[1]杨洪搏.国内两种典型土层地震反应分析程序对比研究[J].防灾科技学院学报,2018,20(01):49-57.
 Yang Hongbo.Contrast of Seismic Response Analysis Programs between Two DomesticTypical Soil Layers[J].JOURNAL OF INSTITUTE OF DISASTER PREVENTION,2018,20(01):49-57.
点击复制

国内两种典型土层地震反应分析程序对比研究
分享到:

《防灾科技学院学报》[ISSN:1673-8047/CN:13-1377/P]

卷:
第20卷
期数:
2018年01期
页码:
49-57
栏目:
目次
出版日期:
2018-03-31

文章信息/Info

Title:
Contrast of Seismic Response Analysis Programs between Two Domestic Typical Soil Layers
作者:
杨洪搏
哈尔滨市防震减灾技术中心,黑龙江 哈尔滨150021
Author(s):
Yang Hongbo
Harbin Technical Center of Earthquake Prevention and Disaster Reduction, Harbin 150021, China
关键词:
土层地震反应分析 时域解 频域解 PGA 反应谱 剪应变
Keywords:
soil layers seismic response analysis time domain solution frequency domain solution PGA response spectrum shear strain
分类号:
TU43
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
重大工程场地施工之前需要对场地进行详细的工程抗震设计,而场地安全性评价是这其中的重要部分。地震系统内使用广泛的是LSSRLI-1分析程序,结果稳定,受众广泛。近期由工力所袁晓铭团队开发的新一代土层反应分析程序SOILQUAKE网页版开放使用。为得到这两个程序在基本工况下的对比,场地类型选用了硬、中硬、软三种类型,在6个场地分别输入了不同强度、不同频谱特征的三条地震动及其调幅地震动。对比两个程序得到的峰值加速度、输出时程、反应谱。结果显示:硬场地时两者的PGA与反应谱相差极小;中硬场地时PGA相对差平均值为21%,SOILQUAKE的反应谱值普遍大于LSSRLI-1,在高频部分这一差异更明显;软场地时SOILQUAKE反应谱值远大于LSSRLI-1结果,更接近实际地震记录统计结果。
Abstract:
It is necessary to carry out a thorough engineering seismic design of the site before major engineering site construction, and the safety evaluation of the site is an important part. LSSRLI-1 analysis program, which is stable and widely available, is used extensively. Recently, the new generation of soil layer response analysis program, SOILQUAKE, developed by Yuan Xiaoming’s group from IEM, is available to use. To get a contrast of these two programs in the basic condition, we selected three kinds of sites, such as hardness medium hard and soft fields, and three ground motions of different intensity and frequency spectrum and their vibration amplitude modulation are applied to 6 sites respectively. Then we compared the peak acceleration, output time history, and response spectrum by these two programs. As the results show, there is little difference in both PGA and response spectrum by these two programs in hard field. The mean relative difference of PGA in medium hard field is 21%, the response spectrum of SOILQUAKE is larger than that of LSSRLI-1, and this difference is more evident in the high frequency part. In the soft field, the response spectrum of SOILQUAKE is far larger than that of LSSRLI-1, which is more closer to the statistics of actual earthquakes.

参考文献/References:

[1]张克绪, 谢君斐. 土动力学[M]. 北京: 地震出版社,1989. [1]蔡晓光,范丽远.地震液化引起地面侧向大变形研究评述[J].防灾科技学院学报,2010,12(1):11-16.
[3]孟凡超,郭鑫.地震动特征的统计分析[J].防灾科技学院学报,2011,13(3):21-24.
[4]刘德东,齐文浩,张宇东,等. 现行土层地震反应分析存在的问题[J]. 防灾科技学院学报,2009,11(3):34-37.
[5]袁晓铭, 孙锐,孙静,等. 常规土类动剪切模量比和阻尼比试验研究 [J]. 地震工程与工程振动,2000, 20(4):133-139.
[6]齐文浩,薄景山. 土层地震反应分析的研究现状 [J]. 世界地震工程,2010, 26(S1):368-372.
[7]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):42-50.
[8]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):95-102,122.
[9]陈红娟. 土动力非线性的变异性及其对地震动影响的概率分析 [D]. 哈尔滨: 中国地震局工程力学研究所,2009.
[10]孙锐,陈红娟,袁晓铭. 土的非线性动剪切模量比和阻尼比不确定性分析 [J]. 岩土工程学报,2010,32 (8):1228-1235.
[11]王亮. 基于Kik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, 2014.
[12]陈龙伟,陈卓识,袁晓铭. 基于KikNet单场地震记录场地放大函数估计及标准差分析 [J]. 土木工程学报, 2013, 46(S2): 41-145.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2018-01-01 作者简介:杨洪搏(1990—),男,本科,助理工程师,主要从事场地地震安全性评价与地震监测方面的研究。
更新日期/Last Update: 2018-03-30