Influence of 3D spatial effect of underground structure on the nonlinear seismic response of subway station based on the comparison of 2D and 3D models

被引:8
|
作者
Jin, Liguo [1 ]
Du, Liting [2 ]
Zhou, Wen [2 ]
Chen, Su [3 ]
Zhou, Zhenghua [2 ]
Zhou, Bengang [1 ]
机构
[1] China Earthquake Adm, Inst Geol, Beijing 100029, Peoples R China
[2] Nanjing Tech Univ, Coll Transportat Engn, Nanjing 210009, Peoples R China
[3] Beijing Univ Technol, Coll Architecture & Civil Engn, Beijing 100124, Peoples R China
基金
北京市自然科学基金; 中国博士后科学基金; 中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Underground station structure; Dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI); Structural spatial effects; Earthquake damage; Conversion coefficient; Finite element method; PLASTIC-DAMAGE MODEL; FAILURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.tust.2023.105119
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
This paper takes an actual station of Nanjing Metro Line 2 as the research object and establishes the corresponding 2D and 3D overall time-domain nonlinear finite element models, respectively. By analyzing the results of the two models, the influence of the 3D spatial effects of the underground structure on the seismic response of the structure is studied. The results show that the 2D model cannot correctly reflect the deformation characteristics of the 3D station structure at the middle of the longitudinal length. The results obtained from the 2D model are roughly equivalent to the results at 1/4 of the longitudinal length of the 3D station structure. The overall longitudinal bending deflection of the station's top and middle slabs in their own plane can well reflect the 3D cooperative work degree of the station. Based on this, the conversion coefficient of the maximum interstory displacement angle proposed in this paper can better convert the 2D model results. The minimum error between the converted 2D model results and the 3D model results is only 0.78%, and the maximum error is only about 10%. The maximum inter-story displacement angle conversion coefficient with 95% probability guarantee finally given is 1.447. Through the statistical analysis of the internal force ratio of the 3D model and the 2D model at the key cross-sections, this paper also gives the conversion coefficients with 95% probability guarantee for the bending moment, the axial force and the shear force of the key cross-sections, which are 0.696, 0.773, and 0.785, respectively.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison between the seismic response of 2D and 3D models of rigid blocks
    Angelo Di Egidio
    Daniele Zulli
    Alessandro Contento
    Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2014, 13 (01) : 151 - 162
  • [2] Comparison between the seismic response of 2D and 3D models of rigid blocks
    Di Egidio, Angelo
    Zulli, Daniele
    Contento, Alessandro
    EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION, 2014, 13 (01) : 151 - 162
  • [3] Comparison between the seismic response of 2D and 3D models of rigid blocks
    Angelo Di Egidio
    Daniele Zulli
    Alessandro Contento
    Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2014, 13 : 151 - 162
  • [4] Comparison between 2D and 3D numerical analysis for seismic response of Xiluodu underground caverns
    Lu, Tao
    Li, Hai-Bo
    Yang, Jian-Hong
    Zhou, Qing-Chun
    Li, Jun-Ru
    Yantu Lixue/Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2009, 30 (03): : 721 - 728
  • [5] Shaking table tests on subway station joint structure and 3D numerical simulation of seismic response
    Yang, Lin-De
    Wang, Guo-Bo
    Zheng, Yong-Lai
    Ma, Xian-Feng
    Yantu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2007, 29 (12): : 1892 - 1898
  • [6] COMPARISON OF 2D AND 3D MODELS OF SALINITY NUMERICAL SIMULATION
    Li Chunhui
    Pan Xishan
    Ke Jie
    Dong Xiaotian
    POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, 2015, 22 : 26 - 29
  • [7] Registration Using Nanotube Stationary Tomosynthesis: Comparison of 3D/3D to 3D/2D Methods
    Frederick, B.
    Lalush, D.
    Chang, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (06)
  • [8] 3D and 2D/3D holograms model
    A. A. Boriskevich
    V. K. Erohovets
    V. V. Tkachenko
    Optical Memory and Neural Networks, 2012, 21 (4) : 242 - 248
  • [9] 2D or 3D?
    Mills, R
    COMPUTER-AIDED ENGINEERING, 1996, 15 (08): : 4 - 4
  • [10] A microfluidic device for 2D to 3D and 3D to 3D cell navigation
    Shamloo, Amir
    Amirifar, Leyla
    JOURNAL OF MICROMECHANICS AND MICROENGINEERING, 2016, 26 (01)