JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 31 No. 6 Dec

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 31 No. 6 Dec"

佻仁松
7 years ago
Views:

1 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 31 No. 6 Dec P TU 43 TU41 A Shaking table test analysis of three-story subway station JING Liping 1 MENG Xianchun 1 SUN Haifeng 1 ZOU Yan 1 LU Bodi 2 1. Institute of Engineering Mechanics China Earthquake Administration Harbin China 2. College of Architecture and Civil Engineering Beijing University of Technology Beijing China Abstract The shaking table test of three-story subway station is performed to study the failure mechanism of multistory underground structure in earthquake. Particle concrete is chosen to make the testing model and the reinforced bar is set strictly according to the similarity ratio. A large-scale shear box is developed to reduce the boundary effect. By analysis of acceleration and strain the following conclusions are drawn 1 The failure of underground structure in earthquake is mainly controlled by displacement. 2 As to multi-story underground structure the uppermost story suffers the most severe damage in earthquake. On the contrary the lowest story suffers the slightest damage. 3 Increasing ductility is an effective method to improve the seismic performance of underground structures. Key words shaking table underground structure failure mechanism shear box Jing_liping@ 126. com

160 31 1 2 5. 12 3 1995 4 1985 8. 1 5 1923 25 6 1 1. 1 1 1 30 28 1.

1 Test model 2 Fig. 2 Shear laminar box 1. 2 3 A 4 Fig.

2 g /cm 3 G max = MPa λ max = % 2 1 Fig. 1 Test model 2 Fig. 2 Shear laminar box A 4 Fig Strain gauges and acceleration sensors in the structure Fig. 4 Acceleration sensors in the soil

3 El Centro 25 s g El Centro g El Centro 5 Fig g El Centro El Centro ground motion PGA = 0. 1g 6 Fig g El Centro El Centro ground motion PGA = 0. 6g A4 A7 A9 Aup g El Centro 0. 6 g El Centro 1 7 Ab1 A4 A7 A9 Aup 2 Fig. 7 Acceleration time histories at Ab1 A4 A7 A9 and Aup 2

4 Table g 0. 6g Acceleration amplification factors vs. locations of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g mm El 0. 1g El 0. 1g El 0. 6g El 0. 6g Ab A A A Aup Fig. 8 8 Acceleration amplification factors vs. locations of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g 8 2 A4 1 A4 A A2 A1-1 A1-2 A1-4 A1 Aup1 A1-1 A1-2 A1-4 3 A2 A1 Aup g El Centro 0. 6g El Centro 2 Table g 0. 6g Acceleration amplification factors vs. locations of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g mm El 0. 1g El 0. 1g El 0. 6g El 0. 2g A A A A A Aup

5 6 163 Fig. 9 9 A2 A1-4 A1-2 A1-1 A1 Aup1 Acceleration time histories at A2 A1-4 A1-2 A1-1 and Aup1 Fig Acceleration amplification factors vs. locations of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g > > 10 b 0. 6g 0. 6g 2. 3

6 g El Centro 11 Fig Strain time histories at column top in each floor Fig Peak strains vs. locations of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g Table 3 Peak strains vs. locations 12 3 of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g mm

7 6 165 > > ~ ~ ~ 30 Fig Column damage in each floor Fig. 14 Wall-floor joint damage

8 C / / J D C / / M J

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 31 No. 5 Oct /35 TU3521 P315.

31 5 2011 10 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 31 No. 5 Oct. 2011 1000-1301 2011 05-0075 - 09 510405 1 /35 TU3521 P315. 8 A Earthquake simulation shaking table test and analysis