考虑行波效应的在役连续梁桥抗震性能提升

doi:10.13229/j.cnki.jdxbgxb.20250162

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为研究不同抗震加固方式对服役梁桥的抗震性能提升效果，基于增量动力分析（IDA）的易损性分析方法对多遇、罕遇和极罕遇地震时桥梁的墩柱与支座进行抗震性能评估。设计了3种抗震加固方式供工程比选，包括对桥墩包裹纤维增强复合材料（FRP）材料、布置金属阻尼器和布设拉索限位装置。借助OpenSees平台建立全桥有限元动力分析模型，模拟3种抗震加固方式下桥梁的地震响应，综合考虑地震动的不确定性和行波效应，选取130条地震动用于IDA，得到地震一致激励和地震多点激励的IDA曲线簇。基于能力需求比模型，以曲率和位移为损伤指标，分别定义墩柱和支座地震损伤状态，绘制地震易损性曲线，对不同抗震加固方式下桥梁的抗震性能进行易损性对比分析。研究结果表明：包裹FRP材料对提升桥梁墩柱抗震性能效果显著，采取FRP加固方案后，墩柱在极罕遇地震下处于轻微损伤状态的超越概率降低幅值可达53.73%；布置金属阻尼器可有效控制支座损伤程度，在巨震作用下，支座阻尼减震后超越轻微损伤状态的概率仅为13.57%，支座大概率处于完好状态；布设拉索限位装置对提升桥梁抗震性能收益不大；考虑行波效应会降低墩柱的损伤超越概率，相比较一致激励下墩柱的损伤超越概率，采取FPR抗震加固措施前后，墩柱多点激励下损伤超越概率降低幅值分别为19.88%和22.07%，行波效应对支座的损伤超越概率影响不大。

关键词: 桥梁工程, 抗震加固, FRP加固, 金属阻尼器, 拉索限位装置, 易损性分析

Abstract:

To study the improvement effect of different seismic reinforcement methods on the seismic performance of service beam bridges， the seismic performance of piers and bearings of bridges during frequent ground motion， rare ground motion and very rare ground motion is evaluated based on the vulnerability analysis method of incremental dynamic analysis（IDA）. Three seismic reinforcement methods have been designed for engineering comparison， including wrapping fiber reinforced polymer（FRP）materials around piers， installing metal dampers， and installing cable restrainer. The finite element dynamic analysis model of the whole bridge was established with the help of OpenSees platform. Considering the uncertainty of ground motion and traveling wave effects， 130 ground motions were selected for IDA to obtain IDA curve clusters of uniform excitation and non-uniform excitation ground motion. Based on the capacity-demand ratio model， the curvature and displacement are used as damage measures to define the seismic damage states of piers and bearings respectively， and the seismic vulnerability curves are plotted to conduct a vulnerability comparison analysis of the seismic performance of bridges under different seismic strengthening methods. The research results show that： wrapping FRP materials has a significant effect on improving the seismic performance of bridge piers. After adopting the FRP reinforcement scheme， the probability of pier being slightly damaged under very rare ground motion can be reduced by 53.73%； The installation of metal dampers can effectively control the degree of bearing damage. Under major earthquake， the probability of the bearing exceeding a slight damage state after shock absorption is only 13.57%， and the bearing is likely to be in intact state； The installation of cable restrainer has little benefit in improving the seismic performance of bridges； Considering the traveling wave effect will reduce the damage exceeding probability of the pier， Compared with the damage exceeding probability of the pier under uniform excitation ground motion， before and after adopting FPR seismic reinforcement measures， the reduction amplitude of damage exceeding probability under non-uniform excitation ground motion of the pier is 19.88% and 22.07%， respectively. The traveling wave effect has little effect on the damage exceeding probability of the bearing.

Key words: bridge engineering, seismic reinforcement, FRP strengthened, metal dampers, cable restrainer, vulnerability analysis

中图分类号:

高泽亮,王晓明,王炳玉,史一哲,张恒,吴骞. 考虑行波效应的在役连续梁桥抗震性能提升[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2026, 56(9): 2382-2394.

