抗震概念设计刍论

<正>强烈地震给人类造成无数惨重的灾难。尤其是20世纪以来,全世界范围内的大地震造成的巨大财产损失和人员伤亡触目惊心,严重危及社会的和谐与可持续发展。这些重大的地震灾害不断挑战着人类对地震灾害的认知与防御能力。大量研究表明,造成人员伤亡和经济损失的主要原因无不与房屋建筑,基础设施以及地球上的其他各类土木工程缺乏抗震能力密切相关,甚至可以说抗震不合格的土木工程是造成地震灾害的首要元凶。与地震灾害长期斗争     

谈抗震概念设计

阐述了钢筋混凝土结构与砖砌体结构设计中如何运用整体概念的设计方法 ,指出只有合理选择设计方案、有效控制结构的抗震性能 ,才能达到减轻震害的目的     

桥梁抗震设计规范与建筑抗震设计规范的分析与比较

对我国现行《公路工程抗震设计规范》(JTJ004-89)与《建筑抗震设计规范》(GB50011-2001)进行了较为详细的对比。分别从抗震设计的基本思想、设计地震动参数、地震反应分析和计算方法、构造细节等方面对这两本规范进行了比较,并指出了今后我国各行业工程结构抗震设计规范宜逐步统一。     

铁路工程抗震设计规范中桥梁抗震 相关规定与发展沿革

生命线基础设施抗震安全对我国防震减灾与抗震救灾工作具有重要意义,铁路桥梁更是关乎人员转移与物质运输的安全与稳定。基于地震区铁路桥梁震害资料分析和震害调查研究,结合我国铁路桥梁抗震设计工作的经验、教训及相关科研成果,我国陆续出版了3本《铁路工程抗震设计规范》。文章回顾我国铁路桥梁抗震设计规范60年的发展历程,对我国开展铁路桥梁抗震设计工作的历史时期进行划分;通过对比和总结1977、1987、2009年颁布的《铁路工程抗震设计规范》中的铁路桥梁部分,发现该系列规范的发展逐步体现了基于性能的设计理念,场地分类更加精细,地震作用考虑更为科学,且对于铁路桥梁的抗震构造措施有了更加明确的规定。研究可为改进和完善地震区铁路桥梁震害预测方法提供参考依据。     

我国现行抗震设计规范中场地评定方法的比较和评述

目前，我国抗震设计规范中采用的场地评定方法主要有两种：一是建筑抗震设计规范（ＧＢＪ１１－８９）采用的场地分类的方法，一是构筑物抗震设计规范（ＧＢ５０１９１－９３）和电力设施抗震设计规范采用的场地指数法。前者是把场地影响按照场地分类指标划分成若干场地类别，因此，确定的地震荷载是不连续的，跳跃变化的。后者是一种以模糊推论的综合评判方法导出的场地指数为指标进行连续评定的新方法，在这种方法里，场地性质的差     

山区桥梁的抗震概念设计

山区桥梁因为地形和施工条件等的限制,给设计带来很大的问题,使得结构不规则,影响了桥梁的抗震能力。且由于山地震动效应等复杂因素的影响,该类桥梁的抗震计算往往不能很好地反映真实的地震反应。概念设计通过长期积累的实际设计经验和理论研究的成果,从总体上把握设计的原则,是非常重要和有意义的。本文针对山区桥梁的特点,对山区桥梁的抗震概念设计方法进行了探讨。     

结构抗震设计时程分析法的分析研究

文章回顾了我国抗震设计规范的演变过程,将时程分析法与底部剪力法和振型分解反应谱法进行了对比,指出了时程分析法在抗震设计计算中的地位与作用,时程分析法是能够考虑地震动三要素、地震环境、结构的非线性和能量损耗及损伤的真正动力分析方法,是比底部剪力法和振型分解反应谱法更精确、更可靠、更合理的方法,不应仅仅作为补充计算的方法,...     

各类抗震设计规范对设计地震动时程规定的对比分析

系统介绍了国内外各类抗震设计规范和导则中关于设计地震动时程方面的规定。分别从时程分析范围、时程组数以及天然时程所占比例、设计地震动时程的峰值和反应谱特性、设计地震动时程的持时特性以及设计地震动时程的相关性等5个方面,对比了不同行业抗震设计规范中关于地震动时程相关规定的异同。以我国现行《建筑抗震设计规范》为例,给出了满足相关要求的设计地震动时程,并针对设计地震动时程确定过程中需要关注的问题进行了讨论,以期为我国地震安全性评价工作中设计反应的确定谱提供参考。     

