部材疲労曲線を用いた長周期地震動に対する鉄骨造超高層建物の耐震安全性評価方法の検討

摘要

本論で得られた結論を以下にまとめる。①骨組モデルを用いた精算(手法a))と略算(手法b))の比較骨組モデルの地震応答解析により得られた部材塑性率時刻歴波形を用いて塑性率頻度分布を求め、塑性率毎の損傷度を算定し、各塑性率振幅の損傷度をMiner則を仮定して合算することで部材損傷度Dを算定する精算手法a)と、地震中のランダムな振幅は無視し、エネルギ吸収は最大振幅時の緣り返しのみによると仮定した等価な繰り返し回数N_eによる略算手法b)を比較した。略算手法b)は損傷度Dが比較的大きい範囲では精算手法a)より損傷度Dを大きめに評価し、損傷度Dが1を下回る程度に小さい範囲では精算手法a)より小さく評価する傾向があることがわかった。このように多少の相違はあるものの、略算では概ね精算手法を上回る損傷度Dを評価しており、略算手法として妥当である。%Safety evaluation methods for high rise steel buildings are proposed using fatigue properties. Various methods are suggested depending on the kind of analysis model and analysis mediod The classifications of methods are summarized as follows. a) Static analysis model is "frame model" and eaithquake response analysis modd is ''frame model" and usable response values are "ductility factor time-histories of beam elements" b) Static analysis model is "frame model" and earthquake response analysis model is "frame model" and usable response values are "maximum response ductility factor and cumulative plastic deformation factor of beam elements" c) Static analysis model is "frame model" and eaithquake response analysis model is "simple model with stoiy characteristics" and usable response values are "maximum response ductility ^ctor and cumulative plastic deformation fector of stories" d) Static analysis model does not exist and earthquake response analysis model is "simple model with stoiy characteristics" and usable response values are "maximum response ductility fector and cumulative plastic deformation fector of stories" Using these various methods, damage evaluation is conducted and these methods arc compared, and the applicability of methods was examined.