• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

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

    2021-06-04 10:03:00KhawajaAliHiroshiKatsuchiHitoshiYamada
    Engineering 2021年1期

    Khawaja Ali*, Hiroshi Katsuchi, Hitoshi Yamada

    Department of Civil Engineering, Yokohama National University, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan

    Keywords:Cable-stayed bridge Extradosed bridge Redundancy Stay cable Safety factor Reliability analysis

    ABSTRACT 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.

    1. Introduction

    Structural engineers have always advocated spanning cablestayed bridges (CSBs) over river crossings and straits because of their structural efficiency and aesthetic appeal. The idea of CSBs emerged when suspension bridges were being developed; however,at the beginning of the 19th century,the failures of early CSBs caused this idea to be abandoned temporarily owing to the lack of technical knowledge in dealing with the difficulty of analyzing CSBs and the lack of suitable materials for stay cables. Stay cables were introduced again as supplementary components in the construction of suspension bridges at the end of the 19th century,such as for the Brooklyn Bridge, to increase the bridge stiffness against wind-induced vibration, which highlighted the paramount importance of using stay cables in long-span bridges. The first modern CSB was the Tempul Aqueduct built in the 1920s in Spain by Eduardo Torroja, a pioneer structural engineer [1]. Internationally,the development of CSBs began in the 1970s, but the rapid advancements in computer applications in 1990s proved to be a huge step forward. Bridge engineers started developing a better understanding of modern CSBs. Among other investigations,Lozano-Galant and Paya-Zaforteza [2] performed a detailed analysis of the influence of structural systems and removal of live loads on the behavior of the Tempul Aqueduct to describe the evolution of the design of modern CSBs.

    In addition to the evolution of such bridges, the concept of extradosed bridges (EDBs), invented by Jacques Mathivat [3], has been widely recognized in the construction industry over the past few decades. The first modern EDB in the world was the Odawara Blueway Bridge designed by Kasuga et al. [4,5], a chief engineer in Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co.,Ltd.,Tokyo,Japan,in 1994.Both the CSB and EDB seem to have identical structures because both types of bridges use stay cables to connect the deck with the towers. However, their structural behaviors are different because of their different height-to-span ratios. Many researchers [5-8] have performed analytical studies to compare the structural systems of CSBs and EDBs, and they defined the EDB as an intervenient solution and hybrid bridge structure between CSBs and prestressed concrete bridges (PCBs). In the case of CSBs, a major part of the dead and live loads is carried by the stay cables,whereas a stiff girder without any stay cable carries all dead and live loads in the case of a PCB. Intriguingly, an EDB possesses partial roots from CSBs and PCBs, in which the dead loads are distributed between the stay cables and the girder, and a major part of the live load is carried by the stiff girder. Thus, the redundancy of CSBs and EDBs is largely dependent on the safety of stay cables, which is usually ensured by providing a suitable safety factor.By definition,redundancy is the ability of a structure to redistribute the loads through different paths following the failure of any single component.

    Many international standards for bridge design stipulate different safety factors for the design of stay cables of CSBs.For example,the Japanese specifications for highway bridges[9]suggest a safety factor of 2.5, resulting in a stay stress of 0.4σUTS(where σUTSdenotes the ultimate tensile strength) compared with the safety factor of 2.22 used in the United States and Europe [10]. This means that Japanese regulations stipulate a higher safety factor value for the stay cables of CSBs. To investigate the suitability of the current safety factor of stay cables in Japan, Ali et al. [11] performed a parametric study on the safety factor of a CSB under the fatigue limit state(FLS)and ultimate limit state(ULS)by considering the effects of various loading conditions, and the results showed a promising agreement in the establishment of the current safety factor of stay cables of CSBs in Japan. However, most of the international standards for bridge design have not suggested a suitable safety factor for the stay cables of EDBs. In 1994, Shirono et al. [4] adopted a reduced safety factor of 1.67 against σUTSfor the Odawara Blueway Bridge based on a comparative study of fatigue demand for stay cables of CSBs and EDBs [5,12]. This resulted in a higher allowable stress of 0.6σUTSin cables and more-efficient use of cable materials [13].

    In establishing a safety factor of a cable, the following factors are usually considered: ① ratio of live-to-dead load stress,②occurrence frequency of live load stress, ③effect of the secondary stress, ④stress nonuniformity, ⑤balance with the safety factors of other components, and ⑥damage occurrence resulting from fatigue and corrosion. Recently, the Japanese specifications for the design of stay cables have been revised so that the safety factors are stipulated based on the live-to-dead load ratio [14].According to the new guidelines,the design of stay cables is carried out based on the axial stress in stay cables instead of by defining whether stay cables belong to CSBs or EDBs, and stress ratios of 1.0 and 0.1 yield safety factors of 2.5 and 1.67 for stay cables of CSBs and EDBs,respectively.Thus,it is possible to design each stay cable separately and to set the allowable stress limits for each stay cable individually without declaring the bridge type [13]. Table 1shows the allowable stress limits (and safety factors) stipulated in different standards for the design of stay cables of CSBs and EDBs[14-19].

    Table 1 Allowable stress limits recommended by international standards for stay cables.

    However,there is still a debate concerning the structural redundancies of CSBs and EDBs,especially considering the current safety factors of their stay cables.To what extent the redundant CSBs and EDBs can remain structurally sound under various extreme loading conditions is still unclear. This is because the stay cables of a CSB act as elastic supports for lifting the bridge deck,whereas the stay cables of an EDB are considered as external tendons arranged outside the prestressed concrete girder [12]. Therefore, it is worth comparing various aspects of CSBs and EDBs, including the effects of overloading, fatigue, and corrosion on the demand-to-capacity ratios (DCRs) of stay cables for different safety factors, by using the limit state design method in a parametric manner.

