【作者】 杨雪；

【导师】 杨庆山； 杨娜；

【作者基本信息】 北京交通大学 ， 结构工程， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 近年来,冷弯薄壁型钢作为一种高效、经济型材受到国内外工程界的普遍关注,其结构体系在建筑业中的应用日趋广泛。结构规范是指导工程设计的原则,是将科研成果应用于工程实践的重要途径。但由于各国设计规范所使用的计算方法以及设计参数取值不同,冷弯薄壁型钢规范存在差异。因此深入对比分析国内外冷弯薄壁型钢规范十分必要而且富有意义。本文选择了国内外有代表性的三本冷弯薄壁型钢结构规范:①中国GB50018—2002《冷弯薄壁型钢结构技术规范》;②北美AISI/COS/NASPEC 2001《冷成型钢结构设计规范》;③澳大利亚AS/NZS 4600:2005《冷成型钢结构规范》。主要从以下方面对这三本规范进行了较为深入的分析和比较:(1)从设计原则和基本设计方法等方面,对GB50018—2002规范、AISI/COS/NASPEC 2001规范及AS/NZS 4600:2005规范进行了分析和比较,另外还将GB50018—2002规范与我国原规范GBJ 18—87进行了对比,从中可看出我国冷弯薄壁型钢结构技术规范修订时的一些方向。(2)针对冷弯薄壁型钢结构的两种典型效应—冷弯效应和蒙皮效应、两种局部屈曲模式—局部屈曲和畸变屈曲,比较分析了三国规范的设计规定及计算公式,为下一次我国冷弯薄壁型钢结构技术规范的修订提出建议,可供参考。(3)由于传统的有效截面设计法在计算受压或受弯冷弯薄壁卷边槽钢承载力时存在弊端,且澳大利亚规范第七章和北美规范2004版的补充条文中已经允许使用直接强度法对冷成型钢构件进行设计,故本文还就直接强度法进行了阐述,并将其与有效宽度法进行了比较。三国规范的对比表明:中国GB 50018—2002规范所涉及的范围相对较窄,应力的设计表达式概念不够清晰,计算过程较为简单,结果偏于保守,但在有效宽度法中首次考虑了板组效应的影响;北美规范规定最详尽,且北美和澳大利亚规范在很多规定上比较类似,所涉及范围较广,规定较为细致,力的设计表达式概念清晰。同时由于澳大利亚规范是最新版本,其中的阐述较为明确,更容易应用,到实践中。更多还原

【Abstract】 As the cold-formed steel structures become more and more popular nowadays, it’s important for us to understand other countries’ codes and make comparison between them in order to improve our own.Three representational Codes for design of Cold-formed steel structures home and abroad were chosen, including:①Chinese GB50018—2002《Technical code of cold-formed thin-wall steel structures》;②North American AISI/COS/NASPEC 2001《Specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural members》;③Australian/New Zealand AS/NZS 4600:2005《Cold-formed steel structures standard》. These three codes are analyzed and compared from the following aspects:(1) From the aspects of general design calculation and basal design method, comparison and analysis were carried on these three codes, furthermore many valuable aspects about revises of our country’s cold-formed steel structures technical code have been given through comparing GB 50018—2002 with GBJ 18—87.(2) Focus on the two typical effects of cold-formed steel (Effect of cold forming and Diaphragm effect) and two kinds of buckling modes (Local buckling and Distortional buckling), many valuable suggestions have been given through comparing with design regulations and calculated formulas.(3) Direct strength method is illustrated in the last chapter of this paper, and also is compared with Effective width method.The results of comparison as follows:In general, the applicable range of Chinese code is not so wide, and in the design method, the expression of stress is not as clear as strength expression in North American and Australian codes. But it concerns about constraint action between plate components for the first time. North American code is the most particular and systematic one, but concerned that the newest code of Australia is published in 2005, some illustrations and definitions in it are clearer and easier to be used in the construction.更多还原