190 likes | 213 Views
Smart Structural Systems vs. Reliability and Robustness. Fabio CASCIATI, Lucia Faravelli University of Pavia, Italy Sara Casciati University of Catania at Syracuse, Italy. Outline. Large structures Devices and smartness Design constraints Building a numerical model Optimization?
E N D
Smart Structural Systems vs. Reliability and Robustness Fabio CASCIATI, Lucia Faravelli University of Pavia, Italy Sara Casciati University of Catania at Syracuse, Italy
Outline • Large structures • Devices and smartness • Design constraints • Building a numerical model • Optimization? • Conclusions Smart Structural Systems
2 pairs of cables 2 road decks Rail deck Crossbeams Large structures Smart Structural Systems
The Deck: innovative conception & demanding optimization Feasibility study 1986 Deck unit weight: 38,0 t/m all superstructures: 624,000 t 1990 design Deck unit weight: 22,6 t/m all superstructures: 458,000 t 1992 - 2002 design Deck unit weight: 18,5 t/m all superstructures: 344,000 t Smart Structural Systems
Towers and navigation channel Tower height: 383 m Navigation clearance 65 x 600 m Smart Structural Systems
Constructive Stages of the Pylon Smart Structural Systems
Evolution of Natural Periods during the Construction Out-of-plane Active/Hybrid strategies In-plane Passive strategies Smart Structural Systems
Devices & Smartness Smart Structural Systems
Design Constraints • Performance-based design a) Lifetime 200 years b) Return periods: 4000-10000 years SI 2000 years ULS 200 years SLS2 50 years SLS1 • Robustness • Devices obliged to work as passive devices in case of failure of the control. Smart Structural Systems
Building a numerical model • Constraints positive mass and dampers technological constraint, f.i., 0.017 - <0 • Limit States Smart Structural Systems
Limit states • SLE • SLU • Out-of-plane displacement • Device relative displacement • Fatigue Smart Structural Systems
Robustness • Via scenarios of damage: 1 hanger damaged 2 hangers damaged … Smart Structural Systems
Optimization ? • Optimization vs. preliminary design PUT: x design variables C design and construction cost K cost of failure Pfi probability of failure in mode i Irobustness index Smart Structural Systems
Updating after monitoring Smart Structural Systems
Conclusions • The design process is well established, but for some return period values any statistical meaning is lost; • Substructuring is a must: it introduces one of the main component of uncertainty; • Soil-structure and wind-structures interactions represent the other sources of main uncertainty. • Structural control potential is not adequately utilised. THE AUTHORS ARE GRATEFUL TO FABIO GIULIANO FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TMD SLIDES Smart Structural Systems