Analysis of the composite mechanical properties of the substructure of a masonry pagoda
-
摘要: 為研究古塔子結構的受力性能，設計制作了3件不同樓層的子結構縮尺模型試件，進行低周反復加載試驗，觀察試件的開裂、變形及破壞現象；建立數值模型進行計算，得到了試驗荷載作用下各試件的等效塑性應變、荷載?位移曲線，將計算結果與試驗結果進行對比，分析豎向壓應力對古塔砌體抗震性能的影響。結果表明，特征荷載的計算值相對試驗值的誤差均小于21%，等效塑性應變的分布與試件開裂破壞區域一致；當豎向壓力保持恒定時，隨著水平荷載的增大，塔體沿砌筑縫逐漸開裂破壞，裂縫寬度亦隨之增大，在塔體洞口周圍的破壞更為明顯，且試件殘余變形增大；隨著壓剪比的增大，古塔砌體開裂破壞的范圍減小，抗剪承載力、剛度以及耗能能力均有所提高，但延性和變形能力略有降低。研究結果為磚石古塔建筑結構損傷及抗震能力評定提供參考。Abstract: Brick wall tubes, a popular form of ancient masonry pagoda, can be seen as a spatial lateral force resistance system. The masonry of the ancient pagoda is a case of compression and shear developed due to earthquakes. This composite compression and shear behavior is one of the key issues in the seismic capacity of masonry tube structure. In order to study the mechanical properties of the substructure of masonry pagodas, three sub-structural models were designed and constructed. Low cyclic loadings tests were conducted on the models and the crack, deformation, and failure phenomena were surveyed during the loading process. Simulation models were then developed for calculation, and results were obtained about the equivalent strain and load-displacement curve. Comparing the calculated results with the experimental results, the effects of vertical compressive stress on the masonry in the ancient tower were analyzed. Results showed that the error was less than 21% for the calculated value of the characteristic load relative to the test value. The distribution of equivalent plastic strain was consistent with the crack failure area of the specimens. When the vertical pressure remained constant with increasing horizontal load, the tower body gradually cracked, damage occurred along the masonry joints, and the width of cracks also increased. The failures around the structure opening were more obvious, and the residual deformation of specimens increased. With the increase in the ratio of compression to shear, the range of cracking and damage to the masonry of the ancient tower decreased, while shear bearing capacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity were increased. However, ductility and deformation capacity slightly decreased. These results can provide references for the assessment to structural damage and seismic capability of ancient masonry pagodas.
-
圖 1 古塔原型及其子結構模型。（a）興教寺玄奘塔；（b）子結構模型
Figure 1. Prototype of ancient pagoda and its substructure model: (a) Xuanzang Pagoda in Xingjiao Temple; (b) substructure model
圖 2 子結構試件尺寸（單位：m）。（a）頂部結構；（b）中部結構；（c）底部結構
Figure 2. Dimensions of substructure specimens (Unit: m): (a) top structure; (b) central structure; (c) bottom structure
圖 4 測點布置示意圖。（a）南立面；（b）東立面；（c）北立面
Figure 4. Loading test scheme: (a) south facade; (b) east facade; (c) west facade
圖 5 試件局部破壞。（a）加載初期開裂；（b）北立面X型裂縫；（c）磚塊脫落；（d）交叉貫通裂縫；（e）X型貫通裂縫；（f）南立面開裂錯層
Figure 5. Local failure of substructure specimens: (a) cracking at initial loading stage; (b) X-type crack in north facade; (c) brick fell off; (d) cross through fracture; (e) X-type through fracture; (f) cracking and staggered floor of south facade
圖 6 子結構試件壓剪比曲線。（a）T1試件；（b）T2試件；（c）T3試件
