考虑垂直度超限和部分杆件失效的既有通信铁塔地震易损性评估

王晨; 汲书强; 李晓亮

doi:10.11899/zzfy20250055

考虑垂直度超限和部分杆件失效的既有通信铁塔地震易损性评估

doi: 10.11899/zzfy20250055

中国信息通信研究院, 北京 100191

基金项目: 中国信息通信研究院泰尔系统实验室自主科研项目（2024B130）

详细信息

作者简介:
王晨，男，生于1997年。工程师。主要从事通信铁塔安全检测和研究工作。E-mail：wangchen3@caict.ac.cn

通讯作者:
汲书强，男，生于1975年。高级工程师。主要从事通信设备、通信设施抗震技术研究工作。E-mail：jishuqiang@caict.ac.cn

中图分类号: P315.9；TU311.3
计量
- 文章访问数: 19
- HTML全文浏览量: 6
- PDF下载量: 35
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2025-04-01
- 录用日期: 2025-06-09
- 修回日期: 2025-05-30
- 网络出版日期: 2026-04-21

Seismic Fragility Assessment of Existing Communication Towers Considering Verticality Overrun and Partial Member Failure

China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, Beijing 100191, China

摘要

摘要: 既有通信铁塔地震易损性评估是通信系统地震风险评估工作的重要内容。受环境、人为等因素影响，既有通信铁塔在服役期内可能存在一些结构缺陷，如垂直度超限、部分杆件失效等，这些结构缺陷可能会影响通信铁塔的抗震性能。基于此，以一座高51.05 m的既有通信角钢塔为研究对象，基于OpenSees平台建立数值模型，分别采用移动坐标法和拆除构件法模拟垂直度超限和杆件失效，建立了考虑结构缺陷的通信铁塔数值模型；挑选了20条真实地震动记录，基于条带法进行了考虑垂直度超限和部分杆件失效的既有通信铁塔地震易损性分析。结果表明：垂直度超限和部分杆件失效会导致通信铁塔在地震作用下的失效概率显著增大，在既有通信铁塔抗震性能评估工作和通信系统地震风险评估工作中需考虑结构缺陷的影响。
- 既有通信铁塔 /
- 易损性分析 /
- 条带法 /
- 垂直度超限 /
- 部分杆件失效
Abstract: Seismic fragility assessment of existing communication towers is an important component in the seismic risk assessment of communication systems. Due to the influence of environmental, human and other factors, there are some structural defects in the service period of existing communication towers, such as verticality overrun and failure of partial members, etc. These structural defects may affect the seismic performance of communication towers. In this paper, a 51.05m high existing communication angle steel tower is taken as the research object, and a numerical model is established based on the OpenSees, and the verticality overrun and failure of partial members are simulated by the moving coordinate method and the dismantling member method respectively, and the numerical model of the communication tower considering the structural defects is developed; Then, 20 real Seismic records are selected, and the seismic fragility analysis of existing communication towers is performed based on the strip method, which takes the verticality overrun and part of the partial members fail into consideration. The results show that: Verticality overrun and failure of partial members can lead to a significant reduction in the seismic performance of communication towers, and therefore the effects of structural defects need to be considered in the seismic performance assessment of existing communication towers and the seismic risk assessment of communication systems.
- Existing communication towers /
- Fragility analysis /
- Strip method /
- Verticality overrun /
- Failure of partial members

HTML全文

图 1 垂直度样本统计

Figure 1. The verticality sample statistics

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 螺栓缺失

Figure 2. Bolt missing

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 杆件变形

Figure 3. Deformation of member

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 通信铁塔现场照片和结构复现图

Figure 4. Site photograph and structural reproduction of the communication tower

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 通信铁塔OpenSees建模方法

Figure 5. OpenSees modeling approach for communication towers

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 垂直度超限的通信铁塔建模方法

Figure 6. The method for modeling communication towers with verticality overruns

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 部分杆件失效的通信铁塔建模方法

Figure 7. The method for modeling communication towers with partial members failing

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 等效能量法确定屈服点

Figure 8. Determination of yield point by equivalent energy method

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 通信铁塔结构Pushover曲线

Figure 9. Pushover analysis for the communication tower structure

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 20条地震动反应谱

Figure 10. The 20 seismic response spectrum

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 通信铁塔结构概率地震需求模型

Figure 11. Probabilistic seismic demand modeling of the communication tower structure

