JP6509094B2 - Damage assessment device - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a damage evaluation device, and more particularly to a damage evaluation device for evaluating the degree of damage of members constituting a building.

  As a conventional method for damage assessment of buildings, there are many that generally treats the interlayer deformation angle as an assessment index, and a method is proposed for estimating and determining the interlayer deformation of each layer from the response acceleration calculated from the real building monitoring. (See, for example, Patent Document 1).

  Also, using structural analysis models that measure displacement information of the building due to disturbance at one or more locations in the entire building, and use the measured displacement information as input to dynamically represent the damage status of each member that constitutes the building A method of performing structural analysis and calculating the degree of damage to each member constituting a building has also been proposed (see, for example, Patent Document 2). In Patent Document 2, the interlayer deformation angle of each layer is measured, the incremental displacement load analysis of the frame model is carried out using the obtained interlayer deformation angle as an input, and the damaged portion is determined based on whether or not the member has reached a yield value. ing.

  Further, Non-Patent Document 1 proposes a seismic safety evaluation method of a super high-rise steel frame building using a fatigue curve obtained from an experiment.

JP 2013-254239 A Patent No. 5547029 gazette

Study on seismic safety of super-high-rise steel-framed building for long-period earthquake motion countermeasures, Architectural research document No. 160 2014.6, Independent administrative agency Architectural research institute, URL: http://www.kenken.go.jp/japanese/contents /publications/data/160/index.html

  However, in the method described in Patent Document 1, the interlayer deformation angle (1/100, 1/200) and the layer rigidity reduction rate (70% and 50% of the initial stage) are the items of damage determination, and damage evaluation at the member level Can not do.

  Further, in the method described in Patent Document 2, when carrying out a detailed study, it is necessary to perform displacement loading analysis with the deformation of the time history interlayer of each layer as an input, which is complicated. In addition, the index that evaluates the degree of damage is only the yield value, and it is not possible to evaluate cumulative (fatigue) damage when subjected to repeated deformation.

  Further, in the method described in Non-Patent Document 1, the plasticity ratio of members is defined as the member plasticity ratio which is the largest among the members constituting the layer, and no study has been made on each component member. In addition, although the layer plasticity factor is used to estimate the plasticity factor of members, the layer plasticity factor is based on the interlayer deformation when one of the members constituting the floor reaches the elastic limit, and the interlayer of a plurality of layers The deformation angle is not used to estimate the plasticity of the member. Furthermore, when estimating the plasticity of a member from the layer plasticity, any ratio of the layer plasticity to the member plasticity at a certain interlayer deformation angle (specifically, an interlayer deformation angle of 1/75) can be used. It applies to the interlayer deformation angle to estimate the plasticity ratio of the member, which may overestimate the plasticity ratio.

  As described above, in the above-described conventional technology, it is difficult to accurately estimate the damage evaluation factor such as the plasticity rate for each member, so it is difficult to accurately evaluate the damage degree for each member.

  An object of this invention is to provide the damage evaluation apparatus which can evaluate the damage degree precisely for every member in consideration of the said fact.

  In order to achieve the above object, the invention according to claim 1 is an evaluation obtained from a damage evaluation factor of the member and an interlayer deformation angle of a plurality of layers of the member, which is previously calculated for each member constituting the building. The time of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle obtained from the acquisition means for acquiring the damage estimation index representing the correspondence relationship between the interlayer deformation angles, and the interlayer deformation angles of the multiple layers of the building when the event of deforming the building occurs Estimation means for estimating the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor when the event occurs based on the history and the damage estimation index acquired by the acquisition means, and estimated by the estimation means And calculation means for calculating the degree of damage for each of the members based on the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor, and the fatigue curve representing the correspondence between the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor and the fracture life of the member. .

  According to the present invention, the damage degree can be accurately evaluated for each member.

  In the invention according to claim 2, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is obtained by weighted averaging of interlayer deformation angles of the plurality of layers using weights set for each of the plurality of layers.

  According to the present invention, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle can be determined with high accuracy.

  In the invention according to claim 3, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is obtained using an interlayer deformation angle of the layer in which the member is present, and an interlayer deformation angle of a layer adjacent to the layer in which the member is present. It is.

  According to the present invention, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle can be determined with high accuracy and with a small amount of calculation.

  The damage evaluation program according to the present invention comprises a computer, the damage evaluation factor of the member calculated in advance for each member constituting the building, and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle obtained from the interlayer deformation angle of the plurality of layers of the building An acquisition step of acquiring a damage estimation index representing a correspondence relationship of the above, and a time history of an evaluation interlayer deformation angle obtained from interlayer deformation angles of a plurality of layers of the building when an event of deforming the building occurs; An estimation step of estimating, for each of the members, an amplitude of the damage evaluation factor when the event occurs based on the damage estimation index acquired in the acquisition step; and the damage evaluation estimated in the estimation step Calculation procedure for calculating the degree of damage for each of the members based on the amplitude of the factor, and the fatigue curve representing the correspondence between the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor and the fracture life of the member A damage evaluation program for executing the processing including a flop, a.

