高铁大跨桥梁设计地震作用与国内外主要抗震规范的比较研究

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (25)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1565 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract

Based on the selected codes for seismic design in China and foreign countries, the difference on the classification of the site soil was compared. Considering the factors such as the return period of the earthquake and the importance coefficients of the structures, the acceleration platform and the curves of the response spectrum on different earthquake levels, namely the frequently occurred earthquake(FOE), designed fortification earthquake(DE) and the rarely occurred earthquake(ROE) for the main seismic design codes in China compared with the Code for Seismic Design of Railway Engineering (GB50111-2006, 2009 Version). It was shown that the design earthquake action at the level of FOE for the long-span bridges in high-speed rail were conservatively higher than those of other seismic design codes. The seismic actions at the level of the DE were similar to those of the seismic design codes in China, while for the ROE, the seismic actions were relatively lower. Comparison analysis on the seismic actions for long-span bridges in high-speed rail between the code (GB50111-2006, 2009 Version) and the Eurocode 8 showed that the FOE actions in China(50 years return period) were lower than those from the Eurocode 8(90 years return period), and so far as the DE action(both 475 years of return period). Results from the comparison analysis on the seismic actions coded in AASHTO and Caltrans with the code (GB50111-2006, 2009 Version) showed that the FOE actions(50 years of return period) in China were much higher than those from 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 in China(475 years of return period) were slightly lower than those Caltrans(975 years return period), but slightly higher than those in AASHTO(1000 years return period); The curves of the response spectrum in China were similar to the curves in Caltrans, but a little higher than those in AASHTO; For the ROE(2475 years return period), the values of seismic actions in AASHTO were between the values of those from the design acceleration 0.1g and 0.2g. In summary, the design earthquake actions for the long-span bridges in high-speed rail in China were relatively conservative.

Key words： Bridge Seismic Design Code Earthquake Action Acceleration Response Spectrum Return Period of Earthquake

Received: 12 December 2014 Published: 15 February 2016

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors

Cite this article:

URL:

