-
摘要: 采用SAP2000软件建立了某整体式斜交连续梁桥的三维有限元模型，通过非线性时程分析，研究了整体式斜交连续梁桥在地震作用下的受力特性及抗震性能，并探究了跨数、斜交角、台后土密实度和墩高等主要结构及基础参数对该类桥梁地震响应的影响。研究结果表明：整体式斜交连续梁桥中震害变形主要集中于桥台桩，桩顶截面在峰值加速度为0.4g的地震作用下形成塑性铰时，墩顶支座无破坏，且桥墩几乎无损伤；桥台桩位移及纵桥向弯矩的最大值均位于桩顶，而横桥向弯矩最大值可能位于桩顶或桩身反向弯矩峰值处；随着跨数的增加，整体式斜交连续梁桥的地震响应尤其是墩顶支座剪切应变及桥面转角明显增大，当跨数由单跨增加到4跨时，地震响应均增加了1倍以上，墩顶支座剪切应变甚至增加近2倍；随着斜交角的增加，桩顶纵桥向位移、桩顶截面屈服面函数值及中跨转角明显增大，斜交角为60°时，桩顶纵桥向位移增加了3倍以上，斜交角为45°时，墩顶支座剪切应变最大；随着台后土密实度的增加，各构件纵桥向位移响应与墩顶支座的纵向剪切变形降低，桥台桩、桥墩纵桥向位移及墩顶支座纵向剪切变形分别减小了12.9%、9.3%和9.5%；随着墩高的增加，墩顶位移明显增加，而支座剪切应变明显降低，但桩顶位移及桩顶截面屈服面函数值几乎不变；当墩高从4 m增大到9 m时，墩顶漂移率增大了42.1%，墩顶支座剪切应变减小了57.5%。Abstract: A three-dimensional finite element model of an integral skewed continuous girder bridge was established by using SAP2000 software, and the nonlinear time-history analysis was conducted to investigate the mechanical properties and anti-seismic behavior of the integral skewed continuous girder bridge under seismic actions, and the influences of major structures and basic parameters on the seismic responses of this kind of bridge were explored, such as the number of spans, skew angle, compactness of soil behind abutment, and pier height. Research results show that the deformation caused by seismic damages in the integral skewed continuous girder bridge mainly focuses on abutment piles, and when plastic hinges are formed at the pile top under seismic actions with a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4g, the supports at the pier top and the piers are basically not damaged. The maximum values of abutment pile displacement and longitudinal bending moment are located at the pile top, while the maximum value of transverse bending moment may be located at the pile top or the peak of the reverse bending moment of the pile body. With the increase in the number of spans, the seismic responses of the integral skewed continuous girder bridge increase obviously, especially the shear strain of the supports at the pier top and the rotation angle of the bridge deck. When the number of spans increases from one to four, the seismic responses have doubled, and the shear strain of the supports at the pier top even increases nearly two times. With the increase in skew angle, the longitudinal displacement at the pile top, the yield surface function value of the cross-section at the pile top, and the angle of rotation in the middle span obviously increase. When the skew angle is 60°, the longitudinal displacement at the pile top increases more than three times, and the shear strain of the supports at the pier top is the largest when the skew angle is 45°. With the increase in the compactness of the soil behind the abutment, the longitudinal displacement response of all components and the longitudinal shear deformation of the supports at the pier top reduce. The longitudinal displacements of the abutment piles and piers and the longitudinal shear deformation of the supports at the pier top reduce by 12.9%, 9.3%, and 9.5%, respectively. With the increase in pier height, the displacement at the pier top increases significantly, and the shear strain of the supports decreases obviously, but the value of the displacement and yield surface function of the cross-section at the pile top is almost unchanged. When the pier height increases from 4 m to 9 m, the drift rate at the pier top increases by 42.1%, and the shear strain of the supports at the pier top decreases by 57.5%. 4 tabs, 18 figs, 32 refs.
