摘要
结合汶川地震桥梁的破坏情况,在文献[1]的基础上,对我国、日本、美国、欧洲、新西兰等规范的抗震设计方法进行了分析。对于能力设计,我国规范、美国Caltrans规范采用的超强系数相同,欧洲规范采用的值较大且考虑了轴压比的影响。在延性要求、强度和变形验算方面,各规范的规定差别很大,考虑到过大的残余变形修复比较困难,日本规范规定了震后要求的最大残余变形。在钢筋构造方面,美国规范对纵向和横向钢筋最小配筋率的规定比较简单,我国、欧洲和新西兰规范的规定考虑了轴压比的影响,欧洲规范和新西兰规范还对纵向钢筋不被压屈提出了要求。在其他抗震措施方面,各规范的规定也有很大不同。
Followed the observation of bridge damage in Wenchuan earthquake,a comparative study,which put emphasis on seismic design approaches in specifications of China,Japan,USA,Euro and New Zealand,was made based on Reference [1].It is indicated that(1) For capability design,the overstrength factor is the same in Chinese specification and in US Caltrans specification,and the larger overstrength factor is adopted considering the influence of axial compression ratio in Eurocode.(2) There exists great difference for the requirements of ductility,strength and deformation in the specifications,a maximum residual deformation requirement proposed in Japanese specification considering the difficulty to restore the excessive residual deformation after quake.(3) For details of reinforcement,the minimum requirements of transverse and longitudinal reinforcements are simpler in US specification.The minimum requirements of reinforcements depend on axial compression ratio are specified in Chinese specification,Eurocode and New Zealand manual.To prevent the longitudinal reinforcement from bulking,specific suggestions are made in Eurocode and New Zealand manual.(4) There are other differences of measures to avoid bridge being damaged.
出处
《公路交通科技》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2010年第10期35-46,52,共13页
Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development
基金
国家自然科学基金项目(重点项目90815027)
关键词
桥梁工程
抗震
比较
规范
bridge engineering
earthquake-resistance
comparison
specification