No m + 204m + 460m + 204m + 48m 964m 36 30m 161 4m Y

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF BASIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Vol 20 No 2 April doi /j issn U A CB beerli@ vip sian com heqiumei06@ 126 com

2 No m + 204m + 460m + 204m + 48m 964m 36 30m 161 4m Y

3 274 Vol Fig 1 1 Analysis model of a long-span cable-stayed bridge 9 84s 4 2 Fig 2 2 The first four vibration modes of the analysis bridge model 2 n r

4 No MẌ t + CX t + KX t = B 0 U t + H 0 M g t X t 0 = X 0 X t 0 = X 0 1 M C K n n X t X t Ẍ t n Ẍ g t U t r 1 H 0 n 1 B 0 n r [ ] Z = X X t = Z AZ t + BU t + HẌg t Z t 0 = Z 0 0 I A = [ - M - 1 K - M ] - 1 C B = 0 M - 1 B [ ] 0 H = [ 0 H ] LQR 0 2 J = 1 2 Z T QZ + U T RU dt t0 3 Q 2n 2n R r r U t = - GZ t G = R - 1 B T P r 2n P 2n 2n Riccati A T P + PA - PBR -1 B T P + Q = 0 t = Z A - BG Z t + HẌg t Z t 0 = Z 0 5 Q R U t R Q Q R Q R Q = α[ K 0 0 M] R = βi α β 6 u is t f id u is t = - f id t f id t = c id y is t c id y is t 4

5 276 Vol 20 { f idmax u i y is < 0 u i f idmax semi f id = u i sgn y is u i y is < 0 u i < f idmax u i y is 0 f idmin p-on p-on 6 f id = f idymax sgn y is 7 [ ] LQR Q R Q = α K 0 0 M R = βi α = β = c max = N s /m c max = N s /m 8 2 Runge-Kutta Newmark 3 4 PGA PGV n dt 1 ra Northridge 7 1 Beverly Hills-Mulhol B /C PGA = cm /s 2 PGV = 59 0cm /s n = 2048 dt = 0 01s 2 ra Northridge 7 1 Newhall-W Pico Canyon Rd B /C PGA = cm /s 2 PGV = 92 8cm /s n = 2048 dt = 0 01s 3 ra D PGA = cm /s 2 PGV = 57 85cm /s n = 4096 dt = 0 01s 4 ra C PGA = cm /s 2 PGV = 51 81cm /s n = 4096 dt = 0 01s gal 4 ra1 aa11 aa12 aa13 aa14 ra2 aa21 aa22 aa23 aa24

6 No Fig 3 3 Acceleration and velocity time-histories of earthquake ground motion records with large velocity pulse ra3 aa31 aa32 aa33 aa34 ra4 aa41 aa42 aa43 aa44 4 Fig 4 4 Acceleration and velocity time-histories of synthetic ground motions

7 278 Vol 20 4 X Z X 1 21 Dx21 20 Dx M32 Q32 19 M19 N19 20 M20 N Ax21 20 Ax20 JZ i = du i t max - d c i t max d u i t max 100% n r n - r d u i t d c i t i 8 JZ i i 4 un Semi P-on JZ i Table 1 Dx21 /cm ra1 aa11 aa12 ra1 Maximum responses of the long-span cable-stayed bridge for input group ra1 Dx20 /cm M32 M19 M20 Q32 N19 N20 Ax21 Ax20 un Semi JZ i - 10% - 10% - 9% 0% 0% 0% - 2% 2% 5% - 18% P-on JZ i - 8% - 5% - 13% 1% 0% - 2% 1% 0% 10% - 17% un Semi JZ i 14% 3% 4% 1% 0% - 3% - 6% - 6% 7% 21% P-on JZ i 20% 16% 0% 5% 0% - 1% - 11% - 11% 14% 21% un Semi JZ i - 1% 12% - 4% 2% 0% 3% 6% 1% 8% 24% P-on JZ i 8% 25% - 4% 6% 0% 8% 9% 3% 18% 36%