    In the current design practice, the redundancy of cablesupported structures is determined through an experience-based evaluation method by establishing an acceptable safety margin between strength and loading effects[20].However,with an ordinary structural analysis using a deterministic method,it is difficult to clearly understand the behavior of a bridge structure and to precisely examine its safety level in the presence of uncertainties included in the design variables. Moreover, questions often raised in practice are about the current safety factor of stay cables and to what extent the safety factors are adequate in terms of safety and economy. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assess reliability considering all kinds of uncertainties i.e., environmental conditions, variations in live loads, and intrinsic manufacturing uncertainties, such as axial stiffness, self-weight, yield, and ultimate strengths of cables [21]. Many researchers have developed frameworks for performing reliability-based studies on structures to evaluate their current situation and economic life. Czarnecki and Nowak [22] developed a time-variant reliability-based model for the evaluation of steel highway bridges subjected to uniform corrosion by idealizing it as a uniform loss of the surface material of the structural member. Maljaars and Vrouwenvelder [23] used the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method to calculate the failure probability and reliability index of cables containing fractured wires for the fatigue assessment of an existing bridge. Lu et al.[24] presented a framework for system reliability evaluation of in-service CSBs subjected to cable degradation by considering the effects of fatigue damage and corrosion on cables in a parallelseries system. Reliability analysis has become an indispensable approach for evaluating the performance and remaining life of a bridge.

    A comparative study was conducted on a CSB and an EDB to investigate and compare their structural redundancies through the safety assessment of stay cables in a parametric manner under various untoward and damaging conditions. First, threedimensional (3D) finite-element (FE) models of both bridges were developed based on the safety factors of stay cables stipulated in the design guidelines. Thereafter, a multiconstraint optimization technique of unknown load factors was applied to compute the optimal cable forces.Subsequently,static analyses were performed under FLS and ULS to evaluate the structural redundancy of CSBs and EDBs deterministically in terms of the DCRs of stay cables for different safety factors. The effects of overloading, cable loss,and corrosion, as well as their coupling effects, on the safety level of stay cables were also investigated. Finally, the first-order reliability method (FORM) and MC method were employed to assess the structural redundancy in terms of the reliability index of stay cables.The analysis results showed that CSBs and EDBs exhibit different structural redundancies for different safety factors of stay cables under the same loading conditions. A significant increase in structural redundancy was also observed with an incremental increase in the safety factor of stay cables.

    2. Finite-element modeling

    2.1. Cable-stayed bridge

    A 3D FE model of a double-plane CSB with a main span of 460 m and two side spans of 220 m was developed using the MIDAS Civil(MIDAS Information Technology Co., Ltd., Korea) bridge modeling software [25]. The structural configuration of the bridge model is shown in Fig. 1. The longitudinal slope of the bridge floor was designed to be 2%. To facilitate the analysis, the cross section of the girder was simplified as a thin-walled box section with the equivalence of area and inertia of moment. The total width and depth of the steel box girder were 21.75 and 3.5 m, respectively,with four traffic lanes. In addition, two 1.75 m wide pedestrian lanes were considered, as shown in Fig. 2. The number of stay cables of a CSB-Cs was 144, and they were placed at a constant cable spacing of 12 m on the deck level. The ultimate tensile strength of CSB-Cs made of parallel strands was assumed to be 1770 MPa with reference to Japan Industrial Standards Committee(JIS) G3525 [26], and they were arranged in a modified-fan style.These cables acted as an elastic support for the deck; hence, multiple cables increased the number of elastic supports, leading to moderate longitudinal bending in the deck.Moreover,the multiple cables reduced the forces in the stay cables. An H-shaped configuration of the tower was selected with a height of 140 m (pylon:115 m; pier: 25 m). The pylon height was chosen as one quarter of the center span length such that the angles subtended by CSBC1 and CSB-C36 should be greater than 25° with respect to the bridge longitudinal axis to prevent the stay cables from being ineffective. In addition, it was assumed that the CSB-Cs were selfanchored to the bridge deck. Regarding the bridge connections and boundary conditions,the bridge girder was supported by roller supports on both sides,enabling the longitudinal movement of the bridge model, whereas the pier foundation was assumed to be fixed. Furthermore, elastomeric rubber bearings were simulated as elastic links to connect the bridge girder with the lower transverse beams. The girder and the towers were modeled as elastic beam elements, whereas stay cables were modeled as truss elements (tension only). A fishbone modeling technique was implemented to connect the stay cables with the deck spine through rigid links.

    2.2. Extradosed bridge

    Similar to the CSB,a 3D FE model of a 408 m long double-plane EDB was developed by using MIDAS Civil [25]. The center span length was 208 m, and the two side spans were each 100 m long.The structural configuration is shown in Fig. 3. The total width and depth of the prestressed concrete box girder were 21.75 and 4.5 m, respectively, with four traffic lanes, as shown in Fig. 2. The EDB model was also cambered linearly by a longitudinal slope of 2%. The bridge girder was supported by the piers and by a system of stay cables of an extradosed bridge (EDB-Cs). The anchorage points of the EDB-Cs at the deck level are located at intervals of 5 and 6 m on the side and center spans, respectively. In addition,the ultimate tensile strength of EDB-Cs (made up of parallel wire strands) was assumed to be 2000 MPa with reference to JIS G3525 [26]. The height of the concrete tower was 40 m (pylon:22 m; pier: 18 m) because the pylon height was chosen as one ninth to one tenth of the center span length in the case of the EDB.The concrete girder and towers were modeled as elastic beam elements,whereas the stay cables were modeled as truss elements.A fixed and monolithic connection was assumed between the towers and girder because the stress range resulting from the live load in the EDB-Cs was influenced by the girder stiffness and fixity of the support on the piers. When a girder is stiff, the stress range in the cables caused by the live load is small compared with the dead loads.To reduce the magnitude of this stress range,the girder of the EDB was fixed at the piers.The fixity of the girder,both at the side span supports and on the main piers,has a significant effect on the bending moment in a girder and on the stress range in cables resulting from the live load. This is because the live load on an EDB is shared between the stay cables and the girder. Fixing the girder at the piers makes it possible for the bridge to resist a live load, causing a shift in the bending moment of the loaded span from positive to negative moment regions, where the moment is distributed into the piers. Moreover, fixing the girder decreases the displacements, especially in the spans adjacent to the applied load [8].

