. ..

-

..

,
,
..

2010

 061.62+624.014
30.4
-415
-415 -
.. /
, ...,
.. . .: - , 2010, . 5 272 .
ISN 978-966-1555-56-2

, ,
.
, , ,
- ,
, ,
,
, -
,
. , ,
.
061.62+624.014
30.4
:
.., ... (. ); ..; .., ...;
.., ...; .., ... (. ); .., ...
(. . ); .., ...; .., ...; ..;
.., ...; .., ...; .., ...; ..,
...; .., ...
:
. , 1,
02660,
. ..
. 543-97-40, e-mail: icbmc@urdisc.com.ua

12628-1512 03.05.2007 .
27.05.2009 . 1-05/2

ISN 978-966-1555-56-2

. ..


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.., .., .., ..,

..

..

..

.

15

.., .., ..

. ...

25

..

...

32

Apanas L., Madaj A., Siekierski W.

Dynamic testing of tribune structure of Poznan city stadium..

41

..
,
..

52

..

60

.., ..

..

72

.., ..

: , ...

83

.., ..
...

106

.., ..

117

..
Eurocode

124

..
-
.

130

.., ..

.

140


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
..
.

151

.., .., ..

159

..

.........

172

.., .., ..

- ...

181

..

...

192

.., ..

199

..

210

.., ..
-
...

215

.., ..
...

230

.., ..
-
..

237

..
-

246

..
-


.

255

.., ..

262

272


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014

.., ..., .., ..., ..,
.., .., ...
,
.
.
.

-
.
.
. . .
Abstract. The main principles of monitoring formation system of coverings above
stadiums stands. In the article investigated are the main principles of monitoring
formation system of coverings above the stadiums stands. Examined are different
principles of monitoring system realization and diagnostics of load-carrying structures
of unique structures; Donbass National Academy Architectural and Building suggested
its own idea dealing with the monitoring formation system of unique structures and
recommended the block diagram of its realization.
: ,

( , )
.
, - ,
- , , , . ,

(
).


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[2] / , - ,
. -
. ,
,
.



.

, , [4, 7].


:
1)
,
-
( , ,
. (. , ): , , - , . , . .);
2) ()

(
(. , ).


on-line, .


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

-
,
, . ,
:
, , .
,
, .
, , ;
,
(, , ) ;

, ,

.
, ,
, , ,
- ,
, , , .
,
,
.
:
I- ,
.
:


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

) , - (
( ), ,
, , ,
, , );
)
, , .

, ,
, [3],
. ,

, ,
,
, .


,

- (. , ).

:
.
: )
, [1] ()
s0 = 1400 ; )
4 ; ) ,

(
) 2 .
, ,
. 1 2.


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
1

/
1

NZ
NZ
NZ -

(
NZ
( )
)
3
4
5
6
259,9
478,8
738,8
670,4
354,1
649,9
1004,0
909,8
833,3
1435,1
2268,4
2009,1
-235,5
-305,5
-541,0
-427,7
-471,1
-884,2
-1355,3
-1237,9
-506,4
-783,2
-1289,5
-1096,5
-86,9
-127,7
-214,6
-178,8
61,3
122,7
184,1
171,8
33,9
64,7
98,6
90,5
289,1
521,3
810,4
729,8
244,9
425,0
669,9
594,9
235,8
421,7
657,4
590,3
-408,2
-643,9
-1052,1
-901,4
532,0
846,8
1378,8
1185,5
549,8
858,5
1408,2
1201,8

NZ

NZ

7
-35,0
-47,5
-92,1
23,8
103,3
43,7
8,7
-1,6
-25,7
1,7
-7,2
-4,6
126,0
-169,6
-168,2

8
27,4
37,2
81,4
-40,2
-34,0
-76,5
-14,7
2,4
-1,0
93,7
-51,0
-59,0
9,4
-13,0
-13,2

2
(%)

/
1

3
90,74
90,62
88,57
79,06
91,34
85,03
83,32
93,35
91,81
90,06
88,82
89,79
85,68
85,98
85,34

4
4,74
4,73
4,06
4,41
7,62
3,39
4,07
0,88
26,02
0,21
1,07
0,69
11,98
12,3
11,95

5
3,7
3,7
3,59
7,44
2,51
5,93
6,85
1,31
1,06
11,56
7,62
8,97
0,9
0,94
0,94


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
.

Nz
100% ,
N .

N.=N + N

)
. 1. :
;
;

10


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

) -
, ;
) .
I- :
) ;
) ,
;
) ,
;
) .

. 2. :
,

.
, , -
-

11


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
. .

-
.
II- on-line
- .
:
) on-line
;
) -
,
;
)
.
, -80, ,

.

. 3.

12


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

II-
.
III- on-line
-
, ,
. ( ), .
(. 4),

, .

. 4. 60

-.


- .
. .

13


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 5. -

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

[6]

[7]

.1.2-2:2006 . /
. . 2006 .
.1.2-5:2007 - /
. . 2007 .
.1.2-3:2006 . /
. . 2006 .
.. . . / . . .: . , 1998.
144 .
.., .., .., .., ..
(2- ., ) / ..
.. . , , 2008. 404 .
.. , .. , .. , .. , .. ,
.. . //
. 2008. 14, 4.
. 300 313.
.. .
//
. 2006. 2, 1. . 5 15.

15.06.2010 .

14


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014.074:69.036:725.826

.
..

. .. ,
. ,
.
. ,
, ' .
. ,
,
.
. , . .
,
, .
.
,
, .
Abstract. The basic conceptual technical solutions, accepted during elaboration of
design aimed at reconstruction of Stadium Metallist attached to Regional Sporting
Complex are highlighted. The description of a system of reinforced concrete stands at
the Stadium is given. A peculiarity in implementation of metalwork used in roof system
over the stadium is shown. Such constructions are performed in the form of a system
located separately and having no connection with the existing stands. Fabrication and
erection technology is presented in details with the use of enlarged units. Results of
wind tunnel tests as applied to roof system model are given also, including
demonstration of some distinctions in obtained data as compared with recommended
normative documents in force used for similar structures.
: , , , , ,
, , .

( )
. .. ( )
, .

15


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

: , , ,
. , .
.
, .
38,6 ,
20000 2, :
105 68 .
85000 2 (. 1).

. 1.

16


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, ,
5- , , 500 . ,
, , VIP-, , .
,
88 , 74 , 12
( .. 4 VIP-) 2 .
5-
VIP-,
7 -,
, ,
- 300 , , ,
, 360 , , .
(
, , ,
- .) .
(
) ,

2400 (. 2, , ). ,
,
, .
Spidercam,
,
.
(. 2, , ).
, 36 ,
24860 2 ( .. 7765 2),
3,5 . , - , - . ,
24 V-
( ),
.

17


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .

. 2. (, )

(, )

. , , . ,
(. 3, 4).
-
,
16 64 V- 22,3
6
24 (. 4, 5). 20 -
,
. ,

.

18


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 3.

26,25
V-
6 32,25 ,
26,25 9,75 .
8,0 9,0 ,
12,0 .
3,0 , 17,8
, 4,375 .
8,0
, .

,
.
, (. 4):
V-
22,3 ; - ;
24
- ; -, -

19


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

24 -
39,5 ; ,
24 - 39,5 ; ;
, - 39,5
32,25 ; ,
-
- .

. 4. :
1 V- ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 -; 6 ;
7 ; 8 ; 9

. 5. -

20


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 219
720 ,
,
. ,
.
,
,
, -, -, -
,
.
.
( ,
)
(. 6).
(. 7),
. 110 , 33 .
18,2 .

,
.

. 6.

. 7.

, 6 . -

21


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .
.

,

0.0 .
.
.


.
,
(. 8): V- 39 6, 7 29 5, 8; - 37 ; ;

- ; - , -;
; ;
64 ; , 5
8, , ;
.

. 8.

.
SCAD.
,

22


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.

.

,

,
(. 9, ).

. 9. ()

(): 1 ; 2 ; 3

. ,
(. 9, ),
.
, . , (
)
,
.
, .
.
,
2007 2009 .
5 2009 .

23


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

2009
.

, 2012 ,

- .
, , -, , ,
, -,
. ,
,
. ,
,
.
11.06.2010 .

24


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014

.
.., ..., .., ..., ..

,
.
.,
-127 .
.

. , -127
.
Abstract. The article describes the features of the design and reconstruction of stands
and canopies of the stadium Metalist and indoor tennis courts, Unicourt in
Kharkov, designed with a so-workers at MWK department of KSTUCA and constructed
by SMU 127 of trust Stalkonstruktsia.
: , , , , .

. . , 2012 . . ,
, , :
. , ( .
, . . ). , , (, , ,
).
.
, .
,
, ,
,
. -2012,
,
- -

25


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. , , .
, , 50- .
10000 .

,
,
.
,
(. 1). ,
, ,
. ,
.
, 45
400 ,
.
[9]. . (2006 .)
,
.

.
(2008 .) .
10
.
,

. , ,
. ,
.

.
,

26


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. , : , ,
.
: ,
.

,
. 2004 .
-.

. 1.

VIP-
, ,
. ( ),
,
3 , , ., 1021. ,
, , , .
.
- 2008 .
VIP- ( 9-18) ,

27


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, ,
.

, .

. ,
,
.

. 2.

[1],
[2], 01.01.2007 .

: ) + ; ) + ;
) + [1].
, ,
,
[9]. ,
, 1,2.
, .

.
, ,
( .. ).
. 2,
. 3.

28


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 3.

,
,
,
. .. (. 4).
, ,
.

, 24
(. 4).

. 4.

- ,
.

.

29


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,

, 9 ,
(. 4).
,
, .
,
,
.

.
,
. -2012
.
(, ,
, )
,
. - , , , ,
, .
. , , (
40 % 50 %) .
VIP- , ,
.


,
,
. ,
VIP- (. 3)

42 .

, .
,
,
.

30


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

2.01.07-85 .
.1.2.-2:2006 . .
11-23-81 . .
. 2.2-3-97 , ,
. ., 1997.

, . 1989,
1999, 2000 .
362-92
. ., 1995 ., 46 .
. . 1-3. . 1999
2000 .
/ . . .. 1-3. . 1999
2000 .
.., .., .. . . // .
. ., 2009 . 342 348.

05.07.2010 .

31


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.011.1

..
- ,

. i i
i i . i i i i i.
. .
.
Abstract. Examples of using wooden glued structures in sports buildings and
constructions of the Republic of Belarus are shown. Issues of developing the methods
of wooden structures and their joints calculation are discussed.
: , c, ,
, .

. :
; ; ; ; ;
;
;
( 8 10 3 4
); .
,
,
().

. 2002 .
3430 . 3,
2200 . 3; 730 . 3; 500 . 3.
, ,

32


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. ,
1995 . 895 . 3, 2000 . 1590 . 3; 2002 .
2200 . 3 2006 . 3000 . 3.
-

.
, 885
., 5,5 . .
, : , , , , , , , - .

, , . , , ,
.
,
100 .

150 , 50 ,
. 49 .
(. 1), . , .. ; 60
42 . (. 2) . ; 24
20 . . ;
24 18
(. 3); 42 .
. (. 4); 20 36 ,
, .
, , , .

15 . .
120 (. 5).
(. 6).

33


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 1. .

. 2. .

. 3. -

34


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

)
. 4. (), () ()
.

35


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 5. 120 ()

)
. 6. () () ()

, , (,
..) . , [1] .
,

36


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
, , .
-
.

.
, [1],

, , , . ,


. [1],
, ,
,
.
[1],
,
.

,
. ,


. , ,
,
.
, [2]
h/b4,
,


2

1 0,5 x y x y 4 xy2 f t ,a ,d ,
(1)

1 ; x , y xy

; ft ,a ,d -

37


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
ft ,a ,d
f t ,a ,d

B =

f t ,0,d
,
cos Bsin 2 2 ksin 4
4

(2)

f t ,0,d 1 k
f

; k t ,0,d ; f t ,0,d , f t ,90,d f t ,45,d

f t ,45,d
4
f t ,90,d

,
450 ;
1 .
[1]
.
.
, ( ) ( r ) . ,
r ( ).
.
[2]
, .
, ,
, (, ..)
. ,

( ).
,

, .
.
,
, , ,

38


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
P
[3], ( K IC
),
P
( K IIC
) () (b) , :
P
K IC
0,086m pI mbI ;

(3)

P
K IIC
0,604m pII ,

(4)

( )
m pI 0,4889 2,6456 10 3 6,64263 10 7 2 ;

(5)

m pI 1,17787 6,1083 b 4,155 b2 , 10 b 140 ,

(6)

( )
m pII 0,8907 0,0039 ,

(7)

P
P
K IC
K IIC

1/2
;
/3; b .

, [4],

2

K I K II
P 1.
K ICP K IIC

(8)

Rlip

R
K I K II
P
P
K IC
K IIC

(9)

Rlip
li ; R , ; K I K II li .

39


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Rlip li li = 0.

[5, 6].

.
, .


.



-
.

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

II-25-80 . . .:
, 1982. 31 .
45-5.05-146-2009 (02250). .
. , , 2009. 63 .
.., ..
// . . 2005.
2(32). . 57 59.
.. KIC KIIC
//
. 2006. 1. . 7 14.
..
//
. 2006. 6. . 34 35.
..
//
. 2006. 4. . 12 15.

15.06.2010 .

40


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
620.178.153

Dynamic testing of tribune structure of Poznan city stadium

Apanas L., mgr. inz., Madaj A., dr hab. inz., Siekierski W., dr. inz.
Poznan University of Technology, Poland
.
. -2012.
,
. ,
,
.
.
30 , .
, -
. ,
,
.
, .

,
. ,
,
.

, ,
.

.
.
. -2012.
,
.
,
, .

.
30 , .
, . ,
,

.
,
.

, .
, ,

41


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
.

, ,
.
.
Abstract. Dynamic testing of part of the tribune of Poznan city stadium, during its
preparation for Euro 2012 is described. The analysis of test and computational results
as well as discussion on vibration influence on spectators and tribune structure is
given.
To achieve loading conditions typical for the stadium tribune, testing were carried out
during football matches. Live load was introduced by crowd of spectators, gathered on
tested structure, filling it almost to its full capacity. During an auxiliary testing loading
consisted of group of 30 people located on tested cantilever.
Vertical displacements as well as vertical and horizontal accelerations were recorded in
various locations of the structure.
In general, character of recorded vibrations lead to conclusion that structure behaviour
is acceptable in terms of requirements concerning structural dynamics. Recorded
vibration parameters of the cantilever of the II-nd level of the tribune show that the
vibrations may be sensed uncomfortably by humans. Accurate analytical verification of
comfort of spectators on the tribune may require analysis of 3D frame model, that
would regard beams orthogonal to frames and auditorium decks. 2D frame model,
used commonly for static calculations may turn out to be to limited in terms of
replication actual dynamic characteristics of the structure.
Since all the conclusions concern unfinished structure of city stadium tribune, they
must not be extended to future complete structure covered with roof. Dynamic
characteristics of the structure, after its completion, may change and should be verified
prior to submitting complete tribune structure to the public exploitation.
Key words: stadium, dynamic analysis, test tribune.

Introduction. Poznan city stadium has been refurbished to comply with UEFA
requirements concerning stadiums for Euro 2012. Among others, new tribunes
have been built. After completion part of tribune system it was opened to
spectators of football matches.
The spectators reported uncomfortable behaviour of tribune structure, that is:
strong, uncomfortable vibration of cantilever of II-nd level of tribune;
phenomenon of swinging of III-rd level of tribune.
Thus the dynamic testing of existing part of the tribune was ordered. Fig. 1.
shows the existing part consisted of tribune that was tested. The structure of
tribune back as well as roof was present yet, during testing.
The paper describes the testing scope and results. The analysis of test results as
well as its influence on spectators and tribune structure is given.

42


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Fig.1. General view of tested structure of tribune

Structure description. Main load-carrying elements of the tested tribune are

RC frames spaced by 9,0 m and connected with system of RC beams orthogonal
to frame planes. RC frame beams between storeys, auditorium girders and
auditorium decks with seats for spectators are precasted. Auditorium decks
along tribune slope are connected by steel mandrels glued into special sockets.
Access to tribune are provided by precasted / in-situ staircases. Frames are
based on continuous and spot footings.
Structural elements are made of C40/50 concrete and reinforced with bars of
AIIIN steel.
Testing description. Vibration generating loading. To achieve loading
conditions typical for the stadium tribune, testing were carried out during
football matches. Live load was introduced by crowd of spectators, gathered on
tested structure, filling it almost to its full capacity. Data recording was carried
out during tribune filling, during matches (as well as when goals were scored),
du
ring breaks and just after match ends, when people were leaving. Moreover, for
the purpose of testing, spectators gathered on the cantilever of the II-nd level of
the tribune, jumped up and down rhythmically. Effects of such behaviour may
be recognized as being close to those of maximum possible strength.
Beyond testing during matches, also auxiliary testing was carried out. Loading
consisted of group of 30 people located on tested cantilever. They induces
vibrations by rhythmical jumping or by performing single skip from seats to
auditorium floor. The latter was meant to allow for self vibration frequency
assessment.

43


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Scope and method of data acquisition. Displacements and accelerations of

locations across the structure were recorded. Hottinger-Baldwin Measurement
system was used, Inductive gauges recording displacements and inertial gauges
recording accelerations were plugged to electric-to-numeric converter that allow
for computer data registration and post processing using BEAM software of
HBM.
In the case of the cantilever of the II-nd level of the tribune, the location of
gauges were as follows:
tip of cantilevered frame member locations marked as F1 (vertical
displacement) and P1 (vertical acceleration),
tip of auditorium deck near tip of cantilevered frame member locations
marked as F2 (vertical displacement) and P2 (vertical acceleration),
tip of auditorium deck in the midspan (between subsequent frames) locations marked as F3 (vertical displacement) and P3 (vertical acceleration).

