建筑物的地震荷載及抗震設(shè)計(jì)

1、Earthquake Loads & Earthquake Resistant Design ofBuildingsAndrew KingStructural Engineering Section LeaderBuilding Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ)Fax +64 4 235 6070Email HYPERLINK mailto:.nz .nzAbstract: The primary objective of earthquake resistant design i

2、s to prevent building collapse during earthquakes thus minimising the risk of death or injury to people in or around those buildings. Because damaging earthquakes are rare, economics dictate that damage to buildings is expected and acceptable provided collapse is avoided.Earthquake forces are genera

3、ted by the inertia of buildings as they dynamically respond to ground motion. The dynamic nature of the response makes earthquake loadings markedly different from other building loads. Designe r temptation to consider earthquakes as a very strong wind is a trap that must be avoided since the dynamic

4、 characteristics of the building are fundamental to the structural response and thus the earthquake induced actions are able to be mitigated by design.The concept of dynamic considerations of buildings is one which sometimes generates unease and uncertainty within the designer. Although this is unde

5、rstandable, and a common characteristic of any new challenge, it is usually misplaced. Effective earthquake design methodologies can be, and usually are, easily simplified without detracting from the effectiveness of the design. Indeed the high level of uncertainty relating to the ground motion gene

6、rated by earthquakes seldom justifies the often used complex analysis techniques nor the high level of design sophistication often employed. A good earthquake engineering design is one where the designer takes control of the building by dictating how the building is to respond. This can be achieved

7、by selection of the preferred response mode, selecting zones where inelastic deformations are acceptable and suppressing the development of undesirable response modes which could lead to building collapse.Earthquake Design - A Conceptual ReviewModern earthquake desig n has its genesis in the 1920s a

8、nd 1930s. At that time earthquake design typically involved the application of 10% of the building weight as a lateral force on the structure, applied uniformly up the height of the building. Indeed it was not until the 1960s that strong ground motion accelerographs became more generally available.

9、These instruments record the ground motion generated by earthquakes. When used in conjunction with strong motion recording devices which were able to be installed at different levels within buildings themselves, it became possible to measure and understand the dynamic response of buildings when they

10、 were subjected to real earthquake induced ground motion.By using actual earthquake motion records as input to the, then, recently developed inelastic integrated time history analysis packages, it became apparent that many buildings designed to earlier codes had inadequate strength to withstand desi

11、gn level earthquakes without experiencing significant damage. However, observations of the in-service behaviour of buildings showed that this lack of strength did not necessarily result in building failure or even severe damage when they were subjected to severe earthquake attack. Provided the stren

12、gth could be maintained without excessive degradation as inelastic deformations developed, buildings generally survived and could often be economically repaired. Conversely, buildings which experienced significant strength loss frequently became unstable and often collapsed.With this knowledge the d

13、esign emphasis moved to ensuring that the retention of post-elastic strength was the primary parameter which enabled buildings to survive. It became apparent that some post-elastic response mechanisms were preferable to others. Preferred mechanisms could be easily detailed to accommodate the large i

14、nelastic deformations expected. Other mechanisms were highly susceptible to rapid degradation with collapse a likely result. Those mechanisms needed to be suppressed, an aim which could again be accomplished by appropriate detailing.The key to successful modern earthquake engineering design lies the

15、refore in the detailing of the structural elements so that desirable post-elastic mechanisms are identified and promoted while the formation of undesirable response modes are precluded.Desirable mechanisms are those which are sufficiently strong to resist normal imposed actions without damage, yet a

16、re capable of accommodating substantial inelastic deformation without significant loss of strength or load carrying capacity. Such mechanisms have been found to generally involve the flexural response of reinforced concrete or steel structural elements or the flexural steel dowel response of timber

17、connectors.Undesirable post-elastic response mechanisms within specific structural elements have brittle characteristics and include shear failure within reinforced concrete, reinforcing bar bond failures, the loss of axial load carrying capacity or buckling of compression members such as columns, a

18、nd the tensile failure of brittle components such as timber or under-reinforced concrete.Undesirable global response mechanisms include the development of a soft-storey within a building (where in-elastic deformation demands are likely to be concentrated and therefore make high demands on the resist

19、ance ability of the elements within that zone), or buildings where the structural form or geometry is highly irregular, which puts them outside the simplifications made within the engineering models used for design.Earthquake Resisting Performance ExpectationsThe seismic structural performance requi

20、rements of buildings are often prescribed within national building codes. For instance Clause B1 Structure of the New Zealand Building Code 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引用源o prescribes that the building is to retain its amenity when subjected to frequent events of moderate intensity, and that it is to remain stable and av

