（中铁第五勘察设计院集团有限公司， 北京 102600）

［摘要］基于中国规范和英国规范的相关规定，结合斯里兰卡南部铁路的砌体结构设计实例，对中英两国的砌体材料性能以及无筋砌体结构基本设计方法进行了比较。对比分析表明：英国规范给出的砌块材料强度较高，砌体抗压和沿通缝抗弯强度设计值较低；一般情况下英国规范对荷载安全分项系数取值较大且考虑偶然荷载组合，因而荷载设计值较大；英国规范对砌体高厚比的限制更严格；抗压和抗弯验算时，英国规范的抗力效应比小，安全储备较高；抗剪验算时英国规范更多地考虑了竖向荷载的有利影响，安全储备低于中国规范；局部抗压设计上两国规范差异较大，中国规范更为经济。

［关键词］设计规范; 无筋砌体; 安全储备

中图分类号：TU362文献标识码：A文章编号：1002-848X(2016)18-0104-06

Comparison study on unreinforced masonry design in Chinese and British masonry codes

Li Qi

(China Railway Fifth Survey and Design Institute Group Co., Ltd., Beijing 102600, China)

Abstract:Based on relevant regulations in Chinese and British codes for masonry structures and combining with the masonry structure design practice of south railway project in Sri Lanka, properties of masonry materials and general design methodologies of unreinforced masonry structures in Chinese and British codes were compared. Comparative analysis shows that, strength of masonry material in British code is higher, and masonry compressive strength design value and bending strength design value along the seam in British code is lower. In general, partial safety factors of design loads are higher and accidental load combination is considered in British code, so load design value is larger. Ratio of height to thickness of masonry structure is more restrictive prescribed in British code. Ratio of resistance to load calculated according to British code is lower in axial compression design and flexural design but with higher safety reserve. The British code considers more about the favorable influence of vertical load in shear calculation, and the safety reserve is lower than that of the Chinese code. The difference between Chinese and British codes is large in local compression design, and Chinese code is more economical.

Keywords:design code; unreinforced masonry; safety reserve

作者简介：李启，博士，工程师，Email: 403892114@qq.com。