Fig. 2. General scheme of the tested tribune structure

In the case of peak of the III-rd level of the tribune, the locations were as
follows:
in the midspan 2-3 (between subsequent frames) locations marked as U1
(horizontal displacement), P1 (horizontal acceleration, along U1), P1R
(horizontal acceleration orthogonal to P1) and P1P (vertical acceleration),

44


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

in the midspan 8-9 (between subsequent frames) locations marked as U2

(horizontal displacement) and P2 (horizontal accelerations, along U2).
Test results. Results of tests that were carried out allow for the following
conclusion:
during crowd filling and emptying the tribune as well as during most of
football matches, tribune vibrations are very small, hard to record by used
equipment,
recordable vibrations accompany agitation of spectators by certain events
during football match,
the largest values of amplitudes and accelerations occurred during organised
jumping of group of 30 people.
Maximum values of recorded parameters of vibrations of the cantilever of the
II-nd level of the tribune are given in table 1. Fig. 3 shows vibrations (gauge
F3), induced by jump of 30-people group from seats to auditorium floor, while
Fig. 4 gives respective acceleration (gauge P3).
Table 1
Chosen recorded data for the cantilever of the II-nd level of the tribune
Vertical displacement Vertical acceleration
Freq.
[mm]
[m/s2]
Vibration source
[Hz]
F1
F2
F3
P1
P2
P3
Agitation on the
tribune

2,5

0,24

0,36

0,42

0,16

1,05

0,92

Organised
jumping

2,4

0,64

1,85

2,97

0,85

2,61

3,17

Single impulse

0,24

1,03

1,62

1,39

7,63

4,98

Jumping of 30people group

2,1

0,33

1,30

2,04

1,19

7,48

3,23

After single impulse, self vibration frequency of the structure (at cantilever tip)
was recorded to be about 10 Hz. the vibrations tapered off very quickly due to
strong damping.
Maximum values of recorded parameters of vibrations of the III-rd level of the
tribune are given in table 2.

45


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Fig. 3. Vibrations induced by jump of 30-people group from seats to auditorium floor
(gauge F3)

46


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Fig. 4. Accelerations induced by jump of 30-people group from seats to auditorium

floor (gauge P3)
Table 2
Chosen recorded data for the III-rd level of the tribune
Vertical
Vertical acceleration
displacement
Freq.
[m/s2]
Vibration source
[mm]
[Hz]
U1
U2
P1
P2
P1P
P1R
Agitation on the
2,3
0,21
0,26
0,03
0,06
0,01
0,02
tribune
Organised
2,4
1,30
1,40
0,26
0,20
0,02
0,06
jumping

Computational model for dynamic analysis. Numerical computations were

carried out. Finite element method was used. Tested structure was modelled as
plane frame. Computational model view is given in Fig. 5.

47


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Model regards rigid and pinned connections between beams and columns
(bolded ends of beams in Fig.1 marks pinned supports).
State of structure completion during testing as taken into account (lack of the
most external columns and supported on them beams as well as lack of roof).

Fig. 5. General view of computational model of tested structure

The following material data was assumed:

self weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3,
Young modulus of concrete E = 38 GPa.
In the next stage of analysis the cantilever (the element 59 of computational
model in Fig. 2) of the II-nd level of the tribune was analysed separately, as
fixed at one end.
Modal analysis was used to compute self vibration frequencies of the structure.
Tables 3 gives analyses results, namely: self vibration frequencies for the whole
structure and for the separated cantilever. Results for two cases are given:
case of total weight disregarding spectators weight,
case of total weight regarding spectators weight.

48


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
Table 3
Self vibration frequencies
Frequencies [Hz] in the computational case of:
Vibration mode
disregarding spectators weight
regarding spectators weight
the whole tribune structure
1
1,54
1,43
2
4,41
4,09
3
7,65
7,09
4
9,50
8,81
5
10,03
9,30
6
10,29
9,54
7
11,24
10,42
8
11,95
11,08
the separated cantilever of II-nd level of tribune
1
9,41
7,49

Discussion of test results. Vibration influence on people. Tests show that the
most dangerous vibrations for humans are those of frequencies close to self
frequencies of vibrations of various part of human body [1, 2]. In case of
standing people resonances occur for ranges: 5 6 Hz and 1112 Hz, and in
case of sitting people for ranges 46 Hz and 1112 Hz.
Evaluation of structural vibrations by humans inside looks differently. The
highest human sensitivity to accelerations occur for ranges:
in the case of vertical vibrations: 48 Hz,
in the case of horizontal vibrations: 12 Hz.
Limitations of vibration accelerations are applied to vibration frequencies negatively sensed by human. In general allowable accelerations depend on method
of structure exploitation by people, intervals between vibrations of uncomfortable acceleration and on the fact if the vibration are announced somehow
or not [3, 4]. In the case of stadium tribune one may assume requirements as for
office buildings the factor inducing vibrations of certain acceleration is announced and the value of vertical acceleration should not exceed 0.60.8 m/s2,
while the value of horizontal acceleration should not exceed about 0,5 m/s2.
In terms of negative influence of vibrations on durability and load carrying
capacity of structures [3], the main issues are:
amount of cycles of loading variation during exploitation period,
level of stresses present within structural members.
Thus, it is hard to set an unambiguous criterion for safety of structural
exploitation and assurance of structural durability in the same time.

49


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Vibration of cantilever of II-nd level of tribune. All recorded vibrations have

frequencies between 2,1 Hz and 2,5 Hz, that is typical for jumping or marching
people. Such vibrations are sensed by humans and, in cast of large amplitudes
and accelerations, are uncomfortable. Accelerations recorded during matches on
frame cantilever were 0,85 m/s2, but At the cantilever tip they reached values
almost four times as big (3,17 m/s2). Whereas the former value is acceptable,
the latter one may be uncomfortable for humans.
Vibration of III-rd level of tribune. Recorded vibration frequencies of
2,32,4 Hz are sensed by humans. Vibration parameters (amplitude of max.
1,4 mm, horizontal acceleration of max 0,26 m/s2) do not exceed generally
tolerated values. Additional role may play the height factor (top of the tribune is
25 m over ground level) that, combined with sensed vibrations, may generate
fear.
Conclusion. Testing driven conclusion.
1. Self vibration and induced vibration frequencies of the whole structure do not
exceed the threshold of the highest sensitivity of humans to vertical vibrations.
2. Recorded vibration parameters of the cantilever of the II-nd level of the
tribune show that the vibrations may be sensed uncomfortably by humans.
3. Vibration frequencies of the III-rd level of the tribune are typical for this type
of structures. Frequencies of induced horizontal vibrations of the III-rd level of
the tribune are on the threshold of elevated human sensitivity. This may be
possible reason of negative feelings of spectators present there.
4. In general, character of recorded vibrations lead to conclusion that structure
behaviour is acceptable in terms of requirements concerning structural
dynamics.
Test versus analysis results comparison based conclusion
1. Computed self vibration frequencies and induced by spectators vibration
frequencies differ from each other. Thus, there is no direct threat of resonance.
However, due to simplification of computational model this conclusion should
be approached with caution.
2. Accurate analytical verification of comfort of spectators on the tribune may
require analysis of 3D frame model, that would regard beams orthogonal to
frames and auditorium decks. 2D frame model, used commonly for static
calculations may turn out to be to limited in terms of replication actual dynamic
characteristics of the structure.

50


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Final remarks
Since all drawn conclusions concern unfinished structure of city stadium tri
bune, they must not be extended to future complete structure covered with roof.
Dynamic characteristics of the structure, after its completion, may change and
should be verified prior to submitting complete tribune structure to the public
exploitation.
Literature
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

Ciesielski R., Kawecki J. Macig E. Ocena wpywu wibracji na budynki i ludzi

w budynkach, (Assessment of vibration influence on buildings and on people in
buildings), ITB, Warszawa, 1983.
Ciesielski R., Kawecki J. Macig E. Drgania drogowe i ich wpyw na budynki
(Road traffic induced vibrations and their influence on buildings), WKi,
Warszawa, 1990.
EN 1992 Eurocode 2 Concrete.
PN-88/B-02171 Ocena wpywu drga na ludzi w budynkach (Polish Standard
Evaluation of influence of vibrations on people in buildings.

22.06.2010 .

51


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.21

,
.., ...
,
. . .
. .
.
Abstract. In the article the review of modern methods vibrational diagnostics is
represented. Their dignities and defects are marked.
: , , .

.
,
.
, ,
, . . [4, 9, 10]. ,
, , ,
.
[3,6],
,
, .1.1-12:2006 .
. ,
, .

, 80- ,
[5]. ,

52


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

20 ,
,
[11, 12]. ,
.
.
.
[12]:
;
;
;
;
;
;
.
. [1]: , , , , .

,
( , ).
, ,
() (

).
, ,
(. 1)
. , , .
20
,
,
Ambient Vibration Test (
) [14]. , -

53


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(, ,
..). .
,
,
.

. 1.

Ambient Vibration Test ( , , )

, Out only

, In and Out .
Out only ,
,
, ,
. ,
,
, .
HRk R k
SRk
Skk yR(t) yk(t) (. 2). R k,
.

54


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 2.

,
, (Modal Identification).

(Damage Identification) [13].
.
, ,
. ,
.
:
1. ,
,
.
2.
( ),
.
3. () .
4. .
5. .
6.
.
7. (
).
,
. . 1 . 2
,

55


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
.

, (
) ,
(. 3). ,

. [8].

)
. 3.
() ()

,

[13]. ,
, , [12], ,

.

56


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.

, - .
,
, . , , , .
,
, .
,
,

. , .
,
.


( ).
,
.
,
. [7]
:
1.
. (
).
2.

.
3. .
4. ,
.

57


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

5. 2 4, .

,

.
(, , ), .
, ,
,
.

[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

58

24346-80 . .
.. /
.. , .. // : . , 8. .: 2009. . 63 72.
.. . / .. , .. , .. ,
.. // : . .
., . 8. .: 2009. . 42 53.
.. , . . .
, 2005. 232 .
.. ,
. / .. , .. , .. // . . .
2009. . 4(78) . 104 110.
.., .., .. . // : .
. . .: , 2004. . 60. . 193 198.
.. . // . . . , , .
. 52. 2- -, , 2010. . 2 . 100 104.
..
. // ...
2009. . 4(78) .44 48.
. / .., .., -


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[10]
[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]

.., .., .., .. .: , 2008.

463 .
Carmelo Gentile, Alberto Gennari-Santori. Dynamic Testing and Modeling of a
30-years old Cable-Stayed Bridge. / Structural Engineering International.
1/2006. p. 39 43.
Challenges in experimental vibration analysis for structural identification and
corresponding engineering strategies / Zhang J., Prader J., Moon K. A. F., Aktan
A.E., Grimmelsman K.A., Shama A. // Proceedings of the international
conference on experimental vibration analysis for civil engineering structures,
Wroclav, Poland, 2009. p. 13 34.
EVACES09. Experimental vibration analysis for civil engineering structures /
Proceedings of the international conference, Wroclav, Poland, 2009 208 p.
Ramos L. Vibration signatures to identify damage in historical constructions. / L.
Ramos, P. Lourenco, G. De Roeck, A. Campos-Costa // EVACES07.
Proceedings of the international conference. Porto, 2007. p. 1251 1260.
Wenzel H. Ambient Vibration Monitoring / Wenzel H., Pichler D. John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd, 2005 291 p.

15.06.2010 .

59


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.012

.., ...
,
.

FLUENT.
.
.

FLUENT.
.
Abstract. In the article the results of comparative analysis of aerodynamic researches
of models of easy coverages are resulted above the tribunes of stadiums in a windchannel and numerical researches by a programmatic complex FLUENT. The results of
model researches are got allow to get the most effective form of coverage of stadium.
: , ,

. ' [14, 810].

, , .

[6]. ' , k-, ,
.
.
500 350 . 48 (
375 260 ). ,
, () ,
32 80
48 80 -

60


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
48 (. 1).
7,5
1 . 1,75 ( ),
()
.
, 25 / 1,5 % (
).
.
FLUENT 6.1 [5].
. , .
(1), -
k- (2) [1] [5].
( v j )
xj

0,

(1)

( vj )
(
) S .
xj
xj
xj

(2)

, S
. 1.
1
, (2)

vi

vj
vl

2
( ef
)
(
)
xj
xi
3 xi
xl

ef

2
( p k ij ) gi
xi
3

G
k

2
C G C
1k k
2 k

61


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

e vi i- , /;
, /3; ef T
, /.; gi
i- , 2/; k
, 2/2;
, 2/3; ij K; C1, C2, C3, k,
.
, ,
Gk ,

v
vj
Gk T i
x j xi

2
v
k T i ij .
xi
3

(3)

. 1. :
;

62


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 2. :
;

.
,
, 1,5 % '
, 1050. FLUENT 6.1
inlet velocity.
, ,
, 0 (
x

pressure outle).

, , .

.

63


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .
, ',
, .
,
,
, 1250000 (
).
. 1 2.
,
, 450
(. 2).
.

. 2 .
.
25 /
1,5 %.
( . 3 4).
(1):
C p ( pst p ) / ( v2 / 2) ,
(4)
pst , p
, , v
.
,
. ,
.
(. 3) (. 4)
:
00 1800 (
, . 1 A-A i C-C),
900 (
, . 1 B-B).
5 ,
5 .
, (. 3), -0,4 +0,35, -1,21 +0,55. ,
- (. 3,)

64


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, -1,21
-0,62.

, -0,4. ,
- (. 3, )
.
, , , (-0,077 -0,065), (-0,013 -0,052). - (. 3,)
,
+0,55 +0,23, +0,35
+0,23.

. 3. :
-;

65


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
-;
-

. 4. :
-;
-;
-

(. 4)
, . C p
(+0,27 -0,47),
(+1,10 -0,73).
- (. 4, )
, . +0,27 -0,4,

66


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

+1,1 -0,73. , - (. 4, )
, , -0,01 -0,11, -0,027
+0,023. - (. 4, ) , , -0,54 -0,07,
-0,47 -0,28.
FLUENT
. 5 6.

. 5.
( )

. 6.

( ) , ,
30 / (3032 /). -

67


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
1821 /.
( -) (. 7).
( -)
. 8.

1012 /.
,
.

. 7. ( - . 1)

. 8. ( -)

68


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 9 10.

. 9.

. 10.

250 .

. 11.

69


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 11.

'
, 2D 3D.

.
,
.
,
,
. , .
' , k-, ,
. 250 .

70


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
,
.
, , ,
.


.

FLUENT
.

[1]

Kazimierski Z. Podstawy Mechaniki Pynw i Metod Komputerowej Symulacji

Przepyww, Politechnika dzka, 2004.
[2] Daugherty R.L, Franzini J.B. Fluid Mechanics with Engineering pplications,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1977.
[3] White F.M., Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.
[4] Robertson J.A., Crowe C.T., 1993, Engineering Fluid Mechanics, John Wiley&Sons,Inc.
[5] FLUENT Inc., FLUENT 6.1 Dokumentation, 2005.
[6] Kinasz R., Kopylov O., Walaszczyk J. Research on the influence of stadium's
roof shape on its aerodynamic load // W: Environmental effects on buildings,
structures, materials and people. Lublin : University of Technology, 2007.
. 97108.
[7] Kinasz R., Branny M., Kopylov O., Walaszczyk J. Numerical investigation on
circular cylinders under aerodynamic influences / W: Environmental effects on
buildings, structures, materials and people. Lublin: University of Technology,
2007. . 141149.
[8] Elsner J.W. Turbulencja Przepyww. Wydawnictwo PWN. Warszawa, 1987.
380 .
[9] Teranath B.S. Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings Structural Analysis and
Desing. Marcee Dekker. Los Angeles, California, 2005. 882 p.
[10] Simiu E., Miyata T. Design of buildings and bridges for wind. Wiley, 2006.
308 p.

04.06.2010 .

71


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.074.5

.., ..., ..
,

.
, - ,
. ,
120,014 , 24,0
71,0 .
- . ,
-
.
.
. , , , . , 120,014 , 24,0 71,0
. ,
-
. , .
.
Abstract. The application of the new metal structural construction of the BSTU-type
for wide-span roof structures of buildings for public, sport and recreational use is
presented in the article. The most noticeable among the constructions with the BSTUtype roof structure is Summer Amphitheatre in Vitebsk, Belarus. The structural shell
with the span length of 120,014 m and variable width from 24,0 m minimum is
supported with bearings of up to 71,0 m wide placed in middle of the shell. Thirteen
patents are issued on the constructions nodes and rods described in the article. The
specifics of stress-strain analysis of the structure are also presented. It is proved that
the finite element representation accurately describes the work of full-scale structures.
A calculation method for bearing capacity of the nodes and rods of the structure has
been developed.
: , , , , , .

.

,
. ,

72


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. ,
150 .

. : , , .
, 1/201/50 .
300 /2 100 .

,
.
.

, ,

, ,
.

: 20 %,
25 %, 1,5 , 10 % [1].

.
, .

, -
, , , , ,
. .

.
(. 1, ).

1,51,5 . 1822,5 ,
1,06 .

73


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

: 764 ,
1024 .
160 t = 10 .
:
1026 2737
9,0 .
800 . .
. , . , , ,
(. 1, ).
- ,
. ,
8.
6
3963 . 33 ,
3 .
,
3
, 127 8 .
50 .
:
10 160 16
212 .
1278 , 895 , 834.

. .
13114 1,41 , , 12 (. 1, ).

604, 895, 1028.
160 10 212 16 .
:

74


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
.
.
32514 ,
, 32514 ,
1218, 2198 .

. 1.

- -.

75


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

R = 64,80 ,
17,71 460,34 .
,
6,3 .
1700 , 2530 , (2109 2689 ). 895 , 1148 , 11412 , 212
16 (. 1, ).

,
.
-.
2442 2,62 ,
3,0 .

2 . .
. 1824
15 (. 1,).

,
, .
, ,
( ), . (. 1, ).
120,014 ,
24,0 71,0 . 18,5 ,
3,32 [2].
,

, . 3,0 ,

1,5 . ,
27310 ,

76


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.