    2.3. Design considerations for CSB and EDB

    For the design of the CSB and EDB, dead and live loads were referred to the Japanese specifications for highway bridges [9].The material and sectional properties of the bridge components are shown in Tables 2 and 3,respectively.Tables 4 and 5 represent the design loads used for both bridges. Dead loads (including the self-weight of the girder), pavement load, and additional loads were applied uniformly on the entire span of the bridge models.L-type live loads were considered in the structural analysis, consisting of a concentrated live load (S1) of 10 kN·m-2acting over a length of 10 m and a uniformly distributed live load (S2) of 3 kN·m-2imposed over the entire length. Additionally, a pedestrian load of 3 kN·m-2was considered for the design of the girders.EDBs are usually constructed with a concrete box girder ranging from short to medium in span, whereas CSBs are preferably constructed with the steel box girder ranging from a medium to long in span; therefore, the CSB and EDB in this study were designed with different lengths, materials, and sectional properties. However,the loading conditions were assumed to be the same for both bridge models for comparison purposes.

    Fig.1. Configuration of CSB model.A1 and A2 refer to anchorages;P1 and P2 refer to main pylons;Dj and Rj(j=x,y,and z)denote the translational and rotational degrees of freedom, respectively; EL. denotes the elevation.

    Fig. 2. Configuration of traffic lanes.

    Fig. 3. Configuration of EDB model.

    Table 2 Material properties of bridge components.

    Table 3 Sectional properties of bridge components.

    Table 4 Dead loads, pavement loads, and additional loads.

    Table 5 Live loads.

    2.3.1. Stay cables of cable-stayed bridge

    In the case of the CSB, each stay cable was designed under the conditions that the live-to-dead load ratio is 0.45 and the allowable stress is 708 MPa. The multiconstraint optimization technique of unknown load factors was applied to tune the pretension cable forces (PS). This technique is efficient for distributing the moment uniformly along the bridge deck and minimizing the member stresses and deflections [27]. Many iterations were performed to achieve the equilibrium state of the CSB under its own selfweight. Subsequently, the corresponding cross-sectional areas of the CSB-Cs were calculated.In addition,CSB-Cs were designed such that the axial stresses were approximately 50%-60% of the allowable stress under the dead load and were less than the allowable stress under dead and live loads [11].

    2.3.2. Stay cables of extradosed bridge

    The challenge of designing an EDB with a stiff girder lies in proportioning the girder,cables,and substructure to control the stress range in the cables resulting from the live load and to take advantage of the higher allowable stress of low fatigue cables. The EDBCs were designed under the conditions that the live-to-dead load ratio is 0.11 and the allowable stress is 1198 MPa. For calculating the PS of EDB-Cs, the continuous beam method was applied. An iterative procedure was adopted to determine the equilibrium state of the EDB under the action of a dead load, and the crosssectional areas of EDB-Cs were optimized accordingly. An internal prestress force(Pi)was also applied to the prestressed concrete girder in the case of an EDB to ensure that the girder did not crack,minimize the deflection,and resist the bending moments resulting from the long-term effects and live loads [8].

    2.3.3. Nonlinearity effects

    The axial stiffness of stay cables in a CSB is affected by the cable sag, which is greatly influenced by the tension force in the cable.When the tension force increases, the sag effect decreases, and the axial stiffness increases accordingly. A convenient method to account for this variation in axial stiffness is to consider an equivalent truss element with an equivalent modulus of elasticity.Studies have shown that geometric nonlinearity is essential for the nonlinear analysis of CSBs subjected to cable breakage [28,29]. In this study,the geometric nonlinearity effects were considered in the static analyses of both bridges in terms of tension stiffening effects using a reduced or equivalent modulus of elasticity. This approach was first proposed by Ernst [30] to consider the nonlinear behavior of cables, such as:

    where Eeqis the tangential value of the equivalent modulus of elasticity, E is the modulus of elasticity, A is the cross-sectional area of the stay cable, w is the cable weight per unit length, L is the horizontal projected length, and T is the tensile force in the stay cable.For EDBs,the horizontal projected length of stay cables is short,and the tension force T in stay cables under dead load is extremely large; therefore, the modulus of elasticity of EDB-Cs is not significantly affected by sag effects.

    2.4. Static analysis

    Several live load patterns were generated and applied to both bridge models, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The aim was to envisage the effects of pattern loads on the axial stresses of stay cables and to determine the most distressing pattern that causes the maximum axial stress in stay cables. The following load combinations were used in the static analysis of the CSB and EDB.

    where ΣP is the sum of the unfactored axial load, DC is the dead load of components and attachment, DW is the dead load of wearing surface and utility, LL is the live load, IM is the dynamic load allowance, and Piis the internal prestress force. The static analysis results indicate that the effects of pattern load on the axial stress of CSB-Cs are more significant than on EDB-Cs,as shown in Figs.5 and 6,respectively.In the case of the CSB,CSB-C1 shows the maximum and minimum axial stresses under cases 2 and 3 of pattern loads,respectively, whereas cases 2 and 7 cause significant axial stress in stay cables CSB-C25-CSB-C27. A large variation is also observed in axial stress, depending on the locations of the stay cables and pattern loads in the CSB owing to the high flexibility and low damping.Moreover,the live-to-dead load stress ratio(1.25σL/1.05σDP) is estimated to be unity for CSB-C1. However, in the case of the EDB,cases 2 and 7 of the pattern loads yield nearly the same axial stress in the EDB-Cs because the live load, located in the center span,increases the anchorage forces within the back stays,while the live load within the side span decreases the anchorage forces. The maximum live-to-dead load stress ratio is 0.08 for EDB-C12. To simplify this problem, only case 2 of pattern loads was selected in this study to investigate the structural redundancy of both bridges.

