• No se han encontrado resultados

ADAPTADORES PARA BATTERY REAMER/DRILL II

In document BATTERY POWER LINE II (página 25-41)

The FSI Model methodology also implements the same random variables as the

last methodology. The main advantage of this methodology is to use the fluid-

structure interaction and detailed finite element modeling which can provide

details on the performance of coastal bridges such as wave force variation over the

time, local damages, and stress concentrations. The FSI Model can provide insight

on the forces on bridge super- and substructure, as well as local and global

damages and failure mechanisms.

This section constructs the fragility surface for the case study bridge from

Houston/Galveston Bay area that was defined in Section 4.2.5. This bridge is used

in the next chapter for all the modeling methods to provide a comprehensive

comparison. As it was shown in the previous sections, the observed failure mode is

abrupt; i.e., once deck movement is initiated, significant displacement occurs

which provide combinations of hazard and bridge model parameters for subsequent

fluid-structure interaction simulation. The generated wave and surge profiles cover

the entire reasonable range of hazard by selecting 256 points that span the range of

Hmax and Zc from 0 to 5m and 2m to -2m, respectively. Quasi Monte Carlo

sampling technique was used to generate realizations of random variables. The

sample points are presented in Appendix V. As mentioned for the previous

modeling methodologies, given the abrupt nature of deck response under surge and

wave loads, the outcome of the assessment is not sensitive to this imposed limit

used to categorically distinguish survived and failed cases. The result of the

simulation is shown in Figure 6-5. As it can be seen the results are revealing a

transition zone between the failed and survived region. The FSI Model provides the

most accurate output in comparison to the MCS Static and Dynamic Model;

however, it requires significantly more computational power. For example, each

FSI simulation on a super computer cluster that has quad-core Intel Xeon

processors running at 2.83GHz takes an average of 7 hours to complete. Each

simulation of the Dynamic Model on the same machine takes less than 10 minutes

to complete.

Figure 6-5. Fragility surface of the case study bridge using FSI Model methodology.

6.4. Summary

This chapter presented three distinct modeling methodologies, designated as the

MCS Static Model, Dynamic Model, and FSI Model, for the reliability assessment

of deck unseating mode of failure. The FSI Model is the most accurate, yet

computationally intense strategy. Additionally, it requires a deep understanding of

the intricacies involved in fluid-structure interaction modeling. Therefore, the MCS

Static and Dynamic Models can be used instead of FSI Model for a more efficient

reliability assessment of coastal bridges under hurricane events. All of these models

implement quasi-Monte Carlo sampling technique to generate realizations of

random variables. The results of these models reveal that deck unseating is a

brittle failure mode and can be treated as a binary data of failed and survived

the developed the MCS Static Model is limited to the bridge deck unseating failure

mode. However, the Dynamic and FSI Models can be used to evaluate other failure

modes for retrofitted bridges as illustrated in Chapter 8 and Chapter 9.

It is possible to increase the number of Monte Carlo simulations and also

realizations of hazard intensity measures to a very large number for the MCS

Static Model. However, this approach is not feasible for the Dynamic and FSI

Models due to the limitation on the computational power. Thus, surrogate models

are required to be constructed over the result of different models. After

construction, these surrogate models can provide deck unseating failure probability

for the any hazard intensity measure; even if no simulation result exists. Also, the

accuracy of the different structural analysis methods can be compared with each

other more holistically over the large number of hazard intensity measures

combinations by utilizing the developed surrogate models. Next chapter introduces

appropriate surrogate models for coastal bridges reliability assessment and compare

120

Chapter 7

Reliability Assessment of Coastal

Bridges: Surrogate Models

In this chapter, statistical learning techniques are applied to the outcome of

different structural models to develop surrogate models of bridge reliability under

hurricane storm surge and wave loading and thereby derive bridge fragility

surfaces. The representation of the three different structural analysis models output

that have been presented in the previous chapter in a mathematical form is

necessary in order to compare them together. Additionally, the developed surrogate

models can be used to interpolate the probabilities of failure at any point that

there is no simulation result. Different surrogate models that are appropriate for

with each other through goodness-of-fit measures. Also, the performance and

accuracy of different structural analysis methodologies are compared with each

other.

7.1. Appropriate Reliability Surrogate Models for Bridge Deck

In document BATTERY POWER LINE II (página 25-41)

Documento similar