پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 21 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 671 |
| تعداد مقالات | 9,763 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 69,504,523 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 48,627,182 |
بررسی توزیع فضایی زلزله بر منحنی‌های شکنندگی اجزای پل‌های بزرگراهی با نشیمن مورب در حوزه دور و نزدیک زلزله | ||
| مهندسی زیر ساخت های حمل و نقل | ||
| مقاله 6، دوره 3، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 10، شهریور 1396، صفحه 89-110 اصل مقاله (5.69 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22075/jtie.2017.11222.1208 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حمیدرضا نوری1؛ محمد مهدی معمارپور* 2؛ منصور یخچالیان2 | ||
| 1دانشآموخته کارشناسی ارشد مهندسی زلزله، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی (ره)، قزوین | ||
| 2استادیار، گروه مهندسی عمران، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی(ره)، قزوین، ایران | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 13 اردیبهشت 1396، تاریخ بازنگری: 06 شهریور 1396، تاریخ پذیرش: 19 شهریور 1396 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در این مطالعه، اثر عدم قطعیت زاویه برخورد زلزله به سازه در افزایش تقاضای مهندسی اجزای پل‌های بزرگراهی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. بدین منظور، تحلیل‌های دینامیک غیرخطی با استفاده از 80 شتاب‌نگاشت (40 شتاب‌نگاشت حوزه نزدیک و 40 شتاب‌نگاشت حوزه دور) در 12 جهت مختلف (از صفر تا 180 درجه) بر مدل‌های عددی پل‌های با نشیمن مورب (از صفر تا 60 درجه) انجام گرفت. اجزای منحنی‌های شکنندگی به‌دست‌آمد و پاسخ فوق با نتایج تحلیل با اعمال زلزله در راستاهای اصلی مقایسه گردید. میزان اختلاف تا 65% مشاهده شد. همچنین، با استفاده از دوران محورهای دریافت پاسخ، تقاضای ایجاد شده در راستاهای مختلف صفحه (از صفر تا 360 درجه) محاسبه شد تا اثر دوران محور دریافت پاسخ بر پاسخ پل بررسی گردد. نتایج نشان داد که بین شدتهای نظیر زلزله در احتمال خرابی 50% در ستون پل، در حالتی که زلزله در راستاهای مختلف به سازه اعمال شود و محور دریافت پاسخ برای ثبت بیشینه پاسخ دوران داده شود، با حالتی که راستای اعمال زلزله و ثبت تقاضا منطبق بر محورهای طولی و عرضی پل باشد، 39% اختلاف وجود دارد. همچنین، این اختلاف، با افزایش زاویه نشیمن مورب پل رابطه مستقیم دارد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| رفتار لرزه‌ای پل؛ زاویه برخورد؛ نشیمن مورب؛ منحنی شکنندگی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Effect of Ground Motion Spatial Distribution on the Fragility of Skewed Highway Bridge Components under Far-field and Near-field Ground Motions | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Hamidreza Noori1؛ Mohammad Mahdi Memarpour2؛ Mansour yakhchalian2 | ||
| 1Graduated MSc. of Earthquake Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, I. R. Iran. | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The aim of this study was to determine the effects of uncertainty of incident angle on maximum values of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) in highway bridges. Thus, 80 ground motion pairs (40 far-field and 40 near-field ground motion pairs) are imposed on numerical models of a set of skewed bridges (0 to 60 degrees) in 12 various directions (0 to 180 degrees) by performing non-linear dynamic analyses. The components of fragility curves were obtained and compared to the results of the imposed excitations in the principal directions. The difference was up to 65%. Also, using rotation of response axes, the created demands in different directions (0 t0 360 degrees) were calculated to investigate the effect of rotation of response axis on bridge reponse. Results showed that there is 39% between excitation intensities in 50% failure probability in bridge column, when excitation is in different directions on the structure and the response axis is rotated to record maximum response, and the case where direction of imposing the excitation and recording demand correspond to longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge. Also, this difference has direct relationship with increase of skew angle of the bridge. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Bridge seismic behavior, Incident Angle, Skewed bridge, Fragility curve | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdel-Mohti, A. and Pekcan, G. 2008. “Seismic response of skewed RC box-girder bridges”. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 7(4): 415-426.
Athanatopoulou, A. M. 2005. “Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components”. Eng. Struct., 27(2): 301-312.
Aviram, A., Mackie, K. R. and Stojadinović, B. 2008. “Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California”. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Report. 2008/03.
Baker, J. W., and C. A. Cornell. 2006. “Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis”. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Report. 2006/08.
