發(fā)布時間：2018-04-11 14:56

  本文選題：對稱雙塔結構 + 非周邊約束��； 參考：《長沙理工大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：近年來,大底盤多塔樓結構在我國得到了廣泛的應用。隨著人們要求的日益多樣化,大底盤多塔樓結構的結構形式也日趨復雜,其中亟待解決的問題也逐漸增多。一般結構地下室會受到土的良好約束,在進行建模分析時,按照規(guī)范方法通常通過嵌固地下室某層,來模擬該約束作用。對于大底盤多塔結構來說,一般底盤平面尺寸比較大,加上實際場地地形存在不確定性,可能會出現地下室非周邊約束的情況,即有一個面或幾面沒有土的約束。目前我國規(guī)范尚未規(guī)定此類情況下對結構進行建模分析時,如何模擬周圍土體對地下室的約束作用。從現有文獻來看,關于地下室非周邊約束問題的研究相對較少。少數幾篇研究該問題的文獻也僅討論了單塔樓的情況,且研究得不夠深入。因此,對多塔結構開展此類研究顯得非常必要。本文旨在研究地下室僅有三側有土約束的情況下,不同的地下室約束建模方式對對稱雙塔結構抗震性能的影響。筆者應用Midas/Building有限元分析軟件,建立了36組底盤跨數不同的算例模型。每組算例模型分為結構布置完全一樣但底盤約束方式不一樣的3個模型。3個模型分別采用“基礎嵌固”、“底盤嵌固”約束方式和本文參考樁基規(guī)范而來的“土彈簧”約束方式。總計108個模型。各模型對稱的兩個塔樓均為24層。對36組模型進行反應譜分析和配筋計算得到以下結論:(1)三類模型的結構動力特性差異很小,基本周期由大到小的順序為:基礎嵌固模型、土彈簧約束模型、底盤嵌固模型,差值很小,在0.06s內,實際工程中可以忽略;(2)塔樓最大層間位移角大小順序跟基本周期相同。前兩者差值在30%以內,后兩者在19%以內。從變形方面來看,采用底盤嵌固模型進行設計與土彈簧約束模型結果更加相近,但偏于不安全。筆者建議如果條件允許,采用土彈簧約束模型進行設計更為合理,否則建議采用更為保守的基礎嵌固模型。(3)塔樓底層剪力大小順序也同基本周期一樣。前兩者差值在20%以內,后兩者在35%以內�；A嵌固模型求得的底層剪力更接近土彈簧約束模型值。從地震力方面來說,筆者建議實際工程中,如果條件允許,采用土彈簧約束模型進行設計更合理,不然建議采用較保守的基礎嵌固模型進行設計。(4)計算用鋼量從大到小的順序也與基本周期順序一樣。差別較小,在2%以內。對實際工程的經濟性影響比較小。
[Abstract]:In recent years, large chassis multi-tower structure has been widely used in China.With the increasing diversification of people's demands, the structural forms of large chassis and multi-tower structures are becoming more and more complex, and the problems that need to be solved gradually increase.Generally, the basement of structure is constrained by soil. In modeling and analysis, the constraint is simulated by embedding a certain layer of basement according to the specification method.For the large chassis multi-tower structure, the plane size of the general chassis is relatively large, and the actual site topography is uncertain, which may lead to the non-peripheral constraints of the basement, that is, there is no soil constraint on one or several sides.At present, the code of our country has not stipulated how to simulate the restraint of surrounding soil to the basement when modeling and analyzing the structure in this case.According to the existing literature, there are few researches on the non-peripheral constraint problem of basement.A few papers on this problem only discuss the case of single tower, and the research is not enough.Therefore, it is very necessary to carry out this kind of research on the multi-tower structure.The purpose of this paper is to study the effect of different basement constraint modeling methods on the seismic performance of symmetrical twin towers under the condition of only three sides of the basement with soil constraints.By using Midas/Building finite element analysis software, 36 groups of example models with different span number of chassis are established.Each example model is divided into three models with the same structure arrangement but different constraint mode of chassis. The three models are respectively "base embedded".In this paper, the "earth spring" constraint mode based on the specification of pile foundation is referred to.Total 108 models.Each model of the two symmetrical towers are 24 stories.From the response spectrum analysis and reinforcement calculation of 36 groups of models, the following conclusions are drawn: (1) there is little difference in the structural dynamic characteristics of the three kinds of models, and the order of the basic period from large to small is: the foundation embedded model, the soil spring constrained model, the chassis embedded model.The difference is very small, within 0.06s, the order of the maximum interstory displacement angle of the tower is the same as that of the basic period.The difference between the former and the latter is less than 30% and 19% respectively.From the point of view of deformation, the results of design based on the chassis embedded model are more similar to those of the soil spring constraint model, but the results are not safe.The author suggests that if conditions permit, it is more reasonable to use the soil spring constraint model for design, otherwise, it is suggested to adopt a more conservative foundation inlay model. The order of shear at the bottom of the tower is the same as that of the basic period.The difference between the former and the latter is less than 20% and 35% respectively.The underlying shear force obtained by the foundation embedded model is closer to the value of the soil spring constrained model.From the aspect of seismic force, the author suggests that it is more reasonable to use the soil spring constraint model to design in practical engineering, if conditions permit,Otherwise, it is suggested that the order of steel quantity from large to small is the same as the order of basic period.The difference is less than 2%.The economic impact on the actual project is relatively small.
【學位授予單位】：長沙理工大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：TU973.31

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前5條

1 李小龍;孫曉嶺;李曉文;薛強;劉曉帆;鄭粵;;帶設備層大底盤多塔結構側向剛度突變處理方法[J];建筑結構;2014年06期

2 張根俞;朱炳寅;張路;肖耀祖;劉川寧;李正;馬玉虎;馬振庭;;某大底盤多塔框支剪力墻結構設計與分析[J];建筑結構;2014年05期

3 郭雷;賈曉坤;王從英;;考慮樓板變形時大底盤多塔結構二階分析[J];山西建筑;2009年06期

4 常林潤;星城廣廈大底盤多塔樓結構設計[J];建筑結構;2005年05期

5 包世華,王建東;大底盤多塔樓連體結構的振動計算和動力特性[J];建筑結構;1997年06期

相關碩士學位論文 前7條

1 高繼紅;帶地下室的多高層建筑嵌固約束問題的分析研究[D];新疆大學;2009年

2 余繼興;三塔高層結構地震反應特性分析[D];湖南大學;2008年

3 張朝云;帶地下室高層建筑結構嵌固端的選擇及相關問題研究[D];重慶大學;2008年

4 魏清;高層雙塔結構地震反應特性分析[D];湖南大學;2007年

5 吳昊;非周邊約束地下室對上部結構的嵌固作用研究[D];重慶大學;2006年

6 趙仕興;多塔帶轉換層高層結構抗震性能研究[D];重慶大學;2005年

7 張世順;地震作用下多塔樓連體高層建筑動力響應分析[D];華中科技大學;2005年

，

本文編號：1736471