本文依据分布于全国的6824个钻孔数据,按照双参数的不同取值,将GB50011—2010《建筑抗震设计规范》(以下简称中国建抗规)的场地类别进一步划分为更加同质的子类,分析了双参数体系对场地分类结果的影响,建立了每个子类与美国《NEHRP对新...本文依据分布于全国的6824个钻孔数据,按照双参数的不同取值,将GB50011—2010《建筑抗震设计规范》(以下简称中国建抗规)的场地类别进一步划分为更加同质的子类,分析了双参数体系对场地分类结果的影响,建立了每个子类与美国《NEHRP对新建建筑和结构物的推荐地震条款》(National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures,以下简称美国建抗规)的场地类别的对应关系,并对比分析中、美建抗规的场地类别差异,在此基础上建立了中国建抗规与美国建抗规场地类别相互转换的概率表达。研究结果表明:用v_(S20)近似表示中国场地分类标准的等效剪切波速并不可靠;中国建抗规中Ⅱ类场地和Ⅲ类场地内部不同子类与美国建抗规中场地类别的对应关系截然不同;中国建抗规中覆盖层厚度有效地区分了浅部波速类似而深部波速不同的场地;中国建抗规的Ⅱ类和Ⅲ类场地主体均对应美国建抗规的D类场地,中国Ⅱ类场地略偏对应美国C类场地,中国Ⅲ类场地略偏对应美国E类场地;中国Ⅳ类场地对应美国E类场地,绝大多数美国C类和D类场地均对应中国Ⅱ类场地,说明中国Ⅱ类场地的范围极宽。展开更多
Following several damaging earthquakes in China, research has been devoted to find the causes of the collapse of reinforced concrete （RC） building sand studying the vulnerability of existing buildings. The Chinese C...Following several damaging earthquakes in China, research has been devoted to find the causes of the collapse of reinforced concrete （RC） building sand studying the vulnerability of existing buildings. The Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Buildings （CCSDB） has evolved over time, however, there is still reported earthquake induced damage of newly designed RC buildings. Thus, to investigate modern Chinese seismic design code, three low-, mid- and high-rise RC frames were designed according to the 2010 CCSDB and the corresponding vulnerability curves were derived by computing a probabilistic seismic demand model （PSDM）.The PSDM was computed by carrying out nonlinear time history analysis using thirty ground motions obtained from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Finally, the PSDM was used to generate fragility curves for immediate occupancy, significant damage, and collapse prevention damage levels. Results of the vulnerability assessment indicate that the seismic demands on the three different frames designed according to the 2010 CCSDB meet the seismic requirements and are almost in the same safety level.展开更多
文摘本文依据分布于全国的6824个钻孔数据,按照双参数的不同取值,将GB50011—2010《建筑抗震设计规范》(以下简称中国建抗规)的场地类别进一步划分为更加同质的子类,分析了双参数体系对场地分类结果的影响,建立了每个子类与美国《NEHRP对新建建筑和结构物的推荐地震条款》(National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures,以下简称美国建抗规)的场地类别的对应关系,并对比分析中、美建抗规的场地类别差异,在此基础上建立了中国建抗规与美国建抗规场地类别相互转换的概率表达。研究结果表明:用v_(S20)近似表示中国场地分类标准的等效剪切波速并不可靠;中国建抗规中Ⅱ类场地和Ⅲ类场地内部不同子类与美国建抗规中场地类别的对应关系截然不同;中国建抗规中覆盖层厚度有效地区分了浅部波速类似而深部波速不同的场地;中国建抗规的Ⅱ类和Ⅲ类场地主体均对应美国建抗规的D类场地,中国Ⅱ类场地略偏对应美国C类场地,中国Ⅲ类场地略偏对应美国E类场地;中国Ⅳ类场地对应美国E类场地,绝大多数美国C类和D类场地均对应中国Ⅱ类场地,说明中国Ⅱ类场地的范围极宽。
基金National Natural Science Foundation of China Under Grant No.51108105,90815029,50938006 Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China Under Grant No.20094410120002+3 种基金 Major Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China Under Grant No.90815027Key Projects in the National Science&Technology Pillar Program during the Eleventh Five-Year Plan Period Under Grant No.2009BAJ28B03Fund for High School in Guangzhou (10A057)the Open Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science(2011KB15)
文摘Following several damaging earthquakes in China, research has been devoted to find the causes of the collapse of reinforced concrete （RC） building sand studying the vulnerability of existing buildings. The Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Buildings （CCSDB） has evolved over time, however, there is still reported earthquake induced damage of newly designed RC buildings. Thus, to investigate modern Chinese seismic design code, three low-, mid- and high-rise RC frames were designed according to the 2010 CCSDB and the corresponding vulnerability curves were derived by computing a probabilistic seismic demand model （PSDM）.The PSDM was computed by carrying out nonlinear time history analysis using thirty ground motions obtained from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Finally, the PSDM was used to generate fragility curves for immediate occupancy, significant damage, and collapse prevention damage levels. Results of the vulnerability assessment indicate that the seismic demands on the three different frames designed according to the 2010 CCSDB meet the seismic requirements and are almost in the same safety level.