  As described above, according to the present invention, it is possible to accurately evaluate the degree of damage for each member.

It is a block diagram of a damage evaluation system. It is a flowchart of pre-processing. It is a figure showing an example of a skeleton model. It is a figure for demonstrating a damage estimation index. It is a figure for demonstrating an evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a flow chart of damage evaluation processing. It is a figure for demonstrating the time history of evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a figure for demonstrating extraction of the amplitude value of an evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of an evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and load. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of an evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a figure which shows the time history of a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and load. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of an evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and load. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of an evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and load. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of an evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and load. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of an evaluation interlayer deformation angle. It is a figure which shows an example of the time history of a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and load. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and a plasticity rate. It is a figure which shows an example of a fatigue curve. It is a figure showing an example of a building model. It is a figure showing an example of a building model. It is a figure showing an example of a building model. It is a figure showing an example of a building model. It is a figure showing an example of a building model. It is a figure showing an example of a building model. It is a figure which shows the correspondence of the interlayer deformation angle of a single layer, and the plasticity of a member, and the correspondence of evaluation interlayer deformation angle and the plasticity of a member. Correspondence between the interlayer deformation angle of a single layer and the plasticity rate of the member, and the correspondence relation between the interlayer deformation angle and the plasticity rate of the member, obtained from analysis results of seismic response analysis and obtained from estimation results FIG. It is a figure which shows the comparison result of the analysis result of an earthquake response analysis, and a presumed result. Correspondence between the interlayer deformation angle of a single layer and the plasticity rate of the member, and the correspondence relation between the interlayer deformation angle and the plasticity rate of the member, obtained from analysis results of seismic response analysis and obtained from estimation results FIG. It is a figure which shows the comparison result of the analysis result of an earthquake response analysis, and a presumed result. Correspondence between the interlayer deformation angle of a single layer and the plasticity rate of the member, and the correspondence relation between the interlayer deformation angle and the plasticity rate of the member, obtained from analysis results of seismic response analysis and obtained from estimation results FIG. It is a figure which shows the comparison result of the analysis result of an earthquake response analysis, and a presumed result.

  Hereinafter, an example of an embodiment of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.

  FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a damage evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the damage evaluation system 10 includes a damage evaluation device 12, a storage unit 14, a display unit 16, an evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18, and a sensor unit 20.

  The damage evaluation device 12 includes an acquisition unit 22, an estimation unit 24, and a calculation unit 26.

  The acquisition unit 22 is a damage estimation index that represents a correspondence relationship between a damage evaluation factor of members calculated in advance for each member constituting a building and an evaluation interlayer deformation angle obtained from interlayer deformation angles of multiple layers of the building. To get

  In addition, as a member which comprises a building, although a pillar, a beam, and braces (including history dampers, such as steel materials) etc. are included, for example, it is not restricted to this.

  Further, the damage evaluation factor is, for example, the plasticity rate in the case of the column and the beam, and the axial strain in the case of the member being a brace, as an example in the present embodiment. For example, Non-Patent Document 1 shows a fatigue curve evaluated for plasticity of a column and a beam. For this reason, in the present embodiment, when the members are columns and beams, the plasticity factor is adopted as the damage evaluation factor. In the case of braces, fatigue curves evaluated by axial strain are considered to be general, as shown in Reference 1 below. For this reason, in the present embodiment, when the member is a brace, axial strain is adopted as the damage evaluation factor.

  Therefore, the damage estimation index is information representing the correspondence between the plasticity rate and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle when the member is a column and a beam, and when the member is a brace, the axial strain and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle are It is the information showing correspondence.

(Reference 1) Nakagome, T. et al., Experimental study on fatigue characteristics of flat steel brace with low yield point steel, Journal of Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 530, P 155-161, 2000.4

  The damage estimation index is calculated in advance and stored in the storage unit 14. Although details will be described later, the damage estimation index is calculated based on the result of performing static elastic-plastic load incremental analysis (push-over analysis) on a skeleton model of a building. The acquisition unit 22 acquires the damage estimation index by reading it from the storage unit 14. The damage estimation index may be acquired from an external device via a network.

  The estimation unit 24 is based on the time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle obtained from the interlayer deformation angle of the plurality of layers of the building when the event of deforming the building occurs, and the damage estimation index acquired by the acquisition unit 22. The amplitude of the damage evaluation factor when an event occurs is estimated for each member.

  In addition, although the event which deform | transforms a building means the event which produces shaking etc. to a building, such as an earthquake, a strong wind, for example, it is not restricted to these.

Further, the time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is calculated by the evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18. A sensor unit 20 is connected to the evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18. The sensor unit 20 includes, for example, acceleration sensors 28 _{1 to} 28 _n for the number of floors of the n-th floor building (n is a natural number). The accelerations detected by the acceleration sensors 28 _{1 to} 28 _n are respectively output to the evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18.

The evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18 calculates the displacement of each floor based on the accelerations output from the acceleration sensors 28 _{1 to} 28 _n provided on each floor, and calculates the evaluation interlayer deformation angle based on the calculated displacement. The time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is obtained by executing the above at a predetermined time interval. The time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is stored in the storage unit 14. The method of calculating the evaluation interlayer deformation angle will be described later.

  The calculation unit 26 calculates the degree of damage for each member based on the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor estimated by the estimation unit 24 and the fatigue curve representing the correspondence relationship between the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor and the fracture life of the member. Do. In addition, the calculation unit 26 determines whether or not the calculated damage degree of the member is equal to or more than a threshold, and warns the user by displaying on the display unit 16 the member whose damage degree exceeds the threshold.

  The damage evaluation device 12 includes, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), and a read only memory (ROM) storing a damage evaluation program for executing a damage evaluation process described later. It is realized including a computer. A nonvolatile memory may be used instead of the ROM. Moreover, the computer which comprises the damage evaluation apparatus 12 may be provided with memory | storage parts, such as a hard-disk drive. Further, a program executed by the CPU may be stored in the hard disk drive. When the CPU reads and executes a program stored in a storage unit such as a ROM or a hard disk, the above-described hardware resource cooperates with the program, and the computer functions as the damage evaluation device 12.

  Next, before describing the processing executed by the damage evaluation device 12, the pre-processing executed to acquire a damage estimation index will be described with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG. The pre-processing shown in FIG. 2 is executed using a general-purpose computer such as a personal computer.

  In step S100, a skeleton model is created. The skeleton model is created, for example, using a known method. The framework model includes information such as cross-sectional size, length, material characteristics (Young's modulus etc.), weight, joining conditions of each member, framework structure of each member, etc. of each member constituting the building to be analyzed. It is not limited.

  FIG. 3 shows a skeleton model 30 in which a skeleton of a nine-story building is modeled as an example of the skeleton model. As shown in FIG. 3, in the skeleton model 30, a skeleton of a building is modeled by a plurality of columns 32, a plurality of beams 34, and a plurality of braces 36.

  In step S102, a member for estimating the degree of damage of the skeleton model 30 is selected. Specifically, for example, the user selects a member whose degree of damage is to be estimated by operating a mouse or the like while referring to the skeleton model 30 displayed on the display. In addition, about a pillar and a beam, the position which estimates a damage degree is selected. For example, in the example of FIG. 3, the positions selected for the columns and beams are indicated by black circles, and the selected braces are indicated by thick lines.

  As shown in FIG. 3, for example, for the first floor pillar 32-1, two positions, an upper end 32-1 A and a lower end 32-1 B, are selected. Similarly, for the beam 34-8 on the eighth floor, two positions, a left end 34-8A and a right end 34-8B, are selected. When a column or beam is selected, both ends of the selected column or beam may be automatically selected.

  In step S104, static elastic-plastic load incremental analysis, that is, push over analysis, which is a known method, is performed on the skeleton model 30 created in step S100. Push-over analysis is a method of incrementally loading static seismic intensity and load on a structure, and analyzing the seismic characteristics of the entire structure based on the relationship between the load (the seismic intensity) and the horizontal displacement.

  In step S106, based on the analysis result of the pushover analysis in step S104, the correspondence relationship between the damage evaluation factor of the member selected in step S102 and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle obtained from the interlayer deformation angle of the multiple layers of the building. The damage estimation index that represents That is, for the column and beam selected in step S102, a damage estimation index indicating the correspondence between the plasticity rate and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is determined, and for the brace selected in step S102, the axial strain and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle The damage estimation index showing the correspondence relationship with The damage estimation index is obtained for each of the members selected in step S102. In the case where the member is a column or a beam, a damage estimation index is obtained for each position of the member.

For example, as shown in FIG. 4, for the pillars of the lower end 32-1B, determine the damage estimation index 38 indicating the correspondence relationship between the ductility factor μ and Evaluation story drift theta _ef. Also, the right end 34-8B beams 34-8, obtains a damage estimation index 40 indicating the correspondence relationship between the ductility factor μ and Evaluation story drift theta _ef. Further, for the fifth-floor brace 36-5, a damage estimation index 42 indicating the correspondence between the axial strain ε and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is determined.

  In the present embodiment, although the degree of damage to the member is finally evaluated using a known fatigue curve, the fatigue curve evaluated by the plasticity rate is shown, for example, in the above-mentioned Non-Patent Document 1 for columns and beams. Therefore, the plasticity factor is adopted as a damage evaluation factor for columns and beams. On the other hand, with regard to braces, as shown in the above-mentioned reference 1, since it is considered that a fatigue curve evaluated by strain is general, axial strain is adopted as a damage evaluation factor of braces. Thus, the damage evaluation factor is set in accordance with the type of member to be evaluated (post, beam, brace, etc.).

Evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is defined as follows according to the type of member and the installation position.

... (1)

Here, α is a weighting coefficient of each floor, x is an interlayer deformation (horizontal deformation amount), h is a floor height, and i is a floor number. That is, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is obtained by weighting and averaging the interlayer deformation angles of the floors using the weight set for each floor. Note that α may be set according to at least one of the position and the type of the member.

As an example, a specific example of calculation of evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef in a three-layer (third floor) framework model 44 as shown in FIG. 5 will be described. The left side of FIG. 5 shows a state before the building is deformed, and the right side shows a state where the building is deformed due to an earthquake or the like.

First, the calculation of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef of the column will be described. For example, in the case where the evaluation target is the lower end a of the first floor pillar 32-1 or the upper end e of the uppermost floor (third floor) pillar 32-3, the interlayer deformation angle of the layer in which the member is present becomes the evaluation interlayer deformation angle.

For example, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _a θ _ef of the lower end a of the first floor pillar 32-1 is calculated by the following equation.

_a θ _ef = x ₁ / h ₁ (2)

The evaluation story drift _e theta _ef the upper end e of the top floor of the pillar 32-3 is calculated by the following equation.

_e θ _ef = (x ₃ −x ₂ ) / h ₃ (3)

  Next, when the evaluation target is other than the lower end a of the first floor pillar 32-1 and the upper end e of the uppermost floor (third floor) pillar 32-3, ie, in the example of FIG. In the case of the upper end b of 32-1, the lower end c of the pillar 32-21 on the second floor, and the upper end d of the pillar 32-22 on the second floor, the interlayer deformation angle of the layer in which the member is present and the layer adjacent to the member end The sum of the above and the interlayer deformation angle becomes the evaluation interlayer deformation angle.

For example the first floor of the evaluation story drift _b theta _ef the upper end b of posts 32-1 and and the second floor of the evaluation story drift _c theta _ef the lower end c of the column 32-21 is calculated by the following equation.

_b θ _ef = _c θ _ef = (x ₂ −x ₁ ) / h ₂ + x ₁ / h ₁ (4)

Further, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _d θ _ef of the upper end d of the pillar 32-22 on the second floor is calculated by the following equation.

_d θ _ef = (x ₃ −x ₂ ) / h ₃ + (x ₂ −x ₁ ) / h ₂ (5)

Next, calculation of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef of the beam will be described. For example, in the case where the evaluation target is the left end C of the top floor beam 34-3, the interlayer deformation angle of the layer in which the member is present is the evaluation interlayer deformation angle.

For example Evaluation story drift _C theta _ef the leftmost C of the top floor of the beam 34-3 is calculated by the following equation.

_C θ _ef = (x ₃ −x ₂ ) / h ₃ (6)

  Next, when the evaluation target is other than the left end C of the top floor beam 34-3, that is, in the example of FIG. 5, the evaluation target is the right end A of the first floor beam 34-1 and the second floor beam 34-2. In the case of the left end B, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is the sum of the interlayer deformation angle of the layer in which the member is present and the interlayer deformation angle of the layer immediately above the layer in which the member is present.

For example, the evaluation of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _A θ _ef of the right end A of the first floor beam 34-1 The interlayer deformation angle _A θ _ef is calculated by the following equation.

_A θ _ef = (x ₂ −x ₁ ) / h ₂ + x ₁ / h ₁ (7)

The evaluation story drift _B theta _ef the leftmost B upstairs beam 34-2 is calculated by the following equation.

_B θ _ef = (x ₃ −x ₂ ) / h ₃ + (x ₂ −x ₁ ) / h ₂ (8)

  Note that, since the skeleton model 44 shown in FIG. 5 is a model of a low-rise building, the above equations (2) to (8) are equations for the case where the weighting coefficient α in the equation (1) is 1.0. When evaluating a member of a high-rise building in which the influence of the high-order mode is large, the value of the weighting factor α may be set for each floor. Further, the value of the weighting factor α may be set for each floor according to the frame type around the member to be evaluated.

  The damage estimation index obtained for each member or for each position of the member in step S106 is stored in advance in the storage unit 14 of the damage evaluation device 12.

  Next, a processing routine of damage evaluation processing performed in the damage evaluation device 12 will be described with reference to FIG.

  The processing routine shown in FIG. 6 is executed when the evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18 notifies that an event such as an earthquake has occurred.

The evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18 calculates the displacement of each floor based on the acceleration signals output from the acceleration sensors 28 _{1 to} 28 _n provided on each floor of the building, and based on at least one of the calculated displacements of each floor. To determine whether an event has occurred. Then, when it is determined that an event has occurred, the process of calculating the evaluation interlayer deformation angle of each member to be evaluated based on the displacement of each floor and storing the calculated evaluation interlayer deformation angle of each member in the storage unit 14 Run until the event is over. As a result, the time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle of each member to be evaluated when an event occurs is stored in the storage unit 14. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, the time history 46 of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is stored in the storage unit 14 for the right end 34-8B of the beam 34-8, and the time of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle for the fifth floor brace 36-5. The history 48 is stored in the storage unit 14, and the time history 50 of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is stored in the storage unit 14 for the lower end 32-1 B of the column 32-1.

