【摘要】：隨著各式各樣的復(fù)雜結(jié)構(gòu)不斷出現(xiàn)，規(guī)范中針對常規(guī)結(jié)構(gòu)的小震彈性設(shè)計(jì)方法以及相應(yīng)的抗震措施已經(jīng)難以保證大震下的安全，需要進(jìn)行大震下的彈塑性時程分析對結(jié)構(gòu)的性能進(jìn)行評估。目前，能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)大震下的彈塑性分析的軟件有多種，可分兩大類，一種是建筑結(jié)構(gòu)專用彈塑性分析軟件，一種是有限元通用分析軟件。在實(shí)際工程中這兩類軟件也進(jìn)行了廣泛的應(yīng)用。然而，結(jié)構(gòu)工程師在用這些軟件進(jìn)行彈塑性時程分析時發(fā)現(xiàn)，不同的軟件計(jì)算結(jié)果有差異，并且有時候差異會很大，即使是同一軟件，不同的分析人員也會得出不同的計(jì)算結(jié)果，差異也因人而異。那就出現(xiàn)了如何對各個彈塑性分析軟件的計(jì)算結(jié)果進(jìn)行評價，和如何說明這些計(jì)算結(jié)果差異出現(xiàn)的原因。在此背景下，論文作者將會使用通用有限元軟件代表ABAQUS和建筑結(jié)構(gòu)專用軟件代表PERFORM-3D對同一模型進(jìn)行建模并分析，對兩款軟件分析所得的結(jié)果從宏觀上和微觀上進(jìn)行對比，盡力探討兩款軟件的差異，分析兩款軟件計(jì)算結(jié)果差異的原因，評價兩款軟件的可信度。對此，論文作者做了一下工作： ①比較系統(tǒng)深入的研究有限元計(jì)算的相關(guān)理論。 ②研究ABAQUS中用于彈塑性時程分析的相關(guān)技術(shù)措施。 ③研究PERFORM-3D彈塑性時程分析的相關(guān)技術(shù)措施。 ④編制ETABS導(dǎo)入ABAQUS的轉(zhuǎn)換程序，以利于大型結(jié)構(gòu)體系的建模分析。并通過實(shí)際工程驗(yàn)證其準(zhǔn)確性。 ⑤通過實(shí)際工程對比，探討ABAQUS與PERFORM-3D中的差異。 通過以上的研究工作，得出以下主要結(jié)論： ①在本次所計(jì)算的模型中，兩款軟件非線性梁柱單元類似，都是采用纖維模型，最大的不同是截面力學(xué)性能積分方式不同。兩款軟件對剪力墻處理方法不同。ABAQUS考慮了軸力、彎矩和剪力的耦合，材料使用的是空間彈塑性損傷材料，而PERFORM-3D沒有考慮剪力的耦合，彎矩和軸力共同作用考慮與柱類似，用纖維模型，用剪切鉸考慮剪力的影響。 ②兩款軟件劃分單元方法的不同也造成了其反映鋼筋屈服的不同。 ③對于體量較大的結(jié)構(gòu)，ABAQUS動力計(jì)算可采用顯式動力分析方法，而PERFORM-3D只能用隱式動力分析方法，造成兩款軟件計(jì)算非線性的差異。這也是ABAQUS能夠很好的反映鞭梢效應(yīng)，而PERFORM-3D不能很好的反映的原因之一。 ④在沒有鞭梢效應(yīng)的影響下，，ABAQUS與PERFORM-3D所計(jì)算出的層間位移角趨勢一致，層間位移角最大值所出現(xiàn)的樓層是一致的，并且此處的層間位移角相差比較小，底部樓層的層間位移角差距較大。 ⑤兩款軟件所計(jì)算的基底剪力趨勢一致，但是有相位差，ABAQUS選用顯式動力分析時所出現(xiàn)的峰值基本都比PERFORM-3D提前。本質(zhì)上是因這兩款軟件動力分析方法不同。 ⑥兩款軟件所計(jì)算的宏觀指標(biāo)能夠相互印證，是可信的。微觀指標(biāo)要根據(jù)兩款軟件單元計(jì)算方法與劃分方法確定其可信度。但是以現(xiàn)有的技術(shù)，彈塑性時程分析只適用于對結(jié)構(gòu)宏觀性能的判斷，尚不能完全適用于微觀的結(jié)構(gòu)設(shè)計(jì)。
[Abstract]:With the development of various complex structures, the small-shock elastic design method and the corresponding anti-seismic measures aiming at the conventional structure in the specification have been difficult to guarantee the safety under the large earthquake, and the elastic-plastic time-course analysis in large earthquakes is required to evaluate the performance of the structure. At present, there are many kinds of software which can realize the elastic-plastic analysis under the large earthquake, which can be divided into two kinds, one is the special elasto-plastic analysis software of the building structure, one is the general analysis software of the finite element. The two kinds of software have been widely used in the practical engineering. However, when the structural engineer uses these software to analyze the elastic-plastic process, it is found that the different calculation results are different, and sometimes the difference will be large, even if the same software, the different analysts will come to different calculation results, and the difference will vary from person to person. Then, how to evaluate the calculation results of each elastic-plastic analysis software and explain the causes of the difference of these results. In this context, the author will use the general finite element software to model and analyze the same model on behalf of the ABAQUS and the special software of building structure, and compare the results obtained by the two software analysis from macro and micro, and try to explore the difference of two kinds of software. To analyze the difference between the two software calculation results and evaluate the reliability of the two software. In response, the author did a job: Study on the Correlation of Finite Element Calculation in the Deep Study of Comparative System Theory. Phase Analysis for Elastoplastic Process in ABAQUS Technical Measures for Off-Off Technology. Study PERFORM-3D Elastoplastic Time Division The relevant technical measures of the analysis are to prepare ETABS into the ABAQUS conversion program to facilitate Modeling and Analysis of Large-scale Structure System The accuracy can be verified by the actual engineering. In comparison with the actual engineering, the ABAQUS is discussed. Differences in PERFORM-3D. Tong Over the above research work, the following main conclusions are obtained: In this calculation model, the two kinds of software nonlinear beam-column units are similar to those of two kinds of software nonlinear beam-column units. The largest difference is the cross-sectional mechanical property product. Different modes of shear wall are different. ABAQUS considers the coupling of shaft force, bending moment and shear force. The material uses space-plastic damage material, while PERFORM-3D does not consider the coupling of shear force, bending moment and axial force. Similarly, with a fiber model, shear hinges are used to consider the effects of shear forces. Two pieces of software The difference of the dividing unit method also causes it to reflect the different yield of the steel bars. The ABAQUS dynamic calculation can adopt the explicit dynamic analysis method for the larger mass structure, while the PERFORM-3D Only the implicit dynamic analysis method can be used to calculate the non-linear difference of two kinds of software. This is also ABAQUS, which can reflect the whip tip well. The effect is one of the reasons why PERFORM-3D cannot be well reflected. Under the influence of no whip effect, ABAQUS is consistent with the trend of displacement angle between layers calculated by PERFORM-3D, and the floors of the maximum displacement angle are consistent, and and the difference of the displacement angle between the layers is small, the displacement angle difference between the layers at the bottom floor is larger, S is the peak value that appears when the explicit dynamic analysis is selected earlier than PERFORM-3D. This is essentially due to both software movements The force analysis method is different. The macro indicators calculated by the two software can be printed with each other. The certificate is authentic. The micro-index shall determine its reliability according to the calculation method and division method of two software units. However, in the prior art, elastic plastic
【學(xué)位授予單位】：重慶大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：TU313