Ze-liang GAO,Xiao-ming WANG,Bing-yu WANG,Yi-zhe SHI,He ZHANG,Qian WU. Improving seismic performance of in-service continuous beam bridges considering traveling wave effect[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Engineering and Technology Edition), 2026, 56(9): 2382-2394.

图/表 16

表1

图1

表2

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

图10

表3

表4

图11

表5

参考文献 23

[1]	中华人民共和国交通运输部. 2021年交通运输行业发展统计公报[EB/OL]. [2025-01-01]. .
[2]	Kunnath S K, Gross J L. Inelastic response of the cypress viaduct to the loma prieta earthquake[J]. Engineering Structures, 1995, 17(7): 485-493.
[3]	Marini A, Spacone E. Analysis of reinforced concrete elements including shear effects[J]. ACI Structural Journal, 2006, 103: 645-655.
[4]	陈乐生, 庄卫林, 赵河清. 汶川大地震公路震害调查:桥梁[M]. 北京: 人民交通出版社, 2012.
[5]	苏伟, 李晓波, 王雨权, 等. 铁路桥梁典型减隔震设计显式计算方法[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2025, 22(2):712-722.
	Su Wei, Li Xiao-bo, Wang Yu-quan, et al. Explicit analytical method for typical isolated system of railway bridges[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2025, 22(2): 712-722.
[6]	李立峰, 唐嘉豪, 胡睿, 等. 基于易损性的中等跨径连续梁桥合理抗震体系评估方法[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2022, 19(12): 3665-3677.
	Li Li-feng, Tang Jia-hao, Hu Rui, et al. Evaluation method of reasonable aseismic system for medium-span continuous girder bridges based on fragility[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2022, 19(12): 3665-3677.
[7]	Li Jian-ning, Yu Lu-song, Li Zi-qi, et al. Study on seismic performance of long-span railway continuous girder bridges in high seismic intensity region[J]. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 2020, 16(4): 310-327.
[8]	Xia Xiu-shen, Wu Sui-wen, Wei Xing-han, et al. Experimental and numerical study on seismic behavior of a self-centering railway bridge pier[J]. Earthquakes and Structures, 2021, 21: 173-183.
[9]	户东阳, 李聪林, 陈克坚, 等. 减震榫在高烈度地震区高速铁路连续梁桥中的应用研究[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2021, 18(9): 2255-2263.
	Hu Dong-yang, Li Cong-lin, Chen Ke-jian, et al. Research on application of damping tenon in high-speed railway continuous beam bridges in high-intensity seismic area[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2021, 18(9): 2255-2263.
[10]	林元铮, 田石柱. FRP加固RC连续梁桥抗震性能试验研究[J]. 振动与冲击, 2016, 35(5): 21-26, 38.
	Lin Yuan-zheng, Tian Shi-zhu. Tests for aseismic performances of a RC continuous girder bridge retrofitted by FRP jacket[J]. Journal of Vibration and Shock, 2016, 35(5): 21-26, 38.
[11]	田石柱, 贾红星, 林元铮. FRP加固混凝土连续梁桥抗震混合试验研究[J]. 地震工程与工程振动,2015, 35(5): 92-98.
	Tian Shi-zhu, Jia Hong-xing, Lin Yuan-zheng. Hybrid simulation of a continuous RC girder bridge retrofitted by FRP[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2015, 35(5): 92-98.
[12]	韩强, 温佳年, 杜修力, 等. CFRP布加固RC空心桥墩的抗震性能[J]. 土木工程学报, 2015, 48(1): 90-100.
