4.7 Article

Seismic damage analysis of bridge-CRTS III slab ballastless track system on high-speed railway

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107416

关键词

CRTS III slab ballastless track structure; High-speed railway bridge; Seismic damage analysis; Fastener; Non -uniform displacement; Simplified seismic model; track slabs; self -compacting concrete (SCC) layer; isolation layer; elastic

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878674]
  2. Excellent Young Scientists Fund [52022113]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the seismic damage of CRTS III slab ballastless track system and reveals that it provides inferior longitudinal restraint to bridge structures compared to CRTS II ballastless track system. The fasteners are found susceptible to seismic damage, and the inconsistent vibration of unequal height piers is the main cause of track structure damage. Based on the seismic damage analysis, a simplified seismic model is proposed for computational attractiveness.
With the wide application of the Chinese Railway Track System III (CRTS III) slab ballastless track structure in highspeed railway lines, the seismic safety of CRTS III slab ballastless track structure is important in regions of high seismicity. However, little is known about the seismic behaviors of CRTS III ballastless track system. To address the issue, this paper investigates the seismic damage of a simply supported bridge-CRTS III slab bal-lastless track system. The result shows that CRTS III ballastless track can provide the bridge structure with longitudinal restraint but is inferior to the CRTS II ballastless track system. Fasteners are found seismically vulnerable for CRTS III ballastless track structure. The inconsistent vibration of unequal height piers is the main cause to the damage of the track structures. Based on the seismic damage analysis, a simplified seismic model of CRTS III ballastless track structure is proposed for computational attractiveness.

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