8 No Dx21 /cm aa13 aa14 Dx20 /cm M32 M19 M20 Q32 N19 N20 Ax21 1 Ax20 un Semi JZ i 7% 33% - 10% 2% 0% - 4% 5% 0% 6% 13% P-on JZ i 5% 33% - 13% 6% 0% - 5% 9% 3% 15% 31% un Semi JZ i 11% 23% 1% 1% 0% 1% 9% 5% 8% - 32% P-on JZ i 20% 29% 3% 3% 0% 5% 15% 11% 17% - 38% 2 Table 2 Dx21 /cm ra2 aa21 aa22 aa23 aa24 ra2 Maximum responses of the long-span cable-stayed bridge for input group ra2 Dx20 /cm M32 M19 M20 Q32 N19 N20 Ax21 Ax20 un Semi JZ i 22% 25% 0% 1% 0% - 6% - 14% - 1% - 9% 41% P-on JZ i 29% 33% - 18% - 1% 0% - 10% - 28% - 9% - 18% 19% un Semi JZ i 32% 25% - 18% - 5% 0% - 12% - 8% - 3% - 6% - 15% P-on JZ i 46% 36% - 31% - 8% 0% - 29% - 11% - 5% - 7% - 14% un Semi JZ i 30% 29% - 7% 2% 0% 6% - 12% - 5% - 5% 3% P-on JZ i 44% 43% - 11% 3% 0% 4% - 24% - 13% - 15% 13% un Semi JZ i 20% 25% 1% - 1% 0% - 12% 0% 1% 5% 9% P-on JZ i 25% 34% - 25% - 3% 0% - 21% - 11% - 3% 8% 18% un Semi JZ i 22% 31% - 13% - 6% 0% - 2% - 10% - 7% - 6% 25% P-on JZ i 34% 43% - 29% - 11% 0% 0% - 18% - 11% - 9% 23%

9 280 Vol 20 3 Table 3 Dx21 /cm ra3 aa31 aa32 aa33 aa34 ra3 Maximum responses of the long-span cable-stayed bridge for input group ra3 Dx20 /cm M32 M19 M20 Q32 N19 N20 Ax21 Ax20 un Semi JZ i 60% 60% 58% 22% 0% 28% 14% 12% 28% 12% P-on JZ i 68% 69% 65% 21% 0% 20% - 9% - 3% 18% 21% un Semi JZ i 72% 73% 66% 17% 0% 35% - 7% - 19% 20% 46% P-on JZ i 79% 79% 75% 19% 0% 34% - 14% - 26% 25% 44% un Semi JZ i 65% 67% 55% 13% 0% 37% - 13% - 23% 15% 44% P-on JZ i 75% 76% 68% 18% 0% 30% - 20% - 30% 19% 47% un Semi JZ i 64% 64% 63% 11% 0% 30% 13% - 2% 27% 38% P-on JZ i 73% 74% 68% 13% 0% 34% 1% - 12% 28% 41% un Semi JZ i 61% 61% 57% 19% 0% 18% - 11% - 23% 9% 28% P-on JZ i 71% 72% 63% 17% 0% 14% - 27% - 36% 13% 28% 4 Table 4 Dx21 /cm ra4 aa41 ra4 Maximum responses of the long-span cable-stayed bridge for input group ra4 Dx20 /cm M32 M19 M20 Q32 N19 N20 Ax21 Ax20 un Semi JZ i 40% 40% 39% 8% 0% 27% - 26% - 25% 1% 6% P-on JZ i 52% 52% 46% 4% 0% 1% - 65% - 38% - 5% - 2% un Semi JZ i 45% 44% 42% - 6% 0% - 14% - 48% - 24% 23% 6% P-on JZ i 60% 59% 46% - 14% 0% - 18% - 77% - 40% 17% 13%

