基于振动台试验的粉质黏土隧道抗震计算方法修正

马险峰; 刘正好; 吴迪; 董一今

doi:10.11779/CJGE2022S2001

基于振动台试验的粉质黏土隧道抗震计算方法修正 English Version

马险峰^{1, 2, 3,},
刘正好²,
吴迪⁴,
董一今⁴

1.
喀什大学土木工程学院, 新疆喀什 844006
2.
同济大学土木工程学院, 上海 200092
3.
岩土及地下工程教育部重点实验室(同济大学), 上海 200092
4.
上海申通地铁集团有限公司, 上海 200092

基金项目:

山东省重点研发计划项目（重大科技创新工程） 2021CXGC011203

详细信息

作者简介:
马险峰(1972—)，男，河南沈丘人，博士，教授，主要从事岩土物理模型试验、地下结构抗震等方面的教学和科研工作。E-mail: xf.ma@tongji.edu.cn

中图分类号: TU432
计量
- 文章访问数: 0
- HTML全文浏览量: 0
- PDF下载量: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-12-01
- 网络出版日期: 2023-03-26
- 刊出日期: 2022-11-30

Correction of seismic calculation method for silty clay tunnels based on shaking table test

MA Xian-feng^{1, 2, 3,},
LIU Zheng-hao²,
WU Di⁴,
DONG Yi-jin⁴

1.
College of Civil Engineering, Kashi Univeristy, Kashi, 844006 China
2.
College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
3.
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
4.
Shanghai Shentong Metro Group Co. Ltd., Shanghai 201103, China

摘要

摘要: 地下结构的地震响应特性对地层特性具有较强敏感性。基于振动台模型试验，提出了一种粉质黏土隧道的结构动力时程计算方法，并计算确定了适合粉质黏土中隧道结构抗震计算的反应位移法。研究结果表明：采用经验公式计算的弯矩更接近动力时程的计算结果，而有限元计算的隧道结构的轴力更接近动力时程计算结果。同时，建议在粉质黏土隧道结构抗震计算过程中，将隧道埋深范围内土层相对位移简化为线性变化，并乘以系数0.7；地基弹簧刚度乘以系数1.1。研究结论可为粉质黏土隧道抗减震设计提供参考。
- 粉质黏土隧道 /
- 地震响应 /
- 数值模拟 /
- 抗震计算
Abstract: The seismic response characteristics of underground structures have a strong sensitivity to stratum characteristics. A structural dynamic time history analysis method for silty clay tunnels is proposed based on the shaking the table model tests. The response displacement method suitable for seismic calculation of tunnel structures in silty clay is determined. The results show that the bending moment calculated by the empirical formula is closer that by the dynamic time history method, while the axial force of tunnel structures calculated by the finite element method is closer to that by the dynamic time history method. It is suggested that in the seismic calculation of silty clay tunnel structures, the relative displacement of the soil layer within the buried depth of the tunnel should be simplified to linear change and multiplied by a coefficient of 0.7, and the foundation spring stiffness shouldbe multiplied by a coefficient of 1.1. The conclusions may provide a reference for the seismic design of silty clay tunnels.
- silty clay tunnel /
- seismic response /
- numerical simulation /
- seismic calculation

HTML全文

图 1 模型图

Figure 1. Diagram of model

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 加速度放大系数试验结果和数值计算对比

Figure 2. Comparison of acceleration amplification factors between test results and numerical calculations

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 加速度试验结果和数值计算对比

Figure 3. Comparison of acceleration between test results and numerical calculations

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 土层位移数值计算和试验结果对比

Figure 4. Comparison between numerical calculations and test results of displacement of soil layer

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 模型图

Figure 5. Diagram of model

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 ABAQUS模型图

Figure 6. Diagram of ABAQUS model

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 各工况阻尼系数表

Table 1 Damping coefficients for various working cases

工况		土		砂
工况		α	β	α	β
汶川波	工况2	2.291667	0.003875	3.951149	0.002248
	工况6	2.5	0.008889	4.458333	0.004984
	工况10	2.083333	0.022404	5.22343	0.008936
	工况14	1.666667	0.017923	4.178744	0.007149
El-Centro波	工况3	1.875	0.003945	3.605769	0.002051
	工况7	2.708333	0.013328	5.522876	0.006536
	工况11	3.020833	0.020912	7.376453	0.008564
	工况15	2.291667	0.030524	7.762097	0.009012
济南波	工况4	1.458333	0.003319	2.916667	0.001659
	工况8	1.666667	0.006342	2.5	0.004228
	工况12	3.541667	0.017429	5.138889	0.012012
	工况16	2.953125	0.026367	7.03125	0.014063