Figure 6. Compression-shear ratio curve of substructure specimen: (a) T1 specimen; (b) T2 specimen; (c) T3 specimen
圖 7 子結構試件滯回曲線。（a）T1試件；（b）T2試件；（c）T3試件
Figure 7. Hysteresis curve of substructure specimen: (a) T1 specimen; (b) T2 specimen; (c) T3 specimen
圖 11 應力?應變曲線。（a）灰漿試塊；（b）磚砌體試塊
Figure 11. Stress strain curve: (a) mortar test block; (b) brick masonry test block
圖 12 子結構試件模擬骨架曲線。（a）T1試件；（b）T2試件；（c）T3試件
Figure 12. Simulation skeleton curve of substructure specimen: (a) T1 specimen; (b) T2 specimen; (c) T3 specimen
圖 13 極限位移下子結構等效塑性應變云圖。（a）T1，10 kN，11 mm；（b）T1，20 kN，12 mm；（c）T2，10 kN，13 mm；（d）T2，20 kN，20 mm；（e）T3，20 kN，13 mm；（f）T3，30 kN，18 mm
Figure 13. Equivalent plastic strain nephogram of substructure at ultimate displacement: (a) T1，10 kN，11 mm; (b) T1，20 kN，12 mm; (c) T2 ，10 kN，13 mm; (d) T2，20 kN，20 mm; (e) T3，20 kN，13 mm; (f) T3，30 kN，18 mm
圖 14 荷載?位移曲線對比。（a）T1, 10 kN；（b）T1, 20 kN；（c）T2, 10 kN；（d）T2, 20 kN；（e）T3, 20 kN；（f）T3, 30 kN
Figure 14. Load-displacement curve comparison: (a) T1, 10 kN; (b) T1, 20 kN; (c) T2, 10 kN; (d) T2, 20 kN; (e) T3, 20 kN; (f) T3, 30 kN
表 1 試件特征點荷載值
Table 1. Load value of characteristic point of specimen
Specimen number Vertical pressure /kN Loading mode Critical load, $ {P_{\text{y}}} $/kN Peak load, $ {P_{\text{m}}} $/kN Limit load, $ {P_{\text{u}}} $/kN T1 10 Push（+） 3.82 4.32 3.96 Pull（?） 2.36 2.61 2.28 20 Push（+） 4.75 5.16 4.39 Pull（?） 3.76 4.13 3.18 T2 10 Push（+） 4.52 7.32 7.26 Pull（?） 2.22 2.19 1.89 20 Push（+） 7.85 9.04 6.47 Pull（?） 3.92 4.23 2.03 T3 20 Push（+） 5.13 7.37 6.43 Pull（?） 4.91 6.40 5.47 30 Push（+） 7.58 8.89 7.46 Pull（?） 7.01 7.45 5.68 
下載: 導出CSV
表 2 試件特征點位移值與延性系數
Table 2. Displacement and ductility of specimen characteristic points
Specimen number Vertical pressure /kN Critical displacement, $ {\varDelta _{\rm{y}}} $/mm Peak displacement, $ {\varDelta _{\rm{m}}} $/mm Limit displacement, $ {\varDelta _{\rm{u}}} $/mm Ductility coefficient, $ \eta $ T1 10 5.02 7.99 11.02 2.20 20 5.99 7.92 11.92 1.99 T2 10 4.91 10.80 12.80 2.61 20 8.08 9.91 19.97 2.47 T3 20 10.05 8.99 12.98 2.58 30 7.05 10.02 17.94 2.54
下載: 導出CSV
表 3 耗能及等效黏滯阻尼系數
Table 3. Energy consumption and equivalent viscous damping coefficient
Specimen number Vertical pressure/kN W/(kN·mm) ηe Crack Peak Limit Crack Peak Limit T1 10 8.75 15.89 34.32 0.090 0.091 0.104 20 14.72 22.18 45.42 0.092 0.095 0.115 T2 10 6.85 23.42 59.48 0.065 0.071 0.088 20 24.75 41.34 85.00 0.084 0.090 0.081 T3 20 14.45 31.93 77.35 0.092 0.082 0.091 30 25.12 42.42 118.26 0.078 0.075 0.087
下載: 導出CSV
中文字幕在线观看表 4 試驗與模擬峰值荷載對比
Table 4. Comparison of test and simulated peak load
Specimen number Vertical pressure /
kNTest value /
kNSimulated value /
kNError /
%T1 10 4.32 4.66 7.9 20 5.16 5.61 8.7 T2 10 7.32 6.94 5.5 20 9.04 7.99 11.6 T3 20 7.37 8.33 13.0 30 8.89 10.76 21.0
下載: 導出CSV
-
參考文獻