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 12 通信铁塔地震易损性曲线

Figure 12. Seismic fragility curves for the communication tower

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 13 4种工况的通信铁塔发生超越LS_i的概率

Figure 13. Probability of exceeding LS_i for communication towers in 4 cases

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 通信铁塔构件规格及材性

Table 1. Communication tower member specifications and material properties

塔段	主材		斜材		横材		横隔		辅材
塔段	规格	材性	规格	材性	规格	材性	规格	材性	规格	材性
1	∟180×14	Q345	∟90×8	Q345	∟90×8	Q345	∟80×6	Q345	∟80×6	Q235
2	∟180×14	Q345	∟80×8	Q345	∟80×8	Q345	∟70×6	Q345	∟60×5	Q235
3	∟160×12	Q345	∟80×6	Q345	∟75×7	Q345	∟75×7	Q345	∟50×5	Q235
4	∟140×12	Q345	∟70×7	Q345	∟70×7	Q345	∟70×7	Q345	∟50×5	Q235
5	∟100×10	Q345	∟60×6	Q235	∟60×6	Q235	∟60×6	Q235	—	—
6	∟100×8	Q345	∟60×6	Q235	∟60×6	Q235	∟50×5	Q235	—	—
7	∟100×8	Q345	∟60×6	Q235	∟60×6	Q235	∟50×5	Q235	—	—
8	∟90×8	Q345	∟60×5	Q235	∟60×5	Q235	∟50×5	Q235	—	—
9	∟80×8	Q345	∟50×5	Q235	∟50×5	Q235	∟50×5	Q235	—	—
注：∟代表等肢角钢。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 通信铁塔挂载设备信息

Table 2. Mount device information

设备类型	尺寸/mm	数量	挂载高度/m
平台	4200×1200(d×h)	1	34.40
平台	4200×1200(d×h)	1	41.00
平台	4200×1200(d×h)	1	48.00
天线	1650×500×200	2	34.40
天线	800×400×180	2	34.40
天线	1650×450×180	2	41.00
RRU	420×300×120	4	34.40
RRU	420×300×120	4	41.00
微波	l=400	2	34.40

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 OpenSees和3 D3 S计算周期对比

Table 3. Comparison of OpenSees and 3 D3 S computation periods

周期	3D3S	OpenSees	误差/%
第1阶	0.6887	0.6880	0.10
第2阶	0.6884	0.6878	0.09
第3阶	0.1775	0.1774	0.06
第4阶	0.1774	0.1773	0.06
第5阶	0.1634	0.1610	1.49
第6阶	0.1390	0.1385	0.36
第7阶	0.1117	0.1116	0.09
第8阶	0.1028	0.0996	3.21
第9阶	0.1015	0.0988	2.73
第10阶	0.0972	0.0973	0.10
第11阶	0.0962	0.0925	4.00
第12阶	0.0937	0.0921	1.74

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 本文算例通信铁塔损伤极限状态限值

Table 4. The damage state limits for the communication tower

损伤状态	基本完好	轻微破坏	严重破坏	毁坏
θ_PRDA	θ_PRDA＜0.386%	0.386%≤θ_PRDA ＜0.772%	0.772%≤θ_PRDA＜0.987%	θ_PRDA≥0.987%

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 20条地震动信息

Table 5. The 20 earthquake records information

序号	地震事件	记录台站	方向	震级(M)
GM-1	Managua Nicaragua-01	Managua ESSO	90°	6.24
GM-2	Livermore-01	San Ramon Fire Station	70°	5.8
GM-3	Whittier Narrows-01	Baldwin Park - N Holly	180°	5.99
GM-4	Northridge-01	LA - Baldwin Hills	90°	6.69
GM-5	Northridge-01	LA - Century City CC North	90°	6.69
GM-6	Northridge-01	Malibu - Point Dume Sch	90°	6.69
GM-7	Northridge-01	Arleta - Nordhoff Fire Sta	360°	6.69
GM-8	Northridge-01	N Hollywood - Coldwater Can	270°	6.69
GM-9	Chalfant Valley-01	Bishop - LADWP South St	180°	5.77
GM-10	Chalfant Valley-01	Zack Brothers Ranch	270°	5.77
GM-11	Chalfant Valley-01	Benton	360°	5.77
GM-12	Chalfant Valley-01	Bishop - LADWP South St	270°	5.77
GM-13	Chalfant Valley-01	Lake Crowley - Shehorn Res	90°	5.77
GM-14	Chi-Chi China	TCU129	E	7.62
GM-15	Chi-Chi China	CHY019	N	7.62
GM-16	Chi-Chi China	CHY050	E	7.62
GM-17	Chi-Chi China	TCU122	N	7.62
GM-18	Chi-Chi China	CHY050	N	7.62
GM-19	Mammoth Lakes-03	Long Valley Dam (Downst)	90°	6.06
GM-20	Mammoth Lakes-03	Long Valley Dam (L Abut)	90°	6.06

