摘要:
随着消能减震技术的日益发展,减震产品在建筑结构中的应用越来越多。工程中常用的减震产品主要有位移型消能器和速度型消能器,二者原理及性能不同。当前实际工程中多采用单一减震产品,有时难以满足"设防地震正常使用"的设计要求。鉴于此,将两类减震产品进行有机组合,发挥协同互补优势,形成组合减震技术,确保结构满足"设防地震正常使用"要求。以8度区某钢结构医院病房楼为工程实例,采用ETABS有限元计算软件进行消能减震分析,通过对组合减震方案、单一减震方案和无控结构方案在设防地震和罕遇地震下的层间位移角、楼面水平加速度和构件损伤等设计指标进行对比分析。结果表明:组合减震方案通过屈曲约束支撑和黏滞阻尼器两种减震产品的有效组合,结构层间位移角的控制优于单一减震方案;楼面水平加速度除顶层屋面板外,其他楼层在设防地震下不超过0.25g,在罕遇地震下不超过0.45g;结构损伤分析中,组合减震方案在设防地震下未出现塑性铰,罕遇地震下仅少量构件出现塑性铰,其深度未超过"IO状态"。各指标对比结果说明组合减震方案有效改善并控制了结构的响应,其效果优于单一减震方案,实现了设防地震正常使用的目标。
Abstract:
In consideration of the requirements for "normal use", the Aseismic Technical Guidelines Based on Maintaining the Normal Use Function of Buildings (RISN-TG046—2023) incorporates control requirements for "floor horizontal acceleration" by incorporating calculations of conventional structural deformation and component bearing capacity. With advancements in energy dissipation and damping technology, commonly used damping products in engineering primarily consist of displacement-type dampers and velocity-type dampers. These different damper types possess distinct technical principles and product performance characteristics. Currently, single-type damping products are predominantly utilized in practical engineering; however, they have certain limitations and deficiencies when it comes to comprehensive index control over structural deformation, component bearing capacity, and floor horizontal acceleration. To address this issue under the new requirement for "normal use," an organic combination of displacement type and velocity type damping products was proposed. The floor horizontal acceleration should not exceed 0.25g during moderate earthquakes or 0.45g during rarely occurred earthquakes, except for the roof panel; furthermore, only a small number of members within the combined damping scheme were hinged under rarely occurred earthquakes and not hinged under moderate earthquakes in structural damage analysis with a depth not exceeding the "IO state". Comparative results across various indicators demonstrated that the combined damping scheme effectively enhanced and controlled structural responses while outperforming single damping schemes, thereby achieving the goal of normal use during moderate earthquakes.