LYU Hui, XIE Changting, ZHOU Shijian, ZHU Zhongyi, AI Zhiyong. Research on Static Performance of an Aircraft Hangar Grid Roof Under Different Supporting Conditions[J]. INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, 2025, 55(9): 134-140. doi: 10.3724/j.gyjzG23072713
Citation:
LYU Hui, XIE Changting, ZHOU Shijian, ZHU Zhongyi, AI Zhiyong. Research on Static Performance of an Aircraft Hangar Grid Roof Under Different Supporting Conditions[J]. INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, 2025, 55(9): 134-140. doi: 10.3724/j.gyjzG23072713
LYU Hui, XIE Changting, ZHOU Shijian, ZHU Zhongyi, AI Zhiyong. Research on Static Performance of an Aircraft Hangar Grid Roof Under Different Supporting Conditions[J]. INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, 2025, 55(9): 134-140. doi: 10.3724/j.gyjzG23072713
Citation:
LYU Hui, XIE Changting, ZHOU Shijian, ZHU Zhongyi, AI Zhiyong. Research on Static Performance of an Aircraft Hangar Grid Roof Under Different Supporting Conditions[J]. INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, 2025, 55(9): 134-140. doi: 10.3724/j.gyjzG23072713
In order to explore the influence of different supporting conditions on the static performance of the three-sided supporting grid roof unique to hangar buildings, the vertical displacement, static internal force of members, reaction force of bearing joints, and horizontal displacement were systematically analyzed for an aircraft hangar grid roof under three models: a hinged support model (Model 1), an elastic support model (Model 2), and an overall analysis model (Model 3). The results showed that, compared with the other two models, the nodal displacements, member internal forces, and bearing reaction forces in Model 1 were more discrete. The static internal forces in the upper chords of the roof were generally large, followed by those in the lower chords, while the web members exhibited smaller static internal forces. The numerical values and trends of vertical nodal displacements, static internal forces of members, and nodal reaction forces in the X and Y directions at corresponding positions of Model 2 and Model 3 were very close. In practice, the horizontal stiffness of Model 3 was greater than that of Model 2, with a significant difference in Y-direction stiffness near the opening edge. The hinged support method for the static design of the hangar roof structure posed safety risks, whereas the simplified method for elastic supports exhibited better practicality.