    3. Assessment of safety factor of stay cables

    3.1. Fatigue limit state

    For the fatigue assessment of stay cables, moving load analysis was performed under the fatigue design load (T-load: 200 kN)applied to the FE models of the CSB and EDB.Thereafter,the influence line diagrams (ILDs) of the internal axial force in the stay cables were drawn using the Breslau-Muller principle, and the maximum and minimum design variables were estimated for each stay cable.Subsequently,the cable reversal stress and design stress range (Δσd) values were computed by applying cyclic loading of constant amplitude and fully reversed nature according to the guidelines of fatigue design recommendations for steel structures[31]. Finally, the high cycle fatigue of a stay cable, based on the equivalent stress range theory, was assessed by satisfying the following relationship.

    where γ is the safety factor equal to 1.0 based on the redundancy and importance of the structure,Δσdis the design stress range(also known as the ‘‘maximum stress range”), and ΔσRis the allowable stress range, which is simply calculated by multiplying the basic allowable stress range(ΔσCE)with a correction factor(CR)for mean stress, such as:

    Fig. 5. Axial stresses in CSB-Cs under pattern loads.

    Fig. 6. Axial stresses in EDB-Cs under pattern loads.

    In Eq. (4), the cutoff limit or basic allowable stress range is referred to the recommendations for stay cable design, testing,and installation[17],i.e.,159 and 140 MPa for the stay cables of the CSB and EDB, respectively, in accordance with two million load cycles. The correction factor for mean stress is computed on the basis of the stress ratio (R), which is the ratio of the minimum to maximum stress experienced during a load cycle, as follows:

    The ILDs of axial forces in CSB-C1 and EDB-C1 are shown in Fig.7,which indicates that CSB-C1 yields a larger area of ILD compared with EDB-C1 under the same fatigue loading condition.This shows that the effects of fatigue loads are significant and very small on CSB-C1 and EDB-C1, respectively. However, this trend may vary for other sets of CSB-Cs and EDB-Cs. Additionally, the effects of fatigue loads on each stay cable of the CSB and EDB are illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. In case of the CSB, CSBC17 shows the maximum DCR, and a significant variation is observed in the DCRs of stay cables along the bridge length owing to the variable axial stresses. Moreover, the DCRs of CSB-Cs were less than unity at a current safety factor of 2.5, and these values increased linearly when the safety factor was reduced from 2.5 to 2.0. For instance, CSB-C17 exhibited DCRs of 0.81 and 1.01 at safety factors of 2.5 and 2.0,respectively.The minimum safety factor needed to achieve a DCR of less than unity is 2.1. This means that the safety factors in the range of 2.1 to 2.5 are reasonably safe for CSB-Cs under the FLS to achieve the desired structural redundancy. However, the EDB-Cs possess low fatigue characteristics and show DCRs less than unity, even at a safety factor of 1.6, as illustrated in Fig. 9. This can be attributed to the high rigidity of the EDB.Moreover,all stay cables depict almost the same magnitude of DCRs irrespective of their locations with respect to tower-deck connection. These results ensure the adequacy of the current safety factor of 1.67 for EDB,which provides enough structural redundancy to maintain stability under the effect of fatigue loads.

    3.2. Ultimate limit state

    The ULS check for stay cables must be performed after the preliminary design and after having been checked under the FLS.Therefore, Eq. (6) must be verified [31].

    where γiis the structural importance factor equal to 1.0, Nrdis the design resistance of the stay cable,and Nuis the ultimate axial load.The design resistance of stay cables is calculated by multiplying the material yield strength with the cross-sectional area, whereas the ultimate axial loads on the CSB-Cs and EDB-Cs are calculated by using the load combinations mentioned in Eqs. (7a) and (7b) in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [32]. A load factor of k is adopted for live loads, simulating the effects of bridge overloading. Furthermore, PS and Piare not factored with the same coefficient of dead load in the case of the EDB, which is more reasonable for bridges with a rigid deck [8].

    Fig. 7. ILDs of axial forces in CSB-C1 and EDB-C1.

    Fig. 8. Effects of fatigue on DCRs of CSB-Cs. SF: safety factor.

    Fig. 9. Effects of fatigue on DCRs of EDB-Cs.

    3.2.1. Effect of overloading

    To study the effects of ultimate loads on a bridge structure,AASHTO[32]stipulates a live load factor(k)of 1.75 in the strength I load combination of the limit state,whereas the Japan Prestressed Concrete Institute[33]recommends a k of 2.5 for the calculation of ultimate collapse loads. Thus, in this study, k was selected in the range of 1.75 to 2.5, i.e., k1= 1.75, k2= 1.9, k3= 2.0, k4= 2.2, and k5= 2.5, for the examination of the structural redundancy of both bridges against ultimate loads. Fig. 10(a) shows that the DCRs of CSB-Cs are less than unity under k1at a safety factor of 2.5,whereas the DCR of CSB-C1 approaches unity at less than k5,which means that the current safety factor yields sufficient redundancy for all CSB-Cs under k1-k4. Similarly, the DCRs of CSB-Cs are less than unity with a small margin at a safety factor of 2.2 under k1;however, the DCR of CSB-C1 approaches unity under k3, which indicates that a safety factor of 2.2 is marginally safe with low redundancy for all CSB-Cs under k1and k2, as shown in Fig. 10(d).In the case of the EDB, the DCRs of EDB-Cs are less than unity at a current safety factor of 1.67 under k1, whereas the stay cables EDB-C12-EDB-C16 exceed the ultimate limit under k2-k5, as shown in Fig. 11(a). This indicates that the current safety factor is safe under a normal live load factor of k1; however, this safety factor should be increased in the case of overloading to avoid any cable failure.

