This research investigates how near-fault vertical ground motions affect seismic response in high-speed railway track–bridge systems, suggesting improved design standards.
China’s high-speed railway (HSR) network relies heavily on bridge structures to ensure track regularity, with many lines crossing seismically active near-fault zones. Near-fault ground motions are characterized by significant vertical components (VGMs), which challenge conventional seismic design practices. Although seismic isolation techniques are widely adopted, the effects of VGMs on the dynamic response and damage mechanisms of HSR track–bridge systems remain insufficiently studied. To address this gap, this study develops a refined finite element model (FEM) in OpenSEES that integrates CRTS II slab ballastless tracks, bridge structures, and friction pendulum bearing (FPB). Using nonlinear time-history analyses, the research systematically investigates structural responses and damage degrees under different ratios of vertical-to-horizontal peak ground acceleration (αVH) and multiple seismic intensity levels (frequent, design, and rare earthquakes). Key findings reveal that αVH values in near-fault regions frequently range between 0.5 and 1.5, often exceeding current design code specifications. The impact of VGMs intensifies with seismic intensity: negligible under frequent earthquakes but significantly amplifying damage to piers, bearings, and track interlayer components (e.g., sliding layers and CA mortar layers) during design and rare earthquakes. While seismic isolation effectively mitigates structural responses through energy dissipation by bearings, it may increase sliding layer displacements and lead to bearing failure under rare earthquakes. Based on these insights, tiered αVH values are recommended for seismic design: 0.65 for frequent, 0.9 for design, and 1.2 for rare earthquakes. These findings provide critical references for the seismic design of HSR infrastructure in near-fault regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: