期刊文献+

基于双向拟静力试验的钢筋混凝土箱型薄壁墩抗震性能 被引量:11

Seismic performance of reinforced concrete thin-walled piers with rectangular hollow cross-sections based on bi-axial quasi-static testing
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 对14个钢筋混凝土箱型薄壁墩进行了双向拟静力试验,考察了长细比、轴压比、配箍率等对箱型薄壁墩双向荷载-位移滞回曲线、骨架曲线、位移延性、滞回耗能和极限曲率等特性的影响,讨论了箱型薄壁墩的双向滞回性能.结果表明:在水平双向反复荷载作用下,箱型薄壁墩以弯曲破坏为主,低墩破坏区域集中于墩底,高墩的破坏区域明显上移;长细比越大,轴压比越小的箱型薄壁墩滞回曲线越饱满,变形能力越大;在长细比为6.9~13.1的范围内,位移延性系数随长细比的增大而减小,长细比为16.3的试件位移延性系数明显增大;长细比大于13.1的试件塑性破坏范围明显增大,但极限曲率显著降低. Bi-axial quasi-static tests on 14 reinforced concrete thin-walled piers with rectangular hollow cross-sections were carried out. The bidirectional seismic properties, including load-displace- ment hysteresis curve, skeleton curve, displacement ductility, hysteretic energy and ultimate curva- ture, were discussed in consideration of the influence of slenderness ration, axial-load ratio and ratio of reinforcements. Results show that flexural failure is the main failure mode of the piers, the dam- age area of short piers focuses on the bottom area while the damage area of high piers moves upward obviously. The piers with bigger slenderness ratio and smaller axial-load ratio have more full hystere- sis curves and bigger deformation capacity, which reveals excellent seismic performance. As the slenderness ratio ranges from 6.9 to 13.1, the displacement ductility of the pier decreases as slender- ness ratio increases, but the displacement ductility of the pier with a slenderness ratio of 16.3 is ob- viously big. The piers with slenderness ratio bigger than 13.1 have big plastic damage area, but their ultimate curvature declines obviously.
出处 《东南大学学报(自然科学版)》 EI CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第1期180-187,共8页 Journal of Southeast University:Natural Science Edition
基金 "十二五"国家科技支撑计划资助项目(2011BAK02B03) 教育部博士点基金资助项目(20110092110011)
关键词 箱型薄壁墩 双向拟静力试验 滞回性能 滞回耗能 位移延性 极限曲率 thin-walled piers with rectangular hysteresis performance hysteretic hollow cross-sections bi-axial quasi-static testing energy displacement ductility ultimate curvature
  • 相关文献

参考文献18

  • 1Priestley M J N,Park R. Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under seismic loading[J].ACI Structural Journal,1987,(01):61-76.
  • 2Watson S,Park R. Simulated seismic load tests on reinforced concrete columns[J].Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE,1994,(06):1825-1849.
  • 3Hindi R,Turechek W. Experimental behavior of circular concrete columns under reversed cyclic loading[J].Construction and Building Materials,2008,(04):684-693.
  • 4Mo Y L,Wang S J. Seismic behavior of RC columns with various tie configurations[J].Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE,2000,(10):1122-1130.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:10(1122).
  • 5Takahashi Y,Iemura H. Inelastic seismic performance of RC tall piers with hollow section[A].Oakland,CA,2000.1353.
  • 6Yeh Y K,Mo Y L,Yang C Y. Seismic performance of rectangular hollow bridge columns[J].Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE,2002,(01):60-68.
  • 7杨新宝.钢筋混凝土桥梁抗震性能评估与加固[D]上海:同济大学,1997.
  • 8范立础;卓卫东.桥梁延性抗震设计[M]北京:人民交通出版社,2001.
  • 9崔海琴,贺拴海,宋一凡.空心矩形薄壁墩延性抗震性能试验[J].公路交通科技,2010,27(6):58-63. 被引量:21
  • 10杜修力,陈明琦,韩强.钢筋混凝土空心桥墩抗震性能试验研究[J].振动与冲击,2011,30(11):254-259. 被引量:45

二级参考文献42

共引文献135

同被引文献97

引证文献11

二级引证文献39

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部