    3.2.2. Effect of cable loss

    From the design viewpoint of long-span cable-supported bridges,the Post-Tensioning Institute(PTI)recommendations suggest two load application methods to quantify the dynamic effects of cable loss: One is the pseudodynamic method, in which the equivalent static analysis is performed with a pair of impact pseudodynamic forces,resulting from 2.0 times the static forces applied at the top and bottom anchorage locations of the ruptured cable,and the other is nonlinear dynamic analysis,in which the dynamic cable forces caused by cable breakage are applied [17]. Many researchers have implemented both methods to investigate the effect of a single cable loss on the local and global stability and safety of a CSB to develop a better understanding of how to make structures more redundant or collapse resistant[28,34-36].Mozos and Aparicio[37,38]conducted a parametric study on the dynamic response of CSBs subjected to the sudden failure of a cable. Ten CSBs with various layouts of stay and cable patterns were studied by conducting both dynamic and simplified static analyses. In addition,what happens to adjacent cables when a cable or multiple cables are lost because of any unexpected event, such as a fire accident or vehicle collision, has been the focus of discussion among bridge engineers[39].The breakage of a cable creates a sudden force on the anchorage points with which the cable is attached.This impact force is basically the cable force multiplied by a cable loss dynamic impact factor and is applied to both anchorage points in the opposite direction to the cable force, as stipulated in PTI guidelines. This factor depends on the location of the ruptured cable and the type of state variable being examined. In this study,a pseudodynamic method was adopted to investigate the influence of a single- or multiple-cable loss on the DCRs of stay cables of CSBs and EDBs. For this purpose, the longest stay cables, whose breakage can induce a significant axial stress in the adjacent cables,were selected in both bridges. The demonstration of cable loss impact force application is illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13 for a CSB and an EDB, respectively.

    Fig. 10. Effects of overloading on DCRs of CSB-Cs. (a) Safety factor of 2.5; (b) safety factor of 2.4; (c) safety factor of 2.3; (d) safety factor of 2.2.

    Fig. 11. Effects of overloading on DCRs of EDB-Cs. (a) Safety factor of 1.67; (b) safety factor of 1.75.

    Fig. 12. Demonstration of cable loss impact force of CSB-C1 in CSB model.

    Fig. 13. Demonstration of cable loss impact force of EDB-C1 in EDB model.

    Static analyses were performed for different cable loss configurations of both bridges.Fig.14 compares the DCRs of CSB-Cs with and without the sudden loss of single-and multiple-stay cables for different safety factors. Fig.14(a)shows that the maximum DCR(0.88) of CSB-C1 is less than unity in the case of the loss of two cables (CSBC35 and CSB-C36) for the current safety factor. Similarly, the loss of a single cable (CSB-C36) on the main span side gives rise to a DCR of 0.86, less than unity, for CSB-C1 on the left-span side. As a corollary, a single-cable-loss event does not affect the safety of the CSB as much as a multiple-cable-loss event does. The loss of multiple cables on the main span side causes a high stress distribution in the back stays and vice versa, and the stress of any stay cable may exceed the allowable limit, causing the failure of more stay cables.This multiple-cable-loss event can also trigger a zipper-type collapse,also known as the ‘‘progressive collapse,” of the entire CSB. Fig. 14 also shows that,with the decrease in the safety factor of CSB-C1 from 2.5 to 2.2,the DCR increased linearly and reached the ultimate limit in the case of the loss of two cables(CSB-C35 and CSB-C36)at a safety factor of 2.2.This means that the safety factors of 2.5 and 2.3 are reasonably and marginally safe, respectively, for CSB-C1 to meet the requirements of the ULS.Fig.15(a)shows that the loss of two cables(EDB-C1 and CSB-C2)on the left-span side of the EDB yields a DCR of 1.04, greater than unity, showing a failure condition. This demonstrates that a safety factor of 1.67 yields sufficient redundancy only in the case of an intact state of the bridge; however, it should be increased in the case of an extreme damaging condition to enhance the redundancy of the EDB under the ULS. The results of the effects of cable loss at a safety factor of 1.75 are shown for the EDB in Fig. 15(b).

    3.2.3. Effect of corrosion

    The assessment of the safety of stay cables must also be quantified considering the effects of corrosion on the remaining strength of bridge cables in addition to their fatigue and ultimate capacities for lifetime safety evaluation of in-service CSBs.The loss of material decreases the geometric parameters, such as the moment of inertia and radius of gyration, resulting in a smaller net cross section that may increase the stress level for any given load or increase the stress range for a cycling loading, thus affecting fatigue resistance. The effects of corrosion, in addition to fatigue and overloading, on the safety of structures have been widely discussed in literature. Deng et al. [40] presented a simple uniform corrosion fatigue design method for bridge components by considering the coupled corrosion-overloading effects.It covers the individual effects caused by pure overloading, pure corrosion,and the corrosion-overloading interaction. Jiang et al. [41] proposed a general framework to estimate the corrosion fatigue life of stay cables under the combined action of random traffic and wind and showed that the coupled effects of corrosion and fatigue greatly reduce the lifetime of cable wires. This affects the overall bridge service life under certain corrosion rates.