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 模型工况信息表

Table 6. Model condition information

工况	结构模型
1	完好结构
2	垂直度超限(δ=1/500)
3	部分杆件失效(塔段2处一面斜材)
4	垂直度超限(δ=1/500)且部分杆件失效(塔段2处一面斜材)

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 地震需求模型拟合

Table 7. Seismic demand model regression

工况	拟合结果
1	ln(θ_PRDA) = 0.9910 ln(a_max) − 5.1576
2	ln(θ_PRDA) = 0.9799 ln(a_max) − 4.8992
3	ln(θ_PRDA) = 0.9964 ln(a_max) − 4.9903
4	ln(θ_PRDA) = 0.9787 ln(a_max) − 4.8853

下载: 导出CSV

表 8 通信铁塔在不同强度等级地震作用下的3种极限状态超越概率

Table 8. Probability of exceeding three limit states of communication towers when subject to seismic actions of different intensity measures

工况	损伤极限状态	多遇地震	设防地震	罕遇地震	极罕遇地震1	极罕遇地震2	极罕遇地震3
工况	损伤极限状态	0.07 g	0.2 g	0.4 g	0.58 g	0.62 g	0.825 g
1	LS₁	0.247×10⁻⁷	0.177×10⁻²	0.107	0.366	0.428	0.694
	LS₂	0.456×10⁻¹²	0.206×10⁻⁵	0.169×10⁻²	0.211×10⁻¹	0.310×10⁻¹	0.119
	LS₃	0.485×10⁻¹⁴	0.967×10⁻⁷	0.208×10⁻³	0.424×10⁻²	0.674×10⁻²	0.038
2	LS₁	0.1012×10⁻⁵ (↑3992.48%)	0.125×10⁻¹ (↑603.59%)	0.279 (↑159.89%)	0.619 (↑69.08%)	0.678 (↑58.35%)	0.874 (↑25.94%)
	LS₂	0.593×10⁻¹⁰ (↑12920.21%)	0.421×10⁻⁴ (↑1950.33%)	0.114×10⁻¹ (↑576.00%)	0.827×10⁻¹ (↑292.52%)	0.110 (↑257.85%)	0.293 (↑146.22%)
	LS₃	0.955×10⁻¹² (↑19591.99%)	0.292×10⁻⁵ (↑2924.65%)	0.202×10⁻² (↑872.53%)	0.235×10⁻¹ (↑452.81%)	0.338×10⁻¹ (↑401.53%)	0.126 (↑231.58%)
3	LS₁	0.189×10⁻⁶ (↑662.25%)	0.572×10⁻² (↑222.47%)	0.199 (↑85.47%)	0.523 (↑42.97%)	0.587 (↑37.18%)	0.820 (↑18.16%)
	LS₂	0.640×10⁻¹¹ (↑1310.66%)	0.120×10⁻⁴ (↑497.34%)	0.563×10⁻² (↑232.71%)	0.514×10⁻¹ (↑144.04%)	0.709×10⁻¹ (↑131.10%)	0.219 (↑84.03%)
	LS₃	0.850×10⁻¹³ (↑1657.66%)	0.720×10⁻⁶ (↑647.07%)	0.860×10⁻³ (↑314.97%)	0.128×10⁻¹ (↑202.46%)	0.193×10⁻¹ (↑185.91%)	0.846×10⁻¹ (↑122.63%)
4	LS₁	0.124×10⁻⁵ (↑4920.24%)	0.138×10⁻¹ (↑679.66%)	0.292 (↑172.90%)	0.632 (↑72.68%)	0.691 (↑61.45%)	0.881 (↑26.95%)
	LS₂	0.780×10⁻¹⁰ (↑17005.26%)	0.494×10⁻⁴ (↑2298.06%)	0.126×10⁻¹ (↑645.56%)	0.882×10⁻¹ (↑318.01%)	0.117 (↑277.42%)	0.305 (↑156.30%)
	LS₃	0.129×10⁻¹¹ (↑26497.94%)	0.351×10⁻⁵ (↑3529.78%)	0.227×10⁻² (↑991.35%)	0.255×10⁻¹ (↑501.42%)	0.365×10⁻¹ (↑441.54%)	0.133 (↑250.00%)

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(15)

刘诗语, 2014. 通信设备及塔架地震破坏易损性分析. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学.