  The displacement of each floor can be calculated by double integration of the acceleration. Further, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle of each floor can be calculated by the above equation (1), specifically, for example, the above equations (2) to (8).

  Whether or not an event has occurred is determined based on, for example, whether or not the displacement of a predetermined floor is equal to or greater than a threshold that can be determined that an event such as an earthquake has occurred. The method of determining whether or not an event has occurred is not limited to this. For example, the average value of the displacement of each floor may be determined based on whether or not the threshold can be determined that an event such as an earthquake has occurred. . In addition, whether or not an event such as an earthquake has ended is determined based on, for example, whether or not a predetermined floor displacement is equal to or less than a threshold that can be determined that an event such as an earthquake has ended. The method of determining whether the event has ended is not limited to this. For example, the average value of the displacement of each floor may be determined based on whether or not the threshold that can determine that an event such as an earthquake has ended is less than . Also, instead of the displacement, other parameters such as response acceleration or response speed may be used to determine whether an event has occurred.

  When it is determined that the event has ended, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18 notifies the damage evaluation device 12 that the event has occurred. Thereby, the damage evaluation device 12 executes the process shown in FIG.

  First, in step S200, the acquisition unit 22 acquires the damage estimation index of each member by reading it from the storage unit 14.

  In step S202, the estimation unit 24 reads and acquires the time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle of each floor of the building when the event occurs from the storage unit 14, and the acquired time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle and the step S202 Based on the damage estimation index acquired by the acquisition unit 22, the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor when the event occurs is estimated for each member.

  There are two methods of estimating the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor, a rough calculation method and a detailed method. First, an approximation will be described.

The substantially algorithm calculates the amplitude value of the evaluation story drift theta _ef on the basis of the time history of the obtained evaluated story drift theta _ef at step S200, for each determined amplitude value, plastic from damage estimation index acquired in step S200 The process of obtaining the amplitude value of the rate is performed for each member to be evaluated.

When obtaining the amplitude value of the evaluation story drift theta _ef on the basis of the time history of the evaluation story drift theta _ef a known cycle count method (e.g. see below reference 2) is used. In the present embodiment, the amplitude value of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is obtained using a so-called rain flow method (see, for example, the following reference 3) as an example of the cycle counting method. FIG. 8 shows an example of the amplitude value of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef extracted using the Rainflow method.

(Reference 2) Information site for CAE engineers, URL: http://jikosoft.com/cae/engineering/strmatf12.html

(Reference 3) Endo Tatsuo et al., Proposal of "Rain Flow Method" and its application, Research report of Kyushu Institute of Technology (Engineering), No. 28, P33-62, 1974.3

And the estimation part 24 is shown in FIG. 9 for the damage estimation parameter | index acquired at step S200, for example, when a member is a pillar or a beam, for every amplitude value of evaluation interlayer deformation angle (theta) _ef calculated _| required using the rain flow method. The process of obtaining the amplitude value of the plasticity rate using the damage estimation index 52 as described above is executed for each member to be evaluated. When the member is a brace, the damage estimation index is used to determine the axial strain amplitude value.

In step S202, when the member to be evaluated is a column or a beam, the maximum plasticity ratio μ _max among the obtained plasticity is determined for each member to be evaluated.

  Next, the detailed method will be described.

In the detailed method, from the time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef , the time history of damage evaluation factors from the occurrence of an event to the end is estimated using the damage estimation index acquired in step S200. That is, when the member is a column or a beam, the time history of the plasticity rate is estimated, and when the member is a brace, the time history of axial strain is estimated.

In the following, the case where the member to be evaluated is a column or a beam and the occurrence of an event can obtain the time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef as shown in FIG. 10, for example, will be described. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 10, the time history is divided into phases 1 to 5 and described. Further, in the present embodiment, the correspondence between the load of the member to be evaluated and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is a relationship representing the bilinear type hysteresis characteristic as shown in FIG. 11, and the damage estimation index corresponding to this hysteresis characteristic A case in which is as shown in FIG. 12 will be described.

In FIG. 10, evaluation story drift theta _ef is the case of the range of TH1 ≦ θ _ef ≦ TH2, member is in a state of elastic, evaluation story drift θef is the case outside the above range, The member is in a plastic state. In the present embodiment, TH1 is -0.004 and TH2 is 0.004 as an example.

  As shown in FIG. 13, when Phase 1 is divided into periods t1 to t3, the plasticity ratio μ changes as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 14, when the plasticity ratio μ is in the range of TH3 ≦ μ ≦ TH4, the member is in an elastic state, and when the plasticity ratio μ is outside the above range, the member is in a plastic state It is in. In the present embodiment, TH3 is −1 as an example, and TH4 is 1.