	Han Qiang, Wen Jia-nian, Du Xiu-li, et al. Seismic performance of hollow bridge columns retrofitted with carbon FRP[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2015, 48(1): 90-100.
[13]	朱立华, 李钢, 董志骞, 等. 格栅式摩擦阻尼器的试验研究与数值模拟[J]. 振动与冲击, 2020, 39(4): 96-105.
	Zhu Li-hua, Li Gang, Dong Zhi-qian, et al. An experimental study and numerical simulation of lattice-shaped friction devices[J]. Journal of Vibration and Shock, 2020, 39(4): 96-105.
[14]	Zhou L X, Wang X W, Ye A J. Low cycle fatigue performance investigation on transverse steel dampers for bridges under ground motion sequences using shake-table tests[J]. Engineering Structures, 2019, 196: No.109328.
[15]	李建中, 汤虎. 中小跨径板式橡胶支座梁桥横向抗震设计研究[J]. 土木工程学报, 2016, 49(11): 69-78.
	Li Jian-zhong, Tang Hu. Study on transverse seismic design of small and medium span bridges with elastomeric bearing pads[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2016, 49(11): 69-78.
[16]	李悦, 李治, 李冲. 支座摩擦滑移和挡块力学性能退化影响下桥梁易损性研究[J]. 土木工程学报,2020, 53(): 280-287.
	Li Yue, Li Zhi, Li Chong. Bridge vulnerability under the influence of bearing friction-slip and performance degradation of stoppers[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2020, 53(Sup.2): 280-287.
[17]	Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Incremental dynamic analysis[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31: 491-515.
[18]	韩璐璐. 基于地震易损性的既有简支梁桥抗震加固研究[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学土木工程学院, 2020.
	Han Lu-lu. Research of reinforcement of existing simply supported girder bridge based on seismic vulnerability[D]. Chengdu: School of Civil Engineering,Southwest Jiaotong University, 2020.
[19]	项长生, 赵竞. 不同阻尼器对连续梁桥横向抗震性能的影响[J]. 沈阳建筑大学学报: 自然科学版, 2022, 38(1): 102-110.
	Xiang Chang-sheng, Zhao Jing. Influence of different dampers on transverse seismic performance of continuous beam bridges[J]. Journal of Shenyang Jianzhu University(Natural Science),2022, 38(1): 102-110.
[20]	谷屹童, 袁万城, 党新志. 拉索限位装置对跨断层桥梁地震响应的影响[J]. 同济大学学报: 自然科学版, 2020, 48(9): 1256-1263.
	Gu Yi-tong, Yuan Wan-cheng, Dang Xin-zhi. Effect of cable restrainers on seismic response of cross-fault bridges[J]. Journal of Tongji University(Natural Science), 2020, 48(9): 1256-1263.
[21]	中华人民共和国交通运输部. 公路桥梁抗震设计规范[M]. 北京: 人民交通出版社, 2020.
[22]	Lam L, Teng J G. Strength models for fiber-reinforced plastic-confined concrete[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2002, 128(5): 612-623.
[23]	周颖, 顾安琪. 自复位剪力墙结构四水准抗震设防下基于位移抗震设计方法[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2019, 40(3): 118-126.
	Zhou Ying, Gu An-qi. Displacement-based seismic design of self-centering shear walls under four-level seismic fortifications[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2019, 40(3): 118-126.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