Liu S. Y., 2014. Seismic vulnerability analysis of communication facilities and tower under earthquake. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University. (in Chinese)

吕大刚, 于晓辉, 2013. 基于地震易损性解析函数的概率地震风险理论研究. 建筑结构学报, 34(10): 41−48.

Lü D. G., Yu X. H., 2013. Theoretical study of probabilistic seismic risk assessment based on analytical functions of seismic fragility. Journal of Building Structures, 34(10): 41−48. (in Chinese)

吕大刚, 周洲, 王丛等, 2018. 考虑巨震的四级地震设防水平一致风险导向定义与决策分析. 土木工程学报, 51(11): 41−52.

Lü D. G., Zhou Z., Wang C., et al., 2018. Uniform risk-targeted definitions and decision-making of four seismic design levels considering very rare earthquake. China Civil Engineering Journal, 51(11): 41−52. (in Chinese)

毛晨曦, 李诗尧, 张亮泉, 2018a. 典型通信铁塔抗震性能及地震易损性. 世界地震工程, 34(1): 63−71.

Mao C. X., Li S. Y., Zhang L. Q., 2018a. Seismic capacity and vulnerability of typical communication towers. World Earthquake Engineering, 34(1): 63−71. (in Chinese)

毛晨曦, 李诗尧, 张亮泉, 2018b. 落地通信基站机房地震易损性及震后功能失效概率评估. 世界地震工程, 34(2): 55−64.

Mao C. X., Li S. Y., Zhang L. Q., 2018b. Seismic fragility and functional failure probability assessment of machine room of typical base transceiver stations that located on the ground. World Earthquake Engineering, 34(2): 55−64. (in Chinese)

施炜, 叶列平, 陆新征等, 2011. 不同抗震设防RC框架结构抗倒塌能力的研究. 工程力学, 28(3): 41−48.

Shi W., Ye L. P., Lu X. Z., et al., 2011. Study on the collapse-resistant capacity of RC frames with different seismic fortification levels. Engineering Mechanics, 28(3): 41−48. (in Chinese)

宋鹏彦, 王晨, 赵仰康, 2024. 考虑主余震强度比和主震损伤状态的RC框架结构易损性分析. 世界地震工程, 40(2): 14−25. doi: 10.19994/j.cnki.WEE.2024.0022

Song P. Y., Wang C., Zhao Y. K., 2024. RC frame structure collapse fragility analysis considering mainshock-aftershock intensity ratios and mainshock damage states. World Earthquake Engineering, 40(2): 14−25. (in Chinese) doi: 10.19994/j.cnki.WEE.2024.0022

杨保卫, 2024. 特高压输电塔结构地震响应及抗震可靠度分析. 保定: 河北大学. Yang B. W. , 2024. Seismic response and seismic reliability analysis of UHV transmission tower structure. Baoding: Hebei University. (in Chinese).

张辉明, 李晓亮, 张岩等, 2022. 单管通信塔垂直度偏差对结构性能影响分析. 建筑结构, 52(S2): 424−427. doi: 10.19701/j.jzjg.22S2100

Zhang H. M., Li X. L., Zhang Y., et al., 2022. Influence of the verticality of monopole on the structural performance. Building Structure, 52(S2): 424−427. (in Chinese) doi: 10.19701/j.jzjg.22S2100

Cornell C. A., Jalayer F., Hamburger R. O., et al., 2002. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4): 526−533. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)

Ellingwood B. R., Celik O. C., Kinali K., 2007. Fragility assessment of building structural systems in mid-America. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(13): 1935−1952. doi: 10.1002/eqe.693

Eslamlou S. D., Asgarian B., 2017. Determining critical areas of transmission towers due to sudden removal of members. Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis, 9: 138−147. doi: 10.1016/j.csefa.2015.09.005

Tian L., Pan H. Y., Ma R. S., et al., 2017. Collapse simulations of a long span transmission tower-line system subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthquakes and Structures, 13(2): 211−220.

Tian L., Ma R. S., Qu B., 2018. Influence of different criteria for selecting ground motions compatible with IEEE 693 required response spectrum on seismic performance assessment of electricity transmission towers. Engineering Structures, 156: 337−350. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.046

Yu X. H., Zhou Z., Du W. Q., et al., 2021. Development of fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings under mainshock-aftershock sequences. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 50(15): 3981−4000. doi: 10.1002/eqe.3542

施引文献

资源附件(0)

访问统计