摘要
选择了现行国内外主要抗震设计规范,对比了国内外主要抗震设计规范的场地类型划分的差异;考虑地震的重现期与结构的重要性系数等因素,对比分析了我国不同行业抗震规范与《铁路工程抗震设计规范》2009年修正版在多遇地震(小震)、设防烈度地震(中震)和罕遇地震(大震)下各规范反应谱平台取值以及反应谱曲线本身。研究表明我国高铁大跨桥梁在小震的设计取值偏高,中震取值与国内其它规范相当,而大震的取值则偏低。我国高铁大跨桥梁的设计地震作用与欧洲规范Eurocode 8的对比研究表明,我国的小震(50年重现期)取值小于欧洲规范(90年重现期)、中震(475年重现期)取值也小于欧洲规范(475年重现期)的相应取值。与美国AASHTO规范和加州规范Caltrans(2013)对比研究表明,由于我国规范采用了1.5的重要性系数,小震取值(50年重现期)远高于美国规范的50年重现期的设计地震水平,而与其475年重现期地震水平相当;中震水平(475年重现期)的加速度反应谱平台值略低于Caltrans(975年重现期),但是略高于AASHTO(1000年重现期),我国反应谱曲线与Caltrans大致相当,但是高于AASHTO;对于大震(2475年重现期),AASHTO(2475年重现期)的地震作用取值介于我国的7度(0.1 g)设防与8度(0.2 g)设防之间。总体来说,我国的高铁大跨桥梁的设计地震作用取值偏于保守。
Based on the selected codes for aseismic design in China and foreign countries,the differences on the classification of the site soil were compared. Considering the factors,such as,return period of earthquake and importance coefficients of structures,the acceleration platforms and the curves of the response spectra with different earthquake levels,such as frequently occurred earthquake（ FOE）,designed fortification earthquake（ DE） and rarely occurred earthquake（ ROE） in the main aseismic design codes of China were compared with those in the Code for Seismic Design of Railway Engineering（ GB50111-2006,2009 Version）. It was shown that the design earthquake actions at the level of FOE for long-span bridges in high-speed rail are conservatively higher than those in other seismic design codes; the seismic actions at the level of DE are similar to those in the other seismic design codes of China,while at the level of ROE,the seismic actions are relatively lower. Comparison analysis for the seismic actions for long-span bridges in highspeed rail between the code GB50111-2006,2009 Version and the Eurocode 8 showed that the FOE actions in China（ 50 years return period） are lower than those in the Eurocode 8（ 90 years return period）,and the DE actions（ both 475 years of return period） are also lower. Comparing the seismic actions coded in AASHTO and Caltrans with those in the code（ GB50111-2006,2009 Version） showed that the FOE actions（ 50 years of return period） of China are much higher than those of AASHTO and Caltrans,due to the adoption of 1. 5 as the importance coefficient of structures; the maximum acceleration values of the response spectra for the DE level of China（ 475 years of return period） are slightly lower thanthose of Caltrans（ 975 years return period）,but slightly higher than those of AASHTO（ 1000 years return period）; the curves of response spectra of China are similar to those of Caltrans,but a little higher than those of AASHTO; at the level of ROE（ 2475 y
出处
《振动与冲击》
EI
CSCD
北大核心
2016年第4期72-80,共9页
Journal of Vibration and Shock
基金
国家自然科学基金委员会-中国铁路总公司高速铁路基础研究联合基金(U1434210)
中国铁路总公司科技研究开发计划重大课题(2013G002-A-3)
关键词
桥梁
抗震设计规范
地震作用
加速度反应谱
地震重现期
bridge
seismic design code
earthquake action
acceleration response spectrum
return period of earthquake
