论文部分内容阅读
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。
Based on the literature [1], combined with the damage of the bridge in Wenchuan earthquake, the canonical seismic design methods of China, Japan, the United States, Europe and New Zealand are analyzed. For the ability to design, China’s standard, the United States adopted the same super-coefficient Caltrans norms, the European norms adopted by the larger value and taking into account the impact of axial compression ratio. In the ductility requirements, strength and deformation checking, the norms of the provisions vary greatly, taking into account the excessive residual deformation is more difficult to repair, the Japanese code provides the maximum residual deformation required after the earthquake. In terms of rebar structure, the United States regulations on the minimum vertical and horizontal reinforced reinforcement ratio is relatively simple, China, Europe and New Zealand norms to consider the impact of axial compression ratio, the European norms and New Zealand norms also longitudinal buckling is not buckling Made a request In other seismic measures, the norms of the regulations are also very different.