[1] Pan Y, Wang X Y, Guo R, et al. Seismic damage assessment of Nepalese cultural heritage building and seismic retrofit strategies: 25 April 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake. Eng Fail Anal, 2018, 87: 80 doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.02.007 [2] Pan Y, Li L J, Yao Y Y, et al. Evaluation methods for post-earthquake damage state of ancient masonry buildings. J Southwest Jiaotong Univ, 2016, 51(4): 704 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2016.04.015潘毅, 李玲嬌, 姚蘊藝, 等. 磚石結構古建筑震后破壞狀態評估方法. 西南交通大學學報, 2016, 51(4):704 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2016.04.015 [3] Pan Y, Wang Z C, Shang F, et al. Study on isolated reinforcement scheme of ancient masonry pagoda in Sichuan Province. J Southwest Jiaotong Univ, 2018, 53(3): 540 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2018.03.015潘毅, 王子超, 尚楓, 等. 四川省某磚石古塔隔震加固方案研究. 西南交通大學學報, 2018, 53(3):540 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2018.03.015 [4] Xu J, Liang J G, Shi L, et al. Discussion on some problems of development of masonry structures in China. Build Struct, 2016, 46(15): 91徐建, 梁建國, 石柳, 等. 我國砌體結構發展的若干問題探討. 建筑結構, 2016, 46(15):91 [5] Zhang Y, Liu P Y, Qin Y, et al. Analysis on static and dynamic mechanical properties of masonry panel under in-plane loading. Chin J Appl Mech, 2018, 35(6): 1273張巖, 劉沛允, 秦宇, 等. 砌體單片墻結構的平面內靜力與動力性能分析. 應用力學學報, 2018, 35(6):1273 [6] Zhang Y L, Wang Z X, Liu Z W, et al. Research on seismic performance assessment method and seismic strengthening measures for masonry Pagodas. World Earthquake Eng, 2019, 35(2): 41張永亮, 汪振新, 劉尊穩, 等. 磚石古塔抗震性能評估方法及抗震加固措施研究. 世界地震工程, 2019, 35(2):41 [7] Minghini F, Milani G, Tralli A. Seismic risk assessment of a 50 m high masonry chimney using advanced analysis techniques. Eng Struct, 2014, 69: 255 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.03.028 [8] Guo Z X, Chai Z L, Hu Y D, et al. Experimental study on seismic behavior and mortar joint detail of machine-sawing stone masonry wall. J Build Struct, 2011, 32(3): 64郭子雄, 柴振嶺, 胡奕東, 等. 機器切割料石砌筑石墻灰縫構造及抗震性能試驗研究. 建筑結構學報, 2011, 32(3):64 [9] Zhuang S S, Guo Z X, Chai Z L. Experimental investigation of shear capacity of sawn stone masonry joint. J Huaqiao Univ Nat Sci, 2019, 40(4): 489莊思思, 郭子雄, 柴振嶺. 機鋸條石砌筑灰縫的抗剪性能試驗. 華僑大學學報(自然科學版), 2019, 40(4):489 [10] Jiang Y F, Guo Z X, Xu X L. Test on mechanical properties of large-size dry stone masonry joint. J Huaqiao Univ Nat Sci, 2020, 41(1): 1江云帆, 郭子雄, 許秀林. 大尺寸條石無漿砌縫力學性能試驗. 華僑大學學報(自然科學版), 2020, 41(1):1 [11] Wang L, Guo Z X, Ye Y, et al. Experimental study on seismic and mechanical behavior of stone masonry joints. China Civil Eng J, 2018, 51(12): 63王蘭, 郭子雄, 葉勇, 等. 石墻灰縫抗震性能與受力機理試驗研究. 土木工程學報, 2018, 51(12):63 [12] Wang D D, Peng B. Research on mechanical property of shear-compression for mortar material. J Water Resour Water Eng, 2016, 27(4): 184 doi: 10.11705/j.issn.1672-643X.2016.04.34王冬冬, 彭斌. 砂漿材料壓剪受力性能研究. 水資源與水工程學報, 2016, 27(4):184 doi: 10.11705/j.issn.1672-643X.2016.04.34 [13] Wang Y H, Lan G Q, Zeng G Y, et al. Study on shear test method of earthen based masonry along mortar joint. Adv Eng Sci, 2020, 52(5): 136王毅紅, 蘭官奇, 曾貴緣, 等. 生土基砌體沿通縫抗剪試驗方法研究. 工程科學與技術, 2020, 52(5):136 [14] Cai Y, Shi C X, Ma C L, et al. Study of the masonry shear strength under shear-compression action. J Build Struct, 2004, 25(5): 118 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6869.2004.05.019蔡勇, 施楚賢, 馬超林, 等. 砌體在剪-壓作用下抗剪強度研究. 