21、oid collapse during rare events of high intensity. The Building Code of Australia 錯(cuò)誤！未找到 弓 I用源。prescribes the performance expectations in similar rather vague terms. It is left to the Loadings Standards of New Zealand 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引用源。and Australia 錯(cuò)誤！未找 到引用源。，錯(cuò)誤!未找到引用源。，錯(cuò)誤!未找到引用源。，錯(cuò)誤!未找到引用源。to interpret m

22、oderate and high loading intensities. This they do by equating the amenity retention as the Serviceability Limit State and collapse avoidance as the Ultimate Limit State loads and combinations of loads. Thus for compliance with the mandatory provisions of the nationalbuilding codes the following req

23、uirements need to be satisfied:For amenity retentions (Serviceability Limit State): The building response should remain predominantly elastic, although some minor damage would be acceptable provided any such damage does not require repair. Buildings should remain fully operational. Preservation of t

24、he appropriate levels of lateral deformation to protect non-structural damage is the primary control parameter. The loading intensity for this limit state is to be relatively low (say 5% probability of exceedance in any year).For collapse avoidance (Ultimate or Survival Limit State): The risk to lif

25、e safety is maintained at acceptably low levels. Building collapse is to be avoided. Significant residual deformation is expected within the buildings with both structural and non-structural members experiencing damage. Building repair may not be economical. The loading intensity used for design can

26、 be equated to rare earthquakes with long (500+ years) return periods. This is the single most important design criterion since it relates to preservation of life. It demands that the system possess adequate overall structural ductility to enable load redistribution while avoiding collapse.There are

27、 examples in the new generation of earthquake loading specifications 錯(cuò)誤！未找到 引用源。 of additional, performance orientated, limit states being introduced. For example Continued Occupancy (being somewhat beyond the serviceability limit state where although damage is minor, it will require repair but the

28、building will be posted for continued use after the event), and Damage Control Limit State (where significant damage to both structural and non-structural elements is experienced but the building can be repaired economically to its condition before the event). Such provisions are not currently manda

29、tory. They are, however, available to building owners (and their insurance providers) to form the basis of performance orientated objectives.Key Material Parameters for Effective EarthquakeResistant DesignCompliance with the performance criteria of the various limit states outlined above requires di

30、fferent material properties. The serviceability limit states criteria demand that certain stiffness and elastic strength parameters be met and is primarily concerned with the linear stress/strain deformation relationships associated with elastic system response. The ultimate limit state criteria gen

31、erally demand that an appropriate level of post-elastic ductility capacity is available so as to avoid collapse.There are important ramifications with this concept in regard to both the material and sectional properties assumed for members during the analysis, and also during the translation of the

32、results derived using elastic modelling techniques into the inelastic response domain.For compliance with the serviceability limit state performance provisions, the simple linear stress/strain relationships of materials are needed. These are the conventional parameters used to assess the structural

33、resistance to other loads. Provided the structural system remains predominantly elastic, damage avoidance can reasonably be expected and compliance thus assured. Simple elastic engineering models can be used to ascertain building response in these conditions. Thus for concrete and masonry structures

34、, the cracked sectional properties are appropriate for the serviceability limit state, although significant yield of the reinforcing steel (and the subsequent retention of wide residual cracks) is to be avoided.For compliance with the ultimate limit state performance provisions, the post-elastic res

35、ponse of the structure, including large post-elastic member deformation, needs to be considered. Often traditional engineering models break down at this stage. There is thus little to be gained by using highly sophisticated engineering modeling techniques to demonstrate compliance with the ultimate

36、limit states criteria (ie collapse avoidance) unless there is a high degree of confidence that the relationship between the elastic and inelastic structural response is realistic. The simple elastic stress/strain relationships and the elastic engineering models used to ascertain the load distributio

37、n between members within the structural system no longer apply. It is to address this particular post-elastic response condition, being the primary objective of good earthquake engineering design, that the principles of capacity design of structures were developed and subsequently introduced into ma

38、ny modern design standards.Earthquake Design Level Ground MotionA fundamental parameter contained within all earthquake loading standards is the earthquake induced ground motion which is to be used for design. This is generally prepared by seismologists and geotechnical engineers. It is typically pr

39、esented to the structural designer in three components, namely the elastic response of the basement rock (usually as acceleration spectra), the relative seismicity at the site (commonly presented as a suite of zonation maps), and a modification function which is applied to the motion at bedrock bene

40、ath the site to allow for near surface soil conditions (presented as either a simple amplification factor or as a more complex soil property related function).Elastic Response SpectraEngineers traditionally have used acceleration response spectra to represent the motion induced by the design earthqu