The relationship between the load of the member and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is as shown in FIG. 15, and the relationship between the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _{θef of the} member and the plasticity ratio μ is as shown in FIG. It becomes. In FIGS. 15 and 16, a portion indicated by a thick line is a section of Phase 1.

As shown in FIG. 15 and FIG. 16, since the behavior is within the elastic range in Phase 1, the relationship between the load of the member and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef , and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _{θef of the} member and the plasticity ratio μ Both have linear relationships with each other.

  As shown in FIG. 17, when Phase 2 is divided into periods t4 to t6, the plasticity ratio μ changes as shown in FIG. 18. As shown in FIG. 18, in Phase 2, the plasticity ratio μ exceeds the threshold TH4 in the period t6, and the member is in a plastic state.

Then, the correspondence between the load of the member and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is as shown in FIG. 19, and the correspondence between the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _{θef of the} member and the plasticity ratio μ is as shown in FIG. It becomes. In FIGS. 19 and 20, a portion indicated by a thick line is a section of Phase 2.

  As shown in FIG. 20, in Phase 2, it can be seen that the inclination changes in a period t6 in which the member is in a plastic state.

  As shown in FIG. 21, when Phase 3 is divided into periods t7 to t9, the plasticity ratio μ changes as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 22, in Phase 3, after being in a plastic state in Phase 2, the state shifts to an elastic state, and becomes a plastic state again.

The correspondence between the load of the member and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is as shown in FIG. 23, and the correspondence between the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _{θef of the} member and the plasticity ratio μ is as shown in FIG. It becomes. In FIGS. 23 and 24, a portion indicated by a thick line is a section of Phase 3.

  As shown in FIG. 22, in Phase 3, when acting in the reverse direction from the plastic state of Phase 2 to the elastic state, the value of the plasticity ratio μ immediately after is set to −1 (period t7). When viewed at the member level, the value of the plasticity ratio μ indicates a state of unloading between -1 and 0, and the value of the plasticity ratio μ is a state of elastic loading between 0 and 1. While the value of the plasticity ratio μ is from −1 to 1, the plasticity ratio μ changes with the same gradient as that at the elastic time. Further, in Phase 3, after acting in the reverse direction from Phase 2 and slightly in the forward direction (period t7), the behavior in the reverse direction (period t8). At this time, when the value of the plasticity ratio μ falls below -1, the plasticity region experienced immediately before is updated, so when it behaves in the forward direction again, the value is updated from the maximum plasticity ratio μ experienced last time (Period t9).

  As shown in FIG. 25, when Phase 4 is divided into periods t10 to t13, the plasticity ratio μ changes as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 25, in Phase 4, the behavior in the opposite direction to the plastic area experienced in Phase 3 is the behavior until reaching the plastic area.

The relationship between the load of the member and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is as shown in FIG. 27, and the relationship between the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _{θef of the} member and the plasticity ratio μ is as shown in FIG. It becomes. In FIGS. 27 and 28, a portion indicated by a thick line is a phase 4 phase.

As shown in FIG. 28, in Phase 4, after experiencing the plastic state, it behaves in the opposite direction (period t10), and when the plastic ratio μ exceeds 1 again, it plasticizes and the inclination changes (period t11). Also, at this time, since the state of plasticity is experienced once, the appearance of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is not a plastic state (period t11), but it becomes a plastic state when converted by the amplitude value. I understand that The periods t12 and t13 of Phase 4 have the same behavior as the periods t8 and t9 of Phase 3, respectively.

As shown in FIG. 29, when Phase 5 is divided into periods t14 to t16, the plasticity ratio μ changes as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 29, a behavior to the Phase5, evaluation story drift theta _ef after plastic experience returns to zero.

The relationship between the load of the member and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef is as shown in FIG. 31, and the relationship between the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _{θef of the} member and the plasticity ratio μ is as shown in FIG. It becomes. In FIGS. 31 and 32, a portion indicated by a thick line is a section of Phase 5.

As shown in FIGS. 31 and 32, the phase 5 is basically linear in the same manner as the phase 1, but experiences the plasticity state, so as shown in FIGS. 29 and 30, the final evaluation layers are shown. It can be seen that even if the value of the deformation angle _θef is 0, a residual occurs in the plasticity ratio μ (the plasticity ratio μ is not 0).

Then, as in the rough calculation method, for example, the rain flow method is used to obtain the amplitude of the plasticity ratio. When the member to be evaluated is a column or a beam, the maximum plasticity ratio μ _max is determined from the time history of the plasticity ratio determined as described above.