.
, ,
1,5 . .
, .

, ,
.

.

,
,
.
,
.

10 ,
.

.
R = 106,98 , 2,51 , 3,03,0 . ,
,
.

.
,
15 [3].

77


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .
,
. .
, .

, : .
.
.
, ,
, .
.
, , , ,

(. 2).
, , , , , .
.
.
.

. ,
.
.
,

78


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
, .

. 2. :
1 ; 2 ;
3 ; 4 ; 5 ;
6 , 7

,
,

.
-
.
,
. ,
.
,
(W, U, V),
,
. ,
, ,
. , - ,

, 510 %,
,
, .

79


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. .

,
,
.

.
, ,
, .
= 110; = 90; = 70.
,
II-23-81*, . II-23-81*
1,21,4 .

. .

, , . Nmax 0,5Rbun Abn.
- ,
.
,
. -

, ,
. ,

80


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
.
,
, , .

, , , ()
.
N = 0,6N.

,
100 1000 . (, .) , ,
.
. , , , . .

, , , . .
,
,
, ,
.

.

.

81


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, ,

.
,
, ( , / , )

.
, , ,
.

[1]

[2]

[3]

.. -

/ .. ,
.. , .. , .. // II
-
, , 19 21 2007.:
3 . , . 1. . 224 242.
..

. / .. , .. , .. , .. ,
.. , .. , .. , .. , .. .
2008. 1 (49) . 94 102.
: .2489
. , 04 1/58/ .. , .. , .. , ..
; . -. 20050458, . 21.07.2005;
. 28.02.2006 // i / . i. i. 2006.
1. . 194.

10.06.2010 .

82


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.042.41

:
,
.., ..., .., ...
,

.
.
(, )
.
.
.
(, )
.
Abstract. This article presents panorama of research in the field quasi-static methods
of tower structures design under wind load. For this structures the general modern
concept of reactions estimation (displacement, shear forces and bending moments) is
formulated and the analytical technique for calculation of gust factor is offered.
: , ,
, .

.
, A.G. Davenport (1967 ).

, ,
.
(
), , , .

50

.
, H.W. Liepmann [17] 1952 ., A.G. Davenport

83


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

60-
[1 3].
, . 70- J. Vellozzi, E. Cohen, B.J. Vickery, E. Simiu, A. Kareem [12,
13, 26, 27, 40 42] . ,
, A.G. Davenport, ( , , , , ). - , , ,
. .. , wind engineering ( ) [47]. 80-
G. Solari
,
[29, 30, 33].
[28, 31,
35], Eurocode
1 "Wind actions". 90-
, , A.G. Davenport,
. Kasperski N.J. Niemann [14, 15].
,
(, , , ),
.
,
- . M. Kasperski, J.D. Holmes
, [7 9].
,
, , .
Y. Zhou A. Kareem [43 46], C. Dyrbye, S.O. Hansen [4]
A.G. Davenport, [39]. 90-
,
,
. ,
Y. Tamura H. Kawai [16, 38],

84


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

G. Piccardo G. Solari
[18 22, 24, 32, 34, 36, 37],
(
) .
, .
,
. ,
, , . , .. ,
,
- . M. Kasperski
, ,
(
). G. Solari
,



. ,

. , G. Piccardo G. Solari
, , , , -, , . J.D. Holmes,
.
wind
engineering.
30 180 ,
: 1) ISO 4354:2009 ( );
2) ASCE 7-05 ( ); 3) EN 1993-3-1:2006 EN 1991-14:2004 ( ); 4) BS 8100 ( ); 5) AIJ
RLB 2004 ( ); 6) AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 (
); 7) CSA S37-2001 (R2006) ( ); 8) NBCI:2005
( ); 9) 2.01.07-85 ( ). ,

85


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(, ) 100 %, , .

,
.

. ,
wind engineering, ,

( .. ) .
,
,
. ,
,
. , .

wind engineering.


.
,

,
.
1. .
, H ,
. , x
, z . b0 bH ,

86


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

x ,1 ( z ) ( z / H ) , 0 z H .
u ( z ) , I u ( z )
Lu ( z ) :

u ( z ) u ( z /10) , I u ( z ) u ( z /10) , Lu ( z ) Lu ,0 ( z /10) ,

(1.0)

, u , u , Lu ,0 , , ,
[50].
0xyz R ( z )
z
: R ( z ) (),
, r ( z ) (), ( x y ). ,
.
,
, t,
. ,
, t ,
R ( z ) ,
r ( z )

r ,max ( z ) g R ( z ) r ( z ) . ,
z :
R ,max ( z ) R ( z ) r,max ( z ) R ( z ) GR ( z ) ,
GR ( z ) 1

r ,max ( z )
R ( z )

g R ( z ) r ( z )
.
R ( z )

(1.1)
(1.2)

GR ( z ) ,
,
R [14, 15]
( R D , R M ,
R S ),

87


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

GR ( z ) . R ( z )
, r ( z )
g R ( z ) . r ( z )
, S F , ( z , n) ,
(n ) .
:

r2 ( z ) S F , ( z , n ) | ( n ) |2 dn ,

(1.3)

| ( n) |

1
,
[1 ( n / n ) ] 4 2 ( n / n )2
2 2

(1.4)

,
[20 22]
n ; .


(1.3)
GR ( z ) .
r ( z ) : , ,
, ,
, .
r ( z )
(1.3) [10, 27, 46]:

2
S F , ( z , n ) | ( n) | dn S F , ( z, n )dn
0

n
4 ,1

S F , ( z , n1 ) . (1.5)

(1.5)
. r ( z )
:

r ( z ) rQ2, ( z ) rD2 , ( z ) ,

88

(1.6)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

rQ , ( z ) rD , ( z ) ,

z :

rQ2, ( z ) S F , ( z , n )dn , rD2 , ( z )

0

n
4 ,1

S F , ( z , n ,1 ) .

(1.7)

,
rQ , ( z ) rD , ( z ) ,

QR ( z ) rQ2, ( z ) / R2 ( z ) , DR ( z ) rD2 , ( z ) / R2 ( z ) .

(1.8)

,
.
:

GR ( z ) 1 g R ( z ) QR ( z ) DR ( z ) .

(1.9)

g R ( z ) , ,

.

r ( z ) t

g R ( z ) 2ln[nR ( z ) t ] CEi

2ln[nR ( z ) t ] ,

(1.10)

CEi 0,5772 -; n R ( z )
r ( z ) ,
;

n R ( z )

n ,1rD , ( z )
n ,1
.

r ( z )
1 Q R ( z ) / DR ( z )

(1.11)

, , [20, 24], (1.11),

nR,Q .
,

89


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

nR ( z )

nR,Q ( z ) QR ( z ) n,1 DR ( z )
QR ( z ) DR ( z )

(1.12)

QR ( z ) DR ( z )
.
H, ( z ) , R ( z )
S F , ( z , n )
:
H

R ( z )

F ( z ')R ( z, z ')dz ' ,

(1.13)

0
HH

S F , ( z , n )

S f , ( z1, z2 , n)R ( z, z1 )R ( z, z2 )dz1dz2 ,

(1.14)

0 0

R ( ) R- ,
ESDU 76001 [5] ECCS (1978) [23],
, M. Kasperski N.J. Niemann [14, 15],
wind engineering ,
.
,
, , . D ( Dx , Dy
)
D ( z , z ') 1, ( z )1, ( z ') /[(2 n ,1 ) 2 m ,1 ] ,

(1.15)

m ,1 ,

( z ) m ( z ) :
H

m ,1

m ( z ') ,1 ( z ')dz ' .

(1.16)

M
( M x M y ) :

90


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

M ( z, z ') ( z ' z )H ( z ' z ) ,

(1.17)

H ( z ' z ) ( H ( z ' z ) 0 z ' z

H ( z ' z ) 1 z ' z ).
S x , S y :

S ( z , z ') H ( z ' z ) .

(1.18)

:
H H

QR ( z )

S f , ( z1, z2 , n)R ( z, z1 )R ( z, z2 )dz1dz2dn

0 0 0

F ( z ') R ( z, z ')dz '

(1.19)

HH

DR ( z )

S f , ( z1 , z2 , n ,1 ) R ( z, z1 )R ( z , z2 )dz1dz2
n,1
0 0

4 ,1

F ( z ')R ( z, z ')dz '

. (1.20)

,
(1.20), (1.19), G. Solari
G. Piccardo [20, 21, 22]
1 ( z ) m ,1( R ) ( z ) m :
HH

S f , ( z1, z2 , n1)R ( z, z1)R ( z, z2 )dz1dz2

0 0

(1.21)

m2 ,1( R) ( z) H H
m2 ,1

m ,1( R ) ( z )

S f , ( z1, z2 , n1),1( z1),1( z2 )dz1dz2 ,

0 0
H

m ( z ') ,1 ( z ')R ( z, z ')dz ' .

(1.22)

91


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
HH

DR ( z )

m2 ,1( R ) ( z ) n ,1
m2 ,1

S f , ( z1, z2 , n,1),1( z1),1( z2 )dz1dz2

0 0

4 ,1

F ( z ')R ( z, z ')dz '

(1.23)

, (1.23),
G. Solari G. Piccardo

wind engineering,
GS
GM , ..
. , ,
(1.20), ,
(1.23).
2.
. ,
. 1,
Fx ( z )
SF ,x ( z1, z2 , n) :

Fx ( z ) w( z )bmCD ,m x ( z ) ,

(2.1)

w( z ) ; C D ,m
; bm (b0 bH ) / 2
; x ( z ) ,

C D , ,
,
CD const x ( z ) :

x ( z ) 1 (1 bH / b0 )( z / H ) .

(2.2)

,
Fx ( z ) , :

SF , x ( z1, z2 , n) 4w( z1 ) w( z2 )bm2 CD2 ,m x ( z1 ) x ( z2 ) I u ( z1 ) I u ( z2 )Suu,ref () , (2.3)

Suu,ref ( z1, z2 , n ) Su,ref ( z1, n )Su ,ref ( z2 , n )cohu ( z1, z2 , n ) .

92

(2.4)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Su ,ref () ,

:
S u,ref ( z , n)

1
Au uCu
,
n (1 Bu uDu ) Eu

(2.5)

u nLu ( z ) / U ( z ) .

(2.5) z1 z2 . ,
Bu uDu 1,0 ,
(1.0), :
C

u ( z1, z2 )
u,1

Su,ref ( z2 , n)
u,2
Su,ref ( z1, n)

Cu Du Eu
2

u,1

u,2

1 Bu uD,2u

1 B Du
u
u
,1

(2.6)

z
1 ,
z2

,

:

0,5(Cu Du Eu )( ) .

(2.7)

, (2.7)
, u .
u z , , , , .
(2.7) z2 H
(2.4) :

Suu ,ref ( z1, z2 , n) Su ,ref ( H , n )( z1 / H ) ( z2 / H ) cohu ( z1 , z2 , n ) . (2.8)

cohu ( z1 , z2 , n ) ,
(2.8):

93


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

| y y2 |
S uu ,ref ( y1 , y2 , n ) S u ,ref ( H , n ) y1 y2 exp 2C zu f H 1
, (2.9)
y1 y2

y1 z1 / H y2 z2 / H [0 1] ; f z nz / U ( z ) z H .
(2.9) (2.4)
(. 1). 2.01.07-85 ASCE 7-05.

U b 15 /;
U b 35 /

U b 15 /;
U b 35 /

. 1.
= 180

(1.13). ,

, z :

m( z ) mx ( z ) m y ( z ) m0 1 b z / H ,

(2.10)

b ,
; m0 .
b ,
:

m( z ) / m0 b( z ) / b0 .

94

(2.11)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

b( z ) b0 1 1 bH / b0 z / H ,

(2.12)

, , b

b 1 bH / b0 .

(2.13)

(1.16)
:
m x ,1 m0 H (2 1) 1 b ( 1) 1 .

(2.14)

(1.13)
, R ( R M ,
R S R D ) GRx ( z ) , (1.15), (1.17), (1.18). , (1.13)
:
Dx ( z )

Fx ( H ) H x ,1 ( z )
1
b

2 1 2( 1) ;
2 2
4 n x ,1m x ,1 (1 b )

F ( H )H
S x ( z) x
(1 b )
M x ( z)

(2.15)

2 2
1 z 2 1
b z

1
; (2.16)

2 1 H
2 2 H

Fx ( H ) H 2
(1 b )

2 2

z 1 z
1

H 2 2 H

(2.17)

2 1
2 3
z 1 z
b z

.
H 2 1 H
2

3
H

(1.14)
S F , x ( z1 , z2 , n )
(2.3)
HH

S R , x ( z, n)

SF ,x ( z1, z2 , n)R ( z, z1 )R ( z, z2 )dz1dz2 .

(2.18)

0 0

. , , , ..
R D . , x ( z ) (2.2)

95


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(
) (2.3), (2.4), (2.9) (2.12) :
S D , x ( z, n)
HH

z
1
H
0 0

44u 2u wb2bm2 CD2 ,m Su ,ref ( H , n ) 2x ,1 ( z ) H 2

164 nx4,1mx2,1
10

z2

H

x ( z1 ) x ( z2 )

(2.19)

| z z |
exp 2C zu f H H 1 1 2 dz1dz2 .
z1 z2

y1 z1 / H , y2 z2 / H
x ( z ) (2.2),
:
SD , x ( y , n)

4 Fx2 ( H ) I u2 ( H ) H 2 Su,ref ( H , n)2x ,1 ( y )

164nx4,1mx2,1 (1 y b ) 2

11

y1 y2 (1 y1b )(1

00

(2.20)

| y y |
y2 b )exp 2Czu f H 1 2 dy1dy2 .
y1 y2

:
11

| y y2 |
J x ,1 ( a , b, f H ) y1a y2b exp 2C zu f H 1
dy1dy2 .
y1 y2

00

(2.21)

(2.20) :
S D, x ( y, n )

4 Fx2 ( H ) I u2 ( H ) H 2 Su ,ref ( H , n ) 2x ,1 ( y )
164nx4,1mx2,1 (1 y b )2

J D, x ( f H ) ,

(2.22)

J D , x ( f H ) J x ,1 a , b, f H 2 b J x ,1 a 1, b, f H b2 J x ,1 a 1, b 1, f H , (2.23)
a b : a b .
, (2.21)
.
.

(1.20),
. , -

96


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, . ,
,
, (2.21),
.
:

J xA,1(a, b, f H )

2
1
1
2

(1 a)(1 b) YD (a, b, f H ) YD (a, b, f H )

(2.24)

1 exp[YD (a, b, f H )] ,

YD (a , b, f H ) f H D (a, b) , D ( a , b ) C zu

(1 a )(1 b )
,
4 ab cconst

(2.25)

cconst , a b; , , 0 1 , 0 0,5 1,5 4 ,

,
a b .
(2.22) J x ,1 (a, b, f H )
J xA,1 (a, b, f H ) ,

:
DD ( y )

BD , ( y ) I u2 ( H ) S u, ( H , n x ,1 ) J D , x ( f H ) ,
x ,1
2

(2.26)

1 b
b

1
B D , ( y )

,
1 y b 2 1 2( 1)

(2.27)

Su , ( ) .
b 0 , ..
, (2.26), (2.27) :
DD

BD I u2 ( H ) Su , ( H , n x ,1 )0 ( f H ) ,
x ,1

(2.28)

1
1
2 1
2
BD 2
1 exp[YD ( f H )] . (2.29)
, 0 ( f H )
YD ( f H ) YD ( f H )
1

97


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
2

1
YD ( f H ) f H D , D Czu
,
2( )

(2.30)

nH
2
QD ( y) 4BD, ( y ) I u2 ( H ) Su,ref ( H , n) J D,x
dn 4BD, ( y ) Iu ( H )
U
(
H
)

nH
nH
A
dn

Su,ref ( H , n) J xA,1 a 1, b,
Su,ref ( H , n) J x,1 a, b,
b

dn (2.31)

U (H )
U(H )

0
0

2b

nH
A
S
(
H
,
n
)
J
a

1,
b

1,
u
,
ref
x
,1

dn .

U ( H )

, (2.31)

.

nH
x (a , b ) 2 Su ,ref ( H , n ) J x ,1 a , b,
dn ,
U ( H )

(2.32)

1
1 ln[1 k1 D ( a , b)k2 ] ;
(1 a )(1 b)
D D H / Lu ( H ) D f H / u ,

xA ( a , b)

(2.33)
(2.34)

k1 k2 ,
(2.5).

:

QD ( y) 2 BD, ( y) I u2 ( H ) xA (a, b) 2b xA (a 1, b) b2 xA (a 1, b 1) . (2.35)

b 0 (2.35)

QD ( y ) 2 BD ( y ) I u2 ( H ) 1 ln[1 k1 kD2 ] .

98

(2.36)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

DD QD
,
(1.9) (1.11).

, (1.17)
(1.18) (2.18):
HH

SS ,x ( z, n)

S F , x ( z1 , z2 , n )H ( z1 z ) H ( z2 z )dz1dz2 ,

(2.38)

0 0
HH

S M , x ( z, n)

S F , x ( z1 , z2 , n )( z1 z ) H ( z1 z )( z2 z )H ( z2 z )dz1dz2 . (2.39)
0 0

y z / H , y1 z1 / H , y 2 z 2 / H
, H ( ) z1 z ( y1 y ) z2 z
( y2 y ) , :
11

S S , x ( y , n) H 2 S F , x ( y1, y2 , n )dy1dy2 ,

(2.40)

y y
11

S M , x ( y , n) H 4 S F , x ( y1 , y2 , n)( y1 y )( y2 y )dy1dy2 .

