中硬场地两种等效线性地震反应方法的对比
|
摘要
采用传统等效线性化(EERA)和频率一致等效线性(SOILQUAKE)对比分析基岩输入地震动特性对中硬场地地震反应的影响,分析结果表明:弱震时EERA和SOILQUAKE的地表峰值加速度差异基本可忽略;随着基岩地震动强度的增大,二者计算的地表峰值加速度相对差异越显著,EERA给出的地表反应谱在短周期放大效应逐渐减弱,卓越周期处谱值被显著放大;而SOILQUAKE得出的地表反应谱在短周期放大效应并未削弱,反应谱的卓越周期和周期大于0. 7s的谱值与EERA法基本一致。0. 3s加速度反应谱放大系数随基岩地震动强度增大而减小,但EERA放大系数减小过快,SOILQUAKE的表现则更为合理。故EERA对地震动高频的过分滤波作用存在不合理性,SOILQUAKE在地震动高频段的放大作用较EERA表现好。
One-dimensional( 1 D) seismic site response analyses are performed by traditional equivalent linear( EERA) and frequency consistent method( SOILQUAKE),to analyze the effects of bedrock motion characteristics on site seismic responses. The results indicate that the difference of the surface peak ground accelerations( PGA) calculated by EERA and SOILQUAKE can be ignored under weak bedrock motion. As the PGA of bedrock motion increases,the relative difference of PGA significantly increases,and surface response spectrum values calculated by EERA attenuate at short periods but markedly magnify at predominant period. However,the surface response spectrum obtained by SOILQUAKE are not significantly reduced at short periods,but the predominant period and the response spectrum values for greater than 0. 7 s are consistent with EERA. The amplifications of the acceleration response spectrum at 0. 3 s period decrease with peak accelerations of the bedrock motion increasing,the amplifications calculated by EERA rapidly reduce,while the results of SOILQUAKE are more reasonable. Therefore,it is unreasonable that EERA has the significant filtering effect on the high frequency components of seismic waves,and the amplification of ground motion at high frequency components can be reasonably evaluated by SOILQUAKE rather than EERA.
One-dimensional( 1 D) seismic site response analyses are performed by traditional equivalent linear( EERA) and frequency consistent method( SOILQUAKE),to analyze the effects of bedrock motion characteristics on site seismic responses. The results indicate that the difference of the surface peak ground accelerations( PGA) calculated by EERA and SOILQUAKE can be ignored under weak bedrock motion. As the PGA of bedrock motion increases,the relative difference of PGA significantly increases,and surface response spectrum values calculated by EERA attenuate at short periods but markedly magnify at predominant period. However,the surface response spectrum obtained by SOILQUAKE are not significantly reduced at short periods,but the predominant period and the response spectrum values for greater than 0. 7 s are consistent with EERA. The amplifications of the acceleration response spectrum at 0. 3 s period decrease with peak accelerations of the bedrock motion increasing,the amplifications calculated by EERA rapidly reduce,while the results of SOILQUAKE are more reasonable. Therefore,it is unreasonable that EERA has the significant filtering effect on the high frequency components of seismic waves,and the amplification of ground motion at high frequency components can be reasonably evaluated by SOILQUAKE rather than EERA.
引文
[1]李宏男.地震工程学[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2013:123-129Li Hong-nan. Earthquake engineering[M]. Beijing:China Machine Press,2013:123-129(in Chinese)
[2]李兆焱,袁晓铭,王鸾,等.巨厚场地三种土层地震反应分析程序对比检验[J].地震工程与工程振动,2017,37(4):42-50Li Zhao-yan, Yuan Xiao-ming, Wang Luan, et al.Verification of three methods for calculating earthquake response of soil layers in deep sites[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics,2017,37(4):42-50(in Chinese)
[3] Idriss I M,Sun J I. User's Manual for SHAKE91[J].Center for Geotechnical Modeling,1992,388(5-6):279-360
[4]廖振鹏.地震小区划(理论与实践)[M].北京:地震出版社,1989:141-153Liao Zhen-peng. Seismic micro zonation(theory and practice)[M]. Beijing:Seismological Press,1989:141-153(in Chinese)
[5] Bardet J P,Ichii K,Lin C H. EERA—A computer program for equivalent-linear earthquake site response analyses of layered soil deposits[R]. 2000,1-31
[6]杨洋,孙锐,杨洪搏,等.国际上两种典型土层地震反应分析程序对比研究[J].世界地震工程,2017,33(3):17-23Yang Yang,Sun Yue,Yang Hong-bo,et al. Contrasting study between two international typical soil layers seismic response analysis programs[J]. World Earthquake Engineering,2017,33(3):17-23(in Chinese)
[7]袁晓铭,李瑞山,孙锐.新一代土层地震反应分析方法[J].土木工程学报,2016,49(10):95-102Yuan Xiao-ming, Li Rui-shan, Sun Yue. A new generation method for earthquake response analysis of soil layers[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal,2016,49(10):95-102(in Chinese)
[8]朱姣,许汉刚,陈国兴.苏州第四纪深厚沉积层一维等效线性和非线性地震反应对比分析[J].岩土力学,2018,39(4):1-13Zhu Jiao,Xu Han-gang,Chen Guo-xing. Comparison of1D equivalent-linear and nonlinear seismic site responses for quaternary deep sediment layers in Suzhou region[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,2018,39(4):1-13(in Chinese)
