【作者】 蒋丽飞； 孙卓； 吴有明； 钟铁毅；

【Author】 ~*JIANG Li-fei~1,SUN Zhuo~1,WU You-ming~1,ZHONG Tie-yi~2 (1.School of Civil Engineering,Guangzhou University,Guangzhou 510006,China;2.School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University,Beijing 100044,China)

【机构】 广州大学土木工程学院； 北京交通大学土木工程学院；

【摘要】 本文综合比较了美国、欧洲及我国铁路桥梁结构抗震设计规范中反应谱参数及反应谱的取值问题。结果表明,短周期内我国GB50111-2006规范的反应谱取值,与美国AASHTO规范、欧洲Eurocode8规范相比偏低,这主要与各国的经济水平、抗震设防水准及设防目标有关;此外,讨论了我国铁路工程抗震设计反应谱存在的部分不足,如反应谱的周期范围较小,未考虑场地条件对反应谱最大值的影响等。研究结果对我国铁路工程抗震设计规范的修订有一定参考价值。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the paper,the parameters and value of the response spectrum in the United States、European and China’s railway bridge seismic design code are compared.The results showed that the response spectrum value in China’s GB50111-2006 code is lower than the United States AASHTO specification and European Eurocode8 specification during the short period,the reason is main for the national economic level,seismic fortification criterion and seismic fortification objective;In addition,the paper pointes out some shortcoming in the China’s railway engineering seismic design response spectrum,such as the applied period of the response spectrum is short and it does not take into account the effect of subsoil condition on the maximum value of response spectrum.Some results can be a reference for the revise of China’s railway engineering seismic design code.更多还原