论文部分内容阅读
对于8度抗震、Ⅲ类场地的某电厂,本文对比分析了主厂房的2种布置方案:方案1(汽机房+侧煤仓)、方案2(汽机房+除氧间+侧煤仓)、方案3(汽机房+除氧间+前煤仓).根据规范及有关文件,除布置方案1的汽机房能采用单跨钢筋混凝土排架方案以外,其余的各结构型式均不推荐采用纯钢筋混凝土框架结构.考虑到型钢混凝土结构在抗震性能上的优势,各布置方案中补充了型钢混凝土结构来进行分析.经综合比较推荐:本工程主厂房采用方案1(汽机房+侧煤仓)布置方案,其中汽机房结构型式为钢筋混凝土单跨排架结构,侧煤仓结构型式为横向采用型钢混凝土的3跨框架、纵向框架-剪力墙结构.
For a certain type of power plant with 8-degree seismic and Class Ⅲ site, this paper compares and analyzes two kinds of layout schemes of main plant: Scheme 1 (Steam Turbine + Side Coal Bunker), Scheme 2 (Steam Turbine + Deaerator + Side Coal Bunker) Scheme 3 (steam room + oxygen room + front coal bunker) According to the specification and the relevant documents, except for the steam turbine room with single-span reinforced concrete rack arrangement scheme 1, the rest of the structural types are not recommended for pure steel bars Considering the advantages of the SRC structure in the seismic performance, the SRC structures are supplemented by the various layout schemes for analysis. After comprehensive comparison, it is recommended that the main workshop of the project adopts the layout of Scheme 1 (steam turbine + side coal bunker) The steam turbine engine room structure type is single-span reinforced concrete frame structure. The lateral coal bunker structure type is 3-span frame and longitudinal frame-shear wall structure with transverse steel concrete.