-
图 1 整体式斜交连续梁桥有限元分析模型
Figure 1. Finite element analysis model of integral skewed continuous girder bridge
图 13 不同跨数下桥台桩、桥墩和墩顶支座的地震响应
Figure 13. Seismic responses of abutment pile, pier and pier top support under different numbers of spans
图 14 不同跨数下桥面的地震响应
Figure 14. Seismic responses of bridge deck under different numbers of spans
图 15 不同斜交角下桥台桩、桥墩和墩顶支座的地震响应
Figure 15. Seismic responses of abutment pile, pier and pier top support under different skew angles
图 16 不同斜交角下桥面的地震响应
Figure 16. Seismic responses of bridge deck under different skew angles
图 17 不同墩高下桥台桩、桥墩和墩顶支座的地震响应
Figure 17. Seismic responses of abutment pile, pier and pier top support under different pier heights
图 18 不同墩高下桥面的地震响应
Figure 18. Seismic responses of bridge deck under different pier heights
表 1 两种损伤状态下的墩顶漂移率
Table 1. Drift ratios of pier top under two damage states
墩柱损伤状态 墩顶漂移率/% 混凝土保护层脱落 2.2 纵筋开始屈曲 6.3 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 整体式斜交连续梁桥各构件的损伤评价指标
Table 2. Damage evaluation indexes of each component of integral skewed continuous girder bridge
评价指标 地震强度/g 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 墩顶漂移率/% 0.08 0.17 0.27 0.38 0.48 0.58 墩顶支座剪切应变 0.151 0.372 0.615 0.900 1.244 1.693 桥台桩顶屈服面函数值 0.204 0.379 0.647 0.917 1.138 1.157
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同台后土密实度下桥台桩、桥墩和墩顶支座的地震响应
Table 3. Seismic responses of abutment pile, pier and pier top support under different soil compactness behind abutment
土体重度 桥台桩 桥墩 墩顶支座 桩顶纵桥向位移/mm 桩顶横桥向位移/mm 桩顶屈服面函数值 墩顶纵桥向位移/mm 墩顶横桥向位移/mm 墩顶漂移率/% 纵桥向剪切变形/mm 横桥向剪切变形/mm 剪切应变 松散 -26.3 -72.0 0.940 5.4 11.7 0.32 22.1 62.8 0.918 密实 -22.9 -73.1 0.925 4.9 11.8 0.31 20.0 63.5 0.921
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 不同台后土密实度下桥面的地震响应
Table 4. Seismic responses of bridge deck under different soil compactness behind abutment
土体重度 桥面纵桥向位移/mm 桥面横桥向位移/mm 桥面转角/10-4rad 0#桥台 1#桥墩 2#桥墩 3#桥台 0#桥台 1#桥墩 2#桥墩 3#桥台 左边跨 中跨 右边跨 松散 21.3 24.4 28.4 31.3 74.2 81.5 72.1 48.7 6.99 3.83 9.07 密实 18.3 21.3 25.3 28.2 75.6 82.5 72.7 49.5 6.93 4.00 9.16
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 卢明奇, 杨庆山, 李英勇. 斜度对斜交桥地震作用下的扭转效应影响[J]. 哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2012, 33(2): 155-159. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7043.201010032LU Ming-qi, YANG Qing-shan, LI Ying-yong. Torsion effects of skew angles on skew bridges during earthquakes[J]. Journal of Harbin Engineering University, 2012, 33(2): 155-159. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7043.201010032 [2] 庄卫林, 刘振宇, 蒋劲松. 汶川大地震公路桥梁震害分析及对策[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2009, 28(7): 1377-1387. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2009.07.011ZHUANG Wei-lin, LIU Zhen-yu, JIANG Jin-song. Earthquake-induced damage analysis of highway bridges in Wenchuan earthquake and countermeasures[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2009, 28(7): 1377-1387. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2009.07.011 [3] MALEKI S. Deck modeling for seismic analysis of skewed slab- girder bridges[J]. Engineering Structures, 2002, 24(10): 1315-1326. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00066-4 [4] KAVIANI P, ZAREIAN F, TACIROGLU E. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete bridges with skew-angled seat-type abutments[J]. Engineering Structures, 2012, 45: 137-150. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.013 [5] ABDEL-MOHTI A, PEKCAN G. Seismic response of skewed RC box-girder bridges[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2008, 7(4): 415- 426. doi: 10.1007/s11803-008-1007-4 [6] KAWASHIMA K, TIRASIT P. Effect of nonlinear seismic torsion on the performance of skewed bridge piers[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2008, 12(6): 980-998. doi: 10.1080/13632460701673019 [7] YANG C S W, WERNER S D, DESROCHES R. Seismic fragility analysis of skewed bridges in the central southeastern United States[J]. Engineering Structures, 2015, 83: 116-128. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.025 [8] ERHAN S, DICLELI M. Effect of dynamic soil-bridge interaction modeling assumptions on the calculated seismic response of integral bridges[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 66: 42-55. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.033 [9] KUNIN J, ALAMPALLI S. Integral abutment bridges: current practice in united states and Canada[J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2000, 14(3): 104-111. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2000)14:3(104) [10] HASSIOTIS S, ROMAN E. A survey of current issues on the use of integral abutment bridges[J]. Bridge Structures, 2005, 1(2): 81-101. doi: 10.1080/15732480500125635 [11] 赵秋红, 齐朝阳, 安泽宇, 等. 考虑SSI的整体式钢桥抗震性能参数分析[J]. 交通运输工程学报, 2018, 18(5): 35-46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1637.2018.05.004ZHAO Qiu-hong, QI Zhao-yang, AN Ze-yu, et al. Parametric analysis on seismic behavior of integral abutment steel bridge considering SSI[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2018, 18(5): 35-46. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1637.2018.05.004 [12] XU M, LIU P F. Response of full-height frame integral abutments subjected to seismic motions[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 121: 356-368. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.03.024 [13] VASHEGHANI-FARAHANI R, ZHAO Qiu-hong, BURDETTE E G. Seismic analysis of integral abutment bridge in Tennessee, including soil-structure interaction[J]. