[1]史少华,石若利,刘涛.工程结构中支撑减震结构响应及力学性能研究[J].华南地震,2021,41(03):63-70.[doi:10.13512/j.hndz.2021.03.09 ]
　SHI Shaohua,SHI Ruoli,LIU Tao.Study on the Response and Mechanical Properties of Braced Structures in Engineering Structures[J].,2021,41(03):63-70.[doi:10.13512/j.hndz.2021.03.09 ]
点击复制

工程结构中支撑减震结构响应及力学性能研究()
分享到：

华南地震[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

卷:
41
期数:
2021年03期
页码:
63-70
栏目:
土木工程防震减灾
出版日期:
2021-09-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
Study on the Response and Mechanical Properties of Braced Structures in Engineering Structures
文章编号:
1001-8662(2021)03-0063-08
作者:
史少华1; 石若利2; 刘涛2
(1.四川文理学院建筑工程学院,四川达州635000;2.云南大学建筑与规划学院,昆明650500)
Author(s):
SHI Shaohua1; SHI Ruoli2; LIU Tao2
(1. School of Architecture and Planning, Yunnan University,Kunming 650500,China;2. School of Architectural Engineering,Sichuan University of Arts and Science,Dazhou 63500,China)
关键词:
框架支撑; 支撑方式; 抗震性能; 结构响应
Keywords:
Frame support; Support mode; Seismic performance; Structural response
分类号:
TU391
DOI:
10.13512/j.hndz.2021.03.09
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
为研究不同支撑方式对钢结构抗震性能的影响,利用PKPM对某8层钢结构建筑进行建模,再对模型进行反应谱和Pushover分析,对比分析了四种支撑方案下的用钢量?基底剪力?层间位移等多种评价指标,在分析计算的基础上探讨支撑布置的影响规律?结果表明:四种布置支撑的方式均可使结构的抗侧刚度有较大的提高,不同的支撑布置方式对构件的挠度和应力比有一定程度的区别,采用方案一,结构的抗侧刚度提高显著,在小震和大震的作用下侧移均较小,其基底剪力显著大于其他三种方案,需要格外关注结构的基底应力变化;采用方案三和四,可以一定程度地减少结构成本,其在地震作用下的结构响应相对较不稳定,但也能保持较大的抗侧刚度,其结构响应的各项指标均能满足规范要求;采用方案二,其结构响应在所选方案中表现最不理想,但其能最大限度地将用钢量的消耗降低,同时地震作用下各结构响应指标均能满足的规范要求,在施工条件用钢量?作业环境等条件受限的情况下,可优先考虑采取此方案?
Abstract:
In order to study the influence of different support modes on the seismic performance of steel structures,this paper uses PKPM to model an 8-story steel structure building, then carries out response spectrum and pushoveranalysis on the model, compares and analyzes various evaluation indexes such as steel consumption, base shear andinter story displacement under four support schemes, and discusses the influence law of support layout on the basisof analysis and calculation. The results show that the lateral stiffness of the structure can be greatly improved by four support arrangements. Different support arrangements reduce the deflection and stress ratio of the members to aconsiderable extent, but they are different; In scheme 1, the lateral stiffness of the structure is significantly improved,the lateral displacement is small under the action of small and large earthquakes, and the base shear is significantlygreater than the other three schemes. Special attention should be paid to the change of base stress of the structure.After checking calculation, the maximum stress of the structure base in this scheme is still less than the bearingcapacity of the structure; By adopting schemes 3 and 4, the structural cost can be reduced to a certain extent. Thestructural response under earthquake is relatively unstable, but it can also maintain a large degree of lateral stiffness,and all indexes of structural response can meet the requirements of the code; If scheme 2 is adopted, its structuralresponse is the most unsatisfactory in the selected scheme, but it can reduce the consumption of steel consumption tothe greatest extent and meet the specification requirements of various structural response indicators underearthquake. This scheme can be considered when the construction conditions, steel consumption, workingenvironment and other conditions are limited.

参考文献/References:

[1]Gholampour Siroos,Taghipour Reza, Felourdi Hamid Ka­zemi. Investigating the effect of rotational components on theprogressive collapse of steel structures[J]. Engineering Failure Analysis,2021,121(1): 105094. [2]Skiadopoulos Andronikos,Elkady Ahmed,Lignos Dimitri­os. Proposed panel zone model for seismic design of steelmoment-resisting framesffef[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering,2021,178(4): 04021006. [3]Andres Gonzalez, Tremblay Robert, Rogers Colin. Eart­hquake-resistant design of steel frames with intentionallyeccentric[J].Journal of Constructional Steel Research,2021, 178(6):106483. [4]Vahedi Niloufar, Ghassemieh Mehdi. Preference of hybridsteel frame with exclusive seismic performance using theanalytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering,2021,147(10):1-22. [5]Yakhchalian Masood, Yakhchalian Mansoor, AsgarkhaniNeda. An advanced intensity measure for residual driftassessment of steel BRB frames[J]. Bulletin of EarthouakeEngineeringe,2021,152(7):1-25. [6]郑宏,马江萍,潘天久,等 .钢框架-桁架新型结构体系抗震性能分析 [J].石家庄铁道大学学报(自然科学版) . 2016,29(1):1-4. [7]王鹏 .高温差条件下钢支撑轴力变化分析 [J].石家庄铁道大学学报(自然科学版) .2018,31(7):103-106. [8]李晓瑾 .中心支撑在高层钢结构设计中的应用及分析 [J].工程建设与设计 .2019,000(003):43-45. [9]欧阳号,田石柱 .布置方式对防屈曲支撑混凝土框架耗能减震性能的影响分析 [J].江苏海洋大学学报(自然科学版) . 2020,29(3):88-94. [10]邵永松,贾晨 .屈曲约束支撑布置方式对半刚接钢框架地震响应的影响 [J].低温建筑技术 . 2018,40(10): 51-54. [11]王秀丽,周锟 .屈曲约束支撑布置方式对钢框架抗震性能的影响 [J].兰州理工大学学报 . 2014,40(3):126-129. [12]周学军,陈鲁,曲慧 .高层钢结构支撑的布置方式对框架侧向刚度的影响 [J].钢结构, 2003,018(004):51-54. [13]陈燕友 .PKPM在建筑结构课程设计教学中的运用分析 [J].科学咨询 /教育科研, 2020,78(33):81. [14]中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部,中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局 .建筑抗震设计规范: GB 50011-2010[S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2010. [15]刘磊,赵宝成 .连柱支撑与 K形偏心支撑钢结构 Pushover对比分析 [J].苏州科技学院学报(工程技术版) . 2016,29(2):19-23. [16]王兴国,肖亚明 .支撑布置方式对不规则高层钢框架抗震的影响 [J].安徽建筑大学学报, 2020(3).

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2020-12-20
基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目 :“西南高寒地区冰积土坝料流固耦合宏细观渗流变形本构关系研究” (11862024);国家自然科学基金项目“高地震烈度高寒地区尾矿坝水力耦合作用下动力失稳机制研究”(51264037);校级自然科学基金项目 :“云南大理白族新型社区建筑城镇适应性研究”(2020226)
作者简介:史少华(1986-),男,副教授,主要从事钢结构抗震研究? E-mail:sshssh080612@sina.com
通信作者:石若利(1997-),男,硕士研究生,主要从事建筑结构方面的研究? E-mail:Stone_rl@163.com

更新日期/Last Update: 2021-09-30