4.7 Article

Strength behavior and collapse of spatial-reticulated structures under multi-support excitation

期刊

SCIENCE CHINA-TECHNOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 54, 期 6, 页码 1624-1638

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11431-011-4362-8

关键词

multiple support excitation (MSE); uniform support excitation (USE); elastic-plastic time history analysis; spatial-latticed structure; strength failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Under strong shocks, long-span spatial-latticed structures may collapse due to dynamic instability or strength failure. The elasto-plastic dynamic behaviors of three spatial-latticed structures, including two double-layer cylindrical shells and a spherical shell used for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, were quantitatively examined under multi-support excitation (MSE) and uniform support excitation (USE). Numerical analyses described several important parameters such as the peak acceleration and displacement responses at key joints, the number and distribution of plastic elements, and the deformation of the shell at the moment of collapse. Results of the analysis revealed the features and the failure mechanism of the spatial-latticed structures under MSE and USE. In both scenarios, the double-layer reticulated shell collapsed in the overflow mode, collapse was governed by the number of invalid plastic elements rather than the total number of plastic elements, and the collapse of the structure began with damage to certain local regions near the supports. By comparing the numbers and distributions of the plastic members under MSE to those under USE, it was observed that the plastic members spread more sufficiently and the internal forces were more uniform under MSE, especially for lower apparent velocities in soils. Due to the effects of pseudo-static displacement, the stresses in members near supports under MSE were higher than those under USE. These regions are prone to failure during earthquakes and deserve special attention in the seismic design of reticulated structures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据