In step S204 of FIG. 6, the calculation unit 26 determines the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor estimated by the estimation unit 24 and the fatigue curve representing the correspondence between the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor and the fracture life of the member. The degree of damage is calculated for each member. That is, if the member pillar or beam to be evaluated, and the amplitude mu _s of ductility factor of members, the fatigue curve representing the relationship between the rupture life of the amplitude mu _s and the member of the ductility factor, on the basis of damage The degree is calculated for each member. If the member to be evaluated is a brace, the degree of damage is calculated for each member based on the amplitude of the axial strain of the member and the fatigue curve representing the correspondence between the amplitude of the axial strain and the fracture life of the member. Do.

In addition, the fatigue curve as described in the said nonpatent literature 1 can be used for the fatigue curve of a member, for example. An example of such a fatigue curve is shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 33, the fatigue curve 60 has such a relationship that the fracture life (the number of repetitions to fracture) N _f becomes shorter as the amplitude μ _{s of the} plasticity factor becomes higher.

The fatigue curve 60 is derived from, for example, the result of an experiment to obtain the correspondence between the amplitude μ _{s of the} plasticity and the fracture life N _f, and is expressed by the following equation.

... (9)

  Here, C is a value previously determined according to the bonding type of the members and the meaning (experimental formula or design formula) of the above equation (9). Also, β is a constant representing the gradient of the above equation (9), and is set to, for example, 1⁄3.

The above equation (10) can be expressed by the following equation when it is expressed by the equation of rupture life N _f .

... (10)

The breaking life N _f is determined by using the following equation obtained by adding the correction coefficients k1 and k2 set according to the design conditions and the details of the joint instead of the equation (10) to the equation (10). It is also good.

... (11)

  Here, the correction coefficient k1 is a coefficient representing the degree of concentration of strain on the flange of the beam end when the member is a beam, and for example, k1 = 1.0 in the case of in-situ welding and web high strength bolt connection In the case of factory welding and with scallop, k1 = 1.2, and in the other cases k1 = 1.0, but the value of k1 is not limited to these. Further, the correction coefficient k2 is a correction coefficient for yield deformation in structural calculation and can be obtained by the following equation.

... (12)

Here, when the member is a beam, M _p is a total plastic moment of the beam end used in the structural calculation, and M _p0 is a total plastic moment with respect to the H-shaped entire cross section of the beam end.

The damage degree D is calculated by the following equation based on the fracture life N _f determined by the equation (10) or (11).

... (13)

Here, i = 1, 2, 3... M, and m is the number of amplitudes of the damage evaluation factor obtained in step S202. That is, for each of the damage evaluation factors obtained in step S202, the fracture life N _f is obtained by the above equation (10) or (11), and the sum of reciprocals of the obtained fracture life N _f is the damage degree D.

  In step S206, the calculation unit 26 determines whether or not there is a member having a degree of damage exceeding the threshold with which the member may be damaged among the degree of damage D of each member obtained in step S204. If the determination is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S208. If the determination is negative, the process proceeds to step S210.

  In step S208, the calculation unit 26 warns the user by displaying information on a member whose damage degree D exceeds the threshold value on the display unit 16. For example, the user is warned by blinking a position of a member whose damage degree D is equal to or more than a threshold or displaying a warning message indicating that there is a member that may be damaged. As a result, the user can easily recognize that there is a possibility that the member is damaged, and it is possible to promptly respond to site confirmation, repair of the member, and the like.

In step S210, the calculation unit 26 determines whether or not there is a member having the maximum plasticity ratio μ _max exceeding a predetermined threshold among the maximum plasticity ratios μ _max of the members (columns and beams) obtained in step S202. In the case of an affirmative determination, the process proceeds to step S212, and in the case of a negative determination, the present routine ends.

  The threshold is set to, for example, 4.0 in this embodiment. This corresponds to P.I. 5. Regarding the collapse and collapse limit, “The response plasticity rate of each member constituting the main part in terms of structural resistance is the limit value set by the structure method of the member, the characteristics of the structure, etc. If it exceeds 4.0, it must be 4.0) or less. ”

(Reference 4) Time History Response Analysis Building Performance Evaluation Business Procedure Manual

In step S <b> 212, the calculation unit 26 warns the user by displaying on the display unit 16 information on a member whose maximum plasticity ratio μ _max exceeds a threshold. For example, the user is warned by flashing a member whose maximum plasticity ratio μ _max exceeds a threshold or displaying a warning message indicating that there is a member which may exceed the collapse / collapse limit. As a result, the user can easily recognize that the member may exceed the limit of collapse or collapse, and it becomes possible to promptly respond to site confirmation, repair of the member, and the like.

Thus, in the present embodiment, the damage degree can be accurately evaluated for each member by evaluating the damage degree using the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef.

Next, the results of analysis by the present inventors about the effectiveness in the case of determining the plasticity rate using the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef will be described.

  First of all, as a building model of the building, as shown in FIGS. 34 to 38, a 3.2 m module which is a general office module is adopted, the column direction is 6.4 m span, and the span direction is 6.4 m. And 12.8m span. In addition, a four-layer eccentric core model was used.