损伤状态	原桥桥墩/（m^-1）		FRP加固桥墩/（m^-1）		滑动支座/mm		固定支座/mm
损伤状态	顺桥向	横桥向	顺桥向	横桥向	顺桥向	横桥向	顺桥向	横桥向
轻微损伤	0.001 84	0.001 85	0.005 99	0.005 98	90	40	48	48
中等损伤	0.014 48	0.014 45	0.018 95	0.018 98	135	60	72	72
严重损伤	0.021 35	0.021 31	0.079 05	0.079 02	180	80	96	96
完全破坏	0.023 30	0.023 26	0.107 15	0.107 13	225	100	120	120

序号	地震事件	时间/年份	记录台站	震级	PGA/g
1	Humbolt Bay	1937	Ferndale City Hall	5.8	0.036
2	Imperial Valley?01	1938	El Centro Array #9	5	0.015
3	Northwest Calif?02	1941	Ferndale City Hall	6.6	0.063
4	Borrego	1942	El Centro Array #9	6.5	0.066
5	Kern County	1952	Pasadena?CIT Athenaeum	7.36	0.048
6	Southern Calif	1952	San Luis Obispo	6	0.036
7	Northern Calif?04	1960	Ferndale City Hall	5.7	0.078
8	Parkfield	1966	San Luis Obispo	6.19	0.012
9	Lytle Creek	1970	Castaic?Old Ridge Route	5.33	0.020
10	San Fernando	1971	Anza Post Office	6.61	0.027
11	San Fernando	1971	Colton?So Cal Edison	6.61	0.032
12	San Fernando	1971	Hemet Fire Station	6.61	0.037
13	San Fernando	1971	Wheeler Ridge?Ground	6.61	0.026

损伤状态	PGA/g	D2号桥墩				D4号桥墩				D13桥墩
损伤状态	PGA/g	原桥	FRP加固	阻尼减震	拉索限位	原桥	FRP加固	阻尼减震	拉索限位	原桥	FRP加固	阻尼减震	拉索限位
轻微损伤	0.1	0.95	0	0.24	0.54	3.42	0	4.00	2.13	0.28	0	0.26	0.07
	0.2	13.47	0.08	10.44	10.23	21.28	0.39	29.02	17.71	2.89	0	6.92	1.56
	0.4	57.00	5.00	58.25	54.41	63.29	10.71	74.69	62.51	25.86	0.77	43.32	22.00
	0.6	82.74	20.49	84.62	83.22	85.45	31.72	91.72	86.74	60.23	6.48	72.54	57.81
	1.0	97.32	55.95	97.70	98.14	97.79	66.51	98.94	98.56	94.37	36.70	94.11	94.37
中等损伤	0.1	0	0	0	0	0.02	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	0.2	0.03	0	0	0.01	0.49	0	0.20	0.18	0	0	0	0
	0.4	1.47	0.05	0.24	0.66	7.40	0.37	4.86	4.72	0.25	0	0.44	0.06
	0.6	7.90	0.68	2.23	5.20	23.25	2.77	17.44	19.02	2.84	0.11	3.19	1.11
	1.0	33.53	6.75	15.07	30.71	58.95	15.54	49.28	57.72	28.16	2.96	18.73	18.48
严重损伤	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	0.2	0	0	0	0	0.17	0	0.05	0.05	0	0	0	0
	0.4	0.44	0	0.04	0.15	3.72	0	1.80	2.03	0.06	0	0.10	0.01
	0.6	3.20	0	0.50	1.74	14.29	0.01	8.46	10.51	1.03	0	1.01	0.29
	1.0	19.33	0.02	5.48	16.15	45.59	0.26	32.41	42.83	16.18	0.01	8.75	8.58
完全破坏	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	0.2	0	0	0	0	0.14	0	0.03	0.04	0	0	0	0
	0.4	0.33	0	0.02	0.11	3.15	0	1.41	1.65	0.05	0	0.07	0.01
	0.6	2.55	0	0.34	1.32	12.64	0	7.03	9.05	0.80	0	0.77	0.21
	1.0	16.71	0	4.20	13.62	42.60	0.07	28.94	39.53	14.01	0	7.23	7.03