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 模型参数表

Table 2 Model parameters

材料	弹性模量/MPa	黏聚力 /kPa	摩擦角 /(°)
济南粉质黏土	7.6	3.4	15
砂	16	0.1	38
隧道（有机玻璃）	3300

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 工况表

Table 3 Working cases

工况	输入波类型	工况代号	加速度峰值/g
1	白噪声	WN1	0.07
2 3 4	汶川波 El-Centro 济南人工波	WC2 EL3 JN4	0.143
5	白噪声	WN5	0.07
6 7 8	汶川波 El-Centro 济南人工波	WC6 EL7 JN8	0.410
9	白噪声	WN9	0.07
10 11 12	汶川波 El-Centro 济南人工波	WC10 EL11 JN12	0.6
13	白噪声	WN13	0.07
14 15 16	汶川波 El-Centro 济南人工波	WC14 EL15 JN16	0.918
17	白噪声	WN17	0.07

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 计算结果对比

Table 4 Comparison of calculated results

梁单元模量	内力	完全规范计算	有限元计算	动力时程计算
E=35 GPa	轴力/N	90860	128000	101000
E=35 GPa	弯矩/(N·m)	41200	60300	45700
E=17.5 GPa	轴力/N	81080	114600	103300
E=17.5 GPa	弯矩/(N·m)	21900	32720	24780
E=7 GPa	轴力/N	73020	103200	96190
E=7 GPa	弯矩/(N·m)	9300	14100	10380
E=3.5 GPa	轴力/N	67640	94900	90000
E=3.5 GPa	弯矩/(N·m)	4890	7460	5214

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 参数敏感性因子表

Table 5 Sensitivity factors of parameters

内力	相对位移	地层剪力	弹簧刚度
轴力	0.379	0.621	0.235
弯矩	0.432	0.572	2.71

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 各种方法计算结果与动力时程计算结果相对误差表

Table 6 Relative errors between calculated results by various methods and dynamic time history method

隧道弹模/GPa	内力	完全规范	有限元计算	新方法
E=35	轴力	10.00%	26.73%	8.12%
E=35	弯矩	9.85%	31.95%	1.75%
E=17.5	轴力	21.26%	11.65%	4.48%
E=17.5	弯矩	11.69%	31.85%	3.83%
E=7	轴力	24.12%	7.07%	7.37%
E=7	弯矩	10.58%	35.58%	2.21%
E=3.5	轴力	24.89%	5.44%	8.33%
E=3.5	弯矩	6.14%	43.19%	3.38%

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(9)

[1]	城市轨道交通结构抗震设计规范: GB 50909—2014[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2014. Code for Seismic Design of Urban Rail Transit Structures: GB 50909—2014[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2014. (in Chinese)
[2]	ZHONG Z L, SHEN Y Y, ZHAO M, et al. Seismic performance evaluation of two-story and three-span subway station in different engineering sites[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 26(14): 7505–7535. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2021.1964647
[3]	李海波, 马行东, 李俊如, 等. 地震荷载作用下地下岩体洞室位移特征的影响因素分析[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2006, 28(3): 358–362. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2006.03.015 LI Hai-bo, MA Xing-dong, LI Jun-ru, et al. Study on influence factors of rock cavern displacement under earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2006, 28(3): 358–362. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2006.03.015
[4]	MA C, LU D C, DU X L, et al. Seismic performance of a rectangular subway station with earth retaining system[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2022, 21(1): 221-236. doi: 10.1007/s11803-021-2069-9
[5]	XU H, LI T B, XIA L, et al. Shaking table tests on seismic measures of a model mountain tunnel[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 60: 197–209. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2016.09.004
[6]	KAWAMATA Y, NAKAYAMA M, TOWHATA I, et al. Dynamic behaviors of underground structures in E-Defense shaking experiments[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 82: 24–39. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.11.008
[7]	RABETI MOGHADAM M, et al. Seismic ground motion amplification pattern induced by a subway tunnel: shaking table testing and numerical simulation[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 83: 81–97. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.01.002
[8]	冯宁宁. 济南粉质黏土中地铁隧道振动台试验及地震响应计算研究[D]. 上海: 同济大学, 2018. FENG Ning-ning. Shaking Table Test and Seismic Response Calculation of Subway Tunnel in Jinan Silty Clay[D]. Shanghai: Tongji University, 2018. (in Chinese)
[9]	潘旦光, 高莉莉. Rayleigh阻尼系数解法比较及对结构地震反应影响[J]. 工程力学, 2015, 32(6): 192–199. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCLX201506027.htm PAN Dan-guang, GAO Li-li. Comparison of determination methods for Rayleigh damping coefficients and effects on seismic responses of structures[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2015, 32(6): 192–199. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCLX201506027.htm