铁道标准设计
鐵道標準設計
철도표준설계
RAILWAY STANDARD DESIGN
2015年
2期
65-68
,共4页
连续梁桥%摩擦摆支座%减隔震方案%非线性%地震反应
連續樑橋%摩抆襬支座%減隔震方案%非線性%地震反應
련속량교%마찰파지좌%감격진방안%비선성%지진반응
Continuous girder bridge%FPB%Isolation schemes%Nonlinear%Seismic response
以1座(90+170+90)m城市大跨度连续梁桥为研究对象，提出并比较分析两种减隔震设计方案。采用弹性反应谱法及非线性时程反应分析方法研究E1及E2地震作用下结构的地震反应，针对两种方案比较摩擦摆支座的力学参数取值及结构地震反应的差异。结果表明：(1)对于大跨连续梁桥，由于纵桥向一联内仅设置一个制动墩，地震内力分布极不均匀；但横桥向结构内力分布较均匀，各墩联合共同受力；(2)采用摩擦摆支座， E2作用下各墩墩底截面纵、横向内力减震效果显著且各墩的内力分布趋于均匀，分布更加合理；(3)采用摩擦摆支座， E2作用下减隔震后的墩底内力通常小于E1作用下弹性反应分析结果。 E1作用下摩擦摆支座是否允许滑动，对结构的地震反应影响显著。在实际设计中应认真加以分析对比。
以1座(90+170+90)m城市大跨度連續樑橋為研究對象，提齣併比較分析兩種減隔震設計方案。採用彈性反應譜法及非線性時程反應分析方法研究E1及E2地震作用下結構的地震反應，針對兩種方案比較摩抆襬支座的力學參數取值及結構地震反應的差異。結果錶明：(1)對于大跨連續樑橋，由于縱橋嚮一聯內僅設置一箇製動墩，地震內力分佈極不均勻；但橫橋嚮結構內力分佈較均勻，各墩聯閤共同受力；(2)採用摩抆襬支座， E2作用下各墩墩底截麵縱、橫嚮內力減震效果顯著且各墩的內力分佈趨于均勻，分佈更加閤理；(3)採用摩抆襬支座， E2作用下減隔震後的墩底內力通常小于E1作用下彈性反應分析結果。 E1作用下摩抆襬支座是否允許滑動，對結構的地震反應影響顯著。在實際設計中應認真加以分析對比。
이1좌(90+170+90)m성시대과도련속량교위연구대상，제출병비교분석량충감격진설계방안。채용탄성반응보법급비선성시정반응분석방법연구E1급E2지진작용하결구적지진반응，침대량충방안비교마찰파지좌적역학삼수취치급결구지진반응적차이。결과표명：(1)대우대과련속량교，유우종교향일련내부설치일개제동돈，지진내력분포겁불균균；단횡교향결구내력분포교균균，각돈연합공동수력；(2)채용마찰파지좌， E2작용하각돈돈저절면종、횡향내력감진효과현저차각돈적내력분포추우균균，분포경가합리；(3)채용마찰파지좌， E2작용하감격진후적돈저내력통상소우E1작용하탄성반응분석결과。 E1작용하마찰파지좌시부윤허활동，대결구적지진반응영향현저。재실제설계중응인진가이분석대비。
Taking a long-span urban continuous girder bridge with spans of ( 90+170+90 ) m as the research objective, this paper proposes two isolation schemes for comparison and analysis. Structural seismic response under earthquake action of E1 and E2 is studied with elastic response spectrum method and nonlinear time history response analysis method. The differences in structural seismic response and in the selection of mechanical parameters for the friction pendulum bearing ( FPB ) related to the two schemes are compared. The results show that: ( 1 ) because only one braking pier is set up at one continuous unit in the longitudinal direction for the long-span continuous girder bridge, the structural internal force distribution is extremely uneven in the longitudinal direction, but the structural internal force distribution is comparatively more uniform in transverse direction, and each individual pier shares the stress;(2)FPB has obvious damping effect on the internal forces of the bridge substructure both in longitudinal and transverse directions and internal force distribution for individual pier tends to be more even and reasonable. (3) the internal force at pier bottom obtained by use of FPB under E2 is usually less than that obtained from seismic elastic response under E1 . Whether FPB is allowed to slide or not under E1 will have a significant effect on structural seismic response, which needs to be carefully analyzed and compared in the design.
