大陸的抗震規範中不允許基礎的屈服，若在必要時允許支座的破壞與橋墩的屈服，但這與台灣允許橋墩及基樁地震下可以屈服的設計理念不同，本研究以大陸《公路橋梁抗震設計規範》與台灣《公路橋梁耐震設計規範》為基礎，探討同一個案例橋梁在減隔震設計下之土壤結構互制的區別，並考慮到近斷層地震下橋梁結構的反應。
本研究以大陸同福高架橋為研究案例，利用大陸規範對其進行抗震設計，得出橋梁在大陸規範地震下的反應數據，隨後比較在同一地震動輸入下，保持其他因素基本不變的情況下，改變土壤彈簧的設定，通過SAP2000來分析該工況下橋梁下部結構的特性；最後保持上述土壤彈簧不變，將原先案例大陸的E1、E2地震動改為與其回歸週期相近的台灣等級Ⅰ與等級Ⅲ下的一般地震與近斷層地震，通過程式輸出之構件反應結果將三類情況進行比較。
結果顯示，在大陸E1的地震輸入下，全橋的下部結構保持彈性，但由於彈性反應的傳遞規律可知在E2的地震反應下，下部結構不滿足抗震設計需求，因此根據設計要求制定了抗震對策，並對支座進行了改善與優化，進行了抗震性能驗算。在減隔震設計下，配筋率为0.5%、直径2.4m单桩和配筋率为0.43%、直径2.8m单桩皆保持彈性，滿足抗震設計要求。
將案例橋梁中大陸規範設計之線性土壤彈簧改變為台灣規範設計之非線性土壤彈簧後，在保證其他條件不變的情況下，橋梁總體的剛度有所降低，常規體系下彈性構件的能力需求比有所提高，並且在採用減隔震措施後，全橋保持彈性，同樣也滿足橋梁設計要求。
在換成台灣一般地震與近斷地震後，同樣採用台灣非線性土壤彈簧設定，常規體系下等級Ⅰ與等級Ⅲ的橋梁墩樁皆有一定程度的屈服，其中等級Ⅲ下的橋梁無法滿足設計要求同時在安全上存在極大風險，在減隔震體系下，雖然屈服情況有所改善，但依舊存在墩樁的屈服現象，不符合抗震設計要求，需要進一步的分析與探討。

In this study, the Tongfu Bridge was used as a research case, and the seismic design of the bridge was carried out using the mainland’s specification, and the response data of the bridge under the earthquake were obtained. Then, under the same ground motion input, other factors were kept basically unchanged, only changing the setting of the soil springs, analyzing the characteristics of the bridge substructure under this working condition through SAP2000; finally, keep the above soil spring unchanged, and changing the E1 and E2 ground motions of the original case to Taiwan level I and level III which are similar to their return period. For general earthquakes and near-fault earthquakes, the three types of cases are compared through the component response results output by the program.
The result shows that under the earthquake input of E1, the substructure of the full bridge remains elastic, but due to the transmission law of elastic response, it can be known that under the earthquake response of E2, the substructure does not meet the seismic design requirements, so seismic countermeasures are formulated in this case, and the supports need to be improved and optimized. Under the inspection of the whole bridge, it fits the mainland’s design specification.
After the linear soil spring designed by the China’s specification, in the case bridge is changed to the nonlinear soil spring designed by the Taiwan’s specification, under the condition that other conditions remain unchanged, the overall stiffness of the bridge is reduced, the capacity demand ratio of elastic components under the conventional system is improved, and after the vibration reduction and isolation measures are adopted, the whole bridge remains elastic, which also meets the requirements of bridge design.
Last but not least, under the conventional system, the bridge pier piles with the input of Taiwan’s ground motion of grade I and grade III, have a certain degree of yield. Under the seismic reduction and isolation system, although the yield situation has been improved, the yielding of pier piles still exists, which does not meet the seismic design requirements, It needs further analysis and discussion.

[1]公路橋梁抗震設計規範，(JTG/T 2231-01—2020),2020
[2]中國地震動參數區劃圖，(GB18306-2015),2015
[3]城市橋梁抗震設計規範， (CJJ 166-2011),2011
[4]台灣公路橋梁耐震設計規範，民國108年1月
[5]公路橋梁耐震評估與補強設計規範草案，民國109年
[6]日本道路橋示方書Ⅳ下部構造篇，平成29年11月
[7]Zayas VA, Low SS, Mahin SA. A Simple Pendulum Technique for Achieving Seismic Isolation[J]. Earthquake Spectra,6( 2) : 317-333,2012
[8]吳迪,戴隆華,臧曉秋,熊焱,吳成亮.高鐵隔震橋梁模擬地震振動臺試驗研究[J].鐵道建築,58(04):29-33,2018
[9]閆磊,李果,嶽克鋒,安康,王心勇,尹修成,薑渝.曲線橋梁摩擦滑移隔振試驗及隔振機理研究[J].世界地震工程,37(01):86-92,2021
[10]段繼祖.分析橋梁設計中隔震設計的重要性黑龍江交通科技,43(04):115-116,2020
[11]邵長江,肖正豪,漆啟明,韋旺,何俊明.摩擦擺支座隔震鐵路連續梁橋振動臺試驗研究[J].振動與衝擊,2021,40(14):292-298+306
[12]雷建偉,王盛.按m法計算彈性樁水準位移及作用效應[J].工程建設與設計,2019(24):32-33,2019
[13]公路橋涵地基與基礎設計規範，JTG D63—2007,2007
[14]張永亮,徐瑾,劉聰聰,陳興沖.承臺-樁-土作用下鐵路橋梁樁基礎地震反應[J].鐵道工程學報,37(05):30-35,2020
[15]曾永平,陳克堅,李光川,劉鵬.鐵路連續剛構橋近斷層地震回應分析研究[J].鐵道工程學報,34(06):50-54+59,2017
[16]曾永平,董俊,陳克堅,李聰林,戶東陽,龐林.近斷層高鐵簡支梁橋抗震性能分析研究[J].鐵道工程學報,37(12):70-76,2020
[17]練志娟. 近斷層地震下高鐵大跨橋梁隔震設計及多維回應研究[D].揚州大學,2018