(2.41)

y y

,
, S S , x ( ) S M , x ( )
, (2.22):

S S , x ( y, n) 4 Fx2 ( H ) I u2 ( H ) H 2 Su ,ref ( H , n ) J S , x ( y, n ) ,

(2.42)

S M ,s ( y, n ) 4 Fx2 ( H ) I u2 ( H ) H 4 Su ,ref ( H , n ) J M , x ( y, n ) ,

(2.43)

J S , x ( y , f H ) J x ,2 y , a, b, f H ,

(2.44)

J M , x ( y, f H ) J x,2 y, a 1, b 1, f H 2 yJ x,2 y, a 1, b, f H
y2 J x,2 y, a, b, f H ,

(2.45)

a b, : a b ,

99


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
11

| y y2 |
J x ,2 ( y , a, b, f H ) y1a y2b exp 2C zu f H 1
dy dy .
1 2
y

1
2

y y

(2.46)

(2.21), . , . (2.24)
, (2.46)
:

J xA,2 ( y, a, b, f H ) 1 ( y, a, b)2 ( y, a , b)3 ( y, f H ) ,

(2.47)

a b
0,15
1 y 1 y

2 , (2.48)
, ( y , a, b) 1 y
( y , a , b)
a 1

b 1

( a 1)(b 1)
YMS ( y, f H ) f H MS ( y ) , MS ( y ) Czu (1 y ) ,
(2.49)
1
1
3 ( y , f H )
2
{1 exp[ YMS ( y , f H )]} . (2.50)
YMS ( y , f H ) YMS ( y , f H )

1 ( ) (2.46) f H 0 , 2 ( ) a b .

a b [0;2] , 2 () (2.47). , (2.46), (2.47)
a b , 2 ()
.


. (2.17), (2.40) , , (2.16),
(2.41) (1.20), ( ):

DS ( y )

BS ( y ) I u2 ( H ) Su , ( H , n ,1 )3 ( y, f H ) 1 y 0,15 ; (2.51)
x,1

DM ( y )

100

,1

BM ( y ) I u2 ( H ) Su , ( H , n ,1 )3 ( y , f H ) ( y ),

(2.52)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

( y ) 1 ( y , 1, 1)2 y , 1, 1
2 y1 ( y , 1, )2 y , 1, y 2 1 ( y , , )2 y , , ,

(2.53)

2 1 1 y 1
,
BS ( y )

2 1

1 1 y

(2.54)
2

y
1
1 y 21 .
BM ( y )
1 y 2 2

2 1
2 2

(2.55)

(2.49), (2.50), (2.54) (2.55) ,

DS ( y ) DM ( y ) y 1 .
3 ( y, f H ) ,
BS ( y ) BM ( y ) ( y ) :
lim 3 ( y , f H ) 0,5 , lim BS ( y ) 1,0 , lim BM ( y ) ( y ) 2,0 . (2.56)
y 1

y1

y 1

f H

(2.51), (2.52)
y 1 , .. z H , :

DS ,H DM , H

2
I u ( H ) Su , ( H , n x ,1 ) .
x ,1

(2.57)

,
(2.32), (2.33),

nH
2 S u,ref ( H , n) 3 y ,
dn ,
U
(
H
)

(2.58)

4 ( y ) 1 ln 1 ( k1 0,1 y ) MS ( y) k2 0,1 y ,

(2.59)

k1 k2 , , MS ( y ) (2.34), .. MS ( y ) MS ( y ) H / Lu ( H )
D f H / u .

QS ( y ) QM ( y) :

101


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

QS ( y ) 2 I u2 ( H ) BS ( y ) 4 ( y ) 1 y 0,15 ,

(2.60)

QM ( y ) 2 I u2 ( H ) BM ( y )4 ( y ) ( y ) .

(2.61)

, y 1 , (2.56)
, 4 ( y 1) 1,0 . (2.60), (2.61) :

2
QS,H QM
,H 4 I u ( H ) .

(2.62)

,

G. Solari, G. Piccardo [34, 36, 37],
(1.23). ,
,
(-
, , ).
. ,
( 2 %). (1.22), ,
20 % .
, -
G. Solari G. Piccardo, (1.22),

.

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

102

Davenport A.G. Gust Loading Factors / A.G. Davenport // Journal of Structural

Division. ASCE, 1967. vol. 93. 3. P. 11 34.
Davenport A.G. Note on the Distribution of the Largest Value of a Random
Function with Application to Gust Loading / Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs., London,
UK, 24. 1964. P. 187 196.
Davenport A.G. The Application of Statistical Concepts to the Wind Loading of
Structures / Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs., London, UK, 19. 1961. P. 449 472.
Dyrbye C., Hansen S.O. Wind Loads on Structures. New York: John Wiley &
Sons. 1999. 229 p. ISBN 0-471-95651-1.
ESDU 76001. The Response of Flexible Structures to Atmospheric Turbulence /
Engineering Sciences Data Unit, London. 1976.


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

Holmes J.D. Effective Static Load Distributions in Wind engineering // Journal

of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 90 2002. P. 91
109.
Holmes J.D. Along-Wind Response of Lattice Towers: Part I Derivation of
Expressions for Gust Response Factors // Engineering Structures, Vol. 16.
1994. P. 287 292.
Holmes J.D. Along-Wind Response of Lattice Towers: Part I Aerodynamic
Damping and Deflections // Engineering Structures, Vol.18. 1996. P. 483
488.
Holmes J.D. Along-Wind Response of Lattice Towers: Part I Effective load
distribution // Engineering Structures, Vol. 18. 1996. P. 489 494.
Holmes J.D. Wind loading of structures. Great Britain: Eastbound. 2005.
356 p. ISBN 0-419-24610-X.
Kareem A. Fluctuating wind loads on buildings / Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE 108. 1982. P. 1086 1102.
Kareem A. Lateral-torsional Motion of Tall Buildings to Wind Loads / Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 111. 1985. P. 2479 2496.
Kareem A. Wind-excited Response of Buildings in Higher Modes / Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE 107. 1981. P. 701 706.
Kasperski M., Niemann H.J. The L.R.C. (Load Response-Correlation) Method
a General Method for Estimating Unfavorable Wind Load Distributions for
Linear and Non-linear structural behavior / Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 41 44. 1992. P. 1753 1763.
Kasperski M. Extreme Wind Load Distributions for Linear and Non-linear
Design / Engineering Structures, 14. 1992. P. 27 34.
Katsumura A., Tamura Y. and Nakamura O. Universal Wind Load Distribution
Reproducing Maximum Load Effects on Structural Members / Proceedings of
the 5th International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics & Applications,
Ottawa, Canada, 2004. P. 351 354.
Liepmann H.W. On the Application of Statistical Concepts to the Buffeting
Problem / Aerodynamics Science, 19. 1952. P. 793 822.
Piccardo G. and Solari G. A Refined Model for Calculating 3-D Equivalent
Static Wind Forces on Structures / Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 65. 1996. P. 21 30.
Piccardo G. Solari G. Closed Form Prediction of 3-D Wind-Excited Response of
Slender Structures / Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
74 76. 1998. P. 697 708.
Piccardo G., Solari G. 3-D Gust Effect Factor for Slender Vertical Structures //
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 17. 2002. P. 143 155.
Piccardo G., Solari G. 3D Wind-Excited Response of Slender Structures: ClosedForm Solution // Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, 8, August, 2000.
P. 936 943.
Piccardo G., Solari G. Generalized Equivalent Spectrum Technique / Wind and
Structures, 1. 1998. P. 161 174.

103


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[23] Recommendations for the Calculation of Wind Effects on Buildings and

[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]

104

Structures / European Convention for Constructional Steelworks (ECCS),

Brussels. 1978.
Repetto M.P., Solari G. Equivalent Static Wind Actions on Vertical Structures //
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 91, 12-15,
2004 P. 335 357.
Simiu E. Equivalent Static Wind Loads for Tall Buildings Design / Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE 102. 1976. P. 719 737.
Simiu E. Revised Procedure for Estimating Along-wind Response / Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE 106. 1980. P. 1 10.
Simiu E., Scanlan R.H. Wind Effects on Structures: Fundamentals and
Applications to Design / 3rd ed. Printed in the United States of America. 1996.
688 p. ISBN 0-471-12157-6.
Solari G. 3-D Response of Buildings to Wind Action / Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 23. 1986. P. 379-393.
Solari G. Along-wind Response Estimation: Closed Form Solution / Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE 108. 1982. P. 225 244.
Solari G. Analytical Estimation of the Along-wind Response of Structures /
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 14. 1983.
P. 467 477.
Solari G. Equivalent Wind Spectrum Technique: Theory and Applications /
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 114. 1988. P. 1303 1323.
Solari G. Gust Buffeting. I: Peak Wind Velocity and Equivalent Pressure. II:
Dynamic Along-wind Response / Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 119.
1994. P. 365 382, 383 398.
Solari G. Mathematical Model to Predict 3-D Wind Loading on Buildings /
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 111. 1985. P. 254 276.
Solari G. Progress and Prospects in Gust-excited Vibrations of Structures /
Engineering Mechanics, 6. 1999. P. 301 322.
Solari G. Turbulence Modeling for Gust Loading / Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE 113. 1987. P. 1550 1569.
Solari G., Piccardo G. Probabilistic 3-D Turbulence Modeling for Gust Buffeting
of Structures / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 16. 2001. P. 73 86.
Solari G., Repetto M.P. General Tendencies and Classification of Vertical
Structures under Wind Loads / Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 90. 2002. P. 1299 1319.
Tamura Y., Kawai H., Uematsu Y., Marukawa H., Fujii K., Taniike Y. Wind
Loads and Wind-induced Response Estimations in the Recommendations for
Loads on Buildings, AIJ. Engineering Structures, 18. 1996. P. 399 411.
Davenport, A.G. How Can We Simplify and Generalize Wind Loads / Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 54 55. 1995. P. 657
669.
Vellozzi J., Cohen E. Gust Response Factors // J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 94,
ST6. Proc. Paper 5980. 1968. P. 129 1313.


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[41] Vickery B.J. On the Reliability of Gust Loading Factors / Proc Techn Meet
[42]

[43]

[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]

Concerning Wind Loads on Buildings and Structures. National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, DC. 1970. P. 93 104.
Vickery B.J., Basu R.I. Across-wind Vibrations of Structures of Circular Crosssection. Part I: Development of a mathematical model for two-dimensional
conditions / Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 12.
1983. P. 49 74.
Zhou Y., Gu M., Xiang H. Along-wind Static Equivalent Wind Loads and
Response of Tall Buildings. Part I: Unfavorable Distributions of Static Equivalent Wind Loads. Part II: Effects of mode shape / Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 79. 1999. P. 135 150, 151 158.
Zhou Y., Kareem A. Aeroelastic Balance / Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE 129. 2003. P. 283 292.
Zhou Y., Kareem A. Gust Loading Factor: New Model // Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 127, 2, February, 2001. P. 168 175.
Zhou Y., Kijewski T., Kareem A. Aerodynamic Loads on Tall Buildings:
Interactive data-base / Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 129. 2003.
P. 394 404.
.:
, . .. , 1978. 216 .
.. / .. // . 1992. 1. . 92 96.
.. / .. //
. . 1997. 12. . 13 20.
.. /
.. , .. . : , 2005. 342 .

10.06.2010 .

105


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
621.87.01:006.7.9

.., ..., ..
,

.
.
.
Eurocode-1 Actions on structures.

.
. .
.
Eurocode-1 Actions on structures.


.
Abstract. The comparative analysis of the crane loadings values on constructions of
industrial buildings is presented. The computations of horizontal crane loadings certain
for national codes DBN and SNP were done. The Eurocode-1 Actions on structures
were also considered. The analysis of researches of spatial work of buildings is given.
The results of full-scale experiment on steel framework of one-storey industrial building
are presented.
: , , ,
.

.1.2-2:2006 ,
1 2007 . [1]. ,
, 2.01.07-85 [2]. . ,
,
, .
.
, , [4]
, [4, 5].

106


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[8, 9, 10].

5 50 .
()
( 8 ) [11],

80 160
.

,
.
, [6]
( ... .. [7]).
,

.
.

. , ,
[3]. , .
. , , , [3],

. ,
.
. .1.2-2:2006 [1],
2007 ,

2.01.07-85 [2].

[4]
,
.

107


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, ,
, .
.

( 1,41,6 )
,
, (
). .

, ,
,

.
( 1,82,1 )
,
,
[11].

,
.

.

LCR/B5.
, ,
,
, 58 , 1,55 .

, 45 %, 25 % ,
.
.
, ,

, , 2,85 ,
2,34,5 .
,
, 26 , ,
.

108


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
. 50/12,5 .

24 %,
, ,
, .

.
, .
. , ,
[4].

.
Eurocode-1 Actions on structures [3]
.
, (. 1, ) (. 1, ). () ( 1, ),
, (
[2] ).
, , , . 1.
[2] Tk,
,
k. [1]
01 ( 7.9
).
[5, 6].
. 1 ,
, [2]. -

109


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

HS, [3] 01
[1], HT,3 Tk [2].

. 1.
:
) ; ) ;
)

, 10 ,
.
[3]
,
[1, 2]. ,
1,2.

110


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

-1

1 5 15/3 20/5 32/5 50/12,5

Tk
5,1
5,5
7,1
10,1
15,8

k
18,5 19,0 22,0 26,0
38,0

01
40,5 40,2 46,1 50,9
70,8

HT,2
33,9 38,0 46,4 48,5
66,3


HS,
43,4 46,4 55,0 65,6
95,2


HT,3
10,2 11,0 14,3 20,3
31,6

( 24 , 12,4 )
, [3], , [2] [1] (. 2).
2

,

15/3
20/5
32/5
50/12,5

T
10,0
22,6
18,5
27,4
45,8;
41,3;
57,2;
78,7;

R ; L
9,1
20,1
20,2
36,6
39,9;
45,9;
52,5;
75,6;
T,R ; T,L
37,8
44,4
50,7
68,6
-1
46,4;
55,7;
65,6;
95,2;
HS,1,j,T; HS,2,j,T
19,6
20,5
19,0
24,9
HT3
16,5
22,0
30,4
47,4

. ,

. ,
. , , .., ..,
.. .
,
,
510 . .. ..
.

111


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .
, , .
. ..

,
[7].
. [8]
( 24 %)
,
,
,
.
, ,

. ,


,
.
,
30- 50-
,
, .
. , ,
(. 2)
,
.
( )
(. 3, 4). (. 2) ,

' .

112


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 2.

. 3.

. 4.

113


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
'
.
',
.


(. 5)
.

. 5. 3

114


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.1.2-2:2006
2.01.07-85 .
,
,
, .

,
.
,
.

( 26 ) .
,
,

.
.1.2-2:2006
.
,
,
.

.
, , ,
Eurocode 1 Actions on structures, ,
. ,
.1.2-2:2006
,
.

115


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[1]

.1.2-2:2006 / . .: -
, 2006. 60 .
[2] 2.01.07-85 / . .:
, 1987. 36 .
[3] EN 1991-1-3. Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 3: Actions induced by
cranes and machinery Brussels: CEN, 2003. 43 p.
[4] .., - .., .., ..,
.. / . .. . .:
, 2006. 482 .
[5] .. .1.22:2006
// - : . . .
.: , 2007. . 67. . 691 702.
[6] ..
. .:, 1952. 288 .
[7] ..
: .
.. / , , 2003. 36 .
[8] .. , / .. , ..
// , : . . .
: , 2007. .20 . 107 113.
[9] .. ,
/ .., .. ,
.. // :
: . . . : , 2008. .1 . 36 43.
[10] ..
/ .. , .. , ..
// , , : . . .
: , 2008. .17 . 217 225.
[11] ..
/ .. , .. // , , : . . . :
, 2009. . 18 . 280 288.
[12] .. /
.. , . . // , :
. . . : , 2009. .3(25) . 144 148.

10.06.2010 .

116


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.012

1
1

.., ..., 2 ..

,
2
,

. ,
1955-2005 .

.
. ,
1955-2005 .
.
Abstract. In the article the results of districting of territory of the Zakarpatskoy area
are resulted from data of looking after the maximal wind loadings got on weatherstations in 1955-2005. The map of districting of territory of the Zakarpatskoy area is
resulted after the maximal winter wind loading fills the white spots of territory of
area.
: , , ,
.

. , : [5].
:
) ,
;
) , ( , , ) ( );
) ,
, ,
.
[1, 2, 3] :

117


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

W LWoC ,

(1)

L
; Wo ;
C , .
:

We eWoC ,

(2)

e .
Wo () 10 ,
50
.
[5]
: 1- 400 , 2- 450 .
. [4] 23
.

19552005 :
2
W. . 0,61V
. ,

(3)

V. 50
, /.
18-
,
, :
K

V1. . I V2 . . I
,
H

(4)

V1. .I
; V2. .I
; H
(1) (2) , .
X :

118


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

V. X . .I V1. .I K H X 1

(5)

V. X . .I V2. .I K H X 2 ,

(6)

H X 1 X, ; H X 2 X, .
.
,
,

1955-2005 (3) (6) . 1.
, . 1, ,
,
(. ).
1

1955-2005


,

/ ,

,
1

113
2

114,6
3

116,5
4

142
5

166
6

195,8
7

203,5
8
.
209
9
,
225,2
10

242
11

250
12
.
301,1
13

438
14

456
15
.
500
16
.
525
17
.
565
18
.
615
19
852

,
., .

,
., .

22 39'
22 18'
22 44'
22 28'
23 18'
23 19'
23 00'
22 28'
23 39'
22 58'
23 51'
22 24'
24 12'
23 30'
23 06'
22 49'
23 03'
23 21'
22 54'

48 13'
48 37'
48 26'
48 44'
48 10'
48 02'
48 32'
48 53'
48 02'
48 36'
48 00'
48 32'
48 03'
48 32' 26"
48 46'
43 40'
48 09'
48 41'
49 00'

, / /
,
20,0 / 0,24
24,0 / 0,32
20,11 / 0,24
22,84 / 0,31
20,0 / 0,24
20,42 / 0,25
20,09 / 0,24
20,0 / 0,24
20,83 / 0,26
20,07 / 0,24
21,17 / 0,27
25,73 / 0,40
20 / 0,24
24 / 0,32
20 / 0,24
21,01 / 0,38
26,86 / 0,44
24 / 0,32
30,2 / 0,55

119


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
1

/
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

120

,

,
.
883
.
887
.
978
.
1225
.
1294
.
1330
.
1361
.
1470

100

102,5

387,3
- -
790
.
819
.
550
-
839
-

981

472,9

930

615

636,6

931
.
1237

513

525
.
1317

290,9

363,7
-
502

210

420
.
880
.
1027

166
.
1017

141,5
.
120

127,4
.
1850
.
1936
.
2061
. ()
2020

,
., .