极限状态	PGA/g	滑动支座				固定支座
极限状态	PGA/g	原桥	FRP加固	阻尼减震	拉索限位	原桥	FRP加固	阻尼减震	拉索限位
轻微损伤	0.1	6.16	5.98	0	3.72	0.12	0.14	0	0.05
	0.2	51.37	49.14	0	47.55	17.04	16.09	0	13.87
	0.4	94.24	93.44	0.04	94.43	81.37	80.11	0	80.42
	0.6	99.31	99.19	0.77	99.43	96.86	96.72	0	96.89
	1.0	99.98	99.98	13.57	99.99	99.85	99.87	0	99.86
中等损伤	0.1	0.55	0.54	0	0.20	0	0	0	0
	0.2	16.65	15.55	0	12.53	1.14	1.08	0	0.56
	0.4	71.67	69.78	0	69.31	33.23	32.19	0	27.72
	0.6	92.76	92.10	0.1	92.51	70.40	70.31	0	66.16
	1.0	99.47	99.44	3.74	99.51	94.98	95.59	0	93.96
严重损伤	0.1	0.06	0.06	0	0.01	0	0	0	0
	0.2	4.66	4.30	0	2.74	0.06	0.06	0	0.02
	0.4	44.50	42.65	0	39.47	8.48	8.22	0	5.28
	0.6	77.24	76.07	0.02	74.81	34.30	34.66	0	27.07
	1.0	96.75	96.66	1.18	96.51	75.88	78.16	0	70.00
完全破坏	0.1	0.01	0.01	0	0	0	0	0	0
	0.2	1.29	1.19	0	0.59	0	0	0	0
	0.4	24.52	23.24	0	19.34	1.77	1.74	0	0.79
	0.6	57.74	56.47	0	52.78	12.85	13.26	0	7.96
	1.0	90.20	90.10	0.42	88.77	48.93	52.30	0	39.26

损伤状态	PGA/g 激励方式	D4号桥墩				滑动支座				固定支座
		原桥		FRP加固		原桥		FRP加固		原桥		FRP加固
		一致	多点	一致	多点	一致	多点	一致	多点	一致	多点	一致	多点
轻微损伤	0.1	3.72	0.93	0.03	0	5.05	6.16	4.59	5.94	0	0	0	0
	0.2	13.80	5.11	0.65	0.07	20.95	20.43	20.50	20.10	0.10	0.11	0.08	0.15
	0.4	41.38	23.26	6.66	1.54	54.86	47.94	54.68	47.92	14.57	12.26	13.81	13.74
	0.6	64.57	45.39	18.28	6.13	76.17	66.61	75.95	66.89	50.24	43.88	50.61	46.69
	1.0	88.59	77.28	44.81	22.74	93.35	85.63	93.09	86.08	88.74	84.16	90.43	86.35
中等损伤	0.1	0.02	0	0	0	1.24	2.08	1.09	1.98	0	0	0	0
	0.2	0.26	0.01	0.01	0	7.88	9.28	7.64	9.08	0	0	0	0
	0.4	2.70	0.33	0.39	0.03	31.46	29.16	31.25	29.11	0.37	0.46	0.31	0.62
	0.6	9.08	1.78	1.93	0.23	54.25	47.29	53.92	47.56	5.30	5.56	5.11	6.78
	1.0	30.69	10.81	9.79	2.06	81.53	71.46	80.97	72.11	34.11	33.07	36.57	37.71
严重损伤	0.1	0.01	0	0	0	0.37	0.84	0.32	0.79	0	0	0	0
	0.2	0.09	0	0	0	3.27	4.68	3.14	4.56	0	0	0	0
	0.4	1.22	0.1	0	0	18.08	18.36	17.91	18.31	0.01	0.01	0	0.02
	0.6	4.86	0.67	0.02	0	37.35	33.70	37.01	33.92	0.28	0.45	0.25	0.63
	1.0	20.40	5.36	0.32	0.01	68.02	58.48	67.24	59.20	5.93	7.23	6.50	9.46
完全破坏	0.1	0.01	0	0	0	0.13	0.39	0.11	0.36	0	0	0	0
	0.2	0.07	0	0	0	1.48	2.56	1.41	2.48	0	0	0	0
	0.4	1.01	0.08	0	0	10.65	12.00	10.52	11.94	0	0	0	0
	0.6	4.17	0.52	0.01	0	25.61	24.37	25.29	24.55	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.05
	1.0	18.41	4.50	0.12	0	55.38	47.63	54.49	48.35	0.71	1.22	0.77	1.84