首页> 外文期刊>The Structural Engineer >Comparison of BS and EC codes for wind loading
【24h】

Comparison of BS and EC codes for wind loading

机译:BS和EC规范的风荷载比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

I write regarding a recent Verulam letter 'Comparison of BS 6399/EC1 wind pressures' by Colin Mitchell, which appeared in the June 2014 issue. Colin does not refer to the principal difference between the two code systems, which is the difference in the load factors. Generally γ_Q , for BS codes (timber excepted) is 1.4 and for EC codes it is 1.5. I have not seen it stated, but it would not surprise me that this difference has been taken into account in the preparation of the codes. That does not account for all the difference noted by Colin, but does indicate the general philosophy that code systems should not be mixed. Each wind code is designed to work with a specific system of codes and comparison should only occur with the final design, not an interim step.
机译:我写的是科林·米切尔(Colin Mitchell)最近写的Verulam信“ BS 6399 / EC1风压的比较”,该信出现在2014年6月的版本中。 Colin没有提到两个代码系统之间的主要差异,即负载因子的差异。通常,对于BS码(木材除外),γ_Q为1.4,对于EC码为1.5。我没有看到它说明的内容,但是在编写代码时已经考虑到了这种差异也不会令我感到惊讶。但这并不能解决Colin指出的所有差异,但确实表明了不应混用代码系统的一般哲学。每个风力规范都设计为与特定的规范系统配合使用,并且只应与最终设计进行比较,而不是临时步骤。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The Structural Engineer》 |2014年第9期|58-58|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 00:19:25

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号