,
., .

23 45'
24 07'
22 36'
23 55'
24 07'
23 12'
23 24'
22 49'
22 18'
22 22' 58"
24 04' 23"
22 42'
22 29'
22 57'

48 28'
47 55'
48 39'
48 21'
48 16'
48 39' 4"
48 28'
48 47'
48 21'
48 21' 57"
48 03' 16"
49 05'
48 59'
48 54'

, / /
,
29,98 / 0,54
30,07 / 0,55
32,20 / 0,63
37,65 / 0,86
39,19 / 0,93
40 / 0,97
40,57 / 1,00
42,41 / 1,07
19,61 / 0,23
19,61 / 0,23
23,54 / 0,33
29,21 / 0,52
29,67 / 0,54
21,20 / 0,27

23 09'

48 48'

28,16 / 0,48

23 20'
23 12'
23 37'
23 58'
24 22'
24 26'
24 28'
24 09'
24 21'
24 27'
24 00'
23 53'
23 56'
23 34'
23 37'
23 15'
23 47'
23 16'
22 57'
23 02'
22 53'
23 02'
24 33,5'
24 18'
24 30'
24 37,5'

48 45'
48 42'
48 42'
48 22'
48 16'
48 18'
48 15'
47 55'
48 02'
48 01'
47 58'
48 10'
48 19'
48 00'
48 20'
48 16'
48 25'
48 21'
48 29'
48 18'
47 59'
48 08'
48 57'
47 56'
48 10'
48 02,5'

31,59 / 0,61
20,01 / 0,24
30,36 / 0,56
27,39 / 0,46
24,45 / 0,36
31,05 / 0,59
37,91 / 0,88
21,68 / 0,29
21,95 / 0,29
39,7 / 0,96
21,74 / 0,29
23,23 / 0,33
25,49 / 0,40
20,62 / 0,26
23,6 / 0,34
32,64 / 0,64
35,06 / 0,75
20,87 / 0,27
34,90 / 0,74
20,47 / 0,26
20,09 / 0,25
20,22 / 0,25
43,41 / 1,149
52,9 / 1,708
55,2 / 1,892
54,8 / 1,832

-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.1.2-2:2006 :
1- 250-400 ;
2- 400-450 ;
3- 450-500 ;
4- 500-550 ;
5- 550-600 .

121


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
:
6- 600-800 ;
7- 800-1000 ;
8- 1000-1300 ;
9- 1300-1900 .
, . . 2,
23-
1955-2005 9-
- .
2
8-
(%)

/
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

H,

2
3
4

100
9,65

113
9,7

114,6 11,0

116,5 9,71

142 13,32

166
8,9

195,8 8,70

203,5 13,97
.
209
19,0

225,2
8,5

242 15,86

250
8,33
.
301,1 10,4

438
2,80

456
15,3
.
500
28,5
.
525 14,57
.
565
7,67

. 615
36,7

852
9,98

.
883
4,05
.
887
4,04
. 978
8,21

122

5
6,12
6,1
5,8
6,09
6,47
30,1
29,40
5,03
8,1
28,71
4,56
28,13
5,75
22,70
5,6
1,4
7,07

6
7
8
9
10
9,13 36,82 19,32 2,89
3,99
9,0
36,5
18,9
3,3
4,4
12,2
38,2
11,6
3,3
5,4
9,03 36,42 18,78 3,41
4,44
9,53 32,02 13,63 4,14
6,51
27,0
3,6
1,9
5,5
21,1
26,34 3,66
2,35
6,88 20,64
7,48 28,86 17,51 11,53 4,14
3,0
16,90 18,60
6,2
9,2
25,70 3,71
2,80
8,24 20,19
6,79 25,52 16,95 15,12
4,0
25,15 3,76
3,18
9,39
19,8
10,81 32,12 12,7
9,27
6,54
15,40 4,50 10,70 32,10 9,50
3,2
19,5
33,5
2,0
2,2
2,20
3,10
13,2
39,2
3,10
4,14 14,15 17,81 16,37
9,8

21,02

20,08

4,25

6,42

19,28

17,43

3,85

19,14

2,1

0,9

17,9

32,5

1,6

0,9

7,4

39,3

5,99

5,31

11,32

16,99

26,9

10,45

13,06

35,56

13,17
13,21
5,58

11,11
11,13
5,77

5,0
4,99
10,25

12,9
12,89
16,67

38,88
38,85
30,96

9,94
9,96
10,68

4,95
4,93
11,88

37,36
37,46
30,01

11
12,08
12,1
12,5
12,12
14,38
1,9
2,03
11,48
19,0
2,15
11,2
2,26
12,36
2,30
18,7
9,30
16,09

12
36,56
36,0
27,3
35,85
37,92
22,4
23,02
36,81
63,9
23,64
37,24
24,15
27,89
61,70
61,1
40,1
49,98


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
2

/
24
25
26
27
28

H,

.
1225
5,0
. 1294
5,2
.
1330
5,3
.
1361 4,95
.
1470 1,39

5,85
4,37
3,6
3,53

7,81
7,15
6,8
6,92

3,98

7,54

5,38 14,58 44,1 10,29
5,46 14,92 45,15 10,36
5,5
15,1
45,7
10,4
5,0
14,45 47,25 10,69
5,9

15,43

46,80

11,63

6,99
7,39
7,6
7,21
7,33

18,64
14,87
12,9
11,19
8,32

Wo ()

.1.2-2:2006, 150 (
37,5 %),
50 , 1350 ( 67 %).
, .

,
.

[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

..
, / .., ..
: , 3, 2006. . 209 216.
..
, / ..,
.. : Problems of the Technical Meteorology, 22 26 may, 2006.
2006. P. 50 56.
..
8- /
.. : IV - , 21 22 2009 . 2009. . 104 114.
.. / .., .., .. : IV , 21 22 2009 . 2009. . 123 125.
.1.2-2:2006
. . . .:
, 2006. 78 .

16.06.2010 .

123


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014

Eurocode
.., ...
,
.
Eurocode .
.
Eurocode .
Abstract. Comparison fatique calculation by one-parametry method Eurocode and
three-parametry method SNiP.
: , ,
, .

Eurocode 3 Design f Steel

Structures ,
max min

max min .

min / max , Eurocode . ,

, t .
t
min , , ,
.
,
,
- ,
.
.
,
max . , ,

124


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
R y min (
, ).
min / max [1]. , , 1950 , , .
100-150 13 .
, , .

, .
,
,
. ,

, .

,
. , ,
, ,
. :
R y min , ,

.
230 850 .
.
[1].
N ( ),
. ,
'
. , ,
log N log .
, , 1/ m S N,
', ,
m 2,17 3,95 .
, m 3 , .

125


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

m 3
, , , : ()
.
m .
, ,
.
. ,
1 1,25
0 .
e 60 %.

:
t 0,6 c ,

t c .
, Eurocode -
min / max
, .
. ,
.
. 5 105 . ' N 107
. N ' .

:
e

R
R
; e
,
fat
fat

fat 1 1,2 ;
R , R , -

126


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

( c , c ) , :

5*106 m
R 0,735 c
L ,
N
1

2 *106 5
R c
L ,
N

: m 3 , N 5*106 m 5 , N 5 *106 .
L , L
.
t 25 :
1/ 4

R,red R 25/ t

e
, .

,
:
3

e e

1.
R R

.
, ,
.
N 2,5 106 . 235.

: max 120 , min 30 .
:

e t 0,6 c 120 0,6 *30 138 .

160 . N 2,5 106 5*106

127


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

L 65 .
:
1

1/ 3

5*106 m
5*106
R 0,735 c
0,735*160
6
N
2,5*10
148 e 138 .

.
,
Eurocode :
Eurocode ,
.
Eurocode
2 % 0 8 % 0 ,
18 % 14 % .
90 60
0 Eurocode 100 %, 5 %,
0 Eurocode 55 %,
72 %. 0 90
0 Eurocode 37 %, 60 %.
, ,
.
. . , ,
, . , ( ).
-
, :
ni
1,
N
D 0 , D 1
, ni i - , N
.
D

128


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

D ,
max
e
,
k
max , k 1 ln K 1
,
:
K

1
max

i Ni .

. , . ,
, .
.
1 1 .
.

[1]

..
. . . .. . : , 1986. . 232 243.

17.12.2009 .

129


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.011

-

.., ...
,
.
,
, . , ,
30- .
, ,
- .
.

,
- . ,
, 30- .
, ,
- .
Abstract. Consideration of structural analysis methods performed with the position of
their academic quality and correspondence their mathematical formalization to the
physical phenomena occurring in the compressed-bent elements of timber structures.
So in [1], justification of the methodology adopted in the thirties of last century, and is
used now, given on the point of view that it is simpler comparatively with other,
already known at those times. But it is not so from a position quality of the theoretical
methods, due to its non correspondence to the real work of compressed-bent wooden
elements. The article proposes to replace this method in the functioning regulatory
document.
: - , .

1.
-
.. :

(1)

[2] .
.
( ) ( ).
,
.
1

130


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, . (1)
, -

. , ,
, (1) .
, . 4.17.5. -25-80:
, 10 % ,

. -
(28) ,
.
.
, [2] (1), ,
(28) -2580. (1) (28) .
- . , ,
, .
-
. :
N

N f 0 f
W

(2)

f 0 ; f
M N f 0 .
(2)
f
.
.
-
[1] [2] . , .
. (2) : [1] (1.1), [2] (2.1),

131


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(1.2) (2.2),
.
2

[1] f 0 kM N , [2] f 0 Ml

kEI
, [1], k ,
.
[1] , k
(
k 1,028 , 0,823 ) , .
[2] . [1]
f 0 2,8 % 17% .
[1].
.
(1.2) (2.2) ,

.
-
(
) .
(. 3.5)

E1 300 Rc .
(1.1) (2.1) (1.3) (2.3).
.
1
[1] [2]
[1]
N M Nf

A W W
f

132

N
N 1
N

N
W 1
N

[2]
(1.1)

N M

A W

(1.2)

(1.3)

M
1 W

(2.1)

M Nf

f0
N
1
N

N M 2 N
1

A W k N N

(2.2)

(2.3)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
1
[1]

M
k N
W 1
N

k N

N M

A W
1
1

3100

N
c
A e

[2]
(1.4)

N M 2 k N
1

A W k N k N

(2.4)

(1.5)

k N
2
1

k N k N

(2.5)

(1.6)

(2.6)

(1.7)
(1.8)
N
c
Ae

(1.9)

W
M ,

A
N

e e

N M

A W

e0
M
,e
,
0
N

(2.9)

W
A

e =4

[1] , (1.3) . . (1.3) , . ,

N , 0,8 N 0, 4 N , (1.3) ,
.

, , .
N ,
M . ,
, ,
(1.3) -
.
[2] , (2.3) -
, ,

133


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. , [1].
[1], ,
[6] -
. , - , , .
N q ,
.
,
- . [6]
e M N . ,
.
[1] [2].
[6]
, .
(1.3) (2.3) k N M,
R k , (1.4)
(2.4). [1] (1.5), [2]
(2.5), (1.3) (2.3) :
(1.6) (2.6).
(1.5) (2.5) , (1.6) (2.6),
(28) .
,
A W. .
[2] , (2.5)
. [1] (1.5)
, [1], ,
. (1.5)
(1.7).
(1.6) 3100 2 ,
(1.8) . ,

134


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

1 ,
.
[1] [2],
. (1.8) - , , (30),
, . 25...50
- , ,
l 3 .
1 1 ? C ,
. ,
.


(1.7), (30) , ,
= 2555 ,
.
[1]:
1 1 ,
-
3100 2 ,
75 .
75
3100 2 , , ,
N,
-
N M.
,
, .
,
.
.

[1],
. (30)

135


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. ,

.
, , (30)
, (1.7).
[1] [2] (1.4) (2.4)
, .
,
[3] [4].
: 1 . (1.9), (2.9) , , . ,
- (1.9) , , [1]
, 40- ,
(2.9).
. - :
1 (1);
2 , ;
3 (2), N f q ;
3* (2) N f q ;
4 (1.9);
5 (2) f
[7]

ql 2 1
u2
f

1 ,
EIu 2 cos u
8
2

u N EI l .

6 9
. ,

. . 2.

136


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
2
l,
q, /

1
2
3
3*
4
5

12,2
I

24,4
II

11,17
11,62
11,12
11,15
11,14
11,02

11,47
11,67
11,43
11,44
11,42
10,61

12,2
III

24,4
IV

11,08
11,52
11,08
11,09
11,09
11,09

11,87
12,17
11,87
11,88
11,88
11,54

1, , 5.
3 4 .
3* 3

, Nf .
. 5 .
2 .
, . 1 . .
. , 2,

.
. [1] [2]
. .. [3] .

N/N, N
, N . ,
min,
,
-. [1] [2]
(1.6) (2.6). N
N - .
min 70 2 1
[1] [2] ,

137


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

- . ( )
R .
min ,
. min
,
,
.
25...55 , ,
,
. N N , N
, , N
.
[2]
(2.9).
[1]
, , , [4]
(1.9), .

3000 2 .
, ,
(30) .
, ,
. ,
,
.
, , [5],

, E const E Rconst

[8].

138


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

. .1 .. . .-.: . 1942.
. .1. .. . .: . 1940.
.
.. . 1932.
. ..
. . . . 1940.
.
.. . . 1955.
: . . / .. , .. . .: , 1998.
. -. . II. .:. 1973.
i . . .: . .. , 2000.

29.12.2009 .

139


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.076.2

.., ..., 2 .., ...

. .. ,
2

. .. ,

.
.
-

.
.
.
-

.
Abstract. Prevention of failure situation is being
dependability maintenance program and management
risk-analysis residual life prediction should be done
complex assessment of technical state parameters for
defects and damages.

suggested in the frame of

safety system. On the basis of
taking in the consideration a
structures real and hypothetic

: -, , , .

.
, ,
.
, 60 % . , ,
,
.
,
.
. 1991

140


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, ,

,
.
[1, 2, 3].
, , , , ,
, ,
.
, - , , ,
.

.
, .
, :
,
;
,
,
;
,
;

;
;
, ,
.

,

.
.

409 [8] [4,
9 12]. [2, 13 15],

141


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

-
.


.

,
,
[4]. -,
,
.
, , , , , ,
, , . .
C
- (. 1).

,
( ),
.

( ),
:
;
T;
;
- O;

142


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 1.

E , , , , , ,

.
T () W -, - -, -, .

( ) , :
( , , );

143


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(, ,
, );
(, , ..).
( T) :
;

.
O ,
()
I , ,
.
,


().
- ( O) , , . , ,
()
.
, ,
, :
1. - . ,
:
1.1. ;
1.2. - (
);
1.3. (
);
1.4. ( /
).
2. .
3. ( ) .

144


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

4. (), ,
.
5. , .
6. ( )
:
6.1. ;
6.2. ;
6.3. ( )
.
7.
.
8. ( ) .
9. .
.
(
), ,
, .
.
- () , [5]:
=

""
100% .
"" + ""

(1)

( ) :
;
.
, : , , ,
.
362-92 -23-81*
(, , ,
..).
, ,
(),

145


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(
) .
, 362-92.


. , , , ,

, , , , . , . -

.

(), .

, [6].

.
,

, ,
.
.
. , , .

:
F,
,
;

.

146


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

:
F , ;
,
,
.
:
F ( );
.
DM-, [7].
, , ()
K (t)

0 (t )
,
T0 (t ) TB (t )

(2)

T0 (t ) ; TB (t )
.

S

K
,
/

(3)

;
.

, .
( ), ,
,
( ).

147


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

R F,
P U :

R FR U , P FRi U i , Pi C U P U dU C P U P dP , (4)
i

i ; C , .
,
(4)
( , ,
) ,
( ),
( ).

,
, t.
R(t).
:

R , R R , R ,
F ,t

(5)

F ,t

RF,t F t.
,
:

I , , z

, z dz .

(6)

:
I , , z

1 1 I 1 T1t1 k1 t1 ... 1 I l Tl tl kl tl
z

, (7)

k ; z ; t ; 1l .
(4), :

148


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

FR T , z U Z I , T , z I , T , z .
1

(8)

, ,
:

FRLOC T , z U Z LOC I , T 1, t I , T , t ,

(9)

n ; U(Z)
, .
,
10-
.
,
, , , - , ,
.

.
.
-
.

[1]

[2]

[3]

..
./ .. , ..
, .. .// . 2001 . 3,
. 18 24.
..
./ ..,
.., .., .., .., .. .: -
, 2008 463 .
..
/ .. ,

149


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]

.. // . 2008.
1. . 3 9.
.
. 637 04.12.2002.
.. . , 2,
2008.
..
/ .., .. . . .
. .. . / . . ..
. . - , 2008, . 1 . 68 74.
2862-94 . . .
409 5 1997 .
, .
1313 22 2000 .

2000-2005 .
351- 11 2003 .

.
1331 8 2004 .
- "".
.
06.11.2003. 425.
.. . / ..,
.., .., .. / .: , 2004. 304 .
.. - .
/ .., .., .., .. // . . . , .
. . .. .
. 22 28.
.. - , . / . . .. ,
.. , .. , , - ,
. . : -
, 2007. 192 .

16.06.2010 .

150


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014.2

.., ...

. .. ,
. ,
-
, .
.
. ,
- , .
.
Abstract. Methodology of risk assessment which is a part of risk-analysis for prediction
of possibility safety operation for building metal structures in the condition of project
life depletion has suggested. Received results can prevent possible accident conditions.
: , , , , , , .

.
() ,
.
, , ,
() . ,
,
, ,
. ,



(, ).
.
. ,

, ,

151


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 1331 [6].