    In this study, a simple corrosion model was adopted by introducing a uniform corrosion of 10% throughout the cable length as a change in the cable area in reference to previous research[22,40,42,43]. The effective modulus of elasticity (Eeff) of the corroded cable was determined to be Eeff= (ˉA/A)E, where ˉA denotes the cross-sectional area of corroded cable defined as the difference between the gross cross-sectional area (A) and impaired area (A*)of the cable resulting from corrosion, i.e., ˉA=A-A*. The effect of 10% corrosion and the coupled effects of 10% corrosion and cable loss on the DCRs of CSB-C1 and EDB-C1 were examined, and the results are presented in Fig. 16, focusing on the following two scenarios.

    Fig. 14. Effects of cable loss on DCRs of CSB-Cs. (a) Safety factor of 2.5; (b) safety factor of 2.4; (c) safety factor of 2.3; (d) safety factor of 2.2.

    Fig. 15. Effects of cable loss on DCRs of EDB-Cs. (a) Safety factor of 1.67; (b) safety factor of 1.75.

    Fig.16. Coupled effects of corrosion and cable loss on DCRs of CSB-C1 and EDB-C1.

    Scenario 1: When CSB-C1 and EDB-C1 are rusted by 10% uniform corrosion with no cable loss. In this scenario, the DCR of CSB-C1 is less than unity at a safety factor of 2.3, which indicates that a safety factor of 2.3 or more generates a reasonable redundancy. However, the DCR of EDB-C1 is greater than unity, even at a safety factor of 1.67, which indicates that a higher safety factor is required for EDB-Cs under extreme damaging conditions.

    Scenario 2: When CSB-C1 and EDB-C1 are rusted by 10% uniform corrosion,and CSB-C36 and EDB-C22 are also lost.In this scenario,the DCR of CSB-C1 is estimated to be greater than unity at a safety factor of 2.3 and unity at 2.4.In fact,the DCR of CSB-C1 has a small safety margin of 2.5 under the coupled effects of corrosion and cable loss. This indicates the adequacy of the current safety factor for the safe design of a CSB with high redundancy.However,in the case of the EDB, the effects of a single cable loss in addition to corrosion are not as significant because of its high rigidity, as shown in Fig. 16.

    3.3. Reliability analysis

    In the investigation of the structural redundancy of a CSB and EDB based on a deterministic approach, it was assumed that all loads and mechanical and material factors involved in the structural behavior are known. In fact, these factors involve many uncertain quantities,such as material characteristics and load variations. Thus, a nondeterministic approach is inevitable for the examination of the structural redundancy of a CSB and EDB through a safety assessment of stay cables in a reliable manner.In this study, a load-resistance-based reliability model was adopted for the reliability analysis of stay cables under the FLS and ULS, in which load effects and resistances were assumed to be linear,uncorrelated,and normally distributed random variables.First, safety factors were used as an input to derive the working stress of the stay cables as a function of the fatigue and ultimate tensile strengths of the strands. Next, the fatigue and ultimate capacities were evaluated in terms of the working stress,and they were further used to investigate the probability distributions of the fatigue and ultimate capacities of the stay cables. However, the fatigue and ultimate demands for stay cables were derived based on the fatigue and ultimate design loads on the CSB and EDB,respectively.

    A population of one million samples of loads and resistances was generated at random with the help of the MC sampling technique by using the programming language software MATLAB[44]. The required number of samples (N) to achieve a 95% confidence level and Pf= 1 × 10-4was estimated to be 50 000 with a minimum sample size of 170 under the condition that the standard error of the mean of sample means is within±5%.The distribution of sample means followed a normal distribution according to the central limit theorem,which states that the distribution of sample means approximates a normal distribution as the sample size becomes larger.The statistical parameters for the random variables of loads and resistances are quoted from previous research[45-47]and listed in Table 6.

    To calculate the reliability index and failure probability (Pf) of the stay cables, the FORM and the MC method were applied. In the former, a linear limit state function was formulated with the help of two random variables (C: capacity; D: demand) under the FLS and ULS, and the safety margin (Z) was evaluated. Subsequently, the reliability index (β) was determined through a coupling equation that relates demand and capacity probabilistically using the mean (μ) and variance (σ) of C and D.

    Table 6 Statistical properties of random variables for stay cables.

    where g (·) is termed the limit state function, Nfis the number of samples that failed to satisfy the limit state, and N is the number of samples under consideration related to the desired accuracy for Pf. The reliability index of a structure is estimated from Pf, which indicates that the resistance exceeds the load effect.

    where Φ-1(·) represents the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution function.

    To verify the safety of structures,the United States Army Corps of Engineers recommended that the estimated reliability indices should minimally be ①the lower value of the target reliability index (βt,l) of 3 for above-average performance and/or ②equal to the upper value of the target reliability index (βt,u) of 4 for good performance[32,48].Table 7 shows the outcomes of the reliability analyses for CSB-C1 and CSB-C17 based on the FORM and the MC method under the ULS and FLS,respectively.The failure probability increased when the safety factor of the stay cables decreased from 2.5 to 2.1, and the reliability index decreased accordingly. For instance, the reliability indices of CSB-C1 and CSB-C17 estimated by the FORM in the vector forms are [25.04, 19.33, 13.56, 7.74,1.87]and[15.87,12.57,9.27,5.96,2.64]under ULS and FLS,respectively, at safety factors of[2.5,2.4,2.3,2.2,2.1].However,the reliability indices computed by using the MC method are mathematically infinite at a safety factor of 2.2 or more owing to the high safety margin. These results highlight the adequacy of a safety factor of 2.2,which yields a reliability index greater than βt,ufor CSB-C1 and CSB-C17.

