31 6 2011 12 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 31 No. 6 Dec. 2011 1000-1301 2011 06-0159 - 08 1 1 1 1 2 1. 150080 2. 100124 1 2 3 P315. 93 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 150080 China 2. College of Architecture and Civil Engineering Beijing University of Technology Beijing 100022 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 9 8 2011-03 - 10 2011-05 - 10 200808022 1963 - E-mail 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. 922 g /cm 3 G max = 46. 0 MPa λ max = 13. 53% 2 1 Fig. 1 Test model 2 Fig. 2 Shear laminar box 1. 2 3 A 4 Fig. 3 3 4 Strain gauges and acceleration sensors in the structure Fig. 4 Acceleration sensors in the soil
6 161 1. 3 El Centro 25 s 2 1 0. 1 g El Centro 2 0. 6 g El Centro 5 Fig. 5 0. 1g El Centro El Centro ground motion PGA = 0. 1g 6 Fig. 6 0. 6g El Centro El Centro ground motion PGA = 0. 6g 2 2. 1 A4 A7 A9 Aup2 7 0. 1g 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
162 31 Table 1 1 0. 1g 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 Ab1 0 0. 095 2 1 0. 524 4 1 A4 370 0. 093 3 0. 979 5 0. 484 2 0. 923 3 A7 670 0. 106 0 1. 113 5 0. 566 4 1. 080 2 A9 970 0. 118 1 1. 240 3 0. 661 5 1. 261 5 Aup2 1500 0. 137 3 1. 441 9 0. 886 0 1. 689 6 Fig. 8 8 Acceleration amplification factors vs. locations of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g 8 2 A4 1 A4 A4 2. 2 - A2 A1-1 A1-2 A1-4 A1 Aup1 A1-1 A1-2 A1-4 3 A2 A1 Aup1 3 9 0. 1g El Centro 0. 6g El Centro 2 Table 2 2 0. 1g 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 A2 370 0. 092 7 0. 973 7 0. 529 3 1. 009 3 A1-1 549 0. 099 9 1. 049 4 0. 524 2 0. 999 6 A1-2 763 0. 111 3 1. 169 1 0. 601 2 1. 146 4 A1-4 107 7 0. 117 8 1. 237 4 0. 677 0 1. 291 0 A1 130 0 0. 118 9 1. 249 0 0. 869 6 1. 658 3 Aup1 150 0 0. 129 9 1. 364 5 0. 785 5 1. 498 0
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. 10 10 Acceleration amplification factors vs. locations of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g 10 2 10 2 > > 10 b 0. 6g 0. 6g 2. 3
164 31 0. 1g El Centro 11 Fig. 11 11 Strain time histories at column top in each floor Fig. 12 12 Peak strains vs. locations of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g 12 3 3 Table 3 Peak strains vs. locations 12 3 of monitoring points 0. 1g 0. 6g mm 1 26 13. 15 2 228 10. 55 3 240 20. 69 4 390 26. 63 6 554 48. 02
6 165 > > 2. 4 13 14 1 1 ~ 10 11 ~ 20 21 ~ 30 Fig. 13 13 Column damage in each floor 13 14 Fig. 14 Wall-floor joint damage
166 31 2 14 2 3 1 2 3 1. C / / 7. 2006 39-50. 2. J. 2006 39 6 106-110. 3. D. 2010. 4. C / /. 2004 162-167. 5. M. 2002. 6. J. 1996 29 1 15-24.