http://jvs.sjtu.edu.cn/EN/ OR http://jvs.sjtu.edu.cn/EN/Y2016/V35/I4/72

[1] 铁路工程抗震设计规范(GB50111-2006)[S](2009年版)，北京：中国计划出版社，2009(in Chinese)
Code for seismic design of railway engineering (GB50111-2006) (version of 2009 year) [S], Beijing: China Plan Press, 2009(in Chinese)
[2] 罗开海，王亚勇，中美欧抗震设计规范地震动参数换算关系的研究[J]，建筑结构，2006，36(8)：103-107
Luo Kaihai and Wang Yayong, Research on Conversion Relationships Among the Parameters of GroundMotions in Seismic Design Codes of China, America and Europe[J], Building Structures, 2006, 36(8): 103-107
[3] 刘洁平，李小东，张令心，浅谈欧洲规范Eurocode 8—结构抗震设计[J]，世界地震工程，2006，22(3)：53-59
Liu Jieping, Li Xiaodong and Zhang Lingxin, Elementary Introduction to Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance[J], World Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 23(3): 53-59(in Chinese)
[4] 范力，赵斌，吕西林，欧洲规范8与中国抗震设计规范关于抗震设防目标和地震作用的比较[J]，结构工程师，2006，22(6)：59-63
Fan Li, Zhao Bin and Lu Xilin, Comparison of Seismic Fortification Aims and Earthquake Actions between Eurocode 8 and Chinese Seismic Design Code for Buildings[J], Structural Engineers, 2006, 22(6): 59-63(in Chinese)
[5] 余湛，石树中，沈建文，刘峥，从中国、美国、欧洲抗震设计规范谱的比较探讨我国的抗震设计反应谱[J]，震灾防御技术，2008，3(2)：136-144
Yu Zhan, Shi Shuzhong, Shen Jianwen and Liu Zheng, Discussion the Seismic Response Spectrum of China from the Comparison of Seismic Codes of China, American and Europe[J], Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, 2008, 3(2): 136-144(in Chinese)
[6] 陆本燕，刘伯权，邢国华，吴涛，中欧桥梁抗震设计规范有关条文的比较与研究[J]，世界地震工程，2010，26(3)：109-114
Lu Benyan, Liu Boquan, Xing Guohua and Wu Tao, Comparison and research on some clauses between Guidelines for Seism ic Design of Highway Bridges and Eurocode 8 for seismic design of bridges[J], World Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 26(3): 109-114(in Chinese)
[7] 张鹏，桥梁铁路抗震规范与公路抗震规范对比分析[J]，铁道标准设计，2010年增刊，41-43
Zhang Peng, Comparison Analysis on the Seismic Design Codes of Railway and Highway Bridge, Railway Standard Design, 2010, S1, 41-43 (in Chinese)
[8] 薄俊晶，蒋欢军，Eurocode 8与GB50011-2010关于抗震设防目标、场地和地震作用等的比较[J]，结构工程师，2011，27(5)：90-95
Bo Junjing and Jiang Huanjun, Comparison between Eurocode 8 and GB 50011—2010 on Seismic Fortification Objectives，Site Classification，and Earthquake Actions[J], Structural Engineers, 2011, 27(5): 90-95(in Chinese)
[9] 李慧，中、美、欧、日建筑抗震规范地震作用对比[M]，哈尔滨工业大学硕士学位论文，2011.6
Li Hui, The Seismic Action Comparison Between Chinese, American, European and Japanese Seismic Design Codes for Buildings[M], Dissertation for the Master Degree in Engineering of Harbin Institute of Technology, 2011.6 (in Chinese)
[10] 王莹，王灿，国内外桥梁抗震设计规范的发展及对比研究[J]，现代交通技术，2012，9(4)：31-34
Wang Ying and Wang Can, Development and Comparison of Domestic and International Bridge Seismic Design Specifications[J], Modern Transportation Technology, 2012, 9(4): 31-34(in Chinese)
[11] 任广杰，邱兆山，拉美抗震设计规范与中、美规范相关内容的对比研究[J]，中国港湾建设，2013年第4期(总第187期)，15-18
Ren Guangjie and Qiu Zhaoshan, Comparison of Latin-American Seismic Design Codes with Chinese and US Seismic Design Codes[J], China Harbour Engineering, 2013, No.4(Total 187), 15-18(in Chinese)
[12] 陈亮，陈昌斌，王庶懋，中欧抗震设计规范的对比[J]，武汉大学学报(工学版)，2013，46(S1)：129-134
Chen Liang, Chen Changbin and Wang Shumao, Comparative Study of Seismic Design Codes of China and Europe, 2013, 46(S1): 129-134 (in Chinese)
[13] 冯国军，中美铁路桥梁抗震设计对比研究[J]，铁道标准设计，2013年第5期，68-71
Feng Guojun, Comparative Study on Chinese and American Railway Bridge Seismic Design Standards[J], Railway Standard Design, 2013, No.5, 68-71(in Chinese)
[14] 铁路工程抗震设计规范(GB50111-2006)[S]，北京：中国计划出版社，2006(in Chinese)
Code for seismic design of railway engineering (GB50111-2006) [S], Beijing: China Plan Press, 2006(in Chinese)
[15] 建筑抗震设计规范(GB50011-2010)[S]，北京：中国建筑工业出版社，2010
Code for seismic design of buildings[S], Beijing: China Building & Architecture Press, 2010(in Chinese)
[16]公路桥梁抗震设计细则(JTG/T B02-01-2008)[S]，北京：人民交通出版社，2008
Guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges (JTG/T B02-01-2008)[S], Beijing: China Communications Press, 2008(in Chinese)
[17] 城市桥梁抗震设计规范(CJJ 166-2011)[S]，北京：中国建筑工业出版社，2011
Code for seismic design of urban bridges(CJJ 166-2011)[S], Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2011(in Chinese)
[18] 城市轨道交通结构抗震设计规范(GB50909-2014)[S]，北京：中国计划出版社，2014
Code for seismic design of urban rail transit structures (GB50909-2014)[S], Beijing: China Planning Press, 2014(in Chinese)
[19] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications[S], Customary U.S. Unit 2012, ISBN: 978-1-56051-523-4, Publication Code: LRFDUS-6.
[20] Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria[S], version 1.7, April 2013.
[21] British Standard, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, BS EN 1998-1: 2004
[22] British Standard, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 2: Bridges, BS EN 1998-2: 2005
[23]建筑工程抗震设防分类标准(GB 50223-2008)[S]，北京：中国建筑工业出版社，2008
Standard for classification of seismic protection of building constructions (GB 50223-2008) [S], Beijing: China Building & Architecture Press, 2008
[24] 中国地震动参数区划图(GB18306-2001)
Seismic Ground Motion Parameters Zonation Map of China (GB18306-2001)
[25] 中国地震动参数区划图 (2012年征求意见稿)
Seismic Ground Motion Parameters Zonation Map of China (GB18306-××××) (2012 draft for examination)
XU Hang-shou, JI Zhen-lin, KANG Zhong-xu. Three-dimensional time-domain computational approach for predicting transmission loss of reactive silencers [J]. Journal of vibration and shock, 2010, 29(4): 107-110.