中文摘要：

尽管结构的抗震设计是工程防灾减灾研究中的重点,各国规范规定的设计方法却存在较大差异。首先从设防目标和地震作用两方面详细比较并分析了欧洲、美国、日本和中国规范的异同,为后续钢框架的设计地震力和延性、抗侧刚度与强度的对比提供基础。结果表明,中国和美国规范的不倒塌要求对应的地震水准相当,均比欧洲和日本规范高,但欧洲规范的正常使用要求对应的地震水准比中国和日本规范高;基于土层平均剪切波速得到了各国规范中场地分类的等效关系,其中中国规范对中等场地土的分类最细致;各国规范等效于中国规范的中震作用的弹性反应谱表现出较大差异,其中针对低活跃性和中活跃性地震区日本规范规定的反应谱显著高于其他规范,而在高活跃性地震区各国规范规定的弹性反应谱大小总体上相当。

英文摘要：

Although seismic design is the focus in research on prevention and reduction of damage to engineering structures by natural disasters,there is a large difference in design method in different seismic codes.A comparative study on fortification target and seismic action stipulated in Eurocode,the United States,Japanese and Chinese codes was presented to provide references for subsequent comparison in seismic design force and ductility,lateral stiffness and strength of steel moment frames.The results show that the no-collapse requirement in both the United States and Chinese codes corresponds to a similar hazard level,which is,however,higher than those in both Eurocode and Japanese codes;on the contrary,the serviceability requirement in Eurocode corresponds to a higher hazard level than that in Japanese and Chinese codes.Based on the average shear wave velocity,equivalent hard,medium and soft soils are obtained for different codes,and it is Chinese code that specifies the finest classification for medium soils.Equivalent elastic response spectra corresponding to design earthquake in different codes differ much from each other;in particular,the one in Japanese code with respect to low and moderate-seismicity regions is significantly larger than those in other codes,but in high-seismicity regions,the elastic response spectra in different codes are more comparable.