DOI: 10.11908/j.issn.0253-374x.21142

作者:

作者单位: 1.北京工业大学 城市与工程安全减灾教育部重点实验室， 北京 100124;2.广州地铁设计研究院股份有限公司，广东 广州 510000;3.同济大学 土木工程学院， 上海 200092


作者简介: 赵 密（1980—），男，教授，博士生导师，工学博士，主要研究方向为重大工程结构抗震。 E-mail： zhaomi@bjut.edu.cn


通讯作者:

中图分类号: TU452


基金项目: 国家重点研发计划（2018YFC1504300）；国家自然科学基金（U183920026）




Comparison of Response Spectrum Method with Existing Simplified Method for Seismic Analysis of Underground structure
Author:

Affiliation: 1.Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of the Ministry of Education， Beijing University of Technology， Beijing 100124， China;2.Guangzhou Metro Design and Research Institute Co.， Ltd.， Guangzhou 510000， China;3.College of Civil Engineering， Tongji University， Shanghai 200092， China


Fund Project:




摘要
| 图/表
| 访问统计
| 参考文献
|相似文献
| 引证文献
| 资源附件

摘要:对比地下结构抗震分析的反应谱法与规范建议的简化分析方法即反应位移法和反应加速度法的计算精度。在简介3种方法的基础上，以3个地铁车站二维横断面抗震分析为例，以动力时程分析结果为参考标准，比较3类抗震分析方法的计算精度。研究表明，反应谱法计算地下结构变形及内力的误差为0.1%~14%，反应加速度法的误差为0.2%~26%，反应位移法的误差为9%~44%，反应谱法的计算精度高于反应加速度法和反应位移法。



Abstract:This paper compares the response spectrum method for seismic analysis of underground structures with the simplified analysis method （such as the response displacement method and the response acceleration method） suggested by the seismic code. First， the response spectrum method， the response displacement method， and the response acceleration method are briefly introduced. Then， taking the two-dimensional cross-sectional seismic analysis of three subway stations as an example， the accuracy of the three analysis methods is compared. The results obtained from the dynamic time-history analysis is used as the reference solution. The results show that the error of the response spectrum method is 0.1% to 14%， that of the response acceleration method is 0.2% to 26%， and that of the response displacement method is 9% to 44%. The accuracy of the response spectrum method is higher than both that of the response acceleration method and the response displacement method.





PDF全文下载地址:

点我下载PDF