41、ake. These spectra are generally presented as a response function (acceleration, velocity or displacement) against the response period of a single-degree-of-freedom oscillator considered to represent the structure (refer 錯(cuò)誤！ 未找到 弓 I用源。).Spectra are developed by calculating the of response a single m

42、ass oscillator (usually with 5% critical damping present) to the design level earthquake motion. Engineers traditionally have shown a preference for acceleration spectra, since the resulting coefficient, when multiplied by the seismic mass, results in the lateral base shear for the building. InAustr

43、alia 錯(cuò)誤!未找到引用源。and the Uniformed Building Code used in the western USA 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引用源。these spectra are presented as a simple uniform coefficient followed by an exponential decay. The New Zealand Loadings Standard 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引用源。 prescribes an elastic response spectrum, derived using a uniform risk approach,

44、for each soil class. The modern trend as indicated by the European Earthquake Standard 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引 用源。 and also in the proposed National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Programme (NEHRP) specification 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引用源。 is to acknowledge that the response spectra is building period dependent. This is achieved by pu

45、blishing the design spectra in parametric form where the ordinates of each parameter and the characteristics of the curve between them are read from a series of seismic zonation maps of the region.Relative SeismicityThe current generation of earthquake loading standards uses a single seismic zonatio

46、n map with iso-seismal contours to represent the relative seismicity between locations. An example of one for New Zealand is shown as 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引用源。. The product of the zone factor, Z, and the lateral acceleration coefficient derived from the design spectrum is used for design.The next generation of ear

47、thquake loading standards are expected to specify spectral acceleration as a function of the response period and also design event return peroid. The simple linear scaling of a standard spectral shape will no longer be acceptable. Instead we may expect, for example, a suite of three series of maps t

48、o reflect different probabilities of exceedance (0.05 (20 year return period) 0.002 (500 year return period) and 0.0005 (2000 year return period). Each set will comprise 4 maps each with spectral ordinates for periods of perhaps T=0, T=0.2 seconds, T=1 second and T=2.5 seconds). The complete suite m

49、ay therefore comprise 12 regional maps which will enable the development of different shaped elastic response spectra for different return periods.(from Paulay & Priestley 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引用源。)Soil amplificationEarthquakes are usually initiated by rupture over a fault rupture plane, often deep within the eart

50、hs mantle. The ground motion experienced on the surface results from the transmission of energy waves released from that bedrock source transmitted first through bedrock and then undergoing significant modification by soil layers as the energy waves near the earths surface. Typically rock sites expe

51、rience high short period response but more rapid decay. Thus, short duration high intensity motion may be expected in such locations. Conversely soft soils, particularly when they extend to moderate depths (50 metres) are likely to filter out some of the short period motion and usually amplify longe

52、r period response, particularly in cases where the soil mass has a natural period similar to the high energy component of the earthquake. While such resonance effects can be taken into account when site specific spectra are being developed, it is usually impractical to include such effects in a load

53、ings standard. Soft soil response spectra have a flatter, broader plateau (refer 錯(cuò)誤！未找到引用源。).Derivation of Ductile Design Response SpectraMost modern earthquake design standards acknowledge the reality that buildings will experience damage when they are subjected to severe earthquake attack. Attempt

54、s are made to quantify the post-elastic capacity of different building and material types by including some form of ductility based adjustment factor. This has the effect of reducing the elastic response coefficient down to a more convenient level below which elastic response with little or no damag

55、e is expected, but beyond which some damage is accepted while collapse avoidance is to be assured.The ability of the structure to sustain levels of inelastic deformation implicit in these ductility values is dependent on the material and detailing used. Both the structural ductility and the structur

56、al performance factors depend on both the structural form selected and the materials used. As such they need to be prescribed within the seismic provisions of the material design standards along with the specific material detailing provisions which ensures that the inelastic deformation implicit in

57、the ductility assumed can be attained.Analysis and Earthquake Resistant Design PrinciplesThe Basic Principles of Earthquake Resistant DesignEarthquake forces are generated by the dynamic response of the building to earthquake induced ground motion. This makes earthquake actions fundamentally differe

58、nt from any other imposed loads. Thus the earthquake forces imposed are directly influenced by the dynamic inelastic characteristics of the structure itself. While this is a complication, it provides an opportunity for the designer to heavily influence the earthquake forces imposed on the building.

59、Through the careful selection of appropriate, well distributed lateral load resisting systems, and by ensuring the building is reasonably regular in both plan and elevation, the influence of many second order effects, such as torsional effects, can be minimised and significant simplifications can be

60、 made to model the dynamic building responseThe Conventional Earthquake DesigProcedureThe conventional engineering design approach is to use the actions for members derived from the above elastic analysis as the basis for determining the dimensions and structural capacity. Significant changes in dim