[9]刘培玄,刘红帅,赵纪生,等.基于Ki K-net台站的中美场地类别对比分析[J].地震工程与工程振动,2015,35(6):42-46Liu Pei-xuan,Liu Hong-shuai,Zhao Ji-sheng,et al.Comparison of site classification between Chinese and American seismic codes based on data of Japanese Ki Knet station[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics,2015,35(6):42-46(in Chinese)
[10]王亮.基于Ki K-net强震台网的土层地震动特性研究[D].哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所,2014Wang Lang. The research of soil layer seismic characteristic based on Ki K-net strong-motion network[D]. Harbin:Institute of Engineering Mechanics,China Earthquake Administration,2014(in Chinese)
[11]李瑞山.新一代土层地震反应分析方法研究[D].哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所,2016Li Rui-shan. Research on a new generation technique for ground seismic response analysis[D]. Harbin:Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration,2016(in Chinese)
[12]杜修力,袁雪纯,黄景琦,等.典型土层场地随机地震反应规律分析[J].震灾防御技术,2017,12(3):574-588Du Xiu-li, Yuan Xue-chun, Huang Jing-qi, el al.Analysis of stochastic seismic response in typical soil sites[J]. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention,2017,12(3):574-588(in Chinese)
[13]于啸波,孙锐,李晓飞.软场地下两种地震反应分析程序的对比[J].世界地震工程,2016,32(1):130-138Yu Xiao-bo,Sun Yue,Li X F,el al. Comparison of two seismic response analysis programs in soft sites[J].World Earthquake Engineering,2016,32(1):130-138(in Chinese)
[14] Kaklamanos J,Baise L G,Thompson E M,et al.Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six Ki K-net validation sites[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,2015,69:207-219
[15] Bolisetti C, Whittaker A S, Mason H B, et al.Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear structures[J]. Nuclear Engineering&Design,2014,275(8):107-121
[2]李兆焱,袁晓铭,王鸾,等.巨厚场地三种土层地震反应分析程序对比检验[J].地震工程与工程振动,2017,37(4):42-50Li Zhao-yan, Yuan Xiao-ming, Wang Luan, et al.Verification of three methods for calculating earthquake response of soil layers in deep sites[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics,2017,37(4):42-50(in Chinese)
[3] Idriss I M,Sun J I. User's Manual for SHAKE91[J].Center for Geotechnical Modeling,1992,388(5-6):279-360
[4]廖振鹏.地震小区划(理论与实践)[M].北京:地震出版社,1989:141-153Liao Zhen-peng. Seismic micro zonation(theory and practice)[M]. Beijing:Seismological Press,1989:141-153(in Chinese)
[5] Bardet J P,Ichii K,Lin C H. EERA—A computer program for equivalent-linear earthquake site response analyses of layered soil deposits[R]. 2000,1-31
[6]杨洋,孙锐,杨洪搏,等.国际上两种典型土层地震反应分析程序对比研究[J].世界地震工程,2017,33(3):17-23Yang Yang,Sun Yue,Yang Hong-bo,et al. Contrasting study between two international typical soil layers seismic response analysis programs[J]. World Earthquake Engineering,2017,33(3):17-23(in Chinese)
[7]袁晓铭,李瑞山,孙锐.新一代土层地震反应分析方法[J].土木工程学报,2016,49(10):95-102Yuan Xiao-ming, Li Rui-shan, Sun Yue. A new generation method for earthquake response analysis of soil layers[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal,2016,49(10):95-102(in Chinese)
[8]朱姣,许汉刚,陈国兴.苏州第四纪深厚沉积层一维等效线性和非线性地震反应对比分析[J].岩土力学,2018,39(4):1-13Zhu Jiao,Xu Han-gang,Chen Guo-xing. Comparison of1D equivalent-linear and nonlinear seismic site responses for quaternary deep sediment layers in Suzhou region[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,2018,39(4):1-13(in Chinese)
[9]刘培玄,刘红帅,赵纪生,等.基于Ki K-net台站的中美场地类别对比分析[J].地震工程与工程振动,2015,35(6):42-46Liu Pei-xuan,Liu Hong-shuai,Zhao Ji-sheng,et al.Comparison of site classification between Chinese and American seismic codes based on data of Japanese Ki Knet station[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics,2015,35(6):42-46(in Chinese)
[10]王亮.基于Ki K-net强震台网的土层地震动特性研究[D].哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所,2014Wang Lang. The research of soil layer seismic characteristic based on Ki K-net strong-motion network[D]. Harbin:Institute of Engineering Mechanics,China Earthquake Administration,2014(in Chinese)
[11]李瑞山.新一代土层地震反应分析方法研究[D].哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所,2016Li Rui-shan. Research on a new generation technique for ground seismic response analysis[D]. Harbin:Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration,2016(in Chinese)
[12]杜修力,袁雪纯,黄景琦,等.典型土层场地随机地震反应规律分析[J].震灾防御技术,2017,12(3):574-588Du Xiu-li, Yuan Xue-chun, Huang Jing-qi, el al.Analysis of stochastic seismic response in typical soil sites[J]. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention,2017,12(3):574-588(in Chinese)
[13]于啸波,孙锐,李晓飞.软场地下两种地震反应分析程序的对比[J].世界地震工程,2016,32(1):130-138Yu Xiao-bo,Sun Yue,Li X F,el al. Comparison of two seismic response analysis programs in soft sites[J].World Earthquake Engineering,2016,32(1):130-138(in Chinese)
[14] Kaklamanos J,Baise L G,Thompson E M,et al.Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six Ki K-net validation sites[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,2015,69:207-219
[15] Bolisetti C, Whittaker A S, Mason H B, et al.Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear structures[J]. Nuclear Engineering&Design,2014,275(8):107-121
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |