«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《建筑科学与工程学报》[ISSN:1673-2049/CN:61-1442/TU]

卷:

40卷

期数:

2023年05期

页码:

206-215

栏目:

岩土工程

出版日期:

2023-09-15

文章信息/Info

Title:

Study on shock absorption measures of stepped pipe gallery under non-uniform earthquake excitation

文章编号:

1673-2049(2023)05-0192-14

作者:

赵晓斌^1,2,任 青²,杨 涛²,邓海明²

(1. 山东泰山建工发展集团有限公司,山东 济南 250000; 2. 上海理工大学 土木工程系,上海 200093)

Author(s):

ZHAO Xiaobin^1,2, REN Qing², YANG Tao², DENG Haiming²

(1. Shandong Taishan Construction Engineering Development Group Co., Ltd, Jinan 250000, Shandong, China; 2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China)

关键词:

阶梯型管廊;  非一致激励;  减震措施;  动力响应

Keywords:

stepped pipe gallery;  non-uniform excitation;  shock absorption measure;  dynamic response

分类号:

TU924

DOI:

10.19815/j.jace.2021.11088

文献标志码:

A

摘要:

基于有限元分析方法,建立管廊-土体结构相互作用的三维有限元模型; 通过模态分析,得到了3种不同接头形式阶梯型地下综合管廊的自振频率和变形特征,验证了模型的合理性; 研究了阶梯型地下综合管廊在小震非一致激励条件下,平口、企口和现浇3种不同的管廊接头在设置加腋及加腋和减震层共同作用下的动力响应。结果表明:加腋使管廊廊身和接头的应力水平降低幅度在10%左右,使3种接头形式管廊顶板轴线应力均降低了50%～70%; 加腋高度由300 mm增加到600 mm时,平口式管廊接头处应力降低幅度增加了1倍左右,而对于企口式和现浇式接头的影响较小; 设置加腋和减震层共同作用的阶梯型多仓管廊应力水平降低幅度约为20%,而对顶板轴线的位移和接头处相对位移几乎无任何影响; 设置加腋和减震层共同作用对不同接头形式的管廊第一、第三主应力降低幅度的影响不同,现浇接头的降低幅度约为30%,平口接头降低幅度约为20%,企口式接头降低幅度不足10%。

Abstract:

Based on the method of finite element analysis, the three-dimensional finite element model for the interaction of pipe gallery-soil structure was established. Through modal analysis, the natural vibration frequency and deformation characteristics of three different joint forms of stepped underground integrated pipe gallery were obtained, which verified the rationality of the model. Under the non-uniform excitation condition of small earthquake, the dynamic response of three different pipe gallery joints of flat, tongue-and-groove and cast-in-situ under the combined action of haunching and damping layer was studied. The results show that the haunching reduces the stress level of the pipe gallery body and joint by about 10%, and reduces the axial stress of the pipe gallery roof of the three joint forms by 50%-70%. When the haunching height is increased from 300 mm to 600 mm, the stress reduction at the flat pipe gallery joint is doubled, but it has little effect on the tongue-and-groove and cast-in-situ joints. The stress level of stepped multi bin pipe gallery with haunch and damping layer is reduced by about 20%, but it has little effect on the displacement of roof axis and the relative displacement of joints. The joint action of haunching and damping layer has different effects on the reduction range of the first and third principal stresses of pipe gallery with different joint forms. The reduction range of cast-in-situ joint is about 30%, that of flat joint is about 20%, and that of tongue-and-groove joint is less than 10%.

参考文献/References:

