• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Earthquake Engineering >COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES FOR SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS
【24h】

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES FOR SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

机译：既有建筑物抗震评估方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The present study consists of a commented application of the three major guidance documents on the assessment of existing buildings currently available, the New Zealand Recommendations, the US ASCE-FEMA 356 and the Japanese Standard, to three structures (two 2D and one 3D frames) which have been constructed at a large scale. The main purpose of the study is the checking of the practical applicability of the methods, the relative ease of use, and of course the degree of agreement on the results. The theoretical framework on which each document is based as well as the proposed methods are outlined and commented. Differences of conceptual nature existing between the various approaches are noted. From the small number of cases examined is not possible to systematically trace the differences in the results produced by the different approaches. The large difference in the way the shear capacities of members and joints are evaluated has been a decisive factor in some cases for the determination of the ultimate capacity of the entire building. However, even if this source of discrepancy of the results from the various approaches was eliminated, the present exploration indicates that significant differences would remain, linked to the criteria used to relate the capacity curve to the response spectrum, or to the use of elastic analysis combined with local ductility factors, as in the US FEMA 356, instead of the global mechanism analysis of New Zealand.
机译：本研究包括对当前可用建筑物的评估的三个主要指导文件，新西兰建议书，美国ASCE-FEMA 356和日本标准的注释性应用到三个结构（两个2D和一个3D框架）的评论已经大规模建造。这项研究的主要目的是检查方法的实际适用性，相对易用性，以及对结果的一致程度。概述和评论了每个文档所基于的理论框架以及所提出的方法。注意到各种方法之间存在的概念性质上的差异。从所检查的少量案例中，不可能系统地追踪不同方法所产生结果的差异。在某些情况下，评估构件和接缝的抗剪承载力的方式上的巨大差异是确定整个建筑物的极限承载力的决定性因素。但是，即使消除了各种方法的结果差异的根源，当前的探索也表明，仍然存在重大差异，这与用于将容量曲线与响应谱相关的标准或弹性分析的使用相关联结合美国FEMA 356中的局部延性因素，而不是新西兰的全球机制分析。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号