BRB、VFD和并联式双屈服点BRB减震钢框架结构抗震韧性对比

COMPARISON ON SEISMIC RESILIENCE OF STEEL FRAME STRUCTURES EQUIPPED WITH BRB, VFD, AND PARALLEL DOUBLE-STAGE YIELDING BRB

    摘要
  • 摘要: 本研究以一栋位于8度区的9层钢框架支撑结构作为原型结构，对比了无控钢框架、传统防屈曲支撑、黏滞阻尼器和新型并联式双屈服点防屈曲支撑减震钢框架结构(SF、SFBRB、SFVFD和SFPDYBRB)的抗震韧性。在最大层间位移角方面，设防地震下SFVFD，SFBRB和SFPDYBRB的层间位移角控制率分别为19.7%、18.3%和26.8%，罕遇地震下分别为14.2%、25.5%和28.4%。在最大楼面绝对加速度方面，设防地震下SFBRB和SFPDYBRB比无控结构增加了30.0%和12.0%，罕遇地震下分别增加14.8%和11.6%，仅SFVFD分别降低了19.6%和16.1%。相较于VFD和BRB，PDYBRB在设防与罕遇地震下对最大层间位移角的控制效果最好，虽然一定程度上增大了楼面绝对加速度，但相较于SFBRB分别降低了13.8%和2.8%。四种结构的修复费用韧性等级均为一星，SFPDYBRB在设防地震下修复费用比SFBRB低16.2%，SFPDYBRB罕遇地震下修复费用最低，比SFVFD低8.4%，克服了BRB中震下和VFD大震下韧性提升效果相对较差的短板。三种减震结构的修复时间韧性等级均从无控结构的零星提升至一星，设防地震下SF、SFVFD，SFBRB和SFPDYBRB修复时间分别为32.7、19.2、26.0和19.4天，罕遇地震下分别为147.9、94.5、76.1和72.4天，SFPDYBRB在设防地震下的修复时间与SFVFD相近，罕遇地震下对修复时间的控制效果最好。综上，PDYBRB在提升建筑韧性方面具有一定的优势。

     

    Abstract: In this study, a nine-story braced steel frame structure located in a region with a seismic intensity of 8 degree was selected as the prototype structure. The seismic resilience of uncontrolled steel frame (SF), steel frame with buckling restrained brace (SFBRB), steel frame with viscous fluid damper (SFVFD), and steel frame with parallel double-stage yielding buckling restrained brace (SFPDYBRB) were compared. In terms of maximum inter-story drift ratio (MIDR), the MIDRs of SFVFD, SFBRB, and SFPDYBRB were 19.7%, 18.3%, and 26.8% lower than that of SF under the design basis earthquake (DBE), respectively. Under the maximum considered earthquake (MCE), the corresponding MIDRs were reduced by 14.2%, 25.5%, and 28.4%, respectively. In terms of maximum absolute floor acceleration (MAFA), the MAFAs of SFBRB and SFPDYBRB were 30.0% and 12.0% larger than that of SF under DBE, respectively. The corresponding MAFAs were increased by 14.8% and 11.6% under MCE, respectively. Only SFVFD achieved the effectively control of MAFA with values of 19.6% and 16.1% under DBE and MCE, respectively. PDYBRB demonstrated the best control effort of MIDR under both DBE and MCE. Although it led to a certain increase in MAFA compared to SF, the corresponding MAFAs were reduced by 13.8% and 2.8% compared to those of SFBRB under DBE and MCE, respectively. The resilience levels of repair time for all four structures were level 1. The repair cost of SFPDYBRB was 16.2% lower than that of SFBRB under DBE, and it was the lowest under MCE, being 8.4% lower than that of SFVFD. These indicated that PDYBRB overcame the drawbacks of BRB under DBE and VFD under MCE on the improvement of seismic resilience of structures. The resilience levels of repair time for the three damping structures were all improved from level 0 for SF to level 1. The repair times for SF, SFVFD, SFBRB, and SFPDYBRB were 32.7, 19.2, 26.0, and 19.4 days under DBE, respectively. Under MCE, the correspondingly repair times were 147.9, 94.5, 76.1, and 72.4 days, respectively. SFPDYBRB exhibited a comparable control effect on repair time to SFVFD under DBE and demonstrated the best control effect of repair time under MCE. In summary, PDYBRB has certain advantages in improving the seismic resilience of structures.

     

    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(27)
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)

/

返回文章
返回