抗渐进倒塌结构分析方法

Andrey D. Semashkin, A. Tusnin, Maria P. Berger
{"title":"抗渐进倒塌结构分析方法","authors":"Andrey D. Semashkin, A. Tusnin, Maria P. Berger","doi":"10.22227/2305-5502.2023.2.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Calculation methods and current normative documents used in the calculation of buildings for resistance to progressive collapse are considered. The key methods of analysis are listed and fundamenta.rules of each of them are stated. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods are analyzed. Materials and methods. The calculations of stability to progressive collapse have been carried out for a multi-span flat frame at the failure of the middle post of the ground floor. The software complex LIRA-SAPR 2021 R1.2 was used to perform calculations. The task was solved by several methods: the static calculation, quasi-static calculation and dynamic calculation. The nonlinear functioning of construction and material was considered by step-methods with using the flow curve from SP 16.13330.2017. Quasistatic calculation was performed in two variants: pulldown and pushdown analysis. The dynamic calculation was carried out by direct integration of the equations of motion using the module “Dynamics in Time”. Two variants with different element elimination time were considered. Results. The results are analyzed and summarized in Table 2. The static calculation yields force and displacement values that are clearly underestimated as compared to other methods. Forces and displacements obtained by quasistatic analysis are greater than those obtained by dynamic analysis. The results obtained in the pulldown and pushdown analyses are close in value. Conclusions. Quasistatic calculations give higher forces and displacements than dynamic calculations. The results of pushdown analysis correlate better with the results of calculations in the dynamic formulation. In order to determine forces more accurately when using quasi-static calculation, a justification of the dynamical coefficient is necessary.","PeriodicalId":30543,"journal":{"name":"Stroitel''stvo Nauka i Obrazovanie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods of structural analysis for resistance to progressive collapse\",\"authors\":\"Andrey D. Semashkin, A. Tusnin, Maria P. Berger\",\"doi\":\"10.22227/2305-5502.2023.2.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. Calculation methods and current normative documents used in the calculation of buildings for resistance to progressive collapse are considered. The key methods of analysis are listed and fundamenta.rules of each of them are stated. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods are analyzed. Materials and methods. The calculations of stability to progressive collapse have been carried out for a multi-span flat frame at the failure of the middle post of the ground floor. The software complex LIRA-SAPR 2021 R1.2 was used to perform calculations. The task was solved by several methods: the static calculation, quasi-static calculation and dynamic calculation. The nonlinear functioning of construction and material was considered by step-methods with using the flow curve from SP 16.13330.2017. Quasistatic calculation was performed in two variants: pulldown and pushdown analysis. The dynamic calculation was carried out by direct integration of the equations of motion using the module “Dynamics in Time”. Two variants with different element elimination time were considered. Results. The results are analyzed and summarized in Table 2. The static calculation yields force and displacement values that are clearly underestimated as compared to other methods. Forces and displacements obtained by quasistatic analysis are greater than those obtained by dynamic analysis. The results obtained in the pulldown and pushdown analyses are close in value. Conclusions. Quasistatic calculations give higher forces and displacements than dynamic calculations. The results of pushdown analysis correlate better with the results of calculations in the dynamic formulation. In order to determine forces more accurately when using quasi-static calculation, a justification of the dynamical coefficient is necessary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30543,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stroitel''stvo Nauka i Obrazovanie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stroitel''stvo Nauka i Obrazovanie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22227/2305-5502.2023.2.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroitel''stvo Nauka i Obrazovanie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22227/2305-5502.2023.2.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍。考虑了建筑物抗连续倒塌计算方法和现行规范文件。列出了分析的主要方法,并阐述了每种方法的基本规律。分析了这些方法的优缺点。材料和方法。对某多跨平面框架在底层中柱破坏时的连续倒塌稳定性进行了计算。使用软件复合体LIRA-SAPR 2021 R1.2进行计算。采用静态计算、准静态计算和动态计算三种方法求解。采用SP 16.13330.2017的流动曲线,采用步进法考虑结构和材料的非线性作用。准静态计算分为下拉分析和下推分析两种。动力学计算采用“时间动力学”模块对运动方程进行直接积分。考虑了两种不同消元时间的变量。结果。结果分析和总结见表2。与其他方法相比,静态计算产生的力和位移值显然被低估了。准静态分析得到的力和位移比动态分析得到的大。下拉分析和下推分析的结果在数值上是接近的。结论。准静态计算比动态计算得到更高的力和位移。压下分析结果与动力公式中的计算结果具有较好的相关性。为了在准静力计算时更准确地确定力,需要对动力系数进行论证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methods of structural analysis for resistance to progressive collapse
Introduction. Calculation methods and current normative documents used in the calculation of buildings for resistance to progressive collapse are considered. The key methods of analysis are listed and fundamenta.rules of each of them are stated. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods are analyzed. Materials and methods. The calculations of stability to progressive collapse have been carried out for a multi-span flat frame at the failure of the middle post of the ground floor. The software complex LIRA-SAPR 2021 R1.2 was used to perform calculations. The task was solved by several methods: the static calculation, quasi-static calculation and dynamic calculation. The nonlinear functioning of construction and material was considered by step-methods with using the flow curve from SP 16.13330.2017. Quasistatic calculation was performed in two variants: pulldown and pushdown analysis. The dynamic calculation was carried out by direct integration of the equations of motion using the module “Dynamics in Time”. Two variants with different element elimination time were considered. Results. The results are analyzed and summarized in Table 2. The static calculation yields force and displacement values that are clearly underestimated as compared to other methods. Forces and displacements obtained by quasistatic analysis are greater than those obtained by dynamic analysis. The results obtained in the pulldown and pushdown analyses are close in value. Conclusions. Quasistatic calculations give higher forces and displacements than dynamic calculations. The results of pushdown analysis correlate better with the results of calculations in the dynamic formulation. In order to determine forces more accurately when using quasi-static calculation, a justification of the dynamical coefficient is necessary.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信