10 No Dx21 /cm aa42 aa43 aa44 Dx20 /cm M32 M19 M20 Q32 N19 N20 Ax21 4 Ax20 un Semi JZ i 49% 49% 41% 10% 0% - 35% - 25% - 24% 21% 5% P-on JZ i 62% 61% 54% 9% 0% - 46% - 45% - 40% 18% 14% un Semi JZ i 44% 44% 32% 5% 0% 0% - 65% - 35% - 3% - 2% P-on JZ i 56% 55% 39% - 3% 0% - 22% - 102% - 52% - 4% - 2% un Semi JZ i 32% 31% 25% 5% 0% 14% - 21% - 12% 5% 3% P-on JZ i 49% 49% 30% - 6% 0% 1% - 35% - 29% 3% 1% Fig 5 5 Seismic response reduction ratio of the semi-active control bridge in different ground motion inputs

11 282 Vol 20 Fig 6 6 Seismic response reduction ratio of the passive control bridge in different ground motion inputs = / ra1 ra2 ra3 ra Fig 7 Normalized maximum responses of the bridge with different control cases in different ground motion inputs

12 No % 25% 25% 5 6 ra1 ra2 ra3 ra4 3 ra1 ra2 ra3 ra J Ye Aijun Fan Lichu Seismic response reduction of a super-long-span cable-stayed bridge by adding dampers J Journal of Tongji University Natural Science J

13 284 Vol 20 Qi Xingjun Li Xiaojun Study on seismic response control for a long-span floating cable-stayed bridge J Journal of Vibration and Shock J Qi Xingjun Li Xiaojun Li Meiling Seismic analysis for a long-span cable-stayed bridge with visco-dampers J Railway Engineering J Yang Yang Ou Jinping Numerical analysis of jacket offshore platform model isolation structure with mr damper J Basic Science and Engineering J Zhou Yuan Zhao Fengxin Huo Xin et al The influence of peak ground displacements on the seismic response of large span cable-stayed bridge J Earthquake Research in China Murat Dicleli Performance of seismic-isolated bridges in relation to near-fault ground-motion and isolator characteristics J Earthquake Spectra J Wang Hao Tan Ping Yin Weixi et al Seismic response of bridge structure in near-field J South China Journal of Seismology Vu Phan Saiid Saiidi M ASCE F et al Near-fault ground motion effects on reinforced concrete bridge columns J Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE J Wang Tongning Liu Jianxin Yu Yongbo Spatial Dynamic analysis of isolated bridges subjected to near-fault ground motion J Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering J Li Xinle Zhu Xi Velocity pulse for near-fault ground motions and its effect on seismic response of pier J Journal of Northern Jiaotong University J Yang Dixiong Li Gang Cheng Gengdong Seismic analysis of base-isolated structures subjected to near-fault pulse-like ground motions J Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration Polsak Tothong Allin Cornell C Structural performance assessment under near-source pulse-like ground motions using advanced ground motion intensity measures J Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics J Li Xinle Zhu Xi Study on velocity pulse effect and its simulated model for near-fault ground motions J China Safety Science Journal

14 No Seismic Mitigation Control Effects of Long-span Cable-stayed Bridges to Ground Motions with Velocity Pulse LI Xiaojun 1 HE Qiumei 1 QI Xingjun 2 1 Institute of Geophysics China Earthquake Administration Beijing China 2 School of Civil Engineering Shandong Jianzhu University Jinan China Abstract The velocity pulse of near-fault ground motions can aggravate the earthquake damage to engineering structures The velocity pulse is regarded as one of the important engineering characteristics of near-fault ground motions affecting the earthquake damages to engineering structures The seismic responses and structural control effects were simulated by three dimensional finite element model for long-span floating cable-stayed bridges with and without the vibration control system in which four strong motion records with velocity pulse and corresponding synthetic time histories with same response spectra and without velocity pulse were used as ground motion inputs The characteristics of velocity pulse influence were discussed respectively on seismic responses of long-span floating cable-stayed bridges with and without the vibration control system The study shows that seismic responses of cable-stayed bridge to ground motions with velocity pulse are greater than those to ground motions without velocity pulse and ground motions with velocity pulse can make strong disadvantageous influence on seismic responses of bridges with un-control semi-active control and passive control systems and the influence is almost same on responses of bridges with semi-active control and passive control systems Keywords cable-stayed bridge strong motion velocity pulse semi-active control passive control