摘要
结合中国、美国、澳大利亚三国规范中的相关规定,对脉动风湍流强度、湍流积分长度以及脉动风速功率谱进行了比较。对比分析表明:由中国规范推导出的湍流强度远远小于美国、澳大利亚规范的相关规定;中国规范选取的湍流积分长度不随高度变化,而美国、澳大利亚规范选取的湍流积分长度随高度的增加而增加,在相同高度处,中国规范所选取的湍流积分长度值介于美国、澳大利亚规范之间;在一般建筑物自振频率范围内,中国规范所采用的脉动风速功率谱谱值比美国、澳大利亚规范规定的谱值大。
Combining the relevant regulation in Chinese, American and Australian load code, the turbulence intensity of wind turbulence, turbulence integral length and turbulence spectra of wind turbulence were compared. The comparative analysis shows that the turbulence intensity deduced from Chinese load code is smaller than that specified in American and Australian load codes. Turbulence integral length adopted in Chinese load code is constant, while that will increase with height increases in American and Australian load code. In the same height, turbulence integral length values in Chinese code intervene in American and Australian codes. In the range of building＇s natural frequency, turbulence wind velocity spectrum value in Chinese load code is the largest one.
出处
《建筑科学与工程学报》
CAS
2008年第3期22-25,72,共5页
Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering
基金
国家自然科学基金项目(50725826)
关键词
风荷载
脉动风
湍流强度
湍流积分长度
脉动风速功率谱
wind load
wind turbulence
turbulence intensity
turbulence integral length
turbu-lence wind velocity spectrum