欧洲抗震设计规范Eurocode 8简介及其与我国岩土抗震设计比较

地震带来的影响和危害引起了国际社会的共同关注,工程中的抗震设计越来越得到高度重视。本文就欧洲抗震设计规范Eurocode 8的内容进行了简要介绍,并专门针对Eurocode 8中岩土抗震设计部分从场地类型,地震反应谱,抗震设计基本原则和要求等方面与我国的抗震设计规范(GB 50011-2001)进行了阐述和对比,希望能增加读者对欧洲抗震设计规范的了解,同时为我国的岩土抗震设计简要提供参考和借鉴作用。     

Adapting earthquake actions in Eurocode 8 for performance‐based seismic design

Performance‐based seismic design (PBSD) can be considered as the coupling of expected levels of ground motion with desired levels of structural performance, with the objective of achieving greater control over earthquake‐induced losses. Eurocode 8 (EC8) already envisages two design levels of motion, for no collapse and damage limitation performance targets, anchored to recommended return periods of 475 and 95 years, respectively. For PBSD the earthquake actions need to be presented in ways that are appropriate to the estimation of inelastic displacements, since these provide an effective control on damage at different limit states. The adequacy of current earthquake actions in EC8 are reviewed from this perspective and areas requiring additional development are identified. The implications of these representations of the seismic loads, in terms of mapping and zonation, are discussed. The current practice of defining the loading levels on the basis of the pre‐selected return periods is challenged, and ideas are discussed for calibrating the loading‐performance levels for design on the basis of quantitative earthquake loss estimation. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Preliminary study on the seismic conceptual design

The seismic conceptual design is an essential part of seismic design codes. It points out that the term "seismic conceptual design" should imply three aspects,i.e.,the given concept itself,the specific provisions related to the given concept and the designing following the provisions. Seismic conceptual design can be classified into two categories: the strict or traditional seismic conceptual design and the generalized seismic conceptual design. The authors are trying to define for both conceptual designs their connotations and study their characteristics,in particular,the differences between them. Authors emphasize that both conceptual designs sound very close,however,their differences are apparent. The strict conceptual designs are usually worked out directly from engineering practice and/or lessons learnt from earthquake damage,while the generalized conceptual designs are resulted in a series of visions aiming to realize the general objectives of the seismic codes. The strict conceptual designs,(traditional conceptual designs) are indispensable elements of seismic codes in assuring designed structures safer and the generalized conceptual designs are playing key roles in directing to a more advanced and effective seismic codes.     

Proposal of design rules for ductile X-CBFS in the framework of EUROCODE 8

Cross concentrically braced frames (X-CBFs) are commonly used as primary seismic resisting system, owing to their large lateral stiffness, simplicity of design, and relatively low constructional cost. Current EN 1998-1 provides design rules theoretically aiming at developing ductile global plastic mechanism, namely enforcing plastic deformations in the diagonal members, while the remaining structural members and connections should elastically behave. However, as widely demonstrated by many existing studies, the design and the corresponding seismic performance of EC8-compliant X-CBFs are generally affected by several criticisms, eg, difficulties in sizing of diagonal members, massive and non-economical structures, and poor seismic behavior. In light of these considerations, the research activity presented in this paper is addressed to revise the design rules and requirements given EN 1998-1 for X-CBFs to simplify the design process and to improve the ductility and the dissipative capacity of this structural system. Hence, design rules are proposed for the next version of EN 1998-1 and numerically validated by means of nonlinear dynamic analyses.     

A design procedure for suspended zipper‐braced frames in the framework of Eurocode 8

In the recent past, suspended zipper‐braced frames were proposed to avoid one‐storey collapse mechanisms and dynamic instability under severe ground motions. In this paper, the design procedure suggested by Yang et al. is first slightly modified to conform to the design approach and capacity design rules stipulated in Eurocode 8 for concentrically braced frames. The procedure is applied to a set of suspended zipper‐braced frames with different number of storeys and founded on either soft or rock soil. The structural response of these frames is analysed to highlight qualities and deficiencies and to assess the critics reported by other researchers with regard to the design procedure by Yang et al. Then, improvements are proposed to this procedure to enhance the energy dissipation of the chevron braces and the response of the structural system as well. The effectiveness of the design proposals is evaluated by incremental dynamic analysis on structures with different geometric properties, gravity loads and soil of foundation. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

