ABAQUS与PERFORM-3D在弹塑性时程分析中的应用及对比研究
发布时间：2018-10-05 06:49
【摘要】：随着各式各样的复杂结构不断出现，规范中针对常规结构的小震弹性设计方法以及相应的抗震措施已经难以保证大震下的安全，需要进行大震下的弹塑性时程分析对结构的性能进行评估。目前，能够实现大震下的弹塑性分析的软件有多种，可分两大类，一种是建筑结构专用弹塑性分析软件，一种是有限元通用分析软件。在实际工程中这两类软件也进行了广泛的应用。然而，结构工程师在用这些软件进行弹塑性时程分析时发现，不同的软件计算结果有差异，并且有时候差异会很大，即使是同一软件，不同的分析人员也会得出不同的计算结果，差异也因人而异。那就出现了如何对各个弹塑性分析软件的计算结果进行评价，和如何说明这些计算结果差异出现的原因。在此背景下，论文作者将会使用通用有限元软件代表ABAQUS和建筑结构专用软件代表PERFORM-3D对同一模型进行建模并分析，对两款软件分析所得的结果从宏观上和微观上进行对比，尽力探讨两款软件的差异，分析两款软件计算结果差异的原因，评价两款软件的可信度。对此，论文作者做了一下工作： ①比较系统深入的研究有限元计算的相关理论。 ②研究ABAQUS中用于弹塑性时程分析的相关技术措施。 ③研究PERFORM-3D弹塑性时程分析的相关技术措施。 ④编制ETABS导入ABAQUS的转换程序，以利于大型结构体系的建模分析。并通过实际工程验证其准确性。 ⑤通过实际工程对比，探讨ABAQUS与PERFORM-3D中的差异。 通过以上的研究工作，得出以下主要结论： ①在本次所计算的模型中，两款软件非线性梁柱单元类似，都是采用纤维模型，最大的不同是截面力学性能积分方式不同。两款软件对剪力墙处理方法不同。ABAQUS考虑了轴力、弯矩和剪力的耦合，材料使用的是空间弹塑性损伤材料，而PERFORM-3D没有考虑剪力的耦合，弯矩和轴力共同作用考虑与柱类似，用纤维模型，用剪切铰考虑剪力的影响。 ②两款软件划分单元方法的不同也造成了其反映钢筋屈服的不同。 ③对于体量较大的结构，ABAQUS动力计算可采用显式动力分析方法，而PERFORM-3D只能用隐式动力分析方法，造成两款软件计算非线性的差异。这也是ABAQUS能够很好的反映鞭梢效应，而PERFORM-3D不能很好的反映的原因之一。 ④在没有鞭梢效应的影响下，，ABAQUS与PERFORM-3D所计算出的层间位移角趋势一致，层间位移角最大值所出现的楼层是一致的，并且此处的层间位移角相差比较小，底部楼层的层间位移角差距较大。 ⑤两款软件所计算的基底剪力趋势一致，但是有相位差，ABAQUS选用显式动力分析时所出现的峰值基本都比PERFORM-3D提前。本质上是因这两款软件动力分析方法不同。 ⑥两款软件所计算的宏观指标能够相互印证，是可信的。微观指标要根据两款软件单元计算方法与划分方法确定其可信度。但是以现有的技术，弹塑性时程分析只适用于对结构宏观性能的判断，尚不能完全适用于微观的结构设计。
[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
【学位授予单位】：重庆大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：TU313
本文编号：2252420
[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
【学位授予单位】：重庆大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：TU313
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前8条
1 陈亦,何勇毅,蒋欢军;剪力墙结构计算模型分析[J];四川建筑科学研究;2001年01期
2 张战廷;刘宇锋;;ABAQUS中的混凝土塑性损伤模型[J];建筑结构;2011年S2期
3 陈力;方秦;还毅;张亚栋;;对ABAQUS中混凝土弥散开裂模型的静力特性分析[J];解放军理工大学学报(自然科学版);2007年05期
4 周文峰,黄宗明,白绍良;约束混凝土几种有代表性应力-应变模型及其比较[J];重庆建筑大学学报;2003年04期
5 曹明;;ABAQUS损伤塑性模型损伤因子计算方法研究[J];交通标准化;2012年02期
6 张月强;焦春节;丁洁民;;复杂高层结构从SAP2000到ABAQUS模型转换的关键问题及软件开发研究[J];建筑结构;2013年06期
7 何伟明;崔鸿超;程镇远;;中日弹塑性时程分析实例计算比较汇总[J];建筑结构;2013年16期
8 钟同圣;卫丰;王鸷;智友海;;Python语言和ABAQUS前处理二次开发[J];郑州大学学报(理学版);2006年01期
本文编号：2252420
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/guanlilunwen/chengjian/2252420.html