[1] 周晓洁,梁清华,刘中宪,等.地震波斜入射下层状场地中地下综合管廊地震响应分析[J].世界地震工程,2018,34(3):32-45.
ZHOU Xiaojie,LIANG Qinghua,LIU Zhongxian,et al.Seismic response analysis of underground utility tunnel in layered site under oblique incidence of seismic waves [J].World Earthquake Engineering,2018,34(3):32-45.
[2]姜 龙.城市地下综合管廊典型节点地震响应分析[D].南宁:广西大学,2018.
JIANG Long.Seismic response analysis of typical nodes in urban underground utility tunnel[D].Nanning:Guangxi University,2018.
[3]梁宁慧,兰 菲,庄 炀,等.城市地下综合管廊建设现状与存在问题[J].地下空间与工程学报,2020,16(6):1622-1635.
LIANG Ninghui,LAN Fei,ZHUANG Yang,et al.Current situation and existing problems of urban utility tunnel construction[J].Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering,2020,16(6):1622-1635.
[4]ABUHAJAR O,EL NAGGAR H,NEWSON T.Seismic soil-culvert interaction[J].Canadian Geotechnical Journal,2015,52(11):1649-1667.
[5]张景威.地下综合管廊结构地震易损性分析[D].大连:大连理工大学,2018.
ZHANG Jingwei.Seismic vulnerability analysis of underground utility tunnel structure[D].Dalian:Dalian University of Technology,2018.
[6]BAZIAR M H,MOGHADAM M R,KIM D S,et al.Effect of underground tunnel on the ground surface acceleration[J].Tunneling and Underground Space Technology,2014,44:10-22.
[7]ULGEN D,SAGLAM S,OZKAH M Y.Dynamic response of a flexible rectangular underground structure in sand:centrifuge modeling[J].Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,2015,13(9):2547-2566.
[8]TSINIDIS G,PITILAKIS K,MADABHUSHI G.On the dynamic response of square tunnels in sand[J].Engineering Structures,2016,125:419-437.
[9]TSINIDIS G.Response characteristics of rectangular tunnels in soft soil subjected to transversal ground shaking[J].Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,2017,62:1-22.
[10]TSINIDIS G,PITILAKIS K,MADABHUSHI G,et al.Dynamic response of flexible square tunnels:centrifuge testing and validation of existing design methodologies[J].Géotechnique,2015,65(5):401-417.
[11]LEE D B,LEE C S,SHIN D S.Seismic fragility of underground utility tunnels[J].Journal of the Computational Structural Engineering Institute of Korea,2016,29(5):413-419.
[12]ABATE G,MASSIMINO M R.Parametric analysis of the seismic response of coupled tunnel-soil-aboveground building systems by numerical modelling[J].Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,2017,15(1):443-467.
[13]杨仕升,姜 龙,谢开仲.城市地下综合管廊典型节点地震响应分析[J].地震工程与工程振动,2018,38(5):103-110.
YANG Shisheng,JIANG Long,XIE Kaizhong.Seismic response analysis of typical node of urban underground utility tunnel[J].Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,2018,38(5):103-110.
[14]王鹏宇,王述红,朱承金.城市地下管廊结构地震动力响应分析[J].东北大学学报(自然科学版),2019,40(7):1020-1027.
WANG Pengyu,WANG Shuhong,ZHU Chengjin.Seismic dynamic response analysis of urban underground utility tunnel structure[J].Journal of Northeastern University(Natural Science),2019,40(7):1020-1027.
[15]王振强,冯 立,陈志雄,等.单舱地下综合管廊地震动力响应振动台模型试验研究[J].科学技术与工程,2020,20(6):2397-2404.
WANG Zhenqiang,FENG Li,CHEN Zhixiong,et al.Dynamic responses study on shaking table model test of single-pile utility tunnel[J].Science Technology and Engineering,2020,20(6):2397-2404.
[16]由浩宇.共同沟管道隔震分析[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2011.
YOU Haoyu.Isolation analysis of common trench pipeline[D].Harbin:Harbin Institute of Technology,2011.
[17]李志伟.地下综合管廊地震响应分析及减震措施研究[D].郑州:郑州大学,2018.
LI Zhiwei.Analysis of seismic response of underground utility tunnel and study on damping measures[D].Zhengzhou:Zhengzhou University,2018.
[18]胡天羽.城市地下综合管廊的地震响应与减隔震研究[D].淮南:安徽理工大学,2020.
HU Tianyu.Study on seismic response and seismic isolation of urban underground utility tunnel[D].Huainan:Anhui University of Science & Technology,2020.
[19]田 瑶.带有减震层的综合管廊地震响应分析[D].沈阳:沈阳建筑大学,2020.
TIAN Yao.Seismic response analysis of utility tunnel with damping layer[D].Shenyang:Shenyang Jianzhu University,2020.
[20]杨艳敏,范鑫阳,龚玉宝,等.不同建造方式管廊结构振动台模型试验研究[J].建筑结构,2020,50(14):91-96,67.
YANG Yanmin,FAN Xinyang,GONG Yubao,et al.Shaking table model test of pipe gallery structure with different construction methods[J].Building Structure,2020,50(14):91-96,67.
[21]王 琴.地下管线非一致激励地震反应分析[D].上海:同济大学,2008.
WANG Qin.Seismic response analysis of underground pipeline under non-uniform excitation[D].Shanghai:Tongji university,2008.
[22]史晓军.非一致地震激励地下综合管廊大型振动台试验研究[D].上海:同济大学,2008.
SHI Xiaojun.Experimental study on large-scale shaking table of underground utility tunnel excited by non-uniform earthquake[D].Shanghai:Tongji University,2008.
[23]刘晶波,杜义欣,闫秋实.黏弹性人工边界及地震输入在通用有限元软件中的实现[J].防灾减灾工程学报,2007,27(增):37-42.
LIU Jingbo,DU Yixin,YAN Qiushi.Implementation of viscoelastic artificial boundary and seismic input in general finite element software[J].Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering,2007,27(S):37-42.
[24]李宇华.地震作用引起的城市综合管廊动力响应研究[D].淮南:安徽理工大学,2019.
LI Yuhua.Study on dynamic response of urban utility tunnel caused by earthquake action[D].Huainan:Anhui University of Science & Technology,2019.

相似文献/References:

[1]王琴,陈隽,李杰.地下管线非一致地震激励振动台试验的三维有限元建模[J].建筑科学与工程学报,2008,25(03):47.
　WANG Qin,CHEN Jun,LI Jie.3-D Finite Element Modeling of Underground Pipeline Under Non- uniform Earthquake Excitation in Shaking Table Tests[J].Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering,2008,25(05):47.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

收稿日期:2021-11-21
基金项目:国家重点研发计划项目(2016YFC0802405)
通信作者:任 青(1976-),男,工学博士,副教授,硕士生导师,E-mail:renqing1976@163.com。

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2023-09-01