    To further investigate how redundant the entire CSB can be at a safety factor of 2.2, the reliability indices of all CSB-Cs along the bridge length were determined under the ULS and FLS, and the results are plotted in Fig.17(a).A significant variation in the reliability indices of CSB-Cs along the CSB occurred owing to the high flexibility.A safety factor of 2.2 or above was found to be necessary to achieve the desired structural redundancy under the FLS and ULS for the entire CSB stay system. Furthermore, Fig. 17(a) illustrates that the longer stay cables were not as sensitive to fatigue loads as to ultimate loads. Nevertheless, the reliability index of CSB-C36 was greater than that of CSB-C1 under the ULS,as shown in Fig. 17(a). This can be attributed to case 2 of the pattern loads,which induced more stress in CSB-C1 than in CSB-C36, causing a reduction in the reliability index of CSB-C1. Moreover, the fatigue effects were more critical for CSB-Cs located near the deck-tower connection in the CSB.

    In the EDB case, two representative cables were selected (EDBC11 and EDB-C12) because these two cables undergo maximum live-to-dead load stress ratios. The reliability analysis results of these cables highlight the adequacy of the current safety factor of 1.67, yielding a reliability index greater than βt,u, as shown in Table 8.However,a safety factor lower than 1.67 yields a negative reliability index exceeding the ULS. For instance, the reliability indices of the stay cables EDB-C12 and EDB-C11 in the vector forms are[-7.4,4.12,17.16]and[3.09,6.08,9.58]under the ULS and FLS,respectively,at safety factors of[1.6,1.67,1.75].Similar to the CSBCs,the reliability index of the EDB-Cs along the EDB were also computed under the FLS and ULS, and the results are shown in Fig. 17(b), which reveals that a current safety factor of 1.67 yields reliability indices greater than βt,ufor the entire stay system of the EDB. Furthermore, EDB-Cs are more influenced by ultimate loads than by fatigue loads, and no significant variation was observed in the reliability indices of EDB-Cs along the EDB under the FLS owing to its high rigidity and redundancy. This is also because the stay cables of the EDB were considered as low fatigue extradosed cables.

    4. Conclusions

    The structural redundancies of a CSB and an EDB were compared through the safety assessment of stay cables under various loading conditions. Simplified FE models of both bridges were developed, and static analyses were performed. The redundancy was evaluated parametrically in terms of the DCR and reliability index by employing deterministic and nondeterministic approaches, respectively. The primary goal of this study was to describe the structural disparities between a CSB and an EDB and to verify their structural redundancies under the FLS and ULS.This goal was achieved through a parametric study of the safety factor of the stay cables of both bridges.Additionally,the effects of overloading, cable loss, and corrosion on the structural redundancy of both bridges were investigated in this study.The following conclusions were drawn based on the results of this research.

    (1)The maximum effect of a single cable loss on the DCR of CSBCs occurs when the outermost cable of the bridge breaks,while the loss of two cables may have a significant effect on the DCR of CSBCs when a pair of stay cables breaks near the center the main span.

    (2)The CSB is sufficiently redundant at a current safety factor of 2.5 under the FLS and ULS. Moreover, a safety factor of 2.2 yields minimum structural redundancy for a CSB under normal loading conditions; however, a CSB can lose its redundancy significantly at 2.2 in the case of an unexpected rupture/collapse of a stay cable.Therefore, a safety factor of 2.3 is essential to achieve the desired level of structural redundancy for CSBs.

    (3)In the case of low fatigue EDB-Cs,the current safety factor of 1.67 yields a reasonably high redundancy under normal loading conditions. Nevertheless, this safety factor may not be sufficientto acquire enough structural redundancy for the entire stay system of an EDB in the case of an extreme damaging condition;therefore,a higher safety factor of EDB-Cs is indispensable for EDBs.

    Table 7 Reliability analysis of CSB-C1 and CSB-C17 under ULS and FLS.

    Fig. 17. Reliability analysis results by FORM under FLS and ULS. (a) CSB-Cs; (b) EDB-Cs.

    Table 8 Reliability analysis of EDB-C12 and EDB-C11 under ULS and FLS.

    (4) For a small change in the safety factor, the ultimate strengths of stay cables become more critical than their fatigue strengths. In particular, longer stay cables are extremely sensitive to this change in safety factors and loading conditions under the ULS.Thus,a significant increase in the reliability index occurs with an incremental increase in the safety factor of the stay cables of both bridges.

    In this study, the cable loss was modeled as a static problem instead of a dynamic problem;therefore,an extension of this study is planned by incorporating the nonlinear dynamic-analysis-based cable loss model, which should provide more-comprehensive insights into the assessment of the structural redundancy of CSBs and EDBs.

    Acknowledgements

    This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan(Monbukagakusho (MEXT)).

    Compliance with ethics guidelines

    Khawaja Ali,Hiroshi Katsuchi,and Hitoshi Yamada declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financial conflicts to disclose.

