| Literature DB >> 36156943 |
Xin Cai1,2, Zhenming Cui1, Xingwen Guo1, Fan Li1,2, Yanan Zhang1.
Abstract
One of the important links in the safety evaluation of sluices is the aseismic safety examination. In order to ensure the daily safe operation of sluices, it is necessary to conduct a normalized aseismic safety examination of sluices, and it is also necessary to study the aseismic safety examination of return sluices. Based on the application of ADINA finite element analysis software, a three-dimensional finite element model of the gate chamber structure is established, and the seismic response of the gate chamber structure is calculated and analyzed by the mode decomposition response spectrum method. The seismic safety of the gate chamber structure is evaluated comprehensively. The results show that 2.00 MPa of tension stress is generated at the junction of the pier and the gate. According to the structural mechanical method, the maximum tensile stress that can be endured is 4.41 MPa, which meets the safety requirements. There is a large tension stress zone between the elevator floor and some parts of the elevator, which far exceeds the standard tension strength value of the concrete moving shaft. Considering the safety, corresponding aseismic reinforcement measures should be taken. The structure of the gate chamber is nonslip and stable, and the safety factor is larger than the standard value of the Gate Design Specification (SL265-2016), which meets the safety requirements. The aseismic safety of the gate chamber structure meets the requirements of the "Standard for Seismic Design of Water Conservancy Buildings" (GB5127-2018), but it has safety defects and the aseismic grade is B.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36156943 PMCID: PMC9507687 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6183588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Geological column map of the bottom floor of the sluice gates in the middle and lower reaches of the yellow river.
Figure 2The composition of different foundation soils of the bottom plate of the sluice gate in the middle and lower reaches of the yellow river.
Figure 3Standard design response spectra.
Concrete material parameters.
| Material number | Material name | Density | Elastic mold | Poisson's ratio | Standard value of dynamic axial compressive strength | Standard value of dynamic axial tensilestrength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brake floor | 2548.00 | 33.23 | 0.167 | 19.66 | 1.97 |
| 2 | Pier | 2548.00 | 31.20 | 0.167 | 16.22 | 1.62 |
| 3 | Highway bridge | 2548.00 | 31.52 | 0.167 | 16.72 | 1.67 |
| 4 | Open and close the machine room | 2548.00 | 31.52 | 0.167 | 16.72 | 1.67 |
Period table of natural frequency of gate chamber structure under different conditions.
| Order | Normal water level | |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Cycle | |
| 1 | 4.038 | 0.248 |
| 2 | 4.178 | 0.239 |
| 3 | 7.708 | 0.130 |
| 4 | 13.013 | 0.077 |
| 5 | 13.820 | 0.072 |
Figure 4Reinforcement diagram of side pier per unit length of sluice. (a) Cross section. (b) Longitudinal section.
First 10 natural vibration frequencies of four models of the sluice.
| Order | 1/Hz | 2/Hz | 3/Hz | 4/Hz |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.720 | 0.084 | 0.942 | 0.084 |
| 2 | 1.932 | 0.109 | 0.992 | 0.109 |
| 3 | 3.606 | 0.136 | 1.081 | 0.136 |
| 4 | 3.686 | 1.361 | 1.220 | 0.961 |
| 5 | 4.302 | 3.606 | 1.569 | 1.059 |
| 6 | 5.885 | 5.781 | 1.569 | 1.099 |
| 7 | 7.039 | 7.039 | 1.751 | 1.569 |
| 8 | 12.180 | 7.961 | 1.828 | 1.569 |
| 9 | 14.584 | 11.083 | 1.881 | 1.748 |
| 10 | 15.482 | 11.697 | 1.956 | 1.764 |
Figure 5Displacement Sx contour map (m) of cross section (z = 6.64 m) during the Henghe earthquake.
Maximum displacement of sluice structures in X, Y, and Z directions under two seismic conditions.
| Working condition |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Working condition 1 | 8.87 | 1.44 | 0.38 |
| Working condition 2 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 5.24 |
Calculation and analysis table of anti-sliding stability of gate chamber structure superimposed by dynamic and static state.
| Working condition | Vertical load under static condition | Horizontal load under static condition | Horizontal seismic inertia | Friction coefficient | Anti-skid stability factor | Canonical value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horizontal seismic inertial force upstream | 25197.52 | 964.93 | −2863.72 | 0.35 | 4.64 | 1.10 |
|
| ||||||
| Horizontal seismic inertial force downstream | 25197.52 | 964.93 | 2863.72 | 0.35 | 2.30 | 1.10 |
Figure 6Impact curve of lower boundary form on results of quality basis model.