检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]内蒙古科技大学建筑与土木工程学院,内蒙古包头014010 [2]包头市建筑设计研究院有限责任公司,内蒙古包头014010
出 处:《内蒙古科技大学学报》2015年第1期101-104,共4页Journal of Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology
摘 要:本文分别根据GSA(General Services Administration)2003规范和我国《高层建筑混凝土结构技术规程》JGJ3-2010规范下的线性静力拆除构件分析方法对包头市某框架结构教学楼进行了抗连续倒塌对比分析,由于两种方法的加载模式和评估指标均不相同,所以不能由理论计算比较两种方法的分析结果.本文通过具体对一栋结构的抗连续性倒塌分析得到:我国规范的线性拆除构件法对结构的抗连续性倒塌分析要比GSA规范下的分析方法得到的结果更保守.The continuous collapse resistance of a frame structure in Baotou was analyzed using the linear static demolition component methods according to the GSA ( General Services Administration) 2003 specification and the Technical specification for concrete structures of tall building JGJ3 - 2010 specification in our country. Due to the difference in the load model and the evaluation index between the two methods, the results of the analysis with the two methods should not be compared by theoretical calculation. Through analyzing the progressive collapse resistance of a concrete structure, the conclusion is drawn that the linear static demolition component method of China for the analysis result of resisting progressive collapse is more conservative than the analytical method based on GSA specification.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.222.124.172