,

,
[1, 8, 11].
, .
-,
, , [2, 7,
12].

, ,
.
.
- ,


( ), ,
,
( ).
,
,
.

, .. .
. ,

:
,
( )

[7].
,
.

152


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, :
, ( )
,
/ . : ,
, [1, 3, 5];
[2];
[3,
4];
[3, 4].
,
, .
:
1. () ,
:
,
;
, .
2. () - .
,

()
.
3. .
4. .

.
- (2):
;

153


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

;
;
;
.

, .
R F, P U
:
R FR U , P FRi U i , Pi C U P U dU C P U P dP , (1)
i

i ; C , .

(1)
( , ,
) ,
( ),
( ).

,
, t.
R(t).
:

R , R R , R
F ,t

F ,t

(2)

RF,t F t.


. (, , .), . , ,

, , , ,
. ,
.

154


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
:
Koi(tj) () i- ,
tj;
Ki(tj) () i- , tj;
Ki(tj) () i- , tj.
,
j-
[9 11]:

I t j 1 e tj ,

(3)

, .
i- , j- :
Koi t j

t j
t j

(4)

i- , j- :

K t j K0 t j 1 t j .

(5)

:
K t j K t j .

(6)

.
- ()
tj, . , .

, (
) .

155


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, 362-92. ,

, , ,
, [13].

:
0 > k R ,

(7)

R ; k = f(Ry,tj,z), z
.
f, ,

. ,
:
f = KfK .

(8)

,
,
. ,
() ,
:

T , z

2
1
z m / 2 2
e
,
2

(9)

m ; .

:
m=d + Tvd; '2 T 22 ,

(10)

d ; vd
; /
; v
.
,
:

156


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

I , , z

T , z dz .

(11)

:
I , , z

1 1 I 1 T1t1 k1 t1 ... 1 I l Tl tl k l tl
z

, (12)

k ; 1l
.
(1), :
n

FR T , z U Z I , T , z I , T , z .
1

(13)

, ,
:

FRLOC T , z U Z LOC I , T 1, t I , T , t ,

(14)

n ; U(Z)
, .
(13) (14)
.

.

, , ,
, .

157


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]
[10]
[11]

[12]
[13]

.
. 637 04.12.2002.
08-120-96
/ . 12.07.96. 29.
51897-2002 . . . 6 .
2156-93 . .
- OHSAS 18001:2006 . .
1331 8 2004 . - "".
. :
// . 1999. 1, 1 . 80 100.
..
. / ..,
.. // . 2008.
1. . 3 9.
Pandey M.D. Probabilistic models for condition assessment of oil and gas
pipelines. NDT&Intern. 1998, 31, 5. . 349 358.
Yuan X., Pandey M.D. and Bickel G.A. A Probabilistic Model of Wall Thinning
in CANDU Feeders due to Flow-Accelerated Corrosion. Int. J. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2008, 238 (1). . 16 24.
.. - .
/ .. , .. , .. , .. . // . . . , .
. . .. .
. 22 28.
..
. / ..,
.., .., .. / .: , 2004. 304 .
.. . /
. . 1-95. , 1995 110 .

16.06.2010 .

158


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
620.193:593.431

.., .., ..., ..
- -
,
. , .


.
. ,
.
,
.
Abstract. The parameters, which define the resource of the metal coating, are fixed.
The method of determination of their critical value and the engineering calculation
method, which is used to calculate the remained service life of welded joints of the
metal coating of the shelter for the worked-out nuclear fuel, are suggested.
: , , , .

. () ,
, , , ,
.


,
,
.
,
,
.


( ),

159


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

25 ,
, .
( )

, , , , , , ,
, .
().
,
. , ,
, , ,

.

,
[6 14] :
1. : ;
; ; .
2. : ;
; .
3. :
;
.
4. : ; ;
.
5. .
6. .

, ,
.

.
:
,
;
,
;

160


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
( );
, ;
,
,
;
;
,
, ,
;

, ;
;
;
,
, .
:
; .

, .
:
; ; ;
; ; ;
.
:
; ;
.
:
; ; .
,
; .

,
,
.
: - ,
.

161


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

: ( T ); ( );
(); (NDT)
(); (FTE);
(FTP); ( ); ( );
( ); (U).
, .
,
; ;
.
,
.
,
,
,
, .
,

.
,
( ).


( , %):
0 1 ,
2

1,
[ ] [ ] [ ]

(0< <1); , [ ] ; H , [ ] ; T , [ ]
;

162


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, 0
.
:
n

H a0 a1 x a2 x 2 K i ,
i 1

T b0 T b1 b2 2 K i ,
i 1

c0 c1 c2

K ,
i

i 1

ai , bi , ci ,
; p 10 x ,
(/);
>1; ,
n

; ; ; ; Ki
i 1

, . Ki
.
,

1 0
( ) ,
K 0

1 0
( ) ,
K 0

0
1
T
(T , , ) ,
T K 0

(/);
.
.
, , ,
, , .

400 ,
.

163


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

700 .
(
, , . (
), ,
, ,
, , .

:
,
[1];
[2, 3];
[3].

,
,
.
,
,
120
, 80 20 .

.
[2].
.
.
,
, .
,
, 20 % ,

2.
:

p
,
0
, ; , , ;

164


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

0 ,
; p
.

.
,
,
,
2 . ()
/. ,
:
KC

KC KC p

,
(1)
KC0 KC
, ;
, ; KC0
; KC p , ; KC
,
.

, .
(1), :
;
.
.
[2]:
1. , VII,
+100 , 150 ,
, KC 100 150VII;
2. , I,
-40 , 50 , V,
(t )
KCV 40 50t.

165


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
2 ,
. :
Ay

,
V
Ay , , ; V ay

,
, .
:
ay

a a p

,
a0 a
ay , ;

a ; a0
;
a p .
()
: % %
. . :
A

A Ap
A0 A
p

;
,

A ,
, ; Ap , p ; A0 , 0
.
A0 . 1.
, ,
.

166


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
1

[5]




, , %
, , %
3
35
<140
<140
10
= 103,2-0,332
= 53,5-0,161
15,15
>140
>140
20
= 49,0-0,131

= 137,0-0,525
20
25
081810
061810
121810
081812
121812
= 120165
12189
= 130190
= 116,0-0,335
= 46-0,13
12189
= 190230
101812
=165190
= 36-0,0775
0816113
= 88,0-0,165
031692
081810
12189
1018H9
09189

, K1C . ,
.
, , K1C .
, , :
K 1C

K1C , K1C , p
K1C ,0 K1C ,

K1C , , K1C , p , K1C ,0 (, , )

167


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, K1C K1C .


.

() K1 ( )
K1C . K1C
K

( 1,5 10...5 106 1/ 2 1 ) :

2 c 3 ;
10 c 2 ;
c 3 ;
c 10 .

K1C
.
, ( ,
..), :

K 1C , K 1C , p
K 1C ,0 K 1C ,

K 1C , , K 1C , p , K 1C ,0 , K 1C .
p

E 1[ x y z T ] [ p ] ,
; T ; x , y , z .

168

E 1 x y z T
[ p ]

(2)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

( 0 1 ).


.

1 100
N c1/ 2 ln

2 100 %

t e ,

(3)

N c ( t ) ; t
; e ; ,
[5].


1. .
2. . 1 , %, [ p ] .
3. (2)
.

1. .
2. . 1 , %.
3. (3) N c
.

:
2

n
1 ,

N c

, ;
m n N c .

169


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
2

n y

1,
N c hmin

, ; hmin ;

y hmin ,
.
m, , , , :

a1 a2m a3 a4 .
: KC , , ay , ,

A , , K 1C , ,

.


().

,
.

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

170

6996-66 .
. .:
. 64 .
7268-82 .
.
9454-78 .
, .
.., .., .., ..

/ , 2005 6. . 21 27.


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

0027-94 .
. 1994.
2960-94 . .
.
2860-94 . .
.3.1.-2-93 .
,

09 1999 63
6 2000 132/4353 ( 306.1.02/1.034-2000).

,
09 1998 2
23 1998
47/2487 ( 306.1.02/1.007-1998).
Basic Safety Principles for Nuclear Power Plants 75-INSAG-3 Rev.1, INSAG12, Vienna, 1999.
Periodic Safety Review of Nuclear Power Plants. Safety Guide No.NS-G-2.10,
IAEA, Vienna, 1999.
Implementation and Review of a Nuclear Power Plant Ageing Management
Programme. Safety Report Series No.15, IAEA, Vienna, 1999.
Glossary of Nuclear Power Plant Ageing, OECD/NEA, 2001.

05.11.2009 .

171


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.078

.., ...
. .. ,
. ' ,
. ,
.
, '
.
.
.
, . ,

.
,
. .
Abstract. The paper deal with multi-row friction bolted joints, which may perceive
forces, variable depending on forces. It is shown that in the absence of slippage such
forces are perceived only by extreme rows of bolts. Based on theory of applicability the
ranges of changes were found, when the joint preserve its serviceability independently
from a number of load cycles. The practical recommendations are given as well.
: , , ,
.

. . ,
.
.
,
.
[1]

. ... [2] ,


. .

172


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
.
,
, , .

, T,
(. 1). ,
.
, n ( ).
.

R/2

R/2
1

...

T/2
T/2

. 1.

T
.
, . 1,
.
, ( 1
n). ( 2,.., n1)
. T
. .
, ,

,
.
,
. ,
, , , , -

173


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .
.
.
, T
, .
, . ,
, L, ,
, R. T

. L
n, R 1.
i (i =
1, 2,..., n), T i-
. Ui (i = 1, 2,..., n), i-
, :

U i T i

(i 1,..., n);

(1)

:
1

R
L
; i 0 (i 2,..., n 1); n
.
L R
L R

(2)

, , .
: T ,
; ,
T.
. . .
U1 Un
F,
.
, ,
. T

Tmax nF ;

(3)

,
-

174


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.

.
Tmax,
T,

Tmin T Tmax ;

(4)

Tmax (3). Tmin.

, .. ,
, ,
, , (4). , , ,
, , .
.
- , , [5, 6] .
.
- [4, 3].
.
,
, ( ).
, , (
).
- . , .

175


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

:
,
,

,
,
( ).
, ,
, ,
(
).
, :
T,

Tmin T Tmax ;

(5)

i (i = 1, 2,...,n),
T
:
U i T i (i 1,..., n);
(6)
Si (i = 1, 2,..., n)
;

F Si U i F (i 1,..., n).
(7)
, :
n

i 1

1;

(8)

0.

i 1

, (4)
Tmax,
Si (i = 1, 2,..., n).
(6) T (3), Ui
(i = 1, 2,..., n), (6), (7), :

F Si n F i F

176

(i 1,..., n).

(9)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
(9) ,

:

Si F (1 n i ) (i 1,..., n).

(10)

, Si (i = 1, 2,..., n),
(10), Tmin
T :

F F (1 n i ) T i F

(i 1,..., n).

(11)

i 0 (i = 1, 2, ..., n),
,

Tmin F n 2 F / max ;

(12)

max max(i ).
i1

(. 1),
(2), max
:
max

R
1
1 L
( n 2,3,...).
2
L R

(13)

, L = R, max = 1/2.
n=1, , max = 1.
,
,

T Tmax Tmin 2 F / max ;

(14)

, n = 1
, n 2
.


. 2. ,
n 3 , ,
. n > 3

177


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
.
.
,
.
, , .
T, ,

TA T TA ;

(15)

TA T.
,
TA Si (i = 1, 2,..., n), :

TA 4n -:

F Si TA i F ; F Si TA i F

(i 1,..., n);

(16)

Si (i = 1, 2,..., n) ,

(17)

0.

i 1

(16) (7)
T = TA T = TA, (17)
Si (i = 1, 2,..., n).
:

TA F / max ; Si 0 (i 1,..., n).

(18)

n=5

2/max

n=4

2/max

n=3

2/max

n=2

2/max

n=1

T/F = -2

-1

. 2.

178


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

n=5

2/max

n=4

2/max

n=3

2/max

n=2

2/max

n=1

T/F = -2

-1

. 3.

T 2 TA 2 F / max ;

(19)

, . n 2
. ,
,
. .
n = 1 TA = F.


. 3. ,
. .

1. , , , , ,
.
.
2.

.
3. , ,
, .
n=1
, n 2 (14)

179


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
4. ,
,
.
5. , , .

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

II-23-81* / . .:
, 1990. 96 .
( II-23-81*).
.: 1989.
.. - . .:
, 1961. 80 .
.. . . ., , 1969. 420 .
D.C. Drucker Coulomb friction, plasticity, and limit loads, ASME J. Appl.
Mech., Vol.21, 1954. P. 71 74.
Churchman C.M., Korsunsky A.M., Hills D.A. The application of plasticity
principles to friction. J. Strain Analysis. Vol. 41, 2006. P. 323328.
.. . ,
, 2008. 124 .

08.06.2010 .

180


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014

.., .., .., ..., ..

,
:
- .

.
: - .
.
Abstract: Basic structural decisions are described and the roof structure of trade and
entertainment complex is optimized. The optimal bearing trusses parameters and
cross-sectional dimension of structure elements by the criterion of mass are
determined.
: , , , .

.
,
.
,

.
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
. [10]
, .
, ,

.
.

181


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
[3] ,
.

,
.
[7]
, ,
. [6]

,
,
. [5]
,

OptCAD,
.
. , , -
. .
, .
. -

.
78 , 48 .
, Kr =12 .

[10, 3],
(. 1).
.
, 235, 8732-78
3.
6 .
.
,
0,025
.

182


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 1. - :
) ; )

.
. Bzf =2,5 .
, .

.
, , - (. 2) - . -
, , , ,
. .
H 0 = 0,4 .

183


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 2. -

,
.
, -
, , ,
. , (. 3)
653, 1517.
,
, , ,

(. 1, 4).
,
.
,
, ,
y ,
, .
-

184


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 3.

. 4.

L5 = 48 L6 = 45,7 .
S5 = 0,45
S6 = 0,416 .

.
,
. -

185


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

- B f H f (. 1),
.
.
B f H f , .
: Di ,

ti , i 1,11 (. 1); H dw
.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

( )

D1, t1
D2, t2
D3, t3
D4, t4
D5, t5
D6, t6
D11, t11
D8, t8
D7, t7
D9, t9
D10, t10

,
-
: , ,
,
.
[5] : ti 0,3 , i 1,11 ;
Di / ti 30 Di / ti 90
. , , t1 tn ,
n 5, 6, 7, 9 t2 tm , m 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 .
,
,
, . -

186


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
,

.
OptCAD (www.optcad.com),


.

OptCAD (. 5).

. 5.

(. 6).

, , ,
. [1] . .


.

187


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

H f .

. 6.

.
. 2.
, 10,29 % -.
, - . .
,
-
, 36
, .

188


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
2

-

H f,
3,5*
3,5*
4,28
4,28
Bf,
3*
3*
3,26
3,26
Hdw,
30,93
33
29,91
30
D1; t1,
35,85; 1,6
37,7; 1,6
34,05; 1,38
35,1; 1,4
D2; t2,
27,63; 0,92
27,3; 1,0
25,30; 0,84
24,5; 0,9
D3; t3,
8,52; 0,35
8,3; 0,35
7,98; 0,35
8,3; 0,35
D4; t4,
8,29; 0,35
8,3; 0,35
7,59; 0,35
8.3; 0,35
D5; t5,
18,24; 0,49
18; 0,55
18,17; 0,49
18; 0,55
D6; t6,
10,75; 0,36
11,4; 0,4
10,22; 0,35
10,8; 0,4
D7; t7,
10,75; 0,36
11,4; 0,4
10,58; 0,36
10,8; 0,4
D8; t8,
10,75; 0,36
11,4; 0,4
10,22; 0,35
10,8; 0,4
D9; t9,
10,75; 0,36
11,4; 0,4
10,22; 0,35
10,8; 0,4
D10; t10,
11,02; 0,68
8,3; 0,35
7,79;0,41
8.3; 0,35
D11; t11,
10,75; 0,66
11,4; 0,4
10,22; 0,35
10,8; 0,4
,
47.237
51,577
43.192
46,270
, %
100
89,71
. * .

. 7.

24 38 (. 8).
.

189


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 8.

- . . 9.

. 9. -

- ,
.

,
10,29 %
-. ,

.

190


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[1]

.1.2-2006 . .:
, 2006. 60 .
[2] .1.2-3:2006 . / . .: , 2006. 10 .
[3] : / .. , .. , .. . / . . .. .. . .:
, 2008. 812 .
[4] .., ..
OptCAD // :
- ().
. 72. , , 2009. . 257 264.
[5] .., .., ..

// : , , : . . 2009-4(78). : , 2009. . 155 160.
[6] .., .. //
, 441.
: - , 2002. . 148 152.
[7] .., .., .. . .: , 2008. 537 .
[8] ( -23-81*) /
. . .: ,
1989. 148 .
[9] -23-81* / . .: , 1991. 96 .
[10] .., .., .. . .: , 1987.
224 .

22.06.2010 .

191


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014

..

. '
( )
,
.
, , , ,
.
'
MERO ,
.
.
( )
,
.. .
, , ,
, .
MERO ,

.
Abstract. New conceptual solutions of nodal bar connections used in structural (plane
and curvilinear) and single layer latticed constructions can be applied for roof of
various systems and domes. The structures over the Stadiums stands are among
them. It is suggested multi-purpose tubular bars and joint elements, providing transfer
of forces with the use of bolts, acting under double shear. The proposed design is
featured by some advantages as compared with commonly used nodal bar connections
such as MERO system for example. It is also characterized by convenience in
technology of fabrication and considerable increase of reliability at the expense of
reduction of stresses concentration at the elements.
: ,
, , .

, (. 1, 2, 3, 4).
() ,
(. 1).
.

192


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
,
.

. 1. ()

. 2. ()

, ,
(. 2).

,
.
.
,
. ,
, .

90 .
.

193


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, , .

.