结构分灾抗震设计:概念和应用

详细论述了结构分灾抗震设计的产生背景、设计思想、优化模型和基本原则,指出结构分灾设计是在分析基于投资—效益准则的结构抗震设计模型的基础上,对工程实践中一些成功经验的提炼和概括而形成的设计方法,工程领域中一些现行设计方法和措施就是分灾设计的具体应用。当工程师们待处理的问题必须考虑高度不确定性因素时,将分灾设计作为一种可能选用的设计理念,将有助于工程师们实现设计创新。分灾设计符合基于性能的抗震设计思想,可以方便地实现基于性能的设计。     

A displacement‐based seismic design procedure for RC buildings and comparison with EC8

A procedure for displacement‐based seismic design (DBD) of reinforced concrete buildings is described and applied to a 4‐storey test structure. The essential elements of the design procedure are: (a) proportioning of members for gravity loads; (b) estimation of peak inelastic member deformation demands in the so‐designed structure due to the design (‘life‐safety’) earthquake; (c) revision of reinforcement and final detailing of members to meet these inelastic deformation demands; (d) capacity design of members and joints in shear. Additional but non‐essential steps between (a) and (b) are: (i) proportioning of members for the ULS against lateral loads, such as wind or a serviceability (‘immediate occupancy’) earthquake; and (ii) capacity design of columns in flexure at joints. Inelastic deformation demands in step (b) are estimated from an elastic analysis using secant‐to‐yield member stiffnesses. Empirical expressions for the deformation capacity of RC elements are used for the final proportioning of elements to meet the inelastic deformation demands. The procedure is applied to one side of a 4‐storey test structure that includes a coupled wall and a two‐bay frame. The other side is designed and detailed according to Eurocode 8. Major differences result in the reinforcement of the two sides, with significant savings on the DBD‐side. Pre‐test calculations show no major difference in the seismic performance of the two sides of the test structure. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Influence of deterioration modelling on the seismic response of steel moment frames designed to Eurocode 8

This paper assesses the influence of cyclic and in‐cycle degradation on seismic drift demands in moment‐resisting steel frames (MRF) designed to Eurocode 8. The structural characteristics, ground motion frequency content, and level of inelasticity are the primary parameters considered. A set of single‐degree‐of‐freedom (SDOF) systems, subjected to varying levels of inelastic demands, is initially investigated followed by an extensive study on multi‐storey frames. The latter comprises a large number of incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) on 12 frames modelled with or without consideration of degradation effects. A suite of 56 far‐field ground motion records, appropriately scaled to simulate 4 levels of inelastic demand, is employed for the IDA. Characteristic results from a detailed parametric investigation show that maximum response in terms of global and inter‐storey drifts is notably affected by degradation phenomena, in addition to the earthquake frequency content and the scaled inelastic demands. Consistently, both SDOF and frame systems with fundamental periods shorter than the mean period of ground motion can experience higher lateral strength demands and seismic drifts than those of non‐degrading counterparts in the same period range. Also, degrading multi‐storey frames can exhibit distinctly different plastic mechanisms with concentration of drifts at lower levels. Importantly, degrading systems might reach a “near‐collapse” limit state at ductility demand levels comparable to or lower than the assumed design behaviour factor, a result with direct consequences on optimised design situations where over‐strength would be minimal. Finally, the implications of the findings with respect to design‐level limit states are discussed.     

Revisiting Eurocode 8 formulae for periods of vibration and their employment in linear seismic analysis

The period of vibration is a fundamental parameter in the force‐based design of structures as this parameter defines the spectral acceleration and thus the base shear force to which the building should be designed. This paper takes a critical look at the way in which seismic design codes around the world have allowed the designer to estimate the period of vibration for use in both linear static and dynamic analysis. Based on this review, some preliminary suggestions are made for updating the clauses related to the estimation of the periods of vibration in Eurocode 8. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Seismic Performance of RC Frames Designed to Eurocode 8 or to the Greek Codes 2000

For the first time after the finalisation of the European Norm for seismic design of buildings (Eurocode 8 – EC8),the performance of RC buildings designed with this code is evaluated through systematic nonlinear analyses. Regular 4-, 8- or 12-storey RC frames are designed for a PGA of 0.2 or 0.4 g and to one of the three alternative ductility classes in EC8. As the Eurocodes are meant to replace soon existing national codes, design and performance is also compared to that of similar frames designed with the 2000 Greek national codes. The performance of alternative designs under the life-safety (475 years) and the damage limitation (95 years) earthquakes is evaluated through nonlinear seismic response analyses. The large difference in material quantities and detailing of the alternative designs does not translate into large differences in performance. Design for either Ductility Class High (H) or Medium (M) of EC8 is much more cost-effective than design for Ductility Class Low (L), even in moderate seismicity. It is also much more cost-effective than design to the 2000 Greek national codes.