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2010(2201): 70-79. [14] ITANI A M, PEKCAN G. Seismic performance of steel plate girder bridges with integral abutments[D]. Reno: University of Nevada, 2011. [15] ERHAN S, DICLELI M. Comparative assessment of the seismic performance of integral and conventional bridges with respect to the differences at the abutments[J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 13(2): 653-677. doi: 10.1007/s10518-014-9635-8 [16] KOZAK D L, LAFAVE J M, FAHNESTOCK L A. Seismic modeling of integral abutment bridges in Illinois[J]. Engineering Structures, 2018, 165: 170-183. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.088 [17] 黄福云, 庄一舟, 付毳, 等. 无伸缩缝梁桥抗震性能与设计计算方法研究[J]. 地震工程与工程振动, 2015, 35(5): 15-22. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DGGC201505003.htmHUANG Fu-yun, ZHUANG Yi-zhou, FU Cui, et al. Review on the seismic performance and simplified design method of jointless bridge[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2015, 35(5): 15-22. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DGGC201505003.htm [18] SIM Y, JIN K N, HONG E S, et al. Numerical study on the behavior of ground and structure in geosynthetic-reinforced soil (grs) integral bridges[J]. LHI Journal of Land, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 2021, 12(3): 97-108. [19] ABDEL-FATTAH M T, ABDEL-FATTAH T T. Longitudinal seismic response of integral abutment bridges[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Bridge Engineering, 2021, DOI: 10.1680/jbren.20.00051. [20] ARGYROUDIS S, PALAIOCHORINOU A, MITOULIS S, et al. Use of rubberised backfills for improving the seismic response of integral abutment bridges[J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 14(12): 3573-3590. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-0018-1 [21] SHAMSABADI A, KAPUSKAR M. Nonlinear soil-abutment- foundation-structure interaction analysis of skewed bridges subjected to near-field ground motions[J]. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2010, 2202(1): 192-205. doi: 10.3141/2202-23 [22] ITANI A M, PEKAN G. Seismic performance of steel plate girder bridges with integral abutments[R]. Reno: University of Nevada, 2011. [23] 赵秋红, 张冀豪, 陈宝春. 整体式斜交桥抗震性能分析[J]. 地震工程与工程振动, 2018, 38(4): 34-40. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DGGC201804006.htmZHAO Qiu-hong, ZHANG Ji-hao, CHEN Bao-chun. Seismic analysis on skewed integral abutment bridges[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2018, 38(4): 34-40. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DGGC201804006.htm [24] ZHAO Qiu-hong, DONG Shuo, WANG Qing-wei. Seismic Response of skewed integral abutment bridges under near-fault ground motions, including soil-structure interaction[J]. Applied Sciences-Basel, 2021, 11(7): 3217. doi: 10.3390/app11073217 [25] 汤虎, 李建中. 板式橡胶支座桥梁地震位移控制方法[J]. 中国公路学报, 2013, 26(3): 110-116. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7372.2013.03.012TANG Hu, LI Jian-zhong. Displacement control method for continuous bridges on laminated rubber bearings under earthquake excitation[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2013, 26(3): 110-116. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7372.2013.03.012 [26] ZORDAN T, BRISEGHELLA B, LAN C. Parametric and pushover analyses on integral abutment bridge[J]. Engineering Structures, 2011, 33(2): 502-515. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.009 [27] QUINN B H, CIVJAN S A. Parametric study on effects of pile orientation in integral abutment bridges[J]. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2017, 22(4): 04016132. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000952 [28] SHAMSABADI A, ROLLINS K M, KAPUSKAR M. Nonlinear soil-abutment-bridge structure interaction for seismic performance-based design[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2007, 133(6): 707-720. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:6(707) [29] DICLELI M. Integral abutment-backfill behavior on sand soil—pushover analysis approach[J]. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2005, 10(3): 354-364. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2005)10:3(354) [30] BERRY M, EBERHARD M. Performance models for flexural damage in reinforced concrete columns[R]. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2003. [31] 李冲, 王克海, 李悦, 等. 板式橡胶支座摩擦滑移抗震性能试验研究[J]. 东南大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 44(1): 162-167. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DNDX201401030.htmLI Chong, WANG Ke-hai, LI Yue, et al. Experimental study on seismic performance of laminated rubber bearings with friction slipping[J]. Journal of Southeast University (Natural Science Edition), 2014, 44(1): 162-167. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DNDX201401030.htm [32] 李立峰, 吴文朋, 黄佳梅, 等. 板式橡胶支座地震易损性分析[J]. 湖南大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 38(11): 1-6. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNDX201111002.htmLI Li-feng, WU Wen-peng, HUANG Jia-mei, et al. Research on the seismic vulnerability analysis of laminated rubber bearing[J]. Journal of Hunan University (Natural Sciences), 2011, 38(11): 1-6. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNDX201111002.htm -
点击查看大图
图(18) / 表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 325
- HTML全文浏览量: 98
- PDF下载量: 61
- 被引次数: 0