    露出奶头的视频| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 亚洲五月天丁香| 日日撸夜夜添| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验 | 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 男人舔奶头视频| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 一级毛片我不卡| or卡值多少钱| 久久这里只有精品中国| .国产精品久久| 男女那种视频在线观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 看免费成人av毛片| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 免费看日本二区| 午夜精品在线福利| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 精品午夜福利在线看| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 欧美3d第一页| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 露出奶头的视频| 午夜a级毛片| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 99久国产av精品| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 久久久久久伊人网av| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 97碰自拍视频| av中文乱码字幕在线| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 久久精品91蜜桃| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 色av中文字幕| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 美女高潮的动态| 日本黄色片子视频| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 天堂√8在线中文| 亚洲av.av天堂| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 最好的美女福利视频网| av在线蜜桃| 22中文网久久字幕| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久久久国产网址| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 午夜视频国产福利| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 日韩强制内射视频| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 国产av在哪里看| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| av黄色大香蕉| 免费看日本二区| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 精品久久久久久成人av| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 中文字幕久久专区| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 看免费成人av毛片| 欧美日本视频| 小说图片视频综合网站| av天堂在线播放| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 69人妻影院| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 有码 亚洲区| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| av卡一久久| 一区福利在线观看| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 永久网站在线| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| av在线亚洲专区| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 久久九九热精品免费| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 悠悠久久av| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 在线天堂最新版资源| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 日韩成人伦理影院| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产老妇女一区| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 熟女电影av网| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 国产av在哪里看| 国产不卡一卡二| 日日啪夜夜撸| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 精品国产三级普通话版| av免费在线看不卡| 变态另类丝袜制服| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 久久久久久大精品| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 一夜夜www| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 18+在线观看网站| 九九在线视频观看精品| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 亚洲av美国av| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 免费av观看视频| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 日日撸夜夜添| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 一级黄片播放器| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 日本成人三级电影网站| 在线a可以看的网站| av福利片在线观看| 三级经典国产精品| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 草草在线视频免费看| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 一进一出抽搐动态| 美女高潮的动态| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 看免费成人av毛片| 亚洲色图av天堂| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 黑人高潮一二区| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 日本黄大片高清| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 亚洲av成人av| 国产精品久久视频播放| 如何舔出高潮| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| av福利片在线观看| 最好的美女福利视频网| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 成人av在线播放网站| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 精品久久久久久成人av| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 国产综合懂色| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| h日本视频在线播放| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 亚洲av熟女| 性色avwww在线观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 校园春色视频在线观看| 级片在线观看| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 三级经典国产精品| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 国内精品宾馆在线| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 日本三级黄在线观看| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 国产免费男女视频| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 悠悠久久av| 美女免费视频网站| 有码 亚洲区| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 国产一区二区三区av在线 | 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 99热6这里只有精品| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 免费观看人在逋| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 色综合色国产| 日本 av在线| 日本成人三级电影网站| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 免费av毛片视频| 男人舔奶头视频| 久久久久久久久大av| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 久99久视频精品免费| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 大香蕉久久网| 久久精品人妻少妇| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 国产高清激情床上av| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品 | 一级黄色大片毛片| 国产三级在线视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 乱人视频在线观看| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| av福利片在线观看| 午夜影院日韩av| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 精品久久久久久成人av| av在线亚洲专区| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 97碰自拍视频| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 久久精品91蜜桃| 草草在线视频免费看| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 精品福利观看| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 国产av不卡久久| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 三级毛片av免费| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 99热全是精品| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 日本黄大片高清| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 亚洲18禁久久av| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 97热精品久久久久久| 天堂网av新在线| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 欧美区成人在线视频| 国产av不卡久久| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 日本一本二区三区精品| av中文乱码字幕在线| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 老司机影院成人| 内射极品少妇av片p| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 久久久欧美国产精品| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 色哟哟·www| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 国产色婷婷99| 美女免费视频网站| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 91在线观看av| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 韩国av在线不卡| 国产黄片美女视频| 亚洲无线在线观看| 国产精品永久免费网站| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 插逼视频在线观看| 亚洲av一区综合| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 一a级毛片在线观看| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 春色校园在线视频观看| 久久久久久久久中文| 亚洲av.av天堂| 免费看日本二区| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 一a级毛片在线观看| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 欧美性感艳星| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 在线观看一区二区三区| 春色校园在线视频观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 在线观看66精品国产| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 22中文网久久字幕| 一本久久中文字幕| 搞女人的毛片| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 身体一侧抽搐| av卡一久久| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 十八禁网站免费在线| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| av在线观看视频网站免费| 午夜精品在线福利| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 日韩欧美免费精品| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 91av网一区二区| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 久久久久久久久中文| 亚洲18禁久久av| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 男人舔奶头视频| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 国产日本99.免费观看| 免费看光身美女| 日韩强制内射视频| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 久久久精品94久久精品| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 午夜a级毛片| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 最好的美女福利视频网| 久久久国产成人免费| 黄色日韩在线| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 欧美人与善性xxx| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品 | 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 老司机福利观看| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 日本欧美国产在线视频| 三级经典国产精品| 夜夜爽天天搞| 日本熟妇午夜| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 色吧在线观看| 级片在线观看| 日日撸夜夜添| av黄色大香蕉| 美女黄网站色视频| 级片在线观看| 香蕉av资源在线| 老女人水多毛片| 一区福利在线观看| 极品教师在线视频| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| aaaaa片日本免费| 嫩草影视91久久| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 欧美zozozo另类| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 嫩草影院精品99| 91在线观看av| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 国产高清三级在线| 免费高清视频大片| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 嫩草影视91久久| aaaaa片日本免费| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 日日啪夜夜撸| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 91精品国产九色| eeuss影院久久| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 草草在线视频免费看| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 国产成人aa在线观看| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 久99久视频精品免费| 久久精品人妻少妇| 国产视频内射| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 极品教师在线视频| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 午夜免费激情av| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 热99re8久久精品国产| 国产三级在线视频| 如何舔出高潮| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| av在线天堂中文字幕| 日本熟妇午夜| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 日本黄大片高清| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 春色校园在线视频观看| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 成年免费大片在线观看| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| av视频在线观看入口| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 午夜福利高清视频| 久久久久性生活片| 国产 一区精品| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 久久精品影院6| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 久久九九热精品免费| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 亚洲av成人av| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放|