传统方法加固馆藏浮放文物抗震性能试验

Experimental study on aseismic behaviors of a free-standing cultural relic supported by traditional methods

为探索馆藏浮放文物的有效抗震加固方法,采用振动台试验手段,研究了传统方法加固浮放文物的抗震性能。基于故宫博物院某展柜原型尺寸,制作了1:1比例陈列柜模型。在陈列柜内浮放一轻质陶瓷文物,分别考虑采用砂子、塑料卡、鱼线、橡皮泥及磁铁加固文物,进行了振动台试验。通过白噪声激励,获得了陈列柜基频分布;通过输入不同强度、不同类型的地震波,获得了不同方法加固条件下陈列柜和文物的位移响应、加速度响应和和动力放大系数,评价了不同方法的加固效果。结果表明:陈列柜的基频与输入地震波相差较大,这是陈列柜震害不明显的主要原因之一;传统方法加固文物后,输入地震波的加速度仍有一定放大,但是与加固前文物相比,文物的位移和加速度响应均有所减小,且文物因摇晃幅度而产生倾覆的可能性减小。此外,从减小文物加速度响应峰值角度考虑,橡皮泥和鱼线加固文物效果优于其它方法。试验结果可为文物防震保护研究提供较全面的参考。

To find effective supporting methods for free - standing cultural relics in museums, the aseismic behavior of a cultural relic supported by traditional methods was studied by shaking table tests. Based on the actual size of a showcase in the Palace Museum, a 1 ： 1 scale model was built. A light ceramic cultural relic was put in the showcase by free - standing mode. Five traditional methods were considered for supporting the relic： decreasing the center of mass of the relic using sand, plastic fastener support, tying with nylon lines, application of plasticene and magnetic attraction. Shaking table tests were then carried out to validate the various supporting effects. Using white noise excitation, the basic frequency of the showcase was obtained; by inputting earthquake waves of different type and intensity, seismic responses of both the showcase and he relic were studied. The aseismic results using these five traditional methods are discussed. The experiments show that prominent frequency ingredients of the showcase are far greater than those of the input earthquake waves, which is the main reason why the showcase is not damaged seriously. The experiments also show that although acceleration of input earthquake waves are still focused on the relic after it is supported by any of the five methods, the peak acceleration and displacement values decrease, and the probability of the relic being overturned due to over large oscillation decreases greatly. In addition, nylon line tying and plasticene met, hods are best so far as far as mitigation of the acceleration response value is concerned.