建筑結構學報, 2004, 25(5):118 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6869.2004.05.019 [15] Yang N, Teng D Y. Shear performance of Tibetan stone masonry under shear-compression loading. Eng Mech, 2020, 37(2): 221楊娜, 滕東宇. 藏式石砌體在剪-壓復合作用下抗剪性能研究. 工程力學, 2020, 37(2):221 [16] Xin R, Yao J T. Research on entire failure modes of multi-storey masonry walls. World Earthquake Eng, 2013, 29(1): 139 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6069.2013.01.022信任, 姚繼濤. 多層砌體結構墻體整體破壞模式研究. 世界地震工程, 2013, 29(1):139 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6069.2013.01.022 [17] Haach V G, Vasconcelos G, Louren?o P B. Experimental analysis of reinforced concrete block masonry walls subjected to in-plane cyclic loading. J Struct Eng, 2010, 136(4): 452 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000125 [18] Banting B R, El-Dakhakhni D D. Seismic design parameters for special masonry structural walls detailed with confined boundary elements. J Struct Eng, 2014, 140(10): 04014067 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000980 [19] Chen B W, Tang C, Wu Y F, et al. Experimental studies on seismic behavior of autoclaved fly ash perforated brick walls with constructional columns. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib, 2016, 36(5): 116陳伯望, 唐楚, 鄔逸夫, 等. 構造柱對蒸壓粉煤灰多孔磚砌體抗震性能影響的試驗研究. 地震工程與工程振動, 2016, 36(5):116 [20] Wang Q W, Shi Q X, He W W, et al. Experimental study on mechanical behavior of DP-type fired perforated brick walls under cyclic loading. J Build Struct, 2017, 38(12): 131王秋維, 史慶軒, 何巍巍, 等. 反復荷載作用下DP型燒結多孔磚墻體受力性能試驗研究. 建筑結構學報, 2017, 38(12):131 [21] Li Z X, Zhou X J, Xia D T, et al. Experiment on seismic behavior of non-autoclaved and non-sintered fly-ash perforated brick walls. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib, 2012, 32(4): 125李忠獻, 周曉潔, 夏多田, 等. 免蒸免燒粉煤灰多孔磚墻體抗震性能試驗研究. 地震工程與工程振動, 2012, 32(4):125 [22] Zhang W X, Yue F H, Liu J, et al. Analysis on seismic performance of masonry walls under multiple influence parameters. J Hunan Univ Nat Sci, 2017, 44(3): 45張望喜, 岳風華, 劉杰, 等. 多參數影響下的砌體墻體抗震性能分析. 湖南大學學報(自然科學版), 2017, 44(3):45 [23] Fu Y N, Xiong L Q, Yan L, et al. Elasto-plastic finite element analysis of unreinforced masonry farmhouse under earthquake. World Earthquake Eng, 2019, 35(4): 18付亞男, 熊禮全, 閆磊, 等. 無筋砌體農居地震彈塑性有限元研究. 世界地震工程, 2019, 35(4):18 [24] Yang W Z, Fan J. A generic stress-strain equation for masonry materials in compression. J Zhengzhou Univ Eng Sci, 2007, 28(1): 47楊衛忠, 樊濬. 砌體受壓應力?應變關系. 鄭州大學學報(工學版), 2007, 28(1):47 [25] Zheng N N, Li Y M, Liu F Q. Pseudo-static test study on seismic behavior of masonry wall restrained by core-tie-columns. China Civil Eng J, 2013, 46(Suppl 1): 202鄭妮娜, 李英民, 劉鳳秋. 芯柱式構造柱約束墻體抗震性能擬靜力試驗研究. 土木工程學報, 2013, 46(增刊1): 202 [26] Yang W Z. Constitutive relationship model for masonry materials in compression. Build Struct, 2008, 38(10): 80楊衛忠. 砌體受壓本構關系模型. 建筑結構, 2008, 38(10):80 [27] Shi C X. Theory and Design of Masonry Structure. 2nd Ed. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2003施楚賢. 砌體結構理論與設計. 2版. 北京: 中國建筑工業出版社, 2003 -
點擊查看大圖
計量
- 文章訪問數: 953
- HTML全文瀏覽量: 436
- PDF下載量: 38
- 被引次數: 0
