四、 研究的总体安排与进度： 第一周:方案设计，建筑外形。 第二周：修改方案，绘制建筑图。 第三周：完成建筑图正式图纸。 第四、五周：标准层结构平面图（框架梁，连梁）布置，现浇板的的荷载整理，内力及配筋计算。 第六、七周：连梁的荷载整理，内力及配筋计算。 第八、九周：1~2榀框架的荷载整理，内力及配筋计算。 第十周：绘制框架配筋图、连梁的配筋图。 第十一、十二周：桩承载力计算，基础平面图布置、承台配筋计算及绘制。 第十三、十四周：绘制标准层结构平面图，现浇楼梯的结构计算及配筋图绘制，雨篷的结构计算及配筋图绘制。 第十五周：整理图纸，设计总说明及计算书。
五、 主要参考文献： [1] 混凝土结构设计规范 GB50010－2002 建筑结构荷载规范 GB50009－2006 建筑地基基础设计规范 GB50007－2002 建筑工程抗震设防分类标准 GB50223-2008 建筑结构可靠度设计统一标准 GB50068-2001 混凝土结构设计原理、混凝土结构设计 多层与高层建筑结构设计 简明建筑结构静力设计手册 中国建筑工业出版社 江西省结构标准图集及国家其余相关现行规范 [2] 混凝土结构设计规范 GB50010－2002 建筑结构荷载规范 GB50009－2001﹙2006年版﹚ 建筑地基基础设计规范 GB50007－2002 砌体结构设计规范 GB50003—2001 混凝土结构设计原理、混凝土结构设计 混凝土结构计算手册 [3]多层与高层建筑结构设计《房屋建筑学》教材 建筑设计资料集1、2、3册 江西省建筑标准图集 建筑制图标准 其他有关设计规范 Assessment of European seismic design procedures
for steel framed structures
A.Y. Elghazouli 1 Introduction
Although seismic design has bene?ted from substantial developments in recent years, the
need to offer practical and relatively unsophisticated design procedures inevitably results in various simpli?cations and idealisations. These assumptions can, in some cases, have advert implications on the expected seismic performance and hence on the rationale and reliabil- ity of the design approaches. It is therefore imperative that design concepts and application rules are constantly appraised and revised in light of recent research ?ndings and improvedunderstanding of seismic behaviour. To this end, this paper focuses on assessing the under- lying approaches and main procedures adopted in the seismic design of steel frames, with emphasis on European design provisions.
In accordance with current seismic design practice, which in Europe is represented by Eurocode 8 (EC8) (2004), structures may be designed according to either non-dissipative or dissipative behaviour. The former, through which the structure is dimensioned to respond largely in the elastic range, is normally limited to areas of low seismicity or to structures of special use and importance. Otherwise, codes aim to achieve economical design by employ- ing dissipative behaviour in which considerable inelastic deformations can be accommodated under significant seismic events. In the case of irregular or complex structures, detailed non- linear dynamic analysis may be necessary. However, dissipative design of regular structures is
usually performed by assigning a structural behaviour factor (i.e. force reduction or modi?ca- tion factor) which is used to reduce the code-speci?ed forces resulting from idealised elastic response spectra. This is carried out in conjunction with the capacity design concept which requires an appropriate determination of the capacity of the structure based on a pre-de?ned plastic mechanism (often referred to as failure mode), coupled with the provision of suf?cient ductility in plastic zones and adequate over-strength factors for other regions. Although the fundamental design principles of capacity design may not be purposely dissimilar in various codes, the actual procedures can often vary due to differences in behavioural assumptions and design idealisations.
This paper examines the main design approaches and behavioural aspects of typical con?g- urations of moment-resisting and concentrically-braced frames. Although this study focuses mainly on European guidance, the discussions also refer to US provisions (AISC 1999, 2002, 2005a,b) for comparison purposes. Where appropriate, simple analytical treatments are presented in order to illustrate salient behavioural aspects and trends, and reference is also made to recent experimental observations and ?ndings. Amongst the various aspects examined in this paper, particular emphasis is given to capacity design veri?cations as well as the implications of drift-related requirements in moment frames, and to the post-buck- ling behaviour and ductility demand in braced frames, as these represent issues that warrant cautious interpretation and consideration in the design process. Accordingly, a number of necessary clari?cations and possible modi?cations to code procedures are put forward. 2 General considerations
2.1 Limit states and loading criteria
The European seismic code, EC8 (Eurocode 8 2004) has evolved over a number of years changing status recently from a pre-standard to a full European standard. The code explicitly adopts capacity design approaches, with its associated procedures in terms of failure mode control, force reduction and ductility requirements. One of the main merits of the code is that, in comparison with other seismic provisions, it succeeds to a large extent in maintaining a direct and unambiguous relationship between the speci?c design procedures and the overall capacity design concept.
There are two fundamental design levels considered in EC8, namely ‘no-collapse’ and ‘damage-limitation’, which essentially refer to ultimate and serviceability limit states, respec- tively, under seismic loading. The no-collapse requirement corresponds to seismic action based on a recommended probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years, or a return period of 475 years, whilst the values associated with the damage-limitation level relate to arecommended probability of 10% in 10 years, or return period of 95 years. As expected, capacity design procedures are more directly associated with the ultimate limit state, but a number of checks are included to ensure compliance with serviceability conditions.
The code de?nes reference elastic response spectra (Se) for acceleration as a function of the period of vibration (T) and the design ground acceleration (ag) on ?rm ground. The elastic spectrum depends on the soil factor (S), the damping correction factor (η) and pre-de?ned spectral periods (TB , TC and TD) which in turn depend on the soil type and seismic source characteristics. For ultimate limit state design, inelastic ductile performance is incorporated through the use of the behaviour factor (q) which in the last version of EC8 is assumed to capture also the effect of viscous damping. Essentially, to avoid performing inelastic analysis in design, the elastic spectral accelerations are divided by ‘q ’ (excepting some modi?cations for T < TB), to reduce the design forces in accordance with the structural con?guration and expected ductility. For regular structures (satisfying a number of code-speci?ed criteria), a simpli?ed equivalent static approach can be adopted, based largely on the fundamental mode of vibration.
2.2 Behaviour factors
This type of frame has special features that are not dealt with in this study,
although some comments relevant to its behaviour are made within the discussions. Also, K-braced frames are not considered herein as they are not recommended for dissipative design. On the other hand, eccentrically-braced frames which can combine the advantages of moment-resisting and concentrically-braced frames in terms of high ductility and stiffness, are beyond the scope of this study. The reference behaviour factor should be considered as an upper bound even if non-linear dynamic analysis suggests higher values. For regular structures in areas of low seismicity, a ‘q ’ of
相关推荐：
loading