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 陳亦,何勇毅,蔣歡軍;剪力墻結(jié)構(gòu)計(jì)算模型分析[J];四川建筑科學(xué)研究;2001年01期

2 張戰(zhàn)廷;劉宇鋒;;ABAQUS中的混凝土塑性損傷模型[J];建筑結(jié)構(gòu);2011年S2期

3 陳力;方秦;還毅;張亞棟;;對ABAQUS中混凝土彌散開裂模型的靜力特性分析[J];解放軍理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2007年05期

4 周文峰,黃宗明,白紹良;約束混凝土幾種有代表性應(yīng)力-應(yīng)變模型及其比較[J];重慶建筑大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2003年04期

5 曹明;;ABAQUS損傷塑性模型損傷因子計(jì)算方法研究[J];交通標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化;2012年02期

6 張?jiān)聫?qiáng);焦春節(jié);丁潔民;;復(fù)雜高層結(jié)構(gòu)從SAP2000到ABAQUS模型轉(zhuǎn)換的關(guān)鍵問題及軟件開發(fā)研究[J];建筑結(jié)構(gòu);2013年06期

7 何偉明;崔鴻超;程鎮(zhèn)遠(yuǎn);;中日彈塑性時程分析實(shí)例計(jì)算比較匯總[J];建筑結(jié)構(gòu);2013年16期

8 鐘同圣;衛(wèi)豐;王鷙;智友海;;Python語言和ABAQUS前處理二次開發(fā)[J];鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(理學(xué)版);2006年01期

本文編號：2252420