. 3. ( 1)

. 4. ( 2)

MERO, , ,
,
(. 5).
,
.
.
, ,

- .

. 5. MERO

194


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
,
,

, .


(. 6, 7,
9). , ,

.

,
(. 8).
, ,

[1].
.
,
.

. 6.

. ,
,

,
(. 10). ,

,
.

195


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 7.

. 8.

. 9. :
;

196


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 10. :
;

. 11. ( 1):
;

. 12. ( 2):
;

197


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
, ,
(. 11, 12).
,
, .
,
.
.

, 2,0 2,5 ,
MERO, .
.
,
.

, ,
.


.

[1]

891 UA, 04 1/58. . .. . . 15.12.93. . 2.

13.05.2010 .

198


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014

.., ..., ..
,
. .
,

,
, .
,
, .
.
. .
,

,
,
. ,
,
.
.
Abstract. Developed two methods of determining bearing capacity of compressedbended elements frame-doubleT-section with increased flexibility of the web. In the
first approach, the central part of the web is out of work, but accepted the current
weak symmetrical cross section as a result of longitudinal forces in the element frame
and buckling web can occur only under the influence of longitudinal squeeze effort
directed by the axis of symmetry. The second approach takes into account that part of
the web to web buckling takes part bending moment, transverse force and longitudinal
efforts. Symmetric cross section is also taken after the loss of stability of the wall.
: , , , , .

. ,


[1, 4].
.
[5, 7].
, -

199


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, ,
,
.
- .
. [7]
.
E
, 0,5t
Ry
E
(
Ry
). [2, 3]
. [4, 5] ,
.
, ,
,

, .
,
,
. :

,
.

.

,
, .

.
,

.
,
, ,
.
, -
,

200


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
.
,

hwred / 2 0,85tw E / R y Ry (RyN/Ared)
(. 1, 2).
-
.
,

,
, .
,
, . .

(. 1):

. 1.
.

M u A f R y hw / 2 A f ( R y N / Ared )hw / 2 0,5R y hwred tw ( hw / 2 hwred / 3)

0,5( R y N / Ared ) hwred tw ( hw / 2 hwred / 3)

M u :

201


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

M u R y hw2 tw{

h
h2
wred wred
hwtw
2hw
3hw2
Af

Af

h
(
)[(
wred )
Ared R y
2hwtw
4hw
N

2
hwred

6hw2

(1)

]}

, Ared A (hefw hwred )tw ; hwred / 2 0,85tw E / R y ,

(1) .
M u R y hw2 tw{

Af
hwtw

0,85tw
2hw

E (0,85tw ) 2 E
N

(
)
2
Ry
Ry
Ared R y
3hw

(0,85tw )2 E
E
)
]}
Ry
Ry
6hw2

Af

0,85tw
[(

2hwtw
4hw

. (2)

(2)
Ry
h
w w
:
tw E
M u Ry hw2 t w{

Af
hwtw

M u R y hw2 tw{

Af
0,85 1 0,85
N
0,85 1 0,85 .
(
)(
)[

(
)]}
w 2 3 w Ared Ry 2hwtw w 4 6 w

N
Ared R y

Af

0,85 1
1 0,85 1
(1 )
[
( )]} .
hwtw
2
w 2 4 3 w 3 2

w 6

=0,25

0,85 1
( )
3 w 3 2

0,85 1 0, 25
(
) 0,01
18 3
2


( M u ) .

M u R y hw2 tw{

202

Af

0,85

(1 )
(1 )} ;
hwtw
2 2 w
2


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Af
0,85 ;
M u R y hw2 tw (1 )

2 hwtw 2 w
Af
N
0,85
M u R y hw2 tw (1
){

}.
2 Nu hwtw 2 w

(3)

Af
0,85

M u R y (1 )Wxred .
Wxred hw2 tw

2
hwtw 2 w

(4)

(. 2).
:

M u
( R y

R y A f hw
2
R y hwred
hw

( R y N / Ared ) A f hw
2

R y hwred hwred tw hw hwred

(
)
2hw
2
6

R y hwred hw hwred
h
h
h
t
)( w wred ) wred w ( R y
)(
)
2
4
2
hw
2
2

( R y N / Ared ) hwred hw hwred hwred tw

h
t
wred wred
(
)

3
hw
2
6
2

( R y N / Ared )hwred

( Ry N / Ared )
hw

( R y N / Ared )hwred

( Ry N / Ared )
hw

hw hwred hwred tw
)

(
4
2
2
hw hwred hwred twred
)
(
2
3
2

, Ared A (hefw hwred )tw ; hwred / 2 0,85tw E / R y ,

M u

hw
tw

Ry
E

203


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

M u R y hw2 tw (

0,853 twred
3

3
w tw

0,852 twred
3

2
wtw

Af
hwtw

N
Ared R y

0,85
2 w
(

0,853 twred
6

3
wt w

0,852
4

Af
2hwtw

2
w

0,853

12

0,85
4 w

3
w

0,852
8

2
w

0,85twred

3 wtw

0,853
24

3
w

0,852 twred 2
3

2
wtw

0,85twred
6 wtw

. (5)

))

. 2.
.

N
Ared R y

, twred tw ,

( ,
)
(5) :
M u R y hw2 tw (

0,85 1 0,852
(1 )
(
)

2
hwtw
2
w 2 3 4 6
Af

. (6)

1 2
0,85 1
(

)
(

)
3 12 3 24
4 3 8
3
6

(6) ,
(6).

204


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, w =6 =0,25 ,
3
, :
Af
0,85 1 1
M u R y hw2 tw (
(1 )
( ) 0,00829 0,000484) .
hwtw
2
w 2 9 4 18

M u R y hw2 tw (

M u R y hw2 tw (

Af

0,85 1
(1 )
(
),
hwtw
2
w 2 3 4 6
Af

0,85
6 4 3 2
(1 )
(1 )(
)) .

hwtw
2
2
w
12(1 )
2

1 ... 1 =0,5..0,2
4 2

:
(

6 4 3 2
) =0,5830,667. .

12(1 )
2

Af
0,85
M u R y hw2 tw (1 )(

),
2 hwtw
w
M u R y hw2 tw (1

Af
N
0,85
)(

).
2 Nu hwtw
w

(7)

:
Wxred hw2 tw (

Af
hwtw

0,85

) M u R y (1 )Wxred .
2
w

(8)

,
:
Mu
Ry .

(1 )Wxred
2

205


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .
cr Qu -23-81*
, , ,
, Q :

Qu Rs tw hw cr 3,3 1 cr
Rs
Rs

2
1

[6]
:
Mx
N
Q

1.
Nu
M u
Qu
[7]
m x 20
:
4

N Mx Q

1.
N u M u Qu

(9)

M u (1 ) M u (1 ) R yWxred ;
N u Ared R y .
.
, [3].
.
M 1469 , Q=223 , N =
120 . 30025 , 13804
.
1.
(9). . 18.2:

206


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

A f 0,85
1
0,85
1
2 30 3,2
M u R y th 2

1
1
24 0,4 138

w w
th
0,4 138 11,78 11,78
Ry 138
h
24
=3300,3>M = 1469,0 w w

11,78 .
tw E
0, 4 20600

,
= 200 < max = 2hw = 2138 = 276 .
= 200 [7]:

Qu Rs tw hw cr 3,3 1 cr
139, 2 0, 4 138
Rs 1 2

Rs
,
14,1
14,1 0,15 1,45 1

3,3 1
10 281,1

2
139, 2 1 1, 45
139, 2

Rs 0,58 Ry 0,58 240 139, 2 ; = a/hw = 200/138 = 1,45;

:
0,76 R

0,76 139, 2
cr 10,3 1 2 2s 10,3 1
14,1 . ef w 11,78 .
2
2

ef
1, 45 11,78

(18.2) ,
hwred 0,5tw E / Ry
0,5 0, 4 29, 3 5,9 .

: y1

Sf
Aef

4, 4 .

I 135, 6 4.
Wmin

Ix
135, 6
3

18, 2 ; y max y1 hwred / 2 4, 4 5, 9 / 2 7,35 .

ymax
7,35

(18.2):

8Wmin
8 18, 2
h 2 a2

2 2 w
tw hw a
0,4 1382 2002

1382 2002 0,0271 . 0,0271 0, 03 , ( 18.2):

0,05 5 0,05 5 0,0271 0,1855 0,15 .

0,1855 .
: Nu R y Ared 0,05 24 (30 3, 2 2 0,85
0,4

20600
2) 236,03 N 100 .
24

207


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(9) :
4

N M Q
100
1469 223,0

0,859 1 .
Nu M u Qu
236,03 3300,3 281,1

, .
2. 1
( 0,85tw E / R y ).
(3):
M u R y hw2 t w (1

Af
N
0,85
100
30 3, 2
)(

) 24 1382 0, 4(1
)(

2 N u hwtw 2 w
2 236, 03
138 0, 4

0,85
) 2558 >> M = 1469,0 .
2 11, 78

1. (9) :
4

4
N M Q
100
1469 223, 0

0,929 1 .
Nu M u Qu
236,03 2558 281,1
, .

3.
2 (
0,85tw E / R y ).
(7):
M u R y hw2 t w (1

Af
N
0,85
100
30 3, 2
)(

) 24 1382 0, 4(1
)(

2 N u hwtw
2 236,03 138 0, 4
w

0,52
) 2568> M = 1469,0 . 11, 78

, 1. (9)
:
4

4
N M Q
100
1469 223, 0

0,927 1 .
Nu M u Qu
236,03 2568 281,1

, -
.

208


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .
,
( M / M u ) 4 (Q / Qu ) 4 1 ,

.

4

N / N u M x / M u Q / Qu 1 .

[1]

[2]
[3]

[4]
[5]

[6]
[7]

.., ..
.
-
.. / . . .. . .: -
, 2008, . 4.
.., .., .. . /
. . . .. . .: , 1991. 687 .
.., .., .., ..,
.., .. : /
.. .. . .:
, 2008. 812 .
.. /
.. . .: , 2005. 651 .
..
( , , , , ) /
.. , .. / . .: ,
2002. 576 .
.., .., .., ..
. /
.. / . .: , 1984. 415 .
-23-81*. / . .:
, 1990. 96 .

20.01.2010 .

209


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
539.3:624.071

.., ...
. .. ,
.
, .
.
.
.

,
.

. .
Abstract. The analytical solutions of nonlinear problem of deformation of finite rigidity
tendons are presented. The solution of problem is got by means the principle of the
possible moving. The used common differential equilibrium equation for determination
of stretching in the tendon. The special types additional of loads are taken into
account. Precision estimation of the got solutions is executed.
: ,
, .

.
.
, [2],
[9].
, [1]
F, I E
q(x) .
q(x) ,
. [9]

210


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

dF F EF 2

dH H lH 2

q x M y m2

Hm EIM

l
M y m
E2 F 2 I
dx

2
lH 2 0 Hm EIM
y

dx 0 , (1)

m = zEI; M y ; l ; z
.

(1)
, .
,
q1 .

q2
:
2

25 q1 q2 l 6 EF 2
120 q1 q2 l 6 E 2 F 2 I
dF F

0 . (2)
3
dH H 12 H 2 5l 2 H 48EI 2
H 2 5l 2 H 48EI

q2 , [10]:

q12 q1 q2 l 6 EF 2
dF F
361 19 Hl 2 192 EI

dH H
32 H 2
25

5Hl 2 48 EI
3

2
6 2 2
q1 q1 q2 l E F I

H2

2052 19 Hl 2 192 EI

15 5Hl 2 48 EI

(3)

0.

,
.
:
dF F
k1k 2l 4 EF 2

dH H 48H 2 k Hl 2 48k EI
2
1

k4 k5l 4 EF 2

48H 2 k5 Hl 2 192k4 EI

144k12 k3 EI
k

k 2 Hl 2 48k1 EI

576k3 k43 EI
k5 q1l
0,
k5 Hl 2 192k4 EI

(4)

211


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

k1 = q1l + 2P; k2 = 5q1l + 8P; k3 = 1 + q1; k4 = 3q1l + 4P; k5 = 57q1l + 88P; k6

= q1l + 6P.
,
:
k1k7 l 4 EF 2
dF F

dH H 64 H 2 k Hl 2 192k EI
7
1

k8 k9l 4 EF 2

768 H 2 k9 Hl 2 768k8 EI

256 H 2 k11 Hl 2 768k10 EI

441k124 k13l 4 E 2 F 2 I

2 H 2 k13 Hl 2 768k12 EI

4068k83 EI
k
q
l

9 1

2
k9 Hl 768k8 EI

3k10 k11l 4 EF 2

564k13 EI
k6 k7

2
k7 Hl 192k1 EI

13824k103 EI
k
q
l

11 1

2
k11 Hl 768k10 EI

(5)

0,

k7 = 19q1l + 24P; k8 = 7q1l + 12P; k9 = 497q1l + 648P; k10 = 5q1l + 4P; k11 =
395q1l + 408P; k12 = q1l + 4P; k13 = 71q1l + 88P.
( , , , , ),
,
,

. ,
[1, 2, 4 8],
,

.
- u 0,5l H / EI
[10].
, , ,
12,22 % . ,
10 %,

212


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

u 2 6,5.
6,29 % , ,
4 %, u 1,2 6.

1,29 %
.

19,82 %
. u
10,95 % u = 10.
. ,
6,29 %
. u > 6,
[2, 3, 5, 11], 4 %.

1,02 % 6,54 %
.

( ,
- ),
. , u
6 u 14 [2, 3, 5, 11],
-
. , .

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

.. . .: , 1962. . 1. 528 .; . 2.
507 .; . 3. 472 .
.. . . .: , 1962.
224 .
.., .., .. . .: , 1971. 280 .
.. . .: , 1966.
87 .
.. . .: , 1980.
331 .
.. //
: . . . . .: , 1962. . 60 76.

213


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[7]

.. . .: , 1965. . 1.
363 .; . 2. 480 .
[8] .. .
. .: , 1975. . 1. 832 .; 1978. . 2. 616 .; 1981.
. 3. 480 .
[9] .., ..
. .:
, 2002. 372 .
[10] .., ..
//
. 2009. 3. . 16 21.
[11] .., .., .. ( ). .: , 1973. 198 .

10.06.2010 .

214


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
539.3

-

.., ..., ..
. .. ,
. .
,
.
.
. ,
.
Abstract. Research of finite rigidity tendon in the vicinity of concentrated force
application is provided. Distribution of tensions and deformations along the tendons
height and length is received. The area of bearing strength at the limited plastic
deformations is obtained.
: , - , - , ,
.

.
, , ,
.
,
.
,
.

.
, - . ,
.
. ,
.

h t,
, .

215


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

-,
E 0.

.
,
. , , s.
.
xOy (. 1). ,
x y
s.

. 1.

, . x
0. , .
x y 0
:
dx
(1 0 ) cos ];
ds
dy
(1 0 ) sin .
ds

(1)
(2)

,

d
.
ds

216

(3)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
, .
0
:

0 u ,

(4)

u , (. 1).

h
h
u .
2
2

(5)

(1) (4) , .
.
. : N , Q , M
, (. 2).

. 2.

.
, ,
x y. :
N cos Q sin N dN cos d Q dQ sin d qx ds 0 ;
N sin Q cos N dN sin d Q dQ cos d q y ds 0 .

,
, ,

217


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
dN

1 0
.

1
1
1
dM qx ds
cos q y ds
sin 0 .

:
dN
Q qx cos q y sin ;
ds
dQ
N qx sin q y cos ;
ds
dM
(1 0 ) Q .
ds

(6)
(7)
(8)

(6) (8) .
. ,

E
0 (. 3).

. 3.

0 . . 4
.
,
.
1, 2.
.

218


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(1, 1)

(1, 0)

(1, +1)

(0, 1)

(0, 0)

(+1, +1)

(0, +1)

(+1, 1)

(+1, 0)

. 4.

h
h
1 0 , 2 0 .
2
2

(9)

219


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

N M .
:
2 T h ,

2
2 2 h h ,
T 0
0

T
2
2

4 T 0 ,

2
2 2 h h ,
T 0
0

T
2
2

t
N 0 , E
2 h 0 ,

2
2
2 2 h h ,
T 0
0

T
2
2

4 T 0 ,

T2 2 T 0 h 0 h ,

2
2

2 T h ,

(10)

0,

2
1/ 4 ( h 0 T ) (2 0 h 2 T ) ,

2 2 3 2 h ,

0 2
T T

1/ 4 ( h 0 T ) (2 0 h 2 T ) 2 ,

t
M 0 , E
1/ 2 3 h3 ,
(11)
2
6
2
1/ 4 ( h 0 T ) (2 0 h 2 T ) ,

2 2 3 2 h ,

0 2
T T

1/ 4 ( h 0 T ) (2 0 h 2 T ) 2 ,

0,

, 0
N M.
. -

220


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, (10) (11).
. ,
(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8),
. , N M 0 ,
, .

.
.
MathCad,
.
.

, P (. 5).
.
,

.

. 5.

.
,
th0,

th20/4. ,

221


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

N
4M
,
.
t h T
t h 2 T

(12)

(. 6).

. 6.

,
. x
, ,
:
h2

N 2a t T , M a 2 t T .
4

(13)

, :

, 1 2 .

(14)

2a
.
h

(15)

(14)
.
,
:

, 1 2 .

222

(16)


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 9 .
,
. ,
,
.
,
.
1 (. 7).

. 7.
(0 0,6)

,
x ,
. :
2 a 2 1 2 a 2 t h 2 T
N 2atT , M 1 1
.

h 4
h 48

(17)

, :

, 1

48

(18)

2 (. 8).

223


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 8.
(0,6 5/3)

x , .
:
2

6a 5h 2 6a 7 h t
1 5h 6a
N h
t T , M
T . (19)
2a h
16 h 2a

384

, :

5 3
1
1

1
3 5 3 7 .
,
16
96 1

(20)

(18) (20)
(. 9). (18) , (+1; -1), (20) ,
(+1; 0). , . , ,
.


