impact force on the bridge pier Fmax (b) versus barge impact energy Wtotal using the optimum device.
Maximum cap displacement Dcapmax (a) and maximum impact force on the bridge pier Fmax (b) versus barge impact energy Wtotal using the optimum device.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the optimum devices during impact and deflections of the structures after the impact corresponding to the impact scenarios (a) IS31, (b) IS32, and (c) IS33 (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the optimum devices during impact and deflections of the structures after the impact corresponding to the impact scenarios (a) IS31, (b) IS32, and (c) IS33 (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device.
Maximum bending moment diagrams of the optimum devices during impact and deflections of the structures after the impact corresponding to the impact scenarios (a) IS31, (b) IS32, and (c) IS33 (unit: MNm). , original shape of the device; , deformed shape of the device.
Energy absorbed by the optimum device () and the total impact energy () during impact corresponding to the impact scenarios (a) IS31, (b) IS32, and (c) IS33.
Energy absorbed by the optimum device () and the total impact energy () during impact corresponding to the impact scenarios (a) IS31, (b) IS32, and (c) IS33.
Energy absorbed by the optimum device () and the total impact energy () during impact corresponding to the impact scenarios (a) IS31, (b) IS32, and (c) IS33.
通讯作者
W. Wang.Modeling and Simulation of Structures, Bauhaus University Weimar, Marienstrasse 13, 99423 Weimar, Germany, uni-weimar.de.dwsjzri@gmail.com
推荐引用方式
W. Wang,G. Morgenthal. Novel Crashworthy Device for Pier Protection from Barge Impact. Advances in Civil Engineering ,Vol.2018(2018)
您觉得这篇文章对您有帮助吗？
分享和收藏
参考文献
[1] | W. Wang, G. Morgenthal. (2017). Dynamic analyses of square RC pier column subjected to barge impact using efficient models. Engineering Structures.151:20-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[2] | C. H. Cao. (2010). Simplified Static and Dynamic Analysis for Barge-Bridge Collision. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[3] | H. Svensson. (2009). Protection of bridge piers against ship collision. Steel Construction.2(1):21-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[4] | R. Saul, K. Humpf, A. Patsch. The Rosario-Victoria cable-stayed bridge across the river ParanÃ¡ in Argentina and its ship impact protection system. :1011-1018. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[5] | B. C. Simonsen, N. Ottesen-Hansen. Protection of marine structures by artificial islands. :201-215. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[6] | Y. Y. Sha, H. Hao. (2013). Laboratory tests and numerical simulations of barge impact on circular reinforced concrete piers. Engineering Structures.46:593-605. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[7] | M. Knott. Pier protection system for the sunshine skyway bridge replacement. :56-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[8] | S. E. Manen, A. G. Frandsen. (1998). Ship collision with bridges, review of accidents. Ship Collision Analysis:3-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[9] | Y. Y. Sha, H. Hao. (2012). Nonlinear finite element analysis of barge collision with a single bridge pier. Engineering Structures.41:63-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[10] | T. N. Le, J. M. Battini, M. Hjiaj. Corotational dynamic formulation for 2d beams. . DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[11] | P. Yuan. (2005). Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis of Multi-Barge Flotillas Impacting Bridge Piers. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[12] | R. Pinzelli, K. Chang. Reinforcement of bridge piers with FRP sheets to resist vehicle impact: tests on large concrete columns reinforced with aramid sheets. :12-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[13] | O. D. Larsen. (1993). Ship Collision with Bridges, the Interaction between Vessel Traffic and Bridge Structures. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[14] | Y. Y. Sha, H. Hao. (2015). Laboratory tests and numerical simulations of CFRP strengthened RC pier subjected to barge impact load. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics.15(2):1450037. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[15] | W. Hock, K. Schittkowski. (1983). A comparative performance evaluation of 27 nonlinear programming codes. Computing.30(4):335-358. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
[16] | G. Morgenthal, R. Saul. (2005). Die Geh- und Radwegbruecke Kehl–Strasbourg. Stahlbau.74(2):121-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.002. |
浏览 | 23次 |
下载全文 | 1次 |
评分次数 | 0次 |
用户评分 | 0.0分 |
分享 | 0次 |