Then, a static elasto-plastic load incremental analysis, that is, a push over analysis was carried out to determine the relationship between the interlayer deformation angle and the plastic ratio of the member. The members to be evaluated are, as shown in FIG. 39, three positions A, B and C of beams 70-1 to 70-3 from the first floor to the third floor, and each of positions A, B and C On the other hand, the correspondence between the interlayer deformation angle of a single layer and the plasticity of the member, and the correlation between the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef and the plasticity of the member were determined. The results are shown in FIG.

Note that the evaluation of the position A of the beam 70-1 between the interlayer deformation angle _A θ _ef , the evaluation of the position B of the beam 70-2 between the layer deformation angle _B θ _ef and the evaluation of the position C of the beam 70-3 between the layer deformation angle _C θ _ef , X _i is the relative displacement from the ground surface of the i layer, h _i is the floor height of the i layer, and is calculated by the following equations.

_A θ _ef = (x ₂ −x ₁ ) / h ₂ + x ₁ / h ₁ (14)

_B θ _ef = (x ₃ −x ₂ ) / h ₃ + (x ₂ −x ₁ ) / h ₂ (15)

_C θ _ef = (x ₄ −x ₃ ) / h ₄ + (x ₃ −x ₂ ) / h ₃ (16)

Next, seismic response analysis is performed, and for the position A of the beam 70-1, the correspondence between the interlayer deformation angle of the single layer and the plasticity of the member, and the correspondence between the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef and the plasticity of the member The relationship is shown in the lower part of FIG. 41 obtained from the analysis results of seismic response analysis. Further, for the position A of the beam 70-1, FIG. 40 shows the correspondence between the interlayer deformation angle of the single layer and the plasticity of the member, and the correspondence between the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef and the plasticity of the member. The results obtained from the estimation results estimated using the results are shown in the upper part of FIG. Furthermore, for each of the interlayer deformation angle of the single layer and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _θef , the comparison result of the analysis result and the estimation result shown in FIG. 41 is shown in FIG.

  Similarly, the results for the position B of the beam 70-2 are shown in FIGS. 43 and 44, and the results for the position C of the beam 70-3 are shown in FIGS. 45 and 46, respectively.

As shown in FIGS. 42, 44, and 46, when the estimation results at the positions A to C are compared, the estimation of the plasticity rate from the evaluation interlayer deformation angle _{θef as} a whole has a correspondence with the analysis result of the seismic response analysis. I understand that it is good. Also, it can be seen that the higher the upper floor, the larger the variation in the estimation result due to the interlayer deformation angle of a single layer. The effect of the higher order mode is larger in the upper floors, so when estimating the damage degree of the member, it is better to use the evaluation layer deformation angle _θef considering the influence of the floor adjacent to the member to be evaluated. It was found that the variation was small and the estimation accuracy was also high.

  The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiment, and various modifications and applications can be made without departing from the scope of the present invention.

For example, in the present embodiment, the evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation unit 18 calculates the displacement of each floor based on the accelerations output from the acceleration sensors 28 _{1 to} 28 _n provided on each floor, and evaluates based on the calculated displacement. Although the case of calculating the interlayer deformation angle has been described, the method of calculating the evaluation interlayer deformation angle is not limited to this. For example, instead of providing an acceleration sensor on each floor, only one acceleration sensor is provided on the ground surface, the displacement of each floor is calculated using the mass point model from the acceleration output from this acceleration sensor, and based on the calculated displacement. The evaluation interlayer deformation angle may be calculated.

  Furthermore, although the present invention has been described as an embodiment in which the program is installed in advance, the program may be provided by being stored in a computer readable recording medium such as a CD-ROM or a memory card. It is.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 10 damage evaluation system 12 damage evaluation apparatus 14 memory | storage part 16 display part 18 evaluation interlayer deformation angle calculation part 20 sensor part 22 acquisition part 24 estimation part 26 calculation part

Claims (3)

Acquire a damage estimation index representing the correspondence between the damage evaluation factor of the member calculated in advance for each member constituting the building and the evaluation interlayer deformation angle obtained from the interlayer deformation angle of the plurality of layers of the building Acquisition means,
Based on the time history of the evaluation interlayer deformation angle obtained from the interlayer deformation angle of the multiple layers of the building when the event of deforming the building occurs, and the damage estimation index acquired by the acquisition unit, Estimation means for estimating, for each of the members, the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor when the event occurs;
The degree of damage is calculated for each of the members based on the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor estimated by the estimation means and a fatigue curve representing the correspondence between the amplitude of the damage evaluation factor and the fracture life of the member Calculation means,
Damage assessment device equipped with The evaluation interlayer deformation angle is obtained by weighted averaging of interlayer deformation angles of the plurality of layers using weights set for each of the plurality of layers.
The damage evaluation device according to claim 1. The evaluation interlayer deformation angle is obtained using the interlayer deformation angle of the layer in which the member is present, and the interlayer deformation angle of the layer adjacent to the layer in which the member is present.
The damage evaluation device according to claim 1 or 2.