= 0,1; 0,2; ; 0,9

224


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. ,
, , (18) (20).

. 9. :
;

(6) (8), (1), (2), (3), (6),

(7), (8) -.
.
.
,
s.
. 10 .
,
.
. ,

max exp( ) ,

(21)

s,

s
,
h

(22)

225


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, .

. 10. :
= 0,1; = 0,2; = 0,3; = 0,4; = 0,5;
= 0,6; = 0,7; = 0,8; = 0,9

0,1
0,965
0,0180
0,035
13

0,2
0,930
0,0247
0,050
12

0,3
0,875
0,0289
0,062
11

0,4
0,799
0,0312
0,071
10

0,5
0,703
0,0316
0,077
9

0,6
0,587
0,0300
0,088
8

0,7
0,457
0,0262
0,093
8

0,8
0,319
0,0208
0,103
8

0,9
0,170
0,0132
0,110
8

(. 11).

. 0 .
1 , -1 . . .
. ,
8 13 .

226


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 11.

227


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 11. ()

228


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, p,
n .

, , -
. ,
. . . ,
8 13 . ,
.
.

[1]
[2]
[3]

.. . .: , 1984. 232 .
.. . .: , 1956.
324 .
.. . .: ,
1948. 211 .

26.02.2010 .

229


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.075

.., ..
,

. .
. - .

. . . -
.

.
Abstract. Compressed flexible steel compression member of non-symmetrical section
with compound loading diagram is considered in this article. A brief description of
accepted in design standards calculation procedure of similar elements is adduced by
the author. Numerical Runge-Kutta method in combination with shooting method
taking into account nonlinear material behavior and the real shape of axes strain is
suggested for problem solving.
: , -, .

.
.
[3]
() .

- .
, ,
,

230


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

[2].

,
;
, . ,

- , .
,
. , ,
,
10 % 15 % , ,
.

.


.
. 1, ; , (. . 1, ).

. 1. :
) ; )

231


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
. , ,
, - ,
, .
, () = fi()
.

, -

EI ( z ) y ( z ) Fy ( z ) M ( z ),

(1)

EI(z) z;
N ; M(z) .
[4].

. ( )
-
:

vn vn 1 n 1

n n 1 n*1 ,

*
n1;
2

(2)

vn , n n;

vn 1 , n 1

n-1 (

); ; n*1 n n-1.
( vn , n , , V)

. ,
,
.

232


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. .
(2)
-
.

.
,
.

. 2.

.
,
Nu (.
. 1, ).
.

[1],
.

233


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
.

,
, (. 3).

. 3.

,
,
( , ).
th A1
A2
A3
1 ; 2 ; 3
, th
th
th
. ,
, .

.
n , ,
20 50.
-
:

234


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

n
N
dA i Ai ;
A y A
1

(3)

n
M
M
y0 dA i y0i Ai ,
Ah y A
1

n .

1 1 2 3
(1 2 2 3 )

(2 A)

0.0833 0.5 2 A h1 1 2 h1

J
A

J
A h1

h1 i 1

y 0i

n 1

.
:
0 N;
M

0,

A
,
J

(4)

.

. ,
:

235


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

E
.
;
y
y

(5)

,

.

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

..
/ . 1985.
3. . 12 15.
..
// .: : . . . . .: , 1986, . 19 31.
II-23-81 . . .: , 1990.
.. -
// .:
: . . . . .: , 1986, . 31 37.

15.06.2010 .

236


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
69.032:624.014.27

-
.., ..., ..
. .. ,
. - . - . .
-
.
. - . . . .
Abstract. General characteristic conditions of antenna supporting masts in Ukraine are
given. The main influences on technical condition of antenna supporting masts are
described. The method of determination of integrated risks index is developed.
Integrated risks indexes for antenna supporting masts in Donetsk region are given.
: - (), , ().

. .
.
,
, , . ,
, ,
, .
, - .
. . : 63 ,
16 , 1965 2009 . ,
.

237


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

( .. -)
. :
, ' , ,
, , , .
[1].
560 42 % ,
, ,
633 31 % ,
46 % . -
.
.
,
., , -, (. 1).

. 1.

238


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
, ,
34100 2400
100 V-155-73 25002500
100 .
, , , . , , ,
, .
. .

. .
- . 2 ,
25
12 . 9,8 14 ,
.
. 2007 . 198 - , , 30 80 .
,
[7 9] ,
.
.
, (94 %), , .
, , .
32 % .
.
, .
. 2 , ,
[3],
25 , 70 %
. 2015 . 94 %.

239


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. , , .

. 2.

. ,
, [3] 50 .
. . 4 ,
( ) ,
( ) . ,

, .
. 1.
, (, , ,
). .
[2] 5 ; 6
.

, . [5] , .

240


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 3. -
1
,

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

5
3
4
62 %

25 %

13 %

66 %

15 %

19 %

40 %

51 %

9%

72 %

28 %

68 %

32 %

34 %

57 %

9%

64 %

36 %

68 %

32 %

87 %

13 %

241


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
,

. 4.

. , ,
, :
.
.
.
- .
,
, .
[6].

(1):
=S S S ,

(1)

S ; S ;
S .
(1) - ,
, . , , -
[4], FMEA
[6].

242


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
2


80
60-80
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
5-10

2-5
2

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3

0,99896

0,99941

0,99977

0,99997

0,99999

,
,

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

.
. 18
, 6 .
, . 47 18
. 42,225 360,5 .
(. . 5).

243


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
4

(
)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

0 20 %

20 % 40 %

40 % 60 %

60 % 80 %

80 % 100 %

1
1
2
3
4
5
6

2
= 69,4
.
= 73,72
. .
= 42,225
.
= 222
.
= 120
.
= 360,5
.

126

126

126

120

90

40

, .
.
, [2, 3].

: , , -.

244


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

:
,
, .
, -
, FMEA , .
, .

.

[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]

.., .. ,
//
: . . .: -
, 2007. . 38 40.
.1.2-2:2006 . .: . 2006 . 59 .

. .: , 1979.
30 .

: . ... . . : 05.23.01 / ..
;. . . . . , 2008. 23 .
2.03.11-85 /
. .: , 1986. 46 .
. .. FMEA
//
7 1 2004. .:
, . 29 34.
ENV 1993-3-1. December 1997. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 31: Towers, masts and chimneys Towers and masts.
CSA, Antennas, towers and antenna supporting structures, Standard CAN/CSAS37-01, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Canada, May 2001.
Structural Standards for steel antenna towers and antenna supporting structures,
TIA 222G, Telecommunications Industry standard, 2005.

07.04.2010

245


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.072.002.2

-


..
. .. ,
. XIX .,
. ()
, (, , ).
. , .
. , ,
, (),
-
.
[1, 2] () .
. XIX ., . ()
,
(, , ).
.
, . . , , , (),
- .
[1, 2] () .
Abstract. Since the XIX century, pipes are used in different industries of industry. In
an initial period of development tubular constructions (TC) more frequent than all met
wherein a decline of weight was one of basic principles of planning (airship-building,
bicycle and motor-car industry, aircraft construction). Development of the electric
welding resulted in creation of new forms of steel build constructions. The use of pipes
was done considerably more rational, because key interfaces and joints were
substantially simplified. However, much the welded constructions have a row of
features. So, besides tensions and deformations, arising up in details under the action
of the attached loadings, in them there are remaining tensions which exist in the body
of construction even in default of influence of some external forces and have influence
on stability of constructions. Presently in normative literature [1, 2] information is
absent upon settlement and account of the remaining tense consisting (RTC) of
elements of TC.
: , , .

246


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. .
,
:
1.
,
, ,
.
2. , .
3. ,
, ,
, ,
.
4. ,

,
, .
5.
.
,

.
,
. .. 5.4. ,
.
.
[3],
,
.
:
) , ;
) .

,
.
. ,
, -

247


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. .
[1, 2]
()
, . [4]
,
.
.

- .
. XIX
. , ,
.
.
, , , [5]. , , .
. . 30- .
.
, . .
1925 .
9,25 ;
15,5
() . 1933 .

110 (Torre Littoria).
165 ,
43214 .

1940 1941 . -

248


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, ,
. .

.
, ,
.
,
. ,
.. (. ),
. TUBOSEC C
(. 1). TUBOSEC C ,
.

. 1. TUBOSEC C

, .. ,
:
(2002 .) (. 2);
(2004 2007 .); (2009 .) .

249


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 2.

,
. , ,
. , ,
,
,
.

.
,
-
. (),
, [6, 7].

.
.

. [8].

, , -

250


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(), . .

764,5 , . ( -1 -4),

( -2, -3, -5). -1 -3 10 , -4, -5 .

, .
: ,
, , .

(. 3, 4).

. 3. ( )

,
(
10 ). -100. 0 50 0,1 .
1 % ( ).
. . 5.

251


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 4. ( )

.
[9].

. 5.

. 6, 7.

252


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
180
160
140

120
100

-1
-2
-3

80
60
40
20
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

. 6. -1 -3

,
(-2, -3, -5) 25 % , (-1, -4).
250

200

150
-4
-5

100

50

0
0

10

15

. 7. -4, -5

253


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

25 %
.


.

[1]

[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]

. : II-23-81* [ 1982-01-01, ,
, 121 1989-07-12] / . .:
, 1990. 96 .
. . : .2.314:2006 [ ,
- "06" 2006 . 160] /
. .: , 2006. 367 .
.. /
.. : , 2001. 815 .
..
/ .. //
. 2001. 5. . 810.
.. / .. / .:
. 1967. . 415.
..
/ .., .., .. // . .
1937. 7. . 415.
.
/ . // -. 1960. 11. . 1518.
.. / - . .. . . 3, 2009. . 122 128.
.. / .., .., .. // - .
.. , 2008. . 1. . 7479.

30.06.2010 .

254


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
624.014:620.193

-




.., ...

. ..,
. -
, , '
.
. - , ,

.
Abstract. The method of scientific and technical support to ensure quality of corrosion
protection of metal constructions specified standard enterprise in relation to the
information system diagnostics corrosion state in technical diagnosis.
: ,
, .

, ,

1.


,
,
.
2 ( )
. -

255


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

, , -
.

, ,
.
101-6.3-05-2007
,
9001/ 300-1. [3]
,
; ; .
Fe (1),
-
() .

zk 1 )
Fe

zf
2

(1)

zf, , ,
.
,
,
- (. 1).
( )
.

256


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

()

()

- ()

. 1. -
.

()

, ()
, (FMEA)
(FMECA).
(),
:
= 1/(-).

(2)

()

().
A(L,G,S,T,R) A(f)

. -
(,)

Structure CAD 7.29.
, , ,
, .

257


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

(. 1).
1



(f)

0,56

0,23

0,67

: 1 - ; 2
; 3 ; 4 , ; 5
; 6 . 100%
.

.

. 2.


[4].
(f) (3):

i i

(3)

i ;
i (1/).

258


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
2.

, Fe,
1,24 1,35

1,14 1,32

2,07 2,27

1,16 1,30

, An,
/(2)
,
250 400
,
500 750

0,91 1,01

Tr,
6,5 7,0
6,5 7, 5
5,0 6,0

,
750 1200

8,0 9,0
11,0-12,0

,

(. 3).
3

,
,

00,02

0,020,08

0,080,5

0,5

(
). (
)
, .

.

( ).

.
,
.

( )

, , .

(
- )
,

259


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,
.
:
, , ( );

, .
( ) :
N
N
U i S d , i S c, i ,
i 1
i 1
N
M

f T , j min;

U
i

j 1
i 1

(4)

: Ui i
(N) ,
, /; Sd,i ,
, /; Sc,i
, /; T,j , (), j (M),
. (, ) :
= + ,

(5)

: , ;
, .

. ,

260


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

() :

;

;
,
.
, , ,
.

[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]

,
(
2.03.11-85). .: , 1989. 48 .
.. :
. . 1-95. - , 1995. 110 .
Hart G. Estimation of structural damage. Los Angelos, Ca.: Wiggins Company,
1976.
II-23-81* / . .: ,
1982. 96 .

261


-
.. . 5, 2010 .
539.3

. ., ..., . .
. .. ,
. -
.
. -
.
Abstract. The research of stress-and-strain of the combined shell construction of
vertical large cylinder tank is provided.
: , ,
, .

. .
.
140 000 3 . 1.
,
, ,
. 2.
5,5 , 10-25 , .
: 4
, ,
. ,
.

262


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. 1.
140000 3

. 2.

. [1, 2], : ,

.
.

,
[1, 2].
(MCE) ,
MCE
, [1, 2]:

( e, p )

'

dV

udV udV q uds 0 , (1)

V

: ' -; -

263


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

-; , u
; , q

, .
(1) ,


, -,
[1, 2].
.
, ,
- .
. 3 , ,
. : 100,0 , 21,0 , . 3
(
, , /2 ).
Z

1'

1300
20 19

18 17

16 15

14 13

12 11

10 9

8 7
6 5

26

R2 =75

4 3

25
13
11
9
6

12

21
14 15 19
20
21

10

22

23
24

Z 3'

25
26

49
50

43 40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30 29

2000

22 21
24 23

2'

R1 =200

5000

R=600
5000

0
1000

M1=2; M2=43; M3=50

NUX=M1xM2xM3=4300
K=3xNUX=12900

. 3. (
)

264


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

Z 1' Z 2 ' Z 3' , X 1 X 2 X 3 ,

S1 S2 S3 1 ( . 3).
:
;
;
;

;
.

,
,
:
z zc

R02 f02
x 2 Rd f0 ,
4 f02

(2)

: f 0 ,
(0,02 0,03) (); R0
;
R 2 f 02
Rd 0
; x
2 f0
.

.
- ,
[1, 2],
() , .
[3].

265


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

. [4]. :
W0 600 60 / 2 .

(3)

[4]
:
4-
, ;
[3] :
q 38,5 / 2 .

(4)

[3] 14-
.
- 24350 (1=2,
2=43, 3=50
S1S 2 S3 ), ( )
k 3 NUX ; NUX M 1 M 2 M 3 2 43 50 4300 ; k 3 4300 12900 . (5)

.
12900 , 150
.
-

, 6-8 .
:
;

;
;
.

266


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

.
, . 1,
: OZ 2' ( Z 2' ) ,
. 4;
,
. 5, ;
- , . 5, .
1

OZ 1' ( Z 2 ' )
NN

1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43

NN
/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

U n1' ,

U n2 ' ,

NN
/

-30,96
-30,82
-30,78
-30,08
-27,49
-26,45
-25,89
-25,90
-25,79
-25,85
-25,53
-24,91
-21,90
-12,34
-5,30
-3,64
-3,06
-2,66
-2,51
-2,48
-2,38
-2,22

-0,17
-0,18
-0,18
-0,17
-0,16
-0,11
-0,05
+0,02
+0,08
+0,14
+0,19
+0,22
+0,06
-0,7
-1,35
-1,48
-1,32
-0,92
-0,39
+1,38
+5,3
+8,24

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

NN

45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85

U n1' ,

U n2 ' ,

-2,00
-1,74
-1,54
-1,49
-1,14
-0,47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

+9,45
+8,37
+5,11
+3,07
+1,80
+1,07
+0,89
+0,83
+0,85
+0,77
+0,68
+0,58
+0,49
+0,39
+0,31
+0,22
+0,16
+0,10
+0,06
+0,02
+0,02

Z1'
19

16 14

12

20

10

24
25
26
27
28 29

14

19

21

22

U2max=- 9,92 CM

12

20

21

23

10

22

U1max =- 30,96 CM

1'

2'

U=U(Z ,Z )

23
24
25
26
27
29 28

Z2'

. 4.
( . 1)

267

- 1.8 KHM

-
.. . 5, 2010 .
19

Z3'

- 4521.0 KH

20
21
22

25

23

21
19

- 8.0 KHM

17
15
KH

23

N H

22

MN,KHM

25
26
27
29 28

5
27.
- 14

33

+1313,0 KH - 17.9 KHM

22
N, K

5.0 13
38
-4

33

24

NN,KH
33

MN,KHM

33

MN,KHM
11
9
7
5

NN,KH

3
1
+1430,0KH - 15.2 KHM

- 4249.0KH - 13.11 KHM

Z2'

)
)
. 5. :
) - ; )

12 52/40,
4000 /2.
33
4039,6 /2,
2021
,
.

,

[5, 6], '
,
.
, :
Go 1586, 0 .
, 1000 3
:

268

Go 1586,0
.

11,33
V
140
1000 3

[5,6]


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

g 12,41

.
1000 3

(12,41 11,33) 100

8,7% .
12,41

,
U
30,96
1
U11' 30,96 , max

,
L 10000 323
[1, 2].
2'
-

U 4259
9,92 ,

2
U 4259
9,92 1 1

,
H c 80,0 8 4
.

SINDOM [2]


.

[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]
[5]
[6]

.. /
.. , .. . .: , 2005. 432.
.. / .. , .. ,
.. . .: , 2000. 388.
..
/ .. , .. , .. // , 2008. 3. . 17 21.
.1.2-2:2006.
. . / .
: , 2006. 60 .
. .
. / . ., . . , 1961.
328 .
. . . / . . .: , 1987. 200.

5.07.2010 .

269


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

,

, ,
, - , ,
, ;

.
:
' ;
,
;
, ;
( );
;

.
,
( ,
)
. , ,
7 4 (210297 ),
, .
, ,
.
, ,
, , ,
, .
Microsoft Word, Times New Roman,
11 ., .
. ,
, .
.
Times New Roman, 10 9 .
12 .
Word Microsoft Equation

270


-
.. . 5, 2010 .

MathType Times New Roman, 11 .,

.
, ,
.tif, .gif .jpg
10-15 (300 /).
7.1-84
. ,
, , ,
, (), .
.
,

. .

,
.
.

271



. ..

-

..

..

..
..
..
..

. ..
( 5 08.07.2010)

16.08.2010.
70100/16.
. .
. . . 15,87. .-. . 11,2.
100 .

.
02660, -660, . , . , 1,
. 229-83-51; 543-95-56
www.isdat.com.ua