Baker, J. W., Lin, T. and Shahi, S. K. 2011. “New Ground Motion Selection Procedures and Selected Motions for the PEER Transportation Research Program”. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Report. 2011/03.
Banerjee Basu, S. and Shinozuka, M. 2011. “Effect of ground motion directionality on fragility characteristics of a highway bridge”. Adv. Civ. Eng., Retrieved from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ ace/ 2011 /536171/abs.
Bisadi, V. and Head, M. 2010. “Orthogonal effects in nonlinear analysis of bridges subjected to multicomponent earthquake excitation”. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., https://doi.org/10.1061/41130(369)20.
Boore, D. M. and Atkinson, G. M. 2008. “Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s”. Earthquake Spectra. [Online] 24 (1), 99–138. Available from: doi:10.1193/1.2830434.
Bozorgzadeh, A., Megally, S. H. and Ashford, S. A. 2007. “Seismic response of sacrificial exterior shear keys inbridge abutments”. Final Report No. SSRP–04/14, 82 p., San Diego, California.
Choi, E. 2002. “Seismic analysis and retrofit of mid-America bridges”. Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/21538.
Davila, F. and Cruz, E. 2004. “Study of the effect of in-plan asymmetry in multistory buildings subjected to uni- and bi-directional seismic motions”. The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Canada. Retrieved from www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_1042.pdf.
Dimitrakopoulos, E. G. 2011. “Seismic response analysis of skew bridges with pounding deck–abutment joints”. Eng. Struct., 33(3); 813-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.004.
Emami, A. R. and Halabian, A. M. 2015. “Spatial distribution of ductility demand and damage index in 3D RC frame structures considering directionality effects”. The Struct. Design Tall Special Build., 24(16): 941-961. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1219.
Ghobarah, A. A. and Tso, W. K. 1973. “Seismic analysis of skewed highway bridges with intermediate supports”. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 2(3): 235-248.
Kalantari, A. and Amjadian, M. 2010. “An approximate method for dynamic analysis of skewed highway bridges with continuous rigid deck”. Eng. Struct., 32(9): 2850-2860.
Kaviani, P., Zareian, F. and Taciroglu, E. 2014. “Performance-based seismic assessment of skewed bridges”. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Kent, D. C. and Park, R. 1971. “Flexural members with confined concrete”. J. Struct. Div., Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=100657.
Maragakis, E. A. and Jennings, P. C. 1987. “Analytical models for the rigid body motions of skew bridges”. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 15(8): 923-944.
Meng, J. Y. and Lui, E. M. 2000. “Seismic analysis and assessment of a skew highway bridge”. Eng. Struct., 22(11): 1433-1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(99)00097-8.
Meng, J. Y. and Lui, E. M. 2002. “Refined stick model for dynamic analysis of skew highway bridges”. J. Bridge Eng., 7(3): 184-194.
Muthukumar, S. 2003. “A contact element approach with hysteresis damping for the analysis and design of pounding in bridges”. Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/5286.
Nilson, B. G. 2005. “Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones”. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Penzien, J. and Watabe, M. 1974. “Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions”. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 3(4): 365-373. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290030407.
Ramanathan, K. N. 2012. “Next generation seismic fragility curves for California bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic design philosophy”. Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/44883.
Rigato, A. B. and Medina, R. A. 2007. “Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for inelastic single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions”. Eng. Struct., 29(10): 2593-2601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.01.008
SAP, C. 2008. “CSi Analysis Reference Manual [J]”. I: Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures Inc.
Shamsabadi, A., Rollins, K. M. and Kapuskar, M. 2007. “Nonlinear soil–abutment–bridge structure nteraction for seismic performance-based design”. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133(6), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:6(707).
Taskari, O. and Sextos, A. 2015. “Multi-angle, multi-damage fragility curves for seismic assessment of bridges”. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 44(13): 2281-2301. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2584.
Torbol, M. and Shinozuka, M. 2012. “Effect of the angle of seismic incidence on the fragility curves of bridges”. Earthqu. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 41(14): 2111-2124. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2197.
Wakefield, R. R., Nazmy, A. S. and Billington, D. P. 1991. “Analysis of seismic failure in skew RC bridge”. J. Struct. Eng., 117(3): 972-986.
Zakeri, B. and Ghodrati Amiri, G. 2014. “Probabilistic performance assessment of retrofitted skewed multi span continuous concrete I-girder bridges”. J. Earthq. Eng., 18(6): 945-963. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13632469.2014.916241. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,471 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 934 |
||